RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive414

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 29 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>, <413>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>
, (new)(back)

Great News in Nevada[edit]

Oh boy, This is gonna be fun.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 21:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Nevada's 1st is D+15 per Cook, so I imagine that in the end this particular tweet is just noise. But there's certainly a tussle going on concerning just how white nationalist, paranoid, fundamentalist, and (frankly) incredibly dumb GOP candidates want to be, particularly in places like Idaho where paranoid white nationalist movements are a lot stronger. (sarc) Good times! (/sarc) Meh (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
That's from before the 2020 redistricting cycle. The new PVI is closer to D+5.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 23:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade likely overturned[edit]

A draft opinion has been leaked, and with a conservative majority in the court, Roe v. Wade is likely to be overturned. This is a major setback in reproductive rights.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 — Unsigned, by: / 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. ♈︎♉︎♊︎♋︎♌︎♍︎♎︎♏︎♐︎♑︎♒︎♓︎ (Discuss) 10:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You could move to Australia if you want. I can pay for plane tickets. ♈︎♉︎♊︎♋︎♌︎♍︎♎︎♏︎♐︎♑︎♒︎♓︎ (Discuss) 10:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Everybody who refused to vote for Hilary Clinton in 2016 because she wasn't radical enough or whatever can go fuck themselves-Hastur! (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
HAHAHA, you expect that the Democrats to have done something to stop this? Roe V. Wade was always a fundraising item for the party and now it looks like them playing politics with it instead of codifying it into law has fucked everyone over. You do realize that voting isn't a solution to all of your problems? We aren't living in some magical fictional reality where there are "good guys and bad guys". The Democratic party is a feeble entity that is unwilling to use the force necessary to oppose the republican party. Things will continue to be like this until changes are made. (Besides, the supreme court is an undemocratic institution that should really be dissembled). Fuck this shithole of a country. Revenant Raven (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
It is bad news, but not either a) catastrophic or b) unexpected. Part of the leaked exerpt I heard referenced that the majority 'felt' it was a decision to be ultimately made by legislators, not the judiciary. What's more, if I remember American law right it merely throws the fight down to the State level.
Plus, it wasn't 'non-voting progressives' which threw the 2016 election, Hastur. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The 'answer' possibly variously involves the Lysistrata manoeuvre (no reason for abortions as a result), mandatory male contraception, blocking the internet and mail (so there is no way of finding out information on the provision available), persons in favour of the ban being required to adopt the infants arising (including the ones with severe disabilities) - and for Latin America and Canada to provide US women with the opportunity to immigrate variously. Anna Livia (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice The majority of governor seats are held by Republicans. This is a de facto ban on abortion for the majority of the country. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The "post-Roe" expectation as I understand it is pretty predictable: "Bible belt" states (along with some generally less populated desert/mountain states and some scattered Midwest states) are largely going to go for THE TOTAL BAN, while west coast and New England states (along with a scattering of the other Midwest states) will keep things generally as is. Early abortion is largely by medication these days, which means that the TOTAL BAN crowd probably won't succeed, but will hurt the poor while trying (with maybe a future Savita Halappanavar story here and there). (sarc) Good times. (/sarc) As I understand it, this is the first time a Supreme Court draft has been leaked like this (edit: not quite, but it's very rare), which is also significant in itself. (However, possibly it's something one should expect when one is overturning a court decision with 50 year precedence that about 2/3 of Americans like.) Meh (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Abortion drugs will join the ranks of narcotics in the war on drugs in red states. 71.208.x.x (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Pro-choice Americans will have to get a constitutional ammendment to get abortion be a right throughout the USA if they want it to be enduring. The last Gallup poll has 48% of Americans wanting some restrictions on abortion and 32% of Americans wanting abortion legal under all circumstances. Benson (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at your link - fractionally less than 20% want abortion to be illegal under all circumstances. That's quite a small minority.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
16 states and the district of Columbia have state law allowing abortions. 26 states have trigger laws that will ban abortions the moment that Roe v. Wade fails. There's also the fact that the wording of this ruling could spend the end for the legal right to privacy, which opens up a whole lot of other legislation to fuck over things like interracial marriage, the right to have gay sex and the right to crossdress, all of which are followups from the right to privacy. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I mean, there's a few other ways to get basic human rights through, though most of them involve a lot of... unpleasantness. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Benson I highly recommend that your ilk doesn't push their luck. Desperate people do really... unpleasant things. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Overturning Roe v. Wade and subsequent total bans on abortions in some states (which seems a fairly likely consequence) is likely to open up a complete viper’s nest of interstate complications and laws penalising women who travel to get abortions in those states where it is still legal. I can’t see abortion opponents just accepting women availing themselves of such differences in state laws, given how much of a political hot topic and identity marker abortion is in the US. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
There is pretty dramatic language in that opinion, which I'm sure will be toned down considerably. Alito very specifically LGBT issues still being protected, tailoring this only to abortion, but I can't see White Christian Nationalists thinking anything other than, "Roe was 56 years old, these other cases are more recent." I'm more concerned about the anti-abortion crowd feeling particularly emboldened, and start thinking they can pass a national ban.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal So he claims, though he seems to just be pinky swearing that there won't be further repeals. Given that he's basically opened the door wide to said further repeals and then said they won't happen, I wouldn't bet against them. And then things will get really nasty... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not kidding about the hints I keep dropping. Give people nice stuff, basic protections and all that, then try to take something they have a strong investment in? Might as well just commit suicide outright. I'm saying what they're doing is stupid and potentially very dangerous. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I agree with that, the logic is tenuous. Alito is so declarative and forceful, it could very easily be used to justify overruling Ogberfell, Bostock, Zarda and could honestly could be an argument overturning Loving. Christian Fascism is ascendant in the US.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Overturning Roe will also strip away the final, thin veneer of “legalism” along with whatever remains of Roberts’ personal credibility and his pretence of separating law/jurisprudence from politics. It will emphasise that there is essentially no difference between politicking in Congress and in the SCOTUS and if ever the Democrats were to find the courage to fight the kind of total political warfare employed by the GOP, this will be an excellent argument for, say, court packing. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Very possible this was done to lock the draft in place. In which case everyone being salty over 2016 would be an idiot. @ScepticWombat I'd honestly be less hostile to Roberts. He has his own issues, but he usually takes his role as Chief Justice seriously. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Your point raises an interesting question: Has Roberts lost control of his own right wing majority at the SCOTUS? Otherwise, it’s hard to see this as anything but a sign that all of his former protestations of sticking to precedent etc. was just bullshit to pass the time until he had a clear majority in his corner. If I had to pick, I personally would tend to favour the former interpretation, or some variant of it. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@ScepticWombat I'd say it's very possible that Roberts is losing sway over the SCOTUS. Again, this is my general impression along with what I know of his style, but Roberts has always seemed more like a Conservative and less like a reactionary, as opposed to the Likes of Barret or Thomas. At least, to my knowledge. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
RE: Rep Governors. I suspect quite a few of them (and other GOP politicians) want this as much as a hole in the head. It's something which pleases a hardcore fringe, but gathers little votes outside of it (in fact, it might turn off more folks than attract). Roe/Wade was a nice excuse to why they 'couldn't do' what they had no real desire to do anyway. Now they are gonna be called out on this and it's gonna hurt. Lastly, it was a nice campaign to mobilise them to support you, which shall almost vanish once the goal has been reached.
Anyway, I suspect there's gonna be movement in Washington to do something legislature-wise. Now, the numbers ain't there to do a 'complete' protection but at very least, trying to cement in the 'rape/incest/non-viable/threat to life' exemptions to at very least stop the insane 'total' bans.
Though as part of the work-around to this problem would to encourage the use/access to birth control as wide as possible. Some of the anti-abortion crowd only object to 'babies being killed' (sic), not stopping the cell formation in the first place. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice Part of the problem is internal power struggles within the GOP, with the older and more cynical neocons being forced out by younger fashy types who have been raised on a steady diet of party propaganda. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
True, which is a problem (for the GOP). That latter species (in general) cannot survive on the coastal areas, or in any major metro. The Mountain States is an somewhat iffy proposition, and even some Southern gubernatorials etc would be at risk as above metros throw out the electoral calculus (for example, Texas). This is a classic 'red meat' policy; sort of thing only a % of your base really caring about. At best, everyone else doesn't care. At worst, they are actively hostile. I'm going to put abortion bans generally in the latter group.
What's more, there's splits in the pro-pregnancy movement. Some hate birth control and sex ed too, others don't. Similar can be said for exemptions, very early terminations and so on. There's debtates on what - if any - extra provisions (finance support etc) should be put in if the state is effectively forcing you to have a kid and so on. What 'side' do you back?
Anyway, there's an aspect of the whole thing which as it dawns on me kinda sickens me. When you ask the placard-wavers what should happen to the now-existing babies, the answer is always 'adoption' - after all, 'there's always more loving families' and all that. That is true. But the whole system of adoption creeps me out, and the American model even more so. One of the main bits being that these (mainly) middle/upper-class white people seemingly desire to see more of my (lower) class knocked up and screwed so *their* well-heeled friends and relatives can have nice white babies to adopt (of which there's a chronic lack of). I know it's not that cynical, but I simply can't shake this suspicion. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

its just as well the anti abortion folk are not the same people who throw a fit about having to provide contraception as a requirement of any medical insurance available to people.

do companies providing medical insurance still get an opt out? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Given how expensive childbirth is, medical insurance companies would mandate sterilization if they had the choice. CorruptUser 17:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Damn, if only there was some kind of voluntary medical procedure that could act as a reasonable middle ground between forced childbirth and forced sterilization.... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
An abortion costs about $750 if done early, but there's medical screenings, etc, so it's a bit more than $1000 all in all. The IUDs last anywhere from 5 to 12 years, the copper IUD costs about $1000 and has the added benefit of not using any hormones at all. At $100/year, that's less than the cost of condoms. Which is why it's just stupid for Hobby Lobby to ban IUDs.
In terms of the "homeless guy in your home" argument for abortion, some forms of abortion are like opening the window of your home open in the middle of winter. If it's open, the homeless guy freezes to death and you indirectly cause his death. But the IUD is like having the window open before the homeless guy shows up; it's your castle, your choice, so you didn't kill him even if the point was to make it dangerous for vagrants, he killed himself by wandering in. CorruptUser 18:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
If conservatives actually cared about being 'pro-life' then they would support universal funding for pre-natal care, births, maternity/paternity leave, child care and pre-k. They would also support comprehensive sex education, free birth control, and severe consequences for rapists. But they don't. This is only about controlling women.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes and no. There's a world of difference between shooting someone to death and leaving someone to die, even if the end result is a corpse. It is indeed possible to believe "abortion is repugnant" even if you also believe "I shouldn't have to pay higher taxes to support others". After all, if you truly want to lower your tax burden you should be the most pro-abortion (and pro-immigrant) person on the planet. CorruptUser 19:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
That's the rub, by their logic there is no difference between murder and leaving someone to die. Also to insist that an individual would take a higher tax burden is farcical, in context to where that money could be obtained. It requires a belief in scarcity of resources, which is essentially absent. Conservatives instead are engaging in a moral argument; death of human life bad. That's what it comes down to, and basically nothing else. Even though they support capital punishment, police violence and military conflicts, they rationalize this hypocrisy by placing the blame on an individual, or race/ethnicity or a country. It's just a dressed up way to control women.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
No, it's worse. It's virtue-signalling. Consider it. If you 'care about kids' you'll be asked if you've fostered any, or adopted or whatever. If you care about global warming, you'll be told that you'll have to be a vegan who makes their own shoes and walks everywhere. If you're 'pro-refugee', you'll be told by right-wing idiots 'well, why don't you have one in your house' and so on. To be 'pro-life' requires you to do hardly nothing. Just donate a little bit of cash, sign a pre-done petition and perhaps turn up to a rally with a placard now and then. It does not require you to give much sacrifice, or no personal long-term commitments. What's more, fetuses don't make no demands on you, or tell you you're being useless, or say you're doing it for the wrong reasons or that your condesending tone makes them want to die. They are even better a 'victim' to help than animals because you don't even bother to follow on the fetuses that you've managed to 'save'.
Even worse, it's another aspect of middle-class moralising and hypocrisy. I'm reminded of the clip where comedians were asking pro-pregnancy campaigners how many kids they'd adopted personally, the answer was always *none*. But I noted more; that they said 'oh, I've already got two real ones'. Now, even leaving the horrible idea of 'real children' on the shelf, they were happy with the two/three they already had. More was surplus to requirements. Middle class people, ensuring that they don't end up with 'too many' kids. But folks who can't support kids right now, or are really not in the right place to have one, or screwed up on the contraceptive front are generally the folks they're harassing. Sometimes, the most mature and sane thing is to realise when you can't do something. The most generous response I can have for such moralisers is that you have no god damn clue about folks on the bottom live like, that your suggestions as ever are useless 'richsplaining'. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
That's a weak argument because at the moment we have a shortage of babies available for adoption. Assuming 100% of additional unwanted pregnancies as a result of hypothetical abortion restrictions would go to an adoption agency, the foster care system nor poor families won't be overwhelmed. Well, sort of; there's still the loss of a few months of work for a woman living paycheck to paycheck without medical leave/coverage, which is a separate but still very important issue. The problem is if the families keep the infants they can't afford instead of giving them up for adoption, at that point you risk plunging the family into extreme poverty and risking the adolescents ending up in the foster care system. CorruptUser 17:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
This completely dismisses the effect that pregnancy has on the female body, in addition to the cost associated with bringing a pregnancy to term. Also we don't have a shortage of children for adoption, but people only want infants. Tells you even more about this bollocks argument.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I think my first line mentions that people want infants, no? Also, while I know that pregnancy does slightly accelerate the aging process, I'm curious as to how much. E.g., does every baby reduce life expectancy by 3 months, after adjusting for the whole "increased fertility = decreased wealth" thing? CorruptUser 19:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Thankyou, Liberal. That's the part which disgusts me; folks want 'As Young As Possible', white, non-disabled babies. The female edition has a bit of a premium; can cost around $45k. Toddlers have some popularity too because by this point there's a resonable chance you'd be able to sniff out any disorders such as being on the autistic spectrum (which clearly reduces their value). Those pro-pregnancy campaigners would have gotten a bit of respect from me if they at least practiced what they preached; if you hear me lecture others on say, recyling or not being obese, you'd expect me to at least *attempt* to tick those boxes.
There is the issue of ulterior motives. Many of the 'pregnancy crisis' trick centres also handle adoptions. When a fresh, white baby can net them up to $25k (the rest being the baby-seller fees etc) they have an *economic interest* to seeing those white women going to term (as long as the daddy is white, though mixed-race kids still have decent value). Springing for a couple of emotion-tugging scans, a basket of goodies is going to cost almost nothing, while the medical care itself *can* be done (apparently according to a couple of sites) between $5-$7k. Hell, if I operate a charitable hospital I might get donations to cover the last bit, thus making the margin on that baby even higher. Or get the 'pro-life' fundraising to cover it.
In this, Corrupt your 'The problem is if the families keep the infants they can't afford instead of giving them up for adoption, at that point you risk plunging the family into extreme poverty and risking the adolescents ending up in the foster care system' point is honestly evil. It's used as a stick to beat knocked-up women in *my class* to give up their kids 'for their own good' and it works so well because to some extent it is true. And for the prices above, who are the babies going to? The upper classes, that's who. You have effectively declared that having children a class privilege - because the main reason women are coerced into giving up their kid(s) is for economic reasons. (Often the reason for later fostering, too).
I can't explain exactly why, this line of thought is a clear 'work in progress' but I simply cannot shake the deep gut suspicion there is something very wrong here - exp when coupled with things like the huge numbers of kids stuck in the foster system, and the fact the hierarchal system nations like the USA/UK seem to almost tacitly encourage higher birth rates from the 'underclass' and then shall swoop in to take the very kids. For one of the main 'sources' of adopted babies is from interventions by social workers from 'unfit mothers'.
Lastly, giving up a kid is a huge event emotionally. If nothing else, you carried the thing for all those months. You're pre-programmed to want to care for/love the thing when it's born. And it's almost certain your body shall never be the same, always reminding you what you did. I can't help think there's an element of classism here; the poor woman is supposed to simply 'get over' the total loss of their child, while a middle-class woman is 'allowed' to grieve evermore over a lost kid. Let us not mince words; to make an 'adoptive family' you require a hammer to break apart the birth family to get the desired bit for assembly (unless the kid is an orphan with no immediate relatives). What happens to the undesired bit(s)? Normally, cut loose and told to 'get on with it' the best they can.
We have to remember; that while adoption may be better solution all-round than someone clearly unable to cope with raising a kid, it is still a sub-optimal result than not having the kid at all. And before you ask, adoption is not the standard fairy-tale ending for the kids either.
KarmaPolice (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This HuffPost Contributor article is an interesting read on some of my concerns. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Strange how you refer to "hierarchal system nations like the USA/UK" when every nation is hierarchal to some degree, and while the US has a plethora of problems it's actually not too far from the average by Gini Coefficient, and even then, the Gini is flawed since it doesn't include transfer payments or taxes.
As for my "evil" statement, I never made a moral judgement with that. I'll expand my point. In regards to foster care and so forth; there's such a shortage for infants (for some of the reasons you mentioned) that every additional baby added that would otherwise have been aborted is more or less adopted immediately and does nothing to increase the burden on the foster system. In the event that a person keeps a baby instead of giving up for adoption that otherwise would've been aborted, but that they can't afford, this can result in additional burdens on the foster system if the family is plunged further into poverty as a result. It's not a matter of right or wrong, just how it is.
The idea of the Rich stealing the babies for themselves is a bit ludicrous, isn't it? If that's true, the rich have designed a system where they are replacing themselves. From a sociopathic eugenics perspective, they wouldn't want poor-people babies to even be born. Instead, they would want the babies of college kids, e.g., Steve JobsWikipedia, whose biological mother's father refused to let her marry her boyfriend because he was the wrong religion. If there's ulterior motives, it's for a bunch more yuppie-puppies or whatever you want to call them. CorruptUser 07:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay, if you object to 'hierarchal', how about 'capitalistic'? I thought the British system was shit enough, but hell at least adoption isn't a full-blown industry like it is in the USA. And you are ignoring the very simple point that quite a lot of the pro-pregnancy groups who run trick crisis centres etc have a *vested economic interest* in seeing those babies born so they can sell them on. Therefore, they have a conflict of interest. Even more importantly, as children have become commodified there is an element of 'give the customer what they want' going on, with kids basically being 'sold' from brochures. I point to one of the elements I've heard about which I find creepy and somehow wrong - 'Adoption Day' celebrations. Which seems more for the parents to self-congratulate than for the actual kid.
The reason I called your point 'evil' because it's a) classist and b) an element of victim-blaming. That instead of supporting the 'economically unfit mother' to be on a better situation to support the sprog, we as a Anglo societies prefer to attack the parent (in many different ways) for that choice and then take away the kid (or at least make a decent attempt to do so). Tug at the heartstrings and emotionally blackmail; 'if he/she was adopted they'd have such a better life than you could give' which ~80% of the time can merely be boiled down to 'they are wealthier than you'. Couple this with the average arrogance and/or condescension from many a social worker, many a mother shall feel railroaded into adoption, often at a time they're emotionally shot already.
Your argument that 'it doesn't strain foster care so doesn't matter' doesn't work either. To continue the 'children as commodities' ethos from above, a decent supply of 'new' children (babies/toddlers) reduces the demand for 'used' children (older ones). And we have a glut of them. What's more, supply of 'premium' new children (white, non-disabled) also reduces the value of the less demanded ones (disabled, black etc). If there was a chronic shortage of premium kids, some adoptive parents would instead go for older kids, or perhaps become a foster parent, or both.
As for 'The idea of the Rich stealing the babies for themselves is a bit ludicrous'... Oh, how I wish it was that. That in the very least is *honest*. No, we have more what I call the 'middle class saviour syndrome' (sometimes overlapping with 'white saviour'). Where the well-heeled shall 'rescue' the poor children from their poor families and they'll be placed with 'much better' families who are, unsurprisingly like the saviour. Then all-too-often the saviour family shall rub in (often inadvertently) of 'how grateful' the adoptee should be and so on, fucking up many a kid's head. As for 'wanting the babies of college kids'... yes, that is true, unfortunately. The 'kid-brochures' for adoption companies list the known details about the family, and some prospectives shall pause if told the baby comes from a mother of 'unsuitable' stock such as one with mental health issues.
That in short, adoption is *not* an oven-ready, negatives-free solution to pregnancy (for either parent(s) or kid) and must quit being peddled as such. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


