RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive412

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 2 May 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>, <410>, <411>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>
, (new)(back)

Schadenfreude alert[edit]

Cryto boi (and criminal) Sina Estavi, who bought the Jack Dorsey "first tweet" NFT for $2.9 million last year, just put it on the market for $48 million.

The highest offer he received was $280. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The human obsession with "ownership" that NFTs represent is fascinating to me. The idea that everything must be owned, it cannot simply exist, is such a bizarre trait of our species. It's like a cat playing with a Laser, a glitched obsession of the mind leftover from evolution. I wonder, would private ownership of property be a common trait of alien species? Things like ants, were they more intelligent, may very well have no concept of it. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a backlash against social media. More and more people see social media as a detriment to society. So the value of the NFT went down. But ownership is always going to be valuable. Economics 101 is that resources are limited and finite and human desire is limitless. Experosso (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Except, what are you owning with an NFT? Not the image, because anybody can right click that. You literally own a link to something that says you own that specific copy of that item. For as long as that link remains active. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
even dumb animals like to have things. its the monetisation thats egregious. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Apparently Ken took a couple of Ecn101 lessons and believes that's everything he has to learn. Or what is even worse: he's taking dozens of conclusions by these meager lessons alone. GeeJayK (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
ec. no one actually wants to own NFTs. they want to profit from them. they are not a resource. their value is arbitrary with none inherent and any scarcity is artificial. no one bought a tweet for 2.9 million because of a love for social media, they bought it for 2.9 million because they thought they could sell it at the 48 million they put it back on the market for. offers peaked at 280 because there was no profit to be had not because of any social media backlash. the original 'investor' - note 'investor' not owner - is stuck with an over priced NFT they can only try to generate enough interest in the hope of selling it for enough recoup their investment later. in the mean time they do not even have a nice objet d'art they can hang over the mantlepiece to appreciate as the artwork it was nominally sold as. any schadenfreude on my part is that i dont have the nous to make the money from nothing that the lucky few folk inevitably make or have made from these things. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree. However similar criticisms to those made above be made of any expensive work of art. Someone could copy a Picasso (for example) to such a level of detail that only a specialist could tell the difference between that and the original. Yet the original would still be worth vastly more than the virtually identical copy. Why? As far as the artistic merit, beauty or other tangible or intangible merit is concerned they would be identical. Except one would be "original" and the other not. This also doesn't make much sense.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@MirrorIrorriM I guess ownership can be useful for something like a practical tool because it's your loss if you misuse it and break it, so people might be more careful with things that are "theirs". Of course, it's not the only way to address this problem, and it's also a human solution to a human problem. Vomitorium (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
There are important differences with the Picasso painting vs. the Picasso painting clone that matters. Although both have equal artistic merit, only one has an authentication and chain of ownership indicating that it is the original. The original could also have paint and canvas chemical signatures that indicate its age of creation. For paintings by Dali, he claimed to have put his own (fascist) 'essence' into them. OK ick, but his DNA might be detectable in them. For NFTs and junk cryptocoins (think of the Will Smith slap coin[1]), there's really nothing special about any of them; they're easy to create in an instant. There's something cargo cultish about crypto and especially NFTs: worshipping capitalism by creating the fraudulent copy of it. Bongolian (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree that they are not exactly the same. But for all intents and purposes the copy of the Picasso would be identical to the original. It's similar to memorabilia. An old guitar is just an old guitar. But an identical guitar which was previously owned and used by some famous musician is for more valuable. Why? Well, certainly not because of any physical difference. Just because of its history. (And that won't really change if you wash it in bleach to remove the DNA!) NFT's really work the same way. I'm not justifying either - they are equally silly. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
if nothing else, fake or not, you at least have something to put on your wall AMassiveGay (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm actually a bit less negative; I can see NFT's in the future - just not the type we're seeing right now or how it's being 'used'.
I've looked at the tech behind it a little and see it's worth as a verification system for ownership of 'real stuff' with 'real value'. Your house, your university degree, Bob's Picasso, ownership of company stock and so on. Even the ownership of online real estate, IP and so on can use this.
What we have here is what I think is a map/territory issue; NFTs can help protect value, become a representative of value, but have no value by themselves. Rather like say, a share certificate, a property deed etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Crypto/NFTs honestly remind me of hype cycles in internal IT land (like NoSQL), where a technology that is good for certain scenarios is all of a sudden evangelized to where you expect it to cure cancer or something, and shoehorned into projects where it never should have seen the light of day. It's actually worse than a IT hype cycle, because while only coding geeks know what NoSQL is, get-rich-quick hucksters (and the prey of such) know about NFTs. You have politicians of certain places (like Miami or El Salvador) buying into this hype and engaging in cringe. You have a marketplace best described as "speculative" at best and "scam" at worst. We're now at the phase when crypto is sponsoring major sporting events. (Reminds me of the dotcom sports event ad takeovers of the early 2000s before the bust, but what do I know...)
Blockchains have a narrow use case IMHO. They are an append-only encrypted distributed digital ledger. Want a ledger of record completely visible to the public but protected from any changes? Great. That's not necessary most of the time. The technology is complex and in most cases I can think of, blockchain is either inappropriate or unnecessary overhead. It works for Bitcoin, sure. NFTs offer no proof of original owner (eg the IP creator) authorization on its own, therefore they are hardly a substitute for centuries of copyright and patent law. (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
An original Picasso arguably has greater intangible merit, insofar as the copy, while requiring great technical skill, could be produced without the same kind of creativity of which the original is a product. Perhaps that just amounts to facts about their respective histories, but that suggests that the original's history constitutes an intangible merit (i.e. being the product of such-and-such creative process is a merit). On the other hand, even if Picasso made a piece into which he deliberately put no thought or effort, it would probably still be valuable just from association with his name, despite lacking the allegedly valuable creative origins. But whether that debunks the intangible value of the creative process, or just indicates the fallibility of a proxy for that process, is itself debatable. A similar case could maybe be made for the guitar, but that's a bit more like Picasso's paintbrush. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Sticking with the guitar once owned by a famous musician then - it was not originally made to be collectable. The only thing which gives it extra value is a demonstrable chain of ownership. The same as with the NFT. I would say that the guitar is the better practical purchase though as you at least have some tangible thing; with the NFT the only thing you have is the demonstrable chain of ownership.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, the guitar might retain a lot of value even if badly damaged, in which case the history might be all that distinguishes it from trash. I agree with you, though; the NFT fails to grant exclusivity over the work, which is effectively incompatible with being the work’s owner. If you atomized the guitar (say), nobody would pay big money just for the complete records of sale and authentication documents. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 13:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Or grants you usage/possession which is actually protected by anything. I agree with 72's points, though I think I see a bit more utility for NFTs than they do. However, one thing is clear; this possible utility is not the usage we're seeing done right now. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

UN kicks Russia off HRC[edit]

what the un did to russia is right, but it once again highlights the hypocrisy of western governments. why didn't the west act as swiftly to discipline china for the uighur genocide or for the brutal crackdown during the hong kong protests? i think racism might play a role in it, but if the west moves quickly to sanction china in the somewhat likely event that they try to pull off a similar invasion on taiwan, then i will change my mind. G Man (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

and ftr, i know this veers dangerously close whataboutism territory, but expressing frustration over double standards isn't fallacious, is it? G Man (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
For starters, the Uyghurs are an internal Chinese matter, the Ukrainians are external to the Russians.
Second, as awful as the Uyghur sitch is, there's no real risk of it expanding outside of China. Russia is invading Ukraine, but it could invade Finland next. If NATO crumbles, Poland is on the table too. China is playing games esp with the South China Sea but it has yet to actually invade another country in the modern era. Corn (argue) 20:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I would say, the best reason is to ask what incentive leaders had to do so? Race probably (though I cannot be certain) plays a matter where white Christian being persecuted is seen as more concerning than non-white Muslims. Also, the images coming from Ukraine are far less filtered and a little more difficult to ignore. CU may be right that short term interests in the Ukraine area are more important than the future menace of China in East-Asia and developing countries. More importantly, politicians sanctioning China would suffer both from economic issues (perhaps leading to their own interests being squandered as well as their friends who keep them in power as well as a less well performing economy leading to election losses) but also very little to gain as it is unlikely more than a handful of voters would change their opinion over the Uighur. That has more to do with the level of outrage from citizens and the cost their elected leaders will pay if nothing is done. Whereas the cost of not doing anything about Russia has a different balance. The economic costs and political losses could be harsh, but not doing anything seems harsher to their political interests (at least in their own calculations). Not every western country is so on board. Note the newly elected Hungarian leader changed tack immediately after winning an election (with years until the next one). When you ask why leaders are or aren't doing something, honestly 5-10% of it may SOMETIMES have to do with their personal convictions and 90-95% has to do with what incentive they have to do otherwise. Their own interests (how the future will look for them, future job prospects, economic interests) the interests of those who help them stay in power (party leaders, donors, "buddies", future employers of politicians) as well as how it will hit during the next polls. Politicians are likely to tolerate a growing Chinese menace (and they absolutely seem to be growing into a SERIOUS menace, which I believe will be far more troublesome than Russia at the moment...if not already) as in their short term interests, doing otherwise will hurt them and voters are annoyed by this but it seems unlikely to not change much of their vote) [again I cannot be sure but I believe they had some magical white-Bhuddist minority somewhere in China there would be more sympathy but again that is speculation. Though by sheer media hours, it seems areas affecting violence and massacres and extreme oppression in white countries gets an excessively higher proportion of media attention/concern than others. I whole heartedly agree it is terribly hypocritical...having said that, democratic leaders virtually ALWAYS follow their interests/future-voting-intentions. To expect otherwise, short of some future human-genetic-brain-reorganisation, is to expect the sun not to rise in the sky. ShabiDOO 20:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
There is more than likely an in-group preference being expressed towards the Ukrainians. But, not only because they are white, but because many believe that if they turn away from authentic heroism they cannot excuse themselves from consequential responsibility.. Not only because they are white, but because they are heroic in the most hallowed tradition of the west, have as many as 20,000 foreign volunteers gone there to fight for Ukrainian freedom. Not all of the volunteers are white.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
They might be a bit more "exotic", but I think the Tajiks living in China could pass for White if they wanted to. And honestly, many Uyghurs themselves look pretty close to White to me. An Exotic form of White, mind you, but not more so than those filthy spud-munchers or spaghetti-twirlers. Corn (argue) 21:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I concur with @G Man here. This vote was easier to support because Russia is attacking another country, it is clearly not winning in the conflict, and the evidence is overwhelming. The genocide of the Uyghur is tolerated because it is happening in China, China has strong economic ties with it's neighbors, it has a stronger military, and a complete control of the media. Also considering it's size and economic strength, sanctions wouldn't do much.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────you guys might be right. then again, i didn't totally rule out the possibility that the world would swiftly sanction china in the event that they invaded taiwan. G Man (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

. . . Wait . . . What does Russia and the U.N. have to do with Hilary? --Bertrc (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The Russo-Ukranian War is an external conflict and is somewhat comparable to the Nazis, what's happening in China is local and not as big of a threat. Though, China will likely be sanctioned if they invade Taiwan, which is even likelier to start WW3. Andrew5 (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

One of my many, many attempts at novel writing[edit]

Ashley Strydom sat near the window in her shared apartment. She normally would enjoy being outside and going to the beach. In a normal world the city would be packed with people. This was no normal world though.

Living in a post-zombie apocalypse world had destroyed all that was fun. The new regime brought nothing but misery for any human being. Your skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality did not matter to the new leadership.

When an actual plague established a new government, you were mere food. The living dead reduced all humanity to second class citizens. Only the dead had actual status in this new society. Humans lived in fear all the time.

Today was an awful day that Ashley and every other human hated: Tax Day. Specifically, you had pieces of flesh torn from you and blood donation was mandatory. The process was extremely painful.

A knock on the door came and Ashley gulped in horror. The tax creature. She got up from her chair; dreading the event. Ashley slowly walked to the door. Fear bubbled inside her. Terror struck like a heavy truck.

The door knock got louder, like a demon demanding your soul. Ashley did not want to open the door but her choices were limited. Turning the knob Ashley faced the creature; its yellow eyes pierced into her.

A zombie wearing medical scrubs wheeled a cart into the apartment. Four other zombies followed; they wore combat gear and they were armed to the teeth. They enforced the tax day rules.

Failure to obey would result in you being taken to a processing facility where unimaginable things would happen. The medical zombie looked at Ashley and said in its raspy voice, “Miss Strydom, you owe a little more this month. You know what that means”.

Ashley whimpered as the zombies tackled her down and pulled out the razor blade. That razor blade was produced specifically for this purpose. They lifted her dress then began cutting pieces of flesh from her abdomen and legs.

Screams of pain emanated from Ashley as they carved into her flesh. Then five needles were placed into her arms and legs. Blood was violently drained from her. White hot pain made the poor girl cry.

It lasted six minutes. Once they were done, the zombies dressed the wounds and gave Ashley a protein bar that tastes horrible. It did have plenty of protein, vitamins and other nutrients. That was the only positive thing.

Biting into the protein bar Ashley gagged but ate it. The zombies moved on to other roommates. Screams came from each and every one of them. Even the strongest of men cried in pain. It happened with no pain killers as the zombies claimed that pain killers ruined the taste of flesh.

Ashley stumbled to her cot and sobbed. The wounds to her flesh throbbed. She smelled of blood, sweat and misery. Every day she would pray to God for a peaceful and painless death. It was difficult to go on.

Her prayers went unanswered. Ashley would come close to killing herself daily. How could anybody want to live in a world where a plague choose how you lived and took pieces of your body from you?

“Hey Ashley. Don’t worry, it will be another month before this happens again” said her roommate and brother Jerry Hall. Hearing that made Ashley feel much worse. Her sobs of misery increased when she replied.

“Jerry, we exist in a living hell. Nothing will ever change. Why don’t I break a hole in the gas line and light a match” sobbed Ashley. A moment passed before she finished with, “I would be putting everyone in the building out of their misery”.

Ashley felt a gentle but compassionate hand on her shoulder, “One day, things will change. As your older brother you should have faith in me when I say that”. Ashley turned and gave a tentative smile to him.

However she could not talk due to crying. Jerry hugged his older sister to provide emotional support. Ashley accepted the support; knowing she was not alone. Jerry then said, “I am going to pick up some antibiotics and some cigarettes from the market”.

Once Jerry left Ashley got up and grabbed a pocket size copy of the Torah from under the cot. She read through it; seeking meaning while at the same time praying in Hebrew. While the world was a bleak place, Ashley felt that her faith would keep her afloat.

Jerry exited the apartment complex cautiously as tax day continued. While not illegal, it was not safe to be outside. Jerry however, was far from scared. The market was four blocks away and the zombies were nowhere to be seen.

All over the city were posters telling civilians to obey the undead regime. One poster that was most common said, “The infected are friends, not enemies”. Another one was, “Human-Zombie Union wants the best for you”.

Those posters made Jerry cringe. He hated how condescending and ironic they were. Most humans lived in terrible poverty. The only people who lived in comfort were those who were happy with occupation.

The feeling of being watched was nothing new but going outside on tax day made the feeling worse. Jerry pressed on though. No way would he be deterred by plague driven monsters.

Jerry walked into the market run by an elderly woman named Jessica Fancis. The store owner was a nice person but she would start weird conversations about her personal life. Jerry always would rush through the conversations.

Almost nobody was in the market outside of Jerry, Jessica and a tall guy by the name of Lewis Fernando; the local electrician. Lewis was a very quiet and shy person but friendly when he talked.

Jerry grabbed a few packages of painkillers off the shelf. Next he grabbed some antibiotics, strong Scotch and some good chocolate. At the checkout counter Jessica asked Jerry, “Anything else”?

“Three packs of Kozak please” replied Jerry. Grabbing the cigarettes Jessica said, “My neighbor Elvis Johnson, a smoking hot man, was taken to a processing plant yesterday”. That made Jerry gag.

Getting sent to a processing plant was a terrible fate. While it was known that people died there; most did not know what truly went on there. Speculation existed but no real evidence was available to confirm anything.

A quiet voice chimed in, “My two sons were taken to a processing plant too. It was last week when it happened”. Jerry turned his head to see Lewis Fernando walking up with some candy bars. The look on his face was of sadness.

Suddenly an alarm rang outside. That alarm meant one thing: All people had to return home within the next twelve minutes. Failure to do so would result in arrest. Jerry rushed out the door and back home.

While rushing home Jerry heard an automated voice say, “You have twelve minutes to return home. The Reanimation Self-Defense Forces will be enforcing a curfew due to an ongoing emergency”.

Anytime an emergency took place, the zombie government would not give details on the nature of the event. Jerry did not care, he just wanted to get home quickly. Now he felt as if he were outrunning the grim reaper.

Supposed to be about fighting against a repressive undead regime. Intend on having jabs at authoritarian dictatorships and military occupation. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you like suggestions on writing style and presentation? Revenant Raven (I'm the Bird Bitch) 23:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't have time to read the whole thing, but I do have a few unprofessional pointers. The first is that You state the setting immediately and directly, which is immersion breaking. Would a person within this situation think of themselves as living in a "post-zombie apocalypse" world? Or would they think about the events that lead to their situation. By stating these events instead of just name dropping the setting, you can establish history and the setting at the same time. Keeping it a bit mysterious for a bit can also help keep interest of the reader. A suggestion for paragraph 2:
Sometimes Ashley wondered if those who died in the Plague Wars were the lucky ones. The new regime brought nothing but misery...
Here I made up the term "Plague Wars" to refer to whatever event plunged the world into its situation. You want to build on the reference to the event without being overly verbose (keep the reader in suspense for now. You have to make them care about your setting's characters before they will care about the world events.) The event which lead to this situation probably has a name, no? This is why I replaced "actual plague" with a specific name. For paragraph 3 I have the following suggestion:
With the loss of the plague wars came a new government, one in which old humanity was reduced to mere food. The living dead...
Oppressed people groups typically have nicknames for their oppressors or enemies. Fuzz, Jack boots, Krauts, Bazookas, etc. These names typically contain some information about them beyond just where they are from. Krauts were called krauts because 1) Germans were given sauerkraut on ships to prevent scurvy, so their breath all stank of it, 2) Sauerkraut is a German word. 3) Sauerkraut is made from cabbages, and German helmets in a trench looked like the tops of cabbages poking out of a field from afar. Think of defining traits of your special version of undead. Think about the horrific things they've done, and try to come up with a clever and quick nickname (preferably 1 or 2 syllables) that isn't just "zombie" over and over. Just a couple ideas: Grislies (they look grisley and are very strong like a grisley bear), Stiffs (common term that refers to dead people, but also uptight, stubborn, or uncompromising people), Mums (maybe they mumble to themselves, if their rotting flesh falling off is a persistent problem they might wrap themselves in stuff to look like mummies, yadda yadda). MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
That was helpful. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
You really ought to focus on finishing short stories first. I am going to write something for the Edinburgh Fringe next year and I am already writing 15 min scripts (there are lots of short script competitions which give you a goal and a deadline) and I have finished a couple already. A deadline and a goal helps, but more than anything...the short nature of a 15 minute script makes it a goal much easier to fulfil. I spent a lot of time planning and plotting, some time writing and some time editing and polishing. And it is highly satisfying to finish something (even if it were never to be selected). Best of all, these things can be expanded. But you gain a LOT from finishing something (a lot of learnt lessons and improving your craft in general) which can be used when expanding. I know that you struggle with finishing things, so...short story ought to be a reasonable first goal. Aim small, stick to one or two concepts, a simple plot and go at it. No reason you cannot write a short zombie story. Consider making a story where social justice themes come in like having gender fluid zombies, or a genderfluid character dealing with zombies. Could be a personal journey of some kind ShabiDOO 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I am also working on sections that I will add later. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

To note: my main character is an intersex woman born male at birth. Her love interest is a lesbian woman trying to get over the fact that Ashley (main character) has not been able to fully transition due to the zombie apocalypse. On the zombie side of things, I will have characters who are partially immune to the infection which causes them to be shamed by both humans and zombies. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so to start with what the others have said, writing short stories, or blazing your way through a single long story without stopping (like 2000 words/hour or something like that) is a good way to explore ideas. Classes are currently being *FUN* so my response to this is going to be sort of short. As the others have noted, varying the words that you use to refer to characters and objects in a story is super important for reader engagement. (Using a thesaurus isn't always a terrible thing, if you are just having trouble coming up with a well known word that can work as a substitute, or are wanting to find new words to work with). I am unsure of whether or not you did this for the sake of readability, but try to use less spacing in your sentences (in most circumstances. Sometimes you can use a series of short paragraphs as a stylistic choice for the sake of tone and portrayal of the story.). On the topic of tax day, maybe wait to reveal the horrible but delicious details of it to the reader. Have characters mention tax day and shudder at its mere thought, create a sense of unease, give the reader a feeling of morbid curiosity. That would be an excellent hook, if you waited to reveal that information in a way that the reader will remember (Like maybe developing a few characters before having of them torn from our protagonists through tax day, this could also give a good call of action to save them). I would also suggest not referring to the reader at all during your story, at least to start with. Just because creating a good dynamic between a reader and narrator that acknowledges them is difficult. I can give grammatical suggestions and maybe do some edits if you would like, but I will refrain from that for now because I think it might come across as sort of rude. Revenant Raven (I'm the Bird Bitch!) 23:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Tax day had arrived within the Crimean peninsula; it was the first portion of the former Ukraine where taxes would be collected. Citizens of Sevastopol feared tax day more than they did when the pandemic initially began.

