RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive422

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 13 October 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>, <420>, <421>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>
, (new)(back)

should i get a doctorate degree in psychology or should i listen to everyone and just get a bachelor's degree ( i'm 16 if that helps)[edit]

personally i want to go for it, but i'm just unsure

also i'm new here so sry if i don't know how to edit correctly — Unsigned, by: Wheelsontheancom / talk / contribs

It's not unusual for undergraduates to change their major after taking a variety of courses and finding something more appealing. You don't need to decide on a doctorate yet. Bongolian (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
You got plenty of time to choose. It also depends on career goals. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Doctoral student here. You will need to complete your bachelor's degree before you can enroll in a doctorate program, so you should start there. As others have said, it is common for students to change their major early in their studies, so I would recommend taking a few different subjects you are interested in and seeing what sticks. You can decide whether you want to go onto to postgraduate study as you approach graduation. I started out taking psychology and economics, ended up majoring in politics and economics and am now completing a PhD in philosophy. Psych is a fascinating subject and there are certainly opportunities for psych grads. Be aware though that psych is also an extremely popular subject, so there is quite a bit of competition for those opportunities. 2001:4530:2:201:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFE7 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Also if you are indeed able to get a PhD without a bachelor's in psychology, you may face increased skepticism about your qualifications because of 1) your young age, 2) the fact that psychology is not a hard science and so more difficult to prove qualifications, and 3) the overall replication crisis within psychology. Bongolian (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The PETA files[edit]


So, PETA wants a ban on sex for men that eat meat to reduce meat consumption...

Is it normal that I get brainfarts from this dribble? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

i can't wrap my head around this shit what's next a ban of living near animals too? god this shit makes my head hurt. wheelson 18:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

its peta so probably. thats their thing and all. but this is a publicity stunt from a group known for their publicity stunts. this one is a fairly innocuous one and not just by the standards of peta. mileage may vary on ones views on meat consumption. i eat a not massive amount of meat but you dont need to be a militant vegan to recognise meat consumption in the west could be a bit less, and cow farts (or burps even) are actually major contributor to climate change. but you know, its peta whose previous tactics mean their stunts only draws publicity to peta not their cause. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Studies vary though as far as gender comparison goes. The Guardian did report on the Plos One study PETA used, but they also reported on a study in the Journal for Industrial Ecology that seemed to find little difference in greenhouse gases between men and women as far as diet goes. (In that study, men emitted more greenhouse gases primarily due to transportation differences.)
Emissions wise, meat based diets are bad for your carbon footprint mainly because of a few heavy offenders, primarily beef. The supposed "toxic masculinity" of, er, merely using a grill (WTF PETA?) would not be that terrible, emissions wise, if all the beef on that grill was replaced with chicken. Vegetarian diets are a little better than chicken greenhouse gas wise, but not by enough to get a tither over.
It's PETA, though. They've been the personification of "you're not helping" from the beginning. (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Link viewable from UK: https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/ban-meat-men-from-sex-peta/
Who doesn't like a bit of mild misandry in the evening? Basically, the idea is that guys are so propelled by their dicks they'll cave if made to choose between muff and a burger. Clearly, they've not met Gay... KarmaPolice (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
men are propelled by their dick. actually not that interested in muff and i loathe burgers. still eat meat but my choice of sexual partner tends to like...meat. like alot. im not the target of such a campaign. i dont usually discuss what i had for dinner when on the pull either and im not sure i would be interested if a potential liason had if the other party had this as the deal breaker. i relegate political discussions for pillow talk at best. you wont be cock blocked if you find out they are a terrible person after the fact. i had one encounter with a guy with large swastika tattoos but the circumstances of that one was the fault of a third party and i didnt have my specs on AMassiveGay (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
'I didn't have my specs on'... I wonder how many things can be excused successfully by this line? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
PETA is a PR disaster for animal rights and plant-based dieters since they have made it their organization's mission to be a living caricature of what drives people away from animal rights and vegan/vegetarian activism.Ryan1257 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
My vegan sibling thinks they're a false flag funded by the meat industry. The simple fact they think they're a crackpot org when they themselves decry the 'oppression of bees' and picket petting zoos says a lot. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
outrageous stunts can be a good tactic when done right, not sure if peta has had any real effect on their cause. they have enough support to keep doing them though, so maybe for their coffers at least. but for an animal rights organisation they spend an awful lot of time demanding the death of animals. whatever rationale they have had for some such demands, its not really good for the optics for the less motivated folk concerned about animal welfare AMassiveGay (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll put it simply; PETA is a cult, cults fuck people up inside and cults normally shove the 'general cause' backwards in the eyes of the Big Public. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

How is Colorado as far as living there?[edit]

Circumstances at home have forced me to make a choice between moving to Colorado or staying in Florida. I've looked into it a little and the nature is wonderful, but the crime has me concerned a lot. I want to know thoughts on this as I don't know anything really about the state.Machina (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You should move to The Galapagos Islands. Acei9 20:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
New Zealand is nice this time of year. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's fucking abysmal at the moment. December - March is the best time to come for beaches and sun. June - September for the snow. Acei9 21:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm being serious. My mom died last year and over the course of a year my dad has remarried to a woman none of us know nor have met, threw out all my moms things without letting anyone in my family know about it, dumped my moms ashes in the everglades instead of the mountains like she wanted and is now selling the home we have lived in and forcing us to find a new place or move there with him to Canon city. The woman is a vaccine denier who thinks they are how the government tracks you (yeah, that kind of nutty). I want to know what it might be like there.Machina (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

What the point of being with shit parents then? (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
If you want to move to Connecticut we'd welcome you here, goodness knows a place at once known for its wealth and burned-out factory buildings dominating the centers of struggling towns has enough contradictions to manage all comers. Affordability is... not great, but I've managed to pull it off. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Colorado is a fairly diverse state as far as living conditions: eastern plains, Denver (urban), Boulder (liberal college town, Rocky Mountain foothills), Colorado Springs (ex-libertarian utopia), west side (gun nuts, Lauren Boebert). Bongolian (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Three words: Impending water crisis. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Well... Canon City has less than 20k population, not much of an economy 'save prisons and tourism, average incomes are *much* lower than average, you're in a kinda remote locale, it's cripplingly car-dependent and the lines 'great place to retire to' should ring huge alarm bells to people under the age of 35. Give it an extra star if you're a real 'outdoorsy' person. Looking at the demographics and stats, I bet much of the 'extra crime' is of the 'bored youth' type, leavened with the 'washout' petty criminals of the My Name Is Earl type who never got to escape from the place. There's also a bit of chatter about the local fundies controlling the place; don't be mistaken, this is *truly* Trump Country.
Basically, Canon City has all the appearances of being a bit of a backwater craphole - the kind which has suffered perhaps generations of brain drain as any youth with an ounce of ambition and/or skill aims to escape from as soon as - leaving the others 'stuck' there, who watch their lives slide out of view. The question is; are *you* at risk of getting stuck? If you don't have that good job prospects, decent financial independence and so on, I would personally say it's quite a risk to pull yourself from your current area because chances are if you've lived there long enough you'll have a 'support network' which won't exist in Colorado. Which might be even worse if you really don't get on with your Dad's new woman.
But all this is very general advice - almost 'points to think about' here, as I don't know squat about you, your situation, your current locale or even a real on-the-ground feeling of Canon City. I'm only answering this because I'm having to make a decision where I'm going to be living for the next 5-10 years plus, and frankly all the advice I'm getting is from people who are either known idiots and/or have their own interests at heart. You have to make this decision for you, not anyone else. The only thing worse than being stuck in a craphole is being stuck in a craphole *and feeling it's another's fault*.
Which is why I replied to this. What you need to decide is what where you wish to be in 5 years time. Not geographically, but in your life. Then once you know that (or at very least, know what you *don't want*) you can start working out which place would be better to achieve them. Despite all the negatives I've said about Canon City, it's quite possible what you want *is* more achievable there.
Lastly; check out all your options. Is it possible you could move to a third locale (ie neither your current place or Canon City)? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I lived in Colorado briefly, but Cañon City never crossed my radar. This CC tourist attraction would seem to sum things up though ("Unlock the past and experience the colorful history of prison life!").[1] Bongolian (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I've never been to Colorado; I plan on visiting next year. However, Washington is similar to Colorado except it (normally) has more temperature weather, especially west of the Cascades. Would recommend moving there. Andrew5 (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
By that logic, people should move to Aberdeen, WA then? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I was moreso thinking of Seattle, or maybe even Vancouver, British Colombia (which I also visited), although many British Colombia parks are further northeast.Andrew5 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, moving to Colorado Springs or Denver aren't options in this scenario. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well I don't know what I want. I don't know where I would see myself in 5 years, let alone the next few months. I don't even know what I don't want considering it changes each day. That's probably my main issue, I don't know what I want and I have a month to make a choice that can impact the rest of my life. The nature is a selling point but I would have to choose between the mountains or the ocean and I just can't. The state is better if you're a gay man but my family is here, though I'm not too close with them. I wouldn't have a job over there, but apparently job market is better there. I don't have financial independence. My current job is only 15/hr and it was the only job I've gotten after 6 months of looking in FL. There's too much i dont know and I dont think I can make a choice.Machina (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That sounds simple, then - you're going to the very conservative backwater craphole. I say this because it's clearly going to be the default option if you decline to make a decision on the matter. And when decisions like this are made *for* you, it's rarely because they think it's in *your* best interest. However, I don't know what your current locale is like, it could be even more a craphole than the proposed one.
But you won't know your options unless you actually investigate them. Like for starters, actually find out whether remaining in Florida is an actual option. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
So it looks like I would hit the ground running over there. I'd be staying with my dad and her until I got a job and earned money, they have a lot of connections to help me out and get me started and everything like that in tech companies, that would also train me. IT would be a better situation than where I am now with no opportunities.Machina (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit suspicious on how they can have 'lots of contacts' in a place on the other side of the country... do one or both come from there or something? Also, do said contacts actually have the ability to *really* help you get these jobs, or is this more a handwavy 'sure they can help' thing (which might turn out to be sod all when you get down to it?) These days, all these jobs are online so basically, you can see in advance if there's actually any jobs you'd genuinely want. Or possibly get.
This might read like I'm crapping on a parade here but, well I'm a bit of a cynic and all this nice guff can be just enough to tempt you to move over there only to discover... well, it is guff (yeah, this has happened to me. Shittiest five years of my life...). Also, again explore your other options. They've basically made the case for moving to Colorado. Now see if what the alternative is if you stay in Florida. Unless you don't bother with this, which means you're going by default. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
One thing that's a little weird to me about the above -- Cañon City isn't a "tech hub", or even a tech anything. Various job searches kind of confirmed that there are very few (as in, any?) tech opportunities out in that place. Closest place with some tech jobs is Colorado Springs (mainly if you dig military / aerospace jobs, though there's a spattering of others). The Denver metro area, of course, is where you will find the most tech opportunities. Most of the jobs on Indeed for Cañon City seem to be retail / service or manual labor oriented. Of course, there are more remote-work opportunities these days in the tech field, but still... (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually based on what I have heard from those I've asked about Colorado and that area it's nowhere near as bad as you make it sound and this is from those who live in the area. So I'm feeling less scared about this move. As for the contacts, that's the reason they decided to move there because they know a lot of people in the state. My father traveled a lot for work and developed quite the network, and she is the same. So I think I'll be ok. I feel good about this.Machina (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

'Colorado' and 'Canon City' are two different things, which is something both I and 35.1 is alluding to (there did seem to be a bit of telecommunications in area too... and quite a lot of low/minimum paid healthcare roles in Canon). I'm always suspicious about people who say X places 'aren't so bad' and tell you to basically, ignore the actual stats etc - sometimes, it's because the lifestyles they lead 'fit' the places concerned, or they have money to cushion etc. I actually personally know people who say [known shithole] is an 'okay place to live', but truth be told they're both long-hour commuters who literally, only come home to sleep (they even do all their shopping online, so they don't even find out how the town centre is a burned-out hulk filled with homeless and thieving kids). This is why I said you need to figure out what you want ie lifestyle.
The search engine starting with G tells me the place in question is an hour-odd drive each way to Colorado Springs and two for Denver. Do you drive and have a car? From the looks of it there's no public transport to speak of. Telling you employment in Florida is 'great' means nothing in reality if the work is in Jacksonville and you're moving to Key West. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
It's less "bad" and more "will it fit?". If, for instance, you didn't say "tech job" and instead said "social worker interested in rehabilitation", well, there's plenty of demand for that in Cañon City and the surrounding towns in Fremont County for prison oriented jobs (like rehabilitation) due to all the prisons in that county. If that's your thing, and you also dig a slower, rural lifestyle and all that entails, Cañon City might be a great fit. Personally, while I don't mind hiking in the Rockies at all, I would have trouble with living in Cañon City, due to the lack of job opportunities in my field (IT-development) which is really a biggie. Culture wise, my "online impression" is that, while seemingly friendly, it is too religious-conservative, small town, and "prison town vibe" for my taste. So that's also a knock against it, for me personally at least. Cañon City doesn't look like a "shithole town", though, it has some tourist-oriented eateries beyond the chain grub due to the Royal Gorge tourism, and plenty to do if you like outdoors stuff (not much to do, I guess though, if you don't). Again, it's more what fits than anything else. (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
True enough, which is why I urged to work out where you want to be lifestyle-wise and to also what kinds of things float your boat. I personally gave it a 'bit of a craphole' rating (accent on 'bit') on several statistical factors; low average income, a relative shortage of well-paid, 'career-type' jobs (which weren't the military, law enforcement or related to prisons), a high-ish crime rate, a odd demographic mix which has a general shortage of young-ish adults, it's small population size, it's distance from major metros, the fact generally speaking when I see 'great retirement location' I normally read 'quiet and dull'. I didn't see anything red-flaggable in general terms, but I did get the feeling that it was the kind of backwater 'burg where if you were unlucky and/or not careful, you *could* end up stuck in for a very long time due the simple fact theire's not a huge amount of opportunities going on in it. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I really think you are over blowing how bad that whole situation would be. Like I said, pretty much everywhere else I ask say it's not a bad place to be and that on a whole the move would be better. And weighing the facts on my situation in FL and over there then Colorado would be leagues better, in many ways. So I think you might be in the wrong here.Machina (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

No doubt, you're asking random Internets that doesn't know much about you and is getting impressions of a city through Google. :) Also, Florida does have places I've been to that I would definitely consider much "worse" for my tastes (in theory) than a place I haven't been to in Colorado, so in a comparison for your tastes between just two places you might be especially right as well. (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Plus, asking 'is it nice' is a very subjective question, while asking say 'what are the job offerings here like' is objective. As I've pointed out, much of my 'weighting' I gave for statistics, not reviews. Okay, tell me the local income levels aren't low, it isn't a small town which is pretty conservative (as shown by voting results since 2000), it isn't dominated by prisons/the army and it isn't a heavily car-dependent locale. There's also a selection bias for this kind of thing; most people who give their opinion on such places (and sites) normally either loathe the place or love it, which means a general thinness of 'meh' reviews.
As I said at the start, I was simply trying to give you 'points to consider' more than anything else. 'What works for you' is not automatically what works for me, and vice-versa. I myself are currently going through this situation (kinda), and one of the places I've ringed as a definite 'possible' was one which 'personal opinion' said was a dangerous, ugly craphole. However, after looking at stats and later on a personal scouting mission established it as being a bit of a rough-ready locale, but a pretty practical choice which would suit my 'lifestage'. No way the 'best choice' period, but perhaps one of the 'best realistically on offer'.
I also repeatedly said for you to work out what your option(s) was in regards to remaining in Florida (for example, you might end up living in a different town, or have different living standards). I was always open to the idea that even if Canon City wasn't that great, it might be better than your current locale. This is why I asked 'what do you want' and 'where do you wish to go in your life'. For example, Canon City *may* work if the plan was to use the place as a spring-board to better things, such as 'get training at local college, get decent-ish job in Colorado Springs then move there when I can afford it'. But as you don't have a clue what you want or even what the alternatives are, the choice apparently has been made for you, and they've successfully sold it to you with spiel. I hope it doesn't prove to be a pup. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
honestly without knowing a lot more details of your life machina (im not asking for more details btw) there is not really much to say beyond whast easily googlable about parts of colarado and what that might mean for vague hypotheticals. doesnt seem to be much obviously egregious that raises any serious red flags and you have some family support. whats keeping you in florida? how would life change for you? what would you miss? change in scenery maybe different pace of life might be good thing in and of itself. whats the worst case? lacking resources to move on if you hate it maybe? life is lived so much on the internet these days - none of us as trapped or isolated by our locations as we used to be. worst comes to the worst, there is always meth. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
i am surrounded by people who have relocated from across the other side of the globe. dunno how people do that - it must be terrifying. i started out in central essex and upsticks to central london - hardly an epic journey. i have not a pot to piss in but i am incredibly lucky. im about where (location wise) i want to be, more or less living the life i want to live. if i won the lottery i'd still live in the area, do pretty much the same things as i do now, id just have nicer furnishings. by rights i should be dead in a ditch by now. being a feckless wastrel and lumpenproletariat have their own rewards. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

In all honesty I wouldn't be leaving much behind. I have no friends, the family here is very conservative and holidays with them is exhausting. Their kind of humor is mostly just dumping on other people which while funny at first just starts to become mean. I can't talk seriously with them because they are deep in the "by your bootstraps" mentality among other things. The names my dad threw out were stuff like TechStart and Pax8, not sure what that means but the friends are those who are bringing high tech jobs to canon city.Machina (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Googling, TechStart is an office space in Canon City specializing in rural remote hybrid-office work, and Pax8 is a company with a "rural empowerment" program that (with a wee bit of nudging from a state of Colorado rural development policy) is participating in this space. So it's something. As mentioned, there's more remote only positions in tech and other things these days too (two sites specializing in job postings on this are remoteok and We Work Remotely) so even if TechStart etc. doesn't work it's possible to find good IT jobs anywhere now with the right skills, as long as the Internet connection is solid. (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
After a bit of research, I have a suspicion your father is giving you guff. I am willing to retract this statement, but shall show my 'workings'.
TechStart is a 'tech incubator'. Basically, it offers the infrastructure for other tech start-ups to well, start up. Like 35.1 mentioned, yes they do exist in Canon City. However, they are not really an employer - I looked (quickly) online to see what jobs they offered... and it was none. This is not that shocking to me; TechStart after all works on providing the means for others to work. The 'plan' here appears to be 'hope TechStart lures the tech companies to Canon City which will then employ you'. My experience is that startups generally lack the funds to train people to do the roles too.
Pax8 is a 'real company'. Not sure exactly what they do, but they do have quite a few positions open. It's also in Colorado... in a suburb of Denver (daily road commute; ~4h). Do they offer remote working positions? A few, yes. However... they are asking for degrees. Even the $15/h internships are asking for them. Reading between lines is that they're perhaps willing to accept a 'non-perfect fit' candidate and train them, but I really don't think they'll forego the degree bit (do you possess a Sci degree?). Unless your father knows someone in the company who's willing to bend the rules to get you in. Does he?
Now, I'm going to go on a limb here and assume you do not currently possess the skillset for remote tech work (if you did, you could do that from Florida). Now, I have shown that neither of above appears to be a *direct* line to said work. I personally think you really need to investigate 'Plan Bs'. Is going back to education a possibility? I noticed a Community College in Canon; is there anything there? If you don't drive, learning to will clearly be a plus. Perhaps some online accredited training?
Ultimately, this all boils down to a question of *cash*. Which basically, means finding out how much your father etc shall financially support you while you're doing said training etc. Even if you're able to get on an apprentice programme, you might need subsidising re: living costs. But once again, this partly relies on you working out what the hell you desire to do (or very least, what you don't want to). I speak from experience; I get the vibe you're seeing this move as a way to get out of a rut - if you're not proactive it could prove very easy to simply move to a new rut (esp as Canon City is hardly awash with opportunities). KarmaPolice (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

My dad and his wife know the founder of TechStart, in fact they are friends with him. He knows all the other people in the area who own the companies as well, so I have ins for sure. Once I get to Canon she can have me meet this guy and he can put me in touch with the CEO of Pax8. She said they will train you and they had someone who was a therapist that is currently working for them who is trained. It would be remote work. Thing is in Florida I have 0 opportunities, no social contacts and no real support network. I might have family but they are very conservative and their support is little more than just "pull yourself by your bootstraps" because they did it too, blah blah blah. I have no friends here, no opportunities. The job I have now is the ONLY one that took me after over a year of looking and the only one with decent money. My dad is well connected from his work and his wife is not only the same but loaded as well. Not to put too fine a point on it but this opportunity is pretty much a gift from heaven. I'm drowning in Florida and barely keeping myself afloat. There is no PLAN B down here.Machina (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Putin ups the ante[edit]

Yeah, this is spinning out of control very quickly.[2] Definitely the clearest terms Putin has set considering the conflict. These threats come from a serious position of weakness. This WaPo article also includes two anonymous comments from Russians, one living in Moscow and one person actually party to Russian strategy. That could be a sign of Putin's weakening position in the RF, or that they are seeking to create more connections with reputable Western media services. Effectively however, this will do nothing to change the situation on the ground, this 300,000 number I think also includes reservists already on contracts, so it may not actually be that many more troops getting prepared. But that will still take time to train and equip, with a dwindling number of qualified trainers and equipment. Biden administration response to this should be to raise the stakes a little bit, signaling that if these annexation votes proceed, they will begin providing ACTAMS to the Ukrainians. Putin isn't crazy, but if he is seriously considering using a nuclear weapon, he must know that would be the line where even China might abandon him.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that Russia having to buy weapons to North Korea instead of China should be a clue of the latter's position, as well as what seems as pressuring Putin together with Turkey and India to stop the war.
To use a tactical nuke instead of a strategic ones is more plausible, even if this is not like a videogame where you can drop one where you want with no consequences and such weapons have very specific uses (troop concentrations). Still, I doubt even China would like Moscow used them less so against cities. Panzerfaust (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Putin's speech was also just unhinged.[3] This sections is just insanity:

I want to stress the following. We know that the majority of people living in the territories liberated from the neo-Nazis, and these are primarily the historical lands of Novorossiya, do not want to live under the yoke of the neo-Nazi regime. People in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, in Luhansk and Donetsk saw and are seeing now the atrocities perpetrated by the neo-Nazis in the [Ukrainian-] occupied areas of the Kharkov region. The descendants of Banderites and members of Nazi punitive expeditions are killing, torturing and imprisoning people; they are settling scores, beating up and committing outrages on peaceful civilians.

