RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive437

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 9 June 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>, <436>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>
, (new)(back)

When people blame the United States/NATO for all world problems[edit]

I know that the United States has done some shady shit before but it amuses me when the United States or NATO is blamed for all the problems in the world.

Shifting blame for all the problems in the world is like when someone refuses to take responsibility for their own actions. Like when Russia sows unrest in a country, occupies territories of the other country and annex's it then turns around and blames the chaos on other countries. --Trans Fem Agenda 00:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Remember how as a teen, you used to shit on popular stuff because you thought it made you seem "smarter" than the average person? (Well, I did.) Shitting on the US is the adult version of that. CorruptUser 14:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Part of the issue is that we are still living in the American global hegemony. And the 'world order' is similar to the class system noted by Gramsci; as the dominant nation, 'the Americans' control the narrative on a myriad of issues by insisting on American terms, using American values and using the international structures to further American ends. Therefore, there are not many 'world problems' which do not run through the American needle at least once, and often repeatedly.
What's more, every other nation has to accept said hegemony or pay the consequences of the 'dissent'. Even fairly sturdy 'second tier powers' such as the UK, Germany and Japan have to 'pick their battles' when objecting to American policies/requests etc because they would be 'punished' in some manner if they fought every battle [and conversely, America offers carrots for cooperation]. Therefore, 'American interests' [be it via international organisations, corp interests or political lobbies] do have a distorting effect to some extent on national policies/issues all over the globe. This means, in short that the only nations which have 'full agency' are basically, the USA and one of the handful of nations [Iran, North Korea] who have told Uncle Sam to go fuck himself. And as those are generally beholden to others to prop them up, the only truly independent power is the USA.
Preaching 'responsibility' is all well and good, but it's equally dangerous [and incorrect] to forget about the ability to make things actually happen too. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Ironically, a lot of the mentality of blaming everything on the US comes from "inside the house". One of the things you notice in a lot of such critiques is they're often ignorant of internal political developments and tensions in other countries and even outright ignore the complex relationships between other countries outside of their relationship to the US. And at its worse, will support authoritarian right-wing countries as simply being "anti-imperialist". This has been put on full-display during the Ukraine-war where a lot of the "intellectual left" legitimately could not separate their own view of the US being a primary antagonist in all bad international events so much, they sooner aligned themselves with the alt-right/far-right camp in dismissing Ukraine and blaming everything on The US rather than be seen taking the same position as The US. We can pretend this isn't a common view, but the fact the progresssive caucus wanted us to negotiate with Russia over the head's Ukrainians says a lot. But I'd be lying if this attitude was just in the US (Or the West). The fact a lot of developing countries see what is a hostile, openly imperialist invasion and won't condemn it solely because that would be siding with "The West" says a lot. You can say it's more nuanced than what it is, but they could support Ukraine and condemn Russia without "supporting" The US if they really wanted to.-Ryan1257 (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
As far as American hegemony is concerned, the so-called spheres of influence so prevalent in the 19th-20th centuries might well return should American hegemony decline. Then there would be many parties to blame for malignly conceived or badly executed policies, rather than the one or two usual suspects. It is not reasonable to suppose that the harms done by governments could ever be eliminated to everyone's satisfaction. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, corrupt political institutions play a big role in fucking things up and all political institutions are corrupt (some of them more brazenly and obviously than others). Naturally the heavyweights help sustain (or even create) more problems. However it is ridiculous to not blame corrupt local governments for problems too. Ghana and Burkina Faso both equally suffered the horrors of colonialism and Western meddling to this day and yet Ghana is a whole lot less troublesome than Burkina Faso (neighbours). You'll find many examples around the world of neighbours who are equally at the mercy of the West (present trouble making and past) and yet some nations help fuel (in part) their own disfunction.
One who blames NATO for all (this is silly) overlooks the equally (if not more) trouble making horror that is corrupt religious institutions. Generally the more power they have to interfere in a society, the worse the country off it is. To blame NATO for all and forget about religious institutional shenanigans as well as corrupt local governments is over simplistic buffoonery. Having said that, to deny the enduring effects of colonialism (for example Sunak refuses to apologise for the effects of slavery in Belize and the British National Museum seems to think their British supremacist policy of not returning the Elgin Marbles or Benin statues is a just one) or of modern Western trouble making around the world (globalism cheerleaders) is just as absurd. ShabiDOO 23:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Kinda getting that tone from Kanekoathegreat, though he is definitely someone people on this site stay away from. Patty Pat 03:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I think a major issue with the 'Tankies' and their ilk is that they look at 'the American bloc' through a 'Soviet prism'. This narrative is simple; all American 'vectors of power' were controlled from the centre and NATO was a de facto 'American Empire' also controlled from Washington. If Pepsi sold Moscow it's syrup, it's because Washington told them to. If the British ran a covert operation against the Soviets, it's because Washington were using London as the cutout. If the New York Times ran an stridently anti-Soviet piece, it was because Washington told them to run it. Repeat ad nauseam. They thought like this because this was how the USSR/Warsaw Pact operated, and were too provincial to realise their cultural bias.
Naturally, this allows Tankie folks in American 'ally nations' to absolve themselves of blame by basically saying their people have no agency. It also robs American corp/charity/educational orgs their own agency too, by saying they're nothing more than another arm of Washington's policies. And from my own experience, when you point out the clearly chaotic, disordered and sometimes counter-productive actions the 'arms' of the Washington octopus, the normal answer is to start along the 'that's what they'd like you to think!' tone more rendolent of say, Deus Ex than reality. However, there's enough instances of where Washington did use such orgs for 'official ends' [that vaccine programme in Afghanistan to get genetic samples for example] which gives Tankies legitimate examples to cite. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

25 articles to go[edit]

So when will the magic 7777 articles be reached? Anna Livia (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Being 'four in a row' (and numerology/angel woo if you are that way inclined). A minor encouragement towards article creation/a guessing game (and can play 'when will English Wikipedia reach 7 6s in a row as well).Anna Livia (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I generally prefer to improve/update existing articles, not make new ones. Plus, RL is currently on an upswing. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Nefarious forces are actively working against the potential success of numerology. Bongolian (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I know “My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that.” (Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland) applies to RW - but it is a goal. Anna Livia (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Now 26.
It should be feasible to reach the goal before English WP adds 7385 more articles. Anna Livia (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Changing my job (and how this affects my work at RationalWiki)[edit]

So, I'm changing my job on a university to one on my local state legislature. The good thing is, I'll earn 50% more than I currently earn. The bad news is, I'll lose access to JSTOR, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, etc and won't be able to contribute so much to the site, at least for a while. I think some people will be happy with me not being able to edit the main space so often, but I also have a bad news if you're a hater. Maybe I'll start my PhD next year on the same university, so I might get access to these databases again soon. I'm already working on my project. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 02:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's ok to have a personal life. Thanks for being with us all this time. CorruptUser 06:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Anyone can get 100 free article reads per month on JSTOR just by creating a free account. No downloads come with that though. Another good resource for finding full text is researchgate.net, which has full text available from lots of researchers with free account. Bongolian (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
which university do you attend, if you don't mind me asking? i'm currently weighing my options for graduate school. The G (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
GJK Talking like sci hub ain’t a thing. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
GJK is a far-right capitalist; of course he's not going to use sci hub. MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@GeeJayK Good luck with it all my man. When the project I am currently contracted on to winds up at the end of the year I am going to see about getting a transfer to one of the projects we do overseas. The company I work for has offices all over the pacific so hoping to pick up a new contract in, Oh I don't know, maybe Fiji? Sick of this goddamned fucking country. NZ will always be home but it currently sucks. Acei9 01:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked just don't come to the US, it sucks ass here. Fucking capitalist losers and whores. — Unsigned, by: / talk

Yes but the love of my life still lives in the US and I miss her terribly so it is still an option I pine for. Acei9 02:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@maygodsaveusall just to be sure: you're joking, right? The G (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Hey, hey, I'm not leaving, don't worry.
@Bongolian Thanks, I haven't tried this yet.
@G Man Sorry, but I'd rather not post private information here. Nothing personal, but I don't want people to dox me (not saying that you would do that, but I hope you'll understand).
@OnlySortaDumb Good luck trying to access JSTOR via sci-hub. Though, granted, I've forgotten about Bongolian's option since, you know, I didn't need it.
@MayGodSaveUsAll What the heck?
@Ace McWicked Thanks, man. I'm glad things are working for you too. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@G Man Yes, I'm joking.
@GeeJayK The joke is that people who pirate are often called "communists". MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@GeeJayK i understand. however, it wouldn't make much of a difference for me anyway, because i don't even know who you are in real life. i really am looking for a grad school to attend, regardless. (the plan is for me to enroll in the fall of 2024, if everything works out.) The G (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I find away around JSTOR’s paywalls, that’s where most philosophy papers are published. If you are lucky the paper may also be uploaded in a PDF format on a university website for a college course that has an accessible URL. I majored in a social science, many of psychology papers are published on JSTOR and I find it’s 50/50 chance the paper will accessible on SciHub. Sure it’s a bit less reliable then when something is posted on science-direct but it’s not completely hopeless. There is also the option of libgen for scholarly books and the like as well. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@MayGodSaveUsAll Believe or not, but many far right capitalists actually believe that there's no such thing as intelectual property. There's a reason why most books on the Ludwig von Mises Institute are available for free. They adhere to Stephan KinsellaWikipedia's views on the subject[1]. I still want to write an article on him one day.
@G Man That's cool. May I ask you what area are you interested at? My project is in economic history, on War communismWikipedia and the New Economic PolicyWikipedia. I don't speak Russian though and I don't intend to learn it only for this, so I might have to find another project.
@OnlySortaDumb I've never managed to use JSTOR on sci-hub, though, again, I only tried a few times since it was available to me for most of the last years. Also, people have criticized me before on epic internet discussions for posting "paywalled links" to JSTOR, so I was pretty sure it was impossible to access it via sci hub. I do, however, use Libgen very often. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@GeeJayK so far, i'm seriously looking into nuclear engineering. however, i am open to other stem disciplines, such as mathematics (pure or applied) and epidemiology. i'm also willing to study abroad, if necessary. The G (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do all the businesses feel the need to post signs up "congrats seniors" every year around this time?[edit]

Most of them are fucking losers and whores who are going to end up in prison in a couple of years anyway because our educational system and economic system both suck in the US. Why sugar coat reality? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I don't think that's true. 2601:281:D880:DED0:447A:C764:99E7:210C (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Any translation available for the rest of the world? Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
It's most likely a reference to people graduating from high school (secondary school). Businesses do this performative type of congratulations in the hope of getting customers. Bongolian (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd guess that they 'feel the need' to do it because it's become something approaching a de facto compulsory message. When only one did it, I bet it was a genuine message done for genuine reasons. But when a load of people do it and do it repeatedly, the refuseniks become more obvious and become suspect - ie 'why aren't you doing it? Don't you care about X?' etc. A better example of this is corp Pride 'support'; I'm sure some ~80% of businesses who do it basically, are only doing it because 'everyone else seems to be' and you've gotta do something [ie tokenism] because you don't want to get the flak for not doing it ['what, are you a bunch of homophobes or something?']. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Personally I have never seen that message put up by a business anywhere.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
It's not uncommon in the US (though it's usually more like "congratulations class of 2023" or something along those lines).
On the one hand, yes, it's a performative "social custom congratulations" of hollow meaning; on the other hand, it beats calling everybody "fucking losers and whores who are going to end up in prison" due to an overly cantankerous outlook on life. BobJohnson (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@BobJohnson Well said.
@Bob M When I got up this morning, I had no idea this was a thing either. And that probably goes for most of the other Brits here too. Spud (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Ah! And I've just figured something else out! I thought "seniors" was referring to retired people! And the all the conversation about schools was rather odd. But of course! In the US "seniors" refers to a particular class in the school or college system or whatever. Duh!
Well, as a rule we Brits are quite a lot less emotively 'gushy' than Americans [if you'll forgive the sweeping statements] and we're also much more cynical and sarcastic towards such things. A good example of this cultural difference is watching a bunch of Brits being forced to participate in a 'teambuilding session' with material clearly American in origin - they normally simply don't 'work'.
I suppose the nearest we get to the 'congrats seniors' thing here is with GCSE/A-Level 'results days' were news outlets seem to go out of their way to film groups of attractive, 'diverse' teen girls celebrating their 16 A*s and the occasional Horatio Alger 'motivational porn' which normally reinforces the 'just try harder' BS which makes all the 'failures' feel worse about themselves than they already do. But even then, said outlets are aware that there would be 'failures' too and so don't go so overboard.
The simple fact that these days happen in August [a time where many orgs are in semi-torpors due to holidays, childcare duties etc] may also be another reason. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I was interviewed for the radio programme Woman's HourWikipedia after I got my A-levels. Spud (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The BoN that starts with a 3 is a “fucking loser and a whore” for saying such mean things. 2607:FB90:7984:9EE5:F072:1F3A:D35E:281 (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
BoN is terminally online while never making lasting friendships, methinks. An Advocate (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Speaking of UK teambuilding exercises, the film Severance (2006) very good horror/comedy film along those lines. Bongolian (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Another question of faith, again.[edit]

I have continued to think about my faith following my previous post. Through the questions I have raised, I have also devised another question I must ask.

If god is not a fabrication of the church, then why can the church change the morals or acceptance of ideas if the prior beliefs were that of god?

Basically, I am referring to when the church will backpedal or change their views in order to fit in more within the bounds of modern society. This applies to all religions, such as Mormonism changing to allow homosexuals who do not express to remain accepted within the church rather than the prior interpretation (all homosexuality is bad). While not directly related to my beliefs (Roman Catholic), I believe that this is another fallacy present within all religions. Plus, you could probably find more examples if you did an in-depth search on google. What are some of your thoughts on all this? Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 15:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you may have got your cart before your horse (If I actually understand the question in your second sentence). I would suspect that beliefs in gods or miraculous things existed before those beliefs were formulated by churches.
But the more general point which I think you are getting at is this. The holy books of the three main Abrahamic religions were written a long time ago against cultural backgrounds vastly different to today's. Yet churches want to somehow remain relevant to current societies which consider slavery to be abhorrent and homosexuality to be acceptable. They problem they have is that their holy texts don't change but society and the churches' followers do. All I can say is - yes, it's obviously a problem for established churches.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it's wider than that; in which every religion ultimately craves official 'houseroom' and the price of said houseroom is it to 'reinterpret' elements of their canon to better fit the desires of the ruling class, and to retain said room it tries to tack to said classes' views and demands as they evolve. This is why the Catholic Church has managed to become the most successful and longest-lived organisation in our species history; as rulers, ideologies and empires wax and wane, it does it's best to 'flex' doctrinally to at least survive, if possible thrive in the current environment. Now, while the Catholic Church usually has enough heft to avoid outright perjuring itself theologically [usually] it does have a distinct tendency to 'backpedal' the more... uncomfortable parts of Scripture etc when said ruling classes demand it. Most other major religions have done similar, to a lesser or greater extent. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
To wit, I do not believe that anyone with a holistic knowledge of the Bible could justify concepts like the Rapture (which is based on a flimsy reading of one or two verses, and in practice seems to contradict the oodles of Bible verses on humility) or the Prosperity Gospel (which is pretty much described as insipid heresy by anyone who has a clue about the Bible). But these are "features" (albeit controversial ones, especially the later) of the American evangelical church. So it's not even always "adapt to society", sometimes church movements make up their own crapola that becomes a "church feature" for their own reasons.
From my perspective, while society has changed drastically in 3000 years, humans (and human governance) still have some "fundamental principles" that are the same. Being that the Bible is a book written by multiple humans over a large time-span, it is possible to emphasize one set of "principles" or another in the book to justify various societal viewpoints; thus religious movements can adapt to issues of modern life and put forth various interpretations (sometimes with scripture justification that is incredibly flimsy). Slavery is an excellent example in history; although the Bible is full of text that can be used to justify slavery (which of course was common practice back when the Bible was written), abolitionist movements were heavily fueled by their own religious convictions, in particular the reforms advocated by the Second Great AwakeningWikipedia (the same movement also helped fuel the causes of feminism and prohibition). Such contradictions and multiple interpretations make sense when you see religious texts as historical documents written by humans for humans. It makes no sense whatsoever IMHO when you try to shoehorn a religious text as the Unerring, Must-By-Obeyed Text of a Spirit In The Sky. (If the later, one can only ask: which interpretation is truly correct? Wars and other horrors have sadly been fought over this very question.) BobJohnson (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
If prior church doctrine was aligned with the will of God, then there would be no apparent justification for a change of doctrine. One possible justification for changing doctrine, then, is that prior doctrine was somehow erroneous, such that the change brings the doctrine into greater alignment with God’s will. Obviously, any admission on the church’s part to a shortcoming in their doctrine invites doubts about their theological authority. Another sophisticated option is to argue that different doctrines are appropriate to different eras, with some accompanying justification for this general principle and for the particular application of the principle in question. This has the advantage of giving a means to defend the church’s theological authority, but the disadvantage of maintaining that unsavory historical doctrines were good ones when they were in force. Naturally, the availability of such defenses is a separate question from their plausibility. Even if the official stance of, say, the Catholic Church is that fundamental doctrines don’t change, merely our understanding of them or our understanding of their appropriate application, you might reasonably think that doctrinal changes are really driven by political or sociological concerns, rather than straightforwardly theological or ethical ones, or else that broader cultural changes in moral outlook drive changes in theological interpretation, rather than the other way around. Even when doctrinal changes may technically be open, the real reasons for them might not be theologically defensible. That is to say, even when a principled theological defense for a change in doctrine is available, the change might really be driven by some other motive. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 17:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
(EC) Slavery in the Bible is certainly the best case in point. It's not just that the bible can be said to justify slavery - it actively explains how it can be carried out, and in this case there is no way that the New Testament can be claimed to contradict the Old. The abolitionists had to actively ignore the Bible's support for the institution while saying "But look over here!" Meanwhile arguing with their own more literalist co-religionists who pointed to the multiple pro-slavery passages. As I said, the problem is that book can't change while society actually does morally evolve. So established churches have to face in multiple directions in order to keep up with societal changes while providing lip-service to their holy books.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I am about 95% sure the vast majority of religious people [of any religion] simply do not think 'like that'. Genuine knowledge of theology is [in my experience] shaky even amongst some actual religious leaders, let alone the laypersons. Theology doesn't cover religious history either. Or say, economics, politics or sociology. Even detailed knowledge of Scripture is iffy. And when it all starts to fall apart like the cheap suit, you get the 'well, it's faith, not logic' line to be the generic cover-all answer. In fact, I suspect the vast majority of believers would consider a kind of 'socio-historical study of [their religion]' to be a kind of sacrilege. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm also sure they don't consider it. I'd bet the average "believer" has little to no idea about the specifics or history of their religion.
I'm talking about the official doctrinal positions of the various churches.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think even the vast mass of bone fide theological folks are really that hot on let's call it 'historical theology'. They may be able to tell you what 'the Church' or whatever says about X in 2023 and cite justifications A, B and C but normally they won't even know what the 'party line' was in 1963, let alone understand the underpinning arguments. The only exception to this, naturally would be where the argument in 1963 [or even 1863] is still in force today.
This excludes, naturally the crazy ends of religions, which shall [like pseudoscience and discredited theories] use whatever 'evidence' they can discover to support their argument, regardless of just how old and/or obsolete the source is. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
You are assuming that the church can't just lie and say they found new rules when they didn't. Even if God really did walk the earth thousands of years ago, the church can claim God said something he didn't, or what he said meant something else because of idioms, or that God is really confusing on some things but what they translated now is totes the real deal, bro. CorruptUser 20:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I remember reading about Nikita Khrushchev ordering Pravda to "uncover" documents that would help justify his policies, and communism was basically a religion without saying it was. Funny thing is, when he was forced out he read Pravda and openly said it was full of shit. That doesn't necessarily make the religion wrong (while in the case of communism it was just one of many pieces of evidence against it), the way I've heard gay Catholics argue is that it wasn't God's fault humans corrupted his message. Fair point... but why did God allow the corrupted message to proliferate? Then it descends into free will arguments, and I think Rush captured the dissonance (and I think they intentionally did so, they're dissonant but not contradictory) better than any philosophical tract by releasing the songs Freewill and The Way The Wind Blows. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The actual words used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is not the word for man or boy but "zachar". This usually means "male", but it also means "pierce" as in "penetrate". Furthermore, 20:13 says both get the death penalty, which can only happen if the male in question is at least 13, so it's not referring to pedophilia specifically.
As for why the bible is homophobic, well, the ancient world was one without penicillin, amongst many other modern luxuries. An ancient people would quickly notice that their homosexual population tended to be sicker and die younger; clearly they had angered the gods. Bear in mind that the bible was written at the time of the Bronze Age Collapse; entire cities simply gone overnight, which some scholars attribute to outbreaks of disease. You'll see these patterns in history; Europe's stance on prostitution prior to and after the introduction of syphilis is an interesting example, and it was the bubonic plague that ended the Mongol Empire.CorruptUser 15:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Wait! You are seriously suggesting that historic prejudice against homosexuals was based on the "fact" that the "homosexual population tended to be sicker and die younger". This is bizarre even for you.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
One of many reasons, most of which are of the "people are assholes" variety. And not just homophobia, but many hangups around sexuality.
The implication is, of course, that as medicine and technology gets better, many bigotries should slowly disappear. Obviously, there's a bit of hysteresis when it comes to bigotries, but at least they can disappear. I could go into a whole discussion about how racism and xenophobia were mostly solved by technology, at least compared to the horror-show that was not even that long ago, all things considered. But that's an aside.CorruptUser 18:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Even looking past the implications of Cory's argument, I find it weird because homosexuality was pretty common in many ancient societies (Greece for instance). If anything, the no-tolerance view of the Bible seems to be the exception for that time period, with many societies either tolerating homosexuality or only finding it taboo if you were the receiver. Plutocow (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I've certainly seen plausible suggestions that disease fuels things like racism [2] but in this case I think it is more social construct. Early Judaism law is very patriarchy oriented and if anything it seems like this strict social order was the motivation for condemning "men lying with men". The Bible notably does not condemn "women lying with women", as far as I know.
Some apologist sites seem to dismiss the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality by pointing out that things like anal sex were sometimes differently seen in other societies compared to now (eg for Romans, gay sex was okay as long as you were sexually dominant). I haven't seen anything that actually historically verifies this one way or another yet for the time period of Leviticus.
Anecdotally, my inference in modern times is: A) the more masochist the society, the more homophobic the society, and B) even in modern times, homophobes care way more about male homosexuals than lesbians. BobJohnson (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
It is reasonable to suppose that religious explanations were at one time or another, the best explanations that a culture could develop. The early bible cultures were constantly in danger of being overrun and biological collapse. According to legend, the Israelites were removed to Babylon and forced to remain there between 597 BCE and 538 BCE. One authority states "Starting around the 7th century B.C., different groups, or schools, of authors wrote them (bibles) down at different times, before they were at some point (probably during the first century B.C.) combined into the single, multi-layered work we know today." These groups would have been very concerned about the number of new births, and therefore likely to express warnings against homosexuality.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
We also need to remember that from a sociological POV, religions rather like drawing clear 'demarcation lines' between 'Us' and 'Them'. For example, you can see the Muslim [and Mormon] prohibition of alcohol in part of making them 'visibly different' to the nearby Christians and Jews who did partake. The Jewish firm anti-homosexual line can be seen as part of this, to draw a line of 'Otherness' around the Jews and away from almost all the other cultures of the Eastern Med/Mid-East which was by our standards, more 'liberal' [of varying levels, at least as far as we know from the passage of ages]. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
It's rather interesting, of course, that modern Reformist Judaism is another example of the above phenomenon of wiggling around old scripture. Reformist Judaism is, by and large, very tolerant of a more progressive viewpoint on homosexuality. Those "problematic" passages in Leviticus are either ignored or hand-waved away with explanations that personally I find hard to swallow (eg, "Leviticus was only talking about homosexual rape and/or prostitution"). Not that in the end this matters much, it's just how things are.
(This isn't just a left/reformist thing.. the evangelical denominations are just as guilty of "selective reading". And all of the evangelical roaring about how evil homosexual are from fundie Christians ignores all those versus on exactly how Jesus handled sinners (eg "Jesus eats with sinners and tax-collectors") or even how the New Testament cares a lot less about homosexuality, a couple bits from Paul notwithstanding. And on some of their other cause célèbre like abortion, Biblical support is... well, even less. Nothing directly, which is a "no duh" considering how medical abortion is relatively new (though abortion by herbs is not). The anti-abortion side has to wiggle with Bible passages condemning murder (which says nothing because the whole f'n debate is on "when life begins") and a few other chosen bits of poetry; this leaves the contrarian crowd to point at Numbers 5:20-28 and ask just what were those "bitter waters" again? It's just the way it is.) BobJohnson (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Abortion is an entirely different minefield for obvious reasons, with no "good" answer, only some variation of "less bad". Which I suppose makes a great metaphor for life in general, I suppose. But I'll try to sit out the abortion issue for a bit. CorruptUser 22:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Why can't I own a Canadian? is a nice call-out of said fundie cherrypicking. And I've come to the conclusion that their railing against 'abortiacide' [sic] is partly simply because 'the libs' are in favour of it, and a good part of their hatred for it stems not from Scripture, but from good-old Puritan hatred of sex and by association, contraception. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


