# RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive426

This is an archive page, last updated 3 December 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (back)

## Is Andrew Dawson thing real?

- DinoKiler65 — Unsigned, by: DinoKiler65 / talk / contribs

Nah, it's cool, this is a good place to ask. I can't say I have a thorough debunking of Andrew Dawson's purported giant video, but I know there have been a lot of cases of artists making 3D models and splicing them onto genuine footage to show off their editing and modelling skills, and people who might not know any better may unwittingly pass it off as the real deal (Captain Disillusion's THE DEBUNKATHON video showcases a whole lot of those, though none about creatures). I could easily imagine someone doing such for an ARG or something like that. Also, Whistler's Peak gets about 3 million visitors a year according to its website. Given that and its long history of habitation, I'd expect more than just a single sighting from recent years. DietMondrian (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Youtubers like that person use the same kind of clickbait material as the Top15s channel & Mr. Nightmare. Also, anyone that claims that the CIA wants them dead is either a con-artist or a nutcase. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah you can fake that kind of blurry footage easily. All you have to do is load up a model in Blender, export a prerecorded animation over a transparent background, move that to Gimp (or photoshop if you fancy) and do some blurring and color correction, move it to OpenShot along with camera footage, and then just splice them together carefully. Only takes a camera, a computer, some free software, and the patience / skill to do it right. In other words, the evidence portrayed is very weak, and the counter evidence of biology and just how hard it would be to cover this up is strong (this entire CIA conspiracy is defeated by a tiktokker with a camera in a popular tourist spot, and it has somehow persisted for centuries, before the CIA even existed?). And even if they did exist, it wouldn't prove anything about "aliens and Bible stuff". One conspiracy being true doesn't mean they all are. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Unless you're one of these people. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you guys for answering. Recently, former Dawson's wife posted a video talking about the situation and she said he had depression which lead to him passing away, which is a sad thing. In the video, she also said the footage of the supposed giant and UFO and stuff were real, but not the CIA thing. So it still worries me, not as much as before. Some people say she is just leaving open the subject for people to talk about it, not necessarily meaning it was real, but I dunno. A muddy subject tbh, and I hope he is resting in peace. Still, kinda scared about it xc. DinoKiller65
If the same individual is somehow capturing pics of cryptids and UFOs, I don't care how good or well-meaning that person is, they're most likely lying or being deceived by someone else to believe it's legit since as "rare" as those things are supposedly that we don't see them commonly, it's highly unlikely the same individual would come across both (yet curiously, many of these individuals encounter these sightings regularly). The point is, if these were legit, why is he posting it on a Youtube channel for ad clicks? He should be contacting University professors to help legitimize his results. Also, if he's lying about The CIA tracking him, would it be so hard to conclude "maybe" he's lying about this too (or has paranoid delusions)?Ryan1257 (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Alot of people that look up stuff like this on YT, seem to think that the CIA is like Majestic 12 in Deus Ex. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it's more 'want' than anything else. God, aliens, the 'ruling circles of Jews', UN-New World Order, CIA-Bilderberg-RAND, the 'global capitalist elites', the Catholic Church or whatever... I think it touches the human need/want to feel that 'something' is truly in control of everything above us (good, bad or indifferent). That the truth in the matter is perhaps the scariest of all - not that there's these secret puppetmasters in the shadows, pulling all this shit, but that there isn't. To quote Terry Pratchett; "It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was Us, what did that make Me?". How can one blame others for our own failures if there's there is no man behind the curtain? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify, there are systems one can blame, but systems are the unconscious products of society at work, not an organized cabal. Vee (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Seems like ideologies can take plenty of the blame, and they're probably too 'conscious'. I've never really understood why people think that setting up rules for everything according to some over-arching ideal attitude is a good way to run things. FairDinkum (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

## misadventures in a life of poor choices

ok, so my last few hook ups all went south for a variety of reasons that were the result of some shitbaggery of the other parties involved and some misunderstanding and miscommunications not really anyones fault but meant incompatibilities did not become apparent till a time where ones ego is going to be stung, and the night wasted. and goes without saying, substance abuse played a factor in all.

this friday night though, was a spectacularly dreadful night but dreadful in a way my fragile ego did take a battering so a whole different kind dreadful of the previous dreadful cock blocking encounters. and it could all too easily been so much more dreadful than it already was. substance abuse was still a factor though. holy shit did it.

im not a fan of cocaine. offer me line i'll say thanks very much, but im not going out of my way for it. high too brief to be of value for money imho. and the twat magnifying properties stick around far longer than any high it provides. friday i found myself back home in essex. and i went to visit someone i vaguely remember from years back in braintree. they had some coke. pretty well coked up i understand before i had arrived, but they just seemed a little flakey more thsan coked up to me. i had my own drug of choice to share, so a bit of coke seemed like a bonus, a pleasant surprise addition to the planned debauchery. i was a line, one of two they prepared for us. i noted though they were quite substantial, as lines go. i only did a little of one line. getting started and all. they did not show such restraint for their own line. that was all the coke thay was till an hour or two later. my friend declared that he would take a break to slam some coke if i did not mind. dont personally slam anything. it takes an already risky past time and cranks it up a notch. never heard of anyone slamming coke though. if thats what he wanted to do, its his coke and his flat.

he prepares it. slams it. and kinda lurched forward so i had to catch him to prevent him falling onto his face. i then thought hes vomiting and hes going to cover me in it but i was mistaken. he was foaming at the mouth. and he was fitting. not usually the kind high one would have hoped for. i managed to lay him down on the floor where he continued to fit and i made sure that he wasnt going to hurt himself, then he stopped fitting. and stopped breathing. thats probably not a good sign i thought, as rushed for my phone. i dunno how long he wasnt breathing for - seconds, a minute, more? seemed a lot longer than it probably was. then he started breathing. not the most healthy sounding breathes. but holy fuck he wasnt dead. his eyes were open, but he was entirely unresponsive. no reaction to anything to anything i said or did. just breathing in a fashion that you wouldnt be surprised if it stopped suddenly. it didnt stop though which was fortunate. i was in the middle of giving the address for the ambulance when they snapped out of it, high as a kite and feeling pretty good it seemed. ambulance was no longer heading to us in response to an emergency, but would still be along a bit later to check up on him.

he remembers failing forward, me catching him, then being high and happy. no memory of what had happened. not quite comprehending that all the fitting and not breathing and the glassy eyed, for want of a better word, coma, that he had no recollection of had happened. not right away anyway. ambulance showed up a bit later. hes still alive as he whats apped me about 30 mins ago. not the best night ive experienced, but not as bad as it could have been. and my already blue balls are bluer still.

the journey home, back to london, was the icing on the cake of this shitty friday night saturday morning. shit icing on a shit cake. that was an ordeal of homeric proportions, if the odyssey started with the end of the trojan war, but the trojans were all chavs in a midesssex wasteland. and it had a fucking bus replacement service. over six hours that should have 2 hours journey max. i hate fucking essex.

just say no kids. just say no. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That sounds rough- at the risk of offering platitudes, I hope you remain safe and well and don’t have a similar run-in anytime soon. Probliknaut (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad you made it home safe and sound. Bongolian (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

## Michigan governor election: Tudor Dixon aka Trump in a skirt has lost

Good. We in Michigan do not need a state level Trump. By the way, Props 1, 2 and 3 passed. Michigan politicians have to disclose financial records as part of transparency, voting rights are protected and bodily autonomy is protected. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Congrats! Meanwhile here in Texas... well I got none of those things.Ryan1257 (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Tudor Dixon, like Trump, refuses to concede and is crying election fraud. Got to love the tears of right wing losers. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Laura Kelly managed to pull through in Kansas! I was pleasantly surprised! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
While normally I don't think Democrat victories are a good thing, I am happy to say it is very likely Boebert loses, but the race wasn't called yet. Boebert is trailing by .8% with 95% of the vote in. Andrew5 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Also - both Minnesota and Michigan gained Deocratic trifectas. Andrew5 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
"While I don't think democratic victories are a good thing..." Most honest conservative, by the way, lol. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Democratic trifectas mean Democrats get to create all the underfunded police that they want, and will lead to a poor economy. Andrew5 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
LOL. Can you actually point out one example of Democrats actually defunding police? Plutocow (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The only reason I'd vote for the Dems is cause they're not the party of fascism. Otherwise their policies almost completely line up with the GOP except for a few wedge issues. Neither party is good. It's just that one is worse. Also, Andrew, citation please? Vee (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Not being the party of fascism is a pretty compelling reason to vote for them, sadly. That being said, with lots of corporadems taking Ls and more left Dems winning, there's a small chance for some introspection. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vee https://clayhiggins.house.gov/media/in-the-news/higgins-democrats-push-defund-police-caused-crime-spike Andrew5 (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
So your "source" is an op-ed by a representative who stands to gain by fear-mongering about Democrats and crime. Yeah, that's totally not a conflict of interest or anything. Can you give me an actual source and not a political hitpiece? Plutocow (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Just gonna throw it out there that the police are overfunded at the expense of social services, so all Andrew is doing here is fearmongering about the bullshit "war on police." The police don't need fucking tanks and military grade surveillance kits. That's money that could be spent on infrastructure, education, welfare etc. You know, things that make crime economically redundant. Vee (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, if I were a wacko televangelist, I'd say this means God is angry with Florida over what they did last night. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, a category 1 hurricane following a path eerily similar to Andrew of 1992 (but at lower intensity, cat 1 vs 5). Andrew5 (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Just to add on, while yes, law enforcement is disproportionately funded, it is a very, very expensive operation at it's core. Unless you're making them buy their own equipment each officer needs thousands just for themselves which gets destroyed on a surprisingly significant basis. Cars going at 70 miles per hour is extremely common and they will inevitably hop curbs, hit poles or be used as battering rams. Each car runs tens of thousands of dollars and guzzles gas even before the expensive modifications. Officers need a salary. The entire process is, at it's core, very expensive. Also, "tanks" are non-existent. The closest you would get would be the M113 APC, which is a Vietnam era vehicle that gets penetrated by .308 at some angles which is a reasonably common hunting cartridge. Agree on the surveillance systems, though. SwampFox (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Do peace officers need APCs, however? The National Guard exists for a reason. Vee (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Why do we live in a society where police need equipment like this on a consistent basis? This is besides the point anyway, Andrew5 is an idiot and a conservative who thinks progressive policies are bad because, like, of course he does. Cry me a river, lol. Are the big bad Dems coming for your police? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue there's still a need for specialized units to deal with the distant possibility of something like the Waco shootout or a terrorist incident. But beyond that equipping police forces with military hardware is absurd. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
The National Guard does fill that role though, and the standards for military training are considerably higher than those of police. Plutocow (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked up the Waco shootout and you're right. It was the FBI and Texas National Guard who were there. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Don't forget the ATF. Waco is the main anti-ATF circlejerk event. It's the gun nut version of "remember the Alamo." ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, law enforcement with military equipment is not a foreign concept. GSG-9 and each state's SEK in Germany make most American SWAT teams look like Fisher-Price LARPers. Also, you would be surprised at how long it takes the national guard to mobilize considering that you need to call up the guardsmen, assemble them and then respond to the incident. Having a dedicated tactical team ready to respond in minutes is extremely practical. The possibility of a Paris 2015-style synchronized attack renders the use of the national guard as a replacement for tactical law enforcement completely inappropriate. SwampFox (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe so, but how effective is all this extra "security" really? I fear we're still giving away too much of our civil liberties in the name of a faux sense of security. School resource officers are now a dime a dozen, but school shootings still happen, and the performance of those SROs are usually abysmal. They're incompetent. It's security theatre. This is also besides the issue that defunding the police is not what conservatives and law and order dems would have you believe. Vee (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; America gets very poor value for what they pay for law enforcement. Organisational systems, training and economics is basically, all wrong. Yes, there's some real examples of 'good practice' out there, but also lots of mediocre and frankly awful practice too. One critical issue is that of how many LEOs exist; the UK (for example) has 48. If the USA had about the same level of per-head as the UK (who has quite a lot per-head than most other Euros) it would have between 220 to 240 LEOs. Instead, it has 18,000.
This puts 'Defund the Police' campaigns into context; quite often, one LEO's abolishment merely means another can be take over that responsibility. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The way SRTs are treated abroad and in the US are very different. Foreign SRTs are extremely specialized, small units deployed to only the most urgent situations. We're talking terrorism, hostage situations, bombings, mass shootings, stabbings, whatever. These teams often have incredibly strict entry critera, the members are often veterans from the military or extremely experienced police officers, and they have tight rules of engagement and professionalism. They are surgical strike teams. American SWAT teams are not that, they are instead the brute force of police departments in the US. Their members, while usually experienced police officers and sometimes veterans, have an extremely different attitude than their foreign counterparts. SWAT teams are called to every potentially dangerous situation. Criminal on the run? Call SWAT. Home invasion? SWAT. Drug bust? SWAT. SWAT is an extremely broad, not-at-all specialized group. They are not punished for killing innocent people, property damage, or any other misconduct. Foreign police SRTs are a scalpel, American SWAT is a hammer. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vee Here's a better source. It's from Manhattan so 90% not Republican leaning. Andrew5 (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
The "Manhattan Institute" is a conservative propaganda mill FYI. Just check their Wikipedia article. Vee (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Really? Isn't Manhattan one of the bluest counties in the country? Andrew5 (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
"The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (renamed in 1981 from the International Center for Economic Policy Studies) is a conservative American think tank focused on domestic policy and urban affairs, established in Manhattan in 1978 by Antony Fisher and William J. Casey" - the literal Wikipedia article. Vee (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
And if people have forgotten who Bill Casey was (or have never heard of him), he was Reagan’s CIA Director and key actor in both the Iran-Contra and Operation Cyclone (i.e. pumping weapons and money into the Soviet-Afghan War) shit shows. The only reason he hasn’t gone down in history as a Nixonian scale (and style) villain is that he got a brain tumour and died in ‘87 just as the Iran-Contra scandal was unraveling. Before heading the CIA, Casey was Ronnie’s campaign manager and pipeline to Wall Street cash, making him an avatar of both Saint Ronnie’s shitty foreign and economic policies. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
IMO, Watergate damaged Nixon too much. He was otherwise a solid president. Andrew5 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the man responsible for the Southern Strategy and the War on Drugs who oversaw countless human rights violations in Southeast Asia and who's administration helped overthrow the democratically elected president of Chile was a "solid president." Vee (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
to be fair, just about every president at the time had a disastrous foreign policy. it was the cold war, after all. lbj, for his part, escalated the vietnam war and undermined brazil's sovereignty by helping overthrow a democratically elected government for certain reasons (among other things he did). few people know or remember the latter part of history. i doubt that my own parents know this specific detail, but they did grow up in poverty and material misery during the time of military rule.
my point is: if you were to grade just about any president from the cold war era on their foreign policy (except maybe ike, if even), they'd all receive bad grades. G Man (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you can be the head of an empire and still be a good person. Power corrupts. Vee (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

## 11,000 prisoners were released from prison to be confined to their homes during the pandemic. Only 17 re-committed crimes - thoughts?

DUKAKIS REVOLVING DOOR DUKAKIS WILLIE HORTON VOTE BUSH 1988

I just wanted to see what some of y’all think of this opinion piece published in the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/29/prison-release-covid-pandemic-incarceration/ - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC).

