RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive427

This is an archive page, last updated 19 December 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Latest pointless poll

This new poll kind of ignores the fact that global politics is nuanced and not a zero-sum game. Look at Iraq. The removal of Saddam from power led to a domino effect that destabilized the region and led to the rise of DAESH and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. The world does not need a policeman, it needs an EMT. Vee (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that whoever created the Pres Election poll didn't include the 1960 election between Kennedy and Nixon. Illinois did NOT go to Kennedy, though ultimately it wouldn't have mattered as Kennedy would still have squeaked by thanks to Texas being rigged as well... CorruptUser 19:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

If we are actually consistent about this idea we would support the invasion of places like Canada, Israel, France, the US, Australia, etc. I would argue that immigration detainment camps, residential schools, cultural genocide of native populations, ethnic displacement, etc. All constitute examples of crimes against humanity. But lets be honest here who ever wrote that question carried the implicature of when brown people do it given recent defenses of the invasion of Iraq in some of the threads above. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree flat out with the idea that the US has an obligation to intervene militarily to stop human rights abuses. We should do sanctions, but we don't owe anyone military intervention. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The situation in Afghanistan is getting worse with all manner of human rights abuses. Clearly the west needs to re-invade - seeing as that worked out so well last time.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel like there's a world of difference between an immigrant detention camp and a detention camp for your own citizens. CorruptUser 15:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The implication here being that some people are "lesser" because of their status on a slip of paper. I disagree, caging people up in camps because they're from "over there" is just as despicable as caging people up in camps because they're some other kind of arbitrary "lesser". Dehumanization and all that entails still applies equally in both cases. Vee (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The idea of a country being invaded for detaining illegal immigrants is absurd, even under the worst conditions the US has to offer. War is a horrible thing and people need to stop talking about starting them like it’s some kind of game. Besides, the US has a right to police it’s own border. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure if the people voting in favour of military interventions is ironic or by trolls. I find it difficult to beleve that we have so many users in favour of killing people they disagree with.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

People have short memories. They’ll retroactively oppose past intervention, be agnostic about the idea in abstract, and support intervention as it happens. It seems we couldn’t even manage the agnosticism.

I wonder how people’s opinions on Ukraine will change in the coming years. Christopher (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not it's the moral decision, every country has the right to deny people entry. CorruptUser 20:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I object to the idea that a country has an obligation to sacrifice the lives of its citizens to invade another country to stop human rights violations. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's not just allied soldiers. In point of fact, far more of the civilians who "we" are attempting to protect are likely to end up dead than either western soldiers or whoever the enemy might be. Check out the figures for Afghanistan. It's madness.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The international community has an obligation to intervene in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity under international law. Whether we agree with it is neither here nor there. The question was not asking our opinion. Iraq is a bad example, since it was not carried out by the international community and was not a direct response to crimes against humanity. Libya is a better example.2001:4530:2:201:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFC2 (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@2001:4530:2:201:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFC2So China currenty has one million Uighurs in detention and reeducation camps. You say the international community "has an obligation to intervene". I'm not sure who you mean by the "International community". Do you really mean the whole world? Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Afghanistan, The Solomon Islands and everyone else? Or do you just mean western democracies? And what do you mean by "obligation"? There is certainly no law which says that France (or whoever) needs to act in such a case. Or do you mean "moral obligation". But that would mean a moral obligation to kill masses of Chinese civilians in whatever attack was carried out. Which would hardly make sense. You really need to think through your position.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah we should’ve stayed out of Libya too. We didn’t owe them a damn thing. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Libya is still a mess, afaik. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUserBeing a citizen of a nation state isn’t a morally relevant distinction. Many indigenous people of the americas who were slaughtered weren’t members of the nation states the settlers who slaughtered them were subject to. Not all the Jewish people sent to concentration camps were German citizens. Chattel slaves weren’t classified as full citizens of the United States, but instead as property. I don’t think people would say that would have made slavery less unethical compared to prison labour today because prison labour is done to legally recognized citizens. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. My point is that countries have the right to deny entry to would-be migrants. There's a world of difference between "we should invade X to stop a genocide" and "we should invade X to force them to accept more immigrants". CorruptUser 00:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Right-to-deny and forcibly house in detainment camps so that six year old's are separated from their parents, sleeping in cages, and forced to change the diapers of their infant sibling is not exactly the same thing. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but a country abusing migrants wouldn't justify starting a war, which is what your original comment implied. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Technically speaking nothing actually concretely justifies starting a war as an objective standard, but also no. I stated "immigration detainment camps" not "abusing migrants". If a border patrol officer spits on a migrant that constitutes abuse and is not at all included in my list of inhumane acts. You can't just take a narrow member of a set and assume it implies the entire set. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It should also be stated that by definition camps used to hold prisoners or for detainment without judicial review are by definition concentration camps according to the Holocaust Encyclopedia. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

If the migrants are awaiting processing via immigration services or judicial hearings, then by that logic they are not concentration camps. Unless, obviously, the "judicial review" is scheduled for next century. CorruptUser 06:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, even if I bought the concentration camp false equivalence that still wouldn't justify military intervention. This has gone right past discussing the poll into just being hysterical. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 07:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That still doesn't change the human rights violations being committed in those camps. Which, if we're being consistent, are so gross that while no one here is advocating for war, if we were to apply "humanitarian intervention" logic seriously, would be grounds for intervention. The "right to police our border" is a red herring when it comes to crimes against humanity. Vee (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious. If a country wants a no-immigration policy, what tactics do you think should be allowed? CorSock (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to imply, but many of those seeking to immigrate here are asylum seekers. Asylum seeking is legal under both US and international law. What we were doing at the border counts as a violation of international and domestic law. It also counts as a violation of both the political and human rights of the asylum seekers. Vee (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sorry, I'm not a lawyer. Which international law requires a country to accept all asylum seekers? CorSock (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Asylum is an international right, as demonstrated here. It is also a domestic right, as demonstrated here. The US is violating international and domestic law wrt the migrant situation. And as I've said before (which you keep ignoring), the US is engaging in crimes against humanity at the border. The fact that you've been equivocating on this is still disturbing. How can you justify locking kids in cages, separating them from their parents, and forcing six year olds to change the diapers of their infant siblings? I also didn't say that "countries are legally required to accept all asylum seekers." That's a dishonest strawman of what I actually said. Vee (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel like an anchoring bias has taken hold with all this attention to immigration centers. Ignoring the periods of time when the US and/or Canada have been partaking in genocide in some form or another. In Canada's case as recently as 1996. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, whether or not detention centers are crimes against humanity, they don't nearly rise to the level of genocide, nor are worth going to war to stop. CorruptUser 17:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Camps replete with systemic sexual assault, tearing families apart, using weapons banned in war on toddlers at "the border", the removal of kids from border patrol custody due to "severe neglect and inhumane conditions... Yeah, "they don't nearly rise to the level of genocide..." Our government is still acting like Saddam's. Let's not forget that asylum seeking is perfectly legal, meaning the government is violating the law at the border. If this isn't a valid casus belli for war, then whatever Saddam did in Iraq wasn't either. Vee (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Whatever Saddam did"... He murdered 5,000 Kurds with a gas attack and later killed 12,000 more. Please don't minimize atrocities. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to read Chomsky to know that the US has induced death-tolls within the thousands themselves in the Middle East by bombing pharmaceutical factories and the like. This just goes back around...if we were being consistent about our responses to atrocities, either the US has been morally permissible as a target for intervention or wars like those in Iraq weren't justifiable. Of the people here who do support foreign intervention I don't see the grounds for distinction. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"We should colonize anything we wish"

So I take it the people who voted for that option would have no problem with an alien invasion then, right? If one wants to have a logically coherent world view, they need to not resort to special pleading and hypocrisy. If we can invade and colonize alien worlds, then why can't aliens invade and colonize our world? Vee (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I voted for not colonizing the planets with intelligent life. However, I don't inherently have a problem with colonizing a planet that already has an intelligent species, if we truly were going to Uplift their species or only settling the parts that they aren't using. But that won't happen and we know it. At best it'd turn out like Africa/Australia where we only gave lip service to helping the locals through enslaving them, dislocating them on a whim, refusing to provide any education of value, actively sabotaging anything that might lead to self-sufficiency including murdering their skilled craftsmen, all while teaching them how inferior they obviously were. CorruptUser 22:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it'd be incredibly tough to know what an alien species would consider being 'uplifted'. Even if the colonizers went in with only the best intentions, the aliens may resent the resulting changes. Vomitorium (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Uplifting another planet's species would go against the prime directive. LarryKhoo (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I saw this topic title and immediately thought "Because colonialism worked so well here on Earth… 🙄" Luigifan18 (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Uplifting would have to be things like "here's a bunch of physics, biology and philosophy textbooks. As for the latter, it's critical to understand that it's possible to be both 'right' and 'wrong' at the same time, so please don't form cults around Hume and Proust and kill each other over it, they are just lenses to view the world with. Also, the biology textbooks can help you find the cure for diseases, but please don't focus on ways to kill each other. The same with the physics textbooks. In fact you know what, sorry, we're taking all these books back."

But seriously, while genetically altering a sentient species is morally wrong, technological uplift isn't itself bad. The only reason I don't think we should, e.g., make contact with the Sentinelese or other uncontacted tribes has nothing to do with their rights as sentient/human beings, but rather, contact would likely kill them off from disease. CorruptUser 02:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Meh, depends on what we find up there, who we are on the other end. If we can dance on the head of a pin with the angels then it probably won’t make much sense to refer to our living side by side with the locals as “colonization” in the terrestrial sense, and yet we’d be there, shadows and Djinn.

Anyone else playing Terra Invicta? I’ve been taking it slow: last night I was treated to the sight of my four nuclear-armed dreadnoughts massacring a Resistance Mosquito fleet who’d essentially fled Earth for Mars, it was just a shit ton of two-digit craft that’d transferred in the launch window to a high orbit station. Although they did snuff it, the station was preserved and retrofitted minus whoever the marines tossed out the airlock. Humanity First, mothafuckas! Artificius (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No but it's on my wishlist. Playing SimSettlements 2... CorruptUser 04:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're malding at an irrelevant poll result about a theoretical topic we may never have answered (fermi paradox)? But to address what you said, your response that those who wish to conquer planets should "logically" be okay with being conquered is as "logical" as the idea of "in order to be truly tolerant, you must also be tolerant of intolerance". Wanting to conquer sentient/sapient aliens while not being conquered yourself is a completely logical viewpoint, it just may not be a moral one.-Ryan1257 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Good points. (I didn't vote because there were too many "yes, but what about ..." questions that could be asked.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

On the point of uplifting, I don't think genetically modifying an intelligent species is inherently morally wrong. It depends how precise your genetic modification is. If a species has hit a genetic dead end because their population got screwed over by an asteroid and has been forced to resort to excessive inbreeding, fixing genetic defects is better than their extinction IMHO. Being a bunch of non-interfering sky-jerks and refusing to help the suffering cause "lol prime directive" is, to quote Dr. Pulaski: "I have a problem with that kind of rigidity. It seems callous, and even a little cowardly." MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think colonizing a planet with intelligent life could be justified if there exists an existential threat to humans. If the Earth were to become uninhabitable, and the only reasonable solution is to settle on a planet that happens to have intelligent life, then we are probably morally justified to colonize that planet. We would be more like refugees than colonists. LongStylus (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Assuming we are in a state that we can travel across interstellar distances, it'd be a lot cheaper and a lot more practical to just build up a bunch of habitats than colonize planets. Vee (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You can build stations, but you would never come close to matching the ideal conditions and advantages an earth-like planet could bring. Gravity is one of those things.Ryan1257 (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You apparently forget about centripetal force. You can tailor the gravity using fairly low tech means, and tailor the environment to fit your needs. Why space habitats are more practical than planets Vee (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't, it's just that that's not a cheap or low-tech solution. You'd need a very large station in order to not have its occupants feel nauseous when they turn their head, something that's already expensive even if you don't take into account that everything inside will have to be designed to accommodate both it spinning and not spinning for emergency reasons. And gravity is just one problem of many space stations would face.Ryan1257 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Fuck them aliens. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The universe is awash with resources, so building big stations isn't as much of a problem as it initially seems. Colonizing the Moon, for instance, is probably going to be done with the intent of mining it to build all those stations. There's also asteroid mining. Vee (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

i like how you just hand wave away all this technology that hasnt been even been conceived of yet to over come any possible problems. sure we can avoid transplanting all the errors of our past with technology, read magic. i think its pretty safe to assume that in the far future that has us mastering intersteller travel, terraforming, the advanced genetic manipulation of alien organisms to 'uplift' them, that any problems and dilemmas we might hypothetically have, the limits of our tech and access to resources probably not a primary concern. what is more likely are issues of how we handle contact with an alien culture as technologically as advanced as or our own or more so, or how treat alien life that is less advanced than us so exploitable by us, advanced enough that our exploitation of them has ethical questions.no one will care if we exploit a planet whose highest form of life are akin to mosquitoes. its a moot to ask should we or shouldnt we. if humanity has survived to exist at this imagined future, there is no question at all that we will drop by and say hi, and to varying degrees our relationship with the less advanced ones will be in some manner exploitative. this is a certainty. no question at all.

and what would be the purpose of any kind of 'uplifting' at any rate? would we have already 'uplifted' chimps on here on earth? what would be the purpose of that? if we were in the position to do this to an alien race it would be so they make better slaves, so we can get rich and/or resources selling them our fancy space tech, or they are to be our proxy in some intergalactic cold war. it wont be for shits and giggles or so we have someone to talk to in space. we will exploit them as naked imperialists or exploit them as 'enlightened' missionaries. uplifting any alien race would be an act of barbaric cruelty, we would only be making them just smart enough to fully appreciate the misery we will bring and to understand just how much they have lost when we take it from them.

the question would never be 'should we? - we will. its how far do we go when we do ? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually object to the whole proposition of planetary colonization. It's often expressed as a "we fucked up the Earth, let's go somewhere else" sort of idea, really quite nihilistic. Stabilize this planet first (climate/biodiversity/wealth disparity/education/democracy), then think about other planets. Bongolian (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

They are all empty except for microbes beneath thousands of feet of Ice. If we lucky. Humanity will be extinct by the time it takes to travel anywhere where life that is advanced enough for us to have any meaningful ethical dilemmas. What is the morality of colonising barren rocks? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If nothing else we can off load elon musk to mars. Martian twitter can have absolute freedom of speech for the dozen or so individuals who go with him. In space no one can hear your hashtag.AMassiveGay (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If making stupid comments online made you a terrible person (other than trying to call a diver a pedophile), all of us here would be destined for hell. But that's not the case, that's why the MAGAs refer to Trump as Mr Mean Tweets, because they know that's what so many people saw the press focusing on and what was ultimately meaningless in compared to e.g., appointing Betsy Davos to power or abandoning the Kurds or more tax breaks for the uber-wealthy. If we want to go after Musk, it should be for things like his Tesla factories paying workers less than Toyota or Ford. CorruptUser 14:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

i went for musk because musk has talked of going to Mars and colonising/terraforming it, so if hes going there any way... and this thread is bout colonising planets. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say colonizing a planet with intelligent life is inherently bad and immoral. We have actual sci-fi horror stories of aliens colonizing US. This is LITERALLY the plot of Half-Life. How is it more acceptable if we do it? Are humans just inherently better? We don't give aliens the same amount of hypothetical right to self determination we would give other human beings? You do realize the perception of someone being subhuman is what allowed humans to colonize each other for so long? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t consider it nihilistic to acknowledge that civilization has a lot of inherent buffer overflow errors, and a lot of terrestrial problems will be solved when the powers that be exist outside the Earth, order can be imposed from the outside if it turns out Hobbes was right. Earth’s ultimate value will always be as a green and blue jewel of biodiversity, this parlays well with an eventual status as a game reserve and Amish/neo-Luddite commune (the latter providing a degree of legitimacy for the former, of course). Unfair to many, but I can see the broad strokes to get us there, and then we’re a multi-planet species so… At that point, the overwhelming majority of humans to ever exist won't have the privilege of setting foot on Earth, good for us. Artificius (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Wagner Group

I am trying to create a draft of Putin's personal SS-unit, the Wagner Group in my sandbox as we seeing more and more of Wagner in the news. Please comment on your thoughts. Euromec (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be interesting to talk about the irony of an openly fascist private military claiming they're fighting fascism. Plus, I think a lot could be said about their activities in Syria and Libya.Ryan1257 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a good start, Euromec. It would be good to at least mention the Internet Research Agency, which Prigozhin also owns. Ryan1257, historian Timothy Snyder coined the term schizofascism for fascists who call non-fascists 'fascist'. Bongolian (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainians have come up with the word Rashism [Russian fascism] to talk about the current government philosophy, and how they use the word Nazi and fascism as snarl words in their media, despite openly using Nazi and fascistic philosophy and symbolism in the wider context. So it is not just unique to Wagner. Euromec (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Does Russian Fascism have a strong amount of ethnic supremacy attached? CorruptUser 13:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Russian nationalists are often attracted to the USSR because of this reason. To Russian nationalists, Ukraine, Belarus, Chechnya, etc are all rightful Russian land to them. It's blood and soil shit. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

From as far as I can tell, yes; it's not much more than a re-tread of 19th Century 'pan-Slavism', of which sees all 'Slavs' to be either a) offshoots of the great Russian Volk or b) (little) brothers/sisters of previous who should fall in behind the Third Rome sharpish. The designated 'Others' are 'Germans' (often including the Baltic nationalities and Scandis), Jews, 'Blacks' (ie people from the Caucasus) and 'Tatars' (ie anyone Turkic or Mongol in ethnic origin). The anti-Chinese fears are more modern, but 'understandable' in that Siberia is a) almost empty of Russians and b) China's major natural resource supplier.

Anyway, this ideology is proving somewhat problematic in Russia right now (and not just the Sinophobia), because while it is 'motivating' to the section of the population who are susceptible to it, it's also deeply problematic to the 'Blacks' and 'Tatars' Putin is disproportionately forming into the levies he's throwing into the Ukranian meat-grinder (there have been reports of 'ethnic' tension between them and their Russian officers to the point there's been fragging incidents). KarmaPolice (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, Euromec. The ISU website may prove to be an excellent source for your draft, though chances are you may have to do some leg-work finding the bits in the various daily reports they've done. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

i read somewhere his draft has been so complete in some of the republics it can be considered ethnic cleansing AMassiveGay (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

russia is a diverse multi-ethnic multi-national state, but with russian law more and more favouring russians over other ethnicities. neo nazis and racism has been a presence in russia for quite a while. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, people forget that 'Russia' is in fact, only 81% Russian. And due to differing birth rates, demographics and immigration, that ratio is falling. It's part of the reason the Russians have been kidnapping Ukranian kids and taking them back to Russia. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Here are two maps of Wagner Group's worldwide presence: world (2019)[1] and Africa (2021).[2] Wagner Group also provides a Russian foothold for arms exports and non-military businesses. Bongolian (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"Atheists are anti-natalist"

I just saw a comment on r/antitheistcheesecake claiming that atheists tend to be anti-natalist. I have a very strong hunch that this is grossly incorrect, but I can't think of any actual arguments or evidence to refute it (preferably just setting the facts straight without dumping on religion too hard). Can anyone help me out here? Luigifan18 (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that atheists tend to be antinatalist? What argument takes you from atheism to antinatalism? If you intend to respond to them, you should either be able to provide evidence that they’re incorrect (but antinatalism isn’t that common, so it might be hard to find compelling evidence either way), or you should just ask them why they believe that and see how they elaborate their position. Assuming, as I suspect is true, that the total number of antinatalists is significantly lower than the total number of atheists (numbers that ‘’might’’ be available), then their claim seems obviously false, but on elaboration they might just mean something like “atheists are more likely to be antinatalists than theists”, which would be harder to find quantitative evidence on either way. Regardless, arguing about hunches isn’t going to lead to anything interesting in an online discussion. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 17:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It's Reddit. I wouldn't bother responding. Vee (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, though it's a sufficently interesting question in it's own right. I would hazard that the correlation is 'correct', but so is your hunch that it's incorrect. That it's not that 'athiesm' is anti-natalist (lets use this term in the wide definition, as in restrictive births not none at all) but that (at least) Abrahamic religions are 'pro-natalist'.