DeFuctis declared himself as Presidential candidate. Someone will be happy to hear this... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This should be interesting. Desantis' main thrust seems to be "Make America Florida", and right now there are doubts that Florida wants to be Florida. Of course, the MAGA base isn't happy with this. The Twitter announcement/open house thingy seems to have been bug riddled and tech failed. These are not great omens for DeSantis. Kencolt (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I anticipate some "popcorn-worthy" moments from Trump vs. DeSantis. Nonetheless, barring Trump actually getting convicted of something serious (maybe not even then) or some health issue, I am not sure how he'll pull this off. DeSantis has shaped himself to be "Trump with zero charisma and more petulant bullying" not "smarter, more electable Trump". Doesn't sound like a winning combination to me, but it's early, of course. BobJohnson (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
It really is ironic that the right-wing media made hay over the idea that twitter was at the beck and call of The Democratic Party, when now, a republican presidential candidate is being directly endorsed and supported by twitter. As it always was for Republicans, principles are for the weak.-Ryan1257 (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Being a lifelong New Englander, I've noticed a lot more people go from New England/New York to Florida than the other way around. Not sure what the attraction is, none of my visits to Florida ever got me thinking I needed to spend more time there; not that New England towns are the apex of governance or anything (look up Route 7), but good god it's going better than whatever it is going on down there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people were moving to Florida despite DeSantis, not because of him. He doesn't control the year-round warmth, the nil state income taxes [a key plank of the myth of 'affordability' esp for retirees] or the presence of large amount of beaches. I suspect many more New Englanders are fleeing mud season, not 'woke'. And it's only really inhabitable due to the omnipresence of AC. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The "COVIdiot crowd" and "retiring Boomers" have a large cross-section, so I'm sure the DeathSantis politics helps some people. However, Florida's been known as "God's waiting room" for quite some time. Yes, it's largely the nearly year round warm weather that attracts. (The summers however are more like "hot and swampy", so there's a lot of "snowbirds" that escape the New England and Midwest snow only for the winter season.).
The "affordability" thing is starting to get laughable down here, though. Yes, there's no income tax, but housing prices are pretty high (though Miami, center of a strange "crypto-boom" in the last couple yeaars, is the most ridiculous, and since that crypto boom busted busted this year I wonder if that will start to make that market more reasonable). Also quite bad, understandably due to the "hurricane issue", is the home insurance market. Too bad so many voters are more concerned about being "anti-woke" than any of these more legitimate issues... BobJohnson (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Personally, thought the higher sales taxes would be more of a kick to the wallet, but there you go. And peddling fear and reactionary social policies always does well with an electorate which is filled with seniors [and Florida has many of them], and because they are seniors they've often much more irresponsible voters [ie as they lack 'skin in the game' with most policies, they'll simply vote going with who panders to their emotions better instead of the 'responsible' voter topics like, say competence or sanity of said policies (qv: Boris Johnson, Brexit).] Plus, from what I have gathered is that it's fairly expensive to retire to that waiting-room, thus the senior cohort shall skew even harder rightwards than their wider demographic band. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Florida's base sales tax at 6% is comparable to other states (slightly higher than many, but there are several states with 7%+ sales tax). Sales tax and other excise taxes work well for Florida, though, because the large amount of tourism allows that to be the primary revenue source. If that "certain type" of "angry Florida Boomer" thought about it, they'd realize that the nearly 60 million people who attend Disney in Florida per year are a good chunk of who is propping up their "no income tax" haven, and that year long temper tantrums by a certain petulant governor really isn't that good for the state. (They won't make the connection, though.) BobJohnson (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Why would they realise that? Most seniors have no 'reason' to consider these things, so they don't [though this can be said about most people in general]. Also, endowment effect - they think Florida is 'so great' in every way and everywhere else sucks ass they think giving a bit of 'pushback' to Disney et al shall have no effect whatsoever. We also need to remember the 'consensus bias'; it's quite likely they genuinely think 'the vast majority' of Americans agree with them [and thus, Disney shall have to row back to their 'lunacy' soon enough]. The concept that they very well may even have close family members who are 'on the other side' I know would be rather jarring to some of them. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The snowbirds make even less sense to me than anyone else, honestly. There's almost no setting in New England when anyone actually has to spend more than a few minutes at an time outside, it's not as if indoor heating is a newfangled invention here. And there are a notable absence of deadly fauna here (Lyme disease notwithstanding, though that's hardly a common affliction among the elderly). They have these amazing things called jackets for people who get cold, shocking I know. And having been to Florida in the summertime, New England (and especially where I am, near Long Island Sound) can be and frequently is just as harsh in the summer; last time I visited Florida in August it was actually a bit cooler than where I'd come from, it just rained more often in the afternoon. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Arthritis doesn't like cold and/or damp locations, increased 'fear of falling' from mud/ice/snow/rain, fears that the last will give them pneumonia and finish them off, may be living in housing locations unfit for 'aging in place' [for example, relatively 'barren' suburbs]. But the main reason, I think is that they are 'buying a lifestyle'; the view of being on an eternal semi-vacation; golfing, the beach, long lunches, day trips and bridge evenings [and the better retirement communities aim to look like this]. And Florida does have other 'things going on' which means younger relatives are more likely to come and visit you [ie visit Grandma, get to see Disneyland too etc]. Snowbirds are just a variant of this; the sort who'd be able to afford to move to Florida are the sorts who in younger years would have taken 'winter sun' vacations, and this is just an extension. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Missed opportunity to say, "florida man is running for president." The G (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, some things need not be said. They're too obvious. Kencolt (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I rollbacked a bad edit, and they took it to Twitter[edit]

So, over on the Nordic Resistance Movement page, someone claiming to be a member made some unsourced claims in an attempt to whitewash their organization. I undid it, and they redid it, claiming I vandalized the page. But that wasn't enough. Rather than taking it to the article's talk page, or any of the talk pages, they went straight for my Twitter, posting:

I undid your vandalism on Rationalwikis page on the NRM. I am currently in a meeting with members of the Danish branch of the NRM. If you can convince yourself that lying can be virtuous, take action against me. If we're bad, tell people the truth about us.

This is a first for me, I'll say that. Paul S (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

They are a nazi, so block them both on twitter and here. A somebody. (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Retards gonna retard. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Could you ban the nazi because he comes back and does something even more stupid? A somebody. (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Blocked, and protected the targeted pages for a while. Taking site drama to twitter is in particularly bad form, and is more than somewhat creepy. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Cosmikdebris Why is it bad form? We have/d mods vomit site drama all over Discord. What make Twitter so different? Acei9 20:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I consider mods vomiting site drama all over discord to be in poor form too. What makes it especially bad with twitter is that it is potentially much more "public" and has a potentially much bigger audience than any single discord channel. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
You're not wrong. That Tweet from before? At least one of his fashy-friends liked it before I blocked both of them. Paul S (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Many such cases! Chillpilled (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Join Unitology today![edit]


Convergence makes Third Impact from End of Evangelion look tame in comparison. --Trans Fem Agenda 12:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Weird works and websites (New Age and conspiracy) adjacent to those I've focused on[edit]

I'm currently taking a break from updating the article on Laura Knight-Jadczyk -- which is also the article on Sott.net, the Cassiopaean Experiment, and a few other fringe websites, as well as a cult, all rolled into one. I'm not sure if it's best to split it up or not into more articles -- the problem is, there's so many references between the smaller things covered, splitting it up means having to either copy a lot, or make the pages constantly refer back and forth. Thoughts on that?

Anyway, while I'm a bit tired of all the stuff centered around that person for the moment and focus on other things, there's other things in the surrounding area of the cultic milieu. I've thought about writing about them, and may do so. I just wondered if anyone else is also interested.

https://montalk.net/ -- "Transcending the Matrix Control System". Unlike the angry fruit salad webshites which gather a lot of different fringe stuff, this one looks nice, though as for the contents... It's pretty standard New Age conspiracist gnosticism, with an emphasis on paranormal alien stuff. The author seems pretty easy-going and mostly harmless, while basically trying to play the role of Neo in The Matrix. I actually use him as a source for part of the history of how LKJ's community grew into a more paranoid and insular cult -- there came a point when they didn't get along.

The Ra Material, or The Law of One (https://www.llresearch.org/, https://www.lawofone.info/). The more hippie-flavored 1980s precursor of sorts to LKJ's 1990s-and-ongoing Cassiopaean channeling, by a different trio of people focused on New Age love and light, along with UFOlogy and ancient astronauts. (It ended in 1984 after the suicide of one of the three.) The Ra channeling is unique in its syntax and wording -- more complex, stylized, quirky, and precise than the more conventional love-focused word salad that it's juxtaposed with and which the same channeling group also produced. It introduced the New Age concepts of 'density', STS, and STO. David Wilcock spun off some of his stuff from the work of the L/L Research group (the organization started by the original trio) after spending time with them.

Montalk is kind of interesting, because if you wonder how people can connect different ideas and teachings in this general area, you'll find those pointers there. His survey and synthesis of fringe stuff may give further ideas for things to write articles about. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, a draft for the latter, Draft:Ra Material, is shaping up. I think. I'll move it to mainspace soon if there's no objections. But there's more that could be covered, I've just added a few main highlights. The use of Dewey Larson physics next, perhaps... --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Article now looking pretty good I think, Ra Material turns out related to at least one charlatan RW already has a page on, David Wilcock. It was outdated, updated but there may be more I've missed. As a possible new charlatan topic (I don't care enough myself), there's also Corey Goode, which RW has no separate page on, who works with Wilcock and seems quite the mythomaniac.
In turn, I also know that there's more charlatans linked to Montalk's sphere. I guess I'll get to Montalk next. At the side of him, I'm aware of Bernhard Guenther, who split off from LKJ's Cassiopaea community to become a for-profit 'shaman', including the usual COVID-19 and QAnon stuff in recent years. Montalk also pops up in connection with alien abduction 'researchers' and the like, who are covered a bit sketchily on this wiki. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Zoroastrian Nationalism Iranian Fascism and Islamophobia[edit]

Rational Dude seems dead set on a Hypothetical iranian fascist regime being Zoroastrian nationalist and Islamophobic. And I am making this because I am tired of it. The Problem with this argument is that Iran is majority shia and has been for centuries, sure there is a lot of people who probably are not religious but are shia none the less, but regardless Shia makes up the vast majority of population of Iran, while Zoroastrianism has about a few ten thousand people still following it, compared to the few million that follow Shia Islam. And IF a Hypothetical Iranian Fascist regime ever managed to overthrow the current theocratic iranian regime, it's not going to be Islamophobic by any measure. A somebody. (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not really relevant to whether SUMKA are Islamophobic (even if Iran were majority-Muslim, it's well within possibility that a small neo-Nazi group had unrealistic plans out of step with the majority of the country...), but your perception of Iranian religious demographics may be flawed. See this large survey.
Most importantly are there sources for SUMKA being anti-Islam, or not? Based on this source I had added to the SUMKA article, they were linked to the Shah who was a Shi'ite. But other than that I don't know of what sources say on that.. Chillpilled (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Here's a quote from one of the sources used 'The 'hitler.ir' website is part of a group of websites openly identified as neo-Nazi (realhitler.com; hitlertruth.com; hitlernews.com; justice-for-hitler.com). The administrator of this group of websites identifies himself as Hamid Reza Nikbakhsh, a twenty year old Shi'i-Iranian from Ahvaz who acknowledges his responsibility for managing several neo-Nazi associations in Iran. He also takes credit for publishing several books and translations from German into Persian, like 'Artesh-e bein-e almelali-ye hitler' ("Hitler's international army"), which are available for purchase online.' does a now 30 year old Shia sound like someone who would islamophobic against anyone but sunnis? A somebody. (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
There are cases in the Middle East of minority religious groups wielding some political power, such as the Druze in the Levant were there is a long history, or the Sunni in Syria. The Zoroastrians do not have any recent history of political influence, making such a thing more likely the subject of alternate history scenarios. Bongolian (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the sunni are the majority group in Syria. I think you may be thinking of Alawites. A somebody. (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Bongolian (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the misunderstanding came from a link/reference I saw in Wikipedia. To be fair, fascism can evolve from many groups and a Zoroastrian fascist group isn’t impossible, though I admit they wouldn’t be able to take over in Iran unless there are extreme specific circumstances that would tip the scales in their favor. There have been fascist movements from minority religions in other countries (see the Jewish Defense League and the Nation of Islam), and there are fascist groups that despise religious groups that are majorities of the countries they operate in (like how the atomwaffen division hates Christians despite being a white American organization). So from these perspectives, you could understand how I thought these groups can exist.
In addition, I looked up Hamid Reza Nikbakhsh, Artesh-e bein-e almelali-ye hitler, and hitler.ir, and I found no sources about them. Also, I don’t think a 20 year old is able to be an imam since imams are much older than that. Rational Dude (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Moral panic in Queensland, Australia[edit]

I've noticed recently that a moral panic has hit Queensland over youth crime, the main news channels (9 news is a good example) certainly add fuel to the fire by portraying it as a national emergency and how extreme measures need to be taken (that part scares me because new legislation was added recently to "crack down on youth crime" despite many experts saying it was a bad idea). some wannabe vigilantes surrounded the house of a supposed young criminal and wouldn't leave until the police forced them to. And now people are arming themselves with weapons. What does everyone think? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I think I'd like some links to these stories, it's hard to judge otherwise. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like an average day in Australia Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 15:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Ted Cruz GOES WOKE!!!![edit]

In probably the strangest development of the month, Ted Cruz of all people openly spoke out against Uganda implementing the death penalty for LGBT people. Bluechecks on Twitter absolutely foaming at the mouth and calling him woke. What has this country come to? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how others on the Mad Christian Right respond to this. They may not like people being gay - and there are certainly passages in the Bible which call for the death penalty for homosexuals - but actually enacting such a thing into law would probably be a bridge too far for many.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
There's a difference between "gay people should be encouraged to be straight" and "gay people should be butchered like livestock". While there are indeed people who believe the latter and hide behind the former, Ted Cruz is not one of them. CorruptUser 17:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
'Sleazeball wants a medal for acting like a remotely decent human being for 240 characters. More at 11.' KarmaPolice (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
It more reflects how extremely out of touch the "blue check" reactionary trolls are (either that, or many of the trolls are from other countries like Uganda that still have very backwards laws and culture on consensual anal sex etc.). I can't find polls on how many Americans want homosexuality to be criminalized these days, but in a country where 71% of Americans are okay with gay marriage, you would think that number is very, very small. BobJohnson (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Is it possible for someone to support gay marriage but want to criminalize homosexuality? I don't even know how that would work, but it's possible... CorruptUser 18:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Seems obvious that Ted is making noise about this to moderate his image ahead of next year’s election. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Isn't Ted foreign-born though? He was a dual citizen, so I don't know how that works. CorruptUser 21:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Ted Cruz was born in Canada (to an American mother and a Cuban father). Of course, any person born outside the United States who has at least one parent that is a US citizen can (in general) claim US citizenship.
I've sometimes wondered why these types play with the reactionary populist crowd. (A similar question could be asked about people like Nick Fuentes, who is a white supremacist, but has Mexican heritage and is Catholic.) Cuban-Americans have traditionally been conservative (naturally, since many of them fled or descended from those who fled Fidel Castro), but one wonders whether having just a little bit of groups traditionally discriminated in America in ones heritage will end up biting them back sometime, should the "core" of the populist right start reverting to a more historical KKK type stance on "the other". BobJohnson (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Another Dick Cheney situation. His daughter is bisexual. Chillpilled (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
That was my first theory - fits my maxim that if you see a conservative hack acting like a human being for once, check the personal angle first. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Ted Cruz being "woke" or whatever here is the important thing, I think the reaction is the more important thing. American conservatives getting angry at him for saying that the state murdering gay people is bad is... disconcerting, to say the least. It puts into perspective just how far the overton window has shifted to the right in the US when it comes to gay issues. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
There is the question whether it actually has. A brace of fascisty Twitter users are hardly a public survey of opinions, is it? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, remember that Twitter is full of "troll farm" accounts and "the Muskee" is doing very little to stop them.
To use one notorious example, Russia is infamous for troll farms. In Russia, according to one poll, 69% of people oppose same sex relationships, period. According to another poll, slightly less than 1 in 5 people actually believe that LGBT people should be eliminated. This is seriously far from a culture (US) where 70+% people support gay marriage.
So, the problem here is, how many of these people pissed at Ted Cruz for actually not supporting seriously shitty Uganda anti-homosexual laws represent actual US opinion, and maybe represent the opinion of other less tolerant cultures? And of the US opinion, what is just radical bullshit on the fringe? I have no doubt there are some in the US that are that radical enough to support Uganda style laws, given the United States fundie influence in helping Uganda craft it. But given the above, it's really hard to translate "opinion of Twitter" to "opinion of the public". If the troll farms represented actual opinion, for instance, everyone would be boycotting Disney's recent "Little Mermaid" live action film because oh noez black Ariel or something. Instead it opened at #1 last weekend with a $117.5 million box. A lot of social media has basically become shit due to the trolls, shit that you can safely ignore these days.BobJohnson (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Even if they're not cutouts from troll farms, it could just be a few randos with too much time on their hands. And similar to when Lloyd-George started to raffle off titles and awards, 'Blue Ticks' mean nothing now save 'I am paying for it'. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I will add that I do think that the climate for LGTBQ in the US has deteriorated since Donald Trump and particularly since trans became the latest Republican boogeyman. It's more that just Twitter is a poor way to prove this (it's better to look, for instance, at the rhetoric and actions of Ron DeSantis and similar). BobJohnson (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps. I would also argue as possible contributing factors is that a) the level of homophobia etc has been about constant [or even declining] but the changing climate has allowed formally 'closeted' phobes to be openly bigoted again and b) increasing 'Big Public' visibility of trans persons over even a decade ago meaning they catch more directed reactionary flak. You cannot really argue that c2013 USA was 'trans-friendly' when the vast majority of folks didn't even know it was 'a thing'! KarmaPolice (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
An open question IMHO is whether the culture warrior Republicans are going too far (edit: actually, I think they certainly are in some parts, but the question is by how much in others). "Trans" is where the main debate is currently in the public polls, as far as I can tell, especially if it is accompanied by some of moral panic on issues (some with some legitimacy, some less so) like minor gender affirming care, bathrooms, and sports, along with a cloak of "think of the children". The general trend on gay and lesbian acceptance on the other hand is pretty much increasing acceptance year after year, with only about 1 in 5 being intolerant in the latest polls (roughly).
Already I think it is almost blindingly evident that the "cultural warriors" went too far on abortion restrictions, and such is hurting Republicans in the polls. The attacks on drag queen shows (and anyone with a few brain cells knows drag is not trans) does't seem very popular either. Same with the culture warriors' attempts to whitewash books in schools, this is extremely unpopular.
That doesn't mean, though, that the 20% minority of fundies and other retrogrades isn't causing pain in the LGBTQ community in the US, at least in Republican enclaves trying to culture warrior their way to the top. Whitewashing is still being pursued, drag shows are still targeted, and trans medical care is being aggressively limited even for adults. At the extremes, the bullying parts of the Internet that was always vile pond scum (like Kiwi Farms) seem to focus more and more on trans as well. I agree that much of this is the "phobic minority" feeling greater license to cause pain, but still. BobJohnson (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
My impression from polling I have read is most people agree with conservatives on several trans topics, but disagree on others. In particular, transgender medicine for minors tends to be opposed by the general public. Trans inclusion in sports is perhaps the least popular of all. On the other hand, there is extremely robust support for generalized anti-discrimination law covering transgender people, for which people probably have employment, healthcare and housing discrimination in mind. As you mentioned, book-banning is also extremely unpopular. Some issues fall in between these two clusters, such as the bathroom wars. Interestingly, support levels for trans inclusion in different types of facilities (bathrooms vs. shelters vs. prisons for example) seems to vary by at least a few percentage points. Chillpilled (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
All of these policies are MAGA 'red meat', with the exception of trans issues. I say that because I'd argue that mainstream American society still doesn't know really how to 'handle' this issue, and the whole debate is still pretty new. Not for the first time, trans in the '20s reminds me a lot of gay/lesbians in the '80s; lots of FUDding going on, ignorance and deliberate misinterpretations etc. Lastly, I've taken a look but I've been unable to find out any polling to show how important an issue Americans think this is, and if so in which direction. It could work out that while many [perhaps a majority] of voters are vaguely transphobic, they rank it so low on the list of priorities it doesn't move the swingomiter. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
A Fox News poll (their polling wing is actually quite good) this April indicated people find the trans topic to be less than their most important issue (just 1 percent, and it was clumped in with "wokeness" which is obviously much broader). More people found abortion to be their most important, at 3 percent. (Page 12). For more on trans topics in that survey see page 17. The trend in recent years is people have gotten more transphobic, though oddly enough they self-identify as having gotten less transphobic (PRRI poll). The PRRI poll, along with some others that show the same, indicates that people who personally know a trans person are more likely to be pro-trans. I think your suggestion that mainstream America doesn't know how to 'handle' this topic is probably kind of correct, and a recent WaPo article suggested the same thing.
I would suggest that while only a small sliver of the population is highly animated by anti-trans beliefs, that's more than enough to harm trans people. Trans people themselves are a small sliver of the population, and having to politically contend with such a group of people is going to be exhausting. Remember how few people it takes to completely sabotage the operation of abortion clinics. It just takes a highly animated activist population to do so. Unlike such a population, trans people are not all activists and if they are, not always so animated by that singular topic as these most-motivated-transphobes (the Matt Walsh and Graham Linehan types, not the average type of person who would respond to polls such as those above with transphobic opinions) must be.
...But where were we? It seems GOP is attacking Cruz for opposing a gay death penalty. It's my impression that the trans panic has actually lead back into this, with some of those most-motivated anti-trans activists coming to believe that gay tolerance was the first stepping stone on a slippery slope. So therefore they must purge gay conservatism. I'm sure the Log Cabin Republicans (who by the way were mum on Trump's anti-LGBT policies) never saw that coming. Chillpilled (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I was asking mainly from the view of electoral calculus, not 'what would be harmful to individual trans persons' [not that I don't care about the latter, but the fact that's a hugely difficult thing to measure]. Plus, 'transgender issues' could be both strongly 'for' or 'against' [same for the ~60% on that survey who don't look favourable to Biden's Ukraine policy; some will surely be the 'not doing enough!' as well as the isolationists and those who go down on Putin.] But those stats are something we need to bear in mind; as we are all [to extent] part of the 'chattering classes' [not sure the American variant of this is] we can sometimes lose sight of what the Big Public consider important. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Wagner Group article[edit]

Bringing attention to the fact that WikiMedia have either deleted or changed their Wagner Group flag SVG's name, meaning it no longer displays on the main page or the WIGO World article it's currently on.