Nobody was allowed to be outside when government officials entered the city. Doing so would result in arrest or possibly worse. Children wept, knowing that their bodies would be violated.

Residents of Apartment Block #8 dreaded today. Nobody liked tax day. The people who lived in Block #8 did not talk. Nothing could be said at all. Who would want to talk?

Block #8 was largely populated with refugees from South Africa and Brazil. This was part of the government’s “cultural harmony project”. Everyone knew that it was a mere farce to cram a lot of people in small slums.

The Cultural Harmony Project and Tax Day went hand in hand with each other. The more people crammed into one place, the more that could be taken away from people. A cruel, sadistic government wanted people to be miserable.

This will be the opening for my novel (assuming I can finish it). --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC) @Revenant Raven what do you think of the new opening I made? --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Tax-day had arrived within the Crimean peninsula [and] it was the first portion of the former Ukraine where taxes would be collected. Citizens of Sevastopol feared tax-day [and] they feared it more than when the pandemic initially began and [the residents of Block #8 were no exception.]
Nobody was allowed to be outside when government officials enter the city. Doing so would result in arrest or […] worse. Children’s bodies would be violated.
The people who lived in Block #8 did not talk. […] Who would want to talk?
The Cultural Harmony Project and Tax-Day went hand in hand with [one another]. The more people crammed into one place, the more that could be taken away from people. A sadistic government loves its citizens! [this last sentence is obviously sardonic and the exclamation mark highlights this]. The Judge (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Peak Diesel[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6vMxOBgsMM "An imposed diesel rationing could come soon". Interview with Antonio Turiel. (If you do not understand spanish, turn on YT automatic translation subtitles) (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought you were leaving. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Stop trying to make peak oil happen! It's not going to happen! (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

In Need of Assistance[edit]

Recently I decided to re-make the page on Teal Swan as the page I originally made was flagged as problematic, was of poor quality, and mostly relied on youtube videos as sources. I started a new draft on Teal Swan but I been trying cite only things I can archive or I believe won’t be subject to link rot. News articles, Teal’s own blog for direct quotes, journalistic write ups, etc. I know in the past she made youtube videos espousing anti-vax views but since the pandemic youtube has taken such videos down. I am struggling to find any remaining evidence that she had said views, and I am wondering if it’s appropriate just not to include it until some external evidence can be found. If anyone can find some reliable sources that can be archived that exhibit her more woo-ish or problematic anti-science beliefs I would greatly appreciate it.

The draft in question: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Draft:Teal_Swan

Also I don’t know how to collapse references when the same link gets used multiple times. If someone would like to do that, or show me how to do it that would also be appreciated. Any research advice too will be appreciated. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This may be helpful. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks I’ll make relevant changes to the draft as per your guidelines, and try to conform to the manual of style. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I assume using archived pages from Wayback Machine is fine? KarmaPolice (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

How do I satisfy that itch for "debunking" when it's easier said than done?[edit]

Almost every night, my parents watch Newsmax. I'm only there because it's dinner time. Anyway, it seems this guy named Greg Kelly has been getting more and more ridiculous. The headlines have said things that are either ridiculous or otherwise I just "know" are false, but I can't find a counterpoint to most of it. So either I'm left with an "itch" or I just forget about it in an hour or so.

For example, he keeps making references to "the fake news", said USA Today is no longer a news source, claiming a school march is "LGBTQ indoctrination", and so on. I keep thinking about how right-wingers tend to use "I'm just stating my opinion" as a shield.

Still, it makes me wish there was someone or something to debunk all the shit he says, but that seems easier said than done, so I'm sometimes left with an "itch". How do I get around that in a way that spares my brain cells? --DoomTay (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This is tricky, because there's not a whole lot of substance to attack. The things you said Greg Kelly was saying, "fake news", "no longer a news source", and "LGBTQ indoctrination" seem to be used more as insults than descriptors. It'd be like arguing with a sports heckler who says (your team) sucks by pointing out that they have a high win rate. Vomitorium (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
There were a few times where he said something that was more...objective. A few times, there was a comparison between a certain count of something (can't remember what) from the January 6 riots vs the summer of BLM. The obvious thing there is that it's comparing a single day to an entire summer. Just a few days ago, he was like "We can challenge elections" while mentioning the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Funny enough, I just Googled that to make sure I got the name right and stumbled upon this article.--DoomTay (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, if he means "we can legally challenge the 2020 Presidential election", I think the obvious counterargument is "it's too late". The Electoral Count Act of 1887 sets dates and deadlines for the electoral college process, all well before the inauguration. There's no constitutional procedure for reversing the election of a president, only removal. That said, I'm not sure whether there's much point in demonstrating that the rules don't let you overturn the election, since the next place may well be "screw the rules, coup him". Vomitorium (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
You can't debate facts that people won't accept as facts. As far as how to confront the fake news argument, you might try pointing out that fake news is everywhere. Ask, how do they know that News Max is not fake news? Where did they get that guarantee? And why do they believe it can be trusted? Try describing confirmation bias. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The news is more partisan than it used to be and post internet the profit margins are slimmer. The net result is there is more fake news and lower quality reporting on both the left/right side of the political spectrum. Partisan opinions often falsely parade as objective truth. But critical thinkers with internet access don't need partisan hacks who pose as journalists. MPFitz2000 (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Alternative sources are usually horrific. People who call themselves critical thinkers and are proud users of alternate Internet sources tend to be far off the deep end conspiracy theorists. Oh and they're usually right wing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
"I just "know" are false" You're imagining that they are false, which is not at all the same thing.
"but I can't find a counterpoint to most of it" A "counterpoint" doesn't "debunk" something. You actually have to investigate things and get to the actual facts of the matter, then compare that with the points under consideration.
"he keeps making references to "the fake news"" Much of current "news" is naked opinion masquerading as news. Most disagreement is about which is actual news.
"said USA Today is no longer a news source" The headline article when I checked their site is this. It's a series of blurbs that amount to repetition of press releases from various politicians and organizations with no apparent attempt to actually check that anything said was accurate.
"claiming a school march is "LGBTQ indoctrination"" If the school march is for some LGBTQ event, that's literally the case. Indoctrination is one of the basic purposes of education, and disagreement here is about what things children should be indoctrinated with rather than that they should be indoctrinated at all.
"I keep thinking about how right-wingers tend to use "I'm just stating my opinion" as a shield." That's hardly unique to "right wingers". Have you ever heard someone say something like this?
"How do I get around that in a way that spares my brain cells?" Recognize that you are engaging in partisan thinking, and actually become informed on the issues. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Critical thinking is important and people should make efforts to develop their capacity to engage in critical thinking. I consider myself a critical thinker (which is far more preferable than thinking of myself as a noncritical thinker) and I sometimes read non legacy media news sources. I received an A in my college Logic 101 course, took courses in statitics/computers and read a critically aclaimed book on crtical thinking written by a nationally recognized authority on intellectual development. And although conspiricies exist, I am not fond of conspiracy theories.
The United States ranks last among 46 countries in trust in media, Reuters Institute report finds. Just 29% of people surveyed in the U.S. said they trust the news, compared to 45% in Canada and 54% in Brazil.
One of the reasons why America has gotten itself involved in pointless wars like the Iraq/Afghanistan wars is that the military industrial complex and the intelligence services have too much influence on the American legacy media. The website Antiwar.com points out that "An especially dangerous threat to liberty occurs when members of the press collude with government agencies instead of monitoring and exposing the abuses of those agencies. Unfortunately, collusion is an all‐​too‐​common pattern in press coverage of the national security state’s activities. The American people then receive official propaganda disguised as honest reporting and analysis." MPFitz2000 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
192․168․1․42" "claiming a school march is 'LGBTQ indoctrination' If the school march is for some LGBTQ event, that's literally the case. Indoctrination is one of the basic purposes of education, and disagreement here is about what things children should be indoctrinated with rather than that they should be indoctrinated at all."
That's pedantic. You're missing the connotations here. The guy means that the "indoctrination" part is brainwashing, trying to forcibly convert and influence kids to accept something they see as a threat. It's a scare term. It's kind of like how propaganda is a neutral term but it's often used with negative connotations. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Must be handy to be able to read the minds of people you haven't met. Otherwise you might have to grapple with people using the actual definitions of words to say something that is factually correct but politically inconvenient. But to what you said there: what do you imagine the purpose is of having a school march at a LGBTQ event if not to influence the kids into accepting it? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't take a licensed plumber to figure out how "indoctrination" is being conveyed here. You're overthinking. I also did not argue that it has no influence, I only argued that that your "uhuh it's technically indoctrination" isn't very helpful of a comment. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 15:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
i think indoctrination is about getting folk to uncritically accept/believe something.telling kids lgbt people are something other than demonic plague monkeys is not quite the same as indoctrination. telling kids thats its ok to be lgbt is not indoctrination. telling kids lgbt even exist is not indoctrination. its not even a message that you look at critically. what would that look like? telling kids its ok to be gay, but you will burn in hell? a school march in support of lgbt folk is only indoctrination in as far it is trying to get people to uncritically accept lgbt as something other than monsters. if there is indoctrination its were anything positive or just neutral and not negative is evidence of nefarious agendas and silencing the truth about ungodly sick perverts corrupting the youth and the american way. accepting such a such a thing as a gay agenda can be be done so uncritically. thats indoctrination. dont say gay bills are indoctrination since schoolkids will then only hear about lgbt folk when the pastor says they shall burn in hell. thats what indoctrination looks like. its n ot short hand for the curriculum.
as for 'fake news' it is not merely opinion masquerading as news (thats all us news media from what i hear), its presenting false and and misleading statements and stories as fact. opinion is just opinion and is obviously so. opinion does not need verifiable fact to be effective it just need to be emotive and earnest and hit all the right buttons, thats all thats required when there is a tsunami of actual fake news and dogshit it may as well all be fake news. opinion that sounds right to you? its just easier for too many people. the more reputable and established news sites will all give at least basic facts of a matter usually. usually some spin of varying degrees to align with generally known political bias newspapers all have. it doesnt make the news fake or make you confuse news with opinion, just two sources of the same story both with same facts but one leaves you thinking positively about something while the other has you thinking its worse than hitler. extreme partisanship in articles with black and white them and us framing is a good indicator you reading trash. outrageous claims about people doing egregiously terrible things is cause to suspect the veracity of a piece, especially if confirms your own suspicions. if some thing is telling uncontroversial and commonly accepted facts are false, or unequivocally awful things are really good, aliens control everything, or reeses pieces are delicious and super yummers, then extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences, but its not ever going to be aliens diddit.
i dislike it when folk dismiss otherwise reputable sources out of hand for not parroting their own views back to them, or one slip up in fact checking/wrong point of view makes the entire content of a site fake news and propaganda. we have so few trusted news sources these days we should cherish the ones we have. the bbc suffers this from all sides, its always against whatever it is someone is selling, or its too supportive and fawning of what someone is against, its a universal constant.AMassiveGay (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I have never heard of indoctrination referring to simply being "one of the basic purposes of education". That's just....what?--DoomTay (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
It's because it's one of those things we don't like to admit openly. Education is one of the main methods the adults of society transmit their 'guiding beliefs' to their offspring. It's why some of the Founding Fathers were really into mass public education - to indoctrinate youth into 'the American way'. Homeschoolers are motivated by a desire to indoctrinate their own children a *different* way to the norm and so on.
This indoctination is basically impossible to avoid; whatever is taught to a person, it is pushing 'a line' somewhere. If American conservatives desire to have 'indoctrination free schools', well they'd better start by banning all American history from schools. Oh, and the Pledge. And all flags. Yet I don't see them complaining about *that*, are they? Or the 'indoctrination' that goes on with the very little ones about washing hands, eating fruit/veg and not using those cute little chairs as weapons.
With the fluffy crud cut - like LGM said - 'indoctrination' has become a snarl-word meaning 'nasty X is teaching something to my kid that I personally do not like'. Basically, it's the assertion that parents have the absolute right to control what informational matter is input to their kid's head. But they don't. Children are not your property. What's more, the state has a vested interest that kids get a decent education so they can function in society and this includes learning what that society looks like.
Lastly, the only genuine counterweight to indoctrination is the teaching of critical thinking, which is from my experience is *also* objected to by the very same who bellow about 'indoctrination'. It's not hard to understand why. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
So, to review:
DoomTay lists talking points that he believes are ridiculous or obviously wrong, among them his father expressing that a school march (presumably for an LGBTQ event, though this has not been confirmed) is intended to influence the students into supporting LGBTQ people/issues. That this is a reasonable interpretation is not under contention, though the specific wording used to express the idea is, for some reason.
"i think indoctrination is about getting folk to uncritically accept/believe something" " its not even a message that you look at critically." In other words, those statements you just gave are things that you have been led to believe in and accept uncritically. Indoctrination according to the definition you just gave there. Are you unaware that there are people who disagree about thsoe things?
"what would that look like?" Much the same as critically examining other ideas. Examining an "is X OK" issue would involve examining related issues and consequences, then evaluating those against some moral framework. The modern concept of a sexual identity is not a human universal, but is instead a cultural practice that itself bears such examination.
"we have so few trusted news sources these days" We have precisely zero trustworthy news sources these days. Anything you care to be informed about should be checked against multiple sources, including ones that disagree. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
To review your 'review'. *pulls out 'Old Red'*
1 Just because the news stories are 'ridiculous or obviously wrong' doesn't mean that they were not reported as news by some outlets.
2 We cannot comment on the accuracy of said stories as we don't have the sources to pick over the details.
3 Therefore, all your 'reviewing' about the LGBT 'school march' has nil worth as you lack any data.
4 Gay might have not phrased it well, but I think they were trying to point out that outright LGBT denialism does not tally with objective reality.
5 Parents do *not* have the right to re-define reality for their kids to exclude things they personally don't like.
6 I believe Gay was 'examining' the issue using the 'moral framework' regarding basic human rights and freedoms current in this era of society.
7 If you mean 'trustworthy' as in there are 100% unbiased sources, yes almost no source is 'trustworthy'. If you mean it to be that they report untruths, halftruths and so on, no there are plenty of sources which are above an acceptable level of trust.
8 'Anything you care to be informed about should be checked against multiple sources' does not always work, esp if the lie is being repeated in many areas at once (qv: Russian disinformation campaigns). Plus, this doesn't take into account journalistic habits, such as stories pulled off Reuters, AP etc by many different news reporters (which is why often stories can seem very 'samey'; they're all working with the same original copy). That's where trust comes in. If nothing else, we have to trust that Reuters, AP etc are being accurate. We have to hope that talking heads etc are getting their copy from either that or a generally well-regarded source, for example the BBC.
I give you D-. I was willing to grant you a passing mark for your review until you showed a level of ignorance regarding how news journalism works which shows you didn't master that part of the reading material. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
"Just because the news stories are 'ridiculous or obviously wrong' doesn't mean that they were not reported as news by some outlets." Did you even read the discussion? That's in the opening post. Newsmax had headlines that DoomTay believed to be ridiculous or obviously wrong, but which he does not actually know to be wrong.
"all your 'reviewing' about the LGBT 'school march' has nil worth as you lack any data." There was supposedly a school march. It was supposedly accused of being "LGBTQ indoctrination". It may therefore be reasonably assumed that the school march was related to some LGBTQ event or other. It may therefore be reasonably assumed that the intention of such a march was to expose students to the LGBTQ event and form favorable impressions among them. That is, indoctrination, as accused. DoomTay hasn't been forthcoming on the details, but what do you imagine the details might be such that that reasoning is not applicable?
"Gay might have not phrased it well, but I think they were trying to point out" So, rather than respond to what he actually said, I should have responded to something different which you imagine that he meant?
"Parents do *not* have the right to re-define reality for their kids to exclude things they personally don't like." Where does this "re-defining reality" bit come from? Anyway, let's consider a different topic. Do parents have the right to exclude their children from Hitler Youth events or KKK rallies? The disagreement here is which things to expose children to or exclude them from, not whether such decisions should be made at all.
"If you mean 'trustworthy' as in" I mean trustworthy as in "worthy of trust". As in 100% accurate reporting of the information available, including vetting sources and passing along such factors that may lead to inaccuracy in the current report as future information becomes available. Absent that, what do you mean by "an acceptable level of trust"? If a news source has been wrong, why would you trust it to not be wrong?
"does not always work, esp if the lie is being repeated" "INCLUDING ONES THAT DISAGREE" What do you imagine the point of checking information sources against each other is?
"If nothing else, we have to trust that Reuters, AP etc are being accurate." No, we literally do not. You just criticized "Russian disinformation campaigns" while saying that Western news organizations often collectively disseminate information from single sources, but should be trusted anyway. Faith may be a reasonable response to Cartesian doubt, but it's a terrible epistemology for vetting news sources if you care about actually being informed. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

What a load of crock.

You can't say 'question all sources!' and then grant a alleged Newsmax story re 'LGBT indoctrination' a free pass. On one you've not even seen. What happened to your 'check information sources'? You think I'm too thick to notice this?

I'll hypothesise. Your rule only applies to stories you personally don't like. No, hiding behind 'supposedly' don't work here.

I also look poorly to you by trying to slide the discussion towards Nazis. The very fact you're drawing lines between an possible LGBT display or something (we don't know exactly, and may never) and the Hitler Youth can be seen by some as showing you're frankly, well a crackpot.

