Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive418

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 25 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>, <417>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>
, (new)(back)

Gay Panic Defense[edit]

So... this was a bizarre case from last month.

Isimemen Etute was a college football player at V-Tech. He matched on Tinder with Jerry Smith, who had been posing as a woman. Etute and another football player met Smith at his apartment, whether the lights were off and Smith could not be clearly seen. Both players got creeped out and left, but Etute returned where he received a blowjob and a $50 gift of some form. The story spread and the rest of the team teased Etute that he hooked up with a man. Etute and two other players returned to the apartment, the two players remained in the car but Etute went to the apartment to confront Smith. Etute discovered Smith was not a woman, and Smith allegedly reached for a weapon (that Etute never saw), and Etute, being half Smith's age and 60 lbs heavier, beat Smith senseless with his bare hands and feet, stomping on his head. A knife was later found under Smith's mattress. Smith would soon succumb to his injuries, choking on his own blood.

Last month, a jury found Etute Not Guilty of the 2nd Degree "Crime of Passion" murder charge. What makes this extra bizarre is that a month prior to the incident, VA had voted to ban the gay panic defense... but that would go into effect the month AFTER the incident. I'm not sure how to feel about this case. Smith is clearly guilty of Rape by Deception, and who knows how many other men he "tricked" into sex before crossing paths with Etute. However, it doesn't seem to me that confronting someone in their own home, even a rapist, could possibly qualify as self-defense. I'm not sad that Smith is gone, but I'm not going to claim that Etute was some hero. Thoughts? Corn (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the version of events that Etute claims Jerry can’t answer for themselves, which if true would be rape but dismissing the act of killing Jerry on that basis is basically akin to endorsing vigilante justice. There is self-defense, but going to back to an attackers place after the fact to murder them is not self-defense. This is assuming of course Etute didn’t falsify the events because they were subject to homophobic harassment as many of these cases actually turn out to be. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC).
If a woman is raped by a man, and she confronts him, and ends in an altercation where she kills him, what should the punishment be? Whatever that punishment is, should be the same in the "gay panic" cases, if we are truly attempting to be fair when it comes to gender/sexuality/etc. Corn (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
That is extremely hard, to be sure. I do think there has to be something, since premeditated murder inherently causes someone's death, but I would consider that a strongly mitigating circumstance. Exactly how much would vary by specific situation, though would not have any connection to the sex of anyone involved, but that's a good presumption. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm reminded of a case that became a cause celebre some years back. Basically, a 16 year old prostitute murdered her john during a robbery gone wrong and was sentenced to decades in prison, but a bunch of celebrities complained that technically the guy she murdered was a pedophile and therefore it was justified or something along those lines. Corn (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This might be what you're thinking of. In that case I can't say she should've gotten nothing, but a life sentence was absurdly over the top and I can't disagree with clemency for her. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, and if it wasn't for the celebrity endorsement she'd likely have rotted there a few more years. There's something wrong with the system when it depends on someone making a big stink in order for anything to get done. But back to my original post, I'm not completely sure what, if any, "Gay Panic Defense" should be allowed. How much of a lie does one have to tell before it's rape? Impersonating a woman to seduce a straight man would be considered rape IMHO, but the lines get a bit blurry when it comes to Transwomen. I think we can agree that everyone should be aware Trans is a thing and if you didn't care enough to ask then you didn't care enough for it to matter. But if you did ask and the other person lies? Well, what kind of lies are a form of rape? If I make $125k and tell a girl I make $250k, is that rape? If I lie about how big my member is? How old I am? How many partners I've had? It's just such a grey area. Corn (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok, for added weirdness, I think I might have met Jerry Smith. Like, 10 years ago, I lived in the DC area, and this creepy guy that looks like a 10 year younger version of the Jerry Smith in the pictures was hitting on me and some of my friends, inviting us back to his place in spite of us all being rather uncomfortable. I mean, it's probably someone else, but still... Corn (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
What is "Rape by deception"? I have never heard of such thing. Aynarchy (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 10:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Basically, if consent was obtained through trickery, then it's not consent. E.g., pretending to be my brother to have sex with his wife. If she only agrees to sex if I wear a condom and I take it off during sex, that's "stealthing", a form of Rape by Deception and some states have explicitly drawn legislation around this to make it clear to the jury what the law is. If I pretend to be a woman to get a lesbian into bed as part of a fetish of mine, that's pretty much the same as this man pretending to be a woman to get a straight man into bed. But where we draw the line is a thorny issue. California recently decided that having HIV and not disclosing, even if the other person explicitly asked, is not to be considered a form of rape; the impetus for the law being that if knowing you had HIV would require disclosure, some people would refuse to get tested. When it comes to LGBT issues it gets complicated, fast, and we really haven't set down the laws as to what is and is not rape by deception. Corn (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
hiv disclosure are dogshit protecting no one and existing laws against would a have or do cover hiv already along with every other infectious and potentially life changing disease. a crime worth prosecuting is only when transmission has taken place. why stigmatise hiv any more than it already is? forcing people to disclose having hiv will only result in people knowing they have hiv in disclosing their status. do you what group is not responsible the vast majority of hiv infections? its people who know they have hiv. and these days with medication, they are not infectious. do know what groups is most likely to pass on infections of hiv? those who dont know they have hiv. do you know what group wont be effected by bull shit disclosure laws? those who dont know they are infected. relying on disclosure laws for public health generally or your own specficially is idiotic and all that infection rates will climb. they give a false of security to individuals passing of responsibility for their own health protection on to some one whose word they have trust and who has to actually know their own status to be honest about.
heres a tip for hiv prevention you can all use that requires no legislation. dont bareback with someone you barely know or take the word of anyone you barely know trying to fuck you and dont look to pass off responsibility or blame for whatever results from you liking it raw.
and even if i were to lie about about my hiv status and knowing come of my meds so im infectious, thats not rape by deception. the resultant infection would be criminal but it would not be rape AMassiveGay (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be a good resource for the laws. The more I think about it, the more I believe that HIV should be treated in the same manner as Syphilis as far as the law is concerned. However, I believe "having a disease and lying about it" should be included as a form of Rape By Deception, and I'm going to need a lot more convincing before I retreat from that crusty, sore-covered hill. Corn (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Should that not entirely depend on whether or not it's actually transmittable? With current anti-viral drug treatments undetectable means untransmittable. If there is no chance of you catching it does it really need to be disclosed? Would I have to also disclose my entire medical history to every partner I have even though none of medical conditions I have are contagious? Is not telling my sexual partners I have asthma lying by omission? and in turn "rape by deception". It seems to me entirely dependent on it's reasonable potential to induce bodily or psychological harm. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC).
No need for a legal defense when you're forced to live in a basement, cock locked and bussy stretched. S11 (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandana Shiva on Sri Lanka farming failure[edit] (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Another border incident[edit]

53 people die in Texas human smuggling of illegal immigrants. Andrew5 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

As the article says, these deaths seem to be an intentional consequence of U.S. border policy. See this case as well. Vomitorium (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
May they all rest in peace.--April Chat? 01:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
"The open border policy did this!" If there was one, every one of the victims currently would still breathe.--April Chat? 01:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
It's pretty gross sometimes. I have tried to imagine getting so hot that you see somebody else drop and there is nothing you can do but hope you don't drop next. 53 times, the Bible would write about these people as martyrs, the Catholic church would treat these people as saints every time they survived the trip if they listened to their own doctrines on miracles and actually valued pilgrimage. I don't get the fear of Mexican/Central American/South American immigration among white people who don't have jobs de-tassling corn or picking strawberries, it's not cool to make these people do these jobs. But they do them, is it just "let them in until we've filled the illegal employment demand?" (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you think about Paul Kingsnorth?[edit] (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I look askance at anyone who converts to Orthodox Christianity as an adult. He seems to have fallen down the same reactionary slope as other Orthodox converts. I won't ask what his feelings are on LGBTQ people, Jews, or feminism. ewok (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
If nothing else, the sheer length of Orthodox services makes me question the sanity of anyone who'd willingly submit to them. Unherd had at least one decent writer, Kat Rosenfield (who lives not too far from me in Connecticut, I appreciate her working periodic nods to the area into her work). With these sorts of self-proclaimed heterodox (har!) outlets a YMMV approach helps, it's a useful supplement to mainstream media it done right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The other Trumps[edit]

Any of them that could be a potential threat to humanity want to become President themselfs in 2024 or later on? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

My bet is Death Santis trying to replace Trump in the crappy leadership department. --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
That bad? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
None of the mini-rumpers have the charisma to match the big rump, though the fiancé did make an audition for Two Minutes of Hate.[1] Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
none of trump's charisma? jesus fuck they must be awful AMassiveGay (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
When Andy Stewart wrote Donald Where's Your Trousers?, he couldn't have dreamed of coming up with as an easy target as that family. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
He could take DeSantis as VP? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Given that Trump's mad supporters ended up literally wanting to hang his last VP - how dumb will any candidate need to be to want the job?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Maybe Alex Jones (now that infowars is gone)? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I thought it was guaranteed Trump would run again when I saw that cringe YouTube rap song/ad by his supporters last year.--2friedeggs (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
That's why I also said "later on", when The Donald is dead or something. Given that his 2 sons are almost as (or completely) batshit insane as he is, I thought one of them might wanna run for President in 2028 or later on. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Trumpism will last beyond Trump. And Trumpism is largely a more aggressive and conservative form of Reaganism. Trumpism's changes to the GOP include: stronger southern border; getting NATO nations to contribute more (Putin did that too indirectly); giving social conservatives more influence in picking judges (Trump provided a list of judges he would want to appoint to social conservatives so that could be a precedent that other candidates will have to provide); getting more manufacturing jobs in the USA; more aggressively courting minority voters (this increased during Trump and he got more minority votes than Romney and G.W. Bush); Republicans more aggressively confronting the mainstream press; and cutting back regulations. The biggest change of Trumpism is more aggressively going after working-class voters and that is the primary reason why Trump got a higher percentage of minorities to vote for him than Romney and G.W. BUsh.
Isn't AOC going for 2024? She's turning 35 a few days before election day, so I don't know if she'll be illegible for the next US Elections. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Politics moves stupidly fast these days. The problem with Trump is that he is still generally as disliked as he was throughout his presidency, the likes which made him a rare one-termer. Biden is not very loved either, at this point the approval rating of both is similarly negative. There's certainly a core group of enthusiastic racist rubes that adore Trump (at least until he started endorsing COVID vaccines :p ) which is something you don't see with Biden. But I think it's fair to say that the more common thought of the American people is probably being more or less pissed off with the entire US political system at this point, regardless of party. (Congress is polling at an 82% disapproval rate and the Supreme Court polling at 25% confidence.) American politics is known for pissed off people that nonetheless repeatedly vote to send their incumbent bum back to Washington. But it does mean that there is potential room for "something completely different". 2 years is a long time in politics. (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I also think that the Biden family wants to further cash in from the presidency. yeah, that's not true. You're trying to be cute here and hide it between two legit reasons Biden he shouldn't run. But there is only one primary reason Biden is even considering running for president again, he doesn't think anyone can beat Trump. He passed in '16, because he like everyone else didn't take the threat of Trump seriously. And he won in '20 because his calculation was correct, he was palatable to centrists, better than nothing for liberals, and a Washington animal for conservatives. The reason he shouldn't run in '24 is that centrists think he's too liberal, liberals don't think he's liberal enough, and there just aren't enough principled conservatives who won't go back to the GOP.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Liberals are mostly fine with Biden. Leftists on the other hand, think he's basically a do nothing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Biden is decent outside of just... frankly horrible PR? Like, he's done genuinely good stuff from what I can tell, just like... not enough in the places that matter because of the Republicans sewing the legs off underneath his chair by winning in local elections and the fuckery of SCOTUS. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Like, the problem here isn't Biden per se. The system, fundamentally, does not allow the necessary actions within the "rules". What Biden should do is outlaw certain key aspects of the modern GOP, but he isn't going to do that because he's a liberal politician acting within a liberal democratic framework, beholden to capitalist donors, who frankly, do not take the problems we face seriously enough. It's up to the populace to change the course of this country, if we can. Organized communities can do things without having to jump through party hoops. You'll need to start there, because relying on top down action is a non-option at this point. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and large chunks of the American State are compromised in some form or another. So there's also that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Biden is sort of the problem because he refuses to rise to the moment and lead the Democrats as a party, currently the leading voices are governors.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Short of unprecedented executive action, what is he actually supposed to do? He's a centrist liberal who on the best reading has his hands tied by the technicalities of the American State and on the worst reading does not give a shit. Look, again, the real problem here is disorganization, political apathy, and complacency on the part of the citizenary. Solve that and the government stops mattering. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I guess this is where the spectacle matters as much as the action. I think there are a host of people who still want some sort of performative actions. For those with real knowledge it won't mean much but the bulk of the populace can be easily influenced. Outside of that there are concrete steps he could push Congress to vote on, while mostly performative, there are some protections that would actually put the GOP in a bind. I think overwhelmingly people are just frustrated by his sense of urgency, or lack of. His policies aren't imaginative, and especially on the Dobbs front, the White House seemed to be caught off guard even though it was leaked in May. For me personally, that is the biggest failing. You had weeks to workshop your response to the imminent defeat of a decades long fight, and the best you can come up with is fundraising emails and platitudes to vote?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
See also the at worst I laid out. Like, I'm sorry, but the electoral party wants to win elections, first and foremost. They are not systemically incentivized beyond that. American politics sucks. Not much else to say. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the party over for Boris Johnson?[edit]

After months of Partygate drama, it looks like the Chris Pincher debacle was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Over 34 Ministers and PPS’ have quit on the last 24 hours, and now a Cabinet delegation is going to Downing Street to demand Johnson’s resignation. To me it seems he will either resign within days or call a snap election.—RWRW (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that, unless the Tories change their rules, BoJo is formally safe for a year after his narrow escape from the recent vote of no confidence. BoJo is also very much like Trump in that he doesn’t give a fig about “playing nice”, the “conventions” of politics, or the kind of “gentlemen’s rules” and similar norms of “proper behaviour” that have governed much of Westminster politics. The fact that a substantial part of his party is against him has not led BoJo to consider resigning so far, nor have the Trump’ish tsunami of scandals surrounding his cabinet.
In short, unless his Tory opponents have some real leverage against him, I wouldn’t be surprised if he clings on. The issue of a snap election is also a double edged sword that BoJo can wield against his own party, since a large number of Tory MPs are probably going to lose their seats and are thus not keen on an election right now. Also, since there is no obvious Tory successor to BoJo and none who seems to be likely to markedly improve the party’s chance in the next general election (snap or otherwise), not to mention that BoJo’s opponents are far from united in where they want the party to go, his resignation is far from guaranteed. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
"unless the Tories change their rules" - But that's exactly what they are going to do.
He really has no reasonable way out. The only one who doesn't seem to realize this fact is him. But he is "strange" enough to provoke a constitutional crisis. Let's say he loses the second vote of confidence. Tradition would have it that he has to resign. But that is on the assumption that the PM is an honorable individual who would respect the vote and resign. But that's not actually written in law.
So he could call an election. But that is really in the gift of the Queen. Would she grant the dissolution of parliament which would be necessary for Johnson's last throw? She might not.
The best solution would obviously be his quick resignation but - it's Boris.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I heard on the news earlier today that Johnson was at a dinner with MPs either last night or the night before (can't remember which) where he apparently blamed some of the MPs present for the situation, since they were out with Chris Pincher on the night in question and "should have stopped him drinking so much". It's either a deliberate accusation or a terrible joke, but either way it was tone deaf and seems to have been the final straw for some.
Re: the vote of no confidence, that's in the power of the 1922 committee. They've just voted to establish a new executive committee on Monday, with that committee's first order of business all but confirmed to be "change the rules to allow a second vote". Being generous I'd say the delay (rather than THIS executive committee changing the rules) is a grace period for Johnson to resign himself, but I doubt that'll happen.
Re: calling a snap election, it technically has to be allowed by the queen, who is unlikely to allow one under these circumstances - literally the only reason for Johnson to call one is out of spite, a "taking you all with me" situation. If he pressed on it anyway there'd be such a crisis that some tories might take it on themselves to literally, rather than figuratively, throw him out of #10.
In the news right now is that even Priti Patel is publicly telling him to go, which is pretty insane because (I'd hope) no other PM is going to have her in a cabinet. Labour is saying that Bill discussion meetings have already been cancelled because there literally aren't ministers available to attend. At this rate if he genuinely refuses to go, by Monday his "cabinet" will be him, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Michael Fabricant, and a bunch of balloons with faces drawn on them. X Stickman (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
johnson's sole reasoning for becoming prime minister was his ambition to become prime minister. he never had any plan for once he got there, no vision for the country requiring him at the wheel to justify his ambition. nothing but his ambition. he had not intention of resigning after the confidence vote, vowing to cling on to power for the sole reason of staying in power, but still no clue what to do with. hes vowing to cling still after so many resignation. it would be irresponsible to quit now with the country facing so many issues (many that he has exasperated and created) he says, as if he suddenly has a plan after all this time. hes only lasted this long because the pandemic delayed the inevitable failure of brexit and that his obliviousness and complete lack of any good judgement meant his ministers were able to enrich themselves awarding lucrative contracts. his cheerleaders - the absolute worst the tories have to offer - have been busy looking at the positives of these resignations - they can get on with that reliable tory game plan of shitting on immigrants and cutting taxes to keep the proles happy now sunak is no longer cock blocking their tax cuts. bojo will stay on as long as he can sand spin it as the 'will of the people as his government spits on them.
ive heard sunak touted as a possible pm - hes so rich hes literally incorruptible some one has said. at least he can afford to buy his own wall paper. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
If someone says Sunak is so rich that he’s incorruptible, that person has to be dumber than a bag full of hammers. Sunak is so friggin’ corrupt, albeit guised in the legalistic niceties of institutional corruption, that his absurdly rich wife claimed non domicile status for years while living with him in the UK to dodge taxes she could easily afford, while her husband was climbing the greasy Tory pole.
Also, Sunak has most certainly not been ”cock blocking” any tax cuts and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the whole COVID relief scheme that (oh, irony of ironies) was the whole basis for his popularity. Sunak is the epitome of the austerity loving, Thatcherite, tax cutting, macroeconomically illiterate (and/or malignant) doofus and was not at all amused by BoJo’s “levelling up” shtick.
As for Priti Patel, I’m pretty sure any new Tory PM will retain her in her current position, because anyone else would seem less nasty and extreme and that would be considered a sign of “softness” among those the Tories keep appealing to. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Going back to the issue of rules, the Tories are trying to get BoJo to resign without calling a snap election, which is something they really don’t want right now. That means that they can’t use Labour and other opponents to call a no-confidence vote in Parliament.
Several times in the past, BoJo has been rumoured to have threatened calling a snap election if he’s pushed out. I think I heard someone calling this “the Sampson option”, because he would basically take a lot of Tory MPs with him in the fall. This is a real constraint on changing the party rules (quite apart from the friction of inertia and other concerns). Hence, BoJo still has a serious threat to wield against his own, exactly because poll numbers are so bad for the Tories and none of the likely successors can make a plausible case that they can reverse them in a snap election. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Another, quite bizarre and unlikely, but nevertheless possible scenario is that BoJo is toppled as Tory leader but refuses to resign as PM (BBC has discussed this potential outcome). This would mean that the Tories would have to either muddle through with BoJo in No. 10 and someone else as head of the party, or accept a snap election (via a no-confidence vote in Parliament) as the price for getting him out of Downing Street. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Wow, 44 Ministers and aids resigned in one day.
The 1922 Committee executive election is taking place on Monday, the prospect of an anti-Boris majority getting elected doesn't seem too far-fetched at this point. So maybe we'll be seeing another confidence vote as early as Tuesday or Wednesday.
I will say the actions of Nadhim Zahawi have been pretty amusing. On Tuesday it was reported that he threatened to quit the government too unless Johnson appointed him Chancellor, then less that 24 hours later he is part of the Cabinet delegation that told Johnson to resign. --RWRW (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The former colony across the pond already tried too rich to be corrupt bullshit: he was the most corrupt President except for possibly the other one who led us into Civil War.[2] Filthy rich people get rich by corruption, nepotism, or both. Bongolian (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Calling a snap election would definitely torpedo Conservative government right? I mean could Johnson even stand as the Tory candidate if an election was called. An aside; As an American I am super jealous of snap elections, Congressional elections dragging on for 6-8 months and Presidential elections dragging on for 14+ months is just so exhausting.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
BoJo reportedly has no actual friendships among the Tories (or anyone?), so it would be entirely transactional if he tries it: You tried to fuck with, then he'll fuck with you. Bongolian (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I hope it is, and the tory party as a whole. Let the fuckers burn. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal johnson will still be a sitting tory mp if were to resign or is ousted as leader of the party and/or prime minister. in any general election that may be called after this he could and probably would still stand a tory mp for the uxbridge he currently holds - MPs get paid good money and he wont to give up that up, unless for some reason he were deselected then he'd have to stand as an independent if he was still wanted to be an MP. he could not stand for prime minister though. no one can, and no one votes for one. people vote to decide who will be their local MP, and who becomes the Prime minister is the MP who has the support of the house ie the leader of the party with the most seats. its why party leadership contests for the party in power lead to a change in premier without needing a general election. there often is one pretty soon soon after because its often a good idea to capitalise on the party faithful uniting behind the the new leader and maximise chances for electoral victory before they start to go cold on the idea. dosent always work, see theresa may, and sometimes they can wait for years in the hope of winning over the public if the change in leadership didnt help, see gordon brown, 3 years PM never won an election.
as mentioned above, if boris was to lose a confidence vote - strictly his party deciding if they support him as party leader but decided to not step down as pm, he could in theory still stay in the job if he could demonstrate he still had the support of the house, ie as head of some kind of coalition. there would most likely be another confidence vote, this one with all sitting MPs deciding if they would support him. he'd need opposition support if his own party were not behind him. he'd lose though for sure (and could never get any legislation through if he somehow managed cross party support) and then its a general election. he could in theory lose his party's confidence vote but his party still side with him in confidence vote in the house. that cant possibly happen, but who knows these days. uk politics has lurched from one unprecedented event to another since brexit. the only constant in these long depressing years is that the tories are still cunts - not the best thing to cling to for any sense of comfort and normalcy.
on another note michael gove has been sacked. not much of a silver lining but i will take what i can get. the fucking weasel. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
priti patel called for publicly called for bojo resign - what gove was sacked for. granted bojo probably still remembers gove knifing him in the back scuppering his first bid for tory leadership, the weasely fuck, but fingers crossed. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

