RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive420

This is an archive page, last updated 4 September 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>, <419>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Biophilia: Worthy theory or nature woo?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophilia_hypothesis 37.35.149.58 (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Insufficiently rigorously defined to be testable, i.e. not even wrong. I will say I make no attachment to the following life forms: cockroaches, anthrax, salmonella, ticks, or black mold. No intrinsic force draws me towards any of those. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sociobiology I think gets a bad rap kind of deservedly, but many interpretations of QM are not necessarily testable and neither is string theory. Though they are not accepted as fact, I wouldn't state they are not genuine candidates for scientific theories solely on the lack of testability. I think it depends what the theory in question is trying to explain, and if there are other better candidates. If we have a theory with sufficient explanatory power and it is testable, then yeah that should be preferred but that is not always the case. Sometimes we just have to rely on speculation in science, that doesn't necessarily make it woo but it does limit it significantly. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC).

Reuters: Alex Jones likely to win large cut in Sandy Hook punitive damages award

Reuters reports that U.S. conspiracy theorist Alex Jones could end up owing as little as 10% of the $45.2 million in punitive damages that a Texas jury awarded to the parents of a Sandy Hook victim last week (legal experts told Reuters on Monday).

If Jones gets off much easier, is it going to be much of a deterrent to him to stop pushing hurtful conspiracy theories? Has the court determined how much his operation is pulling in annually yet? Aaron555 (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The other lawsuits are in Connecticut, where there are no such caps. Jones also faces criminal charges for perjury, and who knows what other crimes were revealed from his cell phone disclosure. Bongolian (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If Alex Jones and the network of fake shell corporations he's made to hide his trucker-speed-and-food-buckets profits were somehow magically reduced to $0 through lawsuits, he would still go back to pushing hurtful conspiracy theories. They were, and still are, profitable. In 2018 he was pulling in $600,000 - $800,000 a day and his value, which is harder to estimate due to his fake shell corporations, is north of $100 million. So there will be no deterrence. His personal life is a shambles and his one skill is rage shouting his inconsistent illogical nonsense. Jail time for crimes is as close as you get, provided enough evidence is present to convict in court. Better question - how to convince people of the lack of value in what Alex Jones is pushing, and to take their time and attention elsewhere? Semipenultimate (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that a single verdict may not deter Alex Jones' calumnies. A handful may not. But what if everyone injured by him joins the quest to drive his business belly up? No, friends. This is what I call a good start. Making him stop defaming people is the worthy project. UncleKrampus (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It gets better! Jones lost huge because his lawyer fucked up with the cell phone thing. The lawyer could be sued into oblivion for that... CorSock (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

That sure helps. And on top of that, being someone from literally the next town over from Newtown (anecdotally, Sandy Hook is a really nice piece of New England and I hide out there with some frequency, I prefer it to other and more accessible parts of Newtown) I can tell you up front that even the biggest Trumpalos in this area find the conspiracy theories about it a bridge too far. Obviously it's stronger around my area (I have immediate family who, through helping out as Cub Scout camp counselors had a small amount of direct contact with one of the boys who was killed), but no one who lived through that day here wants any part of the conspiracy theories. He'll be destroyed whenever he gets here, and his once-respected attorney here thought it prudent to drop trou and shout something about niggers (I wish I could say that didn't reflect the area, but honestly the Democrats around here are just better at obfuscating their contempt than Republicans), so good luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible that ultimately, the main damage to Jones isn't from his cultists deserting him but basically being exiled from the acceptance of the 'mainstream' capitalist/right wing network? I know he's already been cut off from a lot (social media etc), but he'd be sunk if he couldn't find a bank to handle his InfoWars shite-flogging. It may also damage him getting new cultists because the more mainstream rightist figures shall no longer want to be seen in the same room as him. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The 'mainstream' capitalist/right wing network go to Rupert Murdock's Wall Street Journal website for their news - not infoWars. If Jones is bankrupted, he will find a way for supporters to fund his future efforts. If Kent Hovind cannot be silenced and his efforts are still funded, do you think that Alex Jones will be stopped? Jones has a much bigger loyal audience than Kent Hovind. Randomwalk (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Awkward Work Situation (advice)?

Recently at work I was talking to my boyfriend and my other co-worker who is Fijian when she brought up in a conversation about how Jewish people are not considered white by Neo-nazi's that the Irish were victims of slavery. I know this to be a pseudohistorical myth and tried to push back on it, arguing that indentured servitude is not the same thing as slavery, and many historians strongly discourage the comparison but she insisted that as Fijian/Indian person given her people were also subject to Indentured servitude in Fiji to deny Irish the status of slavery is akin to denying her ancestors as subject to slavery. But I don't think the comparison actually works? There is no denying that the Irish were victims to British colonization, and historical discrimination but it is simply a fact that the Irish were never used as slaves during the colonial era and in fact took part the shipment and trade of African slaves. I don't think the historical context of Fiji actually compares because in the context of Fiji indigenous Fijians were in fact sold into slavery and were not simply indentured servants. But of course the optics of this is awkard as I am white man talking to a Fijian woman, who is insisting that shut up and listen to marginalized people's ancestors and not what "historians" have to say. How do you even deal with this? The Irish Slave myth is like one the de facto example pseudohistory and neo-Nazi propaganda. What does one even do when a person of Colour is the one perpetuating it as a non-racialized person? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC).

But you have shut up and listened. First, don't ever expect to bring this up at work again yourself, second, don't get angry, third, remember it is a work environment. If a co-worker ever gets too frustrating for you, find a way to end the conversation, you are there to get paid. I don't care what either of you think, if you are so upset that she talked over you and you have Irish heritage, and you have mixed it up that we should "listen to marginalized peoples' ancestors" you have to be really insecure. I had a group of guys, mostly white, one mexican, and they would give each other grief constantly. I had to step in and say "are you guys doing that thing, where you're pretending to make fun of each other but your feelings are actually getting hurt?" Like, children, child, be an adult. If you think it's childish, just listen, eat it, and move on. Commander Sprace (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are so much more rounded and historically informed, you don't have to worry. Her grievance isn't against you, unless it is, talk to her or don't. If she talks to you too much, you have a complaint. If she talks when y'all got time to talk, well, time to lean time to clean.Commander Sprace (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

lol, this isn't about you you random narcissist employer. You clearly don't even understand what is being asked. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC).

"Person of X" doesn't matter for this sort of thing, everyone is human in the end and all humans are capable of perpetuating shaky argument from authority type errors. Now, there is plenty that can be said about indentured servants and the abuses that occurred in that system. The indentured system was quite different from chattel slavery, however, by default: indentured labor is bonded labor at its core with a fixed time limit, chattel slavery is owning a human as property as if a human were livestock. Very, very different systems, with much different moral implications.

Just skimming, the India indentured system that Western European governments to replace slave labor in the mid 19th century to early 20th century on many island nations (Fiji included) seemed... er... pretty abusive in its own right. So perhaps this is where some of her perspective comes from. But again, even this was not chattel slavery. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It is, for historical reasons, common to think of racism as simply prejudice with respect to color coded groups of ethnic categories. This is very common among African Americans. The recent instance of Whoopi Goldberg declaring that the Holocaust was not about race is an example. I imagine African Americans regard Jewish people as white (in fairness, they do appear to be white on average). Whoopi looks at the race question through a "black lens." Unfortunately, minorities looking at the world through their own lens will likely see things very differently. That lens trick only works if they are all focusing on the same thing with equanimity. The modern horrors of the 20th century are almost too much to take in, and, for me, they are too much to contemplate without experiencing a sense of discouragement. It is said that today there are more slaves in the world than there were in 1860. To be blunt, you are making an academic argument which is uncertain to be appreciated by even academic people who stubbornly adhere to their own preferred lens with their own historical grievances firmly attached.UncleKrampus (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem of racism isn't that races aren't racist. It's prejudice. It's that people are overly defensive of their cultures' prejudices. Any color or class of homo sapien can be a fucking idiot. It is really special that we, as homo sapiens have written language, literal history, but we are blowing it all to pieces. We are at a strange spot where speaking and writing are somehow both legitimate and infallible, regardless of merit. Philosophy is dead. Commander Sprace (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, I am pretty frustrated with the power structure, I have met people that defy white/male/straight supremacy arguments just by their existence. Commander Sprace (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop posting. This stuff is actually sort of embarrassing and shows that you don't understand even the most basic aspects about this issue. Especially if you can unironically state " I have met people that defy white/male/straight supremacy arguments just by their existence." that just screams "I have no idea what the content of these arguments actually are what they actually mean". Individuals can't disprove trend of a general population. If you don't take a topic seriously maybe don't post as if your opinion has any weight given you clearly haven't put much attention (if any) to figure out what anyone is actually talking about when they are talking about racism and white supremacy (or patriarchy for that matter). - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC).

Well mercy me, I misread that I've been called to stop racism and not to advise an Awkard workplace situation. Please, take over. Commander Sprace (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC

Prejudice plus power has a pretty good summary of the flaws the phrase entails. Also, may I recommend Water Is Wide by Pat Conroy for a refreshingly self-aware and head-on take about these issues. Also, come prepared with sources; in this case the Irish slave myth is well-debunked (the actual historical Irish taken as slaves have nothing at all to do with American history) and both indentured servitude and the "Irish need not apply" signs were very real, that should overcome any melanin differences. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

And don't forget there were Barbary pirates visiting England to the Early Modern period [1] is a reputable source. Anna Livia (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

If I understand your question properly you are asking about how best to respond to a member of a minority or disadvantaged group who makes comments about their status (or an analogous status) - when their own understanding of the situation they are talking about is (to the best of your knowledge) inadequate or wrong.

Given the information you have supplied I honestly don't think there is an easy way to persuade them that their knowledge is lacking. But this is often the case in many other circumstances, not just in the socially delicate one you are experiencing.

There are some of questions you need to have clear in your mind, including: is it important to you that their misunderstanding be corrected? Why? How much are you prepared to risk in order to challenge their perceptions - especially bearing in mind that you may be on a fool's errand.

If you really want to effect change your best bet might be to go down the street epistemology route and go for questions like: "Really, that's interesting, where can I confirm that?" And then see how well they can respond, but the objective in this case would be to play a long game and get them to question their own assumptions, and not to give a slam dunk - "see you was wrong!" response.

But street epistemology is quite difficult to do well and, if you don't have that much skin in the game, you might also go with "how remarkable! I didn't know that!".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

how often does this subject come up in conversation that it becomes an awkward work situation? and why did the irish as slaves come up as a topic anyhow? it seems like it is only worth addressing with your colleague if it were to come up again in conversation.

if it does come up and it really is worth addressing, and presumably your colleague is a reasonable person, i'd suggest doing so by recognising that indentured servitude IS a form of slavery and the form many irish people found themselves in. say you are uncomfortable with calling them slaves though because for many 'slavery' refers specifically to the chattel slavery experienced by africans, a fact that is used by racists to undermine black struggles for civil rights by drawing a false equivalence between the two forms. elaborates as needs be, stressing you dont wish to downplay the historical discriminations and hardships people indentured experienced just that the experience of enslaved africans was different in fundamental ways directly relating to the treatment of black people today.

but only if it comes up and you really cant bite your lip.

how well that would go down would depend on your own people skills and your relationship with your colleague. but many peoples from the sub continent and beyond entered into indentured servitude after slavery of the chattel kind was outlawed and might not hold the same clear distinction between the two forms of slavery that we have here. by saying indentured servitude is not slavery rather than a different form might sound like disregarding the experiences of those people and raise some hackles. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

of course, if your colleague is fijian and not irish, speaking about how the irish experience specifically was different to the african experience of slavery while at the same time saying you cannot speak for the fijian experience, might avoid the trap of looking like you think you know better than your colleague about the history of their own people. if you must address what the fijians experienced couch any points made as asking for their opinion on the truth it. ask them just what the fijians experienced and compare their account with that of the irish and the africans. acknowledge the similarities before highlighting the differences. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Calling indentured servitude experienced by the Irish a form of slavery actually goes against what many Irish historians who study the Irish diaspora think is appropriate, there is too many relevant dissimilarities (for one the contracts were temporary and didn’t legally classify you as private property). Abuses happened within the system for sure, the Irish didn’t have it easy under British colonialism but to call it slavery is factually inaccurate and contradicts academic consensus among Irish historians. The claim of Irish indentured servitude as a form of slavery did not originate from Irish historians but literal holocaust deniers. The claim doesn’t predate the 1990’s in cultural relevance, and again only came so because neo-nazi’s pushed for it. Some Irish historians also claim it goes against their desires in reclaiming authority of the Irish diaspora from neo nazi’s who forcefully dominated the narrative in the last three decades. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC).

slavery as a term includes more than just the chattel slavery experienced by the africans. indentured servitude is a form of slavery. what it isnt is chattel slavery. there are differences, important and fundamental differences, but still a form of slavery. and honestly, conditions indentured servants often found themselves for the span of their bondage was not a whole lot different from that of the chattel slaves from africa, despite the limited duration of that bondage and actually having some rights (however limited). i will admit that calling it slavery muddies the water and some racist fucknuts rely that but it is what it is. forms of it are still practised today and is considered slavery by the UN. (and at risk of argument by wp, they have it as a form of slavery.)

and its also a small concession to make if you wanted avoid awkwardness at your job over the issue and the ethnic equivalent of mansplaining. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

and the irish slave myth didnt start with nazi fucknuts it started with irish nationalists as a rallying call. its been used by some of em as late as gerry adams (some of who, i read, were in fact pro slave, just not pro irish slave). i dare say that one reason historians are reluctant to use the term is because its been muddying the waters for so long, and it wasnt considered slavery at the time. it is considered as such today though, but i guess twitter doesnt give much room for nuance when responding to someone tweeting about irish slaves. such is the limitation of the medium and to the detriment of all AMassiveGay (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, this contradicts the narrative that Irish historians claim themselves and what Wikipedia states in the article regarding Indentured Servitude of the Irish. Nearly all forms of slavery not just chattel slavery incurred that the slave was the property of their master and wasn’t afforded the same rights as normal citizens. This wasn’t the case for indentured servitude, and if you are going to play that fast and loose with the term slavery as any/all labour that can be conceived as involuntary and with terrible work conditions then you might as well embrace the concept of wage-slavery, and join the anarchists in stating that all work is a form of slavery because none of it is truly voluntary under a model of affirmative consent. But I wouldn’t go that far, and again even in the case of the indentured servitude of the Irish it was definitely a system with it’s fair share of abuses but those abuses weren’t legally sanctioned like say the master’s right to rape and beat their slaves as they pleased. Some historians acknowledged chattel slavery and the system of indentured system distinction as an “academic point” to those who experienced the latter, but others emphasized there is a world of difference between the two that neither group would have saw their experiences as comparable.

This isn’t to say that Indentured Servitude was itself tolerable but you don’t need to compare it to chattel slavery to establish that. Chattel Slavery was just that bad, but it doesn’t meansweatshops today are a fucking picnic. You don’t need the comparison.

The comparison’s only utility is to minimize the Irish’s contribution to the slave trade, and their role as plantation owners, as well as minimizing the grievances that black people express today regarding having not received reparations for slavery. It feeds into the whole “the Irish were slaves too but you don’t see them complaining” rhetoric. The aims in the comparisons are entirely racist. Also wp doesn’t explicitly acknowledge indentured servitude as slavery it has a whole sub-section stating it as controversial. They also have an article simply titled “The Irish Slave Myth” stating it explicitly as "pseudohistorical" - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC).

Also it is kind of having your cake and eating it too to state that that there are other forms of slavery that indentured servitude is one of them, and that there are fundamental differences between that and chattel slavery; then in the very next paragraph you openly compare the indentured servitude as being "like" chattel slavery. Is it or isn't it? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC).

People should do some basic skeptical readings before commenting.

1. Skeptoids article: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4609.
2. SPL's interview with a Irish Historian:https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/19/how-myth-irish-slaves-became-favorite-meme-racists-online.
3. AP's Fact Check article: https://apnews.com/article/ireland-ap-top-news-slavery-international-news-social-media-920e1c738df04555bccd56c09770b36d. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC).

Sean O'Callaghan was not a historian, wrote a shit "history" book (To Hell or Barbados), it's "facts" were obviously over the top. And yet gullible idiots keep repeated referencing the book as if it's proof of a hidden history. It's embarrassing. An excellent, non paywall article would be https://limerick1914.medium.com/the-imagery-of-the-irish-slaves-myth-dissected-143e70aa6e74 Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Who is this in response to? The interviewed historian in the SPL article is Liam Hogan. The guy who wrote that medium article you linked. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC).

I get your point, but you aren't the author either. Unless somehow you are. You are skidding hard into argument from authority and not "man, I been there" Just be a human, not always an authority. Commander Sprace (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

what the fuck are you even talking about Sprace? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

If I could wink at ya, I would. Interpersonal stuff really requires respect. I am trying, I'm sorry if you feel lost, I'm kinda all over the place. Commander Sprace (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Has my vote next electionCommander Sprace (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

News Aggregation as a Problem

I don't visit Rationalwiki as often as I used to. It is not the site's fault, and I never took the contributors too seriously. But I did read the Natural News blog article, and you have to understand that this article is aruing against easy iconography for lunatics now. It's not something that can be explained away. Natural News is not niche or underground anymore. This is what the grift wanted, this is their golden era. Alternative health, politics, and societal antagonist (everyone who doesn't read or believe). I really think news aggregation, taking information and repackaging it to deliver it as cleanly and personally as possible, is the worst use of a brilliant idea we ever had.Commander Sprace (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

LOLWUT? A long-running basic grift in the American exploitation market targeting the conspiracy type crowds or the shallow-fundies, is to take things that might be "quirky", "artsy", "urban", "new" or "foreign" and re-work it into often shaky Satanic or conspiracy theories. This only IMHO would work if you've never spent much time in a city and/or have a narrow cultural framework, but enough naive conspiratorial idiots seem to exist to make a decently large industry out of this.

For the rest of the planet, the "Raging Bull" of the British Commonwealth Games was a show-stealing crowd pleaser, from what I can tell. But it's "foreign" and a bit "artsy-quirky" so it makes a perfect target for the exploitation crowd to copy-paste "mark of the beast" quotes from that Revelation Bible hallucination and create yet another the-world-is-hellfire-damnation hysteric. (Funny... did Natural News say anything about the Golden Trump statue at the 2021 CPAC with some fairly obvious Bible cherry-picks that could be applied there? Doubtful...) 35.140.177.2 (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Did it cover about the Bedworth Covid memorial in which some loons claimed it's burning was a Satanic ritual? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Were it so easy. Aggregation merely changes the information gatekeepers from often biased editorial boards to even more biased website runners or algorithms. My take is that the underlying flaw is that there is no consequence for lying. Not legal, nor financial, nor any kind of duty of any kind, unless you slander someone. So there's no incentive not to lie, freely and rampantly. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Never really has been any genuine disincentive for lying. Sure, if you slander or libel, there is a process for damages etc, but for the other type of lying, fake praise "Trump is great." Clearly a lie, but no crime. "The economy has never been better" even though it's tanking, etc. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

First off, I did a lie. I do take all of you seriously. Secondly, thanks for understanding my point. The blatant problem of aggregation I've figure it out is: If all news is colored, then it really doesn't matter how it's interpreted, as long as it's interpretted cohseively. It really only matters how it is aggregated, interpreted, and reinforced. Rational thinking doesn't afford that when it comes to reading or watching or hearing news anymore. Magical thinking works much better for it. This is why we are in trouble. Commander Sprace (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the very act of selection produces bias - both conscious and unconscious. 'Old' media outlets like newspapers, magazines, TV news etc are all 'aggregators' to some extent, as they rely on external sources for their output (it's why sometimes particular news articles read almost identical over different outlets - they all bought the news from the same source) and even their internal production will be partly pre-selected. So it all comes down to reputation, basically - that I 'trust' say, the Guardian to try to make a fair selection and I don't extend this trust to the Express. And there's always been a market for folks 'trusting' things simply because 'it says stuff I want to hear'.

