RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive436

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 2 July 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>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <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)

Lula page?[edit]

Didn't we used to have a page on Lula? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It was really bad and written like a smear piece by G-man so I think it was deleted. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Well he's the leader of Brazil again, so certainly worth having another page on. Lula has been both-sidesing the Ukraine war recently, which isn't too shocking for a Pink Tide figure but nonetheless. We could enumerate "the good, the bad and the meh". He's certainly better than Bolsonaro, even with the foreign policy shift. Another figure I find it strange that we have no page on yet is AMLO, leader of Mexico and the MORENA movement. Chillpilled (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Currently it's at Draft:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
if you look at the delete log, you'll see it's been deleted repeatedly since 2021. the article/draft on lula has had multiple contributors, including myself. the only thing i did was update the formatting of the article and add a section on his environmental record. (it's ok, but it's far from perfect. i tried to be as neutral as i could; but i digress.)
i think lula is relevant to our mission. if you have anything to add to the draft, please feel free to do so. he's all right, but he isn't above criticism. he's essentially a (slightly more left-leaning) brazilian joe biden. The G (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Jerry Springer (1944-2023)[edit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65415348

For all the minuses his show had, I'll always have a bit of a soft spot for it - for it was one of the first things I saw that taught me that the world was more deliciously [and not so delicious] weird than I had been so far taught, which made me feel better about myself. And he doesn't have a RW page? I think I'm gonna change that... KarmaPolice (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

His opera has a page: Jerry Springer: The Opera. Bongolian (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The Jerry Springer Show would be the first thing that come to my mind at the thought of “poverty porn” but I am wondering if I am simply confusing it for some other show. There are so many of those “lets take some seemingly low income people with deep seated personal drama to air out to an audience to gawk at”. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The Springer show was just junk food TV. Everyone knew it was trash. Springer knew it, the audience knew it, and the viewers at home knew it. It was just fun to watch every now and then. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 09:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
It was also informative. It was, for example the first time I learned about the existence of trans people. The show [esp the 90s 'classic era'] had many faults but was not unambigiously 'bad' on all fronts. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
As the BBC obit mentions [1], I do think Springer's 90s talk show, once devolved into a freakshow circus act, was one that (along with a few others) paved the way for so-called "reality TV" boom later. Like the ironically named genre itself, the show was, by all accounts (except for the official "kayfabe" one), varying degrees of "staged outrage and drama". I don't remember the show being too "poverty porn" as a result, but it did pave the way for later reality TV shows that were quite exploitative.BobJohnson (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Which is why I feel he does deserve a RW mention. He and Oprah between them made the genre that we know today, and she's got her mention. And if I remember correctly, while the audience could be judgmental as hell, Springer himself was actually fairly neutral. I suppose it could be seen as 'poverty porn' in the respect that I suspect the kinds of folks who would often appear on it were the sorts 'Middle America' would sneer at, similar to in the UK Jeremy Kyle became a byword for the sorts the Hate Mail et al would shake their fists at and rehashing all the old 'stupid poor people' tropes. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I watched a few episodes way way back. I was never sure how much was real, how much was staged, how much was actually scripted and how much was cut for effect. But these are questions for all "reality" TV. It was "good" for what is was, but I was always left wondering. If we create an article then perhaps we should endeavor to answer these questions.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
There isn't a 'Reality TV' RW page either [which many of these issues would be discussed], which is now on my to-do list. Will be some time, though, what with my current RL as it is... KarmaPolice (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
There are a lot reality shows that are on air because people like being involved in other people’s drama or creating drama for the sake of just wanting to be famous on television. Judge Judy and other court tv shows are a good example of this.SensaurC-137 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure that's both trite and true. The question is how much "reality" is involved in "reality TV".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Not much at all from I understand. I know someone who was a producer of a reality show and in essence told me its all about “controlling the narrative” for ratings and enticing people.SensaurC-137 (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Focus Factor: Scam or useful product[edit]

I have ADHD, and I’ve noticed a product called Focus Factor at the pharmacy. It is a multivitamin that is supposed to help one focus. Its website is [2]. Is there any science behind this product or is it just another quack alternative medicine thing? 71.1.230.124 (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

People who have looked into it do not seem impressed.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The vitamins may help in general terms if you're deficient, but this product is a hugely expensive way to get them. The general list of 'not impressed' people include FDA, repeatedly [who keeps on getting them for misleading ads and claims] . The fact that it's openly for sale in the UK without a prescription is a huge flag that the other ingredients are in effect inert; there is no damn way the hyper anti-drugs stance they have would allow something through anything which actually changed brain chemistry. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Article about on Robert Plomin[edit]

I am trying to get the factually incorrect, possible-parody article Robert Plomin deleted. It says things like Plomin is a crypto-white nationalist, and evidences this by talking about how he believes in genetic links to intelligence. Yet this is the mainstream scientific view, most think that IQ is around 80% heritable in adulthood. Here is a good article, written to debunk race realists, written by some distinguished scientists in 2017. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech It shows the fallacies in race realism, yet affirms that IQ is mainly heritable in adulthood. Additionally, years before that, Plomin said "No, they are not right. Individual differences in IQ can be highly hereditary; at the same time, the difference between migrants and natives can be entirely due to the environment. For example, because of their origin, migrants only get bad jobs, they attend worse schools and are discriminated against in other ways." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/there-is-no-nature-nurture-war/ "Robert Plomin is a legend. For over 40 years he has been on the forefront of our understanding of the genetic and environmental influences on human behavior. ". The article is basically saying that a mainstream scientific view is crypto white nationalism and was very likely written by a troll intending to make RW look incredulous and ridiculous. He is president of the BGA, recieved the 2017 American Psychological Association award for Distinguished Scientific contributions, was ranked the 71st most eminent psychologist in the history of science, and is a fellow of the FBA the UK's national academy for social sciences. He also was awarded the William James Fellow award by the Association for Psychological Science and the Lifetitme Achievement Award of the ISIR. He is also MRC Research Professor in Behavioural Genetics at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London. He is not a white nationalist or a eugenicist or any of these things. What he has said is merely the mainstream science on intelligence, as well as behavioral genetics. None of it has anything to do with race or white nationalism. A brief overview of the article's author's account shows a lot of suspicious contributions, I suspect a troll. "Plomin argues that differences in intelligence and academic outcomes are caused by differences in genetic ability — a standard white nationalist claim.[" It's not a white nationalist claim, the predictive power of psychometric G is one of the most replicable things in the field of psychology. Secondly, research on the heritability of IQ is very high-powered and replicable. 2603:9001:300:81A:2933:D4A0:6B94:2028 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Why am I being blocked, rolled backs, pages locked, just for trying to get this article deleted? So you're just going to allow a troll article about a mainstream scientist with many accolades to remain up like this? 2603:9001:300:81A:2933:D4A0:6B94:2028 (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Your IP address has not been blocked, and the Plomin page has never been protected. While it's certainly true that Plomin done mainstream science, his views on intelligence are not mainstream, as evidenced by his position defending The Bell Curve (Mainstream Science on IntelligenceWikipedia). Bongolian (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed -- the RW Plomin article is crap, unfortunately, but any article here would not be wholly positive. Plomin is an important genetic scientist and not worth the wholly negative article we have, but he's also developed some crank views overemphasizing genetics (as seen by the controversy over his Blueprint book, which was actually the whole point of one of the links you posted but apparently didn't read... as well as his support of The Bell Curve.) BobJohnson (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
My point was to establish that he isn't some alt right loon as is being said here. Whether or not he's right on his heritability estimates or not, is simply an unrelated matter. He may "overemphasize" the importance of genetics (or he might not, its disputed for a reason: we are trying to use mainly indirect methods to find links between highly-polygenic "complex traits", that have many confounders and interactions, so of course there will be a lot of disagreement on this subject). But regardless, it's unrelated to race and he isn't a white nationalist or "scientific racist", he certainly isn't alt right as the article had him categorized at one point. As to the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" thing from 1994, the impression I got from that was "There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups." which is a direct quote from that piece. What I do know is that Plomin has repeatedly said that IQ differences between ethnic groups are not necessarily due to any genetic factors, and that discrimination and socio-economic status could explain it. Even the Bell Curve itself does not say that "racial gaps in IQ are caused by genetic factors", the book itself took an agnostic position and the final chapter says to paraphrase "if I have convinced you that the gap is genetic or environmental beyond a doubt, then I have failed in writing this book". Murray himself has from what I've heard taken a more hereditarian position in the years since then, but I never interpreted it as some kind of white nationalist or alt right book. Herrnstein co-authored it, he was the chairman of the Harvard Psychology Department. Regardless, Plomin did not endorse the Bell Curve as far as I know in any matter. When I took his classes the subject of racial hereditarian only came up twice and he gave more or less the same answer, that there isn't really any proof and it could be explained by environmental factors. 2603:9001:300:81A:2933:D4A0:6B94:2028 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Any article here would focus on any crank views due to RW's mission. I think "genetic determinism" is a fair claim to examine whether it applies to Plomin (other critics have done so). I don't see evidence that he was a white nationalist, though a blog by Leonid SchneiderWikipedia made a claim that he was tolerant of more questionable peers like Arthur Jensen (a claim I have not been able to verify). Still, even this is not the same as more overtly white nationalist race geneticists.
So while an article could be done on him, I do agree that the article is poor quality, makes too many unsourced and over-assumed claims, and probably IMHO shouldn't be a priority subject for RW anyways (meaning I'm not going to edit it into anything salvageable). The talk page seems to suggest that AfD has been brought up before. If no one is willing to edit this into something better, I'd support an AfD personally. (Edit: I guess there was one recently that resulted in a keep? But with low participation.) BobJohnson (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
...For context, this was already taken to AFD earlier this month. My impression is that the "HBD" twitter/podcast sphere (who, from dipping my toe into their twitter feeds a bit, seemed to be Emil O. W. Kirkegaard fans which was an immediate red-flag for me) aren't happy with RW's articles on Plomin and some others.
Not to shut down any criticism or anything. Of course an article can be rewritten. But nuking the page is a ridiculous response and I'd not say my guard is up towards these attempts for zero reason. Chillpilled (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I was the person who put the AFD thing on earlier, I have the same IP as then but the BON has changed. I don't know what exactly the HBD twittersphere is, I used to make minor contributions to articles here a few years ago during the mona/arisboch drama time period. I came across this article and was really surprised at how it was trying to say that a guy who's textbooks I read and who's classes I took was somehow a white nationalist, primarily because of his estimates for high heritability in traits. I checked the author's previous contributions and it seems like he might have been trolling the site, something someone else in the AFD talk page agreed with. The article is a bizarre stub that makes what I see as bizarre unfounded claims, possibly written by a troll. 2603:9001:300:81A:B856:C636:EB6C:290F (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Twittersphere comment was due to having seen posts like this with a nigh-identical argument being made. Your personal connection to the subject is noted; sometimes we don't know the people we respect as well as we think, however. Anyhow his article could be better articulated and probably provide a fuller description of his work. I changed the page to describe him as Hereditarian rather than white nationalist which seems more accurate, though many would say the difference between the two is not much. Albeit there's the whole "left Hereditarian" branding the Bell Curve authors like to use. Chillpilled (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Hereditarian can easily drift into white nationalism but I don't make that assumption immediately. I wouldn't call the Bell Curve book white nationalist, for instance (even though it has been used by white nationalists); it is, however, very elitist in its balderdash conclusions and (from my perspective) a pseudoscience exercise and excuse for a bunch of ruling class (or wannabe) "got mine" libertarians to self-justify the type of elitist social positions you find in the American Enterprise Institute domain. Strictly working in the American social space, of course.
I wouldn't agree that it could easily drift into white nationalism. And although many white nationalists believe in a genetic influence to traits, this doesn't mean that hereditarianism is somehow white nationalist. Simply because a general heritability score tells us nothing about between-group heritability. The heritability of IQ could be 80% yet the black-white difference could be 0%. That's an error that some white nationalists make however. If the environment is different for black people, or if there is some kind of statistical interactionism going on (not to be confused with other definitions of interactionism) then how would you extrapolate a general heritability onto race differences? The heritability estimates are different between countries, even between USA and Europe (presumably because Europe is a more socially democratic society and ensures better access to resources to everyone, or perhaps some other reason). In fact on the issue of intelligence most researchers would be "hereditarian" in that they believe in a first-world country that differences in intelligence would be largely heritable. 60%, and approaching 80% in adulthood (the Wilson effect). Obviously intelligence is only a single trait, many other traits exhibiting large differences probably have those differences mainly caused by environmental factors. In fact, we know that's the case. But as Turkheimer (no friend of race realists and self-described as part of "the radical scientific left") would say, the 1st law of behavioral genetics is that all human behavioral traitsare heritable. The second law is that "The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of the genes.", but the third law is "A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioural traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families" and his own studies have shown "environment accounted for about 60% of the variance in IQ among low-income children, while genes accounted for almost none of it. In contrast, this study also found that the reverse was true for wealthy children." So even if POC have the same genotypic IQ, the genes won't be able to express themselves if they live in deprived environments. In conclusion, if Plomin is a "hereditarian" then depending on how you define hereditarian that's not a fringe thing. If you are defining it as someone who believes behavioral traits are significantly heritable, then that's basic stuff and has been empirically demonstrated for decades. If it means he believes it's more heritable than not, then he's still right and isn't going off track. If it means that he believes that the significant majority of the difference is attributable to differences in genes, then he is again right in IQ if he is referring to adults in an equal environment (this still has nothing to do with race or country, as we know different races face different environmental factors, such as poverty and racism, which even Plomin said and which I quoted him saying earlier). That being said, I will acknowledge that Plomin in general ascribes higher heritability to most traits across the board than most people would, but theres also people that would ascribe much lower heritability and are also in good standing. I wouldn't call either of those "pseudoscientists" or attribute some crypto socio-political motivations. There is always difference in opinion between experts in any field, and Plomin's conclusions are not untestable/pseudoscientific. It falls within the standard range of disagreement. PS: heritability doesnt mean "caused by genes", i.e. if IQ is 80% heritable it doesn't mean the IQ is caused 80% by genes. It means that the differences we see are 80% attributable to genetic differences. Some people apparently confuse the two. 2603:9001:300:81A:20C3:50AE:4E14:E95B (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't get the idea that Blueprint and other work of his is in a similar pseudoscience category from all that I see; (again skimmed) my initial impression is that Plomin seems to clutch onto the "nature" argument way too strongly for my tastes, but it doesn't ring "pseudosciency" at the moment, merely one end of a large debate in the scientific community, albeit one probably over-advocated. That being said, I actually would be curious if Plomin's work has "culture tells". The Bell Curve for instance heavily relies on American paradigms and tropes, as if no other country exists in the world; this is an immediate disqualification for any broad generalization of the human condition. This is a frequent "tell" of the Western scientific racists, very often they seem to act like Asia, South America, and Africa do not exist.
One final note: An Economist review did seem troubled by his over-advocacy of the DNA angle, to the point where they detected a whiff of the ol' eugenics. Their concluding review of Blueprint was thus: "You might conclude that without broad measures to tamp down inequalities of opportunity, genes have fewer opportunities to shine. “Blueprint” instead touts the importance of DNA in shaping the individual. Hubris indeed." So, not everyone is impressed, I would say. BobJohnson (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Blueprint isn't a scientific paper, its a book. It's not pseudoscience because it doesn't make claims about untestable things. It's also not some kind of alt right/white nationalist book either. From what I can find on Wikipedia, it had mixed reception. "Behavior geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden criticized the book for overstating the importance of genes for the development of human traits, writing, "Insisting that DNA matters is scientifically accurate; insisting that it is the only thing that matters is scientifically outlandish." [...]However, Plomin has never made such a claim in his book." It also notes"Geneticist Barbara Jennings reviewed the book positively, suggesting that those who have criticized it for being "a manifesto for genetic determinism" are "misreading [...] the book" 2603:9001:300:81A:20C3:50AE:4E14:E95B (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article somewhat. Not specifically to please detractors such as the IP user above, but I think they'd be happier where it's at now versus before regardless (though it's still clear to a reader that RW are not on Plomin's "side" or whatever). That Plomin is a biological determinist (race implication of that notwithstanding) is incredibly obvious at least, and I included a quote in his own words where he practically seems to own the fact. Chillpilled (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. BobJohnson (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky may be involved with Epstein[edit]

Wall Street Journal has reported on Epstein's calendar. Noam Chomsky may be involved with Epstein. I saw the news on Resetera. Should the article be on WIGO? 🇷🇸 A Serb (Wort wort wort) 14:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

There is world of difference between "involved with" and "met occasionally". Another story here. At the moment it looks like someone is trying "guilt by association".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Of course Epstein wanted to meet Chomsky; he needed someone to help him with manufacturing consent. CorruptUser 20:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Matt Walsh demonitized, possibly removed from YouTube[edit]

