RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive458

This is an archive page, last updated 7 July 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>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Are allergies just us “doing it to ourselves”?

WARNING: Emotions conversation ahead may rot your brain!

My answer is no since I don’t control how something makes me react. Like it might be my body overreacting but it’s not a choice or something like that.

This popped into my head because that Gary guy I’m on about used the wheat thing with gluten as an example of how stuff doesn’t make us feel emotions because stimuli are inherently neutral. In that case he says it’s not the wheat it’s you. But something about that seems wrong, on top of the broader argument being fishy. I don’t really control what I like or dislike or what makes me happy, beliefs about it or no.

Oh yeah the point was about how thoughts and beliefs create emotions. I’m iffy on that especially the degree of control he claims we have. The allergy but though felt like a bad analogy.2600:387:1:805:0:0:0:38 (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Emotions are just instinctive internal states. We can simulate emotions, sure, but actually feeling them? We have no control over that. This whole "we create our emotions" thing is stupid and meaningless. Carthage (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought so too. But I can’t stop thinking about it. Eventually I think I get it. Nothing can make us feel, how can it? It’s neutral. All we do is make it more than it is, we play pretend and maybe if enough people play along we can believe it’s real. But it’s only in our head. Everything that mattered was a lie because we just gave it qualities it didn’t have. Maybe our lives were just a game of pretend all along, that things matter and have worth. That stuff is magical, amazing, etc. but it was never true2600:387:1:805:0:0:0:A0 (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. Are you saying that emotions are illusions? Emotions have actual, measurable effects on the body. Anxiety causes the heart rake to spike. Anger can numb pain. Emotions are very real. Carthage (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like perhaps OP is having some nihilistic ruminations... "But it’s only in our head. ... Maybe our lives were just a game of pretend all along, that things matter and have worth." Yeah emotions are real on a living person-animal biological-chemical level, but what do they mean and what value do they have in the grand scheme of things? Absolutely nothing, that's what. Impiricism (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you Machina? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess what I read from the guy has thrown me for a loop and I can't figure it out. Something about it I just can't see no matter how much I think about it. So I ask other people who aren't me and hopefully see what they see too. That last bit though was from a very dark day I was having yesterday.47.5.66.54 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I had a buddy who adopted a couple cats. I have a cat allergy. I asked him to watch 'Grave of the Fireflies' with me. I survived the cats, we hung out later and he was really cool. Allergies that cause asthma are bog and bad. I used to use a nebulizer, asthma is no joke. But my allergies are more 'itchy' than full closure. A cat will cause my eyes to burn, my nose to run, and my sinuses to be a little phlegmy. please donT act like you'll choke on it. Torrent (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Aches and pains

So I'm in my early 20s, and I'm starting to get aches and pains that weren't there a couple years or even a couple months ago. Am I too young for this or is this normal? Carthage (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Could be, could not be. Could be simply overstrain, slept on it badly etc. Or the start of a creeping rsi. Take it as an early warning; your health is something you need to actively work on. If you / a medical professional has ruled out stuff like damage etc (obvs, not a doctor), it might be an idea to look into what preventatives you can do (weight? Nutrition? Strength? Stamina? Sleeping conditions? Etc). For example, I found gaining some more muscle/ stamina and practicing sleep hygiene helped - the first lessened damage while the latter helped improve healing / rest. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Back pain started in my early 20s. It's gotten a lot better since I've lost weight. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It depends. It won't hurt you to see a doctor about these pains.

If you're healthy, you'd normally only start to get random pains in your 30s, and then collect various health conditions as your body naturally deteriorates. But most people are not healthy... CorruptUser

I'm mid twenties, and either I got a bad genetic lottery or the 24/7 stress and anxiety about the world is causing me to age faster; half bald, stomach can't handle most alcohol or dairy anymore, must moisturize after showers now otherwise skin is too dry and sensitive... It sucks. I have found that switching to a primarily fruit and veggie diet, with smaller portions, and regular exercise and stretches (don't forget stretches!) has helped significantly. Impiricism (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Physical aches or pains without a clear physical cause could be a symptom of depression. [1]. A lot of times depression goes undiagnosed because some people with depression report primarily physical rather than psychological symptoms. 45.130.81.50 (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely see your doctor. Aches and pains can be a result of inadequate diet and or insufficient sleep. Drink plenty of water, and maybe cut down on carbs, especially in the evening because sugars are a cause of painful inflammation. Also don't be wary of using aspirin or ibuprofen from time to time. Good luck.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Another possibility is fibromyalgia, but you're younger that most people with the syndrome (starts typically at age 25 or older, mostly in women). There's no reliable treatment for fibromyalgia. It's probably good to get the pains noted in your medical records though. Bongolian (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Unpopular but people who reject mainstream science still deserve respect for their belief.

Be they flat earther, young earth creationist, or cryptozoologist. As long as they don't bother others or try to restrict medicine and science (like refusing vaccines due to advocating harmful alternative medicine or are TV evangelicals trying to ban teaching evolution and cosmology), they deserve to be respected. ^{— Unsigned, by: Respectfulperson / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Carthage (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Flat earth is half trolls so nah. :p Also, I think a lot of people more "play around" with the cryptid stuff to begin with. Yeah, some take it too seriously, but overall I think there's more that treat it as a "tall tale".

At any rate, what do you mean by "respect"? I don't bother people's beliefs unless they bother me, but on the other hand I don't think glorifying anti-intellectualism is a great idea either. YEC is the main offender of your list because so many of them are so serious about it, and their absolutist fundamentalism too often leads to some of the "bother others / restrict shit / push dangerous alternative treatments" you are worried about. Gaudy Bigfoot touristy crap is, in a way, kinda hokey fun. Bullshit like conversion therapy is not. BobJohnson (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Cryptozoology is probably the most respectable thing on that list, and that's not saying a lot. Carthage (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If a distinguished biologist happens to also be a moonlanding hoaxer, as long as their conspiracy theories don't compromise their actual work then they can still be respected. If their actual work gets compromised due to falsifying data in order to push their theories, then everything they've done becomes suspect. CorruptUser 02:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The Nobel disease (and similar among other non-Nobels) can go either way. Isaac Newton spent a significant portion of his life dabbling in alchemy oogie-boogie, and by and large I don't think it really has hurt his historical reputation (other than as a curious footnote), probably due to the relative state of science in Newton's day and the relative harmless nature of his alchemy dabbles. William Shockley spent a significant portion of his life advocating racist eugenics, and by and large I think that did hurt his historical reputation, due to his woo being more hurtful and divisive. BobJohnson (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it needs to be noted that alchemy was in Newton's day more 'protoscience' than 'pseudoscience', and basicially needed people like Newton to help 'chemistry' [as we would now define it] to climb out of alchemy's shell. He on the other hand did apparently ignore astrology, which suggests by this point the astrology/astronomy divide was becoming formalised [at least in the scientific community].

I also believe we need to be firm in differentiating between let's call 'unconventional science' and 'pseudoscience'. Many of the modern theories accepted today as 'correct' started life as 'unconventional' [as in 'not accepted by the mainstream'], and later on gained general acceptance [often from later proofs turning up]. A good example of this is 'continental drift'; started out as an 'unconventional theory' in the early 20th, gained the proofs in the mid-20th and entered the popular consciousness in the later 20th [I for example, remember reading a text from c1970 as a kid which didn't mention this]. Pseudoscience is when a person continues to support a theory which has long since been proven incorrect; for example I'd argue that 'cryptozoology' properly broke off from zoology between c1870-c1930 as 'the heroic age of explorers' and technological advances between them proved the non-existence of said creatures.

I will argue you can respect the believer in 'unconventional science' fine, but not the believer in pseudoscience. The only 'respect' you can grant the latter is if they are honest in their belief. If you encounter an example of ultracrepidarian [like Shockley], all you can say is 'I respect your knowledge/skill in X, but your views on Y are a proven crock and so get none'. And I don't really 'respect' pseudoscience practitioners because they aborb funding and attention away from actual science. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's think of the pandemic; mainstream science tells people to mask up, isolate, and vaccinate when available. People that reject mainstream science do not do the recommendations and, for the sake of the original argument, let's assume are quiet and don't actively peddle conspiracies or quack cures... inevitably they get sick regardless. And then of course medical professionals, overworked incredibly stressed medical professionals with thin resources, are obligated to assist them... should such people still expect to receive respect from the medical professionals? This isn't even taking into account the potential of such people to be vectors prolonging and spreading the plague. People who don't accept mainstream science do not deserve respect because while their beliefs may be generally harmless most of the time, they can quickly become incredibly harmful as circumstances change. It's gross negligence. Impiricism (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

As Long as they don't break important laws, they have the exact same natural fundamental human rights we all have in a democratic-republican order. It's like with assholes, they have, if they stay in the legal framework, the absolute right to be assholes, meaning they don't deserve to be treated wrongly by the police or secret services for example (not saying the paranoia is justified, but sometimes these types of injustices happen). It'll only convince more morons to 'fight back'. Every citizen who hasn't been engaged in criminal activity deserves basic republican respect from people who have the ability to potentially hurt them. New world (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

What if you don't live in a republic? Anyway, I don't believe the OP was talking about 'respecting their rights to hold crap views', more the fact you should respect the views themselves. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly respect people as people. People's opinions need to earn respect though. If they want me to respect their flat-earth, anti-vax or creationist nuttiness then they need to present evidence. Without evidence, I'm likely to regard such opinions with indifference in the most charitable case, or with contempt in the most extreme.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

no they don't - they deserve standard respect as people - something they rarely give others - but their beliefs deserve lambasting and opprobrium. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Very cool vocab, one of my favorite shows is Adventure Time, aNd I can't believe I remember the title, 'Wizards Only, Fools' and a guy has a cold but won't take medicine, only magic. The doctor Princess Bubblegum, won't call it magic and so there,'s an impasse. In the end, Bubblegum delivers a shot after saying some gobbledygook. Nothing is solved. The meat of the story is an argument that is never solved, but the damned only way to do it or die is find a cure. There is always the story of the man who was on his roof after he was scrambled there during a flood, said 'The Lord will provide he will not kill us by flood again' and turned down boat after boat after boat, then died of starvation. Got to Heaven met God and said 'I believed in you, why didn't you save me?' and God says He sent boat after boat. Torrent (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"people who reject mainstream science still deserve respect for their belief." no. The G (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That is so good. Thanks for sharing. Torrent (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump is a terrorist leader

All the violence he triggers is terrorism. You cannot change my mind. --Trans Fem Agenda 18:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump is a stochastic terrorist and leader of a fascist cult. He's a genuine threat to international security. Carthage (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

And a national security threat. Trump was happy to leak sensitive documents to enemies. --Trans Fem Agenda 20:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. Koafox (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe Trump is a inciter of sedition, as per Jan 6th. But he's too much a coward to actually do sedition himself. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

To me, he's more of a con artist and grifter. His "skill" is playing on Other fears of the rubes, and always whining about being the victim while acting like a bully (or at least a rather cartoonish "tough guy" projection). That is sadly enough for a lot of people these days. Despite some of his biggest fans occasionally going for terrorism (to the point where domestic right-wing groups have overtaken the Muslims as far as threat concerns on this front), overall methinks his bark is *far* worse than his bite, from all I've seen. (Like a lot of his Biggest Fans, he's more of a sad "social media keyboard warrior" than anything else.) Trump is also an isolationist bore who seems more friendly with authoritarians than European democracies, and *that* is quite a change from the "balance of power" of the Ronald Reagan days and back, where United States for a time was *the* superpower. So, yes, that's upended the "international order", and even if Trump doesn't get elected, it's clear that, for better or worse, the United States as a superpower is a fair bit tarnished these days.

Possibly the worst part of the last eight years is that it's pretty clear that a certain portion of the US ruling class have tasted Trumpism and decided that, no, we don't like democracy either. (As if they were afraid of something down the road...) BobJohnson (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he's a grifter doesn't make him any less dangerous. He's still the head of a fascist cult in the most powerful country on the planet. Carthage (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, Trumpism is doing its darn best to help make sure that the most powerful country on the planet becomes just "one of many". So at least there's that.

I may be wrong, but I'm less concerned about "threat" after seeing Trump 1 and the mess in states where the GOP have power. It's still a possibility, of course. He's a leader of a "fascist cult" of sorts, sure (more ruscism flavored actually), and he so much wants to be a cult of personality (and he is to his Biggest Fans, but that ain't even the majority). This is is handicapping the GOP, because everything he does is pretty much for himself. "Candidate quality" hurt the GOP in 2022 and judging from what I see, I expect it will again in 2024. I also expect him to vacuum the GOP piggy bank in order to pay his legal bills, and to see many other suckers (Rudy Giuliani style) ruined because they sucked up to Trump without realizing that he only takes, not gives.

That being said, certainly "much worse" is in the realm of possibility. I'll acknowledge that he could be more dangerous than I think. It's happened with other idiotic ultra-nationalists, and like I mentioned, parts of the "big money" seems more keen on authoritarian capitalism these days. The choice between Biden and Trump should be a no-brainer, and it's frankly embarrassing that for so many it is not. BobJohnson (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism meets the 14 characteristics of fascism, so by definition Trumpism is a fascist movement. Already we see successful attempts at restricting the rights of minorities, and even rolling back progress in some cases. The semi-democratic process the US possesses is under active peril by fascists in power. Just the other day the Kansas Supreme Court found that there was no right to vote in the Kansas state constitution. We are in a perilously similar situation to Weimar Germany. Fascism does not pop out of nowhere, it creeps slowly. America in 2024 is demonstrably less democratic than it was in 2015, and that process of Weimarization is probably only going to continue. Carthage (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

And the troubling thing is, it is by democracy that we have found ourselves here. Not exactly, it's more by marketing and propaganda, but I mean, the sleeper cell that is the lead brained vote is ready. And I still have no idea why Biden is the Democrat candidate. Today, TODAY, is the day to diversify the candidacy. This is insane, if RFK is a viable option to more than a .01 percent, anybody with a solid campaign beats Trump, it's a fucking lay up. It's a dunk. If Biden throws the ball, Trump gets posterized by anybody. but Biden is keeping the ball, like a selfish little bitch, because that's what politicians do. The only loss possible against Trump is Biden, I hate it, did anyone think McCain/Palin was going to work? Romney was Mormon propaganda and I'm fully against Biden v Trump, it HAS to be rigged. How hard would it be to seek no second term? How fucking cool would it be to say 'I accomplished what I was going for, and I think this person can continue my legacy?'. It"s awful, it's fucking awful, and gun to my head, I don't believe dems and reps are doing anything that might shift power enough to enable a third party. and the left and libs are so much closer to going left of the party than the right is of abandoning. The awful repurcussions of middling when you're afraid of going left are really ineffective heads of state and angry, violent populists. Go left, go left, go left. There is a populist voting block there, I can"t believe they don't know about it, I must believe they either don't like it or don't trust it. It's the only way to win, so it's more sure if Trump gets this one. I am insanely frustrated and just as confused, I will always vote, I will always vote the lesser of two evils, and I will always vote further left than rigHt, but this is insane, and it's right in our faces. No federal politician actually cares whether it's Biden or Trump, right? Torrent (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"Stochastic terrorist" is such a meaningless phrase because it's such a broad definition yet only selectively applied. If "stochastic terrorism" is "actions that increase animosity/tensions, resulting in an increase of violence", then we could argue that Al Gore is a "stochastic terrorist" because by bringing awareness to climate change he "causes" protests that have a risk of violence. CorruptUser 12:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not quite that per Wikipedia, but it also seems to be a once-obscure American political-specific term that arose in the Trump era, that at the moment carries little currency elsewhere. It also seems similar to combining currently existing phrases like "witch hunt" and "rabble rouser" which are more universally recognized.

