RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive405

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 30 January 2022. 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>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, (new)(back)

Failed peace talks between US and Russia: Aftermath[edit]


Many of you likely know of the failed peace talks between the US and Russia; Russia refuses to back down and none of their troops have withdrawn. Here comes the big question, in the premise of a Russian invasion: How long could they sustain a war? If the people of Russia are getting fed up then sustaining a war for a long period of time would not be possible. Economically speaking (for Russia), it would quickly fail; considering catastrophic sanctions would be imposed and it would be the thing that leads to economic collapse.

Any thoughts? It seems that war would not be in Russia's best interest and I highly doubt China would bail out Russia due to the whole Taiwan issue. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 Of course Russia hasn't backed down. I keep saying this but no one listens. Russia as a nation-state has certain pressures on it. If they back down they look weak, which would hinder them internationally. It's the same reason the US never publicly backs down unless they can save face. Also the title of this thread is extremely hyperbolic. Whatever negotiations (not peace talks since there's been no formal declaration of war yet, peace talks are used to end wars, not prevent them) are in progress are behind closed doors where the public and the press can't see the leaders hashing out terms. Same as US talks with Iran. Russia will not publicly blink first, period. They need an excuse to save face if their terms are met, same as us. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The 'talks' failed even before they started and everyone knew it. Russia wants things which are not within the American's gift to give and the Americans have almost nil motivation to give it anyway. Russia is also dancing close to the edge; if they rip off the Donbass properly I think it will cause many more Europeans to swing solidly anti-Putin - giving a fillip to the drive for rearmament and to 'stop appeasing Putin!'. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to say it's a bunch of saber rattling, especially because it could cost real lives, but Russia's red line is unacceptable. If this was diplomacy intended to fail, I think presenting their red lines they knew the US wouldn't accept, but I don't think they expected NATO and the EU at large to be so united in opposition. Putin has always sought to create fractures in the alliance, knowing that he can get away with things if NATO and EU members are more busy fighting with themselves and watering down the response. But basically NATO uniformly rejected a resolution that would cease it's eastward expansion, and explicitly remove the opportunity for Ukraine, and Finland, which shares a land border with Russia, remained neutral through the entire Cold War, has be rhetorically indicating it also opposes Putin's demands.
The reports from the Russia-OSCE meeting are very disappointing, but Russia intentionally has sought to speak only with the US, returning to sphere's of influence with two superpowers. But the US obviously has no interest in excluding effected partners, and the EU interjected directly, knowing it would bear the brunt of the humanitarian crisis that would unfold with a hot war.
TLDR; Putin wants to replay the endgame of the Cold War with the US, but NATO and the EU refuse to be excluded from the discussion.
-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't usually refer to the Washington times, but there is an article on Putin's consolidation of his own power after or if he leaves office. It occurs to me that the western front controversy may be a mere misdirection. Putin directs large troop movements, distracting the Russian people to the imaginary western threat. If this interpretation is accurate then Russian defensive militarization may continue indefinitely.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Let's not forget; Putin's demands also basically mean for NATO to throw existing members [aka the Baltic Trio] under the Russian bus. Moscow is 'surprised' by the strength of European opposition due to the two key issues with dictators - a) no 'honest advisors' in Kremlin and b) seeing everything through *their* idelogical-political prism, not ours. To whit; how their antics are reminding us more and more of Germany in the 30s and no, we will *not* go through that again, mate. Even if the USA tried to give Putin a Munich, I think Europe would disavow Washington's move [so Washington won't].
The problem is that Putin cannot afford to keep more than a tiny segment of the Russian Armed Forces on permanent war-footing. Previous interventions worked because they involved pretty low numbers of troops and were short in duration. Let's remember, Russia is still dependent on conscription and late winter-early spring are their times of 'peak readiness'. Any large/long commitment will also require the recall of reservists which will hurt the economy / public opinion even more.
I agree with Ariel's view it's mainly for threat/domestic consumption, but never rule out the possibility of a 'black swan' causing events to spiral out of control. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Russia has made it clear any war would not be limited to the Black Sea theatre but would immediately encompass the homelands of NATO states (read Germany, France, UK, etc). So we are not speaking of conventional war, or the duration of conventional war. My guess is, the US is attempting to pressure Russia to leave Syria, which then paves the US way for re-engagement in the Middle East. Dutchbag (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I think you are confusing what Putin says and what the Russian military is willing to do. Putin knows he can't win against NATO. So, does he want to blow up the world or retire to his "palace", or the Residence at Cape Idokopas? Funny he would go to the trouble of building it when it when he apparently has a death wish.UncleKrampus (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This is one of those rare moments I wish Trump was president, at least Trump and Putin got along. Andrew5 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think Russia is bluffing. Why is the CIA training Ukrainian paramilitary terrorists in the United States? Dutchbag (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Why would you since you promote Russian propaganda? Get real.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
You're right. Yahoo claiming the CIA is training Ukrainians in the U.S. is probably bullshit propaganda, given the record of both the CIA & Yahoo News. Dutchbag (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The Marxist rag jacobinmag.com was your link, and they used the term terrorists. You aren't fooling anyone.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The Marxist rag cited Yahoo, but they weren't even smart enough to cite the part about training in Unted States, which packs a bigger punch. Dutchbag (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I call out BS. Putin has managed to spin quite well the narrative that he has 'legitimate greviances'. *He does not*. His desire is to engage in revanchism and to establish a 'sphere of influence' on his immediate neighbours who would then have curbs put on their independence, then have a disunited Europe which is too scared to do/say anything to him. If he 'feels threatened' by NATO it is because of his own 20 years of belligerence, disrespect and screwing-over of NATO members which has squandered a massive amount of goodwill - it's taken a lot of provocations to get to this point and *he was the one who walked down this path*.

What Putin 'wants' is to divide NATO, for them to abandon it's eastern members and to reward his flouting of international rule and customs.

For the 'CIA is training Ukrainians'... well, that's look at this.

1: There seems to be zero evidence of this past 'an unnamed former CIA source'. The best-written source is the Morning Star, which I don't trust a millimetre when it comes to foreign reportage.
2: Ukraine is an independent state, and can train who the hell they like from their own citizenry to operate within their country.
3: The United States is an independent state, and is free to train the forces of friendly nations [and often does].
4: Said Morning Star says they're being trained as 'stay behind' forces if Russia invades. From the looks of it, they'd appear to be thinking along the lines of say, the 'Auxiliary Units' the UK planned for if Sealion came to pass in 1940.
5: This is in fact legal under international law [as long as they follow the rules of war when in action].
6: After repeated use of 'little green men' by Moscow on Ukrainian sovereign soil, it can be easy to understand why Kiev feels the need for specialist forces to deal with these mysterious 'terrorists' which have appeared within their country.
7: After repeated threats, cyber attacks and a large military buildup on their border, Kiev is 100% justified in feeling that a larger neigbour is about to invade them - and desire to make the 'price' of said invasion as high as possible.

The only way you can realistically say 'this is wrong' is by basically being a pro-Russian apologist, saying it's perfectly fine for Moscow to bully and attack it's immediate neighbours and it's 'wrong' for her victims to try to defend themselves. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The talks didn't really fail; Putin put forward a proposal to end the standoff. Redeploy the troops from the Ukraine border to Cuba and Venezuela. Dutchbag (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Putin can put troops in either of those two nations if said nations invite them and will host them. That has nothing to do with his bullying of his immediate neighbours. This is not open to 'negotiation'.
Anyway, Putin is as untrustworthy as a rattlesnake. If you pay the Putin-geld, you never get rid of the Putin. We are back to the behavior habits of arrogant dictators; force and deterrent are the only languages they understand. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice Utter rubbish. Putin, like any head of state, is as susceptible to negotiation as anyone other. Further, it is very much a mistake to subscribe to a dichotomy of liberal democracy and "everyone else", as it blinds one to the underlying workings of governments more broadly. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I think Putin and Trump got along so very well because Putin understood how corrupt Trump is, by way of experience with Soviet customs. Trump only took steps that aggrandized, profited, or attracted admiration to himself, and resulted only peripherally in the US interests, if at all. He will negotiate on that basis.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Karma, from Cuba or Venezuela Russia could infiltrate who or whatever (e.g. terrorists, fenantyl) across the open Southwest border, so it is encouraging that you respect those nations to invite in whoever they want and not see it as a national security risk. I suppose drug and terrorist smuggling by Russia from Cuba into the U.S. would not be considered "bullying neighbors" anymore than training Ukrainian paramilitary in the US or Ukraine to attack Crimea.
Sometimes there are events we call "historical flukes", like Khrushchev's 1954 transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (without any democratic parliament having a say) or the Clinton's ratification of the 1994 Budapest Protocols. Neither are written in stone or binding upon us and future generations. Dutchbag (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Putin may be 'susceptible to negotiation', but I have near-nil faith he'll keep to any deal cut. What's more, the stuff he desires is not up for negotiation. This is not the 19th Century or even Yalta where Great Powers can sit down and divide up the world into spheres of influence over the heads of the 'little countries'. Lastly, I refuse to accept Putin's narrative in which he has 'legitimate greviences' which Europe/USA needs to 'deal with'.
The USA is perfectly free to have whatever policy vis-a-vis Russia that she wishes. But if she decides to cut a deal *without* taking Europe's needs/views into account, well expect shouts of 'perfidious America' and an even deeper rift within NATO. *This is what Putin wants*.
Unless I'm very mistaken you are American, Dutchbag. Well, I shall say this; it's perfectly easy to be sanguine over Putin when you're 3,500 miles further away from him, on a land shielded by massive oceans either side and patrolled by the world's largest navy. We Europeans do not enjoy these advantages, and if things go wrong it's *our* neighbourhood which will get messed up. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Concur with Karma here. The reason Russia is trying to negotiate with the US, is that American presidents have to actually listen to the voters who put them in power, and can attempt to make defending Ukraine a domestic issue, which as of late has been toxic. Europe has much more at stake, and honestly could make the Russians hurt more with economic actions. Also in regards to the CIA training, those units would be essentially an intelligence asset within occupied Ukraine. I didn't realize it was a crime to prepare a country to be invaded.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm more inclined to suppose old dutch is some sort of a modern apparatchik.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think you guys have no problem with the Germans turning Dublin into a U-boat base in both World Wars, which is sort of what NATO wants to do with Sevastopol. Geez, you'd think after two world wars there would be international protocols in place preventing people from even thinking about it. Dutchbag (talk)`
The comparison between western intentions now, with those of the Nazis, fortifies my view that you are more in sympathy with Russia than the Europeans.Вы работаете на Путина, товарищ? Ariel31459 (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
FFS, the amount of mental gymnastics it requires from someone justifying a kleptocracy invading a weak-democracy, based on no actual physical threat, is astounding. I'm sure you would have no problem reverting to a Cold War style sphere of influence. Cause the threat of nuclear antihalation is such a comforting prospect.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
1: If there had been German U-Boats in Dublin harbour in WW1 it would have come as a shock to the British forces *within the city at the time*. As 'Southern Ireland' was part of the UK de facto until 1918.
2: Last time I looked, NATO isn't at war with Russia right now. So your analogy is even more BS.
3: There's been no solid discussions for any NATO power desiring to use Sevastopol as a base. Put bluntly, it was never either needed or desired. Saying 'sorta' does not let you off the hook of peddling BS and unfounded 'opinion' as facts.
KarmaPolice (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh no. More gerrymandering in Tennessee.[edit]

Republicans propose cracking Nashville, forcing Jim Cooper from a D+17 to R+16 district, thus getting him ousted and making it 10-1. I'm sick of this gerrymandering on both sides. Andrew5 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Balance fallacy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It's true that both sides do gerrymander when given a chance, but Republicans pioneered hyper-gerrymandering, and Republicans do it to maintain minority rule. Bongolian (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The only thing I will say to praise Democrats for gerrymandering is that only 4 Republican states have independent comissions (Alaska (which doesn't even matter as it only has one House seat and a stagnant population), Montana, Idaho and Arizona), and while only 3 Democratic states do (California, Washington and Colorado), Virginia has one and was a blue state until the 2021 elections, and several states passed laws requiring a 2/3 vote (New Jersey, Connecticut and Maine) to overturn a political commission map to force bipartisanship or fairness, and New York has that (but in 2020 gained said supermajority). So far, in this cycle, Republicans showed mercy in Iowa, but that's really it. While it appears at first glance they went somewhat soft in Texas and Alabama, those are actual racial gerrymanders. North Carolina was very egregious and will likely be overturned in court, and the ones in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Utah was as hardcore as you can get there. But Democrats really didn't go soft in any states at all, and even put forth risky gerrymanders in Nevada and New Mexico. Also, maps proposed and likely to pass in Mississippi and Kenucky by the GOP were semi soft.Andrew5 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Gerrymandering honestly has been a "bug" of American democracy from the very beginning, one that has been solved in other democracies in Europe etc. but not here unfortunately (the solution is as easy as independent committees). Per the WikiWikipedia the origin of the "gerrymandering" term dates all the way back to a district redrawn to benefit the Democratic-Republican partyWikipedia of the early 1800s (which has a lineage to both modern parties, but is neither). The modern problem is that computers can massage data in a way that the cigar smokin' politicians in a "smoke-filled roomWikipedia" of old could never dream of, and the problem is compounded by America's current drift away from a well working democracy into a hyper-partisan flawed one. So it goes. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
American democracy is highly threatened, and one of the things I'm scared of is if governors like Abbott and Kemp get ousted in 2022 but refuse to concede, they might be able to get it overturned in the legislature to make the results go in their favor. This would've happened in North Carolina...had the courtpacking attempt succeeded. The issue is that the government opposes independent committees, because it essentially removes their power. It's similar logic to the tragedy of the commons, actually. Gerrymandering will only stop when politics isn't as polarized, but given how it's been rising since '95 I don't think Trump's waning influence will get rid of the bigger problem. Andrew5 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Bongolio, No it was actually Elbridge GerryWikipedia who pioneered gerrymandering. Dutchbag (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I love @GrammarCommie and @LeftyGreenMario logic here. Gerrymandering is bad only if the Republicans do it. If the Democrats do its OK because the Rs are bad!! Many people (including me) only vote Ds because they have much better morals then the Rs. If they do the exact same as the Rs then I wouldn't vote for either party. Epic Games (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dutchbag, I was aware of that but I was not referring to classical gerrymandering, but the hyperpartisan, computer-driven gerrymandering that goes down to the house level that is a newer development. Bongolian (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Right right. I get it. And during Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era, when the KKK just intimidated blacks and Republicans away from the polls, there was no need for hyperpartisan gerrymandering, either. Okay, I get it. Dutchbag (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I looked at some states by comparing house tipping points and their advantage (tipping point is required shift and popular vote is, well) and show how much of an advantange there is (so 2020 would be R+0.9). Here it is.

  • 2020 - R+0.9
  • 2018 - R+4.2
  • 2016 - R+11.4
  • 2014 - I couldn't actually find this, so it's somewhere between R+7.9 and R+9.6
  • 2012 - R+7.2
  • 2010 - D+1.3 (this could be a sign of the gerrymandering to come in the next cycle, as the last map may not have been nearly quite as skewed, or potentially even a flag of blue gerrymandering in the previous decade)
  • 2008 - D+4.4
  • 2006 - R+3.5

I lost energy to beyond 2004, so I might or might not do so at a later time. Andrew5 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epic Games The moral high ground isn't worth shit if you lose due to cheating. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
GrammarCommie, their point is that you are being skewed towards the Democrats by excusing their gerrymandering and dinging the Republicans out on theirs. Andrew5 (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

On Categorization of Political Views[edit]

You can categorize people based upon their views, methods of achieving their "goals", and who they work with to do so, but any other method of categorization is just subjective. Categorization in general is a subjective thing, allowing anyone to make an assertion such as "Oh this person is x or y thing that I dislike" which just devolves into a pissing match between two people about personal perceptions. I could say that someone is far left or right, and it would contribute nothing to a conversation.Revenant Raven (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't totally agree. Because you need to call them out on things when you counteract them, and they keep refuting. While the 2 people lengthy squabble is annoying, generally one side does "emerge". I try not to do that, but sometimes I feel it's necessary. Andrew5 (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


Yeah, I said I won't be back for a while, but keepin' this shait to myself is just too hard.

Klassekampen, a Norwegian newspaper that describes itself as the left's daily newspaper, has recieved accusations of transphobia (it published an article or sumfin' like that, which at least included a line defending J.K. Rowling, and I believe the paper has deadnamed Elliot Page.) and yesterday, its editor-in-chief, I believe it's called in English, issued an clarification on Twitter. The first part went on to say that trans folks aren't bad, blah blah blah, but my substandard readin' skills leaves me unable to properly interpret the rest.However, most of the peeps that liked the tweet appeared to be gender critical. Sumfin' tells me that Klassekampen isn't tellin' the truth.--Delibirda (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Would it be better to make separate articles on the "Donetsk People's Republic" and the "Luhansk People's Republic" or should it be part of the Ukraine article?[edit]

I speak of the two Russian puppet states ran by far right terrorists. As one can expect, the human rights situation in these areas is dismal at best. Some in these terrible excuses of governments advocate the genocide of gay people.

They have a knockoff battle flag.

--Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say to at first combine with the Ukraine article, and create a spinoff as necessary if it bloats it. That is from my Wikipedia experience, but keeping the info in one place is the best solution till it gets too long. Andrew5 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew5.— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs
Why is that Union Jack missing the Cross of St. George? (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I put a mention of these terror groups in the Ukraine article. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Question: Do Donetsk and Luhansk have applications in with the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples OrganizationWikipedia? Abkhazia, as a result of the Georgian conflict, has been granted membership (Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and the District of Columbia, among others, have been granted membership. Interestingly Palestine has not). And a subsidiary question that doesn't have to be answered now: What hoops does an applicant have to jump through for membership? Dutchbag (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
One final comment: the notion these are "far right" groups doesn't quite fit with the "Putin is trying to recreate the Soviet Union" narrative. You may recall, the Soviet Union defeated far right fascism. It will be interesting to see how editors try to handle that line of bullshit. Dutchbag (talk)!~
@Dutchbag Two points. One, the only people I've seen assert that Putin is opining for the USSR in any ideological sense have been idiots and fools. Two, it is very likely that Putin desires Russia, and through it himself, to return to superpower status. After all, as the head of a nation-state why would he not? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
We are in total agreement on those facts. Also, Putin is not a conspiracy theorist to say that Yeltsin's government had been infiltrated by CIA operatives, some of whom were motivated by personal greed and exploitation. And the Russian people did indeed suffer much hardships in the early days of transformation, which is not easily forgotten by that generation nor even known in the United States. Dutchbag (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dutchbag "Also, Putin is not a conspiracy theorist to say that Yeltsin's government had been infiltrated by CIA operatives, some of whom were motivated by personal greed and exploitation." It's very odd that you're bringing this up unprovoked. Please provide a citation. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Much has been written about this over the years, but you can begin with this recent release by the National Security Archives by FOIA information request lawsuit. Yeltsin: “For me to agree to the borders of NATO expanding towards those of Russia – that would constitute a betrayal on my part of the Russian people.” Then from a recent RT article, Putin: "In the early 2000s, I had already cleaned everyone out, but in the mid-1990s, we had, as it later turned out, cadres of the US Central Intelligence Agency sitting as advisers and even official employees of the Russian government. They were later prosecuted in the United States for violating US law and taking part in privatization while they were CIA employees working for us." Or this December 2016 Politico article, after you wade through the Trump-Russia bullshit: "When Clinton raised plans to expand the NATO alliance into eastern Europe, Yeltsin didn’t object. The men even agreed that Russia itself might one day join NATO—a concept that seems downright ludicrous today." One such "policy entrepreneur" reemerged during the Trump-Russia scam, the scavenger Bill Browder who estimated the value of the USSR carcass was a paltry $10 billion and returned to Wall Street to create a hedge fund to buy it up. The Russia Sanctions bill, or Magnitsky Act, is named after his employee. That whole episode helped expose the fraud of the Russia collusion hoax. Browder sued Prevezon Holdings to retrieve the money he looted from Russia; Prevezon Holdings was represented by the lawyer from the Trump Tower meeting with Don Jr. and Manafort. The same lawyer was hired by FusionGPS which was behind the pee-pee tape. When Browder spoke out against Prevezon and its representative, it cast doubt on the antics of FusionGPS and the Clinton campaign. Browder's words carried much weight, being that he had the influence to get John McCain to author the Magnitsky Act, and Obama to sign it. 06:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
IOWs, at the height of Trump-Russia hysteria, the man behind the Russia Sanctions bill which Trump was accused of violating, said the claims made by the Russian attorney at the Trump Tower meeting were bullshit. But somehow that all got misreported. Dutchbag (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dutchbag So you don't have a citation for the claim "Also, Putin is not a conspiracy theorist to say that Yeltsin's government had been infiltrated by CIA operatives, some of whom were motivated by personal greed and exploitation.". Only polemics. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Read the RT cite, linked above. Dutchbag (talk)`
@Dutchbag "Putin claimed this." That's what it says. I thought at least you'd cite actual CIA files, but alas, you're too sloppy and stupid to put in even the bare minimum. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh yah, right. I'll send my research associate down to the CIA in the morning to pick up those files you want. Dutchbag (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Meanwhile you can study this from the Kennedy School of Government to familiarize yourself with the some of the personalities involved:: US and Russian Intelligence Cooperation during the Yeltsin Years, February 11, 2011. Test on Monday. Dutchbag (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dutchbag To prove the CIA had infiltrated the Russian government during the Yeltsin administration you linked a paper that says... That US and Russian intelligence agencies collaborated. Are you functionally retarded? That's not a joke or outburst by the way, I really need to know if I'm engaging with someone with severe developmental issues. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Wow, that was ad hominem. Andrew5 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 How so? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie You said Are you functionally retarded?. That's ad hominem. Andrew5 (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 How is it an ad hominem? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 Explain how my question is an ad hominem please. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Because you are questioning the intellect of another person. Andrew5 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 That's not an Ad Hominem fallacy. Which means you're engaging in a Tone argument and a Fallacy fallacy. Maybe try not doing that eh? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Andrew, don't get meta with GC, expressions of anger are not fallacies... He gets exasperated with dishonesty. I prefer calling it disingenuity. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That would make sense. Who favors just collapsing everything after my 13:57 error? Andrew5 (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Andrew, try to call out GC for his rage-rants and use of harmful abelist language, and try not to set him off by misusing fallacies. Fallacies lose their impact when mislabelled. You don't want to end up again getting an excessively over the top perma-block from GC...nor the inevitable justified permablock if you don't stop wikicopping. ShabiDOO 04:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Russian empire[edit]

Putin seeks to create a new Russian Empire - the USSR was just he last iteration of that empire. Did a boat trip Moscow-St Petersburg in 2018 - had a great time. As our tour guide explained Putin's popularity came about from paying the pensions and providing cash and basic staples - my guide's father had to barter the samovars his factory made for a period of time in the 1990's as there was no cash available courtesy of the chaotic dissolution of the USSR and subsequent corruption, oligarchs and cronyism. Then a good solid boost from Russian nationalism with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and refoming the relationship betwseen the Orthodox Church and hte State - to which the church si another arm of the government. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I would not consider the USSR as an empire, period. Andrew5 (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
it was though, period. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Aloysius the Gaul That's commonly asserted as a truism, but I haven't seen any real basis for it. It seems morel likely that Putin, as the head of a nation, seeks to raise Russia to superpower status, so as to "win" geopolitics. Further, it's deeply reductive to blur the lines between the regimes of other nations and treat them as the same thing. The Russian Federation, the USSR, and the Russian Empire, while all imperialistic, are not the same, and did not/do not behave in the same way, control the same territory, and existed in different economic states from each other. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense; a country with 6,000 nukes, twice as much as anybody else, is not a superpower. ok. I suppose the argument is, since they've fallen to number 4 or 5 in overall defense spending from being number 2 (because of a weak economy), they are less dependent on nuclear superiority than before, and less likely to use them if they feel threatened by NATO's benign expansion, huh? And why is NATO's expansion benign? because they are the good guys and have said so, of course.Dutchbag (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that Russia has twice as many Nuclear weapons as anyone else? The US is alleged to have 5,500 nuclear devices from the same sources that attribute 6,000 to Russia. Take note, they are not all the same megatonnage. Do you think NATO is going to just give up? What is the rational threat NATO poses to Russia? Invasion? Why would anyone post Hitler invade Russia? Do you suppose the Russians are such anxious and aggressive brutes they think such aggression is inevitable? Really? As a military strategist, you missed the last half of the 20th century.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's the FAS site. Read it and we can attempt to have an intelligent discussion on the issues. Dutchbag (talk)
@Ariel31459 I doubt Russia is worried primarily about conventional military aggression. More likely they want Ukraine as a buffer against NATO to prevent NATO member agencies from being able to slip into Russia more easily. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Putin is getting too old to be secure in his own country. He is trying to secure his own future by saber rattling. I imagine there are many Russians waiting for the chance to help him into early retirement. The Russian military will likely take care of him before he breaks anything too big to go unnoticed.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Doubt it. Putin is only 69. For reference, Biden is 79. Putin is not too old to secure his country, we have plenty of old politicians. (Though how well Biden's doing his job is questionable). Andrew5 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Putin losing his grasp on reality seems to be likely. Considering the sheer cost of the Annexation of Crimea caused catastrophic economic damage (both sanctions and integrating it into Russia). A full on invasion of Ukraine by Russia could easily lead to economic collapse. I swear that Putin does not get the toll this is taking on his country. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Biden and Putin are two different animals. Putin survives by shows of force. Putin doesn't need to secure his country except from his enemies in Russia. Get it?Ariel31459 (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 You're thinking almost exclusively in conventional shows of martial might. Putin is ex-KGB, not ex-Red Army. He's going to have ulterior elements at play. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Ousting Putin would almost certainly require an assassination by NATO, which would require every single country to team up and invade Moscow. And Putin will probably leave and hide in Siberia. I don't think assassinating Putin is very feasible, but it might be the only way. Andrew5 (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Putin has to some extent future-proofed himself, you can be assured of it. He has no clear successor(s), he's either destroyed or brought to heel any alternatives, is clearly not going to be taken out by foreigners and think is economically strong enough to survive any embargo.
But he's facing the classic 'dictator's dilemma'; he loves the power, but worries what shall happen to him if/when he 'leaves the stage' - he kept to the deal he cut with the Yeltsin cabal in '99, but that don't mean it shall go like that again. For one who has controlled so much of his 'world' for so long, this feeling of uncertainty can be most uncomfortable. I am rather sure I also know his true fear; that he'll leave his final bow too late; not that he'll die at his desk or even be overthrown - but he'll be felled by a sudden incapacation which leaves him alive, but unable to cut said final deal. There the 'danger' lies.
But I also wouldn't put it past him to see nothing wrong with ruling until literal death, regardless of decrepitude. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Pandemic rant[edit]

How difficult is it to understand that there is a virus spreading, killing people and causing permanent disability to survivors? How can denialists call themselves pro-life when they are far from it? Do they want this virus to continue just to have something to call a conspiracy?

If you want this mess to end, get vaccinated! Yes I am ranting because I have had enough of it all. I wish to go back to some semblance of normalcy. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Minor point, but the original "campaign for normalcy"... didn't end up going so well. That said, yeah, I hated antivax sorts before it was really popular; being a Packer fan, though, it was funny to see Kirk Cousins get fucked this week (I called Rodgers a fucking idiot when it happened to him, it's just more hilarious when it happens to Cousins). Just waiting for Kyrie Irving to get what's coming to him, what a greasy fuckwit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The probability of a global pandemic like Covid-19 happening again is around 2% a year. And future pandemics are expected to be more deadly and more frequent due to global travel, urbanization, increased human-animal contact and healthcare worker shortages. And in terms of early death and frequency of illness, historically it was generally worse in the past. In the past, a large percentage of people died in early childhood. But with lots of Americans being sedentary, out of shape, eating a lot of processed foods, dying of fentanyl overdose and dying of Covid-19, the U.S. saw a 1.5 year drop in life expectancy in 2020. Pokelova (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
"I wish to go back to some semblance of normalcy." What constitutes normalcy in this regard? What is preventing this return? Are you referring to authoritarian governmental policies? Give credit where it's due.
"If you want this mess to end, get vaccinated!" Hypothetically, suppose that the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission. Would your proposal for how to return to normalcy change? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's sad that there are still some hold-outs. But that number is coming down slowly in my part of the world. I hope the US catches up.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Some viruses/plagues can be killed off through vaccination like smallpox. But vaccination is not a magic bullet to kill off all viruses, but it is definitely a great tool to employ - especially with a vaccine with a high efficacy and safety record. Countries that are mitigating the Covid-19 the best are using a multi-strategy/tactic approach (Vaccination, masks, social distancing, testing, contact tracing, effective government public education/communication, education/press/journal articles about general health/nutrition to boost people's immune system/survivability, therapeutics, laws, etc.). Pokelova (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The current vaccines are a stop-gap measure but it is better than nothing. It buys time to develop extremely effective vaccines. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
"But it is better than nothing." Maybe not (see page 6). 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, there's already a Politifact story on that one before you go any further, since people aren't reading the entire paper and are doing the usual social media bullshit dance (see page 4 for the author explanation).
The "meta takeaway" as far as I can tell is that the vaccines are still quite effective against the earlier, deadlier strains. The jury remains out on "omicron", the general gist I hear is it is milder than the others, and also that while it evades the vaccine antibodies to some degree, the vaccine helps other elements of the immune system (such as the T-cells) still. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
"since people aren't reading" All right, let's read through those links, then:
The study investigates medical data from Denmark to extract trends regarding infection rates vs. vaccination status. Most notably, it found that people vaccinated more than about three months in the past were infected at a higher rate than unvaccinated people. The authors speculate as to the causes of this, but the study wasn't built to investigate that.
The PolitiFact article starts with a bit about the study's relationship to Yale before getting the the actual point, which it summarizes as, "Nowhere does [the study] suggest that vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people." The article more or less summarizes the study, and when it gets to the apparent negative effectiveness, it mentions the authors' speculation and adds some more, as if that somehow negated the fact of vaccinated people 3+ months out being infected with COVID-19 at a higher rate than unvaccinated people, in Denmark. And so, this dismissal of the long-term vaccinated cohort being infected at a higher rate than unvaccinated people is used to rate as "false" the claim that vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people.
This isn't particularly cartoonish by modern standards, but it is pretty bad for a "fact checking" resource. And to be fair, the authors' speculation could well be true. If you wanted a pandemic of the vaccinated, current policies are more or less what you'd implement. A few concerns though. If the difference in infection rate is due to increased socialization among the vaccinated, why would the difference between the presumably-also-socializing recently vaccinated and the 3+ month ago vaccinated be larger than with the unvaccinated? It's not like counterproductive vaccines aren't known to be possible. Original antigenic sin and antibody-dependent enhancement have long been speculated as possible complications for COVID-19 vaccines, and this is the sort of result that they would produce with a strain sufficiently different from the strain targeted by the vaccines. But as for the "fact checking" that's all beside the point, and dodging the issue like PolitiFact did serves to undermine what little trust remains in institutions. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not really accurate to call the author's discussion 'speculation'. It's recognising potential confounding factors affecting the validity of the headline results. The naïve interpretation - that 105 days after the second Pfizer jab is twice as bad as 15 days after is good - doesn't pass the smell test. You're at risk of cherry-picking by focusing on this single time point in this single study rather than considering the weight of the literature overall. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
(ETA) In circumstances like this, where there are two potential explanations for a statistical finding, the question is never which. The answer should be assumed to both, but the quantification as to how much of each is the important question. As for why there might be different behaviour for groups vaccinated at different times there's a very, very obvious confounding factor: age. With vaccines being rolled out based on age, 'time since vaccination' will be very strongly correlated with age. It's not a large assumption that behaviour - particularly adherence to pandemic mitigation measures - varies with age. The relatively short amount of time omicron has been around makes that correlation even sharper. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Some bad people, disturbingly, want COVID to spread. They are making these vaccine lies to have COVID spread. Why? People like MTG are evil, and probably want to see a lot of deaths. Hell, I wouldn't be suprised if a bunch of unvaccinated terrorists with COVID start up an event to spread it to a lot of people...hopefully not by crashing some planes into important monuments unlike last timeWikipedia. Andrew5 (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

this has already been proposed by some far right right fuck heads early on in the pandemic. i do not think it is a particularly viable terrorist action anymore or indeed, ever was. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
But what if it is the far right fuckheads who want COVID to spread? Andrew5 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Let's start with this: MTG is dumb, loud, obnoxious, and seems hated even by her own political party. She can safely be ignored.
The paranoid style is nothing new in America. It is born of ignorance, tribalism, and (often blindingly idiotic) mistrust in authority. Water fluoridation, bullshit rumors on AIDS, the Satanic Panic, End Times / Rapture, we've seen this before. (We haven't, of course, seen it so tightly intertwined to a political party before, at least that I can remember. But the Republicans only have themselves to blame for that.)
Given that QAnon and other political conspiracies is in effect replacing the old End Times / Rapture nonsense for much the same purpose, I do think a lot of what is happening is pandering to these voters (as Republicans pandered a bit to the fundies back in the day). We've seen what happens when even the Orange Messiah lightly hints that the vaccine might be good: He gets booed. There's only a few non-chickenshit politicians willing to heavily stand up to "The Mob" these days, and they likely will be ex-politicians in good time. So that's the story with many of the politicians, I feel: the idea, expressed famously by Upton SinclairWikipedia, that it's difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it. Although there's a few crazies like MTG, there's a lot of politicians that, frankly, I wonder what they really think deep inside. (Given that politicians, even Republican ones, poured funding into vaccine research in 2020, I think I can guess on that one. On democracy, that's another story...)
Frankly, it's the actions of "the mob" that I find more incomprehensible. Sort of. The people that I know personally deep in the conspiracy well tend to have black-and-white thinking patterns and are, to put it bluntly, over-emotional, kind of dumb, and too easily swayed by too many things that they read (as long as it's, of course, simple with the Hollywoodesque plot device of "What Big Government / Big Pharma doesn't want you to know!"). Sure, in this case, the "paranoid style" thinking, which I'm not sure I'd call "evil" as much as "paranoid ignorance" (I'll save the "evil" discussion for the white nationalism Dominionism side of that mob), is sometimes leading to some legitimate (occasionally even terminal) harm. It does make you miss the days of those silly, selfish, yet mostly harmless, "in case of Rapture" bumper stickers... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I would not quite say MTG is hated. Only 11 Republicans voted to censure her, 201 voted against it. Also, a fair amount of Republicans who aren't really pro-Trump are winning, look at Jake EllzeyWikipedia, who did the impossible and won the TX-06 special election. Good job! McConnell seems very popular amongst Republican senators despite nearly voting to convict Trump. Trump endorsed Roy Moore in spite of the allegations, but he still lost by 1.63% in a solid red state. I don't think Garabino is going anywhere, but he's quite moderate. If these Republican incumbents are popular, polls are suggesting Murkowski will win the Alaska senate race, with only one poll saying she loses (even then, it's by 1%, 40-39%). Mainly because Tshibaki is crazy like MTG. (That and also Alaska isn't as ripe red as people think, Alaska only voted for Trump by 10.1%). It really depends on the politics of the area - if it's competitive a moderate will win, if it's solid red a conservative will. But be careful on what you call safe red. Also Texas might be an exception (Trump+5.6%, but extreme Republicans who will squash Democrats without federal assistance and make it go from light red to solid red). If only Bush 43 ran for governor again, I know he was a bad president but surely he's better then Abbott. Andrew5 (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Partisan voting and personal are two different subjects, and some of the "too chickenshit" to stand up to the direction of the paranoid style mob IMHO applies to the censure vote. Of course I'm relying on "the rumor mill" of political news. For instance, the impression I get is that most politicians, even Republican ones, actually dislike Ted Cruz as a person. Whereas you don't hear that about someone like McConnell. Not all conservatives are Trump paranoid style as you point out, so we'll see if the paranoid style grip on the GOP diminishes in the future. Not my personal bet, but here's hoping. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Trump's influence will wane, for a few reasons. First of all, he could be charged with a crime and arrested, which would formally end his reign. Second of all, he's 75. He ain't living forever, so his death is probably in the next two decades. Also, political eras change, look at the violent transformation of politics in both 1992 and 1994. However, I'm not sure if the US and it's political parties are at a breaking point yet. Andrew5 (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Trump's influence will wane and finally flicker out, sure. But the organisational set-up, political landscape and the cultural milleu which created and enabled him shall remain. That's the problem; for I fear not 'the return of Trump' [much], but the arrival of a Trump who is smarter, more driven and much more superficially 'reasonable'. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


...is going to be booed so hard when he appears at the Australian Open. ShabiDOO 14:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Not if he gets deported first!-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Half of me is satisfied that an anti-vax dipshit is paying the price for anti-vax dipshittery, the other half of me is sad that I won't get to watch him being severely booed at the Open (nor applauded for unforced errors and double faults). ShabiDOO 20:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm starting to get a strong Lawrence Fox vibe from him tbh. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Because he was banned from Australia for 3 years, he can't get a Grand Slam until 2025 (which he nearly got in 2021), he also got banned from all four in 2022. Well, he deserved it. Andrew5 (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ohio gerrymander shot down[edit]