Yeah but consider DUKAKIS PRISON REVOLVING DOOR LED TO RELEASED FELON WILLIE HORTON COMMITING MORE BLACK CRIMES VOTE BUSH 88 DEMOCRATS ARE SOFT ON CRIMEChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 09:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
in the us, the land of the free, whch has both the highest rate of its population in the world imprisoned, and in flat numbers has the highest total amount of people in prison - more even than china (officially at least), i'd say good luck with that. these 11000 were carefully screened - no violent or sex offenders, were old annd/or infirm, and, probably a factor that would significantly limit eligibility for many prisoners, had homes to go to. the headline to article states these results were shocking. its shocking that in the us this is shocking. who knew the old and infirm were low risk of reoffending? the article says most states have laws and procedures to release these kinds of prisoners already, they just rarely get used. even if they did it would still only scratch the surface of the us prison population and recidivist rates would still be high outside of this specific prison demographic, and will always so without significant social reforms along side prison reforms. without them, the low rate of re-offending of this group cannot really be expected to be repeated for the vast majority of the prison population, and too many people are being criminalised in the first place.
the land of the free. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Prison is really a poor system.
Part of the problem is that there is lack of clarity in people's minds about why we send people to prision.
1. Is it simply to punish them - because they "deserve it"?
2. Is it to rehabilitate them, to make them better people?
3. Is it to deter others who might be considering the same crime?
4. Is it protect society from people who would otherwise pose a danger?
5. Is it simply to keep the prisons in business?
If it's (1) then that's a pretty crap way to run a society. If it's (2) then it fails pretty much. Maybe (3) works, but I kind of doubt it. And the linked article shows that it does not have much to do with (4). And I understand that (5) may be an issue in the US.
The problem, of course, is thinking up a clearly better system - though putting fewer people in our existing one would certainly be a good idea.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I wonder what our users think the answers are, from brother Bob's list. Number 4 appears to be the only justifiable reason for incarceration. There are natural impulses motivating people to advocate revenge for it's own sake. Certainly give inmates every secure opportunity for personal growth. For inmates who are expected to be released, harsh and vengeful treatment would seem to create environments where prisons become more dangerous than gun factories with respect to their eventual impact on society. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
You forgot "provide a permanent underclass to perform all the menial and degrading tasks you could never hire honest people to do".
"Punishment" doesn't need to be as excessive as it is; years are years in length. The assumption is that the felon had committed far more crimes than they were convicted of, but this interferes with "innocent until proven guilty"
"Rehabilitation" is a failure as is. The best solution would be more work-release, house arrest, etc.
"Deterance" is based on the probability of being caught, not the expected length of the sentence. A 50% chance of spending 2 months in jail is worth far, far more to deter car thieves than a 5% chance of 20 years.
"Protection" does work... but the cost far outweighs the benefits. It costs $50k/yr per prisoner, which jumps up even higher when you remember they might have had some job on the outside had they not been in prison. So we are basically spending dollars to save cents.Corm (poke) 16:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC) However, there is a 'need' for #1 - at least some of the time. If people feel the law offers no 'payback' for wrongs suffered, they may decide to get justice 'personally' than telling state officials about it and hoping justice turns up somehow. That's the whole point of the system; it's supposed to be the body which meets out punishment impartially so the victim doesn't storm off and do it partially... or to ask other people to assist (remember the start of the Godfather? Bonasera the undertaker wanted Don Corleone to grant him what the American legal system had not; justice for the (implied) attempted gang-rape of his daughter). KarmaPolice (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC) There was also the part IIRC where Corleone got his start protecting grandmas from street thugs in exchange for payment, which fits into #4 as well. Imagine being a shop keeper and shoplifters steal tens of thousands dollars worth of your merchandise each month and the local government refuses to do a thing. Then a couple of locals offer to help protect you in exchange for a bit of money. But getting rid of the thieves at one location gets rid of them in the entire neighborhood. So you did all the dirty work and some sunnabitch shopkeeper is getting the benefits without paying? So you're going to have to send a message. And of course, you are doing all the work so you deserve even more money, so the protection is going to cost more next year, and more the year after... That's the Mafia in a nutshell. Corm (poke) 16:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC) you forget the part where the street thugs that you need protection from are the same street thugs demanding payment to protect you from street thugs. thats kinda how protection rackets work. 'nice place you got here. be a shame if anything happened to it...' AMassiveGay (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC) beyond karma's use to illustrate a point i'm not sure that the mafia's self serving community outreach has too much relevance to prison reform AMassiveGay (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC) in terms of private citizens taking the law into their own hands due to ineffective policing, the problems is less mafia organisations rising up and more the designated 'undesirables' in the area are going to take the blame and a beating everytime someone gets robbed, with no attempt at all at due process or innocent till proven guilty. half to the time there would not need a crime to have taken place for some pre emptive justice AMassiveGay (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC) (EC) What you are describing is an extortion racket, not a protection racket. The Mafia lasted as long as it did because they did provide protection to the locals, who in turn protected the mob not just out of fear but out of their own interests. It's an interesting piece of history it part because it's not a unique story; the Black Panthers also had a similar origin, as did the related Crips and Bloods. The point being that if the state isn't doing its job of protecting the public, someone in the public sector will, and it usually ends in organized crime. As for the "undesirables taking the blame", yuuup, that's pretty much the case, and a really big reason that "undesirables" should absolutely fear the "defund the police" movement. Corm (poke) 18:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Also both Republican and Loyalist para groups in Northern Ireland; it's amazing how quickly 'street crime' (that is, the street crime the group isn't doing themselves) can be dealt with after a few local thieves turn up with mangled fingers and a drug dealer is kneecapped... but Gay is right. I merely used that as an example of the point that a lot of people (perhaps a majority) who have personally suffered crime (that is, not an impersonal 'annoyance of life' type) shall desire basically, payback of some form. The state must channel these 'retributive sentiments' into the legal system of punishments, so they do not resort to 'extralegal' methods instead. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC) ec i was describing a protection racket. extortion is the crime commited in a protection racket. the mafia did not get such a romanticised start either. they got there start from protecting the estates of a italian landed gentry who owned large tracts of land and often absentee landlords. they were not looking out for the peasants - they had nothing of value to protect. what you desribe is a mafia that was already long been established and has used the power their influence they had accrued to consolidate their position in communities were they had complete control over. it required more than just providing security for small businesses for the mafia to grow into what it is today. every nation would have similar criminal organisations with historical roots if that were the case but they do not. the mafia could not form today in the same manner. not in an industrialised modern nation. they would not have become a player in the american underworld had italian immigrants not already familiar with mafia 'protection' from back home in italy, and the early us police were racist and corrupt, so they got a toe hole in the state. they would not be what are today without prohibition and be just two bit thugs today. they would have withered and died as a criminal organisation because it could not have maintained political control as immigrant communities became more established in their new home. the streets of new york is not the same as rural sicily. the black panthers formed as protection against a racist police force not because of ineffective policing, while the crips and bloods were street gangs pure and simple. they do not have similar histories to the formation of the mafia. in a modern industrial society, in urban populations, if the police were so inept that communities had to look elsewhere for justice, it would not be criminal organisations they would need to look to. they'd look to themselves. you dont need mafia hoods looking after your small business you'd have neighbourhood watches - community led things. as was the case for the peasants throughout history and before professional police forces were a thing. its big businesses who'd pay for the heavies. private security firms already do this in many parts of the world and they are just as dodgy as the mafia past and present are. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC) the example of militant groups in northern ireland isnt quite the same. thats perhaps more akin to martial law. those groups did not form because the police were deficient, they formed to fight in a low level military conflict. they have attempted to reposition themselves as providers of justice in their communities, but im not sure thats been entirely successful as the local police reformed itself into a more legitimate force for all both communities in n ireland. i think they are increasingly seen as a hold over from the bad old days and without the troubles are just violent thugs. it again, its not simply a case of stepping up to fill a void for something like the mafia to become what it is today. it requires being able to gain and maintain huge control over the entire communities. shaking down local businesses isnt going to do that. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC) My general point was that 'power abhors a vacuum'. What happened in Northern Ireland was what has happened thousands of times before and will in the future; in locations where the forces of 'the law' (police, judges etc) were viewed as illegitimate and/or incapable by a large percentage of people, alternatives shall arise in their place. That can be anything - Pinkertons, Panthers or Provos or a dozen other options. Coupled with this is the maxim 'justice needs to be seen to be done'. When the more disreputable of the former groups did anything vaguely 'decent' (another example; donations to charity etc) it was nearly always only done to give them a bit of public relations cover. The problem is that while Bob's 'five points' are correct, I'd argue that it's quite possible to accept the first four as 'all correct' at the same time. As in 'look, the spartan SoL and deprivation of liberty is your punishment (1), you clearly can't re-offend while in here (3), hopefully we can reduce the 'pull factors' in you re-offending on release (2) and well, you're hardly gonna give us five stars on TripAdvisor once you've finished with us (3), are you? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Defunding the police isn't equivalent to police abolition. The police budget is grossly overinflated, and that's money that could be spent on things that make crime economically redundant. Either way, we should prolly get this thread back on track. It's been derailed enough. VeeHummus Amogus 22:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC) I am almost impressed how quickly this devolved into a topic about the necessity of heavily funding the police when the article makes zero mention of the police. Now I am curious about the responses to these gems. It shows that our criminal justice system drastically needs to change. The police aren't even very effective at their jobs. For example, nearly half of all murders go unsolved here in the US. That's not good job performance. (Hell, the article also shows a racial bias here too. Murder cases are far more likely to go unsolved if the victim is black or Hispanic.) VeeHummus Amogus 22:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC) ## Need some help I am doing a YouTube video and I need a voice actress to voice the character Trans Zombie Queen. It is for an EAS scenario. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC) You need a voice actor to voice act yourself? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC) I will be ditching the project. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Why? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC) ## Introducing the newest cryptocurrency: RatWiki Coin With this cryptocurrency, it allows you to buy things online and totally not used for buying illegal services. It is super dupper stable. It's main purpose is not to line the pockets of the people who made it and scam people out of money. Completely legit. Who wants to invest in the RatWiki Coin? --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Fuck. No. Vee (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC) (EC) I always find it strange that crypto communities are feudalistic. The head of FTX is named “King of Crypto” [1] and the head of OneCoin is called the “cryptoqueen” [2]. Maybe you can be the “Zombie Queen of Crypto”. LongStylus (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Zombie Queen of Crypto? I like it. In all seriousness, it would be insanely easy to make a dubious cryptocurrency where someone makes a shit ton of cash off of investors. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC) If I can’t purchase illegal things with it what’s the point? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Sarcasm my friend. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Yanis Varoufakis, a former finance minister of Greece, linked crypto directly to feudalism ("techno-feudalism").[3] Bongolian (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC) I find your pitch completely convincing and wish to buy a massive amount of your crypto. Unfortunately, I have just temporally transferred the bulk of my funds to a Nigerian prince who has promised that he will multiply them by a factor of ten. Just as soon as I get the transfer from him (which seems to be inexplicably delayed) I will invest in your equally attractive and equally believable proposal. :-) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC) I'd as to get in on both of these, but my current funds is tied up in the fees to release a suitcase of$5m in cash from Logan Airport to my possession...
On a serious note for a second, I do find the current crashes slightly amusing. Mainly because a) I'd always been critial of crypto from an econ POV and b) the people (including a couple here, if I recall) who had said I was wrong on the basis 'it made me money'. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

RatWiki Coin The advertisement. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

## Does this sound legit?

There is an Esperanto course that sounds interesting but I don't want to waste money if it is a scam. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

No, not at all. The site is very obscure and poorly formatted, and the "deals" it offers are too good to be true.
I'd imagine there are decent free courses somewhere on the internet. Spud speaks Esperanto and might be able to point you in the right direction. Christopher (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I know that Udemy offers an Esperanto course, I am using a Esperanto keyboard app. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
CPD seems to accredidate teaching providers for free. Checking out their site, it looks pretty fishy as it doesnt provide a way to search specific provider numbers to cross reference their validity. Hmm...MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
When I saw the CPD thing being free, that is when I made this post. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
the only language you ever need to learn is the universal language of pointing at things loudly asking how much. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the textbook I used was Jen Nia Mondo! And here you can now download both Jen Nia Mondo! books and all the audio tracks completely legally for free. Spud (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

## Bombing in Istanbul

There was a bombing attack in Istanbul yesterday. 6 dead, 81 injured. Turkish authorities blame a Syrian national with supposed ties to Kurdish militia groups. The PKK and YPG deny involvement despite the Turkish government immediately blaming them for the attack. Horrible shit. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The PKK aren't the only paramilitary group found in Turkey. Honestly the bombing could've been anyone. The fact that the Turkish government blames the Kurds says more about the government's priorities than it does about whoever committed the bombing. Vee (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
So who gains from this? I can't see much in it for the PKK.
But in larger geopolitical terms Turkey has been putting roadblocks to Sweden's membership of NATO because of Sweden's alleged softness to the the PKK. A "PKK attack" would certainly strengthen Erdogan's hand in negotiations. If these negotiations failed and Sweden did not join NATO that would be good news for Putin.
I'm not saying that Putin and/or Erdogan were involved - but the attack certainly seems more helpful to them than to the PPK.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense, but on the other hand terrorist groups do like to blow shit up for little strategic gain. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 08:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Terrorism in and of itself is a strategy. Attacks provoke the regime in power to overcompensate, and this overcompensation enables terrorist propaganda. "See! We're fighting against tyranny!" This is part of how Islamist groups gain recruits after all. DAESH loves to point to Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. (It's also why crackdowns like the ones seen in Portland are recommended against by military experts. They only galvanize resistance.) Vee (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I am not daft enough to believe the PKK did this, nor the SDF, or the YPG. No one has taken responsibility for this attack yet. Why would a terrorist organization not take responsibility for a bombing when accused? That's a golden ticket to notoriety. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is comparable, but the casus belli for the Second Chechen War was a false flag attack. VeeHummus Amogus 09:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
its a little early to be claiming a false flag operation or even to suspect one. turkey is involved in a conflict with several groups in syria and within its own borders. erdogan of course blames the pkk. he is fghting a war against the pkk. i hear this seems unlikely and denied by the pkk. but its a leap to go from 'not the pkk' to false flag. the conflicts in the region are messy. there are plenty of groups involved who have no qualms about bombing civilians. some might have links to pkk or splintered from the pkk. some have form and even likely culprits, according to sources. people have set off bombs in turkey before. car bombs were set off just the other day. erdogan would not need to stage a false flag operation, something was bound to happen at some point anyway, and why would he want to exactly?
erdogan is probably wrong about the pkk. but its all also still very likely a kurdish group behind this. i can see nothing concrete reported as of yet, so we will have to wait and see. wars are messy. the world is messy. we should not let our politics make us make wild speculations AMassiveGay (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I have some level of perspective here, being Turkish myself, and I notice several inconsistencies with this attack that make me suspicious of the government. Firstly, this is soon before the elections in June 2023. Erdoğan campaigns off of stoking nationalist fervor, and this isn't the first time terrorism has happened suspiciously close to an election cycle in the country's recent history. He's undoubtedly going to use this to his favor. Secondly, the Turkish police have supposedly captured the main suspect of the plot, interrogated her, and extracted a confession within the same day of the event, immediately speaking to the press about it. Photos of the woman captured show her face bruised by police, so I suspect foul play on part of the police. In addition, they've arrested more than 40 other people in suspected connection to the bombing within 24 hours of the event. Turkish police are not competent or well trained enough to uncover everyone in a bomb plot within a day of a terror attack, it's just unfeasible with the manpower and resources they have. Lastly and most worrying is their immediate social media and communications blackout of the country following the attack. The government in Turkey has arrested people already for going against the official story the police claim, and social media sources were completely blocked for a day following the event. I'm not saying this is a false flag, because I have no evidence of such a thing and I don't personally believe that, but I do suspect a LOT of foul play on part of the Turkish government here. There's too many erroneous events and errors. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

## The British Monarchy

I do have to say that I found the chant "lizzie's in a box" quite amusing. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Saying “I hope we weren’t too bad on you” to an indigenous person and then walking away is kind of a dumb move. LongStylus (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I remember, as a youngster, hearing a child say about JFK, "I'm glad he's dead. My father didn't vote for him." At least, one might assume, the crowd consisted mainly of drunkards. Not being a citizen of GB, I can laugh at stupidity in GB in full voice, though Oliver seems to play the fool more than I remember.UncleKrampus (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
My view of the Monarchy is that if you inherit the Crown, you inherit ALL the baggage that comes with it. You can't just say "oh, your oppressor was only a prior Monarch" when you are claiming the title simply because you are a descendant of said Monarch. Corm (poke) 21:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes but that's a different subject. In the past, monarchs were actually responsible for acts undertaken by the British state. Today, the monarch is a personification of the British people. He takes responsibility for the actions of the state, which is a democratic construct. In other words all British citizens have a responsibility for the moral character of their state. You can't get out of it by pointing to a metaphor.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I find the concept of "inherited guilt" unconvincing. On the other hand "inherited wealth" certainly exists. And if that inherited wealth was in some way stolen, or the result of illicit actions, then decedents of any victims - who arguably would have an equivalent amount of "inherited poverty" - should be able to ask for redress.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
While no one wants to be a victim, it is occasionally advantageous to have been a victim. I remember seeing a study on simple urban bus collisions. Frequently, after an accident of some sort, assessors discover there were more people claiming to be passengers than the number of fare-paying customers. This has been explained by the observation that bystanders are always ready to board the bus after the accident and claim to have been a victim of the incident. UncleKrampus (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
At the risk of a substantial derail - Trump wants to claim he's a victim of something or other under practically all circumstances. Now I think about it, the same can be said of the Christian right. (But, as you imply, "claiming" and and "being" are two different things.)
But whether or not people are currently victims was not my point. Where wealth has been accumulated over the centuries as a consequence of what we could now regard as criminal acts it seems to me that it is immoral for the descendants of these criminals to live in luxury while the descendants of the victims of those acts live in poverty. Do you disagree?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not certain what I'd be agreeing to in that case, but if I did, it would seem necessary then to use the term "immoral" as an honorific in a legal argument about a property dispute. The problem is, the legal rights of individuals don't depend upon morals. They depend upon legal statutes. So, to be concise, law must be written to mitigate past harm, and be restorative and not punitive. Any theory of economic justice has to presuppose the existence of certain property rights that may or may not have existed in the past. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok, then our opinions differ.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps. But as an American, I am constrained by ex-post facto law restrictions in our constitution. UncleKrampus (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
i have no idea if this is relevant at all - i cannot view the yootoob that is linked above - but every european nation that was once an empire owes a greart moral debt to their former colonies, and to all who were pressed into slavery along the way. even the poorest in those imperial nations today live in relative luxury compared to the abject poverty of those in former colonies. righting those past wrongs does not seem a simple task. it is not simply the case of returning plundered treasures and cultural artifacts (it wouldnt hurt if we did though) nor can we return lands we no longer control. how do you help former colonies blighted by poor governance and ridden by divisions sown during the days of empire that does not just enrich corrupt rulers? in cases where a colony has thrived since independence, are the former rulers still responsible for continuing injustices dealt to indigenous peoples (australia and issues surrounding aboriginal australians for example)? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have always been an anglophile, so allow me the privilege of making an absurd reduction: The British invaded North American colonies and in two wars killed thousands of Americans and burned the capitol. Did those fuckers ever apologize for burning down the White House? No. No they did not. But, remember, at that time there was no currency in being perpetually offended. We all know the past can not be changed. I don't think counterfactual arguments can ever be justified. If western countries had not colonized undeveloped areas of the world, we can surmise little more than they would have remained undeveloped. Would that have been better? Don't Know. Peoples as nations as with individuals should recognize when they have incurred a debt. Certainly the Smithsonian and the British Museum could give colonized nations their stuff back. Perhaps the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece, though seeing them may have motivated countless English citizens to visit Greece and the Parthenon in the last two centuries. Perhaps the Brits should offer something in exchange of great moment in Western civilization; say an original copy of the Magna Carta (four are still extant). Some contributions to world culture are metaphysical. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

