RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive417

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 12 July 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>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <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)

Immigration is racist, apparently[edit]

I can't believe the house actually agrees with this crank. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ehGhwfd4sM Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 16:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

There's much one can say about Douglas Murray, who basically is a genteel cultural neoconservative that lately seems focused on "woke derangement syndrome" style articles in SpectatorWikipedia and the National Review. All I'll say is this:
A) This video was from 2014.
B) The consequence of this sort of attitude in the UK was Brexit and Boris Johnson. The former being an ongoing bit of an economic drag and a political shitshow, the later a general carnival of stupidity and chaos.
C) The consequence of this sort of attitude in the US was Donald Trump and the even worse shitshow of the GOP, which has been more damaging to all of those democracy / land of the free "lies to children"Wikipedia tales in the US than any woke warrior on Twitter ever will be. (Murray dislikes Trump and the QAnon crowd considerably, but fails to recognize echoes of what he speaks in them.)
D) Naturally, this has not changed the narrative of Murray or other folks of his ilk, as seen by recent article output. They never learn, do they? 35.140.177.2 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Old Earth Creationism a new idea?[edit]

It's safe to say most people here do not believe in Creationism in general, but I've been looking into whether the History and (ahem) genesis of Judaism is in parallel to the history of Israel, regardless of the accuracy of the accounts in the Bible.

Many Young Earth Creationists consider any other view to be non-negotiable. While looking into the above I end up finding this: "Mainstream scholarship no longer accepts the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons. Most scholars agree that the Exodus stories reached the current form centuries after the apparent setting of the stories.[51] The Book of Exodus itself attempts to ground the event firmly in history, dating the exodus to the 2666th year after creation (Exodus 12:40-41), the construction of the tabernacle to year 2667 (Exodus 40:1-2, 17), stating that the Israelites dwelled in Egypt for 430 years (Exodus 12:40-41)".

My question is whether this lines up with the Book of genesis and the founding of Israel. If it does, the bible would in theory support the idea of a 6000 year creation if the math and content of the text itself lines up. Essentially, "is this true?". The Seder Olam Rabbah seems to date Moses and The Exodus from Egypt at 1312 BCE, or Jewish year 2448 Anno Mundi. The fact that the Jews even dated from the creation of the world leads me to wonder if the Young Earth idea is older than we thought and that Old Earth/day age creationism is a very, very new idea, not a Western Christianity invention.

Does anyone also know why so many YEC people tend to date the earth to be created around 4000 BC?--2friedeggs (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Blame James Ussher for the 4000 BC thing. Vomitorium (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
To clarify; Ussher basically counted back by using reigns of Kings of Judah/Israel and earlier, ages of the unbroken male lineage back to Adam, using the date of the death of Nebuchadnezzar as his Zero (other sources established this as 562 BCE). This isn't that difficult because wads of the OT are simply 'King X reigned for 15 years and did evil in the eyes of THE LORD' and 'Y lived for 154 years and begat Z when 85'.
Now, I've not been schooled in Judaism to any appreciable level (one who has please pipe up) I don't think Orthodox Jews could reject Ussher's source material as they were originally Jewish. They could however, dicker over the literalness of the texts in question (like Old Earth Creationists do, which can be seen as a theological response to evidence to scientific/historical evidence making 'Young Earth' difficult to maintain without serious wilful ignorance and doublethink). KarmaPolice (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it was most certainly Archbishop Usher who came up with the date which is generally used by western YEC's. The date is obviously wrong on multiple scientific levels.
In any event, the date does not appear in the bible and, apart from being scientifically absurd, his chronology is also not excepted by multiple other Christian groups. Given the weight of scientific evidence many Christian groups have (somewhat vainly) tried other methods of reconciling real facts with the bible stories.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia says the Hebrew year system, counting years from the creation of the world (or apparently shortly before then) on 7 October 3761 BCE, was invented in 1178 CE by Maimonides (Hebrew calendar § YearsWikipedia). The dating is similar to some older traditions, such as a Talmudic passage from c. 160 CE, based on a similar method to Ussher, but it's not actually an ancient thing used by Moses and David. --Annanoon (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Identity and memory[edit]

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

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

Conversation with a loony at work.[edit]

(Just for clarification I am a checkout worker at a supermarket) So a bald UK guy walks up the conveyer belt and puts his grocerys on it.

Bald UK man: Shit sorry I'll be back in a sec.

  • grabs his bag of potato's and walks around the corner*

Myself: "I wonder why he did that?"

  • he comes back and planks his potato's on the conveyer belt*

Myself: "got watcha need?

Bald UK man: "yeah I like to help local business's by buying their brands instead"

Myself: "Whys that mate?"

Bald UK man: "Big business try's to keep the monopoly by driving out smaller companies through legal loopholes"

Myself: "Ah yep, yep understandable"

Bald UK man: "I can see your interested in politics mate"

Myself: "Here and there mate"

Bald UK man: "well I lost my job 7 months ago because I refused to get vaccinated for covid"

My inside voice: "THIS IS A CODE 4 I REPEAT A CODE 4 THE FUCKHEAD AND BULLSHIT DETECTORS ARE OFF THE CHARTS ABANDON SHIP I REPEAT ABANDON SHIP!!!!"

Bald UK man: "So I've made my own website detailing the truth about covid and all the lies the government feeds us"

At this point I'm shown multiple photos of a Website detailing 'space lasers', 'covid 19 truth checker' those 2 stood out the most if I remember anymore I'll bring them up

Myself: "right?"

Bald UK man: "Here I'll write the directions to my website so you can learn the truth"

(As it's a busy day he waits a full half hour so he write the instructions despite the fact he could have just handed it to me quickly but I guess he wanted me to Here his farewell speech)

Bald UK man: "And their you go!"

  • finally leaves but not before a edgy line is said*

Bald UK man: "Their screwing with us"

Myself: "he does not have a wife"

And their you go my day I dealt with a UK loony which started over a bag of potato's. Bobby2shoes (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?
Many persons falling into the several categories 'UK national, male persuasion, follicularly challenged' are sane (or saneish). Anna Livia (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You have a point there, I should have left out the part about him being from the UK (because being from another country does not determine sanity or intelligence) sorry about that and thankyou for pointing that out! Bobby2shoes (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but they're not 'Bald UK man'. That is now his name, even if he gets a toupe as good as Michael Fabricant's. Though he might become 'Bald Potato Man' or 'Bald Space Laser Man'.
I've done a bit of till-work in my time, and it sucks when you get stuck with the not-quite sectionable elements talking at you. There's a few I know by sight about here and I always feel sorry for the assistants etc who get stuck with them, esp the ones who don't have anything better to do/be.
My top tip; don't transfer to a bookshop or market stall - it's even worse. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Its shit being a Democrat in a ruby-red state.[edit]

There is barely any Democrats here in Wyoming and the GOP has control of over 85% of the legislature here. You can start knock on like 5 doors during campaigning and they would all be Republican and Trumpsters. The state Democrat party here is on the verge of irrelevancy here. How can we change things around? WyomingDemocrat (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If 'brand Dem' is that toxic, jow about getting an independent candidate to run and for the local Dems to not contest (so to allow the independent a free run)? Perhaps ask Jim Roscoe for advice? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
If Cheney can't win reelection (voted for Trump's policies 90% of the time), then it's not Republicans you're fighting against but insurrectionists. There's not much polling in the state, but it looks like her chances are not good. Bongolian (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
There was a Republic convention the other night where one of the Republican Senators got booed for daring to work on bipartisan legislation with the Dems. And the Dems are no better. When the public itself hates it when their representatives work with the other side, the whole country is fuqq'd. CorruptUser 21:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Wyoming is a rural state for the most part. Democrats no longer do well in rural areas. And I already heard a report of a Democrat wondering if they should move to a red state due to the Supreme Court overruling Roe vs. Wade soon. So Wyoming is not going to turn purple/blue due to interstate moving. I suggest moving out of state if you are able to do that. There are lots of blue states that lost residents during the pandemic due to people wanting to move to states with lower population densities or because they were opposed to Covid-19 health measures. And the south's warmer weather is attracting seniors to red states. So many blue states would love to have you move into their states because many of them are losing residents (California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, etc.). NedT (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that political identity has become the primary cultural identifier, especially considering communities across the political spectrum basically are still dealing with all the same problems, just with a twist. If you are actually interested in effecting political change, I would consider reframing your ideas through a conservative lens. It's a hard thing to do, and requires you to be more nuanced as you describe your position, but avoiding buzz words, and really focusing on limiting the scope of your argument, you will likely find many of these people agree with you on key things. Political identity just blinds them. If this is more about socializing with people, for the most part, humans are the same. Avoiding politics is harder now but it isn't impossible. And finding genuine connections with people, beyond political identity, are better connections anyway.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Teton County / Jackson has actually been voting Democrat recently, a curious quirk. But never mind that. I guess I don't know the purpose of the OP question. If one actually wants to go into politics, good luck, IMHO no one sane would do so these days (which certainly is part of modern politics' problem). But if one does, local politics tends to be a bit less toxic (sometimes), so maybe something can be done there.
On a general social level, the American political shitshow is often irrelevant in local conversation. There are exceptions to this of course, more so than there used to be. Too many people seem wrapped up in a too-absolutist binary dichotomy when it comes to politics. But not everyone in rural Wyoming is a hardcore racist Trumpist with a bumper sticker laden kook mobile spewing QAnon theories, just as not everyone in San Francisco is some progressive granola-eating hipster enabling whatever liberal dystopia Fox News envisions in their heads. It would be nice if everyone remembered that. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Which is why I wonder whether having an independent instead is the way to go (if a local-ish election). Focus on the 'bread and butter' issues, avoid ideological discussions and ideally, have a candidate that has some 'standing' in the community they'd like to serve.
From my experience, some of the worst elected officials are the ones who are in chronic safe seats. Couple a 'get rid of the corrupt halfwit' campaign with a drive to encourage voter registration / turnout might be enough to at least give the incumbant a run for their money. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for all the good ideas. I will remember to put that in mind. The next Legislature election is coming this November and I hope the Wyoming Democrats will pull more candidates. WyomingDemocrat (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Any Europeans here? What's happening to Europe?[edit]

It used to be unthinkable that war would break out in Europe - until Putin attacked Ukraine.

And now out of the blue Marine LePen's far-right party National Front is on track to win 90 seats in the French Parliament which is a seismic shift in French politics that blindsided French pollsters.

What's happening in Europe?

Are there any Europeans here that can explain what is going on in Europe? Fettlemapper (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Speaking very generally, we're watching the last gasp of 'managerial' neoliberal centrism which ruled the roost between ~1980-2020. The rise of the National Rally was half the story, the other half was the rise of the LFI - the 'proper' socialists (who did much better than the fascists, btw).
Sanders and Trump, Corbyn and Johnson, Mélenchon and Le Pen... I will argue that they are people who are running off the same causes (alienation, inequality, decline and instability) but simply come up with (generally) different solutions.
This is the best I think you'll get on explaining the situation without drilling down into each nation. For Europe isn't a homogeneous blob.
KarmaPolice (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I would go back farther. There are cracks in the post-1960s liberal world order. Managers can only manage so much. One of the reasons why Le Penn's party is doing much better is due to anti-immigration sentiments among many French. And the root cause of why there is more immigration is smaller French families due to Western liberal values. Fettlemapper (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, everything sows the seeds of it's own decline...
Anyway, there was two 'phases' of 'managerialism'; the first being the 'post-War consensus' era, which was then destroyed by the likes of Thatcher, Reagan etc and then imported wholesale into Europe into the 1990s.
And this is where the split comes in. You're seemingly signing up to Le Pen, I'm with Mélenchon. 'Western liberal values' aren't the problem, it's the buildup of 40 years of poor policies; failed multiculturalism (tolerance minus integration), 'lifeboat politics' (fights over artifically limited resources) false economic policies (widening inequalities and generational splits) and severe identity issues (what 'being (nationality) means today'). KarmaPolice (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
KarmaPolice, I think that the problem was more that le Pen AND Melenchon were more successfull in making people BELIEVE that there was a rise in inequality, alienation and instability. France has never been so peacefull and rich. The Gini index is stable for decades and below Germany, Spain or Italy, median wealth is in the Top 10, we've got the highest % of millionaires in the population, homicide rates are low, and a full third of the french territory is protected. But extremists have been very good lately at telling people tall tales.147.161.185.16 (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The French Parliament is bicameral, which mean that it consist of 2 assemblies:

  • the Sénat has 0 member of a far-right political party, that is 0 % of 348
  • the Assemblée nationale has (or will have by a few weeks) 89 members of a far-right political party, that is 15 % of 577

For comparison, the US Parliament (which is bicameral too) consist of:

  • the Senate has 48 members of a far-right political party, that is 48 % of 100
  • the House of Representatives has 209 members of a far-right political party, that is 48 % of 435

03:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: 2a01:cb14:d52:1200:c15d:291a:c278:6ff / talk / contribs

Between the hard right and hard(ish) left, the lower chamber will have ~37% who are heavily opposed to the current neoliberal status quo. If this becomes a permanent fixture of the Assembly, it does not bode well for France politically. If the other parties decide to basically ignore the pair of groups and pretend all is well, it won't get better. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
In the 1930s France was also dramatically split, with the communists (PCF) doing well and a wide range of extreme right-wingers from monarchists to fascists. One of the main causes was of course the Great Depression. So in a sense it's a return to that. Back then, the communists, socialists, and other radicals formed the Popular Front to try and reunite the left against the threat of fascism. It's looking like something similar could be happening now with NUPES, but even the broadest left is less strong than it was in the 30s, and it's still early days. --Annanoon (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

a war in ukraine and some racists might win some seats in france. absolutely nothing is happening in europe to be alarmist about. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Goats for Ukraine![edit]

From Ukraine Defence Intelligence facebook page (in translation) -

  • In the temporarily occupied village of Kinski Rozdory of Zaporizhzhia region, about 40 military occupation army were placed in the local hospital. For the purpose of "circle protection", they roped around the perimeter of the hospital explosives in the form of "stretching". After that, a goat came in from the territory of one of the surrounding farms. As a result of chaotic movement, the animal "damaged" several grenades. As a result of the chain operation of ammunition, several Rashists received wounds of varying degrees of severity.
An explanation - the Russians (="Rashists - common Ukrainian portmanteau of "Russian Fascist") put some troops into a hospital and put tripwires around the hospital as protection/warning...... the goat tripped some of them, setting off the connected grenades and injuring some Russians. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

India's geopolitical dilemma[edit]

Looks like the Russo-Indian ties are pretty deep. The comments section are a prime example of its effects. Looks like we're going to be as neutral as Switzerland. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 12:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


What's the deal with this Cult of Saturn/Saturnstormcube stuff?[edit]

It's sub on Reddit has Cubes and Pokeballs in its headlines and I've seen it around about 8 years ago but it's gaining traction on Reddit I can't really figure out what it's about.--2friedeggs (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

At the north pole of Saturn, there is a persistent and oddly hexagon-shaped vortex that has been the subject of a few conspiracy theory kooks since it was discovered in 1980. That's the "storm" part. This is combined with what is apparently a "black cube of Saturn" meme that I guess takes black cubes and has them represent Satan or something. That's a new one to me (edit: although the RW section on the Saturn vortex actually mentions the cube too and therefore how this bullshit might have started, I guess this started as a David Icke thing?). There's not much information I can find about it other than rapper Ice Cube got some flack tweeting about black cubes in 2020 and most media sites that reported on this seem to indicate that the meme is rooted in antisemitism. r/Saturnstormcube is a hot mess of course, since if two basic shapes of geometry (hexagons and cubes) are now the Work of the Devil, you're going to be seeing the devil in everything. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
This isn't new to me because I remember some youtuber called Puritan Pictures talking about the PS1 game Mort The Chicken's cube empire being a part of this whole thing. The vid's gone but 8 years later I see this stuff leaking into more mainspace Reddit.--2friedeggs (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Perfect math equation[edit]

Too many guns on the black market+poor school security+police incompetence= Preventable death.