To me, the current "stochastic terrorism" term would not apply to Al Gore, but by the Wikipedia definition, it seems like such would apply to much of the Kiwi Farms, the former 8chan, and 4chan's /pol/. That lot tends to be a bunch of keyboard warrior losers more than anything else. Sure, occasionally, these sites have inflicted enough bullshit on someone mentally ill enough that this person goes on to commit terrorism, and thanks to shitty Internet security and the militarization of American police this lot can conduct harassment campaigns from the comfort of their mother's basement too. But I dunno, I think that term gives the ragtag mob too much legitimacy, in a way, since 99% of the above places are incoherent slurred rage, bizarre memes, weird shitposts, and lots of the usual Internet drama. Same for other Trumpism perpetrators. Rudy Giuliani, stochastic terrorist? Or Rudy Giuliani, once "America's Mayor", now a pathetic Trump ass-kisser, rabble-rouser, and serial liar, who inflicted much pain with untruths on a few scapegoats, but now is paying the price? The later sounds more accurate to me, but that's just me I guess. BobJohnson (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a false equivalency, Corrupt. Gore never posts vitriolic hatred with the full knowledge that threats of violence will follow. Trump also knows full well what he's doing when he's talking shit about the families of judges presiding over his trials. Carthage (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It's wrong of course, what Corrupt wrote, but it's just a bad analogy. I like the term "stochastic terrorism." I use it to refer to random acts of impersonal violence committed by people deranged by by their own eccentric ideas, maybe ideologism, but not a result of a coherent ideology.UncleKrampus (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that the argument re: Alex Jones, is that by spouting hatred and lies about a group of people, he increases the odds of any one of them becoming a victim of a hate crime even if he's not targeting any specific individual. It becomes a bit thorny due to free speech issues; what if something is dangerous but true, worthy of discussion and analysis? How do we allow good-faith discussions if we can arbitrarily declare that something is too risky to criticize? And who gets to decide what is and is not verboten to discuss? E.g., immigration, race/religion, sexuality, and so forth. CorruptUser 20:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are in a position of influence/ power, no you don't have such a wide range of 'freedom of speech' that a nobody has. With power comes responsibility and all that. It's part of the reason govt ministers, CEOs etc don't shoot their mouths off (as a rule). In these cases, I would argue that these people should know better than the average person, and should be judged on not just what they say, but how big/ strong an audience they wield. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

the problem with a political movement is volunteers aren't paid. I was gonna go on, but, well, that's about it. Torrent (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot of right-wing political 'movements' do have quite a lot of paid staff [or more often, being employees for right-wing thinktanks etc who's remit seems to conveniently overlap with the right-wing party's talking points etc]. Coupled with the existence of a well-oiled right-wing media machine, this allows them to build/ nurture their voter base, feed them shit and weld them into a bunkered 'tribe' which can then operate as a powerful bloc which can make/ break politicians. Too many leftist parties think this is the shit you only need to do during elections. But while interesting, what the hell does this have to do with the topic being discussed? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

it has to do with populism or astroturfing at being either funded by the establishment or not funded at all. 'Paid staff' is very similar to 'art school' if you consider who can survive as a paid staff member. If you want me to call Trump a terrorist leader or not, I don't think he's doing much to fund any insurgency. So it's not exactly the funding. But that's not exactly what makes a leader. Steve Bannon is a terrorist leader. And people with a lot of money and not a lot of money alike go for Steve. It is really hard to reconcile that Bannon is the platform and Trump is the relatively quiet part. Both are robbers, wealthy men who would ask for your dollars to protect their own. They astroturf, and somehow they convince people that fake grassroots are what everyone who disagrees with them is doing. Torrent (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

These days, there's a bit of debate whether it is 'the establishment' funding the hard-right; it's more a small clutch of very rich folks - and experience tells me that regardless of how nuts a cause is, you'll normally be able to tickle a cheeky few hundred k out of someone to pay for it (if you can catch their eye, that is).

I don't think Trump is a 'terrorist leader' partly because he has zero cause past his own nest-feathering and ego. Being president was just another grift he tried out in 2014 and perhaps a little surprising to himself, actually paid off. This is his 'business genius'; try out a rando new venture on another's coin, stiff all your debts, throw everyone under the bus when it pays to do so and walk away with no shame if/ when it falls over.

Trump generates a bit of schadenfreude from me, because his cult and backers so clearly want 'a man of destiny' like Mussolini or at least one who had the facade of one. Instead, they ended up with an elderly Goering without his positive attributes. Trump isn't even a good frontman because he's an old-school shit boss; cheapskate micromanager with Dunning–Kruger and only thinks of themselves. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The Tories are third 🥉

There seems to be a growing thought that the Tories are doing so badly in the polls that they could end up third, with the Lib Dems Ed Davey ending up LOTO. Or even a Canadian style 1993 wipeout? Euromec (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a good question. Let's look at the facts and my extrapolations.

- Reform's 15% comprimises of two major groups; the old UKIP rump [2015, 12%] and hard-right Thatcherites who have bought the whole conspiracy theory that Truss was 'deposed' by a 'left-wing globalist establishment' with Sunak as their hireling. In this respect, the polling for UKIP/Brexit/Reform is looking most like reversion to 2015; in 2017 UKIP shrunk under the belief that Brexit 'was done' and in 2019 they lent their votes to give Johnson an 80-seat majority to 'get Brexit done'.

- Sunak was right to point out that 'vote Reform, get Labour' - some 90-95% of voters are from the Tories [see political compass plotting for parties]. However, the problem is that Starmer has done rather well in having such a 'right-wing / tepid' manifesto that the average Reform voter can't see much difference between the two majors and thus feel 'free' to vote with their heart, not tactically with their heads.

- Now we enter the murky realms of electoral calculations. Now, a lot of Reform votes are in strong 'Somewheres', 'Traditionalists' and 'Strong Right' constituancy types - these are almost wholly lands where votes are weighed, not counted. So Reform getting ~10% isn't much of an issue. The threat - I say - is in 'Soft Yuppie' and 'Centrist' seats where a) the the Tory voteshare in 2019 was less than 60% b) the third party was over 10%, c) it wasn't 'Remain' in the Referendum and d) the average age was at or above the national average. My fag-packet says I'm looking at the more urbanised 'Tory Shires', like North-East Herts and Hitchin. There's perhaps... 30 seats in this section?

- True 'Tory wipeout' territory comes if there's a strong Labour/LD/Green tactical vote going on with a full Reform spoiling. I would put 'Beaconsfield' and 'Basingstoke' in this grouping; this wouldn't be too ideologically difficult [stats suggest LD/Labour/Green tactical is about 50%]. It's notoriously difficult to make seat by seat predictions, though computing power is making it less daunting.

- The last factor we need to put in is all the weightings. Polling always tries to weigh up the chances of certain demographics actually turning out [gotten wrong in 2017 with the young] as well as the level of liars in polling [gotten wrong in 1992 with 'shy Tories']. Again, it's getting better but it's still an art form than science. However, I do note that of all the major parties, the Conservatives have been the most blatant in SPAD 'parachuting' into [traditionally] safe seats which might lead a local revolt out of sheer bloody-mindedness.

- Anyway, my personal prediction? Here. As you see, the Conservatives suffer a 1997 wipeout but hardly an an annihilation. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, one always needs to consider geographic distribution in FPTP systems, and the concentration of Tory voters in their “blue wall” districts will make massive losses there unlikely. Though it has to be said, that the utter ridiculous shamble that is the Sunak campaign has done its best to magnify the disaster:

• A soaking wet Sunak announcing the election to the tune of a protester blaring out “Thing Can Only Get Better” in the background (Blair’s 1997 campaign song).
• Sunak getting caught using Tory plants masquerading as factory workers asking softball questions and fawning over him.
• Sunak asking Welsh workers about looking forward to the European Championship (Wales didn’t qualify…).
• Sunak visiting the shipyard that built the Titanic.
• Sunak leaving the 80-year anniversary of the D-Day celebrations early, missing the statesmen “family photo”, getting scolded on live TV by one of the surviving veterans at the event.

If the Tories avoid annihilation, it’s certainly not for lack of trying. But once again, FPTP comes to the rescue of even the most dysfunctional and bungling large parties.

The one thing that should really worry the Tories is whether the D-Day fiasco will either turn off the “King & Country” conservative voters from voting entirely, send them to Farage’s flag wavers, or maybe even to Starmer who, unlike Sunak, did attend the entire D-Day celebrations. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think Sunak getting laughed at the debate [in a wrong way] and being 'doorstopped' by a teenager asking 'why do you hate us?' and making him run away has also been a couple of paper-slashes - and his claims of sackcloth childhoods went down like a lead balloon when his sole example was 'not having Sky TV' as a kid [using current values, represented about £1,000 to install and £30 p/m subscription]. Yet alas, I remember the prevailing cultural mood of the early 90s, and that was that Sky TV was seen as kind of gauche [the sort of thing 'Essex Man' would have, along with holidays in Malaga and leather three-piece sofas... why do I have the Spitting Image song 'Essex is crap' in my head?] which when combined with the fact there was little on Sky save softcore porn, sport [this was the start of the football etc vanishing off the terrestial], films and unknown American imports [the only thing which I suspect kid-Sunak might have wanted to watch at this point was The Simpsons on Sky One] I suspect his parents could have afforded it if they'd desired it - but they didn't want it.

The D-Day thing is perhaps the single worst screw-up to date; I've seen 'normal people' [ie not chattering classes types like us] notice and get annoyed by it - something which deepened when I pointed out it was for a pre-recorded interview which had been offered by No 10 to ITV for the following week [doing my bit to attack the Tory vote]. I don't think it will case much Reform cusper leakage, more the LD/Labour cusper who was more disgusted by the hypocrisy of it all [esp as Sunak made such a big thing about 'learning patriotism and sacrifice' for teenagers but he wouldn't then give a few hours on a one-in-a-life event].

Anyway, the only 'ray of light' I can see for the Tories right now is that the LibDem polling is stuck around 10%. But if Sunak doubles-down on Tory/Reform cuspers in a vain hope in holding places like Thurrock and Huntingdon they might snap the final cord with Tory/LD cuspers and cost them places like Finchley and Lewes. Which asks the question; is CPHQ more scared of Farage or Davy? I suspect that even if HQ don't do a 'Faragist lurch' individual Tory MPs shall in the hope of saving their own skins - folks like Rees-Mogg, Truss, Patel who might survive if they can eat Reform's vote [the gold award being Jenkyns who decided to put Farage on her Tory leaflet]. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The D-Day thing was absolutely fascinating because it was such a completely unforced error, and then the excuse for it made it seem even worse. It's one of those things where even if you're not too bothered about the thing itself, you ARE bothered by the fact that they did it at all. Sunak's personal lack of political savvy has been talked about for a while and is now being broadcast loud and clear - but what's somehow worse is the implication that not one member of his team or anyone in his general area pointed out the error. It means he's either surrounded himself with complete idiots, which reflects badly on him, or he's surrounded by people who actively hate and are working to sabotage him, which reflects badly on him AND the party. It was interesting watching the wave of responses to it as it started being reported because it wasn't so much outrage it was a kind of baffled shock. I think it's something that further hammered home the idea that the tory party is, above all else at this point, just disfunctional at a core level.

I saw Rory Stewart say something like he doesn't want the tory party completely wiped out, because he thinks a strong opposition is vital for democracy. And I think he is right, but I truly don't think the current iteration of the tory party is capable of being the strong opposition. Every existing member is tainted by the mere fact that they've continued to be an existing member. I can't think of any combination of current tory MPs who would be able to form a strong and effective opposition party - and we don't even know which ones will survive at this point.

Re: your point about individual MPs Faragifying themselves regardless of CCHQ instruction, this guy is saying he's been told by some MPs that they're just going to ignore CCHQ instruction and run their local campaigns however they want. My biggest concern is that when the tory party loses, whether it's by 50 seats or 200 seats, the lesson they will take from it is that they should've been more like Farage. I can see some kind of Conservative / Reform merger taking place with Farage emerging in a leading role, cheered on by the Braverman/Patel/etc ranks. At least if that happens, I guess a silver lining COULD be that the more traditional Conservatives would then branch off to form a not completely insane True Conservative Party, or something. X Stickman (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the fact that no one in the Tory top (advisors included) didn’t say “What a minute, what the hell kind of optics is slinking off from these D-Day celebrations going to display?” is absolutely baffling, because anyone with an ounce of sense ought to be able to spot it.

However, the same could be said for the Downing Street parties coinciding with both lockdown and the death of Prince Philip and it paints a picture of a Tory top bubble within which there is apparently a blissful ignorance of potential consequences, probably because of a long inculcated sense that those in the bubble are apart from and isolated from any repercussions of their actions.

