RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive413

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 15 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>, <412>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>
, (new)(back)


Does anyone know how I change my username?[edit]

I want to distance myself from this username. is there a way to change it? I haven't found the option. Sievert 81 (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Here. Scream!! (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Public service announcement[edit]

As I've noted here, RationalWiki:Technical support#Email notifications etc., various services on RW have ceased working for a few days. The specific services that I've found to be inactive are email notifications, search updates, and category page updates. There may be others. The most significant of general interest is the email notifications. So for example, if one uses the ping template to contact someone, then the person will get a notification on the top menu bar, but no email. If one is trying to contact a specific person and they don't log in for a while, they won't know that they're being contacted. Bongolian (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think only Trent can fix these issues. I'll contact him. GeeJayK (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Putin is so fucking stupid.[edit]

news.yahoo.com/russia-general-announces-plan-invade-142124312.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Russia invading Moldova? That would be one of the worst possible ideas. Not only would they piss off Moldova, they would piss of Romania. Who else will they piss off? --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like an intimidation tactic. "Stop getting involved or we'll invade you too". Corvette (yak) 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
(EC)That might be overstating the case. Russia already controls the borderland between Ukraine and Moldova called Transnistria. If they took over all of southern Ukraine they would automatically link up to that region. In other words: no invasion necessary, as they are already there. Assuming they stop there. Equally though - I doubt the Russian army will be up for any more military adventures for a while. But, yes. Putin is Stupid. And probably unwell.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I would not put it past Putin to do something that braindead. He is already waging a war that he could not afford and intends on annexing the Donbass region which would cost a lot more money. Either he will continue until all his troops are dead or when the people of Russia had enough and oust him. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Russia is also likely to invade Finland. Andrew5 (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Russia does not have any known plans to do so. Russia is, however, known to issue threats and make threatening military maneuvers towards Finland and also Sweden, both recently and also around a decade ago. For around a decade, there's been pro-NATO voices in both Finland and Sweden essentially saying: "The Russians are coming. We need NATO for protection." But many, myself (in Sweden) included, felt it was an exaggeration. But now it suddenly seems much more sensible, and the majority feels that way too. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Which is actually bad. I'm a weird form of American Nationalist; I believe what best for 'Murrica is to be a part of a strong alliance and to make as many friends as possible while avoiding creating any enemies whether or not they could be crushed, to be the shining beacon of liberty and FREEDOM!!! we claim to be, etc etc. That does include getting as many countries into NATO as possible, maybe even expanding to Central American countries if they want to join. But joining NATO is a big decision that should never be made lightly. I want Sweden to join, but not just because of some recent event, I'd prefer it be a measured decision that the country has given careful consideration. Corvette (yak) 21:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Putin wouldn't lose 500 bucks on the streets. I just did. I am fucking stupid. GeeJayK (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Story? Corvette (yak) 21:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I bought 3000 bucks for a trip and guess what, I lost my wallet with 500 bucks. No idea where, I've been searching for it for two days and I still can't find it. Fuck, I need a beer. GeeJayK (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
But Putin has lost between 10,000 and 20,000 troops and hundreds of tanks. So you are still ahead of him.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Relevance to the topic at hand?Andrew5 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @CorruptUser, I put it in a very simple way, but whether or not Sweden and Finland's change of path is measured seems a complicated question to me, because there's traditionally been two big camps (the Social Democrats against joining NATO until recently, the centre-right opposition being pro-NATO in the long term). The balance of ideas and motivations has tipped, in a rapid way which some criticize as being unmeasured. Though the question of joining NATO has already, in both Sweden and Finland, been thoroughly investigated years ago by their governments, in a more general way. A main change is that the local tradition and ideal of neutrality, which was a main counterweight, has weakened, with the strong sense that the times have changed. Neutrality was good while it lasted and was viable, is the stance of those who've recently gone pro-NATO. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Transnistria's military is relatively laughable in capabilities vs Moldova currently. It appears to consist mainly of infantry (much of it militia-quality) and a smattering of mid-level Soviet gear. I remember this 'cos I thought 'why hasn't Transnistria joined in against Ukraine' at the start of the war and their patent military weakness is the answer.
Anyway, this is classic Putin. If someone calls bluff, raise stakes and stare out. It's not 'stupid' per se, more a fundimental misunderstanding on how the 'Western' mind works. I've been drawing analogies with other dictators in the past; what we see as patience, they see as stalling. What we like to think as tolerance, they read as gullability. And what we consider as reticence (in using force etc) they believe is cowardice. Even now, I suspect Putin is reading 'no direct NATO intervention' on Ukraine not as a Western desire to not escalate 'unnecessarily' but as proof that we are soft and rotten in spirit, unable to make the sacrifices needed to counter him.
Lastly, I am allowing anyone and everyone to disown all previous policies re military, foreign affairs etc. They were made in a different era; this is a new one and new policies need to be forged for it. I shall say it now; my 'line' between 2002 and 2019 about the UK giving up her nukes was *wrong*. Hell, I'm even thinking we should look again at a form of conscription and/or deepening reserves (though I'd started thinking of this during Covid). KarmaPolice (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
If Putin was on fire, I wouldn’t piss on him—I think we all share this sentiment. LeucippusSalva veritate 18:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Putin has done much to unite Europe - and has 'lost' because Russia did not immediately win the war.
The critical point will be the weekend of 8-9 May. Anna Livia (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
8-9 May isn't a weekend, the weekend is 7-8 May, because May 9 is a Monday. Andrew5 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Putin cares more about building a legacy than his image at this point, even in Russia.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Everyone is falling apart and you can't change that[edit]

They are pretending that there is some sense of stability, but they lie to themselves just as much as they do to everyone around them. There is a deep seeded mistrust that everyone is unable to admit to having. And in its place there are absurd "values" and beliefs that attempt to explain away the world's illness around them. You are no different from them, nor am I. Tell yourself the lie and make it easier. Revenant Raven (I'm the Bird Bitch) 08:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Speak for yourself.77.128.169.152 (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Because grand generalizations about people universally on the basis of nothing are always known to be epistemically reliable -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC).

Yes. These vague - though grandiose and unsupported - statements about "they", "themselves" and "everyone" are really convincing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh no, the doomsday is near. You have finally enlightened me, messiah. I'm sure the anarchist revolution will be here anytime soon. All jokes aside, this prophesy sounds similar to the screenplay of Mr. Robot. Fsociety.Highboi (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm doing just fine, thanks for asking. And the rabbits who dwell in the woodsy bit between our backyard and the marsh/lake think I'm a standup guy. Så där! Zontar (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Macron won[edit]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/indianexpress.com/article/world/france-election-winner-macron-le-pen-7885634/lite/

“Many in this country voted for me not because they support my ideas but to keep out those of the far-right. I want to thank them and know I owe them a debt in the years to come,” he said. Did the french implicitly say Fuck you to Macron?HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 07:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Macron's policies only really appealed to folks who were already fine. He survived mainly because enough of the left-wingers saw his technocratic neoliberalism the lesser evil than fascism. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Reminds me of the 2020 election (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OG_1A0-r6OY) HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 10:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Any extreme party winning anything in Western Europe is concerning and Le Pen winning could have had an influence on other European countries. In Western Europe there is no leader from an extreme party, though extreme parties are members of come coalitions which is concerning enough. Racism and reactionaryism is a problem in every single country. Progressive Scandinavia suffers from it just as much as Italy. The only difference is the policies that some governments have and efforts they make towards dealing with it and the level of resistance to them. This is by no means a forward trend and could easily change under the right circumstances. Only a century ago Poland was something of a place of relatively high tolerance compared with other Northern European jurisdictions. Look at it now. The only solution to all of this is simply to make me supreme dictator of everything for life and to make me immortal. I swear I would do everything right, avoid the inevitable temptation to take advantage of my power and become a terrible lazy horrible and ineffective leader. I would be the only exception the universe has ever seen. I would sort everything out somehow and still have time to play tennis while consuming champagne with strawberries and cream! ShabiDOO 13:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Elon Musk! Is that you?HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 13:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

In Other News[edit]

With the news cycle currently mostly focused on Ukraine I’ve been finding myself wondering about the rest of the world. I figured I’d just drop a line here in case anyone else is curious; BBC just put out this article summarizing some recent ongoings in Burma (kinda. Guess “recent” depends on where you left off with the news on the topic). Regarding Afghanistan, I find myself kind of unsure where to even begin; if anyone has anything of interest they’d like to share I’d love to hear it; last I was aware of the crack down on minorities and women was pretty strong, relationships with Pakistan were tenuous and poverty and hunger are ongoing. Probliknaut (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

there are ongoing conflicts in yemen and tigray, war crimes a plenty, and britain plans to offload any asylum seekers from these conflicts to rwanda. plus all the dozens of conflicts around the globe that have been grumbling on for years but we all kind of ignore even when we are not distracted by far less morally ambiguous crises. and probably interesting goings on in the politics of your own locale but limited interest beyond. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ah, there’s the dour news I crave. Thank you. Probliknaut (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Any Indian Engineers over here[edit]

?HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 14:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

By ethnicity or nationality? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Any one who has given the Jee Advanced exam. Actually, never mind that. Can anybody solve this question?

https://qphs.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-33fcfffae9540f56859d759fe6a5584f-lq HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 17:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

And this one https://qphs.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3f42a17f465133acff666d2b4d6a5f01 HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 17:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying you want help with homework? Because these seem a bit homework, but they also seem like trick questions designed to make you realize certain characteristics of the definitions.
Take #44, it tells you to consider possibility of skew-symmetric A, but a,b,c are by definition always positive. A will never be skew-symmetric. So with the restriction that they're symmetric(b=c), you see that the determinant is merely the difference of squares. a*a-b*b or (a+b)(a-b).
And we know that a and b are both less than p so a-b will only be divisible by p if a-b=0, and a+b will never be >= 2p. Which means we just need to find solutions for a+b=p and a-b=0. It's not hard to see that for a given a, there's exactly one b such that a-b=0, and exactly one solution for a+b=p(except when a is 0 where there are none). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
ThanksHighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 16:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Nice solution Ike. The other problem looks like if you compute the antiderivative of the given rational function n/(n2 + nk + k2) = f(k) and evaluate the integral between zero and n the sum will be π/33/2. This number lies between the two sums Tn and Dn for positive values of n, which can be demonstrated using rectangular approximations. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Why bother with any thinking? It's multiple choice. T_1 = 1 and S_1 = 1/3, which are greater and less than the given limit respectively.Namako (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Because it works for the case n=1 is a nice start. Now prove it for all the other natural numbers.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure. But it doesn't say 'prove' anything. We've eliminated (C) and (B), and that's a pretty funky number they've chosen and this is apparently an engineering exam, not a maths exam ;). But back to the proof. T is an approximator for the integral over [0,1] from above of (x2+x+1)-1, which is at least pleasant on this domain, and S is from below, as demonstrated by pulling out a factor of 1/n. From that T > S. Monotone convergence if you feel Lebesgue or mucking around with a nearby dissection if you're feeling Riemann gives you convergence of both to the integral, though you only need one side (pick S) since they end up arbitrarily close together anyway. Do the integral by partial fractions to get the limit. I hope you remember the sines and cosines of the Nice Angles and like complex logarithms. (A) and (D) are true. QEDNamako (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

About two users I've come across[edit]

I've been lurking here for a while and I keep seeing people talk about Oxyaena and Ken. Are they trolls or something? HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 11:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

the first, oxy, a former user who had anger management issues and ultimately left for their own sanity/health more or less on their own accord. if you werent there, there isnt much to interest anyone over people needling each other pointlessly. the 2nd a troll whose super power is obliviousness and dumbfuckery like forest gump if forest gump was less tom hanks but more dogshit. dont say their name 3 times in a row or at all if you can help it they will show up and its just really tiresome and you just know they'll be touching themselves at the seeing their name mentioned. they currently king of cp virtually.
people still talking about either probably need better frames of reference for whatever they might be discussing. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
My theory is that the latter is in fact a malfunctioning, orphaned chatbot who's hooked up to dodgy source materials. Reasoning; no human being would have that amount of free time as Ken apparently does. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
So, It's like the movie "Candyman" but worse? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
that was the joke i was going for AMassiveGay (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Spud is remembering his sister[edit]

Long term contributors will have known this was coming.

Even more than I usually do, I will be thinking about my younger sister on Saturday 30th April 2022. It would have been her 46th birthday if she hadn't died suddenly and unexpectedly at the age of 42.

Rather than raise a glass in her memory, once again, I am gong to have a packet of crisps and a chocolate bar in her memory. It's what she would have wanted. If you'd like to join me in honouring her by having some crisps and chocolate, preferably British brands or the closest you can get to them, that would be great. I should point out that I am using the word "crisps" very loosely to refer to any mass produced potato or corn snack. That includes such things as Monster Munch, Frazzles, Wotsits, Doritos, Cheetos, Funyuns and that old Spanish favourite Bum.

Alternatively, for you lot in the US of States, my sister was lucky enough to visit New England one year and absolutely loved the hot food and ice cream from Dairy Queen. So, you can honour her by going there if you like. Looking at their current menu. I'd say my sister would have had an Original Cheeseburger Meal Deal with a strawberry sundae.

Thank you. Spud (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm on board. (I honestly didn't know she was that young though.) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
DQ strawberry sundaes are great. I'll get one for her. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The weather in my section of Connecticut was very misty, but this inspired me to take a short walk in the woods; that's about as New England a time as I could think of. We have a reputation for being laconic and standoffish, but we're truly glad to give visitors a good time. Here's to your sister and the good times she had. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I will have some Haggis flavoured crisps in her honour! ShabiDOO 13:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bob M, @DuceMoosolini, @The Blade of the Northern Lights and @Shabidoo, thank you for your support. It really means a lot to me. Spud (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Data Brokers[edit]

Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Some details for those of for whom the video is inaccessible please. Anna Livia (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
He's talking about how people can find out about your privacy via cookies (3rd party stuff) & clicking on ads. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate some advice[edit]

My dad is conservative, always has been and there’s nothing that’s going to change that. I’m trying so hard to explain to him how Tucker Carlson isn’t a source to be trusted, and how he can be called a white supremacist given what he’s peddled on his show in the past. I got emotional. I’m so disappointed in him that he can’t see this and that he’s burying his head in the sand to what I’m trying to say. I don’t want him to fall in with uninformed bigots who actually buy Tucker’s shit. My dad’s always been reasonable but this has left me so very disappointed in him. How do I show him the truth about this bile of human garbage? This is a rant and I’m sorry for that, but I really don’t know what to do. — Unsigned, by: NeedsAHug / talk / contribs

There is a simple way to explain your POV to your father. Don't criticize Cucker Tarlson (sic) in conversation with your father, unless you are watching Fox together. Say for example, Carlson says " I haven't been vaccinated," you could point out that all employees at Fox are required to be vaccinated. Everybody knows it. Do fact checking in real time. Just don't be overbearing about it. If you do this for your father, show him that you are willing to spend the time, no matter what he decides to believe, you will have done your best to help your father, something you should never forget.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I’m admittedly a bit embarrassed to say my mind couldn’t come up with something so obvious in our moment of disagreement. assumed the worst after our argument. My father is not a bigoted man, and doesn’t buy Tucker’s more conspiratorial rants. In my mind, why someone would listen to anything Tucker says is confusing, given his demonstrable aversion to being truthful. Looking back I should have cooled my jets before posting anything. Honestly embarrassing on my part. I’d go back and delete it if I could. — Unsigned, by: NeedsAHug / talk / contribs
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I've always found Daryl Davis to be especially helpful for such things. He talks to KKK members, and just by doing that he's managed to get dozens to leave. Here is him talking about how he does it. Your father certainly doesn't sound like a KKK member, so there's something to work with. One of his main points is that, even if it's a small thing, if there's one thing you can agree on it'll help; I'm no Trump fan, but he has said that anyone who doesn't get vaccinated and boosted is an idiot (and, for a lighter example, ended the requirement that every government agency had to file an annual report on how they were handling the Y2K glitch); the relatively few times I've had occasion to speak to Trump supporters (the ones that live in CT aren't typically in my milieu), just that made the conversation much less of a minefield. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
You’d be right in that regard. I worried that the picture I painted of him in my first post was not a flattering or accurate one.NeedsAHug (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)NeedsAHug
I think personally you need to find 'wedge issues'; ie one where your father and you agree but Carlson is clearly on the other side. The thing which would worry me is not that he laps at the Fox teat, but if it was his *only* source of news. Try to ensure he gets a quota of less biased news. Also ensure he understands the difference between 'news' and 'opinion'. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
He understands the difference. He bounces from different news sources, even the BBC at my recommendation of finding a more balanced take on world events. I think what this has shown me more than anything is that if I’m going to change minds, I should keep my emotions in check, even if it’s something I’m passionate about standing against. NeedsAHug (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)NeedsAHug
I think in this case, you need to understand *why* he watches it and how much 'trust' he grants it. It's quite possible he watches it for entertainment value, not news - I know folks here who 'read' the Daily Fail but honestly don't believe a lot of it. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

My dad is a noted dumbfuck whose racism is gotten worse in his old age and even dumber if it were possible. no talking points or tropes regurgitated from the mail to dismantle, just unprompted adn unasked for opinion 'the blacks' being trouble, criminals, and thugs. when i say unprompted its like me after a year away - 'hello dad, merry xmas' reply, literal reply - 'they all wrong uns. its always them'. we are all convinced, my brothers and me, hes got some kinda of brain damage or something not right with him. you cant just avoid a subject and his reasoning and argument consists of repeating the same thing over and over but louder each time. any how. last year i thought maybe i had a break through of sorts. told him every black person hes ever met hes gotten on with, had no problems with them and has never seen these uppity ne'er do wells hes convinced himself black folk are. i left him that year not with the usual xmas sweary shouting match as is the tradition in my family but 'you are right, i'll have to think about that'. progress at long last i thought. next time i saw him 'hi dad' him 'they are all rapists'. oh for fucks sake. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I would ask whether you were visiting my father by mistake, but you didn't mention a ouija board. As kids, he'd often sit us down and 'teach' us how the world was; which mainly comprised of ranting monologues of every -ism possible, how great he was, pro-IRA propaganda and/or open lectching over any female old enough to have breasts. However, I think I can beat you becase he'd also lecture others about 'the truth' too; a sibling remembers him turning up once at their school and lecturing the headteacher about the 'incorrect' teaching about something in full public. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
So, your dad believes in ghosts & supernatural BS? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
No. He's dead. Thus the 'ouija board' requirement for communication. Though why the hell you'd want to is a different question entirely. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Is love an illusion? Do we really love someone or just some "thing"?[edit]

Very much so, you know.

Everything around you is an illusion in fact. For example, if you are one light year away from the earth and you see the earth, you see events from one year ago. So what does that mean? Every event is so unreal that our perception of stuff mattering is almost comical.

One more thing is what love are we talking about here? Is it love towards the immortal stuff like music, science and art? or are we talking boy-girl love here?

First, let me come to the latter part

Human beings are fickle.

It is said in Bhagavad Gita


“canchalam hi manah Krishna pramathi balavad drdham tasyaham nigraham manye vayor iva su-duskaram”

(Translation - Oh Krishna, the mind is fickle, turbulent , obstinate and restless. To control it seems more difficult than controlling a full blown storm) Arjun mentions a problem that we have all faced at some point in our lives. We just cannot control our mind. One minute, I’m thinking of focussing on work and the next minute, here I am on Quora answering random questions. How many days have you procrastinated stuff? As Arjun mentioned, its easier to control a storm than to control the human brain.

This is the fickle mind that we are dealing with. It is just impossible to create a “real” bond between one such human mind and another….especially when one has choices in choosing another mind - that is, your love towards your mother can be true because , one can have only one mother…thus in fact your love is towards maternity than towards the mind of the mother itself…no one would love their mother if the mother wasn’t kind and loving….would you love your mother if she had harassed you verbally and physically as a kid? No…because, you love the concept of maternity..which is care…and not the human being, that is the mother itself.