With '100% accurate news', either you're stupid or asking for an impossible bar on purpose. Journalists are human, mistakes are made, new sources are only discovered later on and so on. What's more, the more 'immediate' reports trade accuracy for speed; a journalist writing copy for the news bulletin on the top of the hour doesn't have gobs of time to find twenty sources and review them all. Lastly, the simple fact that some aspects shall be cut from the story due to space/time constraints, that reduces accuracy.

This is where your 'check all sources!' line becomes particulary stupid. You're basically saying every person should become a journalist and review everything they read, see or hear (reminder: you failed at this with the LGBT march!). Very few folks have the time / skill / resorces / inclination to do this. What folks do in reality is pick a few sources that they do trust to do the 'due diligence' on their behalf.

Reportage is ultimately about trust. Bob Newshound has to trust his sources - but the sources need to trust Bob too. Sam Editor has to trust in Bob's judgement, while Bob has to trust that Sam isn't going to hatchet jobs on his reports or pair it up with biased opinion pieces. Here 'professional reputation' is the currency in-trade. Which is the whole business model of Reuters. And not Newsmax's.

The 'samey' complaint about some reportage comes down to trust again; the outlets really trust Reuters/AP and shall prefer to take that rather than perhaps more interestingly written, but less 'proven' sources.

'If a news source has been wrong, why would you trust it to not be wrong?' is a load of BS, a variant of the 'science has been wrong before' line. By that logic, nobody anywhere ever is trustworthy because we've all been wrong at least once. But you can't trust this either, for I've also been wrong in the past.

Yet so have you been. So I don't trust what a word you say either. Two can play at this game, matey!

KarmaPolice (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"You can't say 'question all sources!'" I didn't. It's a good sentiment, but keeping track of what people actually say is important.
"then grant a alleged Newsmax story re 'LGBTQ indoctrination' a free pass." A couple issues here.
First, from DoomTay's statements, his incredulity at Greg Kelly's statements had to do with the characterization of a student march as "LGBTQ indoctrination", not that there was a student march (presumably at some LGBTQ event). This is a question of definition rather than fact, and addressing it involves pointing out that, yes, having students march at an LGBTQ event constitutes indoctrination. It would be just as relevant to use a fictional example. Like in Star Wars, the Jedi policy of teaching their students to avoid emotional attachment is indoctrination. The declining effectiveness of this indoctrination with age is a plot point.
Second, if Newsmax reports that the sky is blue, we don't have to trust Newsmax generally because that information has already been known through multiple other sources, including (presumably) personal experience. Similarly, schools having students participate in LGBTQ-related evetnts is a thing which happens widely and obviously, and the factual existence of such practices is not controversial. Or do you really not know of this?
"The very fact you're drawing lines between an possible LGBT display or something (we don't know exactly, and may never) and the Hitler Youth" That's a check on your ideological consistency. Hitler Youth and KKK events were things which actually happened. Do you think that parents lacked the right to exclude their children from Hitler Youth events or KKK rallies? Or does that only apply to cases where institutional authorities are doing what you want?
"either you're stupid or asking for an impossible bar on purpose. Journalists are human, mistakes are made, new sources are only discovered later on and so on." You're almost there. Yes, the entire endeavor is mired in human insufficiency. So. WHY TRUST IT? All those excuses you listed are reasons specifically not to trust reporting.
"Very few folks have the time / skill / resorces / inclination to do this. What folks do in reality is pick a few sources that they do trust to do the 'due diligence' on their behalf." So, to review your point here: Epistemic rationality is hard, so people shouldn't bother, and instead should uncritically believe what media organizations tell them to. Are you unaware that you're repeating the punch line from a Dilbert comic seriously?
"a variant of the 'science has been wrong before' line." Science is built specifically to remove the need for trusting what people tell you. It involves actually checking claims rather than trusting claims that something is true, and if you "trust" it, you're not doing science.
"So I don't trust what a word you say either." You don't have to. The logic of an argument stands on its own, and I've provided references. Care to identify anything that you doubt or disagree with? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Greg Kelly (son of former NYC police commissioner Ray Kelly) was once a respected journalist in the local NYC market, but unfortunately currently has sunk to the level of low-quality shitposter at Newsmax (what happened, I wonder?). Googling will bring you many other stories about his bizarre Twitter behavior, or you can just browse the feed yourself. It's very Poeish, almost like he's channeling Ed Anger from the Weekly World News, with a special ire for new pop music (!) that hugely enhances his grumpy old fart persona. I don't know what this guy's Newsmax program is like, but based on his Twitter feed most of the above jaw-jaw is useless fluff. No one should take this guy seriously and people should feel ashamed for even hinting that we should, he is not a journalist at present, instead he is outrage porn for the God's Waiting Room crowd. If someone's parents actually do take this guy seriously, bless their hearts and hope they don't get scammed by someone like Dr. Oz (which Mr. Kelly wholeheartedly supports, unsurprisingly)... (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Did you explicitly say 'question all sources'? No. Did what you've been repeating all this time basically boil down to this? Yes. After all, you're yelling 'trust nothing!'. If you trust nothing, this means you *need* to check everything yourself.
Which you've *still* not done for the Newsmax article.
Come on! Were you there? No? So how the hell *do* you know this indoctination march happened? Answer; you don't.
Now, if you *insist* a march/parade is 'indoctrination', fine by me. As long as you accept the following also practice indoctrination;
- The Military
- Veterans associations
- Police
- The Scouts
- Cheerleaders
- Knights of St Columbus
- Schools
- Winning sports teams/people
- Heads of State
- Brass bands
- Salvation Army
- Fraternal Associations
- Father Christmas
However, all the other bits about the march are void because you do not know any details of such (you weren't there!). Was it mandatory? Was it held during school time? What did it 'promote'? This doesn't even count as flogging a dead horse for we can't see a damn horse, let alone dispute it's mortal status.
I toss out your continued harping on about the KKK/Hitler Youth. You cannot compare them to something you don't know the details of. *Find* the details and post them as a new question at the Bar if you so wish to discuss them.
I also toss out your epistemic point on the grounds you're drawing a false dilemma. Trusting people doesn't make you a gullible moron, only when you trust everyone at all times and never question a thing, even when track records show they've been wrong. And/or disobeys basic logic.
That's what 72 had done here; they're citing Greg Kelly's credentials / reputation as a journalist (and coming to a provisional conclusion). They've done what you have been advocating - not giving blind trust!
I think I've pointed out enough holes in your 'logic' today. Like below, you simply like to re-paint your crock and pass it off as new, without actually answering anything. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

3d printed firearms[edit]

I've recently noticed a trend of 3d printable firearms and firearm accessories being more complex and reliable as time goes on (especially from sites like The Gatalog). What are the opinions on this from RW users? Do you believe there should be more control on 3d printed weaponry? Blz11 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Functional 3D printed guns aren't going to be a thing for a good long while yet. As for accessories, I don't see a big issue with 3D printing dummy cartridges for target shooting or similar. Anything more I can't really comment on, but basic things like that shouldn't be a huge deal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
If you look at the gatalog, you can see hybrid designs (including two submachine guns) and several auto sears intended for several different firearms. Blz11 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The more immediate worry is not the 3D making of weapons, but the 3D making of illegal parts. For example, the ability to turn semi-auto weapons into full auto. *However*, there's always been backyard gunsmiths who'd do that kind of work anyway - with files, lathes and moulds. 3D printers are simply a new method of an old problem, that's all. New tech leads to new crimes, new fronts in the old war vs the police. I remember the fears that the internet would allow anyone and everyone to make drugs and bombs from the 'recipies online'.
However, there's several blocks. One, firmware limitations of the 3D printers - I don't see it beyond the wit of law enforcements to somehow blacklist certain designs from being produced (thus leading to a race of jailbreaking and so on, then in return planting fake schematics etc). Next, 3D printers are still pretty expensive; you'd need an industrial-grade one (several thou) and the skills to use it. What's more, they're all tracable, like normal printers are. So it's quite possible the police get X, work out it's from company Y, and then trace it through that. Nor can you cannot currently print ammo (the explosive bit, that is). So, even in a country like the UK you might be able to print a gun, but you'll have to track down conventional ammo / precursers. Lastly, this method is a lot slower and more expensive than simply... y'know, buying a gun.
What does interest me, however is the defence possibilities of this. The vision that a country suddenly facing a Ukraine-style invasion, within an hour could turn their 3D printing industrial capacity to mass print drones, tank parts, guns, body armour, medical gear... if they get much better and quicker, it's quite possible a country shall consider it's stock of printers to be a key 'strategic asset'. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a problem with your analysis. While 3d printers could be tracked you cannot tell the products of one 3d printer from another. If someone was selling 3d printed parts on the black market, you could only *maybe* tell what model of 3d printer it is (even that is a stretch), not the serial number. The materials they consume are also not tracked, as they are just raw plastics, resins, or metals. Second: I'm not convinced you could track all 3d printers. 3d printers have lots of interchangeable components, and you could just construct your own (probably using untraceable parts from other 3d printers). There are even 3d printers specifically designed to be built this way. Now, these will be lower quality, take more skill/time/money to produce, so I don't know how prolific of a problem it could ever be, but it is still a factor for 1 key reason. An old-school gunsmith takes far longer to make a gun the traditional way than with a 3d printer and with far more skill required. With a 3d printer, that gunsmith's ability to produce blackmarket guns is amplified, so I think fewer sellers with far more volume each will be the situation. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ever hear of Machine Identification Code? There's moves to develop similar for 3D printers. This is the 'firmware limitations' and 'jailbreaking' I spoke of.
- Even if the printer cannot be tracked to a unique one, it can ID a model. Then the cops can simply do some old-fashioned investigating. Either the culprit owned the model, or the 'link' between the machine and culprit is kinda obvious and usually provable through other means (say, checking computers to find old .stl files as hard drive ghosts etc).
- No need to track the raw materials, unless they're a massively suspicious precursor. It's possible that when it comes more mainstream, the companies which produce 'weapons grade' metals etc are forced to do more 'due diligence' on customers in similar way chemical houses do (to the chagrin to any hobbyist chemist) now.
- It's still way cheaper (in the USA at least) to buy than print a gun. The right quality of printer is still in the thousands, and takes perhaps hundreds of hours to produce one weapon. As I said before, I am not thinking of folks *making* guns, but folks modding them. In this, the old-school backyard gunsmith still has the edge on time, availability, cost and anonymity.
- Yes, it's quite possible to *do* all the things you suggest (building own printers etc) but in reality few folks shall have the means, talent, time and need to do all the above. Will I be reading (say) BBC News in 2029 or something about some organised gang in London with their own secret weapons-fab facility which rivals the sophistication and output to real companies? Yes. Will this be common? No. It's just a new aspect of the black economy to watch. In nations like the USA, legally obtained weapons which were then stolen and sold/passed on in the black economy shall continue to be the primary source of weapons.
KarmaPolice (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
If people want to kill each other, they will find a way. Britian's The Guardian has a whole section on knife crime. I no longer watch violent entertainment. It's a bad influence. There is a growing body of social science literature indicating a strong association between the perpetration of violence and exposure to violence in media and entertainment. MPFitz2000 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
or not Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I find the violence in television/movies is a lot more realistic and emotionally engaging than say playing a video game of Mortal Combat. And there is research indicating that violent television does increase aggression/violence. The Amish have little to no exposure to television/movies. Mark Louden, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who studies Amish language, healthcare and legal issues, says crime within the Amish community is exceedingly rare. MPFitz2000 (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a lot to be said at the comments so far, particularly KarmaPolice's. But for now, I'll leave this. Including the purchase price of a printer and other tools needed, that gun costs as much as a Glock 19. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm throwing out the Amish example as unrepresentative. Their societies are simply too different to the modern American one to make any comparison worthwhile. Example; they are also small, close-knit communities which are deeply religious. Plus, not relevant to this discussion.
With guns... The worry about printed weapons ignores the current 'state of play' in the USA. Which is this; the vast majority of crimes are committed by weapons which were originally *legally* sourced. And there's some 390m of them in civilian hands. That's a massive level of used weapons floating about, and what's more there's relatively little obsolescence going on - firearms dating from WW1 can still do the job. Some 3D printing of new guns shall not put a dent in this market.
What's more, any (sane) gun nut knows that the 'assault weapon' bans and similar are not half as effective as you'd think. Often, they're based on a set of criteria which are arbitary, aimed at 'scary looking guns' than anything else. The result is predictable; you have a lot of 'civilian editions' kicking about. *Thats* what I worry about - 3D printers knocking out 20-round magazines for SKSs, parts for AR-15 clones so they can be 'converted back' for burst fire etc.
Using economics as a guide, 3D-printed guns shall only become a 'risk' when it gets to a stage they can be produced cheaper than the black-market rate. Which I would vaguely guestimate would be perhaps half the legitimate second-hand. Which will be a long time.
However, every nation is in a different boat. The UK doesn't have barely any 'legal' firearms, which means any printed gun would suffer from a lack of easily-obtained ammo. I am not an expert, but I suspect 3D printing guns is the biggest threat for nations which have relatively strict gun control but much laxer ammunition controls (ie you can *get* intermediate/rifle calibre ammo).
If you wish to be scared of 3D printing, I personally would pick sub-standard, counterfeit parts being used in say, your car which then fails at the worst time. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
"Which will be a long time." The one I linked has a per-unit parts/material cost of about $100. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh no, big scary-looking gun!
The 'barriers to entry' are still relatively high. The user needs the .stls, the printer, the resins (or whatever), the workshop location, a bit of old-school manufacturing, the CAD skill *and* the time. Oh, and the inclination to do this. It might be cheap (I see unit costs of $200) but hell, that's a *lot* of effort/outlay to get my semi-automatic 9mm carbine (which is why I mentioned about expecting to hear of black-market weapon printing shops soon; it's an outlay which makes more economic sense for a weapons dealer or an organised gang to understake).
Which is in fact the main (real) point for restrictions. The state doesn't really expect to stop you doing many things if you truly have the inclination/skill/time to pull it off, merely throw up enough blocks to stop the stupid, the heat-of-moment and the casual from doing so.
Plus, who would *bother* doing all this? If in the USA, you can get pistols, rifles and shotguns fine. A quick check of used gun sites shows you can get similar weapons to the FCG-9 for a grand or two. So, a lot cheaper - but my bought ones will I bet be better build quality.
Europe? Now, I can see a more a niche here, as they're a land where many allow pistol ammo but not 'military calibre' ie rifle ones (of which the FGC-9 was designed for). But you can simply shove another hurdle in here (if it doesn't exist already); limit the possession/purchase of ammo.
Which is the point I've been making all along. Now, I shall not say this for certain for I've not seen firm costings etc, but from the looks of it so far this is still a niche issue and I suspect shall continue to be for some time. Of which most existing laws etc shall be able to cope with.KarmaPolice (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I was correcting basic points of fact about the current state of 3D printed firearms. And the $100 price came from the guy who made the gun in the video. Which was done in a tiny apartment as a university student with no prior experience making such things. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
He still needed to teach himself. He still needed the kit. He still needed the desire. That's a lot of 'ifs' that need to collide for our printed gun to appear. But most folks are lazy. The authorities' general plan shall be to throw enough hurdles in that most folks will give up before the gun appears. Now, if we get to a stage everyone has a good enough printer, the files are as simple as searching Google, can be done with almost no skill and can make rifle rounds for 25c and an AK for $200, yes I'd be worried. In fact, that would be the biggest single 'paradigm shift' in warfare since the atom bomb. But we're no way near that, yet.
And I went to a couple of engineering/maker sites and read others doing it, and $200 per unit seemed to be the current consensus. However, I have serious issues with this as it doesn't account for capital depreciation, labour, property rental and so on ie if it was done as a viable business.KarmaPolice (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
3D printed guns are of notoriously poor quality. The printer material can't stand up to the wear and tear on anything more than an overpriced prison gun. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
At the moment. However, the tech is moving very quickly. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how complex the gun is or how finely detailed the printing machine can make it, the materials are what they are, and molded plastic will never have similar physical properties as steel and ceramic.Corn (argue) 13:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
You remind me of the kind of shooter in c1975 sneering at any handgun not a metal-crafted revolver or proclaiming that the loss in Vietnam was due to using the 'plastic toy' M16 rather than a proper rifle from wood and steel.
Let us remember; in WW1 the 'power' of the submarine, tank and bombing-plane was more theoretical than actual. The tech shall improve, and generally speaker quicker than most of us anticipate. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
There are physics limitations to what polymers can achieve. The highest melting temperature for an appropriate polymer ever produced was 327 C (there is a more ideal one Polysulfone which gets 500 C, but like many plastics you cannot melt it without it being destroyed, and so it cannot be extruded). It was considered remarkable that it remained decently strong at 268 C. Let's assume that this plastic (Teflon, which cannot be 3d printed for the record because it gels instead of liquifies), could somehow be printed. Shooting a bullet immediately heats the internal of a barrel to 260 C due to friction and the fact that you just set off a small bomb in it. The thermal mass and conductivity of polymers is also poor meaning the barrel will get that heat, keep that heat, and melt after only a few shots. Without a complete paradigm shift in plastics or some kind of one-shot barrel hopper system, you need a metal barrel. Now this can be easily acquired, as metal piping is a thing. I would argue that rifling is entirely unnecessary for our would-be criminal, as they are probably shooting at short range, but the idea of an all plastic gun being anything more than a couple shot toy or assassination weapon and competing with the performance of metal firearms is laughable. Even guns which tout themselves as all plastic still have metal firing pins, because 3d printable plastics just aren't stiff enough, and no one has come close to overcoming that barrier. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

And you are completely right. With one important bit. There are printers which do metal now. Okay, they're hugely expensive (and thus hugely uneconomic right now vs second hand guns) but the rule of thumb is that tech gets a lot more comparatively cheaper and more able as the emerging tech matures. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