So basically, the non-story about a beer giant not knowing how to market themselves has a new twist. Walsh has been going after broadway actor Dylan Mulvaney, because it generates viewership. Youtube has demonitized Walsh in response, and now there's a conspiracy among the Right that saying Dylan's name on three times on Youtube will cause a Dylan to reach out of your screen and claw your eyes out or something. While Walsh is a dick, and worse, boring beyond belief when he's by himself, there is a question of where the drama goes from here. He's basically claiming he's not going to back down but will keep pressing the matter, so its likely Youtube is going to kick him off the platform. Whatever the case, open a cold one and enjoy the show. CorruptUser 05:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Good. I hope that bigoted pseudoscience spewing twit is removed from YouTube. --Trans Fem Agenda 11:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I find it amusing that the culture warriors have just now discovered that Big Beer markets towards the LGBTQ community too.
They've been doing this forever. Money is money no matter who it comes from.BobJohnson (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The only culture war worth fighting is the war for social justice. Luigifan18 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Social Justice as defined by whom? Father Coughlin? CorruptUser 15:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm really getting tired of the right wing freaking out over everything. People need to get a life.Machina (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
To me, one of the most bizarre aspect of this Dylan Mulvaney non-story is that one of the more outspoken critics of Mulvaney's endorsements is, um, Caitlyn JennerWikipedia. [3] Whom as you may recall, is also transgender. Jenner apparently even used the by now hysterically empty "woke" insult. I guess when you are riding the faux outrage train that Republicans have leapt onto, you just can't get off, even when it's extremely silly and hypocritical. BobJohnson (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Really? Last I heard, he was leaving the platform over this. He change his mind? Chillpilled (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
There's a legitimate reason to be annoyed with Dylan, in that she's actually done nothing besides "be a girl" and suddenly she's meeting with the President and hosting shows and being a general attention-seeking drama queen. Dylan is famous for being famous, and like Paris Hilton, she deserves the level of hatred she gets (I believe as a society "influencer" needs to cease to be a thing), but unlike Paris, she's being hated for all the wrong reasons, and that is the problem. CorruptUser 23:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Mulvaney is known from TikTok. I had no idea who the fuck Andrew Tate was until he was banned everywhere. We're all in different bubbles now. Chillpilled (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, Rumble, Reddit; the more connected we become, the more isolated we are. CorruptUser 03:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
And this at a time when breweries producing Not Complete Shit beer are exploding across the US (thanks Jimmy Carter for that deregulation!). It used to be that such places were perfect for striking up a casual conversation, unless there's some big local/regional story (the last few weeks I've had more success than usual with the UConn men's NCAA tournament win) it's rare that anyone even acknowledges anyone else there. Somehow in coffee shops it's a bit less painful, since more of those sorts are reading actual books (I love reading in such places), but come on, the whole point of a brewery is to loosen up a bit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
"Recreational substances" are another thing that is fragmenting, like social media and entertainment. Part of why Bud Light struck a deal with a trans influencer on TikTok (at least according to what I've seen in public statements by ABev folks [4]) is probably because of this. In America at least people increasingly have more to chose from, and increasingly (especially among younger folks) people are not choosing watery mass produced light beer. If they drink alcohol, there's on one hand a "premiumization" trend (where people drink less, but drink more premium and/or local community produced spirits, beers, and wine), and on the other hand the rise of Zima reborn! "hard seltzers" for those who want a lighter way to get their "buzz". Cannabis lounges are now a thing where legal, as are kava and kratom bars. It's not like the saloon with interchangeable light beer taps is the only game in town anymore.
The VP of marketing for Bud Light said that the beer has a "we do not attract young people" problem (as well as a "white male fratty" image), both of which I agree with, and which I think the "negative reaction" to the trans influencer reinforced (I mean, c'mon, Kid Rock getting pissed at Bud Light, what's more old fart and white-boy fratty then Kid Rock?). In this case, you have to either ride your niche (even if it's in decline) or pivot. Myself, I think if I were in charge of Bud Light marketing (eek!), I'd "ride the niche" as I don't think Bud Light's problems are fixable with crass marketing, and Bud Light still is a very big name in the world of beers. But Wall Street hates that sort of thing these days, so... BobJohnson (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
But why would InBev want young customers to choose Bud over their craft brews? I'd rather attract someone who buys 3 sixpacks instead of a whole case every month. CorruptUser 16:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Everyone likes "young and trendy" I guess, including Wall Street. Just look at the "pop" bubble Boston Beer Co. stock got largely for getting on the hard seltzer trend with their Truly brand (followed by the inevitable "fizz" of the bubble collapse as Boston Beer, like most everyone else, overestimated demand.)
I don't know any other reason. There's no reason to chase after young and trendy all the time from my perspective. (It's not like all young'uns don't drink Bud Light, anyways, and like I said, Bud Light is still big.) If you do chase after the young and trendy, you use new branding, I would think (eg it's Truly, not "Samuel Adams seltzer"). But what do I know?
That being said, like I mentioned before, Big Beer did plenty of marketing towards the LGBTQ bars in the "good old days". 'Phobes just didn't visit those places back then so they didn't notice, so one could quietly market to segments that didn't like each other with less issue. Perhaps this is a factor as well, it's a different world where trying to "market to everyone" works not as well as it used to, as there are plenty of angry mobs to get worked up on social media about products for Reasons. BobJohnson (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
All the 'big beer' brands in the USA are suffering from the relative dearth of young drinkers, and that's now translating into middle age. Big Beer desires to save these old brands mainly due to the 'sunk cost fallacy'; some of these have had billions of dollars invested in branding etc over the decades and have recognition levels which most companies would kill for. Coupled with the huge amount in bottling, brewing etc plant, sponsorships and tied supply models... that's gonna hurt.
We also need to remember how far the likes of Budweiser et al have sunk. Between '88 and '16 sales declined by over 66%, while Light has lost 25% in a decade and those arrows are still pointing down. As a person who'd prefer to be thirsty than drink a Bud, I will argue much of their sales come from their relative ubiquity, not their quality/popularity - as in you'll find them in every mass-market liquor store, grocery, bar and hotel minibar. Thus they sell well, because they're there. But; if they continue to shrink in sales, there shall come a tipping point; retailers shall decide to first kick Bud out of the retail 'sweet spots' and then finally out of the store altogther. And when this rot kicks in, the spiral can accelorate; Bud drinkers increasingly 'get used' to drinking other beers [or worse, discover beers they like more], Bud sales slide even more, leading to less stockists etc. Thus, the attempts to revive the brand by 'getting down with the kids'. Or perhaps I should say 'getting down with the wokes'? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I absolutely love how you aren't even attempting to hide your abject cruelty and lack of empathy by saying that someone deserves harassment for the exceptional crime of... being famous. Dylan is literally a theatre actor, dude, it's not like she's famous for being a woman and existing. Am I the only person that thinks that saying something like this is crazy? Also, Bud Light didn't "fail to market" anything. They had an ad with a transgender woman, literally all they did. Big error there, obviously. I guess they couldn't predict how fucking psychotic the right in this country is. To me, this is great advertising. I will support corporations that do not back down to overwhelming pressure from bigots even when met with bomb threats. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think they may be trying to appeal to gay bars? It could work. Stuff like LGB Alliance has altered public perception of gay people's support for trans people far too much. Like >90% are pro-trans (lesbian bars in particular are unfortunately nigh-extinct and thus a negligible market, but those that exist do tend to take a very pro-trans stance, much to TERF chagrin), including gay & bi men. Anyway Walsh wasn't demonetized for "criticizing Mulvaney" or whatever lol, he was banned for misgendering, calling her a man etc. Even if the particular instances that got him banned were about Mulvaney, this is not something he only does to her by any stretch of the imagination. He's on Twitter today again arguing that gender transition should be banned, even for adults. Chillpilled (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I just looked it up; Kim Kardashian has received multiple death threats from different people, and Paris Hilton received death threats a while back. Dylan hasn't, at least not publicly, but I don't have enough faith in humanity to assume that will remain the case. I'll go on record to say that while I'm not a fan of Dylan, Kim or Paris, they definitely haven't done anything to deserve death threats.CorruptUser 19:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
All those people could be characterized as having commercialized their personas. I imagine that Dylan is otherwise a fine person, and I do not object to capitalizing on whatever talents one may have to offer the public. On the other hand, Anheuser Busch management is evidently a bit nervous about the situation. I am not surprised, perhaps due to my prejudiced view of the consumers of Budweiser. I was recently shocked to discover that my daughter likes Bud Lite. So, I guess I was not justified.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Why are you shocked, exactly? I mean, Bud Light is in fact a decent lager... for people who don't like lager. In fact, if I remember my 'beer lore' it was designed for this. And the ~33% lower calories makes it more appealing to the totally-not-sexist ideas that all women are on perma-diets. It's why all over the Anglosphere, the 'best selling' lagers are almost invaribly the ones which are also rated worst [and 'Big Beer' has ruined many of the old Euro brands by 'ironing out' the taste notes, though not as harshly as the American ones] - the people who do the ratings are to some extent 'beer snobs' who like lagers to taste like, well lager. And if you're in a warm locale, almost anything chilled to Siberian oblivion 'tastes kinda nice' because the temprature nukes your taste-buds.
I do feel sorry for those execs, though. They fully got that the product has become too closely ID'd in the public perception with a 'stereotypical customer' image which was a shrinking demographic, and desired to widen that appeal. What they didn't anticipate was just how bitchy/touchy some of that traditional 'core customer' group could be, because they have become so identified with it - a process termed 'brand betrayal'. Chances are, you have all felt this at least once; a classic example being when a brand renowned for quality declines in that. Should the execs have seen this coming? Perhaps; whenever you decide to do a 'shift', you need to carry your existing customer base with you. I think the execs again, knew this but were thinking in 'silo fashion'; ie they thought the 'Kid Rock' people wouldn't notice the 'Dylan Mulvaney' ones, which is not stupid when you consider Corp America has been doing this 'segmentation' in the USA since the 60s [classically with African-Americans]. In this case, they failed to appreciate just how god-damn desperate the fascisty loons are to find fuel for the culture wars flames. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Alcoholics are obese for a reason; every standard drink contains ~100 calories from the ethanol alone. If you're drinking 6 beers a day, going from a 150 calorie beer to a 100 calorie scented-vodka-water means 300 fewer calories. That might not seem like a lot, but the human body will grow/shrink until the increased/decreased metabolic rate of fat/muscle eliminates the calorie deficit/surplus, which actually comes out to 100-150 lbs of extra bodyweight. Less if you are active and the weight causes you to use more energy to do things like walking, of course. As far as marketing it to women as a "diet beer", perhaps there's sexism involved... except that the vast majority of women are trying to lose weight. CorruptUser 13:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Quite a lot of alcoholics I've known/seen aren't obese; they are in fact relatively 'normal' sizes or even thin - quite a lot simply don't eat much, which evens out the calorific ratings of booze. They are also much more likely to smoke too [some stats I've seen as high as 90%, when the Anglo 'baseline' is between 12%/20%] which takes the edge off hunger too. Lastly, don't mistake the swollen 'beer belly' being all fat, either [some is stomach bloating, from the yeast fermentation]. Non-alcoholic drinkers, however I would hazard would be more likely to be overweight because of the 'invisible' calories being consumed. As for the last point... it's a well-known fact that most 'diet' products etc have traditionally assumed their target was women. It's only relatively recently where that view has started to shift. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Eh, see what your alcoholic friends look like in 10 years. Plus, the people that are addicted to alcohol are more likely to be at risk of addiction in general, which includes food-addiction.
As for the marketing, more women are trying to lose weight than men, but it's only about 50% more, so men represent 40% of the "trying to lose weight" market. Men used to be a much smaller percentage, but that was in the days before the obesity epidemic basically made every socio-economic, age and racial demographic overweight. If there's one good thing I'll say about Bud, it's that by using rice instead of corn, they aren't feeding into the corn lobby that has utterly fucked us. CorruptUser 14:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I suspect you and I are using different definitions of 'alcoholic'. I don't class simple 'heavy drinkers' as alcoholics, I use it as a term signifying 'dependence on alcohol'. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p1120-excessive-driniking.html KarmaPolice (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
In the past, light beer (from what I remember) didn't really target women quite as much. Recall that there was at one time a strange "sex divide" in "the beverages" where beer was the "man drink" (especially the working class man drink), and other stuff like wine was the "woman drink" for some reason. So advertisements in the quite distant past were heavily drenched in working class masculinity as well as working class sports. (See the old "This Bud's For You" campaign which largely featured men doing working class jobs and playing sports and whatnot as an example. Though I'll note that by "men" it wasn't just white working class men in the 1970s and 1980s ads that are on Youtube. Probably some Internet hotheads would see those ads as "woke" now. :p) At any rate, times definitely have changed. Michelob Ultra heavily leans into the "this is the beer for fitness folks" angle in their marketing and women are now shown "doing sports" alongside the men.BobJohnson (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Let's also not forget the best use of Budweiser marketing ever; just listen to this Bud ad and the opening scene in Idiocracy...
Also Tom Kenny is in the movie for some reason, if you want to hear Spongebob calling someone a terrible parent. CorruptUser 15:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

https://beveragebeaver.com/when-did-bud-light-come-out-and-why-explained/ With my marketing hat on for a moment, I would also note that [as you point out] 'regular' Budweiser was already strongly marketed/associated with blue-collar masculinity by the late 70s. Thus... I can either try to 'pivot' this brand to make it more 'female-neutral' or I can launch a new beer which is less 'masculine'. For the female drinker was very poorly considered/served market at this point, even though stats always showed there was some female beer drinkers. Let's remember that by this point, I'd guess the average American male was close to saturation point with beer, esp as this was the point the public/police/businesses started seeing excess drinking as an issue. I also suspect that the decline of 'out of home consumption' [ie bars] and then the rise of big-box grocers had their part to play too; women were more likely to be in charge of the grocery shop and thus, could be pitched directly to via point-of-sale advertising etc [And didn't require a trip to either Moe's Tavern or some seedy liquor store]. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, it's interesting how the status drink can change. As far back as 1751 Beer Street and Gin Lane made it very clear which was the beverage of "high society", which stuck for a long time. But by the 1950s, it was the working class (mostly) men who had beer after work while the businessmen had three martini lunches (albeit a martini was a 2 oz drink and not the 3 oz drink we think of today, hence the Vesper requiring a champagne coupe; most of what we call martini glasses today are actually cocktail glasses). Now we have much better craft beer, so even though there's an overall decline in beer consumption it's gotten onto somewhat better footing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, the craft beer is obvious, isn't it? The US joined the Great War on the side of Britain, so there was a collective "fuck the Germans" going on, and maybe an occasional "fuck the Irish", which is why the 18th amendment happened when it did. Effectively, the breweries died. Then the US decided they needed to get drink away their great depression, and legalized alcohol again, but seeing as there was a depression and then a war, nothing but the simplest/cheapest swill was produced. So the working man took to the garbage beer. And in the 80's, the craft breweries finally began making a return. CorruptUser 05:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
That's part of it (the US brewing industry was heavily German influenced before Prohibition, and the variety you got before Prohibition was more Germanic in nature, e.g. Munich lagers and bocks weren't uncommon). From what I remember, Prohibition heavily tilted American consumption towards liquor, in accordance with what some researchers have dubbed the "iron law of prohibitionWikipedia". Simply put, it is more difficult to transport weaker alcoholic beverages like beer into illicit bars. So the "commercial market" during that time dramatically shifted towards liquor. Beer breweries of course were largely decimated.
After Prohibition, another factor also happened: consolidation. Those breweries that survived after Prohibition started disappearing as giant Big Breweries gobbled up any of the more interesting regional competition, and pivoted any interesting recipes towards the same generic watery product. (Reportedly an old departed Newark beer called Ballantine IPA, which from all I've heard actually bears some similarities to modern craft IPAs even though it was brewed long before "craft beer" was a thing, is a great example; it got acquired by Falstaff, then Pabst, and as time went on, the hops and ABV became weaker.) So by the early 1980s, except for a handful of exceptions (like Anchor Steam), the market was dominated by light adjunct lager, which was generic enough where even generic "beer" cans were a thing. However, this over-consolidated genericness was perfect for something with taste to make its way on the market. Since the craft brew industry was fueled by "tinkerers" (read: homebrewers), it also allowed for a whole smorgasbord of far more interesting beers to be produced. Not all experiments were successful, of course, but on the whole, American beer became much better, and at minimum caters to far more tastes (I'm one who will happily drink an IPA but, if offered a light lager, would skip it in favor of the glass of water). BobJohnson (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
All true. And part of what makes breweries attractive to localities is the ease with which they can fit in various places. My native Connecticut is full of abandoned factories and train depots, and those are perfect for retrofitting into breweries; even better when you can serve it on site, since they have plenty of space for a good taproom. But they can also fit into smaller areas too, and having one in a strip mall is a much better image than having an empty storefront. And in some places it just gives people something to do after 5 PM, so it makes for an an easy collaboration with some nearby restaurant(s) where everyone wins. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I recently read an interesting argument; that Prohibition partly came about because Republicans desired to crack down on the Democratic 'political machines' in the cities which often used bars as fronts. However, Prohibition itself was the severe damage to the industry; most of the smaller players left the business forever and there would have been a lot of loss of talent too. What's more, most which survived would have been the major players, with much better access to credit and capital. What's more, while Federal Prohibition ended in 1933, local alcohol controls still could [and did exist] and quite a lot put punative controls on booze which was over [normally] 3.8% ABV. Thus, encouraging weaker lagers [I don't understand exactly why, but low-alcohol ale doesn't really seem a thing until very recently]. Also, the 'Prohibitionists' still dominated in many individual states, and I'll be shocked if they didn't continue 'the good fight' by doing harrassment tactics on professional brewers to the extent it was de facto illegal to operate in that area [like the pro-bump crowd later on have done with abortion clinics].
I believe the other main fillip to American 'Big Beer' was WW2. The Germans/Italians cut off most of America's supply of wine and several spirits [such as vermouth], the UK was far too stretched to continue exporting her Scotches and cask ales and the Irish whiskey industry basically starved to death as it couldn't get the kit, fuel or grains. So, much of the field was 'to themselves'. What's more, the massive supply contracts the American military offered was biased towards 'Big Beer' [it normally is biased towards anything Big, as they're the only ones who have the bandwidth to supply them] and what's more, often they were 'big enough' to be able to screw sufficient inputs out of the ration boards etc so they could actually continue to operate. Lastly, we have to remember that many a million of American male was in uniform, and for many younger person would have been their first proper introduction to Big Beer's products.
Talk about a win-win situation; exiting WW2 with lots of money, expanded plant and millions of Americans familiar with your products for a sector which is known to be fairly brand-loyal. Similar happened with Big Tobacco. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden announces his reelection bid[edit]

Anti-Serbian boogeyman announces his reelection bid. Many Serbs wouldn't like it, because he advocated bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. Is there a decent alternative that is good to Serbs and that isn't a right-wing politician, anti-vaxxer etc? 🇷🇸 A Serb (Talk) 10:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Biden isn't Anti-Vax nor Right-wing... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Yep, but all other current candidates are.Iluzasipal (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
And then there's this guy that wants to have a go aswell... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
due to our first past the post system it's either gonna be someone like him or a right wing person who thinks serb live in open sewage or something. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 15:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Americans have always been forced to choose between the party that failed to deliver, or the party that helped prevent that party from delivering. With a third option, the major parties won't be able to sabotage the other one and rely on being the "lesser evil" come November. So yeah, we need to end the FPTP system even if we usually get a Rep or Dem each time. CorruptUser 17:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but is still an enemy to Serbs. I've said that someone must be good to Serbs. I mean someone who is progressive (Democrat) and with a decent foreign policy, including not ordering NATO to drop bombs on innocent civilians. 🇷🇸 A Serb (Talk) 17:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I do feel the need to point out that Biden didn't advocate/back the NATO boming of Serbia in '99 for no reason whatsoever - if the country desires to have collective amnesia over how those jets ended up in their airspace near quarter-century ago, well that's neither his fault or honestly, his problem. What's more, doubt Biden has any emnity to Serbs in general. In fact, I suspect he hadn't even considered this angle. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Innocent civilians my ass. "Pro-Serb". Grow a spine you fucking nationalist. Serbia was bombed after waging a genocidal war of aggression against Albanian, Croatian and Bosnian minorities in the Balkans. Those bombs weren't dropped for the fun of it. Serbia being bombed was justified. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a Serbian nationalist, but I don't want to go against the Serbian narrative and viewed as an autochauvinist. And yes, the intervention was justified, but it could have done differently without civilian casualities. I despise anyone that is right-wing nationalist or fundamentalist. It's just that the whitewashed pro-Serbian narrative is mainstream and that if you think differently, you'd be viewed as a Western idiot. There's enough anti-Western sentiment and conspiratism too. 🇷🇸 A Serb (Talk) 19:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Ozzy, that the Serbians were committing genocide doesn't mean that no innocent civilians were killed. That's war. CorruptUser 19:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I am just as apathetic to "Innocent Serbians being killed in bombings" as I am to "Innocent German civilians being killed in bombings in 1944" or "Innocent Turkish civilians being killed by Armenian militias in 1915". It doesn't matter, that's not the point. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Or "innocent Japanese in Hiroshima/Nagasaki"?
Just because as a whole, a country "asked for it", doesn't mean everyone killed is an innocent or that the ones retaliating aren't committing war crimes. Thinking like that, where entire groups of people are guilty for the actions of a few, is how Milosevic was able to convince his people to murder their neighbors. CorruptUser 19:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm less apathetic regarding the last one. The first two were at least not intentionally killed by the bombers. I mean, it wasn't like the crew in the Lancaster over say, Bremen were saying 'I know these bombs was meant for that Krupp works, but let's drop it on that hospital instead'. It's clearly regrettable, but until humanity quits putting items of military value in the same locations as civilians [ie never], mistakes are gonna happen. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
NATO bombing Serbia was the right thing to do, and Biden was based to support it. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed.CorruptUser 20:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
He's standing for the US Presidential election, not the Serbian one. WTF would the US care about a trouble spot like Serbia except the bomb the shit out of it as and when required? Goddamned trouble making part of the world responsible for most (or actually ALL!!) of the wars in Europe in the 20th century! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I am also puzzled about what the significance is of a particular American politician being liked or not in Serbia. Does anyone care what opinion the Brazilians, the Angolans or the Swiss might have? Probably not. Why the Serbs?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
well, close to half of the brazilian population is beholden to trumpism. that should tell you a thing or two about what they think of biden. (don't even get me started on the bullshit qanon-like conspiracy theories circulating on facebook and whatsapp.) The G (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
You may be missing my point. Why should the opinions of some part part of the population any randomly selected (and relatively minor) nation have any notable bearing on US politics?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
honestly if civilians think the us is threatening their lives through military or through climate change negligence (neither being unique to the us by any stretch btw) it is worth considering but at the same time it is quite random to bring up serbian opinion FIRST in a thread that announces bidens reelection. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 15:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Question - in some strange alternative universe both Biden and Trump become their respective party's candidate and have to step down for medical reasons 'very close' to the election: what sort of wailing and gnashing of teeth would occur among the conspiracy theorists and observers of non-existent problems? Anna Livia (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
That question, or related, was asked in 2020 when Trump got diagnosed with COVID right after debating Biden. There was a small but very real possibility of both Biden and Trump dying; Trump had a 3% chance of dying and Biden a 5% if infected; more, if we include the chance of longterm hospitalization which would interfere with their duties. Plus Trump's obesity, and if we are getting into conspiracy theory territory, both are alleged to have cognitive decline. CorruptUser 21:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the UK[edit]

So it looks like UK legislation may have the unintended consequence of getting Wikipedia banned, as WP isn't going to do age verification. (Though I guess it will be good news for VPN providers at least.)