My sister married an Indian man, and he even said that he couldn't completely hate the British. He appreciates the language (seriously, not that English is inherently better than any other language, but think about what a disaster it would be trying to run India with any of the native languages), the roadways, and the sport of cricket (which was a ton of fun for a baseball-loving American to try), even if not necessarily loving how those came to be, and has to give a shout-out to the Portuguese for inspiring vindaloo (which has become a go-to for me). And more generally, I'm not convinced that the British can be considered uniquely evil (on scale) in the place that gave the world the caste system. Seeing as my family history includes kidnapping by an Indian tribe and fleeing the potato famine I could probably come up with plenty of people I'd want to "reckon with" me, but what's the point? All too often people use "conversation" as a code word for "shut up and listen to me bitch, and if you disagree you're [insert slur here]", an actual conversation might be helpful but the latter won't be. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Hate has nothing to do with it. Responsibility and accountability for systemic oppression and continued exploitation does. The Global North got rich off of the stolen wealth of the Global South. Sure, one of your ancestors was "kidnapped" by an "Indian tribe." Cool, but said "Indian tribe" was experiencing systemic land theft by foreigners from across the sea intent on wiping out their culture and even very existence. Said "Indian tribe" still experiences the traumatizing aftereffects of colonization. We are not talking about long distant and irrelevant past events, the systemic injustices we are talking about are still being experienced. It is part of living history. Vee (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it also worth saying that many of the political systems set up with the British Monarch as head of state it is not negated that the Monarch had not officially come to lose the cultural power to pressure governments that were technically under their rule. A lot of fucked up shit has happened in some of the ol'commonwealth countries in the last 50+ years to which the monarch did not speak out against despite happening under their crown officially. Many first nations abuses have happened in Canada for example under the legislation derived from the status of certain lands as being "crown-lands". The residential schools is also a pretty egregious example of human rights abuses that were happening under a commonwealth government that did not cease until about 1996. Yet, the British monarchy never denounced these things. This creates a complex relationship between colonized people under commonwealth governments and the British monarch that isn't exactly alleviated or minimized by the monarch's limited role in the government systems of GB. If you are the Head of State of a Settler-colonial government arguably that comes with certain responsibilities towards colonized people, even if that expression in power is limited. It can be argued for many surviving colonized people who have been directly or indirectly subject to British rule these responsibilities have not been satisfied, and a certain compliancy with oppression has been present within the last 30+ years that people are more than justifiably resentful of. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC).
If you consider your own family history irrelevant as to how you ended up where you are now, you (generic you) need to rethink a few things. There's no justification for kidnapping people (it was my entire family, not just "someone") and forcing them to walk hundreds of miles malnourished (and when they escaped the Quebecois French had to scramble to keep them alive), nor was the British response to the potato famine remotely humane. In my own lifetime my grandmother told me about the vicious anti-Irish sentiment she faced and the zealotry of Irish Catholicism, all in my native New England. The knock-on effects still very much echo through my family, and that's just one side. I'm all for studying the history of colonialism and taking in all sides, I read Mae Ngai when I was in school and found it enormously helpful. But what am I supposed to do, track down the descendants of people who affected my family and... well what, exactly? This is the issue I have with the royal family, I don't entirely get what people actually want. Saying you want specific things back and for history to be told uncensored is one thing, I can get on board with that, but what kind of closure is anyone able to provide for, say, the slave trade; how can that possibly be codified? Even if Charles III denounced slavery and went on a world tour to make the point, does that take care of it or does every subsequent king and queen have to do the same thing? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Reparations? Vee (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Actions of Reparations as Vee said and policies of restorative justice is a start. I think too in the case of the Monarchy, it should just be abolished. I can need my family, and I can be morally entitled to have access to the means of a comfortable life. No one needs to be or is really inherently entitled to be a Monarch. The idea that people should just be entitled to gross wealth and cultural power simply due to birthright is the biggest socially constructed spook that has ever spooked. I am of the view that none of these social injustices can ever be resolved until all social class distinctions and linear power hierarchies are abolished. Decolonization happens when colonized people are no longer the ruled subjects to the institutions of the settler-colonial class. If that includes abolishing the monarchy and the systems of commonwealth governments (lets be real, it does) then so be it. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I can generally get behind being more egalitarian, it's a real fight against our own nature (every society has status markers) but no one expects perfection. It also has to take a look at what's going on inside the house too, to stay with the British they were far from the first people to perpetuate gross inequality in many (any?) of the places they showed up (aside from the aforementioned castes of India, contrary to what seems to be popular belief in some circles New England was never actually Shangri-la and corn is a terrible staple crop). If there was some formula to make it all even I'd be up for it, and I'm not inclined to make perfect the enemy of good, but if the monarchy were to be abolished I'm unclear on how it would materially improve anyone's life. Actually paying it out also presents some fairly obvious conundrums, not every English person is a direct descendant of Cecil Rhodes and the Nehru family seems to be doing just fine. What the various Commonwealth countries do is up to them, I don't judge and as an American it doesn't affect me in any meaningful way; after all, the BVI vendor took my American money. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The human nature argument is a strawman (as seen here, for those curious Zoe Baker has a PhD in the history of anarchism). Also some societies are demonstrably more egalitarian than others. Also, this whataboutism wrt the British doesn't affect the case for reparations at all. The harm caused by British imperialism and colonialism is still real, and is still being done. Just because other entities have engaged in oppression and exploitation is irrelevant. Vee (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Take away that wealth and cultural power and you can then decentralize it among the people and use the wealth and income to fund restorative justice measures and reparations. The Royal family assets are well into the billions and they cost the British people millions of dollars per year. That is a lot of wealth that can be re-distributed to fund social policy efforts. The abolition of commonwealth governments would have an immense benefit to colonized people who actively have their autonomy suppressed by such settler powers -- the degree of material benefit is actually pretty obvious, especially for indigenous people in places like Canada.
I also stated that social injustice has to be dealt with by the abolition of social class distinctions and linear power hierarchies, not status markers. The idea that these sorts of thing have been present in all human societies is a anthropological falsehood. It is a general consensus of Anthropologists that hunter-gatherer societies are extremely egalitarian. Egalitarian communes also exist all over the world and throughout history in the absence of linear hierarchies and they are not inherently unsustainable.
Social hierarchies developed out of technological necessities in resources management and are therefore heavily contingent upon the dominant mode of a production within a given culture. The hierarchies present in a horticulturalist society is unlike that of a agricultural one, and likewise between an agricultural one and that of a industrial capitalism. I don't think there is any reason a priori to assume that technology cannot advance to a point where we can appreciate a mode of production that allows us to produce an egalitarian society on scale. Perfect only becomes the enemy of the good when we only accept the idealized end goal and nothing in incrementation towards it -- that isn't itself an indictment against social or moral ideals in of themselves. I hope to live in an absolute ant-racist society one day, that doesn't mean I go out of my way to oppose anti-racist incrementations because they don't realize a totalized ideal of a society without racism (that doesn't mean they should be subject to critical evaluation though, criticism is not rejection). It's creating a false enemy when the mere mention of ideals is look upon as suspect towards practicality. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't status an individual character, and class is a systemic character? If so, Blades seems to be making a category mistake. Vee (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I understand a status marker as to be any cultural marker a person adorns themselves with to signal their social status in society which can indicate anything from wealth, class, spiritual authority, work etc. To talk of status markers is to talk pretty abstractly to anything that is made to be used to mark someone into a socially valued group that is adorned with some degree of authoritative knowledge, power, wealth, or value. A shaman or solider may be adorned with particular symbols or clothing that culturally is valued and considered indicative that the person wearing it deserves a certain degree of respect. You can abolish class distinctions and social hierarchies but still have a society that possess status markers. Spiritual Shamans, war vets, scientists, famous athletes, etc. When I talk of class I am talking of economic class, and when I talk of social hierarchies I am talking linear organization of coercive authority/political power within institutions and organizations. Someone can be culturally valued and normatively be looked at as someone entitled to respect but in the absence of coercive authority or rule. So to change my statement about class distinctions and linear hierarchies to being one about "status markers" misrepresents my argument though in Blade's case probably unintentionally due to the vagueness in my use of "class". - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC).
This thread is about the British monarchy. I see our Utopianists have conflated various abstractions with constitutional monarchy. That's fine. We need people to express new or sort of new ideas about the future. It seems we only need to abolish class distinctions and social hierarchies. How that could be peacefully done has yet to be imagined. The main problem with utopianism is it depends almost entirely on the blank-slate theory of human nature. Right now Brits don't want to abolish their governmental formats, much less their social distinctions. Restorative justice is an utopian extract. Use it where you will and you will find the lugubrious human histories remain, perhaps modified marginally by allegations of cash payments. This all does not mean the conditions of people in the living world can be ignored as in the past. Harms of the past cannot be corrected. They are disturbing, yet inhumane as they are, they must remain a part of history.
The fallacy of location is often in play when restorative justice is entertained. There is no justice for the past, only amelioration for future. Someone will always have less than you have. Human nature has everything to do with our future. Christ is said to have taught that people must become perfect to follow him. It would be irrational to say that perfecting our own humanity would, if possible, be a bad thing. What human nature costs us? We are burdened by untidy and obstreperous populations unwilling to adjust their understanding to coincide with our own. UncleKrampus (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
As soon as you started talking about “utopianism” and it requiring “blank slatism” you established you are not even pretending that you are not just establishing a construction of a strawman for you to knock down easily. I have a degree in psychology do you seriously think I think people are blank slates? There is no requirement of that in establishing libertarian egalitarianism. Most LibSoc thinkers admit to the existence of a human nature. It’s another thing entirely though to assume the natural behaviour of a animal from the observations made when it’s trapped in a cage, or to work from a Hobbesian premise of human nature that is incompatible with what anthropology tells us about human nature.
Also to state things like peaceful means “yet to be imagined” only speaks to your ignorance on the subject, clearly you never heard of “dual power” or “incrementalism” before?
Also you are exploiting equivocation in addressing my statement about “correcting harms” of the past. I don’t mean that in the most absurd literal non-charitable interpretation as you set up, as if past harms can simply be “fixed” as if mistakes we can erase and replace. You can do basic research regarding models of restorative justice as it is not some abstract utopian ideal but is a model that has been the norm in various indigenous communities around the world.
There was once a time to which the abolition of slavery was an extremely unpopular idea, and people had trouble imagining how it could be peacefully abolished. Historically people also made arguments about it was simply in certain people’s nature to be slaves. None of that really justified or worked as sound apologia to the status quo of time. If it was simply the case that the majority of people supported the existence of slavery and had no interest in abolishing it, you wouldn’t appeal to that popularity to response to slavery abolition would you?
I don’t care what the majority of brits want because brits don’t to get to decide what is socially just by simply having other desires. Ethics isn’t a popularity game. It’s akin to saying “most men like the so called patriarchal power structures” in response to feminism. It doesn’t understand the point and whose interests are considered of value in a given context. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Vee (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are trying to deny, that you are a utopianist, or that an egalitarian world is utopianist. I'm guessing both. I didn't imply that you were arguing for blank-slatism, only that blank-slatism is necessary to accomplish what is equivalent to a utopian construct. That's fine. I don't want you to stop trying. When we have such an actual paradigm to discuss, then maybe there will be something real to talk about.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
You act as if anti-monarchism isn’t an existing political movement within the UK and it’s commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia.

There are countless articles on the internet describing what reparations means for different marginalized demographics with concrete policy proposals. Restorative justice is given basic descriptions and concrete examples of on place like Wikipedia. Decolonization is defined and given descriptions to what it would look like on various indigenous rights resources, and has successfully been accomplished in some nations. Utopia is to describe “no place” but the truth is there are examples of all these things throughout various cultures in various places around the world. Like intentional communities and egalitarian communes already exist within places like the US. Libertarian socialist societies have already existed in the past in places like Ukraine, Catalonia, and Israel, and you see efforts to establish places like this in modern Rojava. Just because I don’t spoon-feed you concrete examples and policy proposals doesn’t mean it’s okay for you to just assume they don’t exist. Critical thinking isn’t simply running off your unexamined cultural assumptions as a basis for doubt without any effort to critically engage with or research what it is you are dismissing. You can’t just pretend that “utopianism” isn’t a kind of snarl word — even if you placate it with how expressing such ideals is good. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe you have mistaken my arguments for theatrics.I don't believe I have said anything suggesting anti-monarchy is not a thing in Britain. Last I checked at least 19% favored the abolition of the monarchy. And I think they got that right. As one gets older one tends to look at societies more like an anthropologist than a critic. I presume you know which one of us is which in this case.
There may be countless articles written on the benefits of reparations, but they can be seen as speculative when they do not deal with real cases and I do not mean small communities. Say, the return of art stolen by Nazis. Real people, real property. Very definite and quite appropriate. "Decolonization" is an interesting term. The trouble is it is commonly used in a number of trivial ways. e.g., "It's time to decolonize Thanksgiving." If you mean that colonizers should leave their host countries, then that should be decided by the hosts, I suppose. Colonization is typical of many primates. If communes are what you have in mind, then I think we were talking past one another. If I used Utopianism as a poor substitute for idealism, I apologize. The dyspepsia of idealism is no pleasure of mine.UncleKrampus (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I already specified what I meant by decolonization so why you'd jump to that as my possible meaning kind of shows you haven't actually digested what I wrote. Colonization is not "typical of many primates" because settlements and the establishment of colonies in the institutional sense is something only humans really do (because we are the only animals complex enough to have culture, language, and institutions to begin with). Colonization cannot simply be seen as when one group of primates enters or invades the territory of another group of primates, that's way too broad when compared to what is socially and politically relevant. It's like applying the concept of racism to non-human animals. By Decolonization I mean the abolition of settler institutions that hold power as to constitute rule over colonized people. It is not to say all institutions created by settler-colonialist or even to say that settler-colonists themselves must be barred from the territory. I personally do not know any indigenous people who wants that, as they do have use for hospitals, libraries, etc. that have been built by settlers. The idea is about giving self-determination and autonomy back to indigenous communities so that any major changes to the territory that rightfully belongs to them requires their consultation and consent. It also in the establishment of their own self-determining government systems to hold official authority on the territory/land itself at the expense/abolition of the government systems established through colonial domination. Indigenous people for example in Canada should not be subject to the laws and rules of the Canadian government over and above their own political systems, cultural traditions, laws, and practices. Similar idea could be extended to places like Australia. It is essentially giving ownership of the land back to indigenous communities and finding ways to co-exist on the land utilizing the resources and knowledge we can provide to one another. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC).
I've said it before and I'll say it again here: capitalism apologists cite the conditions of capitalism to justify capitalism's existence. "Human nature is selfishness and competition, I know this because under capitalism people are incentivized to be selfish and competitive, therefore human nature justifies capitalism." It doesn't take a philosophy grad to see the problems with this line of thinking. Vee (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Certainly Vee, you can abstract the idea of capitalism from what appears to be normal human behavior. Though corporations are fairly modern business constructs, the natural tendency for projects to gather participants and capital under the control of a few individuals seems to be a logically probable type of event that has always existed in our history in civilizations that have advanced past the village stage. I am not defending the habits of homo sapiens, I only try to understand what I can. I distrust the trend in corporate greed as much as anyone, I suppose. Regulation is the correct solution, as I see it. We can't entirely rid ourselves of capitalistic constructs; there are too many of us. We are predators as a species. It is altogether too convenient for me to believe there is a structural explanation for our predations. There is no root to our evil-doings exterior to our own nature that can be simply eradicated.
And OnlySorta..., primates have a checkered history of what humans would call bad acts. There is scientifically grounded continuity in our behaviors.UncleKrampus (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Capitalism as an economic system has only existed for a few centuries. Homo sapiens has existed for a lot longer than a few centuries. If people are naturally selfish a la Homo economicus, people are also naturally altruistic. The "human nature" argument is predicated on the (mistaken) assumption that humans are entirely selfish beings with no concept of cooperation and/or altruism. If that was the case we wouldn't have society as we know it. The "human nature" argument is as valid a justification for socialism as it is capitalism. Again, I refer you to this article by Zoe Baker as to why the "human nature" argument is a strawman.
Also, the "natural tendency" for "projects to gather participants and capital under the control of a few individuals" doesn't seem to me to be a "logical inevitability" at all as opposed to how power is monopolized and distributed, which is a very artificial phenomenon. Worker co-ops and participatory economics is a real thing, and yet you pretend it's nothing more than conjecture. The notion of "civilizational levels" is also anthropologically dubious. If we were to rely on Old World technology as a reliable indicator of societal complexity, than the fact that Mesoamerican civilizations tended to use Neolithic technologies would bar them from being considered civilizations. (Just to show how arbitrary these criteria fundamentally are.) Vee (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I think maybe you are talking about something else. Nothing that goes by the name of human behavior is logically inevitable, but behaviors may be probable, or even likely. If you use the logic of necessity in the context of explaining the way humans behave there must be an underlying deontology to support it that is consistent with our nature.That is a big ask. "Human nature" can refer to an explanation for human behavior, and not a justification in some legal sense. We don't have this explanation, yet we cannot start by declaring it doesn't matter. It is a nominal distinction certainly. One may notice, looking at our history that we tend to behave in certain acquisitive patterns. One need not assume that humans are always given to either predatory acts or altruism. We are a mixed bag. Also, there were capitalists in ancient cultures, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc. For example, we can't assume that the builders of the pyramids were not contractors in the modern sense; or that Phoenician and Carthaginian trading ships did not ply the Mediterranean sea trading spices and trafficing in slaves.
One can academically eliminate the presence of capitalism, through definitions. That's true. But the underlying acquisitive tendencies, the ones that result in capital-based projects, have to be accounted for. Can co-ops be scaled to supply industrial demands of energy and agriculture? If justice is the only tool for understanding the past, then one might be attempting to engage a distorted form of altruism.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Capitalism is a specific socioeconomic system that only emerged within the last few centuries. Yeah, there were rich merchants way back when, but the average person wasn't forced to sell their labor to survive. At least, they had control over their own production. Now you can cite to me serfdom and whatnot, but peasants had access to the commons. The average peasant had much more economic security than the average prole, including access to shared land. In order for capitalism as a system to really start, the peasantry had to be dispossessed of the commons. Hence the Highland Clearances and the closure of the commons. Feudalism is distinct from capitalism for a reason, and it is a gross oversimplification to equate the presence of rich merchants to an entire system. Vee (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, I suppose an answer to your question is that no one has really tried. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me can point out to specific examples in the past. I once read somewhere that in Revolutionary Catalonia food production doubled under worker self management, but I don't have a citation at hand. Either way economic democracy and worker self management is an existential threat to capital and the state, and as energy production is monopolized by the state and capital, I don't think we'll be getting an answer anytime soon. Vee (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The Soviet Union, for example was supposed to eventuate in a non-capitalistic society. Instead a grotesque form of state capitalism came into existence. You can define systems as being distinct, but when their underlying structures are so similar, it seems to be little more than an interesting narrative. Feudalism was state capitalism divided into warring entities, not entirely unlike corporations. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but tbf I'm not a Leninist, nor even a Marxist. Trying to bring about a stateless society by way of a centralized vanguard is self-defeating. Democratic socialism is IMO much more viable as a way to transition to socialism than authoritarian "socialism" is. Dual power and the concept of an interstitial revolution as theorized by anarchists is interesting, however. Form structures that make the state obsolete. Direct mutual aid and such. People in disasters will aid each other without prompt (indeed many cases of "looting" are actually people getting supplies for mutual aid in times of disaster when nothing else is available), so it's not as far fetched as you may believe. Vee (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

