RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive429

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 19 January 2023. 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>, <427>, <428>, <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>
, (new)(back)

Increase in use of the term "NPC" on the internet[edit]

(If this is the wrong place to post this, please tell me where this would go.)

I've noticed a recent increase of use of the term "NPC" in various places, such as gaming-focused Discord servers, various fringe corners of the internet, and the vocabulary of trolls. It's been used by the alt-right for ages, but its recent spike in use, especially when most recent use cases are to dehumanize others, just like the alt-right's use of the term, seems almost unexplainable to me.

Do you have any idea what could be the cause of this?

(Edit: What the hell have I created?)

(Edit 2: TL;DR Game-focused Discord servers are almost always dumpster fires.)

Zenphia (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

so gamers on gaming focused discord are using gaming terminology to dehumanise folk? this is not hard to figure out AMassiveGay 17:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, to save the Google, it stands for "non-playable character". Also, this is an old enough meme to have a Wiki article on itWikipedia.
The concept, of course, is that the hurr durr idiots out there (usually liberals, because 4chan) are NPCs because they can't think for themselves and just latch themselves onto whatever Current Thing is and repeat blind talking points from it ad nauseam.
There is delicious irony, of course, that this concept is being represented by a meme that chan culture has blindly latched onto as one of their Current Things and is repeating ad nauseam. Hurr durr. BobJohnson (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
How is it unexplainable? The gaming circles are infamously chauvinistic, especially in certain genres where it's neurotypical cishet male dominated (MOBA, FPS, fighting games, usually competitive stuff; the mindset is largely diminished in Sims, Mario, Animal Crossing, Stardew Valley, Pokémon). They've latched on to whatever buzzwords they find because it's easier to use vague labels to groups to write them all off. It's on the same terms as "SJW", "woke", etc. They like "NPC" "non-playable character" because NPCs are controlled by AI. Bots. In the most simplistic terms, NPCs respond in the same way to various situations, with the same scripted language, and they're easily exploited (never mind that AI can be quite advanced in games and chessmasters can't beat some AI due to the insane matrices and algorithms AI have at hand to instantly calculate the best moves). Indeed, it IS ironic they use this term to dehumanize people but not really define the label so it becomes this scripted meaningless buzzword mush that dribbles out their mouths whenever some people point out the mildest observations or suggestions in bog standard media critiques like "hey this trope is harmful to a contingent of players" or "shouldn't we try to have a more diverse playerbase". I don't know if this has seen an "increased use"; it's been here for a while and it'll probably go the way of other eloquent reactionary dolt lexicon as they'll just find a new label to latch on to once these labels inevitably lose what little power they had in the first place. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
See also my "Draft:Church of the Current Thing" draft, which was inspired by some… unsavory posts I saw on r/antitheistcheesecake. It needs a lot of work. Luigifan18 (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
What's there to explain? Language develops all the time and people latch on to common points of reference and well, these things called 'computer games' are a bit more popular these days. I mean I do have to wonder if you've been living in Des Moines or something as I've seen NPC being used as a term online widely since about ~2015 and no, not all the uses were 'alties', 'trolls' or (on occasion) even derogatory. To chip in on pointing out 'this isn't new'... I'll point out a Hollywood film came out last year about the very concept - 'Free Guy.
I personally think what has simply happened is that the idiotic-talking heads have simply realised terms like 'sheeple' sound so 2010. It could be said it might also be a way to get 'down with the kids' by implying they're familiar with these electronic game thingies they've heard about... KarmaPolice (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────i agree with what massive gay said: "npc" is a term the alt-right uses to dehumanize people they disagree with. it's similar to terms like "brainwashed", "indoctrinated", and "sheep". from my observation, people typically use that term whenever they lose an argument (and especially if they lose badly). it's also useful for stroking an alt-righter's fragile ego (since that's my only explanation for why they believe their fantasies). The G (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't "sheep" mostly being used by Conspiracy Theorists? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
IDK anyone uses it to mean anything. The term itself lost meaning. I don't recommend using it in general either. Sheep aren't even dumb! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Sheeple, which definitely is an old-school conspiracy word (dating back to the 1980s or even earlier), is still being used on the 4chan /pol/ and related in a very similar manner to "NPC". As far as being either alt-right political or conspiracy theorist for that 4chan board, the answer is "yes" these days. But back in the 1980s-1990s, from what I am reading, "sheeple" definitely was strictly associated with conspiracy-crank, with folks like William Cooper or Art Bell apparently associated with helping spread the term. Things weren't quite as political with the crankery as they are now (it's more like "conservative politics" in the USA moved towards the crankery than the other way around, but that's a topic for another day). BobJohnson (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Meh, following the party line without thinking for yourself is hardly unique to Democrats, or really Democratists. Republicists (Republicysts, heh) have the Hurr Durr But My Freedom! Libertarians will adhere to all sorts of utter nonsense because other Libertarians said to. Communists, Anarchists, you name it theres people who can't think for themselves.
As for game terms leaking into the rest of the inter tubes, theres also "recruit difficulty" for the people who don't seem to realize they have it easy. It's often used on girls because we all know that being a hot young woman means you cant have struggles in life /sarcasm. CorSock (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
"sheeple" is used by conspiracy theorists of all stripes. i drew a comparison to illustrate how people with... different ideas portray everyone who doesn't see things from their perspective as hiveminds who are "asleep" (akin to the alt-right invoking the npc meme). i think it was originally meant to be an analogy in which people who silently submitted to an evil boogeyman were likened to sheep being led to a slaughter. nowadays, it's used synonymously with "brainwashed" and like terms.
it's dehumanizing because apparently, people who are indoctrinated (or who simply disagree with "awakened" or "enlightened" conspiracy theorists) are ostensibly like mindless zombies from a certain will smith filmWikipedia. "npc" is another way to characterize such "mindlessness" that has become a new favorite term for the alt-right. i've even seen calls for violence against the "brainwashed npc masses" on such awful places as facebook, instagram, and twitter. The G (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Someone called me "Hasbarian human cattle" once, because I didn't believe that this American university (I forgot the name) was a front for the Frankfurter school, so that the Jews could take over the world. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Rational Games, TV Shows, and Movies Shelf[edit]

Basically just as we have bookshelf, maybe their movies and games which promote our mission that we can promote. Some of them may not warrant a Rationalwiki article, but should point people in the right direction. Movies, Television Shows and games we’ve already covered like Contagion, The Twilight Zone or games like BioShock. Jakester499 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Papers Please is a game which gives an interesting slice of life of a border security officer for a totalitarian regime. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
The problem with TV and film is that they don't often age well. Their flaws become more apparent in retrospect, or they lose their relevancy, or they're just bad adaptations of a book. Bongolian (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Didn't we have a page on BioShock before? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
To be honest I have a gut reaction against this kind of thing. I've never liked the idea of media being 'approved' because it tells the 'right messages' or whatnot and have objections regarding overt 'edutainment'. I suppose both of these stem from my cultist days, which featured both of these. Sits too close to a simple inversion for my liking. Now, speaking purely personally I'd argue that a kind of 'blacklist' would better serve - not telling me what my spawn should watch/play/read but warning what stuff have clearly odious/outdated/propagandistic messages within and I should keep out of my damn house. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
That could be a vast list given what Hollywood has churned out over the years with ethnic stereotyping and marginalization. It would be simpler to have a short list of films that both stand the test of time, make one think (rather than just entertain or propagandize), and are relevant to RW mission. Examples that I'd throw in off the top of my head are: Blazing Saddles, Life of Brian, Judgment at Nuremberg,Wikipedia King of Hearts,Wikipedia A Raisin in the SunWikipedia and Dr. Strangelove. More recent additions might be Malcolm XWikipedia and I Am Not Your Negro.Wikipedia Several of Kurosawa's films stand out as well (e.g., RashomonWikipedia), but without the background being able to look at the Samurai films through the lens of World War II, Seven SamuraiWikipedia would be the best to stand alone. Films about dictators and coups: ZWikipedia and The Battle of Chile.Wikipedia Bongolian (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Also this TV series: Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights MovementWikipedia Bongolian (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Representative-elect George Santos under fire[edit]

https://twitter.com/news12li/status/1607871054973747204?s=46&t=zCAWKhe86NUn9acodnTZTA Doubt he’s getting re-elected in 2024. This is a Democratic advantage. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:55 (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a very good chance that he will face federal charges for at the minimum violating campaign election law, and possibly other financial crime charges. Santos already has embezzlement charges against him that are still unresolved in Brazil. He admitted to check fraud to the NYT, apparently in connection to the embezzlement in Brazil, but then later denied it. He has no talent other than flimflamming, and virtually no financial resources of his own. Whomever or whatever bankrolled his campaign will be discovered at some point and they will be brought down with him. The lies don't matter to the GOP, but the crimes will eventually bring him down. Bongolian (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE????? 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 03:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
lol santos logic is so stupid its hilarious like bruh [1] Mental sharpener (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Every person born in Santos' district is more Jewish than him — even the African Americans and Italian Americans:

If you live in New York or any other big city, you are Jewish. It doesn't matter even if you're Catholic; if you live in New York, you're Jewish. If you live in Butte, Montana, you’re going to be goyish even if you're Jewish. Evaporated milk is goyish even if the Jews invented it. Chocolate is Jewish, and fudge is goyish. Spam is goyish, and rye bread is Jewish. Negroes are all Jews. Italians are all Jews. Irishmen who have rejected their religion are Jews. Mouths are very Jewish. And bosoms. Baton-twirling is very goyish.
—Lenny Bruce

— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────this guy is an embarrassment to us brazilian-americans. if we aren't represented by corrupt lying fraudsters at home, we are represented by corrupt lying fraudsters here in the states. such a shame. The G (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This could be enough to deny McCarthy speakership. And to get someone willing to investigate Santos the speaker instead.2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:78 (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
It's highly unlikely McCarthy will do anything: he need's every GOP vote he can get to become Speaker, and will very likely cut deals with anyone he can, including Santos. Other GOP Reps probably don't care: not my district, not my problem. Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
McCarthy will embrace Santos in exchange for his vote, and you can take that to the bank. It’ll make him look like shit in the long term, but he won’t care about that right now. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 12:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Trump or Desantis?[edit]

If you had to have either one as president, who would you pick? Who is better as a person? — Unsigned, by: Hamburgerfries / talk / contribs

What do you think, "‎Hamburgerfries"? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
On one hand, DeSantis doesn't seem like he'd be a sore loser like Trump, though on the other hand, he could be more dangerous than Trump. — Unsigned, by: Hamburgerfries / talk / contribs
Would you rather be shot in the face or in the face? That's what choosing between Trump and Desantis amounts to. They're both morally bankrupt fascist scumbags. Luigifan18 (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Trump and Desantis both stand for the same miserable policies. Besides, I doubt Desantis will run against his daddy in the primaries. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 03:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
DeSantis, hands down. Would you vote for Trump with Tweets or Trump sans Tweets? CorSock (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
The question is not about who has more divorces, nor about who is more likeable. It would be about who is most dishonest. It's clear that the both lie habitually. Who lies the most?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't our article on Trump say that the man is in the runner up for "the most prolific liar in the history of the human race"? Vee (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I would love to see Trump lose again, but I think it would quite literally tear the country apart. Desantis has 0 charisma, and as mentioned before is a huge liar, and not a good one at that. If the GOP is serious about winning, it would nominate Mike Pompeo. Or Mike Pence.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
i live to see gop infighting again in the 2024 elections. it's my schadenfreude. that said, i don't see in any way how desantis is objectively better than trump (apart from maybe being not as bad as the latter). however, i'm open to changing my mind if someone makes the case for him. otherwise, i will vote for biden again if i have to (even though i don't really like him that much). -- The G (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
DeSantis is a cuck for Trump. Look at this ad he ran during his first campaign. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 03:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
exactly my point. he's even downplayed the capitol riot. but somehow, he's a Good Republican™... -- The G (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Guys don't forget the fucking trafficking stunt he did. Only for Abbott to follow suit a few days ago. It's so repulsive! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 05:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
"If you had to choose where to be shot, which location on your body would you prefer?" ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
If small caliber? Buttox. Least likely to lead to permanent damage or death. If large caliber? Foot. Can live missing a foot more easily than missing your pelvis. CorSock (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
If you vote for the Dems, you'll likely be frustrated by the inability to make significant changes to improve peoples lives, but they won't choose to actively harm you or your friends/family. Vote GOP, you'll maybe get some tax relief, but you'll be frustrated by the lack of any will to improve peoples lives at all and you or your friends/family may be actively threatened by their actions. Desantis would do it with competence and without malice. Trump would do it without competence and actual malice. More like a choice between the possibility of a lolli, and the certainty of a back handed slap while someone tells you that you don't deserve a lolli because you didn't work hard enough in life.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Good post! This is a refreshing comment to read when the internet is so full of “voting is useless” “both sides suck equally” discourse. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 12:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
From my European perspective, I guess that DeSantis would be better as US president, but I honestly don't know all that much about him. Trump means a circus performance that never lets up, and craziness, strained and cracked international relations – and while things like QAnon naturally spring up around Trump and spread across the whole world like wildfire, I'm guessing DeSantis lacks that peculiar, abnormal spark. But maybe I'm looking at this too naively?
On the other hand, maybe DeSantis would succeed better in creating a lasting legacy of twisted changes to the US? There's the possibility that Trump would go about everything in so chaotic and dysfunctional a way as to ultimately end up undoing all he strives for – and that could bring a brighter future once a crazy nightmarish period is over.
But realistically, I think Trump is a has-been. At least news over here suggest so, that there is widespread "Trump fatigue" now in the US among former Trump supporters, and that there's a silent move away from Trumpism because it worked poorly in the midterms. But there could still be a spectacular fight between Trump, DeSantis, etc., as the next election approaches, infighting possibly messing up the GOP's chances if it gets wild enough. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Speaking as one who finds them both odius, I semi-echo Liberal's point that Trump is the 'lesser threat' due to his mass narcissism, greed, stupidity and incompetence - you can see him coming from a mile off and there's a decent chance he'd trip over before he gets to you. Desantis is clearly sharper and more circumspect, which like Nixon makes them much more dangerous. However, he has an 'issue'; he can't knife Trump. If he does burst the Orange Tumour his cult will turn on him, and thus threaten losing the primary.
Which leads to a possible nightmare scenario; a 'Trump/DeSantis' ticket, with the latter actually trying to get shit done. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Desantis has identified the way to run to the right of Trump; vaccines.[2] It's all theatre, but it's a particularly dangerous theatre. Already there are reports of lower vaccination rates for MMR.[3]Trump's own contradictory language exposed this attack, but I don't think it's enough to down him.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
…Welp. Hopefully COVID will put the morons in the ground before they can do any damage. I swear, people who vote Republican are basically brain-dead… Luigifan18 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
This might have started happening already. Red counties in Arizona had bad mortality rates from COVID-19, and now we found out that the AG race was won by the Democrat by less than 300 votes. Definitely not far-fetched to think that Republicans cost themselves that office by encouraging their voters to die stupidly. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 03:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Luigifan18, I knew you had some shitty opinions, but... wow... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

What are the odds that Joe Biden will be reelected?[edit]