Bus I also wonder if it will affect this site as well.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That bill needs to die already. God, I remember when the British government was banning "face-sitting porn" a decade ago. No wonder we cut ourselves loose from them. Implementing nutty restrictions on personal liberty are a habit of the British state and have been for a long time. I'm sure they'll pass this garbage bill. Chillpilled (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Then again, the US is trying to push a TikTok ban right now. Maybe the British spirit remains with us. Chillpilled (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Just been reading up on it a bit more. Seems that that "age verification" will work by supplying credit card details or something like that. I'm sure that real adults will be rushing to provide such appropriate ID to every site they visit on the net who just might have some material which might be pornographic. (For clarity this is sarcasm.)
The security implications are horrific even in the legitimate cases.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
It is currently at the 'third stage', which means it still needs to clear the Commons and then the Lords. Now, the Commons shall pass it because the average MP is a mere voting-machine, doing their master's bidding and the dying Tories are flailing about with a myriad stupid new laws [qv: Rwanda] in the vain hope it shall make them suddenly popular enough to sneak in at the next election.
The Lords can stall this, and I am almost sure they will, because this bill has so many stupid clauses in several different areas [I mean, as written it seems like you'd have to do this for every remoetely 'adult' site] and this fascisty omni-shambles of a Govt doesn't have a majority here. This is called the 'ping-pong' stage as [normally] the Lords tries to smooth down the jagged edges and then the Commons puts them back in. Usually, the Commons wins this war but it shall take time - anything between three months and a year. If this government is blinkered and stubborn, this could mean it's only comes into law in early '24. There will then be a grace period, which if more than 9 months will clearly take us over the last realistic GE date which is Nov '24. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Given that there will be an election before December 2024 'banning Wikipedia' would be a huge vote loser (and there will be at least one newspaper with the headline 'We saved Wikipedia'), certain medical, broadsheet newspaper, and other reputable websites (including certain legislation and legal cases etc) will be claimed to fall foul of the intending legislation etc, various of the streaming services will complain about loss of revenue etc etc - while people will discover how to use VPNs and similar - which will have the opposite effect to what is intended, while supplying details will lead to much fraud. (Are the various fanfic and similar sites included - given the term 'dead dove' exists).
Would 'Wikipedia 10/12/20 etc year badges serve as verification? Anna Livia (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


Didn't Wikipedia black out its main page 'a few years ago' - perhaps something similar to make a point? Anna Livia (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It was in early 2012 (by then I had been an admin there for a couple months) and was over SOPA/PIPA, which was focused on copyright issues. While the intent was fine, the proposed laws would've made it ridiculously easy to abuse takedown notices (which are already easy enough to abuse) and had no disincentive for people to file bullshit claims; all the risk and burden was on the accused. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Anna, this government is led by the views of 'Frank Gammon', a 67 year-old retired kick-press operative in Redcar who spends most of his time reading the Daily Express, watching GB News or nursing a pint in his local Weatherspoons. He doesn't need WP as he already knows everything he needs to [see above], and if he doesn't need it nobody really does, so your complaints are just 'Millennial lefty snowflakery wokeness' and so can be ignored. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Would FG ever actually use WP (rather than just the sporting pages)?
A 48-hour stint 'this would be the impact of the legislation' would probably have the desired impact (especially if near some elections).
The present government are too stupid to try the manoeuvre from one of the Beiderbecke films of floating the worst case scenario (which they don't intend) and then passing the legislation they actually want. Anna Livia (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Course he doesn't use WP; he's also heard that 'anyone writes it', which means it's not to be trusted [unlike his copy of the Express, which is 100% trustworthy].
Until the DE runs a 'Johnny Foreigner is messing around with our Wikipedia articles' banner headline (and they have problems in accessing WP for their research). Anna Livia (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
And yeah, I don't think this government is smart enough to pull the 'door in face' strategy in policies; what this is the response for the 'PornPass' falling over back in [I think '19] by simply widening the scope so bleeding far that in effect you'll end up with functionally 'two internets'. Which is kinda stupid anyway, as all UK ISPs offer 'child-frendly' filtered internet anyway and could easily be sorted by demanding all of them have said filters on an opt-out system. However, this whole damn thing is becoming a total boondoggle; a cure-all with an ever-lengthening list - I mean they've tried to apparently include everything [some Tory blockhead has shunted an anti asylum seeker clause into it, for example] - in the vain hope it tickles Frank's jaundiced view of the world so he votes Tory again. It's such a boondoggle even if it gets to Jug-Ears signing it, it won't come into force until the next GE, so shall be able to be ditched/reformed by the new Govt. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Shall we say there is a case for 'children and young adults' to have varying degrees of protection from encountering things that they are not yet ready for; and most people want 'certain topics' ('very medical', war-centric, and 'that sort of material when the vicar happens to be coming to visit', don't frighten the horses, and 'do not try this at home' etc) to be not visible unless they specifically go looking for them (ie not censorship as such), so there is a case for some very mild controls to handle such handle such matters. And - the 'young persons they are theoretically trying to protect' are going to be more than capable of getting round whatever controls that are imposed And the computers will snarl things up besides - as with the 'invisible rude words blocker' fiasco a while back ('the modern name of Gillespie Road Underground Station' being an example).
The policy will probably be as successful as the 'cones hotline'. Anna Livia (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Presumably those involved in considering the legislation have already been informed that more nuanced legislation would be needed (I thinks an initial suggestion was that encyclopaedias and similar be allowed free access) - otherwise 'the first debate in the next UK Westminster Parliament' will involve Lord Buckethead, Count Binface and the repeal of the 1313 Statute Forbidding Bearing of Armour. Anna Livia (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A pertinent Reddit thread[edit]

There sure are a lot of morons ignoring the looming threat of climate change. Luigifan18 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Lovehate this. My favourite:
I feel like climate change is masking a deeper issue that is set to rear it's ugly head on this planet. The climate change marketing is just a way for the eugenicists and elites to cull the population before the shabangabang hits the fan.. Also lots of the usual stuff, Science Has Been Wrong Before or I/My Country Can Do Nothing.
Oh, and also: Environmentalism is a religion and devoid of fact. Amen and hallelujah. IluzasipalStone them! 19:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I love the fact I'm not allowed to see it without logging in to show I'm over 18. What, is it 'too scary' for kids to learn that the old fuckers who rule this world have turned it into an ecological craphole? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
…Wait, what?! Seriously?! Luigifan18 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Yep (try on incognito if you aren't seeing it due to cookies or other logins; note that there is regional variation so you may not see anything for all I know). But old.reddit doesn't show the login request for me. Because it's old school cool.
I presume this is because r/TooAfraidToAsk overall contains a few posts about that scary sex stuff the prudes don't want people knowing about, instead of it targeting this specific climate change post (which has no NSFW tag).
What's also interesting is from my location (US FL), you can bypass this popup without logging in by simply clicking "Yes, I'm Over 18". Trying this from a Amsterdam based server, OTOH, you can't bypass this popup without logging in (the button is "No, I'm Under 18" instead). Given the complete mess of multiple legislation bills around the world trying to do something about TEH PORNZ, expect more of this hot mess of slapdash (including, of course, effects on non-porn like this post) in the future. BobJohnson (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Steven Crowder[edit]

Steven Crowder hasn't been having a good week or two... news of his divorce came out, and then video of him emotionally abusing his (now ex) pregnant wife.

Now allegations have dropped from ten of his former staffers alleging an abusive workplace. Six of those ten allege they witnessed Crowder repeatedly exposing his genitalia to employees.

What can I say other than WTF? Chillpilled (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked... well not that shocked. What a dick. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I’m Jack’s complete lack of surprise. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
"Person who is obsessed with having their face constantly in the media turns out to be narcissistic asshole. More at 11. But first, what vegetable in your fridge is causing autism? Find out, after the break."CorruptUser 13:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this is an appropriate response. Luigifan18 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The OnlySortaDumb Grad Student.[edit]

I just got an offer to an MA program in Philosophy that I applied to. I plan on accepting. I am going become Ratwiki’s resident masters student in philosophy. I am super excited to develop my abilities further to become a true philosopher. I’ll be getting $10’000 in funding and will be offered a $9’000 TAship. Ya boi’s becoming a grad student in September 2023. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations! Bongolian (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
That's great! I hope you enjoy your studies and wish you good luck. Spud (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
ooh, philosophy! i'm so happy for you! we look forward to your success. best of luck in your studies! The G (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Looks like you got accepted after all. Congrats! CorruptUser 16:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
That's really pretty cool. Congratulations.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks y’all! I am excited for what’s to come. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Change your name to celebrate! "OnlyTempDumb", "TempSortaDumb", "NotPermaDumb" or something. CorruptUser 19:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Or, considering some "philosophers", perhaps "OnlySortaDumber"? Kencolt (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
CongratulationsJakester499 (talk) (contributions) 17:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Prehistoric Planet season 2[edit]

Binged the first season when it came out. Can’t wait for the second one. Your thoughts?Jakester499 (talk) (contributions) 16:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Mussolini's granddaughter flips to support LGBT rights[edit]

The granddaughter in question: Alessandra Mussolini.Wikipedia This is a couple months old, so I'm a bit too late for a WIGO entry. But this was surprising enough to me that I had to share it. Some of you may recognize her as one of Mussolini's descendants who previously took to Twitter to defend his honor. She had also previously made very homophobic statements. Chillpilled (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Mussolini was a repressive, fascist dictator. He dragged his country into a disastrous war that his country was woefully unprepared to fight. He was brutally killed by peasants and his body was desecrated and hung upside down. Who cares what his granddaughter says? She is a loser. FlederMaus8 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Buddy coming in to educate us about Mussolini in case we didn’t know. Next up, telling us about this pretty unpleasant chap named Franco, followed by an additional comment regarding a little known guy called Stalin. More news at 11. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Some people don’t know better. https://xkcd.com/1053/ It would be a perfect time to teach them and Yes I know this is the saloon bar so one might argue they should know better but a lot of people are lurkers and some of these lurkers could be go from having no opinion to having the wrong opinion, and that would be advantageous for fascists . so I’ll link for the to Benito Mussolini. wp:Benito Mussolini and the following links https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/benito-amilcare-andrea-mussolini https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/benito-mussolini-1
Mussolini being who he was only makes it funnier that his granddaughter is apparently pushing for LGBT rights. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 10:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
You know, I think this is a very good example of "sins of the (grand)father, not the sins of the daughter". An Advocate (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I think that contextually changes when she defends his honor on twitter and was previously homophobic. She is just straight up sinning in her lifetime in the defense of the sins of her grandfather. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with both of the above posts. However words without action are meaningless, she should spend her life undoing the damage she did her whole life. It’s okay to love you’re family while still believing they’re bad people, and it’s okay, sometimes necessary to cut them off if they are truly evil like Mussolini, but her embrace of far right politics is something truly despicable, and use your ancestors clout to advocate the same evil they did makes two peas in a pod, no better. How can you be disgusted at Mussolini’s capital punishment when you’re not disgusted at the victims he killed, tortured, oppressed, raped, and humiliated, and embrace the far right opportunistic politics he embraced. On the other hand, she is making the first step towards redemption, and even if she can’t be redeemed, doing good is good for its own sake, regardless of anyone forgiving or not, as long as it’s not hollow or in vain or for show or for your own advantage. Hell if you forget your redemption and focus on their good for its own sake (as long as you understand what good is, and that’s a whole other debate) then redemption will come naturally and even if it doesn’t, maybe you don’t deserve it. As you did good, that’s not all that matters and if doesn’t cancel you’re evil or you’re (healthily, as in you earned it or they came to that forgiveness independently ) forgiven, it’s not redemption it’s different but it’s something. And remember I’m talking about specifically the case of the granddaughter of Mussolini, sometimes you’re just an evil fuckwit. Take Hitler and Ted Bundy, for instance. One problem is she needs to realize how far right politics led to her grandfathers rise to power which lead to the aforementioned evil which was the above tip of the iceberg evil he did, and how he literally inspired Hitler and was a holocaust perpetrator. She needs to show that’s moved beyond far right politics and needs to show accountability for her and since she’s defending her grandfather, her whole life, and she has fortune, fame, and political clout from her the name and lineage of her grandfather robbing his country dry in the process of creating a totalitarian state and cult of personality based on him and his ideas, she probably take accountability for him too. Please critique this opinion if it is wrong, otherwise I don’t learn. I don’t have a good filter and I have poor mental hygiene. This does not abrogate responsibility, it merely shows why I could be wrong.However, Mussolini was truly evil. Jakester499 (talk) (contributions) 20:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps I’m a horrible person for saying this, but why was the offspring of someone this evil even allowed to survive decades ago when Musso himself was executed? 71.1.230.124 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you are a horrible person. "The sins of the fathers ..." may be the biblical way, but most modern societies try to be better than that.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps they just didn't catch his family, or perhaps communist partisans weren't as fond of Lenin's tactics against Tsar Nicholas's family at that particular time and place. Chillpilled (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I am sure if we were all able to 'run up our family trees looking at what our ancestors did' there would be some varyingly dubious and worse activities (even allowing for '[this] was considered acceptable [then]') - and we would not consider ourselves responsible for what they did. Anna Livia (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, don't damn people simply because of who they are releated to. You don't get to choose your relatives and sometimes, seeing a disgusting example of humanity that close or it being 'personal' can motivate a person to be completely different. In fact, I am sure that there are some people who walk amongst us as otherwise 'normal, upstanding citizens' with very iffy familial links that they naturally, keep very secret. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Exactly, Im sure there are plenty of people who are descended from people who engaged in the Atlantic Slave trade, joined the Ku Klux Klan, or engaged in other activites of opressing other groups of people but that doesn’t necessarily make the current generation oppressive.SensaurC-137 (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Of course. But the point needs to be made that while it doesn't necessarily make individual people oppressive, things like the slave trade still have lasting systemic effects that need to be dealt with. Plutocow (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
What point, exactly? 'Person has an ancestor who did [Bad Thing]'? Esp in regards to something as stale as the ownership of slaves. My rough calculation is that [for me at least] this is seven generations back. This means chances are you should have between sixty and sixty-four of them, meaning I suspect nobody is untainted by 'Bad Thing'. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I, uh, what?[edit]

Not this nonsense againLuigifan18 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

1/ Serves you right for being on that sub.
2/ 'Atheism' is a belief [ie a belief in there not being deities] but it is not a belief system. Once you have become 'an athiest', it does not tell you anything about how to live, what should be your guiding motivations or anything [which is part of the main functions of religion]. There is not even anything 'stopping' an athiest in believing that some form of 'life after death' exists.
3/ Not all 'belief systems' are religions, though all religions are belief systems. People who do not understand this fallacy [what's it's name, can't remember] shall then say things like humanism, secularism and so on are such. Oddly enough they usually leave out nationalism, which in some countries [such as the USA] does take on some of the trappings of being a religion.
KarmaPolice (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
They are many secular religions such as Marxism, jacobinism, fascism, and Nazism. We should really have an article on them, because they are just as dangerous as spiritual religions.Jakester499 (talk) (contributions) 22:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
There is one already: Secular religions. Bongolian (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The Kremlin[edit]

So who done it, and why - the motives may not be obvious (eg 'we have proved the point, in that we can reach the Kremlin'). Anna Livia (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I honestly could see either way. Killing Putin would do the world a lot of good, but the optics of an attempt on his life is exactly what Putin wants. The ability for information to be distorted in this context is incredible. All I can hope is the outcome of all this loosens Putin's grip on the Russian state, so fewer of Russia's youth will be sacrificed upon the altar of his ego. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm skeptical of the Ukrainian angle, as they don't seem that desperate. At least not yet. Assassinating Putin now would likely cause more problems than it would solve for Ukraine. He'd be martyred, which could potentially trigger full Russian mobilization. A "warning shot" by Ukraine seems just as unlikely, as it would get a similar response as the above, just less intense. Staying the current course of fighting within Ukrainian territory (and occassional strikes on strategic targets near the border in Russia) feels like the smartest move for them. Porovoking the bear in such a way would be especially bad for any imminent offensive campaigns Ukraine may be about to enact.2600:1002:B166:64A9:19DE:3CB3:6363:E1D4 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Russia didn't have any reason to believe it to be an attempt on Putin's life (Putin wasn't there, and the drones obviously weren't going for his person), they simply put that narrative out in order to make the most of the event. This is one of the clearest things about the event.
Russia had in a highly publicized way set up air defense equipment and secured a wider area prior to the event. Or tried to secure? So it's either a terribly embarrassing failure of an effort to beef up security, or evidence that it was a false flag attack because it's so unlikely that such a crude attack would make it past all defenses. ISW's take is the latter, but some argue the former. A commentator I watched said Russia seemed to have such a ready-made media response it suggested it was planned by the Kremlin.
It could be part of a plan for Russia to motivate a weary population and drum-up support for intensifying mobilization and more. But it also makes Russia look vulnerable and inept in a way undesirable to the Kremlin. They may have decided that the latter was worth it. Or maybe, though unlikely, it really was a "look how far we can reach" signal from Ukraine. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I did not make any suggestions who - the 'proving the capacity to reach the Kremlin was not yet one of the options mentioned in the media.
How much evidence is there of the incident actually occurring rather than being 'a bit of film'? (Not being a conspiracy theorist as such, just 'it seems weird and there is limited information available.') Anna Livia (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
If it really was the Ukrainians, then Russian air defense is somehow even more incompetent than I thought. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
It isn't. The drones were patently too small to have travelled that far and the area is ringed with the best AA systems Russia has. Apooft is correct in highlighting the Russian motivation; rally around the flag effect, to shore up flagging support and to exort the narod to make more sacrifices re: mobilisations. I suspect that the Russian high command is in fact getting more optimistic re: victory in thinking that if they simply throw enough men and material at the enemy they'll finally overcome the Ukrainian resistance with sheer weight of numbers. This has become the classic 'meat-grinder' war we first saw during WW1 and last saw in any size during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
And that ended up being nearly a decade. Joy. Revolverman (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Either Russian air defences are really crappy, being unable to shot down those dinky drones -which I doubt they'd be able to fly at cruise missile speeds, which can be detected and intercepted too-, or this is a false flag operation which I find it's most likely.
Had this been Ukraine instead, they'd probably have used something much larger and more destructive, as those drones of the Soviet era and several of them in fact, and I guess they'd at least know when Putin was more likely to spend night there as Moscow has stated Putin seldom sleeps there. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
If the Ukranians had such a drone at their disposal, they would have used it on some target which would have been actually bleeding useful for the war effort; like a military base, ammo dump, airbase, that Crimean bridge again etc. I'm not saying they wouldn't have a pop at the Czar if they got a realistic chance of icing him [my view would be 'go on my son' if they did], just that this had such a low chance of success a nation with limited ammo/weapon stocks wouldn't have wasted a drone on it. This 'Ukranian attack' narrative only works if you are a mushroom Russian who believes the 'Ukranian Nazis with American empire troops throwing everything they have at poor Mother Russia'. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The incident 'and potential conspiracy theories of all flavours arising therefrom' are somewhat within the remit of RW.

Apparently the Wagner group are creating problems - not enough bullets/making a rational calculation about the likelihood of success in their current activities. Anna Livia (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

More Jan 6th terrorists found guilty of seditious conspiracy[edit]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/04/proud-boys-leader-found-guilty-of-seditious-conspiracy-for-driving-jan-6-attack-00095292

Traitors and terrorists found guilty could face up to 20 years in the slammer. I hope they all get the max sentence. They deserve it for attempting to dismantle democracy. --Trans Fem Agenda 01:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I fucking love this guy: he's an alien[edit]

Psychiatric Victim (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

What's the point of posting this here? 🇷🇸 A Serb (Wort wort wort) 13:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
They fucking love the guy, he’s an alien!! - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Is he missional? He's one of those spiritual weirdos, so. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

RW has this article. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Relax. Open your eyes. This is an entity channeled by the guy speaking. Darryl Anka wouldn't just tell you to not let other energies stop you from receiving his, sorry Bashar's message. The raucous applause after the sneeze is actually concerning. Like, there is a bunch of material disproving hypnotism, but how do you explain this? Dude is filmed in full earnest, these people believe it. 2600:8804:200:22F0:545C:6511:E07:FE34 (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Watched Lost highway last night/this morning[edit]

Wtf did I watch? I’d never thought I’d say this, but eraserhead was less confusing. I thought I was desensitized to surreal horror I was wrongJakester499 (talk) (contributions) 17:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Eraserhead was his best. Bongolian (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Going to watch blue velvet and muholland driveJakester499 (talk) (contributions) 23:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I do agree eraserhead was his best.Jakester499 (talk) (contributions) 23:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe it was just a vessel for the soundtrack? 2600:8804:200:22F0:545C:6511:E07:FE34 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I was always under the impression Lost Highway was a vessel for its soundtrack. 2600:8804:200:22F0:545C:6511:E07:FE34 (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Would make sense.--Max Sinister (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the BoN. The music is the best part of it. Spud (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Displaying What a Mouse Sees From Recorded Brain-Data Using Machine-Learning.[edit]

An interesting experiment was recently performed through the use of recording brain data from mice provided a film to view, and recreating what they see from the brain data using a machine-learning algorithm. The accompanying video is also pretty neat. Thought I should share for the few of us who still care about science around here. https://neurosciencenews.com/mouse-vision-ai-23172/. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I fear this technology will be used to create a world in chains scenario a globalitarian regime that can’t overthrown. Jakester499 (talk) (contributions) 17:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Ughh. What?? 🇷🇸 A Serb (Wort wort wort) 18:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201014-totalitarian-world-in-chains-artificial-intelligence ::::https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/globalitarianismJakester499 (talk) (contributions) 19:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Machina topic[edit]

Warning icon orange.svg Warning: Solipsism conversation ahead may rot your brain!