Now coming to lovers, a person has more than one choice for another human being as a “lover”. Now he/she categorizes a lot before choosing one ....and that narrows it down to around a million rather than a billion choices. Now can we trust our fickle mind to bond “really” with another such fickle mind? The answer is no, the bond is not real. It is an illusion. This illusion is created because we want it to be created. As things stand, no “normal” human being will like to admit that deep inside they are lonely. How much ever you claim to love a person, all the person can do is stand by and watch during some of your sufferings. Sure you’ll claim that him/her “being there for you” is a great sign….but no, its not a great sign…its a sign of weakness…if your mind is strong enough, you won’t need anyone to “be there for you”

Popularisation of idiotic things like mocking the guy who eats alone or mocking a guy who is single and forty years old in our sex-minded society is what has led to the popularisation of the concept of love. People want to believe that they have found their true lover….so that they aren’t “forty, single and eating alone”...

To sum it up - Love towards abstract things is ironically real…mainly because abstract things are a perception of one’s own mind…and hence your mind is totally attached to it.

Love towards “real” things is ironically an illusion…mainly because both of your minds are fickle"

It's got me in knots wondering if when we say "I love you" do we really mean the other person or just some abstract concept that we place on them.

Like the example he uses with the mother. If you loved your mother it wouldn't matter how she treated you, but that's not the case. You love care and maternity, not really her.

The part he says about other people is a non argument as it's not really a point, but his earlier one had me thinking what I really meant when I said I love someone. Is it just the trait I love and it doesn't matter who has it? Am I really just falling in love with concepts?Machina (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Your existential angst is keeping you from living a fulfilling life. Try not reading about this religious esotericism for a month, it might help. Bongolian (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't. Once you start questioning the reasoning behind things it's hard to live a fulfilling life when it's deconstructed.Machina (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed - the less I seek my source for some definitive, the closer I am to fine. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Would an admin please collapse this? Hastur keeps undoing it. ShabiDOO 18:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Bongolian's a moderator and did the initial collapse. I'm putting it back in. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
There's no basis to collapse this. It's not in a moderator's, or any administrator's, remit to collapse this-Hastur! (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The real question isn't "is love real?" but "does it matter?" ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The real, real question is "why does Machina keep doing this same tired fucking jack-off session even though everyone else hates it?" Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Is Machina real? How would we know?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Good post! Bongolian (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(EC) Let's pick this apart a bit, shall we?
Everything around you is an illusion in fact. For example, if you are one light year away from the earth and you see the earth, you see events from one year ago. So what does that mean? Every event is so unreal that our perception of stuff mattering is almost comical.

  • P1: If you are one lightyear from Earth, then if you look at the Earth, you will observe events from one year ago on Earth.
  • C: Every event is unreal, and our perceptions don't matter.

This argument is ridiculous on its face. Adding [P2: Everything around you is an illusion] fails to salvage the conclusion, and is also a contentious premise that ought to be argued for in itself. Moving on:

  • P1: Your love toward your mother can be true (because you only have one mother).
  • P2: It is impossible to create a 'real "bond"' between 2 human minds.
  • C1: Your love toward your mother is not love toward her mind.
  • P3: Nobody would love their mother if she wasn't kind and loving.
  • C2: Your love is towards maternity (i.e. kindness and lovingness), not your mother's mind.

P3 is false; people do sometimes love their mothers even when they are not kind or loving. The part of P1 I put in parentheses is rather strange, but P1 otherwise seems unobjectionable. P2 is unclear: what is meant by 'real bond'? The argument as it stands seems to justify neither C1 nor C2.
The paragraph about lovers is a bunch of edgy whinging, which both projects the author's feelings of loneliness onto others and buys into stereotypical tropes about the "strength" of refusing to form emotional bonds with other people (the author is apparently oblivious to the tension here). The paragraph does nothing recognizably argumentative; it only makes a series of unsupported assertions.
Could your love for somebody be reduced if, say, you learned that they were a conniving sleazebag? Sure, but it's not a profound insight that your attitudes toward other people have a basis in your beliefs about those people. It does not follow from this that your attitudes toward those people are actually attitudes toward your beliefs. 'I love vanilla ice cream', 'I love my beliefs about vanilla ice cream', and 'I love the concept of vanilla ice cream' are all distinct. Likewise, if I did not know who my mother was, I could not love my mother, but I could still have beliefs about my mother, and love those beliefs, and I could still have the concept of motherhood, and love that. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 20:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but it is also said in the Ramayana, "Garm hava kee thailiyon se javaab na maangen." Buck (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I only opened this up because I was betting that it was Machina attempting to waste more of our time. I was not wrong, alas. Zontar (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know where people are getting that this is solipsism when it has absolutely nothing to do with it but rather with whether the love we feel is about the person or something else that we end up attributing to the person. You seem to have no qualms about science saying things are illusions (and it has some takes on "love") but this is a matter of whether we really love the person or just a concept or idea or abstraction that we think is the person. It's something I wondered when people say they love someone, that's the problem when you start questioning stuff you eventually find how little there is to prop it up. People say they love their parents but if they were mean to them then they wouldn't love them. So in a sense you love kindness and not really the person. So how can I say I love someone and have it mean anything at all when it's not the person but just traits people love and if those change then you don't love them anymore? But I guess instead of thinking critically it's just easy to dismiss it as solipsism when it's clearly not.Machina (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

people like to be treated with kindness and love. therefore they like the people treating them like that. can and do love such people. people tend not to fall in love with people who do nothing but give them shit. fall out of love when the shit people give outweighs everything else. people love the people that provide the things that makes them feel good about themselves, and provide these things just for them. the person and what they provide to someone are not seperate things. ones loved ones are a package deal. this is just more of your inability to engage with people, or another excuse to not have to, to write of anything that normal people (not in denial about their issues have) feel about themselves and other people and their relationships as being false, made up and delusional. its tiresome. you are like a broken record. and you insult and demean people and their loves and their lives and whole being every time you repost these dogshit variations of a theme. peoples loves and live have worth and meaning to them. its entirely subjective to them, and you cannot tell them they wrong because they are not your lives and loves and know fuck all about them and you cannot tell them they are based on your inability or refusal to find any worth and meaning in your own existence. does it make you feel better about your own circumstances to think people not as troubled by morbid navel gazing to believe that people living their lives how they see fit and as best they can are delusional? fooling themselves? stop pretending your own bitterness is anything other than bitterness, as if you are revealing some profound truths. stop pretending to we should care or need to know that you have decided for us all our lives and loves are meaningless and delusional because you have been unable to believe this of your own liive and loves. thats why the collapse was in place, so solipsism not especially accurate in this case. would you have preferred a more accurate description such as 'self absorbed twat insists peopls lives are worthless and delusions and should all stop living theit lives and be bitter about life like a self absorbed twat looking for excuse after excuse to avoid confronting their own short comings' its a mouthful, granted, but if didnt like the solipsism thing, but well...there you go.
stop insisting your own own hang ups and inability to see the worth in your own life and existence means everyone elses lives and existence equally has no worth. subjective meanings and worth people have of their own life trumps your stubborn insistence that only objective universal truths matter, and stop insisting people are delusional or in denial purely because you need them to be delusional and in denial to not have to face up to whatever missing in your own life.
seek professional help. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I ref properly here on RationalWiki?[edit]

Hi, I am quite new here. Do you guys have a preferred referencing style that you use here? Thank you very much! ♈︎♉︎♊︎♋︎♌︎♍︎♎︎♏︎♐︎♑︎♒︎♓︎ (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You can find guidance on references here: Help:References. We have no preferred style, but for silver- and gold-level articles, it is nice to have consistency within the article. Bongolian (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Astroyoder (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Changing titles[edit]

Hi. I would like to change the title of Apelar al fe to "Apelación a la fe". Can anyone help me? — Unsigned, by: Rabbitseatcarrots / talk / contribs

Actually, I think "Apelar a la fe" would be a better title Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Dicho y hecho. Spud (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Title change seems good. But why did you use "apelar" in the title but "apelación" in the lead? LongStylus (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. I think article titles should be nouns instead of verbs whenever possible. I have moved Apelación a la fe again and have moved Apelación a la piedad as well. Spud (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The Spanish Wikipedia seems to flip-flop between the verb and the noun: Apelación a la probabilidad and Apelación a la Naturaleza being two that use the noun, whereas three other articles use the verb. Interesting phenomenon. Nevertheless, we'll yield to your native-like judgment on this. LongStylus (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to change my title to Tsar of All the Americas and Protector of Ukraine. Zontar (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Or would you rather be titled with verbs instead: Ruling all the Americas and Protecting Ukraine? LongStylus (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Stalin's ethnicity[edit]

I came across somebody who stated that since Mao and Stalin killed a lot of people Asians are more violent(tacit meaning uncivilized) than Europeans? Is Stalin Asian? Georgia is in Asia but their culture is similar to that of Europe right? Also Georgia was part of the Russian Empire at that time. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 11:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure whether such extremely broad and vague terms as “Asian” and “European” makes sense when trying to describe individuals or explain their actions. Whether the various Caucasians or Russians should be regarded “Europeans” is something that has been debated for centuries, and “European” dismissals of Russians (and/or Caucasians) as “uncivilised savages” have tended to use Yellow Peril style rhetoric to portray them as Asian. All of the three Caucasian states (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) are members of the Council of Europe, as was Russia until the Ukraine invasion, so by that definition they are all “European”; but then again, Kazakhstan is eligible to became a member of the CoE, so… ScepticWombat (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, I think that any sweeping definition of Stalin as either “European” or “Asian” is pretty pointless in and of itself, and if the purpose is to explain his behaviour, I think it says more about the one positing this connection, which I would consider silly, not to say ludicrous (and probably a sign that the claim is grounded in the kind of “culturalism” that has been pushed by, say, Samuel P. Huntington, or in outright racism).
However, some attempts at “othering” Stalin have indeed stressed his Georgian heritage, as this also fits in with the kind of Russian stereotypes of Caucasians that have parallels in some “European” views of the Balkans as filled with bandits, blood feuds and a certain level of exotic free booting. This is kind of hilarious, considering that while Stalin never denied his personal background, he was hardly sympathetic to the various minorities in the USSR, being more in tune with earlier Russification attempts or at least suppression of the minorities.
Should Georgians be considered “Europeans”? I guess that will depend on what you consider the salient features of a “European” to be. Ditto for “Asian”. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
So, I guess this is a Not even wrong case.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 12:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Kinda. Or at least a sort of “completely beside the point” sort of thing. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
This really is "who cares" territory! Trump apparently has German ancestry. So does the Royal Family of the UK. Can somebody make something of this?
Biden apparently traces his roots back to Ireland. Boris Johnson's great grandfather was Turkish. (I have just discovered). But so what? Really? Who cares apart from some racists?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The real question is who or where this "came across somebody who stated that since Mao and Stalin killed a lot of people Asians are more violent" tidbit actually came from. This is both appallingly racist and appallingly ignorant. Typically it is not even worth wasting any time on this sort of bullshit, since even casual world knowledge of world history is enough to prevent one from declaring any ethnicity of homo sapiens "more violent" (basically, human beings are extremely violent animals overall, I certainly can't think of another species that actually commits violence against others of its kind in the en masse style humans have used countless times over the ages). However, the one thing I will say is the above "logic" is similar to what you see in the type of propaganda to get ignorant people to commit violence against people they don't even know. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
chimpanzees apprently 'war'. they are violent fuckers - really vicious. gombe chimp warAMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
most of russia is firmly in asia geographically, but most of its people live in the europe part. russia always been viewed with heavy dose of eastern exoticism in west, orthodox christianity gives it part of this. various tsars have been very westward looking in their outlook, seeking to emulate western culture and industry, when european empires ruled the world. when its been in direct opposition to the west, i still dont think it was looking eastward. maybe it will now with china in the ascendence, but i understand the more 'asian' members of its peoples face a hell of a lot of racism from far right russian nationalists.AMassiveGay (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
according to the beeb georgia is geographically in asia, so stalin was asian i guess. the same bbc article say homophobic protestors were shouting at a small lgbt march to 'go back to europe'. so there is the answer for all it matters. interesting trivia abpout where the borders of europe and asia lie which is kind of interesting to me even if we are accepting it has little significance otherwise. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
or even better stalin was eurasian. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
What about Genghis Khan - and Hitler? (This is not argumentum ad Godwin's Law). Anna Livia (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Conclusion: I've realized that this question is pretty stupid because the European/Asian dichotomy is 20th century bullshit and I should stop responding to amateur racists. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 05:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Some geographer draws a line arbitrarily somewhere on a map and somebody else apportions a series of labels to all the people on one side of that line and another series of labels to everyone on another side. Then history is interpreted using these labels. And, of course, as we are fitting our explanation to these preconceptions - everything makes sense!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Other Warlike Species[edit]

As an aside, a BoN mentioned they couldn't think of any warlike species that kills each other en masse other than humans. Chimpanzees do it as well, but the answer to your question is ants. Ants fight constant and incredibly bloody wars for territory even amongst close relatives. Only a single matriarch generation is sufficient for them to brutally murder and enslave each other. Since they do not have higher brain function and only fight through mechanistic application of pheramones and are still able to form battle formations without the need of a guiding authority, I would argue that ants are the most innately warlike species on earth. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, ants are probably the ideal case of warrior species. Since the primary combatants are all sterile (unable to breed), loss of individual ants is insignificant to the reproductive success of the colony. Bongolian (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Not exactly warlike in the same way, but when male lions and male gorillas become the dominant male they may kill any existing youngsters so that they can get the females pregnant again. (At least that is my understanding.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
there seems to me a distinction between warlike behaviour that is purely instinctual and that which is done as a pissing contest or shits and giggles. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
A lot of species do that, polar bears and grizzly bears will hunt young for the same reason. A bold move, trying to mate with someone whose offspring you killed. Chimps will also occasionally murder gorilla young, they don't even bother eating it like they do after dismembering chimp babies; that behavior isn't yet fully understood. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bob M The whole lion killing cubs is not as prevalent as some would have us think. https://lionaid.org/faqs_lions/why-do-male-lions-kill-cubs.htm#:~:text=It%20was%20originally%20proposed%20that,females%20then%20become%20receptive%20again. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 03:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Your link to the "Lionaid" website seems a little unclear on what it wants to say - and it is possible that a society dedicated to helping lions will want to put the most positive spin they can on the behavior. Africa Geographic says :" When a new coalition of males takes over a pride, they almost always kill the prides’ cubs." But I'm guessing that neither of us are experts.Bob

"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

nature is red in tooth and claw as tennyson puts it. i think everyone is kind of aware that even the most majestic of natures beasts have to be massive dicks to survive. any david attenborough doc will show this and they get massive numbers watching them. people, if asked and push comes to shove, make noises about survival as an epic struggle to exist. some might just quote the lion king and mutter something about the circle of life. but chimps being absolutely fucking vicious, shaking trees and throughing branches at cute little monkeys to catch and bite their heads of, brutally resolving power struggles in their troop leaving the losers barely alive and left to die alone outside of their territory, or against rival troops (gombe chimpanzee war - see the link above i posted. its realy fucking brutal), and all of that, i think people try to pretend doesnt happen or ignore it. chimps are cute to people, they are humanised by us, seen as like young children, think they are almost just like us people think. its disturbing for people to see chimps as violent motherfuckers, when we think of them in those terms. lions are majestic wild beasts, chimps and gorillas you can teach sign language and have rudimentary conversations with them - theyn are not animal animals. they are like people animals, civilised almost. it would probably be even more unsettling for people to think that yes, chimps are like people in many ways that we can identify with them like we do, but their proclivity for chimp on chimp violence is one such way they are like people.
this would be compounded if people ever found out they do not speak with cockney accents or drink much tea. it would be just too much. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The "apes using sign language" idea remains controversial.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on illegal immigrants?[edit]

Uan (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Now, that's the laziest effort for possible trolling I've ever seen. Not even a single comment or even a crummy link. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
well it could be a genuinely curious question. Which in that I would argue that the immigration laws that enforce that many undocumented migrants are “illegal” is wholly unjust, and pretty much only stems from the need to sanctify and justify racist policing at the border; in addition to, exercising the nation state’s need for control and restriction. Establishing the boundaries and occupants subject not only to it’s rule, but moral responsibility to provide for. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Hardly. Immigration is usually a good thing, but the idea that immigrants are always a net positive for society is delusional thinking, and can be disproven with a simple question; why haven't any of the poor countries solved their economic woes with unlimited immigration? The truth is that there's virtually no situation in which allowing in immigrants will shrink the "pie", but the per-worker slice does not increase unless the immigrants have a "technology" factor greater than the native workers. Note that "technology" is a vague economics term for anything other than capital or number of workers that affects GDP; strong work ethics are "technology", good education or skills are "tech", etc. Most governments do let in workers that are such, e.g., the H1B visa nonsense, or various guest worker programs.
More cynically, the illegal immigration is a handy way to create an underclass to do the necessary but dangerous jobs your own people would demand too much money to do, without having to worry about giving them rights or protecting their health, etc. It's far from slavery, but then again there's quite a lot of similarities.
I'd also defer you to the Repugnant Conclusion. Basically, in scenario A there's a socialist island paradise. In A-, an impoverished island pops up out of the ocean but is unconnected to the paradise. In B+, the two islands are equal and in total greater than before, but neither island is as great as the original island. In B, the islands are connected to become a bigger island. Clearly we can argue that B is superior to B+, to A-, to A. So repeat the process until overcrowded scenario Z, where everyone is living a fate that is only barely better than death, but because the sum total is greater than in A, the Repugnant Conclusion is that this hellscape is "better". But that's where we are today. Corvette (yak) 04:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that’s a dumb argument especially with that leading question, as the simple answer is no one is itching to move to dirt poor countries. People tend to immigrate towards countries with sufficient wealth and economic opportunity. You lack those properties you lack any demand for people to want to immigrate to your country. Also the problem of capitalist exploitation of undocumented migration isn’t really the fault of undocumented migrants. In fact it’s draconian immigration laws and the threat of deportation that makes them so easy to coerce and exploit to begin with. I don’t know what you mean by “net positive” because depends wholly on your value system and what you see as “positive”. If you think that “disproving” question is an argument for more restrictive immigration policies that’s entirely flabbergastingly stupid. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
i seem to recall that the us has whole industries reliant on undocumented immigrants, construction for instance. it seems the problem of the exploitation of the undocumented is one that is more of a us problems than it is a european one. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser For an outspoken Liberal, you really need to reread Locke. Like, a lot. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 10:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Seriously. Liberal democracy and immigration controls don't mix. Read Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Mainly Hobbes and Locke. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 10:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Seriously, this is a major oversight on Cory's part. You can't have consent of the governed if you can't meaningfully consent to be governed by a sovereign. And you can't meaningfully consent to be governed by a sovereign if you can't meaningfully choose your sovereign. And you can't meaningfully choose your sovereign without open, or at least porous borders. This is like, the bedrock of Liberalism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 10:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole 'legal' / 'illegal' definition is utterly arbitary. It's often defined merely by political expediency or at best, something approaching 'economic need'.

Anyway, there's an argument to be had that immigration is partly how the rich and poor nations remain so; most economic migrants are the ones who have a bit of skill/qualification/drive/capital behind them and are youngish folk - the very people which the poor nation really needs to develop. What's worse is the fact that the educated ones would usually have been 'invested in' by the poor state and now that investment is walking out of the door even before the investor got to break-even point.