Actually Orwellian.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The last part sounds like a confession. Villains like Putin and Trump are always projecting.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Putin has always been a risk taker. There is nothing surprising about him upping the ante. He sees losing this war badly as being a greater risk to him. He is also an ultra-nationalist who couldn't bear losing this war. ButterCashiers (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
his war is going too badly to negotiate a face saving exit. not so long ago we wondered what would bring the russians to the negotiating table. now putin must be wondering what could bring ukraine. hes not taking a risk upping the ante. he has no choice but to up the ante and struggle on to try and win a more favourable position. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Wars are very unpredictable things. Russia was losing badly against Nazi Germany, then they had a comeback. In the Vietnam War, an American officer said to a Vietnam officer at a peace table something to the effect that "We won every major battle against you." The Vietnamese officer replied, "That is true. It is also irrelevant." Politics enters into wars and America wanted out of the Vietnam War quagmire. Western resolve may weaken over the winter due to protests over high energy costs/shortages. I hope this war does not drag on for a long time, but I suspect it will. Putin could wreck Ukraine further and a lot of blood will be spilled. There will also be a lot of economic damage to all sides. There could be food shortages in Africa and the Middle East too. The West will probably win this war, but it will be a pyrrhic victory. ButterCashiers (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
this is not ww2 nor is it vietnam. comparisons to them shows us nothing except to highlight why comparisons to them are idiotic. the west faces a tough winter economically, and thats with tough being a relative term. no one was under any illusion it wouldnt be even before the invasion. but thats it. anger over energy prices really isnt directed at the war nor will it likely to in a way that will turn it for russia. and no a ukraine victory will not be pyrrhic in any real sense. they will have their country back after an already brutal fight - mass graves in reconquered areas can tell you that. a russian victory might be pyrrhic for them, but not really on the cards. and lets not forget the west is not fighting this war. ukraine is. sure war is unpredictable - everyone was including myself (i dont count im a dumb arse) mostly expecting ukraine at best fighting the russians to a stand still and over estimating the russian military capabilities and underestimating ukraines resolve for one. tactical nukes is all putin has left to wreck ukraine further than what russia isnt already doing, theres a big question mark on the how likely they get to come out and play - things would have to be catastrophic for russia for even putin to contemplate - like ukraine invading russia proper. i read crimea about to be retaken by the ukraine might be where nukes might be more than bluster. might. dumb comparisons and meaningless platitudes tells us something but not about the topic under discussion. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Helima Croft of the Royal Bank of Canada says the energy situation in Europe could be a multi-winter crisis. A Shell USA executive says that as Russia curbs gas supplies, many EU countries could face an energy crisis for a long time. I do suspect that the West has a stronger position overall, but Europe/USA resolve over a number of years if the war drags on is unpredictable because Western resolve could waiver due to some European countries wanting Putin's gas more than others. ButterCashiers (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
so tough times ahead (we already now) its not like there is not any effort to mitigate any of the issues to lessen their impact. resolve might falter. it might not. it wont help russia at this point. even if we lift sanctions right now to appease a tyrant, do you think any one in the west is just going top continue as before buying russian gas like nothing happened? it was a mistake to be so reliant on russia for our energy needs, the invasion of ukraine has rermoved any pretence that was a good idea and all the efforts we make now to find alternatives will still go on with the same urgency. russia is done as a world power. putin has ensured that. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
and lets not forget this sorry state of affairs is all of putins making. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Russia is a nuclear power that will supply energy to China/India. But it will lose a lot of young men in a pointless war so it will come out very weakened. Russia can still play the role of a spoiler and make things difficult for Western powers. It has a seat on the UN Security Council which China is not going to let get revoked and it can continue to meddle with European elections. NATO lead Ukraine down the primrose path of being able to join NATO because Ukraine is a very corrupt country with some authoritarian tendencies. There is also a lot of political turmoil in Ukraine with Russian separatists. And great powers don't like potential threats on their borders. Russia is a low trust society which experienced heavy losses in WWII and Putin is an ex-KGB officer given to conspiratorial thinking. So NATO was asking for trouble when it encouraged Ukraine to join NATO. America had the Monroe Doctrine and has a long history of meddling in Latin American politics. So we should not be amazed if Russia freaked out about Ukraine being a part of NATO. ButterCashiers (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

russia was/is the potential threat on peoples borders and has far more to encourage nato membership than the us has ever done. have you even looked at what putin himself has said about ukraine? remember his little essay about ukraine being part of russia? remember how nato had barely a mention? its pure imperialism. there was no interest in joining nato on ukraine's part - not before the crimean annexation at least. there is now though. nato suddenly become very popular in nations the invasion was meant to intimidate into submission. good job putin. the invasion is because former soviet states are moving beyond the influence and meddling from a russia that cant stop acting like an abusive and controlling ex boyfriend offering them nothing but threats and interference to keep them in the russian sphere. ukraine is a last ditch attempt by a power that is no longer great to regain lost glory rather than forge a new place for russia in a changed world. or are we just regurgitating russian propaganda and appeasement talking points of putins enablers in the west? because we've done that already and you are saying nothing new or true or relevent or worth engaging with. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The British publication The Economist has an intelligence Unit, which recently released its 2021 Democracy Index, doesn’t even consider Ukraine either a full/flawed democracy. Rather, Ukraine falls into the “hybrid regime” bucket, tied for 86th place with Mexico in the democracy rankings. Transparency International, which annually ranks 180 countries based on perceived corruption, gives Ukraine poor marks. The latest version of the Corruption Perceptions Index ranks Ukraine 122nd, with a score of 32 out 100 (where a lower score indicates more public-sector corruption).
Ukraine wanted the rights of being a NATO member which includes being an uncorrupt/transparent democracy, but not the responsibilities. NATO and key Ukraine officials knew all of this, but publicly encouraged Ukraine to join NATO, which was like waving a red cape in front of the Putin/Kremlin bull. If NATO/Ukraine wanted Ukraine to be a member of NATO it should have made the process quick (And not slow and bureaucratic) and that includes Ukraine quickly cleaning up their corruption/authoritarianism. Making the process slow just increased the odds that Ukraine would be attacked by Russia. It brings me no pleasure in saying this, but these are sad facts of the situation. I do realize though that cultures generally change slow so Ukraine joining NATO quickly is an unrealistic proposition. ButterCashiers (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I think you are doing an excellent job muddling this entire situation. If you read the Economist regularly, like I do every single day, you would know that while Ukraine is a struggling democracy, it has been willing to make major changes to government and business regulations. You would also know that they have since the beginning of the conflict, supported the arming and support of the Ukrainian people against an illegal invasion.
Second, this conflict is not about NATO, and anyone who believes that hogwash justification from Putin, desperately wants to avoid the reality the RF has been careening toward fascism since 2020, and that Putin repeatedly has stated that Ukraine isn't a country, Ukrainian isn't a language, and Ukrainian culture doesn't exist. The Ukrainian government isn't a neo-Nazi regime, and it's citizens weren't being violently threatened for speaking Russian. Every single justification for this conflict is a blatant lie, and the reason he did this was because he wanted to secure his legacy of creating a larger Russian speaking world.
Ukraine has problems, literally every single former-Soviet country does, including those in NATO. Based on your conversation here, I would venture you have a positive view of Hungary and Poland, two illiberal democracies who also happen to be EU and NATO members. Just because I'm no fan of Orban or Duda, and they sometimes find themselves opposed to Western values, doesn't mean I would be ok with them being attacked by a genocidal dictator bent on eliminating all culture that isn't Russian. Stop making excuses @ButterCashiers.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Russia has been an authoritarian and aggressive country for a long time. It never fully embraced Western values and it has never had a thriving democracy. Putin's authoritarianism and aggression didn't pop out of nowhere. Putin's time in office has been a matter of Putin consolidating his autocratic power over time. If Ukraine wanted to protect itself from the much larger country of Russia, it should have cleaned up its corruption and authoritarianism faster so it could ally with NATO/Europe. Taiwan is wiser and more diplomatic in its relations with its aggressive neighbor China and it is not plagued with corruption and authoritarianism. To use an analogy, if you are in a cage with Hercules and a 600 pound gorilla, you make friends with Hercules as soon as possible. And you don't do things to upset the gorilla in the meantime. Ukraine publicly declaring its wish to join NATO while retaining much of its corruption/authoritarianism was not a wise move. Truflip98 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thats utter dogshit. russian interference in ukraine has been a factor, not the sole factor mind, in the corruption in ukraine. another motivating factor for the invasion at this time, and in the annexation of crimea is the ousting of a corrupt pro russian regime and election of a guy campaigning against corruption. russia does not want ukraine to clean up its corruption. it limits ukraine's relations with the west and pushes it ever closer to the open arms of russia. so we are condoning an invasion on the basis of ukrainian corruption and for ukraine trying to stamp it out? honestly, fuck off. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I know this "brand new" redlink is likely the same nitwit banned user, but a point since some of MAGA land is swayed by the same stupid hyper-"macho" propaganda shit. Russia is a 600 pound gorilla only if you are one of the foolish ones that actually believe in Putin's surface-level hyper-macho posturing. One of the things the Ukraine invasion showed, no matter what happens, is just how broken Russia's military actually is. No one thought that Ukraine would actually be at the state they are at 7 months out where so little territory has been captured and Ukraine actually is mounting major counteroffensives. The Russian military has been revealed to be corrupt and half toothless. Putin himself has shown to be hyper-paranoid and surrounded by yes men, which probably is a factor in the significant amount of bad decisions he is making. Remember how in the beginning Putin was putting out propaganda that the Russian army would be welcome as liberators of Ukraine? It doesn't take too many brain cells to figure out that this propaganda is incompatible with the "involuntary partial mobilization" he is now doing. No matter what the end result of the war is, it's clear that Russia's army is not top class anymore, largely due to corruption and leadership failures. No amount of riding shirtless on a horse is going to mask that. (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
35.1 is right; this war has shown up perhaps all of the weaknesses in Putin's Russia; military, economic, strategic, political, cultural, technological and even demographic. Well, mainly right - Soviet-era military bods *never* rated the USSR as equal of the West in qualitive terms but then would quote Stalin 'that quantity has a quality all of it's own'. Problem is, Russia is not the USSR and lacks the capabilities to be able to fight much longer at the current level of tempo, force and technological level. In fact, almost all the signs show of a Russia which is looking surprisingly depleted of power; instability in her 'sphere of influence', a severe difficulty in 'volunteer' recruitment, a scramble to purchase materiel, a deepening brain-drain and the start of a bite on some sanctions (precision machine parts and semiconductors most acute).
Liberal is also right to note that this 'partial mobilisation' is from a) a position of weakness and b) will not hugely effect the result (at least for now). Putin has done *everything* to avoid this step, which suggests to us just how unpopular this war actually is in Russia. This act is an admission of defeat; he's unable to fill the units with replacements without compulsion. Interestingly, the current manpower issues show the rotteness of Putin's Russia; regional boards are emptying jails to make numbers, non-Russian vassals (like the Chechens) are being queezed for all the people they'll 'give', they're offering huge incentives for 'contract work' (yet the IOUs are nearly always welched on) and despite all the assurances otherwise these folks are generally being issued obsolete kit reeking of mothballs and being sent straight to the front.
The best estimates is that for now, the plan is to mobilise men as/when needed out of the reserves to keep up current levels of forces in Ukraine. One thing I'll mention is that word of 'new units being raised' does not automatically mean *more* forces are being sent into combat; Russian/Soviet strategy is for units to fight until total exhaustion and then to be rebuilt in the rear, rather than the Western tradition of a continuous 'top-up' of units at the front (the Russian method is logistically/organisationally more simple, though does usally involve greater losses in people and kit). Even more importantly, it would appear that the Russians do not have the capabilities to logistically support more forces in Ukraine than they currently have (and in fact, their capabilities may degrade over winter).
The discussions of how and why we got to this point are, frankly irrelevant - it is what it is. And that is this; we have a Putin who's effectively chewing the carpet and threatening to incinerate European cities on almost a weekly basis, while his forces are doing pretty well in their re-enactment of Axis forces in the same locales 80 years previous. His comments etc have made it clear that he regards us as 'the enemy' and loathes and despises us (ironically, he despises us for 'being weak' but also because we stood up to him. You can't win with some people). Nothing here suggests a man who 'we can do business with', his prior form shows a man who not keep to any deals cut, it's massively unlikely this would be his 'last demand' and lastly, you gonna tell those bodies in the mass graves we cut and run? For what - we don't like being a bit cold and poorer this winter?
That leaves us with two choices; either we continue to back Ukraine (and the sacrifices this entails) until the Russians get in such a shitty position Putin is overthrown/killed, or we back off, let Kiyv falter and Putin pulls a win out of the jaws of defeat. Not only will he, but every dictator in the world be emboldened; that the West's 'staying power' was limited; so it *was* possible to openly defy the 'international order' if you can tough it out for a year or two. As I've said before; China is watching this very carefully; and her actions for the next decade shall be partly determined what she reads of our motivations/actions now. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @KarmaPolice nails it with that last paragraph. CCCP, DPRK and Iran are watching Western responses intently. China and NK have nuclear weapons they could deploy against Taiwan and SK respectively. Iran is in the midst of a violent crackdown and is likely in the weakest position it has been in decades. If the US and Europe are not going to enforce the security structure that was established after WWII, these authoritarians will be emboldened.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Indirectly corruption causes poverty in a country. With a per capita GNI of $3,540, Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe as of 2020. In terms of corruption, Ukraine ranked 122nd out of 180 countries in 2021, the second most corrupt in Europe, with Russia the most at 136. In 2012, Ernst & Young put Ukraine among the three most-corrupt nations from 43 surveyed, alongside Colombia and Brazil. United States diplomats described Ukraine under Presidents Kuchma (in office from 1994 to 2005) and Yushchenko (in office from 2005 to 2010) as a kleptocracy, according to WikiLeaks cables.
Europe is going through a recession and an energy crisis. America is already in a recession or soon will be.
Whether Ukraine wins or loses this war, it is going to remain a poor and corrupt country. Countries don't go from corrupt and poor countries to being thriving and transparent democracies quickly. But if anyone can give me an instance of this happening, I am all ears. I don't see investors or bankers pouring money into Ukraine anytime soon. And foreign governments can only do so much due to political constraints. Viewsridge (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
And? What's your point? We should just let Russia butcher Ukrainians? In Kharkiv oblast they've found 18 torture chambers. Abandoning Ukraine means the unnecessary deaths of thousands. Reforms come after victory.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I like the bit where they cite people who were kicked out in the 2014 protests/revolution (much of it due to corruption), which incidently led to the Russian totally-not-an-invasion of the Crimea and the two puppet Donesk territories.
Anyway, your BS don't answer sod all in the pure realpolitik of the situation. If Ukraine falls, NATO loses, Russia wins and Europe shall be in a weaker position for 'the next round' (of which *will* happen, most likely with Moldova). If the USA deliberately pulls the plug, it's a near cert Europe shall feel utterly betrayed (which means chances are Europe shall tell Washington to fuck off re: 'standing up to China'. Even the UK might give a humourless smile and shrug, saying their hands are full). As Russia weakens, she becomes more and more a Chinese vassal. Therefore, making sure Putin loses indirectly weakens China on the global stage. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
these trolls dont give shit about the consequences or ukraine or the wider world. all this invasion is for them is a chance to associate joe biden specifically and western liberals generally with an unjust and costly war that was provoked by the west and nato by accident or design, representing western hubris, hypocrisy, aggression, weakness, etc. an unpopular war is a fantastic opportunity to pile on to the man in charge, and with this one there is no nato troops on the ground so its not unpatriotic to attack everything about the war and its conducts and by either side.
of course they have to say black is white and white is black for it to work. putins russia was forced into action by western and nato aggression, in defence of ethnic russians from villainous corrupt nazis running ukraine. the sanctions dont work, are not justified and putin is laughing as he is cutting of the gas and we face an energy crisis and recession for backing corrupt nazis against the wily and stoic strength of putin with his traditional values and russian masculinity for reasons of russophobia, and the ideology of the perverts and freaks that are destoying america and the west. the course of the war is not of much interest, just that it best drags on and on to really let us feel the recession biting. knowing that the corrupt nazis are only still in it because we supplied their arms as you sit in the cold winter with heating of and bills piling up. next time you a polling station remember biden + corrupt nazis = recession.
the latest new, the latest russian failing, mass grace found in areas taken from retreating russians say nothing. ukraine actually winning, and maybe quickly? unthinkable. russian massive mobilisation effort in response to russian collapse is not desperation its just russia getting angry and this thing will run and run more death and destruction for the aid of corrupt nazis. and we get a recession because biden backs nazis.
and wouldnt have happened under trump. thats the other thing. these trolls are all noted putin admirer and dictator's penis envy sufferer trump fans because of course they are.
for future discussions on this conflict can we all agree any talk of ukrainian corruption, nato provocation and recession should not be responded to? they are the red flags for this trolling. anything we can say has been said already so delete, collapse or ignore but dont engage - even if it seems like a genuine post. as long as the war goes on, more threads will arise and these troll(s) will appear and we will be here again disputing the same stuff to no avail like now and the times before this. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This rings especially true to new users with redlinks who post dubious takes in Saloon Bar. If you find a redlink user suspicous, report to a moderator in ATIM or take the action yourself and delete or collapse (ignoring doesn't work if people who are new to Saloon Bar don't realize who the usual troll is). This has been going on for a while. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Speaking purely personally, I actually do find a little bit of troll-watching fruitful. Even through all their BS, they cannot help show their true motivations and thought-patterns (often 'not much' is the correct answer on this) and it does pique my interest in an informational way. Though I don't really 'engage' with their talking-points in a manner they like, more like to poke them with a pointy stick and document the ouchies. Lastly, I find them (usually easy) target practice for my arguments - if I put my case to them and they either ignore, tangent or simply start with the word salads it normally means I'm ready to try it with real people. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
trolls arnt listening to criticism they are trolls. they only there to annoy, disrupt, and spam truth bombs they think we cant handle. sometimes hidden as debate sometimes not, if you respond at all its victory for them however dumb or pointless. unpleasant and ugly arguments not trolling if they defend them. awful people defending awful positions are awful people but not trolling per say. stupid people making stupid arguments are not trolls they just people. might be disruptive and abusive and ban worthy. ken the chat box made of dogshit is not really a troll. they are just a dumb attention seeker whose arrogance is mixed with stupidity so he doesnt listen to criticism and he does know to answer anyway. hes got talking points. he'll just repeat them. and never amend or update them. it feels wrong to mock the guy because there something not quite right bout him. its just hes a fucking awful human being with some awful views on people and subjects his mental short comings dont earn him a pass. do not engage once identified. it only encourages him.
tl,dr - do not feed the trolls. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The responses aren't ever for the troll's benefit, it's for the lurkers. To show that yes, there *are* legitimate responses to their dogshit and dribble (that is, when it's not simply nuts). Put bluntly, I use them as target practice and don't let them dominate my bandwidth; if they become completely nonsensical, insulting, a broken record or simply stupid, I'll call it out and leave them to be banned. Like the point above; I was more using their shitty little 'talking point' to sharpen my 'realpolitik potted argument for supporting Ukraine' than anything else. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Bullshit referendum in occupied Ukraine[edit]


Crimea all over again but with active armed conflict. How long will this military occupation go on before Russia loses control over the situation? --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

When they continue the mass conscriptions and every 'Russian' in these areas realises their fate is to be poorly-armed fodder for Putin's hubris? KarmaPolice (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Or as I like to call it- Sending people to die for a lie. Don't forget the political refugees fleeing Russia. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I added the referendum to the Ukraine article. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Protests in Iran[edit]

Are we finally going to see a secular Iran? GeeJayK (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, speaking purely based on anectodal evidence, I'm a bit upset at hjow most feminists I know are just ignoring what's going on, some of them abusing of whataboutism, mentioning how things are bad for women in Saudi Arabia, a western ally, and no one seems to care. GeeJayK (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, they seem to care... only when they can use them in a "gotcha".Ryan1257 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
things are bad for women in saudi. we should not ignore iran's treatment of women and lgbt and foreign nationals and a whole lot of people, but iran is already on the wests shit list and we dont supply them with arms.
irans had violent protests before though and i cant say ive looked beyond the headlines for these ones. is there reason to think this will play out any different? are sanctions biting so hard that the regime is on the verge of collapse? i posted something in blogs not so long ago about iran women needing to prove their virginity to men who have no such requirement. a secular iran still might not mean liberation for iranian womenAMassiveGay (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there reason to think this will play out any different? The Guardian wrote an article on it. "The harsh truth is that though these are important protests, they are likely to be crushed by the still powerful regime." GeeJayK (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Neptune's Rings[edit]

I was actually surprised to see that picture being Neptune, since we never knew that Neptune had rings.