Man photographing himself in cornered mirror to generate illusion cropped.jpg

Chatbot advances[edit]

Chatbots have spewed bigotry.[5] Chatbots have committed libel.[6][7] And they seem poised towards creating a grey goo of information.[8] Bongolian (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm terrified of AI generated images, voices, etc. How soon before we can create fake phone calls, fake video, fake pictures, etc etc? Go through a divorce, create fake images of your wife abusing your kids so you win custody. Politicians create fake videos of their opponent doing drugs and hiring prostitutes. Corrupt DA's creating fake images of people committing felonies. CorruptUser 19:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
All those kinds of fakery are now possible (scammers already fake voices of people their targets know) – but not without the possibility of detecting the forgery using software-based analysis (people in the moment are far, far more vulnerable to being fooled). The capability to fake and the capability to detect it tend to develop in tandem, and will do so for the forseeable future. I think for a long time, keeping around full-resolution copies of original material will allow people to successfully prove the falsehood of altered versions of it, as the quality of fakes will not technically measure up when compared to the original. Over years and decades, the newer capabilities will come of wider use and may become commonplace...
New kinds of technology, not yet there but possible I think, for analyzing and filtering information may help deal with the flood of junk. The world will not become like before as a result, however. But people can gain new ways to zoom past low-quality and known-deceptive materials, in search of worthwhile and safe things. Plenty of purely human junk (and some non-junk) may end up filtered away at the same time, and some slickly done junk will slip through, inevitably I think. Before and during such developments, people may become pressed by the new world they find themselves in to develop greater discernment and critical-mindedness – otherwise they lose their money and much else to scams and new kinds of crime – and people will then adapt as always to change; the pressure may lead to the development of new kinds of widely-valued virtues, manners, cultural habits, and standards for what's seen as reasonable and of value. Then new generations will take it all, where they're at then, for granted. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Every action has a reaction, this applies to tech too and AI is tech. What I suspect shall happen is that respectable news outlets shall simply increase their fact-checking tools to take into account AI faking advances. Which shall feature AIs checking footage etc. What's more, the world of social media is [I think] getting close to the 'mature market' stage which shall generally mean they shall continue to become duller, safer and more 'responsible' and thus, much less likely to let such crap fly half as much as they used to [they already use AI moderation, it would not take much more development to get them to the stage to start attacking the fakeries on their platforms]. What's more, a lot of governments are getting into this business too, which is another 'counteraction'.
Truth is simple. Some people shall lie through their very teeth, others shall combat them. I don't really think 'AI' by itself actually gives much in the way in claws to either side. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

As someone who is opposed to abortion, I would like to hear some reasonable arguments in favor of it.[edit]

I am not looking to start anything, I just want to hear some opposing viewpoints. Thank you -🧙‍♂️Bore me 19:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Judith Jarvis Thompson has a famous argument within moral philosophy that argues via analogy. Imagine you were kidnapped by the society of music lovers, knocked unconscious, and you woke up in a hospital bed the following day. Upon waking up you find yourself connected by the kidney to a world famous violinist. It turns out you were the right match and this man needs your kidneys to survive. The doctor states you would have to stay connected to him for 9 months, or he will die. The question becomes, is it okay to disconnect yourself from the violinist?
Assuming you said yes, then it would be inconsistent at the very least not to conclude that abortion under the case of coerced pregnancy is morally permissible. The real point of the argument is that it doesn’t matter if the being using your body for survival without your consent can be classed as a person or not. If a stranger is using your body at cost to yourself to sustain themselves, you are more than entitled to refuse them — regardless of it results in their death. Disagreeing with this premise sets the precedent that it would be okay in society to force random strangers into supporting the life of other random strangers regardless of the personal costs of inconveniences. At the very least if it was not okay to force people into that situation, it would be mandatory to force to stay within that situation. If we reject that then we would have to allow for abortion, or be faced with a logical contradiction in our morals. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)
My view: Abortion is honestly a pretty complex moral issue with multiple viewpoints and several factors, and decisions made are largely going to rest on individual decisions concerning the mother and other family members.
Treat unwanted pregnancies like rabies or something. The victim should "man up" and immediately report to the police and be treated ASAP. 🇷🇸 A Serb (Talk) 17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
… … … …Uhhhhhhhhh… what? Luigifan18 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
This is also reflected by the wide variety of positions on abortion in various religions. No religion embraces abortion with open arms as far as I know, but some (like Judaism) allow much more autonomy to the individual in making the correct moral decision.
Personally, I think European consensus (which tends to be stricter than American liberal movements, but much more permissive than absolutists like Catholicism) is probably the "best position" and where a "cloud of consensus" of some sort could be formed in a multicultural country: typically, there is a small period (say 12-15 weeks) where abortion on demand is allowed, and then there is an extended period where abortion is allowed in the case of pregnancy complications, rape, and/or risk to health.
Any discussion of abortion morality IMHO should be paired with discussion of the morality of poverty / economic factors and discussion of capitalism's failures in many nations to fully accommodate pregnancy and work / education / etc. These are correctible issues that are a very large factor in why women get voluntary abortions. (Some other major reasons for abortion, like partner issues, are less addressable, but abortion discussion usually end up being shouting matches that never touch root cause.) BobJohnson (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
1% of abortions are the result of rape. In those cases, we can all agree that "choice" wasn't exactly available. A further 13-14% of abortions happen due to fetal impairment, e.g., Down Syndrome. While it absolutely is an "ableist" position to take, I don't want to pay for them, so while it's not exactly a "nice" thing, I'll turn a blind eye. Of the remaining 86%, there's various issues involved, but I ain't budging on the other 14%. CorruptUser 17:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Pretty straightforward - if the state is permitted control body autonomy while pregnant, then it controls body autonomy at all times. People with uteruses could be held responsible for a pregnancies end when they either didn't know they were pregnant, which actually happens. People with uteruses could be held responsible for not doing enough to support the fetus as it grows. Once you create a different set of rules and rights for individuals based on when they are pregnant, it probably needs a monitoring system, to identify more pregnant people. That creates a whole new level of government intrusion. What about people travelling? That can have effects on pregnancy, then the state would need to control the movement of pregnant people. That doesn't even begin to get into punishments, or investigations or reporting a violation. Banning abortion also doesn't mean abortions won't happen, it just means they'll be more dangerous.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
As much as I want to get into an argument with you for multiple reasons, I'll just add that in El Salvador, it's illegal to miscarry because the government assumes you had an abortion. Never mind that about 1/7 known pregnancies naturally miscarry. CorruptUser 17:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
In response to the above post, if you truly wish to argue, you may. I personally disagree with it on a religious basis as well as the fact that I (personally) believe that life starts at conception. -Gang O' Shadow Wizards (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
But - the sperm and the egg are already alive before conception.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

People might wish to add their views for posterity here: Essay:Where do you fall in the abortion debate?. Every few years we add a few more.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Was responding to RIP. So for you, I have several questions. I'll start with an easy one; identical twins don't split until a few days after conception. Prior to the split, is the zygote a single life or two? CorruptUser 18:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Ironically, we are learning about this in my high school Biology class rn. I'm probably gonna be wrong on this. I'm pretty sure that it is considered 1 life form at the moment as the cell has not yet split nor shown any indication prior that it is going to split (assuming that a pre-split zygote cell appears the same as a non-twin cell). So I guess it is one. However, it seems off to state this whilst taking my position. -Gang O' Shadow Wizards (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Pretty much the point; it's supposed to feel "off".
Technically, a fetus does meet the criteria of "alive", and arguably "human", but it's a philosophical question of just how much value that life has as well as whether that life has "rights" that supersede the "rights" of the mother, and as with all philosophy, there isn't necessarily a "correct" answer. "Rights", too, are philosophical concepts that don't have a "correct" answer as to what they should be. It's not inherently "wrong" to believe what you believe, but we do ask that you are consistent in how you arrive at your beliefs beyond "this is what someone else told me to believe".
Abortion is pitting two "rights" against one another; bodily autonomy vs life. CorruptUser 20:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I've always understood abortion as a primarily philosophical issue, because (as you mentioned) "but it's a philosophical question of just how much value that life has as well as whether that life has "rights" that supersede the "rights" of the mother, and as with all philosophy, there isn't necessarily a "correct" answer." I see this as a grey area problem with varying intepretations and no clear solution. Gang O' Shadow Wizards (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

YEETUS THE FETUS. 1st trimester, 3 trimester, FAIR GAME. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's a grey area, filled with bullshit all around. It's ok to ask serious questions, but here's a big one to consider.
If you are of the belief that abortion is "evil", whether or not it's a necessary evil, wouldn't anything that reduces the risk of pregnancy be "good"? Sex ed has been proven to reduce teen pregnancies over and over, so would you be willing to increase sex ed as well as make birth control much more widely available? Abstinence-only ed has been proven time and again to not work; trying to prevent teenagers from boning is a syphilisean task. CorruptUser 20:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't really have an amazing answer to that. I have always considered abortion to be wrong; however, I havn't really even found any "good". I guess it's hard to tack the "good" and "evil" on a grey area issue. As someone who has never partaken in sexual activity (for many reasons), I have noted that it's quite hard to prevent intercourse amongst my age group is about as challenging as herding cats. I also don't think providing contraceptives would truly solve the issue, as it's still promoting the activities. I just don't really know what the answer is. All I know (believe) is that abortion is wrong from my moral standpoint. -Gang O' Shadow Wizards (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
" I also don't think providing contraceptives would truly solve the issue, as it's still promoting the activities." Even assuming that providing contraception would "promote the activities" (itself a doubtful premise) - why do you write as though that would be a bad thing? Is there something wrong with having sex?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you are bitter about your sexual experience and that resentment is seeping into your worldview. E.g., "if girls couldn't get abortions, they'd be forced to marry someone like me" sort of thinking. That resentment is self-perpetuating, in that it pushes women away, so you get more resentful and push women away harder... CorruptUser 14:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
" also don't think providing contraceptives would truly solve the issue, as it's still promoting the activities."
Well, these things are like fire alarms and airbags. They're protection measures. It won't make people inherently hornier the way fire alarms and anti burn coating isn't gonna cause people to light a flamethrower over the stove or cook a grilled cheese 4 times a day. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 15:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe only some of us appreciate the flavor of napalm in our grilled cheese...
In fairness, seatbelts and airbags do cause drivers to go faster. However, sex ed doesn't just reduce pregnancies, but sex in general. So if you really do want teens to have less sex, you'll teach them about it. CorruptUser 15:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Only way I'll ever accept abortion restrictions in any form remotely close to the way many conservatives want to, is if birth control is freely accessible in every state, abstinence only sex education is abolished, and rape, incest, health of mother exceptions are unlimited.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
So basically, most European countries? Which incidentally, usually ban elective abortions after 12 weeks. CorruptUser 16:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
In 'bears shit in woods' study, turns out that contraception does drasticly reduce number of abortions. If we assume an ideal situation where all 'accidental' knock-ups are prevented we are left with a grab-bag of other reasons a person may seek a termination; birth defects, nonviable fetus, serious risk to mother and drastic change in personal situation. I shall also point out that "natural abortions" happen all the time [miscarriage]. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Question. Where does "incest" come into play into abortion, if 1) it's consensual, and 2) there's no birth defects? Because the incest clause has always had the unstated assumption that it was likely one or the other, but when that's not the case? CorruptUser 18:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
From what I've read, it seems that the majority of people who are the product of 1st/2nd degree incest do not suffer any harm from it [that is genetically] - the standard genetic variation is solid enough to cover for this. One of the reasons for historical taboo on this would surely be due to the fact pre-industrial European societies were generally much more homogeneous and insular, which meant many more couples would have been more genetically similar already, thus hugely upping the risk. Which is why I didn't list it by itself as a 'cause for abortion' above. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────At least in this day and age, abortion is important for sexual equality. Sadly, in this system, there is no way that AFAB people will be treated equally if there's a possibility that they can be effectively out of commission for several months at a time, as businesses would always rather hire someone who they can count on to show up at work any day. Now, it's screwed up that this system treats people like that, and the consequences are really starting to show with things like the lower birth rate and the increase in loneliness in general in developed countries. But still, as long as this system is in place, AFAB people need to have this option to be equal to AMAB people. Plutocow (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

We could always go to the dystopia where the government is able to use technology to outright prevent all unapproved pregnancies. CorruptUser 19:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Isn't the dystopia that women may need to travel several hundred miles to obtain a medical procedure enough?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey, some of us are trying to live out our sci-fi dystopias over here.CorruptUser 22:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
RipCityLiberal: that's me on a compromise. Even with all that in place there still will be people who need abortions on serious reasons. There should be no restrictions on trimester. Some people don't realize they're pregnant until they conceive or are well into late term. For legit reasons. I don't want a situation where a desperate person is forced to carry to term, which is still riskier than a late term abortion. Abortion access is a human right. But I realize I'm in a minority for wanting to legalize 41 week+ abortions. The vast majority of people who can be pregnant should have the ability to access an abortion. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
At that point you might as well legalize post-natal abortions. Which were actually a thing back in the days before birth control; be thankful you live in the world of condoms and modern medicine. CorruptUser 23:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
"Don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you are bitter about your sexual experience and that resentment is seeping into your worldview. E.g., "if girls couldn't get abortions, they'd be forced to marry someone like me" sort of thinking. That resentment is self-perpetuating, in that it pushes women away, so you get more resentful and push women away harder..." That is completely incorrect and profoundly rude. I have never sought out any kind of "sexual experience" and currently have no plans to (because as a high schooler, it creates more problems than it's worth). While my reasoning behind my beliefs isn't the best, I still think this is a case of attacking me rather than my argument -- no matter how shitty said argument is. Gang O' Shadow Wizards (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
But you are not at risk of getting pregnant, nor of getting someone else pregnant. If your ideal position in implemented, the burden is going to fall more heavily on those around you than you yourself, is it not? CorruptUser 23:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
"At that point you might as well legalize post-natal abortions. " yeah you're forgetting about the part where someone carries to term. that part is riskier than any abortion. no one should have to carry to term against their wishes. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Also CorruptUser, this person might just be in the ace spectrum and making suggestion that they have a bad sexual experience is borderline offensive to them. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not Identify as ace, but it's still rude regardless. Gang O' Shadow Wizards (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

With the whole “life begins at conception” line it raises the question what “life” even is or who’s or what’s life are we even talking about. In the strict biological sense the zygote is no more or less alive than the gametes that fused before it. If we are speaking of the “child’s life” then that just pushes the question further on when the cells in question become a “child”. It seems strange to say a zygote is a child when it is so utterly unlike the prototypical human child. You can say when it becomes a fetus but that doesn’t seem so obvious as the likeness isn’t as abrupt.

At some point the fetus develops into something like a child, but even then it calls into question what makes something a child? Maybe there is a underlying “potential” that is most relevant but how does one even demonstrate when that potential is either present or absent?

