RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive455

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 15 May 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>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <456>, <457>
, (new)(back)


Hello. Since we’ve got articles on multiculturalism and xenophobia, wouldn’t it be a good idea to go ahead and create creolization? I think it’s a pretty important concept. If no one is opposed to it I might as well start the page, though I’m not too familiar with the theory. New world (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, go for it! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm familiar with creolization, but how would it be missional? Bongolian (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I am also wondering this.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
As a proposed model of cultural contact, it seems pretty important. New world (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bongolian I think that is a good idea. Imperialism played a role in it. --Trans Fem Agenda 14:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not imperialism per se that creates creole languages, but rather extended trade contact between people with different languages (Romance + Germanic languages). For example, looking at the development of the English language, it's clear that it developed from periods of creolization from contact with different language groups. The modern Indonesian and closely related Malaysian languages developed out of Old Malay, a creole that was used in the Srivijaya Empire (7th-11th centuries CE) that predated the modern era of imperialism. But there are examples of languages that have elements of completely disparate language groups, indicating creolization without empire, e.g. the Peranakan language (Chinese Hakka + Malay, preceding the European colonization), and there's at least one language in Papua New Guinea that's a mix of Austronesian and Papuan languages. Bongolian (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with all of this; the pidgin/creole/language process in general is really very interesting. But, like you, I'm not seeing the what specific mission angle is being proposed.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
As I said, I’m really not familiar with it. All I know is that the Caribbean seems to be having it, and that it’s used as a model of cultural and linguistic contact. I just know that Édouard Glissant supports encouraging it, instead of other models, and that seems pretty important. I don’t know if the article would refute or support, or just tell about, the theory, but it has missional potential, to say the least. New world (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
It isn't really an "it" in the way you are talking about it - a thing localized in a particular location, time or culture. Creolization refers to a very generalized process whereby the speakers of two languages find ways to communicate. The first generation speakers create a pidgin, their descendants "formalize" it into a creole. The English we are using now went through that process at least once and - depending on the definitions you are using - multiple times.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I know. Specifically, I’m referring to what the school of créolité postulated, that is a creolization of cultures (and languages). While it’s deeply linked to the Caribbean, it isn’t exclusive to it. The notion isn’t really different from what ccreolization is, that is to say the "mixing" and "melting" of languages, and by extension cultures, as you just described it, which is of course an inevitable development. New world (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
So apart from the fact "this is interesting" - what exactly is the mission relevance you are proposing?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, it’s missional because, the school of créolité which supports it criticizes American multiculturalism for "juxtaposing communities", and because of the criticism and support it has received. Documenting the idea of "mixing of arts or of languages which produces the unexpected", seems pretty important. It’s missional in that people might hear about it, and potentially misunderstand or use it, so documenting it, what it is, what some thinkers have made it, what they proposed, how their ideas fit into a scheme of either assimilation (the criticism) or mixing of equal cultures, and what are its applications, or if it can even work, is important for informing of its reliability. Documenting all of this seems (again, I’m not too familiar with it, so don’t take everything I say for granted) pretty missional. New world (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we have a clause somewhere in our guidelines that allow for non-missional articles as long as the community finds the subject interesting. Carthage (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think if the article is specifically about créolitéWikipedia (rather than creolization) in relation to negritude and postcolonialism, it could be missional. Bongolian (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That would be something about which I know nothing and have no comment on.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Fucking finally well said, Bob. Let's see what happens, I vote granted writ, for a page. Let's see the page. I don't think it's super important, and Creole is real, I guarantee. What is non missional about a linguistic take on language? I know you guys can sort it out. It was nice to ask, I say full support, make the page. I'm obviously not going to be the one to take it down, but it could happen. My vote is do it, and if anyone votes no, they may do it quickly and explicitly, because it does take a while to make a page. I say go for it, make the page. Torrent (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Torrent (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

US Election Update: 6 Months To Go[edit]