It basically seems like a sort of Dunning-Kruger elitism, where competence decreases as the “bubblees” become ever more detached from the vast majority of society and enter into some sort of gormless group think where every one of their ideas seems marvellous and what could possibly go wrong anyway? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The big difference between the D-Day thing and the lockdown parties is that the lockdown parties were, theoretically, secret. The public reaction to the parties wasn't a significant consideration for them because they never thought the public would know about them in the first place. There's an argument to be made that the same train of thought is behind both events, but the D-Day event is significantly worse because they knew everyone would see it happen and STILL didn't think about the consequences of it. I'm still legitimately baffled by it because even from a purely selfish viewpoint, where Sunak doesn't give a damn about the commemoration itself, you'd think that a photo op with Biden etc... would be a significantly better campaign boon than an interview with ITV. Especially when, surely, everyone in Rishi's team including Rishi himself must know by now that he doesn't exactly shine in interviews. X Stickman (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but the notion that the Downing Street parties would remain secret is as idiotic as the decision to leave the D-Day celebrations early. As with the latter, anyone with any sense would’ve realised that, of course, someone would notice and publicise a string of parties during lockdown. And holding a none too subtle one on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral was just absolutely courting disaster.

The best explanation I can come up with is that the sense of entitlement and invulnerability in the Tory top has totally overwhelmed even its self interested savvy. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue with Partygate was twofold. One, it actually gained traction with the Big Public - shit had been coming out of the Johnson regime ever since Day 1 but it hadn't stuck. This is in fact common with losses of confidence; the thing which causes the slide is normally trivial and this difficult to foresee as how big it would end up coming. Therefore, it wasn't nuts in assuming if/when found out that it would blow over. Second, it wasn't the action itself which caused the flak, it was the gaslighting and lying which felled Johnson - I held then and now that a sincere tone, a 'buck stops here' apology and acceptance of punishment would have been enough to pull through. However, this doesn't sit well with the 'never apologise, never explain' maxim which so many right-wing populists live by.

In more general terms, I'd argue that the Tories have suffered marked deterioration in their ability level each iteration as their internal Overton Window shrunk and ideological purity and personal 'loyalty' has become ever-more prized assets. Of this talent puddle, the over-promoted biased wannabe technocrat Sunak is perhaps the cream.

This has been lethal to them because they've become incapable of generating genuinely innovative answers to the country's problems, mainly due to the simple fact there's relatively little brains left and what does remain know they aren't allowed to be honest and admit that previous/current policies had exacerbated them. Rory Stewart etc has spoken about 'not wanting to see a Tory wipeout' for the reasoning that democracy needs a decent opposition to function but hell, I don't think they're currently capable of presenting anything more than juvenile sniping - that even if they went down to zero, little brains would be lost.

A more immediate problem is that the political workers have known for about 18 months now that unless there was a miracle, the Tories would be out by the end of the year - meaning most would be out of a job too. Knowing that the market is going to get tight and the election perhaps so bad it'll could be a 'CV stain'... well, you might wish to jump early to snag that new job. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I was fully unaware that I used a slur. I will not use it again, it's a lot easier to say 'some guy from Pakistan' than to say the P word, but i fully apologize for saying Paki, I didn't know it waz slur. Pakistani, I swear I will refer in full, not that tough. Torrent (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Try guessing which country I'm from

Try making a guess ( hint: I'm not from the USA) ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Deutschland. Carthage (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

My name is an allusion to the German empire countryball known as Reichtangle (hint:I'm Asian) ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

China? (Pardon the following mix of pinyin and Wade-Giles) The Germans and Dutch in Shandong gave us Tsingtao beer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

who is going to win the Stanley Cup? Torrent (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok I'll tell you where I'm from it's Pakistan ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

your English is top tier I really thought you might be somehwere that isn't the home of your native language. Are you in the US? Nobody inside the US calls it the USA. It is just slang, you could ask anyone politely why a friend of yours said nobody calls it USA. Torrent (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

U-S-A! It might have been patriotic once, but it's largely jingoistic now. Bongolian (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

More than a decade ago, while pursuing studies I didn't complete, for half a year I lived with a few foreign students who had come here to Sweden from Pakistan. They all spoke good English, as did some other Pakistanis I spoke less with who had also gone for the same university, and who all seemed acquainted with one another. One of the latter was a (in Pakistan closet) atheist and skeptic, who seemed to look down on his country and people and, though it was some years before the right-wing populist surge, I got the impression he would probably almost be ready to say "they're right about us". Another guy dreamed of eventually going to Israel, pointing out how his passport said it was invalid in precisely that country. A third guy sounded very British when he spoke, and when I remarked on that, he said he'd worked on it as he really admired Britain and the British. -ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

y'all do realize english is an official language in pakistan, right? The G (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder Reichtangle if you're still in Pakistan and if so, how is it as an atheist there? From what I've heard that can be dangerous, at least if talked about. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I met Pakistani and India and Nepali I have met a a number of people. The point is not to pin anyone down, it's to lift everyone, which still makes morons out of collectivism. I am not asking anyone to wait forward that makes me the only guy to make a statemsnt.I am just a fan of people. Don't do murders and I'm closer to your friend than you'd believe.

The Paki, Indian, and Nepali guys I met wouldn't fight each other. Not because they didn't identify, but because none of them are angry people. Torrent

@Torrent, do you realize that 'Paki' is considered a slur in the UK? Bongolian (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

N-word level. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I had to search that up as I was very surprised to read it. In Western Canada "Paki" is somewhat of a ubiquitous slang term... on the same level of offensiveness as "cracker" perhaps. It's easily understandable though how it can become very derogatory. Conversely, "cunt" is considered exceptionally indecent and vulgar here, despite it supposedly being relatively common in Australia? Language is odd. Impiricism (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. The British press years ago freaked out over Tiger Woods saying he was "a complete spaz on the green", while here in the US people read it, which he intended, as him having a terrible time putting. You might say he really needed to work on his putts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

no, i wasn't aware. and I promise to say Pakistani, and I apologize for saying Paki, I don't believe in the pass, slurs reclaimed are not reclaimed for everyone. I messed up, I am in middle America, I don't know London slurs and I wouldn't ever use a slur to hurt someone. A slur is a lazy insult and I'd rather not insult anyone I don't know. Torrent (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Macron dissolved parliament

Ironic how this happens right after the UK got its elections early. Macron, who won't run personally in 2027, pathetically dissolved the French parliament right after the EU elections, meaning that either the far-right takes power or, maybe, hopefully, the left somehow stops fighting and unites again. Macron's party will not win these elections, and the Olympic Games will be a mess (since this means a new cabinet just before the Games). The moron is most likely hoping for the fascists to win, since prime ministers usually don’t get elected later at the presidential elections, which can go wrong very easily (Marine Le Pen will most likely send an important figure from the party to be prime minister instead of taking the job herself, which has worked in the past). Macron is doing this two years after accusing the "far-left" of denying the results of the presidential election by simply trying to win the legislative elections, because of course imposing a co-habitation on the president is undemocratic. If the left unites, polls show that it can go between 25 to 35 %. Only problem is knowing who would be the left-wing candidate. New world (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Swaths of Europe are turning to Golden Dawn, AfD, Front National, etc, for several reasons, mostly due to the European powers inability to enact common sense immigration controls, or at least, what the public thinks is common sense. CorruptUser 00:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

And immigration is placed centre stage not least because most of the old social democratic parties have essentially adopted the economic policies of the centre-right, meaning that economic policy has become a non-issue with the “old” parties in general due to such minimal differences between (centre-)left and (centre-)right.

As these “old” parties have shown themselves unable to provide either significant economic growth for large sections of society or put a break on increased inequality, we shouldn’t underestimate the “it’s time to try something new” factor. It’s also worth noting that these “new” right wing parties tend to promise to lift up those that feel tossed aside by the “technocratic” economic policies of the “old” parties.

And that’s probably also a factor in these parties getting a lot of the youth vote this time around, since the “old” parties’ policies have even less to offer young people who can see themselves getting hit with a lot of the austerity costs while being likely to have worse future prospects for economic improvement than their parents. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that these issues are also why I’m very sceptical about “pragmatic” political leaders, like Macron and Starmer, because while they may win in the short term, their policies simply stoke up more frustration and anger, since they are unwilling and unable (for ideological reasons) to impose the kind of reforms that might address the underlying issues.

Similarly, their tactical tagging to the right ends up reducing the difference between them and the (far) right on immigration and “law and order” while legitimising their right wing opponents in two ways: They can point to the “pragmatists” moving in their direction as proof that they’re right (hahaha…), which also means that the far right can then shift the debate and goal posts even further right (and typically have to do so to retain their “insurgent outsider” image). ScepticWombat (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

As for the rightward shift in the EP election, that has mainly been driven by the results in France and Germany, where RN and AfD made significant gains. While Italy’s Meloni and FdI has gotten a lot of attention, her party’s great success was more than offset by the equally disastrous showing of Salvini’s Lega (which has moved the Italian right wing centre of gravity from the ID to the ECR group in the EP). ScepticWombat (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The picture is indeed mixed. In both Poland and Hungary, the infamous right-wing populists lost greatly, though they are still big. In the Nordic countries, the left and greens grew at the cost of the far right -- though in general, left and greens had a setback in the EU. Though various new national parties have entered the EU parliament that have not yet chosen which EU parties to group up with, and they seem slated to boost the otherwise weakened left (to the left of the social democrats that is) when they do. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It's partially the traditional 'moderate' parties failing miserably at being economically left-wing, giving people the wrong idea of what left-wing politics look like, and partially the media continually spreading xenophobic discourse. In France the left is rather radical at least since 2022, the EU candidate of the socialists however needs to shut up. The only disagreements (between 'moderates' and 'radicals') are on foreign relations (EU treaties, NATO, Ukraine). That radicality is probably the only reason the far-right isn't the main opposition in the country, the 'Popular Front' formed now (48 hours to form an alliance!) has great potential. New world (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait, "pathetically dissolving the parliament"? That's rich, especially coming from an Insoumis that have claimed that Macron was illegitimate from the start! (while the N°4 to the elections decided he had all the legitimity and did not need to be a candidate to be a MP). Macron has seen that the french people have voted massively for another party (cryptofascists, at that), and therefore, saw that he did not have the legitimity any more, and decided to face it head on. Brave, in my opinion. And very democratic.

The economic results have been very good, with record low unemployement, increase of jobs and activity in the industrial sector, controlled inflation (compared to neigbhours). The Covid pandemic has been dealt with no as fast as required, sure, and chaotically, but some answers have been excellent like funding the jobs (and not the corps) that couldn't be done in lockdown. The gini index has stood low. The life expectancy still increased. Greenhouse gas emissions went down 27% sicne 1990. Protected nature areas have increased to 33% of the territory. The wage gap has been reduced. Abortion is in the constitution.

While Mélenchon is screaming about the media conspiracy against him (and his own Media has seen mass laid offs, hilarious!), and described the Ukrainian gov as neo-nazis. No, the far left are not the good guys here.147.161.184.162 (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, macronist IP. I See you fear the Popular Front already. Macron will loose. The NPA, LFI, the PS, and the greens are all united this time, it's not just the 'far-left' (less radical than Mitterrand initially was, because of course classical left-wing politics are clearly 'far-left' now). And Mélenchon isn't part of the Popular Front! He has some hot takes, but LFI supports sending weapons to Ukraine, while being less offensive on the question, and voted the sanctions! And Zelensky is not a 'neo-nazi' according to Melenchon, just an autocrat who banned left-wing Ukrainian political parties. The invasion of Ukraine constitutes a war-crime. I don't know where you live, but you are going to have to choose between the Popular Front and the FN, so, what do you choose? Macron should have done this during the pension reforms, during literally any other time than this. Instead, he dissolves now that the far-right could win. Now. Since there are only three factions currently in French politics, of course people with actual 'republican values' choose the (united) left over the far-right. The communists are way more radical than LFI anyway. The left can govern, it has done it many times without going into social-liberalism Hollande/Valls style. New world (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Macron is done. Hollande supports the union. Literally Hollande, is Hollande far-left now? New world (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

So, the dissolution was pathetic, because the Far Right could win, but I fear the Popular Front already?! ... Should I not fear the RN instead? ... "Hot takes"?? "HOT TAKES"?! Mélenchon has been *consistently* and *reliably* voting against Ukraine and for Russian positions, and now that's dismissed as "hot takes"??? "I protest against the electric blocus of Crimea by the neo-nazi governement of Kiev in the heart of winter" - Mélenchon, 2016, voting against protesting the mistreatment of Crimean Tatars. Voted against the condemnation of the repression of peacefull Tatar activist Idar Dadin. Voted against fighting russian propaganda. Voted against continuing the scientific agreement with Ukraine, voted against macro-economic help to Ukraine (to "prevent Ukraine having to obey to Bruxelles", hypocrite). Defended the annexion of Crimea. Mélenchon is a Russian puppet, either he's paid or it's by ideology, but there never was a dictator that Mélenchon didn't like (Venezuela, Cuba, China...).

Macron's team did plenty of lefty things: doubling paternal leave, OK the integration of HIV-positive people in the armed forces, increased the minimum pensions, limited overdraft fees, limited rent in Paris... But I guess it's never enough for far leftists. And no, the PS isn't far left. LFI is. Between the NPF and the FN, I would choose NPF, but only because I hope that LFI will be overpowered as much as possible.2A02:8429:2E9:4101:E4B1:5319:F472:A59C (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Mélenchon is anti-American. Yes, he very often said bullshit. But it's not the USA, it's France we’re talking about, French politics, do you seriously think Olivier Faure would claim Macron to be left-wing, or the greens, or Hamon, or the communists? Really? Oh and, you are wrong about Macron being left-wing, did you forget retirement, immigration, Depardieu??? The perfect illustration of this is Macron citing Leon Blum, some Marxist revolutionary from the thirties, who would have definitely supported this union. You fear the economic program of the NFP, but again, the left can govern, it has done it many times, without going into some social-liberalism. You seriously think you are so correct in reducing republican principles that this new alliance needs to be dominated by Hollande, even though your camp lost. Really? That's your idea of politics? Liberalism needs to win, because I want be an asshole boss too! Never mind the liberty of subordinates! Mélenchon said he wanted the government in Ukraine to exclude neo-nazis and nationalists from anything really. However LFI supports aids. The NFP has clearly declared itself in favour of aid to Ukraine. Let me guess, you think it's inacceptable to have NPA in the alliance because revolutionary communists are the equivalent of having open fascists with the FN? that's your reflection? What's next? Manuel Valls PM? Like it or not, EELV shares many positions with LFI, Hamon does too, obviously, the left of the socialist party does too, and the communists share so much they aren't clear on Ukraine either are they. (But the communists don't win deputies, so that's fine). The republican front is directed towards the far-right. Mélenchon comes from the socialist party, the FN comes from Jean-Marie Le Pen and his former SS comrades. That's the difference. New world (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

LFI has voted aid, yes, like Orban has done, kicking and screaming. And this not cover the *decade* Of Mélenchon voting against aid. There is also less neo-nazi influence in Ukraine's governement that in France. The president has jewish origins, and the new minister of defense is a muslim tatar! Mélenchon has not *just* said dumb stuff, he has *acted. I don't care about the USA, where did you read that? But Mélenchon has the same US-obsession, and thinks everything that's against US is good.