Chick-fil-A too woke, conservatives call for boycott[edit]

Yes, really. (+ 1, 2, 3) Oh, how the tables turn, Chick-fil-A!?

Appears to have gained some traction among conservative media outlets:

The Daily Mail (link), Washington Examiner (link), PJ Media (link), New York Post (link), The Post Millennial (link), Daily Caller (link), and Daily Wire (link) have all chipped in.

That leaves one only to ponder — when does Fox News catch up? Or have they gone full Bolshevik too?! Chillpilled (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Those sources are not really reliable. --Trans Fem Agenda 00:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I obviously don't hold the Daily Heil et al. to be reliable. But The Hill, yes. Thus the separate lists. If the conservative outlets are covering this, I think they may want their audiences to boycott Chick-fil-A, or at least hold the company in contempt. Chillpilled (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
For what its worth Rolling Stone [3] and Gizmodo [4] have reported on it. This outrage does include Charlie Kirk [5] so it's not just minor randoms at Twitter saying this.
The conservative rage machine is pretty slow on this (albeit it's only been recently when some of the propaganda spinsters at places like Heritage Foundation have actually started to spin propaganda on what they call "woke capitalism"). Chick Fil A's current DEI page has been up since at least September 2022,[6] and DEI VP Erick McReynolds has been working in Chick-Fil-A's DEI department since July 2020.[7]
For what it's worth, I could be wrong, but I do not recall anyone associated with top Chick-Fil-A management ever displaying retrograde opinions on race and sex (just LGBTQ), so I don't think it's surprising that they have a DEI department, and that (at least from the web page corporatespeak) the corporation sees diversity as part of the Christian values of their business.BobJohnson (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Even regarding LGBTQ, I recall that just a few years ago Chick-fil-A was beginning to try repairing their image on the subject (though rather tepidly), for instance cutting ties to the Salvation Army. Chillpilled (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh, more! Newsmax (link) and Fox Business (link) joined in. Maybe Fox Business remains a bulwark against the commie encroachment.
The Heritage Foundation's "Daily Signal" says Chick-fil-A has "joined the cultural revolution" — they seem to endorse a boycott. Chillpilled (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
All these boycotts and assorted bullshit appear to be a common occurrence at this point. I feel as if the majority of my affiliated party can't seem to understand that not everything is somehow threatening them and deserves "drastic action" and drama. It's kinda pathetic tbh. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 22:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Brought to you by the party that still is trying to make cancel culture a snarl word.
Just Googling, I found this delightful Fox Newssium where a John Rich (of modern US "country" music fame as part of Big & RichWikipedia and from other Googling seems to have the reputation of being an asshat). In the article, he both talks about pulling Bud Light from his bar because of the oh-noes-trans-influencer thingy, and waxes nostalgic about the good old days, as he's sure that "cancel culture" wouldn't have allowed an All in the Family or a Married With Children to exist these days. Then a clip is added with some ditty poking fun about being offended. No contradictions seen whatsoever!
(Note: Funny how his memory on the "good old days" isn't quite right, either. I remember what types of groups (ex: Parents Television and Media Council) originally were loudly complaining about Married With Children...) BobJohnson (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Boycotts in general are losing their effectiveness because on one hand you have the American Family Association and on the other hand you have Grab Your Wallet, so one way or the other businesses will piss somebody off. EmbarqHSD (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
In this specific case, it might be a bit easier to take boycotting Chick-Fil-A a bit more seriously if a supposedly highbrow magazine hadn't published this bilge, as if city governments can or even should be policing the views of restaurants. The mirror image is just as laughable. (I've never eaten at a Chick-Fil-A, though I did once have a bogus charge on my debit card supposedly showing me spending $75 at one; I'm not a fast food guy to start with, but there also isn't one anywhere especially near me so it's not an issue I care about) The people boycotting Bud Light are just doing what I've done anyway, refusing to drink monkey piss; I'm fortunate enough to live near plenty of top-flight craft breweries that make a nice harsh IPA. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I actually think boycotts are in some ways more effective now, because social media allows better organisation to get the boycott going and perhaps even spread overseas [just think how BLM protests went global]. What's more, it's all dependent on the sector the target is in; rather easy to boycott Chick-Fil-A [there's gotta be other chicken shops nearby] or Bud Light [other shite watery lagers next to it in the shop cabinet] than a massive org with an outsized presence in the sector [Walmart, Amazon, Shell, Microsoft etc]. It's an easy rule of thumb; the higher the 'personal sacrifice' the boycott calls for, the less likely people shall follow it. However, these boycotts are being organised by a right-wing faction who already pretty well-organised pre social media [so are relatively unable to lever tech to increase effectiveness much].
Anyway, I think what we might [just might!] be starting to see is the first inklings that the American Overton Window is in fact moving a tad. That what is being seen in fact is Chick-Fil-A is the 'conservative rearguard' of mainstream corp America and those who are attacking it are the full-blown reactionaries [an ID which clearly fits John Rich]. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I think boycotts are mainly effective if said product being boycotted is actually catering to enough of the Angry Group in question. That's Bud Light's issue; it does seem like the boycott has had some impact, simply because the product was so associated with the American white working class market segment that is also a large part of the "I'm pissed at the trans!" group. An attempt was also made by the reactionaries to boycott Nike in April for the same reason that Bud Light got targeted (Dylan Mulvaney endorsement), and while there was some news headlines generated, the impact to Nike was, as far as I can tell, nothing. Nike is more broadly marketed using sports celebrities and generally targets urban markets anyways; the target segments are going to care much less about a bunch of American reactionaries going apeshit over a trans influencer.
The Chick-Fil-A boycott attempt may work, because Chick-Fil-A is associated with the reactionary crowd due to its old gay marriage stance. On the other hand, it may not -- the boycotters are targeting a diversity business department, and while trans is sadly a popular Other these days, I am not sure that diversity as a whole (let alone "business stuff" like DEI) will generate as much outrage. We'll see. BobJohnson (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think so, really. When you realise that 'diversity' includes women and ethnic minorities too it gets to the stage where only a complete turd of a reactionary would object to that. Plus, how the hell can you boycott a 'diversity' business department anyway? KarmaPolice (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Certain conservative think-tanks really are trying to push business concepts like DEI and ESG as "woke capitalism" these days, and a few long-shot nobodies running for president (eg Vivek Ramaswamy) have practically made "woke capitalism" their theme. So maybe a few reactionary turds will come along for the ride and say "why, Chick-Fil-A having a DEI department must mean that they cater to THE TRANNY SEMEN!!" (thanks, recent clog), but yeah, I just don't see this as being as instinctively relatable. The whole "woke capitalism" thing really does sound like a concept a CEO suit (like Ramswamy) would come up with in a brainstorming session on "how can us Big Business types leverage Trumpism?".BobJohnson (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)



Looks like the Wagner guys in Bakhmut are being replaced with what amounts to cannon fodder. Nine months of fighting over a city which looks like it has been hit with a nuke. Tens of thousands are dead. In terms of rebuilding the city after the war, it is safe to say that it will cost a few hundred million in cash at a minimum.

This battle does make me wonder how many people actually died during the cluster fuck of the Russian invasion? --Trans Fem Agenda 00:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It is no longer 'a city'. It is a massive pile of rubble, debris, spent munitions and organic remains. But Bakhmut teaches us in 'the West' one thing; the Czar and his cronies do not give a fuck about human life [inc their own people] and shall happily throw as many bodies at victory as they see fit. Some governments never change; and in this case it's the same strategy followed by Stalin, Nicholas II, Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible etc - human waves, until the enemy is beaten.
Why am I carping on about this? Because we need to get it into our skulls the 'true nature of our adversary'. There shall be no lasting peace until the Czar realises conquest is impossible. This will only happen when Russian losses become too great for the narod to bear and they genuinely threaten to pull him off his throne and string him up by his heels. Therefore, what we must do is give Ukraine the tools to fight a 'meat-grinder' WW1-style war with the minimum of losses on their side. Amongst other things, we need to drastically up our production of artillery shells, spare parts, drones and missiles to help them do this. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I wonder how much NATO is gonna press the envelope, knowing Putin has nukes and how he's being closer to use them, despite all warnings to the contrary even if such nukes were just tactical ones. Or if was Putin replaced by someone else, we'd not get someone still worse instead and who had no qualms to go nuclear.
I'm not defending Putin at all but even if things are not as when that shitshow began I think this could be playing with fire. Panzerfaust (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
With regard to replacing Wagner Group with "cannon fodder" - this is really replacing cannon fodder with different cannon fodder. Russian strategy from historical times until apparently the present day has been to overcome technology with volume.
With regard to nuclear weapons - how would Putin use them? He wants to incorporate Ukraine into Russia - he would hardly want to incorporate a nuclear wasteland. (Even if that worked.)
If he used those weapons against the west it would the the end of Russia. So how would nuclear weapons help Putin?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I disagree - he would completely be OK with incorporating a nuclear wasteland and would blame it on "the West", NATO, and Ukro-nazis, while lauding his victory over the same. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Then I disagree with you. :-) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you're both right. I could see Putin toying with making a poisoned Ukranian wasteland and calling it victory [mainly out of spite; if I can't have it nobody can] but I also think Xi has told him in no uncertain terms that is not to happen. Like the UK-USA during WW2, Russia is weakening fast from the strains of war and is ever-more dependent on China to stay upright. Putin increasingly cannot afford to disobey Xi. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
One of the frequent targets of threats of Russian mushroom clouds is the UK. She could, if needed turn most of European Russia into radioactive ruins [and that's even before the American response]. Like if the Czar decided to incinerate London [oligarch mansions and bank accounts included]. So I think we can write that off as simply for fearmongering - the Czar is bad, not mad.
He is certainly both.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
With my realpolitik specs on, tactical use in Ukraine may in fact make a Ukrainian victory more, not less likely; I don't see the likes of China continuing to back the Czar after that and currently 'neutral' nations like India and Israel are very likely to swing solidly pro-Kiev too. The Czar has, almost certianly been warned of this by both Modi and Xi. Lastly, Russian forces are utterly unable to operate in a nuclear battlefield [the ISW keeps tabs on signs of Russian NBC protection, along with CIA, MI6 etc] which means they'd find it impossible to actually exploit any openings given by some tactical warheads. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I hope you're right in what refers to nukes. I still remember past year, when Poland wanted to give those old Soviet fighter jets to Ukraine and Putin claimed that would be considered an act of war (sorta).Panzerfaust (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
If Putin sent out nukes on Europe, Russia would be decimated by a decisive military response. Limiting nuclear launches would be critical. --Trans Fem Agenda 19:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Issue is, Ukraine herself is not formally under the NATO umbrella; like the status of Yugoslavia in the Cold War, the 'response' is unknown and we'd basically have to cross that bridge if/when we got to it. In fact, I am some 90% sure the USA is deliberately following a policy of 'strategic ambiguity' on this topic as a means to strengthen the case of the 'anti-NBC' faction in the Kremlin. However, like Bob I simply cannot see how a nuclear strike would help the Russians, even when I do my best to filter it through Putin's poisoned worldview. Yet... I could see a dispairing Putin, clearly having failed in Ukraine ordering some form of strike out of a combination of a nonsensical 'final gamble' and simple sheer spite. In that kind of case, I pray to God that some General or whatever puts a bullet in that butcher's skull rather than carrying out that order. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. Putin has a really powerful weapon - but no really effective way to use it. As a threat it's really fantastic. But as something which is actually usefull under these circumstances it's not that good.
The questions are "Where?" and "Why?" Where would he use it and what result would he obtain?
There are no good clear responses to these questions. We only get "he's crazy enough to do anything!" But that's really not good enough. You certainly can, under any circumstance, imagine your opponent is crazy, but in that case it's not worth making any plans at all. I honestly can't see any scenario in which using nuclear weapons anywhere actually makes things "better" for Putin.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
True; but the question is whether Putin can genuinely see this too. Like Hitler with the Ardennes Offensive, it's quite possible that the Czar almost 'talks himself' into believing that a nuclear 'example' over a key Ukranian city and/or mass of forces will cause the weak, cowardly West to wet selves and promptly order Kyiv to beg for peace. Yet I don't think we've reached this point yet; I am pretty sure that the butcher believes that within about a year, the Western supply-lines will dry up and Ukraine shall be brought to heel. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Now if Putin used nuclear weapons, I doubt that the world would stand idolly by for more to be launched. That would be a national security threat for multiple countries and lead to far more casualties. --Trans Fem Agenda 20:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

US debt ceiling[edit]

When will the decision be known? (Note that I am on BST.)

What would happen if the brinkmanship goes off the cliff? Anna Livia (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Severe economical turmoil worldwide, people losing their jobs and possibly real world violence. --Trans Fem Agenda 19:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the most certain things would be:
A) Bye bye Treasuries AAA credit rating; this will probably drive up the cost of borrowing. Enough of a default, and I could see the US's status as "world's primary reserve currency" being quite diminished (it already is down from its peak days, but still). And if you get to the point where you aren't paying bondholders...
B) Some folks in the US is not going to get paid. Take your pick: government employees, businesses that deal with the government, the military, people on benefits (esp. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid). Basically this will take a chunk out of the economy, which will only get worse if there is protracted disagreement.
I suspect a lot of this is though is more a typical dog and pony show and some agreement will be pushed through (though you never know with a few of these clowns)... BobJohnson (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I also suspect;
C) A decent chunk of the 'Business Republican' base will be mightily pissed. The last damn thing they need right now is to see even higher interest rates, a fall in the value of bonds and [most likely] a fall in both the value of USD and the stock market. Though silver lining; it might help dampen inflation a bit more. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Debt Ceiling bill going to the President's desk[edit]

That was close. Here is a lesson: Politicians should stop having their heads up their asses and work together. Mostly directed at Republicans; not saying that the Democrat Party is smelling like roses either as some were being stupid too. This is coming from a Liberal Democrat. The Debt Ceiling bill is not perfect and something I fully agree with but that's the only one we have. --Trans Fem Agenda 20:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that House gave it the rubber-stamp, I can circulate this a little more. Biden may have managed to sell a SNAP expansion to GOP as though it were a SNAP cut. Chillpilled (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

South Africa is certainly going down the drain[edit]


The ANC has a major energy crisis and skyrocketing crime rate on their hands. Government corruption seems to be a huge issue too. Will the ANC survive this mess? --Trans Fem Agenda 22:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought SA lasted long enough that it could avoid this. Basically, Indians and White people were the only ones with the skilled jobs. ANC takes over, and surprisingly, doesn't murder all the White people. But the ANC let the crime get out of control, and in many cases were the criminals themselves, and the skilled workers left, e.g. Elon Musk. The Black people were being trained to replace them as this happened, but I guess not fast enough. CorruptUser 17:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Elon Musk fled SA when he was 16 because he didnt want to be enrolled in the army, not because of crime. IluzasipalStone them! 18:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, Musk left South Africa by 1989, well-before Apartheid had ended. Bongolian (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Alright, Musk was a bad example. And I don't believe his "anti-apartheid" stance in the slightest, just a spoiled rich kid trying to avoid having to do something tough.CorruptUser 02:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
SA has a series of issues, and if I [a Brit not overly interested in/knowedgeable about] can see them, someone on the inside would be able to shout much louder and better. This is my twenty cents' worth...
The ending of political apartheid did not end economic apartheid. Basically, this was the unwritten clause of the '90-'93 'dismantling'; that the whites would 'withdraw' from political dominance peacefully and in return the new 'black ruling class' would not confiscate or nationalise their economic holdings. This means that forty years later, whites still have a stranglehold on the South African economy. Yet the truth is that White South Africa is... rather uncertain of their long-term future in SA. The stats of white emigration is bad enough [inc brain drain], but the stats of capital flight is even worse - it tells us that even if some whites are remaining put [for now], they are putting their cash overseas.
SA has fallen into the trap many ex-colonies did; that it has in effect become a one-party state. One-party states almost always fall prey to nepotism, corruption, spoils systems and increasing economic idiotic policies as it scrambles to maintain the support of the mobs in the slums so they remain in power. This is even worse for SA because the 'economic illiteracy' hurts the holdings of yes, the White South Africans and it takes a very brave politico to stand up and defend them. I've heard snide comments that SA is being run into the ground in the similar manner to Zimbabwe, but it's only SA's increased natural wealth and much higher level of capital stock which has allowed the show to roll on for this long. This becomes a feedback loop; that as the economic situation deteriates, the whites will salt even more wealth overseas, damaging the economy even more.
I would argue that it is increasingly clear that perhaps it would be for SA's interest if the ANC didn't survive this. FT Thinkpiece. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The other political parties in South Africa sound like awful options too. Not very many good choices as many are very nationalist, religious or racist in some way. --Trans Fem Agenda 00:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The Democratic Alliance seems okay. I mean, not exciting but at least sane. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
"Democracy" requires two things (among others); a public that is generally educated and informed, and a public that is generally united. Something like a third of SA does not have the equivalent of a high school diploma. Not great, but not fatal. As for unity, I'm by no means an expert, but I get the sense that the bulk of SA was unified in opposition to Apartheid, and not much else. Are there significant numbers of San people willing to fight and die to protect the Zulu, the way the people of Orleans would fight and die to protect Paris?CorruptUser 09:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the 'informed' bit is the most critical, and generationally lacking in SA. The story is depressingly common; the 'freedom fighters' [the ANC] used economic grevience to get support for deposing the old 'colonial' regime [ie apartheid]. Problem was, on reaching power they learn that the country's level of economic development means rapidly increasing the majority's SoL was almost impossible. In fact, if they wanted to truly increase the masses' SoL, consumption would need to be cut to increase capital investment. That's a tough sell.
Yet... much of the 'freedom fighters' base would feel they'd been promised a radical rise in their SoL. In fact, some of the leadership will want to do this too. And most won't know a fig about economics - they're normally a cabal of 'professional revolutionaries', similar to how the Bolsheviks were in 1917. And it's all too tempting; to look at the sums, divert capital investment to immediate consumption and get some nice kudos for reducing 'the poor folks plight' [esp if you're a left-winger]. But that retards economic growth long-term, just like a venture fund who buys a company and diverts capital investment to dividends will slowly weaken the long-term future of the company.
It's an old dilemma, and one which few ruling parties pick the correct answer. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Ironically, if the ANC hadn't been engaging in a terror campaign or the rest of the world hadn't joined the boycotts, there would be a larger economic base to work with. Furthermore, I'm of the cynical belief that Apartheid only ended when it did because of the collapse of the USSR; the ANC was basically in the Soviet camp, and the US couldn't just ignore a massively important mining and nuclear power flipping red. It's "cynical" for the terrifying but very real possibility that all the murders and suffering did not end Apartheid one day sooner, or perhaps even delayed the end of Apartheid. CorruptUser 19:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Which is the dilemma every 'rebel' group which is fighting an incumbent regime has; that to weaken the regime they are required to destroy infrastructure etc which are valuable bits of capital which often the country can ill-afford to replace. Which sucks if they [the rebels] become the regime [which they surely desire to be]. Plus, let us remember that the first serious NP-ANC meeting was in 1985; five years before the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, and much of this was down to the triple pressure of increasing international isolation, stagnating economics and the ever-heavier burden of defence spending [which had successfully worked against Rhodesia a decade earlier].
Anyway, there's nothing to say that an economically-stronger, less threatened apartheid SA may have been able to roll on into the 21st Century, esp if they'd jettisoned almost all the 'petty apartheid' laws or even taken the route of the 'Jim Crow' South - to repeal de jure apartheid but to keep it enforced de facto, much of it by ensuring blacks simply did not become wealthy. What's more, the ending of the Cold war would of resulted in both sides having the external support pulled away; it's quite possible the conflict could have continued way into the 90s, just at a lower tempo and technological level. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
On the flip side, it's entirely possible that the constant terrorist attacks only served to de-legitimize the ANC and keep all the White South Africans united in fear, and had SA copied Gandhi, Apartheid might've fallen even sooner and without disrupting the infrastructure. CorruptUser 05:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The important bit being might. If BOSS / SAP had responded by having Gandhi-Mandela die in detention due to 'illness', ANC leaders overseas die in suspicious 'accidents' and protestors set on by dogs, gas and truncheons [with no evidence or media coverage] and with the victims left out in the veldt to be eaten by hyenas I'd like to see how bleeding long Gandhi's tactics would have been stomached by the black SA population.
I echo Orwell's view on this; that Gandhi [and later Dr King] only worked because they were facing an opponent who was 'soft' enough to maintain some legal integraty, claims to fairness and allowed some freedom of speech, reportage and so on. What's more, let's not forget that by 1945 the UK was too weak to hold down India by force which meant that as soon as the Indians made moves to drive them out with force, the Brits had to scarper.
And a richer apartheid SA would have had more economic resorces to fund mass oppression. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Yet, Mandela didn't die in prison. Are you suggesting that had the ANC or Mandela been less violent, he would've?
I don't blame Mandela for the violence; had I been a third class citizen, living in utter squalor and beaten for daring to complain, I might've been even more violent. And it's a bit rich for someone to play Monday-night quarterbacking who didn't have to live it. However, I'm no saint and have never claimed to be, yet we pretend that Mandela was. CorruptUser 13:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
You don't get my point - which is in short 'Ghandi is an example which is not applicable everywhere'. I'd love to see Ghandi try his stuff in North Korea, for example. Nor was Mandela 'a saint' and I didn't say he was; I was in fact doing a counterfactual Mandela who never committed any violence whatsover [which was your counterfactual SA in the first place]. He was a fallible human being, like the rest of us [Ghandi too, for that fact]. In fact, this was a tangent which you started. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Twitter is purging inactive accounts[edit]

Twitter announced that it is purging inactive accounts.[8] This makes it more important for people to change any existing direct links to Twitter to archived copies, as well as cease using direct links for new edits. Bongolian (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Old news but yeah, archive while you still can! Elon is unpredictable and I have a strong feeling this is going to be another Myspace delete everything situation. 2600:1700:2241:DCF0:6D77:950A:EDF:FF06 (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Gender Inclusive Language for Our Biology Articles.[edit]

As I imagine us folks on Ratwiki value scientific accuracy, and at the same time we also value queer inclusivity (at the very least some of us do and the effort has been put to reflect such a value in our main space). I was wondering what the general vibe would be to implement some of the proposals of this language guide into our existing articles that talk about phenotypical and genotypical sex in humans: https://www.genderinclusivebiology.com/bettersciencelanguage. The aim of this language guide is to keep technical accuracy while avoiding alienating LGBT+ audiences from the science of biology. Keeping in mind not only gay, lesbian, trans and non-binary folks, but also folks who may have same-sex, trans, or genderqueer parents whose idea of "mother" or "father" may not be what is described in biology textbooks. We don't lose out in terms of information relating to the physical realities of our bodies by writing/talking in this way, and this language guide is useful to avoid the trap of repetitively stating "people with..." which can be awkward. Anyone interested in implementing the norms of this language guide across our main space articles? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

To quote my initial statement when you posted that a year ago, "Those terms are not just longer, most are not synonymous. Testosterone is not the only androgen, for example, and estrogens are not the only hormones that female humans have more of. And it denies the existence of statistical norms as a justification for eliminating the words describing them. As you implied above, English is not a prescriptive language with a central authority. If words and phrases have utility, people adopt them. That guide is attempting to impose linguistic standards that offer less utility than the status quo, and to enforce that via moralism." From my post on May 10, 2022. I'd recommend starting at my comment on May 3rd (Getting back on topic:) if you want context.
As for the current proposal, if you recognize a distinction between gender and sex, biology is concerned with sex rather than gender. What does, say, the biology of motherhood or fatherhood have to do with gender inclusivity? And while person-first language is awkward, I would propose that the proper response is to not use awkward circumlocutions rather than a different set of awkward circumlocutions. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
The entire response is kind of based on a strawman, and is loaded with assumptions that aren’t strictly speaking accurate. “Male” and “female” are not meant to denote “statistical norms” they are meant as categorical statements to denote the gamete size the organism produces within evolutionary and ecological science, and are used as family resemblances in broader societal contexts like within politics and medicine. The “utility” argument is kind of questionable. Arguably neutral language without cultural baggage that is welcoming to more potential scientists has greater advantages than vague terminology loaded with cultural baggage that alienates people from the life sciences. It also undermines the aim of scientific objectivity by priming associations to stereotypes. The “not synonymous” objection also works against terms like “male” and “female” as what’s most physiologically relevant to the specific function is the traits present and not how the organism is classed. I.e. you can be classed as “male” and be sterile; so that being classed as male isn’t what is most relevant in the insemination aspect of reproduction. Which also again undermines the “utility” claim because you don’t get greater utility in terms of information conveyed by being less specific. It’s scientific utility is also undermined given it doesn’t tie specific relevancy to physiological function of traits themselves. Arguably the most important detail when talking in respect to biology. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Also sort of weird af to be a BoN stalking and cataloguing the saloon bar for when “gender inclusivity” comes up. My proposal was directed at the Ratwiki community, not a IP address with bad intent. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to describe some examples of what you're interested in changing. For instance, are you suggesting changing the references to "male humans" in Y-chromosomal Adam to something like "XY individuals"?
Generally I wouldn't mind changes along those lines to technical language, especially since, in that case, there is actually an increase in accuracy. I am a little skeptical of making these kinds of changes to non-technical usages where we don't gain anything from the increased specificity of the alternative language. Blue (is useful) 03:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Avoid alienating readers by using overly technical/verbose/euphemistic language — what could possibly go wrong? In seriousness, there are cases where this will work smoothly and others where it won't. But generally, I am not a fan. Some of the example replacements on this language guide are straight absurd (discontinue the phrases "mom" and "dad", really?) and more likely to alienate than anything, the exact opposite of what's intended. I mean it even suggests using the term "Latinx" — which I think many here will have heard plenty about how unpopular that is among the target demographic by now.

