RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive449

This is an archive page, last updated 3 February 2024. 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>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

What are your favourite stopped clock moments?

Hey guys. I love reading about stopped clock moments. What are some of your favourites over the years? Should we compile a list of famous stopped clock moments for the wiki page? Cheers NastyNugget (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

not sure if this counts, but candace owens has had a few such moments this year W[1], including debunking some anti-soros conspiracy theories. The G (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ooh, a definitive list of great stopped clock moments sounds like a great idea. We already have articles like a list of conspiracy theories and a list of examples of Poe's Law. Luigifan18 (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem with listicles like this is that they are inherently subjective and subject to bloat. I don't really see the utility of such an article with this in mind, but I'm not gonna stop you. Carthage (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

To go into more detail... I don't really consider it notable if a Holocaust denier says that homeopathy is bullshit. There would be too many instances to count because people are not one or two dimensional caricatures but people with their own complex mental landscapes informed by their own lived experiences. It seems like a waste of productivity. If you want to be truly productive there are plenty of articles in mainspace and draftspace that require attention. Why not start there? Carthage (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

our stopped clock article used to contain a listicle of notable moments, but it was wiped out for the reasons stated above (and also because half of the items on the list weren't valid examples). i think this type of discussion is better suited for talkpages or the bar, anyway – wherein we can debate the merit of considering a moment, thought, or action a stopped clock. The G (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you here. I was more arguing against creating a dedicated article about this. Carthage (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Alrighty. Nevermind then ^.^ NastyNugget (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Conservapedia marching the Westboro Baptist Church out to the courtyard, ripping off its epaulettes and breaking its saber across their heel. Especially now that ComЯade Smith is simping a regime that plans to camp Ukrainian gays if it wins, while Ken is banned here for supporting Brunei’s death penalty for gays. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 22:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally, think 'stopped clock' is only notable if the subject rejects a significant portion of their worldview's credo [often using faulty logic]; a hypothetical example being a hardline fascist dumping on neo-Nazis ['what, you're aping a bunch of folks who proved they weren't fit to be the Master Race™?'] or a full-bore Dominionist firmly rejecting The Orange One ['He is the tool of Satan, placed here to seduce the Faithful™!'] KarmaPolice (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Welp, Colorado decided to happen

Long story short, Colorado declared that Trump can't be on the ballot. The logic was that 1) the 14th amendment says involving yourself in insurrection/rebellion disqualifies you from holding office, and 2) Trumps action around Jan 6 count as insurrection, ergo he is disqualified. There's problems though; 1) Trump has not been convicted for insurrection, and 2) the 14th amendment states that congress, not the states, have the power to enforce this amendment. I don't like Trump. I want him to go crawl back to whatever hole he crawled out of. But this looks to be a clear abuse of the court systems. Worse, still, people seem to have NOT learned that attacking Trump only makes him more popular. CorruptUser 18:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I question the reasoning 'attacking Trump makes him more popular'. Sure, it's making him more popular with the hardcore MAGAs and associated, but I am actually curious to whether this is a) helping him to strengthen his grip over the [sic] 'moderate Republicans' and more importantly, b) his support amongst floating voters. Oh, and to pre-empt this; don't show me stats that 'Biden is unpopular'. This very well may be true but I suspect the Venn circles of 'pissed at Biden' and 'will vote Trump' don't align that well. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment only states that Congress can remove the disqualification, and does not require conviction per se. That being said, this amendment is pretty vague (the intention of course was aimed at ex-Confederate officers). It does not specifically mention the president, though you'd have to squint a little bit to dismiss the "officer of the United States" bit as not applying to the presidency. Still, enough judges have done so, including in this case (it was a 4-3 vote), and if I had to bet it is this squinting that will result in the overturning of Colorado's ruling in the Supreme Court.

The other "interpretation matter" is the "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" part. I think it's quite clear that Trump did engage in an auto-coup overall via attempting to overturn the election, but since the wording of the amendment doesn't directly include auto-coups / self-coups, you could probably find some "wiggle room" here too. As Trump only at worst merely helped incite and passively supported the January 6 putsch, without direct engagement. Trump's direct participation in the auto-coup was in "law type" stuff, from setting up fake electors to begging Secretary of States for more votes.

Ultimately, this is bad news for the court of John Roberts, as I imagine he probably didn't want to step into this shit. Though the odds are pretty high that they overturn, I think either way, they are going to piss some people off.

Incidentally, I agree with KarmaPolice that most people who see Trump as a Victim are already onboard the SS MAGA ship; maybe this increases enthusiasm, but the cult of Trump seems pretty enthusiastic about him already. BobJohnson (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m kinda neutral on the matter right now since Colorado was always a safe blue state. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 22:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump and Biden both have abysmal net favorability, while third-party and independent candidates do better. Trump being on the ballot might actually help Biden because if the choices are Biden or RFK Jr., guess what, you might just get an upset. Chillpilled (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Roberts is perhaps the only far-right member of the court to even vaguely care about his reputation. The court can just kick the can and decline to hear the case, which would let the ruling stand but not offer an opinion. There may be a majority on the court who hate the lawless bastard but are too chickenshit to say so. Bongolian (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

And now Trump is demanding SCOTUS delay the ruling until after the 2024 election. Probably so that if he loses, he can blame it on the election being rigged. CorruptUser 13:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if the SCOTUS didn’t in some way “neutralise” this decision. While Robert’s may indeed care about his legacy, his court has been very keen to support GOP gerrymandering shenanigans and I really don’t see Roberts and his supporters suddenly supporting a decision that basically opens the door to disqualify GOP candidates with January 6 ties.

However, neutralising the decision might involve kicking it down the road (until after the next election), or by weaseling out of the problem by interpreting the amendment differently (they might do that after the election as well).

The most worrying result would be, if the SCOTUS decided that the amendment doesn’t apply to the POTUS, as that would be reinforce the imperial presidency. I find that unlikely, though, as it would be less controversial to rule, say, that Trump hasn’t been convicted or impeached for January 6 (and that would also avoid signalling that Trump was responsible for the insurrection). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect the SCOTUS ruling will ultimately be 'the President is not immune to the 14th amendment but did not engage in an insurrection.' I think the most critical/interesting element here is the MAGA Justices' discussion on what actually happened on Jan 6th - for there's already strong Republican revisionism where the hardcore MAGA-hats were merely 'peaceful protestors' and all the violence etc was due to a) agent provocateurs and/or b) LEOs themselves. The worst result, naturally will be if they endorse this narrative and perhaps the 'least worst' one if they try to avoid all discussion of the incident [as I suspect it might show strong division within their ranks on it]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"I question the reasoning 'attacking Trump makes him more popular'." Opposition via obvious violations of established legal policy rather than argumentation or elections provides evidence for persecution narratives by being actual political persecution. It also provides Bayesian evidence that his opponents don't have a legitemate case against him. It also turns off people interested in the rule of law and/or democracy. It also puts Trump at the center of constant media attention, an effect which he used for free advertising in the 2016 election.

"but I suspect the Venn circles of 'pissed at Biden' and 'will vote Trump' don't align that well." I haven't seen any polls reflecting the Colorado ruling, but polls have Trump's popularity in a matchup vs. Biden slowly rising over time. Not that those are a good indicator, but it's a hint that it is indeed possible to drive people to opposing camps.

"The 14th Amendment only states that Congress can remove the disqualification" In Section 5, it states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Congress has not delegated such authority to any state apparatus, meaning that the Colorado Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Which you might expect given that the Republican reconstructionists who drafted the 14th Amendment would not want to give former Confederate states such authority.

"you'd have to squint a little bit to dismiss the "officer of the United States" bit as not applying to the presidency." As I mentioned in the last discussion about this, an "officer of the United States" is an appointed position, not an elected one.

"you could probably find some "wiggle room" here too" Not only has Trump not been convicted of any such thing, the court case was not directly about that. Rather, Trump's guilt of insurrection was declared by the court as an edict rather than as a conviction via due process. Using such an edict to remove rights is itself a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

"since Colorado was always a safe blue state" If this ruling actually interferes with the Presidential election, there would be a case for tossing out any electors chosen as a result of it, possibly costing Biden Colorado's electoral votes. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

a) If it is a 'obvious violation of established legal "policy"' it is because Trump's actions [and that of his supporters] before and during Jan 6th were a 'violation of established political norms' of the country. I am going with the theory that a lot of floating voter Americans get this. What's more, I don't buy that the majority of these will see it as evidence that 'They have no evidence against Trump'. I suspect most will remember the whole event and while they may conclude the judgement was wrong, it won't be down to believing the 'nothing happened that day/Deep State plotting/woe is me!' narrative being pumped out by the MAGA media-zone. What's more, it's perfectly logical to hold the belief 1) the judgement is wrong and 2) Trump is a shitlord and unfit to be president again.

b)I don't look at popularity, I look at unpopularity - in extreme two-party systems, it's better to work out who is 'pissed at you' than anything else. So, is Trump less unpopular than Biden? As of 18/12, that answer is 'yes', though only by 2.1%. However, I note that Trump's polls are [relatively] perennially static, while Biden's shifts obout. This suggests that while Trump is doing fairly well 'keeping the band together', he's not really making new supporters. If my theory here is correct, all the legal travails the Orange One is facing are not swinging that many 'neutrals' towards him, but runs the risk of pushing more away from him. Lastly, a lot of the 'pissed at Biden' demographics are progressives narked off due to the Old Man's lack of reforms and pro-Palestinians upset over the Gaza conflict - they may not like Biden, but sure as hell they know Trump is even worse.

KarmaPolice (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"If it is a 'obvious violation of established legal "policy"' it is because" Doesn't matter. If someone breaks the law, you follow the applicable legal process to deal with it. The Colorado ruling is just ridiculously bad.

"I don't look at popularity, I look at unpopularity" In US elections, people vote for candidates rather than against them. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not feeding you any more fish; you don't even perform any amusing tricks. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Categories for the To-Do List

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki_talk:To_do_list.

Nicolae Ceaușescu and the death penalty

It's something that I've been wondering for years. I don't think that anyone, or the government, have the right to kill anyone (except for course, in a war, or when your life is at danger). However, how about Nicolae Ceaușescu's "trial" and execution? Part of me believes that his death was indeed one of the best things that ever happened on Christmas. But again, did the Romanian people have the right to kill him, as much as he was a tyrant that terrorize his own people for decades? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I would argue it wasn't the 'Romanian people' who killed him; it was a bunch of former political allies who'd decided to make them scapegoats for their regime's crimes and failings. Some of them might have been venting long-repressed disgust at Nicolae and Elena's personality and policies, but they were mainly motivated by ensuring their own personal survival into the coming 'new era'. In fact, they were dangerous to their 'judges' because if allowed to take the stand in a real public trial, it's very likely they could [and I bet would] take them down with them.

The only really 'positive' thing I can say to icing Nicolae was that he needed to die to break the back of the regime's resistance and to end the bloodshed. However, by this point, the bulk of the armed forces, secret service and police had already turned, so the violence was most likely dying down by this point as the final diehards were dealt with. Yet, this might have been the 'agreement' the apparatchiks cut with the dissidents; that the 'less tainted' former combined with the latter in return for a de facto amnesty. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, but my point was slightly different. I don't think anyone has the right to kill anyone (except very specific circumstances). But how about tyrants like Ceaușescu? Do they deserve to be executed? If so, who has the right to carry out their executions? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm completely opposed to the death penalty. Nicolae Ceaușescu shouldn't have been executed. Saddam Hussein shouldn't have been executed. Spud (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but I don't feel sorry for them either. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel that I'm not completely comfortable with the initial premise above which maintains that people/states have "the right to kill anyone" in "a war, or when your life is at danger". I would argue that the "right to kill others" is not the same as "the right to use appropriate force to protect yourself".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"(except for course, in a war, or when your life is at danger)" If you can extract an underlying principle which makes killing all right in those cirmstances, you should be most of the way to answering your question.

"I would argue that the "right to kill others" is not the same as "the right to use appropriate force to protect yourself"." If lethal defensive force is appropriate in a particular situation, then they coincide there. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Having a right to defend yourself is not the same as having a "right to kill people". I accept that the consequence might occasionally turn out to be the death of an attacker. But that would not mean that you had a right to kill them. They happened to die as you were defending yourself. There is also the difference between the moral and the legal situation. The legal situation may differ in different countries. But as far as I am concerned the moral "right to kill people doesn't exist".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

'As a Brit' I doubt the formal death penalty will be reintroduced in the UK getting on for 60 years later - 'too large a proportion of people' who have lived all or most of their lives without it being 'out there' - and people will be raising the usual list of miscarriages of justice.

One can be against the death penalty but understand why certain executions were carried out - Ceausescu, WWII German High Command/civilian leaders etc. And one can feel that the kangaroo court for the Ceausescus was somehow better than the lynching (as some referred to it at the time) of Gaddafi (at least there was the acknowledgement that 'law exists, and be thou never so high the law be above thee'), or allowing (as seemingly happens) prisoners to punish certain among them deemed guilty of particularly heinous crimes. Anna Livia (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"They happened to die as you were defending yourself." If a person had a right to do such a thing, than that killing is an expression of the right(s) that justified the person doing such a thing. Do you want to have a discussion about what rights and moral justification are, and how proposed rights should be evaluated and chosen for implementation in law? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

But having a moral right to defend oneself which in very specific circumstances may entail killing someone doesn’t per se grant someone the right to kill. In some countries if such a defence resulted in death that only exempts them from the charge of murder, but they can still be charged with man slaughter. I don’t think moral rights are considered transitive. If you have a right to do x, but in some cases x results in y, that does not logically entail that having a right to x gives one a right to y. You’re imposing a truth-functional operation to moral rights that may not be applicable. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If the right to do X applies to sitations where it results in Y, then yes, the right to X does in those situations imply the right to Y. Otherwise, the right to X would not apply to those situations. Regarding legal rights and punishments, those are situations where the line between what is and is not justified is often contentious, and that's worked out in courts. If someone is convicted for killing someone in a self-defense situation, then that situation did not coincide with a legal right to kill someone (notwithstanding appeals etc.). Legally, there are all sorts of situations where there is a legal right to kill someone, but that varies by jurisdiction. Since this looks to be contentious, do you want to have a discussion about what rights and moral justification are, and how proposed rights should be evaluated and chosen for implementation in law? As general issues, so that underlying principles can be extracted and applied to particular situations like self defence. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

But talking solely on the basis of a moral logic, as a counter example, if I had the right to purchase a gun, but under my circumstances the only way to do so was to engage in a business dealing with the local drug cartel, the right to purchase a gun would not extend a right to engage in business with a drug cartel. My right to purchase a gun is not therefore violated simply because I can’t purchase said gun from the cartel. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"the right to purchase a gun would not extend a right to engage in business with a drug cartel" Not enough information provided to evaluate. The right to purchase a gun is not demarcated in any way here. If it is to be regarded as universal (the right to purchase a gun under any circumstances), then it would obviously involve a right to purchase a gun from a drug cartel. Similarly, you haven't specified anything regarding the morality of doing business with a drug cartel. If we regard this as a legal rather than moral issue, there are laws and policies we can reference to produce an answer here. So, using the situation in the US, the right to purchase a gun is restricted by age, felon status, and a few other things, and the right to sell guns depends on whether this is done as a business or as an intra-state private sale. If the cartel has a Federal Firearms License, it could operate a business selling firearms, and it would be legal for an eligible person to buy guns from the cartel. Otherwise, a member of a cartel could sell a (legally obtained) firearm to an eligible person (who resides in the same state as a cartel member - it would otherwise be considered interstate commerce and subject to additional regulation) in a legal private sale as a one-off deal (rather than a means of regular income for the seller). This is similar to how it is legal for cartel members to go to a grocery store and buy food. It's pretty common for organized crime groups to operate legitimate businesses as fronts for illegal activity. Purchasing illegal drugs from a cartel is illegal because it's illegal to purchase illegal drugs, not because it's a cartel selling them.

So again, do you want to work through the underlying issues here rather than going back and forth on details that don't answer the original question? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

All that is proving my point, when talking about a system of logic — abstraction is the feature not a bug. None of what you provide in terms of concrete details is relevant. The point is that (RightTo(x)) is non-transitive. There is no abstract principle that proves demonstratively that (RightTo(x)) transfer to (RightTo(y)) solely on the basis that to do x under some circumstance z requires doing y. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"None of what you provide in terms of concrete details is relevant." Which is why I said that and suggested we look at the underlying (abstract) issues instead of the concrete example you proposed.