And he's going to go! But in the Autumn. So that's going to be a few months of chaos.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It's kinda like the adult version of pocking a dead body with a stick, isn't it?
Anyway, with the snap election threat - well, it's within the gift of the Queen *on the advice of the Privy Council and other members of the Cabinet*. It's quite possible Raab etc have already called the Palace to inform them that Johnson does not have that support for an election. Even if they didn't, ER is a canny old bird; she might have told Johnson yesterday something along the lines that she wouldn't grant it.
The main problem with the Tory Party is that Johnson has moulded it in his own image - vast majority of the halfway 'decent' (ie even if you don't agree politically you can respect) MPs got axed in either '17 or '19 elections. They don't give a flying about 'honesty' or 'integrety' - it's all about saving their own damn skins from massive unpopularity caused by Bozo himself. Hear the lines of BS spewing out of them now; they're trying to dump the pilot but keep the course heading.
This issue is in the Cabinet; the only folks left (almost to a person) are the malicious, the stupid, the corrupt and/or the souless careerists. None can mobilise much support because they're just a bunch of stuffed shirts. Sunak and Javid simply jumped in the hope the explosion of Bozo won't take them out too. With Gove... it's quite possible he did it in such a way Johnson *would* sack him. It looks marginally better in the public eye - he is one of the few who have a decent chance of a position in the next govt.
The client media also can't do much, as they sold out all what counted as principles long ago. I notice that they're trying to slither away without leaving trails, but in this case I don't think even the average GB News viewer will notice they can't openly knife a man they were hailing almost as a demigod on Monday (their coverage is now funereal in tone, without mentioning *why* they hell someone's playing the organ).
Lastly, with the money... Johnson is not broke, though he is Micawberish in his finances too. As an ex-PM, he'll be earning a load *more* money than he ever did as PM - public speaking, his memoirs, consultancies and directorships... let's remember Blair only got his half-billion quid *after* leaving office, while Major left to join the board of the likes of Carlyle group and so on.
KarmaPolice (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
It’s telling that BoJo got a slight, temporary stay of execution wrangled out of the Tories, because it shows how much disarray the party is in and that beyond getting him out the door, they have no clue about what to do (bar continuing their corrupt gravy train, of course). I also agree with KarmaPolice’s sentiments and would highlight the entire career, rise and fall of BoJo as a dire indictment of the British political system, media landscape included. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Not surprised. BoJo achieved his goals for the Tories, but isn't much they're interested in besides that. Johnson's goal was to get a Brexit, whether the UK liked the deal or not. The moment that got forced through, his status within the Tories became a powder keg since Brexit itself was divisive among the Tories. It only got diffused for a while because of COVID (which is probably why Johnson didn't follow his fellow far righters internationally in calling it a hoax). COVID being "over" in the eyes of the media for a while basically relit the fuse because Johnson generates numerous scandals just by being himself. -- Techpriest (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Already backbench MPs are demanding that Johnson goes immediately and someone else (Raab?) serves as acting PM until the Autumn. --RWRW (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
As for which members of the BoJo administration are unlikely to survive his fall, the one that immediately springs to my mind is Nadine Dorries whose only “qualification” seems to be her dewy eyed obsequious BoJo worship, while being an utterly inept buffoon who makes a fool of herself every single time she opens her mouth. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The ironic truth is that Bozo 'fell out' with much of the party due to the lack of 'genuine Tory policies'. You saw this with the lineup of the no-confidence vote; many of the ringleaders doing the media tours were old ERG'ers now spouting about needing to return to Thatcherism, to heed the [redacted] in Britannia Unchained and so on. I strongly suspect this is part of the 'private disagreements' he had with Sunak - the man is much more in this mold.
Problem is that the Thatcherites simply don't get that they have little popularity in the nation. The Brexit lies are wearing thin, and their vision of how to 'complete it' (ie Singapore-on-Thames) would be utterly electorally disasterous. The gift of 'Boris' was that he managed to tickle the folks with his lies and fourth-rate Churchill act who'd never vote Tory normally.
Let us remember this in the coming hours, days and weeks. They didn't try to outseat him due to lies, incompetence or corruption - just because he wasn't Thatcherite enough and his public polls were sliding.
Nothing more or less. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
He's no longer Tory leader, still trying to remain in office as PM. How the hell this useless, lying shagpile ever got into public office is beyond me, in fact, have a gander at this from 9 years ago, London Assembly question when he was mayor, Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like he usual dumbfuckery overall, but was he an actual climate change denialist, as he comes off there? Does he believe anything other than his own greatness? Bongolian (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thats an easy one. he went to eton. next question. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Must have been the special class in Eton, boozing, whoring, lying, talking shite and feeling self important. Christ, even his aul fella's a massive bullshit artist. "I was a spy you know." Yeah sure you were ya halfwit.Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
If done while wearing a bespoke suit and with a posh accent, we call it 'leadership'. It's days like this which a violent clearout of the deadwood in the country seems a half-decent idea... KarmaPolice (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
"If done while wearing a bespoke suit and with a posh accent, we call it 'leadership'" And that's probably the most depressingly truthful description of UK politics I've heard this week. The "authenticity" vs "proven ability". How many days before BoJo trundles out another pithy slogan, courtesy of his useless euphemisers, which he stutters over ad infinitum. Thinking such sound bits prove him to be fitting the part.
Well, he wanted to be a "historic" Prime minister, and after yesterday's car crash, he has indeed succeeded in being a historically shite PM and Party Leader. Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Is a snap election in the cards or does whoever replace Johnson try desperately to cling to the Tory "mandate".-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
depends on how they pollng looks when the new leader takes over. if it looks good, there will be an election. if not, then no. they wont be clinging on btw, they would be firmly entrenched in government with a working majority. the composition of parliament wont have changed, the ministers that resigned only resigned from the goevernment. they are still mps. they havent resigned from that. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
"If done while wearing a bespoke suit and with a posh accent, we call it 'leadership'" i note the irony in employing a soundbite to condemn a public willing to lap them up. the cynicism in the statement is self defeating though. tory soundbites work because they tell people what they want to hear and panda to voters baser instincts and bias and sold by someone with the confidence of someone who has been taught to believe they are our betters while we wring our flatcaps and look at our feet. the counter isnt to declare those fooled by the tactic as dumb or as is often been the case selfish and racist, its to give them a viable alternative. the remain campaign, and remainers in general made this mistake, never addressing why they were convinced by other side, as did jeremy corbyn right up to labours biggest election defeat in their history. ive no faith this lesson has been learned by labour activists while starmer i think has, im not sure hes convinced former labour voters of a viable alternative strongly enough. i would not put money on a labour victory in the next general election just yet. getting rid of boris may well be enough to turn things around for the tories, especially if they silence the more despicable tories and boris's biggest cheerleader rees-moog and dorries who are openly smug and contemptuous of the british public in their defence of boris. a leader capable of leading this tory shit show might all that is required to keep tory voters voting tory and they only need to keep some of the former labour voters on side to ensure labour doesnt win enough back. boris resigning is the last thing labour needed AMassiveGay (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I thought it was more 'pithy' than 'soundbite'...
As with Starmer... I think he's learned the wrong lesson, myself. He's become convinced Corbyn lost just because he was 'too left wing' and is cravenly copying the New Labour handbook circa 1994; ie don't rock the boat in any way lest you spill the hallowed 'floating voter's' drink and they run away. Problem is, this is *not* 1996; the 'well, kinda like now but a bit nicer, yeah?' policy from Blair won't work now - Starmer is not Blair (where charisma could replace policy) and the national situation simply too fucked-up for that kind of thing anyway. In this respect, Starmer's Blairite handlers/advisors are as out of touch as the cretinous Tory MPs I've heard today who think cravenly following the 1987 manifesto is the path to victory in 2024.
The risk with Starmer - in my opinion - is that he is willing to actively drive us left-wingers (however pragmatic and/or mild we may be) away in the hopes of victory, and thus gain a defeat. 'No drink-spilling policies' won't regain the Red Wall; in fact it was Third Way which lost it over a generation. Not convinced of a viable alternative? He's offered no alternative save 'I'm not that guy'. Which clearly won't work in a post-Bozo world. In fact, I've not even met, seen or read any Starmer fan boys/girls anywhere - hell, even Bozo now still has a ~10% of the population bellowing that he's been betrayed and by all rights should remain PM until the next election.
However, on the other hand I don't think the Tories can pull back from the brink either. The rot has gone too deep, the baggage of the past too heavy. This winter shall be one of 'discontent' - the only question is how bad ('78-'79, '73-'74 or '46-'47?), for the Tories have near-zero ideas on what to do about it. There is a fundimental incompatability between Thatcherism and 'Levelling Up', while the Thatcherite purists are pushing for another wave of Austerity. Couple all this with the fact that the new leader shall be minus Bozo's charisma and is most unlikely to have much of a Brexit dividend to collect... I don't see how they can win either.
Ultimately, the key issue is one of electoral calculations. Labour minus Scotland and with a stagnant Lib-Dems shall need (disclaimer; fag-packet calculations) about 14 point lead over the Tories to scrape in as a majority Govt (for comparison, Blair in '97 got +12.5 points and Attlee in '45 +11.5). The Tories, however only need a 7.5 point lead for similar (Major '92 +7.5, Thatcher '79 +7). I think it's this which is finally making Labour come around to ditching FPTP... tell me, if even St Blair couldn't get +14, who the hell could? KarmaPolice (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
the labour left have been the problem. not because they were too left - its not policy where they were a problem its their conduct. karmer hasnt driven anybody out. they've spent too long with infighting and with zero ability for self reflection - the exact problem that was highlighted in the antisemitism report and what corbyn decided to martyr himself over. too much time back biting and briefing against people - if you were not for corbyn you blairite, if you criticised him you were a blairite, all critcism was false and from blairites, everyone was a fucking blairite. and trying to score points over people that earned them high fives in weestminister and absolutely nowhere else. the problem starmer inherited labour policy was popular in metropolitan london and similar urban areas but meant zero to anyone else outside of it - particularly white working class in the redwall. the tories happily hoovered up their votes by actually targeting them directly with a hefty bit of immigrant bashing. labour had and still has an identity crisis. labour voters, the party of the working class, are often very much not working class. labour activists often are not either. they took their votes for granted in the corbyn years and deluded themselves into winning - getting beaten into 2nd place by theresa may chalked up as a victory, and high fiving every piece of brexit legislation they voted down without ever offering any alternative many those voters they expected to vote them in had voted for brexit. might have all been different if he had campaigned against brexit, talked to those people, might even have prevented brexit even, instead of going on holiday before the vote of a generation. that smug prick gave us boris not left wing politics and his acolytes who could not let go would give us even more tory cunts if they were not shut down and it still might not be enough. as it isthe tories are currently the party of the white working class. it pains me to think in terms of race - i dont like the implications for the uk politics when white voters are a demographic to target because of the obvious and way too easy tactic of pandering to racist, but thats whats happening even if none of them say it loud says it out loud and its a win for the tories. who are labour for if its not the working the class or at least a sizeable proportion of them? labour needed to answer this question after corbyn was ousted. if they answered it, they are keeping it to themselves. and im sure its because of blairites ofcourseAMassiveGay (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to re-right the battles of Corbyn here, but I will say there *has* been a clear purge of anything remotely left-wing from the party under Starmer. You say so yourself (in so many words); that basically Starmer has done his best to simply revert to Milliband policies and pretend Corbyn never happened.
Which means it's deliberately ignoring one of the key lessons from that era - left-wing economic policies *were* popular with 'Red Wallers' (who exist all over the UK). More popular than any of the old Blairite apparatchiks would have considered (which might explain the sense of 'victory' in '17 - have you spent 20 years being told your socialist economic policies were 'completely out of date' and 'utterly unelectable'? I have.) Case in point; was popular enough that it was stolen by Bozo for his 'levelling up' thing, while Brexit was sold to them on the promise that those 'good jobs' of yore will miraculously come back.
Now, I do think Starmer *has* done right in nixing the more extreme end of the social justice crowd (no activist or politician should ever use the likes of 'intersectionality' in normal speech) but they've also tossed out those wanting economic justice too (even those of us who never really liked social justice period). Factor in the minus charisma ratings, there's a massive gap - the 'something to kill/die for' aspect.
Which is the problem the Tories face (bringing it all back OT) - they have nothing really to fill that aspect. No grand personalities, no great 'cause' which is actually popular (neither Thatcherism or 'anti-Woke' is enough here). To be slightly generous to them, I think this is the symptom of any party which has been power this long; so long at the grindstone, you tend to develop political myopia. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Sweden has a gun problem[edit] Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 09:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

i thought sweden had more of a hand grenade problem AMassiveGay (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There's been some big news in the past few years of not only shootings, but also explosions, sometimes one gang blowing up the apartment of a member of some other gang, or doing in other places so as to, perhaps, demonstrate their capabilities to others in the criminal world. There's a general sense here in Sweden, across the political spectrum, that the overall response to the growth of organized crime has been too slow, with denial at first, giving it the opportunities it has had to grow. But how to focus to solve it differs with political views. Researchers in debates have lamented the lack of long-term thinking and investments on the part of politicians, and also how the Swedish police long didn't do much in the way of analytical work needed to pierce the more complex criminal world growing around them.
The more ugly present state of things has set a more urgent tone and pushes people more toward right-wing "tough on crime" and anti-immigration politics. In part, it is true that more tough laws would help. Denmark has passed a series of anti-gang legislative packages which seem to help the work of the police. But institutions being a little undersized and overwhelmed is a big issue that is trickier to solve in short order. There's repeatedly been news of a physical lack of room to hold more arrestees and prisoners, the police being understaffed and missing in rural areas (where crime now grows), the rest of the justice system being understaffed and overburdened with more work in recent years, etc. It may take a decade or more of large investments to fix that.
The neighboring Scandinavian countries show that the basic common model for how a society can work is not the fundamental problem. Long-term neglect in a range of areas is. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
That's to broaden the picture a bit, apart from what's mentioned in the video. As for a hot topic it went into, immigration, I've gotten the sense over time that Swedish bureaucracy sucks and fails many immigrants. It seems in recent decades, people who come to Sweden with little means often end up stuck, getting less than enough resources for learning the language (absurdly important for getting a job) and do what it takes to then become able to get themselves jobs. The political right wants to shut out the immigrants and jail the gang members, the left wants to rework other institutions to avoid segregation and poor problem areas which give gangs the opportunity to grow and become powerful. An unpopular view may be that it's actually good for immigrants to reduce their influx into Sweden, not because Sweden is too good for them, but because Sweden is bad for them. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Two words: tone accent. It's not indicated in dictionaries; they don't teach it in the language classes; if you ask about it, they'll tell you it's not really important. But it's one thing that marks you as an immigrant. (In my case, it meant I could pass for being a Swede until I opened my mouth, and how I was treated immediately changed.) Oh, and Swedes are not very tolerant of foreign accents; if you have one, they'll often just switch to English and refuse to continue the conversation in Swedish. I derived considerable benefit from my decade there, and I did not turn down the offer of citizenship when extended. But facts is facts. Zontar (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────i think it all depends on who you ask. some conservatives (american ones, especially) argue that the recent shooting in denmark proves that denmark is the one with a gun violence problem that not even gun-control laws can stop or whatever. G Man (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

So I'm Going to Show a Right Winger This Video Tomorrow[edit]

It's a pretty cool interview, and the has name recognition, so it might not be a waste of time.

Cowowrker has played an entire Matt Walsh video while working and tried to bring me in to watch the whole thing with him, I don't have time at work like that. I would imagine his reaction will be fear and anger. I think he will glom on to a predication like "when I am the most conservative person in the room" and will be uncomfortable about Mr. Lemoine's transcendental approaches. I personally don't believe every account Mr. Lemoine relays of the project team, but I was not there, it is a really interesting interview, and I do agree these ethics need to be considered before we move forward with AI that passes the Turing test, Gol Dernitt.