Maybe this kind of thing would work better in biology journals (whose readers can probably navigate new vocabularies more easily) but RW doesn't have the same audience. Personally my writing style here, and in fact elsewhere too, is to try and have the bulk of my points written into articles understood by the largest bulk of the mainstream audience; walk "the common man" from where he is to where you are rather than preaching from an ivory tower. This is severely thwarted if I start getting into using euphemisms or overly-verbose/niche language constantly.

An alternative proposal: generally keep blunt language, but use footnotes with the "though, actually..." part where applicable. But really it depends on the page. Chillpilled (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding footnotes for more inclusivity sounds good to me. Spud (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I've always liked the concept some cultures have of a "third gender" for non-binaries over shoehorning gender dysphoria et. al into the Western sex binary. Stuff like this document is why.
To use a few silly examples in the document, "gender reveal parties" will not become "embryogenesis parties" and "moms" won't become "birth parents" or "carriers" anytime soon. The vast majority of people are not intersex or non-binary, and while "boy" and "girl" and other male/feminine division could be seen as a little bit of a "lie-to-childrenWikipedia" when you get really down to the nitty gritty biology, it IMHO does not make sense to "word police" these terms, which are "good enough" for most and in the common parlance, unless absolutely necessary. The shoehorning unfortunately means some clarifications might be needed for inclusivity, but I personally would agree with the footnote approach.— Unsigned, by: BobJohnson / talk / contribs
@OnlySortaDumb User:192․168․1․42 is not a random IP, their username just looks like one. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I also think that appropriate footnotes would be a better solution. But I would also like to see an example of the type of article which is being considered. I'm assume that the proposal would not include articles like Women's suffrage as the result would be kind of clunky.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I don’t understand why y’all are interpreting this language guide specifically for the biology classroom that I propose we apply to biology articles as applying the dropping the word mom and dad entirely, or applying it to the page on woman’s suffrage. No one said anything about that. It’s a JK Rowling-esque strawman fallacy to resist gender inclusivity in limited contexts under the false pretence it will erase the word “woman” that I suspect is actually coming from a similar place. I didn’t say we do away with words like men, or women in sociocultural contexts. The language guide is specific to biology which as stated is more technically accurate anyways. No one was calling to get rid of mom and dad entirely. This are real low effort objections. — Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I said that I assumed it would NOT apply to "Women's suffrage" and asked for an example where you felt it would be appropriate.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Also something really laughable about the idea that stating “if you have penis…” or “those with a vagina…” is somehow to too technical or alienating for the layman. I talk like this already and no ends up confused about what I mean because who the fuck goes through life not knowing what a penis or a uterus is. It also allows me to talk to trans-people in a way that isn’t misgendering to them while also making accurate reference to anatomy and physiological function. But you can still refer to “woman’s issues” or talk of abortion as a “woman’s problem” given the majority of the folks effected identify as women. It’s just not exclusive to women I can speak to how it effects everyone who is fertile with a uterus but still emphasize it mainly effects women if for some reason it needs to be said. I can still call your mom a lady. These objections are dumb. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I’m in favor of OSD’s proposed changes. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd second this. As long as it still stays understandable and factually accurate (or even gets better), I don't see a problem. But I agree with the previous amendmends that "birth parent" is not really used (maybe use "biological mother" or keep the ambiguity between biological/social use of the term when it should be clear from the context), and "gender reveal party" is a fixed term. We possibly risk alienating readers who are not in favour of gender neutral, more accurate and inclusive, but complex language, but I personally think we should do it. IluzasipalStone them! 08:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
People have been taking references to women out of abortion-related articles recently, which I've had some distaste for. A lot of my attitude above was in reaction to that exact topic. Else-wise, such things can be effectively raised page-by-page; I still have no idea how you're going to make "birthing parent" sound anything but awkward as opposed to "mother" but it can be raised when/if that time comes. Chillpilled (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
You should go ahead and edit an article to include the terms you think should be presented. People might like it. Some might hate it. Show, with your work, what you had in mind.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you, Chill. Abortion is primarily a women’s issue, and the language in those articles should make that clear. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
The definition of "woman" is in dispute these days, which is what prompted that discussion a year ago which I linked above. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The answer is fairly simple, in my opinion. Female/male when you're speaking biologically, aim for neutrality when gender markers aren't needed for the topic [Mother/Father > Parent]. Things which are traditionally known as 'mens'/'womens' [ie: 'Women's Liberation'] left as-is, basically grandfathered in. Personally, in articles like abortion I would use on the first use 'biological mother' [perhaps with then an explanitory note] but then use simply 'mother' afterwards - because I agree, terms like 'birthing parent' is kinda clunky and the clarification is needed.
It's a fine line that must be walked; between 'accuracy', 'readable' and 'inclusive'. And I would rate them in that decending order of priority too. I think I'm basically on the same page as Chilled/BobJ on this; my 'imagined/implied reader' for the RW content I've done has been a school student about the GCSE level [so 14-16] who while fairly well educated [and with a decent reading age] but is pretty 'generalised' in their knowledge [which includes gender theory]. Though to be honest, I've not seen a RW article which seemed to really need any real work [though it's not like I have much interest in biology].
I am of two minds of the example link from the top. When a cut/change increases accuracy and does not decrease readability ['testes produce sperm', 'Ejaculation happens when…'], all well and good. Otherwise, I would ignore the 'advice'. Most of those examples up the reading level by 2-4 years for no real reason save to try to hide from the extremist end of the gender campaigners. I mean, for example some things are 'typically'; for example the vast majority of human beings shall go through puberty, thus that can be called 'typical'. And there are times where you do need to simply spit it out, like where the hell that ejaculation comes from. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I’m not sure how closely you read that guide. It says to remove the terms female/male, even when you’re speaking biologically. The far right is gonna far right. Extreme overreactions from the left, like this, are why centrist voters find themselves inching towards the right on some issues.Brokenglass (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Because around 1 of 25 students identify as trans and/or enby, it certainly is not an "extreme overreaction" to consider the needs of these students and ensure that they get a proper sex ed. Especially considering that the body of a transitioning/transitioned person does not fit into the binary sex system and they might have problems associated with either sex, regardless of their birth-assigned gender. And, for example, trans females will certainly not feel addressed appropriately when you talk about "male" biology. IluzasipalStone them! 21:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
First off, don't think the majority of NBs would be offended if they learned about male/female when it is spoken of purely in biological terms; many NBs beef is with binary gender - esp as it's heavily rooted within culture, not scientific facts. Even the article at the top in fact accepted this, by using the clunky euphemism 'XY chromosome persons' or similar. The critical issue here is that the more woolly the euphemism gets [in a desire to not offend binary trans persons by teaching simple biological facts] the higher the chance of confusion by larger sections of the population - for example, parents not getting that their child was stupid because school pussyfooted around outright saying it and doctors retreating to medical jargon when communicating with patients. Lastly, if a few trans persons get offended by the pointing out of scientific fact [ie there are biological males/females and at our current level of technology these cannot be changed at the base level (though we can do something about the effects etc)] then frankly, that's their problem, not mine.
Lastly, I don't see 'Sex Ed' as part of a Biology/Science curriculum [at least, not past the basic bits on reproduction]. It's a perfect example of an interdisciplinary subject, which should also include sociology, health, psychology, philosophy and yes, even religion [and here I would have the lessons on gender, transitioning and so on]. However, the critical issue is that Anglo schools [don't know about others] generally won't teach this like this because they're frightened of the parental/political backlash about 'biased propaganda' and the invarible calls for schools to 'stick to facts' which also hobbles education on current affairs, economics, morality and critical thinking in general. Thus, the frankly, deceptive practice in trying to smuggle as much of the Sex Ed stuff under the guise of it being an annexe of biology lessons. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I see this reference to “simple biological facts” as something that needs unpacking, because I think it rubs against a map/territory confusion. The facts of biology is in reference to our physical being, and these various different components that interact with each other within said beings. There is a physical structure supervening on a vast collection of various biochemical reactions and molecular structures in flux. We can describe such structures and interactions in various different ways, the thing that needs to be consistent is what’s being denoted and the working of relevant causal mechanisms. Specific names and terminology is kind of arbitrary and not so much a matter of brute natural fact as it is social conventions. Stuff like this happens in science a lot. We stop calling electron’s corpuscles, STI’s as STD’s, ADHD inattentive subtype as ADD, and least controversially we started to refer to what was once “mental retardation” as “intellectual disabilities”. I don’t think any of these terminology changes were ever decided upon on the basis of what scientifically illiterate can understand. Changing the name on a road doesn’t change the picture of said road on a map, or how that road actually exists in the territory. The brute physical facts are not in a name on a map. Put another way the terms we use doesn’t change the structure of the model. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

also it should be said that the objection to the use of “biological male/female” is not all too uncommon in trans and non-binary spaces. Riley Dennis calls for example the insistence to call trans women “biological males” as “TERF-lite”. Because we know the words “male” and “female” have heavily gendered connotations and often the intent behind it when referring to trans people by their sex is to just work around explictly stating that they are in essence their sex/gender assigned at birth. Having a penis is not so gendered. We use male and female interchangeably for sex and gender, and we can’t pretend the language isn’t used as an excuse to skirt around misgendering trans people. TERF’s almost exclusively refer to trans women as “biological males”. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Also the sex/gender distinction as some clear unambiguous distinction is philosophically outdated since the publication of Judith Butler’s “Gender Trouble” back in the 90’s. The idea that sexual categories and terminology exist as some pre-discursive entity that works as a canvas that we paint gender upon is kind of a myth. The significance, categorization, and meaning ascribed to body parts as being most relevant to us is a matter of social conventions and processes. Sex is socially constructed as well. At the vary least the distinction, categories, and labels associated with sex are socially constructed. Nature didn’t present itself with a naming guide. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Just because bigots use 'biological...' as a snarl-word it doesn't mean that it is incorrect. Instead of simply denying something 'because They use it' you can neutralise it by saying 'yes, but in the grand scheme of things it is not that important'. This is the eel-trap often laid out by TERFs etc which trans advocates end up falling into with disturbing regularity; simply by making the latter effectively deny that biological sex exists, they make them appear ridiculous to the Big Public when on topics where no, the biological sex is a legitimate issue [qv: transwomen in professional sports].
What's more, euphemisms and jargon carry their own negatives. People on the autistic spectrum, those who have a different native language, persons with limited formal academic education and those who simply are too busy to 'keep up' with recent linguistic developements shall and do find themselves confused at times, particulary if the termonology change is rapid. You say 'changing the name does not change the road' [which is true] but then you have to argue the cost/benefit ratio of doing so. And I don't see the worth of confusing loads of people and coming off to some as being sanctimonious, for what? To try to pull a tooth out of a TERF? What, you think that will stop them from continuing their prattling? Hell, this could very easily cause a Streisand effect; the moment you tried to pull this in say, a GCSE Biology textbook you'll get the right-wing press crawling over you quicker than I can say 'woke teachers ban women!'.
Lastly, non-binaries have beef with binary trans folks too; for example, many end up reinforcing societal gender stereotyping which makes NBs lives more, not less difficult. It's not like they're all a big bloc of people with identical views on everything. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I've been wondering how significant the impact of sex hormone replacement is on something like gene expression. Does a hormone-replaced body have cells that act much like those from somebody of the target sex? That kind of thing. I get the feeling this is a dumb question and the answer is obviously yes. But I never see sources reflect on this. Chillpilled (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
"...which trans advocates end up falling into with disturbing regularity; simply by making the latter effectively deny that biological sex exists" except that isn't really happening when someone rejects the terminology of male/female because again that is just disagreeing with a label on a map, not the physical realities of the territory. It is a fact that this is an existing naming convention in biology, that biologist class organisms as male or female; but that terminology isn't entirely well defined or consistent and can be interpreted in multiple different ways and that is just within biological science ignoring any issue regarding human sexual orientation and gender. For humans you can divide that concept in at least 5 different ways, genetic sex, gonadal sex, genital sex, hormonal sex, and secondary sex characteristics. Some of these things are alterable, some of these are not, and not all of these things exist on a either/or binary. I know philosophy of science students who made it their thesis that sexual categories like male/female aren't actually maximally useful kinds and you can see why -- the way these terms are used is actually very inconsistent and kind of vague. Something the biologist Anne-Fausto Sterling wrote an entire book about. My biology textbook defines the female of species as the organism that produces the larger of the two type of gametes produced by the species. That would discount a large chunk of insects from worker ant and honey bees from being either male or female. Yet we class these infertile animals within these species as "female" anyways. There is also like the issue of sterility/infertility at birth for humans. We wouldn't be inclined to state that a baby girl born without functioning ovaries that produce eggs is somehow not "female" despite being born with a vaginal opening and vulva. Within medical practice itself the only thing that is used to differentiate a penis from a clitoris is literally how long it is, and that's how some intersex babies get classed as male or female. These are not by any means consistent or well defined terms. There is no set of essential characteristics to being "biologically male" or "biologically female" in the way there is for say a gold atom which always has 79 protons in it's nucleus. So when these terms are even being used correctly is not even all that clear. That's a common issue with biological science as we see with issues like defining what life is, or having a non-problematic definition of species. Biology isn't this rigorous and precise science that chemistry and physics are. To the extent that it's a cold take that biological kinds are rarely natural kinds the way chemical kinds are in the philosophy of science. This is why essentialism in biology is kind of a fool's errand. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Also I don't think it's that confusing to refer to someone as having testes instead of being male. If someone asks "what does that mean?" you can respond "It means having balls, dude". I am confident enough that if biological textbooks stopped using the terms "male reproductive system" and "female reproductive system" and classed reproductive systems as "sperm-oriented reproductive organs" and "ova-orientated reproductive organs" all confusion would be lost by just pairing the terms with a diagram. One is obviously going to look like a dick and balls, and the other a twat and womb. If someone can't figure it out from there, then they very likely have some kind of cognitive impairment at that point. If textbooks did that I am pretty confident that no one would immediately tie it to "gender ideology" if there was no specific mention of queer people in making these changes. There is still going to be instances where you will want to refer to certain groups of people as being a man/woman, being male/female, being a guy/gal, etc. That's more sociocultural than having to do with biology. Like I am still going to make reference to women's oppression under patriarchy, because that gender hierarchy doesn't go away the moment we start changing the way we talk about sex. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

AI-generated fake science news spam on YouTube[edit]

I watch some more or less popular science-oriented YouTube channels from time to time. Sometimes I see dodgy recommendations for other things. Recently I ignored a bunch of them, but didn't think so much more about it. Now YouTube's algorithm happened to point me to a possible answer regarding the nature of recent junk content, where apparently there's a large number of very similar channels that have popped up, which crank out videos at a superhuman rate. Those videos use clickbait titles, photoshopped images, word salad AI-generated scripts read by AI, and a mixture of stolen and fabricated footage. Such channels apparently also try to draw in people by very often featuring "The Musk, the Kaku, the Rogan".

Maybe a noteworthy development for RW to keep track of. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Assault Weapons Ban[edit]

So, Biden is making it a priority to permanently ban assault weapons. Of course, do it now rather than during an election year, but honestly, I think there should be something better than simply abridging constitutionally protected rights from everyone.

Let's get to the core of the actual 2nd Amendment; what's it even for? Surely, the section about "militia" means something important about the reasons. What people forget is that the US does, in fact, have a militia. If you are a healthy male citizen (or have declared you intend to become one) between the ages of 17 and 44? You are legally defined as part of the "Unorganized Militia". The whole premise of 2A is NOT that you bring your guns to war with you, but you know how to use them. Sure, anyone can become proficient with a rifle after a few weeks of basic, but to truly become good with one you need to have fired a gun thousands of times. And to do that, you need to have a gun.

That said, not everyone is actually part of the militia, now are they? "Shall not be infringed" does not mean, for example, convicted felons may own guns too, and felons are barred from the military under normal conditions. But who else would be rejected by the military? While we wouldn't draft amputees, we no longer hold the belief that "Fewer Limbs = Fewer Rights".