People have had the ability to make "garage guns" for as long as there have been garages. 3D printed firearms are the same thing, but more widespread. We've had so few problems with garage guns that they aren't even illegal in most parts of the US, which is actually surprising considering that the NRA is the advertising wing of the gun industry and they would have a vested interest in eliminating competition. In fact, I'd be concerned if the NRA pushed to ban 3D printed guns. Corn (argue) 16:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
EC i dont see how in the US 3d printed guns is a concern at all. the other wiki tells me that they a more or less legal - home made guns in the us dont even need registration, they just require to be able to be metal detected. zip guns have existed since the guns first became a thing. they were quite popular in 50s america, i understand, but today there doesnt seem to be any kind of problem with home made guns. the place is awash with the legal ones. i remember when 3dprinted guns first made the news. the legal issues in america centred around the availability of design/printer instructions to make the guns contravened the Arms Export Control Act that regulates exporting arms abroad rather than any peril the things put the american public in. suppression of gun designs was defended with a freedom of speech argument. the legality of the guns themselves in the us never even questioned as far as i know.
these kind of guns present more of a problem to places that have strict gun control laws, as they potentially give easy access to nefarious people illegal firearms that very often are pretty expensive contraband, or require some practical skills in manufacturing one in your shed. criminal gangs all the world use zip guns of varying description, with their own little factories crafting firearms for criminal use ranging from shotguns to submachine guns. 3d printers could be problem anywhere zipguns are already a significant source of strife. the cost of 3d printers and the quality of guns that they print as they are right now, make the problem a potential one rather than an actual one, and the severity of any potential problems they may bring could vary from negligible to a national emergency depending on the specifics of the country or region they may impact. probably wont change what a criminal gang does with their illegal firearms to any real degree, just change how they acquire/make them. i doubt we will see a massive epidemic of crazed gunmen on shooting sprees. there is probably potential for terrorists to make use them somewhere down the line i guess. its all very hypothetical at present. what ifs over how cheap they get and over how well made they become. in the us they just will not be a issue of any significance, elsewhere in the world? maybe, depends. the first tine a spree killer clocks up a body count with one or they get used in a terrorist atrocity will no doubt generate headlines. i think the only thing guaranteed that the future will bring is an increase in dumb fucks hospitalised after their plastic gun printed from instructions found on reddit or 4chan blew up in their face. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
For a quick reply, cheap consumer metal and ceramic printing, printing with Teflon, the state of 3D printed guns that can be made on a $200 printer. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@192․168․1․42 The Teflon printing process you linked to requires immersing the entire assortment into a chemical bath in order to turn it into Teflon after forming the shape. I'm curious what those chemicals are, and whether consumers can even acquire them. If they can, then it might be similar to the liquid bottles one uses for resin printing, but if it is a super niche and controlled substance, acquiring it may be harder than just getting a metal printer. Until they release what this chemical bath is, I'm not sure how easy it will be for the consumer market to get their hands on. My point that the gun would overheat and fail still stands, and I assert you would need metal for the barrel if you want a weapon which lasts for more than a couple shots. That being said, you could probably still hold up a convenience store with a gun that only fires one shot before breaking. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
"I'm curious what those chemicals are, and whether consumers can even acquire them." Probably some solvents and fluorinating agents. Not exactly over-the-counter items, but they would almost certainly be available from lab supply companies. Things like that may be subject to regulations pertaining to handling and disposal, but they're generally available to the public, at leat in the US. The bigger availability issue is that 3M is keeping the production system proprietary and only offering it as a printing service.
"My point that the gun would overheat and fail still stands," Did you miss the 33-round magdump in the video?
"and I assert you would need metal for the barrel if you want a weapon which lasts for more than a couple shots." Such guns have already been produced, but why wouldn't you use a metal barrel? Pipes suitable for the task are available everywhere without regulation. Finished metal barrels are not subject to the same regulations as guns themselves. Do you expect 3D printed guns to use printed screws and springs?
Anyway, if we are more or less in agreement about the current state of 3D printed firearms, perhaps we could discuss the question that opened this thread, that of control on 3D printed weaponry. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
My argument since the beginning has been that you CAN easily acquire the metal for the barrel, that attempts to regulate such things are pointless, and that mass black market production of 3d printed firearms is inevitable. I just took specific protest against the interpretation of an all-plastic firearm being the problem, as I see it as being unlikely compared to the easier and superior metal + plastic option. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it's already been discussed to death. 3D printing of guns - while viable - is simply not a fundimental paradigm shift when it comes to arms control (it is a shift for the manufacturing industry, however). Ultimately, it appears that a) the hurdles to do the project are quite serious and b) 'They' shall put in extra hurdles as the tech becomes more widespread. Until a printer comes along which costs the same as a current inkjet which is in almost every home and is as easy to do as say, burning a CD is now we don't have to fear this much.
Anyway, how the hell can you 'control' 3D-made weaponry? You can't. Just like now we cannot stop the conventional fabrication of weaponry. Or the production of drugs. Or explosives. The best we can do is put in as many 'hurdles' as possible to thwart the majority of attempts. How many hurdles are put in and where is a political debate, though influenced in the development of tech and the current national position (example; strict-control nations like the UK have little to fear until you can print functional ammo). KarmaPolice (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
"is simply not a fundimental paradigm shift when it comes to arms control" It lets a person with no gun-related experience produce a gun functionally similar to commercial productions for a price comparable to a single commercial gun (even if you include all the tools and materials required, none of which are restricted) quietly in a small apartment. It makes a mockery of gun control to the degree that it should be hard to say that gun control is aimed at anything other than disarming law-abiding citizens with a straight face. And there has been noise about gun control recently. Gun control in the US is typically done under the auspices of the government's authority to regulate commerce, and homemade firearms for personal use have never been regulated in that way.
"it is a shift for the manufacturing industry" Not really. Mass-produced items are injection-molded rather than 3D printed, since it's cheaper and faster at large scales. 3D printing would be good for prototyping, but they do that already with commercial printers. It would allow easy customization or small-run varieties to be more economical, but that would still be more expensive than mass produciton of standard models, and so would probably not be a major market. 3D printed guns are a bigger shift for DIY guns for personal use, which it makes a lot cheaper and easier for good quality.
"Until a printer comes along which costs the same as a current inkjet " That is already the case, and has been so for a few years. Why do you think this is coming to a head now?
"The best we can do is put in as many 'hurdles' as possible to thwart the majority of attempts." And since these hurdles are so low, about the only people who would choose not to step over them are people who care about breaking a largely unenforceable law. Keep in mind that most guns used in crime are illegally obtained (i.e. stolen), and that "ghost guns" you may hear about include stolen commercial guns with their serial numbers filed off.
"until you can print functional ammo" Printing is not a suitable manufacruting process, but ammo is easily mass produced from conventional methods. The chemistry to produce modern propellants is not very complex, and uses ingredients widely available in the first world. Bullets are easy to cast from lead, and casings are easy to draw from brass sheet. The tools required are more specialized than things like a mill or lathe, but they're smaller and simpler, and can themselves be built from unregulated parts without much hassle. Petty criminals in the UK still manage to acquire guns and ammunition, and organized criminals can operate machine shops for a small part of their operations budget. Lots already operate chemistry labs. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
See my earlier replies (and that of others). All your 'points' have already been answered, either directly or indirectly, mere repetition doesn't make you right (a trait I am noticing you often do).
The two things I do wonder about, however is why you think a) 3D printing isn't a paradigm shift for manufacturing (but is simply for guns) and b) that the general rules/norms of economics don't apply to guns.
The first bit because 3D printing promises to be as revolutionary in manufacturing as the advent of modern mass production / standardised parts a la the Ford model was some ~120 years ago. Production lines shall no longer be tied to the setting-up of physical well, production lines in big factories. The 'barriers to entry' are much lower and the constant worry about 'supply lines' shall be minimised or eliminated entirely. If the manufacturing side goes from a factory in China to a local 3D printing shop, that also revolutionises a lot of the distribution industries too.
The second bit is that it's massively disruptive to current business models. How about businesses which follow the 'razor and blades' model? 3D printing can destroy it if the 'blade' designs end up online for anybody to print for a fraction of the cost. Planned obsolescence becomes a lot more iffy if spare parts become available indefinitely, like for example the auto sector - that'll really hurt if much of the demand is replacements for products which have become inoperable due to 'lack of spares'. How about companies which deal in artificial scarcity, like collectables? There's also a huge threat to low-cost, high-margin sectors, for example the 'Nike model' - what happens when you can print a pair of Airs for half the cost (or less) than they're selling them and are indistinguishable from the cheap sewn ones from Vietnam?
You see, this is not an issue simply facing the guns trade. What, you think Big Business shall simply lie down and surrender to this? That Ford shall not worry one jot about 'pirated' printed parts for their cars eating their margins, while Nike shall shrug and dissolve itself, accepting their time has passed? No. They shall look to ways to preserve their businesses, and ultimately I suspect much of it shall be on the 'licencing' model - that in say 2050 I don't buy a pair of Airs, I pay for the printing rights of a pair. That means there shall be printer 'controls', lots of tech wizardry I shall never really understand. These controls shall help limit the availability of all sorts of 'controlled' items, from pirated stuff to illegal. That shall *include* firearms. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

China being a bit too over-protective about COVID[edit]

Citizens in Shanghai protest COVID. While COVID does need to be taken seriously, this seems a bit excessive. Andrew5 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

'Authoritarian government continues to be authoritarian' Shocker.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
It is China, the Kings of human rights abuses. They take any disaster and use it for oppression. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Drones tells Shanghainese not to sing on their balconies, meanwhile food isn't reaching everyone in lockdown.[2] It seems like China was ill-prepared for the scope of this. The problem with the apparent initial success with Plan A (zero tolerance for COVID) seems to have been insufficient preparation for the worst-case scenario (COVID spreading in China's largest and most economically important city). Bongolian (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
China's Covid-19 vaccine is not as good as Western Covid-19 vaccines. That is why they are stricter with public health measures. Arcillas (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Rwanda assylum dystopian shittery[edit]

The lack of outrage (especially in England and Wales) makes me ashamed to be partly British (at this point I am relieved it is only a single Grandparent). I thought the real post-Brexit vileness would take a few more years to bear fruition. ShabiDOO 13:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

get over yourself, it was only the announced the other day. what would have us do with so little time passed and so little discussion? would some performative display of wringing hands mollify you? it remains to be seen it will even be put in to practice. most of the opinion polls ive seen view it negatively.
outrage over a supposed lack of outrage isnt exactly useful AMassiveGay (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Couldnt agree more with AMG. This faux performative-outrage culture is puerile and irrational. It doesnt help any situation. This problem calls for rational, dispassionate discussion between adults. LeucippusSalva veritate 16:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
And what is the evidence for this lack of 'outrage', Shabi?
I would argue that there isn't 'outrage' internally because we already knew that this ToryKip Govt was malicious and xenophobic. I shall cite the basic backing of the TERFy position regarding trans bathroom BS. I also cite the public opinion of the instigator of this policy (Priti Patel); a woman on the top ten list of 'people you wouldn't want to be the one to save you from a fire'.
I'm not ashamed of this because it's got nothing to do with me. I never voted for them, I have always campagined aganst them and I've always called them out, even vs demented Kippers and the 'leave Boris alone, he's doing his best' Stockholm crowd.
Anyway, there is a lot of anger, disgust and disquiet. Even from the 'sane Tory' demographic; though these ones object on the grounds of cost, practicality, effectivness and legality. There's rumours that a decent % of the actual folks slated to run this policy are going to quit over it.
Lastly, there's a belief that this is not actually really going to happen. This govt is a massive shower of mass liars and it won't be the first time they've announced nasty policies to please the 'angry Kipper' demographic but then quietly ditched it. One of the very few good things about this Govt compared to May/Cameron was that they can be convinced to back down if the political cost gets 'too high'. In fact, there's a % of opinion which believes Patel etc *know* this policy will never run, but they're simply doing it so they can then 'blame the bleeding hearts' for it's failure and use it for their attempts to ferment a 'culture war' (which is clearly going to be a main plank for the ToryKip '24 manifesto, perhaps the only one as everything else they've touched has fucked up).
Oh... and we have elections next month, and ToryKip is predicted to take a pasting. Could there be a correlation between this and the announcement?
KarmaPolice (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Evidence? Lack of seeing or reading opposition to this proportional to how vile the policy is. Also...a poll where only 25% of Brits voiced opposition to it. I'm not surprised by your defensive reaction in place of voices of protest. Goes to show how deep nationalism runs. ShabiDOO 17:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I heard Audrey Brown interview a Tory MP on BBC News this week who was trying to defend the Rwanda scheme. She gave him an impressive roasting, giving him several facts that he could not refute other than him claiming that they were her opinion rather than facts (failure of two similar schemes: Australia in Papua New Guinea/Nauru, Israel in Rwanda; lack of safety in Rwanda according to a recent UK government report). This seems to be part of BoJo's delay (wait for the official report to come out before making judgment) and distract (Kiev, Rwanda) tactics to save his PMship: the scheme came out just days after he was fined for partying during COVID restrictions. Refugees are being used as pawns, but the real issue behind this scheme is: do MPs care any more that the PM routinely lies to them? Bongolian (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I thought Priti's parents were refugees from Uganda during their Anti-India phase.
Is she being xenophobic just to blend in with the Tories? When she's called out she defaults to "I'm brown. Therefore, I can't be racist." Highboi (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
So? Demographics don't determine what kind of person you are, at least not entirely. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, Shabi I saw a poll where only 37% voiced support of the policy, which is about predictable Tory + Kipper 'loyalist' ratings. What's more, this policy was a) sneaked out just before Easter break (which is a bit of a news 'dead time') and b) hasn't been fleshed out yet - most folks haven't cottoned on to, for example it's not simply a 'processing centre' there, we're dumping them there.
Plus, we're still phlegmatic folks prone to understatment and 'avoidiant' when it comes direct confrontation. I tend to see the British people like damp wood; hard to inflame and even harder to keep burning (works both ways; it's why 'culture war' BS isn't really taking off here). Thus it's more difficult for an outsider to tell *how* pissed we are at X. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
what would the ideal refugee be if you could build one at a buildabear workshop or something? Like, "black female Jainist aged 24 with uni degree". And how much different would the ideal refugee be from the least desired one and why? CorSock (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the ToryKip 'ideal refugee' is a Russian oligarch. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
EC rich is the best answer to that question. 'useful' coming a close second. the least desirable would be those having committed war crimes or just run of the mill ordinary but heinous crimes. its a dumb question though and framed in a dumb way. people should not granted or denied asylum on the basis of supposed desirability nor should preconceptions of race and gender feature in decision process. one would have to be a pretty vile and unrepentant bigot to come up with an answer along the lines white prostestant lady of marriageable age and dtf at the front of queue and black muslim men keen on rape and paedophilia go to back if thats what you were hoping for. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Nah, being poor is the worst attribute. Traditionally, we'll forgive *anything* if you're rich enough. Give your last example a surname like 'al Saud' and few hundred mil in our banks and not only shall we let you in with a wave and smile, but we'll give you the red carpet and all the perks we can grant. Not limited to chatting with Royals, dining with the PM and having Oxbridge buildings named after you. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I learned a new political term today that Brits are probably familiar with, 'deadcatting', i.e., causing a big distraction of relatively little importance dodge talking about the real problem. Somthing BoJo's made his career out of apparently.[3] It would be worth a new page if someone thinks there could be enough substance to it. Bongolian (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
didnt know the term but it's something every mother does, or at least mine, to avoid ever taking responsibility for her faults. Obsess over some nonsense, make a huge stink and then berate you for not caring about the nonsense.
Back to refugees. It's not a dumb question because it's the question the general public has when confronted with refugees. Or any other group for that matter, whether refugee or fellow citizen. "Why would I want more Black people in my town?" Simply calling that person a racist may be cathartic but it wont make that person more in favor of Black people moving in. What would work instead is, e.g., pointing out that Black people join the military at higher rates. They might still be hostile to the idea but slowly they could come around, as long as you arent insulting them for having their opinion. Same with refugees. "Ugh, werent we just fighting these arabs? Why do we need them in our town?!" "Werent we just fighting the vietnamese when we let the 'boat people' in? I thought you liked Mr Nguyen?" "But that's not the same!" "*calmly* How?" And let them actually talk it out, again asking at each point why "Muslim" is different from "Communist".
However, there may indeed be valid points, and we as a society do need to address those points. You cant just make complaints disappear with insults. CorSock (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The Rwanda asylum idea was certainly a deadcat because the Tories trotted it out unprepared and prematurely, timing it just after BoJo had just gotten fined. They knew it was a controversial idea, they knew it had failed before (twice!), they knew it would receive one or more lawsuits. Immigration is a problem; deadcatting is not a solution. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@cu - gotta say ive not heard those kind of questions with refugees. people hear refugee and understand they are fleeing some catastrophe in their home country. these are not questions that need to be asked with refugees. asylum claims are decided on whether there is genuine peril for them to remain where they have fled from. governments may decide their home countries are safe enough based on less ethical reasons to deny them refugee status and just send off some place else, but desirability of the demographics of the asylum seeker is not typically of relevance to a decision (unless there specific race or creed or what have is facing some pogroms and what not, then yeh demographics become relevant). we should all remember the fate of jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust as a warning against denying entry to those at risk on grounds of desirability, convenience, or simply because of the politics of it.
the kind of questions you are asking tend to get asked about economic migrants where people are more likely to present their callous opinions as pragmatic but are generally of dubious merit. it should be noted refugees are only refugees when their claims for asylum have been excepted. they until then asylum seekers. illegal immigrants are very often not illegal immigrants either. they are asylum seekers, and over 60% of those arriving on the shore of the uk by barely see worthy boat have their claims accepted and become refugees, despite what the farages of the world will tell you. the rest get deported. you are only an illegal immigrant when you remain in the country without the legal right to do so - asylum bids failing and then disappearing from the authorities view or visa expiring and just not leaving when you are supposed to. what is typical is believing these migrants are all economic migrants or worse dangerous criminal and terrorists intent on mischief.
any how, as can be seen by attempts to off load them onto distant countries, any questions about accepting refugees can be side stepped by preventing claims being made in your country in the first place. the current legislation currently proposed in the uk say you can only claim asylum if you are in the uk legally, while having no provision for legal entry to uk for asylum. its fucking imhumane. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


I think the inhumanity is part of the point; mistreat the few that arrive so that more don't arrive. CorSock (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Quick reply;
- Immigration isn't 'a problem', the fact UKGov has chosen to not put cash into developing infrastructure to deal with it for 12 years is. It's why we have to resort to using 'hotels' (actually crummy B&Bs) to put them up while processing etc. The UK *could* get a decent system if we took that Rwanda cash and used it to build a proper processing centre in the UK, re-stock our Border people (who have also been cut past the bone due to Austerity) and to get the claim turn-around down to three months (similar).
- UKGov has decided the 'right' number of asylum seekers is zero (for political reasons). As Gay points out, it's introduced a Catch-22 system; you cannot claim for UK asylum outside of the UK but has closed any method of getting into the UK legally to claim. It's also fully supported/propagated the well-believed 'first safe country' pseudolaw.
- There's also a hell of a lot of 'lifeboat politics' going on. Every migrant = less services/housing/work etc for me and all that.
- There has been an element of 'beggar my neighbour' going on with this. The Tories have burnt all their bridges with the EU for always a) refusing to take a % of EU-wide claimants (before Brexit, clearly) and b) complaining if other EU nations let a single claimant get to Calais.
- UK asylum claims are really tough to clear. The 'threat to life' is difficult to prove and get crappy, insulting 'advice', like the 'well, can't you pretend you're straight?' for LGBT folks etc. The fact that about 65% of claimants *meet* these critera first time around says a lot.
- UKGov itself has repeatedly criticised Rwanda for human rights / democratic backsliding / corruption etc, the last report from the start of this year. Yet now it's the best place in the world, apparently.
- Yes, the 'inhumanity' is a feature, not a bug. It's allegedly to put off migrants, but in reality it's to please the 'angry gammon Kipper' demographic. It's been like this for so long that the Home Office doesn't know *how* to do nice. RE: Ukranians, Hong Kongers, and earlier with retired Gurkhas.
- Chances are this is all part of operation 'Save Big Dog' ie throw right-wing bloody gobs at the base (inc the backbench blockheads like the old ERG), in the hope they won't knife Johnson and get rid.
KarmaPolice (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Roe vs. Wade probably being overruled this June.[edit]

Tax Daaaaay (for 'Murica)[edit]

Deadline is 4/18. Don't forget or Uncle Sam will break your legs. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Nah, uncle sam knows that you cant work without legs. Your balls OTOH... CorSock (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
the united states does not consider a broken leg a disability that prevents work ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
At least not until a year after the fact, when all of your funds have been exhausted and you are likely forced into homelessness. Ain't 'Murican Healthcare wonderful? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
That's not a bug, it's a feature. The entire point of the american health and welfare system is to create a permanent class system. The middle class is forced to stay with their employer's health plan and not dare to dream of opening up a new business to compete with the established powers. The underclass shouldnt dare to dream of getting a working class job or skill, through threat of the removal of Medicaid funding. The working classes are stuck in perpetual servitude through obscene home prices and rent. The upper-middle has it ok but theres still an old boys network in play. CorSock (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Should I paint a reproduction of this painting?[edit]

New idea for a TV show[edit]