The only new thing is that tech has made the barriers to run crud-mills much lower. I've seen issues of old magazines from the 70s/80s which were peddling much of the crud which would now be on Natural News, but while the magazine was limited by print runs of perhaps a few ten/hundred thou and distribution etc, Natural News could have a maximum 'run' of several billion and has effectively zero disribution costs. 0.01% of a billion is still 100k, which means ultimately you can still be a 'niche' site and still garner yearly hits in the million. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A Joke I wrote tonight

A great philosopher holds a forum and describes reality.

The philosopher finishes with "therefore any disagreement must be a lie, and liars must be brought to light and punished for lying"

Two men who attended were equally moved by the speech and chose to talk afterwards.

Man 1: what would happen if I disagreed with what was said?

Man 2: I don't know, you would have to dis a peer first.

wokka wokka.

Commander Sprace (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t get it sorry 2001:8004:2763:AA72:D136:C30C:75C9:C80C (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

US is officially facing a recession

Two quarters of negative growth, the definition of a technical recession. When a recession happens along with inflation, we call it "stagflation" - it usually happens when things are really, really bad. That being said, I don't think this recession will last for long, though 2023 will possibly hit harder. GeeJayK (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You must be very old-fashioned, using a long s ſ. Kidding aside, this is not looking good, as the world has already experienced a recession from COVID. LongStylus (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I was on my phone, sorry. GeeJayK (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Red wave 2022, you heard it from me first, everybody. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, the goober running against the incumbent Democrat in my home state of Connecticut is going to get destroyed just like he did 4 years ago. He's extreme by the standards of a New England Republican (though he's certainly grounded in reality, if nothing else I'll take the total absence of MAGA iconography and election conspiracy idiocy). Plus we'll see how the Oprah lackey and batshit insane MAGAt in PA fare. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Putin has started cut back gas supplies to Europe and this coming winter he will continue to mess with Europe's gas supplies. This will drive Europe into a recession.

If European governments go into recession, could this cause some parliamentary European governments to have no confidence votes and cause far right-wing politicians to be elected? Lipsen (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the most important factor to understand is that this isn't 'normal' inflation; as in the classic 'increasing cash chasing static output of goods'. What we have here is a supply-side problem; as in a relatively static level of cash chasing a dwindling stock of goods. And the two reasons for this are clear; the pandemic seriously damaged the output of many goods (mainly manufactures) while the income supports helped prop up demand to some extent. The other half is the Ukrainian war; it's caused massive spike in fuel costs (of all types) and you find me a product which doesn't have fuel as an input somewhere (often many somewheres). A lesser, but still important pressure is on minerals and food staples for the same reason.

There's little central banks can do to combat this inflation. Or more correctly, the medicine required would kill the patient (as the recession would have to be so deep to cut demand for food/energy to a 'correct' level). However, part of the problem is that with fuel costs, the prices being charged often have little baring to the realities of production; for example US oil prices use world market prices even if it's domestically produced/refined/consumed and UK domestic electricity costs are closely tied to natural gas even though it's only ~30% of our generation capacity. Worst of all, all the promises are that the energy situation shall only worsen as we head into winter.

In short, the USA is now facing the economic consequences for going to 'war' with Russia. I use this term because that's what we are seeing; wartime inflation and shortages causing a fall in general economic output. And the Russians have understood this quicker than we have. And the answer is simple enough; 'wartime' controls - export bans, price controls, perhaps even forms of rationing... and to accept that this is part of 'our bit', sacrifices that Putin thinks we're too soft and self-centred to make.

Lipsen's point is something to bear in mind; Europe is going to have it much worse than the US for the foreseeable. It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that if Washington wants to keep the 'Coalition for Ukraine' firm it's going to have to find ways to ship a lot more hydrocarbons to Europe this winter, to counteract Putin's siren-call. Which means even tighter supply for domestic consumption. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The European case is IMO a lot more complex than the American one because not only the war is hitting Europe harder, but also because Europe has some structural problems (older population and a government consumption, just to name two) that result in a very slow growth in the continent's economy. Personally I expect a whole year of recession there. Regarding the effects of monetary policy on inflation, I disagree to some extent, although we should definitely be careful here. Paul Volcker managed to tackle the highest inflation in American history in the 80s by rising the interest rates. Such inflation was caused, I believe, by a drop of the oil production thanks to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. It was painful, indeed, but the recession needed to cure inflation was also quick. Let's see what the Central Banks will do now, I expect some sharp rises in the interest rates in the next months. GeeJayK (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The Fed underreacted and is compensating by overreacting. There is no precedent for the increase in rates per month, and it's certain to trigger a recession in the US, but it likely will be mild. The pandemic recession was literally only two months. If you look at the graph, it is quite literally a 'V'. This looks more like a shallow 'U' considering contraction was 1.6% in Q1 and only .9% in Q2. Europe is going to struggle mightily. The ECB isn't moving as aggressively as the Fed, but it also has to reckon with other countries and their own central banks as well. The energy crisis will persist well into the next calendar year, even countries like France, Portugal, and Italy with less exposure to Russian hydrocarbons, will be effected. Half of French nuclear power plants are currently down for maintenance, accounting for nearly a quarter of it's energy production. There are other factors as well; immigration, unemployment, loan defaults, which are a threat, but energy is going to crush them.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wage and price controls don't work. Richard Nixon tried them and it was a fiasco. Price controls hinder new supply from forming and cause black markets. That's Economics 101. There is no free lunch.

Does Europe's parliamentary system make their government more prone to "throw the bums out" via no confidence votes? Can the far right more easily ascend in Europe during tough times? I ask because of what soon may be happening in Italy with the far right potentially gaining power soon (Giorgia Meloni, the leader of the popular far-right Brothers of Italy party, who stands to become prime minister at the head of a new right-wing coalition after the poll on September 25). I don't know how Italy's parliamentary system differs from France's and Germany's for example. Lipsen (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

king of off-topic because I don’t really know much about the economy, but just a few things I’d like to understand since it seems some of you do: 1) is the recession + inflation thing going to happen internationally? In my case I live in a “western” country that isn’t in Europe or the Americas, but even aside from that in places like China? 2) I’ve heard that recessions and inflation don’t normally happen at the same time, why is that and what’s different this time? 3) could anyone explain in simple terms for someone doing an arts degree, how exactly did they fix it when this happened in the 70s, and how would that go now? 4) For my living situation: I am unable to work and thus receive government supports. Assuming we ignore rent, I make just over the poverty line in my country; currently I don’t have to pay rent, but soon I will need to start renting a place with one other person who makes the same income as me. How bad am I gonna be hit? Thank you. 2001:8004:2778:27BC:7430:1AB3:1A66:7D4A (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

1 Yes. Inflation is historically lower in Asian countries, but even China is facing higher inflation rates with remarkably low growth rates. Indeed, one of the causes of the current crisis is how they handle their zero-Covid policy, but that's for another topic.

2 Higher Inflation rates often happen when the economy is overheating, that is, there's more demand than supply. Recessions usually happen when demand is low. Problem now is, inflation is also being caused by exogenous reasons, like the war in Ukraine and lockdowns in China. There are other things that can trigger stagflation (populist governments will sometimes do stupid shit, see the Crisis in Venezuela for instance), but IMO these are the main reasons why inflation is so high while economic growth is close to zero right now.

3 This is a controversial topic and I’m a bit rusty on my economic history from the period. From what I remember, they only managed to fix when the oil supply came back to normal, as well as a tight monetary policy in the 80s, with some neoliberal policies that, despite being controversial, also helped. This is what happened in the American case. Some Other countries had a different story, see for instance the Latin American debt crisis in the same period.

4 I am unqualified to analyze your situation. Sorry. GeeJayK (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you. So basically then, inflation normally only happens when the economy has got a lot of growth happening, because that gives people more ability to buy things than the normal supply can keep up with; but this time, it’s happening because the supply is the part having trouble from Ukraine and such, which means that even though people can’t buy that much more than normal, it’s still outstripping the amount that can be supplied? And so that way, even when the growth and stuff is bad and people can’t buy as much, the supply being worse means that there’s also still inflation. Is that about right? Thank you. 2001:8004:2778:27BC:7430:1AB3:1A66:7D4A (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd say Mostly right. In the short term, inflation can result in higher growth, but the tradeoff between growth and inflation does not exist in the long term (in other words, higher inflation can even harm economic growth in the long term). While a bumbling fiscal and monetary policy might also be one of the reasons why inflation is so high right now in Western countries (indeed, Chinese authorities claimed that their inflation is relatively lower because they didn't adopt all these stimuli), I personally believe the main reasons of the current inflation are the shocks caused by oil prices and Covid lockdowns, but only time will tell us if I'm right. One objection I can see in my reasoning for instance is the fact it can't fully explain why food prices are rising so fast. Economists still debate the causes of the Great Depression almost a century after it started, and I don't think we'll reach a consensus of the causes of the current crisis anytime soon. GeeJayK (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

In my city, people (mostly elders) continue to call $31,200 a year (15$ a hour) paycheck "buenísimo". So yeah, nobody here giving a shit about recession and continue to be proud of burnout. SomeBurnerAccount (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Stagflation hits the poor and pensioners on fixed incomes hardest. It could cause a populist, right-wing wave in the USA and Europe. Lipsen (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

- I don't deny that central banks can make the inflation issue worse, or that a 'Volker solution' would work - merely that said solution is politically unacceptable. This is why I have defined this as 'a war'; to make it clear that the US/Europe are in a situation where they are having to subordinate their economic needs/policies to their political ones. Naturally, rates are gonna shoot up; the main question is how much above zero they'll be after inflation adjustment (I believe real rates have been too low in the '10s and coupled with QE, have created a monster asset bubble which has become a drag on basic economic performance). Naturally, I don't think central banks are going to 'trigger' a recession; the US/Europe were sailing towards one anyway, which was why the Fed kept on speaking of trying to achieve a 'soft landing'.

- We need to remember that the definition of 'low inflation' meant something different in the '80s (even '90s). Even at it's lowest point (1986), the Fed funds rate was ~6% and the inflation indexes rarely dipped below ~5%. Over a decade of near-constant near-zeros and 1% respectively has made the Overton Window warp like hell. Plus, it's not wise to put too much weight into inflation figures and so on. They're useful, but they're only the map, not the territory. And everyone knows no flat world map is 100% accurate...

- Gee: Food prices are rising so fast for several reasons, including the loss of the Ukranian/Russian breadbaskets, loss of Russian fertilisers, adverse weather conditions worsening crop yields in important areas, Covid shutdowns, the diversion of foodstuffs into biofuels and the monster rise in energy costs. (I noticed this trend start when whey protein costs ballooned in mid '21). And nations reacting to the above and stockpiling. China, for example tripled her usual wheat import levels this year.

- Lipsen, the 'free market' is not going to 'solve' the energy crisis by itself. In fact, the oil majors have made it crystal clear they *like* this situation and shall not be increasing investment (not like you can suddenly increase hydocarbon output overnight either). That extra earned cash is going into share buybacks and dividends to investors. Good for shareholders of Chevron, not for the rest of the US.

Now, while it's true there's 'no free lunch' there's also the little issue of what happens if no lunch is provided (if you allow me to stretch the metaphor). There shall be severe energy rationing - by the wallet. Companies shall go under, millions shall find commuting uneconomic and many more shall cut discretionary spend for the core, making the recession deeper. And yes, some people will die. It's quite possible the economic cost of this shall be significantly greater (lower tax revenues etc) than the cost of the proposed lunch.

I'm fairly sure the lunch shall arrive. In Europe, some of the plates have started to be prepared and more will be along before too long. The reason is simple; they're not going to give a cause so Kremlin-backed right-wingers can agitate for surrender. Similar can be said for Biden and Co - American fatigue is music to Putin's ears and they'll look to energy 'control' (which could be many things) to mitigate. I mean, what are MAGA-hats gonna advocate? Throw Ukraine and NATO under the bus in the hopes petrol prices fall a bit?

KarmaPolice (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Even if the Biden administration improved the regulatory environment for the gas and oil industry, why would Chevron executives and other oil and gas companies go whole hog into drilling for more oil and gas? They have a fiduciary duty to their stock holders and the Biden administration, which has a history of being anti-fossil fuel, could change its regulations in a heartbeat. And small gas and oil companies have a smaller cushion to make this gamble.

Free market capitalism has produced great wealth for a very long time and countries with modern social safety nets need that wealth creation. Lipsen (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

'Changing the regulatory environment' shall only nibble the edges on this situation, not deal with the core. Laissez-faire will not solve the problem either; or more correctly shall 'solve' them in the manner outlined above.

America is looking at a widespread market failure. Only a demented rabidly doctrinaire free marketeer shall insist 'no intervention, markets will sort it all out!' in the face of the energy crisis. I assume you were against any govt support to the banking system in '07-'08? That the whole system should have been allowed to collapse instead because 'that's what the market would do'? Or that America shouldn't have 'interfered' in the economy during the pandemic?

You're right in that Chevron and co only have a loyalty to their shareholders, but the Govt is looking out for the country's interests; both it's people and system. And in this case, the needs of the country trump the needs of Chevron shareholders.

I shall not mince words, Lipsen. You're a frigging moron when it comes to economics. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Many times politicians and government workers are looking after their own interest or just a small fraction of the public's interest because most people are not one issue voters. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who want cheap gas that can't afford a $65,000 electric car. And so they are against Biden's energy policies. And there is a country in Europe that is not dependent on Russian gas as much as Germany and other countries. It's France that is using nuclear energy that the free market developed.

In most cases, a market is more responsive to the public's wants and needs than government workers. Government is often slow and bureaucratic and it easily can be influenced by special interests and political corruption. In China, government corruption is rampant. Human wants and needs change quickly during a time of explosive technological change. And so markets are often complex and fast-moving. To expect government workers to calculate all the pros and cons of the human decisions that go into markets is unrealistic (How much people want something at any given time, how much they are willing to pay for it at any given time, etc.).

And politicians only have so much control. The Biden administration's "transitory" inflation is a testament to this fact. I recall a political cartoon where an enormous bull was falling off a skyscraper and there were a few guys below the falling bull with a small net and the caption of the cartoon was "We have safeguards built into the system." (The cartoon was about politicians having little control over bull markets). Politicians couldn't prevent or quickly end the "Great Recession". The business cycle can't be eliminated any more than the four seasons of the year can be. Central government control has been tried over and over and the result has been the same. It eventually fails. China had a lot of pent-up demand after communism was instituted in 1949 and they had some good demographics for a while. So a lot of government control, but not as much as pure communism worked for a while. But now the ramifications of a lot of government control is starting to hit China. It's now a huge struggle for the Chinese to have few young people taking care of many old people due to China's one-child policy. And China's real estate market is on the brink right now due to the Chinese government's bad policies in the real estate sector of the economy. In short, there is starting to be a huge amount of problems in China. And it can be traced to the same cause. The government having too much power over the economy and not being responsive enough to people. Lipsen (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

If by European parliamentary system you mean at an EU level...well it is insanely complicated. The parliament has over 700 MEPs, representing dozens of parties all forming large clusters, which work in huge coalitions. They form a sort of voting block that has never included a far right block (nor a far left). They are there in the parliament, not a tiny percentage, nor large enough to possibly truly disrupt much, but their voice is definitely heard and they can be influential in their own way. But that's just the parliament and the EU also has the commission and council (represented by appointees and ministers from every EU country). No new EU law is passed without unanimous agreement from all EU nation governments, which are very diverse, almost all themselves being governments of coalitions of parties throughout the spectrum. There is no absolute far right government in Europe. Almost all EU national parliaments (at a country level) are made of coalitions of between 2-5 parties. None are all far right. Few are even all "right". And at this point I really must pause to say left-right dichotomy should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt as that is just an outline of a vague political spectrum. A "right" party in Germany could be downright "left" in the US, and "conservative" could just mean financially conservative. All EU governments, be they left or right support at least a minimal welfare state, centralised health care, education, fair justice system, some level of progressive policies etc. The far-right is absolutely a vicious problem in Europe...but don't blow it out of proportion. They do get into coalitions and can sometimes have a fairly disruptive and disproportionate influence in those coalitions. The reason for their numbers (rarely highter than 25%, usually around 15-20% is complex, ranging from good ole conservative fear of change, traditional values, reaction to immigration and sometimes just plane old bigotry and even white supremacism. Italy has a government that is made of a centrist, right and border-line far-right party. I wouldn't characterise them as crazies...just bickering ridiculous shit-heads...sometimes saying vile things...sometimes verging into outright far-right talking points. But then...Italian politics have always been unstable, full of corrupt petty petulant shitheads who cannot work together. ShabiDOO 19:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. I was talking about the individual countries in Western Europe.

If Putin cuts off the gas/oil in Western Europe during the winter, what Western European countries are most likely to have strong enough public unrest and install right-wing governments? At this point, it seems like Italy would be the most likely. Lipsen (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

No. For reasons I've already explained to you, Lipsen. They've already put in govt measures to mitigate, and a complete cut-off is being planned for. Which I have already elaborated. And which a search engine starting with G can provide many articles on. Worst case could be rather nasty, but they won't allow their nations fall over because they're dogmatic free-marketeers with chronic myopia. They get that this situation is due to a conflict with Russia and are in little mood to surrender to Moscow.

Anyway, onto your earlier Gish Gallop...

- 'Politicians and govt workers can have ulterior motives'. True, but an eternal truth for businesses, charities, religious bodies etc. Disregarded.

- 'Some people can't afford electric cars'. Part of the reason I'm arguing that govt intervention is required. Stating the obvious.

- 'France is succeeding with nuclear power and is free-market'. France is dominated by EDF, which is state-owned. Nuclear plants built due to political decisions in past to make France energy independent. Plus, French state has put in price caps. Clearly wrong.

- 'Markets are usually more responsive of public need'. Yes. Which is why I called the energy situation 'a market failure' and 'a situation akin to a war'. Clearly, cannot read discussion above. Disregarded.

- 'Govt corruption in China is rampant'. Not relevant to discussion. Disregarded.

- 'To expect government workers to calculate all the pros and cons of the human decisions that go into markets is unrealistic'. Clearly writer has no idea how the hell private companies pull it off then. Also suspect writer lives in 1970s and does not know the mass computing power of 2022. Lastly, the nature of supports/controls is dependent on how much 'calculating' is required. Disregarded.

- Going off on a general inflation riff, including waffle about cartoons. Not relevant to discussion. Disregarded.

- 'But it's communism!' Red-baiting. Not relevant to discussion. Disregarded.

- 'Government having too much power!'. Debatable. Again, depends on nature of supports/controls designed. Plus, people freezing to death much less likely to bitch about ideological stuff. Disregarded.

Still think you're a moron... KarmaPolice (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Bloomberg News reported about 10 days ago: "With the euro plunging against the dollar and the Italian government falling apart over fiscal priorities, Europe’s common currency area may be on the cusp of another crisis." So your various European government experts are not as wise as you make them out to be. Nor are they in as strong a position as you make them out to be.