However, we also issue psychological evaluations during the draft. So basically, I don't see any reason that, e.g., we couldn't require a psych evaluation as part of the gun license, perhaps that test could be done every few years when the license is renewed. I also see no reason why owning a gun means all guns immediately; to get a driver's license, you must first get a learner's permit, and if you want a CDL you need a learner's permit for that too. So we could, for instance, require a gun learner's permit before being allowed to own a gun, and other tests involved. Once you have a gun license, well, then you need a learner's permit for handguns or semi-automatics. Thoughts? CorruptUser 20:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I've found this to be a useful resource. I don't agree with everything the author says in it, but it's a reasonably good starting point. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
That requires signing up an account. No thanks. CorruptUser 20:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who is not part of the USA. Rather that try to figure out what the modern impact of the ancient document is - wouldn't it be better to simply amend the constitution so that it's a better fit for the 21st century?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, but passing a constitutional amendment is super difficult. A proposed amendment needs to be passed by two-thirds of Congress (both houses) and then be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures. In other words, it ain't happening. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Considering that the constitution was written in a day when it was considered proper for people to murder each other in public over insults, the founder of the Democratic Party being someone who actually did just that at least fourteen times, and children being taught to use guns since before puberty, if anything I think the founders would be angry at the relative lack of guns in everyone's hands.
Except for Black people owning guns, and women, they probably would not approve of that. CorruptUser 20:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Damn, somehow I was able to access the linked article above without an account. Strange. I'll see if I can find a copy that's freely accessible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
In the meantime, as I search, to sum up one of the main points it makes; the great majority of gun crime is committed with handguns (think the Saturday Night Special types) almost always illicitly obtained, often by straw buyers (in some cases coerced into it, in others quite willingly participating in crime). Furthermore, all kinds of gun crime are much more commonly committed by people who have a criminal history. So banning "assault weapons" (itself a somewhat nebulous definition) isn't nothing, but it's a somewhat more peripheral part of the problem than most people believe. The FBI's own crime statistics basically bear that out. I'd support it, but I tend to agree that being serious about cracking down on straw buyers would have more effect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
What the hell constitutes a assault weapon to begin with? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
There's no actual definition, but to the general public it means "Big, Black and Scary". CorruptUser 21:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
”Assault weapons” is not exactly as arcane a concept as some might like to pretend. Just because there might be debates about the exact delimitation of the concept when used in gun control debates, it doesn’t mean that it is a hopelessly nebulous and undefinable one.
A tentative definition would be: High capacity, semi automatic weapons, primarily firing assault rifle ammunition (e.g. 5.56 mm NATO), derived from military assault rifles with the arguable archetype being the various AR-15 style rifles. Now, some would include similar weapons derived from sub machine guns, which might muddy the water a bit, but it’s not exactly an inscrutable concept.
The prime, common denominator is that there is very little reason for individuals to possess such weapons for the kind of purposes that might obviously and easily be argued as constituting a public good or at least broadly beneficial. These types of weapons are not either necessary or developed for hunting or similar utilitarian purposes and are way overkill for the kind of “personal defence” that US public discourse value so much.
When contrasted with the risks that the relatively easy access to and general prevalence of such weapons carry to society in general, it is hardly surprising that some see limiting both one, relatively simple way to harm reduction. While it’s not going to eliminate mass shootings, it might at least make the scope (pun not intended) of some of them less dire.
Now, you might go further and limit the access to any, semi automatic rifles (incl. those using full power ammunition, e.g. 7.62 NATO), but I think that goes a bit beyond the current assault weapon discussion, even if it would arguably further boost the harm reduction potential. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm also in favor of having different firearm regulations in different areas. Manhattan and Essex County VT (anyone who thinks of VT as the most liberal state hasn't been there) are two very different places, and what makes sense in one isn't necessarily a good idea in the other. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@CorruptUser - "Assault weapon" is not a legal term in most places - it is media/popular shorthand. There are numerous definitions as to what constitutes an "assault weapon" in various countries around the world - eg eg in New Zealand they are termed "Military Style Semi-Automatic" - MSSA. Stating there is no definition of what is an "assault weapon" is a pretty poor argument. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Aloysius, I know, which is why I gave a snarky definition used by the general public.
Let's also not forget that the AR-15's caliber is basically "all". The AR-15 is a frame, not a rifle itself, and is popular in part because it can be modified to basically just about any configuration desired. There are AR's that fire 5.56mm, there are AR's that fire 7.62, some fire 9mm, some 10mm, or even a friggin' .50 caliber, though at that point the AR-15 is short for "ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR, my shoulder!!!" CorruptUser 00:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm personally meh, theoretically, on sweeping "firearms regulations". I reserve all rights to make fun of the silly paranoid mall ninja side of firearms culture, but at the same time the US is a big, wide open country, and I think in certain outdoor areas a gun is quite a useful tool. But certain specific features that are not useful for civilians, but are particularly attractive to mass shootings, should be targeted in regulations IMHO. Although mass shootings are a low-incidence event, they have high visibility and high psychological cost. For instance, high capacity magazine restrictions (say >10 as I've heard bandied around), particularly the *detachable* kind, for instance IMHO should be a no-brainer restriction of some kind. Many states have regulations on magazine sizes for certain hunting already, so it's not without precedent. But even this is a step too far for the ammosexual crowd, and to defend this you'll sure find a whole lot of ideological paranoid nonsense, indicating that there's a good bunch of delusioned gun owners who somehow think that their wimpy semi-auto is going to stop some theoretical government nefariousness from the most advanced military in the world. Hah!
The one thing with the previous "assault weapons" regulation in AmericaWikipedia is that, while the ban didn't do diddly squat for ordinary crime, there is some evidence that the ban actually did have an impact on mass shootings... and there were far less of them in the Clinton era compared to today. So, if Biden's "assault weapons" thingy ends up being similar... meh. Maybe it will actually help the mass shooting issue down, that will help. With the NRA and that side of gun culture acting so childish lately, I'm not really in a mood to defend them if they get taken to timeout. BobJohnson (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
EC different regs in different areas? is not the gun crime in chicago commited with guns acquired from the neighbouring states that have virtually no regulations at all?
as for the assault weapons definition nonsense - legislation defines the term but varies from state to state where the is or was such legislation. whether you like the definitions or not, arguments along the lines of 'what even is an assault weapon?' or 'there are no definitions' is just arsewater of the worst kind. working definitions have always been easy to find whenever this gets debated. and every time its debated 'its not even defined'. the us has been having this conversation since forever. no one is confused. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm sick of this debate myself and I almost rather read again about decapitated elementary school kids with their blood-stained cartoon shirts or their shoes being the only means of identifying them and police shootings (of course those almost always involve an armed assailant, funny that, ain't it). Can't wait to read about the next rave party involving a constitutionally-protected man's toy, maybe the gleeful photographs will come this time. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────To the extent guns are acquired from states with looser regulations, which is a real problem, it's largely through straw buyers. And most of the guns used in crime are handguns, which aren't covered under any assault weapon bans. I'm not against banning things categorized as assault weapons, though I'd want a clearer definition so it passes Constitutional muster, but as far as I can tell they're not the primary issue; illegally acquired Saturday Night Specials are far more common in day-to-day crime, for reasons that seem fairly obvious when considered for a bit. Seriously, have you ever heard of someone robbing a bodega with an AR-15? (To disclose my own biases, I've shot rifles and shotguns before, and while I did find it a fun experience it's pretty far down on the list of things I'd find a hill to die on) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Mmmm-hmm. Don't think I'd stop on banning AR-15s. Handgun ownership should also be more restricted. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
And how do you apply those restrictions to people who are already restricted from owning firearms but have them anyway? Again, it's the straw purchases that you need to target. CorruptUser 14:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, if you are Japan, if you have an illegal handgun, you are committing a crime that police can arrest you for. There's a reason the assassin of Shinzo Abe had to improvise a device, firearms laws are *super-strict* there.
I do think that there are "cultural paradigms" that factor into laws like firearms regulations. It's going to take a lot for macho, gun-toting America to take after Japan, which tends to be a more pacifist culture. I do think, however, that the NRA everything-goes paradigm (one that happens to be tied to white male grievance) is at present out of step with future American, both because it's far more everything-goes than many people want, and because it's so tied to the white male grievance bullshit. Such will fade over time. (It's worth noting that there's many minority gun owner groups, of course, so this is probably more an NRA problem than a gun one.)
What I'm having a tough time finding is if there are differences by age that may in the future play a factor. "Assault weapon ban" support is roughly 50/50 for/against in polls (the fors have a slight edge, usually), but it's hard to find polls that break it down on exactly where that 50/50 is coming from. BobJohnson (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC
ban assault weapons. ban all the cool guns. ban all the extras. ban all the cosmetic extras. make all the legal fire arms boring. merely functional. guns should not be fetishised. they should not be accessories. remove all that you can fetishise and all that encourges to accessorise. cigerettes in the uk must be sold in drab standardised packaging with hideous images of rotted teeth and cancerous lungs. you should be presented with images of dead kids with dreadful gunshot wounds every time you enter a gun shop, or head to the range, and pick up your gun, and reload, which ideally will be musket balls in your flintlock. they should have suppressors that dont reduce the sound but converts it to that of a wet fart. or makes it even louder so it is too painful to fire the the thing without ear defenders, which by law will be really uncomfortable, massive and poorly fitting so they keep sliding out of place, and be so fugly they hurt yours eyes to look at them. and maybe chemical castration should be required too AMassiveGay (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
While I agree we "shouldn't" encourage the fetishizing of guns, I'm quite sure the Guns'n'Ammo magazines and action movies fall under the 1st Amendment. Painting your rifle is again, probably something to do with the 1st amendment. We already ban silencers and bump-stocks, so we could probably ban other modifications, though we need an actual justification beyond "we want to discourage the use entirely". But if you could invent a suppressor that changes the sound to a wet fart? I'd totally buy that. I'd even become a gun-owner just for the chance to shoot the fart-gun. CorruptUser 03:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Wombat's definition of 'Assault weapons' is mainly correct; that it's a collection of particular attributes, not simply a 'big scary-looking gun'. However, there's a lot of issues with all this which I shall show with one weapon - the SKS carbine.
Survivalists and nutjobs love this weapon. It's obviously a tool to kill people and it does it damn well. However, it is not an 'assault weapon'. Why? Because it does not have a 'detachable magazine' and is not capable of full-automatic fire. Thus, it's legal in every US state. Many 'AR-15 style' weapons use this to skirt the bans, normally by having smaller magazines and being limited to semi-automatic fire. But our carbine got even more legal protection than simple rules-lawyering.
As the SKS production runs were between 1945 and 1970, this means almost all carbine production comes under the 'historical and curio' definition which allows it in as long as it's not been modded. Do you know what else gets in via this grandfathering? Almost all AK-47s, many earlier AK-74s/FN-FALs, some M-16s and so on.
Hell, our SKS isn't even 'black and scary'. Unless it still had it's bayonet on, many would mistake it as 'another hunting rifle' [which could seriously kill you too, btw].
Feel safer now? Think the 'assault weapon ban' as is shall protect you and your kids, hmm? It's a rare day, but I do actually agree with the NRA-style complaints that some things like the bans are more political theatre than anything really useful. So our SKS shooter has to press their finger repeatedly to shoot... how much 'slower' does that make them in a firefight? So they only have a 10-round magazine... how long does it take for someone to reload? How many shootings even involve weapons like this?
I'm not suggesting that an eternal assault weapon ban would be useless, but it in the grand scheme of things won't do much for a myrad of reasons which I won't go into. However, if you wished for a bigger effect, I'd start with concreting in a hard date of 1973 for 'historical weapons' [instead of the floating '50-year' one], seal up the 'gun show loophole' and give the ATF a big wad of cash and tell them to scour the open market and buy up every 'historical and curio' AK etc which it can find so the supply dries up. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
make all guns flintlocks. problem solved. or just illegal AMassiveGay (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I would just like an accurate list of the people who are armed and with what, so we could track straw sales and weapons used in crimes. It's an insanely low bar, but current registration isn't even digital at the federal level.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't disagree per se. My only concern is that if we were to treat guns like cars, that'd give the government an excuse to levy a gun registration tax every year, and something like a $50/yr tax per gun would be an even bigger burden on those with multiple guns and... hmm... wait a minute... CorruptUser 05:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
So having the weaponry to go on a shooting spree shall be restricted to the middle class and above? I'll point out that quite a few of the 'mass shooters' were in fact, either somewhat wealthy or stole the weapons from folks who could afford your tax. Oh, you'll have to increase the numbers of ATF/Secret Service to enforce this too. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
My "never going to happen" snark stance on firearms is to take the second amendment literally (Ooh! Originalism!!), and modestly propose to limit firearm access outside the military only to those participating in the "well-regulated militia" (eg, per the Militia Act of 1903Wikipedia, the National Guard). And no, your ragtag militia movement / mall ninja style "pretend soldier" doesn't count.
Not my real stance on firearms, of course, but the paranoid pretenders who have made firearms a white identity trope that, American style, is mixed in with hyper-consumerism (buy all the guns for Scary End Times etc!!) do tire me so.BobJohnson (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I've actually mooted similar; that anything larger than a 'self defence' pistol or 'hunting' bolt-action / shotgun should require membership of a bona fide 'regulated militia'. And this 'militia' should be the State Defense Force, which would at least teach responsible weapon ownership and be a backdoor vetting system [because militiapersons would be checked before admitted and would need to keep up to a level of 'good citizenship' to retain membership]. I even wondered whether this 'force' could even be trained to provide some disaster support etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Ignoring what legally constitutes the militia in question (see the opening post), the Second Amendment refers to "arms", not "firearms". The people who wrote it thought it was appropriate for private citizens to operate warships. Things like grenades and bombs (and swords, crossbows, and armor) were not just legal but unrestricted. During most of this period, politicians (including the sitting President) went around without body guards. And regarding firearms, people could buy machine guns (both things like the Tommy gun and actual machine guns made for extended automatic fire) and anti-tank rifles without government tracking, oversight, or regulation.
"anything larger than a 'self defence' pistol or 'hunting' bolt-action / shotgun" Pistols specifically intended for self-defense may use powerful cartridges like .44 magnum to achieve high stopping power. The 9mm Luger that's standard in the modern military sidearms is less powerful than that. And .30-06 is a common rifle cartridge for hunting (deer, say) that's quite a bit more powerful than the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge that's used in the assault rifles issued by Western militiaries.
There's a trend in these discussions that restrictions of firearm access are advanced as goals in themselves rather than with reference to some public good. And so we have arguments about whether people have good reasons to own "assault weapons" as if the actual effects of gun ownership or the existence of civil rights are irrelevant to the issue. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
If we're going to go all 'original intent' crap, I say, yes fine. Every citizen can own a Brown Bess musket, cavalry sabres, 3-pound cannon and if so desire, outfit a ship of the line made from the finest oak New England can provide. However, I fucking insist that every single item has to be made only to the materials and production techniques known in 1787. Which amongst other things, nothing which isn't turned out by artisan hands.
I am aware the particular issues American gun control would have [well, some of them at least], with amongst other things the prevalance of big game and dangerous predators in parts - issues which both preclude the banning of both high-power ammunition and chunky calibres [which is why old military rounds like the 30-06 are popular for deer hunting]. In an ideal world, perhaps it could work that such 'heavier' weaponry/ammo would only be availible to folks members of registered hunting clubs, but I accept that's gonna be an impossible political sell.
And as your last point... well, there is a point there. The mainstream Democrats have allowed it to become a wedge issue and some are so obvious in their hatred of firearms that it really puts off what I like to think of the 'Hank Hill' type of voter - ones who I think would respond much more positively to 'rights come with responsibilities' lines regarding responsible firearm ownership and chocking off the supplies of them to the ones who shouldn't have them. My 'defence force' idea is a wondering whether it's something which would get Hank Hill in the tent pissing out rather than outside of it pissing in. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"If we're going to go all 'original intent' crap, I say, yes fine." The original intent was that law-abiding citizens should have access to any weapon that a military might use, so that the armed citizenry would outgun any army the government might conceivably raise by such a degree that the government would not be tempted to become tyrannical. Keep in mind that a standing army was forbidden on top of that. But at any rate, I was referring to the actual text of the document (the current law of the land), which specifies "arms" rather than anything specific. Arms were seeing fast development at the time the Second Amentment was written and ratified, and the people who wrote the Second Amendment knew that. Thomas Jefferson sent the Lewis and Clark expedition off with high-capacity semi-automatic rifles for hunting, defense, and to impress the natives they encountered. Revolvers had been in use for some 300 years by that time, and rapid-fire mechanisms were being adapted to a variety of weapon designs and purposes. Machine tools were in development for the specific purpose of making interchangeble parts for firearms (with Jefferson issuing a major supply contract for such). And all of that aside, your quip there does run afoul of current regulations. People nowadays are not permitted to bear such arms as people could and did in 1787.

"ones who I think would respond much more positively to 'rights come with responsibilities' lines regarding responsible firearm ownership" Does the right to vote come with responsibilities? How about the right to trial by jury, or the right to freedom of speech or the press? Should the freedom of the press only apply to media available in 1787, like the printing press, and should voting only be permitted using paper ballots and manual counting? The right to bear arms (in the US) is a right, which means that it is (as written, at least) unrestricted by default, with restrictions being an individual matter resulting from due process like conviction for a crime. It is not a license which is restricted by default and subject to access criteria like passing a test or class. This is in the same part of the Constitution and uses the same language as freedom of speech and other basic rights, so tread carefully here. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Um, what the fuck are you talking about, BoN? The only thing Lewis and Clark expedition carried even close to a semi-automatic rifle was, as far as I can tell, a Girardoni air rifleWikipedia, which is an example of a repeating rifleWikipedia. The Wiki on semi-automatic firearmWikipedia claims invention of the semi-auto to be from 1885. Semi-autos are a form of repeating rifle where the cartridge loading is automatic (but, unlike a fully auto, the shooter manually pulls the trigger). This is not the case for the Girardoni. (The Giradoni also is an air rifle, not a firearm, to be pedantic.)
As far as rights, this is one of those things that prevent discussion: the wrapping of the 2nd Amendment as a Holy Document That Shall Not Be Abridged. But here's the thing: the problem with permissive gun regulations is, frankly, as a general rule, the more permissive the gun regulations, the greater the amount of gun violence. This is what a lot of the gun control movement is about: people tire of gun violence, either the high-profile (mass shootings etc.) kind or just the general high gun violence of this nation compared to every single other developed nation out there. Now, there's plenty of arguments that can be made for those who advocate complete abolition (for a start, the "concerns" of rural areas are going to be quite different than urban ones, and it's no surprise that gun control movements tend to come from the experience of the urban side). But there's also no way these concerns can be reconciled with people whose religion is the 2nd Amendment, where even reasonably sensible regulations are seen as verboten due to the Holy Document, and even in some cases you get the idea that people would have absolutely no issue with everyone having nukes in their backyard. It's just like the ACAB types in another thread: at some point you give up, as nothing can be said any further, and hope people discover their errors on their own. Dogma cannot be reasoned with. BobJohnson (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
ACAB is a slogan at the end of the day. Obviously things are complex, but slogans aren't meant to be in-depth political and philosophical discussions. I don't think this analogy is very fair. Hell, if one were uncharitable enough they could call it an example of strawmanning or nutpicking. Vee (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
(EC) I've linked to this diff before and I'll probably do this again in the future. As far as the evidence goes, more guns, more crimes. I'd say ban them all, but I have no idea at how we can do this in the American case. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
"a Girardoni air rifle, which is an example of a repeating rifle." Yes, you're correct, I mislabeled it. It still could fire its 20-some round capacity in about 30 seconds.
"The Giradoni also is an air rifle, not a firearm, to be pedantic." I never said it was. The use of air as a propellent doesn't make its .50 calibur balls less deadly than those propelled by black powder from muskets. It was so fearsome as a weapon of war that Napoleon ordered the summary execution of any opponents caught wielding one. Suppose electrically-propelled guns (e.g. railguns) become practical in the future. Their utility as weapons is what matters for the Second Amendment, not the propellent technology used.
"the wrapping of the 2nd Amendment as a Holy Document That Shall Not Be Abridged." This is known as the rule of law. The US Constitution is, legally speaking, the supreme law of the land, and any violations of what is written in it are, strictly speaking, illegal.
"as a general rule, the more permissive the gun regulations, the greater the amount of gun violence." The places in the US with the most restrictive gun regulations have the greatest gun violence. Generally speaking, those parts of the world which prevent the law-abiding public from having effective self-defense weapons are more violent than those that allow it. Why do you suppose Mexico is much more violent than the US despite the much stricter firearm regulations, and Switzerland is less violent than the US despite until recently issuing firearms to its citizens to keep in thir homes?
"or just the general high gun violence of this nation compared to every single other developed nation out there." Most non-suicide gun violence in the US occurs in certain large cities, and is assiated with actual criminal activity like gang violence and drug or other back market commerce. It's not a "general" issue. The gun violence in most areas of the US is comparable to most areas of other developed countries.
"where even reasonably sensible regulations" If these proposed "sensible" regulations are unconstitutional, that's an actual problem.
"As far as the evidence goes, more guns, more crimes." Why? That's not what the referecnes in that diff say. I mean, you saw that the first part reads, "One meta-analysis from 2015 arguedthat "It must be tentatively concluded that higher gun ownership rates do not cause higher crime rates, including homicide rates",", right? It's as if there are factors which actually lead to violent crime, with guns merely being one tool which may be used in violent crime. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I know, I added the content to the article. The reason I said that is because this meta-analysis is older than the other two and because two is bigger than one. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 02:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
"this meta-analysis is older than the other two" What other two? Both cites are to the same article. And guns aren't a new technology. What difference do you expect a few years to make? Especially for meta-analyses of previous studies.
"and because two is bigger than one." Not with meta-analyses it isn't. And at any rate, only the first actually examines the question of whether more guns in the general population result in more crime (it doesn't, it concludes). The second is about regulations targeted at specific individuals and businesses, not overall gun ownership. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
BoN, Pew has a handy infograph of gun death rates per capita. Wiki has a nice article on firearm death rates in the United States by stateWikipedia which helpfully also includes per capita rates for murder (as Pew includes suicides etc.). "The places in the US with the most restrictive gun regulations have the greatest gun violence." -- where are you getting that? It's pretty clear that the worst states tend to be Southern US, like Louisiana and Mississippi. Gun laws are quite permissive in both states. Another study from CNN [9] comes to a similar conclusion. Internationally, the same applies: studies I've looked at like this one also conclude that, in general, stricter firearm resolutions reduce firearm death rates. Also, FYI, last year there was a bit of a rural crime wave. The center-left think tank Third Way reported that "Trump states" have steadily increasing gun murder rates per capita compared to "Biden" states since 2000.
Obviously there is a lot of "fuzziness", and you'll find exceptions. There are also cultures like Switzerland and the Nordic countries which have high gun ownership and low gun violence; this is possible through either strict regulations (say, Norway) or a strong actual militia cultural motif (Switzerland). If America the gun culture was in this direction, I'd be okay with it. But American gun culture is more paranoid, base, and contradictory.
There's a Republican tendency to, on the one hand, wrap themselves in the 2nd Amendment and Defend The Right to Bear Arms to absolute degrees... and on the other hand, highlight every Scary Urban Gun Crime in yer Breitbart type fake news for you know what reasons. Well, you know what? Very strict gun regulations is a solution for this purported urban crime y'all complain about! (Along with the rural crimes and suicides, I might add.) No regulation is perfect, and there certainly are good reasons not to implement a full on gun ban in the US. But gun regulations as a whole do tend to put a damper on gun crime and other deaths to some degree, at least according to the vast majority of studies I've seen. There's a lot one can argue one way or another about this of course, but absolutist posturing that can be easily dis-proven with a Google search is just another reason not to take this side very seriously at all. BobJohnson (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
'Originalism' is a theory in that you read the Constitution 'as the writers intended', and thus they would have had visions of Minuteman with muskets to fend off redcoats. No, not even Ben Franklin would have been able to visualise an AK-47 [and even if he could, never mentioned it]. I'm simply taking a stupid theory to a logical conclusion, like insisting fundie literalist Christians should follow all the laws laid down in Leviticus. I don't actually buy into this crap.
And yes, the right to vote does come with responsibilities. To be an aware voter, to be a participant as a citizen in the process so it functions as well as it can. The right to a jury trial comes with the responsibility to serve on one if asked and to do it to the best to your damn ability. The right of free speech comes with the responsibility of handling it in a mature manner when you're offended by other's viewpoints and so on. It's a particulary American thing which seems to see rights as absolute and with no duties actually attached to them. I've heard right-wingers bitch about the 'entitlement culture' and 'irresponsibility' that welfare supposedly breeds, but that charge can be equally levelled as the 'free speech absolutists' and yes, the '2nd Amendment religionists'. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
"It's pretty clear that the worst states tend to be Southern US, like Louisiana and Mississippi." I said "places", not "states". Chicago usually has more murders per year than Louisiana despite a smaller population. It also has stricter gun laws.
"in general, stricter firearm resolutions reduce firearm death rates." The problem with firearm deaths is that people die, not that they were killed specifically with a firearm. Global data (this is a graph of homicide vs. firearm ownership data from 172 countries) indicates a weak negtive correlation between firearm prevalence and homicide rates. As a weak correlation, it's not strongly predictive, but it is more strongly predictive than the inverse. Do you want to have a conversation about strong correlates to homicide rates?
"for you know what reasons." What demographic group do you suppose is hardest-hit in high-crime areas?
"Very strict gun regulations is a solution for this purported urban crime y'all complain about!" Most such crime is already committed with illegally-obtained guns.
"I'm simply taking a stupid theory to a logical conclusion" No, you're deliberately misinterpreting the intention of the Second Amendment while outright ignoring what it actually says.
"And yes, the right to vote does come with responsibilities." Moral responsibilities, not legal responsibilities. There's no law that says you have to vote, or vote responsibly, and there's no legal punishment for failing to do so. There is no test or class one must pass in order to vote. And jury duty is a legally mandatory duty, doing it well is a moral responsibility, but is likewise not legally required.
"It's a particulary American thing which seems to see rights as absolute" This is because the US Constitution makes extensive mention of negative rights formulated as things which the government is not authorized to interfere with, using plainly-worded outright prohibitions. This results in things like the US not having hate speech laws (a result of following the rule of law specified in the Constitution, not a religion). In contrast, "entitlements" are positive rights which require some party to provide a good or service of some kind. Entitlements may be worthwhile (like the right to trial by jury), but they are inherently expensive things (like the requirment of jury duty and the other work and expenses associated with a jury trial). Negative rights are free at the point of use, or only involve expenses by the person making use of them. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't really buy the argument that the founding fathers wouldn't have been able to comprehend rapid-firing and powerful firearms considering that they were alive during the time of the Girardoni air rifle, Puckle gun and other such weapons. Immature technology? Absolutely, but look what they turned into just decades after the lives of the founders ended. It's also pretty easy to tell that they were, in fact, intending for civilians to have access to weaponry that would be considered dangerous or highly destructive based on the fact that anybody who could afford it could legally have access to not just a cannon but rather a warship covered with cannons and similar weaponry. The argument that the founders couldn't have comprehended it ergo it doesn't apply to modern weapons feels a bit disingenuous when a similar argument made for television, radio broadcast and/or internet censorship pertaining to the first amendment because the founding fathers would have been unable to predict those modes of communication would be absolutely absurd. SwampFox (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
If you argue from a strict originalism POV, no that would be correct - TV, internet, radio etc are not covered by the 1st Amendement. But that is never argued because 'originalism' is a pile of shit which is trotted out as/when it handy for the 'rights absolutists' crowd, not a general principle. We call this in RPGs 'rules lawyering' [cherrypicking shit when it suits you], and right-wingers do this in spades. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
"If you argue from a strict originalism POV, no that would be correct" Another deliberate misinterpretation. The First Amendment specifies freedom of "speech" and "the press", not specific technologies which may be used for those purposes. Because the concern of the First Amendment is with rights, not specific technologies which may be used to enjoy those rights. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


I'm not sure how realistic proposed weapons bans are considering the sheer number of guns in the US. Vee (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