In a 4-3 decision in the Ohio supreme court, Ohio's congressional maps are shot down. Andrew5 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Good. These attempts at subverting democracy are sickening. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 While it's good this gerrymander was shot down, hopefully some of the Democrats ones are too. Gerrymandering should be banned on both sides equally. Andrew5 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Good post! Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 21:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 Let us suppose you and I sit down to a game of poker. Let us suppose you begin to suspect that I am, somehow, cheating. Let us then suppose that you consider cheating back. Is that wrong? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Of course. <wind in my location is at 21mph (34 kph) with 28 fahrenheit (-2 celsius) temperatures. picture that> Andrew5 (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 How is it wrong? What makes it wrong? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Essentially the government decides who your representative is, by adjusting political lines for your gain. Gerrymandering should be illegal. Andrew5 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 Why is cheating back in the poker game wrong? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Two wrongs don't make a rightWikipedia and essentially being the bigger person. As they said in Rome, if someone hit you, you don't hit back. Andrew5 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 Ah, so you have the moral understanding of a literal child. In that case, should I actually be cheating, I would clean you out and you'd be found the fool. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
No as I would instantly report you to the casino, @GrammarCommie. Then you will be kicked out and, in Las Vegas, arrested under Nevada state law. (Nevada's gerrymander is also pretty bad and is being sued, but that's a story for a different time.)Andrew5 (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 Lol, I never said we were in a casino. Nice try to appeal to use of force though. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Also so much for not hitting back. Coward. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Think about this another way, do you think the efforts for districting in Shaw v. RenoWikipedia were justified? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
But what if hitting back is against the law? Then I'd be the fool, the fool going to jail. Also I'd probably only play poker in casinos (and I kinda like Black Jack more, tbh) but we'll see. Andrew5 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 It's called a thought experiment. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Andrew, you might consider the answer that: "you can leave the table". The answer to a party gerrymandering before isn't that you should gerrymander to get even or ballance things, but create a law, difficult for the other party to change back, that creates an entirely independent commission that completely redistricts the state according to a set of rules that ballances the districts irrespective of previous voting patterns...as nearly every other civilised Western democracy in the world does. ShabiDOO 01:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Sadly, states don't want to listen to them when they don't have to, they want all the power to themselves. Like in Missouri, when the governor removed the independent comission, or in Utah and New York, when they took all the power away and decided to gerrymander the maps. (New York isn't final yet but given how all 4 maps were rejected, I doubt they will listen and instead try to gerrymander as much as possible before it gets to a point they get sued. In Utah, the literally cracked Salt Lake City across all 4 districts, so UT-4, which before was barely competitive at R+15, and which went blue in 2018, is now R+31. No seat is less then R+20. This is deeply disturbing especially when considering Trump barely won Utah by 20%. Looking at Politico, UT-4 went from Trump +9.6 to Trump +27.1, and no district is less then Trump +17.8, which is UT-2 which before was +16.5. And as for the government? Well, there is some bipartisan support, but is it enough to overturn? Plus, a Supreme Court case will very likely be made, and it will likely be decided that it is states rights per the 10th Amendment, meaning a new, 28th Amendment would need to be made.And honestly, in these southern states, the voter suppression ongoing is quite disturbing. Andrew5 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Also considering how Arizona and New Jersey still put up gerrymanders, states will gerrymander even in independent commissions. Andrew5 (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is the Ohio gerrymander bad? Moron. 2804:14C:5B72:93B2:8875:4980:C321:F0A8 (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Uh, is my question answered? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Gerrymandering is only the name of the process. The Ohio case is straight-forward, it's an illegal gerrymander. It violates the law that Ohio voters passed, essentially requiring those creating the districts to keep counties intact. If you say you don't like gerrymandering what you actually don't like is:
"Packing" - Diluting the political strength of a group by creating districts with a lot of people that wastes votes for one party, allowing other districts to be created that can be one by the other party.
"Cracking" - Diluting the political strength of a group by creating districts where the group doesn't have the majority, but they are included with others group that support the other party. (This specifically was the problem in Ohio. The goal of the GOP was to deny a likely Dem seat, by splitting the voters including them in a likely GOP seat)
Additionally you probably like districts that are drawn to match county lines, and dislike districts that look funky, without understanding that for some of them, the purpose is to create a minority-majority district. (Like IL-4)-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm all for minority-majority districts, but not gerrymandered ones to make red ones blue. IL-4 was probably gerrymandered, but it was previously D+62 and is now D+44, so it may not have been that bad. Andrew5 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, this is interesting.[edit]

Tomorrow, we will find out what actually happened with the death of Anne Frank. Click here for more. Andrew5 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Watched the 60 Minutes spot about it. It's incredible, the work that was done to find one single man whose name has been hidden all these years. It adds a great layer of tragedy to know the Franks were betrayed by 'one of their own,' but then again, he was loyal to the Nazi police. Jake Holmesyell at me 00:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I always heard it was another man who betrayed the Franks, a man known to Anne's father, Tonny Ahlers. Epic Games (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
^^The new investigation found it to be a man named Arnold van den Bergh, who was a member of a 'Jewish council' that Nazi police had their hands in and who none of the Frank family or their assistants knew. His betrayal bought him freedom from being taken to the camps. The evidence points to him over Ahlers. Jake Holmesyell at me 14:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
It should be noted that the Anne Frank Stichting (Anne Frank's Estate) considers the conclusion to be hasty and so do a number of prominent historians who specifically looked into de Joodse Raad who dismiss it as bullshit. The problem is that the conclusion is largely build on the assumption that the Joodse Raad kept a list of a bunch of people in hiding. The problem is that the only indication that this list ever existed comes from verbal testimony of the Nazis.
De Joodse Raad was basically completely stripped and searched after the second world war and such a list has never been located (sourced: Bart van der Boom, university teacher for WW2 and Johannes Houwink ten Cate, ex-university teacher on Holocaust and Genocide studies). There's no "smoking gun" evidence; just a good degree of circumstantial evidence. The closest thing to a "smoking gun" is a letter that was delivered that accused van den Bergh, but it's likely that this was fabricated since van den Bergh was subject to a large tarring campaign after WW2 (sourced: Emile Schrijver, director of Joods Cultureel Kwartier in Amsterdam). -All claims translated and sourced from local news article about this featuring these people.-
Personally while I think the story is nicely presented, I don't think it's van den Bergh. Random shitluck is far more likely. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The Neoliberalism talk[edit]

The present follies of the Biden administration may lead one to assume a "consistency" in the pursuit of certain policies. And yet amidst U.S.-Mexican border crossing surges, Cuban migrants face being returned.

One point demonstrated by this is the erroneous nature behind right-wing populist "Great Replacement" bullshit. Due to the elicited support of the GOP from Cubans, Democrats bar migrants from Cuba. The contemporary Democratic Party defense of U.S.-Mexican border surges thus demonstrate the seeking of pure partisan advantages, not "cultural genocide." Ushit the dipshit (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

From your cited article: "Since the United States’ policy of “wet foot, dry foot” ended in the beginning of 2017, almost all Cubans, regardless of whether they were caught at sea or on land, are sent back to their country. " So, you find some fault in Trump's policies extended into the Biden Administration?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. Democrats aren't singling out Cubans, it's our anti-immigration policies that's unnecessarily hostile, something Democrats already criticize heavily. Where are you getting the conclusion that it must be Democrats being partisan eh? Why is this suddenly important to you after 2020? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
How are Cubans returned, being that there are no formal diplomatic relations between the US & Cuba or direct flights? Dutchbag (talk)`
Wait what the fuck? We have have diplomatic relations with Cuba. Wait, are you whining about US imperialism solely because you don't like the party doing it???!?! What shallow, contrarian, vapid nonsense is this??!?! Lmfao!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Ariel31459, the termination of the policy was a last-minute action of the Obama administration. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Still a Trump policy. Like it? "By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries."--Obama. You approve of equal treatment? Ariel31459 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yep that's just typical anti-immigration sentiment by that neolib strain of politics. We're well aware of the record deportations under Obama,
I stand corrected. However, sanctions remain in place. Dutchbag (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah an American President is totes going to remove the main source of leverage against another country. Lol, in what universe do you think any of them care? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think restricting immigration in America is good policy nor trend barring emergencies like temporary pandemic lockdown. Cubans had a better policy but Haitans should get a better policy too. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
For 55 years, a Cuban simply needed to make landfall on US shores and was automatically granted political asylum, whereas a Mexican could be deported immediately. A Cuban arrested for drug crimes essentially had permanent US residency, so there was nowhere to deport them to. Unlike Mexicans or Colombians who wewe're aware of the drone strikes. I'll also add that Cubans had an easier time immigrating under that policy but now that's ended they're on the same level of this convoluted immigration game. I don't think you're even pro-immigrant. Shouldn't you like how Cubans are on the same playing field instead of having it so easy they can just skip in line or something. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)re returned to their country of origin. This has been the big change in recent years. I assume the new law cannot be applied retroactively to Cubans who arrived prior to 2015. Dutchbag (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Given that Cuban expats make up a decent voter bloc for the GOP, I wonder if it's really humanitarian concerns that drive this outrage... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Apparently the Cubans who made landfall in the Keys never got the message of the 2015 change, which is not surprising. Dutchbag (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
All the 2015 law did was allow deportation of Cubans arrested for drug crimes or who enter illegally, it did not restore direct flights or allow money transfers from Cubans working in the US to their families in Cuba. Dutchbag (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

(EC)(EC)@LeftyGreenMario And here we have Gregor Mankiw supporting immigration. Here we have Tyler Cowen. Bryan Caplan too, supporting Open Borders. How about Gary Becker? As Alex Tabarrok k puts here virtuall all economists agree that immigration is good for the economy. Maybe that's why 1,500 economists wrote a letter to the White House explaining why immigration is good. Among them, Vernon Smith. Maybe he's in fact a red?. Oh, and here's the motherfucking Cato Instute saying the same thing. But sure, let's strawman those evil neoliberals, even though we don't have a clue about what kind of policies they support. GeeJayK (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, immigration can keep union wages low and African American unemployment high, if that's what you mean by good for the economy. Dutchbag (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
GeeJayK: I'm not seeing any of that reflected in policy or advanced as serious positions in the Democratic Party.
Dutchbag: they don't. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dutchbag Wow, you actually stumbled into something resembling a correct opinion. @GeeJayK is in fact correct that increased immigration is good for the economy. However, this has usually been haphazard in practice, resulting in undercutting the domestic workforce's labor power, regardless of race. The main problem with this idea in practice, therefore, is, again, the haphazard way in which it's implemented, in addition to weakened unions. Now, if only there wasn't a certain president who went hard on weakening unions and privatization... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
(EC)@Dutchbag Lucky for us, evidence suggest pretty much otherwise.
@LeftyGreenMario You said "typical anti-immigration sentiment by that neolib strain of politics". Who are those "neoliberals" you're talking about? What kind of policy do they support? You sure you know what this word means? GeeJayK (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I've usually seen the label attached to establishment Democratic Party and their policies, usually from leftist critiques of them, and I've come to believe neoliberalism is a foundation of their policies. AFAIK neoliberalism concerns itself with free market and less regulations and whatnot, it's really closer to the classical liberalism than the modern day left-wing sort. It's not a clean definition, very broad, hence the "strain" mention, but I don't consider it very left-wing, so I've strapped it along with center-right/right-wing policy.
I've never really seen the argument that immigration depress union powers? I think a lot of anti-immigration claims are overblown, such as affecting employment rates and such. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Neoliberals love immigration. Seriously, I can whip out a Milton Friedman quote if I need to. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Why would the big components Democratic Party like Obama be branded as neoliberals, tho, unless those labels are wrong? I haven't seen much pro-immigration actions they've done lately besides responding to current issues with current policy (e.g. asylum applications, "sanctuary cities", etc, I'm not seeing actions like bigger lotteries, reduced fees or even reversal of the increased fees, etc). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's your difference between neolibs and traditional libs; Hillary Clinton was a "corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Walmart" "watching people's jobs shipped overseas" while Obama was working the streets. In this exchange, Obama sounds like the Orange man.
Mario, if I may offer some critique, you apparently are looking for some humanitarian basis for immigration reform, however to get Congress to act, is driven by hard economic realities. Now, one can debate whether 'hard economic realities' are humanitarian driven or profit driven, but that's another discussion. Dutchbag (talk)
(EC)(EC)(EC)Mario, did you come out wiith the conclusion that something is bad because a group you identify with say it bad even though you've never read anything actually advanced by this group? Maybe it's because I haven't slept well since last month, but this discussion is making me more and more riled up, I'll see if my wife wants to watch a movie, we haven't turned on the TV for over a month. GeeJayK (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your question. The answer is simple. These groups aren't neoliberals! Supporting a market economy does not make you a neoliberal! Sure, the blue dogs are neoliberals, but most of "neoliberals" only started voting for the Democratic Party because the GOP went from nut to nuttier. Just read this because at this point I think you're totally unqualified to talk about this subject. Just for the record, AIER is a shit source. But this article is decent to some extent. GeeJayK (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Interesting article. I am fascinated by the Turing test analogy. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
If you need proof of the Neoliberal preference for immigration, look no further than Milton Friedman, the godfather of Neoliberalism himself. Here he is saying it, in color TV. I endorse neither source, and the video has some annoying editing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
It is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which supports immigration, together with dozens of DC think tanks to support its views, and donations from the Chamber to legislators. The Chamber is financially more powerful than the NRA, and is probably one of, if not the most powerful, lobbying groups in America. And they support immigration and outsourcing jobs overseas precisely to suppress wage costs. Dutchbag (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Not to give too much credence to another USH mad lib thread ("(Action) done by Democratic Party is RACIST!", (insert delusional spiel here)). But the conflict between the generally pro-business Chamber of Commerce side of the Republican party, which generally does support looser immigration policy, and the "hurr durr derp" white grievance side of the Republican party, which adamantly does not, has been well known for a long time. In the 2010s, this provided interesting contrast as some states passed a few "hurr durr derp" laws (such as "papers please" laws in Alabama resulting in two embarrassing arrests of foreign car executives, or how it was the CEO class in Arizona that was one of the major groups who pushed against tough immigrant laws there). That was then, the days when a neoconservative (but certainly pro-business) Dick Cheney was the Darth Vader that drove GWB's worst decisions, instead of being a voice of a tiny, tiny nugget of sanity in the GOP in 2021 (?!) by actually not riding the "Trump won 2020" train. Hell, Karl Rove of all people criticized the Arizona law back in 2010.
Now, the Republican party is now pretty firmly, at the moment, the party of the isolationist, nativist, "American First" side of the Angry Baby, and any Chamber of Commerce GOP political types are too scared shitless of the Orange Menace to be otherwise. So, as a result, there has been a slow drift of the chamber to also endorse Democrats and work with Democrats. It's not a full party switch, of course. There is no real good fit for a "pro-business" advocacy group at the moment. Some of the GOP is howling at this development. But they're kind of shooting themselves in the foot by not standing up to the Cheeto, I'm afraid.
Regarding "neo-liberals", my general impression is that as a group they are for a bit looser immigration policies than nativists, but certainly not as much as the progressives. However, big (or even medium sized) immigration reform seems kind of low in priority compared to other issues. I guess in fairness, since American national politics is in this weird tribal mode these days, there are few opportunities for political capital to be spent on such things legislatively. Obama spent his capital on Obamacare, and Biden on infrastructure (and probably nothing else). I am a little surprised (though, in some ways, not really) that Biden hasn't dealt with more of Trump's shittier immigration executive orders. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, United States immigration policy has been needlessly brutal under, like, every recent president. Dems are rhetorically better than the GOP, so immigration reform advocates usually support team blue as the lesser of two evils...but even during the Obama years a lot of things that, say, the average Vox reader would instantly associate with Trump was happening.-Flandres (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This is true. The last major immigration reform that actually loosened immigration conditions, at least that I can think of (edit: with a lot of other tighter restrictions, of course, but it did actually grant some amnesty), was passed all the way back in 1986.Wikipedia It was introduced by both a Republican and a Democrat, and signed by Ronald Reagan. It's one of many examples how politics was so different then, I suppose... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Reagan was one of the original Neoliberal lawmakers. And by that I mean he's one of the big names alongside Thatcher and Pinochet. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
My totally useless opinion: 'neolib' seems like a word somebody pulled out of their asshole that can mean whatever you want it to mean. The closest definition I can find are the 'New Democrats' of the 1980s & 90s (like Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, and the Democratic Leadership Conference) that started taking money from Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce and were accused of racism and abandoning civil rights. They sold out American jobs for NAFTA. Terry McAullife was big fundraiser from corporations who wanted to do business in China. But I'm sure I'll get an argument there. If you're looking for a hard definition of 'neolib', you're not going to find one.Dutchbag (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Neoliberalism: The theoretical and political model as envisioned by the Chicago School of economics and implemented by politicians such as Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher. And Pinochet, but neolibs don't like talking about him. Anyone using the term for anything else is wrong and ignorant. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
So you are saying a Classical liberal = a neoliberal. Sure, that certainly ends the confusion. Dutchbag (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I would say a neolib is a former 60s radical, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, who embraced Reaganism, Thatcherism, and the profit motive in the 1990s. So its more of a parochial school rather than any widespread phenomena. Dutchbag (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
There's a "why not both?" element here. One problem is what has become the general understanding of the term "liberal" in America is quite different than the traditional use of the word "liberal", which in Europe and elsewhere (from what I see) tends to be associated with free-market philosophies / laissez faire capitalism ala Adam Smith. So, the Wiki article on neoliberalismWikipedia describes the free-market capitalist sect (Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan, etc.) as the primary definition. However, it also describes as an alternate definition that emerged in the US, that probably is better described (to avoid confusion) as the Third WayWikipedia, which reflects Clinton, Hart, etc. and the attempt to reconcile a synthesis of (broadly speaking) center-right economics and center-left social policies. Political terms are funny, when I used the term above I was actually thinking more the US term than the more international definition to be honest. However, on immigration, I'm not sure the difference between the Reagan side and the Clinton side is enough to matter. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Very well stated. Dutchbag (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
GeeJayK: ya I admit it, I plead ignorance. Don't get mad. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Blaster puts it well; 'Third Way' politicos might be neoliberals, but not all neoliberals are Third Way-ers. Strictly speaking, 'neoliberalism' is simply an economic ideology. And yes, there is a concrete definition of this. However, it has to be said that Third Way kinda couldn't work *without* neoliberalism - for the latter promises that basically, if business is left alone (on the whole) it will deliver widespread prosperity and narrowing inequalities, which was *most convenient* to the Third Way as it justifies not needing to spend a load of cash on classic social-democratic programmes (such as a welfare state, direct targeted investments etc). A Third Way finance minister *needs* this assumption because otherwise the lowish tax / spend / regulated regimen are logically incompatable otherwise. Instead of this paradise, we entered our 'New Gilded Age' instead, getting more and more bloated and corrupt after each cycle of 'bust'. Right-wing demagogues and their wannabes have capitalised on the fact the 'leftish' parties are still with heavy Third Way leaderships and thus cannot admit their 'grand scheme' failed in so many ways. You see this in the likes of Blair, still with his old records from 1994 and obstinately unrepentant. I think in his head he can't back down or admit anything because it's like a posthumous surrender to the likes of Tony Benn and 'Old Labour'. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@PanGalacticGargleBlaster Mentioning Smith and "free-market philosophies / laissez faire capitalism" as one and the same perpetuates the grossest of defamations. A man's life work twisted and warped into the most perverse of dogmas. Dogmas which contradict his own work, I might add. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware that there are many that criticize neoliberals for not being Smith-like at all (and there's probably a lot of truth in that). You'll have to take that one up with Friedrich Hayek and other folks considered founders of neoliberalism, along with the politicians that followed along like Ronald Reagan, on how their idolization of Smith is a wee bit "selective". At any rate, I was describing the term "liberal", not "neoliberalism", and more saying that "liberal" tends to mean the "classic liberalism" of Smith in much of Europe (unless one is using it as a slur for neo-liberalism, which happens too). Except in the US, where "liberal" is a strange political Rush Limbaugh insult targeting the left-wing stereotype of the Limbaughian talk radio world imagination. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@PanGalacticGargleBlaster Apologies, in that case I misunderstood. And I do indeed have bones to pick with those who have perverted Smith's work. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, when the first neoliberals appeared in the 1970s they were actually termed the 'New Classicists' in which means they adhered to 'classical economics' which basically meant the orthodox economics before the 1930s - the clear link was Hayek's 'Serfdom' in which the reviewers etc made it clear he was merely re-hashing the old arguments to 'why planning won't fly' and having a somewhat naive view that laissez-faire capitalism *doesn't* lead to corruption, regulatory capture and monopolistic/oligarchic setups which will end up creating the very 'serfdom' Hayek was kicking against.
Anyway, Smith is hailed as the granddaddy of classical economics, as he was the first guy to properly refute the earlier 'Mercantilism' system. Smith is kinda like Marx and the Bible - more 'admired' and quote-mined than actually read and understood. Smith himself was somewhat more complex a thinker - for example, he hated with a passion landlords in terms similar to what a bright-red socialist would say. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice Re the part about landlords. While it's true Smith has a very negative view about landlords, there's two major points to keep in mind when examining his views here. Firstly, that when he refers to "landlords" he is predominantly referring to landed gentry, who in Smith's time where the predominant landowning class. Secondly, he does grudgingly back down somewhat as the chapter progresses, as he cedes that landlords can still be of use to the economy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Smith disliked landlords because the vast majority of them did not improve or invest on their properties - they simply absorbed as much rent as possible, did as little work on the properties as possible and spent all their income on luxuries or more land.
Therefore, he saw them as retarding the economic development of the country because they sucked up a large % of the country's wealth without actually adding to the 'productive stock' of the country. This was even more important because in Smith's era countries were generally speaking *very* capital-poor, which was retarding development.
His preferred model was the owner-occupier; the 'family farm' which was constantly being improved upon by the industriousness and thrift of the owners. He also had a bit of a soft spot for landlords who *did* improve their holdings, like the Dukes of Bedford. Lastly, he did accept that 'landlordism' allowed what Marxists later called 'capital accumilation'.
But even for rabid free-marketeers, landlordism is the least defensible aspect because there's not much way to 'increase' land supply or alternatives to it. You don't really need to 'do' anything or even have any skill to be a landlord either [past having cash already] - you simply sit back and absorb [more] cash. It makes a mockery of the whole meritocratic thing capitalism is supposed to be. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice I'm well aware of all of that. I too have read the Wealth of Nations. Criminally underread book. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but is everyone else who's reading this dicussion also read it? KarmaPolice (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I've read it. But I'm not going to comment on your overlay of Marxist class theory ("Smith hated landlords") on Adam Smith. It would serve no purpose. Smith is not making an emotional argument. Dutchbag (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
No, Smith did not make an emotional argument. And nor did I when I gave an overview of his reasons for disapproval. (Note, *his* reasons. Not mine. In fact, I never gave *my* reasons why. Or even if I agreed with Smith.)
Your point about 'Marxist class theory' is at best mistaken and at worst a attempt to discredit me. Play the ball, not the person.
Anyway, quite a lot of folks who were no way 'Marxists' or even remotely left-wing had poor things to say about landlords. Here's one from Winston Churchill; 'The landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts of a great city … watches the busy population around him making the city larger, richer, more convenient. .. and all the while sits and does nothing.'
Which was pretty similar to Smith's complaint, as 'if you have read him', you very well know. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Nowhere that I recall Smith talks about "landlords"; his subject is the "rent of land". Dutchbag (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dutchbag " As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them, and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land, and in the price of the greater part of commodities, makes a third component part.
The real value of all the different component parts of price, it must be observed, is measured by the quantity of labour which they can, each of them, purchase or command. Labour measures the value, not only of that part of price which resolves itself into labour, but of that which resolves itself into rent, and of that which resolves itself into profit.