I actually think the Old Man's chances are better than most folks grant. The last few years have been a roller-coaster for America; Trump, BLM, 'culture-wars', half-arsed coups, Covid and now a indirect war with Russia. I think there's quite a hankering from a significant % of the adult population who more than anything else, would just like some peace, quiet and stability in their 'own bubble' (so 'unable to do much' might be a lot less an issue than the suspicious red-link person thinks). It was part of the riff Biden played in '20 and I think if he does run again should be played by the whole band - that with Old Joe it's baseball, Budweiser and Phil Collins; dull, familiar and rather middle-of-road. There's historical comparisons for this - the 1920 election, where Harding campaigned under 'return to normalcy' after the strains of the 'Progressive Era' reforms, followed sharply by WW1 and then the Spanish Flu.
I see two issues; Ukraine and the VP pick. Now, the former is obvious - by '24 chances are we would have had a 'result' and if it's something which appears to be a 'Ukranian victory' I think it shall be enough to get Biden over the line. With the latter... a 'strong' VP pick is perhaps the only thing which the octogenarian Biden can do to allay the voter's fears of later senility, decrepitude or the reaper causing a state funeral. And I don't feel that Harris is this person. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought Biden said that he didn't wanna go for a second term? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope he doesn’t run again but I have a bad feeling he will. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 12:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Eh... I think we're gonna a see a version of what happened with the 'NotTrump' folks for the last Republican primaries; that Biden enjoys a fair but not firm plurality in polling - that unless the 'NotBiden' coalesce around a good alternative he's gonna get it. Let's not forget the psychological, too; if Biden 'came out of retirement' in '20 because he genuinely believed American democracy was in peril and was convinced he was the only one who could defeat the Orange One, he might (just might) feel okay about stepping aside if the other 'looks like a winner'.
Which is the issue - the 'who'. Taking a list of the possibles on Wiki, most have issues which means they don't appear a 'better bet' than the Old Man. In fact, the only one which jumps out at me (on paper) as being a definite 'possible' is the current governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper (Forbes article). KarmaPolice (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
On the theory that Biden or someone like him is the best the left can hope to get, given circumstances, Biden will be reelected unless, as has been pointed out already, something happens to render him unacceptable. At this point "...by natural causes" seems the most likely reason. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Dem's actually have a bench, unlike 2016 and 2020, so there are options. But after the fall/winter Biden had after a dreadful summer makes him the obvious front runner. VP is the likely successor should Biden not run,(either because he's incapable or decides not to) but there are those on the left wing that wouldn't tolerate her and push for a primary challenge. I think it'll be clear if Biden has the desire to run after a few months of GOP investigations into Hunter Biden.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I saw a good video by Renegade Cut: Does Donald Trump Even Want To Be President? Does Biden want to be POTUS, especially with all the crap that's being thrown Hunter's way? Vee (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
What crap? What I'd basically gathered is that it's the same stuff which has a) been known for years, b) some of it is barely criminal and c) doesn't even directly involve the Old Man himself. Unless they've got some decent, real and new evidence what's gonna be happening is a MAGA-controlled committee is going to use the next two years to JAQing off with barely any decent material to work with. In fact, this might actually backfire on the MAGAs if they come over as a bunch of petulant morons obsessing over relatively stale non-news and even worse, if one or more of the witnesses make them look stupid (which is also a risk for the Jan 6th revenge hearings). KarmaPolice (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I hardly think that it’s (only) ”the left” in the Democratic Party that will not ”tolerate her and push for a primary challenge” when it comes to Kamala Harris. She has proven to be as unimpressive as Veep as she was as a POTUS candidate. If she tries for the top job again, she will likely be challenged from multiple sides of the party, unless she can do some kind of intra party deal to head off challenges by getting Biden and Obama solidly behind her. This doesn’t seem likely right now, although I may simply not be up to date on Democratic manoeuvring and horse trading. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Harris is a godawful candidate, and I greatly hope she loses any primary she tries to run in. She'd definitely cost the Dems the presidency if she was the nominee. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 13:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
If Biden declines to run, Harris' main long-term 'threats' are Cooper and Newsom. Now, the latter apparently declined to run but my reading of the words is that he declined to challenge the Old Man. They're 'threats' in the respect they're in the general political zone she is and are at least 'paper-credible' candidates. That if either gathers enough popular traction, some of the 'smoke filled room' crowd may dump Harris for a 'winner'. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
But can Newsom win over independents? Especially since there's a LOT of ex-pat Cali's spread throughout the country who absolutely despise him. CorruptUser 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Wow you guys found the one national Democrat who would do even worse and sucks even harder than Harris. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 15:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Nah, there's others who'd do worse. Plus, primaries suck becuase in many cases, it's the choir voting on their preferred pastor. And I said Newsom was a 'threat' to Harris. Not that ultimately they'd be a better candidate where it matters (though 2 years is a long time in politics). KarmaPolice (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Speaking as a registered independent, you know what would win me over? Mass reforms. Particularly those that improve my life. Too bad the Dems drop those the moment they get into office! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not so sure these days. 'Third Way' is clearly bankrupt, the limits of 'social justice' is becoming obvious, the 'carbon transition' patently needs more than 'personal choices' to sort out and the shocks of the last three years has shown the weaknesses/limitations of the principle of 'small government'. Part of the problem with the Democratic Party I suspect is.. age. As in, it's higher levels are stuffed with the elderly (basically, most of the 'big names' now were 'seniors' in the 00s). A senior leadership of seniors is often a very risk-adverse one which would explain their general 'don't rock the boat!' mantras. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I find most Harris criticism to be unnecessarily harsh, but I agree she would have trouble navigating as the front-runner. Gretchen Whitmer would be an excellent candidate in my opinion, Warren I still wish won in 2020 and if you wanna talk about a sleeper candidate Raphael Warnock has now won 3 straight elections in GA. He has broad appeal and is extremely disciplined as a campaigner. His faith is only a plus, especially hypothetically against Trump.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────it's still too soon to make an accurate prediction on biden's re-election odds. anything can happen in the next 22 ½ months. i mean, no one would've predicted that democrats would keep the senate and narrowly lose the house in this year's midterms after all. The G (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Didn't predict it, but I knew the dems were due a polling correction in their favor.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Warnock absolutely should NOT run for President. Dude needs to squat on that Senate seat for as long as he can, because he’s one of the only Georgia Dems I think can reliably keep it. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 03:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Good post! as a georgia resident, i concur with this. The G (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Is is just me or does "Faith Alone" (sola fide) Christianity usually signal crank magnetism?[edit]

Every religion has their crazies but it seems to me that if someone believes in faith alone there is a good chance they believe in

  • Salvation by faith, but extreme Torah observance anyway
  • Sola scriptura (The 1611 KJV is perfect)
  • True Christianity™ isn't a real religion
  • Extreme hostility towards other religions, especially Jews and Catholics
  • Belief in NWO and other conspiracies (usually about how Jews and Jesuits run the world)
  • Anti-government paranoia (we should get rid of the government had just have Biblical law, even though good works don't matter)
  • Hatred of worldliness, especially what they see as scientism (another fake religion?)

I don't think its selection bias where RW has simply chosen to make articles about the crankiest kooks and quacks. There is something about all of these independent churches and the fundamentalists evangelical baptists who run them that keeps leading them to believe a lot of bizarre things. Maybe its not faith alone thats the key variable, but something is up. Neo Stalinist (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Sola fide is a part of the differentiation of the entire Protestant movement, which is not exclusively crank by any means IMHO. I would instead postulate that extreme dogmatism is more of the tell of crank magnetism. This allows for the existence extremist Christians without the concept of sola fide, such as the recently defrocked Frank PavoneWikipedia.
Not the entire Protestant movement. There are some uber progressive churches that go the opposite direction and preach universal salvation. Neo Stalinist (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
At least from a Biblical perspective, there are several passages (examples: 1 Corinthians 13:13, James 2:14-26) that make it rather clear that faith alone doesn't quite cut it. So, Protestants can do a few things with this concept (and the many other Christian concepts that contradict and step on each other). They can either interpret, fudge, merge, and try to make the best case they can... or they can stick their heels in the mud and "dig in" stubbornly to One True Dogma. The later, of course, is where many issues lies. BobJohnson (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I have been paranoid recently (at least it is not conspiracy level crazy)[edit]

I keep hearing voices telling me that my neighbors are out to get me because I am trans. They don't know that I am but with the escalation of anti-LGBT+ extremism I have been watching my back heavily. Am I being too paranoid?--Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Obvious question; are your neighbours violent bigots? Have they any 'form' to justify your fears? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
A few in the apartment complex are diehard religious loons. Others in the general area are also diehard religious loons and many are far right. No violence, although there is a KKK chapter in the county I live in. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
If it helps allay something, the biggest KKK chapter in the country is right in my backyard (I've been by the factory where they make their robes) and this is also about as liberal an area as possible; they have no sway here. If you're concerned, maybe talking to a therapist would help; I haven't been to therapy in a long time, but it was helpful when I used it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Assuming you can't or won't do the above, I would suggest a) looking at actual stats and b) making contact with the local trans/nb 'community'. The former shall tell you how much 'risk' you shall face if/when you become obviously 'not right™' and the latter would help to build a more realistic local picture beyond the stats. For example, you could create a burner Reddit account and ask on the relevant subs and so on.
I say this because not only does media reporting bias etc warp the genuine risks of certain things, but also all the 'culture war' shite floating about can increase the feelings of being 'unsafe'. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Most seem to be limited to eastern Michigan although a few are across the state. Not sure if that is a comfort. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you taking any medication for these "voices" that you're hearing? Also, is there anyone you trust that you can tell about this? How Transphobic is Michigan? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I am going to go on the principle they were speaking figuratively...
But what were you expecting? Would any non-zero number make you think your immediate neighbours were about to get you? I mean, I remember talking about women's safety earlier this year and guestimating that for my local town, the 'stranger in dark bushes' threat was statistically about 0.07 - 0.05 per 'prime age group' woman. I mean, yeah really shit for the 3-5 women it happens to but has to be put into perspective.
Now I cannot comment about your particular situation, but this is one thing an NB'er has learned of late; most folks are so wrapped up in their own little world they only notice the most obvious things. My bet is that unless you (or someone who knows you) effectively 'spills it' they ain't gonna notice until it's in their face. However, if you do live in a place where it's socially 2002 or even 1992 (I've been to a couple of these places in the UK) you very well may need to start planning that your long-term future be somewhere else (in fact, I have heard a few trans folks suggest this, as it means they leave much of the old baggage behind). Again, this is where making contact (in one way or another) with the local community and actually asking them is key. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
If you're hearing voices that aren't there, or if it's paranoia alone, there are medications that can help, so you should see a doctor. My neighbor kept hearing voices that weren't there, particularly at night. Eventually she was convinced to see a doctor, and the prescribed medicine did help. Bongolian (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Does your family have a history of Schizophrenia? I don't want to jump the gun, but if you're hearing voices, especially hostile or persecurtory voices, that you're neighbors (who don't know your trans) want to harm you, then you may be suffering from a delusion.
You could also not be, but I have a family history with Schizophrenia, and this post makes me worried because I'm seeing some warning signs: hearing things that are not there, and feeling like you're being persecuted based off... lets say circumstantial evidence. An Advocate (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
We are also talking of a person who has only recently become sure they're trans, in a location which doesn't seem to feel that 'welcoming' to this and with an uptick of media reports in anti-trans actions etc. This may be a combination of a somewhat shaky self-confidence in self coupled with some 'natural' paranoia of their current situation. Which is why I am a bit wary of the 'you're ill, go to the doc and get meds' default option; this may be something which can be sorted by self-care (including but not limited to hooking up with a local social group or similar). KarmaPolice (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I got my first mental health diagnosis about 12 years ago. I am Bipolar and Autistic but I do take medicine. I just have trust issues. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

If the voices are figurative then I wouldn’t worry about it. The paranoia may be disproportionate, but given the fact you are trans I would argue it’s certainly not baseless. If the voices you hear are literal and no one else can hear them then you should try to find some gender inclusive psychosis intervention programs (if they even exist). I wouldn’t jump to schizophrenia given you have bipolar disorder. Psychosis is a common symptom of mania, and treating it as if it’s schizophrenia can actually make it worse (that’s what happened to Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys). Regardless of what you are experiencing if you are worried that your experiencing a pathological paranoia then if you have access to one contact a gender-affirming physician you trust. Physicians who are not gender affirming can be pretty shitty when it comes to mental health. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Problem is that I don't know who I can trust outside my small circle. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
You can try look up trans-friendly doctors in your area. I know in some places they establish little networks so that trans people can attain doctors that won’t be dicks to them. You can try to see if such a thing exists in your county. Of your small circle see if anyone is willing to help you find support networks, or non-profit organizations with gender-inclusive policies. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

brazil inauguration[edit]

tomorrow (or rather, in a few hours), lula will be inaugurated to his third term. i will be watching it closely, and i invite everyone to do the same. let's hope that the q-cranks don't do anything too crazy. The G (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw rumors that Bolsonaro left Brazil rather than attend. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 10:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
those rumors appear to be true. bolsonaro wanted to avoid personally handing over over the sash to lula. (what a sore loser.) not even his vice president wants to do it. [4] bolsonaro may also face some legal challenges (some of which might be politically motivated), so not being in brazil gives him immunity, to a certain extent. of course, cnn brasil was the first break the news, so naturally, his die-hard supporters are denying this. The G (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
update: so, just about everyone i know who supports bolsonaro has accepted the reality. despite over two months of unrest, brazil seems to have avoided a january 6-style coup attempt... for now. in the end, the brazilian right wing seems to be handling the election results better than their american counterparts did in 2020-21. or maybe their institutions somehow just held together better than ours. (remember, wisconsin's supreme court was only one vote [5] from potentially overturning the election result in the state. the 2020 election fallout wasn't as safe as many of us thought it was.) still, the nuttier factions of the far-right – especially the qanon followers – are in an epic meltdown because of this, and i find that nothing short of priceless. lula might not be my favorite guy, but watching the far-right lose and get their just deserts makes it all worth it. The G (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it's not like the Brazilian far right is better than its American counterpart. It's not. There were some attempts to make a tropical version of 1/6.[6] At most, Bolsonaro handled it a bit better than Trump and that's all. The main difference is that Brazil (and the rest of the world) had two years to learn with the Capitol Riots in America, so a major security system was built to prevent the worst from happening. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
you may be right. brazil's democratic institutions held together remarkably well — better than even i would have expected. [7] at least the q-cranks were effectively restrained. The G (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Could be because a lot of Brazilians personally know what the consequences can be when democratic institutions fail. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 05:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

update on me....[edit]

i am not going to be on here that much anymore, i'm still doing grug, but school is going to take up a lot of my time, so goodbye for now, but feel free to hit me up on discord Wheelson ( professor grug arc ) (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Do what's best for you, because few others will. CorruptUser 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Minor edit[edit]

There are often edits marked as "minor" that aren't. Just a reminder:

   Minor edit (spelling, grammar, adding refs/cats etc.):
       Checking the minor edit box signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable.
       Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor.[1]
       If it's an idiomatic difference (American vs. Real English, say) then pass by on the other side and ignore it. No one really cares that the yanks don't like silent letters/brits are afraid to use "...ize".
       If it's intended to be humorous as it stands - respect others' warped minds and ignore it (unless you think that you can improve the comic intent or it really, really detracts from the factual content).
       If you still want to edit then go ahead.
           Don't forget to check "This is a minor edit" and explain ("sp"," typo","ref", etc.) in the "Summary" box. This helps those sad individuals who feel the need to watch recent changes like hawks.

For some reason incorrect usage annoys me.Scream!! (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes I accidentally misclick "minor edit" and only realize it when it's too late. Vee (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
What about the minor edits which don't get the box ticked? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I just never bother. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 19:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmm... does the 'minor edit' box actually serve a useful purpose? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Its stated function is useful enough, as long as people use it and use it correctly. It serves a more technical purpose as well; you don't get a notification if a bot makes a minor edit on your talkpage, ie when Inferno Bot is archiving. Christopher (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, is there a way this can be automated somehow? KarmaPolice (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
What are you imagining automating? Christopher (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hail to our new shark overlords[edit]


Looks like sharks are learning to walk on land. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The sharks aren't "learning" to do anything, at least with walking on land. These sharks crawl over low-lying coral reefs, they're not crawling onto the beach in a sort of demented repeat of the Devonian transition to land. Vee (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a tiny part of me which wishes to domesticate sharks and then teach them to walk... KarmaPolice (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
And then mount lasers on them.
...what? Kencolt (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

saltwater crocodiles are scarier and they already walk on land and swim in the sea AMassiveGay (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Rationalwiki App idea[edit]

Should we make an App for rationalwiki ? Wikipedia has one. Edward the eight (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It's customary if making a proposal to at least outline what it would entail and why you think we should do/have it. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's going to happen. Christopher (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
App development is pretty involved. You would need to actively support it for updates to the operating systems. This would take a devoted person to update the software, and you would need to have strict controls on who can update the app in the various app stores. If you *arent* developing it for an app store, then the only clientele would be those with jail-broken phones, which is going to be single-digit percentages of the population. It is also dubious how helpful it would be when the site already works on a standard phone browser. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
As this is a very small project, I doubt anyone here would be up to the maintenance. David Gerard is the only active guy with server access, and he's busy with crypto shit. Vee (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Christ, don't make an app. The dreaded, "what another f***ing app!!!" With feck knows trackers and privacy nonsense. you know what would be good, making the website mobile browser friendly. That will always be better than yet another app for a mobile device. Make the site mobile browser friendly, and you've solved no end of development headaches an app rises. An app which will essentially be a wrapper for the website anyway. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
IMO a shortcut added by Chrome/Firefox would be more than enough... -- (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ask me anything about my philosophical views.[edit]

it's a slow work day, I am bored af. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is mathematics (or other thoughts/ideas) real, a human invention, both, or neither? Christopher (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I am personally a little torn on that. I want to be able to say that claims in mathematics is objectively and necessarily true because I cannot conceive of a situation to which five and seven will make eleven, or not being able to divide fifteen objects in to three groups of five always. On the other hand the status of abstract objects like numbers being real has platonistic implications that seem a bit too far fetched for a naturalistic universe (not exactly parsimonious either). I think I would lean on the nominalist side of the debate, I been interested in the position of modal structuralism which argues that mathematics is the study of the relations within hypothetical structures that can sometimes be applied empirically to create knowledge of the relations between concrete objects and structures. It would be on the side of the debate that mathematical objects are not "real" but I would argue it does not necessarily entail that mathematics is "invented" either. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe something basic will be all right for you? What do you think about free will? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Free will as a concept gets defined in such variables ways by philosophers it’s difficult to pin down what exactly is being talked about in debates about free will. Like arguably you can be a determinist and still conceive our actions as voluntary by simply defining voluntary action in such a way as to make it compatible. That’s what a lot of “soft determinists” do such as Daniel Dennett. Personally I would go the Galen Strawson route and argue that the absence of “self-causation” makes the notion of moral responsibility/free will a non-starter. I think the focus on causal determinism can be discounted given the indeterminacy of quantum physics. Though arguably it’s not entirely relevant when it comes to what our brains do. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
We all agree that taxes need to be paid so that government can provide services for the public good. One can argue for instance, a rich person often gains more benefits than the taxes cost from an educated workforce or paved roads and thus taxes still result in a net positive to them; the service is still a net positive for them even after paying for it. But how would you (as in you personally) argue ethically that the rich should still pay for services even if the result is a net negative for themselves? CorruptUser 03:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
An argument could be made that given the state is what enforces property rights the service it provides in the protection of one’s property requires compensation. Personally I am more inclined to the Kropotkin style argument that wealth isn’t generated inside a vacuum. The wealth has been accumulated through the process of mass production and consumption by working people through the sale of their labour. They didn’t exactly freely consent to the revenue they largely generate being hoarded by a small minority. Arguably it’s only fair that they appreciate some return or risk workers becoming agitated and organized. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
That argument fails in a world where a person can become vastly wealthy through the sweat of their own brow and no one else's. Sure, a factory owner can't make wealth except through the workers operating the machines, but today it's not completely impossible for a lone writer or programmer to create something worth hundreds of millions. Even ignoring those extreme fringe cases, a skilled surgeon can make 10-20x what a line cook makes, and every dollar received is through their own work rather than through the labor of others.
Furthermore, "give us stuff or we'll beat you up" is an extremely unethical argument to make, if for no other reason than it's not to hard to lead a conclusion where people will "deserve" more wealth transfers the more violent and/or assholish they are. CorruptUser 04:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The line cook doesn't make as much as the "skilled surgeon" because of the devaluing of labor. Also, the nurses working for the surgeon don't make as much as the surgeon does either, despite playing a vital role in the medical process. Also is it really stealing if it's already stolen? I won't fault indigenous people for deciding to seize back the land that's been stolen from them, for instance. Landed property in the UK for instance required the enclosure of the commons and the cleansing of the peasantry from their land. (See the Highland ClearancesWikipedia.) The history of property is one rooted in acts of theft. Also given that evictions and acts of eminent domain are pretty violent themselves, I think an argument can be made that property itself is unethical. Why should people have to pay for a fundamental need (shelter), and if they lack the funds necessary to pay for their shelter they get forced out onto the streets? How is that just? Vee (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The nurses don't work for the surgeon, so... CorruptUser 06:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Cherrypicking aside, what's stopping the surgeon from owning their own practice? And if the surgeon works for, say, a hospital, they're part of what socialists call the "labor aristocracy." Either way, they still make more than the nurses who assist them. Vee (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Nothing. So let's use the example of the doctor-owned practice. Those are not uncommon. Or a dentist that owns their own practice. Or private attorney. Etc etc. There's a lot of high powered professionals who own their own business rather than being employed by or employing others. CorruptUser 06:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No one makes money entirely on their own without the help/labour of others. It is absurd to think otherwise. Other players are always involved indirectly and directly. Some (or many) players get raw deals in that process. Exploitation is rife everywhere and will a part of any chain, especially when significant money is being made. For a programmer, people were very likely exploited in the fabrication of the laptop (or parts of the laptop) and servers they work with, if you sell your work, the product it becomes (or the added value) will likely involve other workers being exploited in the production/sale of the product or implementation of your added value. That's just two small examples. And that just dealing with the outliers of independent workers, and not the masses of workers who get a pittance compared with the highest earners who most certainly do not do up to 1,000 times more valuable work (in the most extreme cases). No one makes money through only their own hard work, and exploitation is absolutely everywhere. ShabiDOO 07:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