If the fetus can said to be a child because it will eventual become one, then why not say every child is an adult and should have the full rights of adults? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Except that the gametes are as much a part of mom and dad as any other cell; once the zygote forms, it's not exactly an extreme position to say that it;s a distinct lifeform from the mother. We want it to be part of the mother's body, because that allows us to skip the ethical conundrums of what the value of a human life is. There's really only two ways to allow for abortion if you believe that a fetus is a human life; the first is that there are personal rights greater than the life of someone else, and the second is that not all lives are worth enough to supersede the rights of the mother. CorruptUser 04:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I take the Bill Burr perspective on abortion (yeah, I'm killing [insert developmental stage], so fucking what?), but I'm not sure that basing it on potentiality is the best argument. I work with adults who are quite sensibly not given all the legal rights of an average adult, but if someone were to bash in the skull of one of my clients (which is basically how intact dilation and extraction works; it doesn't faze me, when idiots set up "humane" mouse traps I use a hammer) said person would quite properly be immediately arrested. The way I can resolve it fits with both points above; to cite an example I absolutely delight in my Down syndrome clients, but you couldn't pay me enough to want to raise one, so for someone incapable of handling that responsibility being able to kill it before becoming an independent human being means at least someone has a better chance at a fulfilling life. At the same time, if you're up for the challenge I'm there to cheer you on, and I'm also the guy who will help your child get and maintain a job; even if it's menial work we'll both have a lot of fun along the way. Whatever decision you (generic you) make is fine, since you're already an independent being you get to sort out what works best for you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
In fairness, anyone bashing in the head of one of your clients is almost certainly willing to do the same to you if given the opportunity. Even if we don't value everyone the same, anyone killing the "less valuable" just for fun should never see the light of day. CorruptUser 04:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
“the sperm in my ejaculate is a part of me” - Cory 2023. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
From a biological perspective, yes. Kind of like spilled blood, I guess. CorruptUser 05:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
re: this general "discussion". I still have my wrench from the last ATIM.🔧 Don't make me have to whip out the plunger too. 🪠 --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 06:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Huh, I can't seem to copy the plunger emoji either. Let's see what I have in the toolbox 🧰. CorruptUser 14:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I seem to have lost the plot here, but I digress. A part of this some people seem to not understand is that genetic defects will still be present, and abortion may well be the best option, especially if the defect is fatal. People that choose to take a pregnancy to term even when the baby won't survive I find incredibly selfish. It requires additional resources to be deployed by hospital staff, and newborns suffer unnecessarily. Abortion is a mercy. But others with disabilities can still live fulfilling lives, especially as technology improves and new prosthetics come online. But an actual investment giving every pregnant person the highest quality of care will reduce some of the preventative disabilities that develop in-utero. Until then though, abortion through the second trimester.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
What is the cutoff line, though, and how do we determine it? If we say the cutoff is a life-expectancy of less than a year, why not 2 years? Why not 5, 10, 20 or 30 years?
Also, the abortion law presents an interesting legal issue regarding wrongful birth. "Wrongful birth" is where you give birth to an unhealthy baby, you would've aborted had you known about the issues beforehand, and the doctors' care was below the standard of care and as a result they failed to warn you, so you need extra money for the care. So there was a $2.5m judgement against a hospital for an infant born without most of its limbs, that the doctors supposedly failed to catch during an ultrasound. But that was overturned on appeal, because the fetus was just barely into the 3rd trimester at the time; legally, the parents couldn't seek an abortion because Florida Law at the time did not allow for 3rd trimester abortions in cases of fetal impairment. Other states may allow for 3rd trimester abortions for fetal impairment, so it actually does sound like a good case for SCOTUS to rule on. But until then, that's definitely an issue for med-mal lawyers. CorruptUser 16:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Why should there even be a cutoff time? Abortions in the third trimester should still be allowed for any reason. It is not my job to dictate how, why and when women can get abortions. Fetuses, they're not people. They're fetuses that will be people when they pop out of the womb. I'd much rather respect the wishes of the person we KNOW FOR A FACT is a person rather than the "wishes" of a "person" we can't know is actually a person or not. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Trimester stuff is arbitrary and not useful concerning the health of the pregnant person. These decisions should be made at the whims of the pregnant person and the doctor who both need the best information to proceed. Sometimes this can entail in terminating a pregnancy after 40 weeks (see cryptic pregnancies). Sometimes circumstances drive pregnant people to not seek abortion after 40 weeks which are exacerbated by our draconian laws and hostile healthcare access. If that's the case it should be legal. It comes down to this seeming oxymoron: if you want to limit abortions past 40 weeks, don't limit abortions. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The stuff regarding trimesters is actually relevant to the "sentience" concern. It's been stated in past literature that the fetuses' capacity to to experience pain develops around the end of the second trimester. Some utilitarian's then argue that abortions for any reason should be permissible before that point, but after that point adequate justification should be provided. The status of the fetus as a person doesn't particularly matter from that utilitarian perspective as many are animal rights advocates who see the the category of "person" to have no inherent moral worth. The issue is kind of red herring though. The vast, vast, vast majority of abortions happen before that point and for the rare exceptions that do happen "late" almost exclusively happen because of a threat to the pregnant person's health. People who experience pregnancy who wish not to carry the pregnancy to term often do not wait around for the relevant symptoms to become more than apparent. As LGM said though if you want to limit these kinds of abortion the only effective way to do that is (as she said) not to limit abortions. We still shouldn't see it as arbitrary. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I need to emphasize that the language around trimesters is used to muddy the waters and tries to divert the importance of trust and confidentiality between the doctor and the patient[9]; that being said it is indeed a red herring. Most abortions are done early when the fetus is unrecognizable and is relatively simplistic life. These laws are going to increase the need for abortions during later pregnancies due to delays from stigmatization, difficulties with access and information, privacy concerns, financial issues, and literal time delays put in place by the law. The U.S.'s Anti-abortion laws will inflict MORE pain on fetuses not less. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The question belongs to a variety of philosophical questions that are impossible to settle with finality. How can we decide when a fetus is human when we can't clearly say, apart from a resort to biological jargon, what it means to be human? We do decide, as we are a species capable of choosing, however not with a sense of finality. One could say there is a continuity of life so any time period during which abortion is allowed must be arbitrary. One could also say that a developing fetus is not a human life, but rather a potential life. Almost one in three pregnancies end in miscarriage, so it is very likely that a fetus will never become a human being. No argument could possibly convince everyone that either extreme answer is acceptable. A compromise would seem inevitable.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll re-emphasize the argument which OnlySortaDumb brought up, Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist argument. It's a very influential argument in part because it grounds a case that abortion is permissible even if the fetus is a person possessing a right to life. If Thomson is right, then even adults who clearly have a right to life do not have the right to the bodily resources of other people, including when those resources are necessary to preserve their lives. Thomson brings up a few other cases in her paper beyond the violinist; it's really worth reading the whole thing yourself, you can find it online (A Defense of Abortion, 1971). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 00:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The last sentence of Thompson's essay illustrates how minds are made up prior to this type of forensic argument from analogy, highlighting, for many, its rational vulnerability: "At this place, however, it should be remembered that we have only been pretending throughout that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. A very early abortion is surely not the killing of a person, and so is not dealt with by anything I have said here." UncleKrampus (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The violinist argument is basically describing a case of rape. Only 8% of Americans are in favor of abortion with NO exceptions, which presumably means 92% of people think that abortions should be allowed for rape cases. CorruptUser 18:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I've seen people saying that abortions should be legal only when the mother's life is in danger, and in rape cases, the women can put the child for adoption. John Koster from the Tea Party kinda supports it [[10]. So, maybe not all of the 92% of people. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Looking further, it seems that 5 states do allow a life exception but not health/rape, and 3 more have an exception for life/health but not rape. Plus 2 states with life/health/fetal-impairment but not health. That's 10 states without a rape exception at all. I guess it is pretty scary after all...CorruptUser 21:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Late to commenting and tl;dr everything above me. I think if you're going to argue against abortion, you should see why people do it rather than calling them hedonistic whores and baby murderers. Simply put, I think if you can't provide a society that actually cares and aids, not just "sympathizes for", CARES AND AIDS the single parent, the poverty-stricken, the rape victim, the medically compromised, and the teenage girl, then anti-Abortion is just a tool to punish those groups for their biology in the name of a potential human who will be forgotten by these abortion activists as soon as it has needs that only society can provide.-Ryan1257 (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Re: the violinist argument, yes, this point is frequently made about the violinist argument, but Thomson's other cases push further, and it is independently fairly simple to modify the violinist argument to do the same. The key case here is perhaps Thomson's "Henry Fonda" argument, that (i) Even if the only thing that could save your life is Henry Fonda's touch, you do not have the right to coerce Fonda to fly in from across the country to save you, (ii) Even if Henry Fonda is already standing in the room, you still don't have the right to coerce him to walk the last few feet to save you (according to Thomson, because it is implausible that Fonda nullify whatever right you have to use his body just by running away, so that (ii) follows from (i)). This suggests that you don't have the right to coerce Fonda the last few feet even if he has already flown in from across the country expressly to save your life. Here, the claim is stronger than in the violinist case, because what Fonda has to do is very easy, and he is apparently allowed to withdraw consent to help at the last second. With respect to the violinist case, supposing that one initially agrees to be hooked up to the violinist, if they subsequently change their mind and attempt to disconnect themselves, can they be legitimately (legally) coerced into staying hooked up? It seems to me that this is no more legitimate than dragging into the OR against their will somebody who at one point had agreed to donate an organ (the case is not totally analogous, but the disanalogies make no difference). Perhaps communicating that you'll donate an organ and then reneging on that is ethically censurable, but that is not sufficient to legitimize coercion. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 17:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
A separate point worth noting for GoSW: as Thomson recognizes, her case for a right to abortion on the grounds of bodily autonomy does not ground a right to ensure the death of the fetus. If the fetus can be removed without killing it, and it has a right to life (as Thomson presupposes), then (barring some concern such as the fetus-saving procedure being otherwise much more dangerous) the fetus' life should be saved, since it will no longer be taking up another's bodily resources in a manner akin to the violinist. Likewise, if you disconnect from the violinist, but they find some other way to save his life, you don't have the right to ensure his death anyway. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 17:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Aside from Thomson's argument, there is a substantial philosophical case to be made in favor of abortion even supposing that life begins at conception. To begin, it is not, in general, morally impermissible to kill living things. The canonical example is bacteria, but we also routinely kill molds and other fungi, plants, certain insects, and various parasites, like tapeworms, without inviting ethical condemnation. This extends to human cases as well: cancers are composed of living human tissue, but we routinely make efforts to kill cancer cells, and this is widely agreed to be a morally good thing. In medical settings, brain dead patients are removed from life support (excepting organ donors, who are kept on life support to maintain organ viability) even though it is often technically possible, with modern medical technology, to keep the body alive for significantly more time. So, being alive is not sufficient to make killing morally impermissible, nor is being biologically human. Rather than being alive, then, the typical criterion now appealed to is personhood, a fraught status which is associated with a right to life. The typical argument in favor of abortion is that, as indicated by, among other things, the treatment of brain dead patients, personhood is characterized by some mental capacity or capacities. Since the brain is not developed early in pregnancy, the fetus cannot have the relevant capacity or capacities, and so cannot count as a person. There are some reasons to think this line of reasoning applies even well into the second trimester, to ~22-24 weeks or so. Since the fetus to this point lacks the properties that confer moral patienthood, abortion is permissible even absent independent reasons in favor, because the fetus, not being a person, lacks independent rights or interests. A second, closely related point, is that since the early fetus is not conscious, it is impossible to harm it. It cannot experience pain of any kind, nor does it have interests that can be constrained or violated. These are ways in which early fetuses are relevantly different from a baby, child, or adult. Obviously, these arguments do not apply late in pregnancy, when the fetus has developed various mental capacities. But abortions at that stage are comparatively rare anyway, and typically involve some threat to the health of the mother, which is an independent reason in favor of abortion.
As already noted, Thomson's argument circumvents the personhood issue by presupposing that the fetus has a right to life. On the other side, Don Marquis has put forward an argument against abortion also aiming to circumvent the personhood issue. He argues that killing children and adults is wrong (at least in part) because it robs the victim of their valuable future. But fetuses have futures like those of children and adults (after all, they will eventually be children and adults), so killing fetuses is wrong for the same reason. A problem with this argument is that it seems to prove too much. The egg-and-sperm-which-will-fertilize-it (i.e. the combination of egg and sperm prior to fertilization, not either one taken individually) also seems to have the relevant kind of future. Since abstinence deprives an egg-and-sperm-that-would-have-fertilized-it from coming together, it deprives the combination of a future-like-ours, and is therefore morally wrong on the same grounds as abortion. Thus, all forms of contraception, including abstinence, are apparently morally impermissible. But this is absurd, so Marquis cannot be correct. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 21:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
So firstly - we do probably have a pretty big disagreement here when it comes to when life starts. I don't think I can easily resolve that but I'll try. So the first difficulty is that... well, what does being anti-abortion mean here. Because this is not as straight-forward a question as you might think it is. Anti-abortion stances actually take many views - most of the countries with anti-abortion laws as you can see on this chart here do still allow abortions in cases where giving birth would cause severe harm to the mother, in the case of rape, if the mother is legally underage, or if the child would be extremely likely to end up being stillborn due to a genetic disease. I'm not going to assume any position here, I just want you to keep this in mind when thinking about this. With that in mind, we can best look at this from two different angles; the first is that of the unborn fetus that will grow into a baby. Now the interesting question here is that if you think that if there's life, it should not be aborted, the question is "when does that life start". Now this is a very philosophical question - the commonly accepted case is when something experiences wp:Qualia that we consider it to be living. So, when does a child experience qualia is the question here. A religious person likely will take the stance that when you have the initial fertilized egg, that's when the child starts. I can't really challenge that without going after religious views which I'm not going to do here. If you're interested in a scientifically motivated answer - the answer to this is 24 weeks. That is when the fetus starts developing the connection from their brain to their sensory organs, and is when a child can be expected to experience qualia. For entirely related reasons, most abortion laws (so places where we can consider it "to be legal") place the max limit for an abortion at about 24 weeks, usually slightly less, to account for earlier development of this. Most people interested in forbidding abortions are trying to move the goalpost on when qualia occurs - usually by tying it to "the first heartbeat" or similar nonsense. This is easily dismissed out of hand just by pointing at the fact that you can extract cells from a human body and create cell colonies (which is used heavily in medical research). Whilst currently not possible, it is theoretically possible to grow full organs this way. So with that logic - does a theoretically lab-grown heart experience qualia? Obviously not I would say.
The second angle that is interesting to look at is that of the mother. Abortions usually aren't taken lightly - most horror stories the conservative media likes to tell you are either PIDOOMA or Nutpicking. Most people don't go around sleeping with everything not nailed to the wall, knowing they can just visit the doctor 10 weeks later when they notice that they're no longer menstruating. That's... just a bit absurd (like on-the-face-absurd), especially considering the abortion process isn't great either for the mother - they basically have to dump a half-grown fetus out of their body. With that in mind, actually having a child can be very difficult for (a) parent(s) who aren't prepared for it. It's been statistically proven that unexpected children often also turn into unwanted children. Unwanted children typically leads to very bad parenting being given to those children (since usually the mother would rather do anything but raise the kid, and fathers tend to become deadbeat dads fairly quickly as well). From that perspective, one can wonder if it is in any way remotely fair to raise a child in an abusive household where they are unloved. Dumping the kid into the foster care system also is not the failsafe option as it is often presented as being - the foster care system is often overburdened and children tend to have issues connecting with their foster parents. (Not to mention a large chunk of foster parents in the system are pretty much only in the foster care system because they think foster kids make for good servants, not to actually raise the kid - I know some people who grew up in foster homes, it's rarely sunshine and roses).
To refocus back on the mother, the other thing (lightly touched on earlier) is that unwanted pregnancies often tend to lead to the father becoming a deadbeat father, which means that the mother now has to raise that child alone. I don't have to say much to point out that the US (which I presume you're from) does not have a great system when it comes to caring for young children - if you're alone and don't have a lot of disposable income, you literally don't have the time to take like 4 years out of the labor force until your child is self-sufficient enough to go to school, you need food on the table. That is better in other countries but it bears mentioning.
I don't know if I convinced you. I probably didn't. But I hope my arguments at least gave you something to think about. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
And when you do get the woman who uses abortion in lieu of birth control? It's actually not that rare; apparently 1 in 7 women aren't using any contraception at all. Yes, birth control can fail, but half of abortions are for patients using no contraception and a huge chunk of the other half are patients using it inconsistently or improperly.
And that's without getting into the issue of someone intentionally getting pregnant in order to get an abortion. Of course they are rare, fringe cases, but what do you do when you have someone getting their 7th or 8th abortion? CorruptUser 17:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh no, the horror. A woman can have 50 abortions for all I care. It doesn't matter. Abortion rates go down when the use of contraception goes up anyway, something you also don't support. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Forgive me, when I have I ever opposed contraception? If anything, I'm in favor of it because it reduces abortions. CorruptUser 19:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
”someone intentionally getting pregnant in order to get an abortion.”… wut. Have you never spoken to people who have been pregnant or had an abortion? It’s not exactly a easy or comfortable experience. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Like I said, rare. But at least one person did so. CorruptUser 00:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Rare? One example is not rare, it's close to hen's teeth. And whatever happens, with whatever is ruled there shall be always be a non-zero number who are cited to be the exception. This is a clear case of reporting bias, like the fact 8 Americans died from golf balls between 1993 and 2010 or that kid who was found crushed to death in the middle of a pile of gym mats in a school storeroom. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Didn't want to get into it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Serial killers make up about 1 in 100,000 people. Men are much more likely to be serial killers, plus the killers usually want to see their victims die, so that does mean rarer, but on the other hand there'd be far more serial killers out there if everyone believed they could get away with it; the most prolific known serial killer in the modern era was Dr Harold Shipman, who is believed to have murdered 250 of his patients, because a patient dying is not unusual. Whatever the case, it's unlikely that you'll bump into such a person on a day to day basis, but there are some psychos out there.
So what do you do when you come across someone who has had double-digit abortions? It's one thing to view abortion as one of those necessary evils, famously codified by Clinton with "safe, legal and rare", but when you come across someone who is so indifferent that they are, in fact, using abortion as their primary form of birth control? In fairness, those people probably shouldn't be having kids, so... CorruptUser 21:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't really care. Not my problem. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
By that logic, you wouldn't be upset if abortion was banned entirely. You wouldn't really care; not your problem. CorruptUser 18:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't care about women getting abortions. I do, however, care about access to abortion. When the state restricts medical procedures like abortion it becomes something I care about. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
But you just said that things that are not your problem are things you don't care about. It sounds like you have already come to a conclusion and are refusing to examine if it's logically consistent; it's ok, everyone is guilty of this at some point due to the nature of how humans learn ethics. You just need to learn to be better. CorruptUser 19:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
You're expending a lot of time/effort to discuss a situation which in statistical terms, is not even a rounding error. Do such people exist? Yes. Are they statistically significant? Unless you can show me otherwise [and I think the burden of proof is on your end here], I shall say 'No'.
I would personally come on the general side of Ozzy here. If a woman has multiple abortions; so what? Is it the business of the state to limit them by number? In my book, it is the business of the person undergoing it and the medical staff related to them. Not politicians. And experience shows; restricting the provision of abortion produces negative side-effects and often beyond the woman herself, some of which have been outlined above including by Techpriest. That does make it an issue of 'public importance' in the regard it's my taxes which shall have to foot the various bills from the 'unwanted children' often from parent(s) who are not in a position to care for them to a sufficient level. Thus, there is no contradiction in this viewpoint; 'I don't care what you really do until the point you involve wider society'. The only point you could really bitch about people having 'too many' invasive abortions is if they are being paid for via [your] taxes in some form of socialised healthcare system. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Even if, you might as well conjure a scenario of a patient going through a drive-through and asking "one open heart surgery please" and the doctor goes "because of socialized healthcare I must comply". And then we the taxpayers gripe about the sheer nerve of people who need surgery. This conversation is stupid and I feel stupider engaging in it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm pleased you did, Lefty - as you've grasped the total wrong end of my point. Firstly, there is no socialised healthcare system which is 'on demand' in the manner you describe; it is done on medical need alone [and honestly, I thought better of you than to make such a stupid analogy]. What's more, the 'bitch point' would be more 'why the hell aren't you using contraception?' than some kind of moralistic 'you slut' or something [and done by the medical staff, not the public in general]. This is why, for example the British NHS offers free contraceptives [even if you are underage] - they know that if they didn't, they'd be footing the higher bill later for abortions, STD treatment, HIV medications etc [and even wider, an increased chance of requiring welfare support etc]. This is partly why the American system is so shit - the myriad of health providers have little real incentive to work in preventative medicine because they think they won't have to pay the $$$$ for the treatment later, so can book the $ as profit today. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not disagreeing which you are saying here, Karma. I want people using contraception. CorruptUser 17:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Claims of Quranic foreknowledge of pulsars[edit]

Apparently, some Muslims are claiming the Quran predicts pulsars. Obviously, this is absurd and bizarre. Do we have a page or other resources on this that I can use to debunk it? AmericanSocialDemocrat (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge. Apparently some ancient Hindu texts alluded to small creatures that cause disease too. It's interesting and all but could reasonably be chalked up to guesses and often ambiguity. Chillpilled (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually the nutty claims of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge are much bigger than our article might suggest. There is virtually no area of science that they will not try to take credit for - after the fact of course. They are even worse than some Christians in this respect, though perhaps not by much.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Wagner and the Kremlin[edit]

So was the Wagner chap posturing to get resources, or 'considering the viability of the ship'? Anna Livia (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Vatnik infighting I think. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
'Ship' as in 'rates and' rather than the fanfic sense. Anna Livia (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Irony on Victory Day[edit]

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2023/5/8/2168091/-Ukraine-Invasion-Day-440-multiple-blasts-in-nbsp-Russian-occupied-Crimea-nbsp

Russian occupied Crimea gets hit by Ukrainian drone attacks and fails in Bakhmut. I love irony. --Trans Fem Agenda 14:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I presume this tank contains as many inhabitants as the Ark supposedly did. Anna Livia (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I bet that much of the Russian military occupation of Ukrainian territories will come to a humiliating end. --Trans Fem Agenda 17:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Spud is remembering his sister[edit]

Long term editors would have known this was coming. Sunday 30 April would have been my younger sister's birthday if she hadn't died suddenly and unexpectedly 5 years ago at the age of 42, leaving a husband and a young daughter. As always, instead of raising a glass in her memory, I'll be having a packet of crisps and a chocolate bar in her memory. It's what she would have wanted. If you'd like to join me in having some crisps and chocolate in her honour, preferably British brands or the closest you can get to them, that would be great. And when I say "crisps", I mean any potato or corn snack, including such things as Monster Munch, Frazzles, Wotsits, Cheetos, Doritos and Funyuns. Alternatively for you Americans, my sister was lucky enough to visit New England one year and absolutely loved the hot food and ice cream from Dairy Queen, so you might like to go there in her honour. Looking at their current menu, I'd say my sister would have an Original Cheeseburger Meal Deal with a strawberry sundae. Having access to a university library full of DVDs, I'm also doing something this time I wasn't able to do in previous years, I'm watching my sister's favourite film Back to the Future. Maybe you'd like to watch that again too. Spud (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Count me in.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
So... Back to the Future only, or II and III? II was awesome just for the distant year of 2015, and III is just an entirely different movie. CorruptUser 18:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I am going to watch the entire back to the future trilogy today, and have a regular cheeseburger from BK. You will not go through this day unloved Spud, or alone. Even made you a playlist. PLEASE GIVE FEEDBACK. Need to know if I’m being respectful or not as I genuinely cannot tell. Made playlist JUST for you https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-IIUX7f_2iDMt2UWak94etH7sElSJA6D. Plus the liberalism video has a surprise. You will be loved today I’m sick of people suffering there’s too much of that in this world.Jakester499 (talk) (contributions) 21:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Well I did eat a nice veggie burger today so there's that! :) --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm on the Dairy Queen, actually took a group of my clients there last week and they all enjoyed it. Glad my native New England could be such a great experience for her. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@CorruptUser You can watch the whole trilogy if you like. I will. The original Back to the Future was my sister's all time favourite. She loved 1950s music and fashion. I don't think she was very keen on Back to the Future Part III, although she did buy the novelization and the ZZ Top single. I know she really, really liked Back to the Future Part II to the point that she said she wanted to have any book with the word "almanac" in the title and she quite liked the cartoon series Midnight Patrol: Adventures in the Dream ZoneWikipedia (or Potsworth & Co. as we called it in the UK) just because one girl in it basically had a hoverboard. Spud (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
II was a "smarter" movie in that it explored the implications of time travel, which is why TVTropes used to name "Time-Altering MacGuffin" as "Gray's Sports Almanac". Heck, one of the plot-holes is solved by the bullshit rules established in the series; all the pictures and newspapers update as the future changes, meaning that as Biff alters the world with his betting, the almanac would update too. Plus it had a lot of fun with the future concept. III was just a Western, it was fun, but nothing in it was nearly as smart. CorruptUser 16:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Two words; 'Biff's cane'. Originally from 2015-B, the top breaks off after OldBiff-B took the DeLorean to give YoungBiff-B the Almanac. However, doing that erases OldBiff-B, and presumably the cane. So... how did Doc-B manage to show it to Marty-B when they were in 1985-A? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Because they established that Biff-B still exists in an alternate timeline. Or something. Don't think about it. CorruptUser 18:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I’ll get a strawberry sundae in her honor, Spud. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh. I'm sorry for your loss. Luigifan18 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@Luigifan18 Well, it has been almost 5 years since my sister died. But your sympathy is appreciated anyway.
@Bob M, @LeftyGreenMario, @The Blade of the Northern Lights, @DuceMoosolini Thank you all very much.
And @CorruptUser and @KarmaPolice my sister would have been delighted to see some Back to the Future discussion going on here, so thanks for that. Spud (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Hmm... are there any other trilogies where there's a solid starting movie, an even better sequel that is able to explore the themes because the characters have already been established, and a final movie that's ok by itself but pales in comparison? Star Wars, obviously. The Godfather. I could argue Mad Max, but they made a 4th one that everyone loves. Terminator and Alien are both like that, but they didn't stop at 3 and unlike Mad Max the later ones are trash. CorruptUser 17:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The Dark Knight Trilogy too. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Some may argue that The Evil Dead trilogy also qualifies, but the third movie is my favorite and I hate the second one, despite being the most popular. While not anywhere near as good as the other trilogies in this thread, I think most people agree that the second movie is the best on the original X-Men franchise and the third is the worst. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
But Army of Darkness is where all of the best quotes are from...
Also, I loved the Evil Dead tv series with an aging Bruce Campbell. There were issues with the rights; they had the rights to a tv series based on The Evil Dead but NOT Army of Darkness, so AoD was not allowed to be referenced. Speaking of Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi, I think the Tobey Maguire Spidermen count. Though also speaking of Raimi, I'm surprised the Spidey films didn't have enough Lucy Lawless. CorruptUser 18:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was that time again, glad I checked in. I'll try and take the family next chance I get, just an uncle, but we have a DQ and I'll treat those kids to it. For the sake of the current convo, I saw Evil Dead with Bruce Campbell, I saw Spiderman 1 feat McGuire and DeFoe. Only thing I can connect between the two is an over the top villain voice. I watch a lot of movies, am I missing something? 2600:8804:200:22F0:D1AB:B0DD:5A2A:5BB2 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, BoN, whoever you are. (Probably an old friend in disguise.) Spud (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Haha, sorry if I'm wearing a BoN, I don't mean to do it as a disguise. Social media makes me feel bad, so I stay away from online shouting matches as much as I can, because I get unreasonably emotionally invested. But I have always been able to appreciate this request. Gaul dernitt, I love ya Spud. I know this is sincere, and I could never meet it with anything less than sincerity. The Dilly bars at DQ aren't the same. I worry DQ doesn't have a lot of life left, the ritual will have to go with it. I will always remember Spud and his story about his visit to the states and sister being excited to see a Dairy Queen, of all places. It sucks when someone you love dies. 2600:8804:200:22F0:545C:6511:E07:FE34 (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I love you too. Spud (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Campbell was in every Maguire Spiderman film for a single scene.CorruptUser 05:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The Batman 2022[edit]