## yo, we seriously do not have a page on set theory?

wtf Ratwiki, I am not mathematically competent enough to make one. Where the math nerds be? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I dropped out of university before I got to learn about set theory. Unfortunately, ${\displaystyle {\text{I}}\notin }$ ${\displaystyle \{{\text{math nerds}}\}}$ LongStylus (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
As I keep saying, we have a small userbase and nobody will make a page unless you do it yourself. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 11:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I was surprised we didn't have an article on the Internet Research Agency.... which is why I decided to make it myself, as per Duce. Vee (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Does it come up in woo? Some arcane mathematical concepts like dimension do, but I've yet to see "Through the axiom-scheme of foundation, our extensional crystals form a well-ordered gateway to the one thing assumed to exist directly, the empty set, allowing one to apply the axiom of infinity to surpass all boundaries in every world. Online course only 150/lesson for twelve lessons." or "Cardinals are proof that mathematics is a tool of the catholic church, wake up sheeple!" or whatever. Plus proper set theory usually involves a discussion of logic and meta-mathematics. I guess there was a backlash to Cantor's early set theory (how DARE there be lots of infinities!) but is that still relevant? Namako (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC) We don't just make articles on woo though, we have general science and mathematics articles. There are definitely attempts within pseudomathematics to disprove things like Cantor's theorem. Weird though we don't have a general explainer for set theory for the folks reading the article who have no context. That's just kind of asking for shitty articles to be made by people who desire an explainer but don't have the competency to make it themselves. My understanding of set theory is the most basic of operations within naïve set theory. I am not the guy to create this article. Something I stated from the start, so you are not adding anything of value here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC). There are some well-known paradoxes in set theory (Russell's paradox, Paradoxes of set theory), which would make the page missional I think. I took a set theory course way back when, but I'm not really prepared to write an article on it. Bongolian (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC) If anyone capable, with the background, would make the page and work on it, I'd be willing to help, but I don't think I can find the time to make such a page entirely on my own right now, plus specifically set theory is a bit of a technical subject that would really benefit from someone who's at least somewhat specialised to make sure everything is correct and my own mathematical background is a bit more heavily focussed in other areas, so I'm not sure I'm the best person for the job, definitely if, in the light of paradoxes to make it missional, we're gonna have to refer to model theory and non-standard models and the like (from Löwenheim-Skolem), that might be a bit above my current level in this subject and I don't have time right now to read up and research. If anyone capable is around, I could help with writing about the basics, maybe the relations with measure theory and probability stuff and abstract and discrete algebra as it's usually explained built upon set-theoretical notions (links with category theory are also a bit out of my league still though). I know a little bit from probability theory and nonstandard approaches though, but that's more its own subject. ConverginglyRational (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Nah I’m tired of people who don’t contribute to the wiki asking for pages to be made. Put the work in yourself or shut up. Who’s really “not adding anything of value here”? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 09:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC) OSD contributes. Just check his contributions. Vee (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC) ## Poor Elon Musk.. Or to be more precise, a liar always gets caught out I'll leave this here, I'm still reading through it, and it's a lot of detail. But, sufice to say, the worlds richest man is also a delusional man child. https://twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1593307541932474368 Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC) All documents are here https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zPeWaaCZHqfq0tnkPwc61A6bGHySdj91 Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC) An interesting history.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC) This is comedy gold! Please tell me someone is adding this/some of this to his page? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC) It is a sobering fact that the new technologies are to some extent independent of higher forms of education. Some notable college dropouts include, Bill Gates, Buckminster Fuller, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, George Westinghouse, and Michael Dell. Thomas Edison was considered too stupid to learn anything and had trouble holding a job. It is not clear whether Musk lied for any reason other than his business relations required academic qualifications to be comfortable with their investments. I wouldn't compare Musk with Edison, for example, for his capacity for invention or his impact on future technologies, yet in terms of financial success, Musk has surpassed Edison. That is not a trivial accomplishment. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC) ## Looks like Putin may be trying to escalate the conflict If Putin is indeed responsible for an attack on Poland, he is desperate to trigger a fullscale military response against Russia. Maybe he wants to go out in a bang and take a bunch of people with him. Assuming that is the case. Obviously all the facts have to be gathered first but who in their right mind trust Russia on anything? --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC) There're already claims about an Ukrainian missile having shot down a Russian missile and the remnants of both having fallen on Poland. Either that or an accident –if Putin really wanted to go out such way, I guess there'd be much juicier targets. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC) "but who in their right mind trust Russia on anything?" Belarus? Lukachenko likes to kiss his ass. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC) I suspect either of these options are the truth; 1 - It was a simple accident; a pair of missles which were supposed to hit Lviv went off-course (I've heard it suggested that Ukranian AA might have done that). 2 - It was a deliberate action by Putin, a classic 'salami tactic' (tolerate this, then an 'accidentally' destroyed supply convoy or vital bridge in Poland shall be next). I discount #2 on the grounds Putin gave up on the sneaky, patient strategy at the start of this war and now is simply trying to blugeon his way through everything with a blood-splattered hammer. Plus, the Russian military is utterly falling to bits; it's very possible the missiles were defective and/or so poorly maintained they simply went off course. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC) There's also the possibility that Putin wants to use the nuclear option, but needs to convince his generals to go along. Failure in Ukraine is an existential crisis for only Putin, but a NATO invasion is an existential crisis for all of Russia. Thus provocation. Corm (poke) 23:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Maybe Putin is testing a NATO response. Jumping the gun without gathering all facts would be extremely dangerous and could result in a mass casualty situation. Could be incorrect but it is best to consider all possibilities. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC) ### Apply Occam's Razor The most likely reason for this would be an accident on Russia's part. Due the heavy missile spamming in the direction of Kyiv at the time this happened, it's highly likely a few of their missiles strayed off-course while aimed for targets in the West. It being Ukraine's fault is highly unlikely since Poland is in the opposite direction of where Ukraine would be firing AA missiles. If the investigation proves I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but under the current circumstances it occurred, this is the most likely reason. Article 4 is likely going to be called so NATO can discuss this situation more, and if I had to guess, they'll probably respond with more air defenses stationed on the Polish border.-Ryan1257 (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Looks like it was most probably a Ukrainian counter-missile. Of course, Ukraine wouldn't have been firing them if they weren't under heavy Russian attack.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Yep. Looks like this has turned into an example of why allowing your views and opinions to change when evidence contradicts them is so important. The Useful Idiots of Russia are going to have a fun time with this one since Zelensky claimed it was Russia without evidence ("The accidental firing of a missile killing two Polish civilians means Russia is 100% justified in its invasion"), though the fact Biden waited till evidence came forth to make a statement and then confirmed it wasn't Russian does take some wind out of their sails.Ryan1257 (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC) The major Western leaders 'held back' because (I suspect) they already knew (or strongly suspected) otherwise. You think that region is not one of the most closely watched areas of the globe right now? But Biden etc couldn't say outright that because it would reveal the surveillance capabilities the CIA/NSA etc have, and nobody wants to show that without any gain. Zelensky, in this case shot his mouth off a bit too early and shall now have to take the blushes. Hopefully, in the long run nobody shall remember that boo-boo. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC) In point of fact Zelensky still maintains it was Russia. But as everyone wants to write it off as an "unfortunate accident" I don't thing it's going to make much difference. I really think that "unfortunate accident" is really the correct explanation. I know that Putin hasn't been making the best decisions lately, but given the Russian failures on the battlefield it would seem incredibly foolish for him to chance his arm with NATO at the same time. Zelensky conceivably could have carried out a false flag operation in an attempt to drag NATO in, but I really can't seem him risking his good relations with the West if he were found out. And furthermore NATO doesn't really want to get involved anyway. So "unfortunate accident" is the politically most expedient explanation. So even if that explanation is wrong it's still going to be the story we are going with.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC) The "it was Russia" vs. "it was not Russia" are not contradictory in this case. As far as Zelensky is concerned, "it was Russia" is still a reasonable assessment since it was a Russian missile that Ukraine was defending itself from. As far as NATO is concerned, "it was not Russia" is still a reasonable assessment with regard to its Article 5 of self-defense. Bongolian (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC) What you say is true, but that's not Zelensky's stance. He says he had received assurances from his top commanders that "it wasn't our missile".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC) ### Update As much as we hate to admit it, it was an accident on Ukraine's part. Andrew5 (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Yeah Poland has to wait for its revenge on Russia. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC) I would have the incident be an accident that doesn't pour fuel on the fire over something that quickly becomes a mass casualty event. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC) ## Mastodon? So, I've seen people on Twitter making accounts on a site called "Mastodon" and leaving the site. Is Mastodon like twitter? It was funded in March 2016, so it's not something new... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC) It's a similarly-used decentralized alternative. There's no one site, many servers exchange content a little like email works with many providers, and a few websites provide lists for searching among them for picking one to sign up with. Some are small, some are big, rules and moderation differ, etc. Here's a fresh news article on the great boom in Mastodon use Musk has brought about as a reaction against him. In the short term, there may be some chaos and overloaded servers from the great influx of new users. The reason I haven't signed up myself is the same that I don't actively use Twitter myself, I personally just don't care for Twitter-ish things or social media in general that much. Technically, both Gab and Trump's social network also use the same software -- Trump's initially while breaking the open source license -- but the other Mastodon servers most often blacklist those. Mastodon has been called "Twitter without Nazis", and most servers play by a similar basic rulebook in blacklisting some types of infamous servers. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC) The thing about mastodon is that it's not corporately owned and is very distributed. Not a replacement for twitter but similar in someways. Join and see. @Rojertb@mastodon.scot Scream!! (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC) That makes me wonder if Mastodon is able to 'scale' for the increased demand, and whether how many of the 'minuses' can be either fixed or have work-around solutions found. I don't give enough of a toss to look into this much further right now, but I do wonder, if for example the future might be a bunch of large, 'corp' Mastodon servers supported by ads and/or subscriptions. There's a lot of people who are saying 'Mastodon is not Twitter' which I suspect it both true and false. The former because no, it's obviously not the same tech but yes, in the respect that it (may) be able to do the tasks the vast majority of Twitter users desire. And that's the lesson of MySpace I offer to the younger folks in the room; that often it's the latter which is the important bit - and when it comes down to it, the different platforms have varying levels of 'substitutionality'. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Mastodon is open-source software, hence the Gab/Rump instances. If one doesn't want to have to deal with right-wing trolls & Nazis, find an instance that is part of the Fediverse (https://fediverse.party/en/fediverse/), a large collection of Mastodon servers that share posts/searches/follows and basic rules of behavior. Bongolian (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC) ### Blocking Mastodon links According to a post I saw on Discord, our big fat manchild doesn't really like it when you put joinmastodon.org on Twitter. So, it's now blocked as a "malicious link". Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Bitly will probably confuse the bot doing the blocking, e.g.: https://bit.ly/3tP7fyY Bongolian (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC) ## Trump 2024 Anyone surprised? I sure ain't. As long as he's got that "second term" with him (since US Presidents are allowed 2 terms), he's still going to be a threat. Unless he dies or something (but Trump has alot in common with cockroaches, so yeah don't see that happening anytime soon)... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC) If he doesnt get the Repubs nomination, he will run 3rd party and split the vote, guaranteeing 4 more years of Dem. Maybe we could leverage this into getting Repubs behind ranked choice voting... CorSock (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC) God I hope that scenario plays out!Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC) What’s probably going to be more interesting is the aftermath of the election. One has to wonder what tension will stew. Patty Pat 21:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC) I noticed that a "Florida man" made an announcement. Heh...UncleKrampus (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC) The Trump 2024 I want is Trump getting 20 years in prison for domestic terrorism and 24 years for treason. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC) His media attention grabbing is not what it once was. Fucking hell, if I had to read another "Trump tweeted this" story, I was gonna make a block word for articles containing twitter.Ryan1257 (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Speaking of Trump's attention grabbing not being what it once was, his team had to block the doors to stop people walking out during his announcement speech. X Stickman (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) Honestly, Trump splitting the vote is probably a good thing; Trump will be hated by the Republicans, and that will likely steer our country the right way. (Or Trump will usurp the GOP, but hey, it's always a risk.) Just like Republicans in 1920, Republicans by 2028 should come back stronger, and better, then ever. As far as Trump getting arrested goes, as much as I'd like to see him face ten years, I doubt it. Such a trial would require extreme evidence and would be the most prolific trial in American history, and almost certainly go to the Supreme Court. The January 6 committee is all but certainly going to be disbanded in the 118th Congress,too. (Unless Republicans can't all back behind McCarthy and some moderates vote for a Democratic speaker.) Andrew5 (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC) You're not aware of how US government works, Andrew5. 1) DOJ acts independently from Congress and largely independent from normal presidencies, it is unlikely to be defunded due to the Senate Democratic majority, and it is already investigating an open-and-shut case against tRump that he basically confessed to (theft of government documents) 2) At least two local-level prosecutors are pursuing criminal charges against the tRumpsters (New York[4] and Georgia[5]). The local-level prosecutions cannot be stopped by Congress. If tRump is convicted in New York then he's in deep shit: he's never going to get pardoned. Bongolian (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC) If Rumpstick gets convicted in NY, would he end up in jail? If so, for how long? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC) As much as someone in this thread commented their support for 44 years, I think it will be 5-10. Honestly, 44 is way too much for someone who didn’t engage in murder or rape. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC) One of the problems with calculating Trump's potential prison time is the sheer number of cases which are open against him. Apparently there are four major ones in addition to others including (as rape has been mentioned) one stemming from an actual accusation of rape. In the event that he were convicted on some of the major ones he could be looking at 33 years. But my guess is that would be at the top end.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC) I've not been paying a huge attention to the Orange One's various legal holes he's made for himself, but personally I think the New York one is the biggest threat; if Trump Org is basically destroyed (which is possible) it shall take with it much of his power-base. Let's remember; Trump's real friends/allies are close to zero - his group is either folks he's bought (including his own adult children) and those who see him as 'useful'. And the moment his gravy-train derails... is the day they all turn on him. So we need to see this through Trump's POV. Running again is simply another grift. He'll be able to from now on in, tap his MAGA-cult for millions of dollars in fundraising of which shall be footing the bill for as much of his normal 'current expenditure' he can get away charging them with. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For anyone who wants to see what a shitstorm of legal problems Rump has, Just Security has a list of civil and criminal cases, including a few recently closed ones against him.[6] There are three separate cases that allege violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act. Bongolian (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC) With so many civil and criminal cases open against him, it's surprising that he has time to do anything other than talk to lawyers.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC) ...ok, I'm curious. What's the Ku Klux Klan Act? Did he go to KKK meetings or something? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC) It seems the The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 was designed, among other things, to "... eliminate extralegal violence ...". It is all all associated with "conspiring to interfere with the Electoral College count".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Any trial of Trump would either cause a revolution, or be a result of one. Most likely. Trump is 76 years old, and very well could die before any charges are formally dropped on him. Andrew5 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC) It would probably cause riots, but America seems very far off a “revolution” of any sort. Christopher (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC) I don't think the MAGA's are dumb enough to storm the Capitol again or something similar to that. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Riots and some right wing terrorism would be certain but revolution? No. The United States may be in the toilet but not so bad that it would not bounce back from. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC) 43% of Americans disagree with you. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Argumentum ad populum aside, it is foolish to dismiss the possibility of long term societal unrest here in the states. Trump is proof of that. He is merely the symptom, not the cause. Vee (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC) ## Latest pointless poll Reagan is the asshole who brought neoliberal policies into American politics, and the resulting economic insecurity would eventually bring us Trump. My vote on "the worst presidential election" is pretty obvious then with that in mind. Vee (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Nixon is the one who brought racist assholes and the Religious Right into the Republican Party, marking the beginning of the end of their morality and decency. Luigifan18 (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Does a party that forms a key part of the governing institution of a country that helps perpetuate a fundamentally exploitative status quo have any claim to morality or decency during any part of their history? America as a country is founded on genocide, which Republican administrations were all too eager to help perpetuate. (Lincoln's "Homestead Act" for instance helped facilitate the colonization of the Plains. Deny the nomads their land, you get rid of the "Indian problem.") Eisenhower's administration oversaw the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran, and saw the backing of violent right wing dictatorships in Latin America, Europe, and Asia. The GOP never had any "morality or decency." Vee (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Lincoln and Eisenhower not being moral presidents is quite a take. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 04:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Eh, I'm good at those. Dissenting opinions need to be heard. Granted, there's a line between dissent and peddling bullshit. I'm for the former, not the latter. Vee (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Granted, that being said, I don't think you can be the head of an empire and still be a good person. Good politician, maybe. No one is exempt from criticism, especially our heroes. Vee (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────economics aside, i think the 1876 election was the worst. hayes' decision to abandon reconstruction set back civil rights for over a century. the effects of that can still be felt today in terms of racial justice. goes to show ya that even back then, republicans were sellouts. G Man (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC) also, yeah, that was quite a take on lincoln and eisenhower. they might not have been perfect, but they were good presidents for the most part. just assuming they were evil because of the positions they held is guilt by association. discounting them as good leaders just because of some of the bad things they did is also not entirely because they were essentially products of their time. saying otherwise is committing the moralistic fallacy. i explored the latter topic on a previous thread, so i won't dwell much into it here. to sum it up: my issue is that people stand on a pedestal judging others thinking they would have done much better if they were in their shoes (when they probably wouldn't have). G Man (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC) ## Turns out there was no "wave" for either party. Seems like the republicans cost themselves possibly dozens of seats by casting mini-Trump candidates and morons like Lauren Boebert. If the Republicans would've leveraged more moderate candidates who were still willing to toe the GOP line when push comes to shove they probably would've gotten the red wave they wanted. Yawn. Shit like this makes me glad I haven't been a republican since 2003. SwampFox (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC) That makes the assumption that it was only 'poor individual choices for candidates' which stopped a large % of people voting for Republican candidates - not an increasing toxicity of the Republican brand itself, the growing awareness that MAGA has all-but eaten the GOP and assumed it's ID nor just a simple disagreement with several key Republican policies. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Andrew5 (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC) You need something to run on other than "the other guy sucks". When your only selling point over the other guy is "didn't suffer massive stroke", your candidate is still shit. Corm (poke) 14:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC) We progressives tried telling people that with Biden. Nobody cared. Vee (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC) You didn't have many options at the time. Sanders sounds great but that's all he does. Warren was ok but could never escape the fake-native issue. And Bloomberg was... Bloomberg. Corm (poke) 15:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC) And Biden couldn't escape being 'Mr Gaffe', 'Last of the New Democrats' or being 76 years old and honestly, looking it. I've seen (from afar) six Pres elections now and I'd not seen such an unenthused base, lacklustre celeb backing or unimpressed Big Public. I still hold to what I said at the time; I think Warren would have performed at least as well as Biden and perhaps even better (I do agree on not Sanders, though). KarmaPolice (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Would've preferred Warren, TBH. When the worst thing about you is that you lied about your ethnic background to take advantage of Affirmative Action, that's still better than 90% of politicians at minimum. Corm (poke) 16:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Warren? The snake who threw Sanders under the bus in the primaries that still ended up losing? I genuinely think Sanders was the best option but the Bernie-Or-Bust voter base kind of alienated me from progressive Democratic candidates. The worst thing about Sanders is that he looks like a lich, but he carries himself like he's 30 so, meh. On the topic of the "wave", I think that nobody said a blue wave was coming except for the truly deluded. I do, however, take great pleasure in seeing morons like Tim Pool, Ben Shapiro and Lindsey Graham eat their words when it comes to the mystical red wave. This is actually historically good for incumbent midterms, most often incumbents lose many more house and senate seats than Biden has. I wonder if the extremely hard slant to the right has alienated enough voters that Democrats are finally willing to go out and vote in droves? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Looking at the Arizona exit polls, the biggest issues for Arizonians (and probably all Americans) are Abortion, Inflation and Immigration. In that order. Not Crime or Gun laws. So one can extrapolate that the Dobbs decision was pretty much the biggest "win" the Democrats had in the past 2 years. Corm (poke) 16:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Yeah, some voters finally woke up to the fact that Democrats are much better for their civil rights than Republicans. The leftist crybabies who still don't vote on the basis of "both sides bad waah" can suck it. Voting kept election-deniers out of state offices where they would have tried to overturn the next election. That by itself is a win. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC) On Warren's minuses... my logic is simple. Those two things would have pissed off the people least likely to vote Trump, and if they went third party it would have been in states where it didn't matter. But she got 'crowded out' simply (and simplified) because the smoke-filled room went Biden and the activists went Sanders. But enough of that tangent... With the midterms, I think there's a large grab-bag of reasons the 'wave' didn't happen, including the rarely mentioned point that many of the MAGA-party candidates could bitch about things like inflation and the economy well enough, but were pretty devoid of ideas on how they'd do better. That's kinda important for the 'Serious People' demographic, alongside the fact quite of these would be somewhat more desirious for some immigration (quite a lot of these are business owners, and thus are grappling with labour shortages etc) while the MAGAs are becoming increasingly xenophobic (going after immigrants in general, not just 'illegals'). I also suspect Mr Reaper gave a little hand by 'pruning' the MAGA base a bit. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC) i know y'all are gonna say i'm "bothsidesing" again, but both parties were a disappointment this time. on one hand, you have republicans who had a historical advantage on their side of picking up several dozen house seats and handily taking back the senate. on the other, you have democrats who could have absolutely crushed republicans by seizing on the opportunity to remind everyone how awful the gop has become and promoting better alternatives to strategically win over voters (especially in, say, florida). both parties shot themselves in the foot big time. tl;dr both sides nominated bad candidates. the only difference is that republicans nominated psychopathic candidates while democrats nominated bland and boring ones. G Man (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC) I don't disagree, actually. Vee (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC) The New York Democratic Party managed a fuckup of epic proportions, and their losses might actually cost the Dems House control. Of course, they're the epitome of the suit-wearing corporadems nobody likes, so there ya go. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC) 1) The MAGA crowd's ideas on immigration are things like the "stay in Mexico policy", where refugees have to wait in Mexico until (if) they are approved, and quietly let the Mexican government do the US's dirty work in shooing them away. It works especially well, which is why the US currently implements the policy for Venezuelan refugees... and no one else. Because politics is nothing if not dirty. 2) MAGA's ideas on the economy might as well be "drill, baby drill!". That actually would boost the economy, and we actually won't run out of oil. Ever. No, that isn't sarcasm, but an understand of what "shale oil" is. It's not oil; it's kerogen, an organic precursor to the fossil fuels. It needs to be heated/cracked into an oil substitute, which means that it's producing more pollution than regular oil before it even gets turned into gasoline. But the amount of kerogen in the crust is an order of magnitude more than all other fossil fuels combined, and we'd have to make the Earth's atmosphere outright toxic to human life in order to come close to running out. Which is what will happen if we used kerogen as anything other than a temporary stop-gap while the power supply is transitioned to nuclear/renewable. Which can't happen if there's too much money being made in shale. Ugly all around.Corm (poke) 18:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC) I find that Delhi-levels of smog add a bit of zest to my morning breaths of air. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Even if all the extra pollutants were scrubbed, and even if we somehow avoided global warming, just the CO2 alone would be a problem. Humans can't breathe with CO2 at 5000ppm, but longterm we can't even withstand 2500ppm. Burning up every last drop of oil, coal and gas would get us to about 2900ppm. Burning the kerogen? Even if we had robots mining and burning long after we suffocated, we might not even have the oxygen left to burn it all. Corm (poke) 18:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC) If we continue with this shit the only things left on the planet will be microbes. Vee (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Not true in the slightest, as the Earth had CO2 levels of 8000ppm in the past... during the Permian-Triassic Extinction event, which killed off something like 95% of all species of the time. Corm (poke) 18:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The issue with climate change isn't that Earth will become entirely uninhabitable, no one is arguing that it will. The issue is that rising sea levels will make some AREAS of the world entirely uninhabitable. The result would be the largest refugee mass exodus in human history, along with all the political implications of such a thing. Millions to billions will lose their homes and livelihoods. Not to mention the potential wars over shrinking water supplies, fuel, and so on. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC) I'm aware, it's just hard to keep that fact in mind when reminded of how well and truly fucked we are. Vee (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC) We all know that Ozzy. Point is that even if you don't think carbon increases global temperatures or that you somehow believe your chunk of the world will be insulated or possibly even improve as a result of warming temperatures, well, no, you will die a slow death before we run out of fossil fuels. Corm (poke) 21:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Climate change also makes hurricanes (and even blizzards), as well as floods and heat waves more likely, and these can cause heavy deaths. A blizzard/cold wave in February 2021 killed ~300 people, Ida killed ~100, a June 2021 heat wave in the PNW killed ~900, floods in Europe and China in July killed ~300 each, Goni killed ~400, floods in South Africa this past April killed ~400, and Ian killed ~150 people in total. That's a lot of deaths, and if they continue at this rate, weather will kill tens of thousands per year. One study found climate change kills 5 million people per year. Andrew5 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Ah yes, two more years of dysfunctional gridlocked government, as opposed to overtly malevolent government. Yaaaaay?