But as I saw the above article again today, I thought: "The nutters already disclassified the planets that NASA discovered a few years ago. They're probably doing the same thing right now with this discovery". So are they already saying dumb stuff like "It's just a lightbulb in a dark room", or something like that, while riding the Nibiru train again like few years ago? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Rings around Neptune were suspected since the 1970s, and observed by Voyager in the late 1980s. See Rings of Neptune. Nowhere Man (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"Leave it to the states"[edit]

It was always a naked farce. Graham, a self-proclaimed "pro-lifer" wants a life-saving medical procedure banned in all states after 20 weeks with exceptions for rape and incest (i guess their idea of "murder" includes exceptions then).[4] Lovely. But that "leave it to the states" has always been "let us Republicans continue treating our own citizens in states we control as filth, federal government can't make us practice basic human rights!". I'm really surprised these awful Republicans have the utter temerity to think their black hole of a moral compass should be imposed on the whole union. Republicans have always had a disconnect between their values and what the majority of voters want, and it's only growing wider. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

and if cons are saying "well look it'll be more like europe, no the state of abortion care in most of europe doesn't churn my gut the way it does in texas because the exceptions in europe are actually properly laid out, generous with the exceptions, and still enable many women to get an abortion. it's not like the muddy provisions (muddy BY DESIGN) with harsh punishments --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Any principled progressive leftist saw the writing on the wall months ago. I expected this. Let this be a lesson to anyone thinking you can half-ass with Republicans. You give fascists an inch, they take a mile. They will not stop at the states, they will not stop at federal legislation. Nothing short of a consitutional amendment making abortion completely illegal will make Republicans and conservatives happy. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Knowing that a pro-choice referendum will be on the November ballot in Michigan I will choose the pro-choice option. Let's be real, if the pro-life option passes, women who miscarry during pregnancy will end up dead. There will be no way to survive the resulting catastrophic bacterial infection. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
It's no surprise that States' rights has been resurrected as "Leave it to the states" by the senator from the first insurrection state. The strategy would seem to be to take the unprincipled principle that was applied to African Americans and apply it to women. Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Go out and vote then. Reproductive rights are under attack. If the GOQ wants to leave it up to the states then people in each state should vote for reproductive rights. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

…At this point, I'm seriously thinking that the GOP should be abolished and its members blacklisted from politics, if not society altogether. I swear, they have zero integrity and even less concern for the welfare of humanity… they have practically no morals at all, and any victory for them is a loss for humanity. Luigifan18 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Make no mistake, the GOP is a fascist party. They are anti-democracy, pro-authoritarianism and fundamentally agree with "radicals" on the right. If the US handled democracy properly, they would not be in any position of power whatsoever. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The United States isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. That's United States civics 101. Nehme1299 (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
m8, seriously. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah, so this group of people is so awful that they must be banned from politics and the democratic process, maybe even society, especially since they're popular enough to see their agenda advanced with the democratic process. Those anti-democratic authoritarians who approve of a recent decentralization of government power. Those fascists. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, they'd do it to us if they ever got the chance. Luigifan18 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
So the prospect of abuse from this group that was until recently in power is so terrible that the good guys are morally obligated to do the specific terrible things they want to prevent the bad guys from doing. Gotcha. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

We live in a new conspiratorial age[edit]

It's actually extremely concerning how far we've gone in terms of conspiracy being mainstream. It's personally affected my family as well. I have to live in a household with someone that actively listens to people like Russell Brand and Eric Berg while taking everything they say at face value. These sorts of cranks have become mainstream and it's horrific. I don't wish to be in a world where the only thing you need to get people to believe the shit you say is money and a minute amount of charisma, reality be damned. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Me too, my mother and some family members are believers in quite a bit of conspiracies, all of them believe in anti-vax stuff, one of them is even a flat earther. I just try to avoid them whenever I can. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't have the priviledge of avoiding them. It's even more hurtful for me because my father specfically used to be a very skeptical and thoughtful person, but his skepticism was used to get him to believe in some truly insane shit. When he mentioned manifesting to me I realized he was too far gone. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
None of those in my family that believe this stuff were skeptics to begin with, they just started with this shit because of tiktok spam and reinforcing these beliefs among themselves and their friends. I feel you, living with people like this just causes you to be angry all the time. It's emotionally draining. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Asterisks. But yes, financial shit has made people more vulnerable to fringe cringe. SomeBurnerAccount (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
There's part of me which wonders whether the pandemic is partly to blame for stuff like this. RE: the effects of long-term physical/social isolation, coupled with some people being furloughed / unemployed and thus with 'lots of free time'. That for a % of the population, they spent far too much time marinading their minds in various U-bends without external intervention (though to be honest, I think it's changed us all in ways we don't really appreciate). KarmaPolice (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
People want simple explanations for complex issues. We have a lot of complex issues in today's world. So people desperate for an answer will find one, whether that's by a legitimately credible source, or some dickhead like David Icke. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's always been true. That alone don't explain the uptick and then 'normalisation' of tsuch things. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't, at least not by itself. I don't think there's a single answer to why. A lot of people are charlatans or grifters like Russell Brand, a lot of people are genuinely insane like David Icke, and some are just idiots like Sadhguru, but I think the biggest reason why their bullshit spreads so much easier now is because of our expanding digital age. It's easier to find their content because they create profit, and they're pushed onto people because of targeted content. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Which is why I wonder whether the pandemic had a part to play. A lot of people spent a lot of time outside of contact with, let's call it 'the real world'. Without regular contact with other 'normal(ish) people' for long periods of time some of us have frankly gotten a bit weird. I know it did to me. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I can relate to that, KarmaPolice. LongStylus (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
As an extreme example of social isolation, solitary confinement causes extreme levels of psychological harm. Perhaps the social distancing we experienced is just a small taste of that. And coincidentally, use of solitary confinement has increased during the pandemic: "...some correctional systems are employing isolation in ways that are haphazard or inhumane and will, in turn, undermine their public health intentions." [5] LongStylus (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
On the pessimistic side, I think humanity has always lived in, as you say, "a world where the only thing you need to get people to believe the shit you say is money and a minute amount of charisma". The difference may mainly be which such influences have become more visible, and so, what ends up being widely believed. On the optimistic side, a future society may possibly, with further technical development, create better ways of filtering/searching the great deluge of information, and through that solve the problem – by obsoleting the current paradigm of viral trends and influencers. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
On Stylus' point - for some, it was more than 'a small taste' during the pandemic; I (for example) spent seven weeks (first wave) alone in a flat 25m² in size. Luckily, I've always had enough interests/hobbies to keep me occupied and I'm not hugely social but even then by week five I was starting to crack up a bit. I then had perhaps another ten weeks (or so) with a slightly more relaxed regime. If I'd not had the mental abilties of self-occupation (ie didn't have hobbies etc) and had been laid off from all my jobs (so no routine) yeah, I could see the alt-me falling down a virtual rabbithole very quickly.
On Gnegiol's point - I think the main issue on that front is a general lack of public knowledge of both logic and rhetoric. Because people aren't trained to work things out, to think critically and to spot methods of persuasion etc many of us are effectively trawling the internet with no antivirus, no firewalls and no security verifications. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it's worse. An alternative way of looking at it may be that we live in an age of entertainment right now. The century before that of the Enlightenment was a century where drama and theater was valued very highly. Thereafter priorities changed along with much else. I think the current century, roughly – maybe it goes back a little more, to the 1980s – may be like a new age similar to that old one where civilization values entertainment above all else. And in a senseless world where making money and being entertained by drama is what most people try to live for above all, increasingly many find meaning by submerging themselves more fully in fantasy worlds like the very Hollywood-like one of QAnon, etc. The alternative is simply too drab and boring for them, so they prefer to be "infected" by viral memeplexes.
Maybe later, humanity will invent new and interesting things that capture attention better than drama, something which comes across as more meaningful, leading to a new age of reason, a little like what happened with the older century where the Enlightenment entered. But I think that's still in the future, and until then the masses probably won't find it interesting enough to educate themselves about how to handle information well, unless forced to by truly dire circumstances. As in, unless there's fire and explosions all around, or a truly staggering death toll, those who above all want to be entertained will be happy to say "lol" one moment and boil in anger the next as they pose and follow posers on social media, while dreaming of a personal role in great imaginary battles between good and evil. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Good to know there's no need for anti-trust legislation any more, now that people no longer make private agreements for mutual benefit at the expense of others. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
What is your point? It wasn't claimed that such doesn't happen. It also happened earlier, before the "new conspiratorial age", the problem growing and shrinking over centuries in various ways. The world would suck less with better regulations, but the basic problem discussed here would remain, I think. (Each new technological paradigm change is also an opportunity for change, because it can topple the old megacorp order – but in the absence of adequate regulation, whatever grows in its place may be as bad, or even worse.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
we are bombarded with so much utter dogshit from all possible sources these days. you need to have trusted sources of information to filter out most of the conflicting nonsense and can hopefully give you at least the basic facts of whats going on in the world today. problem is there has been concerted efforts from various self serving fucknuts - some holding far far too much power and influence to destroy any kind of trust in institutions that we should be able - need - to have some degree of trust in. people pushing a narrative can characterise anything counter to their agenda as fake news, as propaganda. a polarised political climate, hideously biased news media, there are so few sources of information that can still be reliably trusted to keep the spin to a minimum where we all can agree can give us the basic facts of things and they are all under constant assault to make us distrust even these, any editorial misstep or slack fact checking is leapt on so that if one detail in a news story turns out to be false, then its all false. all news is fake news. the medium of youtube, instagram, tik tok, twitter, do not allow much in the way nuance and depth, favouring soundbites and memes. lies and bullshit have a global reach and instantaneous. a lie travels around the world in an instant, reposted, retweeted, shared with everyone you one know before you can even assess the validity and everyones moved on the next twitter storm so the lie remains leaves an imprint but the retraction/fact checking is missed, or simply labelled fake news. misinformation is weaponised, literally - russia propagana machine creates fake fact checking sites, but everyone with a twitter account is their propaganda machine. if its all fake, why bother with fact checking? just go with what fits our world views, no matter how crazy insane it is. theres plenty of people to tell us we are right, the folk who say we wrong would say that wouldnt they. the people who we end up trusting - and we need to have people to trust in - can wield incredible influence, on an individual level and on whole segments of society. i read somewhere us tv news media doesnt really do much actual news but more opinion. opinion that is unchallenged for many because there is no trusted counter that we can all agree is neutral. and its all reinforced by algorithms and bubbles. those of us who grew up before the internet, where there was less media to reach our eyeballs, less room for the really crazy nonsense to gain purchase and less in the way of conflicting information will most likely have newspapers or news sources they still trust to some degree are maybe more resistant to the dogshit that coats everything now - but by no means a given - that the likes of lizard people still sounds like bad sci fi. but what of the people who have grown up with twitter, and fox news and fucking prison planet as their primary news sources?
this is why anyone complaining their free speech being infringed are full of shit. authoritarian governments restrict and control the information the masses are exposed to, but the methods are imperfect - suppressed information still gets out to some degree. in the free democratic world, we dont need to suppress information, we dont need to erode freedom of speech to dupe the masses or prevent our lies being exposed. quite the opposite. they give us freedom of speech and we are drowning in it. lizard people are not as fringe as they should be, qanon is fucking mainstream, and calling ex president trump a liar liar pants on fire is fake news and the election was stolen. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
"What is your point? It wasn't claimed that such doesn't happen." A conspiracy is a private agreement for mutual benefit at the expense of others. A theory is an explanation for something. Much of this discussion has been people patting each other on the back scoffing that people believe "conspiracy theories". As if people didn't actually-in-the-real-world conspire as the cause of various issues in the world. You can dismiss claims out of hand if you want, but if you do that you shouldn't pretend to have an informed take on the matter. That actually takes investigation of the claims in question. Corporate trusts are just one aspect of it. Keep in mind that official historical narratives often include conspiracies, and that denying certain ones is illegal in much of the world. And that much has been made of "collusion" over the last several years, which is an exact synonym of "conspiracy". So, for example, when someone talks about "anti-vax stuff" like the questionable approval process of the Pfizer mRNA treatment and the rather large amount of money involved, there are actual claims there involving corporate and governmental malpractice that bear investigation rather than dismissal. There is, of course, precedent for such behavior.
"in the free democratic world, we dont need to suppress information" And yet in the US, social media organizations seem quite interested in curating what information people can discuss on their platforms. And elsewhere in the nominally free world, people have been arrested for the content of private discussions. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
About the existence of conspiracies, I thought of your angle, but didn't want to write a response simply assuming that to be it. Because your take is a strawman of skeptical arguments, at least ones in good faith. Serious discussion and coverage in which conspiracy theories are rejected do not extend to making the obviously silly claim that no conspiracies exist. There's a categorical difference, in the minds of skeptics, between "conspiracy theory thinking" which leads to defective handling/evaluation of evidence and cases for making claims on the one hand, and soundly done investigation etc. on the other. Skeptical articles about the thinking of cranks try to zoom in on this. The entire thing about conspiracy theory labeled as such is the repetitive and unreasonable nature of it. However, not only conspiracy theorists, but also e.g. gobs of people on social media opposing them, don't have enough of an intellectual standard to know or care about such distinctions, and you won't usually find much good in shouting matches online about it. But here, snarky as the article are, I think they make the basic point.
On suppression of free speech alarmism, I think people cry wolf in response to companies setting terms of service limiting discussion topics on their particular platforms. I personally loathe these social media giant companies, but for other and more basic reasons, though. Note that it is legal and possible and a done deal to set up alternatives to them, and that pretty large audiences gather at some of them. Only when "legal and practically possible" stops being the case, is there a strong case to be made for free speech being truly threatened in this area. That said, there's worrying overall trends in many countries in the "free democratic world" concerning transparency, sometimes media freedom, lack of accountability of those in power, the development of modern surveillance states, and more, which in the long run means that free speech could end up more fundamentally threatened. It remains to see which historical twists and turns come next. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

For weather information, see Weather Underground[edit]

Contesting collapse; Fiona crippled an entire power grid, caused 19 deaths and is the most destructive Atlantic storm of 2022. This is not ordinary "Weather Underground". Andrew5 (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Own up to it, Andrew. You wrote about weather in the collapsed section, not about societal implications of poor political responses to a weather event. Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
id never realised so much leftist radicalism was involved in commercial weather reports. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, the reason all of PR lost power is as a result of a crippled power grid of Hurricane Maria. Andrew5 (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Greg Abbott is a...[edit]

little piss baby according to reddit.

Discuss amongst yourselves. MaillardFillmore (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I say- UnAmerican racist traitorous Scum bag. My opinion though. Funny how Democrats has actual reasons to call the GOP traitors but the GOP calls Democrats traitors without reason. The Democrat party is not perfect but at least we didn't launch an insurrection and terrorist attack. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The whooshing sound you may hear is the point flying right over your head. Click the link, and you might find some bold text saying
To be clear, the mod team is of sound mind and body, and we are explicitly censoring the viewpoint that Greg Abbott isn't [redacted]
It's a trap, in the context of a Texas law forbidding censorship of viewpoints by websites such as reddit. The ball is now in the Lone Star State's court, and any advocate of the deeply stupid law will ignore these reddit shenanigans, if they have any speck of sense. MaillardFillmore (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Governor of my state. A moron who had Texas Rangers monitor a military training operation in case the federal government "takes over the state". A culture warrior who only cares about protecting kids on paper, but doesn't give two fucks about the poor state of our CPS and Foster Care. Would still scapegoat renewables for power issues even if he personally uninstalled them (Seriously, this state is in the energy business and we can't even get that right). Concerned about voter fraud even though his party keeps winning the state and gerrymandering, I guess because we don't lose hard enough for his liking. Brags about "stealing Californians" on the national stage and saying "fucking Californians" to the state audience, all in the meanwhile, not making the state ready to help support both the "natives" and "new arrivals". I have many opinions.Ryan1257 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Libs of Tiktok[edit]

I searched through the Wiki and even the discussion section and to my surprise found zero mention of this Twitter account. Libs of TikTok has been a very big player this year in inciting outrage and panic in regards to LGBT people and LGBT issues with their queerphobic rhetoric online. Mainstream media outlets have talked about them quite a bit. I think they warrant their own page on here. — Unsigned, by: Retrogressive02 / talk / contribs