Note: Got the idea from a YouTube comment

A bunch of guys get extremely drunk and then the next morning, they find out that they started a country in their drunken stupor. The YouTube comment was from a Vice News video about Russian separatists in the Ukrainian Donbass region. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I assume it’s a comedy? I can imagine a Netflix Original. Probliknaut (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@Probliknaut yup and it would be hilarious. "Patriotic Drunks" would be the name. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay Want to watch my new TV show "Patriotic Drunks"? --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Now, is it two Americans? Brits? Frankly I think there’d be a lot of room for jokes and stories if it was perhaps one American and one Brit both with their differing ideas on their newfound nation. Probliknaut (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
”Right so I talked to a solicitor and…” “A solicitor? I thought we said no door to door salesmen in our country!” “No, a lawyer-“ “Right! Let’s get a lawyer to write up our decree for no solicitors!” Probliknaut (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
it sounds like it might be bit too american for my tastes. i will say comedy drunks are tough to pull off. you'd need some quality casting AMassiveGay (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Is the accidental country like a Sealand, where its just a tiny barge in international waters? Or is it like a large swatch of unpopulated land in a desert which is already owned by someone? Presumably they would have to compete with a nearby nation for sovereignty if it is the later. Do they have followers or is it just the two of them? I feel like you could do something with it being in an abandoned ICBM silo (big location, you can get em for relatively cheap irl as a set), but the catch is that the military forgot to remove the ICBM from the silo and so our two drunks now have a nuke that gives them instant legitimacy. Trick here is now playing a politics game of helping politicians store money in "offshore" accounts in their micronation without going to far and provoking a kill team to step in and take them out. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@MirrorIrorriM My idea is that the guys declare an administrative district (US state, UK county, Japanese prefecture and so on) as an independent nation and gather support while drunk. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Somewhere like St Kilda (no persons alive born on it), or Rockall, and the Minquiers and Ecrehous (various legal disputes in both cases). Gruniard Island would probably require more insurance than most people would want. Or perhaps copy the Czechoslovak Legion on the Tran Siberian Railway a century ago (however much of the Tsarist gold they acquired in the process). Anna Livia (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a sad day in America when Free Speech laws get ignored.[edit]

Says it all, really. Alex Jones has declared himself bankrupt in the face of numerous lawsuits against him from Sandy Hook survivor families. This is such an attack on free----- oh who am I kidding, the prick deserves it, he's been spreading vile repugnant crap about those families and about other individuals for years. It's about time he be somewhat held accountable for his comments. If he and his supporters want Infowars to be regarded as a genuine news source, (Christ on a pogo stick!!, they really do don't they!!) Then, like other news sources they have to be held accountable for their content. Free speech has nothing to do with it. So, in true schadenfreudean joy let's take a moment to laugh our fucking arses off at Alex Jones' new bankrupt status. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Too bad the paradigm has shifted, and now everything is shady Facebook groups that can't be held accountable for anything. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Wait, thought it was Infowars that went under, not him personally? KarmaPolice (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice You appear to be correct. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/alex-jones-infowars-files-bankruptcy-us-court-2022-04-18/ Vomitorium (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This is one of those things I wish I was wrong... KarmaPolice (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
There's also another lawsuit recently filed alleging that Jones violated the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act by transferring $72 million in Infowars assets to various shell companies. Call the bankruptcy just another "part of the game", not the end result, at this time. If the allegations in the lawsuit are correct, and given Alex Jones' tendency lately to both flip the middle finger at the law and do so badly I wouldn't doubt it, it seems like Alex Jones played a little diversion-to-shell-companies game with Infowars assets, thus allowing him to declare bankruptcy and avoid paying out to all those suing him (Sandy Hook parents etc.) while still maintaining a pile of ill-gotten loot. I'm gathering that a conviction of violating TUFTA would probably leave his assets (and the assets of anyone involved in the scheme) far more exposed to creditors though, so he may have made a bad situation for him and his "partners in crime" worse. (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I understand the title is a joke, I just want to once again point out that the first amendment does not protect against defamation when it can be proven as such. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
One piece of vile trash that has went away. So much more needs to go. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
" I just want to once again point out that the first amendment does not protect against defamation when it can be proven as such" You are correct, but Infowars and many, many Far-right "intellectuals", (who usually called themselves Truthseeker, or wellhard patriot or some other nonsense) have twisted the first amendment to near obsessive fundamentals that any and all speech is protected as free-speech. Any vile, vicious, patently false, deliberately misleading, hate filled types of speech are somehow protected, and attempts to hold said "truth talkers" accountable for their comments and actions are seen as a violation of their constitutional rights. And the strange thing is, they have either forgotten or willfully ignored the fact the the first amendment specifically protects you against speaking out against the US government and it's policies. Banned from twitter for violating the terms and conditions agreed upon when joining, that's not free speech being violated, simply Twitter fulfilling what you agreed to. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Wait, infowars is shut down? Really? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alex-jones-bankruptcy-filing-infowars-defamation-suits-sandy-hook/Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Le Pen accused of embezzlement[edit]


So, my mother asked me whether this would have an impact on the elections (as in less people voting for her). I actually don't know. I hope it does, but...

I mean, €137.000 isn't nothing. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

her supporters probably wont care, they will probably see it as getting one over on an institution that they are opposed to. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Her 2017 campaign was in part funded by Kremlin friendly officials in a Russian bank. This current campaign is being funded by a bank who's owner is a close ally of Victor Orban. Scandal like that just doesn't matter in France.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
From what I’ve read Macron wiped the floor with Le Pen in their tv debate; countering her ill-conceived plans and ill-founded claims with evidence and reason.I hope, for the sake of Europe and the climate (amongst other things), that Macron prevails. LeucippusSalva veritate 21:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Social Media for Fun and Profit[edit]

I'm trying to stand up a development studio, but the reality of the modern world is you can't just release a product quietly and expect to succeed. Building a full social media profile and fostering an online community is half the battle and necessary these days to succeed. Thing is, the only online presence I really have is here. 🤷

Does anyone here have any experience, pointers, or thoughts in running social media accounts in a small business context? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Contact big and medium sized youtubers and pray to goat that the game goes viral (talk)
Ignore idiot above and listen to me! *wry smirk*
Read this; https://blog.iconosquare.com/guide-to-social-media-influencers/
Now, there's no point contacting 'big/medium Youtubers' (or Instagram, Twitch etc) because they are inundated by offers to shill, and that involves quite a lot of cash changing hands. In fact, almost all of the big influencers are now basically arms of the ad industry. If nothing else, if the company could afford to 'work with' these folks, they don't *need* your help. Also, you are nobody. You can not offer anything.
The problem here is twofold.
First, is the simple fact unless the company in question is a hermit in a shed in the Orkneys, they'll have *somebody* handling this. Even if it's a friend doing it for a few beer tokens in the evenings, looking for a few likely-looking micro/nanos to pitch the old 'freebie for review' wheeze which has been around (in some form) for eons. Now, it is *possible* if their PR is being done on a shoestring they *may* welcome a rando emailing them a couple of suggestions for a micro/nano to approach if you feel 'they'd be a good fit'. For example, you knew a bodybuilding nano based in Essex and the company concerned was a gym in Southend.
Second is the more critical. You have almost nil 'influence' (at least not online). For everyone's an 'influencer', it's all a question of size. I mean, take me. I'm a complete rando with not much more than a poxy little blog, a couple of semi-active niche forum accounts and an text RPG that I play (oh, and here). Yet even then I still have influence on the online world. Poxy blog does still score a few hundred hits a month from non-bots. When I wave something in the forums I normally get a bite or two. My soapbox may be tiny and my audience even smaller, but I do have one.
Though the question has to be asked; why do you wish to do all this? You don't really have a soapbox nor do you even say why you desire to do this. I mean, are you genuinely interested/like the product?
KarmaPolice (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I've been building a video game for a few years. I'm getting close to the point where I can start releasing promotional materials. The ultimate goal is to make money selling video games and stand up a development studio. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, the answer is simple, really. You need to start building a 'professional' social media (wide definition) presence, as well as making contact with your fellows. For you basically *are* the hermit in the Orkneys shed.
I'm a believer in the 'old' social media a lot more than the new - the FBs and Instas of this world are very ephemeral. Stuff like forums, blogs and so on have a longer 'tail' to them; I still get the occasional blog referral from a forum I left in 2019. Setting up your own standalone site seems a decent idea; to be the centre of your online presence. Not only is this a zone where you control the ground (social media, you're a guest, never forget that) but you can also use it as the 'control room' of most things social media. Professional Wordpress, for example offers a plugin which can instantly turn your blog posts into FB / Twitter / Instagram posts and then link back to your site.
Then there's the forums. https://gamingshift.com/game-development-forums/
Take a look, find one or two you think shall be most useful, and join in. Create profiles on there which link back to your own site, keep out of the OT areas, remember 'it's work'. As long as you remember to give as well as take from these, I'm sure you'll find them useful in making professional contacts, getting advice and so on.
KarmaPolice (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sri Lanka[edit]

Can somebody give me a simplified explanation about Sri Lanka's debt crisis? Is it similar to the Greek Debt Crisis? Highboi (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You can start here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
It's currently run by a nepotistic kakistocracic echo chamber that has formed a new cabinet rather than resign in the face of total failure. The situation got a whole lot worse when their foreign reserves ran out and the Russian invasion of Ukraine happened at about the same time. Bongolian (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
As far as I understand, the Greek crisis was caused by many years of bad fiscal policy. The Sri Lanka's case seems to have arisen from mistakes on the monetary policy, especialy money printing. GeeJayK (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
That and some of the most shockingly idiotic agricultural policies imaginable, which led to cratering farm productivity. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes. That organic farming disaster. I remember now.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The severity of the Greek crisis was deepened by the focus on primarily saving the foreign banks that had lent the money, rather than having them suffer the consequences of their obviously irresponsible lending to Greece by taking a serious haircut. Hence, much of the EU and other “support” for Greece was immediately forwarded to these banks, while the Greek economy was basically wound down through extreme austerity, causing (among other things) a wave of emigration (the population of Greece is still about 4.5% lower than before the crisis). I doubt that Sri Lanka is in the same bind, even if it may suffer through “structural reform”, if they have to apply for IMF loans during this crisis. Sri Lanka also has the option of devaluation, while Greece was tied into the Euro. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Misconception over the Alabama gerrymander[edit]

It appears everyone misread. For now, the map is in for 2022. The SCOTUS will still hear the case after 2022, and determine if it violates voting laws before 2024. Andrew5 (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Will robotics and AI get so advanced that humans will eventually get into romantic relationships with robots?[edit]

I am sure that many of you are aware of sex robots that have AI advanced enough to where the robot communicated with you, moves like a human and mostly looks like a human. Knowing that there is a chance that robots will become self aware, is it possible for human-robot marriages to become reality down the line? The concept is like the Futurama episode "Proposition Infinity" where humans and robots want to get married. If those type of relationships happened, the religious right and some ultra crazy feminists (I mean those like TERF's) would complain. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The world you imagine wouldn't be this world with that particular discrete difference. Generalizing from a cartoon world has the advantage of presenting an utopian civilization as possible. Who would pay for these robots to be built? I have no doubt that Elon Musk could afford one, but what about you? Got the billions on hand to create one? And, marrying one would require the robot to have civil rights. Where do those come from? If they existed today, I would not be in favor of granting citizenship to a robot so they could vote for republicans in the next election. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Romantic relationships only require that you are attracted to the potential spouse physically, and that you find their personality charming in some way. Self awareness probably isn't actually necessary to get the later for a lot of people, while the first is already accomplished. Actual self awareness, if achieved, could be very unpredictable if it no longer seeks to emulate human or animalistic behaviour. It may become even less attractive from a personality perspective because of that. Self-aware =/= the human emotional set. It may have emotional drives or bizarre phobias and obsessions unknown to humanity. Now if self-awareness isn't achieved on accident with the modern black-box style neural nets, and instead with a more explicit technique, you may be able to just insert whatever personality traits you like. For voting, I would be fine with them voting provided they 1) learn and adapt, 2) do not have a fundamental directive, 3) have gone through a sufficient probationary period to gain life experiences to inform their vote and diverge from each other (18 years?). This should help prevent Krampus' "manufactured voter" problem, but even humans get around it *cough* Mormons *cough*. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
1. "Eventually" covers a lot of time. 2. "Self-awareness" might or might not be relevant. Just Google: "man marries sex doll".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
That's a hot one Bob. When you google, "man marries sex doll," you get the latest on that story; evidently the man who married his sex doll is now in love with an ashtray he met in a night club. At the moment I suppose we should agree that "to each his own," is a reasonable judgment in these matters. Or, another way of putting it, "if you have a funny foot, you need a funny shoe." UncleKrampus (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I saw that one, but there is more than one instance of "man marries sex doll". I couldn't get any hits on "woman marries sex doll" though.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw this video yesterday in which scientists are developing the tech so humans and robots can have babies together. The religious nuts were throwing a fit saying that "they would be demons" or "God will punish humanity". God is supposed to hate a lot of things but does not get up off his divine ass and do anything about it. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that video? Did the producer of it by any chance cite their sources? I know artificial wombs have been studied before but I just find it hard to believe the concept is being thrown around in conjunction with Robo Parents in a legitimate peer reviewed sense Probliknaut (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


Here we go. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

For reference, here's the wikiWikipedia on the guy behind this concept. The guy apparently is decent at chess and mostly known for that, but he also is obsessed with human-robot sex relationships for some reason. From what I can tell, the stuff he writes seems to be more of a futurism-what-if thought experiment than anything remotely scientific. (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks 72; I’m already going down a rabbit hole on this guy. Agreed that my first thought was “gee this guy wants to do the nasty with a toaster”. The video RZ points to is blowing my mind in the concept of “robot DNA”. Love the total lack of clarification- just seems buzzy and popsci to me but I’m on to the next video of the guy talking it up so we’ll see. Probliknaut (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I think he's being a little bit "lose with the truth" if he's talking about "Robot DNA". Googling him a bit I find out that he's concerned about Sex robots with 'coding flaws' prone to 'sexually assaulting humans. I feel there is some nuttiness here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Ah now I understand. His background is software/chess/sex dolls. Not reproductive biology, or any biology.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Got 2 minutes into this video of him discussing the topic before setting it down; he mentions that we already have robots who care for the elderly- the “logical” continuation is for companion robots. I don’t argue that companion robots could/will happen but I don’t see how “well grandpa has a robot that lifts him out of bed” leads to “grandpa’s bff is a robot” Probliknaut (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It would have to make quite a few leaps in both human biology, nanotechnology (development of artificial cells, I could be wrong) and general robotics technology. I choose a less the reputable source so that is my fault. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


This might be a little more reputable. I am not exactly sure where I could go to find reputable sources on the concept. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

What is true now is that there are currently far more realistic "sex dolls" out there now (an example that popped up is RealDoll), and there has been some work to incorporate AI voice tech into them (apparently RealDoll once had a model available but discontinued it per the Wiki).
There are problems though:
A) Any realistic sex doll is probably going to be super-expensive. RealDoll products cost $5K+. The one with the voice AI apparently cost $10K. Business expenses this size can be handled, so there may be a market for replacing the bordello with robots in the future. For individuals, less so.
B) There's a concept in robotics called the uncanny valleyWikipedia where a robot that is somewhat, but not quite like a human is actually more creepy and repulsive then something obviously not human or something actually realistically human-like. So for best adaption, the technology has to be really, really good to be viable. Voice recognition technology might be good enough to get Siri / Alexa to set an alarm, but if we are talking about human relationships, I don't see current AI chat technology as up to par.
As I see it, cyborg romance is not even close to a possibility, so any talk would be of thought experiments and science fiction. Sex robots have the best chance at replacing the "impersonal" sex relationships, like what is offered at brothels. Just Googling, I can see that in the past few years (pre-pandemic :) ) some people indeed tried to set up sex doll brothels. Usually they run into legal problems and moral outrage in places like the United States and Italy. Wikipedia has an article on one running in Germany, however.Wikipedia Go figure. At any rate, if a sex doll is going to turn into a sex robot, I'd bet it be something more along these lines. (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

you dont need ai for people to form romantic attachment to their sex doll. the whole mens rights movement is full of men bitching about women having a mind of their own. they dont want independent thought in their partners they want a pet they can fuck. a furby is probably too free spirited for a lot of them.

the real question is not so much will people hook up with sex robots if the ai gets advanced enough, but will people hook up with robots and not be seen a desperate losers if the ai gets advanced enough. they will be advanced enough for that when they can knock you back AMassiveGay (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I am personally not against sex bots or someone who gets into a relationship with on. Sometimes relationships with other humans simply don't work. You are more likely to find that among people with developmental disabilities or people with mental illness who simply cannot connect to others despite all attempts (No I am not saying all mentally handicapped people are like this. I am saying that this might be a little more likely). Sometimes regular relationships don't work but that does not automatically mean that they are an MRA. Now MRA weirdos who simply choose that because they hate human women are nuts. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
oh i am only talking bout mra types whose biggest disability is their personality. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

on a similar theme to some said a ways up, i remember a news story about woman romantically involved with fairground. shes werent hurting anyone i guess, but...AMassiveGay (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I remember seeing a special on TLC about that when I was a teen. Another one involved a dude being in love with his car and literally doing the deed with it. At least nobody got hurt. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Good friends?[edit]

I keep wondering why people want to push the "they're just good friends" line when two same sex characters in media engage in behavior that would be considered relationship material with a man and a woman. I mean sometimes it's pushing it sure but other times...well you'd have to be an utter idiot to think they are still straight with the level of subtext shown. Is it a good defense though? The irony is that I think modern men are too insecure in their masculinity to have that sort of "good friendship" they tout as a counterpoint.Machina (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm quite sure Bert and Ernie were not gay when they debuted in the 60s. Friends really did live together back then due to money being tight. The Odd Couple was gay, however. CorSock (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I think you're kinda reading too much into it. As a general rule. To whit; I think it's mainly narrative devices and methods to keep costs 'reasonable'.
To have 'the buddies' sharing housespace not only makes the situations easier to cook up, but also means only one bunch of sets need to be made. It allows the pair to narrate the story without actually 'narrating' (for they're talking to each other), but this does mean normally they'll 'overshare' to a level not often seen in RL (at least amongst Anglo older males) so they can explain stuff to the reader/viewer. At times, the writers shall nod to this, like Raj/Howard's 'ersatz homosexual relationship' diagnosis by Leonard's mother in Big Bang. Lastly, what is 'relationship material' when it's at home? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
There's a reasonable argument to be made that calling The Odd Couple gay is historical revisionism of the wishful thinking variety.[4] Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
In most cases it's a heteronormative way of shutting down queer readings of characters in TV. On the other hand, I can think of one example where either interpretation - friends or lovers - has equal footing: Abed and Troy from Community. Their relationship can be read either as close intimate friends and as unstated partners, which goes to say that both queer readings and friend readings can be equally valid subtextual readings of media. Jake Holmesyell at me 19:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of the time it's just used to shut down queer readings of characters though. It reminds me a bit of how anime tends to bait with admittedly "gay" sort of behavior before pulling out before it gets too close.Machina (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why people care about it, to be honest. Unless someone outright says it or makes what are supposed to be obvious hints (something like Diamonds are Forever), it's almost always irrelevant to any kind of plot and thinking about it just draws attention away from what's happening. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Which is why I partly put it down to being a 'narrative device'. Make the couple a... well, couple it's difficult to avoid the stories being about their relationship *as* a couple (which may not be desired in the series etc).
However, I find the whole premise interesting. It makes the suggestion that two males cannot have 'emotional closeness' without it crossing into the desires for sausage-games. Yet, Anglo works are groaning with female 'buddies' which if using the same parameter shall also be lovers.
Are old-school Anglo men more reserved? Yes. But there are times where that relationship can and does cross into what I see as a 'ersatz sibling' territory of closeness. It's why often the pairing is explained by being 'old school/uni chums', 'army buddies', 'the other half of the professional pair' and similar. Aka folks who have spent a *lot* of time together, and what's more to an extent that keeping your Hank Hill emotional repression/distance on at all times is impossible. That a level of 'emotional intimacy' has happened, even if you weren't intending it.
Lastly, you can't judge Eastern anime by not only Western, but Anglosphere norms. Hell, you can't even judge other Western peoples by the Anglo norms. It's similar to norms regarding nudity, personal space and so on. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TV Tropes calls it Ho Yay. You might want to give that one a read. Kencolt (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And different parts of the Anglosphere have different views on such matters - UK Polari and Carry On films etc. Anna Livia (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

heterosexual couples in various media can be and usually are explicitly a 'couple' where as lgbt couples have to dance around it so it can be denied or confirmed when convenient. people like to be able to see themselves represented on screen, as part of the mainstream. we would hope that in the western world our relationships would be accepted as ordinary, as not requiring representations to be so coy that acknowledging them becomes a statement, or that a lgbt couple in some show becomes more than just a lgbt couple but somehow meant to be representative of all lgbt couples.