By the way, what would you say about someone that, in a democracy, rants about a "media conspiracy" against him, is however incapable of managing its own media, rants about "La France, dictature totalitaire", wants to install a vaguely-defined VIth republic, rants about "The elites", rants that the installed power is not legitimate despite being 4rth at the latest eections? Yeah, a populist autocrat just like Marine Le Pen. The only difference between them is blaming the immigrants.

Macron is a centrist pragmatic, yep. (And Léon Blum was absolutely not a Marxist revolutionary, wtf). And its economic results are excellent. It's ecological & social fairly good too (never has been so much of land protected, supporting going out of thermic cars, development of Bio...). But like you wrote... Never enough! (Yeah you can't keep the retirement age with an aging population without changing *something*). Now the NPA, like the LO, PC and other revolutionary leftists groups are just the fascists, but in red, soviet-style. I think a LFI France would be more of an illiberal democracy à la Turkey or Hungary, with technically free elections but heavy control of public institutions by the party, media control, and impairement of opposition.147.161.149.110 (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

On Leon Blum, he was a Marxist revolutionary socialist, meaning he believed in the revolution and in the social ownership of the means of production. The old SFIO had many revolutionaries like Blum, and not just reformists, the difference with the communist party was that the communists were members of the Third International, and took orders from Moscow. Mélenchon says a lot of bullshit, but damn, you really fear him. He can constitutionally call for a constituent assembly which will write the new constitution, if the new constitution turns out to be crap, you know, strikes, protests, that's democracy defending itself, against any government.

As to Macron, are you serious? Immigration law? Immigration law??? Macron called affaire Depardieu a 'manhunt'. And on ecological issues, well… even Hollande was against the retirement reform. You know, lots of Latin American governments (with some few exceptions) have Mélenchon types in power, and aren't dictatorships. And what about historical governments in Scandinavia, economy wasn't collapsing there, or Spain, or Germany, or France. And by PC, you mean the modern communist party of Fabien Roussel? Roussel, a red fascist? Your faith in economic liberalism has no limits, does it? Macron claimed he was a socialist, he wasn't. Macron claimed he gave up on retirement. He didn't. And the list goes on. Oh and, by the way, this means that, according to you, France was governed by red fascists in the 30s and late 40s? «Plutôt Hitler que le front populaire ». New world (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's more than what he says, it's what he does. Of course I fear Mélenchon, the same way I fear Marine Le Pen, or Trump, or any of other populists like Orban, Erdogan or Chavez that oooops, morphed their couuntries into illiberal democracies (or straight-up one-party dictatorships). I was pleasantly surprised when the greek Syriza left power without a fuss (after hilariously being elected on refusing the EU plan, doing a referendum on refusing the EU plan, then accepting the EU plan). Because Evo Morales didn't. Living in a democracy, I like "boring" parties that do not claim we're living in ultra-capitalist/marxist dictatorships. And yeah, Roussel has been going on voting against Ukraine aid. It's really a good litmus test to see where someone stands on the democracy/authoritarian axis. Because Ukraine is actually a (flawed) democracy being invaded by a stronger state that's pretending to be fighting "The West" (and lgbt rights), for transparent imperialistic purposes. It's the clearest black/white war we had since WWII. So if you're still supporting Russia... you're the fascist.

And if you want dirt on Macron, at least rise the correct points, like Benalla affair, or Uber. Source for "Macron claimed he gave up on retirement"?170.85.0.105 (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Macron just said stuff like "change gender in the town hall!" And that the program of the ENTIRE NFP was 'not social democratic but totally immigrationist', and he called the entire alliance far-left. Seriously, how can you say this guy is a 'pragmatic centrist'? New world (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As to 'populism', the old communists were stalinists, the socialists were ambiguous on some things, but yet, are the soviet tanks still not marching on Paris? Chavez is the only left-wing person you cited in that list, how about AMLO, Morales, Petro, or Lula? You do know most of these governments were democratic in the end. Just because Roussel says shit about Russia out of extremely obvious historical reasons (ask him what he think about the URSS), he won't take power any time soon, and as to LFI, well, they have anti-American paranoia. However the internal policies they support are the policies the left should generally support. Hamon also wanted a sixth republic, by the way. The program of the NFP is a good example of what an actually solid left-wing proposal can look like. And in the end if the NFP wins the new (theoretical) government would support the program of the NFP. And LFI isn't NPA or LO, so no "ultra-capitalist dictatorship". Who called Marine Le Pen's program 'marxist' again??? Ohh right your favorite government! New world (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Point of clarification; Zelensky banned parties like the Socialists and Communists not because they were 'left wing' but because a lot of 'the left' were openly nostalgic for the old USSR and that means pro-Russian and anti-Western in the old Soviet style [note; the CP-RF boss Gennady Zyuganov supports Putin's war on Ukraine, while some Ukrainian socialist leaders like Maksym Holdarb and Vasyl Volha turned up in Russia as cheerleaders for it]. Shit like statues to Lenin are returning to Russian-occupied cities - not because they are 'celebrating Communism', but celebrating 'Soviet Power' aka the Second Russian Empire. To some extent political movements have been paused due to the war; but it's very possible that a more 'Europeanised' left-wing political party/ies [Labourites? Eco-socialists? Left-wing populists?] arise in the aftermath. Assuming Ukraine doesn't lose it, that is. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, however I bet some left-wing parties and figures simply campaigning for 'peace' (wether that is actually an option with Putin or not is another question, however pro-'peace' parties are not necessarily pro-Russia by conviction) were also addressed in that ban. New world (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I fully subscribe to Orwell's argument [Pacifism and the War, 1942] that if you continue to press for peace at a time where your nation is locked in a battle of survival with another state who wishes to dominate you, you are 'objectively pro-enemy' because you're hindering the resistance to being dominated. What's more, if the opposing state has a decent chance of succeeding in overpowering your country, you cannot argue against moves to try to limit/ stop pacifists proving 'useful idiots' by telling people that armed resistance is always wrong. Similar can be said towards people who are openly defeatist. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

but, there is still mitigation. I don't believe America is on the precipice of Genocide. I do think republicans want to centralize cash. I do think they are dove marking racism. And I do think the far right is winning, which blows. But I cannot believe the purpose is to exterminate anyone. It's to exploit, for sure. Torrent (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Some things ARE getting better

Hey everyone. A reminder that, while the world sucks and people are stupid (did I mention I'm a cynic?), some things are getting better and we should try to name positive change from time to time to not loose ourselves in our cynicism. My elder son, 12, has two more weeks to go before his summer break. His school has decided to do a themed week where students from his age-group get to dress up in different styles and costumes. Today, the first day of the themed week, students are encouraged to gender-swap in terms of clothing, accesories or style. Tommorrow they are supposed to dress as a character from a movie they like. Now, maybe some might say that encouraging them to gender-swap enforces a sort of dichotomoy of genders which might be counter-productive and might reinforce stereotypes. However, the way I see it, I think it is a fantastic example of the changing Zeitgeist. Not only, do the students happily comply and enjoy it, they are also aware of non-binary persons and don't seem to find it strange, weird or negative in any way. I live in Switzerland. When I was talking to my son how to gender-swap him, he jokingly said, I could also go as Nemo? (you know, the Non-binary artist that won the Eurovision Song Contest). When I brought him to school, he met with his friends who all had different styles, seemed enthusiastic about it and obviously seemed to enjoy seeing what each other had come up with. The newer generations grow up more tolerant than my own and it makes me very happy and proud. I don't think that this would have been possible in the early 2000s or that my friends and I would have accepted it at the time. When I watched the ESC with my son and his cousin, both were obviously rooting for Nemo (who, IMO was by far the best act in terms of talent and music) and they never questioned, mocked or even looked at it as special or worth mentioning that here was a "man in a dress" (as my father put it). One or two years ago, I overheard another kid negatively describe something as "gay" to which another kid immediately replied: "gay is not an insult". That made me so happy in that moment. Things have changed a lot from when I was a kid in the early 2000s where "gay" used to be a common and acceptable insult and mocking the LGBTQ+ community was common in TV and film. While there definetely is right-wing pushback to LGBTQ+ and questioning of traditional gender roles in Switzerland, fact is that many young people like my son and his friends, are now utterly confused by things as homophobia and racism. It just doesn't make sense to them. Imagining right-wingers almost having an aneurysm at the thought of children cross-styling/dressing for fun in school made my morning so much sweeter. Anyway, positive change does in fact happen sometimes. I hope you guys have a great day. Cheers. NastyNugget (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I remember cross-dressing when I was younger for Halloween. My sisters found it very humorous, and the people in my small community also seemed more amused than anything. Of course this was a decent amount of time ago... these days it seems more people are outraged at anything sex and gender related. It just appears to be the latest scapegoat for modern trouble and uncertainty in the world which political pundits are quick to stoke for more votes; it's disappointing. I recall on another discussion page a user describing American culture as bizarre, where gratuitous violence in media is fine but topless women is obscene... it is strange but luckily also seems to be changing, or at least one can hope. Impiricism (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not something that one could get away with even suggesting in US public schools nowadays for fear of a huge far-right GOP backlash. Once upon a time in the US and Europe (pre-early 1900s), pre-school-age boys were basically put in dresses just like girls. There are plenty of photos like this on the web. See Breeching (boys). Bongolian (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting... the reasoning described on the Wikipedia page makes sense. I wonder if any of the same reasons have influenced the thawb i.e ease of production. Impiricism (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

In more general terms, I think it's important to note that as a rule, 'conservatives' lose 'culture wars' [as in, 'loses the public argument']. Let's list their 'causes' which they've lost, yes? Gay rights. Women's lib. Contraception. Moralistic censorship. Miscegenation. Public lewdness. Divorce. Sex outside of marriage. Children's rights. Even that hallowed cause of abortion has been a minority project, rammed through due to political capture. I remember growing up in a fundie cult in the 90s and their reaction then towards 'cross-dressing' [or even simply gender-neutral clothing] would fit exactly to conservatives/reactionaries now. But the difference is that in ~1994 quite a lot of 'normal' folks would have agreed with them ['That boy/girl ain't right'] but in 2024 it would be a lot less - aka 'acceptance' has gone somewhere from 'near-nil' to 'some'. I mean, let's even consider the term, 'cross-dressing' - the cult considered jeans and short hair on a girl as this, but how many folks complain about that now? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

A friend and myself went to a MASH themed dance once both as Klinger in dress, gloves and hat..... does that count?? 🌈 No I didn't think so either.... but any chance for self promotion :)Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

On a somewhat tangental note, There's a semi-meme going about that since Disney has bought most of FOXs back catalogue, including M*A*S*H, Max Klinger is now an official Disney Princess. Kencolt (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean maybe if true. I would like it to be true.Torrent (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

👸 Yes that would be worth a chuckle.... except of course he wasn't so it's really just historical revisionism. 😎!Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI: A 4chan splinter site is trying to raid us

Just a heads up. Moon Sock (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

They still exist then?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

How do they 'raid' us? It's not like we're a range in the American West, living in fear of Comanches... KarmaPolice (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Going by yesterday's activity, it was... creating vandal accounts and plastering a bunch of trivially undone vandalism on articles, I guess. *shrug* BobJohnson (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, them. I noticed a slight spate during the weekend. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's really frightening then. I mean that's like a pretty normal day.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What was annoying was the tedium it caused. "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." Carthage (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Netanyahu has been invited to speak before Congress

This is akin to inviting the Grand Ayatollah of Iran. Fuckin' hell. If Bibi doesn't leave the US in handcuffs for committing literal fucking genocide then that should put the final nail in the coffin of the US being different from any other empire. Carthage (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Joe Biden is a war criminal, do you think he gives a damn about it? The USA aren't different from any other selfish empire, they (the State apparatus) don't care about human rights or republican principles. New world (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I am well aware the US is an unexceptional empire, but keep in mind that American exceptionalism is a real problem in the US. Carthage (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a chance in fucking hell he accepts, anyway. Revolverman (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

au contraire mon ami. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Arresting his ass the moment he steps off the plane would be the funniest goddamn thing ever, and it really is a shame it’ll never happen. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Funny, but ridiculous. The US is not a member of the ICC. Nyet-an-yahoo was invited because he is a Trump supporter. What do they want the Americans to do? Threaten to bomb Tel Aviv? The Israelis could destroy Gaza all by themselves without heavy bombs Calling Biden a war criminal is like calling Mother Teresa a pervert...maybe, in a way. Still stupid. The US has stopped sending some types of heavy munitions to Israel and Biden has also pledged to halt the supply of some offensive weapons and artillery shells to the country if it goes ahead with its assault on Rafah. Israel is not an American state. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nyet-an-yahoo's diagnosis is not Trump-supporter, it's far-right. Joseph R. Biden's diagnosis is war criminal, and it isn't even particularly related to Israel. Joe's case is actually really old. I feel for America, they have to choose between two old crazy liars, one of which is crazier and lying way more than the other (doesn't mean the other old guy isn't also sort of a dickhead). Your right, calling Biden a war criminal is like calling Bush father or Bush son war criminals, or even Vladimir Putin a war criminal. Who would do that? New world (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Correct, Israel isn't an American state. It's an American client state. Genocide Joe has greater controls, but all he can do is this half-assed "red line" routine. It's a PR stunt by an ideological Zionist. Carthage (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Call it what you will, it is still an independent state and no more likely to take American orders than Britain did during WWII...and they were fighting the same enemy. America doesn't punish disagreeable allies so what on earth is stopping the IDF apart from fear of losing political support? A president doesn't create that support. American allies do what the fuck they want and maybe if you're lucky they will do America a favor on occasion when it is in not against their interest for them to do it. This "war criminal" bs is laughable.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC).

