RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive410

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 7 April 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>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <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>
, (new)(back)

FYI - Ukraine war daily summary[edit]

Just letting you all know about Institute for Study of War (ISW) - a US thinktank characterized as "hawkish" on the Wiki page for it - however I'm finding it gives a daily summary of events that seems concise and coherent, and includes sources for it's various statements. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hawkishness (political attitude) and accuracy of reporting facts are obviously two different things. Bongolian (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, however attitude does affect biases and can certainly impact accuracy - so it is a caveat worth noting.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this true?[edit]

Just want to know if this is true, and possibly why?

We 'believe' in the veracity of our sensory experience. Although we know first that every sensory perception is contrived by the structure (the shape and form) and the function ('seeing', 'hearing') of the sense organ as sensory stimuli impinge upon it, and, second, by the projective and interpretive cognitive functions of the intellect, believing those perceptions to be real we reify them as objectively existent physical/mental reality.

These karmically induced chronic habits of interpretation and projection may be termed 'genetic' insofar as the basic beliefs about the external world are determined by the structure and function of the psycho-organism itself. Or the notion of 'past lives' from the very inception of the species of homo sapiens can be evoked to indicate the unconscious depth of the psyche that produces the interpretive/projective images by which develops though age to experience sickness and finally death.

The crass naive materialist thumping the table and saying, 'And isn't this real?' is in denial of the ineluctable dominant cognitive component of every perception. Indeed, in every cognitive event our specifically personal beliefs about the reality of the external world are undermined by the logic of variable sensory experience under evolving conditions. The subjectivity of our deeper, hidden, preconscious, common, shared beliefs about the external world and its presumed immutable reality are easily refuted by the proofs offered by the scanning electron microscope and by quantum theory and particle physics in the field of objective investigation. - booky.

Machina (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC

That is a shocking number of words just to say "things aren't always what they seem, our perceptions can be wrong, don'tcha know!". I maintain, as the apparent naive materialist in body of said text, that philosophers are pointlessly obsessed with trying to find a deeper meaning or fabric to reality than the observable. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and that drives them so far up the wall it is borderline comical. Sure, there is always a boundary between experimental test and perception of test results (this is a property of quantum mechanics itself - see heisenburg uncertainty principle), but said border is also quantifiable and measurable. All this hand waving amounts to nothing more than a child saying "bUt yOU CaN nEVeR bE SurE! Therefore...it was magic!". It is pointless drivel and you waste too much of your precious time on it (unless you think it is fun to think about, then by all means keep have a blast. One of my favorite idle brainstorming topics is trying to imagine what animals actually think about). MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok, this is complicated, goes over my head somewhat, but I will do my best to explain. So, we do not experience reality directly, but rather create an approximation of reality from sensory input. With that out of the way, no, supernatural claims still require more than vague gesturing at advanced cognitive scientific and philosophical concepts and models. Which I remind you, go over my head to certain extent, and I'm the one with a serious interest with human perception and behavior.
Short version; the person you're quoting doesn't know what they're talking about. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I kind of figured he didn't know what he was talking about. Too many people think that consciousness is MAGIC or something like that.Machina (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Leprechaun saw its shadow[edit]

...indicating 6 more weeks of hangovers. Give me some hair of the dog. CorruptUser 13:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Jokes on you! I don't drink alcohol. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I finished drinking my obligatory 100 oz of beer today, so I have satisfied the dark gods of Irish heritage. Our crops are safe now. You're welcome. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
When you wake up in the morning and the light is hurt your head, the first thing you do when you get up out of bed... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Is passive safety a thing of the past[edit]

There is a lot of recent more or less scaremongering reports on safety issues, more or less trustworthy. Recent alarming examples include a not really clear flight of an old drone to Zagred and an unarmed ICBM that went from India to Pakistan during mainteinance. There was also some not sure how justified panic for biolabs and nuclear power plants in Ukraine going awry after the backup generators would ran out of power. My understanding is that a savy engeneering principle is to make sure, at least in critical cases, that safety doesn't depend on sources of energy, left alone computer programs, and make sure that a dangerous system defaults to a state as safe as possible. I also read that modern nuclear plants may be more vulnerable to lack of electricity tha direct shelling. I did also some shallow "research" on biolabs and I guess that reguardless of safety measures keeping smallpox near Atlanta seems still a dumb idea. So my main question is if this kind of safety measures where recently downplayed because of faith in new technology or were always ignored, and general thoughts about the matter. (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Passive safety, designing for safety, holding orgnaizations accountable for safety-related rules violations, etc. has only ever been a normal practice in certain limited times and places. Human life has historically been treated as rather cheap, which has effects on how things are designed. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Eh, it's not *that* bad. While the bean-counters shall wage constant war vs the engineers (and their tendency to attempt to make everything as safe as possible) they are 'moderated' by two other groups - the public relations folk and the lawyers. A bad product (or even a single catastropic event) can damage/destroy a brand or product line, and they're sometimes worth billions (esp if they're built around 'safety', 'quality', 'good designs' etc). The lawyers shall also watch carefully, ensuring that they conform to at least the letter of the local regulations - otherwise it's quite possible the resulting lawsuit(s) could destroy the company.
Many multinationals operate elements of a 'global lineup' too; so they can't vary the quality controls of the product over the world. Maintaining different production lines for EU, USA, Canada, Japan etc is a massive logistical headache and produces excess costs. So sometimes it's cheaper to produce products that are at the *highest* demanded levels, so the same product can be sold around the world as-is. It also guards against 'grey imports' ruining reputations; imagine if Acme Inc made a cheaper/lower-standard AcmeTool for say, Brazil but consignments of these were re-imported back to the USA. At least, the Brazil AcmeTool shall damage the reputation of quality for the American AcmeTools (and thus future sales) at worst possible mass lawsuits. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

political insanity categories[edit]

i proposed deleting the page category:socialist moonbattery. apparently, a not insignificant number of users want all political insanity categories to be deleted. i'm not totally against that. should i afd the rest of them? G Man (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

If the categories in question are serving some purpose other than internal organization then I'm fine with AfDs. If the reason is that they're just rude then I don't care. @G Man Which instance are we talking here? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
well right now, i'm about to delete the "socialist moonbattery" category. my stated reason is that it's basically a tautology (i.e. it's redundant and useless, which makes it about as helpful to advancing this site's mission as a category for round circles). unless the tide suddenly changes, it's set to be deleted soon, because as of writing, the votes in favor of deleting it are unanimous (5-0).
having said that, there also appears to be strong support in favor of deleting all categories. however, the sample size is a little small, so i wanted to bring it up to the saloon for further discussion before AfD'ing the rest of them. G Man (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
also, who is interested in voting on the "socialist moonbattery category" is free to do so by just clicking on any one of the hyperlinks above. we need more votes, IMO. G Man (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@G Man I'm on board. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
[EC] I added my vote (also in favor of deleting all of Category:Political insanity). If almost everyone votes the same way adding such a note, maybe no extra AfDs are needed (but it would feel better with more votes before treating it as a vote to delete them all). Otherwise, the simplest way to do more AfDs may be to simply put up one for that main political insanity category and add a note that it applies to the whole bunch of them, instead of making one for each. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I think you're using the word "tautology" wrong, as that would imply that you consider socialism itself to be moonbattery. If that is what you're applying, than I don't really have anything nice to say to you aside from the fact that I agree that there are too many categories and have proposed something under the Goat heading. Inmate XIII (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
*then Dogma (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't recall asking for the opinion of a troll. Inmate XIII (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Calm down. That's not my opinion. You made a spelling mistake and I corrected it. Also, considering that you're using a variant of 'Nobody asked' and calling anyone you don't like a troll proves that originality and intelligence are traits that are foreign to you. Dogma (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
My opinion, not that any of you guys care. Keep hard green, slay the rest. Maybe we should find another name to "feminist moonbattery" and save it too. Merge authoritarian wignuttery and authoritarian moonbattery into "authoritarianism". Libertarian wignuttery should be renamed to "right-wing libertarianism" and libertarian moonbattery to "left-wing libertarianism". GeeJayK (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@GeeJayK I'd be fine with that suggestion. It preserves the value of meta-categories while removing the excessive language. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with that. It makes the categories less vague. Bongolian (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
That seems sensible. Then again I'm still new enough where I don't know enough to know better. Inmate XIII (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

perhaps i misspoke, so let me clarify: when i said "tautology", i meant that just about all moonbats are socialists (or leftists) by definition. however, in saying that, that does not necessarily mean (nor should it imply) that all socialists are moonbats. again, maybe i used the wrong word for it, but my point is, the category is redundant. G Man (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

and not only that, this category (and all the other "political insanity" categories, for that matter) is highly subjective, and ultimately boils down to useless quibbling over semantics. i've seen a few edit wars and discussions over this stuff on talk pages. it's really petty (in the literal sense of the word). i chose the "socialist moonbattery" category first because it is about as descriptive as "wet water" or "burning fire". the word "moonbattery" by itself suffices; and even if it didn't, we still have the modifiers "authoritarian/liberal/libertarian" to describe specific types of leftists who happen to be irrational. however, i did happen to notice that some users just want to delete all relevant categories altogether, which i'm not totally against. G Man (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Tautology is the wrong word; it implies that you think 'socialist' and 'moonbat' are synonymous. 'Redundant' is good, but it seems dubious to me that 'socialist moonbat' is redundant. I agree that the category is subjective and imprecise, and therefore useless for categorization. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 02:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
on second thought, you're right, not all moonbats are socialists. there are, of course moderate liberal moonbats, too. i stand corrected. still think the category is useless, though. G Man (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
at this point, i think now we're just left to figure out how to efficiently delete all the categories without leaving red links on hundreds of pages. G Man (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

just a quick side note...[edit]

so i made a few mistakes in my reasoning. i tried issuing corrections wherever necessary. if you didn't see them, tl;dr

  • i made some mistakes in my reasoning, insofar as overgeneralizing that all moonbats are socialists (when there are more moderate liberal moonbats, too)
  • i still think "socialist moonbattery" should be deleted because socialist moonbats can already be appropriately categorized into other existing categories ("x moonbattery" and "socialism/socialists"), and finally
  • if you guys wanna go ahead and delete the rest of them, even better. they seem to be more trouble than they're worth, anyway. G Man (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Could you define "moonbat"? Is it some strange US thing?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
As I see it, yes, and not quite even that. From what I can tell based on this NYT article its entry in political discourse is pretty recent (per the article, popularized in 2002 via an old UK political blog called Samizdata.net, who based on a quick skim seems not entirely sane in itself and really has no right to throw any type of derogatory political labels at anyone). The article also notes that Jerry Brown was called "Governor Moonbeam" in 1976, so there's precedence for the "moon=left" stuff. All "moonbat" means is "loony left", and to be honest I'm not sure if it's in terribly common use these days (it's not a good sign to me when I seemingly find a term more prominent in Boston Herald opeds than on a search of general Reddit). (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we should move this discussion to somewhere else. GeeJayK (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

To die for a lie: Invasion of Ukraine[edit]

I have to wonder: Before the invasion, how many of the Russian soldiers did not realize that they were being sent to die for a lie? With a government that endorses authoritarian policies it is natural that the leadership would lie to their military. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

How many American soldiers realized the invasion of Iraq was bullshit before G W Bush ordered it? The answer is likely very few of them. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as frustrated, but I'm kinda tired of people with no power over the situation obsessing over Ukraine. Right now, in the US, people are still dying of covid. Hospitals are still overworked and underfunded, police are still shitheels with free reign to do whatever, Thousands are homeless, who knows how many are without food, Flint's water is still poison, the situation at the border is still shit... Like, past a certain point hyperfocusing on Ukraine is just self imposed bread and circuses. The situation in Ukraine is dire as all fuck, but we achieve nothing by spending the majority of our time staring at it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, that cycle, where people start criticizing the government and all that, but when war comes, it’s all OmL uSA nUmbER oNe baBy. They won’t give a shit about domestic issues until they suffer. TranslationForAll (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@TranslationForAll And who in this thread, pray tell is saying "USA number one!"? Who? What has your post contributed to this thread? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Not saying the mainstream ppl go all patriot, but these issues get out of their mind when some concerns over a country gets in., and then those issues will never get resolved for a long time. TranslationForAll (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
(EC a lot, meant to respond to GC's first post) Yet again, GC says what I have been thinking this whole time but have been to apathetic to really post. He's a life saver, you know.-Flandres (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I was never justifying the Iraq War as it took the tragedy of 9/11 and used it as an excuse for a resource grab. Pretty much all wars are either for control or resource grabs. I am also not justifying the current US political system i.e. barely doing anything about current problems or ignoring issues that affect the average person. I will give you that a lot in the US needs to change or we (as in the US) are doomed to become like Russia, China or North Korea. Democracy is at stake as is the wellbeing of people. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 I didn't say or imply you were defending the Iraq war. I was using it to answer your question. As for the rest I'm just kind of tired of the media circus at this point, since it detracts time and energy from trying to enact change closer to home. Like, I'm not saying don't talk about or keep an eye on the Ukraine situation, but hyperfocusing on every little detail just eats up space after a certain point. If that makes sense. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser That giant text wall completely misses the point. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 I made an error in my initial reply and have rectified it. I'm pinging you to alert you of this fact since it was you I was addressing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's going to be absolutely clear to the Ukrainian troops and irregulars what they are fighting for. There is certainly going to be a lot less clarity amongst the poor Russian conscripts. Which probably goes a long way to explain why a war which Putin thought he could win in a handful of days is still going on.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Iraq etc are bad examples because they were fought by US/UK forces which were long-service, voluntary-only outfits. Normally, these forces become somewhat akin to corps of mercenaries; loyal to each other, their 'professionalism', the brass etc than the country itself. I've read memoirs etc of front-line folks from Iraq, and it's pretty clear nobody bought the BS for going in. What's more, it was a *relatively* 'low risk' war than say, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 (KIA/WIA Iraq: c45k, Vietnam 120k, Korea 140k, WW2 1million). This mean meant the burdens of it was easier to bear - with almost without fail, Allied forces went in with superiority in numbers, firepower, kit and backup. And did not have to resort to conscription - the worst we had to do was send in the reserves (conscription always unpopular).
Ukraine is different because most of the Russians are conscripts (first of Putin's plays which involved them). As a rule, conscripts don't desire to be there or to be soldiers. This means they are more needing the 'why we fight' because they lack the 'espirit de mercenary' to go out and die/kill. And from what little signs coming from Ukraine is that the Russian ones weren't given this. At first, they were merely told they were going to the Crimea. Then they were bullied into signing forms to 'volunteer' to serve overseas - but with the assurance they'd be greeted with open arms. Then they were told that it was a just a few 'spies, criminals and Nazis' fighting back. Then they saw their Army's logistics fall apart within days, how shoddy their kit was vs the enemy's (quite a few pics showing mainly Soviet-era gear, and older-end bits at that) and the fact quite a few officers proved incompetent, corrupt and/or cowardly. And now they must have the creeping realisation that they've destroyed even the 'Russian' bits of Ukraine too (which they were supposed to have come to protect from the evil Nazi-Ukranians).
The Russian 'credibility gap' domestically is growing. It's becoming apparent that Putin needs more meat for the grinder to 'win', and that shall require the call-up of reservists which shall strain the narrative even further. The very fact the Russian negotiators have quit simply insulting/threatening/demanding is a sign that the Kremlin is starting to officially accept it's not all gone their way. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
According to US estimates Russia has lost 4 generals and about 7,000 troops (with perhaps three times that many injures). That's in about three weeks. Putting that in perspective, it is about the same number as all the US troops lost in twenty years of post 9/11 wars. That must be putting pressure on Putin. Because you can spin a few hundred deaths and injuries. But thousands? With all their friends and families who must know the truth.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Russia's tactic for every war ever was to throw more bodies at the enemy than their enemy had bullets. Ukraine is almost out of bullets; people overlook a lot if you win. CorruptUser 16:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. If you can show them something which actually looks like a "win". It will be a tough sell even when you control all the official media.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Corrupt, *both* sides are running low on ammo. It's the nature of high-intensity modern warfare; I remember reading about how NATO realised that if they consumed it at a level seen in the Yom Kippur War (1973) they'd exhaust their European dumps of it within a week or two. But luckily, so would the Warsaw Pact. But it would appear that this is partly a logistics issue than anything else; both sides have rather... tenuous supply lines (for different reasons).
Anyway, what the masses think is irrelevant. When all the media is His Master's Voice, even a defeat is a victory. The question is of the Russian elite. The various 'grey cardinals', generals and so on shall be acutely aware that Ukraine has turned into a quagmire which has caused outside respect for the Russian military arts to slump, esp to their two rivals; US/NATO and China. That yes, they *can* ultimately win in Ukraine... but is it in Russia's best interest to do so? To weaken their military so far that it's questionable they can main parity with China in the Far East? To reduce their abilities to 'influence' Central Asia and the Caucasus? To lose so much material which shall be difficult to make good quickly due to the economic losses? To fully spur a seething US/NATO into a new arms race with Moscow, with the game even more stacked against them than last time?
Putin's recent fascistic rants suggest said mutterings *are* being said and what's more, he's starting to hear the occasional whisper of them from shadowed corners of his bunker-palace. While his anti-oligarch rant might be somewhat welcome (they're massively unpopular in Russia) it's impossible for anyone in the know to forget that Putin was the looter-in-chief right from the start of his career. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Library of Ruina (Unmarked spoilers)[edit]

So anyone played LoR or Lobotomy corporation here? The world building is really fascinating to me it reminds me a bit like discworld (coming from a guy that only read wintersmith Making money and the discworld encyclopedia) I would like to know what do you think about it's scociety? (Fixers, Associations, Syndicates, Wings and Mega corporations and all that). Do you think a modern day Plutocracy would look somewhat like that? (without like sweepers, robot bodies and singularity technology). TH (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC) oh btw if no one knows what I'm talking about uhm play the game? sorry but the only thing I can share to those who have not played the game is this really short encyclopedia made in the beta stages of the game

  1. https://pdfcoffee.com/library-of-ruina-city-encyclopedia-pdf-free.html Library of Ruina City Encyclopedia96.249.240.140 TH (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I also suggest you check out this lets play forum on it if you want.

