RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive444

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 November 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>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>
, (new)(back)

if you're american, happy columbus/indigenous peoples day![edit]

it really depends on what state you're in. either way, happy monday! :) The G (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't get the day off, so it's just "work day" to me.-Ryan1257 (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
yeah, same. just got back home from work. it was just another monday for me. The G (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
For me, today is the last day of a four-day weekend for Taiwan's October 10 National Day. Spud (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Twitter was weird. I saw a lot of anti-Native stuff, e.g., all Natives are the Aztecs, Natives didn't have the wheel, that sort of thing. Personally, I know enough about history to have my own biases against/for specific tribes, but Euros don't get to pretend to be the heroes of the story any more than someone shooting randomly into a crowd and one victim out of a dozen happened to be a sex offender. CorruptUser 05:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The part about the wheel is wrong. The Aztecs did invent the wheel, they just never found an application for it outside of children's toys. However, given the lack of suitable domestic livestock in Mesoamerica one could question how the Mesoamericans could've invented a suitable application for the wheel outside of children's toys anyway. Even if we assume that indigenous civilization isn't as "complex" as Eurasian civilization (which is a loaded judgement and patent bullshit anyway), that still doesn't justify colonialism. The same people crying about "the Great Replacement" are also the same people cheering on actual so-called Great Replacements in history. Carthage (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Incas. Incas invented the wheel for toys, not Aztecs. As for what they could be used for, the first uses of wheels were for grinding grain and creating clay pots; carts were invented only thousands of years later. As for domesticatable animals, I'm quite sure that the wild Bison were just as "unsuitable" as the Aurochs from which cows descend, considering that bison and cattle are arguably the same species. Then there's the issue of camels and horses being native to North America before being extirpated, but moving past that, it still took hundreds if not thousands of years of domestication to get horses large enough to ride. Reindeer, while limited to the far north, are domesticatible.
Also of note is that while Europeans had no idea that the Americas existed, a few of the Siberians did; trade occurred between the Siberians and the Inuit for millenia, but was of little interest to anyone else on either continent, for relatively obvious reasons. Furthermore, chickens existed in the Americas prior to Columbus; it's theorized that Polynesians managed to make the journey to the Americas before Columbus. It's actually astonishing just how much of history... doesn't exist. CorruptUser 06:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Actually, about that....
Also note I was talking about Mesoamerica. The Mesoamericans only had turkeys and dogs as domestic livestock. Also remember that the Americas were settled at a time when Eurasia was already settled for tens of thousands of years. By the time the Clovis culture was in its heyday crops were already being grown in the Levant. Time is also a factor here. Carthage (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Staple crops in large parts of the Americas are also pretty much shit. Corn is absolutely abysmal, and it only even got to northern part of the continent in the last 1000 years (plus, though I'm a heretic for saying this in New England, I can't stand corn on the cob). The health of the people who built the Cahokia mounds went to hell after they went from hunting and gathering to a primarily corn-based diet. And in the southwest the Pueblos completely wrecked the environment with their irrigation projects, which one might think has some applicability to us today. But that wasn't universal; the Inca were much better off in that regard, potatoes are awesome. The Maya, Aztecs, and Inca were also really into murdering children for their gods, so you can at least understand why people there finally got sick of their shit and (in the case of the latter two) at least give the Spanish a shot; they didn't know it would end the way it did. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm unaware of the Inca murdering kids. Source? CorruptUser 21:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Capacocha.Wikipedia Carthage (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think my prof wants to murder me. (I am of course being hyperbolic).[edit]

One of the seminar courses I have to take in my grad school is focused on the work of a British polymath with really bad takes on consciousness that is driving me insane. We covered a chapter trying to "debunk" that consciousness can have evolutionary origins (the author claims to fully accept natural selection as the genuine explanation for how living species and organ systems came to be, he just rejects physicalism about consciousness; he also an atheist, and he also rejects dualism). The arguments are profoundly annoying and make all sorts of claims based on misconceptions regarding evolution. The argument essentially boils down to because there are living organisms that exist that are able to exhibit "survival value" on the basis of automatic processes alone we can not say that consciousness accrues any particular benefit on reproductive fitness.

If you find that unconvincing he then relies on the whole "p-zombie" gambit and states that it is totally logically possible for evolution to produce species that can do all the things that presumably "conscious" organisms do but solely as unconscious automata with no inner experiences. This makes consciousness superfluous. Of course, he is also trying to maintain that consciousness is undeniably a thing so he is not going to use that argument as a reason to be elimitivist about consciousness.

The whole argument is intended as a case against physicalists who believe consciousness arose from certain selection pressures on particular neurobiological mechanisms; ignoring that their conception of consciousness more often than not involves an explicit rejection of the logical possibility of P-zombies. Most physicalists think the concept of p-zombies is self-contradictory. The whole argument rests upon a conception of consciousness that is non-physical as an argument to debunk physicalism. It's begging the question at its finest but the professor in question does not want us to engage in critical evaluation. We are expected to only approach the subject with an attempt to "understand" the argument conveniently without understanding any apparent flaws. The man yelled at me the other day when I stated that the physicalist is going to take the presence of perception, attention, and memory as cognitive mechanisms as necessarily entailing consciousness. You can't have a "P-zombie" with these mechanisms that are not entailed as being conscious from the physicalist perspective. He yelled at me for a good ten minutes in exasperation about how little I understood the argument and how I didn't see the obvious logical truth in the possibility of P-zombies. There were other technical objections I made about how biologists don't really use the term "survival value", and how I can point to living organisms surviving just fine without hands and therefore infer that hands have no adaptive value on the basis of the author's logic. Needless to say, it didn't go well because it jumped into the following argument from our reading.

This whole claim that "biology presumes consciousness so any biological attempt to explain consciousness is ultimately circular" which my prof thinks is the knock-down argument against any biological explanations of the mind. If you were to guess my professor has no professional background in science and is deeply religious, you'd be correct. I can't drop out of this course it is mandatory. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an academic counselor you can talk to? Maybe you could drop the course and take it with a different prof next semester. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 07:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it doesn't really work like that in this grad program. The seminar course topics are at the total discretion of the professor running it. It is either take this course now, or graduate four months later than intended. Because you need a total of six seminar course credits and we only offer three graduate seminars a semester. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Jaded about Life[edit]

This is just something I have been going through in general. I have been scarred a lot crawling the Internet as a whole and running into toxic loons, a general lack of motivation to get work done, and also I spend a lot more time playing video games, which doesn't help either. And when I do work, I tend to grumble about it quite a bit as well as reminisce about politics. I wonder if there's any other way for me to get myself motivated without me grumbling. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Have you considered a hobby? I like taking walks. Hiking is also fun. Carthage (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
So you're 'jaded' all the time. I'd say you are telling yourself that something [perhaps several somethings] is wrong with your situation right now. This is where conventional wisdom is shit; making it out that 'it's a you problem' you feel that way. No, the situation is the problem. Therefore, the solution is work out what those are and change them. Grumble at work all the time? Hmm, perhaps you don't like your work. Spending hours wallowing in toxic social media? Turn it off, go and develop actual interests - revisit an old hobby or try a new one and so on. Lack of motivation? Mon, do you even have anything to be motivated about, such as a goal? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Can you visualise a videogame/write a story in which the 'toxic loons' are the opposition - and you are in a position to do whatever you wish with them (including 'saving the story and subsequently deleting it).
Would 'acedia' describe what you are feeling? Anna Livia (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
And another thing? I live in a car-dependent suburb, and I don't trust myself to drive. Hence, I don't have a driver's license, and it's not easy asking for a chauffeur either, so I end up stuck in where I live most of the time. As for the loons, I do have OCD so I try to tune them out and disengage whenever I can. It's most unfortunate that the loons exploit algorithms (search results usually) to get to places. As for hobbies, I do have some, but I do tire out eventually and have to change to another one. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I also live in a car dependent suburb with a Personal caveat to driving. I don't drink with friends anymore but I'm old enough to have friends that don't drink. 'Acedia' is a surprising way to put it. What about going to a movie? Nothing looks really good right now, but I have a buddy I will go see the next Dune movie with. If you don't have that, I'll watch a movie with you, it's just gonna be a little complicated. 2600:8804:500:FE90:5CE9:A2C5:24DC:7FD4 (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
You've answered your own question, then. Either you need to move to somewhere which supports a car-free life better and/or you need to become more independently mobile. Living 'deep in the burbs without transport sucks on several levels [I know this from experience] and I only had the experience of British burbs - American ones blow about 4x more. Now, there are third options here regarding the latter issue, including [but not limited to] 'earn enough to afford semi-regular taxis' and 'get an e-bike'. Even a pedal bike will 'extend your range'. However, if you live in a situation where even if you had an e-bike everything would still be too far away and public transport doesn't exist... well, I think 'moving to somewhere better for non-car users' must be your long-term goal - as your rut won't change if you're unable to really go anywhere or do new things. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
There's a fine line with two of my desires with where I can live. I want a place where I don't need to depend on a car or drive, and I do not wish to share a building with other property owners, effectively ruling out town homes and apartments as a possible place to live. Where to even begin? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
By realising that your two desires are fundimentally incompatible? Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my POV it sounds like you want the privacy/space/density of a mid-late 20th outer suburb but the amenities/closeness/convenience of either urban living or a 19th 'streetcar suburb'. You are going to have to decide where you are going to set your slider to because you can't have both. And as a person who's happily lived in 'apartments' for 15 years [that is, no problems attributable to the type of property] and has recently gone through the clusterfuck which is known as moving home [this PC table I'm on now is surrounded by boxes and with a DeadGuy's wallpaper choice], I am curious to why you're so against them [townhouses too, while you're at it]. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
hey, man, I still own a car. I use it to get to work and go see my family and meet with friends. All I said was I don't use it if I'm going to be drinking. I lived in half a town home with 4 other guys a girlfriend and two big dogs. I live in an apartment by myself now. The grass is cut, sure, but it's always greener remembering the days rent was like 185 A month and all I had to put up with was constant insanity from the roommates, squirrels in the walls in the winter, bats flying into my room in the summer (happened twice, no central air, what am I gonna do, close the window?) and just a general social anarchy. Some of my current best friends lived in that house for at least a time. Over a decade ago as of a couple days ago. I had a roommate who gave up driving and switched to biking and worked at a bike shop. He would come home every evening stomping in his bike shoes and throw his helmet across the floor, shout 'FUCK!' and stomp up the stairs to hit the shower. Then he was cool. would ask me if I could take him to the grocery store since he couldn't do it on his bike. Would get high and walk around for like 30 minutes doing what I consider nothing before he was ready to go. Then, unlike me, he would walk through every aisle. I'd have my rice and beans and eggs, maybe a couple cans of soup. He never came back with anything more impressive. He would look done, and I'd go check out. Then wait for him for 10-20 minutes in my car. But, he was the best roommate I ever had. Everybody is weird. Get used to it while you still have the mental plasticity to learn patience.2600:8804:500:FE90:5CE9:A2C5:24DC:7FD4 (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I listed the very specific negatives because they are silly specific problems, everything else, we lived in that skinny house as a team sport. My parents have been the worst landlords I've ever had. Outrageous rates for a room in their house at times I've needed it, but never literally cheaper to live on my own, which is stupid. A one bedroom apartment is priced at two people living there. I'm literally paying the same for an admittedly nice single bedroom as everyone was paying for half a slummy duplex in 2013. I moved back in with my parents at a crucial time in my life. They did not feed me or leave me alone. I paid rent, did chores, answered to everything, and found a friend who needed help with his mortgage for less than my 'need some financial help' boomerang parents gave me. 2600:8804:500:FE90:5CE9:A2C5:24DC:7FD4 (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Cranks and their Ads[edit]

Here's a simple question. What are some of the worst advertisements you've encountered (can be anywhere) in regards to pushing conspiracy theories and/or pseudoscience? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I realized a previous thread about billboards was still active, but here's a place to expand to all places where advertisements are located. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of YouTube ads for different pseudoscience shit from aliens to alt med. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Most common ads for this shit I get are for Gaia Inc pseudoscience bullshit. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure when it changed, but I used to see ads everywhere with things like, "Obama doesn't want you to watch this video about ancient weight loss techniques found in this crudely photoshopped Nephilim fossil".-Ryan1257 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The one I used to laugh at a couple of months ago to was an ad for a foot fungus "cure" supposedly found by british scientists at Cambridge that was supposedly being silenced by the medical industry to protect profits. Like are these alt meds not paying attention? The NHS is so underfunded that if the alt med stuff actually worked and was cheaper the NHS would pounce on it. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Ads for the Epoch Times. Ironically, one of them began with a person saying "Tired of fake news?" MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Shitty Billboards[edit]

Another thing that I may start up. Here's a place to share some of the worst, most vile, or most disgusting billboards you have seen on the road. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Billboard Liberation Front[1] Bongolian (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
One time I saw an ad for Nivea, which I think is a german skin-and-body care brand. Ironically, the ad was for a product called 'Invisible'. The tagline? "White is Purity". Needless to say, I laughed for a solid minute afterwards. LeGrandePumbloom Peace, Land, and Nuclear Annihilation 18:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I was driving out in country and saw on the back of a billboard, forget which town, 'Jesus Saves Jesus Rocks'. I mean, there's pro Jesus billboards everywhere in and around town. This was grafitti. My grandpa had just died, and at tuebfuneral I had an aunt bring stones with funeral 'love you' and 'thank you' kinda etchings in them. Like those candy hearts at valentine's day. It was a very kind gesture so nobody had to say anything or speak if they didn't have to, but like, I knew my grandpa OK, know my auntie, it was all good and great. When I saw this one, I wrote a song that said 'when you hit a small town, you gotta watch your speed, there's a sign out there I really wish you could read;'Jesus saves no comma Jesus rocks' and I really kinda think you'd like it.' It was called Cold October. 2600:8804:500:FE90:B967:A3FD:CEC4:75F9 (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli retaliation[edit]

I'm worried about what's going to happen to the civilian populace of Gaza. Hamas' attacks are terrible, yes. But people, including some on this wiki, are advocating for "scorched earth" tactics. Collective punishment is a war crime. I don't think we should lose our humanity here. Some people in Israel are already calling for basically genocide of Gaza. I really don't like that. Hamas are dumb-fucks for initiating this war. Carthage (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas are many negative things, but they are not stupid. In fact, I think this is the intention. Hamas have 'pulled Netanyahu's tail' goading him to lash out at Gaza. Which he has already started by sealing the gates of the world's largest ghetto. What other options does he have? Bomb Gaza flat and/or send the IDF in to a some 200km2 of very built up areas where the Isreali tech advantage will be severely hindered and into the teeth of Hamas' own turf they've been digging into for over a decade. Always beware of a battle which your enemy desires you to fight.
I suspect Hamas have calcuated that this action will spark a new intifada on the West Bank, ideally overthrowing/sidelining the unpopular pantomime Abbas regime in the proces. Which has already started when Germany 'suspeneded' aid to Palestine [ie to Abbas] in a stupid move to weaken them further. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hamas must have known that they couldn't win a direct confrontation. And they must have known that the Israeli retaliation would be horrific. So why start it? This was the question I asked in the earlier post above. Are they hoping that the Israeli retaliation will be so intense that it will turn the world to the side of Hamas? Or that it will spark a greater war in the Middle East?
Whatever their longer-term objectives are, it's a dangerous game to play.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm doubtful the Hamas leadership have wargamed all scenarios; I suspect they gamed enough to come to the belief that a 'strategic Israeli win' [Hamas effectively destroyed with minimal Israeli losses or foreign ramifications] is pretty unlikely. I also suspect one of the aspects is the Israeli political calculus; Netanyahu is dependent on basically, their alt-right which means he's got their ultra-hawks screaming for retaliation/revenge to disproportionate levels which could make things worse. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a "last hurrah" for them. Hamas was losing a lot of support before the war. Their direct allies (not named Iran) have kinda come to terms with the fact that the Israelis are there to stay and started making deals with Israël. The endgoal for Hamas is less a free Palestine and moreso "no Jewish people in the region" (because it's firstly a religious extremist organization), so that is basically an existential threat for them. That said, I think they miscalculated with the music festival massacre and the news footage from the aftermath. That, far moreso than the missile strikes, is why the international community is in support of Israels actions - Hamas specifically targeted civilians with that massacre, including international ones, which is utterly indefensible. Like, the counteroffensive to completely wipe out IS didn't take off until they publicly started beheading civilians and foreign journalists either. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I would argue the other nations 'deals' with Israel is more throwing overboard the last vestiges of 'Arab unity' [which was for decades mainly a myth anyway] than anything else but I do agree as part of the calculus that Hamas didn't have much to lose - I can see them having a 'who fucking cares if the outside world hates it, they don't help us anyway' argument. We also need to remember is that most Palestinians and a lot in the wider Arab world they don't have outside news sources and thus will only learn of the details of the acts if those in power decide to tell them it - I would actually be a bit curious to how the news is being covered in places like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt etc. We also need to remember that life in the non-Hamas West Bank is also pretty shitty and yes, a lot of this is to blame by Israel. And the latter's increasing altie tilt is not helping things either - as many of them have the goal of "no Palestinian people in the region".
When you factor in all of these the fact that the crappy status quo would break down at some point becomes glaringly obvious. And everyone has given up on actually trying to improve the situation for at least a decade. The 'peace treaty' muted wasn't going to be one - it was going to be a diktat imposed on the Palestinians by two parties who were never in the room with them or really gave a fuck about their needs or wishes. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Much of the result of this will be a significant "reset" of Moslem relationships with Israel - esp Saudi Arabia's cozying up. Iran can point fingers at anyone "normalizing" relations and get considerable support within the Moslem world eg see Hamas strike threatens Saudi-Israel relationship Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Which is why I said about being interest in how the Arab press is playing it. Almost none of them are 'free' in Western terms and so what the media says, it's the government's desired narrative. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hamas is saying they're willing to negotiate a ceasefire now that they've "completed their objectives"... I'm wondering if they've realized they've overplayed their hand.-Ryan1257 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I'll give you ten million pounds for your heart and lungs, Ryan. It's so easy to 'make an offer' when you know there's no chance in hell of it being accepted. It also is an attempt to try to 'shift blame' for the coming shitstorm onto Israel in general and Bibi in particular. A man who's made his whole political career on being 'harder than hard' on security issues and agin' the Palestinians. At least, this is my reading of it. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
They also announced that they're going to execute a captive every single time that Israel does an "unannounced missile strike" on the Gaza shortly afterwards so the ceasefire thing is largely regarded as a farce by Israel. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Worldwide protests[edit]

So I'm seeing a lot of protests everywhere. My own 2 cents is...

  • Israel does a lot of shitty stuff that is indeed worth protesting over
  • If you are waiting until Hamas literally murders, rapes, and kidnaps hundreds of people at a friggen music festival, and THEN start running around waving flags in support of Hamas/Gaza? That means you don't give a crap about human rights, you agree with murdering civvies
  • I'm seeing crap like porn stars and LGBT groups supporting Hamas/Gaza. Look, you can be upset at the blockades, the constant missile strikes, etc etc, but it's not a special kind of "good" to stand with people who literally call for your death, it's just stupid.