Academic speech isn't hard, I just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't some fun AI scootin your poops, it's described that they are close to that. (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Never gonna pass the Turing test. Can be broken really easily. New AI is clever, and the Turing test is, well, vague if you want it as a rule. — Unsigned, by: / talk
Anti-climactic. Didn't want to listen to it, was too busy trying to talk about how | Facebook shut down two AIs that started talking in their own language because the AI is too dangerous. You would think that would be in the interview if it was real, the guy does not traffic in reality anymore, it's only a weird political/religious outlook that somehow keeps his life stable. (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you think about the 2 south florida Spanish news channels?[edit]

  • Telemundo
  • Univisión

The only news channels every latino people (including me) in my city watches. Recently I find some of their news reports to be cringe as it is getting repetitive. Any possible alternatives? 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:91 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

as a us-ian born to latam parents, i've always found the channels somewhat weird. i guess it's because i've never quite been a fan of telenovelas. too much drama for my tastes. (by the way, i never lived in florida. i was raised in virginia, and i still had access to those channels.) now that i'm an adult, i don't have cable at all; i don't even stream television. my main source of entertainment nowadays is the internet (i.e., social media, youtube, etc.). G Man (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The weapon used by the Japanese killer. Or, could a "war on guns" become a new war on drugs?[edit]

While I overall support gun control (see the reasons on my edit on the gun control page) I believe this is an important issue. We've been losing the war on drugs since ever. It's very hard to win a war against a product if the demand is so inelastic. The Japanese case made me think that making a homemade gun is in fact very easy. In America, the demand on guns appears to be highly inelastic. So, if we ban guns, it's possible that it will totally backfire (no pun intended) as the demand won't change, so people will just smuggle them or produce low-quality, risky guns. The result would be even more violence from the state. In other words, the problem is on the culture, if we change it, we don't even need to ban guns. Thoughts? GeeJayK (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

First Guns are compared to cars, not drugs. What weird analogy is next?--2friedeggs (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
You don't need to ban guns, just make them harder to get. Basically all the gun violence that happens in Japan is gang related. In 2021 approximately one person died from gun violence in Japan. They have extensive background investigations and are subject to random inspections. Just create barriers, and the number of people seeking guns will decrease.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Barriers DID prevent the killer for a moment before the Robb Elementary School shooting. He basically waited until he was legal age to shoot. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, from my perspective the goal of any sort of restriction would be to eliminate any sort of low-effort wackos without impacting law-abiding gun usage. It takes effort to make a homemade gun, and many of these mass shooter losers IMHO won't make the effort. No regulation would be foolproof against motivated terrorists. But at present you can just waltz into a store and get high-firepower guns with comparatively little effort, that's the type of problem that should be targeted.
This means it's not necessarily a full ban that would be helpful either. We have certain firearms in a much more restricted space in America, the Class 3 weapons. They aren't "banned" as mentioned before, but since the Firearm Owners Protection ActWikipedia (signed by Saint Reagan) new "machine guns" were restricted to being sold to only law enforcement and military, and there was other restrictions implemented before this. You can still own machine guns, but they are expensive and require some ATF hoops to leap through. Rarely do you hear of a crime committed with one. It's a framework that could be used for other things like high magazine cartridges and any other feature useful to mass shooters but of questionable value to ordinary citizens. It's very unlikely a collector type that pays $10K+ for an old machine gun is going to use it to shoot up a parade. (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Allow me to introduce you to the completely unclassifiable "firearm" that only exists to troll the ATF. Corn (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────you do make a good point, @GeeJayK. one overlooked fact about the gun debate when people make comparisons between the us and japan is that japan's culture is completely different than ours, though there's little to no doubt that gun control has played a role in shaping japan's reputation for safety. having said that, it is for this reason that i propose that america (the us) adopt gun laws similar to switzerland. switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in europe, yet mass shootings are exceedingly rare. that's because their gun laws are crafted in such a way that permits high rates of responsible ownership (something that's severely lacking in the us, even among the "good guys" with guns). this video gives a brief, if comical overview of swiss gun laws. basically, with just the right campaigning and organization, we can (maybe) change our gun culture one law at a time without outright banning guns. G Man (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What is the theory of everything?[edit]

Physicists says that it will explain everything. Are they trying to say that through the TOE we will know the location and momentum of the sub-atomic particle and know the past, present and future of said particle and make Laplace's dream come true? Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 10:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Within days (if not hours) of any proposed TOE a number of 'scientists of various persuasions' and 'persons looking at the universe at varying angles to rationality' will be finding actual, possible, or perceived flaws with the theory. (No citation necessary.) Anna Livia (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm one of those Atheists who, if pressed will admit I'm an Agnostic because I hold out ~a .01% chance ANYTHING might be supernatural. Being said, the fuck is a theory of everything? Shrimp in the ocean see more colors than we do, perception is a very limiting factor, and yeah we're figuring shit out like shrimp see more colors than we do, but that's kind of part of everything. I would also agree, everything looks to be working as a system or functions of gravity and time, as linguistically understood. But a theory of everything is vague to the point of, oh I looked it up, guess I'm the butt of the joke here. (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Based on my limited understanding of physics, we currently have two theories that contradict each other: quantum mechanics and general relativity. A TOE would basically "unite" the two theories into one. LongStylus (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Basic mechanics and gravity are redundant, as I understand them. Doesn't contradict Newton; in a closed system anything creates entropy any time it opposes gravity, as gravity is a singular constant force. As I understand it, General relativity says if you avoid gravity well enough, entropy doesn't apply the same way, and I think that's been misrepresented to the point of misuse. In a math theory, somebody could orbit the planet and have traveled through less time than a person on the surface born at the exact same time. But it's, dare I say, generally relative, a lot of representations are not accounting for the mechanics human aging, nothing to do with anatomy. Your body, as it exists, has gravity. Biology doesn't stop just because you're in space or circling a black hole. (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not against the idea of Faster Than Light (FTL) which is what quantum is trying to describe. Insofar, we've observed single pieces of information that seem to be more than a single piece of information. Again, I think this has been misrepresented to the point of misuse. If we can read information and isolate its origin, track it through space and time, it describes mechanics, but to the original question, it does not describe space or time. But neither really has a reason for or solution to describe space or time, both just use them like a protractor. Which, everything aside, is the absolute best way to start, and I think is the current best method of measuring these things - by space and time, theory of everything sounds dumb and hugely over-promising. (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
What I'm trying to ask is that how will the TOE be applicable to humanity if it were true? How will TOE be able to explain 'everything'? Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 14:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
As typically used, a theory of everything is a complete theory of physics — a physics capable of accounting for all physical processes, structures, etc. In principle, such a theory could be applied to gain complete knowledge of chemistry, biology, neuroscience, etc., though in practice this would be so difficult as to be impracticable. I wouldn't expect it to satisfactorily answer questions like 'why is there something rather than nothing?', but if you want to know about the dynamics of a system of particles (of arbitrary size and composition), a TOE would be the thing to use (discounting practical problems like computational complexity). This does not mean you would be able to know the locations and momenta of particles with arbitrary precision; the uncertainty principle is still in effect. As LongStylus noted, problems emerge if you try to formulate quantum mechanics within the framework of general relativity. A lot of work is being done to try to overcome this problem, but, to my knowledge, the experimental side of things is lagging behind the theoretical side of things, because the experiments that would be capable of falsifying current theories are extremely difficult (i.e. requiring massive scales or high energies). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 20:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Serene has it. Herr Doktor has three questions. What is the Theory of Everyting? How Does Laplace's Theory of Everything Explain Everything? and How Does Laplace's Theory of Everything Apply to Humanity if True? You're gonna, ultimately, have to talk to Laplace about that one, I don't think you know who we are or what we do here. I would totally encourage you to seek these answers, but your questions need a little bit of work. (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
But taking your third question seriously, I don't know. Why should understanding our body as a system of rules and functions outside of our control delegitimize the concepts like rules and control that are uniquely perceived by each brain? (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm Back! (Sorta?)[edit]

Sorry if this sounds like a really bizarre idea, but I think that writing articles, or even examining some Mastodon profile with no relevancy should not take place here or anywhere else on the wiki. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 03:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Huh ok I just thought it might be a good idea sorry I would have brought it up with a mod I kind of felt that that would be the case. (you a mod?)Theodor Hugs-a-lot (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

PS: this is a new account since I used to use my school address so I'm not entirely new here.

Also maybe it would be good to exchange names? hi I'm ted. you can use my talk page anytime but uh as you can tell by my typing patterns i'm very shy.
and yes I've edited my uh. thread. sorry if that might not be right.Theodor Hugs-a-lot (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh also uh why did you think it might be inappropriate to talk about that weird fringe thing I found? wouldn't it count as uh Blogiverse or Webshite stuff? (just asking)
The Mastodon profile you sent isn't notable enough to warrant any attention nor does it comply with the mission statement. We are not Kiwi Farms. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 04:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

What's going on here? I see number of your edits Rockford have been supressed. And this section is extremely weird. You ok mate? Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 18:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

So, I had an interesting discussion on Discord[edit]

The name this person is sensoring, is David Michael Morris. I've done some research and found out that this Morris guy is a Conservapedia troll that stalked people here.

This is the answer I got afterwards. Does this person's name sound familiar to anyone? Maybe Morris his Discord or something? I found this reaction a bit odd (first post)... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

How did you know the poster’s name? 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:77 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Usernames are always shown on Discord, if you share the same channel. You can literally see that in those screenshots. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Which discord is this? BumblingBuffoon (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Discord from a youtuber called "AuldDragon". Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Another mass shooting in the so-called US[edit]

(CW: mass shooting, death)

I came out to my parents as Trans earlier this year so I am not that afraid of talking about events in my area. Yesterday, during a Fourth of July parade, there was a mass shooting literally an hour or less away from me in so-called Highland Park, Illinois. A white guy started shooting attendees from a rooftop, and so far, seven people died due to the attack. ( Pretty much every parade around the area got cancelled immediately afterwards. Why did this happen? Well...the bloody bastard got away, and just...freely drove around the area? For hours?? Until he was apprehended by police -- without the cops shooting a single bullet at him. It seriously scared and stressed the shit out of me. This happened during the same fortnight an unarmed Black man in so-called Akron, Ohio was shot 90 times whilst fleeing his car, in case anyone needs a reminder about how racist these wretched police officers are. I am so tired of this shit. We need gun control nationwide...I hate those blasted weapons so much. I do not want the police or military to have them either, by the way. We need a mass destruction of them.--April Chat? 22:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't you dare render us your meaningless thoughts and prayers.--April Chat? 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I was less than a mile away from this one: Zontar (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Jesus H. Fucking Christ in a sidecar. Just what goes through people's minds like that to just shoot at random partygoers. The last time I heard of that specific sort of incident (shooting at partying masses), it were Nazis who couldn't accept they'd lost WW2 that attempted to shoot people. That was in 1945. Furthermore they were apprehended immediately after. The US police system manages to hit new grounds of rock bottom the more I hear about it. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Also congrats on coming out to your parents. Given the tone of the introduction, I presume it went well? -- Techpriest (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Without trying to detract from the OP's quite reasonable horror - I do feel like you have ignored many other arseholes shooting people just for the sake of it since 1945 - Breivik, ISIS, Russia, USA, etc among many hundreds or thousands of states and individuals..... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
(Responding to Techpriest) The parade-goers initially reckoned the gunshots were literally part of the parade, and then immediately upon realizing they were gunshots, ran away in terror. I saw footage of children running for their lives when they thought they were just going to enjoy a nice summer day. It was absolutely unreal. I presume the shooter obtained the gun outside of state lines since so-called Illinois has a lot of restrictions on guns.
Also, yes, it did-! They fully accepted me and I am living full-time as a woman now. Never felt better in my life..--April Chat? 22:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The US is unique in this mass shooting phenomenon, where recently people shoot up random parties and festivals for no good reason at all. It happens occasionally elsewhere (as it did in Denmark recently) but not on the scale of the mass-shooting-for-no-reason events here like the Gilroy Garlic Festival and the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival. And now.
I find it interesting that in the Denmark case, no one has identified the name of the shooter in reports (I have heard that this is official Denmark policy but can't confirm). Therefore no media can waste time trying to find out motives or play (often incorrect) political games. Official policy or not, Denmark has the right idea, media. Don't give asshats attention. (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
In intial reports say the gun was obtained legally - I presume details of that will be available shortly. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't get putting "so-called" before all of the place names? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Welp I had to read about decapitated children from Uvalde a few days ago. Survivor recounts of the events. Blood stained cartoon clothes "still clinging on to life, finding none". I wish 2A supporters and the collective NRA organization dreaming about nightmares of school shootings and gory bodies of children whose organs are blown apart by AR-15s cuz those are sights the coroners, pediatricians, and police saw and didn't ask for those, and I've gotten nightmares myself after playing out scenarios in my head. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
(Responding to Duce) This entire empire is stolen indigenous land and thus I am not recognizing any of the cities and states here as legitimate--April Chat? 02:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
[redacted]--April Chat? 02:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure he's feeling grim too, try not to be too testy to each other. <3 --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
My apologies, not trying to sound rough. It does sound weird out of context.--April Chat? 02:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I saw the photos and video of the guy that got shot in the arm with an AR-15 style rifle during the Kenosha shooting. It was just one shot, and yet a whole chunk of his right arm quite literally disappeared. To think that someone would use that type of gun and use it to fire several shots at small children is messed up. LongStylus (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Gun culture is so god forsaken confusing. Who would find pleasure in knowing that a gun could do such harm to a person? Who could keep that weapon in their house? And how could someone possibly disregard the danger of such weapons and advocate against gun control? It is truly terrifying to me. I do not want to imagine the same horrible tragedy that occurred in so-called Kenosha happening again to literal children at a parade or in a school as it did in May.--April Chat?
I live in the more rural areas, and we have bears. A couple years back a 500 lb black bear was spotted in our area rummaging through trash, and some of my neighbors went on a chase to hunt the thing down (once a black bear becomes accustomed to humans, it MUST be killed). Turns out it was "only" 350 lbs, but still, glad my neighbors had guns. Furthermore, a lot of people in my area use their guns to put food on the table, because a Parent feeds their family. Take them away, and people starve. Corn (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I mean the U.S. isn't the only place with rural areas. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
You describe a problem solvable by initiating mass food distribution. And not everyone eats meat, you know.--April Chat? 06:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I live in really, really rural South Carolina. I have had chickens ripped apart by coyotes as well as one of my cats. Break-ins are common enough to be worried (junkies steal to get their fix).
Little side note, I'm old enough to remember a gang called the 905 boys (after SC 905) who operated around rural Conway in unincorporated Horry around the '90s. Basically a bunch of Waccamaw teenagers and young adults who raised hell, stole livestock, broke into cars and committed burglaries/home invasions. I remember the day they stopped, too. Several homeowners waited for them and essentially told them that if they came back, they would shoot to kill. Law enforcement proved to be completely unable of doing anything about angry teenagers on a rampage but a few people with guns did. I've had my car broken into and what seemed like an attempted break-in. No way will I render myself and my pets and chickens defenseless against wildlife and criminals, way too many bad experiences with being disarmed in the past. Swamp Fox (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The problem is none of the above justifies semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines with massive amounts of ammunition, which has been the focal point for recent mass shootings of late. A bolt action rifle is just fine for hunting and critter deterrence. Hell, your typical AR-15 bullet is not terribly "bear deterrent friendly enough" anyways (too small).
You know what happened in the good old days in the United States when a certain sort of gun was used predominantly by criminals? This gun type was, well, "banned" (read: not really, but heavily regulated under a more restrictive licensing scheme, Class 3). I'm talking about events like the the Saint Valentine's Day MassacreWikipedia and Thompson submachine gunWikipedia, of course. However, this was before US gun culture went insane. These days if gangsters were running around waving Tommy guns and shooting up everyone in site, the only thing that would come from one particular political party is "thoughts and prayers". Nobody sensible gives a fuck about a bolt action rifle, but the way things are going, I can imagine gun nuts pretty soon moaning about how they need a Tommy gun to deer hunt. (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There was just a random mass shooting in a large mall in Copenhagen on Sunday (July 3rd). These instances are extremely rare in Denmark and this shooting seems to have been a lone gunman driven by mental illness (subsequent reports had him trying to call a crisis helpline prior to the shooting). However, since he “only” had (illegally) obtained a legal hunting rifle (i.e. with no more than a two cartridge magazine and thus usually repeaters or double rifles and rarely semi autos) the losses “only” amounted to three dead and four seriously wounded. I shudder to think what the toll would have been, had Denmark been awash in AR-15 style semi autos. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That's unfair I think. Because as much as guns are the problem in America, and they are unequivocally the biggest problem, the culture of guns and violence is also deeply ingrained. This culture defines much of American media, and is absent in many older European democracies.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
My main point was not so much about the (in)frequency of mass shootings or their causes and simply a recognition that such shootings also do also occur in other countries; but also that, when they do occur in other countries, the lack of easy access to high capacity semi auto rifles, such as the AR-15, tends to limit the number of victims.
Hence, even if we discount or ignore the influence of “gun/violence culture” and/or other hard to quantify sociological factors, the easy access to more efficient weapons in the US is likely to increase the number of victims in any given shooting. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@April, are you honestly suggesting that we take away the ability for rural-folk to literally put food on the table? Especially since, y'know, we have too many deer. The only way you could be any more offensive to the people from my area would be to suggest that trophy hunters be used to control the deer populations. Fuck trophy hunters; hunting licenses are limited, and trophy hunters coming out from the cities are taking food out of peoples' mouths, and that's not getting into the whole issue of them being a bunch of rich drunk assholes with no respect for either the land or the locals. Corn (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Earnestly? Yes, I propose we take away the ability for people in rural areas to kill wild animals with guns. How many safety precautions does the wild meat go through before it lands on someone's plate? How clean is the meat? How many food inspections does the food go through in those areas? How many checks for pathogens does wild meat go through before consumption? Literally nothing. There is no guarantee the hunters follow through any of those precautions. Think of all diseases one may acquire through hunting wildlife without any proper sanitation on behalf of the food (rabies, anthrax, monkeypox, etc). Here is a UN article showing that intake of wild meat increases the risk of acquiring a zoonotic disease. I am aware of extremely inadequate food distribution in rural areas, and that is absolutely an injustice (and I do not support trophy hunters either, I find them to be quite disgusting people) but the solution is not putting everyone in rural communities at risk of zoonotic diseases and mass shootings.--April Chat? 17:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
You present the problem as one only solvable through unsanitary wild meat. As if the present situation is the only rational one. As if the problem was not, especially in rural areas, agribusinesses controlling all of the farms, cultured meat and genetically modified organisms (such as golden rice) continuing to remain in the hands of a wealthy few, rather than nationalized for the generic usage by the populace, poor SNAP/food stamp benefits, food deserts; places in which there are no fresh supermarkets for miles, etc.--April Chat? 17:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@AprilIsTrying Tell me you have no clue abount hunting without telling me you have no clue abount hunting.
For real though, If you don't think the meat is safe to eat, then you won't eat it. You obviously don't eat dirty meat, and the meat is cleaned, cooked, etc. since, ya know, you're gonna eat it. You are fooling yourself if you think factory-farm meat is sanitary, as it is literally common knowledge that the FDA is corrupt to the hilt, and most factory farms are notified in advance for inspections so they can put on a show.
I live in rural Massacheusetts, and you have only really demonstrated that you have no idea what life is like in rural areas. It seems to my judgement you have never left a city for any length of time. Just say that you want to take away one of our ways of substance cause we're a bunch of good-for-nothing hicks next time. An Advocate (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
There's this invention called "fire". No hunter in their right mind would eat venison any way other than Well-Done for that very reason. Corn (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
There are ways to minimize disease risk from venison ertc. that perhaps wet farms in China don't know about, and The Internet (quick Google so YMMV warning) suggests that even medium rare of certain cuts of venison is fine. But never mind that. IMHO the hunter topic is a red herring, anyways, considering the politics. When the fuck have Republicans cared about public lands for instance? (The NRA occasionally tepidly makes tiny feelies in this direction but it's hardly their main focus.) Without public lands, you know what happens in the US at least: all the land gets swept under private ownership. If you're allowed to hunt on the land at all, the landowners are gonna charge you a lot for the privilege. Suffice to say, public lands are real good for hunters that aren't super-loaded with cash. But the NRA really doesn't care.
Go to the NRA website instead and you have an inane article on how high gas prices have cut into public safety services. And it's not Putin's fault for some reason but Biden's clean energy policy (lolwut?). What the fuck does that have to do with guns? It doesn't. But by moaning about emergency services, it heavily aligns into the real sell for firearms: American scaredy-cats obsessed with Oh Noez Crime! and think that everyone is out to get you (especially those darker skinned types and other evil boogeymen). That's the real audience for guns these days: those scared of their own shadow. Buy a gun to protect yourself from the Oogie Boogie Man. And while you are afraid of the Oogie Boogie Man, the NRA is happy to spout bullshit that could've come straight from a Koch. Hunting? The NRA ain't about that anymore. (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
"When the fuck have Republicans cared about public lands for instance?"
Who do you think established the US Forest Service?
As for Gas Prices and Inflation, it's because gas and inflation were already on the rise before the invasion of Ukraine. That made things worse, but it's not as if the problem didn't exist before. Corn (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, I should clarify this as, perhaps, post-Reagan, and particularly the post-Gingrich GOP. (Teddy Roosevelt was back when the GOP was the "progressive" party, but even Richard Nixon, certainly no progressive, created that gosh darn EPA that goads the modern GOP these days.) (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
George HW Bush was responsible for adding sulfur emissions caps to the clean air act, which is why you don't hear about acid rain these days. But Bush Sr was one of the last of a dying breed. Shame, I think in retrospect he deserved the Presidency more than Clinton, who only got in because of Ross Perot, though Clinton ended up being a pretty OK President overall. Can't say the same of any President since. Blue Dog Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans are critically endangered, if not already extinct in the wild. Corn (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
...Fire? Mm, okay then...I guess that is better than...lab inspected meat, suddenly. I stand by my previous statement.--April Chat?
Again, just because the FDA is corrupt does not in consequence debunk my point. A random deer you found in a forest and then ate is going to be much more dangerous than meat you can buy at Costco. That does not mean manufactured meat is perfect, but generally, much safer.--April Chat? 21:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@AprilIsTrying, what the fuck are you talking about? Are you fuckin' stupid? Do you literally think hunting consists of eating random animals you find in the woods, half dead, pus flowing like streams from every orafice, on deaths door, and thinking "ho boy, we's gon' eat good tonigh'!" First, I was annoyed, now I'm pissed. I suspected that you thought that rural folk are useless lowlives from your first post, and you have now just proved it. Hunting consists, at bare minimum, of taking a rifle (or trap, or hunting equipment) and killing an animal, lets say a deer. You then pick up the deer, along with whatever you used to kill it, and see then skin it and butcher it for meat. Notice that if anything looks awry, then you will obviously be suspicious of the meat, and either take extra precautions or dispose of it. Since your going to eat it, it makes no sense to eat it if you don't think it's safe. You then cook it, to make it safe to eat, and eat it. If you have more meat, then you preserve it. You don't seem to concered with eating industrial slaughterhouse meat reviewed by (in your own admission) a corrupt administration. Why do you take issue with rural folk obviously more knowledge able about game then you are, who have a vested interest in eating safe meat? An Advocate (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Hunters are among the only gun owners that consistently show that owning and operating guns responsibly is possible. But no one is hunting with an AR-15. Many hunters I know don't even like handguns, just rifles and shotguns. Engaging with this meat thing is ridiculous, the poster is obviously wrong, don't feed the troll.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Using an AR-15 style rifle to hunt animals for food would be counter-productive. That kind of gun literally makes flesh vaporize and disappear, hence less food. LongStylus (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The meat at costco is "blade tenderized" so it has to be cooked to well done like venison or else its botchilist city. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:2E (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
If you want a gun to hunt, then get a gun to hunt. Just make sure you support putting all the hoops you jump through to get one. Just as how people need permits and licenses and stuff to hunt most birds, I don't see what's unreasonable, is it? Isn't it how other countries do hunting with guns while still maintaining strict gun control laws? As I said, the United States isn't the only country with rural areas and bear attacks. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, here, where I can buy one legally even if I’m mentally unstable and uneducated in gun safety. Just a FBI check and good to go! But I’m already tired of hearing news surroundjng shootings as gun culture is already so well ingrained. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:2E (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@LongStylus The 5.56mm is almost the same caliber as the .22 inch, and apparently the most popular bullet for hunting is the .30-06 inch, which is the 7.62mm. The military prefers the 5.56 because each soldier can only carry so much weight, smaller calibers mean lighter guns as well, lighter guns are quicker to aim, there's less wear on the gun when fired, the guns have less recoil and you can design a gun with much faster fire rate. Corn (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
No, no, here's a story to prove that April is BIGLY right.
Whenever I get hungry, I leave my shack and go into the woods, using my rifle (I use my Mosin over my AR-15 for this, it's heavier) to bludgeon the animal simultaneously killing and tenderizing it. I leave it outside to let flies and maggots infest it and then I drag it inside, making sure to use a rusty old knife to stab it repeatedly to ensure that shit and bile gets all over.
Once it's good and rotten, I drag it inside and let my several children (Cletus, Billy Joe, Bobby Joe, Billy Bob, Joe Bob, Joe Bill, Wyatt, Earl and Deytookerjerbz dig into it with their hands.
I spy with my little eye a bit of urban elitism. Swamp Fox (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I think I need to reiterate what I argued . . . I specifically stated that, from a scientific point of view, intensive and rigorous lab inspections of meat, regulations, and approval of meat is much safer than simply killing a wild animal, roasting it, then eating it. I am aware the fire does make the wild meat safer than wild meat not roasted over the fire, but that still does not compare to the rigorous inspection program I cited earlier. To clarify,
-I do not claim I understand rural culture or can cite prior experience in rural communities, I am arguing from a scientific skeptic and staunchly pro-regulation point of view; I support intensive precautions on all foodstuffs before consumption
-I do not judge individuals who engage in this behavior; none of my arguments base themselves upon the erroneous belief rural people are somehow "less human"; I judge the action itself and stand in opposition to it
-I understand most hunters do not shoot an animal and immediately start eating it on the spot
-The FDA is not the end all be all of food inspections. A bad agency that inspects food does not, consequently, mean comprehensive food inspection, too, is a bad idea
-Yes, if guns were taken away from rural communities in the so-called US without radically different agricultural and food policies, there would be starvation and hunger amongst many people. That is why I propose the initiation of these myriad left-wing policies simultaneously
"You don't seem to concerned with eating industrial slaughterhouse meat reviewed by (in your own admission) a corrupt administration." Yes, it is not as well done as it should be. I agree with you. There needs to be new food inspection agencies, the FDA fails to adequately inspect industrial slaughterhouse meat.
-" Do you literally think hunting consists of eating random animals you find in the woods, half dead, pus flowing like streams from every orafice, on deaths door, and thinking "ho boy, we's gon' eat good tonigh'!" ...No, obviously not.
-"You then pick up the deer, along with whatever you used to kill it, and see then skin it and butcher it for meat. Notice that if anything looks awry, then you will obviously be suspicious of the meat, and either take extra precautions or dispose of it. Since your going to eat it, it makes no sense to eat it if you don't think it's safe. You then cook it, to make it safe to eat, and eat it. If you have more meat, then you preserve it." Serious diseases are not always easily notable in wildlife. That is the danger. I am aware of the necessity for cooking it.
-I am vegetarian???
...Sorry.--April Chat? 02:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser I don't think it's a question of the size of the bullet, but the fact that an AR-15 style rifle creates an explosion inside the body. All that delicious meat goes *poof*. [3] A handgun bullet would just go straight through the flesh. LongStylus (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

