RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive407

This is an archive page, last updated 23 February 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>, <405>, <406>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

I know this isn't the right place for this, but...

Do we need an article on preening oils? I doubt it but I was just wondering. Also, where would I ask these questions in the future? Revenant Raven (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

i give up. what is preening oil? ive googled preening and preening oil and can find nothing not related to to the things bird do. if its that, then no we dont need an article. if it is something else, i have no clue as to what it might be referring and you would need to explain what is why it might need an article. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you maybe referring to beard oils and the like? Otherwise, as a raven, I assume you mean the oil birds exude to stay so shiny-pretty. Probliknaut (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

They need preening oil to help clean feathers, which can be prone to parasites and such. Have the bird world advanced so much that they're now advertising preening oil for bird seed to boost immune system's natural powers or something? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

All I know is that I seriously doubt that parakeets are likely to be the solution to our energy problems. Kencolt (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Like everyone else I've drawn a blank. No scams, conspiracy theories, fake news, fundamentalist preen oil ideas, no "Preen Oil Disproves Evolution!" stories - nothing. We could always invent something in Fun though. What possible anti-science idea could be invented for preen oil?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe talk about how they vitalize your lungs even though bird fancier's lung is a thing. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The Uropygial glands (which produce preening oil) of some birds contain bacteria that produce antimicrobial peptides that they may spread in order to reduce the likelihood of catching a disease. They may also preen in order to curate their microbiome by feeding desired bacteria. There is actually a really interesting study finding an inversely proportional relationship between uropygial gland volume in birds with evolutionary fitness in terms of pathogen resistance. Revenant Raven (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(EC) @LGM Birds' fancy lungs are also a thing, though. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The moment we've all been waiting for: the New York proposed map.

Here it is. Some takeaways - the map is 22-4. Two of the tossups lean blue, so it could be 20-6 in a red wave. Here is the breakdown.

• Lee Zeldin, who is retiring, has his district have a lean of D+6. Garabino, meanwhile, now has a solid red district at D+20. It used to be R+10 and R+8 respectively.
• Nicole Matallokis will likely be ousted, as her district is now D+7. Before, it was R+13.
• John Katko's seat is now D+13. While he initially had a D+4 seat and still won, this seems a bit too extreme even for a political moderate.
• Now Antonio Delgado and Claudia Tenney's seats are merged (Tenney being notable for winning in 2020 by a mere 0.03%.) Before, Delgado was R+4 and Tenney was R+16 (but Delgado was a Democrat.) Now it is D+4, meaning Delgado is very likely to come out victorious.
• The other three safe GOP seats is Stefanik (R+14 to R+23), Jacobs (R+21 to R+25) and Reed (R+15 to R+26). The other tossup is Democrat Maloney, who went from even to D+3.

How did they do such a gerrymander? Well Matallokis's district now includes western Brooklyn, not just southwestern. Garabino's district is clearly packing all Republicans on Long Island into one seat, as Zeldin's district now punches deep into western Suffolk County. As such, as some of Suozzi's district is moved, it now also includes southern Westchester, making it go from D+6 to D+10. Now that Albany is cracked, it allows Delgado/Tenney's district to be more democrat leaning, but note Tonko goes from D+16 to D+12. It's clear Maloney's district now takes in some areas from previous Jones's, as that went from D+17 to D+10. Katko's district now clearly packs all democrats from Central New York, and shifts southwards. They then take leftover Republican areas and cram it into the 3 districts upstate.

While this isn't a worst case scenario, the gerrymander is still pretty egregious, as it removes possibly 4 Republican seats in New York. This, as well as Florida, will be the biggest revealation of who will win redistricting, save for court battles. Andrew5 (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should stick to weather reports, seeing as your militant centrism forbids you from drawing worthwhile conclusions. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2a01:388:3f5:161::1:3e / talk / contribs}

Update - Tenney is choosing to run in Tom Reed's district, where he is retiring. Andrew5 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It's about time. Democrats have few chances to be as ruthless as the GOP is redistricting. With no Cuomo's chumminess, Dems are going all out. Might be the difference between keeping and losing the House.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Y'know, what if they just had a way to elect representatives proportional to the state vote (idk how that would work tho.)? That's the best way to end gerry mandering. Andrew5 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Then all the power and reps will come from the major cities. Epic Games (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that would need to be worked out.Andrew5 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hochul signed the mp into law. Andrew5 (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sifting continents to partygate.

Has anyone else been watching Boris Johnson being ritually tortured in the UK parliament? It's amazing that he hasn't resigned. (Or maybe it isn't)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bob M It seems like the Tories might use Johnson as a sacrificial lamb with which to rebrand themselves. At least that's how I and some others I know see it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It would make sense. He certainly doesn't seem to be the "asset" he once was.

But from a personal political standpoint he might be better off declaring victory and leaving. "We have the best vaccine rollout in Europe!" "We got Brexit done!" etc. etc. "I am now going to retire to sped time with my wives and girlfriends and counting my children."Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't live in the UK but I heard a lot of people don't like Boris. Andrew5 (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

He's like the British version of - an ex-American president - so it figures.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I know which one you're talking about but I ain't gonna say it. Andrew5 (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bob M Honestly, it seems like Johnson might actually be more skilled and intelligent than Trump. He's certainly more aware of how the media works and better able to present himself in public. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That is true. Andrew5 (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(EC) Trump's only skill in saying what he think people need to hear to get them to do what he wants. This is why he lies so much, and why he never keeps a promise, because once the moment has passed it no longer matters. Johnson has a carefully cultivated persona of a buffoon that he uses to get people on his side, from which point they instinctively support him. Any error of foible can be chalked up to that buffoonery, thus making him seem harmless and jolly. Some people claim that he's actually very astute underneath that façade, but I think that's giving him too much credit. The reality behind the mask is just as vapid and just as bumbling, it's just less affable. He doesn't have the intelligence to behave any other way, even behind the persona. Therefore there's quite a difference between the two, despite superficial similarities. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess that's this is all presentation and perception. But I think that he misstepped in the House of Commons today. I suspect that he lost support amongst his own MP's and the country.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest the delay in the Grey report being released, and the incompetence of the Met Police, have helped Johnson greatly. Had the report been published a week or so ago then I daresay a confidence vote would have followed. Now Tory MPs seem to be rallying around Johnson [1], and the public is far more concerned with cost of living, Russia and Ukraine etc etc. My guess is Johnson is probably ok until at least the May local elections. --RWRW (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@RWRW So it's your impression that he's going to use the current state of politics, national and international, to bounce back? I can see that. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

As a child, Boris Johnson would apparently say his ambition in life was to be "World King", he had to settle for the less prestigious role of UK Prime Minister. But now he's there he will never resign, and he'll do what he can to try and win back support. We've seen him already take a tough stance on Russia [2] (tougher than anything I've heard Biden or any EU leaders say). He also has 'Operation Red Meat' for winning back disillusioned conservatives. [3]

It draws some similarities to Margret Thatcher. Thatcher, elected in 1979 was despised by the public by 1980/1981, but managed to turn it around and win a landslide in 1983. I have no idea if any of this will work, but Johnson is probably the only politician who could have a chance of recovering from what has been a pretty dire few months. --RWRW (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, he'll at least be interesting. Here in the US the Dems are slowly rediscovering how politics works. Too slowly in my humble opinion. Johnson, on the other hand, seems in his element barring a major disaster like covid, but even then he's been able to weather that storm. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The scale of the dishonesty, corruption, incompetence, and inconsistency between the laws applied to the citizens of the UK and those the cabinet followed presents, in my opinion, an insuperable challenge for Johnson. The facts demand his resignation; then again, I’d like a pony. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 04:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Lying before Parliament was apparently once a serious thing before BoJo included it as part of his comedy routine. Even under attack from Tories (e.g., Teresa May) regarding the Gray Report, he squeaked in a completely tangential lie. Metropolitan Police reportedly has 300 photos of the various official pandemic pissups. Undoubtedly, there's a few with BoJo stuffing his face with cake while having it too. Bongolian (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It is certainly difficult to look at his various statements about Partygate and not come to the conclusion that some of them were lies to Parliament.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's something which I don't quite get. We are told that we must now wait for the outcome of the police report as they are apparently looking deeply into some specific - though not identified - issues. Presumably these are significant questions.

But, unless it's a really minor issue, the police don't say "this man is guilty". They refer the case to the the Crown Prosecution Service who then decide if the case should be processed by the legal system - which actually decides "guilty" or not. And during all this process the specific information should not be publicly available. And, of course, a case can go to appeal.

So, if my understanding is correct, it's not a question of "waiting for the police investigation to finish", but rather a question of "waiting for the whole legal process to finish". Which could very easily be months or longer.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally think Johnson does have some genuine gifts re intelligence. Not as much as he thinks he has, but more than his opponents grant him. However, I suspect he's too much his own worst enemy; that his laziness, lack of self-control and selfishness are the cause of many of his own failings, be it political, personal or journalistic. However, as this is England we're so enthralled to the spirit of Churchill we're enamoured by a third-rate parody of him.

But ultimately, 'Partygate' isn't the thing which shall fell Johnson - it's his inability to marry up the demands of both Populists and Thatcherites in the party. We are already seeing the first scuffles regarding the competing demands re NI rises. Either he backs the Populists and is ousted by the ERG [most of the rebels are from this wing, like Baker, Frost, Davis etc], or picks the Thatcherites and is ousted in a GE. He shall pick the latter, as it's a) further away and b) he might be able to lie/cheat is way into another victory.

The main risk here is if he gets a leadership challenge from a truly viable alternative. Say what you will, but Johnson has done well in trashing the current stock of MPs to mean there's not many possibles who are neither corrupt, stupid, a wingnut or massively tainted by association. However, the Party might have gone so off it's rocker they might think Patel or Javid is a good idea... KarmaPolice (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Identifying an actual "better" alternative is challenging.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Finding a 'better' alternative who actually wants the job is even harder. If I was a 'realistic possible' I might desire Johnson to stay and stagger on, allowing him to collapse due to all the corruption/failure/lies to reach a kind of 'critial mass' and allowing me to do a clean sweep. There is also the threat that leading Tories decide that the only way to win again is to double down on all the BS; more lies, propaganda, unicorn promises and voter suppression tactics - and hope that alongside the boundary review shall allow them to squeak through again.

However, there's also the chance that our oligarchs won't be so eager to throw their lot in with the Tories again [esp if they get more loony], what with the promise of a 'Third Way Redux' minority administration under Starmer rather than an uber-evil socialist one from Corbyn. I have no proof yet, but I actually am starting to suspect our capitalist class is becoming more appreciative of stodgy, status quo democracies and are more unwilling to ride the altie tiger into full-blown authoritarianism than they were in the past. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice I would heavily disagree. The upper classes are split between those who favor left-leaning social politics, in addition to some slight left-wing economics, and those who drank the fascist and neoreactionary koolaide. (Think Soros vs Thiel.) To attribute a shared narrative to them is a massive mistake. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It seems that BoJo is floundering, but it may also be an attempt at tiring out public opinion by drawing out the process with this sudden interest by the Met (which had refused to investigate earlier, claiming there was no evidence and that it generally didn’t investigate past COVID transgressions).

Now, this may simply be the Met belatedly trying to look a bit less servile, but the bizarre decision to use the police enquiry to turn the Gray report (already a dubious project in and of itself) into a brief summary and some general criticism might also be a way to try to “out process” the current ire of the public. This strategy could backfire by keeping the scandal in the public eye continuously, but this drawing out of the pain gives wriggle room for BoJo and his supporters by offering the “Now, we must wait for the final results of the Gray report/Met investigation” escape hatch.

The hope seems to be that the public will forgive BoJo for the umpteenth time and thus remove the pressure on Tories eager to keep their seats in Westminster, but it may also turn into a combination of water torture and death by a thousand cuts instead. Or the Tories simply want to let BoJo carry the can for a while and then knife him in order to run a “new” PM (cue a lot of “turning over a new leaf” and “that’s all in the past” rhetoric) for the next election.

Nevertheless, you should never underestimate the effect of the British media, which is mainly pro Tory, supplemented by some New Labour/LibDem outlets, like the Guardian. This means that any Tory leader will probably have a massive advantage, as long as BoJo doesn’t get “too Trump’ish” in terms of the kind of chaotic incompetence that actually starts really hurting the bottom line of big players in the UK.

If BoJo is tossed out by his own party, current odds would seem to favour Rishi Sunak, though arch opportunist Liz Truss also seems to want the job (she kind of reminds me of an even less principled and even more shamelessly opportunistic version of Theresa May). No matter what, I really doubt that any BoJo successor will attempt his style of “pseudo-populist conservatism” with all of its “levelling up” shtick. Expect a turn towards a more Thatcherite “small gub’mint” and austerity style rhetoric, as well as actual politics (not to mention that BoJo’s populism has always been far more rhetoric than reality). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Four days is a enough to change the situation, methinks; has the now-patently obvious fact that UK.plc shall economically stagger through '22 and then be crippled by a 'New Winter Of Discontent' for '22-'23, which I don't think folks shall forget by the final fate of May '24 for the next GE.

Does this change anybody's thoughts? KarmaPolice (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Youtube project that was cancelled

Does anyone know what happened to that other platform that people swore was going to be the new YouTube? I can't remember what it was called (something with fire?). Iirc, the whole project was shut down. Some Youtubers had already started posting content on there. But you had to pay to use the platform. Does anyone know what that site was called? 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:B83A:FB92:8224:7940 (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Kansas gerrymander vetoed

[4] Now, Republicans have supermajorities in both houses, but a few moderates oppose this map, so it is unlikely to be overriden. Andrew5 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Brownback mucked up this state so badly, it's unbelievable. I feel like we'll have to deal with the effects of his term for a long time. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 21:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you call it...