yee what Shabi said - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
It's an oversimplification to simply say "my job pays 5x as yours ergo I do 5x as much for society as you"; your pay has never been about how essential your work but how difficult it would be to replace you, but on the flip side, only a fool would actually believe everyone is inherently equally talented and that all jobs require an equal level of training and skill. I don't know how you'd find what the "fair" level of compensation is for any particular task, but let's say we could. Once we get this "fair" world where there are people who make 5x as much as others because they do truly produce 5x as much value and not because they are 5x as difficult to replace, what then? Why is it still "fair" to tax those people at a higher rate?
To me, I actually despise income taxes for similar reasons. I'll posit a different scenario. One guy simply has $1m in the stock market getting a nice 8% return each year. The other guy has nothing, but works his butt off to earn $80,000 per year in NYC. The first guy is paying 15% capital gains tax on his $80k or $12k, whereas the second guy is paying $21k in income taxes BEFORE factoring in medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. On top of this, the second guy is incurring transportation and other costs in order to be able to work. Simply put, even if both live the same lifestyle, the second guy will NEVER catch up in wealth to the first guy. Nevermind that the first guy only gets an 8% return because the second guy works his butt off. That's not fair in the slightest. Instead, I'd rather see various forms of property taxes and higher capital gains taxes, in exchange for lower income taxes. CorruptUser 15:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
It would be nice, perhaps, if those advocating for lower income taxes were arguing in good faith for a way to overhaul the tax system in a fair manner. They never are. Instead, you usually get a Mitt Romney style argument ("Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax") which ignores not only the taxes you mentioned (capital gains, payroll taxes) but additional US taxes such as property and sales tax, some (like sales tax) which are considered regressive and may be a justification for some progressive taxes in other areas. The Donald Trump era tax cuts, which really benefited the "rent seeking" class (raised estate tax deduction, a focus on lower corporate tax rates, pass-through income deduction, etc.) at the expense of the national debt, with only a few breadcrumbs thrown to ordinary workers, was proof in what tax reforms these types really want. BobJohnson (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Well yeah, when it comes to politics every argument is just an argument-of-convenience. R's want a world where vast swaths of the population are dependent upon charity in order to survive, ensuring the relevancy of organized religion, as well as more tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. D's want a world where vast swaths of the population are dependent upon welfare in order to survive, ensuring the relevancy of the social programs, as well as more tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. Libertarians and Greens aren't much better. CorruptUser 16:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Even monkeys can tell when one of their number is getting more of some food than the others. It creates resentment. How predictable we are in our sentiments about money. The best tax system I have ever heard of is a flat rate system that only taxes unspent income. If you make a million dollars but spend it, it helps accelerate the economy. If you save it, then the results are more mixed. You might send it out of the country to get the best rate. People who spend their income can not be taxed. Of course, someone always has the extra money, and the government takes the % it needs to operate, which seems quite even-handed to me.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Corrupt, I said 1000 times, not 5 times. You grossly reduced the scale of salary differences. No human being is such a unique business genius or has such super human qualities that they add 20,000,000$ of added value to a company by "leading" a group of others, including those paid unlivable wages, where it is even impossible to actually link how much the decisions they made in their short time made a serious difference in the company (i.e. their predecessors could just have easily had far more impact) both when things go well and not so well. They get paid these salaries because they get away with it and because society tolerates it. It is obscene. The American anti tax ethos is also really sociopathic. America already lacks basic social programs, benefits and care that literally every other developed nation has (including much much poorer countries). Your taxes should be higher and you should be taking care of your citizens and not letting a huge portion of the homeless rot in the street (including veterans), inadequately assisting the disabled in many states, letting some without heath insurance die and having a pitiful foster care, unemployment benefits, sponsored day-care, barely subsidised post-secondary education etc. All those things which help create a less dysfunctional, less poor and less violent society. People with higher salaries pay a higher percentage in their bracket because they have more disposable income. This shouldn't be controversial. Pay your share, contribute back to the society that lets you prosper, give a shit about those who need support, programs and assistance and stop complaining about contributing. You should be complaining that so much of your taxes go to military spending rather than universal healthcare and BADLY needed programs. ShabiDOO 18:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

And I'd posit that there are indeed people who contribute 1000x that of others, even though they are not the same people who are being paid 1000x. But let's say we DO fix society such that your income is reflective of your contribution, a goal that some socialists and libertarians agree on even if they disagree on how to achieve this, what then? CorruptUser 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I mean the earlier point about essentiality kind of falls on it's face when most "essential workers" do not receive a living wage, and the majority of said essential workers work in the service industry. I would be hard press to see why a surgeon is necessarily "more essential" then a nurse given that you always need nurses but you don't always need a surgeon. Most people go through their entire lives with no more than 1-2 surgeries. Almost all the physical labour in hospitals necessary for healthcare providing is done by nurses. Even surgery cannot be performed without nurses present in the operating room.
The idea that some people contribute "1000x" more than others is kind of on its face of things absurd. No one person is providing the labour of a thousand working/contributing people. You need something to actually qualify that. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Maurice Hilleman? John Bardeen? Maria Sklodowska?
As for essential workers being paid living wages, oh yes, I wholeheartedly agree that if you do a task that is essential for society to function, then you are owed a place in society. CorruptUser 20:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Naming people who did influential things doesn't per se provide evidence that they did do "one thousands times" the labour and effortful contributions of the average joe. How are you even measuring and quantifying that? Also I think you have a pretty naive understanding how scientists work and how much staff and specialized labour laboratories have. There is a big problem especially with the work of RA's and LA's being overlooked and credited to whoever owns the lab. Science is a collaborative effort. The person who gets the discovery or invention credit for a given technology, theory, or phenomena often isn't producing such things entirely on their lonesome with no contributions from staff or other scientists. Prime example being Albert Einstein who did credit the work of Maxwell, Lorentz, and others for how he came to develop the postulates for the photoelectric effect, theory of special and general relativity, etc. He had the understanding to state that there was nothing "special" about him, he just happened to be born in the right place and the right time and exposed to the right sorts of information to develop his theories. He didn't objectively work harder or contribute more effort then other physicists at the time. Another way of saying that a lot of this comes down to "luck" and sociocultural factors outside one's control. Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
In reverse, no one here has provided evidence that everyone is truly equal in their ability to contribute to society. I don't know that Maurice Hilleman contributed exactly 1000x what e.g., I contribute, but I do know it's a lot more than I could. It's an interesting philosophical and economic question. Let's say there's 100 farmers growing 10 tons of food each, along with 1 scholar. The scholar breeds a new strain of wheat that is 1% better, so now the farmers grow 1010 tons of food. We could say that the scholar is worth the same as the farmer, because he effectively increased production by 10 tons. If a plague hits and now there's only 50 farmers, the scholar has only contributed half as much as another farmer, but if the farming community grows to 1000 farmers now the scholar has contributed 10x that of the farmers. Similarly, the farmers only work until they die, but the increase from the scholar is forever, assuming knowledge is preserved.
So let's assume that
1) We can (and do) reasonably define what everyone's relative contribution to society is worth, and
2) We transition to a society where everyone's compensation, whether that's in the form of more money, higher social standing, health risk, etc, is relatively accurately represented by said contribution,
what then, is considered "fair" in terms of taxes, social programs, etc etc? CorruptUser 19:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
You can't really take earnings or effect on yields as a direct measurement for societal or effortful contribution; the guy who set up the world wide web using the existing ARPAnet structure was not compensated for his development. How do we also measure the "contribution" of creating the programing necessary for how the internet is used today? What is this guy owed by society? No one stated that the alternative of there existing people who provide "1000x" the contribution of the average individual being that everyone is "equal" to their contributions, that is a false dichotomy. My criticism is that contribution is abstract concept that can't be reified into a concrete quantifiable value. "we can and do reasonable defines everyone's relative contribution" has not been demonstrated in the slightest. Given there is no means to reliably measure something as vague and abstract as "contribution" it cannot feasible be used to decide someone's true "worth". - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Let's say hypothetically we could. What then?
You did ask for philosophical arguments, after all. CorruptUser 21:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Ben Shapiro, is that you? Vee (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I mean just because we could does not necessarily mean we should. One factor we have to keep in mind is the degree to which prior wealth and privilege give certain people the access to resources to make significant contributions to begin with. If we kept rewarding the privileged for taking advantage for societal benefit while ignoring every potential einstein of the poor held back by poverty then we do society a disservice as a whole. One of the ways to prevent this is to give everybody same access to basic resources and advanced education. No homeless person is going to invent a new vaccine while struggling to feed themselves (and that is not due to some inherent inability biologically ingrained within the poor). We need a way to re-allocate resources to achieve that. How else do we do that without redistributing wealth or alternatively the seizing of private property? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The realistic problem with this argument IMHO is, it's generally not the microbiologists and Nobel prize winners making "1000x" these days. Instead, it's the CEO class. In 2021, a "Peter Kern" topped the CEO compensation list by earning $300 million (via the usual stock option route) for being the CEO of the (in my opinion hot garbage) Expedia travel site. Has a "Peter Kern" made society roughly 6000 times better than the average worker? Given my opinion of Expedia, you know what I think about that I'm sure. I'll also add that the company seemed to saved $300 million to $500 million by laying off 12% of its workforce; attitudes like this perhaps explains part of their shit rating on BBB. So, it seems like these "1000x" folks in this class can actually be net society negatives (as best demonstrated by the compensation of bank CEOs that came up with those wacky lending practices that ended up triggering the Great Recession).
Now, one can argue that CEOs do require some skills that your average minimum wage worker might not posses. OK, so maybe the typical 1950s CEO/worker salary ratio of ~20 has some justification. And some CEOs are known for their oversized influence in a company (your Steve Jobs types). But 6000 times more skill to run a hot garbage travel site? No way. The link between CEO pay and performance is broken, and the high investor / board member class is, with unfortunate few exceptions, too placated (or too insular) to do anything about it. BobJohnson (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The answer for that is simple; they are the same people. What we have now in Anglo societies is control by a corporate nomenklatura, who answer only to themselves (as a class). This is what the old Soviet nomenklatura taught us; 'ownership' of capital is irrelevant, the important bit is control. And we see this now, as the vast majority of 'wealth' being managed by said nomenklatura does not actually belong to them.
And like the old Soviet version, they are displaying the same rot. Primarily general incompetence due their complete lack of understanding of the situation of the organisations they are running. Oddly enough, knowledge of Marxism-Leninism is no more 'useful' in solving engineering problems in a factory in the Urals than knowledge of maths and finance is when trying to deal with human resources issues in an office in Utah.
Why else do you think the same execs seem to end up moving between utterly unrelated fields? Car production yesterday, Big Tech today, a hotel group tomorrow... all the same, apparently. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 was not a great year. The worst is yet to come[edit]

I never realized how much English is in the Yiddish language[edit]

Figured that I would see what the Yiddish language. Never realized how similar they are. Then again, they are in the same language family. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You are aware that modern English is really a mix of languages? Germanic (the Yiddish you refer to) some turkish, Norse, French, Latin. The irony about English as the language of the Angles is it still exists today, as Scots https://www.scotslanguage.com/articles/node/id/117 Wouldn't it be hilarious if Scotland got it's Independence, secedes from England and takes the native language with it. A reverse to what usually happens with language and colonialism Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Would have been interesting. Get Scotland to unilaterally declare independence! Hurry! --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
In terms of the language's core grammar and vocabulary English is still solidly Germanic. Hell, in some ways English is phonologically more conservative than German is (we still pronounce the "wuh" semivowel as "wuh" and not "vuh" as it is in German). Vee (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Scottish independence could not come soon enough. England is a sociopathic dysfunctional decaying festering sinking ship, bringing down the Celtic nations along with it. The sooner Scotland jumps off the quicker they will recover. If Ireland with zero resources and fewer people can completely outdo the UK (as it absolutely has done) Scotland (with its resources, better social services, more tolerant and progressive outlook and less sociopathic neo-conservative trend) will skyrocket past England when free of the post-Brexity yoke, and no they won't send immigrant to Rwanda while laughing about it. Unilateral declaration is a mistake. Rejoining the EU will be hard. One positive is the rest of Europe is so fucking furious with England for the abysmal post-Brexit negotiating train wreck (endless bad faith and months of insults towards the EU) that they might accept Scotland into it, but Spain would instantly veto it if it were a unilateral declaration (might anyways). ShabiDOO 23:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
If Scotland unilaterally declared independence, I doubt that the US would recognize an independent Scottish state. Maybe Russia and some of its puppet states would? --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that almost no countries would accept a unilateral declaration. All large nations (I can think of) have some group somewhere who claim the need for independence, and none of these countries would want to encourage such unilateral declarations.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
If they want to go let them go. The principle of "national self-determination" exists for a reason (mostly symbolic, but still). Vee (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the Conservatives have said they’re not gonna hold another referendum. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 10:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Working on a new page, any suggestions?[edit]

I'm working on a page discussing YouTuber and certified Twitter troll Ruben Sim. The page isn't live yet, I'm just looking for general information about him, besides his lawsuit and hatred of furries.

Zenphia (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It was live before you wrote this.[8] Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
You could talk a lot about how he makes adult content on a children's game and the irony of a man saying he wants to "defend the children on Roblox" while making videos those children will inevitably bump into filled with blood, gore, death, sex jokes, racism, etc etc--April Chat? 02:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I also think this would be a good angle. Sort of like what DuceMoosolini said, there are millions of people who spread hate and do shitty things on Twitter. People who spout "won't someone think of the children!" drivel while also peddling content inappropriate for minors are rarer and more unique/interesting. And "posting false and misleading terrorist threats"? What's the deal with THAT?
You could try hitting point 2 of the mission, maybe 1 as well; he seems like a crank, and what can we learn about cranks from him? Is he aware of the dissonance AprilIsTrying mentioned, and if so, how does he justify it? What are the arguments he uses when framing himself as a defender of children? Do they have any actual substance? DietMondrian (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to have an article on this specific person. They seem like just one of a million dumbasses on Youtube. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 02:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
...He is not irrelevant, however. He has one million subscribers. The nonsense he says reaches quite a lot of people.--April Chat?
I get what you're saying, but it really only goes for...extremely small YouTubers, like ones with only a few thousand or tens of thousands of followers.--April Chat? 02:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The fact that he has a million subscribers should have been in the first paragraph then. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 02:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you on that.--April Chat? 02:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I will argue that on principle this person is the kind of thing RW should cover, as they are 'too small' to be covered elsewhere. However, looking at the article as-is I will lean towards Moosolini's original query; that the 'charge sheet' is gonna need to be thicker than this to really be worth covering. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Ruben. What's he all about? CorruptUser 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone else remember the YouTube purge? Pages about people with much more subscribers than him were brutally slaughtered. This is an AFD magnet, really. Moon Sock (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed writing an article about a YouTuber on this wiki is like writing an article about lambos Aethieizt (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

They Keep calling us blue hair feminists[edit]