I am not a Putin fan and I wish he didn't level much of eastern Ukraine's cities. But he can inflict a world of hurt on Europe in the winter due to his withholding of gas/oil and you haven't shown me otherwise. Bloomberg News is a good source on economic/business news and they are reporting: German Hopes of Avoiding Recession Are Shrinking by the Day. Germany has a big place in the European economy so Germany going into a recession would be very bad news for Europe. And several European governments could find themselves pushed out and replaced by more right-wing leaning governments.

I am not an anarchist though and realize that governments play a role in punishing fraudulent business practices, making sure banks have enough reserves, etc. Like a reasonable amount of government. Not a government that sets wage and price controls, arbitrarily prevents gas/oil from being drilled, etc. Lipsen (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

A few additional points in response to what Karma Police wrote above. I definitely did not say that France was some kind of free market utopia. I merely said that the nuclear reactors in France were invented/created by the free market (namely companies).

It is true we have supercomputers, but there is a rule in information systems management. It is the rule of garbage in, garbage out. The companies that are serving small, medium and large markets and are interacting with their customers often daily are more closely attuned to the needs and wants of their markets/customers than government workers. So your excessive government intrusions into the marketplace is not going to make people happier, it is going to do the exact opposite. If you don't believe me, ask Americans what they think of Joe Biden's anti-fossil fuel government policies that caused gas prices to go up. Lipsen (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, people aren't infalliable, this is a very unique situation and a difficult one to crack to boot. But at very least they aren't going 'oh it's all too much' and giving up even before trying anything, or even worse blithely saying 'the market shall sort it all out' and twiddling thumbs.

You know what's bad news for Europe? Putin. Giving in to him so we can suck off his cheap hydrocarbon teats again is a very bad move for Europe in general. Again, there are times where economic interests have to be subordinated to national interests. Germany's (and all other Euros) 'price' to get all that gas (and avoid that recession) shall be to stop resisting Russian plans to re-create the Eastern Bloc subordinated to Moscow.

You may not be a 'Putin fan', but you basically advocating surrender to him. And speaking as a European, I shall tell you to go fuck yourself. Better gas rationing and recession than boneheaded, splineless appeasement to the worst human to be spotted on this continent since Stalin. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Improved technologies can take a long time to create and the timing of their future arrival (If they happen at all) is uncertain. And I don't know how much pressure the European citizens are going to put on their politicians if fossil fuel supplies are not there or the cost of them is sky high. And alternative fuel sources at the same price of fossil fuels are not going to happen overnight.

Very disgruntled citizens in democracies frequently replace their leaders as soon as possible. So right-wing governments in Europe could be spawned as a result of Putin withholding gas supplies. I know that the right-wing Marine LePenn has definite ties to Russia as a Russian Bank financed a political campaign of hers if I am not mistaken. How Russian-friendly other right-wing European parties are to Russia, I don't know.

Germany isn't as ardent helping Ukraine as much as the UK. They have been much slower in actually delivering military hardware, but they have been making promises. Germany is frequently accused of slow walking their military assistance to Ukraine. There is differing levels of support for Ukraine in EU countries.

How this ends, I don't pretend to know. The war in Ukraine is kind of at a standstill right now and it looks like that war is going to drag on for a long while rather than ending months. Lipsen (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

KarmaPolice, I just looked at your profile and it says you are a socialist. Israel, India, and the UK all adopted socialism as an economic model following World War II and it failed in each case. The reason you resorted to the illogical argumentation of the ad hominem argument by calling me a "moron" when it comes to understanding economics is that you cannot defend the failure of a system called socialism. Your notion of a government controlling wages and prices via supercomuters and governmental workers better than the people working in the actual industries/markets/niches everyday is an example of failed socialist thinking. Lipsen (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

if you think the UK is socialist, then you really are a fucking imbecile. if you think the problems uk faces or has dealt with are down to socialism, you are a fucking idiot. and lets look at nuclear power since its being attributed to the magical free market. nuclear power is not a product of the free market, its the product of government initiatives, and only survives through government subsidies. a recent report found nuclear to not be profitable anywhere in the world and has never been financially viable. or lets look at how well the free market provides the many services that governments around the world have been outsourced to the likes free market giants like sodexo or g4s and the like - the free market seems to provide diminished and substandard services, with a disregard for law, and the rights of their employees and those within in their care. whenever services in the purview of local government wind up the responsibility of private companies the are always cut back substantially and performed appallingly because doing the job they are contracted to do properly means less profit. or lets look at the free market and how its exploitative business practices in the developing world cause miseries to millions via low wages, unsafe working conditions, corruption, murder and war. even in the developed world the free market ensures american waiting staff are paid so little it is expected that they need to beg the customer to make up the short fall in wages. or lets look at the free market making the world a better place like those lovely tabacco companies poisoning millions of their customers, lied about it, got away with barely any consequences through legal wrangling, and has to keep marketing to kids to replace their customers killed by its product. petrochemical companies are similarly an industry fucking us all in the name of market forces.

heres the thing, its not a straight choice between socialist hellhole china style or cyberpunk megacorporations it never is. it would be fucking dumb to think either is the sole answer to the worlds problems. blindly cheering for free markets like it was the answer to everythingwith anything less is doomed to fail is fucking dumb. obliviousness to the failings of capitalism is fucking dumb. failing to recognise there are problems in the world today that the free market will not solve because there is no profit in it, problems caused by free markets in the first place, is fucking dumb. failing to recognise government intervention is sometimes required to pick up the pieces and that the taxpayer will have to foot the bill because we pay a bigger price if we dont is fucking dumb. and if your arguments are the most broadest, most vague, most banal list of over simplifications, half truths and complete arse and inane analysis justifying doing fuck all about wars, economic hardships, and sheer human misery then you are a fucking imbecile. there is no meat in your arguments being little more than 'socialism bad' and 'free markets good' with success or failure of complex situations boiled down to no more than their adherence to one or other. the over simplification is too great to give any indication of where any truths might lie, or any indication you might be aware of any. these are not reasoned arguments in a debate these are a fucking idiot going uh huh, and can only be countered by nu huh. this is why we should not respond to trolls or the clinically stupid, and should just delete anything by chatbots made of dogshit.

i will say one thing you got right that doesnt require any explanation - putin turning of the gas is causing europe problems. its a no shit sherlock kind of thing, but its true. well done for picking up on something everyone beens saying since before russia invaded ukraine. fucking cretin. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

When I said that post WWII that the UK, India and Israeli tried socialism and it failed in each case, I was mainly writing to KarmaPolice who I assumed knows the history of the UK's economic history, but that was a mistake. I should have written to a broader audience plus I cannot be sure that KarmaPolice knows the economic history of the UK.

So I will give a short recap of British economic history and how socialism adversely affected it.

Sometime after WWII, the UK tried socialism and it was widely called the "sickman of Europe" after three decades of trying socialism. Tax rates were high during this period and there were many government-owned companies in large manufacturing companies such as in cars and steel. Powerful trade unions spent money on donating to the Labour Party. Trade union demands increased the size of the public sector. In 1979, the "winter of discontent" occurred due to public sector trade unions going on strike and huge piles of uncollected garbage piled high in cities and corpses remained unburied while rats ran in the streets.

The UK public decided they had enough of socialism and elected the conservative Prime Minister Marget Thatcher who went on a privatization campaign. In the 1980s, Britain's economy grew faster than any other economy - except for Spain.

I may be mistaken, but I think a remnant of socialism is the UK's National Health Service which is highly centralized government healthcare. To give some comparison, "Switzerland's universal health care system is highly decentralized, with the cantons, or states, playing a key role in its operation. The system is funded through enrollee premiums, taxes (mostly cantonal), social insurance contributions, and out-of-pocket payments."[2] "The Swiss health care system ranks first overall out of 31 countries ranked in the World Index of Healthcare Innovation, with a score of 59.56, just ahead of second-ranked Germany and third-ranked Netherlands."[3] Also, I may be mistaken, but I believe India (which also tried socialism for awhile post WWII and it failed) now has a two-tiered health care system. In India there is a public healthcare option and a private healthcare option. Lipsen (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So, by your definition, socialism is when the government does stuff? Are countries like Sweden and Denmark socialist? Of course they aren't. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production[4][5][6]. I support free markets, but they cannot resolve the current problem in UK and US (like they did to some extent in the 80s) for a simple reason. The current inflation is not a structural problem, unless you live in Turkey and Argentina. It's caused by Putin and his idiotic, meaningless war and by a fucking pandemic, both of which are being denied by a certain group from a certain encyclopedia. Not that you want to engage in good faith, of course. GeeJayK (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I pointed out in my short recap of how socialism adversely affected the UK/Britain that the government took over some manufacturing companies. I did this because KarmaPolice's user page indicates that he is a socialist. As far as the Nordic countries, Foreignpolicy.com's article Nordic Countries Aren’t Actually Socialist says: "Denmark, Norway, and Sweden shouldn’t be held up as socialist utopias." With that being said, each country is going to have to decide how big the public sector is. I am not an anarchist who believes in no government, but more of a limited/small government proponent with local government doing a lot of the "government lifting" - except for obvious exceptions such as the military. Local governments are often more responsive to the people. In somewhat recent economic history, there are non-socialist countries that have large amounts of federal government debt which is not healthy for an economy once it gets over a certain percentage of GNP. That is one of the main reasons that I think the federal government should not get too big. Lipsen (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It was recently reported that the the annual inflation rate in the USA accelerated to 9.1% in June of 2022. Reuters reported that Swiss inflation in June hits 29-year high of 3.4%. The Biden administration did a lot of money printing, a lot of federal government spending and it had very anti domestic fossil fuel policy plus it did not handle Covid-19 well. This largely explains why the USA has a higher inflation rate than Switzerland. In addition, the USA spends a lot on its military and funding the Ukrainian military during the war in Ukraine. Lipsen (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of new users who post nuclear winter takes on Saloon Bar. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 14:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

EC see what you have done here, lipsen, is to look at british history post ww2, then ignore it entirely and just said 'socialism bad, free markets good' again while saying absolutely fuck all just how uk was socialist, or how it failed, or how thatcherism supposedly fixed everything. it says nothing of the state of the uk during the war, nor the state of place it was left in. nothing about what was going on in europe at the same time. the uk was capitalist in these period and remained so right up to present day. one swallow does not a summer make and that 'some' industries (industries which were failing at the time they nationalised, and largely non existent after thatcher and the free market saved them from the socs) were taken over by the government does not a socialist government make. this was also a period of continued and sustained growth and virtually full employment (unemployed reached a peak under thatcher, never again coming back down to to these levels post wwar) - the not-socialist uk was doing fine until until mid seventies.

and of course there was much going on globally beside socialism to effect how things went - so please tell me how uk was socialist then tell me how socialism failed because just saying it was and that it did only tells me you are a fucking imbecile.

and fyi - the nhs is in difficulty not because it is socialist it because it is criminally starved of funding while tories always trying to introduce the virus of market forces and efficiencies which means cuts waiting times by simply not providing and cutting treatments and services that are available. still better than us healthcare. cretin AMassiveGay (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

honestly this is not an ideological disagreement where we look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, this is where no evidence is being provided to support a 'case' that is not any way being made that can be disagreed with. really lipsen, you are a fucking imbecile. you do free markets and capitalism a disservice with your piss poor defence of it. the invisible hand is not going to do it for you and it wont pull your head out of your arse either. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The ad hominems need to stop. Not only are they illogical, but they are also not a part of online civilized discourse. You can't keep the website name of RationalWiki while using a lot of ad hominems in the RationalWiki Saloon Bar. The ad hominem logical fallacy is a fallacy which has an article about it at the RationalWiki website. With that being said, I will respond later in the day. I have to do some work-related matters. Lipsen (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, an Ad hominem refers to someone insulting you as a substitute for an argument. AMG gave an argument, then insulted you. You mentioned we have an article about Ad hominems so you might want to actually read it.-Flandres (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I will demonstrate that AMG did not provide a decent argument and instead engaged in using the ad hominem logical fallacy or at the very least engaged in uncivilized online discourse.

1. I said about post WWII UK that: a significant portion of the UK's manufacturing base was taken over by the government, it's tax rate was jacked up, its public sector of the economy greatly increased partly due to its labor unions donating to the Labour Party. The public sector labor unions went on strike causing mountains of trash, corpses and rats to fill the streets.

If you want to call that socialism-lite instead of full-blown socialism that's fine. But socialism doesn't have a good track record either - unless you want to make the lame, utopian argument that socialism has never really been tried (Soviet Union, Chinese socialism with Chinese characteristics, Cuba, etc.).

2. WWII ended in 1945 and the German bombing campaign commonly called the Blitz caused much damage to Britain. The website History.com points out that "The Marshall Plan, also known as the European Recovery Program, was a U.S. program providing aid to Western Europe following the devastation of World War II. It was enacted in 1948 and provided more than $15 billion to help finance rebuilding efforts on the continent." In the 20th century, the USA/UK had what is often called a "special relationship" and still continues to this day although it was damaged by the Iraq War, etc. So the UK received a decent size portion of the Marshall Plan money.

3. Socialism-lite/socialism had 30 years to prove its worth in the UK and it failed in the eyes of the UK public which is why Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979.

4. Although AMG wrote that I said "Thatcherism fixed everything", I never said this. But I did point out that Margaret Thatcher privatized formerly nationalized companies and "In the 1980s, Britain's economy grew faster than any other economy - except for Spain."

5. Margaret Thatcher was in power from 1979 to 1990 and was the longest-serving British prime minister of the 20th century. Much of the British public thought she did a good job or she wouldn't have served for so long (The UK is a Western democracy with free and fair elections so Thatcher would have been thrown out before she became the longest-serving British prime minister of the 20th century).

6. When I have participated in online discussions at websites that have civil discourse or watch public figures debate, I don't see individuals calling people imbeciles. If RationalWiki contributors want to stoop to using abusive language rather than making strong arguments, RationalWiki is free to do so, but it will pay a price. It will be much harder (or impossible) to attract new contributors who make quality contributions. Lipsen (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Mmmhmmm. If you don't like the discourse here, leave, you sacrimonious sack of shit. We don't need your awful advice either, why should we when you talk like you've spent your school years munching on history book binding. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario, I don't believe the word "sacrimonious" exist. At least I never came across it in my schooling. Did you mean sanctimonious? Lipsen (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I meant "go fuck off and grow a garden". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

1. 25% of industry was natioanlised. 75% was not. so largely/mostly capitalist.

2. europes industry was completely destroyed during the war uk's was not. this meant europe rebuilt with they lastest technology, while uk made do with what they had. this ultiumately gsave europev the advantage.

3. the 50s and 60s are considered a golden age. the wheels only came off in the 70s this 30 years to prove itself business is just vacuous shite and fuck all to do with thatcher's election.

4. yeh did say thatcher fixed everything in not so many words. and the growth came the price of massive unemployment and recession after recession with inflation as high it was it 79.

5. thatchers time in office had little to with a repudiation of socialism and would take too long to go into here. labour's collapse, bribes asnd the falklands all played apart.

6. cretin AMassiveGay (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I *do* know the economic history of the UK, trollish accusers. Naturally not everything, but better than some of the folks in this conversation (I'm one of those weirdos who find economics *interesting*). However, I've not engaged with this topic here due to...

1 - British economic history has zero relevance to the actual topic at hand - I call out the tangents as the tactics of someone simply throwing them out and seeing if any of them are successful. Classic sealion traits.

2 - You gave me nothing to respond to. Now, if you'd say cited UK energy policies from the 1970s as historical examples, now I would have responded. I go by the old maxim; to only comment when you've got something worth saying.

Though I shall ding Lefty a little here. I don't believe our current sealion gave 'bad advice', for the simple fact they didn't give any at all (simply flapping their flippers about and barking out "free market good!" doesn't count).

Anyway, what do you think should be done regarding the American economy? I honestly feel like I'm looking at one of those triangle choice things - 'inflation', 'recession' and 'energy'. That at best the country can tackle only two of these, and the majority of choices shall make one of them worse. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I would argue the problem in the US is inflation. The actions of the Fed will likely trigger a recession. But other typical features of a recession aren't happening,(i.e. Strong spending, demand for services, low unemployment) so when a determination is made regarding whether the US had a recession probably won't happen for some time. Surprisingly the NBER[7] doesn't meet at regular intervals. The US has a supply-demand problem, energy is a factor but we produce a bunch of it.

The imminent recession for the UK/EU is driven primarily by energy. Germany is/was over reliant on cheap Russian hydrocarbons, fueling not just homes but industry as well. It will see a reduction in economic activity, which will cascade to a recession. Considering the success or failure of the EU is directly effected by it's largest economic countries (France & Germany), this will also have negative effects for the EU. The UK, whose primary trading partner is the EU, might benefit from a weaker Euro for imports, but will likely be more hurt by a stronger pound effecting exports.

There is no easy answer here. There a myriad of other factors, but literally all of these things have knock-on effects that reverberate through the entire global economy.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I explicitly asked 'America'. Every nation's issues are different, and if there was a time a one-size policy wouldn't work, it's now.

Yes, the indicators are odd - in fact, a guy on Bloomberg earlier today said they don't look like the 70s, but the early 40s - ie, during WW2. And like WW2, what is good for America at home could be bad for her external interests - energy export controls would hurt her Euro/Asian allies, while severe economic stress amongst the low/middle-income brackets may tear to ribbons any political desire to continue backing Ukraine.

You say the issue with the USA is inflation. However, it's got all the signs of being a 'wicked problem' and the Fed doesn't have the tools to really sort it out - all it can do is starve the economy of cash to the point the recession is so deep demand for everything is bound to fall enough. Yet that's going to be politically unacceptable, and I would also argue perhaps even dangerous in regards to societal stability. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPoliceI think I said this further up in the thread, but the Fed doesn't have good options, primarily because it acted too slowly. Technically the Fed has two tools at its disposal: raising interest rates and qualitative easing. While QE is about increasing spending, interests rates is primarily about increasing saving. But that only works if the problem is too much spending. I would argue while that is a factor, the bigger factor is demand related, something the Fed can't really effect. [8] This is a good breakdown of some of the indicators the NBER takes into account, comparing it to previous recessions. The nonfarm employees is the most staggering stat, essentially the preceding 6 months show job growth improving, while previous recessions saw job growth pretty much plateau, before dropping slightly. It's the same with employment level, industrial production, GDI and personal consumption. GDP and personal income are growing much more modestly, but in comparison, cratered rather quickly in previous recessions. :::::::Manufacturing is the only indicator that seems to be in line with a recession. Besides the fact that fewer and fewer people work in manufacturing, and services dominate GDP, I think you can take two things from this indicator, neither of which can be affected by American policy. The first being; the things America still makes are filled with parts from other countries and many of those parts are Chinese. China's manufacturing sector is being brutalized by the Zero-Covid strategy is severely damaging exports. The second being; the components in American manufacturing are transported here primarily by ships. Energy prices make the cost of sending products higher, so companies order less, then they make less.