"The point is that (RightTo(x)) is non-transitive." A right is a statement that things ought to be a certain way. As such, a right can have any properties that anyone wants to ascribe to it. A "right to X" means that people ought to have X. Such rights are usually formulated with various conditions under which people ought to have X, and conditions under which they ought not necessarily have X, and these can include any relational properties anyone wants to describe. So for example, a "right to lethal self defense" is a statement that people ought to be able to defend themselves with lethal force (under particular circumstances). As such this right involves the implication that people ought to be able to kill others under particular circumstances. That is, a right to lethal self defense implies a right to kill others. Phrased differently, a "right to lethal self defense" is equivalent to the statement that people ought to be able to kill others if doing so is done in self defense. Otherwise, it would not be a right to lethal self defense. One can, of course formulate self-defense rights without a stated or implied statement that people ought to be able to kill others, but this necessarily rules out lethal self defense as something that is to be normalized in that particular system of rights. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

But you now changed the example from a right to self defence as was initially stated to a right to lethal self defence which was not the initial claim. You built your way towards a strawman representation of the initial claim that the right to self defence does not entail a right to kill. You did not actually demonstrate a logical relation anyways, as you did not demonstrate how the predicate/maybe logical operator goes from RightTo(x) to RightTo(y). When you start filling in the variables and relying on some presumed intuition about the semantics of your chosen instantiations — you are no longer talking about a strictly logical relation. You are not “abstracting” further when you are moving away from the logical notation and logical operations to focus solely on the semantics of some particular instantiation you made up for “x”. If we are talking about necessary entailment we need to focus entirely on all the possible truth values of the atomics, and the functional operations being applied to them. The problem is I don’t think there is an pre-existing deontic logic for this particular question about the transitivity of moral rights. Regardless no necessary entailment is being demonstrated here for the initial claim that a right to self defence entails a right to kill. Changing to the “right to lethal self defence” is changing the claim from what your opponent initially stated, which is a strawman fallacy. Also the particular usage of “the right to lethal self defence” is sort of a circular example as you are demonstrating a “right to kill” (under certain circumstances) follows from “a right to kill” (under certain circumstances). That is completely tautologous. That’s a vacuous point, but also not relevant to the initial claim you were responding to. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"But you now changed the example from a right to self defence as was initially stated to a right to lethal self defence which was not the initial claim." In the introductory post that began this section, GeeJayK said, "I don't think that anyone, or the government, have the right to kill anyone (except for course, in a war, or when your life is at danger)." That is, he believes in a right to kill when your life is in danger. That is, a right to lethal self defense.

"The problem is I don’t think there is an pre-existing deontic logic for this particular question about the transitivity of moral rights." Did you miss the part where I said that above and explained how all that depends on the goals to be achieved, with rights merely being an expression of such goals?

"That is completely tautologous." Quite. And yet some people disagreed. So it merited elaboration. Everything clear now?

"but also not relevant to the initial claim you were responding to." If we can now agree that rights can be formulated in any way you want, perhaps we can move on to my first statement here: "If you can extract an underlying principle which makes killing all right in those cirmstances, you should be most of the way to answering your question." So then, neither of us is GeeJayK, so we can't answer for him. If you're interested, we could instead examine real-world positions on the issue that may cover his situation. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Except I was responding to your reply to Bob not GeeJayK. Bob was not making that claim, so again not relevant to either my own or Bob's point. That's a red herring fallacy by the way. Such a strong and obviously correct argument like the ones you usually provide. Not at all losing focus on who or what you are quoting in reply to. Really ensuring that you are charitable and not misattributing positions to the wrong sources.

" Did you miss the part where I said that above and explained how all that depends on the goals to be achieved, with rights merely being an expression of such goals?" -- Cool, again contextualizing it to certain "goals" only affirms my point about it not being a necessary relation. If (RightTo(x)) transferred to a (RightTo(y)) on the basis that in some context the only way to do x was to do y -- no concrete reference to stated goals, aims, or conscious desires are relevant. When we are talking about a logical relation those components should not factor into the equation at all, or we are no longer talking about logic. This isn't boding well on your clearly evident understanding of how an "analytical argument" works. What formal training do you have in that regard again? It's a relevant skill that got me into a masters program, so I am just curious what your barometer is for this ability.

Calling an argument "tautologous" without making reference to provable theorems within a formalized system with assigned truth values that determine if the formula always hold, is just another way of telling someone their argument begs the question. Also Bob did not disagree with that vacuous point, he actually maintained that a right to self defence did not entail a right to kill. You have a right to protect yourself with appropropriate force, and that's it. Regardless if we can assume that some cases require killing someone the idea that this therefore extends a right to kill goes back to my point about logic. It does not logically follow...it's an invalid inference to make. I mean invalid in the formal sense of the word, as in deductively invalid. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The Relationship between Entertainment and Politics.

Once again, I just managed to remember a recurring topic that seems to get either too much or too little attention from critics. And that is the strained relationship between politics of all forms and the world of entertainment, usually involving the former being inserted into the latter. And said insertion of politics is either recommended if the form of entertainment was specifically designed around it or downright jarring or sticks out like a sore thumb if it is not designed to house political messages (and it gets even more selective, confusing, and complicated depending on the form of media presented). Any examples off the top of your head you remember? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Art has always been political, as it reflects the world we live in. Art can often be reflective of the so-called "zeitgeist of the times." I really don't see why the fact that art today is following this age-old tradition is somehow "problematic" just because the zeitgeist of the times reflects what matters to people or how consumption dictates the market (and vice versa). Carthage (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Though I wonder what kind of political stuff can be considered irksome or unnecessarily shoehorned in media, usually as a result of the parent company's mandates? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? Carthage (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably something like this. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It's only political if it's not cisheteronormative and/or appealing to a socially dominant audience then? Carthage (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Nah. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's some fine looking ass for all you drunken perverts

You're welcome. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

And here's my favourite pussy picture. Spud (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

And here’s some more, she's the friendliest of the three my aunt in India has at her house. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 12:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

and here are a few of our many dick pics. The G (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

A sex shop is opening up in my hometown

I read an article from the local news and a sex shop called "Good Vibrationz" will be opening soon. I am a little shocked as the community is a small town. As long as all laws are followed I really don't care. It is a little funny considering the large amount of churches in the area and the highly religious who would oppose it. --Trans Fem Agenda 18:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

"Good Vibrations" (with an "s" not a "z") is long-time San Francisco Bay Area woman-friendly sex shop.[2] Sounds like they might be aware of the original. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve seen sex shops in rural Kansas. As long as there’s a few Jesus billboards on the roads nearby, people are fine shamefully sneaking in. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 23:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

They do seem to open near houses of religion or advertisements thereof rather often, don't they? Perhaps it's just that those are the ones that get pointed out, I suppose, probably. But I can't help but wonder if they're there because after someone gets screwed over at church, they serve a customer base that decides if they're going to be fucked, they might as well be properly fucked. Kencolt (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The US is one of the most religious countries in the West. There are religious fixtures everywhere. Chillpilled (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Religious buildings also 'accumulate' where human beings are. My old hometown has a religious building per ~2k of population [admittedly, three are non-Christian] - the only things which are more common than this are various eateries [one per ~1k]. And this is in the athiestic UK. And while your particular town might be 'small', if it's the largest town for some distance you'll often end up with more shops/etc in it than normal because you're the local retail/service hub for the various outlying settlements etc. Lastly, physical retail is dying on it's arse and it's quite possible the landlord simply can no longer afford to say no on moral grounds because it's either the sex shop or nobody.

Oh, and I don't think it's wise to actually name the store in question, as it provides doxxers with one more bit of the puzzle re: your RL ID. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Update on the fundraiser

Hey guys, just letting you all know that I'm planning to end the fundraiser with the new year. It's a good cut-off point. Plus, donations are slowing down, and I don't want to drag things out for another several weeks just to hit an arbitrary goal; I think fundraiser fatigue might be setting in. We've already blown past all previous fundraising records for this site, so we do have a very generous community! I just don't want to overstay its welcome. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the simple fact it made it past 7000 is impressive in and of itself. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 19:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion of 'number of articles' as a goal was made when the $3k point was passed. The targets for 'initial goal' and 'ambitious goal' can be reset when the next fundraiser is considered. Perhaps 'small goals' for the equinoxes and solstices? Anna Livia (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's nice to see RW has gotten a good cash injection to help it grow [or at least survive] for a decent amount of time in the future. I now think it's time for the Board to show how they're going to spend it, as well as doing a bit of legwork to ensure we're getting good value for money etc and we won't have a panic like we did a few weeks back. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

We hit $7450.21 by the new year! That's 94.6% of our stretch goal, and more than any other fundraiser we've ever held! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The first-day fundraising was very significant all on its own. Chillpilled (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Climate change adaptation and indigenous people

While the rest of us dither, indigenous nations are already taking active steps to adapt to climate change: [3]

The Swinomish have indigenized a CDC program called BRACE, which their indigenized version has elements of participatory democracy (ie active community participation in policymaking). I'm going to quote from the peer reviewed open access paper to describe how their version of BRACE works:

Swinomish foods and medicines are integral to the sociocultural community fabric. Akin to many other Indigenous communities, the Swinomish characterize a healthy community by referencing countless generations of knowledge and practices developed via connections to the lands and waters. “Health” is shaped by the many interrelated relationships among humans, non–human beings, and nature. Moreover, health is thought of on familial and community scales, rather than an individual scale. Biophysical health plays a role, but it is not the sole factor in determining health. In Swinomish beliefs, physical health status is often the outcome of social, cultural, mental, environmental, and intellectual health.10,16,17

I-BRACE shifts the foundation for decision making from assessed vulnerabilities based on modeled climate projections to health values chosen by the community. To make decisions that reflect community priorities, communities require information about the consequences of climate change on things that they care about and the opportunity to deliberate and provide input on the importance of the identified impacts.18–20 For the Swinomish, health values are embodied in the Indigenous Health Indicators, which are not represented in conventional public health assessments. These indicators are community connection, natural resources security, cultural use and practices, education (the Swinomish teachings), self-determination, and resilience.10,17,10,17 Each Indigenous community’s values may be different; I-BRACE ensures that a community’s unique values set the stage for the rest of the process.

For the next step of I-BRACE, Swinomish staff worked with modelers to forecast how climate change would impact the habitats of key Swinomish foods. Next, Swinomish staff facilitated a series of community discussions about the modeling projections with a wide demographic of tribal community participants. Participants ranked the importance of protecting the Indigenous health indicators and priority habitat locations from climate change impacts. They ranked the Swinomish teachings (education) as the most important health aspect to protect, followed by natural resources security and cultural use and practices.10

Based on these rankings, Swinomish staff identified climate change adaptation strategies related to the three most important health indicators. For one of the strategies, Swinomish staff created an informal educational curriculum about Swinomish foods and medicine to increase intergenerational knowledge sharing between elders and youth. For another, the Swinomish are building the first modern-day clam garden in the US. Clam gardens are an ancient Indigenous technology that increases bivalve biodiversity and populations and may attenuate climate impacts such as storm surge and ocean acidification.21 In addition, the existing Swinomish Climate Action Plan was updated to include health-specific considerations. For the final step, evaluation, the Swinomish obtained funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Grant No. 76577) to evaluate the effectiveness of the I-BRACE approach, the influence of the project on addressing climate health impacts and advancing health equity locally and regionally, and how other communities may learn from this values-based approach to tackle similar issues.

The paper mentions in brief the strategies of other indigenous nations:

Here we provide brief project descriptions for the ten funded tribes. Under the CRTI, Blackfeet Nation produced a Climate Health Guide that describes specific local health effects of climate change and potential activities for engaging community members and leaders in best practices to address these effects. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community completed a climate change health impact assessment and action plan by tailoring an existing framework to Swinomish-specific health values, definitions, and priorities. The Village of Wainwright addressed thinning ice due to warmer temperatures by augmenting existing accident prevention and rescue programs through the use of location technology. They also developed new community-based programs that increased knowledge of climate and health risks. Kaw Nation completed local community education and outreach related to climate and health. Lummi Nation is developing plans to protect their community from harmful algal blooms and toxins in shellfish that are influenced by warming waters. The Pala Band of Mission Indians is developing climate and health communication and outreach materials tailored to community needs, including culture-based psychosocial resilience strategies. The Sitka Tribe of Alaska is coordinating a regional project to monitor shellfish contamination related to warming temperatures and shifting climate. Greenville Rancheria is building community health department capacity to communicate and respond to power outages during wildland fires and other disasters. Seneca Nation of Indians is working to address impacts from flooding and stormwater, including prevention of vectorborne disease, by incorporating health into existing collaborative work. Finally, the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska is implementing a climate and health communication strategy to inform community members of climate-related hazards, including specific outreach to farmers.

Indigenous people are the most vulnerable demographic to climate change. The paper provides recommendation that tribal involvement would be effective in climate change adaptation policymaking:

Tribal involvement in federal- and state-level climate policy decisions may improve climate change adaptation effectiveness, although some tribes may be hesitant to work directly with state governments, as their legal government-to-government relationship is with the federal government. Tribes’ needs should be carefully considered in consultation with tribal leadership, including formal government-to-government consultation. This not only supports tribal self-determination and sovereignty but also allows tribes to identify impacts on their communities during the development process.

Of course, tribes are also colonized nations, so this impacts effective climate change adaptation too:

Pala’s ability to build capacity to address climate change impacts is complicated by a variety of cultural, political, social, economic, and environmental conditions. Pala’s standing as a sovereign nation is not always acknowledged or understood by its nontribal neighbors, and state and local government agencies do not always view Pala as an equal partner in discussions about and potential strategies for adapting to climate change. For example, San Diego County does not include tribal lands in its climate data, and existing climate planning by surrounding nontribal governments on the local, state, and federal levels has not been inclusive of tribal needs or voices.

Likewise, some members of the Navajo Nation have taken to using solar-powered hydropanels that pulls water directly from the air to address increasing water scarcity: [4]

Of course given that indigenous peoples are marginalized, significantly so, with over a third of the Navajo Nation lacking access to clean drinking water: [5]

For these people, these hydropanels are a godsend. These are small solutions, but they are solutions, and they address indigenous needs far better than the federal government can or is willing to. What we should takeaway from this is that there are ways to adapt to climate change on a community level, but there needs to be will. I think many people are comfortable. These indigenous people are not. We should perhaps be taking notes from them. Carthage (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Kenya has taken a leadership role for solar installation, reportedly now with 90% of power coming from solar. They've trained enough Kenyans to do solar installs, that they've now been working with neighboring countries on similar programs. Bongolian (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I favor investing into adaptation but we can't let the mindset of it feed into giving up on reducing emissions. Even if a bad outcome is in our future either way, how bad it will be still depends on what we do now. Each fraction of a global temperature increase avoided is tons of money and collective living standards saved. People may curse us (collectively) one hundred years from now either way and probably rightfully, but at least the outcome will have been better than it otherwise could have been. Chillpilled (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Is connection just a feeling or is there more to it than that?

https://pathwaytohappiness.com/blog/feeling-connected/

I'm aware how sketch the site looks like, so lets not get into that. My gripe is how the guy says connection and love are just feelings and that's enough for having a connection to others. Reading over this I keep getting a lightbulb in my head that something is off about it but that I can't really place what it is. I blame it on being very poor at articulating my thoughts. Suffice to say though that to me his logic reminds me of a stalker or someone with an obsession who sees or feels what isn't there.47.5.66.54 (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

If one's obsession or "love interest" doesn't reciprocate one's feelings there's no "connection." One should respect their consent, and if one doesn't one is a piece of shit. This could definitely be a rationalization for stalkerism and predatory behavior IMO. Carthage (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

if this has been digging at you since 2009, I commend your patience. Nothing has big engagement, but all that keeps people, to me it reads dumb, but check further and it's less blog more vacation, not more engagement. Clearly Gary has weird charisma, and big money. Jared Leto Kinda does or at least did the same thing, easier to track in scale. Not getting into 'how sketch' the site is, if you are part of something tight-knit, and nobody is working with you to articulate your thoughts, suffice to say it's not a community that is taking you seriously. As for Interpersonal connection, it is subjective. The number one thing humans are good at is communicating extremely detailed information. I guarantee you can articulate your thoughts. Torrent (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you but the one thing humans are bad at is communicating extremely detailed information, look at any conversation between people and chalk how many misunderstandings there are. Also while the article is that old that doesn't mean I have been stewing about it for years, I just saw it a week ago.47.5.66.54 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Unreciprocated love is not always predatory. For example, the love for God. MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What Carthage is describing is known as a 'parasocial relationship'; normally it relates to celebrities and fictional characters but can happen to 'normal' people too. The problem point is where the feeler's grasp of reality starts to warp; the most extreme example here is with stalkers but other ones can vary from the obsessive hyper-fans of fictional works to the creepy guys who mistake the mandatory 'friendly' demeanour from [normally young and female] shop workers for genuine interest in them. Even a love of God can end up being dangerous, if you come to the belief that 'God' is calling you to go off and hurt others in His name.