Consider it. They call consider life to be 'a gift from the Almighty', have their holy texts littered with pro-natalist propaganda. They oppose family planning in general and in the more extreme variants basically call for women to spend their reproductive years as baby-factories for 'the cause' a la Quiverfull/ISIS. Resources for the sprog? Don't worry; THE LORD shall provide! And if they die, they'll be in a better place. Even when it's not cultish, simply being religious makes a woman much more likely to have more kids and starting earlier (differing cultural norms).

Therefore, an agnostic/athiest person shall be away from those influences. And without the 'god tells you to' answer to reasons for spawning, this means the parent(s) have to answer the more gritty moral/economic/situational questions of having kids, how many and when. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Why, of course atheists are anti-natalists. Just look at atheistic China and their one-child policy! /s LongStylus (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As a nation grows wealthier, there's a tendency for it to be less religious (Wealth and religion). As a nation grows wealthier, there also tends to be a drop in fertility. (Income and fertility). However, it's a messy correlation which does not always apply. Thus, a highly atheist country like China (fertility rate: 1.7) has roughly the same rate as a highly religious country like Brazil (fertility rate: also 1.7).

Obviously, of course, this has nothing to do with "antinatalism" the philosophy; I'm guessing though that this is sort of where they got the idea to jump through that hoop. I also wouldn't bother with a Reddit group dedicated to nutpicking atheists, that is basically throwing emotive quips like "They'll go after your kids" and painting dumb stereotypes in the comment section. In the USA, medical reasons and financial reasons seem to top the list of why people don't want kids in the US, and there's a distinct set too worried about the future to have kids, y'know with climate change and whatnot. (The reasons certainly will change depending on which country you look at, but I bet some of those things are concerns elsewhere too.) So there's real problems to focus on if they actually cared about birth rates. Instead, we have a bunch of folks bitching on Reddit about those gosh darn godless nuts. "Never wrestle with a pig", as the phrase goes. BobJohnson (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

However, general fertility rates can hide variations. Like in Israel the fertility rate is 2.9 but this propped up by the 6.6 from the culty-fundy Haredis. (I'm personally scared these lot will ultimately destroy Israel). KarmaPolice (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

(Just noticed my link isn't to a proper RW page on them. I'll do something about them at some point, but perhaps someone better (ie has personal experience of them?) should at least start it?)

Abrahamic god has no trouble killing the unborn - it supposedly wiped out all of earth's population including every single one of them except for 1 small Family, and there are several cases of indiscriminate mass murder by "pillar of fire" or sword in the book of fairy tales. Just go back to them and point out their bulldust. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The only thing you can say about atheists is that they don't believe Gods exist. I wrote an essay on this a while ago. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

There are no atheistic arguments regarding non-theistic topics. Countering the (mock) example of 'look at China's one-child policy', look at communist Romania's pro-natalist total abortion ban during the Ceaușescu era. Bongolian (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The abortion ban was only the tip of the iceberg of all the insane shit Ceaușescu's regime did to try and bolster birth rates. Seriously, look it up. Shit was crazy. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Human Biology/Sexuality question (not trying to sound stupid as I don't know why)

Why is for cisgender straight male, plenty find trans women who have not had the surgical removal of the male genitalia sexy in the fetishist sense? I get that everyone has a small amount of bisexuality but I am not sure if that is the driving factor.

I don't know if it is like that with straight cisgender women and trans men who have not had the surgery to create male genitalia.

Just trying to understand it. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

My working theory is; the vast majority of them are in fact, not 'straight men' but poly/pan/bi men. It's just until very recently folks have even started to understand the above things are even 'things'. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

suggesting they are bi/poly/pan can run with it certain implication that the presence of a penis makes someone in part a man — which has deeply transphobic implications. It’s a cultural association that doesn’t universally exist in other cultures. It’s also the basis for a lot of “tran-panic” defences and the whole “tr*p” slur/meme. You have to remember that sexuality isn’t exactly cut and dry, and in reference to essentialist categorizations. You are dealing with a dimension of human and animal life that is more in reference to a series of natural continuums that humans from various cultures draw different cultural lines within — rather than a set of neatly defined and categorically distinct elements. Human sexuality is not akin to chemical elements. So you have to be a bit careful applying a cultural label to others that invalidates their sense of self, or even the sense of people they sexually engage with. People don’t come into the world metaphysically endowed to be put into culturally constructed boxes. Kind of the whole lesson of queer theory and trans inclusivity as a whole. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What a crock. Firstly, we're talking about simple lust, not love. I'll argue that loins cannot be transphobic because prejudice requires a brain. We are not talking about dating, because that involves at least a partial conscious choice some of which I suspect is governed by 'culture' (interesting article on this, though the study had clear limitations, such as not asking the respondents reasoning or sub-dividing the hypothetical trans date on the state of their genitals). The OP was clear enough on this point. What's more, your position is actually quite dangerous (and I don't think you've thought this one out). To quote; 'It’s a cultural association that doesn’t universally exist in other cultures' .

Now, 'culture' is not static, but develops organically and can be actively changed. If you are saying people can be taught to find male genitalia as sexually attractive on a woman when before they did not, this means you are saying conversion therapy can work. Yet, if the decades of fundie peddling of such 'therapy' has proven anything for science, it's that it doesn't (or more correctly, it 'works' by the use of classical conditioning and/or simple conscious denial of urges). Sure, your proposed target is different, but hell the principle is the same.

What's more, the concept of 'culture' being the driver for sexuality is clear crap, because you have LGBT folks appearing in societies where their exposure to such a 'culture' is minimal or non-existent (and this is even making the assumption such a 'culture' exists in the first place, which is a huge if in itself). This can be extended to more general sexual fetishes/preferences; we still have no real idea about the workings of that part of people's deeper psyche (and perhaps never will) and thus, don't really know how to 'change' it apart from classical conditioning and/or libido-wrecking drugs.

Trotting out the transphobia bits isn't helpful at all in this case, because if nothing else it's a chilling effect on the entire discussion (which might be why Rational is asking this very question here; the hope they'd actually get some theories). It's why the study of sex and sexuality is so slow; a fear of treading on people's toes ('applying a cultural label to others that invalidates their sense of self'), of being labeled as bigoted as well as the more neutral issues of strong response biases and so on. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

My hypothesis is what I would call "Characteristic Preference". Some men will argue whether "butt or boobs" are better, which implies everyone has a different ranking of sexual characteristics which ranges from indifference to obsession. This needn't be limited to the characteristics typical for a particular gender. If you like the cliché feminine form, but also like dicks, there you go. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

My problem with arguments like KarmaPolice's is that you can't reduce something as complex as human sexuality to attraction to genitals. Seriously, when you see someone attractive, is your first thought that they have a hot penis/vagina? Plutocow (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't - I outright say that I was only talking about physical lust, that sexual preferences in general (including gender preferences) are basically unknown in origin and my point was only relating to the OP's question - which in fact gave quite narrow parameters. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you think it is common for males who are attracted to females to act in the way you seem to suggest. If you see an attractive person and your first thought is something like "I'd like to have sex with them (to be polite)," then you might be more sexually aggressive than you would like to admit. Typologies amount to folk science. Gender theories are spun as postmodernist narratives and are far from scientific. We all seem to have a "type." Don't ask me what that is exactly, but we all know that there are faces we'd like to kiss and faces we'd like to punch; and faces we just would like to get away from. We are all predators, after all. But this kind of discussion is really for the benefit of third parties. I don't need an explanation as to why I find someone to be attractive. I suppose it's the kind of thing you might explore while in therapy.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this directed at anyone in particular, Ariel? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Gender theories are far from scientific". That's a strawman of gender studies. Gender studies doesn't claim to be scientific. Either way, you're ignoring the role culture plays in gender and sexual attraction. To claim culture plays no role at all is anthropologically dubious. Vee (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A clarification is not a strawman. Some people suppose gender theories have some sort of platonic reality. They don't, in my opinion. The way you order your life is not scientific, so it is not an aspersion of any kind to say so. I haven't ignored culture, I simply haven't offered an explanation as to how it affects our behaviors. But I think that the things we regard as culture: the art, the music, the religion, the language, etc., has little to do with who we find attractive. I may eat fish on Friday because I am Catholic, but I still don't like fish all that much. And, to KP, I was was addressing RZ with some reflection upon what others have written.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Literally no post-modernist theory was used in my argument. I based my understanding in what is understood in anthropology, combining it with what I know from queer theory, developmental psychology, neuroscience, and history. I have done my homework on this and I can post the essay I wrote reflecting my views. Not one source I have ever actually consulted could be called “post-modernist”. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice this entire response is just bizarre. It Doesn’t really seem to understand what sexual orientation or attraction even is. It’s not just a simple fact of loins being aroused by other loins. That kind of idea fits into a lot of problematic ideas as well. Studies of blood flow to genitals have been used to argue a “disproof” of bisexuality. There plenty of gay people who have had children before coming out — and not just lesbians. I know gay men who are exclusively attracted to men who have only had sex with men - both trans and cis. Are you going to tell them that they are not actually gay because some of these men had vulva? Like this is straight TERF territory you are venturing into right now. The lust/love distinction isn’t even relevant here. The point about culture is that it’s kind of accepted by cultural anthropologists that sexual orientation is socially constructed, and this is reflected by the historical narrative as well. Same-sex attraction and same-sex activity have always been a thing, and there is considerable evidence of prenatal factors having a huge role in people’s preferences later in life, and even evidence to suggest similar factors lead to gender dysphoria later in life. But that being said for most of history no one thought of these experiences constituting a unique identity, it was just something you did or experience. In some cultures it was openly a norm to regularly engage in same-sex sex. Many cultures had different ways of acknowledging or allowing people to live by a different gender then what they were culturally assigned at birth, with different cultures having different ideas about one’s sexuality if they had sex with these individuals who have changed genders. If you insist upon or impose the cultural norm “it is all gay” not only are you invalidating gender identities you are engaging in a deep ethnocentric bias. The whole idea of “other cultures have sexuality wrong” has been the pre-text for the catholic church to justify colonialism. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is a general source on Queer Anthropology: https://www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/queer-anthropology - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I never argued that sexual orientation was learned and that isn’t logically implied by what I wrote the whole allegation of supporting conversion therapy is a blatant strawman fallacy. You clearly are not verse enough on the nuances of this subject if you work from dichotomy of “essentialism or conversion therapy”. Like according to that logic most trans-feminists, queer feminists, and queer scholars in history and anthropology are arguing conversion therapy works. That’s not what any of this means. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Your response to sexuality being driven by culture is misunderstanding me and confusing the map for the territory. I am telling you the map is socially constructed, and our names and labels are products of the map. The territory itself is very real, but the territory exists as a spectrum while our labels treat most things as binary, or classifiable into discrete separate boxes. I am telling you are working from an outdated map, not that the territory itself is of our cultural choosing. There is an underdetermination to the territory as presented that allows us to map it in multiple different ways. The way you choose to do so is actually invalidating to many queer people’s sense of self and more reflective of patriarchal tendencies then a scientific understanding of the subject. Remember that anthropology is the scientific study of human populations, culture, and evolution. As a bisexual with a degree in a social science I am informed enough to tell you, you are not well versed on this topic. You don’t know what my philosophy of sexuality is, so don’t to shove me into your false dichotomy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)

(EC) To piggyback OSD's point about how culture affects sexual orientation and same sex activity (and societal views of it), among the ancient Norse, those who were the "top" in same sex activities were considered masculine, and simply expressing power on the now socially ostracized, and "feminine," bottom. It's a bit more complex than that, but rape of men by men was considered acceptable and suitably masculine if you were the rapist, and not the rape victim. Ozzyboo also pointed out how in the Turkish Armed Forces the penetrator isn't considered a sodomite and so is therefore not socially ostracized, but the penetratee is.

Another example is Ancient Greece, where most of the male population engaged in homosexual activities, but obviously didn't consider themselves "gay" or "straight." Same sex activities were just a part of the average sexual life of the Greek population. Were the men in Ancient Athens bisexual solely because of their genes, or because of their culture? Vee (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

An appropriate answer being neither, which is where the nuances come in. There is considerable evidence that factors related to hormonal exposure in utero, variations in sex determination due to certain genetic pathways working atypically, certain enzymes not being produced, variations in brain development, etc. All impact sexuality and gender identity in measurable ways, while all the evidence in psychology suggests efforts to “change” a person’s sexuality or gender identity is due for failure there is no doubt a a-lot more variable outcomes biologically for sexuality then the handful of boxes we supply to people in the west. Many people may be more fluid and/or flexible in their sexuality then they realize. Considerable evidence does seem to suggest this, while many others experience sexual attraction overwhelmingly to only certain kinds of people. Regardless though I think I would have a tough time explaining how evolution would select for individuals to have a fetish for cartoon characters without consulting culture. We also know too that many people experience changes in their sexuality through HRT, and that people’s willingness to engage in same-sex sex tends to vary depending on how isolated they are from people of a different sex (this is observed during war, in prisons, etc.). The possibility of someone only experiencing attraction to women but is also sexually aroused by a woman having a penis, or being pegged by a woman with a dildo while experiencing no sexual attraction to men is totally in the realm of possibility here. Unless you transphobically assume that intersex women and trans women with a penis are all actually men. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Try to express yourself without resorting to references to transphobia. Your arguments are not strengthened by using it and it clearly suppresses the discussion. Incidentally, that women can have functioning male genitals is a very postmodern idea. That's fine. There have always been alternative movements in the humanities.UncleKrampus (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You don’t know what “post-modernism” even is if you sincerely believe that. I am just stating facts here, and that exact argument you provide in response is a very blatant type of TERF argument. There is no need to open the discussion for bigotry. This is trans-feminism 101. If you don’t understand the basics of queer identity and theory and you are cis-het then you need to do more listening and less talking. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

i am curious as to where these cis fellas are declaring their straight identity and love of trans women. i only know of such declarations on dating/hook up sites. primarily grindr, but i assume they must exist on the straight sites like tinder. im curious because such declarations made on such sites, grindr at least, are not particularly heart felt expressions of identity. no doubt their ratio gay to straight thoughts lean to the no homo side of things but there isnt exactly official criteria that must be met before one can apply that descriptor to oneself. on a predominantly gay hook up site, i imagine declaring straightness maybe less necessary on tinder, it lets the gays know they are not for them, while indicating to trans women, many of whom specifically indicate they are looking for straight men, that you tick that particular box. maybe even talk up your straightness, clarify you are not into men, looking for transwomen only. maybe transmen too. and maybe femboys, if they cute. no homo.

you cannot simply dismiss someones identity based our own assumptions and our own criteria about what that identity means. one probably should not overgeneralise about motivations of the members of such broad and diverse groups in seeking goals that have a myriad of reasons to want to seek. if one must, perhaps asking someone identifying a particular way about their identity if there is something that doesnt match what you'd had assumed. plenty of straight cis men into trans on grindr. not all of them are pricks (im ok with straight folk on a gay hook up site, but honestly, profiles telling the gays to 'get over ourselves im str8 ok' as if the historically oppressed group needed a member of the historically oppressing group telling them chill, i am what i am. just do one) AMassiveGay (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Although often as crappy as the standard kind, transgender pornography has been a reasonably popular subcategory of porn for a long time, even before "transgender" was very common parlance, and straight cis men are as far as I know the main consumers of such. I assume this was what was meant by "in the fetishist" sense. It is therefore not surprising to me that there is something like a MSTW (straight men sexually interested in transwomen) scene in hookup apps. There's a couple of Wikipedia articles on the subject and scattered information here and there, but I really don't get the impression that the studies and information on the whys for this attraction is very deep right now. The reverse scenario is worse data wise, there is zero information I can find on it at all, even though I assume "women sexually interested in transmen" is something that does exist.

My current assumption is the same as Karmapolice: that sexuality is more fluid then society (even now) supposes. Though, for all I know, there also might be some of the problems inherent in the much better studied "racial fetishism". Which of course isn't always problematic, but sometimes the sexual fetish involves problematic "racial stereotypes" and "race based social constructs". It's not something I can say one way or the other, given the lack of information. BobJohnson (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Having read your myriad of replies, my own previous responses and the comments from other persons in the discussion I'm going to provisionally conclude that 'the problem' is on your end, Dumb - not mine.

Firstly, why on earth are you repeately going on about gay men? That was not the topic of discussion regarding the OP's scenario/question and perhaps more importantly, something I never brought up either. I'm not sure whether to be insulted or amused that you tell me that I don't 'really seem to understand what sexual orientation or attraction even is' and then repeatedly make such an elemental mistake on the very topic.

You complain that 'lust/love distinction isn’t even relevant here' yet the original question was literally regarding a sexual fetish and nor do you offer a convincing argument in regards to non-relevancy. Your points regarding HRT, non cis-males and situational sexuality are all also irrelevant in this case because that's not what we were discussing. And when you're given a chance to say why I'm wrong, you tell me to go and do my own reasearch and then complain I'm mistaking the map for the territory - a delightful generic cop-out to claim that means you're right anyway without actually stating why (as well as ignoring the fact it was you who dragged us into this territory in the first place).

But then we finally get to the genuine crux of the matter; 'The way you choose to do so is actually invalidating to many queer people’s sense of self'. What the hell does that even have anything to do with the OP's question? What would be an 'acceptable' reply for this - 'Oh yeah straight guys like dicks all the time too?'. To accept your corkscrew logic regarding 'culture makes sexual preferences unless religious bigots argue that and then it's wrong' simply because it would be socio-politically convenient to do so?

Face it; you don't like what I have to say because it doesn't fit the narrative you'd prefer to have and thus I must be wrong. Yet you squirt out a huge amount of overly-dense academic jargonese in the hopes of disguising the fact you don't actually have answers to why I am - it's all either deflections, changing the subject, allegations of transphobia or appeals to authority.

Gay has raised a point which I'd not considered, though; that for the OP's scenario some of the transwomen could feel 'validated' if the guy nailing them was '100% straight'. To make the suggestion that perhaps they were pan/poly/bi instead could raise questions / throughts regarding their conformity to the whole binary-gender thing which they'd prefer to not have. Just a thought.

Oh, since when has Grindr been basically 'anyone who's not binary-cis-hetro'? News to me.