I don't think necessarily that this will be unacceptable politically. Americans do notice the price of things increasing, and as fuel prices come down from their July peaks, they'll likely start to notice the price of things decreasing, before they notice their money has less value. Especially if this balance can be struck after the November elections, Dems can get credit for lowering prices, before getting blamed for people having less money. I also noted this above, the Fed is increasing rates per month at a rate that would make Volcker blush, and I think the point is to try to blunt early aggressively, before easing off a bit as inflation begins to come down.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The Biden Admnistration is saying that the US economy is not in a recession. It is taking issue with the definition of a recession being 2 consecutive quarters of negative GNP decline. Aaron555 (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I doubt 2022 will be a red wave. The political environment is more favorable to Dems. Biden's approval is on the rise, Democrats have a 61% chance of keeping the Senate and the chances of the House going red are down at 79%. Andrew5 (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Too early to make any predictions. Less than two months ago everyone was talking about the Dems getting completely wiped out, now it looks like election will be grindingly close. By October, who knows? Oz, Masters, Walker, and Vance have really struggled since getting the nomination, two months is plenty of time for the national GOP to get involved. Or maybe Indiana, Georgia and Florida pass such draconian abortion laws, that Dems storm the polls. And the economy quite literally could go to shit at any time. It's close. That's really all that needs saying.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump's tough 48 hours

First his residence is searched by the FBI.[9] Then a Federal appeals court rules the House can view 6 years of his tax records.[10] He's gonna announce he's running again soon right? All this good news for the Biden administration and bad news for him has to driving him crazy.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I doubt this is going to sway his more ardent supporters.--2friedeggs (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget his little bother in Georgia...

I heard all this being described as a 'scattergun' effect; so much is being flung at the Orange One something is bound to blow a wing apart. But he'll try to run unless dead/incapacated/in prison, and the GOP will allow him to because they sold their spines some time ago. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Sold their spines? Surely you mean they sold their compassion for the common man Cardinal Chang (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Cannot sell what you never had (in some cases). Like with Bozo/UKIP here in the UK, I solidly blame the 'moderate' Republicans who accepted the Trumpian takeover with not much more than a soft, plaintive cry. If they'd genuinely felt that aggrieved, they shouldv'e pulled the rug from under them (even if it cost them an election or two). KarmaPolice (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the US is similar to the UK and a lesser extent Ireland, is described as "There are no statesmen any more, only opportunists." The bumbling laundry heap of questionable morals really does have a lot to answer for, as well as the electorate who were hoodwinked by his bluster Cardinal Chang (talk)

Can't speak of other countries, but from my experience there are conservatives you can respect with leaderhsip qualities - they just don't reside within the current Tory Party. Part of my theory why is that such people are more likely to like money, and thus more inclined to say, go into business and so on than politics. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The 2024 election is going to come down to the economy. Inflation is tough to bring down and there is a big risk that efforts to tame it will cause a recession. Bloomberg News says the odds of a recession within next year is around 50%. Post WWII recessions last 10 months on average so that is cutting it close as far as the 2024 presidential election. Johny2x4 (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

do trolls get word of the day toilet paper but with conservative talking points instead of random words? i hope you've washed hands AMassiveGay (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

(laughs) Eh, it's always 'about the economy', Gay as it's held that only 'conservatives' understand anything about it. My 'thought of the day' is this; Photo of Engels. How the hell did he manage to eat or drink anything? I have visions of Mr Twit here. Also, worry about risk of beard fires from smoking... KarmaPolice (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

like the bluewhale he survives on a diet of krill. thats not a beard its baleen plate AMassiveGay (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

...Ignoring the obvious troll, the clear thing I see with these recent shenanigans is just how badly the Republicans currently are on hock to Trump. Thus the FBI raid in particular caused many of the shitforbrains Republicans from the "law and order" party to all of a sudden started howling "Oh The Humanity" and "Greatest Injustice" type hyperbole regarding the raid... even exclaiming things like "DEFUND THE FBI" in one particularly shitforbrains example. Currently, with more details of the raid coming out bit by bit (with Garland perfectly happy to unseal the search warrant, and hints that classified nuclear weapons documents were involved), from my perspective, the hints so far suggest there was probably good enough reason for the FBI to do what they did, though of course we'll know more later. I'm just amazed as how the Republicans have turned The Donald's alleged legal naughtiness into both a fundraising opportunity and an opportunity for partisan hacks to waste valuable electrons spitting out faux outrage that their Dear Leader isn't being coddled. (I'm even more amazed in some of the media sources these partisan hacks are finding to whine.)

The problem with Trump in 2024, as I see it, is that his popularity seems to have a pretty hard ceiling, and though it's early, I wouldn't expect numbers to be that much different than 2020. Joe Biden is deeply unpopular, but all of the way-too-early head-to-head polls I've seen actually suggest Biden would win a rematch against Trump (popular vote wise, at least). If Trump, or a Trump clone like DeSantis, is the nominee, just like 2020, I think Trumpism will be as much a part of the reason for the vote as anything else. And I suspect that shithole Supreme Court decisions, along with two years of clownshoes in the House should the Republicans take over in 2022 (think Tea Party Freedom Caucus crap but much much worse) will provide plenty of fuel. Already, the odds are pretty good that the Republicans threw away a Senate takeover opportunity in 2022 by nominating several low quality Trumpy candidates that won't win the general election. Past elections indeed were often about the economy but these aren't normal political times in the US. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump also has the cramp of being openly hated by quite a decent % of the voter-base; I put this aspect down for getting Biden over the line in '20, and makes it difficult to find new converts. Threats to 'national security' like him taking home documents which didn't belong to him might help to get some of the old neocon wing to pull away from him, and cost him winning a re-run. Then there's the simple fact that demographics are generally moving against Trump - I think '24 is the very last election which shall be made by the Boomers. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

i cant for the life of me wonder what he needed to take any classified documents at all. i kinda imagined him being more likely to have been thieving antiques and artworks and like. his tastes are super gaudy i hear, which would surprise no one. must have been plenty in the whitehouse tacky enough to halfinch. but no, classified documents. whats hes going to do with all anything worth being classified? if its incriminating, like all the recorded conversations he had were discusses how dreamy putin is and phonecalls recorded where he tells putin he likes it raw and will swallow, why had it not all been destroyed by now? for the memories? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There's enough other evidence to suggest Trump doesn't believe the rules apply to him, and that he saw that being President meant that everything 'belonged' to him (like treating generals, judges etc as simply being 'a hire for Trump Org' rather than public servants). Using Hanlon and Occam, I'm going to suspect the reason is a chaotic final days in the White House, were everything/anything was boxed up and shipped back to the Orange Lair with barely any attention to *what* they contained.

Why didn't Trump simply re-route *all* of his POTUS paper-boxes to one of those massive industrial shredders? I think the answer may be simple; it would be obviously a crime to do so and he might have been unable to find anyone to do it for him in a 'deniable' manner. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

i would have shredded them myself if they pay was right, and i am talking 'right' for just shredding documents with none too unreasonable premium to ensure it gets done. he must have labourers or gardeners on his golf course willing to drive a transit van to a shredding facility for a sweet bonus. or drive just outside of town and pour petrol over and apply lighter. laziness, incompetence, or just obliviousness to a crime what might be little more than the high office version of a parking ticket perhaps. but not finding anyone prepared to do do the job? ha. hes got rudy guiliani on the pay roll dont forget, and if they had shredded everything in a timely manner there'd be nothing incriminating left that required the feds to search the place and find.

the are making the subpoena public so we might find out pretty soon if trump has just been an unthinking imbecile over this or an unthinking imbecile with nefarious intent. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but isn't disqualifying Trump from being president counterproductive because Ron DeSantis is a stronger presidential candidate in 2024? DeSantis is more articulate and photogenic than Trump and he has a lot of the same views. I don't think the Biden administration thought this one through. Randomwalk (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing for Biden to 'think out'. They didn't order the FBI to perform the raid, and they're not controlling the court trials either. Trump is being fucked over by his own past failures, arrogance and stupidity - nothing more or less.

As for Gay's point... would you do it for a prison term? I've twice in my working life so far been directed from above to perform action(s) I believed illegal; I said I would - if they ordered me explicitly to do it. In writing. The request was never mentioned again. Odd, that. That's the thing; they'd need to find folks not just that they'd do the deed, but also take the fall if needed.

Anyway, I think Trump didn't even realise what he'd taken or what he'd not, believed he was above the law and even if they finally nailed him, he'd get off with a piddly fine he'd use to reclaim even more tax rebates. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

hes allegedly convinced a bunch of idiots to storm the capitol building in an attempted coup. he could easily found someone with a maga cap eager to have a bonfire. they need not to be trustworthy and loyal enough to do prison time, they need to be expendable enough to throw under the bus. trump would throw his own sons under the bus. (i would too if they were. not the youngest though he still young enough to grow up as not a prick) they dont even need to have told anyone doing the job what was needing destroyed. just get it done and you get a little extra in the paycheck. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

its not like they would be disposing of a body, though i bet he could have found someone to do that too and thats a much harder task. some files and maybe hard drives? theres probably an incinerator on one of his golf courses. he either didnt know what he had or did, doesnt care, or he did and hes a fucking idiot whatever you look at it.

unless the feds actually find nothing after all. then hes probably still an idiot, just generally not specificallyAMassiveGay (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

My work involves interaction with historians and people who have law enforcement experience and at this point we don't know if Joe Biden or a White House staffer was or was not involved in the decision to search Trump's home rather than to issue a subpoena. The government doesn't always tell the truth and that applies to both Republicans and Democrats. Randomwalk (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

To further elaborate, historical investigations are probabilistic. So we can't say the White House "didn't order the FBI to perform the raid" unless we have proof for that. It is safe to say that an FBI agent would go up the chain of command if a former president of the United States were involved and the current director of the FBI would be informed. And Merrick Garland, the current Attorney General, said he did sign off on the warrant to search Trump's home. So it is very implausible that the head of the FBI would know and Merrick Garland would know, but nobody in the White House knew about the raid on Trump's home before it happened. That stretches plausibility to the nth degree. Randomwalk (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

When the feds search a place and find nothing, well, obviously they were both wasting taxpayer money and harassing a clearly innocent person, so they WILL find something even if they have to make it up. CorruptUser 19:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Ever since Nixon, politicians and their officials have been vain, heavyhanded and frivolous. Why anyone would give them the benefit of the doubt is beyond me. Think about it. The American public elected someone called "Tricky Dick" when they voted for Richard Nixon. And then they voted for "Slick Willy" (Bill Clinton) too. The Steel Dossier shows the FBI is very political now. The FBI has been very political since the days of J. Edgar Hoover. And the political FBI would contact the White House before they would do a raid on Trump's house. Randomwalk (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think in this case, the FBI will have done it by the book, to the letter and have full bureaucratic cover from the FBI leadership every step. They'll know that the MAGAs shall scream 'conspiracy' and so they'll be working to ensure they have as little evidence as possible to do so. What's more, I think they'd have been very careful to ensure no leaks of progress etc got out to 'either side', so political bias / forewarning didn't happen. So, yes; I actually do think that if the White House says that they didn't know in advance from the FBI, it's true.

Though the two things I'm not buying is what Randomwalk is peddling. No 'appeals to authority' or 'just asking questions' here. If you think it's a political conspiracy done by the Biden White House, prove it. Think the 'Sagan standard' applies here. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

During a work-related call, I had a conversation with a best-selling author who was a former Los Angeles Police detective. The stories he told me about government corruption were eye-opening. KarmaPolice is being too trusting of government officials. We know that before being elected Joe Biden engaged in plagiarism so he is not some paragon of virtue. We should be skeptical of Biden's claims and the claims of his staff and not say "They didn't order the FBI to perform the raid" like KarmaPolice did. With the long history of the FBI being political - even recently such as the Steele Dossier - the weight of the evidence points to the White House knowing about the raid of Trump's home. I don't have an airtight case and I freely admit this. But KarmaPolice doesn't have an airtight case either. And KarmaPolice said the unequivocal statement "They didn't order the FBI to perform the raid", but he doesn't have airtight proof of this claim.

And we know that the government didn't act forthrightly when it came to the Steele Dossier in which they tried to pin something on Trump that he didn't do. The FBI acted deceptively in this matter. So KarmaPolice's belief that the officials would have done things by the book is not a well-founded belief.

And to be clear, I am not saying that Trump is a saint. He did hire Roger Stone who has the well-deserved nickname "The Prince of Darkness".Randomwalk (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Since we are receiving spam from another new user account that is spewing right wing garbage, let us remind us: the more left wing rumor mill la-ti-das over this have been wondering whether Trump has been doing something like, say, hoarding nuclear secrets in order to make some sweet deals with the Sauds or one of Trump's other authoritarian buds. Heavy stuff if true, of course. But just as juicily speculative (and probably wrong) as musings from an account wanting for us to consider a world where Trump and people like Roger Stone actually are saints (all evidence to the contrary) and victims of the big meanie corrupt FBI, with very little evidence other than right-wing circle-jerk logic and appeals to unknown "celebrity". ("Government is corrupt! Now let's trust 6-decade government insider Roger Stone" frankly is one weird take, but typical among the usual new-account probable-banned-user spam you see here too often.)

What we now know at the moment since the warrant is unsealed: Per Politico, Trump is under investigation for violating the Espionage Act, mishandling federal records, and falsifying official documents to obstruct an investigation. (18 U.S.C. § 793, 2071, and 1519) I have not seen a copy of the warrant published yet, but there's where we are. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't go by mere rumor so I will disregard the rumor, but I do appreciate the information about the unsealed warrant.

And I said above, I am NOT saying Trump is a saint. And I also said that Trump hired Roger Stone who has the well-deserved nickname "The Prince of Darkness".

My approach is probabilistic. After two failed attempts to remove Trump from office while he was president, some skepticism of the Democrats is warranted. This easily could be another failed attempt to keep Trump away from the political reins of power. And when you look at the CIA's and FBI's track record as far as their many scandals, some skepticism is warranted there also. Take a look at NPR's article Documentary Exposes How The FBI Tried To Destroy MLK With Wiretaps, Blackmail. Randomwalk (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Your approach is absurd. The two impeachments were for causes that a corrupt GOP would not recognize. Looking at other historical irregularities does not justify your argument. There is no reason to believe that AG Garland would inform the WH of any DOJ activity. His silence over the past year belies your assumption that Biden would have known anything. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

And why bring up the Democrats? What do they have to do specifically in this incident? Is it not possible that Trump flagrantly broke the law (again) and the FBI responded? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The Democrats and the GOP have given us incompetent presidents with questionable morals since at least post-JFK (And JFK cheated on his wife, but he did a decent job as president). That is why Trump was elected. You don't get authoritarian demagogues elected when everything is going great in the country. The Germans and Italians elected Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini due to failures in past leadership, not successes. Randomwalk (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Incompetent in what sense? LBJ was quite up to the job, though Kennedy's involvement in Viet Nam was a problem he did not handle well. Nixon was a competent administrator, he was just so sore about losing to Kennedy he went off the deep end in his re-election plans. Clinton and Bush Sr. were competent admins. Only Trump stands out as a two-bit crook,only important because of his father. Now Biden is shepherding a number of important bills through Congress. You may not like the legislation, but competence has nothing to do with that.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

To answer the previous posters question, I don't see where Trump broke the law in the past as far as his presidency. Trump's biggest mistakes were not handling Covid-19 as well as he could have, driving up America's federal deficit up further (He promised to be a reducer of the deficit, but he added greatly to it with his military spending) and being too divisive and argumentative on Twitter. If he hadn't done those things, he might have been reelected.

Railroaders have a term called a "wreck on a wreck" where two successive train wrecks happen during a short period of time. The Trump presidency didn't end well and Biden's presidency is looking like a wreck on a wreck. Americans give Joe Biden low approval numbers on a host of issues. I doubt Joe Biden will be reelected based on what has happened so far in his presidency, but in late 2023 we will have a better picture.

LBJ launched the war on poverty. How well did that war go? It failed. It failed so much that Bill Clinton, a fellow Democrat, said "The era of big government is over". Another major initiative of the Lyndon Johnson presidency was the escalation of the Vietnam War. By 1968, the United States had 548,000 troops in Vietnam and had lost 30,000 American lives there. And all the treasure and blood that America spent on Vietnam was for naught. The reason why LBJ didn't run again is that he had doubts that he would be reelected and not the lies he offered such as I want to spend more time with my family. LBJ gave America a guns and butter economics and public policy. Americans preferred peace and prosperity. Randomwalk (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

If I had to sum America's post JFK's leadership up, it would be fair to point out that America has: two big oceans to protect it, a great neighbor in the North and fairly good relations with Mexico over the years, a lot of rich farmland and other natural resources and it was hardly touched in WWII compared to Europe. Now America has an astronomical amount of national debt, weak families and the nation is deeply divided. So it's fair to point out that weak leadership is what got America where it is now. It just didn't happen. America voted its poor leaders into office and so the voters have no one else to blame. So not everything can be blamed on America's leaders. Randomwalk (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

If I had to sum up the recent activity by a suspicious n00b troll, it is: a Gish Gallop of red herrings. Y'all must be more worried about this shit then y'let on... 35.140.177.2 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not worried about anything. Before Trump, presidents were kind of like uncles. You heard from them once in a while and they didn't affect your life too much. If you wanted to marry well, have good friends and have a good career or business, it really didn't matter if a Democrat or Republican was elected. And even with Trump, if you didn't bother looking at his Twitter feed and ignored all the hysterics of the media who promised that Trump was going to end democracy in the USA, you didn't have to pay much attention to him.

If worse comes to worse, I will leave the USA. It's not as if the USA is East Germany during the Cold War. So I am not overly concerned if Biden or some other Democrat is elected or Trump/Desantis is elected. My life is not going to be affected much. But as I noted in the section below, the oddsmakers heavily favor Trump or Desantis to be the next president. Randomwalk (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure Los Vegas odds makers want you to bet on Trump. Bet the house on it. That'll solve all your problems.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Missing the Forest for the Trees

There is a lot in this thread that is misleading, and highly hypothetical so just sticking with the facts.

• Trump took several loads of documents with him. This isn't that uncommon, American presidents usually charge the National Archives and Records Administration with the task. It's what is currently happening for the Obama library in Chicago.[11]
• Trump as well as those in his administration were notoriously bad handling government documents. Trump himself released classified information frequently, including sources and methods to Russian representatives,[12] high quality surveillance images on Twitter,[13] and had a habit of destroying documents, to the point there were people in the administration tasked with taping documents back together.[14]
• Trump is documented multiple times, of having a fundamental misunderstanding of his administrations responsibility to the American people versus Trump personally.
• The documents in question were stored at Mar-a-Lago, in his office and in a room near the pool,[15] a highly trafficked location where basically any member or guest could have access.

Fundamentally, there is clearly a problem with document handling. Previous times federal officials have come to the resort, and removed documents in addition to recommending increased security measures.[16] These records were not being managed by NARA, and the only security upgrade was a locked door. Trump, as former-president, has expectations beyond normal citizens for responsible document management, perhaps the highest considering what things a president is privy too. There is an argument to be made, that documents specifically pertaining to decision make explicitly in the White House, should kept from the public, to ensure that future administrations can receive and produce candid documentation for all possible scenarios. But that information will be public at some point and it needs to be managed in a way that is accessible to the American public.

Leaks from people near the investigation, and people familiar with these sort of documentation issues with the executive branch, indicate that an action like this, would only be performed if DOJ and FBI felt there was an imminent risk to this information being released, either to the public, or to a foreign government. In addition, reporting indicates that the type of documents seized included:

• Various classified top secret/sensitive compartmented information, among the highest possible classification.[17]
• Documents pertaining to nuclear weapons, but it isn't clear if that information is for US NW or allies NW or adversaries NW's.
• Information pertaining to the president of France.