...when someone is obviously redistributing corpses free of charge? Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A dead giveaway. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 17:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no "I" in "denial". CorruptUser 17:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes there is. Andrew5 (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

They meant capital I, not lowercase I. LongStylus (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

RNC Makes Political Violence Its Platform

[5] Just a delightfully Trumpian turn of phrase "legitimate political discourse". WaPo's Phillip Bump I think has the best breakdown,[6] but like 2022 and 2024 will be years in politics defined by political violence.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Full text of the resolution at ABC, at the bottom. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This is probably the most revolting food I ever tasted

And that dishonor goes to Sausage Gravy. Tried it when I was an 11 year old kid and I could not swallow the crap. What is the worst food you ever tasted? --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

And we know that RZ94 is probably not from the Southeastern US, where the vast majority of us here consider that the food of the Gods. Especially on biscuits. Kencolt (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Five spice tempeh. My mother is usually an excellent cook, but even she admitted that was a misfire. I still find tempeh useful for other things, though, it actually makes a surprisingly good pastrami substitute for a reuben. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Vegetarian haggis and other 'meat-free whatevers' as a concept. Anna Livia (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have eaten two of the the so-called "most disgusting foods" on this list.[7] I first had century egg when I worked at a Chinese restaurant in my youth. As is customary at many restaurants staff eat together before or after dinner service. My co-workers invited me to try the century egg as sort of a joke, I think. It was really not that bad and I ate most of it. I didn't know then that it is not usually eaten unadorned but used more like a seasoning in dishes. The other food durian gets a bad rap. It's the most divine fruit. I once ate 5 whole durians in one day during peak durian season out in a small town. Bongolian (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

i thought the deal with durian fruit was not that taste disgusting but they smell absolutely rank AMassiveGay (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

People seem to universally gag at the smell and taste of fermented skate, which is supposed to smell like unclean urinal or bathrooms in general and also taste like getting a shot of ammonia. I didn't flinch much eating it for the first time even though it's not the easiest food to swallow. I'd have more if I get the opportunity, though I agree that the spices and whatnot disguise the taste and I like eating it by itself. However I did eat some sort of tuna substitute in a can accidentally. Tasted like cardboard soaked in oil. I also find raw oyster hard to eat though I generally like other food raw or less cooked, including like steak tartare and half cooked liver. Also, seeing the link and having enjoyed pork head meat in soup, marinated pork feet, sliced chitterlings in soup, pig brain in hot pot, and beef stomach and tendon in pho, kale pache doesn't seem THAT bad. I ate natto, and also I agree that it's an acquired taste. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I remember trying eggs when I was 18 months old, and I hated it...Andrew5 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Most people seem to gag at fermented foods unless it is cut with something like sugar and natural flavors. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:BB (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the category of "fermented foods" is too big to say that this is completely correct. The American pepperoni sausage, for instance, is a fermented sausage (like salami, which it is somewhat similar to). Yet, it is considered the most popular pizza topping in America. Go figure. But yeah, some fermented food is pretty funky or stinky in some way. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I like my share fermented foods. Miso, fermented soy bean, fermented bean curd, kimchi, fermented black bean seasoning, and so on. I always thought the pepperoni sausage was cured like a hot dog, but oh well, if it's fermented, it doesn't affect my perception of it, though I still prefer pineapple over pepperoni on pizza. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of pepperoni I have seen in the US has a prepared "lactic acid starter cultures" as one of the ingredients. This is also seen with one homemade pepperoni sausage recipe I see online, it also has a starter culture. Some recipes don't, though. My understanding is that, like the fermented style sauerkraut, you don't necessarily need the cultures though, an old-school salt-curing will actually promote this sort of bacteria fermentation just fine. Never tried to make my own sausage. However, I have made fermented sauerkraut with just cabbage, salt, and time. Works fine! PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ive never tried durian fruit, so i'd thought i see if i could buy one to try. 85 fucking quid. not gonna be trying it any time soon AMassiveGay (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

as for gross tasting stuff - nicotine gum. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've had durian both local and imported. It's not worth it for the imported: expense and lack of freshness and potential for rot. Bongolian (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

where were you when you had it local? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

First place: Kalimantan (Indonesia). Later Singapore, other parts of Indonesia, and Brunei. Singapore's the easiest. One can get it relatively fresh there at the Carrefour supermarket. It's true, not everyone likes the sulfury smell, but I liked the smell immediately. Bongolian (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

even frozen its over a score. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It really is IMHO too expensive for what it's worth even close to the source (only had it once in Malaysia). The taste is pretty good IMHO (yes it stinks, but I didn't get that in the taste) but also to my taste buds was more melon like than most descriptions say. And most melons are a lot cheaper. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There's jackfruit in Asian grocers, which maybe for the longest time, I thought was a kind of durian. Turns out it's not related, it just looks similar. It has a distinct smell too. Never tried jackfruit, though, but it seems to be a meat substitute and has a mild flavor when young? Also pricey like durian outside the countries it's grown in, SE Asia. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Second place for terrible food is Sardines. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Greenland basking shark. First, the shark is caught and dragged up a hill. Then the fisherman empties his bladder all over the shark in order to show it dominance, and then buries it in the ground for 3 months in a makeshift grave. At this point, the fisherman decides to hang up the skeleton as a warning to others, only to find that even the crabs wouldn't touch this disgusting dreck. The fisherman then gets incredibly drunk and forgets about the whole thing, and 4-5 months later the fisherman gets drunk again and decides to go ice fishing, stumbles around the shed and bumps into the carcass of the shark. At this point the fisherman decides to just eat this disgusting mess of a shark. CorruptUser 01:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In no particular order;

- Jackfruit. Culty vegan sibling keeps on trying to persuade me it's great. They're making me simply more convinced it's consumption is a form of masochism.

- Linda Macartney's Meat-Free Pies. I couldn't eat this thing. Even when starving, in a cold house in winter and it was the only thing which was both food and hot.

- Westlers Burgers in onion gravy. If this is a 'mum's favourite', it's the ones who have their children removed by Social Services.

KarmaPolice (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fermented basking shark. Yum. Rest are comparatively tame. Sardines? They're delicious, eh? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

just bought some sardines. super cheap protein source for the end of the month money is tight. a cheap pasta sauce and some rice and peas and i got a couple days dinner for about 2 quid. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

maybe even 3 days dinners. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sweet chili. I know it's a regional thing, but chili has no business being sweet at all. It needs to be savory. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually I'll agree. Sweet anything that isn't a desert/fruit. Are we TRYING to give everyone diabetes? CorruptUser 15:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

sweet chilli is fine. its not like it is actually sweet like candy. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

at any rate i thought sugar was in everything in the us. i heard american bread is like a cake. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

For prepared foods, yes, sugar (particularly corn syrup, which has a bad reputation but for the wrong reason IMHO, corn syrup has a one dimensional taste compared to sugar) is in way too many things in the US. (The one I WTF about the most is just how much sugar is in most prepared US pasta sauces. Sugar's not an unknown ingredient in pasta sauce, but not the quantity used here!) It's better than it used to be, probably due to the popularity of "low-carb" diets e.g. keto. You can get a lot more "sugar free" products now that market to this crowd. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sugar's a popular ingredient in Chinese cuisine too, since it helps the food have such a rich flavor Chinese cuisine is known for. For instance, one side I like is a peanut + fried gluten is in a thick sauce that definitely has sugar in it. You'd also use it to help marinate ribs and such. Anyway, sweetness is recommended in food, just a touch can help make a more complex flavor profile, just look at Thai soups. It's not that outrageous that pasta sauce has sugar in it, though I'd argue tomatoes are sweet enough. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 07:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

problem is, its isnt 'just a touch' in processed foods. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I vote tofu meatballs on spaghetti as the worst food ever. I thought some joker used styrofoam meatballs than I found it was tofu. Dutchbag (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Imitation meat can work when done right, I'll happily use it just for purely pragmatic purposes (it's nowhere near as much cleanup, putting down an imitation meat patty doesn't necessitate washing your hands before you touch anything else). But I can't say I've ever tasted anything made with tofu that came even close to what it was supposed to taste like. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I’ve tried Daiya grated cheese before. I find it horrendous. Patty Pat 15:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

it’s actually not that bad. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

ISIS leader is dead

Blew himself up. Unfortunately six kids also died. Andrew5 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Another power vacuum to quickly be filled. Per this NPR article 13 civilians total may have died. It’s unclear to me if this number includes the ISIS leader’s family that he had killed in the blast or not. I can’t help but think that any number of dead civilians generates more hate and the likelihood of a future radical emerging. Probliknaut (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

That caliphate is surely going well. In all seriousness, you cut off one head of the serpent, two more grow. Terrorism in the region could still be significant there. I've been curious to know who would be seen as the next big terrorist threat after ISIS pretty much declined. Clearly Al-Qaeda didn't die with Osama, but who knows? Patty Pat 02:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is we keep trying to solve this through brute force. Whence do these people come? Whence do these movements come? From what conditions do these behavior patterns originate? Until we answer and address these questions, we may as well play wack-a-mole at the arcade while drunk for all the "good" we're doing. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Violence begets violence. Kids growing up bitter over events like these just contribute to the cycle. But I guess I don’t have solution other than rendering all gunpowder magically inert so… Probliknaut (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not just the blatant and crude forms of physical violence and martial might. It is also the social, cultural, and political forces which shape these peoples and groups. What is the history of the average ISIS fighter? What political actors, if any, is ISIS aligned with? Why is it aligned with those actors, if any? What caused that person to join ISIS? What shaped them afterwards? Are external forces such as American imperialism at play or does at least some of the blame lay with local customs? To what extent if any is that the case? All of these questions and more are shunted aside in favor of martial might of the crudest sort, as such use of force is more expedient and convenient to those in power. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Islam obviously. AngryWatermelon (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay. What about Islam? Figuring that literally over 1 billion other people didn't fall to ISIS, Islam isn't the problem. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario What even is Islam in this instance? Sunnis and Shias dispute the legitimacy of the label in application to the other. So are we just going along the lines of "scary brown people religion"? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Me sitting here wondering if Andrew5 is gunna "both sides" ISIS as well.2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:45 (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

As much as that would be fun, I don’t really know much about ISIS Other then they’re bad. However what I do know is that the Syrian president hates him and Willis’s it as a power grabbing attempt, which is also bad. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

We mostly ignored Osama for years before 9/11, his entire reason for war had very little to do with the US directly. His entire schtick was that he wanted to replace all the secular-ish leaders of the Islamic world with one single Caliphate; the US was targeted to try and convince the US to abandon countries like Saudi Arabia so they were easier prey, not because Osama wanted to conquer everyone or anything like that. Well, he did want that, but it didn't need to be in his lifetime or the next century, just so long as the world was on that path. The point is, there wasn't a peaceful solution with the man. Sometimes, as ugly as it is, violence is the only option. There's always a price though... CorruptUser 16:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser I'm not talking about simply letting these leaders have their way. My problem is that the US seems to be very "shoot first, ask questions never" in its mentality, a mentality which in no small part was major cause in our failure in Afghanistan. We don't understand these societies and cultures, and we don't even care to try, thus leading us to adopt brutish and inefficient strategies and tactics that have a nasty habit of biting us in the ass later on. This blind apathy combined with a violence first approach is, to put it bluntly, stupid and ineffective. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of information on the political background behind this raid to make a good judgment on the situation right now, personally. The last comparable sort of raid I can think of (al-Baghdadi) was done with the cooperation of several nations, as well as defense forces such as the SDF. The United States has made some spectacularly bad political judgments in the Middle East, but given that generally most leaders of Middle East nations welcomed the al-Baghdadi raid / death, and it seems like most people in the Islam world also dislike ISIS, I don't tend to view the previous targeted raids (so far) in the same manner as our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. We'll see if it's similar here, but I'm guessing so. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(EC) I will agree that the US has been too violent and quick to go to war in a number of cases, not to mention a bit too willing to collude with the British in a number of Mid-East disasters such as Iran. However, I don't agree that the US has a "violence first" approach. I don't know of a war in the modern era where the US initiated a war without seriously attempting a much more peaceful solution first. The US did attempt to negotiate in the early days of 'Nam, the Iraq Disaster was the result of more than a decade of dealing with Saddam, the US made a number of good-faith efforts to halt the Yugoslav wars before getting much more heavily involved, etc. CorruptUser 17:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser But did they engage with these cultures as they are? Again, one of the major causes of failure in Afghanistan is that we acted as if it was a Western style federalized nation-state rather than a collection of loosely aligned and opposed tribes and warlords paying service to whichever faction emerged as dominant amongst them. We engaged with it as if it is one thing when it is in fact multiple things. This is a recurring problem with American foreign policy, especially in the middle east. We assume there is a singular "Islam" rather than a chaotic sea of "Islams" which we would then need to carefully navigate. And therein lies the problem. We don't engage with these cultures as they are, but rather as projections of ourselves. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

From my POV the US is constantly making the same mistake. It has little to do with violence, because violence is the basic tool of compliance in any civilization. If the US were much less violent, one should expect other nations to become more violent. That mistake is the belief that all non-western societies are educable as westerners: they can be made to act like western societies through social adjustments in schools and institutions and rituals. Societies that are able to mimic western cultures, as say Japan post WWII, may be handled in that manner. Others, like Afghanistan, are too culturally incoherent to be able to afford western values. They have their identities, and they are willing to fight for them. Don't worry if it does not make sense to you. One can blame all sorts of ideas to explain human nature, but they are, in the end, nominal fallacies, excuses for human weakness. There is no reason why it should seem reasonable for a feral culture, or civilization incommensurable with western values to be integrable with respect to the social fabric of western cultures. Yet, remember that people who arrive in the west from these so-called primitive regions are capable of adjusting to their circumstances. The ones who remain behind, as a heterogeneous congregation, can be expected to remain whoever they have become.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@UncleKrampus Afghanistan isn't culturally incoherent though. You trying to view it as one culture, rather than a collection of cultures that we, the external observers, label as "Afghanistan". So again, this is yet another example of the problem. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A problem I'm seeing in replies is people misconstruing "brute force" purely as "physical violence" rather than as a description of a particular approach to foreign policy. I even stated that I wasn't speaking purely of physical violence in this edit here. And so we see the mentality I'm criticizing in action, even in this very thread. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

GC, we DID try to negotiate with the various cultures differently, that's what the whole Northern Alliance stuff was. Afghanistan failed because the whole place is one giant mountain range with impossible to guard borders to countries that actively supported insurgencies against us. The only way that war was winnable would've been a genocide to an extent for which nobody could never be forgiven for even considering as an actual option. Once we got Osama in 2011, we should've declared "we got what we came for, bye" CorruptUser 20:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Quote where I said that we did not try negotiation. Quote me where I made that my central point. Or alternately, try to engage with my actual point, not what you think is my point based on half reading what I have written. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, the point you seem to be making is that "Afghanistan" isn't a country so much as a region with a whole mish-mash of different "countries" and cultures operating within it, but the US tried to negotiate with "Afghanistan" as a monolithic entity. My argument is that we didn't treat Afghanistan as a monolithic entity, that we were trying to negotiate and handle each group differently. CorruptUser 21:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie, Yes the incoherence can refer to the type of culture where individuality is highly prized. Or, it can refer to those cultures that are incoherent when interpreted from the POV of western values. An illustrative story about Afghan culture came out of a book I read long ago (can't remember the title or author). Anyway, the Germans had a number of nationals placed in Afghanistan at the end of WWII. The Allies ordered all nations with German nationals to surrender them to allied commands for processing. And failure to do so would result in dire consequences to recalcitrant parties and the Afghan government received an ultimatum stating that Afghanistan would be subject to military action if it did not comply with the order. Given the solemn regard all Afghans have concerning the proper treatment of guests, the government of Afghanistan determined it had no choice other than to declare war on the Allied nations that had threatened it's German guests, and issued a declaration of hostilities. Ultimately the Allies changed their attitude. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser That is partly incorrect. Yes, in my Afghanistan example, we see how not engaging with the local cultures as it actually is resulted in disaster. Yes, what we consider "Afghanistan" is more of a confederation of tribes and warlords than a nation in the liberal European sense. But when I say "engage" I mean in the sense of how we interact with it more broadly, not just diplomatically. That is to say, an understanding of the culture can provide important grounding for military and intelligence operations in the area. Hence my frustration with the idea that I am discounting the use of physical violence, when I very much am not. My concern is instead the thinking behind any of these courses of action, as that informs or misinforms how we engage in the aforementioned courses of action. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser To address "My argument is that we didn't treat Afghanistan as a monolithic entity, that we were trying to negotiate and handle each group differently." this is not born out by the facts. US soldiers in Afghanistan, as well as US command, operated as if these tribal factions were mere background elements to a federalized nation-state. This in turn led to us acting unknownly as muscle for various tribal feuds, leading us to target "Taliban" who were not, in fact, Taliban, but were instead members of rival tribes who we had unknowingly killed as part of ongoing hostilities. We did not understand the local systems and cultures, and therefore we did not know how to properly operate in the given area. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Fundies rolling on their willies with schools again

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/oklahoma-bill-would-fine-teachers-10k-for-teaching-anything-that-contradicts-religion/ar-AATs2Ce

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna14789

https://fox59.com/indianapolitics/indiana-schools-libraries-could-face-prosecution-for-harmful-materials-under-statehouse-bill/

2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:3E (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"There's a book we've seen that's in libraries in lots of schools that features a story of two daughters having sex with their dad," Selvig explains. - a small-time YouTube troll who apparently successfully got a MAGA to support a ban of the Bible.