There's a lot more I could say, but a lot of it is pretty vitriolic, so I'll bite my tongue. CorruptUser 02:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've only seen protests in Canada and Australia, there's a flood of news so a lot of stuff that's easy to miss, so maybe there are more I missed. Chillpilled (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Looking at a lot of the online leftosphere, they are currently living vicariously through Hamas since in their mind, the militants are doing what they wish they could do, killing those they hate. To them, pro-Palestinian activism is more of a vehicle for their power fantasy, imagining a world where they could kill all those they see as their opposition and be praised as a hero. It's really sickening to see what they are without their masks since they proudly show their bonafides with not only dismissing civilian casualties, but condoning it and praising it. Not to mention, the proud anti-semitism which was once shushed for optics, now proudly displayed. I've even seen rape, something which they supposedly take a hardline on, be seen as the fault of the victim (who is guilty simply for not being Palestinian). I know some of the card carrying socialists are gonna say, "Nuh-uh", and all I gotta say is, take a look outside of your bubble and see the discourse. Between the Ukrainian war and this, the MAGA-fication of the left is alive and well.-Ryan1257 (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Are you sure you're not nutpicking? There's a lot of denouncing of Hamas going on here which is fair, but you're conflating support for Hamas as support for Palestinian liberation. They're two different things. Also Israeli airstrikes have already killed a disproportionate number of civilians, which I expected, that's how the IDF rolls, but they've also cut off all electricity and water aid to Gaza. Since when have sanctions ever ousted an authoritarian regime? This is only enflaming support for Hamas. Great going, Israel. Carthage (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
It's happening too often to be nutpicking. And currently, support for Hamas and support for Palestinian Liberation is hard to separate at the moment especially since these demonstrations started showing support for Palestine and Hamas's actions after the pictures of the dead civilians came out. When I hear chanting of "From the River to The Sea" and anti-semitic slogans, what else am I supposed to think of these people's actions but that they do support the actions of Hamas?-Ryan1257 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you link to some of this, please? There's a common strawman of Anti-Zionist activism that it's somehow "antisemitic" when claiming that Israel must gather the support of all Jewish people I would argue is antisemitic, but.... I don't know if that's what's going on here. I would genuinely like to see what you say is going on. There has also been consistent pro-Palestinian activism from long before Hamas' invasion, and these activists have condemned antisemitism: [2] Carthage (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Also if one takes problem with support for Palestine because of Hamas' actions... I have to ask why one doesn't as strongly object to calls for genocide and collective punishment by segments of Israeli society? Israel's own actions and rhetoric would kind of render any position of moral superiority superfluous. Carthage (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I mean, we have a story on the world page. And here you go:
https://news.yahoo.com/socialist-rally-in-times-square-praising-hamas-terror-attack-draws-widespread-condemnation-204123785.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABQ1rZpbiBiQ_71GaVfFR8NnbtowG5TbVh0RDHamN9fXSQYaRQVthBJIn9G1EgjB27BzONnosbVsPGF5-RiXw8OOUuzLkWi9NO7lrHxhd-yk46m6Z1B-uHsVe3_7uphKT8tvjPUuVzBa59n8TwoiJubCVZXKVSeaAX7DSAuDZ2_S
This guy jokes about the dead civilians at the music festival while the crowd laughs
Plus you have the response of many organizations only condemning Israel while ignoring Hamas's actions in the name of "solidarity" or pretending they know not what they do:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-democrats-lash-socialist-organization-for-backing-rally-supporting-hamas-attack/
Obviously, I can only show what's reported, and if you really want, I can show you what I've seen on twitter from prominent voices. But the main thing that disturbs me is the optics of these demonstrations cheering on Hamas after the pictures of their proud atrocities just came out which I just find disgusting. Tell me, if they aren't supporting Hamas's actions, then what have they come out all of a sudden for? Who else are they hoping "liberate" Palestine?If they want to protest because of civilian casualties or and the cut-off of supplies, then good point. But I'm not seeing that.-Ryan1257 (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I think I'm done talking about this on this site (and no, I'm not gonna be done several times after this post, I mean I'm done talking about it here). No matter what my opinions are, whether they're right or wrong, the outcome of this is out of my control, and honestly, it's bringing out a side to me I don't like. I'll look at what people say, but I think I've said what I think. Anymore is just ego.-Ryan1257 (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Both news stories are about the same event so no not evidence of your "a lot of the leftosphere...MAGA-fication" claim. Also I love how you completely ignore carthage's response: "Also if one takes problem with support for Palestine because of Hamas' actions... I have to ask why one doesn't as strongly object to calls for genocide and collective punishment by segments of Israeli society? Israel's own actions and rhetoric would kind of render any position of moral superiority superfluous." Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
There is in my opinion literally no government in the Middle East that one can reasonably cheer for. From my perspective, the ones I feel for the most is those in the psytrance festival that got slaughtered by Hamas -- from what I know about the psytrance scene in various places, it is at least somewhat divorced from Imaginary Sky God politics and has a bit of a laid-back hippie-esque vibe, so the festival attendees are likely ones that deserved it the least.
The problem I have with the "we stand with Israel" stance being pushed in the United States is that Bibi's government is a backsliding democracy / pseudo-apartheid regime. True, Israel is not a bunch of dumbfuck Islamic terrorists who attack a music festival for no reason, one of the morally shittiest terrorist attacks I've heard in a while. But it's a tough sell to rally on "the other side" when Netanyahu and a bunch of hard-right asshats are in charge there, and some in that regime have expressed disturbing thoughts about Palestinians. On the other hand, supporting a regime like Hamas that literally murders at a music festival just because... well, that's pretty much bullshit, too. So lefties should be careful treading that road.
Therefore, I can mainly stand with those in Israel, Palestine, and elsewhere in that region who want to ignore as much as possible the incredibly shitty politics of the Middle East overall (the fact that Bibi's government is probably one of the better ones in that region is absolutely pathetic) and want to do something like, say, listen to psytrance music and escape for a while. I know they exist out there, whether they are Islam, Jew, Christian, "none of the above', or anything else. BobJohnson (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Kind of hard to be apolitical when you're living under an active apartheid system. I also think to say you don't give a fuck about either Israel or Palestine is an incredibly privileged and unempathetic thing to say. There's a reason Palestinians support Hamas: it's because they fight. If you were Palestinian you'd probably have a very different take than "those suffering under apartheid and settler colonial violence can go fuck themselves." Carthage (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
If you talk with highly pro-Israel, anti-Palestine types, you are going to find similar justifications for right wing "we will fight" dogma (eg many will justify regressive attitudes towards Palestinians due to terrorism events and/or war). I only have empathy with those legitimately seeking peace, which means recognizing that it's much more than "fighting the enemy". An attitude that no side seems to have in this conflict except on rare occasion in my lifetime.
So, yes, I have zero fucking empathy for warmongers. If you want to justify Hamas slaughtering a psytrance festival etc., seriously go fuck off. I have zero empathy for Israeli apartheid but I equally have zero empathy for Hamas's terrorist bullshit. Nor do I have much tolerance for someone resorting to buzzwords like "privilege" to handwave away an (admittedly cynical, fatalist) viewpoint. Left wing uppity buzzwords don't justify wholesale murder of innocents, and I'll know what pond scum to safely ignore if one feels else-wise. BobJohnson (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I have to ask: did I ever say Hamas was in the right? I'm explaining why Hamas is popular in Palestine.
"I only have empathy with those legitimately seeking peace, which means recognizing that it's much more than "fighting the enemy". An attitude that no side seems to have in this conflict except on rare occasion in my lifetime."
Heh. I'm not sure you've talked to many Arabs then. Most of the people I've talked to hate Hamas, but at the same time: they actively resist Israeli apartheid and settler colonialism. I'm not saying it's right... but I can't fault those feelings either. Only someone far removed from the active conflict can have a "both sides equally bad" perspective. Hamas is awful, yes. I'm not disputing that, but to many Palestinians they are preferable to Fatah because Fatah is seen as a collaborationist entity. Remember that Hamas won a legitimate democratic election. The US, Israel, and the EU proceeded to deny the results of a legitimate democratic election. Safe to say, but the only reason you can have such a viewpoint is because you're safe in your armchair, and your house isn't being firebombed by the IDF. You, likely, have running water, power, and a stable income. Israel's blockade has turned Gaza into the world's biggest ghetto. Hamas is directly propped up by this blockade. Hamas is directly propped up by the continued land theft, the continued harassment and house demolitions, the continual denial of freedom of movement. Yes, I'm sure many pro-Israeli people will say that genociding Gaza is justified.... but they're no better than Hamas in that regard. Escalating conflict is only going to cause more suffering. If you so strongly condemn Hamas' actions, which I think you should, I think you should also equally condemn apartheid and collective punishment.
"Therefore, I can mainly stand with those in Israel, Palestine, and elsewhere in that region who want to ignore as much as possible the incredibly shitty politics of the Middle East overall (the fact that Bibi's government is probably one of the better ones in that region is absolutely pathetic) and want to do something like, say, listen to psytrance music and escape for a while. I know they exist out there, whether they are Islam, Jew, Christian, "none of the above', or anything else." This is what I'm objecting to, as it seems incredibly unsympathetic to the victims of apartheid and settler colonialism. You can accuse me of being unsympathetic to the victims of the massacre all you want, but I can equally accuse you of being unsympathetic to the victims of apartheid and settler colonialism in turn. If you weren't insinuating that, then please don't insinuate that I'm doing the same either. Nowhere was I justifying Hamas' activities. To say that "objecting to 'both sides equally bad' and 'I only care about the apolitical folk'" as privileged is the same as saying Hamas is in the moral right is a false equivalency. The right to resistWikipedia is also a human right, although that doesn't in anyway justify Hamas' actions. Carthage (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Will Israel ground-invade Gaza?[edit]

100,000 Israeli troops are massed on the Gazan border "plus tanks and armoured personnel carriers". By the time you read this, it may even be much higher since Israel is mobilizing reservists quickly ("the IDF 'has never mobilized so many reservists so quickly — 300,000 reservists in 48 hours.'") Business Insider: "Israeli forces mass near the Gaza Strip ahead of what many say is an imminent ground invasion". But actually, the article raises the specter of Israel's north border becoming a "second front" in the war, what with Hezbollah's strikes against Israel there. Which leads me to wonder, could Hezbollah actually be doing that to deter Israel from investing resources in invading Gaza? At the war's start, Hamas put out a statement that Israel invading Gaza would be the most favorable situation for Hamas. I don't know whether that's true, but I don't see a good reason to doubt it. Such an invasion would likely mean the Israelis incurring significantly more casualties than I should otherwise expect. Chillpilled (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the fact that IDF operations usually incur a high collateral rate (I hate that term, it's so fucking soulless. A euphemism to cover up the fact that you eagerly slaughter civilian populations as long as it "gets the mission done"), I don't see how this will be any different. As always, the people of Gaza suffer (which is what Hamas wants, because it offers an easy recruitment pipeline. Israel is doing the work for them.) while Israel continues the policies that make Gaza an open-air concentration camp and the Hamas leadership are safe in the fucking Gulf States away from the front lines. Carthage (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
To answer the question posed in the heading. Yes, an invasion is virtually certain. 1. Israel is building a significant invasion force on the border and they seem to have every intention of using it. 2. Public opinion in Israel is strongly in favor of it. 3. There are over 100 hostages being held by Hamas and the quicker Israel moves the quicker they might be able to get them back by force. 4. Very few international voices are doing much to urge restraint. The really surprising this would be if Israel didn't invade.
Of course whether they actually should invade is a different question.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what it will accomplish; constant invasions/bombings haven't made Gaza unwilling to continue the constant fighting, so the end result is just a bunch of corpses and a loss of international goodwill. At the same time, NO response is likely to embolden Hamas. It's not as if killing people will reduce Hamas's ability to launch attacks; while killing the experienced bombmakers would slow down production, there's no way to get all of them and they can train more. The real limiting factor is the ability to smuggle in materials to use for the rockets, which given that rockets can be made out of scrap metal and the fuel/explosives can be made out of virtually any and all organic matter, well, Israel would have to stop the import of everything into Gaza. Should that happen, which basically means starving everyone to death, well, that's a genocide. CorruptUser 21:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The whole point of terrorism is to invoke an overreaction. Carthage (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
"Israel launches first ground missions in Gaza - as 'localised raids' announced in hint at strategy shift". Chillpilled (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I hate "Anti-imperialists"[edit]

I don't hate the real anti-imperialists, i hate the fake ones that call out american american imperialism but ignore or even celebrate russia and chinese imperialism . Usually these so called anti-imperialist often deny atrocities committed by china and soviets (aka Tankies). TL;DR The fake anti-imperialists are just anti-westerners who call out american imperialism but ignore russian and chinese imperialism ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Typically the "anti-imperialism" of tankies is a cynical political calculation. "Yeah, Russian and Chinese imperialism is bad, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and as far as I'm concerned Western imperialism has been far more harmful long-term. The Middle East and Africa were permanently destabilized by Western imperialism. Western imperialism enables Zionist settler colonialism and apartheid in Palestine and the propagation of Salafism by the Wahhabis. Western sanctions are just a form of collective punishment on civilian populations. etc" Carthage (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I shouldn't think you would hate them. It is just one more incoherent belief based upon the notion that imperialism might be isolated from concomitant economic developments typical of all ascendant civilizations. I would imagine that there are imperialist affects in any expanding state economy; ones that are internal to the originating territory until economic pressures exceed the capacity or willingness of the state to contain it. The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) was funded by the Persian Empire, which feared a unified Greek state on its western borders. I understand that the Persians gave subsidies to both sides. Man, that was just mean.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Nah, it's not really incoherent. It's a cynical political calculation based off of an arbitrary exclusion of some imperialist states from Lenin's definition of imperialism, which covers the economic aspects of imperialism. Carthage (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I suppose it to be incoherent with any non-violent objectives. The only way to end a state's imperialistic activities is by somehow defeating the state itself, something Lenin didn't live long enough to discover. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Would you oppose any resistance to imperialism? There have been non-violent campaigns of resistance to imperialism before. Carthage (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Ukraine is doing the right thing now, so yes. The problem with "anti-imperialism" is that there's no one clear demarcation of what's "imperialism" and what's a proportionate response to combatting it. As an example, Bhutan has presented itself as some great place governing by happiness, as it openly carries out ethnic cleansing of the Lhotshampa. Are the two Bhutanese majority groups "imperialist" for suppressing them? No one seems to fucking care about what's going on, especially since the Bhutanese government plays the "gross domestic happiness" card as hard as it can and people keep falling for it. Everything I've ever read about Bhutan fawns over their Totally Amazing And Culturally Sensitive Governance, as if they're not actively engaging in ethnic cleansing; I've never seen anyone call that "imperialism". No one considers it controversial to label it as such when the United States did essentially the same thing to the Polynesians of Hawaii, is there some level of population and/or geographical size that gets governments a free pass to engage in tactics without it being "imperialism"? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, no one but the Native Hawaiians and the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement... Anti-imperialism should assert support for resistance to colonialism and imperialism everywhere (most self-proclaimed anti-imperialists go off of Lenin's definition, which adequately covers the economic aspects of imperialism while covering for Soviet imperialism. As I already explained, support for Russian and Chinese imperialism is a cynical political maneuver. Nothing more, nothing less.) but realpolitik as ever is an important factor to consider. By all means call out Bhutanese colonialism. That doesn't mean Bhutan as a member of the Global South isn't subject to colonialism itself. Oppression intersects after all. I think to use the case of the Lhotshama as a cudgel against anti-imperialism is remarkably cynical. The case of the Lhotshampa does not mean that the causes of any other peoples or movements resisting imperialism are any less valid. Would you have told the Patriots during the American Revolution to roll over because someone else somewhere else was suffering worse than they were? Politics is not a zero-sum game. I also question the issue of demarcation, especially if we view imperialism and resistance to it as a cluster-concept. Anti-imperialism and imperialism can take many forms. What's relevant is similarity of concept. Carthage (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Clickbait Science[edit]

Is there some sort of tendency for science stuff today to be clickbait titles. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzC92VJJnvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpyXVkqkQgg

In these two links the title has nothing to do with the content, it just seems like an attempt to grab views. The second video mentions NOTHING about time not being real, existing, etc. A scientific american article had a title called "Why life does not exist". Except the content of that article just boiled down to "defining life is hard so nothing is alive", which just sounds like nonsense and is a bullshit point. There are gray areas so the whole thing is gray, can't help feeling cheated. The point is that the title was just a grab and the content is either anything but that, or more philosophy than science, etc etc. It's making me a little less trusting in science if they're going to these lengths. New Scientist I know is like this too and they have the nerve to paywall their stuff. I dunno, anyone else seeing this or am I just unlucky?47.5.66.54 (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. There's a problem even with science coverage in otherwise good news outlets. But I wouldn't touch 99% of the stuff on YouTube these days with a ten-foot pole, myself (though that's regardless of genre at this point). Chillpilled (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. It's the clickbait headlines that are the real problem here. Not the science itself. Spud (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Marginally related, but you can bypass the paywall of news articles on science.org by activating the reading mode (square left to the "translate" button in firefox). The "research highlights" part of every issue is always free to access. The "Unpaywall" extension can find open access versions to a significant fraction of articles. IluzalsipalStone them! 18:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
it's a bummer, but it probably can't be combatted if those videos have over a million likes. find some channels that you like. Event Horizon is one that I check in with, John Michael Godier has a real appetite for futurism and science fiction, but stays relatively grounded and actually interviews people working on whatever is interesting. He pitches sci fi ideas and questions alongside really taking the subject material seriously. If I'm in a 'how does the universe work' mood, I check in. https://youtu.be/moao_d6RAG8?feature=shared
No definitive answers, just a lot of 'what could this mean' space talk 2600:8804:500:FE90:8805:4A97:DCEE:E77B (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

New Scientist IMO is the most guilty of this like here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532670-800-what-you-experience-may-not-exist-inside-the-strange-truth-of-reality/#:~:text=No%2C%20because%20your%20brain%20edits,

I think they knew exactly what they were doing with the title and where they cut it off. I'm not giving them my address and phone number for a digital subscription.47.5.66.54 (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

They're owned by the Daily Mail as of 2021 onward. Chillpilled (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Potential image(s) to add to the fox news page[edit]

I recently found this headline listed on the Fox news webpage. It serves as a misleading shock headline. Not sure if this would be a good addition to the Fox News article

An "attention grabber" which seems to misrepresent the abortion argument
vs. the actual article

Not sure if this is where I should've posted this. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 15:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The first image lacks a source, so that's problematic. Bongolian (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
It's "sort of" (for me) in an archive of today's headline page (although archive.org does not load the page for me, you can see that the image it is trying to load is this one).
The main thing I can see offhand after a bit of Googling is that SB 345 in California actually has a lot going on. From what I can skim of the California bill, the focus largely is enhancing legal protections towards abortion and other family planning healthcare overall (partially in response, I imagine, to the interstate targeted abortion laws of religious nutjobs in certain other states, but it seems like there are several other regulations in play as well). Tele-health is a part of it, yes (and seems to be the part California GOP Senator Nancy Skinner, who authored the bill, highlighted), but it's not just that.
I guess the problem here is, though, that this isn't the worst example I can think of from Fox. Poor detail and heart-tug-string images are endemic in way too much of media (not just tabloid propaganda rags like Fox), and what Fox highlighted is indeed what the bill's author highlighted too. I've seen worse. BobJohnson (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 15:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
You can buy life-ending drugs on Amazon!!!! --Annanoon (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

What the hell?[edit]

This is not the Onion. The Krusty Krab (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This looks like pure Language Learning Model. 2600:8804:500:FE90:5CE9:A2C5:24DC:7FD4 (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Lest anyone think otherwise, this film is not only real, it has a sequel planned. Also a spin-off movie entitled Bambi: The Reckoning. Pooh and Piglet in this are freakish human-beast hybrid abominations, who resent Christopher Robin for abandoning them (read: growing up) and so terrorize him, his fiancee, and a bunch of hot girls at his college. Basically, the usual slasher film formula with a minor twist.
Eh. It's still more plausible than the average schlockumentary. Kencolt (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and HoneyWikipedia. Yeah, it came out more than six months ago. It was a pretty big deal for people like me who follow which works have lapsed into the public domain. Apparently it's crap and the title is the most inventive and original thing about it. Spud (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Lol. It's good that it finally "ascended" to the public domain, though. Keeping copyright for decades after the original author dies and you're producing nothing new is just parasitic rent-seeking. Carthage (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I didn't mean to call the premise invented or a LLM halluconation, I am aware that it is real. What I'm looking at is ads and AI voice reporting. I still wonder what world 'Blood and Honey' could be played by accident, in full. Sounds fake. The reporting looks very much like nobody cared but suddenly nobody had time and a story had to go out. I agree that Intellectual Property can be held maliciously. A quick use of the IP is clever. That does not a movie worth watching make. 2600:8804:500:FE90:B967:A3FD:CEC4:75F9 (talk)
A friend of mine actually "enjoys" the movie. To them, it's "so bad it's good." I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment, but to me whether or not a movie is "good" or "bad" is subjective. To some, like my friend, the movie crosses the line twice, to others, it's tasteless trash. Each conclusion is true to the respective parties. Carthage (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
That's not what is strange to me. I am a all for so bad it's good. What is strange to me is the article states "He didn't stop the movie, even though there were kids saying, 'Hey, stop the movie, we don't want to want this'," she said.". It's very close to human language but no competent journalist would have a source and provide that quote. 2600:8804:500:FE90:B967:A3FD:CEC4:75F9 (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a very badly written article. They even get the name of the film wrong, calling it Winnie the Pooh, Honey and Blood. But I think its mistakes are proof it was written by a human (and it looks like it wasn't proofread by an editor). The quote "we don't want to want this" obviously should have been "we don't want to watch this", and I don't think any AI today would make that kind of stupid mistake. Spud (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The origin I think is Legitimately a concern troll parent misquoting children. I just worry about the telephone game, I think AI would replicate that human misspeaking with no second look. An editor would have looked at it if it was a story that was important, unless the editors are sight reading stories and told to get them out. 2600:8804:500:FE90:8DD2:F530:3F23:3D94 (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Tupac suspect arrested[edit]

Holy shit Carthage (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Man, this is weird. Cops could have handled this 20 years ago. 2600:8804:500:FE90:8805:4A97:DCEE:E77B (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The confession given to the cops wasn't legally actionable. Carthage (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
So basically, he was killed in front of a federal informant.2600:8804:500:FE90:8DD2:F530:3F23:3D94 (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Funspace Concept: The Kool-Aid Bar[edit]

Here's an idea that can eventually be culminated into this funspace article: Fun:Kool-Aid Bar

I wonder what colors, flavors, and tastes would correspond to each of the many irrational cults, cranks, and concepts RationalWiki calls out. As such, what would each of their deplorable Kool-Aids taste like? Many people do guzzle the Kool-Aid all the time, so let's identify each of their varieties and their taste. (Just be careful to not drink the stuff yourself...) TheEternalOutsider (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It could be funny to make it a spoof of the saloon bar that's full of fake commenters and trolls, satirizing the worst of the saloon bar basically with obviously-nuts conversations. I wonder if there's some way we could make such fake comments look like they were posted recently, to the reader. Like some way to make one look like it was posted three hours before whatever the reader's system time is, then another look like it was posted two hours before in reply to that one. Chillpilled (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like your average day at the Bar. Carthage (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I've had a friend complain a couple years ago that she had to go through an Ice Breaker in class that requires everyone to say 3 interesting things about them. I know how much that sucks, at a college level it has to be malice. I told her if I was in her shoes I'd just make up a bunch of crazy lies and we made up a bunch of crazy lies for fun. One of mine was 'I have a rare form of synesthesia where I taste peoples' names.'. Glad I'm not the only person that joke would have landed with, because we had to pause and google. 2600:8804:500:FE90:8DD2:F530:3F23:3D94 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Deleted draft[edit]

I created my first draft yesterday, but having been here only six weeks, I forgot to place the Draft template at the top immediately. The page has been deleted, taking with it the citations I had already collected. Is this standard procedure on RW?WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

We, ah, our articles are based off of missionality. The person who deleted your draft thought it wasn't missional. Of course, you can contest this decision. Carthage (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I was the one to delete it, I thought it wasn't missional as it wasn't related to psuedoscience/anti-science, crankism, authoritarianism or fundamentalism as far as I could tell. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
It was the start of a draft, with no content to evaluate, only a paragraph and a list of citations. This will be a sub-page of Nudity, which to my surprise is up for demotion to Silver, which I have voted againsts since I have much more to add. I intend to create a number of sub-pages to keep the main one readable. Must I do this in my sandbox until they are complete enough to be articles? - WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Please don't create lots of subpages for nudity. It really doesn't have that much to do with RationalWiki's mission. And I think having an article dedicated to nude swimming at schools would be especially problematic. We have been accused of being paedophile apologists in the past. Spud (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
RationalWiki should avoiding writing articles open to fundamentalist lies and distorts? - WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not just fundamentalists who could distort us having an article about nude swimming in schools. And really, what would be the point of such an article? Was nude swimming in schools inspired by some mystic or pseudoscientific ideas that have since been debunked? If so, you can just put that on the Nudity page. I really hope you're not going to suggest it was a good thing and should be brought back. Spud (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Your questions are a good example of why such articles are needed. A normal practice 50 years ago has been redefined as perversion or child abuse, and the reason is both religious fundamentalism and the creation of another moral panic/conspiracy theory that the right uses to attack liberals. I am old enough to have experienced nude swimming in college; thirty 18-19 year old guys in a swim class that banned suits. We had all gone through high school where we had to take a shower with zero privacy after gym, so no one said anything. (I was among the smallest guys in my HS, and got bullied everywhere except in the shower.)