The crisis pregnancy centers have long been a problem, not going to disagree with you there one bit. Especially with the ability to outright sell infants. Adoption does run into shady groups like that, to the point they appear to be on the same level as human traffickers. In China, there are people who have kids specifically to sell them to foreigners, which is all sorts of, ugh. It's sort of like finding out your "rescue dog" you got from a shelter and had to "donate" $500 for was from a "rescue dog breeder", only it's $40,000, and not a dog but a friggen human. I didn't touch on that because it's a whole other level of ugh.
As for "children as commodities" where disabled, and yes it's important to be able to see this in economic terms, adolescent black kids were "inferior goods", adding more babies doesn't reduce demand for older kids as much as you imply because many if not most prospective couples that would adopt a baby if available would not adopt at all if their only option were those "inferior goods". My childless Aunt and Uncle, who I'm sure you'd view as classist, outright said that she wouldn't adopt in the post-Roe world because before, you'd get those babies from college girls making a mistake, but post-Roe you're far more like to get a kid with problems and often the adoption agencies hide all the issues from you. And like it or not, that is absolutely her right to decide. It's sort of like the used-car market before the Lemon Laws, where the shady used car salesmen would sell you a garbage "Lemon" car as if it was as good as any other used car, so people refused to buy used cars or only paid what a lemon was worth even if the car wasn't actually a Lemon. I'm not entirely sure it's the moral thing to do, but a Lemon Law for kids might've gotten my Aunt to adopt. The problem is, as you've mentioned, those fake crisis centers are doing their best to try to create the world where we breed more commodities for them to sell.
If there's anything we absolutely agree on, I think it would be that it should be illegal to sell children. CorruptUser 13:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, one of the problems with adoption (I think that deserves a topic in itself). I think the *critical* problem is that adoption is touted by many on the pro-pregnancy faction as a kind of ultimate perfect solution - the 'poor college girl' moves on with her life with no complications, guilt or comeback, your Aunt/Uncle make perfect parents for the sprog and said sprog grows up always perfectly fine with no confusing feelings whatsoever or emotional trauma due to previous or the reactions towards it from others.
If all the above was true, I wouldn't be so unsettled by the whole thing. And from what reading I've done so far, my gut instinct (almost a 'too good to be true' feeling) has proven correct. 'Stranger adoption' is perhaps the 'Least Worst' solution to an issue of when there's a small child and nobody able to raise it. But it's a 'making the best of a bad situation' thing, ultimately. In a perfect world, there would be no babies for your Aunt/Uncle to adopt. That's gotta be the ultimate goal.
Which - tying back to abortion - is perhaps an neglected 'angle of attack' for pro-choice folks. To tear down and stamp on the banner which says 'Adoption: A fairy-tale ending'. It's a critical stone in their arguments. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we could have enough material for an Adoption article, mostly bc of how screwed up the whole system is and how it can tie into Abortion. Dunno if it could ever get a silver or gold brainstar; it supports our articles but is there enough for it to be a major focus for our mission? CorruptUser 17:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we've got more than enough to make a RW article. Not just for an offshoot of abortion, but also others such as 'missionaries', 'white saviour' and 'commercialisation' (if such pages exist). And it clearly fits the remit; it might not be full-blown pseudoscience but there's a few fallacies within it which could do with a firm kicking.
But the extremist blog has an adoption page. Do we need any other evidence to us needing one? It's bound to be chock-full of crap we've not even touched on yet! KarmaPolice (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

An Aside[edit]

I don't think we have a liberal justice or clerk to thank for this leak. It seems clear the vote was 5-4 with CJ Roberts joining the minority. If that was the case, as the most tenured justice in the majority, Clarence Thomas would be the one to assign writing the opinion. The language in this opinion is abrasive, and lacks the sort of reserved veneer that many majority opinions have. There was an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal recently,[1] where there was some indication that Roberts may have been trying to pull a justice, (my guess would be Kavanaugh or Goursch) to back a much more limited action on Roe. This leak would then clearly indicate that at one point, the justices sought to remove Roe completely, and if a later opinion were released that was narrower, conservatives would view the person who flipped as a traitor. Just something to consider.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Huh, that's actually a really new/frightening point. I think most of us really chalked it up to a scared Aide who leaked it, but with the stunts that Republicans have been able to pull, this seems like an exceedingly smart move on their point, and also still allowed them to blame [2] the Democrats because obviously, they would be the ones to leak something because muh emotions Stingraey (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
People really overgeneralize the Dems. Seriously, have these people met the Average D.C. Liberal? Boring cowards who'd rather avoid upsetting the apple cart than actually stand for anything. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Started work on an article about the breakaway state known as Abkhazia[edit]


I just started it. --Let me go crazy on you! (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Rock and roll ShabiDOO 08:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Probably can be moved to main space either tomorrow or the next day. --Let me go crazy on you! (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought only Trump was MAGA and that the Republicans wanted to step away from it.[edit]

Apparently not, found this gem a few minutes ago. Seriously, is this MAGA shit ever going to go away? And isn't it supposed to be KAG instead now? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Joe Biden apparently recently used the hideously buzzwordy phrase "ultra-MAGA" to describe Rick Scott's hideously buzzword filed "11 point plan" (where Scott envisions a "great America" being made by repeatedly pledging allegiance, praying, America Firsting towards isolationism, and oh yeah, income tax for everyone, even you dirt poor plebs! And... cutting the IRS budget by 50%. Er...). From my viewpoint, all that "ultra-MAGA" phrase did is get the predictable people to respond predictably (as MTG did here). Some Democrats are using the Scott plan to create their own scare ads (REPUBLICANS WANT TO END SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE!), which while technically a, er, stretch (actual: Rick Scott wants to sunset all federal legislation within 5 years, subject to renewal) this is probably a better political approach for getting to the Boomer "welfare queen" crowd out there. Meh (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Well It has to come back to MAGA now that us slimy liberals have destroyed the country yet again, right?Stingraey (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The Donald has at least one son with political ambitions. There is going to be another political dynasty. The Make the USA Great Movement isn't going away soon. Even if The Donald's son doesn't have strong political ambitions, R. De Santis is close to The Donald in his politics. The Donald is like the first Terminator in the Terminator series. R. De Santis is a more articulate version of The Donald so he is like the T1000 in the Terminator models. Kumara (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm actually in favour of 'income tax for all'. Sales taxes are normally regressive in nature, often slanted to favour 'dividends' over 'wages' and producing 'negative brackets' is a relatively neat way to run transfer payments. And the IRS really *could* do with a complete overhaul - hacking out the acres of loopholes, pork and corp welfare etc which make it stupidly complicated then simply copying a functioning PAYE system like the British one. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
That's the problem, though: when Republicans complain about people not paying income tax, I see it largely as a dog-whistle about "negative brackets" like the EITC, a "welfare queen" kind of insinuation to rally people against those gosh darn bum boogeymen that supposedly mooch off of "real Americans". What I don't think some of these politicians realize (or maybe they do) is that they are inevitably "dog-whistling" about other people that may more be voting Republican these days, such as retired elderly folks who mainly live on Social Security (and thus do not pay taxes) or are able to do things like, say, massively deduct their medical expenses from any income they have (same). But never mind. At any rate, it would be nice if Rick Scott was sincere about simplifying the tax code. Wake me up when he stops talking about Americans that "don't work" and starts talking about, say, long term capital gains, or eliminating opportunities for, say, the massive gains he pocketed from his corrupt legislative manipulation in Florida. Meh (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Pour one out for one of the Old Guard.[edit]

Long-time/old-school members of the community will be saddened to learn that one of the OG Rationalwiki editors, Psygremlin, died a few days ago. He went out doing one of the things he loved best: performing a DJ set in front of people who dug his music.

RIP, Gerwyn. RagingHippie (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That's quite sad news. I'm sorry to her it, but thanks for the information.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
That is sad news indeed. I am sorry to hear of his passing-Hastur! (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The only RW member I have actually met in RL. We drank many bottles of champagne in Johannesburg a few years back. A true gentleman and friend. I am broken. I'll miss you, you fucker. Tomorrow I'll listen to techno all day in your honour. I know you played trance but I always teased you about playing more techno so fuck you, you bastard, We'll listen to techno. Love you my friend. Acei9 08:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Farewell, PsyGremlin! I shall miss being tagged in your DJ sessions that you'd post online. Though we lived continents apart, I was happy to call you my friend. Cheers! -Gooniepunk John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
RIP Internet friend, a fine DJ and purveyor of anti-conservative sarcasm. Avida Dollarsher again 17:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Gerwyn loved a good pun, but would post really bad ones over to FB. The good they die young. RIP. 17:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
I can't say I knew him, for he was well before my time, but damn, what a great way to go out. Cheers (in more ways than one).DietMondrian (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Nice to see some genuine members of the genuine Old Guard here. If only it could have been under better circumstances. Love. Spud (talk)

2000 Mules?[edit]

So there's a documentary floating around that is sort of like Expelled NIA but for the trump election fraud. I think this would make an interesting article. TheNFLGuy (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's yet another generic Dinesh D'Souza schlockumentary that's already mentioned on his page, no need to make an article on literally anything that grifter makes. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 14:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
It's so bad even Newsmax won't promote it.[3] Probably afraid of getting their asses sued off… again. — Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs
The entire premise of the argument has no support to back up their arguments, relying instead on flimsy comparisons and magic numbers.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

A post for Machina[edit]

You are the only person on the planet who doesn't have real experiences. Prove me wrong. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean "Change my Mind" CorruptUser 15:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Only goats experience qualia. Everyone else is just a poser. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
My dog barks. Therefore, he exists. Kumara (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
What if the way I see blue is so different to the way you see blue that it shatters all meaning of any kind and that the A+ I think I got on my mid-term paper...is just an illusion? ShabiDOO 16:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
One could make a similar argument pertaining to optical illusion. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 16:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Eric Hovind knows that everything he believes is not wrong or an illusion. Kumara (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
No, my perception of reality is the only true one, you are all fake and dumb and fake and hah I win! 16:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Stingraey (talk)
Stingraey, you don't know that. It is merely a Basel assumption on your part. You lose - again! Checkmate atheist! Kumara (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Um, Actually, I do know that because my Brothers Sisters Aunts Grandmothers Friends Friend said she heard a guy say that he heard that god talked to him and said how I am specifically right in this particular instance and you are wrong! Boom libtard, take that! All you sinners are totes donezo, Bozo! Stingraey (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
All dogs go to heaven. My dog barked at me. Therefore, I exist. Kumara (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
No illusion or simulation could replicate the suffering and sadness that have defined my life to date. By that measure I must exist.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I always appreciated how Carvaka cut through the nonsense, and how the Mingjia (School of Names) at least made the nonsense fun while making some valid points. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

How to end pro putin propaganda in India[edit]

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-61351342 Apparently, some people want to Larp as influencers to fuel the disinformation machine. Some of the Indians I've talk to just blindly support Putin inspite of the government's neutral stance. They pretend as if Russia is India's best friend or something while remaining ignorant about cut throat geopolitics. They site Goa liberation veto, Subs in bay of Bengal during the Bangladesh war as "proof" that Russia has India's back. I'm not making a concession to the west as their conduct is also questionable but India should certainly not become a Russian bootlicker. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 13:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

How about pointing out that those events were during the Sino-Soviet split, and 'backing India' was one way to poke China in the backside (and to also help poke Pakistan, a US ally?). Now that Putin is falling ever-deeper into Xi's pocket, India 'relying on Russia' is becoming frankly much more iffy a prospect. What's more, Russia shall be increasingly short of the three things India needs; high technology (esp military), investment funding and diplomatic support. I mean, does *anyone* think Moscow would back Delhi over Beijing? To paraphrase the British PM Wilson; Putin cannot afford to kick his main backer in the balls.
Now, my knowledge of Indian affairs is shaky in the extreme, but I suspect this 'support' is more an 'anti-anti-Putin' thing? That 'the West' doesn't like him, and 'the West' is normally wrong? KarmaPolice (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Backers of domestic authoritarians often support foreign authoritarians as well (Authoritarianism#The authoritarian mindset)… until the war begins (Stalin apologetics#Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact). Bongolian (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
i understand china is india's big regional rival (recent short border war included) while russia provides a lot of india's military hardware. russia and china getting all cosy no doubt makes india a little nervous, and they are not wanting to piss of putin when they might need russia to mediate with china on their behalf. or risk them mediating against them for that matter. not everywhere in the world can easily shrug off the consequences coming out against russia over ukraine. its not exactly painless for those in europe for that matter. the best we can hope for in many parts of the world is not supporting the russian invasion, and we should not insist that they do more. many places remember a time not so long ago when picking a side meant whoever you didnt pick toppled their government and these days china is an option to look towards if russia and us start demanding fealty AMassiveGay (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Picture of the Milky way's blackhole[edit]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61412463 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1bSDnuIPbo HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 15:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this picture released before? Or maybe that was a different black hole. [[2kwatts]] (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
That was a black hole from the center of a galaxy called M87. This one is from the Milky Way. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 18:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Science! Nowhere Man (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Highboi Thanks for that video link. It was far more informative than I had expected.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
This is so cool. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the best argument I have ever seen to resist Creationist based education.[edit]

I mean, good grief... Kencolt (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If you believe all the stories on that site, I've got a iron age era book of definitely true events to sell you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

First war crimes trial to begin[edit]


The Russian soldier could face up to life in prison. I say: Let him rot. --Let me go crazy on you! (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

its generally best to wait for a trial to take place and guilt to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt before sentencing, and then only what is appropriate for the crime that has been proven. being russian is not a crime, it should not merit more severe punishment than is otherwise justified, and a russian soldier guilty of something should not be held accountable for the crimes of his country. we should hope and insist for a fair trial regardless of the verdict. we should be better than what we might expect from russian justice. we should show that we are with our treatment of russians at the hands of justice. we give russia a propaganda victory if we do otherwiseAMassiveGay (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from. Get the evidence and come up with a punishment that gives no propaganda fuel. --Let me go crazy on you! (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we get some fact-checking on an "abortion survivor"?[edit]