The funny thing with these "proposals" is that they have to tread carefully (so as to disguise their white nationalism or so-called "Christian" theocracy lean). There's a lot of wiggle room for these bills, should they not die in committee (a lot of the dumber bills end up doing such), to backfire on them. For instance, there's nothing in that proposed Oklahoma bill (other than pity for the poor teachers who would bear the brunt for this bullshit) that would prevent someone from suing Oklahoma schools for mandating a daily reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (as they mostly do), prior Supreme Court decisions be damned. The pledge as it stands not only might contradict with, an atheist's views (who I'm sure Oklahoma Republicans frankly don't give a damn about), but it even actually might contradict certain people of Christian faith who might believe that (not unreasonably if one has actually read the Bible) the pledge is flat-out idolatry. What then? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a 'Faith of Rationalwiki' religion set up - 'respect other people's religious-ethical belief systems, be courteous and helpful wherever possible, and follow the science' to use in such circumstances. Anna Livia (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Now, there's a tangent point - can't you give an 'affirmation of allegience' if you feel you're unable to give an oath (like you can in the UK)? KarmaPolice (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

What is it with far right (and in some cases- far left) groups (or countries) using names that imply support for human rights and civil liberties despite having complete contempt for those concepts?

There is "Liberal Democratic Party" in Japan for example, North Korea as the "People's Democratic Republic of Korea", the "American Civil Rights Union" in the United States and the "American College of Pediatricians" in the United States as examples of this.

Do they want people to think that they are for freedom? Obviously groups like this oppose human rights and civil liberties.

This is part question and part rant. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Boring thread. 2804:14C:5B72:93B2:0:0:0:9CCA (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 these are generally a form of low level propaganda/marketing designed to appeal to people at first glance. This is usually followed up by other forms of propaganda which can vary by case. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Remember that "liberal" means something different outside the United States (eg, it more often than not refers to classical liberalism). In that context I don't see a *huge* amount wrong with the LDP's name. They actually are a little bit more statist than the name implies, and Japan's been too dominated by one political party for too long, but at present the United States is a little more flawed of a democracy than Japan in most indexes I see.

The rest, of course, is somewhere between partial truths to obscure bigotry to full on propaganda. The "American College of Pediatricians" is composed of pediatricians, and sounds official, right? If they called themselves a more truthful name ("American College of Homophobic Pediatricians") then people would instantly know right away what is up, and homophobic asshats like Glenn Beck couldn't cite them without appearing to be as instantly homophobic as he really is. It's all about the "window dressing" here. A lot of the ol' communist countries were the same way, "people's republic" was a common descriptor in many of these countries (no matter how totalitarian in practice the government was), and "democratic" often was tagged on even if the elections being held were total shams. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Being born, raised and living in the US I am not familiar with other definitions of words. It would probably be similar to a person who knows the same word but shocked by the use in other countries. In the US, the word "pan" means something you cook with but in a Hispanic nation such as Mexico or Spain it means Bread. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

To re-rail; the communist regimes which called themselves 'democractic' wasn't an open con. They simply adhere to the Leninist idea of 'proletarian democracy' (the theory being that there's democracy within The Party). What we term 'democracy' they derided as 'bourgeois democracy', filled with bought professional politicos, manipulative media outlets, jerrymandered elections and biased judges, all controlled by the capitalists.

In this case I'll argue that while their experiment failed even harder than ours, it doesn't mean that the Leninist critique is completely devoid of substance. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that the case of the LDP in Japan is more about the specific, historical circumstances at its founding in 1955, than just mere misleading branding. Calling yourself “conservative” in a Japan just a decade away from WWII and out from formal US occupation for just 3 years was probably never going to fly. Choosing “liberal” and “democratic” served several purposes, including signalling a mere merger of parties, making it easy for members of actual liberal parties to join, not to mention being able to claim the “legitimist” heritage of the various liberal parties back to the Meiji era, while avoiding the problematic, not to say outright discredited (at least at the time) formal label of “conservatism”.

Other cases are similar results of historical developments with my favourite examples being the names of some Danish political parties. Directly translated, what is called the “Left” is actually a centre-right party (agrarian liberal, though more conservative in outlook these days); whereas the “Radical Left” is a centrist party (social liberal). Both of these names stem from the historical development “from right to left” of the Danish political spectrum:

Initially, the Left (agrarian liberal) party confronted the Right (conservative monarchists, with more than a tinge of Ancien Régime) party, but a more radical fringe subsequently split from the Left to form the Radical Left (in an odd alliance between smallholders and intellectuals), before in turn being “outflanked” from its left by the labour movement (particularly the Social Democrats). However, the names of these two parties stuck around, whereas The Right changed its name to the Conservative Peoples Party (Denmark is big on people’s parties, btw), but is often just called the Conservatives. Fun times all around. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Not good for Turkey

(Was gonna post it on the COVID page but it didn't work) Turkey sees record high daily COVID cases. Andrew5 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, how terrible! They might even have to stop their racist warmongering and persecutions of any non-Turks at this rate!82.132.219.216 (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Covid is showing no signs of stopping anywhere. Pretty embarrassing really, no one is taking it as seriously as they talk about it.Spoony (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The black death (from the mid-14th century) lasted 7 years. COVID will likely dissapear in the next few decades. Andrew5 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

COVID is not the Bubonic Plague. It has the ability to quickly mutate and adapt to changing conditions; even when there is vaccinations and better sanitation. Bubonic Plague was able to spread due to lack of modern medicine, poor hygiene and several vectors that allowed animal-human transmission. Bubonic Plague is not overly contagious and does not rapidly mutate. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The 1918 influenza pandemic ("Spanish flu") has lasted more than a century as the seasonal flu. It 'only' kills between 20,000 to 50,000 Americans per year[8] (mostly elderly and immunocompromised people). Expect COVID to turn into something similar. Causing death is not an advantageous outcome for viruses, just a side-effect. So as a virus mutates over time it's tends to be less lethal, improving its chances of propagating by keeping the host alive. Due to global failure in containment, expect COVID to eventually be something more like the flu. Advances in vaccines leading up to the pandemic, have increased vaccine production speeds and efficacy, so expect that people who get vaccinated will out-compete the unvaccinated over time. Bongolian (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

'The black death (from the mid-14th century) lasted 7 years.' the plague stalked europe for hundreds of years. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing that was just poor word choice. The Black Death did last from 1346 to 1353. However, bubonic plague has been a scourge for centuries, almost everywhere. There are far fewer cases of plague today than a century ago.

There was even a major plague outbreak that mainly affected port cities between around 1850-1900.

So, both statements are true.

Plague is different, though. It is rarely transmitted human to human. Mainly it is transmitted through infected fleas. As a result, hygiene and sanitation help a lot to control it.

It is also a bacteria driven disease, so these days, with antibiotics, it can be treated.

COVID-19 is a respiratory virus (not treatable with antibiotics, spreads from human to human easily). Mutating into an annoying, but usually not lethal form is what happened to the Spanish flu virus (H1N1). No reason to suspect this won't happen again, from what I read. That being said an H1N1 pandemic occasionally also still happens, with echoes of the original 1918 virus in the new ones. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What Bongolian says is right, though with hindsight I don't think containment was ever a viable option. It could be said it was a kind of perfect storm; it arose at the start of the traditional 'flu season', shares many of it's symptoms with flu, a fair % don't have any symptoms, is highly contagious, was around at the block of time for mass travel/gatherings (Christmas/New Years) and while I don't give no truck to Chinese conspiracies, I do believe their original response was at a Chernobyl-level of mass denials due to heavy 'seagull management' which meant the rest of the world didn't get the alerts early enough.

Though 'we' were hugely complacent too. Our defences had been denuded of resources for generations and what resources existed was to 'fight the last pandemic', which would have been the Swine Flu of '09. A series of 'near-misses' for the last 20 years may have also bred said complacency, along with the partly incorrect belief that infectious epidemics are a thing of the past. What's more, coronaviruses were a 'weak link' in our armour; as of '19 we still didn't have a vaccine for the '03 SARS and lack specialised treatments for MERS. Lastly, the populace had forgotten in advanced nations how to deal with infectious disease ie prevention.

So... Covid shall go two ways. Either it shall flow around endemic within our species until we can finally nail it down with a vaccine which confers much better immunity or it shall recede... only to burst back on the scene once most folks immunity has waned. For the vast majority of infectious diseases don't vanish, they simply retreat back into a dark corner to bide their time. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

In point of fact containment is an option - it's what China does. But it's looking like an increasingly bad one for them. In their their autocratic society then can impose hard lockdowns in an instant - and they do that at the first case.

And the result has been that they can run their businesses. But the other result of low Covid infections has been low natural Covid resistance. That, added to the anecdotally worse effectiveness of the Chinese vaccines, means that they now lack a good exit strategy.

Although Omicron is generally gives milder symptoms it is (as I understand it) not clear if it is intrinsically milder or milder because of natural and vaccine-induced resistance. It looks to me like the latter, and after a couple more rounds of infections we may just learn to live with it.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

COVID can end. But to end, it needs to rapidly ravage around 25% of the world in mere weeks. It would be too dangerous to let COVID end on it's own. Too many will die. Andrew5 (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

When I said 'containment', I more meant 'containment-eradication', the kind followed by Western nations between Jan-Mar '20. I remember here in the UK, the moment they started to test non-obvious Covid suspects (start of March) they started to find clusters with no link with China. Provisional conclusion – that Covid had already been well-seeded within the UK before the official alerts in early February. This theory explains why the hell I had all the Covid symptoms and then gave it to three others in mid-Jan.

When it comes to the above policy, the best successes aren't China, but of Australia / New Zealand, followed by Taiwan and S Korea. This has been possible due to a very hot on the ball public health, their geographical position and traditions. With hindsight, that option was never really an option for the rest of us.

In regards to Omicron, it would *appear* that the UK's gamble of 'ride it out' is working, though our health services are truly knackered out. Perhaps a combination of vaccines + natural immunity from previous waves + current asymptomatic infections shall between them give enough protection for us... for awhile.

However, the thing which worries me is the 'learn to live with it' mentality. Some mean 'pretend it's not there', while others (like me) mean to 'put in a stronger framework of prevention and mitigation' – for example, to improve ventilation of public spaces, higher standards of hygiene and building 'resiliency' in institutions. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Any Christians Here?

With how loud the Religious right is it's hard to get your input in and I feel like I'd have a lot to say about them at this point.Spoony (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There are probably some, there is no requirement on the site to make a statement of belief or otherwise. But there are certainly a lot of atheists and probably some other religions too. Though I'm not sure if you are asking someone to self-identify as Christian (I'm certainly not) or asking for permission to post a rant. If so - well - rant away.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There have probably always been religious people on RW. The only survey of users' religious views was conducted in 2017 (Forum:2017 Community Survey Results). The survey showed a large proportion of non-religious people with a modest minority of Christians. We have even had a Christian moderator for a while without any complaints (User:RWRW). If you have something to say that doesn't fit elsewhere, you can always write an essay (Category:Essays). Bongolian (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I am a Luciferian myself. There is plenty of Atheists, I think there is some Jewish people here, a Hindu and a Buddhist. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh no im so scared lol at any rate awesome good to know there's a diversity of beliefs here. What makes luciferianism different from Satanism anyways my head imagines it as being less "edgy", you likely know my views on the name. Edit: Looked him up and I guess he's more of a personification of values than any real deity to many of you guys?Spoony (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Define “Christian”…

When I have encountered this word online, it has often actually meant something like “US literalist fundamentalist”, which also tends to be the typical antagonist/“other” of “deconversion” stories by US atheists. Whether one is referring to this particular style/brand of Christianity or the oodles of variants of the “we believe in Jesus” faith(s) is quite important when posing the question in this section. And I guess that, formally (as in censuses/statistics), I would probably be counted as a Christian (though definitely not in the first sense I listed, not even being from God’s Own Country, the blessed shores of the Great US of A). ScepticWombat (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

To follow on Sceptic's point, from my view is that for Americans many 'Christians' (esp Evangelical) is not religious, but cultural/political in nature. With hindsight, I notice this from the cult lessons I got as a kid; it was much more about how to 'conform to expected habits' rather than to actually nurture and guide genuine faith. But this is an aspect – that church-cult shall envelop your entire life, your whole being – that non-culties shall not understand.

My rule of thumb is this; the longer it takes for me to hear of another's 'Christian faith', the more genuinely held their views are, and the more I can truly respect them. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hardcore materialism and sun worship are the only positions I truly respect. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

When is "close minded" a valid remark to make?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-possible-solutions-if-any-for-solipsism/answer/Bert-Leysath?comment_id=243357674&comment_type=2

I say this because I got into an argument with the guy in the link, mostly because he tried to argue solipsism with other people/minds (which by definition invalidates solipsism). He then goes on to call me a naive realist and say I wouldn't get it because I'm close minded.

I know similar accusations are levied by people who promote woo or nonsense theories as a way to chide others for criticizing them. My question is then when is it valid to call someone close-minded and when is it just a cover to avoid criticism?Machina (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Somebody is closed-minded if they are unwilling to even entertain new ideas. Somebody who entertains a new idea, but does not endorse it, is not automatically closed-minded (I allow for the possibility that they are, perhaps if their reason for rejection is of a particular kind). Somebody who is presented with an idea they are already familiar with and have evaluated before may reject it out of hand without being closed-minded, if the new presentation does not add anything (significant) to what they have already considered. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 03:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It can be difficult to tell the difference. One thing that helps is turning it on the person throwing it at you: is their mind open to other viewpoints? When it's used as a defense mechanism, it often really means "you need to open your mind to my argument, AND close your mind to arguments that oppose mine" 71.188.73.184 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's less 'unwilling to entertain new ideas' and more 'unwilling to accept new information'. Classic example; they shall dismiss or ignore any 'information' which is contrary to their pre-determed view. Problem is, sometimes this 'dismissial' is a valid response (crackpot view, point already refuted, not relevant etc). The second problem is that often people may reach opinion X rationally but then once 'invested' in it feel the need to defend it to the hilt, even on bits which simply cannot be defended. I think folks end up doing this as a kind of defence mechanism; to simply say 'you have a point there' or 'I cannot answer that' then allows the 'opponent' to declare victory (even if said one point was relatively trivial). KarmaPolice (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well I say that because all the guy in the link above did was just call me a "naive realist" and that I "wouldn't get it given my mental framework" and kept insisting he explained himself in his post (he didn't, you can check for yourselves). It just sounded like since I wouldn't accept his, admittedly WOO, views about consciousness and reality that I was close minded. I told him I have no reason to believe his premises nor do they lead to his conclusion. He kept insisting solipsism works with superposition and I kept saying it doesn't because that's admitting to knowledge of something ELSE, which solipsism does not. It goes on and on capped by him saying that "reality always conforms to our wishes as long as they don't break natural law, it's just that we often don't know what we are wishing for" which was obviously wrong (I mean it doesn't take any critical thinking to do that). But every argument I made against him was just met with "you don't get because 'naive realist' (as if that's some auto win button)", when the reality is that I KNOW what he is talking about I just don't see why I should believe it nor is there evidence for me to believe. Then he said all proof is tautological, whatever that means. Honestly I don't know why I kept on when it was obvious nothing was getting through. I might have been abrasive but I argued my points and asked him to explain his, so I don't think I'm close-minded here. But it sounds like because I wouldn't accept his premises (one being that consciousness is primary) that I'm close-minded.Machina (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't see in your link where all this discussion is happening, but rejecting a dubious premise is not closed-minded, and based on your quotes, it sounds like your interlocutor was making some pretty dubious claims. Also, I can't tell if you already know this, but 'naive realism' is something of a term of art, roughly corresponding to the view that the senses provide us with direct access to the external world ('naive' because it's the commonsense view most people take for granted).