You might have already guessed it but I’m not talking about Israel specifically. Joe has been a war criminal for quite some time now. It was just a reminder that he's still the same person he was a decade ago. Right now it's Netanyahu being the war criminal, and Joe does not care as long as he can get away with it. New world (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Equating Putin and Biden is both incorrect and weakens your argument. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Not on Putin level obviously, but supporting and justifying invasions of other places with various imperialist motives is generally pretty equatable. New world (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh really? Biden can't impose sanctions or restrict shipments even further? The half-assed not-actually-a-red-line is acceptable to you? It's not within Biden's powers to go further? Bullshit, troll. Your standards on what is a war criminal or not are by far not objective either. Your assertion that it's "laughable" without going into detail is just that: an assertion. Biden is actively facilitating war crimes. Ergo, he is a war criminal. See? That's an actual argument, unlike your bullshit assertion. Carthage (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Biden - Continues to supply arms to third party fighting terrorist group which attacked them.

Putin - Causes and continues imperialist war against other state with no justification.

Not the same at all. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a "war," this is a genocide. It's common knowledge now that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, with the intent of razing Gaza to the ground and removing the Palestinian presence. Remember that this campaign of cruelty was started from the outset with a collective punishment campaign. The UN is calling this a campaign of genocide. @ULTRACOMFY posted a UN report documenting genocide in the Gaza Strip. Also remember that Israel is the dominant power militarily occupying Palestine, this conflict dates back to far before October 7th. They bear more responsibility than a group that wasn't sovereign over its own territory even before October 7th. Let's stop equivocating here: American weapons, which Biden continues to happily provide, are being used to deliberately target civilians and civilian infrastructure. That's a war crime. Collective punishment is a war crime. It has been extensively documented that what's going on in the Gaza Strip isn't a mere "war," it's a campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Carthage (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the Gaza situation isn't shit but it's not the same as Ukraine and Biden isn't directly responsible for it all either. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Cool, I never argued it was the same. That was new world. I am arguing that Biden is directly, consciously, enabling crimes against humanity, and that makes him a war criminal. Ukraine has nothing to do with it. Carthage (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I never actually stated Biden was on the same level as Putin, I stated Biden and Putin are both known war criminals, which is problematic, considering they rule two countries very supportive of war crimes. New world (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that if Israel was fully intent on exterminating the Palestinians, there'd be a LOT more than 30-40k dead. CorruptUser 01:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you been living under a rock? Israeli politicians everyday are uttering some genocidal remark or other. New atrocities come out almost everyday now. Israel is under trial at the ICJ for genocide, and its top leadership has been met with arrest warrants from the ICC. Israel has destroyed most of Gaza. Deliberately targets civilian infrastructure. Has destroyed every single university. Over 30 hospitals. Demolished cemeteries. We have uncovered literal mass graves. More children have died in this "war" than in any other conflict in the 21st century. Famine is rampant in Gaza, and this is deliberate. There is a genocide in Gaza. This is undeniable. Carthage (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Also that line about there being "only 30-40K dead" is stupid. What matters is intent, not numbers of people killed. Intent has been more than sufficiently demonstrated. Remember that "only" 8-10K people died at Srebrenica, and that is near-universally regarded as an act of genocide. Carthage (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Be careful, you are equating "Israel" with "the Netanyahu administration". Most of the really bad crap I've heard is from the Israeli far-right / settler movement, with Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich being the "biggest names" of that lot. I don't think Netanyahu is that bad but he's pretty close (and cowardly for clearly wanting to extend the war for political reasons). Polls I've seen (like this) indicate that a lot of Israel is pissed with Netanyahu right now; this includes members of Netanyahu's war cabinet (Benny Gantz was reportedly scheduled to leave Netanyahu's coalition today, though a successful Gaza hostage rescue seems to have possibly delayed that announcement.) Also per that Times of Israel poll, apparently a fair bit of Israel is okay with Biden's ceasefire / hostage release plan. This is good -- the more pressure on Netanyahu, the harder it will be for him to put off the inevitable corruption trials and kiss the Jewish supremacist settlers' asses.

A comment on Biden here is imagine Donald Trump in the same position. Already now, Republicans and conservative American media are getting in line to bend over and kiss Netanyahu's ass. To me this is strange, because not too many Americans under 50 are confident about Netanyahu either, and even among the senior sect, if you're not a conservative Republican lapdog, you probably aren't confident in Netanyahu as well. BobJohnson (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a distinction without a difference. It wasn't the Israeli far right that brought about the Israeli apartheid state, nor was it the far right who initiated a long term colonization project that stole so much Palestinian land and irrevocably changed the demographics of the region. Those who fled the Naqba and their descendants are still denied a right of return to land that the Israelis stole. Netanyahu and cronies are in control of the Israeli state, yes, but it is the Israeli state that occupies Palestine, that enforces apartheid, and steals land. It is the Israeli state that denies the right of return. It is the Israeli state that is currently carrying out a campaign of genocide in Gaza. Remove Bibi and the situation doesn't magically go away. As for Biden, whether Trump is worse is irrelevant to the fact that Biden is directly facilitating not only war crimes, but literal genocide. "Well Trump is worse" doesn't mean that Biden is magically good, or that he couldn't do better. Carthage (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone is disagreeing with anyone here. We all agree that this is a genocide, we agree that Biden is enabling that genocide, we agree that both Biden and Putin are war criminals. What exactly is the problem here...? I can, for context, link back to the beautiful A/HRC/55/73 which clears up any confusion about genocide and the question of whether it's happening in Gaza. I recognize that CorruptUser said "fully intent on exterminating the Palestinians" not "genocide", which is an important distinction and is clarified in the document. What CorruptUser is saying here is correct, but it also do not contradict the idea that a genocide is ongoing. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No. We don't all agree. We all agree that a war is going on. We all agree that too many civilians are being killed. Maybe war crimes are involved. That's not textbook genocide. Too many civilians are killed in wars. If you just have to be right, then go ahead and believe what you believe. History tells a different story. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I misinterpreted your posts then, excuse me. Well, I will sincerely implore you to read the rapporteur I posted above and/or tell me how those findings aren't a textbook case of genocide. I believe the material posted as source/proof/etc. has high veracity and it would take a lot of explanation to argue it away. Also, remember that genocide does not necessitate the intent to fully destroy an ethnic group. The definition involves a "or in part" as a qualifier next to "fully". In response to what someone else said, the actual number of people you kill (they said 30k~40k) or the speed at which you do it does also not matter substantially when assessing the criteria for genocide. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a good challenge, but I don't think Krampus is gonna take that up. Carthage (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Textbook genocide is the intent to fully or partially destroy a group. We have those statements of intent from Israel leadership on down. We have matched actions with the genocidal intent expressed. What's happening in Gaza really is textbook genocide, but you know, if you "have to be right then go ahead and believe what you believe. History tells a different story." Carthage (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘would be awesome if we could lure both bibi and haniyeh for peace talks (or something) and then have them both arrested. it's too bad that'll never happen, but dreaming is free. The G (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Good thing no one gets foreign policy advice from here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Since Krampus won't respond, will you take up Ultracomfy's challenge? It'll be far more constructive than the dumbfuck shitpost you just bestowed upon us. Carthage (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No matter what Blade wrote, "asking" them like this will definitely not get you a valuable response, and then when you do not get a valuable response you're gonna say that you were right even though you kind of did that to yourself. I will be honest, I too wouldn't mind seeing Krampus and Blade try to take on A/HRC/55/73 but this is not how you will convince them. This only leads to more drama that will reinforce your biases against them. Blade, Krampus, please do give it a shot though, I wanna see what you come up with. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Will you actually accept any answer other than "you are 100% right"? I am unsure if the current situation is quite a genocide, but I am not going to bother pushing back on this these days because what Netanyahu is doing is bad regardless of what one labels it, the far-right of his coalition does seem to have genocidal intent, and there's enough legitimate organizations that think it is such. No need to argue over honestly minor semantics. But Biden a "war criminal"? OK. And what of Hamas, who, may I remind you, still are actively holding hostages from the October 7 attack?

Israel-Palestine discussions seem to evoke the worst in online discourse and at some point you say "fuck it all". The online brigades for this conflict have honestly left a nasty taste in my mouth for the whole f'n thing. So you don't say much at all, other than to tick another note regarding the failures of humanity. On this conflict, I feel like the "safe zone" here that most of us on this Wiki generally agree is nasty is the ethnic cleansing desires and other crap regarding the far-right of Israel, the terrorist acts and general shitty leadership of Hamas, and the overreach and general shitty leadership of Netanyahu. Other points probably are "more contentious", and probably an "agree to disagree" thing at this time. BobJohnson (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a reasonable take.

At the risk of appearing supercilious, let me say here I will always try to answer any non-rhetorical question, as I am sure others have done here. But I don't follow threads here in the saloon as if there were an actual ongoing debate in which I am a responsible participant. Ping me or go to my talk page if you want a reply. Otherwise I tend to believe I have said enough, though I never tire of my own opinions.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Since it's been suggested above, I will give it a read. Since I'm not an expert on this subject, my approach will be to take it on its own and see what conclusions I get to, then read expert analysis (not partisan screeds) from Israeli and Palestinian sources to see if there's anything confirmed/missing/fabricated. It's Yankees-Red Sox tonight, so tomorrow morning I'll go at it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

BobJohnson, the relative calmness of Israel-Palestine (IP) discourse here was not always the case. There was a lot of uncivil discourse on IP in 2015 or so, resulting in the worst HCM in the Chicken Coop that I've seen, the banning of one Sysop, the Sysoprevoke of another, and at least one other Sysop leaving in disgust over the brawling (User:AgingHippie, who later returned as User:RagingHippie). Bongolian (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sort of an improvement, I would say. If your object is to describe the world, you are in the right place.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Bob is continuing to equivocate October 7th with the genocidal campaign currently being conducted in Gaza. October 7th in no way justifies this campaign of genocide. In fact, "destroying Hamas" is just a smokescreen to cover genocide. Israel has so far, out of eight months I think? Israel has killed only a small fraction of Hamas fighters, and in no way has significantly reduced Hamas' military effectiveness. All while radicalizing potential recruits with their campaign of atrocities. Israel has also killed more hostages than it has rescued (not to mention the thousands of Palestinian hostages currently being held by Israel, sometimes for "crimes" as minor as waving a Palestinian flag or peacefully protesting), in fact the hostage families are pissed with the Israeli government, because its priorities seem to favor killing Palestinians over rescuing hostages.

Israel has been successively bombing civilian areas while designating certain zones as "safe zones," and then when civilians flee to those areas they have bombed those and restricted supplies, causing civilians to be concentrated in more and more areas with little aid all while being relentlessly bombed. All because Israel thinks that the best way to eliminate Hamas is to eliminate Palestine. There's no more Hamas if there's no more Palestinians in Gaza, right? All the while this is being carried out with American weapons that Biden so gleefully provides. So, yes, Biden is a war criminal because he is directly enabling war crimes by supplying weapons with minimal to no conditions with the full knowledge that these weapons will be deliberately used on civilians.

I've also noticed no one has bothered to respond to that UN report despite promises to do so. I suspect certain parties here would rather believe themselves to be right than to educate themselves on the situation. Carthage (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I confess to knowing little of this subject. You seem to trust the UN reporting on this topic. How do you convince a dispassionate reader to regard the UN reports as unbiased? UncleKrampus (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The report, except for the conclusion, is just a recollection of facts. "The definition of genocide is..." "Israel designated these areas as safe zones and then suddenly bombed without warning" etc. The format seems resistant to bias since it's just statements of fact. You can just ignore the conclusion if you want and come to your own conclusions. Carthage (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Entryism and Trotsky

Recently, two ex-Trotskyists wrote a book based on their experiences on the influence of the OCI (Organisation communiste internationaliste) on the French socialist party, freemasonry, and the social-democratic trade unions.

Specifically, they describe Lambertism, an often ignored courant of Trotskyism largely based on the figure of Pierre Boussel, alias Lambert. Opposing the Pabloists, Lambertism claims to stay true to Trotsky by infiltrating reformist and social-democratic movements, while refusing Trotsky's conception of entryism (showing their flags openly), and taking a secretive approach, in order to take important positions, and in the hope of another revolution following may 68. The authors describe the methods of Lambert, who were (like with many Trotskyist movements) often almost sectarian, his paranoia of the press, and the political culture of the movement (a mix of different republican, Jacobin and socialist traditions, with many historical concepts of the French Revolution and the enlightenment).

The OCI had around 4 to 5 thousand members, and infiltrated the Grand Orient Freemasons, the trade union FO (which still has ties with the current lambertist parties), various political organisations, various intellectual circles, universities, journals, and most importantly the Socialist Party (PS). According to the authors, in reality Lambert used many Stalinist techniques, and the movement was (supposedly) plagued by masculinist culture, as well as ideological purism (Trotskyists after all) and the idea of loyalty, disloyal members being 'purged'. The party sent, among others, Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, as the head of the Socialist Youths (Cambadélis and his companions later broke away) and Lionel Jospin, who later became PM (When Jospin joined, Mitterrand knew he was Trotskyist and wanted to use him against the right-wing of the Socialist party. As he got higher in the Socialist Party, Jospin eventually broke ties with Lambert, and refused to comment on his Trotskyist past when it was revealed).

Another initial member was Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and one of his current companions, Alexis Corbière (Mélenchon left the Lambertists in 76, joined the socialists as a mitterrandist, left the socialists in 2008 because of social-liberalism, initially building an alliance with the communist party (not communists), and later creating a large movement). On Mélenchon, one of the authors knew him when he was a Lambertist, and they raise interesting points on how his movement has adopted the (Jacobin) political culture of Lambertism, while also using some internal techniques (often criticised as undemocratic) like making decisions with a directory and without primaries or congresses. Specifically, Mélenchon has a sort of 'Lenin promotion' as they describe it (Lenin promotions were promotions given by Stalin following Lenin's death), where capable young people of the party (the movement La France Insoumise [LFI] has 3 official party members and around 300.000 militants, but the deputies often come from associated parties, most often from the party Melenchon founded in 2008, the left party) are initiated (promoted) to a close circle of leaders, and are introduced to the same thought Melenchon's generation was introduced to, since they have adopted the same way of expressing themselves and the same political culture of Lambertism (often filled with references to the French Revolution). Mélenchon's companions were always close to Trotskyism (for example, Melenchon led a courant of the left-wing of the Socialist Party with Julien Dray, who, according to Cambadélis, joined the socialists specifically because of struggles with Lambert), including those who joined him when he left the socialist party in 2008.

