Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive419

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 18 August 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>, <418>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>
, (new)(back)

rules for defeating far-right forces[edit]

notice patterns -- cult leader trump endorses para-fascist "national populist" -- said proto-populist gains traction -- then comes about victory in primary and sometimes general race

conclusion? -- defeat of far-right only can materialize from WITHIN vast right-wing movement and left-wing outside influence changes NOTHING -- educating political right out of stupidity difficult task unlikely to fulfill unfortunately Low computer battery (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I'm fully on board agreeing with the idea that sort of locus of control. The left wing movement is influencing the thing too, just maybe not in ways that's obvious or has immediate results but you see support for several left wing goals at a historical high such as the lean to universal healthcare in the U.S. and so on. You can't educate conservatives since their bedrock is built on lies and hatred. They rather twist arguments and semantics rather than change their bedrock until they personally experience firsthand their pregnant ectopic kid get cancer and decapitated by an AR-15. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 20:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
To insist that there is anything like a central or defined right wing narrative is farcical. It is a movement defined by cognitive dissonance and rank hypocrisy. And it's continuing success is not the work of one individual or group, but instead the tolerance of it in GOP ranks. And the media does little hold those who conspire with them to any real standard. For the the past few weeks I have read story after story about the Dems needing to rein in the left-wing, and that they are out of step with the American public. But not a word of criticism for the GOP openly entertaining a national abortion ban, impeding significant reforms to reduce gun violence, or their general acceptance of multiple candidates who open state the 2020 election was stolen and they plan to try again in 2024. The only way to defeat this group is calling out their lies, presenting them as extremists, and if worse comes to worst, physically challenge them with numbers that make them slink away under pressure. This needs to be a full court press, targeting the people they represent, going after those who provide financial support,(especially those customer facing companies) and make them reconsider their support. It is intimidation, meant to point out the differences between extreme opinions and just the status quo, not even addressing how things could be.
TLDR: Go after the money that supports fascists, make them uncomfortable in public, call out their lies to the biggest audience you can. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
left already targets right-wing donors and has arsenal of debunkers as seen in trump years -- effective in mitigating far-right?? apparently not -- depriving national socialists "national populists" of influence on right is the solution so they lack platform influence and voice -- end influence of alt-right trumpism and proto-populism on larger right-wing movements and they will die Low computer battery (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I am hearing that Palestinian President Abbas has fallen ill[edit]

If that is the case and he dies, there might be a power vacuum. Thanks to him refusing any elections, refusing any real compromise and suppressing dissent- Abbas might leave a power vacuum that Hamas could take advantage of. Hamas is obviously worse than the current West Bank government that happily pockets Iranian money without making attempts at peace. --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You really cannot conduct elections when an apartheid state occupying most of your country continuously bombs and assassinates your people every two days--April Chat? 02:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Whilst it cries crocodile tears whensoever you practice the right to self-defense--April Chat? 03:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Monkeypox article[edit]

I am making a start in doing a piece about monkeypox, we are starting to get the same shite about it as HIV/AIDS was back in the 1980s. Feel free to built upon on it. Euromec (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I went looking for some woo and found this treasure trove of nonsense, along with a lot of almost memetic T-shirts and expensive disinfectants claiming to destroy the virus. Namako (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Good idea. This is a very serious epidemic...and it is very close to becoming a pandemic.--April Chat? 17:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Incoming denialism from the New York Post. Pretty much advocating ignoring Monkeypox. --Trans Zombie Queen will transition (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Eww, amp.
An snapshot.
Direct link. (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking great, you all. This is a necessary page--April Chat? 03:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

hilarious ignorance[edit]

"This is the most pro-censorship, anti-First Amendment administration in American history. Hands down" guess hawley never heard of A. Mitchell PalmerWikipedia Low computer battery (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about "administration" but Joseph McCarthy and other figures surrounding the 1950s "anti-communist" Red Scare panic (eg the House Un-American Activities CommitteeWikipedia) would top my list.
A couple months ago, Hawley posted a this Tweet promoting a new book from him, the "Tyranny of Big Tech". Which is available soon!... on He got some flack for that obvious lolwut moment, but hey. There's a few Republican government types that do seem to be as dumb and racist as they look (see Marjorie Taylor Greene, but there are others that from my perspective seem to be playing pretend to some degree and perform stunts to capture that crowd, not just for the votes, but for the sweet campaign donation money from the rubes. (Ron DeSantis strikes me as a good example of the later.) I don't know enough about Hawley to know which side he's on. (Not that it matters too much, of course.) (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
they all targeted communists so that doesnt count as censorship. it only counts when its 'their' side being censored. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I checked the link expecting it to have a face of a stupid lily white man. Was not disappointed. Oh and he's a senator, the famously oppressive job occupation. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 14:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
The martyr complex. The right-wing socially isolates, stigmatizes, and suppresses the left-wing, constructs a controlled opposition, then eroticizes that oppression and pretends to suffer from it. Wash rinse repeat--April Chat? 03:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Line between article and draft?[edit]

The last couple of articles I originated have been changed to draft space. This surprised me a little because they were detailed enough that on certain other wikis they would have survived in main space. RationalWiki is of course entitled to have a different standard! Hence my question becomes: at what point does one promote an article back out of draft space? Is this one now long/good/detailed enough?Jno.skinner (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jno.skinner On the page, hover over the menu that says More (it's to the left of the search bar), and click "Relocate". Before you move it from draftspace, you should probably get rid of the blank notes section. Vomitorium (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there's any clear policy on what's worthy of draftspace vs. mainspace: it's subjective. Mainspace pages, where appropriate, should have a reasonable number of references and have a minimal length (hopefully more than a stub). You can list the pages in question here and ask for comments as to mainspace or not, and if not what it might need. Bongolian (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
They, pretty obviously, should evidently further the RW mission statements:
  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The next Tory leader?[edit]

I’ve been following the Tory leadership contest with some interest, exactly because there was no clear favourite to begin with. It would seem that Rishi Sunak has kept up his popularity with the Tory MP’s over the first two rounds of voting with Penny Mordaunt and Liz Truss as equally clear in second and third place.

With Suella Braverman eliminated and now supporting Truss, it will be interesting to see if her supporting MPs follow suit or choose Kemi Badenoch who seems to run on an even clearer carbon copy of GOP fear mongering about trans people and CRT than Braverman did. This GOP style culture war nonsense is probably also why Mordaunt has suddenly and explicitly jumped on the anti trans bandwagon to try to avoid alienating MPs supporting Braverman and Badenoch.

Tom Tugendhat will almost certainly be the candidate eliminated (on Monday) and then I expect Badenoch to go on Tuesday — unless she gets basically all of Braverman’s supporters, which I consider unlikely.

That leaves a crucial round on Wednesday between Sunak, Mordaunt and Truss. I think Sunak would prefer to face Truss in the party membership vote as Mordaunt seems the more popular; so, if Sunak remains comfortably ahead, he may get some of his supporters to back Truss if she’s still behind Mordaunt, but with a narrow gap.

However, both polling and statements from various Tories indicates that Sunak is quite unpopular among the Tory membership, which would suggest that we’re most likely looking at PM Truss or PM Mordaunt.

Now I consider all of the options bad, but some are even worse than others. They are basically all calling for austerity 2.0 (yes, Sunak doesn’t want to cancel planned tax hikes, but that’s part of his “This is how bad things are and I will lower taxes again ASAP”-spiel), so I doubt there’s much difference there. And this is very bad news for the UK in general.

I would probably fear a Truss (or the unlikely Badenoch) premiership as even more than the alternatives, because on top of the awful economic policies, a PM Truss seems likely to push even harder on “eternal Brexit” and culture war nonsense than the rest of the pack. Not to mention that she has courted and received the support of some of the worst BoJo worshipping muppets, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dorries.

I know less about Mordaunt, but her willingness to opportunistically abandon her earlier (for a Tory) apparently fairly benign (as in benign neglect/toleration) views of LGBTQ+ issues in this leadership contest doesn’t exactly speak well of her. Still, it seems more about damage control than a centre piece of her campaign (unlike Badenoch and Braverman). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

tory leadership was always going to be a case of the least worst option. thats sunak or mordaunt imho. truss and badenoch are the absolute worst with their anti woke agenda at the forefront of their campaign to what should seem like a bizarre degree but here is deeply troubling if either them were to win. making me even more fearful is truss's libertarian views and what that might mean for the nhs who the tories already seem hellbent on murdering. sunak got most votes in the last round, while mordaunt is the bookies favourite AMassiveGay (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
If you haven't watched the Mordaunt election video it's worth a watch for a laugh.
There is an incredibly saccharine voice-over while a series of incredibly British (Ok, conservative) images roll over the screen. At the end we have about 15 seconds of platitudes from her. But it could really end with anyone. It's the most vapid bit of political positioning I've ever seen. If you didn't know better you would be excused for thinking it was a parody.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Hahaha! Yeah, I’ve seen the Mordaunt video, and at first, I indeed thought it was a spoof, exactly because of the over the top narration, though I would describe it as ridiculously pompous, rather than saccharine. It’s like it’s trying to be a sort of David Attenborough meets Stephen Fry cross between a serious documentary and Fry’s half ironic “advice to foreigners” in his Guide to the UK video made for Heathrow Airport. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I put my money on Mordaunt fairly early on, just because she's far and away the front runner in the general party membership (who vote on the final two), so if she makes it there she's won barring some major wrongness between now and then. And I think the rest of them know it because they're all turning on her pretty hard, so now I don't know. Interestingly I don't think any of them appeal to the UK in general so none of them are a slam dunk for the next GE. X Stickman (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Re: the video.[1] "Leadership has to change" — even though it's the same party. "We must choose this person with solemnity and wisdom" — unlike that other guy we chose. Return to Thatcherism… and to Churchill… but not that guy who thinks he's Churchill reincarnate. Convicted murderer Oscar PistoriusWikipedia giving a high five to fellow-Paralymbian Johnny Peacock — did the campaign even know? Peaccock wanted nothing to do with the video, Mordaunt, or the Tories. Video billboard of a dog with a floating bone… time for video tea. Image of a bobby, which breaks police rules against using police in campaign images. Using the image of Labour MP Jo Cox who was murdered by a Brexit extremist… for Tory political gain — a Trumpian move supporting opponents only they're dead. That PM who couldn't get Brexit. "We more often reflect our nations values" [image of woman protesting for suffrage]… except the Tories often opposed suffrage.[2] That guy who thinks he's Churchill and got Brexit — but isn't serious (YouTube autotranslate turned "Brexit" into "breakfast", more his speed). Mordant[sic] finally appears in the video for the first time as the encapsulation of the red hot mess that preceded. Honestly there are far worse politicians in the first former colony, but perhaps not worse political ads. Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My opinion is that among the candidates, is that you have an airhead trojan horse in Truss who is basically Johnson 2.0, a fake wannabe-sailor which links to Bush-esque Republican think tanks in Mondaunt and slimy tax-avoiding ex-banker in Sunak. What a choice! Euromec (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Just saw the first debate. Jesus, what a train wreck combo of borefest and insanity.
  • Mordaunt continued her nonsensical “say a lot without saying anything”-style from her crappy video.
  • Badenoch clearly doesn’t believe in climate change (since she’s unwilling to do anything about it).
  • Tugendhat thinks dealing with climate change means finger wagging at the Chinese.
  • Truss tries to make dealing with climate change into something about British nature preserves.
  • Sunak is being his usual Mr. Slick and says “responsibility” a lot.
None of them have any credible, sound or sensible policies on the economy, healthcare or climate change. All of them spent a lot of time waffling about who they are, not what they will do. Mordaunt really floundered and I now think it will be Truss against Sunak.
The issue is whether Truss gives off too much of a crazy vibe for the Tory membership and how they view BoJo. A positive/sympathetic view of BoJo probably means that Truss carries his legacy and Sunak is a traitor. A negative/unsympathetic view probably means that Truss is carrying water for a discredited leader and Sunak is at least a clear alternative. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and among the highlights (lowlights?) was Badenoch’s insane answer to net zero by 2050, which went something like, “Well none of us are going to be here”(!) Note that even putting aside the fundamentally repugnant Après moi, le délugeWikipedia attitude, Badenoch was born in 1980. Hence, she will be 70 in 2050 and thus not only extremely likely to be alive (I know she’s an immigrant, but British women of this birth cohort have a life expectancy of 76.8 years, and as a privileged member of society, Badenoch is hardly likely to have shorter life prospects), but she may even still be an active politician (since 2015, the House of Commons has had more than 20 MPs aged 70 or above, not to mention the House of Lords where the average age is 71). ScepticWombat (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I guess they are trying to tread a fine "line" between: what is true, what their first electorate (Tory MP's) want to hear, what their second electorate (Tory voters) want to hear and whatever their own crazy beliefs might be. That's going to be a really painful, multi-pronged fence to straddle.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The "Well none of us are going to be here." (or "I'll be dead by then.") argument to climate change is a lot more common than you seem to think, children be damned. Bongolian (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
But the insane thing about Badenoch’s statement is, that not only is she extremely likely to actually “be here” and not “be dead” by 2050, but she even has a fair chance of being an active politician as well. It’s like she hasn’t even done the basic math of how close we actually are to 2050 and/or has no conception of her own likely lifespan and prospects. Hell, with the rising age limits, she might just (or not even yet) have reached retirement age in 2050, given that she was born in 1980. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
So, Tugendhat is out as expected, but I’m a bit surprised at how many of Braverman’s supporters have apparently gone to Sunak (~11) as opposed to Badenoch (~9) and Truss (~7). Tugendhat’s exit will probably primarily benefit Mordaunt and Sunak, but I still think the Tory members will have to choose between Sunak and Truss. This is probably also why they refused another televised leadership debate (they have the most to lose and little to gain), which meant it was cancelled entirely.
Badenoch will almost certainly be out after tomorrow’s fourth round and with her ideological stance and direct attacks on Mordaunt, her supporters will probably primarily go to Truss, not least to ensure a(n ostensibly) clear, very (more) right wing alternative to Sunak in the membership vote. Even if every single Tugendhat supporter goes to Mordaunt (32+82), Badenoch’s supporters could still swing it for Truss, if they equally single mindedly join her (58+71).
Indeed, the apparent antagonism between Badenoch and Mordaunt will probably be an even greater spur for Badenoch supporters to join Truss and thus eliminate Mordaunt in the final MP vote on Wednesday. And this is not to mention the possibility of some Sunak supporters tactically backing Truss to ensure Mordaunt is out before party members get to vote.
Also, Mordaunt actually lost one MP in this third round, when compared to the second round last week, as did Tugendhat. I’m almost certain both of these went to Sunak (hard to see them joining either “culture war Badenoch” or “ERG/BoJo Truss”). So, expect Sunak vs. Truss. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
My statement of 'dumping the (Bozo) pilot, keeping the course' was about right. Of the collection of turds, the 'least stinky' is Sunak.
Truss is an idiot with a Thatcher fetish, Mordaunt is nothing more than a bag of vacuous wind and Badenoch is simply Patel 2.0, turned up a couple more notches (I actively loathe Badenoch). All three are Brexit obsessives, still tending the flame in the manner the Russians still make massive deals about VE-Day celebrations.
Sunak - I think - is the least ideological, least stupid and perhaps the least corrupt. I also think he'd do the best in the next GE - the others are simply too extreme.
However... I don't think any of them can win in a GE; their intellectual bankruptcy is obvious and the past mistakes are piling up in front of the public's eyes. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
'an idiot with a thatcher fetish' - thats just a long winded way to say tory AMassiveGay (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Nah. Truss has a Thatcher fetish quite above the normal level of the average Tory. And she is pretty dim. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPoliceI have some (kinda) good news for ya’, with regard to your penultimate comment: Badenoch is out (as expected). So, it’s down to the Mexican standoff between Sunak, Mordaunt and Truss. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
So, it really did end up being Sunak vs. Truss in the membership vote, although Mordaunt was very close. Oh well, time to see if Tory members are seriously going to plumb for Truss leader and PM as opinion polling have suggested. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the only way Sunak is going to win this is if he can produce enough polling that shows he's more 'popular' (or 'less unpopular') with the wider public than Truss. In that case, the party membership may make a 'head choice' and go with him. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Climate change is real, people[edit] Andrew5 (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

When you realise that some news outlets really don't care, it makes you wonder about the future of our species. Here's the UK's Fox News wannabe (all the paranoia none of the 'personality') GBNews making me wish you really could just punch a news anchor in the face, edit: shoulder Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I've wanted to strangle climate change deniers for years. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 17:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
don't worry. at least exxon is making record profits. G Man (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Let us strangle those anthropogenic climate change denialists collectively...--April Chat? 20:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
We need to refer to these folx by more negative names more often. Anti-environmentalists? Ecociders? Anti-climatologists? Anti-humanists? Destructionists? Pro-sixth mass extinctionists?--April Chat? 20:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
". . . people might have to choose between overheating and paying their bills. "
"The best economic system ever", you all--April Chat? 20:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Climate change deniers are oil scum who subsist off their own farts to fuel their melting brains because they're mentally stuck in cars during the summer. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 20:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Probably sums it up succinctly Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Cluelessness suggest naivety. These climate change deniers are outright scumbags. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 22:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Just use an air conditioner, stay home as much as possible (sounds familiar), and never open the windows, even during the night, which is becoming hot too. Simple! LongStylus (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Only 20% of European households have AC, mainly because it doesn't get hot. In Madrid, the nights and highs were above average by a lot every day this month, except when the low was a wee bit below normal on July 1 (59F/15C vs 60F/16C). Thankfully London only has two days of searing heat (38C or 100F), but even 80F/27C can be brutal for them. It's also deadly heat in the US. When I take a tour of Charleston on 7/26, the projected heat index high is 128F/54C. Ew. Andrew5 (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
not enjoying the heat but lets not forget there is actually a wider world. the subcontinent has been enduring temperatures of over 48C for weeks. its already killed dozens. its destroying crops and birds are dropping out of the sky its so hot. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
we have air conditioners in london btw. we call them windows. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
But at temperatures of 35+ it lets the warmer air in. And you end up sitting there sweating in your jocks, thinking "Christ, opening windows really does fuck things up. Damn you, Mr Gates!!!" Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
uk homes are designed to keep warm air in. we sell double glazing on that premise. open your windows AMassiveGay (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
With the same premise that the homes are designed to keep warm air out. If it's ±40ªC outside, clearly keeping said air outside will be more of a benefit than opening a window to let it in.
London is currently 30C (86F) and the worst of the heat is over. The high tomorrow is 27C (81F). Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Keep the windows closed and put up blackout blinds. fill the bath/inflatable paddling pool and sit in it. Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

What was dismissed as mere fiction—a dystopian future à la Blade Runner—is becoming more probable with each year that passes.
“Shadows are falling and I've been here all day
It’s too hot to sleep, time is running away
Feel like my soul has turned into steel
I've still got the scars that the sun didn’t heal
There’s not even room enough to be anywhere
It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there.” LeucippusSalva veritate 19:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
most sci-fi dystopias posit some kind of nuclear and/or chemical/biological holocaust as the in-universe explanation for their hellscapes. driving 100 hundred yards everyday to shovel hamburgers down our faces hasnt seen much use as a sci-fi backstory. perhaps it were a more common trope, perhaps we'd all have been quicker to deal with the problems we now have from our dependence on fossil fuels or even have prevented/fixed much of them already. nd maybe less obese too. sadly big macs and every family member having their own car was more commonly presented as the american dream in hollywood/cold war propaganda so if you didnt have a double chin you must have been a commie AMassiveGay (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, Wall-E tried. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 00:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Wasn't Brave New World all about a hedonistic dystopia as well? Cork (poke) 15:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
that kind of misses my point - that there was no sense of horror of a possible climate apocalypse incubated by a plethora of sci fi stories in literature or in the movies the same way sci fi probably helped fuel the abject horror people had/have of a nuclear apocalypse. for example, when the wind blows by raymond briggs gave me nightmares as a child. there is nothing similar with a climate theme that ive ever lost sleep over. we've yet to have a nuclear war, but the temperature in london is a record breaking (for the uk) 40C today, the world is literally on fire and we still have climate denialists. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Two points;
1 - Soylent Green?
2 - The outright denialists are no longer the real concern. The true enemies now are the 'moderate', 'reasonable' people who say 'yes, we need to combat global warming, but...' then bellowing out a load of smoke to disguise the ultimate 'truth'; that the changes can't cost too much, make anyone change their lifestyles much, inconvenience them or worst of all, deny them their current material SoL. They are for global warming what the 'White Moderate' spoken by Dr King in his Letter from B'ham Jail was for civil rights in the American '60s.
As for a new term for 'denialists', feel free to use mine; 'short-sighted, selfish fuckers'. I've quit playing nice with them. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
okay how about strangable anti-environmentalist ecociding anti-climatologist anti-humanist destructionist pro-sixth mass extinction scumbag short-sighted selfish fuckers and oil scum who subsist off their own farts to fuel their melting brains because they're mentally stuck in cars during the summer? comprehensive enough--April Chat? 03:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
here is what else is strangable: "net zero by 2070". as if we can somehow wait for several decades to do the bare minimum? "[bourgeoisie-owned company] plans to go net zero by 2070! celebrate!" great. now we all get to burn and die just a little bit slower--April Chat?
Just remembered; Ben Elton's 'Stark'. His 'This Other Eden' also gets an honourable mention, as it introduces a concept which continues to rattle in the back of my head now - that the hyper-technological 'solutions' to global warming may in fact make the situation worse due to the levels of production locked into creating such tech. I mean, how many tons of carbon go into making an electric car and over the whole lifetime of the product, whether electric cars are really 'greener' than conventional ICE's. Cars are the exception here; I tried to find out such figures for other 'green' techs like LED lightbulbs etc, but there's no figures at all. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

socialism with desantis characteristics[edit]