  1. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3977083 Something Awful TeeQue's Library of Ruina Let's Play (currently in progress)
There are probably FB groups and similar on other platforms: there are also a number of stories on 'AO3'/Archives of our Own (and possibly other story hosting sites). Anna Livia (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The elephant in the law[edit]

There is currently a proposed bill that would force overtime pay after 32 hours instead of the regular 40. Imagine a work-week without wednesdays. (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It could help people gain a better financial footing and lower the amount of people in poverty. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, maybe, but mightn't it also result in employers being reluctant to go farther than a 32 hour workweek? Which means less income overall, since a great many employers dislike overtime as it stands? There wasn't anything in it that increased wages, after all, or applied to them... Kencolt (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm more sanguine about it, in fact. I don't think 'the usual suspects' will fight half as hard as imagined due to the simple fact it is no longer the 1990s and the younger/smarter folks of the above are coming to appreciate it. More importantly, it's not much of a threat.
There *isn't* a seemingly bottomless pit of cheap labour to tap, and simply trying to bully staff into more unpaid overtime is becoming less and less effective (qv: 'the great resignation'). The Boomers are retiring en masse, causing the labour market to tighten strongly (unfortunately, they're also the most 'workaholic' segment). Skilled labour is becoming even higher premium, due to a generational neglect of training which doesn't cost tons of $$$. Lastly, mass 'importation' of foreign labour is politically impossible right now and many companies are becoming *much* more wary about having everything 'offshored'. Labour 'churn' is becoming more a visible issue; the 'costs' of constantly finding/hiring/training new hires is being more appreciated (which can often be in excess of the hire's annual pay).
When it comes down to it, most half-decent companies *already* offer more than the mandated minimum (and shall have to do even more into this decade). If this bill came into force as-is, most of them shall re-jig their schemes *somehow* to ensure compliance without in fact, paying their staff more. So why bother doing it, then? Simple - it's to force the bad employers to up their games. However, there's two issues with the idea. One, if minimum-wage jobs suffer a 20% cut in work-hours without correspondingly increases in their per-hour rates, they'll be losing between $40 and $120 a week for folks who need it most. Two, how the hell this thing is policed. After all, a law is only worth as much as the enforement of it. So while it's an interesting idea, I don't think it's gonna really help folks.
You want to *really* scare the Corpo donors? Bump up the Federal minimum wage, peg it to the inflation rate, weight it for local 'spending power' and make it illegal for any state to try to undercut this rate (looking at you, Georgia!). KarmaPolice (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Going to spearhead a project on the wiki[edit]

I am starting to work on articles focusing on breakaway "countries". My first project is Draft:Transnistria. Finding sources will not be particularly easy but I got a start. Once this is finished I will start on on South Ossetia. Been meaning to do so for a while. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There are actually a lot of sources for Transnistria,Wikipedia as the Wikipedia page shows. Bongolian (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Could you tell me about the RW mission angle?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The puppet state of Transnistria is a bastion of authoritarianism and human rights violations. It falls under the RW mission. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Great. Will they all be like that?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Well Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Artsakh are all Russian puppet states with contempt for human rights, civil liberties and free democratic elections. All of them have racist policies with South Ossetia carrying out ethnic cleansing borderline genocide against non-Ossetins. All of them are homophobic and transphobic. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Do it! PRojects are good. This is a good project. Do it! ShabiDOO 03:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Does Artsakh really belong on that list? They broke away from a totalitarian state to protect themselves from ethnic cleansing and have been under seige ever since. (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, got more added. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the article is looking good so far. More work is needed though. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think an article is needed for Artsakh, as it is actually an Armenian puppet state with not as much notability as the others and could easily be merged between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I support the rest. Andrew5 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
All of these states are puppet states - just mostly of Russia - why single out Artsakh for special treatment? Include it if the article is going to exist - it fits hte definition. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Eh, it's probably missional, but unlike the others mentioned it isn't a blatant Russian land-grab and is the result of hundreds of years of bad blood between the native Armenian populace and the state that is internationally recognised as "owning" the land. Also, unlike the rest of those breakaway states, the state they broke away from is far more totalitarian and shitty than they are. The Ruskies invented the claim that they had to invade all the other areas to protect the population from oppression and genocide, but the Armenians actually did have to do that because Azerbaijan was making concerted efforts to Azerify the area. Inmate XIII (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
if one is looking at some of these places and only seeing 'blatant russian land grab' then thwy are not looking very closely. they are far from being a case of russia being beastly, or azerbaijan being beastly. these are not black and white issues, there are no clear villians and no clear heroes, to present them as such is a mistake. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think that the article is ready for publishing (I added more information). --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


There is no limit to what a xenogender can be. A gender identity related to crazy ladies you fight in Pokémon battles, Redditgender, Otherkingender, and... Heligender. That last one isn't a joke, it was an actual unironic gender identity on the now defunct LGBTA Wikia. I went there to look up a definition once and came out dumbfounded. It's also how found out about xenogenders in the first place. Now, I don't take things like Redditgender seriously, I think it's stupid. But what does say about non-xenogender gender identities? What makes Redditgender invalid and trigender valid? Hell what makes binary transgender identities valid? I don't know. And I can't just say one is valid and the other isn't because that's cognitive dissonance. Never in my my life have I ever had to question my beliefs in this way and because some weird people think their gender identity is Rabbitgender. The fact that something I consider beneath me has given me so much stress pisses me off. I wish I didn't care about these things, then I'd be so much happier. VerminWiki (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't care about my internal conflicts. I just needed to vent somewhere. VerminWiki (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Sincerity is an important factor. I could claim to identify as a gender of "Mercury", but sincerity of that feeling is important for talking about it. There are lots of trolls on the topic and so the waters are muddied as to what people are actually saying and what are insensitive attempts at satire. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Some of these sound like categories that aren't genders. For example, someone could just identify as "otherkin" without calling it their gender. The fact that someone would decide to describe such a category as a gender makes me strongly suspect that they aren't acting in good faith (similar to what Mirror said), and are deliberately trying to undermine transgender acceptance by broadening what the concept of gender identity applies to so as to make it seem silly and useless. (Especially since otherkin are already unlikely to be taken seriously.) The fact that heligender resembles the "I identify as an attack helicopter" meme also points in this direction.
Basically I agree with Mirror that sincerity matters; I'd also add that if their claimed gender identity is a category that seems orthogonal to gender, then it's probably something you can take less seriously and unlikely to be in good faith on top of it. Vomitorium (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
surely how an identity manifests itself. what is it about about someones behaviour, their thoughts and feelings, makes them think it this thing they claim, what makes not another thing? is a more specific descriptor for a broader term, a variation of a theme? any noticable change if expressing once suppressed traits? would there be any change if they were to or try to reject this part of themselves? can they turn it on like a tap or is it always there even if 'hidden'? i guess these are not all things easy to answer, whether someone is sincere or not, and i'd be loathe to tell someone they not are not something i may have little insight in or just not able to see myself. i dont feel i have much to lose by taking someone at their word for these things nor too much reason to not treat them as if their declared gender is somekind of fraud. unless their is some specific area where being a particular thing would bar them from thing or admit them elsewhere and a source some great controversy or prejudice. what bathrooms would a redditgender use and would a real man date one? if there is no obvious trolling involved, be what you wanna be. a frivolous label is probably harmless if they are not being a dick about it, and sincere and heartfelt identification is no shield to being an over bearing prick about things. id imagine you'd have to actively seek out some of these folk to be aware their identities. else they would need to inform you of it someway and for some reason. how that goes may reveal a lot. at the risk of ignoring a great injustice, we can leave the the more outthere claims be. if they have any merit they will persist and appear outside of some niche website and maybe time will give a better idea of what they mean. will anyone be claiming reddit gender if it ceases to provoke any reaction?AMassiveGay (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

So "Functional Medicine"[edit]

My mother is Obsessed with alternative therapies to help me with my "problematic behavior" I found out that functional medicine is just another way of saying alternative medicine. also just had a meeting with one of the more "prestigious psychiatric functional medicine doctors (Robert Hadaya) is there a reason that he needs me to consent or agree that I need treatment is that a thing that functional medicine doctors do cus I talked to a doctor (Michael Scott) who said the same thing.TH (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

They're trying to avoid the lawsuits that you might take when their BS does nothing (despite their claims), or makes you worse. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
How does that help them?TH (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
They have your written and informed agreement to let them do their voodoo - it's a pretty good starting point for a legal defense. Plus likely somewhere in the small print will be a statement along the lines of "I have been informed that this treatment may not work, or may not work as intended, or may have injurious effects, and I agree not to sue.... ".... you are sounding pretty naïve :/ Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure which country the OP is from but an informed consent form is standard practice for many medical procedures in the US, not just functional medicine (as a general rule, this applies to things like surgeries where there may be a chance of complications etc). In this case, per his website, Mr. Hadaya promotes hyperbaric oxygen therapy (a legitimate treatment for certain scenarios where the body needs oxygen fast such as the bends, carbon monoxide poisoning, etc.) for, er, more questionable "off label" treatment. So it's slightly different than "rub a little bit of essential oil here". Aside from that, it looks like the rest is a variety of expensive diet/supplement regimes (Walsh Protocol, Bredesen Protocol) and tests, so I'm sure half the purpose of the consent form here (unlike standard medicine) is CYA as mentioned above. (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Informed consent applies to higher-risk medical procedures like surgery, but also for for low-risk vaccinations as a matter of extreme precaution. It does not generally apply to pharmaceutical prescriptions. MDs who follow good medical practice will be following procedures that already have risk-benefit analyses performed by the FDA/pharmaceutical companies/medical boards. MDs will also often verbally explain the possible risks to the patient as well as explaining which risks are more likely than others. None of this applies to not-a-doctors and quack doctors doing alt med procedures, which generally have no risk-benefit analyses supporting their use. The alt-med practitioners want to cover their asses with informed consent forms. Informed consent forms are not a get-out-of-jail-free card for either medical or alt-med practitioners, but they can sometimes offer legal protection. Bongolian (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

ah that makes sense i am turning 18 soon so if I have any issues arising from the treatment i would legaly be an adult and that might cause trouble for him right? (also to answer anon I am located in the US)TH (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your parent (or guardian) can consent for you. After you turn 18, the functional medicine practitioner should ask for your consent (but may not if they are sloppy). You do have rights, even as a minor: don't accept any treatment that you think is dangerous. Bongolian (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
'Consent forms' and stuff like that can offer 'psychological' protection for the quack (even if it won't stand up in any court of law); acting as a kind of first hurdle in persuading angry marks to not sue ('look, you signed, it's all legal!'). But I didn't come here to say that.
My question was this; under American law, if someone consents for you when a minor, you are fully able to withdraw said consent the moment you turn 18, right?
Oh, an another thing. 'Consent forms' may in fact be a simple business contract. Quacks are mainly in it for the money... KarmaPolice (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
consent forms tell you what a procedure or treatment involves, why you will be undergoing it, what it is meant to do and what it will look like when it is successful and the likelihood of succuss, they will tell you known side effects and their likelihood, and importantly they will tell you the known complications, how severe they may be, hows likely they are. if you are very ill and the treatment is risky but the only option that might help, known complications include death. they will tell you without treatment you will die, but the treatment is not guaranteed to work, might kill you itself in the process, if it works might kill you as result of the treatment, or work but you will be left in constant pain and permanant life support etc. etc. etc.
the point being you are not being sold rainbows and unicorns and little timmy will walk again, you are being told exactly what can happen if you agree to this thing if shit happens you and/or loved ones must be prepared for it and the the medical staff cant be sued for it - everyone knew the risks.
what they absolutely do not cover is the surgeon getting shit faced before your operation. they do not cover nurses overdosing you, or forgetting to give you pills on time, or the right ones etc.
and the treatment covered must be medically justified. if experimental or research is inconclusive, it needs to be in that consent form, it needs to tell you its a long shot, probably wont work, but its this or the morgue.
how can alternative medicines/therapies offer any kind of consent form involve be any level of informed? 'this treatment will not cure your brain tumour, but will likely cause kidney failure in both kidneys requiring dialysis until a transplant donor can be found. patient is being offered this because the surgery and chemo that is known to have a high success rate for the tumour at this early stage, with few and minor complications is provided by actual medical practitioners, but this quacks's website made it look super scary and its a proven fact medical science is the no1 cause of peadophiles, and look at the picture of this yacht your money will help pay for. isnt it lovely? please sign on the dotted line, baby jesus cries if you sue.' AMassiveGay (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thats kinda how things work with consent forms in the uk. but in the uk, treatments and prescription medicines are suggested/recommended a trained professionals - drs and the like. i understand in the us, treatments and prescription medicines are recommended to a patient by tv adverts paid for pharmaceutical companies, how does that work with the idea informed constant? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine war - the end game?[edit]

There is much speculation now about how Putin can extricate himself from his screwup and still proclaim it as a victory - because he has to - admitting defeat is political and probably practical suicide for him.

One scenario that is receiving much attention is the Finlandization of Ukraine - making it officially neutral, perhaps with amendments to the constitution to that effect - and giving up some of the demands such as the annexation of Crimea and independence or greater autonomy within Ukraine for the 2 rebel republics.

Both of these last 2 would, of course, stick in the craw of Ukrainians and be a hard sell to them. Moreover they would be a very real win for Putin rathe than just a sop.

But Zelenskyy seems to be positioning himself for the "never join NATO" option - basically he's already said "If NATO won't give us a no-fly zone then what use is joining NATO anyway?" Of course he knows well that you would get defense if you were in NATO, and you get nothing for not being in NATO, so this is pure public posturing and perhaps quite clever on his part.

Another thing about Finlandization is to consider the military situation - in 1940 the USSR could absorb the initial defeats and disasters, sack the generals, reorganize the army, bring in 1/4 million fresh troops and even more artillery and give them proper training, and carry on until Finland was on its last legs. That doesn't seem to be an option in Ukraine - Ukrainians are saying there will be peace or cease fire by May because Russia is running out of useable troops. The Syrians will only be cannon fodder or line-of-communication troops, and the Russian army is pressing conscripts to sign on as contract soldiers to be deployed outside Russia, which will have reasonably predictable results in terms of troops quality I think.

Much of the equation will be determined by how much appetite Ukrainian public have for prosecuting the war after any time that Russia becomes unable to attack any more. Invasion of Luhansk and Donetsk "peoples republics" might be well supported for example, but invasion of Crimea will undoubtedly cause Putin to play the "Mother Russia" card and may result in a serious backfire in terms of Russian morale and ability to fight.

So the basic scenarios seem to be

  1. Ukraine tries to reconquer everything it has lost without conditions
  2. Ukraine gives up Crimea and Luhansk/Donets and agrees to never join NATO
  3. Ukraine gives up Crimea, Luhansk and Donets are reincorporated into Ukraine with some increased local autonomy, and agrees to never join NATO
  4. Ukraine gives up Crimea and agrees to never join NATO. Luhansk and Donets are reincorporated into Ukraine with no special conditions.

And then we do it all again in 5-20 years... :/ Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Another scenario I could picture is Luhansk and Donetsk are reintegrated into Ukraine with high degrees of autonomy and Crimea is placed under joint administration. That would probably be the most realistic one in my opinion. It keeps Ukrainian territorial integrity intact and the Russian majority areas can make bigger choices in their homes. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no exit ramp for Putin, where he saves face. Putinism will always want to interfere in Ukraine, whether it proclaims neutrality or not. The Putinist ideology is that Ukraine is a not a separate country from Russia. Bongolian (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Indeed - but he can quietly not say that again (for a few years) and claim victory with less ... and with the Russian media proclaiming how great he is to 80% of the pop'n they'll believe it.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't work so well with the Russian economy in a vise, with 4 Russian generals being killed in battle in 3 weeks, with Europe directly threatened with nuclear bombs. Putin's crossed the line of graceful exit even within his own walled garden. Bongolian (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I think you underestimate just how much of a grip he has. A crashed economy - and absolutely everything else bad - can be blamed on "the west" - already is - and feed into the myth that Russia is being picked upon and it's all so unfair..... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
A shift in propaganda works easily in walled gardens. But the brain drain (supposedly 200,000 Russians have fled), the purges at the top (generals, spy chiefs) and economy tanking are going o create discontent at all levels. Bongolian (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
It's all the fault of the west, everyone who leaves is a traitor and not a real Russian, the generals were incompetant and it's their fault we lost... they told the great leader lies.... blah blah blah... nothing Russia hasn't done/had happen to it before... you seem to be under the illusion that some sort of rational rules apply, rather than realising that Putinism is a cult, Russian nationalism is just like all other nationalism, and blaming "the west" for everything has all the hallmarks of any other idiot comspiracy theory - like "Trump was a great president". Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Both of these can be true at the same time and feed each other until some sort of critical mass. Having had the pleasure of living next to Russia for a good chunk of my life, I have never seen this kind of exodus of people from Russia, nor have I ever before seen Russian government officials publicly—and with a straight face—contemplate a law offering citizenship to people whose ancestors previously lived within Russian borders. Kntai (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There's other options. I could see a Korea-style not-end happening; ie a stalemate, cease-fire line which becomes a massive DMZ riddled with mines and razor-wire. Eastern Ukraine limps on as a bombed-out Russian puppet while the Western part rebuilds fast with a ton of Western aid. A proper 'peace treaty' never happens because West doesn't accept East's demand to accept all the territorial losses and the East doesn't accept that NATO has basically guaranteed the West's independence now.

Or a situation where Ukraine dies. The govt collapses, Putin tries to sign a peace treaty with a puppet nobody accepts as real, including the Ukrainians themselves. Bad for the Ukrainians, but even worse for the Russians, as they've now got a nation of c35m and mainly rubble to sort out and prop up, while the West and the seething Ukranian dispora back the rebels, killing Russians and quislings alike.

It's all up in the air. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really answering the point you asked but its interesting to contrast this with earlier posts from a couple of weeks ago when the question was: "How long will Putin take to win?". The question now is: "How can Putin get out with dignity?".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah - it's kind of 1914 all over again when everyone expected the "Russian Bear" to steamroll over eastern Austria-Hungary (which it did) and Prussia (which is did not) with millions of troops in huge unstoppable armies.... but the feet of the edifice were made of clay!
Everyone was surprised the Ukrainians fought as hard as they did - but it turns out they were also helped by massive levels of Russian incompetence that apparently aren't stopping -
The latest daily summary from Institute for Study of War, 17 March, notes some interesting stuff - Syrians have bene promised they will only be "police in occupied territories" (man like that would work well!!) but even with that some are reported self mutilating to avoid going to Russia while others think it will be an easy path into the EU and are planning to desert ASAP! Russian morale remains low, and now there are reports of desertion. Previous reports have noted Russia is pulling troops out of all it's puppet states and also from the Armenia/Azerbaijan sector, many troops are deserting, and they've run out of precision munitions, 8unused reserve troops are being parceled out in penny packets that will not likely make any difference to combat capabilities, and they include the naval infantry thought to have been held ready to lunch amphibious assaults around Odesa.... which all speaks to ongoing incompetence at high levels. You wouldn't have written a comic novel about this!! :/ Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Putin has, on one level already lost - he has united Europe against him, the 40 mile long convoy which has got stuck, causing alarm by the near-miss on the nuclear power station, and three weeks in the Ukrainians are still fighting back rather than joyfully reuniting with Russia, and if he does install a puppet government (as in Hungary November 1956 onwards and Czechoslovakia August 1968 onwards) much of the necessary infrastructure has been destroyed.
Tacitus' Solitudinem fecerunt, pacem appelunt applies. Anna Livia (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Bob, if you go back a month and read/listen to genuine military experts (not the armchair kind) in the question of 'can Russia pull off a complete invasion of Ukraine' you'll find that they were a lot more pessimistic of the Russian's chances. They noted the numbers were simply too low, that many of them were conscripts and what's more, Ukraine of 2022 was not the one of 2014; it had been fighting for 8 years by this point, could match the slated troop numbers, had been re-arming where they could (and quite well on land, at least) and had a pretty good idea of how/where the Russians would invade (always good for defending). The question was - as you pointed out - was the question whether the Ukrainians resolve to fight proved 'brittle' and snapped after one successful advance (like France, 1940).
Some of the 'issues' being faced have long been noted by said experts; the 'lack of numbers' was one of the main reasons we (including me) felt Putin was basically either a) bluffing or b) knew something we didn't regarding Ukrainian forces. Well, turned out that was all wrong, eh? But many other issues were long noted; it's been known since the Yom Kippur War in 1973 that modern, full-scale war simply mainlines ordnance (and thus stocks shall run out in days/weeks, at best), that much of the Russian war machine was Soviet legacy items (remember that in 2018 or something they'd bought more WW2-era T-34 tanks than the new, T-14s), the Russian army was having quite serious issues with it's conscription system/forces on all fronts and the country was utterly riddled with corruption and it was highly unlikely that the military was an exception to this. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
In point of fact the posts I was referring to were ones on this wiki.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah. Well, I wasn't of that view. But I was perhaps the most 'optimistic' of us here, and even I doubted the Ukrainian willingness to resist. However...
...at least in the UK, almost all the professional media outlets were pretty defeatist too. With hindsight, the Russians had properly pulled one over us; between the bought rent-a-hacks, the propagandists, the mass-SLAPs (and the resulting chilling effect), the corruption of our own elites and the general decision by most super-rich to grant Putin a generational free pass, not many people really knew much at all about Ukraine and much of what we did 'know' were biased or just plain wrong. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I think it is still far too early to be predicting Russian defeat - we are not getting a balanced picture - eg see this American channel by an Iraq war infantry vet - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igq2fqa7RY4 - I like how he analyses what we are and are not seeing. Not that the Russians aren't doing badly..... but it's not all beer and skittles for the Ukrainians and they aren't actually winning the war in terms of holding the Russians up as much as we might hope. The video is 3 days old as of this date, but it's still worth a watch IMO. And bear in mind Putin is perfectly capable of just chucking troops and artillery at the problem without giving a fat rats arse about casualties. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Unless something changes, Ukraine is dying. A fighting death sure, but a death all the same. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
And before anyone gets on my case for such a cynical statement, this is what war looks like. This is what doing what it takes to win looks like. Disgusting as it may be, this is why the moral high ground isn't worth shit when push comes to shove. Russia will likely win because they're willing to go further than Ukraine, simple as that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
There's too many unknowns for you (or anyone) to be *sure* of the outcome, GC. Particulary regarding war. Russia *could* overpower Ukraine, yes; but there's the little questions of the Russians being able to get all that power in a location to bear on the Ukranians, being able to supply said forces, the will for said forces to fight and lastly, how heavy losses have to be before the Russian generals etc decide that enough is enough. And before you say it, no they shall not follow Putin all the way down into his grave. Putin's interests are not Russia's and a colossal Pyrrhic victory which cripples the Motherland for a generation is quite clearly not in her interest. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice I would never dream of suggesting that Russian high command would follow Putin to the grave. If the cost gets to high they'll likely cut their losses, and Putin's throat. Putin has to know this though, that's why he's so dead set on winning. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I know that. Though you've been a wee too certain on this topic for my liking. One thing folks do need to remember is that while Russia could win if she threw everything she had at Ukraine, not only is that physically impossible (even before we start thinking of supply logistics etc) but also strategically impossible (ie there's significant Russian forces which cannot be moved from their current tasks/locations) and lastly politically difficult (such as recalling reserves etc). What's more, this isn't a 'do or die' operation on the Russian side, though it clearly is on the Ukranians.