We also need to remember that often migration is a kind of business plan in itself; I've heard tales where family members have 'invested' in an individual's journey (sometimes quite heavily; I've heard tales of property etc being sold to fund it) in the hope the remittances shall provide a good return. Question; is this the best use of the limited capital-stock the poor country has? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"I don’t know what you mean by “net positive” because depends wholly on your value system" It actually doesn't. Repugnant conclusions are a part of all utilitarian systems that use a utility function that is simply added from each part to reach a systemic score. GDP comparisons are a notable example. You may value quality of life, but if you don't carefully consider the mathematical implications of your preferences and make sure your scoring system reflects that, you may not like some of its conclusions.
"This is like, the bedrock of Liberalism" Rather than, say, the utility of spreading around political power among the citizenry as discovered by, e.g. ancient Greeks?
"And you can't meaningfully choose your sovereign without open, or at least porous borders." This doesn't follow. You can totally have a representative democracy with closed borders. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
You have no idea what "sovereign" or "Liberalism" are do you? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
A sovereign is an entity with supreme legal authority. Modern polities typically split this among a written constitution, a chief executive, a legislative body, and a court system. In a representative democracy, those positions are subject to votes by an eligible subset of the general population.
Liberalim is a political/moral/social philosophy that advocates for individual liberty, particularly via the establishment of rights.
If you have other definitions in mind, perhaps you could share them with the class. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Wow, you actually got it right. And yet for some bizarre reason you tried to conflate "Liberalism" and "democracy". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Reread what I wrote. A representative democracy with closed borders was a counterexample to your statement that "you can't meaningfully choose your sovereign without open, or at least porous borders". 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
AHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! THE SOVEREIGN ISN'T THE PEOPLE IN THE GOVERNMENT DUMBASS!!! FUCKING REREAD HOBBES!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Page-widening trolls went out of style ca. 2005, GC. TFTFY. Zontar (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
GC, a sovereign has more or less ignored the consent of the governed when they refuse to let people leave, e.g., NK, East Germany, etc. That is not the same as another sovereign refusing to let others in. To use a farcical example, NYU loses the "consent of the educated" when it's a crime for you to transfer to Harvard, but it's not a lack of consent of the educated when Harvard rejects your application, rather "consent of the educator".Corvette (yak) 13:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser An interesting analogy, but I'd still argue against it. Consent of the governed is more akin to consent toward impartial law, since the idea is heavily tied to the concept of a social contract and the formation/preservation of society. If you don't trust the mediator and are barred from seeking another, are you really free? Locke argues you are not, and that the ability to seek out a more amicable sovereign is vital to freedom. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Care to share your preferred definition of "sovereign" then? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Preferred? What the fuck are you smoking? There's no preference about it, you're just a dumbass who hasn't read the people who coined these terms to start with. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
No, you aren't truly free, but that's kind of irrelevant when talking about a foreign government's legitimacy. It's "consent of the governed", not "consent of everyone"; Italy only needs the approval of Italians to be legit, not the approval of Libyans, Algerians, etc who are being denied entry. Corvette (yak) 14:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Barriers work both ways. If I lock you out of one room, that could trap you in another room. I don't know how to explain this any better, sorry. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I do understand what you are trying to say. If everyone in town locks you out of their homes, you aren't really free to leave your abuser. That doesn't mean everyone else in town has a requirement to unlock their door; "should they unlock their door" is an entirely different question from "do they have a right to lock their door", and I have a hard time discussing immigration with people who don't even recognize that countries have a right to decide who is allowed in.
As an aside, I am bemused that people seem to think illegal immigration is a uniquely American phenomenon. Heck, it's not even a uniquely Western phenomenon; Iran has struggled to deal with the influx of Afghanis for decades, which is a self-inflicted problem but still.
In terms of "big picture", again, it's useful to look at labor and the comparison of the words for forced labor throughout culture and time. The economy has always depended upon someone doing the boring, dangerous tasks so that others can do the skilled tasks. A leatherworker was a relatively respected blue collar job, but that person could not exist without the filthy tanner dealing with the disgusting smells, or the only person below "tanner" in medieval society; the orphan child whose job it was to collect all the dog-poop to make tannins for the tannery. Today, nobody could be a surgeon without someone being the garbagemen or slaughterhouse workers. So if those jobs are taken by either foreigners, or the "lessers" in your society so that the "betters" can do the better tasks? All the better. The US never imported African slaves to work as university professors and concert violinists, as far as I'm aware. That those tasks are essential doesn't mean they get paid well, and it's a bit of a shit position to say to an illegal immigrant "hey, you work 70 hours a week at suppressed wages, but you aren't contributing enough to be worthy of staying".
Another aside, through the lens of "we need someone to do the boring tasks, so it might as well be some filthy inferior" is actually how I think the criminal justice system operates; you can't tell me that no one in charge understands that making it illegal for companies to hire ex-cons creates a permanent underclass that does all the menial tasks. Corvette (yak) 15:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Those asides are borderline well poisoning strawmen, as I did not advocate either of those positions. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Those asides weren't meant for only you. But for you specifically, can we agree that "countries have a right to decide who is allowed in"? Corvette (yak) 15:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser The right? Of that I am unsure. The authority? Most definitely. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Tempted to put that one up to a vote in a pointless poll. Any objection? Corvette (yak) 15:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Truth isn't a popularity contest. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Optimistic Nihilist here. I don't believe rights even have an inherent "truth-value", rights are what everyone believes everyone should be entitled to. Cancer doesn't give two shits about your right to life. No bear goes before the pearly gates before St Wojtek the Ursine, who says "you were a mostly good bear, ate lots of salmon, shat in the woods as all bears should, but it appears that you once mauled a shaved monkey and so we must deny you entry to the Land of Poorly-Guarded Picnic Baskets, and instead banish you to the Land of Infinite Winter and Disturbed Hibernation". So yes, what is a right is very much what everyone else agrees is a right. Corvette (yak) 16:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So I'm a white guy living in another white European country. (In terms of this discussion I'm a legal immigrant, but I'm not sure how much people care about the distinction.) Evert so often my more right-wing acquaintances will complain about all the problems which "immigrants" generate - or all the extra benefits which the government allegedly gives them. I listen to them for a while and then point out that I'm an immigrant to this country and I don't believe that I cause problems and that I don't think that I've received any special treatment and I ask them where I can apply to obtain all the wonderful benefits they claim exist. It's always amusing to watch them as they try to explain that I'm "not the sort of immigrant they were talking about" while simultaneously trying to avoid saying something overtly racist.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

But you do use the local healthcare system, ever so slightly increase traffic congestion by buying produce, benefit from emergency services, increase water consumption and waste disposal, and if you have children they are using the classrooms paid for through taxes, so you do cost money. You also provide money too. Part of the problem is the mismatch of value, which is at its core the largest valid criticism of modern capitalist societies. If you are an immigrant doing some menial but essential job, you are paid, e.g., $20000, you are actually providing about $50000 in value to society, and you are using $25000 in services. On paper, you cost $5000, but you actually net $25000 for society... Corvette (yak) 16:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@bob there does not appear to much of a worthwhile distinction between illegal and legal immigrants in the above conversation nor is there any (is there any?) distinction between illegal and undocumented immigrants. such distinctions should be made though as the situation for each is different in different locales. i read a above about illegal immigrants doing the work that the natives just wont do. that may be true in some areas, the us for one, but its simply not true in some other places. i know in the uk the work that the locals wont do - seems to be stuff like fruit picking - is not done by illegal immigrants or even undocumented immigrants. it is work done by legal and documented immigrants mostly. in the uk, no industry is reliant on illegal immigrants for labour. companies employing illegal immigrants are a minority and face heavy fines if caught - as do the immigrants themselves. no idea about the eu, but i would imagine the same situation applies in most places there for those jobs no one seems to want to do. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The situation is largely the same here in Spain. Immigrants, pick the fruit, clean the streets take care of the elderly etc. They do the jobs which the locals don't want or or wouldn't do for the money. There are some differences - The UK tends to have immigration from what used to be the British Empire and Spain tends to have a lot of immigration from what used to be the Spanish Empire - South America. My impression is that Spanish society is somewhat more relaxed about immigration than the north of Europe though. They shouldn't be employed without papers but you rarely hear about legal problems.
Of course, as I implied above, there are "immigrants" and "immigrants". And, societies being racist, there is a sort of hierarchy. There are black Africans, northern Africans, south Americans, southern Europeans (from Rumania for example) and northern Europeans. White northern Europeans with cash in the bank have an easier time. Surprise!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Gay, I do think it needs to be pointed out that UK.plc traditionally didn't use illegals not because we were 'better' or something, merely that we had seemingly oodles of cheap legal foreign labour to tap instead. Whether the UK ends up becoming a mass user of illegals in this post-Brexit paradise where fish are happy and passports of the deepest blue of hues remains to be seen. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention that 1) any illegal immigrant would have to pass through Spain and France before getting to the UK, and 2) the only access to the UK by road/train is the Chunnel. Refer to the Calais Jungle for what happens to illegal immigrants trying to get into the UK. Corvette (yak) 18:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I read somewhere that the main route for UK illegals was via plane, not sea or land routes. But the latter is focused on because it's impossible to see a leaky overloaded boat in the Channel as anything else than 'full of migrants'. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, planes and boats are actually things too.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
EC we can imagine all we like for what might happen, i was merely stating what does happen as it changes the nature of what the issues around what illegal immigration looks like in one area compared to what it looks like in another area where aside from the usual political posturing, there are whole industries dependant on that posturing not amounting to any action, where illegals are made legal is not wanted because that comes with proections under labours laws and they can demand a fair wage, whilst crackdowns make it difficult to fill those jobs. it should also be mentioned that in the uk, arguments around brexit where not about illegal immigration so much, (tharts a perennial target for somne groups) but legal immigration AMassiveGay (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
i will add the route that is taken by illegal immigrants to their destination is neither here nor there AMassiveGay (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
most illegal immigration to the uk involves staying on when visas expire. overloaded and sea worthy boats crossing the channel is a relatively recent state of affairs. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Not enough of a concern for me to pay much mind to the issue. It's mostly just unfortunate that legal immigration is difficult. Revenant Raven (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
There's no incentive for the governments to actually streamline the process, because it doesn't matter how many people get scared away as long as there's millions more who would still be willing to suffer through it. Heck, the process is a proficiency test to weed out those who can't handle byzantine systems. Corvette (yak) 19:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
One of the unfortunate results of the difficulty in getting to wealthy first world countries is that the people who are most needed to develop their countries of origin are the most likly to leave.
It is an option for those who have enough cash to pay people smugglers; those who are young enough, strong enough and healthy enough to survive an arduous journey across continents seas and deserts; or those who have a high enough level of education to make them attractive as legal immigrants. As I said - the people who would be of most use in their countries of origin.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Is that what happened to Europe when the US spent a century absorbing European immigrants? Corvette (yak) 19:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
To a certain extent, yes. Especially post-WW2. European countries just didn't get fucked over as badly as say... Nigerians. Or some of the now-former Warshaw Pact nations. There are whole regions in eastern Europe that still haven't recovered from the disparities during the Cold War. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Nigeria is different, though. It's not a "country" so much as "giant territory with a bunch of different ethnicities that all hate each other", along with recovering from a civil war over one of the largest oil fields in the world, not to mention the legacies of Imperialism where the British completely eliminated the skilled labor and middle class, built up the infrastructure but made damned certain the locals never learned how to do anything but the most menial of tasks, only the Brits and the Indians. So when the British left, so did the economy.
I'm actually tempted to do a SciFi novella where medieval humans (ie, stand-in for Africans and Asians) are invaded by aliens (ie, Britain), and have their civilizations "uplifted" to an extant, but in the most parasitic way possible. Humans work horrific conditions mining the "useless" pitchblende (i.e., Uranium) that the aliens use to power everything, but never taught how to operate the nuclear plants, instead another race of sub-alien aliens did all of that (ie, the Indians). Skilled labor is made outright illegal (ie, the weavers of India and so forth). Conditions are "better" than under the kings but the humans are always third-class citizens in their own land (ie, apartheid). It'd make very clear that the medieval kings were brutal monsters who oppressed their own people and should not be missed, that whether the aliens improved the life of the average serf didn't justify serfdom with a different name, and why the removal of the aliens caused everything to collapse further. Corvette (yak) 20:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

BoN trying to “debunk” me with what boils down to “according to this value system I uncritically accept as ‘objective’ that is controversial both in philosophy and economics I can conclude these repugnant conclusions, therefore you are wrong” - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"There's no preference about it, you're just a dumbass who hasn't read the people who coined these terms to start with." The English word "sovereign" well predates Hobbes's birth, and French/Latin cognates go back rather longer. It seems that you no longer agree with the definition I gave above. So, suppose that I have never read Leviathan and know nothing of tigers. In your own words, what do you mean by "sovereign" such that it's relevant to your points here?
"I ask them where I can apply to obtain all the wonderful benefits they claim exist." I think things like free housing and living stipends are usually means-tested. Not typically for the gainfully employed. Most cities should have an office that handles that sort of thing if you want to check your local situation.
"White northern Europeans with cash in the bank have an easier time." Any immigrant with cash in the bank tends to have an easier time. Nigerian immigrants to the US do better on average than the average native, for example. Immigrants with a more similar linguistic/cultural background can better integrate into the host culture than those with significant differences. And where racism is involved, immigrants of the same ethnicity as the majority group tend to face less discrimination. White northern Europeans aren't the majority everywhere.
"Nigeria is different, though. It's not a "country" so much as "giant territory with a bunch of different ethnicities that all hate each other"" Nigeria is a country (a high-level political entity that occupies territory), but it's not a nation (a group of people with shared language, culture, ethnicity, and territory).
"“according to this value system I uncritically accept as ‘objective’ that is controversial both in philosophy and economics I can conclude these repugnant conclusions, therefore you are wrong”" Utilitarianism isn't a value system. It's a method for evaluating the desirability of situations according to a chosen value system. You pick some set of values (e.g. larger GDP is better than smaller GDP), and then quantitatively evaluate situations according to those values to find out how well those situations instantiate those values. For example, with bigger GDP being good, you total up the economic activity in the area in question (with nuance for nominal vs. PPP or other topics of interest) to determine how "good" that situation is. And when considering whether to implement some policy, its effects on future GDP are calculated and compared to expected GDP according to business as usual, or to some other proposal. A simple moral system with a simple utilitarian calculus. And one which includes an obvious repugnant conclusion showing that there are more things in life to care about than GDP. You can, of course, evaluate situations according to bellyfeel rather than quantitative measures, but if you're taking these matters seriously as a matter of evaluating policy, you're doing it quantitatively (that is, utilitarianism). If you think that philosophers and economists disagree, I'd like to hear where you determined that. Most disagreement is about how to formulate utility functions for various purposes, not whether one should try to be quantitative. After all, it's all well and good to favor deontological ethics, but without some method for comparing how well rules are being followed, it's not very useful beyond trivial situations. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
"Utilitarianism isn't a value system. It's a method for evaluating the desirability of situations according to a chosen value system" desirability is basically another means of describing value. It is a value system both in the context of economics, and in normative philosophy. It's definitely utilized differently by different fields, but you can't talk of "benefits" and "downsides" without applying a system of values. Things are not inherently desirable or undesirable in of themselves. Nothing is desirable objectively, which is another way of saying nothing has objective value. Adding numbers to values doesn't make it any less arbitrary and subjective. How I determined utilitarianism is controversial as a normative system is by actually having an undergraduate education in philosophy and having taken more than one ethics course. They are many many criticism of utiltarianism not just in normative ethics, but in the social sciences as well. Just look to behavioral economics, the writings of Robert Nozick, social contract theorists, feminists, anthropological objections, or criticisms from cognitive psychology, etc. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC).
If you guys want a good book on the subject, read Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration, by Bryan Caplan and Zach Weinersmith. Or just watch some of their videos on the Internet, they are very good. GeeJayK (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I take issue with that because Zach is an artist and thus almost completely immune to the effects of immigration.
The truth is that in total, every form of immigration from menial guest workers to H1B visas helps Business Owners and Immigrants combined more than it harms Local Workers, but it doesn't always help Business Owners more than it harms Local Workers. From a single country perspective, a government's duty is only to its own population, and the internal affairs of any country should be to maximize benefit to its own population and thus the immigrants' benefit should not be included in the calculation. From a more international perspective, immigration will help both countries in total and so any alliance or trade federation (EU, NATO, etc) becomes stronger with open borders within that alliance.
At the same time, you need progressive taxation to ensure that the benefits conferred to the wealthy business owners are shared by the local workers as well.Corvette (yak) 21:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @CorruptUser That's because it's a comic book. Just read it, you can finish it in a couple of days, and it's really cool, even if you don't agree with everything. GeeJayK (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I remember Zach advertising it on his website. I read his comic daily. Corvette (yak) 21:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
"It is a value system both in the context of economics, and in normative philosophy." If your philosophy and ethics education was worth the paper the syllabus was printed on, I shouldn't have to parse what I said for you. You're making an elementary analytical mistake here. I can give a belabored explanation if you want. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter[edit]