In every society, the price of every commodity finally resolves itself into some one or other, or all of those three parts; and in every improved society, all the three enter, more or less, as component parts, into the price of the far greater part of commodities.
In the price of corn, for example, one part pays the rent of the landlord, another pays the wages or maintenance of the labourers and labouring cattle employed in producing it, and the third pays the profit of the farmer. These three parts seem either immediately or ultimately to make up the whole price of corn. A fourth part, it may perhaps be thought is necessary for replacing the stock of the farmer, or for compensating the wear and tear of his labouring cattle, and other instruments of husbandry. But it must be considered, that the price of any instrument of husbandry, such as a labouring horse, is itself made up of the same time parts; the rent of the land upon which he is reared, the labour of tending and rearing him, and the profits of the farmer, who advances both the rent of this land, and the wages of this labour. Though the price of the corn, therefore, may pay the price as well as the maintenance of the horse, the whole price still resolves itself, either immediately or ultimately, into the same three parts of rent, labour, and profit."
Yeah, sure you've read The Wealth of nations. For everyone who hasn't, including Dutchbag, that quote is from Book I, Chapter VI, "Of the Component Parts of the Price of Commodities". The term "landlord" appears 198 times in the work as a whole. In Smith's view, landlords were a hindrance to entrepreneurs, who would have to jump through hoops to access raw goods needed to innovate. Or, to put it in blunter terms, Smith largely viewed landlords as dead weight, unneeded expenses that dragged down productive elements of society. Marx, by contrast, did not think it was the entrepreneurs who drove the economy, but the workers themselves. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Please continue defending landlords in the name of capitalism, Dutchbag [I *particulary* desire you to defend the urban 'ground rent' folks, who literally have zero purpose save to absorb cash and occasionally produce work for lawyers and debt-collectors]. As a socialist, you're doing my job for me.
Plus; you could have cited the fact I said 'he [Smith] hated with a passion landlords' which admittedly was a wee bit personal. Which I shall withdraw happily, changing it to 'disliked'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Duh, thanks for making the point. Smith discusses rent of land as a component part of price. 18:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
So Smith refers to an "improved society" as one where the "land of any country has all become private property'. Great. Now explain how a Maoist anti-landlordism campaign leads to an "improved society"? Dutchbag (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
If there were no "private ownership of land", there would be no "private ownership of labour", either. I.E., the labourer would not "own" their own labour that they could hire out (or "rent" out) in the form of wages. IOWs, a slave system would exist. Dutchbag (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dutchbag Is Smith's negative view of landlords Marxism or Maosim? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think you misreading Smith entirely. He is not expressing an emotional or negative view of landlords. He's discussing the component parts of price.
To understand how landlords come into existence, you need to reread the sections on the accumalation of capital (which will provide you with a definition of "capital").
So what is one important component part of rent, which makes up the component part of price of commodities grown on the land? Now, your answer is that landlords are just a bunch of lazy parasites. However, a significant component part of rent is the property tax paid for military defense of the land, which neither the landlord nor the labourer on the land could independently afford themselves, but makes it possible for both to feed themselves.
So before we proceed to the natural road of opulence in the final sections, let's first understand a definition of capital, how it is accumulated, and the component parts of price. (To understand any of this in a rational, or enlightened sense, you need to put your emotional Marxist views on hold). Dutchbag (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dutchbag A few slight problems. Firstly, Marx writes in a primarily descriptive sense, not an emotional sense. Secondly, I'm not a Marxist. Thirdly, it's pretty obvious (to anyone who's actually read his work) that Smith views landlords as unproductive elements. Fourthly, the only emotion I'm experiencing is amusement at how pitiful your attempts to use Smith as a cutout for your own views are. I at least can admit that, were Smith alive today, he would not in fact be on my side. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious you never read Chapt XI, Of the Rent of Land, nor any of its subchapters. I doubt you could explain what Smith means by "improvements on land", like clearing trees for agriculture for example, which, asccording to you, the landlord should not be compensated by the tenant farmer, etc. Dutchbag (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)!
@Dutchbag I said no such thing. If you disagree link the edit wherein you think I said as such. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Revision as of 05:13, 17 January 2022 "In Smith's view, landlords were a hindrance to entrepreneurs, who would have to jump through hoops to access raw goods needed to innovate. Or, to put it in blunter terms, Smith largely viewed landlords as dead weight, unneeded expenses that dragged down productive elements of society." - Dutchbag (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@DutchbagThat is indeed the explanation of Smith's views that I gave. Where exactly did I supposedly express the views you are ascribing to me? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Smith says, "The rent of land, it may be thought, is frequently no more than a reasonable profit or interest for the stock laid out by the landlord upon its improvement." (Chapt XI) "Reasonable." Nowhere does Smith describe the landlord as "unproductive", "dead weight", or "a hinderance." Dutchbag (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Dutchbag Wait, did you think I was quoting him verbatim? What the actual fuck!?!?! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, cite the edit wherein I supposedly expressed the view that landlords should not be compensated. You've still failed to supply such a citation. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not getting into this with you. Dutchbag (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dutchbag I'll take that as a yes to the former and an admission of failure, with the appropriate apologies, to the latter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
You're getting off-topic with your assumptions. Dutchbag (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dutchbag Not really, but if that's what you need to tell yourself and the rest of the site to save face go right ahead. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, gotta love Dutchbag - through the BS, their repeated ignorance of simple facts gives me a smile now and then. Such as the fact that 'Maoism' is in fact a variant of 'Marxism'. Or is apparantly unaware that there's other views between what they imagine Smith said and 'Marxism'.
In fact, this may be the issue. They see no subtlety or shades of difference; it's either white or black.
Anyway, back to landlordism. GC's key - and 100% accurate - point about Smith is 'unproductive elements'. In Smith's day, this was represented by the landlords he'd seen in particulary France; the idle aristocrats who pocketed their rents and spent it on self-indulgence.
If Smith came back today, I think he'd say that folks [like you, Dutch] didn't get his point. He wasn't attacking landlords because they were landlords, but because they engaged in 'rent seeking'; aka 'when an individual or an entity seeks to increase their own wealth without benefiting society'. A modern example Smith would agree with would be various types of corporate lobbying. One which he might not [so much] is the many types of financial alchemy that goes on. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious none of you have read much of Smith, and what you have, no one understands. Dutchbag (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This is hilarious from someone who was only able to gesture vaguely at one chapter, hurl ad homs, and make baseless accusations of dishonesty. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The different orders of people who have ever been supposed to contribute in any respect towards the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, they divide into three classes. The first is the class of the proprietors of land. The second is the class of the cultivators, of farmers and country labourers, whom they honour with the peculiar appellation of the productive class. The third is the class of artificers, manufacturers, and merchants, whom they endeavour to degrade by the humiliating appellation of the barren or unproductive class.
The class of proprietors contributes to the annual produce by the expense which they may occasionally lay out upon the improvement of the land, upon the buildings, drains, enclosures, and other ameliorations, which they may either make or maintain upon it, and by means of which the cultivators are enabled, with the same capital, to raise a greater produce, and consequently to pay a greater rent. This advanced rent may be considered as the interest or profit due to the proprietor upon the expense or capital which he thus employs in the improvement of his land. Such expenses are in this system called ground expenses (depenses foncieres.)
The ground expenses, as they are called, or what the landlord lays out upon the improvement of his land, are in this system, too, honoured with the appellation of productive expenses. Till the whole of those expenses, together with the ordinary profits of stock, have been completely repaid to him by the advanced rent which he gets from his land, that advanced rent ought to be regarded as sacred and inviolable, both by the church and by the king; ought to be subject neither to tithe nor to taxation. If it is otherwise, by discouraging the improvement of land the church discourages the future increase of her own tithes, and the king the future increase of his own taxes. As in a well-ordered state of things, therefore, those ground expenses, over and above reproducing in the completest manner their own value, occasion likewise after a certain time a reproduction of a net produce, they are in this system considered as productive expenses.
The ground expenses of the landlord, however, together with the original and the annual expenses of the farmer, are the only three sorts of expenses which in this system are considered as productive. All other expenses and all other orders of people, even those who in the common apprehensions of men are regarded as the most productive, are in this account of things represented as altogether barren and unproductive.
Here Smith is speaking of only one particular system, and this system is peculiar to France. And Smith says landlords shouldn't be taxed or pay tithes.
Ok, you Charlatans, you may proceed making asses of yourselves again with more bullshit. Dutchbag (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dutchbag What? I literally said that Smith doesn't call for the abolition of landlords. What the fuck are you babbling on about? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just a side comment, but this is approaching 42 kb. Now, I don't really know what's going on as I don't know what GC and Dutchbag are arguing about. Andrew5 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew5 Dutchbag thinks that because Smith didn't call for the abolition of landlords, and indeed spoke of their legitimacy in owning property that this somehow invalidates almost every mention of landlords in the Wealth of Nations, which has a distinctly negative subtext. This further ignores that Smith's use of the LTV and his characterization of economic forces distinctively favors active usage of wealth rather than mere passive acquisition. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh! Well alright then. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Dutchbag; see my previous point, and re-read. A landlord who invests to improve their land is 'benefiting society' [and self] by increasing the productive stock of the country. Both I and Grammar have made it clear Smith supported such actions.
The very fact you bold the bits of Smith's quotes which say the *very same thing* and then say I'm spouting bullshit means... hmm, not sure. The main options being 'you did not read them' and 'you do not understand what you are reading'.
Smith didn't like taxes [but who does?]. Yet most of the taxes his day were on items, like tea [yes, that tea tax!] not income [first UK income tax: 1799]. And Smith didn't like mandatory tithes because - as a leading light of the Enlightenment - he objected to the fact it went to the state church [which you may not belong to]. He also objected to the fact that by his day the tithe laws had become Byzantine and was generating a *lot* of work for judges, lawyers and debt-collectors.
But his main bone was the exact same reason he didn't like lazy cash-sucking landlords; the Church took 10% of income, regardless. For no real reason past 'because I can'. If my income went up by £500 a year, it would demand £50 more even though it had done sod all to help me earn it.
However, he argued that instead of a variable 'tithe tax', it should be in fact a fixed value one instead; thus allowing the entrepreneurial landlords to enjoy more of their earned rewards.
This proves the very thing we've been trying to tell you; Adam Smith was a complex thinker who's views reflect the times he lived in. You cannot simply try to shoehorn him into justifying modern vulgar libertarianism in all it's glory without *some* problems.
But you can't be told this, and as I think this shall be obvious to future readers of this long discussion too, my job is done. I personally recommend you do a re-write of Wealth of Nations to suit your political bent in a similar manner Conservapedia wanted to re-write the Bible to remove the 'confusing' bits where Jesus sounded a bit... red. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Wow. Look, you don't have to work so hard to prove you're an idiot. It can be done in fewer words. Dutchbag (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright Bag, if you think you are talking to idiots, then stop talking. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There’s a lot I’d like to talk, but I simply don’t have time (indeed, this thread would be twice as big if I put all my opinions and insights here and to be fair, I didn't even read everything you guys wrote). Well, while @GrammarCommie said that everyone using the term for anything but the model envisioned by the Chicago School and implemented by Reagan, Thatcher and Pinochet is ignorant, I strongly disagree with him. It is indeed true that these groups are an important branch of neoliberalism, but neoliberalism goes well beyond them too. I know he was intentionally being laconic for obvious reasons, but I don't think that we can say neoliberalism=Chicago School. Despite disagreeing with pretty much everything they said, I agree with @KarmaPolice in one point: neoliberalism is 100% an economic theory (Hayek provided the political philosophy, but in the end they all remained classical liberals in this aspect, more on that later). The roots of Neoliberalism can be traced to the creation of the Mont Pelerin SocietyWikipedia in 1947. To quote Wikipedia:

The members see the MPS as an effort to interpret in modern terms the fundamental principles of economic society as expressed by classical Western economists, political scientists and philosophers. Its founders included Friedrich Hayek, Frank Knight, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, George Stigler and Milton Friedman

Now, we can see three Chicago School economists here, sure but the main name behind the creation of the MPS, was, however, Hayek (who was not a Chicago School economist), and none of the names mentioned supported laissez faire except for Mises (Friedman only started to support some 40 years later).

Many non-Chicago School economists are also hardcore neoliberals. We have the Public ChoiceWikipedia economists and some Austrian Economists. Not every New Classical economist supports the Chicago School, but they are all neoliberals IMO. There are Keynesian economists that are easily classified as neoliberalis, like Greg MankiwWikipedia (my second favorite economist born after 1950) and Paul RomerWikipedia, for instance. Even centrist economists can be described as neoliberals, like Daron AcemogluWikipedia (my favorite economist born after 1950). One important thing, still about Hayek, is that his influence on neoliberalism is grossly overrated by both friends and foes. No, his ideas didn’t shift the economic paradigm in the late 70s (you can blame Friedman and Robert LucasWikipedia for that). His attacks on Keynesian economics didn’t really hit the target (although his criticism on socialism received far more academic acclaim). Did Thatcher read his books? Yes. Did she agree with him? I think so. But she didn’t use his economic framework unless you think you can reduce his work to “free market=good”. The Road to Serfdom is one of the most appalling books I’ve ever read and I honestly feel bad when I see praise of criticism. Thatcher’s favorite book by Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty is, as the name suggests 70% political philosophy and 30% economics, while Law, Legislation and Liberty is 90% political philosophy. This is the best Hayek has to offer. Again, after 1950 Hayek almost abandoned economics and became a political philosopher and while many of his economics ideas were incorporated by the mainstream, a huge chunk was cut out for a good reason (his new economic proposals became more and more unhinged, like his theory of denationalizing money, although I do think his work in this phase was more compelling that those terrible interviews Friedman started to give when he became a popular economist and fully and a radical libertarian later in his life).

Also, while I agree that Reagan, Thatcher and Pinochet were all neoliberals, that doesn’t mean centrist and center-left governments cannot adopt neoliberalism too. In America, neoliberalism didn’t even start with Reagan – Paul Volcker was nominated by Jimmy Carter, while Nixon tried to control prices. Many other center-left leaders, like Filipe GonzálesWikipedia and Massimo D’AlemaWikipedia also made neoliberal governments to some extent.

I really wish to dive deeper, but that’s it for now. A good book if you guys want to know more is The Road from Mont Pelerin, organized by the Political Scientist Philip Mirowski. While Mirowski is not an economistrs and is one of the most formidable critics of neoliberalism, the book is quite unbiased from what I recall, so you can read . I’d love to talk about Smith too, but I don’t have time. As for the landlord stuff, well, saying that they don’t produce anything and we don’t need them is simply put, wrong, but this post is already too big and I don’t have time to write anymore. Not sure if I'll have time to answer any response, but I give my word I'll read them and of course, talk pages exist for that if anyone wants to chat. GeeJayK (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Just read the whole thing about the landlords. I misunderstood what GC and KarmaPolice were saying landlords and Smith. Sorry for that. GeeJayK (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's the section (time prompted) from the PBS series, Commanding Heights about the creation of the Pelerin Society.
We can put GC & Karma's false notion that Smith went on anti-landlord rants about landlords being unproductive hinderances to some other time. Dutchbag (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Illinois new congressional map is disgusting.[edit]