Off the top of my head the 'Battle of Britain' phase of WW2 is a good comparison for this war; the 'British win' conditions were a low bar (stop Sealion launch) and vital for her strategically, while the 'German win' conditions were a high bar (successful Sealion) but of subsidiary strategic importance for her. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice Really? My impression is that I've been somewhat waffle-y, much to my own dislike. Though to be fair to you and others, my commentary has not been entirely or primarily on this site, so I might be losing track of what I've posted where. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Though there's nothing wrong for admitting you're uncertain about an outcome due to the myriad of unknowns (I have, repeatedly on this topic alone). Off the top of my head, I can only name one war (Vietnam) where it went basically, the manner intended/planned by one of the parties (this side clearly being the Vietnamese). Though generally speaking, I don't like the tendency of folks demanding certainty from an uncertain world and then getting all huffy etc when it doesn't conform to expectations.
In other news, it appears that Russia *may* be conducting a covert partial mobilisation, but is facing 'resistance' (students being drafted in to be untrained fodder would resist). Coupled with the fact the Russian offensives have basically stalled on all fronts, I am now suspecting Russia's moving from a war of movement to a war of attrition, hoping like in WW1 Western Front to drain the Ukranians white (comments from Putin sycophants etc about this going on until May etc). But Kyiv has not lost this yet; the Russian destroyed materiel is being replaced by reserve stocks - even more obsolescent and decrepit than the stuff that went before.
One other aspect not yet mentioned is the fact only ~81% of 'Russians' are in fact ethnically Russian. Now there's always exceptions, but 'minorities' are often even less willing to fight than the majority is, and their motivation seems to be terrible. Some of the unconfirmed reports of desertions, insubordination etc may in fact be minority conscripts. Hell... some of them shall *be* Ukranians, caught by history to be drafted into the 'wrong' army. However, on the Ukranians side it appears they've got real 'national unity' going on. The Russian-speaking 'Eastern' Ukranians are resisting as hard as the Ukranian-speaking 'Western' ones, and it would appear generally speaking Kyiv has the loyalty of her Crimean Tartars too. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice Russian high command will increase the brutality to compensate for this setback. Of this I'm fairly certain. Whether or not it'll work is still up in the air, however. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

A new beginning[edit]

The vernal equinox is at 15:33 UTC. Spring is about to begin! (Or fall, in the Southern Hemisphere.) Thus, we can all have a new beginning. Andrew5 (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Spring is about to fall in the Southern Hemisphere? How odd.
I could have sworn Autumn would have been starting, instead. Kencolt (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
We can all have a new beginning, but you seem to be falling back into your old habits (America-centric posts no one else cares about). (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
This isn't an America centered post, because 88% of the global population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, which is far more then just America. No matter if you live in Europe, Asia, North America or northern Africa, spring has begun. Also, most of the people I know definitely care spring is coming. I mean come on, this literally only happens every 3 months. (Also, someone else posted the last solstice event.) Andrew5 (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Andrew this is a very bad new beginning. You seem to have gained little (if anything) from your break. Learn introspection. ShabiDOO 22:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
What's wrong with it though? It says, at the top of the bar, This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else. (emphasis mine). I count at least 8 threads on the Russo-Ukranian War, but all of a sudden it's a problem when I throw in one about seasons? That's going to require at least some degree of explanation. Andrew5 (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
No Andrew. No more unnecessary explanations, no more debates, no more pleading, no more whining, no more "ifs ands or buts". Listen to other users, learn to feel the room, learn introspection or go find something else to do. Seriously. Pretty please with a massive fucking dollop of sugar on top. ShabiDOO 00:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to assume it has something to do with me, and my Saloon posts will forever be stampeded on no matter what I post, and that nobody wants me to post here ever again. Andrew5 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I wouldn't go that far, I'd just suggest you not use this as an announcement board. We get that you find weather events and time changes interesting, but aside from you, few else (if any at all) here find it interesting. Before you post, stop telling yourself "I find this interesting, so I'm going to post it" and instead ask yourself "Will anyone else want to talk about this?"

If the answer is anything but "Definitely yes!" than don't post it. Otherwise it looks like you're using the saloon bar as your personal blog, and that's annoying. Also, bare in mind that you're probably the youngest person to regularly post on this site, so when someone tells you that your political takes are short-sighted, offensive, or just plain stupid, they probably know more than you do on the subject and even if you disagree, they probably have some good points you should consider. Inmate XIII (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess...although then I have to think what it's used as besides an announcement board. I see a few posts about it, but it's on Ukraine, an area I've been told firmly to stay away from. Andrew5 (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
You're thinking about it too hard.
Ukraine is taking up most of the board space r/n because it's both missional (the invader is an authoritarian state with an arguably fascist government run by a guy whose two biggest political influences are two of Russia's more notorious fascist political pholosophers) and because it has a serious potential to blow up into something far worse.
Admittedly, your gerrymandering posts were missional, but announcing every single thing that happened with it was aggravating because most of it was inconsequential. You also offended a lot of people here by "bothsidesing" an issue where one of the sides was engaging in faaaaaar more egregious offenses.
Aside from that, at the moment there's a few posts about what is going on on the rest of the Wiki, a couple potential socially political related posts, and some shitposting on various topics.
This last type of thing (the shitposting) is little different from most of your other posts; the difference is that multiple people find that stuff interesting, whereas only you seem to find you shitposts interesting. It's merely a matter of posting things you find interesting, that others also find interesting. Weather events and time changes aren't it. Inmate XIII (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
True, but didn't I get yelled at for bothsiding Ukraine too? As far as Russo-Ukranian exploding into a war, that would only happen if they push into the Baltics, which triggers a war with NATO, or Putin resorts to nukes. Andrew5 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
it already is a war AMassiveGay (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't remember you getting yelled at for bothsidesing Ukraine, but if you did, it was massively deserved (no offense) because this is an act of blatant imperialism by Russia and imperialism is bad. Also, you're pushing into trying to force a debate again.
Honestly, if I were you I'd stay away from areas you know little about except to ask questions. I try (and occasionally fail) to do that both here and elsewhere and it usually keeps me out of trouble. Inmate XIII (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the advice...Andrew5 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh no, time for me to step away from the wiki again… Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Andrew! Long time no see. LongStylus (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Treasure hunts[edit]

Perhaps there could be an article on the various smoke-and-mirrors 'treasure hunts' - Oak Island Money Pitt, Beale Ciphers, this etc - though would need a better title (and I am otherwise busy). Anna Livia (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

My last warning[edit]

This energy expert perfectly sums up with hard facts why renewables can't power our civilization, and why we'll collapse just this decade due to peak everything. If you still think he's wrong, put your counter-argument and DON'T DISMISS HIM as just another "prepper". https://mobile.twitter.com/edgarocampotll1

BTW, most peak oil experts (see ASPO association) agree the current war is a distraction and an excuse to mask terminally rising energy prices

And Breadtube and basically any radical left is starting to acknowledge It (at least in latin-speaking countries) Nitrato de Chile (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nitrato de Chile Link scientific papers not Twitter threads and blog posts. No, the invasion of Ukraine (Ukraine and Russia have been in a state of war for years) is not to mask rising "energy" (did you mean fuel?) prices. "Breadtube" is largely an American and British phenomenon whose "membership" has been (justly) criticized for being both nebulous and white. I hang out with radical leftwingers all the time and none of them are talking about "Peak Oil". Non-Breadtube leftwingers even, fyi. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
There you have:
BTW, IPCC downplaying GW is not a conspiracy theory, but a fact: Arabian delegation admitted to pressure reporters to whitewash every report.
(Try with spanish breadtube, such as "Infusión Ideológica", "Cuellilargo", "Café Kyoto" or "PutoMikel" and their videos on the myth of progress) Nitrato de Chile (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
There's something ironically delicious when anti-technology / "myth of progress" types like the anarcho-primitivism crowd uses whiz-bang social media technology (eg YouTube, Twitter) to spread their End Times doomsday bullshit.
Also, COVID-19 showed that a significant portion of the prepper crowd can't even handle something like their local barber shop being temporarily closed. Meh. (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I can't get over your headline (who are you, even?) and then you just going on dropping links with no elaboration nor relation to what the hell you're on about in a way that'd persuade anyone not swimming your headspace, Chile. Kntai (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nitrato de Chile Are you fucking with me? Cite actual papers. Don't just search a release website. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Collapse is an issue too complex to sum up in just one paper. Just to comprehend it you need to get a holistic and multi-disciplinary understandment of biophysical systems and their limits (something like Vaclav Smil). For any non-scholar it is required active research among independent sources.
I see people right here is too denialist, wishfully or lazy to do proper research. If you dismiss peak oil, then show evidence against.
This is the last time I put a foot on this rottenalwiki.
Have a nice day
(BTW, rejecting myth of progress =/= AnPrim) Nitrato de Chile (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nitrato de Chile Papers, plural. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the subject should be able to cite research to back up their claims. Not blogs. Not YouTubers. Not Twitter personalities. Actual peer reviewed, up to date, research papers, If that standard is too high for you, then yeah, maybe you should leave. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
'Not always, but frequently' bad grammar = bad logic. What sort of RW drinking game drink does this flounce warrant? Anna Livia (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
(EC) Uh, no. AnPrim requires that everyone give up any technology they can't produce either themselves or in a small group. AnPrims are in denial if they think that wouldn't include the internet, telecoms, iPhones, to say nothing of satellites. CorruptUser 13:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
(minor edits) As for "peak everything", it turns out the world is actually FAR from peak oil. The shale of US? That's not oil, that's kerogen. Kerogen is the waxy organic matter that is the precursor to oil, but it can be processed into petroleum products, and the US is sitting on effectively the largest reserve of the stuff in the world. The refining process itself is dirtier than for most other fuels, but the real problem is that kerogen is effectively a fourth fossil fuel. The Earth might still be capable of supporting large civilizations if we used up all the extractable oil, but not if we used up everything. CorruptUser 16:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Good post!. Exactly, the problem is usage, not raw materials. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
To what extent does 'fear of peak (whatever)' lead to research into alternatives? Anna Livia (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
From the government perspective as well as the university system, quite a lot. From the industry perspective, they are all well aware of the issue but they are also aware that the reduction in supply would increase revenues, not decrease them, so they aren't nearly as worried. CorruptUser 16:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know twitter was such a reliable place for... renewable woo? TheNFLGuy (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Cringe or chad?[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Cringetopia/comments/tldqst/not_funny/ Ligmaballs

If you're spending your time asking whether the contents of a subreddit are "cringe or chad" you need to leave your computer more often. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Dude, its just a joke, bro. And why the fuck did you vandalbin me for? I'm haven't hurt you or anybody in this site. Seriously take a fcking chill pill. Ligmaballs
I'm quite calm. As for why I binned you, perchance you should try reading the log? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Project idea[edit]

An article on Phoenicianism. Basically it is much like Protochronism and Thracomania. It is a form of Lebanese nationalism where the people of Lebanon are directly descended from the Phoenicians. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean they are directly related to their parents so who knows? 🤷‍♂️ Ligmaballs

Anyone heard of Infinity Management Group?[edit]

I'm just curious because I was contacted by them despite having no real experience with business development and now they're talking about training people to be manangers, HR, things like that. I had a brief interview today where the guy talked most of the time, but something about it didn't sit right with me. Was wondering what people on here think.Machina (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

They are started by the same MLM scammer as Apex Management Group and Atlas Management Group. They are notorious for fake copy-paste 5 star glassdoor reviews. Their upper management is horrible and works you far more hours than they say they will because they make you salary and don't pay you for overtime. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Shit...I knew there was something fishy about them from the interview and website.Machina (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
DON'T TRUST MLM!!! Ligmaballs
Actually managing infinity is a pretty ambitious objective.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀 PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 13:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyone in the mood for a good laugh?[edit]

Check out this Poe’s Law level North Korean bullshit on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/pyongyang/. I discovered this because I saw them banning random people for talking about the sub Reddit on another sub. Any doubt about this legitimately being the North Korean government? 71.208.x.x (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The sub is satirical. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 13:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
But I actually suspect the starting posts are real N Korean articles/announcements. They chime strongly of the propaganda BS you'd see coming out of E Germany about the glories of Trabants (and the production of) in c1986 or similar. And the syntax etc strongly suggests they're not native-English (plus the lack of getting the sarcastic/satirical comments which don't translate well). Plus, N Koreans notorious in not getting when the joke's on them (like when The Onion said Kim Jung-Il was the 'sexiest man alive' a few years back).
But the fact there's comments like 'our burlap sacks will be the envy of the world' and 'Our Dear Leader needs massive wood' suggest that yes, satire is the primary purpose for the other posters. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The post about the school bag factory is a practically a direct rip-off of an actual "article" in the Pyongyang Times, which is hosted on a server located right in North Korea, connected via Star Alliance/Junction/Partnership/whatever the heck comes after "Star" in the name of the North Korean ISP is that I am familiar with but too lazy to refresh my memory on at the moment. Whoever made the sub apparently knows what they're doing. :D 71.208.x.x (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that sub is known satire. A good one at that. Try saying anything negative about NK or its leaders anywhere on reddit and you'll be banned from the sub. It's become a meme at this point. Inmate XIII (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The satirical but straight-faced DPRK News Service on Twitter (https://twitter.com/DPRK_News) is usually good for a laugh. Might be interesting to see the reaction of reposting from there to Reddit. Bongolian (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Ready for a laugh? Angry Russian soldiers ran over their commander (https://news.yahoo.com/russian-soldiers-ran-over-commander-164118169.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall). I could not stop laughing. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I am nonplussed by that . I heard a Soviet-era joke the other day. "What doesn't fit in your ass and doesn't buzz?" ans.: "A Soviet made ass buzzer," UncleKrampus (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Where should I open a discussion[edit]

I didn't know if IPs could vote in RW:AFD, and it isn't stated anywhere, and I'm not sure if RationalWiki talk:Articles for deletion or RationalWiki talk:Community Standards is a better place to open it. Which one is correct? Andrew5 (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe in the CS talk page. TranslationForAll (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I would prefer to make judgement calls. People who worked on the article should be entitled to have an opinion on it, obvious socks should be disregarded. That's naturally going to be unclear sometimes, but I don't think a strict rule that goes one way or the other is better. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
There are no restrictions on IPs (BoNs) voting on page deletions other than not casting more than one vote per voting choice (multiple BoN votes in a given vote might draw suspicion). BoNs are not allowed to vote on penalty or policy votes as per RationalWiki:Community Standards#Franchise. Bongolian (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
So then how do we know if it's the same? I guess check geolocations. Andrew5 (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
No, we don’t do that. Stop inventing problems, use common sense if something actually comes up. Christopher (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The whole Arctic/Antarctic situation[edit]

I've been increasingly mentally troubled at the entirety of both arctic circles being 50 degrees(Fahrenheit) above normal for the season. It's not just big, it's not just unprecedented, it's something that hasn't been hinted at as a possible event even taking the general warming of the planet into account. Has anyone read any scientific literature foreseeing this level of change in a single year, or is this a black swan event? It wasn't on my radar at all the way most "we're doomed" climate change events have been. Up until now, I always took some solace in "I saw this coming" as a way to deal with the stress of global warming, and I'm legit a bit freaked out. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

At this time, according to AccuWeather, the South Pole is -82°F. That being said, temperatures averaged in the -50s and -60s and -70s, but that isn't that bad and certainly not 50° above average. It is just a part of Antarctica that is 70° above average, 50° in the Arctic. Also, we need to take this with a grain of salt - the poles are warming 2-3x faster then the rest of the world. Concordia hit 10°F, where the average is -60 I assume, which is concerning. Vostok cracked out of the negatives and beat a record by 27°. The Arctic appears to be 6° above average, and 8.6° in Antarctica.
That being said climate change is a severe concern. 1.1°F does indeed matter, and land warms up faster then the world. Climate change did contribute to the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, which caused 30 tropical storms, 14 hurricanes and 7 majors that caused over 400 deaths and $50 billion (and that article was published before Hurricane Iota, FWIW), Hurricane Ida, which caused over 100 deaths and $75 billion (and this was before Ida caused extreme street flooding in NYC), and possibly the recent tornado outbreak that caused nearly 100 deaths and nearly $4 billion in damages, that produced the EF4 tornado in Mayfield. If we don't stop climate change, these catastrophes won't end. Andrew5 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
From my v limited knowledge, folks had been predicting *something* 'big' for a long time; I remember waaay back in the early 00s about extreme heat in the Arctic causing a mass breakup of say, bit of the Greenland icesheet or something. But that was the problem; the warnings were the 'well, it could happen somewhere at some point' kind, which everyone ignores.
I take solace in the fact if we *do* see something singulary 'impressive' (like a large ice-sheet suddenly breaking up at once and floating into shipping lanes or something) it *may* be the point where folks sit up and say 'oh crap, it's happening properly now, the painful changes have to be done or else' which leads to a rapid change in societal habits, backed up with the force of the state.
For a bit like Dr King's complaint about the 'white moderate' and civil rights in the USA, I think the biggest threat to global warming now isn't the outright denier, but the 'moderate greenie' who agrees in principle with making the radical changes... just not today. At least, nothing which actually impacts on my SoL or current habits. Something that visual shall be able to be hammer home 'there is no more grass for kicking any more'.
Though to be honest, the likes of big oil etc (who *still* don't give a toss, despite all the BS propaganda) is a close #2. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
My "When we see something singularly impressive we might take collective action" hope was pretty much dead once covid killed a million americans and the mass response was complaining about relatively minor protective measures. As a parent, I feel seething anger and terrible guilt. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
the world could literally be on fire and people would still drag their feet. parts of australia, parts of california literally are/were on fire and people still dtagging their feet. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I get that POV. In fact, it's been worrying me for some time. And my conclusion for this is simple, but somewhat disturbing; that 'the West' in general and the Anglos in particular are suffering from a 'legitimacy crisis'. Electoral systems, law/order, economic policies etc are all patently failing to deliver for the majority of citizens. Far too much of our 'elite' are stupid, blinkered, corrupt and/or self-serving; worse, we can't get rid of them because a broken system is unable to fix itself. But I do have some faith because I feel the majority of people are generally speaking, okay. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
First off, I would like to praise the "moderate green" point you made. That isn't said enough.
I've been pretty cynical about the prospects of meaningful climate action myself, though a lot of that comes from my background as an American. It's always some variation of "climate catastrophe is tomorrow but this is today so we can just kick the can and hand out a few more drilling permits." There just isn't a will to enact change on the needed scale, at least not among the people in power. In turn, since climate change generally isn't an election deciding issue, politicians with crappy records on the environment keep getting the votes of people who actually want to solve the problem (it doesn't help that the alternative is usually some unhinged Trump clone).-Flandres (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Russia's war on Ukraine, following Russsia's minimal participation in COP21 can now be viewed also as a war against climate change action. Russia's main goal in the war besides subjugating Ukrainians is to seize all Ukrainian access to the Black Sea and thereby seize all of Ukraine's petroleum/natural gas reserves. It seems likely that Putin is viewing the war as a struggle to maintain continuous export of fossil fuels from Russia in perpetuity. Bongolian (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

America is the serious laggard in the advanced world; even Australia managed to overtake in the Trump era. However, this 'laggardness' comes with a cost; it threatens to cede the next generation of 'green tech' to competitors – Europe, Pacific Rim, China, India etc. Because a lot of cash is needed to not just develop tech, but also to roll it out to a large-scale engineering-wise which can be then exported to the rest of the world. In a way, the USA reminds me a bit of the UK c1900; a land happy with the current tech and thus, not investing enough in the titans of tomorrow.