As for the page itself... this Gary seems to be suggesting a kind of 'fake it until you make it' regarding personal connections with others. That instead of doing the 'old method' [sic] of trying to 'find connections' which we can then build on we should simply tell ourselves that we have connections already as fellow humans and go with that - and that over time, the mask shall become your face. Coupled with the 'ignore drama' bit, this in itself is half-decent advice; for example, it doesn't hurt in 'mandatory mixing' environments [school, work etc] to have a 'friendly distant' persona and have a kind of loss-minimisation strategy regarding gossip etc [if you don't take in anything they say, you won't hear anything which might personally prejudice you against them as well as leaving your 'emotional bandwidth' clear]. This would also apply to people who's work is primarily social in nature; the most obvious with salespeople, where a smile and sunny 'a stranger is a friend you've not met yet' mentality helps you do your job. In this, I'm reminded a bit of Neurolinguistic programming.

However, what Gary does not answer is the issue that the complainant points out; that this strategy does not work when it comes down to actually building deeper interpersonal bonds which we, as social beings need - people cannot live emotionally on surface acquaintances alone. Or more correctly, they simply double down on their previous advice, which is the point where my alarm bells start to ring; nobody will really bitch if a relative stranger decides to pantomime a fuzzy friendship with you, but they will if they've decided [for reasons unknown] that the relationship is that of a romantic partner or bestie. What's more, there's the self-crippling element to this advice; how can you build a deeper relationship with another if you effectively disregard everything they say which most folks notice soon enough. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think his logic is that we are only after the feeling and that said feeling is created through all that other stuff, so since we're just after that then why not skip all that and just create the feeling at will. To me that is wildly reductive and misses the point of it all. I also agree that he didn't really answer the question of the (alleged) commenter, in fact I feel bad for whoever wrote to him because it sounds like they're stuck in the narrative he's spinning.47.5.66.54 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC) Actually considering the dude studied under the guy who wrote The Four Agreements, you can sort of gauge what nonsense it's about. This one review seems to sum it up (I read the book and found it meh overall):

HOW THIS BOOK HAS PERSONALLY HELPED ME:

- No one person's opinion will ever again have the power to limit what I can do, even if this person is an authority figure - No one group's opinion will ever again have the power to limit what I can do - No one has a clear idea of who or what I am, not even me! - When people talk, they are telling stories. I don't have to argue. I don't have to fight. I simply have to listen. WOW! - I cannot comprehend another person's dream. I can't mind read. I can't assume. I know nothing of their inner workings. - Even scary, aggressive people are just telling stories. - I no longer have to feel ashamed about who I am or what I've done or where I'm going. It's not my job to assign a story to my life, or a judgment. - I no longer have to pretend to be something or hustle to gain love. I just need to love who is willing to love back. It's so simple. - I take all gurus, religions, indictments and gossip with quite a high level of benevolent skepticism, which allows me to be free from the fear that goes along with these stories. - I don't take myself as seriously as I used to.

Probably the most valuable of all . . .

- I have a deep compassion for all people. We are all just stuck here together, trying our hardest and doing our best. I don't have to hate someone because their best wasn't up to some story I tell myself. I don't' have to insist they believe in my story. I can just smile and listen and do what I can.

47.5.66.54 (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy 2024!

Happy new year! In a few minutes it’ll be 2024 here in Rain Canada --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 07:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy new year. Chillpilled (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

And to ye as well. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 11:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Now, I wonder what this year will entail for humanity? Come here to place your predictions. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Fun Topic: Your Evil Twin

This topic here is a bit of a fun one. What do you think your "evil twin" of sorts would be called and their persona? Maybe we can even compile it here. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

As for me, I think my evil twin, whom is named "TheEternalInsider", is a reckless and blatant science denier and autocrat who will attack science and democracy in the name of promoting any kind of discrimination and religious dogma while maintaining a bloated ego with no sense of humility, the kind of person that is clearly opposite of my views. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

My evil twin, SoundReasoning, was a Conservapedia editor banned here for trolling, who somehow went further down the anti-abortion rabbit hole and got radicalized into becoming a Christian fundamentalist in eighth grade (instead of deconverting then which is what happened with me after getting disillusioned with the pro-life movement among other things, luckily I was never a fundie), hated science and sci-fi video games (but was very good at chess), and was a self-hating, secretly-bisexual homophobe who, upon realizing he was one in college (as I did during my LANCB), became even more obsessively homophobic; other gamers adored him for being so “based^TM”. And was more of a fanatic dog person than a future cat servant in training, often equating stray cats with pests and regarding the species as looking ugly, rather than cute and relaxing to pet and adoring both species almost equally (but I definitely favor cats). --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 15:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

My evil twin is that most ancient of evil empires: Rome! Carthage (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

My evil twin earned the nickname Anti-Spud when he was a small child because he hated mashed potato. Spud (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Because I am part good and part bad, my evil twin would only appear so to me and others like me. Maybe he's not a bad guy.UncleKrampus (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

My evil twin's online identity is "PrettyRunes," a toxic "alpha male" type with no sense of etiquette whatsoever, who will bash others as hard as he can for not agreeing with him and will attack people as relentlessly as possible until absolutely everyone is either gone or sees his opinion as the rock-solidest, even when it's shaky at best and total rubbish at worst. He was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household similar to my own, and at the age of 12, just like myself, began to doubt the beliefs and worldview that had been firmly hammered into him by his parents. The difference, however, is that while I had begun floating to more progressive communities and began to discover my own sense of self, realizing what gender identity I was closest to and that I was asexual, PrettyRunes wound up floating to far more extremist right-wing groups, the type of alt-righters so far right that even his own parents didn't feel comfortable turning that sharply. As such, he would loudly disown them in his later teen years, uncaring of their feelings or anyone else's. He firmly asserts his heterosexuality despite not being heterosexual, and blames everyone else for all of his problems instead of himself. He's also a dedicated user of 4chan, Kiwi Farms, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and a very, VERY closeted fan of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (a show that I had a brief phase with before moving on). Postuhenin (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What would the Donald's and Putin's Evil Twins be like? Anna Livia (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Postuhenin We actually had a user kind of like that, named Nature's Mockery (formerly “Sievert 81”)- only their father egged them on in becoming an alt-righter. They were even once a sysop at CP, who initially came here to troll us and play telephone with Rob Smith when CP was DDOSed during COVID. Eventually they became disillusioned luckily, and disowned that sorry excuse for a man and became a mostly constructive editor here. (Though they did get banned from CP for inserting porn links into articles, which in and of itself is enough to instantly get you banned for life on pretty much any wiki, which didn’t sit well with us until we later warmed up to them.) --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 21:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, that sounds more like my own real-life redemption arc than PrettyRunes's villain arc! The only major differences are that my parents never egged me on into views that were quite as extreme (though the post-COVID-19, post-January-6th political landscape is slowly tugging them in that direction), I never went quite as far in my trolling (I was actually quite friendly with some LGBTQ+ people prior to converting and never directly criticized them) or my "payback" to the communities I left, and I've never disowned my parents because for all the bad parenting moves they make and foolish views they hold, I love them with as much love as my heart can hold and they've never quite gone so far that it feels like a warranted move. Postuhenin (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

And you don’t seem to have gone to the opposite ultra-extreme like NM did --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 14:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that the Netanyahu government in Israel will not survive

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-january-1-2024/amp/

The judicial "reforms" for starters has caused upheaval. Then there was the 2023 Attack in Israel by Hamas, the racist comments from Israeli government officials, Settler violence, failing to defeat Hamas leaders and the IDF killing their own citizens.

Will the Netanyahu government survive this mess? I doubt it. --Trans Fem Agenda 21:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There would seem to be no good outcome for Netanyahu at this point. Prolonging the war as long as possible it to his personal advantage, which is not a good position for a country or a leader to be in. "Winning" the war will not help his image since he is widely viewed within Israel as failing to act on warning signs by Hamas, having been too preoccupied with changing the Constitution and protecting illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Netanyahu faces the resurrection of old criminal charges (corruption) once he leaves office, hence his personal motivation for prolonging the war. Bongolian (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. While the war in Gaza may seem like a perfect distraction from Bibi’s judicial fuckery and the settler violence he enables, the simple fact that October 7th was allowed to happen despite literal months of warning doesn’t help in addition to all the above. And his government includes Itamar Ben-Gvir, who was arrested for literally being a terrorist. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 05:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean to double negate the title here? UncleKrampus (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That was unintentional. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

oldest latam republic turns 220 today (jan. 1st)

for all you history buffs out there, haiti, which is the oldest latin american republic (as well as the first black republic known for being formed out of a successful slave revolution), celebrates 220 years of independence. it's just too bad that they can't enjoy it fully. The G (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The history of Haiti is a terrible one. From other countries, especially the US and France fucking up with them (Woodrow Wilson, for instance, invaded occupied the country for 20 years) , to their own blunders (they had invaded the Dominican Republic several times, for instance), and natural disasters (a 2011 earthquake killed more Haitians than the 2006 Tsunami killed in the entire Asia), the country seems to be doomed to poverty. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think some of the blame can be laid at the fact that the US got rid of the Haitian prohibition of foreign ownership of land. This allowed colonial interests to start seeping in. This article from Brown University gives an abbreviated history of the history of American foreign policy WRT Haiti. It doesn't mention the coerced removal of the prohibition of foreign land ownership, but does mention that the American-imposed system of "trade had devastating effects on Haiti, as Haiti models how “foreign trade… can foster socioeconomic decline”." Carthage (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You also mention Haiti seems "doomed to poverty," but reparations could go a long way towards undoing or mitigating at least some of the damage. Carthage (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course I'm being hyperbolic, there are some things that can be done, including some reparationg from France and the US (you might wanna take a look at what happened when they asked for reparations from France in 2004). My main concern about this is that the money can end up on the hand Haitian corrupt elites instead of building houses, roads, schools, hospitals, etc, so they need institutions to fight rampant corruption as well. How to build these institutions? Foreign occupation failed to build them, so they will have to build them themselves. But how to get rid of rampant corruption and authoritarianism in a historical kleptocracy that makes Russia looks like Switzerland and Norway? I don't know. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one, the simple fact is reparations are often a political non-starter for the simple fact that your government blatantly giving money directly to someone else, especially another country's citizens, while you're hardly able to pay rent will not go over well during election season. Plus, since the elites of that country are the ones who are supposed to distribute that money, it just becomes another money pit for them to pay for more cars and swimming pools from.-Ryan1257 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

there's also the issue that haiti's leadership doesn't even care about reparations, as many are satisfied with the current status quo. the last elected official to bring the issue up for discussion was president aristide, a reformer, over 20 years ago. perhaps unsurprisingly, he's no longer in office, as he was ousted in yet another coup. The G (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Death toll in Gaza

22 thousand deaths. According to Wikipedia, the population of the Gaza Strip is of almost 2,4 million. That means that almost 1% of their population had died. At first, I was skeptical of these numbers since I'm not naive to trust a dictatorship like Hamas, but doing some research, their numbers have been historically accurate, and it's possible that the actual death toll is even higher.[6] Sorry for the blog post, I don't like venting on the the Bar, but this is the only social network I still use, and as someone that unironically considers himself a "globalist" these wars around the world are pissing me off. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If something equivalent happened to the US, there would be 3,399,965 deaths. Carthage (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In no humane way are the deaths of 20,000 equivalent to the deaths of 3,399,965. But it sounds relevant if you don't think too much about it.UncleKrampus (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

They are talking literally in terms of proportion, as in, if 1% of the American population were killed in such a hypothetical conflict then this is what the absolute death toll would amount to. It is quite literally proportionally equivalent. Sure, morally, whatever. The real distinction being actual fucking Gazans are dead, but you are seemingly more deeply disturbed by a literal hypothetical of imaginary Americans. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both of the above. I was at first a bit skeptical since neither Hamas nor Israel are the best narrators; indeed, the latter on the other hand flailingly insists that collateral damage is less than nebulous damage to the enemy and has long made the as-of-yet unproven accusation of using "meat shields" (so basically "it's not happening but they deserve it anyway"). But seeing the current situation, it mathematically makes sense that it's what Gaza says at the minimum. I'm incredibly sick of all of these angry old men threatening to go to war with, or actually going to war with, those they have vendettas against to distract from their multitudes of internal controversies. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 18:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

More Palestinians have been killed or displaced in this genocide than were killed or displaced during the Naqba. Let that sink in for a moment. Carthage (talk) 00:22, 3 Ja]nuary 2024 (UTC)

The Lemkin Institute has recently put a statement out calling Israel's recent actions genocidal, I don't know how important this group is, it's named after Lemkin but I don't know if there's an actual connection to him. It seemed like they only had one scholar behind the group. Anyway another fact of the matter I think has been under-emphasized is that Hamas actually killed Arabs during the Oct. 7 attack as well as Jews (was reported by NYT). Although a particular ethnicity and religion are central targets to either side it's clear that simple nationality is important. Chillpilled (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, and hear me out on this, if Hamas wasn't actively committing war crimes by attempting to get the Gaza civilians they claim to represent killed, there would be fewer civilian casualties. So maybe Hamas is responsible for the killing of civilians that they themselves are attempting to encourage. Care to cite any actual IDF atrocities (offhand I've read of a couple ugly friendly fire incidents, so I know they're far from perfect)? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"But Hamas" is whataboutism, and I've posted quite a few in WIGO, but here's one: 927 Magazine released an expose on what one insider source in the Israeli government called a "mass assassination factory": [7]

Makes me suspect you haven't been doing any reading on this subject. There's also the obvious issue of collective punishment (you know, completely withdrawing food, water, and power), but I don't think you actually care about Israeli atrocities. If this was any other conflict people here would be up in arms about the obvious denialism going on, but they aren't. I also released a piece on the Israel talk page going in-depth about Israel's genocide of the Palestinians, but most people here evidently ignored that. Carthage (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem I see with the current Israel situation is that it's led by a right-wing government (Bibi / Likud) who had to align with some really far-right extreme kooks in order to preserve Bibi's ass. (I've been editing the Itamar Ben-Gvir article as an example of one of them). Many of these folks on that side really are flat-out warmongering Jewish supremacists; one can even legitimately suspect desires of Palestinian ethnic cleansing in a few of these politicians. Now, "the Bibi" may be a corrupt ass, but he is not that extreme IMHO. But I've gotten the impression that the presence of extreme voices in high positions is making it really difficult for this government to war-govern well. This means that Bibi really doesn't have a solid goal or end game to this conflict... other than the generic "root out Hamas" goal, there seems to be no consideration for "what next?" other than more war. It is really, really difficult to completely root out guerrilla terrorists and similar through complete military means; multiple nations have tried and failed to do so, the United States included (see the Vietnam War). And I think this will apply doubly so when Bibi's government seems to care little about civilian casualties, and some MPs in high places are actually openly talking about Palestinian ethnic cleansing. My guess is that these such things will only make extremism on the "other side", eg support of Hamas, even more popular (as one poll appears to show.[8])

Now, don't get me wrong, Hamas's actions during this conflict have often been absolutely deplorable (from the first despicable attack they started). I just think Bibi's government coalition is absolutely the wrong one to handle this crisis, given the lot that's included in it. It's basically a SNAFU at this point of an extremist, corrupt right wing government (Bibi) versus a terrorist organization that can't govern either (Hamas); I personally don't think it's a "genocide" at the moment. But I do believe that the end game of politicians like Bibi's cabinet is, at minimum, Israel as a fully apartheid state. BobJohnson (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Genocide is ultimately about intent. When multiple Israeli politicians call for Gaza to be "wiped off the map," refer to Palestinians as "human animals," and call for a "new Naqba," I think intent has been established. Remember, genocide is not about death toll. It's about intent. More people have died in this "war" than were killed at Srebenica, and I think intent has been pretty well established. The UN definition I posted a while back clarifies genocide as a "complete or partial destruction of a group," and with the deliberate targeting of dozens of mosques and churches in Gaza, alongside other incidents (also, seriously, that 972 Magazine piece is critical for understanding on the ground IDF policy. Give it a read. It contains interviews with inside sources from Israeli intelligence, Palestinians in Gaza, and others. 972 did a fantastic job.) make a strong case that this is genocide IMO (destruction of cultural targets, declarations of intent to remove the Palestinian presence from Gaza et cetera.)