None of this information should be kept by someone not in government. This information could have massive consequences for American national security, even wider that Snowden's Wikileaks dump. Even if you object to the image of federal agents seizing documents from a former-president, the types of documents in Trumps possession go above and beyond person presidential papers.

And also, to believe those on the left would be as up in arms about something like this happening to a Democrat, no Democrat could ever take their position less seriously than DJT, and there have been multiple Dems subject to criminal investigations, nor the type of vile language accusing a government agency of being partisan.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RipCityLiberal made some decent arguments.

But I will make the fair point that the federal government is notorious for overclassifying things as being secret because it wants to have excessive power through secrecy. Even some JFK-related documents are still classified.

If Trump mishandled documents and he is convicted, what will happen is that Republicans and some independents will fairly ask why Hillary Clinton wasn't convicted of mishandling documents and say there is a two-tier justice system in the USA. Justice demands that laws be applied equally. Once again, America's post-JFK poor leadership will come into play.

It's too early to tell how this will all pan out and polling is useless at this point, but the political oddsmaker websites (which are not infallible) give Trump/DeSantis much better odds of winning the presidency.

So if Trump is disqualified from being president, I would argue that the odds still favor a GOP presidency after Biden's first term - namely DeSantis. Randomwalk (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

After the GOP is generally discredited by sedition trials, I expect DeSantis will slink back into the hole he came from.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

History professor Allan Lichtman developed a model with 13 keys/factors that has accurately predicted every US presidential race since 1984. So far Joe Biden is weak as far as these keys: #6, #8, #10, #11 and #12. Major news publications and some Democrats have been talking about someone else running than Joe Biden in 2024 so Biden is weak on key #2 so far. The 2022 midterms will reveal key #1, but so far it favors the GOP so Biden is weak on key #1. And some of the other keys relate to post 2022 midterm events. DeSantis/Trump are polarizing rather than charismatic or national heros so Biden wins on key #13.

When five or fewer keys are false, the incumbent party wins; when any six or more are false, the challenging party wins. Randomwalk (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Presidential papers belong to the National Archives, not the former president. That's how the FBI investigation started; archivists were checking the files at Fort Orange and started to find classified documents within them. I assume there's an agreement that an former president can take their papers (for memoir-writing etc) with them, but they don't own them and have a duty of care to preserve them etc.

And for the record, I am not that 'trusting' of individual government officials (not trusting of private officials either) but I do hold some faith in organisational integrity. Every organisation has to take into account that a certain % of their people won't be 'reliable' (for whatever reason) and thus, put in counters to this to try to limit the 'damage' and follow the established proceedures etc.

The 'whataboutism' being peddled by Random is in fact one of the reasons why American democracy is so sick right now. Organisational setups only work when there is a general agreement on the rules/norms that they operate by - by all major groups. What Random is trying to do is to deny the FBI's very legitimacy as a law enforcement agency by JAQ'ing off conspiracies regarding it being secretly control by senior Democratic politicians to act according to partisan goals.

Pulling this kind of shit isn't just annoying, it's dangerous. For when a significant % of a nation's population gets to believe that their govt's systems are 'illegitimate', civil disorders result. Case in point, the Capitol Storming.

So I say this, Random - put up or shut up. Because your JAQ'ing off could get people killed. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The FBI currently is led by Christopher A. Wray, who formerly served as Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of Dubya's administration. And was appointed by The Donald himself. EG: He's a Republican. Funny that, eh?

I suppose the Trumpster trolls will have to start pulling out their "No True Republican" equivalent fallacy cards to try to jam Mr. Wray into some kind of "Democrat" conspiracy. Certainly various shit media sources (y'know, the type that typically propagate Republican propaganda) certainly are doing their best partisan shimmies at the moment, so no surprise that some of the online rubes follow. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

KarmaPolice, you are from Britain. You might not be aware that American's trust in their government is very low according to survey data. And I am also guessing you are not aware that American's trust in the media's integrity is also very low. Why you may ask? Well, you are probably not aware of Joe Biden's previous plagiarism, Joe/Hunter Biden's pattern of lying and the evidence indicating that Joe/Hunter Biden are taking bribes from foreigners. I am also guessing that you are not aware of the evidence of Bill/Harry Clinton engaging in bribery through the Clinton Foundation. Furthermore, I am guessing that are also not aware of the recent and past cases of FBI corruption and the U.S Justice Department's recent cases of corruption.

I suggest you read the books Laptop from Hell: Hunter Biden, Big Tech, and the Dirty Secrets the President Tried to Hide and Clinton Cash which will raise your level of awareness when it comes to the aforementioned matters.

In addition, the fact that you are a socialist means that you are a hopeless dreamer when it comes to what government can accomplish and the degree of corruption and/or inefficiency that government workers can frequently sink to. Socialism hasn't worked in any nation for any extended period of time and yet you continue to be a socialist.

My fellow Americans and I have a very dim view of Joe Biden and the current government right now according to survey data. And leading indicators point to Democrats losing their majority in the House of Representatives and Joe Biden being a one-term president. And the saving grace is that America's next president will probably not be a socialist. Randomwalk (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Impressive wasting of words my friend! Revolverman (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It is apparent that you are a troll. The present President of the US is not now a socialist. When he is re-elected, or when his democrat successor is elected, there will still not be a socialist in the White House. You really have no sense of the moment if you thing plagiarism is a hot topic today. Perhaps you have lost the plot enough to forget that Trump lost his election because he was untrustworthy. I suggest you read one of the books criticizing trump with quotes by his own former staff. there are too many to list here. Do not bother replying, because you have said quite enough on this topic. Find something useful to do or go away. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI Randomwalk (as one suspected would be the outcome) was perma'd for ban evasion... no need to further feed inane trolls. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It's great when someone acknowledges the logic/truth of your statements and then immediately proceeds use a whataboutism.@KarmaPolice get's the primary point, Trump doesn't own these records. They aren't his to do with as he wishes. They belong to government, to the people. The debate on classification is valid, but TS/SCI are the most critical secrets to American intelligence. They type of information here likely relies on sources and methods that if revealed would put people in actual serious danger. Not to mention the spying we do on our allies, where certain information releasing could be threatening to their own sovereignty. Reporting recently indicates one the of the documents they sought is a list of CIA informants payroll.[18] This type of information isn't important internal White House documents pertaining to policies or legal opinions. It isn't a personal correspondence between Trump and foreign leaders or even his cabinet. It isn't formal or informal notes from meetings at the White House. These are the types of documents usually found in presidential libraries, and the type of information that perhaps doesn't have an immediate consequence to it being released to the public. It's critical that people in the executive branch feel they can share their opinions and thoughts without fear public analysis. But payroll for CIA informants? That information would only be useful for someone seeking to identify CIA assets abroad. This creates a clear and present danger to the informants on that list.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this good enough for mainspace?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Draft:Umar_Johnson 

Not one to be demanding or anything but would like a review of this draft and didn’t know any other way to get it attention for review other than putting it here. Its also my first one as well and wouldn’t mind feedback. SensaurC-137 (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It definitely fits with our aims and is of sufficient quality imo to be put in our main space. People can add more to it over time, it does not have to be "finished" to move from the draft to main space. God knows I have had moved lower quality drafts I written up to the main space in the hopes some other editor will just fix the formatting lol - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC).

I did some copyediting. I have a question: what does this sentence mean: "There have been many no IRS records to show he often berates his own followers for not giving him more money to help fund his school."? LongStylus (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It’s a typo meant to put a period after the word show. SensaurC-137 (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"There have been many no IRS records to show. He often berates his own followers for not giving him more money to help fund his school." Ok, I still don't get it. LongStylus (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the wording and added some references. Should be OK for mainspace now. Bongolian (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Who is Rushdie and why was he stabbed?

Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 04:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

RW article, and the wiki. An Indian born British author with a seemingly pretty good reputation (never read, just skimming reviews) got noted in the news late 1980s for a book called The Satanic Verses that pissed of Islam fundies for some stupid reason. A couple of low quality sources like the New York Post have speculated that the suspect of the stabbing (Hadi Matar) supports Islamic extremism, but while this wouldn't be surprising, one should await the emergence of better quality sources in order to confirm the "why" part. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

There's different types of terrorism though. It's possible the assailant was not a religious fundamentalist, but an Arab supremacist or something. Or possibly just someone who wants to become famous. CorruptUser 07:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Potential biggest natural disaster threat to California

It's not an earthquake as some might expect but a flood. With climate change going on, such extreme events are expected to be more likely. I'm seeing the usual "we can do something to prevent the worst effects" but as long as people are indifferent (a shrinking sentiment fortunately) and the super rich continue to recklessly pollute, this is has a decent chance happening in my life. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Guess there's already a theme song. Tool predicted it 25 years ago:

“”Some say the end is near Some say we'll see Armageddon soon I certainly hope we will I sure could use a vacation from this Bullshit three-ring Circus sideshow of Freaks Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call L.A. The only way to fix it is to flush it all away Any fucking time, any fucking day Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay

GeeJayK (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Digging in, I guess the basic gist is, historically, there is a once every couple hundred year massive rain / flood event that tends to hit the west coast of the US every couple hundred years or so (most recently in 1862). This event is dubbed an ARkStorm because weather researchers like to be cute with their acronyms I guess. The recent news articles on the topic seem to stem from this paper in Science Advances which concludes that climate change will cause ARkstorm events to be more frequent and cause more precipitation. Seems to "match intuition" for those who aren't climate change denier nuts, but the details are interesting to check out. This topic tends to get repeated every now and then in news media (see 2018 and 2013) so it's not a new scenario, but I guess it's a scenario people don't think of as instinctively, so... 35.140.177.2 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The other conclusion from the story was that the increased forest fires in California will make the massive floods even worse by increasing the chances of mudslides from denuded earth. The authors of the report have received additional funding from the state to simulate the on-the-ground effects of the flooding. Bongolian (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's California. They solve disasters with other disasters. The place is on fire? The mudslides put out the fires. CorruptUser 06:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, the concept of natural disaster is foreign to us as well as affordable property prices. I wonder if that's related.... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 07:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am certain that many of you heard of the air base explosion in occupied Crimea

Knowing that Ukraine didn't confirm or deny that they carried out an attack, I bet it was carried out by Ukrainian special forces or resistance groups. Russia claimed that it was somebody smoking on the base.

Do you think that it was a Ukrainian military operation, an attack from a resistance group or Russia's explanation?

If Ukraine retook Crimea (which is why the war started in the first place), how much would it destroy morale for the Russian military and the Russia backed separatists? --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

No that isn't why the war started in the first place. The war started (in 2014) as a long term plan to destroy Ukraine as a political and cultural entity.

However to your points - Ukraine would have to get past Putin's nuclear warheads in order to regain Crimea. Russian "law" officially allows the first use of nukes if the integrity of the Russian Federation is threatened, and they regard Crimea as part of the RF - so any attempt to even invade can "legally" be met with nuclear strike. Plus the age old cry of "mother Russia is threatened - we must mobilize!" - this is why the Ukrainians are relatively reticent about any strikes or other military activity htey might conduct inside the Russian Federation.

The actual cause of the strike is not yet known and there are many possibilities - up to and including a Ukrainian developed short range ballistic missile known as Grom/Hrim - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrim-2.

Hmm... my reasoning is, if it was a Ukranian attack the Russians would be screaming from the tallest tower and if it was 'unexplained assailants' they'd be shouting about terrorism/mercenaries backed by the 'Nazi-Jew-Criminal-Western Puppet' regime in Kyiv. The fact they're not... suggests that the truth is rather more embarrassing.

If only three things are known about the Russian military as of Aug '22 it's these;

1 - Russia's advances are critically dependent on explosive (mainly artillery) spam attacks.

2 - Russia's rapidly burning through her stockpiles of matériel.

3 - Russia's capabilities of maintenence/storage is terrible.

Then we factor two other, generally-known points;

4 - Explosives become more unstable as they become older.

5 - Soviet-era warheads etc were not renowned for their build quality in the first place.

Therefore, my armchair theory is this. That airbase - for whatever reason - ended up with a big stockpile of elderly, poorly maintained explosive devices. And that due to some innocent reason it ended up going boom.

However, it's quite possible it was a Ukranian hit - it's not like the Russians have pulled this trick themselves.

With Crimea in general... well, the West has been fairly clear in making sure their definition of 'territorial integrity of Ukraine' basically means 'borders as of Jan 1, 2022' ie not including Crimea. I am also 100% certain that the Ukranians have been warned privately by Biden etc to not outright attack it (also to not start attacking Russia proper). But it's kinda academic right now; Ukranian military is currently very busy trying to hold on to Kharkiv and so on. If the Ukranians are in the position to seriously contemplate a liberation of Crimea, it shall mean the Russian invasion has been utterly routed and most likely, Putin will be no more. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

There's another possibility - a NATO F-15 sixty miles out over the Black Sea. Doggiedoo (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Erm... nah. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

If this was an aircraft, we would have seen it, somewhere. Something unique about this conflict, everyone has a camera. So if there were aircraft flying near Crimea, and they would have to get awfully close, some person would have filmed it. Additionally, the weapons from those type of aircraft would be detected by anti-weapon/aircraft batteries that are certainly protecting the base.(And if they didn't have those, that would be a massive operation security failure) There are six minimum explosions that can be identified. HIMARS and some MLRS have six warheads that can be fired. The US hasn't provided the type of warheads, ATACMS, that would have that sort of range, (for those who don't know, HIMARS range is about 50 miles but ATACMS can be almost quadruple that) however there are reports of a Ukrainian weapons system that was being developed around 2016 that would have that sort of range. As much as Western weapons are effecting the conflict, especially HIMARS and artillery, there have been a series of Ukrainian weapons systems that have had lots of success, and have become more prevalent as the conflict has gone on. I think the US and it's partners are helping Ukraine develop and finish these homegrown systems, giving them a degree of deniability of RF accusations of becoming active belligerents. Or the US just hasn't acknowledged they have provided ATACMS. Who knows.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The strikes were high precision (ruling out a local partisan group). The theory that it was homemade means Ukraine has a weapons plant somewhere undetected by the RF, or that perhaps a weapon of Ukrainian design was complteded and assembled in Poland or somewhere else, etc. Doggiedoo (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Note that HIMARS is the truck that carries the missiles - not the missiles themselves! The wheeled M148 HIMARS replaced the older tracked M270 - being smaller & lighter (transportable by C130 Hercules), faster, cheaper and easier to maintain. The USA has completely replaced M270's with HIMARS. The missiles are Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) of various types (which replaced the older, unguided, MLRS - Multiple Launch Rocket System), or ATACMS - so no, HIMARS does NOT have 90km range - GMLRS missiles have 90km range, and 6 of them can git on a HIMARS, or 12 on a M270. 1 ATACMS can fit into the pod the same size as one occupied by 6 M31's, so 1 can fit on a HIMARS, or 2 on a M270. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no chance the explosion was due to old unstable munitions in storage. For starters it occurred on the flightline of an active military aviation unit, not an ammunition depot. Also at least 1 of the craters was in the middle of a taxiway. Plus military explosives are much more stable than, say, dynamite - when they fail it is usually prematurely under stress of firing from artillery (there have ben at least 2 howitzers recorded as destroyed with "banana peel" barrels seen in this war, indicative of munition exploding in the barrel), or by NOT detonating properly. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's possible a munitions dump was hit, the RF obviously doesn't have a great track record with storing munitions. But the multiple explosions and impact crater indicate some sort of precision strike. Also considering that aircraft were the target, and not just making the airfield inoperable.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason Russia is not claiming Ukrainian military attack or attack from a resistance group is because they want to make everything look fine just to appear strong. Before COVID was known to exist, the PRC government silenced scientists via house arrest so everything would appear okay to the world. Dictatorships want to make things appear okay just so the rest of the world doesn't realize that things are going to Hell in a hand basket. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's a bit odd for an airfield to end up with such a consignment, but it's possible if, for example they were using cargo flights to transfer reserve stocks from Russia proper - their ability to maintain supply lines is poor at the best of times. Plus, they may have cut corners ie safety regs in a hope to speed up their advances. Lastly, the Russian military machine is riddled with corruption, incompetence and careerism - who knows what boneheaded blunders they made on the base?

And I offer another possible reason for Russian silence - they don't give a damn. The narod shall believe what they're told (not really, but they'll pretend to and be silent, which is enough for Czar Putin) and what everyone else says is irrelevant. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

They also need to deny the Ukrainians a propaganda victory. If Ukraine doesn't want to claim responsibility, why respond to it publicly. Especially when their movement of officers in Kherson oblast says so much more.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This is all true. Previously the RF promised an attack on Russia, meaning Crimea, would lead to retaliation against "decision making centers", a deliberately ambiguous term that could mean Kyiv, Ramstein airbase, NATO base in Poland, Brussels, or the Pentagon. The Russian public is demanding revenge (and for the Moskva as well), but the Kremlin isn't ready to escalate. Doggiedoo (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Now that's just wrong on two counts. Russia *isn't* going to outright attack NATO; they'd get creamed. Even more so now, having revealed to NATO just how much of a paper tiger they are. And the 'Russian public' isn't demanding anything; what info which is getting out is that they're kinda apathetic - the almost complete lack of appetite for military service a good example of such. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Updates;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62500560

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62560041

There's no doubt; Ukraine's hitting the already poor Russian logistics and rear-lines to degrade the enemy's capabilities and to increase Russian paranoia re guarding their supply lines. After all, a tank without fuel and a artillery piece without shells are just scrap, and every body put guarding a bit of rail, road etc in the rear is one who's not shooting at the front. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 will not be a red wave

Forecast -[20] Dems have a greater the 3/5 chance of keeping the Senate, and are expected to only lose 20 seats in the House. Andrew5 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I can live with that. I do not want a red wave. Hell I would even take a moderate Republican as long as he or she was not a Trump supporter and has a proper grasp on sanity. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, they don't really exist anymore - at least on a Federal level. Might still exist on a local level, depending on whether the sane people have remained in control of the local party.

Which is part of the reason American political polls are not that reliable. 'All politics is local' and the candidate themselves is more important in swing seats than they'd be in Westminster-systems (where they're much more merely a suit with the correct rosette pinned to it). Therefore, it's much more difficult to plot 'general swings' vs individual results and American polling is worse in general.

There's also the whole issue of expectations. From what I can tell, the question being banded about is not if there's said wave, but how big it shall be. That can breed complacency, and can also spur a last-moment rally for the opposition. Lastly, people's expectations can be fed off the wrong polling; much of it seems to be coming off Biden's personals (though in his slight defence, I think any Democrat would have the eminity of ~30% regardless) but when you do look at more generic party balloting shows the situation appears rather tight.

I'd personally say it's still too close to call, though I do predict there shall be enough GOP wins somewhere for victory to be declared. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The FBI raid on Trump is uniting Republicans behind Trump, but all that does is help Democrats. Andrew5 (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's really not worth it to engage in any sort of predictions. Most people aren't paying attention yet, that won't happen until after labor day.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Really? We're mostly done with primary season.Andrew5 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Wyoming is coming up, so keep on eye on how badly Liz Cheney gets wrecked. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

If moderate Republicans lose to Trump Republicans, and Trump Republicans lose to Democrats, it is still a blue victory. Lite (but not Classic or Deluxe) on 538 even predicts Ohio to flip. Andrew5 (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rational I am a moderate Republican. Kinda. Bull Moose or Rockefeller Republican; I absolutely despise the Neo-Cons and the Trumpers. Would you vote for me? CorruptUser 06:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

is there any year in the us not an election year? there seems to be endless elections over there. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Representatives are voted on every 2 years, Senators every 6, and Presidents every 4. It's just an oddity that some states hold local elections in odd-numbered years, but those are local and not federal. Senators are special in that only 1/3 are up for election at any given time so no state will vote on both of their senators and a third of states won't vote on either; this is by design to prevent some tragic event from completely rewriting the entire government. When the government can't get anything done due to gridlock, it's working as the founders intended. CorruptUser 14:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet there's places where a 'Trumpist' would lose but a 'Mainline' Republican may win due to tactical voting. Say, like the race in Utah. The parts of the USA which have open primaries may give 'Mainlines' a chance of winning/surviving, like in Washington. And despite being being reported extinct every year since perhaps 1986, RINOs not only still survive but plot a comeback; like in New England.