This is basically the crux of the issue. There’s a reason banning alcohol and pot made things worse, so I can hardly imagine banning guns would go any better. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see people resisting and forming militias to protect an abstract concept of freedom. A more gradual approch would probably work better. Something like, you can keep your guns, but you can't buy new guns. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I also don’t see that working. Saying people can’t buy new guns is a simple one-step process to create a massive black market of untraceable and unregulated guns. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, the black market is always a problem too, especially since it already exists with the current legislation. The fact that America has a huge border with Mexico also doesn't help. And no, I'm not supporting a wall or anything like this, I'm almost on the open borders side of the debate, just saying that it's a practical problem since Mexico has a huge problem with arms trafficking. Still, I think that slowly banning guns is the least bad option. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 02:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
To be fair to Mexico, current arms trafficking mostly brings guns from our side to theirs. But it very well could work the other way should certain misguided policies create demand. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Making firearms is not a particularly difficult process, considering that Pashto tribesmen with crude hand tools were able to make effective and working firearms. Cartels in Mexico would absolutely branch out into a business that literally requires a CNC machine and is ridiculously profitable. While the flow of firearms into Mexico may stop temporarily, that just means that the cartels making billions of dollars a year have to find new toys. How about some AKMs and M16A4s rather than semi-automatic rifles? SwampFox (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
To all of you, I retort; 'it's not a perfect solution, therefore there is no point doing it.'
Which is patently a load of bollocks. I've pointed this out before; that 'new ideas' are forced to have a level of projected success which is never demanded of the status quo. You know what? This is the usual tactic of the gun extremists. Bog you down in welter of detail, cite a few edge cases / exceptions, insist you fix every fucking single one before changing a thing and let you all talk yourselves into a coma for there is no bleeding single perfect solution out there [and they fucking know it!].
SwampFox is providing a excellent example. Just because it's within the ken of human beings to produce their own firearms if they have the sufficient skills, equipment, time and motivation... oooh, we can't do nothing about any guns! You know if we had the same mentality towards food safety America would have constant waves of deaths by salmonellosis and botulism, right? Or what about fire codes? Or the production of drugs? Or child porn? I bet you'll scream blue murder if we took the same 'it's terrible but we can't eliminate it in one swoop so shall do nothing' mentality!
Regulations are there to reduce the risk. 'Elimination' of say, fire risk is impossible; all we can do is work on the reductions which we can. Yes, there's a lot of 'assault weapons' in civilian hands already and a new/continued ban on fresh sales wouldn't effect them - so do what I suggested above, to give the ATF a ton of cash and orders to buy up at gun shows / sites every 'vintage' AK they can get their hands on. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@SwampFox IIRC the gun used to assassinate Abe was homemade. Vee (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
How about instead banning guns from people, we ban some people from guns? EDIT: Forgot to sign.ASerb (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
"that 'new ideas' are forced to have a level of projected success which is never demanded of the status quo." That's because the status quo is the status quo. A change from the status quo may be worse than the status quo and involves the costs associated with the change, so it must at the very least be enough better than the status quo to justify the change, taking into account the risk that things may work out differently than expected.
"Or the production of drugs?" Prohibition of alcohol was tried in the US. Not only didn't it work, it resulted in increased alcohol abuse and greatly expanded criminal activity as a result of the massive black markets that formed. Alcohol is easy to make, you see. Prisoners make it in prison. So if there's a demand, people are able to supply it without the government being able to prevent it. Guns are currently made from scrap metal in jungles with hand tools to supply black markets. Actual to-spec reproductions of common guns. Do you want to ban files and hacksaws?
"Regulations are there to reduce the risk." But wishing that a regulation would be effective at its nominal purpose does not make it so. And even if it did, not all things that can be done for the sake of reducing risk should be done.
"ban some people from guns?" This is already the case in the US. Felons (among some others) typically can't have guns. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Making guns at home gets easier and cheaper every day. I'm not exactly seeing how it would be possible to prevent people from churning out firearms with a 3d printer and some tools or a basic machining setup either. Buybacks would barely make a dent in the half a billion guns circulating in the US, plus the people who would actually comply aren't exactly the ones you have to worry about having guns in the first place. The current situation needs to be navigated carefully and mass bans would often be useless if not more destructive than the status quo. SwampFox (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Guns are an ancient technology. What was cutting-edge in the 8th century is no longer so. This shouldn't be an argument against regulation (after all the Court recognized that the Second Amendment is not an unrestricted right, there are responsibilities that come along with gun ownership), but we should keep in mind these details when discussing regulating firearms. Vee (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Not to mention, since it's not actually illegal to make a gun in your garage, you can make a decent amount of money from making gun parts specifically to sell them as part of a gun buy-back CorruptUser 20:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
"that 'new ideas' are forced to have a level of projected success which is never demanded of the status quo." That's because the status quo is the status quo. A change from the status quo may be worse than the status quo and involves the costs associated with the change, so it must at the very least be enough better than the status quo to justify the change, taking into account the risk that things may work out differently than expected.
Not the point I was making. The point was that 'perfect is the enemy of good' and bad-faith actors shall use this by demanding the change be to perfection, not simply 'better'. As this is impossible, all changes are put on hold, forever. It's an excellent tactic, and vital to whack it when it is pulled out.
"Or the production of drugs?" Prohibition of alcohol was tried in the US. Not only didn't it work, it resulted in increased alcohol abuse and greatly expanded criminal activity as a result of the massive black markets that formed.
I was simply commenting on the right's usual boogyman, drugs. That despite the fact the drug prohibition is very flawed, that doesn't stop them from chopping/changing to try to improve the results and would scream blue murder if lawmakers simply gave up because said laws weren't perfect straight off. Contrast with the comment above.
"Regulations are there to reduce the risk." But wishing that a regulation would be effective at its nominal purpose does not make it so.
I'm impressed you already know 100% that any of the risk-reductions I've ever suggested [and possibly others] won't work. And without explaining why they won't.
Making guns at home gets easier and cheaper every day. I'm not exactly seeing how it would be possible to prevent people from churning out firearms with a 3d printer and some tools or a basic machining setup either. Buybacks would barely make a dent in the half a billion guns circulating in the US, plus the people who would actually comply aren't exactly the ones you have to worry about having guns in the first place. The current situation needs to be navigated carefully and mass bans would often be useless if not more destructive than the status quo.
It's Fox's broken record time! But not only is there a gamut of technical issues/complications which you keep on ignoring [and I shall not repeat here] but I've got a simple clincher now; bring it on. I don't believe that America shall be filled with people printing off AKs for $10 and a half-hour and near zero skill due to many technical reasons and the fact most folks won't want to either.
And if it does... well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Because oddly enough, it shall be a problem whether or not assault weaponry was more restricted in the land. Lastly, lawmakers never say [for example] 'oh no, we cannot introduce this anti-piracy law becase one day every citizen may have the theoretical abilty to produce illegal media discs for use!' KarmaPolice (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
None of you pro-gun chucklefucks have apparently used a 3D printer, they are neat in a way, but the items they produce are really too brittle. Would I trust this sort of material for something that goes "bang"? Nope. Yes, better additive manufacturing tools do exist, but are usually too expensive / out of reach for the general home crowd.
Now, I don't doubt, of course, that those with good engineering tinkering skills can perhaps cobble up an improvised gun type device. But I'm sensing a wee bit of "armchair engineering" here. I doubt anything created in a home environment would be as slick as a modern manufactured device, where fancy machines can achieve some incredibly tight tolerances (and you need this in order to prevent the huge amount of issues that can happen with something going bang projecting a pellet of metal in a particular direction). I think there is an underestimation of the time needed to assemble something semi-competent (home 3D printing is not really plug and play, and I really do think you'd really need some metallurgy skills to "do it right" old school style, and/or maybe some CAD type skills to do anything semi-modern). Finally, frankly, the biggest "item of concern" among many in the gun-regulation crowd is mass shootings. I seriously suspect that the type of typical "mass shooter" profile is very different compared to the typical "I know what ShapewaysWikipedia is" profile. I mean, how many people make their own furniture these days, despite the fact that CNC routers (a somewhat comparable device to a 3D printer in that it allows some automated-by-program manufacturing) exist?
Most of you recent "mah rights!" folks are exactly what turns me off about the "mah freedoms!" crowd, a whole lot of pedantry, [citation needed], and questionable armchair analysis. Keep telling people that active shooter drills in elementary school are definitely necessary because you read about a 3D printer once and because of this you absolutely know that it can print guns. That's a great sell. BobJohnson (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
For a quick reply that repeats things said in a previous discussion here on the topic, fully-functional guns can be made quietly in an apartment by people with no prior gun or related manufacturing experience for about the cost (including all tools, supplies, and machinery) of a Glock 19. To reiterate, that's a fully-functional gun.
"Most of you recent "mah rights!" folks are exactly what turns me off about the "mah freedoms!" crow" Yeah, who needs those things, really? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The FGC-9 is a "tinker"/"hacker" type project IMHO. An emphasis on 3D printing, sure... but you also need certain other skills (welding, soldering, etc.) as written, along with certain components from either an AR-15 platform or an Airsoft. The well-designed build manual is, nonetheless, 110 pages. It's probably a "garage" build (welding in an apartment, eek!) unless you can get around certain aspects. So, great for the Makerspace tech libertarians who like to make something blow shit up, I suppose. If you got build skills, it's probably the couple weeks they claim, but if you are like "what's a dremel?" it will take quite a bit longer. I don't see evidence it has a lot of traction outside of certain spaces, at any rate. Now, I also think that a fully functional gun can be made by any tinkerer sufficiently experienced in old-school metalsmith concepts all the way up to the new CNC router stuff etc (and maybe even a little Macgyvering along the way), without the need of such toys as a 3D printer that produce elements that are probably less durable "in the field". Guns aren't exactly new tech. So, whoop-de-shit. Let me know when a mass shooter type stops writing their idiotic manifestos long enough to actually learn enough useful life skills to accomplish any of these things.
(No need to go any further as you are clearly arguing from ideology and this ride will go on and on forever; freedom and rights are important, but so is safety. Just a warning that I do see a few signs that the youngsters generations are much more wary about current NRA culture, so IMHO y'all need better arguments than you are giving. That is all for now.) BobJohnson (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
KarmaPolice is correct, criticizing proposed policy because it isn't perfect is fallacious. The harder it is to obtain a gun, the fewer guns there will be. Maybe they'll make their own, and maybe it will blow up in their face. That is not the issue. As you put up hurdles to obtain guns the gun crime stats will go down. If you grandfather in current guns but prevent any new ones from being bought the existing ones will command a much higher price, and they will eventually wear out. FairDinkum (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
zip guns have been a thing since forever. in some regions production of 'homemade' guns by criminal gangs is a cottage industry and does not need to be especially sophisticated to be effective. CAD available to a hobbyist is plenty sophisticated enough to produce a sten gun, a submachine gun developed for the british military in ww2 to be simple and easy to produce with very little. 3d printing does not shift dynamics of gun control debates in any significant way and does not make regulations any more redundant or unenforceable than owning a lathe does already. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Very correct. The best example of the 'backyard gunsmiths' being the 'Khyber Pass Copies' and 3D-printing merely changes the medium [somewhat], not the principles. And we can safely assume the power of money shall combat printed guns; that just like DMCA attacked people getting around anti-piracy measures [like DRMs] the gun-makers shall do all they can to make sure you continue paying $500+ for a new pistol rather than 'printing' one for say, $100. In fact, 3D printing threatens to change the whole 'spare parts' market; if you don't think the myriad of companies which make a living producing/retailing such things won't do their best to put in enough hurdles to preserve their business viability [having seen how the music/magazine industry was decimated by the SuperWeb and still hasn't recovered] somehow you're a total bellend. Combine this with the moral panic we'll see regarding the tech the moment a printed weapon is used in an assasination/school attack means the hurdles to this production method shall remain considerably higher than believed. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
"bad-faith actors shall use this by demanding the change be to perfection, not simply 'better'." Can you provide a quote to this effect which is relevant to the discussion here?
"I was simply commenting on the right's usual boogyman, drugs." Alcohol, nicotine, and pharmaceuticals are also drugs. Are you pointing to the current US policies regarding such things as meth and fentanyl as something to emulate in firearm regulation?
"I'm impressed you already know 100% that any of the risk-reductions I've ever suggested [and possibly others] won't work. And without explaining why they won't." That's because I was explaining why changes to the status quo are held to different standards than the status quo, not the merits of any particular changes. It's a callback to the previous sections, with prohibition serving as an example of a counterproductive regulation. As one class of possible changes to the status quo, proposed regulations can produce results worse than the status quo even if they're well-intentioned. Which is why proposed changes should be evaluated carefully and weighed for costs and benefits before implementation.
"but I've got a simple clincher now; bring it on." This isn't generally a very good basis for policy decisions.
" despite the fact that CNC routers (a somewhat comparable device to a 3D printer in that it allows some automated-by-program manufacturing) exist?" CNC routers are not more complex than FDM printers, but they're bigger and heavier, which results in them costing much more. They also produce a lot of noise and dust, and generally live in a workshop rather than a closet or on a countertop. But yes, consumer CNC routers capable of milling aluminum do exist at relatively modest prices, and are another indication that many proposed gun control laws are aimed at disarming law-abiding citizens rather than criminals.
"No need to go any further as you are clearly arguing from ideology" So, in response to a quick post that makes your silly and wrong statements look clearly silly and wrong, you declare rhetorical victory and that the conversation is over. Very impressive.
"freedom and rights are important, but so is safety." There's a rather famous quote about that, but I'll leave that to you. Looking at history, how did you conclude that safety is best achieved by giving an unaccountable government and criminals a duopoly on weapons?
"3d printing does not shift dynamics of gun control debates in any significant way and does not make regulations any more redundant or unenforceable than owning a lathe does already." Not in principle, but it does make them look silly. That's important in politics.
"And we can safely assume the power of money shall combat printed guns; that just like DMCA attacked people getting around anti-piracy measures" A big difference is that guns are physical items that need to be built on a per-unit basis. Digitized media can be produced once and endlessly copied for negligible cost. This makes media markets dominated by small groups of large corporations distributing media through central systems. Gun manufacturers produce ready-made physical products, which 3D printing and other homemade gun techniques don't compete with directly. They're also doing just fine due to high demand associated with various recent societal upheavals. How do you propose that gun manufacturers would even attempt to restrict something like the guy making an FGC-9 in his apartment? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
3d printed guns or even just homemade guns are a significant priblem anywhere else in the world. why do you think it would be any different in the us? the problem there is the thoudands on thousands of fire arms already in circulation, and gun companies adding yet more and more to those many thousands. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with BobJ, 192 is arguing from ideology alone and is using debating techniques to 'win' [and thus can be ignored]. However, they show a critical issue; that they may in fact be leading to the ending of their beloved 'fweedoms' [the entitled, irresponsible kind] because they end up infurating me, and I think I'm perhaps the most 'pro gun' person in the Bar.
That when folks like me [the ones who accept gun ownership but want to see it become responsible ownership and much less fetishised] try to have a discussion over this, all we get is cranky, blinkered screaming from the dogmatic 'maximalists' who won't budge a single iota on any point, even as small as requiring owners to keep their weapons secure from being stolen. Any idea shall be driven into the ground, on the semi-secret principle of 'any change is BAD!'
Faced with such a bone-headed and obstinate opponent, but accepting the needs to actually do something fucking productive to try stem the orgy of violence in the land, the pragmatist normally comes to the conclusion that the maximalist is perhaps not just 'part of the problem' but may in fact be the critical element. Thus, the 'war on guns'. But the maximalist is [again] too fucking stupid to realise that they have mainly made their own enemies on this topic. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────universal background checks and creating a firearm registry are good starters for overhauling our pathetic gun laws. without these, pretty much any other gun law will be unenforceable. i'd also argue for mandatory training and/or military service before buying a gun, but i digress.

a lot of guns flowing to latin america are made in the usa. this is only one example of how the united states is a major player in the global arms trade. background checks and a firearm registry will at least bring scrutiny to the american firearms industry and their lobbyists. i mean, if they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't be afraid of monitoring their own supply chains. it makes you wonder why the gun lobby is so adamantly opposed to even the most basic regulations like these. The G (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

How does this address the fears of minority communities that the police can't be trusted to protect them? (For instance, nearly half of all murder cases go cold in the US, and the case is far more likely to be a cold one if the victim is a minority.) The police often act more like street gangs than "protectors of the peace." Minority communities arm themselves because no one else can be trusted to protect them. The state certainly won't do it, especially when the state is actively harmful to the minority groups in question. Not all gun owners are cishet white males. There's also the the issue of the state literally dumping guns on the street. VeeMeow? 18:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
all i'm saying is that maybe we can take things in the right direction if we at least make it more difficult to buy guns than donate blood (if you're gay). police brutality is a topic for another discussion, though i wouldn't doubt that us gun culture is one reason american cops are so trigger happy. as for the arms trafficking and political corruption, that isn't something a little cracking down cannot fix. (i mean, if even brazil can do it, why can't we?) we have the resources to rein in our erratic gun culture; our elected representatives are just too greedy and lazy to put them into practice, so they keep making excuses. The G (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
"3d printed guns or even just homemade guns are a significant priblem anywhere else in the world." Guns themselves aren't a problem per se. "Problems" don't even exist without reference to some goal structure. What goal are you invoking here?
"the problem there is the thoudands on thousands of fire arms already in circulation, and gun companies adding yet more" There are about 400 million civilian-owned guns in the US, with about 20 million new sold per year recently.
"192 is arguing from ideology alone" Is this a new meme? You seem to regard that accusation as a "get out of social disapproval for forfeiting the argument you joined" card. If you disagree, how about you provide a quote in which I "argued from ideology alone" and explain what's wrong with it?
"and is using debating techniques to 'win' [and thus can be ignored]." Winning an argument is really not complicated. You just become familiar with a topic before joining an argument about it. Did you think this was the first time I've had this conversation? And are you seriously making the point that you know you're wrong and can't argue it, so you should ignore the statements explaining how you're wrong?
"but want to see it become responsible ownership" Meaning what, SPECIFICALLY as policies?
"even as small as requiring owners to keep their weapons secure from being stolen." There is no such state of affairs. What do you actually mean here?
"Any idea shall be driven into the ground, on the semi-secret principle of 'any change is BAD!'" A lot of proposed changes are obviously unconstitutional, which is a rather different criticism. Do you have any relevant quotes you'd like to share of what you're referring to?
"but accepting the needs to actually do something fucking productive to try stem the orgy of violence in the land" This is a really bad methodology for deciding public policy.
"universal background checks" Gun sales from licensed dealers are already subject to background checks. Do you mean to say that private gun owners should be prohibited from selling their guns to other individuals?
"and creating a firearm registry" For what purpose?
"without these, pretty much any other gun law will be unenforceable" How would those things prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns? It's obvious how they could be used for disarming the law-abiding public, but that's not usually the stated goal of these things.
"it makes you wonder why the gun lobby is so adamantly opposed to even the most basic regulations like these." They are illegal and don't address actual problems. Federal law prohibits the creation of a registry, and federal regulation of gun sales is mostly done under the auspices of its authority to regulate interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause is even more abused than the Second Amendment, but one person selling a homemade gun to a neighbor is so obviously not that that we haven't reached that point yet.
"at least make it more difficult to buy guns than donate blood (if you're gay)" Keeping and bearing arms is a right which the US government is Constitutionally prohibited from infringing. Donating blood is not, and heuristics aimed at ensuring uninfected blood are a high priority in the process. Homosexual men do in fact have higher rates of bloodborne infections than the general population. I don't know if you've ever donated blood, but there is a rather long list of qualifying questions that people besides homosexual men may be disqualified for.
"why can't we?" Be careful of using "we" like this. Presumably you're not proposing that you should personally be involved in police oversight, so you shouldn't imply that you would be. But at any rate, stuff like that does happen in the US. As for "cracking down" more generally, an issue there is that people in the US have rather more robust rights than Brazilians, and proposals for doing away with that are not usually very popular. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
i neglected an important 'not' in my statement about about 3d printed and homemade guns. i should learn to proof read. the goal though is prohibition of many firearms, the aforementioned assault weapons for one, and stricter regulation of remaining legal firearms. you know, what we've all been discussing. pay attention AMassiveGay (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
@192... it seems that you misunderstood my point. i happen to know how difficult it is to donate blood as i donate plasma every so often. however, i lack evidence to definitively claim that it is more difficult to do so than to own a gun in the united states. on the other hand, the article i posted (which you apparently did not open) specifically mentioned gay men. and just because owning a gun is a constitutional right doesn't mean that right is limitless, in the same way that the first amendment doesn't grant a right to defraud, defame, or even threaten people. lastly, i understand that you disagree with my assessment on oversight of authority figures (not necessarily limited to police), but i stand by what i said earlier. we may be a nation of rights, but we are also a nation of laws, and no one – not even those in the government – is above the law. The G (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
"the article i posted (which you apparently did not open) specifically mentioned gay men." And it incorrectly said that "gay and bisexual men are the only group stigmatized as potentially having “bad blood.”" Considering your own stated experience, you should have known that that point is incorrect. Supposedly only 37% of the US population is eligible to donate blood, compared to about 75% which is eligible to own firearms (with most of those not eligible being minors). In contrast to the article's statemet, that does make sense, for the reasons previously stated.
"in the same way that the first amendment doesn't grant a right to defraud, defame, or even threaten people" Exactly so. Like with freedom of speech, people can use speech to commit crimes, for which they face punishment. Speech is not preemptively stifled in the general population because someone might potentially use speech in a crime. Similarly, law-abiding citizens in the US have the right to keep and bear arms, but not to use them to, say, rob a bank.
"i understand that you disagree with my assessment on oversight of authority figures" You seemed to be under the impression that anti-corruption arrests and such don't take place in the US, which is incorrect. It's far from perfect, but unconstitutional authoritarian power grabs are not what I would propose as a fix for current problems. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
i don't know where you got the idea that i support unconstitutional power grabs from. sounds like you're putting words in my mouth. and it doesn't seem like you understood the point of the blood argument at all. everything you said about it being complicated to donate blood for the safety of society at large only proves my point: we should regulate guns in a likewise manner. there's no reason we should make it easy for just anyone to buy weapons. The G (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
"i don't know where you got the idea that i support unconstitutional power grabs from." You said above: "as for the arms trafficking and political corruption, that isn't something a little cracking down cannot fix. (i mean, if even brazil can do it, why can't we?) we have the resources to rein in our erratic gun culture" "Trafficking" usually refers to trade involving illegal items, but with guns being legal to make, sell, and buy in the US, most arms trafficking in the US is legal. And you gave Brazil as an example to follow, with many of its policies being unconstitutional in the US. And so, on their face, your statements appear to call for the US government to significantly expand its control over the economy and restrict people's rights, both in unconstitutional ways. If that's not what you meant, what did you actually mean?
"it doesn't seem like you understood the point of the blood argument at all." You initially brought it up as a reference for what you proposed as a suitable "difficulty" for getting guns should be, with a linked article claiming that gay/bisexual men are the only group "stigmatized as potentally having "bad blood"" and that guns being easier to acquire than it is for that group to donate blood "doesn't make any sense". Which is incorrect on both counts. And so I explained that. To which you repeated the original point. To which I explained in greater detail. So yes, it is "easier" (in the sense that more people are eligible - guns are generally not free while blood donation is) to buy a gun in the US than it is to donate blood, and it is entirely appropriate that this is the case. Do you have an actual argument for a different position? Because presently, it's an unsupported assertion rather than an argument.
"we should regulate guns in a likewise manner." Blood donation is restricted for people of demographic groups believed to be at higher risk of bloodborne infections. An analogous gun rights policy would be to prohibit members of demographic groups with higher violent crime rates from having guns. How do you think that would go?
"there's no reason we should make it easy for just anyone to buy weapons." Why? Do you have an actual articulable reason? Keep in mind that weapons are easy to make. Prisoners make them in prison. Are you proposing a police state more overbearing than an actual locked-up-in-a-cage-with-guards prison? And who's "we"? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
all that was in response to someone else's post. i never once supported a police state. there you go again with your strawman. now, you can either read the whole thread in context or your can keep arguing over nothing and making patently false assumptions about me. your choice. The G (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
"all that was in response to someone else's post." You still said it. In a group discussion anyone can reply to.
"i never once supported a police state." Do you want me to repeat the quotes? If what you said isn't what you meant, what did you actually mean?
"there you go again with your strawman. now, you can either read the whole thread in context or your can keep arguing over nothing and making patently false assumptions about me." Can you provide a single quote in which I strawmanned you or made a false assumption, and explain how it constitutes a strawman or false assumption? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
just re-read the thread yourself. all of your claims that i support a police state are 100% baseless. all i said was that we should at least track firearms sales by creating a registry and a system of background checks. i included the "blood donations" argument as an analogy in response to objections to my basic proposal. i still hold that obtaining a firearm should be more difficult than donating blood – minus the discrimination part, of course. (and yes, i know that some gun laws are historically discriminatory. and you know what? they are ineffective, too. i never said all gun laws don't work. in fact, i only suggested two gun laws that might work. but i digress.)
yes, i still stand by what i said on cracking down on corruption. no, that doesn't mean i support a police state. it means i support enforcing existing laws on everyone, regardless of social status. if we already do that, good; let's keep doing that. no further comment on the matter is necessary.
if you disagree with my overall premise, that's fine. that's why we have discussions. it's part and parcel of living in a healthy democratic society. however, don't make groundless and dishonest claims about me that you yourself don't even believe to be true. i swear, this is why we can't have nice things. The G (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
"all i said was that we should at least track firearms sales by creating a registry" Which is illegal. Hence, your proposal constitutes an expansion of government power in violation of current law. And what is this registry to be used for? Would police be tasked with that job?
"and a system of background checks." Which already exists. What difference from the status quo do you propose?
"i still hold that obtaining a firearm should be more difficult than donating blood" But why? Do you have an actual reason?
"minus the discrimination part, of course." Either everyone can have guns, no one can, or there is a discriminatory policy by which some people can and some people cannot. That's what "discrimination" means. It's a recognition of some difference which may be used as the basis of differential treatment or consideration. Differentiation, discernment, and judgement are close synonyms. So what are you actually proposing? It's not at all clear from your statements.
"i only suggested two gun laws that might work" But you didn't answer questions about them, which leaves what you mean by "working" rather unclear.
"no further comment on the matter is necessary." Except that you said above, "there's no reason we should make it easy for just anyone to buy weapons." "Weapons" includes things like knives, baseball bats, and sharpened sticks. These are not only ubiquitous but also easy to produce if all in existence suddenly vanished for some reason. So if you want the government (your use of "we" doesn't indicate who you think should do this, but it's the government, right?) to make "weapons" not easy to buy, there has to be a massive intrusive police apparatus to actually enforce that. If that's not what you meant by saying that, what did you mean?
"don't make groundless and dishonest claims about me" I quoted your words, parsed them, and evaluated implications. That's the opposite of a groundless or dishonest statement. To rephrase an earlier question which you did not answer: Can you provide a single quote in which I made a groundless or dishonest claim about you and explain what's wrong with it? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
We had a firearms registry in Canada it was a political ploy and a huge waste of money. As far as I know it never helped solve any crimes. If you want to curtail firearms use, implement huge penalties for using them anywhere but a firing range, and huge penalties for any transport (the ranges can supply the guns for use there). Eliminate all carry permissions. You could also make ammo and bullet-presses a hell of a lot harder to get, just like they have with pill-presses. FairDinkum (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I doubt that gun culture motivates police gangs in Los Angeles. Hell, it's more dangerous to be a delivery driver, garbage collector, and groundskeeper than it is to be a police officer in the United States. US cops have definitely drunk their own Kool-Aid a little too much. VeeMeow? 14:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