My swim class at UMCP[3] was just months before photos of hippies skinny-dipping at Woodstock were published by LIFE magazine. "Non-sexual nudity" is the term being used when talking about situations where people are naked, but sex is no more on anyone's mind than in any other social situation (which is never zero). I do think that old-fashioned communal nakedness has benefits for the young, such as giving them a chance to see what real bodies look like. The sad fact is that the vast majority of Americans today see their first naked adult in the media, not real life, so they compare themselves to a fantasy image of perfection, another source of anxiety they don't need. I cite a book in the Nudity article about the Netherlands, which says that boys and girls up to age 12 showered together after gym until the 1980s. (Now they separate boys and girls but still have communal showers). Kids continue to be naked in public fountains and water parks until they decide for themselves to dress. Parents are more vigilant than they used to be, but they don't want to lose their freedom to a few pervs. Such communal nudity is normal in societies that score the highest on gender equality.

As far as creating sub-pages, the purpose is to keep the Nudity page from being "Too long, didn't read".WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect toward your work, which I admit, I still haven't read, but do we really need such a huge page on nudity? Being succinct is a sign that you are a good writer, not otherwise. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Already TL:DR?WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
We don't need a huge page on nudity. We don't need lots of subpages that are likely to go further and further away from our mission and likely to more and more push this fringe belief that public nudity is hugely beneficial to society. There should definitely be no articles here pushing for the idea that kids should be naked in public. That's just playing straight into our enemies' hands.
@WriterArtistDC You really would be better off reliving your other major Wikipedia project here, the one about sports teams having names that were ethnic slurs and mascots that were racist caricatures of Native Americans. That's relevant to our mission. We don't have much coverage of that. And we can all agree that's bad.
And your swim instructor at university probably just forced you all to get naked so he could have something to wank about later. Spud (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
WriterArtistDC, I don't find your anecdotal claims convincing in the least. Even the article that you linked to says that there was a double-standard at the university (females at the time wore bathing suits at a segregated-by-gender pool, implying that there was still a fear of male voyeurism despite the segregation). My experience with bullying pre-1980 in the US is that it was rife, largely ignored by authorities, and often encouraged by authorities. It happened in the nude male high school locker room, it happened everywhere. The nude swimming in public pools nostalgia seems to reek of privilege, males against females, and historically, whites against African Americans.[4] Bongolian (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Such a sub-page is not needed. The main nudity page would be well enough. I find the especial focus on schools to be peculiar, why that focus? Nudity as a general topic is missional however, after all, from the very first pages of the Bible nudity is defined as inherently shameful and this is a contentious idea. But a sub-page with especial focus on children? No. Of course not. Chillpilled (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas and Israel: To groups who have their heads up their religious nationalist asses[edit]

Are they trying to impress their sky daddy? How many innocent people need to die before people realize that this is a ridiculous armed conflict? --Trans Fem Agenda 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel and it's neighbors have always had religion as the major point of content. Stemming from the holy city of Jerusalem and Islam sharing the city with Judaism, these conflicts have existed for most of history. Religion is deeply rooted in the middle east and is definitely there to stay. Unless the entire middle east goes atheist or something, there is likely never going to be an end with the fighting. Coming full circle, conflicts in that region seem to be almost always be related to their gods. They aren't going to stop fighting anytime soon. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 16:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The PLO were/are big tent nationalists with a large secularist faction. Carthage (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I believe Hamas hasn't actually held elections since they came to power, yes? --Moon Sock (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
No, they haven't. Neither has the Palestinian Authority, TBF. Carthage (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I often see the view that "Religion is not a real motivation, just an excuse used by the elites to rile up the masses. In reality, more practical concerns are at the true center of it all". Obviously, there's gonna be "practical concerns" in any conflict no matter what, yet just to name the motivations of one actor as an example of why I think you shouldn't discount the impact of religion, The US can trace a lot of its unconditional support for Israel to the influence of powerful Evangelicals who support Israel regardless of its actions despite regarding Jews as "heathen", since they see its main purpose as needing to exist to fulfill the prophecy for The End Times to occur. That fanatical devotion doesn't even include a major devotion to holy sites tied to a central part of their religious identity.-Ryan1257 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The PLO was founded in 1964, 3 years prior to the 6 Day War. They were NEVER serious about a 2 state solution. CorruptUser 21:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Is a two-state solution even optimal? Why not a Bosnia and Herzegovina-style confederation? Carthage (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
At this point, due to current events, the lack of unity among Palestinian factions and Israeli actions, a two state solution seems extremely unlikely. --Trans Fem Agenda 12:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
In Fallout 3, there's a quest where a group of ghouls (zombie-like mutants) want to live in a luxury tower, and the group of humans there refuse to let them in. You can side with either the humans or the ghouls, and you can get the "golden" ending where you manage to get them to live together peacefully... until a few days later, where you find that the ghouls have murdered all the other humans. I think that's a pretty apt metaphor, no matter which side you believe to be the ghouls. CorruptUser 16:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Imagine using Fallout 3 as a serious analogy to describe an incredibly complicated situation. I don't think it's at all an apt metaphor. Or if it is now, it wasn't always that way. The reason Bosnia and Herzegovina has managed to function, with some hiccups, is because of the fact that both entities are all-but-sovereign entities. Carthage (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I fail to see how comparing a real life situation to a video game is meaningfully different from comparing a real life situation to, say, Romeo and Juliet, or Game of Thrones, or even The Sneetches by Dr Seuss. The cold harsh calculus of the situation over there is that the reason this conflict has gone on so long is that there isn't some sort of golden compromise that will leave all sides just merely grumbling, let alone happy with the outcome. CorruptUser 13:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I mean, the conflict between the Bosniaks and the Serbs wasn't daisies and rosies. The federation compromise had to be basically forced on them. I think that to say that Israel and Palestine is fundamentally unique is a form of special pleading. There's also the possibility of partition following the South Asian model, but we all know how that went. The thing being, there are workable solutions with analogues in history, and to pretend there isn't is denialism. No one's saying these solutions are "good," or even "optimal," but geopolitics hardly ever works out in niceties, does it? The problem being you have to get the political will in order to get these solutions into place, and until very recently everyone preferred the status quo. Well, everyone but the Palestinians, but they don't really matter, do they? No, it's Iran, the US, Israel, the shakers and makers of world politics that matter here. I think something is gonna change following this war, but ah, what that "something" is remains to be seen. Carthage (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible outcomes of an Israeli ground offensive in Gaza rated from most likely to least likely[edit]

I thought about potential outcomes of a ground offensive.

  • Option 1: Destruction of Hamas with very high civilian casualties. A brutal ethnic cleansing takes place and those who remain live under a brutal apartheid system. Pro-Israeli government installed. Most likely.
  • Option 2: Destruction of Hamas with high civilian casualties. A Pro-Israeli puppet government installed. Minimal ethnic cleansing. High amounts of discrimination but no noticable apartheid system. Some democratic elections take place but Israeli people have more places to vote than Palestinian Arabs. Entirely possible but not very likely.
  • Option 3: Destruction of Hamas with low civilian casualties. There is no ethnic cleansing. Freedom of movement is established. Free democratic elections take place. A peace deal is reached that makes most people happy. The "yeah right and won't happen" opinion.

Just my thoughts. Option 1 is most likely in my opinion. --Trans Fem Agenda 15:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure option 2 is very possible. Technically option 3 is also very possible. But we have a far-right government in Israel openly talking of genocide. I mean, if you import a bunch of settlers into Gaza I'm sure you can have a "democratic election," but it wouldn't be a very fair election and would only serve to reify colonial power structures... Carthage (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Your nick reminded me - Israel might be pissed off enough to do to Gaza what Rome did to Carthage... MeowPurr 17:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
That would be bad, in more ways than one... Carthage (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

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

There will be a high cost to whatever is going to happen in the coming days, but Hamas will not be destroyed. A somebody. (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
As long as apartheid remains, there will be resistance to it. Carthage (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, what about 'Option 4: Non-destruction of Hamas with very high civilian casualties'? I personally don't think Hamas can be 'destroyed', at best merely rendered operationally inert; ie there's enough destruction of their infrastructure and enough commanders are killed that they can't do much for a while. But even then, there's nothing stopping them simply lying low for a bit and then re-constituting - such as the Taliban did.
I find it interesting from a personal POV that you didn't even consider Hamas surviving as possible, Rational. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Denial of territory would actually probably be advantageous from a purely operational POV, as we've seen with DAESH denial of territory means that the insurgent group in question no longer is bogged down by governance. The Taliban are actually realizing that now. Conquering a country is a wholly different game from ruling it. Carthage (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Israel is targeting residential areas, hospitals.... How are these legitimate military targets? Carthage (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ironic, considering that Carthage/Palestinians/Israelis are actually distantly related. "Carthage" is the English word, but the original name is "Carta Chadast", which was a proto-Semitic way of saying "New City". It was a colony of the Tyrian empire, better known as the Phoenecians, which was Greek for "People from the lands of purple" because of their indigo dye. Note that this indigo dye is where the current Israeli flag gets its color. Then Alexander conquered Tyre, after which Carthage grew to be a major trading hub on the Mediterranean, until it began butting heads with the Romans. CorruptUser 20:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Irrelevant tangent aside, how are residential areas and hospitals legitimate military targets? Also the Carthaginians spoke Punic, not Proto-Semitic. Even by the time of Tyre and Sidon Proto-Semitic was long extinct. Carthage (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
As for "legitimate military target", that's ugly. Hamas is notorious for keeping its weapons in civilian areas, and its rocket-productions is often located underneath apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, etc, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, but if it's your family living in the apartment above a weapon's cache you don't really care about the nuances of why your family is dead. Israel doesn't have perfect intel, and so when it bombs an apartment complex it's doing so off of a few tips from disgruntled Gazans... and little prevents those disgruntled Gazans from giving the wrong building so there's no guarantee that bombings even accomplish anything beyond death.
When it comes to blocking materials to build the rockets, they are remarkably simple, requiring only fertilizers, metal, and the electricity/fuel used to run the machinery. Israel could block those from getting into Gaza, but obviously going without even just a single one of those resources would basically collapse civilization. Which is what is happening now, with the halting of electricity to Gaza.
So militarily, the only way Israel can "defeat" Hamas is to effectively commit slaughter on a massive scale. There's no way to give Hamas what it wants either; even a small concession of territory would make the slaughter of thousands of Gazans "worth it" for both Hamas and their Iranian backers, "proving" that the rockets work and only encouraging them further. Simply ignoring the attacks is also off the table for a variety of practical reasons that go beyond bloodthirst. The hope is that eventually the Gazans will be so pissed off at Hamas that they themselves drag Hamas through the streets and a new power takes over, except that that can't occur so long as the Israelis keep bombing Gaza every other year, which is another reason why Hamas continuously launches attacks against Israel. CorruptUser 20:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
There's an easier answer; the population density of the Gaza Strip is about the same as a major metropolis such as London and it's not much larger than the island of Malta. However careful you are, an attacker will end up hitting 'non-target' things even if you're using 'precision weaponry' [the accuracy of such being exaggerated anyway] and even if you are a defender which desires to limit such collateral damage there's not much space which is not near something which is not 'non-target'. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The population was 400,000 in 1967, and 1.2m in 2005. It's 2.3-2.4m now, even with people managing to emigrate to other countries. It's only going to get more crowded, every single year, until the living conditions become so dire that even with modern vaccines and so forth there's no way to avoid losing half the population to disease. Heck, even if Gaza was expanded, eventually the population would reach the point where everyone was back to square one. The other way it ends is if women get educated, there's widespread adoption of birth control, etc etc, but last I checked Hamas wasn't exactly pro 3rd-wave feminism... CorruptUser 21:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Corrupt, the main issues Gaza has isn't lack of birth control, it's the fact Gaza has almost fuck all in investment, modern infrastructure, a functional economy etc for perhaps generations - it can be said even before the current bombardment, living conditions were already shit there. It's the world's largest ghetto. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice[About that] CorruptUser 16:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We probably shouldn't forget that it was the Goldenstein massacre and Israel's refusal to remove settlers from Palestine that gave Hamas precedent to attack civilians in the first place. Prior to the Goldenstein massacre Hamas only attacked military targets. Afterwards, Hamas figured that if Israel wouldn't distinguish civilians from non-civilians, then... well, neither would Hamas. Given the constant harassment Palestinians face on a daily basis, the dual system of law in the West Bank (Palestinians are forbidden from defending themselves from settler violence, which is encouraged by the Israeli authorities), the fact that the settler colonialism and system of apartheid has been more-or-less normalized... I don't think this incursion is as shocking as some people would've otherwise thought. Carthage (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The "Goldenstein massacre" as you call it (Cave of the Patriarchs massacreWikipedia) was perpetrated by a single non-government actor in 1994. Hamas was already killing civilians in the First IntifadaWikipedia (1987–1993). That seems like red herring. Bongolian (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, that would be Baruch Goldstein.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I suppose it could be a red herring. I took that from Wikipedia though, which says this:

In February 1994, Baruch Goldstein, a Jewish settler in military fatigues, massacred 29 Muslims at prayer in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron in the West Bank during the month of Ramadan. An additional 19 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces in the ensuing riots.[115] Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin condemned the massacre but fearing a confrontation with Hebron's violent settler community, he refused to withdraw them,[93] and Hamas swore to avenge the deaths. In a communique it announced that if Israel didn't discriminate between "fighters and civilians" then it would be "forced ... to treat the Zionists in the same manner. Treating like with like is a universal principle."[116]

The Hebron massacre had a profound effect on Hamas' militancy. For its first seven years, it attacked only what it saw as "legitimate military targets," Israeli soldiers and military installations.[117] But following the massacre, it felt that it no longer had to distinguish between military and civilian targets. The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Bank, Sheikh Ahmed Haj Ali, later argued that "had there not been the 1994 Ibrahimi Mosque massacre, there would have been no suicide bombings." Al-Rantisi in an interview in 1998 stated that the suicide attacks "began after the massacre committed by the terrorist Baruch Goldstein and intensified after the assassination of Yahya Ayyash."[118] Musa Abu Marzouk put the blame for the escalation on the Israelis: "We were against targeting civilians ... After the Hebron massacre we determined that it was time to kill Israel's civilians ... we offered to stop if Israel would, but they rejected that offer."[119]

According to Matti Steinberg, former advisor to Shin Bet and one of Israel's leading experts on Hamas, the massacre laid to rest an internal debate within Hamas on the usefulness of indiscriminate violence: "In the Hamas writings there is an explicit prohibition against indiscriminate harm to helpless people. The massacre at the mosque released them from this taboo and introduced a dimension of measure for measure, based on citations from the Koran."[93]

Wikipedia does note that Hamas also actively purged suspected collaborators with Israel and those who it suspected of engaging in "moral deviancy." In hindsight I retract this comment as an example of whataboutism. My bad. Carthage (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I do have to say that anyone who actively paid attention to this situation... to say this is surprising is a massive overstatement. Palestine was a virtual pressure cooker, and three months ago commenters were actively speculating on the chance of a Third Intifada. The ongoing blockade of Gaza, turning it into an open-air concentration camp, and the ongoing system of apartheid in the West Bank, and the lack of international response to this, basically guaranteed violence. A majority of people in Gaza were starving and food insecure, and denying people civil rights and freedom of movement is going to generate resentment. Israeli settlers were free to act with impunity, and Palestinian victims were left with no redress. Yeah, this situation was all-but guaranteed. Carthage (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The bit I found surprising was the IDF and Mossad’s complete failure to notice the preparations for this attack. Like Gaza is 25 miles long. It can’t be that hard to notice a military buildup when it’s literally the most serious threat on Israel’s border. And then the IDF failed to contain the attack and spent days hunting down holdouts. Complete failure all around. I’ll bet a lot of people are reevaluating their estimation if Israel’s military strength. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
For the same reason 9/11 happened; if your opponent does something unexpected, you aren't sure what to do. Nobody expected motorized paragliders to be a viable tactic, even the people doing it didn't expect it to work as well as it did. CorruptUser 15:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I mean, they ignored the Egyptian warnings of something big happening, and I have a feeling that bibi possibly ignored his intelligence service on this. A somebody. (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/13/politics/us-intelligence-warnings-potential-gaza-clash-days-before-attack/index.html I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out that israel's own intelligence service warned him about this and did absolutely fucking nothing. A somebody. (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Unrealistic evacuation order[edit]

Israel tells civilians of Gaza City to evacuate in 24 hours (that was earlier today). One of the most densely populated places on Earth that has extremely limited amounts to gasoline and cars, damaged roads, extremely limited food and clean drinking water, road blocks from rubble and there is over a million people to evacuate. Evacuation in the United States for events like a hurricane can take several days and that is in the best of conditions. --Trans Fem Agenda 00:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