Texas just passed a social media anti-censorship law. The conservative U.S. Supreme Court will no doubt rubber stamp it. Other GOP states are in the midst of creating similar laws to the Texas law. ButterCashiers (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, calling it anti-censorship might be giving it more credit that it deserves. There are a number of requirements for a platform to be subjected to this law, namely it only applies to those with more than 50 million monthly users, which makes me think it is made to not apply to platforms like Gab and Truth Social and allow those on the far-right to return to Twitter, and thus it's not designed because of any ideological opposition to censorship or one of the forms it takes online. Still, would be funny if this destroys Twitter, Facebook/Instagram and all those disasters, would make me think much better of the law, doubt this will happen, but one can dream. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, the bill doesn't prevent social media from banning illegal activity. And illegal activity actually covers a lot of the reasons why social media bans extremist political trolls. Libs of Tiktok was banned for harassing hospitals. That's potentially illegal activity. Donald Trump got banned for arguably inciting violence. That's potentially illegal activity. So, basically, even if this holds up, the impact on "CONSERVATIVE FREEDUM" will be more limited then I think they realize, it only opens up anything prohibited in most social media TOS that is actually not illegal under US law -- non-violent hate speech and COVID-19 misinformation, for instance. (As well as possibly certain non-right-wingy viewpoints, too. If someone, say, was pro-nudism, and started flooding Republican politicians' Facebook feeds with pictures of Da Boobies and Da Weenies in support of their stance, I wonder how they'd react? That's not "unlawful expression" either... but prohibited by many social media TOS at this point in time.) The fact that it only applies to residents in the state of Texas complicates things as well. It's obviously a huge bureaucratic headache for social media, of course, as written.
What this also means, should this actually pass Supreme Court muster, is that certain social media platforms actually known for censoring people for political viewpoints (such as, say, Donald Trump's Truth Social) can't grow over 50 million and continue their behavior, in Texas at least. Tee hee.
I expect if this actually passes Supreme Court muster, "blue states" will come up with their own "social media regulations" too, which will make things fun for them... (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Truth Social surpassing 50 million monthly, now that's a joke. Yeah, you're likely right, this wont do what extremists think it will do. It won't even stop what they are currently doing with covid misinformation, as they are not even removing those (At least in Facebook and Twitter, I think, I do remember some more infamous antivax videos being removed from YouTube), but rather are putting what essentially is warning labels in the post indicating that it has been debunked by fact-checkers. Still, it allows the Texas governor to look like they are fighting against Big Tech, which should be helpful in elections when the conservative base is growing increasingly disaffected with social media moderation, which I guess is all that matter at the end of the day. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
It isn't a first amendment violation for companies to manage the users on their on platform. All of these laws are stupid, and these disgusting lying troglodytes like LibsOfTikTok shouldn't have access to the internet.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @RipCityLiberal yes, it's a First Amendment violation, and it's their server anyway, if you want to use our server comply with our terms or get the boot. But the people supporting this don't think that, they think their First Amendment rights are being violated. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself. I'm saying companies should have the right to manage their user base and remove users who violate their terms. It isn't a 1A violation remove users.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal As far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong!), LoTT aggregates videos from the weirdos over at TikTok. At no point does LoTT "lie", every video is real and not excessively edited into something vastly different from the original posting. I don't know of any video that was, e.g., obviously intended as satire that LoTT tried to say was literal, even though Poe's Law suggests that should've happened at some point. It'd be like, IDK, a person collecting random videos that are produced by a bunch of Jesus Freak summer camps that'd normally only be viewed by a few dozen other Freakers, and compiling the most bizarre ones into one place for hundreds of thousands of atheists to mock or get riled up about. CorruptUser 08:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUserMy understanding is that LoTT takes video's wildly out of context, presents accusations from delusional conservatives as facts. Two specific lies I know of started with that account: 1)That drag queens were performing sexual content to children at "Drag Queen Story Hours", grooming them to be gay. 2) That school districts were accommodating "furries" at schools by having open air litter boxes. Besides being not based on any truth, they are specifically target to appeal to peoples concerns about children being sexually abused,(which curiously happens much more frequently in religious settings) is designed to accuse members of those communities of sexual deviancy and threats to traditional values. While I'm certain not every LoTT post is like this, the purpose of the account is to introduce a few leftist outliers as mainstream, then issue a call to arms against anyone left of, "America is a Christian nation, and white people should rule it." It's obvious to anyone that has grown up with social media that is how to get the agenda across.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser I will assume your argument is from ignorance and not malice, but no. Libs of Tiktok is a professional bullshit peddler, and a lot of the "weirdos", "groomers" and "libs" she accuses of pedophilia, child grooming and mutilation are people like transgender and gay schoolteachers who came out to their students, doctors that provide gender affirming care (NOT SURGERY), and otherwise normal transgender and LGBT rights activists. Look through her account, almost none of the shit she claims is "insane" or "demented" is actually that outlandish. She's just an idiot, fearmongering about LGBT people to an audience fully willing and able to act on said fear. It's not a coindicence that there were bomb threats to the Boston Children's Hospital IMMEDIATELY after she made content on them "preforming hysterectomies on children" (Literally a flat out lie), or that her publishing the EXACT addresses of places that host drag shows resulted in members of the Proud Boys showing up and trying to force their way into the venues. This isn't a First Amendment thing, LoTT is actively and directly causing anti trans and anti gay violence through her platform. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't recall the Boston Children's hospital bomb threat, so I looked it up on google. Apparently, it's not a complete lie; the hospital's website said they were performing genital surgeries on 17 year olds until LoTT made a stink. It is an exaggeration to call a 17 year old a child, of course, assuming LoTT used that word. I'm not sure when gender reassignment surgeries should be performed, though I do think there should be some limit. 12 seems too young to me for genital surgery, 18+ is fine, but I don't know if 16 or 17 is fine or not. Maybe it should be the same as the state's age of consent. Which in Mass would be... 16 years old. So I guess 17 is fine for Boston? CorruptUser 05:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know the details, but I'm going to hazard a guess they operated on the 17 y/o with parental consent (as well as a load of medical hoops too). Which ironically would piss off right-wingers too; by saying it can't be done period is basically saying the 'parental rights' over their possession kid is not absolute (a line they like to peddle). KarmaPolice (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
There also needs to be discussion on what those hoops should be. Years ago, for adults, it was "spend a year socially transitioning, and if that isn't enough spend a year on HRT before surgeries". So it was basically 2 years before you get the surgeries, which I think is enough time to weed out anyone who would simply grow out of it. I don't have a problem with kids socially transitioning if that's what they want, it's a question of when hormones begin. Giving a 10 year old puberty blockers makes absolutely no sense to me, and I am absolutely disgusted by anyone suggesting that hormones are completely reversible; you can't tell me anabolic steroids will permanently change my face unless I'm biologically female. CorruptUser 21:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
However, forcing a person to 'transition' into a body they utterly loathe (ie normal puberty) I suspect shall also be absolutely hell on mental health. Just imagine the situation; 'yes, we both know that you don't want it and I could stop that, but I'm not allowed. You've got to go through all that, then we can go through a series of very invasive, expensive and time-consuming treatments which shall - if we are lucky - counteract those things which shall happen to you in the coming years'.
The critical issue is that 'discussion' cannot happen (at least not in the USA) because one side won't even accept the premise of discussion. It's like trying to debate global warming with rent-a-hacks from the Heartland Institute. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Except that side is 60% of the population. CorSock (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
A majority support for a view does not make it is the *correct* one. If you'd done such polling in c1960 regarding Civil Rights I bet you'd have scored the desires of Dr King etc as being a distinctly minority affair. And as I pointed out, you can't have a debate on the hows/whys/whens of transitioning when the step before - that trans persons do exist and no, it is not a perversion or somehow 'indoctrination' - is not accepted by a (admittedly large) minority. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
That's not my point, I'm not pulling an Argument ad Populum. My point is that you are trying to make decisions while excluding the overwhelming majority of the population. Putting transwomen in women's sports, replacing mother with "birthing person", mandating the use of personal pronouns, etc etc without any public input, is only going to make the bulk of the public justifiably angry.CorruptUser 22:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
And what is your point? There's literally nothing I can reply to which I've not already covered above... KarmaPolice (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Just gonna completely gloss over Corey justifying a bomb threat on a children's hospital because they performed gender affirming care?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Never justified it, it should go without saying that anyone calling a bomb threat should go fuck themselves with a cactus, it was brought up because someone was claiming LoTT was causing bomb threats. That's a bit of a thorny issue; it's pretty blatant that the news shouldn't make things up, but I don't believe the news should avoid reporting actual news just because there could be retaliation. That was literally the reasoning behind allowing the muslamic ray guns go on for so long, and it became a scandal so huge it arguably contributed to Brexit. It's unclear just how much things are taken out of context, but everything she reposts is in fact a real post from somewhere. Of course, in the words of Dave Chappelle, removing all nuance from a story is like being told "Man shot by six foot tall rabbit expected to survive" without telling you the man's name is Elmer Fudd. CorruptUser 16:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The problem is, you are still qualifying the actions of this creator instead of focusing on the actual harm this creator has done. LoTT scours the internet for the hottest takes they can find, often from people outside the mainstream, and presents them as a threat to American/Western society. Recently the target of their ire is members of the LGBTQ community, not exactly a dangerous bunch. LoTT presents real information, and while they may not explicitly call for users to act, the implication is "Challenging gender/sexuality norms = Pedophile". What person wouldn't act on that if they could?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Harm" alone may not be enough. So long as LoTT is 1) not revealing private information, and 2) not lying, simply banning her for "potential harm" is dangerous for the simple reason that hiding things "for your own good" is how we end up in an authoritarian dystopia. Now, none of what LoTT posted was private as far as I'm aware; posting on TikTok is for everyone, even people outside your target audience. Now, as for "lying", one could argue she has taken things out of context. In those cases, she'd clearly be in the wrong and responsible for any damage done.
For comparison, could you give a different example where some information is meant for the public (i.e., not private such as SSNs or medical records), and true/in-context/etc, yet people should be forbidden to even mention in order to "prevent harm"? CorruptUser 02:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
This is where I look to Europe as an example. 1A interpretation makes clear actual harm is the cut-off for speech. For example, If someone explicitly tells a group of people to go burn down a synagogue, that speech isn't protected. Instead if they were to say, "I hope to see that synagogue up in flames", and a follower acts on that, it is protected speech. Plausible deniability is key. Modern examples, like Rwandan genocide referred to Tutsi as cockroaches. Nazi Germany used similar language. Laws in France and the Netherlands are premised on not allowing agitators to hide behind their words to encourage violent response. LoTT and many other conservative "outlets" take advantage of this, implying that a violent response is necessary. Now, would those laws on the books in Germany or Rwanda prevented violent action? Probably not. But much like the loudspeaker gave rise to European fascism, social media allows creators to communicate with a wide swath of people, and TikTok specifically, really provides echo chambers for like minded people. So while taking a video or comment out of context may seem innocuous, in the echo chamber LoTT operates in, transphobic/homophobic language thrives and explicit calls to violence are interspersed with content reinforcing the belief that the left is a threat to children. It isn't exactly a particularly complex strategy, but if you are unfamiliar with the reality many groups have created it can go over your head. When it comes down to it, you can have your opinion of LoTT, no one is interested in changing that. But a creator been explicitly connected with multiple violent threats.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser I'm actually a little shocked by how readily you're able to vaguely excuse the actions of LoTT because "We shouldn't censor what's reported." LoTT is not a journalist. She does not have journalistic integrity. She is a homophobe that wants to spread bigoted hatred surrounding LGBT people. Also, you don't know what you're talking about, hormone blockers are reversible, giving children hormones with informed consent is no worse than any other medical treatment done with informed consent. Additionally, an argument from the majority is a non-starter. Hypothetically, what if 60% of the population thought black people were subhuman? Would that make their opinion correct? Would legislation saying "No, black people are human." be morally wrong because it doesn't suit the opinions of the majority?When it comes to LoTT, LGBT folks aren't asking for much. Wanting someone who has incited violence against the broader LGBT community to be stripped of their platform is not disagreeable. Your wishy-washy excuses and justifications come off as unironically a bit bigoted, and I suggest you educate yourself on this issue more. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Cory Rants a Bit[edit]

I miss the old days, when the US was a barely functioning Kleptocracry. 14 years ago, Governor Blagojavich (spelling?) basically sold Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. We all knew that politicians did that all the time, but as long as they didn't get caught we could all pretend everything was all ok. And Blagojavich was stupid enough to get caught on tape, so the government agencies had to take him down. Today, would he have gone to prison? We have a Speaker of the House blatantly abusing her power for her husband to purchase stocks as well as avoid any penalty for drunk driving, a former President stealing classified documents without actually having declassified them, and the current President's son recorded himself committing numerous felonies, and so on. This is nothing new, of course, but at least back then, the politicians made a better effort to hide all of this from us so we could pretend 'murrica was the same place that our daily mantras made it out to be. "Liberty and Justice for all", my anus. And while Orange-man is partially to blame, he's only a very small partial. It's the job of the media to constantly hound politicians when they accidentally let the curtain drop, but I don't blame the media, I blame the public itself. Because it's the public who holds the media accountable. And for whatever reason, we the public seem content with a media that will blatantly lie to us as long as it tells us what we want to hear. CorruptUser 08:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hard to argue with any of that. Depressing times. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Afraid of hatred from the screens, we no longer care for anything. Slow to feel but quick to hate, we make a mockery of our own fate. And now we cry and dance in time, as we wait to see if we've finally crossed a line. Will we fall and be forgotten? Or shall we spin the wheel of fate again to test our fortune? Of course the answer was obvious all along: everyone but me was wrong. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think the majority are content; think a lot of Americans are fatalistic, resigned and tired of the constant swirling crud and pointless ideological arguments. That many have withdrawn into their 'own bubbles' and live their lives the best they can despite said crud - to lapse into sociological jargon, a lot of folks have become atomised. It's correct, though to ID the Orange One as a *symptom* as well as a *cause* of this malaise; a 'healthy' society wouldn't have even allowed him to get to the ballot, let alone elected.
Though I do caution about putting on the ol' nostalgia goggles. It seems to be a general lament of very generation that 'everything sucks now' and the previous bit was a golden age. Now, sometimes 'declines' are true (it's hard to argue that the general 'skill level' of UK Ministers has not been on a downward slope since 2010) but it does help to occasionally refresh oneself of the scandals of the past to maintain perspective. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
We do have a page for that. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Blague-o had his sentence commuted by transactional tRump, so that tells you they're on the same team, Team Autocracy. Bongolian (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Just saying, America has only honestly been semi-good for all citizens since the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. We have only been a functioning multi-ethnic Democracy for less than 100 years. America, as a system of government dedicated to the advancement of all citizens, is the best it has been, ever, in the past 50 years. And it still has quite a ways to go.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
It's funny you cite those acts, passed in 1964/1965. The baby boomers (that is, the group most stereotypically associated with hankering for a lost "Golden age" while claiming the United States of the present has been almost irreparably corrupted) would have been born before that.-Flandres (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Nobody pines for the days when they were toddlers, though. The Boomers first came of age in 64/65, and for them the good ol' days were the 70s. My good ol' days were the 90s, when you could fly on a plane and the pilot would let you see the cockpit, the cold war was finally over, it looked like Israel/Palestine were finally ready for a peace deal, Apartheid had just ended, the internet held so much promise even if you needed a second phone line to use it, etc. Then 9/11 ruined things. CorruptUser 22:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
And on top of that, UN intervention was looking promising in Cambodia and American intervention in Yugoslavia was unambiguously for the better. There were some bad misfires between them that (Somalia, the UN failing Rwanda), but those made it look like intervention was increasingly helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
While it is true that people rarely pine for when they were toddlers, it’s not unheard of that some place “the good old days” at the time when they were children, as in the “When I was a kid…” rhetoric. Others place these “good old days” at the time of their youth (late teens/early twenties). Hence you get different “good old days”, depending on which baby boomers you ask, not least depending on whether you ask older boomers born in the latter 1940s, or younger ones born in the 1950s, not to mention near the formal cutoff point in 1964.
I have rarely found the 1970s defined as “the good old days” among the boomers I’ve encountered, who tend to be the older kind. They typically point to either their childhood in the 1950s, particularly if they’re more conservative (“before everything went wrong” - Trump has done this), or the 1960s, when the economy in my neck of the woods was booming and they would’ve been in their teens and twenties.
The 1970s, by contrast, seem to be remembered for oil crises, high inflation and interest rates (not all bad, btw), leading to economic and general uncertainty. Some see the 1970s as the betrayal of the promise they saw in the 1960s, others emphasise political radicalisation and fragmentation. While there might be nostalgia for 1970s culture (e.g. music and film), it seems more of an exception, rather than an expression of that decade as “the good old days”. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Note that much may also depend on local circumstances. While the post war economic boom was on full tilt in the US in the 1950s, it only really got going in parts of Western Europe in the 1960s, which also affects the perception of the decades. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
True. Places like the UK didn't have the severe societal stress of Civil Rights or Vietnam either, which marks the 60s more alluring (and we had the societal stress of Malaya and Suez in the 50s, which made it less so). And the constant slating about the British 70s as being a complete basketcase by the rightists (mainly to justify/excuse/worship Thatcher) does actually mask the fact that if you actually question folks who were around then generally felt of them being personally rather decent. If you asked Soviet Boomers, I am almost sure they'd say the 70s were the zenith.
There's also a tendency to usually recall your childhood/young adulthood as 'the best'. As a kid, you didn't have to worry about all the adult stuff and were mainly oblivious to news etc - much of your life was play. As a youth/young adult, you had your first fun forays in adultness (like sex), pop culture (which you 'got' to some extent), your body at the height of fuckability and a general lack of responsibility. Those times will seem 'the best' almost regardless to the material/political situation of the time. Interestingly, I have a rule of thumb is that if you don't buy the above line, chances are you had a fairly crap youth. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
pretty sure everyone who might have been nostalgic for the 70s got project yewtreed. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Point is, we live a world where the corrupt thieves aren't even TRYING to hide it. This isn't the first time the US has been through this; the 1870s-1890s comes to mind. We need a new Teddy Roosevelt to root out corruption, and honestly, I understand why people are willing to put up with Erdogan, Orban and now Musseloni; if the next Teddy Roosevelt happens to be an absolute nutter who wants to do horrid, horrid things, I can absolutely understand the appeal. Only, we just had an absolute nutter whose did promise to "drain the swamp". Ugh. CorruptUser 05:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible reason #1 - The reporting of scandals is much higher now than previous eras; gone is the days where cosy journalists and tame editors would shy away from talking about personal lives and omit various 'mistakes' and 'peccadillos'.
Possible reason #2 - There is exaggerated reporting of scandal by some outlets which give the impression of higher sleaze than actually exists. qv: Your Pelosi claims. No, I cannot find actual evidence that her husbands trades were on the back of insider knowledge from his wife and the penalty for his drink-driving seems to be about average for the crime, his (lack of) previous and pleading guilty (so your 6th sentence at the start is part of the problem!)
KarmaPolice (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Good post!
-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Russian anti-war protests[edit]

I hear that not only resulted in over a thousand arrests yesterday but thousands of Russians fleeing the country.