And I agree with BobJ too; sexual fetishisation and preferences does need much better study. At the moment, we are like most physical scientists in the 16th Century; while we can explain the observable effects of stuff, we have no idea on the causes of them. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Another example is Ancient Greece, where most of the male population engaged in homosexual activities, but obviously didn't consider themselves 'gay' or 'straight.' Same sex activities were just a part of the average sexual life of the Greek population. Were the men in Ancient Athens bisexual solely because of their genes, or because of their culture?" Are we just going to ignore the concrete examples I gave of how culture plays a relevant part in sexual orientation and same sex activities? Vee (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ignore it for this conversation thread, yes. Nothing against either you, the example or the question but I was trying to keep it OT (ie the OP's question/scenario). KarmaPolice (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Vee (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Acting as if the allegation that if straight men have a fetish for trans women they must be at least be bisexual somehow doesn’t imply the attraction or sex they engage with is gay is kind of playing a weird game. I don’t call the sex I have with my boyfriend “bisexual sex” I call it gay sex. What makes me bisexual is my attraction to more than one gender, I have engaged in sex that can described as straight and I have had sex that can be described as gay. That isn’t what makes me bisexual though as it’s the attraction I experience not necessarily my behaviour. So either you are implying that sex with trans women for straight men implies an attraction to someone that is in essence male, or they are in essence some other third gender - making the males attracted to them bisexual by not simply being attracted to just women. No matter how you cut it — it implies trans women who haven’t had bottom surgery are not “really” women or meaningfully female. There is no interpretation of that isn’t basic transphobia. Based on your response I don’t think you understand what I am saying, and it’s okay to admit that. It seems you are picking up on random terminology but not understanding the actual premises of my argument and the conclusion being argued. I am telling you that are trying to put in people in boxes to which they wouldn’t say they belong to based on outdated essentialist views regarding gender and sexuality. You keep accusing me of stating “culture drives sexuality” but I stated a myriad of biological factors that shape sexuality and how therapeutic attempts to change one’s sexuality are doomed to failure. You seem to come at this conversation with oversimplified nature-nurture dichotomy assuming that I am arguing a purely nurture view and that sexuality is a product of. I am not. I am saying it’s intractably both nurture and nature the product of which is a spectrum that doesn’t suit your essentialist assumptions well. Basically the boxes you insist other people belong to when they themselves may very well contradict you. No one is in essence a given sexual orientation that you can identify better then they can; that is for themselves to decide based on what they feel best describes the sexual attraction they experience. The same can be said for gender no one is in essence male or female — these categories at best are a continuum between family resemblances to which ethically psychological identity should place precedent. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you may be on the wrong track, as far as postmodernism is concerned. Postmodern philosophy is characterized by broad skepticism or relativism and a general suspicion of reason. Gender theory often sets aside traditional scientific categories such as male and female thus creating postmnodern narratives.Male and female are often thought t be relatively unimportant to gender identity problems. Ignoring scientific categories for ethical considerations is very postmodern.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me for being crass UK but you have no idea what you're talking about and should ideally stop talking like you do. Humans are not set into binary categories of male and female from a scientific standpoint. What you call postmodernism is just the scientific understanding of human biology and how it relates to gender evolving over time. Sex is bimodal, as is gender, as is gender attraction. Nothing here is postmodern or inconsistent. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

See, thanks for making an important point. Postmodern thought will tend to defend itself in the way you have done. But I am not mistaken in saying what you claim about humans is not claimed about any other species. Very non-scientific. Very postmoderrn. I have called gender theory postmodern, not identified it with postmodernism. Fish are seldom aware of being in water. It is only a philosophical POV. You are entitled to believe whatever factitious narrative you like. That's what humans do. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I take it you are not aware of the anthropological third gender? (You also make the mistake of conflating sex with gender. Sex is biological, gender is psychosocial.) What you're calling "post-modern" is what Kuhn would call a "paradigmatic shift." No other species studies itself like we do. We call this field of study the "social sciences," and what we're discussing is a paradigmatic shift in both biology and the social sciences. Here's a Medium article that explains the current consensus. Nothing about this is unscientific. The current consensus is that sex and gender are both bimodal. Vee (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Anthroplogy is quite involved in postmodern ideas, as are many in social sciences. Some of it is quite unscientific by traditional standards because they may deal with anthropological philosophy and not the traditions and methods of modern science, which is not involved with engineering solutions to social problems, as they tend to be contingent upon theories rather than extended study.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Er, biologists tend to disagree with you on this one these days, Krampus. Or: I can't wait to hear about how chromosomes and genes are "postmodern", too.BobJohnson (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That's what the article I linked says. Also, to address Krampus' strawman: nothing we've talked about here is remotely postmodern. Our "argument" simply reflects the latest research. The concept of the third gender exists to describe the phenomenon that some cultures lack the concept of the gender binary, which is a social construct based on Western traditions. Given that gender is psychosocial, it makes sense that not every culture's ideas of what constitutes "gender" would match up with Western conceptions of it. Vee (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

EC and yet the argument here is very much concerned with male and female identities,and perceptions there of. specifically straight cis men and their perceptions of some those identifying as women. the whole question of trans people is framed mostly today in an aggressively binary fashion. all talk of a range of identities, of non binaries and infinite varieties cease and it becomes transwomen are unambiguously women, no question about it and transwomen are categorically men not women, 100% not debatable. self identification is the 'only' factor to take in to account vs you can identity how you like but you cant just say you something or not. its an ugly debate whose toxicity prevents any compromise or resolution helping no one but those who thrive on division. this above debate started with a common misconception and/or assumption that is easily corrected, but as would be befitting of the best twitter spat we got strident accusations and sanctimony met with aggrieved overdefensiveness and now im not sure just what anyone is responding to or even if they are arguing over the same things. tis a mess of talking at and over each other and im pretty sure the point is being missed by all, but its you are with us or against us now. no clue about postmodernism - im an uneducated prole.

im blame myself really. i was going to respond with a personal anecdote from experiences that challenged the exact assumptions about male sexuality and masculinity posed in the original question. its a question most gay men have pondered at some point and could have something to say about. but i gots some tales with added trans that have furthered my conception of this question that would have been applicable here. alas i was on a massive comedown and i left it and instead of an uplifting and enlightening tale of real human beings and relationships we have acrimony and dehumanising academia. i'll have to share my obviously enlightening and completely correct insights for another time. se la vie AMassiveGay (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Generally, I tend not to give a shit about social media on many subjects, sexuality especially. Science is not foolproof, but on subjects like this, when the Twitters are shrill and there is tons of bullshit being fed into the discussion, I look to the "big science mag" sources like Science and Nature and see what their thoughts are. The scientific process seems to be able to handle the humanity of mistakes, paradigms, and groupthink in a much better manner than pure mob think. Definitely there's been some major misses for science historically, but between this and a Twitter circle jerk, I'll take the scientific method.

The thing is, even for physical sex characteristics, it is rare for something to be completely binary in the biological sense. Take something like facial hair. The naive statement would be, "a man can grow a beard, a woman cannot". Which has some truth. But, the condition known as hirsutism is not all that uncommon in women (along with a few other rarer syndromes that cause female facial hair), and although it is relatively rare for the condition to get to the point where one can be a "bearded lady", it can happen. We are well beyond the point in society where throwing the "bearded ladies" out there in the freakshows is really socially acceptable, as it was in the past. But women with facial hair of any kind do face social pressure even now to pluck, wax, and manage the hair and try to "maintain the binary paradigm", as it were.

Even on more stark sex characteristics, there is some fuzz. Even if, say, as this article in Nature postures, only 1 in 100 people have some form of "disorders of sex development", that's still 1 in 100. What do you do with them? Binary classification will cover a lot... but not all. The edge cases may matter in some cases; the Olympics, where certain male sex characteristics do help athletic performance, has struggled with various forms of intersex issues in women's sports since, oh, the 1930s (see Mark Weston and Zdeněk Koubek). Historically, the trend was for medicine to use corrective surgery etc. to turn the edge case into a binary, but I think there's been some movement away from that approach of late.

When it comes to the science behind sexual attraction, well, it is very difficult to study the brain. The only thing is, it seems like the transgender brain is indeed different, whether it is closer to their cis identified type or simply unique altogether seems to depend on the study. Scientists are concerned primarily with things like gender affirmative care at this point, helping people with gender dysphoria etc. manage life better, and what is currently developed is probably the best we can do for now. And even that gets a bunch of screeching hysterics on social media about supposed child genital mutilation (which, in countries like the USA which socially, by and large, has no problem with other forms of baby genital mutilation, is a rather rich take, but that's a topic for another day). I don't even know where this postmodern thing fits into this discussion (or even gender studies), all I know is you can't deny gender dysphoria is a thing. This, of course, produces challenges in a world molded to fit a binary paradigm. On social media, these challenges are generally answered by circle jerks with lots of yelling, to the point of sending bomb threats to children's hospitals. Sigh.

It's no surprise therefore that niche things like various fetishes and attractions are little studied at all, between the complexity of brains and the screaming of the crowds we can't even study the fundamentals. Therefore, there is no good answer to the OP question right now. We can only speculate.BobJohnson (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

news from brazil

there is a rather bizarre, clog-worthy conspiracy theory circulating among the brazilian far-right that lula died and has been replaced by a double. it might seem like another internet death hoax, but a surprising number of people actually seriously believe this (including many brazilians i know), and it is quickly becoming mainstream. needless to say, it's been debunked. of course, that's what they want you to believe. well the press is obviously in on the conspiracy. d'uh! wake up, sheeple!!11!1!

but seriously, this is just in case you guys thought things couldn't get any weirder. i'd add an entry to wigo:clogs, but all the sources are in portuguese; so far, i haven't found any english-language reports on this. The G (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Heard something similar a few years ago with nutters believing that Putin and his wife & daughter were replaced by clones. We can hardly clone a sheep, but for some reason, we can perfectly clone humans... ¬¬

And apparently this is all happening at Area 51, because of course it does! Why wouldn't it be happening over there...?

My guess is that this is what happens after you start smoking the bong 3 times in a row after you had a bad trip. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

i've also heard people say saddam hussein died much earlier than official reports say he did. i don't understand why people fall for death hoaxes so easily. it's almost as ludicrous as the "crisis actors" conspiracy theories. they must be smoking some good stuff or something. The G (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The history of the 'public figure impersonation' conspiracy theory is a long and noble one; I've noted examples of this in the late mediaeval period. And the reasoning is basically the same; if we can say 'They' (be it a king, prince or elected politician) are 'not really' who they say they are it means they are illegitimate (and thus filters into the whole 'lawful rebellion' legal BS thing). It also would require well, a conspiracy because the 'inner circle' around the figure (the ones who'd know them best) would have to go along with the deception (and thus, need to be 'removed' too). KarmaPolice (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

probably easier to pull in the medieval period, it not having any kind of mass media where everyone with eyes can compare before and after images and the vast majority of the population had never set eye on their ruler let alone up close.

the man in the iron mask was one such example speculated upon by voltaire and formed the basis of the novel by dumas, while a more modern version had someone famously claiming to be anastasia, youngest daughter of tsar nicholas 2, somehow having survived execution and escaping russia with amnesia, dna finally putting that one to bed. and of course, paul is dead.

saddam hussein did have doubles and in the chaos of iraq during the invasion, shit can happen. him dying before he was offiicially executed is within the realms of possibility and not so crazy an idea. perhaps he was killed while resisting capture, or a us squaddie just plain murdered him when he was surrendering - the optics of that would have looked pretty bad - but some sort of trial was necessary to help with legitimising the invasion to the public so a double was put on trial and hung. not exactly likely, and the person executed as saddam didnt deny he was saddam at any point before his death and he did have quite a bit to say before the drop. pluasible, in the sense it doesnt require reptillians or ridiculous science fiction fantasy to be true, but not likely. its also possible that rumours of an early demise might have arisen if one of his doubles had been killed before saddam was captured and his death being reported before it was realised it wasnt him, but thats probably giving much credit to conspiracy theorists. still more plausible than to have the doppelganger still running around in place as head of state acting as the original with the risk of being exposed at any time with the gaze of the media on them 24/7AMassiveGay (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

On Drafts

A quick question - if you use RW's search feature, does it also search the Drafts category for pages? And if you're about to create a 'XXX page', will there be any warning/check whether a Draft variant exists? Lastly, what's the etiquette on creating alternative drafts for pages which already exist?

Wait, that's three questions... KarmaPolice (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The default search behavior is restricted to mainspace articles, but you can include the draft namespace in searches if you use the "advanced search" feature. The software does not check for a draft variant. And, there's no restriction on creating a draft version of a page you want to rewrite — this has been done before. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

if you have a specific draft in mind and you want to search for that, you type "draft:[query]" in the search box. a sample list should automatically appear after the colon. oh, and it's not case sensitive. The G (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Helena Bonham Carter.

Let's check in with one-time RW fave Helena Bonham Carter. Aw, shit. RagingHippie (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we really need to shit stir? ShabiDOO 22:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Ms. Bonham-Carter is of historical significance to RW culture and history. RagingHippie (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I usually assume any prominent celebrity supported Depp unless I see something which directly contradict that. How to put this politely...Hollywood can be quite insular.-Flandres (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of relatively small (numbers-wise) industries are, to some extent. If it has 'gatekeepers' within it, next thing you'll see is incestuous crusts collecting around them quicker than limescale on a heating element. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, RH, we have largely ignored the Amber Herd vs Johnny Depp thing, here. The people who are surprised haven't taken money into account. I'm surprised it has taken this long given the billions at stake in the deliberations. Businesses have always settled disagreements in legal courts. Money talks, twitter walks.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

HBC (the actress, not the oddball RW troll) was romantically involved with Tim Burton for a pretty long time, and Burton had a bit of a habit of casting Depp in a large number of his films. I think the "insular" definition fits best for that remark, it's not surprising. The JK Rowling defense OTOH is a bit weird, considering that Rowling is less "I made a few transphobic tweets" and is more full on anti-trans activist these days, and most of Harry Potter movie cast (let alone fan groups and societies etc.) as far as I know has distanced from her as a result. BobJohnson (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The small picture is just that, the relationships people have had with one another. The big picture is the relationships they have with their world. Tim Burton is a producer who knows and can deal with the biggest movers. Rowling is in the billionaires club. That club doesn't obey the same rules as agents of media. The cast of the HP movies will certainly be replaced. More movies will be made. Can they be successful? Don't know. Can trans-activism suppress valuable intellectual property. Doubtful.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

i know rw doesn't really care much for celebrity drama, but the johnny depp case intersects with our mission to a certain extent. a celebrity drama escalated into full-blown online misogyny perhaps not seen since gamergate with all the social media influencers (most of which probably have little to no background in law) spreading misinformation/disinformation and playing the part of the internet lawyer. there was a good bit of darvo, victim blaming, and other things that skewed the trial in johnny's favor. this isn't to say that his ex-wife amber heard is totally innocent, though. from my understanding, she did also have some issues of her own. my point is this legal dispute had the unintended consequence of empowering misogynists and apologists of domestic abusers alike. The G (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The funny thing about HBC's "cancel culture" whine is that one of the more recent news items on the Heard-Depp shitshow is Depp trolls report-flooding and temporarily suspending an Instagram account connected to an open letter, where over 200 people called for the end of harassment of Heard and others who report sexual and domestic abuse. Not that the doublespeak behind that "cancel culture" term hasn't been obvious for a while, it's just bemusing to see the hypocrisy in action. 72.184.99.135 (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thing is Johnny Depp is a wife beater.he lost his libel action in the UK. 86.18.19.64 (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

People seem to forget that the trial in the US was not about whether or not Depp was in fact abusive, it was about the specific claims of abuse that came out of that particular article he was suing for. No one seems to actually give a shit if Johnny Depp is a wife beater or not... nah people are much more interested in having a woman they feel is socially acceptable to harass and abuse themselves. This case seems like a good litmus test on people's attitudes towards women more broadly, and their general understanding of how abusive dynamics actually play out in the real world. The stance of popular opinion does not look pretty here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

again, you can thank social media for that. The G (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Heard falsified evidence, abused her previous partner before Depp, and the UK case was a sham without a jury and without allowing Depp to provide proper evidence. People being misogynist is unacceptable, but the jury made the right call in the latest case 100%. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The trial was a libel case. It is pretty clear to me that both Depp and Heard were both abusive pieces of shit to each other, and both at some point have been caught as lying assholes (not untypical for a seriously acrimonious divorce). The details of who abused who when should not have mattered for this particular case; the only thing that should have mattered was if at some point Depp abused Heard, therefore Heard did not defame Depp when claiming such in an article. I would think that you have to basically believe that Depp was always telling the truth and that Heard was always lying to accept otherwise (and I would question anyone who believes this, the shitshow altogether, from the initial divorce statement, previous claims, UK trial, etc. kind of showed that both parties were extremely questionable narrators IMHO, and the general conclusion I get is that both Heard and Depp were abusive fucks to each other). However, the Depp legal team indeed pulled a DARVO strategy in order to obfuscate what the actual trial was about. It worked, and the trolls that turned this into a cause célèbre Hollywood-style gossip shitshow were a huge part of the help. Judges tend to be much more nonplussed by obvious obfuscation strategies like that, so it didn't work in the UK despite the UK being much more friendly to plaintiffs on libel cases. The question I would have is why Heard's legal team failed to ring in the legal shitshow in the US, but I didn't pay too much attention to the case, so maybe there was some circumstances they couldn't control. All I know is both sides are appealing their defamation penalties, so the shitshow ain't over. BobJohnson (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This is post modernism in action. There is a libel case in court. The social commentary organizes itself along polarized positions. The media itself divides into manichean camps supporting one or the other of the two contestants, and the coverage takes the form of a competition of sorts with the prize being a kind of moral exoneration and the experience of schadenfreude by proxy. Reason gives way to emotional satisfaction or outrage. The effect of the trial on the wider social movement, it is claimed, should effect the outcome of the trial. Educated people decide that the way the outcome "feels" to them should outmatch the convictions of a unanimous jury on one hand, while others claim a British magistrate had already decided the matter. An American jury decided the matter. That's enough for me until further notice from the appeals. Don't like the system because you don't like the outcome? Maybe you are not so unlike the Trumpists after all.UncleKrampus (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what the fuck you are on about postmodernism, or what the fuck Trump has anything to do with it, you need to stop trying to pretend to be a highbrow with words you don't understand when delivering your shitty ad hominem attacks, you aren't fooling anyone. Western legal systems are a "worst form of legal systems, except for all the others" type of thing... why would one celebrity trial shitshow change that?

The thing is, we have an appeals process for a reason, sometimes court cases go all fubar. And this strikes me as one that did. Defamation has a pretty high standard to clear in the US, even for individuals. The statements must not only be false, and they must be made with actual malice. It's not just Heard, incidentally, Depp also got a defamation fine (albeit a much smaller one) and that struck me as odd as well. But we'll see whether the appeals courts disagree or agree. BobJohnson (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Characterizing social situations as postmodern reactions is pretty basic. Your attitude is well-described in my previous comment. Your direct ad hominem only shows the weakness in your argument. You don't want to study the transcripts, but would rather adopt some intermediate interpretation consistent with some branch of popular opinion. Pathetic. The standards of our reason have developed our legal system and our system of elections. Questioning the outcome because it is inconsistent with an ethical POV is quite postmodern. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It's funny you keep using the "postmodern" term in light of your "postmodern" rejection of biology when it came to arguing about sex.

One could say more, but there is no need for further discussion, methinks, when the intent appears to be deepity trolling. BobJohnson (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

depp and heart are both public figures and rely on good publicity and popular more than anything to keep their careers alive. for depp, he needed the the case to go ahead and and needed it to go ahead in full of the voyeuristic public. hes a wealthy man and does not need the money of any settlement, but a jury verdict in his favour, though preferable, was not what he needed/wanted the trial and from what i understand was a longshot. and he could still be a pariah in hollywood if he had won on some technicality but still looked like an abusive thug in the eyes of the public. what wanted was to grandstand and destroy heards credibility, paint her as a scheming and vindictive shrew fabricating the abuse she claimed she suffered while the real abuse was from her directed depp as the abused and true victim, playing up to that element of the public believing all claims of rape and abuse are falsified by women not knowing their 'proper' place. the whole thing was livestreamed from the start, a media circus from the start and depp got to appeal directly to the only court that he was concerned with, the court of public opinion. it turned out it worked on the jury too and got a favourable verdict, who from what i have read of what the jurors have said about it all, were swayed by the antics and decided a verdict for the popularity contest not the libel case they were officially heard. they simply believed depp more than heard.

again, i have no clue about postmodernism nor really care, but thats essentially what happened and seems more or less what krampus was saying about the trial. i dont know if depp has been vindicated in the eyes of the public, they are as polarised as ever it seems, but he was a hugely popular star and probably still has a pretty significant following - he will sill likely have career. heard im not so sure about. she hasnt had the years in the biz that depp has had to establish his status, does not have the body of work encompassing both absolutely fucking huge hollywood franchises and the kind of flicks that made him an arthouse darling. his name was a box office draw. and probably still is, the spectacle of the trial probably doing enough for him to be 'forgiven' by a fickle public. heard's name was never a big draw and now is probably box office poison. depp won and heard lost when the he said she said nature of the case should have left it more ambiguous. losing along with heard though is anyone in an abusive relationship, or escaped from one. victims of such abuse seeking redress will see that to seek justice in the courts is to submit themselves to the pillory in front of a baying mob. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This is interesting

https://apnews.com/article/health-california-covid-san-francisco-immunizations-a2654cad5153d7ddf3edda3cff0b2674

A naturopathic "doctor" is getting three years in prison for selling a fake COVID vaccine and giving out fake CDC vaccination cards. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe she can use the get out of jail free card from her monopoly set. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I wrote about her (Juli A. Mazi) when she was arrested last year: Unusual homeopathic remedies#SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Bongolian (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations Ratwiki for successfully identifying a valid argument.