Gay; the 'constant elections' is due to the multi-layering and plethora of elected officials in the USA - Federal, State, Local. From the President to the proverbal dog-catcher. Most Americans would argue it's not that they have 'too many' elections, but the UK has 'too few'. An argument I'd agree with; we have 'too few' elections because we lack so many elected official positions. The main reason for this is simple; a centralising state which wants *all* power in the centre, in the Commons and Westminster. The quip about us being an 'elective dictatorship' ultimately, constains more than a grain of truth. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that you Euros are bizarre with your ability to hold "snap" elections. Like, imagine if Bush decided to hold a snap election 1 month after 9/11 or if Trump pushed the 2020 election back until the first vaccines were available. No. You have elections when you have them, or else you get dumb games. CorruptUser 17:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah elections seem to be constant because it's all staggered. Basically. This might be one of the many reasons people don't vote as much as they should since our country is a convoluted patchwork. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

i mean, its not just that they seem constant, its that the campaigns run for the best part of a year (or nearly two years? too fucking long either way) at least. its insane.

and as for a lack of elected officials in uk, i dunno about that. all i can say is that if i ever find myself in the dock im pretty sure i dont want to want to be prosecuted by someone whose job depends on a public vote. nor do i see much point in the election of admin assistants, like that county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses for gay people. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The long run-up times is explainable by one thing; money. USA does not have the spending limits, so you can throw as much as you can raise at it. Officially, the Tories spent about $19m for the whole 2019 GE. In America, that's just enough for a single Senate race for a safe seat. As for 'more elected officials'; well, that's the rub we have - Westminster is happy enough to have more elected officials, just not in giving them any tax/spend powers. Now, there's a debate to be had regarding what positions should/shouldn't be elected, but I don't think it would hurt having some more city mayors, town councils and so on to allow services to be better for local conditions. In the UK, for example I could see there being elections for local NHS trusts, school groups, non-profit boards (if say, water was re-nationalised) and so on. If nothing else, it would allow such people to with authority stand up and say 'you suck' to the relevant Minister when needed.

With parliamentary systems, it's all about where the power comes from for the Head of Government; ie Parliament (not a direct election, or appointed by the Head of State). The Prime Minister is only as strong as their control of Parliament to 'get stuff done'. This means that if they lose this control, all Govt business is basically ended until a new majority can be formed.

But it's not as easy as 'I'm doing well, let's have a GE' (at least in Westminster systems). Each Parliament has a firm cut-off date; the UK's next GE cannot be later than Friday 24 January 2025. There's conventions; that normally, a Parliament shall run for four years, with the election in May. Lastly, they need to get the Head of State to agree; in the UK the Queen does have the power to deny the request (if she's advised to by leading politicians to do so).

The UK has had nine snap elections since 1918. Of those, 3 were 'too slim a majority to rule', 2 were 'to make a political point' or 'try to capitalise on popularity' and 1 was 'new political leader' or 'lost majority'. We've also had two unscheduled General Elections due to the Goverment losing 'a vote of confidence'.

It might sound a bit odd, but this system works better than an outsider would think - the electorate, for example can normally sniff when it's being done for shabby reasons (MayBot, 2017) and the opposition can normally pick up in advance if they're prepping for a snap. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

A month and a half into my job as a research assistant...

...and for the first time, I have been acknowledged in a journal article for helping with proofreading and my many comments and suggestions. And I know Sustainability has a reputation for not being a very good journal, so you needn't point that out to me. Spud (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations. Many more to come? Scream!! (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Scream!! Hopefully, yes. In fact, I've already been listed as one of the three co-authors of an article submitted to IEEE Nanotechnology Magazine. I'm pretty sure that will be rejected because it's a piss poor excuse for an article. I tried my best to make a silk purse of the sow's ear that it was. Anyway, rest assured that if it is published, I will let everybody here know. Spud (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

That's great. Congratulations! Bongolian (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

3D-printed insects sound very cool. Congratulations on your hard work. LongStylus (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice job.--Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. It is really grest to hear!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Moving the Telegram draft to main

I don't have anything else to add to the Telegram draft. Unless anyone wants to add anything else, I would like a sysop to move the article to mainspace. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I added a fun joke. Hope you like it. LongStylus (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, jokes and snark are pretty central to RationalWiki after all. Thanks, the article was in desperate need of some humor. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump versus Richard Nixon

I raised the comparison a while back.

Anyone prefer DT over RN? Anna Livia (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

ok, i guess i'll briefly come out of retirement to answer this one. the short answer: i like nixon better. see below for the long answer.

i was born about three weeks before clinton's re-election. the only presidencies i can reliably remember living through are those of bush ii, obama, trump, and (of course) biden. all the others i know only from reading history textbooks and news articles.

having said that, i can't reliably compare trump and nixon because i wasn't even alive when the latter was president. my foreign-born parents hadn't even moved to the states yet at the time. however, based on what i know about him, he basically helped pave the way for a man like trump to eventually succeed him, even though he wasn't that much like him (in the same way reagan, the bushes, and the entire gop did in the decades that followed). if nixon were alive today, he would be repulsed by what has become of his party (even though it's ultimately his own fault; see southern strategy). nixon did, after all, found amtrak and establish the epa, the latter which trump tried his utmost best to sabotage. nixon's foreign policy was a disaster, but then again, this is the cold war we are talking about here.

in the end, the republican party slowly evolved to become what it is today. it's unfair to draw comparisons between republicans of the past and today's republicans. the former group is almost always better in that they at least had a semblance of respect for our democratic institutions and the environment, among other things. (even bush, cheney, and some other former officials of the bush administration have been outspoken critics of trump.) however, previous gop presidents (like nixon) are also complicit in creating the climate that led to the rise of trump. G Man (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

but again, i'm probably too young to answer this question. you'd probably be better off asking someone who has lived through both presidencies. G Man (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a analogy I use when comparing these two (it happens a lot), mostly because both men had major scandals at the very end of their presidencies. If you somehow removed Watergate from the timeline Nixon would be a decent but far from perfect president. If you removed the Capitol Riot from the timeline Trump would still be one of the worst presidents ever.-Flandres (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

'The love of Richard Nixon, death without assasination... people forget China, and your War on Cancer...'

It's not fair to compare Dicky with the Orange Blob. For all the myrad of the former's personal failings and personal views which now sound utterly disgusting (though let's remember, he was a man raised in the 1930s) he was actually a fairly competent president. In some ways, the last gasp of the old 'Rooseveltian Republicans'; ie ones who proactively 'did stuff' to improve America and her people. In public, tacked behind the moving status quo - Roe vs Wade and Title IX both happened on his watch. Economics was a mixed bag, but most of the problems were not his fault (Blame LBJ and OPEC) and it's debatable that the spike of inflation in '72 onwards was bound to happen once he allowed the USD to float. He was also did the usual 'boss stuff' like say, mastering his briefs and listening to expert opinions before making calls. Could you trust the man with the nuclear football? I think you could.

Flandres puts it right; Trump has zero positive attributes, either personal or political. There is nothing he's achieved that could be judged with hindsight as being 'good for America'. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

My previous posting of the comment was made early in DT's presidency, the current 'reassessment' in the wake of the retrieval of confidential material from Trumpton Towers (compare and contrast with the Nixon tapes).

Note the deliberately leading question. Anna Livia (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Would it be crass to favour Nixon because he's dead, and can no longer surprise us with another underhanded, sly and despicable revelation unlike Fuckface Von Clownstick™? Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that either one was better: they're both rotten in their own ways. The "Nixon did good stuff except for Watergate" argument is bullshit. He committed a felony (conspiring to sabotage the Vietnam peace talks in 1968, a violation of the Logan Act) to get himself elected for his first term in a tight race against Hubert Humphrey. Nixon's treachery essentially resulted in the escalation of the war in Vietnam and secretly expanded the war to Cambodia and Laos, causing the needless deaths of Southeast Asians and Americans. Nixon was a bigot but managed to usually keep his more overt bigotry out of the public sphere until the tapes were released, though his bigotry may have influenced policy, such as the War on Drugs. Bongolian (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Then you're greywashing Trump, Bongolian. They were both bad, yes - but differing levels of bad. They're not in the same class; while Nixon was bordering unfitness due to his 'personals' and (for a counterpart) Bush Jr was approaching unfit on his 'professionals', Trump crosses that line on both sides. Part of Nixon's problem (and Trump's 'saving grace') was that of competence; Nixon could successfuly plot and lie well, while you see Trump coming a mile off.

This shows in the bigotry. Nixon was a bigot, but knew he needed to hide his bigotry. Trump simply does not give a damn. I'm not going to let the 'a man of his time' argument wash over Nixon here, on the basis he hid his bigotry (showing it was unnacceptable at that time too). However, I will offer in some mitigation the fact the tapes recorded a man around 60, talking in what he felt to be private. Yet (for example) he was the guy who put in a raft of environmental laws and founded the EPA. Even though he hated hippies and greenies. We'll never know for sure, but this suggests a rather complex man. Trump... on the other hand, is a very easy man to understand. In fact, scarily so.

Lastly, while Nixon lied and plotted and threw bodies in the way to save his own - he didn't try to fan riots for his own political gain and nor did he whip up his diehard followers to try to attempt an armed insurrection. Hate Dicky for many a thing, but at very least you've gotta give him the credit of not being that bad. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

All politicians are, to some extent, 'of their times' and the influences when they were growing up etc, which will influence their prejudices etc - and will divide the world into 'my lot/those I can work with', 'those I can ignore' and 'the b#####ds'

Another distinction between the two - RN managed to create a post-Presidential career (books etc), while DT's post-President stance seems to be a howl of despair against the world that rejected him.

RN and DT may be 'bad guys/politicians' in different ways - but a major difference is 'RN was a bad guy, but...' Anna Livia (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, some leaders make their times, others merely follow the public's lead. It could be said that the last Democrat president who did the former in the USA was Carter.

Anyway, I was thinking about the issue above earlier; does it matter what a leader privately thinks about a topic, or is it only their public words/deeds that count? Could you, for example give kudos to a (now dead) politician who in public helped rub out some of the worst racist barbs out of official society... even if it was now known that in private they were a huge racist who didn't even like to be touched by members of the offending group? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Nixon did not create a coup so Trump is worse Wik ₁₀ 23:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Mind you, if Nixon had gone ahead with Operation Gemstone I doubt there would be any attempt to compare the utterly corrupt to the incomprehensibly inept Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

As there's no actual evidence Nixon knew about such plans or even gave a general permission to do 'something like that' we can't really deal with hypotheticals of this order. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

trump is worse because hes still around and causing problems. nixon resigned decades ago and has since died. current problems are worse than anything that has long ceased be one. noam chomsky would have you believe that a 2nd term for trump was an existential threat to the world. hes no lnger pres, but he still seems to have enough popular support to decide republican candidates so still potential for him fuck things up even more i guess. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Cheney lost

Cheney lost to someone more Trump friendly. Widely expected, Wyoming is a very Trumpy state. Andrew5 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps not. We need to bear in mind that the style of American politics leaves itself wide open to 'entryism' and 'substitutionism'. It is quite possible for a well-organised minority (sometimes, pretty small numbers) to seize control of local party chapters, use the local offices to then subvert the level above, to hijack the nominations process and like a virus, infect the whole political machine. Traditionally, you see this in safe seats, as there's little need to have to worry about appealing to floating or wavering-opposition voters (qv: Bible Belt).

I do wonder if Cheney's going to run as an independent. My suspicion is; if she can do the same as that senator in Utah (ie persuade the Democrats to not run) she just might do it. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes Wyoming is but it is small for population that she probably won't win there but might in another state. Wik ₁₀ 22:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. Never Trumpers + Democrats + Pissed-off Independents might be enough to win it. It's also a safe seat, so don't underestimate the non-Republican voters' desire to give the GOP a kick in the balls for a general ignoring of their views/needs. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It was obvious she would lose. She still holds no fundamentally oppositional politics whatsoever, at least not consistently, but just condemning him was enough to end her career. It is not about him as an individual, it is he outright abandoned most dogwhistles and stated what he and his entire party truly thought openly and unabashedly. Republicans desperately wanted to do that for eons, and now they can. To them, it is blasphemy to disregard his malicious contributions--April ^Chat? 04:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of that analysis. Other options...

- It is quite possible that Cheney actually *did* believe the surface meaning of the dogwhistles (well, at least enough of them), and it's the discovery otherwise which led her to stand against it and face the consequences. From my own personal experience, this is actually more common than you'd think, esp with rich people.

- Cheney believes 'Trumpism' is an electoral dead-end, and by sticking her flag into a different Republican rock promises to 'turn out well in the end'. She is 56, which barely 'middle-aged' in American politics.

- Cheney only objects to Trump breaking the 'rules of battle'. That she's smart enough to realise that political systems rely on a load of rules (both written and unwritten) to function properly and if on one day Republicans break them for their benefit, the next day Democrats might do it for theirs - making the 'Second Civil War' become *much* more likely. Let us remember; Cheney is a lawyer.

KarmaPolice (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Science denialism as denial of mechanism, referred structures, and physical interactions present in scientific models.

I sometimes see people accuse those who object to some of the naming conventions or language in science as science denial, when there is no real disagreement about the actual tangible concrete components of what is being described in scientific models. You see this with how people respond to queer people having objections to the language we use to refer to sex as "biological denialism" or alternatively you may see it when people insist that a given naming convention within a field is offensive i.e. the r-slur to designate those with intellectual disabilities (some folks will insist upon using the term because it's "scientifically accurate"). I think it may be important to make a distinction between people's disagreements about the naming conventions and language used in science, and those who fundamentally are in fact denying science. I think in the latter case it's not simply objecting to how a given trait or phenomena is referred to, but rather insisting that the entity or phenomena being referred to does not exist at all. The transfer from referring to electrons as "corpuscles" to "electrons" was not physicists engaging in denial of their own work, however denying the reality that the gas referred to as carbon dioxide is leading to what is referred to as a greenhouse effect on our planet is an example of science denial. Does this make sense? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC).

objections to scientific language is not denialism and people saying it is are not being honest. they are objecting to having to consider other people as people. they are also deliberately oblivious to the fact scientific language used outside of lab or research paper carries with it meaning beyond the strictly scientific. value judgements. added political biases. often what is presented as science fact is infact not fact but specifically interpreting of the science so they can say it says what they want it it to say, because the same science could be interpreted to say whatever you want it to say. include who you want, exclude what you want. accusations of denial are to shut down opposition while repeating a political statement while claiming science. its not science, its rhetoric posing as science.

im not sure anyone is actually in any doubt of what is going on when people make statements claiming to be hard scientific fact that no one can dispute without being in denial. i can only think of the many variations of 'what is a woman?' and the other many varied ways of saying trans women are not real women. thats not about science thats quibbling over definitions and were lines are drawn. where we draw lines and for what purpose is not down to science. how something is defined is not science. it is cultural and culture is an ever changing thing. on one side we have asinine questions of 'what is a woman?' intent on forcing a conclusion that its all biology as biology is the only objective factor and excludes trans. the other side has biology only one part of the picture, and not a fundamental one, thus allowing for trans people in our definition.

curiously, its the side that allows for trans inclusivity that still is the status quo in west. restricting womanhood to biology is a step back in time in the west, while in the developing world its a factor in the oppression of woman. biology is not just what you are born with. what you are born with has biological function. to be born a biological woman that function is baby making. a function that for much of human existence allowed for the oppression of woman. fulfilling that biological function made them dependant on men. the rights and freedoms enjoy in the west is in no small part down to freeing themselves from this biological function, and from the associated economic dependence, and not to mention the strain their health pregnancy entails and from the risks and pain of childbirth itself. birth control freed woman from a pregnancy everytime the sex. safe abortion available for accidental pregnancies. it freed them from being trapped in a marriage to whoever first knocks thems up, allowed them careers not cut short or needing to work around pregnancy and bringing up kids. it allowed women to be more than just baby factories. more than just their biological function.

now we have some of feminists who fought for the rights gained after the pill became available. who fought for womem to be considered more than their biological function decided by the accident birth, seeking to be considered by more than the biological. the us has just declared open season on abortion. some have birth control in their sights. sex education has always led a precarious existence, while there are quiverfull types who think its a womans patriotic duty to spit as many kids out of their vag as possible. there are nazi types who think white people face an existential threat by women not having enough kids. mens rights groups and incels all long for time when women were dependant on men, when women were cattle, with no agency, just marry the first man who takes an interest. its not trans women being a 'fifth column' of men wanting to hear women piss in the cubicle adjacent to their own they should be worried about. if its rapists they fear, its a sad fact that men dont require putting on a frock and loitering in the ladies rape them. its the men who are more than happy to reduce womanhood to nothing more than their biology. thats the good old days for them.

but i digress. its not the denial of science to disagree with how some folk wish to define women. the definition is a question of culture not one of science. 'what is woman?' is a question that terfs should be asking themselves and if they really want to boil it down to biology then they should take a look at the men all too happy to agree with them itching to turn back the clock to when that was a reality and wonder what the struggle for rights post sexual revolution the pill allowed for has all been for. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you about the science/culture dichotomy. Where I disagree is with the notion that humanity is making progress by formally changing the definitions of words in some contexts. There is a subtle distinction to be made with respect to transsexual categories. We may suppose that many people can be persuaded that a trans-man, for example, is in every important sense, a real man, as opposed to being a female with male preferences and some male characteristics. But there is a very real likelihood that what is done is different in effect. The result is more likely to be a new modified notion of maleness that not only includes the biological male, but also some subset of females who chose to be so identified. That is to say, they would be regarded by many as men in name only. At this point, science is irrelevant. One changes what a word means when cultural values are reinterpreted. All the science in the world could not persuade certain females looking for male partners to accept a "new male." Why is this so? Redefining a word cannot change human behavior. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue is with the 'biological determinism' is that as of 2022 not only has no consensus seeped into general society, but there's not even anything like a 'scientific consensus' on the topic outside of biology and *perhaps* a principle that 'gender is a social construct' in sociology. This means there's not yet any solid, generally accepted definitions of key terms (as the discipline is so new), which allows bad actors on all sides to play silly buggers with them - which in this case, the RadTrans and Terfs are doing in unequal measure (mainly the latter).

While on the surface most semantic discussions may seem harmless, they're usually not. 'Pro-Life'? How can you not be for life? 'Wealth Creators'? That's good, right? And so on. I offer the concept of 'cultural hegemony' here; in which a dominant group defines the 'method of discourse' regarding the topic in question. How it is 'supposed to be' discussed, the definition of terms, mapping the Overton Window and finally, setting the 'default position'. What we have with gender issues is for a fight for dominance - between social conservative/reactionaries and liberal/libertarians. Who gets to 'make the rules of the game' - this is important, for an official status quo can hold for yonks even if the majority of the Big Public are vaguely against it or apathetic.