understandable. i think gun culture paranoia is one possible cause of "trigger happiness" in policing, but that's far from the only problem. also, i appreciate the feedback on the registry. maybe there are some better ideas out there.
i appreciate those of you who can disagree with me without "parsing my words" and making incorrect and dishonest claims about me and/or my arguments. The G (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
So you can't produce an actual quote of me doing any of that. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
i already have. multiple times. not liking my examples and their respective refutations isn't a valid rebuttal, nor is it my problem. The G (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
i have no reason to believe you are just asking questions in good faith. i've made my claims, and all you've done is make strawman arguments just because you don't agree with me. "evaluate implications" is at best just a euphemism for senseless fearmongering (and at worst, concern trolling) considering other developed countries that have implemented gun control laws and are less tolerant of corruption also rank higher in personal freedoms.
now, if you don't have anything else to contribute other than jaqing off and/or making false claims that i support a police state, i'll save us both some time and end the conversation right here (i.e., i'll ignore you just like everyone else on this thread has). The G (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────as a side note, i've noticed that a lot of people use abe's assassination as "proof" that gun laws don't work. in fact, gun laws don't stop all gun violence (in the same way that our criminal code doesn't stop all murders, thefts, or drug trafficking) but they definitely reduce gun violence over time. that doesn't mean that high-profile murders won't happen. improbable things happen, and his killing says more about japan's security (or lack thereof) for politicians than anything else. japan still has a much lower rate of gun violence (and yes, the article mentions abe) than the us, and it's not even close. The G (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"If you want to curtail firearms use" A more appropriate goal for societal wellbeing with respect to gun policy is the reduction of crime, specifically violent crime, especially homicides and aggravated assault. Targeting firearms themselves is more typically the goal of governments interested in doing things which an armed public may want to shoot them for.
"Eliminate all carry permissions." Including police, military, and security? So that only criminals would have them, knowing that they would face no armed opposition as they go about committing crimes? What is this supposed to achieve with respect to public wellbeing?
"You could also make ammo and bullet-presses a hell of a lot harder to get, just like they have with pill-presses." Let's consider pill presses. Apart from specialized mass production presses, they're just regular presses of the kind used ubiquitously in industry (and not uncommonly in home workshops), and are neither illegal nor hard to get. What's illegal is counterfeit pill-forming dies that can be used to produce pills that masquerade as brand-name medications. These are specialized bits of equipment with no other uses, and which require some moderate technical resources to produce (e.g. a decent CNC mill or metal-capable 3D printer, plus CAD files). They're still so massively made and distributed via black markets, and so rarely found and prosecuted, that the law might as well not exist as far as the supply of counterfeit pills is concerned. Regarding bullet presses, those are likewise just regular presses with specialized dies. These dies are much simpler than those used for pill production, and can be made on such tools as a manual lathe (which are both legal and easy to acquire). Do you have any reason to suppose that such restrictions would work for their stated purpose?
"i think gun culture paranoia is one possible cause of "trigger happiness" in policing" What paranoia are you referring to, and why would that matter more than, say, qulified immunity and police organizations largely being responsible for their own oversight?
"i already have. multiple times." A quote is the verbatim repetition of a phrase, passage, or some such spoken or written statment, typically demarcated as with quotation marks when written. That bit at the start of this paragraph is a quote, and it's there to identify the context that the rest of the paragraph is a reply to. You have not provided a single quote (from anyone) in this discussion. You have made several accusations against me regarding things that I have supposedly done in this discussion, yet you have refused to provide a quote in which I have actually done what you accuse. If I had, that would be a trivial task, yet you have not. So kindly put up or shut up on these accusations and address what I've actually said.
"i have no reason to believe you are just asking questions in good faith." "Jus asking questions", the bit of RationalWiki jargon you linked, refers to something else. To quote: "Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements." For an example from the previous discussion, let's consider the "police state" issue. You may not have explicitly said "I want a police state rawr," but proposing things tantamount to a police state or things with a police state as a prerequisite do constitute advocating for a police state. And so I quoted what you said, explained how that constitutes advocacy for a police state, and asked if that was really what you meant. To which you have neither contested my analysis nor clarified what you meant. For contrast, have a look at the exchange between AMassiveGay and myself on February 26th above. He said something, I asked for clarification, he clarified, and that was that. Do you understand what I am asking of you here?
"and are less tolerant of corruption" The Corruption Perceptions Index is, as the name implies, a tabulation of results from opinion surveys regarding how people perceive corruption, not an empirical measure of actual corrupt practices.
"also rank higher in personal freedoms" The Human Freedom Index is a publication of the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank), and their (not published in detail) methodology in producing that index is tailored to conflating "freedom" with libertarian ideals. It's not a meaningless index, but it says very little about comparisons of what is usually considered "freedom". For example, Ireland is ranked higher than the US in freedom, when people in Ireland are forbidden from having weapons of any kind for self defense (including pepper spray), publications which are "offensive", "blasphemous", or "unacceptable" (as judged by some government agencies) are banned, and people who utter "hate speech" may be fined or imprisoned. Further, a current bill proposes extending such penalties to things like Holocaust denial. It's important to keep in mind that "freedom" is a collection of particulars, not some vague gestalt.
"they definitely reduce gun violence over time." How did you reach this conclusion? Why do you suppose Mexico has higher gun crime rates than the US despite its much stricter regulations? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
mexico has a higher rate of gun violence because of all the guns that flow in from the united states. [10] if there were a way to, say, scrutinize what happens to guns after they were sold, maybe a lot of that violence would be prevent. but there's no money to be made in that, so...
as for "put up or shut up", you know how to write whole paragraphs, yet you seem to struggle to read someone else's more concise texts. that's not my fault, nor is it my problem. you can help yourself. i'm not gonna waste my time to enable someone else's laziness. The G (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
"mexico has a higher rate of gun violence because of all the guns that flow in from the united states." You know what place has more US guns than Mexico? The United States. So why does Mexico have higher rates of gun crime?
"if there were a way to, say, scrutinize what happens to guns after they were sold" So, a massive state surveillance program which tracks where people go and what they have in their possession, at all times? What specifically are you proposing?
"that's not my fault, nor is it my problem." Making false accusations that everyone can see are false is indeed your fault. You don't have to care about how it makes you look, but it does tend to lead to social conflict. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
false accusations? ha! you make funny jokes.
anyway, just because mexico has fewer guns and higher crime doesn't mean more guns means less crime. there are other factors at play (poverty, inequality, the controversial war on drugs, etc.). none of this is relevant to what i said, since it doesn't change the fact that as much as 90 percent of mexico's guns are trafficked from the united states.
and no, i will not believe "more guns means less crime" until our crime rates are as low as those of either japan or singapore even with our 400 million guns floating around. The G (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Japan's murder rate is low in part because the police mark difficult-to-solve cases as "Suicide" to make themselves look more competent than they are, on top of them having a much easier time controlling the drug trade. CorruptUser 19:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
"false accusations? ha! you make funny jokes." You have accused me of strawmanning you, of making false assumptions and dishonest claims about you and/or your arguments, of just asking questions, and fearmongering / concern trolling. I can simply refer to the text above, which everyone here can see, and reply that no, I did not do those things. All you have to do to prove otherwise is to give a quote in which I did what you accuse me of. Which you have failed to do despite the trivial ease of such a task if your accusations were true. Hypothetically speaking, would you concede the point if I went line by line through everything I've said here and added, "No strawmanning, false assumptions, dishonest claims, JAQing, fearmongering, or concern trolling in this sentence." to each?
"anyway, just because mexico has fewer guns and higher crime doesn't mean more guns means less crime." It's an example where a place with stricter gun laws and fewer guns has more gun crime. You said above that "[gun laws] definitely reduce gun violence over time." Well, no they don't, and that example shows that they don't. It only takes a single counterexample to disprove a universal claim.
"none of this is relevant to what i said, since it doesn't change the fact that as much as 90 percent of mexico's guns are trafficked from the united states." Where the guns came from is entirely unrelated to the questions of whether restrictions on guns reduce crime or whether more guns in a population result in more crime, which were the actual points you were making. Do you need me to repeat what you actually said? And where do you think the guns in the United States come from? What point are you trying to make here anyway? If the gun-ness of the guns imported from the United States isn't what's important for gun crime in Mexico, what do you think is?
"and no, i will not believe "more guns means less crime"" This isn't about beliefs, it's about facts. Empirical data. This isn't some dogmatic mystery or secret. And what I actually said is "Global data (this is a graph of homicide vs. firearm ownership data from 172 countries) indicates a weak negtive correlation between firearm prevalence and homicide rates. As a weak correlation, it's not strongly predictive, but it is more strongly predictive than the inverse." So then, do you want to have a conversation about strong correlates to homicide rates? It would mean talking about things other than guns.
"Japan's murder rate is low in part because" While these things matter, there are indeed places with very different actual crime rates, and there are actual reasons for that. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
using mexico to disprove that gun control works is just plain ludicrous. that's like saying that environmental regulations don't work (when in fact, they do) because china (or some other country) is polluting our air, anyway.
certainly, mexico benefits from gun control in some form or another. how do i know? well, for starters, even though gun violence is high, most of it is attributed to organized crime. "lone wolf" shootings are extremely rare – so rare, they dub them "gringo-style" shooting incidents. if you want to argue that gun control has failed and that the alternative would be to weaken gun laws to reduce crime, well the burden of proof is on you.
also, anyone can draw a graph and not properly label the axes. i'm gonna need a better source for that graph. however, even if it does demonstrate an inverse correlation between firearm ownership and homicide rates, it oversimplifies the issue of gun violence. i've already conceded that crime has a multitude of causes. let's look at a country that has high rates of crime and strict gun laws: brazil. yes, if only i had a dollar for every time someone used brazil as "proof" that gun control doesn't work. well, brazil is like mexico in the sense that most of its violence is tied to organized crime. school shootings are rare, but they have gradually increased in frequency in recent years since the previous presidential administration started relaxing gun laws. maybe that's just a coincidence. (and yes, crime has been trending downward in recent years – no thanks to weakened gun laws.) The G (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
"that's like saying that environmental regulations don't work because china"
Except that...
1) Excluding China from environmental controls means the dirty jobs DO go there
2) China's lax policies means the jobs that go there are even DIRTIER
3) Having to ship the goods from China means you have to transport the goods 6000 miles; gone are the days of those ships using wind power
Ideally, we as a society would move away from our throw-away culture, but to do that, we'd have to get the celebrity-class on board with re-using old clothing. Other than the Macklemore "Thrift Shop" song, can you name one hit song about how awesome it is to either Reduce or Reuse? No, because celebrities are paid far, far too much money in promoting useless garbage, with music videos collecting more from product placement than from whatever pittance youtube pays them. CorruptUser 18:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
yeah, but that goes beyond the authority of our own environmental regulations. to be fair, i think supply chains in general need better oversight. the problem with our gun culture is that it is irresponsible and relies on the "not my problem" mindset – that is, everyone is a teenager who want all the freedoms and zero responsibilities. we could try to model our gun laws to be like those of switzerland, which also has a high rate of firearm ownership. "they're a small country" is not an acceptable excuse because nothing is stopping states from doing so themselves. the problem is that there's no money to be made from having a responsible gun culture. besides, responsibility takes too much effort (and who has the time for that?). jokes aside, i'm pretty sure some people would argue that swiss gun laws are unconstitutional, so we're basically stuck waiting for crime rates to drop even as we sell weapons with little to no regulatory oversight. The G (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The big change that I want from gun laws is that it should be a misdemeanor to carry a gun while wearing a face-obscuring mask. Basically, giving the police carte blanche to harass anyone who has a gun and is masked. So sick of people showing up to protests with guns while wearing masks; disasters waiting to happen. CorruptUser 19:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
"using mexico to disprove that gun control works is just plain ludicrous." It's a counterexample which disproves the specific thing you said, as explained above.
"even though gun violence is high, most of it is attributed to organized crime. "lone wolf" shootings are extremely rare" So, you regard it as preferable to have a large amount of violence and death caused by organized crime vs. a lower amount of disorganized crime? Keep in mind that "lone wolf" shootings are extremely rare in the US too. More people are killed by lightning in the US than in such school shootings.
"that's like saying that environmental regulations don't work" Depends on the regulations. For example, China's massive increases in carbon dioxide emissions mean that most countries in the world could cut their emissions to zero (not just stop an increase, but zero) and global emissions would still go up. As a global policy initiative, this matters. If a policy requires that everyone in the world go along with it to even have a hope of working, the presence of people who clearly wouldn't is a deal breaker.
"i'm gonna need a better source for that graph." It's from this article which combines information from several public sources listed at the bottom. You can find similar analyses elsewhere, since it's public information.
"even if it does demonstrate an inverse correlation between firearm ownership and homicide rates, it oversimplifies the issue of gun violence. i've already conceded that crime has a multitude of causes." So, given the inverse correlation, do you concede the point that the availability of guns does not increase violent crime, and so regulations targeting gun ownership per se would not be expected to reduce violent crime?
"let's look at a country that has high rates of crime and strict gun laws: brazil." And so, to support your point, you give another example with strict gun laws and a high murder rate (the most murders per year in the world!). In which public disarmament has produced a situation in which criminals can easily go about their business without significant opposition, providing an incentive for large criminal organizations to emerge and operate overtly. Do you not understand how incentive structures influence criminal behavior and the economics of crime?
"jokes aside, i'm pretty sure some people would argue that swiss gun laws are unconstitutional" Some are, some aren't. Do you want to actually discuss why Switzerland is more peaceful than the US?
"disasters waiting to happen." Explain precisly how this is supposed to work. Why would harassing masked people with guns reduce the likelihood of disasters? And how is this supposed to intersect with various public mask mandates? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
"in which public disarmament has produced a situation...", yeah, let me stop you right there. it's clear you don't know what what you're talking about here. you could have at least pretended you read the articles i posted lol.
"Do you want to actually discuss why Switzerland is more peaceful than the US?" ok, i'll bite. what's your take on switzerland? The G (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
"yeah, let me stop you right there" Oh, I read the articles. I just went directly to the point of your example showing the opposite of what you seemed to want to use it for. I mean, you even said, "let's look at a country that has high rates of crime and strict gun laws: brazil. yes, if only i had a dollar for every time someone used brazil as "proof" that gun control doesn't work. well, brazil is like mexico in the sense that most of its violence is tied to organized crime." You realize you're making my point for me, right?
"what's your take on switzerland?" For one, Switzerland is one of the most heavily-armed countries in the world, so it fits into the general inverse trend of gun prevalence and violence. However, as I said, that's a weak correlation. As for stronger correlations, there are several, with Switzerland generally having more favorable factors in those regards than the United States. For example, Switzerland has a significantly lower Gini coefficient than the United States. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── not sure what part of my argument made your point. i mean, domestic violence has gone up in recent years (not to mention the increase in school shootings i stated earlier). heck, even in the first few years after the sweeping restrictions on firearms was implemented in the early 2000s, homicides went down. now this doesn't necessarily establish a causal relationship, but i don't see how i am making your point at all. if anything, it only reinforces the notion that trying to cure gun violence with more guns is like trying to cure alcoholism with more alcohol. switzerland does have a lower gini coefficient, but they also have a responsible gun culture, something which the usa will never have by leaving things the way they are. The G (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"not sure what part of my argument made your point." The part where you gave Brazil as an example of a place with strict gun control and extremely high violence, particularly from organized crime.
"it only reinforces the notion that trying to cure gun violence with more guns" Looks like we need to go over this again. You said above that, "[gun laws] definitely reduce gun violence over time." What this means is that "gun laws" (strict gun control from context) necessarily reduce gun violence. It's a universal claim which purports to describe all such situations. And it's wrong, as shown by e.g. Mexico. The very high violence in that place with strict gun control means that no, reduction in gun violence is not a necessary consequence. To which you responded with some tangents that didn't actually address this point, and then gave Brazil as another example intended to support your position. Only this time, you didn't actually say what your position is. Instead, you listed some information about Brazil, including that it has strict gun control, very high violent crime (much of it related to organized crime), that a recent reduction in violent crime coincided with a loosening of gun restrictions, and that Brazil is commonly used as an example of how gun control doesn't work. Well, sure. In any case, the points I was making were not that "more guns" per se would "cure" gun violence, but rather that gun control does not actually reduce violent crime (as shown by e.g. the global trend of homicide vs guns), and that law-abiding citizens being armed provides beneficial incentives. Your point would constitute a straw man if you had actually represented it as something people in this conversation were saying rather than something unrelated that you pulled in of your own accord.
"like trying to cure alcoholism with more alcohol" Back to Prohibition. The attempt to cure alcoholism by banning alcohol resulted in more alcoholism than before and massive organized crime making money from the black markets that emerged to meet demand. Do you not see the parallels with Mexico and Brazil? The point isn't that vaguely adding more guns/alcohol is supposed to help with a societal problem, it's that restricting guns/alcohol doesn't help.
As for Switzerland, the US has a responsible gun culture too. However, those generally aren't the people committing crimes with guns, and the people who do commit crimes with guns (which are usually illegally obtained) are generally not interested in following such practices. That large demographic of people interested in committing violent crimes is something the US has which Switzerland does not, and it extends to violent crimes unrelated to guns. The Gini coefficient (among other differences) relates to that difference between the two countries. "Responsible gun culture" as an overall trait is downstream of such factors. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Not that you'll listen, but your comment about "US responsible gun culture" strikes me as just very silly when we've just had, in addition to the by now typical large scale weekly mass shooting, two high profile cases where a person shot someone simply for entering their yard or knocking on the wrong house. [11][12] Responsible Gun Culture my ass. (Though, you might actually agree with me that, my opinion, in these type of cases, it'll do far more good to temper fear-mongering propaganda networks like Fox News that encourage hatred of Invisible Others vs. gun control. Not going to happen, because people are racist / close-minded / paranoid and there is demand for this sort of blame game, even when reality is different, as the "tech bros" of Silicon Valley proved recently. But it would be nice if this nation collectively sobered up.)
The thing is, as with many things in this country, the young'uns don't really like the ultra-libertarian ethos of the NRA. So my guess is some "tempering" is going to occur in the future; how much so probably depends on how insane the NRA is perceived by the young'uns. BobJohnson (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
IIRC, one of the shootings was from an 85 year old who claimed he thought he was being robbed. I think he does believe that... but that means he's senile enough that he's a literal danger to everyone around him and should have not just his gun taken away, but his car too. CorruptUser 19:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
"Responsible Gun Culture my ass." You might want to read what I actually wrote above. But if not, I'll restate it here: The existence of irresponsible people does not negate the existence of responsible people. If I were to go to Switzerland and start juggling loaded guns, Switzerland's "responsible gun culture" would not vanish in a puff of logic - the people being responsible with guns would still be there. Likewise, the presence of criminals in the US who are irresponsible with guns does not negate the existence of people in the US who are responsible with guns, and there are in fact a lot of such people. The difference here between Switzerland and the US is not the absence of a responsible gun culture in the US, but Switzerland's absence of a population of people inclined to violent criminality anywhere close to the same size as that of the US.
"but that means he's senile enough that he's a literal danger to everyone around him and should have not just his gun taken away, but his car too." In the US, this is supposed to come only after "due process of law" which is something like a court finding someone to be dangerously insane. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The irresponsibility extends to the top gun advocacy organization, the NRA. In the United States, "guns" subsequently are more of a political identity promotion (for, IMHO, consumerism reasons) than a mere tool, and the NRA has done its best to help facilitate this shift away from its former recreational focus with its own consumerism-hawking and identity-based fearmongering. There are a lot of responsible gun owners in the United States, many who do think the NRA has become rubbish... but this is more than a few bad apples we are talking about. BobJohnson (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
"The irresponsibility extends to the top gun advocacy organization, the NRA." Let's speak of things that can be checked against reality. For example, NRA mambers are more likely than other gun owners to have taken a gun safety course. What sort of irresponsibility are you alleging that is relevant to this discussion?192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Please learn to read please. If you want a nice example of NRA's merger with Fox News paranoia, I give you the former NRATV.
Let's put it another way: when it comes to certain things that are good for hunters but not as good for the extraction industry (such as, say, expanding national forest land), the NRA tends to be, er, awfully downplayed.
(You'll probably ignore this shit again, of course, this is for "everyone else".) BobJohnson (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────if the us has a responsible gun culture, then i must be the king of england. also, there's no reason to believe that gun control provides any incentive to criminals while a lack thereof provides incentive to law-abiding citizens. those claims have been repeatedly debunked. however, you are entitled to your own opinion. The G (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@bobjohnson don't bother asking bon to read. it's a waste of time. they've done a shoddy job at reading my posts as it is. even when you explain why their pro-gun talking points are nonsense, they ignore you and double down on them, anyway. The G (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
"Please learn to read please." I can read just fine. What you described is an abstract narrative that seems designed to be resistant to empirical checks of its truth. How did you reach those conclusions?
"I give you the former NRATV." Is there anything there which you think is applicable enough to this discussion to restate here in your own words? There's a lot that can be said about that article, but I'd prefer to avoid an explosion of tangents.
"the NRA tends to be, er, awfully downplayed." As a single-issue political advocacy organization, why would you expect them to focus much attention on other things? For example, their members are all humans, but that doesn't translate to an organizational stance on single-payer health care. Because that's a different issue. How is this supposed to relate to the supposed irresponsibility of the NRA, and how is that supposed to relate to the supposed irresponsibility of gun owners in the US in general?
"You'll probably ignore this shit again" Can you provide a quote of anything I ignored, which you would like me to respond to?
"if the us has a responsible gun culture, then i must be the king of england." For the third time now, a responsible gun culture is people using guns responsibly according to social customs and norms regarding gun use. There are such people and behaviors in the US. The presence of people who use guns irresponsibly does not cause there not to be other people who use guns responsibly. If you mean something else by "responsible gun culture", what do you mean? Now, would you be interested in actually continuing this line of discussion?
"there's no reason to believe that gun control provides any incentive to criminals" Criminals are people. People generally respond to incentives involving costs, benefits, and risks. If a someone is considering burglary or mugging people as a source of income, the likelihood of encountering a target with a gun affects the viability of that endeavor. What specific claims relevant to this discussion have been "debunked", and how did you reach that conclusion?
"even when you explain why their pro-gun talking points are nonsense, they ignore you and double down on them, anyway." Logos clearly isn't working here, so let's try ethos. Everyone here can see how you clearly lied above about what you wrote in this very discussion. Why should anyone take what you say the least bit seriously? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
"why should anyone take you seriously?" says the guy who cited an opinion piece as evidence in his last post and told lies of his own. pot, meet kettle. The G (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
"says the guy who cited an opinion piece as evidence in his last post" My last post does not contain any citations. If you're referring to my link to a National Review article on May 7, that was included as a description of a general-knowledge topic that people here seemed to be ignorant of. You don't have to agree with the author's opinions there, but do you think that school gun clubs etc. didn't exist? Back when there were fewer school shootings than at present, that is. The correctness or incorrectness of statements is generally what matters, not who makes them or where.
"and told lies of his own. pot, meet kettle." Interesting that you should use that metaphor. One interesting interpretation is that the kettle (being used on a smoke-free stove) has a shiny, reflective surface, and the pot (being used over a smoky open fire) only sees its own blackness when it looks at the kettle. Can you provide a quote in which I've told a lie? Keep in mind that putting text in quotation marks like that does not constitute a quote. It has to be something that someone has actually said. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
i would, but judging from your behvior in this discussion, i've determined that it's not worth my time because you're gonna deny it and then slander and belittle me, anyway. The G (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
besides, i've already provided numerous examples. if you wanna keep playing dumb and act like you never said the things i claim you said, that's your prerogative; but don't bother asking me again, because you'd only be wasting your time. and no, slandering me (i.e., essentially calling me a liar multiple times for no reason) and belitting me ("why should anyone take you seriously?") isn't gonna work in your favor. that's also a waste of your time.
oh, and unless you own up to those things and apologize (sincerely, not half-heartedly), consider this conversation over. The G (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
"i would" Your consistent behavior in this discussion since I first asked you for a quote over twelve weeks ago suggests otherwise.
"don't bother asking me again" Then I'll say it directly. You can't produce any such quotes because I didn't do what you accuse. The questions were invitations to admit your error and move on. Your refusal to acknowedge things that everyone here can see plainly in front of them is long past the point of silliness.
"calling me a liar multiple times for no reason" I said that you lied because you did. Above, at your continued refusal to provide quotes of me doing what you accuse, I mentioned that you couldn't. To which you replied that you already had, multiple times. At that point, you had not quoted anyone at all in this discussion, and certainly not me. Therefore, you lied about your actions.
Then, see the bit just above where you said, "why should anyone take you seriously?"? What I actually said is the sentence right before that one, and it's not what you said I said. You rewrote it instead of copying and pasting what was right there in front of you, and then falsely attributed it to me.
I don't particularly care if you apologize, but if you choose to continue this conversation, I would ask that you actually acknowledge what people say. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
ok, then. this conversation is over now. p.s. splitting hairs and arguing semantics (not to mention outright making stuff up) doesn't prove me wrong in any way, but you do you. The G (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This is an open discussion on a public talk page. It's over when people stop replying long enough for it to be archived, not when you say so. Though you can stop replying any time you like. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Just change your bloody constitution[edit]