Any changes needed? --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Guns are never going to be off the black market. It's kind of hard to get rid of 400 million firearms that we know of along with the rise of 3d printing as a viable alternative to buying firearms. Swamp Fox (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
First bit correct, second bit not so much...
Anyway, I don't think that equation adds up. Here's mine;
Toxic masculinity + poor organisational systems + firearms fetishisation = preventable death.
The overwhelming majority of school shooters are white males going through what is clearly a severe identity crisis, nearly always due to not being able to cope with the societal demands to be Don Draper while residing in a world where this is almost impossible (even more generally, signs of misogyny are the #1 marker in the bios of shooters in general). The vast majority of them showed signs of this crack-up which nobody acted on beforehand (either didn't notice, 'someone elses' problem' or didn't know what to do). So thus like cancer, 'early detection is the key'.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/weve-known-how-to-prevent-a-school-shooting-for-more-than-20-years/
'Black market weapons' is a red herring - stats show the vast majority of school shooters either legally bought their weapons or stole legal ones from relatives. So getting gun owners to actually keep their weapons frigging secure is a relatively 'low cost' solution to cutting down school shootings. Similar to 'poor school security'; unless you desire all schools to be turned into prisons, there's not much you can do on this front. Which shall be popular right up to the point some warped mall ninja working as security on near minimum-wage decides to combine a work shooting with a school shooting...
KarmaPolice (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I looked at Wikipedia's Mass shootings in the United States. Most of the mass shootings happened post 2008. There are a lot of baby boomers, GenX and millennials in the United States who are wicked and/or screwed up. Fettlemapper (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
400 millions guns will dissappear if you put a bounty on them. Illegalize the construction of new guns, give people money for their existing guns, then destroy them. Eventually ban firearms altogether. The impoverished will steal firearms in order to sell to the government for a quick buck as long as you pay better than robbing a convenience store; draining the firearm supply in the country. Personally I don't think this is the answer though. The death of America's horrid culture of violence and reactionary scapegoating is the real solution. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Now, is there a non-zero chance of that being enacted? KarmaPolice (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Not in the USA. Texas GOP wants to secede - y'all have to win the upcoming civil war first. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Gonna stop 3d printers, CNC mills and plumbing pipes too? Swamp Fox (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, because guns fashioned from bits of pipe are so great. I heard the Army is considering ditching their M4s for them. And every single person knows how to do this, don'tyaknow. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Texas winning a civil war on it's own would fail quickly as they would be outnumbered by the US Military and Pro-Union Texans. They would be outgunned too. Unless Texas wants a lot of people to die in a failing conflict. --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Glorious Texans shall use 3D printers to make whole wings of jet fighters and assemble tank divisions from bits of old Cadillacs. Children shall use their basic knowledge to churn out artillery shells, while plucky veterans shall teach the secret arts of taking out stealth bombers and armour with nothing more than small arms and how to make a bomb-proof bunker using a bit of rebar and some particleboard from the local Home Depot.
As nobody except a Texan can survive/move in the terrain, once the few traitors are dealt with, victory shall be had. After all, there's no way Federal forces could be moved into Texas from elsewhere, and it's impossible to raise new forces from anywhere else in the country.
Olé Olé Olé!
KarmaPolice (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Yawn. You're acting like everyone in positions of power would side against the Texans when, if it got to that point, it would probably split the Texas National Guard and a lot would detect with their equipment.
Texas alone would probably lose (40mil vs 300-something says enough) but I don't think you understand that using stealth bombers and fighter jets in a civil war is incredibly stupid and self destructive. You need boots on the ground, a jet can't enforce your will.
A tank can't arrest people or kick down a door, you need manpower for that. A rifle in every domicile and a handgun on every person would raise casualties for the federal government vastly. Swamp Fox (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Have you not realised that pining for a civil war period is incredibly stupid and self destructive? The United States would be truly screwed because it wouldn't even be the kind of war where there would be obvious 'front lines'. It would be a gore-fest where neighbours turn on each other and in no short order the very fabric of the modern state shall be destroyed. You would in short order be fighting a variant of a 'broken-back war' for the ability to produce more supplies shall be near nil and the hallowed USD shall be worthless, thus meaning there shall be no economic ability to import. It would be like after a major nuclear exchange, minus the fallout.
Still love America? Some seriously screwed-up 'love' if you think destroying it is the way to go. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The not so bright parts of the Texas GOP have been bringing up secession for a while (at least since when Rick Perry caused some controversy in the naughts by flirting with it). It's not something to take 'too' seriously as it ain't gonna happen.
Certainly I downplay all the "civil war" hooplah. The divide is not neat as mentioned. Even in Texas, cities ranging from the weird (Austin) to the boring (sorry, Dallas) probably aren't going to care for the Texas GOP platform, a strange mix of libertarian paradise wishful thinking and fundie homophobia / fear of sex. There's not even a neat divide even within the "urban" / "rural" categories. Conservatives certainly exist in Texas cities, and quirky little liberal places pop up in the country (an example in Texas is Marfa). Another complicating factor is the age factor, as a general rule the hardcore MAGA crowd that is the main driving force behind all the barking on the Internet is pretty old and not exactly "military fit".
An illiberal democracy led by the GOP, in the style of Orban or Modi (with the possibility of sporadic nationalist violence like you see in Modi's regime) is something that is far more likely, IMHO. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Which is why I seriously downplay the 'Civil War' promise too. Every 'Red State' will have to subdue for starters, all the major metros – ironically, for all the BS spouted by Fox, the point of 'lack of infantry to suppress' will apply here too.
As for the lack of military fitness/capability... *gives a laugh* One thing I think the MAGA-loons forget is that while 'libruls' might be thin on the ground in say, the military if push came to shove and Uncle Sam needed to expand it quick I think they'd be able to recruit much better from regions usually very under-represented, like New England.
Another option than the illiberal democracy is that of a long-running 'low intensity' conflict, waged by small terrorist/guerrilla groups vs the state and on occasion, each other. More violent than civil disobedience and protests, but a lot less widespread than a 'proper' insurgency. Historical examples being the Italian 'Years of Lead' and the Northern Irish 'Troubles'.KarmaPolice (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps a 'compare and contrast' with the Scottish Independence Referendum activities would be appropriate?
Or 'central government' says - You want independence as such; well, you can have it, but you will now need valid passports to travel out of Texas, and have to negotiate trade deals on everything, and we will have strict controls on movement of weapons across the border. Anna Livia (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
From what I gather and reading between the lines, the 'Texit' crowd don't want a referendum. Not really. Nor do they even want independence; they simply want carte blanche to install a Dominionist, racist state and suppress/expel/kill anyone who doesn't fit. It's a bit like the angry, shouty marchers of Ulster, who's 'British loyalty' has always only run as far as maintaining their own privileged position in NI and if possible, squeezing more perks out of UKGov.
And like the 'Ulster Covenant' and the UDF in 1914, these neo-Southerners believe they can win, mainly due to intimidation, threats and the arrogance that they think their early military advantages will be wildly decisive. In fact, the manner the likes of certain folks here have been to leap to the proverbial barricade with a rifle at the first buzzer strongly suggests the first reply to the situation won't be discussion, debate or even any attempt of a amicable division but one of violence. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Not that it's particularly relevant to the discussion, but The Scotland/Texas comparison inspired me to look a few things up on Wikipedia.
Texas has a GDP of of 2 trillion, Scotland 205 billion. I live in the Basque country - which also has a relatively active independence movement - which has an economy of 72 billion. (There are national economies with much smaller GDP's).
On the other hand, Scotland and the Basque country (or some individuals therein) want to become independent of the the UK and Spain respectively, and then continue being members of the European Union. I would imagine that the Texan independence movement has other goals.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
An independent Texas would be most similar to Australia in the major markers. However, she'd suffer a massive economic de-rail if 'Texit' happened due to it's massive integration with the US economy. It would make the Brexit fallout look like a minor hiccup in comparison. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree completely. Trying to set up a border between Texas and the US would be worse than setting up the Brexit border between the UK and the EU. In relative terms it would be as difficult as setting up a border between Scotland and England.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
scotland is not in the european union. it could not remain in the eu by leaving the uk, nor can it expect to automatically be admitted if it ever does leave the uk (pretty sure spain would object, for one). AMassiveGay (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Borders can be done (easier than watching the Canada-US border) but will cost ya. The fact that all those Texas-based companies would be cut off from 90% of their US customers, suppliers and so on is serious issue. The vast majority of the large finance, manufacturing etc will most likely re-shore to the rump USA so they can remain inside the USA so they can continue to supply their customers. And Texas ain't gonna get a tasty trade deal from the USA either... it shall be talking to a nation ten times it's size. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael Lynch, what a hero for these times[edit]

This is more a UK centric topic, but currently there are rail strikes taking place in the UK. And as they have for decades, the UK media seem to be obsessed with undermining them, or attacking them as being perpetrated by greedy individuals with no concern for others who may be impacted. What twoddle. Enter the fray, one Michael Lynch, RMT (Rail, Marine and Transport) Union Secretary General to be interviewed by the smirking press and essentially have their own arses handed back to them, in a polite manner. See here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9ZQLI500hA, and here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r4P3CFfYh0 and all of this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InSL6M-PPNM. With extra bonus points of leaving a political programme host stumped by answering "Who is your political hero?" To whit, Mssr Lynch replied, "James Connolly" Honestly, what a refreshing change he is. Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

With regard to pay disputes and inflation, there seems to be a real catch 22.
If inflation is low you can't ask for (and much less have) a pay rise as inflation is low and therefore it's immoral to ask for one.
If inflation is high then you can't ask for (and much less have) a pay rise as inflation is high, your pay rise would add to inflation, so it's immoral to ask for one.
Conclusion: there is never a morally appropriate time to ask for a for pay rise.
(Caveat: neither of the above objections applies if you are already on a high salary, a politician or own/manage the company).Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
i would add to that list anyone working within the public sector are more or else forbidden from asking for a payrise.
as for moral acceptability, it is not something that has ever held MPs back in asking for a payrise, though they never need to go on strike to get one. but i guess moral acceptability is not something that holds MPs back, period. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
At least 90% of people in leadership positions (including politicians of course) do things based entirely on incentives. They have no incentive not to give themselves a raise as the past as shown voters are annoyed but won't vote out MPs for that. Conservative governments (and often non-conservative governments) have an incentive to not give a shit about the people and let their incomes fall to peasant levels because it helps their own short term economic interests (and those who keep them in power) and the general sheeple like populous (especially of England) are unlikely to vote them out for that, even as their standard of living becomes that of a peasant. Incentives. All about incentives. Morality? What is that? ShabiDOO 13:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
"Morality" is very important when politicians or other people in positions in power are explaining why other people shouldn't get pay rises. I am surprised that this point is not clear.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
He's what a leader *should* look like; gives a shit about who they represent, knows their brief inside-out, is a succinct and clear communicator and most importantly, refuses to play the game the blockhead Tories and enabler/lazy journalists try to get him to. Listening him take large bites off Piers Moron (calling out the hack-jobs he does) and the clip with him vs Jennerik (making him basically choke on his crappy script) was impressive, refreshing and amusing in equal measure. Yeah, I've not been this tickled for years - Sir 'don't rock the boat!' Starmer take note.
I hardly ever link to the Morning Star (never look at the foreign section) but it offers a good socialist narrative https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/e/mick-lynch-and-the-rmt-well-earned-popularity-should-galvanise-us-for-the-fight-ahead
He's on Question Time tonight; fiver for the Strike Fund says the Govt won't send anyone important to defend their lies.
As for Bob's point... that's the thing which is pissing off the Tories and their corp owners - unemployment is simply 'too low'. For the first time since the 1950s, the boot is on labour's foot for the classic 'do it or be sacked' threat gets the reply 'yeah, and who'll replace me?'. Recently, they've simply left slots unfilled and shovelled the work thicker on the remaining staff but it's getting to the stage folks are leaving because of it. The UK labour 'market' is broken; even before inflation let rip, there wasn't pay increases to attract scarce labour (which supply/demand says would happen). I think little of the likes of Iain Duncan Smith, but he had a point when I heard him some time last year where he basically complained that many UK big businesses were skinflints with short-term minds and wanted to be spoon-fed cheap, trained labour.
Oh, and if anyone hears someone complaining 'well I'm not getting a increase (so why should they?)' - ask them why they don't unionise too? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Update, Video of Michael being asked who his political hero is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peGOxVu-nj4 Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this a slur?[edit]

So, I've been subscribed to this youtuber for almost a year. Since a few month ago I joined his discord, and yesterday they were talking on how he's avoiding words like "Fuck" & "Shit" because it's offensive (I personally don't see the issue, but whatever), but he seems to like to use the word "Dink" alot (and I heard him say it a few times when he streamed a few hours ago).

So, I didn't knew what that word meant until I googled it and in the "People also ask" section appeared: "Is Dink a slur?" and The Free Dictionary says: "This term is a slur and should be avoided. It is used with disparaging intent and is perceived as highly insulting."

Is it? I mean it literally means: ""Dual income, no kids" (DINK) is a slang phrase for a household in which there are two incomes and no children. Couples living in a DINK household frequently have more disposable income because they do not have the added expenses that come with children."

So is it ableism, then? I really don't know. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

its also a racist slur meaning a vietnamese person AMassiveGay (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
DINK is no more a slur than "Yuppie", "Young Urban Professional". But Dink is also another term for douchebag. In much the same way, Ninja means ninja, or it means No Income, No Job or Assets. So it depends on context. CorruptUser 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
AMassiveGay is correct. But whether the word is a slur depends entirely on context. The Oxford English dictionary lists 5 other widely-divergent meanings. Bongolian (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Eh, put this in the 'depends on context' group. The 'disparaging intent' bit is almost meaningless; all it means is 'expressive of low opinion'. Is it aimed at anyone/thing in particular, or used as a pejorative ('that's like (group), and they suck!') type.
You could always... *gasp* ask the person why they use it? Might be local slang (even family slang) or a foreign language. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I was only interested in what it meant. That's it. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I, personally, consider the word "gergoyll" to be hyper-offensive. However I am not going to define it or explain why -´ as doing so would oblige me to use the word in all its true offensiveness.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh, smeg off you frakin'Wikipedia nerfherder!
Dink the racial slur is military slang from the Vietnam War. Most military slurs fade, and I don't think is used that much anymore in that context, similar to how few people refer to Germans using world war slang like jerries or krauts. (One of the few exceptions is the term "gook", racists have clung onto that one.) So unless you are watching Apocalypse Now etc. you probably won't encounter it IMHO. DINK the double income no kids term seems to be the dominant usage. Apparently "dink" also refers to a soft shot in pickleballWikipedia and with that sport being trendy lately (at least in the US) that usage also is more common. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I think you mean "chink". CorruptUser 16:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
It is clear that everyone who disagrees with me is a gergoyll. I honestly can't make it clearer than that.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Corruptuser - no they mean 'dink'. 'chink' is a slur for the chinese. as for BON's suggestion few people refer to the germans as jerries or krauts - i suggest you have never seen any of the british tabloids during the world cup. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
the lexicon of racists is a thing of limitless creativity and variation matched only by that of homophobes. credit where credit is due, i guess AMassiveGay (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Limitless in possibility, but not creativity, AHugeFairy CorruptUser 17:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
(AMG, if any of the "joke" terms are excessively annoying, you have my blessing to Delete them to your liking) CorruptUser 17:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
i seem to remember someone won a court case against their employer after their boss, amongst other things, referred to them as a 'chutney ferret' AMassiveGay (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
More bizarre is the man who was called a "bald cunt" by his employer. He won a case of sex-related harassment for the description "bald". (Not the "cunt" bit apparently).Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
That's actually quite amusing. "HOW DARE YOU CALL ME BALD!!!!!" Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I have a beard. Am I the only person allowed to mention that? (And isn't it all kind of binary?) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
i give you conchita wurstAMassiveGay (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The Night of Long Knives 2: Reloaded[edit]

Is the United States headed towards our own Night of Long Knives? What protections remain in place to prevent it? I'm honestly getting pretty worried about it, and wonder if I should gtfo before it is too late. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

IMO; no, not even close. Just of the top of my head, the largest opposition has not been destroyed yet, and no one has siezed dictatorial power (the former is even in power). If you're thinking of Roe vs. Wade, that makes it even more unlikely since RvW was controversial to begin with. An Advocate (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The George Floyd protests looked like Krystalnacht, don't kid yourself. As for Night of the Long Knives, that would imply either the Rep or Dem parties literally murdering members of their own party the moment it became politically convenient to do so. I don't see that happening. As for purges, Reps already continuously purge the "RINO"s that *gasp* are willing to work with the other party. Amongst Democrats, well, they aren't going to purge teh Gayz (which is what happened during the Night of Long Knives), but Trans? They might throw Trans people under the bus the moment it's politically convenient. There's all the other groups that are traditionally Dem that are wondering just how long the Dems will pretend to represent them. Hispanics have been courted by Dems for years, but many feel their traditional religious and family values are not represented by the Dems even if the other side seems to sneer at them. Jews have been overwhelmingly Dem but that seems to be changing lately as many feel they've been pushed aside for decades. Black people have been screwed by the system for generations, but are becoming more and more disillusioned with Dems each election cycle as nothing seems to change for the better. CorruptUser 15:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Surely Night of the Long Knives version 3 - you forgot Supermac.Anna Livia (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

US gun legislation[edit]

I see the latest attempts to control gun usage has failed - and so the bloodshed will go on, as change is not wanted enough.

[1] Anna Livia (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't address mass shootings, but I'd fully support going after straw buyers. They're not especially difficult to track down, and those are the sorts of guns used in a hugely disproportionate number of street crimes. Red flag laws are also something that has some appeal to the law-and-order types, I'd happily get behind them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Anything is better than nothing. Straw purchases are the reason behind most of the gun violence in urban areas, because those areas often have very strict laws. Red-flag laws are important, but the balance between a responsive justice system and the immediate threat of violence is tricky. There is a lot of support for raising the age for purchasing more powerful weapons, which if put in a bill I think would pass. Basically the only country in the world with rampant gun violence has given up on addressing the gun part.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
And yet another massacre reported on the international news (so there may be more on US national news) and no mass protests only a swatted-down piece of legislation. To a non-US-ian it seems that there is no intention to stop the violence. Anna Livia (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Is it no intention or no courage to stop the violence? Either way it should be a national shame, instead it seems to be fodder for angry diatribes and paranoid scaremongering Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I was not aware in the past of there being massacres in the US - is this real or just a matter of reporting? They are certain rare elsewhere in comparable states (allowing for 'particular motives' being involved).
As nothing happened after the first massacre of children, and then a sequence of massacres - including a second one of children - there is no intention. Anna Livia (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Not sure how to answer that, if indeed it needs an answer. Nor am I sure what your point is. But have a read through here https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where/2022/01 and see for yourself just how bad things are in terms of mass shootings in the US. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
And just this here (article was written back in May, would be shameful enough as a total for the year, but the figure has doubled since https://www.npr.org/2022/05/24/1101050970/2022-school-shootings-so-far Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Has there been an increase in gun massacres of a seemingly random nature (ie not crime/gang related, feuds of various kinds and similar) in recent years, or were they not reported in the international news media (for non-Americans to become aware of them)? Why are there no 'not in my name' protests? Anna Livia (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You mean like these? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/11/march-for-our-lives-gun-control-protests-washington Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

After I started the discussion.
'Deeds not words' and 'talk is cheap' - create a culture in which the recourse to mass shootings is not the default setting. Anna Livia (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Given the news today, it's certainly not perfect but I'd like to give a shout-out to one of my senators for helping make this happen. Certainly better than the last time one of our senators was in non-local news for stupid shit like this. This would certainly be better than the status quo. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
For those who support an "Assault Weapon Ban", what do you believe should be done with the millions of existing firearms that conform to that standard already in circulation? Swamp Fox (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
After one prominent gun massacre in both Australia and New Zealand, enhanced gun regulations were passed. To handle existing firearms that fell afoul of the law, and a government buy back program was initiated. Gun violence dropped in both cases. Not exactly difficult if the culture allows for it.
Now, America has a certain segment of its culture that clings to masochism, stupid violence, and mall ninja syndrome (where one wants to pretend to be military without actually joining)... that's the real root of America's gun violence problem (no matter how much the Second Amendment is held up as a front), so solving things will be more difficult. There was a gun buyback in 2004 for Brazil (a similarly stupidly violent masochist nation), and I see no evidence that this really impacted the murder rate there. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah...it's almost as if...you need a multi-layered strategy to deal with gun violence and not just one single solution to solve everything! I'm going to take the wildest guess ever and suggest that gun control (not necessarily banning everything) along with dealing with the root causes of poverty/violence, a relentless questioning of gun culture and a few miracles would help pull off some change in America. I don't see how anything significant could happen without at least all of the above. ShabiDOO 16:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I would keep my guns in such a situation for a few reasons, mainly:

-Junkie issue around me (they will not give up their guns) who are pretty violent and don't really care about alarms or dogs.