At this point this should be included in the Alt-right glossary. They compare people (mostly women) who dye their hair to poisonous animals. I think this is rooted in misogyny .when did the Alt-right start strawmaning liberals into having colored hair? Edward the eight (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Uhm this is nothing new. google 'blue haired liberal' and you'll see that is a phrase that has been around for awhile. Servasym (Talk / Contribs) 12:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll argue that it's not directly misogyny because 'blue hair' is the important bit.
There is a weak association between 'coloured hair' in unnatural hues with both a) youth and b) left-of-centre social views (though a and b also have a weak correlation too). As the flag-eating crowd really need to find something in common so they can caricature it, this is perhaps the best bet. While this modern iteration seems to have only started around ~2015, I've seen ur-examples going back to the 1990s (for example, Hank Hill occasionally meets 'coloured hair' types). KarmaPolice (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Who calls us that? What's wrong with being blue haired? I quite like the look myself, although it is a gendered category that I don't take personally. Go to the Alt-right talk page for a discussion.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Little article on subject; https://www.wired.com/story/portland-blue-hair-stereotype/ . Yes, it's stupid. But it's not like the average MAGA-hat is renowned for their intelligence, is it? Yeah, this discussion should be on the alt-right talk but now it's here, why bother moving it? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but the discussion of what the article should contain belongs on the article talk-page. We can talk here about blue hair until our faces are blue.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Who here has hair dyed an unnatural color? CorruptUser 20:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Blue hair is probably the least offensive part of the typical alt-right caricature of a feminist being a shrill, angry, ogre-harpy. The association of unnaturally colored dyed hair and the left comes from the fact videos or gifs of a "screaming feminist" with dyed hair typically gets more views due to the thumbnail making her stand out more (and seem more alien and unusual), so it showed up more often in the mid-2010's in your YouTube recommends. If it were an auburn hair feminist in the video let's say, she wouldn't draw as many eyes since she'd not standout from the crowd. On a personal note, I personally don't like dyed hair all that much since I think it just doesn't turn out well on a lot of people. Though, I'm a body purist, so my opinion is irrelevant.-Ryan1257 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
what the fuck is a body purist? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It's a trait that a pawn can have, widely considered a bad one, as your pawns will get debuffs as you replace missing bodyparts such as eyes. You can tolerate a few pawns with this trait at first, but eventually you are best harvesting their organs and then using their skin to make hats.
Oh. Oh... Thought you were talking about Rimworld. CorruptUser 21:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
One of the most prominent feminists in terms of her hair color was the Canadian feminist Chanty Binx commonly known as "Big Red" on YouTube. She fit the meme of a shrill feminist. She got into a confrontation with a men's rights activist in Toronto among her various confrontations. RadleyMadrish (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
and honestly everything she said was based. But she also didn't have blue hair. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
"A body purist is someone who believes the human body should be untainted/unmodified." You can google these things you know.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Given that we arguably modify our body all the time with the types of food and drink we consume, this isn't as solid a case as you think. Vee (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The terminology is not nearly as elastic as you seem to think. Personal alterations are generally visible. Jews are not allowed to be tattooed in the Torah. Some Muslims regard plastic surgery as proscribed. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
So does this just devolve into rejecting gender-affirming surgeries, and amputations for disabled people? Hell wouldn't this not entail that blood transfusions are wrong? Hell just medical treatment in general? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
No, because life saving medical care is still allowed in Islam and Judaism. CorSock (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, this started with someone who said they didn't believe in something. They don't have to believe in anything in particular except of course respecting the beliefs of others.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Then by these counterexamples the definition of body-purist is clearly inadequate as there seems to be some explicit caveats. What modification is declared unacceptable and which is considered permissible? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)
Why do you assume it's a binary? It's possible to be "more" or "less" body-purist. Some would say that absolutely no amputations are allowed, e.g. Bob Marley refusing to amputate his cancerous toe and letting nature run its course, some would say that only life or limb situations are allowed, some would say that life/limb or quality of life is allowed, e.g., dentures and prosthetic legs. Not everyone will have the same stance on tattoos, or piercings, or liposuction or hair surgery or boob jobs or butt implants, etc. An extreme example being, well, I'd rather not talk about the elephant in the room. CorruptUser 02:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There being no more or less an assumption of a binary then when I expect someone who calls themselves an anarchist opposes the existence of a state. It doesn’t simply divide all of politics into “anarchist or not-anarchist”. If someone described themselves as somewhat anarchistic I can assume they aren’t fully committed. Same with someone who says they sort of lean towards body purism. I take if you identify fully as a body purist you are commited wholly to it’s position as a philosophy or ideology. No one calls themselves a nominalist in philosophy unless they fully reject the existence of universals. It doesn’t imply an absence of a spectrum of views to the topic of universals. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
In my own experience, almost everyone's stances on 'body modification' are either random BS and/or corkscrew logic to 'allow' the stuff they personally have had done or is considered 'socially acceptable' within their own milleu.
Normally it's variants of 'appeal to nature' shite (the Wahhabi/Taliban on barbers/hairdressers) or 'appeal to normality' ('unnatural' hair colours by the vast majority of British schools) - the latter being very, very subjective. And often, the lines are utterly arbitary; 'dieting' is clearly body modification and in some cases can be argued as 'unnatural', and post-baby bellies are clearly natural but you try to find in the Anglosphere ladies 'flaunting' those sags and wrinkles. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
So how would you describe me, who believes body modifications "should" only be done for utilitarian and/or restorative purposes, but at the same time believes that adults should have "the right to be wrong" with autonomy over their bodies? So, e.g., I'm in favor of laser eye surgery but oppose breast implants. CorruptUser 06:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Everyone has the right to be wrong. Vee (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I would point out that it appears your criteria basically appears to be on 'what I would/wouldn't do personally' and thus is subjective? I would also say that 'utilitarian' would seemingly support the adoption of various Deus Ex style 'mods' and 'restorative' can include breast implants. In fact, 'anti-ageing' cosmetic work could all be considered 'restorative' as it is 'restoring' your features to a younger self. Which basically highlights why I gave up and adopted a lazy libertarian line of 'do what the hell with your body, just do it for you, do it with "eyes open" re: costs and don't expect me to actually like or approve of what you've done' [which I suspect is somewhat close to your own POV.] KarmaPolice (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


You know how some people think it's absurd that some people starve in far-flung parts of the world starve while others gorge themselves, sometimes to an early death? I feel that way about medicine; some die because they can't get care, while others get surgery after surgery, sometimes to their own death. The difference being that the people starving tend to be a world away but the people dying from a lack of care might literally be next door. CorruptUser 08:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
An argument which would have legs, if it was actually accurate.
The 'feedee' deliberately regularly gorging [removing the aspect of addiction etc] so to remain extremely overweight is generally speaking consuming stuff which if they did not, it would usually simply be disposed of. Anglo nations like the USA/UK don't have 'food issues', what we have is money issues because there is the food for the hungry to get, only they cannot afford to purchase it.
Similar could be said for the chronic plastic surgery user. If they did not take that 'slot' to say get their arse lifted, it shall be taken by another arse-lift, not say, heart surgery or whatever. Once again, the issue is money not slots; for the cash for the arse-lift effectively creates it's own slot.
The question whether our obese arse-liftee should cut down on the family buckets of chicken and appointments with the surgeon and donate that cash to charitable concerns is a different question entirely, and one which can equally be levelled towards any spend which is not vital for continuing mere existence [ie most of it, in the advanced world]. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Except we have a doctor shortage at the moment, and it's only going to get much worse as time goes on. Every doctor that goes into plastic surgery is one that is not going into cardiology or oncology. As for the "feedee", if they weren't consuming the stuff, the companies would stop making it. It's not as if we live in Philip K Dick's "Autofac" dystopia where ever-expanding roboticized factories consume the Earth, pumping out giant piles of trash that the people don't consume. CorruptUser 16:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Again, the doctor shortage is a question of money. From what I gather, the issue with America is the prohibitive levels of student debt to qualify, along with a lack of any general 'workforce plan' due to the hugely inefficient industry model the USA uses. I also question how much 'damage' the weight of cosmetic surgery is on the USA. Look at the 2019 stats; 'Plastic Surgery' is #21st in ranking, standing at just over 1% of 'active MDs'. If we say a quarter of these are doing purely 'restorative' works that only leads 0.75% of doctors doing those arse-lifts. Truly, blaming 'too many plastic surgeons' for lack of doctors in say, general practice is at best pretty mistaken and worst openly deceptive.
In short, it's not the fault of the prospective arse-liftee the general system is geared this way, their used 'field' is tiny in comparison to the rest of it and I suspect not a huge % of medical persons really want to spend their careers doing medically unneeded surgeries either. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Wow, a lot of spilled ink over a small comment where I was just using a term I learned in Rimworld (that's a character trait) in a semi-joking way to hyperbolically describe my personal dislike of tattoos and piercings. Despite my thought that they look bad, I do not to hold it against people if they have them (though it will help me catch on easier if they turn out to be a psycho) and I figure that people like them for their own reasons, especially if it's a significant part of their culture, like the Maori people's facial tattoos.-Ryan1257 (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
You don't hold it against them but you think it's reliable indicator if they are a "psycho"? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Let me rephrase this, I will 100% judge you if you have tattoos that make you look like a psychopath. Things like gang/prison tattoos, racist or violent symbolism, or anything else that makes me think you'll shoot me over a parking space. -Ryan1257 (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
We took the point and ran with it, in true RW fashion. Plus, I think this is going to be one of the major debates of this century; should there be limits on 'how far' a person can effectively 'mod' their bodies and if so, where. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
i thought a blue rinse is synomynous with OAP AMassiveGay (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
It always gets Out of topic Edward the eight (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

i dont really get the fascination with what 'they' call us. we call them plenty. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not 'facinated', though am curious from a sociological POV. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I can find a page for promotion anywhere.[edit]

I want to propose an article whose brain star should be lowered or removed but I can't find where the fuck I am supposed to do that. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The article's Talk page? Scream!! (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb Go to RationalWiki:Articles for demotion and follow the steps. Spud (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Sadly, I can't seem to make the process simpler, but the Articles for Demotion was one of my babies. CorruptUser 07:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(A)theology question[edit]

What's the term for the position that holds "gods may or may not be real, but either way they don't deserve my worship and/or acknowledgement"? Vee (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Misotheism and Dystheism come to mind.-Flandres (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
We have a page for Misotheism. Bongolian (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I prefer "Apatheism". I think "Misotheism" assumes that gods exist and are unworthy of worship. Apatheism is the believe that it really doesn't matter if they exist or not, you just don't care. CorruptUser 23:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
IOW the difference between agnosticism and apatheism is the difference between not knowing and not caring. Vee (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Your question may be badly phrased. Consider the statements: "God (s) exist but they don't deserve .. well anything". and "God (s) do not exist but they don't deserve .. well anything". In the second case stating that they are both non-existent and also undeserving amounts (I would argue) to a tautology.
So the "may or may not be real" and "either way" in your question confuses it. You are trying to cover too many bases and consequently there is unlikely to be an exact name for the position you are describing.
Nevertheless, the position that "God exists but should not be worshiped" is "Alatrism".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


We got a speaker. Andrew5 (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

They should have tried drastic measures - what would the equivalent of removing the roof and reducing meals to a minimum have been? Anna Livia (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Time to get out the head of lettuce with the googly eyes. Bongolian (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
A reference to this - see the comment at the end. Anna Livia (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Why Do YouTube articles get deleted so often? and why are there so many of them?[edit]

The only YouTube article that is silver is Anita sarkeesian while others have more silvers and gold.Also why so many of them, I bet half of the drafts are YouTube articles.The articles get deleted so often that we had to purge them.Edward the eight (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

you answer the first question with your second AMassiveGay (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
and there are so many because some people think every youtube no-mark needs a response. they do not. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Good post! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Karens and others[edit]

Do any of the definitions here and elsewhere fall within RW's remit? Anna Livia (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that the "Karen" meme relates to racism and sexism, I'd say it's missional. Vee (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
There are male equivalents - and eg some of the 'annoying bosses' described in social media posts.
A distinction has to be made between 'bad or overbearing behaviour' in practice/as a mindset or default behaviour and what is seen to be such/if presented in a slightly different or less abrasive manner would be seen as mildly annoying. Anna Livia (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
its unfair to anyone actually called karen and not a 'karen' AMassiveGay (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The problem I have with Karen is I knew that eventually, it would just cover a woman complaining or asking/telling someone to do something whether or not it's justified. It didn't take long during the dark days of covid for Karen to go from, "The woman saying masks are satan", to, "The woman who tells you to wear a mask".-Ryan1257 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Karen appears to be shorthand for a type of behaviour (as with eg 'Essex girl' or some of the Viz magazine cartoons). Perhaps there could be a list of such terms? Anna Livia (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah ironically the only Karen I've ever known was in fact, clearly not 'a Karen'. But the folks at Urban Dictionary have it somewhat well covered. Generally speaking, I see 'Karen' as not much more than an obnoxious, slightly stupid 'soccer mom' type who is so wrapped up in Own Bubble they don't get social cues, know they are 'always right' and have a fundimental inability to ever think of anyone except themselves and possibly, their beloved bratty spawn. Going from my own experience of 'British Karens' the #1 sign is that even when they try to 'get' something, what they do/say shows they simply don't get it to a disturbing level. My personal example; 'Karen' didn't really understand BLM because 'black people get paid for work too'. Oh, and another 'orange flag' Karens shall bitch about being called Karen.
So, in conclusion I do agree with Anna that this is 'missional', for all generally all definitions of such are privilege writ large. I'm not sure how this could/should be done, but perhaps hooked up to that page? However, the questions are a) whether we can do better than the WP version and b) are we leaving ourself open to have to constantly update to catch new slang? I can't comment on the latter, but my 'clean' Google [co.uk] search ['what is Karen'] tells me that when it comes down to it there's enough other sources to explain. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
'Karen behaviour' is a trope on FB (or at least some of the areas I wander around) - and appears to be a US phenomenon (though how Karen is 'Hyacinth Bucket'?). KP - would my suggestion of a list of 'negative tropes given names' be appropriate? Even if some become passé/get replaced by new semi-equivalent terms people may come across references to the terms/'In my day we called someone like her a Karen.' etc Anna Livia (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


The U.S. State department has said it follow Erdoğan's orders and rename all references to the country by its Turkish name, Türkiye. Is there a humorous way to put this? Euromec (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. Bet there is. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I take it this is the same kind of nationalist shit that got the name of that one non-Arab Persian speaking country in the Middle East changed from "Persia" to "Iran" here in the West, right? Vee (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This is honestly a little hard to believe. Especially as it involves the letter "ü" - which most keyboards will not have easy access to. I see a couple of reports saying that the State Department has done this at Turkey's request - but I can't seem to find the State Department's own statement on it. It's a little odd, as a lot of countries have names in English which do not correspond the names the countries use for themselves. España - Spain, Deutschland - Germany, Россия (I think) - Russia. If you change one you would set a precedent for changing them all - along with their appropriate letters.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Россия in our alphabet is usually taken to be Rossiya so it’s not terribly different. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 10:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Would 'umlaut on u' (German etc letter) serve? Anna Livia (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The character is the exact same one as the u with an umlaut as used in German. And many people can't produce that on their keyboards.
If the words "Spain" or "Germany" also meant something else less than glorious in English, people there would make similar demands. I lived in Turkey in 1997/98 and many people there then hated the fact that "turkey" also meant a stupid fat bird and insisted their country was called "Türkiye". Spud (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The turkey is a noble bird and carries with it the true essence of freedom. God bless America and God bless the turkey! 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 14:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

im not sure what the issue is with calling a country by the name the people of country that wish to call it. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The "issue" is that we we have names for countries in English which are not the same as the names that the inhabitants of the country use. This is not just an issue for English - it happens in all languages all over the world. For example: in Spanish "The United Kingdom is "Reino Unido"; England is "Inglaterra" and "London" is "Londres". There are a vast number of other examples often using alphabetic characters which don't exist in the language one might want to correct. Languages are what they are - they are difficult to change by some central decree.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
To me it's unusual for a country to request an original-language name on the grounds that another country's generally accepted native language name in not good enough. It would be like (for the English side) (as Bob said) Spain insisting on "España", Germany insisting on "Deutschland", or China insisting on 中國 (Zhonghua). Or, if this "too close to a delicious dumb bird" explanation above is correct, Hungary insisting on "Magyarország" because the English name is too close to the English word "hungry" and oh nose the dumb jokes. BobJohnson (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Note that the TurkeyTürkiye US Embassy website has already made the change. So the story seems legit. BobJohnson (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
So I come from Wales and I live in the Basque country (in Spain). In internet-speak a "whale" could be someone who spends a lot of money perhaps inappropriately,: a basque could refer to sexy female underwear. The names that the two countries have for themselves are Cymru and Euskadi respectively. (Meanwhile, in Spanish "Wales" is "Gales"). Should all languages somehow be be obliged to change their dictionaries to "Cymru" and "Euskadi"? What penalty should be applied for non-compliance?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
If encountering 'Turkiye' for the first time, I would still say something which sounds like 'Turkey', so I am not so bothered if my pronunciation if considered 'correct'. Name changes do happen now and then, particulary for non-Latin names - for example, 'Kazakhstan' became 'Kazakstan' in the 90s because they argued the former was the Russian version (similar for the Kiev/Kyiv situation). However, to the best of my knowledge Brazil is still formally Brazil, despite the local insistances that it is in fact Brasil. But very least I would have ditched the bleeding umlaut as they aren't present on English keyboards. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
that it has an umlaut is not really much of an issue imho AMassiveGay (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
To make my point simpler. This is a precedent for changing the names for most of the countries in the world. And for asking all the countries of the world to do the same for everyone else.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
the precedent was already there - iran, myanmar, chechia for example. or more recently as already stated - kyiv AMassiveGay (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
or thailand, or the democratic republic of congo AMassiveGay (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that this is a big deal. NPR reports the UN has already changed the official English designation of Turkey to Türkiye. If you don't have an umlaut on your typewriter, I imagine any letters to Turkey will still be recognized and delivered.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
In China, the official name they have for the US is, 美利坚合众国 (meilijian hezhongguo), or “The United States of Beauty, Advantage and Endurance.”. The shorthand that tends to be used is 美国 (meiguo), "The Beautiful Country", which would have some Anti-American users here on life support if they knew that. If a country wants to be called something different on the world stage, I say fine, but if it's a prominent or well-known country, they shouldn't expect people to call it by the new name for a few generations, especially if it's in a language that foreigners have a hard time pronouncing (which is why we have these alternate names to begin with).-Ryan1257 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
It's rarely unreasonable to ask people to call you by a certain name. There are many many cases of country name changes over the last century. Some small others larger
  • Ceylon>Sri Lanka
  • Tanganyika>Tanzania
  • Upper Volta>Burkina Faso
  • Burma>Myanmar
  • Siam>Thailand
  • Rhodesia>Zimbabwe
  • Czech Rebpublic>Czechia
  • Cape Verde>Cabo Verde
  • Irish Free state>Ireland
  • Macedonia>North Macedonia
  • South West Africa>Namibia
  • Swaziland>Eswatini.
  • Surinam>Suriname
  • Western Samoa>Samoa
  • Dahomey>Benin
  • Congo>Zaire>Congo
  • Togolese Republic>Togo
  • Transjordan>Jordan
As you can see this is a pretty long list, small spelling changes to make it more in line with local pronunciations or avoid similar sounding words in English or other languages has happened several times in the last century. Nothing unusual here, shouldn't be controversial, let people be referred to as they like. We are becoming more accepting of name changes for all sorts of reasons, we should do the same for nations. ShabiDOO 21:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
North Macedonia is a bad example because it was renamed as such because of Greece being an arsehole about it.
That said, your point about endonyms and exonyms still stands. Moon Sock (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There is also Mecca/Makkah, 'various place names in India', North Rhodesia, Tannu Tuva of the fancy stamps, Windscale/Sellafield... Anna Livia (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)(and possibly some detective stories/thrillers etc where 'choice of placename
If I remember right, Windscale & Sellafield are two different facilities - the former military, the latter civilian. Doing basically the same thing in the same place, mind. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure, there is nothing new in countries changing names, but as pointed out above, the Erdogan government is not so much changing the name of the country as insisting that others should use the spelling of the country’s name in Turkish, while still keeping the same name. This is not what the examples provided above are about, arguably apart from Cape Verde/Cabo Verde and Swaziland/Eswatini.
Also, there is nothing new in refusing to use a new name abroad to make a political point. For example, a lot of the use of Burma instead of Myanmar was a way of signalling that those who kept using the old name did not view the military junta that had ordered the name change as a legitimate government. Hence, if you want to, just keep writing Turkey and if challenged, reply that you are signalling your opposition to Erdogan. And no, I don’t bother finding the “special r” that I should use when writing his name either. ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Special g, actually. It's Erdoğan.
And the the Turkish pronunciation of "Türkiye" is more like "tour-key-yay'. I don't think they'd just want you to change the way you spell it if you still pronounce it like the bird. Spud (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Which is exactly why it makes so little sense, because the spelling makes phonetic sense in Turkish, but not necessarily in other languages. Cue far more funky mispronunciations and confusion, if they insist on this being used more widely. Even more so as Turkey is pronounced quite differently in various languages and with various “distances” from the pronunciation Erdogan apparently wants.
Still, it seems strange to me to insist on using a spelling and pronunciation of a country’s name in its own language in all other languages. But hey, if it’s only for the diplomatic niceties and similar government documents, I guess most people couldn’t give a fig. And of course it’s a special g; don’t know how that error snuck in… ScepticWombat (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Turk here. This was and is stupid nationalist dickwaving and the US playing ball with an authoritarian dictator as always. The Ü sound isn't even pronounceable in English. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm more chalking it up to 'humouring the idiot while they're useful'. Uncle Sam currently needs Turkish support esp the Ukranian War and this is a bit of very cheap humour. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on Chinese characters[edit]