Ultimately, while we're debating the semantics of the word "genocide" one of the worst humanitarian crises (and crimes against humanity) of the 21st century is being committed with full American backing. Deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure is also a long established Israeli military doctrine. Israel has also wiped out entire families. There's even an acronym for orphaned children with no surviving relatives: "WCNSF - wounded child, no surviving family". This acronym is pretty commonly used in Gaza. Carthage (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

So far the IDF only killed civilians, unnecessarily destroyed infrastructure, created a humanitarian crisis, disease outbreaks and killed some of the hostages. The IDF did a great job at minimizing civilian casualties. The Netanyahu government will not survive this mess. --Trans Fem Agenda 02:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

i know i might beating the dead horse here, but it seems that some people here missed the point. 22 thousand versus 3 million might not seem like a valid comparison (as the former is clearly a drop in the bucked to the latter – if you only look at the raw numbers), but per capita (which i believe is the term some of you were going for), they do compare, as those figures represent 1% for gaza and the united states, respectively. losing that much of your population in a matter of months is devastating, to say the least. even if a permanent ceasefire were called today, it will still take years to recover from such losses. please don't repeat covid talking points (e.g., "3 million americans is only 1% of the population; the virus still has a 99% survival rate.") The G (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The comparison of 20,000 with 3,000,000 deaths is a kind of statistic that reflects little in the way of human values. In addition, it suggests a fallacy due to confirmation bias. The people who live in that small area are, for the most part, Arabs. To make a more general comparison, there are over 400,000,000 Arabs in the world. There are something like 15,000,000 Jews. Do the math, if you care for this type of nonsense. I would never say the Jews got it worse from an argument out of statistical methods.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Arabs are not interchangeable. Iraqis are not Palestinians, nor vice versa. This is a blatant erasure of Palestinian identity. Carthage (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Specious comment in this sense: groups are never inter-changeable from a humanist POV. Palestinian identity is a political construct, much like Israeli identity. There is no reason to suppose the Palestinians have a significantly different identity than the Jordanians, for example; compare the identity of people from Rhode Island with people from Connecticut. Furthermore, it is the idea of Arab solidarity, i.e. Arab identity, that has strengthened the Palestinian resistance to the point that they are helplessly flailing at the Israeli military machine with no hope of success. So much inhumane bs.UncleKrampus (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

However, the Jordanians and Gazan Palestinians last lived under the same flag in 1921 [when Jordan was seperated from Palestine by the British]. There's been a century of divergance [political, cultural, economic] since then [which has not really happened to the folks in Groton vs Cranston] so I am going to argue that a better equivilency would be, for example the inhabitants of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland - lots of overlap, but some differences exist too. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Jordan was also part of historical Palestine. Then why don‘t (pro-)Palestinians claim Jordan as well? 51.91.100.2 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually the Palestinians did try to get back Jordan during the Black September war Monet ^Ye 11:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know... Maybe it's because Palestinians are not Jordanian, and Jordanians are not Palestinian? Have you even talked to any Jordanians or Palestinians? Anyways, Jordanians already have Jordan. Palestine is denied self-determination. The issue is that Palestine is a colonized nation. Jordan isn't. Jordan has full sovereignty. This is a blatant red herring. You obviously have no political literacy if you think that "how come pro-Palestinians don't call for the annexation of Jordan by Palestine" is a serious gotcha question.

Anyways Black September was a lot more complicated than the reductive "Palestinians tried taking Jordan back." Did you, Monet, even read your own cited link? Carthage (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I think what BoN meant is that many pro-palestinians claim all of historic Palestine, which is only partially true, since they view „historic palestine“ as in the pre-48 borders, while the actual historic Palestine included not only Israel and Palestine, but Jordan as well rather than the people of Jordan and Palestine are the same. But I agree, the black september war is a lot more complicated than just Palestinians taking their historical land back. Monet ^Ye 13:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

But no Palestinian group worth their salt "claims" Jordan as Palestinian territory. Palestinians have a very distinct national identity from Jordanians. The BON's whole "argument" is a red herring. People are pro-Palestine because of opposition to settler colonialism. You know, solidarity. If Palestine were to magically become decolonized and seek to impose their will on Jordan, then as a matter of principle we'd support Jordan. The fact I have to waste braincells explaining why this is a red herring just goes to show how ignorant people are of MENA or basic political science. Carthage (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Who will Trump's VP-pick be?

Take your bets on who Trump's VP will be here! I half-jokingly think it's gonna be RFK, Jr because we live in the dumbest of all possible worlds. Carthage (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

More seriously though, what about Tucker Carlson? Carthage (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think Tucker legit has a chance of being picked. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

One important thing to note is that Trump probably won't pick someone he sees as either a "loser" or someone with the potential to upstage him. So, I don't really see Vivek being picked. Maybe one of his family members? Ivanka or Jared? Trump is a proven nepotist. Carthage (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If Trump was a “normal” GOP (or Democratic) candidate, he would choose a sort of “balancing” VP and last time around the GOP machine still had enough clout to ensure Pence as the VP pick, but not so this time. A “balancing” pick would be someone like Tim Scott or Nicki Haley, but no chance in hell Trump will choose someone like that.

I also agree that he won’t choose someone that might steal spotlights or airtime from him either, so Vivek is a bit of a tosser, sorry, toss-up, depending on whether Trump is afraid of being upstaged by him, because Vivek definitely ticks the sycophantic box.

I admit I hadn’t thought of Trump shaking the family tree for his VP pick, but I don’t think so. Ivanka has brand value for the family business by being “the nice, normal one”, i.e. NOT being Trump, and therefore, I don’t think she’ll get the pick, while Jared potentially risks tainting that quality too. The sons are plainly dumb and I don’t think senior necessarily trusts them enough with any real power (and he has his record of cross-generational family intrigues behind him that might make him even less trusting of delegating serious powers to, say, Don Jr.).

I honestly have a hard time guessing, because so many of the MAGA sycophants tick the “loser” box, and Tucker Carlson ticks the “might steal the spotlight” box. Looking to Congress, it would have to be someone like Matt Gaetz, Lauren Bobert or Marjorie Taylor Greene, who are all clearly sycophantic enough, but they are also very useful to Trump where they are, plus the spotlight thing. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

A clever, cynical pick would be one of the “Thiel MAGA hats” (think Blake Masters), if Trump thinks he’ll need some of that sweet Thiel cash, but I doubt Trump sees his hand as that weak and he knows the Thiel bots are equally cynical in hitching their wagon to the MAGA train. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of… What about Elon Musk? Oh, right, the spotlight problem again. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the machine gun posts, but I wonder if there might be a third criteria (in addition to sycophancy and not stealing the spotlight): Does Trump see a role for the VP as a sort of liaison to Congress? Because I really don’t see Trump himself even trying to work with Congress, but then again, he might not see any reason to do so either. However, if Trump thinks he’ll need some sort of “Congress whisperer” as VP, then a Mike Johnson type might be what he is looking for(?) ScepticWombat (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We live in post-normal times, so it's a good question if Trump will even bother to cooperate with Congress. He wants to be a dictator "for a day" after all. Carthage (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think he'll pick someone he thinks would back him to the hilt in a situation like the capitol riot-in the event of a constitutional crisis where Trump tries to seize more power but needs help to pull it off. Loyalty will be the main criterion. Thus Trump won't balance the ticket because picking a non-maga would threaten his ambitions.-Flandres (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think Tucker is on record saying he despises Trump, so that is not happening. General Flynn, maybe. I think he would kill on command. UncleKrampus (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I bet it's going to be no one. That's one more person he needs to deal with between himself, and total power. He'll claim he can do it himself, AND citing the "disloyalty" of Pence, it'll be an easy sell to his base in the Primaries. Revolverman (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution says that a president is elected along with a VP. With the exception of assassinations / deaths causing the VP to become president, there has never been a president without a VP. I think it would just be too inconvenient for Trump to have to run without a VP. Maybe he could nominate a pathetic yes-man with no political base or popularity so they cannot undermine him, but I doubt he could get away with legitimately having no VP. I think he is too lazy to actually go through with it. Pretty sure if you don't nominate a VP, the opposition candidate for president with the most votes becomes the VP (so it would become Trump-Biden, if Biden was running for a 2nd term). MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Vivek might be a VP pick, but I doubt it. There's a) the spotlight problem; b) Trump's a racist, and I don't know how well a non-white pick would go over with Trump's rabidly racist base. Carthage (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Would 'his ego' make the cut for VP?

Or, 'reversing the renunciation of nationality' BoJo. Anna Livia (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Confused

So I’m confused. Please answer seriously. Is this humour? I legitimately do not expect this to be serious, or too serious, as some of your "admins" have done interesting stuff on en.wp. But are you serious in your beliefs? Because to me this wiki is not rational, and it’s far-right counterpart is not trustworthy (and this one sometimes isn’t as well. Lol). It’s like when you argument against rationality, mix it all with majuscule R Reason, and then completely forget the point. The point isn’t Descartes, the point is: Is it reasonable to renounce to your desires? Or is it rational to renounce to your desires? Is it rational to be rational? If this is intended a little seriously, then I have to say, as a socia-democrat, (apparently in America, since you don’t know the debates, it is an undeniable fact that social-democracy is not socialism, apparently), you are are not doing us good. Rationality and Reason are everywhere. Also, what are you? Right wing (liberal, conservative, fascist, ultraliberal)? Left-wing (Socialist, communist, anarchist)? Your like the Democratic Party. Idk about you not being serious, I care about you being unbalanced in favor of different things depending on the editor. Besides that, I want to ask, do you take this page seriously? (I am biased enough to believe that you, as rational progressives, don’t take the bullocks that is sometimes on here seriously, especially since it’s large varieties show you have vastly different, left-wing, opinions, which are sometimes in total disagreement with each other. I like the honesty though). Cheers. Wp guy here on accident (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Plutocow (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Like seriously… I’m a progressive social-democrat living in Germany, somewhat dissatisfied with my party (SPD), and sad to see Die Linke (The Left, more radical party) being destroyed by a reactionary communist who is leaving it. Like… I’m not saying that type of stuff. I’m not anttivax, or crazy, etc. I am however questioning if you take it seriously. I’m an en.wp and de.wp editor. I am not far-right, right-wing, or reactionary in any way. I just want to know if you take this seriously? I am left-wing, and I am waking you and not conservapedia because 1. It’s literally not possible to edit 2. Not even worth it. I legit want to know if you take it seriously. I’m in the Democrats subreddit. This still seems a little, weird. Just saying. Wp guy here on accident (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you on about? "some of your 'admins' have done interesting stuff on en.wp" — there have been some people going around impersonating others both here and there, so I would need to know what you're on about. To understand RationalWiki better, including its name, read: RationalWiki. The pages on this site vary in quality. Same for any wiki. Chillpilled (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

So you do believe in it? Or not? I had read it, and I was still confused. What are you? Is this simply suppose to be a somewhat humorous left-wing site? Or do you take it seriously, like an encyclopedia. Is it Wikipedia, which needs legitimizing, or does it simply not care, because it doesn’t need legitimacy. It’s just a fun left-wing site. Obviously the idiots at conservapedia take themselves seriously, somewhat, but not really. Is serious? is what I mean. Does it need sourcing? Are you making a serious encyclopedia, just website, or are you not taking it seriously (I’m hoping for the latter, honestly, because this site stays weird to me). Do you really think your serious? ^{— Unsigned, by: Wp guy here on accident / talk / contribs}

Ideally it's both funny and serious, depends on the article though. Not everyone here believes every thing espoused on every page though. Many of us have a narrow interest in specific sorts of pages. Chillpilled (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Do any of you use it as reference? Wp guy here on accident (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

If a page is especially well written I may refer to it for a topic, or as many people use Wikipedia, a starting point for further research. Libertarian paradise was marked silver recently and I think it's pretty decent at examining libertarian adventurism and adjacent projects, for example. Chillpilled (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes. Carthage (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the topic. I think it's quite good on various conspiracy and/or esoteric/spiritual/New Age and/or pseudoscience topics. There's various articles that cover such things well where they're not notable enough for Wikipedia, and there's no sources usable on Wikipedia, or some original research is needed to put together any coverage at all. I think the greatest value is in topics which sites like Wikipedia can't cover, when RationalWiki does it reasonably well. Sometimes there's no other site with a decent skeptical article. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the insight. Cheers, and good night! (I am in great need of pills…) Wp guy here on accident (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Known citations of RationalWiki can be found here: RationalWiki:Mentions. Bongolian (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

If you are on WP, you will know the format has some serious [though perhaps inherent] flaws. The 'NPOV' is so strongly enforced an editor cannot make any statement [however trite] which isn't backed up by a ref saying it, parts of the wiki are unreadable to most [due to dryness and complexity] and the tightening notability guidelines means quite a lot of RW pages on persons/groups wouldn't make the cut on WP.

I suspect most RW editors view RW along the lines of Apooft and I do; as a companion to WP, not to replace it. In fact, one of my main arguments for candidates for article deletion or non-creation is 'WP's one is better than ours'. It's been noted that we've gotten more 'serious' over the years; that the 'snark' is more asides [or in footnotes a la Terry Pratchett] rather than in mainspace texts and the open 'you suck' jokes have slowly vanished as older pages get updated. But like with WP too, we do have the issue that 'folks do what they want' and some pages haven't been touched in a decade. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the general development of the wikiverse (no matter how obscure the topic, a wiki can be readily created, with some acquiring notability) and other contributory websites WP's role is probably changing somewhat - people go to WP to 'learn the basics' and to use it as a point of first resort, and do 'high-OR etc based writing' elsewhere. Anna Livia (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, this wiki started rather trollish and has become less "snarky" over time, as well as less focused on random irrelevant topics like low-importance YouTubers. Certainly *many* of those type of articles with tons of snark and no sources probably still exist. But, in general, these days, articles need to be "serious enough" to be sourced and decently written to make it into mainspace. Secondly, this isn't *explicitly* a political wiki. Yes, currently, many of the subjects this Wiki focuses on (namely, fundamentalism, authoritarianism, pseudoscience / anti-science movements, and crank ideas) are over-represented on "one side" of the political spectrum (particularly in America, where most of the editors reside). So I think there is a "general assumption" that this Wiki is quite left-wing (particularly during the Gamergate days), and I certainly wouldn't disagree with the current MediaBias rating of RW [9] as "left-center" (with "high" factual reporting). However, this wiki generally frowns on authoritarian left-wing movements, as well as pseduoscience / crankery generally associated with "the left" (eg New Age cults and snake oil like Goop that are associated with the "wellness movement").

This is a Wiki; I don't think Wikis (Wikipedia included) should be used for anything too serious. The better sourced articles here are a good overview and starting point for various topics, but that's as far as you can get. This is a small Wiki as well, so take the issues with Wikipedia and compound them by the lack of editors. There are nonetheless still many editors and "your mileage may vary" on what they write. I don't agree with all of the pages here. That's to be expected with any Wiki. BobJohnson (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

—cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@BobJohnson Very well said, that man. Spud (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Just coming to this after a break and I don't really understand the question. The poster askes if we are Right Wing or Left Wing. In reality facts are facts - though we probably have more editors on the political left than the right. But then asks if we take "this page seriously" - the page called "Saloon bar"? The page where people just chat and which isn't really what the wiki is about. The question needs to be clarified.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

However, the extremist blog doesn't consider facts to be as such - they are 'tools' to either prove your preconceptions/views right and/or Them wrong, and any that don't do that are thrown into the wood chipper. If people consider RW to be a 'librul' counterpart of CP, it is [faulty but understandable] that we do the same. The incorrect bit is to ignore the fact that RW evolved away from being an inverted CP long, long ago. On the 'taking us [RW] seriously', I shall point out the likes of Mr Google et al often shove our mainspace articles quite high on the results [sometimes as #2 or #3] which shows they consider us seriously on at least some topics. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

How to Depolarize Society

A worrying trend for over a decade now is the increasing polarization of politics and media, combined with a focus on partisan loyalty over the rule of law. There has to be a way to help reverse the trend, especially in preventing any further methods of division and arguing. Anything to corroborate? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You'll never get rid of partisanship and toxicity completely. But, I do think (hopefully, I suppose) that Big Social Media is in decline (especially Facebook and Twitter), and that will help some. The usage of algorithmic feeds on these platforms, optimized for maximum engagement (all the better for the ad dollars!) and driven by binary evaluation methods, encouraged groupthink and divisiveness. And I think it's easy to see this just by observing how things like how the YouTube algorithm works: curiosity on certain topics can lead you into "rabbit holes" of videos (this is true for any subject on there, but to take an example, those who wonder about a conspiracy theory will find a "rabbit hole" of "recommended videos" with similar bullshit). The Silicon Valley CEOs knew about this, but didn't care.