In logic, a tautology is a formula that evaluates to true for every assignment of truth values to its basic constituents (e.g. p or not p is true whether or not p is true). "All proof is tautological" sounds like a bad excuse for refusing to justify a claim. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

People who are being called out for making unintelligible statements usually respond by attacking the person calling them out. We know that everything we do is important to our own well being, so that for us there is prima facie evidence that sensations are meaningful. Some people with jobs sitting in a cubicle for ungodly hours, writing code for software, can start to lose their minds. Why not believe that the world isn't really there? For them, it is a consolation. You can't argue with those people. Recognizing who they are is an important step for you.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The discussion is in the link under the user Ian Corral, I don't think you need to have a Quora account to see it but if you do just loading the page from your history should bypass it. You just need to see a few exchanges to see what I'm getting in regards to him. There is WAAAAAYYYY too much to delve into but a lot of it is saying "You don't get because your worldview won't allow it". Like...I know what panpsychism is but I don't buy into and neither does it get over solipsism. Not to mention me constantly repeating that superposition has nothing to do with solipsism and that the existence of other minds automatically invalidates solipsism. It's like I was a broken record trying to get that across.Machina (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Drinks of choice

Given this is a saloon bar, and given the heaviness so many of these conversations have, I’m curious: do you have a drink of choice? Something new you recently discovered? A particular treat? I am currently drinking a canned mai tai. It’s strong and sweet and good. Probliknaut (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Dogfish Head Sea Quench Ale and shots of Espolòn Tequlila Reposado with a Food Lion Soul Food Seasoning. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 04:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

IPA is my favorite. But IPA is now such a big class of ale with so many subdivisions and strengths that it has become a little difficult to say which one. Also, as they are often made by microbreweries, a particular ale may disappear overnight. Nevertheless I would say my all-time favorite is SSD from Basqueland which I had thought had disappeared - until this thread inspired me to look it up. So thanks for that!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

IPA is my go-to beer though I also enjoy some liquors too including vodka, soju, and kaoliang (that one's potent, makes soju seem weak). I also like Rolling Stone though seems light to me, but I probably just am accustomed to IPA. Haven't really raved with darker thicker beers like Guinness Draught. Wine? Meh. Don't like it as much as beer though it's born to be paired with cheese and whatnot. By itself? Tastes acquired. I'm also a soda junkie and I can't tell the difference between coke zero and diet coke. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 09:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Rum and Baily's Irish Cream are my favorites, though I also drink Kahlua, mead, and the occasional wine or cider. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

For beer IPAs are my go to, though occasionally a red ale will have enough hops to be just as good, and I have a taste for sake. For spirits I enjoy my gin (especially for mixing Vespers), an occasional Japanese whiskey, and Salignac cognac. When it's in season, I'll have a pumpkin ale or an Irish beer every so often. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Due to the less than joyous state of my liver, these days my drink of choice is Mountain Dew. And yes, I know it was originally intended as a mixer for harder beverages, but I take my Dew neat. Kencolt (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

If we’re talking hard spirits, then, as a rule, single malt during the colder part of the year, good rum during the hotter. As for fermented (only) beverage, then cider (the real, fermented stuff, not the various mixed products), though I have tried some nice mead. Quite big on cocktails too (Dark’n’Stormy is probably the most prevalent, but I also enjoy daiquiris, sours, Last Word, tiki cocktails, oh, and Irish coffee in the winter, and am still experimenting). Non-alcoholic is mainly Coke Zero (it has caffeine, is less sweet than the alternatives and, obviously, cuts down on calories — DOESN’T generally work well in cocktails, though…), preferably with ice and some lemon or lime (yup, adds some calories, but also tastes better) and occasionally a sprig of mint or two. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I've recently been on tequila bender, but repasado's and anejo's as opposed to doing shots. It's equivalent to sipping whisky.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Cans or bottles?

I'm just going to hijack an extension to this thread for a moment to ask: cans or bottles? And for taste or the environment?

I prefer my beer in bottles, though sometimes there is no choice. In this link, selected pretty much at random, it seems "it's complicated".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

In my case neither, I prefer to drink out of a glass. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Glass bottles/jars are reusable as well as recyclable. Also, even with Euro-level recycling levels the ecological weight of glass is a bit lighter over the whole lifecycle. With transport costs, cans win over bottles, but often with drinks which have travelled a long way said drink is transported by barrel and then bottled, so there's less weight difference. Plus, a barrel is much more sturdy than cans, so less wastage and less protective packaging. But neither is best; so if at a pub etc I shall select the drink from either a syrup pack or barrel.

Taste-wise, I don't mind canned. But I'll pour the can into a glass, so the metallic taste don't taint. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Eh, bottles. Cans can get hard to drink out of without a straw which can be either be bad for the environment or taste bad. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Cans. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Depends. Environmentalism aside, I obviously prefer to carry cans over bottles, but one advantage of bottles is that they stay colder for longer. While I don’t find cans particularly hard to drink from, the crown/cap on bottles protect the “drinking surface” a bit better from muck, which is nice in some settings. It can also be easier to tie a string around a bottle and dump it in a body of water to cool it (particularly useful if you’re on a boat) or to wrap it in damp cloth and stick it in a place where there’s a breeze to at least cool it a bit. And of course some bottles can be resealed more or less well, whereas cans basically have to be consumed at once. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Cans aren't hard to drink from if the hole on top is bigger then it typically is. Andrew5 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, cans are one use, but in carbonated drinks, which I usually drink from cans, you have to drink relatively fast or else it'll go flat. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Cans/tins also have the issue that a lot of drinks/foods can in fact become contaminiated from said metal. That's why they have to have resin 'linings' like BPA, in which there's a bit of a mini-scare about (vaguely mentioned on the RW 'Bottled Water', but think it deserves it's own page). It's partly why metal bottles can't be used for anything save water and you never see a 'resusable' metal can. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

AccuWeather RealFeels confuse me

I mean, what is their calculation? For my location, it says it is sunny, with 3mph (5kph) wind. All of a sudden this equates to a 19°F (-7°C) temperature jumping to 26°F (-3°C), with in the shade it being 21°F (-6°C). First of all, that's a bit low (Apple Weather indicates 22°F (-6°C), but with a 12°F (-11°C) RealFeel due to 7mph (11kph) winds. But even Dark Sky, which agrees with AccuWeather on winds, is still putting the RealFeel down at 17°F (-8°C). How is AccuWeather calculating it? Andrew5 (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

andrew5 talk about the weather one more time. i dare you. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

In my defense, this isn't me talking about a natural disaster yet again. (P.S. this is a serious question if any of you can figure it out). Andrew5 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Really? How does posting about weather constitute trolling? I feel like it's being abused around here. All I am trying to do is get an answer out of the AccuWeather realfeel temperatures. Sometimes I question the "accurate" part of AccuWeather. Andrew5 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Exhale...ShabiDOO 17:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It's because the sun and cumulonimbus clouds are having a gerrymandering war and whoever's behind RealFeal also draws the Cloud District's lines, very evilly mind you. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank god AccuWeather explains it. Andrew5 (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a real good source of information about gerrymandering. Probably your only source. Whether you like it or not, I suggest diversifying and using Weather.com (paywalled unfortunately) and the Weather Channel and the Weather Network. It'll give you a more complete picture of the gerrymandering problem and you even get to see perspective from stratus, altostratus, altocumulus (as well as the mackerel sky), altocumulus lenticularis, cirrostratus, cumulus castellanus and even cumulus congestus. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a feeling I'm getting mocked...Andrew5 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I would strongly discourage any weather buff from using the major US commercial weather products (Accuweather, The Weather Channel, etc.) in the US. They have a tendency to both sensationalize (see: TWC's unnecessary "winter storm" naming) and mess with proprietary bullshit that only they know what the fuck the formula is, such as that RealFeel crapola. More problematic (in something actually a little more "one mission"), Accuweather in particular, and especially under the former leadership of the sexual harassment-tolerating CEO Barry Lee Myers, have made multiple attempts to privatize and undermine the National Weather Service (which provides the data they (and everyone else) uses) and to force the NWS to be a mere data provider to private companies like Accuweather. TWS's weather.gov has a kind of primitive interface, but IMHO gives much more useful information in the first place, and allows you to avoid companies that think crony capitalism should be the future political system of the United States. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, other RealFeels can only use one other factor. This makes it both better and worse, IMHO. Most egregiously, AccuWeather estimated Hurricane Henri caused $8-12 billion, when the TCR mentions only $700 million. As NOAA estimates the devistating tornado outbreak in December caused $3.9 billion, AccuWeather estimates $18 billion. They overestimate. Andrew5 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Man yells at cloud. Bongolian (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I know what weather service not to use and that's weather.com for having the temerity to try to force me to disable AdBlock. "We use cookies" is only second to "turn off AdBlock" when it comes to rapidly hitting the back button or using Ublock. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I use BBC Weather myself. It's one of the few things I'm perma-signed into and is my browser's starting page. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Question

WHats the worst fallacy? Andrew5 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I will contend that the "racist equals right-wing, civil rights equals left-wing" cliché ranks high among fallacious, erroneous academic narratives which become the basis for egregious lies. Ushit the dipshit ^{(I shit, Ushit...)} 21:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Andrew5 (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

And here we have the two dumbest users on the site jerking each other off over their enlightened centrism. A more pathetic pair of clowns the world seldom sees. 5.151.22.148 (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The fallacy fallacy — because it's meta meta. And the infinite regress because it's meta, meta, meta… Bongolian (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the worst fallacy depends on what you mean by worst. If you mean the ones that are most frequently used in every day discussions (especially ones on political issues as well as existential ones like religion etc) and strictly in general arguments rather than the actual gritty of debating with someone then I would say:

• False dichotomy
• Slippery Slope
• Hasty generalisation
• Faulty Analogy
• Non sequitur

In terms of fallacies people use which can make debating very frustrating and tedious, I would say:

• Strawman
• Red herring
• Ad Hominem

Though to be honest, the worst error people make is not using fallacies but not having a sound argument. To have a sound argument not only must the conclusion follow from the premise, but you cannot use false premises. False premises are amongst the most pernicious issue when debating people and it is VERY easy to overlook them by focussing to much on fallacies.ShabiDOO 22:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

My least favorite fallacy is Gamblers fallacy. It’s so annoying because people then abuse it in so many ways and then get dissapointed. Ugh. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The Ad hominem fallacy, mainly because it's almost never accurately "identified". Following that is the tone argument, which reduces honest discussion into poisoned honey, and the balance fallacy which distorts truth into nothingness. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I know Bob would throw in the Not as bad as fallacy. Andrew5 (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The 'worst fallacy' is assuming that there is a 'worst fallacy' as such - different fallacies are problematic in different ways. Anna Livia (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

Some countries are lifting lockdowns and mandates. Some are doubling down and making it illegal to be unvaccinated. A confusing situation indeed. 1.145.141.236 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not 'confusing'. For the following;

1/ - Name somewhere it's become illegal to be unvaccinated. And before you trot out 'no jab no job' examples, I want one where if you are not vaccinated, period you shall go to prison and you shall not pass Go.

2/ - The vast majority of countries got rid of 'lockdowns' quite some time ago. Some relatively mild 'restrictions' may or may not be in force, mainly in the fields of mass gatherings and foreign travel. But calling them lockdowns is hyperbole.

3/ - The lockdowns generally (a few exceptions exist, such as Aus/NZ) weren't aiming at 'eradication', but of 'flattening the curve' so health systems weren't overwhelmed. The UK 'gamble' has shown that Omicron + mass vaccination coverage - significant restrictions = 'manageable' Covid hospitalisation rates. Therefore, mass vaccination cover is the key bit. Thus, the carrot/stick approach for getting those vaccinations.

4/ - The cynical view can be that allowing the refuseniks to get their immunity 'naturally' can top up the resistance in the general population, which with any luck shall allow us to move to the next phase; endemic but with mitigations, while we wait for a vaccine which can break the transmition cycles for good.

KarmaPolice (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It really depends per country due to multiple conditions such as income inequality, quality of information, how each country is organized, how each policy is set, etc so of course it's going to vary a bit. Most countries probably benefit from mandrakes though, everyone with access to the best vaccines ought to get vaccinated, and everyone should get vaccinated if they can. If push becomes shove, so be it, and that shove is just not letting walking vectors attend bars, public pools, fly in an airplane, or go to doctor clinics and whatnot if they don't want some cloth on their face. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it does depend on factors such as, for example how large the previous waves were and how good the home testing regimen is. It's this which leads me to the 'it's not worth the effort' argument regarding compulsion for the UK; we have good testing (generally) and our previous wave scores so terrible there's gonna be a decent % of refuseniks who by now have natural immunity.

But it's something which is worrying me a tad; here we're seeing a decent % of the 'learn to live with it' crowd being of the right-wing, callous libertarian type using it as code for 'pretend it's all over'. There's good arguments for public health in general (not just Covid) to keep in place some of the mitigations, such as increased hygiene in public areas, better ventilation and so on. One thing I've already started to miss is the gradual vanishment of the hand sanitiser stations. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

With regard to question one above: Austria has made vaccination compulsory. But with regard to the initial post in general it's absurd. Levels of infections, timing of responses, levels of vaccinations and so on have always been different in different countries.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Name somewhere it's become illegal to be unvaccinated - Austria comes to mind as one example. ^{— Unsigned, by: 1.145.157.248 / talk / contribs}

did you not see bob's post? like the post right above your own? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice UK Health authorities have been going in and out of black alert status for a few months now. Even vaccines + booster aren't keeping it low enough for hospitals to operate anything approaching normally. I see the scare quotes around manageable but I think even they understate how bad it is. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe the NHS is so clapped out that some trusts would be close to keeling over even if Covid hospitalisations were zero - everyone knows it didn't go into the pandemic in a healthy state as it was. And no, I think the govt *do* know how bad it is but either a) do not care and/or b) don't want to pay to get it sorted. The announcement that Javid is going to hire something like 14k more medical staff made me yell at the radio 'where the [redacted] do you think they're gonna come from, slap-head? The country is short of these skills already!'.

I didn't know about the Austria example, though from the sounds of it few other countries seems to be really considering mandatory vaccinations. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Idea: Bar ban on US electoral gerrymandering topics

I'm sick and tired of seeing them, feel they're hugely American-centric and I think they're sucking too much 'bandwidth' of some folks here. They're also variants of the same damn argument again and again - most devolve into a 'not as bad as' and 'well, they started it!' elements. They're completely unproductive topics to cover; I mean, everyone accepts gerrymandering is a) bad and b) exists so we end up having increasingly cranky arguments over slithers of land, court judgements and so on.

But I also think continuously talking about individual cases is in fact playing into the arms of those who desire to discredit the whole democratic system. It's death by a thousand mentions; do it enough you'll end up creating large blocs of voters who are shot through with apathy/cynicism and don't vote etc 'because it's all rigged from gerrymandering, right?' which is dangerous for long-term stability of democratic systems.

The discussions are also done in a negative way too. There's barely ever discussions about how the problems can be sorted out, or even taking the topic in an interesting direction. Thus, I'm finding them really boring and having to scroll through the acres of text annoying (though on the plus side is getting me off my arse to finish off doing the 'Metric System' page instead of mucking about here...) KarmaPolice (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I think I have had enough of these kinds of "bar fights". Your point about how it creates cynicism in democracies is on point, and I haven't thought about it that way before. LongStylus (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

We are allowed to have country-centric topics. CorruptUser 05:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My complaint of it being 'too American-centric' is perhaps the weakest part of my argument. But it's removal doesn't make the rest of it collapse. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I must admit that I just skim past it now. It's so specific to one country and the arguments I have read seem so repetitive that it's not worth my eyeball-time.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

its not a ban in the saloon bar that is needed but a ban on the specific user AMassiveGay (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Gerrymandering does occur elsewhere in the world (this being an example) - and there will always be some 'quirky redrawing' (for a variety of reasons). One of the cases where 'bringing in persons from a foreign state (who will use their own logic) to redraw the map' might be appropriate. Anna Livia (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Anna, that's what I mean by 'taking the topic in an interesting direction'. Having thought about it, there might actually be decent arguments to have a little bit of gerrymandering now and then. But we don't get that. It's just repetitions of the same negative conversation.