Florida sends $450 checks to selected families to 'offset' inflation guess far-right populists now support state socialism Low computer battery (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC) is socialistic. Not socialism. Socialism is not when the government gives people a small sum of money once. But yes, this is rather funny since Republicans love to lie about a supposed correlation between stimulus checks and socialism and communism--April Chat? 02:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
ok i suppose extent to whether stimulus checks technically constitutes "true" socialism debatable on intellectual grounds -- nonetheless hilarious to see same red-baiting proto-populists constantly railing against "cultural marxism" simultaneously supporting socialistic redistribution Low computer battery (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Hehe, absolutely. This event proves that politicians understand the difference between capitalism and socialism, but just do not want to admit it lest the collective ignorance amongst the people about basic economical differences ceases to exist, causing the debacle of likely almost all current cultural wars--April Chat? 03:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Good post!Low computer battery (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Sounds more like Populism than anything else. And like most Populist policies, it is doubtful it can be continued long-term and even more doubtful that it will actually do very much about the problem it was meant to treat.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd also call it state charity. Reasoning;
1 - The targeting is down to donor biases. There is 'deserving poor' who get it and 'undeserving poor' who shall not. Look at the Floridan categories; single parents, adoptive parents and foster parents. Not the best method of targeting the most needy; I know there's categories in all three who are in fact quite wealthy (dependent on definitions of such; informal adoptives/fosters may or may not get it, who are often folks who are much poorer than the formalised ones). In Florida's case, it's not a very well-written one either (I would have done it on household income calculations, something all modern govts already know from tax records).
2 - It's a one-off, ad-hoc payment. Unless costs fall rapidly soon and/or incomes rise, another payment shall be required soon. Socialists are hardly in favour of such a system.
3 - It subsidising poverty-pay employers. Most of the above categories shall be in work.
However, as a socialist I argue it's an interesting development politically; that the decay in capitalism is becoming so obvious that direct 'handouts' have become politically acceptable to the right-wing (we saw similar in the UK). Traditionally, we'd have had the usual 'get on your bike!' eat your bootstraps Alger BS, then by a lecture of trickle-down economics.
KarmaPolice (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

i would call it pragmatism. the world is full of compromise and exceptions to the rule, and whether it is capitalism or socialism, one can be for one and against the other while still occasionally dipping into the others bag when expedient. if its not accompanied by any fundamental shift in thinking in the long term, its as banal as any other 'stopped clock' moment. ideological purity is an ugly thing for zealots and fanatics and we have far too many of them AMassiveGay (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this would have been done in 2019. Covid has forced the ideological 'small state/low tax/personal responsibility' right-wingers to wind their necks in a bit because the Big Public has gotten much more wise that 'can't do' actually means 'won't do'.
We also need to remember that Desantis wants to be the Republican candidate for President in '24. This action was done with half the eye on the national gallery. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Most progressive and leftist USian president ever known[edit] the "best alternative to trump" currently cannot decide whether to declare anthropogenic climate change/the climate crisis/environmental destruction/climate catastrophe/environmental disaster/climate apocalypse/oh my god any term that aptly describes this rapidly worsening meltdown a national emergency, but "has it on the table." you know. he "considers" it. he could declare it a national emergency right now and at least set the record straight, but nah. let's...think about it. for a while. like knowingly sitting in a house with asbestos in it and thinking "should i get the fresh hell out of here or stay? need to think"--April Chat? 03:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, the Mexican border is a bigger issue. Re-declare national emergency for that! /s LongStylus (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The belief that Biden is, "Most progressive and leftist USian president ever known" is rather depressing and somewhat damning of the US political system as a whole. Cardinal Chang (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I keep hearing that Biden is not progressive enough. Progressive enough for what? Whatever is done about the climate not only has to happen before long but has to continue to be pursued for from now on. The idea that an American president has power to do things that the public will not approve, is very common on the far right. Some of my friends think the president should just executive order his way out of our current dilemmas. That don't work so good if it upsets enough people to get DiSantis elected in 2024. Panic-stricken is an ineffective mode of campaigning. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you honestly think in this day and age an American president will ever be progressive at all? Honestly, Michael Franti's Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprosy's "Television" uses the line, "T.V. is the reason why less than ten percent of our Nation reads books daily/ Why most people think Central America/means Kansas/ Socialism means unamerican/and Apartheid is a new headache remedy" and 30 years later there's very little change in such a description of the general public in the US apart from TV no longer being the primary cause of such ignorance. Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I suppose your definition of "progressive" would be important in describing the matter. The avant garde of progress will never be close to real power because they are too theoretical while being grossly impractical with respect to real politics. The 10% figure for book reading seems high to me. One might need include comic books, newspapers and almanacs to attain quite so high a mark for literate activity. We are not simply an ignorant people, we intend to be ignorant. For the most part we do not care about the concerns of others. Fortunately, now it is uncomfortable for everyone. Even the most ardent Trumpists can scarcely believe the weather would be more suitable under a republican administration. I don't know what others expect from the typical person, in the US or abroad. If engineers cannot repair a problem, it is likely to remain unresolved. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
"One might need include comic books, newspapers and almanacs to attain quite so high a mark for literate activity." I'm sorry, but this part made me laugh. Not that you're wrong, though. I would add festival posters, coupons & pamphlets to that list aswell. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Anywan watched the new thor[edit]

I want to know the ratings — Unsigned, by: Pooki234 / talk / contribs 14:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC) ANY ANYONE WATCHED THOR!!!!!!!!!!!! (Pooki234 (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I did. It's appaling, just like every other MCU Phase four flick. GeeJayK (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
In a better world, we would have ended things after Endgame. This is not a better world though.Ryan1257 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Told you so[edit] --April Chat? 15:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

absolutely fucking exhausted with how unseriously people take these threats--April Chat? 15:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I think people are just weary of pandemics and social isolations. No, that's no excuse for what's going on, but I believe it can at least explain to some extent why people aren't taking it seriously. GeeJayK (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm chalking it up to 'crisis fatigue'. Covid, Ukranian invasion, roaring inflation, tanking SoL, the serious issues with global warming... monkeypox doesn't really measure up on the scale of seriousness. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Personally I agree with longStylus, and am trying to get monkeypox off my mind. I was successful before this. Andrew5 (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps this poster shall reassure you, Andrew? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe it. The teddy bear appears to be dead. ;-) Bongolian (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't say anything in this thread. What do you agree with me on, Andrew? LongStylus (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
See the link from KarmaPolice. Bongolian (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. Right, I forgot that I made a few sarcastic comments about how great the world is. Ignorance is bliss, but also embarrassing. LongStylus (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I call it 'own bubble syndrome'. It's an understandable reaction to being bombarded by mainly bad news on a seemingly constant basis but highly irresponsible for any responsible adult. My loony Covid denialist relative is such partly because they went own-bubble about 2014 and the only people who 'informed' them about it was the loonies on their vegan extremist FB groups. I can't talk to them about it anymore, as they start spouting an odd mix of conspiracy theories about it (example; it wasn't that bad because 'I never saw anyone personally who died').
Anyway, after finally getting around to looking into it properly, I chalk monkeypox up to the 'be aware' grouping. The WHO etc make this clear that it's not Covid and perhaps even in the worst case couldn't be. In a shell, the reasons not are a) lower R-number (due to it being much harder to catch), b) harder to mistake as other conditions, c) lower mortality rate (at least this variant) and d) much lower rate of mutation.
This means that many of the 'old school' public health measures brought back for Covid (increased public space cleaniness, personal hygiene and social distancing) shall be sufficient to stop this becoming endemic. The risk in group living situations (like prisons, student houses, hostels etc) will be higher and anyone clinically vunerable should watch out. Main problem is that we don't know how large the asymptomatic rate is - one number I saw was 75%, which is somewhat alarming.
The main threat appears to be monkeypox complications placing even more strain on a medical service which is burnt-out from the pandemic. If we have a combination of a bad flu wave, another Covid surge and widespread monkeypox complications this winter it could break their back. Fuel/food shortages will undoubtedly make the situation even worse. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

How reliable is Robert Kiyosaki and his Rich Dad Poor Dad books?[edit]

A family member has been quite interested in his works, which can be purchased at local stores. There have been mixed messages online, with many questioning how real the rich dad really is. Are the books and author reliable in any way? Good business advice or anything making them worst reading? 2607:FB91:2D46:888:AC39:9931:4E4A:2F49 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Robert Kiyosaki is a good start. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on the boys series[edit]

Been really curious on this community opinion of the latest season of amazon prime “The boys” so far and series overall? SensaurC-137 (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps [3] and other wikis, and various discussion groups on FB would be of interest. Anna Livia (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I thought it was excellent. Great reimaging of the superhero genre.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Ubermench as fascist pricks. Hits the narrative spot on. Plus, it's very funny Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I find Starr as Homelander utterly and believably awful - really, REALLY great acting - the rest are a bit meh, but as noted - interesting "reimagination" of the genre. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not gonna say the comic was better, but it had a narrative that made sense. I think this last season is clearly the best season, and episodes 6 & 7 are sensational.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The end of the latest season trips on its own shoelaces. I haven't read the comic. I would say more but I can't remember how to collapse spoilers. Being said, I really have enjoyed the series. I'm waiting for it to wrap up before I read the comic. I really never like the real-world pop culture shorthand but I get why they do it. The standard I have is different between a relevant cable news anchor and a Judy Garland film. Not faking a Judy Garland film is fine. For example: referencing Dame Judi Dench is strange. Like, do not mess this up if you're gonna name Dame Judi Dench into your current sci-fi timeline. It's a throwaway reference and dates the story without building anything. I can get over it, but it's one of those small plugs that inherently ties an icon to the story, as it's being told in a very modern political way, without any respect beyond a name. I just really don't like when scifi that is based in a co-current place in human history makes direct references. Would have been harder for people to take if there was a reference to Dame Julia Dunsat, a name I just came up with without taking owned footage of a real actress? Would that have made it more or less important? The parodies of current culture are very funny, but dropping names doesn't improve anything, I don't think this is a spoiler in any sense, probably more reason to watch the show if you haven't, but it just makes me groan when studios think shit like this makes parody easier to swallow. Commander Sprace (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Gödel on religion[edit]

Religions are, for the most part, bad-- but religion is not. What does this statement mean? I found it on his manifesto. Gödel Enter into the rabbit hole 17:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a question for speculation. G was a difficult person to understand. Perhaps he meant that we all have a religious instinct, one that irrationally binds one to the certainly with which one understands the world. That understanding cannot consist of pure information alone. The human sentiments subtending any level of understanding may be associated with that instinct. Because it is human on a personal scale, it should not be considered to be bad. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
My simple guess is that Gödel may have used the word "religion" favorably where it later become popular to call it "spirituality" instead. He may have been alienated from standard religious teachings, viewing what people have made of religion to be "non-rational", a dysfunctional mess, or "bad", while still having a mystic conviction of the value of what he saw as a type of pure religious "truths" and their possible pursuit. Gödel's list fit that mixture of rational and mystical mentality usually called esoteric, as in Western esotericism, in his case not tied to a tradition but in a basic way looking for a minimal description of a cosmos encompassing both the physical world and more than it. For example, "There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind." --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Sturgeon's Law applies to religions? --Annanoon (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I am an ardent atheist and realist, but I do wonder about the first point; "the world is rational," right from the start. Perception can be interpreted rationally, the world can be anything whether we can actually perceive it or not. There are systems of solutions for problems as we can perceive them, but wow wow wow, all problems? That is the kicker. What unsolvable problem means higher intelligences created the things we can't solve for? This is a great example of how I explain my atheism. I do not believe I know all the answers to our existence. If I were to assume it was caused by something that is, by definition, incomprehensible or unknowable, then it would be hubristic and dumb of me to tell people that I know why I don't know the things I don't know. Or to put it simply, as an inherent trait of God, you cannot know or define God, so don't ever use God in your rational human reasoning. Commander Sprace (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Teapot/Access denied on Russian Ministry of Defense website: Global or just to Americans?[edit]

So I've noticed that has been down for an extended period, and I'm wondering if their site is down to all, or if they're just blocking the US? I know there's some people here from all over the world who could answer that question... 71.208.x.x (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's accessible here (UK) Scream!! (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I tried a VPN. They are blocking Japan, but not Turkey. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Are they trying to prevent DDoS attacks, maybe? It's probably not unusual for people from the US to try to attack Russian websites in this time of year. LongStylus (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure that is exactly the reason. I'm surprised it is available to the UK but not the US or Japan (Turkey does not surprise me). 71.208.x.x (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Peter Naur's Antiphilosophical Dictionary[edit]

I earlier read this book, which computer science pioneer Peter NaurWikipedia worked on in his later years. Naur dismisses philosophy in general as nonsense, and as "useless" in contrast with science which he viewed as useful.

In earlier years, Naur drew upon some philosophy as part of his work, and in terms of that he is a postcognitivistWikipedia. It's arguable whether he was able to go beyond that to truly become a complete non-philosopher, while writing about philosophy. Anyway, in his book he views Freudianism, behaviorism, and cognitivism as all fatally flawed in resting on poor assumptions, and criticizes various philosophers much more broadly, and the definitions they made use of. In Naur's view, psychological terms used by philosophers are usually used nonsensically, in ways which are obviously bogus as becomes clear when comparing with plain human experience. Instead, William JamesWikipedia is held up as still being the best at useful, sensible descriptions. Naur seems to be a radical empiricist much like James.

Interestingly, Naur takes great issue with Aristotle, viewing Aristotle as the historical father of philosophical nonsense. But Naur simply ignores Plato. This can be explained in terms of Aristotle's ideas, e.g. his physics, being in the same area as that explored as empirical science, and clashing with science, and many of Aristotle's historical ideas being discarded one by one as science progresses over centuries. Meanwhile, Plato's thinking goes off in different directions compared to science, and thus can simply be ignored by a staunch empiricist. To Naur, Plato was simply irrelevant, while Aristotle's legacy was that of nonsense at odds with science, a legacy carried on by many generations of new philosophers who observe and define poorly.

Does anyone else have any views on this book by Naur? I've discussed it earlier with others, and it seems that Naur is a bit too short and contemptuous with philosophy and its history to be taken seriously by many with a more academic view of philosophy. Still, I extracted various points to think about from it, where Naur dissects ideas, and that's the value I found in it that makes it seem worth pointing others to. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

There is an irony in when someone tries to argue for the “uselessness” of philosophy and yet describes it in terms that are unequivocally philosophical stances. Pragmatism and Empiricism themselves already are existing philosophical traditions. Focusing on Aristotle is a bit strange considering that 2000 years of philosophy has existed since his time, and people haven’t just been recycling Aristotle for that entire time. It seems strange if not outright foolish to dismiss logic (a branch of philosophy) as “useless”, especially from a computer scientist whose field requires Boolean Logic (also a product of philosophy). The argument presented has a vague resemblance to the logical empiricism (only in LE they just dismissed metaphysics as nonsense), which if it is anything like that it is pretty much dead on arrival - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC).
(EC) Only Sort of Dumb is right, the author is staking out a philosophical position, and a strange one at that. I took a glance at the book. The author is immediately wrong; the first entry is "knowledge by acquaintance", which the author claims is not taken up by philosophers. This is just false; substantial philosophical work has been done on knowledge by acquaintance. The author also seems to think that, if not for Aristotle, science would have gotten off the ground much earlier, but this is not a justified claim. He offers that anybody could have disproven Aristotle's theory that objects fall in proportion to their weight by dropping two rocks of different weight and observing that they fall at the same rate. Of course, an Aristotelian could provide their own demonstration, by dropping, say, a leaf and a rock, and observing that they clearly do not fall at the same rate. Perhaps it seems obvious in hindsight to conclude that air resistance makes the difference, but it's a mistake to think that this would have been obvious at any time in history. Point is, everything is obvious in hindsight. Furthermore, given that a scientific revolution did not occur in India or China or anywhere else where Aristotle was not especially influential during the relevant time period, it seems odd to suggest that it would've happened much earlier in Europe without Aristotle. It is apparently not obvious that the best way to gain knowledge of the world is through systematic, controlled experimentation if you don't already know it. Perhaps the author has some knowledge of Medieval times that I lack, but I doubt it. Overall, my impression is that the author's conclusions are unjustified and that his claims about philosophy are unreliable. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 16:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
The irony of the book seems to be Naur's sloppy generalizations. From what I've read, in his quoting and arguing with details in this or that book by this or that author, he does well. But Naur's personal selection of philosophers and philosophy with something bad that can be pointed to is apparently viewed by him as representing all philosophy. He also uses some big and broad labels other than "philosophy" itself sloppily.
Naur doesn't dismiss the use of logic in a technical context, but his hard-line stance on language, meaning, and clarity, makes him treat philosophical use of logic differently than technical use. In large part he seems to dismiss exercises in logic that mix its rules with the use of everyday language and words, as being a means to reason sloppily which can lead to nonsense. He also rejects the idea that there is a one best or truest way to define things when, as mathematical logic often allows, several options exist.
I think Naur has a point about the fallacies he describes, though when he claims that things fit them, he sometimes goes very strictly by the wording used, and does not seem to allow for communication and intent in philosophy being, in practice, at a slight distance most of the time. I've become convinced that philosophical definitions and their use are like attempts to draw outlines around objects, and that for practical purposes it can work well even when done with imperfect precision, and that it is seldom done with perfect precision. Naur sees a hard error whenever the precision isn't perfect. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Naur makes some valid points in the course of describing his fallacies, but they are points already addressed in the philosophical literature, and he simultaneously misrepresents the philosophers he speaks about. For instance, in describing his "word-as-code-of-meaning fallacy", he attacks Wittgenstein for expressing the view, making evident that he did not actually read the Philosophical Investigations in full, or else he would know that Wittgenstein begins by setting up the view to be attacked as inadequate. I take this as a sign that Naur is arguing in bad faith, either attacking an opponent he has not actually invested the time to understand or else deliberately misrepresenting them. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 20:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
That's something I couldn't check as easily, not having read those books Naur refers to. Piecewise, his quotes and comments look good. Good to know about there being misleading cherry-picking. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

WW2 combat woo.[edit]

I remember reading a website (can't remember the name) which claimed that some rich businessmen had an idea to create the perfect combat style and apparently it was so good the style only had to be taught one night before a mission, and for 200 dollars you could pay to learn this combat technique, does this ring a bell to anyone? Time Lord (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Not me. But it's obviously nonsense.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Gonna be honest, when I saw the header I thought I was going to hear about some rediculous ideas or theory of war but instead I got proto-mcdojo nonsense--2friedeggs (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like something the Chinese "male enhancement" spammers would peddle. 71.208.x.x (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, "Send me 200 dollars and I will teach you hos to become unbeatable - in just one session"! It's almost too good to be true! Oh, wait!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
For comparison's purposes; $200 (1941) = $4,000 (2021), though the 'Coca-Cola Index' has it at $5,950.
The 'product' itself may have been simply a scammer harnessing the-then new mythos over close-quarters fighting styles such as 'Defendu' which, obviously was being deliberately hyped-up for propaganda purposes (Orwell wrote a sniffy-snide article about it at the time, though shame he didn't spot a whole new scam/fad sector at the start) but little hard facts were known about. Though I shall cite 'Bartitsu' as the granddaddy of the modern Western 'Martial arts woo' (Though in defence, Bartitsu does appear to have been 'real', though overpriced and faddy).
As for the 'enhancers'... well, that's not new either. Behold; the Sear's catalogue, 1902. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a surprise[edit]

Biden has COVID. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am wrong, but did he not stop wearing a mask? Did he ever get the second booster shot? Not trying to sound rude, I am actually curious--April Chat?
You know . . . refusing to receive new boosters and wear masks can cause this to happen.--April Chat? 15:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, he did get the second booster. He will be fine.--April Chat? 15:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
There’s a SECOND booster? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Uh...yeah! There is. It rolled out in the Spring, specifically for elderly and/or immuno-compromised people...I still got it anyway lmao--April Chat? 17:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC) There is no way to really stop anybody from getting the second booster shot. Some pharmacies take your word for it and give you the shot regardless? At least, that is what happened in my experience.--April Chat? 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
My socialized free European healthcare ensured that I got my second booster and that it is registered on my Covid vaccination certificate. As a somewhat elderly individual I'm now waiting for information about my promised winter booster.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
In your terms, is "2nd booster" 3 shots total, or 4? 'cos I'm awaiting my 4th shot - which we call 2nd booster due to the initial course of treatment being 2 shot Pfizer. Have to wait another 6 weeks 'cos they say it's best to have a 3 month gap between having covid and getting it :/ Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I had a first shot. then a booster and then a second booster. So I'm waiting for a fourth shot. (third booster).Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The horrible truth about the cov-2 vaccines, as effective as they are at mitigating the symptoms of Covid as a whole, but it's target virus, the Wuhan strain of cov-2 is no longer the prevalent strain. And this just opens the door for the morons on the anti-vax brigade to pipe up stating "The Gov'ment lied to us, It's medical fascism forcing us to test it...." blah blah blah. Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
There is also the 'mild conspiracy theory' of 'diplomatic illness' (which 'diplomatic immunity' does not offer protection). Anna Livia (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I got vaccinated, did not boost because they were gonna charge me, so quick argument from Authority here, I don't know anyone who has died from COVID. If a virus has a high mortality rate and mutation ability, but is separated from its ability to spread by quarantine, it should naturally survive as something non-lethal and highly contagious. But, only if its lethal version is contained. I know viruses quantify just below life, but they aren't immune to pressure, especially once they hit a species like ours that is really good at putting pressure on biological mechanics. I don't think any of these illnesses are made up, but I think we're getting closer to dealing with them in the right way, which includes moving quickly. I've joked about Monkey Pox being the new Gay AIDS, and only people who know enough to know AIDS was called Gay Cancer can get it. It's an esoteric joke, somehow. People thought we were all gonna die from Ebola because my city brought American Ebola patients back from the front lines of treating it to treat them. It's not fake, medicine is just getting very good, and the preventative measures that all these people criticize the medical community for not supporting preventative health because it's more lucrative to treat the symptom over the cause are like a "well now I'm not doing it" meme. Commander Sprace (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
And I apologize, I know a lot of other communities suffer much more than mine does from problems of population density. Commander Sprace (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Wash your hands, you filthy animals. Commander Sprace (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I got covid like two days before Biden did. Triple vaccinated, pretty cautious. But I was in Vegas the week previous basically never wearing a mask, and on the return flight someone near me had covid. Even though I was wearing a mask, I also had the air going directly in my face. First time infected and it generally sucked. Just returned to work today.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"The Postmodern Hell Of Russian Propaganda"[edit]