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/congressional-redistricting-maps-by-state-and-district/illinois/ Epic Games (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Why? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you see what they did? They made a 13-5 map (which really should've been 11-7, stupid 2018) into 14-3, possibly 13-4 only in a red wave year. Illinois's current map is already under a slight gerrymander. They cracked the city of Chicago into 8 districts, and some of the slightly less safe districts jut out 3 hours from Chicago (like the 11th, at D+10, or the 14th, at D+7). And look at how egregious the 13th district is. It starts at St Louis, goes up to Springfield and in total juts out 3 hours, just to make it D+7. It almost disconnects the 15th, one of the Republican districts, into 2 parts as it gets so close to the 2nd, which somehow despite jutting out 3 hours from Chicago is D+37? The 17th is the only competitve district, and even then is D+4 and has a Democratic incumbent. In short...no. Andrew5 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 And? Why is that bad? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Have you considered that changes to the likely party split can be the result of correcting previous gerrymandering, and do not, in themselves, imply that the new partition is less representative? Queexchthonic murmurings 01:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
This is not a correction, unless the "correction" is more Democratic seats so the 118th Congress can have a blue house. Andrew5 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I want to bring up that we had a discussion about this in the past, at RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive400#Illinois_proposed_EXTREME_gerrymander. There were 2 sub-discussions, which got very long and was filled with drama from the 4th to 10th of November, essentially mainly by me and Plutocow fighting over a civil war. Essentially these bar discussions can get long and controversial so be careful. Andrew5 (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew5 You literally can't explain why this is good, bad, or neither. All you have is vague feel good vibe "morality". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Changing lines to draw your own party's lines, while subverting democracy is good? Forcing rural areas with cities to make it lean red or blue is good? No no no. Andrew5 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 Why do you think subverting democracy bad though? You're just taking these things as axiomatically given, when they very much aren't. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
If your only criteria for gerrymandering is that it hurts your preferred side, you are unserious. I don't think that's what you intend to suggest, but it looks quite like it. The ongoing Republican gerrymandering has been common knowledge for decades; I don't necessarily think one should fight fire with fire but if you want your complaints to be taken more seriously you need something more substantive to demonstrate it's worse than it was. Any improvement over existing gerrymandering would result in R losses. Queexchthonic murmurings 01:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Also given what we went over in 2020 and early in 2021, I don't trust the Republican Party at all concerning fair elections. I don't want gerrymandered districts, but I don't see how R gains is a good thing either. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
R gains is good when the people vote Republican, and vice versa. The best way to reduce R seats is to campaign against them, not by subverting democracy. Andrew5 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Queex And, because it's in their interests to maintain as much power as possible, any corrections would therefore be labeled as gerrymandering by the GOP. And people like Andrew5 will just eat it up uncritically. We should probably engage critically, and with functional moral frameworks here. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Y'know, there is a reason they say RationalWiki is a left-ish leaning website. We need to engage in a neutral point of view, not a Democratic point of view. Andrew5 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Andrew, we ARE campaigning against them. And the reality is, Republican Party policy positions are very unpopular, but they're more represented in government than in general population? Why is that so? Think about that for a moment, but also consider their Supreme Court mess, see Merrick Garland, see that stalling a vote for centrist Garland while they strong-arm and rush less-than-qualified political hacks, and this resulted in a slipsod Supreme Court whose politics do not reflect what people voted for, something that has real life percussions, mostly negative. Sure, my language here isn't neutral, I could go into simply "we have a conservative super majority Supreme court and that means severely reduced abortion access" but why would you stop there and not talk about the ramifications of that and then input opinion that they're blatantly negative ramifications? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If the Republican positions are unpopular then why, may I ask, are they up 0.6% on the generic ballot? (Check 538 - [1], specifically Jan. 14 polls). These polling sites say Dems will only wind up with 46-47 Senate seats for a reason, with Republicans having 47-50. Cook is saying 47-47, IE as 50-47 GOP, Sabato as 49-47 GOP and RCP as 47-46 GOP. The remaining ones are tossups. LTE is saying 53-47 without tossups. And that's on a bad Senate map. So, we might need to consider how "unpopular" these Republicans are. Reason why Youngkin won the 2021 VA governor election and swung the state 12% to the right, or how Ciateralli almost did and swung NJ 13% to the right.Andrew5 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Surely GC you can see how all the district borders are so weirdly shaped. Epic Games (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Not all gerrymanders are like that, but IL is. Andrew5 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I have never seen someone defend anti-democratic measures in my life than what I have read from LGM and GC. Epic Games (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Epic Games You're presuming that they are, in fact, anti-democratic. Why do you think that? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
GC is GrammarCommie Epic Games (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
People generally don't pay a lot of attention to specific policy positions, hence accusations of "magic R", but there is a clear discrepancy between general populace and Republican congress people's policies, such as on climate change, vaccination, Trump's unpopularity. There are Republican's failures of enacting cuts to social security and other "liberal programs" especially the ACA, Republican failures to overturn Roe v. Wade (though they have a chance this year), etc. It actually frustrates Republicans that they can't enact on their policy because they're so unpopular. Also again you're not connecting the dots here: Republican policies ARE unpopular (they don't benefit from high voter turnout!!!) yet they're still managing more representation? How so? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is merely whataboutism. Epic Games (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No it's not. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
"We should allow the Democrats to gerrymander! What about the Republicans, they are much worse!"Epic Games (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Just because they are shit doesnt mean we should too. Epic Games (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
That's just a "they go low we go high" defense. It's not working. They're gaining and, again, look at the Supreme Court, as well as the gerrymandering. The solution here isn't to "play by the rules", that ship has sailed. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Problem is, generally speaking the USA has a deformed political system where folks merely vote for their 'least disliked' option, not their most liked. A lot of folks who loathed Trump ended voting for him because 'his' positions were slightly closer to them than Biden's, and vice-versa.
Therefore, saying the 74m who voted for Trump 'all wanted his policy positions' and 'supported all his actions to date' is patently wrong. What's more, 'Republican' / 'Democrat' is a label which means different things depending where you are in the country.
One thing I find *highly* amusing is that you'll find Republican apologists saying stuff like 'The best way to reduce R seats is to campaign against them, not by subverting democracy' but then happily work on voter suppression, gerrymandering etc which increases their chances of victory.
Plus, isn't that hard to say with a straight face after enabling, pandering and sucking-up to the Orange One and his half-arsed schemes/grifts to remain in power whatever the cost? KarmaPolice (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
If the Democrats did the same shitty things like the Reps, why vote for Democrats? It would defeat the whole purpose all together. You may as well get rid of democracy all together and just do a civil war instead like what happened in Russia and Angola. Epic Games (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I fully agree with Epic Games. Gerrymandering is anti-democratic, because the government determines house seats. Sadly, competitive districts is decreasing. Also, New York rejected even the Democrats independant redistricting proposal, meaning it's they're turn and they, could draw a 23-3 map. While a 23-3 map is unlikely to pass, a 22-4 map isn't. This means that the entire House majority might stay blue. And because of a liberal Supreme court, it might uphold such a gerrymander. Illinois's map actually survived court, btw, because partisian gerrymandering is legal there and the NY legislative branch is working to make it legal here too, with their supermajority. I mean, with a supermajority the Kansas republicans can make a liberal supreme court conservative. Andrew5 (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epic Games Do you think politics is about helping people, being moral, etc? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not the user in question, but I think so. The government is supposed to be decided by the people, to serve the people. Gerrymandering is when the government controls who your party leader will be, by drawing your districts in such a way. The United States Federal government has to, to protect democracy, pass a law that prevents gerrymandering, but sadly the courts might throw it out unless it becomes a constitutional amendment, which will almost certainly fail. We have to see how NY goes, what the new OH map looks like. If not for redistricting, it is likely the Republicans would have won the house, so if Dems keep it, it shows how much of a Democratic gerrymander there was. It looks like Connecticut's will be decided by a court. Oregon's gerrymander was also upheld. I don't think political tension will decrease until a boiling point, or a severe international conflict that threatens our country (like if Russia began a West-Coast invasion, teamed with China). Andrew5 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
"Gerrymandering is when the government controls who your party leader will be, by drawing your districts in such a way." No, that's wrong. It's when someone draws boundaries in such a way as to advantage one side or the other. It does not have to be done by the sitting government.
It also takes some brass neck to cite an article that goes into detail about how Republicans have stacked the deck in their favour through gerrymandering in support of the argument that 'the Republicans would have won if not for Democrat gerrymandering'. It even has a chart with the title "The House of Representative has had a Republican bias since at least 1968", and points out that R poor performance in 2020 was due to the courts preventing the GOP from gerrymandering, not because the Democrats were at it. Again - "R losses DO NOT prove D gerrymandering". If that's your claim, it's categorically, incontestably false. R losses can be explained by gerrymandering (if such happens) but can also be explained by fixing gerrymandering or any number of other causes. You need to supply better evidence for D gerrymandering than 'the Republicans didn't do as well'. You keep coming back to that bad logic over and over again. Please stop it. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 I'm actually at a loss for words for how naive you are. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
It might seem that the 2020 House elections were badly gerrymandered, as it was only 222-213 Dem despite winning the popular vote by 3.1%. But, there were very few competitive Democratic districts. The closest one was NJ-07, at 1.22%. Then it is IL-14, at 1.34%, then IA-03, at 1.39%, then VA-07, at 1.82%. So at a 2% Republican shift, it would've still been a blue house (at 218-217). Republicans would also have needed to flip MN-02 at 2.26%, and at that point, the House popular vote wouldn't have even been 0.9% in their favor. 2018 is a much better example as the House popular vote was 8.5%, but the tipping point was 4.26%. Please look at the stats more closely. Andrew5 (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to take exhortations to 'examine details more closely' seriously when they come from someone who cited a blog post that flatly contradicted the point they were trying to make. Queexchthonic murmurings 18:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Queex America's most gerrymandered district is MD-03 in Maryland, drawn by Democrats and Roscoe BartlettWikipedia was gerrymandered out of his district by Democrats in 2012? It is a fallacy to think Democrats gerrymander - they like to do it when they can do it. Andrew5 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Queex, first one didn't go through. Andrew5 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The point you seem to be missing is that the House has been gerrymandered in favour of the Republicans since 1968, individual district Dem chicanery aside. This is a readily-verifiable fact. The bias of gerrymandering, considered in total, hugely favours the Republicans, on top of in-built bias in the Senate and the electoral college. You still have spectacularly failed to provide any evidence that the Illinois redistricting is based on gerrymandering rather than anything else (including fixing pre-existing gerrymandering in the opposite direction!). I mean, I don't hold an opinion either way - it's not worth my time to get elbow deep in the granular data - but you haven't assembled even the most basic justification for your assertions. It seems to be an article of faith for you. Queexchthonic murmurings 18:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Gerrymandering fixes previous gerrymandering from the other side? WTF? That is an extremely leftist statement. Courts, and only courts, should be fixing gerrymanders (besides their own legislature realizing they're wrong and undoing it on their own accords. No, no, and strong no. Illinois is not trying to fix previous Republican gerrymandering. Also, it somewhat has to do with population distribution as well. I'll agree the Republican gerrymandering is problematic, but Democrats doing it does nothing but increase voter suppression (and yes, gerrymandering is voter suppression). Andrew5 (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
"Gerrymandering fixes previous gerrymandering from the other side?" That's not what I said. I said the redistricting could be based on a number of things, including fixing old gerrymandering, and that you haven't provided a jot of evidence in favour of one explanation over another. You still haven't. "That is an extremely leftist statement." This is just incoherent babble. Your mouth is running away with you here, making you look silly. Queexchthonic murmurings 18:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
what positive result could they have intended? When you crack a city that much, when you nearly cut off a district, when you make districts go out for 3 hours just to include enough urban areas to make the blue…that’s deliberate gerrymandering. An accidental gerrymander could be something like that of the map of California, where I don’t think they intended a blue gerrymander but they made a slight blue one anyway. A state in which republicans get 41% of the vote should not be getting only 19% of the seats. And it’s even more evident when all 3 Republican districts have leans of more then R+25, to combine the remaining rural areas. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In FPTP elections, you do not expect the split of seats to match the split of the vote, except in edge cases. In fact, if voters were distributed homogeneously, the side with the plurality of voters (not even a majority!) wins 100% of the seats. 41% -> 19% could result from gerrymandering, but that's far from the only explanation because FPTP is just plain rubbish. The changes in Illinois between old and new district boundaries only lead to an significant increase in R lean for a single district (and one D district as well!). On the basis of the evidence presented, there's no case to answer that it's got worse (again: assessing the starting point for bias requires more work than your unsupported assertions warrant). If you really wanted an upper bound on how much bias the districting has introduced, you'd need county-level data and run an empirical analysis, shuffling the assignment, to see how many of those generated districts were 'worse' or 'better' (bearing in mind that matching the state-wide vote split is not necessarily fairer, or better calibrated). Queexchthonic murmurings 19:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going to write a much lengthier response, but then the WiFi of the place I was in cut out, and all my progress was lost. All I’ll say is this - when 6+ sources, including the New York Times, call it a gerrymander, it is. While 41% of districts doesn’t mean 41% of seats, it being 19%, and the districts looking like that, is VERY suspicious. 🤔 Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you NOT understand why there's a discrepancy between Republican voters and the overred Republican congress, as well as the reality that Republicans do not benefit from higher voter turnout? WHY do Republicans have too many representatives in the House despite not benefiting from voter turnout? You just don't like the shape of a distirct when there can be multiple reasons it's shaped a certain way. Explain to me how an unusual shape is inherently bad. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
If a district is shaped unusually, it's probably a gerrymander. Take a look, for example, at how Illinois counties voted in 2020. It doesn't adjust colors for percentages but you can see by hovering over it. The 13th, which IMO is the most egregious, starts in St Clair County, which is very populus (over 250k residents) and which Biden won by around 9%. It then packs solidly Republican, but underpopulated counties that voted for Trump by nearly 40%, as well as Sangamon County, which has 200k people and which Trump won by 4.4%. I'm not sure if it includes McLean County, which Biden won by 4%, and Champaign County, which Biden won by 23%, but given the gerrymander it probably does. Essentially squeezing and connecting Democratic areas of central Illinois to make a gerrymandered district. They also gerrymandered Mary Miller and Rodney E Davis into the same district. I hope Davis wins (Miller is a Freedom Caucus member and Davis is a moderate), but given how right-wing and Trump-y the Illinois GOP is (as is like 60% of states GOPs), and the fact it's R+42 (signifying more extreme political lean), I think Miller will prevail. Also, I will admit the counties 3 hours away from Chicago did still vote for Biden, so even though it's cracking, I guess it isn't as bad. The 17th is disturbing as it connects 3 blue counties (Rock Island, Peoria, Winnebago) and connects them via safe red, but underpopulated districts, making it D+4. Also wow is the 16th weirdly shaped, cutting off others and combining Kinzinger (who to be fair is resigning as he is extremely unpopular despite being moderate), and Darin LaHood, making the 17th almost touch the 11th (which is D+10). According to 538 it is, +2 Democratic-leaning seats, -2 Republican-leaning seats, -1 highly competitive seat. That, and the old map wasn't totally innocent either. Also, it's true as well that these districts, well, are drawn to benefit Republicans but it doesn't mean gerrymandering. In 2016, Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% but Trump still became president. And while in 2020 Biden won the electoral college, it was much less then his popular vote victory. The tipping point for Trump was 1.16%, compared to 0.63% for a tie, and that's far less then Biden's 4.5% margin of victory. (Though Obama's tipping points were more then his popular vote victories). From the 2010s maps, if we look at the worst gerrymanders, we see that two were drawn by Maryland, Texas and Ohio, and the others by Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina (since forcibly changed, hence why NC-02 and NC-06 flipped), and Michigan. Also, if you claim that districts were "Republican gerrymanders since 1968", how come, in 1968, Democrats won a 49-seat edge despite winning the popular vote by 1.7%Wikipedia? Also, may I remind you that the reason Arkansas is 4-0 Republican is due to a Democratic Dummymander, which Republicans also did in states like New Jersey. However, I will say this. The Republicans might be gerrymandering and I strongly oppose that, but in no way should Democrats be doing the same. Rather, the courts should be overturning all gerrymanders, and forcing independent commissions to draw maps in a totally non partisian way. Sadly, as the Supreme Court flipped red a few years ago, I think it will be quite a long time until it flips blue. Andrew5 (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, this discussion is 25kb on itself before this comment. Wow. Andrew5 (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Have a look at my politico link up top this thread. Then you can see gerrymander. Epic Games (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Use 538 instead. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok, now that I'm using the Politico link I'm getting actual stats. IL-13, for example, went from Trump +3.7 to Biden +11.3. IL-17, the sole competitve district, went from Trump +1.7 to Biden +7.8. IL-14 went fro Biden +2.4 to Biden +11.7. Sure, it might look like Democrats lost a lot of ground, but many of their districts are still safe, IL-06 is the only barely competitive one to do so, going from Biden +12.9 to Biden +11.1, and IL-03 meanwhile went from Biden +12.8 to Biden +42.2. Politico even says, Democrats in Illinois enacted an aggressive gerrymander that could deliver them 14 of the state’s 17 districts. and Who benefits: Big boost for Dems, so it's clearly a gerrymander. The only good news for the GOP is that the Illinois governor broke his promise to end gerrymandering but even then, in a state that's Biden +17 I don't see the prospect of a Democratic governor getting ousted as unlike Ohio, they're isn't bipartisanship against gerrymandering (also Ohio was only Trump +8. Far more Democrats in Ohio then Republicans in Illinois, percentage wise). Andrew5 (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That map is painful to look at. The fact that most American states don't have independent redistricting committees shows America's actual dedication to the spirit of democracy. This is why I roll my eyes when I hear ideas that the world should copy the example of American democracy or that it is the world's bastion of democracy. Germandering is an obscene practice whether it is done by Republicans or Democrats. Zheesh. ShabiDOO 01:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Good post! That's what I was trying to say for the past literal day. Andrew5 (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Gotta *love* the parochial nature of the debate - has any of you thought of looking at how *other* countries sort this issue out? For there is a solution to this; independent, expert, non-political body(ies) which oversee all electoral boundaries etc and they are as immune as possible from political interference. Now, there's many a thing wrong with the UK political setup but at least we have our 'Boundary Commission' which (traditionally at least) re-jigged all the seats etc on a regular basis to keep them roughly equal in size and have zero motivation for gerrymandering (though this system isn't perfect either...)

It has to be this because neither side (for good reasons or not) does not trust the other to 'do it right' in the American issue. Courts are presided by judges who are either elected or political appointees, similar can be said for Govt. Therefore, neither will be trusted as 'honest brokers'. Democracy dies when significant % of the participants dispute the 'ground rules' of the game, and the whole above argument is one of the reasons 'American Democracy™' is so damn sick.

As Jefferson/Stalin/Helen Morgendorffer once said; bureaucracy is the price to pay for impartiality. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice Non-partisan. The districting bodies would be political by definition. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Eh, a Britishism. When we say it's 'non-political' we mean basically, it's out of the hands of politicians. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The issue is that we don't know how "independent" these redistricting committees are. And if the two sides can't agree, courts have to rule on it. For instance, a redistricting comittee did this in Arizona. To be fair, O'Halleran was in an R+6 district and would have likely been ousted anyway, but now it's R+15 and he stands no chance. Meanwhile, Kirtpatrick, who before enjoyed a D+2 district, now has an R+7 and has a good chance of being ousted, making it 6-3 Republican. Meanwhile, the New Jersey Supreme Court gerrymandered it for the Democrats here (where it is currently in litigation). Andy Kim, a Democrat who was previously in a R+5 district and had a good chance of being ousted, is now safe in a D+9 district. Sherill went from D+1 to D+11 and Gotthimier went from even to D+7. Essentially, a map that could've been anywhere from 7-5 to 10-2 for the Democrats is now only between 9-3 and 10-2. (Though Malinowski did move from D+4 to R+3.) So even these comissions are't totally innocent. It's scary, honestly. Andrew5 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I want to know why LeftyGreenMario believes Ds gerrymandering is OK and not Rs. And Bongolian does a "not as bad as " fallacy when it comes to different parties way of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is dad whenever the Ds do it or the Rs.Epic Games (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario @Bongolian Andrew5 (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
i dont know why some users insist on making debates personal while adding nothing. TrollAMassiveGay (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Because otherwise it gets hard to ding people out for supporting the Illinois map. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
you are dinging them in aid of troll's comment that added nothing but a personal condemnationAMassiveGay (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Epic Games is not trolling. He is saying a statement you don't agree with but I do. Illinois's map is disturbing. You can't crack this much and make it look this weird to cram Republicans in 3 districts and it to still be a fair map. It is not a fair map. It does not correctly represent Illinois. Thus it is a gerrymander. I pointed it out in a previous bar post, but the leftist bias of RW disagreed. Andrew5 (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
bullshit. ive given no opinion on the subject. epic IS a troll. their statement adds nothing but an attempt to personally shame those who disagreed with him here and elsewhere. this is not good faith or anything else but trolling. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Illinois gerrymander is egregious. The 17th almost blocks off the 16th to include Rockford, and the 13th almost blocks off the 15th to include Peoria. They didn't give a shit about incumbents, Republicans were put together and even Democrats (Republicans in the 15th and 16th, Democrats in the 6th). They clearly only did this to gain more seats. There is no way this is a fair map. That's what I want to point out. Illinois has clearly gerrymandered their map. The fact that the median district went from D+0.3 to R+1.6 doesn't mean anything in a solid blue state. Change from old map: +2 Democratic-leaning seats, -2 Republican-leaning seats, -1 highly competitive seat. And the original map wasn't totally innocent either, like the original 6th district. The original map was pretty fair, but the new map? Absolutely not. We nee to be representing the American population fairly, not promoting the Illinois Democrats. And this isn't the only blue gerrymandered map. Look at Nevada, Oregon and New Mexico. Republicans also gerrymandered in North Carolina, Georgia, and Utah, and those are the most egregious finalized ones. (Though NC, GA and NV are being sued). So as such, it's appropriate to realize what's going on in a neutral idea, which Epic Games has done. Andrew5 (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Define The Issue[edit]

It's pretty straightforward, the Ohio case illustrates it. The question is, what is the goal of drawing legislative districts. Is it to create competitive districts? Then your goal is to make every district either +1 GOP or +1 Dem. Is it to create as many minority majority districts as possible? Then your goal is to include identifying minorities in a +15 district. Is it to intentionally dilute the power of one party? Then you pack as many of that party into as few districts as possible, or crack them into different districts so they only make up 40% to 30%.