A critical issue is that calibres like 5.56 and weapons like the AR-15 were never designed for hunting and are not bought for hunting.

Both come from WW1/2 experiences, which said that rifle-fire was too slow and most action was below 100m. Therefore, the calibre and weapon was designed to basically, vaguely aim at the enemy and spray out ammo at them as quickly as possible, hoping that something will hit them (or at least forcing them to keep hidden). AR-15s, FALs etc are 'more accurate' than AK-patterns, but they're utterly terrible. There's a good reason most militaries clung on to their WW2 rifles for snipers way into the post-war era, and most sharpshooting/hunting weapons are simply updated versions of such.

As Corrupt/35 pointed out, 5.56 is a mediocre hunting calibre - it simply lacks 'stopping power'. This has in fact been noted by militaries themselves; for example complaints from US forces in Somalia, Iraq and Afganistan that basically, 5.56s don't kill enough when hit by them.

On the meat front... I question the prevailance and the importance of hunted meat for the American table.

Firstly, getting it - it's unpredictable and time consuming. Might have to travel fair distances. Then preparing it; laboriorious, messy and requiring some skill. When you throw all of these together, most folks would do better to simply buy the meat than try to get it yourself.

Then the amounts of hunters. Stats show only around 5% of adult Americans actively hunt. Even if we grant half again do it without licences, that's only 7.5%. Yes, a few states shall have much heavier %'s due to location, but they generally have tiny populations anyway.

Lastly, hunting seasons and bag limits shall make it almost impossible between them to actually subsist on hunted meat in the vast majority of locations (unless you're very flexible in your meat choice and/or poaching). At best, they shall provide a supplement to the larder in the appropiate season, in a similar way an mushroom forager, a decent angler or the owner of some fruit trees will.

So, in conclusion, 35 is right - they're complete red herrings. ARs/AKs etc are not needed 'for hunting', nor are there vast swathes of the population who subsist on hunting alone for their meat. It's a false battle, caused by the NRA. The hunting community are the dupes here; they're being led through the nose in being told 'them city libruls' are coming to ban all rifles and hunting when the truth is generally speaking only the 'crazies' on the political fringe desire that and they'll never be able to achieve it. Then on the other side the NRA claims to represent a 'hunting community' which is way larger than it acutally is (rather like Fundie groups).

I mean, how the hell did we get onto this topic? A mass shooting. In short order, we get lost arguing about minor points utterly unrelated to the main issue at all, then sweeping statements and cries about 'urban elitism'.

The sad thing is that I don't think this derail was even deliberately done. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you explained this better than I did. I just hate guns a lot. And this hunting shit literally does not happen en masse. It is a red herring.--April Chat? 15:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
That's the frustrating thing: there doesn't seem to be even an attempt on the gun nut side to acknowledge and even think of offering any potential solutions for the high-profile problem: wackos causing high profile mass shooting. At least, any actions that would dare touch the US's ultra-loose firearm laws (which almost anyone who has researched the topic acknowledges is a major source of the problem). Instead, you mostly see grandstanding and 2A absolutism. Personally, I would think there are a few really obvious targets to restrict that would hardly impact rural life, while making life tougher for the wackos. An example would be if you class 3 and restrict manufacturing of high-size magazines, like the 30+ round mags you see in so many mass shootings. I suppose we aren't even at that point, though, due to toxic American politics.
It's worth looking at the country up north on how they handle this. Sure, some Canadians do bitch about their firearm regulationsWikipedia, but not everyone, and at least for now the bitching in Canada doesn't seem to get into US-style identity oriented absolutist hysterics. Canada is actually more rural overall compared to US with bigger high-profile game in general (eg moose and grizzlies, found in only a few US states). So yes, it's possible to come up with some compromise between usage concerns and safety concerns even in a land with a lot of wide open space. (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I blame all the endocrine disruptors. I don't know what they are or what they do, ergo they must be responsible.
In all seriousness though, I do think that the rise in mental illness is caused by something the kids are exposed to, possible during fetal development. Maybe it's BPA, maybe it's Zoloft. We've been overprescribing drugs to people for decades, you can't tell me that's not going to have some impact on the next generations... Corn (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it's because we actually have started identifying mental illness? Zoloft is a treatment, it doesn't make one depressed. Every single mass shooting that has happened this summer has had one primary factor; an automatic rifle. A weapon designed to fire a bunch of rounds in a small amount of time. There are places with higher diagnosis of mental illness (i.e. Iceland, Japan) but only America has weapons of war for discounts on holidays.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Mental health is a red herring too. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Nah, it's clearly violent vidya causing all this. /s LongStylus (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, the generic ableist and sanist notion that mental illness causes mass shootings...surely, the combination of easy gun access, high gun ownership, and white supremacy do not cause no... (/s)--April Chat? 23:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll say it until my noses's blue all over but you don't need a long-term struggling state of mind to kill something. Just a weapon and a short temper. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
There's fewer and fewer gun-owners each year. It doesn't matter how many guns you have, having 20 guns doesn't give you any more ability to commit a mass shooting than having 2. Guns have not become easier to acquire in the past few years, AFAIK. So what's the difference now? Corn (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
That's already been answered, repeatedly. Toxic masculinity + firearms fetishisation + societal fragmentation/polorisation + lack of support mechanisms for folks going through crises + 'somebody elses' problem' syndrome. There's two massive 'red flags' for possible shooters; a history of violence towards women/children and/or currently within a serious emotional crisis. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
How do you measure the rate of firearms fetishization and toxic masculinity? Because I seem to recall the 80s having a lot more in the way of firearms fetishization in action films. 13:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
There was a huge amount of gun violence in the 1970s and early 1980s, overall gun homicides for instance dropped quite a bit in the 1990s. (According to another Pew chart that is "age adjusted", as of 2020 gun homicides is up quite a bit, but not yet near record highs.) Mass shootings were not completely unknown then (see the San Ysidro McDonald's massacreWikipedia and Luby's shootingWikipedia among others) and the phrase "going postalWikipedia" actually dates to the mid 1980s when disgruntled employee workplace shootings became a meme.
So, some of this is just "life in America, sigh" which has always had a dosage of masochism and Ed AngerWikipedia type idiots who wave guns in the air and live life by the Rifleman's CreedWikipedia (without any of the discipline that comes with being a Marine). The "paranoid style" phrase dates to 1964, there's always been conspiratorial crazy loons. (Albeit it took Donald Trump to make this actual mainstream). The main difference I see is that, rather than restrict some of the classes of firearms that might be used for wackos randomly shooting people out of bullshit anger (as almost every other developed country has done), the NRA, which only radicalized after the Revolt at CincinnatiWikipedia in 1977 (so not as big of a force in the 1980s), has only encouraged more firepower and more paranoia politics to get the paranoid to obsess and buy more weaponry. Thus, when the occasional loon goes stupidly violent, instead of 20-30 people being shot with Glocks in the "good old days", it is possible for one lone idiot to kill 60 and wound 400+ (Las Vegas). (It also seems that especially lately, high-profile type mass shootings are more frequent, but I don't see any studies exploring why at this point.) (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
But is it easier to get an assault rifle today than in, say, 1985?
The reason for the massive crime waves of the 60s and 70s is mostly due to all that lead. Or according the Freakanomics, the lack of abortions for single moms. We no longer have the lead in our gasoline, so what chemicals are we exposed to now that we weren't 50 years ago? I suspect that all the plastic-related stuff is just as bad as the lead was, but I'm even more suspicious of all the medications that pregnant women are on that wasn't widespread back in the day. Consider that in the UK, 26% of adults take a prescription drug, whereas in the US, it's 66%. There's abortion too; the crime rate took a massive nosedive 15-20 years after Roe, which is a very strong suggestion that the US was aborting the "right" fetuses, and while abortions are no longer legal across the entire US, that won't have any impact on the crime and mass shooting rates until about 15-20 years from now. Another reason for the 70s crime was the drug addictions, and I guess Heroin has made a massive comeback in the last few years, but I don't know exactly how much that is to blame. We also have a lot more kids being raised in single-parent households, but it seems that being raised without a dad is nowhere near the problem that being raised in poverty is.
In terms of a culture of violence and so forth, we have social media now. But I don't want to BE that old fart who blames new media for some problem, so I'm hesitant to pin all the murders on Instagram and OnlyFans... Corn (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hold on. Are you really out here talking about all this other bullshit, ignoring the literal dead elephant in the room? It's guns! The UK has a lot of violence, mostly with knives. Guess what, the US has more knife violence than the US.[4] But knives aren't nearly as destructive or as lethal as guns. Every other factor you want to bring in, there is a comparable OCED nation with the same factors and less gun violence. Why is that?@CorruptUser you are correct that there are fewer gun owners. But that is a function of conservatives owning more guns and liberals eschewing them. Literally, what is more important: Protecting guns or Addressing violence?[5] Really shouldn't be a hard call.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