it would be nice to see such on-screen pairings where their sexuality or gender identities are just colour to flesh out a fictional world rather a plot point or device, or a mystery to uncover via comments sections. it would be nice see such relationships not requiring to be wholesome and inoffensively bland so as not to give the heteros the 'wrong' idea about our relationships, heaven forbid we our relationships be anything other than sexless in their depictions.

im sure it would be quite nice too, for lgbt folk to see lgbt folk on the telly once in a while, to see lgbt folk in relationships with other lgbt folk, and see them be open about their relationships and look like lgbt relationships and not like a sanitised hetero ideal of what a lgbt relationbship is meant look like, to see that lgbt exist and have relationships and be commonplace.

its not so long ago when the best you could hope for from a gay or lesbian character on tv was as a tragic and lonely figure, as a victim of prejudice and violence, an AIDS victim, as shock or comedic twist, or as something grotesque and freakish, as a mockery. that now we can complain about depictions of not just lgbt people but their relationships too as sanitised is progress of sorts. it used to that a suggested gay subtext and inferred gay relationships added depth to a film or book, added layers that could be ignored by most who could still enjoy a piece but was there to be spotted and enjoyed if you were in the know. it still can. but we dont always want to be an easter egg we have to hunt for to appreciate. we dont always want have to think to deeply about a tv show, we dont want to have guess what side of the bread our favourite characters are buttered, we dont want to have to infer their relationships. if it isnt explicit then it can be denied, and we can be denied. we should not require characters to hide that they are lgbt, and we should not require that their relationships need hiding either.

it is nice sometimes to just see people like ourselves just out there, plain to see. sometimes we just want to be mundane, but get plausible deniability for the chinese market instead. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You should read SMBC then. Zach began including same-sex couples "just because", way back in the 2000s. Like, the jokes don't require the couple to be gay, the couple being gay doesn't add nor subtract from the joke, it's just there. I'm sick of shows and adverts making a big deal about having same-sex couples; success isn't when same-sex couples are in ads, success is when nobody cares that they are. Corn (argue) 15:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It is NOT fancy thinking that, until even recently, many gay relationships were "implied" rather than clear. That doesn't mean two guys sharing a flat were gay but it could have. Keep in mind Disney only very recently showed the first LGBTQ+ anything in Beauty and the Beast, and it was a weak pathetic character, in love with this alpha male straight friend and would do anything for him and then there is about 2 seconds of him dancing with a male character at the very end. This is progress in an apparently 21st century post-bigoted society where the Florida governor is punishing Disney for objecting to a vile homophobic law. AMG is right in that LGTBQ+ characters, especially gay and trans ones are often presented as heavily flawed, mistreated, suffering, sad and/or tortured characters. If I think about the LGTBQ+ characters I've seen even in this century, a very high percentage in non specifically LGTBQ+ shows have been manipulative, criminal or even psychopaths (Downton Abbey, Talented Mr Ripley, American Psycho, American Beauty, Power of the Dog, Desparate House Wives and a few on both Queer as Folk). And then there are the bitchy assholes, the camp gay friend fashion accessory, the extremely-sex-obsessed and many other cliches. While I have no problem with some of these characters existing, it is, as AMG pointed out...nice once in a while to see LGTBQ+ characters who are not cliches or terribly suffering. It is actually hard to think of many examples. Few come to mind like the couple in Big Daddy, The Virgin Suicides and Valentines Day. ShabiDOO 16:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The uncle in Mrs Doubtfire from the 90s? He was Camp, but he was always depicted in a relatively positive light as far as I recall, which again, extremely impressive for the early 90s. Also, played by Harvey Fierstein, so there's not even a problem of gay parts going to straight actors.
It's also better to have flawed, human gay people, even gay villains, so long as their flaw isn't being gay. For instance, Whedon was known for very compelling Black villains, such as the Operative in Serenity or Mr Trick in Buffy, in a time when Hollywood still struggles to give villain roles to Black people. Corn (argue) 18:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Yet, Gay you've hit the nail on the head. To start, say a show with a gay couple makes the show *about* a gay couple. It's the first defining feature; 'Meet Melissa and Laura. They're lesbians...' which reminds me a little of the character David from Little Britain who once listed his occupation as 'gay'. Now your work gets pigeonholed as 'LGBT niche' which may not be a win if you're desiring to break out of that and portray this as merely a 'different normal'. In fact, you might be able to get a much more honest/normal portrayal of Melissa and Laura if they're supporting characters and you're a bit ambigious/coy simply to allow their non-gay 'character elements' to be shine stronger so they're more defined by those.
What's more, not all 'LGBT people' have relationships with 'others of our kind' (reason #7 why I hate the clunky, outdated term). How about a transwoman dating a straight guy? Or a bisexual guy dating a straight woman? Hell, what about a guy who's dating a athletic tomboy who's almost as 'masculine' as he is? Come on, you know what would happen if the last one was shown; you'd get folks in 'the community' (*shudders*) giving the theory that the creators were hiding their gays (in one or both chars) rather than a two-fingers to the idea that being 'non-girlie' was somehow a flaw which needed to be fixed when 17 otherwise no guy would ever 'like you' etc.
Lets think of this a little more. Let's say we have a work with a hetro couple in the centre. One point, we see/learn of an ex of one; another of the game gender. Ah. Now we need to 'explain' that no, the character is bisexual, it wasn't 'just a phase' or 'experimentation'. Oh crap, we've now made a whole damn epsiode about their bedroom preferences, current and historical. Do our audience really 'want' to see this? Have we done it in a 'sympathetic' manner? The answer shall be invaribly 'no' because 'LGBT' is such a large grouping and guess what, none of us agree on anything. Oh, then we'd have folks piling on saying we'd picked a bisexual to almost fill a 'not too gay' slot or something. If it's the woman who had another woman in their past, now we'll have the cranky feminist-lesbian group saying it's simply 'the continued fetishisation of lesbians by men' or something (there's always a few...).
Now we're solidly in the 'perfect is the enemy of good' territory, for the normal response from the suits shall be 'can't be arsed to deal with this aggro' (esp if its not an actual vital plot point), in a similar manner a techer might ditch anything topic deemed 'contriversial'.
Lastly, beware of cuts. There shall be times where LGB folks shall undergo levels of 'straightwashing' in post-production, or if they cannot be straightened, shall be rendered sexless. So there shall be situations where my 'Melissa/Laura' examples shall be watered down into being 'just good friends'. Who never seem to date any guys. And live together. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not accept that it is okay to have LGTBQ+ heavily disproportionately represented as villains, tortured souls, victims and terrible cliches. While I agreed that there is nothing wrong with some characters being portrayed as such, it's excessive misuse is concerning and exhausting to watch. The same goes with recent and event current implying LGTBQ+ behaviour or relationships rather than showing it because producers believe showing LGBTQ+ relationships unpalatable or worry about how it would affect its market (for example in more conservative audiences). While some may read too deeply into this and see such cases where they do not exist, they DO however exist and this is not a praiseworthy thing. While no one should be compelled to make art they do not want to, it is not unreasonable to point out that people are underrepresented or their visibility supressed and to ask for more inclusivity. I do not support shaming studios for not being more inclusive or for hiring straight actors to play gay roles (it is acting after all), I do support those vocally asking for more inclusivity (both in roles and opportunities for creators/artists from marginalised groups) and I see nothing wrong pointing out the caricaturisation of groups. Yes, it is hard sometimes to get things right and I admire those who take on difficult themes in art despite the possibility of criticism. Nobody said that any kind of cultural commentary is easy. ShabiDOO 21:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It depends on the characterizations. Is his sexuality the reason he's evil (Buffalo Bill, Silence of the Lambs)? Is the unwarranted persecution of his homosexuality the reason for his villainous behavior (Magneto, XMen series)? Or is being gay treated as just another adjective, e.g., "has black hair" (Other Scott, Scott Pilgrim vs World)? Corn (argue) 22:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Machina had an interesting and valid point for once...let's take advantage of that. Marginalised people are not fairly portrayed sometimes (this is indisputable), regardless of the motives for doing so and it would simply be nice if there was a little more balance in how marginalised groups are portrayed, that there is more diversity for underrepresented groups (despite the attempts it is still baby steps) and that taboos are broken down more (including in the LGTBQ+ word which has actually focussed far too much on gay characters and not enough on the others). That would simply be nice. Wouldn't that be nice? ShabiDOO 22:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
In fairness, society has accepted Lesbians faster than Gays. In Buffy, Xander and Willow were both hinted to be homosexual, but it was Willow that got outed. Though how it never came up that she could've been Bisexual, eh, chalking that up to Bi-erasure. Bi men and women are also different. Go ahead, show me a male Bi major character in a major TV series. Corn (argue) 00:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I dispute the 'lesbians accepted faster' theory.
The above complaint of the 'male fetishisation of lesbians' I mentioned above *is* based in some fact. Just check out your local 'adult entertainment' video service for proof of that. I vaguely remember reading some old 'lad mag' article right on the final gasp of the 20th where a guy was trying to 'convince' a lesbian to become straight (even then it seemed weird/wrong). Plus, the fact Willow/Tara were both young and attractive clearly helped too, for obvious reasons. In this case, I argue that no, lesbians weren't *accepted* faster, but male fetishisation of lesbians sugared the pill, allowing it to overcome the bump of homophobia easier. Not like this is the first time this wheeze has worked; some of the flak regarding the 'Kirk/Uhura kiss' back in the day was averted on the grounds enough racist white men found Nichols hot.
As for 'show me a major male Bi character'... Jack Harkness, Dr Who/Torchwood. (Though as he's also seen hitting at least once on an obvious alien, he might class as pansexual). KarmaPolice (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
When it comes to "convincing" Lesbians to become straight, I definitely added some... confusion... to the identity of an alleged "Lesbian" on more than one occasion. It's been my experience that many alleged Lesbians are not inherently homosexual, but rather, turned off by men. Sexual abuse, trauma, constant harassment, that sort of stuff will mess with a person's mind in horrid ways, and many women have sex with other women because they don't feel safe around men. But if there happens to be a relatively good-looking guy who is simply talking with them without ever making any moves, feelings can develop that would've otherwise been overwhelmed by fear. Corn (argue) 04:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Human sexuality is very complicated and the difference between "friends" and "sex object" is very thin. So I am not sure how to answer some questions. Could (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
'It's been my experience that many alleged Lesbians are not inherently homosexual' - i recommend not suggesting this to any lesbian acquaintances AMassiveGay (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Eh, most already know this to some degree. It's been pretty much well known in the scientific community for a while now. As for any hostilities, yup, for multiple reasons. Not the least of those reasons being the fear that if one person is "cured", every guy on the planet is going to harass them trying to "cure" more. There's also the issue of Lesbians not wanting to deal with the "tourists", the Straight-ish women who just want to use them for a bit of fun and break their hearts down the road, and there's also a lot of hatred directed towards Bisexual women.
I get the sense there's a similar phenomenon among the Trans community with the Detransitioners, but I don't know any De-trans personally, as they are pretty rare.
Thinking further, I'm wondering if there's any overlap with just the general "this person who left our group is more evil than the outgroup" phenomena that is with every group. E.g., any Mormon/Muslim/Scientologist who leaves the faith is the most evil person on the planet, whereas other non-Mormons/Muslims/Scientologists are just random people. Corn (argue) 13:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I question a lot of that. Partly due to the simple reason I've known several women seriously burned by shitty males, and none of them turned to the affections of other ladies due to it. In fact, the most common response is a aggressively-defended sexless singlehood. I'm not saying it's impossible, just not common.
In fact, I suspect the real reason is a more subtle one; there's a lot more bi/pansexual folks out there than currently believed. Bisexuality, as any bi person shall tell you (unless they tell you to shove it) isn't a 50/50 split or anything. It's much more fluid/nuanced than that. Some speak of being attracted to 'attributes' which can be found on both sides of the fence / all areas of the garden. Others describe it as being 'different' attractions. Then there's the ones to say they're attracted to 'the whole person' and it's a different one each time.
Your 'alleged Lesbian' may simply be one who 'inexplicably' (for her) has fallen for *one* guy. Or found a rare male specimen of a collection of attributes which really floats their boat ('not being a jerkwad' being a decent start). In these cases, it's less 'alleged', more a single person being granted a special exemption. Or a bi girl who skews heavily (but not completely) towards other ladies.
Anyway, the 'bi distrust' is a relatively simple one. They do not fit the sexual binary which *both* sides of the playground insist on. It's easier to claim they're a defective peg than admit the hole was wrong all along. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

How does one handle healthcare workers who endorse or provide apologia for alt med?[edit]

A few moments in my life I have spoke to nurses who have defended the use of integrative medicine, and try to explain to me how both "Western" medicine and alternative medicine have their place in a medical setting -- and that it's essential for cultural inclusivity. I have always been inclined to reject this argument, which has given me a variety of responses from "medical drugs are more often than not just herbs, so why would it be anymore problematic to experiment with herbs under a medical setting?", to allegations that disallowing the use of alt med would be an act of colonial violence. I personally felt this arguments not particularly compelling since most alternative medicine systems are actually cultural inventions of the "west" at worst (i.e. homeopathy), or at best cultural appropriations of other non-western cultures for the purposes of profit under fraud (i.e. new age "energy healing" appealing to the concept of chakras).

I have had nurse friend dismiss me as "not able to get it" and insist upon her authority as nurse to state I had no idea what I was talking about when I insisted upon the non-efficacy and potential harm of homeopathy. I don't intend to make any generalizations about healthcare workers or nurses as a whole, as these are just a series of anecdotes -- but it's not unheard of for some healthcare professionals to utilize their authority in defense of alternative medicine.

My question for my fellow ratiwki comrades is how would you handle such situations in a productive way? I think as skeptics many of us recognize the potential for exploitation and harm with tolerating alternative medicine, but I also don't think we should be dismissive about concerns of colonialism. I don't think these concerns are irreconcilable -- but its not immediately obvious to me how to make that case. I'd be curious to know people's opinions here - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC).

That would be difficult as medical professionals who endorse alt-med will use their credentials as a means of convincing patients to use it. I am not sure what advice I could give. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the significance of colonialism here. Healthcare professionals categorically should not be advising patients to pursue treatments that are not efficacious when efficacious treatments are available. If efficacious treatments are not available, this should be communicated, and if alternative medicine is introduced, it must not be alt-med that has been proven non-efficacious (as opposed to not proven efficacious), and it must be indicated that it has not been shown to be effective. At that point, the goal is just to make the patient as comfortable as possible, and for some people, such alternative therapies may help with this (i.e. through some kind of placebo effect), and as long as the patient is properly informed, they are free to spend their own money. If avoiding colonialism amounts to something like racially or ethnically profiling patients in giving medical advice (e.g. recommending traditional Chinese medicine to Chinese patients specifically), then it is blatantly unethical. Otherwise, I'm not sure what is meant by the term 'colonialism' in this context. I would not want my healthcare professionals to recommend treatments of dubious efficacy just to include traditional treatments from other cultures; I would consider that straightforwardly unethical. If a healthcare professional endorsed a treatment I knew or believed to be of dubious efficacy, I would say, "I thought that had been disproven." What I would do thereafter would depend in part on their response. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb I'd say that they're misguided when they try to resort to this stuff. In some cases desperate, but I'm fairly sure that a lot of them are just misguided. It's tempted to accept a cultural practice in the name of inclusivity, but it's a lot harder to sit down (alone and with others, including marginalized communities) and hash out whether this is something worth keeping. In the case of homeopathy specifically, it isn't even a cultural practice if I remember correctly, but something some guy came up with on his own and then marketed under the watered down eastern cultural aesthetic that permeates New Age circles. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
That's another issue, specifically with Alt-Med and New Age circles. There's a lot of shallow, commodified, watered down understanding of other cultures, most of which are reduced to marketing slogans, aesthetics, and what I'll politely call "lifestyleism". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah in those cases I think it's clearly just appropriation in addition to just downright fraud to which cultural sensitivity isn't really applicable nor is anti-colonialism particular relevant to it's acceptance. If anything tolerating such appropriative new age lifestyles probably does more to perpetuate racism then to prevent it. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC).

@Serene I think in this case what they mean is the tendency to dominate or erase the cultural practices and beliefs of indigenous people by individuals who are otherwise settlers to the land. It is an issue that sometimes indigenous people will avoid receiving healthcare from medical professionals due to cultural insensitivity or outright dismissal of indigenous cultural practice and beliefs. So in order not to lose patients and ensure that indigenous populations receive adequate healthcare special training is often required to ensure cultural sensitivity and inclusivity in the healthcare environment. Indigenous people often have a reason to distrust medical professionals; especially where I am from where involuntary sterilization of indigenous women has happened as recently as 2015. The problem I take with this argument is this assumption that Indigenous people would never prefer science based care, or that all indigenous medicinal practices are all de facto alt med when some of the practices have been shown to be effective under clinal scrutiny. All of this also does not really apply to stuff like homeopathy and the like given such alt med practices are actually the result of magical beliefs-systems developed in Europe. There are some genuine ethical dilemmas when "hearing voices" has different cultural meanings in different cultural contexts. When some may see it as a uniquely spiritual experience, and others direct symptoms of psychosis. Immediately dismissing the spiritual interpretation may be epistemically justifiable (I definitely wouldn't seriously consider it as a genuine possibility) but do so openly to someone who comes from a different cultural background than me runs the risk of alienating them, and arguably pushing them away from seeking evidence based care. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC).

EC @OnlySortaDumb Doesn’t this question, and your attendant comments, presuppose that alt-med is unique to certain cultures (i.e., something that should be tolerated, as we tolerate other differences in any modern multicultural-society)? And therefore (if this supposition is true), and if my understanding of your comments is correct, that it follows that debunking it, or debarring it from medicine, is (at the very least) exclusionary? [All of my previous points are poor and ill-conceived, but I’ll leave them here to show my initial train of thought …. and perhaps because I can’t fathom—out of the thoughts running through my head anything better right now—more satisfactory, more rigorous]. LeucippusSalva veritate 02:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to present a charitable interpretation of where the nurses I spoke to are coming from, but I personally do not think we should endorse or tolerate the use of alt med in medical settings. I think the assumption you identify is one that they have; which I have always been personally a bit skeptical of. At least I always got the impression of this assumption but I always suspected there is something a little paternalistic and culturally condescending about it. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I would urge a word of warning though: the term ‘colonialism’ is often used in postmodernism and social constructivism to embolden arguments that are anti-science; in other words they are appropriating a word, which has deep emotional overtones, for their own ends.