But Krampus hits the bull perfectly; what most folk think of as 'trans' is in fact 'binary trans' and the eagle-eyed folks know 'if it is not stopped' it'll end up pulling the whole man/woman binary apart in a similar manner gays and lesbians finally noticing bi/pansexuals exist between them and the straight folks (and they're not simply closeted/greedy/experimenting).

And Gay gets the whole TERF-TradMan overlap too. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

IV “Treatments”

In the Southwest, there’s been a string of peddlers for IV hydration and various other snake oils. I know B vitamin injections have been a thing for a while, but is this something showing up in your neighborhood? I am wondering if it’s just folks taking advantage of my area and the whole “it’s hot, here” thing, such as these folks. Bit buzzed so pardon any bad grammar or uh if I am unclear. Also I know it’s just hot everywhere right now, just mean in general Probliknaut (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

As soon as you said Southwest and IV, I knew this must be Arizona, since they've given their chiropractor's license to ill and are allowed to give IV infusions. The thing that surprised me was that they've got a DO on staff at that site who has a single rating of 1 star for puncturing a lung pleura: ouch![21] The Myers cocktail that they offer is an old-school crank idea from the 1960s (Vitamin and mineral supplements#Searching for my mainline). Some of the things they're injecting could be dangerous (e.g., zinc, if in excess or curcumin if contaminated). IV hydration is used medically when severe dehydration occurs, but their stuff is quackery since it's being billed as "therapeutic". Bongolian (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

all the cool kids are vaping their vitamins these days. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, IV hydration is a gateway drug to heroin. 😉 Bongolian (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I am aware that in Arizona, naturopathic "physicians" are given full legal rights as physicians. Chiropractors are given similar power. Even in the state of Michigan, Chiropractors are allowed to be called physicians and we have the most restrictive laws for Chiropractors in the country. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

My translation of a right wing code

Go Woke Go Broke translated-

I don't like other demographics represented so I will throw a fit. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Nah - more 'I am fundamentally unable to realise that women/LGBT/minority/green/vegan/etc people actually are now in sufficient numbers and/or purchasing power that they are worth courting as consumers'.

Do not confuse with left-wing(ish) variant; which is 'Once I started only buying green/fair trade/fair labour/etc products, I have no money left'. Also occasinally used as a mockery of a 'wokewashing' campaign which backfired so bad it actually damaged the company.

My word/phrase for defining is 'productivity'. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Funny considering those companies most animated about commitments for social justice, reducing emissions and changing to a carbon free future are among the richest and best performing.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Their retort would be pointing to (for example) the level of companies which got burned from trying to climb the vegan bandwagon in the '18-'22 period. However, a sane answer to this is that vegan market got big enough to support mass production, everyone tried to get in, only to discover it's not big enough for all. Ie normal capitalism.

Anyway, isn't anyone going to define 'productivity' for me? Everyone loves a word game! KarmaPolice (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Productivity, isn't it exploitation of the workforce? Getting more bang for yer buck... "Be more productive and we'll raise your wages slightly." Of course there is only so much 'productivity' that can possibly be given. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well Liz Truss says the UK isn't productive enough, so presumably in true tory style she's definitely the most productive person possible. So, Productivity, noun: "The quality of working as hard as Liz Truss". As for what she produces, well, that's, uh...look over there, she's dressed like Thatcher again! In a tank! Truly the patriotic leader we deserve :') Namako (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Productivity is not ill-defined, it's the amount of output per unit of input (or, according to Paul Krugman, the output per worker). Putting in a mathematical language, we have:

$Y=AF(L,K,H,N,)$

Where Y denotes the quantity of output, L the quantity of labor, K the quantity of physical capital, H the quantity of human capital, and N the quantity of natural resources, and F( ) is a function that shows how the inputs are combined to produce output. A is a variable that reflects the available technology. As technology improves, A rises, so the economy produces more output from any given combination of inputs. There are other production functions, this one is on Mankiw's textbook. Yeah, boring, I know, but I love this subject too much.GeeJayK (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn't Paul Krugman the guy who claimed that globalization wouldn't have an effect on the American job market? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC).

Probably. Most economists often have a poor tracking when it comes to predictions, but Krugman is the worst. His academic work is great nonetheless, and his texbook is my third favorite. Unfortunately, he hasn't published anything since 2007. Shifting from trade to public policy was a bad idea, he's just not very good on this subject. I'll update his article on RW with his blunders when I have time, it is on my do-list.. GeeJayK (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I was personally thinking along the Truss lines; that 'productivity' is simply a measure of how lazy and greedy those workers are. Therefore, 'improving productivity' involves doing 'business friendly' things like removing maximum hour limits, labour protections for harrassment and (if you can get away with it), filleting minimum wage laws and unemployment protections (I've heard it 'argued' that the bony hand of starvation is required to make people work).

Anyone else want to try a new word for defining? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Robber-barons Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm... trade union bosses? As they are 'barons' who leading groups who rob the poor sat-upon 'wealth creators' and limit employment? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

the elon musks of the world. and whoever owns google. or who owns facebook. of the guy who owns amazon. or disney. plenty of candidates to choose from wielding more power and influence than we should be comfortable withAMassiveGay (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Think you missed the title of the topic, Gay - those folks are the 'wealth creators' and thus, get all loved-up just thinking about them. Unless they suddenly turn and 'go woke', which means they're exiled to the 'liberal elite' immediately and have become 'enemies of the people'. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Taking an Algebra class and I am getting my ass kicked w

Okay, I am taking an Algebra class and I am barely understanding middle school level mathematics. I graduated high school but I am screwing up bad 😔.

Then again, I was always bad at math. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Need help? I'm a career engineer of 9 years, AMA. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

https://ncert.nic.in/textbook.php?kemh1=0-16 You can check out this website for the best math textbook Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 15:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

It's good to see people pitching in to offer help. The first thing to consider is, it doesn't matter how bad you think you are at math. You will be as good as you can be by making the effort to practice. Practice exercise sets. There is something to the concept of brain plasticity. If you are not good now at treating mathematical problems, you can become better. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

^ This. I used to be pretty bad at math, but I got way better. It helps to study math in your spare time. Don't waste time memorizing formulas; focus on the proofs and problem-solving process. Learning natural languages seems to be the opposite; I prefer to just rote memorize by constantly using a dictionary when reading or listening. LongStylus (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That seems like good advice. I know someone who was bad at math but decided she needed to advance in life and getting through math classes was part of it: concentration and study did it. Problem solving is a good route, because that can also help with critical thinking skills. Conversely, like most things, it's also "use it or lose it". If one doesn't practice math, one often eventually loses the skills. Bongolian (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I thank you all for the suggestions. I will use the resources when I tackle further quizzes, assignments and tests. Thankfully it is a go at your own pace school. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I Can confirm that Math is a use it or lose it skill. I never had the option of being bad at Math thanks to my job, but I was a lot better a few years ago. Skipping the methodological section of most scientific papers I read over the last two years made me gain some of the time I lost since I got married, but now I can barely understand some of them. Hopefully, regaining skills is a lot easier than acquiring them in the first place, so I can still relearn most stuff I forgot if I ever need to. GeeJayK (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a summary of main ideas and findings from the cognitive theory and research into mathematical learning and work, based on the 1991 book Advanced Mathematical Thinking. While very short compared to the book, it elaborates more on practice, problem solving, memorization, some types of skills, and how different things relate to success in learning. Maybe it could be helpful, it mainly suggests ways to consider your own work and perhaps try to vary things. It'll probably be an easier read if you generally like to think about thinking.

The gist would be that the big challenge facing learners is to bridge the gap between top-down formulations presented as teaching (the finished products which are up to mathematical standards), and the personal bottom-up growing of cognitive structures through experience with the stuff (which is the basis of personal understanding). Teaching still deals very roughly with guiding learners in developing their cognitive schemas. Many get stuck by not getting varied and rich enough mental experience with things to form enough inside to embody what they are meant to memorize. It also often happens that people paint themselves into corners, by learning something early which turns out to not be quite right, and then failing to change that old understanding even when it's crucial for learning more. The third big stumbling block is when people don't do careful-enough error checking with the rules and definitions at hand, the path of least resistance wired into human minds being to go with a quick-and-sloppy intuitive flow whenever at least somewhat familiar with something. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

So I got a Thinkpad recently...

Since I'm finally moving onto college, I figured that I needed a laptop to replace the shitty Chromebooks that my school district gave to me. Originally I had planned on getting a better Chromebook because I wanted something that's very Linux friendly and be able to flash Coreboot onto it, but then I realized that the Thinkpads are known for those exact two reasons in addition to their durability and modability. I sniped a listing for a T440p for $100, and then the necessity to upgrading became very apparent to me after getting it. The 1366x768 LCD has pretty terrible viewing angles, so I swapped it for a 1080p IPS. The trackpad was extraordinarily shit, even for Thinkpad standards, so I retrofitted a T450 trackpad and it had made a night-and-day difference. The recycling firm forgotten to disable the anti-theft, so I removed it by running Windows until the option to permanently disable it was unlocked on the BIOS. I'm gonna upgrade the CPU to a i7-4700MQ and bump up the RAM to 16GB to make compiling software and virtual machines tolerable for a 9 year-old laptop. I'm currently typing this from it right now and it's the most comfiest laptop I have ever had. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 14:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Recently I got a new MacBook Air M1 to replace my still functional but aging and battery-bulging 10 year old MacBook Pro. I'm very pleased with the new machine. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

if you're wiping the THinkpad and loading linux, give Manjaro a try. :D

Closing the Board of Trustees election

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:2022 board of trustees election/Results.

Andrew5 (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Was Schopenhauer a misogynist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLDQVLuBbiw Schopenhauer sounds like an incel who is experiencing post nut clarity. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 06:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Holy Moly that comment section is quite the read, better not click that link if MGTOW nonsense easily frustrates you 😅NastyNugget (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I should've put a warning. But that still raises the question, is Schopenhauer a misogyny or did that youtuber quote mine him? Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 16:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I dunno. Can a misanthrope not be a misogynist?UncleKrampus (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

IMO, Schopenhauer's apparent misogyny is simply an extension of his general misanthropy into the realm of sexes. If he hated women but not men, he mould be a misogynist, and vice versa for misandry. Since Schopenhauer clearly detested both men and women in general, I would say he isn't truly misogynistic, rather just an extension of his afformentioned misanthropy. An Advocate (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Tate banned

I don’t get the point as I still see edgelords puking out his rhetoric about masculinity. SomeBurnerAccount (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I heard about this on BBC radio this past week. Basically, he franchises his videos out for others to post on TikTok, giving himself a cut of the revenue. TikTok has claimed that it's overwhelmed by these, though it says it's trying to do something. The basic problem is that most of these social media sites were based on free speech absolutist ideology. Only much later have they come to realize that this doesn't work in the real world where they can get their asses sued as well as repel a base of potential customers who don't like getting bombarded by this shit. Bongolian (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he got banned. Nothing of value was lost accordingly--April ^Chat?

First, why not link to an article so people get the context?

Now, the worth of this move. Basically, even now FB still generates a lot of hits/links for an account and IG may be starting to hollow-out due to 'influencer' saturation but is still powerful and shall remain so for some time. From what I can tell, he uses social media as 'spokes' leading back to the 'hub' of his own site; therefore, black out his windows, reduce his light. And even more importantly, his income. A digital unperson (of which Tate is rapidly becoming) has three problems; much more difficult to breakout into the old media, other social media folk can't interact (barring endorsements etc) and much increased difficulty in reeling in new marks - one of the reasons third-rate advertisers love social media is because it's relatively cheap.

Now, Burner is 100% correct that getting rid of Tate don't get rid of his 'message'. But what were you expecting? His videos etc still exist and it's pretty difficult to memory hole anything these days. And his message is the same old BS (so hard to directly link influence, unless it's openly admitted). There's also the terms of 'banning'; it's quite possible that 'his account(s)' are banned, but not third-party ones with his stuff on it. And even at the best of times, it takes time to cull all the content.

But the one thing I do worry is that like in the 90/00s with 'Islamic extremism' (There's a strong Jihadist/Incel overlap ideologically, something not really explored), too many of us think getting the drek out of our view equals 'dealing with it'. Yes, remove it from public view so to lessen their power and to avoid legitimisation - but they still need to be 'answered'. Ideas, after all can only be destroyed by other ideas. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

He's a disgusting misogynist, and his MLM of Hustlers University was the definition of late stage capitalism. I don't think an outright ban was warranted, just de-monetize his content until he gets rid of his more violent rhetoric. There are a few out there comparing his language to some controversial female creators, but the distinctive different for me is online rhetoric turning into real world violence, which is way more likely from Tate's followers. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I seriously doubt 'they' went straight to the banhammer. In fact, the simple size of his social media suggests they'd have been *more* willing to 'let crap slide' than some rando nobody with a footprint of only a few thou (them being part of the whole 'Late Stage' malaise themselves). Plus, much of his social media appears to have been ads for his own site (so demonitising wouldn't have worked so well). Plus, I wouldn't call MLM 'late stage', more good old 'con' and 'hustling' is just reskinned Horatio Alger BS.

One thing I sorta object to is the 'rhetoric turning into real world violence' bit. Not that it doesn't happen, more the implied bit that Tate was doing this and the previously-mentioned rando nobody *isn't*. Plus, he's peddling basically the same old crud, so doing a direct cause-effect is difficult. I would personally say the biggest risk Tate poses to the general ecosystem is his hustle/misogyny crossover, which allows him to capture folks from the former and convert to the latter. I hate the term, but in a way folks like him are the 'gateways' to Worse Things, not the purveyor of them themselves.

Perhaps the *best* argument for social media bans like this is the fact some younger folks (more a Z thing than Millenial, methinks) takes social media presences as a sign of legitimacy - in the same way older Brits bought Farage's crud because he got legitimacy by constantly turning up on TV/radio/newspapers etc to shill and slither about. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Aaand YT joins the bans... KarmaPolice (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought about this before and I keep wondering why you find this concept in popular culture

I am talking about a human entering into a romantic relationship with a human looking entity such as an alien, demon, angel, Godly being, vampire or werewolf.

How did such a concept enter into popular culture? In terms of aliens or divine beings, I think that you find it most in anime. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Think about how many ancient myths involve such things. Greek and Roman mythology, for instance, are rife with humans banging gods and gods banging all manner of things, while Genghis Khan is supposed to have been the result of a wolf and elk getting it on. Even Sima Qian, the Grand Historian, wrote that one of the Three Sovereigns came into being because his mother stepped in a giant's footprint and got pregnant. People with a much better imagination than me think of such things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want science fantasy silliness you can go back a lot further than anime. In Genesis 6:4 you find: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them."Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends. If it's a story about a human and a robot falling in love with each other, it could be a commentary on class and social hierarchy. Robots in pop culture are often portrayed as slaves to humans. If it's about a human and an alien, it could be a message about racism and xenophobia. LongStylus (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

they are not really non human entities. they are distinctly human in emotion and personality. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's nice to realize that even ancient generations of Man shared the though of "I'd totally bang a hot alien babe". CorruptUser 17:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The example creatures listed as the first example are basically 'human in human and personality' - they may not conform to what is considered 'correct' as human, but they are still 'close enough' to be 'comprehendible' in the wants/needs/thoughts department. I'd actually say the oldest 'conscious but incomprehensible' character known in human canon is that of God in the Bible. We never get an proper description, or any real glimpse of their general motivations (like why the hell they created Earth in the first place). In fact, the only times we do get glimpses of what's going on in what passes as their mind is when they're being jealous, petty and/or cruel and with a tendency for gaslighting - hardly the better side of the human condition. Though now I think of it, saying 'God is beyond the ken of human understanding' reads more of an handwaving for a character who's badly written... or perhaps a 'Starfish Alien' entity which was *trying* to communicate with humans but kinda sucking at it. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Zeus came to earth as a swan so he could rape Leda. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you heard on the internet that Zeus was into bestiality and rape. Now learn about the part where he cut off his father's testicles with a stone sickle, and when thrown into the sea it birthed Aphrodite. CorruptUser

People do have sex with inanimate objects that look human but aren't (i.e. inflatable dolls). Before those were invented, people used to try to have sex with statues. And that reminds me, how about the myth of Pygmalion and Galatea? Spud (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Exodus 33 is the first dunk

I dunno what happened here, so I hope this gets throuhg, but I was asked by a firm believer what Bible story I liked best. And I said it was the time Moses got dunked on by God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8TQ-vTDks8

https://www.biblehub.com/niv/exodus/33.htm

Canonically, Moses got posterized. Commander Sprace (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and? It's only Christianity and Islam that believes their prophets are the perfect human beings who could do no wrong. Judaism is VERY clear that Moses was NOT a perfect person, Rabbis still argue about what exactly he did wrong, but he was not perfect and sometimes even defied god's orders only for it to bite him in the arse. King David, another venerated culture figure, very, very infamously had a man effectively murdered so that David could pork his wife. Basically, David saw Bathsheba cleaning herself on her roof, and had her brought to his bed to boink. Her husband Uriah was away at war, but came back early. David panicked and ordered Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba, so that if she was pregnant nobody would suspect anything. Uriah ignored David's orders and slept outside; if his brothers in arms were suffering, so would he. At this point, David was technically within his rights as King to execute Uriah for defying his orders, but that'd raise suspicions if Bathsheba gave birth. So David ordered Uriah back to war, and basically ordered his commanders to simple let Uriah die, which is a dick move but within the rights of being King. Also by law, every soldier gives his wife a conditional divorce; if the husband goes missing or someone says the husband dies, the wife is divorced retroactively to the last time they saw each other. I.e., Bathsheba was a widow, not a wife, ergo David and Bathsheba violated no laws. God was pissed anyway, and wiped out most of David's family as punishment. Basically, the moral from that story is "following the rules does not mean you did a good thing". CorruptUser 17:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the moral I gather from Exodus 33 is God will not take your side. God will do whatever God wants, and if you happen to be in his favor, toss it up. I like the Old Testament better, probably because my favorite stories are when God gets involved. Or maybe doesn't. Or maybe is just an old guy in a smokey tent saying "yeah I figured out God now." It's impossible to corroborate, I just think it's funny every time God says "You thought you knew me? You don't know me." So instead of believing some traditional set of ahistorical accepted truths, I like the stories where people who probably never existed get told to fuck off for asking God to do things. I get frustrated when I see billboards that say "prayer works!" I know churches occasionally raise that money and put those billboards up until somebody else buys the space. It's nastier when they have their actual church name on the billboard, and those are usually "Questions? We have answers" in some form. Like, tithing should not go to billboards. I know that's Christian Evangelical specific, but I'm surrounded by it and it's gross, ya gross. I hope that's moving the conversation to answer your "yeah, and" question. Commander Sprace (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been a great week for government transparency, and a bad one for the Trump Admin

We started this week with Mueller Investigation memo from DOJ, that justified Barr mischaracterizing the Special Counsel's work. I plan to add some details later to that article, but the doozy here is essentially because Trump nor his team could be criminally charged in Russian interference in the 2016 election, and nothing that Trump did after the fact was obstruction. The report hinges primarily on this paragraph (I added my emphasis):

C. The Report Does Not Identify Any Actions Rising To Obstruction of Justice

We have carefully reviewed Volume II of the Report and concluded that it does not identify sufficient evidence to prove any criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Although Volume II makes no conclusions about the President's conduct, it adopts an expansive reading of28 U.S.C. § 1512( c )(2) as prohibiting any act, including an otherwise lawful act, that impedes an official proceeding, so long as the act is done with a corrupt intent. According to the Special Counsel, there is no requirement that the act be inherently malign or impair the availability of witnesses or evidence. At the same time, the Report advances several definitions of "corruptly," including one that would establish intent by proof of an "improper purpose." The Report thus suggests that the President's exercise of executive discretion for any improper reason, including the prevention of personal embarrassment, could constitute obstruction of justice if it impeded a pending investigation. As we have discussed with you, we do not subscribe to such a reading of the obstruction-of-justice statutes. No reported case comes close to upholding a conviction of such breadth, and a line of Supreme Court precedent, including Arthur Anderson, weighs heavily in favor of objectivity and certainty in the federal criminal law. In order to reach the conclusions in this memorandum, however, we do not believe it necessary to address this disagreement further, because in our view, Volume II of the Report does not establish offenses that would warrant prosecution, even under such a broad legal framework.