As for Gay's point, I'm trying to not make it personal... KarmaPolice (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I see the point but you probably end up having more people feel incorrectly called out that way. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

What, playing the topic and not the person? If yes, that sounds like a plea to remain silent. Which is fair if it's a one-off. But it isn't. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I would prefer that it not come to a Saloon topic ban. It would be better if @Andrew5 could find a better outlet for his repetitive behavior. For example, there are citizen scientist projects that might interest him.[10] including some that involve weather. [11] Bongolian (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see that every piece of news, for instance the most recent one of Kansas overriding Kelly's veto by one vote, can get annoying. I feel it would be better if when it's all said and done, we discuss it then. Andrew5 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The Hilarious Incompetence of the Early Colonists

Ever wonder why virtually all of Europe had heard of that whole "New World" thing in 1493, yet the first successful colonies on the North American mainland simply did not exist for over a century? Bit of a history lesson, and a lesson into the nature of humanity.

There were numerous attempts to establish settlements in what are now the US and Canada from the very beginning, but until Jamestown, they all ended in failure. The first attempts were made up of upper-class "gentlemen" along with their manservants, and unskilled petty crooks who were desperate to find a new life for themselves. Notably, skilled professionals were absent from those populations, because those people were too busy living relatively comfortable lives back home, making a decent living. And while it might not seem like an advanced skill, farming and fishing were among those skills that were curiously absent, and just because the people who do those skills are "simple" does not mean anyone could pick up those skills in a matter of days. In other words, the colonists doomed themselves to starvation.

In the case of Jamestown, the settlement was constantly resupplied by other voyages, and pretty much within the year a number of actually skilled Polish and Germans just happened to arrive in the colony; this multi-cultural part gets erased from the history books because non-English. Even so, for the first few winters half the colony still died off, to be devoured by those who survived, and kept getting replenished with new people. None of the first few women survived; some speculate there were more than a few cases of outright murder for food. To remedy this, the King rounded up a bunch of prostitutes and sent them to Jamestown in lieu of other punishment. If you trace your lineage to the original colonists, your ancestors were cannibals, hookers, and cannibalistic hookers. Eventually the colony established itself and figured out the whole "not starving" thing, but it took some time.

Plymouth was also interesting, in that it only survived through the dumb luck of getting involved in Native politics and one of the local kings (yes, the native tribes had kings too) keeping them alive in the hopes they would help him balance the power against his rivals. That kinda worked, a bit better than he had hoped, but that's another story.

But what does this have to do with human nature? These people were not any different than the people today. All those idiots who think they know more than everyone else, only to do something incredibly foolish with no actual planning? They existed back then too. Only, they got themselves killed. Just an interesting bit of history.CorruptUser 16:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "human nature". That's a black box term we just ascribe things to, it doesn't actually exist. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Fast forward to a few years from now: Elon Musk and some fellow-Dunning–Kruger-type billionaires will establish a colony on Mars with some manservants and prostitutes. It will need constant resupply until the money and patience runs out. Bongolian (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Some might call that venture a problem that solves itself (although we should rescue the servants and prostitutes). Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(EC) GC; "Human nature" is a nebulous term, yes, but what's most surprising when reading history is just how similar people are throughout time. History might not repeat but it does rhyme.

Bongo; yup, my thoughts exactly. The Outer Worlds 2 is actually going to be a prequel starring Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. CorruptUser 16:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, AFAIK, many of these gentlemen and other early “settlers” were not really seeking to settle or colonise anything, but were sure that they could find some fabulous source of gold or silver or whatever, and basically pull a Cortés or Pizarro (the king would get his share which is why the various crowned heads of Europe threw money at these more or less harebrained schemes). There was probably also some ideas of “pulling a Columbus” and finding a quick(er) route to the fabled riches of Asia.

Essentially, the early attraction of “The Americas” was the lure of such “get rich quick” schemes and only after it became clear that there were no (more) fabulous riches to be had and with the arrival of various dissidents and other misfits did the attention turn to colonisation. The first big economic success not based on some form of precious metal extraction would be the sugar plantations of the Caribbean (although you could also count the fisheries on the Grand Banks), whereas mainland North America had to wait for the “tobacco rush” to find something that was more lucrative than subsistence farming and similar activities. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You are also missing the rush for Fur. The fur trade was almost as lucrative as sugar, but more importantly, the natives would do it for you without any need for slavery. The Dutch founded New York/Amsterdam as a sort of trading post. The natives, meanwhile, had all these furs that were basically viewed almost like trash, and were more than willing to trade the worthless things for such intricate commodities as metal cooking utensils, glass beads, cinnabar, etc, that Europeans had viewed as cheap throwaway goods. One of the problems was that the fur trade was so valuable for the natives that they murdered each other over the ability to trade with the Europeans.CorruptUser 17:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScepticWombat So it was incentive structures, not some innate "human nature". @CorruptUser Are there similarities? Or are yyou imposing an narrative upon the historical record? Further, presuming there are indeed similarities, how can you be sure it's some amorphous (and usually undefined because it's a vague buzzword that means nothing) "human nature"? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

One of the more amusing sidebars was that Europeans frequently traded Jew's harps to various groups in exchange for furs and other commodities. While Jew's harps were ubiquitous throughout Eurasia, North Africa, and Polynesia, and some people in the Americas independently developed mouth bows (though not in Brazil, West Africans there probably invented the berimbau), no one had ever developed one in the Americas. Accordingly, the recipients pretty much universally misunderstood the purpose of them, so instead of using them as instruments they gave them to their kids to use as noisemaker toys. In other cases, as with the Apache, they took the idea of violins (other than mouth bows the Americas have no native pre-Columbian string instruments) and turned them into Apache fiddles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights That wpa link leads to a non-existent article. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you are missing the forest for the trees there, GC. My point is that the same types and combinations of arrogance and idiocy that can be found in some people today also existed back then for often similar reasons. CorruptUser 17:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Not really. You're looking at a series of events and then vaguely gesturing at a black box notion to explain them. You might as well have declared Original Sin and the Devil to be the cause. (which you functionally have if we're being honest with ourselves). Your problem, therefore, is that you wish to avoid actually thinking about these things. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's ask everyone else. Does GC have a point or is he getting caught up in nonsense? CorruptUser 18:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixed my link, forgot to account for the singular title. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)}}

@CorruptUser Attempting an appeal to popularity? That's hardly disputing my thesis that you're trying to avoid actually thinking about this subject... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think the OP is overfitting somewhat. Most, though not all the early settlement attempts did include folks with 'decent skills'; for the average European at this stage was much more self-sufficient re skill-sets. But you're right in the respect there was not enough of them, far too many folks who signed on were or marginal or nil worth at that point and there was too many unknowns. There were also problems; some resupply ships failed to arrive, others brought the wrong cargos. Lastly, communications were so poor - early colonies 2 years was an normal turn-around time. Which was too long if you'd discovered - like the did in New England - that the 'English' grain you'd brought cannot survive in the harsher Massachusetts winters.

But more generally, their main problem was economic. The colonists were under-capitalised (in all ways), because better 'opportunities' lay closer to home. This meant they had too many mavericks, chancers and desperate as colonists, not enough solid, sturdy folks. There was not enough people/cash investment in the colonies to produce both cash crops and food, and the former was vital to attract continued investment, like any other business.

Colony attempts normally started to 'stick' once either big businesses started to get into it or the state. Ones who had enough cash, clout and expertise to overcome the hurdles. Which can be seen in any field of human endeavour. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I also expect the servant-prostitutes 'servicing' billionaries on Mars to be androids. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm... The thesis of "innate negative traits" seems to be getting weaker the more we dig into this issue... I wonder why I'd be skeptical of such fanciful notions? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Pre-Enlightenment societies can come across as weird to post-Enlightenment sensibilities.

"There's no such thing as "human nature"." We've had this discussion before. And that's not what you said in it. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@192․168․1․42 I fail to see a hard contradiction, only a slight shift toward a more behaviorist stance. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Appeals to Popularity isn't a fallacy when it's asking about whether or not something is socially acceptable. If 90% of people think the world is flat, that doesn't make the world flat, but if 90% of people think it's wrong to wear white after labor day, it's wrong to wear white after labor day. CorruptUser 19:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The nearest thing I would accept as 'human nature' is that when it comes down to it, not many of us are truly pioneers. From adopting new tech to settling 'virgin' lands, when it comes down to it most of us would prefer to stay with the familiar. Or are tied to the familiar. I'm reminded here of the 'product adoption curve', which actually works for colonisation too. said annotated curve

In this, our first colonists threw themselves into the deep end, utterly unprepared, led on by the 'peak of inflated expectations'. Then there's a load of failures, leading to 'the Chasm'. At this point, the more level-headed folks look again, with the body of 'failure evidence' and plot the successful path by learning from the previous. Normally, one of the key issues to avoid is to avoid going-in 'undercapitalised'. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser It's not socially acceptable to question what amounts to repackaged religious dogmatism? I was unaware you'd rejected those liberal ideals you like to lord over me with. @KarmaPolice But even that can be explained as environmental factors "come sail on a fabulous voyage! Get rich quick in a bold new land! Become the next Columbus!" I can practically see the headlines, even in flier form. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I am reminded by a simplistic classroom game that I played back in the dark ages of my youth. The teacher put up a map of Europe and the Atlantic Ocean and all other land was hidden until a ship sailed into it. Each of us were given a chit to represent our exploration ship, then we sailed forth. Somehow most of us wound up floundering in the ocean, where IRL we would have resorted to the Custom of the sea. Alas, the teacher got bored and plunked us all onto land. Odd that I remember the experience but not the 'lesson', which I imagine was based on un-nuanced imperialism. Bongolian (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(EC) GC, from what you just responded to KP, it's clear you understand what I'm saying. What you are doing is coming across as looking for ways to turn this into an argument when it really shouldn't be.

Bongo, don't forget the other custom of legalized sodomy for voyages lasting 45 days or more, sailor! CorruptUser 20:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser And what have you been saying? It's quite bold of you to assert my intent, especially since you have nothing but assertion on that count. And presumably you have nothing but assertion on the concept of "human nature", whatever that's supposed to be referring to. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reject the usefulness of the term "human nature." Traditionally, as in the traditions of philosophy, the term was used to refer to facts and speculations concerning the subject of human morality. David Hume's Treatise on Human Nature is one example. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'm using "human nature" in terms of how people tend to act and think in various situations, not how they should act. CorruptUser 22:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

How people act is a moral subject, how they should act is a moral judgement.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser So... a black box. @Ariel31459 Generally when "human nature" is deployed in an argument, it is deployed in the same way as "original sin". For example "communism won't work because of human nature!" ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I see. But such an argument would involve a fallacy of presumption. "Because of human nature," is not an argument, but not because the term "human nature" is meaningless. I think the fallacy is begging the question. "X can't be done." The argument is " because of human nature." We must assume we know what is meant by "Human nature." "Human nature" is equivalent to a set of statements which includes "X can't be done." Ariel31459 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 A fair point, but given that the term itself is generally ill defined, I remain highly skeptical of it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In this case, I think 'environmental factors' heighten/dampen existing innate 'pioneering spirit' than create it out of nothing. After all, Truman did end up leaving Seahaven despite almost everything/one doing their damn best to make him 'happy' in his belljar and to encourage him to stay. I'm loathe to say 'human nature' as a reason for anything, but in this case I think it's true. We as a species need a few oddballs who'll ignore the wisdom of the majority and the allure of a quiet life and go and try new things, which sometimes pan out and help us advance as a civilisation.

But back to the colonisation point. Part of the problem was in the first wave it was truly the wildcard option – other, better things were on offer. Esp if you were skilled and/or had a bit of capital behind you. Why the hell should I, sturdy yeoman farmer give up everything to put a bet on the long shot? It would be better for me to go into farming here in England, or if feeling a bit adventurous sign on to one of the 'plantations' in Ireland. Europe in 1600 still had a lot of waste land and empty spaces to settle.

As for Columbus... did you know two of the main reasons he fell out of favour with the Spanish? One was that he didn't find either the mountains of gold or lucrative route to Asia, but the other was that basically, the settlement of Hispanola failed (mainly due to events outside of his control) and the ex-colonists were mainly back in Spain, broke and spitting poison.

Not the best advert for colonisation. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

If people don't read the previous discussions, I'm going to start quoting. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

KarmaPOlice, please use {{od}} when outdenting, it makes it easier to see discussion. Andrew5 (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering how many parallels there will be with the first few Moon or Mars colonies. I think the greater costs involved mean that the smart people with money will actually require a business plan that would survive an audit, but as the tech becomes cheaper and bumblefucks get more money, e.g., Cryptocurrency almost literally goes to the moon, we would start to see the dumbass experiments of Moon-kings. CorruptUser 15:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes and no. I can see them throwing a load of cash into exploring the concept and so on, but I don't think any will actually go through with it (and even less chance themselves). The current 'billionare race' costs are nothing more than ego and tourism and don't really even go into 'proper' space. Seeing them as the same as Apollo etc is akin to mistaking a P&O cruise liner for Columbus' ships.

I predict this; the first ex-terrestrial human base shall be done by a government for 'national prestige' purposes only. Private enterprise shall only start doing it when sufficient resources are found to 'make it pay'.

After all, it was mainly the allure of wealth which led our first colonists to the New World. What possible wealth lies on the Moon? KarmaPolice (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Right wing protests in Canada are being described as an insurrection

https://news.yahoo.com/freedom-convoy-might-canadas-trucker-224525470.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Yes I agree that this protest has made its way up to insurrection.

I get that deploying additional police and even the military could inflame tensions in Canada between right wing groups and the law. I really do but not doing anything is much worse.

Past right wing protests and riots have shown how determined they are to use extreme violence. Something needs to be done or more people will be inclined to engage in extremism. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them "right wing". "Populist" would be a better term. Last I checked, the working classes were never solidly in the pocket of any particular party, beyond one that offered more favorable conditions for the unions. CorruptUser 03:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ushit the dipshit ^{(I shit, Ushit...)} 04:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention "right wing" at any point. Nevertheless the right is probably more associated in many countries with Covid denialism. But it's certainly not exclusive to them. In this US based article we see that those on the right are four times more likely to be unvaccinated than those on the left.

Presumably a similar situation holds in Canada.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a pretty brainless take seeing as one of the stated "goals" of these protests is to replace the Canadian government that they see as "too liberal" and replace it with an unelected, council led by the protest leaders (who are all VERY FAR-RIGHT) that has dictatorial power to remake Canada according to conservative principles. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:10E (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are wrong when you claim their stated goal is taking over the country "and replac(ing) it with an unelected, council led by the protest leaders". But it would be interesting to see a link which backs your claim up.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

An "insurrection" is defined as such and such. "Right wing" is defined as so and so. The protests in question have attributes this and that. Therefore...? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying you are wrong. But you stated: "seeing as one of the stated "goals" of these protests is to replace the Canadian government that they see as "too liberal" and replace it with an unelected, council led by the protest leaders" It would be instructive if you could post a link where the people who are actually involved in the process actually make that claim.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Here.2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:10E (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. It doesn't entirely support your summary but I can see how you might get there.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a right wing protest. It is an anti-vax lunacy protest with a fringe extremist-conservative element doing very stupid shit. Canada doesn't have a two party system, it isn't as nuanced as European countries with 10 parties, but putting everything into "left" and "right" is useless in general, and especially when talking about non-American politics. ShabiDOO 12:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is "right wing" in the United States has become deeply linked with "dumb assholes and fringe lunatics doing very stupid shit". My impression of this protest is that it started as a general anti-vax protest (due to a vaccine border crossing requirement that most truckers support but a few do not), and for the most part it was relatively peaceful and party-ish at first. But a few fringe anti-vax loons (about a 100 trucks or so and a few hundred others in the Capitol, I think, and a few related groups in other areas) hung on and are doing stupid shit and causing trouble (like blocking bridges, a few general stupid vandal incidents, constantly honking horns, and being Nazi).