This video by Vlad Vexler was linked in a discussion about the Ukraine crisis on Psiram, and seems worth passing along a link to. It mentions the differences between Soviet propaganda and modern Russian propaganda. My summary would be, where Soviet propaganda was the constant affirming of a separate reality no one really believed in (but all had to join the pretend game), Russian propaganda instead focuses on making people doubt everything opposed to the agenda (or even the possibility of knowing anything at all) through a relentless cavalry (media, bots, trolls) Gish Galloping. Erasing all certainty and making people feel under attack, emotional hooks are then used to make them side with the propagandists. Belarus earlier had Russian propagandists take over the propaganda effort following widespread protests after election fraud, making the contrast clear in that case. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Modern Russian propaganda is a curious mix; cynicism, apathy and nihilism in equal measure. It's 'curious' because for it's perhaps the first time in history it has no positive narrative to push at all; yes, by say 1980 few in the world believed Brezhnev and Co's claims about the USSR being 'a beacon of human progress' and 'a new civilisation' which shall 'bury capitalism' but they *still* said it.
The only other propaganda efforts I'm familiar with which are similar to the Kremlin's current one is that of the Nazis. Now, before you call Godwin, listen for a moment.
During the Second World War, the Nazis had no qualms about 'telling people what they wanted to hear', regardless to either a) their actual policies or b) attempting to weave a 'stable worldview'. Example; while many know about 'Lord Haw-Haw' doing Fascist broadcasts to the UK, it's generally forgotten that several others also operated; such as an anti-American, 'patriotic' station and even more interestingly, a 'left-wing' station called 'Workers Challenge'. I say 'interestingly' because it appears to be the only propaganda outfit which not just admitted the Nazis were nasty, but went out of their way to highlight it. This is because their 'line' was that of 'revolutionary defeatism'; that the Brits could only defeat Fascism if they threw out the corrupt aristos like Churchill etc first (aka turn an 'imperialist war into a civil war'). This policy was in fact similar enough to the line pushed by the Communists between Aug '39 and June '41.
I mention this because of the existence of an outfit called Redfish Media. They are the 'Worker's Challenge' of the current age; helping top up the fuel for the 'Tankies' who while clearly not liking the Russian regime one bit (and saying as much) then in the next breath shall go on an 'anti-imperialist', 'bad as each other' line provided by folks like Redfish and so on. ('Anti-imperialist' often ending up as code for 'anti-Western/American'). And it's a powerful line because hell, the dividing line between 'us' and 'them' really ain't that wide. Or clear (and thus is exploited).
That's the similarity between the two. Wherever the wedge-crack exists, they will move to try to lever it open as wide as possible. The topic is almost irrelevant - it's a tool to be used, nothing more.
Which I think answers the 'why' part of the question - with a little help from (ironically) Leninism. Russia is unable to wield any remotely 'positive' propaganda or an overarching narrative because her system of society is deficient to ours in almost every field - social, cultural, economic, political and scientific. This is to be expected when you consider it, because said system is not much more than our own, via a darkened mirror. Therefore, unable to attract anyone to their banner, the best they can do is simply inflict on us what she's already done to herself; to create a society of 'tin men'; cynical, paranoid, apathetic and utterly atomised.
Interesting - though dense - read on Russian propaganda from Rand;
KarmaPolice (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Twitter & NFT's[edit]

Saw this pop up after visiting the site. I thought Twitter was going to take care of scams & help the environment? Then again, it's "social" media... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Instagram has fake hackers claiming to expose cheaters to paranoid spouses. Someone compromised on Steam is messaging me weird links every other week. Social media doesn't do anything about scammers. Crypto exploits greed.--2friedeggs (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
One need look no further than the ex-CEO of Twitter to find scam promotion: Jack Dorsey (6.4M followers), who only has "#bitcoin" in his bio.[4] His dive into Bitcoin on Twitter started while he was still CEO. Bongolian (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Did the person who wrote this have a few too many beers when writing this[edit]

I read some weird shit before but wow. I think that I had psychiatric delusions that made more sense than this article. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

...I doubt it was beer... Kencolt (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The author of this piece is simply JAQing off for page views. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Every sentence is lined with ads. It is inconsistent because it wants every hit, every page view it can muster. The fact that you have it linked means you found it somewhere, it's not a self-promulgating article. So it's, unfortunately, probably something that was written targeting a community. It only needs a couple people in said community to link it to larger communities in order to gather whatever traffic revenue justifies its existence. Commander Sprace (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, Troll. In this case, deny them ad revenue. 71.208.x.x (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
My (somewhat limited) knowledge on the subject is to the effect that 'many, most or all' ancient rulers claimed to be the son of the king of the Gods/the Sun god - and eg James 'Six and One' commented on the matter [5]. Anna Livia (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone[edit]

What’s the hot gossip today? 2001:8004:2778:27BC:F45C:ED76:3945:1D39 (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Confusion about the Existential Fallacy.[edit]

Recently I was looking at the Wikipedia page for the list of logical fallacies when I looked at one of the quantification fallacies of first order logic called the "existential fallacy" which is listed as a formal fallacy.

I doubled checked this syllogism using software that checks logical validity to prove that ∀xPx entails ∃xPx (which always seemed like a valid inference to me), which can be done simply through natural deduction.

P1. ∀xPx

L2. Pa ... P1. ∀Elim.

L3. ∃xPx ... L2. ∃Intro.

but according to Wikipedia the existential fallacy is defined as "an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion" which is exactly what this argument is... but its not a formal fallacy as it's clearly valid? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC).

It seems to me that the above instance isn't a really an existential fallacy and Wikipedia just poorly defined it on their list. It seems much more likely that ∀x(Px --> Gx) / ∃x(Px ^ Gx) is a genuine example of the fallacy, but that is not simply an argument with a universal premise and particular conclusion -- as it's a more specific type of generalization that involves a conditional that is satisfied by the absence of Px. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC).
In first order logic, "∀xPx entails ∃xPx" actually depends on your semantics. If your theory is consistent, your semantics allow empty models and it has an empty model, it is false. If your semantics don't allow empty models you would expect it to be a tautology. These semantic differences also affect deduction rules in subtle ways. Namako (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Uff when I studied formal logic I don't remember ever seeing ∀Elim or ∃Intro. Either they weren't used back then or we just didn't delve deeply enough into it I guess. Is this a new form of notation? From what I remember of the fallacy (and not much because I don't think I ever came across an example outside of studying it) you also have to distinguish the two different interpretations of them (I don't remember what the second one is called anymore). The first goes something like: All moon-hippos are mammals, all mammals are warm blooded therefore some moon-hippos are warm blooded. This is distinct from: All moon-hippos are grey. Therefore some grey things are moon-hippos. Both of them would be formulated differently in formal proofs. It's definitely a formal fallacy. ShabiDOO 11:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
It’s Fitch Style notation. It’s not “new” it’s just a different natural deduction style proof, as opposed to the more syllogistic form of natural deduction that is more commonly taught. The software on my computer from my logic courses uses fitch, and so does so when I want to confirm that my proof is correct I use those sources and I use fitch. There are a lot of different methods you can use to prove validity, from axiomatic derivations, tableaux’s, proof by induction, strict mathematical proofs, etc. They are not all typically covered in introductory logic courses. Profs will usually just pick one that they think is easiest/best. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC).
@Only Sort of Dumb You are correct, the argument for which you've written a deduction is valid (assuming you hold to conventions forbidding empty models; otherwise it would be invalid, as Namako points out), and the fallacy does refer to more structured cases like the one you give with a conditional. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 16:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Uhh can someone translate this into english please I am very curious what... all of this means as someone who doesn't really know anything about the notation (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
∀xPx means Everything/Everyone such that everything/everyone has the property "P" or something like "Everyone is a Pufferfish". ∃xPx means there exists x such that x has the property of P, or something akin to "there exists a pufferfish". The inference from everyone is a pufferfish to there exists a pufferfish in classical logic is a valid logical inference, but the inference of everyone that is a fox is grey does not allow the inference there exists a grey fox. This is because the latter example everyone is that is a fox is grey translate to ∀x(Fx --> Gx) which is akin to saying for all x if x is a fox then x is grey. Which does not allow the inference ∃x(Fx ^ Gx) which translate to there exists a fox that is grey. Because the truth of ∀x(Fx --> Gx) can be established by there simply being no foxes. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC).

I must be paranoid[edit]

Any time I see a pimple on me or have ichy red skin, I keep thinking that I have Monkeypox. I guess hearing about it a lot is making me paranoid. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems like everyone is like that, especially with COVID. If I get a runny nose or feel fatigued, I always worry that I might have COVID. I have a testing kit at home, so that eases my paranoia somewhat. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like we have a rapid testing kit for monkeypox yet. LongStylus (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

UK Labour's electoral chances?[edit]

Simple enough question.

I personally don't think they'll make it - in a shell, it's because Starmer is attempting bland 'don't spill no drinks' Third Way Redux at a time serious overhauling of UK.plc is needed and minus Blair's easy charisma which allowed folks to forget his relative lack of policy. That almost all the appeal is negative in nature; ie 'At least we're not that shower of Tory bastards'. Which frankly, isn't that hard a bar to clear right now. But not something folks would 'kill' for. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't bode well for them, does it? Which is rather damning of the current state of the Labor Party in the UK. Honestly, the next general election is theirs to lose, and it looks like they may just do that. Cue, another term of rancid Tory policy tearing the UK social state to shreds. Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
i believe its too early to say one way or another. the pandemic had effectively silenced the opposition and we are not so long out of that. that was followed by johnson's government becoming a three ring circus in the time since, its a small wonder labour has struggled to grab any headlines and when it has its been sniping from elements from the labour left - today being a prime example. labour has faced a mountain to climb after corbyn. i do not think starmer is the problem here. big personalities have not exactly been serving us too well lately. its a vision problem. what is labour for in 2022 and beyond? labour had vision under corbyn but it was too detached from reality to be credible. things are looking bleaker than they did when labour were destroyed at the ballot box. labour needs a more cautious vision than a grand one. what policy has been hinted at thus far suggests this. i would hope to see to this crystallise once the tories have done with the leadership campaign. policy wise, i hear they have pretty much everything in place - they just need to lay it all out with clear messaging. whether there is time for them to be heard loud and clear, remains to be seen. whether labour can avoid sabotaging themselves is far from certain.
i do not know if labour can pull it all together to win the next election or not. im not optimistic, but its far from over yet. a hung parliament with labour led coalition is the best we can hope for. but they need to start making themselves heard with a clear vision from a united party and they need to start now. but a clear vision needs party unity, but its party unity that is the problem. if the tories win the next election, it wont be because starmer isnt exciting enough. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I do agree; it's a 'vision problem', not a 'personality problem'. However, the critical problem with your 'cautious vision' point is that what is a 'cautious vision' for 2022: 'Let's try to not have many people freeze to death this winter'? Which is the critical difference between now and 1997 - back then, the general outlook was 'okay enough' for the majority of the population which meant Blair's message of 'like now, but a bit better/nicer' rather hit the spot.
Which leads to my worry about 'electoral overfitting'; that there is a tendency to read off one election result far too much in the way of 'general principlies'. Was '19 terrible? Yes. Yet Labour had a fence-sitting policy re: Brexit, a very tarnished leader re: incompetence and the primary opposition had an 'amusing' performing walrus as leader re: Bozo. Yet despite all of this, statistics do not lie, the '19 vote result was still (as a % of the vote) slightly better than '15 under Milliband and '10 under Brown. Yet if you listen to the likes of the 'moderates', it was all about 'too left-wing' and nothing else (interestingly, the 'too left wing' claims are normally given after every defeat, including '15).
I am a lot less enamoured about the whole 'party must be united!' guff, personally. You can't have 'big tent party' and 'uniformity in position' - like with 'Thatcherism' and 'levelling up', one has to give way at some point. In Starmer's 'quest for unity', he's gone waaay past the point of dumping the few who really did deserve it (in one way or another) to basically telling anyone 'left-wing' to either recant or fuck off.
That leaves Starmer in a quandry even before the electorate comes into play. The party is about ~25% smaller (so lost fees) and many of those lost were the most politically active - the footsoldiers doing door-knocking, leafleting and social media rousing (which is Labour's traditional counterweight for the Tory cash advantage). Then there's funding; the unions may come to believe that if Starmer won't back their corner in No 10, perhaps their millions are better spent, say directly lobbying the public or something. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Starmer looks like a rubber puppet of himself... and the LibDem leader is the Invisible Man: Nichola Sturgeon is way more visible.
No 1 improvement for elections - have a 'None of the above' entry. Anna Livia (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Nah; Priti Patel holds the Cabinet honorific of 'closest likeness to own Spitting Image puppet' while Sunak is the current winner of 'MP most likely to be an Auton'.
Plus; what happens if NOTA wins the election? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
about party unity. no party can win an election if its factionalism is so apparent as it is in labour. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
if NOTA 'win' then the tories win by default. their voters are not so obsessed with ideological purity as to go with NOTA if they think the tories are not right wing enough - they will still be more right wing than labour after all. labour voters who think labour are not left enough? they might go for the NOTA option. its not like if NOTA hoovers up most votes it means any more than just not voting at all. no one to lead a government, no manifesto for change, no explicit reason for ticking the NOTA box giving of common reason for voters to do so meaning no mandate for anyone to do anything with it all. except maybe for the politically disinterested to pretend they are some sort of rebel/activist superior to the sheeple while doing nothing except being complicit in the election of whoever does get in. NOTA is a bullshit option. some politicians might be concerned about legitimacy and wonder how to connect with more people, but falling voting rates do the same thing. governments still would and need be formed even the number of votes gained is lower than they'd like for anything to be done. if you are not served by the current selection of candidates then campaign and organise with like minded people to offer a candidate more to your liking. if the political system is so broken that the masses cannot even organise legally in anyway, that elections really are sham and everyone knows it, NOTA is even more pointless if a revolution is whats required.
democracy is very often about picking the least worst option. such is life. vote to ensure someone worse doesnt get in, and get involved in more activism if it sticks your throat. do something about it. or just tick NOTA if the status quo is fine with you. even better just stay home and not vote at all. you wont even have to put your trousers on and you get the same result as NOTA AMassiveGay (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

most likely

If NOTA wins (possibly linked to Re-Open Nominations) then the minor parties are given the options (though what would happen in a Parliament composed of Lord Buckethead, Count Binface 'and others of their ilk' is anybody's guess - though the law on wearing armour in Parliament might be ditched). Anna Livia (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Can somebody track this joke down for me?[edit]

I for the life of me cannot remember the specifics of this joke. Two Christain preachers are riding a train arguing with each other on a train ride, the engine of the train explodes sending them both into the air, exploded to their demise. One preacher looks at the other and says "Bet I fly higher than you." I forgot where it comes from and which denominations are referenced. But it is a really good joke. Commander Sprace (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Machina topic[edit]

Warning icon orange.svg Warning

Emotion conversation ahead may rot your brain!

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

Is every mathematical concept a tautology(a necessary truth)?[edit]

Would the non-existence of Maths lead to a contraction? You could define a tautology to be any necessary truth. First though, we need to clear up some of the ambiguity around the term "necessary truth." Roughly, a necessary truth is something that is true and couldn't have been false. In that case, would Max Tegmark's hypothesis of mathematical multiverse be wrong? Because Maths would have to universally true to avoid contradictions. So, if the multiverse hypothesis is true, then Maths would unite the different realms.Heisenberg Enter into the rabbit hole 08:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought Multiverse hypothesis just supposes that all potential quantum states in a superposition collapse occur, creating new universes for each possibility every time; not that the governing rules of the universe change with each iteration? My personal stance is that math is just a convenient system, and isn't some ultimate truth. Any system will have patterns, and math was developed alongside physics. Math's impeccable adherence to reality is neither inherent, nor coincidence. I think it's just that the patterns of the universe are very systematically structured, and the commonality of patterns / equations in physics is simply because the universe is probably more simple / repetitive than it looks. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the mathematical multiverse is the same thing as the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Necessity in normal modal logics is defined as "true in all possible worlds accessible to w" or in basic modal interpretations it simply means "true in all possible worlds". I would argue that necessity means that it is impossible for P to be false, so in that sense mathematical truths if genuinely mathematical and genuinely true would be necessarily true given there is no possible world to which such propositions in mathematics are false. You could also say that mathematical truths are non-contingent and thus necessary. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC).
@OnlySortaDumbSeems our boy Max gets around. He is also responsible for the cosmological interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is a subset of the multiverse hypothesis. Seems he *also* has an entire mathematics multiverse. I just assumed the topic was about his former postulate, as I was unaware of the later but recognized the name. I'll shut up now. 😥 MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
So, is max right or wrong? Heisenberg Enter into the rabbit hole 03:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
My opinion is that he is wrong. Mathematics is a pattern humans made up, nothing more. Most possible mathematical equations are utterly useless and represent nothing. It takes lots of dedicated work to find a mathematical equation which gives a close approximation of reality. What mathematics is is an extremely versatile tool which can explain any pattern or meta pattern, but it in no way implies the existence of a pattern just by itself. If data doesn't corroborate it, it doesn't matter what the math says. Data or die, that is the rule of science. Math adjusts to fit the data, not the other way around; and ut is disingenuous to the people who work for hours to massage mathematics to even barely fit an application to presume that mathematics is some discovered truth. Mathematicians and phycicists don't find math, they build it. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The theory sounds a lot like the error described as "mistaking the map for the territory." Mathematics can be used to describe reality, more of less accurately, but it does not comprise reality. Plane geometry is great for surveying land and other practical applications. But, Minkowski space is required for General Relativity theory. Those systems are language tools.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
So, I'm guessing that max's model is similar to Extended modal realism. Yeah, I don't think that would work. An Impossible world is a one that allows contradictions. That world would break the LNC and not break the LNC. It would exist and not exist. It is utterly pointless to conceive of such a universe. Gödel Enter into the rabbit hole 14:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree that a theoretical universe cannot have contradictions. I see no reason why the governing systems of a universe need behave consistently in all domains. You could simply have a universe which can only be explained by a piece wise set of functions, each with limited domains. Said piece wise functions would be able to contradict each other, but in essence said universe is still representable. Quantum mechanics arguably already allows for temporary contradictory states to exist simultaneously, such as good ol' Schrodinger's cat. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Let f(E) = k, where k(=-2E/m) is the curvature constant. f(E)= { k<0 , if E>0 ; k=0, if E=0 ; k>0, if E<0 }. Now, the domain with a distinct value(say E=0) will give a distinct output(k=0,flat universe).I don't understand how describing the universe as a piecewise function would allow a contradiction.Source:
The reason we reject contradictions is be due to the Principle of Explosion - that you can, from any contraction, prove any conclusion. It's a kind of guaranteed reductio ad absurdum of any argument containing a contradiction. As for qm, Quantum mechanics describes a system with a state vector, which tells you the state (think "state of affairs") a system is in. Quantum mechanics further says that the addition of any two states gives you another valid state (up to complex constant multiples). So if |dead⟩ is a valid state , and |alive⟩ is a valid state, then |alive⟩+|dead⟩ is another valid state. Does this mean that the cat is "both dead and alive at the same time"? Well, is northwest "both north and west at the same time"? Northwest is north-ish and west-ish, but it's a distinct direction from either of them, so northwest is not a logical contradiction. Likewise, |alive⟩+|dead⟩ is its own distinct state, not a logical contradiction. Gödel Enter into the rabbit hole 03:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with your North-West example. North-West is simply a single value of a 2 dimensional variable (latitude & longitude). With Schrodinger's cat, until you open the box, the cat is in superposition and is both fully dead and fully alive in two seperate states. When you open the box, the superposition collapses and only one remains true and the cat will either be dead or alive. But, as seen with the double slit experiment, the states can interact with each other in some ways, and so a single particle in superposition can collide/interact with its other states within the superposition. (Could Schrodinger's cat to eat itself?) In conclusion, having multiple states simultaneously is not the same thing as it just being "northish" and "westish". It is only North and only West at the same time, and once something breaks the superposition it must decide which one it will remain; but for a brief period of time two entirely different things were true simultaneously. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Maybe, my analogy is wrong. But then again, the LNC has not been violated. Schrödinger himself said that this doesn't his thought experiment doesn't represent anything contradictory( This paper expresses Schrödinger’s cat in its entirety. He never wrote anything else about it. And here, shorn of imaginative popular explanations, it is not at all hard to understand. Schrodinger’s whole paper is about how we should understand the wavefunction, and here he’s playfully criticizing views by which one naively takes a wavefunction as representing the real state of a system. For if one does, then one must take that same attitude to macroscopic (cat-sized) systems as well as microscopic ones. And when you do that, you get systems existing in states that appear utterly absurd. Note, Schrödinger holds that the superposed cat state is absurd, but not that it is contradictory. And not, to the question, in any way violating the law of the excluded middle. There’s nothing logically contradictory about a cat existing in a state of quantum superposition between dead and alive (indeed, we can write down its wavefunction). It’s just not something that we see macroscopic objects doing. Schrödinger then goes on to draw an analogy: concluding from the existence of superpositions in the wavefunction that superpositions exist in reality is like concluding from blurry photos that reality is blurred. Instead, the evidence presented is not conclusive. We need more in order to work out whether the photos are really and accurately showing “wisps of cloud” or whether they are simply blurred and poorly focused (i.e., imperfect representations of reality).As such, Schrödinger’s Cat is a reductio ad absurdum argument. A very simple one, with a very clear conclusion: naive realism about quantum states at the micro level leads to apparently absurd conclusions at the macro level. Source: . For more on the contractions and QM :, Schrödinger Enter into the rabbit hole 12:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
My takeaway has always been that schrodinger was wrong about his own presumption of absurdity. I would argue schrodinger is committing the fallacy of Argument from Incredulity. I am a fan of relational quantum mechanics, which holds that once a person observes the cat, they enter being part of that superposition having observed all seperate states, while another observer may experience a different collapse, only resolved when they come into contact, forcing then to now be in the same state and making it appear there is only one state. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A good youtube channel for sexual minorities.[edit]