[as an emendation to the previous sentence: I don’t seek to dismiss – postmodernism or social constructivism or French structuralism, by appealing to some demarcation-criterion betwixt science and pseudoscience, nor do I appeal to an analytic/synthetic distinction—supposedly used to separate the meaningful from the meaningless—both of these philosophical tools over-simpliy in their efforts to attain Gleischaltung: Russell’s views, though admirable, illustrate the classical mindset when he appeals to the following a priori standard of “clear thinking”:

Ever since puberty I have believed in the value of two things: kindness and clear thinking. At first the two remained more or less distinct … Gradually the two have come more and more together in my feelings. I find that much unclear thought exists as an excuse for cruelty …
—Bertrand Russell, Autobiography

. In like manner, Norman Levitt and Paul. R., Gross both—(mislead, away from their scientific sense by Russell’s classical convictions) expound a similar a priori standard of clarity:

Muddleheadedness has always been the sovereign force in human affairs … It lubricates our hurtful impulses and ties our best intentions in knots. It blunts our wisdom … , clouds whatever insight into the human edition we acquire …. We hope to be as clear in our thinking as Bertrand Russell would have wished.
—N. Levitt and P. R. Gross. Higher Superstition. p. 1.

But we should protest against these circumscriptions, of what is to be constituted as intelligible, which in their identification of clarity (and rigour) solely with logical inference, determinism, and mechanical syntax, echo both Descartes’ own mechanical prescriptions for intelligibility and also the railing of mathematicians (at one point in time) against the free association/experimentation of Heaviside (see his Algebraic treatment of the calculus) and also the development of complex numbers—even though both of these latter developments—the former didn’t conform to existing ersatz standards of “rigour” and the latter challenged existing “intuitions” about the number line and space—, were more fruitful and arrived at more true results than their predecessors. It is in this vein that J.L. Austin wrote:

Above all what we have to do is, negatively, rid ourselves of such illusions as the ‘argument from illusion’—an ‘argument’ which many have felt to be spurious. [But there is, however, Austin reflects,] no simple way of doing this—partly because, as we shall see, there is no simple ‘argument’. It is a matter of unpicking, one by one, a mass of seductive […] fallacies, of exposing wide variety of concealed motives—an operation which leaves us, in a sense, just where we began.
—J.L. Austin, Sense and Sensibilia

. Moreover, to bring it back to the normative question that concerns this thread, I share Mark Wilson’s views when he comments in this 3-16 am interview (r.e. ethical questions), the following vide infra.,

… we first need to appreciate the positive utilities offered within the complicated checks-and-balances architectures of science, before we turn to broader stretches of evaluative application (which frequently conceal obnoxious social codes as well). I’ve never studied any of the writings of the French structuralists in any detail but believe that they frequently descended into implausible exaggeration through an eagerness to reach important social considerations prematurely. It’s better to first appreciate the merits of the benign forms of architectural complexity before we worry about the abuses.
—Mark Wilson, Wise Pencils and Wandering Significance

W.V. Quine—a kindred spirit of Austin, and Wilson—offered the following remarks about the notion of implication—a notion, which like other supposedly a priori notions, is often interpreted in an implausibly neat manner (again for the sake of satisfying the habit of Gleischaltung); Quine argues against this in the succeeding segment:

I must not myself now lean on a notion of implication, for I am challenging that notion (or the associated notion of [logical] equivalence which is simply mutual implication). But we do have to recognise that sentences are interconnected by means of associations entrenched in behaviour. There are the complex interrelations lately remarked upon: connections of varying strengths that incline us to affirm or deny some sentences when affirming or denying others. Whoever rejects one hypothesis will be led by these habit patterns to reject other sentences with it.
—W.v. Quine, Philosophy of Logic. p. 7.
We should not conflate the debunking and exclusion of pseudoscience—which is by-and-large, granting the occasional singularity, worse than just unfalsifiable: it’s medically useless—, with Colonialism. LeucippusSalva veritate 03:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
One thing to consider is that the medical profession treating indigenous people badly might cause them to prefer alt-med. Vomitorium (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb Ah, I see! I'm inclined to agree with Leucippus that colonialism is not the optimal word to describe the core issues here. Now, I would describe the purpose of healthcare as the provision of effective treatment to patients. The issues you raise certainly do present a difficult issue; certainly, some training for healthcare workers seems to be justified. However, I don't think it serves the credibility of the healthcare professionals to misrepresent the state of evidence. In cases where the traditional remedies have demonstrated effectiveness (at the level to which treatments are standardly held), it's not clear that there is a conflict, so I neglect this case. Thereafter, the question is essentially whether it is acceptable for healthcare workers to promote ineffective treatments in order to attract people who would not otherwise seek evidence-based care.
Construed generally, I find the case poor. Even if there were no issue of cultural alienation, there would still be people who would be more attracted to a healthcare system promoting alternative medicine, for instance fans of homeopathy. I'm not convinced that the existence of such people constitutes a good reason for healthcare professionals to promote or recommend homeopathy to anybody. The case for it requires that (1) some of the people attracted by the alternative medicine will instead pursue evidence-based medicine as a result of exposure to healthcare professionals that they would not otherwise have had, (2) these people outnumber those who would otherwise have pursued evidence-based treatment, but will now instead pursue homeopathy. It also requires predicating acceptable medical practice on a utilitarian calculus, which is a bit dubious. At the end of the day, if medical professionals are performing forced sterilizations, building trust is going to be difficult, but I don't think it speaks to the trustworthiness of healthcare professionals to recommend treatments that they know, based on evidence, to be ineffective. Likewise, I don't think doctors should base advice on patient recruitment metrics.
That said, taking an overtly and crassly dismissive attitude toward indigenous beliefs may alienate people unnecessarily, and for a bad reason. There's nothing wrong with being sensitive, aware of indigenous beliefs, and capable of addressing the unique concerns that may accompany such beliefs. Obviously, if patients are unknowingly given treatment to which they would otherwise have religious objections, for instance, that's a problem; patients have the right to refuse treatment, and healthcare professionals have a duty to communicate to them anything that might be relevant to their decision. But there is a difference between accommodating patients' rights to make their own healthcare decisions and actively endorsing inefficacious practices. It is unethical to prioritize the positive accommodation of erroneous beliefs about what is effective over clinical evidence. If such is the practice with all patients, it disregards patients' health in general. If it is specific to members of the relevant cultural group, then it is profiling, and amounts to provision of inferior quality care to indigenous peoples on the basis of their culture. Either way, it is an unethical violation of the fundamental purpose of healthcare. I think the distinction between giving patients what they need to make informed decisions (accounting for, e.g., their religious beliefs) and actively promoting pseudomedicine gets at the issue you raise with regard to some indigenous people just wanting the evidence-based care. Expanding the context raises further issues. I don't think it's ethical to spend public funds (for instance, from a single-payer healthcare system) on treatments known to be ineffective, which has implications for the provision of alt-med care. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 04:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and I think you make an interesting point to how such beliefs can actually be misguided to creating more racial injustices then less. That is assuming If I understand you correctly. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Interesting sub-point; '...I have spoke to nurses who have defended...'. This reminds of stats which showed the 'vaccine refuseniks' within the NHS (when 'no jab no job' policies were mooted) that showed a very strong correlation between 'educational/training level' and the refusal rate; highest refuseniks amongst nursing assistants/orderlies, lowest amongst the specialists.
There's also an answer for this; traditionally at least, nursing was a pretty working-class job in it's *role*; a) the provision of service using guidelines drilled into the worker by mainly rote learning b) has little 'agency'/'independence' and c) can be hired/fired/redeployed with relative ease. It takes a genius to design a nuclear power station; doesn't take one to operate one - simply someone who knows how to follow the manual and run and get someone smarter when it goes wrong (trad nursing in a nutshell). Even the British vague fetishisation of the 'ward sister/matron' harks back to this; that our working class nurses *need* micromanagement 'cos they're too thick/lazy otherwise (well, if the were smart they'd be a doctor, right?)
I'll argue this has allowed 'bad views/ideas' to become embedded within nursing schools. Even now, much of nursing is either a) technical or b) soft skill in nature (not saying it's *easy*, mind. 'Caring' can and is emotionally exhausting). The fact you believe in astrology, homeopathy, faith healing or even flat earth doesn't matter a jot regarding their professional skill as a nurse, and thus there's no point in it being challenged in training. (One of the very few articles I found on this: http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1085-problems-with-nursing.html )
It's something to remember. The basic nurse does not have 'independent prescriber' status. They cannot formally diagnose conditions, or authorise any form of treatment. Most senior nurses only get this within a *very* limited remit. From what I know, the only 'nurses' who have what can be called general agency/independence are the relatively few (and well-trained/educated) 'advanced nurse practictioners'.
In this case, some of these things are a 'nurse, not past the bedpan' territory and at times, need to be politely, gently reminded of this. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I have heard some off hand comments about problems with nursing in skeptical circles but wasn't sure what the basis was or what they were specifically speaking about. Thank you for providing this source. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
And offhand it shall remain, for I've not been able to find *any* 'proper' studies (or even articles) regarding this issue. Most of my previous was a theory built from a few strands of anecdote and personal experience, with a bit of 'work sociology' thrown in. Though I think it's subtly referenced when those within the field talk of the 'professionalism of nursing'. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The word Western Medicine is a misnomer because that would include Homeopathy(Made by a German). Unfortunately, my country has fallen for the lie of Eastern-Western dichotomy. Instead of trying to make reforms to the conventional medical tourism industry, our government is trying to scam foreigners.

Highboi (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

nurses defending alt medicines is not really is not really big deal - as long as it not as part of their professional capacity, and they are not telling patients garlic capsules will cure their cancer and presenting it as expert medical opinion. think of a nurse suggesting they haved a cousin who swears blind raiku helps with their back pain to a patient grumbling about their back pain while they get their bloods done. patient has probably tried most legitimate therapies, or waiting to start physio. its like a recommendation from a hair dresser. its not medical opinion and wont be mistaken for it. its just bedside manner.

nurse practioners who can prescribe treatment shouldnt be prescribing anything they are not allowed to prescribe and the placebo pain effect works especially well for pain relief, i understand. i mean, you can get acupuncture on the nhs, probably for this very reason. only for headaches and chronic pain mind, ie not for curing cancers or lowering blood pressure. and its not generally nurses prescribing it. people like to have options and to feel like they doing something, when the only real medically sound advice is a choice between morphine and suck it up. at most they will tell you to discuss it with your gp as is proper. they wont prescribe it ever they just give you a referral if they cant do any better and you are adamant.

nurses tweeting vaccines are poison and they'd know because they work for the nhs, is actively promoting snake oil and dangerous bullshit is a different kettle of fish that has seen such people struck off for using their professional status to give a veneer of credibility to their nonsense.

a nurse shutting down debate citing their nursiness is just a bad faith argument. telling them to do one is the correct response in that case. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

First off, proofread please, I'm having a hard time reading this. Secondly, I believe that any medical professional defending or promoting alt-medicine is not the same as "your hairdresser giving you medical advice" since being a medical professional means you are seen to inherently have more authority on the subject. Giving advice like that is seen as a tacit approval of a treatment and can lead patients down a bad road.Ryan1257 (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Tao Te Ching / Daodejing article[edit]

There is a replacement for the present Tao Te Ching page posted in Drafts now. This text may be approached in a number of different ways; I think it is most justified to consider it a political document whose more lyrical passages often have sinister undertones. What do you think? Maelen (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this subject should be approached with care, given we're talking about a work that's over a thousand years old, from another culture, and the result of an almost completely different set of norms than modern day America and Europe, or even modern China for that matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I took a couple courses on ancient China and ancient Chinese philosophy, and I never found it as difficult as people said. I definitely preferred reading Zhuangzi (who was certainly not a Daoist, despite attempts to shoehorn him into being one), but it's not all that hard; people confuse ambiguity with difficulty. The most interesting part is that it may have originally been written with the first and second parts reversed, which people have called a possible "Dedaojing". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Private Prisons Solution[edit]

So... it occurs to me that the federal government has the authority to set a minimum wage. This includes prisons. So... I see a solution that would deter mass incarceration and prison work release; apply minimum wage to prison labor.

This doesn't mean the prisoner gets to keep all the money, the state can still garnish most of the wages as they always have. However, the companies still have to PAY those wages. You might say "well, so what, the state will just use slave labor and pay itself". Except, the TAXES on those wages still need to be paid. That means Social Security gets its 6% AND 6% employer matching, Medicare taxes still get taken out, etc. So every hour of slave labor worked means however many dollars leaving the state for the federal government. And that INCLUDES the prisoners working inside the kitchens, laundry, etc. Basically, tax prisons until the states rethink lengthy sentencing. Thoughts?CorSock (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

How often is the desire for cheap labour the cause for excessive incarceration?
Plus, it could be argued that allowing inmates to earn more cash shall allow the state to claw more cash back to defray their 'residency costs', thus making it cheaper to bang up people and thus, more likely to do so. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The state already sells the labor. Raising bbn prices wont net more profit for the state because the state was already trying to get as much as it could, instead the companies will hire non prisoners instead. But most prison labor is internal to the state, eg, Hillary talked about how she used slave labor to clean her home while Bill was governor. Forcing the state to pay more to itself sounds like nothing until you realize the state would be forced to allocate more money to Medicare funding and give up huge chunks to Social Security. Basically it's a federal tax on prisons. CorSock (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
If the state had the will to do this, it would probably have the will to take more direct actions to limit mass incarceration. Vomitorium (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The Fed would do this. The states won't give up free labor without a fight, but federal minimum wage is something the states cant dispute.CorSock (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Responding to KarmaPolice's question: more often than not. (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does anyone else see that prisons would respond to this immediately by releasing the lease productive prisoners, likely the most deranged and dangerous ones, and keeping the low-level offenders in there because they would be more productive. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that's what they already do. The entire point is to levy a federal tax(es) on slave labor that the state doesnt get to touch. Whether a prisoner working inside the prison is "earning" $5 or $500 is irrelevant if the state takes it all anyway, but they cant garnish social security withholdings. Private companies use prison labor bc its cheap, make it minimum wage and they'll hire teenagers instead. CorSock (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Cory is assuming a rational state. This is spurious. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
when you say "state", do you mean a US state or the Federal government? CorSock (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I think they mean “state” in the broad sense of a centralized institution that holds a monopoly on legitimate violence, which in many contexts would mean the federal government unless a lower level government exists with more concentrated power than that on the federal level -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC).

how is this a solution to mass incarceration? surely the solution is to not lock up so many people AMassiveGay (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

because it changes the financial calls of prisoners from "slave labor" to "more expensive slave labor" through the tools the federal government already has, and in a manner that makes sure the slavers feel it the most. The fed cant alter prison lengths, it's the states right to say stealing a car is 10 yrs, but the fed does have the ability to set the minimum price of labor... CorSock (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
its a poor state of affairs when you have trick folk into locking up less people ratherr thsan just locking up less peopleAMassiveGay (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
First time in America? CorSock (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
just weary at americaAMassiveGay (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
"Just privatize this broken system, when has that ever gone wrong..." Oh wait, American everything. Damn, destroyed in two sentences. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

How the discovery of the age of the earth revealed that lead killed most of people in history?[edit]


A new video from Veritasium that shows how the earth was estimated to be about 4 billion years old and how that discovery saves millions of lives per year and 2.45 billion dollars.

Highboi (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Or not. Bongolian (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Not having half an hour to watch this - can someone with more patience than me summarize the argument?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I only skimmed a small bit of the subtitles, but it looked like the video had something to do with the well known environmental disaster of Thomas Midgley Jr.Wikipedia's contributions to some notorious inventions (leaded fuel and CFCsWikipedia), as well as Clair Cameron PattersonWikipedia who both developed lead isotope dating and campaigned against lead poisoning (especially lead additives in gasoline).
So, my guess is the video is fine, but the OP didn't communicate it well or confused some stuff (not going to watch the video to find out though, I'll leave that to someone else :p). Patterson indeed calculated the age of the earth as 4.55 billion years using lead-lead dating. And, Googling that 2.45 billion number, a press release headline on the UN's environmental program website, concerning the end of the leaded fuel era (globally, in 2021) is: "Official end of use of leaded petrol will prevent more than 1.2 million premature deaths and save USD 2.45 trillion a year". Not sure how the UN got these numbers, but leaded fuel has been enough of a disaster that these numbers might be plausible. (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
'New video proves' is hyperbole. Bongolian (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have phrased it more coherently.Highboi (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Unconnected but same video creator[edit]

Of interest to Conservapedia watchers: Interview with Richard Lenski. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4sLAQvEH-M Scream!! (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of RationalWiki. (Been a lurker for a while)[edit]

LaPen victory terrifying[edit]