The fact of the matter is, right now there are too many factors to include drawing a district, and too many politicians involved in drawing them. It used to be you could draw a district generally, based only on the number of people and maybe how they voted in previous elections. With the information available now, you can draw a district with precision, using the streets, to carve out districts. And although both parties are historically guilty of creating gerrymanders that are unseemly, the GOP has made it part of its electoral mission to strengthen it's position with no regard for any other factors. Until there are Federal guidelines, or voter based initiatives, defining the goals of making districts, then making these sort of generalizations doesn't really mean anything. What should be the goal of drawing a district?— Unsigned, by: RipCityLiberal / talk / contribs

To fairly represent the population in a given area. For instance, take Bernalillo County, New MexicoWikipedia, where Albuqerque is. Ideally that should be one district, in which it went to Biden by 25.5%. Then it should be divided into the 2nd and 3rd from their. But they cracked Albuqerque to make a district it D+11, D+4 and D+5, when it used to be D+18, D+14 and R+14. Essentially they gerrymandered Harrell out of her district, although the 2nd might stay red and the 3rd might flip if it's a strong redwave. Andrew5 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Not that I'm too opposed, as Harrell is one of those far right Republicans like Harris was (further up in the Saloon). Andrew5 (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, but define 'represent fairly'. If you want the state to return representatives in proportion to the voters, then the first thing you need to do is get rid of FPTP entirely; as that electoral method simply does not and cannot deliver that kind of fairness except by accident. There simply will not exist a districting approach that will deliver that kind of airness under FPTP, unless you specifically gerrymander in order to obtain it (based on predictions ahead of time that turn out to be correct). You can argue that you want to mildly exaggerate a majority in order to help avoid legislative deadlock (which FPTP can do, sometimes) but then you need to speficy by how much. If you had a theoretical state with a nominal 50/50 split, but some areas were solid purple and rather more were light green, then trying to find any districting method that doesn't give an unwarranted inbuilt advantage to green will be challenging. And even if you find one, you're likely to be accused of gerrymandering. Really, the only valid method if you're stuck with FPTP is to split along on geographical lines, while attempting to keep population constant. You can and probably should respect things such as a chain of towns along a road or river, sandwiched between rural areas, which might end up with an odd shape anyway, but it's the probably best you could manage. Numerical analysis of granular data might be the backbone of gerrymandering attempts in the US, but you could easily get similarly biased-seeming numbers just from a perfectly respectable method. Numerical analysis of district split alone is simply not enough to establish that gerrymandering has taken place. Even when you're talking about an urban centre being cracked in such a way, on what basis can you say that it's more appropriate for potentially disparate central areas to be lumped together rather than allowed to encompass outlying areas that might, in fact, have more in common with their neighbouring urban slice? You can't; not without recourse to facts outside the numerical analysis. In fact, considering the problem only through the lens of R v D is inherently flawed; there is more than one axis to politics and optimising for one risks suppressing others. Which is more important: maintaining a naïve association between the vote share and the seat share or consolidating an urban and adjacent suburban area that have a shared cultural identity? They can elect someone to represent them that comes from that community, instead of being split between two districts and not having a voice. The point is that it's a hard problem, not least because attempts to gerrymander come hand in hand with pretexts to try and justify them that require considerable effort to check for validity. Simplifying it to just D+X and R+Y and cutting up rough based only on how those numbers change funamentally misunderstand the problem. Queexchthonic murmurings 01:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The thing is though, is that having a fair urban-rural split also has a general acquaintance in the numbers. Andrew5 (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Time to hope and pray that this white supremacist extremist does not get parole[edit]


Notorious murderer and right wing extremist Anders Behring Breivik is seeking parole from his prison sentence after carrying out a terrorist attack that killed numerous people.

How many people are in prisons for longer sentence but for crimes nowhere near as bad as this nut?

This dude should rot in prison and should have never got the chance of parole. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Idk, Sirhan Sirhan got released after spending over 50 years in prison, and given he's 77 I think he's ok to return to society. Andrew5 (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Governor Newsom refused to release Sirhan. His ride on the state of California isn't over.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Why was he paroled? Epic Games (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
why is anyone paroled? because they have served their time and/or no longer a threat to society AMassiveGay (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
as for brevik, norway's prison system actually rehabilitates people - i have more faith they will make the right call here than i have with the american concept of justice. at any rate it doesnt look like bervik will get parole this time. probably a mistake to be nazi saluting at your parole hearing. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
also, norway does not have a whole life tariff (30 years is the maximum amount time in prison it seems) so presumably brevik will walk free one day. i doubt it will be now though AMassiveGay (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
brevik's sentence was 21 years btwAMassiveGay (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
No - his sentence was preventative detention - forvaring - a nominal 21 year sentence that can be extended 5 years at a time indefinitely. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
True, but hes got another 10 years before that kicks in AMassiveGay (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Had an enactment of true justice been ensured, an execution by electric chair (a public hanging following several dozen hundred lashes would be preferable) would be the given sentence for despicable mass murderers like Breivik. It constitutes sheer cruelty when the worthless hides of heartless murderers are fed and sheltered through taxpayer dollars at the expense of the family members of the very people they slaughtered in cold blood. Those worthless wastes of space deserve to die in the very pain and suffering they inflicted on others. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 00:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
and thats why the murder rate in the us is so low. oh wait...AMassiveGay (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Execution by means of electric chair or hanging is not currently a continued practice in the United States. And pertaining to the U.S., it is deeply of unfortunate circumstances to observe the coddling of despicable criminals to the extent that the greatest punishment they can possibly receive is a "humane" lethal injection preceded by twenty years of death row in which they are fed and housed at the expense of the family members of the very people they murdered. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
jesus fuck, you are a disgusting human being. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
It only indirectly tells more of your own cynical nature to assail me for holding the belief that families of murder victims should not be coerced into subsidizing the lives of the very scums who perpetuated their torment and grief. And it is clear by your own words you advocate on behalf of criminals over victims. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 19:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
you are an imbecile who doesnt understand what im advocating as well as a disgusting human being. such a winning combination of dogshit. you must be proud AMassiveGay (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
if Newsom is going to deny parole, then Sirhan can’t be freed probably until 2027 (as he WILL win the 2022 election). And the Californians don’t either, as they confirmed him by 24% in the recall. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Sirhan should never have been considered for parole. He was sentenced to death; the entire argument around opposing the death penalty is that there is an alternative of life in prison, but that argument falls flat when people who otherwise should've been executed get paroled. Corn (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
21 murderers were released from prison. The only reason Sirhan wasn't was because of who he murdered, otherwise he would have long been released. Andrew5 (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Not the only reason Andrew. Another one is Sirhan isn't a guest of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 28% of lifers expect to die in prison. Anyone who murders a presidential candidate can expect as much. Did you ever hear the story about a young murderer who at his sentencing told the judge "I can't do that much time judge!" And the judge replied, "that's alright son. Do as much as you can." Ariel31459 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
honestly, american justice is a disgrace AMassiveGay (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
It is. For various reasons. Mostly, I think, for the over emphasis on punishment. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
It's due to it's bias over richer people over poor. Hence why, Trump isn't going to get arrested but would had he not been as influencial. Andrew5 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2 is a big day[edit]

North Carolina gerrymandering case to be heard February 2. Andrew5 (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I remember this experiment me and my class did in 9th grade health class[edit]

Paraponera clavata ant with Cordyceps fungus

Back when I was in 9th grade, we did an experiment simulating the spread of disease; in this case, Syphilis, in which one person had a sore caused by the disease. Sores caused by Syphilis infection can spread to other people without sexual contact.

One person was given a piece of paper that said Syphilis infection. We all had to shake hands with one and other. One person was given a piece of paper saying you had rubber gloves (I got that piece of paper). So everyone else got "infected". Only if I could see now back then and know how accurate that was. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wait... does this mean that social distancing is like abstinence-only sex-ed, then? *smirks* KarmaPolice (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Science education is like a prophylaxis against disease spread, reducing transmission (vaccines, masks). Disinformation enables a disease to take over the host's brain and causing it to do the disease's bidding. This is like like the cordyceps fungus controlling the ant's brain to do things that it ordinarily wouldn't like climbing high in foliage and biting down tightly on a twig before dying, thus enabling the fungus to spread its spores further. Bongolian (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I prefer to think of science as a condom; it protects you from misinformation in the same way that a condom protects you from STDs. LongStylus (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, it depends. In fact, I'd rate much higher value folks learning stuff like the scientific method, logic and so on than simple 'facts' to regurtitate later. The latter may prove useless and/or obsolete in later life [in fact, much will esp if human lifespans continue to rise], while the former allows you to build on your own knowledge-base much more reliably - to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, it allows you to become much more discriminating on what furniture you put in your 'brain-attic'.
However, too much scientific teaching [in fact, teaching in general] is still rooted in the 'must know facts!' era. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Teaching the facts is pretty much the only way teachers can do their job. Was Christopher Columbus a Hero or a Demon? There's a huge amount of nuance regarding the man, especially considering that much of his worst crimes such as extensive slavery and genocide mainly exist in court records or from his enemies, i.e., someone was making up claims in order to get more money out of him. On the flip side, he wasn't exactly working towards the Natives' benefit in the slightest, and he definitely engaged in slavery to some extant. To avoid getting yelled at, all the teachers can do is simply teach unfalsifiable statements such as "Columbus set sail on August 3rd 1492 on 3 ships". Corn (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Teaching facts is core to all education. Now applying facts to societal issues is completely different issue. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Why? We have Wikipedia, Google etc for that [I'm talking basics here, not advanced stuff]. Facts does not equal thought, merely lessons in memory and skill in regurgitation. Someone dig out the bit from Fahrenheit 451 going on about 'stuffing kids with facty facts until they puke. Fill their heads with things like State Capitols and how much corn Iowa produces in a year to the point they are sick of 'thinking'.' What the hell is the worth knowing about say, a scientific theory if you have zero idea on the reasoning, deductions experiments etc which arrived at said theory? For if you don't get that, you lack the ability to sniff out the truth from the lies. I am quite sure that a lot of the problems we are having today is because 'education' is still stuck in the 'here's more facts!' conveyor-belt era designed to turn out clerks, machine-workers and shop assistants cheaply [only the cream being permitted the 'independent thinking' modules]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source. Also, searches aren't always reliable, especially in the world of mathematics. Andrew5 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Learning maths is good. In fact, critical. Need it to understand probability, statistics and so on. Plus, learning maths is a good way of teaching logic without telling people they are. Logic vital for rational thought and reasoning. I was talking more of the 'have more facts!' method of teaching. What's the point learning say, the Theory of Gravity if you have no idea how that theory was forumlated in the first place or it's logical underpinnings. Otherwise, we start going towards a 'Body Ritual among the Nacirema' stage which unfortuantely I often see out in RL. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Took a closer look at CA's new map[edit]

538 says -1 Democratic-leaning seat but I found this incorrect, mainly because of what the original map was. Velado, for example, is in a D+10 district but his current one was D+9. Garcia is in a D+8 district but was originally still in a D+5 district. That being said, Steele did move from R+2 to D+5, but Kim moved from D+6 to R+4. They also combined incumbents in the 9th and 42nd district, between 2 Democrats. Analyze as you wish. Andrew5 (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Kentucky maps published....and sued[edit]

[2] Credit to the Republicans, though, for leaving KY-03 blue. They did make KY-05 out of reach as Barr nearly lost in 2018, and the Dems argue KY-01 is a gerrymander. Andrew5 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


Not really interested in a discussion about whether or not it actually get reformed or removed(I believe it should be removed but settle for reform especially regarding things like the debt ceiling, and killing legislation). The discussion I'm more interested in is its merits. Obviously as a tool, it has been exploited by both parties, but only one party is currently interested in creating legislation. And the argument that bipartisanship creates better legislation is false on its face, considering that the most transformational legislation past two decades came from united opposition from the party out of party.

Then does the long term value a more responsive legislature, outweigh the almost certain short term pain felt by GOP using legislation to punish people when they return to power?

-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If it's removed, I suspect if one party can push through legislation, when the other party gains a trifecta, they will spend half the time undoing the laws. Essentially nothing gets done this way. I think cloture, however, should be reduced to 55 votes. This would matter in a situation like the 113th CongressWikipedia. Andrew5 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That's a silly argument. If congress can't get anything done because of the filibuster, a lot of authority is vested in things like executive orders or court rulings. You just have the same problem, but it's just reworded as (for example)"President from party a undoes all the executive orders coming from the his predecessor across the aisle."-Flandres (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
It's hard for a country to fund a generous social safety net without its businesses prospering. Businesses like stability for planning and investment purposes rather than wild and unpredictable swings in public policy. So the filibuster is a good thing. It also forces some degree of bipartisanship. Afernand71 (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
In theory, yes. In reality, it lets bad-faith assholes break the system and blame the other party, which their idiot supporters eat up. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:AE (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Executive orders are being abused, and should be scaled back significantly. If you do that the filibuster is ok, if our parties can get along. Andrew5 (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree. But their overuse is a *symptom* of the critical weaknesses in the electoral system; to whit a) gerrymandering in the House b) the 'minority tyranny' of the Senate, c) the partisanship/politising of 'voting rights' and d) no term limits for the Supreme Court. For a president - good, bad or variable - a huge amount of the time they can only 'get stuff done' by resorting to executive orders. However, it would appear that for sheer numbers per term, the number range has remained within a rough 'band' since Eisenhower. And go and listen to Carter's 'Malaise' speech - he complained about 'special interests' and 'minority views' stubbornly stalling developments 'to the last breath'. And Reagan complained that he didn't have a line-item veto. Truth is, there was no 'polite, consensus-building' era of American politics, that's just a civil myth peddled by... well everyone. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced by the argument that the filibuster ensures stability. Undoing regulations back and forth may appear for a few cycles, but then the purpose would be making the changes so popular, that removing them would be political suicide. Right now Americans send representatives to Congress, essentially to do nothing. Yes there are changes made around the edges, and yes Congressional hearings can drive discussion. However most legislation fails, and Executive branches make fiats. Roberts brought this up in recent discussions about the OSHA vaccination rules. In the macro, his argument that OSHA doesn't have the right to make rules is wrong, considering the agency was explicitly created to make laws that protect employees in the workplace. But in the micro, his point is critical considering those in the Executive branch agencies aren't elected, and for many of the rule makers, aren't even approved by Congress. I would argue that the objectivity has value, but currently Congress is not responsive to needs, nor checking the Executive branch, and the Filibuster is the reason for most of that.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
There are several other democratic nations with effective two party rule which don't have filibusters (of the sort the US senate has) and there is no such political instability. Canada and the United Kingdom have multiple parties but for the most part, majority governments alternate between the two major parties. They may undo one another's legislation to a limited extent on a few policies/issues, but there is a clear trajectory towards more progressive legislation (far ahead on most fronts than in the US). The yo-yo effect is actually quite mild. Considering the difference between the Republicans and Democrats is rather small, such yo-yoing likely wouldn't be as extreme. The US senate filibuster rule, is dysfunctional to say the least. THough, many aspects of America's political system is dysfunctional, unfortunately. ShabiDOO 19:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Dysfunction is the inevitable result of America's political system, really. When the wealthy are the ones in charge but society needs reforms that inconvenience them to move forward, nothing gets done and problems are left to fester. The filibuster is merely a single manifestation of that.-Flandres (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Filibuster is not necessary in the UK as the parties get along. When Texas abolished the filibuster, they used it to then pass egregious racial gerrymanders, ban abortion, and arrest their political opponents. Essentially they stripped all the power from the democrats. The filibuster is needed to ensure bipartisanship, otherwise god knows what the Democrats could do on the National level. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 The last piece of serious legislation to pass was by super-majority, with all GOP voting against. If anything the filibuster makes bipartisanship harder. Right now there 3-5 GOP votes for transformational legislative goals; Restrictions on guns, voting rights, cash payments to parents, even abortion legislation. But there are 45 GOP 'No' votes for literally everything. And no matter how many times Dems reach out to Murkowski or Toomey or Romney or Collins, and allow them to craft legislation, it will still die. These 4 plus Sinema and Manchin could be the most powerful people in DC. But now it literally doesn't matter because one person can say no and it dies.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, given that the GOP is an authoritarian movement which openly admires outfits like Fidesz in Hungary, I don't think bipartisanship is even desirable. This tendency to fetishize bipartisanship for its own sake is really stupid.-Flandres (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Not true. The infostructure bill passes 69-31 in the Senate. Had it been only 55 votes the 1/6 comission would've went thru.Andrew5 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
1 bill this year. One bill in 20 years.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Andrew, you're talking BS. In the UK the parties don't 'get along'. The Conservatives have so seriously shafted possible 'dancing partners' [LDs, DUP etc] nobody would do it again in a generation, while a LD/Labour hook-up is difficult because of key 'ideological bones of contention' [though Starmer is doing his best to remove all ideology from Labour], and all the parties are aware of voters being 'stolen' from each other, a predictable and sane result to when you live in a FPTP system.

Even more importantly, the UK setup is basically an 'elective dictatorship' - voting system means the winning party is from a plurality, not majority, individual MPs are basically spineless voting machines and as long as the Prime Minister controls said MPs and they have 50% +1 of them in the Commons, they can do what the hell they like without the Opposition able to do a damn thing to stop them. One of the more attractive things about the American system is that your politicians are more responsive to 'local needs' [as in, more than zero].

But interestingly, you show the truth in the matter, though by accident. To whit:

'The filibuster is needed to ensure bipartisanship, otherwise god knows what the Democrats could do on the National level'

The exact same thing is said by Democrats about the Republicans, exp now. The point being; just like with the British no-friends Conservatives, you cannot have 'bipartisanship' if both sides are unable to trust each other one iota. The purging of the sane Republicans from the Trump party means the few politicians who are still willing to entertain 'working across the aisle' are pretty scared of being destroyed for 'being traitors'.