Just change it. Easier said than done. But people are even too afraid to talk about amendments. This is deranged. US gun mentality is deranged. Change your constitution and change your deranged gun-mentality. Even the most deranged social phenomena is not insurmountable. ShabiDOO

2A continues to be a fucking disgrace. Turns out an American with a uterus is more free to shoot up schools and dismember six people than get a safe abortion. News organization, please show us the mutilated corpses, it's better than this fucking debate again. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the one time I would support basically a totalitarian strategy. High powered guns should be reserved to government agencies, military branches and national guard reserves. Private security seeking to carry firearms should be subject to a battery of mental examinations, be limited to what they can carry and be subject to random inspections by the FBI. Individuals should have requirements to carrying a side arm, basically making it prohibitive. I've been saying this for awhile, but the Gun Lobby is only concerned with selling more guns. The US has more guns than people, their rhetoric is just about getting more guns in circulation.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Lol wow. This is by far the worst idea of all. If you wanna ban guns then ban guns. That means nobody has them. Do you know how easy it is to get into the military? Do you know what’s happened to people around the world when their governments disarmed them in the name of socialism but kept guns for the powerful? Do you know that Modelo and Heineken are not domestic beers in the US?Brokenglass (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, weapons of war should be banned, firearm should require mandatory background check and safety training, license to register a gun, and a federal buyback. But nothing will be done as long as Republicans remain in office and sleep soundly over gun lobby dollars soaked by the bodies of shooting victims. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Federal law requires background checks for all licensed dealers; the problem is with private sales not requiring background checks, which I agree should change. Some states do have license requirements for gun purchases, which I also support, but I'm not sure if it violates the constitution in some manner to require licenses at the federal level. CorruptUser 04:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Change it how (specifically), and for what purpose?
"High powered guns should be reserved to government agencies, military branches and national guard reserves." So, hunters may only use, say, .22 long rifle to hunt moose? What do you mean by "high powered guns" and why would banning them matter for anything when most gun violence is from hand guns (which generally use lower-energy cartridges than rifles)? .22 long rifle is the lowest-power common cartridge, but it's the most common one in homicides because it's cheap and readily available.
"weapons of war should be banned" So, civilians can't have 9mm handguns, but may have (3-4x as powerful) .50 AE handguns. And they can't have chlorine, but may have VX. They can't have sharpened sticks, but may have weaponized class 4 lasers. It sounds like you're repeating a slogan without having an actual reason to support it. Do you have a rationale for why "weaons of war" should be banned?
"and a federal buyback" What do you mean by this?
"the problem is with private sales not requiring background checks, which I agree should change." How would you change it? Outright prohibition of private gun sales? Which would be unconstitutional in addition to unenforceable. How would you compel a person to run a background check on a neighbor before selling the neighbor a gun? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to know why someone would need a weapon of war? I can see having a small gun for self defense or a hunting rifle for hunting. Have very strict background checks, gun safety courses, gun registration, insurance and no semi automatic weapons. --Trans Fem Agenda 23:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"I would like to know why someone would need a weapon of war?" To shoot agents of a tyrannical government, foreign invaders, or criminals. For most of US history, civilians could own any weapon the military used, and the intention was that law-abiding civilians would outgun any army that might possibly be raised.
"no semi automatic weapons" Most civilian guns are semi-automatic, including virtually all handguns in modern use. Militaries have used automatic service rifles for generations now. Can you even name one that uses semi-automatic rifles?
As for the rest, what is that supposed to accomplish? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
"To shoot agents of a tyrannical government" Ah so the 2a guys really don't like the police and soldiers that much as they claim huh. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I also do think it's a good idea to own a gun for self-defense. Don't want elementary school kids, public gatherings, and our own spouses getting any weird ideas. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Man, I love the gun nut cherrypicking and pedantry, it's amazing. Yes, Mr. IP Address, a lot of the people who oppose the Second Amendment don't have knowledge of firearms terminology, congrats. You've spewed too much nuttery to go through but on the "how to regulate private sales" talking point, I'd say ban them. Guns should not be bought and sold outside of a gun store that's been licensed on a state and federal level. And no, banning private gun sales isn't unconstitutional, the constitution says nothing about private firearm sales at all. Also, you know what a federal buyback of guns is, don't play dumb. You also know what "High powered" rifle cartridges are, since you're clearly knowledgeable enough on firearms to know what a "high velocity" rifle cartridge is. While .223 or 5.56 may not be "high powered" by the standards of someone well versed in firearms, it's commonly used as an example of a high velocity cartridge by people less well versed in gun terminology. You also know what that user meant by "weapons of war", no one wants to ban people from using 9x19mm handguns in the US. People want to ban or restrict semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 or AK platform weapons. While the terminology is incorrect, you know what the meaning they wanted to get across is. I won't even waste time refuting the "tyrannical government" nonsense. You and your gun nerd friends aren't going to wage a civilian rebellion against the most well equipped and well funded military in the world even if you had free access to all the guns in the civilian market.
You know what the intention behind restrictions on firearm ownership are, especially in the US. Often, it's not to reduce general gun violence statistics, it's to prevent mass shootings. While you can find examples of mass shootings done with illegally obtained handguns, bolt action rifles, shotguns, etc, the majority of mass shootings in the US (that reach the news) are done with an AR-15 style rifle, obtained legally, often in red states and often privately or shortly before the shooting happened, and often done with people with no record of mental illness. You don't have a better solution for this issue, you only cry "government tyranny" when the state you live under wants to limit access to firearms with common sense restrictions that won't affect "law abiding gun owners" at all. Why do you care about a background check? Afraid the government will find something? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
We just had this argument a few weeks ago. The vast majority of mass shootings are with handguns, with rifles being about 1/4. Note that it's "rifles" and not "AR-15s"; so the actual number is less.
As for the restrictions on gun owners, I actually agree with the "red flag" laws which make it illegal for suicidal people to buy guns. It's not perfect, but given that the vast majority of mass shootings are mass murder-suicides, that's who you need to watch out for. With mental illness in particular, the severely mentally ill account for something like 8% of all mass shootings, which isn't a lot but I'm comfortable with making it illegal for the mentally ill to own a gun; my problem is when the definition of mental illness is altered for political reasons. CorruptUser 18:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, if you're going to do that, you need a very clear definition on what "mentally ill" means, otherwise you could see governments trying to disarm trans people because gender dysphoria is a "mental illness". Plutocow (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Or if governments decide homo/transphobia is a mental illness. Remember that oppression usually begins for good reasons, and often it's from the bottom-up rather than top-down. CorruptUser 19:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
"Oppression usually begins for good reasons." What did he mean by this? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
You could ask me what I meant by that. I'd probably know more than others. CorruptUser 23:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Ban the guns that need to be banned. Handguns should be also severely restricted and also have photos of the daily open casket victims from handguns printed on them. Want that expensive toy? Tough shit, put in the effort required to own one. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how to get around the commerce clause, but I wouldn't mind a rule that to purchase a gun, you have to go through the background process of the state you purchase in AND your home state. Live in California, but buying in Nevada? Too bad, you still have to wait 10 days. CorruptUser 22:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
"Ah so the 2a guys really don't like the police and soldiers that much as they claim huh." For nearly all of human history, police and soldiers have been instruments of oppressive governments. In case you are unaware, police in the US currently steal more money from US citizens than burglars do, and are largely immune from prosecution for misconduct. Maintaining good behavior of those in power generally takes meaningful oversight, checks, and balances, and governments can quickly become tyrannical when they think the general population is incapable of pushing back.
"Don't want elementary school kids, public gatherings, and our own spouses getting any weird ideas." Do you suppose that there were more or fewer school shootings after the designation of schools as "gun-free zones" vs. when students commonly carried guns?
"And no, banning private gun sales isn't unconstitutional, the constitution says nothing about private firearm sales at all." Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The default in the US is that people can do things unless the government has a legal case to justify prohibition.
"Also, you know what a federal buyback of guns is, don't play dumb." There have been different buyback programs through history, and the material details (such as whether it's voluntary) of the proposal here were unspecified. With what the proposal actually involves on a policy level not being clear, I asked for clarification. Which has so far not been forthcoming.
"You also know what "High powered" rifle cartridges are" Not as a technical classification to be used as the basis for policies. There is a technical distinction between "full-power" and "intermediate-power" cartridge that forms part of the definition of assault rifles distinct from the earlier "battle rifles" (5.56 NATO is intermediate-power).
"While .223 or 5.56 may not be "high powered" by the standards of someone well versed in firearms, it's commonly used as an example of a high velocity cartridge" No one here mentioned bullet velocity as the basis of regulation. Do you have a proposal along those lines? Additionally, if we're going to be technically correct here, velocity is a vector quantity. The proper term when discussing this aspect of ballistic performance is speed.
"You also know what that user meant by "weapons of war"" A "weapon of war" is a weapon... that is or has been used in war. That's clearly not what was meant, so absent an explanation of the current bespoke usage, I really don't know what that category is supposed to refer to. 9mm semi-automatic pistols have been standard-issue military sidearms for more than a century now, and by cartridge / action / form factor are probably the most common type of gun issued to soldiers around the world today. The semi-automatic rifles known as AR-15s are the civilian version of the military automatic M16 assault rifle. Seriously, what do you mean here? Do you even know yourself?
"rebellion against the most well equipped and well funded military in the world" Gee, you probably should have told the Afghanis that. It sure would have saved a lot of trouble if they'd known it was futile to oppose the US military.
"You know what the intention behind restrictions on firearm ownership are" What do you suppose the rationale is for restrictions on suppressors and barrel shrouds, safety devices that protect the shooter?
"(that reach the news)" Did you put this here to dismiss statistical data which contradicts those claims? Because that's already been presented in this conversation.
"You don't have a better solution for this issue" A "solution" exists only with reference to a problem. Can you clearly articlate the problem I supposedly don't have a better solution for?
"common sense restrictions that won't affect "law abiding gun owners" at all" "Common sense" is a poor basis for public policy, and lots of things proposed in this discussion would affect law-abiding gun owners. Much would ONLY affect law-abiding gun owners due to the unenforceability of the proposals.
"Why do you care about a background check?" With reference to this discussion, because people have proposed modifying the current policies in some way without saying what those ways are to be.
"Afraid the government will find something?" Never mind background checks, which in the current implementation are reasonable. What you said there is a very important issue. There are reasons why warrants were historically required for searches.
"I actually agree with the "red flag" laws which make it illegal for suicidal people to buy guns." That's not how they actually work. Most red flag law petitions are from law enforcement rather than close contacts, and they generally involve the confiscation of currently-owned guns. As such they are a deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law (or even the accusation of a crime), and they are typically enacted without giving the target an opportunity to contest the petition or even notification that such a petition has been made. See the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Consitution. This is on top of the risks of abuse with granting governments mechanisms to resrict rights at the accusation of mental illness.
"Ban the guns that need to be banned." Necessity is contingent on the goals to be achieved. It does not exist as a free-floating attribute. So what goals do you propose here, and what guns do you think need to be banned to achieve them?
"I don't know how to get around the commerce clause" The prevailing practice is to do flagrantly unconstitutional things and hope the Supreme Court doesn't smack them down.
"you have to go through the background process of the state you purchase in AND your home state." Violation of the 14th Amendment. The laws a citizen is subject to depend on the state they're in, not where they're from.192․168․1․42 (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I do, in fact, have the ability to describe what the issue is. The issue is that the US has the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world. There are more mass shootings in the United States than there are in places like China or Russia (places with a comparable population to the United States). That's not a mental health issue, given that China and Russia are miserable places to live with very shoddy mental care systems, but even they don't have an issue of incessant gun crime and mass casualty events.

What you have failed to consider in your endless quest to justify unrestricted gun ownership in the US is that a lot of people having guns may actually be a bad thing. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Firearms are weapons used to kill people, if a lot of people have firearms they will be used to kill people a lot more than if less people had firearms. You can keep reiterating that the constitution says this or that but ultimately that is the issue at hand. We have a lot of guns and they're being used to kill a lot of people. You don't have a solution to this issue, namely because you don't even see it as an independent issue. I hate to break it to you, unless we find a way to completely eliminate all crime from the United States, we'll need to do something about guns.

Also, yeah, you're not waging a civilian rebellion in the United States. The reason why the Taliban succeeded in Afghanistan is because Afghanistan is a foreign nation that the US military was not prepared to fight in. You want to find a map of how many military bases there are in California alone? You can keep engaging in your LARP fantasy about how you and your boogaloo friends are going to overthrow the government and defeat the US military or something, but you're not going to. The US military is far more prepared to protect itself domestically than it is to engage in military actions abroad. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"That's not a mental health issue, given that China and Russia are miserable places to live with very shoddy mental care systems"
They also kidnap "undesirables" off the streets, allegedly executing them. In 1955, there were about 560k people in mental asylums, out of 160m people. Our population more than doubled since then, yet we only have 35k in asylums. CorruptUser 17:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
"I do, in fact, have the ability to describe what the issue is." Then what is a "weapon of war" with respect to your earlier statements?
"The issue is that the US has the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world." The US also has the largest legacy of slavery in the developed world, and trails other parts of the developed world in attributes that actually correlate with crime (as linked above). Switzerland (as well as the low-crime well-armed parts of the US) shows that it's not guns that cause violence. And there are, of course, countries with higher rates of gun violence than the US, all with fewer guns per capita. And I asked for a "problem", not an "issue".
"There are more mass shootings in the United States than there are in places like China or Russia" Like this. This is a relative comparison that doesn't itself say much of anything about how this is a problem. Is it a problem that more people are killed by tornadoes in the US than in China or Russia? The relevance of tornadoes to people's lives in the US has to do with tornadoes causing injuries/fatalities/damage, not how that compares to situations elsewhere in the world. And would the "issue" be "solved" if China/Russia experienced an increase in tornadoes such that the US no longer had more than them? I asked for a clearly-articulated problem. To elaborate: There is a situation. What is wrong? Who does it involve? What state of affairs would no longer have the wrong thing (i.e. what are the "solved" parameters to be achieved)? A "solution" that doesn't reference such information isn't particularly meaningful. For reference, Russia has a higher homicide rate than the US, and while China's is probably lower (the official numbers are not trustworthy due in part to police being penalized for reporting unsolved murders), China also has massive corruption and human trafficking problems, as well as a surveillance state that puts Oceania to shame.
Regarding mass shootings, the definition is in some dispute. If "mass shooting" is defined such that there are a lot in the US, most are done with hand guns and are associated with gang violence. Do you have a definition you would like to use for this discussion? Keep in mind that it should be formulated such that it is possible to check whether a particular situation is a "mass shooting" or not.
"your endless quest to justify unrestricted gun ownership in the US" I'm curious how you arrived at this characterization. If Person A says, "Alcohol should be banned," and Person B replies, "No, it shouldn't, for various reasons," it does not follow that Person B thinks that alcohol use should be unrestricted.
"if a lot of people have firearms they will be used to kill people a lot more than if less people had firearms." The global statistics on firearm ownership vs homicide say otherwise. This is a rather big deal to your case here. If it were the case that increased firearm ownership actually resulted in increased homicide, the Constitutional purpose would remain, and it would remain the more important one. There is an unfortunately large amount of criminal homicide in the world. However, this number pales in comparison to the number of people killed by government action, even that of their own governments. Care to make an order-of-magnitude guess for the 20th century body count there? For reference, the closest attempt at state Communism to date resulted in the deaths of about a quarter of the population.
"namely because you don't even see it as an independent issue" You mean as if guns actually caused homicide, and gun restrictions actually reduced homicide? In the real world, there are various things that result in violent crime in a population, and the prevalence of guns is a weak inverse correlate. To the extent that guns actually matter for this issue, they matter in the opposite way of your implication.
"unless we find a way to completely eliminate all crime from the United States, we'll need to do something about guns." This is a non sequitur. Guns don't cause crime, and crime exists in all countries regardless of gun restrictions. The implication of this argument is that "doing something about guns (implied restriction)" is the goal in itself without regard to policy goals involving societal wellbeing.
"Also, yeah, you're not waging a civilian rebellion in the United States." For historic context, the United States began with a successful civilian rebellion.
"The reason why the Taliban succeeded in Afghanistan is because Afghanistan is a foreign nation that the US military was not prepared to fight in." The US military is not prepared to fight in the US by a massively worse margin. Afghanistan being a foreign country and the US not is a massive comparative disadvantage to a US civil war scenario. The families, supply chains, command organizations, and infrastructure of US soldiers are located in the US, which would be under threat in a civil war. If it came to major fighting, most power and telecommunications in the US would probably be down in a week, and cities would face food and fuel shortages in two. US infrastructure was not built to withstand saboteurs, and no organization to prevent sabotage has ever been in place. With the modern military formed of civic-minded people sworn to uphold the Constitution, a US deployment of military force to implement a police state would face massive desertion and moles/saboteurs at every level (suppose a ballistic missile sub deserts). Any wholesale destruction on the government's part would invite overt foreign involvement to "protect the American people" and "restore democracy", while absent that various parties would supply rebels covertly, with US civilians starting off better-equipped and far more numerous than Afghanis. And beyond all that, US civilians still outgun the military by two orders of magnitude. Serious tyranny usually comes after public disarmament rather than before for a reason.
"In 1955, there were about 560k people in mental asylums, out of 160m people." For comparison, a similar rate today would have just under 1.2 million people in asylums. There are currently about 1.2 million people in prison in the US. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Lmao you cited the national review in your arguments. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
"Breaking news! National Review reports that the sky is blue!" Is there anything there you think is incorrect? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue[edit]

... is not 'the constitution', nor 'the guns' but the various attitudes of mind that do not see 'more than one gun massacre a day so far this year' (recent statistic from somewhere) as a problem, or killing groups of children as a problem, etc etc - and support for Chairman Mao's 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'

Most houses will have sharp scissors, sharp knives, and other items which can cause severe to fatal damage but what is it about guns that causes problems?

In many countries with a high measure of stability 'nutters with weapons causing multiple deaths' are occasional phenomena which make the news; why does the US have an attitude problem which causes such massacres to be a regular problem. (Making due allowance for population size etc.) Anna Livia (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You can't have a mass shooting without the person who wants to commit one. Compared to prior generations or Europe, the US is producing more lonely young men who want to burn the whole world down. Why? Thousands of reasons, some of it is rising inequality, other parts are the increase in broken homes, then there's the lack of a social safety net, a lot can be blamed on the "participation trophies", or perhaps the broken promises of 3rd wave feminism, maybe it's the result of the overprescribing of zoloft and other mental-health medications for pregnant women, it's the food we eat, the tv shows we watch, etc etc. There's not really a single right answer, it's a whole gestalt that has led us here.CorruptUser 05:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
"but what is it about guns that causes problems?" Guns allow the general public to have a meaningful check on tyranny. As you quote, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and in a democracy, the people are supposed to hold the power. So guns have become politicized as political establishments seek to entrench themselves, and media organizations have portrayed them as something uniquely problematic. If the main goal of the people proposing gun restrictions were to reduce unnecessary deaths, they might say something about public health issues, including medical errors, which kill a lot more people than guns. Or perhaps the overprescription of opioids. Or proper diet and exercise initiatives rather than removing physical education and home ec from schools.
"why does the US have an attitude problem which causes such massacres to be a regular problem." The US has a large population of people inclined to violent criminality, due to an assortment of reasons that have already been mentioned. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahha. Oh you really believe that? well I don't know what to tell you other than the obvious fucking fact that guns don't prevent tyranny, if they did, Ron DeSantis wouldn't be in office right now. 2601:281:D880:DED0:9812:4D03:986F:F837 (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
"Ron DeSantis" You mean the democratically-elected governor who was notably less tyrannical than most other governors in recent history? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
We get it, your ideal state is where all LGBT people are in camps and where you can shoot the black man running away from you. 2601:281:D880:DED0:9812:4D03:986F:F837 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, if you want to shoot black men as they run away, you can move to San Francisco. CorruptUser 05:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)