I will make a more challenging example in the future. 8 of you are bad at logic. If the number starts to lower for the invalid answer I know some of you have changed your answer upon reading this post. I am judging you. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The second more recent challenge has been added. This one should be easy - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC).

I added my own poll as well. Hope that's fine. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Was the weird capitalization and bad grammar in the reindeer one intentional? Spud (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The ex falso seems to be throwing people a bit, it's not totally inversed at least, but most people now have it wrong. The capitalisation and grammar really seems to want to follow a logical form a bit too strictly for the natural language expression, 'No reindeer…' or 'All reindeer don't have…' would have been fine, no? Or if you really wanted to go for a categorical form '… reindeer are … ungulates' or something for something more syllogistic-seeming. It's just grammar nitpicking though. At least 3 people didn't see this post before still trying the first one apparently. Mirror's newer simpler one gives a nice contrast with OSD's second challenge, it's interesting to compare how many get the validity right on each. ConverginglyRational (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

i didn't answer the poll, so i guess that makes me neutral. thanks for congratulating us, anyway. The G (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

For anyone wondering about the reindeer one: See the Wikipedia article on Principle of explosion.. Christopher (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Christopher here revealing my secrets :p - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Is Vladimir Putin a right-wing politician or a left-wing politician?

Putler is too batshit crazy to be classified as right or left. He cultivated relations with far right and far left groups. Putler seems to only be affiliated with money and power. The rest is pretty irrelevant. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

—cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Russian-supported parties like National Rally and Fidesz are overwhelmingly far-right, and while there are "far-left" pro-Russian parties they are largely Cold War-era leftovers that were pro-Soviet anyway. Aditionally, Putin's rule has been very pro-oligarchy, unlike Soviet communism which at least pretended to be for the workers, not to mention the "blood and soil"-type rhetoric that is characteristic of fascism and which the Soviets to my knowledge did not use, at least not nearly as openly. It's pretty clear that Putin is a far-right fascist, and any support from "leftists" is more a result of Cold War inertia or anti-Western attitudes than anything else. Plutocow (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I think he's socially conservative, but I don't like to use the left-right spectrum outside Western nations. Putin received support from authoritarian leaders on the right (Trump, Orbán), but also on the left, Maduro, Ortega, and Assad, if we disregard what I said about left and right outside the west), and while this exists, this also exists. Putin has also garthered support from over 35 communist parties across the globe [5]. If I had to say, yes, his right-wing, but more than that he's an opportunistic leader that cares more about remaining in power than ideology. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course, with people like Maduro and Ortega their support of Russia is less because of ideological reasons but rather pragmatic ones since as America is opposed to them and thus their best hope of survival is sucking up to America's other enemies. Iran is undeniably a far-right theocratic regime but they support it for the same reason. Plutocow (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Being anti-Western (especially anti-America) is an ideological position though, and it's normally considered a left-wing one. That's why people like Maduro, Ortega, etc. like Putin. As someone here on RW said once, the far-left supports Moscow, the far-right Putin. Only two days ago Canel inaugurated a Fidel Castro statue in Russia with Putin [6]. Again, If I had to choose, I'd definitely say he's on the right, but his fan club is far more mixed. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that can be simply shown by making a list of the nations which support Russia's narrative in Putin's war and then crossing off the ones which are a) socically reactionary dictatorships, b) staunchly 'anti-Western', c) are deeply in hock to the Russians either from finance/trade or d) are being propped up by them militarily ... well, you have a list of zero. If you judge a person by the company they keep, well Putin isn't doing that well right now.

And Putin is a fascist, simple as. Ignore the foreign groups stuff, Rational and simply look at Putin's own record and rhetoric. From my own experiences, the far-left don't like Putin either, but think he's 'just as bad' as Washington etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

most of you guys probably might know by now that gjk and i don't like lula much more than we like bolsonaro. that said, in what ought to be yet another interesting case study of horseshoe theory, putin is friends with both of them. it's a bit tangential to the discussion, but this is one of the reasons i "both-sides" them. regardless, this should (more or less) answer the question of what putin's politics are: he's pragmatic so long as he can project his wealth and power while sticking it to the west. G Man (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right, we don't like Putin. It's actually a pretty common position to consider the War in the Ukraine to just be another geopolitical squabble. War is bad business, but NATO isn't helping the Ukraine out of the good of its heart. That's just basic geopolitics. Either way Russia is still clearly in the wrong here, even though I don't consider NATO to be much better. (Iraq, anyone?) Leftists like me kind of view it as critical support for NATO. Vee (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Anti-Western isn't necessarily a "leftist" position, it is also common among nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and people who generally reject human rights for "degeneracy". In general, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran dislike the West for different reasons, the Russia due to nationalism and wanting to relive the Soviet glory days, Venezuela due to the US's anticommunism and interventions in Latin America (the latter is the reason why even more democratic leaders in Latin America often can't portray themselves as being completely opposed to Russia), as well as their support for Guaidó, and Iran due to religious fundamentalism as well as the US's support for their geopolitical rivals like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Them aligning together is more due to their shared opposition to the US, which is the most geopolitically powerful country, rather than because they share goals beyond opposition to the US, ideals, or styles of government (beyond all three being authoritarian regimes, they aren't really that similar). Plutocow (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Less horseshoe, I suspect G Man and more simply both sides thinking 'like Brazilians'. The shadow of China and the USA is long over Brazil, and so courting other 'majors' might help the country break out of this duopoly. Europe might have been this, but they're rather too 'gringo-ish'. However, this relationship may cool if it becomes increasingly obvious Brazil cannot get what it needs/wants out of the Russians (I expect high-tech kit, technological transfer and finance capital) and having the friendship of the world's most hated man isn't really worth having. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

it might not be the most desirable thing, but it's a natural consequence of maintaining neutrality in international relations. (i mean, the swiss maintained trade relations with nazi germany, after all.) brazil is no exception. brazil has a long-standing tradition of neutrality (though we did join the allies in ww2). in a way, this is a good thing because we don't get involved in pointless expensive wars (unlike some countries we could mention), but this may also have unfortunate implications (for instance, brazil has an embassy in north korea of all places, even though most of us don't hold the kim family in high regard). this policy of neutrality and multilateral relations has largely survived even under bolsonaro's nationalism. [7][8] this might be why putin has good relations with both bolsonaro and lula. G Man (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe the situation with the non-aligned 'south' is easily explained if viewed via realpolitik.

I don't think the likes of South Africa (to get it away from being Brazil-centric) etc really think it's a 'both sides are equally wrong' situation with Ukraine. Instead, I think they've generally calcualated that they have nothing to gain by backing either side. But this cuts both ways; Moscow has proven itself fairly incapable of tilting any of them towards them either. This is why (for example) I don't see most of them helping Russia bust sanctions - it would unduly piss off the 'Western Bloc' for little promise of gain. The flaccid Chinese support and Indian coolness towards the Russians makes this position more sustainable in this 'multi-polar world'.

Perhaps even more importantly, I think these countries weigh up their official position in the knowledge that in the grand scheme of things, it means fuck all. They're too distant, too 'small', generally don't have what Russia needs/wants and if they do, they have no way to get it to Russia. They know full well that their urging for a cease-fire shall be ignored by both parties. The only area I think they are having a bit of an effect is regarding the foodstuffs situation, which I think got the West to backstop the grain export agreement which Russia has tried to actively sabotage at least once.

You can afford to smile and utter platitudes, because they're free and they have nil effect on the result. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

what difference does it make if he is of the left or of the right? in either case he is a prick AMassiveGay (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Gotta be honest. Didn't think the OP was a Kensock... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

don't worry; most of us didn't. then again, i'm an amateur when it comes to detecting ken posts. G Man (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I did, but from the other messages (some of which were deleted). The OP was perhaps the least Ken-like of the comments. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't put too much faith into Plutocow's blocks. This doesn't strike as Ken. Nonetheless it is probably some block evader. Andrew5 (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Nah, I think this was Ken. Ken has been getting better at evading suspicion lately. Plutocow's rationale for blocking this latest Kensock is convincing enough to me. Vee (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If Ken is getting better at evading detection, shouldn't we be better at picking up his new traits? Andrew5 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That makes the assumption the new traits are highly visible ones (or even if they are genuinely 'new'). I cannot talk any further on particulars because sure as hell I'm not going to tell the KenBot how to improve their game by revealing how I ID them. In this case, I had ID'd them to a level of 'within reasonable doubt' and was about to get rid when Plutocow did the deed. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ If I had charismatic tendencies and wanted power, I would play all extremes (far right, far left, libertarian, anarchism and so on) like a fiddle. No real need to believe in any ideology. Disinformation, which Putin uses, is a powerful tool. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 You are saying that the "extremes" (such liberal nonsense, in consideration of the fact that your ideology favors starvation of the poor, imperialism, etc. and which kills millions each year) which are Marxism and Anarchism, which reject leaders and, particularly with Marxism, favor viewing collectives and objective social conditions, and which militantly rejects the "Great man theory" of history, are based on "charismatic tendencies and wanted power"? Is it not the case that with Anarchism, its name literally means the very lack of a central leader or authority? Wisconcom (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that just because something is extreme (conveniently failing to properly quantify what "extremism" means, thereby making it a suitably vague weasel word) doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Wiscon is also right, anarchists as a rule are skeptical of authority and governance. You'd know this if you read a single work by any anarchist ever. Thus providing another reason why horseshoe theory is viewed as fringe: "extremism" is a prescriptive judgement, not a descriptive label. Vee (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Asserting that Putin, and the Russian government in general, has relations with all of the "far-left" is misleading. The only radical left-wing organzation which is even somewhat supportive of Putin's actions would just include the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which has in many ways deviated from left-wing ideology, and is highly nationalistic. Outside of Russia, the only (debatably) leftists who support Putin are just small sections of Marxist-Leninists (the same sort which fanatically supports "Socialist" China).Wisconcom (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

What has Putin done or said that can be clearly classed as ”left wing”? He is the strong man of an authoritarian regime that cultivates classic great Russian chauvinism and nationalism, is close with the Russian Orthodox Church, supports, is supported by and is arguably himself part of the cleptocratic oligarchs and has made their brand of “organised corruption” the core principle in his economic power structure, which otherwise includes a “free’ish” market economy. Sure, there is some basic welfare in place, but that in and of itself is hardly enough for a regime to be labelled “left wing” (cf. Bismarck’s introduction of old age pensions etc.). Does any of the above sound “left wing” to anyone?

It also basically makes zero sense to argue about Putin and his regime’s ideology based on who he/it supports or is supported by abroad, given that any regime is perfectly capable of supporting/being supported by groups that are completely different ideologically (cf. the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Operation Cyclone, US support for the Khmer Rouge etc.). So, again: Can anyone actually cite some “left wing” policies or statements Putin has made? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

question

are there any female instances of Haggard's law? 2600:4040:475E:F600:B19D:E7A:74B5:81E8 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I would not be shocked if there are. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There are enough cases of lesbian internalized discrimination for at least two studies,[9][10] so it's plausible that there are such people. The Advocate listed Kathryn Lehman, who co-wrote the Defense of Marriage Act while she worked in Congress, then much later came out as a lesbian and advocated for the Freedom to Marry Act.[11] Bongolian (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the female version are the anti abortion types that get abortions, but yammer on about it because it justifies their own abortion. Sort of like how a person who stops 3 fires but lights 2 is "good" I guess. CorSock (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not Haggard's law, which is specifically about closeted homophobes. Your examples are just of broader hypocrisy. Bongolian (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I suppose there must be, but what would be the point of ferreting them out? There aren't many female evangelicals after all. People will be disingenuous about themselves without even a good reason. Haggard's Law is just a name for a certain kind of hypocracy and is not in any sense a law or even a useful rule of thumb. There are religious people censorious about sexuality, or religious grifters, who are also gay. It's good for making jokes about religious bigots though.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The general case is about someone in apparent authority criticizing something which they (rightly or wrongly) consider to be a social ill, and then turning out to involved in that activity themselves. Haggard's law uses the specific case of homosexuality. But a vast number of things could be substituted for homosexuality.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that's the important distinction. Lehman doesn't really work as a distaff Haggard for the following;

1 - We have no knowledge whether Lehman had a female lover at the time of writing DOMA.

2 - We have no evidence (I assume) of Lehman celebrating a partnership between two same-sex persons around this time.

3 - It is unknown whether Lehman had a record of homophobia at this period.

4 - There is the question whether Lehman believed the in the intention of DOMA or whether her co-writing was essentially 'a job'.

I would define the criteria of 'pulling a Haggard' as being discovered with a current/near-current #1 when they had a track record of #3 and at least gave the appearance of being a 'true believer' on #4. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"Atlanta is ours and fairly won." — Gen. William T. Sherman

Just a quote regarding the runoff result. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Everybody's favorite Civil War song to celebrate this victory. Vee (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sherman won the hearts and minds of the Georgian people by burning their shitty state to the ground. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'M GOING TO DO IT

I IS PROFESSOR GRUG, GURG THANKS RATWIKI FOR HELPING GRUG HAVE CONFIDENCE TO MAKE GRUG DREAM TRUE, GRUG IS GOING TO CITE RAT WIKI IN VIDEOS, GRUG FIRST VIDEO TAKE TIME, GO TO GRUG TALK PAGE IF WANT TO HELP Wheelson ( professor grug arc ) (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that citing RW under any circumstance is fine. You would need to make sure that you were not claiming to speak "on behalf of" RW.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not, only citing ratwiki and wikipee, I don't think i would want to speak on behalf of you allWheelson ( professor grug arc ) (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

(in a snooty, upper class british gentleman accent) Sir, before you give me some fanciful claims that a low-grade, primitive ingrate such as yourself is a professor of any learning, I'd like to see proof of your doctorate. No doubt it was from some third-rate institution that hands out doctorates to any of the poors that show up at their front step.-Ryan1257 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

did some digging

Ratwiki has political party's? someone explain Wheelson ( professor grug arc ) (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

What a great time to be alive

• Putin is losing the war
• Bolsonaro lost in Brazil
• Election denialists lost in the US
• Protests in reactionary Iran
• Protests in "communist" China

All within a month. Not saying that everything is good (Lula is far from the democrat the press paints him, and we had another Trump clone winning in Italy, also I don't think the protests in China and Iran will actually result in regime changes) but is liberalism actually dying, as people think it is? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Also Iran just lost their World Cup game to the US. CorruptUser 22:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Putin hasn't lost yet. There is a huge amount of work still to be done, and putin is willing to burn the world to prevent admitting defeat. I'm still very anxious. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

the world cup is a whole other story in itself. (fifa has an extensive history of corruption.) otherwise, it's important to keep in mind that while some battles have been won, the proverbial war continues. The G (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As a pessimist, I must say it's nice to see the bad guys losing for once. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Oath Keeper leader, Stewart Rhodes guilty of seditious conspiracy. Let's keep this run going! Ariel31459 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

China experienced mass collective protests without the PLA murdering everyone. It's the little things.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

There's also more eyes than ever, no matter how much the government tries to lock things down there's just too many cellphones. CorruptUser 18:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The war in Ukraine is far from over. It will probably be fought until the 2040s. Neither side will concede, and it would take 2 million Russians to overthrow the government. That's 1.3% of the population. Andrew5 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

'probably be fought until in the 2040s' - im a pretty much a glass half empty kinda guy, but while the future is impossible to predict, thats a statement pulled from right up deep in the rectum. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"Will be fought until the 2040's" (no source) (no evidence) (said by a complete moron) ---Ozzyboo (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on Andrew. I'm sure by some standards "the rectum" counts as a proper citation. :p Vee (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-ukraine-war-a-longer-dystopian-looms-large/ Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

then they are pulling out of their arse.

as for you other two - he pulled it out of his and i said so. thats all that was needed. it didnt need you two piling on after the fact to add nothing but abuse. it didnt need personal attacks. there is sometimes heated and passionate debate, and sometimes people lose their temper, but this isnt that. this is picking on someone, bullying behaviour. cut that shit out. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

and it doesnt actually say it it is likely to last till 2040 and the scenarios in the report it cites 'are not intended to be predictions but to widen the aperture as to the possibilities' AMassiveGay (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The article itself is based on the NIC 'Global Trends' report, which to be honest make rather interesting reading if you're into near-future speculative fiction written by policy wonks (I rather enjoyed the 2030 and 2025 ones). What they do here is to basically sketch out four 'general' scenarios - and one of which seems to paint a world 'by 2040' where the 'international order' has collapsed and the surviving countries have become variants of self-reliant garrison states with constant 'border disputes' with each other. It does not seem to predict (or even offer as a possibility) that the Russio-Ukranian War would continue at this tempo for another 18 years. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is absolute hogwash.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there a term for the question which deity is the right one if you're not sure?

That's after all, roughly, how the freethinkers of Enlightenment came to atheism: There are many different religions with many different deities, and obv. they can't be all 100% correct. So several people came to the conclusion: Maybe all of them are wrong, and there is no god.

So - is there a term for this question? The question of which deity is the right one, if you don't want to commit to atheism or agnosticism?--Max Sinister (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

To answer your question - not that I'm aware of explicitly.

Though you might consider it to be a general case of begging the question in that it already implies the conclusion "a God exists" before asking the question "which God is it". Obviously the first question should be ""does a god exist" and your question should come after.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I think deism was much more common in the enlightenment than atheism. I can only think of a handful of enlightenment figures on the top of my head that were atheists. Many believed in a God they just thought the God in question didn't interfere with human affairs, or that the key to understanding God was through reason rather than faith. Tbh the only atheist I can think of was David Hume. The founding fathers weren't atheist, neither was Kant, Locke, Rousseau, etc. Even Voltaire was a deist. You can always believe vaguely in a "higher power" like my mother does. Personally don't see the point. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Difficult to say how common atheism was back then. There were certain inconveniences associated with that POV, including anxiety, neck pain, death, etc. A few that we know of are, Jean D'Alambert, Jeremy Bentham, Denis Diderot, and William Godwin. Also, "deism" would be an approximate word that fits your description.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Neck pain"? Is that a reference to hanging, beheading, or just constantly looking over your shoulder? Luigifan18 (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Will mention the argument in Yes Prime Minister's The Bishop's Gambit.