Alexis Corbiere and some other representatives of LFI were 'purged' multiple times now from positions of responsibility (recently these disloyal 'frondeurs' made an alliance with the socialist party and the greens as well as the communists to change the power dynamic between parties, which ended in them loosing the support of LFI entirely for the next parliamentary election). The extreme centralism also is very often to the detriment of local militants of the movement. Most interestingly, the (legitimate) Lambertist party of today, the POI (Independent Workers party) is part of La France Insoumise, they even have one representative in parliament. According to the authors, the POI is the 'praetorian gard' of Mélenchon.

I hope this wasn't too complicated. I thought this was quite interesting, especially considering the extreme secretiveness of the leadership of the current France Insoumise, might as well be Trotskyists lying to militants about it (although the alternatives aren't better). Because of the notoriety of some like Melenchon or Jospin, this influence of Lambertism is slowly getting studied more. Since trots are known for entryism, are there any similar examples of this in other countries? New world (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Are paragraphs banned or summit'??Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That was quite the read... I had to search some of it up to get general understanding. May '68 was a fascinating tidbit of history. My knowledge of Canadian politics is limited since I only really started becoming interested a few years ago... nothing comparable to what you described I believe. Canada, federally and provincially, is close to a two-party system due to still using first-past-the-post voting. Recent intrigue and scandal that I've been following is the speaker of Saskatchewan's provincial assembly, Randy Weekes, accusing the ruling conservative party (the Saskatchewan Party) of harassment, intimidation, and most controversially, of the party's (now ex) house leader Jeremy Harrison bringing a long gun into the legislative building and wanting to carry in a handgun. The party leader and Premier of Saskatchewan Scott Moe initially described the allegations as "unequivocally false", only for Harrison to admit a week later that he did, in fact, bring a hunting rifle into the legislative building. The official opposition NDP Party is trying to launch a formal investigation into everything, but of course the Saskatchewan Party is attempting to quash it all. The same party invoked the "not withstanding clause" last year to temporarily override the federal Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and implement an anti-LGBTQ pronoun law, for which all members of the party have been getting banned from Pride events across cities. Spicy eh? :3 Impiricism (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

if i had a nickel for every time a city named "birmingham" went broke...

.. i'd have two nickels — which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. The G (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is why we have allowed governments to get involved in so many different facets of daily life and with such complicated financing that they can get so massively in debt. CorruptUser 05:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

if you have been spoofed say yeah. 'went broke' is such a stupid idea. Explain it for me, please.Torrent (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Not for the first time, Corrupt is talking out of their arse. Here's the potted facts for the UK one.

UK councils are in a double bind. They have a ton of legally mandated services and three of these - housing support for the needy, social care for the disabled/ elderly and child protection/ housing - and their costs are rising hugely [partly due to rip-off privatisation forced upon them by Central Govt] but not only do the councils have almost nil means to raise revenue but Central Govt has cut funding too - it's estimated that per-head funding in real terms is 18% lower than it was in 2010.

Councils got into the fiscal quagmire mainly for two reasons [on the whole]; one, they tried to invest in property portfolios to generate extra income [but then Covid hit and income went to zero] and/or they tried to reduce long-term costs by embracing 'digitalisation' [but the outsourced IT firms have generally been truly shit] so the costs have ballooned. They generally speaking also tried to be 'more efficient' too. In Birmingham's case, they also got hit by a huge historical equal pay claim which due to the length of time for backdating and the numbers of employees involved, turned out to be estimated at £760m rather than the £120m they'd budgeted for. With this new fact, the council then filed a 'Section 114 notice' aka stating that there's no legal manner they can balance the books now.

So how would you have solved this one, Corrupt? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

By not allowing them to invest in property portfolios in the first place? CorruptUser 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

So they shouldn't be allowed to try to find other forms of revenue to plug the gaping holes in their budget [of no fault of their own]? What about their purchase of properties for say, housing, schools, libraries and parks? Lastly, 'not investing' wouldn't have really helped much [most the stuff they bought is now being flogged off and they'll get most of the money back]. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Debt isn't revenue. If they have to cut services, there's only "less bad" options at this point. CorruptUser 14:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No... the council got into debt to buy assets which would then provide a postive revenue stream. This came unstuck during Covid because they had bought stuff like shopping centres, office buildings, tourist attractions and a part of an international airport - all 'solid investments' until everything got closed down. You tell me, should the council have predicted there would be societal lockdowns due to a global pandemic and factor them into the business plan?

Plus, sometimes, owning the asset is cheaper than renting it - for example, owning a council house is a lot cheaper than paying out housing benefits to private landlords [if nothing else, you're basically paying yourself back and you still have an asset]. Isn't this an example of a council being clever with their money?

There is also the little issue that 'statuary services' aka shit they have to do by force of law. They cannot cut these and most councils have already got rid of almost everything else. There is no more 'fat' to cut. This is why you're talking out of your arse - these bankruptcies [Birmingham isn't the only one] aren't classic 'overspending' or 'stupid investments' [as a rule, Croydon was clearly mismanaged] it was literally a position they were being given too much work to do and not enough means to do it. Aka Austerity. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘technically, the other birmingham (the one in alabama) didn't go broke. it was jefferson county (the county it which the city is located) that did, though birmingham as a city still has a history of financial troubles. that said, when jefferson county declared bankruptcy in 2011, it was the largest municipal bankruptcy in us history until it was surpassed by the city of detroit just two years later. The G (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy Solstice

Everyone.

For Time-cubists, also happy equinox. (Or am I misunderstanding them?) Anna Livia (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's northern solstice. Also, for those living north of 48°34', true astronomical night doesn't fall during the solstice, meaning that uninterrupted twilight lasts from dusk through midnight through dawn. Any thoughts on experiencing grey or white nights? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I've visited Alaska in the summer, including Fairbanks (where they hold a "midnight sun" run on the Saturday closest to the solstice that in reality is more of a town party). Technically it's not quite midnight sun there, since you need to be above the Arctic Circle in order for that to happen, but (especially in Fairbanks) it gets close -- the sun sets, but it never gets darker than twilight. It's probably similar for other places "close enough" to the Arctic Circle with a somewhat sizable population (eg Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, parts of Russia)

With daylight lasting so long, it makes outdoors activities much more feasible much longer. The downside for residents, of course, is that around the winter solstice, it's pretty much dark almost all the time there. BobJohnson (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's the summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere, winter solstice in the Southern. Equinoxes are in March and September.

I lived in Sweden for some years. Stockholm (60°N) has about 6 weeks during which it never really gets dark. I used to go out walking in the woods in the Nacka Reservatet at all hours.

If you really want to mess with yourself, fly from Sweden to Australia and back around either solstice, which I've done several times. (What can I say--I get around.)

Glad Midsommar! Zontar (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Florida Stigma

I've lived in Florida for 30 years and I never understood the stigma I heard about it. Like when something bad happens politically there people say "well for one it's florida" or something like that. Same thing with the whole Florida Man meme. I'm just wondering where the hell this came from or why there is a stigma about the state, I never really understood it. Personally I love the state: weather, all the water around it, the insects and other animals, how flat everything is.

I just don't get it, maybe someone could explain?47.5.66.54 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The entire United States are fucked up. New world (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The traditional origin of the Florida man meme is that local freedom of information laws make it easier to get bizarre stories from Florida as opposed to other states. A specific twitter account was once dedicated to spreading strange Florida man stories and helped popularize it across the internet.-Flandres (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's something called Sunshine Laws for the Florida man one. But what about the general distant I seem to see for the state, I never really understood where that came from.47.5.66.54 (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Of recent history, I think there are a few things "helping" a part of Florida's current reputation. Call it "curse of the Villages".

A) Florida's always been a destination for retirees. It just so happens that the "Boomer" generation is the one currently retiring. The Boomers too also have a "stigma", of sorts (part of the media-hyped and fueled "polarization" thingy, which is overblown. But Trumpism is at the moment heavily fueled by the grey-haired set, so "there's a little truth" in it).

B) It hasn't helped that the current governor is Ron DeSantis, who is in favor of "performative stunts" for the Fox News crowd over actual governing, in a similar manner to Greg Abbott. The previous governor Rick Scott wasn't any better.

Most of the rest is already covered in the Florida funspace RW article, there's a larger variety of "microcosms" in Florida than most states, and more "weird" news is available due to Florida's open records. BobJohnson (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

tl;dr it's just a bunch of stereotypes that occasionally have merit. The G (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Open records means a lot, it's what gives Florida Man his power. I do believe in the absolute of a meth addled Florida man, but I mean, is everybody so sheltered. Like Florida law, everything that is taken as a statement is available to the public. In theory, very cool. But I don't think it's doing anything special to prevent crime. Torrent (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

An early stereotyping of Florida came from the 1929 Marx Brothers film The Cocoanuts, which was set in Florida. The film's final scene features Groucho auctioning off dubious parcels of land. Dubious land sales in Florida (Swampland in Florida) were already in popular discourse before then and the film's ending was riffing on that. At least two Floridians made a living partly out of lampooning Florida: Chuck Shepherd's News of the Weird, a syndicated newspaper column that regularly featured "Florida man" while he was still writing the column, and Carl Hiaasen's humorous crime thrillers set in Florida. Hiaasen was a journalist before becoming a novelist and is responsible for the quote, "Florida was more complicated and extreme, and nothing could be assumed. Every scheming shitwad in America turned up here sooner or later, such were the opportunities for predation." Bongolian (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

One stereotype that was particularly floating around in the 1980s (due to Miami Vice), but persists today, was that Miami was big into clubs, drugs, partying, lewd behavior, etc. In modern times, "Vice City" in the Grand Theft Auto games largely plays on the Miami stereotype. Miami does have probably the most urbanized and club-oriented beach in the state; corruption seems to be a persistent problem there; and as seen by the cryptocurrency crowd making waves there, schemers *do* seem to be attracted to the city sometimes. As a whole, though, there's way more to the Miami / Ft. Lauderdale / Palm Beach area than just that.

On a more... positive?... note, Jimmy Buffett made a career of flinging around a certain sort of laid back "Key West" stereotype, which honestly doesn't resemble Key West culture at all very much. (Both in the past, which was more "colorful", and now, where it's sadly much more gentrified and "tourist trap" than it used to be.) BobJohnson (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Continuing on the "Swampland in Florida" theme, Florida was number two for states with foreclosures (Subprime mortgage crisis). California beat Florida for first place. On a per capita basis, Florida would have actual gotten first place. For public attention though, I think Florida also got first place: see the 2008 documentary film Inside Job, which focused on Florida properties.[2] Bongolian (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It so happens that I own a home in the town that served as the inspiration for Ft Repose in Alas, Babylon. Nice place--at least until it gets overrun by Orlando, or nuked. Sometimes I think I'd prefer to see the latter. Quicker and kinder, perhaps.

To be fair, Orlando is home to one of the best Chinese restaurants I've found this side of Guangzhou. They do real, old-school dim-sum that is simply 最好吃.

Ron DeSantis sucks, and The Villages is the STD capital of the state (key parties are all the rage there). I don't go there, and I seldom try to talk politics with the Lake County locals. I tend to prefer the company of the rabbits, raccoons, and cranes that visit my backyard adjoining the lake. Zontar (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"Old school" but they serve pu pu platter? That's diaspora Chinese food! Bongolian (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts on improving RationalWiki's writing quality?

I'm a relatively new user, but I've seen a fair share of RationalWiki articles, and I have to say, it's really quite the mixed bag. On one hand, you have articles like the one on Glenn Beck, which I think contains a lot of cogent, well-thought out criticisms of the man and his promotion of conspiracy theories. On the other hand, a lot of newer articles strike me as much more "gossipy" and sensationalized, like the one on Harriet Hall, which focuses almost exclusively on a transphobic book review and completely glosses over her earlier career as a skeptical writer. In my view, RationalWiki should be snarky, but still informative about our subjects, giving readers an accurate perspective on their views and how they have contributed to the Anglosphere's intelllectual or anti-intellectual traditions of thought. I would suggest a greater amount of editorial oversight and a more thorough vetting process for new articles to deal with this issue, but what are your thoughts on the matter? Do you think the RationalWiki community could be doing more to improve the quality of the articles, and if so, what? Lizardcreator (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes people can see a topic is RW-interest-worthy so create placeholders, but nobody then 'runs with the story'; some topics are intermittently active/ongoing etc (so the UK and US 2024 election articles will 'ramble along' as snippets get posted and things change again (what is Nigel Farage doing this week; the latest Trumpisms etc). There is also, possibly an element of 'RW Page 8k bingo' going on.

You are welcome to develop any pages needing help. Anna Livia (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be really great, but but the truth is, we lack manpower. We've been lacking a larger userbase working on the main space since before I created my account at least. We have our experts in many fields, with some users being capable of contributing to many different subjects, but ideally we would need at least two users with a relatively profound knowlesdge in every field, possibly with slightly different opinions, so one could give feedback and review the work of the other. Even when we have multiple users that enjoy the same subjects, most people lack the motivation to review, revert (and sometimes squabble a bit on talk pages) when an edit of questionable quality is made. Just like most wikis, Rationalwiki is, and to my knowledge has always been, a very niche project, and I don't think these problems will ever disappear. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The OP answers their own question; Glenn Beck is 'good' because it is old and very 'well polished' by a myriad of RWians since 2008 [just look at how big it's fossil record is]. Harriet Hall simply has not had this level of attention [again, look at the fossil; it's perhaps only 15/20% of Beck's]. If people don't 'polish' things, they won't become all shiny, it's as simple as that.