-General distrust of the federal government. I will not disarm myself for a government that sent out unidentifiable men not marked as law enforcement in unmarked vans and abducted people. I will not disarm myself for a government that has made an active effort to curtail my rights through mass surveillance, excessive militarization of law enforcement and out-of-touch federal laws. If we get another Bush or another Trump, I will not be disarmed. When toddlers are locked in cages while guns are trafficked to cartels that rape children by the federal government, they absolutely are not getting my guns.

-I engage in hunting of deer, mainly for population control and Chronic Wasting Disease prevention. Me not doing this actually places people in direct risk of running into deer and possibly dying.

I do not trust the government and I never will. Swamp Fox (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── i noticed someone brought up brazil in this discussion. the reason gun control "failed" in brazil is because:

1. the gun laws were never fully enforced (plus bolsonaro has recently made it easier to get guns)
2.  firearms trafficking

the same could be said of other countries that have high gun violence despite having gun control. for instance, most of mexico's guns are trafficked across the border from the united states. it's gotten so bad that mexico decided they had it and filed a lawsuit against u.s. gun manufacturers. bottom line: the us is exporting its gun culture and its gun violence abroad. it's getting a bit out of hand. G Man (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody have any counter arguments against the good guy with a gun argument?[edit]

Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 16:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I just found this epic video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHuA0BEsUzI) Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 17:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll give it a little whirl.
The main issue with your argument, Fox is that the possession of small arms shall be ineffective in 'defending' you against either mass surveillance, militarised law enforcement or crap laws. You cannot stand like some lone warrior against the organised forces of the modern state and win. If you're lucky, you'll survive simply because you're too damn small for the state to even notice that you exist. More predictably, you shall simply be squished like the snails I crush on my early-morning runs.
Nor can you win when They™ (insert boogyman here) send the unmarked cars and people to 'talk' to you at four in the morning. They expect resistance. They train for it. They are equipped for it. In fact, proffered violence in this case shall be counter-productive because they won't even need to 'fault' their bodycams and concoct a story of why they shot you quicker than you can say 'they're coming right for us!'. And if you somehow manage to win here, They shall simply send more people until you lose.
Ironically, you've fallen into the same BS as the fascists have, but ineverted; that Weapon Of Gun shall solve the problems, that armed resistance shall work. It won't. The coercive powers of the levels of the American state, along with the technological levers it holds means this form of resistance shall be all but pointless. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
If enough Americans were to begin resisting, they couldn't send "more people". The type of people who send the unmarked cars at four in the morning are usually overpaid desk bureaucrats who are also "run when the bullets fly" cockroaches. I know enough veterans who were in combat arms who have expressed an intention of preforming violence against agents of a tyrannical government and most of them would leave a pretty horrifying sight for the first LEO on scene.
The average federal agent isn't trained to deal with people who have fortified their residences, put up traps and intend to kill them. They have tactical teams which are small not only because currently the number of people who want to do this is low but also because it is expensive to maintain a federal tactical team, especially for the 4th largest nation on earth.
If they push too much, they radicalize a lot of boogaloo boys and generic militias to becoming violent groups. Like I said, take your pick on what city has a federal building leveled because someone got radicalized by the governments actions and decided they would take action.
Remaining in power is not easy and a good way to lose your title or life is making millions (all of whom have access to firearms) into criminals if they do not comply with laws that they feel to be fair.
To those who want confiscation, I have a question for you: how much are you willing to lose? Swamp Fox (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
the average federal agent would not have to deal with anyones fortified residence. if the feds were going to come after the residents of such place, rolling up to the front door in kevlar demanding they come out with their hands up is probably not how they would go about it. the feds would wait till their target leave their fortified and booby trapped bunker to go get some milk and and some smokes down the local supermarket. it avoids any tense stand offs leading to ruby ridge or waco style tragedies.
even when there is a stand off, lessons would have been learned from waco and ruby ridge such as patience, hold back and wait it out rather going in guns blazing. which is why the montana freeman have not inspired any bombings of federal buildings.
fortified compounds are pretty useless for any kind of armed resistance. they just make it easy for the authorities to contain and isolate any armed resisters within. no one brings down a tyrannical government holed up in a bunker.
if enough americans were to begin resisting so that it would really be a problem for the government carries a big pretty massive 'if'. it would require more than the crazies in militias holing up in their compounds, more thsn rugged individualists in cabins in the woods. and just what would a government be doing to inspire not just popular and widespread violent resistance but effective resistance? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
See the 'other' gun thread for my reply to your marginally-small chance scenario, Fox. To add to Gay's points... the only reason that Ruby Ridge and Waco 'went wrong' was that the authorities desired to end it without bloodshed. If they're murderers of law enforcement officials, there shall be no desire. If they know they're dealing with your 'plucky veterans', they'd be even more inclined to wait until they have the tools to deal with them risk-free. Know how much damage small arms can do against an IFV? Absolutely none.
You know why the Govt desired to end the standoffs without bloodshed, Fox? Because it would look bad to the public. If your above veterans are defined as terrorists (and the killing of LEOs are a sure-fire way of doing this), I'm sure the media can be gagged. Without the oxygen of publicity... you can all die off-screen, for a cause few realise exists. No martyrdom for you, for I shall bury you all in unfindable places. Figeratively and literally.
Which is the irony of the whole thing. One, if the media freely reports on your re-creation of the Alamo and the reason(s), it shows the country is free enough to not justify the actions to cause the situation. Two, when you get stuck in such a situation, it's only public attention and appeals from which shall even promise of getting out of there alive. Which is the whole point I've been trying to get into your brain. There is a time and place for armed resistance. But the USA of 2022 is not one of them. Not by a long shot. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

"It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun" - demonstrably false using real world examples. This is a claim, it only takes real cases to disprove the notion and bring it into question. It's also an oversimplification, because as you know, a hammer can solve all problems. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/texas-church-shooting/fact-check-no-more-guns-won-t-prevent-mass-shootings-n818126 You can see from that page for example, that guns tend to escalate a conflict that would have otherwise never gotten to the point of involving firearms. Their proliferation just increases the opportunity in a very simplistic way for gun related deaths and aggravated assaults to occur. It increases the times that an event is likely to happen, by just giving it more chances to. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Which leads me to ponder; does America have a gun problem, a violence problem or both? Are guns simply the most effective tool for a nation which has lost the plot, is unable to deal with it's own demons without lashing out and is riddled with fear and paranoia? Meaning that if you did manage to remove the tool, folks would simply resort to other weapons instead?
You've seen the whacko above; the fetishisation of firearms. The willingness - nay, the desire - to leap to the barricade with Weapon Of Gun even when little threat exists, let alone one which had progressed so far no other option was left. Then there's the demonisation of them on the other side; understandable, but still an overraction. I'll proffer the suggestion; it's not the gun which is bad, it's the relationship with them which is.
My provisional conclusion (backed up by other studies, such as large examinations of shootings etc); guns aren't the problem, toxic masculinity (American variant) is. Trying to remove weapons without removing the toxins is nothing more than 'damage limitation'. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I think I watched a video where the narrator said that gun ownership is tied to property rights. I didn't have the time to verify it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1iQUF1gQmI Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 12:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Philosophy of Mathematics[edit]

I never was a good math student growing up, but practicing and learning formalized logic as a hobby has made me increasingly interested in the metaphysical status of abstract objects, what numbers are, and whether or not math is discovered or invented. Where do some of you fall in the philosophy of mathematics? Anyone here a Platonist? What about a Conventionalist? How about intuitionism?

I’d be curious to know what people’s thoughts are on this subject. Are statements of mathematics things to be discovered or are they purely human constructions? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC).

Was so shitty at maths I can barely follow a philosophy of maths text. Having said that, found the consequencs of Godel's incompleteness theory very interesting. This video explains it well enough
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4pQbo5MQOs
Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can contribute more ShabiDOO 21:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Maths are invented, but we only care about the Maths which coincide with an aspect of reality. When you try to invent maths to describe a phenomenon, you do a lot of trend analysis and curve fitting, while ensuring your variables are consistent with physical concepts. If no combination seems to work, you might need to invent wholly new maths and concepts, such as inventing the number zero, algebra, calculus, differential equations, etc. So i say that Maths are invented, but very carefully so to coincide with its purpose: paying taxes. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I believe that maths was discovered. You should check this video out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RXyzNWOf_Y Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 05:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I did a degree in maths, and I learned almost nothing about the philosophy of maths, except that it takes up valuable space in expensive textbooks. I'm more on the invented side.Namako (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm on the Platonist side. I think that many think about math too concretely, or have difficulty distinguishing between something more abstract and universal (structure-in-itself which is what mathematics as a science studies), and human activity. The language people use to deal with math is obviously invented, as is all the other activity people engage in related to math. That stuff is all, however, both physically more concrete, and cultural, in its nature, compared to that which is explored by means of mathematical activity. But the very idea of such a distinction comes from at a minimum a weaker form of Platonist position. I believe that there indeed exists something to be explored, and that it exists independently of human minds, just like outer space does. Humans have, in my view, evolved and invented means for exploring an abstract reality which transcends humanity just like space and time do. To wax mystical for a moment, who knows what's out there?

There is also a weaker form of Platonism, which I'm a bit confused about how and why a significant portion of anti-Platonists oppose. Truth-value realism is the metaphysical position that logical truth vs. falsehood in well-formed mathematical statements is objective, transcending human social and cultural whims. Negating that seems to me to lead to an extreme postmodernist relativism. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I find the idea of Platonism a bit strange as it supposes that abstract objects exist in some sense unrelated to physical space and time, which seems to imply you would have to adopt some belief in Plato's world of forms to support which just seems a non-starter to me. If one is so motivated to be a realist why not Aristotelian realism or structuralism? Also it should be noted that not all anti-realist positions by necessity devolve into relativism. Formalism seems to allow to "objective" truth about formal systems, even necessary truth if you include systems of modal logic. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC).
Most Mathematicisns espouse a platonist view and refuse to talk about it further, possibly because of some of the nuttier guys who believe in 4D space and insert in their pet theories accordingly. Or because platonist ideas can be hard to shake. Edit: You do not need to adopt Plato's worldview to believe this.--2friedeggs (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I only heard that mathematicians are really closeted Platonists, and will fall back on formalism when pressed. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC).
I expect that there is little uniformity in the epistemology of mathematicians. My bet: few even think about the philosophy of mathematics as many areas of study are very different from one another. My own perspective begins with our biological nature. We can observe the qualities of experience presented through the transpirations of time and space. To be as simple as possible, our brains model the environment through sense impressions. It is the model we examine to derive true statements. It can be said that we both discover and invent scientific and mathematical facts. We discover aspects of of the model that we as individuals have created. This way of looking at the question makes it appear to result in an antinomy. But that's just me. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Intuitively, it seems to me that various mathematical facts would hold up in the absence of any physical entities, which makes me tend toward platonism. Insofar as Aristotelian realism invokes particulars in explaining universals, I'm inclined to reject it on these grounds. I'm not very familiar with structuralism; after a quick glance I'm mostly left wondering about the ontology of the structure(s). I'm skeptical of the inference from platonism to a platonic realm; to me it seems unnecessary. If I want to invoke abstract objects, why do I also need to inhabit an extra abstract object, namely a platonic realm, for them to inhabit? Formalism is intriguing, but it seems to me that mathematical facts can be abstracted from the formal language, though I'm somewhat less confident in that intuition, and I'm not familiar enough with the underlying arguments to be sure that I'm not badly misrepresenting formalism. I'm also intrigued by fictionalism. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 23:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

What to do if a transhumanist calls you a bioconservative?[edit]

Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 09:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've never even heard of a "bioconservative". Does that even exist? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioconservatism Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 03:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
It depends on the context. If done in lieu of presenting an argument, or responding to an argument of your own, it's a rhetorical move, and doesn't strictly require a response. Some possibilities are:
  • determine that this represents a breakdown of productive discussion, and abandon the discussion
  • determine that the label, regardless of original intent, is an accurate description of your position, embrace it, and try to steer discussion back to more substantive points (depending on the attitude of your interlocutor, and the original intent of the label, your acceptance of the label may be taken as reason to dismiss you out of hand; however, depending on context, the rhetorical purpose of the labeling itself might have been to justify dismissing you out of hand)
  • determine that the label, regardless of original intent, is an inaccurate description of your position, dispute the label (giving reasons for doing so), and try to steer discussion back to more substantive points (depending on the forum and the attitude of your interlocutor, this risks devolving into an extended dispute over the label)
  • ignore the label and try to steer discussion back to more substantive points (depending on how you do this, it could come across as passive-aggressive)
  • invite them to comment further on the relevance of that to the discussion (i.e. why does it matter if you are a bioconservative? If the response is that bioconservatives are wrong about everything (or something like that), ask for justification of that claim. If they refuse because it's so obvious, or something like that, you know that it won't be productive to stick around, since they're neither trying to get at the truth nor trying to persuade you of their position. If they accept, you're back at something of substance.)
  • call them out explicitly for failing to address anything substantial and devolving into name-calling (difficult to do effectively, and invites further breakdown of discussion because your interlocutor might prioritize defending their character or attacking yours, as a way of saving face)
  • respond in kind and steer the discussion into name-calling (though this would be poor form and bad faith engagement)
Regardless, if the intent of the label is to insult you, it's unlikely that there's any good reason to continue to engage, because you generally don't go around insulting people you intend to have a productive discussion with. Likewise if the intent is to dismiss you. I don't know the context, though, so I can't really say anything for sure. But I'm assuming that this is happening on the internet, which makes me rather pessimistic. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 22:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Escaping the imminent collapse of American democracy[edit]

I'm planning through escaping the country considering you know...everything horrible that's been happening. I would ideally like to go to an English speaking European country, where my politics are more aligned, or an African nation with a stable-ish government where my money can go a long way. Any suggestions?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Move to Ireland. It's a beautiful country with a stable democracy. Fettlemapper (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Mauritius seems good. It has a very diverse culture and a stable government. Knowing French would help though, not only in Mauritius, but Africa in general. LongStylus (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
You might want to stay in the USA. Most people hate or resist change rather than embrace it and adapt to it. There's a lot of economic, technological and political changes happening in the developed world. It's causing what the futurist Alvin Toffler called Futureshock which is "too much change in too short a period of time". It's better to embrace change and challenges rather than be some deer in the headlights or some sourpuss who gripes about how things used to be better in the past.
There is also a lot of sensationalism in the press because revenues are down and pundits and news organizations are trying very hard to get clicks. When Donald Trump was elected there was talk about it being the "end of democracy". It's 6 years after Trump was elected and America still has a democracy. Many times the so-called end of democracy is merely my team has less power right now.
To get some perspective, watch the movie Coming Out of the Ice which is the true story of Victor Herman who was exiled to Siberia by the Soviets. One of the inmates who had an influence on Herman said that after you get out of the tough prison camps of Siberia you will be unflappable and nothing will bother you. Fettlemapper (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Raising the obvious question of whether Ireland or any other nation like it would even let you in from the US. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
If you have enough money or the right kind of talent, a lot of countries will take you, at least as a permanent resident. There are often peculiarities for some countries: I think Poland would give citizenship to anyone who could prove that their grandparent was born there. Another avenue is marrying a citizen from a foreign country: it usually guarantees PR status. Bongolian (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
A lot of Americans invest too much emotionally into politics and get distraught before or after their political party loses elections. There are many cries of "I am moving to Canada". The reality is much different. After Trump won the 2016 election, about 2,000 more Americans moved to Canada than usual (out of a nation of over 325,000,000 people).
Bloom where you are planted. Then you will have many more options on where you live because you will have the money and talents to move. Fettlemapper (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
"Bloom where you are planted?" Man, fuck your deterministic BS. Random chance determines where people are born, and we shouldn't act like it is good. Make decisions that maximize your personal potential, borders and nationality be damned. If the opportunities are worse where you are, gtfo asap. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Human beings don't belong to the plant kingdom. They belong to the animal kingdom, and one of its main characteristics is LOCOMOTION. I say be proud of your animal roots and move! LongStylus (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, cars and planes are a key part of the human evolutionary tree! Kauri0.o (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

come to the uk and you can be resettled in rwanda. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Of note my French is not great, unfortunately I'm one of the Americans that didn't invest enough in another language.@AMassiveGay Scotland is high on the list of countries I'd prefer, I have family there. Do they actually comply with the Tory immigration line?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
They don't have a choice in the matter. Immigration is not a devolved topic. You'll need to have an projected income of at least $31k (and clear lots more hoops) before you even get a chance to be looked at. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that, as a topic, immigration in the UK is not quite like the full-on white nationalist toxicity in some of the US, in that the focus of Tory immigrant-bashing is more towards unskilled labor, not necessarily skilled labor. Could be wrong, but that's my understanding. At any rate, the UK has a family visa for direct relatives, but it is rather expensive. It seems like, however, the UK is really looking for health care workers right now; if you have the qualifications and can get a job / sponsorship with the NHS, there's a relatively cheap visa process just for them. This includes some things like senior care workers which are not advanced degree careers.
In general, legal immigration between countries is not easy to do (a pain in the butt, really) unless you have a desired in-demand skill or sufficient cash (we're usually talking six figure values, even in African countries like Mauritius) to invest in the country. The easiest way is to be young (many skill visas cap the age) with some hot skill in the job market, as I see it. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
And to have lots of money. Yes, you can get into the UK as a nurse or social care worker... but the pay here is relatively poor (almost minimum for social care), the workloads higher (to 'torturous') and sorry, you will be really scrambling as you'll have 'no recourse to public funds' (as a rule).
Put very bluntly - if you're able to meet the UK criteria, it's very likely you'll also meet the ones for the other parts of the Anglosphere. And they'll be more tempting offers. And Canada, Australia and NZ all have higher QoL than UK. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I plan on doing an extensive amount of research about processes beyond just straight emigration. I'm trying to compile my thoughts for this entire thing, but other options I could try;
  • Seeking political asylum (Especially if the Orange Fascist returns in '24)
  • Seeking religious asylum (Satanist/Aetheist)
  • Seeking a student visa (Getting my MBA with the intention to open a business)
  • Seeking a work visa (I'm hoping to get some college basketball officiating under my belt this year, and FIBA certification as well)
Of these options I feel like the student visa might be the path of least resistance.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

more us gun insanity[edit]