Alleged abortion survivor Melissa Ohden. How does someone survive an abortion, is that really even a thing? CorruptUser 15:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The method used in this case, an instillation abortion has twice been documented as resulting in pre-term delivery of a fetus at a development stage capable of survival outside of the womb instead of an abortion. And here is where the Liars for Jesus elide the facts; this method of abortion accounts for less than 0.1% of abortions that currently take place, and as far back as 1985 accounted for less than 2%. So big propaganda for the anti-freedom crowd, but there's a reason the one person screaming about this to the skies is just that - one person - and is also over the age of 40. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
In the "vagrant in the home" argument or "Evictionism", even if a vagrant has the right to life, my right to protect my home is higher and thus I have the right to evict/abort a fetus. But this presupposes that the only way to evict the vagrant is by hacking at them with a sword.
Assume we support abortion based on the vagrant argument. We believe a fetus has the right to life, but that bodily autonomy is a more cardinal right. If I have the options of slicing apart the vagrant or just throwing the vagrant of the house, even if they are likely to die in the cold, do I have any obligation to use this less-violent method? So do I have the obligation to use the saline-solution thingy instead of surgically removing the fetus? CorruptUser 15:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Things like surviving abortion are extremely rare. Much like someone dying from a severe reaction to a vaccine. If someone makes a claim like surviving abortion, I am highly skeptical. --Let me go crazy on you! (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Even presuming the two people stating this happened to them are correct, that's something less than 1 in 60 million odds. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
There's been 63m abortions since Roe. Basically, a bit more than 1m per year but the numbers trended way down since 1973 thanks to condom use. Blame either better sex ed or the HIV crisis. I have no idea how many "abortion survivors" are real, or if there ever is a real case where a baby survived an abortion then was subsequently killed/neglected. The anti-abortion crowd loves those stories, obviously. CorruptUser 18:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think this falls into the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence category. The likelihood that the abortee would become an adult with this knowledge is also fairly slim. They might know that they were a preemie because of their related chronic health issues, but not much else. Bongolian (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
the lady in the bbc article knew she was aborted because so her sister is her adoptive family told her. here is testimony to a senate committee. she and her organisation claim to be in contact with 356 survivors. in the us only 1% of abortions are performed beyond 21 weeks, so a only a tiny fraction are going to wind up 'survivable'. most states and most of the world appears dont allow abortion when a fetus is viable - when it can survive outside the womb. this apparently is usually around the 28th week but can be earlier. the lady in question was apparently 24. i look on wikipedia and only a very few countries allow on demand abortion with a limit of 22 - 24 weeks. most places place a limit in the teens - well short of point a fetus may become viable and in the us, most abortions are done within 11 weeks. in her testimony she keeps referring to unborn children being aborted, with no distinction between a new born baby and the various stages asnd viability of a fetus in the womb, and makes no mention of abortions - the vast majority of abortions - performed well before the late stage and no chance of viability. the survivors she mentions are 19-20 weeks at the earliest which is older than than most of the world limits on on demand abortions. her argument is only persuasive to me when in relation to to these very late stage abortions, but any issues surrounding them just do not apply to the vast majority where viability is just not factor needing to be considered. arguing for all abortions to be banned on basis of these late stage issues does not sure up her argument which becomes essentially just emotive in nature without the late stage issues. the figures for live births after abortion are spurious based on a quote that estimates a figure, and while acknowledging it was made when procedures where still in their infancy, extrapolates a total number that assumes this quoted estimate remained a constant number.
i can well understand this lady's opposition to abortion, she just doesnt present a convincing argument AMassiveGay (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
But in reverse, most pregnancies are not the result of sexual assault, so one could argue that allowing exceptions for rape victims isn't a persuasive argument for legalizing all abortions. In practice, well, the world where women need to make fake rape accusations to get an abortion or rape victims decide to keep their fetuses if they want to avoid dealing with the legal system is not particularly appealing to me.
My whole issue with her is that this sounds like exactly something a Liar for Jeezus would make up, the only way it could get any more over the top would be if god smote her uterus with super-cancer the next day. CorruptUser 22:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
its not really 'a keep the baby or lie to get a legal abortion' dilemma its keep the baby or risk a backstreet abortion performed by med school dropout cum crackhead googling what you they need to do with a coat hanger AMassiveGay (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
i read abortion rates go down where abortion is legal. abortion will happen even if illegal, only its more than just non viable fetus that meet their maker. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Causallation. Abortion rates go down where sexual education and birth control are more common. Abortion legality also correlates to those two. CorruptUser 22:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk & Twitter: The Reckoning[edit]


According to this article, there's a chance that Musk might abandon his plans to buy Twitter. Anyone thinks that Musk might try to get out of the whole deal? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course. The whole thing was financed by Tesla stock. Its crashing. Its pull out, or face the Margin Call. Revolverman (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Two options;
A) Musk is trying to make Twitter stock fall enough and then put in a 'revised' (ie lower) offer for it. He has form pulling this kind of [redacted] with business affairs, and is one of the main reasons the 'business establishment' *really* dislikes him.
B) Musk is starting to realise the numbers simply don't add up, even before his Tesla collateral is factored in. My fag-packet told me last week he'd have to either halve costs, double revenue or a mixture of the two simply to pay the interest on $6bn of loans Twitter shall be saddled with for the honour of him owning it - even before anyone gets a dime of profit off it. Even more importantly, folks are realising his 'grand plan' for Twitter is off a napkin stolen from Gordon Gecko's aluminium briefcase; horribly leveraged buyout, short term cost-slashing, sweat assets hard as possible, flog off anything not nailed down all the while giving you and your banker mates fat bonuses. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
billionaires buyers remorse AMassiveGay (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
He actually wants to know how many bots are on Twitter.[4] I don't think he really wants to know how many millions of bots are following him: it might crash his virtual reality bubble. Bongolian (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Twitter's valuation partly hinges on the level of 'real users' it has. If Musk can claim there's a significantly different level of bots than what Twitter said, he could claim that the deal's off because basically, Twitter failed the 'due diligence' phase of the deal, which is nothing down to him. If B) is true above, this is a very convenient wiggle-hole. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Trolling the KKK[edit]

https://youtu.be/umNjlp2LObM HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 04:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is this Wiki's view(s) on overpriced military programs?[edit]

After ghosting around this wiki for a while, it seems like there are a lot of different viewpoints, which I really enjoy, but I haven't really seen much discussion as to the Military and its relation to Politics and other things, so I want to throw out the most contentious of these topics and see what the reaction is: the F-35

A huge money dump, the F-35 has cost and will cost us murican's a ton of money, and a big left-wing consensus has been that this is a stupid amount of money for a plane.

This is where my personal bias starts though; the F-35 is an amazing and unparalleled aircraft. apart from Civilian grade simulations and hypothesizing, the F-35 still is unparalleled as an airframe in both testing and now funding, as it has continued to be disseminated into western airforce rosters and beating out the most competition.

Now, there may be a bunch of reasons for this other than combat effectiveness, but the point still stands (especially when viewing current theatres like the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict), that Uncle Sams credit card used to binge spend on the military-industrial complex instead of on free health care (yes ik it's unlikely either way) has proven its worth and how we actually have a military compared to our Kleptocratic Counterparts. With the rise of Near-Pier threats like China though, and the threatening of other allies like Taiwan, are programs like this (or a wider question, the ludicrous spending we have on Defence) worth it in the eyes of you guys? (Oh and if I got any of the formatting here wrong please call me out, still figuring out all the gizmos here, thanks) Stingraey (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a great deal of knowledge (or any knowledge) about foreign military budgets. But your question might have been better phrased. If something is defined as "overpriced" in the question then you are sort of assuming the answer.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
From what I can tell, bloated military programmes normally fall into one or more of three traps...
- Bleeding edge tech. Result: bloated costs to iron out all the kinks, heavy maintenence/running costs.
- Too many cooks, wanting their own stuff in the design. Result: a 'jack of all trades' design that pleases nobody.
- Repeated shoehorning of new features, tech etc on the design while it's being designed. Result; oddities which don't really 'seem to work right'.
From what I can see all of this happened to the F-35. It was supposed to be a no-frills, decently-crafted and *cheap* multipurpose fighter plane, something to help the USAF rebuild their inventories as heavy amounts of F-15/16s start being scrapped due to age in the 20s/30s. The F-22 was supposed to be this replacement, but that proved to be simply too expensive a plane to become the backbone. For reasons outlined above. Again.
The issue is not the 'sticker shock' so much, but whether it's worth it over the whole lifespan, spread over all the units made. The F-15 programme itself was lambasted at the time for being too unproven, too advanced, too expensive and too heavy (thus leading to the F-16). But it paid for itself over the years. The problem is that you only know if a system has 'good bones' after you've made it and tested it in the real world. What's more, designers are getting better at 'future-proofing' designs; for example the two new British aircraft carriers have intentional 'gaps' and 'spaces' within the ship to allow later retrofitting and thus, increase the lifespan. And the F-35 was the first plane which was explicitly designed to this principle (I believe). There's the possibility that a decent % of the first cost was due to the fundimentally different method of design this entails.
If done well, it's very possible the F-35 airframes may end up flying into the 60s/70s. And future military historians shall remember it as a kind of 'ugly duckling' aircraft, which had a rocky start but finally blossomed. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
F-35 is controversial because of many factors, and the media loves to make a mountain out of fairly inconsequential molehills with the aircraft. Any article which talks about dogfighting capability doesn't know anything about modern air-to-air combat. The basic premise of modern combat is you-see-it-you-killed-it. Modern missiles and detection systems are meant to attack your opponents *before* they appear over the horizon, and good missiles cannot be tricked by any reliable means and kill any target in a single undodgeable attack. But any design target missed is considered a failure by the media, when in engineering bleeding-edge systems missing design targets is the norm; you aim high but sometimes have to settle with good. I worked on an acquisition project for a spectrum analyzer. At $70k a unit, it's a pretty pricey system in the context of metrology. The project took 19 years and faced a host of accuracy problems that still aren't all fixed. It had significant cost overruns and over a decade of delays, but the project was still a success. It successfully managed to do a job which took a dozen other instruments before, massively simplifying logistics chains as it proved to be a very reliable system. In the F-35's case, all variants share a common engine, which is the most expensive and complicated component on an aircraft. This allows all who field it to share parts and maintenance crews. Time will tell how reliable the aircraft actually is. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
True... but thing is, 'dogfighting is obsolete' has been said before. In 1960 - then we had Vietnam. It was said again in 1980 - then we had the Falklands and the Iran-Iraq War. Never say never when it comes to warfare - I'm looking at pictures of mud, trenches, duckboards, barbed wire and machine-gun posts. France, 1917? No, Ukraine, 2022.
Which is a major issue with military programme 'overruns' and high costs; when a company buys a spectrum analyzer they know what it's going to be needed for and what the attributes desired of it. Militaries to some extent don't - that while they can make a decent stab at needs and so on, they can't be sure. Even less so if it's a system which shall last decades. There's a tendency to want to desire to 'situation-proof' the design. Sometimes, this gets to almost absurd territory; that the 'overengineering' then requires more engineering (and $) to overcome the limitations created by the overengineering in the first place. A non-plane example being Western infantry; being expected to lug about between 25-50kg of load (just in case!), so slow you can't run after the enemy, causing serious injuries and requiring lots of R&D to come up with tech solutions, like electronic packmules, exoskeletons and so on. Unfortunately, the suggestion 'carry less shit' appears to be generally a non-starter. In fact, some infantry officers quip that if *somehow* the load was reduced (say for body armour) 'they' would simply think it was an invite to pile on *more* shit for them to carry, thus nullifying any reduction.
Another point Ukraine has reminded us is that modern full-scale war simply mainlines ordinance (even above the predictions) and it's very possible that in a full-blown conflict the USAF may burn through their entire AA missile stocks in a month or two. Then what? This is similar to the situation in the Falklands again; where British ships found their arses uncovered when their AA missile systems failed or ran out, leaving them to fend off jets with a handful of WW2-era AA guns almost left as historical curios.
The last problem is that while it appears to be a reasonably-promising aircraft, it's too expensive to buy and maintain - at least to the numbers the USAF need to replace their ageing F-15/16s. Which was basically the original 'design brief' it was sold to the politicians on. You can't really blame them being a bit pissy when it appears that their order turned out to be merely a somewhat less boondoggle-y F-22. Some may even suspect the Pentagon did a 'bait and switch' on them and they'd been planning for it to turn out to be this bloated all along.
And there *still* isn't a clear replacement for the F-15/16s. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Building on the F-15 point, I agree that the War in Ukraine does help to show that more resilient technology in more quantity has been proven effective, and I'll bring up the F-15EX program also being created by the airforce to complement and replace existing Airframes as it is cost-effective, futureproof, and has a bunch of missiles which is always fun. With that in mind though, I think that it will still be important to find a medium between our new 5th gen toys and the 4th and 4.5 gen airframes, which is why I personally think that the F-15 and similar aircraft are still crucially important.
At the same time, I still think that the F-35 and more out-reaching tech are still important. Mainly for the reason above. As tech continues to advance, the F-35 will get cheaper and cheaper and will fill the role of the baseline aircraft as the new age of hyper-complex tech takes the front seat (For example NGAD). I think that this proves a valuable point in total though that we need to be more careful before saying that x new piece of tech is a waste of billions of dollars.
I think that yeah, the Military-Industrial Complex has proven to not be efficient at times and that we need to look more into making the process as efficient as possible and reduce the amount of inefficient money drain, but the goal of something like this shouldn't be to cut the amount of funding, but to make every dollar buy more for our defense and safety from states which are continuing to be more and more aggressive. Stingraey (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that Ukraine might be showing a future the USAF futurists predicted; that ground AA systems shall make low-level flight too risky and that a lot of the missions once filled by either helicopters or non-stealth planes shall be drones instead (one of the biggest head-scratchers of the war; where is the Russian Air Force? Is it hiding from all the air defences?). Thus F-15EX is simply a stopgap, to stretch their lifespan a little bit before jet fighter drones come on-stream in sufficient numbers/capabilities. Thus the F-35 is the new workhorse, but it'll be joined by a drone packmule. Either human-controlled, AI or most likely a mix of both.
And it's quite possible that as the tech becomes more solid, the F-35 maintenence/run costs are squeezed down (which are the true evil, not the sticker shock). In fact, it might even be possible for the designers to revisit the design and slash said costs. And/or do a spin-off craft which is much cheaper/simpler to run. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
One of the reasons given for the F15EX to be 2-seat is to operate autonomous drone swarm at some future date!Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
It's necessary to have harsh investigative journalism against defense contractors to keep them accountable. That being said, some of the arguments being leveled are also downright disingenuous. One of the famous ones is how some are claiming that we've already spent 1.5 trillion on the F-35 that doesn't work. That's simply false, because that is the entire cost of the program, from research, development, procurement, and operations all the way to 2070. Our relatively free press and the age of easily accessible information nowadays means that whatever flaws that are discovered during testing, which is expected for developing a new and highly sophisticated system, tend to get disproportionate coverage and doom-splaining on the internet. If you only knew just how many F-16s crashed during development, even though now it's regarded as a highly successful fighter. Point is, it's important to have journalists who are honest, technically competent, and as much as possible not driven by agenda. (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I think part of the bigger problem is the relative illiteracy of the public themselves. For example, the relative focus on the 'sticker shock' but not enough on the high flight-hour / maintenence costs, which shall be a much heavier burden on the budget (which could result in making false economy decisions).
There's also a lot of opaqueness regarding funding, sales and so on. Just looking at the F-35, I cannot find out whether the billions the Pentagon threw at it count as 'advance sales', 'investment' or 'loans'. This is important because if it's investment, Uncle Sam is *justified* in taking a cut of foreign sales.
Yet I looked up the 'Foreign Military Sales' programme and, no word on whether they're making a profit off those F-35 sales. Another aspect is that it appears the F-35 'partners' kicked in cash to the program; but the only word I saw was that Canada's membership fee was $71m. Was this factored in or not to the number above? Other parties would have put in more; the main foreign funder so far would have been the UK yet the British MoD or Treasury never revealed how much in fees they paid for R&D, only that their order was 'about £89m per plane'. Even then, little info on what was or was not covered in that sum.
Lastly, there's the issue whether if Sam shall get a taste of any other programmes built off the back of the tech developed, future orders and so on. But we don't know any of this because all the contracts etc a secret.
In short, I don't think even the most diligent economic journalist could piece together enough info to answer the question whether it's a decent investment or not. There simply isn't enough figures/facts to make a conclusion. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the problem with the F-35 is a combination of the “bleeding edge tech” trap mentioned above and what I would call “the Swiss Army knife mirage”. The latter is the over optimistic promise that one new weapon system will replace several old ones, and while this may be true in a few cases, usually it results in either a “one size fits none” system that doesn’t work particularly well in any of its roles, or one that works fairly well in one role, but quite badly in the others. An example is the M14 which was hideously oversold as basically being able to replace every small arm but pistols and a few submachine guns and ended up being a decent semi-auto battle rifle, rather than a replacement for light machine guns etc.
The F-35 programme has serious problems because it tries to justify its bleeding edge tech costs by promising to be a Swiss Army knife for all kinds of different aerial missions which means that it’s has to make a lot of compromises even as it tries to develop, incorporate and integrate advanced technology. These complexities are probably also the reason for the issues surrounding the low mission capability (how many missions can one plane fly in a given time) that the programme is still struggling with. Of course, there is no doubt that these stats will improve, but they have started from a level far behind legacy aircraft and need to improve tremendously to not only reach par, but to surpass legacy aircraft to a degree that allow for a given number of F-35s to cover for a greater number of legacy aircraft, which is one way in which the efficiency gain was sold (a lot of foreign operators have based their F-35 procurement on such “more bang for the buck” promises).
For most users of the F-35, the VTOL ability is at best a nice feature, but more likely completely irrelevant, so to base the entire concept around this capability seems to me to be a good illustration of the bad marriage between bleeding edge tech (an advanced VTOL fighter as opposed to, say, the Harrier) and Swiss army knifing (oh, and it can also do VTOL which the US and Royal Navy are particularly fond of). While I know that not all F-35 have VTOL, the requirements that the airframe and overall design must allow for it seems to me to be a fairly high risk for complications, compared to what most users are actually looking for.
Similarly, the promise was a high degree of parts interoperability and sharing between the three main variants (A, B and C) that also seems to be slowly receding in practice. These problems are then exacerbated by the Pentagon essentially abandoning the avowed process of test and evaluation and payment in stages based on these results by simply fudging inconvenient results and just proclaim that the plane was ready and satisfactory and thus locking in the procurement and preparing a blank cheque for “further upgrades”. This scenario of open ended contracts, which have a nasty habit of cost spiralling, is why Congress and the Pentagon had originally plumbed for a test and evaluation model to provide some competitive aspect to the process somewhat similar to a competitive fly off (used for the F-15/F-16 development).
Now, there are definitely counter examples to such “cost sinks” and “do everything” problems. The B-52 have proven to last way beyond expectations and the F-16 turned out to be more of a Swiss Army knife than the kind of cheap, lightweight fighter it was originally designed as, while the AR-15/M16 is hard to replace simply because a generation of incremental refinement has meant that any new design has a hard time offering enough benefits to justify a switch. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm a little more sanguine over the F-35's airframe; if they've aimed to create 'good bones' in an attempt to future-proof the airframe (rather than the traditional 'make a good plane' model). This shall sometimes creating slots for features which seem pointless now (like V/STOL) - but may mean they are good candidates for retrofitting and so on.
Main thing which worries me about the F-35 is that I suspect it's overengineered (from it's high maintenence/flight costs), and thus 'difficult' to maintain in the field. It smells a bit of a complacent USAF which concluded it wouldn't ever be fighting outside it's logistical train and never at a tempo/duration which would deplete reserves of spares/missiles/etc or force the planes to work beyond their stated limits. However, the desire to 'Swiss Army Knife' the craft I think is an attempt to mitigate this; to a) simplify the supply train and b) increase the flexibility of what craft you do possess.
Why the DoD signed off the F-35 and waived project stage evaluations is a mystery, but I have a theory - commercial/foreign pressure. Many foreign buyers were waiting for the F-35, but they would not wait forever. There was an ever-increasing risk that they'd cancel the orders and plump for something else (ie foreign) and if they got reeks of too many problems... well, that's not just construction orders lost, but decades of maintence/spares/upgrade contracts lost too and in some cases refunds. Even worse, some of the frustrated buyers might develop their own F-35 (UK? Israel? Japan?) which would then be a competitor to it. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that several of the foreign buyers would probably have had to wait for as long as it would take, since they had essentially locked themselves into the programme as co-developers and the sunk cost problem makes it extremely hard to pull out once committed, not to mention wanting to cozy up to the US for strategic reasons. As for being able to develop their own F-35s, I really doubt that would be feasible.
While there might have been some concerns about exports, I think the main reason the Pentagon just essentially threw up their hands and said “Well, we’ll just call it finished and be done with it!” was almost certainly an attempt to staunch the flow of bad publicity about the performance, progression and cost overruns of the programme.
As for those foreign customers more or less locked into the F-35 programme, the signing off could be used to calm worries over their own ever ageing legacy aircraft, some of which have been coming perilously close to the end of their service life, even with upgrades, extensions etc., especially as it takes time for the F-35s to actually be delivered, pilots trained etc. in order to allow the legacy aircraft to be phased out.
What seems worrying to me is the many problems the F-35s have encountered with their data packages, especially the updates for new missions and theatres, which seem to take an inordinately long time not only to develop, but to load into the planes’ systems.
What is really odd to me, is that so many foreign customers seem willing to essentially bank on the US in general and its private contractors in particular being willing and able to play “IT department” to their air forces. Similarly, the US itself seems to be very dependent on those private contractors for such data issues, not only in the design and production phase, but likely also in subsequent maintenance and operation. Reliance on a single, private corporation is problematic on national security grounds, but it also seems to me to open a lot of avenues for the supplier(s) bilking the public coffers. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, every buyer has their own requirements, situation and alternatives. Some would have waited, others wouldn't. Or couldn't. And some which 'couldn't/wouldn't wait' might still 'Buy American'; might have gone with F-15EXs, for example. But the first 'partners' were ideally only the first wave of foreign sales; both repeat orders and other nations. The more bleeding, boondoggly and/or vapoury the F-35 appeared, the higher the risk buyers walked away. But I accept this aspect was simply one of many of why the programme reports were fudged.
What I find very odd is the willingness to grant the USA so much power over what is a key part of 'your' country's military. Being dependent on the USA for spares etc is a large enough risk but the level of sophistication of the F-35 (and other weapons systems coming online) makes it quite possible the Pentagon might be able to figuratively or literally turn your planes off if you pissed them off enough. I recall that when Israel wanted to buy their F-35s with the ability for the IAI to mod them, the Americans went nuts. The Israelis got their way in the end (apparently), but *who* on the American end bitched so hard about this 'variant' and more importantly, why? Was it simply the crying over a possible lost maintenence contract, or a more sinister worry that the Israelis might be able to develop an alternative maintenence/upgrade path that others might take which might render any backdoors/killswitches etc ineffective? KarmaPolice (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but a dependence on US advanced weaponry has been substantial for many countries for decades. What I find particularly worrying here is that the adherence to F-35 procurement might lead to some European aircraft developers either going out of business or dropping the military side of their portfolio (in particular Saab).
This will make it hard to even get alternative suppliers for European countries, unless they want to buy from the Russians or Chinese, which in itself is really only a hypothetical option for advanced, integrated systems, given the well founded US fears of what introducing such systems into US ones might reveal to or allow Russia/China to do (just look at the reaction to the Turkish purchase of Russian tech).
Japan doesn’t export its advanced military hardware due to its constitution and both it and Israel tend to use modded US tech, rather than wholly original designs anyway; meaning the US (and/or the US defence companies) can control their sales through export and intellectual property clauses.
Hence, I see the problem that the two or three US defence conglomerates (currently, Boeing, Lockheed and Grumman) might become the de facto sole option for European air forces and that does not look particularly appetising from either a national security or an economic standpoint.
At best, the current situation has Saab getting by alongside some form of European consortium (like the one behind the aptly named Eurofighter), but with the problematic pedigree of many of the countries backing them (though Sweden, of course, did choose its own fighter) having chosen another supplier and probably locking themselves into the US for decades. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but there's *levels* of dependence. Historically, it was normally only at a level of spares - now in some cases the level could be so high the F-35 is almost a 'black box' which they can't even maintain the thing natively (even before any 'killswitch threat'). Many nations shall/do consider this unacceptable - particulary as the Trump era showed that America's 'reliability' is becoming much more iffy a prospect. This was historically why Russian-derivitive gear was more popular; smaller/less advanced nations found them easier to maintain.
Which is why I disagree with your 'increased American dominance' theory. Quite a few '2nd tier' nations are looking away from the American offerings (either just the F-35 or planes in general); Japan is developing the F-X perhaps with joint tech from the BAE Tempest, while the other half of Europe is developing the FCAS. Which I think was part of the risk for continued F-35 delays; more users would either back these or look to other solutions, such as the more affordable but a little less capable options. What's more, the current '4th Gen' planes such as the Typhoon and Gripen are also undergoing refinements/upgrades.
All these solutions, I think shall become more attractive as nations absorb the Ukraine lessons - such as desiring to maintain/develop native build/maintenence capabilities and re-emphisis on reliability/survivability (even if it means a reduction of paper capability). KarmaPolice (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In Light of the Alito Leak[edit]