Also with 'the Enlightenment' - don't forget 'the urban masses' who were never really introduced to 'God and Jesus' and the peasants who may have gone to Church because they had to but who followed belief systems of their own (which would be denounced as 'idle superstitions' by thier supposed betters). Anna Livia (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The apparent Classical period 'Temple to the Unknown God' might be appropriate. Anna Livia (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ariel31459, well, you mentioned several important names there, so we can't say that atheism was a pure fringe position at that time.--Max Sinister (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bob_M, who's begging the question? The premise "Let's say there is a god" may sound theist, but the conclusion "Then which one of all those worshipped by theists is the right one?" creates massive doubt. Just like in the other example: "Suppose there's an omnipotent god" seems very theist, but its conclusion "Then this god would have to be able to create a rock so heavy even he couldn't lift it."--Max Sinister (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm quite sure I'm not the person who thought first "All religions have different gods, obviously not all of them can be 100% right. Maybe none is?". But then, who is? Can anyone answer this?--Max Sinister (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Twitter

Anyone hoping that Twitler won't actually be that bad, or that Musk isn't actually a racist/antisemite, should give up at this point and wait for the lawsuits to bring it to an end. Musk just reinstated Andrew Anglin after a decade-long ban. Bongolian (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The nothingburger he's pulling with Hunter Biden (yet again, sigh, right-wing polies just can't quit that story) is a cringe show, but kind of shows he's moved from "visionary tech CEO" to "Fox News hack CEO" in record time. As if his big social media vision is how Rupert Murdoch ran Myspace to the ground "back in the day". BobJohnson (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not really a nothingburger when a tech company is working with the government to make stories disappear. If it comes out that Bush's daughters had committed numerous felonies that CNN helped cover up, we'd be up in arms over here. CorruptUser 19:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I was never really a fan of Twitter anyway, the level of drama that has always infested that site makes RationalWiki look mild. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Companies have the right to act to editorialize as they please, no one forced anyone to do anything. I can understand the internal Twitter guffaw on the New York Post because they are very sketchy. This is old news, anyways, Twitter's former CEO already admitted things could have been handled differently.

For the other issue, the Democratic National Committee (who asked for the posts to be removed) is not the United States government. And dick pics of Hunter Biden tweeted by questionable Chinese accounts are typically called "revenge porn". Maybe Musk's "free speech absolutism" is fine with revenge porn for all I know, but most social media sites take that shit down super-fast on request.

Obviously Fox News is going to hyper-headline this Mike Lindell style reveal, but as far as "owning libs" goes, recently I think I've seen more genuine "lib" anger over the forced ending of the rail strike. (Which, in a self-own fashion, includes the decisions of the supposed "pro-union" Joe Biden.) BobJohnson (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It is amusing to see anti-union politicians or media bemoan the government's ostensibly anti-union action, despite the fact that a work stoppage of rail service would probably be hyper-inflationary and contrary to the common good. Last year about 28% 0f all freight moved in the US was by rail. How that works against Biden, I don't know. Oh, and whatever happens to Twitter hasn't happened yet.

The ACLU has been willing to defend the rights of American Nazis to obtain parade permits. They are still here, rooting around for violations of the Bill of Rights. Eventually, the republicans will discover that Hunter Biden has never been on a ballot and is never going to be on a ballot. When whatever happens, happens, we will write all about it. Sometimes you just have to wait for a story to play out. Maybe Twitter will be sold to Apple so that Tim Cook saves the world and Elon Musk dies laughing.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Disrupting the flow of the economy/society is sort of the point of strikes/protests. Vee (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Generally union actions are against discrete companies, not entire industries. That global-type of union action affecting the well-being of the entire population would only lead those unions being outlawed.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That's what a general strike is for. Disrupt the flow of economic traffic to the point that the global elites will have to listen to you. Vee (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Those general actions affecting entire industries is how we got labour protections, minimum wage, and an 8 hour day to begin with. Jesus christ they just want a god damm sick day. After the experiencing a global pandemic we can’t give them just that? Shit wont be that disruptive if you just give them want so they don’t have to strike. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The ACLU defending Nazi speech was for speech in a public space under the principle of defending the First Amendment[12] and did not cover incitement to violence. If Nazi speech can be banned in public, it means that anti-racist speech can be banned in public too, and it probably would be. Anything on Twitter (or elsewhere) that could be considered incitement would be illegal in the US. Musk is going to be coming into a lot of grief in Europe however.[13] Bongolian (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

See, that's the problem with not having a stake in the deal. Just give the workers what they want. That's fine. But someone other than me has to give it and i can't make them give it. Furthermore, the members want to threaten you and me with economic instability to get what they want. I suppose I should be more sympathetic. The average annual salary is around 100k, so I guess they can pay for their groceries no matter how much eggs and butter cost. The public might think differently.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Pedantic point of the day; in advanced capitalist nations, often whole swathes of the economy are olig/du/mon-opolies to the point a strike in a 'single company' can feel like a whole sector. Modern hiring methods can also make this worse; that if for example if many companies rely on outsourced labour from 'X Company' and the workers there go on strike, it may cripple the activities of all the other companies. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

They're expected to be ready to work at any point during the 24 hour day cycle. What they want is paid sick leave and better working conditions. Is that really so much to ask for? Vee (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

If the threat of “economic instability” which is a loaded ass term was enough to justify keeping unethical systems as is, or to disallow those exploited to refuse labour, strike, or rebel against it ... what would that imply about unpaid prison labour and slavery throughout history? You think the cost of goods and services that were once created by uncompensated labour remained the same after the labour was made to be compensated? Just a drastic increase in labour costs...stuff stayed cheap? You can spin it around too say that prisoners and slaves don’t have to buy themselves food. They get served lunches! - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If anyone is interested, someone has created a wonderful ongoing flow diagram about Twitter since Melon has purchased it. Twitter is Going Great! Euromec (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting ... though looks like they ripped off the format from Web Three is Going Just Great!. (Something which is also worth looking at.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Right-wingers wanted to post pictures of Hunter Biden's genitals, stolen off of a laptop no one should have had access to. After seeing the pictures, honestly I wish they would have, all it did was show the Hunter was cool as fuck and had a big dick. But posting revenge porn violated the TOS. Nothing-burger for sure.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Committing felonies via messing around with handguns in spite of court order not to, the piles of crack, and all the prostitutes? Look, I don't care that rich people do drugs and prostitutes, I don't have the energy to care that they do those things while enforcing the draconian laws on the rest of us. I just want to be able to pretend that the justice system is the same for rich and poor people. And for me to be able to pretend? When a rich person is blatantly doing something illegal, the cops need to get involved, so that the rich at least know that the boundary is "don't show it off" and I can keep pretending we aren't living in an incredibly unjust society. CorruptUser 02:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

the feds are involved. there have been investigations. more investigation that would have been warranted if you or i were the owner of the laptop. had the laptop belonged to anyone not named biden, no one would have been interested. emails of attempts to procure drugs, photos of drug paraphernalia and unknown substances we assume is crack, emails discussing payment of prostitutes. these are not crimes of the century. they make salacious headlines that shock us with how much money was spent on hookers and crack, but for a criminal investigation, a federal investigation, this is all small potatoes. biden is not selling crack, he's using crack. there is no suggestion of coercion of prostitutes or that they may have been underage. all very unsavoury and all, but the feds are usually more interested in the dealers of drugs and the suppliers of prostitutes. not so much their customers. they do not usually fall foul of the the law unless they are found to be in possession of or under the influence of drugs having attracted police attention for crazy/erratic behaviour in public, or caught up in a drugs bust aimed at the catching dealers red handed, or stopped and searched for looking 'suspicious' read 'black'. people getting busted for procuring hookers generally get done if they are kerb crawling. hiring escorts from an agency and drugs binges in ones home or hotel room are not usually that much interest to the authorities. if they for some reason catch them in the act, they might make arrests, but after the fact? no physical evidence remaining, no substances left lying around or left in your blood stream, just seedy photos and vids from party that were very much private and not at all public, and email chains that highlight just what a ballache it can be to score some gear even for the wealthy, and the hoops you have to jump through sometimes.

there is no doubt evidence enough of crimes here. hes buying crack and hookers after all. there is evidence enough of biden lying om official documents it seems about doing drugs or concealing what was really being purchased with the cheques he wrote. i understand that any prosecution will centre around tax fraud committed by not declaring money was being spent on drugs and whores. he might have lied on a gun application, not revealing his drug addiction when it was requested. crimes sure, but crimes that they had to looked for and merited any action at all, the crime involving party and play doesnt really warrant an investigation. a known drug addict did some drugs a little while back is not a revelation. that it is investigated at all is purely down to whose laptop it was. that it was not dismissed as not worth the time and effort and resources to investigate, that it still might result in a prosecution is because of who it is. if it belonged to you or i, we might expect at most a stern talking to. a rare example of the rich and powerful being treated more harshly by the law. and biden certainly did not 'show it off'.

everything about how this laptop came into the possession of this laptop repair guy, who visually impaired so can not say who exactly gave it to him, is suspicious. there is a question over if there was any manipulation of the contents of the harddrive which would make it a problem for any case relying on it. the is a question of what purpose the anonymous fed who leaked its contents had in doing so. all that is certain is that linking the name biden to a salicious tale of crack and hookers has no substance, and nothing leaked reveals any sign of corruption in the biden administration. republicans will insist it does, knowing disgust and outrage and sanctimony trump fact. and now talk of censorship from twitter, a cover up even, suggests there is something where there is nothing. joe boden's son does drugs so we are meant to believe the legal problems of trump surrounding sedition and actual corruption in the highest is a witchhunt. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

guide to dealing with a hotep father

Without getting too personal, I have the misfortune of having a hotep father who has now fully gone off the deep end in Black Hebrew Israelites rhetoric. I know I can’t convince him otherwise and constantly wants to present “evidence” that what he spews is true. Luckily, I don’t have to interact with him often but my situtation currently does not allow for me to move. Any suggestions?SensaurC-137 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your situation, SensaurC-137. Although Black Hebrew Israelites is more of a religion than a conspiracy theory, you might find advice on dealing with family members who are conspiracy theorists to be helpful ("Don’t try to convince the person they are wrong, lying or ignorant. … Encourage the person to use critical thinking. … Don’t come across as dismissive, judgmental or belittling. … Prioritize the person’s health, safety and wellbeing.").[14][15][16] Bongolian (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

In general terms, I think it's all about whether you think they're a 'lost cause' or that they can be pulled out of said deep end. I personally believe radicalisation often happens when the target gets socially isolated and with few competing claims on their time/energy. Therefore simply spending time with them, encouraging neutral activities/interests and contact with non-radical friends may help - even if none of these directly challenge their views, at least they're being indirectly exposed to wider society and may start to realise how much of a 'minority view' they are. If nothing else, more activities may quit them 'studying' their hobbyhorse so much due to time constraints. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

For context, he’s always had leanings towards hotep type of thinking for as long as I can remember. He’s only now officially become apart of the ideology in part because of people like Kanye West making it “mainstream-ish”. He also happens to be a massive narcissitic bigot and Dunning-Krueger(he doesn’t have a very high view of women or gays or immigrants etc) and is very conspiracy minded. I dont like being around him but I guess I feel conflicted on whether I should cut off completely.SensaurC-137 (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Cutting someone off is a tough choice that only you can make. It is not unreasonable to consider such factors as how doing so would affect others you care about, your deeper family relationships, potential social/economic consequences and any other level of support you may need from family members. But there is always a reasonable cut-off point for each person, where the grief outweighs the benefits (and no I do not think it is unreasonable to measure such things in a transactional way). I did the same with my abusive, fuck-up, homophobic toxic brother. I realised the consequences of cutting him completely out of my life were simply much less severe than the consequences of keeping him in my life. I don't regret it to this day despite the grief I get from family and even friends over it. It was one of the wisest adult decisions I have made. Having said that, I recognise doing so with a parent is a whole different level. And again, it's deeply personal and there is a lot to work out before making a decision. Keep in mind, it is, in theory, a reversible decision. Which way are you leaning towards? ShabiDOO 14:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel like already made the decision mentally to cut him off. I’m essentially “quiet quitting” him and going extremely low contact and only interact with him if I have absolutely have to. I think I already went through a bit of a “grieving” process earlier this year. The problem is he still doesn’t take a hint and still thinks I want to interact him. I don’t like to naturally antagonize people.SensaurC-137 (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That 'grieving' process is more common than you'd think and sometimes on the surface appear 'strange', like grieving the parent you never had. I've been through similar (shameless plug; my blog post on the death of my toxic arsehole) and when situations like this arise I've found the vast majority of people very non-helpful in various reasons. Your aversion to confrontation is natural; we have it drilled into us to 'respect' our parents etc and that's normally taken to mean BS like not treading on their toes regarding viewpoints etc even when we're no longer kids and if I hear anyone tell me 'but you must forgive/forget, they're family!' again they're gonna get a firm/polite but scathing monologue in reply.

You may not like to naturally antagonise people, but it's kinda sounding like perhaps you're more enabling him. I've come to realise that sometimes people take silence as agreement and if you're constantly sliding around the elephant's feet as it stomps about they may come to believe you agree with the elephant's presence. I've known situations where this kind of shit has gone on for decades, all the while the elephant is getting bigger and angrier. Sometimes, it's better to politely/firmly tell them 'no, I do not agree with that, but let's agree to disagree' and if they kick off about that simply do broken record until either they get the message and quit preaching or tell you to go to hell. But it means the breach is their choice/fault, not yours. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

KarmaPolice Please don’t misunderstand. I have tried to engage in a “civil” debate and challenge his beliefs on more than one occassion but as mentioned before he’s a massive bigot and Dunning Krueger who has a tendency to think that what HE believes is what everyone else SHOULD be believing and especially as his son wants to pass down his “wisdom” to the next generation.SensaurC-137 (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Erm... I didn't suggest you 'debate' him? I'd already worked out you felt the situation had gotten too far by this point. I was in fact suggesting a disguised ultimatum; 'No, I do not agree on this and I never will. I have heard all you have to say on this topic and it didn't convince me. Please respect my disagreement on this and I will respect yours'. Then stonewall any attempts to 'reopen' the topic. Either they shall get the message and quit or they'll toss you out of the door. Unless your father has any actual hold over you (like say, financial) I actually don't see much a loss on either way on your end - either they'll become a 'nicer' person to be around or you won't be around them at all. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

KarmaPolice, don't forget that SensaurC-137 is dependent on his father for his home. Avoidance and non-confrontation may be the best solution while that is the case. Bongolian (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Now that's just unfair - of course my thoughts on the subject shall be irrelevant if I am not provided all the key facts! In that case... yeah, all you can do is basically avoid as much as possible and suck it up when you can't. Not really much help, I know but the crux of the matter is until you can be financially self-supporting they've basically got you by the balls. Which means 'preparing your escape' would be perhaps the best manner do 'deal' with it productively. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate the kinds words and support from everyone. I didn’t intend for this to be a therapy session but i didn’t have anyone else to turn to at the moment.I’m not financially dependent on him or anything of the sort as he lives separately but occasionally comes over from time to time. I guess do feel a sense of empathy towards him and have enabled him in some sense because despite the bigotry I find it fascinating that he displays stopped clock moments of rationale and compassion. I guess I have a hard time letting go and I always find it fascinating that even people with extremely skewed worldviews and thought patterns are capable of doing some good.SensaurC-137 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It would help to recognize whether your father insists that you must not only agree with him but also take actions that are against your own moral judgment, which would justify a break. Most Jews believe in the Moses myth of the Egyptian captivity for which there is no real evidence. People believe all kinds of historical nonsense. When he passes you will surely reflect more deeply on your relationship. If he will allow you to be your own person, then why is it a problem? You can accept him without accepting his ideology.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists and other "extremist" are hard to deal with if your beliefs aren't up to par with them since I find them to be quick to anger and often seeking conflict, so I'm very sorry you're in this situation. I hope you can escape this, and in the meantime, he isn't doing anything, like attending anti-semitic protests, that would cause people to unfairly cast judgement upon you by association.Ryan1257 (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That does make me wonder whether a variant of an 'intervention' may work; where you say a variant of 'Pop, I love you but your hotep [redacted] is submerging your whole personality to the point I feel like I'm losing you.' If you could get some other relatives, friends etc to back you up, it might prompt them to if nothing else, 'tone it down' somewhat when in your presence. Or might not. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What is 'hotep'? FairDinkum (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the answer on the To Do list. FairDinkum (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen it discussed here, but much of this Hotep thinking comes from a deep sense of trauma from the North Atlantic slave trade. The violence perpetrated against slaves, including the suppression of culture and traditions, leaving African-Americans with no heritage except for exploitation and abuse. Which is where Black Hebrew Israelites or 'We were Kings' folks bring in a past that is meant to be celebrated and is likely at the center of civilization. It ignores the inconvenient truth that many of us who are the descendants of African slaves, were likely sold by other Africans, and were likely conquered peoples of weaker tribes. It also has a bit of truth in it however, considering that most people are taught to not think much of Africa, specifically sub-Saharan Africa is separate from legacies of North African nations, whose contributions to western civilization cannot be denied.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Keeping ashes from dead people or pets...

I'm going to ask this here because using google, gives me BS like this, this, this, this, this, this, this & this...

Some people like to keep ashes from their departed with them. Those people feel "happy" when they have these with them, but I wonder if this is all good for one's mental health. There's this saying that goes: "If you love someone/something, then set it free", doesn't really happen in this situation now does it?

Are there some Psychologists or anyone in the non-woo area that backs this up? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a psychologist, but equally certainly I'm anti-woo. In this particular case I'd say it's really an individual choice thing. I wouldn't want to do it, but if it makes someone feel better then, then, well, it makes them feel better.

Assuming that some charlatan is not making a vast amount of money from selling some "holy process" or something similar then I can't really see the problem.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I've seen this in the flesh a few times now, and I've heard/worked out the following reasons so far...

- I am looking for the perfect 'final place' for them.

- I am in the process of organising said 'final place' (for example, top of Mt Snowdon is popular in the UK and well, that's quite a walk).

- I am not ready yet to say a 'final goodbye' to the lost one(s).

- I am keeping them for my own death, so the combined ashes can be dealt with together.

We need to remember that for people in the Anglosphere (at least), death is hugely bureaucratic - a draining and stressful event for the surviving partner/relatives even before the emotional side is put in it. Even if the bulk of the 'deathwork' is being handled by others and the subject had been diligent beforehand in organising, often a lot of decisions have to be made, and quickly. This can lead to 'decision fatigue'. If it's a cremation and not a burial, this means that the 'final step' is not a time-limited event. And thus, quite a lot (more than I think is assumed) put it off because they can. Some (perhaps most) only put it off for a few weeks/months but yes, some can end up leaving it for ages. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure regarding cultural attitudes regarding death and associated mortuary customs as "woo" is appropriate, even if these attitudes are formed by a religious perspective, they are still very much a valid part of the cultural tradition. The Western funeral is informed by Christian influences. You don't see people calling "funerals" woo. Nor would I call sky burials woo either. No anthropologist would. Vee (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Then there's the 'woo' which doesn't hurt anyone. Example; people talking to graves or urns. As long as the one doing the talking knows that they are not going to get a response and it's not too frequent/lengthy I honestly don't see any harm. I mean I've done it myself. I found it oddly cathartic; I think because I used it as a kind of narrative device to allow me to get my thoughts in order so I didn't feel even more a prat by simply talking 'to myself'. Which says something about the human condition; I think we're all a little superstitious. Not as in paid-up members of the woo-club, but exhibiting some behaviours/beliefs which are bsically 'irrational'. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

the purpose of funerals, burials, cremations, mummification, and even composting, are less to do with the disposal of dead and decaying bodies and everything to do with the living. on a purely pragmatic level ashes in an earn on your mantle piece makes a lot more sense than finding a spot at local cemetery where space is limited and unless rent is paid constantly your dead rely will be dug up and moved to make room for a fresher corpse. we'd need to see something having a negative of some kind to be able to say it is unhealthy. i cant see anything from the usual handling of a loved ones ashes that has that and i can only hypothesis for ways retaining someones ashes could be considered unhealthy when the handling of them is in no way unusual. im sure some cases exist, but i would imagine they are symptomatic rather than causative of anything.

anyway mummified with fully posable limbs like action man is clearly the correct way to dispose of and grieve for our dead. if grandma in the hallway be used to hang coats on, is shes really gone? its what she would have wantedAMassiveGay (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Gay makes a very good point; that every culture makes it's own 'death customs' and the long-term holding of cremated ashes is perhaps considered contrary to this. I mean, here in the UK cremation was only legalised in 1885 and seems to have only become popular from the 1960s, meaning that for a long time it simply cribbed the 'norms' for burials (I mean all the 'how to' guides for British funerals still assume a burial). 'Norms' go in and out and sometimes return; in the Victorian era they had mourning jewellery which contained human hair, that vanished for a century but is now returning in the guise of 'cremation jewellery' in which you can keep a tiny fraction of the ashes.