About yo-yoing legislation; generally speaking legislation is harder to repeal than enact. Not only does the status quo have powers of survival all by itself, but legislators are usually quite canny in writing laws so they're difficult to remove - such as tying them to other laws and so on. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove the filibuster. Stupid and unnecessary. Epic Games (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with all the sentiments expressed here completely. Wikipedia should remove its 65% consensus requirements for Adminship and allow direct election of Admins with a 51% simple majority. Likewise Rationalwiki should reform its banning procedures and allow a 51% simple majority to permaban someone. After all, who needs a fucking consensus to govern a country. Let's practice what we preach in our everyday lives. Dutchbag (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Heh, careful here with the irony. I can't think of another democracy with the equivalent of the filibuster, nor can I think of a US state that uses it in its government either. (Just looking around, it looks like one of the few countries that has something similar is South Korea, but that's probably it.) Such, particularly the recent abuse of it, is pretty much a quirk of the US Senate. Historically, governments that over-relied on super-majority requirements have, er, done badly, in that it tends to lead to do-nothing governments held up by the minority, like what we see now. (Apparently according to the linked Economist article, there's a phrase called "polish parliamentWikipedia", referring to an 18th century parliament in Poland that required unanimous consensus, that means a pointless gathering where nothing gets done.) Most places reserve super-majority requirements for big decisions like changing the constitution, not routine parliamentary actions. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with removing the 2/3 requirement. Banning someone is something that should require a very wide consensus, as a real user is being affected, potentially permanently. However, @Dutchbag, if you really want to make a change, take it to RationalWiki talk:Community standards and start a discussion. With that being said, 2/3 might be high and I wouldn't be opposed to a 3/5 (60%) majority requirement, like the filibuster is. As for the Wikipedia stuff, that needs to be taken to WT:RFAWikipedia. Also, RFB's on Wikipedia require 85% support, and an adminship request needs 75% for it not to be decided by bureaucrats. Andrew5 (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Nah, if you wanna keep those racist filibusters in Wikipedia and Rationalwiki, go ahead and keep them. Count me out as a crusader against them. Dutchbag (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no comparison between any rules created by websites and an archaic function designed to allow one persons objection to effectively neuter an entire branch of government.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that Dutchbag’s comparison even fails on its own merits:
Banning requiring more than a simple majority on RW and That Other Wiki’s similar rules for adminships are exactly the kind of “non routine” events that many political systems require supermajorities or other, similar hurdles, to pass.
To put the current (ab)use of the filibuster in the US senate into a “wiki scenario” would be something like if RW or WP had the option for a small group of users to demand that edits be approved by supermajorities or be instantly reverted. How well, do you think any of these wikis would function under such rules? ScepticWombat (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, on RW, policy votes only require 50+1%, same for sanctions that aren't bans (topic ban, civility parole, sysoprevoke, etc). And remember, Wikipedia isn't a vote, hence the discretion zone for examination of consensus. Andrew5 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The Slow Death Of Boris Johnson...[edit]

So, something not American for once; anyone wanna bet when Johnson's stint as Prime Minister shall end? And for extra marks; how said end shall happen? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been looking at the same stuff. A Tory MP defects to Labour, and grandee David Davis now calling for Johnson to go - they will almost certainly reach the required 54 letters for a no-confidence vote within the next day or so. Still seeing a a lot of loyalty for Johnson, but Tory MPs are brutal and unforgiving with their leaders, so if said vote does happen I really don't know what would happen--RWRW (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
On a side note, how do you think Rishi Sunak would vote in the secret confidence vote ballet? -- RWRW (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The slow death cannot be literal enough. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
personally, i'd be more concerned with who might take his place. someone competent. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
My 'points of thought' [in no particular order]...
P1 - Will the Tories desire to keep Bozo around for a bit longer, simply to soak up the blame for May elections etc *then* toss him over the side, make a 'fresh start', call a snap and queak through?
P2 - Will Labour/LDs desire to keep Bozo in-post hoping he'll utterly sunder HMS Tory to the point it take a generation to salvage?
P3 - Is there actually any candidate which both wings of the party [the 'Populists' and the 'Thatcherites'] can rally around?
P4 - Is there any way *to* marry those two wings, remembering it's basically impossible to have both 'levelling up' and 'Singapore-on-Thames'?
P5 - We've had the 'Howe moment' with Davis. Now we need the Heseltine to wield the blade. Johnson has done pretty well of playing the Machivellian leader by surrounding themselves with tainted mediocrities which are not that much of a threat.
P6 - Is there any possible alternative to Bozo which on the board *looks better* to the limited electorate of Tory MPs and Tory members - remembering that there's been quite the purge of the more 'Sane Tories' from their ranks?
P7 - Can the LDs actually really get some traction going? It's possible Labour gets back the Rustbelt but the Tories survive because the LDs failed to capture enough Shires and well-heeled 'burbs.KarmaPolice (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that he might jump before being pushed. Claim success on the Covid vaccine, EU agreement and blue (or possibly black) passports. Declare victory and leave to spend more time with his wife and counting his children. He's got no future as PM so it would be a good move for him.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I half-suspected he was planning to do that [to take a bow while the cheers outnumber jeers], but Covid did not obey his timetable. Basically, the pandemic went on just too long; he'd be able to claim victory and retire before the country realised his serial kite-flying nature.
This would have suited the Party too; to have then a 'victory snap' and hope for a record-breaking 5th election win on the trot on the back of it. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
My comment on the Lib Dems - Nichola Sturgeon has more visibility than (no idea who is in charge of them - almost invisible in the media).
Can I top the Oliver Cromwell quote with Thomas Rainsborough? Anna Livia (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Sturgeon is not that relevant in this matrix. The SNP's 'max gain' from the Tories is 6. Much of the Tory rise in '15 was not down to a strong Lab > Con swing, but a death of LD votes cause most of their old seats to fall into Cameron's lap [and stay there since]. This still shows in 'LD target' lists; the top 100, some 80% are Tory and of the 15 which only need a 5% LD swing [or less] 13 are Tory.
Which leads me to my 'P7': I don't think Labour can climb this hill alone, they *need* the LDs to squeeze Tories too in places like Wimbeldon and Eastbourne. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
There's also the thought that Tories want to keep him around to blame for other looming problems. But this quote from a former Tory MP directed at BoJo was quite savage considering that BoJo thinks he's Churchill II, it was a repetition of Leo Amery to Neville Chamberlain, "You have sat there too long for all the good you have done. In the name of God, go."[3] Bongolian (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
That was my 'P1'. However, if they're keeping him for that purpose, they cannot wait too long - for if they do, Bozo might contaminate the whole Party to the point a crushing defeat is unavoidable. Plus, if the 57 letters go in and he wins, he's safe for a year - again, that might be too late. Part of me wonders if there's seniors stopping this threshold being met not by arguing 'Johnson is the best', more 'I know, but not just yet'. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
they are waiting for the gray report it seems. could see a challenge in a couple of weeks. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
My point was that Sturgeon is more visible than the LibDem leader, rather than her relative relevance. Anna Livia (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
shes the first minister of scotland. of course she is more visible. doesnt really tell us anything. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
user:Anna Livia, prior to 2015, the LibDems were the third largest party in the house, which gave them visibility in the media and question rights at PMQs. Since then however, they've been the fourth largest, and "third party rights" have been taken by the SNP. Duncan from Teflpedia (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
that said, the snp will only contest seats in scotland. lid dems will contest seats throughout the british mainland. covid has made all opposition parties largely silent throughout most of the pandemic and now we appear to be coming out of that its only really the main opposition thats going to be heard from for a little while yet. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
and sturgeon doesnt sit in westminister AMassiveGay (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I said Sturgeon isn't that relevant in this case; while they'd have their part to play eating the 6 Tory Scottish seats, that's it. Sturgeon has also had the constant public attention during the pandemic as the leader for the 'Scottish response'. While I would be interested to hear a Scottish view on this, but but I get the feeling she's helped in building Scottish self-confidence that they can cope with such emergencies.

Anyway, the 'Grey report' does not mean much at all. She has no legal powers to get evidence, she will not actually produce 'conclusions' as we would call it and her report shall be going onto the desk of her boss [Boris Johnson]. Who will then rule on whether the person named within it [Boris Johnson] should be found guilty or not. Or whether the report is published and if so, how redacted it is.

You think that is going to not go in his favour? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly feel a whole lot safer in Scotland than in England. Zheesh, a friend took the train to Manchester and at the Scottish border, apparently (and mostly English passengers) took their masks off (this was in November) as beyond all comprehension by then England had removed almost all COVID restrictions. Will be wearing masks for the foreseeable future in public spaces (including in restaurants or bars when you are not seated) and definitely on local transportation and there is very little resistance to this entirely sensible policy. I swear to god some brain pandemic has accompanied this actual pandemic in some nations. Just comparing the sensible policies in Scotland with the flabberghastery of England is enough to push up Scottish independence support by a few percentage points. Also, calling the Scottish leader of the conservatives a "light weight" in Cabinet was a great way to push up support as well. Basically, if you came up with a list of things the Conservatives could do to make England seem like a nation you did not want to be a part of a Union with, and make post-Brexit UK more unpalatable to many Scots, the conservative government has done it. ShabiDOO 18:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
(EC) @karma - what is it you think the Gray Report is? it doesnt matter what johnson thinks of it, or what action he decides to take over its findings - it will be published for everyone to make up their own minds. if its damning, it will be all the excuse needed for the tories to go for a confidence vote, and there is no telling how will go. that the report has no legal weight is immaterial. not producing any conclusions is immaterial. why do think what will redacted is important? are office parties a matter of state secrecy? if you are suggesting a cover up, what basis is there for that?
it might, for all we know, show boris did nothing wrong, but it might, for all we know be damning. we have no way of knowing at this stage. if it is damning, johnson is a goner. the tories be will crucified at the next election he isnt. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@shabidoo - looking at infection rates, scotland doesnt look like it is doing significantly any better than the england. particularly when you take into account population density. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
That is a single snapshot, shortly after a new variant spread coinciding with holidays. Over all figures show, England has had 50% more cases per capita and 30% more deaths per capita. ShabiDOO 21:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────At this point it's not even about the parties any more. That story is basically "politican is hypocritical", which isn't a true shocker. By now it's about just how poorly Johnson's been handling everything. This story should've been over and done with days after it came out, but he's been consistently unable to get on top of it and close it down, which doesn't exactly show a strong leader. His "nobody told me it was against the rules" comment is a great example; he was responding to a claim from Cummings, who said "I told Johnson to his face that there was a planned gathering that broke the rules", and what Johnson MEANT was "nobody said that to me", but the pisspoor wording he chose made it seem like he didn't know what the rules he himself set were. A true, amateur mistake that the leader of ANY party should be long past by now. I remember reading something during the Owen Paterson affair where some Tory MP (can't remember if it was on or off the record) said that their main complaint with all the controversy there was that it was 100% self-inflicted, and I think that's where all the discontent comes from here. Nobody in the conservative party gives a shit whether or not Johnson broke the covid rules, they're just all pissed off that he hasn't been able to get control of the story. X Stickman (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The next British parliment election is in May 2024. Will he be ousted before that? Andrew5 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Quite ironically, the Wakeford defection seems to have dissuaded some MPs from submitting letters (and there's speculation that a couple of letters have even been withdrawn as a result) - nothing sours the mood like a defection, particularly when the MP won't even call a by-election. Not to mention the fact that since Wakeford is no longer a Conservative MP, he can no longer submit his own letter and actually make a difference. My interpretation is Wakeford, who has a paper-thin majority, realises that whatever happens his seat is most likely going red at the next election and fancies sticking around in parliament a bit longer. So the Sue Grey report is going to be what makes or breaks this.
@Andrew5 the next week will crucial. Hypothetically if Johnson was to be exonerated, and he sacks a few people (like Martin Reynolds), promises to change Downing Street culture etc etc I think he could easily bounce back (he already has a strategy [4]). But if the report says he broke the Covid rules and mislead the HoC, then I don't see how he pulls through. --RWRW (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, forgive me for being cynical about the 'Grey report'. I've explained why I don't think she'll find the smoking gun, and without it Johnson shall slither out of it - neither he, nor the majority of Tory MPs have a shred of shame anymore. The only question is whether it cuts any deeper into the Big Public's mind - for it is only when Johnson obviously stops being an electoral asset shall he be thrown overboard - after all, he's made the Tories in his own image, and Johnson has no loyalty to anyone/thing save self.
Wakeford's defection has had zero effect on the letters; his one has been removed, but it also means the threshold went down by one. And accepting him Starmer might be playing the 'keep Johnson upright' game - allowing him to rally a bit, so he remains leader and destroys the Tories even more. However, Wakeford's re-selection by the local LP is not a shoo-in either...
The question is; whether Johnson can 'pull it back'. I am not really sure he *can*. 'Partygate' might have worn off his teflon coating, while his 'grand plan' seems to double-down on pandering to the stupid right wing; more flags, xenophobia, Othering etc while rubbing salt into the old Brexit wound. This shall satisfy some of the old 'Lexiteers' and the balloon-faced MPs it'll offend the well-heeled 'Cameronian' suburb/exurb seats [to the benefit of the LDs].
Worse, Johnson will have to deal with the resurgent Thatcherites core; the ones who are sounding increasingly close to the 'there's no money left'/'paying down the debt'/'austerity is the only option' broken record from 2010. Worse, several of them are in the cabinet; Raab, Sunak, Javid and Rees-Mogg at the least. If Johnson tilts to satisfy them, his 'Red Wall' polling will crash and he's electoral toast. If he tilts to oppose them, the old ERG shall depose him. Normally, a 'middle course' could be charted but there's not many MPs in that category left to build an alliance on. Nor did Johnson really have one himself.
Lastly, I think Johnson is starting to become actively hated by more % of the electorate than which is healthy/expected. Hate - as Machiavelli said - is an emotion a leader should avoid creating, for it can motivate people to not only not vote for you, but to actually throw their lot in with their opponent to get rid of you. If serious enough, it may be *any* opponent. Which forks back to Starmer; he might wish Johnson to keep the 'fear, anger, corruption & lies' show going for another 6-12 months so loads of folks get so pissed they'll simply back the NotTory most likely to beat the incumbent, and Labour will be the main beneficiary of this. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@RWRW What do you mean by exonerated? Andrew5 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the best Bozo can expect from this aspect is that nothing worse sticks to him than already has. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The point I was making about Sturgeon above is that she - and her Welsh equivalent - are more visible (on the news etc) than the LibDem leader, rather than being more influential. And as for what theparty's policies and world view are 'your guess is as good as mine.' Anna Livia (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd also put Foster in NI, Burnham in Manchester etc have helped provide a counterpart of 'how a leader should act' which has hurt a little Johnson's aura of being a 'true statesman'. And on a unrelated subject, I get the suspicion the pandemic has given ScotGov an improved belief [by both self and public] that they can handle 'the serious things' as well or even better than UKGov. Though it would appear that more local councils lost belief in competence on the whole; though in their defence auterity and centralisation between them meant they didn't have much ability *to* help. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Cocaine Mitch one-ups senile Joe[edit]

How people mess up words can say a lot about how they think. It's only possible to make that kind of slip up if, inside your own head, you think in terms of X people and 'normal' people. This doesn't necessarily imply particular evilness, as unpicking learned bigotry in your own thoughts is an important part of combating bigotry in general, but it's not a good look. In Biden's case, the brute fact that poverty in the US correlates strongly with race probably played a part - it's different angles on the same problem. In McConnell's case, there's no such explanation. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Basically yeah. It's a massive mistake to view racism purely as a moral failing. As something only "Bad People" do. Racism is more a set of norms, biases, and stereotypes that we are born into and must make a conscious effort to become more aware of. So yes, both politicians expressed racist biases. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It is highly plausible that this is a mundane case of word deletion, without need for appeal to biases. Inferences from this to McConnell's thinking, conscious or subconscious, are dubious. The patterns exhibited by speech errors are not consistent with the notion that they can be used to discern a great deal about what people think in the sense in which think is typically used. McConnell's deletion likely has a lot to do with the fact that he had already used the word 'Americans'. Much more is revealed by the fact that McConnell was wrong, and that he supports efforts to widen the voting gap. Notably, in responding to all this, McConnell was even less lucid, first stating that he had inadvertently omitted the word 'almost' (which would then give 'African American voters are voting in just as high a percentage as almost Americans' -- this strikes me as an insertion), then going on to say "African American turnout nationwide has been roughly increasing as all Americans has all increased", which is ungrammatical and difficult to parse (and not at all the same claim as he initially made). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 16:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Given that McConnell is more than six months older than Biden, it might be more reasonable to refer to the former as "senile," as he seems to believe that his job is to do nothing. Biden, on the other hand, suffers from an actual communication disorder (speech disfluency). Ariel31459 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
McConnell doesn't do nothing, however he did a lot of bad things in the Senate. McConnell is doing something to prevent the Senate from doing things (filibuster) which was just upheld in a 52-48 vote. Andrew5 (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes. He's doing the job he was given to do. He's barring the opposing party from achieving anything, and thus killing them by a thousand cuts. And he's getting money and power for himself by doing so. Welcome to the slow death of capitalism, and potentially humanity. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Serene Why do you assume it's an accident? Why on earth would he want to help people who primarily vote for his rivals? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
GrammarCommie, are you endorsing communism? I shouldn't be suprised if you are. Andrew5 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
And another person jumps to conclusions based off of pure speculation... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not doing it off of pure speculation. I am doing it based off your likely leftist bias (communists are far left), your comment on xapatalism and your username. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I guess nothing exists besides American liberalism and communism on the left wing spectrum. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 mobile I love how most of the time when you try to lay an attack on me you end up committing at least one logical fallacy. Really telling that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
What fallacy did I commit this time? Andrew5 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Aside from jumping to conclusions? Judging a book by it's cover. That's okay though, my username trips most stupid people up. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It's kind of like people saying my username is just advocating blatant partisanism when it's more of a "I'm left handed! :)" --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say you were a leftist because of your username, I based it off of your excusing of the Illinois gerrymander, as well as your statement here where you literally said I don't want gerrymandered districts, but I don't see how R gains is a good thing either. That is a very leftist statement to say. Cracking and packing is harder to identify in a blue gerrymander, but that doesn't excise this map. Andrew5 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (EC)@GC Why do you assume it's an accident? The error amounts to a syllable deletion, which is a known speech error. It's also known that sentences are not constructed in the linear fashion in which they are spoken; they have a more complex underlying structure. Since the word 'American' was already used in the sentence, it is highly plausible that it was, in a production error, carried over into another constituent without 'all' being added as it was meant to be. It's not so much that I assume that it's an accident, as that I think that the features of the mistake make it was an accident highly plausible, and while it may have been intentional, I don't consider the speech features or McConnell's political stances to make it definitively intentional or even more probably intentional. Additionally, the mental mechanisms of word association are not well understood, though there is good evidence that associations of several types are made (e.g. by meaning, by sound, etc). For this reason, using speech errors to probe underlying attitudes is dubious. At best, cases like Joe Biden's error mentioned earlier suggest that within Biden's speech community, an association exists between, say, wealth and whiteness. It does not indicate anything about the nature of this association; antonymic substitutions are common, so the linguistic evidence alone cannot even say that the error doesn't reflects an inverse association between wealth and whiteness. In combination with other evidence, it may be salient to issues of biases or stereotypes. But this says something more about the community of speakers than about Biden in particular.