If anyone is looking for good and trustworthy information about the LGBTQI community I'd suggest powered by rainbows, I really enjoy his content (as far as I know he doesn’t use pronouns so that's why I'll describe him as he until otherwise) his video on gender really helped me in understanding the concept, (correct if I'm wrong but it has nothing to do with biological sex) — Unsigned, by: Time Lord / talk / contribs 21:27, 29 July 2022

If someone doesn't have a specified pronoun, I see that "they" is a better generic term, but idk. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 21:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Good idea!, I initially thought about using they but I wasn't sure, I'll use that next time! — Unsigned, by: Time Lord / talk / contribs 22:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~ LongStylus (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Normal brain - He/Him, She/Her
Galaxy brain - They/Them
Communist Brain - Comrade
Make of that what you will.- RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Unions and 'trousers/funny handshakes' - Brother/Sister. Anna Livia (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


Anyone ever heard of scp before, if so what's your favourite? Mines scp 096 the shy guy. — Unsigned, by: Time Lord / talk / contribs

I heard of it. My favorite is SCP-610. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
i kept seeing scp stuff in various media a while back, and it kinda confused me a little as to where it all originated from - was it a book? a film? a comic or something? kinda impressed by the scale of it as a collaborative work. ive read collaborative novels (or at least one for sure anyways) but they were one single piece of work not thousands of stand alone pieces by god knows how many authors. i cant think of anything similar, except maybe fanfiction but even star wars fan fic probably as extensive and that had an already established fictional world to build upon (and its mostly wank).
quality might vary but what ive seen is pretty good. something good/not fucking awful coming out of 4chan is something in its self.
i wonder how copyright works with scp? does something the video game 'control' need to licensing? can you even copyright it? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
We just happen to have an article on the subject here. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
SCP-043; Myself, SCP-426; ••|•••••|••|•; SCP-2602, that used to be a library; and SCP-3312 are a few. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 06:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Many of the SCPs remind me of some of the texts released by the Cult of the Dead Cow back in the days when there was no commercial internet and the only place to get such stuff was dial-up BBSs. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
idk numbers but I like the one where you get a train ticket but then you can’t get off the train and get taken into the spooky realm or something that was creepy 2001:8004:2778:27BC:7430:1AB3:1A66:7D4A (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Shaun on ex machina[edit]

Machina's post reminded me of something. Shaun made a video about the ending of ex machina. What do you think ending? Was she an evil bot or a person? Schrödinger Enter into the rabbit hole 14:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

From what I recall, no, she's not evil, she was just trying to survive. What I really want to know is, will Domhnall Gleeson's character die by starvation on the house or will someone save him? GeeJayK (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, the house is pretty isolated and I'm sure that ava is smart enough to cover her(it's?) tracks. Schrödinger Enter into the rabbit hole 15:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The analysis is good. Ava had reason not to trust Gleeson's character given he didn't seem to give a shit about the well being of other androids. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Equality in Power.[edit]

I often hear the talking point from conservatives like "leftists want equality of outcome, but I want equality of opportunity!" but has anyone seriously argued for equality of outcome? Is it even a implied conclusion when lefties argue for egalitarianism more broadly? How come no one speaks of equality in power? Where every individual possess the same level of political power, the same rights and entitlements, the same degree of means to satisfy their needs, etc. To me it seems the equality that is the most relevant, yet it doesn't seem all too often explicitly argued for. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC).

It sounds like their silent assertions are 1) All leftists are communists. and 2) Communism will make everyone equal. Both are absurd on their face, so best left silent. Bongolian (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Also 3) 'equality' is everyone going down to the lowest common denominator.
'Traditional' conservative rhetoric like this is normally aimed at the upper grades of the working class and lower middle; ie folks who have a SoL which is just high enough to feel threatened by a decline in it and buy into the whole meritocratic-Alger guff (to some extent).
As to the original question... it's almost never argued for, for as Bongolian points out it's an utterly absurd proposition. Some communists may talk about it being an ultimate goal, but it's a very theoretical, pie-in-sky level of discussion. And as there's hardly any actual communists around, 'some communists' is a very small number.
In short; you're overthinking this, Dumb. It's an cliche statement repeated ad nauseam, masquerading as intelligent thought. I call deepity on it. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Chuck it back at them - "So you are in favor of 100% death taxes (so no leg up from hte parents), no private schools,..." and add in anything else you might think could create unequal opportunities - see how they splutter and cholke on it :) (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Omega Mart: Your anomalous supermarket where crazy shit happens daily[edit]

Okay. In Las Vegas, NV there is an interactive art exhibition called Omega Mart where it tells a science fiction story. It is located in Area 15 and it parodies the function of society. I would love to see it but all I can do is watch the YouTube videos about it.

Get some Americanized Beef, Tattoo Chicken, Gender Fluid, Dark Matter Spray, Nebula Loaf, 5G Lip Balm, Once a Year Vitamin, Moth Milk and some Cheddar Bunker Cheese Balls today. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Their videos are pretty fun. I like the lemon recall one. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I have survived[edit]

So, had me some Rona over the past few days. It was a breakthrough case; got vaccinated last year. No booster though. Day 1 and 2 I felt like shit, sleeping a few hours then awake then sleep. But day 3 I was coughing like hell, and day 4 was mostly feeling all the scratches from my horrible coughing. I seem to be fine-ish now, but blegh. Cork (poke) 20:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If you've had it less than 5 days, you should try to take Paxlovid if you're eligible.[6] Bongolian (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. Hopefully you'll fully recover. The UK's NHS recommends waiting 28 days after testing positive before getting a booster shot. The CDC however recommends waiting until you fully recover from all symptoms and your isolation period has ended before getting one. [7] I'm not a doctor, so go speak to one to confirm exactly when to get one. LongStylus (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm basically fine now, maybe slightly more lethargic than normal but I should be back to normal tomorrow or the day after. Nose is still a tad stuffy and lungs feel like the don't get as full as rapidly, but that's normal. Still have my sense of smell, which is what I feared most; the lack of smell isn't because of damage to the nose, but to the brain. Yeah, this disease is literally giving people brain damage. "Long Covid" really is a thing, and the effects range from minor to severe. In terms of damage, Corona is far worse than Polio, and I don't say that lightly. Polio actually has a lower death rate and disability rate, for the simple reason that 3/4ths of Polio infections are completely asymptomatic whereas it's about half for Corona. But that's just the start of the problems. Basically, you can only get Polio once, but you catch Corona again. And again. And again. The damage accumulates, and eventually you'll get a bad bout of it. And we've proven that a vaccine CAN'T permanently stop it. So, well, the only way this virus is going to end is when the people who are the least resistant die off and don't reproduce. It's the Natural Order of things, but, well, what does it mean to be Civilized if not defying the Natural Order? Cork (poke) 05:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser How are you now? Fully recovered? LongStylus (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Mild cough that refuses to go away. I feel fine but tire quicker than I'd like. Honestly, this is how I feel after I get a cold. Cork (poke) 04:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Good to know. If that's how you normally feel after a cold, then it seems things'll be OK. Take care of your body; eat healthy food, take any vitamins you need, etc. LongStylus (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I actually lost much of my sense of smell on like the 3rd or 4th day, when I was coughing like crazy but feeling less like crap than the first few days. But I think it was more "extremely stuffy nose", as I think it came back.Cork (poke) 04:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Losing your sense of smell sounds pretty bad. It's good that it came back so quickly, and that you're recovering. Who knows what you'd go through if you hadn't been vaccinated. LongStylus (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
It's worse than that. You don't lose your sense of smell because of damage to the olfactory nerves, you lose it because of BRAIN DAMAGE. COVID starts in the lungs but affects all organs, and it works by causing your immune system to "fail" and order healthy cells to commit seppuku. This is why some people get "popcorn lung", where entire chunks of the lung are simply gone. But it happens in the brain too, and your immune cells cause your brain cells to die en masse. And those cells don't come back. That's why some people have a permanent "fog"; they've lost the ability to think. Cork (poke) 05:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I know. Damage to the central nervous system is scary, and there's not much we can do about them. It goes to show that we have to appreciate every little bit of our life while we can. LongStylus (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It must be going around a lot, because I had it around that time too, and this was my second go-round (first was almost exactly a year ago). They gave me the Merck drug, and it seemed to work; symptoms were gone 48 hours after starting the Merck drug (side effects on the other hand…) 71.208.x.x (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Monkeypox and Kids[edit]

Well, a couple of kids caught the disease now, so obviously this "must" mean pedophilia according to the more homophobic parts of the 'net. So what are the actual odds of child abuse?

Bayes theorem time! The probability the kids were abused given they have monkeypox is equal to the probability they would have monkeypox given they were abused times the probability they were abused, divided by the probability that they have monkeypox. Or, P(A|Mp) = P(Mp|A)*P(A)/P(Mp).

The Probability of monkeypox equals the probability of contracting it through non-sexual means times the probability the child isn't abused, plus the probability of contracting it through sexual means times the probability they are abused. If there is abuse, there's almost a guarantee that monkeypox would be contracted, so P(Mp|A) = 1. The probability of transmitting it through non-sexual means is about 5%, apparently*. So our formula becomes P(A)/(P(A) + P(~A)*P(NonSex Transmit)). This becomes P(A)/(P(A) + .05*P(~A)). So what we need now is the Probability that any given child is being sexually abused. This is where it gets iffy. If for example we assume 1 in 10,000 children are abused during the month, this makes our formula .0001/(.0001 + .05*.9999) or about 1/500. So the question I need for the answer is, "what fraction of kids are being abused during any given month"? It's not something we get directly from any stats because, well, if a kid if abused they could be abused multiple times a week for years on end or they might be abused only once. Thoughts?

  • Well, that's the fraction of cases that are non-sexual transmission. We really should be asking "what are the chances you will catch the disease non-sexually if you are in the same household as someone who has it", which I don't know. Cork (poke) 03:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
All fair points. The CDC really screwed the pooch on messaging with this, that they haven't been able to just spit it out as to who should go get vaccinated really slowed things down. Plus, as we can see with HPV, even if it currently has a disproportionate affect on one population that won't necessarily remain the case; men getting throat, tonsil, and tongue cancer is now outstripping cervical cancer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
All STD's have traditionally spread rapidly through the Gay (but not Lesbian) community; anal-sex is naturally more spready, and Gay/Bi men have far more partners than Lesbian or Straight. From a disease perspective, we need to have a conversation with the Gay community about adopting more conservative values when it comes to sex and marriage. Does that mean I have some sort of latent homophobia that causes me to demand all Teh Gayz get married? Yes, I think? But at the same time, I also think there's a bit of poetic justice that we as a society suffer because we spent decades building mistrust with the Gay community, so when we need to reach out and explain why they have to change their sexual behaviors and wear condoms, they have every right to suspect it's just another way for the rest of society to control them. Cork (poke) 04:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
it was obvious this was going to go to shit the nanosecond every health agency kept saying "nahh, this will not be a pandemic! it definitely will not be a pandemic! that will not happen! surely!!! the transmission is not that bad! please ignore that the transmission is currently very very bad! what do you mean Queer, Disabled and Immuno-compromised people are scared shitless? they do not exist" i am fairly certain monkeypox spreads very well non-sexually. i have no data, so i merely guess without evidence, but if there is anything i learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is that these situations tend to be myriad times worse than we first presume. besides, monkeypox was never an sti
there needs to be nationalization of the smallpox/monkeypox vaccine. abolish the patent. immediately allocate resources and money into rapid and large-scale production of vaccines. start opening up vaccine clinics all over the place. emphasize this is a disease spreadable through any form of sex and spreadable through non-sexual activity. emphasize the original framing of monkeypox was downright wrong
this is going to play out exactly how it did with the HIV/AIDS pandemic; serophobia (in the case of HIV/AIDS), homophobia, queerphobia, biphobia, panphobia, lesbophobia, etc., etc., en masse.
this is a dire emergency on top of probably 50 something other dire emergencies. truly an awful time to be alive.
moreover, i am sure the liklihood of those children acquiring monkeypouch is nil. again, i have no data, do not take my statements as scientific fact, but reactionaries love to paint Queer people as pedophiles, so they will jump on the unproven assumption that they acquired such diseases from somehow clandestinely pedophilic Queer people--April Chat? 04:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
1) Smallpox vaccines have been out of patent protection for like a century now. There's probably some more recent patents, but those seem to be designer drugs rather than ACTUAL improvements over the freeware version.
2) New England Journal of Medicine; 95% of Monkeypox cases are sexually transmitted. Those numbers will probably change as it spreads from the Gay to other communities, but at the moment it's definitely an STD for now.
3) Nobody really knows how dangerous Monkeypox is for kids. So far, a handful of children have gotten it. Most likely it's just household transmission, but you never know.
4) The media has always OVERPLAYED the scariness of a pandemic, which is why no one took them seriously when it came to COVID. Heck, they outright lied about COVID's initial death rate; we kept being told it was 5%, when it was closer to a tenth that. What did turn out to be a problem was that it mutated so quickly that it's never going to go away and no one will ever become immune... Cork (poke) 05:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
we do know how dangerous monkeypox is for kids - severe cases are more common in children. we know because despite our sudden interest in monkeypox it been indemic in parts of africa for years. we are only interested now because its now in the rest of world.
and can we please stop with the std thing.. it isnt an std. its spread by skin to skin contact but is actually difficult to pass on. prolonged contact. sexual activity contains a lot of prolonged skin to skin contact. kids are all touchy feely and get skin to skin contact without the sexual element. its not like its an std for adults but somehow how not an std if you a child. its just adding to the hysteria and stigmatisation of the thing. lets not do that please. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
and for fucks sake, can we please stop with comparisons to HIV. that has killed and continues to kill millions and the response is only vaguely similar. its fucking insulting, and again only adds to hysteria stigmatising. just fucking stop it AMassiveGay (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Monkeypox I'd term as a 'close contact' disease, not an STD due to the simple fact the S is not required for transmission. As Gay points out, any situation where folks are touchy-feely and/or poor-ish hygiene can cause the spread - and anyone who's had kids knows that colds, flu and headlice are constantly 'making the rounds' via that petri-dish called 'school' (*rubs fingers over old chickenpox scar*). Calling it a 'gay disease' means you'll have a decent % who'll think a condom shall protect against it, which it clearly doesn't. Even more importantly, by doing that you might be causing some 'I was never confused' meathead types to not report for treatment due to perceived stigma, or believing that 'it can't be that, I'm not a poofter' (similar to for example, early HIV-positive women suffered). Lastly, it's possible that there's a reporting bias because generally speaking, gay guys seem to be more clued-up on the general health thing than hetros. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
As for Corrupt's point... well, #4 is partly down to the difficulties in actually calculating a 'correct' death rate for anything, as well as old statistical issues of what number(s) you use. Interesting read on subject. A Covid 5% CFR rate does not seem excessive (with hindsight) when you take into account demographics, co-morbidities, whether you count 'complications due to Covid' as it and lastly, the ability to get decent treatment for it - I saw a guestimate figure that between a quarter and a third of Covid deaths were at home. One thing almost all of us missed was the number of asymptomatic Covid cases - I worked out a guestimate CFR of 2% right at the start from that cruise ship but that was only symptomatic cases. When you throw in 40% asymptomatics (the rough estimates of such now), yes the CFR shall fall. So, no I won't say 'they outright lied' or even 'overplayed'; I think there was a combination of 'deficient data', 'better safe than sorry', 'medical/statistical jargon incorrectly understood' and finally 'shoddy reporting by some sections of the media'. Similar was seen for example, the first years of HIV.
The general difficulties for the above means that some folks ignore things like CFR and shoot straight for 'excess mortality' rates instead. Another interesting read. But if nothing else now, we do have a much better grip on Covid to make much better CFR calcualtions etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
So are we redefining "STD" now? HPV has the same transmission route as Monkeypox, but is considered an STD because sex is the most common way it's acquired. Whether or not a fact is "uncomfortable" has no bearing whatsoever on its veracity. Cork (poke) 15:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Not me, people who know better;
According to NHS site, HPV is an STD. Reading it, I'll have to agree. Skin-skin contact can happen without 'sex', skin-skin genital contact... erm, unlikely. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
EC. no hpv is an std because its spread orally, vaginally, or anally. sexual contact is required. monkeypox can be spread via that route, but it can be also be spread via holding hands or giving someone a hug. sexual contact is very much not required. its why children are being offered the vaccine from our currently short supplies. sexual activity is not the same as sexually transmitted. the current outbreak here in the west has largely been spread sexual activity which is useful to know for looking at how manage the outbreak. that sex is involved in this outbreak is unfortunate because of exactly what you are here and taking that to mean std. disinformation and stigma follows.
as for death rates, covid doesnt need a high mortality to kill millions because it is so easy transmit millions on millions have been infected. a tiny fraction of a huge number is still going to be a huge number. even if monkeypox had a 100% death rate, total numbers of would still be insignificant by comparison. monkeypox is not covid, and as i said earlier it definitely not hiv. its hard to to transmit, usually non fatal and self limiting, and importantly it already has a treatment and a vaccine available if required - no research required. because it isnt a new thing. its just in a new part of the world. its a cause for concern, people need to be aware of it, but we dpnt need all this hysteria - that is not useful at all. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Monkeypox still has a Reproductive Rate well above 1.0 at this time; as more people get sick and immune the R falls, when it goes below 1 the disease goes away on its own. It's not as spready as COVID but can still be a pandemic. Remember that COVID also was only a couple hundred cases at first. COVID's danger isn't that it spreads so quickly, but that people aren't permanently immune so the Reproductive Rate keeps returning to the Base Reproductive Rate over time; it never ceases to be a pandemic. Ever.
As for HPV, please explain Butcher's Warts. Or any child that has warts. HPV is primarily spready through sex, but it can be spread non-sexually. You get GENITAL warts if you expose your genitals to it, but that's just WHERE you contracted HPV. You get the warts on your feet and hands from touching something that's infected. You can get it from a hospital visit even if the staff does their best to follow cleaning procedures. That's why it's so friggen' prevalent. Cork (poke) 16:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I personally think the pandemic is effectively over; we are now at the 'endemic' stage and shall be until we find a vaccination which confers long-lasting full immunity. I fully expect that yearly Covid boosters for the vunerable shall become the norm in advanced nations, like flu ones have been for yonks.
We still don't know the 'true' R-rate for monkeypox because we don't know the full level of infection - we'd need to do blanket testing to nail down a good asymptomatic % guestimate. But as Gay points out; it's relatively self-limiting and my read-up of it showed that many of the old-school public health policies re hygiene etc coupled with targeted campaigns should do it. So I'm 'aware', though not that worried.
As for non-sexual HPV... yes, it's possible. Just relatively unlikely. Just like contaminated blood products was a vector for HIV ('good AIDs', according to BrassEye) and so was contaminated needles etc. And 'HPV' is a family of over 200 viruses. And it appears the only variable risk factor for it is the number and frequency of sexual partners. Look, I know the definitions are somewhat fuzzy and arbitary but in this case I feel there's decent reason to try to avoid not having monkeypox implanted into the Big Public's perception as either a) 'a sex thing' or worse, b) 'a gay thing'. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I think about 5% of HIV cases are from dirty needles, so it's roughly the same transmission. It is 'a sex thing' because before the latest outbreak, people weren't having enough skin to skin contact for it to be a pandemic. It's spreading first and faster in the Gay community because there's a significant number of Gay men who have numerous partners in a given year; a R of 2 would imply that a person who contracts Monkeypox has sex with an average of 2 additional people in the period they are contagious, which is estimated to be about 2-3 weeks. The only way to slow the spread is, well, the WHO is now recommending Gay people reduce the number of new sexual partners. Cork (poke) 17:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Getting some better testing would help with that too. It wouldn't obviate the need for people to reduce sexual contact, but could mitigate it to a point. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
'It's spreading first and faster in the Gay community' except it probably isnt. there is a fine line between relaying of public health information and that of hysteria and stigmatisation. from there its an even finer line to outright homophobic bigotry that i wont say has been crossed, but i wont say it hasnt either.
as for hpv - there are various types of hpv. not all warts are equal. when we talk of hpv as an std, we mean genital warts (and these are not all the same either). we do not mean verrucas - they are not the same. and this bit of pedantry over it still does not make the monkeypox an std. dodgy information and dubious logic masquerading as cold clinical fact does not tell me anything anything or advise caution, its tells me 'eww. gays.' AMassiveGay (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I thought it was kinda obvious why I wished to avoid monkeypox being termed 'a sex thing', but... *sighs*. If folks think it is, you'll see every case attributed to sex, including ones involving kids. What's more, I wish to avoid the crummy prudishness in talking about it, or the judgemental BS regarding it which is a serious cramp in treating STDs in general. Even more importantly, if you market it as 'a gay thing' you're basically making an admission of monkeypox infection to a de facto coming out. Like to your boss. Now, I'm not ashamed but hell, what consenting adults I like to do is none of their damn business, similar to the reason why I was pretty high in the Covid vaccination list was none of their business either.
And as you admit, a message of 'monkeypox can be spread from personal contact' is technically correct. And there's nothing to say that more targeted information can't be given (and from I can tell is) the more at-risk groups. Preaching general abstinence is most unlikely to work (well, it's never before) particulary for the sub-section who enjoy multi sexual partners. Testing, vaccines and awareness are the best - I think - strategy here. Before it gets into the hetro multi-partner pools (which also exist). KarmaPolice (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Genital herpes is a good example of STIs that cannot be easily treated (hence why "I only do bareback" is a deal closer for me. There are some STIs you simply cannot get ride of. Monkey Pox is not one of them. It's not an STI. No matter how careful you are otherwise, you can still get monkeypox. ShabiDOO 20:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