More importantly, evacuate *where*? They cannot leave Gaza. The Israeli demand is akin to ordering people locked into a burning block of flats to simply move to another of the flats. The Isrealis know this too. This order is not expected to work, it is designed to give the IDF a fig-leaf when the world sees many a thousand dead Palestinian civilians - at least 75% shall be completely innocent of the terrorist attacks. They will blame Hamas for every single casaulty, while the loons on Bibi's hard right will cheer at the sight of many dead Palestinians. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
It was really weird to hear, a couple days before the thing, this thing, some Palestinians had been shot for throwing rocks. It was big enough news that I heard about it, Israel claimed it was their government, which I must admit, from my perspective is an insane government move. IDF just straight up took the blame... And it didn't work. It was so weird, and I get politics are different in a nonsense fight for holy land — Unsigned, by: 2600:8804:500:fe90:8805:4a97:dcee:e77b / talk / contribs
There is a phrase for this, not one that Israel and its enablers will like, Ethnic Cleansing. Cardinal Chang (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Because technically, it is not. The IDF are not going to remove anyone from any land - in fact, they never have. The 'waves of refugees' which arise in the aftermath of every Israeli expansion are spontaneous and anticipatory. They then simply settle in the now empty houses, land etc [the Israeli Arabs are basically the ones who 'toughed it out']. And there is another word which describes this - lebensraum. And I say this becauce there are fascist parties in Israel which support Bibi who do want all Palestinians gone [including, I suspect the ones within Israel too]. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
So what do you call the nearly 1m Jews who emigrated from Morocco, Iraq, Libya, Iran, etc etc? CorruptUser 19:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Whataboutism, seriously? Carthage (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice There's an obvious solution to this conundrum. Carthage (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
It's only "whataboutism" if it's a disconnected topic. Given how the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Arab world shapes modern Israeli politics, it's absolutely intertwined within the current situation. Ironically, it's the Ashkenazim that are calling for withdrawal from the West Bank and willing to sit at the table for "land for peace" deals, while the Sephardi (et al) Jews tend to be the ones that are calling for leveling Gaza. Circle of violence and all that. CorruptUser 21:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. It is also the main reason Egypt is not opening the Gaza border; they fear that like before, they will end up as 'hosts' of many hundred thou of Palestinians which will remain with them forever due to the Israelis slamming the gates shut afterwards. This little wheeze was also pulled on Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, which is partly why they're pissed at them. Any country generally gets pissy if another clearly 'exports the problem' to another - religion has nothing to do with it. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
You're also ignoring that Egypt and Jordan annexed the land in '48, and in Jordan's case gave them (second-class) citizenship. The modern plight of the Palestinian people is just as much the fault of Jordan and Egypt as it is Israel.
Addendum. Syria and Lebanon are also weird cases, in that both allowed in Palestinians but made it a crime for them to actually get a decent job or integrate into society. In Lebanon's case, this led to a civil war. In Syria's case, the Palestinians became a de facto slave caste; they did all the menial or dangerous tasks that civilization requires, such as garbageman and electrician, while being grossly undercompensated so that the other Syrians could have better jobs for themselves. CorruptUser 19:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring anything; this is a situation where everyone sucks [though some more than others]. I also ask you to prove that Jordan gave them 'second class citizenship', when the relevant WP flatly says otherwise. Wait, no I don't. Because I don't really care, as it's irrelevant to how we can get out of this mess. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The West Bank Jordanians had many restrictions on being able to leave the West Bank for the East, and when Israel conquered the territory in '67 some escaped to Jordan but many more found they were no longer citizens of Jordan. Ergo, not full citizens. Officially the Palestinians in Jordan today are full citizens, but there's a lot of animosity between Palestinian-Jordanians and Jordanian-Jordanians. In the event of some sort of Jordanian conquest of the West Bank and/or a larger chunk of Israel or however "right of return" comes about, it's likely that Jordan is going to round up a lot of P-J's and "voluntarily" repatriate them. CorruptUser 21:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I have suspicions 'because Corrupt said so' is not citable for making edits to the WP page on the topic. If feeling generous, I would hazard a guess you are conflating different periods [like how they were treated before '67 and after], throwing in a big dollop of that special [banal] evil that only bureaucracies can inflict on individuals as well as equating de facto dicriminations with de jure ones. However, while I am no expert in the Mid East I'd point out both regions are very geographically close and in 1948 had only been technically 'separate' for thirty years [so not a huge amount of time for divergance], so I can't imagine a huge amount of cultural differences at this point. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Read Nethescurial by Thomas ligotti[edit]

Had me at the edge of my seatJakester499 (talk) (contributions) 00:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Pretty certain I didn’t cite that studyJakester499 (talk) (contributions) 00:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
You didn't. It just appears at the bottom of the page cause the Bar lacks a dedicated references section. Carthage (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
What did anyone on Rationalwiki think of Thomas LigottiJakester499 (talk) (contributions) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Rusty Cage[edit]

Rusty Cage Any thoughts on this guy? He seems to be an 4chan troll with more than million subscribers. 🇷🇸 Serbiter (Wort wort wort) 23:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Heterodox economics[edit]

I love all of you, but heterodox economics is a pseudoscience. New Keynesianism > Post-Keynesianism. I’m sorry to start a flame war, but it’s true. Plus we should refute these pseudosciences. Jakester499 (talk) (contributions) 17:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure that GeeJayK was the one who said that just because something is "fringe" in economics that doesn't mean it's "wrong." For instance, feminist economics is heterodox, but that doesn't mean its criticisms are wrong. A particularly common feminist critique of mainstream economics is that GDP measurements don't include care labor, which pretty much renders all domestic labor as "nonproductive." When you consider that the field of economics was developed by men, and still remains dominated by men, that is no longer so surprising. There's a particular problem with demarcating between pseudoscience and science in the social sciences that are not found in the physical sciences because the social sciences deal with the fluid and mutable phenomenon of "human society." This extends to replicability, as a 2015 study found that less than 50% of economics research is replicable. It's even worse with fields like psychology. Carthage (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Apologies for concern trolling so I’ll concede to Carthage.Jakester499 (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
More generally; economics is a social science, and don't let the overuse of maths and grave pronouncements by leading figures kid you otherwise. Much of it revolves around the interactions of human beings, which is notoriously difficult to predict or even classify. Even worse, there's a bastardised neoliberal microeconomics which infests most Business/Finance schools which is waaay too unquestioning and shallow - unfortunately, these are normally the cretins which end up 'explaining economics' to the Big Public. The fact that others rarely get to speak gives most outside a view that there is a much stronger consensus in the subject than in reality. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, Marxist economists can and do attack the idea that 'care labour' etc should be included [somehow] into the GDP figures etc because it falls into the 'capitalist [ie orthodox, conventional] economics' argument that only things which can have a monetary value attached to it is 'worth anything'. In fact, the whole idea of children sinks much of conventional economics because reproduction is so economically ruinous to the unit and with very uncertain returns no sane homo economicus would ever even consider doing it. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
For once, I come into chat to say KarmaPolice's take is, as the kids say, "based". - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Feminist economics tends to critique the exclusion of domestic labor as masculinist, and therefore implying "feminine" work is somehow worth less than work that is perceived as masculine. I don't see that as rendering the Marxist critique that domestic labor isn't viewed as "productive" by orthodox economics because it doesn't have a monetary value attached to it invalid, or vice versa. You can critique something from multiple angles and still have both be relevant criticisms. Carthage (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Trying to label any branch of economics as "pseudoscience" doesn't set well with me for some reason. There could perhaps be a class unto itself, pseudo-economics, if such a thing exists. Chillpilled (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
How exactly would one demarcate such a thing? Orthodox economics itself isn't without methodological and theoretical flaws. Would we call Okishio's theoremWikipedia a work of pseudoeconomics given that it's in the field of Marxian economics despite being a refutation of the Marxist concept of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall? Carthage (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Well that's kind of what I'm getting at, that the whole field is more ideological than hard sciences are. Chillpilled (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There is clear 'pseudoeconomics'; for example a lot of Austrian economics is rightly called this because so many of their theories simply do not fit RL - aka observable reality. The policy beloved by the 'fuck you, got mine' Anglos - 'supply-side economics' - can also be termed pseudoeconomics in the respect it does not actually achieve it's stated aims [that is, the ones touted by proponents] which is partly why almost nobody serious supported the econ policies of Elizabeth 'I got beat by a lettuce' Truss. The crux of the issue is that like other social sciences, economics is still rather 'young' and we can only sharpen our understanding of the subject by a process of elimination using the good old scientific method. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
In that case one can make a distinction between heterodox economics and pseudoeconomics, since supply-side econ draws on the orthodox Neoclassical schools of thought, but it's still decidedly pseudoeconomic. Carthage (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The definition is easier; simply ask 'has this theory been disproven by real-life examples?' - if the answer is yes but someone still expouses it, then it's pseudoeconomics. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
People argue the exact same thing about socialism. The thing is that there are an insane amount of factors which can alter outcomes in a large economy, making it difficult to get a hard positive-or-negative reading. In some cases the outcome may not have really even been in the control of the people writing the policies to any great extent. Chillpilled (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There are foodlines in both the US and North Korea, indicating that if the purpose of economy is to efficiently distribute resources to the people then some people are going to fall through the cracks no matter the system. Of course, this itself can be questioned: subsistence farmers don't need to rely on systems of infrastructure to have their food delivered to them, for instance. Of course, North Korea is a country plagued by crippling sanctions, and the US is not, so I question the, ah, "efficiency" of the commodity model of food distribution. Especially since we produce enough food to feed 10 billion people, but hunger is still a problem even in the most developed of economies. That indicates to me some serious inefficiences there. Carthage (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
However, 'socialism' is not economics per se, it's politics [and the definition is very wide at that]. For example, you can have a socialist state which runs on the basis of orthodox economics, 'sound money' and so on - merely that the state takes a larger % of GNP [taxes and revenue from state companies] to foot the bill for the larger welfare state [qv, USSR during the NEP], just like you can have a full-bore 'free market minarchy' run on a load of economic BS [just chant 'Laffer curve!' ad nauseam while you cut taxes to nil but not spending]. One of the biggest lies punted by the shallow cretins peddling 'economics' to the Big Public is that 'good economics' is invariably the stuff which is right-wing or 'good for business', while anything remotely 'left-wing' was inherently 'anti-business' and/or 'negative for the economy'. For example, there's a very sound economic case for low/free universal heathcare [improved worker productivity and more efficient heath spend] while high minimum wage laws can be positive for the general economic outlook [less welfare spend due to end of cheap labour subsidy, companies forced to evaluate true labour value, higher consumer demand etc] but you'd not think this if you were sucking off the neolib teat of bankers/hedge fund managers etc [most econ cretins are these, not actual economists!] KarmaPolice (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There are good heterodox economists out there, both on the left (like Tom Palley and Dani Rodrik) and on the right (Randall Holcombe and Peter Boettke). Heterodox and orthodox economics are not about ideas, they are about methods. Most heterodox economists spend too much time studying old authors instead of coming up with something new. Unless you're interested in the history of the economic thought, there's little to no reason to use Keynes General Theory as your primary source, even though Keynes was the greatest economist of the 20th century, but many Post-Keynesian economists spend much of their lives reading that book again and again. There is also another point. Theory is now less important than empirical evidence, most economists also want to test ideas, not only come up with new ones, which is far more difficult. Mainstream economics is, nonetheless in fact very open to new ideas when you have evidence, and paradigms shift from time to time (see how an orthodox economists, David Card, managed to convince most of his peers in the 90s that no, a higher mininum wage won't always destroy jobs, for instance, because he could provide evidence, and how Emmanuel Saez is now doing the same thing with his research on inequality), but heterodox economists tend to use arguments from authority a lot (I always chuckle a bit when someone mentions the "Kaldor growth 'Laws'" for instance) instead of coming up with actual evidence. Much of what these guys write is in prose. This is fine to some extent, (the usage of math has gone too far, I've picked for my PhD economic history even if it's not my favorite subject on economics because it uses less math and I'm not good enough at it) but prose is not empirical evidence. Yes, macroeconomics experiments are not usually not controlled, but they are still better than using axioms, something that unites the Post-Keynesians and the Austrians, and has been acknowledged by both sides (indeed, if you think praxeology is a pseudoscience, then you think much of Post-Keynesian economics is also pseudoscientific). Sumarizing, my criticism of heterodox economics is that they hardly ever come up with something new, usually relying on the authority of classical authors instead of evidence. A bigger problem is how people who are extremely ignorant in economics have very vocal opinions about the subject, and choose ideas based on their beliefs and convenience, ideas that have very little evidence and are not supported by those that actually study them. There is very little difference between this and other forms of denialism. The truth is, heterodox economics is much smaller than most people think, dominating only tiny centers such as The New School and the UMKC. So, is heterodox economics pseudoscientific? No. Some ideas might be, but I wouldn't discredit eveything outside the NNS as pseudoscientific. But can it present an alternative to mainstream economics? I don't think it can. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course it can't. The whole point of 'hetrodox' are theories which are both alternative and unproven. If it becomes proven [or at least becomes the best theory to fit the question] it then becomes part of the mainstream. If it becomes clearly disproven, it is consigned to the scrapheap.
While we express it differently, I think the same two things piss us off; the 'cloistered scholar' nature of far too many economists [thumbing old texts and assembling evidence-free theories] and their general sucky quality of communication to outsiders [thus leaving the field open for corp shills and folks from dodgy right-wing think-tanks]. My third is often a rather blinkered view of economists; from what I've seen a lot don't have much understanding of related fields such as sociology or psychology [which might partly explain the lack of actual experiments].
And while hetrodox is smaller than folks think, we also need to point out that 'orthodox' is not rigid and linear either; you can be firmly within the economics mainstream and still disagree with your peers on a welter of issues. I personally think this is partly a symptom of wanting to be taken as a 'serious' science, in which there is observable 'truth' which can be shown in repeatable experiments [as well as the dumbing down of stuff into binary right/wrong definitions, which clearly doesn't work well with answers like 'you both might be right'. Though this seems to be a limitation of human minds in general.]
Anyway, I personally suspect the overruse of General Theory is partly down to the fact many have read it at least in part. When confronted by 'small reference pools' [what they remember texts said], 'path of least resistance' [they own the text and know it's in there somewhere] and 'halo effect' [it's frigging Keynes]... well, it's gonna turn up more than it frankly should. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Obituary for comrade "El Hector"[edit]

Last night, I cam across this rather astounding obituary for "El Hector", the leader of Leading Light Communist Organization:[5]

  • "…his politicized drug trafficking alienated many comrades…"
  • "Other aspects of the criminal underground like prostitution networks was something explored for a time…"
  • "'Don't get high on your own supply' was a cardinal rule in the game that Hector could never totally adhere to…"
  • "Hector would sometimes brag about how the best of Prairie Fire's writings were written while he was under the influence of a cocktail of hard drugs."

Bongolian (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"No aspiring revolutionary is perfect. Brennen’s contradictions made him like Moses in the Hebrew scriptures, laying out the new foundations the New Power but not actually entering the Promised Land himself..." Carthage (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it's evidence of a cult of personality, with his follower(s) excusing everything he did as revolutionary. He was representative of the opioid user of the people. Bongolian (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Achieving the bare minimum of not being a pimp. Truly a revolutionary contribution to the dialectical socialist science of the people. Carthage (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I made a video for Halloween[edit]

https://youtu.be/kVlT5ewTtTY?si=gZdiASmYUmQTU63c

If Walmart had the Emergency Alert System. My first attempt at something like this. --Trans Fem Agenda 23:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I've given it a like. But I see you know that already! Spud (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I replied to your comment. --Trans Fem Agenda 00:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes. I saw that straight away. Spud (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Polish election outcome[edit]

WIGO:Elections, see their entry. Also, a Vox article about it from yesterday. Chillpilled (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Liberalism can't stop winning. Populists can't stop losing. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Except for when liberals lose. That said, I'd rather liberalism than nationalism. Carthage (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Lewica (social democrats) are part of the probable centre-right to left-wing coalition against PiS, so. Chillpilled (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Liberals also just won in Ecuador [6]. I'm honestly getting sick of all this winning. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't count PiS out yet. The new coalition will/has only get a very slim majority dependant on a smorgishboard of different parties from center right to left wing, the only thing that seems to keep them together is "we're anti-PiS", which holds for now, but for how long? The different parties will inevitably run into conflict, that just how politics works. I personally wouldn't proclaim victory so early; If PiS spent so long shaping Poland to their will, I highly doubt they'll just let the opposition have their ball, they won't go quitely for certain. An Advocate (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
It’s not an ideal situation, but it’s better than an outright PIS majority. It might be early to say this, but the bright sides of 2023 will ultimately be about what could have gone wrong and didn’t, rather than what actually went right. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Let's see how well Noboa does in resolving the Ecuadorian security crisis given the truncated term he has left. His security proposals were also all over the place, suggesting he had no idea what his security policy was either. Noboa's father has also been implicated in scandals including child labor and violent suppression of labor unions. Noboa's running mate is also an antifeminist and opposes abortion. Make of that what you will. Carthage (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A populist leftist from Latam who is also socially conservative! More news at 11. Please, don't pretend to have competence at this subject. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 09:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Abad is a leftist? That's funny, considering how she has expressed sympathy for far-right politicians and groups like Trump and VOX. Abad is most certainly right-wing, not leftist. Maybe your competence is in question here. Carthage (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it was my mistake, I misread your post. I thought you were talking about Luisa Gonzáles, Noboa's adversary, she wants criminalize abortion in cases of rape. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 09:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Nah, I have no strong sympathies for either candidate. Gonzáles is the protege of Correa, who is a piece of shit who despite his proclamations opened up indigenous land to oil exploitation. I am reserved as to whether or not Noboa will be able to fulfill his campaign promises given the truncated term and all. Noboa also promised to go after tax evaders, but he himself owns two companies in Panama. We will see, I guess. Carthage (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Women and youth ousted PiS from power. I think Poland will keep getting more liberal in the future, unless the Civic Coallition does something really stupid. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by "liberal"? Liberal as in "liberal democracy," or "liberal" in the American sense? The coalition that ousted the PiS from power is a big-tent coalition, and comprised of ideologies as diverse as agrarian socialism to Christian democracy and "classical liberalism." It's important to define your terms. I presume you mean "liberal democracy," but vague syntax can easily lead to confusion and misinterpretations. Carthage (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia: "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, constitutional government and privacy rights. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history." Of course that includes liberal democracy, but I was thinking about secularism and human rights even more than democracy. I think people in Poland will support these ideas more from now on. Or, if you want to put in other words, I think that politics in Poland will shift from far-right to center from now on. I didn't think I had to explain something so trivial. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
And you assume that everyone reading this will know you meant "liberal" in the international/classical sense and not the American sense (which trends more towards support for welfarism and social progressivism and is generally center-to-center left.) ? Carthage (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I did say "center", didn't I? Are you saying that "center-to-center left" positions aren't centrist positions? I don't see how welfarism and social progressivism aren't compatible with Wikipedia's definition, especially since every modern liberal I know supports some sort of welfarism and consequentialism (even right-wing liberals do) and progressivism arose during the Enlightenment. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Modern tankies get their "Sino-Soviet split"[edit]

The Grayzone has had a split, with Blumenthal and Norton parting ways. Norton established his own little media network (apparently he seized some Grayzone social media assets he had control over in order to achieve this), which I'm not so familiar with, apparently it's called Multipolarista (or now Geopolitical Economy Report). Recently Blumenthal launched some attacks on Norton online (supported by Caleb Maupin et al.), also confronting him on a random bus in Nicaragua a few months ago as well (which I put in WIGO clogs a while ago because it was bizarre). Anyway, Norton has recently moved to China and appeared on Chinese state TV. For reasons that he split with Blumenthal, apparently factors included his growing anti-vax rhetoric. Norton cited Blumenthal's links to Tucker Carlson, a "hard right-wing turn", his appeals to MAGA supporters. The whole thing smacks of a sort of "modern Sino-Soviet split", except between tankie stooges who are more sympathetic to China or Russia.

I think there is a certain difference in style between their respective propagandists that this incident is perhaps emblematic of. Pro-Russian propagandists/trolls (more-so represented by Blumenthal) don't seem to have any particular goal in mind, even if they appear to, other than stirring shit i.e. causing chaos in the West. Pro-China propagandists (Norton) seem much more goals-oriented, that is, China has more a mind to assimilate the West into its own world-view than to simply wreak havoc on the West. China and Russia appear to have an alliance of convenience, there are some rifts such as these that remain between their operating philosophies. Chillpilled (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Alien life: A little thought experiment[edit]

I thought of this before. What if alien life is made of molecules that are completely different from known Carbon based life in which we simply cannot perceive said alien life with current technology?