What did everyone think of the movie?, I liked the visuals and how Gotham was shown to be a dreary place to live, but I found the story was poorly written. — Unsigned, by: 110.151.36.125 / talk / contribs

I like the theme for the film. It also happens to be, in my book, one of the better depictions of batman. Best Batman though? it's hard to pick. Servasym (Talk / Contribs) 17:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
For me, I would argue that the film is bit of mixed bag. As mentioned it does have good visuals and some good action sequences. It also tried to bring the character back to its more detective/neo-noir roots but IMO wasn’t always greatly excecuted.SensaurC-137 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Sound like a good concept for a movie about Batman. Of course I loved Robert Pattinson in The Lighthouse.Jakester499 (talk) (contributions) 10:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I liked it, but there's a common problem with movies that are supposed to be seen in the theater. The audio wants to be big and loud when it wants to be, and it wants to be whisper quiet when it needs to be. I do not think The Batman had this problem with audios, but it did do it with brightness in a few spots. I saw it in the theater and I may have had a small seizure during the car chase, I literally fell asleep for about 30 seconds after squinting then being flashed, squinting then being flashed. A friend of mine cracked up to see me pass out band shook me when I wasn't back. The big promise of the villains working together at the end, very ambitious, not surprised we're getting a Joker 2 instead. 2600:8804:200:22F0:545C:6511:E07:FE34 (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
"Best Batman though?" Mask of the Phantasm. Best Joker too. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I personally enjoyed the movie. It was solid overall and was a kind of story I enjoyed. However, I felt as if the movie fell short in a few ways. First off, runtime... The movie is quite long for not a lot of action. Two, large "dead periods" that are quite boring. Three, I felt as if it tried a little too hard to be a "Dark tale". The Riddler was ok, but at times I felt as if some of his segments and speeches felt like he was just trying to be edgy with no true reason. Overall, I think the movie tried too hard to be a dark story. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 15:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Pretty solid. Love the aesthetic of the film. However, scenes feel like they happen conveniently, and Batman's bulletproof armor really reduces the stakes and anxiety for the characters. My first full viewing made me think a 7/10, but if I watch it more, I don't know if it's going to be a 6, or an 8. Patty Pat 02:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Ken topic[edit]

That's the idea. If it was a Republican in the White House they'd do it on the nod. They did with Trump. They rely on enough of the American public to be too dumb, blinkered or within the right-wing echo-chamber to not realise this fact. Which is a fact [let's get that bit out of the way straight off]. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gop-debt-ceiling-trump-presidency/ KarmaPolice (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Historically (all the way to the Newt Gingrich days), debt ceiling standoffs have tended to slightly dent the Republicans in polls, as anyone in the lay public aware of what the debt ceiling is will tend to (correctly) blame Republicans. It happened in 2011, 2013, and 1995. So not all the public is fooled. It's just that, so far, the impact of Republican tomfoolery is not long-lasting enough or serious enough politically to prevent them from trying the same ol' shit yet again. (Gingrich's behavior overall probably did help Clinton's re-election in 1996, but that was a combination of many things; I don't believe the debt ceiling stuff was a major story for 2012 and 2014, from what I recall.) Now, if the tomfoolery actually gets to the point where it seriously tanks the economy, that might be another story... BobJohnson (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a classic 'red meat' issue for the Republican base, similar to abortion [ie pleases them but pisses off many others]. And this current crop of cretins might be too stupid to realise the general damage their antics would do to the general economy, or even worse believe 'Biden will get blamed for it all' and allow them to win the next Pres election. This latter I think is the path the Orange One is travelling on. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Former RW Troll in Jail (Grawp)[edit]

So, I was talking with @Blakegripling ph on Discord and he showed me these links. He asked me if this is missional and on the Discord, Tech told me to mention it over here since there have been users on the site who have some "experience" with this jerk. Personally, I think it is. Not the first banned member we have a page on (Mikey, Tisane, Ken). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like Grawp didn't have much to say here, pretty much just a vandal (Special:Contributions/Grawp). RW was a lot more tolerant of such behavior in 2014 and earlier. Probably not sufficiently missional. Bongolian (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Unless the guy in jail gives an interview in which he says he vandalized RationalWiki as well as Wikipedia, we can't even be sure it's the same Grawp. It's quite possible that someone just copied the name of a notorious WP troll to vandalize RW. And even if it is the same Grawp, all he ever did here was indeed the same mindless generic vandalism that any 13 year-old kid might do. So I have to agree with Bongolian, his tenuous connection with RationalWiki alone isn't enough to warrant an article about him. Spud (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I remember him doing a bit of vandal stuff (assuming it was actually "him") so it's mildly interesting - but ultimately my feeling is: "So what?".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Belated introduction[edit]

When I came here, I didn't properly introduce myself, AFAIR. Hence I'm doing it now.

When I was in elementary school reading my first good science book, I stopped believing in what the bible says and never looked back.

And if I look at the sorry state of the world today, I'm definitely not getting the feeling that there's some wise old god or a caring loving goddess looking down on us. - Some senile idiot or a moody bitch who is punishing decent people and rewarding idiots and crooks, that would make more sense.

Don't buy me a drink, I'm not into drugs, including legal ones. --Max Sinister (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Would a cup of (herbal) tea suffice? Anna Livia (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Ich ube immer Deutsch, wann Ich kann. Wilkommen! Aber, schade, mein Deutsch ist weit weg von perfekt. CorruptUser 06:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

In memorandum of Tucker Carlson[edit]

 Hard hitting journalism has been dealt a blow this week. 2600:8804:200:22F0:34B6:BDEE:ACD5:3B7C (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

~now while water freezing at 0 degrees and boiling at 100 degrees disproves atheism outright, I do actually think the 180 equal degrees between 32 and 212 of farenheit are better descriptions of weather and cooking temps 2600:8804:200:22F0:8993:41F:DA9F:538C (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This clip feels like actual satire. Sadly, I don't think it is. Chillpilled (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Fox News handily transcribed Carlson's shows, and you indeed can read the end of the transcript here of that batshit insanity. (Link to archive.org to avoid icky feeling of clicking on Fox News.)
(But, some conservative Americans have accepted metric measurements! At least when it comes to the 9mm bullet. Ba-doom-tsh!) BobJohnson (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Video playback on other sites blocked by YT :( Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I used to enjoy Tucker's endless babbles about how democracy was being threatened every day. It was kinda fun. However, as I mature I realize that he isn't great. His non-stop stream of "We are being threatened" is misleading at best. Overall I thought of him as entertainment. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 13:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

the broken embed shows equal amounts of hard hitting journalism as watching any given episode of tarlson the tuckface. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 15:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The Tuckster as Trump’s veep pick for 2024, anyone? ScepticWombat (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, but then the former apparently detests the latter outside his media persona, according to formerly secret messages brought up before the Dominion trial was settled. Would he be able to stomach working that closely with Trump, and would Trump find him enough of a sycophant? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Considering The Tuckster’s (and the rest of the Fox critters’) ability to suck up to Trump in public while bitching when the cameras are off, I don’t see this particular bit as a major obstacle. The question is probably more whether The Tuckster wants to enter politics at all and whether he sees personal benefits to joining Trump.
If Trump should win in 2024, a Veep Carlson would pretty much have the 2028 nomination in the bag, while a Trump loss might be turned into a “Trumpism without Trump” primary campaign for Carlson in 2028, should he wish to run. The major risk for Carlson would be if he got “sucked down” along with Trump in an unsuccessful 2024 campaign and/or a significant GOP turn away from Trumpism (the latter is probably less likely, but a lot can happen in four years). ScepticWombat (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
But 'A week is a long time in politics' - and 18 months/4 1/2 years are even longer. Likewise 'There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen' and 'Don't count your chickens before they are hatched.' Anna Livia (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Broken embed complaint is silly. You can watch it on youtube, the link is right there. I'm not supposed to be embedding YouTube links anyway, but this was too classic, just Tucks summed up. I hope you can figure out how to watch it. 2600:8804:200:22F0:D1AB:B0DD:5A2A:5BB2 (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Now that Fox News is moving more to the political left/middle, Carlson along with other people, could develop a competing network that caters to the populist right. Surtsicnan (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Lolwut? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
OANN already exists. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Need some ideas for a logic poster[edit]

Hey everyone I wanted to design a poster to hang in my hobby room that lists famous logical fallacies and gives examples. The idea is, that every example uses the logical fallacy to make a reference to the fallacy itself (not sure if that makes sense). A few examples would be:

-ad hominem: Why should I trust your definition of an "ad hominem" when you are clearly too stupid to know?
-Appeal to authority: ATA makes logical sense because Einstein used it all the time. Are you more intelligent than Einstein?
-Shill Gambit: You ony claim the "shill gambit" is illogical because you are paid by the logic industry!

If you have better and other examples, please share them :)

Thanks NastyNugget (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

There are some pre-made ones available for free. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Jordan Neely[edit]

So... this is growing bigger.

Jordan Neely was a homeless guy on the subway who, at the time of his death, was threatening people on the train. His last words were apparently "I don't have food, I don't have a drink, I'm fed up. I don't mind going to jail and getting life in prison. I'm ready to die."

And he did.

Three people grabbed Neely, one of whom was a marine who choked him unconscious. It's unclear how long the marine choked him, or if he let go afterwards, but in total the 3 held him down for 15 minutes.

The marine was questioned by police, then released. The case is now being handled by Alvin Bragg, who has a bit of a bad reputation amongst New Yorkers. In the meantime, Eric Adams has sided with the marine, apparently, which I actually don't fully understand, unless there's something going on behind the scene which I don't know.

The case has divided New Yorkers for many reasons. One reason is, of course, it's a White man killing a Black man, and not being arrested. Another issue is that, well, the homeless are second only to bicyclists in terms of how badly the average New Yorker wants them dead. Compounding this, there's concern from other residents about how the subway is becoming more and more dangerous each year. Yet another issue is that the public is questioning why there wasn't psychiatric or other care for Neely.

More details are coming out, but until then, well, I don't think I'm capable of determining what to feel about the whole thing. It reminds me a bit of Bernie Goetz, so maybe at some point someone can update the "we didn't start the fire" song. CorruptUser 03:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

My feeling is that this a tragedy for everyone involvedJakester499 (talk) (contributions) 11:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
So apparently, the whole "MJ Impersonator" aspect is now political.
Neely used to dance on the subway, as seen in this old video. Apparently, there's an old Reddit post from a decade ago saying that the local MJ Impersonator had become a "maniac" and had stopped dancing, instead screaming profanities and scaring the rest of the people.
There's now a video that's allegedly of an unprovoked Neely slamming a woman into a train. However, it's hard to tell if that's Neely or some other crazy person in the subway system.
The marine's name was leaked, not sure if I should repeat it here without it being official. CorruptUser 17:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Ohhhh... now it's starting to make sense. I'm not naming the names until it's official, but the marine's dad is a retired high ranking NYPD officer. That's probably why Eric Adams, also NYPD, is defending his actions. It's the blue code. CorruptUser 18:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
"was threatening people" I thought it was reported that Jordan Neely wasn't doing that. I find it odd too that the focus is on psychiatric care for Neely and not for the people who literally just murdered a man in public. This is so deeply bizarre that straight up murdering a black man in need is now viewed as something we should be conflicted about as if it can be justified. What the fuck is happening socially and politically where the topic of "nazi punching" and not murdering homeless people is something we have to debate about? This is basically a modern day lynching. The amount of social progress we have made as society in regards to these social issues has evidently been shown to be grossly overstated. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Reported by whom? I'm reading different outlets, which are focusing on different things, but it's pretty clear he was saying things which indicated he would injure if not kill someone soon. I'm also bemused by the description of him as a "Michael Jackson Impersonator", when he stopped doing that a decade ago; I wouldn't describe my doctor as a "stripper" if she did that one year during med-school. It seems like the media is doing their best to humanize him, which is probably a good thing, but what does it really say when the best thing you could find about someone is that they spent a couple weeks a decade ago showing off their dance talents? CorruptUser 18:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
(edited) According to Vazquez who was witness to the event Neely started to scream on the F train about how he was hungry, tired, and ready to die. That he didn't care anymore if we went to jail. He then took his jacket off. He didn't state anything to anyone in particular, didn't say he was going to do something violent to any particular person on the train. He didn't approach anyone and didn't give any indication of trying to hurt anyone. He was a extremely desperate man having an understandable mental breakdown in public. There is zero justification to violently engage with him on that basis. Especially considering the killer approached him from behind. He was not an immediate threat to anyone. There is a certain degree of just unempathetic callousness that is required to see this as anything other than a horrible societal injustice.
Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/05/03/ny-subway-chokehold-passenger-dies/. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/05/nyregion/jordan-neely-chokehold-death-subway.html. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)
Both are paywalled. Also, other sources have named the marine as Daniel Penny, so that cat is officially out of the bag.
What's interesting is there seems to be another video of the marine getting involved in a fight and putting someone in a chokehold.
Also, more details on the arrest warrant. Apparently in 2021, Neely punched a 67 year old woman in the face unprovoked, breaking her nose and orbital bone; technically that's felony assault and the sentencing in NY is between 3 and 25 years depending on the circumstances; given his prior convictions and record, it's unlikely he'd get the minimum. But, he took a plea deal and received some sort of alternative to incarceration, which required reporting to court every so often. He missed a court date, ergo the warrant. I don't know the exact case, but from what I understand, a violation of a deal like that means the entire deal is scuppered and you get the full sentence. So Neely would've been fucked even if he lived. CorruptUser 21:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't assume there was a murder. Murder requires intention. But I would say it sounds like manslaughter. It was an unnecessary killing. I don't think anything else is relevant.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
You’d have to be pretty ignorant of basic human physiology to put someone in a chokehold for 3+ minutes and not expect a really high chance of death. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Cory you’re engaging in the sort of racist behaviour that people dub the “he was no angel” fallacy whenever a black person is unjustly killed. None of that background information was relevant to the event or known to the people on the train that day. Regardless of one’s criminal background which is unknown prior does that justify killing a man who wasn’t obviously a danger to anyone. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with Cory, but I hesitate to call out racism when "that's a pointless argument," is sufficient. Cory, it is beside the point that the victim had an unfortunate life with bad prospects for his future. What you hear from Cory is the kind of factitious grasping at straws typical of courtroom argument. It is by design unsympathetic to one side. Why bother Cory? Ariel31459 (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Because this case is becoming about far more than just a mentally ill homeless person being tackled and killed by 3 guys, and to every person it could be about something else and it's not necessarily wrong to feel one way or another. CorruptUser 00:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
"it's not necessarily wrong to feel one way or another." It certainly can be epistemically wrong to feel things that are unwarranted given particular information about a particular situation, and those feelings can lead to bad results when used as the basis of policy decisions. As for this case, if we are to suppose that the legal system will work according to its actual rules, it will come down to whether it's plausible that circumstances were such that a reasonable person would perceive a threat from Neely that warranted the use of such physical restraint. With multiple witnesses there, it may not be significant, but his prior criminal record (especially the events leading to the outstanding warrant) does suggest that Neely was sometimes an immediate threat to public safety. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I conjecture that you are utilizing a loquacious lexicon for the primary purpose of manifesting a facade of enhanced intellectual authority.CorruptUser 01:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
That's just how I roll. But apparently a casual comment has a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 20, so I suppose you may have a point. That's mostly from complex sentence structure rather than highfautin vocabulary though. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Asperger's? As the purpose of language is to transfer information, the best use of language is one which provides the most information with the least ambiguity in the shortest amount of time. To quote the Bard, "Brevity is the soul of wit". CorruptUser 04:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
"Asperger's?" No. Complex syntax just comes naturally to me, and I generally don't bother to simplify it here. Rationalwiki isn't age-restricted, but I usually assume an adult audience.
"the best use of language is one which provides the most information with the least ambiguity in the shortest amount of time." That was the point. How would you change anything there to be less ambiguous or more concise without sacrificing the other or the information content? Keep in mind that this is shaping up to be a politically-fraught legal situation, so precision of language is important. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Fair enough; sometimes precision is more important than readability. Welcome to RatWiki.
Back to Neely. Well, there was a protest in the subway, where dozens of people jumped on the track to block the train. This violated the cardinal rule for the average New Yorker; "Don't fuck with my commute". A dozen or so have been arrested, and the police are looking for more. I don't know what the average New Yorker thinks of the whole thing. CorruptUser 21:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
...and Penny is charged. CorruptUser 00:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
GiveSendGo (GSG), the Rightwing version of GoFundMe (GFM), has a donation set up for Penny. So far, there's $2.25m donated. Largest donation was $20k from a Tim Pool, and a few people gave $10k each. Note that apparently only 13 fundraisers on GFM have raised more, and this appears to be the highest amount on GSG ever. CorruptUser 20:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
America, we can't do shit about spending on mental health around here, but we sure can rack up that spending if it tickles some culture war bullshit. Sigh.
(Incidentally, I've certainly encountered crazy homeless people before, and I've never even fathomed choking one. It's more sad than fearsome in most cases. What was Penny thinking? I guess we'll find out soon enough...) BobJohnson (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
It's 'Murrica; the unofficial motto is "Half-Ass, Pay Twice!". We could solve our homeless problem overnight by just, y'know, sticking them in abandoned buildings or something. Seriously, the average homeless person costs $100k/yr in services, from hospitals to police and prisons, it's cheaper to simply stick them in an apartment. But the state that decides to pay for the homeless, pays for EVERY homeless person as the other states just pay for a bus ticket. Speaking of prisons, that's also $50-70k/yr per inmate, seriously, increasing welfare by $1 would probably both decrease the amount spent on prison and increase the amount generated in taxes by more than that $1, but again, it's cheaper just to chase the poor out of state. CorruptUser 20:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? Just why?[edit]