Back for the monthly update topic approaching the US elections. Approaching the point where there's only half a year left until the US elections. And things have been ramping up. Criminal trials for Trump have commenced, swing states oscillate to and fro in the polls, Trump and his lackeys begin plans to sabotage voting, America remains polarized, and more. Any updates and opinions for now? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The more I read and learn about the United States, the more saddened I get. As things are currently I am of the opinion that USA is going become Fascist, or something or the sort, within the next few decades - not necessarily with Trump being the figurehead. Disturbing too that much of the Republican rhetoric is making its way into Canada. All this combined with looming climate change causes much anxiety. Impiricism (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
How? In the USA, all the projections show that White Dominionism will be a shell of their former power, the vast majority of Boomers will be dead, the decline in ruralites would have continued and the demographics of America will be the most ethnically diverse and educated in history. The only real threat I see is that of economics; that the Anglo world is lurching hard into a dystopian 'neo-feudalism' which if we are not careful will destroy what's left of the 'solid ballast' of democratic politics re: the middle class [the fact a lot of the finance/tech twats are leaning pretty hard into this future already and aren't getting much kickback from the serfs is worrying].
And yes, while MAGA/Dominionist shite is being exported hard, is there any sign it is 'sticking' well in places like Canada? It isn't really working well in the UK, because our politics simply are not that polorised. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The majority in a country can disagree with their minority government, but still be dominated by them. It doesn't have to be militiamen overtly enforcing a group's will, instead it can be generally subtle... look at gerrymandering and first-past-the-post voting. Internationally Hungary and Belarus could be seen as developed examples. I will agree that I could definitely be wrong, but current things I read and hear about the US do make me think otherwise.
For Republican rhetoric sticking in Canada, Tucker Carlson's show in Alberta was sold out. "Conservatives" in Canada constructed a gallows for Trudeau outside a fundraising event. Rural and small town people I meet in my home province, a stronghold of conservatism, earnestly make exclamations of of Trump being the true US president, or Trudeau being a communist who must be shot like Joe Biden. Perhaps I have only been encountering the worse of people... either way I do not have much optimism. Impiricism (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The Alberta example is exactly what I've long spoken of; that when confronted with an effective two-party system, the 'right' party has a tendency to lean further and further rightwards until their spine snaps. That the tail wags the dog as the 'cranks and crazies' demand more and more of the party's bandwidth and the mainstream... simply suck it up. This is why I no longer respect 'moderate' rightist politicos etc - for they have no fucking balls.
But small-town Alberta isn't the whole of Canada, or even of Alberta in the whole. However, it's always instructive [at least to me] to when I hear such people in my 'moneysphere' saying stuff like that to give them a curious look and ask, 'why?'. So why do they believe Trudeau should be shot? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
'X is courting the Y vote' means sod all, if you don't have any policies to really attract them or you're lugging about a ton of anti-Y baggage. What, you think a load of non-white voters will ignore how the Republicans are peddling shite like the 'Great Replacement Theory'? Yes, there's a bit of an odd discconect with socially conservatives voting for leftist parties, but that's normally explained by the simple fact they have other identities which cause the flip - such as race, religion and 'generations away from immigration'. We see similar here in the UK; a lot of British Muslims are socially conservative but mainly avoid voting Conservative because [esp now] the combo of entrenched xenophobia and Islamaphobia in the party. But similar can be argued about white working class folks who lean left economically but regularly voting for Conservatives/Republicans - often in the case they are voting against their own interests when it comes to their immediate SoL etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
AI and robotics will help improve productivity - the question is who's pockets said improvements go into. An 'aging population' is not in itself a bad thing; in fact there are some benefits of it. The critical issue here is the 'dependency ratio', which is also affected by the numbers of children [the UK's ratio was the worst in the late 60s/early 70s, when the Boomers were coming of age]. But again, per-worker productivity is also critical, along with 'healthspans' and 'workspans'. The Federal Debt is an issue, and one which is facing most advanced nations to some extent [yet corps are richer than ever]. Yet 'improving economic prospects' doesn't automatically mean 'more social spending' - for example, you can stop subsidising crap jobs through lies like 'workfare'. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I tend to not be as worried about a Trump 2 as some. US politics is messy by design, so I have doubts on whether Trump and the hard-right Republicans will get all of their wish list. Particularly since I don't see much evidence that "the Westpoint side" likes Trump at all. Now, certainly, many of the GOP / Trump's plans certainly would cause great damage if implemented in full. To give one example, one can easily see his attack on civil service (something that I think he is quite likely to pursue) driving out talent from government (which does many more things then "deep state" whargarbls seem to recognize) and causing a brain drain. I just don't know if Trump can actually completely implement this without a flurry of lawsuits blocking him. In addition, the GOP is now a thoroughly anti-intellectual party, and seems to prefer propaganda education models over anything actually innovative. That is perhaps a concern for the long term innovation capability of the US. But I don't know if this attitude will last post-Trumpism, particularly based on how repelled people eventually became of Moms for Liberty.
One worry is that the Supreme Court does seem to be capitulating to this authoritarianism. Indeed, if the court was completely composed of Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas types, it would in fact be a blank check for GOP reactionary authoritarian policies. Since the "less visible but probably more worrisome" issue today, as KP pointed out, indeed is the creeping authoritarian capitalism in certain parts of US business (I'm looking at you, San Francisco tech-bros), I see *this* as perhaps a bigger concern in the long run. Now a lot of the US authoritarian capitalism bros self-own themselves currently by getting too deep in the culture war. (Sorry, Elon Musk, no one cares about your "anti-woke" musings when deciding to buy a car... in fact, they might even be repelled...) Nonetheless, it will be easier in the future for "the biz" to get what they want out of the court, and at minimum that's probably not going to be good for climate change policy... or perhaps even business itself, because tired "big monopolies" have historically been *really* happy to use the courts to stifle pesky upstarts... or many other things. BobJohnson (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