What's more, a lot of American businesses get this. They know that 'head in sand' technique does not work; it's what Detroit did after the 1960s and everyone knows how that ended. That even if 'at home' progress is glacial, they look at overseas markets and see they're marching ahead – if they're gonna want a taste, they'll need to cater. Ford, for example is going full-on for EVs, despite however much the Rich Texan shouts about drilling for the stuff in TR's head. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

What is egoism; who the hell is max stirner[edit]

Yo apologies if this isn't the right place. I recently came across some guy online preaching that egoism was the "logical conclusion" of leftist thought. To me, egoism and Stirner's ideas as a whole seem kinda reductive(?). It doesn't seem to be saying anything other than "do whatever causes you gratification" and that submitting to values other than your own is wrong. I understand that Stirner's egoism is a school of anarchism, but I don't see how his idea is fundamentally different from something like Objectivism. Rational Wiki doesn't have a page on him, so I thought I'd try here. Wimbomblo (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Egoism, in general, can refer to two distinct ideas. Descriptive egoism holds that people, as a matter of fact, always do act from self-interest. Ethical egoism holds that people should act from self-interest, whether or not this is what they in fact do. I'm not terribly familiar with Stirner's version of egoism, but from what I understand he opposes any forced or voluntary suspension of individual judgement or self-rule. He rejects the legitimacy of the state and of inherent moral goods (as opposed to ethics based on non-moral goods) at least partly on the grounds that they make claims on the individual that interfere with self-rule, which Stirner sees as inherently good. He leaves room for voluntary associations of people each acting as individuals. As I understand it, he is suspicious of notions like private property and human rights, seeing them as something of an illusory construct constraining people and encouraging them to align themselves with a supposed higher good, and thereby to give up self-rule in exchange for a lesser good (e.g. rule by a set of handed-down moral precepts or a state that seeks to legitimize itself by such precepts, even though this is impossible in fact). Even a democracy subjects people to the rule of other people. Stirner differs from Rand in a few immediate respects. First is his skepticism of property, which immediately conflicts with Rand's belief that capitalism is the system best suited to her ethics. Based on my (limited) understanding of Stirner, he would probably also oppose contracts as imposing on the individual's self-rule (if you can take control of some piece of property, there are no moral proscriptions against your doing so), which would also conflict with Rand. Second is his opposition to any kind of state, which stands against Rand's minarchism (somebody, after all, needs to enforce contracts). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 13:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I admire Stirner's thought, the quote that I personally think does the best job of presenting egoism is: “Where the world comes in my way—and it comes in my way everywhere—I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but—my food, even as I too am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use. We owe each other nothing, for what I seem to owe you I owe at most to myself. If I show you a cheery air in order to cheer you likewise, then your cheeriness is of consequence to me, and my air serves my wish; to a thousand others, whom I do not aim to cheer, I do not show it.” (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the well worded refresher Serene! It is true, one should consider all moral systems through many lenses, an important one (and very understudied/underlooked/undervalued being that of "self-interest". Self interest need not be a dirty word...as long as it is properly qualified and not the be all end all of moral judgements. Wimbomblo...we'd always be happy to have more articles/content that is missional :) ShabiDOO 14:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Arizona and Abortion[edit]

I have recently been avoiding the news due to some life stuff that had happened- wife and I are on vacation, and I made the poor decision to catch up since I can’t sleep. What a mistake: Arizona to pass 15 week abortion ban. I can’t believe the state I live in has joined the masses of fuckwits who would prefer to control what a woman can do than consider the alternative. “You’ll learn to love your child! Or! Adoption!” A child would be better off not existing than living in contempt or facing abuse or being shoved into a system. “This will keep abortions from happening!” Some women would rather die and perform dangerous procedures on them selves or undertaken by people who are not experts than have a child they do not want. I can’t even put my feelings into rationale and well though out words so excuse me. I have not been this disgusted in some time. I lay here while my wife sleeps, apparently a second class citizen who cannot determine her own fate. Probliknaut (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Could be worse, you could move to France where abortions are banned after 12 weeks. Personally I think abortions should be 18 weeks, BUT, I support some versions of Medicaid/Medicare that covers the bulk of prenatal care, if for no other reason than the sooner an abortion happens the better... CorruptUser 04:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I know it could be worse- but I appreciate the comparison. I am largely concerned that this is a sign of worse to come, given how conservative AZ has been trying to recoil after supposedly going purple. I don’t think it’s a slippery slope. Probliknaut (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
You mean you do think it's a slipper slope. Ban at 15 weeks, then ban after getting any screening to "prevent eugenics". Then restrict abortion clinics, etc etc CorruptUser 04:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I’ll blame my poor use of the English language and references to logical fallacies to a lack of sleep. But yeah my point was “it’ll get worse” Probliknaut (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Forgive my rudeness, but the state you live in has a long history of extremely shitty politics, and I'm surprised that you're surprised. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Decent people ought to consider other accommodations. Also, it is good to recognize the wrongness of something without actually feeling a strong affect that disturbs your sense of well being. Try New Mexico? "New Mexico does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions—such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations..." UncleKrampus (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I guess I am venting more than anything. I am aware AZ is mostly a red state; I am not usually the type to feel I owe loyalty for being born a certain place or going to a specific school or anything- but I am just hurt that my home would do such a thing. New Mexico is alright in some respects; Albuquerque has a very nice zoo. Taos is pleasant. But the wife and I both work in AZ for a company that provides a pension so we’re bound to it in that respect. I appreciate everyone bearing with my gripe. Probliknaut (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Then work to make it pleasanter, then. Donate time/cash/whatever to lobby to change this law, or organisations which help women in need to be snuck over the border to get it done. Or support orgs which offer free contraception for poorer folks, does *real* sex ed in schools etc (so the abortions are less needed) if you have medical insurance from your employer, push for wider coverage on this kind of thing and so on.
It might not overturn the ruling, but it can a) help shave the jagged edges off, b) make you feel a bit better and c) a public show of your disapproval of the ruling. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Today I Learned...[edit]

EDITED ...apparently, no twin has only 3 4 twins have ever won a Nobel Prize. I would think there would be at least one approximately 19 but I can't seem to find any more. Twins are on average, 5-6 IQ points lower than singletons. And it only gets worse the more kids during pregnancy. This appears to have at least a twofold reason; twins are born earlier on average due to there not being as much room in the womb, and twins are both competing for the same nutrients from their mother. That isn't to say smart twins are impossible, Maurice Hilleman was a twin and developed more vaccines than anyone else (I honestly thought he did get a Nobel, but apparently not?). Something to know. CorruptUser 17:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that as particularly surprising. There are, after all, a somewhat limited number of Nobels to be give out per annum, while there are a lot of scientists/politicians/businesspeope/persons of note out there. Kencolt (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
1 in 100 births are naturally twins. That's 2% of the population, though more now thanks to IVF. While there's only 6 prizes (or 5 if you exclude Economics), most prizes these days are shared, and so 947 people have won a prize. The odds that a group of 2% of people randomly not being in that group of 947 is, checking calculator, 1 in 200,000,000. Better odds than the lotto, I suppose... CorruptUser 18:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Careful, those lotto odds get less steep when you've got multiple tickets, to stretch the metaphor. Vomitorium (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Not really. A random laureate being a twin should be 1 in 50. Every time a laureate isn't a twin, that number shrinks by about 2%. I.e, if we have 10 laureates this year, 49/50 ^ 957 is about 1 in 250,000,000. Pretty soon, a single ticket winning the lotto will be more likely than every single laureate not being a twin. CorruptUser 18:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I mean that there are other groups that you could have looked at besides twins. I'm not saying that the effect isn't real, just that it may be overstated. Vomitorium (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
no twins? pffft theres a fuckton of barely functioning fucknuts who can barely tie their shoe laces. wheres their laureate? fucking elites think they better than us numpties? ive done every wordle ive everv tried thats what ive done and i got barely any gcses. those la de da phds dont mean you got any commonsense. no namby pamby booklearning teaches you about real life does it. fucking nobel laureates. what they ever done? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
What the...? Vomitorium (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
This discussion does rather turn on a few assumptions. Firstly, that IQ is actually a meaningful metric. This is not universally accepted. Secondly that twins have sufficiently less of it that it produces real-life impacts. And finally there is the implicit assumption that winners of Nobel prizes have higher IQ's than the resto of humanity.
All these things may be true. But I suspect it's going to be some twins, marginal impact and not all Nobel Laureates.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Damn, if only there was to disprove that Nobel Laureates are smarter than the rest of the population... Oh well, I guess great man theory prevails again. No methodology issues here... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── IQ is meaningful on a societal level, much less so on an individual level. Feynman had an IQ of "only" 126, whereas most physicists and mathematicians will score far above this. IQ seems to be correlated with the vague idea that is "intelligence", but is not "intelligence" itself. As for Nobel Disease, that's just what happens when confidence outstrips ability; being a brilliant engineer does NOT mean you know more about medicine than your physician. CorruptUser 22:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser I'm sure the stereotype of geniuses being talented and knowledgeable in everything they turn their attention to has no impact on that overconfidence. Totes sure. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Since you're the smartest person here, GC, could you explain to me why, of the 947 Nobel Laureates, none of them are/were twins? CorruptUser 22:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser If I'm the smartest person here this wiki is in serious trouble. And to answer your question, I do not know. I don't even know why I should care. Maybe a super genius like you could answer those questions, eh? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm very weirded out at the suggestion that twins are stupider or something due to a tiny IQ score difference and that they don't get an accolade that disproportionately favors white men. You nontwins are weird you know, treating us twins like test subjects and freaky clones that finish other sentences. How do you people even live without another person who's arguably closer to you than spouses can even dream about. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@GC, Why? Already explained. Twins face "competition" for nutrients during development, and often don't gestate as long due to less room in the womb.
@LGM, it's an "average". Statistics are meaningless on an individual level. Men are on average stronger than women, there definitely exist women that could kick my ass. You are probably smarter than most singletons. CorruptUser 22:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Addendum. "Why does it matter". Simply pretending even a minor problem doesn't exist just because it offends you doesn't make that problem disappear, but it does prevent a solution from being found if one exists. What if it turns out the main cause of the discrepancy in height/intelligence is the result of, say, magnesium deficiency during development, and that problem disappears with additional magnesium supplements during pregnancy? Should future generations of twins be denied this treatment just because the existence of the discrepancy offends our senses? CorruptUser 23:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
All I know is that both my sister and I were born lighter than average. As far as I know this probably didn't affect IQ score as much as the fact that we were in a well off middle class household in a suburban city known for good schools. I still think I'm probably like 100 or something, my ADHD won't allow any higher. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Ah, so the answer is soft eugenics. Gotcha. Why do people take you seriously again? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
So people do take me seriously. /snark
Considering that being a twin has virtually no impact on a person's genetic makeup the way a genetic disease does, I fail to see how soft eugenics plays any role in this. Discovering that lead paint and gasoline causes developmental problems and banning them wouldn't be considered eugenics. Or do you think everything that improves public health must be an evil plot? CorruptUser 23:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Ok, I'll be serious. Your highly deterministic explanation is undercut by the fact that you have controlled for zero other factors. As for people taking you seriously, yeah, people do that on certain subjects, though that gets undercut when you just barge into things with some random notion that only makes sense in your head and nowhere else. Seriously, it makes you look like an idiot at best, and a troll at worst. I get that you meant that as a jab at me but godsfuckingdmanit yes, people actually take shit you say seriously. Which fucking sucks when you fucking spout nonsense. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There are MANY categories of Nobel prizes (peace, arts, sciences/medicine etc) and decades of awards. It would be astonishing if no twin has ever won one. Does anyone have a source claiming they have confirmed this? (the only source here is about children's IQs...not about Nobel prizes. ShabiDOO 00:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is WP's list of twin scientists, and
here is WP's list of nobel laureates.
While the first list is not exhaustive I'm sure, there is no overlap. As for who should get the prize, I was surprised that Hilleman didn't receive one, considering he did more for medicine than even Jonas Salk, who won the... wait, Salk didn't receive a Nobel in medicine/physiology either. I can't seem to find anyone getting a prize for discovering a vaccine, yet they'll give a prize for lobotomies?!
Would, would anyone else be upset if I add those Nobel fuckers to the list of anti-vaxxers? Because holy shit. CorruptUser 00:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
It appears that Derek Walcott, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature, had a twin brother. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 00:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
That is a (very short) list of twins who are BOTH scientists (both notable enough to have their own page or section). Not a list of notable scientists who have twins. ShabiDOO 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
(EC) FINALLY there's one. 1 out of 947 is still unusually low, like, less than 1 in 1,000,000 odds. CorruptUser 01:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Oliver Smithies had a twin brother, and won the Prize in Physiology. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Rita Levi-Montalcini also won in Physiology, and had a twin sister. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Heinrich Rohrer won in Physics, and had a twin sister. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
That's all I can find. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
When I searched on Google I couldn't find any, but at least there's 3. That's still extremely low considering that twins are 2% of global pop historically, we should see in the ballpark of 19 with a SD of 4.3, so it's like 4 SD away. Anything less than 11 would reject the null hypothesis. I don't think there's a historical bias against twins the way there is against, say, Female/Black/non-Christians/Gay/etc. CorruptUser 01:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Soooo... Can we collapse this thread now that the initial assertion has been disproven? Inmate XIII (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Of course not. Someone says something silly and people use logic and reason to examine it. Why would we collapse it?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I think an interesting question would be how much of the health difference in twins is the result of being premmie versus possible malnutrition during development. Apparently almost 60% of twins are born premature. I found this study on the effects of prematurity on IQ. Give me a bit to work out the math... CorruptUser 01:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
at least there's 3 — there's at least 4: Walcott, Smithies, Levi-Montalcini, and Rohrer. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
(EC) Inmate, it hasn't been disproven at all
Serene, TY for your help. Will edit again.
Anyway, here's the back of the napkin math. Here's the breakdown of how premature twins are. Assuming the other study captures the major causes of being premature (drinking, etc), we could use the adjusted IQ measurement thing. Being born 34-37 weeks appears to have an almost 0 effect on IQ (though, relatively wide SD), only less than 34 weeks appears to have a major impact of -10.6, which seems consistent with other things I've seen. 12% of twins are born before 34 weeks (heh), so we get .12*-10.6 or -1.27, whereas the actual amount is -5. It seems to me that 3/4th of the IQ difference in twins vs singletons would not be explained by premmies, but from malnutrition during development. Or possibly parents that are a tad more exhausted than usual. Hmm, somebody should probably write to the AMA or something to check that shit out. CorruptUser 02:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
IQ is a SCORE. Like a report card or a grade based on speed/accuracy on solving certain puzzles. People don't have IQ. IQ tests were developed to screen people who need assistance, not really as a general measurement of who's smart and who's dumb. We twins don't have "malnutrition", we're just born smaller. This fixation on apparent IQ scores is making me uncomfortable. As for historical bias against twins, there's no oppression in a systemic way, but we're treated as freaks of nature, weirdos to gaggle at, subjected to stereotype, and research subjects (albeit interesting research subjects but there's not enough research done on twins as twins rather than extrapolations) rather than two human beings. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
We also use you as tools here. Identical twins are one example used to contradict "life begins at conception"; which twin got the soul?
As for systemic discrimination, I'll also point out there exist primitive tribes that, upon birth of twins, murders them and their mother. CorruptUser 21:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Large disparate groups ,for one reason or another, produce different results when their scores are averaged. It is a sobering thought to consider that tall people score higher, on average, than shorter people, or that blondes, on average, score higher than brunettes or redheads. "What does it mean?" I hear you ask. I don't know, but I don't care either, I still like brunettes and redheads,...and twins! UncleKrampus (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
It's a really huge gift to be a twin. Most people won't fully understand but just imagine someone who's shared a womb with you. I'm extremely close to my sister, it makes romantic relationships and marriage feel a little aloof. I have a joint bank account with my sister and for some reason people think that's super peculiar and I'm kind of struggling understanding that. People have tried separating us and I do yearn for research on mental health effects on twin separation. Oh and twin representation in media? I think Mario and Luigi are most famous. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
"What does it mean?" It means that, generally speaking, if a trait can vary between individuals, it can vary between the averages of demographic groups, and that absent a reason to not vary, it is reasonable to expect it to. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Dutch vs Afrikaans: Which is easier to learn[edit]

To me, Afrikaans seems easier to learn. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So, I don't want to be mean - but how many languages have you considered and abandoned now?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I admit, I have a hard time staying focused on a single thing. Same problem applies to YouTube video making. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I had the same problem for a long time, starting and stopping many game development projects over the years. I've learned that finishing things is it's own skill seperate from starting things. I found that committing to finishing things helps a lot. Like decide you are going to do something and try to do it the best you can, something innocuous like drawing a picture or making a table or something random. Force yourself to finish in a preset deadline, and do not cheat that deadline. Learn to estimate how much work you can accomplish and how long it will take. Learn to finish aspects of a project before just taking on more. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Afrikaans is hands down easier to learn than Dutch. Fewer unfamiliar sounds (not that Dutch has that many), verbs are not conjugated and only a handful of verbs have irregular stems, no grammatical gender (a pain when learning Dutch) and a somewhat simpler grammar and slightly easier vocabulary to learn (more cognates with English and more borrowed vocabulary). There are fewer learning resources, that is the only downside, but more than enough to actually learn it. It will take far fewer hours to learn. It is the easiest language for an Native speaker to learn (though Dutch definitely is in the top 5 easiest to learn as well). Knowing Afrikaans will make learning Dutch extremely easy as they are mutually intelligible to a degree (though that depends on a lot of factors, written form far more mutually intelligible). Having said that, Afrikaans will be of far less practical use than Dutch (which itself isn't super practical either). Nearlly all Dutch/Flemish/Dutch-speaking carribeans and Afrikaaners you meet will be fully fluent in English. I would say, go for Spanish. It is not as easy as Dutch/Afrikaans, but really isn't that much more difficult (perhaps would require an extra 100 hours if that). The only true annoyance is verbs (some conjugations, irregular verbs and the bothersome subjunctive) but there are TONS of free resources to learn, films, television literature to enjoy, people in America to practice with and dozens of countries that you can speak it in. As I said last time we went through this, set small goals. Learn the numbers 1-10 in whatever language you want to learn, along with: hello, good bye, thank you, please, sorry, excuse me, help, you're welcome". If you cannot accomplish that first step...you will never learn a language and should try something else. I would recommend you pick a language, learn 10 numbers and the words I said and come back once you have done that. Until you can...consider trying something else (for which you can muster up some self-direction and discipline). ShabiDOO 02:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
If I were you, I would pick the language that's most interesting rather than the one that's the easiest. I think it's harder to learn a language that's easy, but uninteresting to me, than a language that's difficult, but interesting. For example, I personally would have an easier time studying a difficult language like Japanese than an easy language like Afrikaans because I'm interested in Japanese culture more. LongStylus (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Pick one that is most useful to you personally, then you will have more motivation. Bongolian (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Going with Bob on this one. It's far better to be a master of two languages than to just know a couple of words in 20. CorruptUser 20:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I also agree with Bob. Just because I know ~15 words in French doesn't mean I could get by in Paris, without a translator. Focus on mastering languages first, then expand to other languages. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, unrelated but, English is one of the hardest languages to learn. Andrew5 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Something funny about the "Freedom Convoy" ad on Facebook[edit]

I was scrolling through my Facebook timeline and saw an ad for Freedom Convoy merchandise. Besides it being ungodly stupid, the comment section was hilarious. Nearly every comment was insulting them. I have some hope for humanity. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Got a link to the ad? Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Got to love these people who say that they are Patriots while at the same time have contempt for free democratic elections. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
It's all about the grift, baby. :) The company name who registered this site ("Unicorn Wealth LLC") and the address of proudpatriots.com's corporate headquarters are interesting Googles. Jeremy Adams, one of the CEOs, mostly seems to run a variety of odd kinda shady business web pages like this one which seems to have the "we sell you get rich quick 'business plans'" scam vibe from my perspective, e.g. these type of guys will try to bullshit you into overpaying for some shoddy "conference" at a tiny cramped La Quinta meeting room, where they will promise instant wealth for your business, and only have tired cliches (now with more tech buzzwords!) to show for it. Lots of shit about Elon Musk and Joe Rogan and crypto in their podcast titles, for instance, to show what direction these guys are in. So think of this as a Z-grade crypto bro trying to market Angry Baby shit to the rubes as a side hustle. I'm sure these guys are "in favor" of the Trump like many crypto bros seem to be, but I kinda doubt they give a fuck about "patriot" whatever, my guess is they just want a quick buck from the Trump cult. In which case, these guys really need to improve their Facebook targeting skills, given how many have flocked to their pages just to make fun of them... (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Why would they insult them? The patriotic Freedom Convoy is the largest, most successful mobilisation of the working class in American history (/s). Wimbomblo (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I dispute all of that. To whit 'largest' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_and_demonstrations_in_the_United_States_by_size), 'most successful' (it's achieved nothing yet) and 'working class' (mainly some truckers and cranky hangers-on). KarmaPolice (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
@Wimbomblo Patriotic? I am certain that groups who hate the concepts of equality, democracy, freedom of religion (as long as it is theirs) and free speech (as long as you believe in their right wing political views) are far from patriotic. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