-Flandres (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC) your tax dollars at work. G Man (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC) "Thank God I don't pay tax." - Trevor Philips Vee (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Honestly what I care about most is that piece of shit Lauren Boebert is out of office. Sadly she has a 0.4% lead and it might soon get out of recount range. Andrew5 (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC) It doesn't look like Kari Lake will win. I know nothing about her beyond being what Trump would've been if he wasn't a complete asshole without any charm, so I rooted for her out of spite. Nevada looks like it will go Republican, and Georgia is in runoffs. So it all depends on who comes out to vote next month; if Warnock wins, it's 24 more months of Dem control of the Senate (the 2 Ind senators caucus with the Dems and Kamala is the tiebreaker), but it Herschel wins, it's the Republican's game. What makes the race more interesting is that Herschel is a piece of shit; Republicans need to stop fielding shit candidates if they want to win elections. Better yet, be less of a shit party so they attract higher quality candidates, candidates that young people can stand. I don't know, make Rob Lowe a senator somewhere. Not Walker. Corm (poke) 04:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC) The betting markets have been pretty confident that Cortez Masto will win in Nevada, with her hovering around 80% throughout the day. It's not hard to see why, most of the remaining vote is the early vote from Clark County (where Las Vegas is), so she'll probably catch up soon as more votes are counted. The runoff election in Georgia is more likely to determine whether Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema will be the most powerful person in the Senate. Plutocow (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Yes, but we don't know the order that the votes were counted. And Laxalt still has a 1% lead. Having said that, a blue win in Nevada will make the Georgia runoffs irrelevant. Andrew5 (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Hopefully if the senate isn’t on the line, Georgians will be more reluctant to vote for Walker. I think a lot of them held their noses for the sake of a GOP senate. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Dems won Oregon governorship. Andrew5 (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC) That race shouldn’t have been as close as it was. Dems need to think about that one. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC) There is a lot of dissatisfaction with both parties. Biden, as a democrat in the white house, presides over a midterm that leans more democratic than most in history. It would be incoherent to suppose that were a coincidence. Warren, my senator, is a good senator. Sanders, a liberal fast talker, with appealing promises. Think what you like. Trump would have beaten either. It's nice to have presidents with good communication skills, but talk doesn't make good government. You want more progressive legislation? Elect more progressive legislators. The president is not a ruler, despite what the far-right wants. Those who advance the "great-man theory" of history are doomed to be disappointed eventually. The real problems this cycle were inflation, women's rights and the future of democracy; and most voters knew the R's couldn't make groceries cheaper, and wouldn't even if they could. Gerrymandering will likely enable them to take control of the House.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC) (ec)With more ballots coming, it is increasingly obvious that Cortez Masto will win the Senate election. The question is whether Sisolak will win the governor's race, which seems unlikely but not impossible. The Arizona governor election is also a tossup at this point, with the betting markets slightly favoring Hobbs — as this race will have implications on the 2024 presidential one, a Democrat victory there is important. Perhaps one of the more interesting results is in Washington's 3rd, a surprisingly close race; the original incumbent was one of the ten House Republicans to vote to impeach Trump, but he was primaried by a white nationalist. A Democrat victory there would send a strong message to Trumpists. Plutocow (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC) With House margins shaping up like this, it seems we lost the House entirely because New York Dems drop-kicked their party into the fucking garbage. I really hope Andrew Cuomo takes a fall down some stairs. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Yeah, it's pretty sad. The one silver lining is that New York is the state where corporate and "tough on crime" Democrats have been the most vocal, so hopefully it sends a message to the Democratic Party — this is not something that they can blame on the progressives. Plutocow (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC) A close relative of mine works in the nursing homes. They said that Cuomo's policy of sending COVID-positive patients to the homes was going to kill all the nursing home patients, which it did, and later that the state was outright lying about the deaths, which they were. That the media propped up Cuomo (remember all the celebrities who outright declared themselves to be "Cuomosexual"?), declared him to be the greatest governor especially compared to his arch-nemesis DeathSantis, and waited until after the elections to reveal that the guy was a piece of shit? Yeah, if you want to know why people don't trust the media, that is why. Heck, it's weird seeing far-righters praise the likes of Edward Snowden. Interesting times indeed. Corm (poke) 16:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC) With fools calling themselves conservatives saying they would "rather be Russian than a democrat," it shouldn't surprise anyone that there is a seditious wing of the GOP. State security violations should not be popular with any mainstream movement in the US. Praise for defectors to Russia show how far the splintering of the GOP has gone. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Nothing is going to send a message to Trumpists. Trumpists don’t care about their party - they only care about their kind. Trumpists aren’t true Republicans and the real republicans ought to split with them. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Real "Rockefeller" Republicans ought to have split from the Religious Right, but that didn't happen, and now the Religious Right are the Real Republicans and us Rockefellers have been homeless for decades. Corm (poke) 19:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Another democratic victory - David Trone. Andrew5 (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC) and also mark kelly in arizona. G Man (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────i'm with you on that one, cory. if today's gop weren't so batshit, i'd probably be a (moderate) republican myself. as it now stands, i don't swear allegiance to any party. G Man (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC) I was formerly a republican until 2003. Iraq and George Bush being an absolute ape pushed me over the edge. I was pretty much immediately aware of what would happen: thousands of American men and women would brutally die to remove an already neutered dictator who was under severe sanctions, had a mauled army and couldn't fly planes in most of his country. Been an independent ever since. Blatant racism surrounding Obama and the Trump insanity has kept me from rejoining the GOP. SwampFox (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC) I joined the GOP in 2016 when I registered to vote before the primaries and left the next year when I realized how batshit they were. My political views have moved significantly left since then. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 09:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Looks like Masto is going to overtake Laxalt soon and win Nevada. Andrew5 (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC) yep. she did. (link for the conservative users/lurkers of this site) G Man (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC) I hope some of you realize this is not a bug of conservatism, but a feature. There will be another Trump, there always is. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC) ### Funniest midterm result So Republican Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington-03 voted to impeach Trump after the Capitol attack, and then, after serving in the House since 2010, lost a primary to a Trump sycophant. Well, said Trump sycophant lost the seat. The best part is, pro-impeachment Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington-4 won his seat in the same state. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 07:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Close second: here's ex-Sen. Claire McCaskill pointing out that with Dobbs driving Democratic turnout, that means Mitch's stolen SCOTUS seat directly killed his chance at being Majority Leader. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 07:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC) I know this will sound weird I actually think the funniest midterm result is the whole result in general. We entered some of the most hyped up midterms in recent history with extremely narrow democratic control in both houses of congress. After a massive amount of spending, many dramatic events, many twists and turns, it looks like we will get...extremely narrow democratic control in both houses of congress.-Flandres (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC) you gotta love irony. G Man (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC) GOP is very likely to take the house, not sure why people think it was such a big loss to the GOP. Florida is no longer a swing state, Texas isn't turning blue like the Dems had hoped, we now have a narrow GOP majority in the house and a narrow Dem majority in the Senate, seems like a stalemate leaning in the GOP's favor. People in the US are sick of both parties. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Texas is turning blue, and the governor vote narrowed up since 2018. The GOP also doesn't have the majority: they have 217 seats and Democrats have 209. If Democrats will all 9 unclaimed seats, they will win the house. Republicans have leads in 4 so...it'll be close. Andrew5 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC) it's a big loss for the gop because pundits from both sides of the political spectrum were predicting a red wave typical of a midterm during a democratic presidency. the conditions were perfect: record inflation, high prices, stagnant economy, biden's historically approval rating, etc. ultraconservative pundits were predicting a "red tsunami" or a "bloodbath" — basically, a major blowout not seen since 2014. so what did they get instead? a razor thin majority in the house, a net loss in the senate (so far; hopefully my state will keep it that way next month), and florida. that's about it. more like a "red trickle". those same pundits (and trump, of course) hoping for a massive red wave are fuming, and the meltdown is absolutely delicious. G Man (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC) This was honestly a best case scenario for Republicans, and it’s entirely their fault. They put up so many election deniers that Democrats could solely use that fact and flip or hold numerous seats. A lot of moderates lost the primaries. Even when moderates won the primary, Democrats can simply continue to cite “Party of Trump” given trump’s heavy influence. Dobbs was a disaster to Republicans, and the increasing toxicity of the Republican brand as a whole will cause some to never vote Republican until they fix all these issues. I would expect unless Trump is indicted or dies, to make it so Republicans pretty much can’t win anymore. And if trump is indicted, well, that might be grounds for a blue wave unparalleled since 1964. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC) I see it more of as a loss for the pundits, because once again they were full of it. Just like when pundits have predicted blue waves in Texas or red waves in California. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Texas is rapidly becoming bluer. In 2014, Greg Abbott won by 20.4%. By 2018, that shrunk to 13.3%. To be fair, 2018 was a blue wave, but he also had the advantage of incumbency. Abbott's margin shrunk to 11.0% this year as the national environment got redder (blue wave to no wave). In addition the presidential race was only won by 5.6% by Trump, and Cruz only won by 2.6%. (Cruz might be ousted after the Cancun bullshit.) Andrew5 (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Yeah the fact that Beto shrunk his loss margin during such a terrible election environment is actually damn impressive. I see people mocking him, but I think he got a respectable result. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 07:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Eh, I still think not, because it wasn't 10%.Andrew5 (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) ## Death of Twitter The company is basically dead at this point. Irrecoverably so. Several core teams quit all at once yesterday. Musk demanded insane hour work weeks on Wednesday and gave 24 hours to comply or get severance pay. The company is closed for the weekend, even though the World Cup (an event Twitter is known for having had lots of people on-prem to deal with) starts this sunday. Alledgedly more than 75% of the employees still left at Twitter took the severance pay option. I would be very surprised if the site gets to the end of the year. There's (by running some maths) less than 1000 people still employed by Twitter, going down from 7000. That's around 88% in layoffs. Core teams quit also includes most non-programming teams like payroll & moderation. Programming teams that quit include the ones developing Twitters on-premises tooling (it's a weird mix between sensible and a lot of in-house junk) and in an incredibly entertaining move, the lead people working on trying to patch up Twitter Blue after the original disastrous launch quit as well. There's no corporate memory left, the only people seemingly left with the company are the foreign workers (whose visa is tied up with Twitter and can't get another job) and maybe the 100 or so people that legitimately believe in Musks vision. In relationship to this wiki, I would like to urge people to run your references for any site like Twitter on archive.org/archive.is instead. It's not exactly less transient than Twitter is, but it's sure as hell more reliable and less suspectible to the whims of an insane billionaire throwing a lot of cash to buy it out (archive.org moreso than archive.is). -- Techpriest (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC) I agree. Is there some way to accurately search for "<ref>https://twitter.com" and "<ref>[https://twitter.com" on RW? The RW search returns nothing,[7] the Google search returns nothing,[8] and the DuckDuckGo search returns a mix of valid (Transgender) and invalid (Fun:Upper-Class Twit of the Year) results.[9] It's true that archive.org (transparency, non-profit) looks more stable than archive.is (opacity of organization), the latter often better-preserves formatting of Tweets, but the former usually preserves videos. Bongolian (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Twitter dying would have extreme global significance, and I hope someone else buys it out to save the platform. Someone needs to work there, but maybe, just maybe, Twitter can survive. I give it's odds at 50%. Andrew5 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC) While hypothetically, someone else could buy it if Musk resold it much, much, much cheaper, otherwise I think no one would bother. And Musk has already suggested before this latest episode that Twitter may go bankrupt. As for impact of Twitter falling apart, not long afterwards people will just settle into using and pointing to other platforms, and all will continue much like before. It may be very good for the open source decentralized competition which Musk has accidentally fueled greatly, but apart from that various corporate alternatives will each take a bite out of the old Twitter userbase. Apart from the archival woes, it doesn't seem so bad. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC) The National Weather Service sends updates via Twitter. There might be a weather uptick, especially for tornadoes, in 2023 without Twitter. Thankfully, the death toll for tornadoes in the US so far in 2022 has been limited to just 19, and assuming nothing major in December (unlike last year or 2015), it should be limited. Andrew5 (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC) I agree with the Apooft; I think lots of people are re-considering their social media 'presence'. Twitter is useful, but not the only game in town for the stuff it does. Nor does it really store a huge amount of 'stuff' which is not elsewhere. Twitter is a prime example of 'digital ephemera' and everyone's gotten a lot better at doing digital preservation than we were even a decade ago (partly as a lot of traditional ephemera has stopped being printed, such as magazines, catalogues and so on). I personally think the biggest single 'loss' shall be from the school of the lazy tabloid hacks - they love Twitter for finding a few rando comments then blowing them up into 'culture war' hit-pieces, or local scribblers padding them out into 500-word copy for the local newspaper. But even then, there's alternatives. Tech also highlights perhaps the most important issue; the loss of 'organisational memory'. Between the layoffs and quitting, from the sounds of it some departments may have zero memory now. If nothing else, this means there's nobody to actually train any sod to do the job (which is why there's reports of a few 'key' managers/techs being approached to unquit/unfire). However, I suspect most of the non-tied remaining employees don't 'believe' in Musk, they're the ones who believe they won't get a better gig than at Musk's Twitter (people confident in their skill/experience much more likely to quit) and perhaps a few who think they may even get a promotion out of this (as the decimation of experience is so deep they're almost the only internal candidate left etc). I don't think Twitter will 'die' anytime soon, but I could imagine it ending up in a tech death-sprial similar to say, MySpace ended up in. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC) I just want to note what an insanely bad manager Musk is. First he gets rid of all the people he considers least productive - about half the workforce. This leaves him with (presumably) the most gifted and hardest-working staff. These remining people are also those who would find it easiest to pick up new jobs in an industry which is still looking for this type of employee. But instead of treating them really well so as to ensure their continuity of the company he starts badgering them and telling them that their working conditions are going to get worse with little chance of improvement down the line. Their choice is three months pay now or suffer a worse working environment for the foreseeable future. How can he have been surprised when a large number of these highly-employable individuals just decide to say "Thanks for the cash and fuck you"? This may not just be the beginning of the end for Twitter but for Musk as well.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC) I think one thing which has been missed by the Big Public/Media is that in sector terms, Musk is an 'old man', and he's coming right off as such to the Twitter workforce (his irrational hatred of all forms of flexi-working a prime example). They're not stupid either, can see his 'Hardcore!' spiel as simply re-skinned workaholic Horatio Alger BS to help him dig out of the fucking hole of his own creation. Couple this with the fact Musk basically already has a pretty crap reputation as a boss (part of the reason Wall St are not that enamoured with him)... well, it's not gonna go down well. Another thing not mentioned in the media is also the possibility he's been getting high on his own propaganda; that Musk has severe 'endowment effect' on how great it is simply to work for him. Now, in my experience most bosses have this bias to some extent (it's why so many are surprised when people quit) but it's quite possible Musk's got it so bad he thinks simply being able to enjoy some refracted light from his own greatness shall more than make up for everything else shit about the T&Cs. With my econ/management hat on for a moment, what we are seeing is a textbook example of 'how to not handle a takeover'. Musk's out of his depth (and is too arrogant to take advice), has gotten little 'insider support' for doing the desired changes, his treating the serious clash of corporate cultures as something to blugeon into obedience and lastly, went about it via the old-school corp raider 'leveraged buyout' which normally enriches the owners but kills the host. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Use this to feel better, everyone. We’ve all fucked up but none of us have ever fucked up so bad we’ll end up being studied by MBAs for decades to come. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC) And the great thing is, it's being documented in real time! Double-plus-good to econ/business undergrads of the future, who'll be writing many a paper over this whole show. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Twitter dying will be very bad, and I hope it is avoided. Andrew5 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC) special:linksearch would be the easiest way to look for twitter references in our articles. Christopher (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC) I have never used twitter. I suppose that twitter links to the wiki are a problem should it fail to maintain it's internet integrity. Other than that, the function of twitter could be taken up by any similar construct, called twitteral, mutter, blabber, dummy, etc. Any platform for many voices is going to have its critics. Certainly a company called "Twitter" will survive even if it needs to be reincarnated. It is a brand name. Musk probably paid more for a brand name than anyone in history. Like buying the name "Cheerios" or "Coca-cola," one is acquiring a media narrative, a commercial history. A company named "Twitter," will certainly continue to exist. I still won't use it.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC) I don't think Twitter is something that can completely be wiped off the face of the internet permanently. Andrew5 (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC) no, but it can fade in significance and into irrelevance. myspace is 'still' around, but when was the last time you heard that mentioned in a conversation not prefixed 'whatever happened to...'. twitter but with more nazis, gab and trump's own attempts, have tried and failed to takeover from twitter. maybe twitter with less nazis is what is going to fatally wound it. just what do the majority of its users get from twitter anyhow? is there actually a 'social' component of it thats not catered to elsewhere, or is it, as it seems to me, for tweeting stuff and hoping someone reweets it and briefly become internet famous? i signed up to twitter a couple of months ago purely because lots of folk on grindr link to on their profiles, and thats where they display the cock pics. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I went to a JCC today. At 4:55 pm (EST) while in the locker room, I did overhear how Twitter might die - a bug, that simply isn't fixed, can cost Twitter it's existence. Andrew5 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Something as stupidly simple as an expired SSL can start hitting the ability of a site (go and look at Conservapedia's history of outages for an example). But as Gay said, if Twitter 'dies' it will be because almost no decent person uses it anymore. However, it's quite possible that Twitter dies not because it become unable to be accessed, but because it's such an insecure lash-up folks quit using it. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC) I doubt the NWS would stop using Twitter unless forced. Andrew5 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC) (apparently) unpopular opinion: i deleted my twitter account 11 months ago. i couldn't stand the toxic environment. twitter exemplifies everything that's wrong with social media. if twitter crashes and burns, i couldn't care less. if it somehow manages to survive all this, i still couldn't care less. G Man (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Twitter has been a toxic shithole since before 2016. We have Jack Dorsey to thank for that. As bad as Twitter is, it at least has not been directly associated with genocide like Facebook has.[10] The sooner Twitter closes up shop for good, the better. Bongolian (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Quitting toxic social media like Facebook and Twitter is extremely difficult. When I was in high school in the 2010s, Facebook Messenger was the primary means of communication between students. It was quite important for getting study notes and knowing about the latest happenings at school. When I quit Facebook after graduating high school, I lost contact with a good chunk of my peers. So there is a kind of peer pressure where if everybody in your cohort uses Facebook, it'll force you to use Facebook too. Failure to "fit in" puts you at risk of being a sort of social outcast. Still, I agree with Bongolian; Facebook is more toxic than my defecation after eating Subway. I still don't regret deleting my Facebook account because of my strong conscience. LongStylus (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Twitter was great for small game developers and indie artists. It has a pretty good system bywhich to be discovered, and the constant turnover of content helps keep only big names from being exclusively shown. It's like a linked in but people can put their art portfolio right on the site. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC) my story is similar to that of longstylus, but it has a different ending. i opened my facebook in early 2010 when i was in middle school. it was one way to stay in touch with everyone. i moved away from it in high school in part because my parents sent me to a remote boarding school where internet access was intermittent and largely controlled by the school (plus i had weak cell reception). my usage started picking back up again in my early college years. it was around that time you could say i was "hooked" or "addicted" to social media (facebook was all i had at the time). that was also the time social media really started becoming toxic, with trump entering politics and everything. over the next few years, my time on social media declined again until the covid pandemic began in 2020 when i became "hooked" again. (i was locked in my house all the time and i didn't have much else to do, anyway.) as if social media could not get any worse, the george floyd protests started happening, and that brought all the racists out of hiding. it didn't help that i had just opened up my twitter and instagram for school-related communications. for the next year, i felt my mental health decline. finally, at the end of 2021, i quit some profiles (namely twitter) cold turkey and locked my others (facebook and instagram) for about four months. i'm still on social media, but my current use is only a fraction of what it once was. to make a long story short: i, too, opened my social media profiles to stay in touch with friends. but after a while, i could just feel my mental (and physical, because of all the late-nighters) health decline. like ls said, it really is hard quitting because of all the peer pressure, fomo, and memories you leave behind. it becomes even more difficult the longer you stay online. however, it's still worth it. most of those connections are nonexistent outside of social media, anyway, and you can always stay in touch with the relatively few real friends you have by other means. after all, the cons of staying online far outweigh the pros. it's not worth the toxicity. that's why i've outright deleted some accounts and limited my presence on others. G Man (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I was only on Twitter to laugh at the idiocy. Is it bad for me to say I was bummed Trump was banned? Vee (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC) not at all! i miss digging up his old tweets (the ones where he contradicted himself) and rubbing them in the face of trump and his followers to show them how stupid they are... or as twitter calls it, "this u? lol" G Man (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Andrew5 (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC) ## Why I am so glad I'm not a republican anymore. Upon turning 18 in 1997, I supported republicans in essentially every election. I didn't realize how much of a monumental fuck-up Bush would be in 2000 so I threw my support behind him. I wasn't a social conservative more, rather a fiscal conservative. I didn't believe that the government was capable of providing the services that the private sector could without additional costs and delays. I even aligned with conservatives on a lot of social issues, especially post 9/11 when I was of the "bomb them back to the stone age" mentality for anyone involved in it. This, of course, changed around 2003 as I have said before. The false and illegal invasion of Iraq was probably the one thing that made Bush into a horrible president rather than a mediocre or average one. I knew that after Desert Storm, Iraq was in no condition to threaten anyone. Their economy was destroyed by sanctions, their military was extremely corrupt and a large part of it destroyed and a no-fly zone made it so Iraq couldn't fly planes in their own country. How the hell would they have weapons of mass destruction while half their people were starving and/or homeless? I couldn't associate myself with a party that overwhelmingly supported sending what would eventually become thousands of young American men and women being thrown into a meatgrinder for a pointless task. And I am so glad that I am now an independent, considering that I would never foresee the monstrosity that my beloved GOP would become. The election of Barack Obama saw open racism become extremely common. You could get away with calling Obama a "monkey" and then play it off as a joke. Trump made it even worse. The conservatism of the GOP was replaced with fascism, Social Darwinism and downright awful behavior. "I don't believe that the government would be better at providing healthcare" became "Some people have to die to avoid extra government spending". I'm not pulling strawmen out of my ass because these are things I have seen and heard. Open support of insurrection (!!) and playing it off as a peaceful protest. Trump seemed to turn rational people who leaned right into absolute fucking monsters. I don't support the democrats either because my heart still resides where the GOP of old is, but open fascism combined with Social Darwinism when it comes to government spending have prevented me from returning back. The new Republican party would rather destroy the fucking nation in the name of "owning teh libtards" instead of working towards constructively improving it. Their obsession lies with "owning" and "trolling" people. It's like the old base of conservatives and libertarians have been replaced with or transformed into edgy fuckhead /b/ and /pol/ trolls and alt right lunatics. What the fuck happened? SwampFox (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC) What happened was the natural conclusion of conservative ideology. The Republican party was never good, even going back to Nixon and Reagan, the "moderate" Republicans of old. You think the people who defended redlining were Democrats? Or opposed the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, were those Democrats? Did the Democrats create the Southern Strategy? Did the Democrats start COINTELPRO? Did the Democrats do Watergate? Republicans have been shit ever since the parties switched. The myth of the moderate Republican is just that, a myth. It doesn't exist. Moderate Republicans are just more dishonest. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Wingnuts will claim that the democrats did. Some of them literally believe that Nixon was a DINO that joined the republican party to destroy it (no joke). Blaming watergate on The Dems Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Democrats aren't innocent either. Democrats were the ones who pressed for America to join Vietnam. Democrats were the ones who were dishonest to Congress (Bill Clinton). Meanwhile Republicans were the ones who calmed down Cold War tensions. Honestly Republican's problem in the 2000s decade weren't severe; it was mainly Trump who destroyed the party. As an FYI: the Iraq war was definitely necessary. Hussein had to die. Andrew5 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Which Iraq war? And is that former US ally, Saddam Hussein who "had to die"? You might be over simplifying things there. Also, while Trump was indeed a Republican Party selected president, the party had been on the hand-cart to the loony bin for some time. We'll just mention The Tea Party and a rather shrill voiced 'soccer mom' from Alaska, by way of point making. essentially, the US two party system is buggered. It doesn't matter who wins, the general population is going to be bent over a barrel and dry humped for four years. If they're lucky in their choice of candidtate, there may even be lube Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC) How about a cold take: both the Dems and the Repubs can go fuck themselves. Neither party is good. One party is simply worse than the other. Vee (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC) She's got a point. The US has had a whole slew of shitty presidents...Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Also, seriously, Andrew? "The Iraq War was necessary"? That's got to be the dumbest take I've seen on the wiki not made by a troll in the short time I've been here. The US does not have the right to invade sovereign countries willy nilly. At least Saddam kept the Islamists in check. The toppling of Saddam brought untold destruction to Iraq. Hundreds of thousands dead because one country decided it was above the law. Smfh. I'm friends with an Iraqi woman. Her father was tortured by US servicemen before being released a few hours later. The guy's a doctor. To this day he refuses to speak of the torture he endured. Was that necessary? Vee (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Yeah, Andrew. Hussein's repressive government was secular and provided an oppressive force on religious extremists that were liberated upon Hussein's death. US intervention in foreign affairs no matter how bad things were has a track record of only making things worse. The US had no business acting as the police of the world. Also the war in Iraq was protracted well beyond Hussein's execution, so if that was the initial justification what justified the continued military occupation? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC) According to the Wikipedia article, he has done crimes against humanity. Andrew5 (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Yeah, and? The US has also committed crimes against humanity. What a weak ass response. We had no business taking Saddam out. Did Saddam need to go? Yeah. Who should've done it? Not us. We made things worse. A lot worse, and it's frankly disgusting you're engaging in Iraq War apologia. Vee (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Lmao "according to the Wikipedia article" Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 04:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Getting back on the main point... I personally think the core problem is ultimately that Marx was right on the 'death of the middle class'. Advanced oligarchic capitalism is squeezing the SoL, 'autonomy' and 'status' of what was the 'solid ballast' of mainline-right parties; the small businessperson, the managers, professional persons and so on. That as in the Anglosphere the middle class has withered during the Neoliberal Era, so has this electoral ballast. This was actually worse then you'd think because while said ballast could (and was) mocked for being often provincial, staid and 'a bit thick' they often at least knew how to run stuff, didn't take kindly to being lied to and could sometimes be persuaded by that thing called 'facts'. This allowed a certain level of basic competence/reasonableness, something which seems increasingly lacking in the MAGA/ToryKip parties now. Into this void, has come the previously-marginalised cranks, loons and extremists. As Ozzy has explained, they were already in the tent, just that as the 'moderates' increasingly died out as an electoral force, they took over the show instead of simply being 'useful idiots' to be courted to get some more Republicans elected when needed. But in a similar manner to the British Conservatives and UKIP, the sewer-monsters have broken off their controlling lead, bitten off the muzzle and taken control of the show. They've done so well because they know one important fact; most 'sane' Republicans/Conservatives have no balls. Oh, they'll bitch and they'll wring their hands to all the shit-fires etc but they'll still god-damn vote for the swamp-monsters anyway. Why? Partly out of habit, yes - but mainly because they come to the conclusion that the MAGA-party is marginially closer to their PoV than their perception of the Democrats. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Who else could have killed Hussein, though? Most countries aren't powerful enough to do so, and had the United Kingdom or France done it, the consequences likely would have been the same. Andrew5 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC) You can't see the fallacy of your question, can you? "Who else could have killed him, though?" Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC) To elaborate; 'it wasn't the job of the Americans to overthrow/assassinate him'. At that point Iraq and the United States were not at war, nor had he attacked American interests to a level which would warrant such a... reaction and lastly, nor had he committed crimes against humanity so grievous that his removal would be generally welcomed by the world at large. It's a cliche, but doing such things is a very slippery slope. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC) The Iraq War was a joke that cost the lives of many civilians and soldiers who were given a lie. How many civilians had suffered life long disability due to the conflict? How many US soldiers are suffering from PTSD and other disabling conditions? The war destabilized the country for years leading to small scale insurgencies, damaged/destroyed infrastructure and displaced people. Mission accomplished, maybe? --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Saying Hussein was not a fallacy because per this article, it outlines that There is broad agreement that removing Saddam Hussein from power neutralized a ruthless tyrant. and the Iraq War ended oppressive rule by him. Andrew5 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC) That’s true, the US invasion successfully transformed a stable society living in constant fear into an unstable society living in constant fear. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC) I'm just gonna refer back to my previous Republican-related thread here. The Republicans aren't fit to hold office. Luigifan18 (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Andrew, I point back to my previous comment. Now, if it was the American's job to do that, please explain to me why the CIA haven't taken out Putin or the Army invade Russia yet. But you don't need to, for the fact 'he has lots of power to resist'. So the moral of this story is; America is the self-appointed morality police, as long as the culprit is relatively easy to take out. And people wonder why the fuck Iran and North Korea want nuke-tipped ICBMs? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Do we actually think that Democrats should be the only ones in office with no checks for power? The US is probably trying to take out Putin, but going undercover is very hard in Russia. Andrew5 (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC) They wouldn't - too scared of blowback (successful or not). The most they'd do is a bit of an assist to some Russians to do the deed. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC) When I was a kid, I used to stay with my grandmother in a triple-deck apartment house on a hill mostly occupied by Italian and Irish immigrants. She worked as a seamstress in a textile factory. She was the union representative for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. She told me, "never vote for the republicans. They won't do anything for working people." If the democrats have lost their way, it may be because they have lost sight of the fact that the people who do the hard jobs, who comprise a majority of us, will eventually be needed for the disparate tribes of the democratic coalition to work together. Republicanism has a checkered history, but so does every political movement that survives over long periods of time. From the view of game theory, politics is an infinite game. Modern Democrats have played it as though it were a finite game, with predetermined rules and fixed objectives. The object of the infinite game is to keep playing the game. One might get theoretical and claim there is a commonly occurring conflict between deontological and consequentialist approaches. A democratic republic, it seems, either appeals to the very wealthy, maintaining discipline through the use of intimidation and conservative values, or the party appeals to egalitarian interests by building voting blocks determined by cultural identities, economic interests, unionism, etc. I agree that republicanism has always been liable to becoming a charade of democratic ideals because their primary concern is preserving wealth. On one side there is a demand for an enhanced sense of security among the wealthy with a pacified population, on the other side, there is a general desire to advance the interests of their large groups of constituents, which today are somewhat incoherent (Blacks, Jews, unions, LGBT, etc.).Ariel31459 (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC) The only thing democrats really have going for them is their greater willingness to support welfare policies and social security efforts. They also maybe be more willing support affirmative action policies. Compared to democrats, a lot of republicans and their supporters seem barely distinct in their politics compared to your local klansman. On the other hand we shouldn’t be mistaken into thinkimg that the democrats are a party for the working class, or by any means the anti-racist, or anti-xenophobic political party. Democrats have zero interest in helping workers gain control over the means of production and will do their damnedest to make the interests of the business classes primary. They played a massive role in creating the systematic conditions that lead to the mass incarceration of black and brown bodies, and over-policing in poor black neighbourhoods. They definitely support restricting “unskilled” immigration, and they are just as responsible for the neoliberal policies that lead to the deaths of thousands of citizens in foreign nations. This is another party that exists in perpetuation of white supremacy, it just does so moderately compared to the republicans. I think working people need to seriously consider trying to take matters into their own hands, organizing workplaces, working towards general strikes, establishing mutual-aid networks, and building intentional communities. Legitimate political action is not restricted by the official means and institutions created by a long line of mostly wealthy people acting in their own interests insisting that you must pick someone of their class to decide what is best on your behalf without them ever actually knowing who the fuck you are. Take a page from the first nations people in Canada who did not vote but instead engaged in direct action to coerce social and policy changes from society at large via disrupting the economy. Anger can be power, you know you can use it. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC) While I obviously support a government that has the working people in its best interest, in my native Connecticut (and up and down the East Coast for people a bit older than me) there are only 3 words necessary to remind people of how well-meaning working class initiatives with state support can go horribly wrong; Father Panik Houses. The workers loved it because it provided much-needed affordable housing, the factory owners loved it because it gave them a steady walk-to-work population, but then deindustrialization sent things teetering and two absolutely massive hurricanes kicked in the front door of what was left. You can look up the details from there. Connecticut sure loves its taxes and its Democrats (check out who's running our biggest city!), but though our governor has made real progress the inequality here remains absolutely staggering. Private businesses and nonprofits, such as the one our governor once ran and the one I currently work at, can be much more adaptable to the situation on the ground, and state funding with some oversight makes it somewhat easier for the people out doing things to survive in an insanely high cost of living area. That approach sits well with the Democrats and Republicans (yes, New England Republicans are a somewhat different breed), and takes some of the conflict out of it; if a non-partisan organization is getting good result helping a specific population out of poverty, it means everyone has an incentive to fund it and either help it expand (via funding or some sort of tax incentive) or find other organizations that can replicate those results in other fields. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC) The two-party system is trash. Ditch the first past the post nonsense, abolish the Republican Party, and fracture the Democratic Party so that our political system is something more like Britain or Australia, where you have multiple parties competing for seats and a party needs to have a clearly-defined agenda that isn't completely morally repugnant in order to get anywhere. Luigifan18 (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Pedantic point of the day; the UK does have FPTP. Our system looks a bit different because a) we have some regional parties and b) we have a small centrist party which mainly survives in the rather rural parts of the country where Labour doesn't really have a foothold. This also means the last time a UK Govt actually got a majority of the popular vote was in fact, 1935. Now, if Americans desire to learn any electoral lessons from the UK, I would suggest look at the example of our local independent politicians (like our 'Residents Association' candidates). My belief is that a lot of the right-wing crankery comes from officials having too many safe seats (and thus, don't really face a challenge to their ideology's presumed popularity). Thus, if you find yourself in such a place, try to find some local, respected person and convince them to run as an independent on a non-sectarian 'good governance' ticket. Ideally, the local nominal Democratic candidate won't stand thus allowing the independent to hoover up all the opposing votes and the 'disgusted Republican' shall not find the existence of the 'wrong' colour a bar from voting for them. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Running as an independent for that purpose didn't work in Utah. Andrew5 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC) it didn't work in arkansas, either (which is too bad because i really liked the guy. thanks for nothing, arkansas.). G Man (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC) i cant help but feel that the obscene amount of money, billions of dollars, spent on campaigns is a factor here. 16.7 billion is expected to have been spent in these midterms. and couple that with ever more sophisticated targeted advertising that can be bought from the cunts like those who brought us cambridge analytica to tell paid for candidates what to say, how to say it, and exactly who to to say it to. influencing elections on a well funded and industrial scale. Ca's activities only came to light through some investigative journalism and whistleblowers. and they use our personal data gathered via dubious means, famously facebook was one such source. any independent candidate has something of a hill to climb. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC) 1/ I said 'independent', not 'third party'. Third parties have their own electoral baggage. 2/ I argue to start small; town councils and suchlike. The kinds of election where it's actually possible for the candidate to meet/know the whole electorate in person (and they know them). 3/ What, you going to give up after a couple of failures? 4/ Trying something is better than simply sitting there bitching and doing nothing. 5/ 'Propaganda of the deed'; being seen to be doing it can motivate others to do it too. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC) The person from Utah was an independent. However the Arkansas dude was a Liberterian. Andrew5 (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Yeah? And they got the best non-Republican showing in Utah since 1974. And a 10.4% margin is not an 'unassailable' one either, esp when you remember some 4% was for third candidates. Going in straight at that level is gonna be an uphill battle anyway due to the lack of infrastructure, cash etc. But the truth is that often this isn't to beat the MAGA-candidates, but to more scare them into selecting less crazy candidates at the primaries. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC) independent, third party – doesn't matter. in a two-party system, you're equally fighting an uphill battle, so you have just as much of a chance at winning an election. just ask bernie sanders (an independent) why he ran for president on the democratic ticket twice. G Man (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC) And lost - twice. I honestly wish he beat Clinton in 2016, as Sanders could've defeated Trump, saving America from this mess, and the Republican Party as well. Andrew5 (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC) You may have to fight an uphill battle, but if the battle is worth fighting, needs fighting you'll do it anyway. Plus, history is filled with examples of 'uphill battles' against hugely strong opponents... and they won. Okay, often the lost too but sometimes the 'underdog' does win. With G-Man's point... Sanders ran as a Democrat candidate for the simple reason he'd have no pre-existing infrastructure nationally to campaign otherwise. Which is why I advocated a 'grassroots' approach - that you start building that network from the bottom-up. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Uphill battles were won this year, Washington's 3rd district and Alaska's at-large congressional district, the Michigan State Senate, Michigan State House and Kansas governor race are examples of that. But it almost always isn't won. Oklahoma's 5th district of 2018 was probably the biggest uphill battle in recent history. As far as 3rd parties go - while Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in '92, he didn't win a single electoral vote (but came within 5% in Maine's 2nd congressional district). The last time a 3rd party won an electoral vote that wasn't due to faithless electors was in 1968, a trend I see to extend itself for a while, especially because the last time a 3rd party won votes that wasn't in the Deep South (which is relevant because the Civil Rights Era is over), was in 1924. Now if the GOP did split I'd imagine both sides would get votes (and get squashed by Democrats, similar to 1912), but a victory for 3rd parties nonetheless. Andrew5 (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC) trust me: i am absolutely in favor of breaking this ridiculous two-party system we have. however, as history has shown, it's easier said than done – regardless if the person trying is independent or affiliated with a 3rd party. since the controversial citizens united scotus ruling in 2010, money has played an outsized influence in politics. maybe back then it was easier, but nowadays, it's a totally different ball game. getting elected to public office these days is like finding a job: you have to have the right connections or you're not going very far. G Man (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The two party system has been threatened before. The start of the Republicans in 1860 is an example, and they successfully toppled the Whigs. Since then, in 1912, the Progressives did better then Taft (but lost to Roosevelt, who earned over 400 electoral votes.) Progressive influenced also doomed them in '16. A lot of 3rd parties have gotten some Senate/House seats in the 30s and 40s, but the last 3rd party Senator (at least) was in the 1970s. House was '90s I think.Andrew5 (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC) ## I'm not an IT guy... (Twitter) ...but I know enough about computers, programming and software to know you do NOT fuck with the IT guy. So my question becomes this. Musk has fired 3/4ths of Twitter's staff, and the remaining 1/4 can't exactly be too happy in their jobs. I know it's only been just over 2 weeks, but I'd have assumed the site would've collapsed by now. So why hasn't it? I get that the overwhelming majority is automated, but there must be some key process that disappeared when the employees left. Or is 3/4th of the company actually not essential? Corm (poke) 14:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Considering just how big the twittersphere was. Considering the amount of interactions that occur each and every second. Considering the bandwidth, the server load and ongoing data storage with indexing for quicker retrieval on a multilateral basis. Are you saying Twitter, on a whim. On a flight of fancy. Decided. Just for a laugh. To hire far more staff than they would actually need at any given moment? Or is it that you are not an IT guy? Remember years ago when Belgium had a hung parliament? No decisions were made for months, and the government was still running smoothly through the 2008 crash? Did that mean there was no need for the government? Or was it that the systems said government set up were not in need of correction over that time period? Same thing is happening this weekend, fuck knows what Monday will bring. Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Maybe we could get Elon to type "rm -rf */*' Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC) More simply put; (I suspect) a lot of those IT folks would have been doing updates/maintenance tasks. Like missing a car service or not getting in 'The Guy' to check your central heating for winter, yes you can get away with it... but things shall start to grow iffy. Left too long, the 'repair' costs will become higher than the 'maintenance' costs you saved on. Then finally, it shall become totally non-functional and you're looking at a massive 'replace' cost. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Yeah, it'll break by parts at first, not everything at once. And little glitches and issues will increase in number. Apparently one thing now broken is the "Copyright strike" system. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC) There's institutional knowledge that is now probably lost forever. When something breaks, and it will, there's now an excellent chance that he fired the person who knew how to fix it quickly. Hiring more people won't fix that problem even if he could. Who wants to work at a decimated business that is so obviously toxic? Bongolian (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Indeed, institutional automatic know-how must have gone. And yes, there is a second level problem. Assume it survives. At some point they will need to hire new staff for something or other, just to cover natural turnover. But how attractive will that be? "We are going to pay you for 40 hours but we expect you to work 60, the future of the company is not guarantied, your boss may fire you on a whim if he gets some new idea or if your work is anything less than what he decides is "excellent"." Not the most attractive pitch.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Something like 95% of Twitter's employees were hired after its popularity blew up. Most of that is things like customer relations and moderators, and with Musk's stated plan to reduce censorship, there will be a lot fewer moderators needed. There have been reports of which groups have been affected by the layoffs, which anyone here could check. The group responsible for keeping the servers running seems to be notably absent from such reports. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Firstly, the firings were so deep and quick after takeover it's really doubtful it was done in a really rational manner - I heard at least two reports of Twitter trying to get back canned persons within days (ie they'd fired someone critical and only noticed when 'it' broke). Secondly, masses of people have quit - what had been a trickle became a 'fuck you, Elon' flood after his 'work twice as long at double the speed while sacrificing no quality' demands. Thirdly, included in neither category are the ~3k outsourced/temp workers who were just binned immediately. So... Twitter's global workforce was 10,000 two months ago, and if the reports of quittage is right, now stands at somewhere between 700 and 1,000. You cannot have 100% of the service from only 7-10% of the workforce. Imagine if 90% of a population of a town died from plague - there's a very good chance you'd have lost a lot of people with pretty unique skills. Same in a business. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC) 700 people is still twice what the entire company had in early 2011, which was after it had gotten popular. And that was the group which reworked the technical aspects of the site in the preceding few months. How many people do you imagine it takes to actually keep the site running? Whether this poses an existential problem depends entirely on who is leaving and who is staying. Are you unaware that Twitter's workforce has bloated quite a bit in the last few years? Quite a few of those thousands of emloyees were obviously there to do things other than what made the site popular in the first place. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC) What does it mean to "keep the site running?" It's a deceptively simple proposition. From the simple start, the technical side of it grew many tentacles over the years, which have lived their own lives in the years of greater numbers of employees; things are no longer organized so that just a few persons can keep on top of everything, the whole is dependent on lots of interconnected smaller systems. I don't know much about the details, but apparently some parts of the technical infrastructure had its own teams and such teams are sometimes now gone, sometimes reduced to just a person or two. Planned features/changes are now trickier to do, broken smaller services/features difficult to fix. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Twitter payroll and finance departments resigned en masse two days ago.[11] How long will the remaining 700 work there if they don't get paid for working for an asshole? Bongolian (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Hilarious. Because "keeping the site running" implies "keeping the company running". And if you don't have payroll, personnel, finance and all the other not-obviously-productive stuff which keeps the company running - then you certainly aren't going to keep the site running either.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Musk can apply a free and open-source license on the code of Twitter's website. Then, he can get people to "volunteer" (i.e. work for free) with updating the code. LongStylus (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Indeed. I was reading that Musk was going to be expecting an 80 hour week from people he was paying for 40. And then he could ask for volunteers. I'm sure that IT specialists will be lining up to work for half wages or for nothing for the world's richest man.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC) I also question 192's logic. In 2011, Twitter had 117m users, but 237m by 2022 - a doubling. Yet in 2011 the daily message rate was 100m, but by 2022 it was 500m. Which means each 'account' was in fact, 2.5x busy than eleven years previous. This means that by their own logic, the 'right' employment level should be between 1,400 and 3,500 (depending whether you count 'by user' or 'by tweet'). Next, by 2022 Twitter has 16 years of old tweets to curate. This total number shall (if you are doing seomthing right) be an exponentially-growing number and thus, have (normally) increasing costs (including labour). Clearly, in 2011 they only had seven years of growth to curate, and much of it would have been relatively low in number. Yes, the public records office could save cash on storage costs if they were allowed to delete anything over (say) 5 years old! There's also the little issue that the regulatory framework has gotten a lot stricter since 2011. In fact, you have to actively remember how much of a 'wild west' this industry was back then - remember the times when 'these lot' argued that they didn't need to really moderate anything? Times change; things like the Russian spam-farms, social media manipulation and fake news has entered our world for good. Arguing you can return to 2011 on this is akin arguing that Ford could save money by going back to the production of car engines which use leaded petrol and don't have crumple zones. We also need to recall that 2011 was basically, a 'generation ago' in this sector's terms. What, you don't think the tech hasn't gotten more complex since then? Yes, automation has gotten a lot better too but it also generates work in the respect people need to design, maintain and watch said bots etc. Now, there's some truth in the old adage 'the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy' but some of it is (as Bob points out) basically unavoidable. Once a company hits a certain size, you start needed 'proper' dealing with subjects like the legal world, accounts, payroll, public relations and so on. Despite what crud management gurus say, once a manager has a team larger than about a dozen their efficiency falls through the floor. However, this ratio also applies to managers (ie managers need managing), which means as the org becomes bigger the ratio of 'managers' vs 'real workers' will continue to increase in the former's favour. Tech can mitigate this, yes - but increased use of technological fixes again, creates more work (some sod has to maintain the stuff...) which usually partly nullifies the gains. Even worse, the increased abilities tech offers can often lead to more tasks being done simply because 'they can' - technology is the enabler for the micromanager (colonial officials complained about this over a century ago when the telegraph systems were rolled out). Lastly, one thing I've always noticed is that almost whenever an org decides to have a 'cull of managers' they rarely get rid of the tasks of management. This normally results in non-managers having to do management tasks, like a doctor doing the procurement/inventory, a teacher doing the budget/payroll or a social worker managing the ton of files trundling between their office, parents, schools and courts. On top of their own work too - which all too often means the extra tasks are done sloppily by sub-optimal persons. Often this is economically stupid; to use a hypothetical Twitter example; is it worth paying an an engineer £200 a week doing tasks which a secretary could handle for £75 and perhaps do it better to boot? Why did I bother writing all this? Because 192's comments really got under my skin, that's why. I'm sick and tired of hearing ignorant people claim that large organisations require almost nil management, who assume only the public 'front end' of an org is all that matters and usually don't have a clue to the actual tasks needed to be done within the org. Unless you work in Twitter, are solidly within that field and/or have made a good study of the company - you know jack. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Scream!! (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC) In terms of a website's functionality, well, let's take Google. Google can go on As Is forever... but there are entire teams of "Search Engine Optimizers" whose entire existence is about subverting the site and discovering new exploits, the websites on the internet constantly change specifically to abuse Google's algorithm, etc. Without the engineers to CONSTANTLY apply patches, the top search for EVERY combination of words would be for websites that steal your credit card information, or worse. And that's not getting into new versions of operating systems and web browsers that need constant maintenance. Plus, that one guy whose only job is to paint a new doodle every single day. Or whoever plays pranks on the user when they do stuff like search "askew" or "zerg rush", which is really just a way to get people interested in going back to the website to check out the joke. I imagine that Twitter has a similar dilemma; sure it could go on for a while, and a small team of engineers is absolutely critical, but I don't know just what percentage of the Twitterforce are those critical engineers or how many critical engineers have been let go. Whatever the case, I believe Elon's biggest mistake was to not allow the engineers to work from home. Look, I get that it's not "professional", but WfH is such a HUGE perk, especially when Twitter is located in the most expensive city in the country. Maybe some of us only make just above100k/yr and are at the point in our lives where we don't want to live with 3 roommates in a crappy SF apartment? Corm (poke) 14:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Musk's push to measure and force productivity from technical workers, in terms of quantity, trying to rush them greatly without understanding their work fits an old and well-established pattern, half a century old; quality normally falls through the floor when that's done. That's the type of mismanagement that came most to mind for me when I read of Musk's ultimatum to the employees, and I also think many of the programmers faced with it saw such a future reading it. Further, part of the organizational complexity earlier was testing and development groups working on various possible new Twitter versions (developing feature changes) and making sure it was good before deciding to make it go live. Musk basically guts quality control, and moves halfway towards giving the programmers the job of mashing their keyboards as fast as possible. I wonder if stories of the mismanagement during Twitter's fall will appear on TheDailyWTF in the years ahead. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Today I found multiple instances of hate speech (calling for someone's death), reported it, and the accounts got locked. So it looks like the content-moderation team still exists. Corm (poke) 19:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Or at least somebody is still doing the vital bits... anyway, the issue with Musk's hatred of 'home working' is that from what I've heard (disclaimer; UK sources) that in the tech sector flexi-working is now the occupational norm unless your tasks can't be done like that. Therefore, working for Twitter now is abnormal in this respect and thus, a clear 'minus' for applicants going forward. However, surveys I've seen is that perhaps ~20% of non-manager white-collars do prefer to work only at the office (for various reasons). Yet however (again), a (UK) survey I've seen is that about 80% of office-based employers are willing to seriously consider requests for flexi too - which makes Musk's intransigence (it's softened a tiny bit, but not by much) culturally pretty out of step, similar to the employers who still operate a dress code from 1992 for no obvious reason.
I think I've found Musk's next move; the demands all Twitter employees dress like they're from IBM c1988. It would clearly suit his other actions to date. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
For personal reasons I won't get into, fuck IBM. Ungrateful bastards.Corm (poke) 20:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The main difference between back then and now is uh... suprisingly simple? Basically, Twitter has this really weird position where the site has a userbase of a lot of decently influential people (ranging from celebrities to lawmakers to the three most recent POTUS) and journalists. This means that when it comes to regulatory oversight, Twitter, perhaps only really competed by Facebook, is seen as a "big social media platform" whose actions are trendsetting for the rest of the industry. This occurs regardless of the actual userbase of Twitter. So a lot of the teams that were let go (deliberately, not the braindead "work insane hours or you're out" shit) were indeed content moderation and ethics teams, but firing those doesn't uh... mean less censorship. Rather all it will cause is that lawmakers will grow more concerned about the type of speech allowed on social media.
Repealing §230 is something that generally speaking has bipartisan support in the US (...and the EU has basically no such ruling in the first place, which hoo boy once the DSA goes into effect, Twitter is fucked and EU Congress is already sharpening it's knives), albeit for different reasons. Democrats want it gone because it is the law that protects social media sites (and due to it's outsized influence, Twitter is one of those) from civil litigation over bigoted behavior, Republicans want it gone because... they think it will mean Twitter/YouTube/Facebook won't ban them for yelling slurs at minorities or denying the Holocaust. (It won't actually do that but intelligence is pretty much not desired to be a part of the modern day Republican party.) Musk driving Twitters content moderation into the ground isn't gonna fix that, it'll just strengthen the desire of the Democrats to get rid of it. Oh if only he had one of the top digital free speech lawyers working at Twitter to protect §230. It would be such a real shame if he fired her. Especially if it was over entirely minute bullshit like having made the decision to ban 45 rather than actual career deficiencies. Truly a shame. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Musk effectively replaced the Twitter head of legal and policy Vijaya Gadde with the lawyer who defended Musk in the defamation lawsuit, Alex Spiro, a trial lawyer. Spiro got Musk off the hook for calling a Thai cave rescuer a "pedo guy".[12] Trial lawyers have a different skill set than corporate legal strategy. Bongolian (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Twitter's general position may be weird from the POV of social media, but not media in general - ever hear of 1700s 'gazettes'; the original 'news-papers' in which government announcements, trial information and similar were put in? Twitter has become partly this; an online 'site of record' for companies, non-profits, politicians, 'public figures' and governments themselves.
That's Twitter's problem. It's wearing two hats, and you can't slice apart the 'site of record' functions from the 'social media' bits. And why regulators etc are giving it 'disproportionate' oversight. It's why I wonder whether the best action long-term may be to in fact set up a dedicated online service which exists simply for companies, organisations etc to make public, on-the-record announcements. Because there is an unbridgeable gulf between the 'socal' aspects of Twitter and it's 'public service' ones. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