I think a lot more people (especially the young folks) are more wary of "big social media" and are avoiding it, or shifting to private messages or more limited scope apps. Hopefully, should this play out, this will help reduce the intensity of polarization a little, at least. BobJohnson (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, a good step would be to hasten the demise of these social media algorithms. There's already antitrust lawsuits and data protection bills on both sides of the pond, so how can we help finish the job and turn the lights off for those invasive algorithms completely? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I do think the problem will be mitigated to a large extent by age-related attrition - take a look at the crowd of megachurch attendees and you'll see a lot of grey and white hair. Other than that, people like Trump supporters are pretty much post-fact. They're literally in a cult and debunking conspiracy theories isn't going to change that. What they get from the cult (and from other religions, e.g. Mormonism) is a sense of community and belonging. Of course, if these people's kids don't talk to them, there's probably a reason for it.

I don't have the solution, unfortunately. Maybe more cribbage clubs? IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You could heat it, hit it or expose it to a strong opposite field. What? The same treatment doesn't work for both magnets and society? That won't work then.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The main problem that arose in past attempts to social engineer social problems away has been, nobody knows how to do it. The problems associated with homelessness, hunger, education, disease, are solvable with investments. Religious disagreements, cultural conflicts, historical grievances, are intractable with government policies. These conflicts need to be obliviated. How? Baseball did a little work, in the past, to effect changes in regional antagonisms. Boston vs Pittsburgh, for example. This may sound silly, but hostility is not rational. Imagine a Georgian in 1903, liking baseball, being sympathetic to one of those cities. Hostilities can be displaced, maybe. Video games might accomplish something like sports. Forgetting is a vital ability for those who want a peaceful life.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

One problem is "political Veganism".

There are very good reasons to reduce your consumption of animal products, from health concerns to environmental issues. One reason people eat less meat is to have some sense of moral superiority over everyone else. But the people who eat less meat will in turn be snubbed by the vegetarians, and the vegetarians will in turn be snubbed by the vegans. Among the vegans, there's a race to see who can be even more pure, in order to be crowned "King Vegan". No honey, no wool, etc.

But how do you go through life without using a single animal product?

You don't; you lie. When no one is watching, you eat a burger.

What does this have to do with politics? It's the same concept.

There are valid reasons to support and oppose abortions, depending upon the situation. For the pro-life side, maybe you don't think elective abortions should be allowed once the fetus is "viable". But you aren't as "moral" as the person who thinks it should be halted at 18 weeks instead. And that person isn't as "moral" as the one who thinks abortion shouldn't be allowed for disabilities. And that person isn't nearly as moral as the one who refuses to allow abortions even if it's to save the mother's life. But if that person was pregnant with an ectopic down-syndrome rape-baby? They'll get an abortion while no one is looking, or worse, force others to not get an abortion so that the arithmetic still works out to them being a "net good".

There are valid reasons to want more or less gun controls. But the average person who supports gun rights is not as "pure" as the one one clammering for an end to background checks, even when it's clear that the person clammering for such would never want to actually live in the conditions they advocate for.

What needs to be done is for everyone, of any political stripe, to recognize the Vegan when they see it, and admonish them. Stop letting people advocating for crazy ideas be worshipped or praised, and they'll stop attempting to one-up everyone with the bat-guano. CorruptUser 17:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

So, improve the quality of education so that people have stronger bullshit detectors. Easier said than done, especially since the bullshit peddlers are actively trying to undermine the educational system. Luigifan18 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk of depolarization seems to implicate that the goal should be to get people to “converge” on some sort of political consensus, or stay within a narrow range of acceptable policy stances. That raises an interesting question about whether such convergence is necessarily a good thing, and what a “reversal” of the current trend would look like and if that would be desirable. Do we want to reverse back? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If you look at American history, I think polarization is simply a "fact of life", to some degree. Take the civil rights movement and its numerous acts of violence (arguably, the current polarization cycle is merely a continuation of the strife in the 1960s). Or the Gilded Age and its own strident polarization. The American Civil War? (No need to comment on that, I hope.) The real "abnormality" of American politics was the post-World War 2 "halo", methinks (and that was a "halo" that disguised troubles beneath). I wouldn't be surprised if you can find similar in other countries. So it's kind of like, "reverse back to what?"

Now, so much of the current polarization cycle is due to some Republicans veering hard-right due to the "culture war". And so much of that culture war is "time-limited". So I don't know what things will look like when the "Boomers yelling at clouds" section of politics (something that I think is a key driver of Trumpism and the like) fades away. BobJohnson (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently I have a short memory, so please remind me. Which of the current stances of Republicans would be out of place in the 90's Clinton era? CorruptUser 14:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

As I remember off the top of my head:

A) Any anti-globalization stance. The neoconservatives were very much pro-globalization. Trumpism is quite the opposite.

B) Any isolationism type stance. In particular, the adoration of Russia/Putin would have been very much out of place in the 1990s Republican party. The same goes for the whole trying to dismantle NATO bit. Many neoconservatives were hawks that seemed to relish any excuse to bombard a country. Trumpism tends to be inward looking and reactionary.

Most of the "culture war" shit is largely the same, but the "preachers and racists" segment of the party have more power these days compared to the pro-business side -- it's the Fox News party now, not the Wall Street Journal party. If anything, there has been a bit of a shift in the Democrats on some cultural issues -- back in the 1980s, there was more of a shared "high society" culture in Washington, and Democrats and Republicans alike were all too happy to join together for PMRC type complaints about supposed vulgarity, something I'm less certain would happen these days. (This is also due to a bit of a shift on the right as well -- essentially, over the years, I feel that the Focus on the Family type crowd has faded in power, and the so-called South Park Republican type segment has gained. However, it's definitely not to the point where the moral tut-tut crowd is completely out of power yet.). BobJohnson (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

IIRC, the Republican party fought with Clinton to halt intervention in the breakup of Serbia, which was ultimately Isolationist. And arguably, it was a pro-Russia stance. Also of note is that a about a third of Republicans opposed NAFTA, along with a quarter of Dems including Biden. Sounds like an anti-Globalization stance to me.

Granted that some of this was just "politics as usual", of course. CorruptUser 15:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the difference between the '94 and '24 Republicans is that the majority/minority has flipped. Yes, there were proto-MAGA viewpoints [as well as the Dominionist drek and Tea Party types] present in the party in the 90s but they were generally on the fringes of it, meaning that the relatively sane neocon/corp Republicans called the shots. However, what happened in the 10s was that said triad managed to perform a slow coup of the party [qv: 'entryism'], leading to them becoming the majority and then launching a 'loyalty purge' wherever possible to get rid of the defeated remnants who didn't bend the knee at the Orange One.

But Corrupt does have a bit of a point; that a lot of the 'sane'/'moderate' Republican officials [not voters] from the previous generation turned out to be fairly okay with the almost all of the MAGA 'project' - suggesting that a lot of them were in fact 'affably evil' all along and/or simply 'suits for hire' who's main complaint was that the Orange One didn't have the 'genial grandfather' persona Reagan did or Bush Jr's 'just a decent average guy' one which both a) made them more electable and b) actually allowed their plans to be more effective. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Most politicians are empty suits. Do you really believe that the Senator who sponsored the '94 Crime bill and VAWA would ever be on the same side as the Defund the Police folks or BLM unless he merely took whatever positions would get him elected? CorruptUser 16:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I dunno about that; though the 'empty suit' quotient surely goes up the higher the rung of office they hold. One thing I do wonder whether 'Citizens United v. FEC' ruling at SCOTUS in 2010 has it's part to play in increasing the wingnut quotient in the Republicans, because it makes much easier to astroturf popularity for them in things like primaries. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb At this point, no. There's no middle ground to return to. The American political landscape consists primarily of; Neo-fascists who want to purge society of demographics they believe are pure evil and behind the world's woes. Liberals who want to prevent any change because their time has come and gone and they refuse to acknowledge it. Leftists with zero plan or coherency who keep trying to be good little liberals and effective radicals, and don't grasp that these two things are not compatible. Not only is depolarization not desirable, in many ways we are not polarized enough to avoid a Neo-fascist social revolution. Of course, this will be an unpopular opinion, as it does chafe against the precious liberal status quo. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of depolarization, what's the term for the inverse of the Overton Window? In Overton, there's a range of opinions allowed around some moderate position, and the extreme positions are shunned. But in a polarized society, it's the moderate opinion that's verboten whereas you have a choice of 2 (or possibly more) extremist views.CorruptUser 03:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I know that I'll sound more like an advocate than as an analyst, but given that liberalism is (at least in theory) a centrist perspective, I'm inclined to say that a society where moderation is frowned upon is just an illiberal society. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

When I think of illiberal societies, I imagine they only allow ONE extreme idea on a topic. I'm thinking of a society where most people are on the extremes of the pro-life or pro-choice spectrum and are shielded from attacks from the opposite side by their own group, but anyone who says something moderate like "I think abortion should be allowed for any reason up to the first few months, but after about 6 months it should only be allowed for medical reasons" gets attacked by both sides without having the protection of either.

Nobody likes the fence-sitter, but this is public policy and a moderate viewpoint should be the default, not the exception. CorruptUser 18:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There's already a prominent US example -- the American Civil War -- of a conflict born of a topic with two diametrically opposed viewpoints, with each viewpoint holder really, really hating the other side. (I will say that, unlike abortion, I really can't think of a "moderate position" when it comes to slavery though.) BobJohnson (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Lincoln was actually relatively moderate as far as abolitionists went; slavery would remain legal in the South but NOT be permitted in the West. Eventually, the slave states would be outnumbered and overpowered and slavery would've become increasingly regulated or banned, which is why the South revolted then and there. Had the war not happened, slavery would likely have only slowly phased out, persisting in some form until the early 20th century.

While Jefferson owned an uncomfortable number of slaves, to his credit he did do two huge things when he managed to ban the importation of slaves in 1808, and his work to limit the practice of the slave trade itself. The biggest cruelty of slavery was not the whole "you are forced to work and you don't get paid" thing, but the fact that you always had to live under the shadow of knowing that one drunken lout's mismanagement or degenerate gambling addict's bad luck was all that it took for your children to be ripped away from you and sold just 20 miles away, NEVER to be heard from again. CorruptUser 19:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

One thing that annoys me about calls to "depolarize society" is that it comes with the implication that irreconcilable differences between various groups are somehow fabricated. If only we removed social media, then people who post "put drag queens in woodchippers" memes would live in perfect harmony with people who think trans rights are human rights! It reminds me of segregationists saying blacks would be fine with Jim Crow, if it weren't for outside socialist agitators.-Flandres (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but it appears to me to be fabricated mostly by the extremist groups themselves. Social media has sped things up, but it's not the source. CorruptUser 21:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice if it were possible. See, the problem with insurrection, revolution, civil war, Federal income tax, my Sunday crossword puzzles, is they never turn out as you'd like. Many of the January 6th rioters were motivated by concern over the white replacement theory. So, you can call them neo-Nazis, fascists, late-for-dinner dumb-asses, etc., but they more than likely represent a large body of alienated groups who got hooked into thinking they could accomplish something positive with their lives. Ending up in Federal prison has largely cooled the interest in participatory insurrection, as has been noted by journalists attending the courtroom appearances of Mr. Trump, who was no doubt disillusioned by the shallow intensity of activists who appeared to protest his miscellaneous indictments. Finally, civil wars cost a lot of money. Confederate cessation was motivated by powerful Southern Agricultural interests (Slave-owners). Trans-twerking just won't make enough people sign-up for a real fight.

Some of those mooks have mayhem at heart, but in the main, the causes that engender pointless frenzies of violence are fear and deprivation. Yet times do change. According to Brookings, in 1958, 44% of whites said they would move if a black family moved next door. Today, that figure is 1%. There is a great deal of social nausea, without any real economic incentive to do anything, apart from larping. Sociopaths will always take the lead, but who will follow? I think we are experiencing a kind of ideological exhaustion that came with changing or ambiguous moral standards. Decades of Catholic church and Evangelical sex scandals has flat-lined interest in religion: "Pew Research repeatedly found that Gen Z is the nation’s least religious generation, with about a third having no religion — about the same proportion as among millennials — compared with 23%, 17% and 11% among, respectively, Generation X, baby boomers and the Silent Generation." While many have no need of religion to live a moral life, the degradation of traditional moral institutions is bound to have a discouraging effect on the general population, corresponding to less trust in experts, government, and society in general. We are, I believe, in the midst of a social depression. Some people will just keep getting up every day to go to work, and, as the old saying goes, grin and bear it. I think most people will. How big the disruptive minority will be remains to be seen.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I do love how most of the people blathering on about how America can be de-radicalized and depolarized were the same people arguing that There's Nothing to Be Done Except Fighting in regards to I/P not more than a month ago. It's very funny to watch the double standards. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I know that many marginalized people have been arming themselves because they feel that society has become too radicalized against them and don't trust the state to protect them. Many trans people in particular are arming themselves, but it's not a phenomenon limited to the queer community. Ironically, an argument could be made that arming a community out of self defense could itself be a factor in the radicalization and polarization cycle, but I make no prescriptive arguments here. Carthage (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit: GC fix'd his comment to make it clear)

What are you referring to by "There's Nothing to Be Done Except Fighting"? CorruptUser 23:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@carthage

Gays with Guns don't get bashed... CorruptUser 23:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Fahrenheit v Celsius

I am a huge fan of metric, centimeters v inches, that makes some sense, but I want to point out, that outside my window, tonight, it is -14 F. With windchill, it feels like -40 F which doesn't work because Celsius and Fahrenheit both have 0s and negativez, but I think Fahrenheit gives a better description of temperature. Metric is better at everything else. It's an appeal to everyday. Fahrenheit is just a better temperature measurement. 2600:8804:500:FE90:B1CB:6FF:4A6F:1E4E (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Better how? Doesn't it make more sense to use a scale in which freezing point is 0 and boiling point is 100? Spud (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I get the charm. please don't think I'm against that. I remember that kid on Twitter who said girls should just hold their periods, who also said 'check mate atheists, God made water freeze at zero and boil at 100' I have had to explain that Fahrenheit is not just twice Celsius to adults. Torrent (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I would have to justify a lot, it would be difficult. Basically I think Fahrenheit gets closer, a lot like centimeters are closer than inches. Torrent (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Celsius is asking water how hot it feels, Fahrenheit is asking people how hot it feels, and Kelvin is asking atoms how hot it feels. I personally find Fahrenheit useful for modeling climates and temperatures in local areas, but yeah Celsius makes more sense --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 04:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As long as that 'local area' is in the USA! You know NotUSA places exist, right? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Celsius tells me - a person - exactly how hot it feels. (Or how hot I feel.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Unpopular opinion here, but I like the simplicity of using Fahrenheit for the weather. If it’s 0, it’s really cold out, and if it’s 100, it’s really hot out. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 14:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You could say exactly the same thing about Centigrade. Though you would really need to first define "really cold" and "really hot". But as as you would then need to define these things in terms of either Centigrade or Fahrenheit the process might become too self-referential.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This is simply a case of what you get used to. I'm sure most people used to Celsius would see 40C as "really hot" and -15C as "really cold". Most metric systems work a lot better mathematically than their "legacy" counterpart, but I don't think it's as big of a deal when it comes to temperature. They are both simply a measure of kinetic energy that originally was calibrated to water freezing and boiling (Celsius), or, er, a saline solution of some sort freezing and the human body temperature as best estimated in the 1700s, or something like that (Fahrenheit). The former is simpler, but both are really variants of the same concept, and convert using a pretty simple equation. (Incidentally, the OP's -40F temp+wind chill actually would be -40C!) BobJohnson (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. For general living it's just what you are used to. For scientific stuff metric works out best. I'd say that using the same one for general living and science would make life easier - but I'm probably biased.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

There was a board to transition America to the metric system but Reagan defunded it, because Republicans are demons. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

And they tried to switch to metric like nearly every other country on Earth, but Congress was too lazy --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 17:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

-40C and -40F are the same temperature, and I'm not sure why you think that -14F is a better term for a very cold temperature than -25C would be. 124.197.9.72 (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

BTW New Zealand changed from Fahrenheit to Centigrade in my lifetime, then changed the term to Celsius a few years later. My dad had be bought up using F for many more years than me of course, and he made a simple rule of thumb to help him comprehend the new scale - 16C and 61F are the same temperature, and to him anything about that was on the warm side of things, and anything under tended towards cold. I still use that. 124.197.9.72 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t see any particular case for anything else than “It’s easier to understand temperatures in the scale I grew up with” in any of the comments so far.