supreme court strikes down ny hand gun restrictions. what does this suggest about how any measures at the national level will fare?AMassiveGay (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Who knows? The ruling theoretically targets only concealed carry laws requiring the person have "proper cause", which only affect a few states, albeit some of the more populated ones like California. The problem I see with this reading is Clarence Thomas, as typical, delivered some bullshit that was pretty much the type of thing Antonin Scalia did: use "originalism" as an excuse to strike down something he didn't like for political reasons. There is a lot of historical gibberish in the ruling and the net appears to be that almost any gun regulation out there, if it is not "consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" (or what Thomas thinks it is), it may not past Thomas's muster.
Obviously Thomas does not mean the actual firearm laws in America in the late 18th century to early 19th century, as historically there was quite a bit of fragmentation (federalism!) on items like public carry, and there was often strong ties between owning firearms and actually serving in a militia.
Interestingly enough, Thomas in this decision heavily justified it on the very same 14th amendment that he is expected to ignore completely during the expected upcoming Roe vs. Wade strike-down. It's a court of partisans. What do you expect?
I understand that Roberts and Kavanaugh issued concurring opinions that were more narrow, targeting only the "proper cause" issue,. Which makes things legally quite muddy. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
from what ive read thomas's opinion, he apparently believes everyone in the us should be strolling about town with a guns on their belts like they are in a western. seems verry much one step forward two steps back. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, this may be my most controversial take, but I don't believe US gun control can do much to remedy the problems we have with mass shootings. This is not because gun control is inherently bad or anything, but rather the prospect of removing guns from current circulation, there are more guns than people, and our best guess places gun ownership at about 25% of the population. I personally own one firearm, I hunt, and I need a shotgun for what I hunt. Honestly, I don't really see much purpose to owning any other long barreled gun because a shotgun can just... be a rifle. You can change your shotgun barrel out for a rifled one, and shoot slugs. Oops I'm off topic. The difficulty of removing guns from owners seems to be more difficult than attempting to address some of the other causes that lead to mass shootings(obviously having access to a gun is a HUGE factor). It would be far more possible to try to improve community connection, to improve access to mental health services, and to make sure that horrible bigots don't get to shovel constant awfulness into kids heads. You know what after typing that out i think we may just be fucked, because the same people that would stop gun control would stop any and all attempts to make america a better place to live. lol.PhoxyDude (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm hoping conservatives pay the heavy toll for their little stunt with supreme court. They already paid it by losing an incumbent election and the house, who knows if they're still in the process of losing even more for that move. Please vote out Republicans in the midterms you sorry ass fools. 2601:647:5F01:C790:5151:10EB:9DDC:C252 (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
My Remington 870 doesn't need a rifled barrel to fire slugs and a good slug load will be as powerful as about any rifle that isn't anti-materiel or built for killing very large game. Otherwise agree with most of what you said. Swamp Fox (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thats all very nice and all very irrelevant. gun control IS part of the solution and currently the supreme court IS part of the problem. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
You're entirely right, I think that gun control legislation should in fact be passed. As I said, the problem is that it all just seems so unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be repealed or modified. I also do believe that Cops need to be disarmed (or at least they cannot carry a gun unless responding to a gun threat) in the same law. I have opinions against sweeping gun laws removing any and all firearms, because hunting has become essential where I live to keeping several species in check (because we eliminated their natural predators), and honestly, more and more because we live under a further and further right wing government that seeks to take the rights of people like me away. I do not see a de-escalation of these right wing ideals as likely (though I hope I'm wrong), capitalism in crisis tends to swing hard towards fascism, and our governmental system does not seem to work very well at stopping that. I do not like the idea of being disarmed and targeted by people who still have guns. PhoxyDude (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hierarchy of pseudoscience and fallacies[edit]

Can someone list a hierarchy of pseudoscience and fallacies worth addressing?Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 10:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No, they can't. The idea that errors have inherent (negative) value is itself fallacious. A simple, small error being fundamental to an entire ideology that has large amounts of active support is far worse than an egregious error in thinking buried in an irrelevant part of one person's reasoning. As such, pseudoscience and and fallacies can only be qualified in the context of what you think is important. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Here's a diagram that may help Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The problem is - the boundary between 'science' and 'pseudoscience' can be fluid and changes over time: Isaac Newton was both an alchemist and a (modern definition) physicist, Fred Hoyle and the steady state/big bang universe discussion, the changing forms of political and social structure seen as 'right/natural' and 'wrong' and many, many other examples. Is overturning Roe v. Wade 'better' or 'worse' than the Flat Earth theory - given the impacts they have on people's lives? Anna Livia (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

yknow how there's a glut of articles the past few years interviewing trump supporters[edit]

Are there articles interviewing Biden supporters --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

And I don't want unsolicited suspicious new users' opinions please respect my rights and contribute to the wiki first. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I just contributed to the RationalWiki Karl Popper article.
Joe Biden's supporters were far less publicly active during the presidential campaign than Trump supporters due to the pandemic. By the summer of 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which did not go well, Biden's approval numbers started to go rapidly down. So you are not going to have the big rallies for Biden that make it easy for reporters to interview supporters. Saksapoissi (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Nah, it's just US media doing what they do. From my perspective, there was a wee bit of stereotyping with these Trump articles (there was too much focus on "white blue collar left behind by globalization" type of stuff, which wasn't the whole story). Joe Biden represents a familiar to the typical Washington DC reporter crowd. You also saw a lot of "Bernie Sanders supporters" articles back in the day (often a "why yoof like Sanders socialism?" angle) from what I recall, it's similar. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Feels more like the media having this weird fascination with Trump and why people support him. I don't remember a lot of Bernie articles though, I just remember the Trump supporter stuff and people complaining about the lack of articles for people opposing Trump. Might still be a confirmation bias. It's still telling that we're not seeing the "Biden supporters feel left behind and they don't like how Biden acts but they're satisfied". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 14:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Media has done, continues to do a shit job covering Trump and his supporters. Generally the lens they use is, "How could this person support Trump?" and then publish their response with virtually no context. Some articles have noted when supporters lie about something, like Jan. 6 or the 2020 Election, but honestly just don't print that. It isn't relevant to publish their account and then fact check it. Instead journalists/editors should simply say, "[Supporter] then went on to name a number of debunked and unhinged conspiracy theories." Don't even give them the dignity of seeing their actual words in print or video.
Also there may be actual Biden supporters out there, but most people that voted for Biden in the primaries did so because he's so uncontroversial and they knew centrists/center-right voters would support him, which was true. I support his push for legislation, but any other white male Democrat could do the same thing.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

POTUS 45 archived[edit]

So I found this twitter account. Like, is this a parody account or not? I see wingnuts like Trump Jr., Laura Ingraham & NewsMax following this account. But after scrolling down in the follow list, I found people that are part of the adult industry (studios & sexworkers). Like, are these people aware that the republicans hate the porn industry? I don't even think it is a parody account, given the first followers that appear on the follow list... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Per this Washington Post article it looks the account is actually how it is described: an archive account of the official presidential Twitter account, @POTUS, archived when Joe Biden took office. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The last 3 tweets were deleted, as they were used by Trump to evade the ban of his main account. See Social media use by Donald Trump § Permanent suspensionWikipedia and Twitter suspensions § 2021Wikipedia. Andrew5 (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I am going to transition from male to female[edit]

It will be a long road but worth it. No matter where I live there will be transphobic assholes. I also picked a name. I am a happy person now. --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations. Also, BC seems to be pretty pro-trans from what I've heard. If that helps. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations and the best of luck on your journey.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 06:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Best wishes on your journey, RZ! Bongolian (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Good luck! We will be here to support you. LongStylus (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A journey well worth it. --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Personal question. Are you going to be 1) living as a woman without surgery/hormones, 2) just on the HRT without additional surgeries, or 3) on HRT and feminizing surgeries? CorruptUser 05:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Surgeries are way out of my budget. I will be talking to the doctor at my next appointment about hormones. Hormones depends on if it doesn't interact with my current psych medicine. --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Even if nothing happens that way, at least you are now the real you. *hugs from a transister* Avida Dollarsher again 19:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Most corrupt sheriff my county has ever seen is running for state representative.[edit]

Guess what? He is a diehard Republican who believes every piece of right wing conspiracy that he comes across. He is known for taking bribes, harassing people he hates and happily let's crooks go if they are his friends.

This Trumplican is the very definition of corruption. Sadly, I suspect that a majority of people in the county will vote for his corrupt ass. --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

But is 'what is not an ass' corrupt? Anna Livia (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Is this the same guy (from Maine?) who allegedly punched his Democratic opponent repeatedly in her face? I was under the impression that he stepped down from the ticket. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 17:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Nope. From Michigan. --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Can infinities exist in the platonic realm?[edit]

Let's say that we have two rows. In the first row, we place 1 then 2 then 3 and so on, and in the next row we place an inverted eight(an infinity). Would they be the exact same thing?Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 16:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There are many types of infinity. A set containing all even numbers adds to infinity, but would be different than the set containing all positive integers, for example. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
So basically, there would be no bijection due to ambiguity. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 04:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I recommend this video- https://youtu.be/SrU9YDoXE88

Or "How to count past infinity" --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

What is with the tendency to call extreme acts of destructive violence "nihilistic"?[edit]

This is something that has gotten on my nerves as of recent as it seems unfair demonization of nihilists for the actions of people clearly acting in the aim of some what they perceive as some larger purpose (i.e. white nationalists) but frequently I have noticed journalists and YouTube commentators describing such actions as "nihilisitc", but I am not sure what it actually has to do with nihilism. Most self identified nihilists that I know of are Max Stirner followers, or post-anarchists. It seems a little unfair to implicate people like that for the actions of extremists who don't even align to the beliefs of any particular form of nihilism. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC).

It doesn't matter. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
What an insightful and creative contribution to answer this question - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC).
Over da head at 2000 KM... Kencolt (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
No I got it, it was just about as funny as realizing the band name "the Beatles" is a pun. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC).
"Nihilistic" sort of applies to trolls and people shit-stirring out of boredom, but obviously not to genuine white supremacists or Islamists. I'm not sure how many white supremacists are just doing it for shits and giggles and how many genuinely believe whites are the master race (contra to significant evidence). It does seem that a lot of Islamic terrorists in the west are motivated by despair, boredom, and hatred of a society that rejected them, rather than motivated by sincere religious conviction, much as in previous generations bored middle-class kids became pseudo-Marxist terrorists for shits and giggles. --Annanoon (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There are polito-philosophical movements called "nihilism" and "anarchism", and there is the popular usage of these terms. One very often has little to do with the other.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that, and open endorsement of moral, cosmic, and sometimes even linguistic nihilism is expressed in certain veins of post-anarchism, and especially among egoists which is as old as any other tendency within anarchism. Unless you are talking about popular usage having very little to do with the actual philosophies, then I would agree. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC).

news flash for zealous gop rightists[edit]

well well well, a certain republican idiot denounces separation of church and state, very thing gop outspokenly clamored FOR a century and half ago -- 1876 platform opposed ANY public money for religious schooling and grant pushed blaine for constitutional amendment on issue which failed because of unanimous democrat opposition by same slavery defenders and jim crow white supremacists

of course you wouldn't know this if you're a high school dropout without history knowledge of the country you claim so much "patriotism" for Low computer battery (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Russia and the Taliban[edit]

Is it true that Putin wants to co-operate with the Taliban? My parents love to read their local clickbait newspaper, then claiming that TV mentioned it. Can't find anything about this on CNN & BBC World's websites. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, found it here. Surprised he hasn't invaded Tajikistan in the past, unless Tajikistan is a Russian plant like Belarus. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Tajikistan is a Russian ally as a member of the CSTO. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Even if the humorless Dancing With The Stars washout running the place changed his name to make it not sound Russian, yes. A damn shame, Tajikistan looks like one of the most amazing landscapes imaginable. But Tajikistan is pretty fiercely anti-Muslim extremist, he wants to keep it out from the iron fist of the Taliban so he can keep it under the iron fist of himself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
belarus is an outlier in europe insofar as being a post-soviet state that is a staunch russian ally (and borderline puppet). most former soviet states in central and western asia are basically russian puppets, so it's business as usual. G Man (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Syria recognizing Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic as independent countries[edit]

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-middle-east-syria-moscow-c5505e965d7d354b2b1f408385197829

Syria is one of Russia's allies so I am not shocked. --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Not so much an ally anymore as a client state - beholding to the RF for its existence, and unable to follow any other line than that which they are told to. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
On a related note, the final roadblocks to Finland and Sweden joining NATO have been lifted. Looks like NATO might have two new members. --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Chinese impersonated Texans to sabotage critical US rare earth minerals plant[edit]

Chinese agents pretending to be concerned Texans executed an online disinformation campaign against a company building a rare earth minerals facility in Texas for the Department of Defense, the cybersecurity firm Mandiant revealed on Tuesday. The Pentagon later released a statement confirming Mandiant’s findings.[2] 89.14.148.205 (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This is interesting... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Non paywall/register version Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
It sounds like the plot of Bitteroots by C.J. Box. Odds are, that's where it was 'cribbed' from. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

yo, fellow queer people.... are you starting to feel a little more nervous than usual?[edit]

With the various anti-trans bills at the start of the year, to the "Don't say gay" bill in Florida, and the rise of "okay groomer" memes I feel as if anti-queer attitudes have been on the rise within the past year (not that they were particularly low to begin with) and that is starting to make me a bit more nervous about being openly queer in public. Now I actually live in Canada so none of these laws actually apply to anyone I know and care about in meatspace but with the rise of certain types of rhetoric and the influence of US media figures and pundits on Canadian discourse -- I am starting to feel a little more then a little nervous about what is to come in terms of hate crimes and the "discourse" in the coming years. Anyone else feeling the same? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC).