All because of Putin wanting to send more soldiers to their deaths. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

1800 is the number arrested I'm hearing, often times military age men are getting their summons once they're processed. Several images across the internet show border check points for Georgia, Mongolia have long queues. Also flights to visa-free countries sold out, and future flights are up to 3,000 euros. Won't change a thing on the ground though. It probably isn't a threat to Putin yet, until they start drafting military age men from wealthy/powerful/connected families.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
There's also news of an influx of Russians trying to get across the Finnish border. Scandinavian commentators think the protests will amount to very little, because it is the long-established norm for Russian protests to be crushed by the police before they grow large enough to be a political threat.
Another kind of commentator on Russia, Vlad Vexler thinks Putin's government is in a double bind of sorts. The population is not exactly eager to go to war. While there's a majority who passively support the government and its "special military operation", the stability of the whole regime is based on the population being passive, agreeing to let the government do anything it wants so long as they are able to make a living and not endanger themselves. That stability is threatened if the population ever becomes as fired up and "active" as it needs to be to be willing to fight and die in wars en masse. Putin's regime now needs the population both active (motivated to go to war) and passive (then simply letting the government do as it wishes) at the same time, and signals a wish to have its cake and eat it too in the form of only a "partial" mobilization, a stance which is probably a lie. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what Putin is hoping this mobilization will even do. From what I understand, numbers arn't the issue. Its leadership, logistics, and morale. All three will be left in even WORSE shape with a huge influx of untrained, enslaved solders. Revolverman (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
It would seem that the Ukraine-Russia prisoner exchange that was announced today could not have come at a worse time for Russia. 100 Azov members + 115 other Ukraine soldiers + 10 foreigners (220 total) for 55 Russian-aligned soldiers + Putin's friend Viktor Medvedchuk (who had been charged with treason by Ukraine, and is not likely to still be of any strategic value to Putin). The math of the prisoner swap would seem to be friend-of-Putin (FOP) = 165 soldiers. This has to be bad for recruiting soldiers in Russia (your life is worth 1/165 of a FOP). But to top it off, it has outraged the hardline Putin supporters on social media because of the 100 Azov members released. Bongolian (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll admit, those 100 wouldn't be on the top of my list of 'people to save' either...
Anyway, in one respect, Putin is 'superior' to almost all his Russian predecessors; he's always kept the external door open. Malcontents could nearly always leave if they didn't like it, which meant they weren't stuck within Russia complaining and the state didn't need to run a large gulag system either. The next sign of 'difficulties' internally shall be the slamming shut of this door; that the brain-drain has become too serious ie: functioning of economy/services and/or the drain on manpower is becoming acute. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems "the math" is actually that "friend of Putin" = 200 Ukrainian soldiers and civilians.[6] Ukraine also got 5 commanders back for 55 Russian soldiers. The final 10 released being foreign volunteer fighters for Ukraine (including some who had been sentenced to death in separatist "courts" after capture) whose release was brokered by Saudi Arabia somehow.
From other news, it seems the real target of Russia's mobilization is over 1 million, that regions are pushed to get a certain number each and don't care who they end up recruiting, old and sick and militarily inexperienced and also students being forcibly enlisted. And the equipment they get is terrible. And they will probably barely have any training. Further, now that the "deal" or social contract between Putin's government and the people is broken, support for the war may be sharply declining.
So why the whole mobilization mess? Putin simply had to do something. Nationalist hardliners to the right of him were getting louder and more critical and demanding "getting tough", and increasingly blaming Putin's government for failure in Ukraine. Putin needs to placate the extremists who may, if they end up hating him, possibly try to depose him (to put in place a new fascist dictatorship). It's part of a larger mess which may possibly lead to Russian civil war in the future. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm seeing reports of 1.2m men by Nov 10th. Chances are, the vast majority of these shall be either fodder-quality infantry or scratch-quality tank units with tech levels of Vietnam. I truly hate to say this, but we need to start shipping lots and lots of mortars, cluster bombs, machine-guns and concrete pre-fabs to Kyiv because it appears the new Russian 'grand plan' is going to be human wave offensives (troops of that poor quality simply won't be capable of much else) and when it comes down to it, Russia can outnumber Ukraine 3:1 on such a war.
If we take out the 'peacetime compliment' and the ones which appear to have been raised specially for the invasion to date, this extra corresponds to about 12% of the 'younger male' demographic cohort of Russia proper, about 65% of the regular (pre-invasion) reserves or about 1½ years of 18-year olds raised by normal conscription. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I honestly just feel bad for the Russian soldiers and civilians who want nothing more then an end to the war and tyranny Your friendly neighborhood anarchist Wheelson 17:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe an uprising will take place and oust Putin. Doubt that will happen. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

why is the sa (states of America, lets be real here we are not united) not dead yet?[edit]

i mean we have had a civil war, untold years of unrest and now (at least here in the deep south) i see both klan and skin heads yearn for a new civil war, and don"t get me started about the rest of the sa with roe v wade and inflation, its a wonder were not all dead yet or in the mist of civil war. from your friendly neighborhood anarchist wheelson 13:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

In a nutshell...
- The status quo has a strength all of it's own. Political, cultural, economic. I actually suspect a majority of Americans still support this, too.
- Most of the smarter MAGAs / Dominionists dream of a Handmaid's Tale / It Can't Happen Here takeover of the *whole* USA, not just the bits they currently dominate in. This is partly due to realising...
- 'Blue' and 'Red' Americas *need* each other. 'Blues' hold the majority of the major population centres (and the stuff within it, like factories, edu/sci establishments, consumer bases) while the 'Reds' hold most of the natural resources, but...
- This dependence is not equal. Basically, Red needs Blue more than vice-versa. Blue's GDP (if you go by the 2020 election by county) represents ~70% of the US economy. Basically, Blue pays a lot more for say, the military than it benefits from employment opportunities, base locations etc (much of it is Red). Reds generally are also the highest as a % of state income recievers of Federal aid.
- Question of how the hell you'd draw the borders. Unlike, say the Civil War there isn't any firm borders. Many 'Reds' have at least one major metro solidly Blue within, while most Blues have some Red 'hinterland'. There's also the question of different shades of Blue/Red; if Red offered a Dominionist future (for example) I'd put money on the 'Libertarian Reds' bolting. A second civil war wouldn't be a division of two (or even three/four) distinct entities which could then bitch over where those lines are put - it would would be a simple orgy of violence where literally, there's fights in every town in the land. A better historical example to look at here would be the partition of India in 1947.
KarmaPolice (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
That is a very tough question to give a good answer. The United States survived the civil war, two world wars, economic hardships, sending soldiers to die in pointless conflicts, pandemics, mountains of civil unrest and plenty of shitty presidents. Eventually the United States will collapse but not right now. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to also posit that the form of capitalism the US has allowed to operate plays a factor. A civil conflict is bad for business, and few of the largest companies in the US have existed in a war economy. Additionally, for how well equipped the American public is, it pales in comparison to how well equipped modern police forces are, not even considering National Guard and active duty military branches.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
A civil war also requires the military to splinter or take sides. The military is currently quite anti-extremist and is not particularly loyal to recent presidents, instead holding loyalty to the constitution and American people first. From my experience working within the government, the military currently has no interest in overthrowing the status quo. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Its just that, in my whole sixteen years on this miserable rock, it been nothing but war and economic shit storms, but back on topic, taking into consideration that the two party system is both killing this nation and others it is just mind blowing somebody hasn't said fuck it and blow up dc, not to mention the run down state of the south and deep south, the bonfire that is california, the blm and roe v wade riots, also has anyone seen the increase in klan activity in the deep south? It is un fucking real down here. My apologies if i'm all over the place i am really tired today.

your friendly neighborhood anarchist wheelson 16:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You are young yet, just acknowledge there's a lot you simply don't understand for the simple reason that some lessons have to be experienced, not taught. People are divided online, yes, and it is a danger in the longterm, but in an emergency, people stop giving a crap about political nonsense and help each other. As long as we still have people from Tennessee willing to lay down their life to protect the people of Iowa, then ultimately we will survive, and that's absolutely the case within the military at the very least. CorruptUser 17:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Slow down Doomer/Accelerationist. I wouldn't use skinhead/KKK rhetoric (who are just small time compared to the Republican party) and ask yourself the signs of a failing state: These include failure to be able to enforce its own laws within its own territory, basic services not being provided, local rule taking more authority than some sort of centralized rule (add "the monopoly on violence" disappearing), the military taking a more direct role in politics in democracies (either in couping or splintering and enforcing its own rules/order), capital flight/brain drain, and other signs of fragmentation.
We don't have these major issues (so far) that would cause a state collapse. One real scenario I would be worried about is a US version of "The Troubles" where it's low-intensity violence with the goal of shock-value to make opponents of the violence feel too unsafe or scared to speak out and try to stop it and those who support the violence feel emboldened to continue their support. If severe enough it could help contrinute to the problems that collapse a state. Another scenario, which can be accelerated with the first scenario is the US experiencing democratic backsliding, something I fear we'll see more of if perceived "voter fraud" starts to be considered a reason for the populist establishment to ignore voting results or even remove popular voting from more of our governance. This scenario also leads to horrible thing since anytime a government loses its legitimacy, it either collapses or becomes more authoritarian. Will these things happen soon? I doubt it. Could they happen in the future? Hard to predict. Oh, and if an Anarchist like you cheers for such a thing, keep in mind, the result will definitely not lead to your utopia.Ryan1257 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
To reiterate Ryan's final point, if you ain't anywhere near the top now, you won't be on top then. If every billionaire's dream project failed, none of them would've become homeless. Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Musk, etc, all would've gotten jobs making hundreds of thousands in some other tech company, they'd all be upper-middle class at the worst. CorruptUser 19:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Come on, did you really try to pull the 'you are too young' line, Corrupt? Simple youth does not mean they're wrong, anymore than age doesn't confer wisdom either. And 'there's stuff you don't understand' without actually laying out said things is simply a crummy non-answer which I wouldn't have bought at that age (so will not insult them now by trying to sell it).
A Marxist answer to the original question is that the American 'ruling class' (and it's associated service class below it) are still generally committed to the current setup of the American state (in general terms), they still accept the limitations of reality (ie existence of facts etc) and they still possess enough power and skill to keep the system ticking over. As Mirror points out, the military brass has almost zero interest in non-constitutional actions right now, and the damp squib which was the Trumpian Putsch in Jan 6th showed that the rightist 'Establishment' had hardly any more interest in joining in either.
I would caution you to read a bit more of history; generally speaking, states 'fail' through chronic mismanagement, political irresponsibility and/or general short-sighted stupidity. Most democratic states stumble not because of the existence of an anti-democratic movement, but when the 'Establishment' invites them into the room or they've been so incompetent they've driven the country into a brick wall. Why would they invite them into the room? Normally, because 'the alternative' is seen to be worse. Going back to Jan 6th, I could see the American ruling class being more amicable towards Trump's coup attempt if a) he's proven to be more competent a President and b) the winning rival had been Sanders (or another equally left-wing economically).
As for 'failing state... well, Ryan has covered that. Despite everything, the 'core functions' still work; in fact Covid showed the American service class still possessed enough competency to keep things rolling. In fact, the main problems were shown to be primarily to be political in scope. What's more, the USA is still one of the most *stable* nations when it comes to severe crisis. She is a very wealthy nation, with ample natural resources, infrastructure, human capital, industrial plant and so on. In a global SHTF scenario, I grant her more chance of coming out the other end than say, most of the other nation-states of the globe.
KarmaPolice (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
"You have to experience it" is a crummy answer but sometimes it IS the answer. I dont know how war works. I could study it, I have a vague idea, but its something I could never understand without living it. CorSock (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Bollocks. There's not a lot of situations where 'personal experience' trumps all other methods. And perhaps a few pearls of the previous should have been offered than the frankly, condescending brush-off? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
If we are talking about gloomy futures for the USA I still think the Orban/Fidesz model is more likely than "Join the Liberation army, overthrow Emperor Cawthorn today!" The Supreme court will save the GOP from the electoral consequences of being unpopular with Independent State Legislature doctrine, they will use things like this to gradually consolidate power because they know the alternative is always losing, SCOTUS hands DeSantis governance over what has essentially become... what's the term, "Hybrid Regime?" There won't be a single "everything implodes" moment. In fact, for a lot of people there probably wont be too much sudden change in their lives...you know, that thing which is usually necessary for a large internal conflict.-Flandres (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Eh, I'm a bit more sanguine about the chances medium-term; citing Newton's Third Law - 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. To cite an example; a reactionary, overly 'activist' SCOTUS shall sooner or later 'go too far' and find it's fingers being hit with a hammer. MAGA's base is made up (mainly) of nostalgic Boomers, demented Dominionists and angry younger folks; the first soon shall be dead, the second is shrinking as a demographic (and thus, electoral force) and I think a decent % of the last can be peeled off by some decent economic policies which actually benefit the country as a whole and not just for the elites. Now I don't rule out what could happen if history's wheel gives us another 'unexpected event' and/or a demagogue of true skill arises, but I think Ryan's prediction of a 'running sore' minority hate campaign a la The Troubles is most likely. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

the united kingdom will be dead before the us breathes its last. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

'The United Kingdom' shall remain such even if it only was the size of Rutland. Though it does seem Truss truly wants to see if the country can survive going head-first into a set of concrete bollards... KarmaPolice (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
(Not directed at the comment directly above me, but there's no better way to handle the indentation) This is very far outside my normal musical tastes, but between the sound (though the band is entirely of European descent the keyboard bears an odd resemblance to the saw sam sai, a spike fiddle related to the erhu) and the lyrics it resonates. The singer wrote it about the first-generation men who first immigrated to the United States and all the stresses they endured during it, which can't have been any less than anything anyone alive today feels. The verses gradually get more tense, build up, and then rapidly defuse as the singer says "I took a walk". It's gotten people through much harder situations than me, and it's actually good for you, so try it. Won't solve everything, but it'll put you in a better frame of mind and that'll only make you more prepared to deal with the world's problems. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The song "Take a Walk" by Passion Pit? CorruptUser 04:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that. (For some reason I thought I put that in my original comment, now I see I didn't; not sure what happened there) A lot of people read it as some political manifesto despite the singer explicitly saying each verse was about one of the men in his family history. Just taking a walk and seeing what's around you can help clear your head. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Well then, a dictatorship actually does something right this time[edit]


Cuba legalized gay marriage. They now need to improve their overall human rights record. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The bigger news to me was that they hadn't already done this. Of course, they're going to ride this PR wave hard to crowd out the bad stuff coming out of there.Ryan1257 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll be impressed when they release their political prisoners.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Are they not already in Miami? Seriously though, surprised this wasn't already legal. When you consider how better they treated HIV in the 80's compared to the rest of the world.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688320/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Cuba was probably the single most homophobic socialist experiment ever. Not even Stalin was as homophobic as Fidel Castro. I strongly recommend Sexuality and Socialism, by Sherry Wolf,, if you guys wanna know how bad things were in Cuba, especially for gay men. While the book reeks of Trotskyism and has some inaccuracies, it's still a good read and a relatively rare critic from the left at how the left has treated LGBTs over the last century. GeeJayK (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I like the way you've put 'the left' in one vast homogenous bloc. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
By "the left", I meant mostly left-wing experiments, but also many left-wing parties, that supported countries like Cuba for decades. GeeJayK (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
A lot didn't. Or at least not in the manner you're putting it. And much of it was/is a sympathy vote for the frankly hysterical and pathological grudge Washington held against it since 1959. This is because there is nuance and 'economically left-wing' does not automatically mean 'socially progressive' (and vice-versa; which is why socialists sometimes clash with social justice folks). As you've noted, most of the old 'Eastern Bloc' were in fact, generally somewhat socially conservative. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
And then there's Los Frikis, courtesy of Radiolab https://radiolab.org/episodes/los-frikis Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Additional article with photos https://remezcla.com/features/culture/los-frikis-cuba-hiv-radiolab-radio-ambulante/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


A little girl defies the odds and grows up to become the first female Mussolini. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole

can you explain to me what's going on? ive been to busy studying The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster our tasty savior Your friendly neighborhood anarchist, Wheelson 17:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

FSM invented Italian tentacle(spaghetti) porn and fathered the new Mussolini. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 17:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
ah.... i see Your friendly neighborhood anarchist, Wheelson 17:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Article may be 6 months old, but.... Dark times for my old home. https://culturico.com/2021/11/12/post-fascism-in-italy-so-why-this-flame-mrs-giorgia-meloni/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Musseloni? CorruptUser 19:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Basically, Meloni ran on a campaign of "Italy for Italians". Nationalism isn't necessarily a dealbreaker when it comes to politicians, but this one in particular also wants to ban both abortion and same-sex marriage, in addition to subscribing to "the great replacement" conspiracy theory, so she's not exactly the ideal leader. CorruptUser 19:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Italian ultranationalism is a dealbreaker. Almost everyone who currently subscribes to Italian nationalism is some form of xenophobic or racist, it's not a coincidence. She ran on a platform of antisemitic dog whistling, she knows what she's doing. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Just like Lega Nord, Fratelli D'Italia has been saying stuff about how Mussolini has done great things, aswell as other... stuff...
Wikipedia's article used to cite their other ideologies(before the elections) like Euroscepticism & Neo-Fascism but those have been removed apparently... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


Does RW still have its Russian-language branch plant, and, if so, what's been going on there since the, ummm, unpleasantness began earlier this year? RagingHippie (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

this question was asked a litle while ago. before ukraine came over the horizon. i dont rememeber if there was any anawer given to the state of the russian branch, but i think at the time it would have been risky even then to continue with it for any comtributors in russia unless treading very carefully and avoiding alot of the more politcally inspired subjects. unless they were infiltrated by a pro putin base and its now just a cheerleader for putin. i can imagine life would not be any easier now after all that has gone on. i would hope the russian project has been parked rather than any one risk the attention of the russian authorities over it. i cant imagine rationalwiki is significant enough of an influence to be worth going to russian prison over. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
one of the board members might be able to shed some light on the situation. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Editing mostly stopped for a while after the war started on RW's Russian language site,[7] but lack of patrolling of edits continues to be a problem.[8] There's at least one Russian editor aware of the issues, and there has been discussion about the Russian-language site on the English-language Technical Support side (RationalWiki:Technical support/Archive24#Our Russian site and RationalWiki:Technical support#Possible server errors on the Russian side of RW). Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

HowTo: Find Flags[edit]

Simple question. WIGO flags on articles, fine. Is there a RW page which tells of all the flag codes? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I usually look up here https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I meant the codes used within RW to produce the nifty little ones like Russia. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I got the following list from Template:Cf/codes:
LongStylus (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I shoved a link to it into the WIGO Talk for others/later reference, though from the looks of it it'll last for about six months. Perhaps someone with more patience/energy could put it somewhere more permanent? KarmaPolice (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The flag templates do have documentation pages that list the various codes and shows what flag it generates. Template:Cf/doc Template:Sf/doc Template:Lgbtflag/doc. However, a centralized page that has all the different flag options, now that we have 3 templates, might be a good idea. I see about working on that.
(One side note I'm going to just throw out there for the future, is creating a general 'flag' template since we have run into instances where non-nation flags have come up before, and while folks have figured out how to insert them manually, it may make sense in the case of recurring flags; like the UN*, NATO*, Red Cross/Crescent/Crystal.) (*I know these two were just added to the cf template.)--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 07:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, work on a single useful document has started: User:NavigatorBR/Sandbox (Sorta, not in the mood to start doing tables at this time of night, so I laid some ground work). Not sure what the final name for it should be, so I am very open to suggestions.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 08:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The nord stream pipeline[edit]