I didn't mean to come across as Sinophobic when making this post. But I see how using the word "barbaric" to describe Chinese characters can be interpreted as such. I shouldn't have made this post, and I retract my comments on Chinese characters. I apologize for writing insensitive comments about Chinese culture. As a foreigner, I'll be more mindful of what I say about other cultures in the future. LongStylus (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Meh, speaking as an American who grew up with the culture and even has her own Chinese name, it wasn't the worst thing. I think you came off as a person who has good intentions, is genuinely interested in the culture and its calligraphy, just didn't realize you were ignorant on the thing. You should definitely focus on the fact these characters are extremely abstracted from the original meaning, again, just kind of like how our own words used for more offensive terms has been morphed into benign. Besides, most characters aren't pictograms anyway, only some are, such as horse, moon, turtle, fish and even those have changed DRASTICALLY since. You should read about how Chinese characters are formed, though, such as how radicals work. Oh, and if you ever wonder how Chinese characters are grouped in a dictionary, it's grouped by radical and by stroke count. There is ALSO a very specific way to learn how to write a character too (for instance, box-shaped characters typically take one vertical stroke on the left down, one stroke going right and going down at a right angle, and the one final stroke GOING LEFT TO RIGHT at the bottom. Oh and whatever is inside the box has to be filled out before you close it. And, yeah, people who write Chinese (this includes Japanese people who read kanji and Korean people who read hanja; these are both literally Chinese characters) WILL know if you get your stroke order wrong. You should learn the language if you can, it'll help you appreciate it more. Oh, and don't forget the food. China and Taiwan have some of the best food in the world. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 07:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm a white guy who's lucky enough to have his own official Chinese name. It's printed on my Taiwan ID card. Spud (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Hopefully there isn't much potato-related radicals on your name. Mine is related to flowers, because naming women after flowers... well don't you think that's absurd? ;p --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
In answer to the first question, no. In answer to the second question, yes. Spud (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm learning Chinese right now actually. ChengyuWikipedias are very cool, and I picked up a few of them. I love Chinese food too, like lamianWikipedia. I should look up some vegan Chinese food later; I would love to try them. LongStylus (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I speak Japanese, and I can tell you, if you're interested in learning Chinese characters, look up Anki. Moon Sock (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Moon Sock I do use Anki. Do you have any decks to recommend? LongStylus (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I use anki a LOT. There are searchable decks and you can create your own. I find it a LOT better than duolinguo if you want to focus on specific things (like adjectives, declension patterns, phrases, irregular verbs etc). Can also easily create reverse decks to mix it up. Strongly improved my language skills that way. Having said that, I don't think any of this makes up from creating your own flash cards yourself. You can easily buy tons of small flash cards. Writing them out and going over them are a sinch and you can throw out cards youre certain you've learnt and physically watch your goal get closer. Having said this, you'll make little progress if you don't practice speaking a lot, which you can do via in person language exchanges (check meetup.com for your area or other forums) and there are online ones too. ShabiDOO 11:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
meetup.com looks good. Never heard of it before, but thanks for introducing that. I'll look into it. LongStylus (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Trans genocidal rhetoric[edit]

I think, at this point, it's entirely fair to categorize the Republican moral panic and reaction to transgender and queer people as genocidal intent meant to exterminate the population. There are states passing bills banning gender affirming care, even for adults, potentially forcing some to detransition. It was never about protecting kids. Remember Pulse, how Republicans reacted with the familiar politician fake condolences and prayers instead of doing anything? I thought I would never see the day when Republicans would double down on the narrative following a mass shooting. "If only those degenerate groomer pedophile Satanist drag queens hadn't forced gender ideology down children's throats, this would never have happened." is a legitimate argument being made by Republican politicians today. For what? I'm so lost. Are Republicans so willing to stick to this shit that they'll march us to the death camps because we couldn't define what a woman is? What happened? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between "preventing people with Gender Dysphoria from transitioning" and "executing people with Gender Dysphoria". CorruptUser 18:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Give the Rethuglicans enough power and they would. Uganda and Chechnya are perfect examples of what they want. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
They DID have enough power not that long ago, and it's only a little further back when the Dems used to hold the views about Trans that the Reps currently have. With unlimited power, at worst they would re-criminalize Trans (and probably the rest of the Alphabet), which is maybe just 2-3 steps better than executions. But you don't get your point across with easily-disproven hyperbole. CorruptUser 18:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I started writing an answer to that even before someone said it, which is kinda predictably sad.
Is it 'genocidal'? Are they really wanting to have all us LGBT folks taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot? Prima facie evidence says with the exception of the hardcore fringe, they aren't calling for this. But the general thrust of their plans, their history and their tone is unmistakable; that they would like us to simply vanish from view, forever.
However, while a life in the eternal closet is bad enough for LGB folks, this is miles worse for trans folks because of the increased difficulties. I would class this as emotional persecution, which shall lead to higher rates of ultimately, suicide. What's more, they desire to strip back all the protections with an aim to go to the situation before 1980. Therefore, even if discrimination does not become official policy they're allowing private individuals/groups to discriminate as much as they desire [which may entail individual officials using malicious compliance etc to do this]. Lastly, they are working on creating the wider 'hostile environment' aimed squarely at LGBT folks. This is shifting the Overton Window to make such discriminations socially acceptable to the point where not being a shithead towards them is regarded as deviant.
The conclusion is simple. The world they are trying to make is one where LGBT folks are invisible because we're either heavily closeted, have been driven far away, have killed ourselves or have been murdered. Now, the majority of the American public may not want us all dead, but normally in such things, they shall want us 'gone from sight', aren't too picky in how that happens and sure as hell aren't gonna write to us to find out what the final destination looks like.
∴, yes it is 'genocidal intent'. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
When it comes to Trans (but could be applied to LGB for that matter), I believe people can be grouped into 4 categories.
1 Their gender dysphoria is pervasive enough that it can not be treated or "suppressed"
2 Their gender dysphoria is mild enough that it can be treated with therapy
3 They don't have GD but can be convinced to transition anyway
4 No amount of coercion could cause them to transition
It might seem weird to split out 3 and 4, but it should be noted that Iran offers Gay men the options of transition or execution, and a lot of men choose to transition, meaning there are indeed people who don't have GD but could or could not be convinced to transition. Both 2 and 3 are not solid but "spectrums" of a sort, e.g., in the Iran example the threat of execution is enough for convince a lot of Gay men to transition, but there are likely those who could be coerced or convinced to transition with pressure that's a bit less severe than the threat of execution.
I posit that we should agree on the following; the best course of action for Group 1 is transition (and Groups 3 and 4 should not be coerced to transition, FU Iran) and if we can't agree on that point(s), well, there's no point to further discussion. The debate should be strictly in how we treat Group 2.
For example, how severe is someone's GD before it becomes Group 1, e.g., if they are suicidal are they really in 2 and not 1? How expensive or invasive is the medical transition compared to the therapy? What are the chances of getting the wrong diagnosis of GD or it going away on its own? Etc. CorruptUser 19:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
"citation needed" moment Mental sharpener (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
CU once again proving that despite him being incredibly politically engaged, his only level of knowledge on queer issues boils down to thinly veiled transphobia. You are crazy dunning-krueger pilled, dude. To start off, trans people are not coerced into transition. What Iran does is very uniquely depraved, and those people are often just not trans. What I find incredibly interesting is that you default to the most outlandish and inhumane way transitioning is applied, when the overwhelming majority of transitioning is a voluntary, consentual medical procedure handled with medical professionals along with mental health services like therapy. Saying people can treat gender dysphoria with therapy is a cop out. It is a lie, and an open perversion of what therapy is actually used for with people with gender dysphoria. As a supplement for transitioning, not a replacement. Going past all this, yes, trans people probably won't be thrown into death camps. I used familiar language rhetorically to draw parallels to the Holocaust. Genocide does not begin and end at physical violence, extermination can be accomplished through socially mandating a group out of society, which is the current Republican goal by all measures. Preventing people from transitioning is genocidal, it removes the right to individual freedom from a specific group of people to socially mandate them out of society. If you want genuine answers to the questions you posed, gender transition is the single most effective treatment for gender dysphoria by far, with very high rates of satisfaction despite the numerous potential complications. Knee joint replacement is more often regretted than bottom surgery. Now, here's the thing, I don't like how this argument always boils down to gender dysphoria, because I don't think people need to be dysphoric to transition. Transitioning can be about making someone not unhappy, but what about just... making people happy? Transitioning has positive benefits for people without gender dysphoria too. This "debate" always boils down to how unhappy trans people are, why don't we ever discuss that trans people have a right to make medical decisions that do make them happier? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
During 'Nam, some pretended to be gay to avoid the draft. Similar is probably happening with at least a few of the men being transferred to women's prisons today. So while it might not be a regular occurrence, non-LGBT people can and have been "coerced" into claiming to be LGBT for whatever reason. CorruptUser 20:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The problem is bigger than that. Corrupt has provided an excellent example of is known in sociology as [apologies in advance, jargon] 'medicalisation of deviance'. That you have the 'deviants' [someone non-conforming to the majority, 'normal' position] and that it can be 'treated' in a quasi-logical/medical manner so they then 'fit' the norms. In this case, ultimately two 'treatements' are offered - 'full binary transition' and 'stop feeling that way'. This is my 'pox on both houses' moment - that too much of the trans community think the former is the answer, while the 'phobes of the world think it's the latter. And this is where the shit flies - each 'school of thought' thinks the other is 'overdiagnosing'. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Good post! CorruptUser 20:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Trump is smarter than his supporters.Edward the eight (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Kind of feels like more of Cory's usual whataboutism tbh. Also Troll. Vee (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I shall point out that I think both 'sides' on the medicalisation point are wrong. However, I shall also say the 'stop feeling that way' crowd are bad faith actors too. On the prisons point... Corrupt, I really suggest you shut up, go off and do some research and then [and only then] comment on the issue. Because while there are clearly exceptions to prove your point [there always is] in the vast, vast amount of cases in the USA [at least] you are very wrong. Here's something for your reading list; https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/transgender-women-are-nearly-always-incarcerated-men-s-putting-many-n1142436 . KarmaPolice (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
That's actually where the debate should be. What is "best" for the patient is going to be a multi-factor of the expenses involved, the health risks of the procedure, societal attitudes, the probabilities of the wrong diagnosis, the probability of the GD simply going away on its own, etc etc. If someone develops a procedure that is cheaper and less-risky than current methods, that will change who "should" receive the surgeries. If antibiotic-resistant bacteria turns hospitals into death-traps, that's going to shift the needle in the other direction.
@Vee If it "feels" like my "usual whataboutism", consider the possibility that I make valid points more often than you realize.
@KP thus the key words "at least a few" CorruptUser 20:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC) a
Trump is bad. Edward the eight (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
What's that got to do with anything here?
Anyway, the idea that what is 'best' for the person should be based on money and what others think is somewhere between stupid and outright negligent in my book, Corrupt. Plus, why the hell are you focusing on the statistically very low 'false positives' issues than the vast majority 'false negative' ones? [And in fact, several high-profile cases of the former were ultimately chalked up by either admin errors and/or inexperience of the failities on the topic]. That is a complete fail ethically if you subscribe to any moral code which is remotely based on utilitarianism. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
... or bodily autonomy, or liberty, or existing policy for evidence-based practice. Also it’s important to bring up (again) that trans people is a larger set than folks with gender dysphoria which is a subset of trans people. It’s the most common motivation for transition, but it’s not required to be classed as “trans”. If governments were to prevent people from being able to change their sex on the their ID’s, or reinforced past cross-dressing laws, etc. In addition to restrictions on gender affirming care, we know the result will be to essentially not allow trans people to exist by any public recognition. We also know based in the current medical literature on gender affirming care that the rates of suicide attempts, negative mental health outcomes, etc. Will skyrocket for the demographic who would identify as a trans. That’s going to have huge healthcare and societal costs associated with it, and will also essentially legally ban certain indigenous identities from existence — contributing to an already existing cultural genocide against Indigenous Americans. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I feel like some of them switched the "trans people don't exist" rhetoric with something like "trans people shouldn't exist". GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