Edward the eight (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

why do islamists love alt-right figures ±÷ Edward the eight (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Those comments really are a good reminder that at the end of the day, you might tolerate Islam, but it doesn't tolerate you.-Ryan1257 (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I mean considering his views on women is really that much of a shock that Islam would appeal to him? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Also reminder to Ryan that abstract constructs of belief systems don't do things like "tolerate" or "love" or feel in any way. People do that. In this case it depends on one's particular interpterion of the religion. No religious text is without it's fair share of bigotry or problematic tenets, but religious belief is a deeply subjective endeavor. People and even entire religious movements have the propositions of their belief system determined by simply cherry picking the parts they like. In this case though I think for Sneako the misogynystic elements of certain sects of Islam is exactly the appeal. The man himself has no interest in tolerance. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Just from Googling around I do get the impression that this is an Andrew Tate inspired thing and is entirely due to masochism and not much more. Islam has some nasty fundamentalist sects (as we all know) but in these cases I half wonder if they even know one single line of text from the Koran. BobJohnson (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"National Conservatism"[edit]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/30/national-conservatism-far-right-divisive-tories

In short, seems another iteration of the authortarian/reactionary, faux-populist and astroturfed 'movement' from those who brought you MAGA and Brexit. First time I've heard of the phrase, however. Is this actually new, or have I simply missed this before? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I know there's a political descriptorWikipedia (which is basically the xenophobic, socially backward looking side of conservatives) but this sounds different. Seems like there's a "Edmund Burke FoundationWikipedia" (as mentioned in the article) aligned with the dying-in-influence US conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. It seems like since 2019 (of which I had not noticed either), they've held a yearly "National Conservatism Conference" in which they try to put an "intellectual polish" on Trumpism. Or as the progressive Jewish Currents described it, "flirting with fascism". Basically it's a conference comfortable with corporatist-authoritarians like Peter Thiel, carnival barkers like Tucker Carlson, and if-only-for-the-EU-I-would-be-fascist Viktor Orbán. Apparently this year they are holding it in the UK.
Thing is, it seems like there's so many of these jaw-jaw conferences these days, it's tough to notice yet another event and organization where various suits (and only the occasional dress) stand up and talk about the same reactionary shit we already know they are about. BobJohnson (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I noticed because several of the larger swamp-monsters which inhabit the ToryKip Govt are speaking there. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep, now the greens oppose Green Energy[edit]

https://theintercept.com/2022/12/03/climate-biodiversity-green-energy/ I didn't know Planet of the Humans was such a success among non-astroturfed enviros Deadend (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

1/ Are you saying that some or all main points raised in the article are incorrect?
2/ The article is clearly not saying your clickbaity title. If it has one punchline, it is 'Green Energy is neither Green or a ecological panacea'.
KarmaPolice (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm honestly not terribly convinced by this article's broad based fear-mongering on solar and wind.
At least some solar and wind projects that I know of are simply using land that already has been converted by human activity. (Many turbines are leased on farmland in places like Iowa, for instance.) This was not a distinction in the article.
Wind has minimal acreage impact compared to solar, yet the two are lumped together.
I can see their flora concerns for projects that clear new previously wild land, but given the way solar panels are constructed, I'm not convinced that a solar farm will cut off wildlife corridors for small fauna. Solar panels aren't like a highway.
Everything is a balance. It is true that green energy is not a panacea, but nothing is. The Intercept clearly uses electricity to write the article and host it, so it would be nice if they had actual solutions they thought of to generate this electricity with less environmental impact, instead of making an over-broad argument that IMHO is easy to poke holes in. BobJohnson (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that said article could have been written a lot better [I think the 'ecological threat' of solar is much more in the mining, their production and final scrapping than their physical placement, for example] and yes, it is overly-simplified even as a fairly low reading effort article. But it does take a well-deserved swipe at the panacea-pushing which is often seen in elements of the ecological movement; for example I'm generally unable to find the 'carbon production costs' of the supposed new, green tech [so who actually bloody knows if it is greener when the whole life-cycle comes into play?]. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Someone's confusing things there. “The lie is that if we address the climate crisis, we will also solve the biodiversity crisis.” Well, if we don't solve the former, I don't see how we will solve the latter. Small but important difference.--Max Sinister (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Yet the line is true - dealing with climate change is much more a preventative measure to stop things getting worse, not to even start reversing the other ecological threats humanity faces. It's clearly something which must be done to save our species for the long term, but dealing with it alone won't sort out other issues such as microplastics food-chain poisoning, the floating 'garbage patches', mass deforestation and biodiversity loss. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The very title puts my teeth on edge. "Addressing Climate Change Will Not “Save the Planet”". The physical "Planet" is in not in any real danger. I accept that subtitle clarifies the claim somewhat, but it's obvious from the get-go that someone is playing a bit fast and loose with language.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Nerd question. As the earth warms, the atmosphere will expand slightly. Will this have any impact on the total mass of the atmosphere, e.g., nitrogen dissolved in the sea will migrate to the atmo? Because if earth's atmo is thicker, asteroids become less of a threat, and therefore global warming is "saving" the planet... CorruptUser 06:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The biggest effect of global heating on the gasses in the atmosphere would be more water vapor - because more of it will evaporate from the ocean. As water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas this will be another feedback loop into anthropogenic global warming. I rather suspect that this very real threat will be more important than any any imagined "atmospheric cushioning" effect protecting us from hypothetical Earth-destroying asteroids.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The water vapor feedback loop is pretty much the known cause of global warming. Basically, the atmo can only hold so much water, but the carbon makes it slightly warmer, so the atmo can hold more water and warm more. If the air was 100% carbon, the earth would actually freeze over. There's a question of what happens when the methane in the ocean escapes into the atmo, which would be Bad but probably fix itself once most humans die off and forests overtake the abandoned farmland and cities.CorruptUser 22:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
If the air were "100% carbon" we would have a lot more problems than being cold. So I guess you mean "carbon dioxide". But even then the claim "If the air was 100% carbon dioxide, the earth would actually freeze over" is going to be "citation needed". Venus has an atmosphere which is over 95% carbon dioxide and it's a lot hotter than the earth. (Though it's admittedly closer to the sun). So do you have a source for that claim?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
From NASA. Basically, CO2 creates a positive feedback loop with water vapor; water vapor is a greenhouse gas, which warms the atmo leading to more capacity for water vapor, but it tapers off. If CO2 increases, this causes a slight warming effect, which results in a positive feedback loop which causes the atmosphere to hold much more water vapor. A 100% CO2 atmo would necessarily have 0% water vapor, something that obviously wouldn't happen, but pretend it does. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is not linear, but logarithmic; the Earth has a CO2 PPM of around 420, which would mean about 11 doublings to get to 100% CO2. Every doubling is around 2C more temperature, for 22C more than it is currently. Currently, the total warming effect of the Earth's atmo is about 33C, but IIRC something like 4/5ths of this is just from the water vapor. So we get 22C more from CO2, and we end up losing 27C, so a net of -5C, or -4C compared to pre-industrial times. Basically, an ice age.
Again, hypothetical, since the atmo can't have 0 water short of a nearby star going super-nova. CorruptUser 05:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
You wrote ""If the air was 100% carbon dioxide, the earth would actually freeze over" and I'd still like to see you justify that. Pointing out the well-known interplay between CO2 and H2O does not mean that CO2 alone is not a greenhouse gas by itself. You are still in "citation needed" territory - the link you provided does not back up your claim.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
As I said, most of the total greenhouse effect on earth is from water vapor; the increase in temperature results in more water vapor, which is a positive feedback. Every doubling of CO2 appears to result in 2C higher temps, including from feedbacks resulting in more water vapor. But, CO2 increases temperature logarithmically, not linearly. An atmosphere close to 100% CO2 would thus be 22C warmer than today, BUT, getting to 100% means squeezing out ALL the water (and methane, ozone, etc). No water in the air, and the Earth freezes over. If it gets cold enough, the CO2 in the air becomes dry ice at the poles, and eventually, no atmosphere left.
Mars has the equivalent CO2 levels of around 6,667 PPM or about 4 doublings of Earth's (1/150th the atmospheric pressure, but nearly 100% CO2). In spite of only having 43% of the sunlight, Mars once had liquid water and an average temperature of 10C, close to our average temp of 15C. But without a magnetosphere, the lighter hydrogen was sun-blasted away into space, eventually removing most of the water and leaving the planet the cold, dry husk it is today. With a magnetosphere, it likely would've been effectively habitable as is, with the right equipment and so forth to get the correct pressure and gas-ratios indoors.
Again, it's mostly just a hypothetical, because such a scenario is literally impossible beyond some sort of doomsday effect where the core freezes solid and solar wind slowly scrapes all the hydrogen into space, desiccating our world over the course of millions of years, unless we have a deep drilling device armed with nuclear bombs to restart it, along with a Black dude willing to sacrifice himself for the mission.CorruptUser 21:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
You are still wrong. A planet with 100% CO2 would not be frozen. To your Mars I point to Venus. It actually has an atmosphere of a little over 96% CO2 and it's nowhere near "frozen". It has a surface temperature of 467 C (872 F) and it's the hottest planet in the solar system. Yes, its closer to the sun than the earth is - but it's even hotter than Mercury, the closest planet, which has a cool 167C (867F).
If it's not the CO2 atmosphere (which actually is close to 100% CO2) keeping Venus warm - then what is it?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Venus also has an atmosphere that's 93x as thick, giving it the equivalent of having 90,000,000 "parts per million" on Earth, in addition to 191% of the sunlight.CorruptUser 14:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes. It's atmosphere is also close to pure carbon dioxide and it has a temperature sufficiently hot to melt lead. You wrote ""If the air was 100% carbon dioxide, the earth would actually freeze over" The example of Venus shows that this statement is wrong.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There's about 20,000 times as much CO2 in Venus's atmo as there is on Earth. You can't go by percentages alone; the Moon's atmosphere contains methane and CO2 as well and possibly in higher percentages than on Earth, but considering the entire atmo could fit inside of a single freight car, it wouldn't even matter if the atmosphere was pure methane. Plus, Venus has sulfuric acid clouds, something which can't exist on Earth. CorruptUser 16:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

OK. Let's see where we differ. So we both accept that the addition of just a little more carbon dioxide, would - through its action as a greenhouse gas - heat the atmosphere and release even more of the greenhouse gas water vapor on the earth.
And we both accept that the massive amounts of the same greenhouse gas (CO2) has produced an atmosphere hotter than Mercury on Saturn.
Where we differ is your contention that an atmosphere composed entirely (or almost entirely) of CO2 (under presumably current atmospheric terrestrial pressures) on the earth would result in a frozen planet. Is that correct?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Or at least, a much colder planet.
Can we agree that CO2's effect on the temperature is logarithmic and not linear? CorruptUser 20:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

About that Umberto Eco quote...[edit]

Not that this is a super big issue, but, I do just wanna point out that the quote at the top of the European Union article:

[W]e must remember that it is culture, not war, that cements our [European] identity. The French, the Italians, the Germans, the Spanish and the English have spent centuries killing each other. Today, we've been at peace for 70 years and no one realises how amazing that is any more. Indeed, the very idea of a war between Spain and France, or Italy and Germany, provokes hilarity.
—Umberto Eco

is rather whiplash-inducing now... (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The World Economic Forum.[edit]

After seeing the recent backlash from idiots on twitter about the new CEO of twitter being a member of the World Economic Forum/being a woman I have an idea, because we have an article on the Trilateral Commission, why don't we have an article on the much more well known among cranks, the WEF?2601:281:D880:DED0:447D:56E1:7B2D:E931 (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Klaus SchwabWikipedia (WEF founder) has been a running request in the todo list for quite some time.
I think that an article on the WEF / Davos would be great. (It's always a matter of finding the time to create it, of course, so you or anyone else are welcome to start a draft if you have the chance.)
From a "missional" point of view the strongest element to cover would be the "Great ResetWikipedia" conspiracy theory since it is probably the most mainstream element of WEF crankery these days (meme repeaters include Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, and Laura Ingraham; from other articles it also appears to big theme of Michael Flynn's ReAwaken America tour as well); extensions of this meme (the "replace meat with bugs" panic and the "you will own nothing and be happy" over-reaction and others) could be covered too. But "Davos" has long been a name to drop for conspiracy kooks with an anti-globalization bent. (Davos has long been a general target of anti-globalization protest, but non-kooky criticism shouldn't be the focus of the article IMHO.) BobJohnson (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I checked and there was already a draft of the World economic forum, but it has only been edited by one guy and hadn't been edited since August 2022.2601:281:D880:DED0:447D:56E1:7B2D:E931 (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, it's been one draft that I had marked for potentially salvaging myself. But personally haven't felt invested in it. Anyone else is welcome to develop the draft. A lot of the WEF conspiracy theories revolve around their recognition of climate change as a problem that needs to be addressed. As far as I can tell WEF is just some group of rich people, and their managers/associates, that has a somewhat centrist skew (thus the targeting for conspiracy theories; anything other than conservatism must be literal Communism) although there are some right-wing billionaires who have popped up at their events (even Trump I think). Chillpilled (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
One of the hilarious conspiracy theories about the WEF is something about Klaus Schwab being Jewish, when in fact his parents were Nazis. Moon Sock (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Schwab is a weird European name, so must be Jewish. Or so the unstated 'logic' goes, for American antisemites. Funnily enough a lot of German surnames stereotyped as Jewish in US antisemitic circles are just regular German surnames (developed from German terms for geography, occupations, attributes etc; examples being "-berg", "-stein", "-schwarz", "-schmidt") that some Jews happen to also have, not even names highly specific to German-Jews.
In this same vein, some people have insinuated that the Koch brothers are Jewish although they aren't; their surname means "cook" in German, an occupation. The surname Schwab is geographic in origin for people from Swabia, an area in Germany. Chillpilled (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ted Nugent is gonna be performing in my city.[edit]

Marietta, Ohio has a summer music festival called the Adelphia Summer Festival, and this year, one of the performers is Ted Nugent. Presumably because he's been banned everywhere else. No, I'm not very happy about it. Daemonspudguy (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You could throw an egg at him. 2601:281:D880:DED0:50CC:3E44:2950:ADD5 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it's supposedly his "final tour", and (in a sign of his relatively modest music stature) he's mostly doing casinos, county fairs, a dragstripWikipedia festival (Ooh! Tell that one to Ron DeSantis without context!), and other modest size venues. Bizarrely considering the demographics, he was booked at a craft brewery in Birmingham AL, too, but (with the help of community outcry over his well-known homophobia and transphobia) he was given the boot. BobJohnson (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
"No, I'm not very happy about it." Why do you care? You don't have to care about people enjoying things that you don't. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
There are many things in this world which I'm 'not very happy about' but that alone is not enough to have something withdrawn. And as I guess a) nobody shall be forced to see Nugent, b) everyone is free to leave as/when they wish, c) it shall not hurt anyone objectively and d) does not threaten public order [like the performance of a artist aligned with say, neo-Nazis would] I don't think it meets the bar of not being 'allowed'. There are times where the 'free market' works kinda well, and this is one of them; if you don't like / strongly disagree with Nugent, don't see him. If enough people agree with you, he shall not be booked. If he is not booked, he doesn't earn. And if he doesn't earn, he shall fade away, ultimately vanishing from the world. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The only "free market" quibble here is that the live music scene in Marietta, Ohio is... underwhelming, at least at glance-by-Google-search. One prominent music venue, and hope you like either washed up rockers (like the Nuge!), cover bands of washed up rock songs, or various flavors of country (ranging from the alt-country of Paul Thorn to the "newgrass" of John Cowan to the 13 year old naughty-boy "joke" country of a "Wheeler Walker Jr"). The one blues guitarist they've booked for the summer sticks out like a sore thumb in the lineup. Now, nothing wrong with the country and rock genres per se (and it's just the way it is for small towns, the economics for live music favor mass), but as someone who genre-hops frequently, I'd probably get bored, and were I in my "concert going days" would probably be taking frequent 2 hour trips to Columbus. BobJohnson (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The market still works here too. The artist/booker/agent/promoter [delete where not applicable] need to turn a profit on the enterprise, and if Nugent can't fill the venues he simply won't perform there [eventually]. And while Marietta may be a one-venue town, Nugent still has 'competition' in the guise of the local movie theatre, going to a [cheapish] dinner somewhere, going dancing [apparently] or a bar. Or even, stay at home, watch a band on the TV and get hammered. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Communism, Anarchism and HOAs[edit]

As I'm sure y'all know, a "Home-Owner's Association" is another word for a group of Karen's. Your typical HOA is made up of people who want to dictate every little detail for the greater good of their neighborhood, but almost always degenerates into bickering over little details, corruption and bribery involving the contractors, nepotism, disputes over HOA fees, and every petty squabble imaginable. Okay, that was just my own HOA, but, ugh; worst bunch of bastards to ever bastard. But interestingly, everything I saw was pretty much exactly the same as every other planned or like-minded community of social misfits, whether they were preppers, extreme libertarians, commies, anarchists, socialists, you name it.

Would it be wrong of me to describe communist and anarchist societies as, well, "imagine if an HOA was the entire government"? CorruptUser 20:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit different, I feel. (Monty Python captured the absurdity of the ideological purist cliques like the anarchists etc. best with their "People's Front of Judea" joke). The "Karen" pejorative is apt. Some people basically go through life chronically complaining about everything, nitpicking over minor deviations, and love to feel entitled and get their way. They often are pretty stupid and/or have a very narrow view, too. HOAs attract this sort of asshole, unfortunately. Imagine if Marjorie Taylor Greene was the entire government, that's too often a HOA. (I've heard of HOAs that work well too, but it only takes a few Karen style asses to spoil things. So no thanks.) BobJohnson (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
But that's rule as Anarchists imagine it though; the community itself volunteers to set the rules, which in practice means the busybodies that already end up on the board of HOA's, and it only takes a few people to spoil it for everyone else. If an HOA made up of people of almost by definition the same social class and regional background can't form an HOA without disaster, I can't imagine how replacing the whole world with a bunch of HOA's and doing it across class, racial/ethnic/regional differences, income brackets, etc etc, is destined to do anything but end up with HOA death squads. CorruptUser 21:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
'Imagine if [individual shit thing] was [whole sector]'. *yawn*. We can do this all day, if you'd like. 'Imagine if every employer in America was as bad as Springfield Nuclear', 'imagine if every doctor was like Dr Nick Riviera' or 'imagine if the entire Federal government was led by Mayor Quimbys'. I could produce a damning inditement of the nuclear family with some choice examples of the scum of humanity.
Next, the crappy system of HOAs is basically because the whole setup of them is generally speaking, totally unregulated, opaque and often with little to no method of the 'members' to oust leaderships and sometimes, to even withdraw from the org. This is an issue which can arise in any organisation which has these flaws - it's not the co-op nature by itself which causes these issues [I mean, go to 'Ask A Manager' and read about all the Pointy-Haired Karens in positions of authority in American businesses]. Thus, the question is how to build org structures which stop 'Karens' from getting into positions of power. There's nothing inherently bad to the principle of 'communialism' itself.
Serious folks who desire to say, set up residential communes, workers/producers co-ops, mutual aid societies and so on can [and should] draw on the wealth of expertise and historical examples on how to do it right [and how not to do it]. And oddly enough, it tells a strong message; 'the skillsets and needs of communialist endevours are almost identical to that of 'individualist' private business'. 'Wrong' people, lack of focus, lack of capital, flaky plans, no real organisation and incompetent leadership - this can doom any type of human endevour.
Thinkpiece; https://aeon.co/essays/like-start-ups-most-intentional-communities-fail-why
KarmaPolice (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

With a direct answer Cory. Yes. Very wrong. It ignores the entire individualist tradition, and anarchist critiques of democracy. Also when you are talking of HOA’s you are often talking in regards to an association of bourgeois interests. It has nothing to do with worker self-management and people don’t typically draw the comparison between the function of HOA’s and labour unions. You have to keep in mind the economic structures and incentives that shape behaviour in this context. Otherwise basically every group of people that is run either democratically or without a tyrant could be described as a “HOA”. It’s an incredibly asinine analogy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