If I told my grandfather (born 1898) that you have people in the UK now who create memorials to dead loved ones using ink on their skin, I think he'd be shocked and think they were crazy and perhaps even 'disrespectful'. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

In various parts of New Guinea and Polynesia the custom was to cook and eat the dead person (which is what caused laughing sickness to spread), and they regarded/regard the idea of burying someone in the ground just as shocking and horrifying as those of us here would likely find roasting your parents over a fire. Just recently my uncle died of an extremely aggressive cancer, nothing about that made me think I should shove a spit through his remains and do a roast, but I'm also not sure that putting his ashes and pulverized bones on display was "right" either; seeing my grandmother's waxy likeness in an open casket wasn't any more "comforting", if more understandable given she was a black Irish (in the older sense of the term, not the Phil Lynott one) Catholic and Christian doctrine encourages presentation of a full body. As a young teen I froze a betta fish of mine that unexpectedly died, and many years later discovered was because of someone putting soap in its tank, until I could get over it and bury it in the ground. Not what I'd do now, though it worked for me then. Now I tend more towards Zhuangzi, in that once I kick off what to do with my body mass is at that point someone else's problem (if cryogenics becomes something legit I'll talk, and a small monument would be OK even if it's not where my remains are), but given how much I'm told I'm hard to deal with during such times I don't think I'm in a position to talk down to anyone dealing with remains or charred versions thereof in a way that doesn't harm anyone else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

many of those in tribes that practice that specific form of cannibalism are afflicted with prion disease like mad cows disease or Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease as a result. if we want to talk about 'unhealthy' death rituals

my own limited experience of funerals has my brothers and dad and myself all in agreement - they are a huge waste of time and money and we are not to hold one when any of us go. we will mostly likely have to pay something for disposal, unless we can legally refuse to any responsibility for our corpses. if we can get away with it, black bin bags taken away with the rest of the trash was the our favoured option.AMassiveGay (talk)

i have a idea

it's a youtube channel called " grug explain thing " the idea is that i dress like a caveman and talk like one and explain things like quantum physics, thoughts? Wheelsontheancom (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Ummm .. What is your special expertise in the subjects you want to explain? (I'm guessing it's not capitalization or punctuation.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

things like, space, history, flags, memes (like how limc explains them), conspiracy theories Wheelsontheancom (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC) (if you checked my page, you would know im a little slow, asshole)

I don't mean "what things". I mean, "what expertise?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

i have expertise with, space, history, memes, and conspiracy theories.Wheelsontheancom (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

OK. I guess that answers my question. Good luck. :-) Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

thanks :)Wheelsontheancom (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

this is a million dollar idea Servasym ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It would probably get annoying real quick, but you never know what will be noticed and promoted by an 'influencer'. Worth a shot, I guess. FairDinkum (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like Randall Munroe's book Thing Explainer but more annoying to read/listen to. Nowhere Man (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Not my thing. Doesn't make sense, intuitively. A stereotypical caveman doesn't seem like the best source for knowledge. And it looks silly.--Max Sinister (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ivan Illych

Not the character of Leon Tolstoy, but that austrian anarcho-whatever philosopher. What do you think about his critique against modernity? I'm pointing especially to "Health Nemesis" and his criticism against modern medicine. Are those reasonable or crankery in the name of freedom/social justice/etc? Deadend (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm just going through Wikis and summaries, did this guy actually propose many solutions beyond "burn it to the ground" type stuff? It's not that iatrogenic disease and institutional learning issues aren't problems, but the summaries seem to suggest that his solution is "fuck it all" a lot of the time.

He does seem to have some suggestions for alternatives ("learning webs") for schools, which are interesting given the past 50 years of the Internet has sort of implemented a little bit of that concept of decentralized learning. The central problem that has arisen with the Internet as a learning source really boils down to a Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? type problem. This problem with Internet learning is also a problem in for-profit commercial institutions (ITT Tech), and to some extent I think homeschooling has this issue too. There is a lot of bullshit floating around the Web, and if you aren't careful you can end up at, say, the David Icke School For Waking Up To The Lizard Illuminati Threat where you gain no useful skills. A motivated person can learn a lot from selectively consuming select Internet resources, but how do you learn how to select in the first place?

Medicine is pretty similar... it's complicated, and there's a lot of diseases where the cure for it still is "none". A lot of people thus turn to alternative medicine, where slick marketing is often the most important factor, certainly dry hard to read scientific studies often hardly matter at all. So any solution that is "burn medicine to the ground" seems poorly thought to me. However, a disclaimer: I'm only going through summary / skimming / Wikis, maybe there's more to his stuff then I am seeing. BobJohnson (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But those problems have always existed in educational settings - the Internet didn't invent them.

With Illich's complaints to education, I think they should be seen through the prism of a man who was raised in the pre-War world. His lifetime would have been good book-ends for the 'decline and fall' of the autodidact - the hobbyists, tinkerers, evening-class takers, public-lecture goers and self-help book readers (back in the day where 'self-help' was about teaching yourself skills). He was watching the rise of 'credentialism' (ie qualifications mean everything, experience and skills-base means none) in the advanced world and didn't like it one bit; clearly believing that it meant a world which would be at even more mercy of the centralised, fundamentally defective public education system than it was in his present (1970s) and with the wrong priorities (certificates rather than knowledge). It would also appear he was kicking against the hardening division between 'work' and 'education' which increasingly devalued the value of adults to actually re-skill as they age.

While I've not read said books (and unlikely I ever will) it may be that many of his ideas are more aimed at the education of adults and perhaps older teens, not children. It could also be said that his critique was not in this case against 'modernity' rather than the model at the time - his complaints do seem much more 'relevant' for us now - for we are in a world of ballooning adult education costs, lengthening work-lives, ageing demographics and higher threats from technological unemployment. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

All valid points, I'm just more nonplussed by the lack of ideas to solve them in the summaries. For medicine, for instance, a lot of the problems he identifies seem correct and still relevant to current times (eg over-prescription, overfocus on treatment and not preventative, etc.). But then he seems to then go on this "cultural iatrogenesis" kick where his Catholic priest side gets in gear, and somehow healthcare is responsible for people not accepting suffering or death culturally like they used to, or something, and that's somehow bad. Modern medicine apologizes for forcing the Pestilence Horseman into semi-retirement, I guess.

The US has experienced a rather sharp decline in life expectancy in the last couple of years. And although modern institutional medicine greed did initiate a significant factor in this decline (the opioid crisis), the top contributor to this life expectancy decline was the anti-vaccination movement's success in politicizing the COVID-19 vaccine. It's fine to be a wee bit cynical of institutions, as the opioid crisis shows they can sometimes fuck up big time. But the alternative, at least in the US, has tended to be anti-intellectualism, where all "certified experts" are dismissed as out-of-touch Ivory Tower elites regardless of their actual merit, and the snake oil solutions from slick charlatans (that don't work) are what ends up getting trusted. This backfired bigtime, the US's COVID-19 impact stands out among developed countries. I think this applies to education as well -- we don't need burn-them-to-the-ground scenarios, we just need to recognize that institutional learning has many issues that need to be solved. But it's not completely useless. Certainly not in the way the anti-intellectualism movement in the US tends to make it (which largely focuses on trite cultural reasons for the reason for the disgruntlement).

Personally, in the tech industry, "credentialism" is not utilized as much as in some industries. There's plenty of "certified XYZ" developer courses, which may get your foot in the door in some companies. But there's also a bit of a backlash in some corners due to some "paper certificate" developers not really being very good. Which has led to replacements like the "FizzBuzz" type tests, which come with their own problems. Generally speaking, I see "credentials" as "shortcuts" for the HR departments and/or customers. "The tinkerer" is still valued, as "tinkerers" are largely what birthed the industry. BobJohnson (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to remember Illich was writing of a world 40-60 years ago, which is two 'professional generations' for both teachers and doctors. I actually think he was quite influential within the realms of end-of-life care; I heard an interview with a hospice nurse just last week and they explained how part of their job was to assure the patient's families that no, the general 'withdrawal of treatment' was not an inherently bad thing. What we also need to remember is the 'boundless optimism' the medical profession had in by say 1970; in four 'professional generations' they'd effectively conquered so many of the scurges which had scared (and killed) our immediate ancestors (this article is very interesting if you like statistics). Problem was, we then ran into the block of dementia and general old-age frailty and well, the doctors didn't really know how to cope with that. I also suspect he was also thinking of quality of life, not just quantity - something which is being increasingly talked about now (not just 'lifespan' but 'healthspan' too).

On the educational front, yeah newer industries won't be so crippled by credentalism because often they've not yet got formalised practices/standards etc - but quite frequently they develop them pretty quick (the UK IT industry how has them from what I can tell). What doesn't help in the modern age is the AI 'auto-sort' of CVs which can often lead to 'computer says no' issues with decent, but 'non-standard' candidates simply being binned even before a human eye sees them simply because they failed the standardised filter criteria. But yeah, that's the whole point of credentials in the first place; they are basically hallmarks on people. 'We assay them so you don't have to, Ms Employer / Mr Customer'. I suspect Illich would have been bitching not about the existence of credentials so much, but the fact so much weight was put into them and it was very difficult for people to take alternative paths to get them. Good example; becoming a lawyer in the USA without attending law school. Used to be common, now is almost impossible. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this a ad hominem?

Elsewhere when, replying to someone else I mentioned another poster, a fanboy of the Austrian school who wants private justice courts, anyone teaching medicine, and similar BS, has little credibility getting from the latter I was using an ad hominem. Is that such fallacy -the discussed topic was shrinkflation in US, but the Austrian plugged in current inflation and him putting the blame on central banks printing so much money, for the record-. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

An ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevant premise, also known as a red herring. It makes it a informal fallacy, but only if it is being used in place of an argument. It's a fallacy because it doesn't actually address the content of a person's argument. With what you described it is hard to say, because I am not entirely sure what it is you are even describing. As a rule of thumb if you are using the personal character of someone without addressing the contents of their argument as an argument against their position, you are a committing the ad hominem fallacy. If the topic of relevance is the person's character, then it is not an ad hominem fallacy to critique said person's character. If you are simply insulting someone in addition to providing an argument with no pretense of intending the insult as part of the argument, then it is not an ad hominem fallacy. You are just being rude, but tbh being rude is often the most fun. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Basically, I told someone else that it was pointless to discuss with someone who wants private justice courts, medicine being taught by everyone, and other similar gems after him had plugged him his Austrian school ideas about current inflation worldwide being caused by central banks printing too much money, and the Austrian/anarcho capitalist claimed I was used an ad hominem fallacy. That's what I mean. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s only an ad hominem if it was intended as a counter-argument. If not it’s just a statement of reasons why you don’t want to engage, and why you won’t be providing an argument. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)

I'm honestly having difficulty understanding the question. The typical ad hominem would be: "You are wrong because you are fat". It's not a response to the argument, rather it's a personal attack used to fallaciously dismiss the argument. (It might or might not be true that the person is fat.) A more difficult case would be: "I'm not going to accept your arguments for buying buy this used car from you because you have multiple convictions for fraud". In this second case you are still arguing against the individual and not his claims - but few people would criticize your reasoning. Which is why this is an informal fallacy.

In your case - if I understand it - you are saying "I am not going to engage with you on this topic because I believe your views are mistaken". Which is not really an engagement with the other argument one way or the other.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Even if it had been ad hominem, it only relates to the argument of whether it's pointless to discuss those topics with a person who has those views on those topics, it does not have any bearing on your arguments about those topics. A person should only address an ad hominem if it is the only argument being made, and even then it's preferable to ignore it unless you think it could confuse a spectator into thinking it's non-fallacious. If someone avoids addressing your arguments that are not ad hominem by only rebutting the ad hominem, they are engaging in a fallacy of Argument by Selective Reading, aka Cherry Picking. People who harp on ad hominems do so to avoid the issues. It's not much better than Tone Policing. FairDinkum (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure the answer is "it's valid, duh"

It seems counterintuitive, but logic is weird like that. I have no fucking clue how it works but I'm no logician. Vee (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell dogga are only mentioned once and that is to eat cannibals. Whether they all eat chickens or not cannot be concluded or inferred from any of the information provided, so the "either/or" at the end is not a logical conclusion from the various premise. Or I may just be confused by it all!! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I tried to do a tableaux to test it’s validity but given 6 premises and 1 conclusion most of which being universalization it took way too damn long that I just gave up. I was approaching 20+ rows with 12+ branches. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The 'either/or' statement gives us two different values before the 'therefore' claim.

The first condition in the 'either/or' statememnt, "all doggos each chickens" invalidates the claim that, "Therefore some doggos do not eat chickens."

The second statement in the 'either/or' statement, "all chickens are cannibals." validates the 'Therefore' claim that, "some doggos do not eat chickens." We know this because of the previous statement that, "Some doggos eat cannibals." So because we've established that all chickens are cannibals, and some doggoes eat cannibals, therefore some doggos do not eat cannibals.

So it depends on which of the 'either' conditions we go with. If we go with the first condition, the argument is invalid, if we go with the second condition the argument is valid. FairDinkum (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

On an ordinary English interpretation, the argument is valid, because (i) all chickens are booga and all boogas eat chickens implies all chickens eat chickens, which in ordinary English implies all chickens are cannibals, (ii) Either/or is an exclusive or. If you tried to perform a natural deduction, you’d need to appeal to an implicit premise to get to chicken cannibalism, so if we’re being very strict, the argument as stated is technically invalid because it allows for the (actually impossible) case that all chickens eat chickens, but aren’t cannibals. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 13:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I arrived at the same conclusion. If it had included "All booga are cannibals", instead of "All cannibals are booga" (which doesn't allow concluding much), it would have been valid. As it is, booga is possibly a more diverse group of chicken booga-men who eat chickens, containing chickens and cannibals and who knows what else. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

But there is no claim about boogas, just statements. We are supposed to evaluate the claim, "Therefore some doggos eat cannibals." Whatever boogas are doing is nothing but a distraction. FairDinkum (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems even the mighty neutral BBC

Is not immune to the Harry/Megan bullying train. Albeit this article is a lot less sensationalist/vile/contemptuous than most UK media (especially the tabloids), their articles this week have all been extremely sceptical if not disdainful of narratives contra-the-royal-family. Hard to tell if they are worried that they are not seeming neutral by not parroting the vitriol against them in the media (and them daring to call out the horror of the UK media, racism in the UK in general and the royal family and the general disfunction of British aristocracy/media), or if they are afraid of seeming un-british. ShabiDOO 10:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No offence, Shabi but if you thought Auntie could be impartial on the topic of the Royals, you're a smegging idiot. Royalism is exempt from such 'petty' concerns such as impartiality, as well as masquerading opinion as fact and simply performing quite serious lapses in journalistic standards. But the thing is they go overboard with the arse-lickies to avoid the wave of hate from the demented gammonny flag-eating crowd and not giving the ToryKip govt another reason to hate the Beeb and try to defund it, shrink it or sell it off. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The BBC has always been fawning over royal family events, but I found their coverage of Hary and Megan particularly pernicious recently. They at least maintained a semblance of partiality until recently. ShabiDOO 11:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't like either side. I think 'the Firm' handled this all wrong but I also think about half the claims of 'racism' are untrue. I actually think 'the Firm' has an actual long-term problem re 'the spare'. Who were the last two spares? Andrew the non-sweating paedo's friend and Margaret the jet-setting bed-swapper (ironically, the generation before the roles were reversed with Edward and George).

I also think the whole thing is a 'failure of management' primarily caused by a culture clash. Megan was the first woman to marry-in who was neither an Royal (so knowing the score) or clearly in a 'subservient' position (so being dependent on the Family for a good SoL). I also suspect she'd not been properly briefed on the strong limitations of her impending role - again, the Palace had never needed to spell out what was already known to either a foreign Royal or a Brit. But on her side, I do suspect she really rubbed some key members of staff the wrong way (from a Brit PoV I could see her coming across as 'needy' and 'demanding') particulary if most of the senior staff are of the 'stiff upper lip'/'grin and bear it' era. Lastly, by Royal standards Megan was not just uncomfortably 'independent' but also 'old'. A woman of 36 is a lot more 'set in their ways' than one of 20 (Diana's age at wedding) which means they're a hell of a lot less likely to bend into the shape desired by Windsors Ltd. And because the couple were not dependent financially on Windsors Ltd, they always had the freedom to walk - and they did.

Lastly, I think the pair pissed off the British press to cause them to turn on them. They didn't 'play the game' which the Royals generally do with them, which is basically 'you give us a quota of stories, video and photos to keep us in-work and the rest of the time we'll leave you (kinda) be'. Not only did Harry clearly dislike them anyway but Megan short-circuited them by instead doing personal releases of photos etc via Intragram rather than through a Mail or Hello exclusive. Hell hath no fury than Royal Correspondents being denied dinner! KarmaPolice (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Why in particular do you think that the allegations of racism (or some of them) aren't true? ShabiDOO 13:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it's such an obvious prat-fall and thus, would have been run-though and guarded against. Also, Markle is mixed race - generally speaking, we don't operate the 'one drop' rule in the UK which seems to still run in the USA - some people wouldn't even know unless it was pointed out to them! (I didn't). Next, cultural norms are subtly different; I am sure there are some terms etc which are 'acceptable' in the UK but judged as 'vaguely racist' in the USA (for example, Markle would be called 'coloured' in South Africa but that is because that's their term for 'mixed race'). Lastly, I suspect a lot of the crap she got was in fact anti-Americanism and a lesser extent classism and because she's not a Brit she misread them as being due to racism. Or the simple fact that simply some people didn't like her as a person.

An argument I admit is looking a little weaker after the 'no, where are you really from' incident a couple weeks back but I still hold to it. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

EC the bbc are in a tough position with the royals. they have to do stories on them, but have to try to remain neutral. since 99% of all royal news stories are complete and utter dogshit and royal correspondents have barely the sentience of plankton, the bbc can only churn out these vacuous non stories involving royalty. you will note proper news involving royalty, prince andrew being a nonce for example, are not given to royal correspondents. the tabloid media on the other hand can go all in on the he said/she said vitriol. its not true that they hate markle though. they fucking love megan. they havent been able to go after the royals for since keeping their heads down after killing diana. this blood sport is like the good old days for them.

prince harry has never had a rosy relationship with the press, because of how they hounded his mum to death. and because he's not likely to ever be king, he's more able to push back a little at the intrusions, and lets be honest, complete fabrications masquerading as 'news' in the tabloids. marrying megan was a god send for the tabloids. its was obvious from the start that she would chafe within that family and having to suffer everything the press can throw at her with nothing but a smile, with her own family not having the reluctance to talk to the press the royals are expected have and harry seeing the tabloids go after his wife the way they went after his mum, it was only a matter of time before the couple had to break with convention and retaliate - in court and in the media. they could not do this as 'royals' in an official capacity. so they left, and are royal in name only. they can go on oprah now, can respond to whatever dogshit the tabloids are saying about them, have a series on netflix. in doing so i cant help but think they have given the press just what they wanted. they are merely celebrities like any other now, fair game for the tabloids. and the gloves are off. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Meh, that Netflix doc was just awful. Selective editing, including footage from events that Meghan/Harry had nothing to do with and weren't even in attendance, cropping photos to make it look like they were off to the side when in reality they were in the center, etc. Apparently Harry said he didn't realize there was a hierarchy in Buckingham. You've been a royal your whole life, the very definition of unearned hierarchy and privilege, and you are just now realizing that Buckingham has a hierarchy?! I guess the unintended result of beheadings is that only the royals with heads to dense to cut off were permitted to breed. CorruptUser 14:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of any royals or ex-royals but I thought the documentary might be interesting. It was dire. Nothing new of any relevance. Slow and repetitive. Managed to watch the first two sections but I'll be relying on press reports for the rest.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, like he never noticed the way his first cousins having to defer to his father all the time. Or bow to Granny. Or that his second cousins got the cheap seats for events or got forgotten completely (shoutout to Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley!). Was he sleeping all those times when courtiers were showing him shit like the family tree and 'line of succession'?