I, like many, reviewed the draft opinion written by Alito closely. I was struck by the pointedness of the language, the questionable references and cacophony of half-baked Constitutional mumbojumbo rather than the actual decision. As I mentioned previously, I think it's clear the leak is not from a liberal justice or clerk trying to warn people about Roe's impending doom, but instead likely from the orbit of Clarence Thomas, because Kavanaugh or Barret may have been swayed by Roberts to take a more incremental approach after reading Alito's first draft. Among the arguments Alito introduces is that the Roe decision has led to years of conflict over this debate. He doesn't mention that the driving force behind the anti-abortion movement has been the religious right, spearheaded by Jerry Fallwell,Billy Graham and Paul Weyrich. What I didn't realize was that immediately before[5][6] and for roughly five years afterwards, American Evangelicals didn't take a position on abortion.[7] Instead, they sought to organize around religious organizations losing their tax exempt status due to their support of segregated institutions, like Bob Jones UniversityWikipedia. It wasn't until Catholic anti-abortion groups successful leaflet campaign in '78 got multiple anti-abortion Republicans victories in the Senate. Would the accurate portrayal of history make people re-evaluate their positions? Maybe not, but I have trouble believing that having used abortion so successfully as a uniting movement, they won't revert back to their primary motivation.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There was a second leak reported to the Washington Post a few days ago. It's all "educated guesses" of course, but the second leak pretty clearly came from a conservative source near the justices (per the Post). If I had to guess, it does sound like a tug-of-war between the Alito / Thomas camp (who are pushing abolition) and the Roberts camp (who prefer incrementalism) is driving the leaks (and yes, between the two, I'd guess the Thomas camp as well, as he and his wife have seem to have been radicalized by Trump politics; Roberts seems too institutional-respecting to do this). I'm sure Roberts is aware that there are more legitimacy questions about the court than anytime in my living memory, between the "shadow docket" decisions that occur without explanation, the allowance of a bounty law in Texas that seems designed for court defiance, and the insurrectionist radicalization of a Supreme Court justice's wife. Alito's decision certainly would fuel that "illegitimate partisan court" argument and I'm guessing Roberts knows it. Meh (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Meh Thomas has been pretty far right since before he was nominated for SCOTUS. So I'd say this is less the result of him being radicalized and more him making a power play. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


Florida gerrymander forced by DeSantis got shot down. This is just week after New York's and Kansas's gerrymander were overturned. Good job, courts! Andrew5 (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh my God! This is such a great leap forward for the progressive movement!!! LongStylus (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
finally! some good news for a change. let's hope it lasts. lol G Man (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Irony of anti-vaxxers[edit]

I find it funny that anti-vaxxers scream about "toxins" in vaccines yet they have no problem dumping toxic crap into rivers, lakes, oceans, forests and air; many of which can cause birth defects and cancer. Any of you see something wrong here? --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

In America, in times past, a fair bit of the anti-vaccination movement was linked to New Age types who generally also had a problem with people dumping toxic crap into rivers, lakes, oceans, forests, and airs. So there is more consistency to how they got their "woo side". Generally the "other side" of anti-vaccination here these days tend to be reactionary types that are very paranoid style, very tribal, and *cough* not very bright. I've never found that crowd to have consistent logic. Meh (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Antivaxxers in some circles are starting to turn it into a religious issue. I've seen claims about the Covid vaccine that have just never really happened with the last few ones. I think the term "Pharmakeia" in the bible became more popular because of it and the idea of "Luciferase" finally hit less fringe news outlets.--2friedeggs (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that anti-vax now turns up everywhere. It's not a right-left thing or an extremist vs moderate thing. If you go looking your can find anti-vax types in all these groups, but the views are not exclusive to them. It's the same with all conspiracy theories. Obviously the American QAnon stuff is associated with the nutty right and Trump in the states, but by no means all anti-vax comes under that umbrella and even less so in the rest of the world.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Well with COVID here in the US and the fact that Trump riled up the far right with anti-vaxx BS, you can see how they took the nutcase center stage. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
(EC)For once I'm not sure you can blame Trump. He actually wants to take the credit for developing the vaccine, it's many of his nutty followers who who are anti-vax. Of course if you a conspiracy theorist then holding two mutually contradictory opinions at the same time seems to be par for the course.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
It's true that, for the moment, the conspiratorial side mainly shows up only in one political party in the US. However, the QAnon conspiracy has recently been grabbed onto by a few of the nuttier New Age / wellness type people (as an example, the infamous QAnon Shaman at the Capitol riot has been described as a "ecofascist" with a blend of New Age and conspiracy views). It'll be interesting to see if in the future the conspiracy crowd gets a little more "muddy" politically, as they were in the past in the US. Meh (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The real irony is that soon even folk who have had three doses will have close to the same level of immunity as antivaxxers. (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Got some evidence? Doubt it. By the way, YouTube, BitChute and Rumble don't count as evidence. I bet you are the same type of person who believes voter fraud took place in the 2020 election. --Let me go crazy on you! (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Uhh from the NPR article referenced: "Protection against infection is likely short-term, lasting less than six months, but protection against severe disease appears more robust, researchers with the U.K. Health Security Agency reported Friday." just for example. I could go on at length. (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
For those you following along at home, the more times we get infected, the more opportunities it creates for the virus to mutate, creating more efficient mutations that can spread and cripple more and more people, ad infinum. Anyone claiming someone in the United States that has had 3 jabs doesn't have massively degraded protection is a fraud, grifter, or fool. Those vaccines were made for a variant that is years old now. (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Erm... be careful there. You've tacitly requested proof that voter fraud happened. Which happens in every election, everywhere. The important question is finding situations where that fraud *actually threw a result*. Otherwise they could turn up with non-throwing proof and then scream 'moving goalposts' when you *then* insert the caveat. Just my 'pedantic point of the day'. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Eh, though the data is not 100% clear (of course), a quick Google does seem to suggest that the BoN is full of shit. [8] [9]
And yes, voting fraud seems to be pretty rare in the US. When it happened two years ago, it's just as likely -- in fact, I would say more likely -- for it to be a Trump / Republican supporter committing the fraud, which is contradictory to all those wild Bitchute/Rumble claims. ([10][11][12]). It wasn't Democrats storming the Capitol on January 6th after all. Meh (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
2020 had ~475 cases of voter fraud confirmed. Andrew5 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
direct quote from that article with necessary context and more factually correct- 'finding fewer than 475 potential instances out of more than 25 million votes cast.' AMassiveGay (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
"voter fraud" What do you call it when the state legislature establishes a window within which absentee ballots must be received to be valid, the governor orders ballots outside this window to be counted, a judge orders that those ballots not be counted, and to be kept separate from the legally valid ballots, but they're counted anyway and mixed in with the valid ballots in violation of state election law, and then the election results are certified as having been produced in accordance with the law? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── well this thread turned into a dumpster fire really fast... G Man (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What's up with the hostility towards LessWrong?[edit]

Don't you guys have the same goals? So why the polemics? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GfMSiorAsYeezpn9o/the-problem-with-rational-wiki HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 14:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Psycho commitment to a singular, and epistemologically dubious mode of interpretation that undercuts that nominal goal. Alongside a de facto cult of personality surrounding one of the most obnoxious people on the planet.
You could as easily say "You and Nazis both value social efficiency", but in doing so gloss over that the Nazis imagine getting there through genocide and enforced monoculture. Or for a less extreme "Both you and libertarians value personal freedom" like their vision of freedom isn't almost everyone on the planet being forced into indentured servitude.
Yud and his affiliates are insane people who think human worth is genetic, intelligence is fungible, human experience is unmeasurable thus not real, that codified rules never have exceptions just because you haven't considered them. It's a world of deeply broken thinking and deeply harmful thinking, and it reflects an upcoming perspective of techno-utopianism that will be responsible for some of the most dystopian elements of the near future.
Do I think I can have a productive conversation with someone from there? Sure. Do I think there's anything to be gained by embracing that culture? Hell no. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Highboi What goals do LW and RW share? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
So, basically they treat rationality as a monolith and they think that only their methods are rational(Confirmation bias). HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 14:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
They treat Yud's take on rationality as the Holy Bible .They do not engage with different views and their usual transhumanism woo. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 15:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@GC I'm guessing both the communities wish to provide user with the knowledge they need to spot a bad argument. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 14:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I've come to realize that you guys do not have similar goals. There is a strong emphasis on skepticism and that's all. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 15:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Highboi Elaborate, on both your posts. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
In early 2010s era Internet, RationalWiki's "crowd rep" from what I remember was with the "new atheist", often libertarian crowd (albeit the side that liked to troll Conservapedia), and made a wiki that was more "trollish" in nature, mostly aimed at Conservapedia but with some other features like reasonable articles on debate fallacies. LessWrong plucked from a similar libertarian, new atheist crowd base, and was supposedly more "srs", and was mainly being noteworthy for running philosophy what-ifs on scenarios if artificial intelligence actually became intelligent (currently, AI is not). It does seem that there was some crossover/rivalry?/whatever between the two crowds at the time. I don't think there is quite as much crossover now.
At any rate, I've never been terribly impressed with LessWrong with the little that I encounter it. There's a sort of "Silicon Valley half-baked ideas" feeling I get from posts I see there, where smart people let their minds wander and come up with their own peculiar brand of pseudoscientific garbage on either topics they are not knowledgeable in and/or half-backed science fictionish concepts. Think of Ray Kurzweil, a brilliant computer scientist who nonetheless got deeply into supplement woo as well as some "singularity" crap similar to LessWrong. I think there is enough issues with present-day data mining/"AI" to worry about issues way far off in the future, if ever. Meh (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I think LessWrong is rather hit and miss on the whole, often containing more sophisticated philosophical reasoning than RationalWiki, but also a body of seriously flawed material. There's good stuff to be found on LessWrong if you search around and happen to be lucky in what you come across. For example, earlier I found the following essay there, which is interesting for considering one of the typical way in which human reasoning goes wrong: Lies, Damn Lies, and Fabricated Options --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
LessWrong has a few good pages on usefull tools for rational thinking. Beyond those pages though, as many have said above, it gets sloppy and somewhat unhinged (a few pages VERY unhinged). People might say the same about us though. Only difference is our unhingedness doesn't conflict with our mission :) ShabiDOO 10:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