If you define 'nervous' as 'having worry that social progress may stall, and even slip back a bit' then yes. I am not so concerned here in the UK, for we simply do not have a large Fundie loon demographic which is the driving force for this crap (meaning that the majority of say, the transphobic stuff comes from either cranky TERFy misandry or simple older folks refusing to accept the world's gone past 1994). From my own (purely anecdotal) experience, the major religious resistance for this comes from the British Muslim community, which means a decent slice of the Islamaphobes will at least, lay off wailing on the minorities 'them Muslims' hate. Though I'm not a fool; the 'tolerance' for most is pretty shallow; best expressed by Jarvis Cocker; 'I respect your right to exist but I'll kill you if you move in next door to me'.
However, I'm not *hugely* nervous. Reactionary/fundie societal views are not popular here, and I don't see them really taking off any time soon with those younger cohorts. Things have got coarser in the last decade, yes; but I'm of the school of thought it's those already racist etc feeling emboldened and even more importantly, folks equally emboldened to push back at them. Yes, Tory politicians, the hack print media etc might press all the -phobic buttons repeatedly in an attempt to shape opinion etc but their ineptness and impotence is becoming clearer by the day. And even then, there's lines they won't cross; Johnson (a guy who is perfectly happy to tout 'antiWoke' causes for base popularity) might utter transphobic shit but he's not laid a finger on sexual minorities. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
America has a lot of soft power in the world and it now has a conservative Supreme Court. The conservative U.S. Supreme Court is emboldening state anti-LGBTI bills. The pandemic put a spoke in the wheels of the anti-gay, right-winger movements in much of the world, but how long that lasts nobody knows. An economic crisis in the developed world could see a return in the growth of anti-gay, right-wing governments. The Ukraine crisis is putting economic pressure on Europe and so is the slowing down of the Chinese economy. Fides2000 (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Nah, oh suspicious redlink, America's "soft power" in the world seriously is kind of dinged these days in light of the low-IQ isolationism and authoritarianism coming from the Donald Trump wing. Basically though there has been a rise of authoritarian governments of late worldwide, not helped by the COVID-19 panic. Typically if authoritarianism has increased, and particularly if its authoritarianism wrapped in some sort of "traditionalism" garb, LGBTQ rights have decreased. In that light, IMHO America has a much stronger opposition to authoritarian thuggery and tribal bullshit compared to, say, India or Hungary or Russia... let alone Islam or sub-Sahara Africa countries where rights never existed much to begin with. I kind of see America comparing best as far as LGBT rights go to Brazil, where as I understand it LGBT rights are still pretty decently supported in spite of the strong bigotry of the Jair Bolsonaro crowd (which also translates into high anti-LGBT violence in Brazil, not exactly unknown in America either).
So the way I see it, America has areas where it is okay to be openly queer... and areas where it unfortunately is not these days. It's a sad state for the "land of the free" (snort) compared to many west European countries, but it sure beats Afghanistan or Russia etc. The biggest danger in America (as for many things these days) is the radicalism of the GOP and the Supreme Court, of course (the amount of American culture warrior right-wingers who worship da Putin is a good tell, eh?). 35.140.177.2 (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah, America has always had a 'duality' about it. And a lot of the American 'soft power' is not in either govt or conservative/fundie hands. 'Hollywood values' (sic) shall continue regardless, as well as the 'wokeness' of Big Tech, the large charities and so on. In global terms, how say, Disney, Paramount or Activision react/portray such issues shall mean a massive amount *more* than even a dozen reactionary laws from say Alabama.
We are also forgetting a critical issue; generally speaking, reactionary/fundie media products are awful. They're usually clunky, tone-deaf/out of touch and nakedly propagandistic - even in the situations where they've managed to scrape up enough genuine talent to have good production quality (which is a lot more now than in my fundie youth of the 90s). Naturally, this rather limits their wider (ie foreign) appeal. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, to clarify, the "soft power" Donald Trump dinged was more the government kind, not the Hollywood / business side. My impression is that America is seen as bipolar and less reliable type on leading issues like climate change or global trade (Biden may support the norms that were more in place prior to Trump in both parties, but everyone knows that the next Trump could come and tear things up). Trump-style "conservatives" also have a side that is way more isolationist (in a self-defeating way, such as the way Trump needlessly squabbled with allies on many trivialities) compared to say the Reagan conservatism days. I have no idea how Trump would've handled the Ukraine situation, for instance, because in spirit at least Trump seemed to admire Putin more than NATO. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Can't blame that much on the Orange One. 'Official' America has been to some extent 'unreliable' all my life (ie the whole 'post-Cold War era'). Let's remember, for example that the climate change denalism really came to a fore under Bush Jr. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Gay rights were achieved in a matter of two generations (compare the centuries long fight for Women and Black people), because they were non-violent, non-threatening, willing to sit down and have a dialogue, etc. It was so non-threatening that when asked, we all pretty much gave up using "gay" as a pejorative. But in spite of decades of proven success, the tactics today are much more in-your-face, heavy-handed, etc. Is it any surprise that this has blowback? CorruptUser 17:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this describes the Stonewall riotsWikipedia. :p
Anti-LGBTQ laws tends to ebb and flow in waves these days in America. I remember earlier waves -- the rush by the GOP to enshrine anti-gay marriage acts in state Constitutions in the early 2000s, the bathroom bills in the mid 2010s, and now the "don't say gay" DeSantis stunt and other anti-trans stuff. A core of America is just bigoted, and occasionally the GOP finds the right memes to tickle the bigoted voters. But over time, that bigoted core seems to be less and less. Today's America ain't nothing like the shit the LGBQT population got in the Ronald Reagan HIV scare days (when "don't ask don't tell" was the height of radical policy). And that era was much better than the 1950s, where one can point to Alan Turing to show what some people thought of you even if you had a genius mind. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
KarmaPolice mentioned homophobia among British Muslims. There is xenophobia/Islamophobia in the developed world among a segment of their populations relative to Muslim immigrants which is fueling right-wing politics in Europe which is also homophobic. Putin's aggression against Ukraine is threatening a potential severe food crisis in the world which could cause a flood of immigrants into Europe from the Middle East and Africa which in turn would be a catalyst to anti-gay, right-wing parties growing. PBS did a documentary on Putin featuring the Ukrainian-born journalist Julia Ioffe and she mentioned that Europeans are graciously accepting Ukrainians immigrants now, but their graciousness could wane thin over time which would fuel right-wing politics in Europe (Right-wing parties are often anti-gay). Fides2000 (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Would Stonewall even be called a "riot" today? No one died, most of the injuries were at the hands of the police, and the Stonewall Tavern was the only place to be trashed. CorruptUser 18:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I have a question about American politics. Under the Trump administration, transexuals were barred from serving in the U.S. military. Under the same Trump administration, Richard Grenell, as U.S. ambassador to Germany, announced an administration-wide push to decriminalize homosexuality in the 68 countries where it is still illegal. So there was a double-mindedness in the Trump adminstation about LGBTQI rights. Trump spent most of his time in NYC which is pro-gay rights and Trump was a social climber. But white evangelicals were a key voting block of Trump and he strived to please them. I am asking about Trump because he will be the likely frontrunner in the next GOP presidential primary and if he was reelected, he could nominate more conservative judges. Gallup polls shows a big increase in acceptance of gay marriage compared to previous years, but in the past couple of years, the rate of increase has declined so there may be a sizable hardcore remnant opposed to gay rights. Keesal (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
(edited) In fairness, Trans is not the same as Gay. Remember, "LGBT" was an alliance of 6 different groups (why don't homosexual men and women share a letter like everyone else?) and the LGB's all just tolerated each other because they shared the exact same goals of "getting society to accept us as we are, allow us to have same rights as straight couples", whereas T's want similar but not identical goals. LGB's have gotten basically everything they asked for in Western society. But the T's current goals of "bathroom access" is something that LGB's never had to worry about, and "idiosyncratic pronouns" is Mission Creep if there ever was one with LGBT's goals. There's plenty of Gay people who are even outright hostile to Trans issues, and while more "openminded" than Straight people the overwhelming majority of Gay people would not take a Trans lover. CorruptUser 20:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
i wonder what a gay man, who sexual preferences tend to be for men, be interested in dating trans women? interest in trans men is probably dependant on whether a gay man is a top or bottom. seems to be more bottoms than tops in general which limits the appeal a trans man might have to gay men.
a straight man interested sexually in women. a refusal to date trans women is not the same as a gay man not being interested in trans women.
you are correct that trans is not the same as gay. thats why they have the t in lgbt. bi are the same as gay. neither are lesbians. lgbt brings them all together under the same broad umbrella. share some goals, some specific to a particular group. not usually in opposition to each other. that 'plenty' of gay folk are hostile to trans means nothing more than 'plenty' of gay people are just as capable as being pricks as anyone else. and define plenty. the gays are not the group that trans are facing significant opposition and it is not the gays that are affected by trans rights or exploited be opposed to trans rights. its conservative groups too late or failed against the lgb getting rights but still hope to prevent trans getting any, while its women who are the group exploited to rile up opposition playing up male sexual violence against women to present trans women as just men seeking access to women only spaces to rape them, or as sports cheats using castration like it was an anabolic steroid to hoover up prize money meant for women.
threats to existing lgbt rights i would like to see what rights and where are threatened and by whom before i start panicking there. there are plenty of communities already where rights won do not tackle issues facing them within their communities. hypothetical threats that probably wont materialise just means lgbt people rallying around potential issues effecting those lgbt who have 'won' at the expense of those with real issues in communities where the victory for rights rings hollow.
rights are pretty sure in most of the eu. cant speak for the us, and i can only say probably for the uk at present. its where things are not so great for lgbt that face things getting worse.
and ive dated plenty of trans women since before they became so visible and grindr became infected with straight men looking for them. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
i dont what issue or rights trans men are facing or struggling for. they are kind of ignored in all of this. maybe they are good for that. probably not though and face their issues alone. i have very little contact with trans men to comment really. AMassiveGay (talk)
Corrupt: really, go and read about the Suffragettes, the pitched battles which eventually got the rights for labour unions, the fights to gain universial suffrage and so on. *Every* advancement has had to be gained at the teeth of opposition - including that of violence. Your idea that 'nicely asking again and again for basic rights is the correct way to go' falls apart quicker than a cheap suit as soon as you look at the actual history. In fact, it was not 'those in power graciously deciding the oppressed's points had merit' which caused most changes; it was the point where the more savvy in power realised it had gotten to the point they either needed to concede some of the points or drop the pretence and simply stamp them flat.
Fides: Each nation is different, with their own histories and situation. Some right-wing groups are homophobic, others are not (or somewhere inbetween). However, you also miss my point that the homophobia, misogyny etc from the 'traditional' Muslim communities (as not-represented by their self-selected 'leaders') means the Islamophobes like to hold such 'intolerances' up as evidence of well... why Muslims suck. And are thus, unlikely then to stand up and urge gay-bashing, 'women know your place' etc. Like I pointed out before; the best guide for this is religion.
And personally speaking, if any right-wing Euro party tries to make a thing of the Ukranian refugees being 'an issue', well they will immediately be labelled as Putin patsies.
Keesal: The answer is the same as I said about the British PM Johnson. Trans rights are not yet the status quo, and thus are easy to attack, while gay rights are much more solid in base and thus, harder to attack. Corrupt is right in that sexual and gender are not the same thing. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The public's views of any group of immigrants changes over time. The UK Prime Minister and Swedish Prime Minister are already talking about "Ukraine fatigue". Pressure is building within Italy for a negotiated ending of the war. People weigh the cost/benefit ratio related to an issue over time. The cost of the war is building over time due to inflation, food shortages and other factors. Even if the cost of the war is not increasing over time, the public's willpower can wane over time. How much immigrants are welcome into a country is also tied to the country's economic status. During a recession and tougher competition for jobs, immigrants are less welcome. Keesal2 (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice
Citation needed. Show me the mass violence committed at the hands of gay rights activists, and I don't mean one or two crazies that exist in every group. Show me the lines of storefronts smashed and looted by gay protestors. The most violent riots in Gay history as far as I'm aware were the "White Night Riots" in the wake of Milk's assassination, which led to 0 deaths. Compare to the MLK assassination riots, where 43 people died, or the LA riots, where 63 died. CorruptUser 20:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The fight for LGBT rights has been less 'violent' because demographically they've been a much smaller section of society. Generally speaking, it's a rare time that enough were in a same time/place to be able to have a riot (similar could be said for the 'Native Rights' campaigners). In this case, most of the violence was one-sided - the cops, goons and bigots vs them. Let us remember, for a long time their very existence was illegal. Normally, I'd cite DYOR on this, but I so happen to know a half-decent essay on the topic. The fight for LGBT rights was not a pleasant and polite 'please sir, can we exist?' pleading or 'sitting down and having dialogue' with raging homophobes who'd like you all to be castrated and so on. The earlier term - 'gay liberation' - reminds us all that your nice-washing is quite seriously inaccurate. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
this is a fucking ridiculous argument. lgbt rights were easier to achieve in the us because lgbt people are present in all communites and ethnicities and all levels of society and there are far fewer of them as a percentage of society and the effects of granting these rights has no impact on anyone out side of the lgbt. granting rights to racial groups that the us was built on exploiting, fought a bitter civil war over, and have been purposely ensuring have had no rights or curtailing any rights they did have, even today - its going to be a harder fight. and no ones son in a white community is ever going to come out as black like they could if gay.
its apples and oranges. the relative levels of violence and acrimony in one struggle says nothing about those in the other, one was not not more successful than the other because they were less uppity. they are very different beasts where different strategies were/are more suited to one but not the other and faced/facing very different obstacles and opposition, with victories impacting on wider society at differing levels.
gay rights never led to a civil war. it couldnt even if every gay picked up a gun and started shooting. so the fuck what? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. A European politics journal website points out that right-wing parties stand on both sides of the acceptance/rejection of gays issue.

Since the growth of right-wing European politics is a partly a reaction to immigration and the growth of the Muslim population, if they both grow, will right-wing politics or the Muslim population grow at a faster rate or will they grow concurrently at about the same rate? And are more right-wing parties opposed to homosexuality or are more right-wing parties in favor of gay rights?Fides2000 (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

EC homophobia within ethnic communities in uk, muslim communities especially, does not or has not lead to any real attempts to push homophobic legislation or lead to increasing homophobia in the wider community. the real victims of homophobia in these communities are lgbt+ people from these communities. these are conservative and close knit communities where coming out means losing family and friends, and violence and harrassment is always a risk while remaining within their communities. right wing nationalists, like the edl especially, do not find common cause with homophobia. quite the opposite in fact. homophobia in muslim communities is used to justify far right islamophobia and racism. what individuals within the far right really think, the official line from edl and the like is they are friends and defenders of the lgbt+ against islamofacists and creeping sharia law.

as i understand it how people see the success of lgbt+ rights in the us defers vastly for geographic location, and ethnicity, with those lgbt+ in more affluent whiter areas thinking we've won, while poorer black areas lgbt+ facing overt homophobia and finding outcomes for associated issues like hiv/aids far from the success of whiter lgbt+ communities - prep and medication sees living with hiv no big thing and infection rates dropping in white communities, while in poorer black communities less access to these things and with cultural factors makes hiv/aids still a major crisis in these communities and affecting more than just lgbt+
as a result of lgbt+ groups that campaign for rights often dominated by the white lgbt+ it has been said issues not effecting that demographic are sometimes ignored or simply invisible to the groups claiming to be working lgbt+. i remember a little while back there was a furore about some march organised by (i think it was a womens group rather than lgbt+) a group in poor black community was being boycotted by those within the community because no from that community was involved in this group's organisation
point is victories in fights for lgbt+ rights does not mean their impact on the lives and issues of lgbt+ people is uniform across all communities. this is true in the us and uk and probably all over the western world and should be considered when talking of threats the lgbt+ may or may not be facing or indeed already facing. particularly when saying everything is rosey. for all the lgbt+ people in your locale, or just the just those within your own or in contact with? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The size of the Muslim minority population in terms of its percentage of a society has a bearing on their degree of their anti-homosexuality. Because as a sub-group grows in a society, they can become bolder. France has the largest percentage of Muslims in their society. About a decade ago, some French Muslims joined some French Catholics in opposing same-sex marriage. Fides2000 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Pretty sure being a Muslim doesn't automatically make them homophobic.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
i note jewish, prostestant, and orthodox christian leaders also joined with the catholics. buddhists were the only major religion to not oppose it. this was religious fucknuts coming together this had fuck all with muslims getting bolder or driving agendas, its some nomark not reading what they they cite in support of bullshit assertions. (and guess whether they succeeded in stopping same sex marriage. i give you a clue - they didnt) 23:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
As in another recent thread, it is usually best to ignore suspicious new accounts just asking questions with irrelevant gaslighting that barely has anything to do with the rest of the conversation. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm more than nervous, even if I live in NY, I've got a ton of gay(umbrella term) friends throughout the country. The current justices have spoken about repealing Lawrence v. texas. which would cause many republican states to backslide horribly and either enforce existing, or pass legislation against sodomy; Which is bad for everyone, in some states you won't be able to own sex toys. Though the previous law would probably be enforced primarily as those marked as "deviants." They also had said that they would go after Contraceptive Rights too. So they will have struck down the right to an abortion, the right to prevent pregnancy, and effectively the right to sexual privacy. If the supreme court does this it will hurt Gay people, Black people, and Poor people. I think, since there will never be any gun reform at this point I'd advocate owning one, because having the Fascists armed while we remain unarmed while our existence is criminalized is... horrifying to think about. PhoxyDude (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
invest in chastity belts. devout christians are gonna need em for there daughters if they they ban sodomy. no saddle backing, no abortion, no contraceptives. the explosion of school girl pregnancies in the bible belt might lead some folk to regret voting in some of the dogshit politicians when theirs laws start affecting their own lives. i guess if sodomy goes, can we still do buggery?
did the taliban boot the west out afghanistan, or did the taliban come over with evacuating troops? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay First off, no one would ever wake up one day and find out their son is Black, but they could wake up one day and find out their Daughter-in-Law is. It was one of the big fears that many White parents had, even White Liberal parents weren't too keen on the idea of having mixed-race grandchildren, which is why Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was such a cultural milestone. Furthermore, there's also the issue of bisexual children; normalizing homosexuality does in fact mean that your latently-bisexual son actually considers his sexuality and experiments instead of behaving straight his whole life.
Intersectionality is a bitch. Yes, Black gay people have a much different experience than White gay people. Today, I'd say that it's better to be a Gay White man that a Straight Black man, but that wasn't the case 25 years ago.
That Black people are a larger group than Gay people doesn't mean they would necessarily have more difficulty. In terms of size, Trans people are a tinier minority than LGB's, so by your logic we should have had Trans rights loooong before Gay rights. CorruptUser 18:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually with the one drop rule, or infidelity one could definitely wake up one day to come to discover that their son is black. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC).

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────to answer op's question: as someone who was born and raised in the south (and currently lives in the deep south) to culturally conservative latin american parents, i haven't really noticed that much of a difference. i've been largely desensitized by all the anti-gay rhetoric (i even used to be a homophobe, myself). even though progress has been made in recent years, i knew it was only a matter of time before it was met with significant backlash. i mean, almost immediately after the obergefellWikipedia decision in 2015, there were some protests in the more conservative pockets of the country, which prompted states to pass "religious liberty" bills. (also, let's not forget north carolina's bathroom bill in 2016.) american conservatives have a way of building momentum with their regressive policies; even if they fail at first, they change them up a bit and throw in a little propaganda to make them seem more reasonable. they are the embodiment of the adage, "if at first you don't succeed, try and try again." G Man (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

if you didn't catch anything i said above, here's the tl;dr version: pretty much since 2015, i knew that it was not a matter of if, but when chaos would ensue (metaphorically speaking, of course). G Man (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUseryou very much miss the point i was making - that comparisons of different movements/struggles are not like for like. the challenges and issues faced by different communities, peoples, populations, the opposition they face, the tactics and strategies that can be employed. what goals are achievable and when and how and the scale of the problems are all very different. the relative size of a group does not offer the same strengths and benefits that another group mighty have. black people are a significant percentage of the population. they have large communities that provide some degree of safety and strength in numbers. they are more able to organise and resist and defend against oppression from the authorities. this strength in numbers at the same time can be seen and identified as threat that needs to be dealt with. police and tactics become more aggressive and increase their numbers. the national guard can be called upon to deal with marches. legislation can be passed to break up activists, arrest its leaders. spy on them, slander them. turn a blind eye or encourage terrorist attacks on black communities. black communities counter, try new tactics, become more militant, angrier. as time goes on acrimony grows. official responses become harsher to counter the perceived threat black activism is seen by the authorities. the stronger, tougher, more violent one side gets the more the other becomes to counter it. views become entrenched, the other side the enemy. race riots, police riots, racist laws, because that size and strength of black communities are threat to the authorities. too strong to simply crush but not strong enough that the state cannot through more bodies at it or lock up more people and have to concede. 200 years of oppression means there is a lot they need to concede before this struggle is over.

lgbt people in the civil rights era and earlier. not just smaller percentage of the population but dispersed across many. a gay man did not live in gay community with gay neighbours. they were hidden from their communities. hidden from one another. a wealthy white gay and a poor black gay might find little of common cause to have any solidarity. how do you organise when you dont know who your people are? when the communities you live in, your own family, would be disgusted by you if they knew, you disgust yourself even. discovery could result in your career, your life ruined. ostracised from family, from community ridiculed and abused by everyone serving as warning to other gays to keep a low profile. a lynching in black community is a source rage against the injustice from all within the community. their own mother wouldnt miss the beaten to death sissy found on the side of a road. there is no popular outrage, no safety or strength in numbers. but when a few wealthy gays could meet and discuss and organise the authorities werent waiting and geared up to smash them down. gay sons leaving home to university can meet and organise and live for the first time. and in radical sixties america gays were just one group seeking their rights amongst many. the authorities have bigger problems to occupy themselves, and some of those rich gays have connections. you could not have had stonewall without enough lgbt people able gather in the same place to be angry over the same things and confident enough to resist. and ultimately the fundamental rights gained in this period were easy enough to grant, with time on the gays side. some of them at least.

trans people have had similar issues of small and disperse populations, but we have the internet now. a double edged sword if ever there was one. the relative success of lgb in rights and normalising us probably allowed trans people the confidence to become visible to the world, and even to day the trans can still turn heads on the street. they have their own issues and own strengths and weakness in their struggle just like every other group and will to deal with the realities that exist in the world as it marches on. comparisons between these groups wont make much sense for a lot of metrics. some comparisons tell us little more than lgbt rights are different to rights based on race whatever similarities they may share.