CU here. Monkeypox appears to be both respiratory and skin-to-skin contact. Sex isnt necessary for transmission, but that IS how it's being transmitted at this time. Even if we were to agree that it's not a true STD, that doesnt change the fact thatit's currently spreading through the gay male community like wildfire for the simple reason that gay men (on average) have sex with more partners, often one-night-stands, than any other sexual group. There are small subgroups of swingers and so forth, but they arent nearly as common as in the gay community. The disease will eventually reach those groups too, but the real concern is that of the hundreds of thousands of cases that will happen if it isnt controlled NOW, it almost certainly WILL mutate to a more easily transmissible variant. The government needs to take this seriously, and the gay community needs to stop with the random hookups until the virus goes away. CorSock (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Which I believe in the UK is happening on both fronts; for example clubs have stopped the good-as-mandatory 'shirts off' thing (because it's quite possible that's a vector), while the fact it's not yet made made a decent breakout into the hetro 'hookup' community (apparently) suggests that bi guys *are* being careful. What's more, ~2,500 confirmed cases in a bi/gay 'younger' (below 60) male population of ~2m is almost statistical error territory re: incidence. The only UK stats I could find (upto June) showed that some 85% of cases were in London and 58% in gay/bi men. So, hardly the '98%' given out by the WHO. The American situation is considerably worse, partly due to your wonderful free-market system of heath.
The major complaint from 'the community' (eww, hate that term) is not a denial that monkeypox exists or that it's primarily taken root amongst them, but the echoes of the past - primarily of AIDS, which is a collective trauma. I remember firmly, for example for being told around c'93 that gay males had 'basically brought it upon themselves' due to all being complete slags (if I'd been older the notorious 'bathhouse sexual survey' stats would have been used as 'proof'). It's a fine line - to warn the at-risk groups of the situation without stigmitising said group and/or making others think 'it's a (name) thing' - which again, in the UK I think has been done fairly well. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


Are any admins on this site incompetent? Bananana (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of sysops. I garner some are incompetent. What a pittance. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 18:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Some people on this site are so incompetent that they can't spell "incompetence" right. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I think thye are looded with compitance.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bananana You rang? Vomitorium (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Quite possible - the various admins are variously competent. Could the question be rephrased - are any RW admins omnicompetent RW-wise? Anna Livia (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Calculus and quantum loop gravity[edit]

In calculus, if you want to find the instantaneous velocity of a particle, then you make the time interval approach zero. According to quantum loop gravity, the time is quantized( In calculus, let's say t0=0 and t1= an infinitesimal and the difference is arbitrarily defined. If quantum loop gravity is true, the difference would 10^-43 which would mean that the infinitesimal is 10^-43. Would this change the calculus framework in any meaningful way? Schrödinger Enter into the rabbit hole 11:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a similar predicament to Planck units, with having a minimum possible length. I see three interpretations:
1) Reality has a "frame rate" similar to a movie or video game. Time intervals are discrete, and therefore it is meaningless to talk about a different point in time within a 10^-43 time period chunk, as no properties change with respect to time within a "frame". This would change the shape of the integral of a particles position over integral to look like a sort of Reimmann sum. Effectively, it wouldn't be an integral at all anymore, but a summation.
2) The second option I see is that each "cell" of reality has a seperate internal frame rate, and they aren't necessarily synced. In this case you would model cell to cell interactions as a state machine with variable timings, and the integral would completely break down at the individual cell level.
3) The 10^-43 is due to inherent uncertainty in reality. Reality simply becomes too "fuzzy" at short time increments / distances for anything to be substantially different enough from other objects to make a difference at extremely small scales. In this case, there is no infinitesimal or discrete nature to reality at all, merely an inherent random "noise" term which makes any values below a certain magnitude effectively meaningless except for slightly shifting an average. In this case, the integral is mostly correct, you would just have to add a tiny offset term of approximately +/- 10^-43 to your results as applicable. (This is my personal view btw). MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I did a little research on this. Apparently, in electrostatics when the defining a charge density for a continuous charge distribution the quantization of charge is ignored. So I guess that principle could be applied over here. Schrödinger Enter into the rabbit hole 12:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Zeno's paradox[edit]

This could also solve Zeno's paradox. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 16:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Mixing fabrics together.[edit]

"It's mixing wool and linen, not all fabrics. Both linen and wool have a frequency of 5000, the highest of all fabrics and have the ability to heal us. However, their currents run against each other so when you interweave them, their current cancels to 0 and neither have the ability to heal you anymore. God's not a fool, He know what He was saying when He commanded this.

We shouldn't be planting mixed crops, and in fact I had a friend who separated her crops, and noticed they grew quicker that way." — Unsigned, by: 2603:90d8:403:392e:c3:7b92:a29c:845c / talk

Some crazy shit happenin' right cheer, right outta Leviticus! Bongolian (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Are you Ken? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Leviticus says do not wear clothing woven of 2 kinds of fabric/material - so no polyester blends kiddies. Deuteronomy prohibits mixing wool and linen. Just another case of the Bible not being consistent - what were you expecting? (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Religious dictates are nothing new. Neither is pseudoscience woo. For that matter we've seen religious pseudoscience woo before. But I have to say, this is a new one. Fabrics have frequencies? Kencolt (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Kencolt A frequency which apparently heals the wearer no less. And apparently the frequencies can "cancel". From an mathematical perspective, the only way that would be true is if both have a frequency of 5000 (Hz?), but are exactly out of phase with each other. (Different frequencies never cancel, they merely coexist in the same waveform (see Fourier Transforms on combining frequencies)) This would imply though that all wool is a specific phase, and all linen is a specific phase exactly 180° offset. How all linen and wool know to be at their specific phase is beyond me, as even physically changing locations will offset phase by the time it reaches the target. Now, this could imply short range (clothes are worn after all), but it does mean you could create a phased array to sync wool and linen together and also project a focused ray of healing using a parabolic dish. You could have medically healing circles in town squares created by large wool and linen parabolic dishes placed on top of structures. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I think what they're trying to say is that waves with same frequency would have the same wavelength. By arranging the waves in such a way so as to have the net displacement as 0, you get a destructive interference. This only explains the survival of the wave not the arrival of it. Maybe, the cloth has mini vibrators positioned at the appropriate place to generate a destructive interference. I'm pretty sure nobody is into that shit. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 16:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Is this remotely scientific at all or just a hunch--2603:90D8:403:392E:8C63:C3E3:E98D:E6B2 (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
It's bollocks. Nowhere Man (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah it's complete horseshit. Until someone builds a linen fabric heal-wave amplifier and is able to broadcast FM signals on it, I'm frankly unimpressed with their evidence. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
They don't have any evid-- oh, right. Kencolt (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This is rather ugly[edit]

25+ dead in KY flooding. Andrew5 (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Not as ugly as my ex… On a serious note, a church from my city sent people to help up there, I thought that was pretty cool. 71.208.x.x (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Now it’s 35. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Two once in a thousand year rainfall happens in back to back days. Definitely not climate change.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hereditarian and environmentarian debate[edit] . Crocoduck has declared agnosticism on the influence of genes/environment on intelligence. Is he right in saying that we do not have enough information to settle this debate? Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 16:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Given that the patterns of evolution are strongly, if not completely, determined by environmental factors, the question is like a dog chasing its tail.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
So, that guy basically pulled off the enlightened centrist move. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 18:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Lightworkers like Carl Sagan? Looking at some New Age ideas differently...[edit]

New Age teachings and memes often concern impending shifts in consciousness on a collective or global scale, the world becoming more enlightened and the quality of consciousness changing for the better. But unseen and curiously disregarded in such milieus is the Enlightenment philosophy and its impact beginning a few centuries back. It's as if they missed the real thing and remain submerged in a curious dream in which symbols and phrases and vague ideas are related to it in a dreamlike way, and the dream taken for reality. When may they wake up, and what may help them gain consciousness?

There is much talk about the love and the light. But what is meant by the light? In terms of Enlightenment philosophy, an answer is approachable. It's essentially the mapping and honoring of reality. So, what may a lightworker be like? Someone who furthers that, working to help people towards it on a larger scale... Like Carl Sagan did, for example; which of course also brings his spiritual successor Neil deGrasse Tyson to mind. Another name that comes to mind is that of Richard Dawkins, despite his awkward stumbling towards the dark side in later years.

Now, New Agers may find these suggestions a bit controversial, along with the idea that organisations like the CFI are among the most prominent associations for lightworkers today. But moving beyond that concern for now, to focus on those whose personal readiness for the light is sufficient to deal in these ideas, any further suggestions? Why not run a poll on "Who is your favorite lightworker?" To clarify, while some great historical scientists and philosophers may belong on such a list, I have in mind especially the people who contribute to a better, broader public education, and more well-educated policies. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, pop science specifically the NDT variant is worse than the new age crap. That kind of pop science is riddled with pure banality. It makes the universe boring by telling people things that they already know and dispel miscommunications that nobody actually holds. Facts like the earth orbits the sun, living beings gain their traits through evolutionary processes, your hand has five fingers, light year is measure of distance and you are then supposed to think yes I knew that and imagine someone else someone who didn't know it already and think I'm better than that person and that I'm so much smarter than everyone else. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 16:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I sometimes find pop science interesting, sometimes not. Quality seems to vary widely, and there's many authors with different focus and style. For example, Douglas Hofstadter and the book he's most known for was a nice read a decade ago, and I think it added to why I selected a course in formal languages and automata theory the year after. But some pop sci themes feel old and worn, and personally boring. I've only watched a few of NDT's presentations, and found them a bit cheesy, though good enough to watch those I was personally interested in watching at the time.
I think there's a conflict between the nature of effortlessly/passively received entertainment and more serious and thorough-going/useful popular education effort. People can't learn so much from just passively taking in lots of information. Presentations that stimulate some serious thought and effort on the part of the audience can do a whole lot more. But that only works when the message is met with interest and motivation. Substitutes don't work.
Generally, I think the problem with the quality of what's most popular of the pop is a more general cultural problem, the culture of simple entertainment which leaves out more potentially challenging things. I think that's a general problem throughout at least much of the Western world, and a bad rut which it would be good for societies to move out of. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Differences between drag people and transsexual prostitutes?[edit]

A bar in my nearby neighborhood has been under investigation after a tiktok video of a topless drag queen with a little girl. Seemed unusual in my county, but what I find interesting is a desantis fangirl Lauren Chen asserted that the worker is transgender. Was she right or is it just desantis fanpeople jumping to conclusions? Even then I would like to just know the differences. SomeBurnerAccount (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

People in drag aren't necessarily sexual in nature (and they don't need to be trans, cis people can do drag) and they dress up in such as part of show. Lauren Chen is a frothing slipop who has drunken mealworms for brains so practically anything she spews forth, the opposite is true. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 23:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Some drag queens are trans but it is meant to be part of a show or gender expression. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
the prostitute reference in the header seems very much out of place from what is contained in the op's post. are drag and trans mutually exclusive? drag is generally someone identifying as male performing as a women or a woman performing as man a trans woman appearing as a woman is not a performance, with any performance being some other form of burlesque? prostitution is neither of these and is performing sexual acts for money. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, Drag IS a fetish/sexual; transvestite is not. Transvestites just feel comfortable in the opposite clothing for whatever reason; to quote musician Pete somethingorother "they arent a lady's clothes, they're my clothes". CorSock (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
drag is not a fetish. it can be in the sense anything can fetishised, but drag is primarily about performance. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Coming from a straight guy who is a fundamentalist, is there even a comparison? Troll 71.208.x.x (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
"In drag" has a long performance tradition well beyond "drag queens". So, at this rate, I am looking forward to the Ron DeSantis crowd wailing about, say, Robin Williams in Mrs. DoubtfireWikipedia and the "pepperpots" of Monty Python for outrage points. At any rate, the political party of Donald "peeping on Miss Universe contestants" Trump, Matt "alleged underaged trafficker" Gaetz, and the kiddie abusers of the Southern Baptists have plenty of skeletons in their own closet to clean up before they can start acting all moral and uppity about [citation needed] Youtube outrage stories about supposed drag queen "scandals" from bullshit vloggers like Lauren Chen. (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
"Differences between drag people and transsexual prostitutes" The question exists in "not even wrong" territory. There is no such thing as "drag people". "Transsexual prostitutes" probably exist somewhere (hey, if I'm wrong tell me) - but the difference between them and something which does not exist is impossible to comment upon.
But then the following text bears no relation to the question asked. It really reads like someone throwing words at a page and vainly hoping that something might make sense to someone else.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I was referring to both drag "queens" and "kings" when I put people. But yes I noticed the contrast in the header and the post. I just wanted the clarity that Lefty provided. SomeBurnerAccount (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
You "noticed it"? But you wrote it!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot to mention "after seeing this thread lengthen". SomeBurnerAccount (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If you're a burner account, are you a rear burner or a front burner? A right one or a left one? Yes, I know I am a smart ass. 71.208.x.x (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Homophobia and Monkeypox[edit]

It irks me that people out there think that Monkeypox virus infection is restricted to gay people. No matter how much you tell people that they can become infected by close contact, it falls on deaf ears.

There are also the Germ Theory denialists who think that viruses don't exist at all. Not sure which is worse. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the latter since the germ theory applies to all "germs". As for the former, always a pleasure to see idiotic things pulled out of someone’s arse. My folk currently believe that it’s fearmongering exaggeration, a surprise to me. SomeBurnerAccount (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not "restricted" to Gay people, or rather, Gay men, it's just overwhelmingly infecting Gay men for now. Unlike HIV, the method of Monkeypox transmission does not make anal sex any more dangerous than vaginal or oral sex. The reality is that Gay men have more sex with more people; the base reproductive rate for Monkeypox is going to be higher among Gay men than everyone else. Cork (poke) 17:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, "for now", just like any short term craze I see in the news every night. SomeBurnerAccount (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Correction, some gay men have a larger than average number of different sexual partners. There's plenty of gay and bi guys who are boringly monogamous or celibate. What's happened in America (as far as I can tell) is that it's entered the much smaller population of gay/bi/trans folks who go into frequent cruising/hookups. Also, not 'overwhelmingly bi/gay men' in UK, it seems; just a bare majority (58%). Yeah, still a very strong correlation (when you think gay/bi men can't be more than perhaps 10% of the adult pop at the peak) but not an exclusive one.
Anyway, what's to be expected when folks are about insisting that it's an STD and in some cases simply down to the lack of use of condoms? I've seen both of them said outright in this very Saloon. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
You are ignoring some key pieces. On Average, Gay men don't just have the highest number of sexual partners of any group, but well beyond the average of any other group. The percent of Gay men who've had sex with 50+ partners is far beyond that of any other group; the study linked has it at 30% of Gay men, vs 2-3% for Lesbians or Straight Men/Women. That doesn't mean Gay men are in fact "sluttier" than Straight men; if the average woman was as willing to have sex as the average man, you'd probably find less difference in Gay/Straight men's numbers. There are plenty of Straight men who've attempted and failed to be a Casanova. There are plenty of Gay men who are prudes. But the end result is that Monkeypox or any of the more "traditional" STDs is that the diseases are going to spread much, much faster among Gay people than Straight or Lesbian. Cork (poke) 23:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Your source for this claim is "" which does not sound like a peer-reviewed journal but a corporate source. The website is blocked on my workplace computers so I can't access it but this claim sounds like something cited from "hate-facts". Can you provide a primary source for this claim? Statistics without expressed methodology to how it was sampled and organized are practically meaningless if not outright misleading when presented without proper context. The spread in queer populations could totally be contingent upon physical contact in a localized space to which men who have sex with men are more common. Alot of major cities have "gay" neighborhoods, and monkeypox itself is not an STD. You can get it by borrowing someone's sweater, or sharing laundry with them. It just as likely to spread between two roommates as it is two men having sex. This makes the whole "gay men get it more because they have sex more" a incomplete explanation at best. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC).

Going by homophobia logic, most common illnesses could be classified as an STD such as Chickenpox, MRSA, Ebola, Streptococcus infection among others. Those spread by direct human contact and contaminated surfaces. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

People are even having trouble getting tested if they aren't a gay man. 1 2 Chillpilled (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb It was the first in the googling. Is the NIH a better source?
@Rationalzombie94 Yes, you absolutely can get Chickenpox during sex, but does sex account for 95% of Chickenpox cases? Monkeypox transmission happens to be respiratory or skin-skin rather from fluid-exchanges, but the overwhelming majority of those skin-skin or respiratory exchanges are happening during sex. That might change in the future; who knows, maybe it'll become a new childhood disease that replaces Chickenpox, because those little bastards have had it too easy since we started giving out the MMRV vaccines. Cork (poke) 02:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The NIH source doesn't confirm all of your claims you said "the percent of Gay men who've had sex with 50+ partners is far beyond that of any other group". Is +3 people in the survey data really "far beyond"? You also need to cite a source on the claim that the majority of those skin-skin and respiratory exchanges are happening during sex. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC).
(EC) @ Cory Your prior source, The Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture, appears to be a conservative religious think tank, so your new source is presumably better, but that doesn't yet say much.
@ Chillpilled Looking at the CNN article, my main takeaway is that testing capacity is too low. The article notes that "the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that 99% of monkeypox transmission is happening between men who have sex with men", that more than 3,500 cases have been diagnosed in the US, and while it doesn't make clear what the testing capacity is, it's apparently somewhere between 6,000 per week and 10,000 per day. Given those stats, it's not obviously a poor decision to be be reserved in ordering tests for people who are not in or connected to the community of men who have sex with men (to use CNN's term), especially when the only symptom is red bumps on the groin. These decisions and policies reflect a lack of adequate resources. I suspect the twitter person is right that contact tracing should be ramped up. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 02:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
From the NIH source, "The median lifetime number of sex partners among those aged 18–24 was 4 in heterosexuals and 15 in UMHS MSM, and among persons age 35–39, was 10 and 67, respectively."
As for the sex transmission, here's NBC reporting on a study. Cork (poke) 02:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh sorry I read the wrong row, I was looking at average partners in a year. I think this data is still misleading because you are looking at the median value for samples obtained from only two cities, 50% of the sample falls below that value including people who have had 0 partners according to the range provided, so that doesn't tell us that a high percentage of men who have sex with men achieve 50+ partners over the course of their lifetime. Also the range includes a number as high as 9005 for the MSM range which seems like a pretty obvious error. We are putting a lot of faith on people being able to report the number of sex partners accurately, which in my experience is not something that people I know generally well can do unless they have had a very low number of sexual partners. Even my straight friends both men and women have to stop and think about it with no verification that their judgements are reliable. I have no doubt that men who have sex with other men have more sexual encounters and partners on average compared to strictly heterosexual people, but I am bit skeptical of that being so dramatic of a difference as to be reflected in any given individual from each category to a high degree of probability. I don't think you can reliably guess roughly how many sexual partners someone has had on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity alone. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC).
Also it should probably be said that some behavioral science stats from 2013 are not exactly something one can appropriately generalize from to explain why men who have sex with men currently have higher rates of monkeypox. Like you couldn't publish a paper on the basis of that citation alone, it wouldn't be considered sufficient evidence to draw a connection as the data was collected under a totally different context (especially considering this data was collected 6-7 years before a major pandemic, all the while you are implicitly assuming the population has experienced no effective change in sexual behavior post-pandemic). Not exactly a epistemically reliable judgement. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC).
That NBC report referencing that NEJM article has pretty suspicious trends in the sample. 41% of the sample is HIV positive? Really? I don't think the rate of the HIV positive cases for men who have sex with men is nearly half. Why would having monkeypox create a conditional probability as to make that rate higher? That seems a little implausible. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC).