What is going to happen to politics and the world as a whole as a result of Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter? It has been in the news a lot. Higgs (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The same thing that happened when Bezos bought Washington Post? Corvette (yak) 21:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
twitter is probably going to need the same kind of moderation as it does now less he wants twitter to be fined into oblivion in markets like europe. see the article i posted in blogs.
also did/does the washington post have the same sort of reach to make it comparable? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Twitter affects America's politics/culture and American politics/culture affects Europe. So European regulators can't entirely eliminate Twitter's affects on Europe. Higgs (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I know a lot of people are catastrophizing, but I'm honestly taking a wait-and-see approach on this. I really don't think he has the bandwidth to be micromanaging Twitter in between Tesla, Tesla Energy, SpaceX, Boring Company, etc., so I'm not sure how much of an impact on the day-to-day that he'll have (at least, before he gets bored of it), and in turn how much loosening of moderation there'll be.
That said, full disclosure, I do have a very negative view of the state of Twitter moderation in the first place so I forsee a lot more of the worsening in the personal user experience coming from emboldened trolls rather than any sort of moderation backslide (given, IMO, there's not very much space to slide back to). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Worst case scenario, Twitter joins MySpace, Friendster and AIM. Oh noes, a social media site changed, whatever shall we do?! It's not as if we have some sort of interconnected network, like, an "inter-net", where another social media company could pop up instantly. We're doomed, doomed I tell you!Corvette (yak) 01:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The real question IMHO is what happens to Tesla, the current leader of electric car manufacturers, but with well known QC problems and many other manufacturers hot on his tail. It certainly doesn't sound like the optimal time to focus on shitposting on Twitter, particularly as he starts to enter markets like China where the wrong post could have you face the Jack Ma fate. (I smell a potential Netflix kerblamo, but who knows?) Also from an American cultural perspective I do also find his recent Twitter "woke" bashing a wee bit curious, considering that electric cars probably are still more bought by those concerned about climate change than not, and those types tend to especially be on "the left" here. Meh (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
If Tesla gets graphene batteries scaled up to industrial levels, it's game over for everyone else. Basically, graphene batteries store more, are safer, charge faster, last longer, etc. The real questions are what materials will be used for the production of the stuff, and total cost. But graphene batteries store 6x as much, so even if they are 5x the price for the same weight of battery it's still an improvement. Once the price drops to $100/KWH, electric cars become cheaper than ICE. Which is a benefit in the long run even ignoring the environment; electric cars last much longer simply because the motor has far fewer moving parts and doesn't operate on the principle of "constant small explosions". Corvette (yak) 04:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
If Musk finds a way to mine cobalt or lithium from the asteroids that could reduce the prices of EV. It could also end the child labour industry in DRC. However I'm pretty sure that the space miners will need a hell of a raise. Also, it's pretty unrealistic anyway. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 06:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
If you could mine asteroids, why the fuck would you bring the metals back down to Earth? The biggest cost in space-travel is getting out of Earth's atmo; the metals are already up there in orbit, make more spaceships. Corvette (yak) 06:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Spaceships aren't made from ores. https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/are-satellites-and-rockets-made-out-same-materials#:~:text=A%3A,%2Dcadmium%20or%20aluminum%2Dberyllium.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 08:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
You would refine the metals in space. The material requirements for spaceships are driven mostly by the intense forces required to get to space in the first place. If it never needs to land on earth or another planetoid, you just have to make sure your materials don't degrade in space. So basically any metal will do the trick. The article you post is wrong in this context, because the *reason* satellites have to be made so light is because they come from earth. If built in space and fueled using resources in space, it becomes far less demanding. Remember, getting off earth takes half the energy required to go anywhere in the solar system, and going to mars vs the moon is only a 10% difference in energy requirement. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
question: is anyone mining asteroids currently or on the verge of doing so? no? then we are back to will tesla, which has major stock price crashes every time musk shitposts on twitter, has to ask the sec permission shitpost on some subjects, and who loves to shit post so much he bought the company, be affected now twitter is now musk's new personal blog? personally i dont really care what happens to tesla, and would that maybe twitter dies from a musk infection, but the suggestion that tesla will be fine if it just makes a major significant breakthrough doent answer the question just ducks it entirely with a colossal if, and thats if the battery isnt just fantasy for the immediate future. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Tesla will be fine without graphene batteries. Point is if they do get them, Tesla will be an order of magnitude more than fine. Not fine enough to be worth $1T, but certainly worthy of being worth more than Chrysler. Corvette (yak) 12:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
on a sidenote, or rather in line with the op's question, i hear musk has been chatting to some far right fuckhead currently blocked by twitter by trying to arrange for people to shoot blm activists and is telling them they be back tweeting in no time once everythings gone through. free speech means hate speech to musk, or that he doesnt give to much of a fuck about free speech only his free speech and an opportunity to spite the board of twitter and anyone who may have sleighted him in some way. what is it with obscenely wealthy gobshites and fragile egos? you'd think once some is rich enough that the little people become just ants to them, and would not even be aware even of the existence of them, let alone care what they might be saying about them. if musk were a poor nomark wronged by someone on twitter - likely the only mention by someone on twitter about him that he would notice and he'd no doubt start a flame war until made to stop twitter. musk the billionaire though, sleighted by someone twitter - celeb, politician, or just some rando - and musk instead of thinking why give a fuck when he could buy and sell his detractors 10 times over, billionaire musk must respond to every sleight 10 times over, accusations of paedophilia and hiring private investigators to boot, and failing that hes now bought twitter. couldnt he have just done just done what some other massive but rich pricks have done and just pay to produce his own hip hop album vanity project and then pay off all the music critics to say its good? it would have cheaper for him AMassiveGay (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The reason I mention Netflix is because I sort of see a similar situation with Tesla. Netflix was riding in hog heaven when it was the only game in town, but if you bought Netflix stock at its peak, you'd be down 62% at this point. They too had major issues (content management in particular was awful), but no one cared until they were no longer the only game in streaming. Now all the warts are exposed. Netflix will be "fine" but is a neutered FAANG these days, they are no Apple or Amazon. Tesla certainly will be "fine" too, but even with Musk's Twitter bullshit (plus the general tech stock malaise) crashing TSLA 25% from its peak, the stock still seems overpriced considering the competition coming up, as long as it is run by a CEO who seems to value shitposts more than electric cars. As far as "politics and the world as a whole" I don't see much difference whatever happens (if it happens). Twitter is a cesspool of relatively meh importance these days, and the social media vibe seems to be moving to Tiktok or Snapchat. We've seen what happens when libertarian Silicon Valley bros start "free speech" platforms, they get barely used. Most people social media for fun IMHO, and there is not much fun at a Gab or Parler. The terms of service at major social media platforms is largely IMHO advertiser driven as well, major companies don't want their brand appealing next to some right-wing shithead Heil Hitlering (or jihad terrorists or child exploitation shit or other content in the TOS). So too much "free speech" might kill your ad revenue stream. Really, there are no real questions other than how much can Musk ruin Twitter with his libertarian broism, which is honestly a topic of low importance. Meh (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Ethan Zuckerman, Director of the Initiative for Digital Public Infrastructure at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, said that Twitter punches above the weight of its user base because of its worldwide accessibility and the mainstream media’s tendency to mine the site for information and perspectives.
Elon Musk Will Make an Indelible Mark on Twitter, Experts Say. Higgs (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Back to the original point...
a) Musk will have a lot of debt to service, and is plodding the path of the old 'asset strippers' of yore; speaking of 'increasing monetisation' from Twitter (ie heavier use of data and/or ads) and 'efficiency savings' (ie job cuts etc). It's a rare bird where these things prove to be good for end users.
b) I have heard a semi-convincing argument that some of the main reasons Musk bought Twitter was a) a possible exchange system for his 'Dogecoin' crypto, b) access to the massive Twitter data-dumps for Tesla AI to chew on and c) a product for SpaceX's 'Starlink' worldwide internet. Tie this into d) the Tesla Pi Phone... well, do I need to draw any more dots?
c) Musk's history with 'free speech' is rather similar to the other 'big tech libertarians', intersperced with the classic "boss is always right" ultra-rich egotism shown by not only say, Agent Orange but Bezos too. While he's no way an Bob 'Eat Shit' Murray he does have a tendency to harrass and attempt to gag negative press reports on either him or any of his companies/products. What's more, several of his utterings suggest he likes the FB 'no anonymous accounts' rule.
In conclusion; I think we've hit 'peak Twitter'. Musk is in a bind; he shall need to 'squeeze value' out of it harder to service the debt but almost everything to do this points to causing folks to leave in droves. Many of the 'innovations' he's mooted will seriously hurt the 'integrity' of the thing. What's more, he's said that 'this isn't a way to sort of make money'. This points to two main ways he'll 'get value' from Twitter; the crypto and the monster data records.
Folks have drawn an analogy between this and Bezos/WashPost but that's kinda wrong. The paper is, well a paper/website. It generally controls it's own output, and is a top-down system; Bezos doesn't need to 'interfere', just make sure the senior editor is generally in-sync with his 'worldview'. What's more, I think he considers the occasional tooth-grinding situation with a particular article as a price worth paying for what he gets in return - influence.
Twitter is bottom-up. It relies on us to produce the content to attract folks. The platform itself is merely a publisher. It's not even like a traditional publisher like say, Penguin because it has almost no quality control. The platform has power, but the moment they start flexing such power is the moment it shall start to rot away. The 'best' bet in Musk's case is if he realises the best way to maximise 'value' is to basically not interfere in it - even if he tries to subtly 'steer' it in a more desired direction folks shall notice quite quickly (like progressive/socialist outlets/groups/persons did when FB declared war on them in the last couple of years).
Which is the ultimate problem Musk shall face. To allow the right-wing trolls, slime-monsters and MAGA debris Musk has increasingly been flirting with 'back on the land' will if not controlled *gah!* shall very quickly cause Twitter to die (as more moderate or simply apolitical folks leave) - just ask any of the admins here about what a 'moderation-free RW' would look like? What's more, these folks aren't 'profitable' in a big way (if they were, their alt-tech would have not sucked) and what's more, Musk shall know this.
KarmaPolice (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I concur with everyone else here, who the hell pays attention to Twitter anymore? It's just a bunch of bickering and fighting in my experience. 71.208.x.x (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Twitter is the 5th most popular website in the world and in the USA. The website is worth billions of dollars. Higgs (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Why is Twitter useful/relevant? A good quick way of responding/announcing stuff for the non-crazies. I don't do Twitter, but I do at times look at individual's accounts (for announcements etc). You can follow (for example) your local MP and get their reactions to new policies, issues and so on. Or an academic/campaigner you respect. Or even your local train network to tell you if there's delays etc (well, if you use it alot like I do). Because it's devoid of direct images, video etc it puts it somewhat anti influencer/eyecandy and it's brevity (due to format) means it's very quick/simple to produce. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Any website which has a lot of political material and perspectives and has user interaction is going to have a lot of bickering and fighting. That comes with the territory. And a lot of people enjoy watching conflict and even aggression. Presidential debates, battling political pundits, boxing, football, rugby, hockey and MMA fighing draw big audiences. Higgs (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Meh Frankly, I suspect companies worrying about their brand appearing next to extremist content is going to be the downfall of TV and Radio advertising in general and certain types of internet advertising (ads by Google, etc). Take for example sports players getting political on the field and causing Republicans to boycott the advertisers. Many of the advertisers probably wouldn’t have thought sports would be that controversial. It’s easy for a liberal to say the companies don’t care, but I can guarantee that the shareholders don’t want half of the US population boycotting their investment, so when advertising on a particular medium causes the company to lose as many or more customers than the company gains, they’re going to remove that platform from their portfolio. This is not to mention, of course, there’s no way for an advertiser to stop its TV or radio ad from playing at a Nazi bar or a brothel. 71.208.x.x (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
There's a world of difference between the political sports bruhaha in America and "pedophile comment section, sponsored by Nestlé" (this actually happened on Youtube in 2019, causing a temporary ruckus among advertisers). "Free speech" includes a lot of not so nice stuff, much of it not even related to the American tribal political thing. We'll see if Musk discovers what other social media CEOs already know. Meh (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I think 'consumer political boycotts' are more right-wing talking-points than anything else, a variant of manufacturversy. I don't think the majority of people even follow them, just a kind of right-wing 'slacktivism', of showing 'you're on our side' of the Culture Wars™. You think every conservative/Christian in the USA is going to totally boycott/cancel Disney over the thing in Florida? I really doubt it, and the lack of reaction from the serious donkeys in the business world suggests similar. (Corp America is more concerned about *staff* resistance to corp policies, as younger generations are much less willing to 'suspend' their moral/ethics when they punch-in for work than older generations were).
Anyway, one point to consider; Musk's financing of this (in simple terms). He's got his 'deposit' (cash), then a lot of cash raised through a loan on his main asset (Tesla shares), then the same again through partners and then finally a loan on Twitter itself. In short, Twitter shall end up with a $13bn loan and $600m yearly payments for the honour of being (mainly) Musk's. Now, even before this Twitter's credit rating was questionable at best. He's also got the weak link in that a Tesla margin call could seriously wreck his prospects.
The very fact that Twitter made a $220m loss last year and had an revenue of $1.6bn suggests a $600m yearly payout on top of this is the last thing it needs. My fag-packet says if he's unable to significantly raise income levels, Twitter will need to cut their operating costs by perhaps 50% to simply break even. I think part of his 'free speech' BS is partly because he thinks moderation is a kind of cost he can do without. But now I've crunched the numbers, I honestly don't see how this is gonna pay unless he is planning to loot it for it's data (or similar). If he'd just wanted a soap-box, he'd have bought a few news websites or newspapers with his spare change. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
It's not a question of if the Foxification of social media is going to happen, but when. Where there is a demand for something, suppliers are going to pop up. And the American right has begun to launch organizations and initiatives that fight against the leftward drift of American corporations.[1][2] Higgs (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I really like that idea. All you lot can go into a safe bell-jar where you're simply talking to yourself, while not noticing the world changing outside the window (that's the 'leftward drift' you're bitching about; society moving on). There you can simply get stuck into a feedback loop, becoming more demented, senile and obsessive about crap nobody else cares about anymore. Then when you occasionally come out into the wider world, everyone shall think you're a reactionary loon, like that elderly relative you see at Christmas who still thinks it's 1992. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Fox News is reporting that Trump's Truth Social was the top downloaded app on Apple last week. The "Foxification" and growth of right-wing social media is in its beginning stages.

As far as advertisers, it looks like the proliferation of new conservative groups forming to push corporate America farther to the right is happening faster than I thought. I found more conservative groups popping up to achieve this aim.[3][4] . So the NY Post is reporting on this matter (The New York Post is owned by Rupurt Murdoch). Higgs (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Why do I smell Ken in the room? 71.208.x.x (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I dunno. Do malfunctioning chatbots smell of anything in particular? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Elon will probably will have to ban any hate speech on his platform anyway or face the fury of regulators. ♈︎♉︎♊︎♋︎♌︎♍︎♎︎♏︎♐︎♑︎♒︎♓︎ (Discuss)
He'll have to, for as explained above he cannot *afford* to do otherwise. If he truly held as a 'free speech absolutist' he could have used his spare change to fund to eternity a kind of MuskChan or something. The issue is that kind of thing simply attracts sewer-dwellers. For the truth is some ~85% of users find the current Twitter Overton Window fine. We also have to remember that Americans only comprise 37% of the Twitter-base; in this case, the 'one Twitter, one world' model means that it shall *have* to follow the strongest regulation standards of the markets it operates in. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Superdeterminism[edit]

Sabine Hossenfelder has stated that free will does not exist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY&t=0s
I found a video that has provided an apologia for free will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFX_PphQSyI
The terminology is pretty obscure. Can somebody translate the jargon?HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 10:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

So he made that video because 'a primordial particle moved [just so] and not [a fraction different]?' Anna Livia (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I haven’t watched either video in full, but I can already tell that Hossenfelder is strawmanning both compatibilism and dualism. The second video is half an hour long; it would be easier to help if you posted some of the particular terms you don’t recognize here. From the first few minutes, I’d guess ‘doxastic’, meaning roughly ‘about or related to belief’, and ‘conative’, meaning roughly ‘of the mental process(es) directed toward action (as opposed to reflective thought or emotion)’. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 11:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Here's a transcript: http://dustbringer.blogspot.com/?m=1 HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 12:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Obscure part: Let us start with the so-called “laws of nature”. Not only do all laws of nature not work with differential equations, but laws of nature do not work or do anything at all. -> The form determines the matter also, and while particles do indeed cause life, the form of life (especially in the human case where volitional consciousness manifests on the conceptual level) pushes back with no ghost in the machine necessary
(Paragraph 5) HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 12:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Quantum mechanics laughs in the face of determinism. The universe is fundamentally stochastic. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (EC) Ah, ok. The very first phrase is extremely awkward: not only do all laws of nature not work with differential equations, but laws of nature do not work or do anything at all is not well put. It would be better phrased, 'Not all laws of nature work with (i.e. involve) differential equations, and furthermore, the laws of nature don't actually do anything'. The first part of the sentence isn't really important: they're just accusing Sabine of being wrong to generalize and say that all laws of nature are expressed as differential equations, rather than some other kind of equation. The second part he spends a lot of time going into. The argument is essentially:

  • P1: The Laws of Nature are a mathematical human construct, derived from observations of the physical world.
  • P2: Mathematical constructs are not causally efficacious. I can use math to describe and predict how physical systems will behave, but the physical behaviors I observe do not occur because of the mathematical constructs. The planets would orbit the Sun whether or not any mathematical constructs were ever developed.
  • C1: The Laws of Nature are not causally efficacious (P1 and P2, by deduction).
  • P3: The Laws of Nature are sensitive to the behavior of physical systems. Whereas the behavior of physical systems is not due to the Laws of Nature, the form of the Laws of Nature is due to the behavior of physical systems. If physical systems were to be observed to violate the Laws of Nature, the Laws would be adjusted.
  • C2: It is fallacious to say that free will is impossible because it is not predicted by the Laws of Nature (C1 and P3, by induction). The problem is that the argument tries to constrain the behavior of a physical system (a human brain, say) by appeal to certain equations, when these equations are inherently constrained by the behavior of physical systems. If careful observation of the brain indicated the reality of free will, we would not conclude that free will doesn't exist anyway, because the Laws of Nature say so. Instead, we would revise the Laws of Nature so as to be compatible with our empirical evidence for the existence of free will. To do otherwise would be to reverse the procedures of science and engage in dogmatism.

The above is what they're getting at when they talk about the planets' motion, and say that Things do not obey physical law; physical law must be made to obey the nature of things, and everything up to that point. They next segue into the claim when Sabine talks of free will being incompatible with the laws of nature what she means is that certain laws of nature can be modeled for things which appear to behave deterministically, human beings are composed of these same things, therefore human beings must be deterministic. But this inference would be much too hasty. This is a reconstruction of Sabine's argument. Her argument can be reconstructed in the style as above:

  • P1: Certain things can be modeled using deterministic Laws of Nature.
  • P2: Human beings are made of the kind of things described in P1.
  • C1: Human beings can be modeled using deterministic Laws of Nature.
  • P3: Whatever can be modeled using deterministic Laws of Nature is deterministic.
  • C2: Human beings are deterministic.

They then give a reductio of that argument:

  • P1*: Certain things can be modeled using non-deterministic Laws of Nature (i.e. quantum mechanical entities).
  • P2*: Human beings are made of the kind of things described in P1.
  • C1*: Human beings can be modeled using non-deterministic Laws of Nature.
  • P3*:Whatever can be modeled using non-deterministic Laws of Nature is non-deterministic.
  • C2*: Human beings are non-deterministic.

Here, C2* is supposed to be obviously false. At the scale of human beings, quantum effects are insignificant, and human beings can be modeled as deterministic. The underlying idea is that the whole does not always resemble its parts in every respect, so you cannot infer from the parts have property X to the whole has property X (I point this out because I think it's kind of a bad argument on its face: strictly, C2* isn't wrong). After this brief argument, they attack Sabine for giving particles privileged metaphysical status. This argument continues into the following paragraphs, but the quote they're going after overall seems to be "we know [the amusing emphasis is hers] that we can derive from the laws of the constituents what the whole object does". Within the paragraph, it gets a bit vague, but their point is that nature itself does not endow things at any particular scale with metaphysical privilege. The emergent properties of the human: the abilities to see, think, feel, etc. have equal metaphysical status as the properties of the quantum particle: mass, charge, spin, etc. Partly, I'm not sure to what extent this part of the paragraph is actually attacking Sabine — they seem to be seeking to refute a perceived position (that particles are more real than the larger entities they form), rather than an expressed one. None of this (in this paragraph, anyway) seems to be incompatible with the notion that the properties of the whole can be explained in terms of the properties of the parts. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 14:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I like the way you manage to break down monologs into premises and conclusions and provide a detailed explanation.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 14:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The mgtows are at it again[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWu-IOxbeSD-MRM2Q87ZF0A Looks like nasal Sargon of Akkad is rising in popularity.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky has lost me[edit]