All of them did. It's a main Republican platform now. They didn't dump the previous statement, it's self contradictory but they'll still claim trans people aren't real while simultaneously legislating them out of existence. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@OSD Ok, perhaps I'll learn something. What fraction of Trans don't have GD, and what are the reasons for transitioning when they don't have GD? CorruptUser 21:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm trans so I think I can explain 2 at least. The answer is simple, because it makes them happier. That's it. It brings them closer in line with their ideal body image even in the absence of dysphoria. It feels good, it makes them feel more whole and euphoric. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
But did you have GD? CorruptUser 21:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Me? Not really, but I'd still like to transition because despite me not feeling any discomfort or grief from my body, it is a euphoric idea. It makes me happy. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
(EC)I don’t think there are exact numbers on the rates of trans people who do not struggle with gender dysphoria but it’s not entirely needed for my point to be true. To be transgender is to identify with a gender identity that conflicts/differs from what one was assigned at birth. GD is not a requirement to being trans, so inevitably you will find people who do not meet the diagnostic criteria of gender dysphoria but still meet the definition to being trans. That essentially comes to be a logical consequence that having dysphoria is not necessary or even sufficient to being trans. Someone could have dysphoria and not want to identify as trans or transition. Probably not a wise decision under such circumstances but completely possible. Even though there is plausible biological causes to the motivations to why people come to identify as trans, we still have to recognize that all gendered categories and identities are socially constructed. The requirement of GD as a diagnosis has historically been used for medical gatekeeping preventing access to gender affirming care for folks who otherwise would have benefited from it. The conflation between GD and being trans is in essence what transmedicalism is, and is considered by many a trans activist and scholar to be a form of transphobia. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
In many ways, the trans medicalisation of today reminds me of the LGB medicalisation of the 1980s. One of the very few interesting bits in the autobiography of Harvey Proctor was the section where he went to see a psychiatrist in the late 80s, who had a pretty 'medical' view of homosexuality and got a slightly positive write-up because he at least had the view that it was a condition which could be 'lived with'. Another [I can't remember who] told about her experiences [I think] a little later, where her psychiatrist was rather obsessed in going up every anti-male alley, clearly under the impression that being a lesbian was 'a reaction' to some Bad Stuff in the childhood or something and if we sort that out, well she'll then be 'normal' and thus happy. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll just leave this for you kids to read... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
In fairness, a number of Lesbians aren't "inherently" Lesbian; sometimes a rape survivor becomes uncomfortable around men, but still needs the physical/emotional connections provided through the horizontal-tango. In those instances, I wouldn't say their sexuality is coming from a healthy place, even though the psychologist is wrong to assume that her sexuality must be from such trauma. CorruptUser 23:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm sooo gonna ask for [good] evidence for that one, for if nothing else goes against my personal knowledge of folks from those kinds of situations as well as what I know of human sexual attraction. And GC, I know what a genocide looks like, and it does not have to look like that. I'm no way saying the stage is anyway near criticl levels, but sure as hell massacres etc start somewhere and heavy Othering, rabble-rousing and denials of basic rights are a very good start. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Here you go. CorruptUser 23:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
An interesting, though limited in scope survey [which is admitted by the writers]. It would appear that there is a correlation link of perhaps ~10-15%, however I do note that the writers did not even consider the possibility that some of those women who fitted both Venn circles were in fact, pan/bisexual [I suspect humans are a lot more fluid in sexuality than is generally assumed] which might weaken the correlation to an exent it may be merely a statistical error or similar. This is including the other alternative theories the writers offer themselves, which I shall extend to the possibility that it could lead some via misandry [and for some, I don't blame them] to a form of 'political lesbianism' and they are in fact, celibate [which is my own personally observed major outcome]. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
This study is also interesting. Also more recent, larger data pool, etc. The problem of course that it's impossible to tease out just how much, e.g., being LGBT increases the odds of being abused vs how much being abused increases the odds of being LGBT, but sexuality is probably at least somewhat malleable. CorruptUser 01:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Granted that Republicans are capable of the lowest ethical standards, i don't think it is wise to frighten young trans people unnecessarily. I can only imagine how uncomfortable teenage trans boys and girls are with their situations. When it comes to murder, the US rate was 6.5 per 100,000 last year for the general population. The number of trans adults and youths in the US was estimated to be 1.6 million in 2022. The number of trans murders in 2022 is estimated to have been at least 32 in 2022. Those stats call for about 99 trans murders at the same rate as the general population. To our trans friends, I understand why you are frightened. To our cis-trans-advocates, calm down, you are not helping.UncleKrampus (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Define 'unnecessarily'. If you have a group of well-funded, organised people who would clearly like 'people like you' to vanish off the face of the earth, they actually hold power in certain areas [which might include where you live] and are known to have a nutjob fringe who like 'direct action', I think this is a necessary concern. What's more, as you admit you're dealing with folks with little to no apparent ethical standards and are known to use salami tactics, doing 'boiling frog attacks' and leveraging any advantage they hold to get what they want. However, you are right that the perceived risk vs actual risk does also need to be brought up and I shall gladly state that on the main it would appear that [once again] we are seeing a replay of 'gay rights' of the '80s - that while the bigots score the occasional win, the general direction of travel for them is retreat. [But counter-counter to this it's good to remind folks what the situation could get like if we simply let them have their way!]
As for Corrupt's point... well, the main limitation of those works is that gender and sexual orientation are two completely different things. It's more a historical leftover that they ended up in the same 'zone' in Western societies and [I suspect] partly the reason for transphobia; some folks cannot disconnect 'being trans' from 'sex', and that's a wee bit understandable when you remember the usual acronym use... KarmaPolice (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Don't forget to factor in that overall, T/NB people are younger, more likely to do sex work, have higher rates of drug use, less White, etc. Factoring these in, you expect a murder rate that is disproportionately higher. Why the opposite is true, I'm not sure. CorruptUser 14:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
There are currently two nations in the world that actually execute people for the crime of being gay (Iran and Afghanistan), or in Iran's case even "promoting" LGBT. In addition, there are several nations that, while not to the point of execution, will happily put you in prison for a long time simply for being homosexual. Unsurprisingly, the stench of fundamentalist (or simply the dumber varieties of) religion follows these laws, and while it is tempting to pull a "that gosh darn Islam" tut-tut, such ignores places like Tanzania which are majority Christian and will put you in prison for life for being gay as well.
Now, the United States is no Taliban. However, the United States has one of the nuttier fundamentalist blocs among developed nations. It is a declining force, but it still exists, and has sunk its teeth into the Republican party, infecting it more than ever. As long as the bloc has power, there is reason for some justified concern. Right now (as was the case back in the day with "TEH GAY"), if you are trans, you are experiencing the "pleasure" of being used as a boogeyman by politicians like Ron DeSantis (because the Golden Rule these days is "woke"). Politicians like him, beyond the awful rhetoric, certainly will happily prop up anti-trans laws when "politically convenient" (currently, for instance, certain medical care is targeted in the usual bludgeon-style fashion that, similar to abortion, ignores subtleties; education / libraries also are a target). It's always extra concern, IMHO, when it's people in power that are pushing the moral panic for the vote. Little good comes from that. Like TEH GAY panic I think things will eventually normalize against the bigots, but at the same time I don't give fundamentalist shitheads a free pass for pushing shitty hateful ideas.
CU: I have not found exactly where HRC has compiled those statistics. They don't seem to be too thorough (and as far as I can tell, HRC acknowledges that they under-report). They also don't include non-bias murders of trans people, without that you cannot make a comparison against baseline. Solid hate crime statistics seem hard to come by as a general rule. BobJohnson (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Two points to extend what Bob said above. One, we need to remember not just 'classic' underreporting but also the welter of let's call them 'sub-reportable' or 'ambigious' harrassment/bullying etc [often coupled with gaslighting]. This can make people's lives truly a living hell, but there is no single 'episode' that The Powers That Be can flag up and act on [assuming that they even want to, that is]. Secondly, the very use of constant 'inflammable rhetoric' can make the above much more socially acceptable to do the above, and thus enables the 'phobes and simple shits to do this. Because we have to remember, social conformity cuts both ways; sometimes, it's the only thing keeping the fuckers remotely in-check in regards to behaviours. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The rate of murder by itself might be lower for trans people, but the rate of violent crime to be directed at them is not. Trans people are 4 times as likely to be victims of rape, assault, and other violent crime.[14] I am not fearmongering unnecessarily when I say there is genocidal rhetoric against trans people, because there is. The goal is extermination. Republicans will do anything to wipe trans people off the planet, do you honestly think they will stop at legally banning gender affirming care? Did the Ottomans stop at deportations? Did Nazi Germany stop at banning Jewish worship? No, they didn't, and neither will Republicans if they have their way. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It's time we stopped asking "what would a conservative movement do" and started asking "what would a fascist movement do?" (For instance, LibsOfTiktok's rhetoric directly lead to the bombing of trans-affirming healthcare clinics for minors. Rhetoric has consequences.) The GOP is no longer the party of conservatism. Also, for Cory, just because what you pointed out was true, doesn't make it relevant. That's what a whataboutery "argument" is. Vee (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I feel that Umberto Eco's '14 points of fascism' is the most accurate. And guess what, peoples - MAGA ticks every one. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The Anarchist Library (being a library and not a magazine, not every work hosted is anarchist, merely relevant to anarchism) hosts a copy for free. Vee (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Let's not content ourselves; a lot of those points do apply to the Left even if MAGA checks more of them. Newspeak? Disagreement is Treason? Yup. CorruptUser 19:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Eh, this is why I am not a big fan of Umberto Eco's list. Personally I am more inclined towards Roger Griffin's theory of Paleogenic Ultranationalism. Which almost exclusively overlaps with far-right reactionary movements and ideologies that express a return to some former "glory", society or people. There isn't quite the "return to glory" style rebirth narratives strongly entrenched in nationalistic identity on the left. Eco's list can be applied to pretty much any political ideology one is particularly motivated to smear. I don't think it would be too hard to find some sort of article from a Ben Shapiro type claiming that all "SJW's" meet the criteria of Eco's fascism. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Corrupt; no, they are not. 'The left' [let's say American social progressives for this task] completely fails numbers 1, 2, 12 and 13 and partly fails 5, 6 and 11. I'll cut the toss with you on 3, 9, 10 and 14, and shall accept 4, 7 and 8 as true enough. I'm not shy in saying that there is a strand of rather blinkered dogmatism and plain idiocy but generally speaking they're not often found outside some circlejerks online [which often are the source of the 'aren't libs stupid!' quotes for Fox News et al to use]. What's more, they are a tiny percentage of the elected officials of the Democratic Party. So with all respect, your whataboutism can go to hell.
Dumb; yes, there are limitations in Eno's definition, though I disagree with your point that it can be 'applied to any ideology one is particularly motivated to smear' without some really creative shoehorning [which is kinda the whole thing of talking twats like Shapiro]. What's more, I would add a rider to the list; that each element needs to be fairly endemic within the movement, not the result of successful nutpicking. For example, #7 ['obession with a plot'] clearly applies to MAGA with QAnon. Plus, Eno's definition has the advantage of being relatively easy to understand. Yes, for the pol wonks amongst us it's a partial 'lie-to-children' but hell, it might be the best thing we can get into the Big Public's head. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Karma, please re-read what I wrote. Nothing you said contradicts what I said. CorruptUser 20:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
"The Left" implies leftists are a monolithic block, it's a fallacy of generalization. "Newspeak" on its own is a pejorative label with limited academic utility. Note how it refers to the "dumbing down of language" in the Wikipedia article. Given that social justice viewpoints tend to have an academic viewpoint informing them, is that really the case here? Anti-intellectualism was certainly a thing in the USSR, but it seems to be false equivocation to compare pro-social justice or libertarian socialist movements with literal red fascists, especially when we tend to be critical of the USSR. "Disagreement is Treason" Clarify what you mean by this, because this appears to me to be some form of loaded language. Are you implying we should tolerate intolerant viewpoints? I don't think I should be comfortable with people who want people like me (female, lesbian, socialist) dead being present on a platform. Vee (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
As seen by the shitshow in the House last week, currently the Democrats tend to do a better job managing their "big tent".
Like Karma, I consider the above whataboutism, a red herring, and nutpicking, so unless Corrupt has a point other than "NO U!", it can be safely ignored. BobJohnson (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I didn't notice any red herrings or whataboutism from Cory today. That would be because there was no real debate, therefore nothing is off topic. But you are quite right that he can be safely ignored, as could be the rest of us. We live lives of quiet irrelevance, but I don't mind. All the best, and don't be afraid for fuck's sake. UncleKrampus (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This post made me feel like I am owed the time back for having read it. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
My pleasure. It's on the house! UncleKrampus (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Cute cat video[edit]

Check out this Cute cat video Edward the eight (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe you'd prefer Rick Astley singing "Never Gonna Give You Up". Spud (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
What have we come to? :-( Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
You cannot escape from Rick Astley, even here on rationalwiki Edward the eight (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
nor ten years after it might have been funny AMassiveGay (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
And I'm pretty sure that it's older than ten years. In fact, I would be prepared to bet that it's been going for longer than the average age of the current editor-base.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
KnowYourMeme says May 2007. Soon, the meme will be celebrating its Sweet Sixteen.
The team that actually spawned the Astley in the first place, Stock Aitken WatermanWikipedia, are *definitely* elders, ready to tell stories of the good old days when they ruled the UK teenage airwaves with their Bananramas and Kylie Minogues churning out the hi-NRG Eurobeat. The darn kids of today just wouldn't understand! BobJohnson (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
ive probably danced to all of the above when they were current at school discos AMassiveGay (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The the song itself goes back to 1987, which is 36 years ago. I must admit that I thought its use as a meme began before 2007.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Insurrection: Brazilian Edition[edit]


With Brazil's version of Trump losing, angry supporters stormed the capitol. Just two days after the anniversary of Jan 6 here in the United States. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

guess i spoke too soon. The G (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
As in the US case, I’m amazed that an otherwise heavily armed police force that is not exactly known for its kid gloves and pussyfooting approach is somehow unable to protect the heart of government against right wing nutcase insurrectionists, despite literally weeks and months of warnings and signs that something like this would be a possible, indeed even likely, scenario… ScepticWombat (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Trump impeded any possible response. Then again, he endorses terrorism. Trump is as about as patriotic as Benedict Arnold. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
wait, you're still talking about the usa, right? The G (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
That's unfair on Arnold. At the time, the every existence of the USA was in doubt, so it could [and was] argued Arnold eventually 'showed his patriotism' by re-joining the British. Plus, I don't think the Orange One has any loyalty to any entity larger than his own ego. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Anyways, the Brazilian Insurrection of 2023 is a good example of right wing terrorism in action. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It helps the insurrectionists when the police are also Bolsonarists. If there's a time to begin removing those elements, it's now. -Ryan1257 (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Common g-man L. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
if you think i'm the site's resident bolsonaro fanboy supporter, you are sorely mistaken. i just didn't appreciate how our article on him read more like a hit piece than a proper rw article. that's why i have done some heavy editing [15] over the last two months. (i've even added some new content!)
it's still a trainwreck, by the way. you're more than welcome to pitch in and improve it so it can be demoted to bronze again. for starters, most of the sources are poorly formatted (and some of the links have expired). it's a lot of work for one editor to fix alone, so help would be more than appreciated. The G (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The Onion is already at it PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 15:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, but are we still allowed to make Benjamin Arrola jokes? Moon Sock (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

a bad year for the bad guys (or, a few wins for democracy in 2022)[edit]

a few weeks ago, someone made a post about how it was a great time to be alive and watch a few of the world's evil men lose real time. i just so happened to find an article about it. unfortunately, it's kinda late to add to wigo blogs, so you can read it here. The G (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This was a relatively good year, but the bad guys are still on the offensive. The positive stories of 2022 were about what didn’t go wrong, rather than what went right. We have a long way to go. There is much to be done. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
indeed. its not enough for the 'bad guys' to lose. things have to get better. one of the mistakes in the years immediately post brexit was people too busy high fiving every time the tory government lost a vote, they forgot to provide an alternative. result - tories still in government, strikes like back in the 70s, and the uk a basketcase. i wonder if too many people have considered just what the world will look like if, for example, russia completely breaks apart as a result of the ukraine war and sanctions or china suffers a complete economic collpase? bad guys losing for sure. but who is winning in those scenarios? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The Russian and Chinese people perhaps? Progress will not monotonically increase constantly. Some really bad shit has happened, is happening, will happen. UncleKrampus (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
the russian an d chinese people most definitely do not win those scenarios. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
to be fair, the article i linked does include the caveat that the global fight for democracy is far from over. there have been some setbacks (e.g., israeli right-wing hardliners and the sonWikipedia of a brutal filipino dictatorWikipedia winning elections, among other things). as i said a few weeks ago: even though some battles have been won, the war is not over yet. The G (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
on the other hand, we should be cautiously optimistic of the bad guys losing, as amg said. it's only really a good thing if there is a viable alternative. i mean, look at what became of russia after the fall of communism, or menaWikipedia during the arab winterWikipedia. the eventual collapse of north korea would perhaps be a quintessential reason for this (as our own site mentions in the rok article); a regime collapse without some sort of stopgap is not exactly a desirable outcome. The G (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Given the large role the West has played in why MENA is such a catastrophic hellhole, I know for a fact many Middle Easterners wouldn't shed a single tear if the American government were to collapse tomorrow. "Good guy" and "bad guy" is subjective (and ultimately an irrelevant moralism) on the global stage. Vee (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think good and bad is the correct framework. I would say that Authoritarian minded governments had a rough year, and that benefits the less authoritarian minded world. But the Taliban used 2022 to tighten it's social controls and while I think the physical changes they are making to the country are to be applauded[16], they continue to marginalize half their population.[17] China's Covid policy and lack of information sharing could still hurt the world's recovery, and corporations are just running rampant with "inflation" price increases.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────seems like some of you missed the point of the post. i edited the section title accordingly. please read the article i linked to in the op for further context. The G (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That was me. And wow, this was one of the best things I've read this year. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

...and this year is off to a truly awful start[edit]

i fancied making makiing lemon meringue pie so i ordered a pie dish from amazon, but on arrival...

Pie dish.jpeg the horror, the horror AMassiveGay (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You can make a bunch of cute wittle pies? You can request a refund and/or return on Amazon. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
This is something I do have to ask why the hell you used Amazon - kinda sure the likes of bigger branches of Tescos, Sainsbury's etc [other non big chains are options] could have dealt with unless you lived in say the Orkneys. Which I semi-know you don't. Though between foul-ups like this, the postal clog-ups and the occasional idiot to insists on using Evry [which apparently thinks I live on the Orkneys due to the fact it keeps on saying my home is impossible to find/get to] I've actually started doing physical shopping again [which is a bitch, as it involves a couple of hours of travel]. But I put it this way; once you've got 8+ items on Da List, it comes out cheaper in P&P and time in the whole to do it yourself. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
there are no bigger branches where i live. 5 of each store literally within 5 mins of each other (i mean lieterally - its ridiculous. they have replaced all the corner shops and now its tescos right next door to sainsburys) , but they are all metros - they never even have the cheaper 'own brand produce'. i think the nearest big store is old kent road and fuck going down there. the local homeware store far too expensive. despite of (or because of) amazon treating workers like shit, its cheaper and more convenient, i dont pay p + p and they will be picking up the returns at my door. they are evil but so fucking cheap and convenient AMassiveGay (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
especially since they shutdown the elephant and castle shopping centre AMassiveGay (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Way to humblebrag about being 11 feet tall, AMassiveGay, geez. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Got a decent size pie dish. now...lets justy say im not gonna be making meringue pie again. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Milestone ahoy[edit]

Now under 70 new articles to go (but probably somewhat more in practice, for the usual wiki-reasons) to get to 7777 articles on RW.