### Website Vision

What I think I'd like from a website would be my own personal, custom newspaper. Basically, you choose which columnists you like, and as they create columns, their columns get added to your own feeds. But since people read the paper for other things, you'd select to follow news about only NY sports teams or only Basketball but not Hockey, or comic/webcomic, or what's going on in Movies/entertainment but focused on Sci-Fi and not Rom-Coms, any news about video games from certain genres or developers, etc. Is there any website that does this? Because I feel like Twitter has the tech to do exactly this, but it doesn't do it just yet.Corm (poke) 20:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you considered setting up an RSS reader? A lot of newspapers still maintain RSS feeds, usually categorized by interest. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
As Techpriest recommended. RSS has been offering this for decades. And the UX on some platforms has vastly improved. Flipboard has a near newpaper feel, Feedly, NewsBlur and InoReader are also highly recommended. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
And since you, "know enough about computers, programming and software" you could follow https://automatetheboringstuff.com/ and set up your own little newspaper Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Don't forget, while google reader may be gone, news.google.com still exists and gets a refresh every now and then. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Musk is walking proof of the Dilbert Principle. The only reason he is where he is now is cause of dear daddy's diamond mines. No actual merit involved. Vee (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

They were actually his father's Zambian emerald mines, but Musk is still an Apartheid beneficiary, which makes any claims he makes about not being racist, not being fascist, or about leaving SA to avoid conscription highly suspect. Bongolian (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know about Musk's racism or interest in fascism, and I don't like his general demeanor. But let's not be silly. He is the richest man in the world, according to some accounts. His father,Errol, is supposedly worth a cool two million. The one thing we know, for sure, he made his money by his own wits. Let's not forget that a very dangerous person can be far more intelligent than ourselves (me anyway). That's what makes them so dangerous.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
He wouldn't be where he is now without that inherited wealth. Musk bought his way to the top, as seen here. Vee (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The article provides no evidence that his family is particularly wealthy. They look like upper middle class. His mother was a successful model. His dad made a couple of million, who cares how. There are about 22 million millionaires in the US. Their children have advantages. Only Musk is the richest man in the world. He has a weird persona. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Like Musk or not, I do think his companies deserve some credit for his early work (the Roadster really was a revelation in the 2000s, and SpaceX IMHO did give the creaky space industry a bit of a kick in the pants). That Musk isn't a Horatio Alger isn't news, most entrepreneurs come from well-to-do families, no matter how much they like to insinuate otherwise. [13][14] However, not every trust fund baby becomes a successful Musk.
That being said, I think Musk is primarily an "ideas guy", ala Steve Jobs. Ideas guys usually don't have good in-depth technical knowledge, so IMHO these type of people work best when they are surrounded by other people who actually know their shit and can constrain some of the wilder ideas (as Jobs seemed to do, except for medicine). I personally am guessing that Musk actually believes his personality cult and believes that he's the smartest guy in the room these days, despite the evidence, and is not really listening to any feedback from anyone. Given that, it's no surprise that Musk's new business ventures from, say, the mid-2010s onward have been of marginal performance, and his focus has become rather questionable. At the very least, would you trust the valuation of TSLA stock when it seems like these days Musk cares more about giving a safe space for transphobic jokes on some money-losing has-been social media site rather than fixing QC issues on cars? BobJohnson (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Musk's actual net worth is not really calculated from his actual wealth. Rather it's calculated by his possessions, which in his case includes TSLA stocks (which account afaict for the majority of shis wealth). That isn't too strange to be clear, this is basically bog standard for most billionaires, but it does mean that his quickly accessible cash is likely much lower and that when TSLA is failing (which uh, it ain't doin' too great with all the lawsuits, Twitter takeover causing investors to worry about his attention to the company and all the product recalls they're being forced to issue), so too will his wealth valuation. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Complicating the matter is that Musk doesnt finance his lifestyle from dividends or salary, but by borrowing money against the stock. I dont know how much Musk owes, but at this point I'd imagine it's in the low billions. That's not a problem yet, but if tesla were to crash he'd be in some serious shit. That most billionaires ALSO finance their lifestyles by borrowing should terrify you; if the market goes too low, it could trigger a chain reaction where billionaires need to sell stock which causes other billionaires to need to sell more stock, and every billionaire is broke... until the taxpayers bail them out of course. CorSock (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The point being that Musk's family was of means. He didn't exactly start out from nothing. (And I do think acknowledging that his family's money is blood money is important when considering economic inequality as a result of Apartheid policies, which still affect South Africa). Vee (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

## Hive Social

Seems to be another contender to knock over Twitter (Some people are preferring this over Mastodon). Only for mobile ports, though. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Another corporate "social" site. It will be about as social as Uber is ride "sharing". All your data will belong to them, and you will get free ads for your trouble. Bongolian (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Most people are likely to prefer a corporate alternative which uses them as the product as long as it looks a little prettier, is trendy, and seems a little easier to get started with. It can probably compete very well with Mastodon for people leaving Twitter in the short term for that reason. But Hive Social is technically flimsier due to its centralized nature, and also used to have few users until the sudden boom, and may or may not turn out able to scale gracefully with the sudden great influx of users. If it manages, though, then unfortunately it will likely become the most popular of the two. But even if so, Mastodon will still have built a momentum and remain much larger than before as a result of the twitty turns of Twitter. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
They don't use unique @'s on their app. There are at least 20 different users using the username "@minecraft," "@naruto," or "@elonmusk." I'm deeply curious as to how they handle impersonation. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

## On Chinese Communist Party supporters, Russia supporters, "Anti-imperialists", self-described "Tankies"...

I have interacted with these people in the past, and from my experience, anybody who supports the ideology, actions, and policy of the "Communist" Party of China (that is, its state-capitalist police state and effective imperialism in poorer countries), the "special military operation" by the Russian Federation in Ukraine, and thinks that the unrest and otherwise economic problems in, for instance, Iran or Hong Kong are just "Western state-department propaganda" and "color revolutions", but still calls themselves a Marxist are nothing but total liars who know nothing about Marxism.

I understand most of you are not Marxists, nor even socialists, but I must still insist that these people, these "Anti-imperialists" (that is, people who support Russian and Chinese imperialism but think it's "Anti-imperialist" simply because it goes against the United States) are in no way representative of what Marxism, or for that matter even socialism, even are. "Anti-imperialist" and pro-Chinese Communist Party propaganda outlets such as the Greyzone, Friends of Socialist China, Multipolarista, etc. are not Marxists nor socialists, they are, at the most, social democrats, and otherwise just pro-capitalist Chinese nationalists and chauvinists who are perfectly willing to have Chinese and Russian billionaires brutally exploit less developed countries so long as it's not an American or European billionaire doing it.

China is a capitalist state, anybody who claims to a Marxist but says otherwise is almost certainly not a Marxist, or is greatly misinformed. Real Marxists wish to create a free, equal, and non-exploitative society, however, pro-CPP "Marxists" have no care for socialism, they have no care for the liberation of humanity, or for the removal of exploitation. Rather, they seek to destroy Marxism entirely in order to validate their fanatical devotion to the capitalist and nearly-fascist policies of the "People's" Republic of China.