I'm not a fan at all either, but I do find them vaguely interesting from a sociological PoV. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

people who never have to queue to get in anywhere probably dont really notice that there is actually a queue until the day they find they are no longer allowed to skip it. then they find queues are everywhere.

i honestly dont know what people were expecting from this netflix show. did anyone really expect a 'warts and all' expose of royalty? the royal family, despite its role in the uk, is still a family. prince harry, though no longer a royal in any official capacity, is still a member of that family. hes not an aggrieved ex employee or any kind of whistle blower, and hes not as estranged from the family as the press like to make out. every family has fallings out and bickering. arguments can be get pretty vicious between family members. but not every family has every minor disagreement has the tabloids taking a side and printing headlines that talk up an existential crisis for royalty and the nation as a whole. the bland criticisms of royal life in the show are like bomb shells for the tabloids. we are fed royal news as a soap opera, but while much of what we are fed is exaggerated or fiction, the characters are still real with real lives and are a real family with all the petty trials of tribulations real families. much of what is reported, racism included, is family drama that ordinarily would not be anyones business from outside of the family, with most commentary from the outside the gossiping curtain twitchers. these days, where all things 'woke' is positioned as the enemy within for a not insignificant portion of society, this royal gossiping has a racial dimension, drawing in people not usually interested in such inane chatter, and the tabloids are happy to exploit the division. netflix show achieved huge ratings because its gossip from an insider at the very heart of the royal family. it was, by all accounts that ive seen - ive no interest in watching the thing myself, asinine stuff. if it is self serving and selective in telling its story im not surprised. its meant to be. its harry and meghan putting their side of the story, and its as subjective as any story someone can tell about their own family. its only unusual in the sense that royalty, by convention, by choice, for its own survival, does not engage with the gossip masquerading as news. harry and meghan have gone a different route in their attempts at controlling the narrative, to beat the press at their own game. a mistake in my opinion, but the only other option they realistically had was stoic silence. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

the king is in reality, a ceremonial position and no real power, in effect a corporate mascot. he is to the uk what ronald macdonald is for the fast food chain. the netflix show is of no more import than if the hamburgler had a realty show. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. Jug-ears has a quite a few 'reserve powers' at his disposal, including the issuing of executive decrees. A lot of his potency is limited by 'convention', and you know full bleeding well conventions can be bent or broken when 'needs be'. It's not within Ronald McDonald's power to dissolve the board of McDonalds, is it? It's mainly a role of being perhaps the world-best paid host, greeter, document signer and 'looker at things' but hell, there are a few bits in that job description for when things get really screwy.

Anyway, I've come to three conclusions with the Royals. One, that the institution of 'Windsor Ltd' is poisonous to those stuck within it. Two, that if they were presented with a polite, gentle 'wind-up' of The Firm (ie they're allowed to go off and become normal super-rich vague-celebs) most, if not nearly all of them would accept it (think Charles, William and Anne would dissent). Three is that I think it's in both 'sides' interest that the Crown stops with William. He's too old to make a go of it on the 'outside', but his kids aren't. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

no he has no real powers, reserve or otherwise, any attempts to exercise any powers exercised without the tacit approval of government would result in the uk becoming a republic. the powers of the monarch are a conceit of the kind made to a child to keep them busy while you get on with work. they dont even have any real influence on the british public. its this reason that people queued for hours to see the body of the queen and the reason the monarchy still has much support in the uk. its an apolitical symbol that can be utilised by people to get behind, like they do for a football team, seperate from the failings or even successes of the government. as it institution, it needs to be reformed and probably abolished at some point, but in terms of what needs reforming or abolishing, in terms of what ails the country in its governance and in society at large, its far down the list of what needs to be done. its neither causative nor symptomatic of any pressing issues of the day, and exists in a kind anachronistic vacuum. debate over abolishing the monarchy is a debate only of the optics that having a monarchy has. it can safely be parked while more fundamental issues can be dealt to do with governance of the country and of where real privilege lies and of the people in this country who genuinely do have power and influence, who can and do actually use it. in fact, going after the monarchy before this would only embolden these people, and help quell suggestions of inequality when they will point at the abolishment of this disney postcard of privilege and claim job done, without ever any real change happening at all, and too hasty an attempt to get rid of a monarchy, whose presence makes no effect on peoples lives at all, would be incredibly divisive and harm any efforts elsewhere when their removal turns out to have no positive improvement in the lives of those effected by inequality.

when we talk of abolishing the monarchy we get it all arse about face. the question that is asked when it is proposed is what we do without it, what we replace with. we should not need to ask that question, we should have already reformed how this country into something that is more representative of its people and free the inequalities and economic disparity we currently enjoy, that abolishment would be a simple and inevitable next step. to people say they want an end to the monarchy, i say its a distraction not worth bothering about right now AMassiveGay (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The royals have actually more real power and influence than people imagine. Here is another example.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Infographic Show’s “Why 2023 will be the worst year ever”

I came across this video

And, well, the whole beginning of it was about how Russia could go nuclear in the war within the next year, they specifically said that it’s not then being hysterical and that it’s a real possibility, constantly perpetuating the doom and gloom of a possible nuclear war.

Obviously this freaked me the hell out and wanted to know what people’s opinion of this is as it really got under my skin.—WMS (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

An old Russian joke; on average we live pretty well, not as good as last year but definitely better than next year. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Obligatory Onoz, OMG!

Anon lurker here, a quick search on this channel's utterly dire subreddit showed me it's chonk full of poorly researched clickbait. Don't give this more attention than it deserves. 2A02:A459:4859:1:192E:F009:8DE9:A3B8 (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from anons like these are exactly why I say we should never close the Bar like Techpriest did. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Fun tidbit, this show used to be directly affiliated with a site called SuprNova.org, around the early-mid 2010s it seems. Old Internet vets may recall this URL in "older times" a wee bit differently, it was a torrent piracy site. Apparently the same guy (Andrej Preston) is behind both, though solid information is hard to find here. A probable old torrent site operator is probably not an expert on military policy, economics, or all of the other subjects covered on this Youtube channel. Reviews seem to indicate poor research for the videos, a lot of single-sourcing or bad sourcing.

It is impossible to predict the future very well, though people try. Just look at this report from Goldman Sachs in November 2019. "Global Economic Outlook 2020: A Break in the Clouds". Oops. I am seeing a lot of gloomy economic forecasts for 2023, the only thing I can confidently predict is such may or may not happen. These forecasts are just noise to fill space in business papers, I suppose. Likewise, the nuclear threat from a Putin is real, but it's usually in nobody's interest to start a game where "the only winning move is not to play", as it were. I think the general consensus is "very low chance". BobJohnson (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have almost never seen a prediction about the future which was not subsequently eaten by a black swan.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Everybody dies in the (very) long run, and "This too will pass." Anna Livia (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And tomorrow will be the 8th of December (for me anyway). I guess I should have written "I have almost never seen a non-trite prediction of the future which .... . But thanks for the correction.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Humanity will go extinct, proving the doomsayers right. (someday, I promise.) Vee (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘infographics show is a cheap knockoff of kurzgesagt – in a nutshell. they used to be better, but their quality has declined over the years. i stopped taking them seriously a long time ago. The G (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I always had the feeling that there was something off about the channel. There's the thumbnails that have the feel of a stock image, in that they're kinda boring and generic and occasionally just plain weird. I also remember watching a scene from their video on Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski where the narrator talks about how awful the guy was with a serious but rather flat voice, while also showing him cartoonishly stab someone in the street with cheery music on the soundtrack—and I think this was after a section describing how discreet and stealthy he was. Animation team and narration team weren't talking, it seems. I can see why some people call it a content farm. DietMondrian (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The channel used to good but after 2019 it became Bad. The tumbnails look very clickbaity and fake. Edward the eight (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Goddamn it, fell for some doom and gloom clickbait again, gotta be more vigilant.—WMS (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Will any country switch recognition of China from the People's Republic of China to the Republic of China

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2022/12/08/2003790348

I doubt it but will it be possible? It would stay within the One China policy. The PRC responding to a hypothetical invasion of Taiwan does not seen likely as a war would destabilize the global economy more than it currently is now and result in a military response.

Maybe I am wrong. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It would literally paint a huge target on Taiwan, and be an invitation for Xi to invade. CCP is reeling from it's Covid-19 failures, why give them a reason to unify?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I see your point. Even switching recognition from PRC to the ROC as the real China just by one country could be catastrophic.

That said I suspect that the PRC is likely banking on Taiwan to declare independence as a different nation as a pretext for invasion. Switching recognition doesn't seem like the best pretext for invasion. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Nobody wants to rock the boat on the issue or piss off China by switching to recognizing Taiwan instead of the PRC. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There's long been a bit of a diplomatic war going on about getting countries to switch between the ROC and PRC - and it's not always one way (St Lucia switched to the ROC in 2007). But we have to remember that international diplomacy - even if you're some idealistic paradise like Norway - is very heavy on the realpolitik and pissing off Beijing on a point of principle seems kinda stupid. Not that China will say, invade you but there would be politico-economic ramifications which on the scales wouldn't pay off for any upswing in Taiwanese support.

Anyway, the article is not related to the premise of your original question. It's quite literally over German 'grouchiness' over Beijing's attempts to assert a wider EEZ than currently accepted by the international community (qv: Spratly Islands) and their attempts to morph the EEZ rights into full-blown territoral waters. Thing is, even if there was truly 'one China' there would still be a gap in the Taiwan Strait for international shipping without needing to get 'permission' from the EEZ holder. Even warships of other powers.

This in general is very similar to the Putin playbook - change the rules/definitions, claim loudly enough that your made-up 'rights' are being trampled on, rattle sabres and hopefully watch the West trip over themselves to appease, which generally leads to basic recognition of the BS claims as being correct. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, I wish they and China just come up with a deal where in exchange for Taiwan getting independence (or "absolute autonomy" if independence in all but name is what they'll agree to), they have to essentially become Switzerland in all things and maintain extreme neutrality. It's not my dream scenario of Taiwan annexing "Western Taiwan" or my wishful one of Taiwan becoming as sovereign to China as Japan is to China, but at this point, I'll take any solution where Taiwan's democracy is irrevocable and irreversible by China and not bound by their censorship laws while having a sustainable deal that China will honor and not choose to go to war over at any time as a "team-building" exercise for the country. I just don't see the status-quo as sustainable or solid when it comes to avoiding war or securing a Democratic Taiwan. What frightens me is that there'll be a new generation in power one day who will have never seen the Warlord period, The Civil War 1.0, the Japanese invasion, The Civil War 2.0, and The Cold War, yet they'll act with the same zeal as if within their lifetime, Taiwan was once part of their country somehow and recently broke away.

They like to compare it to if one of our states were to declare independence with a foreign nation's help. To try an make comparison, I'll just say the state of Washington by China's help no matter how unlikely that would be. And let's exclude some historical and geological facts like the fact it's directly on the mainland, wasn't annexed by another country for twenty years or so before by a third country, and by the 1940's, would have represented more of the national GDP, population, continuous strategic coastline, and the nation's cultural heartland than Taiwan historically had. Now then, if it happened now, I'd be wanting Washington back, no arguments. If I were born 50 years after such an affair however, I'm not sure how I could feel as strongly about getting that state back by itself since I'd have no connection or cultural ties with that state to want me to act against it or get it to integrate since for all my life, it'd be essentially another country. The only way I could see it mattering to me is with heavy state propaganda and my older family members acting like it's a part of my national identity to want it back. Even then, could I honestly say getting that state back would help me at all knowing the military cost, the international repercussions, and the result would just be some economically useless land after such an intense war with most of its brain power gone, the population hostile, and foreign powers united against us with our future endeavors more impeded for such a brazen action every step of the way? And that's just assuming that the conflict is short and doesn't escalate into a full-scale war with an opposing military power.-Ryan1257 (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I read about a possible peace proposal a few months ago with a confederation in which it is effectively the status quo but both choose a single representative to the United Nations and have a single military. There would also be an agreed upon national security apparatus. So far there has been little traction with the idea. A similar idea was proposed to end the Israel-Palestine Conflict. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Not gonna fly. Not after Beijing gutted the 1986 agreement they made with the UK over Hong Kong. I bet the average Taiwanese wouldn't trust the Chinese state to keep to it's deals in both letter and spirit, and I really don't blame them for this. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the majority of the Taiwanese population wants to reunite with China as evidenced by the Kuomintang winning the majority of local elections. The Kuomintang and the CPC(the correct notation for the Communist Party of China) have cordial relations because China sees the DPP as a lot more Western oriented as opposed to the KMT which is nationalist( a good thing for Taiwan). I just hope reunification happens on terms that are acceptable to both terms CaliML (talk)

I doubt any countries will switch their recognition to Taiwan, there is no real political or financial incentive to do so and the PRoC has been slowly picking off countries that recognize Taiwan. It says something when Taiwan is reaching out to Somaliland for a potential ally. Still, I feel any change in Taiwan's status should only be done with the approval of the Taiwanese indigenous population, who the KMT victimized under the White Terror. Plutocow (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Not gonna happen, Cali. The only time the Taiwanese would accept 'reunification' would be with a Beijing which was truly democratic. And again, you cannot have a deal when there is no trust beween the parties. What's stopping the Chinese welching on their 'deal' the moment the Taiwanese military has been disarmed and 'mainland' police have set up shop on every street corner? KarmaPolice (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Germany avoids a nazi coup.. for now.

Anyone else see this one coming?? The media is acting as if it was a huge surprise. FairDinkum (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not really the first one in the last few years. But it was a surprise to me. Also interesting is that it seems to have been a mix of their versions of Qanon and sovereign citizen stuff.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression the movement was more harking back more to the Second Reich, not the Third. The movement doesn't look like full-blown fascism to me, more reactionary-authoritarianism. But I'll be happily corrected on this by an actual German. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Unlike the American version of a similar event, they actually stopped the plot before it happened rather than letting it happen and allowing the perpetrators to leave peacefully.-Ryan1257 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Heinrich XIV is the current head of the particular Reuss dynasty (the numbering systems in operation are 'peculiar') - and could, like other 'claimants to the various royal dynasties' be regarded as a type of 'sovereign citizen.' Anna Livia (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The Reichsbürger movement is well known and not a recent phenomena - unlike the MAGAmorons. They have had previous run-ins with the authorities and even at least 1 previous attempt at "creating a civil war". Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist plot at its finest. Law enforcement agencies need to treat these plots as terrorist acts. My philosophy is "call it like it is". --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears the Germans are. I wonder if they'll throw in sedition too?

I'll also point out the aristo involved is 'Heinrich XIII, Prince of Reuß'. His relative named above - 'Prince Heinrich XIV Reuß' has denounced said adventure and called him a 'confused old man'. Plus, the principality that said family used to rule was only the size of the the US Virgin Islands and has only about ~150k population now. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Does Alt-right exist outside the western world?

Yes they exist in USA (Trump),Europe (Eurabia Conspiracy theory) Japan (Liberal democratic party) korea (DCinside) But are they in the middle east, Latin America, Turkey,the Indian subcontinent,south east Asia,China and Africa? If not are there equivalents to Alt-right there Edward the eight (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hindutva, Turkish nationalism, Jair Bolsonaro... Vee (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget about Islamic fundamentists (Not Muslims) Edward the eight (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think they would be classified as the Religious Right, not the alt-right. Vee (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Japan has a pretty active far right movement focused on anti-Korean hate and reviving the old Empire. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 16:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Iran also has to deal with militant Persian ultranationalism. I don't know how organized they are though, but it's a thing that exists. Vee (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

ideas of what is right and left on the political spectrum differ from region to region and in different cultures. here talking of the religious right and of the alt-right, is being framed within a western, more specifically a US, context. but its not really that simple to broadly apply these labels to other regions with other cultures and regions, and expect the labels to have any meaning beyond 'people we dont like.' whatever similarities that one group may have with another group from across the globe, there will be plenty that is different enough at as fundamental level that we cannot make the assumptions about them that applying the same label puts on them. it just encourages a kind of intellectual laziness where the label is applied to tell us we dont like them but not looking any further as to what exactly it is we dont like about them. for example, the amount of times i have heard some twat is the 'trump' of someplace is maddening as it obfuscates the specific twattery of whoever is being compared and does not in any way help to understand their appeal or threat they they pose making it far harder to combat what ever shitbaggery they intend to do as heads of their governments.

right wing governments or movements and the like may very well be considered on some fundamental level on the right or far right of things, but in any practical sense its a meaningless label that tells us very little about them. we need to look at theses groups in terms of the cultures they exist in, and the motivations, strengths and weaknesses they have specific to those cultures. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The "alt right" movement is I think best summarized as an anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian ethic nationalistic movement. Are there other anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian ethnic nationalist movements in other countries? Certainly. They, of course, will look differently from the alt-right, so it is best to ask if there are movements with similar characteristics in other countries (because there certainly is), not if there are alt-right clones elsewhere (because none of the others look *exactly* the same). The alt-right, of course, is also unique in that the alt-right's white nationalism is swamped in online troll / shitpost / chan culture. So your best "matches" are going to be ethno-nationalist movements that also happen to be swamped in troll / shitpost / chan culture, or something relatively similar, like the Netto-uyoku in Japan. BobJohnson (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that the alt-right labelling is sufficiently vague that alt-right could be mapped to fascism and alt-lite to para-fascism. Would Bolsonaro agree that that he is alt-right, for example? Probably not, but he is certainly fascistic. Bongolian (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That's how I interpreted "alt-right." At this point it's basically a synonym for the far right. It's why I personally don't care for the label that much. Also don't the Hindutva assholes use memes too? Granted, Hindutva doesn't have roots in chan culture, but I'm pretty sure Hindutva has taken to the Internet like a moth to the flame. Vee (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going with the other wiki which seems to focus the "alt-right" term on a particular white nationalist movement spearheaded by Richard Spencer, popularized by 4chan, and dying with the Unite the Right disaster. It does seem to have entered discourse as a generic term for the "far right" as well, but when you do that, sentences like "Ben Shapiro HATES the alt-right" (a truthful statement) doesn't make sense. BobJohnson (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