If anyone wishes to develop a countdown/speaking clock-equivalent 'at a suitable starting number' such things are 'too technical for me.' Anna Livia (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Well done, 👏🏻 Euromec (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This is what does it: {{#expr:7777-{{formatnum:{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}|R}}}}
Countdown to 7777 articles: -220
Bongolian (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, quality matters more than quantity. Bongolian (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, part of the reason we haven't hit the target number yet is because we keep deleting the low-quality shit. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
DM - I do note that (and some topics are potentially interesting at the time of creation but fail to 'take off' - see my suggestion on 'Karens and other annoyances' above). Anna Livia (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

US house[edit]

Damn is it a crapshow. Looks like the GOP can’t even elect a speaker! Wonder if a democrat could slip in.2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:3F (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably not, but the shitshow honestly isn't surprising. It's what you get when a large (dare I say, dominant) wing of your political party's primary principle is "old man yells at crowd" and "own the _____", which these days not only includes the "libs" but also includes any Republican with a sober thoughtful brain cell. The Freedom Caucus made a complete shitshow of the House a little under a decade ago, and things have only gotten worse in this department since then. Conclusion: invest in some popcorn for at least the next few years, it's going to be "fun". BobJohnson (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Congress doing jack shit for years at a time is exactly how the country is supposed to run, so... popcorn time. CorruptUser 15:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The best scenario that's actually plausible is a Moderate Republican elected by The Democrats and 10 Republican defectors.-Ryan1257 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I say the Dems should sit back and let this happen. Really let the public see for themselves how the Republicans can’t govern, and maybe they’ll remember that come 2024. No reason to save the GOP from its own mistakes. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 19:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the 'Republican' voters would be even more shocked if the MAGA-faction actually did get to have their wish-list, as one of the main goals (I gather) is the wholesale gutting of Medicare etc with zero replacement and I suspect closely followed by trying to Federalise a social lurch back to the 1950s (abortion/contraception bans, ending of all racial/sex protections etc). KarmaPolice (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, wait till the Republicans beg the Democrats for help, either by selecting a relatively-sane and non-treasonous Republican (exceedingly difficult since it's a thankless job) that Democrats can support, or agreeing to vote for a Democrat in sufficient numbers. The Republicans started the shitshow, they need to end it on their own. Bongolian (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
What happens if no new Speaker is elected? I appeciate this is a kinda wonkish question with almost zero precedent to work from but you do need to ask such things to get the true significance of the 'issue'. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Due to the modern structure of the House of Representatives, my understanding is that without a speaker, the House essentially grinds to a halt as without a speaker, you can't swear in legislators or vote on the rules for the session. Normally this procedure is a mere formality, so probably not a lot of people have given it much thought when the process breaks down like this. So far, McCarthy is edging closer to the only other speaker since the American Civil War era to not be elected on the first ballot (Frederick H. GillettWikipedia, it took 3 days and 9 ballots to get him in due to opposition from Progressive Republicans). The Civil War era, mind you, had some doozy Speaker fights (62 days for Nathaniel P. BanksWikipedia and 58 days for William PenningtonWikipedia), but the circumstances were way different then (a whole bunch of political chaos leading to three major parties in power for Bank's speakership -- Democratic, American / Know Nothing, and "Opposition", plus, y'know, some seriously contentious sectarian tensions going on even shortly after that...) BobJohnson (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Curiously, under the Constitution and the standing rules of the House, one needn’t be a member to become Speaker. I’m sure that the current President of Mar-a-Lago could be coaxed out of retirement to head the Legislative Branch of the Government of the United States House of Representatives. Yup. 03:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
Pretty sure today's Congress isn't any less of a clusterfuck now than it was back then. If it isn't yet, give it some time. The sheer polarization of American politics pretty much ensures it. Vee (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
everyone should find this concerning because the extremists are trying to hijack the leadership of the gop. eventually, the moderates will cave and pander to the extremists. that's how we got trump in the first place. The G (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's that serious. The House 'Republican' majority is 9 and this whole fiasco is highlighting the fact that said 'party' has become almost ungovernable by anyone. On the other side of the 'MAGA hardcore 20' is the at least 18 Republicans with clearly 'purple' districts and if former are allowed to call all the shots, the latter knows they're fucked - the last thing the independent voters want is two years of bitching about imaginary greviences, cranky hearings over trivialities or general moronic stunts. I mean, it's bad but not brown underpants time. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The Republican majority is 4 seats, not 9. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 12:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It’s clear to say, at this point, the GOP has no chance in 2024. They blew their chance and now isn’t even seen as properly governing. Also, seeeing someone like Bryan Donald’s as speaker is scary, if the moderates are forced to cave for him. At that point, I see 5 moderates simply voting for Hakeem Jeffries, the democrat.2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:39 (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

In totalitarian regimes or oligarchies things happen quickly and often for the benefit of the ruling class elites. In democracies, negotiations happen which is a slower process. And sometimes minorities have to oppose the majority for the sake of principle. The most contentious Speaker of the House of Representatives vote in the USA took about two months of negotiations and many failed votes to nominate someone. But in the end it resulted in putting the first abolitionists in key congressional posts.
Many times the corporate media represent the corporate ruling class. So to take their characterization of events can be misleading. RadleyMadrish (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
As a Leftist, I am reveling in the GOP failure. But it bodes ill for basically anything getting accomplished for the next two years. GOP can't even manage its members, five defections plus united Democrats kills everything.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The Dems really need to hammer on the theme on competence in government for the next 2 years heading into next midterms. Get the country asking if we really want these clowns running government. Twist the knife. Let the Republicans melt down for foreseeable future. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 00:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
That would be great for them, but the Dems are cowards who refuse to play hardball when it would suit them. Vee (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This is sadly true, and I’ve spent far more time than I care to admit raging against them for that. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 01:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The Dems are controlled opposition. Given that the establishment wing of both parties are funded by the same people (rich plutocrats) this makes sense. Any actual opposition would (hopefully) bring change that would be contrary to the interests of the ruling class. IOW the substantial policy of the establishment wings of both parties are fundamentally the same (interventionist neoliberalism) which differ only in a few marginal wedge issues. To quote Dark Brandon himself: "nothing will fundamentally change." Arguably this is a good case for the American electoral system to be reformed from FPTP so that progressives, independents, and whatnot won't be stuck with the woefully obsolete, incompetent, and demonstrably harmful two-party system. Vee (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Be careful with being too harsh on the "establishment" though, at least on the Republican side of the aisle. As far as I can tell most of the anti-McCarthy wing comes from the deeply socially conservative "white nationalism" / "Christian nationalism" wing. (Indeed, we are seemingly at a point where Donald Trump is a "RINO" to this group and thus ignored, amazingly enough.) The anti-McCarthy wing is very "anti-establishment". Just not in a constructive way, more like a petulant child yelling at everyone and everything, with little indication of any goals other than the above identity-oriented bullshit, grievances and temper tantrums. I guess there are a few plutocrats with seemingly no functional brain cells who would be happy with this sort of thing, as well as some of the stunts you know this group will pull (shutting down the government, playing with that arcane debt ceiling shit)... but I would think that most plutocrats with functional brain cells would be a little worried should this group be even more obstinate than the previous Freedom Caucus shitshow. (Of course, these plutocrats helped spawn this beast in the first place, but that's a subject for another time...)
At least personally, as icky as your conservative plutocrat Kochs types are, I'll actually take them over the Lauren Boebert and Matt GaetzWikipedia types of the world that seem to think marching straight towards a Society of Gilead is the Thing To Do. BobJohnson (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Except for the interventionist foreign policy, the rich plutocrat establishment class is beginning to lose. The Republicans got Roe vs. Wade overturned and the Democrats passed a bill adding 56,000 IRS agents. And they can't get Kevin McCarthy to be speaker of the House so far. The Republicans and Democrats are becoming more populist, but on different ends of the political spectrum. Lyrim (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Populist to what end though, Ken? The Dem populists actually have substantial policy proposals, the populists in the GOP have nothing other than their standard culture war grievance bullshit and power plays. Vee (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There are times you almost delight me with your presence, Ken. And this is one of them. Aww... look at the kid... 'the rich plutocrat establishment class is beginning to lose.' Really? And you believe that! Aren't you cute kid! [pats the Bot on head].
What is glossed over [and deliberately so] is that when it comes down to actual economic policies there is almost nil difference between 'regular Republicans' and 'MAGA-hats'. They are generally speaking, both dogmatic Reaganites spouting the same tired 80s crap about 'wealth creators', 'the Laffer curve', 'evils of socialism' and so on while the 'losing plutocrat class' continues to slither around in the background, sucking off those welfare mamma teats and using their influence to distort public policies to increase the 'wealth transfers' to them personally vs the rest of society. That is why, for example the allegged 'moderate Republicans' didn't object a peep to the Trumpian tax cuts for said rich and didn't really object to when he 're-did' NAFTA to allow corp America to screw Canada and Mexico a bit harder than previously.
That truth be told, the 'resistance to the plutocrats' image being peddled by MAGA is nothing more than manufactured aggro, a bit of stage theatre, similar in the manner in which wrestlers shall have 'beefs' with other characters to add a bit of spice to the whole show. Well... mainly.
The American 'plutocratic class' [which is much more faceless senior execs and fund managers these days] are actually pretty tepid 'resisters' of right-wing populism/fascism. That generally speaking, they don't mind the reactionary social shit as long as their wealth allows them to continue to be exempt from them. However, they are aware that said social policies are generally unpopular in the land in general and even less so overseas. 'Corp America' is actually a rather good barometer of social opinion because they know 'what sells' and work to keep the market wide as possible. In fact, I also believe now that many [like say, Disney] are being a bit more 'ahead of the curve' in some respects not because they're 'woke', but they're simply trying to 'futureproof' their products.
That's the thing; capitalism is pragmatic. If it sees the need, it shall normally move to accommodate it. Bitching about companies health plans funding birth control or pensions covering same-sex partners is basically indirect bitching at the fact the general society of the country does not fit your own desired vision.
KarmaPolice (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's very obvious that religious conservatives don't care if the general society or a large portion of their local area doesn't get their way as far as liberal values. Maybe it's the account of Noah's ark where all of humanity was punished through drowning and a handful of people were spared judgment that helps shape their view of this matter. As far as overseas, people's values differ depending on what continent/region of the world one is at. There are 195 countries in the world and The Guardian reported in 2017 that homosexual relationships were still criminalized in 72 countries. Gogo the Milder (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You had a chance to attempt to counter my claim that with economics, there is zero genuine difference between 'Republican' and 'MAGA'. The fact you did not has surely been noted by the audience. However, you did start going off on a 'da gays' mini-rant which in fact allows me to make another observation regarding MAGA - that it attempts to distract the Big Public with 'culture war' shite to hide the very fact it is the economic Tweedle-Dee to the Republican Tweedle-Dumb. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The thing is, though, there is a difference between Republicans of the Reagan generation and modern "MAGA" Republicans (which is most of them now) when it comes to economics. As a "sweeping generalization", from what I remember, Reagan Republicans were happy with "dog whistles" and some dog-shit race / sex / orientation politics, but when it came to business, money was green no matter where it came from, and the sort of divisive culture-war rhetoric had much less carry (at least on Wall Street). Reagan Republicans would never have done the damage to free trade Donald Trump did. Reagan Republicans were far less scorched-earth on immigration. I doubt you would have ever seen some of the "MAGA stunts" pulled against big businesses purely for culture war purposes (from Ron DeSantis vs. Disney to complaining that BlackrockWikipedia, of all companies, is "woke"). Multiple articles have come out post-Trump where CEOs complain that business has no real political home at the moment in the US. The "culture war" shit, which used to be a sideshow to please the rubes, has half swallowed the Republicans. It's that "preacher" problem Barry Goldwater even warned about back in the day, coming full circle. It was enough to lead some conservatives in the pundit class to "never Trump" and nope out of the political party. A small portion, but telling nonetheless.
Because of decades of Fox News and others successfully conflating the "culture war" with the type of libertarian "low taxes" "small government" stuff the plutocrats love, for now, there still is a lot of Reagan in the Republican party. But in the future? To me it's hard to tell. You do have signs (such as Tucker Carlson and others openly being pro-Putin) that significant Republicans care largely about the culture war shit above all, even above economic policy or democracy, in ways that would make Saint Reagan roll in his grave. On the other hand, based on the last few elections, there are significant signs that much of the MAGA shit is rather concentrated among Boomers, and it seems like younger generations (in certain locales at least) frankly are pissed off enough about the overreach on topics like abortion to ignore traditional vote motivators like a dogshit economy. Will that eventually mellow the old men and women Republicans yelling at clouds? Time will tell. For now, the stupid toddler temper-tantrums seems to be getting worse, so bring out the popcorn and watch the Freedom Caucus shit up the House of Representatives again.
(And Ken's "rich plutocrat establishment class is beginning to lose" is cute. There's plenty of rich plutocrats that openly embrace the MAGA and would be happy with a Putin style fascism. They're not a monolith class.) BobJohnson (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Admittedly, I overdraw; but I stand by my piece on the main. [Showed by the now-scrubbed KenBot retort, of which all the 'economic achievements' of Trump were all directly benefitical to the 'losing plutocrats'. I mean only the big boys pay corp tax and holding overseas income until the state gives you a stonking great tax cut so you can 'bring it back' and grab it out as more dividends... what is there not to like if you're worth ten mil plus?]
Anyway, something I've been wondering of late is whether we're actually seeing a deepening 'civil war' within the American capitalist class itself. That while some have thrown their lot in with MAGA (or feel they are tools to be 'used') others have moved towards opposition - some out of simple exasperation over MAGA incompetence, but some out of actual concern. That they've to some extent 'refound their faith' in the current capitalist democratic setup - a place where the legal system protects their wealth and where on the main they do not live in personal fear.
For when you think of it, America is kinda sweet to be rich in. Your personal safety is generally decent, your kids can go to school unmolested, your car to work doesn't need to be an armour-plated affair and you don't have live with bodyguards 24/7. Even more importantly, you don't need to be worried about retribution from the state if you speak out, fund 'the opposition' or even stand yourself. Your wealth won't be stripped off you overnight by the diktat of The Emperor, nor shall you be 'detained' at their pleasure indefinately on faked charges. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that's an interesting way to think about it. I do think things are in a bit of flux, because conservative orthodoxy is now in conflict with business orthodoxy. Businesses focus on maximizing profit, which now includes marketing to LGBTQ+ people, investors wanting their money to go towards projects meant to replace fossil fuels, as well as accepting the reality that their business will fundamentally change with intense climate change. Companies now get labeled as "woke" when they no longer align with conservatives. I think this went into overdrive after Jan 6 2020, when many companies realized that giving money to people who wanted a coup wasn't a good idea. Dems also aren't willing to change their view to accommodate big business,(excluding Manchin and Sinema) so they find themselves unrepresented. But I think this is temporary, some companies may backtrack on some changes, others will plow forward, but this moment right now illustrates that business can be sidelined.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, Jan 6th was the breach point between [let's call them] 'mainstream capital' and MAGA, though I would say the deep fissure happened some six months before, during the BLM riots. Contrary to the ramblings of KenBot and their ilk, Corp America generally speaking really didn't want to take sides in the 'culture war' [who blames them, as you say they're in it just for the money] but the events had made continued 'neutrality' impossible. Ending with Roe/Wade similar; they didn't like it, but realised they had to do/say something.
As with the 'capitalist civil war', it is interesting to see what forces of capital have thrown their lot in with MAGA. I would actually be interested in seeing a proper list, but as far as I can tell the majority hails from the following sectors; mining, 'trad' energy, agribusiness, real estate, banking, finance and with a few crypto 'tech bros' thrown in. What do all of these have in common? Low dependence on labour to operate, their high capital stakes are relatively 'tangable', a relative lack of need to trade with the rest of the world or dependence on the whims of the final consumer and perhaps most importantly, the sectors most notorious for cronyism, corruption, regulatory capture and other rent-seeking behaviours.
This is actually important, because with the exception of the 'tech bros' these are the exact same sectors used to propel the likes of the Russian oligarchs into their asset-piles - ripping off the state for tangable resources and then using financial trickeries to get even more. And as we've seen with Russia now, such 'businesses' don't need the trappings of a modern, advanced nation to support such capitalism - just enough to continue the rent-seeking, producing raw materials and state rip-offs. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm remembering Jan 6th as the day we lost RobS :'( CorruptUser 03:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Did you light a candle? KarmaPolice (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I’m a bit unsure about the “capital civil war” concept, as well as the list of “MAGA sectors” presented by KP above.
First off, it’s unclear on many corporations are against MAGA on ideological and/or strategic grounds and how many simply are against Trump (not least because they see him as alienating too many voters and power players in society to be likely to win).
Secondly, plenty of the “usual suspects” among big GOP donors are pumping money into Super PACs supporting GOP Congress critters who refused to certify the 2020 election, but does that make them MAGA supporters? sure, they are enablers, but I would hardly equate this to being one side of a “capital civil war”. Conversely, if we only count those corporations who enter the public debate explicitly in favour of Trump and/or MAGA more generally, we exclude those who, for various reasons, support them financially on the quiet.
As for the list, there have been businesses in retail and hospitality who have earlier supported Trump/MAGA and on this December 2022 CNBC list there is Tilman Fertita who makes a lot of his money in hospitality and Anthony Lomangino who’s in recycling.
However, I would agree with “black energy”, tech bros and real estate being prominent in MAGA support more generally, while I’m less sure about banking/finance. The complications when it comes to the latter is that any mega rich will get involved in banking and finance in order to reach and keep their extreme wealth, but I haven’t seen that many prominent banks or financial corporations backing Trump/MAGA (at least openly).
There are definitely a few individual speculators backing Trump/MAGA, but it can be har to say how much they are simply riding the coattails to (even more) political power. A case in point is Peter Thiel’s backing of J. D. Vance and Blake Masters, which, while somewhat dovetailing with Trump/MAGA also showed some opposition, or at least certain variation in ideology (more randroid than America First). ScepticWombat (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
My little list was 'sectors heavily represented in the ardent MAGA list', not that the majority of that sector is supportive of MAGA. What's more [as you point out] there are other persons on it who don't fit, like Mike MyPillow - however, from the looks of it very few of the 'first division' household names are on it [don't dismiss banking; many fundie churches have considerable assets and pension funds].
I also stand by my 'deepening civil war' point on the basis it highlights the increasing strains within that class itself. That in many respects they got a taster of a 'MAGA America' between '16 and '20 and well, it was hardly endearing - the incompetence, poisonous demagoguery, corruption, cronyism and just plain stupidity. Which would explain why the major donations were majorly for Biden in '20. However, Democrats have been able to out-raise Republicans consistently since ~2008 which suggests that this 'fracture' amongst the capitalist class [of which I'd say you need to be in the top 5% for 'associate membership'] has been growing for some time. But yeah, like in America in general the 'civil war' is still at a rather low level. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
As I see it, the Democrats’ ability to out-fundraise the GOP is tied to two things:
  • That the Democrats, or at least their leadership and the section of the party controlling the party line, have essentially turned into Reagan Republicans on economic issues.
  • Meanwhile, the GOP has come more and more under the influence of a radical wing, whose economic ideas are at odds with big slices of US business and especially big corporations. Note that it has been (this section of) the GOP that has opposed bailouts and raising the debt ceiling.
It is hard for me to view this as a fundamental fracture in the US “corporatocracy”. Even if it shows some variation in business interests, it follows a trend from the 1990s when the Democrats really tried to suck up (even) more to business than Republicans, or at least to rival them. Meanwhile the GOP began to become a more hospitable environment for right wing economic crankery and conspiracy theories, which also helped derail serious discussions of the merits of “free trade”, as these cranks were easy to point to when someone wanted to discredit more serious criticism of, say, NAFTA.
As for banking including everything that has ”considerable assets and pension funds” hits home at the fact that any super rich is likely to be heavily involved in finance and investment, as this tends to be were big profits can be made on existing capital and how taxes can be voided, especially through legal tax avoidance. Hence, I don’t think it makes much sense to define support from a rich mega church that is involved in various financial operations or have huge real estate assets as support from banking and real estate.
Ultimately, while I find the notion of a US “capitalist civil war” interesting and of some merit, I think that for such an interpretation to be a useful framework, we’d have to see significant slices of various business sectors joining more explicitly with Trump/MAGA.
Otherwise, we risk nutpicking by overemphasising individual cranks (The MyPillow Guy being an extreme example) or overlooking that some donors already have a long history of supporting extreme economic positions (e.g. the Mellon clan and its various offshoots and funds). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Like any theory, my concept is at risk of being 'overfitted' - MAGA has many a reason to inspire dislike/opposition, and sometimes them Venn circles take in members of the elite class too [something which I've coined as the 'Cheney effect']. I mean, you don't need to be a genius to be a 1%er 'minority' watching MAGA unfold and have Niemoller's poem run through your mind, or to recall that more often than not, millionaire status didn't save them for their planned fate.
But yes, the rise of the crankery and 'captialist dogmatism' in MAGA has helped too; the 'executive stratum' are in fact a lot more pragmatic than the loons like KenBot think - example; I consume a decent bit of analysis pieces from clearly 'pro-business' sources like Bloomberg and over the last few years I've heard surprisingly pro stuff on universal healthcare, slashing corporate welfare, raising the minimum wage, deflating asset bubbles, college debt cancellation and hell, I even found a serious not-hostile look at UBI. Which tallies back to the 'MAGA support'; it's disproportinately from the the standoffish investor type or sectors which would be last to be affected if America became as economically/societally rotten as say, Russia [which you note correctly that is a relatively small % of the elite group in total].
The problem is, to see 'significant slices of various business sectors joining more explicitly with Trump/MAGA' would - I think - require something quite serious to happen in the country, for otherwise the elite class wouldn't risk their current [very sweet] position. So I am led to take the traditional Marxist line here; that Corp America shall only come out fully for MAGA when the other choice is a loss of their privileges. Only two situations really tally here; a truly socialist 'revolution' of some kind and/or a huge economic crash. And I don't think either are a risk right now. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