Anyone here think it wasn’t Russia? American involvement seems possible. Christopher (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting American (or anyone else's) involvement is standard Russian disinfo - deflect, deny, mock, etc - you see it time and time again eg at Bucha. Also see this article on the tactic in regard to Navalny's poisoning.
It's so common and predictable become a bit of a meme - "it isn't true until the Kremlin denies it" Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Same principle applies when Tiny Face starts ranting about something. What came out of his abnormally small countenance was mind-numbingly stupid. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Russia seems more plausible, but to play with the idea, America is also possible. A Norwegian expert predicts that Russia will blame the US, and indeed that seems very likely no matter what happened. If the US did it and pinned it on Russia, Russia would look even worse, but nothing much would be gained unless the alternative would be the EU losing unity or firmness against Russia in the months ahead, which seems like a risk but far from a certainty. It would be like a gamble aiming to reduce one risk by means of taking another.
Russia doesn't have any financial motive, and is at least honest about that. It also loses leverage over the EU, and it seems like a setback for Russia in some ways. On the other hand, Russia could have decided that the gas market to EU was already lost to it (that's been the EU message for some time) and thus found it worth it for the sake of something else. Furthering instability in general has been noted to benefit Russia. Another idea is that Russia might want to use it as a distraction, e.g. in the UN security council, diverting attention from Ukraine and claiming to be under attack by the US in a different way. Whether that or something else, if it's Russia it wouldn't be the first time Russia does something in some ways self-defeating and strange in 2022 in order to pursue another aim. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The problem with the idea that US had done it is it would benefit them in no way while being very high risk. If the US did it, they'd be screwed during the investigation since even if they didn't conclude the US did it, but strongly suspected the US did it, it'd be a huge diplomatic crisis and would put the goal of saving Ukraine and isolating Russia in deep jeopardy. All this risk, for what? If it's to cut off Putin's cash (even though they have other methods of moving their energy), why do it now when things are already going in their favor, such as Europe is for the most part still in agreement about moving away from Russian gas, Ukraine has made battlefield progress, and Russia being in internal turmoil due to the conscription?Ryan1257 (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Russia doesn't need a financial motive - why leap to that as the motive?? They can pin it on Biden's words that "Nord 2 will end" is Russia invades Ukraine as part of preplanned disinfo, and indeed that is exactly what they have done. Also Russia has demonstrated utter incompetence militarily in Ukraine and in it's "mobilization" efforts - it seems perfectly reasonable that they might completely miscalculate whatever they wanted to achieve with this too. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
With a bit of thought I could make a case for: Russia, Ukraine, radical ecologists, the US, China, Big Oil and a few more if I put my mind to it.
My money would be on Russia, but the simple fact is that we don't know at the moment.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Don't forget a Finnish conspiracy. Finland had the motive to really want to tell Russia off. If they can keep it from their Nordic neighbors... (•̀ᴗ•́)و ̑̑:::
I only mentioned "financial motive" because I'd already read some articles and comments suggesting Russia had none, and doubting it was Russia on the basis of it being bad business. I think for Russia it's a small loss and may seem worth it. And now that Russia is trying to mobilize and has difficulty convincing its population that Russia is so threatened that personally going to war and risking one's life is needed, this could possibly be a (feeble) move in that direction, too.
Other things to consider: There's been drones of unknown origin (Russia the main suspect) flying around Norwegian oil and gas infrastructure, as a threatening move of sorts. Back in January, drones of unknown origin (Russia the main suspect) were sighted over Swedish nuclear power plants on several occasions. It's basically security-political trolling. That's part of the currently-known context. Now both Norway and Sweden try to tighten security in such areas. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday those drones also swarmed over Danish oil and gas fields. "Nice energy infrastructure you have there. Would be a shame if something happened to it." --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Russia would have the motive to do so. The US wouldn't have an actual motive. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. What would that Russian motive be? They controlled the taps which gave them to power to turn the thing on and off at will. They no longer have that option. And it looks like the things will be permanently out of operation. Given that they now have no control over the pipeline whereas before they had total control: what was their motive for blowing it up? Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Signaling dominance to Europe and creating domestic turmoil for countries dependent on Russian gas. The lack of gas heating in Europe is going to cause a significant amount of strife and chaos domestically, and it evens the playing field for Russia and Europe at large. Additionally, it's a show of force. Russia is showing that they can easily cut off natural gas to a not-insubstantial portion of Europe within a matter of hours. It's easily deniable publicly, but the message gets through to the people Putin wants it to reach. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
My point is that they already had the ability to turn off the gas and they did so. They also had the option to offer to turn it back on for anyone who broke ranks. Now they no longer have that lever. What do they gain by losing that lever?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
You assume rational decision making from the country that has made nothing but irrational decisions the past 8 months. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I said above that I consider Russia to be the most probable actor. I was taking issue with the assumption that Russia had an obvious motive.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. I didn't read up far enough, mistake on my part. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
EC the crazy dictator does things because hes crazy is a dreadfully circular argument and pretty dangerous thinking when hes been waving nukes about. if hes is really crazy, or even just irrational, shouldnt nato intervene, pre emptively, to stop the crazy man playing the nukes? it would be a dangerous escalation, especially if putin is not crazy or so irrational that we cannot follow his logic enough to plan for what his likely next moves and assess the risks. nothing putin has done thus far has been irrational exactly. what he has done is make huge miscalculations, and has been poorly informed and poorly advised, and he made plans for a quick victory based on falses assumptions that was bungled in execution, exposing the weaknesses of a military forced into a drawn out conflict that it cant sustain indefinitely. if russia is behind this thing then they would have reasoning for it. it might be faulty reasoning but it would not be irrational.
when i heard this news i immediately and based on nothing thought ukraine was behind it ensuring that europe cant get cold feet (or just cold in general) on the sanctions and start doing deals with russia now winter is looming. based upon nothing, just to be clear. i cant seem to find any particular motive bombing put forward in the news anything especially convincing beyond russia showcasing the ability to hit pipelines so think twice about supplying europe through your pipelines and it isnt russian gas. thats seems like the best bet from the non crazy news media, and is entirely speculation at this and the cause seems a mystery still. wsws.org seem to be most certain of whose behind it - biden is and it was the us carryiing through on threats to bomb the pipeline made before the war and forces europe to only deal with america for its fossil fuel fix. they seem very certain. i get the general impression concensus is leading to this being vague warning of some kind and that it has no immediate or significant impact on russia's war. the no gas was flowing at the time of the explosions and was not likely to be flowing any time soon. sabotaging the line made no difference to that might only have potential to limit options in the future. no one appears to lose or gain from this thing, some in europe are convinced its russia, most publicly reticent about jumping to conclusion, but quietly suspecting russia. if it aint us then it must be them. is the logic the west and russia are using to speculate and accuse each other. at the moment though it is all speculation. more information is required..
i read in one article, in just one sentence - it did not suggest it was a possibility worth considering, just part of a picture of uncertainty around how and what caused the explosions - it says swedish seismologists were convinced that tremors were detected before the explosions. perhaps it could wind up just being a freak accident. a natural disaster or even human error. maybe there is no clear motive because no one intended to blow up the thing in the first place. more idle speculation i know. time will have to tell. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Not so much the crazy dictator because he's crazy, but the dictator who does not have a realistic view of the world and is acting upon that unrealistic view. The Guardian article that it is "hybrid warfare" rings true to me - Russia could formally cut gas supplies off but that would make it the identifiable cause and the instant bad guy (even more so) - sabotage of the pipelines by "an unknown actor" maintains the deniability it uses all the time.
And let's discount Ukraine as an actor - it has no (significant) naval force projection, no submersibles, no presence in the Baltic let alone something sophisticated enough to ostensibly lay demolition charges possibly weeks in advance in accurate locations. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Russia cares that much about world opinion at the moment. It would be hard for it to be much more of a "bad guy" than it is at the moment.
To your other point - while, it seems to me, that the most immediate beneficiary of this act would be Ukraine there is a second reason to discount them as the author: political risk. As much as Russia is condemned for its acts, Ukraine is applauded. Zelenski has shown himself to be a surprisingly adept international politician and has gained vast international support and it's inconceivable to me that he would put that in jeopardy by carrying out this act with the risk that Ukraine's authorship could be uncovered.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Russia cares for the purposes of domestic consumption and because the tactic has worked before and they've gotten away with it - eg Crimea, Syria. They are doing it to sow doubt and disbelief among "us", and to preach to the choir back home - they have a formula for how this runs, and they just stick to it 'cos it has worked for Putin before and he won't brook anything else - even thought the tactic is now exposed and past it's best by date. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC).
I doubt this has been either US or Poland as some claim, no matter that Tweet of a Polish politician thanking US for blowing them up, as the former is unlikely at best to supply the EU with ships as Russia did with before, and the consequences of such attack (ie, quite likely an US-Russia war, which you can guess what kind of war would), and what would think the EU assuming of course that was discovered they were responsible. Russia seems to me more likely, maybe even something made by another faction of the Kremlin who knows the consequences of no Nordstream for Putin (and unless I'm missing something, Russia has asked for an international investigation instead of blaming US. I was expecting they'd be more vocal) Panzerfaust (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I have a Finnish friend who gives me this explanation from their home country. The theory is that Russia damaged the pipelines in order to give give themselves a pretext for posting a permanent naval force there while they either investigated the damage or repaired the pipeline. I do not present this as correct - simply speculation from Finland.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Bob - Russia does have an obvious motive. Russia has long-term contracts re gas supply to Europe. If the Kremlin simply 'turned it off' they'd be in breach of contract, leading to lots of € lost in the fines etc (of which the courts may sieze from frozen Russian accounts). However, if the pipelines are shut down for 'maintenance' or 'force majeure' they don't get fined. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
They might well be in breach of contract in such a case. But as they don't seem to care that much about invading their neighbor, annexing countries, committing multiple ongoing war crimes and threatening the use of nuclear weapons; all of which have resulted in massive international sanctions and frozen assets - I'm not sure how worried they would be about civil litigation in European courts over a particular breach of contract.
Also the cost of repairing - or possibly rebuilding - the infrastructure would probably be substantially greater then the cost of any breach of contract fine. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
All true. However, an option I'll float is that until the explosions, Gazprom (or whoever) was in charge of running the lines, and they'd fairly circumspect in doing the Czar's bidding of cutoffs (citing 'maintenence', 'can't import parts' etc but maintaining the thing) but then Putin personally intervened and told them to blow the lines, and when the officials tried to point out the economic cost etc they would have got the death glare (the 'if you say a word more you and your relatives will be in an infantry battalion in Donesk by the end of the week') type and they'd have nodded and done the order even when it made no sense.
This chimes well with what everything we know about Putin; doesn't give a toss about anything save his current goals, suffers from Dunning-Kruger, listens to few, trusts nobody and is a chronic micromanager. We've seen all of the above during this war. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── On Putin's character, a different assessment came from the old claimed FSB leak letters with the "everything is fucked" message. The idea there is that Putin never feels responsible for bad consequences, and refuses to take personal responsibility for anything, but at the same time he is dependent on, even fairly passive towards, his closest advisors and tends to say "yes" to their ideas, even agreeing to contradictory proposals and projects at the same time. He then tries to eat his cake and have it too by taking credit for everything which happens to go well, while placing the blame on others when go badly. This could explain some of the chaos when the Kremlin tries to go in different directions at the same time, the left foot not knowing where the right foot is stepping and vice versa. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting the creation of a Danish language Category in RW[edit]

Myself, and one other person, would like to create a Danish language template, to be able to create Danish language articles in RW, that can live under the Danish Category, similar to the other languages, that RW holds articles in. As I understand it, the process is for me to drop by here, and make the suggestion, so here I am :) We had discussed starting a Danish version of RW (on a separate domain), but realised it's a much much better idea to add to the existing corpus at RW. — Unsigned, by: Bobson / talk / contribs

@Bobson there's no need to ask, feel free to go ahead and do it. The only problem you may face is that creating templates requires autoconfirmed status, which you don't have yet. You can wait until you get it or ask me to create the template once you have it, I'll gladly create it for you. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@Rabbitseatcarrots ah, excellent, I thought maybe I had to wait for someone to approve me to do it. I read up on autoconfirmed status, and since my account is over 1 year old, I guess the reason it might not have happened yet is, that I only today confirmed my associated email. Maybe after 24hrs of a confirmed account I will be autoconfirmed. If that's the case, then there's no need to bother you with noodling around with a template I would be writing blind :) Bobson / talk / contribs 21:23, October 1st, 2022 (UTC)
It's not the email, its because you don't have 10 edits. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I see, it was 'and', and not 'or', for the requirements. I'd like to make the ten edits to get my autoconfirmed status. Will take a look at the todo-list, and see where I can make use of myself Bobson (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Labour polls 54% in latest poll[edit]


This is the first time that I'm seeing Labour poll this high. I have seen Labour jumping over the UK Conservative Party in the polls posted by Europe Elects since the beginning of the year (first towards 36% - 40% after Starmer promised a bathroom ban for half of the public bathrooms in the UK for Transwomen. Then towards 42% after he promised cuts for the NHS (I'm not from the UK, so I don't know what the NHS is), which upset alot of people that aren't Third Way minded.). Have the Conservatives already fucked things up that fast? I've heard that Truss already gets the nickname "Thatcher Light", but... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, Boris Johnson didn't help things, and Liz Truss appears to be so awful even the Queen would rather die and be reincarnated as Trisha Paytas's baby* than deal with Liz, well...
  • Basically, some influencer on Youtube is hated by a lot of people, and she just happened to give birth 3 minutes after the Queen died, so apparently the internet already decided that her baby is the reincarnation of the Queen. CorruptUser 19:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
liz truss, leader of the tories the party of business and financial responsibility, have just got the keys to number and having done literally nothing else, the first thing she does in the job of prime minister has caused the economy to through itself of a cliff, requiring to the bank of england to purchase millions of boinds to sure up the pound and the imf to deliver a bollocking and the last time last the imf where involved in britain's affairs was the 70s and thats not a period a thatcher fan would like to emulate. the change at the top usually steadies the ship at least briefly before it all goes wrong. the first thing she does and financial markets collapse. and we thought boris was the nadir. his term dragged on and didnt end in a complete and catastrophic collapse. and he had covid and brexit to deal with. things really have fucked up fast. they were always going to fuck fuck up, but the speed at which they did? holy shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
and starmer even has policies now. couldnt timed it better to announce labour's vision for the future. sill be tough to get a majority, what with scotland and all. and labour malcontents still have time fuck it all up. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
With the Corbynites out of power and not trying to make the election about them as well as brexit pretty much being over with, there's finally enough oxygen in the room to talk about how shit The Torys are. So I say, labour has way better odds this time. Though, I'm an American, so my knowledge of UK politics is unreliable, I'm just seeing what's getting more attention.Ryan1257 (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't think of a better outcome than Labour forced to work with the SNP in a government providing actual social services and restoring the UK to part of its once "gave something of a shit about the suffering". The main reason though being Scotland would be granted a referendum to jump the fuck off the UK ship before it sinks into its inevitable neo-Thatcherite, neo-conservative, tax-cutting-insanity, program-cutting-cruelty, post-brexit-racism shithole that it has already partly become. ShabiDOO 21:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
As a Turkish-American not very used to the Tories, it's actually really fucking stunning how openly classist and hateful Liz Truss is of the poor. At least Republicans pretend to be advocating for the working class. The Tories don't even try. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The Tories pretend in their own way. In this case by capping rising energy bills. The less obvious part about that is that the lower classes will pay for that in taxes + interest + inflation down the line. Truss/Tories could have come up with a structural solution but that was too hard for them. Bongolian (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Truss and Kwarteng have set a new bar for financial incompetence. I honestly doubt that it would be difficult to actively plan and bring about the twin disasters currently being faced by both the UK economy and the Conservative Party. Obviously the Conservative Party is getting what it deserves, but the impact on the British economy (and on everyone who isn't reasonably wealthy) is pretty depressing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at Financial Times was on BBC Newshour yesterday. Salient points were (paraphrasing): 1) It only took them a few days to destroy that which will take years to recover from. 2) Foreign investors will look at Britain and think, well they've been doing dicey things with the economy for a while, and now this (Truss/Kwarteng), it's just a small island, we'll take our money elsewhere. Bongolian (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Nah Bongolian, the Tories did the energy increase-cap because Truss would have been told within No 10 by police chiefs etc that 'they cannot guarantee preservation of order' (ie mass rioting, looting, economic meltdown etc) if the Govt did nothing regarding energy bills. Ever since 2015, this has been a Govt which has had a Micawberish approach to stuff; an eternal hope that bad stuff 'simply goes away', and this tendency has increased as we've gone through Tory leaders.
As for what's happened... well there's two schools of thought. I'll put both in, and you can judge...
'The optimistic one' is that the Big Public has finally twigged that the Tories are dead, that all that's left is a UKIP rump and splineless careerists who'd go along with anything. Even more importantly, they've realised that rump is either stupid and/or insane. For they are – the people in charge now are the true believers. They *truly* believe that a neo-Thatcherite revolution shall save everything. Ideologues rarely do well when encountering reality, and they're stupid ones because they blithely assumed the 'sensible suits' in the business and finance worlds would love their not-budget to the point they didn't bother asking anyone beforehand (I'd be happy to chat about this more here, but perhaps start a new topic first). That the Big Public have realised in double-quick time that Truss is 'an extremist', and they're punishing her accordingly – 22% is pretty much the 'diehard Tory core'.
'The cynical one' is that Truss was frigging stupid by basically declaring war on two of the three Tory electoral bulwarks; the elderly and property-owners (the third being the social reactionaries and xenophobes). The screwup has seriously strained pensions and annuities values and has all-but caused a property crash (esp in Tory core areas, like the Southern 'Shires'). These bulwarks previously didn't give a flying over Austerity, Covid, Brexit and so on because the effects were done salami-fashion and hard to pin a cause-effect on but mainly because it hurt people Not Them. 'Losing' pension values and perhaps your mortgage-ridden home... well, that's *important*, damnit!
Personally, I think it's both reasons. Some are saying this is a B'stard-ish plot to lose the next election to allow Labour to clean up the myriad shit-stains (causing them to be blamed for the mess) allowing them to bounce back into power in '28/'29, but to be honest I don't think this crew is smart enough for that kind of thing. Plus, they truly *believe* in this drek – there's strong indications that we're about to see another 'Austerity Redux' in the next month or so (including benefit freezes during 10% inflation) which... I think will lead to rioting. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Truss isn't done yet forcing her libertarian fuckery on the us. Next with up we are going to get the inhumanity of cuts to services that will hammer the poor as much the tax cuts coddled the wealthy. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Then we're back at the start of my last comment; a group of otherwise faceless persons in grey suits who troop into No 10 and tell Truss that 'they can no longer preserve law and order'. Because the fag-packet says the new Austerty shall have to be even more severe in % than what Osborne did, and tell me - what *is* there left to cut? Every public service is pretty near the brink already.
But Truss is nuts. She and her loony-bin which is a Cabinet believe half of all civil servants can be fired with no negative effect and burning huge swathes of 'red tape' (mainly 'sensible regulations' for everyone else) shall cause the economy to boom. She's going to crash into the bollard of reality again, and because she believes she's right she'll keep on ramming it until the bollard mysteriously proves it's non-existence. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for teaching me a new word! ("bollard") Zontar (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
'I fought the bollard, and the bollard won...'
I personally suspect it's not the top rate cut per se which was the politically untenable bollard, but the growing realisation within the backbench blockheads that we'd have to have heavy spending cuts (such as pensions, schools and hospitals) to (partly) pay for them. And that would have made a canvassing Tory MP as popular as a seller of plague-infested blankets.
(I do try to coin fresh metaphors...) KarmaPolice (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

To my fellow Americans citizens on RW[edit]

We are Satanic devils according to Putin during his speech celebrating the annexation of Ukrainian territories. I learned that when I was doing research to expand the article on Ukraine.

So if we are devils, when do I get my horns, pitchfork and tail? --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll give your horns, pitchfork and tail as soon as you push some poor fucking imbecile into a hole. Not before. Go do my bidding. Then we can talk. Acei9 00:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that Putin is turning as mad as Alex Jones at this point. Don't they have any laws in Russia where they can get rid of someone in power if they become raving lunatics? Probably not. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Hopefully he's not that mad. The bastard has a nuclear arsenal at his command. The world relaxed after the Great U.S. embarrassment flounced off in a huff after losing his election. But nope, now there's a headcase obsessed with the Kyvian Rus and a want to become the new Peter the bastard. Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
satanic devils? hes demonising the west by literally demonising the west. he doesnt appear to have said much that he hasnt been saying for years. just saying it more angrily. i imagine hes a little stressed at present. hes said before the line in the sand that needs to be crossed before nukes would be used is that russia itself itself is under direct attack. with the annexation of parts of ukraine, parts not even under complete russian control, hes declaring them to be part of russia proper, that they are a part of russia itself. hes drawn the line in the sand along the front line of the ongoing war and is threatening to use his nukes if we come any closer. that is worrying enough. considering much of his speech was concerned with detailing what he believes to be western efforts to destroy russaia, body and soul, an existential threat, and that the west has set the precedent for the use of nuclear weapons with the nuclear bombing of japan in ww2, exactly who does he have in his sights? are his threats limited to halting the advance ukraine forces or is he threatening the western powers directly that are arming ukraine and assaulting russia with sanctions and who he blames for all of russias problems?
removing of putin from power, for mental instability or any other reason, is not really a question of what legal mechanisms are available. its more a question of who would be in a position to take over, and who would be backing them. and what would have to have happened or putin have done for those taking over to risk it? if putin is toppled, it probably wont be by the forces of freedom and democracy. ideally if its going happen, forcing him out before anyone gets nuked would be best. forcing him out because he didnt carry through with his threats would be less so. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
If we are devils, does that mean dressing up as an American would be a good costume for Halloween? LongStylus (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Hell is empty, and all the devils are here! CorruptUser 02:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

how are you all holding up for hurricane ian?[edit]

i know i am piss scared right now, i have mild Lilapsophobia (Fear of Tornadoes or Hurricanes) and just wanted to check in with you lot to see if your all, all right. Your friendly neighborhood anarchist, Wheelson 12:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me, I honestly don't mean to make light of your situtation. But, how is Lilapsophobia different. Everyone is afraid of tornados and hurricanes, and for valid reasons, they're fucking terrifiying. So, what's different in people with Lilapsophobia? Do they run away to somewhere safe? Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
people like me with Lilapsophobia, it causes us to feel more fear and panic than normal people do, this is due (and this is what my therapist told me) due to the trauma of the loss of life of those who are killed in the storm who are close to you (my cousin and friend for me personally) it can cause more severe fear then most will experience, and yes if people like me can help it we run like the fucking wind. if you have and more questions ask me on my talk page. Your friendly neighborhood anarchist, Wheelson 12:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I had a brief read up on it, it sounds horrible. And now with this Ian fella throwing a tantrum with the atmosphere, it must be even more of a hell to experience. Hopefully you'll come out of this episode fine. Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thanks friend, hope you have a good one Your friendly neighborhood anarchist, Wheelson 17:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I had an old roommate who was very bothered by storms. They would always stay in the basement at the first first sign of a thunderstorm and no sump-pump was ever as inspected as the one in that house. I've never been bothered by them personally. As long as I'm not fearing for my phone's integrity I'm fine with high winds and rain. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ian's impacts - a (rising) death toll of 84, and $47 billion in damage. That's impressive. Andrew5 (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Damage total removed on Wikipedia for being speculative, deaths up to 108. Ten thousand are missing. Andrew5 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

They took 'er elections[edit]


It's been almost 2 years. 2 YEARS!!