and roe vs wade tells us any of our rights can vanish overnight AMassiveGay (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You're really not saying anything that disproves my assertion that nonviolent methods are far more effective longterm at achieving civil rights, even if violent methods can be faster in the short term. Do different groups have different problems, different positions, different abilities? Sure. It might just be correlation and not causation, but the ones that resort to violence consistently have slower progress than the groups who don't. CorruptUser 05:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the evidence is actually there for that. The civil rights movement was not "non-violent", nor was the abolition of slavery, nor the suffragette movement. Skirmishes with the police, direct action, and straight up murder were committed during these movements and they were able to make major strides in ensuring political rights in about the same time or even less then gay rights have. Arguably the gay and lesbian movement was very slow moving and took well over 60-70 years to establish say the right to marry for example, and the period of time with the most progress in decriminalizing queer identities happened directly after stonewall which was not by any means "non-violent" even if the events have largely been idealized and mythologized (Canada decriminalized homosexual sex in 1969, and a few other nations followed suit in the late 60's and 70's). LGBT+ rights have made a few step forwards and a few steps back, in a ways that other civil rights movements haven't and if the praise is in LGBT+ movements is in being notably non-violent then that sort of falsifies the premise that it has resulted in the most progress on the fastest time frame. The Gay and Lesbian movement started in the 1950's and you guys didn't legalize gay marriage until 2012. That is over 60 years. Civil rights movement on the other hand happen over the course of what? Just under 20 years. This is with all the race riots and police brutality happening along side it.- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC).
Another thing I am thinking about too is the Hattian slave revolt and how quickly that made remarkable civil rights changes in Haiti, and that was not by any means "non-violent". Think too the influence that the Nat Turner rebellions had leading up to the civil war. I would be deeply skeptical of this premise that nonviolent methods are far more effective long term. No has successfully reinstated chattel slavery, but people reversed advancements in queer rights or have the means to do so now. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC).
From my reading of history, 'non-violent' methods (a slippery definition in itself) only work if two criteria are met; a) authorities are willing to tolerate the 'protests' and b) they are willing to yield to the mainstream protester's demands within a 'reasonable' time. History is filled with examples where authorities only yielded the point(s) after pressure including violence (as Dumb points out).
The main problem, Corrupt is your 'non-violent is always the best' is that it falls in tone waaay too close to the 'White Moderate' position MLK lambasted in his Letter from Birmingham Jail (a text that all campaigners should read carefully, in my opinion). To paraphrase; you can't make a timetable for another person's freedom, you can't constantly advise restraint, tolerance (of bigotry, that is) and contantly turning the other cheek when it's just been slashed. And you can't constantly promise more pie in the sky. Ultimately, it reeks; of insincere 'allyship' (ugh, I hate that term), borne from a life of relative safety, where 'the System' (police, courts, politics, media etc) work how they're supposed to.
In fact this POV could be described from a Marxist viewpoint as a kind of 'bourgeoisie propaganda' regarding the capitalist/democratic state; that it tells a narrative that it works fine regarding minorities etc and the rules of it should be obeyed because 'it'll work out in the end'. That garnished with a few very debatable examples (Ghandi, Mandela, King etc) is then peddled as 'the right way to push for reforms'. And it could be argued that it's this problem which is why even the causes of women, ethnic minorities etc haven't been fully solved, for to properly sort it out means actions the state considers anathema (ie societal change) has to be done. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedrun court decides to allow coach to continue lord’s prayer in public employment[edit]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-endorses-football-coachs-on-field-prayers-2022-06-27/

Not even with a termination of employment, he just resigned for a bit. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:C0 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Haha, speedrun? As if politics is just a video game. But still, this is bad news. LongStylus (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
politics might not be an actual video game but the way republicans have gamed the system over time is somewhat analogous to video games, i suppose. G Man (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan, which sounds like something straight out of SimCity, is proof of that. Republicans sure love treating politics like a video game. LongStylus (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Good post! 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:3E (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Biden administration people are neoliberal theorycels pretending monopolists are rational actors[edit]

Biden administration is continuing to try to curb oil price inflation by begging oil monopolists (price setters) to produce and sell more oil. We've been doing that and the Saudis consciously chose to sell previous+additional barrels of oil for the same price-per-barrel they sold a previous, smaller supply of oil.

Not a surprise he's the most unpopular president ever in the history of polling. Neoliberal economics, asserts that greedy cartels are rational market actors, and when then pretends basic resource scarcity isn't a conscious decision by said cartels.

It's like Biden Democrats get all their info on inflation from Milton Friedman Youtube videos explaining away 70s oil price inflation on the money supply.

But more likely they got their economic theory from Universities they went to, who also pump out this crap. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

By the time Biden was in office it was too late to do anything. But... the complete absence of a democratic long-term plan for readjusting the economy to "remove our dependence on foreign oil" as they called it beyond incentive tweaks has been utterly inexcusable.
But that's where the moderate triangulation has placed them, lacking any identity or plan. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
As a temporary measure, our federal government (and our best foreign allies) could just immediately subsidize all oil exports from Saudi Arabia, thereby lowering it's global cost soon. All while better transitioning away from fossil fuels via serious domestic policy. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the Biden administration, like many governments, pretends that there is no such things as price controls (effin’ Nixon employed price freezes, at least as a temporary measure). Biden has also been extremely sluggish in employing the obvious tool, i.e. windfall profit taxes (which are designed to disincentivise price gouging) on energy companies. Imposing such a tax would not only be logical, but likely also extremely popular and target those oil companies who, by no virtue of their own efforts, are raking in grossly distorted/outsized profits. Biden could then use the proceeds to support those citizens hardest hit by the selfsame price gouging. Even Boris Johnson has been pushed in that direction by widespread public outrage and the examples of initiatives along these lines in France (price capping for EDF) and Germany (windfall profit tax, along with Spain and Italy). ScepticWombat (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Even though I'm one of the people supposed to be feeling the impact of these prices the most, and I am feeling it, I welcome it. This is the perfect time to message that this demonstrates the need to move towards other fuel sources, I'd happily pay more to fund that. If it means I have to spend more to go on my meandering day trips on my days off, that just means I have to make decisions like everyone else; I don't run an air conditioner, and that pretty well takes care of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I concur. "Subsidize oil" and "transition away from fossil fuels" are two sentences that really don't go together, we do have a planet that is getting too warm, and I don't have much sympathy for those screaming at Biden to pay for running their wasteful low-MPG Canyonero monstrosities. (Much of the price increase is Putin's fault, anyways.) The windfall tax is the main idea in this thread that makes some sense to me (at least at first thought), but I'd have to find some sources on how well previous attempts at this (the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980Wikipedia) worked that aren't written by partisan self-interested hacks. (This is frankly tougher than it should be...) 35.140.177.2 (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Another way to say it is not letting everyday people go bankrupt just going to and from work, while also transitioning away from fossil fuels. The idea that anyone would advocate for economic burden on the lower and middle class as a way to move away from fossil fuels will just generate enormous right-wing energy. It's a RW strawman that the Dems are purposefully making gas expensive to "solve the climate", but to advocate it is just giving into their nonsense. If the Dem party is serious about climate change, it can transition to renewables without advocating finance bleeding of the lower and middle classes Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Subsidy to Saudi Arabia or no, the demand for oil among the general public will be constant or go up with our current vehicle usage. In other words, the subsidy or lack thereof has little effect on fossil fuel consumption among everyday people in the US. While gas prices have gone way up, demand in the USA for gas has gone slightly up, not down. Putting everything on an econ 101 price/demand chart price/demand doesn't translate to how things actually play out. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Generic gas subsidies don't laser-target low income though. In general richer families spend more on fuel, and they don't need the subsidies. So any program should IMHO target only those who need it. I would think a safety net program that gives vouchers for fuel would be more of a help here (already there are some low-income home energy programs in the States, but not so sure if the same applies for fuel.)
There is no need to go to Saudi Arabia if we wanted to go for the supply angle as well. Thanks to fracking, the United States imports less oil than it used to, and actually is the biggest producer of some hydrocarbons like natural gas (even oil these days, according to the Other Wiki). Canada actually is the biggest source of imported oil for the US.
The fracking oriented oil industry was kind of speculative (growth over profit, kind of like the more famous tech industries) and thus got hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic when demand was slammed. Also, everyone in Investor Land knows that in the long run, there will be immense pressure on fossil fuels as the energy market de-carbonizes. Many fossil fuel companies thus are more reluctant to commit capital to long-term projects these days. (This of course doesn't apply to Vladimir Putin, whose Ukraine war is the real source of the high prices. Don't forget that.)
So in theory, America could simply attempt to re-flood the market by throwing more money at the local fracking industries instead of Saudi Arabia. Or even all those tar sands in Alberta, environment be damned. Personally? I'm more inclined to support those in need versus open production floodgates up, unless ways can be found on the supply side that fit in the de-carbonized world of the future (eg shorter term projects than most oil projects typically are). That's just me, of course. A lot of the "right-wing energy" is, to "tell it like it is" (as they like to say), rather stupid it seems, to the point where many of that crowd currently bow down to the very same shithead (Putin) whose war is driving higher gas prices. So it's obvious that the politics are "tricky" here. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Dem party has been through this before and it did not end well for them. Repeating the same inaction and expecting different results is insanity. Inability to handle gas prices will bite them just as hard as it did in the 70s if they come up with elaborate and false climate excuses for it (gas demand is not going down with higher prices). Rich people use more of a lot of essential goods, like housing. Doesn't mean make homelessness a "rich persons problem". Low/working/average class people are hit the hardest by higher pump prices. 2600:8806:0:C2:35B9:DA1A:C41D:97C4 (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This feels like concern trolling from someone attempting to evade a ban. Price controls/subsidies are just not going solve this problem. Instability is the reason the prices are higher. Compounded with demand for travel remaining high, prices are just higher. But I'm really not seeing any indication that this is fundamentally making people change their habits. So much money is still in the hands of people, they are just absorbing the price increases with basically no major complaints. Certainly there are individual examples of people complaining, it's all over TikTok, but there isn't any form of a unified movement. Maybe that will change after labor day, but things could also stabilize as the Ukrainian invasion either ends or settles into stalemate. There are also so many other sources of energy, that Western countries especially, can likely whether this much longer than people think. A massive mobilization to produce arms could also have dramatic effects on the prices if the US moves more towards a war economy to rearm our allies and continue arming the Ukrainians. As for the Saudi's, Biden should really just make it clear to MBS, either you pump more oil, or we will remove anti-missile/aircraft batteries from the Kingdom. Without American protection, their Yemeni conflict would likely become much more personal. Trump also threatened to Saudi's with 'relative' success.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Monopolists are not free market actors. They have and will sell additional oil for the same price as previous barrels as long as they want. Supply will not effect their price to any meaningful extent. They're already producing more and selling for the same amount. Price/demand charting will not solve the gas price issue as demand is not so far effected by price as price/demand charts from econ 101 on non-monopolies suggest. Price gouging by monopolists != market forces which are resolved by adjusting supply/demand. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's a page which discusses how modern oil companies are monopolies https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032315/what-are-most-famous-monopolies.asp Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
It's like asking DaBeers to increase their personal supply of luxury diamonds so they will sell them to the public for less. They're a monopoly, they won't if they don't want to Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Yeah, someone's being silly, insisting on monopoly type stuff and ignoring the whole thing I said about fracking. (And bringing up DeBeers in this day and age. Lab grown diamonds, they are the way to go for that angle these days.). Reality is, the US president doesn't have a huge amount of control on oil prices. Possibly they can make things worse sometimes with their own policies causing instability. (Recall that Dubya had high oil prices at the end of his term. The high prices were partially due to the Iraq War -- a mess of his own making.) But that's about it other than "little nudges". I really don't think any of the things Dubya or other Republicans did in the late 2000s, ranging from requiring a percentage of motor fuel to be ethanol (corn farmer boost!) to sloganeering such as Mrs. "Little Starburst"'s "drill baby drill", really made a big difference in the prices then. Just like Nixon/Ford/Carter failed to make a huge difference in their respective high fuel price times. (Voters will still point fingers, of course, because voters.)
Now, today is not 1978 in another sense, in that cars are much more fuel efficient. Based on this, in the 1970s mpg was largely in the low 10s for typical personal vehicles (13-14 for car classifications and 10-11 for pickups). Now, per this, the sedan / car class of vehicles has improved to 30+ mpg on average, and even finding 20+mpg pickup trucks is easy to do. Currently, electric cars (which sometimes use a statistic called MPGe, which centers around the kwh equivalent to the cost of 1 gallon of petroleum) are even better, often obtaining triple digit MPGe values. So the impact of high fuel costs is quite a bit less than it was then, which probably might explain as much of any lack of demand impact (isn't it a bit early for that sort of analysis though?). Some of the fuel economy improvements back then were due to "nudges" the government gave the auto industry in the 1970s due to the oil crisis. That's probably one of the better things the government can do in response, in my opinion, as these "nudges" are reasonable (probably just encouraging the electrification that is happening already). 35.140.177.2 (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
"Insisting on monopoly type stuff". Modern oil companies are monopolies, that's not even controversial. What's controversial is how to deal with them. And from most people's perspective, Biden is just waiting on a global business drought to force the hand of monopolists. That is totally unnecessary wait time, and borderline accelerationist right-wingism, to exacerbate a market downturn by letting monopolists bury wage earners. The Dems could subsidize Saudi Arabia oil exports now and end their own self-inflicted political crisis. The climate stuff is irrelevant because higher prices are not reducing gas demand or consumption, just people's (paltry) bank accounts. 19:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Subsidizing fuel will not make the problem better. Uncertainty and demand are driving prices. Until those two things are accounted for, prices will continue to be high. No amount of groveling or tough politics will change that.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Saudi Arabian, Venezuelan etc monopolies set the prices, a temporary subsidy on their oil exports completely eliminates their price hikes for every business and person after the export. The only way to reduce retail gas demand through convincing monopolists to adjust their supply of that they have a monopoly over is to bankrupt everyone, and that's the direction we're going in. I'm not seeing any Green New Deal proposals in the next 2 years. Bankrupting everyone isn't "evironmentalist degrowth". Degrowth is a managed economic downturn, not bleeding the economy through treating monopolists as free market actors like typical neolibs Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
For all the misuse of econ 101 price/demand-chartism, it's worth pointing out it's also basic economic theory that monopolists are price setters, not price takers. You can't nudge foreign monopolies and cartels to not extort, by asking them to increase their personal supply. You either pay their extortionate prices or have the public do it, until a solution to do away with them is enacted Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Neuroscience and gender[edit]

I read an article that states that people align with the gender that resembles the structure of their brain(https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgender-brain-what-you-should-know/). This article states that the idea of 'male' and 'female' brain is flawed(https://theconversation.com/are-male-and-female-brains-really-different-54092). I'm confused, can someone explain? Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 07:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

There really isn't such thing as a "male" or "female" brain categorically but in neuroscience there are average statistical differences associated with sex, distribution of grey matter, various region sizes, difference in neural density, etc. The thing is this is a aggregate pattern on the population level and not a categorical differences on the individual level, so certain traits may be "more common" with people Assigned Male at Birth but if you were to look at the brain of individual males you would find a mix of "male typical" and "female typical" brain patterns. Cressida Heyes has some good talks about this. It's a fallacy of division/composition problem. Population aggregate produce predictable averages, but on the individual level everyone's brains are "mixed". - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC).
They don't really contradict. The structural papers referenced in the first article are entirely about the hypothalamus. The endocrine one is more interesting but it's also about the effects on little bits of the rbrain. They also don't really give numbers, so we can't tell if it's actually diagnostic from the abstract.
Skimming it (though this looks like an interesting issue), the second's main paper from the royal society points out flaws in the language of these kinds of paper, that focusing on a tiny bit of the brain doesn't really tell you if there is really a 'male' and 'female' brain and that different stucture doesn't have to imply any sort of different function. It also suggests throwing out the 'sex' category altogether in population brain studies as unhelpful, as it partially presupposes a difference that might not really exist. Namako (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
It should also be highlighted that all brain data is almost essentially group data, as you are not really looking solely at individuals as it that isn't what produces a statistically significant trend. A lot of statistical normalization and editing is required to make sense of the data, you never are just looking at the brain without some normalizing filters. This is especially true for fMRI and MRI brain imaging. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC).
I've seen several papers say that hormones affect brain development, so as with a lot of developmental biology there's also the whole question of whether differences are genetically-coded or due to hormones (possibly from parent, hormone treatment, or endocrine disorders, as well as innate biology). And brain development is probably affected by socialisation, education, nutrition, how many times a kid gets thumped around the head, and many other factors. --Annanoon (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Alarm as US supreme court takes a hatchet to church-state separation[edit]

The Guardian: Alarm as US supreme court takes a hatchet to church-state separation

The Guardian article says "The court – said to be more pro-religion than at any time since the 1950s."

Since the 5 most conservative justices on the Supreme Court are originalists, how pro-religion was the government in the late 1700s?

Was there school prayer then?

Like in everyday terms for most Americans, how pro-religion was the government then?