This conversation IMHO has run off the rails quite a bit. Monkeypox was a thing before it became a disease of the "rich world". It is endemic in several countries in Africa. There, it is well known that it is spread by rodents in tropical climates, not by DA BUTTSEX.
There are only 19,000 cases of monkeypox at the moment last I checked. That's... not a lot. What, 0.00025% of the world population or something like that? Most of the cases outside Africa apparently are in the male gay community right now. So sure, some caution is warranted if one is a member. But this is not a "gay disease" as anyone who actually has the brain cell to Google monkeypox articles before 2022 knows. So any discussion of male homosexual promiscuity (a topic that seems poorly officially researched but ripe with often derogatory stereotypes and tropes) seems to reek of bullshit to me. (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The labelling of Monkeypox as "da gay disease" reeks of the same fear mongering and homophobia that was rampant during the initial coverage of AIDS and HIV in the 80's. It didn't help then, merely dismissed anyone who contracted it as victims of their own "lifestyle choice". When in reality it's ignorance that was a bigger factor then as now. Mind you, at least they wouldn't dare use adverts like those used in the 80's Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Every year, the Flu jumps from bird populations to humans. It's a seasonal pandemic because it has a base reproductive rate just above 1.0, a bunch of people get it until the reproductive rate falls below 1.0, then it disappears among humans. But it returns the next year because the next year has a new generation of birds which didn't get the disease, so it spreads amongst them and jumps to humans again. In Africa, the base reproductive rate of monkeypox was always below 1.0 (probably in part due to the smallpox vaccines which are 85% effective against monkeypox), but it kept jumping from rodents to humans. The nightmare scenario in "the rich world" is for the pox to spread to a rodent population in which case it can NEVER be eliminated. Even if we gave everyone the smallpox vaccine, it'd still occasionally jump from rats to humans constantly, it just wouldn't spread far from there.
What's different about "DA BUTTSEX" is that among Gay men, the base reproductive rate of monkeypox is far above 1.0. Given that it's tripling every 2 weeks, it seems to have a base reproductive rate of around 3.0 for Gay men whereas it appears to be below 1.0 for Straight and Lesbian. In order for the pandemic to end before we create the nightmare scenario, we have to get the reproductive rate down NOW, and that's going to involve altering behaviors in some fashion. Cork (poke) 13:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not 'ignoring key pieces', Corrupt - I'm just thinking the stats through. Averages, for example can be thrown out by a small amount on the 'extreme edge'; a classic hypothetical example being 'Bill Gates enters a bar and the average wealth of everyone in it rises to $1bn'. And for the sex case, a pretty small % of the population really into the hookup scene can do similar to what Bill does for average incomes.
As for the stats... well, 4 partners in one year isn't as 'terrible' as it could be portrayed. The year starts in a relationship, it ends in a different one and with a single one-night stand and drunken friend-screw in between those bookends. Such a level, if combined with regular screening, preacuations and gaps between partners is most unlikely to be that more risky when it comes down to true STDs.
I also question that HIV sample on similar grounds to Dumb... *pulls out napkin*
329.5m Pop of USA
164.7m Male pop (/2)
8.2m Male G/B pop (assuming 5%)
4.1m Male G/B pop between 18-65 (around 50%)
1.7m Male G/B HIV cases in USA (using 41% from above).
However... the CDC says there's 1.2m HIV cases currently (with 200k being undiagnosed). If we use the CDC's figures for vector of transmission, some 68 - 71% is G/B Males. So...
816 - 852k Number of G/B males with HIV.
~19-21% level of HIV incidence within 'working age adult' G/B Males in USA.
The amateur statistician within me says Dumb's hunch is correct.
And the truth is simple enough; monkeypox is being used as another reason to beat G/B men with - nothing more or less. If it had started via female sex workers almost the same people would have a field day going for 'them whores and hookers' instead. And part of the problem is a lack of 'message tightness' from a segment of the otherwise accurate sources. Monkeypox is spreading not from sex but from skin-skin contact; it's just the former involves the latter. Therefore, the correct messaging should be for all folks to limit the numbers of people we all have said contact with. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe it's not 41% overall, but 41% of those surveyed. Cork (poke) 14:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
So which, please do elaborate, behaviours in the gay community do we need to alter exactly CorruptUser? ShabiDOO 14:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The CDC has info on how it spreads and prevention. Based on what is said by the CDC and by the AAD, contact with a rash or with an object contaminated by an infected person seem to be the greatest risks for transmission, with prolonged face-to-face contact also carrying a risk due to respiratory secretions, which can particularly affect household members and health workers (the AAD in particular suggests that the respiratory transmission is less common). While rash has previously been associated with the face and extremities, the current outbreak has seen genital rash as a common onset symptom, without consistent spread to the rest of the body. The atypical presentation is something to be aware of, but the main advice seems to be centered on avoiding direct contact with people with rashes and objects with which they have had contact; wearing a mask in crowded settings is also recommended. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 15:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Shabi The group-sex and promiscuity amongst a minority of Gay men. Cork (poke) 15:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The fact it's 41% surveyed showed that the sample is not that representative of the G/B male community at large (if my guestimates are anything to go by). Therefore, a warning that the results of said survey should not be taken too strongly without backup.
We also need to remember that the incidence of the disease is also still very low. By my reckoning, the American rate is 0.16% of the total 'active' G/B male population, and that's assuming all cases are in said group. I'd love to see a proper distribution map; I'll bet we'd be looking at a few big clusters and a decent % of others linked to said cluster.
One bit about the masks; once again, it's the same gig as Covid - aka unless it's a medical-grade filtration job, it only protects folks from you, not other way round.
Considering the situation and it's current severity, my piece of (new) advice to 'the community' would be this; if you are doing higher-risk activities, consider damage limitation policy. For example, if you're into group sex, perhaps creating a closed 'bubble' with the other members for the duration (similar we did with support bubbles during Covid). Apart from that, follow the general Covid rules (hygiene, space etc) - though I think everyone should follow those always. (KarmaPolice) 16:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

− I see CU. Convincing a group of marginalised people to give up one of the few benefits of being in that group in the aim of relieving the panic for straight people. I'm curious how you think this will be achieved in a short period of time. ShabiDOO 16:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

My grandma died with only a single one of her sons by her side because the hospital would not permit more than one visitor due to COVID restrictions. Due to supply chain issues, I'm running low on fucks, so I have to ration the fucks I give. Promiscuous people, Gay or Straight (and it WILL spread among the more promiscuous straight people at some point), have to cut back on the number of partners or only stick to small closed groups? Boo hoo. Cork (poke) 17:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I suppose an eventual admission that hetro sex spreads it too is about as good as it's gonna get, Shabi. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
When did I ever deny it could be spread via hetero sex? Cork (poke) 18:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The last (small) outbreak in the United States (2003) was caused by infected prairie dogs bought as petsWikipedia. I won't deny that unprotected super-promiscuous sex is super risky regardless of orientation (and the Wiki on the current outbreakWikipedia does make it seem like the affected population is possibly an exceptional risk-taking bunch), but this disease is not exactly the greatest candidate to hang this sort of moralizing hill on. It's not inherently an STD by current accounts and focusing on the "gay" population aspect merely gives fodder to all the usual homophobic sources without really solving the (reither small) outbreak problem per se. No problem with saying "yo, practice safe sex!" which is solid advice for many reasons, but no need to go further than that.
(I mean, go to Breitbart and scan all the bullshit moral panic over this issue. Now, let's predict when Breitbart will do a story on a red-blooded Wisconsin family who got DA POX from a prairie dog named Chuckles...) (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I or any regular here has claimed that homosexual relationships are inherently "evil" or "wrong". From my (allegedly) optimistic-nihilist perspective, it's promiscuity that is "wrong" for multiple reasons including/especially disease. My view is that promiscuity, today, is "less wrong" than it was in the 17th century for the simple reason that we have condoms, paternity tests, antibiotics, etc. What is "right" and "wrong" are functions of the capabilities of society. In one regard, Homosexuality is actually "better" than Heterosexuality in that there's no risk of unwanted pregnancies nor abortions. In Todd Akin's world where women could expel unwanted semen, then that advantage wouldn't exist. Likewise, if we lived in Brave New World, where disease and pregnancies did not exist, perhaps we would agree that not only was promiscuity "moral", but denying anyone who wants to have sex with you would also be "immoral" as in that book. But we don't live in that world.
Furthermore, I hold as an axiom (i.e., not derived from anything else) that any action/lifestyle/philosophy/ethical-system is inherently "immoral" if it requires others to act upon a different set of rules. Just as it's "immoral" to have giant birthday parties (e.g., Obama's 60th) that can only happen because everyone else has to forgo their own parties to slow the spread enough for your party to occur, it's "immoral" to have lots of sexual partners if it requires that most others have fewer partners in turn in order to prevent disease. Cork (poke) 20:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Corruptiser my vaccinated mother also died 6 months ago in a hospital full of unvaccinated covid patients taking away precious resources from the doctors treating her. What the fuck does that have to do with monkeypox? Zero fucks are given on your moralising about coonsenual human sexual activity (reeks of jealousy to be honest). You haven't addressed how you'd go about getting humans to change their consensual sexual behaviour, especially in a short period of time to address a moral panic with dubious efficacy. This smells of AIDS all over again where the gay community was held to different ridiculous standards than straight people when it became an "everyone" disease. ShabiDOO 22:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Shutdown all the hookup dating apps such as Tinder. Cork (poke) 23:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Bruh is that a joke? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC).
Snide remark, mostly. Shabi wanted to know what could be done to change behaviors. That's something the government could do, but whether they should, I don't think so. We do need the CDC to strongly come out and say "ok, be careful folks". Whether that would work, eh. Cork (poke) 00:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
And today's lesson is this; that even if the underlying reasoning for the policy/advice is logically sound, phrasing it in a manner which causes a minority community to have strong flashbacks to the worst 'collective trauma' they've had is not a wise move. And presenting it in such an openly belligerent manner is perhaps not wise, for it really puts a cramp on that community actually listening to you.
I cannot comment on exactly how the USA is organising things, but here in the UK it seems to be two-pronged; that the NHS is putting out a general 'be aware' message for the Big Public, then a much more proactive/firm message for the high-risk groups, ie sexually active G/B males via sexual health clinics, community organisations, social media accounts and so on.
This could lead to a variant of the 'toupee fallacy'; that a straight member of the Big Public bitches 'there's no messaging that it's a "gay thing!"' because they're only seeing the generalised message. Ie the targeted messaging is too accurate; not hitting those who don't really need to know. Why use a chainsaw when a scalpel can do the job?
Let's remember, public health bodies have had over a century of experience in this. They know, for example that many of the early AIDs ones were terrible, along with the syphilis ones a generation earlier. And the 1970s British ones regarding rabies are a prime example of of the disproportionate reaction to the actual risk posed. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Afghan Flag?[edit]

Just noticed in the WIGO said thumbnail is of the one no longer used by what passes as the Afghan govt. Is this down to policy, nobody has updated it yet or it's a technical pain to sort out (so nobody has)? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No one has bothered updating it. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
It should be the same flag as is used on the Taliban page, should not be too hard but I'm not experienced messing with files on wikis. Chillpilled (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Homogeneity of Time and the problem of induction[edit]

The problem of induction states that we cannot infer from induction that the future will behave as the past. The Homogeneity of Time would indicate that no point in time is special, so the same basic laws of physics should govern all of time. So again, if Maxwell's equations are valid today, there is no reason to expect the equations to suddenly become invalid tomorrow. Most cosmologists believe that the universe is homogenous and isotropic. Doesn't this solve the problem of induction? Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 16:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No because all these laws and scientific principles were generalized using induction itself. The real crux of the problem of induction is the assumption of the uniformity of nature, that there exists natural laws that persist and govern our reality uniformly across all of time. The problem Hume points put is that this isn’t demonstrable analytically a priori, and to use induction generalizing from experience as proof for it would be circular. In this case the homogeneity of time is just a reformulation of the uniformity of nature. This is like saying the problem is solved because the assumption that Hume says we cannot justify is assumed to be true. That’s not a solution. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC).
So, essentially what you're saying is that the laws used to arrive at the Homogeneity were assumed to be true. Hence, the process is circular. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 14:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Think of it like this. 1) If the Uniformity of Nature is true then Induction is a reliable form of inference. 2) Science presupposes the uniformity of nature in the use of methodological naturalism, and uses induction on this basis. 3) The Homogeneity of Time is a principle generalized from Induction. 4) The Homogeneity of Time implies the Uniformity of Nature. 5) Therefore, Induction is true.
You can see in this example how the implicit argument is sort of both premise circular and rule circular, and uses induction in attempt to justify induction or presupposes the uniformity of nature in attempt to prove the uniformity of nature. It would be like saying God exists because the bible said so and God wrote the bible. It is not a compelling argument for the existence of God. If you are really interested in attempted "solutions" or justifications for Induction then I would highly recommend the book "Hume's Problem Solved: The Optimality of Meta-Induction" by Gerhard Schurz. Schurz basically concedes Hume being correct that you can not prove the reliability of Induction using deduction, and you cannot appeal to the reliability of induction to justify itself. That is basically what Hume's argument is, but you can using possible world semantics and complex mathematics not presupposing the uniformity of nature to prove mathematically depending on the strategy used that meta-induction is the most optimal prediction method across all logically possible worlds. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC).

Alex Jones was forced into admitting Sandy Hook was real by means of gunpoint.[edit]

Isn't it obvious?! The Lamestream Media forced Alex Jones to say that Sandy Hook was real. He was held at gunpoint in the courtroom while saying it. Don't ask me for evidence, you have all the evidence in the world for yourself. All you need to do is open your eyes to the truth. There is no other explanation. The trial is in liberal Austin with a George Soros appointed judge. Besides, why else would Jones say this for years on end only to now admit that it was fake? Don't you see how the world is fooling you?! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!

Before anyone IP bans me, yes this was sarcasm. Or rather, a live look in at the average delusional Alex Jones supporter at the current moment. Aaronmichael5 18:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC).

The FBI also found child porn on the Infowars computer, but Jones claims that it was put there by malware.[8] Bongolian (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
There's a wonderful moment when the prosecution informs him that his defence attorney "accidentally" sent the contents of Jones' phone to them, proving that he perjured himself. (Am all for innocent till proven guilty in a court of law. But not for this vile piece of shit and his enabling shitrags.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Knowing that Alex Jones will be paying a lot of money to the people he harmed and court costs, I wonder what his conspiracy claims will be? He will have to pony up a lot of dough. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I love that they waited 12 days to reveal the leaked phone contents just to give Jones time to perjure himself. I hope that dogshit scumbag gets what he deserves. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Next up, this shitbird, Joe Rogan, who wonders, and I quote,“What is he doing that’s so awful? It’s entertaining!” A right enabling scumbag, hiding behind a distorted understanding of "Free speech". Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Now of course you don't have to like rogan, but why do you think he's next? You followed that with how he commented the jones trial- something I would consider different than doing what jones did. rogans an idiot with bro science and yes he does enable too many right wing scum bags with his platform. I can't stand how popular he is and how people treat him as an authority on anything. His opinion on jones you linked truly is a trash take like a lot of his opinions are but none of that's illegal and despite your haughty comment on free speech, how isn't this still free speech? No matter how popular he is he's still allowed to have shitty opinions. He does not perpetuate the "sandy hook is a hoax" lie and simply giving jones a platform is not the same thing. Or am I missing something? Why do you think rogan should be prosecuted? Or was this hyperbolic? (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
IMHO it's not a "prosecute" thing (next should be Steve Bannon, eh?) but Rogan has done way too much to prop up obvious grifting conspiratorial idiots like Jones, that frankly should be given zero oxygen given how criminally liable they ended up being. (4 million dollars criminally liable, if I heard the recent results right.) Shit editorial control isn't usually a crime, but it certainly makes JRE fanboys (those that haven't been repelled by his recent shit conspiracy turn, that is) look like idiots. (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I can appreciate that. bannon for sure. JRE's ranking, with 5000+hrs of content, one could argue no one's done more than him in propping up morons, although as a stopped clock he wouldn't host trump for good reasons- just don't know why this moral fiber runs short for everyone else, especially jones. I just wasn't clear on anything that crossed that line into something prosecutable. Thank you for the insight. You've piqued my interest, however, when you said "Shit editorial control isn't usually a crime" I wonder now if you had an example in mind where it was? (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Alex Jones is a conspiracy nut with a loyal audience and his influence is indestructible because people's trust in societal institutions is declining. The more people distrust societal institutions, the bigger the audience for conspiracy theories is. LuixmvIII (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure his 40 million dollar plus fines for lying along with his multiple, metastasizing legal problems will do nothing to dissuade them.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hasn't he got Roger "not guilty in the fucking slightest" Stone do on air begging messages for Alex Jones and Infowars Absolutely no shame. Nothing is off the cards, everything is simply a selling point to scam the gullible even more. Jim Baker has got nothing on these charlatans! Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Alex Jones' recently obtained phone records show that after InfoWars was deplatformed from major social media platforms, during peak times, the Infowars merchandise outlet sometimes makes as much as $800,000 a day, which could add up to $50M to $300 million annually.

After Jones does some legal and financial maneuvering, he will strike up a deal with the opposing lawyers, and continue to push his conspiracy theories to his big fan base of right-wing conspiracy theory lovers, but in a more cautious way. Aaron555 (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

For those who have had Covid[edit]

Do you have any lingering symptoms or notice any differences in your general health? It's been about two weeks since my infection, but after 10 days I developed intestinal issues, and I seem to be generally running hotter. Also have a dry cough and like phantom joint pain. I'm only 31 and triple vaxxed so the initial infection wasn't so bad, but these more recent symptoms are more troubling.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Extra phlegm and a dry cough but it's getting better slowly... Cork (poke) 19:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Exactly the same here. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Had it once right at the beginning - before there were any vaccinations. Lost sense of smell and had a cough for about a month. Didn't really notice a point when sense of smell came back but it took a few months. As far as I can tell I am am back where I started. (But obviously a lot of people have long covid.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
i did not have any symptoms when i had covid AMassiveGay (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Triple vaxxed too and got it like some close family members weeks ago, them also with the three doses. Some fever (less than 38° C), runny nose, and a cough that took weeks to go away in all cases. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I had it first a year ago, and it had a nasty effect on my memory. In fact, I had just taken a promotion at work and thought the position wasn't for me at first because I couldn't think straight for several months. The second time a few weeks ago wasn't nearly as bad. I haven't had any of the vaccines or booster shots; I had considered getting Moderna or Pfizer, but ultimately decided against it for fear of side effects. 71.208.x.x (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
My lungs feel like crap and I feel like I might get a heart attack from drinking lemonade. Some of this damage is from me going down a fundamentalist and charismatic rabbit hole for 5 years, with people claiming things like the COVID shot being the Mark of the Beast. That and other things damage my mind to this day. Patty Pat 03:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

who is the uk's carlson/rogen/oprah?[edit]

for the life of me i cannot think of any individual with the same sort of influence in the uk as they do in the us. maybe uk newspapers wield the same sort of influence as rogen and carlson. dont know if thats better or worse. and why does it seem right wing fucknuts benefit the most from this influence? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Your royal family. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 14:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The guy that tried to prove that MMR vaccines cause autism. LongStylus (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
neither the royals or the other fucknut have the same kind of influence. they do not have huge audiences that can be swayed them just stating their opinions. the royals usually try not to have any opinions that would sway anyone publicly. andrew wakefield doesnt have the reach. he made some headlines initially for his dodgy mmr/autism link then the newspapers did the rest in the uk, and in the us he went on oprah and fired up jenny mccarthy - they did all all the influencing in that score, and certainly in the uk at least, hes gtot very little traction outside antivaxxer circles. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
we have the likes of laurence fox and piers morgan who can only dream of being a command of a massive audience that looks to them for some kind of leadership or guidance instead of struggling to find any relevance (and failing)AMassiveGay (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think Carlson/Oprah are half as influential as they were say 15 years ago, and I've not even heard of Rogen. I think the time of the 'ultra-influential' person is passing, that most of the remaining ones are legacy people from the previous era (which Carlson and Oprah both are). My reasoning for this is simple; the ending of the monolithic media-scape. There's just too much choice in everything now; you're no longer tethered to the same old TV channels / film releases / radio stations / print media and so on that every other sod in the country is. Everything has declined in scope; from readers of magazines to watchers of TV news - it's not that easy these days for folks to learn your name, or to have a monster soapbox that the public shall notice even if they don't overly care. Lastly, you need to actually be trusted - and very few people are trusted across the board. If we strip out the people who work with power as their 'real job', the remainder fall into three groups;
First, the talking heads, the journalists and commentators. Nick Ferrari, for example gets to talk to over a million-half people twenty hours a week, as well as his guest slots on things like GMTV and his regular newspaper 'writings'. Now, there's folks who can't stand that bloated, hypocritical Tory hack but even I won't deny he is a man of influence. A few others tick this; for example Jeremy Vine has two soapboxes but even if they're less opinionated by Ferrari's it keeps him within the public eye, and thus 'with influence' if he, for example says something via social media.
Then there's a the small group of what I'd term the 'public intellectual', such as Stephen Fry and Brian Cox. They may not speak as much as the above, but I think it can be said their quality of product is much higher. Then there's the expert/campaigners, such as Martin Lewis and David Attenborough; when they speak within 'their remit', people listen and things can be changed (the recent not-incompetent, not-stupid Cost of Living payments were partly down to Lewis' lobbying and suggestions).
Lastly, there's the mere 'famous personage'. They might be thick as a bag of rocks and only known for say, playing cute girls in TV shows / kicking a pigs bladder about / painting creepy pictures etc, but they are known to a wide number of people and so if they speak, they shall be covered even if it's outside of their remit. Occasionally, if they're helped out a bit and really hit the spot can play that influence well; the most obvious example here being Marcus Rashford (I mean, truly amazing. Politicians losing an argument about school dinners to a professional footballer). KarmaPolice (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Piers "Morgan" Moron, Richard "Twat" Medley etc. Although recent viewing figures for Moron's show on TalkTV are, drumroll please, 62,000. (bear in mind this is the same gimp who claimed to have 300m viewers on CNN, reality was 270,000 when his show got cancelled - people can't be cancelled, fuck the neologism- When his show first started on TalkTv it was 317,000. A week later 62,000 and falling. Brilliant.) As for Medley, he really is Alan Partridge but without the comedy Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think any one person in the UK has ever been as influential as the big USians like Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, whatever. The closest I can think of is Richard Littlejohn (who via his newspaper columns almost single handedly carried the torch of anti-EU sentiment when it was still a largely background thing, with his bendy bananas, hard-hats-on-tightrope-walkers nonsense) and maybe Piers Morgan. But with Piers I've genuinely never met or even heard of a single person who actually likes him, so his entire career might legit just be people laughing at him. Also I guess Nigel Farage - he's always been a media guy more than a politician in terms of what he actually does, and he's pretty much 90% of the reason brexit happened, which is pretty influential. These are all single issue things though, I can't think of a UKian who has "anything I say about anything gets believed" power. X Stickman (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The BBC's ratings are falling. Britain has a productivity problem too. For over a decade, Britain has had low productivity compared to the G7. It's very sad. At the start of the 19th century, Britain led the pack in productivity. LuixmvIII (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
My reply to that: Troll
Anyway, I've been thinking about your point, Stickman. And think I can reply why - basically, size and Ofcom. The USA has a target market about 4.5x the size of the UK's; 62k won't really be enough to sustain Moron on trad TV long-term, but 280k (I suspect) would be. This means that in the UK, even an 'edgy' show or whatever cannot go 'too far' left/right etc lest they dip below the level of viability. Plus, choice of carriers is also much lower than the USA, because the size of the market.
Ofcom's regs are the real kicker to a wannabe Jones, Limbaugh and so on - the main ones being the 'accuracy', 'fairness' and 'public order'. The English libel laws too are also a cramp. It's why GB News has been a damp squib; it's legally impossible at this point in time to do a Fox News clone here. Our print media has much less bound by these, but the newspaper market has shrunk massively and magazines went off a cliff in c2005.
The point being; the relative lack of soapboxes means folks who desire to survive tack back towards the safe zone more often, their fear of being sued mean they pull their punches and it's proven almost impossible (traditionally) for the 'talent' to be bigger than the broadcaster - in fact, I'd argue that UK media has a bit of a habit of lopping off the legs of those who have gotten 'uppity' (Wright, Farage, Moron etc). KarmaPolice (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The UK tabloids are probably the closest "thing" to Fox News / Limbaugh but from what I saw occupy a different space. For a start, those UK rags tend to mix gossip with their moral panics. US gossip news is located in an entirely different space (TMZ etc). Populist right wing shit in America also from my perspective shares a lot of similarities with the talking head sports shit on ESPN. Lots of talking head yelling. Even without the noxious politics, Fox News gives me a headache.
Keep in mind Oprah never really was fully "political". She was the survivor of the " trash talk TV" wars of the 1990s, succeeding by adopting a touchy feely approach. She promoted a lot of alt-woo of course but still. Also I don't really consider Rogan all that political until COVID-19 upped the crankery. Some less Internet connected people might still mainly remember him from News Radio, Fear Factor, etc. I tend to see political media figures as generally niche compared to many other things. Even Alex Jones almost seems more notable as a meme than something people take seriously. That gay frogs remix on Youtube has 17m views, I'm guessing that's way more than most shit Infowars etc has posted.2607:FB90:77C:CD1B:659B:ED26:AF3:7D52 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hmm... I think personally the nearest medium to Fox News in the UK is the Daily Express - now, this doesn't mean the Mail is much better in most respects, but from my own experience they do seem to have a couple of positive features, like their mudraking department which occasionally does turn up stuff which can be defined as genuinely 'the public interest' (two off the top of my head; the conflict of interest within the RSPCA and the first in-depth on Carl 'Nick the fantasist' Beech). Though I suppose you could say Mail is Fox, but Express is the UK's OANN and the Daily Star is the National Enquirer. (Remember; Mail's online and print output substantially different).
As for Oprah... I disagree; she's long been political, in a generally vague, small-p type. Now while she's not as relentlessly cheerful and upbeat a la Stepford Smiler she is normally solidly ploughing the 'can't we just all be nicer to each other?' school of thought on dealing with issues (though not always) which while leading to tons of woo, fuzz and windy uplift I'd also argue nudges folks away from the GOP (current iteration) because they appear to be mainly propelled by anger, hate and general negativity. I'd so as far as say she's more a 'secular televangelist' than anything else. Think the closest British variant might be Lorraine Kelly. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
What about Jeremy Kyle? Or is he more equal to Jerry Springer (based on both shows, I'd say yes)? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Even if he did Oprah-style stuff, Kyle is/was simply too abrasive. I personally think it would be difficult for the vast majority of people to enter a 'parasocial relationship' with his persona - which is a major part of Oprah's 'thing'. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Kyle is fucking abhorrent. Berating the poor and stupid for their moral failures, driving some to suicide while cheating on his missus with a school girl. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Jeremy Kyle's show was crap and dumbed down TV a lot just by existing, and the show/his attitude definitely amplified the "anyone unemployed/on benefits/disabled/etc is an undeserving scrounger" attitude whilst it was on air, but it's not like Kyle himself was any kind of figure people followed. There was never a "Kyle endorses (thing/political candidate)" and then it gets a massive boost or anything. He was just a prick. Which is kind of a shame because I remember his old call in radio show where he seemed to genuinely have compassion for people calling in. X Stickman (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
There was never a public Political endorsement by Kyle (which is kinda normal for British public figures, back to the 'small market' point above - don't want to piss off too many punters by being overt) but it cannot be denied his show, like with Oprah was small-p political and in Kyle's case, was an important part of the psychological prep-work which led to Austerity in regards to benefits.
The messaging was more complex than that, Stickman. Had to be, when you think of who was watching it. Was much more the 'well, if scum like that were gotten 'rid of', our Shawn would be able to get a council flat' type. Generally speaking, the folks who did the basic 'benefits are too high' example weren't viewers of it by dint of being at work or elderly, thus being catered to by BBC daytime's porn of house prices and antiquing. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Katie Hopkins and John Paul Watson are in the neighbourhood, I guess. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
they'd like to be but hopkins is a pariah and the other...i dont even known who they are AMassiveGay (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
My bad, I forgot, it's Paul Joseph Watson. In my defence he is forgettable. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