Having grown up with Celsius and not having lived long-term in any of the countries still using Fahrenheit, the latter seems as illogical and incomprehensible to me as those used to Fahrenheit claiming that Celsius is not as intuitive as the Fahrenheit they’re used to. That the normal human body temperature in Fahrenheit is close to, but just shy off, 100F, while 0F is much lower than even the freezing point of water puts a big question mark at claim that it reflects “how hot/cold people feel it is”, unless you think that negative temperatures should only reflect the most extreme cold.

It’s just as easy to tell balmy from cold weather intuitively in Celsius, if you’re used to it, as it is in Fahrenheit, because you associate a particular feeling (hot, cold or somewhere in-between) with a certain “score” on the scale and have some sense about the magnitudes of any shifts that might change that perception and how that would roughly correspond to numerical changes on that particular scale.

One convenient thing about Celsius, though, is that having the 0 at the usual freezing point of water means that when the weather is around that point or lower, you know that there’ll be a risk of icy roads etc. and that you should empty or insulate pipes to avoid frost damage. But people used to Fahrenheit will, of course, just have a similar knowledge about the relevant point on that temperature scale. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

As for those “rules of thumb weather temperatures” mentioned earlier (and without accounting for humidity or wind) these are no great feat of mental calculation, though personal perceptions may vary.

My personal ones in Celsius would be:

When you hit 35C or above (and especially above 40C), things are likely get really nasty, no matter how low the humidity.

30C (or anything close to and above) = Definitely seek some shade and be careful about the heat, exertion etc.

25C = a sunny summer’s day, where you might consider finding some shade at midday.

20C = A warm (but not hot) summer’s day.

15C = You should be a bit careful when dressing for the outdoors, but it’s not going to be really cold.

10C = Definitely wrap up and remember your extremities.

5C or below is getting really cold.

0C and you’ll need to watch for ice patches or, conversely, problems with things thawing out.

-5C to -10C is probably the highest temperature you’d want on your skiing holiday to be safely below freezing and avoid problems of thawing and refreezing.

Once you’re below, say, -15C or -20C you need to take particular caution when wrapping up, even if there’s no wind at all. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

what a great use of scale. Torrent (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that all of us tend to support the thing we grew up with: metric vs imperial; dogs vs cats; wine vs beer; my country vs any other; my religion vs any other; my language vs any other; etc vs etc. The next thing is to think up post hock justifications so that we can maintain some reason to explain that "our" systems are really objectively better.

So that got me to wondering if there was some name for such a cognitive bias. The best I can come up with System justification . Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

'If it ain't broke' and 'path of least resistance', I guess. We don't want to have to re-learn anything as adults if we think the 'old way' functions well enough. We then cook up 'reasons' to justify our laziness.

Anyway, thing is that it's not really a 'Fahrenheit v Celsius' argument; it's a 'Celsius v Fahrenheit and Celsius' one. All modern Americans need to have a passing familiarity with °C, because it's what the rest of the world uses and if you deal with anything 'foreign' you need to know it [just like the rest of the metric system]. Big businesses will use it, suspect the US military uses it and any time you buy say, cookware made outside of the USA [ie most of it] you will find refrigerators, cookers, microwaves etc all rated in °C. Thus, maintaining °F is a little bit of nostalgic dick-stroking, forcing kids to learn another measurement system and a conversion equation for no actual benefit. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I've only used Fahrenheit. The only thing I know about Celsius is the boiling and freezing points. Besides that, IDK how to use it. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️^{Bore me} 16:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

American Metrologist here; I work with the DoD as well. Yes we have to convert everything to metric on the back end. It is super annoying and the only reason we have to keep around the imperial system is because when most Americans want to have "American Exceptionalism" they can't tell the difference between exceptionally good and exceptionally bad. Once you are used to the Celsius scale, the Fahrenheit scale has literally no advantages. Stop trying to justify stubbornness and stop being a century out of date with everything ya dinguses. You have such a labor and accuracy tax on the back end from everything having to be converted over and over that you are burning money. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Now, hold on. The units are smaller scale, by default that adds to minor accuracy. Converted 'over and over' doesn't make a lot of sense, since it's converted one to one and it's not like you have to hire a temperature conversion expert, since Google does it very accurately. International weight and dimension, that is all done by lasers and scales. Most shipping deals defer to businesses like FedEx and DHL to weigh and measure. That's a really wild claim that measurement conversion costs or burns money. Torrent (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to be welcome to the idea. I'm sure the minutia means less on an atmospheric scale. In the winter, I keep my thermostat at 16 and two thirds degrees celsius. Generally, it is a well insulated apartment and it doesn't naturally come close or drop below, so I get to live on other peoples' furnaces. During cold snaps, this is about what is close to natural without heat, and I mean, if it's around -26C out, it's less of a shock to go from one to the other. So we'd be talking a temperature shift of 30 degrees C, and 70 degrees F. The physical feeling isn't different, it's two ways to describe the same bitter cold, but I like the tighter dial, temperature and weather always has nuance, like wind chill and humidity. Torrent (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Torrent; a) if you need accuracy in Celsius, you can use decimals. But truth be told, it's a rare event where an everyday bod needs to have a difference between say, 18C and 18.5C and b) the 'conversion tax' is real and present not just in metrological services but also the world of big business, the military, engineering and science. This 'tax' was one of the main reasons why the UK decided to generally 'go metric' in the 1960s. In fact, recently in the Brexit 'nostalga poisoning' UKGov mooted the return of Imperial measures [surely the brainchild of the Edwardian cosplayer Rees-Mogg] which was ditched when only 1% of polled wanted it. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

(EC)in the context of metrologists, big business or the American military needing to convert temperatures: "it's not like you have to hire a temperature conversion expert, since Google does it very accurately"· I kinda doubt that these groups are using Google for this. Obviously I'm sure its done by software though. But not my field, so, maybe?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

fahrenheit is one of two (or three) non-metric/imperial/"american" units that i actually prefer; in the very least, i prefer fahrenheit when it comes to measuring indoor and outdoor day-to-day temperature. one degree fahrenheit is more precise than one degree celsius. therefore, if you perceive a noticeable air temperature change, the fahrenheit scale more precisely represents how much your body has felt the change. also, if you're setting the indoor temperature on a thermostat, it's easier to fine tune how you want it to be.

i know all of this is entirely subjective, but then again, so are feelings themselves. (do also keep in mind that all of the abovementioned "preferences" are merely people's opinions.) otherwise, i prefer celsius and kelvins for scientific purposes The G (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

So to answer people's point about Google, no we can't typically use Google for *most* conversions. Some, such as Fahrenheit to Celsius, you can do as long as you are careful to remember if you are talking relative or absolute values (i.e. "the temperature increased by 2 °C", vs "the temperature *is* 2 °C". Both have a different conversion to Farenheit). Conversions on Google usually only go out to 4 to 6 digits of resolution, but a conversion factor really needs to be known to 9 for most of our purposes, and better is the exact mathematical representation to whatever the bit depth of your computer is. A common conversion that is super annoying is μin-Hg (micro-inches of Mercury) to kPa (kilo-Pascals). Our total uncertainty budget in a case like this would be around 50 μPa (micro-pascal), or if your conversion factor was only 9 digits, there goes your *entire allowed uncertainty just from lack of digits in your conversion factor*. Googling it also gives multiple conflicting results at this accuracy level, as viral misinformation and SEO optimized garbage often rises to the top; so it is important to always trace conversion factors to their original publications. To this end, we have several fun historical documents, like a copy of the original 1901 Treaty between the US and France which established the definition of standard gravity (exactly 980.665 cm/s^2).

And to answer people's points about "Farenheit has bigger numbers and so is more precise", that isn't how precision works. It isn't about sheer number of digits, but rather how well you know those digits. I guarantee you don't usefully differentiate the two in a way that either 1) using half Centigrade wouldn't work for or 2) doesn't already necessitate using decimals for Farenheit. By the logic of "using Farenheit gives more precision 'cause more digits", you all better be using effing barleycorns instead of inches. If I see a single mile instead of furlongs, you all are going to hypocrite prison. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Mirror, I appreciate the effort and I'm not trying to discount the amount of precision you are clearly skilled at, but do you have to scrape your car windows? Also, I get that one can build the equation into a spreadsheet. Not sure how search engine optimization would affect the math. And I do already prefer centimeters over inches, I don't think I made any claim outside of specifically C v F. Torrent (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Torrent, A quick Google search returns the following conversion factors for 1 in-Hg to Pa depending on website: 1 inHg = 3386.38 Pa, 3386.3889532610883 Pa, 3400 Pa, 3386.389 Pa, 3386.38867 Pa, and 3386.39 Pa. The correct one btw is 1 inHg = 3386.389 Pa per NIST Special Publication 811 Appendix B, as past that the compressibility of a column of Mercury dominates the system. What inHg is literally a measurement of is a column of Mercury, and so the practical realities of using such a thing are important in context (we have a mercury column (called a Manometer) over a story tall in the laboratory where I work). If you are making corrections for Earth's gravitational heterogeneity and lunar interactions with the same, then you can justify having more digits (see ISO 80000-4:2019 for the true conversion, but it is $80 if you want to read it, and the true conversion factors are under copyright. Whoever decided you should be able to copyright conversion factors for units can go to hell btw). Funny enough though, the top Google result in this instance that Google used for the conversion was actually correct for the non density-corrected case; but that is pretty hit or miss. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That is actually... Really cool. I'm a little hopeless when it comes to doing math, but I think I do okay with concepts. Any mercury column I would imagine would have a standard volume? Torrent (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

For measuring the column height, you actually don't need to know the volume; which is good because due to the volume changing with temperature and pressure fluctuations, correcting for that would dramatically degrade the accuracy of your test setup. The pressure exerted by a liquid column is only related to its height within a gravitational field, the density of the liquid in the column, and the strength of the gravitational field you are in. Since the acceleration due to gravity at sea level on Earth fluctuates by about 0.2% accross the United States, it is important to know the strength of gravity at your particular test location. The amount of pressure at the bottom of a column of liquid is proportional to both the density of the liquid and the height of the column (if you double the column height, you double the pressure. 3x column height = 3x pressure, etc; same thing for the density.) The reason Mercury is used is because it is surprisingly dense for a room temperature liquid (over 15% denser than solid lead!). If you used a column of a less dense liquid, the height of the column now needs to be taller to get to the same pressure. If you wanted to use liquid water, for instance, you would need a column 13.5x taller to get the same pressures. Considering the Mercury Manometer already has to be 1.5 stories tall, this means that a water column at the same pressure would need to be over 20 stories tall! Since the setup is so sensitive to gravity as well, you have to compensate for the difference in the force of gravity at the bottom and top of your setup, as even 9 feet of altitude changes gravity significantly in this context (although to be fair, it isn't nearly your biggest worry in the setup, as whether or not the column is actually on a level surface and not slightly teetering to one side is a much bigger worry). The column height is measured electronically, as Mercury is very electrically conductive.

Also: on the note of Googling stuff also being problematic, if you Google "mercury resistivity", the top result says that Mercury has the "lowest resistivity of all metals"; but this is completely and utterly false. Silver has around 63x times less electrical resistance than Mercury, but viral misinformation spreads rapidly. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

wow, thank you for that. I remember in the late 90's there was an ornamental thermometer that was basically a large glass tube with a bunch of small blown glass dumpling looking things. I looked it up and it's called the Galileo glass thermometer. In the early oughts, atomic clocks were all the kitschy rage, but it wasn't like they were loaded with their own Decaying atom, they were satellite synched. Would it be possible to design a desktop mercury thermometer that took all this into account? Maybe using WiFi and GPS to account for all the sea level and gravity within standard deviation reason? let's be honest, I'm not gonna do it, but you got a kitschy little hyper techno desk thermometer if you can synch that up. Torrent (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

GPS should be able to get close enough to make a very accurate system. At the size of something that could fit on a desk, your errors from thermal instability in air currents will probably be greater than what gravity GPS cannot correct for. Normally you correct for those by putting the instrument in a draft box (a clear lexan box). Basically, you just need latitude combined with altitude above sea level to get a very good gravity estimate. You'll also need to link to a clock to correct for the tidal interference. Making sure the system is level is necessary to make any of this matter though, as 1° of error in level is a 0.1% change in gravity; lunar interference is in the part per million. Most thermometers also do not operate by specific gravity (like a manometer), but rather thermal expansion. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I like Kevin because with kevin 0 is the lowest it can get. But it is rarely used in daily life. Koafox (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there an article on Hasan yet?

He just interviewed a Yemeni terrorist https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/01/17/what-to-know-about-the-viral-yemeni-pirate-rashid-dominating-social-media/?sh=41a383a24361, and he said Americans deserved 9/11. He is one of the most watched Twitch streamers, he is the nephew of Cenk (from TYT), and he loathes America. 47.145.97.124 (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't have an article on Hasan Piker, but judging from the wiki page as well as a scan of news articles, I'm not seeing *too* much mission-oriented yet (there's definitely some rather bad takes here and there though, like the "Americans deserve 9/11" bit.) Obviously, that's my current thought; "your mileage may vary". The Young Turks (Piker's previous job) had enough "meat" to get an article here. BobJohnson (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Never heard of that guy --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 00:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I just know him as "Cenk's Nephew" CorruptUser 00:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

he's not stupid but he is broken. He has so defaulted to screaming nonsense any time he disagrees that I just can't take him seriously. Vaush is similar, but Vaush as of late has been more 'please don't engage disingenuously.' I don't think Hasan genuinely despises America. Any more than a conservative who was ready to burn their Nike's over Colin Kaepernick getting an endorsement. First the football man won't stand, now he gets free shoes? I hate this country! Like, patriotism, as far as America goes, is strangely convoluted. Nationalism has been given to the right because the moderate right was too cowardly to level criticism and the moderate left was too cowardly to hold up, and as the horshoe goes, they done fucked it up and taken it to the stupid level of 'I heard somebody say republicans should just die, the south must rise again!'. So anyone remotely moderate is actually seen as outside the window and inside a camp. It's very stupid. I was the most wildly progressive kid in high school, registered as an independent back in the early 2000s because the Democrats are not my party. They still aren't but it is impossible to explain why, exactly, I hate this country. Everybody in America hates America. Torrent (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Journalists (although Hasan is more of a pundit) interview unsavory people all the time. I don't really see how Hasan interviewing a "Yemeni terrorist" is missional.

Also, does Hasan hate "America" the political project or does he hate American culture and the American people? There is a difference. I also don't think dissent qualifies as "hating America." That's a thought terminating cliche. IMO there's nothing more patriotic than calling out the flaws in current society so that it can be better. And even if he does "hate America" (whatever that means), is that missional in and of itself? It's a pretty bog-standard political take in many parts of the globe. We "hate China" (the political entity) here but no one is saying that we're Sinophobic.

Perhaps a better line of inquiry to pursue is why people hate America. Or what that even means. Opposition to the existence of the current political structure of this arbitrarily defined set of land occupied and controlled by an entity with a monopoly on violence? Hatred of American people and culture (whatever that means)? Calling for reform of the political structures of this arbitrarily defined set of land occupied and controlled by an entity with a monopoly on violence?

What does "Hasan hates America" mean. Give me details. So far I'm seeing assertions with no substance. Carthage (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

He literally said America deserved 9/11 and has never apologized.-Ryan1257 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, can you give me context? Was he explaining how blowback works, or did he literally say "America deserves 9/11"? I'm going to assume that he did in fact say "America deserved 9/11," but I would still like to know the context, and would still like to be provided a citation. Otherwise it's just a baseless assertion. Carthage (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Here, though I doubt it'll covince you. Also, he has Putin apoligia in the past [10]. Plus, during that interview with the Houthi, he doesn't inform his audience of the human rights abuses of the houthis and just whitewashes them as "rebel, freedom fighters".-Ryan1257 (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

He's missional and well worth the wiki's attention at this point in my view. There is a YouTuber we have a page on, who I like but whose shortcomings deserve the attention they get on his page as well. Hasan has over a million followers on YouTube. It's likely just that nobody bothered yet to make a good article on him. He probably even has a to-do list entry. I remember one of Hasan's big blunders, when he repeatedly and emphatically said Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine back in 2022 and this was simply Western propaganda, then it happened not too long after. To his credit he seemed to fully realize the mistake. Chillpilled (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's worth making an article about him, Chapo Trap House, and other Champagne socialist influencers since their argumentative style and approach have really contributed to how a lot of hard-leftists act online. Arguably, for the worst (there's a reason it's been compared to Trumpism with its anti-intellectual nature, hostility to media, crass humor, and trying to make the hottest hot take in order to get praise and agreement from their peers).-Ryan1257 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Chapo has punched weirdly above their weight in terms of political influence. They basically caused Mike Gravel's 2020 campaign somehow which is one thing I immediately think of. Chillpilled (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ryan1257 OK, so he did say it then. Anyways, my contention was never with Hasan's missional status. It was with the piss-poor starter post for this thread. If someone makes assertions, they should back their claims up. I don't know why you have a problem with me and not the person making the unsupported and questionable assertions. Carthage (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It seemed like you were defending and downplaying Hasan's actions with your initial response, so I assumed you would downplay any sources I gave which was the reason for my hostility. Clearly I was in the wrong on that one.-Ryan1257 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyone apologizing for Russia, Houthis, and Hamas should be regarded as anti-western. I don't know if that qualifies for an article. He is a great source of information that is impossible to verify.UncleKrampus (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I used to enjoy Chapo, funny and a lot of their more serious episodes to cover some interesting topics. And Matt Christman's history podcasts on American presidents and Luther and the reformation are very fun and informative, alas I feel like Chapo has ran its course somewhat post-Bernie. But God... imagine thinking Chapo, a podcast that used an ironic reference to the Turkish "Grey Wolves" movement to refer to their hardcore fans was "anti-intellectual" and "hunting for praise and agreement from their peers". What's notable about Chapo was despite its complete irreverance for easily digestible and accessible "GO BLUE TEAM! YAY WE LOVE BLUE TEAM!" commentary (that arguably would play a lot better to a much bigger audience) it retained such an expansive and enthusiastic fan-base.