I realize there were 13 colonies then (Quakers founded Pennsylvania, there were the Puritan colonies in New England, etc.) with different religious populations. Pappin (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you imagine if that football coach's name was Omar and he wanted to inspire the team with "Allahu Akbar"! Would the court find in favour then? Would the press or the Republicans? the answer is obviously no. Each and every day the United States of America is becoming one seriously fucked up Christo-Fascist state. Make America Great Again, bah, was it ever? Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Except for places like Dearborn, Michigan, which has a large Muslim population, there are no places where the public wants a team to be inspired by yelling out "Allahu Akbar". The U.S. Constitution says "Congress shall make no establishment of religion or prevent the free exercise thereof". The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives this issue to the states.
How great or non-great the USA has been in the past is not a focus of this discussion, but I will briefly say that the USA played an important and beneficial role in WWII. Pappin (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Missing my point entirely, it doesn't matter if any team wants to be inspired by Allahu akbar, or "Praise jesus" etc. It's the fact that one version of faith is tolerated while a different faith with a slogan that means the same thing is found to be unsavory. And not only is one faith tolerated, it was used to change the laws of the land in the past two weeks. But whatever, I assume you're american and sarcasm goes over your head. Christ!!! Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
"I assume you’re american" I mean, most of us are from murica #1. 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:77 (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I guess no tolerance to the mid-east religions, but this they see moot. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:4B (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to envision what the 5 originalist/conservative judges will do to expand religious rights. School prayer and public money going to religious schools in red states comes to mind. In blue states that have charter schools, religious charter schools may form. Manger scenes and crosses on public property in red states. In red states, Christian bakers, wedding planners and photographic could refuse to take certain clients that would be against their religious convictions and religious health care workers could be allowed to refuse to do certain procedures that go against their religious convictions. The net effect is that red states would become more religious. Pappin (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I just thought of another big area where religious people want a more public expression of their beliefs to be allowed and its the creation vs. evolution issue in the schools. So the court may rule in favor of laws that allow the teaching of creationism in schools. Pappin (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if my charter school (next school) will just have teachers that are old fundie loons. Or just mainstream libs that promote a rich man’s "productive" lifestyle. What else will the court do for a guiness WR? 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:77 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Have you read James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance", which was written to oppose a Virginia proposed statewide tax (introduced by Patrick Henry) to fund preachers, and also written in support of Thomas Jefferson's "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" (to the point of persuasiveness where the motion passed 12 to 1), and clearly argues for a strong wall of separation between church and state? It seems like much of the current Supreme Court (many of who claim to be in a "Federalist Society", yet seem to ignore the actual viewpoints of those who actually wrote the Constitution) have not. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The most formative years of a person's life is their childhood. So more children in charter/religious schools being given religious instruction (including creationism) will be the biggest impact. The second biggest impact will be religious speech in very public areas/events (manger scenes/crosses at city halls, Christianity being injected into valedictorian speeches). This conservative court might end the Johnson Amendment too which would allow churches to be less constrained in their political speech.
Shortly after the U.S. Constitution was signed, the U.S. Senate had a paid chaplain. I don't think America's 18th-century enlightentment/Christian/deist leaders were consistent when it came to state-paid preachers (Virginia vs. the U.S. Senate). Pappin (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, you ask "how pro-religion was the government then". (Madison hated that chaplin idea too.) Obviously there was "other ideas", but the Madison/Jefferson argument is the one that generally won the day. But I see you are really here to do some concern trolling and dream of a nation led by fundies like, say, Andrew Schlafly, where even the Bible is "too liberal" these days. So no further comment. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
When will American fundies turn from radical christians to a distinctly conspirative (as in being conspiracy theory hotheads) cult? 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:1E (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Andy Schafly, after pointing out that the American Amish population doubles every 20 years, projects that by 2222 the majority of Americans could be Amish.[3] If Jesus tarries, the amount of handmade quilts, handmade furniture and buggy whips in 22nd century America, could reach an order of biblical magnitude in numbers. English could become a minority language. And the Amish and conservative Mennonites, with their plain dress, could utterly destroy the New York City fashion industry. Pappin (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Too bad it's not the Shakers who will take over; they embrace technology and their furniture kicks the asses of the Amish down the street, plus they lack any history of serial sexual abuse. Not sure why a Catholic would want some offshoot Anabaptist sect to take over anything, but that's his problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The Shakers practice celibacy. They can't possibly take over the population of any country. As far as sexual abuse among the Amish, I can't comment too much on that as I don't know how the American Amish community's rate of sexual abuse compares with the general American population or the sexual abuse of other communities. With that being said, the Amish population of the USA is over 350,000 people and rapidly growing and the investigative journalist Sarah McClure recently spent a year investigating the Amish and found 52 cases of sexual abuse. So I wouldn't call the Amish some kind of wild and aberrant sex cult. My friend lives near an Amish community and he says Amish furniture is better quality furniture than a consumer will find in most stores. Pappin (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Andy Schlafly places a premium on social conservatism and he very much likes the "world's most logical, insightful and influential collection of writings" which he says is the Bible. The Amish are social conservatives, Bible believers and they recently won a U.S. Supreme Court environmental case against Filmore County, Minnesota. In addition, the Amish won a court case where they are exempt from participating in FDR's prominent social program the Social Security program. As a result of these things, Andy Schafly is creating pro-Amish material at Conservapedia. Pappin (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Two things: 1) Another reason why Andy Schlafly has become an Amish aficionado is because the U.S. Supreme Court environmental case they won was against liberal Minnesotans who vote Democrat in presidential elections. 2) If there is a RationalWikian with photoshop skills, I would like him/her to create a "Amish Andy Schlafly" picture with Andy sporting a beard and a straw hat. Pappin (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep Conservapedia-related shit out of this Saloon Bar[edit]

This is where it goes. Spud (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Shameless money grab with a dose of ableism[edit]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02bRShbGYdgoAbNtLVqx2QkFvrknDyMXKwxt25t1ka9qYk8irMmZRZLsUPuWkMGxTil&id=102306299164092

So basic pain killers cause Autism? I get sick of people acting like we are some fucking plague. Nothing like using a neurological condition to make money. --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Your Facebook link doesn't work for me.
However, there is a NIH funded study which appeared in JAMA Psychiatry that linked acetaminophen usage in pregnancy to autism. There seems to be some other studies in a Google Scholar research (eg [4])
So, if the claim is using Tylenol while pregnant may trigger autism, it actually may not be 100% bullshit. But from a Cleveland Clinic link it seems like that the issue is too much acetaminophen during pregnancy that may increase the risk of autism. There seems to be no issue with occasional usage to control the worst of pains. I don't get the impression that the issue is well quantified or studied yet, but the advise in the Cleveland Clinic link seems sound: if you are popping a Tylenol (or actually any other painkiller, as aspirin and ibuprofin also have issues) every day while you are pregnant, it is probably not good for the baby. An occasional Tylenol is a-ok. As usual, the dose makes the poison. (Not sure if your link stripped away this subtlety, probably it did...) 35.140.177.2 (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
"In summary, the empirical data are very limited, but whatever empirical data exist do not support the suggestion that the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy increases the risk of autism in the offspring." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26930528/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
there's nothing wrong with being autistic, there's nothing wrong with being on the spectrum. It's bizarre when you take the rhetoric of the nutters and offer them the choice of a child being autistic or on the spectrum vs the near certainty of lifelong disability or death caused by preventable diseases. They freak out at the possibility (not even remotely proven to exist) of a vaccine causing autism. Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
"Well, I've done my research and measles isn't that bad. Whooping cough is merely uncomfortable," yadda yadda yadda. You need a licence to own a dog, and yet .....Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
"What are the primary causes of autism appearing to increase in the USA?" Well, the changes in the DSM's definition at a guess would be the big one here, wouldn't you agree?

"Autism Spectrum Disorder’s prevalence rate has consistently gone up since the 1970’s. There are many factors that have contributed to the rate each year. The DSM has played a part in the rate but not entirely. The prevalence rate cannot be pinpointed strictly to the changes that have been made to the last three editions. We can take into account that between the DSM-III and IV that the rate drastically increased. This could be for a number of reasons but most commonly the amount of people that were being diagnosed under different disorders. People with severe intellectual disabilities or low IQ’s were being diagnosed under Autism, when they could have been diagnosed based on their intellectual impairment. Diagnostic practices have changed since then but individuals that had both Autism and an Intellectual Disability would have been placed under Autism even though they formally should have been placed under Intellectual Disability (Van Naarden Braun et al., 2015). Today we have individuals that are being diagnosed with Autism Spectrum disorder that have average to high IQ’s, contrary to individuals that had very low IQ’s due to an Intellectual Disability. Mental health professionals are better accurately diagnosing the disorder, this could also have contributed to the rate per year. The mental health community is constantly learning new items and features about the disorder that can better help them diagnose children that have Autism Spectrum Disorder. According to Ventola at el., (2007) children that show signs of Autism might also show signs of other developmental disorders or delays, it is important to take the appropriate steps to rule out these other disorders to accurately diagnose the child. This way the child receives the specific services they need. Professionals are improving with this by using certain assessment tools and screening techniques. Generally, the public and other professionals such as teachers are also becoming more aware of the disorder. This helps children that may be at risk get the right services or seek professional opinions more likely. Parents and teachers are more educated in what to look for in their children at a younger age. This raises the chances of an earlier intervention and treatment for a child that has Autism Spectrum Disorder. Early intervention is very important and has the best outcome when practiced. Children that were diagnosed with Aspergers or features of the disorder would not fall under the Autism Spectrum Disorder in the new criteria of the DSM-5 (Kent et al., 2013). In the DSM-5, Aspergers was removed completely, as well as Rett Disorder, now known to be a genetic disorder, and PDD. But unlike some research that was done prior to the publishing of the 5 th edition of the DSM, these children received a diagnosis of autism. According to the DSM-5 any individuals that were previously diagnosed with Aspergers, or any other PDD under the DSM-IV would be placed under the Autism Spectrum Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Some researchers were misinformed or had the wrong assumptions about what would happen to individuals with these disorders. Although, they still receive a diagnosis, it does create an issue of labeling. Someone that was once labeled as having Aspergers now has the label of having Autism Spectrum Disorder. This creates confusion with identity for some of these individuals. There is also a lot more stigma socially that goes along with ASD rather than Aspergers." https://rdw.rowan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3236&context=etd Cardinal Chang (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

So the worst thing happened today?[edit]

Our bus broke down and we were stranded in the middle of nowhere in New Jersey for 4.5 hours. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Roe and Casey dead[edit]

Women will die. Many women will suffer unnecessarily. This will not be pretty.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

My flippant response would be that no, women will go to other states to get an abortion, women will be merely inconvenienced and gas wasted. However, the states that previously banned abortion but had it legalized in 1973 saw a 5% drop in their birth rates. This implies that literally 1 in 20 mothers simply do not have their shit together enough to organize a bus trip to NYC on short notice, i.e., exactly who should not be trusted with the responsibilities of parenthood. Even someone who's vaguely on the anti-abortion side such as myself can agree that those women should get an elective abortion, if not tubal ligation. CorruptUser 16:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
What about women who can't afford to travel to a pro-choice state?-Flandres (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, Flandres. This has already been a problem during the preceding era of abortion harassment (i.e. harassment and chicanery via legislation against those seeking to actually avail themselves of their supposed right to abortion in principle, but have found it quite difficult in practice in certain states, not least due to the dwindling number of places able and willing to provide abortions).
Looking at which states already have some sort of trigger lawWikipedia in place shows a large “abortion desert” necessitating either a long intra-US journey, or having to go abroad. A bus trip to NYC from Texas or Louisiana? Sure, sure… And this is before the issue of abortion ban states seeking to prevent such “abortion tourism”. This is going to make being female and poor in these states an even more dismal and dangerous prospect than it already is. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it's my privilege talking, but I include "unable to afford a bus ticket in case of emergency" as part of "not having your shit together". But that's part of why I think abortion should be widely available.
If I had to guess, Planned Parenthood et al will start offering some sort of fund to help women travel for this purpose. CorruptUser 16:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
That's not a good view. Women will die because of what you see as a "mere inconvenience". Life is complicated. There are usually multiple compounding factors in a chain that may lead to the death of someone, and something like what just happened in the US is quite a significant compounding factor in that chain. Here, read: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/11/us/texas-abortion-rosie-jimenez/index.html 92.233.196.50 (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
To me, this sounds like a bit of an overreaction. Plenty of states, such as NY, have said abortions will remain legal, although with gas at $5/gal, it could be an inconvenience. I think rather, people are saying this could be a warning sign - which I find more correct.Andrew5 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
NY, yes. PA is up in the air. TX has categorically said "not past 8 weeks", and some other states are banning it altogether. Like I said, it WAS illegal in some states but legal in others in the past, and we can conclude that 5% of the births in those states occurred to women who simply were unable to go to another state. CorruptUser 16:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Again, a poor, working (class) single mother in Texas or Louisiana who doesn’t want another child has quite the drive ahead of her to get out of “trigger law territory”. Add the potential problem with teenage pregnancy and the fact that poverty is already an issue when obtaining an abortion in several of these states prior to today’s ruling. Sure, women from the middle class and above will probably have decent options, but then they tend to be in a better position when it comes to health more generally. Those women with the fewest options are probably also the ones most likely to try other, desperate measures. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Again, privilege probably talking here, but I just can't wrap my head around the concept of a woman who would willingly sleep with a guy that's too much of a loser to help out. I can understand the situation where the man wants the kid and the mom doesn't. I don't know how frequent that is though. CorruptUser 16:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Though the reasons women chose to obtain an abortion are often complex, economics and interference with work or education is the top reason for a women to seek an abortion. (Partner issues is number two.) You'd think that if you would like to reduce abortion, you'd focus on improving the economic climate for families, but no...
At any rate, as abortion can now be performed by pill, I suspect some things are going to take a "war on drugs" quality where, in spite of the "best efforts" of fundie blowhards, illegal abortifacients are snuck into fundie states. Also, already there's something reminiscent of an underground railroadWikipedia online with an "auntie network" on Reddit. We're going to see a lot more of that, I'm sure. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser FWIW, some of these laws (if I'm not mistaken, Texas' anti-abortion law is set up in this way) are set up to even prevent women who seek abortions from going across state lines by charging them with murder once they go back to their home state. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I think this ruling may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. Why?
1: The pro-bump crowd had done wonders making large swathes of the USA 'abortion deserts' or 'near-deserts' in the last 15 years. These are the states most likely to ban or near-ban abortion. Tell me, what's the change on the ground from a de facto ban to a de jure one?
2: It won't deliver the GOP any new votes - but it will cost them some. The absolutist pro-bump'ers are already voting Republican, there's almost no more in the barrel to get. However, there are pro-Choice Republicans (about 25% in poll) and surely, this will prove the last straw. Esp in state elections.
3: It will mobilise the opposition. The pro-bump'ers did so well because over ~30 years they managed to use Roe-Wade as a totem of 'evil' that they had to overturn. It was the status quo, and folks took it for granted. Now it's gone, and it shall be more keenly felt in the next year or two. It will get folks to finally get off their backsides and start actually enshrining the right in law - something which both Clinton and Obama failed to do federally.
4: It will cause them to become arrogant. They've already started drawing up wish-lists of what other bits of the late 20th Century they'd like to roll back; gay rights, contraception and sex-ed being high on the list. They will mistake the possession of a massive loud-hailer and a SCOTUS majority that they have 'the public' on their side. They didn't with this, and their support on other things even lower. They will overreach.
5: It will force Corp America to choose sides. Such as; will health plans cover out-of-state travel if needs be? Relocating your HQ to a state where it in effect illegal now has a tangible effect, for will cause a slight minus for working for them (for some).
6: There shall be a decade of cases to clarify all the sub-issues. 'Abortion tourism' and 'medical necessity' will need to be thrashed out, as well as dealing with at least one state which demands women carry (say) non-viable fetuses to theoretical term. And as the Supreme Court repeatedly rules for the crazies, it shall be a recruiting-agent for #3.
KarmaPolice (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
(EC) I'm quite sure that would be a blatant violation of the protections against "unreasonable search" vis a vis Griswold v CT. Basically, the opinion of the court was that enforcement of a ban on contraceptives would necessitate the police searching marital bedrooms for signs of their use, which would be unreasonable. Checking for signs a woman traveled to another state for an abortion or had taken the pills should also be prohibited on those grounds. Plus, the Commerce Clause inherently means that no state has the right to restrict what services its residents purchase in another state; this is why virtually every state has usury laws which are routinely ignored by your credit cards, since they are all in SD or DE. CorruptUser 18:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I mentioned it previously, but it is "amazing" (not really of course, more informative of just how partisan the court is) how Clarence Thomas on the one hand evokes the full fury of the 14th Amendment to kill state gun laws, but on the other hand hand-waves away the 14th Amendment in order to not only nix Roe vs. Wade, but hint at nixing Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage, sodomy laws, and contraception in this decision. So sorry, Cory, Mr. Thomas disagrees with you, because these days the Supreme Court is full of radical partisan hacks who don't give a fuck about logical consistency. (Edit: I wonder how Mr. Thomas will end up feeling when the fundies go for, oh I dunno, Loving v. Virginia?)
That being said I do think this is probably will end up being a pyrrhic victory, as KarmaPolice suggests. It's interesting to see the large list of big corporations lining up to provide travel expenses for any medical procedure not offered in a particular location (hint hint). This won't help the poor, but it does hint at what the parts of the country that produce more than just fundamentalist hot air think. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A majority of the US population is pro-choice. If you think this is just going to happen and go down smoothly you're an even bigger idiot than you've previously let on. Actually, no. That checks out. You're a colossal fucking idiot. This is just going to make it harder to be a woman in the US as a whole and make red states, already flagging in most metrics, even worse-Hastur! (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUserI'd just like to point out that your privilege ignorance is blinding you to the massive repercussions of this ruling. Every example you've brought up of women needing to be "prepared" to deal with an abortion to be based on misogynistic perspective of women sexual rights. It's not just a bus ride to another state for an abortion. It's the cost of missing work and childcare. It's the threat of being reported on by your friends and neighbors. And it is the very real lost productivity that essentially makes people operating near the poverty line essentially destitute. Your idea that women should only choose to have sex with men who are able to help this is so flagrantly sexist, implying that it should be the deciding factor with whether to have relations with someone. And completely ignores instances of rape, incest and birth control devices simply failing. We would demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term, which she didn't want an sought to avoid, simply because she was unlucky. Also you refer to Griswold as if Thomas in his separate opinion hadn't explicitly stated that SCOTUS should review and overturn several decisions stemming from application of the 4th and 14th amendment, precisely because he believes they have been applied in correctly, and the murmuring from several antiabortion activists and personalities, explicitly stating the next step is a federal abortion ban, and eliminating Griswold.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Prevention (whether physical or medical) may fail. Classic examples are medicine interfering with birth control pills. So, there is plenty of scopes for “oops” than a simple case of ”a woman who would willingly sleep with a guy that's too much of a loser to help out”. Not to mention that some guys are good at faking being responsible (or, hell, even decent) partners.
But quite apart from exactly how bad this will turn out for particular slices of the female population of the US (or males, for that matter, even if women are going to be hit the hardest), this is also a clear indication that the delusion of mainstream Democrats that procedure, tradition, “professionalism” and stare decisis are meaningful barriers to Roberts and his SCOTUS posse is clearly so much marsh gas. This means that if the Democrats are serious about politics, they need to think hard about how they are going to (counter)act in this, current politico-legal environment.
Roberts has already overseen the gutting of voter protections, Citizens United and now overturning Roe v. Wade, as well as undercutting New York’s gun laws. Basically, you cannot expect the Roberts Court refraining from being extremely politically activist and should not simply assume that even if (and that’s a pretty big “if” in the first place…) Congressional Democrats get their shit together and start doing something meaningful in terms of legislation that the Roberts Court will then let it become reality. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal "Your idea that women should only choose to have sex with men who are able to help this is so flagrantly sexist, implying that it should be the deciding factor with whether to have relations with someone"
Whether or not someone would help take care of you, whatever that entails, should be one factor on whether you have relations with someone. Whether someone agrees with you on abortion issues should be another factor.
As I've implied if not outright said before, abortion should be legal nationally because of my somewhat Elitist views. CorruptUser 19:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser As an anon already indicated - SCOTUS is planning to go after Griswold as well. Alito and Thomas both combined go after basically every major "progressive" (I hate how basic human rights are considered progressive) ruling derived from Griswold (Thomas won't openly go after Loving because he's taking advantage of it himself, but Alito specifically mentioned it). They're basically planning to roll back almost all rights granted through case law. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Nah, the Dems are still gonna eat shit in the midterm elections regardless of Roe going down. They're gonna lose the House, they're gonna lose the Senate, they're gonna lose a ton of governorships, and then the GOP will be free to completely shut down abortions basically everywhere outside of New England and the Pacific coastline. And then they'll continue their plan by getting LGBT rights and contraception rolled back too. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Hopefully most of the old timers have a fucking heart attack before most their plans come to fruition. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Not all of them are old timers, and the election is this year. And most Americans are gonna support the red wave because inflation and gas prices are bad right now. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
(EC)Apropos the Midterms, it is unlikely that abortion access will be the decisive factor. In times of economic woe people tend to vote with their pocketbook. That being said the people attempting to downplay this disastrous decision really need to...stop.-Flandres (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The red wave is coming, boys and girls. Don't think it won't. Senate? Gone. House? Gone. Governorships in Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and possibly Maine and New Mexico? Gone, gone, gone! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
There's also the risk of Kavanaugh being assassinated. Regardless of whether you think SCOTUS is a place for a glorified frat-boy, a justice being murdered so they can be replaced would establish a horrible precedent. CorruptUser 20:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
What? Who has said anything about offing Kavanaugh, other than you? Links or it didn't happen. Zontar (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Kavanaugh getting it would make the red wave even bigger. Maybe the Dems could manage to lose every governorship up this year. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
As for the Red Wave, personally, I'm a Rockefeller Republican. AKA a "RINO" that's closer to extinction than actual Rhinos. I'd LOVE to see a Red Wave in NY and other traditionally Blue states, but only because NY Republicans tend to be the sane, moderate types willing to be bi-partisan and willing to compromise to get things done. I'd actually LOVE to see a Blue Wave in traditionally Red states for the exact same reason. I do NOT want to see the other Red States get more Red, because There Be Crazies. CorruptUser 21:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
indeed a revival of traditional republican factions be it eisenhower or old right can thwart far-right populist grips of the gop -- effective alterations of parties occur from within Low computer battery (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
(ec)There's also the risk of Kavanaugh being assassinated Fucking hogwash. Political violence is more likely to come from the Right, like bombing abortion clinics or executing abortion doctors, or storming the seat of power in an attempt to secure power for a losing incumbent. If you support the GOP in it's current form, you support the erosion of womens, LGBT and civil rights as well as protecting permanent minority rule of institutions. Full stop.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
If you support the GOP in it's current form, you actually support Fascism without fucking realising it. The Maga Taliban is startling to behold from the other side of the Atlantic. Bad enough we have a growing tide of right wing cunts gaining in popularity, but the Republicans have gone waaaaay beyond parody!!Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Jesus Christ, Corey being naïve, flippant, and outright insensitive again at the worst of fucking times. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC).