With SCOTUS, do you think if Republicans get a majority in both houses, will they attempt to pack the courts to 9-0 by impeachments? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

"You never know".
Recent history, though, has shown the reactionary elements of the GOP demonstrate remarkable incompetence at actual governing. The USA lives in strange times where someone like Mike Johnson (who is nowhere near centrist) is working with Democrats to pass legislation and avoid the "reactionary yell-at-clouds" division of the Freedom Caucus and other idiots like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Even at the state level, many state GOP parties are in turmoil as extremists battle it out with less extremists.
Historically, few attempts have been made at "court packing" recently; and it hasn't typically been popular -- even FDR couldn't get away with it. Given what the court is doing of late, most of the "court packing" discussion has been on the Democrat side anyways. BobJohnson (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
And if the GOP were to successfully get a majority in both houses as well as win the presidency, would they be competent enough to achieve Project 2025 and damage America's government to achieve their theocratic ends? Or will they fail and trip over themselves again and again? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Many of the things which BobJ notes comes under the 'feature, not bug' situation; that they want a civil service which has suffered from a 'brain drain' and a load of mass resignations/firings. 'Talent' are cursed experts in their field which shall tell the right-wing political appointee boss that they are wrong, or worse [policy] cannot be done and gah, they cannot be fired. They don't want actual advice, or competent management - they want obedience and loyalty - that like Trump and his lawyers/accountants they want them to 'do what they are told' and the only questions allowed are 'requests for clarification' and if they don't like it, well you can jump or be pushed. Their ideal situation, I suspect is where the old 'spoils system' has returned, every management position is a political apointee by the relevent Sec and they recruit loads of third/fourth raters who form a new right-wing nomenklatura. I suspect the right-wing neo-feudal bosses are also flitting around the room, arguing that say, 50% of the civil service can be replaced by AIs [which shall always be 100% loyal] while various industries are saying that say, self-regulation is better while the leeching outsourcing companies boast that their services are 'politically neutral' [ie no job/policy is too yuckky] and 'flexible' [ie civil servants are all freelancers on low wages now].
I argue that neo-feudalism is really the long-term threat because if nothing else, it is more competent and less openly repellant than right-wing authoritarian populism. However, I could see a situation where said right-wing populists continue to 'rule', but in reality they've become nothing more than neo-feudals' jesters - keeping us serfs distracted with 'culture wars' and similar while in closed-door dinners the magnates really rule the land. This is partly why the right/centre political class in the US and [even worse] the UK have declined in the in the last 40 years; that if you're a smart/talented/ambitious person, you're gonna go for the greenest field and that's the corp world, not politics. This is where the 'serf-view' hinders us; we correctly think the ~$175k to be a congresscritter is supremely tasty, but we have to remember those folks are sitting around dinner-tables where they're the poorest person in the room [sometimes by an obvious margin]. Trump is normally full of complete lies, but he was technically telling the truth when he said that he'd 'taken a pay cut' on becoming POTUS [as he'd been earning more as the Chief Exec at TrumpOrg]. And when it comes down to it; who has more power now, a congresscritter or a senior executive at a large company? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Theodore Roosevelt was able to bust large corporate trusts over a century ago, there has to be something to do now. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
If those corporations and banks continue to grow unchecked, civil liberties will definitely be hobbled for hundreds of millions of people. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that it's not the 'size of corporations and banks' which will be the crux of the problem of my 'neo-feudal' nightmare, it's the crippling perennial debt-loads us neo-serfs will carry from birth to death. That we will have to constantly hustle for a few more pennies simply to pay the impending rent/credit card/tax/education bill and because some 80% of the population is in the same boat due to robot/AIs effectively eliminating 'middle class' occupations. The insidiousness of this future is that the facade of 'civil liberties' will remain intact - just that they'll be theoretical for the vast majority of people [they already are for the poor, as anyone who really knows poverty can testify]. Serfs of old were banned by law from wearing fur, eating venison, being educated, leaving the village etc - our neo-serf will be banned from doing 'things above their station' by their lack of wealth [and as they shall forever be slaving to pay the bills, they won't ever develop the wad of capital to 'better themself'. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Can´t wait to get worked up about something that will inevitably have no bearing or impact on me whatsoever. Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙‍♂️Bore me 18:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Why, your folks really rich or something? Otherwise it is gonna impact on you. A lot. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you 100℅, and recently I was feeling really bad about my situation. It's a cliff, not a hill, and it really sucks. And I do believe you understand that. Torrent (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I dedicate this song to Trump[edit]