PACKWATCH #RIPBOZO 🤣🤣🤣🤣🚬👌💨💨💨💯💯 PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 13:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rockford the Roe Oh? Did GenZedong get shut down? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Quarantined for spreading Russian propaganda about the Ukrainian conflict. It's pretty much the first step taken to getting a subreddit banned. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 13:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Rockford the Roe Tragic. Once again the forces of American capital conspire to suppress the glorious People's Revolution... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Sucks to suck. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
GenZedong? More like GenZeGone Vomitorium (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
🦀GENZEDONG IS GONE🦀 Jake Holmesyell at me 19:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

THESE BITCHES LOVE SOSA TheNFLGuy (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Institute in Basic Life Principles[edit]

Why don't we have an article on these weirdos? CorruptUser 20:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Because you haven’t made it yet. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Good post! G Man (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

End to end encryption[edit]

Looks like UK wants to stifle end to end encryption. https://youtu.be/Hbs4RJphR5I Highboi (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

so does every other government in the world. its a campaign to that end but there is no legislation proposed and entirely about social media companies being convinced to make concessions or give back door access or what not. i doubt it will generate enough public pressure for social media companies to do fuck all, while the government could legislate and demand access in someway to get past encryption, or remove it all together. dont see encryption going any where soon, or to be blocked from new implentations. its a government funded campaign but that doesnt mean it has no support - it has quite a lot of childrens charities and safeguarding charities. there is genuine safety concerns that end to end encryption presents. wiretaps and bugs are useful tools for example after court has allowed them to thwart all manner of criminals and terrorists - with all the due process a court order has on sanctioning invasions of privacy that youtube video is dross though. as i understand it, you cannot break the encryption even you wanted to. court order or justified eavesdrop or not. that does mean a lot of unpleasant stuff will go on with an impunity not seen before. sure you can set up your own custom built end to end encryption for your villainous activity if whatsapp was not secure enough for you, im sure crims have the resources for that. but whatsapp hides all illicit comminications taking place while dodgypicsof kiddiesApp might be in secure but you know that communication is taking place to give a focus for your efforts stopping such comms and those involved. dont know how how significant e2ee is on this and how many people wont be prevented from their crimes who would be as it stands now, or if there is a compromise of some kind. dont how much you would trust a government to not pry or make use of a backdoor beyond clear and justifiable cases of safety and child protection. its not like anti terror legtislation hasnt been abused by the the uk gov, and if they get something, then more nosy governments with not even lip service to civil rights and privacy get new tool to crackdown on their dissidents. this campaign could genuinely be just looking for a dialogue for safety vs privacy issues e2ee presents. the government might want more, but there is little else they can do. https://noplacetohide.org.uk/ - the campaign and not youtube dross.AMassiveGay (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Most of these plans come from folks with a 'series of tubes' level of understanding of tech, coupled with good old 'stranger danger' fears. This is almost as bloody dense as the stupid 'Britcoin' idea mooted last year (all the disadvantages of Bitcoin, with none of the advantages).
Which is why the likes of FB are digging in their heels. They know the moment they cave and end E2EE for WhatApp etc is the day there shall be a massive falling-off of usage. A lot of individuals and organisations use them for secure communications for legitimate reasons; for example, many a small business which before the pandemic felt secure communications were 'too expensive' now use a group for remote work, families doing them to keep everyone in the loop and so on. A cynical part of me wonders whether the bespoke, pricey communications companies have a hand to play in this; the end of free/cheap off the shelf solutions shall force companies to pay for their services too.
Which is why this is a 'campaign', not an attempt in Parliament. They know if it was the latter many an MP (including Tories) would stand up and say what I have and more in public, leading to the point the plans would die again (like they did under May a few years back; their idea to 'ban E2EE in the UK' being laughed out of the room).
Lastly, it's all a distraction for political purposes. Blame E2EE for not catching/convicting enough paedos, for it *can't* be down to a decade of austerity which slashed the numbers and capabilities of both police and child protection. This has been the common smokescreen since 2010; more laws to try to disguise the reduction of actual abilities to enforce the current ones. I doubt even the cops *really* want this; they're massively overwhelmed by the weight of unencrypted electronic trash they have to wade through as it is. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we use archive.today for linking sources?[edit]

I would like to know. VerminWiki (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. archive.today has been stable over the years, but how it runs and and who owns it are somewhat opaque. In some cases, archive.today does a better job of archiving some major sites (Twitter, Ebay), and it ignores the no-robots directive on webpages, unlike archive.org. Bongolian (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I should add that for archive.today links, it's very important to include textual information about what is being linked to (e.g., article title, author, date, journal). This is somewhat less important for archive.org links because unlike for archive.today, the original URL is embedded in the archived URL. Bongolian (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Cynical Russian moves[edit]

Today the Russians are characterizing their defeat at Kyiv and near defeat at Kharkiv as "withdrawing to build up mutual trust", and previously refocusing on "liberating Donbas and the industrial east...... but in all the analysis about this there is another little gem from the meeting between Macron and Putin - Putin is reported assaying "Ukrainian nationalist militants must stop resisting and lay down their weapons" - which amounts to "there would be no problems if they gave up" - it is symptomatic of Putin's world view that Ukraine is not a "real country", and his lack of grasp that Ukrainians disagree about that.

IMO Putin will never give up an inch of territory other than by force - negotiations are a ploy to weaken "western" resolve and engaged in solely for the optics and propaganda value. He will send every untrained conscript and foreign "volunteer" into the fight, banking that Ukraine will run out of men/resolve before he does.

On a related note, Aleksandr Dugin seems to be the long term driving force behind Putin's geo-political philosophy - if you are not familiar with him then suggest you read the article for more understanding of how Putin sees this war - it's pretty ugly stuff.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Shifting the focus away from Kyiv tallies with what is believed to be the Russian 'Plan B'; the seizure of all Ukraine east of the Dnieper. The reports of significant deportation of Ukrainians from this zone to camps within Russia suggest that perhaps they're planning a Yalta-style 'exchange of populations' and thus, ensuring the change sticks.
But I do suspect Putin thinks the West shall 'get bored' of this in a bit and when coupled with the desire to touch oligarch cash again shall make us cave. For he 'knows' we're weak, greedy, lazy, unfocused and decadent - a classic, though understandable reading of our mindset from a leader who frankly, never really got to *know* us personally. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
It's not so clear that it will fall out that way when Ukraine has the desire and ability to claim Russian assets that have already been seized to the tune of around 1/2 trillion US$ in war reparations.[1][2] That's enough moo-lah to make even poo-tin weep. Bongolian (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Russia has failed in its attempt to capture Kyiv and so they have "magnanimously" said they will stop trying. Or, at least, reduce the scale and intensity of their war crimes. Which is an uncomfortable mixture of cynicism and hypocrisy.
I like the idea of using Russian assets to pay for the cost of the war - but I worry that it might result in the conflict not being finally closed in our lifetimes.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I said I think that's what Putin thinks. I didn't say that's what is going to happen. I think senior Kremlin officials are finding the biggest battle being not against the Ukranians, but with Putin's 'facts' which are concreted in to his brain and simply don't fit with reality on the ground. I'm reminded of pre-Stalingrad WW2; up to then much of the Russian efforts had been hamstrung or actively made worse by Stalin's paranoia, backsteat driving and wishful thinking.
But I do think a Korean War ending (partition with Russian puppet in Eastern Ukraine) or a Six-Day War end (Russia annexes the bits of Ukraine captured) is becoming more likely. What's more, I don't see the ending of fighting to be an *actual* ending (neither of the above really did). KarmaPolice (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

About confronting changing careers[edit]

I have told my parents years ago that I would like to work in the IT / programming industry and they were supportive of it. Now, after working on 3 disastrous roblox projects, I decided that programming is stressful for me to work on and so I quit. Over the years I was in a limbo over my career path. Now I have gained some interests in the creative side in arts and music. But then the programming thingy is still stuck in my parents’ mind in which they tell everyone in my family that I shall be the next line up of programming. I tried to tell them about changing my career to a more fun and creative side, but my trust issues just got in the way in which they scoff it and made another stupid comparison to me and the poor latin america. I would like to persist more in convincing them to at least be fine with my path. I don’t think about going to college since the internet is so overly open that I could just watch a youtube playlist and go thrive in a few months. But then again they are still in the mainstream patriot mindset (Thinking our home country is the only “communist” country in south america, police brutality isn’t that bad, USA is the land of the free, happy, and opportunistic, etc). I would like to know how to get them to listen to a other side. ArtsAndShafts (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm... I would say, without personal knowledge of the situation the best tactic is to listen to them. As in, not what they're saying so much, but *why* they are saying that. Once you get where they're coming from, you have a better chance of trying to convince them. For example, if they think 'that is where the money is', you might be swing it by arguing that the market's gotten oversaturated and Chinese/Indian cut-price coders have made your skills almost worthless.
There's also the old standby: deceit. Sometimes, we have relatives who are simply unable to change their opinion on X. That we can either continue to dash our skulls on their insane troll logic and their ad nauseam maxim chanting or... we simply slide around the issue. Again, off top of head; 'yeah, there's nothing decent on the programming end right now, so I decided to give (other thing) a try'. Or 'I need to widen my skill-set and (other thing) shall help this'. I mean, we are due to go into this 'metaverse' thing soon (*shudders*} and well, creative multimedia experience would be good for this, yes? KarmaPolice (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
You could become a website developer/designer and take a middle path between making money and doing things that you like. Employment of web developers and digital designers in the U.S. is projected to grow 13 percent from 2020 to 2030, faster than the average for all occupations. The other thing you could do is be more independent minded and care less about what others think. MPFitz2000 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Is it the roblox projects that are stressful or is it the computer programming aspects? Can you argue that you want a different work/creativity life balance ('for the present at least') with the work funding the creative aspects? Anna Livia (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Death threats[edit]

I know I'm a little late. I don't think Meta should allow death threats directed towards the Kremlin officials. I think it'll just fuel the anti western sentiment which will be detrimental to Ukraine. What do you guys think? Highboi (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

What about Abramovich then? Anna Livia (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
What about him? Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The apparent attempt at poisoning him. Anna Livia (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I was sort of stunned when I read about this a couple of weeks ago. I guess I'm more in the all or nothing camp, either you permit these type of threats towards all government officials or you don't allow those threats at all. To me what was more interesting is allowing praise of the Azvov Battalion on social media. I understand they are fighting tooth-in-nail in Mariupol, but they are still Nazi sympathizers.- RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
And so what? "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." - Churchill, 1941. There are Nazi sympathizers in every country in the world - maybe not including North Korea but I wouldn't bet your left testicle on it..... and Azov seems to be a great deal less nazi than it was in 2014... plus it's a good idea to 1/ know who they are, 2/ be able to keep an eye on them, and 3/ make jolly good use of their anti-Russian sentiments right now. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
War makes for strange bedfellows. And this is what you get when you have 'general public resistance' in a situation of what is becoming more by the day a clear fight for sheer national survival.
Though I'm unsure whether it's overall a good or bad thing they're seemingly mainly in one unit. On the plus side, they're not contaminating anyone else with their ideas. On the minus, they're not so likely to see that those groups they despise (for example, LGBT) are also resisting the Russians hard too.
But then again, plenty of Nazis would have fought in the trenches alongside Jews in WW1 and they still did what they did... KarmaPolice (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
when this war is a distant memory some folk are going to be expected to be grateful to their oppressors when nazis wind up not just legitimised but lionised as heroes. desperate times call for desperate measures, and war often makes strange bed fellows. it dont always end nicely when the common enemy is on the way out and people start planning for what comes after they have gone, chaos of war while it lasts presents opportunities to settle scores and purge ideological foes. if the defence of the area i lived in was being handled by nazis or just folk who before the invasion were less than neighbourly, id be concerned about bombs and gunfire not coming from the russian lines AMassiveGay (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine is already quite wracked about the resistance from WW2 - Look up UPA (Bandera) - they fought with and against Nazi's, with and against the Soviet army, and eventually was one of those post WW2 resistance situations that went on for several years in various Soviet occupied areas - eg Forrest Brothers in the Baltics, Polish resistance, etc. How do you acknowledge independence activists that saw the Nazi's as a way to get out of the USSR, at least for a while?? Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
that group of ethnic cleansers does little to make the idea of having to depend on neo-nazis for national defense and/or personal safety a pleasing prospect. i am glad i am not a minority in ukraine right now. i am glad im not in ukraine regardless of minority status full stop, what with the war and all, but you get my point. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It's no worse than them indirectly sending death threats to me and everyone I care about with their pathetic nuclear dick waving rhetoric in response to practically anything the world does to support Ukrainians or to clamp on further sanctions. They insist on continuing with this useless 'special military operation' that has made a complete joke of their military prowess and reputation, with no clear end sight at this point beyond slaughtering and displacing civilians and razing cities to the ground, fucking around near volatile nuclear power plant sights, exacerbating global instability and anxiety (especially around Europe) - tensions are sky high, people are pissed off and want it to be known, warnings and threats inevitably end up going both ways.

It doesn't really make much difference what message gets sent, or how long Zelensky or allies try to keep up the ethical high ground, the sniveling Muscovite bastards will just carry on playing victim whilst framing or fabricating anything they can latch on to as propaganda to suit whatever narrative they want pushed onto their population to continue supporting the invasion regardless, just as they have done from the very beginning with all that 'liberating our brothers from the evil democratically elected jewish nazi drug addict' bs. Mrxskull (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please factcheck this for me?[edit]


The cited source seems to be from the "Institute for Family Studies". <--- I have never heard of them before. TheFriend (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Neither have I, but they seem to be a right-wing think tank devoted to churning out stuff which supports traditional family values. Nevertheless, glancing at the report it seems to be mostly saying, "Men who self-identify as 'very masculine' also claim to exhibit stereotypical masculine behavior". I hope they don't spend a lot of money to reach that conclusion.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Prepare to be enlightened!
I shall personally 'yellow flag' them. Not complete crackpots but they'll only report what goes with their 'mission' and aren't overly picky about how good those reports are. Shall demand proofs of soundness of any work done before citing. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

A plugin to show more info and links for each article[edit]


Just thought I'd mention something I use alongside Rational Wiki, it's a free browser plugin for Chrome or Firefox called "Wikidata for Web" and what it will do is if the Rational Wiki page you are looking has an entry in Wikipedias database "Wikidata", it'll populate it sidebar with all it knows about that subject and the links it has

Currently, Wikidata knows about over 1700 rational wiki pages so likey to have so useful info as your browse, it also allows you to easily link up pages that it doesn't already know about.

As an added bonus, if someone is using the plugin on another site that wikidata knows about (for example someone's twitter page) the rational wiki link will be shown (if it has the link to ration wiki for that item)

Wikidata page for the plugin

Back ache (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


Dsbnsub (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That's going to depend on what you mean by "most sectors" and "where?". Globally, women represent about 40% of the workforce.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Millennia of myssogeny. ShabiDOO 08:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@Shabidoo But thats back in the past. Why is woman despite having full equality with men, are still represented a smaller part of the workforce especially with things like STEM and politics? Could it be that women are wired differently and want different wants and needs? What do you guys think? Dsbnsub (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Myssogeny is NOT in the past. It is everywhere. It is 5% gone (at best) and only in some countries in some contexts. ShabiDOO 09:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
How can the presence or absence of this be checked? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
There are many ways. Blind studies in hiring practices (likelihood of HR people taking fully qualified candidates CVs/resumes seriously if they have female names, hiring percentages, percentages of resources dedicated to women's issues, the fact that 1% of rapists ever face any punishment whatsoever, the glacial speed at which sexual harassment is dealt with in offices/schools/public (how many cases are actually investigated), the slow change at which women are voted into office, the still slow decline of harmful sterotypes and jokes on television/film, the number of vicious mysogenstic comments found everywhere online, surveys of percentage of women who deal with daily/weekly harassment, sexism, mansplaining, that 70% of young british men would be upset if their future wife didn't take their last name, salary discrepancies in sports, glacial growth in interest in watching women's sports online, I could keep going and going and going. A paralel with LGTBQ+ issues which I just discussed with a friend yesterday. Anyone who tells me that homophobia is in the past, my instant response is that by statistics alone there should be at least a thousand gay football (soccer players) in European premier leagues and yet not a single one is out of the closet. In North America there should be a thousand NBA/NFL/NHL/Baseball gay players. One single player has come out of the closet, only last year and that was Earth shattering (a 0.1% rate of out of the closetness). This can easily be applied to the area of misogyny where in many places the boys club has barely been broken into, in some sectors...not at all. How can a women expect to easily get to the head of a construction industry for example if in many companies (luckily not every single one), when trying to gain experience at lower levels is met with relentless sexism, resistance, endless vile-comments/jokes/being-demeaned, ignored, passed over? ShabiDOO 10:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't really accept the 'it's all just sexism' answer. Mainly because if it was just that, I think we'd have mostly won this war now. No, we're dealing with a more slippery, complicated beast than that!
Part of my theory is that for advanced countries, an element of the 'weight of the past' comes into play. If you have a 'sector/field' etc where the average age is pretty old (say, top-grade execs, politicians etc) you're dealing with choices which happened decades ago. I remember doing a quick look at British MPs after the '17 election, and the *vast* majority of them had chosen to go into politics before 1997. The average age of the major Anglo exec is now (I believe) an excess of 55, and for CEOs over 60.
Let's think this through. Want a 'minority' exec for a major company? Well, let's take a look at the book of business school grads from 1995. For female execs, we have to hope they did manage to avoid 'falling/stepping off' the ladder at any point so they can truly become a candidate for the top floor.
This can be even more severe in nations with heavy 'Boomer bulges', like the USA/UK. Simply put, there's (relatively speaking) lots of Boomer execs about (mainly white, male, straight and middle class) and a relative dearth of the cohort below them (due to the 'baby bust' of the 70s). Even for less elevated careers, this can still skew the stats; if a field is dominated by Boomers and most of the Boomer women left (at some point) but the males remained, that makes a lop-sided situation even worse.
Improving health outcomes isn't helping factors. There's less *medical* pressure on white-collar workers in their 60s/70s to retire, even less so in fields where technical currentness is less an issue. Thus, they're somewhat 'clogging up' the upper echelons of the ladder to new blood. I've heard that this is a particular issue for sectors with an element of 'dead person's shoes', like academia and politics. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Nah...it is mostly millennia of misogyny that has barely gone away. The resistance to this obviousness is always stunning. ShabiDOO 11:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, I think the cries of "mass misogyny" in the workplace is very, very overblown. If anything woman are considered bright lights in the workplace, "SMASHING THE GLASS CELING" so to speak. They are after all, women-only scholarships. Also the Nordic countries, which for a long time was considered a bright light in gender equality have in fact, less women working in the top jobs [3]. Dsbnsub (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Groan. ShabiDOO 11:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

So, Shabi... if only we got rid of sexism, the very next day we'd find a large crop of suitable women in their 50s with Masters from top-rank universities and 10 years-plus of 'senior leadership experience' to suddenly fill half the boards of all the FTSE 100 companies? Shall this also work in the military? If it wasn't for the damn misogynic generals, we'd have half all senior officers female next week? What about the folks currently there? Are they all rubbish or something? *sarcasm mode off*