HeavenO, everybody![edit]

I'm new to RationalWiki. — Unsigned, by: Chameleon but Not Really / talk / contribs

It's HellO, not HeavenO. We atheists much prefer hell over heaven. /s LongStylus (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the People's Socialist Democratic Republic of RationalWiki. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Are there people in the States who really say "HeavenO"? I'm honestly interested.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Very few, it would seem, except maybe This guy. Kencolt (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Only a few weirdos in Texas use it. It's embarrassing. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Despite its popularity in American potlucks, I've encountered people who can't bring themselves to call deviled eggsWikipedia "deviled eggs". "HeavenO" is pretty extreme, but there's certainly some bits of American Christianity which is infected with a peculiar shallow moralism where things like this actually matter. (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Pretty funny. Saying 'adios' in Spanish is basically "Go with God" and saying Goodbye might stem from "God be with ye" in English. OK, I had always learned was a joke on "all correct" as phonetic shorthand. I do know a guy who got really upset in the wrong way when I explained adios, he was like "poor atheists." I might start saying heaven-o, this is a REALLY subversive joke. Can't believe it has ever been delivered without poe. Commander Sprace (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Might have to say "idunno (redacted)!" instead to this guy, he gets pretty angry. Commander Sprace (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The origins of "OK" are actually pretty controversial.
But for many other things - especially including weekdays months and greetings, there is often a clear religious - and frequently non-Christian - origin. But really, so what? After a time a word is just word devoid of its original meaning and is just a sound which means something now. If I talk about "Thursday" I am not actually giving homage to the god "Thor".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump may be a jerk and extremely ignorant.[edit]

Would you still say he has a cool set of hair and hairstyle? — Unsigned, by: 2607:fb91:1414:c374:ac39:6af1:4f60:309 / talk / contribs

Well, I'm pretty sure no-one here ever said that, so... no. Kencolt (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes Rational Wiki, known for it principled discussions of *checks notes* Septuagenarian hair styling.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I somehow doubt Trump or his lackies would let many of us here near his head and neck with a sharp implement. He's not THAT dumb, is he? Actually, don't answer that, the answer may be far more depressing that a Tuesday allows. Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Why I disagree with the term State Terrorism[edit]

If a nation attacks another nation, it is already considered an act of war. If a civilian target is intentionally hit, it is considered crimes against humanity.

Why bother adding the term as crimes against humanity is already an apt label? Now state sponsored terrorism makes sense as a nation is funding a non-governmental organization to carry out attacks against other countries such as Russia funding the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. Both terrorist organizations are not government but are being funded by a country.

As for State Terrorism, it is a pointless term as it would be war and crimes against humanity. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Normally? Because it's can sometimes be surprisingly hard to actually prove that 'a nation' has attacked another, and correspondingly to prove 'intentionally' when it comes to civilian hits etc. In stuff like this, the 'burden of proof' is on the accuser, not the accused. It's up to 'Us' to prove that, say the Wagner Group is an arm of the 'Russian state' and it follows the Russian chain of command in regards to the various violations of general law committed. Yet, everyone knows the Wagner Group is de facto Russian, just like we know the Salisbury poisonings were committed by 'deniable' assets funded by the Russian state.
From what I've seen, 'State Terrorism' and 'State Sponsored Terrorism' is almost interchangable in definition - I think the latter simply shows a bit heavier 'plausable deniability' between the instigator and the agents. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm assuming this is inspired by Ukrainian officials and supporters specifically calling for Russia to be labeled a state sponsor of terrorism. In the macro, I think each of you is correct, that violence between states isn't "terrorism". Indeed since humans have been killing each other, fear has become a determining factor in conflict. What I would argue instead is that Russia is terrorizing Ukrainian civilian populations for two purposes: To discourage violent resistance and erase Ukrainian culture. That would make a more appropriate label for RF 'genocidal' and 'war criminals', which I think is completely fair.
"From what I've seen, 'State Terrorism' and 'State Sponsored Terrorism' is almost [interchangeable] in definition.."@KarmaPolice I disagree with this, I think each of these labels has specific context. 'State Terrorism' I think is a description for state actions against it's own civilian population, while 'State Sponsored Terrorism' would describe a state supporting a group acting against another state. State terrorism would be the actions of Belarus after the 2017 "election" while state sponsored terrorism would be support of militia's by Iran.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't know the original context, the example I used was simply the one off the top of my head. And while your definitions may be 100% correct when it comes to the legal side, on the ground there may be little or no difference. There's also holes in definition; for example right-wing internal 'death squads' may fill your criteria for a latter group but function within the state. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 would need to tell us where they're coming from. Legal definitions are important because certain labels do have a required response. But to those without knowledge, you're correct there really isn't a difference.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Terrorism scholar Louise Richardson makes the same argument, TZQ: State violence against civilians should not be labelled 'terrorism' since we already have a vocabulary for such violence. The counter-argument presented by defenders of so-called 'Critical Terrorism Studies' is that, if state actions meet all other relevant criteria for an action to be labelled as 'terrorism' (roughly, violence against civilians for political purposes) then it is arbitrary to exclude those actions from the definition simply because they are committed by states. Things can be more than one thing (CTS scholars argue), so something can be a crime against humanity and state terrorism. Furthermore, non-state actors can also perpetrate (and be prosecuted for) crimes against humanity, so the argument that we already have a vocabulary (and laws) for state violence against civilians also applies to non-state actors. If we allow that state terrorism is a form of terrorism, then it turns out that most terrorism is perpetrated by states. Terrorism scholars recognise a distinction between 'state terrorism' and 'state-sponsored terrorism' (and sometimes further categories such as 'state-supported terrorism'). 'State terrorism' refers to terrorism as official policy (though not necessarily acknowledged as such) and perpetrated by state forces rather than proxies (though in practice the distinction between state forces and proxies is often blurry). — Unsigned, by: 2001:4530:2:201:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffe7 / talk / contribs

Yes, there are so many cases that it's going to be difficult to get definitions right. Consider: an act by a government in which it kills it's own citizens and makes no secret of the fact; an act by a government in which it kills it's own citizens but maintains some vague plausible deniability; an act by a government in which it kills civilians of another state and it makes so secret of the fact; an act by a government in which it kills civilians in another state but maintains plausible deniability; an act by a government in which it encourages a third party to carry out assassinations in a third country etc. And then some of the above using military targets instead of civilian ones.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that the murder of Jamal Kashoggi is a good example of state terrorism that can’t simply be “relabelled” as a war crime. This was a targeted, deliberate and barely veiled murder of a critic with the clear goal not only of removing him, but of scaring others into silence. However, it didn’t occur in the context of an armed conflict and was thus not a war crime, and it can be difficult to describe such individual murders as crimes against humanity, since that term usually describes actions taken against multiple persons or groups. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the label of state terrorism is correct in the Khashoggi case, because it was a state sanctioned action, using state actors, to murder a member of the state, with the explicit purpose of silencing others.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Only 111 articles to go[edit]

Before there are 7777 articles on RW. Anna Livia (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I personally like how we have 7,666 articles. The last three digits make up the number 666. That's pretty cool. LongStylus (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I am looking forward to User: GeeJayK completing his "Criticism of socialism" article at: User:GeeJayK/Criticism of socialism.
I had an unforced edit of +666 characters on the Heaven page on 21:24, 6 February 2015.[9][10] Top that for numerology. Bongolian (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
There has been a lot of public discussion recently on what is the definition of a recession. And at RationalWiki, there has been some discussions on economic systems. Aaron555 (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Non sequitur to the point being made (number of articles and mild goal-setting) - which is somewhat missional. Anna Livia (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

If Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak becomes Prime Minister of the UK[edit]

In the political racehorse to replace Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak is currently the favorite to win.

If Rish Sunak becomes Prime Minister of the UK the biggest winner will be the UK big business community. Sunak worked for Goldman Sachs and he is a wealthy man.

But who is going to be among the biggest losers? DePieper (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

He's not the favourite to win; Truss is. And which ever wins, the main losers shall be the UK itself. However, Sunak is the lesser evil of the pair. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
No matter who wins Twitter will still be mad. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 13:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Careful what you wish for. As satisfying as it was to see Boris out, he will be replaced by a far worse neo-Thatcherite. As though the UK isn't bleeding enough from horrific cults to everything (amazing these social programs and NHS haven't fully collapsed) they plan to cut more. It's hard to tell how much they believe their policies and how much is just to get the conservative party to pick them as leader. Regardless the entire UK has to pay the price (and remember only 40% of the English and a tiny fraction of Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish voted for these dipshits). The UK is a festering sinking ship, best thing the Celtic nations can do is jump off and not sink down with them. ShabiDOO 13:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
If you think of it as % of the whole adult population, the Tory share is about ~24%...
Anyway, I don't think Sunak would be good for the country... merely at least he gets some of the limits of reality on policy (I've listened to him doing Treasury Committee meetings, and he does actually seem to understand his brief, which makes him a stellar intellectial by the standards of Tories at the moment).
But I hold one shred of hope; that Truss is going to be the woman who drives the Tories so far into the tar-pit it'll take a political generation to recover from. 'Summer of Discontent'? try, 'Winter of Civil Disobedience, Economic Crisis and Personal Privation'. More 'anti-Woke' and Rwanda flights ain't gonna cut it, and unlike 'he got the big calls right' and 'Brexit means Brexit', even the most obtuse and salty of Gammons are going to notice stuff like 'my house is cold and I can't even afford a copy of the Express to hear that it's all Brussel's fault'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
And if 'whoever wins' comes third place to Lord Buckethead and Count Binface in their constituency in the next general election? Anna Livia (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Last time I looked at the political horserace, Rishi Sunak looked to be the strongest candidate. But I just found out that many conservatives are mad at him for starting the domino effect of resignations after Johnson's latest scandal. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Conservative Party is winning political races as of late not mainly due to its strength, but mainly due to the weakness and internal conflicts of the Labour Party in the UK. Inflation is presently the biggest proverbial foe of the Conservative Party of the UK - not the Labour Party. DePieper (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Then you need to look again. Truss of the Tax Cuts is by far the favorite candidate amongst Conservative Party members. (The people who are voting.)
Given that constituency the most right-wing candidate - or the candidate who panders to the most-right wing views - is in a stronger position.
The left is the UK (as is often the case with the non-populist left in other countries) sometimes struggles to explain complex ideas in simple soundbites.
Externally generated inflation is a problem for any ruling party. There is little they can actually do about it, but they will be held responsible for it by their opponents.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I realize that Truss is the clear favorite now and that Rishi Sunak pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory by being the first out on the dance floor of resignations so now his fellow conservatives find his loyalty to the party suspect which was his undoing.
Bad candidates with bad and/or unpopular policies invariably blame the messenging rather than the messenger/message. It is true that "ice cream policies" will always be more popular than "brussel spouts policies", but a good leader should be able to get his people to eat their brussel sprouts. DePieper (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
They can 'do more about it' than Truss plans/desires to, and the Covid supports showed the traditional Tory argument of 'can't' was in fact, 'won't'. Even more importantly, the state is likely to be the only thing which can stave off societal breakdown in the next 12-18 months. Even if Truss wants to do Austerity Redux, I don't think she'll be able to much - what's she gonna cut? Everything we can 'live without' is gone, only critical functions remain. And 'levelling up' and Thatcherism were always incompatable in reality, but the former can't happen at all if the final crumbs of the cake go to the rich and the old.
But a change in leadership doesn't gloss over the fact; the Tories are intellectually bankrupt. They're stuck in a 80s timewarp, intoning the old Thatcherite creeds and not realising that many of the current problems facing UK.plc are due to said creeds (or what was done in Her Name, as like with Jesus, Smith and Lenin, she is less understood than cherrypicked). And their current proposals are 'drink yourself sober', 'duvet over head' and 'jingle keys' types. Now, as we saw with Trump a country can take quite a lot of mismanagement and still sorta keep on the level, but the Tories have become so senile, corrupt and stupid that the Cameron era looks like a golden age in comparison. And the fact the Tory base are lapping this all up suggest they've basically lost the plot too.
With Labour... one of the main reasons for the 'split' is the simple fact some feel it's time to properly put the boot in and present their own manifesto (well, at least 'guiding principles') while the others support doing a Hacker Special, to offend nobody or do anything in the hope the Tories simply implode. Starmer is the latter one, and part of the issue is that he and his cronies try to unperson anyone who tries to show the public 'what Labour is for'. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

KarmaPolice wrote: "Even if Truss wants to do Austerity Redux, I don't think she'll be able to much - what's she gonna cut? Everything we can 'live without' is gone, only critical functions remain." One of the reasons why companies in trouble hire business consultants is to get a fresh outsider's perspective. KarmaPolice's statement sparked in me the question of how do countries compare in terms of government spending per capita. Wikipedia created the handy article List of countries by government budget per capita which provides some assistance, but not perfectly because some countries suffered more from the coronavirus pandemic than others. But there is a list by Johns Hopkins on the amount of Covid-19 deaths per capita by country at MORTALITY ANALYSES by country for Covid-19 Theoretically, all other things being equal, the UK should be more Covid-19 resistant than Spain because the UK is an island nation. Spain does have more Covid-19 deaths per capita.