Basically scientists looking in the wrong direction. This is not intended to discredit scientists but rather a different route to explore. --Trans Fem Agenda 23:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Scientists have done a pretty good job of imagining hypothetical alternate biochemistries. We'd prolly be able to recognize unusual chemistries that seem reminiscent of life, regardless of its similarity to earthly biochemistry (or lack thereof). Carthage (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
How would such life even be detected with current technology? I doubt that energy based life could be confirmed with scientific instruments available currently. What tech would be needed to detect life that humans couldn't perceive or comprehend? --Trans Fem Agenda 00:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
'Can't be perceived or comprehended' is doing a lot of work here. Naturally, it's difficult to say how you would perceive something imperceptible, but it's not clear that we should really be worried about such a thing. Biochemistry is extraordinarily complex; the range of conditions that can support that level of complexity isn't that wide. Just considering temperature: too hot and large-scale molecular structures become unstable, too cold and reaction rates slow down too much and things start to get too solid. I wouldn't go looking for life in stars (say) without some good evidence that they can support structures with the necessary complexity. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
"Can't be perceived or comprehended" is incredibly vague. How do you measure that? For, say, stellar life: Orion's Arm does a pretty good job of concocting up a stellar (specifically with neutron stars) ecology: [7] (Neutron star ecologies have been hypothesized by Frank Drake, but it is unlikely we'll know if such a thing is possible any time soon [8]). Any biosphere would need a steady supply of energy to stave off entropy and a stable environment to inhabit and develop in. Those both seem pretty comprehensible to me. Carthage (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Some hypothetical thing which cannot be perceived, comprehended or detected (with current technology) would necessarily be currently indistinguishable from something which did not exist. (It's actually reminiscent of some definitions of God.)
One could certainly then go on to hypothesize the existence of some some future technology which might detect the existence of this currently non-detectable hypothetical thing. But we are then piling one unsupported hypothesis upon another. There may be more fruitful lines of investigation.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Straight Camps: The modern day Soviet Gulag experience[edit]

The way LGBTQ kids are treated in these camps remind me of how the Soviet Union treated political dissents: Ship them to a camp for human rights violations. --Trans Fem Agenda 01:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite sure the "straight camps" are rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and are becoming illegal around the world. Ironically, if you go by the conjecture that early childhood trauma increases the odds of becoming LGBT, conversion therapy does the opposite of what it's "supposed" to do. CorruptUser 03:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
As has been said - children and young persons are exposed to any amount of fiction/TV programs etc featuring straight relationships, so if they could be 'converted' they would be. Anna Livia (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm straight and glad I didn't have to endure college in South Korea, where mandatory dating is apparently a thing. No thanks to all of it in any form. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
While they may becoming a 'thing of the past' now [at least in the Anglosphere, let's not forget places like Russia, Uganda, South Africa etc], unfortunately the past has a tendency to return in full force. I thought things like malnutrition, ill-heated slum housing, ramshakle public services and economic stagnation were something to read about in Orwell's Road To Wigan Pier, not to observe out of my own window. Civilisation's general thrust might be 'upwards', but this climb will not be even - in fact, there will be times where we 'backslide' quite severely [WW2 being an excellent example of this]. Plus, [as Orwell himself noted] the amount of things that you 'thought had died out twenty/thirty years ago' being discovered alive and well is legion. What's more, we have to always be on guard against those who wish to actively drag us back into the pit... KarmaPolice (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
My reading of the CBC article is that the course is an elective. Zontar (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ready to rot your brain?[edit]

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

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

https://youtu.be/qeAQTT9jG1w?si=pqYbzDZhqcxXtkfO

"Gender Transition" by Epoch Times. It is a "documentary" that is obvious misinformation and conspiracy theories with heavy doses of extreme biased and no alternative views. Then again it was made by people who spewed misinformation about COVID-19. --Trans Fem Agenda 00:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Falun Gong have certainly gone through one of the more interesting "paradigm shifts" when it comes to Western cultural / news perception. Back in the 2000s, from what I remember, the overall impression in media etc. was "yoga-esque exercise / meditation group that was banned in China by evil communists", as seen to some degree in old articles [9][10] and even old edits of Wikipedia.[11] While the China persecution angle hasn't gone away by any means, my perception is that there's also more awareness of the Moonies like craziness in Li Hongzhi's belief system and his organization these days.
A lot of Falun Gong's kookiness resembles New Age kookiness (if you overlook the homophobic and puritan aspects, of course), which makes the MAGA alignment of the Epoch Times all the weirder. (Generally speaking in the past, fundies -- a big part of the MAGA -- tended to *hate* any New Age bit that got "trendy", including stuff like yoga that in general no one gives a flip about these days.) BobJohnson (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Considering the marriage of the far-right with New Age bullshit, it's not that bizarre. Most leftists I've interacted with are skeptics, and not the granola bar moonbats that most liberals probably think of them as. Political realignments are funny like that. Carthage (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
There's still quite a few out there (you find them on Tiktok), but the older granola bars I think had their political realignment over vaccine politics and their Crank magnetism drawing them into more right-leaning conspiracy theories.-Ryan1257 (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't go on tik-tok, but that wouldn't surprise me. I'm merely speaking from my own experiences. That would make sense, though. It's the right that's espousing anti-vaxxer talking points, after all. Carthage (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
To me, the American New Age movement sort of went "both ways" after it peaked in the 1980s. On the one hand, some bits got absorbed into standard culture in a neutered form (think yoga, or some of the "alternative health" bits that you find in your Whole Foods type stores). On the other hand, the "aliens and shit" side seems to have dropped all of the hopeful wishes of stuff like the Pleiadians "back in the day" and have started embracing things like QAnon.
I don't think it's *quite* a clean realignment though. At least, my perception is that a lot of the more out there granola moonbat types that have embraced some of the QAnon / anti-vax culture aren't quite aligned with the overt racism and homophobia of MAGA, though they align with a lot else (eg anti-government conspiracies, out-there alternative health, etc.). Like a Robert F. Kennedy Jr., if you go too far in that direction (and the Epoch Times shares RFK Jr's mindset), my perception is that you tend to attract mostly from the MAGA conspiracy crowd (eg the Dale GribbleWikipedia space, not the Art Bell space). BobJohnson (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
i've seen a few ads for this schlockumentary on youtube. they reeked of propaganda. i couldn't watch them for longer than 10 seconds. (and this is coming from someone who is ambivalent on lgbt issues.) The G (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Ambivalent? Carthage (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
There is every flavor of opinion wrt any minority gender issue. There always will be. So many people say so many different things about lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transexual people you will have a problem finding many people who are certain about any of it. It would be a hell of a world where 7% of the population could tell the other 93% what to think about anything. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I managed to watch the entire ad and it hurt my brain. --Trans Fem Agenda 15:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There's an old joke RZ, about a guy who goes to see his doctor and says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this," while contorting his body in a peculiar way. The doctor says, "don't do that." Ariel31459 (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
yes, @Carthage: ambivalent. i won't elaborate on this thread because i don't want to go off topic. if you want to know more, we can continue this conversation in a new bar thread or you may visit my talk page. The G (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you think of the claim that north korea is Anti-imperialist?[edit]

Recently in Umaru16's talk he claimed that north korea is anti-imperialist. He also claimed that Japan will colonize south korea and China will colonize north korea once the U.S pulls it's military out of south korea. He claimed the reason north korea is allied to china is because of U.S sanctions. So do you agree or disagree with him regarding north korea. To be fair I agree with him that north and south korea should unite, they only are divided because of ideology, essentially forced to divide. ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

North Korea obviously exists only as a buffer state to American influence, just as South Korea was set up as a buffer state against Soviet influence, and US sanctions are fuel for anti-American propaganda in North Korea. They do nothing to overthrow the Kim regime. At this point furthering of sanctions only benefit the current North Korean regime's legitimacy. The Kims aren't stupid, they've seen what happens to rivals of American hegemony who don't invest in nuclear programs and don't make themselves necessary to rival powers. North Korea benefits in two regards:
1) It's in a strategic position. Beijing doesn't want an American client state and American troops right outside their border.
2) It's successfully invested in a nuclear weapons program.
As it is right now the current situation is designed to maintain the status quo. Carthage (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
North and South Korea uniting would be a disaster for the South. Germany is still struggling with the economic and cultural difficulties of integrating East Germany, and that country wasn’t half as impoverished and isolated as North Korea. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
it would take decades or even centuries for korea to unite. I find Umaru16 obnoxious ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
There is now also the evidence that NK is directly feeding Russia's imperialistic ambitions in Ukraine.[12] Bongolian (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Country that claims to be one of the world’s great powers having to be supplied by North Korea. That’s just sad. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
umaru16 also claims that Trump is anti-imperialist because he apparently opposed pro-japanese/Anti-korean imperialism note Trump praised shinzo Abe who is a genocide denier. I used his logic of Korea uniting for China and Taiwan, he said he opposed it because liberals oppose it. He opposes U.S training in south korea because it scares north korea and that is supposedly imperialism. ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The division of inter-Korea was artificially done by the United States and the Soviet Union. I think that due to this artificial division, North Korean society has become ,far-left nationalistic authoritarian and South Korean society has become ultraconservative. In the long run, I am neutral on the issue of withdrawing American troops. Perhaps it should follow the will of South Koreans to withdraw or maintain U.S. troops from the southern part of the country around the time the Korean Peninsula is unified. I believe that South Korea and North Korea are made up of the same Koreans, so they must be unified. In Europe, Germany was divided, not the countries occupied by Germany. The division of Korea is clearly wrong. Umaru16 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Trump was definitely close to Abe, but he was also close to Moon Jae In and Kim Jong Un. The third round of talks between the U.S. and North Korea broke down because of the persuasion of anti-Korean extreme rightist Abe. But for sure, neither Biden nor Obama met with Kim Jong-un. In particular, Bernie Sanders is less of a dove than Donald Trump when it comes to Korean Peninsula issues. Umaru16 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Taiwanese and PRChinese are both Han Chinese ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Just a quick note: let's not forget that "Taiwanese" also includes the indigenous people there, who are related to Pacific Islanders and whose presence long predates Han colonization. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Duce's view is correct. Taiwan and Korea are different. There are natives in Taiwan. On the other hand, there is no traditional ethnic minority group in inter-Korea, and most of the population is indigenous. It is Chinese imperialism that the PRC threatens Taiwan. However, it is U.S./Soviet imperialism that divides South and North Korea. We must not fall into geopolitical error. Any great power can be an imperialist. Both North Korea and Taiwan are victims of imperialism, but they stand in opposite camps because of the geopolitical hegemony competition of imperial countries. Umaru16 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Just because Taiwan and South Korea are involved in Western imperialism doesn't mean they're imperialists. Just because North Korea is engaged in Russian imperialism does not mean they are imperialists. The reason why North Korea is pro-Russian is that Russia is in a geopolitical position against Western imperialism. Taiwan supports Western imperialism because it opposes Chinese imperialism. This is a terrible geopolitical error, but it's a pity. But the easy way for a weak state to survive is to join hands with other imperialist states that are hostile to the imperialist states that afflict them. Umaru16 (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini what do you think of Umaru16? ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Anyone remember that shooting in California against a Taiwanese church by a Han-Taiwanese guy? That was bizarre. Clearly this shows there are Han people with racial hatred against native Taiwanese, though, but it could be quite rare there for all I know. Chillpilled (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, racism against indigenous Taiwanese exists. I've heard a few of my Taiwanese students (all ethnic Chinese) make racist comments about indigenous Taiwanese before. But not very often. Spud (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It would seem that "anti-imperialism" should mean something, like "the right side of my left hand." It doesn't seem very useful as a concept. If imperialism is an abstract characterization of a militarily or economically aggressive civilization and its effects upon other nations, I suppose NK could be called economically non-aggressive; but I suppose it would be due to their deleterious circumstances and not a matter of choice.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I have to wonder if you ever read Hobson or Lenin, as they do a pretty good job of defining anti-imperialism. Hell, you don't even have to be a socialist to be an anti-imperialist. Anti-imperialism was a mainstream opposition movement in the late 19th century as exemplified by the American Anti-Imperialist League. If anti-imperialism is support for national liberation and opposition to the subjugation or domination of weaker nations by stronger nations, then that's all there really is to it. You wouldn't argue against the utility of the "civilization model" despite the label being pretty vague and questionable in its applications, would you? Cluster concepts are a real thing. Carthage (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
And, uh, before anyone accuses me of committing the Courtier's Reply fallacy... well, I didn't say Ariel was unqualified to comment on the issue without having read the tomes of Hobson and Lenin, did I? Carthage (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Now, now, I don't mind learning something. I am more interested in the talk than anything. I think that the NK people are doing themselves no favors if they think they are resisting imperialism, and, also if they are anti-imperialist in the sense you offer in your short definition, don't you think that their anti-imperialism is more deleterious than the imperialism? e.g., who would rather live in NK than in SK? The World Economics Social Factors Index for South Korea stands at 93.8, just below the 94.1 level of Luxembourg. The US ranks 23rd at 90.5. I don't think data is available for NK.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Until the 1970s, NK was richer than SK. In addition, information about North Korea in Western or South Korean media tends to cherry-pick only negative information. The current U.S. interferes with the sunshine policy of SK liberals and leftists. Neither Trump nor Biden nor the Republican Party nor the Democrats except liberals officially ended the Korean War. When sanctioning North Korea, the U.S. does not have a problem as long as it imposes sanctions on the U.N. resolution level, but it imposes overly harsh sanctions. I do not support the complete lifting of sanctions against North Korea by the United States, but I think the United States should ease sanctions on North Korea to some extent. Resume Kaesong Industrial Complex, Biden Must Meet Kim Jong-un. Umaru16 (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
i find you and your nationalism and socialism obnoxious ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── About Russia being supplied by NK, that's just one of many indications that the Russian war machine is, well, running out of steam. Seeing as how the BTR-90s they're rolling out are prototypes... why roll out untested technology unless you're getting really desperate? Carthage (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

During the Iraq War, South Korea supported the U.S. and sent troops (though not combat soldiers). Is South Korea an imperialist? The U.S. and Russia are imperialists, but South Korea and North Korea are not imperialists. Weak countries may sympathize with the unjust elements of certain great powers in order to survive, but they cannot be evaluated as imperialists. North Korea chose to cooperate with Russia to escape China's colonialism. I'm not defending it, but I don't think North Korea is an imperialist just because Russia is a imperialist. North Korea is a post-colonial country and a victim of Japanese/American/Chinese imperialism. Umaru16 (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
You're just gliding on the edge of simping for North Korea and dismissing all they've done like they have no agency since, "They're victims of imperialism". Authoritarians will always have justification for their actions, it just so happens "fighting imperialism" plays well with the rubes. All this discussion has done is give an example of why "anti-imperialist" and "Post-Colonial" shouldn't be used as a euphemism for "good".-Ryan1257 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah he is just obnoxious and can't take criticism of north korea. He isn't a tankie but he has some qualities of one ←§

Reichtangle (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think all foreign policy in North Korea is anti-imperialist. One thing is for sure, I am in the position that South Korea and North Korea should be unified. The U.S. and Russia are imperialist countries, and Korea has arbitrarily become two countries. This fact does not change. It is wrong for the U.S. to impose an anti-Pyongyang/pro-Japanese foreign policy on South Korea, and the U.S. excessive hostile policy toward North Korea has made North Korea pro-Russia. If Trump did not cancel negotiations with Kim Jong-un, or if Biden had implemented a sunshine policy, Kim Jong-un would not have served in Russian imperialism. Umaru16 (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
so you blame the USA for the foreign policy. Should you blame USA too for making Russia putinist? ←§ Aethieizt (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Even before Russia invaded Ukraine, Russia was an imperialist state. North Korea and Russia are very different examples. Russian imperialism is not America's fault at all. North Korea and Russia are totally different matters. Russia is an undoubtedly fascist state. But North Korea is never a fascist country. I stand up for the weaker countries and oppose the imperialism of the great powers. I sympathize with North Korea but at the same time I am a supporter of [anti-Russia/anti-China] Ukrainian/Taiwanese/Vietnamese nationalism. Umaru16 (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Since Trump canceled his third meeting with Kim Jong-un, North Korea has leaned sharply pro-Russian. Biden has no will to meet with Kim Jong-un. North Korea's pro-Russian diplomacy and nuclear issues are, after all, a means for North Korea to resist the colonization of Chinese imperialism, which has no choice but to rely on the Chinese economy due to U.S. anti-North Korean foreign policy. The U.S. should make North Korea a pro-U.S. state. The enemies of the United States are China and Russia, not North Korea. Umaru16 (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I can accept the criticism of North Korea. I am South Korean, so I am loyal to ROK, not to DPRK. However, BR Myers, Robert Kelly, and Shin Ki-wook refer to inter-Korea's 민족주의 as "racial nationalism" and oppose South Korean leftists and demonizing North Korea. Left-wing South Korean 민족주의 was an anti-imperialist [anti-Japanese] ideology when South Korea was a Japanese colony and is still a necessary ideology for the unification of South and North Korea. Anti-Chinese/anti-Islam/antisemtist racist [+anti-feminist/anti-LGBT] people in South Korea are not 민족주의 supporters, but rather [right-wing anti-North Korean] state-based nationalist praised by BR Myers. Many left-liberal [ethnic] nationalist in South Korea are sympathetic to North Korea and hostile to Japan. Umaru16 (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
so you are a ethnic nationalist? Aethieizt (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with ryan1257 and what's wrong with civiv nationalism , atleast it's not racist ≤≥° Aethieizt (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────no offense to umaru, but he's a big part of the reason i moved to delete all of the "political insanity" categories last year. he can be extremely pedantic with certain issues. The G (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm neither an "ethnic nationalist" nor a "civic nationalist". South Korea's nationalism is difficult to divide into "civic nationalist" or "ethnic nationalist". I'm an "anti-colonial nationalist" (반식민 민족주의[자]). BR Myers and the right wing of South Korea refer to themselves as "civic nationalists" and denounce the left wing of South Korea as "ethnic nationalists" [in the sense of anti-Japan and pro-North Korea]. But South Korea's right wing is never a "civic nationalist" because it is anti-China, anti-Islam, anti-feminism, and anti-LGBT. The left wing of South Korea supports 민족주의. The word nationalism is sometimes simply translated into "nationalism" or "echnic nationalism." South Korea's leftists are actually ethnic nationalists in part to preserve the post-colonial values of opposing Japanese imperialism and having to unify with North Korea, but they are more pro-multicultural, pro-immigration, and relatively pro-LGBT than conservatives. The translation of 국민주의(state-based nationalism) as "nationalism" is wrong, and 국민주의 means "state-based people" and is a right-wing ideology in South Korea. South Korean nationalism is divided into "state-based nationalism"(국민주의/국가주의) and "anti-colonial nationalism"([반식민] 민족주의). Thus, the former is by no means "civic nationalism," and the latter is also different from "ethnic nationalism"([종족] 민족주의) in the Western sense. Because Myers and Shin Ki-wook are American scholars, they are cleverly defending the right wing of South Korea in accordance with their U.S. national interests.
BR Myers, Shin Ki-wook, and Robert Kelly ignore the complexities of South Korean politics and translate the word 민족주의 as "ethnic nationalism" and 국민주의/국가주의 as "civic nationalism". However, the 국민주의/국가주의 is the ideology of the People Power Party and the 민족주의 is the ideology of South Korea's Minjoo Party of Korea, Justice Party and Progressive Party. We have to understand that American scholars like Myers, Shin Ki-wook, and Kelly cannot be neutral.
The translation of the word 민족주의 as "ethnic nationalism" is not an incorrect translation, but it causes many misunderstandings. South Korea's left-wing 민족주의 supporters, who legitimately dislike Japan for not reflecting on the past and sympathize with North Korea for the reunification of Korea, support the anti-racism bill, the anti-discrimination law, while South Korea's right-wingers, who refer to themselves as "civic nationalists" in the sense of not hating Japan and loathing North Korea, oppose the anti-racism bill. I am opposed to any military alliance with Japan, I support all efforts for peace with North Korea, and I believe that we should be in partial solidarity with North Korea to fight against Japan's historical revisionism; it is Shin Ki-wook or BR Myers denounces it as "ethnic nationalism" in English. I support anti-discrimination laws and same-sex marriage should be legalized in South Korea right now, and it is strongly pro-immigration. However, I am a supporter of 민족주의 in the sense of anti-Japanese imperialism, part pro-North Korea for the unification of inter-Korea. Before 1945, the word minjokjui simply meant "nationalism," not "ethnic nationalism." It was the main ideology of all Korean independence activists and insisted on establishing a nation of Koreans with the same blood, ethnic, ancestry, culture, and race against Japanese imperialism. It is South Korea's political left that inherits it, and South Korea's political right, which denies it and refers to itself as a "civic nationalist", has roots in the 친일파(pro-Japanese collaborator fascist). The division of nationalism into "civic nationalism" and "ethnic nationalism" is a Western division, and it is difficult to apply in South Korea. Umaru16 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
To sum up, I oppose Japan's historical revisionism and have a very negative view of Japan, and at the same time, I believe that reunification with North Korea is absolutely moral and right. Korean independence activists referred to their ideology as 민족주의. So I'm a nationalist(민족주의자). Some English observers refer to it as "ethnic nationalism" or even "racial nationalism".[note 1] But I support foreign voting rights and anti-racist discrimination laws, I am pro-immigration, feminist, and I am an LGBTQ people myself. I'm an some ethnic nationalist (민족주의[자]) in a sense, but I'm never an "ethnic nationalist" in Aethieizt's mind. Umaru16 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Due to the history of Japanese colonialism and division, there are many diaspora ethnic Koreans who regard their identity as "Koreans" but do not reside in the two Koreas. South Korea's right wing promotes hatred of Chinese people and insists that Chinese nationals with Korean blood and traditional culture are "Chinese," not "Korean." In Korea, 조선족Wikipedia(=Chinese people with Korean blood) is used as an abusive language and is severely discriminated against. The self-proclaimed "civic nationalism" of the right wing of South Korea is like this. I am a "left-wing nationalist"(좌파민족주의) who believes that the South Korean government should represent the rights of ethnic Koreans around the world, and at the same time, should have sympathy for North Korea for peaceful reunification with North Korea with the same blood, and should antagonize the Japanese and Japanese imperialism that raped and slaughtered ethnic Koreans. This may be "ethnic nationalism"([종족]민족주의), but it is by no means racist. The way Wikipedia describes 민족주의 is misleading. South and North Korea's 민족주의 is "ethnic nationalism" in that it values elements related to the homogeneity of ethnic Koreans, but it is definitely not "ethnic nationalism" in the same sense as Germany's völkischer movement. Umaru16 (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with you and I find you obnoxious this is why I dislike you I just think you are kind of obnoxious. I may disagree with Carthage on socialism but I don't find her obnoxious unlike you ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
South and North Korea were divided by U.S. and Soviet imperialism. And during the Cold War, far-right anti-communist dictatorships long suppressed post-colonialism related to Japan. There is a problem if "ethnic nationalism" means xenophobia towards Vietnamese or Filipinos. But if "ethnic nationalism" means anti-Japanese anti-colonialism and Korean unificationism with North Korea, then there is absolutely no problem. In the latter case, it is an ideology shared not only by almost all South Korean leftists but also by liberals. I am a anti-colonial nationalist; who supports ethnic nationalism on issues regarding Japan and North Korea and civic nationalism on issues regarding immigrants coming to South Korea. Why is this "obnoxious"? Umaru16 (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Note[edit]

  1. Cloudy forecast for Moon’s ‘Sunshine Policy 2.0’ East Asia Forum (2017. 07. 20). "In South Korean politics, liberal political parties often support a policy of engagement with North Korea. This is because left-wing politicians tend to value miunjok (the Korean race) over the North–South ideological and political divide. In a broader sense, liberals embrace ethno-nationalism — the notion that sharing the same bloodline is superior to temporary national partition. Conservatives on the other hand support regime-based nationalism, which puts emphasis on being South Korean and stresses the differences in social and political values between the two Koreas."

Saturday Night Massacre 50th Anniversary[edit]

It's been 50 years since the infamous Saturday night massacre in 1973. Any reflections on the current state of US democracy? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

For crimes that brought Nixon down, Bush seemingly got away scot-free with no punishment what so ever. A somebody. (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I remember the Scooter Libby fiasco and all, but I was a teen during that time; at least off the top of my head Bush didn't do anything that I remember as being comparable Watergate. His utter incompetence during Katrina was the single worst, but even that was largely a history of presidents using FEMA as a patronage appointment finally catching up to someone. Afghanistan and Iraq were, whether anyone wants to admit it, not remotely good comparisons to Vietnam, whatever one thinks of the merits of either; my own view is that both could've gone much better if the military had been able to approach either in a way that made any sense, that they couldn't is a major failure of Bush but also not something the Constitution defines as an impeachable offense. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
One would think that invading a sovereign nation and lying about the pretext for war would be a pretty impeachable offense... (Not that impeachment is a practical limit on presidential power anyway...) Carthage (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Ideally yeah, I would agree. Unfortunately, after their inaction on Vietnam (to say nothing of Guatemala in the 1950s) it would have been pretty surprising for Congress to do it after everything came to light about Iraq. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Invading a nation under knowingly false pretenses (2nd Iraq War) is arguably a war crime, a war of aggression,Wikipedia so arguably it was far worse than what Nixon would have been impeached for (probably, conspiracy to commit a felony in furtherance of winning the 1972 election). Overall, Nixon pushed (or broke) the Overton Window for what a GOP President could get away with: war crimes (the carpet bombing of Laos, a non-belligerent nation) and domestic felonies, leading to (in various regards) a string of increasingly worse GOP presidents. Bongolian (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The Reagan administration and probably Reagan himself were involved in committing literal treason (supplying arms to Iran). Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 18:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
A sort of "pundit consensus" I remember around the time is ol' Dubya really wasn't involved in a lot of the policy minutia, and certain Nixon holdovers like Dick Cheney were the real ones in charge of misadventures like the 2nd Iraq war. Either way, the politics of Donald Trump upended the old order, so as far as the "current state of US democracy" goes, Nixon mainly relates with how his Southern Strategy ended up elevating the anti-democrats in the US. That being said, a side effect of the "order changing" does mean less appetite for neoconservative American "imperial misadventures" I suppose. BobJohnson (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Given the sheer scale of the horror that the invasion of Iraq unleashed, it could arguably be considered a crime against humanity. Right down to the actions of our own defenders of 'Murican freedom themselves: [13] If we lived in a truly just world, Bush and co. would've long since been brought to the Hague to answer for their crimes against humanity. But we don't. If this is truly the best of all possible worlds, I dread to know what the other worlds are like. Carthage (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I mean, hardly ideal, but I'm not sure that Saddam still being alive would necessarily be a better world. A different kind of horror, for sure, but an abattoir is still an abattoir. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I’m not saying that the removal of Saddam wasn’t an upside (though one of the precious few) of the Iraq War, but simply using his and his regime’s presence in a counter factual scenario as equal to the horrors of the Iraq War seems a bit shallow, considering the huge losses of Iraqi lives that was a direct consequence of that war, let alone the even larger and more ambiguous figure of excess deaths in its wake.
Basically, an “argument ad Saddam” presupposes that his continued regime would entail brutalities on a par with those unleashed by the war, which, by sheer casualty count, I find dubious. Sure, the somewhat democratic current regime in Bagdad is far preferable to that of Saddam, but it’s worth considering how many broken eggs it took to make that particular omelette. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
A big part of why DAESH was militarily so successful was because they had managed to scrounge up disgruntled ex-Ba'athists including some of the soldiery who had a major bone to pick with the US, especially since they had lost their employment after the expulsion of the Ba'athists from all places of office and were denied pensions, while also stupidly being allowed to keep their guns. Carthage (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Sarah Haider's recent descent into neo-reactionary garbage...[edit]

(her transphobia, whining about multiculturalism etc. etc.) should have us make an article on Rational Wiki about her informing other of this. I have seen very little focus on criticizing her about this, myself.Doyouliketravel (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, since we all know and have pointed out Ayaan Hirsi Ali being a transphobe, a Donald Trump apologist and incredibly reactionary liar, why haven't we made an article for Sarah Haider doing more or less the same thing? (maybe except for the donald trump apologia, though Haider is literally claimed US immigration policies in the past used to be better and these past polices were "better" than multiculturalism.) Can we make an article on how much of reactionary fool she is?

I learned about a lot of reactionaries from rational wiki maybe we ought to inform others that haven't gotten attention and the ones rational wiki hasn't criticized yet, the same way as well.

https://twitter.com/SarahTheHaider/status/1712981077969526980 https://twitter.com/SarahTheHaider/status/1295217805143552004 — Unsigned, by: Doyouliketravel / talk / contribs

The title is too damn long and the rent is too damn high! Carthage (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
That joke hadn't been funny for over a decade. A somebody. (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Nah, it's still a pretty accurate observation on rent rates. The quality of a joke is not determined by how old that joke is. Carthage (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The hell is that supposed to mean? Is that a no? — Unsigned, by: Doyouliketravel / talk / contribs

I agree the rent is still pretty damn high but that specific joke about a specific one issue party hadn't been funny for a while. A somebody. (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Carthage (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Also if you want an article more than likely you're gonna have to write it yourself. So that's not really a "no" but if you expect others to do your work for you... well, you're gonna be disappointed. Carthage (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
What was so wrong about her second tweet? I think it's a pretty factual statement that only knowing about American slavery isn't nearly the full history of slavery, and it wasn't in response to anything that I can see. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Her Substack is very "your mileage may vary" -- though in the end, appearing on a self-described "Intellectual Brown Web" podcast with host Razib Khan says much. I get the impression of the same sort of issues you get with Jordan Peterson and some of the remaining New Atheist leaders (too pompous and "deepity", dumb usage of "woke" and other alt-right slurs to build up a stereotype of a "left" to rail against, etc.) but she seems like a minor pundit. Carthage is right - write it yourself. :) BobJohnson (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

What utter nonsense. It has nothing to do with whether it is a response to something or whether it is factual statement or not. She was VERY blatantly using a deflection tactic (presumably those discussing America's genocidal and racist history during the George Floyd murder) by whining about "slavery wasn't the only history of America" when whether it's the only history of America or not, is irrelevant, what is relevant is that the murders of black people and racism have a root in American slavery and that us why it is being discussed, especially after George Floyd. Saying "oh it's not only thing in american history" is a textbook red-herring fallacy and non-sequitur argument. — Unsigned, by: Doyouliketravel / talk / contribs

For fuck's sake, please, this is not difficult! Sign your posts with (~~~~) or (if that's too fucking hard) by clicking on the fucking sign BUTTON: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) This keeps the place tidy and stops you looking like a complete arsing tool so please, just fucking do it already. Carthage (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Signatures are a hoax made up by the Democrats to control us. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 18:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Quite amusing consider I am a socialist and I wouldn't whine about the Democrats being an all powerful boogey man that conservatives who whine about "conservative persecution" blame for "censorsing them". I know the conservatives are in reality are being funded by right wing think tanks funded by oil billionaires and that being a gifting conservative pundit is very profitable (see the success and the following of Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, Matt Walsh, Candace Owens, Prager U etc. etc.) thus ironically they (conservatives) disprove their own persecutions complex themselves. 2001:8F8:1735:1553:2075:D38:38A3:E4CE (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Doyouliketravel, you clearly possess mind-reading powers that I do not. On what basis do you say that, because your otherwise entirely out-of-context link to her tweet suggests no such thing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The Blade Of The Northern Lights Mind reading powers? Have you literally never seen another person use a statement or a certain fact to derail the conversation about something? This is not different than all those MRA and MGTOW scumbags trying to use high rates of male suicide and the fact that men die more in wars as a "refutation of feminism". Do you not know what red-herring fallacy is? Ironically in you claim that "I must posses mind reading powers" you are indicating intellectual dishonesty and are arguing in bad-faith, because it is very CLEAR to anyone who is familiar with the rhetoric of reactionary fools whining about "SJWs" will know this is an attempt at "refuting" those who were discussing the racist and geocidal history of the American state (which was presumably being discussed due to the close proximity in timing of the George Floyd murders and Haider's terrible tweet). I am aware I didn't explain the context, but I really don't need to, you can when she posted the tweet and if you remember anything about that time in 2020 (mid 2020 specifically) you will understand who she is trying to "refute" and what her intentions, given that she is a neo-reactionary and has been for quite some time. Therefore it's completely consistent and expected for her to do and say this; it's pattern for spreading reactionary garbage to oppose "SJWs".2001:8F8:1735:1553:2075:D38:38A3:E4CE (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Jesus dying for our sins, etc[edit]

I know asking this after so many years here it's probably stupid but it's the idea of Jesus having died for our sins and variants thereof from Paul of Tarsus, not appearing in the Gospels at all?. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. But the idea of a God having to die as some kind of whipping boy for the sins of mankind when they disobeyed said God - especially including the unfortunate apple-eating incident in Eden - is evidently absurd.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Biblical justification. I think sorta that is mentioned in Paul's Epistles. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we top the longest word in the English language?[edit]

Antidisestablishmentarianism or as it's defined, "opposition to the disestablishment of the Church of England" has long been defined as the longest word English has provided. I don't want to see Antiantidisestablishmentarianism, that's cheap. I want a word that is still an English word by the same rules but is not redundant. ...Aaaaand its definition.2600:8804:500:FE90:8DD2:F530:3F23:3D94 (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Omniprovicarianism. A word I just made up. I know it's pretty short, but it goes omni 'always' pro 'for' vicarian 'a substitute or deputy' ism 'existential subscription'. I mean by this word, I'm asking you to try something in which the answer cannot be wrong, as far as I am concerned. The fun is in the trying. If you come close, go for it. 2600:8804:500:FE90:8DD2:F530:3F23:3D94 (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
How about a synonym for socialism: "pandemocoproductionship". It goes pan 'all', demo 'people', co 'together', production, ship 'specialised union' MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Likewise for anti-anarchosocialism: "antianarchopandemocoproductionship". MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
According to user @Yassine Mehdi, this is the longest English word. Spud (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I've always been partial to Pneumono­ultra­micro­scopic­silico­volcano­coniosis myself. Kencolt (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Y'all need Jesus. Carthage (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
floccinaucinihilipilification the action or habit of estimating something as worthless such as this bar entry. (Why aren't emojis available on RW, or are they?) Scream!! (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I will sacrifice a goat to ensure the salvation of your souls. Carthage (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Suffering from Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia? IluzalsipalStone them! 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
dang, y'all are rabid. Go and get it all out. A word of a quiet monster coming out the deep to do real damage with a quick word and a call to move, I might be scared of that too. 2600:8804:500:FE90:8DD2:F530:3F23:3D94 (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
if my definition is right, I would take one P out of the word. If not, please, define it, it looks really Clever and I did not ask for definitions. 02:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to the miracle of google you are all wrong! :) The longest word in English has 189,819 letters and takes 3 hours to pronounce. This is a technical term for the chemical composition of titin. Titin is the largest known protein responsible for maintaining the passive elasticity of the muscles. The reason why this word is so long is that titin is formed by 244 individual protein domains, which are connected into one sequence. Now, imagine 244 names of chemical compounds squashed together into one word. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
This is what I am here for. 2600:8804:500:FE90:8DD2:F530:3F23:3D94 (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
@Aloysius the Gaul No, we're not all wrong. That's precisely the word the funspace article I linked to is about. So RationalWiki already has it covered. Spud (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
@Spud your post lacked commentary and wasn't interesting - so yes, you are wrong! :p Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Oooh! Get back in t' knife drawer! Spud (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Eyup Spud are tha frum Yorkshire? Cos tha speykes a bit that way. Scream!! (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Scream!! I'm from Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. But I went to university in Bradford. Spud (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spud Explains a lot then. Honorary Yorkshirean thou art Scream!! (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
If never-used formula names of macromolecules are allowed, human chromosome 1 has about 249 million base pairs to titin's ~30k amino acids. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
so that means we're talking DNA as language, which I love, but this is all assuming an established linguistic model. 05:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

(reset) If 'multiply-componented chemical words are excluded as being 'a scientific dialect outside normal English' (and scientists probably using the short name unless 'substituting one or more components by other components') then 'antidisestablishmentarianism (and other words of a similar nature) can be expanded by adding prefixes to taste (bearing in mind that eg 'cryptopseudo' and 'pseudocrypto' have different meanings). Anna Livia (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We're not talking DNA as a language, we're using the formula names of large molecules as "words". The relevant linguistic model is the IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry, which describes complex molecular structures in a verbally-articulable form. As it's made to fully describe a complex molecular structure, it's completely impractical for macromolecules, leading to silly things like that alternative titin name and whatever human chromosome 1 would be. Probably something in the ballpark of a few billion letters, but I'm not aware of anyone attempting to figure out what it would be in the general organic nomenclature. There are specialized nomenclature standards for biological macromolecules that abbreviate amino acids and nitrogen bases as individual letters, and even then the "name" is more a plaintext data file that people reference than something people actually say as a word. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Hot jazz. I don't get it, but honestly, I am not here to argue genre. Longest word is solved on a technicality! Honestly I do enjoy it. But yeah, it would be cooler jazz if you could say it in one or two breaths. But I don't think it's going past this. Torrent (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you guys (somewhat) scared by what neuroscience shows about sensation?[edit]

I know I am a broken record with this so far, I've posted a few things in regards to studies and the like that challenge the notions we have about reality (delay behind the "present", senses, smoothing things out, etc). I guess my thoughts are if this really bothers anyone or scares them, I think the easy guess is that it does for me and I'm willing to guess for others on here the answer would be no. I guess I'm wondering why not, or rather HOW and not so much why. I know there isn't really anything you can do about it, I mean you can't just will yourself to sense otherwise.

But part of me can't help be scared as science (in it's usual fashion) erodes our ego when it comes to reality. Case in point here:

“Yet “brain time,” as Eagleman calls it, is intrinsically subjective. “Try this exercise,” he suggests in a recent essay. “Put this book down and go look in a mirror. Now move your eyes back and forth, so that you’re looking at your left eye, then at your right eye, then at your left eye again. When your eyes shift from one position to the other, they take time to move and land on the other location. But here’s the kicker: you never see your eyes move.” There’s no evidence of any gaps in your perception—no darkened stretches like bits of blank film—yet much of what you see has been edited out. Your brain has taken a complicated scene of eyes darting back and forth and recut it as a simple one: your eyes stare straight ahead. Where did the missing moments go?

The question raises a fundamental issue of consciousness: how much of what we perceive exists outside of us and how much is a product of our minds? Time is a dimension like any other, fixed and defined down to its tiniest increments: millennia to microseconds, aeons to quartz oscillations. Yet the data rarely matches our reality. The rapid eye movements in the mirror, known as saccades, aren’t the only things that get edited out. The jittery camera shake of everyday vision is similarly smoothed over, and our memories are often radically revised. What else are we missing? When Eagleman was a boy, his favorite joke had a turtle walking into a sheriff’s office. “I’ve just been attacked by three snails!” he shouts. “Tell me what happened,” the sheriff replies. The turtle shakes his head: “I don’t know, it all happened so fast.””

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/04/25/the-possibilian

Apparently the dude in the link is pretty famous though that might not be relevant.47.5.66.54 (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If you're worried that your physical senses make you anything less than you, it's still a long mountain to climb. There are no shortcuts and anyone who claims they have reached the top has stopped climbing, I wouldn't trust them to know an impasse from a fork in anybody else's climb. 2600:8804:500:FE90:8DD2:F530:3F23:3D94 (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
In essence, and I am an atheist, I am less concerned about what happens after I die as what happens as I live. If I die and some essence or soul of mine is put on trial, and the conviction is 'you did not believe or follow' then ya got me. I used a bunch of my time alive to really consider how my body and brain works. I'm choosing that over trying to figure out how a deity that by definition is incomprehensible wants me to live. So no, it doesn't spook me to learn I might misinterpret things or have a plastic memory. 2600:8804:500:FE90:39CE:80F9:3DD2:4787 (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't see what the existence or not of God or an afterlife has got to do with the difference between "brain time" and "real time". I'm also not sure I could do the experiment in the mirror because, although I can see out of both eyes, I only ever see out of one eye at a time. Spud (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I tried to do the experiment in the mirror and I thought I saw some very slight movements but it was honestly hard to tell if I was doing it right or not. I'm not sure what the "data doesn't match our reality" part means though, doesn't really expand on that.47.5.66.54 (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no end to examples of how our mind fills in "gaps" and "perceives" the world in a way that may be, and is, divorced from "objective reality" (whatever that is). There is a small dark spot in the middle of our eye (blocked by the optic nerve). You can demonstrate that by looking at a coloured dot with one eye closed. The coloured dot will disappear. You can order upside down glasses which will make everything seem upside down. After getting over the nausea and challenges of seeing things upside down, your brain will adapt and you'll start seeing things right side up. Take the glasses off, and you'll have to readjust again. Look at a bright light source and then look somewhere else, you still "see" a light smudge. Very gently poke your eye to the side, you "see" a distortion. The moon appears larger to us when it is lower in the sky. there are thousands of optical illusions that play with us. Have someone smash you on the head, you'll see stars. Take some hallucinogenics, ask yourself what is real. One of the biggest mindfucks I ever had was watching this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo&ab_channel=DanielSimons
Yeah, we cannot fully trust our perceptions. No doubt ShabiDOO 09:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why people thought their senses would be perfect. Even simple observations, such as human reflexes being delayed, or people needing glasses, misunderstanding people in conversation, optical illusions, etc, demonstrate that human senses were never observing a live "perfect image" of reality. Every sensor has the boundaries by which it's output is meaningful. This is true of scientific instruments as well. All measurement inherently has uncertainty. Computer calculations do as well except for niche circumstances. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
When you look at something the mental image of that something is a construction of the mind on the occasion of sense. Things as close together as ones eyes exist in the same frame of reference. Consider the word "AN". Look at the A and then consider the N. Your eyes do not necessarily move because both letters are simultaneously visible.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

On some level I know that but at the same time it trips me up that we are "living in the past" or "what you experience has already happened". Though I think that might just be poor wording as it conjures images of us living in pocket dimensions or stuff like that.47.5.66.54 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The really awful truth is, that probably is the case that we, by physical law are living in a sensory past. It MIGHT be the the case, then, that all choices are determined, by some juggErnaut physical versions of ourselves that we can neither know or be beholden to. so what is even the word for the opposite of that? Unique? Disorganized? All perceived futures exist until we are met face to face with them, all perceived presents are reactions to the past. Is there not a hierarchy of importance to memory, regardless of physical time? Am I getting that wrong? Torrent (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
the trouble is probably always the juggernaut, that latest point in time in which we all must act, because existence requires exactly that. Torrent (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
There is literally no reason to think any of that might be the case.47.5.66.54 (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, sheesh, you are asking something really difficult. I'm not your doctor. People get paid for that kinda catered treatment. I personally don't think physics and causality are less than literal, but fuck me, I guess. Torrent (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Top Gear[edit]

Can the page Top Gear be moved to Jeremy Clarkson? This article is predominantly about Jeremy Clarkson who left Top Gear in 2015. There's been several presenting teams since then who aren't mentioned. Since much of Jeremy Clarkson's non-trivial commentary is from a long and continuing career in journalism including after Top Gear, perhaps moving/renaming the article to Jeremy Clarkson would be simpler than rewriting. It's Clarkson's views expressed that are worthy of looking at rationally, all the other presenters are uncontroversial and don't express views that might be worth rational analysis. Much of Clarkson's opinion output has been in the Murdoch Press since he joined the Times in 1993 and it was not until 2002 he (re)launched Top Gear.--Darrelljon (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Darrelljon You said that already 2 years ago. And as I recall, it was moved and I moved it back. I'm afraid that it would not be as simple as just moving the current article to Jeremy Clarkson. Plenty of the article isn't about him. And as I said 2 years ago, I think the best thing to do is add to the lede that the show has been largely free of controversy since Clarkson left it. Spud (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

see the comments of the video[edit]

Turn on newest first, see what you will find ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

ooh, this one really triggered the japanese ultranationalist cranks/bots, didn't it! The G (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah-- all two dozen of them. At least, these responses seem to come from the same poster, over and over, repeating themselves, and the same with the next couple of dozen posters, with a few "I Hate Serbs" sprinkled around for flavor. Kencolt (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Mob Mentality and Social Media among the Youth: A Rant and More[edit]

Sturgeon's Law really applies a lot to Gen Z and Gen Alpha these days. After posting a possibly thorny rant above, I wonder what kind of nonsense the majority of Gen Z keeps getting themselves into recently? (I'm in Gen Z as well (born after 2000), but among the more educated and reserved minority compared to the majority of the generation. That's what the rant above was about.) TheEternalOutsider (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Talking as an elderly Millennial, I honestly don't see anything particulary 'wrong' with Da Kids these days. That is, nothing worse [or better] than my cohort was doing at That Age and despite their protests otherwise, what my older X'er sibling's cohort were [also known as 'Z'ers parents'] too. Some elements are worse, but others better, swings and roundabouts - for example, much less likely to drink heavily but more likely to get an STD and so on. And to be honest, bitching about how shit and shallow pop-culture has been an activity to do ever since pop-culture was invented. Also, shitty teachers/school. See also; Pink Floyd ['Another Brick In The Wall', 1973], Supertramp ['The Logical Song', 1979] and The Smiths ['Headmaster Ritual', 1986]. Just to prove it isn't something new, and that teenage angst wasn't invented in around 2012. Shall also cite that Larkin poem about your parents fucking you up. Lastly, teenage mobs are really shit. The only defence here I'll offer is that a) school is a 'forced community' of folks you'd never choose to be with, b) most kid's personalities etc are still in flux and have pretty brittle self-confidence and c) 'going with the herd' is the easiest way to survive school and well, we humans are lazy.
Lastly, and I hate to break this to you, but most adults aren't much better than what's been described. The only benefit is that generally we can ignore them more and our 'don't give a fuck' rating is higher. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Though another question I have for this. Do any of you think that society as a whole is prejudiced against introverts? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Define 'prejudice'. I do think the general setup of our current civilisation/society does make a strongly introverted personality an 'evolutionary minus' - but do people think worse of them? I am going to hazard a guess... not really.
Most folk have some tendency of introversion, just like they have some extroversion. So it's not like it's a complete mystery to them. I think only the 'negatives' pile up when it's extreme introversion; the point where a person is so 'not there' people actually stop remembering their existence and/or start considering them some kind of Uncanny Valley with nil personality [but I think lots of folk don't like extremes in general, be it relentless extroversion, being unfailingly happy, the Energiser Bunny and so on; I remember once looking after a kid who was so damn wholesome they gave me the mild creeps].
The true 'danger zone' I would guess for introverts is if it's strongly crossed with 'niceness'. This often appears as 'doormat' territory to outsiders and shall be used as such by selfish extroverts. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I do understand your hatred toward Tiktok and how it elevates the dumbest takes with little effort as well as the fact it is tailor made to be as addictive as possible (though, a lot of social media is guilty of this).-Ryan1257 (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

National LGBT+ Police Network[edit]

Because of the hostility that the National LGBT+ Police Network gets in particular from the transphobic troll that is We are Fair Cop, I thought it would be useful to mention them. Euromec (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

More Shit from the Fundies[edit]

Well, I just encountered something strange while on the way home riding in a taxi. On a sign on a highway exit ramp, I noticed that there was another paper sign hanging below it in a form of vandalism. It was a Christian fundamentalist's handwritten sign claiming that the Second Coming is here and that Jesus Christ of Nazareth will return. This cliché from Christian circles is basically a literal and flawed interpretation of the Book of Revelation, a set of parchments written by some anonymous and devout Christian schizophrenics during Roman times, which ultimately advocates for the absolute genocide of anyone outside of their cult. Sheesh.

So, anything else on Jesus-humping fundies and the shit they're constantly up to? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

One of my favorite things, that I've seen multiple times in rural Kansas, are the sex toy shops set up next to off-ramps from highways in the middle of nowhere. And right next to them are giant "Jesus is Watching!!!" billboards. I've seen like three of this setup. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 02:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The proper response would be for one of the shops to put up a sign nearby reading "We Cater to Voyeurs". Kencolt (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
"flawed interpretation of the Book of Revelation" - Is there some kind of correct interpretation? :-) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Though Christianity is sprinkled with apocalypse junk throughout its text, Revelations is the only 100% apocalyptic book of the New Testament. Like all end of world predictions, it probably should never have been taken seriously in the first place, due to both the abysmal failure rate of any predictions of such texts (if they are not some sort of allegory for the current times they were written in, which some have argued is the case for Revelations etc.) as well as the tendency of these texts to get rather "flowery" and "mythic" and "what moldy bread did you eat before writing this weird shit?", even more than the usual religious text. There are several other "apocrypha" / gnostic apocalyptic texts that failed to make the Bible cut over the roughly 3 centuries of wrangling it took to sort the New Testament out, indicating that in most cases, this type of text wasn't seen as "canon". But for some reason, Revelations made it in. Indeed, some churches / church leaders since have continued to reject Revelations to some extent well into the present.
From my perspective, though, some of the American fundamentalism "draw" is of a "I am holier than thou" projection - not very Christian if you think about it, of course, but it's what it is. It's this sort of attitude which leads to popular (in fundie circles) bullshit like the Rapture, which has extremely flimsy Biblical support and can be reasonably summarized as some bit of weirdness John Nelson DarbyWikipedia came up with after he fell off a horse. Like many overenthusiastic "cause" / "movement" types, many seem to really want to project that they are (in their minds, at least) "morally superior" because of Reasons. Revelations works great as a point of emphasis for these types because it gives them a hellfire or whatever for these folks to send those Other "sinner" types to, at least in their mind. BobJohnson (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh no! The second coming is here for the 5000th time! Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 18:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
It's just depressing to see such a small social society that drives home insanity so hard that sometimes people leave in favor of a bigger insanity. These are people who have been told to reject society in favor of trust to holy preaching but to an interpretation. went a little too hard and then had the same dirt treatment done to them. If the kids are tagging 'Jesus rocks' I would bet you'd find a potential cult leader closer than an 'Adult Emporium'.... At least in 'Rural Kansas'Torrent (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Not for the first time, I find myself cautioning against looking at the American Taliban from a religious POV. I have come to believe that for at least half of self-ID members are only cultural fundies - so charges of being 'unchristian' and so on simply fly over heads. For bonus points; find me a billboard where somebody has added Kencolt's comment [or similar] underneath in paint. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I passed by the vandalism on the way home again today. That paper sign defacing a leftwards chevron sign on the end of the Illinois 53 freeway said "JESUS IS COMING SOON", which is pretty much the general gist of all the Second Coming nonsense that keeps getting regurgitated by fundies over and over again. Christian fundamentalist missionaries leave a lot of bullshit on the roadsides, all in an attempt to fool people into both parting with their hard-earned money and to believe the religiously intolerant bunk they push out. Anything more on the road? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are so many liberals pro hamas?[edit]

Rough storm pirate.png Ahoy, matey!
Beware, for there be a great sea of
Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Its crazy. I see so many liberals and democrats supporting hamas in this thing and I can't figure out why? That would be like being pro Russia against Ukraine. I just don't get it.Brokenglass (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Twitter is a good representation liberalism (or any ideology). Also liberals=/=leftists. And even then, most leftists don't actually support Hamas, they just think Israel is worse, even if there are some truly stupid people out there on the left supporting Hamas. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to deny this is a thing especially in the most left-wing circles, but a Fox poll found more support for Israel in both parties. (Before someone comes at me for using Fox as a source, I consider their polling more reliable than anything else they ever do.) Chillpilled (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Incidentally, have you stopped beating your wife, Brokenglass? *cough* At any rate, I tried to Google a Democrat politician that "supported Hamas" and couldn't find one. Yes, a lot on the left are very unhappy with Israel's (all too typical) over-reaction to the Hamas attack; I hardly think that stance is unreasonable. Such a stance is not necessarily a support of Hamas's barbaric attacks, either. I'm sure there's some Hamas bootlickers out there on social media, but you can find *any* stance there... BobJohnson (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Going with GeeJayK, twitter really makes a small minority seem like the majority since hyper-focused, opinionated people, especially political extremists, are more willing to constantly post and retweet at a rate to where it seems like they're an overwhelming majority despite being just a few thousand people at best. Also, a lot of the same people saying pro-Hamas stuff are the same ones who say, "Ukraine is a nazi state!". In other words, these people have been shitty people for a long time, these aren't new converts.-Ryan1257 (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I think many people like to look at things simplistically and then take sides. With Russia/Ukraine there is obvious aggressor so we can make a simple good buy/bad guy story.
But with Israel/Hamas there are so many levels, so much history, so many competing claims to land, so many atrocities that it's not that easy. The Hamas attack which killed well over a thousand civilians was obviously terrorism: the wholly predictable Israeli response looks like a war crime. So Russia/Ukraine is not like Israel/Hamas.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
A small group can impact the reputation or look of the entire group. Not everyone shares the same beliefs as the individuals in question. Be careful not to generalize groups based off of a single judgement. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 15:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah, for sure, what I mean is the ones on twitter who looked at the initial attack and said, "I approve of this", tended to also support Russia's actions in Ukraine.-Ryan1257 (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The other thing to remember about social media is that troll farms like the Internet Research Agency are a thing. While I'm sure genuine opinions exist on social media, I'm also sure that propaganda exists as well, and some people are paid pennies to dump statements on the Internet that in reality they have little clue about. Twitter in particular is known for being a bot/troll infested hellscape. A combination of "pro-Hamas" and "Ukraine is a Nazi state!" actually fits (somewhat) into Russia's geopolitical stance (though Russia has tried for reasonably friendly relations with Israel from what I know, Russia has courted Hamas too; as a result, Putin's reaction to the Hamas terrorism was basically a "blah blah United States bad" deflective silence so who knows how much longer this Russia/Israel friendliness will last..). Most of the anti-Ukraine patter in the United States, especially any that swallows Russia's "THEY'RE NAZIS!" propaganda, has come from the MAGA wing. So while I'm sure it's possible to find a radical lefty type with a "pro-Hamas/Ukraine is a Nazi state" opinion (with 8 billion people in the world, there are 8 billion opinions), it's hard to use social media to measure sentiment knowing that there are state actors muddying the waters with opinions that aren't "genuine", or at least don't reflect what their profile says. BobJohnson (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I know that China and Russia are supporting Palestinians purely because they want to show the global south they're in opposition to The US, but I assumed they'd at least be more deferential to Israel if only because 1.) They've had wars/conflicts dealing with Islamic militants who wanted to create their own state which they've brutally crushed. 2.) Israel didn't vote to condem the Ukrainian war. 3.) They both had pretty decent relations with Israel and had been hoping to peel it away from The US by giving them more "leeway". 4.) Their main selling point to regimes around the world is (theoretically) not interfering in a country's internal affairs. Maybe the cost-benefit analysis heavily didn't favor Israel or they decided to now have a crisis of conscience, but such a radical shift just caught me by surprise.-Ryan1257 (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
There's a large secularist and Christian contingent to the Palestinian cause. To assume that all Palestinians are Muslim or Islamist even when they are Muslim is both ignorant and Islamophobic. Not saying that you're committing the Islamophobic error here, but it's obnoxious to find this bullshit talking point repeated over and over. That said, even if a resistance movement is Islamist, that doesn't delegitimize the systemic suffering that motivates the resistance movement in the first place. The victims still suffer, and this will only continue to be a boon for movements like Hamas. Carthage (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Carthage, I think you're reading into something I haven't said or mentioned. I was talking about the foreign policy decisions and rationales of China and Russia. If "Islamic militants" was what made you crossed, I wasn't talking about the whole Palestinian movement, I was referring to Hamas in particular and comparing it to the Uyghur and Chechen militants.-Ryan1257 (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Israel is despised by the Left for numerous reasons.
The big ones;
1) An oppressed people finally returned to their homeland! Huzzah! Only... there were other people there, and now THEY get to suffer for whatever reason.
2) An underdog stoop up against much larger forces, and through determination (and military surplus), they won! Only... now they aren't as much of an underdog.
3) Israel was also ultimate Proof of Concept for global government and diplomacy (UN), where the whole world is able to agree on something major. Hooray for Humanity! Only... it's still an issue that has yet to be properly resolved, proving the UN isn't all it's advertised to be. By its very existence, Israel proves the UN can't even do its stated job of preventing wars.
4) Finally, there's a true Socialist/Anarchist/Communist (really Anarcho-Syndicalist) experiment via the Kibbutz systems, proving resoundingly that Socialism CAN, in fact, build a country from the ground up, AND faster than Capitalism could! Only... most of the people born into the Kibbutz system decided to leave, which proves that even if people could have Socialism, they don't actually want it. CorruptUser 16:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Kind of funny that you have minor utopian communities in Palestine and generalize the results to all of humanity. Kind of seems like an overgeneralization fallacy. Do the constituencies of the Zapatistas overwhelmingly reject the Zapatistas? Do the constituencies of Rojava overwhelmingly reject Rojava? Perhaps instead of saying "people don't actually want socialism" because of what happened in utopian communities (and remember some people STAYED) perhaps a better argument to formulate would be that this is a strong argument for voluntary association and political pluralism (all of which are part and parcel of anarchist political philosophy, to paraphrase Stirner if a commune coerced people to stay in it it is no longer an anarchist commune, as that goes against the principle of voluntary association).
Also, the Zionists committed a long campaign of terror to get the Brits to leave, and the Arab forces in the 1948 war were actually smaller than the Zionist forces. Israel didn't pop up overnight, by the time of the 1948 war the Zionist forces were already hardened veterans of a decades long campaign of insurgency.
Harry Truman also pushed through the plan for partition against the advice of virtually his entire government. While the US isn't the UN, you'd be lying through your teeth if you said the US isn't a hugely influential power in geopolitical poker games. Carthage (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
All in all, based off of what you've said here I kind of doubt that you know what an entity as vague and amorphous as "the left" thinks about Israel. For instance, a close friend of mine is Jewish and a leftist, and is for the people of both Palestine and Israel, seeing them both as victims of power politics and general empire. To her the optimal solution is a one-state Bosnia and Herzegovina style confederation, and before you commit the fallacy of special pleading: Bosnia wasn't no cakewalk either. Really the problem is the people in power. Netanyahu propped up Hamas so that he wouldn't have to deal with a unified Palestinian state. There is a possibility of a real political solution. To say that there isn't is, again, special pleading. Carthage (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
One state Bosnia solution is what I think the ideal endgame would be. Two-state is dead because of the settlements and East Jerusalem, and I wish the US would acknowledge that. Problem is, Israel also won’t want a one state unity since they want to be a Jewish religious state, and they already have what they want. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 18:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if we could have an article about Jackson Hinkle. I added a lot to Caleb Maupin's article, as far as I know they are or were associated in some way. I think Hinkle is one of those "MAGA communism" people, associated with Infrared/Haz too. The thing is I was ignoring Hinkle, but now with this war he's exploded on Twitter, getting hundreds of thousands of followers (I just checked and he's now at 1.4 million) as a reward for spreading misinformation (example). In the past weeks he has actually been the individual-person with the highest view count behind only Elon Musk himself, not counting a handful of anonymous gimmick accounts. Hinkle in the past has been an obvious Russia stooge too. Chillpilled (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

As I'm sure several of you noticed I went ahead and started a draft for the Hinkle article. Should be able to move it to mainspace soon enough. I wish this guy would just go away, but you've literally got mainstream news outlets citing him as a source of fact now, especially Arabic and Turkish language ones though. He's blown up on TikTok and Twitter. What the hell, honestly. Oh well. Relevance to the above conversation: this guy blew up recently mainly from pushing pro-Hamas propaganda. Chillpilled (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Just cause Hamas has a long history of killing civilians doesnt make it more complicated. What war crimes is Israel committing? They're not the ones targeting civilians and noncombatants, Hamas is.Brokenglass (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Preventing access to food and potable water. Although, if people would like to know how people there are still alive: there are a series of tunnels that run under the Egypt-Gaza border. Historically this was used for smuggling goods. A lot of these tunnels were demolished but I think many still exist, perhaps they're even being used right now. Chillpilled (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

A few article suggestions I have[edit]

1. Geometry Dash. The game is very popular and has seen a large amount of trolls there. A recent drama actually occurred about a month or two ago where some person was spamming people to click on a level where, if clicked on, would tell you to tell popular transgender creator BridgetTheCroco to kill herself for a free reward in the game. I have also seen people upload inappropriate content, such as racism, porn, transphobia (see above), and anti-semitism (there is a user named AnneFrankDied who has been a main perpetrator of it), while I have uploaded some fairly islamophobic levels as a response to the many sins within that religion (especially Mohammed fucking a 9 year old when he was 53). I must also clarify that I am not as extreme as I was when I made those levels a few months ago, but I am still not a big fan of how Islam oppresses women and promotes pedophilia. Even still, I didn't want to kill any Muslims, just wanted them to believe in something else rather than worship a pedophile.

2. Skibidi Toilet. Just look at how insane it is making kids go. I have heard of horror stories from youtubers like [Pugs] about extremely cringe skibidi toilet kids. If you have any other ideas or suggestions to build upon my ideas, let me know with a reply. — Unsigned, by: 24.115.255.37 / talk / contribs

Muslims don't worship Muhammad. Muslims actually criticize Christians for venerating Jesus as a God, believing the Trinity to be a form of polytheism (or shirk). Islam is incredibly strict about Tawhid, or its tenet of monotheism. I think your attitude towards Muslims reflects general ignorance rather than actual knowledge of the religion and the peoples who practice the religion (over a billion people, mind you). Carthage (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
KnowYourMeme has a video [14] on how this Skibidi Toilet silly meme thing has inspired a seemingly low-grade moral panic among "concerned mum" types in Indonesia etc. So far it sounds like nothing compared to, say, the American moral panics of the 1980s (Dungeons & Dragons! Satanic Panic! Heavy metal music! Hell, even a parody trading card seriesWikipedia caused a bit of a one.)
Online game = trolls, assholes, and edgelords, pretty much no matter what it is. Desperate dweebs seeking attention, DFTT is the correct strategy. On the plus side, a lot of these edgelord accounts tend to be horrible players. BobJohnson (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Or the moral panics of today's America (portraying queer people as "groomers" in a cynical maneuver to incite a torrent of queerphobic sentiment and policy, unfortunately largely successful, the anti-vaxx crowd, all the bullshit with QAnon et cetera). As a queer person myself I am very afraid of what the near-future holds. Carthage (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Once in a while somebody seems to come along and make an article suggestion that is just bizarre and out of place. Geometry Dash would seem to be such a case. There are offensive trolls in every single community on the Internet. We don't need a page discussing each community on the Internet based on this alone. If for some other reason Geometry Dash merited an article, it could be worth a section, but on its own it doesn't indicate missionality.
Your other suggestion I can at least see the premise for (based on BobJohnson's comment that is), though personally I've avoided this meme as much as possible. So I ain't touching it. Chillpilled (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
It's possible to focus on the entirety rather than just one game. There's sections on racism and sexism in the video game article; this probably could be expanded some. Gamergate (which RW extensively covered) certainly highlighted the worst of the culture at that time, but that was nearly a decade ago. Even now, some parts of the video game world refuse to break from that paradigm, and it's easy to find new (>2020) articles on video games' toxic side. (Which of course is not *all* video games, but still). I also noticed that the video game article seems somewhat dated -- eg no mention of the rise of game streaming ala Twitch (maybe there's nothing really mission oriented about that?) or video game culture's link to "swatting" (which IMHO is quite mission oriented, if only to highlight how the militarization of American police is misused). BobJohnson (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Should we have articles on the United Kingdom's Prevent and Channel programs?[edit]

Article on Wikipedia that discusses Prevent UK Government article on prevent

Prevent (from what I understand) is an initiative to support individuals who may be susceptible to extremism with the goal of preventing them from becoming terrorists. It has gained criticism from British Muslims for various reasons. I am unsure if this would be a good addition to the mainspace. Thoughts? Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 15:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely missional. Topics to cover include Islamophobia, government overreach, and the surveillance state, among other things. Whether anyone here actually has the time or energy to write the article anytime soon is another matter. Carthage (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm no author, but I may take a crack at it. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 16:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
'ello, 'ello, 'ello. I used to know someone who deal with Prevent locally. The idea itself is pretty sound, that is spotting vulnerable people by caring actors like social workers, teachers, etc and making sure that don't go off-piste. The principle is know as the iceberg effect, a little bit like the milk before meat. The problem is to do with focus, although involves all kinds extremist ideology. it has been pushed with a focus of Islamic extremism when in fact it principally designed for far-right extremism. If you need a hand, let me know. Euromec (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This isn't to say that there haven't been major hiccups along the way. For someone with a more cynical view of governments, PREVENT can be viewed as a tool of government surveillance to crackdown on dissident ideologies and movements (case in point), but I get the feeling that's not gonna be the majority viewpoint here. Either way the PREVENT program is still plenty missional. Major concerns have also been raised about the human rights angle. Carthage (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Carthage has the better measure of it. Prevent's remit is to 'combat extremism' and lots of that is down to who defines that? Various Tory ghouls have repeatedly cried 'censorship' and other crap over Prevent's survellience of the far-right [which they see as 'fellow conservatives' in their now very warped worldview]. There's also free speech issues here, because Prevent firmly draws an official Overton Window which effectively bans discussion of in schools etc [which makes the XR listing particulary dangerous, as the document made it a statuary duty for teachers to report on pupils doing such bad things like 'going on environmental protests' and circulating petitions.]
I am actually a little surprised there hasn't been a RW page on it yet. It's been around since I was a spotty youth. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Gold/Silver and Conspiracy Theory Overlap[edit]

One thing I had encountered relatively often while making searches on YouTube in particular were the many folks that try to sell gold or silver (colloquially known as stackers), using conspiracy theories, doomsday predictions, and general fearmongering to back up their claims and get people to buy the metal. Only by yesterday, did I start calling this kind of behavior and these people using the term "gold foil hat", or "silver foil hat" after one encounter too many. So I wonder what's going on behind the scenes of these metal-kissing thugs, and anything else to corroborate on this? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

i hope gold and silver elements both get wiped of the face of the universe ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Aren't they usually called gold bugs and silver bugs? Even investopedia has a page on them. Here, they're buried throughout Gold standard (economics), like gold nuggets themselves. Namako (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
why do people even care about those two elements? Why not irridium platinum or some other rare element ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I wish we'd dispense with their "cultural value" so we could devote them to their true purpose, semi-conductors. Also, Silver is great in surgical tools due to anti-bacterial properties.-Ryan1257 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Historically silver was in high demand for film, its reflective properties made black and white pictures especially much better. Gold also has some practical uses, it's very resistant to corrosion and can help scatter radar so a lot of planes use it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
That’s because gold investors tend to be conservative, and conservatives eat that shit up. Watch Fox News for a couple hours, and you’ll see all sorts of gold ads. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think 'foil hats' is a bad way to describe to describe these people over bugs. If tHe economy is going to go ass up, then all currency goes with it. The people who are selling gold and silver wouldn't ever do that unless they want your dollars. If it isn't some federal reserve offloading currency, it's some assholes that have inhereted a gold or silver store and would rather have dollars. Paper money. Non fiat currency. Act now or you won't get your gold or silver, hey we even stamped it, is literally selling the game. Nobody is going back to gold, it will just never happen, why would anyone think somebody is selling gold at a loss? That's what you do at a pawn shop, not by stamping George Washington's face on the thing and buying ads on Court TV. I just don't get it. 2600:8804:500:FE90:8805:4A97:DCEE:E77B (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
It's milking the gullible. Business as usual for a charlatan. Luigifan18 (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The more 'sane' end is the whole 'gold/silver as an investment' thing, which is pretty stupid because while you can occasionally make a few extra quid by selling at a peak, normally you should get your money back [as it normally is a decent 'store of wealth'] but then you go into minus when you sell to a dealer who skims off a big % as commission [if you're really stupid, you paid a premium for it in the first place]. Then there is the 'sane-crazy' folks who don't think the world's economies are about to go down the pan but feel the need to 'keep some money in sight' - for reasons fair or foul your bank accounts may become unaccessable and in this digital age, spending fat wads of cash can be difficult to impossible. This shades into the 'crazy' area because they suspect/fear the political scene might get so bad they might need to use that gold to 'buy their way out' of something [for example, I am sure there's a few Afghans who got out during the airlift by pressing bits of gold into guards etc hands]. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Commodities overall tend to be a "riskier" investment class as a whole, and ordinarily, gold and silver would be no different than other commodities. But these metals are exceptions... for probably no other reason then historical usage. This therefore seems to fuel more speculation in these metals (more gold than silver) than you get in most commodities. The nicest argument you can advocate for "gold as an investment" is that it is a store of value / hedge against things like inflation / etc. that (in theory) probably won't ever crash to zero. However, gold certainly isn't the most stable priced investments... looking at gold charts, you get some pretty wild swings that tend to correlate with fear and uncertainty.
It's kind of similar to cryptocurrency in some ways (if you take away the huge amount of scams in that space, but add some back via the Fox News gold-bug advertiser shit) - a lot of what fuels the price is not terribly related to any "fundamentals", more "sentiment". (Especially anti-government sentiment, because a lot of what seems to fuel both spaces is this notion that all governments in the world simultaneously will go tits up, and somehow a shiny metal and/or some computer code shit is going to be what you need to save your hinder... a notion I find highly unlikely.)
A nice basket of stable government bonds (particularly with some "international flavor") seems better than this for your "hedge". And if you are *really* serious about something more physical, why not acquire a nice wine collection instead of gold? It has the advantage of being something possibly nice to drink should the world collapse bad enough where all fiat currency is worthless... BobJohnson (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
However, as any bod remotely interested in investing etc will tell you, stuff which is a 'store of value' isn't an investment because it doesn't relatively appreciate over time and/or produce income streams [much of the appreciation of gold recently can be directly down to the 'asset bubble' we had post-2008, due to oodles of QE flowing directly into any class banks could find, something which we won't see continue in the '20s]. But if you do wish to 'inflation hedge' but want something you can touch, put your cash into real estate.
But gold/silver has one thing up on crypto - it is a real asset and has non-money uses to them [jewellery, dentisty, electronics etc] - and while we can mock it, chances are that unless we have a total economic/civilisation collapse, that stuff will retain *some* value. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
do you really think dentists will pay a premium to reclaim gold or silver? 2600:8804:500:FE90:39CE:80F9:3DD2:4787 (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
If you re-read my previous statement, it shall reveal the answer to your question. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
So I've read your previous statement many times. I still don't get. Buy REALESTATE, who can buy realty? Real estate costs nonsense in the US. Take a loan on an afforrdable house, go bankrupt on your mortgage. If you take the loan, it must be paid back. That's reliant on increased property value and a sale unless you earn enough already to own the property and pay the loan.Torrent (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
In this discussion, general affordability is irrelevant - we are talking about investing. If a person is starting to worry about things like 'inflation hedges', then it is very clear their income/asset level is in fact quite healthy [rule of thumb; the richer a person is, the longer timeframes they think for finances]. What's more, your bitching shows you don't really get mortgages. Here's a basic lesson for free.
One, normally ownership costs [mortgage, taxes etc] are lower than rent for the same property. So this means you'll be saving money. Two, rent simply vanishes into the landlord's pocket while your repayments are being tucked into a big house-shaped piggy bank - this means that when move/sell house, you can [in effect] smash the piggy-bank to reclaim your payments, something clearly not done in rentals. Three; historical records show that unless you're unlucky and/or conned, long-term real estate values in advanced nations like the UK and USA at least track inflation, thus meaning in spending power you are not going to lose value. Four; everyone needs a place to live, and you cannot live in stacks of gold, in share e-certificates or in a crypto blockchain. And lastly five; if you don't live in it yourself, you can rent it out to others, generating an income-stream. Therefore, unless you have very particular circumstances push you away from it, you should try to buy the property you live in unless you can't afford it. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC
I'm not sure why the conversation changed to an assumption that general affordability is irrelevant. And while it's probably something true that some places you can find a spot that is fair Market value, as soon as you get intO that, you aren't accruing the resources to move out of it. If you can rent a place, A general rule for renting is you should not spend more than 1/3 of your income. In a lot of situations that means hit a slumlord's building, spend your free time and extra money at a laundromat, and/or over fill your space with sublets, who aren't on the lease and therefore you are legally responsible for any actions they might take. i'm not saying it's a bad investment, I'm just saying it's... Let's call it aspirational hopefully for the best and most responsible investors.Torrent (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Investment affordability is irrelevant, it's all about the rate of return. Generally speaking, domestic properties have held their RoR [though I would be wary regarding any area I think is showing symptoms of being a bubble]. And there is many options for 'reasonable' property investment past your slumlord dreams, y'know. Though if you actually read my points you'll notice that I refer to property as being more a 'store of value' than having a huge yield.
Which is the whole point you missed. If you're at the stage where you are looking for investment opportunities and can afford to 'go into gold', you should have paid your pension fund / mortgage up to the max, be carrying no other debt, have no looming capital spends on the horizon and have a comfortable emergency fund first. So yes, quite well-heeled. Which is the point. The gold/silver scammers are peddling crap 'investments' to people who cannot realistically afford to lose that cash. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
It's possible for rents to be a better deal for the area (at least for the salaried class) than buying; there is a metric called "price to rent ratio" which helps determine this. It's also possible for a place to have outrageously priced real estate (or be quite cheap), as seen by price to income / rent to income ratios. But these type of metrics are not really what we are talking about here. Homes are different in that I don't think a lot of people really think of it solely in financial / investment terms. Yes, for primary home buyers, the home often *is* the single largest piece of "investment" they have, but it's something that a lot of people factor "other things" into, since the primary purpose of a home is often not "investing" but "I want to live here".
When someone talks about "real estate" as an investment, I tend to think that they are not talking about their primary home. Instead, they are talking about owning and managing other properties. In other words, we're talking "landlord" level here, not renter slugging their clothes to the laundromat. Or even further up the chain, such as investing in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). Here, the investor is looking for both possible capital gains (increase in property value, of particular appeal to "flippers" who look to spruce up derelict property for a quick payout, as well as "over the long term" if you don't buy in a bubble) and passive income (rent money). Outside the cities, real estate also is a source of income via growing and selling food (farmland) or other commodities uses (trees, land with some nice mineral / resource rights, etc.) Real estate comes with the downside of actively managing a property (for those directly involved) or hiring out / outsourcing management in some way.
Yes, I think of real estate as a much better "world goes kaput" "hedge". As long as rudimentary property rights hold on, would you rather have, er, a piece of computer code that tries to say "I am valuable" like Bitcoin? Or, say, 100 acres of prime farmland where you can actually grow some things to eat? Seems far more likely that "growing stuff" is the better play here. Unlikely apocalypse doomsday hypotheticals aside, farmland is also considered an excellent "inflation hedge" (like the supposed gold is thought of, but often fails to deliver on) in that your income from the land will be from agriculture, and that's typically going to track inflation pretty nicely. So it's no surprise that a lot of the actual plutocrat class have tended to shun gold as an investment and actually have bought farmland instead.
But yes, for "more sober" gold investment discussion, we are talking about different worlds here then the world of many whose scope is no more than owning their personal home. Unfortunately there's a lot of "investment scams" that peddle to this class. Gold and silver is one of them, and the scams tend to lurk around places like Fox News which tend to peddle doomsday bullshit for the masses. "The sky is falling; protect yourself with an extremely overpriced gold coin!" Sigh. To be fair, however, I was in one barber shop with the Fox News on and there was a *lot* of eye rolling among the barbers with one of those gold ads. Even among the target audience I imagine there's a lot of awareness that it's bullshit, at least. BobJohnson (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Except rent/buy calculators don't think long-term. They're best used for folks who simply don't know where/what they'll be at in 2-3 years time and thus, the low-strings rental wins. And yeah, I was thinking of REITs when I said about 'reasonable landlord dreams' - also other things like small parcels of ag/industrial land, holiday cottages and so on. DIY'ing will make you more cash, but at the costs of you actually doing work which might be better served doing something else [which is always the usual tradeoff; spend more money or time on X?] KarmaPolice (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
investment affordability is irrelevant? Awesome, because I have all these coins that I stamped 'markets RULE' on, and it sounds like you got the capital to buy them, before they get, believe me, really big . Torrent (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)05:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, because you're so economically illiterate to realise your question has already been answered. I suggest you go, hit up Investopedia and read some of the articles on things BobJ and I have mentioned? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
To which link? Y'all provide nothing and skunk the idea that nobody is helping people who don't have money. Give the people without money enough to pay rent, and then what? To what link? Torrent (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I lived in a house where our deposit was waived but required building a 3rd bedroom in the attic. We did not succeed in finishing, but we came close. Seems like a good landlord, I'm not just anti landlord. But you seem to be against any economic... As you put it 'illiteracy,' and I don't get why you're the one offended. Torrent (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Ivestopedia has this thing called a 'search function'; I'm pointing you towards it, I don't have the inclination or time to do all your research for you. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
From my perspective, no offense, just perplexity. It sounds like you are poo-pooing the idea of owning real estate entirely? Without knowing some of the basics of even home financing, it seems? (For instance, even if you move out before you pay off the mortgage, all of that money you put into the "principle " of the loan isn't wasted, it's still yours.) I'm not honestly sure about your angle.
Now, we're currently in what I see as a somewhat bubbly market right now (at least in the US), in that mortgages are quite unaffordable right now, relatively speaking. House prices are still pretty high, interest rates are no longer super-low, and inflation-adjusted wages are still meh. In the US, I think there's some evidence of a bit of a Boomer distortion helping to prop things up -- basically, many of that generation are using their existing home equity (and other investments) to help "prop" the home market more than it would be otherwise. At this point, a fair chunk of the "Boomer generation" are not so concerned about "interest rates" for loans (having perhaps paid of their mortgage a long time ago) and "meh wages" (having perhaps exited the workforce a while back). It makes life rough for the millenials on down who usually have to rely on mortgages... compared to the Boomer generation, this generation has been seriously economically shit on (even if the elders yelling incoherently about avocado toast or other similar memes don't recognize it). A median age of 36 for buying your first home these days, when it's more typically been in the high 20s to low 30s? Not a great stat. But, this problem is "time limited" IMHO.
So, if you are talking about this as "real estate affordability", yep, this is a pretty big issue IMHO. But again, the crux of the discussion was "gold/silver" from a few angles. Primary home ownership is a different discussion altogether. For gold/silver, the "sort of sane investor" we were talking about probably has a paid off home already. Hell the "conspiracy nut gold investor" is probably relatively well off as well (there's a lot of "affluent white male" in libertarian space where some of the gold bug nuts reside). Fox News, of course, does cater some towards the (very elderly) downmarket (as well as, sadly, the "elderly well off but lost their marbles" market), which is why their ads are for overpriced gold coins hawked by Boomer-era actors, and there's nary a word on what a "spot price" is. But generally speaking, a lot of the gold/silver bug space isn't worrying about getting that first mortgage. It's just a different topic. BobJohnson (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Domestic property affordability is only relevant to the investment POV because if affordability is already on a knife-edge locally; any economic downturn could easily cause you to lose rental income and/or book value. This could be dangerous if you got that rental using a mortgage - it's quite possible to get trapped in a situation with a negative RoR and negative equity.
On the target markets for gold/silver 'investments', I'd add the cohort of folks who have a fair wedge tucked away but are fairly economically inexperienced but are also suspicious. They know they're getting a zero/minus RoR on said savings at the bank but they either don't know of and/or trust alternatives ['The stock market? It's all them boiler room scams I've heard about!' etc]
Gold is familiar. Gold feels safe. We 'know' that gold is valuable. You can put it in your fire safe or hide it in a false book. $10k of gold coinage is only about 20 gold sovereigns and each of them aren't larger than than a one-cent coin. Now WhatsHisName is telling me that it's an investment too and will make me money? I mean, this is on TV/in newspaper; surely the company wouldn't allow an advert if it was dodgy, right? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Education and More: Who should be the focus?[edit]

This is something on education systems worldwide, which can often end up falling into possibly two simple guidelines, based on their style of handling students. Both styles have been bungled up very badly in execution, and I wonder what these say about societies.

  1. Make sure the best and brightest students excel as strongly as they can.
  2. Make sure that no student falls behind and fails.

As mentioned, both factors have been severely botched by many institutions, and I wonder what this can say about society as a whole. What do you have to say about these two basic factors, and if it is even possible to find a good compromise that will be well executed. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Look at these two as a guideline, not an absolute. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You arbitrarily dismiss alternative models of education. That said, I doubt there are many, if any, education experts on RationalWiki. Carthage (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to iterate that there are many other models out there, and that things are far more complex. You beat me to the punch with the edit. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

From a US midwest perspective: Growing up, my mom was a daycare worker, then a para and then put in the work to be a Full special education teacher. I have and have had friends in education, it almost sounds easier to work with the kids with the most need. The Public education system, as a whole, can not be expected to whip out college level students like a baseball farm system. Being said, the public education system, for it's flaws, is entirely necessary, for one. Is not worse than the alternative, no public schooling, for two. And is entirely undervalued by people who have the time and capital to homeschool or private school, generationally or by grants. Not vouchers, private schools hate vouchers. They give grants. Torrent (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
There are a few things that shouldn't be 'alternative' or 'privatized' at a base level, but should be invested in. Schools for children tops my list. All these stories about teachers either being the best or the worst, man, value them more, I bet there will still be the best and the worst teachers, but you'll get a bigger pool to let the worst fall behind.Torrent (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It says that Anglo societies have never really seriously considered what the hell they want their education systems to do. It's a hybrid combo of pre-industrial selective academic schools and industrial-era elementary 'factory schools' and we've ended up with the worst of both worlds - a factory system for producing more proto-academics to go onto formal further education. The two options at the top shows this; the former are the sorts of people who naturally do well in The System™ and fly out the end with medals around the neck, the latter the sorts where [sometimes] teachers etc will metaphorically flog raw to simply get them to the finish. But few ask whether this setup in fact 'works'; either for the children and/or society at large. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

state schools in the uk are about piling on more and more pressure on kids drumming into them the importance of an education and they need to do well in exams that when they do finally get through it all and can finally relax after all the the stress and maybe even celebrate and feel proud about achieving something, we hit them on the very day day they get their results we start hollering from the rooftops that their GCSEs are are dogshit and not worth the paper they are written on. everyyear without fail. and they are even more worthless each time. well done on all your hard work kids, heres your kick in the teeth. now get going on your alevels, it will be just as fun when we shit on them after a couple more years of stress and hard work. its all worth it when you finally reach uni and we will tell you you have the wrong degree and thousands of pounds of debt. there is a life lesson here somewhere. not a good one though - you only get that at public school. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I hate the fact that grade boundaries in the UK are based on the national performance so that only a specific percent of the country can get specific grades (i.e. only approximately 5% of the students every year can get an A* no matter what) or at least they used to be. This means that grades can change from one year to the next (never drastically enough to make much of a difference, but still enough to make some schools appear to do worse between years). I also hate the fact that they changed the grading for GCSE's from A*-F to a 1-9 system but not A-Levels. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I'll happily withdraw this if incorrect, but I believe that the 'bell curve' grading system for Eng/Wales/NI [Scotland uses a different system] is relatively new - that before, it had 'fixed values' which was partly why all the metrics kept on ticking upwards - simply that teaching was getting better [gaming it was also improving] and more kids were 'up to snuff' [in fact, the introduction of A* was to give another rung to the larger amounts of kids getting As]. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
What I meant by "at least they used to be" was when I was in school 7-ish years ago. I am not that old (although my body begs to differ). Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The first time I heard of 'bell curve' grading was only last year. The original intention of both the National Curriculum and GCSE/A-Levels was that they would be standardised - both between schools and years. Thus, an employer, Uni etc could have faith that say, a B at Maths would be the same 'value' be it from Grange Hill or Eton, or whether the year was 1992 or 2009. Or at least was the spiel sold to me when sitting it the wrong side of the Iraq War. My theory is that while they have always been somewhat bell-curved [thus sanding down the outlier years with final exams which proved too easy/hard in retrospect] but it's become more so since 2010 due to the claims of 'grade inflation' by the Diana, Hate Mail etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm 23 and when I was taking exams at 16 the grade boundaries were based on a "bell-curve" with A*-F, I don't know when it changed to that system but that's how I was told we were graded by multiple teachers, who used to show us previous exams and show us how the grade boundaries differed between years, I know the year I left high school was just before the change from A*-F to 9-1 (although we used the 9-1 system in primary school and year 7-8 but with 3a-3c, 4a-4c, 5a-5c, 6a-6c, etc. shit). Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)