When you live in a condominium, there's not really a way around having an HOA. I'm hardly a fan, but in my building we had someone say "fuck it I'm ignoring the rules" and would threaten people in the hallways; said situation led to thousands of dollars in damage since our old board president didn't have the balls to stand up to it, and the police were repeatedly there. Given she was a convicted murderer (she got blasted, stabbed her boyfriend to death, and killed her boyfriend's dog by throwing it against a wall for good measure), people in our association had good reason to be afraid of her. Having an effective HOA that could've gotten her ass thrown out of our building, since she was a renter, would've been better than having the situation drag out for 5 years. It only ended when we finally got a board president willing to do what was necessary to get her evicted. For all the horror stories about "bourgeois" values and whatnot, the other option would be self-policing that would basically turn into vigilantism, which is basically anarchy; an HOA is theoretically supposed to prevent that. So on an individual level, it's supposed to be something of an antidote to anarchy, sort of like having a municipality within a state. Not that it often turns out that way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out why "bourgeoise" is a slur. Oh no, you live/work in a city, how awful. As if city-work is somehow unimportant. Sure, if you were an actual salt of the earth blue collar country-side worker, such as a farmer, trucker, oil rigger, etc, I could understand using the insult for some over-privileged snot-nosed college brat telling you how to live your life, but that's never how it's used or by whom. As someone from Appalachia, I can tell you that the only people using "bourgeoise" as a slur are those snot-nosed college kids who sneer at the very same people the Hammer and Sickle represent, and if a worker revolution ever did take place those snot-nosed kids would either find themselves at the very bottom rung of society. Or worse, a firing squad, absolutely perplexed as to why they aren't the ones aiming the rifles. CorruptUser 19:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
If the HOA covers a majority 'working class' area, then the HOA should [at least in theory] be representative of the folks within it [as they are the 'electorate']. However, that engine starting with G tells me that HOAs can limit membership to property owners, thus meaning that it's possible for renters to be 'disenfranchised'. Naturally, as property ownership is a pricey affair, it doesn't take a genius to work out that said electorate could turn out to be more 'bourgeois' than the actual population. In this case, you could end up with a HOA dominated by absentee landlords who are glued on 'maintaining value' and 'maximising rental returns' with nil regard to actual livability. Others may choose to prohibit rentals period, which again could give said HOA a 'bourgeois slant' as property ownership requires capital [duh]. Lastly, HOAs do seem to be mainly concentrated in the 'better heeled' housing areas of the USA, which again shall give it that slant/assumption/stereotype. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Of course it's not a perfect comparison, but an HOA is still an example of people setting up their own para-government without the State getting involved. If HOAs had a reputation of being fair, friendly, etc, you damn well know that Anarchists would be trotting them out as the perfect example of how to organize a stateless society. They have all the possible advantages that "general society" does not, e.g., home-owners, middle or upper-middle class, local, relatively low inequality, and so on. Yet they are still miserable experiences. CorruptUser 20:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Have you considered the issue might be partly due to the fact the HOAs contain Americans, and nobody can claim that the collective psyche is in a good place right now? Couple the current fear and paranoia with the long-standing traits of being nosy and opinionated, mix with a seasoning of the 'bourgeois' obsession regarding anything which might reduce my property's value and leave to marinade in the pot of entitlement... welcome to the HOA from hell.
But there's an inherent selection bias here, as few folks mention the situations where HOAs were okay or even good but everyone shall bitch about the poor examples. This is perhaps human nature; one of the main driving developments of language was to give our species the ability to share information with each other regarding 'threats'. What's more, the 'possible advantages' you cite may in fact be disadvantages in 'society building' because the group is too homogeneous and thus, lacks experience or knowledge of 'outsiders' and their ways and ends up being too inflexible and narrow in outlook. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I think you have it backwards; if it doesn't work in a homogeneous society, it's even less likely to work in a heterogeneous one. CorruptUser 18:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing I can say to that which isn't repeating my previous. Therefore, expand your answer and show your reasoning, please. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me this a joke[edit]

Was looking at the manosphere glossary to understand what the rainbow assortment of pills mean and I came across the ‘dogpill’ and, Jesus Christ, please tell me people don’t actually believe that and it was some sort of one—off joke someone made, I already find the whole redpill bullshit laughably absurd but this is just some next level delusion.—WMS (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It's "real" although since it's very much a 4Chan thing you never know how serious people are about it, and a lot of it is probably shitposting. Some incels are pretty warped though.
One easy conclusion to make though is that 4Chan edgelords and incels, in their desire to be shocking and edgy, watch way too much (or at least think about way too much) fucked up illegal porn.BobJohnson (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
A lot of them probably don't take it very serious and just repeat it as a meme, but I have certainly seem people who take it serious. It's certainly not a mere one-off though it's an actual widespread meme among incels. It's kind of like when they look at women who fetishize serial killers and generalize this to all women. These women do exist but they generalize the niche as a way to justify misogyny. Chillpilled (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Consider the probability that 'the users of the word dogpill' probably use the other gender word for women - and probably the women in question when approached said that they ranked the manosphere-person lower than dogs (and possibly also vermin), and the phrase was misunderstood. Anna Livia (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Calling a man a dog has been perhaps the worst generic insult in the English language; that is, until it had been repurposed by some Urban populations in modern usage to mean a devoted friend, e.g., "he's my dog." However, claiming the status of being lower than a dog is a strange mode of derision toward women. One seems to be saying, I am less than a dog because women prefer to be with dogs. I imagine few would understand this particular connotation, as distinct from a veterinary medication for ones best friend. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not so sure on that. From my POV, I would take it to mean 'incel thinks so little of women that they see dogs as superior; ie "at least a dog can be obedience trained, has some form of loyalty and normally won't bite the hand which feeds it".' It may be possible that it carries several meanings... or perhaps none. I'm always suspicious of things like this, partly from personal experience [often documented slang is a decade out of date] and then there's the total BS stuff best shown by the 'Grunge slang' trick back in '92.KarmaPolice (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
"Calling a man a dog has been perhaps the worst generic insult in the English language" Unless he's into Pet Play. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
You have not encountered the technicalities of British snobbery - tone can mean much. Anna Livia (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Is their and what is the difference between police state, counterintelligence state, totalitarian state, authoritarian state, authoritarian police state, totalitarian police state, fascism as opposed to nazism, evidence that totalitarianism really existed (not doubting the existence of very repressive authoritarian states),[edit]

Just please explain to me the difference Have an basic idea, but what also authoritarian non-dictatorship vs authoritarian dictatorship, whether or not a totalitarian state by definition needs to have a single party system, can the single party also have have other parties that are part of a party coalition or united front designed to look democratic, a dominant party state vs a de facto one party state, a elective non monarchy from an hereditary monarchy, is their such thing as (I swear I read this on wikipedia a "Republican monarchy" how can a dictatorship claim to be a republic, if authoritarian states update their image to give the illusion of democracy, head of government vs head of state as in how can the head of state and head of government not be chief justice and legislator. No way I am denying the the numerous crimes and injustices these regimes have caused, just the semanticsJakester499 (talk) (contributions) 07:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

)There are differences, you can find the definitions easily, for example on WP. A state can have all of these characteristics, some or none. A totalitarian state does need to have a (de-facto) single party system bc it represses opposition by definition. A de facto one-party state is a democracy that allows elections, but because of the existing practices de facto (not de jure) they always result in a win for the same party. Represantative monarchies or elective monarchies do (or did) exist, but I've never heard of a "Republican monarchy". If a country's system is de jure a democracy with elections and stuff, but without separation of power and a free press, then a few people can amass power and effectively forbid opposition while still keeping up a democratic façade. Many dictatorships also claim to be democratic *without* according to the principles of a (Western) republic: I say that the people want me to lead this country, so this must be a democracy. In most democratic states we have the principle of the separation of power which prevents the executive (govt) from also being the legislative (parliament) and judicative (courts). In contrast to the head of govt who actually has power, the head of state has often (not always) only represantative function. Last time I checked, Frank-Walter Steinmeier was not Olaf Scholz in disguise. There is no doubt that totalitarian states existed, for example Nazi Germany tried to influence all areas of social life (for example youth organisations or their attempts to "aryanize" science, the arts and the economy). I am curious how you got the idea that they did not.IluzasipalStone them! 10:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Lewis Carroll had Humpty Dumpty say: when I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. These words are factitious descriptions of situation events. When I say Police State, I mean a state wherein the police have more authority than I think is necessary. When I say counterintelligence state, I mean the police are nosy. When I say authoritarian state I mean one that challenges my personal authority more than I like. When I say authoritarian police state, I mean one in which the police are annoying me for whatever reason I see as unjust. When I say totalitarian police state, I mean the police want me to behave differently than I ordinarily might due to government decree. Nazism is fascism. For proof that totalitarianism once existed, see the works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; and it continues to exist (see any description of N. Korea). I hope this is helpful.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure the section header is long enough. Are we going for Faulkner here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't (currently) end with either a full stop or a question mark. So I guess the poster has left themselves room for expansion.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the correct answer to this question is 'go and do your own research'. There are many sound sources online and off which can help you with this. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent problems[edit]

Hello, you probably don’t know me, and I probably don't know you. I have recently been having some kind of “issue” if it can be phrased like that. I’m just going to jump into it. So, I’ve been raised christian for my entire life, I specifically chose the Catholic path (following my mother) and have been that way unquestioning for years. Recently, I began to fall away from my faith . Approximately 2 years ago my family stopped going to mass. Up until that point I was enrolled in schools that held daily mass and taught faith. We stopped going due to scheduling issues and the fact that my parents can’t decide on where to go (my mother is catholic and my father in a non-denominal protestant if I remember right). Recently, I began to read arguments (many being on this site) against the existence of a higher power. Now, I originally did this to see the arguments against my stances and reaffirm my faith and beliefs. However, it has evoked a few questions.

  • One: if God exists, then why have there been so many religions? Each religion believes itself to be right, which seems odd if there is only 1 god?
  • two: if God exists, then why was (and sometimes still is) the catholic church so corrupt? (This was brought about to me when I began to recognize that the church seems to worship itself more than God)?
  • Three: if God exists, then why is there so much evidence (physical and theoretical) disproving the stories of creation?
  • Four: if God exists, then why are there discrepancies in the bible? Like where Adam’s sons somehow found women (because God had not created any other humans) to reproduce with?
  • Five: if God exists, then why don’t we see any visible or notable miracles in our everyday life?
  • Six: if God exists, then why is it that when I pray for help I don’t feel as if I get any?

I don’t know what to do at this point. My family would be crushed if I told them I felt like this. They would be anyways if it got out that I have been finding an odd fascination with suicide. I can’t seem to stop thinking about killing myself when I feel down. I actually wrote two notes a month or so ago when I was feeling especially bad one day. I planned to jump in front of a car in a 55 mph area near-ish to my school. My mom arrived though to make me try playing for my school’s golf team. It took my mind off of it. This is another thing I don’t really know what to do about. I don’t want to tell anyone because it will probably get around to my family and others, and I don't think I’ll really kill myself. Yet, I can’t seem to shake the thought.

Pardon my rant here, any thoughts or ideas on what I should do here? Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 15:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You are certainly not the first person to arrive at this or a similar point. First, it is important to note that if your intrusive thoughts are really getting bad, it could be useful to talk to a professional and not just random persons on the internet like me. It is also a good idea to try to find out and express stuff that bothers you (which is apparently what you are doing here). Consider also checking the usual stuff: are you eating and sleeping enough? While this might not be enough to get rid of these thoughts, I can personally say that it helped me in similar situation. Physical activity might also be useful to keep your brain from wandering.
Your questions feel familiar to me. I know at least three of them from my own experience. There are multiple possible solutions to them.
a) God works in mysterious ways (TM) and/or You Are Wrong Because Magic
For me, this does not make any sense, because I dont think it is useful to try to pray to a being that defies the most basic laws of logic.
b) God ( or multiple gods?) exists, but the bible, your church and your tradition might be partially or completely wrong
This answer is interesting, because there are many possible results of it. You might want to consider a deistic perspective (there was a creator at the Big Bang, but they are not interferring with the universe anymore), or a historical-critical approach to the bible (e.g. it consists of the experience of humans with God, but in the historical context and with loads of metaphors and stuff). Actually, most christians I personally know choose this approach. There are probably tons of different christian and non-christian material to this on the Internet. Again, you are obviously not the first person to have these questions, even among christians.
c) There is no god.
This is my personal approach. It is very important to note that this does *not* mean that there is no objective moral system. There are many atheists out there, and they somehow manage to survive pretty well, so it is in fact possible to live without a religion. Your intrusive thoughts are apparently no rational conclusion from your distress, but more or less subjective. IluzasipalStone them! 16:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
You really seem to have two different issues and I'm not sure if they are connected. The first is that there is no good objective evidence which demonstrates the existence of any particular god - and by extension no way to show that any particular religion has identified a "god" which they should be worshiping.
And a second (far more serious problem) with suicidal thoughts. You seem to be implying that the second is a consequence of the first. But I'm not sure why that should be.
You would certainly be better advised getting professional help with this second problem rather than talking to strangers on the Internet, and I really think you should do this. Nevertheless, you might you might find it useful to explain why the first issue would lead to the second (if it does).Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The thoughts are not a consequence of my newfound question of faith. Rather, it is now more appeasable to my mind. I’ve always been taught that self-harm and suicide is a mortal sin and is a direct path to hell. However, if there aren’t any consequences beyond the life, it seems more appeasing. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 19:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
OK. I understand. The questioning of your faith is not the direct cause of the problem. The questioning simply allows you to consider other buried ideas which your previous religious belief kept suppressed. Unfortunately I'm afraid that I (and I suspect no one here) is properly qualified to help you with those ideas. I really would encourage you to seek professional secular counselling.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Personal injury, pain, and death are problems regardless of the existence of a higher power. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry but you need professional help. Plutocow (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
If you only do a good thing because of the consequences, can you really be considered "good"? Wouldn't a better person do a good thing even if there were punishments for doing so? CorruptUser 20:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but from a secular perspective there is no objective thing as "good". If someone is a cruel and ruthless sociopath to explit others for his own personal again, and he isn't given justice in this life, then he just dies a happy and successful man. "good" is just following your empathetic emotions, but its no more "objective" or "good" than any other emotion like the urge to eat. It's just scratching a itch. A mutation that spread because it helped tribes take care of each other or something. Well that's what secularists would say, but once you have a deep spiritual meaning you know that's all bullshit and that God is extremely powerful and all-loving. 170.75.174.73 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Apologies to the editor above (IP), but I truthfully do not understand what you are trying to say. I think what I'm trying to say is that if there isn't any kind of judgment beyond death (and probably nothing even), does it truly matter how you get there? If this fate is inevitable, and anything you do simply will not matter, is there any point? According to the articles here the universe is destined to kill all life and possibly destroy itself. Based off of that, in the grand scale of things nothing I do will matter. Dust to Dust, ashes to ashes, nothing to nothing. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 21:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I guess if you think about it, nothing matters anyways. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 21:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
No. Nothing inherently matters. Things matter because we make them matter. CorruptUser 21:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok, following that logic I guess if I don't think anything I do matters, then it doesn't matter. In the end everything is pointless. Death and destruction followed by nothing will be the inevitable end. Nothingness Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 21:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Except that if others think what you do matters, then it matters regardless of what you think about it. CorruptUser 22:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
That something is impermanent does not mean that it is without value. Even supposing that everything ends in nothingness, this does not entail anything about the meaningfulness of your actions. The idea that it makes no difference how one lives one’s life is quite implausible. All that said, you would do best to seek help from a professional, rather than internet strangers. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 04:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
'In the end everything is pointless'. Tag a '...unless it's worshipping THE LORD or serving His goals' on the end and you've basically summed up the ultimate teaching of Christianity [other religions too, but I'm less versed in it to argue that]. This is partly why fundie religions aren't any fun - that 'life' here is simply a kind of dress-rehersal for 'The Real Deal' afterwards, and you don't want to screw up the audition while 'the Great Director' is watching, do you? [Why do you think suicide is a sin, eh? To stop people deciding to take the short-cut to Paradise a la Heaven's Gate].
As Iluzasipal and others have said, you're not the first and won't be the last who's wondered these questions. However, I shall add one more theological 'possible solution';
d) 'God' currently exists, but does not care.
This explains their tangable non-intervention in human affairs, plethora of religions and so on. While c) opens the possibility that 'God' existed in the past but is no longer present [they left or even died] d) questions whether this deity actually thinks we [as in humanity] are worth their attention. Perhaps we're just a kind of huge non-intervention experiment, or an idea which 'sounded good at the time' but didn't pan out right. That our appeals for their assistance/attention are about as effective as a homeless person asking Donald Trump for change. And because humanity is perhaps inherently egotistical, we've weaved a massive self-centred narrative how we're the world's 'Special Little Guys/Girls' while trying to provide premade answers to the 'Big Questions' of existence. Could it be that religions such as Christianity are the biggest examples of a 'parasocial relationship' in our species history?
Naturally, this could be on a sliding scale; that perhaps God cares, but not that much. Enough to say, keep our 'existence bowl' working but not to save us from our follies. 'Traditional' parasocial relationships often have some 'two-way' about them; while I might be completely obsessed about say, a pop star, said pop star [assuming they're still alive] does vaguely care in the respect they'd like me to continue buying their music, seeing them live and so on. I would use the analogy of pets here; to pet rats, their owner is akin to God and has the emotional bonds to match. But we don't have the same strength of relationship in return; I'll feed you and clean your cage, but I shall not lift heaven and earth to 'save' Rattu from say, disease or old age [sorry].
This leads to a general position of 'apatheism'; that the continued debate about the existence or not of deities is basically, pointless. They cannot be conclusively answered in any manner. And as I've outlined above, answering this question may not even be important - I mean, what happens if the 'deity' is either unwilling or unable to answer our questions? [Only the Bible tells us that THE LORD gives a toss and knows all, and that might be the ravings of several unstable parasocial fanboys for all we know].
But I think you're not really missing the faith, you're missing the meaning and structure which it gave [And that makes the question of deities' existence or not important]. This is seen all the time; I've seen this commented by teenagers leaving school, 'empty nester' parents, retirees, folks coming back to 'civvy street' after military service and so on - '[thing] gave my life meaning and structure, and now it is gone'. This is particulary an issue for fundie religious variants, as they do their best to make them your bell-jar [and why 'deconversion' can hurt like hell]. And there is no cut and dried answer to this - part of the universal appeal of religion is that it provides one. We are as a species hardwired to take 'the path of least resistance' and dominant religions are a very worn, well-tended path for this - it takes a conscious effort to leave this path. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you're experiencing suicidal thoughts, keep in mind that you can always call someone for help. We list suicide hotline contact information for multiple countries on our Suicide page. Bongolian (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It's true that the universe has no objective meaning. But the meaninglessness of the universe is itself meaningless. Plutocow (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
And of course, saying things don't matter because they won't have an impact in an infinite sense is absurd, because we only live finite lives. Our actions still will have an influence in our lives, and since that's all we have (as far as is known) our lifespan matters a lot more than what might happen trillions of years after our deaths. Furthermore, the influence of people who died many centuries in the past can still be felt, so it's hard to say it was all for nothing. Sure, everything will fade away trillions of years into the future, but so what? It has no bearing on your life right now. Plutocow (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
And if you DON'T want your actions to fade away trillions of years from now, you need to support a space program. At that point, the kindness you show will have ripple-effects that are untold, in ways we can't comprehend. It's hard, but going to another planet guarantees that humanity will exist until the around the heat-death of the universe, and even then, that might not be guaranteed. CorruptUser 18:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I honestly think humanity will have found a way to kill itself long before the inevitable end comes. At that point, it still will not matter. Plus, practically everyone gets forgotten. There is no way people in this theoretical future would remember any of us. Regardless, I obviously will not be around then, no matter what. The inevitability of the end comes for everything. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 21:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

After having read the Hebrew Bible, Christian New Testament and Islamic Quran, from cover to cover, the only conclusion I can make is that their God absolutely hates human beings, despises and takes great pleasure in tormenting his creation while gaslighting the shit out of his believers into thinking he loves them and is really doing what is best for them. I commend you for finding a few very basic and obvious holes in the logic of God existing. None of it matters: God could exist and yet still be a contradictory monster of a magical being. If the singular God does exist (I give this a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000-0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% probability) then he is a menacing psychopathic deranged being the Universe is simply stuck with. Run in absolute terror if it is true. Literally every other world belief, no matter how absurd, including outlandish, creepy and impossible ones, are a huge improvement over what came out of the Middle East. I certainly would prefer the petty, vindictive trouble making Greek pantheon over the horror that is the singular God. Better yet: how about none of the magical strange beings thought up from humanities over-active imagination exist at all? ShabiDOO 23:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this take. I find myself still praying to something, solely out of habit. I have (under what I've been taught) basically doomed myself to hell by not believing god with my entire being. I've been questioning for a while and I was trying to get back into it through Sunday service and whatnot, but I just don't feel the same anymore. I feel as if I see religion better after accidentally distancing myself from it. I feel as if all religion is merely a way to enforce your rules of choice through holding people's metaphorical souls hostage to a non-existent power with the threat of punishment after death. This obviously would be very powerful as death itself is inevitable. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 15:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)