Today we have the affidavit submitted to obtain the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. Much of it is redacted but key takeaways:

• There were documents found previously from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
• There were documents marked "HCS" which stands for 'HUMINT Control Systems' which relates to intelligence gathered from human sources.
• Some documents had hand-written notes by Trump.
• Of the 184 documents, 25 were top secret, 82 were secret and 67 were confidential

Trump's lawyers also argued recently in court that he had the ultimate classification authority, a legal argument that doesn't hold any water when you consider even unclassified documents shouldn't be mishandled if they threaten national security.

Not sure how anyone could review this information and come to the conclusion that Trump didn't break the law.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget the unusual plea deal that ex-Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg agreed to. Weisselberg will serve time in the notorious Rikers Prison if he lives long enough to see the prosecution completed, and the plea deal indicates that there will be other NY State criminal indictments within TrumpOrg. It had been thought until this week that Alvin Bragg had given up on criminally prosecuting the Trumpsters.[22] Bongolian (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Neopaganism and New Age

I've been dabbling in Neopaganism, specifically the Non-theistic/naturalistic version that sees deities just as personifications of diverse concepts, Nature, etc. and has a good dose of skepticism about supernatural claims, reading Reddit subthreads about it.

While there's a lot of nice people there, general respect of science and tolerance with the beliefs of others, and not the kind of BS you find among Fundagelicals –which I've seen first hand, thanks street preachers and the like even if that's yet another method to keep the sheeps in that does not look to convert others- , I dislike how many New Age woo is thrown around -crystals, "positive energy" and the like, astrology, etc- even if you don't have to follow them to be in the club. One thing is to meditate and even a bit of playing around with some Tarot app and other what you often find there, up to and including sometimes to focus just on the nice and friendly part of deities while in the mythos they often had a quite darker and nasty side as much as you had to mess with them to see it.

I understand some rites either have been lost to history and would be heavily frowned upon today (animal sacrifice, except if you've a farm and it's part of your work), things change and one must go on with the available stuff, and little is known about some deities with a good dose of pseudohistory and false assumptions around (Robert Graves, as interesting as is his idea of the 🌒🌕🌘 goddess) with reconstructionism being difficult at best (and expensive) but I often find there's too much nonsense around there. Just my two cents. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

You can stick with the non-theistic version where you believe in a metaphorical deity, not literal. Rites are done in the self-esteem aspect where you don't deal in the metaphysical. Kinda like the Satanic Temple where their practices are non-theistic in nature. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It also sucks how many stuff seems to have been made-up from XIX Century onwards in what refers to Celtic deities at least, and how most academic research is behind a paywall. I guess I may need help from *cough* the raven that holds a key in the beak *cough*. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Pseudohistory: One of the forms of denialism often overlooked

In this day and age where pseudoscience has become a threat to the health and safety of society as a whole, pseudohistory ends up being overlooked.

The main reason pseudohistory should given more attention is because it fuels dangerous nationalism that often leads to acts of violence. There is the obvious far right nationalism here in the United States (I cannot speak about the level of nationalism in Canada or Mexico as I hardly hear about it). There is also the pseudohistory fueled nationalism in Bulgaria and North Macedonia which is behind the current violent protests in the region. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I personally would widen the 'pseudohistory' definition to include the kickback against efforts by mainstream historians etc to correct what is basically, old pseudohistory which managed to get itself cemented in as 'true' in the days of yore. For example, the 'Lost Cause of the South'. In fact, I'd argue this is perhaps the more dangerous situation; that it's deemed too 'controversial' to (say) present the actual truth on the topic, but the writers etc have too much self-respect (professional and/or personal) to engage in obvious BS like fake balance and 'different truths'. The result is either a retreat into fuzzy generalities, vague euphemisms or complete silence on the 'difficult' topics. It's why, for example I spent six months learning about the Victorians as a kid but for some unknown reason never learned at that point the UK had a massive Empire. British wealth was all from industrialisation, not from colonial exploitation. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

People really like Whig history. It is mentally soothing. I think people also like hearing about their own (imagined or not) historical plight, but often are uncomfortable hearing about other's or contemporary issues. It's why you get the swirling mix of "USA #1, saving the world, slavery was a long time ago, and the South Will Rise Again" in so many "history buffs" who hate historians and the past century of historiographical theory. I used to give this tour on Tudor Crime and Punishment. I really liked it, I talked about the nature of punishment and the demographics of criminals. The first couple times I thought the implications were apparent, but I decided to start ending it by asking (but not answering) the tour group if there were any parallels to today. Just a question to hang out there at the end. Instant complaints about me being politically motivated in tour feedback. I think it's because I had to go and try to make it real.Buck (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

How could we go about gun confiscation?

I believe that all guns should be confiscated unless being used by law enforcement or military but it just seems impossible to get them all. How should we go about it? Foreign support? WingHangRecordTrading (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this being ironic? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC).

It has to be ironic, nobody this bad at gun debate would invoke foreign support. Nobody has this take. Either the guns leave every hand including law enforcement, which is not viable, or haha we do nothing? Which I also disagree with. Stricter registration laws, that's not insane anti 2nd amendment shit, I promise, guns are designed for people to kill people. That is 100% their original purpose, very cool that now we kill animals and break plates with them. It's like the war on drugs in the US. If every state has a different rule about a drug or a gun, what do we do? Close borders to other states? Having rules about crossing state lines with a gun is not the dumbest point gun control advocates have ever made. Commander Sprace (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

General point/thought; the major (perhaps critical) issue in situations like this is that people (for good reasons as well as bad) 'allow perfect to be the enemy of good'. Therefore, any proposal for 'a new way of doing things' invaribly is 'disproven' by simply showing a situation where it would 'fail'. For it doesn't have to function correctly say, 85% of the time but 100%, no ifs or buts. Oddly enough, the status quo never gets held up to such a standard - which usually means it ends up sticking around much longer than it is warrented.

This leads to the variation of the first quote; 'perfect is the enemy of done'. Bad faith actors can derail any implementation of half-decent proposals by simply citing the exceptions, making a plea of 'we need to get it "right"!' and let the conversation to peeter out through increasingly technical discussions of different proposals which fail to move forward. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a very good point.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

They didn't even put a worm on the hook. Revolverman (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

At least how could we go about confiscating assault class weapons? Nobody needs those. It's unfortunate that a lot of the military and police support guns. Would using the UN or maybe NATO be useful? WingHangRecordTrading (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

You take them from cold, dead hands, obviously. And 1) there's not really a coherent definition of "assault weapon", and 2) there are, in fact, people who need "assault weapons". E.g., military manufacturers, armored truck security, nuclear power plant guards, etc, who are all civilians. CorruptUser 01:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Just cleaning my rifle, Justin." —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Eh, the Federal definition of "assault weapon" wasn't that bad; yes, there's loopholes in it but there would be in anything. And it can be questioned whether private entities should do 'heavily-armed' jobs like Corrupt cites - for example, big cash transfers in Ireland were done by the Army and UK nuclear facilities are guarded by the quasi-military nuclear police.

One thing I doubt is the assumption 'lots of military and police support guns'. Esp when you get to the 'irresponsible maximalist' end of things. They're the two groups who I'd expect would be most keenly aware of the dangers/power of weaponry and thus, more respectful/less worshipful of the things. For the latter, it's simple pragmatism; a country less awash with high-powered tools of death means a higher chance they'll be able to tuck in their kids to bed after a shift. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The weird thing about the questioner is that they think that "foreign support" like from the UN or NATO would be useful.

Along with most people from western-style democracies outside the USA I find the US obsession with gun ownership incomprehensible. But one thing that I certainly understand is that the idea of asking a foreign power to assist in the confiscation of US weapons would the most absurdly counter-productive action imaginable. It's difficult to imagine that the proposition is serious.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The gun nuts wouldn't stand a chance against NATO. WingHangRecordTrading (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this is just a troll, US conspiracy theorists are always going on about UN invasion/takeover with collaboration from "commies" in the US government to declare the New World Order and other such things. [23] [24] [25] Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe they expect the anti-gun folks would say "Hey, that's a fantastic idea!". Whatever. Troll.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The gun nuts would get demolished by NATO and/or UN forces. They have tanks, soldiers and aircraft carriers, what will their AR-15s do? WingHangRecordTrading (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Some want to be able to have even such kind of toys, up to and including nukes, ignoring there's a reason why just governments are able to have them in large quantities, and especially afford their maintenance which moreso in the case of high-tech stuff as fighter jets of nuclear weapons is certainly not the same as the one a car requires (and of course one tank is nothing about thousands of them, anti-tank weapons, etc)

Then there's what could happen if either people with lots of monies bought their own, private, army or many, richies included, pooled theirs into the same if they could in both cases. It's not pretty at all. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Panzerfaust Wait, there are real people unironically arguing for private ownership of nukes? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd swear to have once seen someone wanting that. Not sure if it was a Poe, though, but knowing the nuttiness of some pro-gun and libertarian advocates who think their stateless society would be Arcadia, I'd not be surprised at all if such comment was actually serious. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I've only ever seen people arguing for it when parodying ancaps, though I also wouldn't be surprised if someone actually was in favor of private nukes. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't find it 'incomprehensible', Bob - I find it poisonous and scary in equal measure. And when these folks talk, I'm reminded of the shitshow which was Troubles-era Northern Ireland. America now has a 'smallish but significant' % of the population which is nuts, scared, unable to listen to reason, openly wanting a civil war but hugely misunderstanding the 'ratio of forces'.

Anyway, why the hell would either the UN/NATO bother? You're right in it's in 'Alien Space Bats' territory. But it does point out something which I've said before to trolls here; that if you're going up against the machinery of the modern American state, a bunch of folks with AR-15s shall be creamed. The reasons the groups are not (like that bird sanctuary people) is simply down to the fact Uncle Sam stayed it's hand. A real dictatorship would have simply bombaded it (and our plucky 'patriots') into the next world. You think the Jan 6 putschists would have gotten within a mile of the Capitol if it had been say, China or Russia? Hell no; they would been promptly removed and vanish into some gulag without the rest of the nation even being aware of their existence.

It's the irony of the situation; that their tactics wouldn't work if the country truly was the dictatorship with a 'deep state' they think it is. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a very good point, indeed. In fact, once intelligence agencies knew of them their days would be numbered in such case and they'd be very unlikely at best to organize a Jan 6 2021-like stunt. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Guns from America spill out into the rest of the world. We need to stop it. Canada is in NATO and all the guns going into criminal hands is an attack on them if America won't stop it. WingHangRecordTrading (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

A bunch of nuts with guns managed to stand up to NATO in Iraq and Afghanistan. What, exactly, makes you think the US would fair any better against a bunch of fanatics in Idaho when they couldn't stop a bunch of fanatics in Iraq? CorruptUser 00:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Er, remember the whaling and gnashing of teeth at small minor inconveniences such as face masks and minor COVID-19 lockdowns? There's no way that this lot can start a "new civil war" like some of these folks claim they want if they are going to whine at small shit like that (I mean, any sort of combat situation thingy is going to produce far worse inconveniences then what COVID produced). Indeed, as we see in practice, it's far easier for this lot to shitpost and troll on the Internet... so that, by and large, is generally speaking all they do, as clearly seen in this thread. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

In very short; America could afford to lose Iraq, but not Idaho. Washington also controls the general 'battlespace' in Idaho to a level unthinkable in Iraq - most importantly, the borders. Govt infiltration of groups much easier, state already has oodles of intel on the 'possibles'.

This is where my 'ratio of forces' comes into play. I think the nuts who dream of war seriously under-estimate the number of blowhards and over-estimate the 'will to fight' in their camp, haven't considered the physical unfitness/decrepitude of many of the previous, haven't worked out the thinness of the 'skills-base' to fight an insurgency campaign (US military focuses on high-tech, high firepower methods), overestimates their supporters within the state apparatus (esp the military) and have little realisation of the 'costs' a modern insurgency would require to be sustainable.

Unless something very strange happens, the 'worst'/'best' they'd be able to do is a Troubles-style insurgency; for they'd lack the numbers, kit and even geographical compactness to openly fight a nation as strong as the USA on it's own turf. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, don’t underestimate what pressing the “preserve integrity of the Union” button would mean. Even those who might sympathise with some of the political views in general would turn on secessionists like rabid dogs the moment they seriously challenged the integrity of the United States. If that was true in 1861, it is probably not substantially less true today.

Hence, despite the foaming in various online/offline forums, the likelihood of turning the extreme secessionist rhetoric into action is fairly low in my eyes. Instead, I think it is used to foment fear and anger in order to influence (and preferably take over) US institutions through pressure from a highly strung and fired up base, whose manic activity is fuelled by this overblown rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

That said, rather than actual secession, there is a far more likely risk that such rhetoric will fuel domestic terrorism on a smaller scale, i.e. groups/individuals rather than the kind of broad based movement necessary for any successful insurrection/secession.

I would also not consider the Afghanistan example very useful, and not only for the military reasons mentioned by KarmaPolice:

1. The Taliban had some level of support in at least parts of Afghanistan to an extent that is not equivalent to those of US secessionists.
2. The Taliban had useful foreign backers and varying degrees of sanctuary in Pakistan’s border areas, and were thus far more organised and formidable than mere “nuts with guns” (and definitely far more than the loudmouths in the US calling for secession).
3. Afghanistan itself is a notoriously divided and largely tribal society, rather than the sort of well organised, unitary (nation) state that the US is (no matter the federalism or various degrees of political dysfunction or obstructionism found in the latter).
4. The Taliban was also able to present themselves as liberators against foreign occupation, in addition to facing off against a very corrupt and fragile (and generally ineffective) Afghan government, no matter the support from the US, NATO and ISAF. It is thus hard to imagine any high ranking US official being derided, as was the Afghan president, as “the mayor of Kabul, during the daylight hours”.
5. Finally, the general US populace stopped seriously caring about (hell, even sometimes forgetting) this latest Afghanistan War years before the disastrous pullout. Again, I seriously doubt that would be the case for any secessionist conflict on US soil.

Thus, I don’t think either the characterisation of the Taliban or using it as a parallel is a very apt analogy for the US.ScepticWombat (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If there was a secessionist group in the US, America's rivals would absolutely fund them. Remember The Troubles? It's not entirely coincidental that it ended a few years after the Cold War did. CorruptUser 18:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it really is coincidental. The main external funders for the Provisional IRA was in fact, groups mainly operating in the USA... Article on NORAID from 1985.

What happened in reality was that by ~1992 the IRA had gotten into a stalemate with the British State. They'd dwindled to not much more than a large 'gang' of perhaps a few hundred 'active' members and perhaps a thou or two of 'support network' within the Province. It was utterly clear that London wasn't going to give in, and what's more the Republic was increasingly failing to allow the South to be used as a 'safe area' for Provo operations. Thus the cease-fire in the 90s, which eventually led to Good Friday Agreement in 1998. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, what do we learn from this? The needs of a modern insurgency are more complex than you'd think. You need...

a) The provision of safe-ish 'rear zones' for R&R, training etc.

b) The ability to build/maintain 'support networks' (safe houses, informers etc) within the battlespace, which requires some civilian 'support'.

c) The ability to import/store/distribute war materiel.

d) The ability to have sufficient supplies of spendable wealth to provide the above.

This is why I cited 'control of battlespace' and 'control of borders' as key. If the American State retained control of both in a 'American Insurrection' situation, it would prove difficult for external powers to intervene, even if they so desired to. There's a decent chance our plucky 'patriots', if not routed immediately would rapidly devolve into just another criminal gang, or flake off into the various U-bend inhabitants like the skinhead gangs. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not American, but I'm more than sure the CIA and the FBI plus the Homeland Security department will have these people controlled, moreso if they have more than mere handguns and the knowledge to manufacture bombs, explosives, etc, and the same can be said about for example sympathisers they could have within the Army who could supply them with weapons. Even if they're not so omniscient as one thinks.

That aside, as for an invasion of US by the UN that's BS and the reasons are not just nuclear weapons (if someone decided to soften up things with some nukes, you have to be quite naive to think US would not retaliate) but especially that the BIG preparations for such undertaking would be quite visible and would not go unnoticed at all. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CIA doesn't operate in the US, DHS doesn't really have reach beyond borders and ports, so they might be involved in stopping weapons coming from abroad. FBI would be the only government agency that could conceivably execute this sort of enforcement, likely with support from nationalized National Guards. It still wouldn't work. You may think that you would find compliance in left-leaning or Democratic states, but a fundamental misunderstanding about America, especially from people abroad, is there is an underlying mistrust of the federal government across the political spectrum. Literally no one, across the board supports every part of the federal government. It has become so bloated and cumbersome there is not one single American that is like, "Yes, this government is perfect and reflects my exact values." Those on the left want a government that spends more on social services and less on punishment, while the right generally supports legal enforcement and the military. Though there are those that believed Trumps administration was literally perfect, they are so deluded to give credit to Trump for everything good thing in their life while blaming everyone else for every bad thing, even if it was caused by a decision made by Trump or his administration. Haven't even mentioned that there is no singular law enforcement entity that is responsible for managing state and local law enforcement. Almost every single non-Federal jurisdiction has minimal oversight, basically city councils, local prosecutors and maybe some state agency. In Portland, Oregon, where I live near, has 6 law enforcement agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and Portland Police Bureau is only subject to some federal oversight because city council, the DA, Multnomah County and Oregon state troopers, passed on doing anything.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point - it's not a debate over govt policy/leaning, it's one over the rule of law and preserving both the Union and democratic system. This is the cramp the Orange One kept on running into between his defeat and Jan 6; every dodgy plan his team came up with, it was almost immediately shot down by a refusal of people to go along with it because it was basically illegal. And some of the people giving the Big No were not just Republicans, but folks who'd been working closely with the Orange One for some time, so we can assume there was some decent ideological overlap here.

What's more, if push came to shove and a quasi-fascist insurrection broke out, I believe you'd see a decent 'rally round the flag' effect for the President facing the insurrection - not because they liked/agreed with them, but because they *were* the President of their country. As for how... there's a swathe of laws currently on the books which can be used, and new ones can be written (sometimes very quickly if needs be). In such a situation, it's highly unlikely senior 'loyalist' politicians etc would simply wring their hands and say 'nothing can be done' if facing some rogue police departments or whatever.

The true threat, in my opinion is if America ends up in another 'Bush vs Gore' situation, and even then only if neither side conceded. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Critical feature of Bush v Gore, Gore accepted the ruling of the Supreme Court. Another "contested election" will require acceptance of the results. Worst case scenario is Congress chooses the President/VP and there are no other ways to contest the results except violence.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)