I am now 100% sure that conservatives are not only insane in the membrain, but a bunch of attention whores aswell. Fuck, is Trumpism contageous? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Be fair. Congress was looking into "Russian collusion" for the entire Trump presidency. It's a case of different diaper, same shit. CorruptUser 13:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
You know better than to engage in whataboutism, come on now. And didn't they find evidence that they did attempt to interfere with the election, they were just too incompetent to actually achieve anything? It had some standing, unlike accusations of election fraud from Trump supporters, which have absolutely no standing despite dozens of appeals and lawsuits. Comparing RussiaGate to MAGA supporters complaining about utterly non-existent election fraud is a false equivalence. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
There's A LOT of difference. Election denial is trying to instate the loser into power, the Russian investigation wasn't intended to do that. The most they could do is impeach Trump on it. Don't you dare give them legitimacy by comparing the two since currently, that "same shit" election denialism is leading to the real possibility of our elections being overturned since the Republicans can't fathom the idea they can lose elections. Ryan1257 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
This is also why I've never gotten why both conservatives AND leftists think RussiaGate was a hoax or something. There was attempted Russian interference in the 2016 election, they just couldn't indict Trump on anything. It wasn't baseless and there was a legitimate federal investigation done to examine the issue. Compare this to election denialism today. Denying the legitimacy of the 2020 election is entirely baseless. There have been countless reviews and recounts, along with lawsuits that have all come to the same conclusion. Equivocating these two as equally as wrong is dangerous. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, it's well known and quite well documented that Russian online trolls didn't target *just* the right-wing / Trumpers, there was plenty of disinformation from Russian troll farms (and others) that targeted the online left wing and other types that believed everything they saw. So it's not exactly a plot by those Evil Imaginary Liberals to target conservatives, it was way more than that. I'm not sure exactly how successful they were per se at anything (other than successfully turning Facebook and Twitter into bigger steaming piles of shit than they already were), but Cory's comparison honestly is pretty stupid. One is Russia's attempt at ratfucking, the other is a ruse from a bunch of cry-baby authoritarian wannabes. Trump got in trouble with Congress regarding the Russia ratfucking mainly because he gave them the middle finger ("obstruction of justice") on investigations into it, and also notably dicked around with Ukraine aid trying to get dirt on Joe Biden. He didn't get in trouble for the Russian ratfucking per se.
It is honestly very strange to me why the commie lovers in the US today (and by that I mean the "Christian" nationalist / white supremacists who seem to worship Putin, people like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes -- Ronald Reagan is probably rolling in his grave at this new "conservative" movement) actually admire Russia's government, which by any reasonable standard is severely dysfunctional (even before the war, but the war has made such painfully obvious) and was an economic mess even before the war. I mean, what do they see in it? I have no clue. Racism and sexism damages their brains, I guess, that's the only thing I can think of. (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
You kidding? Reagan would be clapping at this shit. Reagan was a collaborator with foreign autocracies and dictatorships as long as they were conservative. Putin fits the bill. If Reagan was in Trump's position we'd be be on our hands and knees begging for someone else. Call it an exaggeration, but Reagan is one of the most evil, incompetent people in modern American history. If there's a problem in America present-day, you can trace it back to Reagan. Homelessness, the drug epidemic, impoverished black neighborhoods, homophobia in the military, HIV/AIDS, student debt, I could literally go on for hours. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
It was more of a "joke" considering how the USSR was the bête noire of United States politics during the 1980s (and before, but Reagan really escalated the military primarily to KO the Soviet Union). How times change, eh? Of course, the Republican party is currently a bit split right now on Ukraine / Russia (mostly in favor of military aid, but the rabble rousers -- we know who they are -- seem to cheer the Putin Russia). "You never know", but my guess is if Reagan was alive in the present-day, he would align with the neocon / defend-NATO side instead of the America First type crowd. Reagan was from my perspective more of a Barry Goldwater type, or a William F. Buckley type. You can say a lot about these folks on subjects ranging from racism to propping up autocrats (and the RW articles on both say a lot of not good stuff on these folks), but these folks oddly enough also tended to really hate the predecessors of modern Trumpism like the John Birch Society. (The irony is their politics, of course, actually was the crapola that enabled the "America First" type crud to bubble to the top in the present day, but that's a subject for another day...) (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the Russians actually did interfere with US elections. Given that Trump was a well-known con-man, the notoriously liberal FBI thought he just might be a Manchurian candidate. Given the Justice Department was under Trump's thumb by then, was Congressional oversight unreasonable? Just crazy? UncleKrampus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
In the eyes of a conservative any oversight on any Republican candidate is treasonous. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Religious Education - Thoughts?[edit]

Any RW members with kids might be able to provide some pertinent input here but anyone can pipe up with suggestions (though I have pretty much already decided on my own Ace McWicked style of resolution nonetheless some may be able to temper my...err...peculiar idiosyncrasies). So the situation is after several years of travel, living and working in different cities and overseas travel I have returned back to the beach city I once lived in to be nearer my daughter as she approaches the tender age of 9. For the last 5 years my ex-wife has been seeing someone who has taken a hand in the raising of my child. I don't give a fuck about that - it was an amicable split after all, both of us deciding it wasn't working and get around a lot myself so no problems there. However in recent months, the more I spend my time with my daughter the more overtly religious she seems to becoming. Firstly my ex-wife wanted to send my daughter to an evangelical college which I visited to chat with the Head of Curriculum and then swiftly put my foot down and told my ex-wife there's no fucking way I am sending my little girl to a fucking evangelical high school (the HoC got all shifty when I started asking about science education and didn't answer my questions). Now she (my daughter) talks about getting christened, has asked me "Daddy, do you mind if I believe in God?" and most recently, just a few hours ago in fact, I left my office to go see her in a speech competition in which she referenced "God telling us to look after all the animals" which is not only from Genesis but also holds pretty close to Dominion theology. Now my ex-wife, like me, isn't religious (though I am much harder an atheist than her) so she is getting some influence from somewhere in my absence as a more hands on father - which I am becoming now. I think it is coming from the new boyfriend. Now, the Ace way of doing things is tell him to stop fucking evangelising to my daughter or I'll toss a Moray Eel in the shower cubicle with him when he least expects it. Yes I would have to catch the eel first and break into his house - but it's doable. Then I'll have to unwind the festering nonsense in my daughters head and I am extremely direct with my daughter but I don't want to cause a clash of ideologies in her head which will just confuse and possibly upset her.... so thoughts? I like my way but open to suggestion. Acei9 23:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course, now that you've entered this into cyberspace, if he gets assaulted with a moray eel this conversation becomes admissible evidence for assault.
I think part of it has to do with the custody agreement you had at the time of divorce. It doesn't sound like you had joint custody, so I'm not sure how much right you have to say in how she's raised. On the other hand, I get the impression that the boyfriend is going to use the religion to try to cut you out of your daughter's life forever, in which case yeah, that's definitely a screwed up situation. I also don't know what's going on with child support or anything like that, but if he's insisting on taking on a fatherly role against your desire, you might be able to get your child support payments reduced. CorruptUser 00:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Under NZ Law I share a 50% guardianship and custody role which means no major decisions regarding school, health (like vaccinations for example) nor anything else pertinent can be decided without my input so no issues there. Also I would never reduce my child support as it is solely for my daughter and goes into a bank account in her name which I have access to. There is no alimony in NZ so all my money goes to my daughter. But I can't be there to decide what happens in the home so I only see two options - tell him to fucking stop or produce a clash of ideologies. Kids believe in god all the time as the don't have the knowledge necessary to make sense of the world in any other way - but if she is being taught about a specific god then we have problems. Acei9 00:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I gotta say, Ace Fucken McWicked having a kid go religious is evidence that if there is a deity, She has a sense of humour. RagingHippie (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe that there are "deities", because if we can simulate a universe, the odds dictate that we are the ones in the simulation, and all simulations have a creator, and whoever created the simulation are effectively creator-gods as far as we are concerned. God exists, but all religions are wrong. Atheists and theists are equally miserable, hooray! CorruptUser 06:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth going to jail for that. As an Atheïst myself I can understand that it's frustrating to see a fundie trying to brainwash someone that is dear to you, but it's not worth going to jail for (Kenneth might have too much fun with that, for starters). Isn't there a law in New Zealand that you could use for suing this guy for brainwashing your daughter? Or maybe hire a private detective to find out what the fuck is going? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Never mind the PI - I am on top of it now. Acei9 19:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
While I understand that she is presumably getting this from the boyfriend (assuming that she hasn't picked it from the local culture/school which I assume to be largely secular) I don't see any problem with exposing here to the other side. You say that you are concerned this may cause a "clash of ideologies" in her head. Well, so be it. I would guess that she is able to cope with contradictions.
In fact, I would suggest you go even further. Thake her to a mosque, a synagogue, a scientology lecture (well, maybe not that), but my point is that the more you expose here to different religions the more she will understand that they are all equally batty. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Well things got significantly weirder overnight. Without going into details I've made the discovery this is less about a religious conversion and more of a "fuck you and here's a middle finger while I'm at it" towards me personally rather than an attempt to turn my daughter to the dark side to matters of faith. Ho ho ho - if only people knew what they were dealing with. I fuck you, you don't fuck me. Acei9 18:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
"I fuck you, you don't fuck me"
I feel like that's the worst version of the Barney song I've seen yet. CorruptUser 19:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I can do worse... Acei9 19:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah but not unintentionally. CorruptUser 19:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Don't forget that your daughter may be collateral damage in this battle. Bongolian (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Forget about the boyfriend Ace and consider how much time you are prepared to spend with your daughter. The more she knows about you the better she can understand your POV. My children never asked my permission to believe in God, or gods. The thing most obvious about belief is that it eventually must be an individual choice. If my daughter asked me such a question I would say "believe in God if you must. Simply believing will not, in itself, be harmful. Only, do not punish those who do not believe as you do." UncleKrampus (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
If the boyfriend marries your ex-wife, he is going to spend a lot of time with your ex-wife and daughter. It's better to focus on being a good influence on your daughter through how you lead your life because actions speak louder than words. You can only spend so much time with your daughter given your situation. So make them count. The Coptic Guy (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Traditional Maori eel pots work a charm, especially combined with a stink bait. Don't make the mistake of leaving the pot in the stream overnight, else you'll need some guns to pull it back out, jam packed full with twenty eels. I eat well on camping trips :) Kauri0.o (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Ken, I saw your latest wank. 1) they aren’t getting married 2) he isn’t a Christian 3) they aren’t Americans 4) no one is getting converted 5) are you so deprived of human interaction you are left trolling RW? Go outside and make friends you weird fuck. Acei9 06:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Fundies aren't allowed to wank according to the Book Of Lies. He'd be pissing off his husbando. :P Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Chemistry Behind the Origin of Life[edit]

https://scitechdaily.com/the-fountain-of-life-scientists-uncover-the-chemistry-behind-the-origin-of-life/amp/ Is this article accurate? The users in the comments section think that this is sci fi hogwash. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 18:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The title is hyped up, but it is a cool result, and there is no reason to think there is anything wrong with the study itself. It's overhyped insofar as peptides are not sufficient to get life, and there is some thinking that RNA could have served an early catalytic role before the development of enzymes. I'm not familiar enough with that literature to give any real evaluation, though, and the finding still seems pretty significant. The only critical comment that looks like it could be substantial is the one claiming that the statistics wouldn't work out, but as they provide no actual analysis, and there is no obvious reason to think they are a field expert, and some of the other comments are talking about Buddha and miracles, I would take the comments with a grain of salt. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 21:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The whole enterprise of abiogenesis research is the materialists equivalent of the search of the Holy Grail. The Coptic Guy (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Wait so what's the materialist equivalent of medieval French fiction in this analogy? Evolutionary biology? Namako (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I retract my last statement. There's historical accounts of the cup that Jesus drank out of for the Last Supper. There's no historical evidence for abiogenesis. The Coptic Guy (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
well that depends on what counts as "historical evidence" arguably the sudden appearance of microorganisms in the fossil record is evidence in of itself without making supernatural appeals. There is considerable experimental evidence to consider and plausible mechanisms that don't violate chemistry that make abiogenesis possible. Panspermia is considered the much weaker hypothesis with far less in support of it, the only other hypothesis being creationism which is supernatural and kind of a non-starter as a scientific hypothesis. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Coptic Bruh, why? Why do you want to complicate this? Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 03:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as a person who has done computer programming professionally, extremely complex systems don't arise through blind forces. The well-known software developer Bill Gates said: "But the mystery and the beauty of the world is overwhelmingly amazing, and there's no scientific explanation of how it came about. To say that it was generated by random numbers, that does seem, you know, sort of an uncharitable view. I think it makes sense to believe in God...". As an aside, I am not a fan of Windows XP Professional or Windows 8.1 developed under Gates. Windows 10 is very nice and this operating system was developed after Gates left Microsoft. The Coptic Guy (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Translation: "Speaking as someone with completely irrelevant authority...". You don't really need anything that complex to start the first living organism, life is kind of a somewhat arbitrary classification. All you need for life to get started is a single simple cell that lives, dies and metabolizes. We already know the chemical processes to which all those things happen -- it's the entire basis of molecular biology and bio-chemistry. There is nothing on principle that makes it impossible for biology to arise from chemistry, it is something that in fact happening literally all the time in every biological system. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC).
Life is kind of a somewhat arbitrary classification? Speaking as a person who is alive, I don't want to be dead tomorrow. The Coptic Guy (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't mean much besides that you are an organism that desires continuing sense-experience and cognition. That does not make the classification of life any easier to define. Single cells are alive but they don't possess the desire to stay alive as you do. It's not a relevant requirement to being alive, and given that the classifications for life are constantly shifting, debated, and fuzzy I would say yes...life is a pretty arbitrary classification. Your moral value does not arise by you simply being alive. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC).
On programming and software as an analogy, large-scale things generated in an "evolutionary" way will be significantly less efficient than what can be engineered, though they may work for practical purposes depending on the context. Complex life forms are in many ways suboptimal, when looking at features and bugs that have arisen through evolution. Evolution has come up with many nifty features earlier on which have then sometimes become broken (like most animals losing the ability to regrow limbs, and beginning to age destructively, just to mention two big ones), sometimes compensated for and sometimes not, features sometimes reinvented on top of what's broken and sometimes not, and layers of inefficiencies and far-from optimal DNA "code" making up everything more complex than microorganisms. It's pretty much the opposite of intelligent design, from my own software engineering perspective.
Evolution on a small scale, corresponding roughly to the adventures of microorganisms (in a simplified way), can easily be played with in hobby software experiments. Here's a discussion of such an hobby project that I remember reading about in the 00s. There also exists games where the players direct the mutation of competing strains of replicating self-modifying programs which "live" in a more controlled subsystem within a larger program, to see which side wins out.
The really tricky thing is not evolutionary mutation, but the scale of "processing" at which complexity grows. Nature has provided more than just one or two orders of magnitude of "stuff happening" in time, also in environmental "space", and also in parallel processing, than computer experiments have and can in the near future. It has provided opportunities for things to emerge that would take far too long for human experimenters to be able to see within a lifetime on currently realistic computers. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA wrote in 1982: “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” As time progresses, the plausibility of abiogenesis is getting worse and not better. In 2011, the SETI project was is related to the abiogenesis hypothesis as it often posited abiogenesis happening on other planets, was hibernated due to budget cuts. The resurrection of Jesus Christ has more evidence to support it than abiogenesis and the Apostle John said about Jesus that "all things came into being through Him" (John 1:3). The Coptic Guy (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Quote mining experts is just appealing to authority. No the resurrection of Jesus doesn’t actually have much in terms of concrete evidence for it as many of the supposed testimonies directly contradict each other and are all referenced second hand. We have evidence to how amino acids could develop within the early climate conditions of this planet, how phosolipid membranes generate in the ocean, and potential avenues to where RNA could be naturally synthesized. You don’t need much else to synthesize simple single cell life forms. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Putin is dealing with a lot[edit]

Obviously anyone with eyes outside of the propaganda bubble of Russian can see this invasion is going very badly for Putin.Institute for the Study Of War has been a very helpful resource to process publicly available information that I can't read. The assessment they published October 4th was particularly instructive:

ISW has identified three main factions in the current Russian nationalist information space: Russian milbloggers and war correspondents, former Russian or proxy officers and veterans, and some of the Russian siloviki—people with meaningful power bases and forces of their own. Putin needs to retain the support of all three of these factions. Milbloggers present Putin’s vision to a pro-war audience in both Russia and the proxy republics. The veteran community is helping organize and support force generation campaigns. The siloviki are providing combat power on the battlefield.

Each of these groups are essentially in conflict with each other, but they are also the groups that know how well the invasion is actually going. None of them are blaming Putin directly, instead directing their ire towards the military. The siloviki are particularly interesting, as the group is made up of the Wagner Group and Chechen mercenaries. But they are wasting resources attempting to break through a tactically insignificant region. Can't imagine this sort of disfunction from any modern Western military conflict.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

brazil elections[edit]

of course the two worst possibleWikipedia candidates to lead the country would be the ones most likely to win! it doesn't matter who wins today (or at the end of the month, if there's a run-off); in the end, brazil loses. the country is poised to (figuratively and perhaps even literally) burn to the ground, regardless. i love my country (of heritage), but i hate the people who run it. maybe democracy will work better again in four years.

anyway, please excuse my rant above. just wanted to briefly come out of retirement to update you all on what's going on. G Man (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I get Bolsonaro sucks, but I don’t know anything about Lula. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini to be fair, there is a lot of false information circulating about him from the brazilian right. that said, lula's party (the worker's party, or PT) has been allegedly involved in various corruption scandals (e.g. mensalão and the notorious operation car wash; see the article on pt for more details). even though his own convictions were overturned, all those scandals still make him look bad even today. plus, lula has a history of supporting left-wing dictatorships in other areas of latin america (note: opinion piece. could not find better source. please feel free to fact-check.)
the point is, lula and his incompetent and corrupt worker's party are facing off a quasi-fascist. it doesn't help that lula is just about as polarizing as bolsonaro. brazil really needs better alternatives. we need moderate and more sensible leaders who don't profit off of dividing the country. even though i live in the states, what happens there still concerns me. G Man (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
if you want to know more, feel free to ask User:GeeJayK. he knows more about this than i do. G Man (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
If Bolsonaro wins, the Amazon will be totally razed — that's a corruption that far exceeds anything Lula did. There is currently an impunity from top to bottom with regard to converting forests to ranchland. At least with Lula, there's some chance it won't turn into farmland/wasteland. Bongolian (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
So, this is just America & France all over again (vote for the lesser evil)? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I would say the difference between Lula and Bolsonaro is distinct enough to go for Lula. Granted, I'm not Brazilian, I just try to keep up with international politics. From what I've seen, Bolsonaro is a brutal dictator that has violently suppressed civil rights for LGBT people, freedom of speech and expression, and so on over the past few years, along with keeping a consistent policy of "Fuck you" to the Amazon and the natives within it. He's just an asshole, and while Lula's track record is not perfect or even good, he's no Bolsonaro. This seems clear cut to me. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Lesser of two evils may be correct, but Bolsonaro definitely goes out of the way to be the bigger evil due to his flirting with ditching democracy, his destruction of the rainforest, his support of Russia, and his encouragement of hateful, right wing social values. Giving illiberal democracies one less strongman to ally is a net win in my opinion.Ryan1257 (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"This seems clear cut to me."