One thing which I feel is that this wiki is a bit 'old school' in how pages are made/maintained. I don't give a damn in this case that I 'lost the vote' regarding the use of LLMs for 'editor assistants' for producing content [not making articles itself, but assisting with drafting, suggesting talking points, readability checks etc]; I think we're going to need to reverse this ruling [and sooner the better] because it clearly promises to improve editor productivity - for example, I can spend a good 30-45 mins prettyfying links on a rebuilt page and we [as far as I know] don't have any ability to automatically check for dead ref links. I also don't believe we have that much in the ways of bots to flag up problem pages so we can be aware of 'work needing to be done'; I sometimes suspect RW is a bit of a 'do what you notice/want to' project rather than anyone ever pointing out the stuff which needs to be done; for example reviewing pages which hadn't been really touched for over a decade.

As a online mobocracy, nobody really has the authority to order vetting re: quality, though if it's crud and/or irrelevant it will normally end up finding itself at an AfD sooner or later. Generally speaking - on wiki terms - I think RW does rather well [when you take into account it's subject-matter] in avoiding having a ton of stubby/cruddy pages. We have - as far as I can tell - generally avoided the 'easy way out' by simply cloning WP's content and slapping some snark in it. Lastly, 'editorial oversight' is the sort of thing places like Conservapedia and Citizendium do/did, and look where it got them?

The last thing which I think needs to be pointed out is the sheer amount of labour which goes into making a RW page. Let's take George Orwell which I rebuilt earlier this year. The re-write took me perhaps ~30 hours and I already knew the subject well and there was already a fair bit of the previous version I could 're-use'. This doesn't include the time spent by others proofreading, correcting my rather dodgy spelling [even with spellcheckers] or prettyfying the links either [thanks, btw]. A lot of that time was me quickly reading through lots of online blog/ magazine/ newspaper articles hoping to find stuff to use as refs [though I did learn a little bit more about Orwell too]. An article like Beck might have had over the years several hundreds of editor-hours lavished on the thing. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, this is basically an apples vs. oranges comparison: an article with silver rating vs. an article with no rating. If you want to find the better articles here, just look at the Category:Silver-level articles and the Category:Cover story articles. The Category:Bronze-level articles are a good starting point for where to improve things. Even on Wikipedia one can find shit articles, and even shit articles with resistance to improvement due to certain sysops defending their fiefdoms. Bongolian (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think one of the issues RW has is the fact I believe 'living person/organisation biogs' is a much larger % of our articles than on WP - as Anna pointed out above, even the Gold/Silver ones will need periodic reviews but Orwell... well, he's dead and it's unlikely any new expose on him will come into view which will significantly change the article. And WP is a significantly older and bigger fish than us; these days it's actually rather difficult to run into crap/stubby articles there unless you are savvy enough to know where to look.

There is also the issue that Bronze awards is only done manually; it's quite possible we have other Bronzes kicking about that nobody nominated. Perhaps even more important, a lot of editors etc might even not know what the criteria is.

But you've accidentally raised a point, in which might help us - more use of tags. Folks need to be more willing to at least flag up 'problematic articles', when they run into like 'needs more sources', 'needs expansion/stub', 'needs updates' etc. Oh, and having a one-stop page with all these tags on it wouldn't hurt either. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I would imagine also that a fair proportion of RW-ians are also involved elsewhere in the Wikiverse (and even in the wider contributory websites) - and sometimes it is easier to 'note as missional, not my area/this needs developing' than to write the actual article, or a suitable amount of time has to pass before a topic and the various components can be written up properly. (See my comment on the 2024 monoliths on the 2020 monolith talk page.) Anna Livia (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

On the point of Bronze marking not always being done, I note: 1) Standards have risen since the earlier years of the wiki for marking Bronze, so there's newer unmarked articles better than decade-old bronze ones. 2) I think people often mark bronze when they personally like some article which is reasonably well-developed, otherwise leaving articles alone. 3) I've (previously) shied away from marking my own articles bronze, I think others may too. (I just marked two, the best-developed unmarked ones I've written.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

For starters, we need a larger community.

So... welcome, new creature, to our menagerie of malice! CorruptUser 16:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The user base really seemed to shrink when most of the incivil users here dipped or went inactive. 2600:387:F:4718:0:0:0:9 (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly a good thing, most of them were damn manchilds that acted as pests for this sites credibility except the ones that actually worked on their self-control. The only shitty part of this shrink is that the missing userbase includes the server maintainers. SEaffäreranalysator (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Remind me again, which user were you before the new account? CorruptUser 02:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Well good luck with that I already forgot the account username. SEaffäreranalysator (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's kind of similar to "UShistoryanalyzer" (there was also a machine-translated Chinese history analyzer name which was banned as a sock of that). The theme's business instead, but it looks like a machine translation and abbreviation of "Swedish business analyzer" (not good grammar). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if the usernames were coincidence this kid isn’t slick he edited an former mod’s signature with the edit summary that was hexadecimal for LT. Likely tryna stay away from the radar until he gets sysop.2600:387:F:4719:0:0:0:6 (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed. As for the usernames, I noticed it much earlier, but let it be for the time as others did likewise and there was no disruptive behavior. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Are blogs obsolete?

Back in the oughts and early 10s, blogs were all the rage. Everyone and their mother had one. Now it seems like most people have moved to true social media platforms to express their thoughts and reflect on their lives. Are blogs going the way of the dodo or no? Carthage (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they'll become less popular to run for people in general. But they won't go away for writers who have longer things to say, and who want to structure their content or add things beyond just text and maybe an image. Technical blogging, for example, where an article may provide in-depth technical information, and maybe code, images, and/or other media or files, can't really be done on social media, which instead is used to swap links and write about what's written elsewhere. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Longform writing can also be covered by video essays. Carthage (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Not in the same way. Yes, many make videos instead nowadays, which sucks whenever you want to look up something specific in the content. Text is easy to search through, an hour of talking and the occasional picture change or animation isn't. Thus, communities of people who care about referencing one another's work will continue to put out a lot of texts, and ignore long videos unless they're forced to watch them. And while it's little work to just talk and record it, a good video essay is more difficult to make, arguably more difficult than a decent written essay -- and more often done for entertainment than sharing a serious message. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Please define 'blogging'. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

YouTube has gotten better over the years with finding specific content in videos. Automatic transcripts are much more common, which while are highly error prone, at least can be used as a finding aid. Bongolian (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

We watch internet videos instead of reading blogs, because we always wanted the video of the person talking but in 2002 our tech was only capable of the blog. You might as well ask if streaming killed cable television, if cable television killed the radio, or if radio killed the newspaper. People didn't listen to the radio because they preferred just the voice over the moving image plus voice, but because the moving image simply wasn't possible until later. There's still radio (and print media and cable), but nowhere to what it was before the more advanced medium replaced it. CorruptUser 20:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The old blog format still has advantages for anything technical, and is still used for that sort of thing. I don't think it's easy to, say, represent source code or data tables in a YouTube video at all. The main new development for technical docs here is AI assistance - from my perspective (programmer), it's good for some things, but not for others. It's a tool, not a crutch.

An issue with video replacing blogging is that the video medium is *filled* to the brim with cranks. There definitely were some crank blogs back in the day, but it takes a little bit of effort to crank out a wall of useless text, so I think that helped minimize them some. Whereas, any person can use a cell phone, create a video of them spouting bullshit in their car or house or whatever, and post it to the tubes claiming to be the utmost authority. Now, the video medium has *also* allowed more non-cranky people who might not have been comfortable with text in the past to post good videos too, and is much better for certain types of things where video is very helpful ("how to" videos fall in this category as an example). So it's kind of a "six of one half a dozen of the other" thing. You just have to "watch out for cranks" more these days, it seems. BobJohnson (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a technical writer/editor with about 25 years experience, but my 50+-hour-a-week job doesn't leave me much time or inclination to give RW the TLC it really needs. Also, I'm still irked by the removal of the gamer-chat gif from the WWII article. If/when I ever retire... Zontar (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

They are not "dead", though obviously much less popular. Lots of technologies and communications systems have a long tail. Morse code still exists in come niche cases, fax machines are still used for some things , SMS messages are still used in some cases, vinyl is actually making a comeback. I'll bet that somebody somewhere is still using 8 inch floppy disks.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The US military still uses those. The lack of compatibility with WiFi or USB devices is a feature, not a bug. CorruptUser 03:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

'Blogs' as the OP defined it as have mainly become 'obsolete' due to social media (also and Reddit, online comments sections on news websites and even forums). However, a decent % of YT accounts are effectively '(video)blogs', while some Instagrams could be called photo-blogs.

The other aspect is that 'blogging' also catered to another type of media - the DIY self-publishers, which in an earlier iteration was producing zines, leaflets, books and 'citizen journalism'. The early generations of blogging software wasn't designed for this, but they worked and were much cheaper/ easier to run than a dedicated website. Thier growth was helped by the fact that the digital world was ignored for a very long time by the 'establishment media'.

Since then, a lot of these 'bloggers' have moved on. Some have simply gone to other formats (YT etc perhaps the biggest because video added content for example, most hobby blogs) but also quite a few ended up with 'proper' websites with some blog pages (blog providers now also offer bespoke website support really cheap now) - esp if the DIYer has turned this into a side-hustle. Others have become slightly more respectable-looking by becoming contributors of online magazines etc. Lastly, some of the effort has been diverted to other activities - perhaps most obviously Wikis. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Some people who blogged in the past went to Substack, a platform which was launched fairly recently (2017). (Recently, some of those people ended up launching independent (as far as I can tell) blogging sites due to the Too Many Neo-Nazis problem at that platform.) Blogs aren't dead yet. At the same time, they are way more niche than, say, early 2000s Internet. Blogs are good when you actually want to hear a good single-voice writer with less of the perils of generic social media (algorithms, shitposts, etc.). Long-form reading will never be as popular as short-form shitposts or dopamine-hitting video clips, though. And obviously "your mileage may vary" depending on who is blogging; complete shitheads like Joseph Mercola and Christopher Rufo use Substack too. BobJohnson (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't list Substack because I feel [though I have no stats] that it's more a new home for 'ex' journalists exiled due to print media being in a death spiral than for former bloggers [though that's not to say there isn't some ex-bloggers there, for example Another Angry Voice (influential pro-Corbyn/anti-Conservative British political blog)]. Speaking of which, AAV states they had to go to Substack because Facebook [which they'd used to promote AAV] was 'tuning out' them from feeds [even folks who'd explicitly asked to follow FB's AAV page] to the point they'd lost something like 95% of their previous traffic. Which is something I've been familiar with; that for a long time a most 'self-publishers' have relied on social media to generate new traffic - which means they're more a symbiotic relationship and strictly adversarial.

But back to Substack. I didn't count it because it requires commitment. Normally, to pay for stuff. Up front. This is the realm for 'creators' who already have a good following - they're already known to their public, you know roughly what you'd be getting for your florins. If Louis Theroux did one, you'd suspect it might be 'extras' on his people-investigations [outtakes, musings, failed subjects etc], while if it was Dave Gorman, you'd expect it to be his observational humour essays which might end up being done as a book later on and so on. It's a lot harder [though not impossible] to build up a Substack from scratch because by it's not hugely accessible to outsiders, as by it's nature you have to subscribe to consume.

Which is why old-school blogging still has an edge - it is indexable by search engines. Over the years, I've read a myriad of 'self-published' sites... most of them being just one or two pages. I had a query, and that blog page answered it. Job done, thanks, bye. For example, I once wanted to know what roasted cow's udder tasted like. I found some Wordpress blog in which the creator told me, as well as providing a couple of photos of their experiment. That's something which social media wouldn't really have been able to scratch for me, unless I'd by chance managed to find someone who'd actually cooked/eaten the thing and was willing to tell me. On the other hand, even a 'dead' blog could have told me the answer. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hervey Cleckley, "The Caricature of Love", and modern adherents

American psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley wrote the well-known book on psychopathy, The Mask of Sanity, which is considered to have aged reasonably well and people still read. He also wrote a book that has fallen into obscurity, The Caricature of Love, an anti-homosexuality book which describes "homosexual psychopathy" and makes such people seem like hopelessly defective much like his other book describes plain psychopaths so. We have nothing on it.

A certain person and online community latched on to this old 1950s book and have tried to repopularize it. (Their public forum thread from 2010.) I think it was nice for them to adopt it so as to be able to try to set themselves apart further from the "sick and decadent" world at large. You know, the more ideas and diagnoses for sick people there are, the larger the toolbox for responding to people who aren't like those the in-group approves of. They've also gone into Jordan Peterson and anti-trans and anti-woke stuff as that developed. Some in the general audience for the latter, like this blogger, listen to that message and see the book in that light. (The mentioned Harrison Koehli works with SOTT.net and books for the cult.)

This is not really the main topic area I usually focus on, but I know there's others who tend to write more on it. But I'm going to update the LKJ article. Beyond that, maybe there's room for related things in other articles. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

How to get a traumatizing image out of a mind?