Politically, however, supporting assholes is now a platform plank for Republicans and it is no surprise that a few Republican politicians have extended feelers towards the truckers. Enough so that the Canadian minister of public safety told Texas attorney general Ken Paxton (an asshole, of course) to fuck off and stay out of Canadian business (not using that exact phrasing, of course). As far as Canada conservatives go, however, all the truckers did is help oust Conservative leader Erin O'Toole for trying to thread the politics in the middle of the vaccine debate.

My understanding is that certain parts of Canada (eg Alberta) have followed a similar so-called "conservative" asshole path as the Republicans, and thus a few more asshole Canadian Tories have met with the fringe truckers. But unlike the United States, this is seriously out of step in anywhere outside the Canadian prairie. Still, there is enough support for a fringe asshole party called the People's Party of Canada to form, which for now seems more to be splitting the Conservative party vote than anything else. We'll see who the new leader of the Canadian Tories ends up being, it will tell us a lot about whether they become more asshole-ish in the future. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

There is certainly a cause effect/question involved. Are they "right wing" (in a particular political context) because they are suspicious of science, are they suspicious of science because they are "right wing" or are both their "right wingness" and suspicion of science the result of some other unstated cause.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Important data point: the Canadia protests are part of a wider, international push for similar protests, entirely driven by Anglophone far-right groups. It's the usual far-right suspects creating the social media groups, attracting supporters, posting to drum up interest, and so on. On at least one occasion the astroturfing operation revealed a profound lack of local knowledge, when one of the organisers for a Czechia-based branch didn't know that Czechoslovakia no longer exists. Like several other recent far-right operations, they try to conceal who's orchestrating it with a populist public image. They sucker in people who aren't far-right, to support what's in reality a far-right opportunistic ploy. Pretending to be 'just sensible people who are fed up' is a major recruitment tool of the far-right currently, even if the conversion rate is low. So while plenty of the people involved are not far-right, the protests overall are incontestibly so. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This is true as well. All indications are that the protest started with an unknown group called "Canada Unity", who launched this site a few months back, and is organized by a certain "James Bauder". The "James Bauder" name, with the same "Canada Unity" group, comes up in an analysis of an earlier protest in 2019 called "United We Roll" (to give further insight on this guy, apparently this guy runs a private Facebook group called "Canadian Silent Majority". Evoking Richard Nixon's popularized Southern strategy phrase, nice! :p). While "United We Roll" was ostensibly about Canada's environmental and energy policies hurting Alberta's economy, it was noted in news articles that the message was obscured by racist and anti-immigration rhetoric, and actually was renamed from its original name, "Yellow Vests Convoy", because I guess the yellow vest movement in Canada is too connected to racists.

So while I doubt *all* the participants are along this line, I think its fair to call many of the organizers, especially now given that probably any "casual" protesters have left, as "right wing". A nebulous term, but in this case "far right" is often used to describe xenophobic, nativist, racist elements of society. Although reportedly the convoy seems to have learned from past mistakes and is sticking close to a "freedom from mandates" message, the people behind this sure looks like it contains all the elements that make up your racist white Boomer Facebook stereotype (white nationalism, xenophobia, bullshit about COVID-19, QAnon, etc.) at first glance... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, it's extremest-conservatives running this protest. So it's a right-wing protest. I'm not saying all right-wingers support this shit, but when you see this kind of lunacy, it's almost always right-wingers, and that's not exclusively an American phenomenon. I'm living in the UK right now and the majority of the anti-vax nutjobs over here are right-wing too. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:10E (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

If it talks like a right-wing populist movement, and walks around carrying right-wing fascist imagery,[12] and is supported by American right-wing congress people,[13] and it's amplified by Fox News and RT, it's probably right-wing.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, calling it a movement of the right is hyperbole. It is an extreme overgeneralisation. A clear majority of those who would vote for parties that fall on the right side of the political spectrum object to these demonstrations, their goals and their tactics. It is absurd to even talk about a "right" or "left" in Canada as though such a diverse group (if you must divide them that way) have much in common at all that even mild generalisations are useful. ShabiDOO 20:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's nonsense. It's organised by people known to be part of the far-right, using channels dedicated to the far-right, and they're seeding far-right talking points into the groups they create to lure in the suckers. Those drawn into it might not even know it, but it plainly is, and playing semantics to claim it's not is utter folly. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 20:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I am referring to the "right wing" generalisations a couple users have made. I will object less to the "extremist far right" label, but even then, that is oversimplifying. To discount the considerable non-partisan anti-vax element is folly. ShabiDOO 20:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

its certainly true that far right groups have been infiltrating/usurping the anti vax movement but its a mistake to write off the movement as right wing AMassiveGay (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree to a point, but complete dismissal of the term "right wing" is also IMHO folly. I think the Erin O'Toole story is evidence enough of that (I know he got booted for more than his hem-hawing on the truckers, but just the fact that this was a major data point says something), and he's not the only Tory that's been propping up the truck convoy for political purposes. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I would like to point out that due to the right wing to far right has endorsed anti-vaxx nonsense thus I forgot that left leaning people have been known to endorse anti-vaxx ideology too. With the right wing however, they upped their game to terrorism. If anyone knows of anybody on the left who have went to straight up anti-vaxx motivated terrorism, let me know. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

My go-to for left-wing conspiracy and Covid stupidity is always Piers Corbyn. He was once arrested on suspicion of calling for MPs’ offices to be burned down. Don't know if that counts.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Weird English

The author is no longer here to defend this, so I won't say who it was, but I found this snippet of English a bit mind bending "Anti-vaccination votaries tend to habitually proselytize…" Bongolian (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Trent hasn't paid the hosting bill again

Anyone got Trent's number? I don't. Anyway, Linode are about to switch off our hosting if the bill isn't paid pronto - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, all is cleared up! - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Who is being referred to? Anna Livia (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The founder and nearest thing to GOD on this wiki. Scream!! (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Although very much the deist version now.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Who apparently wed last year who knew? Scream!! (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

He does work in mysterious ways, doesn’t he? Simply put, us ratwikians have nothing toulouse. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 21:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

G R O A N !!!!!! Scream!! (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you changing user names? And so soon!! Don’t you … —wouldn’t you agree that G R O A N !!!!!! is a little jarring compared to Scream!!? At any rate, it would seem that the day you run out of aversive vocalisations and exclamation marks, is the day I’m out of a job. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 22:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Who hosts this site by the way? Fre2 (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello newly created account that is very obviously fishing for information... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Just want to know where my money from my donations go that's all. Have a good day. Fre2 (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Fishing for *very* easily-found information. I got it in around 2 mins, GC and with zero special skills/connections/etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Two cases of paper eating among conspiracy theorists

Habitual paper eating (xylophagia), a form of pica, has now been documented among at least two prominent conspiracy theorists: Paul Joseph Watson[14] and tRump.[15][16] Did aliens make them do it? Just asking. Bongolian (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe aliens put psychotropic drugs into their food and drinks? --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What’s with one user making death threat accounts like he is driving towards road 66

Why so much revdels? 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:2E (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. I remember around eight months ago we had similar issues but I didn't think it would happen now. Andrew5 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone really really likes the wiki and is heavily struggling communicating in other ways. Probably a weird alien. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Any objections if I rebuild the Fun:Whisky page from the ground up?

Hi, I'm new here (kindda). Made a few anonymous edits over the years where I saw improvements to be made, but decided to make an account to fix the lack of citations on the Prohibition article (I'm in a grad program right now, so it will be slow going). I was also active on wikipedia for years but abandoned it about 5 years ago when I got stick of the bureaucracy.

Anyway, I'm a former professional distiller and would like to remake the whisky article (while keeping it in tone) if that's alright. I'll be doing it in my sandbox first, until I get the hang of RW. Advice welcome, and feel free to trout me (or whatever the RW equivalent is) if I fuck things up. Inmate XIII (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

its a 'fun' page. why bother? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Rebuilding a fun page? Are.You. A. Puritan?

Jokes aside, just be sure to keep my epigraph from the Scotch Whiskey (viz. technically “Malt”) section along with my video from the Larry Sander Show. To remove Rip Thorn’s sagacity would be asking for an infinite block‽ Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 16:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

As has been suggested "Fun" pages aren't wildly important. They are about having fun. But if feel you will get something out of doing it then by all means have at it. If it's a complete rewrite and you are building it in your own sandbox then you might want to check with the community before switching versions after you have finished.

On the other hand - is there any skeptical angle you could add in? Any major bogus claims that need debunking? Any pseudoscience associated with whisky? Any logical fallacies? Because if you came at it from those angles then it would probably be worthy of mainspace.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments about rebuilding. There's also nothing stopping someone from creating Fun:Alternative whiskey or Fun:Anti-whiskey, or what have you. Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

How about 'Fun: More whisky'? KarmaPolice (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone seen Killing Birds (1988)?

Good film, pleasant way to spend 90 minutes. 1.152.110.48 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing? Tough audience. ^{— Unsigned, by: 1.136.107.234 / talk / contribs}

Was the film originally in Italian or English? Also, it's interesting to see that it was first released in France rather than Italy. I might find a French dub and watch it later. LongStylus (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, horror's not my favorite movie genre, and the reviews seem to make it out as lower tier Italian horror. (I haven't even seen some of the "top tier" (review wise at least) Italian horror like Suspiria yet, to give a hint. Just not a huge movie buff, to be honest...).PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I heard of it but have no intention of watching it. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn't good. None of this is.

If we don't curb fossil fuels, by 2050 only Oslo, Lake Placid, Lillehammer and Sapparo might be able to host winter olympics, and potentially Sapparo only by 2080. This is assuming we don't curb fossil fuel usage; if we do, then we could have 9 by 2050 and 8 by 2080, which is low but not damagingly low. Andrew5 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, the big international pissing match might go away. This hyper-consumerist spectacle is totes the primary reason to worry abut climate change. In completely unrelated and totes not more important news, Earth's sixth mass extinction event is in progress. But you know, big consumerist spectacle might go bye-bye. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It really is funny, in a sickening way, how we are managing to create hell Earth. Revenant Raven (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No, we are not. It would be a mass extiction if we continued at current rates for at least 500 years, 1000 more likely. We are also not in hell Earth, that claim is just stupid. https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Debunked-that-we-are-in-the-middle-of-the-sixth-mass-extinction?share=1 (For GC) https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Yes-our-generation-s-children-are-headed-for-a-world-with-nature-and-wonder-in-it-and-their-children-too?share=1 (For Raven). An Advocate (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@An Advocate I did qualify my statements with "in progress". Also, my point was there's higher stakes than a proxy pissing match between nation-states. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Fuck the IOC: dictator suckups. Olympics are part of the problem of global warming, albeit a small part. Millions of people will die because of reduced snowpack and glaciers. Why doesn't that matter more than having more showcases for dictatorships? Bongolian (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hell, on a personal level, this January and February has gotten me really worried (as with other California residents)[17], as they're bone dry and have basically reduced the boost we got from December to zilch.[18] California's in awful drought, we got relief in October and December (disappointing November though), those drought maps are pretty horrifying, and this sunny weather and 80 degree heatwaves (and even going to 90 in parts of SoCal) are pretty upsetting (though people would think that's fantastic weather in February... it should be but it's not, not in the long term). We were definitely expecting La Nina this year, not a good sign, but THIS bad? IDK. Oh also that delta smelt situation... yeah... this is more upsetting now I know about that. Are droughts caused by climate change? No but this sort of "record drought" record temperatures, record dryness, etc, that's all part of the bigger trend, y'know? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If the warming gets that bad, we can move to new locations, such as nearer the poles. How about 'Yellowknife 2050', 'Nuuk 2062' or even 'Rothera 2082'? Though I am personally in favour of drastically slimming down both Games *and* either a) giving them permanent homes or b) hosting them over several nations at the same time. The current system have become boondoogles; did you know the last one which ended in the black was LA 1984, and that was mainly because they simply didn't build much and really upped the corporate funding?

Though I am no way confident in regards to California. It's water supply primarily relies on Lake Mead and it's own aquifier - both of which are running out fast. Central Valley agriculture is already unstainable and permanent urban rationing is not much further along. Throw in the other effects of climate change, 'Californian exodus' I fear, will become quite real in the 20s/30s. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

California is projected to see some precipitation soon. However, California is still 3/4 in severe drought. Andrew5 (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Don't worry about climate (in)action: Peak oil happened in 2005/2018, Peak Coal and Peak Gas are very near, and surely emissions will go down... With the collapse of our civilization and the likely Malthusian catastrophe of billions of people dying... Nonetheless, it's too late anyways... Permafrost melting and Clatharte gun will set us to 6°C in only 100 years, leading us to a neo-permian era of deserts everywhere and empty oceans BTW: Zero-emissions is impossible, even in pre-industrial world some societies used fossil fuels in some degreeNitrato de Chile (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a question relating to language

For someone who uses the Latin alphabet, what is a good way to learn a completely different alphabet? So many languages I want to learn and several use different alphabets such as Yiddish and Hebrew. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say learn the romanization system or the IPA of the alphabet you want to learn. You can then practice by reading text out loud, without paying attention to vocabulary or grammar. I use foreign Wikipedia language editions as practice. If you want to perfect your pronunciation further, you can find phonology textbooks or phonology research papers of the language you want to learn. I was able to roughly read the Korean alphabet, Cyrillic alphabet and Japanese kanas that way. LongStylus (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Non-Latin alphabets easily throw me off. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

If the alphabet was recently reformed, like the Korean alphabet and Japanese syllabary were after World War II, then the pronunciation isn't very difficult; the letters of a word would match closely to the actual pronunciation. For alphabets with minimal reform, it'll probably be harder. For example, in French, the letter W in the word « wagon » is pronounced with a V sound. The only way to know for sure would be to check the pronunciation in a dictionary. LongStylus (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

If you know the Greek alphabet, it's a head start for learning Cyrillic, upon which it is based. For Chinese characters (not alphabetical), I found an easy cheat was to ignore the radicals as the Japanese seem to and use instead a system for typing Kanji.[19] Bongolian (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There ain't 'alf been some clever bastards on this site. And some of them are still here! Spud (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

i can stand proudly, with my hand on my heart, and say 'i am not one of them' AMassiveGay (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I kinda want to learn Hebrew but the alphabet seems extremely daunting. I also would like to learn either, in terms of Slavic languages, I would like to learn Macedonian or Ukrainian. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I taught myself to read (print) Fraktur with 'basic/holiday German' and the English-German sections of two dictionaries, one in Latin and one in Fraktur and 'comparing words' (anyone care to transliterate 'Donaudampfshifffahrt...'?) A similar process could be done with 'Tourist phrasebooks with pronunciation guides' (but 'accents, diacritics, certain letter combinations, and other affectations' may be an issue, and will probably only work with 'alphabetic languages'). Anna Livia (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Somebody shares a Daily Wire link

You know, the RW Ben Shapiro article does need some updating with his COVID crankery (though it's pretty much what you expect, the current article contains nothing at the moment as far as I can tell.) So, troll, thanks for the reminder! PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have addressed this article. Next. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. As a PSA, please don't share misinformation next time in the bar. We don't want to be a host for misinformation. Thanks. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Are we going to talk about his apparently hawt sister? CorruptUser 02:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is the "misinformation" you are talking about. I'm just stating an opinion. Lot of people including scientist believe that lockdown does nothing. (Just repeated my last post because I placed in wrong spot) Hegt (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I know I'm being pedantic, but I like the use of 'scientist' (singular). I have visions of some rando geologist voicing their opinion on a topic waaay out of their remit. *smirks*

Anyway, lockdowns do clearly work, because if you're away from other people a virus kinda can't spread, QED. Some *genuinely* qualified folks do voice some questions on how deep they should be and when, esp taking into account other health effects (such as mental/emotional). But that's quite right and proper because vigorious debate is the cornerstone of rational decision-making. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"QED" That's not how questions concerning the observable world are settled. What do you suppose the empirical data is concerning the efficacy of lockdown measures? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Overwhelming. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Favorite Fictional Conspiracies

What are some of people's favorite conspiracies in fiction? Mine has to be some of the ones in the first book of the Bobiverse. I always find conspiracies really cool in stories, but I'm terrible at coming up with them and would like to read some examples by other authors. Just to be clear here, I'm not talking about actual conspiracies which are untrue, I'm talking about conspiracies which appear in fictional stories. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I really did like the Imperial Agent conspiracy in the MMO Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (SWTOR). It is a real big spoiler so I won't go over it, but I like how characters from other stories appear in it. An Advocate (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure it strictly counts as a classic 'conspiracy', but I did like the Michael Douglas film 'The Game'. I liked the way they tied up a myriad of theories for the original Deus Ex game, but that was more taking 'real' conspiracies and turning it into a Grand Conspiracy. Think the James Woods 'Videodrome' needs a mention here too, if for plain weirdness alone. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to do with conspiracies. But it's good to learn that I'm not the only "Bobiverse" fan. (And not because of my name)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose my favorite would be the Council of Elrond. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Shame the book is shit because the idea behind the Da Vinci Code conspiracy is lots of fun. Victor Pelevin's Omon Ra about fake Soviet moon landings is a very good novel as well as very inventive. --Annanoon (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I loved the original Dues Ex. It had such a great atmosphere of "something's wrong here" that permeated everything. I thought Human Revolution had an OK conspiracy in it, but it wasn't nearly as good and was just the classic "Corp with popular product is actually evil and popular product is actually bad!". I think it would have been more interesting if the head conspiracy guy in Human Revolution (the radio host) was a politician who was using the paranoia to fuel a grassroots movement to seal more power. If he was behind some of the shady dealings of the corporation and playing both sides in order to facilitate a panic of useful idiots, I think it would have been a fun sort of self fulfilling prophesy. "If you are paranoid and always hunting for grand conspiracies, than you will get what you wish for." This would have been reflexive of how large conspiracies, such as the Nazi takeover of Germany relied upon having a perceive conspiracy to justify its own takeover. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Rams or Bengals?