But why does less people with guns equal more mass shootings? There's more to the equation here. Again, I don't see guns being easier to obtain than 30-40 years ago, heck, you used to be able to mail-order guns (which Oswald allegedly did with JFK).Corn (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Eh, the violent crime nose-dive in the late 80s/90s can be down to other stuff, such as counter-actions by cops, the wider use of tech and the simple fact the US had a 'baby bust' by 1975 which meant by c1990 there was simply a lot less teens as a % in the population than in 1970. But back OT...
I'm with Corrupt on this one. As it's a physical impossibility to remove all the guns from the USA, a logistical impossibility to only limit their possession to 'reasonable' folks and a legal impossibility to put in serious restrictions, the only other reasonable course of action (rather than inaction) would be to takle the root causes and watch out for the 'red flags' before they become fatal incidents. These things are already known, they've just not be done. I write this as a Brit watching the grapples with 'knife crime'; that while legislation can nibble around the edges ie knife sales and clear weapon-blades (we had a panic about 'zombie knives' a few years back) it was clearly impossible to ban items found in every kitchen in the land. It also convinces me that simply 'taking guns/knives away' isn't really the long-term answer; if people want weaponry, feel the need for weaponry they'll find something. Hammers? Screwdrivers? Axes? What's the moral of this story - it's socially okay for people to be say, dismembering each other with machetes, as long as there aren't many 'mass fatality incidents'?
Anyway, 'firearms fetishisation' is simply more than 'positive shows of it in films' - it's the general elevation of something which is no more than a tool into something so much more. That it has been mythologised, become symbolic of particular attributes, has taken up residence within the American collective psyche and of particular groups within American society. That two sides of this fetishisation has been seen in this very Bar recently; with one who clearly equates firearms with 'power', 'freedom' and 'the method of continuing political debate', while another clearly sees firearms full of negative connotations leading to their simple statement 'I just hate guns'. I mean, you don't have people announcing that they love or hate say, hammers, hole-punches or door-handles, do you? In the latter case (sorry April) it's still fetishisation, simply an inverted kind.
With toxic masculinity... I will hazard the theory is that the situation is getting worse because of several factors - including other societal stresses compounding the pressure (economic etc), the much lower willingness of others (mainly women) to 'let crap slide', the continued decline of 'traditional male' outlets and the increasing disconnection between what is traditionally considered 'male success' and it's actual ability to be attained. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I think in Britain the weapon of choice was sulfuric acid. I'd rather be stabbed.
As for toxic masculinity, what are you saying? That even as men have become "less toxic", women's tolerances for toxicity has decreased even faster? I mean, young men are struggling more than ever to get laid today. Literally 1 in 3 men aged 18-24 had no sexual activity in the past year. Corn (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
See it more as 'sufferance' than 'tolerance', personally. Because it's no way their fault for refusing to continue to put up with that kind of shit. It's why Greta Thunberg is uber-triggering to white males over ~45; it's a 'slip of a girl' who refuses to sit down, shut up and absorb their 'wisdom' from her betters (ie them).
Anyway, I don't think it's about 'getting laid' per se - it's about status. Regular in/out directly implies a decent access to females which are 'worth doing', which in the warped machismo world of Don Draper means you are 'successful' (ie wealthy) enough to attract them. Which is why I listed 'economic pressures' as part of the compounding factors; it's hard to feel a 'proper man' if you're still stuck living with your mother and unable to afford other status symbols to show your rise to everyone - ie an inability to start on the traditional path to success. Example: ''Argumentum ad Cellarium', clearly any reasonably intelligent and skilled adult male wouldn't be living in their parents basement, therefore he's clearly a loser who is wrong on (topic).
Therefore, the 'lack of getting laid' is in fact deflected anger of lack of 'making it' (Don Draper fashion). Then they come to believe that their lack of success is due to 'diversity', 'feminism' and so on 'holding him down' so They can prosper (as it's a zero-sum game, apparently and they can only win if the game is rigged to let them win). Lack of success equals lack of confidence and thus, lack of interaction with real women (or even normally-adjusted men). Couple a few experiences of frankly crappy examples of humanity who possess pink blankets and an inability to find outlets to process such feelings positively... bam. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
It's called "General Strain Theory", by Dr Robert Agnu. You expect X, you do not achieve X, you suffer strain, which causes you to move into anti-social behavior.
In simple terms, some people just suck at life. They might respond to the "unfair game" by "cheating", i.e., Crime, by refusing to play, i.e., become a recluse or even suicidal, or by "flipping the board and scattering the pieces", i.e., mass murder. Corn (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Which they can only do, because they have access to guns. The US is not the only country dealing with toxic masculinity, fetishized violence or rises in crime. But we are the only country you can buy an weapon that fires 30 rounds in less than ten seconds. That can literally pulverize a human body. I am not proposing confiscating guns. Anyone that thinks the US could replicate Australia or New Zealand is kidding themselves. But reducing the number of new weapons finding their way into and market, and incentivizing people to voluntarily give up their guns isn't that extreme. Nor would requiring more extensive background checks, or even digitizing the records, a thing that ATF still can't do. We can't just throw our hands in the air and say, "It's too hard, I guess we have to live with national trauma every couple weeks." Conservatives are active in trying to stamp out any voting fraud, even though it's vanishingly rare. Americans are killed by guns in this country every minute, and we've had one modest law in 30 years.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
What a crock. By that argument, you'd be okay with these people shooting others with crossbows, as long as they don't kill many bystanders each time. The huge problem in your goal is the existence of just over a half-dozen right-wing judges who'll not only strike down any law made to intrude on the unfettered right to own any weapon with no responsibilities, but the way they're shredding precedent I fully expect the private ownership of howitzers (plus ammo) to be perfectly fine by 2024, even if you live in central Boston.
That's not 'saying it's too hard', it's 'accepting it's utterly impossible'. On this front, come back after either three Justices are dead and replaced by non-crazies or some Democratic court-packing is done. Until then, you're dishing your head open on a brick wall in desires of any legal 'restrictions' or even significant changes on the market for firearms. Even more serious hurdle is Congress; the Senate clearly being the hardest to clear on any new Federal legislation on this front (vital for any sales restrictions, due to the Commerce Clause and online gun sales). Assuming it's possible to craft anything which won't be ruled as 'unconstitutional'. 'Voter fraud' is not an example of conservatives wanting to stop 'a (small) problem', it's an exercise in disenfranchisement of people who overwhelmingly don't vote for them.
Thus the attempts to find other ways to 'deal with it'. In fact, constantly trying the same tactics knowing they won't work is a perfect response to the 'call' of 'thoughts and prayers' and about as effective.
With voluntary buybacks, they're of seriously limited worth. If done at below-market rates, it will mainly follow Gresham's Law ('good' guns will be sold on to others/retained, 'bad' guns will be handed in for a little $ instead of being scrapped). Sorry Chicago; a quick check online shows that almost all firearms have a value way over the $100 gift card you were offering a couple of months back (nor can you really blame gun traders hijacking a buyback in Seattle when you simply consider the price disparity). Now, it can be argued that it's 'no-questions asked' policy they usually have allow the cashing-in of stolen weaponry which 'gets them off the streets', but unfortunately I'll bet my teeth that the sums offered are below the black market value too. In fact this is deliberate policy; for fears of creating a boom of gun-stealing simply to sell them in buybacks. But most importantly, they generally attract the 'wrong' type of person - mainly the responsible gun-owner who has decided to get rid. How many of these would have got rid without the buyback? I suspect most. Now, it's quite possible the buyback advertising etc provided a final 'nudge' to pull your finger out and deal with it, but in that case it's quite possible simply an advertising campaign to extort them to get rid (responsibly, of course) might have almost the same effect.
But you already kinda accept this when mentioning 'reducing the supply of weapons'. Buybacks alone are akin to using a coffee mug to bail out a flooded basement when the mains is blown open. Until you can deal with the flow of water into the place, you'll have almost nil effect in your bailing. Interesting reading on the topic.
As for Corrupt's point... well, that's part of the problem. Telling these guys 'basically mate you just suck at life' is really not helpful. What do you expect as the result to this; a patient continuing 'playing the game' knowing that every damn day you'll be trounced? To do it with a cheerful disposition, accepting your fate while it's constantly rubbed in your face? If so, you're as stupid as my old sports teacher who 'wondered why' I objected to gym and skipped it whenever I could. The true problem with toxic masculinity is not that some folks fail at it and then lash out but the fact this model of masculinity is massively retrograde, repressive and conforming. To paraphrase WarGames; the best solution to such a fucked-up game is to tell young men that they do not have to play it, that others are available. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It's crazy that at this point, I'm accusing @KarmaPolice of being overly cynical. Honestly I would rather people kill each other with crossbows. The thing that is so devastating about these incidents is the casual action the leads to mass casualties. When you have to kill something with a crossbow, or basically any weapon that requires some sort of physical effort on behalf of the user, the human body can only use so much effort to actually do damage to some one. In the time it would take you to fire, reload, and fire a crossbow again, you could empty two clips of an assault style weapon. Those bolts more then likely kill at least one person, but maximum two. The force with which the bolt leaves the bow is considerably less than a bullet leaving a barrel. And in the moment, people can react better to one slower moving bolt compared to thirty bullets. The crossbow's very purpose is precision, you have only one shot to drop an animal, so you aim directly at a vital organ for an instant kill. Assault weapons are instead meant to give the user multiple attempts to drop an opponent, where every round is not meant to hit one person. Sure you do that in Call of Duty, but the reality is that in the right hands two or three rounds is needed to eliminate a combatant. In a conflict situation, the number of rounds also has a defensive purpose, to hold combatants into a singular position while allies reposition. But mass shooters aren't trying to eliminate a target. Their purpose is terror, and their choice of weapon presents them with the opportunity to use minimum effort and threaten the maximum amount of people. What purpose would a weapon capable of doing that have with a civilian.
Additionally, you seem to not have a strong grasp on the way federalism works in this country. One of the defining features of America is that each of the fifty states is a laboratory for democracy. That's fifty different governors, 7,383 legislatures, representing roughly 220,000 voters. Simply there doesn't exist and absolutely uniform approach to managing firearms. There are GOP states that have their own concealed permit rules, and don't recognize the same privilege from another state. That doesn't even address how counties within states may even have their own laws regarding background checks and permits. The extreme position of every single person having multiple guns, and always packing, isn't how actual things turnout. Now Dem controlled states and constituencies create their own guidance for guns, that never does the thing the GOP says it will to completely disarm the populace. Nor are Dem controlled states even the same in the legislation they're putting out. I live in Oregon, which has relatively loose gun laws compared to California or Washington and definitely compared to New York or Washington, D.C. It works for our state, and perhaps it could be a blueprint for the next steps. The Supreme Court doesn't just hand down edicts that strike entire rules down, it can't. It doesn't just go through and look at every single law passed in every single state or county or city and then say it's unconstitutional. It must go through multiple steps, that can stretch months while a law remains in effect, possibly saving someone's life, and that is worth it to achieve.
Looking at that source for gun-buyback, this is in the second paragraph of your source:

Early research on gun buybacks, mostly from the 1990s, largely finds these programs ineffective at curbing gun violence. Recent research frames gun buybacks in a more favorable light. On their own, buybacks might not be effective if the goal is to use them to directly reduce violent crime. But research shows buybacks can help if they’re part of a broader effort to reduce gun violence. They can influence public perception of how authorities are dealing with gun violence and serve as opportunities to educate communities about gun violence reduction strategies, according to academic researchers.

That is without question worth it. Violent crime appears in all sorts and forms, but reducing gun violence in general, is worth pursuing as a policy. If tickets to ball games and vouchers isn't enough, just do cash. Australia is of course the textbook example, and while the data doesn't paint a perfect picture, multiple researchers have found that the program may have accelerated a trend that had already begun, it has maintained that downward trend for 26 years, when historically it had previously returned to nominal average. As recently as 2018, researchers had already noted significant changes in men committing suicide with firearms, and women being killed by firearm homicide. You obviously won't solve every problem, but potential for lifesaving must be pursued.
This subject has majorities of Americans that support doing something, pursuing the most basic of a regulatory framework. Just because the majority of those in power among the GOP are out of alignment with the majority of their own voters, doesn't mean that relentless pursuit of legislation is meaningless. If we have truly reached that point, then this country is no longer worth fighting for.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- First off, I find it kinda disgusting that you 'would rather people kill each other with crossbows'. I don't want people to kill people at all. I know for a fact that over half of all firearms fatalities are suicide, and I bet the vast majority of the remainder have only 1-3 victims, which I suspect could also be sucessfully pulled off with a crowbar, blade or whatever else you'd care to name. Perhaps I'm simply weird, but I see this as a 'suicide/murder problem', rather than a 'firearms problem'. The latter is simply the most popular tool of choice for Americans for the former problem.
- As for 'you seem to not have a strong grasp on the way federalism works in this country'... okay, I am not an American constitutional lawyer, I admit this happily. But I do know certain things, such as the kinda important the SCOTUS has the power to overturn any law it judges as unconstitutional one. Like they did with NY's concealed carry law recently. Now, tell me I am wrong. Tell me that States, Cities and so on are able to make laws that the clear 2nd-amendment maximalists that control the Supreme Court cannot overturn. And what about the locations controlled by the nuttier end of the GOP, eh? What you going to do about those, when there's clearly going to be no Congress majority for any movement on Federal legislation?
You know what hacks me off? You are literally the other side of the coin of how things go. There's a mass shooting, 'you' call for tighter firearms legislation, the Republicans point the fingers at 'mental illness' or 'criminality' or whatever excuse they can dredge up, the NRA calls in it's favours, almost all movement on said legislation stalls, it dies a death and then another mass shooting happens and we start the whole fucking game again. To be honest, I think the gun control crowd are pinning far too much faith in law and it's destroying all other possible angle of attacks.
- As for buybacks... "But research shows buybacks can help if they’re part of a broader effort to reduce gun violence."
Wait... buybacks alone don't seem to work, but if they're part of a joined-up effort to reduce gun violence they do? Is it possible that it's just the 'associated efforts' making the difference, eh? It's this which got my attention when I read a meta-study of mass shooters and noticed some 80% of underage culprits did so with weapons stolen from relatives/friends - what if these legal owners had it drilled into them to keep their weapons secured? I also question whether buybacks are cost effective - now, I'm not looking to pick hairs over this, but it's something which does need to be looked into. After all, there's only so much resource for this kind of thing, so we'd like them to be putting into the most effective means of prevention, not just something which provides good photos for politicians gazing at a pile of buyback weapons.
- Australia is a textbook example, but for the wrong subject. That was an involuntary buyback. As I don't see the fundimentals of American gun law changing any time soon, this means they have little cross-application in this situation.
KarmaPolice (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't want people to kill people at all. I'm stunned by this naivety. What you are inspiring for is impossible. It would be great if it was sugar-plums and rainbows, and no one had to want for anything. Except that reality doesn't exist. Instead America is country defined by contradictions, violence and hypocrisy. The context of the 2nd Amendment is even more horrifying when you realize the first draft had the word 'Nation' instead of the word 'State' because slave states used their militia as slave patrols, and wouldn't let them be part of a standing force. Disregarding all of this context, and addressing your point see[ing] this as a 'suicide/murder problem', rather than a 'firearms problem'. Humans killing humans or wanting to kill them selves involves complex moral issues in addition to addressing the social contract in a country. These are discussions that need to be had, and are a part of a functioning liberal democracy. America however is not unique in needing to deal with these issues, even among our peer countries. Critically there is one fundamental difference: access to firearms. There are still shotguns in Australia, there are still rifles in the UK but the number of firearms per capita in those countries; UK - 4.6 AUS -14.5 US - 120.5 per 100 people. How about firearms deaths per capita(which includes homicides & suicides); In the UK .20, AUS .88, US 12.1 per 100,000 people. You're telling me there is absolutely no connection between ownership and deaths? A great comparison here is mid 20th century UK. The most common method to kill yourself during that period was to inhale fumes from coal gas. As these were replaced with non-toxic fume generating natural gas stoves, suicides reduced by 40% in the UK while it increased in other European countries. This market driven change was by no means intentional but between 1963 and 1975 this saved 2,000 lives. If you reduce the means, like the ease of access to firearms, you will see a decrease in deaths.
I am also not a Constitutional scholar, but a basic understanding of the legal process would tell you that reaching the Supreme Court for relief is a massive undertaking. The process for judicial review is intentionally slow and difficult to encourage settlements or agreements before SCOTUS would get involved. So as a state, seeking to set an example for protecting its citizens should create legislation with the precedent SCOTUS has created to limit access to firearms. Again the examples I'm bringing are a bit more radical, but there is plenty of middle of the road enforcement reform that would have an effect. That includes buybacks. That includes training. That includes new requirements to store firearms. That includes investments in health care, not just mental health. Probably also includes investments in education and food assistance to keep people from needing a firearm to survive their environment. All of these will help reduce crime, and as a knock on, firearm violence.
My position, and the position of most of Americans identifies that firearm violence is a uniquely American problem. Japan just dealt with an assassination using a manufactured gun. Interviews from Japanese citizens reveal that many Japanese are shocked and feel unsafe. After one person was killed with a gun. Why should we tolerate four people dying by a firearm every hour in America.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Shinzo Abe shot; in emergency[edit] Revolverman (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The day the leaders fall, is today, apparently. Revolverman (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
CBC reports he's suffered heart failure. Its looking grim. Revolverman (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Wow. I don't like Abe, but he doesn't deserve to be assassinated. Hopefully he'll recover. LongStylus (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Nobody deserves to be executed, not even the dumbasses in power. The big secret is nobody knows what they are doing. I hope, if there was a shooter, they are alive and brought to court to explain their actions. It breaks my heart even more when shooters kill and then kill themselves. It's super dumb when shooters of a certain color are cut down, but that's an America problem. (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Shooter is in custody. Revolverman (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Exactly BoN. No politician deserves that, and it sets a bad example for people who aspire to be politicians. LongStylus (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
"I agree, BoN, No human deserves that, and it sets a bad example for people who aspire to live their lives in anger" is, I think, a better statement. (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Touché LongStylus (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
He died
that was..quite quick--April Chat? 09:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
That's tragic! Here are some memes to remember him by. , , . Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 09:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Five and a half hours is a disturbingly short time to die, meaning he must have been shot very aggressively. Abraham Lincoln took nine hours, John F Kennedy actually only took 30 minutes but was shot in the head. Some people, like James Brady, live on for 33 years before dying. Andrew5 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
shinzo abe despite sincere well wishes and prayers had slim chances of survival -- showed zero vital signs in hospital Low computer battery (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Shinzo Abe assassinated[edit]

In perhaps the most significant assassination since MLK, the former Prime Minister of Japan has been shot dead. The assassin was a middle-aged former military man and used a homemade firearm (?) to do the deed. In one of the most gun-strict countries in the world.

I don't get how a homemade gun can do so much damage. Did he build the entire thing from scratch? If so, how did he get the materials and how long did it make to craft both the gun and the bullets? If he added things to a gun, what things were added and why were they added? And what was the motive? Dissatisfaction with his policies is pretty broad. Was he a right-wing extremist? A far-left militant? Yakuza? A CCP sympathizer? "Just" an unhinged psycho? I just have so many questions, as do anyone the first few hours after an assassination of a major figure. — Unsigned, by: Alexj116 / talk / contribs

Call me a wee bit arrogant, but, the killer was not one of us radicals, FYI. The killer was a member of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force--April Chat? 10:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I apologize for making a redlink.--April Chat? 10:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
By the way, do not forget to use a signature by typing "~ ~ ~ ~" (no spaces) at the end of your sentence--April Chat? 10:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The killer said he did not disagree with Abe's political stances. Might want to look rightwards, like at say... The militant far-right groups Abe had ties to. Cue eyeroll at people assuming it's the left. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The killer is also ex-MSDF, not current. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Seems like if this person intended to hurt Abe's political parties prospects, instead they likely supercharged them.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal See above. The shooter claims it wasn't a political dispute. That their politics were not in conflict with each other. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Seriously...what radical joins a sodding bourgeois imperialist navy in an empire occupying the Ryukyu Islands? This person very clearly is not one of us.--April Chat? 16:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't need to become a conspiracy theory. The killer reportedly wanted to target religious group's senior official who wasn't present at that event. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 17:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I was only incredulous of the news because it was an hour or so in, and it was a gunshot, which doesn't track for Japan, and the shooter was arrested, which doesn't track for my experience with shooters. My highschool, shortly after I graduated, had an assistant principle that I knew and did not like shot by a kid whose dad was a cop. It was frustrating, I had been handed down severe punishments by this lady for stuff that was not malicious and I was up front about. She had a zero tolerance policy on anything and everything and when the vague news went out that an administrator had been killed, I knew who had been killed. When the specific news went out that the shooter had shot himself in his car instead of going into police custody, that's when I cried a little bit. It is so frustrating to see people get so angry that they turn violence into a tool to express themselves. (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────am i the only who's noticed that abe was assassinated almost exactly a year after haitian president jovenel moise was? G Man (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the shooter was upset at Moonies for driving his mother bankrupt and believed Abe was connected to the cult. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 14:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Jesus that's even worse. The reality of Abe's politics was unorthodox to begin with, but to assign blame to a belief not based in any sort of reality is frightening.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a small nugget of "something". In Japan the Moonies are in a somewhat similar "Venn diagram ideology circle", so to speak, with ultra-nationalist outfits like Nippon Kaigi that are more directly linked with the LDP, and Abe's LDP in particular. So far I have not heard of any direct link or even indirect link between the Moonies and Shinzo Abe (other than Abe speaking at a "Universal Peace Federation" rally in 2021, Universal Peace Federation is a Moonie org, but a lot of other world leaders attended). So it's obviously extremely asinine to resort to violence when the only thing shared between the Moonies and Abe is some conservative ideology. But it's not completely based in fantasy, and if your reasoning is warped badly enough... (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Moonie here (I don't believe in the Moonies anymore, but I haven't been able to distance myself from them yet), I have been looking into this closely with my friend in Japan and if anything, it's going to be a bumpy week for the cult. They will have a lot of explaining to do with how they treat Japanese members, and they will deny, hide, or downplay the financial abuse. From what I know, The LDP and Unification Church (UC) did collaborate (including Abe's grandfather and father) before, usually because of their shared hatred of communism. However, my friend and I weren't able to find any strong connections between Abe's LDP and UC and we are suspecting there might be something else behind this assassination or maybe he could've just been so enraged with how the cult ruined his mom he just wanted to find any excuse to attack anyone he thinks that are involved with UC. The assassin did say to investigators that he wanted to kill a high-ranking member of UC but then decided to kill Abe. He also test-fired his gun by shooting at a Moonie facility a day or two before the assassination. If anything, I find him quite crazy for doing this but at the same time, I do sympathize with his anger because his mom had to deal with the cult's shitty tactics of exploiting members to the last penny. MattyVicious (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Is it weird that I thought this was going to be a case of antisemitism? Whenever I hear someone blame "a certain group", I never assume they are referring to moonies...CorSock (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If doctors were smart asses[edit]

I thought of this and came up with two smart ass ideas for medical clinic locations.