no pun intended, right? G Man (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll own it :P Ryan1257 (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
also @Ryan1257 i know i'm kinda latching onto one thing on your list, but i just want to illustrate the predicament the brazilian people face. lula is not that much tougher on russia, and many brazilian leftists even support russia and everything it does. if there's one thing you need to understand about latin american politics, it's that the left is often just as bad as (if not worse than) the right. polarizing populists are popular with both sides, after all. as such, many latin americans don't trust their governments, and many lat-am democracies are so flawed they're never more than one bad day away from a military coup. G Man (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
No doubt. I can't say how good Lula will be on other issues and I haven't read up on him as much as I have of Bolsonaro (since, again, I'm an American who doesn't follow Brazil politics), so I will concede to you that their is a lot of ignorance on my part. That said, I have seen the right-wing here rally behind him as a sort of modern-day, Trumpian Pinochet. This has me worried since I fear for what may happen if we get another MAGA president who is willing to support him if he's still in power. For example, if he decides to coup the government and set himself up as Brazilian Junta Part 2, the likes of The Democratic Party and other moderates would see such a move as a threat to Democracy's standing around the world and do what it takes to oppose and delegitimize such a power grab in a large regional power. The Magats on the other hand may not only celebrate, but aid the regime in getting itself established since they'd see such a figure as a great ally in their goal of supporting rightwing governments around the world (mainly by shielding them from things like sanctions). If Lula is in power, the magats would shelve such ideas since they don't have that kind of love for him. Lula may "support" Russia and other traditional left wing favorites, but at least he'll be held to higher standards and couldn't get away with the things a Trumpian wannabe dictator could by virtue of them not caring. Plus, the Rainforest would have a better shot at survival compared to a Bolsonaro presidency. Again though, I understand why both options suck, but in such a situation, you're not voting for a person, but a strategy for seeing the policies you want (or at least preventing ones you don't want).Ryan1257 (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The worst thing about Lula isn't the fact that he's corrupt. It's not even the fact that he praises authoritarian regimes (even reactionary ones, like Iran, as long as they are anti-Western. The problem with Lula is the fact that he's incredibly incompetent. I'd still vote for him against Bolsonaro (I'll be in Canada during the runoff election), but trust me, he's appalling. Just check the economic crisis between 2014 and 2016 if you wanna know more. It's his fault. GeeJayK (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
technically, the recession happened under his successor's watch (which may have contributed to her controversial impeachment), but yeah, you're right; it is all his fault. this year's election reminds me a lot of a similarly polarizing one that took place in peru last summer (winter in s. america) in that an entire nation had to pick who was the lesser of two evils. it's a rather unfortunate predicament to be in, and it highlights the weaknesses of democracy in such countries. G Man (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My girlfriend is Brazilian. I fear for her safety, since she's also queer. I really hope the Brazilian electorate do the right thing and vote Bolsonaro out of office. Vee (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


there will be a runoff in 4 weeks. stay tuned... G Man (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh great...this shit againWikipedia? Andrew5 (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

do you think puerto rico will ever become a state?[edit]

i'm just wondering why it has not become one yet Your friendly neighborhood anarchist, Wheelson 13:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Puerto Rican statehood is seen a partisan democratic cause at the moment. Thus, it would take a sizable democratic majority in congress or a sea change in the GOP for it to happen.-Flandres (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
why is it not a state already though? considering it seems to have been an 'issue' for sometime AMassiveGay (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Racism is often seen as having something to do with that. (There is a quote I distantly remember from 1901 that literally talks about how "alien races are not compatible with Anglo-Saxon values.") A lot of logistical/economic/lingustic concerns about integration are often brought up.-Flandres (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Puerto Rico isn't a state for the same reason DC isn't a state. Puerto Rico being given statehood would be a blow to Republicans, as most Puerto Ricans aren't Republican. Additionally, keeping it out of statehood or any representation in America's political system means that Puerto Ricans LITERALLY pay taxation without representation, which is a Republican wet dream. It's free manpower for no cost to the federal government. There is no logical argument against Puerto Rican statehood. Puerto Rico would be the 31st most populous state, above Nevada and Iowa, and Puerto Ricans are federal citizens of the United States that contribute to the economy far more than they take out. Republicans don't want Puerto Rico to become a state because they understand that 3 million extra people to win over in the polls is a LOT. A lot of it is just racism too. I predict that we will see Puerto Rican statehood within the decade, considering how strong support for it is in the modern day. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I suspect economics has something to do with it too. PR only has ~43% of the GDP per capita vs the 50-USA, and if it was a state it would be the poorest state by far; in this situation even the current poorest - Mississippi - would have an ajusted income level which was about ~40% higher than PR.
Therefore, unless explicitly stopped, PR would become a massive Federal money-sink regarding welfare/development funds. Now that might seem somewhat fair to you and me but it really doesn't to the politicians who will either have to have less goodies for their own states and/or higher spending overall. Who wants that? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
For it to become a state, we'd have to create another state to satisfy the GOP. The problem is, unless there's a lot of Republicans in The Pacific Islands (there aren't), we'd have to partition a new state out of an existing one, something the partitioned state would not agree to (unless California would like to get rid of the crazies in its state by making The State of Jefferson).Ryan1257 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
'ever' is a long time, but it sure ain’t happening in the short term. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay There would also have to be a referendum in Puerto Rico itself after Congress gives the greenlight. I love my country but I admit that our legal system doesn't make sense a lot of the time. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you know what indirectly scares me? Ryan's comment. I'm sure it's inadvertent, but it shows how akin to a bowel obstruction American politics has gotten that a modern-day Missouri Compromise would have to be found to even consider the admission of PR. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
People automatically assume that Puerto Ricans would support the democrats in Congress and that is why the Republicans are not sympathetic to statehood for the island. This could lead to an inexorable deadlock by itself. But that is not the only political complication. The fact is, the Republican Party of Puerto Rico supports statehood, while the PR democratic party is pro commonwealth which creates a real brain teaser of a problem. Mainland republicans have to agree with the democrats and Island democrats have to agree with republicans. Nobody should hold their breath Ariel31459 (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I would also caution against assuming PR would support one party or the other. At the time AK and HI were added, the prevailing logic was HI would be Republican leaning and AK would be Democrat. Bigger thing is that PR doesn't want to be a state. They would certainly benefit financially, but they fear cultural infringement. Also America is still full of racists, so.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious. Can you name a major country that clearly has less racism than the US? CorruptUser 17:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the UK for starters. Our preferred discrimination is class. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The US racism is explicitly colorism, but UK, France, Spain, Brazil, all countries with diverse populations, where racism isn't explicitly the societal divider.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Everything that sucks about being Black in the US can be said about being Pakistani in the UK. As for Black people in the UK, Black people are 4x as likely as the general population to go to prison, whereas it's something like only 2.5x in the US. CorruptUser 22:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it's isn't. For (perhaps) a majority of the issues the Asian Muslim community faces is due to a) being Muslim, b) being historically very poor and c) a lot ending up in deprived areas of the country. Now, this don't mean their dusky skin and black hair don't generate racial hate (it clearly does), but the relative lack of racial hate towards British Indians (who look almost identical) casts doubt on that view. Why do the latter have less hate? - the answer is clearly classist in nature, as the Hindus/Sikhs originally hailed from the subcontinent's educated middle classes and have become one of the UK's 'model minorities'. Other stats point to the situation being different to the American one; such as the fact 'Black British' educational achievement appears to be at par or even edging ahead of whites when socio-economic rankings are taken into account.
One bit of key evidence (and not just anecdote) I'll cite is that of interracial relationships. Now, a decade ago the numbers of marriages which were 'mixed' in both the USA and UK was around 10%, however I feel this lowballs the British numbers because of our higher rates of cohabitation and the fact our non-white numbers are much lower (meaning that our racial exogamy is higher). In fact, for some groups (British Afro-Caribbean, for example) the rates of exogamy is approaching ~45% and rising; a situation which has led to some community leaders etc ruminating on fact said community may become functionally extinct by the 2060s (and trying to work out if this is a good, bad or one of those things). KarmaPolice (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
im pretty sure responses to decrying racism in one specific part of the world that involve 'other countries are racists too' with the ensuing 'you are more racist' 'no you are' does little to address racism in any location. its dumb on all kinds of levels. we do not compare like for like when we compare one country to another. games of oneupsmanship involving a single metric without context does not show who is the most racist and it certainly does not show who can rest on their laurels. its a game of denial and dismissal that justifies inaction on the grounds of some place is worse or everyone is racist. its game we should not be playing. as much as racism is repugnant wherever it can be found and common cause to be found amongst all who experience it, experiences are not uniform across all regions. the differing histories, cultures and traditions fundamentally effect how racism manifests in different countries. the differing legal and political systems, the differing racial groups, the differing levels of the visibility and recognition of problems and the challenges involved in combating racism all make it next to impossible and entirely pointless to say x is worse than y.
speaking of the uk and of the us as an example i most familiar with, i think there is a fundamental difference between a nation that exported slaves and one that imported them. there is a difference between a nation whose racial divide is the result of fairly recent mass immigration and one that was hard wired into it at birth. this makes the issues and challenges faced different. solutions will vary. it does not make one worse than the other, it just makes comparisons difficult. there are still similarities, like a refusal by too many to admit there is a problem in the first place, and some comparisons might have some useful purpose. but ultimately if your country is being accused of being racist, dont get defensive deal with the racists. if some other place is really more racist than than where you are, so what? still probably plenty racist enough. complaining about racism in uk adds nothing to the conversation about racism in the us, or vice versa and racism is still a problem that noone can really claim moral superiority. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
there is also something in the fact that my own country is failing hard in so many fundamental areas, its comforting and sometimes all that keeps me going is i can tell myself 'at least we arent as bad america'. plus the schadenfreude of seeing so exposed the lie of the usa being the beacon of democracy, equality, and liberty that was sold to world for so long and so aggressively that i think the us believed it themselves, is just too much to resist. petty i know, but i am what i am. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure how that "no other countries are racist too!" whataboutism really mattered to the conversation about Puerto Rico statehood to be honest.
Generally speaking, the barrier to Puerto Rico becoming a state (as I see it) is politics more than anything else. It's all about those feared Democrat Senators for those who call themselves Republicans.
(Of course, probably the big reason Puerto Rico is "assumed Democrat" at the moment is due to the Republican party embracing the racist "white grievance" vote.)
It is worth noting though that Puerto Rico has three major political parties and a handful of minor ones, none of which are "Democrat" or "Republican". So I'm not sure any assumed political fit is that solid.
This is yet another issue which the youth support strongly but the Boomers are meh on (relatively, there's overall support, but the support among Republicans is mixed). So we'll see what happens in a decade or two. (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm unsure how you can make the claim that "Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state" (Unless it's just PIDOOMA and you didn't spend 5 seconds googling). The referendum in Puerto Rico for statehood back in 2020 was 52% in support of statehood. It's a slim majority, but still a majority. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────there are a lot of factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies on this thread. first off, that "other countries are totally racist" whataboutism was completely irrelevant to this discussion. other countries are racist, too. so, what?

on the other hand, whoever said countries like the uk, france, spain, and brazil (especially the latter) aren't racist probably doesn't know much about those countries. sure, the racism in those countries doesn't quite compare with the level of racism in the us (e.g., there's no equivalent of jim crow in those countries listed, afaik), but that doesn't mean that racism isn't a problem in those countries. in fact, spain and portugal technically started the transatlantic slave trade. in addition, cuba (which was still then a spanish colony) and brazil were the last countries to abolish slavery, which didn't happen until the 1880s. i have a pretty hard time believing that racism disappeared from spanish- and portuguese-speaking countries overnight after nearly 400 years of slavery. (i mean, why do you think so many hispanic and latino americans, especially the white ones, are racist to begin with? you don't really believe the silly lie that "they can't be racist when they themselves are minorities", do you?) now granted, you might argue that their issue has more to do with colorism rather than racism, but that doesn't really make it any better.

so what was the point i was trying to make? logical fallacies are bad, but so are factual inaccuracies. that is all. G Man (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

however, just so we're clear, none of the above changes the fact that america (usa) is racist. i have my (rather strong) opinions on racism elsewhere, but they're irrelevant to the undeniabe reality of american (united statesian) racism. G Man (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Claims about Trans people without proof (This is a Matt Walsh video so it is to be expected)[edit]


A mix of transphobic drivel and racism in one fucked up video. I tormented myself with 6 minutes out of 11 minutes. The video is painfully bad. I could picture an RW article with side by side rebuttals to his claims. Want to kill brain cells? Watch this video.

I first heard of Matt Walsh when he was ripped apart by Professor Stick --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Gives you a depressing measure of the "Anti-Trans" movement when one of its stalwarts (the highly educated bigot, Stella O’Malley) willingly appears on a David Icke 'documentary' https://transsafety.network/posts/anti-trans-activists-on-david-icke/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
So much crying over a children's book, complete with the most brain-dead takes. But what can you expect from such idiots, to be honest. @Rationalzombie94 You lasted more than I did then, I quit at 4:16, couldn't stand him for much longer. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I would think the Rationalwiki article on Matt Walsh is enough to say "nope" instantly. He is well known for taking the Rush Limbaugh style of outrage and pushing it further, checking all the mad-white-male-and-dumb boxes along the way. Misogyny? Racism? HUGE transphobia? Homophobia? "The Left" as some kind of omnipotent devil? Yep. The vaguely pedoish vibe of some of his stances (defending Josh Duggar, questionable comments on teen pregnancy, etc.) also is quite a fit for his "scene". He's also a pretty proud ignoramus maximus, proudly blogging at one point on how much he hated school. Well, no shit, it shows. (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Might I suggest using an Invidious instance instead of directly linking to the video, where he'll get a view count? PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 16:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
My biggest problem with Walsh, as well as the daily wire in general, is his blatant denial of climate change's causes and solutions, second biggest is his insistence on religion above all else, and third biggest being the outright hostility towards all things LGBT. I'm sure y'all have different priorities, but that's just mine. CorruptUser 18:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm moreso worried about the near-genocidal rhetoric regarding LGBT folks. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
If you want to add some of said rhetoric to his page, please do so. CorruptUser 18:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Too lazy and sleep deprived to at the moment but I'll make a note. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Apparently Media Matters did a piece on him the other day. Basically, he said some stuff about teen pregnancies back in 2007, saying that sixteen year olds getting aren't the biggest problem, but rather that sixteen year olds aren't married when pregnant. I dunno, maybe shotgun weddings should still be a thing, but then again, so should abortions in that case. It's especially jarring that Florida seems to believe that a 16 year old isn't mentally mature enough for an abortion, but somehow is mature enough for a baby. CorruptUser 13:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Matt Walsh has referred to LGBT people as "degenerates", and said that "biologically", women are most fertile between the ages of 16 to 18. All conservative claims of child grooming are just projection. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
IIRC, fertility peaks around age 18. That second bit about "biology" isn't far too from the truth, and I think his argument was that the problem wasn't teen pregnancy but unwed pregnancy. But if you truly were obsessed with avoiding unwed pregnancies, well, all those "degenerates" do a far better job of avoiding that then everyone else...CorruptUser 19:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
But you are not really this dense to not know that the intention behind such statements are really more about keeping women under the legal control of and being subservient to men.
Walsh will probably predictably say that marriage is between a man and a woman; that the purpose is to settle down and have a family by the way God intended; and that a woman’s role is for child rearing. He probably knows that teen pregnancy and marriage disrupts a young girl’s future education and career prospects and for him that’s probably a feature and not a bug.
Half of those things are the silent parts he wont say out loud; the dude probably doesn’t actually care about having more married people — especially not queer people. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Of course (and the rabid anti-abortion ideology is of the same vein), but it's being reported as Walsh practically advocating for pedophilia. CorruptUser 20:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
It's called "Internet bluster". But since Walsh is engaged in the same sort of hyperbolic bluster, I'll allow it. And Walsh does have a history of hand-waving other creepy crapola involving the underage (the worst being the hand-waving he did on Josh Duggar regarding the report that he molested some of his young kids, which actually I guess was worse than pedophilia, it was child molester apologia. But this also includes other incidents like attempting to blame the Catholic church abuse scandals on homosexuals, declaring that a 12 year old who was raped should carry to term, etc.) Walsh is very much is a stubborn, "traditional values" asshole who wraps everything in the cloak of the sort of Christian God where the Golden Rule somehow does not exist (eg "Republican JesusWikipedia", as such affliction is popularly known).
If one was truly concerned about teen pregnancy, the solution of course is easy access to contraceptives. Teen pregnancies are way down in the US from the early 1990s and the studies I've seen pretty much say contraceptives are the thing that caused the decline. I'll leave it as a reader exercise to Google Walsh's stance and idiotic bluster on birth control. (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Not sure if you missed the "between 16 and 18" part, but Matt Walsh was making the argument that "BIOLOGICALLY", teen pregnancies are NOT a bad thing because it's what they're "BIOLOGICALLY" predisposed to do. Ignoring the fact that this is literally saying "teenagers (people who are not legal adults and have higher risks of complications from giving birth) getting pregnant is not bad because they're most fertile at that age (incorrect according to the ACOG)", which is an argument a pedophile child groomer would make (something Matt Walsh is ostensibly opposed to); arguments for the morality of something based entirely off of biology is a logical fallacy, and should not be taken seriously. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit dense at time, but where did Twatthew Walsh say that 16 year olds getting pregnant wasn't bad, rather than just an uncomfortable fact of life?CorruptUser 22:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you think explictly saying "teen pregnancies aren't the issue, unwed pregnancies are" is not a moral defense of teen pregnancies? Also, this article quotes him multiple times word for word. It's not exactly an "unbiased source" but, like, worth a read if you need any quotes of him EXPLICITLY saying that it's normal and not a problem if they're married. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily, because multiple things can be true at the same time.
For example, I believe marijuana is a "Bad Thing". I also believe marijuana should be legal. How is this possible; am I pothead because they too want it legal? People have been smoking pot and other drugs since the dawn of civilization; did I make a moral defense of the ganja? No. Criminalization is worse than legalization, because it enriches the drug dealers, reduces the ability to have any form of safety or quality control, and turning relatively minor things into serious crimes effectively eliminates all due process as the State can convict just about anyone on something whenever they can't prove a real crime or the person just happens to be an inconvenience.
What you do have on Walsh from those statements is that he seems to think 16 year olds are adults, ergo it's a contradiction for him to say they shouldn't have other adult-things like transitioning. CorruptUser 00:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
If you listen to the relevant radio excerpt,0 you'll hear him say, "ideally, you would have 17, okay — I would see nothing wrong with a society like what was happening up until about 1950 where 17 year old girls are getting married, to 17 or 18 year old guys, that are not kids they are men, men, and, uh, and they're starting a family," among a slew of other comments that together make a pretty good case that he believes teenage pregnancy (particularly around 16-17) is a good thing as long as it is within a married couple. That his arguments about maturity seem to serve as the basis for an argument that he is hypocritical is true, but he also seems to be staking out an ethical defense of (intra-marital) teen pregnancy. In particular, it is difficult to get to "teen pregnancy is morally bad" from "there is nothing wrong with 17 year old girls getting married and starting a family". Presumably, if he thought it were morally bad, he would also think there is something wrong with this, namely, the moral badness of it. So this does not seem comparable to staking out the position that something is morally bad, but should be legally permitted. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 00:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
So would it be fair to say, he isn't advocating that high schoolers bump more uglies than before, but that he just wants them to get married before junior prom? I know he's a Catholic; I don't know if he's against the existence of birth control or not. Eh, for me the issue of birth control, abortion, etc, comes down to there really isn't finite space on this planet and we can't keep a civilization if everyone plops out eight kids. CorruptUser 02:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Walsh has never explicitly come out against birth control as far as I can tell. His big schtick on this subject over the years (like many "values conservatives") has tended to be harping on government oriented health care plans paying for birth control. However... this to me is a "tell"... access to birth control is widely popular for obvious reasons, and none of this "guvment shouldn't pay for birth control" crowd can explain why birth control pills are So Special to be a target of these people's ire as far as coverage goes, compared to the zillions of other medications out there. Apart from that Old Time "Traditional Values" fundamentalist bullshit, that is. (This especially applies because estrogen / progestin have other medical purposes aside from birth control.) I guess it is difficult for the type of Catholic I suspect that he is (and alludes to in certain entries) to say "nay, everybody should Rhythm Method as the Catholic church used to decree!" without suffering huge blowback, as the vast majority of people know that modern contraceptives are effective and the ol'-time "spray and pray on the calendar day" is pretty much worthless bullshit. It is far easier for this type instead for this type to evoke Evil Government and The Left / The Liberal and Immoral Society and all of that, using a wee bit of the Gods of Libertarian / Ronald Reagan style "government always sucks (even though I am the government)" malarkey.
What to me confirms this "tell" to me is a hysterical blog entry he made ("men get free sex, women get cancer") referencing one study that came out (that he completely misconstrued) saying that birth control might make a very rare cancer slightly less rare, but still rare all things considered. He turned it into a hysterical tiny rant where the birth control pill became "poison, plain and simple" and of course share with all your Facebook friends because the bullshit idiocy spewing from a Walsh blog entry is somehow going to upset someone. (It's more like a sign of a tiny mind to me, personally). I cannot see this blog entry happening without him being one of those "traditional" Catholic types you encounter that are privately anti-birth control for Reasons, frankly. (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)