Flippant and insensitive, yup. Naive, going to need some [citation needed] CorruptUser 03:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Read your own comments and RipCityLiberal's response. Typically naivety is not something that someone can be self-aware about. WOmZ CAn JuSt TaKe A BuS is on par with Ben Sharpie's If ThE FloOdInG Is ReAl PeOplE wOuLD JuSt SeLL TheIr HOmES response to climate change - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC).
I literally said in my first chunk on this thread that "everyone will just go to other states" that that literally wasn't happening in a huge chunk of cases in the Pre-Roe days. It seems you are the naive one. CorruptUser 03:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. This thing that wasn’t happening pre-roe is evidence that this is going to happen now post-roe? Fucking what? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC).
You are confused.
Pre-Roe, 1/20th of births in anti-Abortion states were to people who couldn't get to another state for an abortion.
Post-Roe, 1/20th of births in anti-Abortion states will be to people who can't get to another state for an abortion.
Pre/Post-Roe, everyone else who wanted/wants an abortion got/gets one, just not conveniently.
Not being able to organize a day-trip to another state for an emergency of some kind implies you can't handle the additional responsibility of an extra child, whether that's because you can't afford it or because you are just generally disorganized.
Ignoring the unnecessary inconvenience and travel issues, allowing states to ban abortion will only prevent abortions for people who shouldn't have an extra child. Ergo, I believe we should have abortions accessible everywhere, even if we don't agree on when during the pregnancy an abortion should take place. CorruptUser 04:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Not so sure a 'Red Wave' will happen (at least not so bad). On the fuel issues... I don't think many of the electorate will directly blame the Democrats for that; that's due to world events and (hopefully) shall understand that. And I believe that the ruling will be a better recruiter for Dem candidates than their opposition.
As for Corrupt's point... I think that needs to be remembered. Not all Republicans nationally are Dominionist loons (though all Dominionist loons are Republicans). What's happened is that the fundies have manage to hijack the GOP and then pretend that they are in the vast majority.
Though I'm perfectly happy for the buckets of pitch being brought out whan said 'sane Republicans' bend over backwards to enable the fundies to get what they want. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how much of a boost Democrats are going to get - these kinds of things blow over. Also, the American population has been pretty unforgiving, so I assume the government will be blamed for fuel issues; besides; Joe Biden is happy about high fuel prices, especially since he shut down Keystone. Right now, Biden is floating 55.5% disapproval and 39% approval (June 24 polls), and while this might change due to the ruling, the electorate being this against Biden is going to harm him. On June 24, 2018, Trump's disapproval was 51.6%, and his approval was 42.4%, and look at what happened. To be fair, Democrats are better at holding this down then Republicans were with Republicans up 2.3%. It will be more important and benefit Democrats more in governor and state legislative elections, too. Democrats might keep the Senate, but with redistricting too, the House is gone. Espeially if Mayra Flores can win in a D+5 district. Andrew5 (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Normally, abortion is a minor impact in American politics for all the noise, except for some highly energized voters that usually were anti-choice up to this point. However, it is not unheard of for a Supreme Court case to have major political impact (Dred Scott v. Sandford being the most famous, which seriously contributed to, um, y'know...). I doubt this is that big, but at the same time I doubt this is going to be a nothingburger. At minimum, I think the recent Supreme Court decisions (including Thomas's 14th Amendment musing) created a group of highly energized pro-choice voters, a bloc that really wasn't present before (people don't know what they got til its gone, y'know...) and created a state vs. state conflict that is guaranteed to play out for a long time (so basically a deepening of the "culture wars", great...). It's a bit early to say what impact it will have on the next election, of course, usually the economy dominates elections, but that was before American politics became the shitshow it is today. Recall the 2018 midterms pretty much wasn't about the economy at all but more was about Donald Trump, resulting in high turnout (for a midterm) and a "blue wave". 35.140.177.2 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(reset) So how many of the resultant children will the pro-lifers adopt/how much will they contribute towards 'Homes for abandoned children' down the end of their street? Anna Livia (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Not an American, so not fully up to speed on this. But with regard to the "women who want an abortion can just take a bus" argument. Aren't some states trying to make it illegal for women to travel outside their state for this purpose? Or have I got that wrong?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, a few. And that will be about as unenforceable as you expect, especially since many states that support abortion rights are rushing to ensure that abortion tourists are protected as much as possible. I also know of no legal precedent for these sort of laws, in ordinary times such restrictions would not pass any legal muster. (With this shithole of a Supreme Court, of course, more stupidity is possible, but still.) 35.140.177.2 (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The normal reading of the US Constitution's Commerce Clause is that states cannot make laws that interfere with interstate commerce (prohibition or biased taxation).[5] Paying for an abortion is inherently commerce because there's a financial transaction, and hence protected. That will not stop the radical theocrats of the court from attempting to nullify this interpretation as only having been implicit, and hence not "originalist". Bongolian (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
You do realize those state level protections only work until the Republican take all three federal branches right? I mean you can't be naïve enough to believe they won't turn around and shove their views down everyone's throats. The law of the land is whatever they say it is, and the Democrats will fold at the slightest pressure. 2600:1700:C5E0:D60:9DF5:58B:385D:B3C4 (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Until 2024, this is not a worry. Possibly not even after that depending on how politics go. From my perspective, in short order either the Republicans would actually have to obtain a filibuster proof majority (something neither party has achieved since the 95th Congress in 1977-1979, if my reading is correct), or the Republicans would have to consider abortion important enough to eliminate the filibuster. I can't imagine most Senators bucking the party when push comes to shove actually (there are 2 pro-lifeish Democrat Senators but also 2 pro-choiceish Republican ones) and my less certain but still IMHO quite probable bet is that Mitch McConnell won't dump the filibuster in order to pass a national abortion ban.
Obviously if the GOP takes the House (which seems likely, the Senate looks like a toss up at this point) I'm sure they will send a whole lot of national abortion bans to die on the Senate floor, just like the Dems are doing now in the opposite direction. A lot of this is more for political show than anything else. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Political history shows that midterm election results are baked in by the second quarter of an election year. And the final outcome is almost always worse for the losing party than political analysts predicted six months out. Democrats will be happy if they lose merely 20 to 35 House seats this fall. They know they could lose as many as 40 or even 50 seats which would propel the GOP to their biggest House majority in nearly 100 years. The GOP, meanwhile, knows they can make history if they keep their heads down, nominate sane, electable candidates and keep the focus on President Joe Biden, inflation, crime and illegal immigration. Yoninah (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 A trio of quick facts for you. 1/ Keystone XL was only 8% complete and 30% funded on cancellation. Even if it have continued full clip (assuming funding) it wouldn't have been completed by 2024 at the earliest. 2/ The USA is already mainly self-sufficient in hydrocarbons, and the remainder is topped up by Canada (much of it Keystone 1-3), which is via long-term contracts 3/ The 'high pump prices' are due to company gouging at the production end, because the 'world market rate' is so high - not due to any 'internal' hydrocarbon shortages in the USA herself. Therefore Keystone XL wouldn't really do much of a difference; in fact, it would help lower US pump prices if it went Alberta > Vancouver and then built a huge oil terminal for tankers to Asia. (If you want to reply to this, make new topic).
Anyway, all the new bans etc will take years to solidify, due to all the edge cases and poorly-written legislation. It's not in stone yet. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Biden faces challenges that are strikingly similar to the ones that bedeviled Jimmy Carter. There are plenty of Americans blaming Biden for inflation and high gas prices. They did the same with Carter. Only about half of Democrats want Biden to run again in 2024. Presidential disapproval among the electorate is highly correlated with red wave elections. Yoninah (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Roe vs. Wade being overturned is partly due to Obama not making a more clean break with the Clintons. Hillary Clinton was a far less skillful politician than Bill Clinton. She ran a terrible campaign against Donald Trump. And Donald Trump nominated three pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. Lupe (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
It was overturned because America is simulataneously the bastion of equality, meritocracy and democracy in the world and is a shining example for the rest of it in morality, so much so that it is actively trying to give men the rights over women's bodies and is trying to bring itself back to the 1950s. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't they have used The Delorian, instead? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Brilliant takes, red links. I suppose Obama was also the reason there are rotting remains of children in American schools with destroyed unidentifiable faces and their organs mixed with their friend's organs and military grade bullets. 2601:647:5F01:C790:5151:10EB:9DDC:C252 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Politics is short term noise, though. Part of the "pyrrhic victory", in my opinion, of the fundie's 50 year fight against Roe v. Wade and other similar "Religious Right" issues is just how much this and other political-religious causes damaged the church, as an institution, in America. We've gone from a thoroughly religious country in the 1990s to a country where 3 out of 10 Americans are not affiliated with any religious institution, a number that rises to 4 in 10 for millennials on back. Much of the dissatisfaction concerns political causes that are seen as distasteful, bigoted, or intolerant. Good job, eh? 35.140.177.2 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser So a woman should not sleep with anyone that she's not prepared to have a long-term relationship and children with? Sounds a bit like RooshV... Zontar (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Or at least be extremely careful regarding contraception, but it cuts both ways. Men shouldn't sleep with women they absolutely would never want to knock up. After all, men don't have any choice. To quote Chappelle, "if you can kill it, I should at least be able to abandon it". CorruptUser 14:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Refocused discussion[edit]

I can't believe that actually took up over 40% of this thread. Let's refocus our discussion here. Andrew5 (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Well when people would rather instigate than provide useful contributions, it happens. Read a WaPo opinion from Henry Olsen, whom I generally despise, made a good point about future abortion conversations, that will depend on the definition of human life. He's written about this before, encouraging anti-abortion activists to engage in this debate with scientific evidence. I'm fairly certain however that is a discussion they are bound to lose. Olsen also states clearly that contraception should be non-negotiable. But as we all know, that is very much on the chopping block for a court that considers birth control 'abortifacients'.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I haven't read the article but it seems folly to encourage anti-abortionists to engage woth scientific evidence. The evidence is not on their side, hasn't been on their side for decades, and they promote long-debunked talking points such as links to breast cancer. They can't even get bog standard basic knowledge of ectopic pregnancies, anti-abortion propaganda never depict first trimester pregnancies which are the vast majority of abortions, and so on. They do lose on debate but being on the losing side is not much of a hurdle to cross to get elected and misrepresent pro-abortion and accuse them of being baby killers. I could be meaner to them, this is my very restrained appraisal of them. 2607:FB90:A492:C459:711B:6A9C:4F1A:B67F (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Abortion is more likely to matter in state elections then federal. Also, only 12% of Americans consider abortion a key issue, while 48% consider it inflation, which will not help Democrats. Andrew5 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Dems will need to make it a local issue to move the needle. Nationally they're probably in for a shellacking but they may be able to make noise in statehouses.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Well also, redistricting has helped them. In PA, they are guarenteed to make flips in the state house, as the gerrymander was shot down. Mayra Flores's district got bluer, so she is likely to lose her seat in November. (Bet Texas gov isn't happy bout that.) Candidates also matter. Andrew5 (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I appreciate corporations trying to cover for abortions since they probably don't like workers to suffer carrying to term due to disruption of productivity but it's unbelievable that these entities are covering for failure of our government to maintain its own citizens, kinda like how the colossal failure in federal leadership led to state leaderships abd corporations scrambling to contain the pandemic.

I also think a lot of you are underestimating what people will do when they feel directly threatened. I'm not saying I have much confidence in turnout and Democratic performance this midterms but I also feel a lot of doomsday predictions were wrong the past year, that we still have momentum this year, and there's too much weight put on "the economy". I'm not saying these factors should be disregarded but I think it's quite difficult to predict the outcome this year. I can see it going both ways but I wouldn't disregard that people will forget or watch helplessly on the door slamming on their rights (although they didn't react too much when their rights were being whittled in the past decade). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The other thing is, typically a generic ballot lead of 1.8% leads to quite a substantial House victory. Republicans won 234 seats while losing by 1.2% to Democrats in 2012. Realistically, Illinois's gerrymander is +1 Dem, -2 GOP, Florida is +4 GOP, -3 Dem, Texas's map will probably add one for both parties (it was a new kind of gerrymander), and so on. This redistricting stuff really mattered. Andrew5 (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I stick by my position that the Dems are gonna lose everything in November. House gone, Senate gone, most governorships up gone too. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
And now there’s yet another example of the Roberts SCOTUS blatantly politicking. The government should definitely be able to regulate women’s choices on health (by forcing them to give birth, cf. Roe), while at the same time, the government clearly should not be able to regulate companies heating up the planet for profit. Yet another nail in the coffin for those naive Democrats who thought that “professionals”, such as SCOTUS justices, would always play nice and be “honourable” stewards of the system and its conventions, even when they are GOP zealots, nominated and confirmed by other GOP zealots… ScepticWombat (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
538 gives Republicans slight lead, with a 55% chance of victory. 538 is projecting a 51-49 Republican majority, with a mean of 50.8 seats. The range goes from 54-46 R to 53-47 D. Nevada looks to be a 50-50 split for control, Pennsylvania has a 51% chance of going to Democrats, Georgia has a 55% chance of flipping to Republicans, and Arizona has a 57% chance of being held by Democrats. Everything else has more then a 2/3 chance of being held by their respective party. The annoying thing is it hinges on Nevada - currently too close to even project. Andrew5 (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 why do you keep bringing up polling? Literally no one that has interacted with this thread has any illusions that the GOP will likely control two of the three branches of government. It is what they seek to do with that power which is so concerning. Regardless if voters can understand the threat, and evidence would indicate they don't, implying that our complaints aren't valid because voters will still support them misses the entire point.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
(1) Polling indicates a strong chance the Senate stays blue. A 55% chance of victory is considered a tossup, as is anything where the chance of victory is in the 50s. (Fun fact - the chance of a red senate is down at 54%, House remained the same.) This could indicate Roe v Wade being overturned could, in fact, cause Democrats to keep the Senate in 2022. KarmaPolice (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) has indicated 2022 might not be a red wave, and although Republicans only need 4 house seats and 1 senate seat, the map in the Senate favores Democrats, requiring Republicans to have a lead, which at one point they had, but now they have lost. (2) A fair amount of pro-choice Republicans don't consider abortion important enough to not support them, showing that over a tenth of Americans who support abortion also support Republicans, and not all Republicans are like this too. Assuming they are is steryotyping, which is bad. Andrew5 (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't say my opinion is 'an illusion', Liberal. More somewhere between a guestimate and a hunch.
There's several reasons for the more RINOy end of the Republican voter base may decide to perhaps simply sit on their hands in the midterms, to fire a relatively safe warning shot over the bows of the party (ie 'you're gone completely crazy'). Not just the clear reactionary and politiking SCOTUS which is eroding the faith in 'the law' (have heard a few legally-trained complain their 'reasoning' for overturning precedent are really thin) but also the continuing Insurrection hearings, a wave of openly insulting 'RINO-hunting' rhetoric etc and some frankly scarily nuts candidates. Predictions of a 'Red Wave' might make them even more likely to stay home; a protest is easy if you think they'll win anyway.
I also don't hold a huge faith in American polls; they generally appear to be less reliable and it would appear most are within the margin of error.
I agree with Lefty in respect it's very possible to 'overweight' the economics as an issue. Or more correctly, that the electorate is smarter than they're being given credit for; they know the stagflation is mainly foreign in nature and there's not that many levers Washington has to pull here. Now, I don't know what Trump's minions are suggesting as 'the solution' to the problem, but I hugely suspect it's not a plan the likes of the WSJ, Bloomberg, Forbes etc will think is 'sound' (or even sane). Lastly, this is the first mass vote since the Ukranian invasion; I think the more 'neocon' Republicans would hesitate before voting for a candidate who appears to be in the Putin-kisser faction.
In short; I'm still going with my 'too close to call'. I'm not going to comment on state/gubernatorials because many local issues are in play here. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe the Senate is a tossup, and I will as long as Nevada can't be settled. Also, Nevada polls now give it a 51% chance of victory. But I would be shocked if Democrats won the House. The reason is because the Senate could go either way, and of the 8 possibilities 538 puts in the '80% chance of happening', each party wins in 4 cases. For the House, Republicans win between 215 and 259 seats, so Republicans win in ~40 cases, Democrats 3. The 88% chance makes it 'Likely Republican', and while likely races have occasionally gone to the other party, it's rare. (Example: OK-05 in 2018.) There are several reasons for it, as this is a high stakes midterm which is likely to garner high turnout. This typically benefits Democrats. Democrats would have to practically win every tossup to win, and while that's not unheard of, and happened in the inverse last cycle, it's rare. Republicans do need a .7% popular vote to win, however, which means if they slightly win, they don't flip the House. It's a very interesting article describing it, and I'd recommend it. Andrew5 (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)