Chomsky praising Trump over Russia

Up until recently, the Chomsky article looked like it was written by some fan of his. At this point I’m not sure if he has a coherent ideology other than “USA bad”. 98.186.205.221 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

not so long ago chomsky was urging people to make sure trump was not re-elected as he considered an existential threat to humanity. watching the source video, he does not appear have changed his mind, immediately after the clip on twitter he tells the interviewer just what he thinks of trump. that clip was 2 mins of the 57 minute interview and that was literally the only part that referred to trump, and was not about trump so much as saying what he thinks should be done be about - diplomacy, largely- and that trump was the only high ranking politician currently who has advocated this approach. hes not suggestioning he should be in white house. hes not saying he likes the man or that he would be anyway good the us nation or or the world. just that he is only person of note who say we should be trying diplomacy in ukraine and not escalation. he also says trump is vague on the details and the more comprehensive explanation of this diplomatic option chomsky describes is chomskys ideas not trumps.
the message to take from tha clip and is clear to anyone watching it is, according to chomskys view, diplomacy over non escalation is the best policy to end the ukraine crisis. chomsky is well aware of the irony, so is greenwald probably, who is obviously very aware of the concept of clickbait. i assume also that he believe more people than not will watch the clip and realise this is barely praise and is not the point of what was being said. i dont agree with chomskys assessment tbh, and i think greenwalds mistaken (if the retweet the above link is any indication) if he thinks most people will see even bother watching the video - the clip or in full - and just reference it to support a notion of trump as not a self serving fucknut who would have cheered putin on if he were in the whitehouse, and/or to attack chomsky by inferring hes big trump fan, with links titled something 'chomsky praising trump over russia'.
Clickbait pure and simple. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
most of the comments (on greenwalds twitter at least) is discussion about the appropriateness of chomskys diplomacy suggestion to the current crisis btw, next to no discussion of chomsky and trump sitting in a tree, k i s s i n g AMassiveGay (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Joe Biden is incompetent and not well-respected. I hope France's Emmanuel Macron gets Putin/Zelenski at the bargaining table. Higgs (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I think Macron would look a utter fool and tool if he was still trying that. Putin treated him like crap, and the Ukranians have near-nil desire to 'negociate' with a man who's burning, looting, raping and killing their country. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The whole point of peace negotiations is to stop the killing, looting and raping of wartime. The world needs grain, fertilizer and oil so the sooner the bullets and artillery stop flying through the air in Ukraine/Russia, the better off the world will be. France has a lot of dipomatic connections in Africa. As far as diplomacy, Macron is Africa's best hope to stop the brewing food crisis. Higgs (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
No point signing anything with Putin for he wouldn't keep to it. He would simply dig into the bits of Ukraine he's stolen, brutally Russify them, rearm and regroup. And try again in a couple of years time. He is the *cause* of all this shit, and you're saying he should be rewarded for this?
You can go to hell, 'Higgs'. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The Soviet Union had plenty of bad actors. The USA and the former Soviet Union had some fruitful negotiations during the Cold War. The strategic arms limitations talks (SALT) helped stabilize USA/Soviet/Russian relations. Higgs (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Putin is quite possibly mentally ill. Negotiating with him would be problematic. He simply need to withdraw or lose.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The long distance diagnosing of others mental health is unreliable. That is why the American Psychiatric Association has the Goldwater rule. Without peace negotiations the Russia/Ukraine war could drag on for months or years. Meanwhile, a very large amount Africans would die or suffer the consequences of malnutrition and many Ukranian civilians will die of Russian artillery attacks. Ukraine/Russia: As War Continues, Africa Food Crisis Looms. And the longer this war drags on, the higher the chance of nuclear war or WWIII. Higgs (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Higgs If you google "Putin mental illness" you will get multiple hits. I said he was "quite possibly" mentally ill. In any event he is not an honest negotiator.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Higgs The Russian Federation isn't the USSR. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
ECthere seems little hope for diplomacy. that requires some give and take, russia has nothing it can give in return for taking ukrainian land into mother russia. ukraine has evrerything that russia want and would be expected to give up some portion of it, ie land, to russia, and only being able take from the russia in return is russian troops leaving their lands. and russia will have ukraine pinky swear to say no to nato, and remain non aligned which as russias direct neighbour non aligned means russia's bitch. its a win on all fronts for russia, and ukraine are not going to go for it meaning soldiering on without western arms which means russia wins militarily too just putting up with low level guerilla actions from die hard ukrainians. the time for diplomacy was before the invasion, and putin was not having it, invading when he did to prevent any solidification of ukraine defence (he blew it). its only because russia has nukes that west 'are' mainly doing diplomacy ie sanctions that than we can drop if russia gets the fuck out of ukraine. without nukes russia would not not have dared a confrontation with nato forces, or just us and uk forces, which no matter how much of a fight they might have put up, would have been costly to even contemplate.
by having capitulated with diplomacy now, where next do you think russia can chance it and gain everything via diplomacy? what about china too, looking on in wings? taiwanese folk might start to feel less secure at the very least. and every other nation currently in dispute with their neighbours seeing how nukes lets states act with impunity and seem like a good idea to get cracking on acquiring some.
diplomacy is the option here for 94 old leftist like chomsky whose views a world that might been possible a while back but no longer as viable, and fuck nut like trump who were fellating putin before the invasion, and would like ukraine to just shut up and take it because they would love to get fucked by putin, ukraine are just ungrateful AMassiveGay (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The current Russian Federation and USSR were both expansionistic in modern times. The Russians played a big role in the Soviet Union. The SALT talks lessoned aggressions between the Soviet Union/USA and stabilized USA/Soviet relations so peace negotiations in this conflict may lesson or even end aggression between Russia/Ukraine. Modern war puts a strain on countries in terms of lives and treasure and as war drags on citizens grow war weary and more and more pressure is put on countries leaders to end the conflict. As this war drags on, the door to peace negotiations should stay open. Higgs (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This is like asking a victim to negotiate with a thug attacking them on the street. The last time western powers went for appeasement to stop aggression it didn't work out so well.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Most wars start with one side firing the first shots and being the initial aggressor. And peace negotiations don't require appeasement. Higgs (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Big difference being, the aggressor wants total and complete surrender, and also doesn't think the country it invaded has the right to exist. There is nothing to negotiate.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@HiggsOK. If you are negotiating with Putin then presumably you would be prepared to give him something in return for him stopping his war. The same as the western powers attempted with Hitler (sorry Godwin) in order to stop his aggression. That was called appeasement. How would giving Putin something (presumably part of Ukraine) be different?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing to negotiate when one party has shown no interest in good-faith negotiations. The Russian government has shown bad faith on multiple levels: declaring that it was not planning to invade just before invading, violating the UN charter with a full-scale war of aggression, massive war crimes (both by individual soldiers, by intentional bombardment of civilians, hospitals and schools, theft and kidnapping). How does one negotiate with an entity that actively attempting genocide? Every minor commitment by Russia at negotiations in Turkey (cease fires) has been violated by the military. Bongolian (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Here's a more important question. Why should they? Why should we in the west carve up Ukraine, who it appears does not desire this? Why? Why should what we want override what Ukrainians want? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
To point out the parallels with the example of Germany's initial conquests, none of the conquered people were consulted on what they wanted. Third parties carved up their land and their lives for schemes and motions that were beyond the interests of the conquered peoples. The Polish people were not consulted in the Molotov-Ripponthropt pact. The Czechoslovakians were not consulted when Britain signed agreements with Germany. Why on earth should Ukrainians abide by any agreement between the West and Russia? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the war will end with Ukraine merely promising never to join NATO or promising not to join it soon. Zelensky has already floated that trial balloon publicly. And there is a growing risk of USA/European/global recession and modern war isn't cheap to engage in. On the Russian side of the fence, the Russian/Afghanistan war ended due to mounting Russian war casualties. I don't pretend to know what future peace negotiations will be worked out, but the West invading and conquering Russia is not going to happen. And Russia conquering and holding Ukraine long term is not going to happen either. Higgs (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Higgs Fucking answer the question! Why the fuck should they?!?! Why? Because it makes our cushy lives easier? So does killing the lot of them. Why should they sign? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
GrammarCommie is correct. Allowing Russia to get away with this atrocity will only embolden it. Giving in to bullies only further emboldens the bully. If Russia succeeds in the war, they will continue on this path across Eastern Europe. Bongolian (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bongolian Not only that, but we would be explicitly acting against the will of the Ukrainian people, and basically telling them "we know what's best, shut up or else". At which point, what the fuck is the difference between us and Russia? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Pay the Putin-geld, never get rid of the Putin - no more appeasement. We've tried that for over a decade and he simply took and took and took. Now he's following the argument of the violent husband and the 'look what you made me do' to their battered wife.
Your argument, Higgs is that in this case the wife should meekly drop knickers to stop the blows and to accommodate his needs. That's only a policy that seems to work when you're always on top and don't know what it's *like* to be shat on for no fault of your own.
And for that, you can truly go to hell for your excellent 'AmericaSplaining' to the world yet again.
(What... I agree with GC? Suppose it's bound to happen eventually...) KarmaPolice (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Russia has already taken two bites out of Ukraine after guaranteeing its security only a few years earlier. We can't trust Putin and it's not down to "us" anyway.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

In April Reuters reported that a record number of Ukrainians support joining EU, but Ukranian backing for NATO membership falls. Ukrainians have surely weighed the pros/cons of pursuing NATO membership and the popularity of wanting to join NATO has fallen. America is funding the lion's share of Ukraine's military support and NPR recently reported that Most Americans don't like Biden's Ukraine response and worry about inflation. And America is war weary due to the Iraqi/Afghanistan War. Higgs (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to clarify my last post by quoting the news source I just gave: "More than 6 in 10 Americans want the U.S. to give Ukraine some of the support it wants, while still trying to avoid a larger military conflict with Russia. Fewer than 2 in 10 say the U.S. should give Ukraine everything it wants, even if it risks a wider war."[5] Americans are not committed to end this war quickly by dramatically ramping up the funding of the Ukrainian military. And there are clear signs that the USA is heading towards a recession so America's willingness to fund this war could easily wane. Therefore, keeping open the door to peace negotiations is going to be the quickest way to end the Russia/Ukraine war. Higgs (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
And why should we end it quickly? You dancing around this central point here. Why should we make these choices? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Higgs Answer the question. Why should we, the Western powers, make these choices? Why not let Ukraine decide what's best for Ukraine? Engage in non-sequiturs and I'll just delete them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Higgs If you keep hiding behind IP socks I'll just ban your account. There's no point engaging with the terminally dishonest. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Just ban them, whoever they are, bad faith arguments about fascists should be enough.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this user never seems to respond to any questions actually put to them. I note that they began their contributions with a criticism of Joe Biden - but at no point have they said anything negative about the apparent war criminal Vladimir Putin.
It would be instructive if they were to (1) give their opinion of Putin and (2) explain why giving Putin some part of Ukraine (or pressurizing Ukraine to do so) wouldn't be appeasement.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see Higgs saying that Russia should be given a part of Ukraine. So far the only concrete idea that Zelensky has floated publicly is promising to not join NATO which is a significant concession. Peace negotiations are fluid things and greatly depend on how much power each party has and how much future power each party thinks it will have. For example, Vladimir Putin's top military commander General Staff Valery Gerasimov was wounded this month and flown out of the war zone. Events like this change the dynamics of the war. Vladimir Putin keeps losing military commanders to Ukraine snipers. But wars are difficult to predict and so are dictators like Putin. Russia was badly losing WWII at first, but then bounced back. So far, the Russian military has shown itself to be weaker than it what was largely thought to be by Western intelligence analysts and big changes would have to be made to make the Russian military more effective. Benson (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
No he hasn't. And when I asked him exactly what should be be negotiated he - as usual - ignored the question. If he doesn't mean that Ukrainian territory should be ceded to Russia he had ample opportunity to say so. The war exists because Putin invaded Ukraine. Giving Putin any kind of a reward for this criminal act would be a mistake and would - under any reasonable definition - be appeasement which would encourage him to more adventures. Obviously you - completely new user who just joined the conversation and is certainly not Higgs - cannot answer for Higgs. But what would you suggest that this untrustworthy war criminal should be offered?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried to post a thoughtful response, but your spam filter is very aggressive. I am guessing it limits the byte size of posts by new users or maybe all users. Your Saloon bar forum is definitely not user-friendly for new users. If I want to discuss politics or social issues online, I will go to more user-friendly forums. Benson (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This is seriously like talking to Andrew. Never a response to a question. Deflections, non sequiturs and strange new accounts who appear out of nowhere to support some other user making a losing argument. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Now I think about it you might also want to look at our mission. Our primary purpose is not, in fact, providing a political and social discussion forum. (Though many people who are interested in the primary mission are also interested in those topics.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I had a midsized post with two embedded links in it to mainstream news sources. It definitely was not a big block of text nor did it contain dodgy links. If you want people to participate in your forum, then make it more user-friendly. Someone should fix your overly aggressive spam filter. Benson (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Did you read my post directly above telling you what our mission is? If you contribute to the main mission your ability to post in these tangential areas will gradually improve. If you appear out of nowhere to spam a chat forum in order to "spontaneously" agree with some other new user who is making some dumb political argument then I agree things will initially be difficult.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The website's main page says: "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." Your website falls short of what it promises on its main page. Benson (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
"constructive dialogue".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Dialogue - 'A conversation between two or more persons'. Vaguely-relevant monologues on shifting subjects while avoiding answering any question/point put to you does not count. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Abortions being overturned?[edit]

1.145.187.251 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

:}Probliknaut (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

How much longer do you think the Russo-Ukraine war will last?[edit]

Can't go on for that much longer surely. 1.152.109.184 (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

People in Beirut went on vacation once the civil war started expecting it to be over in weeks. They didn't come back for years. Vietnam was supposed to be over in no time. This kind of thing is impossible to predict. ShabiDOO 23:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Even if the war does end, I'm worried that Russia might invade Moldova or other countries next. LongStylus (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Given the current state of the war, it's unlikely that they'll pull off another invasion.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 05:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I mean, for all Putin is being told, Russian troops are occupying London as we speak. Revolverman (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
if it is to drag on for years we could hope for it be a frozen conflict where not much fighting actually takes place. would war in the ukraine outlast putin's reign? how long will putin remain in power, if there is no coup or is forced out? he could be in power until 2036 in theory, but would stay that long? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. So it's been going for quite a few years already.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I worry it will escalate beyond Ukraine despite how unlikely it is. I don't know how well-equipped they are to defend against Russia in the long-term.--Spoony (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Russia only had enough for a single wave of a Blitzkrieg. Blitzkriegs require multiple waves to work properly. Russia is going to be bogged down in Ukraine until they either win or lose. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe from running out of supply, but they are still taking a city or two.--2friedeggs (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I've seen claimed May 9th -Victory Day in Russia, to commemorate the victory against Hitler in WWII- is some sort of deadline. If Putin does not get his objectives by then, which given claims of the Ukrainian army suffering heavy losses despite them giving still more to the Russian one seems unlikely, some suggest he could announce mass mobilization, sending more people to the meat grinder, to defeat Ukraine once and for all even if after Moscow's use of hypersonic missiles, submarine-launched ones, etc. I'm afraid some tacnuke could be used to force a surrender given that the decisive battles are said to be fought now.
I think Russia will win and will get the Donbass, possibly Crimea too, and could even link to Transnistria landlocking Ukraine and presumably forcing them in the long term to join Russia as no exit to the Black Sea would ruin their economy. However expect lots of headaches there for Moscow (terrorism, etc) and its army will be left in quite bad shape so I doubt and hope they'll not try further adventures in a long time, even if having Finland and Sweden joining NATO would be a source of tension and nuclear weapons-based threats. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that Russia will get anything close to what it wants. They spent months marshalling an army to attack on all fronts and then had to withdraw and redeploy to concentrate on the northeast and east after their big push from Blelrus failed. They spent a lot of time regrouping for that (continued) thrust. Now according to the Guardian "Russia has now been forced to merge and redeploy units from failed advances in Ukraine’s north-east, the UK’s ministry of defence has said." So yet again (after significant losses) they are pulling back from one area to regroup and concentrate forces to attack an area they were concentrating on all along.
Meanwhile Putin says everything is going "according to plan". One hell of a plan.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Putin still hasn't admitted that it's an actual war, yet, has he? Mostly what I hear is butthurt. How dare that fake country have the temerity to fight back! I'm waiting to see what happens when the Ukrainians occupy Belgorod, myself. Zontar (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's evident that he's both evil and incompetent. (So I guess that it's no great surprise that certain groups who share these characteristics support him.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Russo-Ukrainian War will likely become a greater war for control across eastern Europe. As people conceding is rarer, it is unlikely Ukraine will surrender even if occupied, which would still result in recognition. Russia will likely not just invade Moldova, but also Sweden and Finland if they can't join NATO in time. However, a war with Moldova will likely trigger a war with Romania. Romania is a NATO country, which will mean a full on war with NATO - including the US, if Russia tries to invade Romania.

But what is likely is NATO will not only free Ukraine and eastern europe if Romania is invaded, but push into Russia, forcing them to give up some territory. Andrew5 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

did you get all that from what you left in the bowl before you flushed? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I see Andrew has once again created grandiose narrative from thin air. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, he has not lost his ability speak earnestly and at length about subjects in which he has zero expertise.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
This source mentions possibility of invasion not just into Moldova, but also Georgia, which warred Russia in 2008. This source mentions a Russian empire, so it is not coming out of thin air. Andrew5 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Andrew, I know you're an idiot, but do try to read the part where Russia only had enough troops and vehicles for a single wave of a Blitzkrieg, and has suffered excessively large numbers of causalities since then. It's kinda important. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
China is siding Russia. If Russia can get China to side them, the result is scary...Andrew5 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 Andrew, if you don't actually engage with what's being said I'm going to just delete your comments. Where is Russian High Command going to get the troops, vehicles, and materials to invade other countries besides Ukraine? Where? Are they going to magic them out of the same place as your assertions? Where? Where are they going to come from? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Moldova is the only "other country" for which there is a plausible scenario for Russian invasion - no extra troops are needed.....it is a small country and not in NATO - if the land bridge through Odessa does get conquered you can see it disappearing into the new Russian empire pretty quickly. The Baltic States not so - they are NATO and have NATO (international) troops in them already. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie They'll probably get them from China, and they have plenty. But now I also see how they could run out. Andrew5 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 And why would the PRC do that? What do they have to gain from becoming overtly involved to that degree? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
What proof do you have that China is giving Russia supplies? I've never heard anyone say that China has officially sides with Russia, only Belarus, because Lukachenko is an asshole. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Damnit, I again didn't read carefully. As it turns out, it was an unofficial alliance. Andrew5 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

there is a hell of a lot of the abusive ex boyfriend in putins russia. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

How long after Putin's departure will the last? Anna Livia (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Another possibility is that Putin is in full sunk cost mode and will go on no matter the cost, up to annexing Ukraine as some say must happen, would mean to cripple the Russian army or even worse (I doubt China and India, especially the latter due to its relationships with Pakistan, would like to see tactical nuclear weapons being used). One advantage is that the world is no longer just US and Russia, and for China the US and Europe give far more monies than Russia. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's becoming clear that the Russians (from their POV) cannot beat Ukraine outright. In fact, if current trends continue it's possible by summer the Ukranians might be able to mount full-scale counter-offensives which could be successful (even the Russian General Staff can read graphs). This has become a war of production and if the West's arms bazaars continue to be at Kyiv's disposal I do not see how Russia can win that (though it's possible they're holding some power back; like the fact precious little of the Russian air force has been used as yet).
What's more, the Russians' actions in the 'occupied territories' seem to show they have sod all knowledge of history or even common sense. Cack-handed Russification, Soviet nostalga, looting, torture, raping and mass murders... between them, it's almost like it's designed to encourage 'mass resistance to death'. What's that line about if you want to see how hard someone can fight is to make it clear there's no other option?
A 'Transnistria front' would - I suspect - be a good thing for Ukraine. I bet they've had to leave lots of forces on that border to check any 'adventure' and if they could destroy the units they've bottled up they could then send their forces south/east to reinforce the 'main front'. I suspect Moldova won't overly complain if the Ukranians do their dirty work and trash the puppets so hard Chisinau can then finally settle the issue in their favour. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Russia I think will pursue two paths; Forcefully defending their territorial gains, then pushing to integrate as much as possible so it can't be returned to Ukraine. Seeking to bleed public support for Ukraine, and hope NATO partners convince Ukraine to give up territory. Every documented atrocity makes it harder to get to that point, but Russia won't leave, they need to be rooted out. I think Russia also has a red-line before engaging in a full war footing or deploying WMD's, namely control of Crimea.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, the second sentence has just become a bit harder to do; EU is banning Russian lobbyists and other white-collar mercenaries. Being a European lawyer for a crony of Putin's used to mean you simply had little to nil soul. Now it shall make you a criminal too; something I suspect is too far even for them. I paraphrase Morty from Layer Cake; you can't enjoy all that blood-stained cash from a prison cell. Now we need to get the UK and USA on-board and enforce it hard... KarmaPolice (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Falsification[edit]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-paradox-of-karl-popper/ In this article, the author asked Popper if falsification can be falsified. Popper didn't really give an answer to that. So, can falsification be falsified?HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 03:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Popper didn't really give an answer to that." No, he answered it in that interview, and correctly. Popperian falsifiability is a criterion for distinguishing matters that are empirical vs. those that are not. As a tool of logic and analysis, it is not itself an empirical matter. It is instead a philosophical matter. The difference is important . 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Hypothetically, though, you could perform a somewhat weak falsification of falsification. We know that the point of falsification is to establish empirical validity of hypotheses and thus theories. You could take theories constructed with reliable application of falsification and compare their predictive accuracy and precision against those constructed by other means(both restrained to a given domain) with the hypothesis that the falsification derived theories produce better results. Should such an exercise not repeatedly prove to validate the falsified theory's strength, falsification itself could be falsified.
The point that the philosophy of science is not itself science is a good one, but I think you could nonetheless make a good attempt. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Donbas, NATO, and Putin’s nuclear threats[edit]

It looks like Russia finally beginning to concentrate on the Donbas area, although I don’t know if the current attacks are just probing or if they began their full assault in earnest. Russia is having a manpower shortage that is being gradually bled away and can’t be replaced easily without a national mobilization and even then, it takes time. Look at how Russia is fighting, with piss poor infantry support of armored vehicles. This will be especially problematic because even though Donbas has lots of plains like it has been characterized as, there are lots of urbanized areas, and the ugly fighting will only further deplete Russian forces. Whatever the outcome of this Donbas offensive is, the Russian conventional military will be pretty much a spent force after a few week.

The problem though, is that I don’t know how much Putin even grasps this reality of how poorly his ambitions will pan out. And I’m really afraid that, in order to not look weak, he will just keep escalating to the point of tactical nuclear weapons. When has Putin ever blinked, even when it was in his best interest or the better informed decision? And with Finland and Sweden about to join NATO, how will that fuel Putin’s sense of grievance and ambition?