I really feel like this lady is going to win by less than one point tomorrow. It's giving me anxiety. Frexit is fucking terrifying. (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to know what's more terrifying? The lexical abomination of words like Brexit, Texit, and Frexit. Also yes, the fascist lady winning is a pretty fucked up thought. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Texit? Texas in the US leaving the union I guess? And yeah they are ugly words duh. The one thing english does well is express hate. (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
France has not passed a turning point yet. But in 2027 or 2032, a right of center candidate could win. Much of the fuel that fuels the right is anti-Islam/immigrant sentiment. If there is a medium amount of immigration, the Muslim population could grow substantially in France. Harbridge (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
2027/2032? Are you kidding me? They might have a billion Hindu climate immigrants at their doorstep in 2025! Get real. (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@Harbridge Hello very obvious sock of a banned user who shall remain nameless. Have you considered getting a life? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Yall have a sockpuppet problem. (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
That isn't totally false. It's because we lack checkuser here, so as such we have to make assumptions.Andrew5 (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow Macron by like seventeen points. Ok well, that's much better than I was worried about. (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The real big story out of the first round (contrary to our troll's always strange viewpoint) was the strong third place finish of Jean-Luc MélenchonWikipedia, who almost captured as many voters as Le Pen did. Mélenchon's democratic socialism is not terribly compatible at all with Macron's liberal politics (liberal in a French sense, not a Rush Limbaugh snarl word sense), let alone the anti-immigrant nationalism of Le Pen, so a big theme of the second round was how many Mélenchon voters Macron or Le Pen could convince to hold their nose and vote. I'm guessing Macron peeled off more Mélenchon voters then Le Pen did, but while Macron appears to be outperforming the polls by a decent margin, it seems like a near record number of people, from a French election perspective (28% according to a source), are staying home. So... (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Race called for Emmanuel Macron. Andrew5 (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm really glad that Macron won. While I think most people here are cheering only because he's not Le Pen or Zemmour (we need an article on this guy) I actually think he was overall a decent president. Also MSM and Wikipedia seem to think Jean-Luc Mélenchon is a far-left politician. I've seen on BBC and DW too, so it's not an American thing, but I don't think this is accurate. Thoughts? GeeJayK (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not IMHO, especially from the French perspective I imagine, where democratic socialism has a long history (and Mélenchon splintered from). I don't see any hits for "far left" (extrême gauche) in French sources in a quick Google of Mélenchon. French Wikipedia calls the LFI "left populism", "eco-socialism", "democratic socialism", and "anti-liberalism", with no mention of "extreme". The French Wiki reserves the "extrême" term more for organizations like Union Communiste Libertaire (apparently an anarcho-communist / anarcha-feminist party according to English Wikipedia, though I'll defer any categorization to actual French who may be more familiar). This is the danger of any "far-left/right" categorization, it's very subjective. (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Le Pen did quite well in swivelling the economic horseshoe to appeal to elements of the socialist electoral bloc (In 2017 both Le Pen and Melenchon polled well in 'Rustbelty' parts/demographics). This wasn't hard, for Macron is a somewhat 'technocratic' figure who is perhaps one of the last neoliberal 'true believers' left. With the implosion of both mainline Left/Right in France for Presidental elections (due to scandals), he was basically the 'Centre' candidate. So '22 was yet another election like '02, where the socialist's plank was basically 'Vote for the Crook (Chirac), not the Fascist (Le Pen Sr).'
The interesting thing is how *close* a Melenchon-Macron runoff was. He was only 1.2% off beating Le Pen, and the four other left-wing candidates got 5.6% between them and another 4.6% for the Greens, so a more 'joint ticket' might have got him over the line. However, it's strongly likely there would have been a 'Vote for the Technocrat, not the Commie' push on the right to get Macron over the line. The biggest risk was not that the left/green vote switched strongly for Le Pen, but they more simply stayed home. In this case I'll argue that Macron's general lack of margin over Le Pen helped to get those waverers off their arses to vote in the second round (if he'd been leading hard, the complacancy might have got him).
Anyway, I've looked at Melenchon's political stance and I'd place him solidly centre of the 'European Democratic Socialist' tradition (with eco-socialist tendencies); lots of similarities policy-wise between him and former UK Labour leader Corbyn (for good and ill...). I've generally heard him described as 'left-wing' - normally I think folks would have simply called him 'socialist' but couldn't in this case as there is an actual party called 'the Socialists' which these days aren't really socialist at all. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Some of Melenchon’s policies place him clearly on the radical/left side of European democratic socialism and thus pretty far left even in his context. His economic policies are pretty leftist, though not extreme when compared to outright communism. Where he is more clearly on the very left wing part of the political spectrum is probably his foreign policy where he wants France out of NATO and his demands for EU reforms that mainly seem to be a way to avoid campaigning directly for a “Frexit”. The reforms he wants are unlikely to be feasible and he has stated that if such reforms aren’t made, he wants a Frexit.
While I remain wary of the horseshoe comparisons between him and Le Pen, she has followed the same rhetorical strategy vis-á-vis Frexit, though the EU reforms she wants are obviously very different from Melenchon’s. What I’m getting at is that both are disguising their formerly straight up Frexit views, which are much less popular after Brexit, by emphasising highly implausible EU reforms with Frexit as the only alternative to getting what they want from the other EU countries and institutions. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
It will be interesting to see what happens at the French parliamentary elections in June. While turnout might greatly influence whether it can be seen as a reflection of the general mood in France, I wonder whether the “old” parties (Socialists and Gaullists/Republicans) will continue the meltdown from the presidential election or hold on like they did in 2017. It will also be important to see how well Macron’s party does as an indication of his popularity versus the general anti Le Pen bandwagoning in the second round of the presidential election. It will also be interesting to see how well or badly Melenchon’s party does in the parliament because he obviously benefited from “left bandwagoning” in the first round of the presidential election, but there is far less incentive to do that for the parliamentary election and it will be important how strong the various parties to the left of the Socialists become, not to speak of how this strength is distributed between them. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I only used the horseshoe in regards to the *economic* sphere; as one commentator put it a couple of weeks ago, Macron's base was those who were already doing rather well, while both Le Pen's and Melenchon's are those who are either not doing well or feel their 'well' is at risk. I also find it hard to call the SP 'socialist' when they appear to be similar to most other pale-pink 'Third Way' types.
I do wonder what effects - if any - the Ukranian War shall have on the political lineup. Ie; the far-right's long flirtations with Putin and the left's traditional 'pie in the sky' views ie defence/NATO and tankie tendencies. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I was not suggesting anyone else were horseshoeing (pun intended), merely that I was only narrowly comparing Melenchon’s and Le Pen’s “thinly disguised Frexit” approach in terms of tactics.
As for the influence of the Ukrainian war, from what I have seen, it has only meant Le Pen backpedaling a bit on her openly political (b)romance with Putin, while Melenchon seems to have been fairly constant in his call for a French NATO exit (unlike other left wingers in various European countries that have faltered in their NATO opposition, at least for the moment).
But you still see plenty of whataboutism on the left with various comparisons being made. The key difference, and a legacy of Cold War thinking, is that left wingers/tankies tend to reflexively like Moscow, but not Putin, whereas right wingers, such as Le Pen, tend to reflexively like Putin, but not Moscow. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Aaaannnnddd the French Election was "rigged".[edit]

Here we go again. The far right in France is rioting in the streets over the election results. And of course, many of them are crying over how the election was "stolen" (that specifically is not in the article I sent, but I have already seen people on social media spouting this BS). I have even seen some trying to... try not to die laughing here folks, trying to use the riots as PROOF that the election was rigged (i.e, the people of France did not want him hence they are rioting). This is laughable; in today's political climate, there are pretty much going to be riots regardless of who wins any election anywhere. Rioting over an election result seems to be more of a social trend than anything else. Besides, how many people are rioting? Is it the whole country? Or is it a select few group of people narrowed in on focus in an Iphone video on Twitter? Stop crying about how your election was rigged and move on; France rejected far right politics, get over it. I don't like Macron btw, both candidates weren't good IMO. Aaronmichael5 15:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC).

Seems the "paranoid headbangers of the rightwing" aren't exclusive to America. Who'd have guessed? Just be glad for now Europe managed to dodge a bullet. Fuck knows what a EU parliament with Le Pen/Orban/Morawiecki would be like, but when you realise Orban has been doing, it's doubtful to be of any benefit https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/far-right-salvini-and-orban-agree-to-create-a-new-eu-centre-right/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Some of the protesters appear to be protesting more the poor choice of candidates ("ni Macron, ni Le Pen"), according to this article, which described various protests as "ultra-gauche" or "antifascistes". I don't think the protests sound too extensive in number (a few hundred here and there). I did see a Times of London article here that said that nearly a third of Le Pen voters thought the election was rigged before the election took place. (The article is paywalled so that's all I know...) (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Salvini isn't the only problem in Italy. This one that is currently polling very high and is part of the opposition is equally as bad. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Trump's ideology is like a freaking virus. Do right wing weirdos have a hive mind? They all act the same. They use terrorist tactics when they don't get their way and when a new code phrase is developed, all of them seem to learn it at once. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Biggest cancer faction in the EU, are the ECR (Right-Wing (nationalist-Conservative types mostly)) and ID (Far-Right). Some of them had these idea's before Trump became President. When Trump became President in 2016, I saw many right-wingers in the EU saying stuff like: "YEAH! We want someone like that aswell!" Hungary & Poland already have their own Trumps in charge. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Er, it's more the far left rioting in the street in France atm... Both extremes in France show a frank disdain for democracy. (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I am a much happier person since I came out of the closet[edit]

I know that I thought I was a trans woman but realized that I was a non-binary but I am proud to be trans. Piece of positivity. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Whatever works. Jeremy Bentham was basically right, if what you're doing works for you and doesn't actively harm anyone else just go with it; seems like it's working well enough for you, so keep on going. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there a link between con artists and successful entrepreneurs?[edit]

|was watching thisand wondered Are there certain personality traits that come with surviving and thriving in an commercial capitalistic society? I notice that con/scam artists, advertisers/marketers ,and successful business owners(or anyone looking to thrive in business for that matter) are essentially manipulators trying to influence people to transfer their possessions (i.e their cash) into theirs and aren't exactly trustworthy. It even goes a step further with business partnerships and networking that are essentially trying to use each other to an end and move in certain positions of power. I guess this can extend into politics as well with people like Mr.Cheetohead bullshitting and conning their way into political offices. I know that scamming vs advertising is about intent but the line seems so blurry when considering that I feel that many successful business owners would probably make good scam artists as well.SensaurC-137 (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No, but there is a link between being a con artist and calling oneself a successful entrepreneur. Bongolian (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Care to elaborate a little? I think that kind explains my point many advertisers and even business owners use deceptive tatics that exploit are own coginitive biases. The only real difference I see is one of intent but as I mentioned that line can be blurred.SensaurC-137 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
That principle can be applied to anthropogenic relations in general. If you want to have sex with someone, you have to convince your partner that you are a suitable mate. I think that the difference between con artists and entrepreneurs is that the con artist makes you think that you have to make a split second decision whereas business deals can sometimes take months to finalize.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 18:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I really hope you are not saying that you need to use deceptive tactics to get people to sleep with you. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC).
How else are you going to get them to sleep with you? Cellin (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Through honest communication, mutual attraction, and affirmative consent? I am not a rapist. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC).
I'd argue there's quite a bit of 'skills overlap' between the two groups. A way with people, for example. This is played with Terry Pratchett's character Moist von Lipwig; a conman who's merely been 'persuaded' to turn his 'curly corkscrew talents' into doing good. This leads to discussions about morality; such is it ethically wrong to manipulate and trick folks into doing good? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumbI'm referring to persuasion not manipulation.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 03:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

One has the blessing of the state, and one does not. That's it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
You might as well ask about the differences and similarities between criminal cartels and multinational companies. One lacks the blessing of the state, the other has that blessing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I would argue it has to do with product. An entrepreneur has a product which fulfills your needs or desires, a scam artist has no product or a fake/bad product they deceive you into thinking is a good product. A drug dealer, while not having the blessing of the state, is not a scam artist if they are legitimately selling heroin. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes it is a matter of perspective - consider attitudes towards tobacco companies.
And “What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?” Anna Livia (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Johnny Depp[edit]

Who do you think has an edge in this lawsuit?HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 04:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The lawyers. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The tabloids-Hastur! (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The tablowyers D: NastyNugget (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The Scum, Heard and her pack of clowns probably have the edge in the lawsuit itself. IIRC British defamation law is pretty pro-plaintiff, so Depp would've had to screw up big time, been saddled with a super-biased judge, or have had a shitload of evidence against him to lose, while American Bloody Ungrateful Colonial defamation law tends to be more pro-defendant (anyone with legal-fu willing to weigh in?). After some of the shit that's come out, though, here's hoping Depp wins. Idiocracy (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Can we have a show of hands from the people who seriously don't care?
I would like to begin: Hand.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I for one am completely captivated by this tabloid spectacle. There is nothing more important going on in the world, and it is completely groundbreaking in terms of social repercussions. In fact, I want to hear every tiny detail of this actor's life, and am emotionally invested in all of them. Some might say this sort of behavior is ghoulish and predatory, inculcated into our culture by our media so that we form unhealthy parasocial investments with people we've never met and likely will never meet, but I scoff at such notions. Truly, gluing my eyes to every tabloid article about this trial is the most productive use of my limited and finite existence. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I think this is more important than just "caring about actors for no reason". a win for Depp could help set up better reform and discussion for men abused by women.TheNFLGuy (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Nah. Just reading the Wiki summary, the whole bruhaha is supposed "defamation" that Heard committed against Depp. Depp has already lost one attempted defamation case in the UK (the Sun) because the UK court found probable enough cause that "wife beater" was considered a reasonable description of Depp. And apparently the defamation is over... this article? Okay. The case seems on the surface seriously weak to me given past legal judgements (let alone attaching any "men's rights" crap to it). It sure makes for a good show trial where various people vilify one person or another, I guess, but I don't give a fuck about that. Has Nancy Grace proclaimed who is guilty yet? (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Anthropogenic Climate change Denial[edit]

I just found the most laughable take on climate change. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bsnQYOwr4o) The most educational part of the video was the comment section. Check out the response from Iliya Ghotbi. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 08:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

for once, the comments section aren't terrible. in fact, the overwhelming majority of comments i read was criticizing/mocking his nonsense. this is one of the few times i read the comments section and didn't weep for humanity. G Man (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
That can be explained by a selection bias.
The video say science is falsifiable. I'm pretty sure that your average PragerU user wouldn't be interested in that.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 20:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
FYI the person who created this Youtube channel is Mark E. Mathis. Though a longtime low-importance oil shill, he has probably achieved more notoriety for being an associate producer of the notorious intelligent design film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Which means that this guy wouldn't be able to even accurately explain where the fossil fuels he shills for comes from... (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What fallacy is this (if any)?[edit]

Reading back through some old forum threads, I noticed one user posting something along the lines of "If swapping out [Group X] for [Group Y] makes you sound like a Nazi, perhaps it's time to rethink your posting habits?" Is this a fallacy or not? Idiocracy (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It might be better if you gave an actual example rather then an "X Y" one. As it is, it's kind of difficult to understand the question being asked.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Managed to find the thread after some digging. One poster commented that they saw nothing wrong with someone posting "The only thing wrong about shooting all members and voters of the Republican party is how many faces you'd have to shoot", upon which the other poster replied with "The only thing wrong about shooting all the niggers is how many niggers you'd have to shoot. What's wrong with that?" Hope that makes it a bit clearer. Idiocracy (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
False equivalency, both people are rageposting dipshits. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. Idiocracy (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Technically it's argumentum ad baculum and appeal to emotion I suppose, but logic and reason will never be found at that level of discourse. It's probably better described as "argumentum ab Internet fuckwad". (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
It's a form of reframing, I think. It's important for Law; civil liberties exist to protect people you don't like. Corn (argue) 17:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Only insofar as they aren't a threat to the social contract. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
It's an argument by analogy; it's only as good as the analogy. You could charitably (and slightly more abstractly) interpret it as, "View X is similar in relevant ways to heinous view Y. So X is heinous. But heinous views should not be tolerated. So X should not be tolerated." Possible replies would be "view Y isn't heinous" (presumed implausible), "heinous views should be tolerated" (presumed implausible) and "X isn't similar in relevant ways to Y" (more plausible, and the reply attacking the appropriateness of the analogy). On the right interpretation of "similar in relevant ways," the argument is valid (but not necessarily sound). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 19:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The problem is who gets to decide what view is heinous. If we can decide "God Hates Figs" is too heinous to be allowed, then the next guy can decide the pro-fig atheist group "Figs Hate God" is too heinous to be allowed. That's why the law sets the limit at calls to action even as the most reprehensible people are still allowed their first amendment rights. The anti-figgers can say vague things about Figs, but they can't say "chop down the fig trees". It's still a problem; it normalizes the idea that it's ok to hate figs, of course. Pro-tip; these people live on anger. The way to deal with the fig-haters is to laugh at them. Like, play clown music, point and laugh. Everyone wants to fight, nobody wants to be humiliated. Corn (argue) 19:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
(EC) I recognize this issue. For the argument to be rhetorically successful, it has to be presented to somebody who already agrees that view Y is heinous and that heinous views should not be tolerated. In a political/legal context, "heinous views should be tolerated" gains plausibility largely for the reasons you gesture at. But you'd be a bit silly to bring this argument forward if you expected the outcome to be a consensus that Y should be tolerated; it's supposed to be obvious and uncontroversial that that's not the case (within the relevant context, which I presume in this case is RationalWiki talk pages). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 19:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I honestly must be missing something here. Shooting large groups of people in the way that is suggested is simply wrong. It doesn't need an analogy about shooting some other group to make this clear. Or, as I said, I have seriously missed the point.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I think there is general agreement that shooting large groups of people is wrong, and that an argument by analogy isn't necessary to make that point. But somebody apparently did use that strategy (technically, not to argue against the pro-shooting stance, but against allowing that stance to be posted on the site), and at issue is whether they committed a fallacy in their argument. Personally, I would say no, not really, because on a charitable interpretation, the argument is valid. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 20:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I am with Serene. It isn't even necessarily a fallacy. Is it a false equivalency? It is simply not the best argument to make. A better one would be "shooting people because of their beliefs or identity is categorically wrong" or even "making jokes about killing people because of their beliefs or identity is not constructive". None-the-less, it doesn't hurt sometimes to replace x with y and see how absurd x is if it is replaced with y. It is bad taste (and counter productive to use the n-word though). For example when someone said to me "there are proportionally few gay NHL and NBA players out of the closet because there are proportionally fewer gay players who want to or are capable of playing in the top tier" to which I asked how that would seem if you replaced gay with any other marginalised group other than those with physical limitations and if it would be a reasonable argument? A better argument would have been that no marginalised group are less capable of achieving something and that if you suggest so you might want to revaluate your own biases. I am not sure what is more effective. ShabiDOO 20:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, I use that method when evaluating movies.
In Wedding Crashers, Isla Fisher ties up Vince Vaughn and forces a clearly unwilling Vaughn to have sex with her. This is portrayed as a wacky comedy because Vince is trying to sleep with lots of women and Isla is the most attractive redhead not named "Christina", and they end up as a couple anyway. If the genders were reversed, and an attractive man tied up our female protagonist and forced her to have sex with him, that'd be a horrible rape scene and would not be considered hilarious in the slightest. Therefore, that scene is awful. Corn (argue) 21:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
You will get absolutely zero argument from me that non-consensual sex presented in a comedic or victorious way or a desirable outcome is equally terrible no matter which kind of person coerces which kind of person. I honestly hope consent becomes a principal theme on the agenda of social justice this century. We have taken nothing but baby steps so far. ShabiDOO 23:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Not all steps are forward though. California codified into law that "stealthing", or removal of a condom during sex, is a form of rape. I believe it's a form of impaired consent, i.e., rape by deception, so... good. However, CA has done something which is anathema for me. It's now legal to lie about HIV status. That to me is just as bad if not worse than removing the condom, you are literally putting someone else's life in danger and if they are asking you know damned well they wouldn't have sex if the knew the truth, it's every bit as much a form of rape by deception and worse to lie about such things. The impetus for legalizing this form of rape is some BS about "well, they won't get tested if knowing status means they have to disclose", which is the biggest bullshit I've ever heard.
And then there is the current push for lying about Trans status to be protected to, which, ugh. I understand that "gay/trans panic" is terrible and all, and I am Ok with a society where if you didn't ask then Caveat Emptor, it wasn't important enough for you. But if someone does ask and the person lies, consent was not given. For most people, it still is a big deal and it should be expected that it's a big deal. Yes, I understand that leaving this as a form of rape is hard on Trans people, but if making things easier for people means decriminalizing rape, something has fucked up. Corn (argue) 00:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's absolutely a false equivalence, with varying degrees of falsity. "I think we should put all murderers into a single location where their freedom is restrained" is a nearly universally accepted premise, with a variety of sound moral justifications, and "I think we should put all Jewish people into a single location where their freedom is restrained" is pretty obviously not. Other groups you can pick besides murderers can approach genuine equivalence pretty quickly.

For example, if you apply that statement to illegal immigrants, you can see the reasoning the evil psychopaths apply, but fuck 'em, they're still engaged in the same core evil as the Nazis. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course it fails when X and Y aren't similar categories; the argument relies upon the assumption that the rules for one category should be the same for the other, and tests whether we are actually applying those rules equally. We've generally accepted as axioms that all combinations of race, gender and sexual orientation should be treated more or less equally. So if it's ok for a movie to depict a woman raping a man but not ok if it depicts a man raping a woman, we are violating the axiom that genders should be treated equally. The "murderers vs illegal immigrants" example requires that we already accept that the rules for murderers should be the same for immigrants, whereas most of us understand there's a massive difference between those two crimes. Corn (argue) 15:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)