Why on Earth would he want to help people who vote for his rivals? I am not claiming that he does. As I noted, McConnell's claim was incorrect, and his failure to support the legislation at hand in the context of efforts to make voting more difficult for minorities does not suggest any such desire. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 22:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Serene Ah I see. Apologies for the misunderstanding then. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
If things can possibly be misunderstood or mis-said in a way that will cause 'alarms and diversions and accusations of bias' they will be.
When Roko's basilisk finally emerges it should be directed to creating electoral boundaries. Anna Livia (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I am thinking of doing an article on the Ilinden Uprising[edit]

It was an uprising that took place in the current nations of North Macedonia, Bulgaria and Greece. It is relevant to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire despite the failure of the uprising. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

But couldn't it be combined with other Ottoman articles? Andrew5 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Not if it talks about the quarrel between Bulgaria and North Macedonia over who "owns" it.-Flandres (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
If the main focus was on the spat between North Macedonia and Bulgaria, I could write a different article than solely the Ottoman Empire. I also suspect that it is a big reason Bulgaria keeps vetoing North Macedonia EU membership. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Something interesting in my area is happening in the next 11-17 months[edit]

Nassau County to recieve new area code in first half of 2023, as 516 numbers deplete. Andrew5 (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Deeply unfunny satire article.[edit]

https://babylonbee.com/news/10-surefire-ways-to-avoid-wearing-a-mask-after-being-told-to Epic Games (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a general rule that anything that uses manosphere terms like "beta" and "cuck" can be safely ignored as brainless trash.
(Besides, the genuine cuckolds that I can remember making the news, like Jerry Falwell Jr. and Paul Manafort, have been squarely on Team Republican, ironically. I'll even count Bubba the Love SpongeWikipedia in this category, even though he's not outwardly political, due to his proximity with Tucker Carlson.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The word "cuck" is just an unwieldy, stupid insult. However, referring to people as such without using that word is hilarious. For example, "He's the type of guy who will get up early in the morning to make pancakes for his wife and her boyfriend. Such a gentleman!" As for whether Wingnuts or Moonbats are more likely to cheat or be cheated on or participate in such activities, it's a mix of both. Let's not forget Jill Biden cheated on her former husband with Joe; technically she was in the middle of a divorce, but still. Corn (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, well known moonbats Joe and Jill Biden. So far left that they're indistinguishable from boring middle of the road liberals... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
"Cheating" and "cuckoldry" are two different things. The key with cuckoldry is that the man has to take pleasure in some aspect of the wife have sex with someone else. Unlike other non-monogamous scenes like swinging, there is a sexual humiliation element involved in this fantasy. It's actually not cheating at all if everyone consents, it's just a kink. From a survey it seems that the kink does reportedly lean conservative, but there is no need to kink-shame. If it wasn't used as a dumb political insult on the alt-right, there would be no need to point anything out at all, honestly. But here we are and Babylon Bee thinks you are a "beta cuck" for simply putting on a facial mask. Ho hum. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I see nothing in any definition of cuckold that says the husband has to take any pleasure in the act. AFAIK it is jsut a gender specific term for a man whose wife is cheating on him. So no the terms "cheating" and "cuckold" do not means the same thing, but not for reasons of consent or "pleasure". Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I kind of forgot that there's an alternate definition that just means a man who has a cheating wife. That usage is kind of old-fashioned and a Google search will show the word more often than not refers to the fetish these days. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the value of it as an insult. While I wouldn't use it in its correct context (as I don't get why it's insulting), it is still deeply satisfying to shout after you injure yourself. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 17:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Nah, "cuckoldry" has been in use forever, and I think all the youngin's learned about it from the name of the Cuckoo birds. Corn (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
That pun was terrible Cory... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I like the word "cuck" myself but only for the sound, not the meaning. It just sounds like the funny noises a chicken makes. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Uh, not a pun. The world "cuckoldry" actually comes from the Cuckoo bird, a brood parasite that lays its eggs in the nests of other birds who then raise their young. Corn (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Babble on Bee is just unfunny to begin with. Their humor is stuck in 2016. Jake Holmesyell at me 14:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The Babylon Bee hasn't figured out what humor is, and at the rate they're going, they won't before the heat death of the planet from the sun doing that supernova thing.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 00:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. Their presentation/delivery isn't great but they do have a humor-gland. Absurd+True = Funny. Today, the Far-Left have begun advocating things that the racists of days past had demanded. This is an absurdity, but true, therefore it's a source of humor. People believe they are not the gender their biology would otherwise indicate. This is true, but absurd, which is why Trans issues are a tantalizing source of comedy.
It's a bit weird, because being absurd does not necessarily mean that thing should be absurd. A century ago, it would be absurd that Women, Jews, Black people, etc believed they deserved equal rights when the "truth" was they were inferior. If we were to collectively decide that Transwomen were real women, Trans issues would cease being "absurd". That's kind of what the whole "cancel culture" thing around anything remotely to do with Trans issues is about. It's a debate we do need to have around the Trans issue, what should be the rules regarding pronouns, prisons or bathrooms, or team sports. It's ugly because there aren't "Right" answers, every answer is going to hurt someone. Corn (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser That's extremely vague. What exactly are the "far left" demanding that's akin to historical positions taken by racists? And how are you certain that it's the "far left" that's making these demands? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Racial segregation making return in college campuses. Corn (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser That doesn't follow. Elaborate. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
People are literally advocating for separate facilities/ceremonies for people based on race. Corn (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Cory, are you trying to motte and bailey with me? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Corvid, did you miss the point where these """""""segregated""""""" graduation ceremonies were by choice and not because the uni forced the students to have a separate ceremony? Jake Holmesyell at me 03:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
"The white people couldn't attend it". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I seem to recall there being "Whites Only" High School graduation ceremonies in the Deep South that only recently ceased. Basically, there was the official graduation ceremony was for everyone, and then the White families "voluntarily" had their own invitation-only party. Likewise, there was segregated proms that were effectively Whites Only. Segregation doesn't cease to be wrong when you swap ethnicities of everyone involved. Corn (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Ok, even presuming that to be the case, how is this the fault of the "far-left" (which you still haven't defined by the way) and how does this relate to the Babylon Bee's "satire" simply being things they actually believe but just slap the label of "joke" on to avoid scrutiny. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
"Presuming that to be the case", it's happening with the Left shielding them from criticism, i.e., the Regressive Left which absolutely is a thing whether or not it's also a conspiracy theory by Wingnuts. And "presuming that to be the case", the Babylon Bee has every right to mock it.
As I've said, my biggest issue with the BaBees is their bad delivery. As for politics and content, I mostly get annoyed with their obsession with abortion, but I get where they are coming from.Corn (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser So I see you're back to just asserting shit... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
so this isn't a thing? Oh, good to know. Corn (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth. How is this the fault of the "far-left" and who exactly, is the "far-left" your referring to? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Er, nah. Just looking at today's Babylon Bee, I don't see anything related to any sort of the sort of "regressive left" being referred to. Mostly they are babbling about M&Ms. Everyone makes fun of weak corporate attempts to be "woke", so fair enough. (Of course, everyone also gets to make fun of Tucker Carlson wanting his M&M waifu as well. They don't really mention that. :) ) They also have a few jokes that might be funny if you think of California as a hellhole dystopia, as the right wing would have it. (They aren't terribly funny if you've visited California many times and know how full of shit those right wing memes are. You want a hellhole dystopia in America, try rural Alabama or Mississippi.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Pan, Here's a regressive left video if you want it.
And here's one that's a bit more relevant to the discussion. Corn (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
YouTube videos? Meh. I only skim YouTube shit. So fair warning. But it seems like one is whining about critical race theory (chances are high they don't know really what it is). And the other seemed to be whining about people shutting down free speech (which, as the many bills on "critical race theory" put forth by Republicans have shown, the "right-wing" is just as guilty of, if in many ways more so due to the legislative decree). I'm not a fan of the actual "race-crits", personally (they aren't "reverse racist" though, just fatalistic, which is a wee bit understandable), nor am I a fan of the silo-ing style of the Internet (which is more a design flaw based on the mob psychology of upvotes / likes than anything else). But none of the people involved in these charades, as far as I know, are anywhere near government power. Shitheads like Ron DeSantis, who absolutely have put pressure on university professors to say silent, are. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Non-paywalled link please. Corn (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This is sad[edit]

In an apparent human smuggling attempt, 4 Canadians die just 40 feet (12 meters) from border with Minnesota in -29F (-34C) temperatures amidst cold wave. Andrew5 (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Borders are stupid. The world should just be one giant Schengen Area. Epic Games (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Tell that to the Ukrainians, or the people pitching war with Russia right now. Dutchbag (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Can we not make this about Ukraine? The story is about a fatal cold wave in Canada. Andrew5 (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
In one day in November last year 27 people died in a single attempt to cross the English channel. And it wasn't particularly exceptional. This is a general issue about borders - not the weather.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Weather played a role due to the severe cold. I don't particuarly like Wikipedia's image of the cold wave, as they took it during a warm break, January 19. It was cold immediately before and after, but that day warmed to 48F (9C) and was 43F (6C) here when the image was taken, but is still a below average spell expected to continue here into the beginning of February. Andrew5 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Border discussion[edit]

Why have we decided that imaginary lines on maps mean anything? So confused right now. My thoughts go out to their family. Epic Games (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Different societies organize themselves in different ways, and establish different rules by which conduct is regulated. They claim territory in which those rules apply, the resources of which are regarded as belonging to individuals or groups in the society and not to other individuals or societies. Establishing borders between these claims provides a clear demarcation, preventing territorial or legal disputes so long as the borders are respected. So for example, some places in the world execute homosexuals as a matter of law. A border marks the boundary of the regions in which such laws are enforced. Less dramatically, some societies have established social and economic practices that produce a better quality of life than in other places, so many people want to cross borders to get there. You can see the North-South Korean border from space at night as a practical consequence of different ways of organizing societies. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
In this case, the border was decided on the 49th parallel. Numerous conflicts, such as the American Revolution, War of 1812, Aroostook War (where 38 people died of disease during the fighting), the Oregon Boundary Dispute, and the Pig War. The Aroostook War was over control of Aroostook County, the Oregon Boundary Dispute over Oregon, Washington and British Colombia, and the Pig War over some small islands in the Strait of San Juan de Fuca. Border disputes are often of the first two kinds of war though. Andrew5 (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
And if we didn't have borders, we wouldn't need extradition proceedings, either. If one state wanted to outlaw murder and keep capital punishment, and another wanted to legalize murder and outlaw capital punishment, we might need courts to sort things out. Dutchbag (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
If nothing else, borders occasionally give us hilarious stories like this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I actually remember that.Andrew5 (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Will add this to the discussion. I think the YouTube channel 'Oversimplfied' has a video on the Pig War. Anna Livia (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
They actually do, I used to actually follow them on Patreon. You should watch it and subscribe! (Note: the video is 40 minutes long). Andrew5 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Flag of Canada[edit]

I have put on the Canada page a piece about the Maple Leaf [the current flag of Canada] and the Red Ensign [the former], and how the latter is being re-appropriated by the far-right in Canada as an Anglosphere white symbol. I have noticed that it has been cleverly used as a dog whistle by groups and individuals, such as Mark Steyn who had one in the background on his programme on GB News. Euromec (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

is that not a super common tactic for far right groups? appropriating national symbols? feel like we let them alot of the time AMassiveGay (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

pewdiepie not looking like a masive gobshite[edit]

just a seen a video critiquing a pewdiepie video/podcast and hes soundinq quite reasonable. (its about the fitness industry, not any of his other controversies) AMassiveGay (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

When will info regarding labor, unions, and strikes get more attention?[edit]

Even though the great resignation happend (even though prople think this is worker be lazy mokmrnt) i still can no find that much info about labor outside of one sus subreddit.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

They won’t. The solution to strikes is simple - fire the workers. You need to get it so they can’t function without them to have reform, and people are scared to do that so they won’t. Essentially, it is very hard to get reform, and therefore coverage. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
you cannot typically fire workers legally striking AMassiveGay (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Does not that depend on state? 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:BE (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay You can, because even if it’s legal, it can be against company rules. Typically you need to use an off day to strike, and c you exceed it they can legally fire you. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
If it is your day off then it isn't a strike!! It can be a picket or protest, but a strike is wirthdrawing labour - and if you ain't supposed to be giving any labour that day then you cna't withdraww it duh! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, they can still withhold your pay, and sanction you, like with the Texas Democrats or what happened with the MLB in ‘94. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thats why you join a union. and not be american. even uk has better labour laws than the us AMassiveGay (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
What rights you have to strike are going to vary depending on the country in which you live. International law may grant some rights, but there is also the question of technically having the right versus the actual ability to exercise that right.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
More attention? As soon as the jobs come back from China, or maybe when the welfare state ends. Honestly, I didn't know people still worked, had jobs, or unions existed til you mentioned it right now. Dutchbag (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Those jobs are never coming back. That's a load of horseshit politicians use to get elected. As for Union publicity, that's not really what they need. It's helpful, but not what they need. What workers need is international unions, so as to offset the disparity in bargaining power inherent to a globalized economy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and the repeal and/or gutting of Taft-Hartley. That'd also help a lot. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Threatening folks with the sack only works when there's the perception of chronic unemployment / insecure employment. Crappy employers are used to a lot of 'churn' [such as fast food places] but traditionally you have the bad boss leaning back in chair and prosaically thinking 'there's more where that came from' after another worker just rage-quit.
But demographics and narrowing immigration levels [not 'laziness'/'welfare'] mean that there is *not* 'more where that came from', exp in the Anglo nations. For the first time since the 1950s, lower-skilled folks actually have 'market conditions' going their way.
However, Big Business in the USA/UK has not worked this out yet [as a rule]. If stupid, they have not even realised yet. If not, they think they'll get their truck-loads of imported cheap labour back as 'soon as Covid has passed'. I don't think it will; demographics are pointing down for the UK until 2028 [at least] and open-door immigration is a political no-no at present.
This means that companies are going to start doing stuff they've not since the 1980s; like 'decent pay/conditions to encourage worker retention', 'investing in plant to improve productivity' and 'training existing workers'. And unlike the 1980s, workers find it much easier to discover the bad employers through stuff like GlassDoor.
But this requires businesses to realise it's not 'just a blip', 'caused by welfare handouts' etc [as many ones currently do]. I'm already seeing the start of kick-back against bad bosses; like the ones who's reaction to 15% understaffing is telling the drone-crews to simply work 18% harder with zero extra investment to cover the gaps [which shall result in you soon being 25% understaffed...]
But to go back to the original question; check union blogs / sites etc. Here in the UK, I normally use left-wing alts to find out such things. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Plus the manufacturering capitalists forget that you need a market to sell to - if you domestic market is poor, and your overseas market is poor, then all you have a a drive to he boottom for both prices and wages. A well paid domestic workforce is actually a good thing™ for industry! the only people actually against it are the arseholes. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
What "arseholes" are you referring to? Despite it being a good thing, the rich people like focusing more on short term gains rather than long term stability, along with a semi-nationalist view. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:62 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Aloysius: your point is one of the main reasons in Anglo nations the 'mid-market'/'mid-tier' products/shops are dying - lack of customers. Everything seems to either bargain-basement or luxury. I don't have a lot of cash to spend, but even when I decide to go 'up market' a bit I too-often find a) it does not appear to exist anymore or worse b) said higher tier is simply overpriced bargain-basement.

The primary reason for this 'institutional change' in the the exec-levels is [I would argue] the changing face of investors. The world of the 50s/60s had a lot more mid-sized 'family firms' and even a lot of the large ones still were controlled/owned by the founders and/or their descendents. What's more, a lot of these were 'owner-operated'; as in, the folks who owned bits of it also worked there.

But the world changed. Most of the wealthy 'families' retreated from being active owner-managers to mere rentiers. M&As stripped out the mid-sized firm, causing them to become impersonal and transational in ownership, esp foreign penetration. Corporate raiders in the 70s/80s scared companies witless, most the ones who avoided being killed mainly by asset-stripping themselves and bribing shareholders. And the role of the various 'funds' has ballooned, who generally speaking care not one jot over what the company does or is, just on the financial stats.

The issue is that generally speaking, the most 'asshole' investors pressuring the execs are not old-school Gordon Gecko types or even the classic miserly owner-manager sweating the company harder a la Mr Burns - it's the dry, faceless manager of the funds who these days normally own a majority of shares in the big companies. Basically, they're being total assholes on their client's behalf; who could be anyone from an investment club to a teacher's pension scheme. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

i got ID'd buying vape juice[edit]

well, almost - they had a good look at my face any rate. i am 44 years of age. cant say i didnt feel pleased AMassiveGay (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

had my face on mask on, but crows feet that seemed to be forming of late have vanished. the wonders of getting enough sleep - something i often have trouble with. winningAMassiveGay (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
As one gets even older, getting age-checked can be taken as a complement. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
When I buy cigarettes, most of the time I have to show ID. I am 27 (almost 28) but I can pass for 19 years old. The age to buy smokes and vapes is 21 years old. One time, I was in the Wal-Mart gas station and the guy in front of me got ID'd when buying smokes and he was clearly an elderly man. The dude even stated that he was 70 years old. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
when i was 38 (i think) i was visiting a friend at his sisters house in a small village for his birthday on boxing day. only 1 store, a spar, in the village. got id'd buying fags and i had none. i was incredulous. i had to get his sister to come with me to buy them for me. 16 is the age for smokes. i'll admit i look young and pretty but i dont look 16. the sister was a little put out when she didnt get id'd. different sales person though. the other one apparently was id-ing everyone. it was a tense couple of hours though where i thought id be stuck in a tiny village with no fags. ironically, i hardly ever got id'd buying booze when i was 16 AMassiveGay (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
It makes sense. I know a 20 year old who can pass for 50. Though in my area, if you look over 35 you don't need an ID. Andrew5 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
It's probably going to be another decade before I pass as 21 year old. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Simple jobsworthry at it's most obvious. Though the vision of spotty teens dressing up as pensioners to get their booze and smokes is rather amusing. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner might become missional[edit]

She's vaguelly mentioned here and here. But after taking a look at her twitter and seeing some of her tweets, appearing on the most truthful news channel in the US and reading on wikipedia that she ran as a replacement candidate in the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election for certain political party, she might become missional to this site? She calls herself a transgender activist, yet not everyone in the LGBTQ+ community sees it that way. In fact, she sounds more like one of those special kind of activists. 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:29AC:D09D:2FEA:3BF0 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

She also like to retweet stuff from something called "America Reports". Don't know what it is, besides the fact that Fox News like to cite them, so probably a bunch of wingnuttery... 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:29AC:D09D:2FEA:3BF0 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I personally think so. Jenner is essentially the Uncle Tom of the Transgender community. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
now there is an ugly term that should never be used. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Y’know, people who want these articles should just be bold and create them, not talk about them in the bar.Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Not an expert on writing article, since I never know how to begin one, but I added it to the "To Do List". Thought some people over here who are American might know more stuff about her. 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:29AC:D09D:2FEA:3BF0 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this personally is a case of much less 'Uncle Tom' [Auntie Tina?] and much more evidence that speaking of a 'LGBTQ+ community' is either hugely overstated or even total BS. It's too big a group, too diverse in needs, views and goals. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "Supposed to be" and what "IS"[edit]

I'm trying to find out which is a "Better" way to live. Speaking from experience a lot of what makes me suffer is from being chained by so many thoughts of what is supposed to be, be that one thing or another. I don't really look at how things "Are" or what "is". I think if I did that I wouldn't be the way I am today but realizing that it seems like a better way to live. Though I'm not sure how to work morality or ethics into that as that talks about what we ought to do. Thoughts?Machina (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like the classic Is–ought problem. Surprisingly you are not the first one to struggle over it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
When you say what is a "better" way to live, what is your goal? Do you mean better on a personal or societal level? Do you consider sustainability of lifestyle an important factor? Are you more concerned with deciding the perfect hypothetical way to live or a way which is practical executable in today's world? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't really know. On a personal level living to what I thought things were supposed to be resulted in me ignoring my own wants and needs. The whole gay thing for one was blocked by me thinking guys are supposed to be a certain way and nothing else.Machina (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are wondering why this thread is collapsed, there is probably not a single reason. The best one I can think of is the answers you are looking for are deeply rooted in one form of doctrinal thinking or another and we can only take so much of that. I personally suggest you consider the Lotus Sutra: all Buddhist paths lead to Buddhahood. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
That's not really what I meant. I mean that in terms of looking at what "is" someone can accept who they are rather than trying to fit in some template society sets on them (especially when it's not rooted in facts but just nonsense). But that can only get you so far, because then I think comes what one should do. I mean is there such a thing? Is it a balancing act where you need a goal or code to orient yourself while not getting too wrapped up in things?Machina (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there is some potential useful discussion to have here, though it only concerns general experience and how people can develop their approaches to life over time. What "ought" varies from person to person, and from time to time for each person, and life wisdom can in part be understood as being smart about what to care about. Over time, people sometimes learn to stop caring about things, the caring about which amounts to a dead weight holding them down, and to start caring about other things, which take on meaning. But no one can ever define for others what they should be caring about as the proper way of dealing with life.

As far as philosophical teachings go, the most clear, concise, and useful to consider regarding such matters that I know of is the stoic Enchiridion of EpictetusWikipedia. From time to time I have a look at an old PDF with a translation, less than 20 pages long. I think it contains it all, regarding a type of idealism which strives for purity in the form of only caring about what is up to people, in their power – how to mentally orient, relate, and respond to all which is faced. But the division it makes into the two categories of cultivating and living for an inner ruling principle vs. concern with "externals" is a bit too binary and simplistic, for those whose idealism in some way extends towards activism (wanting to make a change of some kind). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC) |}