On the Hasan front, I feel like we've done similar articles before so there is precedent for one on Hasan but I'm not sure of the value in those articles in general. Articles about political commentators tend to either be apologetic puff peices or mean girls style burn books depending on which editor is left in charge of them and I'm not sure if the remit of Rationalwiki really should include "everything that a social media commentator says about politics that a rationalwikian disagrees with" or indeed "everyone on the left who has hurt Ryan's feelings in the last 10 years"Tikitime2 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There might be a fairness issue. Although I think the prevalence of "stopped clock" sections mitigates it even on pages for people that are near universally disliked. Sometimes the person's defense for things they have said or done is really weak as well. The thing about having pages that list a person's flaws, and that being the focus, is that this is often the exact reason behind their missionality. So it does make some sense that this is why their page focuses on it. But we also have pages emphasizing the way a person has countered crank/pseudoscientific/authoritarian ideas. I wonder if the page for Richard Dawkins might be a kind of standard. He's both countered and endorsed bad ideas. And it seems to me that there are few people who have been all good or all bad. (If you want an example of "all bad" though, I'm not sure I could offer a single substantial defense of a guy like Nick Fuentes if I even wanted to.) Chillpilled (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The Dawkins article is a very compelling case study but I think the closer you get to capital P politics the murkier things become. When it comes to pseudoscience rationalwikians generally have a consensus about what makes a claim plausible or deserving of scrutiny and which sources can be trusted, and it becomes a pretty open and shut case. With controversial and contemporary political debates it is rare to find evidence for a claim that is accpeted by all sides, so talk pages about a particular figure have a tendency to become full-blown battlegrounds for much larger political/historical/philosphical debates which tend to just rage on until someone decides they can't be bothered to put up with it and concedes the territory. Which I feel is not really in line with the consensus orientated mobocracy mindset that is rationalwiki at it's best. Fully accept I could be wrong though. Tikitime2 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Netanyahu has dug himself a political grave

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-01-18-2024-73d552c6e73e0dc3783a0a11b2b5f67d

Israeli Prime Minister and complete asshole Benjamin Netanyahu keeps dodging the impending post war issue. His government's failure to intercept the October 7th Terrorist Attack, corruption charges and failure to safely secure hostages will do him in. How long before his government collapses due to the growing anger in the Israeli public and international pressure?

There is no way that his government will survive this disaster. --Trans Fem Agenda 00:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Can't wait to see how this is all just honest self defense! 154.5.228.234 (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

So recklessly launching attacks into Gaza that gets civilians, who have nothing to do with the conflict, deserve death for the actions of their twisted government? It the response was carefully carried out and did everything possible to limit civilian casualties then I wouldn't say anything about it. Israel carelessly responded that killed a bunch of innocent people and even a few hostages. Hamas should be held accountable for their crimes but Israel is not smelling like roses either. --Trans Fem Agenda 03:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sarcasm on Israel excuse for their behavior, friend. 154.5.228.234 (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

And he's managed to burn any and all bridges abroad that could have possibly been rebuilt or reinforced with his medieval war methods and then hurling insults at everyone and every country/international entity that dares call him out on it, even many US Jews are turning on the Israeli government. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 03:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Bibi doesn't care. Any post-war situation right now has him personally somewhere between 'sacked in disgrace' and 'in prison' and so he has zero motivation to stop until his future shifts in a positive direction. He doesn't really care about 'foreign opinion' either because his fanbois/shills at home will simply put it all down to 'anti-Semitism' and even label foreign Jewish opinion as 'self-hating Jews' [I do wonder a little if he's embraced the 'anti-elite' rhetoric like his counterparts in the Anglosphere have]. But the truth is that there is enough domestic support to sustain the 'keep the IDF boot on the Palestinian neck forever' policy which is why Bibi is saying these things - it's his only apparent route to future political survival. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

In this case, Netanyahu is saying what Israelis are saying: only one in 4 Israelis support a two state solution now.

A "point to ponder" though is whether Netanyahu (and that "no Palestinian state" attitude) is doing future damage to Israel's cozy relationship with the United States. The old political axiom was that support for Israel was bipartisan and untouchable. Biden's part of the (way too) "old guard", so naturally his instinct has been to support Israel. But this is yet another issue where a gap has opened up between the elders and the youth, and the Democrats and the Republicans (with Democrat youth in particular no longer supporting Israel as strongly at all). Methinks that in the future, this former untouchable pillar of American politics will no longer be untouchable... BobJohnson (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

He definitely is. Even Jewish Americans are getting fed up with the Israeli nationalists’ constant weaponization of real or imagined antisemitism. It’s becoming like the Boy Who Cried Wolf at this point. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 17:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It's gonna telling what we see in the next Israeli elections. I can't say if it'll hold or not, but he's built himself and his compatriots a Gaza shaped grave that now, only his most strident, far-right supporters won't push him in after all that's happened. He's moved the government as far right as it can take to have "just" enough popular legitimacy, yet they still managed to cause an epic security blunder and make Israel unsafe that says a lot about how the right can't even do its basic promises. Plus, they're now seen as a pariah state and have reversed the gains they spent years making internationally. While Biden does have an "Old Guard" unconditional support for Israel, the longer this war goes on, the more it effects his public image and electability, and due to the growing civilian deaths and how uncooperative Netanyahu has been, there may come a point (and maybe there has in private) where he's gonna have to make some ultimatum to come to some kind of resolution rather than "keep going 'till 2025 and see what happens then" or Israel will be on its own militarily for the rest of the war.-Ryan1257 (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

We have to remember that about 20% of Isreali society is ethnically Arab, so it's possible that 'quarter' is mainly them. However, Bibi is not saying 'no Palestinian state now', it is basically 'no Palestinian state ever'. He has to say that because one of his electoral bulwarks is the hard-right/ultra-religious/hyper-Zionist/settler communities in the West Bank 'Samaria' who will have to be removed for any Palestinian state to be even remotely viable [the other option; the 'one state solution' is even more politically unacceptable because it would risk Jews becoming a minority in this new state] and guess what, those communities are growing under Bibi and has even used the 'distraction' of the Gaza War to step up the sizeures on the West Bank. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

A binational solution seems the most realistic idea these days. --Trans Fem Agenda 23:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

A two-state solution has not been feasible for at least a decade, unless it involves the kind of massive removal of settlements and “settler only corridors” that any Israeli government would have difficulty carrying out. Given the problems when Sharon cleared the far smaller and more concentrated Gaza settlements in 2005, withdrawal on the kind of scale necessary to create a viable Palestinian state on the West Bank is extremely unlikely to happen.

Any kind of two-state solution is thus likely to be on what is derogatorily (if quite accurately) called a “Bantustan” model, after the fragmented, pro forma self-governing territories in Apartheid South Africa. The Israeli right wing wants to simply expel the Palestinians completely from the occupied territories, mainly to Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza), claiming that these are the “homelands” of the Palestinians, This is also one reason why the Egyptian authorities have been loath to let Palestinian refugees cross from Gaza into Egypt; because they fear that those refugees won’t be allowed to return to Gaza, once the current fighting abates. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

One thing to note; the 'legal' settlements in the West Bank are also illegal in international law. All would have to go, which is understandable because if they remained they'd make an independent West Bank politically, economically and militarily unsustainable. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to make my point clear: Whenever I wrote of “settlements”, whether the former ones in Gaza, the major ones established by Israel on the West Bank, or the “outposts” established by the Israeli settlers, the fact that they’re all illegal (as they indeed are under international law, as pointed out by KarmaPolice) was implicit. The only way any of these settlements might become legal is if they and the land they (and Israel…) occupy was somehow legally transferred to Israel, such as in a “land for peace” deal.

However, as I also mentioned above, if any significant portion of the West Bank settlements were to be transferred to Israel or kept as separate entities, they would indeed prohibit the creation of any kind of viable Palestinian state. Even more so, given that Israel and the settlers would probably insist on keeping some of the exclusive corridors linking them. Hence, any sort of Palestinian state created under such conditions would indeed be the kind of bantustan entity that would be totally dependent on and subservient to Israeli decisions and thus a state in name only. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Anti-war protests in Israel

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/19/1225651180/israel-tel-aviv-protest-gaza-war

Let's hope that more anti-war protests occur and put pressure on the Israeli version of Trump. --Trans Fem Agenda 23:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That he couldn’t even deliver on his promise of a safer Israel and contributed to the intifada cycle (practically guaranteeing another 10/7) like never before with his response further demonstrates the failures of the international right. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 02:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

ADHD management and memory tips

This goes out to all in the Ratwiki community who have been diagnosed with ADHD.Does anyone here have any tips for organizational and working memory skills. I know its best to see a licensed medical professional but Im curious to hear others perspectives on this as I have struggled with these things well into my adulthood.SensaurC-137 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

From my POV, you can either a) try to bludgeon your miswired head into operating 'normally' or b) put in mitigations for said miswiring. I found the latter more effective. It's about knowing where you repeatedly trip up and then seeing if you can mask it somehow. Example; clothing. All my stuff can be washed together [no organising different washes], is quick-drying [no need to think days ahead] is all part of a capsule wardrobe [no fussing if X goes with Y, as effectively everything goes together] and lastly, I have multiples of the same thing so it's a very rare day where I can't get my hand on a clean/suitable outfit for the day. Hell, I have 20 pairs of the same socks so I don't have to worry about 'missing pairs'. Not only does this seriously reduce the demand on my 'organisational bandwidth', but also avoids excessive demands on a) making decisions and b) time. Yes, 'decision fatigue' is a thing and I'm sure it's one of the biggest banes of our lives.

On a side-note, I shall ask; are you getting enough Omega-3? If you're deficient, it can sometimes retard brain function. Purely anacdotally, once I started to take it I found my 'bandwidth' had improved a bit. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I know pills are sometimes controversial in the ADHD community but I find they can help, for me at least. In any case, it's better than trying to self-medicate with caffeine which I used to do a lot. Of course, it's best to see a medical professional as you said. Plutocow (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

KarmaPolice I have and used fish oil in the past. I have not taken it recently and will probably start again at some point. Is there anything in regards to social skills and emotional management that anyone would recommend?SensaurC-137 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, if you're getting enough from diet the suppliment might not be needed, but I don't do fish so I'd basically been running on empty for years. As for social skills; it all depends on your issue(s), really - childhoods fuck children up and we were made fucked-up in the first place. Do you have a tendency to overshare? Have you been repeatedly been accused of being nosy? Or are you so anxious about making 'mistakes' and/or being seen as a weirdo that you're sometimes mistaken for a mannequin? In this case, I actually do think some kind of therapist can help here, if nothing else be an 'impartial judge' on what social fuckups you're making.

One little trick I have learned that might be helpful is that if I'm stuck in a conversation where my attention is all but spent but I can't drift off [like say, the boss who really likes the sound of their own voice] is to ask them little questions now and then to merely keep my brain from running away. Yes, occasionally I have ended up asking 'when are the pancakes coming in the mail?' types of question but it's a less worse outcome than drifting off entirely. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Only adult I know with ADHD does two things. Pills if concentration is vital, secondly makes to-do lists for work and checks them off assiduously. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Without delving too much into my background.I do have struggles with anxiety and ‘making mistakes’ as well as missing social cues and sometimes speaking incoherently. In my earlier years, I used to interrupt and talk over others with realizing but have learned to ‘mask’ over the years(Im usually quiet and reserved by nature).I still struggle to mask certain organizational tasks and working memory skills.I guess what im saying is they’re any resources and/or skills I could use that go simply beyond just ‘masking’ weaknesses and actually work to improve overall cognitive functioning skills without getting into woo/alternative medicine territory.SensaurC-137 (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Issue is, Bob you can't 'do to list' yourself out of ADHD, no more than you can timeplan yourself out of it either. Lists help, yes; but 'curating list' then becomes another task for your bandwidth to deal with and obviously, they only work if you actually consult it. Yes, I do lists but only for important, large tasks - it allows me to see all the bits of it and thus, be easier to achieve and be less daunting for me personally.

Anyway, I am not sure that there is anything really you can do to improve cognitive functioning skills once you've ensured you're getting enough sleep/nutrition and most importantly, managing stress [without resorting to pills]. The latter is perhaps the most overlooked; the Anglo world has the 'cult of busy' in which it's almost held as a saintly act to be running from task to task, constantly 'achieving' loads of things and pulling 118-hour weeks with nay a dropped second. That's a crock of shit for anyone, but worse for us because we have a degraded 'bandwidth' to timeplan and cope with stress [and stress fucks with your mind, esp planning skills]. Thus, we need to manage our stress/workload to compensate; the elimination of as many 'pointless' tasks as possible [a lot of shit people do is ultimately pointless, or at least not worth doing] as well as some 'margin' for overrunning tasks and 'downtime' for us to unwind and recharge. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If you suffer from it then I'm sure you know much more than I do. It's just what they tell me and for what it's worth.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I can only talk from personal experience. Generically, doing sport is one of the most helpful things you can do, even just taking a walk for 30 minutes helps to clear mindfog. The thing that helps me the most with organization is visual help like a noteboard that I can look at and that I can add to a routine. For instance: Put a noteboard where you can not help but see it, like the kitchen. Check your noteboard in the morning and evening and add anything that needs to be done. If you remember sth. During the day, set up an alarm on your phone for the evening so you can remind yourself to add it to the board.NastyNugget (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I keep a clipboard for a todo list. I always carry it with me at work and helps keep me from forgetting tasks. Just putting notes in my phone was never enough. Something about the physical and tactile nature of pen and paper really helps. I also put sticky notes on everything so I don't lose track of the "story" of a thing. I also always date even the most mundane of notes, as my natural ability to tell if something was a week vs 6 months ago is almost nonexistent. Vyvanse also helps enormously. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Traditional day

I'm a religious minority living in India. Most of the people around me are celebrating the inauguration of a temple over a razed mosque. My college has hosted an unofficial traditional day for this occasion. Now, I respected their devotion, I really do, but I know for a fact that this whole thing is a political gimmick. It's 'us' or 'them' kind of mentality. I don't want to show others that I support this nonsense. So, I'm left with two options. I can either go to college as I usually do or not go at all. What should I do? Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 15:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, unless you think they may harm and/or bully you for your religion, I think you should go. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they'll bully me but they'll think that I'm anti-Hindu. There clearly is a nationalistic influence over here. Rumors spread like wildfire. I'm sure that the kids are going to scream 'jay shree ram' (a dog whistle). I can't say that even if they're chanting it with a pure heart. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 16:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait, why would people think you're anti-Hindu for celebrating the inauguration of a Hindu temple? Am I missing something? Luigifan18 (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This temple was built on the ruins of an ancient mosque. It was torn down by an angry mob. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/711412924/nearly-27-years-after-hindu-mob-destroyed-a-mosque-the-scars-in-india-remain-dee This is why I don't wanna take part in anything related to this. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 16:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven not explained why it is relevant to you, whether you attend college or not on a particular day. What difference would it make? Do you have business there on that day? Your opinion about the history of that place should not affect your motivation to go to school.UncleKrampus (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, it would make a difference if I do go to college on that day dressed informally. A Traditional day, official or unofficial, is huge thing. Virtually everyone would be dressed. It's kind of like going to prom in your pjs. The history of the place doesn't affect my motivation to go to class. All I want is to avoid confronting my 'energetic' peers for one day and moving on with my college life.Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 18:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Are there students from other religious minorities whom you know — India has many religious minorities, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, atheistic Hindus, and others. Ask them what they intend to do and why. Bongolian (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

KLeibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 19:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Would not involving yourself in this put you in any physical danger or have some other obviously damaging personal consequences?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. My peers aren't that fanatically. Anyway, thinking about this made me realize that I can't live in fear of what my peers say or think. They're not above the law. However, if I do get into an argument I would like to know what steps I should take to de-escalate the situation. Thanks for helping me out. Leibniz Enter into the rabbit hole 19:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It's going to depend on who you are talking to. If it's a close friend you trust you might tell them exactly what you think, if it's someone looking for trouble then you might want to say it's personal decision or simply invent some urgent unmissable school activity. I don't think there could be a one-size-fits-all response. Another good strategy is to ask them for their opinions - most people are really far more interested in telling you what they think than in hearing what you have to say.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

In October there was a pro-Hamas rally at my school in WA celebrating 10/7, I took one look at the Palestinian and Israeli flags in the same place at the same time and just noped out of there, especially since I knew right away they weren’t merely supporting Palestine’s right to exist. No harm in not participating, most UW students are less cray-cray than (from what I’ve heard, my sources admittedly aren’t the best narrators) those at Harvard and I have reason to doubt that those rallyers’ views represented those of my college’s greater community. When we stop seeing groups as fully human, we lose our own humanity in the process --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 02:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ And this was on BBC's front page... I fucking hate Modi. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that lik, Gee; in future OP, it might be an idea to provide one yourself at the top of the topic because I suspect most of the folks at the Bar wouldn't know the context, backstory etc [I vaguely did, but that was by chance]. The other concept, 'Traditional day' I hadn't heard of but once did a bit of a search looks to me to me simply a designation of 'Hindu religious festival', right?