Describes Trump perfectly. --Trans Fem Agenda 16:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Even better: https://youtu.be/WkZ5e94QnWk?si=oq94yKYynw8kFtW- Monet Ye 20:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I learned this on my bass for his send-off in 2021. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I still think this song fits Trump super-well (I've assigned it to Adon, the Trump expy in my Freigos region project… yes, his name is a portmanteau of Adolf and Trump, because those two are kinda interchangeable in terms of representing just how rotten fascism is). Luigifan18 (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The Afterlife Fallacy[edit]

I'm unsure what I should say to introduce this, but it seems like the very concept of an afterlife is untestable and unverifiable, so whether it exists or not is a serious unsolved void. People have to die to even find out. What can I even say about this question? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

In what way? The afterlife is a concept that, scientifically, lacks falsifiability. Because you have to die in order to find out whether or not it exists, and no one living can enter the afterlife by definition, it cannot be proven false (or true). Therefore, the afterlife is not a question for science.
(Though I will mention the near death experience as an interesting "tangent" to the afterlife discussion, since such has been more testable, and there *has* been some "interesting biological points" in that phenomenon. However, even here, the scope is limited towards the speculative; it is impossible to prove or disprove that NDEs relate to "the afterlife".)
Religion, of course, can have all the afterlife discussions all they want. BobJohnson (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Related to this, The Washington Post recently gave some oxygen to a bunch of quack shrinks at the Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) within the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine regarding their "research" into children who "remember" their past lives.[2] The current publisher is a former Murdoch employee who seems to be slowly pushing the paper toward tabloidism in search of more eyeballs. DOPS has this untestable premise as part of their mission:[3]
The primary focus of DOPS is investigating the mind’s relationship to the body and the possibility of consciousness surviving physical death. In general, this process involves studying phenomena that challenge mainstream scientific paradigms regarding the nature of human consciousness.
Bongolian (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Like I said in another post regarding spiritual groups, discussing this type of thing (in a non-religious framework) is an interesting philosophical thought, but the truth is we know so little (provably) about the theoretical "afterlife" we would be experiencing, or about our "souls". Your fallacy is that it’s neither scientific nor pseudo-scientific, it’s purely inconceivable for us humans in 2024 on planet earth, there’s no reason to investigate something unknowable. New world (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
The closest question to ask is, would it hurt less? Would it be more important for an afterlife than for none? And then, it would also be worth wondering why near death experiences are culturally specific, but also universal. Torrent (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It may be important to remind oneself that most formulations of the verification principle are unverifiable, which is why logical positivism is considered a bit of a dead end. As unverifiable as the claims about the afterlife are, so too are claims about the absence of an afterlife. This is part of the reason why the positivists themselves were not inclined to say that God did or did not exist -- but instead insisted that any claim to the existence or non-existence of God was meaningless. Going that far, it is not entirely obvious how one "tests" the verification principle itself. In science, testability is highly regarded and preferred. That being said, being too strict about such testability or going as far as to promote Popper's falsification principle would actually render a good amount of contemporary physics as pseudoscience (dark matter, Newtonian mechanics, string theory, etc). This is what lazy philosophical reasoning will get you. I think there is room for metaphysical speculation, enough to make the case for the untenability of there being an afterlife. At the very least, an argument to be made for the skepticism of its existence. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)