  • Opening up a joint Obstetrician/STI treatment clinic in an area with strip clubs, pornographic theaters and adult stores.
  • Opening up a Cardiology clinic advertising heart surgery and heart attack risk factors next to fast food joints.

--Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

For years and years I worked at a burger place. There was a dialysis clinic next door- it was disturbing to serve folks who were wheelchair bound, overweight and full of holes from constant dialysis a god-awful sandwich, fries and milkshake. I mean it’s their choice but it always made me feel guilty. Probliknaut (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

fringe right eating their own[edit]

time for the popcorn Low computer battery (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought it was a big picture sort of thing but the scope of what's being shared looks like it's a spat between two high profile clowns. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
both function as de facto personality cults with MASSIVE following and overlap in support bases -- major rift in disorganized populist right movement may follow Low computer battery (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Musk has never been a huge diehard Trump type to be honest, he's more of a libertarian tech bro (meaning he aligns a little bit with the universe of things like Bitcoin and Joe Rogan, and is infected with a wee bit o' Silicon Valley absurdity). His biggest contradictions are more in that direction. For instance, currently, he has a pinned tweet about the low birth rate in America and a lot of tweets moaning about the "underpopulation crisis" (eg birth rate in US lower than replacement rate). In March this year, he praised current Chinese overwork culture ("996"). Of course, in Asia, the later is a major contributing factor to the former. Funny that Musk doesn't seem to notice that. :p
Obviously some Trump white male grievance types will cheer when Musk complains about "woke" culture on Twitter, but tech bros have never been that great at handling the opposite sex or sympathizing with minorities (see: Uber culture), so that's to be expected. Many libertarians though have never liked some features of the law-and-order / fundie / white nationalist American "conservatives", such as illegal drugs, militarized cops, or censorship of allegedly naughty or profane material. (It's not like these sorts of things change their overall direction, though. Musk seems to be hemming and hawing on the not-very-libertarian Texas abortion laws. That's IMHO unfortunately typical of that crowd.) (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
"Trump said in May that there was 'no way' Musk would pay such a 'ridiculous price' for Twitter." well, looks like trump was right about one thing. that's a start. G Man (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
What comes next won't be funny. Read the script. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
don't worry, i won't get used to it or anything. i was semi-seriously congratulating him for not being wrong for once. lol G Man (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but let's not forget Orange One was 'right for the wrong reasons'; aka Twitter is 'woke' and therefore not worth much, is in fact dying.
I agree with 35 that Musk is a different 'breed' to Trump. I was in fact going to say in another topic here that 'Trumpism' shall die with the God-Emperor himself, mainly due to the fact several of his keystones are fading fast. 'Muskism' (if you'll forgive the coining of the term and the fact he's ineligible to run for POTUS) however is the growing threat as it's a lot less openly socially reactionary, more supportive of science/tech advances and less antagonistic towards minorities - and thus, shall face a lot less resistance. Plus, also much less BS-sy about tech/science (obviously).
Still leads to a dystopia, just a different type of one. More Deus Ex, less Handmaid's Tale. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Whether Musk is ”much less BS-sy about tech/science” is debatable. Just as KP highlights that Musk ”leads to a dystopia, just a different type of one”, I would argue that Musk is also more a different kind of tech/science BS’er than Trump, rather than being substantially and quantitatively less of a BS’er. Musk repeatedly promise all kinds of vapourware and/or impractical solutions with the former falling squarely on the FM side of the AM/FM (Actual Machines/Fucking Magic) divide. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
the point is that trump was right about something, even though he lies and exaggerates 99% (or so) of the time. that still qualifies as a stopped clock moment. then again, ol' don the con would be the one to know what a bullshit artist is. G Man (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Wombat; I'd argue that the very fact that Musk desires to get his magic from tech and not supernatural entities is an improvement, if only a 'shades of badness' one. What does America need more of - science/tech labs or theology colleges? Physics textbooks or Bibles? Even a Space-X themed theme park would perhaps spur more kids to want to study it later in life, which is something Dinosaur Adventure Land clearly can't.KarmaPolice (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The big issue in the US, from my point of view, is an urgent need to start dealing seriously and effectively with the real world and Musk’s vapourware is about as helpful as Trump’s BS. I also don’t know that Trump is big on the whole “hopes and prayers” thing (though a lot of his supporters and the GOP in general are).
To illustrate the actual harm that Musk’ish pseudo-/non-solutions can bring look no further than the hyperloop (essentially a way to kill off mass transit via FM vapourware). The likelihood that Musk will “attract people to science” is no more convincing to me than that Trump’s ridiculousness will scare people into it.
Furthermore, Musk really has fuck all to do with science; he’s basically a pump & dump style speculator guised in tech bro lingo with all of that combination’s pie in the sky worship of “the genius entrepreneur” who will solve any problem by magic disruptive tech fixes. This also includes his obvious disdain for actual scientists and engineers, including those who actually founded Tesla and developed its key technologies that Musk then simply hyped. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Musk is to me just a primo example of the current Silicon Valley malaise though. I give credit to Musk for evangelizing electric cars (which will probably help the climate change issue some), and SpaceX seems to have done good in opening up that market. That was a part of the 2000s Silicon Valley / tech scenes. Sure, there was crap companies and the silliness of the early 2000s .com hype and crash cycle, but there seemed to be a little more altruism back then, not *quite* as much pie-in-the-skyism, and cases where profits or unrestricted growth weren't the only goals. (Of course, maybe this is just me looking through rose-tinted glasses, but it seems like, for instance, a lot of the current big-name non-profit tech companies like Wikipedia and Mozilla mostly got their start around this time.)
Then, the money started pouring in, and the cultures seemed to change, especially in the mid-2010s. Previously, it was firms like Microsoft that were thought of as "evil empires", but honestly the very real sins of the old M$ business culture seem tame in a way compared to the bullshit that Uber or Facebook etc. pulled off. In addition to the well documented sins of those type of companies, there was a lot of overhype, best exemplified by both the rise and fall of Theranos and the overpromise of self-driving cars. Musk definitely was a major promoter of the later, and it was mid-to-late 2010s era Musk where his promises started getting more "out there" (like with that creepy Neuralink thingy), his behavior more erratic and out-of-touch, and where he started getting a true Dunning-Kruger style big head (e.g. in typical new-era SV fashion, promoting an over-complicated too-high-tech "solution" to a cave rescue that ended up being useless to the rescue team, and then calling an experienced caver a "pedo guy" because that caver was nonplussed at Musk's stunt.) Certainly quite the decline, but quite in line with the wackiness of recent SV ethos. (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Simply put; Musk, for all his many faults has actually 'done stuff'. SpaceX is real. Starlink is real and so on. It funds tech/sci development, pays people's wages. As 35 points out, Musk is one of the very few of the SilVal libertarian-bros who have actually really changed the 'real world' - it's not just a load of glorified data harvesters (FB), advertisers (Amazon) or profession casualisers (Uber). You complain about Hyperloop; but does it really hurt that a few billion got blown revisiting an old idea to see if other elements of tech had caught up to make it viable? Not like we scrapped all our current trains in anticipation or anything...
What has Trump done? Serial failed grifter and possessor of a real estate 'empire' of dubious value. His only 'sci/tech' influences Trump has had revolve around hair restoration, plastic surgery and suggesting people inject bleach for Covid. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The buildings resulting from Trump’s various grifts are no less “real” than Musk’s companies, whether we think they’re desirable, aesthetically pleasing or whatever. I would also be careful when evaluating the “realness” of Musk’s companies, since, bar Tesla, they tend to make little to no money and if Musk can’t keep his juggling act based on leveraging Tesla’s share value and convincing people to keep pouring more money into them (private and public funding alike), his “business empire” might prove as evanescent as Trump’s.
And yes, Musk’s crap does real harm: The hyper loop not only wasted money (and Musk tends to waste other people’s money, rather than his own), but also distracted from the obvious, real world solution (i.e. mass transit) and help move the public debate away from the eminently possible to Musk’s FM loops and pods. This is just another way of avoiding the real, serious problems, while wasting time and money on fantasies (at least “hopes and prayers” don’t actually cost anything, although they also waste time and avoid dealing with the actual problems).
It also galls me no end that so much public money are funnelled to grifters like Musk who then pretend that they are Randian heroes who do what the government can’t do. Tax payers, primarily in the US, have either directly or indirectly poured billions into Musk’s businesses via lucrative subsidies and tax breaks. Why the hell are we subsidising billionaires to pretend they can do what the public sector can’t? ScepticWombat (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
To put it bluntly: Elon Musk is not Tony Stark, he’s Gordon Gecko.
And I would argue that this is entirely characteristic of Silicon Valley Randianism, which has always regarded the public sector, incl. laws and regulations, as something that “innovative” and “disruptive” tech companies don’t have to abide by. From Google’s flaunting of copyright and privacy to Uber (pirate taxi service with an app) and AirBnB (pirate hotel booking with an app) to mention just a few examples.
This attitude runs through the “tech” sector to an extent that even in other countries and down to the level of students, laws are seen as cumbersome hindrances and something that’s not really necessary to take seriously or comply with. That is probably among the more serious kinds of harm that Silicon Valley has wrought: Expanding and exporting the notion that laws shouldn’t actually be respected or even followed, but are just red tape and mere hindrances for the boundless creativity of the Randian entrepreneurs to be subverted or ignored at their leisure. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Only bit I really question here is your hatred of Hyperloop. Because you're directly wrong on two fronts.
First off, 'hyperloop' - generally called 'vactrain' - is mass transit. Or more correctly, can be used as such. The promised speeds offers a viable alternative to mid-haul air transit and may eventually even handle trans-oceanic and perhaps even an alternative to rocket space lauches. Much of the tech has existed since the Victorian Era, it's the principles of the pneumatic tube updated and upscaled, with maglev tech thrown in. Now, with hindsight this proved to be unviable, but from the looks of it Hyperloop wasn't expected to 'work', it was much more an experimental, exploratory effort to see if it had come within viability yet. It looks like it showed it wasn't - but I'm kinda confident it generated a lot of interesting data and nailed a few engineering problems. Stuff which I'm sure shall help when the idea is revisited again. Tech/science funding isn't like 'Research' on Civilisation; sometimes you have to throw them beakers into what turns out to be dead ends, of tech designs that ultimately don't 'win' vs competitors. If the serious folk didn't think vactrain didn't have some worth for revisiting, I'm sure they wouldn't have despite what Musk said. Hyperloop's main problem appears to be down to not the vactrain tech itself, but Musk's Boring tunnels. Ie they're simply too thin in diameter.
You're also wrong regarding funding issues. While the vast majority of Hyperloop cash came from the private sector, and it's 'new cash' ie not from existing infrastructure budgets. Those investors wouldn't have, if with no Hyperloop on offer put all that green into 'conventional' mass transit tech instead. In fact, I will with confidence say I am sure those big investors *knew* this was a high-risk 'blue skies' project. This is normal for finance, you're drawing this as a zero-sum game when it isn't one. If we take your complaint to the logical conclusion, it's even worse for such projects because you would basically decline to fund anything which wasn't an incremental improvement on existing tech. You are in 1900 saying to give up on internal combustion engines for 'more efficient steam engines', in 1920 to ignore aeroplanes for 'bit faster trains' and in 1940 to sneer at computers and state 'just hire more people with slide-rules'. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I know that the vac train concept exists and that the hyper loop would have been mass transit - had it actually worked(!)

However, it was obvious to anyone who knew of the subject that the hyperloop wouldn’t work and this was pointed out at the time. So, saying that it would’ve been mass transit is about as relevant as saying that teleportation pods are mass transit too. That time and money were wasted on this obviously bad idea meant that actual (AM as opposed to Musk’s FM) mass transit was pushed off the agenda and the US once again did not deal with the actual, serious problems of transport and emissions and instead indulged in Musk’s and his fans’ fantasies.

It’s also curious to raise the objection that R&D isn’t like in Civilization immediately after claiming that Musk (supposedly) solved problems that will (presumably) prove relevant when vac trains (presumably) will prove feasible in the future. That is exactly the version of R&D games like Civ operates with (technologies always pan out at some point and partial research is always cumulative).

I was not implying that the hyper loop was the prime recipient of public money (that is primarily SpaceX and Tesla and to some extent the Boring Company), but I don’t find it particularly endearing to see Musk burning through gullible investors’ funds either - anymore than I cheer on other hucksters who get suckers to fund them.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it is also a fundamentally misapprehension to view Musk’s projects in terms of scientific development and not as tech bro “disruption”. Musk is not a scientist and not much of an engineer either, and his companies are rarely doing much in terms of significant, scientific development.

If anything, the hyperloop appropriation and rebranding of well known vac train technology, while ignoring the equally well known problems with that technology, is something of a trait of Musk, his companies and their projects. When you cut through the hype, they often tend to involve well known tech that is either presented as revolutionary or claimed to be able to do stuff that is simply not feasible. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


got my vax for monkeypox. with all the vaccines ive had over the years and of late, im basically immortal now. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

inhales from bong
What if monkeypox is being spread intentionally to convince everyone to get the smallpox vaccine, because we are worried about a smallpox outbreak? Corn (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
not everyone is being offered it and smallpox is scarier - we'd be offered smallpox vax for smallpox if we were worried about samllpox. monkeypox just gives us a stick to beat the gays with in that scenario AMassiveGay (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately, a quick Google of certain "pro-Trump" boards shows the type of BASH TEH GAY! stuff over monkeypox that you'd expect. Along with "psyop" conspiracy crap, "third world" bashing, and the continued medical hysterics found in the COVID-19 pandemic article.
Of course, the last time there was a monkeypox outbreak in the USWikipedia, the source was traced to pet prairie dogs. Perhaps an inconvenient truth for the Other bashers that wear red hats (made in China, of course). However, in the spirit of other joke conspiracies, (takes a bong hit) that was because prairie dogs aren't real, man! They are actually government spy drones capable of deep state psyops that spreads government chemicals, because the CIA hates Wisconsin cheese, dontcha know... (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Stick to beat teh gayz? Harder, daddy!
But in seriousness though, it has an infectious period of two weeks, it seems to only transmit between either people that are part of the same household or through sexual means. Chlamydia and Gonorrhea can last months if not a couple years if untreated, HIV, HPV, Hepatitis and Syphilis won't go away on their own. I know that there are some man-sluts out there, but even with a 100% transmission rate it would require sleeping with 25 new people per year in order for the virus to be self-sustaining. How common is it for a gay man to have that many partners? Am I missing something with the math? Corn (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
25 partners per year? meh AMassiveGay (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know a whole hell of a lot about sexual partners in the LGBT community, but for the straights, there are a reasonable number of people that easily put those numbers up.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Not really, we are talking about only a few percent of teh strayz having had sex with 50+ in their lifetime, though in fairness the study is on their current numbers. I'd imagine that outside of sex-workers, it's rare to find someone who has had sex with 25+ different people in a single year regardless of sexuality. Corn (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
If I remember right, it can be spread through stuff like bedding etc. Quite possible that some skanky 'hotels' reusing sheets, towels and so on might be able to get that R-rate much higher, as well as communal living situations with poor-ish hygiene. Multiple-partner females shall obviously also be a serious vector. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Precautionary measure I see, just like how I’ll buff up before my city starts getting fringe radicals and lose the peace that the republicans here maintained very well. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:58 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I intend to get that shot. Although I am not sure where to find it...unfortunately. Why the bloody hell did governments halt smallpox/monkeypox vaccination anyway!? "Oh, we eradicated smallpox!" Did we eradicate monkeypox? No? Then keep vaccinating. Did we eradicate both diseases? Yes? Then keep vaccinating as a precautionary measure.--April Chat?
And before anyone says "it primarily spreads via sex anyway!" So does HPV. And I still got all three doses in the HPV vaccine regimen. Are we going to stop HPV vaccination too now???--April Chat? 22:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Didn't we both work on the HPV article? Y'all know I'm "conservative" compared to everyone else that frequents this site, but I'm basically an extremist when it comes to eradicating diseases. Gardasil should be considered like the MMR when it comes to who must get it. Corn (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we did. Although the logic still remains the same. No one is safe till everyone is safe. HPV may be more deadly compared to monkeypox, but you can compare the danger of each vaccine-preventable disease and use that as an erroneous justification to refuse certain vaccinations. There is an obligation to take into account immuno-compromised populations, young populations, etc. Not everyone can handle monkeypox well. That "tiny death rate"? Those are usually immuno-compromised and Disabled people. They should be our top priority and main incentive to receive vaccinations even if we have stronger immune systems. That is rudimental germ theory. Diseases spread. People spread them. If people get vaccinated, that spread slows, protecting more vulnerable communities. Moreover, the pathogens that spread these diseases mutate all the time. It can get much worse.--April Chat? 23:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
And by the way, I strongly agree with you. Gardasil 9 is basically like MMR. Everyone eligible should get it--April Chat? 23:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
And I agree with basically what you just said. But it's the internet. People agreeing? On the internet?! Corn (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
How different are the smallpox/cowpox and monkeypox vaccines? And how many diseases-in-general could be transmitted through sexual activity (as the membranes involved are thinner than ordinary skin)?
For people interested [6] covers some of the historical aspects. Anna Livia (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
its the same vaccine as far as i am aware AMassiveGay (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, I understand Small/Cow/Monkey-pox are all similar, but I wonder if it's the same memory cell that works against them, or if the body has a variety of memory cells that all work against the disease? You have about 80 million distinct killer T cells in storage, and I wouldn't think it's impossible for a disease to be affected by more than one t cell... Corn (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's teach Attack on Titan in philosophy class[edit]

It could work. There is plenty of philosophy in the series. --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