Bengals. Currently 0-0 though. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As I speak, of course the Rams just have to score. It’s currently 7-0. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Rams win, 23-20. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

If we cared we'd watch the mega-commercial's sports breaks. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

So, for a non-US-ian tigers are likely to beat sheep, or am I missing something? Anna Livia (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Anna Livia You know what? That's close enough. The sheep and the tigers fought a bloody battle for the entertainment of Americans. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this about the sheep trying to gerrymander the score while the tigers were distracted as they were talking the rain?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If only we were smart enough to understand that makes the sheep just as bad as the tigers, even if the tigers try to eat them.-Flandres (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Impact of evolution on modern public health

https://www.science.org/content/article/sick-dinosaur-may-have-had-earliest-known-cough?utm_campaign=SciMag&utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Facebook

Dinosaurs confirmed to have respiratory infections could improve knowledge on evolution, physiology, microbiology and public health. Bet creationists won't like this. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Severe weather threat for SE US

11 states under threat in big storm, likely to be a significant wintertime tornado outbreak. I know it's only a 5% risk (for 2/16, 2/17 data is limited), but it could be something massive. A reminder that the March 3, 2020 tornado outbreak that caused 24 deaths around Nashville also only had a 5% risk. It means you are 8 times more likely to have tornadoes then normal. It goes like this.

• 2% - 3
• 5% - 8
• 10% - 17
• 15% - 25
• 30% - 50
• 45% - 75
• 60% (only issued once) - 100

Now how big will it be? Probably not too big, but we shall wait and see. Andrew5 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

ID2020 and the Mark

https://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/markbeast.htm

https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-universal-digital-identification-and-you

"As more and more transactions become digital in nature and are built around a single global identification standard, supported by Microsoft, the question of who will govern this evolving global community and economy becomes relevant. Especially since nonparticipants in this system would be unable to buy or sell goods or services."

Safe to say Bill Gates is becoming evil?2600:387:F:4B37:0:0:0:2 (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This nonsense is your standard for "evil"? Not the soulless capitalist hellscape we live in day in and day out? Gods, you people are melodramatic to a fault. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, learn your Bible. The Beast is a now deceased Roman emperor. Last I heard it was supposed to be Nero, though Caligula was also a candidate. Another (informed) interpretation is that the Beast was the Roman Empire itself. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, ID2020 is a small NGO / think-tankish organization seeking ways to provide a digital identification, particularly for people in poor countries where documentation might be poor and many people might have none. It made its way around the rumor mill due to COVID-19 conspiracy theorists misunderstanding things as usual.

A couple of points:

A) Bill Gates is but one member of a very large tech ecosystem filled with many companies. Have you ever heard of Accenture? Mastercard? Facebook? (Cisco as well per the Wiki, though no link on their site.) They are also a part of ID2020. On Wikipedia, ID2020 didn't even have its own page until COVID-19 (due to the conspirators). They were a small footnote of the Wiki entry on professional services company and compound word fanboys Pricewaterhousecoopers, who is the lead sponsor.

B) There is an assumption here that is being made that "national ID systems" are inherently bad, which I find questionable (start with exploring the bullet point reasons why universal legal identity is a UN sustainable development goal in the Wiki on this.) At any rate, ID2020 are currently working with developing countries like Bangladesh, e.g. probably not where your live.

C) Obligatory XCD on "standards", which I think applies to a think tank of this nature. Don't count on one organization making one standard too easily. At any rate, there are better things to rant on in this direction. For instance, why not direct your ire at the Visa / Mastercard duopoly if you want to get pissed at a situation a little bit, though not entirely, closer to "nonparticipants unable to buy or sell goods or services"? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is funnier. The whole "Mark of the Beast" malarky or the eye-burning state of that "evangelicaloutreach" website. But thanks to the poster, it quite cheered me up on a grey morning!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Most countries in Europe (Anglo-Saxon countries being an exception both in Europe and the rest of the world: Ireland, UK, Canada, US etc) have ID cards. I have had them. It is no big deal. Usually you can use it to access health services, pay your taxes and in some countries take the train, get discounts and subsidies and present your own information easily online or in person. The data is secure and only an administrator who is cleared can access your data (which they would be able to do if it was via a database anyways). It is secured usually by two or three step authentication and in Europe you can travel with it as though it is a passport. It has not led to personal information breaches or authoritarian control. I actually found it annoying not having an ID in the UK and having to use multiple cards and carry my passport (which is VERY tedious and expensive to replace if lost) to prove who I am when necessary. ShabiDOO 09:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Bob: You are right I should have checked out that "evangelical outreach" site, that site is a hoot. A couple of things on that end:

A) This site has been around for a long while (at least since 2000). So hark back to simpler times prior to the COVID-19 pandemic where Dan Corner's "mark of the beast" merely might have been an RFID chip. The Internet remembers.

B) Dan Corner is so Christian, he actually seems to hate most other Christians, for they are not true Christian like him. Among the targets of his ire on the front page are Catholics, Mormons, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Jehovah's Witnesses, Ray Comfort, Seventh Day Adventists, and Calvinists. Especially Calvinists for some reason. (Some sites specify that Corner follows Arminianism, I don't care enough to dig too deeply into such constructs.)

C) Consequently, the Google suggests that many an anti-Dan Corner web page has sprung up declaring that this Dan Corner guy is heathen. FUNDIE WAR!!!

D) The one thing in common about both pro-Dan Corner web pages and anti-Dan Corner web pages is that they all seem to fear modern web scripting. ("Responsive web design, what's that?") PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

How many times have people claimed that the anti-Christ was coming and the population would get the Mark of the Beast? Doomsday claims like that have been predicted for years and have failed each time. Every US President in American history, most pope's in Vatican history, every celebrity among others have been claimed to be the anti-Christ. These conspiracy claims exist to make people believe that their mundane lives seem significant in the grand scheme of history. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘i remember when bill gates was evil and microsoft were an orwellian corporation that had to have government intervention to curtail its sinister plans. then facebook and google took over that role with more sinister and more real reasons to be suspicious of (or simply more effective in their influence and assaults on privacy than any spyware in windows could achieve) and bill gates was born again as a kind of saint to the same people who thought him a demon before. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That first site gives me an eyesore--Spoony (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

Dinosaurs were a cool thing. Revenant Raven (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

They also went extinct 66 million years ago. Andrew5 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

get some chickens. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Last time I saw my older brother he spent about 5 hours explaining minutia of the different in bone layouts between lizards and dinosaurs when I mistaking conflated the two. I had known birds were descended from dinosaurs, but it was interesting seeing how the bone structures follow chronologically from one another. It is always weird talking to my brother, because he is an artist on the side who draws realistic skeletons based on fossil evidence, but he is also a young earth creationist who completely compartmentalises his knowledge about species descendancy and his religious beliefs apart from each other. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

We have alligators around here. Not dinosaurs either, but my understanding is that crocodilians as a whole are very little changed from the time of the dinosaurs. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

living fossils AMassiveGay (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It's been utterly too long since I went to a paleontology museum. I wanna see some dino bones!!! Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 20:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

1) I ate some tasty dinosaur last night. 2) Crocodiles changed little phenologically, but we may never know how much their genome as a whole changed. 3) Dino bones in the museum are actually fossils of bones: rocks. If you want to see some dino bones go to grocery store and buy some chicken. Bongolian (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The only dinobones in my community are at a small but good natural history museum, complete with a (I think only replica) Quetzalcoatlus skeleton rig thing. Thing is enormous. Also, to AMG’s point: get chickens. Mine are a thrill to watch in a tiny dino kind of way. Probliknaut (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

the natural history museum is but a short tube journey away. so is the science museum, and the v&a, all next door to one and other. entry is free to boot. i love living in london AMassiveGay (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Buh- free? Like every day, free? In the US most museums cost something, or are only free on a given day. I will take your free museums as well as some chips, please. Probliknaut (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

there are big bins at the entrance for donations, you give what you like or not at all. the british mueseum is free too. so is the london museum, the tate modern and tate britain, the national gallery. you have to pay for the clink museum and thats absolute wank. worst. attraction. in. london. its about a pound per minute you'll spend in there. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

oh and the imperial war museum. thats free too AMassiveGay (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

m&m world is free, but thats horrifically awful. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The one in Manhattan? Andrew5 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

no the one in london. its in leicester square.

you dont even have to exit via the gift shop either (though it will be close to the main exit, and they usually have some interesting things there, even if you dont have cash, its nice to browse) AMassiveGay (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Are most of those free ones government funded or something? Most museums in the states (at least that I know of) are private institutions and I assume that’s why they cost money. Tax breaks and fed grants aside. Probliknaut (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

they are publicly funded - sponsored by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport AMassiveGay (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

thye have private sponsors to, as i understand it. the tate modern has bp as a sponsor - there have been protests. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

are not the really big museums in the us free? like the one in 'night at the museum'? do they get no government funding? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

kinda assumed the big national museums would be government funded and thus free in most places in europe or the us. googling it, im surprised to see the louvre has an entrance fee. sacre bleu AMassiveGay (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I should clarify. The museums I have been to in Arizona and California (like their San Diego natural history museum, which I most definitely recommend) cost money, as do many in the country. The New York natural history museum does cost money. I think some of the federal ones along Washington DC’s “mall” are free. But I am sure there are free ones out there, along with those that give out free tickets regularly or have free visit days. Probliknaut (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

When I was a poor college kid working too many hours a week, my campus library offered free tickets to a bunch of local museums and theaters and other cultural things.Probliknaut (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

the natural history museum has a life size animatronic t-rex that makes small children cry and its still free AMassiveGay (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

freeeee AMassiveGay (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Definitely similar to the one in Manhattan I haven't been to in the last 31 months. Andrew5 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

From my experience, free museums are the exception rather than the rule in most of the world (including the US but also elsewhere, I can't think of a major Parisian museum for isntance that is free, although a few have free admission days every now and then). London is pretty lucky in that they have tons of big museums with no admission fee. In the US, at least there is a major exception: most of the Smithsonian museums in DC, which is a nice collection of top-tier museums that are free. You won't find something similar in most other cities. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You don't even need to own peanuts to get some view of dinosaur. Set up a bird feeder or get some peanuts for your local crows. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That London T-rex puts the ones at my local museum to shame- although ours is part of a whole display. Pretty dang cool, AMG. Probliknaut (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A look at altCensored...

I had a look at altCensored earlier, and assuming it stays around, I think it would be generally better to link to for things removed from YouTube than it is to link to re-uploads on YouTube "alternatives" (e.g. BitChute) like some pages do. It's an archival project and website that works with (and has a "deemphasized collection" within) the Internet Archive. Unsurprisingly, it's full of all kinds of alt-right, conspiracist, fundie, and COVID-denialist stuff. You can, for example, see a page for David Icke's now-deleted YouTube channel there, and the videos which used to be on it. While altCensored is currently mentioned briefly on RationalWiki:Webshites/Racialism, I don't think it's a good categorization, since it both contains more types of webshite content than that, and is dedicated to an "unbiased" archiving of all kinds of stuff censored from YouTube (accepting submitted suggestions of channels at risk of deletion to monitor).

I actually think it's neat, in a way, that such a project exists, since the web has a much worse memory for video content in general than it does for websites. Decades from now, whether or not the altCensored website is still there or not, assuming the Internet Archive is still there, through its connection to the latter people around the world will be able to have a more direct look at some of the cream of the crap of "viral" cultural currents during our current feverish little age. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

1) It's slow-loading. 2) There's no indication of who's behind it. 3) It seems to be primarily funded by Bitcoin donations, so inherently unstable. 4) Internet Archive seems to have gotten better about archiving YouTube videos than they were a few years ago. Bongolian (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Frankenmuth, Michigan: Have some German chicken and spend mountains of money at the world's largest Christmas store

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-3bQ2mBg7E

An accurate depiction of a Michigan town. You could say that Frankenmuth is Michigan's little Bavaria. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

When I think of Frankenmuth, I mostly think of German restaurants, fudge, and cheese. Like, A LOT of cheese. AcidTrial (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I would love to visit Frankenmuth but too damn expensive. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

that one joke™

Perhaps someone can give a potted reply explaining why the concept 'transracial' deserves said collapse and (I assume) is wrong? I've looked to see RW if there was a page on it but alas... KarmaPolice (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

'Transracial' started as a Tumblr troll campaign to give fake support to Rachel Dolezal and to simultaneously denigrate transsexuals.[20] User:Y Gs does indeed need help, not for identifying as transracial, but rather for being an ineffective troll. Bongolian (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Before this was a troll term, it was largely used primarily for parents who adopted a child ("transracial adoption"), and even there I personally don't think that's a great term for the phenomenon given the flimsy genetic construct of race (whee, more melanin, whoop-de-shit...). Any usage outside of that context IMHO is suspicious. "Race" is far more about social culture than anything else. I'm sure it is possible for someone to identify more with a particular minority culture, but the terms used for this sort of phenomenon (eg "cultural integration") would not say anything about "race". (Needing a "support group" for this sort of thing is therefore frankly a pretty ridiculous thought.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those answers are really evidence that 'transracial' is wrong/incorrect - for A to be used to denigrate B can simply be circumstantial, while complaining that the word doesn't mean what it used to is... well, perhaps not really relevant to this particular topic. And as Pan points out, it is a confusing and complicated issue; I noticed this over the whole Prince Harry/Markle thing when their first kid was born - hearing people referring to said sprog as 'black' which made me wonder if we'd regressed here too and one-drop rules were back or something. Yet as said kid is ~75% white, does that mean if they later ID as 'black' they're transracial? How thin do we have to cut these genetic slithers before it becomes 'wrong'? Is it wrong period to truly ID as a 'race' which is not genetically your own?