You can't have what doesn't exist. Recruiters *today* are selecting the senior execs of the 2050s/2060s. What's needed is more studies and fixes of the issues which cause women (or any minority) to fall off the ladder or hit a ceiling at *every* level. I've been hearing the 'it's all just sexism (or whatever-ism)' for 25 years now and the main change I've seen is that while the overt sexism has way declined the *systems* of inequality still rolls on underneath, almost unchanged. What's needed is a lot less 'awareness' classes and a lot more genuine changes in policy etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You cannot bring real change until you recognise that sexism is still a MASSIVE problem that even progressive people struggle to recognise. If you dismiss the scale of the problem, real meaningful change will be as glacial as it has been. Tiny mile stones is not meaningful progress. It is a nice tiny little start. In no universe should a few meagre accomplishments been seen as "job done...we are virtually there". That we are even close to meaningful equality is a ridiculous illusion. LOL. Same tired story with racism, homo/transphobia, classism, ageism etc. 2% progress is a drop in the bucket. ShabiDOO 12:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
With all respect, that's not an answer to my point. Also, is the same line I've been hearing for eons. Lastly, I never said 'we are nearly there'; what part of my point of this being 'a more slippery, complicated beast than (simple sexism)' was confusing? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sexism is a problem, but it's getting better. 27% of representatives are women, a new record, whereas 24 senators are women; which is one fewer then the 25 they had last congress. We currently have a female VP, female Speaker. Also a cause for regression is Republican women getting ousted by Democratic men; the gerrymander in NY (where we have a female governer), will probably lead to Max Rose (male) replacing Nicole Matillotkis (female), as the new boundaries make it more blue (making Cook say it leans blue.) Andrew5 (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I find it depressing how quickly a talk about women has diverted so quickly to be about rape. It's not really the topic at hand; which I generally took to be about the fact there's still a serious gender bias in almost all sectors when it comes to 'positions of authority'.
Don't automatically dump on the (first) 'female VP' as a trivial token either (unless they clearly are, like being 'promoted' to a powerless position). Not only can they help break the corporate 'groupthink' simply by being non-male but also to be a role model, a mentor/patron for younger women *and* helping their male subordinates to accept the realities of having a female boss (rather than the theoretical 'accept' which is much easier).
You want to change the system? You need to get your hands on those levers of power and shift the direction, that's what. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
We can do introspection on this Wiki too for starters. Why aren't there many active female editors? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 15:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
How do you know which editors are male or female if they don't tell you? I mean, we know you are female, but I don't know if, e.g., Shabi is a girl or not. CorruptUser 15:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we did a survey years ago on RW users, and if I remember correctly, the majority of users are male. I don't have the link for it unfortunately. LongStylus (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

So why aren't there many active female editors, LeftyGreenMario? Your thoughts on this matter? MPFitz2000 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I added a vote... thing. Feel free to add your vote there. Not sure if I included everyone, but I think "NB, Inter, 'Fluid and Other" would include all the other combinations out there. If we included every last possible gender, well, that list would be too long. Also, not sure if calling Trans as gender is wrong or not, but, eh... CorruptUser 17:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
BTW, as for the Scandinavian countries, there exists a phenomenon called the gender paradox.(egalitarianism and women in high paying jobs are inversely related)

The explanation I have come up with are: 1. Nordic culture 2. Women can pursue their interests without any pressure. No. 2 is more likely Highboi (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

New red link user, you first, entertain me with your takes. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I think that women and men are different are wired differently. Women are more to people and babies while men are more into tools. Dsbnsub (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Except that being into people is exactly how you get promoted, whereas being into tools causes you to end up in a dead-end albeit high paying job. CorruptUser 04:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't have time to verbosely explain it. Here are some articles, read it and make up your mind.
Article that supports 1-> https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2008704117
Article that supports 2-> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323197652_The_Gender-Equality_Paradox_in_Science_Technology_Engineering_and_Mathematics_Education

Highboi (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer more experienced RationalWiki editors explain why the wiki has a gender gap. And is RationalWiki's gender gap worse than Wikipedia's gender gap? MPFitz2000 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
There's a variety of answers to that question any one of which would certainly raise objections for one reason or another. A large percentage of males tend to become vulgar at the drop of a hat. Now lots of males don't like that behavior and will avoid dealings with such people. Others may respond back in kind. I think it is fair to say more women than men will lose interest in an environment that is contentious and intractable. Why is that? One reason might be that women tend to be practical more often than men. Who wants optional aggravation? Or perhaps women are less effectively conditioned to endure unpleasant circumstances; that is to say, they are less masochistic. Or, perhaps, woman simply learn to avoid assholes early in life and the practice pays dividends. Now this is not to say that our user community consists, by and large, in vulgar, contentious, intractable, masochistic male assholes...but we don't have a lot of women here, and I tend to think that it isn't because we are all such nice guys.UncleKrampus (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
id imagine a fair few women choose not to advertise the fact for the simple fact men are the worst, on the internet especially. this is the case with online gaming, and the ridiculous treatment women receive when male gamers become aware of their presence. apparently women are more than represented in gaming demographics but you would not necessarily realise this or that you are playing with female gamers. the boy gamers often not the most welcoming of inclusiveness AMassiveGay (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
That and women prefer mobile games. Some question if mobile games are "real games", but I'm part of the PC Master Race, so... CorruptUser 23:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The R Word[edit]

Moving this down here to avoid contaminating the rest of the discussion. Plus, collapsing just in case, -CU (from Above) the fact that 1% of rapists ever face any punishment whatsoever, the glacial speed at which sexual harassment is dealt with in offices/schools/public (how many cases are actually investigated), the slow change at which women are voted into office ShabiDOO 10:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I question the "less than 1%" thing. A serial rapist could have 20 victims and be convicted on just one of them, but I wouldn't say the other 19 victims had their rapist go free. See Harvey Weinstein, who had 80 women come forward and who knows how many not come forward, yet was convicted for "only" 1 count of sex assault and 1 count of 3rd degree rape. The actual number of rapes is hugely disputed, RAINN says 69%, other sources say 60%, some say 80%. There's actually a wide difference between 60% and 80%; if there's 40 reported rapes, 60% unreported means 60, but 80% means 160.
Furthermore, from what I understand, a good chunk of the time a rape claim leads to a search warrant. The cops raid the alleged rapist's home, and find some weed or something. The rapist agrees to a plea deal; be convicted for drug possession instead of going on the watchlist, justice system gets to avoid spending a fortune on a trial which is he-said, she-said, etc.CorruptUser 13:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
It is astonishing the lengths people go to to make rape culture seem as less of a problem than it actually is. I am not even going to comment on your dubious reaction to the 1% because even that is a generous estimate (due to the widely accepted by nearly all experts in nearly all fields that rape and sexual harassment is super underreported). Instead ask yourself what it is that is motivating you to react so forcefully to such a statistic. Having a female VP is a lovely milestone but it is an utterly trivial token in comparison to the millions of people who are discriminated against, raped with their rapists never paying a price, fighting harder to move up the ladder, office sexism, barriers to most walks of life and a large portion of even "allies" who are blind to how little equality there is or even deny there are serious problems while "doubting statistics". Yes...things are getting better...but yeah, women aren't represented more in some industries and jobs at certain levels because of people putting barriers in their way. Let's not argue with the fact that there are a shit ton of barriers that need to be removed. ShabiDOO 14:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Because I had a horrible girl-bully in High School, was falsely accused of attempted rape (thanks CCTV), and the girl suffered no consequences? Her overall treatment of me (not just that incident) led to serious self esteem issues that lasted into my college years and poisoned my ability to form relationships for some time? Is that the reason? Probably not, but you never know.
Oh, and RAINN still has the felony conviction rate of 2.8%, not less than 1%. Using their stats, it seems around 1 in 10 reported rapes results in a felony conviction (no clue how many get pled down to mis-d), 1 in 30 reported robberies, and 1 in 15 A&B. If you want to say that "rape culture" is a serious problem, I'll agree with you, but the problem isn't the conviction rate compared to other reported crimes. I have two friends that were raped. My best friend was the victim of pedophilia, or ephebophilia or whatever the term is for when the victim has just entered puberty, but it was by a camp counselor. I wish I was a better friend, had no idea how to react to it at the time. Another friend was raped on several different occasions by different rapists. But for both of them, they were both male and the rapists were all female, so... yeah, I've definitely witnessed a bit of rape culture. Personally, I'm not sure how an unsolicited kiss/hug from a drunk woman counts, technically it's sexual assault but I don't think that's what the stats say. I did have a woman randomly start grinding on me and grabbing me at a party when I clearly was uninterested in her, and I'd definitely consider that sexual assault. Lost my favorite coat from that incident. CorruptUser 14:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I did not say conviction rate, I said "rapists ever face punishment ever". To even get to the point that the police agree to fill out a form is a challenge in some jurisdictions. That is a step below an actual filled out form going anywhere. Quite a journey to it being investigated. And you will be lucky if charges are pressed. Rapists almost always get away with rape. The only fathomable explanation of this is a high degree of tolerance of rape culture and millennia of misogyny that has only slightly gone away. ShabiDOO 14:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
So... how does 2.8% chance of a random rape leading to felony conviction, including those unreported using RAINN's stats, mean that 99% of rapes go completely unpunished? Especially when we aren't including misdemeanor convictions, or plea deals for e.g. drug possession, or cases of serial rape where the rapist is only convicted for a fraction of offenses committed. CorruptUser 15:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not going to argue about how hard it is for rape victims to find justice. Be it 3% or less than 1% (almost certainly so), it is outrageously fucking low. I cannot believe this is where we are nit-picking shit rather than the near herculean effort necessary to make a dent in rape-culture. And no, I do not think it is "funny" that rape-culture comes up in a thread relating to women facing barriers in work. Sexism in the work place and sexual harassment often go hand in hand. And I don't think there is anything "funny" about this topic at all. Nothing like listening to men mansplain why sexism isn't as bad as people say it is, arguing over a couple percentage points on rape statistics and explaining why a female VP is somehow symbolic of meaningful equality. ShabiDOO 20:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Can we agree on the following at least?
1) Rape is a serious offense
2) Most rapes don't get solved
3) Society should act to ensure more rapes do get solved
From there we could argue what point 3 actually entails, I supposeCorruptUser 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
No..."solved" is just a way of adding an unnecessary element of doubt that rapes happened. I am not talking about questionable rapes. I am talking about women who are raped and either cannot be taken seriously by the justice system or do not bother (for good reason). We do not talk about someone being mugged at knife point and that crime being "solved", nor about a case of gross libel being "solved"...we talk about them getting justice. Just about every rapist gets away with rape scot-free with zero consequences. Rape cases do not need to be "solved" ... rape culture and misogyny need to be solved. And to get back to the original question, women facing pointless barriers in the work place need to be solved. ShabiDOO 21:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm actually finding myself biting my tongue a lot when discussing with you, because this is a personal topic for me for the reasons above (as well as a lot of people, obviously). The only way rape victims can get justice is to come forward; in that sense, I believe that exaggerating claims or using misleading information about conviction/punishment discourages victims from coming forward. CorruptUser 21:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
CU we have been through this shit before. False claims are a tiny percentage and happen with all crimes. Pointing out there are false crimes with "rape" but not with other crimes shows that society has a bias against taking rape claims seriously (as does the fact that the police and justice system resist persecuting cases all the time at a rate that doesn't happen with other serious crimes). Doubting victims is just one of the many manifestations of not taking rape culture seriously. I am sorry you were falsely accused. That sucks. I am also sorry that the majority of rape victims don't even bother reporting their crime because of the high likelihood they won't be taken seriously and the even higher chance nothing will be done about it. ShabiDOO 21:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I only mentioned false claims in what happened to me, since you insinuated that I must have some sort of personal stake in this or something. I also pointed out that two of my friends were raped, and they refused to come forward because being boys/men and the perpetrators being women, there really was no reasonable expectation that their claim would be taken seriously, so yeah, I sorta do have a stake I suppose. At no point in the actual argument did I bring up false reports.CorruptUser 21:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not super familiar with this issue, but I always thought that a big reason that rape and sexual crimes in general are under prosecuted was difficulty in obtaining evidence. A murder leaves an obvious trail, a person is now gone or left a corpse. A theft results in an item which was once in a person's possession no longer being in that person's possession. With a sexual crime, unless you have video evidence, all you have are witness accounts and the victims word that a crime was even committed at all, whereas with the others the fact that the instigating event happened (person missing or dead, item no longer in possession) can be demonstrated after the fact by a detective. I feel like this would imply that even with a non-misogynistic system, this would still imply a significantly higher chance for the trail to go dead just by the nature of these kinds of crimes and how much easier they are to get away with and harder to prove. Are there statistics for a similarly difficult to investigate, but non-sex related, crime available? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There are too many jurisdictions to count which have rape kits that are not used or even processed when they easily could be. When resources aren't allocated to dealing with rape (when they easily could) or worse when police cannot even be bothered to pass on forms and kits etc, it is reflective of how ingrained rape culture or rape-indifference is. Yes, rape can be a little more challenging to investigate sometimes than some other crimes but this is all too much of an excuse for inaction, which is depressingly common. Many serious crimes are difficult to investigate, yet there seems to be an eagerness to close rape cases unless some absurd level of a guarantee of a conviction is given, a higher bar than with other serious crimes (which can be just as damaging to the perpetrator's reputation). ShabiDOO 10:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

EC thats only really half the problem. most rapes are not reported as the process of rape kits and an invasive look at your sex life, and thats all before you are in a court room facing the defence consisting of your rapist calling you a whore, which works and they get off. if you are not a nun, then you are a slut and was asking for it. its not just the nature of evidence but reasonable doubt is easy to engineer by feeding rape myths to jurors and showing you like to party. some areas have laws to shield the victim from being cross examined by their rapist, most dont. it will most likely not be prosecuted anyway so there is that. and statute of limitations makes historical cases difficult to prosecute, so if you are a child victim better make sure you report abuse in a timely fashion. the legal system can be just as traumatic as the rape and the odds are stacked against even going to trial, let alone convict. you must report sexual abuses, but no where makes it easy. in the us, if it happened on campus, you probably wont even be encouraged to report it to the police and be expected to go through the campus security with all the details handled not by a professional, like police or counselling, but college admin
'grab em by the pussy' tells you all you need to know about how the cards are stacked against the victim. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you really think that's an appropriate coda? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
what? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
could just as easily finished with The Ford-Kavanaugh sexual assault hearings to highlight how sexual assault is dismissed and hand waved away at the highest of society, and victims are attacked, and not even bother to investigate. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Or in the last 5 years in progressive Canada where a judge asked a rape victim why she didn't try to keep her legs closed and a police interview where the mountie asked her if she felt aroused during the rape. Or in the UK with hidden video documentaries showing police laughing about tossing out rape victim forms and multiple universities being sued for not taking rape claims seriously, or even actively trying to make them go away (in the 21st century) or to U.S. jurisdictions where you practically need a signed confession before anything gets done. ShabiDOO 13:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Don't forget the Virginia school district that, just last year, allegedly covered up a rape by moving the alleged EDIT:Convicted perpetrator to another school without warning them, where another rape occurred. Then the school had the father of one of the victims arrested, and the media tried to paint him as a White Supremacist because he was understandably upset.
Addendum. There was also a third victim that didn't come forward. The rapist was not placed on the registry, and was placed in a residential facility instead of prison. I mean, he's not free, but IDK how that feeds into the stats of rapists not going to prison. CorruptUser 16:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
"what?" That phrase is from a bit of Trumpian braggadocio in which he claims that women find "stars" such as himself so desirable that "They let you do it, you can do anything." So not only are the actions talked about made up, the interaction involved is consensual. Which, I would assume, is not the rape-related narrative you wanted to invoke there. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
its rape culture where the the president of the united states himself talks of abusing women with impunity with too many people giving it a pass as just locker room talk. it normalises sexual assault and shows attitudes of those even in the highest office trivialising sexual abuse telling victims just how seriously accusations are likely to be taken. its interesting that one line drew your attention though and not everything else being said. its not like it makes or breaks any point made about the disincentives to the reporting of rape and the miniscule payoff the ordeal presents. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shabidoo I had never even heard of a rape kit before. But it sounds like they only work if you collect evidence within 72 hours according to wikipedia. So what you're saying about them delaying using the tests would probably result in the test being ineffective even when the victim does seek prosecution immediately. According to some quick googling, apparently successful prosecution in a sexual assault case doesn't depend on whether the victim consented, but whether the assailant *thought* they consented, which is some real horseshit right there. Honestly it's...unsettling that such a major crime's successful prosecution depends on the assailant's interpretation of the events. Imagine if theft worked like that: "oh I thought it was my car, I didn't realize you still wanted it" and you have to *prove* that the perp didn't think it was their car. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I am referring to rape kits that are used and then shelved or even tossed out. They are simply not processed because the police don't bother, don't budget for it, don't care, don't have the time, prioritise cases they prefer or are guaranteed to win and so on. This also applies to simply filing a rape report they filled out. To not be bothered to simply file a paper you have already filled out, is an indication of your utter indifference to a rape case. Things have marginally improved in some jurisdictions. News reports showing how seriously the police take some cases may give the impression that this is the norm. It is not. It is absoltuely abysmally dire in many jurisdictions. I had just read today that a fairly strong case of innappropriate sexual contact (which had video evidence) had not gone ahead in British Columbia because a very high expectation of conviction is required (and this is in one of the most progressive Canadian provinces, one of the most progressive countries in the world). This high expectation is not necessarily required for other serious crimes and compared with the zeal for which mundane crimes are prosecuted...well...sigh. At an institutional level it is just as bad with corporations, organisations (churches, boy scouts), political parties, universities and even elementary schools and worse uniformed services (police, military) making extreme efforts to protect rapists, make claims go away and do nothing meaningful to end rape culture. In Canada police at all levels and all military branches (including today) are being exposed for people at all levels (including top levels) for covering up blatant sexual assault, burrying cases, punishing victims for coming forward, punishing whistle blowers and even complaining it is unfair to hold people accountable for incompetence/indifference. Rape is terrible when a stranger is hurt, it is an inconvenience or a threat when it affects your interests/friends. I am no longer surprised by the resistance from people accepting that rape culture and rape indifference is as massive a problem as it is that has barely improved. ShabiDOO 14:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's whether a "reasonable" person would've thought they consented. A reasonable person would not think "oh there's a car here, the owner must no longer want it". A reasonable person would not think "this girl is passed out drunk, I didn't get a no". There are cases where there's a question of whether or not a reasonable person would think the other consented, which is why we should generally push for "informed consent" to get rid of any ambiguity. As for sexual history, a woman could be in the middle of an orgy being "occupied" by two guys, and if a third guy comes in without asking, that's sexual assault if not rape. However, proving in court is a different matter.
I'm reminded of the case of Marcus Dixon, who as a Black teen was accused of raping a much younger White girl. The rape charges didn't stick but the statutory rape charges did; ironically, these had a harsher sentence. Much of that case rested on the girl being a virgin at the time; the general view being that a girl wouldn't want to lose her virginity to a guy she barely knew. His claim was that she only falsely said it was rape to avoid getting in trouble from her White dad, which would only make sense if the father somehow knew his daughter had sex of course. Allegedly, he had several other incidents of petty sexual harassment of other students. When he was released, that was hailed as a "victory" by the NAACP. So... what is the right decision? Was he unfairly targeted because of racism? Should we believe the woman so much so that he would get convicted? Was it a mix of both; the victim was telling the truth and only got justice because he was Black?
My own view on Statutory Rape is that it provides a handy way to bypass He Said She Said. Everything is only illegal if you get caught, i.e., the girl comes forward, and you don't get to say "it was totes consensual, go prove otherwise". I'm more than fine with that as is; don't try to pick up chicks in front of a high school, you creep. Singapore has a very interesting approach; retroactive removal of consent. If a woman claims it was rape the next morning, "oh we had some drinks and one thing led to another" is not a defense, it's considered rape even if true. It's not perfect, but I would guess that it solves far more problems than it causes, much like statutory laws. CorruptUser 14:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Today is my 28th birthday[edit]

Happy birthday to RZ94! --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ĝojplenan naskiĝtagon! Spud (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Rock and f@cking roll Zombie!!!!!!!!!!! Have an awesome bday Some of my funnest years were in my late 20s!!!!!!!!! ShabiDOO 13:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Happy Birthday. May it be a joyous occasion. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I like my birthday gifts, got a free pizza and a good pack of smokes. Plus I am listening to the Strain on Hulu. So far: good day. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!!! Jakester499 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Here’s your present https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BFNekjEgvuk Jakester499 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I came to the party a little late Jakester499 (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

About the academy awards[edit]

Chris rock made a joke about Will Smiths wife's hair condition(alopecia). Willy smacked him. Chris rock handled it professionally. However, that joke may have crossed the line. What do you guys think? Highboi (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a celebrity distraction from things that actually matter: Russian imperialism, global warming, and the Holocene extinction level event. Fuck Hollywood. I'm with Ricky Gervais. Bongolian (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree, but as for me I’m still fucking pissed The Lighthouse didn’t get more nominations from the 2020 oscars Jakester499 (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
You're right. These events are more important than the Oscars. That's why we should use them to propagate the severity of these events. They have the clout. They've raised money for Ukraine and global warming. They do it for the moral points but that's irrelevant.