No anime. Revenant Raven (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"No anime" reminds me of my high school art classes where you're explicitly forbidden from making anime-style works. And coincidentally, that could be an interesting philosophical problem. LongStylus (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I could never watch attack on titan. Everything in the show was too nonsensical, but took itself too seriously. I think a more interesting anime for philosophy would be Made in Abyss, but that is definitely not kid friendly. Made in Abyss is simultaneously horrifying and incredibly grounded, while being mysterious and surreal; but is not for the faint of heart. It pushes boundaries of what is even legal to show in media, and leads one to wrestle with the disturbing imagery contrasted with the almost equally disturbing cheery attitude of our protagonist. It begs the viewer to ask the difference between fulfilling one's purpose and obsessively pursuing an arbitrary goal, it gives a stark look at laissez-faire culture's effect on children, breaks gender norms, tackles topics of depression and suicide, it's got it all.
Also Mob Psycho 100 has pretty interesting philosophy in it, it has a deep seated message of equality regardless of circumstance and capability. Its hard egalitarian message, while having an incredibly disproportionately powered cast, leads to interesting questions of worth and personal value. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
First off, AoT is pop culture. Pop culture has always found its way into class discussions because of how it resonates with so many people; just what would you call the works of Shakespeare if not 17th century pop culture? Even modern day pop culture ends up with classrooms discussing it, e.g., some universities has an entire course dedicated to the philosophy of Star Trek, the TNG episode "Darmok" (personally my favorite of TNG) comes to mind when discussing communication problems between two groups trying to be friendly. Law and Order also gets discussed in Law classes, obviously, but in particular there's an SVU episode about some evil Reality TV producers that's used as an illustrative example of how malicious editing of footage/events using real facts in a misleading manner can lead the viewer to see the opposite of reality. Some pop songs end up being analyzed too, 99 Problems by Jay-Z being popular in Law classes due to the explanation of rights during a stop-and-search. While there might not be enough material in AoT to fill a whole course, it wouldn't be absurd to use it in a lecture somewhere for some topic.
Second off, it's a show about Flying Ninjas fighting Giant Humanlike Monsters, what more could you want? And it only seems nonsensical; what makes it so beloved is that (almost) everything is explained, every major reveal actually makes sense upon re-watch, and (almost) everything about the world that seems like it's just some break from reality you have to accept is actually a plot point that you didn't realize until the reveal. Corn (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
FMA: Brotherhood or Mobile Suit Gundam for philosophy. Throw a primer on Gnosticism and a brief history of the world to include the extinct/moribund Zoroastrian faith in there for FMA so they get 9/10 of the references, and for MSG explain a Lensman arms race and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. For the sequel stuff up through and including Unicorn, a bit of Buddhism is required (I can never remember the name of the particular Buddha/teacher who was ascending, and his student had to take on a bit of his lessons to chase and pull him back to Earth, a main conflict in Buddhism is between one’s need to escape Samsara and the ethical need to teach others within and this sort of typified it, was referenced there in the last OVA of Unicorn). Kline and Clynes’ Cyborgs in Space might be required to appreciate the allure of the Newtype theory and the Zeonic worship of it. I could swear Tomino or someone else intimately involved up through F91 were thinking about it with the evolution of the main antagonists and their mobile suits, by the end they've dispensed with bilateral symmetry in favor of the radial and our noble villain is clearly more machine than man, capable of ripping open a cockpit with his hands and running hundreds of arms with his mind. Pretty adapted to space, while the Feddies cling to their terrestrial mode of existence and suppress Newtypes when they do not weaponize them. Thunderbolt picked up on it too, the main Zeke dispenses with his humanity in order to better pilot a mobile suit: arms and legs are liable to break and just be brittle with time in microgravity, just roll with it. Artificius (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Neon Genesis Evangelion Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I like it a lot, but it may be more indicative of the reason people are correctly hesitant to embrace anime/pop culture as an instructive medium (FUCKAwesome visuals and waifus are the priority). Also… It’s Kirishitan, they are doing the very Japanese thing of syncretizing novel memes and making them Japanese, it’s older than feudalism with Fujin, maybe I doubt the sincerity and relevance of false Lance of Longinus' feedback popping the Bishonen's head off camera, I think it's there because they like the Christian setting and that was the appropriate set piece for the story they wanted to tell (I've argued against this regarding FF7, comprehension or not I believe they nailed Christianity, enough to convert at least one person here in the west I know of, just not Christ. The argument I'm thinking of had a lot of red herrings and shit which I believe were for the fact that our Messiah was feminine in the setting, as were God and the Devil). And the underlying message I got out of it in this latest installment is that “mecha are stupid wish fulfillment fantasies and this one got away from me kids. We had fun but… go home. Get a girlfriend.” Perhaps a worthy message for the ages, but too hard to build out into a class? Artificius (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

blunder upon disaster[edit]

dem midterm prospect not so bright -- cringe embarrassments like this don't help them Low computer battery (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It's clear that historical articles about Barack Obama clearly will contain nothing except flag lapels, Dijon mustard, argula lettuce, and other manufactured outrage from the Fox News crowd. Because to the "news media", that's all that matters now. Thanks, Obama!
(By the way, nationally, gas prices have been edging down in recent weeks. Did Joe Biden do that, Fox?) (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Admittingly, it is an extremely racist remark, but conservatives are not ones to talk--April Chat? 14:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Fox said the dropping gas prices was bad apparently. Bad for mom and pop. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 14:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Also citing some stupid remark isn't a great reason to form conclusions about the midterms. People are probably gonna forget this one. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 14:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Food stereotypes are one of those things where any claim of "racism" has to be put in context. Watermelon and fried chicken are not inherently racist on their own, but they can be used as a racist stereotype. Jill Biden's intent seemed to be complimenting diversity in the United States. "Breakfast tacos" are a relatively recent Tex Mex thing and certainly can be considered an example of a cultural melting pot phenomenon. Nothing wrong with that. Certainly Jill Biden's phrasing was poor, so a Hispanic association issued a wee bit of scolding, Jill Biden apologized, no big deal. No one will care in a few days time. (Well, maybe the conservative outrage machine will care. It's Fox News's current website headline, no surprise. But Fox News is always angry about trivialities. CNN's current website headline is the first images from the James Webb Space Telescope. Now that's much more relevant news!) (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, so the Space Telescope finally launched? It's been delayed for so long. I haven't been following what's up in space, but it's certainly way more interesting than crap spread by wingnuts. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 14:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it did, and the images taken are much better than those courtesies of the Hubble Space Telescope. Albeit the new telescope needs a different name since the guy after whom the agency named the instrument was a homophobe.--April Chat? 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Source: , fyi--April Chat? 16:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah while I do think the name itself sheds all the baggage over time, I also think, yeah, there's a ton of dead white men in history and some are bound to be seamy. I do await the time when Audubon stops getting things named after him, and I'm a personal disliker of honorific naming like this. Hell even calling a particle "Sonic the Hedgehog" or something is more appealing. Me? I'd personally say humanity needs a sense of humor. Let's call it the Flying Giant Mega Honeycomb Thing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I like it. "In other news, the Flying Giant Mega Honeycomb Thing today took an image of what appears to be the oldest galaxy on record"--April Chat? 01:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd name it after Katherine JohnsonWikipedia. Then again, I'd name basically anything tangentially space related after her. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Lovely suggestion too. I love learning about women and people of color in these fields. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, honorific naming is weird if you think about it. And if we were to abolish it, we would need to do a lot of renaming. For example, we would have to rename "Euler's number" and even use a different letter that's not the letter E. We would have to rename scientific units like Ampere, Tesla, and Volt. And also some of the elements in the periodic table too, like einsteinium (and recently we've discovered that Einstein wrote some racist stuff about Chinese people, so that's probably deserved). LongStylus (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
And we did name something after Sonic. See Sonic hedgehog proteinWikipedia Oh, and we gotta rename some species named after 45. List of things named after Donald Trump § SpeciesWikipedia LongStylus (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah some of these are household names and would be pretty impractical to abolish. But you have to agree, they're not really descriptive. "Broca's area". "Wernicke's area". The aforementioned "Euler's number". Audubon's warbler. Anna's hummingbird. Steller's jay. Hell, for those birds, they're named after white colonizers, not the indigenous people who lived with these birds for generations. Seems kinda unfair they don't get dibs on those creatures. As for Sonic, hah I was thinking about that protein actually. Now we need a Mario one... As for Trump, well, the moth has an ugly hairdo, another is a dead fossil, and the last one was named ironically to criticize Trump, not honor him (though still controversial). The Einstein one is extremely gross, but it might be just an ugly product of time. Seuss had also liberal/left wing views and drew ugly racist caricatures of Chinese people, some caricatures turning up in some obscure books that we banned a while back, but might also be Japanese? IDK racists don't know the difference, I wouldn't be surprised if they thought Japanese people performed kung fu while listening to K-pop and eating pho. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I see (often ugly) tribalism as default human behavior. Einstein was generally speaking a pacifist, socialist (but not a Stalin commie), anti-Nazi, and was very supportive of the African American civil rights fight. (And obviously aware of Jewish discrimination, of course). In general his support on left wing causes was enough to piss off J. Edgar Hoover, and in my books if you pissed off Hoover, you did something right. It appears he slipped into some ugly tribalism in some private diary entries on Asians. He's human, and on balance I don't think it's enough to cancel the rest of his accomplishments.
Honorific naming is often community oriented and I'll concede to whatever astronomers decide on James Webb. The telescope was obviously named due to Webb being administrator of NASA in the 1960s (and accomplishments that occurred under his management). His direct role in the lavender scare and anti-LGBT employment policies seems to be murky, but he obviously was in charge when some bad shit was happening. Whether the later should automatically "cancel" the former is not something I currently have enough information on to say, particularly considering how homophobic 1950s America was in the first place. (I mean, think of the things named after Dwight D. Eisenhower, who in general has a pretty decent civil rights record. However... Eisenhower's role in promoting the lavender scare is unquestionably far more direct.Wikipedia) (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Jose Alba[edit]

So here's a strange case that's been making the news lately.

Jose Alba is an elderly bodega owner in Harlem. A few days ago, a woman comes in and her EBT card is declined, so he snatches the bag of chips away from her. Perhaps he was a bit rude. The woman returns with her boyfriend, Austin Simon, who goes behind the counter, and begins assaulting Alba. Alba is trapped in a corner with nowhere else to run, he grabs a knife and stabs Simon, who dies of his injuries. Alba is arrested and charged with murder.

I'm trying to find the full video, but I don't see how this is anything other than Self Defense. But it's apparently becoming a rallying cry for a lot of people. Corn (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems like it's mainly become a cause célèbre for "conservative media" with a hankering for "stand your ground" laws. Meh. A couple weeks ago we all saw what Rudy Giuliani tried to call an "assault", a mere slap-on-the-back. In Florida, you can now legally kill people who merely throw popcorn at you. What a country!
I can't find what I would call "reliable source" video either, but apparently the mayor of NYC (Eric Adams) agrees that it is self defense, so I'll defer to that judgement for now. (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personally I think "duty to retreat" shouldnt apply to personal property. The castle doctrine should apply just as much to your business/car/boat/whatever as it does your house. Theres a huge difference between being in a parking lot getting punched in the face and pulling a knife, as being carjacked and pulling a knife...CorSock (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's another fragment of video (I know the NY Post is what it is, but no one's questioning the authenticity of the video clip). Austin's girlfriend also stabbed Alba, and by the way isn't being charged with anything for... reasons. What a mess, drop them case against Alba; it's ridiculous. Two people actively stabbing you is about as obvious a justification for self-defense as it gets. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Allegedly he didnt receive treatment in Rikers and it got infected. The DA is in a tough position, because the formula in the past decade has become "it doesnt matter how justified the killing is, if a black dude is killed and the killer isnt behind bars immediately, mass riots ensue". It's not right, but when entire generations of black people experience the police simply making up facts about criminal cases out of convenience, well, what else would you expect? CorSock (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Apparently, it's all Soros' fault. Or something. Kencolt (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
If this does go to trial, Jury selection is gonna be a FUUUUUUUUUN time for both sides I bet. Revolverman (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's a report from NBC regarding video of the girlfriend stabbing the bodega clerk.
I kiiinda hope this does make it to trial, only for the judge to issue a directed verdict in favor of the defense, which is the ultimate "FU" to a prosecutor. Corn (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Can someone make an entry in the wiki for Presbeia Protoi?[edit]

They seem like 1st class nutcases: Their webpage — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

They also appear to have a defunct website. I visited it and no members were currently online. I checked the most recent entry in discussion threads. Nothing in the last year ( the search only goes back that far). It doesn't appear to be worth the effort to write about them. Just because they are crazy, that doesn't make them special.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that link above leads only to their forums. They have a main site too, which educates you about what they're doing, how they're doing it, and where you can get a deck of woo-tastic "Healing Cards" to do it with (for 80 euros). Enter and be amazed at what seems to be a somewhat novel form of batshit, but nah, probably not batshitty enough for an article. Yet. The site in all it's what the fuckery Kencolt (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps there could be a page for various such minor bodies. The 'five principles of light' are fairly benign as such things go. Anna Livia (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
From my perspective the woo is vaguely covered by other articles in the New Age category, and the site is way too small to give much other notice. The "Protoi" shit seemed vaguely in the line of Pleiadians woo, in that a sci-fi/mystical pulp story was conjured up out of thin air and some people decided to take it way too seriously. Crystal healing seems to be the bulk of their sale schtick in the main site. (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
They are undoubtedly nutty. But all the dates I can see either on the forum or the website seem pretty old. I think we should let them die in peace. Any article we created would run the risk of raising their sagging internet profile from virtual death into catatonia.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Peterson is banned from twitter[edit]

Looks like his hit piece against Elliot Page backfired. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 11:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody want to address the ship of Theseus tangent in the middle of video? Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 11:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
No. Ben Shapiro's "Daily Wire" just launched a "plus" premium video service, featuring, well, Jordan Peterson as their promo star. You don't need to look any further than that. (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that the question "Are Transwomen really Women?" has both "no" and "yes" as logically sound answers. From a biological and technological standpoint, we have yet to truly master Transition, however, we are getting close. At some point we will be able to clone/grow real genitalia, men really will be able to go to a doctor and get a real uterus and ovaries. When this happens, with Transmen for-realz impregnating others and Transwomen for-realz giving birth, the whole species of "human" will be biologically different from before, and Transwomen really will be Women.
From a societal standpoint, "woman" is as much a social role as it is biological. Imagine a society of hunter-gatherers. If all the males do the hunting and females do the gathering, the word for "hunter" will eventually merge with the word for "male". But nothing physically stops a "hunter" from gathering. So what is a "bio-hunter" who gathers? A "role-hunter". Likewise, there's nothing physically preventing a "Bio-Man" from becoming a "Role-Woman", and vice versa. In that sense, yes, absolutely a "Bio-Man" can be a "Role-Woman".
So whether Elliot is a "Man" depends on whether you think "Man" should refer to "Role-Man" or "Bio-Man". Corn (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Or more simply put, 'define 'man' please'. I've found it amusing watching TERFs trip up over the 'woman' definition - and by the time they actually nail down a definition which doesn't cause 'incorrect' definitions or just plain insanity most of the time you can shrug and say 'erm... is that really important?'. Occasionally it is but to be honest those are far and between - like the fact you were adopted is 97.5% not relevant to the conversation but is if you're say talking to your doctor about family medical histories. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I'll bite. A "man" is an "adult human that naturally has male and only male reproductive organs", similar definition for "woman". Eunuchs and Transwomen would still be considered men by this definition. Intersex people that have parts of both are not "men" by this definition. People born missing parts (e.g., penis but no testicles) would still be "men". XX-males or others with chromosomal abnormalities would still be considered men so long as they only have male parts.
To me, the definition of "man" should not matter for the bathroom. Or driving a car. Or ordering food. Or joining the military (selective service should not be Men-Only IMHO). Or social services. Or the court system.
The only places it should really matter are hospitals, bedrooms, prisons and sometimes sports. Corn (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
You've also just called Elliot Page a woman. Or at very least, 'not a man'. Kinda not helpful, even though I think I get your drift that 'it doesn't matter' afterwards. I personally use that defination as 'biologically male'; for the few bits where it truly matters. It's also a term which is rarely used in normal speech. There's also the tricky situation that Western society does not as yet have a third option for folks who are neither biologically male or female.
My answer is this; it's situational. There's no easy answer to this. Persons starting to transition here in the UK have to live as that gender before more invasive stuff is done - doing that is impossible if they're transitioning to male yet they're being forced to operate as a woman in all areas of life outside their homes. However, there are situations and locales where a simple self-ID simply isn't going to cut it. There's not many but I do think we should be honest about admitting that. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
You were claiming there wasn't a definition that wouldn't trip up the TERFs. I'm asking if you can break that definition somehow, e.g., "a chair is something with 4 legs you sit on" "a horse has 4 legs and you sit on it". Corn (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
And I stand by that. I've not yet seen a TERF who even gets the difference between biological sex and gender, and sees 'it' as an absolute binary situation. The only definition which doesn't cut some 'real women™' out of womanhood is a genetic one, which leads to the 'is this attribute critically important for entry to a stalled dressing room at a clothes store?' question. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser You can't have two contradictory answers be "logically sound" that conflicts with the formalized definition of "soundness" in classical logic. A contradiction by classical logic must be false that's the law of non-contradiction. Actual open a logic textbook for once in your life. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC).

Also your definition of "man" excludes those with certain types of birth defects, and many war vets who have lost their genitals in bellend. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC).
I don't think all male fictional humans have shown their reproductive organs either. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I literally said "naturally has", ergo eunuchs are still men by that definition. And by that definition given, a person with a micropenis, or missing testicles, is still "man" if they only possess male parts even if deformed. And way to miss my point about the Hunter-Gatherers entirely; the word "Woman" has more than one definition. "Woman" means "adult human with female bits", but it can also mean "person who takes on the role of adult female". (Bio)-Woman and (Societal)-Woman are referring different things, they usually overlap but not always, the complication arises when people keep shifting from one definition to the other. "Gender" is another pet peeve of mine; I don't believe humans naturally have genders, these are just roles we have for society and while males and females tend to gravitate to different roles, there is no reason a "Bio-Woman" must take on the role of "Child-raiser/Cook/Maid" nor her husband must take on the role of "Protector/Mechanic/Landscaper". A "Man" can clean the house and raise the kids. A "Woman" can work a high powered job. Ants have Genders. A female ant is hatched, and based on her form, will adhere to predetermined roles of "Queen", "Worker" or "Soldier", with many species having different castes of workers and soldiers, and a few even having some more unusual genders, e.g., ants that get really fat to store food and regurgitate to the others, or ants with weirdly shaped heads to plug holes during colony-defense. Point is, humans are not ants. We don't have pre-set body-shapes which determine our roles in society, and that includes the sexual dimorphism.
As for fictional characters, you are making the wrong argument Lefty. You should be arguing, e.g., why we accept robots as Male or Female based on voice/avatar alone, or why we include lady-elves as women. Corn (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"naturally has" doesn't mean or imply any of that. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC).
Also the point about hunter-gatherers doesn't negate the law of non-contradiction. You still don't know what logical soundness is. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC).
Quit hogging all the chromosomes. Corn (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Man, when are we gonna just get over ourselves enough to admit that some things are uncomfortable? If Peterson really believed the things he's said and written about, he wouldn't have been addicted to Benzos. If the people who took him seriously really believed the things he's said and written about, they'd have disowned him. I don't advocate disowning anybody or turning anyone into a lolcow. Believe it or not, nobs had some really reasonable shit to say if you asked him enough questions. I don't think we should pay anybody for having opinions. At least for a little bit. Just, boycott opinion having as a market. Ignore all professional opinion havers. Maybe we could make a week out of the year for it. (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Think that's a bit excessive; being a 'professional opinion haver' doesn't automatically mean they're awful. Okay, there are some 'gobs on sticks' which do nothing but peddle verbal garbage delivered with differing levels of skill, but there's some which are quite decent, or at least thought-provoking (a contrary opinion, well-argued can if nothing else help stress-test your own opinions). And often it's difficult to admit 'some things are uncomfortable' because it often requires us to look at our own 'inner workings' which can be disconcerting prospects.
Anyway, back OT - slightly interestingly, one of the TERF's 'reasons' a transwoman could 'never be a woman' is that being raised as a girl/woman in society - 'knowing and feeling the daily slap of patriarchical oppression' or similar - makes them a 'true' woman (they speak almost religiously on this aspect). This has the odd conclusion that a society which had zero gender discrimination (clearly the goal of any genuine feminist) has no women in it. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I edited my caveat on this one. I try not to edit anything if I've had a response, hard rule, but it's important. I was being a little hyperbolic, but I can agree when something is nonsense. The odd conclusion that a "society which had zero gender discrimination" also "has no women.' So, fifth wave, a society full of peoples rather than 2 peoples? Or even the dreaded, what, 38 peoples? They all still need jobs, my guy. (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the TERFs have really thought that out, to be honest. They've rank amateurs in debating when compared to say, creationists. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Don't think that anyone has brought this up, but the definitions of gender of Peterson come from a strictly Western European definition, without acknowledging the many examples from other cultures that don't subscribe to binary or even some the historical foundations from the cultures that would eventually culminate to Western European culture.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh thank God that's one less high profile Twitter idiot to deal with, I've got my fingers crossed that Elon Musk is next Time Lord (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Vacuous Political Commentary[edit]

Can anyone else relate to finding it really hard to take seriously political commentary that runs the gambit of "PC culture gone too far!", "just because it's offensive doesn't mean...", or "the woke mob has committed an act of cancel culture once again" and other variants of the sort? It always strikes me as a sort of thought-terminating cliché devoid of any actual political or social analysis. It often seems to me just a means to dismiss criticism before it is even presented, or to not even consider the relevant context and how such behavior could be justified. A big pet peeve of mine is the focus on "offense" and the oversimplification of certain culturally relevant moral objections as simply "people finding it offensive". Never taking a serious look at power dynamics, or how such behavior could be beneficial or harmful. "Offense" is kind of subjective and rarely the actual content of cultural criticism. It always seems reduced to "people feel x" as if there are no actual facts of the matter to be discussed. I don't know, maybe I am just as asshole but I swear to god if I hear one more person complaining about something as vague and nebulous as "cancel culture" or "PC culture" or someone tells me that the only reason why they can't say a certain slur anymore is because "people find it offensive" my eyes are going roll out of my fucking skull. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC).