As for China, there are plenty of pro-CCP nationalists like Sima Nan who take advantage of social media to spread their views. Of course, in China's case, the Internet is already heavily sanitized and moderated by the government. Social conservatism and Han nationalism exist within the CCP. There exists Nathan Rich, who seems to try to spread pro-CCP views both in China and the West. LongStylus (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let's not forget Afrikaner ethnic separatism in South Africa. They are right wing extremists, ethnic nationalist and often fundies. They are alt-right by definition. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Malay supremacist politics are also a big thing (institutional even) in Malaysia. Vee (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the alt-right is a largely western phenomenon largely derived from European fascism. That's not to say that there aren't equivalents in other cultures, and globalization as well as the fact that right wing groups often have an easy time getting along with each other (with the only real divides being religion and Israel) means that they can often overlap (hence why American alt-righters love the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Rhodesia, Pinochet, and the Crusades) but they have different origins and often a different ideological basis (scientific racism, ethnic nationalism, religious fundamentalism, neoliberalism (Pinochet and imitators), etc.). Plutocow (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ so, about bolsonaro...

bolsonaro is not alt-right. he might have alt-right buddies (even notable american figures like bannon and miller), and sure his politics overlap with the alt-right, but he still falls short of being a typical alt-righter. he's more alt-lite than anything (so much so that i changed the category in his article accordingly).

for one thing, our own article on bolsonaro says that he supported women's rights via legislation (to some degree). also, bolsonaro recognizes israel. even though he has made some gaffes about jews, he is still somewhat favored over lula in israel.[17]

side note (your mileage may vary): lula, on the other hand, was more supportive of palestine, and he invited notorious anti-semite and then-president of iran ahmadinejad for a visit. (on that note, you can add the latter to the list of international alt-righters.) despite this, lula will likely maintain balanced relations with israel and palestine. [18] also, lula was the one who recognized the state of palestine on behalf of brazil. The G (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say being supportive of Israel is enough to disqualify someone from being alt-right; in fact it is one of the few issues that actually divides the alt-right. Generally, alt-righters like the "killing Arabs" part and the ethnonationalism part as well as generally being supportive of "might makes right", while they only really hate the "Jewish" part though Israel does make a good target of anti-semitic conspiracy theories like the ZOG. Notably, Richard Spencer, who coined the term alt-right, is pro-Israel, and while that's not a universal opinion of the alt-right (David Duke is notoriously opposed to Israel and his "PhD" is an anti-semitic rant disguised as a criticism of Israel) it does show how supporting Israel doesn't disqualify someone from being alt-right. Also, I hate the idea of how supporting Israel means you can't be anti-semitic, as it's basically the same thing as saying opposing Israel is anti-semitic. Plutocow (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

“He’s not a nazi, just friends with them” is kind of enough for me to classify someone as fash. There exists neo-nazi’s who support Israel btw. Some actively argue that all jews should be made to live there, and that “white” people should be provided a separate ethno-state of their own. I feel like the category of “alt-lite” should be done away with. If you’re nazi adjacent — you are barely have any less of a reprehensible world view. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

i could just as easily flip the script. as i mentioned earlier, lula is friends with ahmadinejad; he's also friends with putin. are you saying he's a fascist and/or an islamic extremist? he's also friends with maduro and díaz-canel. does that mean he's an authoritarian communist like the brazilian far-right would have you to believe? conversely, was stalin a nazi because of the molotov-ribbentrop pact? is the united states pro-islamism for being an ally of saudi arabia, a state sponsor of terrorism?

point is, politics make strange bedfellows, indeed. "it takes one to know one," doesn't always apply in politics or international relations. The G (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

as far as bolsonaro not being alt-right, i understand your perspective on israel, but i still decategorized him from that category because trump isn't listed under "alt-right", so why should tropical trump be? i mean, it helps if we are consistent, right? if you disagree with my decision, we'll have to fork this conversation over to one or both of their talk pages (or just start a new bar thread). The G (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

We talk about the alt-right as if it were an actual thing in the world, apart from being a label describing behavior most of us do not like. Some people act like right-wingers who operate in a certain way, e.g., they are active on the internet and espouse certain conspiracy theories, such as the white replacement theory. It is a leap to suppose that such people, as individuals, have a lot in common. The nominal and reification fallacies are sometimes difficult to recognize. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You can say the exact same thing about any abstract political ideology from liberalism, conservatism, communism, etc. All as being an example of a nominal or reification fallacy when treated as concrete given they are all abstract sets of beliefs. But even then to state that communists are not an actual thing in the world would be kind of ridiculous. You are also kind of running with a nominalist philosophy assuming that abstract objects are not "actual things" in the world which is a not a non-contentious philosophical position. Whole literature of debate is spilled to ascribe things like numbers as being "actual things" in the world. Also to describe the label "alt-right" to simply describe behavior we do not like is significantly underplaying the fact we are talking about a genocidal political movement. I don't think trivializing fascism as simply "something we do not like" paints yourself a flattering picture. It sort of makes myself immediately suspicious to what your particular political motivations are in stating that. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC).

Yes of course, you can say that about many things. The point is some of them have conditions associated with them that are testable. For example. I am a registered democrat. You can find out at the board of elections that that is so. The democrats have a family of positions and policies that are reasonably well known. Not really true of republicanism, unless you want to specify the leader and his control over the GOP. Fascism is a designation for neo-feudalism. That's it. We can go into detail about how that form of authoritarianism has reified in this century, but we know nothing certain about why it is recrudescent. That does not mean it is trivial, and we get nowhere with strawman arguments. It is presumptive to assume these cosplayers are any anything but banal fools. They are fodder for factitious essays. Some represent what past writers have referred to as the banality of evil. I am supposing there is nothing complicated about them. Also, I don't know why I should be interested in your suspicions. They are, after all, special to yourself and similar minded folk. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

and what exactly is non-testable about a white nationalist? They have publications, meetings, forums, media, a describable doctrine of belief, etc. All of this applies to Richard Spencer’s movement. He had a whole policy think tank associated with it, wrote publications defining the alt right and it’s ethno-nationalist goals. He held meetings, recruited members, and had registered donors. There wasn’t anything particularly banal about it. It was a stated policy proposal to have all black people and jews removed from the country. This was an organized political movement with calls for violence against minorities. People murdered in the name of this movement. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What the fuck does "fascism is not testable" even mean? What a gratuitous non-sequitur. Vee (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Did I say fascism is not testable? I know you want to help your friend, but that's not the way to do it. There is, of course, no accounting for taste.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"The point is some of them have conditions associated with them that are testable." How does this relate to the alt-right (which, as OSD has demonstrated, has perfectly "testable" condition) and what relevance does this hold to the conversation? Also, must you be so condescending? In what way is this detour not one grand non sequitur and red herring? Vee (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Such conditions include the folk-philosophy many writers use instead of exact definitions. Fascism is an example. It has a simple historical definition. It isn't complicated. It really is ok if you don't agree with me. We both dislike fascism. Why isn't that enough? Why so sententious? None of us have everything right, exactly.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism provides a scholarly definition of fascism that instead of resorting to an exact definition defines fascism as a series of stages and characteristics. (It's available here.) Umberto Eco's definition allows for a set of "testable conditions" to identify if a movement is fascist or not. It doesn't have to meet all of the characteristics as long as it meets some of them. You know the old saying "when fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and cross"? Of course American fascism (a la Trumpism) isn't identical to classic 20th century Nazism or Italian fascism. Vee (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism is pretty apt to all historical examples I am aware of defining fascism as palingenetic ultra-nationalism. Called such due to the focus of a kind of revolutionary “re-birth” of some once idolized cultural/racial identity that has fallen due to manipulations of some constructed set of enemies or “other” that needs to be eradicated for this re-birth to emerge. All framed in the context to which national identity rises above all else. These “enemies” are typically defined as immigrants, or muslims, jews, liberals, black people, communists, etc. The alt-right fits this definition seamlessly within their propaganda. A lot of Spencer’s propaganda focuses on the suppression of European “greatness” due to “degenerative” forces namely in things like “cultural marxism”. A lot of focus on ancient Rome, Greece, myths of the Ayran race, etc as the supposed great civilizations we are supposed to return to. I am not really convinced of someone stating they dislike fascism when they put considerable effort to denying it even exists to begin with, and tries to trivialize it as “stuff we dislike”. I think Vee and myself suspicions is appropriate in response to someone trying to “defang” a fascist movement. It only helps fascists to convince others not to take them as serious threat. As a queer man and Vee as a woman we cannot really afford to be so dismissive. The alt-right has done a lot of mainstream fascist rhetoric and ideas, and we see this reflected in the escalation of anti-queer rhetoric, Tucker Carlson’s immense popularity among consumers of Fox news, the increasing attacks on reproductive rights, etc. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The “alt-right” was just itself an attempt to rebrand an already existing neo-nazi movement in the united states and Canada. Previous decades they were referred to as skinheads after co-opting that movement. They call themselves “identitarians”, “patriots”, “anti-woke”, “the boogaloo movement”, “the proud boys”, etc. They still form paramilitary groups as of recent, and the FBI even admits to having a problem with them being over-represented in the police. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

American right wing support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine

I am not sure how someone can say "I am a proud American" but turn around and support Putin; whose ideology is completely wrapped up in Anti-Americanism. Putin literally preaches hate against the United States yet right wing loons who claim to support the United States.

Am I missing something? Doublethink? --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Putin hates gays. That's enough for some of them. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Right-wingers generally love strongman leaders. Plus, they tend to be opposed to western "wokeness", and the especially antisemitic ones think that Putin is resisting the supposed Jewish conspiracy that is supposedly making the west weaker through "wokeness", not helping is that the Russian government has been using antisemitic dogwhistles. And of course, both groups are fascists, so it shouldn't really be a surprise; seemingly-opposed right-wing groups usually have an easier time getting along than seemingly-similar left-wing groups. Plutocow (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the American supporters of Putin 'justify' in their heads that Russia couldn't ever be a direct threat to the USA, so it's okay to support that bald bastard. Like with the American fans of Hitler in the 30s, it's a form of wankery born from being on an generally self-sufficient land with two oceans protecting you and with the guns of the world's largest Navy standing in the way of any interlopers. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Their whole shtick is that if the Democrats/leftists support something, they oppose it and vice versa because it makes them think people will see them as "free thinkers" and "nonconformists". Nuance is dead with them. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 19:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is the case, at least for this. Most of the pro-Putin support in the Republican party comes from the culture warrior / MAGA side. The 1930s pro-Hitler fascists movements also wrapped themselves in "Christian" / white supremacist / antisemitic phrasing, so in many ways it is no surprise that a similar movement exists today; I think it's just "fascism sympathy" for idiots who actually think fascism is a good thing. All the polls I see say that a vast majority of Americans detest Putin, so just like in the 1930s, it's probably not hugely mainstream, though there is a core audience for this stuff (compare Charles Coughlin to Tucker Carlson...) BobJohnson (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that there are still people who don't recognize fascism as a crime against humanity is depressing. Luigifan18 (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It's the view that Western Culture is full of "degeneracy", which is a contagion that spreads. Da Gëyz spread their fabulous throughout Europe and then into the US, and if France's Full-frontal Nationale or Greece's Golden Shower cleanse their countries of the alphabet people, then gay people in all other western countries have less support and are thus easier to be forced back in line in your own country. CorruptUser 15:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Just lost an aunt

I think I'm privileged. I just turned 30 and I still have all my four grandparents alive. Two months ago I traveled to Canada to say goodbye to an aunt who had cancer. This week I got the news. She died at the age of 54. It's my first time losing someone dear to me (unless you count great grandparents, though it's been more 20 years since the last one of them died). It fucking sucks. I'm not giving up on atheism because of that, but the idea that so many great people are going to the same place as Hitler is indeed infuriating. How do you guys cope with losses and with the fact that you’ll never see the ones you love again? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I just lost an uncle to cancer, and can confirm it just fucking sucks. What's helped me is to stay busy, he always enjoyed seeing pictures from places his nieces and nephews went (he never had or wanted his own kids) and that's been as good a way as any to carry on the legacy. And keeping the pictures of him around help, that way the last image of him I have isn't the cancer-riddled and wasted body he was at the end but of him from happier times. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss. I wish I had something comforting to say. All I can say is this: Don't buy into religious nonsense. Hell is just make-believe. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Don't worry, I won't buy into religious nonsense. I'm just upset at how some amazing people in the end will end up in the same place (ie. cease to exist) as people who left this earth unpunished. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

That is truly horrible. I'm really sorry you lost someone dear to you GeeJayK. Grieve, grieve your heart away. My mother passed away earlier this year and my heart still aches raw. The idea that she would be in an afterlife (some other plane) would not be comforting but disturbing, as being stuck in any eternal existence sounds grotesque to me. She is ashes now. What lives on are the footprints that she has left, both physical as well as her values and ideas, her kindness and unconditional love. You couldn't rip that away from me no matter how hard you tried and her life will echo on in the values and the way she touched people, both the mundane and the special. Your aunt's foot prints will echo for a long time. These footprints are more meaningful than some grotesque heaven, or childish afterlife fantasies. Be grateful you had someone who touched you, who cared for you and loved you. Some people grew up with little of this. Pass on her admirable values and her kindness and leave the right kind of footprints for others. I'm sending you a huge virtual hug. Consider using this opportunity to open up to others you care about and express to them (or get into the habit of expressing to them) how much they mean to you. Now couldn't be a more better time to get into this habit when you share a collective loss. ShabiDOO 00:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the virtual hug, Shabi, it's much appreciated. I'll keep in mind what you said. Also, sorry for your mom. I can't even imagine what would I do without mine. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your loss, GeeJayK. Best wishes. Bongolian (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that we just wear down with time Gee. When my grandmother died, I was a young man, and it really hit me hard because she was the one who took care of me when my parents were unable to. I left the hospital with tears in my eyes. When my father died I couldn't stop crying until after the funeral. Later, after a few more passings I became less responsive to the hardship of loss. But I do remember them. I do remember to remember.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

i'm sorry for your loss. i lost my aunt last year to covid. one day, we were talking and laughing with each other; the next day (i.e., just a few weeks later), she was no more. it was very painful, but over time, i learned to accept it and move on. it may take some time (it took me a month to go through all the stages of grief), but you learn to accept it as a part of life. this isn't to say you'll "get over it." by the time i was 8, i had lost 3 of my grandparents. i'm 26 now, and every now and then, i think about how much i miss them; but again, the worst of the mourning passes after the first few months or so. The G (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

as far as the religious/philosophical aspect of death goes, the more i read history, the more i realize how awful human beings are and how many people got away with doing the most evil things in the world. the best remedy to that, i think, is to learn the lessons from the past and look to the future. we can't change what happened or what people did back then, but we can do our part to make the world a better place for those around us and for future generations. The G (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your loss. I agree with Shabidoo; I don't believe in an afterlife. Nothing has to last forever for it to be meaningful. Even if the universe goes into heat death, what matters is we "enjoy every sandwich" as Warren Zevon would say. LongStylus (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks, everyone. I spent most of last night crying. Now I'm feeling a bit better. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion now. I'm glad you're feeling better. Your aunt surely loved you and wouldn't want you to feel bad forever. Keep her in your memories. As long as she lives there she lives somewhere. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 16:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss. Best thing you can do is treasure your positive memories of her. I lost a friend a few years ago. One thing that helps with the pain from my experience is remembering their birthday ever year, but everyone has their own process of dealing with that sort of thing. -- Techpriest (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

RW Election

It's the 12th: who's gomma do the election booth thing? Scream!! (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@David Gerard? Bongolian (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

sorry for delay! Laptop died. (Yes, right then.) On spare right now, just switched on the Election Booth and I'm putting in a vote to make sure it fucking works this time - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

YES THE VOTING WORKS, YOU CAN PUT UP ALL THE NOTICES AND SHIT hooRAY @Bongolian@Cosmikdebris - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

update on grug explain thing

With the idea and know how done the microphone and computer are going to be the hard parts, and the cave man costume. Wheelson ( professor grug arc ) (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The microphone should be inside a fake bone. FairDinkum (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Moore County grid sabotage inspiring copycat attacks

Attacks occurred in Washington and Oregon. Figures. The attack in NC struck me as a "proof of concept" attack. Vee (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the DHS warned about domestic extremists targeting the electric grid early this year, and per that report they've been yapping about it since at least their "God emperor" lost the election. Last year apparently a few pond scum bits of Atomwaffen Division were arrested for conspiring to damage substations. So this has been A Thing for the extremist anti-government / neo-Nazi side for longer than I thought when I first heard the NC story. I think the DHS quote in the CBS News report is right, though: "Absent significant technical knowledge or insider assistance, small scale attacks are unlikely to cause widespread, multi-state power loss but may result in physical damage that poses risks to operations or personnel." BobJohnson (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Kind of interesting that events that happened in November might be a copycat of something that happened in December. RagingHippie (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Election results disappeared down a black hole

A dumb disaster ate the election results - the "election" folder turns out not to have been created. So all the carefully made votes went down a fucking black hole.

I apologise for not verifying it was writing votes somewhere as opposed to nowhere, I've been basically quite unwell of late and just about managed to get this set up in the first place.

I realise it will be a huge fucking pain in the ass to run the election again, but I'm pretty sure the file was in fact written to nowhere. Arse.

I would resign my position except I did that five years ago and it still didn't take - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, David. Given everything you've done for the wiki, I'm sure no one will fault you for this. Vee (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

anyway. Discuss setting a date amongst yourselves, the returning officers can send me an email and this time I'll fucking check - David Gerard (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, David. I hope you feel better. I propose starting the new election on December 12 at 0:00 UTC. Bongolian (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. However, I'd like to propose we re-open campaigning for 5 days (ending December 9 at 0:00 UTC). Reasoning is: new information might've come to light during this time that I think would be reasonable to share. Andrew5 (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Like what? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Took the words right out of my mouth. Vee (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Eh, this election is probably more secure than the 2020/2016/2000/1996/1992/1972/1960 Presidential election. CorruptUser 02:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Plutocow's handling of the Luigifan18 situation might earn them some endorsements, and would be enough to scale back my opposition into a weak oppose. I think it's only fair if people can put more information about candidates on the campaigning page. Andrew5 (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The campaign page isn’t protected, I doubt anyone would object if you commented there. Christopher (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Just blame China and Russia. LOL. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I blame communist Canada and their evil liberals. LongStylus (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I blame Brexit which seems to have caused unlimited, and unanticipated, problems.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Blame Soros! We all knew that he knew that we knew about his dastardly deeds!!!11! Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I blame capitalism. Capitalism is ruining the planet and the features of capital allow for gross economic inequality and exploitation. Therefore, this means that capital has ruined the entire political process on the wiki. QED. Vee (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

it's the sign of the Dajjal that means it is the end of the world /s Edward the eight (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Vote

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Revote to be held on December 12: 18 in favor, 1 opposed. Bongolian (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Date Hold revote starting on December 12 Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC) —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Scream!! (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Vee (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Christopher (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC) —RWRW (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC): LongStylus (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC) ScepticWombat (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Plutocow (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Andrew5 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Spud (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC) ShabiDOO 13:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC) CorSock (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC) - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Since this started on December 4, we could already start the vote on December 11 Monet Ye 10:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Hold revote starting on December 13 Kauri0.o (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Is there a reason when December 12 is a problem? Bongolian (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC) December 12 is the 346th day of the year. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC) and ...? Scream!! (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC) What's wrong with number 346?Andrew5 (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Who are you to question my beliefs? Voter intimidation, I cry! Kauri0.o (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Hold revote starting on another date

Goat

• Has anyone emailed David Gerard about the new dates? Christopher (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • yep, all good! Also I tested the election system this time, and it works. (lol) ALL SET FOR MONDAY - David Gerard (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Me leaving this comment should prevent this thread from being archived as long as it's still in the site notice. Christopher (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Unanimous consensus against re-opening campaigning. Andrew5 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Have 5 more days of campaigning Yes No Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC) —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Scream!! (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC) No need. Vee (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC) —RWRW (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC) LongStylus (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC) ScepticWombat (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Spud (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Since the vote won't happen until the 12th, anyone can just go to the campaign page now. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC) I don't see the use for this. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Duce has persuaded me this is unnecessary. Andrew5 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC) I rather not - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)