China and Taiwan[edit]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.financialexpress.com/world-news/will-taiwan-become-another-ukraine/2522482/lite/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-wants-take-taiwan-peacefully-is-preparing-militarily-us-intelligence-2022-05-10/ HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 03:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Highboi You might also consider posting links like this in WIGO:World. Vomitorium (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
that piece is more a blog than wigo, fyi.
as for taiwan becoming 'another ukraine', there is no indication of anything occurring right at the present. taiwan is very much not like ukraine or likely to become like ukraine - even if china invaded today. china is not in way 'russia' in this equation either. for one, taiwan has massive investment in mainland china, and china is taiwan's biggest trade partner. unlike ukraine, taiwan is not a country of wide open spaces. it is densely populated island. for all russia's sins, if they hadnt botched the invasion, russia had planned on a relatively bloodless affair, delivering a knock out punch taking out ukraine leadership. they botched it, sure, but russia wasnt planning a long drawn out slugfest. china can have no such illusions about taiwan. a military invasion would be an incredibly bloody affair. sheer weight of numbers would likely swing it for china, but taiwan has been facing off china since 1948, and its not just been china sabre rattle either they have at times been in direct conflict. taiwan can defend itself, enough to make china pay a price for an invasion. china does not want to take over militarily if they can help it. they will prepare for it, plan for for it, but they would rather not have to. it really would be the a last ditch effort to take control of taiwan. like if taiwan made a formal declaration of independence. they'd much rather the world keep its nose out while they slowy make taiwan so much intertwined with the mainland, taiwan would just become part of china proper by osmosis. progress on that front looks very much a one step forward, one step back situation to my eyes.
the big worry i think is how the us and the west deals with china. i do not think a tough line is the right approach while military conflict can be avoided. the problem, or a problem is the history of china, of taiwan, and of the us too. china-us relations are a big problem here.
they have history. and history with taiwan too. up until relatively recently, from the opium war, to unequal treaties, to trade at the point of a gun, to land grabs, through to the civil war and beyond, china's history has been the victim of western (not just the british, even the opium wars had willing pasty faced participants from all over europe, and the us wanted theirs to) imperialism. just one long parade of plunder and humiliation. culminating with the civil war-ww2 combo and the communists taking the mainland and the kmt fleeing to taiwan. officially, that civil war never ended. it has ended, but no ones signed any peace treaties. pcc in mainland china, the roc in taiwan. both claiming ownership of the other, but since 1948 china, for the most part, was ruled by the chinese without any johnny foreigner letting themselves in and taking shit. prc still wanted taiwan though, that was unfinished business from the civil war. and for roc's part, they thought the same of mainland china. for the roc's part, they carried on the civil war past 1948, through guerrilla actions and insurgencies, just not head on. this china-taiwan business has not always been the one sided affair we see today. now lets talk about the us. it was of the western imperialists swiping its arse on china since the opium wars, not the biggest player by any means, but it was there, and china remembers their face. by end of the ww2, the us was the power in the world, and for now communist china, the of the west. during the civil war, the us did not wait for the ww2 to end before they started fucking over the communists, going with the roc. they backed the losing side and america is a poor loser, coming to blows with china during the korean war, but more relevantly blocking china from the un, with the roc in taiwan being chinese representative until 1971. for the prc more humiliation from the west, now with a us. you will note the reverse situation at the un, with the prc with a seat, and taiwan frozen out. at this time everyone agreed there is one china, and that taiwan was part of china. prc and roc disagreed on who had the right to run a one china though. with that potted history, we are up to date and china is for the first time since the opium wars in the ascendance. its the growing super power as the us wanes and russia shits the bed in the ukraine. the british have even left hong kong. its just taiwan left to for the prc to take over and make china one china again. its only the prc who believe in the one china thing, its merely a convenience for taiwan. artifice.
the point of my dubious history lesson is this. the us is not a neutral player here. they were a part of and the now the face of the people behind china's long humiliation. and to the prc, are still needling them via taiwan, a wound from that shameful past not yet healed. but china is stronger now. it is confident now. its not gonna take the same old shit like it used to. its not going to be told to chill over taiwan by the us. oh no, the prc says. you telling us what we can do about 'our' land? you? are telling us? we remember you,usa, the prc say.
china is not going to back down over taiwan. its not going to respond well to ultimatums. its not going to be intimated by the us. especially by the us. no here wants a war. china does not want a war. taiwan most certainly does not. drawing lines in the sand and tough talk meant ones own public risk someone talking themselves in the corner that results in war or a humiliating climb. the west, and specifically the us risk putting china in such a corner, and the history makes china humiliating itself in the face of the west yet again not something id want to put money. and it is the people of taiwan who would suffer from western tough talk and bravado.
i have no answer for what would settle the matter. continue with artifice of the one china policy and maybe taiwan becomes part of china willingly, eventually. thats a long game, and its chinas game. not sure anyone else is really taking that game as seriously. i think the best approach is to convince china they are big boys now. they dont need to own taiwan. trade and investment will still see them both pretty tight. and make sure that china 'knows' it was their idea.
international politics from a half wit. yay me AMassiveGay (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Three bits;
1 Taiwan is much more heavily armed than Ukraine was.
2 The USN could thwart any invasion by simply parking a carrier force in the Straights and telling Beijing directly 'do not think of doing it'.
3 Ambibious invasions suck.
There's differences between 'can they do it' and 'is it worth it doing it'? It's similar to my Ukraine view before; that the former was a clear 'Yes' while the latter was a 'Do not think so' (yeah I was wrong before, but so was most of the serious donkeys).
Even more importantly, I suspect the PLA does not want a war right now. I think the 'Russian clusterfuck' shall have caused them to pause and be very thoughtful - for they are also descendents of 'Soviet Military Science' which is faring so well. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Interesting your conclusion. Perhaps Putin will end up making the world safer. I hope that autocrats (and others) will think a little more deeply before undertaking military adventures for the next few decades. On the other hand, expecting people to learn from history might be a mug's game.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The one aspect I'm curious about is whether the Ukranian war shall morph into a wider 'ideological conflict' like the Cold War, and if it does whether the Anglosphere (in particular) quits the backsliding and starts to really work to put clear water re human rights, democracy, social cohesion, economic fairness etc so our 'system' is clearly better for the average person on the street than the klepto-autocrat vision. Because in many ways, Putin is merely a Trump or Johnson, via a darkened mirror. Which in many ways, was already rather opaque. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up about an incredible glossary[edit]

Old Rationalwiki user here, but I'm blown away there's next to nothing on the following.


Very in-depth resource for every single Q conspiracy origin. If you are confused as to how someone would believe summadatshit, get even more confused by the fact that there are thousands of pages of it.

The other rationalwiki page is weak and doesn't source the material.


The Blue Planet Project.. papers? Bad sci fi. It references talking points that the extreme anti-government crowd who also holds belief in magic kinda worry about but can totally believe . I'm not joking, the only reason I found this was because somebody in my life referenced project looking glass in full belief. I dunno if I'm just being mind controlled, but if anyone wanted to read it, here is the best resource and some source material.

Love you guys, Spud, ikanreed, Amassive, Blade, Rip, glad to see you're going. It killed me to write about this much abstraction of reality on fake alien interviews or fake bigfoot searches, but I could create and deliver to you guys a document that is so secret, even Rationalwiki couldn't block my ip based on my username. By which I mean I think I could at least refute the blue planet leak without keeling over, I just can't post from my home ip. By my own request, kinda, I guess. (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm blown away that you 2 criticised everyone for not writing about it, then didn't write about it yourselves. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, Alosyius, I remember you too, thanks for speaking up. If I am supposed to be the 2, sorry, I am only one person. And I only recently found the source material. (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
But you're right, that's a job that needs be done, gol dernitt. (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
To really deal with it, I will need permissions to upload screenshots of the work. I don't think I would get those permissions. (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm really sorry if I put anything on anybody to work on a page. adding to https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ring_species almost killed me, it was so scary to get right. I'm not asking anybody to actually do it. Just, if you wanted to read the blue planet project and I dunno, sandbox it or just discussion it after having the full context, there it is... (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the shout out. Spud (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

A response to Pro life arguments[edit]

https://www.abortionarguments.com/p/full-text.html?m=1 HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 07:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That is a really good introduction to philosophy. LongStylus (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

How can you know what's behind you exists?[edit]

Warning icon orange.svg Warning: Solipsism conversation ahead may rot your brain!

Man photographing himself in cornered mirror to generate illusion cropped.jpg

The new Russian nuclear threat scenario - annexation[edit]

Being reported by Institute for study of war, goes like this - "referenda" in the occupied territories, and probably also Sth Ossetia (which IMO would then also happen in Abkhazia and Transnistria), vote to join the Russian Federation. The Constitution of the RF allows use of nuclear weapons to defend the territory of the RF, and so now any attack on those areas can "legally" result in nuclear retaliation. It is being suggested that this is a "way out" for Putin from the current mess. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

That does not get him out of the mess since it will not terminate sanctions. Also, he's reportedly quite ill.[13] Bongolian (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
the theory is that a plausible threat to use nukes will force Ukraine to peace that gives him all his gains on the ground so far. That will gut Ukraine as a nation and weaken it enough so it will be ripe for subversion. He doesn't give a rotund rodent's rectum about sanctions, and reports of his illness have been around for a while, remaining speculation as far as I can see. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I think Putin does care about sanctions. Not as much as he perhaps *should*, but his unhinged ranting ie oligarchs, Europe and gas etc show it's chafing. However, I think he cares mainly about the effects of sanctions; which is crippling his ability for military regeneration and is making him more dependent on China for supplies (which is upsetting the status quo between them, which could be termed to be 'precarious equality'). The fact he keeps on threatening nukes is in fact a good sign - that he has not much else to threaten us with.
However, the NBC risk is there simply due to Putin's whole psyche; that if in doubt, raise stakes and stare out opponent. The question then is this; how far shall his cronies and lackeys walk down the path to hell before they bail on the Czar? KarmaPolice (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
(EC) I doubt that the loss of Ukrainian territories that have already, to a significant extent, been under de facto Russian control for years ”will gut Ukraine as a nation and weaken it enough so it will be ripe for subversion”.
While such an outcome will be a serious blow to Ukraine, not least in prestige terms, it will likely result in a hardening of its anti-Russian stance and also make Kiev take a revanchist line vis-à-vis those areas conquered by Russia. And it is also worth remembering that Ukraine will be able to point out that an international treaty signed under duress is not binding on the signatory.
By contrast, unless Russia and/or their puppet “people’s republics” manage to expel those who look to Kiev, rather than Moscow, from the conquered lands, they will have revanchists in their own house, requiring even more resources to be spent on “internal defence”, as opposed to on economic development.
Hence, while this will be something of a short term victory for Russia, it will not disguise either Putin’s failure to topple the Kiev government or the comparatively poor performance of Russian forces, whereas it will stock up problems for the future that seems to me to be mainly headaches for Moscow, rather than Kiev. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
But it isn't just the Donbas as occupied in 2014 - it is also Mariupol - Ukraine's largest port and famously it's largest steel making plant, it is 1 of Ukraines nuclear reactors, navigation on the Dneipr river to the Black Sea under Russian control thus controlling one of Ukraines major export routes for the inland industries....... and several other large cities, large areas of wheat growing land in the "black earth" belt. If several million Ukrainians are displaced from areas that used to support them economically, where is Ukraine going to put them, and how are they going to be reintegrated into a smaller economy under external pressure?
Control of population will be ruthless, brutal and without giving a damn for human rights - any non-conformance will be punished as it is in Russia - with the added "benefit" that it can be laid at the door of the nazi's in Kyiv and "seperatiists" trying to split up the RF, and sanctions from "the West" will be part of that story. Remember that Kadyrov in Chechnya was an anti-Russian partisan until he changed sides - and by selling his soull he has absolute authority there.... the same will happen in any annexed territories.
He won't give a toss about "economic recovery" in hte conquered areas until it is politically expedient to do so - which will nto be while ther is any sort of opposition still present or any hotilities still going on. And he always has the option to ship in loyalist Russians by the millions if he wants, as was done in Crimea, and just let things take their course.
Putin will punt it up as a victory, no one will be able/allowed to argue against it inside Russia, and the story of "the west hates us and wants to destroy us" will become precisely how the vast majority of Russians think for a couple more generations.
I think your post is shallow thinking and steeped in the idea that somehow the Russian populace doesn't want the war, that "reality" as we see it has any relevance in Russia, and that somewhow our "western" norms of behaviour and population are ther just lurking below the surface of Russia waiting to be released.... all of those are simply not true now, if they ever were, and are serious mistakes right up ther with Nord 2.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I think your post makes the assumption that Wombat's talking about the Russian people at large. My read of their point is more reasonable an assumption if you apply it to the Russian ruling class. Spooks, military officers, businesspeople, apparatchiks, the science-academic stratum, journalists and so on. Aka the folks who 'keep the Putin show on the road'. Even through their biased POV, it's difficult to see how turning a theoretically solid and antagonistic NATO into a actually solid and antagonistic one is good for Russia's national interests. Perhaps the one of the things holding it together (apart from fear, obviously) is the belief/hope that Ukrainian resistance can be 'cracked' after one more heave, NATO interest shall wane (because we're weak and lazy) and the bot-farms and propagandists shall do divide and rule on us.
As for the loss of Mariupol etc, this isn't *such* a serious thing. I remember a comment a senior Ukranian over this; that the city has been destroyed by ~90%, the majority of it's people have left and the majority of the ones stuck in there are unlikely to desire to stay on the 'Russian side'. What the Russians are about to conquer is a geographic location, nothing more. It is about as much 'a city' as Stalingrad was in Feb 1943. Even more importantly, the place shall shrivel-up if it ends up cut off from it's economic hinterland - Russian long-term occupation shall mean Ukranian trade being diverted to Odesa and/or via Romania and Poland. What's the value of a port city which very few ships desire to dock in for trade?
More importantly, things can/will be rebuilt - and if the West ponies up on the promises made, even a 'rump' Ukraine shall get lots of regeneration while the 'Occupied Territories' won't (reports from Crimea show there's been zero civilian developments since the Russian invasion, and in fact existing infrastructure etc is rotting away due to lack of maintenence). Remember this; South Korea was the poor, undeveloped sector of the peninsula in the 50s. Now look at it. And as pointed out above, the Russians don't give a shit over actual development (which at least the Soviets did, even under Stalin). KarmaPolice (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Aloysius the Gaul ”I think your post is shallow thinking and steeped in the idea that somehow the Russian populace doesn't want the war, that "reality" as we see it has any relevance in Russia, and that somewhow our "western" norms of behaviour and population are ther just lurking below the surface of Russia waiting to be released.... all of those are simply not true now, if they ever were, and are serious mistakes right up ther with Nord 2”
Wow… If anything, this seems to be more like the kind of sweeping “West is West and East is East” statement found “civilisationist” thinking à la Samuel P. Huntington that I would definitely call ”shallow”. Now, such “civilisationsim” may not have been the intent behind the answer to my post, but it sure comes off sounding like something in that direction. Anyway, I’ll try to disentangle the mess of mix ups and apparent misunderstandings of the reasoning behind my prior post.
First off, there is no indication that there is or was a broadly based Russian popular clamouring for a war with Ukraine. Sure, the general tendency to “support our boys in the field”, so characteristic of most countries at war, has kicked in and the war does have its fervent supporters, but it hardly seems the case that there is a widespread war fever in Russia. That doesn’t mean that Russians are all pining to get rid of Putin or turn Russia into a liberal democracy, but then I made no such proposal anywhere in my post and I have no idea how you get to that conclusion from what I wrote.
How Nordstream 2 entered the fray is likewise a mystery to me, firstly because I never raised it, secondly because no one else did, and thirdly because I happen to consider the project to have been a really bad idea from the start on both geo strategic, environmental and economic grounds.
I am somewhat curious as to what another sweeping claim, namely ”that "reality" as we see it has any relevance in Russia” actually means, as it seems to be another vague appeal to Russian “otherness”, or at least the sort of hand waving that can be used to explain everything.
As for Putin not caring about economic development and not being averse to cracking down and intensifying his police state, I agree. Which was why I emphasised short term vs. long term perspectives. Sure, Putin can hang onto power and I don’t see him being toppled anytime soon, if ever. Sure, Russia can tough it out through the economic pressure applied through sanctions etc. Sure, Russian can spend money on a vast, repressive, security state, rather than economic development. But look at other states, and even Russia’s Soviet predecessor, that have followed a similar route and tell me that this looks like a feasible way of ensuring long term stability? Especially when you’re running a country that is heavily dependent on the export of raw materials, rather than an economic powerhouse like China that can leverage the lure of its domestic market as a way to apply pressure on others.
Ukraine is and definitely will be hurt, but my point is that where Russia has previously seen some success in having sympathetic Ukrainian politicians wielding or heavily influencing power in Kiev, I really don’t see that happen after this war. Revanchist sentiments will almost certainly be widespread, as will the hatred of Putin/Moscow (though how far this will extend to Russians in general is not clear to me) and the bitterness caused by personal losses among a large section of the Ukrainian populace.
The loss of Mariupol will of course hurt, but as KarmaPolice pointed out, maritime trade can be rerouted to Odessa and while metal exports from Ukraine is important, I doubt that the loss of Mariupol will cripple the economy in general as it can source its steel from elsewhere and new plants can be built. That Azovstal functioned prior to the current war despite a large slice of Ukraine’s traditional, heavy industrial region being the one under Russian occupation is an indication that it is feasible, if not without costs, to adjust such economic patterns.
I admit to not possessing a detailed map of Ukrainian agriculture, but given the likely areas that Russia might control after a settlement, which are probably not more than they currently hold, I doubt that this will destroy Ukraine’s ability to continue as a major agricultural exporter. The main worries so far that I’m aware of have not been Russia actually controlling Ukrainian agricultural lands, but that the disruptions caused by the war, especially in terms of fuel and chemicals, is making it difficult for Ukrainian farmers to sow and harvest what they normally do, as well as impacting livestock production.
It is extremely likely that European and US funds, and possibly some of those Russian state funds that are currently frozen, will flood into Ukraine after the war and I think KarmaPolice’s example of South Korea is apt in this case. It’s worth remembering that that country was utterly devastated to a far greater extent than Ukraine by a brutal Japanese colonisation and then the Korean War, which first saw North Korea steamrolling through the South, then the UN forces smashing their way north and the Chinese pushing the UN back to the starting line. Now, it took decades for South Korea to become the advanced, rich economy we see today (not incidentally helped by the Vietnam War, btw), but Ukraine starts from a much better situation and can expect a lot of aid. Hell, if the post war situation seems stable enough, many of the private investments will probably return and Ukraine has seen a lot of European investments in all kinds of sectors for years prior to this war.
By contrast, Russia seems to gain little in terms of serious economic benefits. It has spent much on a war that has already dragged on far longer than anticipated and with more paltry results. The areas it will likely end up with after some sort of settlement are either the same ones it already controlled in the Donbas, or have been more or less devastated by the fighting and I can’t see a lot of countries lining up to help Putin foot the bill for rebuilding them. If the Chinese end up pitching in, that will probably not be on particularly favourable terms and will likely bring Moscow further into a disadvantageous relation with Beijing that may reach beyond Putin’s reign.
Sure, Putin will almost certainly be able to propagandise this domestically as some sort of victory, and he will probably be able to continue to rely on the kind of “siege mentality” that he and his allies had built up in the Russian media well before the current war. However, I doubt that even his propaganda efforts will be able to totally erase the obvious fact that he failed to topple the Kiev regime, despite making a very direct attempt. This is in clear contrast to Georgia (where such blunt regime change was never attempted) and Chechnya (where it succeeded).
However, Putin will also be left with an even more dysfunctional economy than before and probably also a lot people asking questions like what their family members actually died for and how the mighty Russian military that always prizes the memory of how it(s Soviet predecessor) smashed the Third Reich in the Great Patriotic War somehow failed to achieve a decisive victory against Ukraine. I agree that this state of affairs can probably hold for all (or at least most) of Putin’s lifetime — unless he makes another disastrous gamble like this invasion. But it is also much more likely to store up serious problems for the future of Russia than for that of Ukraine.
Putin’s great successes in other conflicts have turned on his ability to use frozen conflicts to destabilise neighbouring regimes and (de)escalate the level of these conflicts as a bargaining chip to balance US and/or EU(ropean) influence. The problem with the new annexation initiatives is that he will now literally own the problems and lose the plausible deniability (and insulation from any setbacks) of his former approach. Sure, it might be sold to his domestic audience (at least in the immediate future) as regaining lost territory, but Putin has also undercut his earlier somewhat coherent rhetoric of non interference by removing any ambiguity of Moscow’s direct conquest and control.
The most likely outcome seems to be one of somewhat expanded Russian borders, at the expense of getting a series of more unequivocally hostile neighbours that are more likely to receive more US/EU(ropean) direct support, as the Russo-Ukrainian War has drastically lowered the barriers to both the willingness, level and openness of “Western” support for those of Russia’s neighbours that have quarrels with Moscow. Similarly, there is now a very plausible scenario of both Finland and Sweden joining NATO as a direct consequence of the war.
It thus seems that Putin has managed to solidify and expand the “Western Bloc”, has turned Kiev into an unequivocal enemy, has lowered the barriers to “Western” support for his opponents, and has made the likelihood of continuing economic problems almost certain, in exchange for conquering the strategic hinterland of Crimea, linking it with Donbas and controlling another nuclear plant along with some new, more or less smashed industrial estate. That hardly seems like a slam dunk victory, even if he might try to tell the Russians so. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
If we look at modern economic history, it shows us that human capital is the most valuable asset, and the hardest to replace. The examples of post-WW2 West Germany and Japan show this; their recovery was rapid due to the drive, skill and education of their peoples. The creation of Israel similar. On the opposite side, for a long time Ireland was thwarted by a long-running 'brain drain' to both the USA and UK, while the Khmer Rouge's rule was so catastrophic for Cambodia not 'just' because they lost ~20% of their population, but the fact that it almost annihilated their scientific, academic, commercial and managerial class, crippling any chance of revival. Similar, though smaller dent can be seen during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, though at least in this case most of the despised folks weren't actually killed.
Now, if we look at Ukraine and Russia and shall see differences. Ukraine has generally speaking done well in saving her people, the peoples of Europe (esp Poles, Romanians and Moldovans) have helped this by taking millions in as DPs. She shall have those people to come back and rebuild, even if it is in a temporarily 'reduced' land. What's more, the returnees shall most likely be joined by many Ukranians driven out of the territories being Russified (like they were in 2014, and Ossetia was in 2008) and possibly even by Ukranians from Russia itself, giving a fillip in a manner the 'rump' West Germany got after WW2 from the settlement of the 12m expelled Germans from 'the East' such as Prussia.
Russia, on the other hand has a general disregard for her own people - you don't use conscripts like fodder if you *did* give a shit about them. Which isn't good when the Russian population is declining hard even by European standards and only 80% of people in Russia are even Russian (let us remember the majority of Russians killed so far in the invasion would have been ones who were too young to have had children yet). One of Putin's more 'enlightened' policies has been to always keep the emigration door ajar; this was done to allow a valve to let out dissidents, but is now also showing the start of (I suspect) a new brain drain.
You don't have to be some kind of 'Western liberal democrat' in Russia to know the above paragraphs and be worried. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Again you guys are all talking about this as if there is some rational consideration going on in the Kremlin. The scenario is just that - it is a scenario - and it plays to brinkmanship and Putin's 1/ need to win, and 2/ need to provide a gain for "Mother Russia" for domestic politics. The scenario is completely plausible, it doe not require anything more happen in the war - he could do it right now - annex the territories that are occupied and say they are part of the RF and so we are "allowed" to use nukes to defend them. He can do it unilaterally - he doesn't need any acceptance of this from "the West" or Ukraine, and it will be popular in the RF at all levels. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Further to the economic war against Ukraine and it being gutted by annexations - see Black Sea as the new "Tanker War"?Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
What part of 'the folks who keep the Putin show on the road' don't you get? Even if Putin is chewing his office carpet with underpants on head, 2+2 *must* equal four for people for example, trying to balance the books at the Economics Ministry or organising rolling stock to transport munitions at Defence. Putin can treat the Russian people like mushrooms, but he needs the state apparatus, the 'organs' to function to make his will reality.
With the nuke use, it does not get Putin out of anything. Sanctions shall continue, in fact get worse. Several powers currently 'neutral' in the conflict shall desert her, perhaps even China. I don't think Kyiv would even surrender - in fact, it might make them even more determined to resist to the death. It might even cause NATO to fully mobilise and dig in along the border. And enough of the apparatus shall know this.
Putin is in a hole and won't stop digging. It might turn out to be his grave, but it doesn't have to be Russia's too. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Listen to Aloysius the Gaul. People are inferring far too much that the decisions made by those in Power in Russia is somehow strategically done for "Russia's security", "russia's future" or some regaining of Soviet glory or pride or in response to the "threats of Western Europe". All of that is incidental, and only a narrative that can be used to justify (do they need to justify much at this point?) decisions which work entirely in their self interest. Yes, there is a small degree of "national interest" that goes on in decisions, but everything they decide is in the benefit of their own interests and who keep them in power, including a war which is damaging to Russia on so many levels. Under certain conditions (including what is happening in Russia) leaders can prosper while the country suffers. A nuclear option is very unlikely to suit anyone's interests in Russia. It is hard to guess how this war suits their interests. A good guess is a combination of distracting the population, consolidating power and making it easier to stomp on dissent, consolidating energy, gaining sympathy for the Russian populous, making it easier to profit from other war adventures, opportunities for corruption (even more) and so on. A Russian nuclear bomb going off anywhere on Earth would likely heavily threaten most of those interests. HAving said that, we've been surprised before and if they work out somehow that a nuclear bomb (even one of retaliation sent to say...St. Petersburg) will in the long run suit their own intersts...do you believe they would hesitate to send one? ShabiDOO 16:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out a single scenario where launching a nuke benefits them though. The only possibility is "NATO so weak they refuse to retaliate, agree to be cowed into any agreement that Might Russia forces them into".
But as far as sociopathic ration self interest, isn't that the point of seizing all the yachts? Make the oligarchs lose wealth as a result of the war. CorruptUser 16:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
What Aloysius is selling might be very true for the Russian leadership, but not the folks below them. To use military parliance, the majors and captains (the folks who make things happen) rather than the generals. What, you think none of these lot have a shred of patriotism in them? Or professional pride? Or even a desire to 'stay at my post' and hoping to make the best of a bad situation? That's *all* simply self-interest and myopic greed? No, I don't buy that. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Then you obviously don't understand the Russian mindset of "I was given an order, I can't Not follow it". When the general makes the call to launch a nuke, is the soldier on the other line going to disobey? If he refuses, is there going to be at least one person who will relieve said soldier of duty and then follow that order? Will the general call up another site and tell them to launch, will they all say no before the general runs out of nuke-sites? And once that first nuke is launched, does the soldier know whether or not nukes are going to come flying back to him if he doesn't also launch right then and there? No, you can't play games with nuclear weapons. CorruptUser 19:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that is a *load* of BS, to the point saying that's a stupid stereotype sailing towards racism.
That mentality can be found all over the world (British English; 'jobsworth', 'computer says no' etc), and it shall be more prevailant in nations long under the iron lung of autocratic regimes, but it doesn't mean the entire population is devoid of independent thought, free will or outside information. Russia is actually very good at presenting this kind of monolithic facade of obedience to both itself and outsiders, and a lot of nuance does get lost in translation. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Anyone on any rung of the ladder can, if they think it worth the risk, attempt to overthrow or replace those above them. This happens in politics (in ALL forms of political systems), and every power structure that exists from charities to universities to sports leagues to neighbourhood watches. In any system, deposing or replacing someone carries potentially risk and possible meaningful reward. In authoritarian systems with fewer controls and rights the risk is high (though the reward can potentially be high). If people below you are given enough incentives NOT to do anything (or preferably support you) then this is less likely to happen. Those below you must also do the same with those below them. The lower on the ladder, the less risk, less reward there is and the less impact over all on what happens at the top. Captains, local politicians and minor oligarchs may have influence within their sphere but little to those on the top, may be less savvy about power structures or actually care about things like the glory and wellbeing of Russia, but unless they act en masse or a very fortuitous series of events happen, the potential benefits of acting are likely outweighed by the serious consequences (and high risk of them). ShabiDOO 22:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Question whatever[edit]