And this brings up the question of nuclear deterrence. If all of NATO’s nukes are strategic, how would we be able to deter Russia if they use a tactical nuke? We won’t escalate by nuking Russia with strategic weapons in response to a tactical one, and Russia probably knows this. As much as I hate nuclear weapons, I think what we’re seeing unfold might very well lend credence to the concept of flexible deterrence and not having only strategic ones. This also presents another problem: as far as I know, this is the first time that the threat of nuclear weapons has been used to support a war of conquest. I know that some will draw parallels with the US and Vietnam, and certain comparisons are valid, but I will argue that the US never intended to conquer Vietnam and deny its sovereignty, whereas this is practically an explicit goal that Putin has for Ukraine.

Very scary times ahead, because I can definitely see a possible path to nuclear weapons being used. 98.186.204.159 (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Tankie tears are fucking delicious. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not strictly true that NATO has no tactical Nukes. Though it doesn't have very many of them.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Tankie apologism for Putin has been among the most baffling thing I’ve seen. The guy is literally threatening with strategic weapons and tankies are espousing him as an “anti-imperialist” or “anti-Nazi”. 98.186.204.159 (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Not really. Tankies are - having lost the 'existing socialist' examples of the Soviet Bloc and the Chinese sell-out to capitalism to cheer for - mainly fired by an anti-American / 'anti-Western' POV. Therefore, anyone/thing which 'stands up' to these evils is by definition at least NotBad or perhaps a bare minimum 'Bad But Justified' in extreme cases (NKorea, Iran). A more 'moderate' view is shown by the likes of Redfish (a Kremlin front org) peddling 'whataboutism' propaganda which is more effective because it's actually based in truth (it doesn't back Putin, but seriously dumps on USA/NATO etc). A good example of this level (let's call them 'Tankettes') is the UK Communist newspaper Morning Star.
Lastly, we need to remember that for a far-left POV there's not a lot of water between say, Putin and Johnson/Biden/Macron etc. In fact, it can/is argued that most of us in 'the West' have become so corrupted and comprimised (income inquality, mass SLAPPs gagging media, increasing signs of oligarchic castes, policing issues and so on) that Putin's model is merely a darkened mirror to ours, a land of where *we could get to* if only we backslid a bit more, let the rot penetrate a bit deeper etc (shameless plug; I did a blog post about this). KarmaPolice (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
i thought most of putins western supporters were leaning more to the right. dunno why people care what tankies think anyhow. ive never crossed paths with anyone that could be considered a 'tankie' in the wild. im sure they exist and all, but by and large i reckon you'd have to seek em out in 'their' part of reddit or log on to affiliated websites. its been a while since ive seen socialist party members get ignored by everyone at an event they were latching onto. i am far far away from anywhere communists might be a legitimate concern for folk that i can ignore them. far right fuckheads on the other hand appeal to something lurking in our baser instincts. its best they not be left alone to fester. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Well as 'Tankie' is a pejorative it's very unlikely anyone shall admit to being one. Plus, please go re-read my previous, perhaps also following the Redfish article too. I do lay out that as a rule the harder-left types don't *like* Putin (in fact quite a lot hate him) but they can't stand the USA/'the West' either. Therefore, lots of 'bothsidesism' goes on, sometimes going rather close to being Kremlin apologetics.
As for their prevailance... in the UK, more than you think. A decent % of the Labour left has *some* drift towards it, for starters. There's this one old guy who's shown a fair few signs over the years you might have heard of, and others have shown tendencies (there was even a 'both sides' petition over Ukraine which 11 MPs signed). Their influence is perhaps 'disproportionate'; they're often the most active/dedicated activists, trade unionists and amateur journalists/social media campaigners etc.
We in 'the Left' find ourselves in difficut times. We keep on being told that to oppose the evil which is Putin, we must (in effect) 'fall behind' NATO, Johnson, current model of capitalism etc. That to point out that we are not 100% innocent in the path which led us to this craphole 'helps the enemy' and so we should simply... shut up. And to point out much of our current jam is due to a generational incompetence, greed and myopia from our own ruling class (and in some respect is a 'hoist with his own petard' territory) is de facto apologia. As for the left... I've already had a few sharp words with folks I've known for decades.
Think this piece sums it up the issue better I ever did (in fact, suggest it gets put in the WIGO Blogs section): https://unherd.com/2022/03/why-the-left-is-split-over-ukraine/
KarmaPolice (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. We, people of the western countries, are 100 per cent innocent of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Capitalism has not been replaced because it is too lucrative. Too many people get lifted out of poverty for the idea of abandoning it to be popular. It is the source of more pleasure and pain than any other system that is not an autocratic state like Russia. But I don't like the split on who gets the pleasure and who gets the pain in Russia, or China for that matter. We could have better government than we do have but anyone who would trade their place in the west for the lot of a Russian recruit going to Ukraine, or a foreigner in China looking for a "white monkey" job is not on the top of my list of great career planners.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Erm... just no.
The West made a series of strategic errors between '91 and '22 in which led to this point. To name just three committed by Europe; we disarmed to a stupidly low level, we became critically dependent on Russian energy and we didn't react hard enough when the previous 'red lines' were crossed. You don't have to be Kissinger to realise this sent the wrong message to Putin.
These crimes were committed mainly by our leaders, who *should* have known better. But our 'crime' was mainly that of ignorance... and yes, I include myself in this group too. Almost all the flags passed me by, barely noticing them. And even when I started to, I didn't think things through and workout the severity or the 'angle of progress'. Our leaders were stupid, but so were we.
So our 'guilt' was that of stupidity, hypocrisy, laziness, greed, appeasement and on occasion cowardice. So no, we are not '100% innocent' on this and to argue we are does stink a little of 'Westsplaining'.
As for the left-wing issues, no this isn't a debate on capitalism per se. For the obvious point in this case *both* sides are capitalist. Go and read the Unherd article I linked to above, it explains much of the issue. And if you think that we socialists *should* fall into line saying 'neoliberalism is fine' because Putin's model is worse... well, I think I speak for many of us when my retort to this is 'you can take that and shove it'. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice has this nailed right on the head. Most of the tacit support for Putin, across the political spectrum on the west, centers on the idea that imperialism is only a function of the west, and I would argue many would specifically say the US. This of course ignores the very real imperialist history of Russia, China, Japan and focuses almost exclusively on the Western established world order after WWII. When you worldview only goes back that far, then the idea of spheres of influence or historical unity is much easier to swallow. It doesn't matter how Russia got so many Russian speakers to have significant populations in former Soviet countries. It doesn't matter that Han Chinese make up the majority of the population, and culturally seek to dominate any other Chinese cultural experience. They refuse to engage critically with these concepts and simply revert to "Well [Insert Western Country] did the same thing."
Unequivocally, in my estimation, the most dangerous supporters of this worldview are those on the left that are completely disconnected from reality. I had a multi-day back and forth when I posted a Tik-Tok comment 'Democracy > Authoritarianism.' The most delusional excuses were that; China is more democratic than the US because is has 8 political parties, and the largest representative body. Also that all governments are authoritarian, and that I shouldn't have an opinion unless I thought highly of the USSR and Cuba under Castro, a ridiculous bar to reach. On Chinese democracy front, even a cursory Google search would tell you China is a One-Party dictatorship, but this person clung to a backwards definition of "Democracy" were only having political parties matters, ignoring that a common feature of dictatorships is fake elections.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
i suspect shallow and vacuous argument is a feature of tik tok and instagram, more so than twitter which at least has its immediacy going for it. deep political thought interferes with the influencer marketing. there is probably only so many political discussions to be had via lip synching to k-pop and flogging gymshark AMassiveGay (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

From a Marxist POV, China did score better as 'democratic' during the Hu-Wen era; it was a collective leadership which meant there was a fair amount of 'internal democracy' going on and there were semi-legal methods for groups to lobby/pressure the state into changing course on certain policies. However, Xi has now destroyed all this and it's only with the HK protests the Western Leftists deigned to notice that 'China has changed' (I noticed a bit earlier on this, when I first saw reports that Chinese Marxists were being disappeared. Yes, quoting Mao is an offense now).

Liberal also brushes up on the true ideological fault-line of this era (of which the Ukrainian/Russian war is merely the first phase); freedom vs control. To be allowed to publically dissent from the state's opinion, to publish information which does not support their POV, to campaign directly against them if you feel strongly enough - all without fearing their coersive power being turned against you. And at a more 'passive' level; to live your life in a manner you so desire, not dictated from above. Even if said 'dictates' could be legitimatly be argued as being 'in your interest'.

This is important, and worth fighting for even if you think your country is going in the wrong direction on all fronts (*glares towards Westminster*) - that our societal model *is* superior over the 'Putin/Xi model' in this regard because it allows organic change. We can flex, develop with the situation, while they are brittle and try to make the situation fit them. This ironically also makes our societies more stable; if Russia/China are nations ringed by sea walls, ours are nations edged by rip-rap.

Anyway, those folk on Tik-Tok cannot be hugely blamed with their definition of 'democracy' for I've seen equally stupid definitions being posted by the 'other side'. Is the USA truly democratic, when it's an extreme 2-party system? Is the UK one too, even though it's almost an 'elective dictatorship' and for around 80% of the population your vote is effectively worthless? And that when it comes down to it, while the name-plates change now and then, the majority of the same policies continue to be pushed? This isn't new; it's what led Trotsky to deride this as 'bourgeois democracy'; a tweedle-dum/dee electoral choice which is almost worthless in value. And ironically, allowed Putin to sneak up on us because he was 'elected'. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It's fine and dandy to criticize Western democracy, it's far from perfect, definitely in the US, republic is probably a better definition. However one party doesn't have sole control of the electoral process, like many dictatorships do. And it's perfectly reasonable to point out that, power in China doesn't emanate from the elected representatives, of which only the parties allowed by the CCP get to run. Instead all the power comes from the unelected executive branch, to wit all members are also in the CCP.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
However, for a long time it appeared that nations like the USA/UK were almost de facto 'one party states' because the leaderships of both major parties agreed with each other 92% of the time, followed the same policy trajectories, took funding from the same people and pretty much hailed from the same stratum of society. It's only when the Trumpians and ToryKippers arrived on-scene did some real water open up between the pair, and *only* because that side simply put their underpants on their heads. It's why it was really difficult to get up any excitement over Clinton in '16 and Biden was perhaps the nearest to being the 'American Brezhnev'.
The truth is simple enough; we get fixated on the trappings of 'democracy' (parties, voting etc) but not enough of developing the *spirit* of it. It was this that killed Weimar, the reason why almost every post-WW2 state the USA has tried to build fell apart and why we got taken in by Putin for so long. As I explained above, it's possible to have non-elective states which are run on a level of 'collective leadership', which normally could be seen as a kind of political alliance of several factions, and thus some elements of 'internal democracy'. What's more, lobbying was also permitted, so other 'outside' factions could make their views felt too. This could be superior in outcome to a kind of 'elective dictatorship' model where the winning side simply sees it as a chance to hit the opposition and loot the place, ignoring all complaint from anyone, however reasonable they may be.
Now, I'm aware that I'm sounding a little like Hayek here, but I consider 'democracy' less vital to a healthy society than 'freedom'. The above non-choice elections didn't really mattter much because they were becoming leaders of nations which were generally speaking 'free-ish' and that there were enough brakes on absolutism within the system to stop really stupid actions. What's more, it allows the society to put up with significant minorities which desire to live in strong contrast to the majority - that if the issue was forced, blood would run.
The other fly is the simple fact that there's massive swathes of our lives in which we have little to nil say on. Corporations, education, government organisations and so on. Roughly speaking, these are all absolutist entities that if we are lucky we *may* get a bit of 'flex' out of, if we know what people to hit up and/or what levers to pull (which the Soviets used to call 'blat'; connections). Otherwise, we're in a 'like it or lump it' situation, particulary in the swathes of the economy which are dominated by a very few providers or more commonly, the myriad of providers appear to be the same level of crappiness. Naturally, this was the *exact* point the Bolsheviks argued in 1917; that why should the working class, having won political freedom, then meekly submit to the economic despotism of the capitalist class via their corporations? KarmaPolice (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPoliceI can only speak to the USA experience, but democracy is realized beyond national politics. State and local elections have serious consequences, and often are experiments for future national campaigns. From the national level, countries like the US are so large, and institutions are designed to limit big changes from happening. The intention was to create consensus, however instead it has manifested itself inertia.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
In the American case, I think the problem is that the Republicans have learned two things. One, that 'consensus' can be found by simply digging in heels, being shitty and shouting loudly, in the expectations that the Third Way-er Democrats shall be chanting 'we need to be reasonable' and 'the people have turned rightwards' as they surrender to almost all the Republican's demands. Two; that simply rigging elections (jerrymandering, voter suppression etc) is easier and more effective than having to actually appeal to folks outside the base.
I would go as far as to say part of the electoral paralysis seen in the 10s was the simple fact Democrats simply got sick of being the ones who always dropped their underwear and started to do the shouty obstructionist tactics the Republicans had been doing for decades. And the Trumpian answer is simple; more jerrymandering and suppression to get 'victories'. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I investigate the more outlandish claims of Conspiracy theorists like the Illuminati without losing my mind?[edit]

Is there something like a debunking site rather than sitting through a 2 hour youtube video about how the force in star wars is satanic and googling every fact purported in it?--Droog (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You can instead implement a quick critical thinking exercise instead of debunking every claim depending on the type of conspiracy theory. This works primarily with "grand" conspiracies, that if were real would need to have thousands upon thousands of people to be "in" on it. If the conspiracy theory in question involves an absurd number of actors to keep it secret, then this raises the question about it's sustainability. The higher the number of actors involved the greater the probability of failure in keeping the conspiracy concealed. Such conspiracy theories if they were real would produce a substantial amount of evidence of their presence that would need to be kept behind closed doors, with so many potential sources of error, risks of whistleblowers, journalists getting themselves involved, etc. Any grand conspiracy theory would likely collapse as the number of factors needed to be kept under control could not realistically be suppressed with that level of synchronized cooperation required. That makes grand conspiracies on the face of things highly implausible.
Another thing you can ask yourself is "would the implementation of this conspiracy or method of control hurt the wealthy and powerful?" if so, it wouldn't make any sense for conspirators to implement a plan that would ultimately hurt themselves.
Doesn't hurt to ask yourself as well to who would benefit, and if the results that conspiracy theorists claim would actually be the consequence of the theory. What additional evidence can they provide to show a real cause and effect? If they have none then it is baseless. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC).
These are all excellent points.
A good example is Flat Earth. It would need to involve all the governments in the world. All their high-level military personnel. All the world's transportation organizations - airlines, shipping companies. And so on. And then: why does the conspiracy even exist? Why would anyone benefit?
So asking the global questions before getting down to debunking individual tiny details is certainly the way to go.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Make sure you balance out your research with content that debunks the BS. You need a lot of mental strength to drink down BS. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Does the theorist have a financial motivation? Like, “COVID-19 doesn’t exist. Stay healthy by eating right and exercising.” <link to book available on Amazon>. Then you’ve got a red flag that it’s just crank magnetism spam looking to grift, anything after that you can allow yourself the luxury of thinking guilty until proven innocent. Antigem (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Getting back to the question asked about about looking at every fact proposed in a particular conspiracy theory case. The number of real true facts in the world is truly enormous. The number of incorrect ones will be larger by order of magnitude.

If a conspiracy theorist starts with the conclusion "my particular conspiracy theory is true", then finding a series of true facts which seem to support that case while ignoring facts which don't fit it is easy. If they then add in a random selection of false "facts" it becomes very difficult for a skeptic to work through the whole mess to establish which facts are true, which are cherry-picked and which are simply false.

Which is why it is wise to start by asking - what is the face validity of this claim - before getting down in the the weeds.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is a debunking site (along with Snopes etc.). For many things, I think basically looking things on non-conspiratorial references is the clue.
For instance, for "The Force" in Star Wars. As a fictional work, this is a fictional device used to advance the plot. TV Tropes is a site that catalogs fictional cliches and plot devices, and sure enough, they have one on "The Force". Clicking here, you learn that "The Force" is essentially a magic fiction trope.
RW's magic article doesn't go into the of-the-devil angle very much. But "search term Wiki" on Google sometimes can give you a clue by looking up all wiki sources, including Wikipedia and others. For instance, when I Google "magic satanism wiki", result #2 is the Magic (supernatural)Wikipedia article. In this article, you will see that "magic" is a term frequently used throughout post-AD Western history by Christians to demonize "the other". So, there is a very strong chance that the person who made this video is a Christian. If you examine more Wiki articles, which includes the Christian views on magicWikipedia Wiki article, you'll see that having a strong anti-magic attitude, even if it's silly pretend magic in fiction, is strongly associated with evangelicals. Famously, many evangelicals denounced the Harry Potter book series back in the day, as noted there's a whole article on that ruckus within the Christian views on magic article.
There is nothing to debunk, you can't debunk "oogie boogie". However, it is possible to figure out the motivation for the "oogie boogie". Chances are good that the 2 hour video is a bunch of half-assed garbage strung together with zero logic to simply try to allude that everyone else is an Other that is going to hell. There is therefore no need to watch it. Meh (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Often, there's simply too much to be practically possible to debunk for most people, sometimes by design. Videos such as those mentioned by Droog may contain Gish Galloping and other deceptive rhetorical patterns. It saves a lot of time to look at the character of presentations in terms of basic honesty in order to decide which to bother with further. (More slippery ones tend to waste your time and energy more efficiently.)
Rather than checking everything, it's also good to try to seize on some details that seem particularly important and check those. (A better pick makes scrutiny more efficient, it's guesswork to some extent.) If you knock down a central pillar, that's really enough, it disproves the theory. But the quality of more peripheral arguments says less, if they are bad it simply means there's a lot of nonsense floating around the core of whatever it is.
Keep in mind that when it comes to long-running things, like the claims of David Icke or of Laura Knight-Jadczyk, there's a certain fuzziness to what exactly it is about, and a basically populistic morphing of the message over years, including a moving of goalposts, so as to stay in tune with a morphing loyal audience. If there's any wiggle room to say, "Well, it may have been/meant that." when something looks suspicious, then that's usually used by the loyal audience to counter all debunking of predictions and ambiguous messages of other kinds. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Melenchon's big coalition[edit]

So, The Socdems & greens for some reason agreed to join in a coalition with his party & the Communists from PCF: https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1521833634109562880

Moonbats on twitter calling Macron a Neo-Nazi and Right-Wing. Centre to Centre-Right, correct. But Right-Wing & neo-nazi? And everyone seems to be forgetting Melenchon's Anti-NATO statements, Simping for Maduro, Anti-semitism & Conspiracy shit. Apparently he's pro-Russia aswell. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Are Ionizer footbaths safe?[edit]

My mother is currently having me and my brothers take a foot bath everyday after school after hearing about Ionizer Radioactivity I am currently worried. I would like to know how BS my mother's "health" endeavors are. (she is into Functional Medicing and listens to Funtional rheumatologist")— Unsigned, by: User:Tr3ll15 / talk / contribs

I thought we had an article on this but it seems we don't. Nevertheless my understanding is that they are completely useless but non-toxic. Like homeopathy the only danger they represent that that they may prevent people taking real treatments.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
They are not safe for one's wallet, but are otherwise probably harmless. "In this proof-of-principle study we found no evidence to suggest that ionic footbaths help promote the elimination of toxic elements from the body through the feet, urine, or hair. While unlikely to cause harm or result in any increased uptake, the use of ionic footbaths may release minute quantities of [potentially toxic elements] into the aqueous environment."[6] Bongolian (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia actually has an article on these things -- detoxification foot bathsWikipedia. There is no "radiation" involved, they "work" by providing electric current to electrodes in salt water, which rapidly causes rust. Obviously not "detoxing" and probably not harmful, no more than soaking your feet in rust water would be. A Youtube electronics guy named "bigclivedotcom" took apart a cheap Chinese version if you want to get into some nitty gritty details. Meh (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-dubious-practice-of-detox .BTS of foot pad detoxHighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 18:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
do they not at least feel nice? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
As Bongolian indicated, the main problem is that some of these ionizing bath devices are extremely expensive. Hot water foot baths do feel nice. There are limited studies like this to suggest there are health benefits to hot water immersion, perhaps, as well (mostly anti-inflammatory / circulation related). If you have a tub / bucket and hot water system in your abode already, it's also pretty cheap. No need to add crap that turns perfectly good water into rusty stuff. Meh (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Scifi/Trans Question[edit]