Anyway, assuming that is correct, you're in a shit position, OP and I don't envy you. Said position being you're a non-Hindu minority in a country where the ruling party is trying to make 'Hindu' and 'Indian nationalism' one and the same and you're completely aware of this. So the question is the classic one faced by any minority over the centuries - to either 'let it slide' or to stand up and resist it. Both sides have their merits, but my own gut is saying that 'politely making a stand' might have been the better option, as I assume a) your peers know you're not a Hindu and b) there's not much risk of serious blowback on your person.

Now, on how to defuse... I am not sure what would work best because not only am I not on the ground but I am also looking through this through an Anglo prism. Perhaps a 'stonewalling' method would work best - that when folks ask 'why aren't you celebrating?' you simply state 'it is a Hindu religious thing and I am not a Hindu?' and simply refuse to engage further on the topic? After all, it takes two to argue and you're simply declining to play the game. If they continue to press with Hindutva drek and/or they're a figure who you cannot ignore [say a teacher etc] perhaps you can deploy your secondary defence; that you were under the impression that India was a secular state [perhaps with a pithy Nehru quote or something] meaning mandatory religious events did not exist? KarmaPolice (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Now that I understand your problem: dressing up for a special day shows some kind of indirect support for something you disagree with. The answer is very simple: Dress the same way every day. Since unkempt appearance would draw attention to you, dress better than average every day you attend school, at least as well as the lower end of the current style of what is expected. You can do that and maintain your integrity while being socially invisible.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that’s how I evaded school bullying. I mean, there was one asshole in middle school who correctly guessed I was bi (which even I was unaware of then) and came close to singing like a bird to anyone who’d listen (an especially scary thought since another of my grademates I shared many classes with was a rather large East European with a penchant for bullying compulsively, mercifully unaware of all this). But luckily, the former gave me a hateful slip calling me a faggot and telling me to self-delete in my pocket which I gave to my counselor, who matched it with his handwriting and had the little bitch expelled (he already had a checkered history, that was the last straw). --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 20:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Karma, simple statements of 'I am' and 'I am not' should get you through a challenge. It would out you, if it actually comes up, but what are you going to do, be a quiet part of the energetic anti Muslim Hindu majority? If they won't accept you because your held faith doesn't match theirs, then that means at some point it will happen regardless. You have proved you aren't adversarial in your faith, don't change it to a mission, just be quietly devotional even as. If you want to dress up with everyone else, explain why you don't have the clothes, ask somebody to help you. Otherwise, you can simply say, if asked 'I don't have any Hindu clothes.'Torrent (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft on the most unhinged Polish politician

Draft:Janusz Korwin-Mikke
For a while I was working on this solo, but I realized that I'm bad at writing. So I'm enlisting you! Have fun learning about this wingnut from the great lands of Po --Chicken4War (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I’d say Korwin-Mikke is definitely missional. I came across him in the media when he became an MEP back in 2014 and he’s a complete wingnut with loads of crazy views. Unfortunately, I’m not particularly knowledgeable about either him or the Polish political scene more generally, so I doubt I can contribute that much. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Pastor in serious legal trouble for a cryptocurrency scam

https://cointelegraph.com/news/online-pastor-charged-crypto-scam-says-god-made-him-do-it?fbclid=IwAR2cSPIOsfGO3agMV0PBcC8SDUUpEkQNGS-JYKRvbWMzCbZL9O3-KDk9J_s

God apparently made the Pastor do it. Great way to avoid responsibility for his actions. --Trans Fem Agenda 15:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"The Lord promised him liquidity." Carthage (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That's hilarious! And in the video he says God told him to do the whole thing. So, I guess that is going to be his defense in court? He recorded this video in what looks like a magnificent lakeside property, I wonder if he will do a later one from a prison cell?

Ah! and the other thing is that the comments below the video (presumably) from the people he scammed are overwhelmingly supportive!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that the prosperity gospel has discovered how to scam digitally, how nice.

In one of their Twitter posts, this "pastor" was very excited to attend a "Christians In Web3 Summit" presented by a "Forum12" at... Oral Roberts University. Natch.

(In another sign that Web3 is "going just great", currently forum12.com has an expired SSL certificate. Heh.) BobJohnson (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"web3isgoinggreat" is always a fun visit. :-)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Devine command theory seems to be coming into fashion these days. God made Trump is the most solid evidence that the belief in that trend would pay off. It works for ideologies too. The theory says something should be true when all experience says otherwise. It is unnerving that so many people can be so detached from social norms.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

God told me that flocks are for fleecing. Hand over your money! Bongolian (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

If he pleads this as his defense before the judge, if said judge has a smidgin of self-respect they'd laugh in his face and throw the book at him --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 00:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Church executives are experts at con artistry. Bogus churches that sell worthless crap are real money makers. --Trans Fem Agenda 14:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

True. Remember the “blood of Christ” that was actually pig blood? (Or something like that) --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 22:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Religion is Santa for adults108.21.194.38 (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Perfect idea for a scam church: Not only get the congregation to give physical cash but cryptocurrency holdings too. Cash in the cryptocurrency when it's value skyrockets. That would bring in a lot of money. --Trans Fem Agenda 00:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In this particular case I really don't actually think the pastor intended to scam the congregation. If you watch the video he seems to honestly believe that God had provided a way for him to get infinite money, and he seems a little puzzled and let down by God when this didn't work out. It's almost as though once you believe in one magical thing then believing in another magical thing is easy too!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious how he communed with God. Deep prayer, by himself? Community prayer with each person saying 'Yes, Lord!' to questions? How did this man ask God. It's important because a lot of Christian nationalists say they ask God. Current Speaker Mike Johnson has claimed he didn't want his position, but God told him it was his time. This is mania, these people think enough people are talking to God that by the Time it gets to them, it's God's message. Again, I really want to know, in simple terms, HOW they asked God for such a specific answer. Torrent (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

He says "God spoke to him" and "God told him to do X". But we don't know the specifics about how the Almighty managed this. I guess it was a miracle.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

But that is the point. I would like to know. It is, what, personal, miraculous? Maybe that he got a response is miraculous, but were this man to have a personal, communicative relationship with his inerrant God, and his response is 'God really dropped the ball explaining this one to me' then he has found a way to speak with God. I know he's not going to literally explain it because it's bullshit, but if he is so confident that God can give him whoopsiedoodles advice, I want to know the means by which he phones up God. if it is by any less standard means than anyone who phones up God, that is something. Torrent (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"You don't get it"

I hate to dig up the stuff I've mentioned already but that line above is what I got whenever I asked questions about the stuff I read on the forum for the site. To refresh:

https://pathwaytohappiness.com/blog/feeling-connected/ https://pathwaytohappiness.com/blog/understanding-relationships-drama/

when I bring it up they always dodge it. When I was chatting with the owner of the site he never responded to me when I asked about the links and what they said, or even when I questioned his stuff. He just deflected to me and asking "are you ok" which implies that you could only find fault with his stuff if something is wrong with you. But the main reply I get when questioning his stuff is that I'm "Close minded", "you've made up your mind", "you just don't get it". Honestly it's infuriating, not really but you get the idea. Because I'm trying to get a better understanding of it but no one wants to answer questions. They just appeal to their own personal experience and that's the end of that. It reminds me of the spiritual trope of "question everything, unless you arrive at a different conclusion than me in which case you're wrong". This was about my "do we choose our emotions" bit on free will, but the thing on that is I can't get into people's heads to know if they're actually doing what they say or are mistaken about it.

I mean isn't personal experience the one thing we need to question especially hard?47.5.66.54 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

If the originator simply states [basically] 'it's all on your end' of why you don't understand X after you request clarification etc, I'm going to hazard they either a) cannot answer because they don't realise it's BS or b) won't answer because they know it's BS. I'm gonna provisionally rule out you being the issue here as you appear to not be an ignoramus, and I'm gonna rule out a) here because I read the drek they wrote before and it's not TimeCube nuttery level. So I apply the old Leninist maxim here; 'who stands to gain' from the BS being peddled? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I get the Courtier's Reply a lot when other people want to explain away a logical criticism of their world view, usually with postmodernist types. It is annoying. Crazymantis91 (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

How good are these criticisms? If it's something the literature already has an answer for, and the people you're asking are tired of answering PRATTs, it may very well be prudent to just read the damn literature. If you want to actually criticize something it's best to know what you're talking about beforehand. Carthage (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, most reasonable folks would have addressed PRATTs in say, an FAQ or something. And normally, if someone contacted them with a PRATT they would either simply cut/paste said FAQ point and/or point them to it. And in this case, let's assume good faith here; that they had read the provided literature and that triggered the questions they got no reply to. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Dead Domain did an interview with hate preacher Steven Anderson's son Isaac Anderson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVgnz0FORAw

Really interesting video giving an inside look into what it's like to live with and be related to this sort of lunatic. Unsurprisingly, Steven's violent and abusive towards his family, as well. Isaac, himself, isn't as far gone as I would fear. He's said some things I certainly disagree with (e.g. "Every white parent hopes to have white grandkids") but he doesn't come off as anywhere near as far gone as Steven. Obviously, we only know as much as he tells us, so don't take this as me saying he's great or anything.

I was also quite surprised by Steven and Isaac being such voracious readers. The stereotype of hateful assholes like Steven is that they're ignorant fools, but he went out of his way to read other holy texts like the Book of Mormon and the Veda. All in the hopes of converting more people to his specific brand of hateful far-right Christianity.

I wouldn't personally want to talk to or be friends with Isaac but I am interested to see how he develops in the next 5-10 years. I also find it interesting how he sees a lot of people involved in the community as extremist weirdoes but doesn't seem to realize that's how much of the outside world sees groups like the NIFB. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Might Trump become president again?

Recent Google News leaves me worried (such as news about New Hampshire). Seriously thought people were done with him and knew how dangerous he is. If worst comes to worst, hopefully the two term law stands that will prevent him running a third time. Throwawayuser (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope not. Also, I hear polls in general have gotten less reliable, and are now little more than ideological masturbation on the part of which types of people are attracted to different news providers. But in any case, don’t get complacent; remember to vote so that doesn’t happen. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 05:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m seriously concerned that Trump might very well end up returning to the White House. The problem is that it’s shaping up to become a contest between Trump’s “dislike factor” and Biden’s “apathy factor” and it doesn’t take a lot of the latter for the highly motivated MAGA hats to swing the election in Trump’s favour. Hell, Biden doesn’t even engender enthusiasm within his own party.

What adds to my level of concern is that Biden and the Democratic leadership, as well as the sympathetic parts of US media, seem to be indulging in the same kind of “it can’t really happen, right?” complacency/head in the sand denialism that we saw back in 2016, but with worse poll numbers for Biden than for Hillary (made even less impressive by the fact that Biden is running as an incumbent).

Even if we reckon with polls having some degree of reliability issues, the fact that a wide cross section of polls by different pollsters at best have Biden narrowly ahead is seriously iffy for his prospects. If I had to put money down on a bet at this moment in time, I’d honestly be more likely to put my money on Trump winning as things stand right now — and that’s terrible. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

There's absolutely a possibility that Trump will return to the White House. There's also a possibility that he has a heart attack tomorrow and renders the issue moot. What I try to bear in mind is that there's only so much we, as individuals, can do. I fully intend to vote for Biden and convince everyone I can do to do the same. I live in a swing state, too, which makes it even more significant. But neither I, nor you, nor anyone here can singlehandedly control the election. We can only do what we can and hope things work out. And if not, well, I'm absolutely an advocate of the Left being armed. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Based pro-gun left-winger. It always feels like there’s so few of us. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I had a friend in school who said, whenever he filled out an application form with "Religion______," he filled that space in with "armed and dangerous." I suppose there is a possibility that Trump could pull another inside straight and win the next election and serve out his term in Georgia state prison. There are 91 pending accusations to consider: they include 44 federal charges and 47 state charges, all of them felonies. Here is the problem: people have gotten used to preposterous events as commonplace, so we start to believe in the possibility of even more lunatic outcomes. Trump will be 78 this June. He doesn't look like he has much more milage left in him. It's funny how people are willing to ignore Trump's cognitive deterioration while worrying about Biden, who seems sound enough to manage the job, and has already done so better than Trump had previously done. I'm determined not to be disappointed in any event.UncleKrampus (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Guess I'll die. But obviously, this is not difficult. Trump will be the republican nominee, will win because Democrats are either not listening, too smug, or part of it, American democracy will erode as per project 2025, which Donald Trump would love, and I don't think you'll need your guns until at least 2027. It would be very obvious if you needed to be locked and loaded, keep it in the safe, Trump is gonna be president. Stand down from blowing your own brains out and stand by. it will at least be a year. Torrent (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Torrent, you're not acting rational ("I thought this was rationalwiki!"), you're just letting doomer pessimism define you. You don't give opposition to Trump enough credit. The fact that we had blowout gas prices and high inflation, yet The Democrats still kept The Senate and barely lost The House because Trump kept making the 2022 midterms more about him should tell you that there's more opposition to him than you give credit.-Ryan1257 (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Legitimately, I do believe the administrative state absolutely [i]loathes[/i] Trump for his needless wastes of resources and his absolute contempt for classification. It's almost certain he sold off state documents to Russia and China. I expect them to do everything they possibly can to ensure they don't have to work under him again. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

While I’m not as pessimistic as Torrent, I would be cautious to use the Democratic Congressional wins as a template for a Presidential contest. Trump’s problem is that he has difficulty translating his own personal popularity into down ticket votes for his various minions, cynical carpetbaggers and sycophants. This doesn’t mean that Trump himself doesn’t stand a decent chance of beating Biden who no one is particularly fond of and whose main selling point is “I’m not Trump”. Hell, even Hillary had more enthusiasm behind her than Biden.

Biden’s one advantage over Hillary is that voters have seen exactly how badly Trump handled his term. But, before COVID struck, Trump was also deliberately (over)heating the economy in a way that caused real wages to rise for the first time in recent memory for several groups and I wouldn’t entirely discount those memories having some effect on the willingness to vote for Trump.

Still, Trump’s greatest chance remains the lacklustre support for Biden and the feelings of wasted opportunities and the fairly strong implicit promise that Biden would be a one-term President who’d get things somewhat back on track and put in place a successor who could then be a plausible two-term President. This might have created a solid 12-year arc for Democrats to actually rebuild the decades of GOP and “centrist” damage and redefine the political centre away from the stale nostrums of the New Democrats.

Instead, voters get arguably the least exiting choice among the major, possibly scenarios and that alone probably favours Trump, because of the unwavering and fanatical support of the MAGA hats. Then add the fact that Trump is at least entertaining and that Biden seems to have nothing substantial on his agenda, polls poorly and seems even more geriatric and decrepit than in 2020 and you have a fairly worrying setup. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

nothing on his agenda!?! I just checked joebiden.com and that is obvious satire. Act blue also comes up, but also pretty unrealistic. Does the Biden campaign have a real site with platform policies? Torrent (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"Yes, I'm coming back to serve a second term — this time I won the national elecksheyun!"

We'll see what happens. Chillpilled (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)