Highboi (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What Will Smith did was beyond immature, and he should've lost his oscar.Andrew5 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Man gets pissed at joke apparently aimed towards his misses, slaps joker, sits down. Story over. Next!
(Do people still watch these things? Now that's a better topic to discuss, in my opinion). KarmaPolice (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
taking the piss out his wife's medical condition is beyond immature. i would have chinned him backstage personally, but if you want to make a very public point, its as good as place as any. its not like it spoiled anything special. no worse than the usual grotesque spectacle of hollywood a-listers gushing over how talented they each are, and pretend marvel/disney hasnt killed cinemaAMassiveGay (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK, Tucker wasn't aware of the medical condition, only that she had a shaved head. If you watch, Will laughs... until he glances over at his scowling wife. CorruptUser 15:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
You'd think someone with alopecia would have a little more of a sense of humor about it, I had a music teacher (who was part of the band Orleans for some time) who had it and loved to crack jokes about how he saved money on haircuts and never had to worry about going gray. Plus I've known a couple people who lost their hair from chemo who independently came up with variations of "rocking the Sinead O'Connor look". That said, also not hard to see it being a bit of a shock when it comes out of seemingly nowhere. Beyond that, everyone has moments; not much else to say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
its pretty mild stuff from chris rock, but still, you lose your hair suddenly it can be devastating, especially for women who arent supposed to lose their hair. overly sensitive to his wife's perceived fragility around her condition and a hollywood ego is probably why will smith lost his shit. and if you are used to always being on camera, you stop thinking about them and they wont make you think you will have strong words backstage. or convince you to make a dramatic stand because you your honour is offended and (probably very less than) the whole world is watching. its will smith at the oscars behaving like some jubbly down the local whom thinks you looking at his bird. the idea of the oscars being the pinnacle glitz and glamour is long gone and has the feel of a company awards ceremony a wetherspoons these days. the organisers should thank him for the attention its brought them. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with everyone here that this a celebrity distraction from much bigger issues in the world but I think this petty and immature incident could be dicuss in a much broader context about gender roles as this has earned some small ire from MRA and manosphere circles who accuse Will of being a simp and wanna use this as a way to spew more redpill bullshit. [[[User:SensaurC-137|SensaurC-137]] (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC) [case in point here https://youtu.be/pRkYyyVibe0]. SensaurC-137 (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the real reason that he ended up getting slapped is he said the name of The Scottish Play out loud. PhoxyDude (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Great, Now I have to link this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Diva5REt8c
More I hear about this slap, more I believe it's all staged. The slap got viewed like an order of magnitude more times than the rest of the awards ceremony. This did not hurt Chris Rock's career one bit, and if Smith wants project a bad-boy anti-hero image for a new movie this is exactly how you do it. CorruptUser 03:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
BTW, I think that the Oscar's are rigged.

Highboi (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Page About Hunter Biden[edit]

Wondering if an article specifically about Hunter Biden would be appropriate. I touched a little bit on the controversy surrounding the presidents son in the Trump-Ukraine Scandal and I think parts are also included in Impeachment, but there is new propaganda from Russia finding it's way into MSM [4], as well as recently published comments from 45 about 'Dirt' Russia has about a $3.5 million payment from the former first lady of Moscow.[5] Just as an aside, I'm positive this would be ripe for vandalism especially from the particularly conspiracy minded, so I'd keep it pretty close to the chest.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it could be missional. Bongolian (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
His father is a POTUS and he's a POS. If it's just "spoiled rich kid smokes parmesan cheese from dirty floor", it's not a story, but if the laptop actually has anything substantive to it, then yes we should have an article on him. CorruptUser 19:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that the contents of his laptop rank lower on the scandal scale than his capitalization on his fathers name and his place on the right as a boogey-man.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue it's mission appropriate since it falls into the modern, Trumpian, rightwing conspiracy theory framework this site often debunks. You could have an article on him talking about "The Real Hunter Biden" and the type of person he is and the things we know (good and bad) and contrast it with a section talking about "Hunter Biden According to Conspiracy Theorists" where it goes into all the conspiracy theories talking about Hunter Biden and debunking them. I believe he will be more relevant further into the midterms and especially if the Republicans win since we're going to be hearing about endless investigations into this guy, so it might be good to have an island of sanity when the newsfeeds fill up talking about this guy.Ryan1257 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good approach to take. Bongolian (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I've started the frame work. I believe the outline for the sections aligns with our missional goals.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree that a Hunter Biden page would be missional and that it should mainly concern his status as a go-to bogeyman and whataboutism deflection for Trumpists and their ilk. Kind of how we have a page on the (very real) Agenda 21 that is mainly dedicated to how that fairly innocuous set of recommendations have been warped into some sort of sinister master plan for global(ist) subjugation in the minds of conspiracy theorists. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I go along with the above. It is entirely possible the only crime Hunter Biden has committed was to not report his income properly to the IRS. If so nothing about his actual offense is missional. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

How does a person deal with body image issues that relate to gender identity?[edit]

As some of you know, I recently came out as a Non-Binary/Demi-Girl. Also I have recently been losing weight (I been overweight my whole life) and it brought out body image issues in me. I keep thinking that I will never be good enough to fit into my gender identity. I also keep having urges to purge after eating. What do I do? --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

How "do" you wanna look? nothing really comes to mind when you say "fit into my gender identity". Do you want to be chubby do you want to be thin? do you want to look anime?TH (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I personally just want to be at most 160 i'm arround 170-180 I'm getting used to it but I want to look a bit more feminine so I shave my legs (or pick outgrown hairs) if you want to try to fit your gender you could try to do things that make you feel like you in your body if you can't change your weight (or at least need to take take some time to change it you could do things that make you feel more like you in the moment.either way it's good to start on change as long as you feel comfortable. at least that's my take on it.TH (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Why think in terms of "identity?" You are just talking about the way you would like to change yourself through weight loss. That is a task available to any heavy person. You may be confusing yourself with identity jargon no one has clearly defined. Just lose weight if that's what you want to do. Do not purge. It's bad for your teeth, throat and gums.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I've no idea what Demi-girl is so I can't help you there, but you need to talk to your doctor not Rationalwiki because you have an eating disorder, specifically it sounds like you're developing bulimia (urge to purge and all that). Please get help right now before things get worse. Inmate XIII (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As I may have mentioned before, the label isn't you. It's not your task to match yourself to some label which you have decided is appropriate. You are you - and any label is only going to be a very crude and inacuarte shorthand for the complexities of your individual being.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Good post! Listen to Bob on this. Do not try to contort yourself to fit a stereotype. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Part of me wants are more feminine body (despite large bone structure and male organs). As for "Demi-Girl", it is a Non-Binary gender that is half male, half female than leans more towards female. In my family, there is history of anorexia and bulimia. I am trying to lose weight the proper way but I keep having thoughts of starving myself and purging. I have zero trust in therapists in my are due to KKK members and literal Neo-Nazis. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@MirrorIrorriM take your transphobia somewhere else. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Zombie, I think you would seriously benefit from some form of counselling and/or cognitive behavioural therapy. You are dealing with many complex issues, most of which none of us here are able to give you the proper guidance (just friendly advice which is not in itself useless, but only useful to a point). If you are weary of professionals in your area, consider searching out ones who are from marginalised groups yourself (including one who is LGBTQ+ themselves) and if you are still weary of going local you can look for online ones (which may be more affordable anyways). None the less, you are certainly doing VERY well to open up and talk about your issues. That is really something. I have to say I truly admire you for exploring who you are, being brave enough to recognise it (even if it is mostly online...for now) and looking to others to help navigate some of the issues you are dealing with. ShabiDOO 00:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 I didn't mean to be transphobic. Karma had mentioned they were only 180 lbs, and I'm just so far beyond that weight wise I can't help but chuckle at how much further gone I am. I would love to be 120 lbs lighter, but I'm just too busy to do much about it. My comment was meant to poke fun at myself, no one else. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Ugh, "weight" is not an identity. Being Black or Female are identities, but nobody is "flawed" because they have ovaries or dark skin. Being unhealthy is a flaw. You probably have a lot of flaws, as well as strengths. Luckily, being unhealthy is a flaw you can usually fix. It's difficult, of course, because overeating is often an addiction. There is no shortcut, it takes weeks to break the addiction and sometimes the craving never ends. The only advice I can give is to give up ALL drinks that are not water, coffee or tea. That's usually THE biggest cause of obesity in anyone's life, you have people drinking an entire 2 liter of soda a day, not realizing that will cause them to gain an entire pound of fat every 4 days. Get your calories from FOOD. CorruptUser 06:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Do you intentionally barge in after only reading one word or are you actually that impulsive and stupid? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I know plenty of crossdresser and transwomen who have the physiques of scaffolders. They like they could kill me with one punch, but you know what? They are feminine. They know they ain't ever going to be a petite little school girl no matter what surgeries,diets or hormones they might try. It don't matter. That's not the be all and end all of feminity, it's just a particular form of it. They work with the bodies they have to express the feminine in a way that works for them. The choice of cloths, the way they hold themselves, their attitude. Slot of it just comes down to confidence and being comfortable in their own skin. Sure some people won't see them as feminine, some people won't ever see them as feminine what ever they looked like. Some people are just pricks and it's their loss that those girls are not for them. Truth is everyone has picture of what they would like to look like, but no body ever really is that picture and never will be. That's fine. Its something to strive for. Buy shouldn't be prerequisite for your self worth or happiness, even if it's actually a realistic and attainable goal. You still need to happy in yourself while you are striving. Make the most of what you got now and importantly develop the attitude that will show yourself and others you already are who you want to be, body shape be damned. Not gonna tell that's going to be easy, especially as you already have body image issues, but as has already been said talk to a professional for the help that you need to deal with eatting disorders, and CBT or the like to help you to learn how to see the best in yourself. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If any of you know of a good online therapist that accepts medicade, let me know. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
"Ugh, "weight" is not an identity." Some people consider it to be. The questions of "what role should identities play?" and "what are the proper bases on which to formulate identities?" don't seem to be asked very often in these sorts of discussions. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmm... I see. You're in a bit of a pickle, eh?
Now, I didn't really know what 'demi-girl' was until looking it up and after doing an image search I'm still not really sure what a 'demigirl look' is either. My provisional theory is that this look is simply your ideal self and after reading the definition of demi etc I think I get where that is. Sorta.
My own 2c is that you're somewhat convinced lose weight = perfect look and you desire to get there as quick as possible (would you like my t-shirt?). Now, you said before you are losing it, and as long as that moderate, healthy and *permanent* loss continues the main self-help here is to simply tough it out until your image-loathing reduces (for I suspect it shall) to a point it quits you to do stupid stuff. Perhaps there's other non-weight aspects to work on while waiting (to distract somewhat)? I'll confess I've kinda got into exfoliators and suchlike recently.
Gay makes a good point, though misses target a little. Ultimately, transmen/women still sign on to binary ID (as far as I can tell). NB is different; it questions the whole concept of the gender binary (duh). What's more, we have no set path of 'transition', an ultimate goal to celebrate or a new norm to sign up to. I've said this once and shall again; it's both exhilarating and scary in equal measure.
Anyways, my talk page is there if you've got a niche question or whatever. There's stuff on this I could say, though not on something as public as this.
(It was TH, not me who was 180lb. I'd kill to be that. And Corrupt's point is perhaps the most useless I've seen from a non-troll. Not only not relevant to this conversation, but not even relevant in general. Their advice is the level of the 'fat people should stop eating so much cake' stuff seen in right-wing newspapers and not only useless, but factually *wrong*. For the majority of folks, the excess weight comes from too large portions and/or too much starchy carbs.)
KarmaPolice (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Introducing "Gender Fluid Beer"![edit]

It is the beer that gives you the multi-gender experience in every sip

It would be funny if a company made a novelty beer like that so the profits go towards Transgender rights projects. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I already suggested that a company make clothing for transwomen, but out of the worst materials they can find at 3x the price, for the authentic female experience... CorruptUser 02:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure how you would have beer that changes taste. Would you, idk, have a sour beer, then take a shot of miraculin or whatever that berry is that changes sour foods to sweet, then end up with a sweet beer? CorruptUser 14:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Gender Fluid" sounds like a good nickname for hormones IMOTH (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC) And gender fluid beer is just fermented horones.TH (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Rest easy, Taylor[edit]

Taylor Hawkins, 1972-2022

Gone too fucking soon. Rest easy, man. Jake Holmesyell at me 14:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

His career began in 1994, a little more than 27 years ago. His band was formed from the ashes of Kurt Cobain's death, the second most famous member of the 27 club (I'd say Jimmy Hendrix is the most famous). Hmm... CorruptUser 15:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Foo Fighters and Nirvana were both some of my favorite bands of the 90s. After Cobain, David Grohl basically said "screw it, I'll make a band with nothing but fun songs", just a complete opposite of Nirvana. Because life doesn't need to be worse than it already is. Honestly, I'm wondering how Grohl is taking this. I was hit a bit harder with Chester Beddington; I had just listened to his song "Heavy" when his death made the news. CorruptUser 17:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. And I take back what I said -- I've just been a bit pissy lately. Jake Holmesyell at me 18:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Eh, Grohl was already going that way with the demos he was making in '94. Grunge was a reaction to the polished, over-produced artificiality of 80s hair metal and stadium rock and won that war in '91. Then when it became the dominant form, it needed a new focus and to quote another 90s artist who disliked the 'hair era' - Jarvis Cocker of Pulp - it's damn hard to write of teenage angst and poverty honestly when you're in your 30s and a mansion, and nobody shall desire to hear about your woe-tales about recording in a villa in the Caribbean. Then the record industry changed their production-belt from leather to plaid and diluted the whole genre... KarmaPolice (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I've said it a bunch of times; I miss Grunge. It was a rejection of the rampant consumerist lifestyle, of having to spend money you didn't have on clothes you didn't need to impress people who didn't like. It was the last time a major art/cultural movement said "f this garbage, all of it". The media has been extremely proactive in making sure nothing else of that sort would ever catch on. Lorde's Royals was pretty much the biggest hit of 2013, if not that entire decade, and it was hardly the only song whose message was "stop spending like a douche". Anyone remember "Thrift Shop"? But "live within your means" doesn't sell more Tommy Hilfiger. It's bad enough that record companies will force a craptastic "artist" into an otherwise catchy pop song in the hopes of diverting record sales to the albums with the highest profit margins, but they rewrite the song to sell designer clothes as well. Blegh. CorruptUser 18:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I think you attribute too much to conspiracy and not enough to simple lazy greed. A 'new grunge' would find it very hard to break through now because *anything* new would. Music is an industry and it's more cost-effective to mine the old than take a bet on the new. It's why the movies are overly clogged with remakes and with variants of the Never-Ending-Franchise than with original content. Hell, computer games are getting like this too.
Tech has both reduced margins and increased costs to get 'blanket coverage'. It would be economically all-but impossible for a repeat of Geffen's push for Nevermind in '91 now; there's just too many bases to cover. And the relative pittance earned from streaming etc simply mean the risk/benefit ratio is swung solidly conservative. But to be honest, *most* musical genres don't seem to be in that good health right now.
But the 'spirit of grunge' won't die because it wasn't really grunges' in the first place. The honesty, the authenticity, the rawness and the DIY spirit; that's punk, baby. That spirit is both the same and ever-changing, depending on location, person and time.
But in other news, the realisation I'll never see the FFs in their 'classic' lineup is a serious downer. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting "Atlantic Records keeps a collection of fingers from anti-consumerist lyricists as a warning to the others". Rather, Atlantic Records and similar make a significant chunk of their revenue from product placement, and an unwritten part of those deals is that no anti-consumerist songs get published by them. Lyrics get sanitized, there's more songs about partying or spending money even if no particular brand is named, etc. Consider all the advertising on cable news; how much of it is there to sell a product, and how much of it is a series of bribes to ensure cable news never runs a negative story? Same principle. CorruptUser 14:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
kurt cobain died just as hip hop went mainstream, like really exploded. musical subgenres pop all the time and faded away all the time mourned only by the few who'd noticed. music is the most vital at a time of our lives when everything is new and fresh. it lasts a few years then music is never again so visceral and not like back in my day. the likes of grime wasnt for me, nor drill, and the charts is just noise to me because its not like what i used to listen to when i was 19. it was vacuous trash back then too except for the selection of tunes i liked that you squares wont have heard of.
i came of age just as nirvana appeared and then disappeared with cobains death. grunge was already mostly played out by that stage, and all my friends were listening to the chronic. werent my scene but tried to fit in. a miserable time all in all and why i now only listen to stuff from way before my time, with no connection to that golden age of late teens early twenties where your musical taste imprints itself on you. i tell myself my taste in music is cooler than yours because its not rooted in nostalgia. its not, i just pretend im not old and its not just all noise these days. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
nothing ages someone quicker than complaining about the state of popular music these days (and not because spotify is not paying you enough royalties). its the musical accompaniment to 'get off my lawn' AMassiveGay (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
My goto response to any codger complaining about pop music is to ask what they expected the result would be when public schools gutted their music departments.
As for Hip Hop, and worse, Gangsta Rap, I wasn't a fan, even if Gangsta's Paradise is one of the best songs of the 90s. I couldn't bridge the divide between "racism is bad" and "here's a bunch of violent Black stereotypes". CorruptUser 15:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
'Old man yells at cloud' time, eh? And what, Britpop didn't get you? All a bit before my time; mine was nu-metal. Came across all this from raiding older siblings' CD collections.
Odd you mention hip-hop; seems there's complaints about that genre being kinda moribund too (or more correctly, the commercial stuff). More interestingly, it sorta reads like grunge's complaints of hair metal c1988, which suggests that perhaps some of symptoms of 'creative decay' are rather universal.
On some thought (and a bit of reading), I think you're both right. A Nirvana (or a Manics or even an Eminem) couldn't happen now 'cos the suits are in full control of the music empires and what performers they have on their books now have the 'suit mentality' and are fine with 'playing a role', peddling mass market appeal, finding a worthwhile seam and exploiting it to exhaustion (again, think it's more lazy greed than conspiracy).
Good new music is still being made (of all genres); it's simply no longer waved under our noses 'cos the suits have got so risk-adverse. Gene Simmons has half a point; streaming killed the old business model of rock (and most genres) but the suits haven't found a new one. Their response is a kind of 'business Austerity'; cutbacks on new talent and mining the back catalogues harder. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
hip hop IS the pop of today. it is the mainstream (and a natural fit for product placement) so yeh - theres gonna be rampant commercialism, with what sells crowding out the rest. thats always been so but the world today and the internet, so much more advertising space and shit to sell amd your promo vid is an advert in full for some brand, not just mere product placement. hip hop more popular than 'rock' music in the us apparently.
people dont buy albums these days, do people still buy singles? do people actually pay money for music? youtube gives an independent artist making tunes in their bedroom opportunities unheard of back when you had to sell tapes at your gig down the local. and at the same time, getting spotted and picked up by label leading to unimaginable wealth does not happen any more. you have to actually constantly gig to earn a meagre living or sell your soul via instagram. you dont even need to make music for instagram.
check out my onlyfans btw the way. i play the maracas. im an artiste. NSFWAMassiveGay (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend the maracas. While there is a handle, if it goes too far, the shape does risk getting... stuck. CorruptUser 18:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
i am confident in my superior judgement in the realm of putting things up my arse. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the commericalism has always been present; ask any creative. Orwell bitched about this in the 30s; where he kept on being told to write stories which weren't too 'difficult' or 'serious' and to have happy endings, otherwise his works would be 'hard to sell'. That's basically 'the suit mentality'. The main defence against this was/is 'creative integrity'; to have standards, to be motivated beyond mere money, to feel it's more than a simple job. From the sounds of it, a lot of the hip-pops didn't 'sell out' to the suits because they came *into* the thing with that mentality. A match made in heaven, save that it ultimately produces crap product.