Spain spent $10,863 USD per capita on government in 2017. The UK spent $17,202 USD per capita on government in 2018. So if Truss is chosen to be the next UK Prime Minister and wants to do more paring back of government without the UK experiencing societal collapse, she could (Spain in not Somolia). Whether she gets reelected though depends on the current societal preference on government spending within the UK and what type of job she does as Prime Minister. DePieper (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's have a game, DePieper. You find the money, and I'll tell you what happens to the country from the results! (bet other Brits here shall chip in too...)
Govt Spending, 21-22
Govt Income, 21-22
I shall also add that you're already 266bn in the red...
KarmaPolice (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
When I picked Spain as a country of comparison of government spending, I was being generous. The Philippines is a top-rated destination for expatriates from the developed world who want to retire to a pleasant country. The Philippines spends $505 USD per capita on government spending. If that doesn't satisfy you, St. Lucia is a civilized commonwealth country in the West Indies that spends $2,604 per capita on government spending. The Cayman Islands is a self-governing British Overseas Territory in the Caribbean Sea that is a major world offshore financial center for international businesses so it must be a stable area in the world that is not going to experience societal collapse. The Cayman Island spends $12,279 per capita on government spending. Given these figures, there must be some discretionary spending that could be cut out of the UK's budget by Truss without the UK experiencing societal collapse. DePieper (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
No waffle, no evasions, no windy generalities or distractions. Find Truss the tax cuts. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I was being very generous and direct. The Philippines is a nation that experiences frequent calamities such as typhoons and earthquakes. The UK has less emergency situations to contend with than the Philippines. The Philippines relies more on the family than the Brits for social support. For example, when your old in the Philippines, your family often takes care of you. In the UK, you are more apt to wind up in a nursing home. DePieper (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Find Truss the tax cuts. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
(EC)::The reported Covid numbers between Spain and the UK are petty much a wash. The spend per capita is interesting but looking at the gross GDP of the two countries, the UK comes in at sixth and Spain at 15th. In fact its GDP is a little less than half that of the UK's.
What you would really need for a comparison is contribution per capita as well as government spend per capita. In other words you would need to compare the spend with the tax rate. But even that would not really give you the facts as you would need to factor in government borrowing and the impact of central bank activity on money supply.
But it's even more complicated than that. By coincidence I'm a UK national living in Spain. The "black economy" here makes some Spanish Spanish numbers a little doubtful. Furthermore, from memory, the ways of recording Covid deaths were not (always) the same. You also need to consider that the cost of living in Spain is (usually) less and the tax systems are different (and quite complicated). I would be surprised if there was a great difference in the final tax burden on individuals.
But my point is that taking two numbers from two states and then attempting to reach general conclusion from these two numbers is perhaps a little simplistic.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
PS. For a person who didn't even know who was the favourite to win the the election was until you were corrected by us - you now seem to be claiming a lot of knowledge.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Bob, people often have ebbs and flows of following the news. And horse races can change quickly in politics.
KarmaPolicie, in 2017, I watched a YouTube video by Professor Antony Davies who is American economist, author and Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education. In the video Davies said that the USA could solve its gigantic federal government debt by trimming off excess government spending by 10% for 5 years and then pay the sovereign debt off for a number of decades. The video is Prof. Antony Davies: 10 Myths About Government Debt.
The UK's government Debt as a Percentage of GDP in 2020 was about 35% lower than the USA's according to Wikipedia's article List of countries by public debt. In 2020, the UK's Government Debt as a Percentage of GDP in 2020 figure was 102.6. In the USA, the Government Debt as a Percentage of GDP in 2020 was 134.2.
KarmaPolice, I appreciate you mentioning that the UK is currently operating in the red as far as its government balance sheet, but there are civilized countries with far less government spending per capita. So the UK should be able to pay the UK's sovereign debt off if it begins belt-tightening now. The more the can is kicked down the road, the more pain there will be later. DePieper (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that the income per capita in UK is higher than in Spain. Therefore, the spending is also an important metric, and on this one, the UK "loses" to Spain. GeeJayK (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As a member of NATO, the UK is committed to spending 2% of GDP on defence each year. It was one of just 8 of NATO member countries to have met this target in 2021 which is very admirable because countries should keep their promises. Is it absolutely necessary for the UK to be in NATO? It is an island nation and the nearby large countries of Germany or France are not going to attack the UK anytime soon. So NATO membership is a luxury and not a necessity to the UK. On the other hand, if NATO membership is a worthwhile luxury for the UK to have, it is worth mentioning that Israeli's military spending per capita spending is higher than the USA's/UK's and it a civilized, developed country. So the UK should be able to trim some of its social spending given the per capita government spending I gave for other civilized countries which were much lower than the UK's. DePieper (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Israel, despite paying more for its defense budget per capita than the UK/US, spent $12,118 USD per capita for government in 2017. DePieper (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
KarmaPolice, by using data from other countries (which I did above), I demonstrated that the UK could probably take an across the board meat cleaver approach to reducing government spending as far as the different government departments and therefore reduced everyone's taxes rather than taking a scalpel approach. But I will show you a specific area where the UK federal government could improve government services while reducing costs.
Singapore spent 2.2% of its GNP on education in 2020. The UK spends about 4.5% of its GNP on education in 2021. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in nearly 80 nations of 15-year-old students’ scholastic performance on mathematics, science and reading (source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2018-2019). The PISA 2018 – Average Score of Mathematics, Science and Reading for Singapore was 556.3 and for the UK it was 503.7. There are multiple reasons why Singapore outperforms the UK when it comes to educational attainment some of them are covered in the article Why Singapore’s Education System Is the World's Best (The article also addresses some of the common objections to the Singaporean model). DePieper (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think halving teachers' pay would go down too well in the UK, or introducing fees for secondary education. The Finnish system is also highly praised and is the antithesis of Singapore, with little testing, competition, or rote learning. Finland does well on PISA rankings but there are lots of other ways of ranking schools, such as high school completion rates, happiness, mental illness/suicide, etc, which Singapore isn't brilliant on. If you're interested in innovation or creative industries or scientific research, then the UK is maybe already going in the wrong direction, but I don't see the Singapore model as an improvement. --Annanoon (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
DePieper, let me point out the obvious. We're *not* talking about the USA, the Philippines, Singapore or general levels of National Debt, we are talking about the UK.
Annanoon points out the critical issue, though pulls their punches - with half the funding the UK school system would collapse and regressing to the system seen before 1944 would end up causing the Tories to lose the next election crushingly because you're basically slapping at minimum a £2,500 a year 'tax' on each kid for the middle classes. It would also destroy any pretence of being a meritocratic society. As for suggesting we abolish our military... that's so frigging stupid a suggestion I'm not going to explain why that's a complete non-starter.
I say for the last time - Find Truss The Tax Cuts. The kind which won't cause the Tories to lose the next election / breaking the social contract / causing mass rioting. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
For someone who has lived in the UK, Spain and two other EU countries, I can tell you that those countries which fund social programs suffer from fewer social problems, poverty, suffering, violence, family neglect and have a higher overall standard of living. I have personally observed the decay in the UK over the last 10 years with vicious cuts and can easily and confidently predict how much worse it will be with further cuts. Cutting social spending is unconscionable, cruel and sociopathic. In addition, Southern European countries are not Northern European ones, they have weaker economies, don't need to spend as much as Northern European countries on services and have to deal with multiple long term issues of corruption, grey and black markets and a stronger level of family support making social services slightly less urgent (though still extremely necessary). Comparing overall spending of Spain with the UK is like comparing Malta with Norway. It's absurd. ShabiDOO 12:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Singapore's government spending per capita was $9,421 in 2017. The UK's government spending per capita was $17,202. In 2017, Singapore's GDP at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) per capita was $94,105. In 2017, the UK's GDP at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) per capita was $44,920. Excess government spending is like Dumbo's feather. Some people may think they need it in order to fly, but they really don't.
Also, Filipinos are known for their strong families and for having lots of loving people. That is one of the reasons it is a top destination for expats and why many Western men marry Filipino brides. The Filipinos are not known for family neglect and violence. Again, in 2017 government spending per capita was $505 in the Philippines. DePieper (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. For full disclosure Wikipedia's article List of countries by public debt says the government debt as a Percentage of GDP in 2020 in Singapore was 152.0 which is higher than the UK's so Singapore did make some past government expenditures into their economy (Infrastructure, etc.). DePieper (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S.S. "As of 2020, the IMF measured Singapore’s national debt-to-GDP ratio as 131.19%, the 6th highest in the world when expressed as a percentage of GDP. However, no one seems to be worried about the country’s national debt. That’s because the headline figure reported by the IMF was gross national debt. When economists examined Singapore’s net national debt, they discovered that the country owes nothing at all. The difference between gross national debt and net national debt is that the gross debt only takes into account what the country has borrowed. Net debt deducts the cash, shares, debentures, and bonds that the country holds and deducts those values from the gross debt figure. Since the Singaporean government’s assets outweigh its debts, the country has a net debt-to-GDP ratio of 0%. Why Does Singapore Borrow Money? The answer is that the Singapore government does not borrow to fund running the country. Instead, it borrows for specific infrastructure projects. Once those projects are completed, they result in assets that have value. Thus, the debts that the Singaporean government carries are matched by assets of equal or greater value."[11] DePieper (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
P.S.S.S Fitch affirms the United Kingdom at AA- for its credit rating. Fitch affirms Singapore as having a AAA credit rating. DePieper (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
KarmaPolice, the reason you don't want to objectively compare the UK with other countries like Singapore is for the same reason an underperforming student who is not giving his full effort does not want to compare himself with his peers. But the world is a competitive place and the UK does have to compete with places like Singapore. One of reasons conservatives are winning more elections in the UK than the Labour Party is that some of its citizens realize that there is a price to excess government spending and they don't need Fitch to tell them this. DePieper (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
P.S. to KarmaPolice: Singapore can borrow money at a lower rate than the UK because the world's credit rating organizations rightly believe that the Singaporean government leaders use the money they receive more wisely rather than on unnecessary things which have no long term value. DePieper (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
P.S.S. to KarmaPolice: You wrote: "with half the funding the UK school system would collapse and regressing to the system seen before 1944". You completely sidestepped that Singapore outperforms the UK in educational attainment using far less money. To better compete with countries that have higher educational attainment than the UK, the UK is going to have to make its education system better and the UK society is going to have to value education more. Students/parents/teachers will have to put forth more effort. Not every problem in life is solved by throwing more money at it. With AI/robotics/automation becoming more and more prevalent, brains are going to be more and more important over brawn. DePieper (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Every time I hear Tory muppets and their sympathisers spout various hyperbole about “efficiency savings”, especially in the public sector (as they have continuously since the days of Thatcher and Reagan), I’m always reminded of the part of this old sketch from an episode of Not The Nine O’Clock News that starts at (11:53). Seems like the comedians had spotted the key issue as early as 1980… ScepticWombat (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ananoon, Finland does have respectable performance in educational attainment, but not as good as Singapore's. Finland's government Debt as a Percentage of GDP in 2020 was 69.0 which is a whole lot better than the UK's. Fitch's credit rating for Finland was AA+ which is better than the UK's, but not as good as Singapore's. If the UK became more like Finland it would be doing much better, but not as good as Singapore in some respects. Finland's leaders spend the government's money more wisely the UK's. In life, there is good, better and best. Given all the problems in the UK and the fact that the world is becoming a more competitive place, the UK should shoot for best in terms of efficiency and effort.

Since educational attainment and creativity are both important, perhaps a hybrid system of Finland's/Singapore's educational system is optimal. To quote the movie Miracle which was based on the USA's Olympic hockey team's victory over the Soviet Hockey team, coach Herb Brooks' character said: "The only way we can compete with the Eastern Bloc teams is if we're willing to change. Change the way we train, the way we prepare, even change our schedule. I think we need to make it longer. You know, tougher. Much more competitive. We also need to change the way we play the game. My plan is to adopt a new style. A hybrid of the Soviet school and the Canadian school. A combination that requires the highest level of conditioning, speed, creativity, and most of all, team chemistry." DePieper (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Now, try conducting a poll asking whether UK citizens would prefer becoming more like Finland or Singapore… ScepticWombat (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Singapore had a burning desire to improve after it became the independent Republic of Singapore. I don't see the same fire in the belly of UK citizens. Improvement requires desire, effort and doing things better. And desire is the first step. Sometimes people have to experience pain before they are willing to change. And the more sovereign debt that the UK piles up that was not invested wisely, the more future pain there is going to be. DePieper (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
This last statement sounds a lot like the “US workers are just lazy” claims about why the US was “losing out” to Japan in the 1970s and 1980s. And the “hurt them to help them” recipe tends to come from people who are fairly certain they won’t be on the receiving end of of the hurt. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Japan made some bad investments, had poor fiscal and money policy, and had a graying population which resulted in Japan having an economic growth problem. The UK's debt load and it's graying population are not good signs if it wants to be a top competitor in the future. DePieper (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The Amish are literate, have strong family bonds, have a strong work ethic, avoid debt and they don't have a graying population. Time magazine published an article Why Amish Kids Are Happier than Yours. The UK needs to be more like the Amish. Aaron555 (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
No, DePieper - the reason I don't want to compare other countries is because that is not the topic on discussion. You have stated that it's perfectly possible to cut UK govt spending without causing civil disorder and/or collapse in critical functions. I shall admit, I am rather suspicious of such a claim but I decided to give you the benefit of doubt, to allow you to explain your idea. Four times I have asked - and four times you declined to do so. Instead, I get distractions, waffle, vague generalities regarding other nations and finally, casting aspersions on me personally. The fact you've continued to do this even after I've asked you not to is noted by all.
Therefore, I conclude you do not have any actual answer to how the cuts can be made. In fact, you have no real answers at all save dogmatic neo-Thatcherite policies a la Britannia Unchained which would without fail, cause a collapse of the state's ability to function. Which was my whole point in the first place. The fact you basically advocate this (I believe) without even trying to contradict my hypothesis, again is noted.
So my answer to you, and Aaron is this: Troll
KarmaPolice (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

KarmaPolice, I told you that the UK could make across the board cuts in taxes (like a meat cleaver approach) and countries that have less government spending without financial collapse prove it can be done. You can bold and repeat the statement "Find Truss The Tax Cuts" all you want, but I definitely did say where Truss could cut taxes as a meat cleaver approach satisfies your request. In my experience people who have an overreliance on bolding, repetition or all caps rather than substance are at the losing side of an argument. In addition, I also offered a more scalpel approach such as cuts in education funding while simultaneously improving the quality of education and society's efforts at education. Singapore does it, why can't the UK? I also made a scalpel approach argument in relation to potential military spending cuts if you scroll up. Furthermore, I showed the effects of inefficient government spending and showed that Singapore and Finland have a better Fitch rating than the UK because they have less unwise government debt per capita. You can cry insincerity on my part all you want, but it is unconvincing. It is just another sign of poor argumentation on your part. DePieper (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. to KarmaPolice: And I know that you cannot prove that Spain is a third-world hellhole because it has significantly less government spending per capita than the UK. You totally dodged this point. Furthermore, you totally dodged the fact that Singapore has a much better standard of living than the UK financially as reflected by its much higher per capita income - despite doing less non-infrastucture government spending such as in education. It's time for you to admit error and defeat - rather than cry unfairness. My experience with the Brits has been very positive and I know they believe in "fair play". But you are not acting this way unfortunately. You lost fair and square and now it's time to stop bellyaching. DePieper (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
So, because you can point to random countries spending less public money either within certain areas or overall and (some) of these countries are doing better on certain parameters than the UK, this is an argument for across the board cuts to the UK public sector having no, or at least no meaningful, negative impact? And this is supposed to be a good and sincere argument? Or illustrate that inefficiency is a serious or widespread problem in the UK public sector?
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, I don’t think I have seen a less self aware and inadvertently hilarious argument for some time. By this kind of reasoning, you might just as well point to countries spending more public funds on random areas and picking their better performance on some parameter as a slam dunk case for the UK spending more on public services overall. This is why you can’t simply interpret correlation as an example of causality. Or why you can’t just pick random success criteria without any context, for that matter. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Random countries? Are you seriously making the argument than I blindfolded myself and randomly chose Singapore and Spain as examples? Are you seriously making the argument that I blindly picked the Philippines as an example of a place that a great many expats choose to live and that the Philippines is known for having many family-oriented and loving people.
Please explain your use of the word "random". To me at least, it is poorly thought-out claim. DePieper (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
And you did not address my valid points about Singapore. Why is that? It is obviously because you can't address this issue. DePieper (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps your poor word choice as far as using the word "random" is because you hold to the mistaken notion that the vast amount things happening in societies and between societies can't be at least partially explained. If social scientists took this approach, greater understanding would come to a screeching halt.
In a court of law, lawyers do not commonly say in response to reasonable arguments and relevant evidence, "Oh, you just pointed to random things." I chose developed and developing countries as examples. I did not blindly pick the countries I used as examples. DePieper (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

KarmaPolice, when I wrote: "The Amish are literate, have strong family bonds, have a strong work ethic, avoid debt and they don't have a graying population. Time magazine published an article Why Amish Kids Are Happier than Yours. The UK needs to be more like the Amish.", it was a very legitimate example of a prosperous, happy and growing population in the USA (and other places) that does not depend on a lot of government spending for their survival or general happiness. And unlike the UK, the Amish do not have a lot of debt and the headaches associated with it.

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it is trolling. Now did I employ a bit of humor? Of course. I don't expect the UK to turn on a dime and become a land of Amish people. But there is no denying that government spending is not the main reason for the Amish prospering and having a generally content and happy existence. Aaron555 (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. You may not know this, but the Amish in America do not participate in the USA's Social Security System" which is a government-run pension program. And the American Amish population is doubling every 20 years so they are not a graying population. Aaron555 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@DePieper I chose the word random, because simply asserting that Country A spends less public funds on area X than Country B while performing better on parameter Y and using this as an argument that Country B can simply slash public funding without any serious negative effects is a fundamental misunderstanding of correlation and causality, not to mention ignoring the broader context and the nature of the performance parameter(s) in question. Even worse, choosing ONLY cases where the correlation between less funding and better performance on a (narrow set of) parameter(s) is positive is a case of cherry picking your examples to fit your preconceived conclusion (that public spending cuts have no significant negative consequences). Both of these issues are fairly obvious problems with your line of argument so far.
Furthermore, portraying yourself as a lawyer doesn’t bring much credit or credibility either, since lawyers are fundamentally paid to argue for a preconceived conclusion, and thus your example doesn’t really illustrate the validity or soundness of your argument, but merely an adversarial and partisan attitude in pursuing it. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
ScepticWombat, KarmaPolice wrote: "KarmaPolice wrote: "Even if Truss wants to do Austerity Redux, I don't think she'll be able to much - what's she gonna cut? Everything we can 'live without' is gone, only critical functions remain." KarmaPolice also wrote: "But I hold one shred of hope; that Truss is going to be the woman who drives the Tories so far into the tar-pit it'll take a political generation to recover from. 'Summer of Discontent'? try, 'Winter of Civil Disobedience, Economic Crisis and Personal Privation'."
Key point: The burden of proof is upon the claimant and KarmaPolice in no way showed that nothing could be cut from the UK budget. Furthermore, he offered no evidence that the UK is going to risk suffer a generation of calamity, unrest and privation if any of the budget is cut. It's emotional hysterics on his part that he provides no evidence for.
Furthermore, if it's impossible for the UK to have a lower amount of government spending per capita on non-infrastructure spending without calamitous results, then why is Singapore able to do it which has a higher standard of living and why is Spain which is a developed country able to do it? Key argument using an analogy: In short, if a man tells you that his pretty healthy elephant (The UK is a developed country) can't stand on three legs (in other words having a lower amount of governmental spending per capita) and you show him lots of films where lots of elephants and lots of weaker elephants do this very thing (most countries do not have as high a standard of living than the UK), chances are he is wrong. He also provided no argument that it was impossible to cut the UK's military budget or impossible to cut the UK's educational budget which is rather telling because Singapore can do it with a lower budget with better results.
Additional evidence: Additionally, Wikipedia has a big list of countries at List of countries by government budget per capita. Does KarmaPolice make the crazy assertion that the majority of these countries which spend less than the UK per capita on government spending are in danger of civil unrest, etc. No, he doesn't because that would be a wildly unreasonably statement even for him. For example, Poland spends $2,660 per capita as far as government spending which is far, far less than the UK. Are the Poles engaged in massive unrest? No, the opposite is happening. The Poles are attending big patriotic rallies. The UK has a stronger standard of living than the big majority of countries on that list, so it is unreasonable to say that the UK can't cut any spending.
Another keypoint with important additional evidence: Historically, great civil unrest that has generational effects generally happens when people's expectations for improvement are not being met (For example, here is one source: "The idea that unfulfilled, rising expectations create unstable political situations has a long tradition in political and social analysis." -[12]. Modern historians who study revolutions agree with this idea. I cite Professor Jack A. Goldstone's work Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World: Population Change and State Breakdown in England, France, Turkey, and China,1600-1850. In this 25th anniversary edition, Goldstone reflects on the history of revolutions in the last twenty-five years, from the Philippines and other color revolutions to the Arab Uprisings and the rise of the Islamic State. In a new introduction, he re-examines his pioneering look at the role of population changes―such as rising youth cohorts, urbanization, shifting elite mobility––as continuing causal factors of revolutions and rebellions. The new concluding chapter updates his major theory and looks to the future of revolutions in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.). Britain has experienced the fall of the British Empire and has had a decade plus of low productivity. KarmaPolice is going to have a hard time arguing that Britain has a big reservior of optimistic expectations that are not being met. For the most part, the British ethic is to keep a stiff upper lip and carry on. The UK is not presently pre-revolutionary France or some banana republic on the verge of revolt. DePieper (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
oh i get it now - i thought you were probably our usual dumb fuck troll when obviously you are more likely to be another of our dumb fuck trolls, a more recent one whose dumb fuckery manifests in a different way. the same unearned earned arrogance. misrepresenting karma's position to claim they are saying some kind of revolution will occur is fucking dumb. your ideas on the burden proof is dogshit and in no way absolves you of having to answer direct questions. no evidence you have provided disprove any claim karma has actually made and does not even disprove the imagined claims you think are being made. none of this supposed evidence looks at what is going on in the uk. impossibly shallow comparisons to other countries are meaningless. using them as evidence in a support of broad undefined claims is just fucking dumb. they are too fucking shallow to prove or disprove anything. your citing the work of goldstone is entirely redundant when all you do with his work is provide a summary a couple of sentences long and provide no connection to exactly where or how it supports your claim of the uk not meeting the conditions (a broadly vague statement being interpreted in such a way i am not sure you understand words) required for a revolution to occur. this to disprove a claim of revolutions, that i remind you, no one made.
a shit grasp of history and attempts to prove or disprove broad undefined claims with cherry picked context free and entirely unrelated snippets of fact is just too familiar a tactic. employing a sock in your defence is another all too familiar tactic. the condescending arrogance and smug superiority we have all seen before along with an obliviousness made all the remarkable when you consider everyone can see everything everyone else has written in this thread.
regardless of the actual identity of this dumb fuck troll, they present a case made of dogshit, supported with dogshit, and smears the saloon bar with more dogshit with every dogshit post they make. i sincerely hope they are more self aware than what is suggested by their posts. otherwise i am truly sorry for their profound intellectual disability. everyday must be a challenge for them and i can only hope they are getting the care they so obviously require AMassiveGay (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
also, isnt ban evasion...banable? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
It is, though I didn't have enough stomach to move forward immediately and at the same time I'm miffed at myself for not moving sooner and also engaging. The moment a new user posts exclusively on Saloon Bar and makes shockingly poor takes they should be treated with suspicion. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 14:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
This is very much like debating with Andrew. So many pixels used for so little light.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
This is debating? Saw it more as a perfect example of 'Americasplaining' than anything else; not bothered to look into the subject, don't see the need to actually pick up the cultural differences/norms of the country in question and thinking hectoring us dumb locals on the error of our ways with nil actual evidence is 'helpful'.
And another sock leaves spam on my page to say crud like 'my self-imposed ideological cacoon has been popped' and similar. I'll admit, I'm kinda curious; whether our beloved sad-acts who troll here actually think they're actually convincing anyone. Wait, convincing anyone of their viewpoint being correct. I think they already convince folks they're pillocks who'd find it difficult to convince foxes to crap in woodland. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I’m no longer a frequent enough visitor to do this kind of pattern recognition of trolls and ban evasions, but if DePieper really wants to learn something from this thread, I’ll do the courtesy of pointing out that the last entry actively made the argument even poorer.

First off, the argument was that deep cuts might lead to a summer of discontent, which referred to the winter of discontent in the lead up to Thatcher. Hence, the comparison to armed rebellion is silly and the actual, fairly recent, historical precedent shows that such social unrest can indeed happen in a rich, western country, in fact in the UK itself.

Secondly, that other countries have less absolute, overall public spending without social unrest is not a sensible analogy for deep cuts not leading to social unrest in the UK. The relevant analogy would be looking at countries experiencing similar, drastic cuts(!) to public spending (and hence public services) to those being discussed by Truss (or Sunak, for that matter). And no, you can’t simply point to some other country spending less than the UK on some particular public service as an argument that deep cuts to public services can be made without negative effects. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Three other UK events echo in my mind; the 2000 Fuel Protests, the 1990 Poll Tax Riots and the 1973 Three Day Week - and that the latter two directly led to the fall of two Conservative Prime Ministers. (General article outlining the situation for non-Brits - though the situation has worsened since then).
It is also no longer even an open secret that the 'coersive power of the British state' (as represented by the police, courts etc) are so understaffed and burnt-out (like all public services) that chances are it wouldn't be able to contain any major outbreak of civil disturbance. Couple this with the situation where 'solid-bottomed' people like Gordon Brown and Martin Lewis are warning, literally in the latter of possible food riots... a view confirmed so far by my own anecdotical evidence. In fact, I go as far to suggest the copper's temper may get so sour they may not turn out to try to put down said riots.
It's part of the reason that Bozo has 'assured us' that whoever wins, more support will be on offer to people this winter and Truss tries to wiggle to convince us her tax-cutting will help everyone (one calculated her ideas would help the average pensioner perhaps £12 a month, which is clearly a 'doesn't touch the sides' territory).
Coupled with the declaring of record profits, the continued luxury lifestyles of the rich and so on... it all boils into a situation which could get very ugly, very fast. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice I find Martin Lewis’ warnings particularly worrying, because not only are they dire and repeated, but he is not known for engaging in these kinds of (party) politics, having formerly restricted himself to “merely” advising on personal finances. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Brown isn't known for his hyperbole either, while central bank chairs rarely wallow in apocalyptic visions of economic crisis. And situations where water companies announce a) record profits, b) they are losing 25% of water to leaks and c) domestic water cuts are at best, a critical example of 'tin ear' which won't help the temper of the Big Public. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Vladimir Putin is going to try to put a lot of pressure on Europe during the winter when it comes to fuel prices. The public sector, private organizations and citizens should start preparing now. Randomwalk (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)