How come the pro-lifers aren't shrieking their heads off about the latest massacre? To a Brit there is a certain illogicality in the unlinking.

Or is it - the massacres are largely committed by men? Anna Livia (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Such massacres are generally illegal, disapproved of by all institutions, political parties, etc. and such massacres kill a relatively small number of people per year, on average. In contrast, abortion is legal in much of the world, it has widespread support among political parties and institutions, and tens of millions are performed each year. If abortion were as illegal, as disapproved-of, and as rare as massacres like that, pro-lifers would have won to a degree I suspect most would regard as implausble. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Because no sane person is "pro-massacre", obviously. An Advocate (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, massacres aren't a real good proxy here. A few anti-abortion extremists have gotten radicalized enough to kill (Shelley ShannonWikipedia being an example) but although in the "vague swirl of ideology" the abortion issue is maybe a little part of the white nationalist / incel culture that recently has dominated US mass murders (including this recent one as I understand it so far, though this is early news), it certainly doesn't dominate. The typical argument for demonstrating anti-abortion hypocrisy is using the atypical fundamentalist viewpoint that wholeheartedly approves of the death penalty, which makes mockery of the "sanctity of life" concept on a pure level and is a stance not typical among the Catholic faith which the fundies borrowed the abortion issue from. From my perspective, fundamentalist "logic" tends to only make sense once you factor in a culture of moral self-righteousness and demonizing the "other" being a part of too much of that scene. If you add that in, the anti-abortion / pro-death penalty viewpoint would make "sense", albeit not in a way I would personally find very morally consistent at all. Meh (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
In 1977, shortly after Roe v. Wade, there was a propensity for people in the US who opposed either abortion or the death penalty to also oppose the other. Since that time it has evolved such that their is no such propensity.[14] Bongolian (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
This stumped me too a little, Anna. Until I came to the conclusion for a lot of folks it's nothing more than an example of 'conservative virtue signalling'. See my point in 'Roe vs Wade' topic above dated '08:02, 5 May 2022' for details. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
"no sane person is "pro-massacre", obviously" There are all sorts of reasons why a sane person would perform a massacre. Prominent reasons in history are wanting territory that is currently occupied by people who don't want to leave, and fighting against people who want to take your territory.
"the abortion issue is maybe a little part of the white nationalist / incel culture" The white nationalists I've encountered tend to favor abortion because most minority groups in the US have higher abortion rates than whites (e.g. more African American pregnancies are aborted than carried to term). And even among whites, they may justify it by claiming eugenic effects, that those who would have an abortion shouldn't reproduce. Though those are not universal opinions.

"the "sanctity of life" concept on a pure level and is a stance not typical among the Catholic faith" The official Catholic position on the death penalty (until 2018, at least) is that it is proper for societies to have the option available for situations where other responses are impractical, but that it should be used with restraint if at all. The disagreement here with its use in the US is that life imprisonment is usually not impractical, not that the death penalty is on the books per se. Though different people vary in their enthusiasm.
As for a general "sanctity of life" regarding capital punishment and abortion, most Christian groups believe that all humans have value due to being made in the image and likeness of God or something along those lines. However, the Commandment isn't "thou shalt not kill", it's "thou shalt not murder", which is not the same thing. "Murder" is unjustified by some relevant standard, while there are all sorts of legitemate reasons to kill someone in most people's moral systems. Christians are generally permitted to defend themselves or others, even with deadly force, and execution as punishment for certain crimes (serial murder, say) makes a lot of sense in a world without modern justice systems. As for abortion, very few reasons meet most Christian standards of justified killing. One of the situations that does is something like an ectopic pregnancy where modern medicine is incapable of saving the fetus, but can save the mother by removing the fetus. Though as most Protestant denominations lack a governing authority that decides these things, it can vary. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Pro-lifers should also be pro-gun control - given how often they are used in US massacres. Anna Livia (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe in both, actually. Andrew5 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The argument about the anti-abortion crowd "having inconsistent life-ethic" always ignores there's a fundamental difference between "killing someone" and "not saving someone". If I shoot a sleeping homeless man in a dark alley, I'm a murderer, bute if I see a homeless man bleeding out and do nothing I'm not a murderer but I'm definitely an asshole. I can believe (I don't hold these views) that the government should prevent people from aborting fetuses, but simultaneously believe the government should not pay for welfare even if that results in the kid growing up in poverty. I've not forced the kid to be born into misery, I've only refused to help the kid out of misery one way or the other.
The guns argument is similarly flawed, as we already ban murders. If 1 in 1000 guns is used in a crime, banning guns would affect the other 999 legit uses. To make a legit comparison, we'd have to compare "banning all guns to reduce the possibility of a gun-murder" to "banning all hospitals to reduce the possibility of an abortion". Again, doesn't mean I hold the view that we don't need better gun laws, but it's not a good argument. CorruptUser 16:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It depends on the argument framing. Any absolutism on "sanctity of life" is basically what is diminished. If you've put an asterisk on the sanctity of life of a convicted murder, then obviously there is some conditions on that sanctity. So the argument less becomes "sanctity of life" in itself and more exactly why (for an absolute anti-abortionist) life becomes completely sacred the moment the sperm hits the egg. In reality, abortion is morally complex, and there is widespread disagreement on the ethics of abortion and where to draw lines. I think Europe in general has moved towards a reasonable compromise, except in a couple countries like Poland where a dogmatic illiberal nationalist-religious group took power. America has unfortunately largely turned this into a shouting match of absolutism.
BTW, the person who refuses to help the homeless man bleeding out is not only an asshole, but if Christian, is strongly going against the doctrine of their own church, which very much obliges one to help those in need. So yes, if you want abortion to be outlawed, but also rail against social safety nets, by Christian moral standards, that's quite inconsistent. For all I know, this may be one area where Republican Trump Christianity (generally anti-state safety net) will start conflicting with actual Christians... surprisingly when looking for current opinions on this topic, one of the first articles that came up was this pro-state safety net op-ed from the student paper of Liberty University. Meh (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Actually no. Christianity never requires governments to provide services, it requires charity. Christians support charity... but they end up with conditions that governments don't have, e.g., refusing services to LGBT, etc. CorruptUser 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser I mean, to be technical, they could choose to help the poor and needy, and to let God judge the result, per Mathew 25:31-46. But well, we all know that American Evangelicals aren't very Christly... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Concerning the argument put forward by pro life Christians: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oCUD5H0zcnE HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 17:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Being a Brit, and not of the "huntin', shootin' and fishin' class" my attitude would be towards responsible ownership of weapons, with background checks, training etc - and there is a case for abortion in various contexts (summarised as medical issues, violence etc) along with access to contraception.
The point I was making - those who are the most pro-life should follow the consequences (adoption etc) and promote measures which discourage the violence and massacres that appear to be a feature of American society. Anna Livia (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Will Ukraine take back occupied Crimea?[edit]

If Russia keeps Crimea, they have an advantage. They can frequently resupply using that God forsaken bridge they built after Crimea fell under military occupation. Ukraine needs to take Crimea back and cut off Russian access.

Will Ukraine try to retake Crimea to heavily cripple Russia? --Let me go crazy on you! (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

If Russia has to surrender to Ukraine, Ukraine will likely get Crimeia back. Andrew5 (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
No. Russia isn't going to put that on the table. Not even if they lose. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Look, there's geopolitical realities at play, where certain options are no gos. Crimea is off the table. Ukraine doesn't have the forces to take it, and Russia isn't going to give it up under any realistic peace talk scenario. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Here is a way I see Ukraine retaking Crimea: Russia foolishly launching an invasion of Finland and Sweden like Putin keeps threatening thus depleting his forces, Ukraine destroying the Crimean bridge and Pro-Ukrainian locals launching an uprising. The last part I do not consider likely though as, if Ukraine is right about this, the Russian government was transfering the Pro-Ukrainian population out of Crimea and replacing them with Russian people. --Let me go crazy on you! (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Here's what I see - Putin accidentally ticks off a NATO country who attacks, Putin invades, triggering Article 5, NATO quashes Russia and forces them to give up Crimea, as well as lands Kaliningrad. Andrew5 (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
They’ll get it back. Russia’s gonna implode when the reality of Ukraine permeates into the psyche of nationally minded Russians and anyone ambitious or ethnically at odds with the government in Moscow. Ukraine pushing Russia out of the Donbas looks likely to do this for me. While that’s going down, the Russian military won’t be in any position to defend Crimea. We might be treated to another wild slew of maps soon. Artificius (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, I see Putin as the person that if he loses, he’s probably going to do something even worse than Ukraine. Also, if Russia’s going to fall, Putin might take everyone else with him. Patty Pat 02:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
“Something worse than Ukraine?” Meh. If he nukes the West for effectively countering Russian aggression, the version of this where the world went unnuked wasn’t on the table. …And I’m not so sure he’ll be in charge forever or that giving that order wouldn’t be the inflection point of a regime change (or even that he effectively could, given Russia's apparent materiel status). Something’s going on with him between the absurd social distancing and the age. ...Can you imagine the powers-that-be palace couping him because he'd accidentally expose Russia's nuclear arsenal as horrifically unready with such an order and the patriotic thing is therefore to off the crazy man who'd destroy their deterrent and bargaining chip forever? Artificius (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I suspect ultimately not. The area was not hugely 'Ukranian' anyway (not that it was Russian either, but much more a mix of 'Soviet peoples'). It also holds an emotional attachment for *ordinary* Russians (which Donbass etc frankly doesn't), partly due to the fact it's perhaps the closest thing to 'Soviet Florida' and thus, many older folks have good, nostalgic memories of the place (not just long holidays but also from military service in the region, which was clearly much nicer a gig to have than say, on the Manchurian border or some icy Siberian garrison). It was only 'transfered' to Ukraine in 1954 (I think) and even during the balmiest days of the Yelsin years they never gave up their claims/interests in the place.
Personally, think the most realistic 'best case' for Kyiv is a situation where the place is an autonomous republic within Ukraine and the Russians hold indefinite leases on several facilities within it and transit rights for them. However, this hope fades with every passing day, as more and more 'anti-Russian' elements are expelled. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Crimea won't be handed back. I can't see that happening. Russia iirc still has the naval strength to guard Crimea. It's important to keep in mind that their top military brass is still in a soviet-style mindset for their army, which means their main area of superiority is their naval fleet (this is arguably why they have decent progress on South Ukraine but don't seem capable of moving deeper land-inwards; its just about how far their naval fleet can reach). -- Techpriest (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Crimea isn't going to return to Ukrainian control, period. It's annexation was wildly popular in RF, and it has been steadily integrated. A serious conventional threat, posed by the Ukrainian military, would likely justify the use of a tactical nuclear weapon, in Putin's eyes. I think it's also worth noting, the RF is not going to intentionally target any member of NATO. Putin has no desire to engage in a wider conflict.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

If Ukraine does retake Crimea, it will cost a lot of money to reintegrate it into Ukrainian utilities, government and infrastructure. It cost Russia a lot of money to make Crimea a federal subject of their country. --Let me go crazy on you! (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia will not give up Crimea under any peaceful scenario - it would have to be conquered. Taking Crimea was very popular with the Russian public, and I have talked with several of them over the years since about how good they feel about it being part of the RF - many of them have holidayed there. So attacking it will be seen as an attack on "Mother Russia", which will be exploited for everything it is worth, and will definitely bring in the nuclear option due to the RF constitution allowing first use of nukes to defend the territory of the RF. At a simplistic level it could only be done if the bridge is destroyed destroyed or heavily interdicted, and the Black Sea neutralized as a means of supplying RF forces in the peninsular. If Ukraine retakes Mariupol and the Azov coast then they can certainly interdict the bridge. They may be able to at least partially blockade Sevastopol, but I doubt it, and certainly have no significant ability to interdict supplies brought in to the southern Crimean ports (eg Yalta, Feodosia). So IMO reconquest of Crimea requires a major upgrade of Ukrainian abilities to do more than resist bravely, and also and even more major collapse of the RF than we are seeing right now - serious political unrest, possibly to the level of civil war or insurgency against the Putin regime or something at that level. I do not think there are any credible scenarios for it to happen in the near future.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
That Kerch bridge seems to constantly have 'issues' with it. Plus, Russia hasn't really 'integrated' Crimea either - I've read a couple of reports from Crimean Tatars (the forgotten piggy-in-middle in this part of the scrap) in that the Russians don't give a damn save the military bases; that utility supplies, energy, roads etc are all increasingly dodgy.
However, Kyiv has *generally* made it clear that while they shall continue to treat Crimea as occupied territory, it's not a part of their immediate 'war aims'. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
In some parts of the war Ukraine is doing quite well and has pushed the Russians back to the border. And that's before they get all the arms which have been promised them.
It seems to me that there would be a great temptation to not actually stop at the border but to see if they could occupy some Russian territory. This would be very destabilizing of course - but it would give them something to put on the table when the war ends and the two countries have to sort things out between them.
I'm not saying they should do this - just that there would be a temptation.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
It is stolen land (originally belonging to the Crimean Tatar people) regardless. Although the Russian government likely will not abdicate authority over Crimea. Russia has, since the fall of the Soviet Union, reached the highest stage of capitalism, imperialism. Thus, it wishes to gain and maintain territory. Moreover, the difficulties behind reclaiming Crimea via war render it an impossible or at least hazardous endeavor; I am certain the Russian government would not wait for more than a second to further escalate the war if the Ukrainian government invaded Crimea, thus hindering efforts to retake it.-April Chat? 00:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

A radical and dumb stance I have on arms rights.[edit]

Lets Heavily tax firearms and projectile weapons and make Melee weapons fair game! weapons such as swords and axes require more purpose and movement than guns which requires you to just pull the trigger plus it might discourage people to be overly violent because unlike guns you have to be up close to the violence. it also seems like a good way to make people use more effort in fighting rather than just shooting. so in short I am like the anti NRA.TH (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. What do you mean "fair game"? Are people allowed to open-carry a giant claymore on their back at school? Plus, knife attacks are a serious problem. LongStylus (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
It's my god-given right to become unstoppable with a zweihander if I want to goddammit! -- Techpriest (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I mean at this rate the earth's ecosystem will turn into Arrakis so maybe we will get Dune-esque combat soon! StingraeyAngy 19:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I might point out, Tech, that a two-handed blade precludes the use of a shield (except in fantasy gaming or novels), and thus isn't always the best option. I should much prefer a shortsword-- say, something akin to the Roman gladius-- and at least a buckler, or better a mid-size shield. Cool is one thing, survivability is another. Besides, it's better for tanking. Kencolt (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, the last time Americans had to excessively pay taxes the redcoats had to leave. I guess knife attacks aren't as fatal as guns as leaving the knife inside the body increases your chances of survival. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 04:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
While we're at it, on 14th may a mass shooting took place in Buffalo, NY. That might add pressure on Mr Biden to push for gun control https://time.com/6177079/buffalo-shooting-biden-gun-control/ HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 04:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Blade attacks aren't as fatal as firearms because it's easier to defend self/others. I remember one attack (London Bridge?) where one of the blade-wielding attackers was kept at bay by a bloke with a chair blocking a bar doorway (protecting the folks inside). Attacker went off for other victims. Others survived by simply running away. If it had been in the USA, the bloke would have been shot and the runners shot at. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
It's been at least 20+ years of mass shooting history in the USA, with typically at least one high profile mass shooting per year (often more) since 2010. Politically nothing has happened so far, and I expect nothing will happen now. The paranoid style crowd has long clung to their mall ninja fantasies, the firearms manufacturers and military surplus companies find it profitable to deal with them, and one political party enjoys exploiting the paranoid style for votes. So now the police will occasionally have to deal with asshats who are not only fully armed, but are equipped with high capacity magazines, body armor, and surplus military helmets. Traditionally, US police have been on the conservative side of politics and have subsequently been weak on supporting any gun control policy. I hope they are pleased with the increased occupational risk this stance will bring. Meh (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
on the contrary i feel it is important to note the police's ability when it comes to violence also another stupid take i have is legalize mercenaries and encourage "freelance protection groups". (this is mostly satirical but i am sorta morbid and sadistic so uh?)
Also satirical on our nation's direction as a whole not just on my bad takes.

TH (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

and also I was or am a proponent of Anarcho capitalism at least as a fantasy It seems cool to live in a world run my corporations and fearing for your life constantly especially if you are poor.also Poe's Law applies hereTH

(talk) 12:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

also to add a another point as High boi stated knife attacks arent as fatal. and if the point of weapons are to defend yourself you'd want to have something that would scare your opponent away rather than shooting it's easier to plead self defence in that way if you don't kill anyone.TH (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Blade attacks also do less damage. Getting stabbed in the heart seems to be about half as deadly as getting shot in the heart; note that this seems to be only those who survive long enough to make it to the ER; other numbers I've seen are 6/7ths of gunshots to the heart are fatal compared to 1/7th for stabbings. CorruptUser 15:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

this thread is facile. is it easier to commit mass murder with firearms? of course it is. is impossible with a knife? of course it isnt. is getting shot more deadly than getting stabbed? possibly. does it mean getting stabbed is no big deal? absolutely not - its not even funny. AMassiveGay (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Honestly yeah I'm just a brat with anime fantasies this wasn't supposed to be serious I am heavily aware that my stance is stupid it has it's holes. leaning this way has the tendency to just lead to more brutal killings and to be wholly serious this opinion was mostly taken from a Dystopian game I play called Library of Ruina the concept was taken directly from the game in order to sneakily make references to the game. in LoR Guns and ammo aren't just heavily taxed it has to do with that they aren't very effective against highly compitant indeviduals with body enhancements you also need a licence to sell and make weapons and anything that infringes on copyright is destroyed the worldbuilding is awsome if you want to check it out. so yeah this stance was basicly a shitpost about my favorite game lol but I wanted to have a serious descussin about the themes in it the sociopolitical themes specifically.TH (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Listen, Ruina is a fun game but if you want to talk about the themes and subject matter in it, just make a thread for it, I think there's quite a few people here who would interested in it's cyberpunk worldbuilding, but the sociopolitical system for it's setting is bordering on the comical. For fucks sake, when you get down to it, the most dangerous entity is the patent office. It's quite silly. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I might do that Techpreist but I would like to know what you mean by "comical" I'm honestly confused why you think that does the idea not really hold up? TH (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Putin's health[edit]

So, some people are saying that Putin's health is going backwards. like this article from The Independent that says that he might have bloodcancer. If he actually has health problems and were to succumb to it, wouldn't this officially mean the end of the war with Ukraine? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That will likely leave a power vacuum. All his political rivals in prison would want a seat in the Kremlin. So the nation might descend into a civil war or something similar to it. Considering that the soldiers are out of town, Moscow will easily fall. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 11:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
a civil war seems unlikely, as does a power vacuum AMassiveGay (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
If Putin is genuinely 'ailing' in health, his inner circle shall be the first to know and thus, shall already being jockeying for power. Chances are, with the absence of a clear successor a troika shall be formed, which happened after Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev's ending. In this case, chances are it would be Mishustin (Government), Shoigu (Military) and Bortnikov (Security).
What would happen with Ukraine... well, it depends how 'signed up' to the original plan they were - I believe Shoigu was all for it. But with Putin's death they might use it as an excuse to blame it all on the dead guy and try to withdraw from the war (ideally, holding onto the Donbass) and get back to pre-invasion situation re sanctions etc.
However... it's possible that Putin could in fact already be dead. He is already the 'secluded autocrat' and his rare 'public' appearances (via mainly TV etc) could be stage-managed by body-doubles, esp all the film-makers tricks are done. Tech has gotten so good... deepfakes are here. I'm not really suggesting Putin is dead, more pointing out that if he did croak and somebody (like say Bortnikov) had prepared in advance it would be possibly feasable to keep him technically 'alive' for a few weeks.
Which is the last risk. A situation where Putin is crippled (perhaps even comatose), but not dead. At least death if final; the successors can scrap it out. But what happens if (say) Shoigu makes his move for the big chair... only for Putin to recover? Anything could happen then. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
There would be a power vacuum, but opposition figures would be unlikely to be in the mix. If one accepts the news reporting on his health, Putin is scheduled to undergo surgery, which if for cancer probably means he's circling the drain since it means that the blood cancer has metastasized. The evidence of a power vacuum is that Putin would reportedly hand over control to Nikolai Patrushev (head of the Security Council) while he's under anesthesia rather than to the constitutionally-mandated Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. A similar power struggle following Stalin's death resulted in Khrushchev's rise to power and the Lavrenty Beria's death by lead poisoning. Bongolian (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
One version I heard about - Khrushchev claimed to have personally strangled Beria.
What is the attitude of the Mongolians to the situation? Did the Israelis accept the back-tracking on the recent 'official statements'? Anna Livia (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
are you perhaps confusing the storty of beria boasting that he strangled stalinAMassiveGay (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
'The person' also said that there was a similar story that Khrushchev claimed to have shot Beria (in both cases 'at a Politburo meeting') and that there were various other versions of Beria's death (ie 'known urban legends'). Anna Livia (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The details of Beria's trial and execution were published after the semi-opening of the Soviet archives. Given what other Soviet ghastliness was hidden there, I don't think there's much reason to doubt this. Bongolian (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh c’mon people, we all know the real reason for this is because of Steven Anderson and his New IFB buddies praying for Putin to die. 71.208.x.x (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Those at the top of the Russian administration have also invoked Godwin's Law (and the derivative to the effect that 'mentioning Hitler/the usual other suspects without justification means that you have lost the argument'). Anna Livia (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
There are plenty of people in the power structure of the RF who are more rabidly anti-Ukraine than Putin. We really have no way to predict an outcome from a putative demise of Putin - it could be anything from actual nuclear war to RF civil war and collapse.... arguably this is "better the devil you know" terrritory! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


I do not presume all recall my mere existence, but I left in January and now return. Hello. I apologize for LANCBing. It was a split-second decision made during a rather stressful time. I am doing much better nowadays albeit. Hope everyone else is doing well.-April Chat? 19:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back. CorruptUser 20:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes a pause from something as rambunctious as FW (especially if there is 'much else going on in life') is a necessary thing. Anna Livia (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. I have ADHD, and in January, my first semester as a full-time college student commenced...did not want to falter via staying here instead of studying.-April Chat? 05:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Whatcha studying? Buck (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Library science, at least indirectly; I need to transfer to a university beforehand.-April Chat? 16:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The year 2022 is feeling more and more like some kind of dystopian science fiction movie than reality[edit]

With the ongoing COVID pandemic, government incompetence worldwide, economic inflation, rise in domestic terrorism (mainly white nationalism), war in Europe and climate change I feel like that I am in some kind of dystopian sci-fi flick.

As a kid, I never thought that this sort of thing would not happen and that things would just blow over. Let's turn the years 2020-2022 into a movie of sorts. Get James Cameron to write and direct it and Samuel L. Jackson to star in it. --Let me go crazy on you! (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It's easy to look at the bad side, but look on the bright side: we managed to distribute vaccines only a year after COVID broke out, leaded car gasoline is now banned worldwide, the voting age is being lowered to 16 in some countries, LGBTQ+ rights gained traction, etc. I would say the 2020s is a mixed bag so far, but promising. LongStylus (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Stylus. I do not mean to sound overly joyful, the mindset of "just think happy thoughts" is folderol, but we must respond to these exigencies by fighting for a better world vigorously. And luckily, thus far in the 2020s, some fantasies came to fruition.-April Chat? 03:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
And also 8 countries banned child corporal punishment in the 2020s so far. [15] I find it strange that it's still legal in the US and Canada, but is now illegal in Japan and South Korea, considering how conservative East Asia tends to be. LongStylus (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Quite the feat, yes. Conservativism is omnipresent in South Korea and Japan, yet both countries still banned corporal punishment. A shame most countries have yet to ban it, but that is where activism comes in handy.-April Chat? 03:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
As another kid who's almost an adult, I'd like to fear monger a little more by sending a dystopian article. https://unherd.com/2021/12/2022-will-be-a-dangerous-year/ 🤣 Highboi Enter into the rabbit hole 03:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree that globally social progress is being made: but with war in Europe and threats of nuclear war, inflation at multi-decade highs and global food shortages predicted I don't think the outlook for the next few years is very positive.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
everything went to shit since brexit. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Most of these (pandemics, government incompetence, economic inflation, nationalism, war) have repeatedly happened before. There was actually a reasonable vaccine for this pandemic, as mentioned, that was quickly developed and released in record time. That hasn't happened before at that speed. The rise in white nationalism in America comes in an environment where a black president was actually elected (and, as an aside, historically will be seen as the best US president of the last two decades), so some progress has been made from the "good old days" (sarc) of lynchings, the KKK, "whites only" bullshit, and the like. Vladimir Putin unilaterally invading a country for his own bullshit nationalism reasons was surprising in many ways because no one does that sort of thing anymore. This was not the case, say, 100 years ago.
There's definitely been some shifts in derp. I can't think of a historical parallel to incel culture offhand, for instance (though I'm sure someone will remember if there is one). Thanks to the Internet, derp travels at warp speed. America has always loved its guns and its dumb conspiracies, but gun culture (in parallel with politics on one side) has become increasingly paranoid and derpy over the last 50 years, and especially in the last 10, contributing to the mass shooting phenomenon.
But that's humanity. Progress tends to be made over time, albeit in fits and starts. That being said, to me, climate change is probably the most worrisome one on that list, frankly, because it's a slow slog of an issue, but a probable massive one, and one where change in fits and starts probably won't be enough. Meh (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
While I believe we are making progress in some spheres, it is not uniform and it is in fact dangerous to focus on positive trends, because that in practice usually means downplaying current dangers. In fact, I am overall pessimistic for the immediate future because of the general failure to address Climate Change, the greatest issue of our time.-Flandres (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

May 19th[edit]

Malcolm X, Ho Chi Minh, Yuri Kochiyama, and Stacey Park Milbern all share the same birthday! May they all rest in peace.-April Chat? 22:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thought you were writing a new bar to "We didn't start the Fire" : P Revolverman (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Haha, I see why you thought that!-April Chat? 02:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

logo kinda sus[edit]

Krakens in space

Hail Hydra! (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Release the krakens into space. Bongolian (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


I'm seeing a lot of articles recently warning about upcoming food shortages (see here for example). Anyone taking this seriously? If so what measures are you taking? Stocking piling long life goods, water filtration systems etc. (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Well yes.... unless you're living under a rock or on Moscow pretty much every news source has been mentioning that millions of tonnes of grain and soy and what not being destroyed or blockaded in Ukraine are going to result in severe shortages worldwide. And of course the Kremlin is blaming Ukraine - all they have to do is stop fighting and give up any meaningful sovereignty and all will be solved. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Stockpiling won't save you from a serious famine. Seriously, unless you have the disposable wealth to buy a few years of long term shelf stable goods (in which case why aren't you trying to stop this you wealthy bastard?!?) You aren't going to ride out the famine. If there is one. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
There's also the fact that not all countries will be affected. Notice how the US and Europe aren't on that list of exports. Odds are you're probably from the US or Europe, and if you are, you aren't going to experience a famine. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Even though famines were fairly common in the subcontinent,India also will not experience a famine. India has banned wheat exports due to the heatwaves which has increased the wheat prices by 6%. India will likely export wheat only to countries that are going to have a food crisis. A list of countries banning food expertsHerr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 04:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The summer of 2010 was a historic drought for Ukraine. By the winter of 2010/11, price of basic good spiked throughout the Mideast. By the spring of 2011, well... CorruptUser 06:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Critical to not this will primarily effect countries who import most of their grain. Net exporters can just export less. Terrible yields also effect the amount of calories that the grains provide. It would be great if the US and Canada could try to fill the gap by producing more grains for human consumptions,(a considerable amount of grains are actually made for animal feed) to at least fill that gap. However, the knock on effect is that there would be less feed to go around, and then damage livestock yields. The acute crisis has Russia to blame, the overall crisis is accelerated by climate change -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm guessing that what this will mean for the west is more expensive food. What it will mean for poorer countries is no food - as the west will have outbid for it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The only thing I really did on the food front was to forward-buy a few kilos worth of 'cooking' protein powder (soya, whey) to put in reserve. However, I did this more out of worries about inflation eating away the value of my meagre savings and protein prices shooting up (as Liberal points out) than fears of actual starvation. But I've long done this kind of thing anyway, though I'm no way some kind of crazy prepper or a Mormon.
But this isn't a new thing. They have been talking about this for before the pandemic. Like with the pandemic, the preppers *do* have a point when they quip; that by the time it's in front of your face it's too late to prepare. Question is; have nations prepared for this?
Now, there's things which *can* be done. Fodder crops - within limits - can be diverted into 'direct consumption', while the production of ethanol can be suspended. Subsitutions are possible (such as cornflour in place of wheat). And as it's agriculture, it can move relatively more quickly than say, energy or manufacturing to change production.
However, there's minuses to all of these. The shift away from fodder means less protein to go about, straining other supplies like soya. No ethanol to stretch out petrol means more inflation there, while no HFCS increases demand on sugarcane and beet. Switching production requires new inputs which shall cost cash, increasing production (like say, the EU could) would require more fertiliser which again, equals more energy input and so on.
On the brute starvation front, I'm somewhat sanguine about the issue; there is enough calories for all, governments have learned from the pandemic to no longer to blithely 'trust to market forces' to sort this stuff out (or at least to trust less), many developing nations now have some elements of 'strategic staple reserves' (though part of the risk is that their resources have already been depleted) and there's orgs there set up to help this sort of thing etc.
The thing which worries me much more is the spectre of malnutrition - and more in the mid/higher income nations. That as incomes are severely stressed poorer folks will try to save money by shrinking the two most expensive sectors on the plate - protein and fruit/veg - and to compensate for the calorific loss to up the intake of more 'starchy carbs', such as grains. I have seen such things 'advised' by folks who frankly should know better; such as '£1 a day food' challenges which satisfy the critera of producing meals but not adequate nutrition. I've also seen this happen in suggested substitutions; like being told to replace chicken breast with a breaded chicken piece which is ~50% breadcrumb and filler/bulking materiels. Which is not good, if that was the main source of protein for that person's day. And so on.
KarmaPolice (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

A response to "heritage not hate"[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/utiucq/heritage/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 15:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


An Indian American gets assault by some random asshole. The f*cking stupid school authorities suspend the Indian guy for 3 days while the assailant gets suspended for a day. HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 06:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

of course this happened in texas... G Man (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The New Atheism and the New Right[edit]

Heya, folks. I'm wondering if anyone knows if anyone has written a decent intellectual history of the new right/alt right's relationship with the New Atheist movement, a body of thought that has deep roots 'round these parts. Hope all is well. RagingHippie (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I only ever come across a handful of articles, op-eds, and the like. I would be willing to see if the connection has been given any academic attention and look for resources for ya. I'd be curious to know this myself. The argument for a connection I think could definitely be made, especially with how "white-identity" movements in Europe have centered around fears of Islamophobia often echoing the rhetoric of folks like Dawkin's, Harris, etc. Rebecca Watson just did a recent video on the history of scientism racism and it's ties to the great replacement conspiracy theory, as well as a history of the Pioneer Fund and it's Nazi origins. Dawkin's recently recommended a work by Douglas Murray openly on twitter, who has explicit ties to promoting the "great replacement"/ white genocide conspiracy theory in Europe; especially with an Islamophobic angle. We already know Harris flirts with hereditarianism and openly promotes the the Bell Curve. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Would definitely love to see what you find. I asked after listening to an episode of Know Your Enemy that mentioned Andy Ngo coming from New Atheist roots. RagingHippie (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
There are a few links in Google Scholar, but most appear to not be top peer reviewed journals, and they are all paywalled anyways. So you are left with articles from The Point (which seems like a solid enough source) or Salon (which is, well, Salon). Probably some other sources if I spent more time Googling.
Just on a quick survey, I personally fail to see much of the now-old "new atheist" crowd becoming anything really like Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, or even Jordan Peterson. So, as a sweeping generalization, I don't think it works.
That being said, there may be some similarities in the following areas:
A) Islam. Which, personally, I would not expect people who are vocally harsh about Christianity to be very kind to another religion still mired in some nasty fundamentalism. However, it seems to cross over into Islamophobia for a few people on a few occasions.
B) The "Joe Rogan disease", for a lack of a better term of this circle of (usually) old white males that formed a new "Twitter circle of influence" over various deepity shit, built on the backs of hysteria some had regarding COVID-19 public health measures. (LOL, if they were in China...) Crosses over with the Elon Musk crowd too. A few of the new atheists have seem to migrated in this circle. "Woke derangement syndrome" (e.g. repeated harping on social justice for no reason, using "woke" as a snarl word) and scientific racism are a symptom of this. Not all have migrated completely, though. Based on their Twitter feeds, some, like Richard Dawkins, seem to have only lightly grazed on these sort of subjects. (EG, the recommendation on the Douglas Murray book, whose summary on Amazon sounds like whataboutism on racism, so no thanks. But most of his Twitter feed is far from this type of stuff.) On the other hand, you have David SilvermanWikipedia, who got caught in financial and sexual misconduct shenanigans a few years ago, and now has a Twitter feed heavily into Woke Derangement Syndrome, retweeting Elon Musk, and calling Black Lives Matter and critical race theory "racist". (Predictable, eh?) Meh (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

tf you mean movement The drywall (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Here ya go, hon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
The Toronto broadcaster and lawyer Stephen LeDrew wrote a book called the Evolution of Atheism. Amazon gives a synopsis of the book and I will cite an excerpt: "The New Atheism, LeDrew shows, is part of a tradition of atheist thought and activism that promotes individualism and scientific authority, which puts it at odds with atheist groups that are motivated by humanistic ethics and social justice. LeDrew draws on public relations campaigns, publications, podcasts, and in-depth interviews to explore the belief systems, internal logics, and self-contradictions of the people who consider themselves to be atheists. He argues that evolving understandings of what atheism means, and how it should be put into action, are threatening to irrevocably fragment the movement." Stafford (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb User:The drywall got banned (by someone other than myself) for telling me to quote "...go back to having a mental breakdown over grammar mistakes" I think it's safe to assume they are neither acting in good faith, nor are they going to respond. I thought you should be aware. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

on Canada's first quote[edit]

How can it be removed? -- Spafky (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Like that. Christopher (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Huh, should have thought of that. Pretty strange though, wonder what causes this. --Spafky (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


https://abcnews.go.com/Health/massachusetts-man-tests-positive-monkeypox/story?id=84817514 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/05/18/927043767/rare-monkeypox-outbreak-in-u-k-and-europe-what-is-it-and-should-we-worry https://www.mass.gov/news/massachusetts-public-health-officials-confirm-case-of-monkeypox https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/monkeypox-canada-quebec-europe-us-outbreak-1.6458523

A case of Monkeypox, the disease caused by the monkeypox virus, was detected on May 18th, 2022 in Massachusetts. The name is a misnomer; the precise natural reservoir of the virus that causes the disease is unknown. This is part of an ongoing outbreak of monkeypox in the US, UK, Portugal, and Spain. It is still worthy of attention even if it is neither in the epidemic nor in the pandemic stage at this time. The smallpox vaccine protects its recipients from monkeypox around 85 percent of the time, as the diseases are not dissimilar. Thus, arguably, the best way to mitigate the threat of monkeypox is to recommence smallpox vaccination. Moreover, there is a drug usable against the disease monkeypox.-April Chat? 23:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"The disease can also spread from person to person via large respiratory droplets in the air, but they cannot travel more than a few feet, so two people would need to have prolonged close contact." --https://abcnews.go.com/Health/massachusetts-man-tests-positive-monkeypox/story?id=84817514
Wonder how airborne transmission denialists will handle this outbreak.-April Chat? 23:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
its not a std but there is an indication that the spread is aided by sexual contact. 4 of the cases are in gay men (yay us), and there have been warnings put out within the gay community to be on alert.
and who the fuck are 'airborne transmission denialists' anyway? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
it should also be noted monkeypox in most cases clears up on its own before anyone gets too concerned AMassiveGay (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The death rate varies from 1 percent to 15 percent. Still concerning even if it does not pose an epidemic or pandemic threat. Moreover, I was referring to those who do not wear a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic and influezena season as airborne transmission denialists because they would wear a mask if they took that form of transmission seriously.-April Chat? 14:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-61506562 Confirmed cases in Italy and Sweden. All in younger persons.-April Chat? 16:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
there is little purpose in scaremongering at this very stage AMassiveGay (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
...I was not?-April Chat? 18:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
France, Germany, and Belgium report first monkeypox cases. (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/20/france-germany-belgium-report-first-monkeypox-virus-cases) First case in the Netherlands. (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/several-suspected-monkeypox-cases-netherlands-anp-citing-health-agency-2022-05-20/) Probable case in Australia. (https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/australia-reports-probable-case-monkeypox-infection-2022-05-20/) More cases in Spain and Portugal. (https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/spain-reports-14-new-confirmed-monkeypox-cases-total-21-2022-05-20/) World Health Organization declares an emergency meeting. (https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/who-hold-emergency-meeting-monkeypox-friday-sources-2022-05-20/) Very concerning, not "scaremongering". Immuno-compromised people exist. I once again say that we need to reinitiate smallpox vaccination programs as it prevents 85% of monkeypox cases as well. Younger people are not typically vaccinated against it, and thus are susceptible.-April Chat? 19:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
This does not mean it will become tantamount to the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is a bad idea to disregard it entirely.-April Chat? 20:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Disabled and Immuno-compromised people spent thus far two entire years telling others that the COVID-19 pandemic is a mass-disabling event, yet seldom does anyone else listen to these folx. I never hear the COVID-19 pandemic described as a mass-disabling event. It is considered normal for millions of people to die or develop disabilities by virtue of the pandemic. And then there is a monkeypox outbreak. Why would people, particularly Disabled and Immuno-compromised individuals, not respond fearfully? Low death rates always mean ableds will be fine. What about Disabled people? They usually are that death rate.-April Chat? 20:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
UK cases just doubled to 20. All evidence says that monkeypox is a lot less transmissible that Covid, though I wouldn't be too surprised if this is some sort of new mutation from the original virus. Not worth panicking over yet, though I'll probably be watching the numbers closely over the next few days. There was an outbreak in the US in 2003 which saw 81 cases and 0 deaths[16], so non-African countries have been hit before. --RWRW (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
More cases in more countries. (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-61540474) -April Chat? 20:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Was this an article or a drug trip?[edit]


So humans are from an alien galaxy? I could tell that there was quote mining from Francis Crick and that the "experts" have qualifications unrelated to astronomy or evolutionary biology. Then again, this is from a conspiracy site --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This place does link to a store that not only sells variations of what they call "hapé", but is more commonly found on the 'Net as "rapé", and usually is made of "mapacho"Wikipedia which contains a very strong amount of nicotine. Also they sell "sananga" drops, which appears to be this plantWikipedia, and contains ibogaine alkaloids. These plants probably won't cause you to "drug trip" on your own, but both plants seem to be strongly associated with enhancing the ayahuasca experience in "shaman" ceremonies. Draw your own conclusions... Meh (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Questions for Flat Earth nuts[edit]

Here is RZ94, the YouTube demi-queen, with some questions for Flat Earthers. Let us begin-

  • What is the distance between the polar coasts to the ice wall?
  • How dense is the ice wall?
  • How does the ice wall connect to firmament?
  • How high up does the firmament go?
  • How dense is the firmament? What is the firmament?
  • What is beyond the firmament?
  • Is the sun and moon located in or outside the firmament?
  • How thick is the Flat Earth disc?

As what conspiracy theorists call "Globe Earth" model or as others would call "Reality", there are near precise calculations of distance between astronomical objects, density of the Earth's atmosphere, density of the Earth's crust and so on. We all know that Flat Earthers will not nor be able to come up with near precise calculations.

Can Flat Earthers even come up with any remote calculations of their joke of a hypothesis? --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

here's another one: why does a flat earth need time zones? G Man (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I got a few:
-Why does the downward acceleration of objects, which you claim is not due to gravity, decrease with altitude?
-Why does atmosphere not bleed off the sides of the earth? Even mount everest is at 35% atmospheric density. Is the ice wall taller than mount everest? If so how tall is it? There are commercial jets which fly at 43 thousand feet, while everest is only 29 thousand feet tall, so presumably it has to be even taller than that. There are military craft which fly above 85 thousand feet, so just how tall is this frigging ice wall?
-Why does the downward acceleration of objects, which you claim is not due to gravity, change with latitude? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Are you trolling, do you think you are funny (tip, you're not), or are you actually trying to discuss with flat earthers? 2804:14C:5B72:8E20:1457:1691:EF50:3731 (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Are you a sincere Flat earther? If so I'm fascinated as to what you think about gravitational red/blueshifting (as exemplified by the Pound-Rebka experiment).
Edit: Actually I am more interested in general as to what you think causes "downward" acceleration in general. Just throwing specific study names is probably meaningless before I know the nuance of your particular belief. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, flatearthism is the most boring conspiracy. Out of all the interesting conspiracies they want to peddle a conspiracy pertaining to geometry. Using occam's razor, I'd use an indirect mathematical proof with the least amount of parameters. Assume the earth is round and find the circumference. When you find out that it is 40000km, you'd know that your first assumption is correct. Qed, the earth isn't flat.Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 04:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I actually attack this stuff the other way around; the first question I always ask is Lenin's question - 'who stands to gain', then followed by a rough calculation of how much 'power' would be required to sustain the conspiracy. Flat earth falls flat (lame pun intentional) because I simply can't work out how 'They' benefit for lying over this and the size/power of such a They required to get away with it really seems a waste of time/effort.
This also allows me to avoid discussing stuff like physics, which I really suck at. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
https://youtu.be/8bSbgOVJTeM the hierarchy of pseudoscience. These ideas are so farcical; I feel bad for the people who have the epistemic responsibility. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 06:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
To me the shape that the earth so happens to be is irrelevant. What matters is the fundamental forces of the universe which caused it in the first place. To deny the shape of the earth is to deny humanity's aggregate knowledge of physics, and that I cannot forgive. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

And - how come the dinosaur-killer did not punch a hole through the Earth, with all the problems that would result? Anna Livia (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@MirrorIrorriM I'm not a flat earther. I'm just bored by yet another bad topic created by this user. 2804:14C:5B72:8E20:1457:1691:EF50:3731 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh. I was hoping to get some insights into the mindset of someone with dramatically different beliefs. I find the people who believe in cults and conspiracies fascinating. The sheer difference in mindset between humans is a topic of endless depth, and I think talking to them head-on helps write more realistic characters in stories. Trying to go to something like a subreddit or whatever to talk to them often just results in endless bombardment of shifty youtube videos and not a real discussion. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

As for the person complaining about the topic, you can easily be constructive. --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

for many of these conspiracy theory types, no evidence or even evidence proving they wrong is evidence in itself of a conspiracy showing just how deep it goes. these are not rational people drawing the wrong conclusions from evidence presented who merely need to be shown their error to be brought back to reality. the belief in these theories, while not technically a mentally illness in any traditional sense, should almost be treated as if it were a mental illness of some kind. but short of sectioning such people, which is probably not the best solution even if it would be a satisfying one, one can do no more than shooting down their bullshit assertions as and when they shit them out, in the hope that they grow out of it. there is a good chance that they will not listen and treat contrary evidence and its messenger as being duped by the conspirators, are tools of said conspirators, or actually part of the conspiracy it self and can discount everything you say without considering it at all. you'd need to prevent access to this bullshit and remove access to the people spreading it long enough to be able to see it clearly as the bullshit it is and thats only if they are friends or family you want to still remain close to to. everyone else can do one for insisting that shooting victims are crisis actors or that queen is a lizard or jews or aliens. you cant help these people and they do not want to be helped. they just distract from holding to account those are really responsible for real problems and crimes they responsible for.
flat earthers though are all contrarians with no genuine belief in its truth to be dissuaded from to begin with. do not engage with them. attention is what they want. do not give it to them. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody use Libgen? Does anybody know a trustworthy link to download from?[edit]

Also, is it safe from scripted viruses? Also, can somebody recommend a book pertaining to philosophy/maths/computer science(intro)? Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 18:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

What is your current maths and computer science level? Do you have a main computer programming language of interest? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm about to start my first year computer science ug course. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 18:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I use it when I really need a book and I can't buy it nor find it elsewhere. It's safe, but keep in mind it's piracy so it should be your last resource. GeeJayK (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Learn how to read source documentation of code. It will be one of your most valuable assets for years to come. First year computer science, depending on the college, could range from a weird drag and drop "learning tool" to python to a c++ course. My favorite language is c# by far, but I've coded in the other ones as well. Most of my books were pretty bad, I found online tutorials to be much better. Do you already know some coding, or are you going in blind? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I have 2 years experience with cpp and 3 years experience with python.Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 02:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Libgen has a pretty solid reputation. The site itself is unlikely to give you a virus, but the downloads are user-created, so try to prefer download formats that are less vulnerable to viruses(PDF in particular, I'd deem high-risk if you're using Adobe's own reader) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

U.S. Presidents and midterms[edit]

I read this interesting political factoid in the Washington Post today: "And, if Republicans were to capture the House and Senate in November, Biden would become the fifth consecutive president to see his party lose both chambers of Congress on his watch."

Why is this happening to American presidents and what are the future implications if this trend continues? Kuno86 (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If "history does not repeat but rhymes", there's an interesting parallel of the modern "throw the bums out" trend with the "throw the bums out" trend of the Gilded Age of the late 1800s, as noted here in a NYT op ed by historian David M. Kennedy.Wikipedia The Gilded Age was an era where the American political system became pretty weak and corrupt, and specialized in doing not much due to the lack of strong mandates. Some people have identified the period in America beginning around 1990 as a "second Gilded Age" of sorts, with similar industrial innovation, tycoon-ism, and massive inequality. While there certainly is key differences in the issues, "doing nothing" (except maybe shaking angry fists at "Others" and lowering taxes for the plutocrats) has pretty much defined the Republican party for quite some time. Even the Democrats nationally only achieve occasional small advancements in fits and starts due to a weak big tent coalition.
After the Gilded Age came the progressive eraWikipedia, an era of stronger American politics, largely for the better (institutional reform, suffrage, clamping down on monopolies and other excesses of business, the rise of public education) and occasionally for the worse (prohibition). Will history "rhyme" this way again? We shall see. Meh (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Looking back, I don't think the Washington Post was entirely right about the Trump presidency and midterms. Trump lost House seats in the midterm election under his presidency, but gained Senate seats. Trump averts disaster: He is just the third president in 100 years to gain Senate seats in midterm election, but lose House seats. Stafford (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Uh oh.[edit]

I'm going to take this time and launch a formal complaint. At least 3 threads in RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive413, the most recent filled bar archive, is off mission. So how come weather posts are the problem? Andrew5 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

More importantly, 28 Celsius doesn't convert to 50 Fahrenheit. Unless you mean it plummeted by 50 degrees but your wording sucks and you also suck at making topics. 2601:647:5F00:C4D0:58FE:D6D4:4301:86C1 (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I meant in plummeted 50F/28C. Yes, I know my wording sucks, I just stomached a B- on my English test. But why do the topics suck? Andrew5 (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I lived in Kansas, bro. It do be like that sometimes. I took my dog outside in shorts one evening and woke up the next day to six inches of snow on the ground. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a picture of the dog in shorts?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I assume he ment Duce was wearing shorts. Andrew5 (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
i don't see a problem with your weather posts (but that could be because i like weather too lol). some people just don't know how to scroll down. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ G Man (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The National Weather Service in Detroit-Pontiac has issued a Tornado Warning for Ingham County. . . .effective until 9 PM EDT (Yup, I put something random) --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

On that note, a tornado in Gaylord killed 2 and injured 44. Andrew5 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Heard about that one. EF3. I heard that northern Michigan was getting bad weather. --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
This is one for the books. In an era of climate change, whether topics suck. Dutchbag (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)