Part of what I see (in addition to the above) is that the "educated workers" segment has started to lean far more towards the Democrats of late, particularly post-Trump. If you are in the "knowledge economy" class where your "educated workers" are creating great value for you, this is certainly a consideration for where you stick your politics. Economically I think that lingering "Third Way" politics of Clinton still in the Democratic party is helping, in that it's not completely scorched-earth hostile to business. But even some of the relatively decently paid "knowledge economy" workers look at the sky-high CEO salaries (and the general inequality outside their segment) and are a bit non-plussed, so things have moved a little "left" even in this class. In addition, education seems like a decent way to help mellow racism and homophobia in many people (though not all). Which is why some Republicans are afraid of education itself these days, given that's in too many cases all they run on.
I was thinking of this in particular to the Disney/Ron DeSantis feud. Disney has, y'know, a lot of artistic types employed, as well as engineers that help make the park run. There tends to be a lot of LGBQT people in the creative industries (I don't think anyone knows why, but it seems that way), so it's no surprise that a lot of Disney "cast members" got pissed off and started staging walkouts etc. when Ronnie proclaimed his homophobic bullshit. No one should be surprised that Chapek made a (tepid) statement against DeSantis policies. And who knows why DeSantis didn't ignore it, because Chapek's statement really was toothless. But he didn't.
So one of the actual economic impacts of this feud was with Disney's "Imagineering" group (the engineering side). In 2021 per the reports the old CEO (Chapek) was planning to relocate from Glendale CA (LA area) to Lake Noma FL (Orlando area) to save costs. Now, people weren't happy about this move before DeSantis started wiggling his nose into things (personal opinion: Orlando is a soulless shithole compared to LA. Really.). But after the thing blew up, there was so much of a stink that the net result was that the move was "delayed" until 2026. And probably longer, since DeSantis is doubling down on his anti-Disney shit even now, and Chapek got the boot from CEO in part to his bad relationship with the creatives (with the more supposedly creative-friendly Iger coming in). So, there's a couple thousand high paying jobs that most likely Floriduh won't see a dime from. Way to go, DeSantis! BobJohnson (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I've wondered that for quite some time and I think I've come to the answer; MAGA does not give a toss about general economics. Not really. That they have made as their 'base' people who are either economically inactive [retirees], asset-rich wealthy [living off capital, not labour] cultists who don't care [fundie Christians], folks who have lost the plot [QAnon] and the eternally economically stupid [KenBot].
What's more, as you note the 'kinds of jobs' which are more likely to crop up in the '20s are not the ones the MAGA-hats want, even if they were qualified for them. Hat-wearing Floridans don't want 'Imagineering' there, they want old-school assembly plants so they can hand-build TVs, cars and refrigerators like they did in the '60s. Like Brexiteers in the UK, MAGA has effectively promised them this and shall blame woke/Chinese/libruls/Satan/lizardmen for it not panning out even if you point out if you made a TV now like they did then with 'good wages' you'd be seeing prices around $7,000 rather than $700.
The answer is simple; what we have in these cases is not just a 'tyranny of the minority' [which is bad enough] but a minority which is not even forced to feel the consequences of their own decisions, which is making them utterly irresponsible. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I think KarmaPolice’s interpretation of why the MAGA crowd seems to act so (self) destructively in terms of economics sounds very plausible.
If I had to add one more group, it would be small/medium business owners either oblivious to how much support they have received from the government or simply seeing such support as their just deserts as “job creators” who provide stuff and services that “people will always need”, possibly with some culture war twist. I would place Boebert and her idiotic Shooters Grill as a representative (harharhar…) of this category.
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if you found some of the freeman on the land and sovereign citizen nutters among this group along with goldbugs who rant against “fake” fiat currency. Of course, these views could all be encompassed within the broader Q-Anon category as used by KarmaPolice. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
My categories only listed one example each, more exist; for example 'economically inactive' can cover the stay-at-home 'Karen' who if isn't bitching about how 'hard' it is to spy and badger the maid is screaming culture war shite being a threat to her precious spawn. So I'd chalk up the freemen and goldbugs into the 'lost the plot' category, possibly shading into the 'economically stupid' [as overlaps are also common].
As with the small/medium business owners... from my experience, quite a lot of 'businesses' aren't actually viable as such - that they either don't generate enough profit to replenish the capital base, or don't even generate enough to provide an income to live off. [How does the latter live, then? Answer; off spouse/family/capital. The 'business' is a vanity/hobby type - something which more 'fills your time' and gives you an better answer than 'house-spouse' / 'live off trust fund' at parties etc.]. Thus they fall more into the inactive / asset-rich categories.
But if a business-owner is 'oblivious to how much support they have received from the government', well that is a textbook example of economic illiteracy ['wah! I have to pay tax!' 'well, what do you think pays for the road which brings you your damn customers?']. To borrow the quip from Orwell, they [may] see clearly but only to the end of their nose.
Yet I think another reason is needed, for the business people who aren't morons, cultists, taken in by the propaganda or simply rich folks [and as any half-decent business needs $50k minimum to startup and only a third of Americans have $10k of savings, most business owners shall be wealthy]. And I think I've got it; they get love-bombed. Now, anyone not a literal Communist will say nice things about 'business', but only MAGA has such an unalloyed, relentlessly positive view of it. And they particulary fetishise 'the small business' as being an apex of this Horatio Alger shite which is quite a heady brew. [But to be honest a decent slice are varying levels of 'entitled' already; feeling that you should be 'honoured' for working at ShitCo, 'grateful' for actually getting paid the legal minimums and so on. It's either this or general insanity which explains why the hell they're so often 'surprised' when folks quit, even after you factor in the 'endowment effect'.]
The irony is said business owner/managers are often cheapskate bosses who use said bombing to keep their workers 'motivated' with crappy pay and conditions. Which would make you wonder how they don't see through the same tactic being done to them. But then again... if they were such 'great businesspeople', wouldn't they have Fortune 500 companies or something? KarmaPolice (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

How to make this newsworthy[edit]

I want to put this on the list of news items, but I don't know how frame this. Here it is:

The Hungarian government has set-up an Eurosceptic think-tank, MCC Brussels to promote its agenda in the European sphere. Interestingly, the think-tank's director is Frank Furedi, the Hungarian born British founder of Living Marxism and Spiked.

Euromec (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Lunatic founds crank think-tank with Russian funded, certifiable liar as director" Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


For lack of anyone else stepping up to the plate, I have created a unofficial RationalWiki account on Mastodon (@RationalWiki@universeodon.com), part of the Fediverse. Bongolian (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I may make that the 'official' account on Mastodon. Bongolian (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I have no problems, but naturally wouldn't such stuff have to be run through with the Board? Vee (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on r/collapse?[edit]

This subreddit is rising like beer foam in number of users and views... I've only see a brief negative opinion in the Reddit article from time ago, but I don't know if the most recent events... The "about" section on this subreddit seems very strict towards sources and scientific rigour, so I don't know if that's more than just a Prepper's club...Deadend (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This subreddit is in the RW Reddit article, though I see it as less "pseudoscientific" and more "accentuate the negative" to an extreme degree, personally. They've been around for a while, so a fun thing to do with any "doomscrolling" type sub is review some of their really old archives in archive.org. This one is fun for instance because it contains someone actually predicting a collapse in 2014. Which, er, obviously didn't happen.
I do think many of the things this sub brings up are legitimate concerns. But there's a very Henny PennyWikipedia-esque framing to that sub that is not very helpful at all. BobJohnson (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Pollyanna is a famous novel in children's literature whose main character is unfailingly optimistic. One of the things I really dislike about Donald Trump is the "power of positive thinking" self help ideology that he got from the minister Norman Vincent Peale which is a Pollyannish theology and ideology. So a lot of useful public health risk mitigation measures were not taken by the Trump administration early on in the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, Trump purposefully downplayed the virus which was a form of denialism. Life has a certain amount of duality like life/death, good/evil, prosperity/poverty, victory/defeat, etc. so having a Pollyannish outlook on life is unrealistic and childish. Trump's losing of the election was unbearable to him because he is a narcissist and egotist. But that was not the only reason. The idea that he suffered something as negative as a defeat was also unbearable to him. Defeat is so negative and lacks positivity. DJDOS (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
That is an… interesting way to look at it, I guess. Luigifan18 (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
View of a lazy 'sane prepper' here, if anyone's interested.
That while it is another 'prepper's club', that does not mean it is automatically, unfailingly wrong. Like Bob points out [and I agree with basically everything] vast majority of the articles at the top of threads are accurate [and also pointed out on our own survivalism page too as 'credible threats'], it's the responses underneath that which increasingly suck - they're utterly pessimistic and fatalistic [at least r/PrepperIntel sometimes focuses on 'small' stuff like shortages etc and r/preppers is aimed towards, well surviving The Event and while there's a lot of shite there there is some semi-decent suggestions to shift the survival odds in your favour in a non-selfish manner]. What's more, they generally appear to be the 'collapse extremists' type; who think 'civilisation' in general shall utterly snap in a manner which means it shall never be resurrected [instead of a kind of collapse at the end of both World Wars]. It is also relatively America-centric, which means it's less aware of global trends.
I put it's 'fish in bucket' rise down to the simple fact a lot of people in the advanced world have had their 'faith' in our societal systems shaken by Covid and the fact that it's not 'gone back to normal' either. We forget that unless you've been poor [food stamps level] our capitalist model has looked like an amazing cornucopia [despite some dings on the way] and you have to be pretty long in the tooth now to remember the times before this. And this is the problem. The post-War 'affluenza' has been the most successful rise in material SoL ever and it's crippled our ability to imagine 'a different path' for the future. R/collapse'rs have enough imagination to see the storm, but not enough to see a way around it. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Deleting draft pages[edit]

I don't think there needs to be an AFD to delete draft pages when:

  1. The page doesn't have much substance and
  2. It hasn't been edited for several months or more.

Use your judgement and just delete it. Bongolian (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Spud (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry Edward the eight (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
If we're going with that standard, just know I'll at some point undertake a purge of the draft category to clean out the shit that's been sitting there for years. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 13:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Holy shit there's SO FUCKING MANY. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
That tends to be the case with such 'collections of information and to do lists.' Anna Livia (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
What is gained by deleting them? I don't necessarily have a problem with the deletions, I'm just asking why it might be necessary.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Topics that seemed they might develop but were flashes in various pans [talking head says something provocative and is totally forgotten two days later, people who come onto RW and start something only to get bored, were incorporated into other pages etc) - so why not get rid of them. Anna Livia (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
There were like 300 drafts collecting dust from 2-5 years ago. At least now people can look through the list. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
My anarcho-crapitalism afd caused a domino effect _- Edward the eight (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini, you should limit your scope to drafts that have not been edited in the last few months rather than deleting two day old drafts as you did with Draft:Trump child rape cases. Enix150 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I would say that that's generally true about not deleting the newer ones, but that page was a stinker: a collection of references with no text, added by a BoN. I think it's unlikely that anything except allegations and rumors are going to come out of that during Rump's lifetime, so no loss. Bongolian (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bongolian BoN? I'm not familiar. Regardless of whether anything will come of it, the topic should be covered and the upvotes on the To do list agree. This is especially relevant now as the nature of Trump's executive privilege is currently being called into question with multiple lawsuits having new witnesses finally come forward. Not to mention highlighting the hypocrisy of the pedophilia QAnonsense. Enix150 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
See BoN for the definition. Sorry, I didn't realize it was made by you (I was writing from memory). If you want to make a better draft than that one, with some actual text and not just references, feel free. I'm not trying to deny what happened to that woman, but she dropped her legal case in 2016, which makes it hard to create an article about it. Bongolian (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Plan to transition to a woman[edit]

After a lot of thought, soul searching and making peace with my past self I made the decision to transition. I will speak to my doctor about it. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Congrats. CorruptUser 01:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
ROCK AND ROLL Zombie! We all definitely are here for you and do want to hear about your journey if you'd like to share! ShabiDOO 01:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Stay safe and good luck. May you find inner peace with yourself. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Amo kaj bonan ŝancon. Spud (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I do plan on talking to my physician. I am aware of the history of cancer, heart disease and other health conditions in my family. That said, I have a new lease on life. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I hope everything goes well for you, and try not to let the world’s shitheads get you down. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I admit that I am nervous about my doctor appointment. It is supposed to be a checkup but I will be bringing up gender identity. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
As the representative of the world's shitheads, I'll lay off you for a bit. CorruptUser 03:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Clap.gif Bongolian (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Going to train my voice to sound feminine. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Or you could go the other way... CorruptUser 02:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

proud of ya rat-zombie. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck. As ShabiDoo said, I would love to hear more about your experiences in the future. LongStylus (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I wish we had a coach of some relavant standing who could give advice and useful encouragement on such issues. As it is I will say what I said to my kids when they went off to school: be careful and have fun.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

what is going on in china?[edit]

i heard there is like riots or something? i'm out of the loop and i want to know whats going on, all i hear out of the news is something about covid? Wheelson ( professor grug arc ) (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The executive summary:
A) Xi Jinping and co. for a long time adopted a very strict "zero COVID" policy, where any sudden hint of COVID in an area would cause even entire cities to implement a very strict city-wide lockdown. This is covered in the other Wiki.Wikipedia
B) The very restrictive lockdown policies, while effective against preventing deaths, were actually draconian enough to get some Chinese pretty pissed off enough to protest (and this is something no one takes lightly in an uber-authoritarian country), culminating in a large wave of protesters in November 2022.
C) In December 2022, Xi Jinping and co. decided to back off on enforcing the draconian zero-COVID policies. Predictably, that has resulted in a wave of COVID-19 infections.
D) How bad? Hard to say. The COVID deaths China is reporting is comically and obviously low. It hasn't helped matters that China manufactured vaccines (which revolve around inactivated viruses instead of the mRNA route chosen for most of the Western world vaccines), although not bad per se, don't seem to be quite as effective as the mNRA ones. A lot of elderly in China reportedly aren't vaccinated to begin with. Certain clues like celebrity deaths indicate that China's hiding data from a pretty bad outbreak, possibly. But as usual, given the opaqueness, we probably won't know the full extent until (as has happened in many countries) "excess death" data will provide clues on how bad it really got. BobJohnson (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I am hearing reports rendolent of Feb-May '20 for us; utterly overwhelmed medical services, drug shortages etc. It also appears China is hiding the extent of the wave from it's own population, like trying to avoid the announcement of if 'famous' personage died of it if they can. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
There is photographic evidence of the system getting overwhelmed: a funeral home with a newly added overflow parking lot,[18] and photos/video of over-capacity waiting rooms Shanghai hospitals.[19] Estimates are there will be a million deaths associated to the abrupt end of zero COVID.[20] Bongolian (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Which is actually the mildly shocking thing to me. I had basically believed that the CCP 'had a cunning plan' and it was doing Zero until it get all of the ducks in a row etc [which it actually did have the time to do]. Now it's pretty much proving that ultimately it's cunning plan was no better than say, UKGov's two years earlier - 'hope that for some reason it goes away'.
Not to get overly OT on this, but I've got the feeling that future historians are going to be citing this action in the same breath as the Russian invasion as 'evidence that the authoritarian "alternative" to capitalist democracy showed itself less competent at crisis-management.' KarmaPolice (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Tbf Vietnam's response to the pandemic was a lot more competent than the American one. Vee (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
We had Trump in charge saying stupid shit, and half the states were off in la la land so that’s not a high bar to clear. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 12:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I think said historians shall also note that the right-populists [USA, UK, Brazil] also blowed. Which is partly why the old democratics systems are enjoying a bit of a revival of late. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The alternative explanation to what happened is that the zero COVID policy became a guise for totalitarian control, which had already been technologically implemented by the surveillance state. The sudden, unplanned removal of zero COVID came because of the overriding 'no chaos' policy due to Xi's extreme dislike for chaos (reasonable to some extent based on China's history. Zero COVID failed in that regard because it didn't curtail chaos as expected. There seemed to be no plan B at the ready, a characteristic of authoritarian states. Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
So, basically expediency became ideologically-based policy [variant of 'making a virtue of necessity'?] Like how 'Austerity' in the 1940s UK started out as a simple [but harsh] manner to get the country through a world war and then period of effective bankruptcy but soon became supported by some doctrinaire socialists who rather liked the idea of having the populace clad in some kind of utilitarian uniform eating spam stew in communal kitchens indefinitely because they felt it would finally break the 'petty bourgeois' habits/desires capitalism had created? Yeah, I can see that happening in China. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)