Let's say hypothetically, we live in a world where brain transplants are possible. You are in an accident or some other situation where you need a new body, and you're in luck, there's one available! But it's no guarantee that the body resembles your old one. It's likely to be some combination of different age, race, height, and/or gender. As can be guessed from the topic title, we will assume it's a different sex from your own. Heck, it could even be intersex. Do you accept this new body as-is and attempt to live as your old gender with a new body, do you adapt to your new gender as best you can, or do you surgically alter the body to match your prior body as best as medically possible? Corvette (yak) 13:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I would embrace whatever form I take. The opportunity to be a different form could break up some of life's monotony. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
If it represented the opportunity to continue living a healthy life I would take it under all circumstances.
It would be interesting to see if my sexual preferences changed as a consequence of the the change of body and the different set of hormones and body. So it would be difficult to give any hard and fast prediction prior to the event. I'm pretty solidly cis male - but, as I said, it would be difficult to predict would would happen.
With regard to the other stuff: any body I got would almost certainly be younger than my present one so - win! Skin colour - I suppose that there may be people who would say they would rather be dead than black - in which case I would support their decision.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Personally, if I ended up in the body of a woman, I think I'd be fine with it, but I would be a bit disgusted by "heterosexual" sex and I'd become a Lesbian at first. I don't know what those ovaries would do to me though, or how long before I tried some D. Corvette (yak) 14:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd at least give it a short while for the biochemical effects of the body to affect my mind and see where I am after that. We sometimes think of our brains as these isolated organs that are "us" with the body being a meat sack for transporting that mind, but there's a lot of interchange with every single system. My first thoughts wouldn't even be about gender, probably I'd be interested in how different my sensory organs are. Can I hear sounds I couldn't before? See colors differently? Do I feel warm or cold at different temperatures? Those are all experiences I see varying between individuals that would make for a surreal experience. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. As I understand it men see less colour or are more likely to experience colour vision problems because we only have one X chromosome. Anecdotally, women are more likely to experience cold. Taking it further, there is the female menstrual cycle - something which is beyond male experience. Without even mentioning giving birth.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Conversely, there's morning wood and the general male sex drive, a lot of people who start testosterone really find that hard to contain. For me, I'd have a harder time adapting to height and bulk differences than anything else; I'm used to being a sturdily built 6'3" and would find it jarring to suddenly be more average or even below average height (if it was one of the very rare women's bodies taller than mine I'd be good, though I'd have to adapt to the decrease in body mass). That and I'd still want long hair, that looks better on men and women both. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it's really hard to know the answer to this, since there are certain to be differences that I presently take for granted. The societal context matters: is there stigma against body modification? I assume that having the technology to put people in different bodies would reduce it. Some degree of body modification might even be seen as standard given the technological advancement necessary for this scenario. A new body would be a chance to have new experiences, though. I would probably take a "wait-and-see" approach. Vomitorium (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

R. A. Heinlein already did the SciFi part, in his novel I Will Fear No Evil. Kencolt (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Men don't see less color, they are at risk of seeing less color. However, in rare circumstances women can have the DNA to produce 4 different cones in the eye, whereas "normal" vision requires 3.
As for seeing different colors? Yes. Humans have variations in their rods and cones, the proportions and where they are centered will change slightly from human to human. Corvette (yak) 16:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
As a 5’9 135lb man I guess it depends on if my insane metabolism changes. Frankly my biggest concern wouldn’t be how I perceive myself but my wife’s feelings about the issue. I’d probably keep painting the house and leaf blowing though. Probliknaut (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Plot twist; your wife was the donor.
Also, she got your old body. So now you need to ask yourself a not so serious question; is it gay if it's your own dick? Corvette (yak) 03:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Joke’s on you; this is my fetish Probliknaut (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I've never had more than an almost always unrequited hug from a girl/woman (I guess it's fine as long as it's a tall guy on the receiving end, or something) to say nothing of a committed relationship (I was 16 when a 26 year old married woman falsely accused me of "coming on to her", which helped me conclude the much-overwrought "committed relationship" is the most toxic condition of human existence), so I'd be at the opposite extreme. Besides my height, if I could retain my basic personality of being a wandering hermit who's noticed but rarely approached in a crowd, I'd be fine. I mean, I'm not a total prude so I don't (and wouldn't) necessarily turn down a little platonic talk, but that's good enough for me. If I encountered a female who'd taken over my old body... I'm familiar enough with it that I don't need to see anything underneath regular clothing, but I sure hope whoever took it over kept my long hair (shave my beard if you must, but I look like such a faceless clone with a business-length pretty boy haircut). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Yes. Very. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Wait, Blade, you've not been in a relationship before?
Only advice I can give is "live your life". Not playing video games, but hobbies. You'll bump into people that way, etc. Corvette (yak) 04:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll never say never. But since I play the bodhrán as a second instrument, upon discovering this song a few years ago I thought it had a point (if you don't recognize the band think Titanic, the actual music in the movie and not the Celine Dion soundtrack crap); for purposes of this thought experiment, I figure it'd be easier for me than a lot of people to switch between bodies since I'd have a lot fewer people to explain things to. Even though my immediate family is open minded about such things that'd still be an awkward conversation, I can't imagine it being easier with a friend or SO. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser, while I'm inclined to agree, the exact mechanics of monozygous protein production is subtle. Having two copies of a gene gives twice the machinery to express it and two places in the exome that need to be downregulated in order to stop production, which, depending on regulatory mechanism, can mean a little or a lot more protein. That can mean more receptors of a given kind. It's further complicated in human vision because what the proteins from the X chromosome actually do is mediate the localized inter-cellar balance of turning rods into either the red or green cones, by signaling what each specific cell produced, so it could believably do nothing to have two copies, or conceivably give a more balanced distribution, but the density of receptors overall is likely to be the same. But only likely because all these processes interact with each other in complex ways. Punnet squares a gross simplification for children. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
My own eyes actually see ever-so-slightly different shades. Like, not enough to notice unless I'm looking for it because I'm so used to my eyes, but my right is slightly more orange-ish and my left blue-ish. While I can't say for absolute certainty what other people see, I think that's enough proof for me that I don't see the same as others, ergo we don't all see the same colors. Corvette (yak) 15:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Other question. Anyone mind if I create a pointless poll for this? Corvette (yak) 15:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

this hypothetical is complicated by the fact it posits this as the result of an accident, as a stark choice between taking a body of unknown stranger or death. its not likely something anyone will just be able accept just like that, looking in the mirror and seeing a stranger staring back at you. i imagine counselling would be required to deal with even a new body that looks pretty similar to your old one, a like for like swap, without even going into issues surroundinga different biological sex entirely. id imagine there would be problems even if you could consider the new body objectively an 'upgrade'. how many of us have difficulty accepting the bodies we already have and have spent lifetimes getting used to? the fantastical nature of this hypothetical is apparent from the lack of considering the likely and immediate consequence would be some kind of profound mental health crisis. and to say nothing of the reactions of loved ones and/or significant other to the the complete stranger insisting they are the same person as before AMassiveGay (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

i dont like hypotheticals. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
And transition, including the feminizing facial surgeries and everything else, don't create a massive shift in appearance? Admittedly it's not instant, but still. If you need to make it "better", you're on a waiting list for a new body for whatever reason, whether it's old age or because you are bedridden, whatever, it's not a split-second decision between life and death and there will be different bodies available as time goes on. So do you accept the first body that's available or do you wait?
And this hypothetical is something that may very well happen in our lifetimes, so it's a question we need to be ready for. Corvette (yak) 05:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
transitioning is not same thing in any stretch of the imagination. its a gradual process for one. its altering your body not replacement of it wholesale for another. and importantly, transitioning is something you opt for - it is a conscious decision someone has to have made. and you know what? there is still a heap of counselling required for the more irreversible procedures. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Analogies are like frogs; they die when you start dissecting them.
The purpose of the question is twofold. First off, at some point we will figure out how to graft spinal tissue. When that happens, brain transplants will become possible. It won't be tomorrow, but it's likely to happen in our lifetimes, so it is a question that needs to be asked. Second, Trans people are, e.g., a Man in the body of a Woman. This is difficult for someone that isn't Trans to grok, I don't fully understand it myself, but I want to have a bit of empathy. So here's a case where anyone can end up in the body of the opposite gender, where there's no confusion at all as to whether the person really is "Man in Woman's body". Does this brain transplant turn a man into a woman, if it's still the same brain? Is our gender determined by bodies alone?
Later on, we will reach some point where we can clone genitalia, and it's possible we will have women giving birth who were once men. At this point, I can't help but imagine the Ousters from the Hyperion Cantos. The Ousters lived in space, but they were rather weird in that they freely practiced body modification. Extra arms, fur, genital enhancements, you think it they got it. I'm not sure they would even have a concept of "gender" given their variety. Corvette (yak) 14:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If peterson were to teach you psychology[edit]

Does Jordan peterson actually teach conventional psychology in UoT? Is most of what he teaches original research?HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 17:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

He teaches both conventional and unconventional things, and has branched out into (in)famy from the more conventional academic work. Years ago I looked at Jordan Peterson lectures on YouTube, and there's a lot of basically standard material there. He provides both good and original things, but the good isn't so original, and the original isn't so good. He seems a basically good lecturer as long as he sticks to conventional stuff, but begins to practice bullshit artistry as soon as he talks about something outside of it (becoming deliberately vague, excessively long-winded, and somewhat Deepak Chopra-like except his focus is different). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Jordan Peterson retired from the University of Toronto, and got the National Post to print his spiel about it. From this it is pretty obvious where his focus is now; suffice to say, "teaching" and "research" is likely no longer a part of it, so any commentary should now focus on his Youtube personality. I've only seen a couple of clips from his controversial Joe Rogan appearance this year that were being passed around, and honestly was not very impressed. A lot of it sounded very "deepity", profound sounding but empty-headed, with the sort of [citation needed] stuff that you also see in his National Post article. I'm guessing he was better when he talked psychology, of course, but he isn't now I guess. Meh (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that update, I hadn't followed up on all the news. I was pointed to him years ago by a crowd who seem to have remained long-term fans, but felt more lukewarm about him in general. Then I got more wary after seeing some debates, in which, yes, deepity is the name of the game. (If you'd like to see Sam Harris at his finest and actually agreeable, you'll find that in the first debates between him and Jordan Peterson.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia, Israel and the Nazis[edit]

Hello everyone. I just want to take a second to say that this is without a doubt, one of the most idiotic political mistakes I have ever seen in my life which is quite impressive. So basically, after offending Israel (one of the last remaing "western-aligned neutral states" if you will) with some ludicrous claims that Hitler had Jewish ancestry and that the Jews were the ones persecuting themselves the most, instead of backpaddeling and going into damage-control mode, Russia blames Israel for being "anti-historical" and supporting a "Neo-Nazi Regime". Yes, you read that right, Israel supposedly supports a Neo-Nazi regime. It boggles the mind but frankly I have to say "bravo" and stand back in awe at the sheer inane stupidity.NastyNugget (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it logical to assume 'Mossad is not amused'? Anna Livia (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the fantasy land which Putin has taken Russia to.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The "Hitler was Jewish" canard began during the Nuremberg trials when someone claimed that Hitler's dad, Alois Schicklgruber (that's the original name; just try to intimidate anyone with a "heil Schicklgruber"), was fathered by a Jewish man by the name of Leopold Frankenberger. This can be disproven by pointing out that there were no Jewish people in Hitler's Grandma's village. But, people believe what they want to believe. Plus, "Schicklgruber" sounds exactly like the name a neo-Nazi would make up about a fake Jewish person. I mean, "sheckel-grubber", really?
What makes things weird is that as Alois was illegitimate. The two most likely fathers were brothers Johann Georg Hiedler and Johann Nepomuk Hiedler. JGH eventually married Hitler's grandma, but took an unusually long time before legitimizing his "son", if that even happened. But JNH was also Hitler's great grandpa on his mother's side. Which would mean that Hitler's mom married her nephew, instead of her cousin once-removed. Which is likely the real reason Hitler had his Grandparent's hometown razed to the ground, not any alleged Jewish ancestry.Corvette (yak) 14:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
That's not entirely correct regarding the claim that Hitler had Jewish ancestry. Hitler's lawyer, Hans frank, wrote a memoir in prison while he was awaiting execution for the war crimes that he committed while running occupied Poland. The memoir was published posthumously and made those claims. Historians found numerous errors in the memoir, so they don't regard it as a reliable source in general, and there is evidence specifically refuting the claims about Hitler's Jewish ancestry.[7] Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Israel is incredibly not neutral vis-a-vis Russia. Their standing relationships with the US(extremely close) and Russian allies like Syria(extremely hostile) do not lend themselves to neutrality. That said, it's not terribly surprising that Russia puts forth increasingly reality-disconnected narratives regarding their already-spurious justifications for war. It's not particularly different from what the US has done in living memory. "If you're not with us, you're with the enemy, who are unfathomably evil because [tenuous connection played up 1000x past the point of reason]" is mind poison. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Israel may not be neutral, but it also wasn't actively working to support Ukraine against Russia. They made platitudes about ending the conflict, and scoffed at providing military equipment or air defense systems to Ukraine. These statements might be enough to get Israel off the fence and start actively engaging. Even something simple like providing Iron Dome to cities like Lviv or Odessa would be massive.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Israel and Russia are weird. Russia recognized Israel before the US did. People forget that Israel was practically communist with the Kibbutz version of socialism. But that didn't work out forever, and a lot of the Left felt "betrayed" that the experiment was "abandoned", which is yet another reason that people have such emotional issues over a strip of insignificant land the size of New Jersey. Corvette (yak) 16:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I heard a former-Israeli government official say on BBC that while the statement has caused outrage in Israel, it is unlikely to move the needle for Israel to support Ukraine because of strategic necessities (Syria and Russia's Jewish population). Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
One, assuming the Russian-Jewish community shall be 'pro Moscow' by default is not wise (at least not without evidence). Two, this might help in increasing pressure within Israeli govt/society itself to harden against Putin (which Europe/USA shall clearly be putting them under). Thirdly; if any nation would instinctively 'get' how Ukraine feels right now, it's Israel. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
the existence of the azov brigade, far right militia now folded into the ukraine military proper, no doubt makes israeli support for ukraine problematic. it was certainly an issue before the war. as recently as 2018 the funding, arming, and training of this group prohibited by law in the us due to its far right extremism. it is claimed they have been depoliticised since, but opinion varies on how effective this has been. ukraine nationalism has a complicated history with nazis, and it seems a complicated present making it ripe for russian for propaganda that draws analogies to the 'great patriotic war'.
of course such propaganda doesnt play so well outside of russia (though you dont have look to far to find people more than willing to buy into it in the western world) and the whole 'hitler was a jew' thing is just dumb factually and self defeating in propaganda terms taking that line with the israelis of all people. its even dumber when if they really wanted to go down that road, they perhaps could have made something of the Azov brigade's jewish-ukrainian fiancial backer. but as stated, its a complicated history and present, and nuance is not a friend to propaganda.
the irony is that the azov brigade is a direct consequence of russian interference and aggression in ukraine, energising far right movements and swelling membership beyond the usual white supremacist fuckheads. while we can discount russian claims of de-nazification as obvious propaganda, and we can ignore some ukrainian soldiers having swastika tattoos while all of ukraine have a common enemy to unite them, russias actions have created a potential for future problems with far right extremism for ukraine, post war. a post war ukraine where military service has legitimised for many the far right, and made the honest to goodness war heroes. really dont if thats likely all or not (maybe fighting alongside each other will have ukraine come out more united tha ever), but it must be a worry for any minorities in ukraine when the far right have not got the russians to distract them.
and i do stress that this is not meant as some 'both sides' dogshit, or that russian aggression is any way justified, or they have ank kind of 'point'. this is not russian apologia for an unjust and brutal invasion. i hope sucha disclaimer wasnt necessary, but its here anyways. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Russia created its own enemy? As an American, such a thing is completely unthinkable to me. Corvette (yak) 05:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine has the Azov brigade, Russia has the Wagner GroupWikipedia founded by a Nazi Denazifier. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Apparently, Putin apologized. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/sorry-we-called-hitler-a-jew-russian-prez-putin-apologises-to-israel/ar-AAWYtu8?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=7b0e5313736a45d7b9c087ea855b9918 HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 05:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Turning into half-wits[edit]

I feel like quoting the weird old psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski. Recently, in thinking of Russia's statements and actions, the phrase "turning into half-wits" which he used in his work has come to mind more and more often... Here, "group" is to understood very generally, it can be larger as well as smaller. From Putin's inner circle outwards over time...

Once a group has inhaled a sufficient dose of pathological material to give birth to the conviction that these not-quite-normal people [psychopaths and others of destructively malformed personality and character] are unique geniuses, it starts subjecting its more normal members to pressure characterized by corresponding paralogical and paramoral elements.

Any human group affected by the process described herein is characterized by its increasing regression from natural common sense and the ability to perceive psychological reality. Someone considering this in terms of traditional categories might consider it an instance of “turning into half-wits” or the development of intellectual deficiencies and moral failings.