US politics boils down to “I’m not a Republican” or “I’m not a Democrat”, as opposed to “I am a Democrat” or “I am a Republican”. Smear campaigns are far more effective, and “canceling” the other side is part of the package. Compromise is no longer an option.Antigem (talk)
If one reframed this as "Civility has gone too far!", which is what this is really about, the debate would be quite different. Some basic level of civility is a necessity for a functioning democracy and rational debate discourse. Republican framing of the issue as "PC culture" is was an early sign of their opposition to democratic institutions, a desire for the "good old days", a return to the open use of slurs against the disenfranchised, and a theocratization of government. Bongolian (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Interesting that instinctually a few of you immediately interpreted this under the lens of American politics and it's two major parties, this type of political rhetoric is present in Canada and Europe too. I am Canadian and I hear these talking points all the time. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ivana Trump died just 24 minutes ago[edit]

At age 73 i New York city 2600:387:F:4B11:0:0:0:4 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I misread as "Ivanka Trump". Either way, oh no. Eh, whatever. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
lgm's reaction personfied. G Man (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Machina topic[edit]

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

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

Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

Machina has received too many warnings. He has a final warning. Do not remove the collapse. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the Trinitarian God an emergent God?[edit]

So, apologist often use the Shield of Trinity to explain the concept or they'll say that God is water and the father, son and HS are solid, liquid and gaseous respectively(modalism). I've been thinking about emergentism. I know that this is an atheistic website but bear with me for a moment. What if the God is emergent from the father, son and hs? That would be a better analogy than the water one. Thoughts? Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 17:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Possibly; the father evidently has a dick and progenitive powers. Doggiedoo (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Although RW is majority atheist/agnostic/none, we do not exclude religious people from contributing. You can view the results of the first (and only) RW community survey from 2017 here: Forum:2017 Community Survey Results. Bongolian (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What if the Loch Ness monster is an emergent property of Bigfoot and the Chupacabra? You really need to demonstrate the existence of Bigfoot and the Chupacabra before you can suggest their emergent properties could produce another thing whose existence you want to demonstrate.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not the point. In regards to this question, God's existence is irrelevant. What I'm asking is this, does Emergentism explain the trinity better than modalism? Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 06:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It is the point Highboi. You've just sort of shifted the question but made it sound like it is still relevant. What you are asking is equivalent to saying: Are the powers behind Santa's sleigh better explained by emergent properties or by Harry Potters wand? I would say that it is far more likely that any incredible phenomena is better explained by emergent properties than by something magical. Having said that...trying to explain anything fictional is an absurd endeavour. By attempting to assess which is more are engaging in absurdity. Why? ShabiDOO 09:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. My point is that you cannot explain that something is the emergent property of other things whose existence you have also not demonstrated. If this truly dire attempt is a better explanation for God's existence than some other one you have been considering, then that other one must be spectacularly bad.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
May the Force be with you. Doggiedoo (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fine, I'll simplify this for you. Just enter this make-believe world and then answer the question, just like you would answer the question of whether Harry potter is secretly in love with Granger Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 12:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I just don't know enough (or really care enough) about Christian fan fiction in that case.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The answer is definitely and absolutely not.
Harry Potter is not in love with Granger because he is a secret robot (hence the lightning symbol on his forehead representing his power level). MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I mean if someone inserted the code of the AI in the movie Her in Harry, then he could ostensibly fall in love with her. Heisenberg Enter into the rabbit hole 17:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yet another example of paralysis and chiropathy[edit]

(CW: paralysis, descriptions of traumatic injuries)

A 28-year-old went to a chiropractor last month for an adjustment. You all know where this goes from here. She almost died, lives in the hospital at the moment, and currently can only move her eyes a little. Do not go to chiropractors. They are not doctors or even remotely scientific. Go to a licensed, credited physical therapist.--April Chat? 19:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

If they make a documentary on this, they should name it "Breaking backs". Heisenberg Enter into the rabbit hole 16:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, that made me laugh.--April Chat? 20:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

That 10 year old Ohio girl traveling out of state for an abortion[edit]

In a sane world, it's supposed to be a teaching moment for the so-called pro-life movement.

Instead, these ghouls who can't tell an ovary from a liver who just have fun fantasies of bloated maimed uteruses are either silent on this or calling for this girl, this little girl who's born well after 2010, to give birth. Or they're fixating and pivoting on the fact that an "illegal" raped her and this is why we should tighten the border, though this is a pure distraction. But, right-wing media DID question the story at first, thinking it's some sort of ruse to rally for abortion laws.[7]

However, this repugnant old bag of potatoes named Jim Bopp has probably one of the most repulsive takes I've seen this week, not to mention equating a girl to a fully grown ass woman.

She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday.

Unless her life was at danger, there is no exception for rape,” Bopp said. “The bill does propose exceptions for rape and incest, in my model, because that is a pro-life position, but it’s not our ideal position. We don’t think, as heartwrenching as those circumstances are, we don’t think we should devalue the life of the baby because of the sins of the father.

Reminder, there are Middle Eastern countries with more lax abortion laws than some of these miserable dried up patches of lands people call "states". Indianans deserve a better patch of land than the current one built upon festering grotesque travesty that is Indiana's state laws. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

"Rape is good for your soul." Is that the message I am hearing? 2600:387:1:817:0:0:0:2E (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
It could also be "Rape babies are god's gift of innocence". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
we don’t think we should devalue the life of the baby Won’t their life get devalued once they become an orphan or their parents become shit. 2600:387:1:817:0:0:0:2E (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
That "baby" thing is growing inside of a 10 year old child too. If that girl had to carry to term, the result would be extremely ugly and still be less revolting than Jim Bopp's morality. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I mean they screwed their baby up so they have to have an abortion 2600:387:F:4B11:0:0:0:4 (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I was amazed that the conservatives-calling-"fake news" bullshit actually reached the Wall Street Journal, which generally is better about this sort of thing (even considering the batshit insanity of the editorial page). The story was first reported in the Indianapolis Star; that's generally considered a reasonably reliable journalism source. Similarly repugnant was the Indiana AG's clownish recent "prosecute the doctor" reaction even though there is zero indication at the moment that there were any laws broken. (Edit: Not that the Ohio attorney general David Yost was any better, considering that he went on Fox News to crow that it was fake news. Oops, eh?)
Not that anyone smarter than, say, Louie Gohmert didn't know this already, but this incident really shows the shallowness of the "think of the chidren!" stunts pulled by conservatives, ranging from the grooming accusations floating around with those "don't say gay" laws, to the whole faux "concern" QAnon has with sex trafficking. Confronted with *actual* child rape resulting in a pregnancy? Do everything but realize the ridiculousness of how the stupidity of the abortion law forces a horrific fate for the child - call it "fake news", attack the abortion doctor, babble about how a 5th grade kid should carry a rapist's child to term, etc. This will not be the last story like this, sad to say. Every country with these sort of strict abortion laws has these type of stories. That's why most nations have moved in the direction of liberalizing abortion laws of late. (Of course, the USA is "exceptional".) (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Conservatives treat children like objects, not human beings. Just props for their causes. Especially conservative parents. Vaccinations? It's about the parents and their rights not the children's. Education on LGBT+ people's existence? It's about the parents and THEIR concerns. No one ever asks the kids what their opinion is on any of this, even when they're teenagers and can definitely form more thought-out coherent opinions. For pregnancies, they're treated like these walking tangible punishment burdens for their mothers, not as valuable humans who require plenty of resources and attention that realistically not everyone can sacrifice for. Conservatives want control over their kids, especially when they also support mistreating them through corporal punishment, and treat them like little extensions with zero agency. Conservatives have somehow gotten even more repulsive over the years, remember when practically everyone denounced Todd Akins? Yeah, nowadays his remarks would be seen as downright mild compared to that spewing atrocity that calls himself "Jim Bopp" or that walking malignant shower stain that calls himself "Todd Rokita". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────first they denied it (of course). now they're deflecting to the red herring that here alleged rapist was an illegal immigrant. anyone with half a brain knows they're dogwhistling to their xenophobic nativist base. my question is: how much lower can (and will) they go? G Man (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The anti-abortion extremists all think they've been given free reign: indicted felon[8]/Texas AG Ken Paxton sued the Federal government to prevent abortions when the mother's life is in danger,[9] Montana GOP Rep Brad Tschida basically claimed that a woman has no need for a uterus, essentially staking government claim over all of them.[10] Various state anti-abortion laws are intentionally vaguely written[11] — something that casts doubt on their viability as laws[12] — but nonetheless causes sufficient fear in medical professionals to never want to give a legal abortion for fear of criminal indictment. Bongolian (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
As I said, they can't tell an ovary from a kidney. Not even the cis women, which one lady's message about uteruses was poetic and inspiring to this Montanan oversized sack of flour. The uterus produces... hormones. Estrogen. Something I personally don't have enough of and I was prescribed birth control. It helps during orgasms too; you can feel the thing convulsing. What is this guy's parts' purposes anyway? His stupid crotch appendage's only purpose seems to get in the way when you're wearing pants.
Yeah these laws are vague by design. It makes it difficult to enforce but still casts doubt and fears so medical professionals are better safe than sorry and err on caution. The silver lining to this is that these laws are easily challenged since they're poorly designed in the end, and so you have instances like a pregnant woman using the HOV lane[13] because she's going by so-called pro-life logic that a fetus is a human being. Same for the abortion bounty laws, there's California making gun-ownership bounty laws as an attempt to cast light on Republican's shitty laws.[14] --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The whole story seems so ridiculous that it must be fake. Except, it's apparently not. I hope the rapist never leaves prison. Corn (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Idk some stories are really ludicrous. There was a story about a flight being disturbed and stalled because someone kept farting in the plane. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Terrence Howard?[edit]

Good afternoon. What's this noise about Mr. Howard and scamming Uganda? Thank you to anyone who could add some perspective to "linch pins"? (don't know if i'm even spelling that correctly) that can "defend nations and harvest food"?THV (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Per, apparently Howard was in Uganda to explore investment opportunities. Unfortunately, Howard, using all of his acting skills, seems to have taken up techno-futurism, and seems to be pretty bad at it. The "Lynchpin" is a drone shape conjured up by Mr. Howard. There is a website here, and a press release here. Why the peculiar shape? Because it is the "most sacred of all geometries". Don't ask me why.
At any rate, while in Uganda he spoke about some of his... investment ideas. if you want to hear Mr. Howard speak so much technobabble that even a Star Trek cast member would blush, the speech is here. (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Terrence Howard seemed to go Moderate Time Cube because he's been inventing his own "language of logic" called Terryology (yup) for quite some time, apparently in a desperate attempt to prove that 1 x 1 = 2. X Stickman (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely wild. Seems out of nowhere for me- I did not know that history with Mr. Howard's "1 x 1 = 2" stuff either. Thank you kindly for the feedback and links.THV (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

A video concerning majority-minority tensions[edit] This is mostly set in an Indian context but the ideas discussed are universal. Looks like the issues are more economical than political. Heisenberg Enter into the rabbit hole 18:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


A few days ago I stumbled upon a widespread...thing pertaining to something called ProDentim.

I first saw a YouTube ad for it, and my first thought was that it was some shady woo thing, so I Googled it to see what others said about it and discovered something much more bizarre. Several articles that were "reviews" that followed a similar format that in the ended praised the product. Some of them even have a clickbaity title or even claim to expose a scam, but just end up giving this thing a positive review.

It gets weirder. There are also hundreds of YouTube video "reviews" of ProDentim. At least one looked like it was going to be a negative review, and there are a few more that look like they were originally Spanish or something, based on the channel title or about page, like this one And these videos all have similar comments. And these channels have hundreds and hundreds of similar videos, all just from the past few days.

And there's even a posting on DeviantArt, of all places!

This is beyond shady. This is...weird. I just wish there was a better way to shed light on this thing or call it out. Seriously, what the hell is this? --DoomTay (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It does advertise itself as a "health supplement" from that Cleve Scene site. We're usually pretty suspicious of products that call themselves "supplements" as it's often just quackery, especially with the infamous Quack Miranda Warning. I'm also seeing puffery about "pro-biotics", another sort of health woo we cover on this site. Some claims I'm seeing from the site are just given out with no backing and seem really vague. Are we supposed to take this at face value? What do they mean by "the microflora of the oral cavity is disturbed".

The idea of standard oral hygiene involves regular brushing, flossing and using a mouthwash. But these things are sometimes not enough even if you use the best quality products. The reason the toothpaste, mouthwash and other things fail is that the microflora of the oral cavity is disturbed, and none of these fixes that issue.

A lot of other claims do seem to reiterate common buzzwords spread by alt med marketing. Stuff about "imbalances". "Natural immunity". It even says right there that "Do not assume you do not have to clean your teeth or floss them if you use the supplement." but its purported benefits are also.. the result of good oral hygiene. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm more concerned with the "campaign" revolving around it than the product itself. It just reeks of next-level shady --DoomTay (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
adverts are always going to sound suss. they are not medical/scientific reviews and should not be treated as such. doesnt mean the product is shit though. doesnt mean its good either. they are are adverts. they are selling something. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a probiotic supplement (if it actually contains the claimed bacteria ingredients listed on their web site). The problem here is that supplement companies (as usual) are taking the actual legitimate research on gut bacteria (which has some promising angles, but is very very early) and jumping the gun with a whole whackdoodle amount of claims. This product is also pretty expensive. If you want to explore this angle, just eat some yogurt. There's not much concrete evidence on the "probiotic" angle of yogurt either, but at least it's pretty cheap and tasty and good for you in other ways.
One other "red flag" concerns this exact marketing angle. It appears that at least part of the reason you are seeing this shit on Youtube and DeviantArt and other webshite stuff is because ProDentim has hooked up with a company called Clickbank that specializes in hooking up web content creators with shite to sell. As seen in Clickbank's monthly top products blog, most of the stuff peddled by Clickbank is shady health shit. The top non-health stuff highlighted is equally shady items like Trump bucks, survivalist oriented material, "soulmate sketches" and other psychic/astrology/New Age shit, and the like. There's an occasional "this might be legit" company in this list, but it's pretty rare. I wouldn't be surprised if part of the Clickbank package for "content creators" is some sample script ideas and directions for people to use in their clickbaity advertisements. Welcome to the webshite world of 2022. (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess that Russia is asking for a death wish[edit]

Without saying so, Russia is implying that they would use both nuclear and conventional missiles against Ukraine if they attempt to take back Crimea.

Say the Russians used nukes against Ukraine, it would certainly result in a swift and brutal retaliation attack from other countries.

On a slightly different note-

Now if Russia took complete control of the Donbass region, they would stand to inherit piles of rubble, decimated electrical grid, mountains of corpses, footing a massive bill to rebuild everything that they destroyed and certainly a financial crisis from rebuilding infrastructure. Is Putin sure that he wants the Donbass region knowing that there is no way that his country could afford to rebuild (even if slave labor were used) --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

you are reading too much into a pretty typical threat/warning. chill. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The donbass region has huge natural gas reserves. The reserves could pay for the damages, and also keeps Ukraine from being an effective competitor, ensuring Russia keeps a monopoly on Europe's gas supply. Even if donbass is unusable to Russia, it prevents them from losing money to competition with Ukraine. This is why Europe should cut all economic ties and resource dependencies with Russia; starve the bear into submission. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Bet Germany is real regretting its knee jerk reaction to Fukashima. Revolverman (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Fukushima, not Fukashima. LongStylus (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Human consciousness creating reality?[edit]

Idk if Big Think is clog but I've seen some bizarre assertions from this site.--2friedeggs (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like transcendental idealism. Heisenberg Enter into the rabbit hole 04:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow! This is not a post from Machina!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Same reaction I had. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Even transcendental idealism doesn't per se argue that consciousness creates least in the Kantian sense. I don't know about Hegel. For Kant there is an independent objective reality, but we can only understand the world that we experience which is not the same thing as reality itself. It's this world that we experience that can only be made sensible and understood through our cognitive faculties. Transcendental idealism is not the same thing as the metaphysical idealism of folks like George Berkeley. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC).
"According to his biocentric view, space and time are a byproduct of the whirl of information in our head that is weaved together by our mind into a coherent experience." This sounds like Kant's idea of space and time.Heisenberg Enter into the rabbit hole 03:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Kant is sometimes credited as denying the reality of space and time and making it solely a product of our mind (McTaggart claims this about Kant) , but I think that grants knowledge of noumena that Kant wouldn't actually assert. In my reading of the CoPR he doesn't argue for the unreality of space and time, but he does argue that they are both components of our cognitive faculties that allows us to comprehend phenomena. He is sort of forced into this position and it becomes a valuable critique of Hume. Hume argued that things like causation, space, and time are not things humans can derive from sense experience and cannot prove via demonstrative reasoning. This of course raises the question "Where do these concepts come from?" and Kant's answer is that they are inherent faculties of the mind itself. It's in part how he goes on to argue for the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge. This does not imply however that these faculties can not and do not reflect real properties/occurrences of noumena itself, but even if they did Kant insists we can not possible know anything about noumena anyways. Space and time can still be independently real, my reading of Kant is that he is agnostic on such fronts. There is a similarity though, in claiming that time and space are concepts built into the mind as to make sense of our experiences, Kant does say that. He does not say that our minds "create" reality. Reality can still be independent from us, and with his noumena and phenomena distinction Kant is committed that at least part of reality is in fact independent. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC).