RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive445

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 18 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>, <444>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>
, (new)(back)

Vatnik Soup[edit]

I have just created a page on Vatnik Soup, a website where it lists various vatniks which I think RW'ians might find fascinating/entertaining. Euromec (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

So X, formerly Twitter, will replace banks?[edit]

[1] Hmm. Interesting. — Unsigned, by: Socialmedia / talk / contribs

Lol. If you seriously think Musk's shithole will replace a long-lasting institution that has weathered Paypal, Cashapp, and whatnot, then you're an idiot. Carthage (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Interesting reading about that crypto, that other bank replacement (crime syndicate), SBF/FTX/Alameda. If Musk opened a bank it would undoubtedly be crypto-only. SBF thinks that he was so brilliant and that everyone else should think so too (based on his own trial testimony). Bongolian (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Paypal (where Musk "launched" his career) has from what I can tell a pretty horrible consumer reputation nowadays (even "back in the day" they were pretty bad, and probably grew mainly because of their tight association with eBayWikipedia). And Musk was booted out of Paypal management for being stupid. So...
Bigger consumer banks already are shifting their focus online (closing branches etc.), and there's plenty of "non-traditional banking" already there. So the space he's focusing on in this report is pretty crowded. There are two types of banks (in US space) that IMHO Musk's WeChat dream, or anything similar from others, will never replace any time soon. The first is the giant multinational bank that tends to focus on corporate / business space. The second is the small community bank or credit union which can focus on "relationship banking" or more member-focused products. (Community banks have been in decline in the last couple decades, but still occupies a niche not entirely met by other bank products IMHO; credit unions as far as I am aware continue to grow). BobJohnson (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Paypal was for a time tightly linked with Ebay, which created a rather hefty flow of cash through Paypal. That ended with the split, as did the the cash cow for Paypal. Now Paypal additionally has several competitors, including some that actual banks use (e.g. Zelle). Paypal has also been trying to push crypto on their site so they can profit from people's crypto gambling addictions. Is crypto really a gambling addiction? Just look at the SBF/FTX/Alameda trial. Also that thought experiment bet that SBF was willing to take, where he was willing to risk end the world without anyone's consent.[2] Bongolian (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
IMHO, Musk has completely forgotten why WePay and Alipay existed.
20 years ago, in China banking facilities was very old-fashioned, much of the banking industry was controlled by the big four state-owned banks (Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, China Construction Bank & ICBC), plus bank cards let alone credit cards were very rare. There wasn’t a bank transfer system, and China was very much a cash economy. How the mobile payment systems were created were very specific in way they were originated from. Tencent created a facility were you could pay for your mobile games using the WeChat platform, and in that able to sent money easily from one part of the country to another. Alibaba wanted a facility for small businesses to buy goods from other small businesses using the Alibaba platform. After that it was for customers to buy from the Alibaba’s eBay like Tmall platform.
There has been attempt to use Twitter to transfer money between users. There a system called Twitpay back in the halcyon days of 2008. [3] However, the owner of the company changed into a charity collection business as discovering it was too difficult. [4]
I think Musk doesn’t know what his is doing, and it showing. Euromec (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I disagree; while he doesn't get the nuts/bolts of making it work, I think his 'vision' is 'social logins for shopping' and I suspect he's on to one here.
Example; I'm currently kitting out a new flat [yay?] and I'm sick and tired of contantly needing to sign up for accounts for the purchase of one thing, esp when I know I'm not going to ever use them again. There's also the security issues now; my personal details are now going onto too many databases for my liking. If I can log into 'BuyStuff.co.uk' using my Twitter account and all my personal details are held by them rather than BuyStuff, I'm more inclined to use both. It's estimated that 65% of online shopping baskets are abandoned, and the reasons I've cited above normally at the top of the lists for why.
Musk cites PayPal being a 'devolved' edition of what they envisioned back in the early '00s and I suspect he means a) PayPal is not a bank [which seriously limits consumer uptake and facilities offered], b) you cannot use your PP account to log into shopping sites and c) limited acceptance by retailers etc. A work-around solution to this problem was naturally, that giant called Amazon but I think online markets like the UK's have become mature enough that customers desire more choice beyond Bezo's realm [increased by the fact Amazon's neutron effect on physical shopping has reduced choice].
Now for the old cliche; 'if this is such a good idea, why hasn't it been done before?' The answer is this; existing banks felt their job ended at allowing their credit/debit cards be used online, PayPal were greedy bastards [crippling uptake], other social media outlets didn't want the palaver of becoming a bank, most 'fintech' folks were building castles in the sky with shite like crypto and NFTs etc and the few companies who got the issues about 'abandoned carts' simply allowed guest purchases.
Musk has the cash to make this work; however, I don't think it will succeed if he micromanages the setting up of 'X Bank'. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Nostalgia For The Supposed "Fun" Conspiracy Theorists[edit]

I have a bad habit of occasionally browsing reddit (I deleted my account ages ago, so I only lurk), especially a subreddit called /r/SubredditDrama because some of the contents and reactions to said content, especially in response to idiocy in /r/conspiracy, is a great timewaster. A strange attitude I've noticed though is this idea of the good, fun, harmless conspiracy theorist of yesteryear who obsesses over aliens, bigfoot, Elvis sightings, and other delusions as opposed to today's racist, anti-semitic, harmful, qanon, political conspiracy theorists. This whole idea that the conspiracy theory crowd were ever creative, imaginative people that did shrooms and had The UFO hotline on speed dial, and not the same anti-semites, racists, paranoid loons they complain about is, I think, a whitewashing of the fact that today's conspiracy theorists are not that different from the old, they just have more power and influence and we all suffer from it. I mean, someone could say they had a good time listening to the crazy stuff on Coast to Coast AM, but saying the type of stuff broadcasted was ever harmless absolves it and similar sources of a lot of the blame it has for creating the problems of today. The fact that the modern day Republican Party has been shaped by, and is now controlled, by the same people who were either creating, promoting, or consuming these conspiracy theories shows the real world impact and harm these people and this belief system has done to us to the point where we don't even share a common reality anymore. Has anyone else come across this opinion or agree/disagree with mine?-Ryan1257 (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You could argue there is one substantial difference between the two: conspiracy theorists of old often cited "evidence" (no matter how weak, it still counted as "evidence") to support their theories, modern day conspiracists just skip the evidence entirely. Compare Roswell conspiracy theories (an event that actually did happen, with some intriguing details that could make someone scratch their head) to, say, the theories that the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband was a lover's quarrel, which was invented out of whole-cloth and spread in spite of evidence. Ironically there's more evidence for Roswell than there is for the lover's quarrel theory (which has none). (This is however just a general trend. I'm sure you can find examples that go against the trend.) Carthage (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that being a hard and fast rule since old and new conspiracy theorists both use "evidence" to some extent, even if it could only count as evidence only their community and those with similar political persuasions believe in. But I do agree with you that they're more likely to rely on "conspiracy reasoning" as their evidence, like how as soon as a mass shooting is reported, they already claim crisis actors, mkultra, government psyop, "take away our gun", before pictures or even simple names are released. It's like the "reasoning" itself is all that's needed for evidence to get the conspiracy belief train chugging, even for a disturbing amount of public officials.-Ryan1257 (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I've seen that explanations that modern conspiracists skip "evidence" solely in favor of motivation and suspicion. This is admittedly based on half-remembered data, so your explanation might be more accurate to the original thesis. Carthage (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
conspiracy theorists of the past did not have the internet to connect with other like minded loons that can validate their ideas to them and introduce them to new strands of crazy. they could not insulate themselves from dissenting voices or from a more mainstream news media that does not pander to crank ideas. there was not absolute shit tonne of sites on line giving them 'the truth' bombarding them with only constant confirmation. you had to work really hard to insulate yourself in a bubble to shield you from exposure to anything that might cause you to question these things. now though, with social media and all, you can go down a rabbit hole never come up air. its easy now. mainstream news media is constantly being discredited and undermined by all sides its not always easy to tell a legit source from dogshit. to often we just resort to what confirms our world views. antisimetic or racist conspiracy theories are nothing new either and have been around since before people started seeing little green men. they've been mainstream ideas at times. the internet has been a boon to the people that push them. frequenting the same places as other more harmless conspiracists linger adding their poison to the broth. you dont see people who otherwise sane but have this one thing were they think the moon landings were not real. no, if people believe one conspiracy theory, they believe in fucking all of them. they talk to one and other and one conspiracy will have elements of another that suddenly they are all linked, they are all correct you are smart to see the truth and anyone says its crazy its because they are part of the conspiracy and/or sheeple. its the same process at work that radicalisation by extremist organisations uses and extremists of various stripes have always been present in conspiracist circles. all aided and abetted by various people in the media and politics that the more disturbing theories get more exposure than they should ever warrant and fucking qanon is almost 'mainstream' now. you dont need evidence. all news is fake news. you just repeat your dogshit in enough places often enough and sooner or later people will just go with it. the likes of twitter and facebook and what have you were made for this shit AMassiveGay (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
In the United States, I think there is *some* truth to the nostalgia, but what the nostalgia people are forgetting is that it's more like one side of the conspiracy theory coin is severely diminished versus the conspiracies completely changing. The current conspiracy crowd by and large has echoes of the type of conspiracy folks you would find hanging around in the John Birch Society or Lyndon LaRouche space. That space was as racist and paranoid then as it is now. The subjects were a wee bit different -- water fluoridation and DDT bans were communist plots! -- and the association with politics was looser, as mainstream Republicans (or even radical asshats like William F. Buckley) were repulsed by folks like the Birchers. But a lot hasn't changed in this space one bit.
What has, IMHO, significantly diminished is the New Age sort of what I'd call "hopeful conspiracy". Stuff like the Pleiadians were as bullshit as anything other conspiracy theory, but at least the message was "we're aliens that want to help the planet" instead of "DA EVIL JEWS ARE RULING ALL!". These sort of conspiracies haven't completely faded away, but it's been swamped and even half-incorporated into the QAnon crowd; at the very least, much of the alternative health shit is now the same (compare Goop to Infowars; the mind-body-spirit messaging is different than Alex Jones' spittle rants, but the products are often similar). To some extent I think I even see this outside conspiracy land -- maybe it's my perception, but it seems like pop humanism science fiction (like the Star Trek series) has also faded to some degree. There's more paranoia and less hope, I guess, or at least that seems to be what is "front and center" in media. BobJohnson (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
(Mind you, "hippie space" had plenty of areas with paranoia too... eg Charles Manson and Jonestown etc. So it's not like that's too different either. It's just one style of conspiracy that faded, methinks...) BobJohnson (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
With regard to conspiracy theories, evidence, social media and confirmation bias.
There is a vast amount of information in the world - truly vast. Certainly more than any individual could hope to assimilate in various lifetimes. And that information is now instantly available. Of course the fact it's available doesn't mean its right. So if you start with your conclusion, select your sources, and then work backwards through the information maze you can can find evidence to support virtually any conclusion you started with. And you will find people who will support you in your favored social media ecosystem. So not only does the information support your particular theory but so does your peer group. You must be right! The Earth really is flat!
But it's not just conspiracy theorists who do this. We all do it. It's what's so insidious about confirmation bias. Knowledge of the scientific method, common logical fallacies and cognitive biases helps - but confirmation bias is really tough to avoid.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
A look at William Cooper tells me things have been pretty bad in the conspiracy theory space since at least the 1990s. Chillpilled (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The exact day it wasn't fun for me anymore was when Alex Jones accused Michelle Obama of being a man. That moment, I remember thinking 'that's the First Lady, a loud and proud patriot is going to say something that nonsensicle about the First Lady?'. that's such an absurd ad hominem attack on the president that it really feels like these people hate this country. And it didn't go away, and somehow to this day it lives and matters. Torrent (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not buying that there was a "golden age" of conspiracy theories. The International Jewish conspiracy is quite old and quite harmful. There's no upside to willful ignorance. Bongolian (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Thinking about this led me to consider again whether ideas like Flat Earth, germ theory denial and Lysenkoism aren't their own category. Something so kooky that it feels kind of undangerous (well to me, initially, anyway) and more like a curiosity. I then realized the category is just "scientific denialism" and the definition of "denialism" (at the denialism category) fits it very well. The only distinction is that these are much more fringe than more mainstreamed versions of scientific denialism like creationism and evolution denial. Chillpilled (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Nah. I was thinking that perhaps celebrity conspiracies (like the Elvis sightings of old) could perhaps be considered "mostly harmless", but modern celebrity conspiracy theories tend to be integrated with the rest of the bullshit and are chock full of Illuminati, QAnon, health bullshit (eg the COVID-19 vaccine killed celebrity X!), Jeffrey Epstein, etc. Furthermore, carnie shills took advantage of the gullible celebrity news sect back then, too... they just shilled different things, like bands, instead. (KlaatuWikipedia)
Germ theory denial and Lysenkoism are way too close to things like the anti-vaccination movement and dangerous "alternative medicine" like MMS for me to consider it that "harmless". BobJohnson (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not so sure UFO theorists were that harmless either, considering we got shit like Heaven's Gate inspired by that crap. Carthage (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, I meant like, undangerous to the sort of person who has enough skepticism to not literally die because they read the wrong 4chan or Facebook post. But, treating it unseriously on that level, on second thoughts, is probably not really too wise. Like the examples I gave and many more that are much slippier (like anti-vax), they were perhaps once just as fringe. It can happen for anything. There's nothing about humans that inherently keeps us from believing the Earth is flat en masse. Chillpilled (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The UFO conspiracists also had a subset believing in Nazi UFOs, which was populated by at least one Holocaust-denying neo-Nazi, Ernst Zündel. I'm not sure that conspiracy theories can ever be regarded as completely harmless, they are a gateway and magnet for anti-intellectualism. Bongolian (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Phenomena[edit]

A brain thing, but the brain is... I hope I'm getting this right, is necessary. For the mind? or the brain, I dunno exactly, i keep seeing things that can't have a brain act as if there's a brain. Forks off the xounter, drains bubble up before draining. Air pressure changes, that can make empty water bottles in the recycling pop,and things shift and eventually fall, otherwise avalanches wouldn't exist, I know but... But then there's all these these things that happen, that are moving and shaking and popping just out of my vision all the time. tonight, everything seems agitated I can't help but feel there's something waiting to make noise tonight. I've maybe been stressed lately. Torrent (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to interrupt so I'll try not to, but that don't help me much. Bedroom door just slammed shut from fully open. I know we have big gusts coming out of the North northwest tonight, and yeah, my bedroom window was open because I like cold/fresh air, but the window is south facing and everything on the north side is closed... Maybe not tight, I'll check it. I mean maybe it's colder enough outside and a difference in pressure. fronts move in pretty quick around here. It's a pretty light door. Torrent (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
So I reworked the physics, not the numbers or anything, I'm not good at it like that, but it doesn't make sense. Even if the door was supposed to blow shut, or be pulled shut, it couldn't have happened that way. It opens to the south, which means it closes to the north. does that make sense? It would have had to be pulled towards the higher pressure. Or, man, I really don't know what I'm talking about. I went to take a shower to cool off and the line was full of air. Like sometimes it has air, but this was like it was, I dunno. You ever see those old pumps, where the person has to crank one end for a full minute to get a real pump started? That's the best I can explain it. Like the water went back in the ground and really didn't want to come out for me. I opened my bedroom door, nothing looked out of place, but I think I might close it again, just spend the night on the recliner. Torrent (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm about to nod off and woof it's been quiet. Coincidences happen, that's probably what I shoulda called it instead of phenomena. Sorry y'all I think I spooked myself. Torrent (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone know about sleepwalking or sleep paralysis? I just spent 5 minutes, in my bed, which is NOT where I went to sleep, arguing with something that wanted to crush me. I mean, woof. I feel like I ran a mile, about to just go to sleep again. Torrent (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Back up, or out. Dunno how long, but it's hovering. Torrent (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I bekelk I'm asleep now but wh I drew ape!! That right Gaul dernitt you gotta let me edit those wprdss itS a !minor edit — Unsigned, by: Torrent / talk / contribs

I was once in bed with my ex, and I was having this fucking wild dream where my uncle was in it... My uncle's a QAnon nut for the record. He said something, don't remember what, that pissed my dream-self off and I kicked him.... only for me to wake up to my ex shouting in pain. Turns out I had kicked my ex in my sleep. 'Twas quite embarrassing lol. Carthage (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thanks man, I was just making all that up on the fly. I wasn't sure when or how I could end it. Torrent (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I have had all those things kinda happen. Halloween isn't over for me, so I'll tell you about the Soggy Ghost. I didn't make this up, I wish I had, and believe me, if you're ever visited, you'll wish you had made it up too. Sometimes, when a man is in a place he's not comfortable in, and he's drinking a lot, he'll be visited by the Soggy Ghost. The Soggy Ghost might try on all your clothes in the laundry room. The soggy Ghost might leave a corner of a dorm room wet. The Soggy Ghost might try to pass through a door, only to leave a mysterious wetness behind. The Soggy Ghost will never visit you in your bed. At that point you just get you've pissed yourself. The Soggy Ghost is a sleepwalking version of yourself that just pisses places, including myself I know of 2 other confirmed sightings, probably about 8 confessed visits otherwise. Torrent (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Have you considered medication?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Not to worry you too hard, that was literally just me making a little horror story for the day. If it sounded real, well, I'm not a terrible writer or actor, and not an unempathetic person. Plus I've seen and read a lot in the horror genre, and most of my favorite is mixing uncertainty with anomoly. Plus Spud had me watch the mockumentary 'Ghost watch' recently, I felt inspired. If you're not convinced and think I'm just talking back an episode or something, I live in an apartment, there is no open north side to my unit, that's a solid wall. Just having some fun. The patience it took to get the timestamps right was the hardest part. Torrent (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Transgender Genocide[edit]

I heard the term before. In my opinion, based on what I understand about what genocide is, we are not at the stage of full on genocide but we are certainly approaching genocide. Seems like we are at the stage of Dehumanization.

As for Nazi Germany in WW2, genocide against trans people took place. In the current area we are moving towards genocide; considering that some far right politicians suggested "gender education centers" for kids (totally doesn't sound like Reeducation centers in various dictatorships to end political dissent). --Trans Fem Agenda 12:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've come to hate this term, it's too much of a stretch to fit the definition of a genocide. Trans people are not a nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. Trans people are still what I would call an organic community, I would categorize gay and autistic people this way as well. A group of people who appears across all nationalities, ethnicities, races, and religions, documented throughout history. It is not really feasible to exterminate these groups the way it is a religion or ethnicity. They can only be repressed, certainly that can involve heinous crimes comparable to those committed during a genocide, but it is not possible to totally eliminate trans people. It is possible to wipe out the unique subcultures that trans or gay people create as a means to finding community, as any type of person does. Chillpilled (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
It certainly feels like a stretch to me. In which countries is it suggested that we are approaching this situation?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
What evidence is there for a Trans genocide? E.g., is the murder rate for Trans people higher than the average? CorruptUser 13:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I posted something in WIGO that goes along to this effect. We are certainly at the stage of dehumanization of trans people. Carthage (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Russia has gotten shockingly bad on the issue considering they were surprisingly progressive on some narrow points (e.g. no surgery was required, previously, for a gender ID change, now that's gone). Chillpilled (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The most comprehensive global analysis I can find is this one, which is admittedly quite a bit of a read, and which leads me to the conclusion that "it's complicated" (surprise!). But I'm still not seeing "genocide".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The data on anti-trans murders is really not sufficient, I believe: I can ascertain that it's probably higher than is recorded, that is. A problem is the media, police, and all tend to identify murdered trans people as crossdressers, by their birth sex, and fail to distinguish they're trans (a high-profile and bizarre illustration of how the media and police tend to treat trans people this way actually showed up when there was that trans shooter earlier this year; the coverage of his gender identity by both police and media was abysmally bad and miscommunicated that to the public). There is a lot better data out there on sexual abuse against trans people, which shows it to be quite common. Chillpilled (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Genocide is a process. No genocide ever took place in a vacuum, they are pushed through narratives of otherization and policy put in place to further that otherization. To say that we are not at the level of camps or whatnot seems kind of specious in the light of that. Otherizing rhetoric and policies are already being put into place, and have been for quite some time. The argument isn't "there's going to be a trans genocide," it's "historically speaking policies of rhetoric and otherization have a tendency to lead to genocide, and we should be wary of that happening again." Carthage (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Trans people being victims of far right terrorism is a more immediate issue and it is not a stretch. Now if far right terrorism and theocratic loons keep getting government positions then genocide would be on the horizon. Terrorism and political oppression against trans people is the immediate threat. --Trans Fem Agenda 19:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing like genocide is possible. It is true that we may enter a period of time when westerners reject many of the values of the Enlightenment. Postmodernism doesn't cause that to happen, it just describes why it will happen. But ask yourself how far must western civilization sink to enable the mass killing of any group of people, much less a group that is not really distinguished in the media consciousness as pernicious? Republicans have a worse reputation in America than do trans people. We are not about to start killing them. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
To say "it can't happen here" is fallacious, and it doesn't really matter if the GOP has a worse reputation overall as their propaganda still holds impact. They've been pushing both rhetoric and policies that lead to otherization of the trans community even more than they already are, and historically this has a tendency to lead to genocide. No one is saying that genocide is going to happen, just that historically speaking policies and rhetoric of otherization leads to genocide, and that we should be wary of that happening again. Also remember that the Holocaust was perpetrated by Western powers, and genocidal policies against Indigenous Australians didn't really stop until the late 20th century (they didn't even gain the right to own land until 1992) and the Indigenous Australian community is still incredibly marginalized on their own land. The West is not exceptional. Carthage (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
To say it can happen here is specious. Rounding up certain types of people is not something that can be instantiated under the aegis of the American constitution. One would have to envision a kind of social jihad, that would be untenable within the confines of American jurisprudence. What would be necessary would be the collapse of the American constitutional authority, which will not happen under current circumstance. The harm to indigenous peoples in Australia are are not nearly relevant. Where the enlightenment still holds up, as it still does in America, there will be no pogroms or officially sanctioned mass murders of any kind. Crime is always possible. The West is exceptional in most western countries. Australia, not being in the west, I can't comment on.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Let me just add that there is a small possibility, that the worst catastrophe could happen. But ask yourself, what must be concomitant with such a catastrophe? I don't think the world would be tolerable for anyone. That is why it is unlikely.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Australia, a country colonized by the Brits, with a predominantly Anglic culture, isn't part of the Western bloc? Lol. You ignore that increasingly conservatives and general reactionaries are ignoring the Constitution, or, in the case of Trump, declaring it obsolete. We have influential voices on the right openly calling for political violence, and to say that increasing authoritarianism is not a problem in the States is to deny reality. The US constitution also never stopped the California Genocide.Wikipedia Yes, constitutional rule survived Trump's rule, but it didn't make it through unscathed, and as seen by the Japanese-American internment camps, excuses can be made that can justify human rights abuses. The Constitution is only as influential as the people who enforce it deem it to be, and increasingly we are seeing that not to be the case. This is to say nothing of Project 2025. Carthage (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
'...there will be no pogroms or officially sanctioned mass murders of any kind...' What about unsanctioned pogroms where the local cops prove conviently unable to turn up to stop, the investigators prove so 'lax' evidence goes 'missing', in the rare case where it does get to a trial the attackers get aquitted by use of the 'Trans Panic Defence' and is generally unreported because Da Editors have judged that 'their readers' aren't interested in 'That Kind Of Thing' / 'Those Sorts'?
Little things like 'constitutional authority' and 'legality' mean little to an 'Other'. Just ask any black person in America. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Bad things can happen, I don't deny it. Nothing that has been said resembles genocide in the slightest. I should not like to ask victims to be happy with their fate, rather I propose there is insufficient evidence to support the prospect of genocide of any group. I should rather presume that the catastrophic type of fantasy as envisioned by our users is little more than Romantic speculation, in the literary sense. I think that of all types of people, gender variant peoples of all types are least likely to be subject to stochastic terrorism if only because they are such a small and uninfluential set of people. The bigot knows where to find a Jew on Saturday morning. I'd rather be trans than Jewish on that particular day. Constitutional authority is no small thing. The Titanic of modernism driven by the Enlightenment is not even yet slowed down, as the Trumpists who are now inmates have so-far discovered. UncleKrampus (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that it's extremely difficult to predict when or if a genocide will happen, for example in Rwanda genocidal violence truly kicked off only when the president was assassinated by either Hutu ethnonationalists or the RPF, and even the beginning of the Holocaust is hotly debated. I think the real danger of claiming "Trans Genocide" right now is that if it actually starts to happen there might be a "boy who cried wolf" additude about it. Lastly, although Jan. 6 was a failure, we shouldn't lose sight that it can happen here. An Advocate (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
All previous genocides in history had the clear 'Othering' of said group and verbal attacks on them en bloc [though not all attacks led to genocide]. The key issue, is in my opinion isn't the minority who do want us all dead [or at least to simply vanish out of sight foverever] but the plurality/majority who frankly don't care much either way - they're the folks who'll shrug at a Pride parade or a round-up for 'deportation'.
But I do agree that 'genocide' sounds a bit hyperbolic [at least right now, at least in the USA]. Like the words 'hate' and 'fascist', I feel they should be saved up for when they are really needed, so their power is not diluted. If we were talking of places like Uganda and [now] Russia, I suspect they're close to 'pogrom' territory. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Let's recap: the key arguments against the "trans genocide" or "persecution of trans people" argument is: a) "it can't happen here" because "Murica, fuck yeah!" and b) "well ackshually the definition of genocide doesn't cover queer communities." The fairest assessment I can find on here is: "calling it genocide may be a bit hyperbolic but given the historical track record of policies and rhetoric of otherization to lead to human rights abuses up to and including genocide perhaps we should be a bit wary of the path society is going down?" I have the feeling none of you except for RZ94 is trans. Hell, I'm not trans and yet almost every single trans person I know is goddamn terrified. There's good reason for that. You don't need to be literally marched down to the camps to be fearful of increasing oppression, especially directed at you. Carthage (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
So, is the argument: (1) "Transgender Genocide is underway" (OK, I doubt that anyone holds this position); (2) "We are in a state of pre-genocide - but Transgender Genocide is going to happen"; (3) "There are conditions which could lead to Transgender Genocide".?
As far as (1) in concerned, I said I doubt anyone argues this; as far as (2) is concerned I don't think the case has been made; as far as (3) is concerned - OK, maybe, but almost anything "could" happen.
If I'm guilty of straw-manning or over-simplifying any positions then no doubt people will tell me. It would also be great if people could give the countries and the timescales where they predict this is going to happen. Those with very clear opinions about the future may wish to make their predictions at RationalWiki:Predictions.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
i understand that in places like brazil murders of trans people is a genuine worry. places in africa, the middle east, parts of asia, laws can be very draconian. europe is generally safer for trans. the us seems less safe than europe. if there is genocide, its not all over. the road to genocide is not so gar along in some places than others. what purpose does declaring a genocide serve? increase the fear in places where isnt neednt? make no difference in places where danger is more tangible?
legal definitions of genocide that would include trans people or not only matter for governments trying to justify inaction against imminent or ongoing genocides, or at the hague when perpetrators come to trial. this is not the case in context of a trans genocide. outside of a strict legal setting, and perhaps an academic discussion, its a rhetorical device. it can draw attention to an ongoing or imminent situation that needs to be brought to a wider public attention to spur aid or an intervention. doesnt need to be genocide in a strict legal sense, but horrible enough that the hyperbole doesnt seem hysterical. something whats going on in darfur where news media isnt always focused and atrocities go unchecked.
i dont feel the hyperbole that comes with a term like genocide is warranted for the vagueness of how a trans genocide is being used here. it does not draw attention to an urgent or desperate situation, but seems to conflate vastly different situations masking the specifics of the issues faced in different areas. i think we are all aware of othering in sections of news media, on social media, and political grandstanding from our elected gobshites. we are all aware where these things can lead in far too many cases. but for the most part a genocide is a distant concern. all the shit that trans people currently face in their locales are things to be concerned about and need to be dealt with because of they are things to be concerned with now and impact lives now regardless of whether or not they progress to a situation where it meets varying definitions of a genocide. and the response to an actual imminent or ongoing genocide is going to be different to what is needed right now.right now, engagement is needed to correct misinformation, expose lies, inform and educate. win over the wider public so the bigots will be ignored as hysterical crazies, pandering to them does not win elections, unjust laws repealed. imminent genocide does none of that, because everyones fled to hide in the woods.
i have seen transgender genocide used in a more specific limited context regarding latin america and problems with asylum for trans folk, which seem like a reasonable use. otherwise it just seems a lazy way say things are not great for trans people right now, but without explaining why. perhaps its a kind of despairing, of being resigned to things only getting worse. its a self fulfilling prophecy if that because to people who are unawares of the specifics, it looks like refusing to engage coupled with a gross over reaction.
people need to focus less on the bigots and whatever awfulness they are saying at any given time. focus on the people who can be reasoned with, who are open to discussion, who can be enlightened, corrected, educated. there are more of them than the bigots, its just when they are screaming in your face 247, they are all you see AMassiveGay (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Carthage Wrong, sorta - I am not personally terrified, but I am quite definitely wary. However, I am in the UK, not USA. Plus, your 'fairest assessment' is roughly the same position I've been arguing. It is difficult to argue 'it is not a genocide' to people who do feel personally deeply threatened, which is why I use the term 'pogrom' instead [I won't minimise your fears, merely point out it is not technically genocidal... yet, at least]. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, before there were Holocaust comparisons the thing people used was pogrom comparisons. When talking about antisemitism at least. I think the tsars were seen kind of like Hitler because of that. I still see references to pogroms, alongside the Holocaust, in works both by and about Jews. Chillpilled (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
However, there were fundimental differences. Most Czarist pogroms were at best, only vaguely official, localised and temporary - the sorts which I described back on the 27th. The top leadership took a similar tone to what Trump et al did after the Charlottesville riot in '17; the minimisation, 'blame on both sides' JAQing off, 'some good people' rhetoric devices and finally 'mistakes were made' conversation-ender. The term genocide to me at least suggests a concerted, persistent official policy to remove and/or eradicate a particular group, coming from the national leadership downwards. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for "some far right politicians suggested "gender education centers" for kids"? Thanks. --Äxl (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Supernova or Hydrogen bomb pressed against one's eyeball[edit]

ChatGPT says: A supernova as seen from Earth to the Sun is much brighter that a hydrogen bomb pressed against your eyeball. Idk about that... SLaPHaPpYtalk! 13:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Inasmuch as you're scattered subatomic particles anyhow, who really cares? Kencolt (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Richard Feynman was asked to give a talk about his experiences after teaching a year at a University in Brazil. His thesis was: no science is now being taught in Brazil. This was because, he thought, one can't learn science from a book alone, which tended to be the format for learning science. A.I systems don't go into a laboratory to get answers. But they will make up answers based upon whatever they can find in libraries they can access.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
It's also rather easy to overwhelm the AI and get it to spout bullshit. I've done it myself. Quite fun, but don't rely on it for information. Carthage (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
You'd die regardless, so it isn't like you'd notice a difference. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 17:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I calculated the difference in a now archived post. The hydrogen bomb on your eyeball is over a thousand times brighter. People really underestimate how far away the sun is. You'd still be dead of course, but many complex atoms would survive the supernova, while all but the most stable of elements would be torn apart by a hydrogen bomb at such a close range. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This claim actually comes from (or was popularized by) xkcd what if, which specifically defines "brightness" not based on how much your retina are stimulated, but rather "in terms of the amount of energy delivered to your retina." xkcd claims that the supernova is 9 orders of magnitude "brighter." (I can't verify or refute any of the claims made by the xkcd what if article.) —ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 13:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The disagreement is ambiguity in the technical meaning of "brigher". The supernova will deliver (a lot) more energy to an area the size of a human retina in those locations, but the nuke will deliver a higher peak luminous flux. Luminous flux from hot material is largely a function of temperature, and a nuke reaches the ballpark of a hundred million degrees as it disassembles itself. The core of a supernova is a lot hotter than that, but by the time the explosion reaches 1AU, it's spread out, cooled, and dispersed its energy through the cooler parts of the star. But it maintains extreme brightness for (typically) weeks, vs microseconds for a nuke. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 moderator elections[edit]

Mod elections start soon :D — Unsigned, by: 82.132.228.246 / talk / contribs

Rationalwiki should change its "mission".[edit]

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

To something less likely to offend. May be just be a wiki where people discuss science and philosophy and ban controversial topics that are likely to cause fights. Just make the site less controversial anymore inoffensive just so no one is offended — Unsigned, by: Wanttohelpout / talk / contribs

LOL obvious concern troll is obvious. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
"It has been 0 DAYS since the last bar fight." is what would be said. One hot take, and other folks will start fighting you over everything you've said. It happened to me yesterday. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
You'll find those cans of worms I had unknowingly opened above. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
It's obvious concern trolling. But I guess the troll would like an addition to the mission statements: "Offend nobody".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Which is a practical impossibility given the vast diversity of opinions and worldviews expressed by humanity. RW itself exists as a byproduct of people getting pissy at Wikipedia, which strives to be as neutral and objective as possible. Carthage (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should sit around dirking tea and only discussing proper things like the Duchess's new dress and how much we approve or disapprove of the new characters on Coronation Street ShabiDOO 11:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This was one of the main premise of Fahrenheit 451. That first of all, the 'offensive', 'unpopular' views got censored, then the 'controversial' topics followed and then finally, anything which made anyone 'uncomfortable'. And as somebobdy can be found to object to anything, their media became filled with nothing. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do folks insist awareness (or consciousness, whatever) isn't a brain thing?[edit]

Like everything I read in neuroscience seems to point to "mind" just being the brain. But all the objections I get are "you're equating chemicals in the brain with awareness which isn't physical" or "how does atoms or molecules think" (which just sounds like the Christian argument of how does life arise from non life), as if the concept of emergence doesn't exist. Then again it was a Buddhist forum so the concept of emergence doesn't seem to track, it's like the idea of the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts doesn't track there.

Anyway, the science seems solid on this. While all the answers aren't there it seems silly to suggest the brain isn't responsible for it.47.5.66.54 (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Religion is pretty popular. If you concede consciousness emerges from the brain you implicitly admit consciousness ends when the brain does. There is no somewhat separate immortal soul that can be rewarded or punished for doing or not doing what your local clergy insists is the right thing. At the very least that's Christianity and Islam rendered worthless.
At least, that's one big reason I can think of to downplay the role of the Brain in consciousness/awareness.-Flandres (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
It's the remnants of dualism which are hard to overcome. The post-humanists and a lot of science fiction authors fall into the same trap when they think they can do "mind uploading".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
To say that the mind emerges from the brain is not the same thing as to say that the mind is the brain; rather, the two would seem to be incompatible positions, insofar as nothing emerges from itself. The view that the mind supervenes on the brain is common, and seems fairly well justified. On the other hand, the view that the mind just is the brain seems rather dubious. The brain, for instance, contains glial cells and cerebrospinal fluid, but it seems to be false that "the mind contains cerebrospinal fluid" or "the mind is made, in part, of cerebrospinal fluid." Similarly, a neurosurgeon might cut into your brain, but it would seem to be a conceptual mistake if they told you afterwards "I made an incision in your mind." Besides that, some people have argued that certain things outside the brain rightly qualify as part of the mind, in which case the two clearly aren't identical, and even supervenience is only approximate at best. Parts of the peripheral nervous system, or tools like paper and pencil used as aids in mental work, for instance, have been suggested. All of which is to say, the existence of bad reasons to think the mind is not the brain does not preclude the possibility of good reasons to maintain a distinction. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 00:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Well the “mind” is the brain. All the evidence points in that direction, there doesn’t seem to be such a thing as the mind. Trying to argue for that is like arguing the soul. — Unsigned, by: 8.48.248.22 / talk / contribs
A brain thing, but the brain is... I hope I'm getting this right, is necessary. For the mind? or the brain, I dunno exactly, i keep seeing things that can't have a brain act as if there's a brain. Forks of the xounter, drains bubble up before draining. Air pressure changes, that can make empty water bottles in the recycling pop,and things shift and eventually fall, otherwise avalanches wouldn't exist, I know but... But then there's all these these things that happen, that are moving and shaking and popping just out of my vision all the time. tonight, everything seems agitated I can't help but feel there's something waiting to make noise tonight. I've maybe been stressed lately. Torrent (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to interrupt so I'll try not to, but that don't help me much. Bedroom door just slammed shut from fully open. I know we have big gusts coming out of the North northwest tonight, and yeah, my bedroom window was open because I like cold/fresh air, but the window is south facing and everything on the north side is closed... Maybe not tight, I'll check it. I mean maybe it's colder enough outside and a difference in pressure. fronts move in pretty quick around here. It's a pretty light door. Torrent (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
So I reworked the physics, and.. I just want to start a new topic, I'm worried this will get buried or confused, and I dunno... Torrent (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

In direct response to OP, I would argue that there are about 3 major reasons. The first being logical, the second being phenomenal, and the third being speculative. The first objection is appealing to the notion of Leibniz's law, which states that if x and y share all the same properties then x = y and y = x. If x and y do not share the same properties then they must be distinct. Mental states have properties that brain states do not, therefore mental states must be distinct from brain states. It's a logically valid argument but you can reject the argument as being unsound, and reject the premise of Leibniz's law.

The phenomenal objection comes in the form of qualia. There seems to be a qualitative character to conscious experience that seems utterly inexpressible, let alone explicable by biochemistry. I can't describe "what it's like" to see the colour red to someone who is blind, how could I possibly explain how my subjective experiences of red are produced in the brain that capture the features unique to my particular experience? (this is a popular one but I personally have some Wittgensteinian and Sellarsian objections to it).

lastly, the speculative objection is compatible with physicalism, and cognitive science more broadly. That is in the simple fact consciousness and mental states may be multiply realizable in systems other than the brain. If you reject this then you reject the possibility of artificial intelligence ever being conscious and reject the possibility of alien life that lacks a brain ever having an organ that does the functional equivalent. All these views are contentious, but even the neuroscientists aren't all in agreement that mental states let alone consciousness requires a brain. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Qualia was never a good argument for the existence of mind, there isn’t such a thing as “like” experiencing redness, it’s literally your brain adding color to the world.

The speculative argument doesn’t work either, we have no such example of alien life demonstrating that so it’s really just arguing “maybe”. If people think AI a an be conscious then they really don’t understand how it actually works. That said it’s pretty much accepted by neuroscientists that consciousness requires a brain, aside from the fringe quacks who don’t want to accept life isn’t mystical.8.48.248.22 (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Your response to the speculative argument is that it is speculative? Ya don’t say. Also when people talk of the prospect of AI being conscious they are not arguing that the technology as it currently exists, in all forms, is currently conscious. Consciousness ideally is what is meant to demarcate general AI from narrow AI. General AI doesn’t currently exist. Saying that narrow AI is not conscious isn’t a real objection. The claim that the brain is “adding colour to the world” is assuming colour isn’t real (as in mind independent). The physicists would probably want to object to that. It also not clear how “the brain adds colour” is somehow a premise against qualia. I say this as someone who is pretty much an eliminativist about qualia, none of these responses really work. A lot of these counter-arguments are also based on either false premises, appealing to anonymous authority, or poisoning the well. With maybe the exception to the alien claim, which is still assuming that the absence of evidence is therefore enough to conclude its falsity, which is also a fallacy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Well because color isn't mind independent, that's just facts. Our brains add it onto the world, wavelengths of light exist but color doesn't in the world. The physicists themselves all say so, pretty much all of science does. You might want to update your knowledge, since these "objections" don't hold water.47.5.66.54 (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is like saying "sound" only exists in the brain and that physicists only say pressure waves in the air exist. This is ironically something anti-physicalists genuinely argue. Only a dipshit would think that pressure waves in the air and sound were two different things. The only really set of colours that are not reflected in a specific range of electromagnetic radiation are colours like magenta, pink, some shades of purple, etc. Red, blue, green, yellow? yes, they exist in the world you can identify the corresponding wavelengths, and you can even explain why certain objects are the colours they are based on principles of quantum electrodynamics. You are literally arguing for some naive identity theory from the 1950's. Computational, Connectionist, and Functional theories of mind have been the dominant paradigms in cognitive science for nearly 40 years now, and the only people arguing against them are anti-reductionists. There is a very obvious distinction between mental states and brain states, in the simple fact that there are plenty of brain states you have that have no bearing on your conscious experience of the world. Everyone agrees that in human beings the brain produces mental states, but it is still an open question whether it is only just the brain that can produce mental states. There is no a priori reason or existing evidence that rules out the possibility that a machine can be conscious. Saying that neuroscientists are all in agreement that it is impossible is just straight-up lying about the consensus of a field you evidently have no familiarity with. Also, all this shit is fucking materialism, there is no mysticism involved. You are literally just making shit up. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Your question seems to reduce to, in the most general form, why do people disregard accepted scientific models and their consequences? We know that Aristotle was wrong, the brain is not only an organ that cools the blood. The brain manipulates sensory data. Consciousness is more than manipulation? Maybe. Most sensory data initiate a cascade of mental constructions. If I see, hear, feel, taste, smell X, each sense contributes a component of my understanding of X; not only that but there is a possibility of an interaction with every memory that belongs to every similarity class of memories that might be associated with X. When I then describe X to another, my understanding can be underdetermined by what I have to say about it. It is difficult to imagine human experience can be exactly conveyed, but we can always assume that we understand one another. That's why we have stories. We accept the concept of approximate understanding. This is a problem with AI recreating consciousness: how do they assemble the stories of their lives? The stories must be manufactured somehow. This is something extra that the brain does, of which consciousness may be unaware. Probably, most brain activity is unconscious. This makes philosophy of mind intractable. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I would have to read your sources, but they may be treating the mind as an "emergent" phenomena, one that is dependent, of course, on the brain (but also from the body as a whole). This isn't the same as dualism, or saying the mind is some magical entity apart from the brain. This is analogous to an ant colony being an emergent property of a collective of ants as well as their environment. The colony itself is more than just the aggregate of the ants, but their collective behaviour and their environment. No ants, no colony, but the colony also isn't some "other substance", or some tangible thing above and beyond the ants. In this sense, yes, the mind is not the same as the brain, but it would be a mistake to say the mind is some spiritual, fuzzy or magical property, or apart from the brain, greater than the brain or independent of the brain. It is, entirely dependent on the brain. This is somewhat analogous to the different terms of "computers which are plugged in together", with "the internet". The internet is entirely dependent on computers (and servers) plugged in together, but it isn't controversial to think of the internet as something you can talk about separately from computers plugged in together. I haven't read your sources, but the confusion might come from theories which treat the mind as an emergent property rather than dualistic ones. If you did read dualistic ones, yikes. Descartes is like, so 17th century like...oh my gawd! ShabiDOO 23:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

no they are effectively arguing dualism, as in mind is something separate from the brain. They seem to make a distinction between brain processes and "awareness" which implies some sort of mystical mind if it's not the brain. They aren't arguing emergence though, I've checked. Their objections are what I said before, listing the chemical makeup of the brain, asking how consciousness can be from nonconscious matter, etc.47.5.66.54 (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
is there something more useful or special to communication that that requires belief In the self and also a non solipsistic belief in the other?

I really like what you had to say. Torrent (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Continuing the War on Homeopathy[edit]

I've noticed that pseudoscientific homeopathic products are appearing less and less on store shelves in the United States. And that's a good thing. Advocacy groups and attorneys like CFI's Nick Little [5] have been fighting hard to rid suppliers of homeopathic bunk, with visible signs of success as of now as their consumer protection advocacy and lawsuits against Walmart and CVS have yielded progress, but there's still a long way to go. Many stragglers still remain out there pushing this stuff, and stripping them of all of their revenue is more than important here. Anything else to corroborate on this? (I'll stay respectfully silent after my initial post.). TheEternalOutsider (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What policy measures do you propose to "strip homeopathy pushers of all their revenue" in a way that doesn't run afoul of constitutional protections? Carthage (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
They are promoted and sold to the public as as medicines. Take the claims a face value, subject them to the same standards as any other medicine and ask for the double-blind trial results which demonstrate they work. If they can't provide efficacy data then don't let them on the market.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if the "homeopathy for dogs" I once saw at Petco is still on store shelves.-Ryan1257 (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Probably. Homeopathy for animals is one of the saddest cons on the market. At least people can use their brains to make correct (or incorrect) decisions. The animals we care for are wholly dependent on us for that care. And if its bad, they sufferer the consequences.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

WHAT?[edit]

Just wanted to let you all know, Conservapedia still exists. :( The Krusty Krab (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The original article is on eBaum's World,Wikipedia a site that I'm also surprised to see still existing. So it all fits!
(eBaum's World at least correctly classifies the Conservapedia site as "funny".) BobJohnson (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

the funniest conversation i had with an AI[edit]

←§ Reichtangle (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Most of us have probably already had occasion to fiddle with ChatGPT or whatnot before. Chillpilled (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Creation Myths Without Borders[edit]

Let's start this again shall we? Last time, I was a bit too broad with my push, so now I finally have my particular gripe. There's a vocal group that advocates for pushing indigenous creation myths as "science" or "equivalent to 'Western science'" and thus denying evolution. So, there has to be a way to make sure that creation myths, no matter what culture they originate from, do not infiltrate education curriculums or scientific institutions. Creationism is still creationism in the end, no matter who created the tales. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

In particular, my topic mostly concerns science curriculums around the world, and the crucial need to teach evolution within biology, the Big Bang within cosmology, etc. Ancient tall tales about supernatural deities should be treated as the bunk that it is. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

We have a page on "indigenous science", under which this would fit. As noted on the page, there are some situations where indigenous knowledge (or "science") is worthy of study. Bongolian (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I posted studies clearly showing that Maori science has clear parallels with scientific methodology. With this, how exactly does one demarcate between indigenous pseudoscience and indigenous science? If one claims that the distinction is "innovation," we know of precolonial Maori scientists who engaged in clear innovation in agronomy. Carthage (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
There's an article here on the term protoscience (but covered better I think on the other WikiWikipedia) that probably is a good term for the Maori knowledge in this direction. I don't think it is completely equivalent to scientific technique due to overt incorporation of "culture" and "world-view" and other potential distortions from the get-go (as well as less rigor in experiments and testing), but many times such is not complete pseudoscience or falsehoods either. BobJohnson (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

A bar fight broke out last month over that article's reliability, as well as the reliability of Rebecca Watson. I hope this topic can be approached from a more civil view. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of squabbling on the talk page for the article too. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

there's a problem. And I don't think it's creation myths exactly. It's culture. And so i think it's really cool that we are able, more than any time In history to share culture. to share myths. If your first instInct is to shoot em down, you probably have reason why your culture and mythology didn't do much for you. Same team. But the difference in not being afraid of the mythology and not accepting it is simple. If you can listen to it, be unbothered by it, and look at it as it may be extremely important. You can't just erase a person's history. Torrent (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Yet Mātauranga Māori still has its incompatibilities with science in the end. Stuff like Ranginui and Papatūānuku (Māori Sky Father and Earth Mother deities) are not scientific in the slightest, and is no replacement for Darwinian evolution. There was a proposed bill to alter with the curriculum in New Zealand over two years ago attempting to claim that "science is European colonialism" and similar stuff like that. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Just like how stories of Yahweh, Jesus, Lucifer, and the rest of the Abrahamic cast of characters are not scientific. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
You don't really know what you're talking about. No one is saying that the elements of Maori knowledge that are mystic is scientific. The idea is that the claim that colonizers brought science and scholarship to New Zealand is a deliberate erasure of Maori history (hence "science is a tool of colonialism"). How many times do I have to fucking link to that peer reviewed paper stating that the history of scientific endeavor in NZ predates British colonization? If you want to claim that Mātauranga Māori is disqualified because some elements of it are mystical, I can claim the same about Keplerian astronomy. (Kepler, for instance, predicted that Mars had two moons not out of any scientific principle but because it was numerologically pleasing.) Many Maori women, for instance, both pre-and-post contact, substantially contributed to the scientific process (including one Maori scientist who adapted traditional Polynesian agricultural techniques to the temperate climate of New Zealand), but traditional narratives exclude or downplay the contribution of these female scientists ([6]). Carthage (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
When you say "No one is saying that the elements of Maori knowledge that are mystic is scientific" - do you mean in this conversation, or amongst the promotors of IS? Because the IS site itself seems to be making exactly that claim.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
No one in this convo. I have also not seen, amongst the academics seriously discussing Maori knowledge specifically as containing scientific elements, that mystic elements can be claimed to be scientific. Carthage (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
OK. Nobody in the conversation - but it's obvious that people do make that claim as can be seen from (what seems to be) the main site which promotes IS.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Continued promotion of protoscience after something better was demonstrated, is pseudoscience if it continues claiming to be science. Anyway I stumbled across this journal article that was not pleased with RW's indigenous science article. Although the debacle with intelligence researchers (about articles on racialist researchers) shows me a critique being in a journal isn't in itself a reason to go and make every change the author wants. Chillpilled (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@Chillpilled And where exactly did anyone claim that it has relevance to modern research? That's a strawman. We're talking about critiques of the historiography of science in New Zealand. No one is claiming that the Maori split the atom or discovered natural selection. Carthage (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm speaking in generalities, mainly I just wanted to link the article. I don't know almost anything about the subject. Chillpilled (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
OK then. Might be a good idea to add that to our mentions list. Carthage (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I've added it, there were a lot of mentions I skipped over yesterday because I didn't feel like wrangling the citation properly. The mentions page is missing quite a lot, probably from news sources too. Chillpilled (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Looks like a reply to my words jumped to conclusions over my claims and proceeded to ad hominem and falsely claim Dunning-Kruger. Māori creationism, Aztec creationism, Christian creationism, and more are still creationism at its core. The whole situation with this is that some loons out there are clearly in denial of biology, sticking to their old ways. It doesn't matter if the purveyor is a redneck or a haka dancer. Someone confused the loons and the actual scientists together. And your false equivalence between modern astronomy and clear mystical bullshitting doesn't help either. Listen. The Māoris took until around 1250 CE to even reach New Zealand using navigational skills developed over centuries, yet beliefs in mysticism and vitalism are completely different things that should be left in the dustbin of history and not taught as science. There's some misguided loons way off to the left within New Zealand who wish to add said mysticism into the science curriculum. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
And smearing me or playing the race card is low-hanging fruit over this debate. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Just like pasteurization clears possibly dangerous microbes from milk, analysis of their methodologies and moves should clear out the bunk from the facts. Some so-called "progressives" within said countries are clearly more in line with politics than science, and should be kept away from tampering with the curriculum. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The hits should be treated as science, while the misses should be debunked as pseudoscience. And telling hits from misses is critical, as my initial analysis of this topic was about the continued fight against creationism, no matter where it comes from. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In short, Māori studies is a mixed bag of hits and misses, and seeing it in black and white as a monolith does not help anyone (Though Mātauranga Māori is more often than not used to describe the vitalist bunk anyway.). Sometimes historical ignorance leads to uneducated guesses that stick around long after being debunked due to con men or unqualified politicians. Just look at homeopathy for instance. There's still a bunch of loons who try to sell this stuff as science, even though it is clearly not. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Smearing me or playing the race card" = "No one is saying that the elements of Maori knowledge that are mystic is scientific. The idea is that the claim that colonizers brought science and scholarship to New Zealand is a deliberate erasure of Maori history (hence "science is a tool of colonialism"). How many times do I have to fucking link to that peer reviewed paper stating that the history of scientific endeavor in NZ predates British colonization?"

"Māori creationism, Aztec creationism, Christian creationism, and more are still creationism at its core. The whole situation with this is that some loons out there are clearly in denial of biology, sticking to their old ways."

Cool, no one is saying differently. What is your point?

"Listen. The Māoris took until around 1250 CE to even reach New Zealand using navigational skills developed over centuries..."

Yes, and? Is this meant to be a dismissal of Polynesian navigational techniques? If so, why?

"...yet beliefs in mysticism and vitalism are completely different things that should be left in the dustbin of history and not taught as science."

And who exactly is arguing for that? This is, again, a strawman. I shouldn't have to repeat myself. And, yes, I agree. The problem is people are not arguing for this. You are refuting a strawman. Kepler, again, predicted the existence of two moons around Mars not off of empirical inquiry but out of numerological aesthetic, but no one accuses Kepler of practicing "protoscience." You also disingenuously, and hypocritically, insert politics into the discussion without addressing any of the concrete points I made: including the deliberate marginalization of Maori woman scientists both past and present. That reeks of bad faith. And, I mean, kudos to that gigantic Gish Gallop. You happy? Carthage (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I checked your link, and it was a blog with links to further reading, not a peer-reviewed article. And I think that the marginalization of women is a red herring in this debate, which was likely hijacked from my original point of making sure evolution is taught in schools. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
It seems like both of us see each other this: Troll. And the misinterpretation and anchoring towards Kepler (a red herring in this argument) doesn't help my point come across. A high mare and a slightly lower stallion joust each other ad infinitum. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
(EC)You do realize that dismissing the source and not the content is fallacious, right? Not all sources need to be peer-reviewed, what matters is the quality of the content. And, uh, even if you, again fallaciously disregard the content because of the source, that leaves out everything else I wrote. Also you're not the sole arbiter of this discussion. I wasn't talking about evolution and creationism, so how can it be a red herring if that's not even what I'm talking about. I am objecting to parts of your argument, not the whole thing. You also don't understand analogy and demonstrating double standards, neither of which are red herrings. Carthage (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Troll So cherry-picking the rotten bits is what both of us are doing, huh? Guess its just ego versus ego. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
And insulting my intellect is still low-hanging fruit. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, as for the analogy part, some analogies are false. But again for now, Troll. Let's calm down over this. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
That's an irrelevant truism. So is Keplerian astronomy more scientific than Maori science despite the demonstrable numerological element? How do you demarcate this as "true science" and not, as you call it, "protoscience"? Carthage (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If ya got a bullet proof demarcation between science, pseudoscience, and protoscience Eternal I strongly suggest you write a paper on it and submit it for publication. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

don't y'all ever stop fighting and just shut the hell up? Listening is a tool, never thought I'd have to type that. I would like to hear one myth from anybody that isn't literal but makes a difference. Of course I will start from James 1. Jimmy almost had it right. Torrent (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.[d] 18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Hearing and Doing the Word 19 Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.02:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

the context is not great, but the message really is tough for any staunch Christian "it is not through acts" kinda deathbed apologist. What I get out of ot is, if you listen first, it's easier to make a point. If you can then produce something, well, I wouldn't call it divine, I'd just call it proof you're listening.Torrent (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

In the end, for curriculums anywhere on this planet (my initial argument at hand), protoscience belongs in a history or social studies class rather than a science class, with all sociological context taken into consideration. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

And just like that NCEA incident back in 2022, this argument got nowhere and ended in no confidence. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I would like to provide a dilemma. Let's say you're out walking a long trail in a national park and your toe trips you up a well worn hill. You look back, and and just barely sticking out of the soil is a piece of leather. You pull it out, I dunno, bite it to know it's leather, this is a hypothetical, no reason to get specific yet. You take it to the trailhead and there are two people arguing. Both are inherently credible in this hypothetical.
One says the land is protected, the other says the land is sacred. They both notice you're holding the leather you found and dug out. The Piece of leather you picked up may have cultural significance or scientific significance, both ask please, it's exactly the clue they were looking for. it might just be worth something to you for finding it, like a trophy, or potential money, if it matters so much. what do you do with this old piece of leather you tripped on? Torrent (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)01:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
And as for your question, I'd send it to a laboratory for further analysis. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Young earth creationist school textbooks[edit]

A recent article here: https://11points.com/11-eye-opening-highlights-creationist-science-textbook/ discusses one of these books. Looking it up, screenshots of this particular book have been mocked around the Web since at least 2011 2010, particularly the claim in it that "Electricity is a mystery". Crops up again and again all over the place.

So I went and found that book on the Internet Archive, just confirming it actually exists. But there I find out it's part of some kind of huge series of such textbooks, across multiple subjects. Spans from at least 1970s to early 2000s. Bob Jones University is apparently behind these books, and as you can see we've got a page; the section on BJU Press is very short.

I went for the life science book, of course (I'm sure Christian geography is very interesting too, though). Went straight for the genetics section. Page 116, there, cites the people in the Book of Genesis living to hundreds of years old, versus today's lifespans, as proof that we're degenerating rather than evolving. Chillpilled (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Huh. That's interesting. Guess they have a different belief from regular science. Not a big deal. 01:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)01:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Keepthingssimple / talk / contribs
Not a big deal... till these types get into political office or any other position of influence. The current House Speaker was probably reading these books.-Ryan1257 (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Of course it's a big deal. You are supposed to teach kids things which are true and can be empirically demonstrated - not fairy stories.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Just don't expect to get school credits for classes using those books. Chillpilled (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
You actually can get school credits using these books. I was homeschooled under that curriculum and graduated the homeschooling equivalent of highschool in 2009. AMA. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Just not accepted by the University of California. I just looked them up and the motto of the University of California is "let there be light", which feels like some kind of irony here. Chillpilled (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I went to a community College in Maryland, got an associates, then used that associates to get into a university. You can convert the homeschooling credits "up the chain" so to speak to get around it. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm so glad that (most of) Europe doesn't partake of this US silliness. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed that Bob Jones University has mellowed slightly in its recent student handbook, compared to archived handbooks from a decade ago where church attendance was mandatory, "physical contact between men and women students is not allowed", personal guardians were required for residence hall checkouts, and "rock, rap, jazz and country" music were forbidden in favor of "folk music, patriotic music, classical concert music, and traditional sacred music", among other inane regulations. (Not that they've mellowed that much. Nowadays for the later, for instance, they just "avoid", not "forbid", any music that is not "intentionally conservative in style" like the above.)
The problem with placing a rather peculiar version of "Jesus" and "cultural conservatism" first is that by placing these priorities first, they seem to warp the rest of the curriculum. These music regulations alone are pretty telling. I am curious how they delineate between "folk music" and "country music" (as I see a rather blurry line), am perplexed that "jazz" is still a worry (if I were personally showcase an "intentionally conservative style" harking back to the 1930s, I'd showcase the very-much-still-jazz "sweet music" big bands around that time), and wonder what they would do with the "classical concert music" with a heavy dollop of jazz in it (eg the piano concertos of Maurice Ravel, most of George Gershwin, select Leonard Bernstein numbers, and many others). And pairing the notion of "intentionally conservative" with "folk music" nowadays is... well, though folk music comes in many shapes, I do wonder if Bob Jones University would enjoy if I did a presentation of the works of Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, and Phil Ochs. Probably not. BobJohnson (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Do it anyway. I need a laugh. Kencolt (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Academic Reconciliation[edit]

It looks like the educational and academic sphere is increasingly being torn asunder into left-wing and right-wing lobes, each of which having their own personal (and incompatible) goals to tackle on educating and informing the general populace. And said vitriol spilled out of the educational sphere into other places, causing more mishaps on the way.

The worst part of this is the belief of "safetyism", where your personal emotions are treated as facts, dissenting views and opinions (true or not) are forcibly silenced, and the belief of "if you felt offended, you were offended". This is mostly thanks to the polarization caused by social media and all the actors (sinister or not) behind the scenes. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"if you felt offended, you were offended" Well yes. Taking offense is a subjective response to some stimulus. The disagreement is not about whether Person A is offended or not, but whether and to what degree that should be accommodated. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
"This is mostly thanks to the polarization caused by social media and all the actors (sinister or not) behind the scenes." Ah, yes, sinister and shadowy forces are manipulating and generating fake social tensions from behind the scenes for their own benefit. Which makes more sense: that people have genuine cause for resentment and critique, or that shadowy forces are solely behind the rise in political polarization? This says nothing about the truth value of the claims made by the different "lobes" as you call them. (This is not to say that social media has a direct part to play in polarization, but to blame social media and "shadowy actors" entirely is fallacious and reeks of conspiratorial thinking.)
"The worst part of this is the belief of "safetyism", where your personal emotions are treated as facts, dissenting views and opinions (true or not) are forcibly silenced, and the belief of "if you felt offended, you were offended". So if a group of Nazis entered a discussion group mostly or solely focused on Judaism, should they be let in? Do you discount the harm rhetoric can cause from your "analysis" entirely? Why? Carthage (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh well. Social media (and groups like the Russian IRA or the Chinese wumao) is a catalyst, but there's a lot more to the educational sphere that is the main concern. Educational institutions have severely botched their handling of offense and accommodation, often resulting in unintended prejudice against groups they try to protect. There's the obvious stinkers, but then there's the gray area of academic professors who have more traditionalist views (gender being binary, etc.) who are forcibly censored by ham-fisted and knee-jerk regulations designed to protect minorities. It's a lot more than it looks, and the situation is quite a mess. Some people on the right lobe are saying that the American mind is being coddled due to said knee-jerk reactions, and that is what is seriously concerning me. This atmosphere of fear and silencing may only cause mental illnesses and disabilities to get worse as well. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Nice evasion. So if a group of Nazis entered a Jewish space, what should they do? Carthage (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I actually think this viewpoint is a distortion. The problem is, generally speaking, activists have a louder voice in "the lay public" (news, social media) then actual academia on too many things. To take one example, actual academic historians have tended to be very critical of both the 1619 Project (for being revisionist crap) and the 1776 Project (for being pseudohistorical whitewashing bullshit).
Now, I actually don't have a huge issue with activist space, unless such views are forced into academia via government decree; from my perspective, in American space, this is occurring way more on the "right" (eg Ron DeSantis is really doing a number on New College) than the left. Elsewise, no one should care. Activists have "their thing" going and that's fine. If I read something from an activist group, you know what their thing is about. So you have to be aware of the bias, but there's no reason why very biased documents can't have some truth and insight. (Not always, of course, but I don't think you can dismiss activist documents out of hand just because they are activist.)
Generally speaking, I'm not impressed with whines about "academic freedom" that I've heard. Most seem to be cherry picking from folks with a particular political agenda, that rely on biased reporting that often breaks down on further analysis. Yes, there are some cases where the whines come from people fired, but too often it is from idiots trying to peddle pseudoscience or other things that directly contradict the findings of the field of study -- I'm thinking of the "scientific racism" crowd as an example here. But in other cases, the question for those whining about "academic freedom" is, are you really promoting academic freedom or are you actually dreaming of forcing your ham-fisted view on others? Observing people like Ron DeSantis, it sure seems more like the later than the former. BobJohnson (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Merely not addressing it doesn't mean that the gates just open on things. Real Life isn't as boolean and binary as that. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater doesn't help either in the academic situation. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, see section D3 here for more information on the topic as a whole. [7] TheEternalOutsider (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Spoken by someone who just misused the fuckin' troll collapse. :p BobJohnson (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Politics and science. So much fun comes from the incessant squabbles of political influences on science. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 15:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky has said that in the 1950s, when he tried to publish his research, the general view was so contrary to his own theories his manuscripts could not be published. That was due to the concurrence of print media entities and academic "common knowledge." In general, media does not mediate, it publicizes. Every school has its bible. When a school accommodates new political schemata, it may create a social churn. It becomes something for media to exploit by both progressives and conservatives who both feed the outrage mill.
My personal view is, once the public is aware of a controversy, repetition is simply old news; impuissant by itself. If crowds storm the Bastille, the public better had be behind them, which typically is not the case for first world problems and Trumpist degenerates. Media advocates generally want to press their narrative, as if the mind of the public could be affected, as if the public has some ability to mediate social problems. The true power of the public is to accept diversity and not to break out in stochastic violence, which has generally been the case. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I question the accuracy of the OP's original question. For I don't believe there is a 'fight between "left-wing" and "right-wing" lobes in education/academia' - I would less incorrectly depict it as a three way fight; right and left both at war with the centre [qv, both have heavy criticisms of state education; seeing them as 'indoctrination centres' (but bitterly opposed on what 'messages' they object to).] What has happened here is that the American right-wing has poisoned the debate by defining anything not them as 'left-wing' - while technically true, it portrays it as a homogonous bloc which is clearly not correct. Thus what the issue is that the right wing is at war with the centre, which normally tallies to be the 'majority consensus opinion'.
An important aspect to note is that the vast majority of people shouting shite like "colleges are infested with Cultural Marxists!" ad nauseam are not only rarely not academics, but have little to nil modern experience of educational settings at all [as BobJ points out]. Their 'evidence' is second/third-hand; nut-picked examples from ideologically friendly media, astroturf orgs and small online groups which represent nobody officially. Do you really expect real impartiality from folks who at best shall consider themselves bascially 'liars for Jesus'?
Even more important is their constant refrain that "everything is librul now" or similar. This is in fact true, as in stats show that as a rule 'conservatives' are in somewhere between 'distinct minority' and 'almost nil' in academic institutions. However, this ignores two important points - how far rightwards the conservative parties have lurched since 2010 and how strongly anti-intellectual they've become. What's happened is that the parties left the 'pointy-heads' [not the other way around], and the constant bitching about them being 'pointy-heads' drove many a amicable neutral actively away from them. I mean if nothing else they're normally not a fan of pathological liars who revel in their own ignorance and dictate policies on their own selfish desires - with good reason, as Trump and Johnson showed just how bad such a regime could be in just basic competence.
Lastly, I'll point out the simple contradition in terms; if you have been 'cancelled' and the wider world has heard of your cancelled-ness [sometimes from their own TV show or newspaper column], you are not cancelled. What's more, while you have right to free speech, this speech does not come with a right to have an audience. Or eternal employment. Or the protection from your peers calling you a wrong-headed crank who's ultracrepidarian ex cathredra statements is bringing the institution into disrepute. Or from the younger generation concluding you [and your opinions] are in fact part of the reason we're in the shitty situation we are today and thus, of no worth listening to. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
you're not talking nonsense, because I have been witness to the same nonsense. Centrism is a survival tactic, it's a cover. When it's blown, you can really see who cares about politics over values. Torrent (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Two words; 'anecdotal evidence'. Just because you have observed a clutch of examples, it does not mean everyone 'remotely on their side' is a cranky, tetchy moonbat scanning the horizon for things to bitch about. The vast majority of transwomen, for example will be fine admitting a) their genes are still 'XY' and b) they don't have periods. Just because you have observed a couple of cats which are black, it does not mean all of them are.
Perhaps the crux of the matter is two-hatted nature of [particulary] American academia. That to the general public, we see them as places where ideas should be developed, minority views [within limits] allowed to reside and practitioners allowed to develop said ideas without fear of retriubtion. Yet this is a load of crap. Academic institutions are businesses which thus need custom - corp donations and student fees - to survive. And some of these are very big businesses - Harvard, for example has the same number of employees as Ubisoft and it's endowment fund alone is the same as the total value of McDonalds. Even more importantly they are increasingly run like businesses. And what are two of the biggest rules for businesses? 'Don't drive away custom' and 'protect the brand at all costs'. Similar can be said for the serious end of journalism and publishing.
Between the two of these, it makes a rather flaccid administration which caves more than it should. It looks out the proverbial window and sees the moonbat protests and thinks 'shit, lost business!' sees online articles 'damaging the brand' by reporting the previous and then panics that it might snowball [general boycott? Pulled funding? Legal cases?]. 'Something needs to be done' and then 'path of least resistance' kicks in; if some token do-nothing statement doesn't smother the protest, then find the scalp they're shouting for and throw it at them. Sometimes this throwing is perfectly justified, others blatently not - I guess most are somewhere inbetween the two. But that's irrelevant; their loyalty is to the institution, not the academic - let alone any wishy-washy concepts like 'academic freedom'.
If they stand against this, the individual normally finds themselves a minority of one; even the ones they know are privately supportive are silent in public. Again, this is normal in organisations; in fact it was/is the main manner other crap like sexual harrassment and unethical behavior gets swept under the rug - the old adage to 'not try to buck the system'. So... your bitching is that [le gasp!] academics are people too and thus suseptable to such things as self-interest and the bystander effect? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I am curious as to what would count as "universities caving to cranky moonbats". This is more a value judgement than a comment on the truth value of claims made by these "tetchy, cranky moonbats." In some cases, the supposed "cranky moonbats" may have genuine cause to complain and critique, and to dismiss them as "cranky" is counter-productive. Carthage (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I did say "Sometimes this throwing [out of the academic] is perfectly justified, others blatently not - I guess most are somewhere inbetween the two". I don't doubt the possibility that 'the moonbats' can on occasion be right; sometimes, their 'battery is not the basis of their bitching, but the odd claims and conclusions they reach from it. For an example, what happened to David Starkey I would put in this 'somewhere between the two' - what he said was at best 'unwise' even for a guy who's fairly well-known in the UK for being rather acerbic. In a similar vein, I would cite the examples of where actors etc get immediately dropped by everyone the moment an allegation comes out. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
but that's a myth. Left leaning cancel culture died like 3 or 4 years ago. Louis CK got a post cancellation special. I never thought he was that funny. Dave Chapelle, love his early stuff, heNE came to town, it was like 300 bucks a ticket. Now you can make any stupid joke you want, and if you invoke cancel culture as a real thing, I can already tell your jokes are tired. I'm kinda impressed by the parents combing through a library, finding books to burn, except I knew those library kids, the people who show up and read out passages from books. They are not the library kids, that would be the same age as me. There's no way the parents speaking up in the city council meetings, no way they are going through every young adult novel to find a copy of a book they disagree with, but I remember some of the library kids. They were weirder than me. To know that some of them grew up cataloguing personal disgust as trauma. Torrent (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
like, there's somehow two types of realistic fiction Teen romance readin moms between 25 and 35. one type would be like 'my kid isn't ready to read that' and the other is like 'I read every single word and it must be burned'. It's nonsense.Torrent (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I was referring to incidences where actors etc are accused of [normally] sexual harassment etc; that you could almost measure on a stopwatch the speed they're dropped by their agent, publisher, event bookers and written out of anything they're in [I don't say this shouldn't be done if found guilty, my objection was it was done at the 'allegation' stage]. The speed that Starkey got canned is a good case in point [though as a 'public intellectual' he should have known better]; more generally, there have been folks who have had their careers destroyed by allegations which normally are anonymous to the point they don't even know any details of the wrongdoing to respond to.
And the desires of censorship has been around as long as there's been something to censor. A person of the name of Mary Whitehouse used to spend her waking moments literally, looking for things to complain about [be it music, TV, film, magazines or books]. Though credit where it's due; at least she actually saw the offence, which is more than most of the people who end up bitching about it to their school or whatever - it's a classic 'gotcha moment' to get some Moral Guardian type to reveal on the TV or similar that they don't have a clue of what they are objecting to [qv; BrassEye]. Normally what happens is that some org 'hears on the grapevine' that X is 'wrong' [for some reason] and then the word is spread to the activists to get out and protest. This isn't anything new; just that social media etc has sped up the rate of the news getting and and also being covered by the media. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
A lot of the famous "cancel culture" whines are more "loudmouth group dislikes something"; many times there really isn't even an effect. Yes, sometimes, this means that someone gets terminated from employment. But if one in is the business of selling media to others, this can happen; sometimes much of the problem is that you are out of step with the group you are selling your wares too. As noted by Torrent, what often happens is said person refocuses his "schtick" and sells to a different target group. So calling such "cancel culture" is a stretch.
Such a concern is not just from the left. What happened to the The ChicksWikipedia (formerly the Dixie Chicks) is similar from a different angle; they are an American pop country artist, and that's a genre that is notoriously rather jingoistic and (even then) bought some of the Republican propaganda made up by the suits at Fox News. Being ashamed of a Republican president (even if the Dubya administration was, frankly, something to be quite ashamed about) is just something you can't do while being a Nashville-style "establishment" pop country artist. ("Outlaw" country artists, on the other hand? No problem! But with a few exceptions, the sales aren't as strong, though the artistic integrity is usually much higher.)
In many cases, I do think there are some cases where the "abrupt cancellation" news actually may have been a "last straw" moment. I kind of got that impression reading up on David Starkey.Wikipedia It looks like he had a pretty long history of "racially insensitive" remarks, including some really nasty remarks in 2011. I am guessing that for people without that sort of history, they could've been forgiven for saying that "slavery wasn't genocide" sentence (technically, it's not quite the same thing after all, though pairing that statement with "there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or Britain" would get anyone in trouble for obvious racism.) But since Starkey had a reputation, my guess is that it ended up being a "tipping point moment".
From my perspective, that's what happened with Scott Adams. If you weren't paying attention, you might have only seen a single racist remark he made causing Dilbert to get cancelled (ooh! Cancel culture!). Anyone paying attention, however, knows that he's had a decade plus of making some absolutely clunker remarks on social media (including some pretty nasty racist and sexist stuff). Adams' cartoon in the mean time was getting increasingly unfunny, and had been dropped by a few newspapers already for that reason, well before the nasty racist remarks. (Considering how many stale and unfunny, but historically entrenched, comic strips papers tend to run, being bad enough to actually get dropped is saying something.) Adams calling black people a hate group was probably a good excuse for some publishers and papers to get rid of some "dead weight", so to speak. BobJohnson (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Academics hasn't been doing so hot, and many students don't seem to be able to tell their emotions from objective logic. Even I struggle with it at times, as anger clouds anyone's judgement. Though self-censorship is still a detriment to academic freedom no matter what. Life isn't as black and white as folks blinded by anger would make it out to be, and what is most important now is debate. As long as healthy debate (avoid destructive criticism and personal attacks at all costs) is present, things can return to the right track. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
My OCD has clouded judgement on certain topics due to the short-term need to prevent intrusive thoughts as well as the fog of anger and voids on certain views not helping either. As it stands, there's a big difference between obviously partisan stinkers compared to professors who just want to spread their own heterodox opinions on society without the fear of retribution from someone whose judgement is in the fog due to emotions or anxiety Troll. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
What opinions do you believe are heterodox? How do you quantify such an assertion? Carthage (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

BobJ puts well the conflicted nature of how I feel on 'the Starkey affair'; that while on one side his final straw comment was perhaps technically correct [or at least up to debate] he should have known better - he is a 'public intellectual' and writer and thus well-experienced in communication [if he'd put it simply 'it was not genocide as it was not organised by any state and a lot who were on the 'African end' of the business were in fact, other Africans'] he would have gotten some flak from the usual suspects but the world would have continued.

With the 'Adams affair', part of his 'radicalisation' was down to the protesters themselves. I remember reading his work in the early-mid '00s and while he did lampoon what was then called 'PC culture' he normally picked the stupid/shallow examples of, along with the occasional reasonable point [Dilbert: 'does this policy (flexible hours for parents) mean more work for us childless persons to cover for them?'] Naturally, this pissed off the humourless sods he was mocking. However, as the 'two tribes' view of the culture war solidified into the '10s and said 'humourless sods' became ever-more powerful on social media it more and more pushed Adams into the clutches of the 'other side' and thus got caught in the feedback loop of being tugged ever-further rightwards. [Yeah, I do think some papers used the 'black people hate group' as an excuse to get out of contracts fine-free].

I also suspect Adams' age is a factor too; it seems somewhat a 'Boomer thing' to exaggerate the power/influence of rando little social media groups/sites etc have and not look at them critically - a standard Hate Mail lazy 'Polly Filla' article being 'social media activists denounce [reasonable thing]' being so common that recently the Daily Diana actually printed by accident a 'fill in the blanks' template for it recently. Most younger people [say under 45] are fairly au fait with the whole thing and most know if you put up the statement 'fun things are fun' you'd get denouncements, some simply out of sheer perversity. However, most Big Bosses [like the academia admins] are old and as I said before, very risk adverse. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The dumb logic of the left promoting voting in fascists in order to "teach liberals a lesson"[edit]

I want to preface this by saying I don't like Biden's opposition to a ceasefire and the general "cancelling" of anyone who mentions Palestinian suffering. It's a blight that I think we're gonna have to have a conversation about after this conflict is over. That said, after reading that story in WIGO, if "young, arab, and muslim" voters vote for or enable Donald Trump to win over the current conflict because they feel privileged enough to vote in fascists without believing they'll suffer from fascists, I have no sympathy for them when they cry over what happens to them and Palestinians in an even more authoritarian Trump presidency since they not only asked for it, they demanded it (Plus, they seek to harm me by trying to elect Donald Trump, so fuck them). A lot of support for Israel in the Democratic Party currently because older demographics (read: consistent voters) tend to support Israel and if they show "weakness" on the issue, especially after the Hamas attack, The Republicans will pounce on that in order to say they support Hamas, are "anti-semitic", and don't believe Israel can be allowed to defend itself, which would hurt them harder among the general public than fair weather allies abandoning them. If these people have such short memories over the time Donald Trump was in office and how he helped set the stage for this current conflict as well as current Republican comments on the issue which are tantamount to saying, "I support maximum damage against The Palestinians", then honestly, I say they enable this just as much as the Republicans. Lastly, there's a risk of the Democratic party becoming more right-wing on the issue if Republicans are awarded more for staunchly supporting Israel than they are trying to tell Israel to limit casualties on civilians, so have fun with that.-Ryan1257 (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how common this is. 2016's lessons are still pretty fresh, at least to the best of my knowledge. It's a pretty cynical maneuver on Biden's part, since he knows that if people vote him out of office for unconditionally supporting Israel then we'll end up with Trump instead, who will just support Israel anyway. On the other hand, you're supposed to "vote your conscience," and one can argue that leftists don't owe liberals their vote. Especially as there's a tendency for, if liberals win, to say that they didn't need leftist votes anyway and when liberals lose, they blame the left and not the weakness of their own candidates. It's a catch-22 situation for leftists, and I can understand why some people will get very disgusted with the whole situation and just not vote or vote third party. The sad reality is however that American electoral politics lends itself to a duopoly. There's no third choice. Carthage (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Let's ask the true question - does the opinions of the Arab Americans and Muslim Americans matter in a Pres election?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muslim_Americans_by_state.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Americans_with_Arab_Ancestry_by_state.svg
As you can see, the 'Muslim vote' is only 'worth worrying about' [over 2%] in Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia. All of these were at least +10 Biden in 2020. Arab Americans? Even less relevant, as they don't amount to more than 1% anywhere and they are in the above states plus Massachusetts and California. Both 'Blue strongholds'.
If I was a jaded pol-advisor for Biden, I'd quip we can afford to mildly piss off these voters. Trump is inherently more unfriendly to their mere existence and if they stayed at home chances of them changing the electoral college outcome is slim to nil. I'd also hazard that Trump will do his best to run on the 'pro-Israel' flank of Biden which means if Biden is already pro-Israel it leads into a 'give Netanyahu a blank cheque!' zone which I don't think would hurt Biden. Lastly, stats show about 30% of American Jews voted for Trump - that's 1.8m adults possibly 'up for grabs' in '24. Those numbers may be the difference between winning or losing Florida, Pennsylvania and Nevada. Thus, those voters really matter. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
For better or worse, Biden has recently called for a "humanitarian pause". I guess he's trying to "thread the needle" a bit. As Israel's government continues to overreact in awful ways (as you'd expect from who is in charge), I expect more moves in this direction.
A key thing here that alludes the outrage class (and maybe the Democrats to some degree?) is "supporting Israel" and "opposing Benjamin Netanyahu's asshat policies" is not contradictory (just as one can support Palestine while rejecting Hamas). I only know what I read, but I get the impression that a lot of Jews do not support "Bibi" at all (some for more militant reasons, but many because of disagreement with his asinine policies and political associations that could easily be seen as "stoking the flames" in the long-running conflict, along with an impression Jews have that in this conflict that Netanyahu cares more about what benefits Netanyahu than protecting Israel). From what I can tell, the "rally around the flag" effect you often get for these type of conflicts really hasn't happened in Israel. Now, I don't know to what extent disgust with Bibi extends to older Jewish voters in the United States (I've seen Israel polls, but not a poll on something this specific, of course); maybe there's enough support for Bibi in the US (among those who aren't already voting Republican, Sheldon AdelsonWikipedia style, that is) where a "needle thread" seemed necessary. But if Bibi continues to Bibi, perhaps not in the future.
Yes, as long as the GOP courts the evangelical vote, they're going to embrace Bibi extremism. So I imagine the threat from Arabs / Muslims (as described in the Guardian article) is more like "we won't vote at all" -- a "cut off nose to spite one's face" solution if you ask me given the GOP stance, but that's just my opinion. From my perspective, though, regarding the Guardian article, this is an "of the moment" thing, and a week in politics is a long time. As indicated by the differences in Biden's rhetoric between October 28 (date of article) and November 3. BobJohnson (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I hate all of these, "Polls indicate Biden will lose if the election were held today!", shock headlines and its variations because the important fact is 1.) The election isn't being held today. 2.) People change their minds a lot, especially the closer election day gets. 3.) Most importantly, "disapproval" and "not voting for" are two different things.-Ryan1257 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to guess [outside of ideological agreement] that there is a level of unconscious 'pro-Bibi' support from American Jews who don't actually have much in-date knowledge of Israeli affairs but also feel 'Israel is important' [also in UK]. After all, it's easier to swallow his shitty narrative and not notice how much of this clusterfuck is of Bibi's own making if you've not being paying attention. I also suspect the pro-Isreal/anti-Bibi position is simply too nuanced to be covered correctly in the average TV news or Yahoo news article. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I imagine many simply support Israel and Bibi without really following up on news about it (except maybe events like this) since the main idea of Israel in their mind is as a potential refuge from anti-semitism should anti-semites gain power or if government decides to be more permissive of it. It's not so much "dual loyalty" as it is the generational trauma of being treated as second-class citizens or kicked out of places they once called home causing them to view Israel as some sort of "guaranteed" safe nation they'll be welcome no matter what even if the rest of the world were to one day shun them. If you want jews to not defend Israel, create an environment where they don't have to consider such a possibility. Even progressive groups have struggled with this too considering the disturbingly common anti-semitism in the black activist community.-Ryan1257 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
In general polls are not meaningful this far from an election (specifically the November 2024 one). A lot can happen between now and then: criminal convictions of tRump and his minions, collapse of his funding, an end to the war with Hamas or an escalation. The more meaningful poll was the one that said 80% of Israelis held Netanyahu responsible for it (widespread security and intelligence failures, and the prioritizing of defending illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank over security against Hamas). Bongolian (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the initial post is carrying with it an uncharitable reading of the article, and a set of political assumptions and empirical presuppositions that I am not willing to grant. Simply being less in favour of Biden does not entail acting either passively or actively in favour of Trump. Framing it on those terms carries the implicature that Americans are in a state to which their only options in regards to political leaders is to act in support of either Trump or Biden (no exceptions). The other implicit premise being that in respect to certain ethnic and political minorities if the results do not turn out the way white liberals want the responsibility somehow rests upon those with the least power to effect results. There is something about that strikes me as inherently disempowering to the groups in question. Cynically I’d see it as a means to help build resentment against Arab, Muslim and Jewish Americans among less progressive white liberals. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it is only natural for some progressives to guilt-trip others, radical progressives, minorities, moderates, etc., into recognizing that they think Biden is the most progressive president that it is, at the moment, possible to elect. Many prefer Sanders, or Governor Newsom. I don't blame folks for using every sort of persuasive argument. A true progressive, seen as a category of concerned voters interested in actual progress, would be hard in favor of electing a progressive candidate. Then there is the straight-out liberal bias against electing fascists which would be anti-progressive.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC).
I'm sorry if I don't tolerate the self-defeating tactics of the self-righteous, "voting doesn't make a difference", left-wing political nihlists/accelerationists like you who swore that Trump would be no worse, maybe even better than, Hillary. The fact is, we're right now living in dangerous times where we're on the knife's edge of hard-right populists gaining power (we just had a news story of the hard-right Republicans introducing a bill to ban Palestinians by the way just to give you a taste of what will happen should they decide voting isn't worth it), and this time, the judicial branch won't bail you out of your political decisions. And you can try to reframe my statement as "you're a white liberal blaming minorities when things get bad", but the fact is it won't matter who I blame or how I feel (even if I were to look at the exit polls and shake my head in disappointment), The Republicans have made it clear what they'd like to do to communities like those of the muslims, palestinians, and all the other categories they see as "other". I believe anyone who recognizes that should vote for the safety of their community first and foremost no matter what their current feelings are because at the end of the day, when you lose your civil liberties, it's hard to get them back. With the current system, the only realistic options really are Biden and Trump, meaning a vote against Biden currently will statistically translate into a vote for Trump because at the end of the day, it's a winner take all, first-past-the-post system. So yeah, at the moment, I don't have patience for people who pretend we still live in circumstances where the opposing party still supports democracy.-Ryan1257 (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Except as OSD and myself have pointed out, there's no evidence of how popular this notion actually is among the left. It's a false equivalency to equate "less favor for Biden" to mean "willing to actively or passively enable Trump's victory." I think you're also assuming things about what OSD believes that aren't evident in his text, ie you're still being uncharitable and putting words into his mouth. As for a "vote against Biden is a vote for Trump<" this assumes that all votes are equal. They are not. Carthage (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I also have to ask if Biden was unconditionally supporting, say, Russia if you would castigate Ukrainian voters for not voting for Biden. Genocide experts are calling what's happening in Gaza a textbook example of genocide unfolding right before our eyes, and the Biden administration is fully complicit in this. If you were a Palestinian voter, would you vote for the guy openly supporting a regime actively committing crimes against humanity in Gaza? (And before you say "but Hamas" Israel has already killed over 9k Palestinians, 3.5k of whom are children. Ignoring the cutting off of food, water, and power from the Strip that itself is a disproportionate response, and there's been no signs of them stopping. If you say Hamas brought it on themselves, two wrongs don't make a right, especially when Zionist forces also engaged in violent massacres equaling the casualty rates inflicted by Hamas during the Naqba. The right to national self-defense does not excuse crimes against humanity.) Carthage (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to every "gotcha" question you tend to produce in order to try and make me look bad and try and bait me into saying something unsavory since you'll always have another one ready and we'll be here all day (and for the record, if Biden supported Russia, then I'd call that a betrayal of the highest order and I doubt even his party would back him). My point is, if you're trying to prevent such a thing, supporting Trump as I'm seeing in this article [[8]] seems like a stupid thing to do and feels more like wanting to hurt others in retaliation. Also, to OSD, I apologize for the accusation, I mixed you up for a mixture of users I've seen come and go whose attitudes I've found distasteful and lumped them in with you and your intentions.-Ryan1257 (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
About arguments that it's too early to call the election results. Yes. People who care about Gaza now may very well not care about Gaza later, but Israel is preparing for a sustained ground assault against a "terrorist group using guerilla tactics" (this Nation article goes in-depth about the weakening support for Biden among POC voters. Remember that votes are determined by voter turnout, and while Muslims are a minority nation-wide they make up a significant voting bloc in Virginia and Michigan, both vital states Biden must win-over to win the general. If black and brown voters refuse to turn out for Biden, that will cost him significantly in the general.) that will not be quick or pretty. There will be significant civilian casualties, pictures of which will wind up on the internet. The war is just beginning, so I think it's too early to dismiss the effect Biden's unconditional support for Israel will have on his chances of winning the general. I think this paragraph from the cited article explains it well:

Moreover, I feel like white commentators too easily forget that we live in a country where Trump is a looming threat only because a significant majority of their own cousins and uncles and spouses are set, once again, to vote for a raving orange clown, no matter how many times he gets indicted for crimes. White folks are the ones threatening the future of American democracy: To save it, Democrats need supermajorities of Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Arab American voters, and they need Black people to continue supporting Democrats by well over 80 percent margins, and they need all those groups to turn out. So, just maybe, the white anti-Trump crowd could listen to voters of color with some respect when they try to tell you what’s wrong with their political approach.

In any event, the “Trump would be worse” argument, while unquestionably true, isn’t the slam-dunk white Democrats want it to be. At least not now, when Biden is the one in charge, and Biden is the one standing with a hard-right foreign regime that is perceived as denying political participation, freedom, and basic human rights to an oppressed population.

Biden has also seen declining support from black Americans in general, with child poverty rates doubling. While it's arguably unfair to blame Biden for Joe Manchin's staunch refusal to support Biden's domestic policies, it's gonna be hard to explain to a struggling black family why the nation can afford to shovel barrel-loads of money to Ukraine and Israel and yet not adequately support the needs of its citizenry. So I know that while some people will undoubtedly not have sympathy for black and brown voters disaffected with Biden, as has already been expressed here, that's not really going to sway these voters to support Biden either. Unless something changes, many of these voters are going to stay home or vote third party, which is bad for obvious reasons. Carthage (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
There are always disaffected voters. Political logic is always weighted according to political expectations. Few for example believe that the US can control the Israeli response to Hamas without the threat of serious policy consequences; consequences neither party would support. The question is why would people who supported the democrats change course? It has been suggested that the reason would be to punish the democrats. Is this a bluff from anyone convinced that the Republican Party has been fostering fascism? It should be. However, at the end of the day, people vote for what they see as their own benefit. Republicans really believe that Trump is good for the economy. Cuban voters support Trump. Black unemployment reached an all time low in May of this year. Biden's appointment of judges is most diverse so far. Does that matter? Maybe. What we know for certain is voters are self-interested. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
the democratic party's failures are their own. if the runoff is Biden v Trump, I suggest putting a plate of pudding next to a big leather chair at the top of a slide. I mean like a 3 foot tall toddler slide, plant one foot, get up it, boss. Neither can really take a fall at this point. I will still have to vote, I know who and which party I cannot for. Tragedy, 2024. Torrent (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Thankyou, for whatever that was.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Yawn... another post where Ryan puts words in the left's mouth. As others have pointed out there is no evidence that any significant portion of "the left" is planning to vote for fascists in some sort of 3D chess move. The democratic party is doubling down on its commitment to a regime that is widely unpopular among arabs and that has resulted in some pretty predictable blowback. Trying to spin this obvious consequence of democrat policy as the fault of the left is just sad. Tikitime2 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Nah, the most likely result will be a) to abstain or b) vote for a third party. If the latter is in sufficient numbers in the right states it could be a big enough spoiler - an allegation put against Perot in '92 [Bush], Nader in '00 [Gore] and I suspect being put against Jorgensen in '20 [my napkin says if all Libertarians went for Trump, the electoral college would have been 269 each, thus meaning Trump would have won via a shitty method called 'contingent election' because Republicans control more numbers of states than the Democrats do.]. This is why folks like me strongly suspected the 'Bernie or Bust' move in both '16 and '20 were partly astroturfs to spoil the election in Trump's favour. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone find Trump's NFT cards funny?[edit]

Whatever harm the dude has done, he does know how to draw funny NFTs of himself as a superhero, cowboy, astronaut, Playing card, even Wahsignton crossing the Delaware. At least he has some kind of talent inept as he is in other fields. — Unsigned, by: Nfts / talk / contribs

Thing is, I don't think they're funny for the reason he intended them to be. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The only thing funny about them is that people were stupid enough to buy them. All in all they're pretty pathetic. Carthage (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Much of the NFTs were altered stock images that wouldn't have taken much effort to do IMHO. The artist they hired per the PC Mag article seems to have some talent per his Instagram, but given that the quintessential NFT artwork is the shitty "Bored Ape" meme, I wouldn't be surprised if he just threw some pure "crap for the cash" together, as if anyone involved in NFT land would notice. BobJohnson (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Wait, oh surreptitious vendor of trading cards. Do you seriously think that Trump himself personally created this crap? Not that he isn't fully capable of personally creating enormous quantities of crap, but the idea that he had the the technical ability to create this crap in particular is hilarious!

Still, it's a hopeful sign to see that trading card vendors are sufficiently desperate that they would think that they could promote this nonsense to us. so, thanks, I guess.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Halloween is Upon Us[edit]

The opposite day on the true calendar of Jesus' birthday, the Devil's Birthday is upon us. It will bE a Tuesday, making my many midnight blood rituals really just, not very convenient if you work a 9 to 5. BUT there is still a weekend in which you can watch a movie, the most blood curdling heart attacking film of all time in honor of all that is terrifying!

I think Alien (1979) and The Thing (1982) are my two favorite horror classics.

I like and am impressed by Evil Dead: Rise (2023) and Us (2019) as more modern horror films.

Time is running out, I need a suggestion that I haven't seen or things might not get spooky enough. Torrent (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Torrent Ever watched GhostwatchWikipedia? Spud (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
No, but as had a buddy suggest Slotherhouse and it was funny when it wasn't telling jokes. Will check out.Torrent (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
For sheer horrific delight, I recommend Tod Browning's masterpiece Freaks.Wikipediacosmikdebris talk stalk 18:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
you can't be serious. Yeah, Freaks was something, but 'horrific delight' is a strange way to talk about it. Here's a Kevin Smith at the height of his career joke about it that was purchased for, but never saw air time. Torrent (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps not properly a "horror" classic, but Plan 9 from Outer SpaceWikipedia is a standard for me on that night, if only because it reminds me that there's a lot less to be frightened of than we tend to think. It helps that I'm old and sarcastic. Kencolt (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
well you nailed my sci-fi predilection, I will definitely check it out. Torrent (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Just remember-- the Producer/Director/Writer, Edward D Wood Jr., meant this as a serious message film. Kencolt (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Saw is a good movie Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 14:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
you're never gonna believe this, but I watched Saw at the theater. I really was pissed off at the ending. Torrent (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Night of the Living Dead is a great option. --Trans Fem Agenda 20:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Classic. Have you seen 'One Cut of the Dead?' Torrent (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm just glad there are no videos of my first wedding. Zontar (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is what I watched for Halloween, All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day. 21 October: GhostWikipedia (1990), 22 October: Corpse BrideWikipedia (2005), 23 October: PsychoWikipedia (1960), 24 October: AlienWikipedia (1979), 25 October: Rosemary's BabyWikipedia (1968), 26 October: JawsWikipedia (1975), 27 October: Scream 4Wikipedia (2011), 28 October: The Curse of La LloronaWikipedia (2019), 29 October: CarrieWikipedia (1976), 30 October: BeetlejuiceWikipedia (1988), 31 October: Sleepy HollowWikipedia (1999), 1 November: CarrieWikipedia (2013), 2 November CocoWikipedia (2017). Spud (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And I'll be watching V for VendettaWikipedia on Guy Fawkes Night. Spud (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
C'est exactemeant ca. thank you. No points taken from being late. V for Vendetta has stephen fry (who I didn't recognize at the time, only remembering and natalie portman... i think i remember.Torrent (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
@Torrent Well, if you'd like to watch those exact 12 films on those exact 12 days next year, that would be extremely flattering.
And yes, Stephen Fry, Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rea and the late John Hurt, V for Vendetta has a very good cast. Spud (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I saw Corpse Bride and Sweeny Todd in theater, they both kinda turned me off of Tim Burton post childhood. But I watched Rosemary's Baby, Carrie 76, Alien, Jaws, Beetlejuice, original Scream, and Burton's Sleepy Hollow all as rentals probably way too young save for Sleepy Hollow, which just didn't grab me. I think you and my mom would probably get along really well. Torrent (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I tried to watch Corpse Bride but it just wasn't as good as Nightmare Before Christmas or Rushmore, as far as story about an accidental love affair goes. and the sound mix was half off, the visuals were fun but ahhhh, I dunno a lot of it was ?? Really?? If that's who helped write it, I get it, but it was no Nightmare. I watched Scream 4. I swear saying I watched the original was independent of my first viewing tonight. I also watched Asteroid City, Isn't Rushmore funny enough? if your first name is Wes and you're making movies, i appreciate the format but I'm really sorry to say you've lost the touch. Torrent (talk)

Annotated Talmud[edit]

Well, this would be a feat. There's the RW:Annotated Bible and the RW:Annotated Quran.

A few years ago, an English translation of the Babylonian Talmud (read: the more "important" one, I guess, I believe it's more widely read anyway) was ostensibly placed in the public domain, and conveniently, it's free online at Sefaria.

Problems:

  • The Talmud is more than twice as long as, if not literally thousands of pages longer than the Christian Bible (I looked this up and was a little unclear on it, but what's clear is it's significantly longer)
  • The Talmud is not really a story or series of stories the way that much of the Christian Bible is. It is more of a collection of debates between rabbis that can sometimes be very dry. This would make it more boring to annotate. Unless we've got some legal eagles in the house.

Still, there could be utility. Aside from the obvious aspects of it being helpful to learn and comment on the Jewish religion from the skeptical perspective, I have seen how antisemites will misrepresent the Talmud. A great example is this quote from the Talmud that purports to show that Jews are pedophiles:

"Rava said that this is what the mishna is saying: An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old has done nothing, as intercourse with a girl less than three years old is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye."

This was in fact pulled from a rabbinical discussion about whether a three year old girl being raped would change whether the religious marriage laws and regulations treat her as a virgin after she was raped. The idea is actually to not punish her for being raped, not to say pedophilia is okay.

Not to say there aren't instances of bullshit in the Talmud. I am sure there are. But it is frequently misunderstood and even intentionally misrepresented (honestly, so is the Christian Bible sometimes, but I feel the Talmud is even moreso). For both those reasons, this might be a project worth pursuing sometime (I'm not proposing right away to go and do it, kind of just spitballing) ... I did a Google search of RW, and found the phrase "Annotated Talmud" seems to have never been uttered on this site before. Chillpilled (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be an awful lot of work just to extract the English language parts and wikify them as side-by-side tables. Bongolian (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Also it seems like a lot of the Talmud is exceedingly irrelevant to most people, e.g., this passage that I got to arbitrarily:
The Gemara answers: As that is the reason only according to Rav, who holds that the Rabbis derive their opinion from the doorway of the Sanctuary. Didn’t Rav Yehuda teach this mishna to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Rav, saying that if the entrance had the form of a doorway he need not diminish it, and Rav said to him to teach a different version: He must diminish it. Apparently, according to Rav himself, the form of a doorway does not render it permitted to carry within the alleyway if its entrance is wider than the doorway of the Sanctuary, and therefore the question about the form of a doorway poses no difficulty to his opinion.
Bongolian (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd argue the Talmud contains unexpected insights into the background of Christianity and even the life of Jesus, even in addition to the relevance it holds in Judaism. That's because it clarifies a lot of the traditions he would have followed, and some other stuff present in the Bible (the Talmud is largely just interpretations and debates about the Torah so you do get some insight into the Christian Old Testament and as a result the traditions that stemmed from it in Jesus's day, I mean). And yes there are some pretty weird debates in the Talmud like that about inane shit. I remember one like that where it literally describes them removing someone from the room because he was bringing up too many bullshit questions. I'm probably thinking of this:
If a baby pigeon is found within 50 cubits of a coop, it is presumed to belong to the owner of that coop. If it is found further away than 50 cubits, it belongs to the finder. Ever keen to push the limits of rabbinic law, Rabbi Yirmiyah asked “if one foot of the pigeon is within the fifty cubits and one foot is outside, to whom does it belong?” This apparently was one question too many. The rabbis (rather unfairly in my opinion) expelled Rabbi Yirmiyah from the Yeshivah for asking it.
Chillpilled (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The Talmud is basically a list of thousands of Rabbis saying random crap, no matter how banal. If they said it, and it was recorded somewhere, it ended up in there. So one or two rabbis said some crap about non-Jews, and somehow some rabbi being a prick means that all Jews believe that crap. CorruptUser 21:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
In some such cases, one only needs to read a little further in the Talmud to see other rabbis rebutting whoever said something like that. But no it's not so random. It's fundamentally a series of interpretations of the Hebrew Bible and its implications. Chillpilled (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I would argue we do away with these projects or at least heavily revamp them, as it currently stands any dumbass with an internet connection can "annotate" the Bible and Qu'ran without actually knowing the proper historical context of the verses in question. A lot also gets lost in translation. If you're going to properly annotate the Quran annotate it in the original Arabic, especially as the Quran is meant to be read in the original Arabic. You're not gonna seriously convince any doubtful Muslims with your "snarky analysis" if you don't bother to put in the actual work, you're just gonna come across as a disrespectful jackass. As an example of this I removed a comment about "burqas" because a) only a minority of Muslim women wear the burqa and b) headscarves for women predate the advent of Islam. Carthage (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I've of course considered that an annotated Talmud would invite the underinformed to come add dumb comments. But by its nature a wiki is imperfect. If there's a problem, improve the page. Arabic isn't some untranslatable language, nor is Hebrew, Aramaic, whatever. Annotations can discuss the meaning behind certain words to clarify what a passage says. Chillpilled (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@Carthage You mean where you undid my edit? Quiiiite sure this one of the lines that fundamentalists use to mandate Burqas. If you want to help clean it up, then help clean it up. CorruptUser 00:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Burqas are still only worn by a minority of Muslim women. Headscarves are mandated, yes, but what exactly is worn is determined much more by culture and politics than religion (the hijab for instance has been worn by Muslim women as a deliberate "fuck you" to white feminism that robs Muslim women of agency and reduces them to passive victims.) And, again, the veiling of women predates Islam by a long time. In fact prior to the advent of Islam only the aristocracy wore veils. The veiling of women was thus seen as a move to promote social egalitarianism. Carthage (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like a load of apologism. "White Feminism robbing Muslim Women of agency"? Really? CorruptUser 15:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
If you ever bothered to read works of postcolonialist feminism you'd see that these are common criticisms of white feminism. We saw in Algeria that the plight of women was used to justify colonialism. (Case in point) An argument from incredulity is no argument at all. Carthage (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I don't understand people saying "fuck you!" to feminists, on general principles, especially using post-modernist cant.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not that hard to understand when you realize that they aren't, in fact, actually progressive. Remember the "regressive left"? CorruptUser 16:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I've remembered another amazing case of misrepresenting the Talmud: people who say Jews don't want non Jews to read it, and that any that do should get the death penalty. But it's taken from a wider elaboration in the Talmud that says a non Jew who studies it is actually like a Jewish high priest, i.e. an (I guess) honored person. From a search I've stumbled back across this page, which I believe I've read before. It's a compilation of some of these misrepresentations in a Q&A format, not comprehensive though. Chillpilled (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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

The first few lines of her book clarify exactly who she's calling out as a white feminist: ". . . someone who refuses to consider the role that whiteness and the racial privilege attached to it have played and continue to play in universalizing white feminist concerns, agendas, and beliefs as being those of all feminism and all feminists." This is about a set of entrenched assumptions and behaviors rather than racial identity. Although, of course, this kind of feminism is advanced mostly by white women. [9]

What exactly is objectionable "or regressive" about this? The interests of rich white women are the not the interests of poor black women. Smearing it as "regressive" suggests to me you have no clue what you're talking about and are just lobbing out snarl words with ideas you dislike or disagree with. Carthage (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There's Muslim women choosing to wear the headscarf for personal reasons, and Muslim women "choosing" to wear the headscarf because they live in a society that will shun you for not conforming to patriarchal views, and in extreme cases will murder you if you don't wear it. While it's true that there's a lot of claims of Western notions of "Human Rights" being used to elide an anti-Islamic agenda, there's a lot more misogynist, racial/religious-supremacist, and other bigoted agendas being disguised as merely a form of Cultural Relativism. CorruptUser 17:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I have to confess to having an anti-fundamentalist agenda. Annotations of these key holy books can actually serve both to criticize fundamentalists within the religion and to uplift more-progressive interpretations that in my view are often "more accurate" interpretations, although personally I don't believe in a god, so the whole cornerstone is a bit absent for me... but from a kind of "legalistic" perspective I can still figure what the internally-consistent positions are. By the way, regarding the Talmud in specific, it's most immediately relevant to Haredim, which I guess you can say are fundamentalist Jews. There is a principle in Haredi/Orthodox interpretation of the religious law, that overbroad interpretation is actually desirable because it helps avoid accidentally breaking God's laws where they are somewhat ambiguous. This can lead to some fairly egregious outcomes. Masorti and especially more reform-minded Jews don't have this problem, and by my judgement the Masorti have got things the most correct. Chillpilled (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

EMP Weapons and Survivalism[edit]

There's a lot of fog online involving EMP weapons being used and prepping for the disaster involved, often exaggerated from either conspiratorial preppers who abhor the power grid, or the brainless and uncritically-thinking vatniks/wumaos/dictator shills who loathe the US and the West. What else to say about it? (Though to be fair, there's always the fear of tit-for-tat EMP attacks, which discourages their use.) TheEternalOutsider (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The weirdest thing, in my opinion, are the preppers living in the areas furthest away from the coasts and strategic targets. Like, China knows they won't get a missile into California, so what they're gonna do is target this 2 acre stretch of land over southwest Arkansas with an empty force emp missile, and buddy, that was the last mistake they ever made because I got 60 gallons of stale diesel and a 30 year old generator that I know how to grease up. Off. Tha. Grid. Torrent (talk)
As far as I'm aware, at the present, the only effective "EMP weapon" actually ever deployed was, well, a nuclear bomb. So any worries about "EMP" and any worries about nuclear weapons are equivalent.
I'm not aware of any non-nuclear EMP weapons (NNEMP) actually being used in a combat situation at this time, and the Google seemed to indicate that this is the case. Though of course there are theories and various developments on how to create such, because humans are absolutely great at dreaming up novel ways to fuck each other up. However, it seems like without the nuclear explosion, it is a lot tougher to generate the sheer energy for a non-nuclear EMP to be a very effective weapon.
At the moment, in modern warfare, when it comes to NNEMPs, there are probably far worse things to worry about.
As far as "survival" goes, I don't think a single nuclear EMP can even compare to what the sun can throw at us. (Carrington EventWikipedia, March 1989 geomagnetic stormWikipedia) Humans made it fine overall through those previous solar events. BobJohnson (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
However, we don't know how bad the likes of the Carrington Event would be if it happened today. Even the more recent example of Quebec '89 is a technological generation ago; the advanced world is now on the cusp of being critically dependent on cloud/digitalised/eletronica for our systems and without the more EMP-resistant analogue/physical systems as backups. And to quote that happy film Threads; 'In an urban society, everything connects. Each person's needs are fed by the skills of many others. Our lives are woven together in a fabric. But the connections that make society strong also make it vulnerable.'
While such an event won't destroy civilisation [at least I don't think so], it is quite possible that it could snip enough of those threads to put our society out of gear worse than the pandemic did. Banking, stock control systems, governmental functions, transport, perhaps even our electrical supplies may fail - the loss of the internet will be the most serious. Humanity will clearly survive this, however not all humans would, many who did would have clearly have gone through some serious rough patches and society would need some time to get back on the feet. Which is why such a scenario is listed under 'plausable' on RW's survivalism page. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I think even in some of the more catastrophic scenarios there's simply too many people to make complete extinction a real possibility in the foreseeable future. Eight billion people alone grants our species a kind of redundancy few others possess. Carthage (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
There's still significant amounts of human civilization with little dependency on electricity even now - I don't think solar flare events have been documented as being unhealthy to humans on their own. (Nuclear bombs, of course, are a different story.) The real humdingers for human civilization survival are things that could cause significant long term climate change that makes the planet almost *completely* hostile to life over a long period... things such as giant meteors and super-volcanoes and whatnot. Solar flares don't seem like a likely candidate on their own for a massive extinction event (although, granted, our knowledge of past solar flare activity is "spottier" than other events. I suppose a solar storm that is *way* more powerful than Carrington is plausible...)
However, yes, if the electrical system was disrupted for *months* on a massive scale, issues could occur. That being said, I tend to think of the issue as more like a natural disaster (eg a strong hurricane, tornado, or earthquake), where the scale of a solar storm disaster is probably much larger, but the damaged infrastructure is largely limited to the electric grid. My understanding from articles [10] is that the primary concern of massive solar storms (at least of the size of Carrington or less) is potential damage to grid transformers. Contrary to the doomsday scenarios, it actually is likely that a *lot* of electronics will remain a-okay (unless they are hit from a surge on the grid), there will just be no way to power them without using alternatives to grid power. So, basically, businesses could prepare like they do now for other grid disasters -- with generators and other means of alternate power production, as well as data redundancy etc.
I'm sure though that the potential for political turmoil with EMP events is there -- we saw enough of that with the COVID-19 pandemic, and compared to some pandemics that have hit human populations, that was a "nothingburger" in some ways. BobJohnson (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I can't remember the name of it but a few years ago I watched one of those crap disaster b-movies where a super massive solar flare somehow caused tidal waves and earthquakes to almost destroy the world but was stopped by a scientist using a particle accelerator or something. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
A knocking out of the grid wouldn't end humanity, yes, nor would it likely end "civilization" in totality. What it would do is cause a massive societal disruption. If you dispute that, consider the effects that losing power would have not only on those reliant on medical devices that require electricity just to live, but also the effects such a massive power outage would have regarding protection from nature? It would be a catastrophe all on its own. You could argue that we already went through something similar with the pandemic, which is true, but people in the pandemic still had protection from the elements usually (notwithstanding those without access to power including the homeless or prisoners). The fact that such catastrophes can become normalized doesn't make them any less catastrophic. Carthage (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict). I just remembered the name: Oceans Rising https: imdb link-follow if you dare. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Which is what I think is the greater risk; not 'the Event' itself, but the reaction to it afterwards. The cumulative mental/societal damage and trauma causing fragmentation and finally atomisation; collapse in ruling class legitimacy; incompetence and/or incapability of the state to organise the recovery; inability of the ruling class to draw up a credible long-term plan and so on.
BobJ's scenario implicitly relies on all the above 'going their way'; that external assistance is available, key communications and organisational abilities remain intact within the damaged area, the leadership is somewhat competent and the local population both trusts them and is ready/able to pitch in. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the idea of new Carrington event is a little misinterpreted. The cloud is a bunch of redundant servers all over the world. You can't just hold one server captive. Which, by the way, is why it's also vulnerable. You can take all the info in the world if you can get into one local. Hence the celeb nude leak. Torrent (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this comes under 'answering the wrong question'. The EMP threat isn't directly at the data centres etc, it's about the supporting infrastructure - mainly, electricity. Without mains electricity, it's onto backup generators which won't hold out long. If they manage to route enough juice to keep them running, there's then the issue that 'the Event' may have knocked out enough of the connections to severely inhibit total bandwidth and/or local connections. Lastly, the networks themselves may remain technically active but almost all end users are unable to access it [most likely, lack of energy again]. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
so what would an EMP actually fry? It's a distance and target issue. The practical range is 2 to 5 miles which sounds huge, unless you have ever walked 2 miles. A barrage would not go under the radar, I just don't see it as a modern large scale tactic. Torrent (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2023
welp, my link that I found from Google just put me on a watch list, my bad. Torrent (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
look, you can get there via here. It just sounds like a very difficult and pointless method. Everybody freaked out when Colonial Pipeline got ransomwared.. Is the redundancy efficient? No. Is it there in the US? You better believe nobody gonna close our gas stations. Torrent (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The short answer is we do not know exactly what would happen as it's never happened before in a manner we could record. That like nuclear war, we can only extrapolate from fragmentary evidence and lots of guestimates meaning the result of asking a specialist 'what would it be like' will always start with them saying 'It depends...' and rattling off at least a dozen major varibles. If you think that even the world's leading expert in this can give you an exact answer, then you are a fool.
You are also deliberately minimising things. I am not talking about the level of 'oh, one pipeline went down for a week'. Nor am I talking about a situation where the myriad of computerised systems were in effect turned off [rather than damaged or lose power for some period of time]. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
that's okay, that's fine. I am simply saying an intentional emp event won't be the cause. What would be the cause of your whole grid killing concern? Didn't some people die in Texas a couple years ago because things got too cold for their electricity to run? Torrent (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I didn't suggest it would be a human-caused event. I was thinking along the lines of the Carrington event, which you've already mentioned. The Texas example was a foretaste of the possible severity of electrical loss can be; people forget [for example] that almost all newish gas/oil heating systems need electricity to run and almost all fuel stations need juice to pump it from the tanks to your vehicle. I remember when there was a power cut for a day; all but one of the shops in my locality were shut because they couldn't access their electrical till systems so they could actually do transations. Mobile phone signals also became very erratic because most of the local masts were also down [and didn't have backup]. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
so you might be talking about a rolling blackout. I too, have had a Couple days where all power was down. I thought for sure I'd take my camping experience and not worry about it. It took over 48 hours, I got a car and I don't cook breakfast on a fire, I don't live in the woods. Torrent (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
In this case it wasn't - a couple of local transformers failed, hitting about 75% part of town [which highlighted how the network had 'evolved' over the decades; one quarter of town was fine, but a few villages 10-15 mile out were hit]. But your above issues allows me to extrapolate; imagine if the effected area could not get in extra engineers in to make the repairs, could not get any extra spares etc in to make the repairs and enough communications have been knocked out that organising relief above the 'township' level was impossible for at least the time being? Oh, imagine all that and a Katrina-style 'mismanagement' of the response efforts. In January. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
well that's a different argument. One we don't seem to disagree on, but I think the terms have changed. Torrent (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Individual faiths or lack thereof[edit]

I am curious as to what creeds (or none) we fine folk here at RW follow. I am personally an agnostic atheist, although I am not an antitheist. I find religion to be quite interesting a subject and am more or less ambivalent to its existence. I don't see it as this great evil to be opposed but it's not the bringer of salvation its adherents claim it to be either. As for spiritual satisfaction I have yet to find a creed that is spiritually satisfying, although that wouldn't change my stance on the (non)existence of divinity. What about you folks? Carthage (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on the fact that few (or no) people seem to have a coherent or consistent definition of "God" or "Gods" I currently lean towards igthiesm - AKA (or very close to) Ignosticism or theological noncognitivism. (I equally have no idea what "spiritual satisfaction" might be.) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
There was a survey of RW users back in 2017 that included religion. You can find the results here: Forum:2017 Community Survey Results. Bongolian (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't really give you a straight answer. One constant is that, since childhood, I have rejected the Abrahamic faiths as being self-evidently moronic. I only have personal contempt for Christianity, but that is only because of excessive familiarity. When I'm feeling sad I read articles about the decline of church attendance and whatnot. The roman embrace of Christianity is one of the most disastrous decision any civilization has made. Thus, when in good company, I often identify as atheist. Much like early Christians were called atheists by their polytheistic detractors because they rejected the main religious tradition of their time, I identify as atheist because "theist" is de facto synonyms where I live with "Christian, or maybe occasionally Muslim/Jewish." When in mixed company I prefer labels like "apatheist" because I generally hate religious arguments.
On the other hand, my study of ancient history has made me very sympathetic to the older pagan religions an atheist would consider just as stupid. I also like some modern occult ideologies like Setianism or theosophy. (Self-deification is always fun) I can't call myself a neo-pagan or theistic Satanist though because I don't do anything..."comital," for lack of a better term. My attraction to these is 70% aesthetic but I can't ignore the remaining 30%.
Of course, you now probably see why I just call myself some simple label like "atheist" and be done with it, rather than waste their time with rambling like this. If you asked for my political views I would give a similarly muddled/useless answer so I guess this is just part of who I am.-Flandres (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I know that one would think that labels like "socialist" or "liberal" would give one a fairly good idea of what a person believes, but it's rarely so simple as that. I call myself a "socialist" but it'd probably be more accurate to call me an "anti-capitalist anti-authoritarian." I am actually neutral on the existence of markets (I am not a doctrinaire communist who wants to outlaw markets entirely). KP, for instance, once said that it's possible to have a socialist program using an orthodox economic program (KP cites the Soviet NEP). The economic plan of Dengist China was heavily influenced by the NEP, for instance. I view "socialist" as a convenient shorthand to use when in mixed company like the wiki, but because of the inherent vagueness of the label "socialist" I don't view it as particularly informative as to what my actual politico-economic beliefs are. Carthage (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I think it's good to have another survey on RW's demographics now, to see how things have changed since 2017. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
My religious background is a little bit complicated but I'll give you the short of it. I was raised fundamentalist Christian with many Jewish customs (there are a number of religious movements like this, and I'd rather not specify further) but I am not Jewish according to halakha (in which mother must be Jewish). I set to convert to Judaism but stopped because I began to disbelieve in any god again (has happened three separate times). The TL;DR's TL;DR is that I was raised fundamentalist Christian and am now atheist — which was probably the most common editor's profile here at one point, if it isn't still. Chillpilled (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I am a Friend [Quaker] of the Britain Yearly Meeting and my view is being a non-theist Friend. That is a Friend who is agnostic, but believes in the inner Light. Euromec (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Atheist here.
As for "opinion of religion", it is mixed. I see most religions being a mixture of three primary components:
A) A legal component, which often tends to be a component of an authoritarian system. This was superseded by better forms of government a long time ago, but still lingers in too many places. Social progress has often been hindered by religion placing an argument from authority fallacy directly in its path.
B) A social component, often very "tribalistic". Has pluses and minuses in history; due to this, religion often fuels violent conflict and forms of oppression (racism, homophobia, etc.). Most of your nastiest "cult" phenomenons often have religious style frameworks attached to them, as well. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that humans don't need religion's help to be racist / homophobic / violent / etc., and for all the "tribal" minuses and *many* offenses thereof, there are cases where religion has advanced a more helpful, collective paradigm which may have tempered human's exploitative, violent id tendencies in some. You wish there were more of that...
C) A mystical component. The brain is something we don't completely understand. That being said, people "See God" when you flood the brain with known neurotransmitter analogues (whether from plant or from chemistry). Based on this, it's hard for me to see any mysticism component (the stuff not merely fantastical fiction, of which people don't need religion's help to create) as anything but the biochemical brain getting a wee bit weird, given what we know, personally. On the other hand, it tends to be this side that has led to some great works in the arts. (You don't need religion for great art, but I certainly will acknowledge that religion has fueled many masterworks.) BobJohnson (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm personally agnostic-leaning-deist, but I really have no problem with any religions in principle. I think both major branches of Islam are in dire need of a reform movement, but Islam itself is not a bad thing. Religions are interesting, and understanding them is critical to understanding the human world. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
As Nick Cave sang, "I don't believe in an interventionist God." And since he doesn't intervene, I really feel that it doesn't make any difference if he exists or not. Probably like a lot of other people here, I generally have no problem with other people having religions, apart from when they're used to justify and try to spread hatred or when they result in kids being taught pseudoscience at school. Spud (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I similarly don't believe in any central God who cares what people believe or communicates with people as a being. I think it's impossible for a person or personality as we know it, or anything even remotely like that, to be anything other than a very small and limited structure in relation to all which exists. I think that structure and limitation are inseparable. Something so unlimited as to be truly God-like would necessarily also be so loose in its structure, unbounded by time and space and much else, as to be outside the reach of relations with humans or even having it in itself to care about such (it would be too different). But I have trouble formalizing this and some other things to make a good logical case for it, instead of it remaining fuzzy and intuitive.
Beyond that, I'm not so sure. I had panentheist views for a time, then I began to doubt that there's any reason to believe that any particular universal consciousness exists. Otherwise, my argument for it over pandeism would be that it makes no sense for a creator prior to or outside the universe to become truly bound by the same structure and limitations as the universe, since those only exist in the universe as part of its fabric. Before and after is only inside, not outside, so how could a creator outside cease to be? (By contrast, a panentheist creator would exist simultaneously, unchangeably, and formlessly, and be like the sharp end of a spiky cone -- with before and after, cause and effect, only existing and spreading out beneath that uppermost point, the below it being the creation.)
I also used to explore esoteric teachings and some New Agey stuff. Then going through an inner turning point, I ended up believing less and less over time even as I experienced more strange things inwardly. To me, moving into what is "spiritual" later seemed to require placing one foot across a threshold by believing whatever, then moving the other one across by giving up belief altogether. I think the esoteric idea of the sense and need for being inwardly "reborn" has a curious relation to all the teachings. The teachings all are filled with falsehood and built on faulty foundations (newer junk formed based on older junk), much like the personality or sometimes even soul is said to be false and in need of being remade, in the teachings. And so, something truer can only be formed through the destruction of the teachings. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
My theological position is perhaps closest to 'apathetic agnosticism'; that I generally no longer engage in such debates anymore because I believe they are totally irrelevant to our lives. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of any deity/ies to a level which would be convincing to a 'unbeliever', if they do exist they do not seem to overly care about 'intervening' in human affairs [so no point praying], it's viable to theorise that if they did exist once they may longer do so [which explains the previous; God does not respond because He is dead], there is no real evidence that these deities are remotely 'nice' [so we might not want them to intervene], if they are omnipotent they don't need us to worship them and lastly there is nothing we can do or say to change any of these. Theology is only useful to humanity now by understanding the socio-historical-ethical frameworks which our forefathers lived within, nothing more than less. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I grew up as a Unitarian. That is a church that makes no claims beyond the need for humanism. A person who rejects religious dogma as a matter of fact. What it means to be religious is quite complicated. Founders appear to be very different from believers. The Christian and Muslim narratives depend upon previous narratives. Recent archaeology suggests that the Old Testament history is a complete fabrication, e.g., the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt. I think that religion is a product of human nature, e.g., the tendency to look for explanations for all the questions that cannot be answered empirically. The explanations that we call religious have mythological narratives associated with them, or are derived from them such as Protestantism, derived from Catholicism. I think that this is a simple consequence of rationalism taken to the limit. The limit being that which one cannot explain. We regard those of us as wise who can extend the boundaries of understanding. The common man may well accept irrational extensions to his understanding. That is why he is common.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Used to be catholic, now IDK. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 17:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I think stopped believing in God when I found out that Santa Claus wasn't real, since I saw him as the only evidence that God was real. I still tried to convince myself that God was real because I was too scared of death (and I'm still am). I only came out as an atheist years later, while reading about the God geneWikipedia when I was 14. I was a very sad, angry metalhead teen and I used to see every religious person (even my relatives) as stupid. Currently, I don't hate religion (wasting energy on hating something like this when you can hate Putin is idiotic). I just think it's very silly, even though I really hope I'm wrong and there is some form of afterlife. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I grew up pretty areligiously. My parents weren't followers of any particular religion, my mom just had a vague belief in a higher power. There was a children's book for bible stories in my house that I would briefly take a interest in as a young child, and very briefly again as a teenager. As a child I thought the stories were "fun" like the other stories I enjoyed, but as a teeanger I took notice to how absolutely fucked up and unhinged the stories actually were. I took an interest in it though for OCD related reasons in a kind of act of emotional desperation that if there was a God maybe he can make my intrusive thoughts stop, but that was very short lived. I don't know why, I just did not have the motivation or energy to sustain a general belief in God. I had next to no religious experiences really; I never been to church, or established a sense of community around a shared spiritual belief. There has been no tie between any spiritual belief and how I view myself as a person. To detach myself from any particular religious or spiritual belief has been exceptionally easy for me. Now I am at a stance that I just don't think its knowable one way or another if some higher power exists or not, but it were to exist I think it cannot be something that is omnipotent or omnibenevolent due to my strict adherence to the law of non-contradiction.One conception of God is spinoza's conception of God, and that I can vibe with. But in that sense God = the entire natural world and the laws that govern it. Which would mean the only way to understand God is through natural science. There are deterministic problems related to Spinoza's metaphysics that don't vibe well with quantum mechanics. Einstein himself was a spinozist and I think you can see this in statements like "God does not roll die with the universe". The man was uncomfy with the idea of inherent indeterminism in nature. That is probably where I would break with Spinoza. "God" does play die...with subatomic particles. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I did not grow up in church. One of my Grandpa's funerals was a really quiet hot September day. The story goes, Grampy had cancer, he was over 80. I talked to him to on the phone on his 80th birthday, and he said something along the lines of Newspapers always talking about people over 80 and I really didn't understand so I said 'it's a sign of respect, I think, that you lived that long?'. He told me 'It's just what happens.' later, I visited during the Michael Brown stuff, my dad and uncle were both talking about how it was a shame, but rioting wasn't going to help, and I was sitting close to Grampy. He said, quietly, "people don't riot for no reason". I heard from a cousin he had a conversation in the hospital with a chaplain. Ww2 vet couldn't be too confused. Chaplain asked Grampy what he was in for, answered 'Terminal cancer.' then when asked if he wanted to pray, responded 'dunno what good that would do' Kinda rough for my cousin to learn first. When he passed, my mom called me. Told me that in his last moments, his kids around him, he said 'Don't worry, [my mom, his daughter] knows what to do, just listen to her' I asked 'what does that mean,' and my mom and I laughed crying because she said she had no idea, they had never talked about it. It was a small service, nothing religious in it but very quiet and personal. Now to Papa's death and funeral. Papa was a man who always had big warm hugs. Nana and Papa always got it and respected it, I mean 'it' just anything. (Aside, one year I had got a portable cd player for Christmas and an Offspring CD, i was in a corner rocking out, Nana asked if she could listen and spent a whole 45 seconds before giving it back and saying she really liked it.) Papa died in the same fashion, body riddled with cancer, just a little later. I visited on the last Thanksgiving. Aunt had been smuggling THC gummies from Colorado just to settle his stomach. He had a little bit of everything but I don't think it was easy for him. He died shortly after, also surrounded by his children but kinda out of his mind on convalescent drugs. Said some things not worth repeating probably remembering his time in the rural midwest, seeing some livestock slaughter. Went for his funeral, I was kinda a crybaby as a kid, when my Nana asked me how I was, I said I was OK and asked her how she was. She said "Oh, [my name] I'm sad" and grabbed me and cried in a way I didn't think grandmas were allowed to cry. I gave her my best Papa hug. The funeral was held at a Unitarian church and it was lucky I was family, because the place was standing room only. I had no idea I had Unitarian roots before that day. To answer the question, I still believe we're all gonna be just dirt in the ground. I don't think there's something upstairs with a plan or a welcome mat. I do believe our actions and words hold meaning regardless. Torrent (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I found a loophole[edit]

The 19th Amendment only says you can't be refused the right to vote based on SEX, not GENDER. Therefore, it is technically constitutional to refuse women the right to vote based on GENDER. I don't want this.The Krusty Krab (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Julia Serano disagreed. Chillpilled (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Assuming you subscribe to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.The Krusty Krab (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Nah, even sexual orientation and gender identity, much less gender, are covered by sex protections. The reasoning is a little complicated to explain. If you read about the Bostock v. Clayton County case a little you may start to get an idea. By the way the Serano comment was just alluding to the fact she argues there's no meaningful sex/gender distinction because gender identity is just "subconscious sex". Chillpilled (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Neil Gorsuch summarized it like this: "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex." The connection between sex and gender in this way would be even more obvious. That was an employment case, but it can be generalized to a lot of other things (without question, voting is one of those things). Chillpilled (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The term sex is a biological definition these days, referring to the reproductive organs and chromosomal aspects. "Gender" more refers to the social construct. But "sex" and "gender" are equivalent for the vast majority. For those that aren't (eg transgender), as Chillpilled alluded to, generally speaking the courts have ruled that gender-based discrimination and sex-based discrimination are equivalent in law. If someone tries to pull that "technical literal shit" off with the 19th Amendment, I doubt it would make it through the courts that far. Especially with something like women's suffrage, which seems to be reasonably popular and accepted in society. (At least popular enough where I see no polls on it, and the only people I can think who have advanced positions against women suffrage are cranks from "sausage party" groups like libertarians (eg Peter Thiel) or manosphere / incel misogynists; uber-religious cranks; and trolls that feed on these cranks as a career (eg Ann Coulter). BobJohnson (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I think there have been cases successfully argued on the basis that something was race-based voting discrimination because, even if it didn't directly target people by race, it targeted things that could be used as a proxy for race (like income). I don't remember the specific cases. But this same kind of logic might be used to argue: in 99.5% (or whatever) of cases, the gender and sex align. This is a separate argument to what I was talking about but could be used as a fallback argument even if these two were strictly separate. Chillpilled (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
You mean the Poll Tax, with the Grandfather Clause. Basically, you had to pay something like $20 to vote; minimal, but enough that poor people would be discouraged. But... if your Granddad could vote, you could vote. Meaning poor White people still got to vote. More sinister were the Literacy tests, which would ask questions in the vein of "how do you spell weather/weather" and whichever spelling the Black person used was the wrong one. CorruptUser 21:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Abolishing the poll tax was by then essentially symbolic, since the few states that still had it were were charging a token amount. Still a good thing to get rid of. Literacy tests were ridiculous, actual college professors could be deemed illiterate because someone said so, banning that was definitely the more important move. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
You can't make big decisions on small technicalities like, "Ah ha! 'Race' could be interepreted as a competitive race, so all civil rights legislation should go into the can!". I'm no legal guy, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. A plaintiff would have to show why it not only violates the constitution, but how their or other people's other constitutional rights are harmed by this state of affairs which would be hard enough to prove. Not only that, you'd have to come up with a reason they can't vote that couldn't just as easily apply to others and would have to be unique to trans people. A bigot would probably go the mental illness route to say they aren't of the "right mind" to vote due to being "confused about their gender", but then the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff to show why trans people are not legally "competent" which would be a losing battle. And that's not even covering what others have mentioned here. Bottomline: Even those moron ideologues in The Supreme Court wouldn't touch this. The trend has been to expand those who are allowed to vote (like prisoners and felons) for a reason since it's easier to prove your constitutional rights are violated when you can't vote vs. when others can vote. Plus when you start introducing restrictions on who can vote, you'll find these things turned against you along with endless lawsuits that'd eventually just culminate in the decision being thrown out.-Ryan1257 (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
"Gender" as a word for Male/Female didn't exist until the 1950s, so there's no precedent for restricting rights based on this. Furthermore, the 9th amendment means you can't use the constitution to exclude rights simply because they aren't in the constitution, so an easy case can be made that gender not being in the constitution does not grant government the right to deny rights based on it. CorruptUser 19:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

National Bolshevism: The interesting political anomaly the describes Russia (in my opinion)[edit]

With the Russian government, there is obviously a strong far right influence. There is also some left wing influence. Putin's politics seem to be consolidating money and power while selling a narrative of restoring the Soviet Union to those who long for the return of the Soviet era. When the Ukrainian oblasts Donetsk and Luhansk were operating as puppet breakaway states, there was some left wing ideals much like the Soviet Union and each has its own Communist Party. Now the unrecognized breakaway puppet state of Transnistria fits the bill in my view.

National Bolshevism is essentially a weird mix between left wing Bolshevism and ultranationalist ideals with some racism tied in for good measure. Would Russia be classified as National Bolshevism? --02:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Rationalzombie94 / talk / contribs

Russia is a plutocratic hellhole that actively crushes any leftist movements there that aren't constantly throating Putin. Putin's economic policy is also definitely rightist. A Russian friend of mine once described Putin as a "cynical neoliberal autocrat." So Putin definitely has some left-wing supporters, but overall the far-right is much more prominent there. Any leftist supporter of Putin is regarded as at best a useful idiot. Carthage (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I believe kleptocracy is the adjective you are looking for - left- or right- wing "policies" are useful only insofar as they maintain the kleptocrats and keep the muzhiks servile. TBH teh main political problem Ukraine is facing is how to evolve out of this same hell hole, as witnessed by continuing issues with corruption. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Didn't Putin wreck elderly people's pensions a few years ago? I don't think austerity is economically left. Chillpilled (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Putin is a leftist by any means, but Russia's retirement age is, if I remember correctly, the lowest in Europe (much lower than in the Nordic countries), and also lower than "communist" countries like China and Cuba. Of course, Russia, has an extremely low life expectancy, but pension reforms are often explained by actuarial issues, not simply by political opinions. Putin also created a national championsWikipedia policy that I would hardly call neoliberal. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Just sounds like an extension of Soviet type cronyism. Except with smaller businesses also allowed to exist. Remember the term "reprivatization" was frequently used to describe many of Nazi Germany's economic policies. It doesn't have to be neoliberal to not be leftist. Chillpilled (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I don't think that his economic policies are leftist either. As I said, I don't think that Putin is a leftist by any means. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I missed that the first time. Chillpilled (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

With Putin, as I said, his politics are money and power. To me, he sells National Bolshevism to the general public. It has the ultranationalist ideals many Russians have and it gives Soviet nostalgia the people want. It is an easy form of authoritarianism to sell to far right and far left. --Trans Fem Agenda 00:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chillpilled I explicitly said that Putin's economic policies were "rightist," not "leftist." Carthage (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Was agreeing, yes. Chillpilled (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Ah. Mea culpa, then. Also, @Rationalzombie94 and @Chillpilled, a Red Putinist was cited in a US governmental release: [11]. Yasinsky supports the Ukraine war because, to quote my Russian friend, "it has become the non-subject weapon of transnational corporations and their representative which is the US government." It is interesting then that Yasinsky would be cited by an American release. Carthage (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The worst warmongers in Russia the past couple years seem to have been Zyuganov's CPRU and the people who manage to be to the right of United Russia (like Prigozhin and Wagner). Basically they seem to be trying to out-warmonger Putin whether out of personal/political interest or true belief. This is surprisingly not even the worst tactic since there appear to be a lot of people there who literally think Putin is "too soft on the West". Chillpilled (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

New articles[edit]

Does anyone remember the new articles that have been created recently (as in, given the wiki's relatively slow pace of article creation, last several months)? I particularly enjoyed the featuring of new articles we did on our Mastodon page, but that hasn't been featured since July's additions. I know of my article, obviously, the one on Jack Idema. There's Pinkerite's contributions: Razib Khan, E. O. Wilson, Charles Murray, and the Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence. Plutocow has added articles on Chordata and Harvey Weinstein. Blakegrippling added the articles for TVJ, the Sound of Freedom, and Barbie. There's OSD's article on Robert Nozick (draft predates August, the cut-off I'm using, but it was published after the cut-off mark IIRC).

There's the articles on lesbianism, John Bolton (which I proudly contributed to), and transvestigation (I don't exactly remember when that one was added, but I think it was after August) that Chillpilled added. There's the article on Calvin Coolidge (I don't remember who wrote that one). There's the article on the Whiskey Rebellion (I added some stuff but I don't remember the name of the person who wrote it). Apooftgnegiol added the article on the conjunction fallacy. I know that Reich added the article on Alexander Finnegan. Umaru wrote the articles on United States war crimes in the Korean War, Shin Ki-wook, and Brian Reynolds Myers. Tikitime wrote the articles on the Scottish Family Party. Does anyone remember anything else that's been added since August? Carthage (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It's funny you post this because I'm thinking I'm about to start writing on one of these anti-trans groups: Genspect (has an entry for an article request), Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), or Do No Harm. I think I'd best start with SEGM because they're on face the least-obviously ideologically-motivated despite the fact that they very much are. Writing these pages should be a building block for some future additions to the transgender and gender transition articles I was planning, because these are some of the groups that go the more formalized routes in casting doubt on trans medicine. So examining why they're not these uncontroversial groups of "concerned doctors who just don't want to be doing harm" is probably good for me to be doing as prequel to that. At least one them is even funded by some right wing billionaire (can't remember which but I think it's DNH). Chillpilled (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I've been thinking of writing an article on Melville Dewey (inventor of the Dewey decimal system who was so egregious a sexual harasser he got cancelled in nineteen-oh-fucking-six) and a logical fallacy I call the "appeal to trauma." I just have to muster the will to actually write them. Carthage (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The transvestigation page is actually a full year old, which surprised me. I thought I made it this April or so. Starting a draft is a good way to get the writing going even if it's just one line. Chillpilled (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I just started the "appeal to trauma" draft. Carthage (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I know that Hillsdale College was created in early August (since I added some stuff to it), and Mike Johnson is also pretty recent (ditto). The move log is helpful. Based on this log, using when an article went from draft to mainspace from August to now, you also can add Jackson Hinkle, Humorous mathematics, Kyrsten Sinema, Andrew Anglin, Caleb Maupin, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bentzi Gopstein, Aristophanes, Dmitry Utkin, Arab, Trumpism, Putinism, and Stolzmonat. BobJohnson (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
There's the little issue that at times a page will get a rebuild [effectively a new article] but won't count as one unless the maker actively deletes the previous one first. I've got a butt-load of 'to do' articles [including 2017 and 2019 UK General elections, Carl Beech aka 'Nick' and the Eng-Wales Green Party] but I've been dealing with the clusterfuck which is moving house since July and thus, very limited bandwidth at present. Personally, I would argue that when dealing with American-centric articles at least, what is needed is more 'updates' and 'expansion' of existing articles, not more new drafts and stubs. But I get that this is waaay less fun. Oh, and I suppose my final GE page (UK General Election, 2015) might count as too old in your cut-off date. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm also working on a draft about /pol/. I also made the ogism article that got moved to the essayspace due to being too obscure however the essay is one of the first things you would find when you search ogism up ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
If we're counting drafts, there's GJK's draft on market failures. OSD has a draft on Angela Davis too. I also added some stuff to the Putinism and especially the Trumpism articles. Carthage (talk)
If we want to be a little less anal about the cut-off date, Tikitime's article on the Nayirah testimony was published on July 30th IIRC. The article on centrism was also made independent of the article on the political spectrum. Carthage (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm probably going to end up rewriting substantial parts of your /pol/ article one day, as a subject I'm uniquely familiar with (generally, if it's an imageboard, I'm likely to be more familiar than many editors). Though, I think it could've stayed a section in the 4chan page. That board used to be a bigger nuisance (I remember the ~2016 threads where they legitimately were running social media ops — like targeting Facebook pages linked to battleground states such as Pennsylvania for spreading pro-Trump talking points — that helped get Trump elected; I believe r/The_Donald was even set up by /pol/ users which is a fact that seems to have been lost to time), but it's mostly just idiotic shitposting now. The people worth addressing there have moved to other platforms years ago for the most part. A lot of them moved to Twitter, actually, even before the Musk acquisition. Some are running in Nick Fuentes's circles now, who have been trying to break ground by infiltrating the institutions of the Republican Party. Chillpilled (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Carthage, I'm the one running the (unofficial) Mastodon account. I stopped listing the new articles there because it's a bit of work, and didn't seem to attract much attention. The method that I used for generating those posts was first manually going through the Special:NewPages list for Mainspace and looking for recent pages that hand not been moved to Draftspace, then going through the same page but changing the Namespace to Draft, then looking for pages that had been moved to Mainspace. Bongolian (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. I actually follow you on Mastodon. I've used some of the articles you've boosted to contribute to mainspace (pretty sure you were the one who boosted the source I used to edit our article on education with). I've also started the draft on Melville Dewey. Carthage (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding to WIGO and seeing a link there to The Daily Wire reminds me. Somebody ought to take the plunge and pull that out of draftspace. I think it's been sitting there for months despite there being a redirect to it. Or, is the Daily Wire really all that independently notable from Ben Shapiro? It's basically just his personal media company... but it does also serve as an umbrella for several notable pundits. And it is now also becoming a kind of conservative film company alongside what it already was. So maybe. Chillpilled (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Melvil Dewey[edit]

I just published the Melvil Dewey article if anyone of you wants to check it out and/or improve it in anyway. Carthage (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is it that movies get good competent Presidents but in real life we almost always end up with lemons?[edit]

https://youtu.be/9t1IK_9apWs?si=vPmFR-RwJDZw_vIN

Movie Presidents give epic speeches that unite people from all walks of life. The movie Independence Day has probably the most epic presidential speech in film history. --Trans Fem Agenda 00:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It's because American politics has become shitified of late, a consequence of Newt Gingrich's damn-the-torpedoes approach that culminated in Donald Trump. It's hard to have speeches of unity when your paradigm is "everyone that doesn't think like me is the enemy".
Still, regardless of what one thinks of their policies, I consider Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan very good orators within my lifetime. Bill Clinton also has some charms, though not quite up to the same level. Even the two Bushes and Biden are decent enough, IMHO; they'll never be known as top tier orator presidents, but compared to Trump, they are FDR level. (Trump's appeal certainly is in other characteristics aside from his clumsy, often inarticulate oration, of which there is no need to elaborate on here.) BobJohnson (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Let us not forget President Camacho in Idiocracy. Bongolian (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Camacho 2024: "Make America Stupid Again." I can get behind that. Carthage (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the simple facts is this - oratory has become both more harder to do and is no longer that necessary.
First, the power of oratory relies on tapping into the common pop-culture touchstones of the audience; to be able to 'speak their language', to use allegories, idioms and definitions that the audience gets so the listener feels the person is speaking directly to them, to their mind and soul in a manner they understand. Yet this relies on a 'shared refrence pool', and the truth is that this has shrunk hugely since say, 1900. Few if any now know Shakespeare, the Greek/Roman classics or the traditional folk/fairy tales. Even the 'lesser' replacement by vulgar pop-culture [such as line-drawn Disney films, Simpsons episodes or Beatles lyrics] is rapidly ageing due to the breakup of the monolithic media since ~2005 which means the assumed 'general cuture' is shrinking [as people now consume what they want, not what is available]. This means a wannabe orator now has a lot less material to play with - these days, most Americans won't even get Bible quotes or allegories unless they're one of the most famous ones.
The other aspect is the fact oratory is no longer that powerful a force. 'Classical' oratory was acting as well as speaking; the proverbial pulpit and soapbox, the live public meeting with hecklers and no microphone. That is different to the 'radio charisma' that arose in the 20s which has it's own unique setup; as most radios are in private homes you couldn't rely on the ur-feelings of the crowd to sweep people up in emotion but encourages a level of intimacy with the listener - perfectly shown by FDR's 'Fireside Chats'. Television introduced new aspects - they had to again consider their visuals, as shown by Nixon's poor showing in the 1960 TV debate vs Kennedy. The advent of the soundbite in the late 70s was the biggest wound to the art of oratory; with a very few exceptions speeches shall be hacked into a short précis which means the speaker shall try to get a few witty succinct phrases within the bulk which shall be covered later by the news [I cite Reagan as a very good early example of this].
However, in the era of social media and political tribalism actual oratical skill doesn't bring much to the table and each medium requires different talents. So it's simply no longer seen as worth developing. This is why speakers like Obama appear more skilled than they objectively are; they are 'making flivvers out of the absolute minimum of steel, [creating] works of art out of practically nothing but pure sensation.' He had no choice; 'steel' is incredibly short and sensation is all that's left. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Movie presidents are better because they are not actually real.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I support the least-bad solution, the two-state solution. Israel has a right to exist and to self-defense. It's been argued that Israel's current military strategy is the Dahiya doctrine,Wikipedia though unstated as such, and is very likely a war crime.[12] The Dahiya doctrine was tactically effective, crushing Hezbollah in Beirut during the 2006 war, but strategically bad for Israel, where Hezbollah now has a huge weapons cache just north of Israel's border with Lebanon.
Bibi is corrupt and now likely a war criminal, and should be ousted from power as soon as possible. Benny Gantz is perhaps his likely successor but politically not very different. Gantz at least is more likely to seek a political solution at some point to end the war, rather than a personal decision like Bibi to not end the war and keep his ass out of prison.
Yes, anti-semitism can be tied up with anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli rhetoric: witness the rise in hate crimes against Jews and Muslims who do not live in the Levant,[13] and Russia fueling antisemitism in France.[14] Bongolian (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Think you replied to the wrong topic, old barstool. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Quranism[edit]

New article on Quranism just dropped. Not exactly bronze, but it's complete enough for mainspace. Carthage (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The Road to Elections for 2024[edit]

I may be a couple days late on this topic, but at the time of posting, there's definitely less than a year until the 2024 elections in the United States of America. Any thoughts on how 2024 will play out in the end? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This topic can concern the presidential elections, any of the 435 representatives in the House, or the 33 Type 1 senator seats. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
There will also (very probably -12/14th of the number of months before it *has* to happen by) be the next UK General Election. Anna Livia (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
If the elections were tomorrow, between Trump and Biden, Trump would win.
Which is why I think the Democrats are considering quietly retiring Biden. Personally I think Elizabeth Warren would be the best choice; the only thing the Reps have on her is, what, that she's too White? She got her position because she was hounded by the financial institutions for daring to regulate them; something that will be EXTREMELY popular if/when another recession occurs. She's not young, but she doesn't come across as decrepit the way Biden does.
As for Republicans, unless the courts can bar Trump from running or he chokes on a Big Mac, he's getting the nom. It won't be Pence as the Veep, and DeSantis has pissed off Trump too much. Most likely Veep is Vivek Ramen-Salami, but it could be anyone. Except Pence and DeSantis. CorruptUser 14:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
A week in politics is a long time. The only certainty of the 2024 election is there will be 16 billion articles by pundits aching and whining and generally being wrong.
The polling is going to be whack at the moment. I mean, the totally cuckoo Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is getting some good poll numbers right now. Barring something unexpected, it's an election of two old farts that nobody seems to like (MAGA cult excluded), but no one can seem to come up with alternatives for, for various reasons. It is possible for one of these old farts (Trump) to be in jail during the election; at minimum, Trump is going to be knee deep in lawsuits, to who knows what effect.
Adding to the polling wackiness, based on a string of elections since Roe v Wade got KOed (yesterday included), I do think there is an "abortion rights" "bump" that the pollsters haven't quite figured out yet. BobJohnson (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
It isn't looking good for my party. I don't think republicans are gonna win this one. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 15:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay, since we are a year away my prediction won't mean much and it will be pretty vague. While I would not discount a Trump victory outright I think Biden has the advantage. Before anyone brings up his flaws-and the Biden administration has many, many, flaws-2022 proved the democrats being unpopular, even incompetent, only hurts them so much when they are up against MAGA. There are certain voters who like things like federal abortion bans and then there is...everybody else.-Flandres (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Two things which strike me for the '24 rematch is this; that Trump appears to be incapable of extending his support past his current one and demographically all his bases are in decline - whites, Boomers, fundies, ruralites and the lowly educated. However, two things strike me the other way; the MAGA SCOTUS majority and the cleverer attempts at voter suppression in the runup. My prediction is this; if Trump wins [barring any Biden-damaging Black Swan] it shall be down to MAGA legalised cheating - so it could go either way.
I shall also point out all the signs point to the UK General Election is most likely to be around November too - so it shall be even busier. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Which administrations, from the past, had many fewer flaws than the current administration? Certainly not the last one, which stands as the most corrupt administration in history. Obama, perhaps? I don't know. Certainly not W. Clinton has many detractors, and father Bush disappointed many. It is no challenge to find fault with government. Comparing administrations makes Biden's shine, despite it's warts. There is no such thing as a perfect government. Biden has developed a number of sympathies with progressive agendas. It doesn't matter that Americans are complainers. Any administration would be unpopular in light of the incoherent ethe of today. Unless he drops dead, I expect Biden to beat Trump, who should by then be under confinement under a sentence of "from now on."Ariel31459 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Biden is a good candidate. He serves as a puppet in office and brings nothing to the table. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 17:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
He turned out better than I was expecting. However, as I had him pegged as 'last of the Third Way Mandarins' and 'the American Brezhnev' my bar was very low. My main worry is at 80, he simply will not have the physical and/or mental fortitude to both campaign and run the country. My nightmare scenario is that his health would suddenly, rather publicly 'give out' in the election itself and loses on the premise 'the White House is not your nursing home'. That said, I genuinely believe Old Joe came out of retirement because he felt he was the best-placed to defeat Trump and save American democracy [for now]. Therefore, I think if he felt another was as good, or better-placed to do it in '24 he'd step aside in good grace [though it's also possible he's got the senior 'young whippersnapper' mentality which leads to the conclusion that nobody under say 60 was remotely capable]. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I really don't get where this whole idea that he will/should "step aside" is coming from as being beneficial (barring repeated, severe medical issues that makes their unfitness plainly obvious). Can anyone name a president in recent memory who has stepped aside after one term who wasn't voted out? The reason there isn't an example is because a sitting president has the "incumbent advantage", so the prudent decision is to run again rather than risk primarying someone else.-Ryan1257 (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The last would realistically be LBJ in '68. Yes, he was unpopular due to Vietnam and ramming through Civil Rights legislation [causing the loss of the South which alone almost destroyed his chances of victory], but the fact his heart was clearly on the way out also coloured his vision - a correct move, as in '73 he was dead and that would have been earlier if the stresses of office had still been with him. However, this does not happen much for the simple reason the vast majority of credible Pres candidates consider themselves 'fit enough' to (re)run - perhaps even stronger now than say, in the days of FDR [or even Reagan's] as they need to ensure they don't appear 'confused'/'decrepit' on TV etc [Gerald Ford's slips/falls didn't help his public image]. But I think we can assume this; if Biden's 'condition' was a true question-mark, the Democratic smoke-filled room would have done their best to politely edge him out and start serious casting for the replacement [Newsom? Whitmer?] as Harris has hardly shone as VP. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I've honestly been a bit nonplussed that the barrage of the "Biden's too old" pundit musings hasn't been just confined to Republican propaganda media networks. Biden is 80, but goodness, Donald Trump is 77. Frankly, they're *both* too old -- typically, leadership roles in most democracies from what I recall are aged in their late 40s to early 60s. There is no "age" issue with Biden that I couldn't also say about Trump. Neither of them seem to have obvious ailments, but both are in the years where "sudden things happen". If anything, unlike Biden, Trump is teetering on the "obese" side of weight and seems to have "anger issues" up the ying-yang that one does not see in Biden that, given the frequency and reported voracity, might eventually affect the "ticker", so to speak. So if one had to guess where the sudden health issue would occur, Trump seems like a wee bit more likely of a candidate for such to me. BobJohnson (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I was going to mention that, though ran out of time to do so. Here's a link I read a little bit earlier; https://www.salon.com/2023/09/11/has-his-own-age-problem--and-it-terrifies-him/ KarmaPolice (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
So this is the US election where the Vice President Candidates may well be more important the Presidential ones - the reverse of these quotes. Anna Livia (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I suppose, if Trump manages to win, the character of the running mate will matter a lot even if Trump serves his full term. He'll probably want a hyper-partisan who is willing to interfere in the 2028 election. I know it seems weird to bring up 2028 now but when voting you have to consider the future.-Flandres (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
It is sadly predictable the 'qualities' Trump shall look for as VP. He will want the most sycophantic, obedient personage who acts like a mini-Me but who's star must be dimmer than his in every field. Now, Ramaswamy is clearly angling for this slot but I actually think Trump won't give it to him in the end; I simply do not believe the former really feels they need to kowtow to the aeging Orange Idol but the latter will not accept anything less. So I shall go with some utter nonentity so Trump can dickswing and do the whole 'I made you, I can break you' thing at them. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think that while Biden is demonstrably unpopular, there are still issues like the abortion ban and the increasing criminalization of queerness that will also affect the election that some pundits are not accounting for. I despise Biden, but I'm not willing to vote in someone who would take away my rights to my own body. Carthage (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

He found out[edit]

Original post here Well he found out about us and he's not happy. He thinks we are glowies and that google is run by the government. He also likes Jackson Hinkle which goes to show how insane he has gotten ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Is the usual space after your first parenthesis a sort of Freemason code as well?
I'd love to see anyone tell what part of the Hinkle article that was almost exclusively written by me, is a smear. I actually had too few opportunities to quote his exact words without the page looking too crammed with them. The guy is straightforwardly some mix of a shameless grifter, a pro-Russian stooge, and a crazy person.
RW:Pissed at us is a typical response to criticism, though I'm of a mind to represent people fairly to prevent more instances of it. It's just that some people don't like the fair description of them, they want a sterile one like what Wikipedia puts up — then they're not even happy with that, and will complain about Wikipedia being biased. Or even, *ahem*, hire editors to fluff it up for them... something Hinkle definitely would never do with his Wikipedia page (even though one of the main editors there is currently under partial block for spam advertising and promotion, this is of course coincidental).
The crux of it is often disagreement in what the facts are, not unfairness. Like I'm sure this guy believes the Israeli baby photo was AI-generated despite every piece of evidence to the contrary. Anything to not admit a Zionist (that is, Ben Shapiro in this instance) was right about something at some point in time, and that Hinkle was wrong. And Hinkle is wrong quite a lot. His whole modus operandi currently is wake up, post some seventy-dozen misinfo posts, reap his threebux, then retire to bed. Chillpilled (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
What the fuck is a glowie? Someone using a glow stick? Carthage (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I believe glowie is a term for something like a government plant/agent infiltrating an online space. The original term it is derived from is a bit less safe for work.-Flandres (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
"Glowie" is the preferred rendering by tankies these days, though the good old "you're CIA" will never wear out. Chillpilled (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Glowie (a term for a government agent) originated from rightwingers on Kiwifarms. I guess tankies adopted the word now too.-Ryan1257 (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
No, I am pretty certain it's from 4chan, who were typically fonder of the more racist variant but nevertheless created that variant as a spin-off. I think it gained popularity in tankie spaces most likely due to cross-pollination with /leftypol/ where there was less inclination to endorse the overt racism, but plenty to endorse the anti-CIA paranoia. In the strictest sense, it originates (though in a completely removed form) from Terry Davis, a schizophrenic programmer who created TempleOS and had a following on 4chan's /g/. Chillpilled (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

And the Nashville Manifesto has been released...[edit]

...by Steven Crowder of all people.

Long story short, the "tranifesto" as it is known in alt-right circles, is the manifesto of a Transgender mass murderer. The case became infamous because of the conspiracies around it; the media is alleged to have not given it sufficient coverage because of "narrative", that sort of bullshit. So without the manifesto released, the alt-right assumed that the shooting "must" be the result of the murderer being Trans. However, the manifesto instead showed that it was an anti-White hate crime. Which still feeds into alt-right conspiracies.

Several things come to mind. 1) How did Steven Crowder get a hold of the papers? 2) Did he release as soon as he got it, or was this timed for promotional BS? 3) Reddit is censoring it, which doesn't sit right with me 4) The major media outlets seem to be going after Crowder for this, which is downright terrifying; the media is supposed to be on the side of releasing info, and it's the government's burden to show, and I quote from the 1971 "Pentagon Papers" SCOTUS ruling, "sufficient evidence that the publication would have caused a 'grave and irreparable' danger."

So all in all, the whole thing stinks. CorruptUser 06:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Social media censoring shooter manifestos is nothing new; take the Christchurch shooter's manifesto for a great example. For the police's part, there was some prior agreement between some of the victims' families, the police and the school that the manifesto shouldn't be released for whatever reason(s). One possible reason is to rob the killer of any further voice, and to avoid imitation killings.
Initially I thought this leak was just completely fake since the source was merely Crowder. But I've seen a report from a local Fox station stating they had "a source" who indicated it's real. However, this other report tells me Crowder released pages only selectively (just three pages), if so, he selected them specifically to frame it as if it was a narrowly anti-white shooting.
A gripe I have with some of the local stations' reports is that they acknowledge the killer was trans then just call him "her, she, a woman", etc. despite being a trans man. Oh by the way, it was a little amusing seeing how carefully-worded the police statement on this was. They didn't say it was fake but they clearly wanted people to think it was. Chillpilled (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Generally, for similar (slightly different) reasons to the well known Don't Feed the Troll principle, I don't think you should publicize manifestos of mass murderers (who often I think are in part motivated by desires of infamy) unless absolutely necessary. It is no surprise, of course, that a professional attention-seeking troll like Steven Crowder would ignore this advise. BobJohnson (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
By that logic, should the public be informed if the person committed murder because they wanted to advance White Supremacy? As for the "don't feed the troll", well, I added quite a bit about that over here. My recommendation would of course to be to release NO manifestos, not just this one. When the government releases some manifestos but not others, that's basically handing conspiracy theorists a pile of cocaine and steroids. CorruptUser 16:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem to give basic information about the crime (including motivation), but manifestos tend to be self-aggrandizing nonsense, and I agree that none should be publicized. I actually wouldn't mind if the perpetrator's name was withheld and any media circus surrounding the individual (eg life, social media history, etc.) was tempered. Obviously anything of this sort would have to be a "voluntary media standard" so certainly the information would come out on some extremist social media somewhere (like a Steven Crowder!), but complete censorship isn't be the point here. The point would be to reduce any "infamy" as much as practically possible. BobJohnson (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I honestly think it should've been released from the start. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 17:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
if Crowder is the only mainstream source, it should be cautioned that the manifesto could be phony. Unless every other 24 hour news cycle forgot how controversial it would be.Torrent (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
And Crowder fans? This is like Arcade Fire around 2009. Who even listens to Steven Crowder anymore? If Tucker ain't selling it, it's too wacky. Y'all are plants. Torrent (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
There are mainstream sources claiming that Crowder has indeed released the manifesto, and they aren't claiming it's fake. I mean, it COULD still be fake, but probably not. CorruptUser 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
best coverage so far are we illiterate?Torrent (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)