--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone have the footage of police beating up pro-choice protestors?[edit]

I saw it online but I forgot to save it. Brutal stuff. Be careful out there. 1.152.108.195 (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.vice.com/en/article/akvbvj/lapd-abortion-rights-protesters HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 08:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Did you check YouTube by chance? 71.208.x.x (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian failures are making me laugh[edit]

https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-most-advanced-tank-in-service-destroyed-after-days-reports-2022-5

I obviously don't feel sorry for the Russians, this is too comical. I wonder what other failures they will get? --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

With possibly up to twelve and at least four confirmed RU generals killed, and one of the most disastrous military offensives in modern history, one tank feels kind of underwhelming. But yeah I think it was a prototype even? Wild stuff. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Mainly it's such a modern weapon, that conceivably would have the necessary counter-measures to deal with the sort of anti-vehicle weapons that have been flooded into Ukraine. You would also assume that Russia wouldn't trust such advanced technology to be close enough to the front that it could be destroyed, both for propaganda reasons, and the concern that NATO countries are scraping destroyed weapons systems for info about Russian military technology. (Spoiler Alert: They definitely are.)-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the reason it was there in the first place may have been for propaganda reasons, to produce flashy state TV of high tech new weapons in action, but as RU leadership seems increasingly detached from the reality I doubt they even all are aware that it has been destroyed. UA propaganda has been far and away the winner with combat footage of successful strikes and images of destroyed RU vehicles. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The T-90M isn't Russia's most modern tank - that's the T-14 Armata. T-90's are essentially nothing more than updated T-72's - given a new name because the reputation of the T-72 was in the gutter after it's bad results in various wars in and around Iraq. The T-90M is the latest production upgrade, with improved fire control and the latest in ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour - the wedges on the outside of the turret and blocks on the side and front of the tank) - but at it's roots it remains a "Super-T72". But propaganda must have it's day in the sun...... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
ETA - the initial production T-14's were supposed to be being issued to a regular motor rifle unit some time this year - that unit was one of the ones defeated at and withdrawn from Chernihiv.... be interesting to se if they still get their flash new tanks and whether those are then used in Ukraine!! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm also pretty sure that there have been reports of the Russians not actually having ERA on their tanks, just the holders, so yeah at this point all of the fancy tech Russia has stated to have is basically very sparkly parade toys- speaking of, can't wait for May 9th to see what they do lmao Stingraey (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Russian boys and men are being sent to die in a pointless war with little preparation or concern for their safety. Meanwhile, the innocent of Ukraine are being brutalized and murdered. As amusing as Putin's clown show can be, let's not forget that. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 06:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Good post! Bongolian (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
These days, the Russians can't do combined arms to save their lives. It also doesn't help that they're facing the might of NATO, particularly the US, intelligence and surveillance capabilities.
As amusing as their failures are, we can't just discount that Putin has a nuclear arsenal that he repeatedly threatens to use. Consider the situation: their Donbas offensive looks like it's stalling, and given the attrition suffered so far, they will be a spent force in terms of offensive potential by the end of this offensive, regardless of how it turns out. He's already down to what, 80-90 battalion tactical groups (BTGs) out of the 120 or so he started the invasion with. So with conventional forces exhausted and Putin's delusional goals nowhere near realized, the scary part is what will he resort to? I can't discount that he might very well launch a battlefield tactical nuke out of desperation. The problem is how does NATO or the US respond? This is the first time in history that nuclear weapons has been threatened to back a war of conquest and seizing territory (as awful as the American conduct was in Vietnam, the US goal was never to annex that territory), and if Putin launches tactical nukes, it would be insane to not have some kind of response, given the precedence it sets, i.e. "I have nukes therefore I can conquer as I wish". But the response has to be proportional, and I'm not sure if it won't runaway into nuclear apocalypse. These are honestly very scary times.
I used to loathe tactical nukes, because I think they greatly lower the threshold that they can be used. That's still the case, but if regimes like Putin's exist and have access to these weapons, I can't help but feel that they are a necessary evil in our nuclear arsenal too. I wish the future can be free of nukes, but it's clear that we're not there yet, and disarmament would be downright foolish right now. 98.186.205.183 (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Apparently NATO planning is to respond "in kind" if Russia goes down the tactical nuclear weapon route.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
One of the main issues with the Russians is basically, they've not 'moved on' from the tactics, strategy, weapons etc of the late Soviet era. One of things which strikes me is how *similar* Ukraine is panning out vs the predictions of how a Soviet offensive into West Germany in say, 1983 would have turned out - Soviet armour groups being chewed up on masse with Manpad AT missiles in every German hamlet, Western low-level air dominance retained (thus semi-protecting infantry from helicopters), failed 'desants' on key targets at the outset and every km of advance costing a lot in Soviet men and materiel, ending with the advance spluttering and stalling, and then talk of nukes...
Ukranians, on the other hand *have* moved on. They've taken their own battle experiences and melded it with Western ethos, which at it's core is 'take care of your people' (unlike the Soviet, which is that people are expendable), while being given many a weapon which was often *literally* designed to chew up Hinds, T-72s and BMPs.
But the Russian problem is that it is *not* the late USSR. She does not have enough existing forces in-theatre and is logistically unable to transfer enough from other sectors. She does not have a bottomless pool of folks fit for military service. Her vaunted stockpiles appear to have spent thirty years mouldering in old depots while the quartermasters stole and goofed off. Nor does she have the colossal military-industrial complex capable of churning out kit by ton to refit the old and arm new divisions.
Truth be told; Russia can't cope. Every conflict fought in the Putin era either involved some select elite forces (Syria) and/or swarming an enemy weaker and often more militarily backward than they (Chechnya). What miltary exercises she had seemed to be geared towards showing off new bling and scaring neigbours than actually giving the whole system a decent work-out to see deficiencies for later correction. The constant threats with nukes makes me give a little grim smile; it shows Putin is fucked and has little else to work with. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The Russian tank design philosophy is such a stark difference with the West. Russian systems focus on overwhelming fire, with an auto loader underneath personnel. The auto-loader function allows them have one less person, but the right weapon system can ignite the ammo, vaporizing the crew, and popping off the top. Western armor designs put the ammo in the rear, literally separated from the crew. It requires another crewmember, and has a lober fire-rate. If that ammo ignites, it is designed to ensure the crews survival. The logic being that you can replace armor easily, but replacing an armor crew is harder.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I was reading about this recently. Apparently Russian tank design has the ammunition directly below the turret. And the turret is exactly the area which javelin ATM's aim for. Which explains those phots of Russian tanks with the turret blown completely clear of the tank. And while Russia has a stockpile of cold-war tanks (which may or may not be functional) they certainly won't have a stockpile of trained tank crews.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The 'design philosophy' isn't the problem, the fact that almost all the gear already existed in 1991 is. Worse, the level of modernisations have been even more limited than Western sources expected; a lot of the destroyed tanks show they're the vanilla 70s/80s models (though admittedly, this can be partly inverse survivor bias). But enough of the dead is also the new/upgraded versions, the very sorts which the Russians had boasted less than five years ago as being as superior to current Western tanks. As pointed out, many of the blowups are either ammo and/or fuel hits, known as 'jack-in-the-box' hits. Unfortunately, the wire mesh frames ('cope cages') tank crews have been rigging up in the hope to cause AT missiles to prematurely detonate (a trick first used in WW2) make it harder for crews to escape. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini I have not forgot that and seeing the footage from destroyed towns/cities, I never will. Putin is a cruel, sadistic, genocidal monster who deserves punishment. Putin's claims of "not intending to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine" raises all kinds of red flags (much like when they entered Donbass under the guise of "peace keeping" but chose to directly invade Ukraine). I would trust a Mafia boss or a drug dealer quicker than I would Putin. I hope Ukraine fights the occupation and prevails, their deaths can not and will not be in vain. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Lutfur Rahman[edit]

Just got re-elected in London. Anna Livia (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A fundamental difference between the Ukraine and Russian leaders[edit]

The Ukraine has a professional comedian. Kencolt (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

In Rest of world Politician become Comedian, in Ukraine Comedian become Politician Stingraey (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Wasn't our previous President an entertainer? Corvette (yak) 14:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Technically. Kencolt (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Another, perhaps more important difference, is that one wants to commit genocide and the other doesn't. Or that one is a mentally unstable old man and the other isn't.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

In Soviet Ukraine, comrade comedian laughs at you! 71.208.x.x (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
You think Ukraine is part of the USSR? That's a timewarp!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Well it was, just as much as Russia was. Remember the Russian Reversal meme? As a matter of fact, the warship that the Ukrainians just sunk was ironically built in Soviet Ukraine. 71.208.x.x (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
So ... The USA is part of the British Empire because - well - it was once?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
On the same token, Russia is not part of the Soviet Union anymore either. 71.208.x.x (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bob It is perferctly reasonable to refer to the Americas pre-revolution as "British America" - as it is to refer to Soviet era Ukraine as the Ukraine SSR or "Soviet Ukraine. Let others be the idiot - they are much better at it than you. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Can we please stop with the idea that Putin is insane? Seriously, what the fuck mental illness is he supposed to have? And who sat down with him and diagnosed him? Hey, fun fact, did you know that in psych fields remote diagnosis is heavily discouraged as extremely unreliable? Did you know that? Please stop. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the word "insane" above. I wrote "mentally unstable" and I certainly stand by that. Do you really think that his recent decisions have been completely rational? Ok, like you (I assume) I am not a mental health professional, but it's unquestionable that he has made a long series of "unproductive decisions".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/05/03/reckless-and-ruthless-yes-but-is-putin-insane-no/ HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 17:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bob M He invades Ukraine for a popularity/resource boost from pure annexation, rather than the "special operations" he's been conducting up to this point, something he's done in the past, overestimates his own military's capabilities while underestimating the Ukrainian's due to relying on out of date information and lying advisors, and so has imperfect information. Russian troops run rampant engaging in atrocities because either A), it's shock tactics to break the will to resist them or B) they're command structure is shit, possibly both. Putin any the other Oligarchs have "sancionproofed" the Russian economy, though they still underestimated the backlash from other nations and are now scrambling to fix the areas they didn't sanctionproof.
TL;DR if I use cognitive empathy and don't drink Russia's propaganda koolaid about Putin being a supergenius, yes, I can rationally explain pretty much everything up to this point. Any other questions? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
If you think that he's being completely rational then, no, I don't. But we may have different opinions.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't really know, I think he's still extraordinarily dangerous and has been lashing out due to not actually having any Hard or Soft Power he can use externally on western nations, and for the invasion of Ukraine its the normal situation of "oh god I look like an idiot" so he's acting like one too, its not any real mental problems. However, I think what's strange is the whole 50 foot table situation. Yeah, Covid is one of the excuses, but no other state leader has done stuff like this to my knowledge, and you have to wonder what other insane security measures he's now implementing that a bunch of hid goons may be having second thoughts about him in leadership.
So yeah, sure, he's not mentally incapable, but there has to be some severe stress or some other mild problem going on to warrant this amount of dumbassery. Stingraey (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I have a somewhat different armchair analysis than thinking Putin insane. I think that, like many other overconfident people, Putin has a defect of character in the form of not caring enough about objective facts, i.e. not honoring reality. Such a thing has, throughout history, often made the most powerful people shoot themselves in the feet. Relativising facts and believing in one's own propaganda is not technically insane, but is just as ruinous in its effects. I think that's probably a sickness spreading around Putin, too, as those who truly commit themselves to the course taken have to make a similar inner investment, or find themselves feeling a world apart. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@Stingraey and ApooftGnegiol What reasons do you have to believe those things? Why? What would you do differently, and why do you believe that would be a better option? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as "doing differently" is concerned, I think when the war plan was developed and then approved, a larger systematic problem was already too big. It seems the FSB and military government structures have a culture of loyalty (pleasing superiors) mattering far more than accuracy, which Putin probably also lived and breathed in earlier years, and no doubt knew all about. The "everything is fucked" FSB whistleblower, for example, wrote in one of his letter about how at each step of the hierarchy, superiors demand a more simplified and optimistic take on situations. Those higher up know more about the planning, but know less about the accurate detail-knowledge discarded throughout the chain of command. If Putin had truly cared about reality, and I think he must know much about the defects of the system he is surrounded by, then he could have taken steps to get more accurate information and then act on it. He's instead been happy to take a path of lesser resistance, probably becoming his own worst enemy in the process. ApooftGnegiol (talk)--20:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@ApooftGnegiol Why would he be aware of things on a systemic level? What basis do you have for that assumption beyond "he's an insider"? Most American politicians take the system they exist under or granted. Hell, most American rich fucks take the system for granted. So why would Putin be any different? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@ApooftGnegiol Huh, I read a similar thing with Afghanistan for the US in a west point article. Basically, everyone below wants to please those above, or you are not being promoted, and I think that this problem might be even worse for Russia because you need to whitewash or your being whitewashed. It's not like in the US where if you tell the truth you won't get your promotion from captain to colonel if you piss off people in Russia your life is at risk because of the system, corruption, and silence in place. Putting those together, I think that further helps explain ( @GrammarCommie ) why Putin might be cut off from the true facts, and whether Putin is aware of that or not doesn't much matter, what I think matters is that the stress of that situation and the deep amount of tunrustworthiness Putin has had to have his entire life with everyone else may have contributed to a mental problem he has, as mild as that might be. Of course, this is all speculation, but it could explain some things. Stingraey (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
There has been a fair few commentators/clips of Putin which show the 2022 edition is quite different to the 2019 edition in temperament. Macron, for example (who's met him quite a bit over the years) said he was different (much ruder and demanding, for starters). What's happened since then? The pandemic. Who is a senior citizen and hugely worried about their heath? Putin. I wouldn't say he's insane by any stretch of the term, but if you told me he has somewhat 'warped' under the strain of long periods of isolation with only is own views, Imperial/Soviet nostalgia and brooding over his own mortality/legacy for company... yeah, I can believe that. I know RL folks who have changed from the various lockdowns; myself included (and my isolation was relatively light).
The other issue is perhaps simply that Putin's fingers are no longer 'on the pulse'. He's an ageing autocrat who's been in-post for twenty-two years and spent much of the last two in isolation. This is prime 'dictator trap' territory; where their knowledge of the state of the nation/world outside their compound has become dated and mainly theoretical, their 'honest advisors' (ie ones who shall tell them the truth, even bad) have either died, grown silent or been exiled and years of being at the top has made them conceited, full of the belief they know all about every subject. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice Exactly. This is what I've been driving at, to a certain extent. Watching the situation unfold, I get a similar impression of Putin that I get when retrospecting about Chavez era Venezuela. An aging ruler who is (mostly) rightfully paranoid, has only really stayed in power via illiberal and anti-demoncratic means, who's exiled or killed anyone who wouldn't tell him what he wants to hear (mainly due to paranoia of disloyalty) and is now surrounded by opportunists and sycophants, who runs a petro-state who's economy is... delicate at the best of times, who has cultivated a personality cult, and who makes up conspiracies in order to justify his policies. The only real difference is that the Russian Federation, unlike Venezuela, has up until now been able to get away with various forms of military adventurism and imperial annexation. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie, I actually don't think the contrast needs to be large between Putin and many Western politicians and rich people regarding this aspect of character, honoring reality vs. not really caring to know it. Any society in which rhetorical might makes right, or brings great power, is a society which will tend to be ruled by people lacking in character in that respect. I see that as one of the main historical and present problems facing humanity, and why, to take just one example, the climate crisis is handled poorly. Real change would need a change of philosophy as large as the Enlightenment, and building upon it rather than undoing it. A change towards some kind of logocracy, in which the failures of human judgment are accounted for and compensated for technologically. Anything less is a non-solution.
My point is basically that what people learn from situations and do with them has a lot to do with their priorities and character, and to me Putin seems to care more about power than about accurately mapping reality. He seems to care about power at the expense of the accurate mapping of reality. He has that in common with an awful lot of powerful people. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

... all this from a minor quip. What hath I wrought. Kencolt (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Bro thats why i'm here c: Learning and debating is funnnnnn Stingraey (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
If you read Russia's side of the story, they make the same bullshit claims (oh, we're going in to help them). Russia is full of shit, and so was the western media/US government with the excuses in Iraq; America was pissed off at the Muslims over 9/11, and Bush had a score to settle with Saddam (who was an ass, but what else is new, a lot of national leaders are assholes). 71.208.x.x (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
And thats where I personally just cant agree. Sure, at the time, I bet many americans were whirled up in a racist mania over 9/11 and wanted to bomb something and feel good about it, I cant actually give a good perspective on this though. What I can say though, is from what i’ve seen and what i’ve experienced, I think that we actually do (did) care, some americans, about the people in places like Afghanistan, and us turning our backs on them was a horrible mistake. I think that, at heart, we wanted to help another country and create a democratic and stable government, and that was our public intention, forget about private internal conflicts and greed.
On the other hand, we have a tyrannical dictator trying to infringe on the state sovereignty of a democratic country. There is no other way around it. With the US its us invading not very free countries, with Russia its a dictatorship invading free countries. I understand the anti-US sentiment in a lot of ways, but comparing its actions to that of dictatorships is hyperbolic and dangerous to other Democratic Nations, because if we cant help out other democratic nations because at home we look like imperialists, then we cant compete with our adversaries on the geopolitical front. Stingraey (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
At the end of the day I think we all need to avoid both the "Not as bad as..." and "Just as bad as..." arguments that are getting toss around in these debates. Despite Russian atrocities being far worse in terms of scale, there really isn't a good justification for the US invasion of Iraq, no matter how murderous Saddam was. Not to mention that the US has chalked up some notable war crimes of its own, even if it's not systematic or institutional like the Russians. On the other side of the coin, it's also disingenuous to draw moral equivalencies between the US and Russia simply because again, the Russian atrocities are far more terrible in terms of scale, and the intentions and methods are more cruel and nefarious. It's good to keep one self grounded in this aspect. 98.186.206.84 (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Questions of morality are multi-dimensional, i.e. there's several areas or qualities to consider. The whole is one thing, specific facets are another. In total, to me Russia's government, and in some ways the culture of that large country (which brings a revolving door of tyrannies over time), stand out as rotten. In specific areas, there's good cases to be made for either "just as bad as" or one or the other side being "not as bad as", but it's not good when people try to distract from the whole or whitewash the present through such. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I think this image sums up the attitude of tankies these days. 98.186.200.54 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
B-but imperialism dropped nine bombs while anti-imperialism only dropped eight bombs! /s LongStylus (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep Conservapeida-related shit out of the Bar[edit]

Moved the bollocks here where it belongs. Spud (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I am considering a RW project on refuting conspiracy theorist/denialist/Pro-Russia arguments about the Russo-Ukraine War[edit]

I am absolutely certain that many of you heard the conspiracy argument that Hollywood is fabricating the war or will claim the NATO is pretending to be Russian soldiers as a way to explain away the Russian military committing genocide against non-Russians. My favorite goes to that "Ukraine lost its sovereignty when NATO installed a puppet government in 2014" (Because everything in the world is somehow the fault of the US and nobody else). --Let me go crazy on you! (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The ironic hypocrisy of the right wing[edit]

When the state mandates vaccines, they scream 'my body, my choice'. It's funny that the same thing does not apply to the reproductive choice of gestational parents.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 05:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, they're pissed that somebody infringed upon their 'right' to keep that opinion a secret.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 05:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, they say love to say that the establishment government should not become the type of government you would see in an Orwellian dystopia. Yet here we are.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 05:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
There should be a 'combined bill' - reproductive rights (along with free access to contraception #particularly for men#) and gun control. Anna Livia (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I thought their use of the "my body, my choice" slogan when discussing vaccines was always deliberate trolling. Vomitorium (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Just their usual bout of ignorance. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 05:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
"I thought their use of the "my body, my choice" slogan when discussing vaccines was always deliberate trolling." The phrasing is a mocking reference to a phrase used by a generally-opposing camp on a different issue, but the sentiment is honest. Some people genuinely believe that they should have the authority to make their own medical decisions. And where such people oppose abortion, the issue is not that they believe that a fetus is part of a woman's body, they believe that a fetus is a separate body with its own human rights. As exemplified by, for example, some jurisdictions considering the murder of a pregnant woman to be a double homicide. And for consideration, few people think that the COVID-19 vaccines should be banned. The opposition is generally to mandates, for which the corresponding abortion topic would be forced abortions (a policy which has existed in various times and places). Generally, it's good to keep in mind that people can believe different things than you do, and that an inability to imagine such is a mark of fundamentalist belief.
"There should be a 'combined bill'" Bills are proposed when a potential proponent thinks it would be advantageous to do so. Who would gain by proposing such a bill? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
When it comes to hormone therapy for transgender youth, however, it seems like that "authority to make their own medical decisions" no longer applies; even if a parent thinks that such treatment is appropriate for their child (personally I'm wary of this approach, but "your mileage may vary"), certain states like Texas think nay, such is child abuse (a bullshit reaction, I'd say). Let us also reflect on the typical "war on some drugs" policy from this crowd too. "My body my choice" my ass. Yes, people do believe different things, but many people aren't that bright and are easily led sheep. In America, abortion was mainly a Catholic concern until certain evangelical leaders (Phyllis Schlafly and Jerry Falwell Sr. among others) decided that this would be a great wedge issue to bring together hardline Catholics with the evangelical crowd, which at the time was more concerned with "Southern fried" issues like segregation. Thus, led by the brainless emotive pleas coming from Moral Majority types, it became an issue defined mainly by yelling and emotion without much thought. There are pretty obvious consequences to hardline abortion bans at least in times before pills -- among them, "shotgun marriages" and orphanages (ask certain Catholic churches how those worked out!) -- and I've always found that a good question to pose to the "chose life" crowd is to reconcile their position with the "fuck the poor" social safety net as advocated by the GOP, if I cared to do so. But personally, I'd rather focus on the asshole rich GOP types creating propaganda out of a morally complex issue for the votes. They don't give a fuck about abortion, they can always get one if they need it. They just need the votes. Meh (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of a news channel[edit]

Is the news on this channel accurate? https://www.youtube.com/c/WION
MBFC rates their website as neutral politically and factually mixed due to a few failed checks. Although they do take cheap shots at China. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 16:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that Media Bias/Fact Check has its own problems, their view of WION may give some insight.[8] It looks like WION is reasonable for news but tend to give excess weight towards Hindu nationalism. It's not clear from what MBFC says as to whether WION makes a clear distinction between news and opinion. Also for specific stories, the International Fact-Checking Network has a list of certified international fact-checking organizations. There are several from India.[9] Bongolian (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, their page on CNN is questionable aswell (they changed it, because a whole bunch of republicans & MAGA's were posting shit like "CNN = Communist News Network" shortly after the Capitol Storming happened). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)