'Picked up by label leading to unimaginable wealth' didn't really happen 'before', either. Or ever. What's more, creatives know this (sports folk too). That the best you have *realistically* to hope for is a kind of hustling, labourious success which if lucky might earn enough for it to become 'the real job' (insert here Dave Gorman sketch on 'stop asking sports stars what they'll spend their winnings on'). What is it really? Reskinned 'wealth fantasy' BS fed to us proles, that's all. What's the picture painted - 'big house, lots of cars' (quotith Cypress Hill) all that bling and what's more you're not just young enough to 'enjoy it' but you have lots of free time to do so too (for to non-creatives 'being a creative' seems real easy. Or a sportsperson). Go back a century, the lifestyle of a Bertie Wooster with his 'independent income' which you never hear a word about.

As far as I can tell, albums are dead as a concept apart from the fact artists seem to still be making them. If asked why, they'll normally go on about 'weaving a narrative through the whole work', 'a monument to where we were at this point of time' and all that navel-gazing BS. On a more understandable level, they might point to the nearest suit and say 'they said That's How Music Is Done'. The only real musical defence of the album I can see is that it allows 'good-but-not-an-single' music an outlet. We all have our own non-single faves; the single-song streaming format means chances are we'd have never heard them. Which is why some artists are coming back to the old 'EP' format; 3-6 songs, shorter gaps between releases and (perhaps) less pissing about in the studio (avoiding overproduction and higher costs). KarmaPolice (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I don't have a problem with "selling out". I might like Mëtal, my sister might like that 90s music with Gregorian chants, but we don't like each other's music yet Madonna is ok for both of us, ergo she will sell more albums than Megadeath or Delerium combined. Your "sell out" is just someone creating the bland music everyone can tolerate; we have a demand, they supply it. But when you add in the product placement, you aren't simply selling "music that generates the most revenue from album sales", but "music that generates the most revenue from product placement". That is no longer simply providing the public with what they want. CorruptUser 15:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Eh, you cannot sell out when you came in at the start *to* sell. That's my point. It would be more accurate to say them folks are playing characters who front very good ad campaigns via the medium of song, video and social media which is more impressive because people *choose* to consume it. It's the final evolution of the 'suit mentality'.
Madonna had a hand in her lyrics (how much is debatable, but she at least had some). Her public persona at least has some connection with the woman behind - the very fact she dislikes parts of her back catalogue now suggest that in some cases, she put something *of* herself in them - if it simply 'a role' she'd not care either way. Did she 'sell out'? Sure. But 'commercialness' isn't always bad. If nothing else, it can help avoid an artist from the classic 'going up own arse syndrome' and ending up producing works which are incomprehensible, worrying, amazingly elitist or just plain terrible. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
And the stealth ad campaigns via medium of song are what I view as a serious threat to society, because media is so essential to the human experience. Remember in Game of Thrones, the question asked once early on (and constantly in the books) was the Man with a Sword locked in a room with a Man with a Crown, Man with Gold, and a Man with a Cross, all asking the Man with a Sword to kill the other two; who lives and who dies? The answer is "it depends on the fifth man, the Man with a Quill Pen", and I don't just mean the author. Who the Man with the Sword chooses depends on the stories that man grew up with; were those childhood stories about a hero finding salvation from sin, a hero acquiring a title of grand nobility, a hero acquiring a dragon's horde of wealth, or were those stories about heroes overthrowing all of their masters? The music we consume is just another story that doesn't just reflect our values but creates those values.
The invisible hand of the market needs a good slap on the wrist here, the incentive structure needs to be reformed from "MaxRevenue" = "MaxAdvertisementSales" back into "MaxRevenue" = "MaxAlbumSales". CorruptUser 16:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The 'disguised advertisements' is a serious threat for all creative output, not just music. As you rightly point out, creative output *does* shape our minds, strongly. It's a kind of doublethink / hypocrisy on the minds of (esp) parents, really; decrying 'violent/sexual themes' in things (for 'it's imitable' etc) but then not batting an eyelid at the welter of advertisements and the vapid, materialistic worldview peddled ('ah, it doesn't really matter, they know it's not real' etc). Okay, so a kid cannot tell that GTA is fiction but can tell TOWIE or some drek (basically) is?
More, at least advertisements are obvious. While I don't overly like most of them, I do have a kind of grudging respect for them, like the brassy smile and clear cleavage from a camgirl. They're honest of what is desired from you. It's difficult to mistake an ad for Listerine for the evening news bulletin. Even when you see celebs on the shill, you might not *approve* of said shill but at least it's all but got 'doing this for the money' stamped at the bottom of it.
But I'm somewhat sanguine about the future. I cite the fact it appears we've reached 'peak superstar influencer'. Originally started in reaction to the artificial 'celebrity' BS seen in magazines etc; 'to show real people doing real things on a real income'. But then it got really popular, the suits waded in and the influencers ended up as corrupted and out of touch as the folks they railed against – and the teens, with their highly-tuned 'phoniness' detectors smelt the turds and walked away from them, looking for 'authenticity' (this move prompted me, though I've not been a teen for some time). The fact the hip-pop advertisers are dominating a rapidly declining market may ultimately not be that much of a problem in the long run. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Putin and the generals[edit]

Is this an example of 'blaming the subordinates for the ruler's faults' trope - or is it possibly correct? Anna Livia (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The generals are all yes-men; they don't get promoted in Russia by ever questioning their superiors. The leader is more at fault for surrounding himself with yes-men, but the yes-men ain't innocent. CorruptUser 15:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
It is not unknown for 'the public' to put the blame for the ruler's (actual or perceived) wrong actions upon his 'evil' advisers. Anna Livia (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Daily Mirror, being a tabloid, is not the best source for reality-based journalism. That being said, they can be correct sometimes. Several other more reputable media sites have reported similar information.[6][7][8] Also, his cabinet meeting 'authorizing' the invasion confirmed that Putin's inner circle did not dare to say no.[9] Bongolian (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
It is being generally reported now - and scourced back to British and American government spokesmen - that people close to Putin are scared to tell him what's actually going on and how big their losses are.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Eh, the Mirror is one of the better 'tabloids' (I personally think almost most UK newspapers are tabloid-y now to some extent). I'd actually rate it's accuracy rating on this kind of thing (important caveat) a bit better than say, the Express. Perhaps on par with The Mail / Metro. And like the other three, I wouldn't take anything 'controversial' by their word alone. Which this isn't, as it's the secondary Occam's Razor solution to why the hell the war is still going on. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Negev Summit 2022, Israel-Arab Normalizations and Palestine getting screwed over[edit]


Normalization of relation between Israel and Arab states with the Palestinians still getting shut out. Now I do not condone the violence conducted by militant groups but that said, it is still wrong that they get sidelined. With that also said and I hate to admit, Trump's stupid peace plan between Israel and Palestine was as about as good as it is going to get. I understand that it is largely a joke but I doubt that with Israel's still right wing government will give anything better. I state that as a realist.

There is talks of a two state solution for the conflict but I doubt anything of substance will happen. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

From what I understand, the general view of the Israelis is the only way to get a peace deal with the Palestinians is to isolate them from the other Arab countries and force them to accept something based on the Camp David accords. The problem, obviously, is that any deal negotiated from a position of overwhelming strength risks being lopsided, even if the deal is fair it would never be viewed as legitimate for that reason. CorruptUser 23:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
There cannot be a solution to this due to the simple fact both sides are at loggerheads.
Israel won't take their boot off the Palestinian neck until they feel 100% certain Israel's security shall be fine on this front, something that the Palestinians' can't provide even if they wanted to due to state enfeeblement.
The Palestinians won't even consider a long-term deal without said boot being removed *first*.
A deal requires all Isreali settlements in the West Bank to be dismantled and the use of it's water for Isreali farms to end, minimimum. This is politically impossible for the Isrealis to accept due to the voting block of the ultras and settlers in the Knesset.
I'm out of ideas on this one. Though this is hardly my area of non-ignorance. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
There's also the factions of the Palestinians and Kahanist Israelis who would never consider a peace deal at all beyond a stepping stone towards the eventual destruction of the other. CorruptUser 14:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
This is more of an anti-Iran coalition than an anti-Palestinian coalition. Monet Ye 16:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
With dinosaurs in both the Israeli and Palestinian governments, nothing will change. The PNA has not had any democratic elections in over 10 years and the only ones who get elected in the Israeli government are conservatives. Hamas is another story entirely. They think that firing rockets can change their situation but that keeps failing miserably. I swear that both sides are like kids on a playground who cannot play nice. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hamas isn't trying to change things exactly. They are under orders from Iran to keep stirring up trouble with Israel, or their funding gets cut. Iran hates Israel for ideological reasons, is useful as a wedge to drive apart the Arabs, and because every Israeli agent focused on Palestine is an agent that can't focus on Iran. CorruptUser 20:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Former U.S Vice President Mike Pence breathes a sigh of relief[edit]

Now Mike Pence doesn't need to sweat bullets about Donald Trump being potentially reelected in 2024. MPFitz2000 (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy Edible Book Day![edit]

Here's a list of things happening today from cnet.

Have a great weekend Y'all! TheNFLGuy (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Shit didn’t mean to rollback someone’s edit to saloon[edit]

Sorry about that hope it wasn’t nastyJakester499 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Every bad thing that happens from now until 2040 is all because of this mistake. I just want you to know that. 🥸 MirrorIrorriM (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Including the fact that 2022 will have an above average hurricane season? Andrew5 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro is so self obsessed...[edit]

...his doctor-wife made a female clone of himself.

Meet Brett Cooper, one of the more recent additions to Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire media empire. Aside from being a young new-Right conservative, she looks like if Ben Shapiro and his sister had a daughter, and then Ben took his monster-baby and together they made a grand-daughter/daughter/grand-niece. Like, it's a textbook example of why you have HR help in the hiring process; left up to their own devices, people will hire others who look and act just like they do. CorruptUser 22:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a superficial and petty attack on Ben Shapiro. When you engage in attacks like these, you should ask yourself if you are a partisan whose view of the world is warped. MPFitz2000 (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Not making a serious criticism of her. She's doing that "here's me reacting to tiktok videos" that seems to be popular amongst Gen Z. I don't like the 50 second response format, but I don't have to; every generation has the right to decide how to consume media. I also don't hate Ben; I have respect for anyone, almost regardless of their actual stance, that is willing to have a calm discussion with people they disagree with. That's what I love about Bill Maher, and can't stand about just about anyone else. I don't care how "right" your view is, if you won't discuss with someone who disagrees with you, your opinions don't mean shit. CorruptUser 05:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
On the other hand, what's the point of having meaningful critiques of a creature whose entire presence is defined by petty, irrelevant gotchas and glib misrepresentations of his imagined cultural enemies? Take his latest twitter post. He is pretending Disney adding gay characters to their movies on purpose is a conspiracy to harm children. What value is gained by pretending this is intellectually honest position? What value does embracing this petty bigotry as a reasonable thing bring? He's a piece of shit who gets paid extraordinary amounts of money to propagandize and should be treated with only scorn. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
So long as he's able to actually sit down with someone and expose himself as a fool, I'll respect his stupid far more than someone who just makes statements they never defend. It's actually why I dislike the echo-chamber YouTube show format and prefer seeing him debate people in public. CorruptUser 14:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
As for the Disney thing, I think Disney said they wanted 50+% of their characters to be Gay/Minority. I was under the impression they already started doing that in the 90s; Aladdin and Mulan don't have a single White character amongst them, unless you are talking voice actors. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I don't think anyone at the time gave a crap about that, at least not beyond having to slightly alter the opening song of Aladdin to avoid the "desert bandit lopping off heads" Arab stereotype. Heck, one could even argue the now-cringe-inducing Peter Pan was actually progressive for being pretty much the first major movie to depict Natives as being the good guys or having agency, or even the even-more-cringey Dumbo for the crows being the only genuinely nice characters in the entire movie (and being voiced by actual Black jazz singers, mostly). They didn't have any serious gay characters, the closest they got was implying that the older sister in Frozen was gay but never outright saying it. If they want to make a Disney Princess that's openly into other Disney Princesses that'd be fine with me. CorruptUser 15:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I think it's weird to describe Ben Shapiro as someone who "almost regardless of their actual stance, is willing to have a calm discussion with people they disagree with." because he doesn't really do this. He gish gallop's college freshmen with barely any debate experience, and he almost always represents his ideological opponents with fairly obvious strawmen. I don't think he is also "willing" to sit down and expose himself as a fool if he is wrong, he almost always backs out out of any serious journalistic attempt to challenge him. That infamous BBC interview comes to mind. There are many public leftist pundits who have asked for him to engage in open debate with them that he completely ignores. The man even openly advocates arguing in bad faith, saying there is no other reason to argue with a leftist besides attempting to make them look like an idiot. If rational inquiry is something you value, and folks who work to undermine good faith rational discussion are people to be avoided then Ben Shapiro is absolutely someone to be avoided in that regard. Also the claim that "if you won't discuss with someone who disagrees with you, your opinions don't mean shit" is kind of ridiculous as it leaves out any relevant context or nuance of whom it is that disagrees with you, and whether or not a discussion with them would genuinely be productive. Also its just like literally false, because meaning in language isn't dependent on the presence of others to challenge what's thought or said. My statements aren't gibberish until someone challenges me, that makes no sense. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
He doesn't Gish Gallop in debates as much as you claim. In his videos, at least those that I've seen, the masses don't want to a pundit go into every detail, and he is establishing a business, so he is going to avoid a thorough analysis of every detail. A gallop also requires saying lots of random points that you yourself don't care to understand, whereas Ben just talks like that all the time. I'm aware of that hilarious BBC debate where he basically lost an interview, but as far as I'm aware it's the only time that happened and he thought the guy was a dishonest provocateur rather than a Devil's Advocate sort of interviewer. I also am not aware of any major Liberal making an honest offer for a debate that Ben has rejected; he and Bill Maher have been on each other's shows. If you want to see real dumbassery, check out the episode of Maher where Shapiro and Nance are both on, and Nance is acting like a complete dipshit the entire time to the point that Maher was coming to Shapiro's defence. CorruptUser 03:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
he gallops in almost every "debate" I seen him do. He talks very quickly and pushes premise after premise after premise without really letting anyone interject, he often just spews out random "stats" without properly referencing the source, or often contradicts the very source he claims to be citing. Also a gish gallop does not require that the person making the gallop not understand the points they are making, it just requires that the time to debunk the information is dramatically greater then the time it takes to deliver it - and that it's delivered in a overwhelming rapid fire sort of way. If someone regularly talks in gish gallops that does not make it any less of a gish gallop. People who actually spend their time presenting a counter-argument point by point to the arguments he makes, and fact check the sources he reference consistently find this pattern. As far as I can tell he rarely if ever engages in an actually moderated one on one formalized debate where he is an equal participant to his opponents. He almost always does provocative television appearances or debates college students under his own moderation and his total control over the very platform being used. That's not what "honest" debaters do. He's a political pundit, his job is to spread propaganda. Just because you don't notice it does not mean it isn't happening especially if you are already politically biased towards people of his ilk. Also I never mentioned that the people who try to get him into a serious formal debate were "liberal" why do you assume that the only opponents Shapiro has are liberal? I think you are coming at the topic with a pre-existent admiration of the guy, and a shared political perspective. I get it. it's satisfying to see people you dislike get "owned" but that's not what rational discourse looks like. That's just a display of political and social dominance. Telling too, if you are assuming that a goal here is to witness "dumbassery". -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The first thing I found when googling "Ben Shapiro Debate" was a moderated debate between him and Ana Kasparian. So... it definitely happens. CorruptUser 05:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
but compare that to the number of times he is speaking at a university lording over college students, getting into a shouting match on TV, or talking indirectly to someone on his podcast. I never said it never happens, I just said it happens rarely, I know he sometimes does (though often on his own podcast which is hardly a neutral moderated platform). It also doesn't debunk his rhetorically style or motivations being primarily in bad faith. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
If the professors were prohibited from the auditoriums, I'd have no use for Ben, but AFAIK that isn't the case. The "prepared orator vs rando college kid" is also not a perfect format; if Shapiro held the position of mandatory abortions or banning all guns, he could make a convincing case simply because untrained college kids will generally come across as arrogant fools. But it's much better than rambling off a screen with absolutely NO possibility of pushback, e.g., most other pundits in existence.CorruptUser 06:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
you are taking a massive assumption that profs at universities even have the time to attend with the dozen or so lectures they have to do every week or marking of thousands of students assignments. Not to mention the publications or research they have to conduct to keep their jobs. Regardless too, the student body is going to grossly outnumber the prof population, the majority of people who will approach that mic will be college students -- and a good chunk of people won't even bother because like myself they probably wouldn't see it as a productive use of their time. We are talking about a man who is a climate change denialist, who flirts with creationism, who is entirely okay with people starving from homelessness or dying from treatable conditions for not being able to pay medical bills. He is a denialist about systematic racism, and is a massive bigot to LGBTQ+ people. What is there to gain exactly for serious people who value critical thinking to engage with this man? Why is it even morally acceptable to platform him to begin with and legitimate his ideas? He is not going to engage with anyone with a serious argument from ideological positions he opposes in good faith -- he even confesses as much. His entire guide to "arguing with the left" is solely about making people appear stupid, and not about any productive engagement in determining truth, or a logical consistent ethical policy. He states it as an expressed goal to just try to embarrass people. That's not good faith argumentation, that is not trying to apply the principle of charity to one's opponents. This is totally antithetical to rational discussion. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

A lot of Ben Shapiro's critiques are based on reason and facts and he rightly points out that his politically left of center opponents arguments are based on mere feelings ("My facts don't care about your feelings"). And in lot of the most contentious social issues his opponents rely on tenuous social science data that is merely trendy (or is based on no real data at all) rather than having solid evidence behind it. And the most infuriating thing about Shapiro to his opponents is that he has chutzpah and he is unapologetic. On trade and a few other issues, Shapiro's arguments are weak though. MPFitz2000 (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that's the lesson to take - 'arguments weak', oratory strong' and as they're in it 'to win' they shall ways ensure they only fight on ground that favours them. Plus, many of the 'professors' I've met/seen over my life are not good orators/debaters. It's a completely different skillset and generally speaking not the one they were hired to do. But I do believe a decent orator who's done some background on Shapiro can take him (or at least give as good in return), the caveat being if you can nail him into a forum which is not biased towards him. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice You do realize you're responding to a troll right? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise
I've seen folks I agree with as terrible debaters. In fact, there's been times they've been so terrible they're actually hurting 'the cause' by their mere presence. A debate normally doesn't sort out truth from lies, it sorts out who can debate the best. That's a message which needs to be remembered in my book, even if it *was* prompted by a troll. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I thought they were responding to Only Sort of Dumb lol. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I just also want to say it is sort of strange to say someone's argument is based on reason and fact and that they successfully illustrate the points they want to make, then also say that their argumentation is very weak. Like which is it lol? Are they strong in their argumentation as to make a compelling case for their conclusion or don't they? It's not a really logically consistent description of Shapiro. Also it's pretty easy to refute in a lot of instances, the youtuber TMM does a lot of debunking of Shapiro's arguments often finding the resources he cites contradicts him. I feel like that really goes against the idea that Shapiro is arguing "factually" especially when we are talking about a climate change denialist here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie The thing about trolls is they are ever present. I respect a person's resolve not to tolerate them, yet it is untoward to try to eliminate the opportunity for others to practice responding to a troll. The idea that there is an end to dealing with trolls is untenable. If a troll is not directly presenting odious thoughts, but rather "just asking questions," I believe those who want to answer should be able to do so. You perhaps could amuse yourself by grading their efforts. Point of fact: our ideas about certain subjects in the areas of social justice are nascent, and there may be something original to say. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
OnlySortaDumb, it may be useful to take into consideration that Shapiro has Orthodox Judaism embedded in his domain of understanding. If one begins with an episteme containing 613 assorted factitious commandments, there is no telling how reasonable one may appear to be to others.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Hrm. To my knowledge Shapiro is not a Jewish literalist, and his politics are informed more by the propaganda mill of his chosen party than his religion. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I was mainly responding to Sort Of, but was also responding to the point (which has some truth in it) that some folks do think 'feels' are the most important in a discussion over factual evidence. I didn't feel the need to question Shapiro's level of 'factiness' because I'd made it clear he plays to 'win' and in this tast, 'facts' are only something to wield when it's in your favour. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)