If you seek to educate yourself on what Marxists believe, do not follow the words of "Dengists" (pro-CPP "Communists"), these people will do nothing but promote Chinese state-capitalism and chauvinism under the banner of "Marxist education". Wisconcom (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Weird, you just made a post I completely agree with. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 07:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
" Real Marxists wish to create a free, equal, and non-exploitative society" the one tenet that is repeatedly overlooked. I love Alexei Sayle's line, "Marxists want to create a peaceful utopia, full of love and will kill you to get it." Cardinal Chang (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I've got to say that I'm impressed that you guys understood what he was going on about - or who, on this wiki - he is arguing against.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Call it a quirk of the youth. We're a lot more political (in all aspects) than our parents were. Vee (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm guessing the "we" you refer to is some group you identify with in the US? If so, that's good. Improving the US's historically poor voting participation record can only be good for everyone.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
If you knew my alleged parents, that's not hard... also depends how old your parents are. But it cannot be denied; we are in an acutely political age. The 'twilight of the Boomer era' is upon us, and like those heavy credenzas, encyclopaedia sets and 'keepsakes' by the metric tonne they try to fob us off with, there's a huge amount of junk we wish to take to the dustbin of history. Naturally, we need to have a discussion about that. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Meh, I only agree with the first 2 paragraphs. China isn't Capitalist, but it also isn't not-Capitalist. As for Marxism, every large-scale Marxist experiment has failed horrifically, it's time to admit Marxism is not workable, even if some sort of Socialism-Lite would be superior to current systems. Corm (poke) 17:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Heavily disagree. A nation with billionaires, corporations, and wage labor is by definition capitalist. Vee (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
As I said, it is and it isn't. It's closer to Fascism than anything else, considering that Fascist countries also had those things. Corm (poke) 17:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I know you'd prolly disagree with this but I'm reminded of the old maxim that "fascism is capitalism in crisis" with this post of yours. Vee (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
(EC) I personally see China as a capitalistic country, with both the good and bad parts of it. Of course, it still has a huge public sector, but I don't think it is as preponderant as it used to be. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
"Capitalism" is also not a binary. In the sense that "more private ownership" = "more capitalistic", well, if you live in a society where the government can seize your property without due process or fair recompse you dont own said property in the first place. Likewise, the more control the government has in how you run your business, and the higher percentage of the profits they take, the less you actual own it. CorSock (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Hence the term "state capitalism." Vee (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
"State capitalism" is a vague concept, and again, also not a binary. It could have a useful meaning if it was pinned down, e.g., where the government is manufacturing Private Goods that you would otherwise buy in a market. Egypt would probably be the best example, considering that their "military" manufactures refrigerators and televisions. KSA's government effectively owns the oil fields, but to a lesser extent, Alaska does too. Most states have a lotto, which is gambling but by the state. PA in particular has state-owned liquor stores. Etc.Corm (poke) 20:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Considering that some definitions of "state capitalism" include Marxist-Leninist states, I concede the point. I still think China is capitalist (corporatist?). Vee (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vee Corporatist is a correct way to describe the Chinese economy. Most major economic sectors are under the control of maga-corporations, and workers are organized into these corporate groupings, with little workplace democracy, and not even any real unions or other representative bodies. Further, any attempt at the large-scale building of movements to represent the interests of the workers is often suppressed by the Chinese government, with the excuse of "needing to build the productive forces" or "working towards national revival of the Chinese nation".Wisconcom (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I think China is too large of a country to be described with simple labels. There are international mega-corps that have taken advantage of the unending masses of unskilled labor, so it is very much akin to the late 19th century industrialization of the West and is "capitalist" in that sense. China has gleefully catered to the corps because 1) it brings in a bit of money for the overlords to spend, 2) it keeps the lessers too busy to revolt while also providing them more wealth than the state could provide, 3) it gives China more leverage in international affairs, 4) it enables the country to support a growing skilled labor class to perform more complex tasks, and circling back to what I said earlier, 5) the international mega-corps can pretend to own those factories, but the moment that China goes to war with the US the only trade deficits those factories will be contributing to is the bullet-trade. Corm (poke) 21:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Is Cory violating the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle again? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
there's a y in the day. So of course he is. Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
New evidence on how inequality in China is skyrocketing. I'd say that the most compelling argument that China is a socialist nation is the fact that the government does a lot of stuff there, which is... not a very good argument at all IMHO. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Self-described Tankie and vague enjoyer of the CCP here. There was a time when I'd describe China as "not socialist", and using certain definitions I think that is still true, but I'm not sure how useful some of those definitions are. The Chinese government very much recognises the role of the bourgeois as a productive class - it's represented by one of the stars on its flag. The crucial thing, as others have noted, is that although corporations have been invited in to share technology, upskill workers etc, they have been directed and controlled in a way that many thought was de facto impossible. I have huge moral problems with the death penalty as a punitive sentence but the fact that the Chinese government can and will execute a billionaire who embezzles money and bribes officials tells you a lot about who runs the show.
Finally I must remark on OP urging people not to listen, read or consider the views of Dengists on Marxism. This comes across to me not as arrogant but more... insecure.
Get ready, it's... (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The bourgeoisie is not a "productive class"; there is no sound reason, particularly from somebody such as yourself who claims to be a Marxist, why the bourgeoisie should exist. Dengists use extremely vague wording rather than directing their views on facts, saying billionaires are "controlled" without any further context.

I must confess that I find discourse with Dengists to be unproductive and even at times obnoxious, therefore, I suggest you read this excellent article by an Anti-revisionist collective known as Red Spectre which refutes Dengist arguments. Thank you. Wisconcom (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The key problem being, naturally being the very definition of 'bourgeoisie'. Marx himself used two subdivisions – the 'functional' and 'rentier' – the former being the ones which actively ran their concerns and the latter being the 'idle rich' type. The first type fills a role any economically advanced nation needs doing – that of directing the allocations of output and input. Therefore, it could be argued that the 'bourgeoisie are necessary'. This is why later thinkers (Marxist or not) have come up with new definitions ('the New Class', the professional/managerial stratum' etc) to highlight the situation of persons performing classically 'bourgeoisie' tasks without actually owning the things they manage (an issue more important than ever, due to the fact that most capital is now controlled by institutions, not individuals).
Which leads to the 'Chinese capitalists are controlled' point. Here, I'll argue that the Chinese model is simply a logical progression of the Soviet model which showed that the question of ownership of 'the means of production' was relatively trivial compared to the question of the control of it. This system is an interesting development of capitalism. In fact, I'd call it 'neo-feudalism'.
One of the major planks of the 'bourgeois revolution' was to codify the holding of private property as sacrosanct. Basically; if you owned it, you could to what the hell you liked with it. Now, Western capitalism accepted there were situations where said 'rights' had to be violated, but even then they would write rules (eminent domain etc) regarding what, when and how it was done.
Not so in China. Private property is not sacrosanct; it can and is re-assigned in the name of the Red Emperor in a similar manner medieval European kings confiscated lands off rebellious nobles, stripped or granted titles at whim or ordered merchant guilds to perform tasks 'for the glory of King and Country'. Capitalists (foreign and domestic) may enjoy the fruits of ownership, but it's not absolute – it's more akin to having them merely having leaseholds on it. Terms of which may be changed or simply revoked by the Emperor if and when they see fit.
KarmaPolice (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

## What happened to Alt-Right?

I Have not have heared of these guys since 2017 what happened to them? Edward the eight (Talk) 24 November 2022 16:09 (UTC)

Didn't they all buy MAGA hats, join QAnon and get sick with Covid19? But, I'm not from the US, so what do I know?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I thought they just mingled with the crazier types of trump supporters so much as to make it no longer worth distinguishing them.-Flandres (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Now I think about I guess it's like the Tea Party movement - an example of endless right-wing American political squirming which the rest of the world looks at with surprise and distaste.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The alt-right was fairly amorphous, not a single group. The Unite the Right rally in 2017 identified the key people and groups making up the alt-right, but at that time the Proud Boys were still under the leadership of cosplay Nazi Gavin McInnes and he told PBs to stay away from the rally. Since that time, PBs have gone full alt-right under the leadership of Enrique Tarrio, joining the 2021 U.S. coup attempt. PBs are still quite active in anti-LGBTQ activities and are still promoting violence.[16] Bongolian (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
A lot what was labeled "alt-right" were edgelord trolls at heart that flared up around the Gamergate shitshow (I'm thinking about your Baked Alaska / Milo Yiannopoulos types), and these types seem to be ephemeral, as edgelord audiences tire of one talking head and move to the next one. Other alt-right labeled figures, like Steve Bannon, got involved in the Trump administration, and the Trump administration was enough of a shitshow of losing that even a few of the edgelord types noticed. As Flandres mentioned, I agree that MAGA and QAnon absorbed the rest.
That being said, the white nationalism that was the core behind the movement certainly still exists. In some ways, it's more visible than ever and no longer that "alt", due to prominent television hosts like Tucker Carlson and several prominent politicians (Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert) embracing elements of such. (The good news, however, a lot of people seem more pissed off at these types than ever, as demonstrated by Boebert barely winning her very conservative district in the 2022 election and the general "anti-Trump" effect seen in the last two.) BobJohnson (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe they just grew up? You know, most of them were just a bunch of angry teens. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Not all of them, but for the true white nationalist types, I do think the violent events linked to "alt-right" labeled figureheads and locations (the in retrospect ironically named Unite the Right rally, the terrorism linked to 8chan, and the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot) has helped diminish (but not extinguished) some of the more militant side of the movement. BobJohnson (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Like many of these things, I think there's a myriad of answers and for consideration for the collection I'll offer the opinion is that some of them have simply dropped off the radar of the Big Public and others were booted off it. The early-mid teens was the true 'Wild West' era of social media, and the 'alties' loved that (along with the shills, scamsters and Russian trolls). However, the double whammy in '16 of Trump's election and Brexit made 'Them' wake up to the shitshow social media was becoming and started to attempt to clean it up - and the obvious shitheads were naturally, the 'low hanging fruit' in that job. I was looking at a (partial) list of 'Banned Subreddits' recently, and I did notice that most of the altie ones perished between '17 and '19.
Thus, a lot of them ended up decamping into Parler, Gab and later on private WhatsApps, Telegram and Discords. In their bell-jar, locked in the constant circlejerk and out of the general view of the average person. Unless you're gonna ban these folks from the internet in general, this is perhaps the best realistic solution we have right now; that while you can find them if you really so desire, you're generally not going to encounter them in the main zones of the ol' superweb. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Reddit did a substantial purge of the nastier hard-right subs in 2019 (and some earlier). "Anudda Shoah" as the alt-right calls it. Reddit is substantially better now on racial things, though there are still some major pockets of anti-trans sentiment particularly. Probably the nastiest remaining sub, which survived afaik because it plays a little coyer than most and because it's large and popular (thus profitable for engagement) is Political Compass Memes. Really nasty sub, and appeals to really young readers, so that sub is substantially responsible for so many Redditors knowing what "13/50" means off the top of their heads, and many other "redpill" talking points like that. It has a massive following of angry tweens, so anyone criticizing PCM on Reddit tends to get an outpouring of nasty DMs, false reports to get your account flagged by the Admins, things like that. Those kiddies are extremely emotional about protecting their little rats' nest. But overall the site is substantially better than it used to be before leadership cleaned house. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
They're still around. They're still in need of a punch to the face. They just occupy other web spaces that you don't haunt. Although Milo now sells religious icons, I shit you not. Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of the alt-right will be back on Twitter. Elon Musk says Twitter will provide 'amnesty' to some suspended accounts starting next week. Werter20 (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The question is whether anyone other than the hardcore fanpersons will care. There's an extremely crowded landscape of has-been political pundits and organizations, all vying for relevancy, certainly still with some followers, but past their prime peak. On the "right", consider 2000s giants like Glenn Beck or websites like WND, Drudge Report and Free Republic. None of these has disappeared but it's clear that all of them are not prime time anymore.
These days, there are newer faces in the crowd. Probably the space occupied by folks like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, which is not as explicitly identity-political and more nebulous, is the most popular area on the "right-ish" side these days. For the explicitly conservative populist conservative pundits, Tucker is inexplicably popular at the moment, as is Ben Shapiro (who was associated with the alt-right rag Breitbart but is fiercely against the alt-right these days for some reason). Where will the Gamergate edgelords fit in? That was nearly a decade ago. No one cares anymore, it's 2022, and the hip new game in town is the Ron DeSantis drinking game (drink every time he says "woke" in a speech). Sure, Steve Bannon has a podcast too, but I think even a has-been like Beck's podcast is more popular. That's "entertainment" for you. Some pundits gets their "fifteen minutes of fame", and usually that's it.
I don't think Twitter content moderation policy matters much as conservatives like to hype unless you are one of those types that is as stupidly obstinate as Peterson. I actually don't think either Carlson or Shapiro have ever been suspended from Twitter. BobJohnson (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

They didn't go anywhere they just re-branded. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

'A pickpocket does not go to the races with 'Pickpocket' pinned to his lapel' - George Orwell
'Alt-right' as a term only had value while the majority of the Big Public were either unaware or confused regarding it's true definition. Thus, between '17 and '19 people grew wise to the truth and thus, the disguise became debased in value to the point it became a negative as 'alties' were increasingly shoved outside the political Overton Window. It's a classic example of the 'euphemism treadmill'.
I also offer the fact that 'the movement' never got a true Fuhrer in either the USA or UK. The nearest it got was Trump, and he was neither that charismatic or that organised/driven to actually take the alties and forge them into 'his' movement. This was needed, because while there was enough 'elements' to make a large-scale fascist-y movement in both nations, it needed a central figure of ability to take the various little groups, bridge the ideological issues between them (example; views on 'the Jews') and forge them into a large movement.
Thus, without the central figure... the bits floated about together for a little bit, then dissipated when the heat of the moment was lost. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Trump also came up short as fuhrer for that crowd because many alt-righters were disillusioned by his ties to Judaism and Israel, much of which was just his pandering to the Evangelicals. So I've seen them complain about his Jewish converted daughter and her husband, moving the embassy to Jerusalem, continuing US financial support for Israel, etc. So that left a bad taste in their mouths. Many of them also found his racial discrimination policies to be insufficient, and outweighed by his nominal/notional outreach to the Black and Hispanic communities. You'd still see some even pretty hardcore white nationalists argue "he's still a step in the right direction" or "lesser of evils," but he didn't totally captivate them while in office, and it's my vague impression that his fading star has faded particularly fast with white nationalists since he left office. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I also suspect the various stripes of fascist were/are disheartened by the Orange One's simple incompetence, laziness and cowardice. They wanted a 'man of vision' like Mussolini or 'a destiny-maker' like Hitler. Instead, they got a septuagenarian Goring without the Fat One's intelligence or wit. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

## Christmas season is upon us....

(video removed)-- Andrew5 (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The War on Christmas is also upon us. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
How DARE you say “Christmas” in this woke SJW safe space??! Guards, take this cis male conservative scum to the work camps!!! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Dennis Prager will be b*tching about this like every year. Man, how long has this "war" been going on?? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Some glorious Youtube poops have been made out of it though. Vee (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Aren't embeds frowned upon? Vee (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I ain't frownin' Servasym (Talk / Contribs) 20:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Excessive video embeds (more that 4 at a time) in the Saloon are frowned upon because they have slowed server response time. Excessive embeds are to be removed on sight. Bongolian (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Thankfully this is the only embed in the Saloon at this time. :) Andrew5 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Do any of you Yanks actually watch the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on TV and enjoy it? I watched it live on YouTube one year and was very disappointed to find out it was just a 3-hour long commercial. I looked online for criticism of it but couldn't find much. I found one essay that criticized it for just being an extended commercial break. It also said the reason it's still a beloved holiday tradition and there isn't more criticism of it is because most Americans don't really watch it. They have it on in the background while they're cooking, playing with their cousins etc. and don't pay much attention to it. Spud (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah really by its whole nature and concept it's promotional so it's not really a big deal lmfao Servasym (Talk / Contribs) 06:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it comes under the category of being 'a tradition because lazy journalists simply read out the PR guff that says it is and it's survived long enough for people not to really question it'. I mean, here in the UK the accursed 'John Lewis Advert' has been termed a Christmas tradition even though it only been going since 2007. Anyway, I have a pet theory about shite like the Thanksgiving Parade, if anyone's interested.
I suspect parades, like awards ceremonies and 'live from' special occasion yawn-fests are relatively cheap ways to fill some TV hours as well as perhaps ticking some 'public service' commitment to boot. The programmers know the folks watching TV at that time, on that channel are either the ones who a) really like parades, b) have zero things better to do or c) are stuck in a location their viewing is not by choice. It's similar to the '3PM Weekday Made-for-TV film with one actor you may have seen in something good once' situation - they assume if you've got anything better to do/be, you would be. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
"Angels we have heard on high / Tell us to go out and – buy!"
Most parades I think fall in a spectrum somewhere between "town stuff" (bring out the local high school football bands and have the town mayor wave to the crowd, with excuses for the parade ranging from holidays to sports stuff); "military shit" and other wave-the-flag army-troop-parading stuff; and "it's party time!" (carnival / Fat Tuesday parades and others of that sort). Sometimes political too, whether it be marches to cults of personalities or (more preferably IMHO) the bawdy satirical floats found in New Orleans and Düsseldorf.
Macy's is more or less a special type of American usually local town type parade, the Christmas parade, which always ends with the Santa Claus, is often sponsored by a department store of some sort, and I think usually is aimed at the kiddies (so the parents can spend more money on gifts at the department store, of course). Of course, somehow Macy's became a national television spectacle, so it has little charm or local flare. That being said, from what I remember of the parade, because there is a lot of time to fill, there does tend to sometimes be an interesting amount of niche groups and niche stars, which leads to fun look-ups on Wikipedia to see just what exactly this person is that is on national TV. (Just to show how long its been since I've sat through one, though, and kind of giving a hint of the aim, the last time I saw a Macy's parade, a lot of the singers I hadn't heard of ended being artists on the now-shuttered Radio Disney.) BobJohnson (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
There's also the 'religious shit' and 'historical shit' options too; thinking of say, the St Alban pilgrimage and the Lewes Bonfire. And while I'm not some antisocial grouch, I do think three hours for a parade is just too long. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I really think that Christmas is what any individual projects onto it. I guess that for a shrinking minority it has something vaguely to do with religion. But for most secular people it's just a great excuse to have fun in the middle of winter. But, hey, whatever works for anyone.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion it's more important than that. For many folks, the Christmas - New Year period is perhaps the only part of the year where people's 'time off' coincides. And when I say 'time off', I also include 'normal' stuff like large chores, home study and so on. The length of period also gives enough justification/time for making long journeys, and the 'importance' of the season provides the backdrop/motivation for people to make contact with distant friends/family which we'd not really done so during the rest of the year. Lastly, the 'importance' of the period is accepted as normal by culturally Christian nations.
But I do agree it's what you make it; doesn't even have to be on the 'correct' day - my part of the family has an 'official Christmas' the week before because usually we're working etc over the period itself. Though admittedly, the 'can't I'm working' has become my default (genuine) excuse of getting out of the invites I really don't desire to take up. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry the video got taken down. Andrew5 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

## Voting

So, umm, are we opening up the elections? It's the 26th where I am, elections were supposed to open the 24th... Corm (poke) 14:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I already casted my vote. I ranked all 11 choices. Andrew5 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The election booth seems to be broken. See RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Election booth#Seems to be a problem with the voting booth. We may have to postpone the election. LongStylus (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I voted... Corm (poke) 04:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
But Bongolian hasn't. Stop being so self-centered and think about other people! LongStylus (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I self-ineligibled to vote due to a hopefully now-fixed voting booth error. Bongolian (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can't vote yet. O the struggle of being a (relatively) new user! Vee (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Me and my dead relatives all voted 17 times! I hope Giuliani doesn’t catch me! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Voted, and can happily say I voted for the green Italian, again. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Cosmikdebris, as vote reader, offered to re-enfranchise my vote. Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I reluctantly put CorruptUser as 7th I believe, maybe 8th, because of the concerns noted during the campaigning. I put Bongolian at the top, and Rockford went 2nd, and now I kinda regret I didn't flip flop 'em. Andrew5 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
It's not as if there's any difference between 1st and 6th place, so it doesn't really matter unless it comes to being eliminated early.
Side note, anyone know if there's a safeguard against socks voting? My sock can vote, I think, but shouldn't be allowed to. Corm (poke) 20:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Ballot readers can see a list of voters, and for the last couple of years have published this list along with the results (although they have not revealed which voter cast which vote). Sock votes can be removed. Christopher (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Due to the complexity of STV, the difference between listing someone first and second can matter to who gets elected. I'd prefer a system like approval voting or score voting that doesn't have these issues, but that's just me. Plutocow (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
That's what makes STV so beautiful. Andrew5 (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)