I am not arguing in support of OP/T. It's just that even the worst-faith actor can occasionally raise a vaguely decent point (normally by accident); is there a solid argument which says clear genetic/ID race mismatches are wrong but does not then require blatant doublethink to avoid transphobia? I really can't think of one. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that identifying by skin color alone is, to me, too generic. It's only pointing out a skin color or maybe certain outward characteristics, and not much more. Not that there is a hell of a lot of people that do it. But from a world perspective it is strange. By the usage of the word "Black" I presume the author/troll? was talking about African-American cultural identification. But the Prince Henry aspect is a good segue. Firstly, because British "black street culture" is quite a bit different from American "black street culture". For instance, my guess is that the author/troll? was not referring to listening to grime music and adapting grime fashion. Even though, like American hip-hop stylings is generally (not exclusively) aligned with urban black-skinned Americans, grime is generally (not exclusively) aligned with urban black-skinned British. Secondly, no matter what color skin Prince Henry's children are, they are in a completely different subculture altogether, due to Prince Henry's social status and income tier (even if diminished). The same problem exists if someone identifies as "white", this declaration is meaningless because there are too many "white" subcultures as well as many "white" social classes. Which is why that identification tends mainly to be used by racists. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but in stalks the problem is that if we accept 'racial identity' as mainly a societal construct (like gender), the comments about trolling should be removed, no? Would said collapse box been done if it had mentioned male/female rather than white/black? KarmaPolice (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"Race" is somewhat arbitrary, but "ethnicity" less so. CorruptUser 07:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There are certainly many social constructs about "gender", but there's a bit of biological element too. And although there are also LGBT culture constructs too that differ depending on the place, the root of gender dysphoria (along with homosexuality etc.) is more biological than anything else. So it is not terribly comparable from my perspective. Sure, there are biological elements of ethnicity (like skin color), and some evolved biological characteristics that may be peculiar with various ethnic groups (think the evolution of sickle cells in some of sub-Sahara African descent, for instance). But what biological elements are in play when someone claims to be "trans-racialist"? The OP will have to let us know. I sure can't think of any that aren't more of an "ID as culture" thing, or (more likely) are the mark of a bigoted troll merely engaging in the culture wars as usual. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm not talking about LGBT - it's such a wide term to be almost meaningless these days. And you're right, sexuality has near nil to do with... hmm, let's call it 'racial dysphoria'. I say this for one simple reason; a gay/lesbian/bi person could without almost nil effort 'claim' straightness (either some or all the time), while a fully transitioned person can hardly 'reclaim' their original gender as/when they like.

I'm only drawing a possible parallel with 'gender dysphoria' for they do share some attributes - disagreement with genetics, a strong 'identification' with another 'type' and a sense of disconnect with their current one. What's more, they both share attributes with other dysmorphias in that they can drive people to 'absurd' (to outsiders) lengths to correct the problems etc. As for the causes... well gender dysphoria's are still unknown, and racial dysphoria is not even accepted as existing. So we cannot cite that either. And standing by 'biological characteristics' is a very dodgy place to be, because that is one of the defence lines of TERFs use.

I'm starting to think that the issue here is in fact that racial dysphoria / transracialism breaks a core rule of 'our' world; both personally and societally. Thus, we instinctually feel that it's 'wrong' but (I at least) am finding it impossible to refute it logically without leaving self open to doing doublethink re gender.

What the OP thinks I'm not really bothered with. I shall say on the balance of probability they did deserve the collapse. But the issue they raised has been intellectually bugging me for some time, as you can see. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I will complicate this by adding that I have seen one article (disclaimer: from a sociologist) that linked to a ThinkProgress piece (disclaimer: from a journalist) regarding the curious case of Rachel Dolezal, a white person who self-identified as black. "Body dysmorphic disorder" was brought up in one piece, and racial fluidity was brought up in the other. I have not seen anything that suggests that "transracialism" or "race dysphoria" exists, but the counterpoint is there's not much, period, I can find on this topic, at least with scientific rigor. So maybe we'll find out more in the future. That being said, I do kind of agree with this Guardian article that there is a bit of a one way street going on with Dolezal. While there is a lot of social construct in race, the physical characteristics remain a big f'n deal in cultures where it is accepted to be a racist asshat on shallow reasons like skin color. As an American white guy, I can easily hide things like my "Evil" Atheism among the bigoted. It's impossible, in contrast, to hide the color of one's skin among the racist. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity just refers to your ancestors' cultural heritage and all. If your father and mother were both accepted as "Italian" by other Italians, it doesn't actually matter if your father's ancestors were in part Viking invaders (which how you got redheaded Italians) or your mother's ancestors were a mix of Arab traders (which is how you got swarthy Sicilians), you are still 100% Italian even though genetically you are a mutt. That's the problem with trying to determine "race", because if you were to dig up an ancient Frenchman you'd find he also had a lot of Germanic, Iberian and Italian tribes in his bloodline, there's no such thing as someone who is genetically French even though there is such a thing as being ethnically French. CorruptUser 19:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you guys think this issue could be better explored in children of mixed couples where they can pass as one race but not the other? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue here, though, is that while it's acceptable for a mixed-race person to identify as one or the other, since they belong to both groups, OP/T is attempting to identify as a totally different race by essentially appropriating it onto themselves, which is not how it works. Race is a social construct but it's not fluid if you specifically belong to one group, I think. I (a white person) can't go around calling myself Asian, can I? No. I don't have that ethnic makeup, and I can't claim it. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 20:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"I (a white person man) can't go around calling myself Asian a woman, can I? No. I don't have that ethnic genetic makeup, and I can't claim it."

Didn't do that to be nasty, Jake - just a perfect highlight of the intellectual dilemma I'm in. Why is 'changing race' wrong but 'changing gender' fine? In a way which doesn't require any mental BS or corkscrew logic to justify.

Galactic's last point kinda resembles what I can imagine the discussion with trans folks in the 1950s was like. And I've been looking around a bit too and the main counter-argument to my point/question above is very wordy examples of 'I don't like this conclusion'. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

With Lefty's point; I'm more interested in the views of 'Mixed' folks who grew up / live in environments where they are a decent minority in themselves. In the UK, for example there's more 'Mixed British' than 'Black British', is shooting up fast and is entering the 3rd/4th Gen. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I find it more helpful to think of gender dysphoria and intersex and whatnot as more of as "another gender" (as other cultures do, for instance, India has the term hijra). To me you're showing an example of why using the Western gender binary terms can be problematic, people get too attached to the idea of sorting into a male/female bucket. In reality it's only a "gender change" more because that's how Western language and society has set things up. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem with claiming to identify as black is, "black" does not reference any real identity. The only referent for "black" is the color of the skin. It is not in anyway biologically or culturally determinative. Now I could say that I identify as Nigerian, and I would not need to have a dark skin to do so. If I spoke to you over the phone with a baritone Nigerian accent you would certainly assume that I were a black man. I would certainly be a Nigerian if I were born in Nigeria, no matter what my skin color might be. I might also be classified as "African," on immigration or travel papers. A dark suntan and a passport photo might show me as very dark-skinned. If I grew up with people who accepted me and refrained from making me self conscious of my whiteness, I might be motivated to say "I am black." Yet I would not actually be black. Being black is more than an idea about a person's appearance. There are many kinds of "being black." The black people of Chicago are not like the black people of Austrailia, nor like the black people who live in India. Transgender people make a very different identification. Masculine and feminine personality aspects amount to different modes of being. Blackness is always attached to a cultural identity of some sort and the universality of blackness is concept without a real object.UncleKrampus (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense.

1/- Definitions of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are not fixed either, varying from both countries and generations.

2/- 'Different modes of being'?

3/- I, and nobody else claimed there to be a 'universality of blackness'. First off, that reeks of the old American idea (dating back to Jim Crow) where anybody not clearly pasty of hue was 'black' regardless. What's more, folks ID themselves more rigidly than that; 'Black British', 'African-American' and so on. These terms have more meaning than simple skin hue; it states at least some affinity to that group, and socio-cultural-historical overlap with the others of your 'community'. So this answers your point about it being 'more than an idea about a person's appearance'. This was partly the reason for the slight African-American kickback against Obama's IDing as such when he first came onto the scene; not because of his genetics, but the fact he didn't have as much overlap for the intangable bits for the mainstream of 'African-American experience' for their liking.

KarmaPolice (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Gender and race are very different. Yes, both are, by some extent, social constructs, but there's a difference between expression of gender and expression of culture. I can't just project any kind of cultural identity onto myself, because it would invalidate the experiences of those who actually belong to it. Like, I'm 1/4 Jewish and grew up never practicing or really knowing about it, so calling myself Jewish is inaccurate, since I don't have the personal experience of the culture. Replace Jewish with anything else you'd like, same concept there. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 14:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"Gender and race are very different." How? Saying that is one thing, but I need some solid argument here (which is the point; I can't find one which stands up).

"I'm 1/4 Jewish and grew up never practicing or really knowing about it, so calling myself Jewish is inaccurate." What if you start to attend your local synagogue, take instruction from a rabbi, learn Hebrew, perhaps 'convert' if you don't fill the definition of being able to 'inherit' Jewishness? (I shall accept the majority definition of here, even though I hold it's simply a religion). Yet the above is also open to me, even though I'm 90% sure there's not a drop of 'Jewish' blood within me (10% taking into account London's old melting-pot). The point being, if we *identify* as Jewish, throw yourself into it's culture and other Jews accept this, we become members, no?

And if we start going on DNA percentages, how thin do we cut here? Let's say I'm 1/8 Jewish; good enough? What if that 1/8th was a *convert*, still good enough? Or perhaps converted to Christianity? What if it's 1/16? What if you're only 1/4th, but you were raised by that Jewish grandparent exclusively, so ID strongly? Or you were adopted, so you are 0% Jewish really? I'm reminded here of the Native American tribes which long accepted decendents of adoptees as members... right up to the point European norms/rules were applied, and some folks started to be 'disenrolled', like the Cherokee freemen. Simply on blood, not culture or identification. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you are not gaslighting here. Masculine and feminine afford different modes of being. You say the definitions are different in different countries and generations. The fact that they are actually different from one another seems to have evaded you. If you are uncomfortable with the language of Spinoza, then simply consider different modes of being as distinct manifestations of conscious reality. Race is a construct with real world content. If you are 25% Jewish, that is say, one of your grandparents was Jewish, if that Grandparent was one of your grandmothers then by Jewish law you are Jewish whether you like it or not. It is not a question of your personal identity. Jewish Law doesn't give a shit who you think you are in that respect. The "universality of blackness" comment was an elucidation of the idea that being black is not being a member of a race. Complain complain complain. Pick up a book if you don't want to learn anything here.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

1/ - Hint, when someone says 'I do not get that statement' / 'what does than mean?' simply repeating it doesn't make it suddenly clear as day.

2/ - No, I do get that males and females are 'different'. Don't talk down to me. I'm reasonably intelligent and educated, and your 'answer' looks to be waffly academese designed to obfuscate the true answer - 'it's different because I say it is'.

3/ - The last sentence increases that; telling me that I should DYOR is difficult because - as GC pointed out - there's barely anything on this topic. Hinting that I'm simply 'complaining' is somewhat true - the whole basis of this was the fact I cannot find an argument which denies Rachel Dolezal right to be African-American while granting it to Caitlyn Jenner's right to be a woman. And oddly enough, I do try to avoid being conciously hypocritical in views etc.

4/ - Doing the non-accusation of gaslighting shows a shift from the topic to the person, which is not the best look.

5/ - Doing an attack on my 'what is a Jew?' point (mine is a minority, but not a minority of one) is utterly beside the point being discussed.

6/ - But... now you said it - are you saying that the group itself has the right to define membership, using whatever critera it desires? So it was wrong for the Cherokee freemen to be legally stripped of their identity due to a 'foreign' rule being imposed? And that it was wrong for Dolezal, for she'd been accepted as 'one of us' by the local African-American community?

7/ - Interestingly, the only book I could find - 'Unsettled Identities' does not (according to the academic review I read) to help your 'point' - at best, it seems to say 'more study is needed' (it is now on my book-purchase list, though there's a long wait-time in it right now). And I will read Tuvel’s Hypatia essay when I get time - but I did already did read some of the kickback to it, which led to my earlier point that the main complaints to her essay seemed to be windy and jargonse ways of saying 'I don't like your conclusions so they must be wrong.'. I'm sorry, not liking the conclusion is not legitimate grounds for it's dismissal. At least, not by itself.

KarmaPolice (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't take it personally. If you don't get it at first, that's not a problem. Sometimes ideas take years to mature in ones mind. Since you like to itemize, let us proceed.

1 &2,The explanation does not repeat the original statement. We know that males and females are essentially different. The difference in various communities and societies is a matter of style and custom. The important fact is they are invariably different and each class is more similar to the same class in another culture than it is to the other class. This is a statement that can never be made about strictly cultural differences. 3) It never hurts to do some reading. I explained that rights have little to do with the question you ask. A person can say they are black if they are white. But if black people don't accept it, then you have a real problem no? You do have a right to call yourself anything. If no one believes you, then that is a true problem for you. 4) Don't be paranoid son, I said I would assume you are serious. 5) The who is a Jew question is interesting, and people don't always agree. It is an example of living with ambiguity. Also, it wasn't an a "attack." 6) I am not saying any such thing as a group has the right to identify it's members, unless, of course it is a formal group with rules for membership, like the Elks (B.P.O.E.). 7) So since more study is needed, I hope you get started, since answering your own questions is the best way to learn what you can accept. And believe me, not everyone accepts the same explanations. I personally do my best to accept as many as I can.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

1/ - 'We know that males and females are essentially different.' I see. So you don't think trans people exist then?

2/ - Read *what* exactly? Were you not paying attention to the points that there's barely any study on 'transracialism' / 'racial dysphoria'? Or are *you* well-read on this topic and would care to show all the myriad of sources on this that I've apparently missed?

3/ - If you assumed I was serious, then why *did* you bring up gaslighting, then? It smells plain wierd.

4/ - Like how you grant my 'who is a Jew' example as 'interesting' then don't mention the other two examples. But 'You do have a right to call yourself anything.' could in fact be taken to support Dolezal's claim, yes?

5/ - Your comment about 'Jewish Law' says otherwise regarding 'I am not saying any such thing as a group has the right to identify it's members'. Either Jewish Law (ie Jews) have the ability to rule membership *or* they do not. You cannot have your logical cake both ways. At least, not without a decent reason.

6/ - As for 'more study is needed', I meant more done by professionals. As already said, I shall read the essay when I can and the book when it gets to the top of my order list, but this is one of those few things where I think *there is not yet any consensus on the subject*. I've seen plenty of 'feels' hidden under waffle of why gender and race IDs are completely different but no compelling logical argument. And I'm fighting these feels myself; as in 'Dolezal was wrong'.

KarmaPolice (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

1) That conclusion would be unsound. We are using paradigms here not writing an encyclopedia.

2) Reading is always good. We can all get better, and since your are anxious to know more, you must study. If there is almost nothing written about transracialism, then there has been almost nothing reliable found to say about the subject. Seems obvious enough. You can start by reading up on the history of race science. It might give you ideas.

3) I said I was willing to assume you were serious. You are the one who proves you are serious.

4) He can call himself anything (Dolezal). But that don't mean much if it is not accepted. There has to be real world content to any meaningful statement. If I say my mother was a monkey, you might say "Funny, you look like a person." Would that make you suspicious?

5) You are not paying attention: " I am not saying any such thing as a group has the right to identify it's members, unless, of course it is a formal group with rules for membership, like the Elks." That would include various sects of Judaism, I believe.

6) The reason you can't see a compelling logical argument is the arguments are based upon experience and are empirical rather than rationalist. Classes of behavior seem to go together. This is necessary in psychological theory. Psychologists do from time to time fail to diagnose their patient's problems. Gender based phenomena are not entirely deontological, that is, their identity cannot always be discovered using an algorithm (what you call a logical argument).

Don't worry about not understanding. General ideas are hard for us to grasp, while personal conditions of others are often difficult for us to recognize. Life seems at an very low entropic state at times. Hang in there, and cheer up will you? UncleKrampus (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)