Randomly scrolling through reels and this one reel was so fucked up I don’t wanna check reels again bc of how fucked up the scenario there was. Idk how to get that shit out of my mind. 2600:387:F:471B:0:0:0:7 (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete your instagram account, that’s a first step fuck that website. Phantasmagoria (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I have never had an instagram. I actually quit using Facebook back in like 2008 because it made me feel really bad, all my friends were taking pictures of things we were all doing together and I can absolutely attest, they weren't as fun as the pictures made them out. I guess Facebook didn't get it, I didn't stop hanging out with my Facebook friends but I did ask them to stop tagging me. Social media makes me feel like shit, has done for years, and I don't know exactly why. I left Facebook but I guess I didn't delete it. My sister in law posted some 'me being a lot of fun with the nieces and nephews' video antes years back, and I had not told her I really don't like being on social media, in videos or tagged, and suddenly my family is like 'This is the uncle who has fun with the kids.' My social battery runs out so fucking fast. I was on a hike with a friend and he took a picture of me taking a picture of a mushroom. He showed me later he posted it, and I was I was like 'dude, don't do that, please.' I'm not sure if he respected anything. 'it's a really good picture of you' It just fucking sucks to have a literal still image of yourself in the world, thinking 'this is what I care about right now' and suddenly everyone else builds an expectation. I'm against it. And having to kinda cough my way through some relationships, explaining WHY it makes me feel bad when it obviously doesn't for them, some people get it, some people don't. Thankfully my family gets it. Don't tag me, I'm draining my social battery anywhere, I'm always performing, a tag is an awful pin to put on any emotion or energy that I'm already giving as honestly as I can. Torrent (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I hate it when people disrespect my boundaries, but the weird dumb language of the internet and social media involves pictures, and it's hard to explain that 'no, me taking a picture of a fungus growing off a stump, and YOU taking a picture of ME taking a picture of anything is not what friends do.' Like, pics or it didn't happen has evolved and I think there is something special in the idea of a No Pics adventure. it's not like if anybody asked I would have said I didn't go on the hike. A picture of me taking a picture is actually a really rude thing to do, when it's already been expressed that I don't like my picture taken and I'm not taking pictures of people. Torrent (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Another anonymous far-right influencer identified

Lomez on Twitter aka Jonathan Keeperman of the right-right publisher house Passage Press has been exposed in The Guardian [3]. Bronze Age Pervert was exposed. It is only amount of time before they expose Raw Egg Nationalist. It is probably worth creating a RationalWiki article for Jonathan Keeperman. Johns (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I never was big on watching these particular guys (never heard of Lomez until this exact bar section), but just saw HnH posted REN's identity. I'm now unsure he's actually an "Aryan" bodybuilder who gobbles a dozen and a half raw eggs every day like he claimed... Chillpilled (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Using newspapers for gardening

Recently, I've found out that earwigs are eating up my crops. I made earwig traps by doing this: for each trap, I rolled up some newspapers, fastened them with a rubber band, dipped the roll in water, and then placed it next to my crops. However, after one day of putting down the traps, I think I fucked up. I didn't check to make sure that the newspaper newsprint and newspaper ink are safe to use on gardens for growing crops. Are there any dangerous chemicals in newspapers that could jeopardize the food safety of my plants? (...and I assume that rubber bands are totally safe, right?) By the way, the newspapers and rubber bands come from Canada, and the newspapers have coloured ink. 45.130.81.45 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I found a blog post saying that newspaper ink is no longer toxic. Cornell University says newspapers are safe to compost [4]. You can even feed cows with newspapers [5]. And to top it all off, the Brits cook newspaper trout, where they wrap the fish with old newspaper, soak it in water, and then bake it in the oven [6]. There's not even a sheet of "foodsafe" paper lining to go with the fish. So I'm gonna conclude that I did nothing wrong. 45.130.81.44 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this it? I love fish, but I don't eat red herring very often. It's not hard to have An opinion or an exposition here. Fibre is kinda fiber, there's an e in it but where does it hold its it's inscrutable power over the human gut. A cow is able to puke up grass and eat it again. A rabbit is able to eat grass shit grass and eat it again to survive. I find no expert use of your complaint or story. What do you mean? Torrent (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Traditionally, newspapers were unsafe because of a) chlorine in the paper [make it nice and white] and b) traces of heavy metals/ chemicals in the newsprint [lead, cadmium, mercury]. Rule of thumb; if gardeners in your country say it's okay to compost newspaper, that means it's safe for critters like earwigs to eat [as they will be munching down in a compost anyway]. Newspaper used to be used in the UK as food wrap [mainly due to low cost] but was withdrawn in the 80s [by companies at least] due to the product not being rated as 'food grade' [though ironically, by this point lead and cadmium had been banned in ink partly because we understood 'cumulative exposure' much better]. Obviously, this means you could also use say, pages from books [as long as it's chorine-free paper and was printed after the lead ink phaseout]. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I just ate some bomb ass Chicken Vindaloo

I asked for it to be crazy spicy, and it wasn't. I get it, my face and name scream cream. But it was actually hotter than a lot of curry joints. Little bit soupy. Who cares, right? I can tell you where I got my lunch Torrent (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I make my own vindaloo sometimes, it's traditionally with pork but I'll use chicken, lamb, or goat as well. Restaurants make it well, but none of them ever make it remotely as hot as my own. Tasty dish, and a great example of cultures borrowing ideas from each other. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey Lister.Revolverman (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I find that putting cayenne pepper on sandwiches (rather than black pepper) gives a nice heat. Also putting oat milk in coffee is a pleasing alternative for anyone lactose intolerant. Impiricism (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Cayenne is fine, I love a Tobasco, Franks, a Valentina, all classic cayenne with that vinegar punch, unbeatable. I am not actually a fan of cholula or sriracha, I think both are not hot enough to be more than tomato sauce or chili paste respectively. I do have some really good Mexican joints near me, but you can't keep a little habenero salsa from fermenting for long. My family has a shrimp cocktail sauce for special occasions. It is ketchup, horseradish, lemon juice, and Worcestershire sauce. All to taste. Kinda just whatever is in the fridge, but if you get it right it's INSANE. The sweet/umami from the shrimp plus sweet... umami adjacent? from ketchup, plus sour and fragrant from the horseradish (jarred so it kinda pickles itself) with a sweet sour from lemon and just an absolute umami salty/savory punch up from the Worcestershire. There's no strict recipe. But these ingredients for a dipping/dunking sauce paired with shrimp boiled with Old Bay? Insane, could not be a better flavor profile. Torrent (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been known to cut up a jolokia (for the uninitiated, ghost peppers) for sandwiches, it can really jump up egg salad. Habaneros are good for a smoky flavor, scorpions are good if you like sweet, but jolokias actually taste like pepper; unlike Carolina reapers they also linger. Jolokias can be hard to get, though, and they have to be carefully handled, so for something quicker cayenne works quite well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

First off, say Ghost peppers first, Jolokia second. Second, I don't know where you're getting them, I'm a little jealous, I can't score a pepper like that. but chopping them raw for something like egg salad, Iunno, I guess my idea of egg salad isn't a lot different from deviled eggs, a crunch even from an onion would be wild. wouldn't it go further as a sauce? You're already stretching your eggs, I'm not against it, I'm just not getting it. I guess I get it in terms of, like, Tuna salad is really good with pickles and onions, and chicken salad is really good with celery and and grapes, but egg salad with crunchy pepper? I guess I'll have to try it. Torrent (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I do want to share the smart way to boil your eggs. Your burner will be it's coy little self, it can't be trusted for your first recipe, which is a hardboiled egg. The way around this is, you use your burner to boil water first, I mean really boiling water, not bubbles, not steam, you want that water evaporating from the bottom to the top. You have to have boiling water anywhere inside the pot. OK to take the water off the heat, set the eggs in, let them boil. If you want to get more complicated, I have eaten raw egg more than Rocky Balboa, under cook it, it's eggs, do it one egg at a time. Instead of guessing how hot the water will be to heat the eggs you now only have to guess how done the egg is. I mean, cook around with a bigger pot of water. Always past 7 minutes if you want a solid white, I'm a little out of practice but I bet I could soft boil an egg across a bed of white rice with just a rice cooker. If I left it raw, I'd still eat it. Raw eggs are not very dangerous. Raw egg cRacked and left on rice for an hour, no sir, that's where bacteria thrives, there is no hour laterroom temp raw egg I would be into. There's a massive difference, eggs crack, cuts of any meat don't get that shell. Raw egg is safer if you suck it out the shell than if you mix it in cookie dough. a big sight safer if you boil it in its shell. Probably easier to digest if boiled first. All to say, if you under boil it, it's not exactly a killer. Not my suggestion, but who is stopping you? But if you trust raw cookie doUgh, you're playing a bigger gamble than just a fresh raw egg. So, attempting a soft boil or an over easy, if you don't get it right, I'd still eat it. Torrent (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I get them from Whole Foods, it's there more often than not. I tried growing them, they take a lot of water and if you're short you end up with the heat of an habanero. Also, that sounds like an interesting way to make eggs, will have to try it! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

strange. Who has eggs?Torrent (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Has autism always existed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs_asSKizR0&ab_channel=PlanetPeterson

The comment at the 27:00 mark got me wondering, well more like doubting, if autism has always been around or it's just due to how bad our diets are and things like that. I say that as someone on the spectrum. I've heard that it has always been a thing and that only now we are able to diagnose and recognize it. I don't think it's diet or screen time because growing up those were limited for me (meaning very few processed foods not that I was starved or anything, oops). But something tells me he's wrong on that. I mean a little bit later he cites the Unabomber as having a point and I've been down that road and found the guy had a WARPED view of people of the past but also the world at large, though he had some points about modern society (especially now with AI and that can of worms), though those good points aren't exactly new ones.

His other videos are...eh. There was a weird line in one about forks not existing and that they are concepts because you can make a fork out of any material or use a branch like one, I didn't really get it.47.5.66.54 (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say that autism type disorders have always been around. It would have been shoved into other categories "back in the day". Severe autism would have been diagnosed with whatever fashionable terms existed for mental illness at the time, such as the 19th century term monomania (which describes obsessive disorders, common for spectrum diagnosis but also a symptom of other things.) Less severe people "on the spectrum" but still functioning would merely be someone with an "eccentricity". There's plenty of historical figures out there that had some habits that make you go "hmmm...". Now, the problem here is that it is impossible to make a psychiatric diagnosis by armchair historical anecdote, so even with what we know of a historical figure, one never knows for sure. But I would say that much suggests that the condition existed far earlier than the 1940s when the term "autism" was developed. BobJohnson (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but they sent people to an exorcist instead. Chillpilled (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Autism didn't exist 'in the olden days' because nobody knew it existed. As BobJ says, the 'high functioning' ones would have passed as normal, the 'middle-functioning' would have normally been viewed as a kind of 'village idiot' [unless violent or dangerous] and the worst cases shut up in asylums and never seen again. In the UK, for example there's a good chance that a decent percent of 'imbeciles' in 19th Cen censuses were severely autistic people, while the non-verbal ones would have been classified as 'dumb'.

For example, in the UK 1871 census there were 29,452 persons were described as idiots or imbeciles (one in 771) and 39,567 persons were considered to be insane (one in 574). Knowing the huge stigma of the time, we can assume that folks would do their best to 'pass' if remotely possible. I've seen estimates that 'severe autism' [like non-verbals] was about one in 2,000 now, so that would easily fit in the above.

My theory is; that like other conditions like adhd, dyslexia etc - most autistic folks were known to be 'a bit odd' by the local community but they functioned 'well enough' to remain part of it. Life was generally less regimented, so 'poor reading skills' didn't matter when there was almost no books, 'poor timekeeping' didn't matter when nobody had a watch and living in the same little village all your life with a well-worn 'you' groove where you knew everyone and with zero surprises might have been heaven for some autistic people. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You ask if autism has "always existed". I guess you mean "since Homo sapiens evolved" - because "always" is a hell of a long time otherwise. Anyway, that led me to wonder if other animals experience autism because, well, why wouldn't they?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Animal model of autism Carthage (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Autism is highly heritable. If it's caused by some aspect of modernity, it's something that almost everyone is exposed to equally. I remember hearing that the prevalance of autism-associated genes has risen over the past few thousand years, perhaps due to selection against schizophrenia. Christopher (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Remaining Countries

Though now that I think about it, should this list above be moved to the To-Do List, the talk for the Countries category, or turned into a template? In other words, what can be done concerning the list above long-term? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Quiet parks is fake and somehow my fault

Nobody suggested quiet parks, I complained about hiking and friends. A little bit of checking things out, ther is no quiet park. A quiet hike is a place to notice flora, fauana, and fungi, not to make money you absolute maniacs. Is any Idea I have that valuable? Torrent (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

“”"In my youth I was known as the one shot kid." "OK, I'm not gonna ask why."

—Red Dead Redemption 2

Carthage (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone supposed to understand what the hell any of this means? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably not. Carthage (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Is Torrent Joe Biden? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the first time comments by Torrent has led me to scratch my head... KarmaPolice (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Torrent beat Medicare. Carthage (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

If it was me versus medicare, I'd at least try a turnstile flying finish. It's not that I don't like the idea of a quiet park, it's that the money is stupid and the idea is stupid. it's that advocating for it, or putting money into it is silly and dumb. People will make noise at parks, public means everybody. Medicare, we should put money into. I imagine Quiet parks is an autistic wet dream but there's nothing there. Money towards social security and medicare, yes, they mone to fantastically change the experience of a nation park, no. Now imagine I whispered all of it and occasionally looked into the distance, only to see the um, well, I'm mean, what I meant to say is, holy shit it's the Grim Reaper. I have been absolute as a democrat voter, I have been absolute as against the candidates for leftist reasons. I don't enjoy that Biden is the man to vote for. Good jokes, I'm not concerned about jokes. I'm concerned about the actual concerns, which the Democrats pushed off, and a bright idea like a quiet forest is so stupid, you can't buy it or pay for it, you just have to agree to it. I listened to RFK today. The fuck, he's not worth a dumb fuck of a vote either, nobody in power is who we want in power?. everything is aspirational and stupid without funding. Lots of things are aspirational and stupid. Like a second Biden term, or a second Trump term or an RFK term. This is 100% my theory I've been spouting for a decade, that boomers refuse to vote for anyone younger than them. Torrent (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

One week to go

... before the multiple analyses of what happened with the UK election begin, and there is a mass switchover to Wimbledon (and other sports) begins. Anna Livia (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Not scientific enough

This site opposes everything that does not conform to the scientific establishment without the slightest doubt. Miss gleaming (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess you have read our mission statements? Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Is that a bad thing? Impiricism (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the important bit here is 'establishment', not 'science'. The former gives the impression that there is some kind of 'scientific elite' which is controlling 'science', normally to their own mysterious ends. Now, it has a kind of 'establishment' in respect of relevant dept chairs in major universities etc but they don't control the development of their field - that what is seen as 'control' is in fact the result of scientific consensus. Scientists are researching stuff all the time, and while there's rarely any 'paradigm-busting' new developments coming about, the consensus is being 'nibbled at' all the time; for example 'stress causes ulcers' [no it doesn't]. If a scientist reaches a differing conclusion via the use of the scientific method and can be replicated by others - it will soon enough become part of the consensus. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think opposing the "scientific establishment" is valid in certain cases, but those cases are now vanishingly rare, if they exist at all. For example, "scientific racism" used to be widely accepted by the scientific community until the mid-20th century. I think the fact that the scientific community is now more diverse (e.g. more Asians, black people, women, etc.) is a big part of it. It's easier to oppose a small group of rich white males (an actual scientific elite!) than it is to oppose a big group of people of all kinds of "races" (which are social constructs) and genders. If you want to become a badass and oppose the "scientific establishment" successfully, I would suggest tackling economics; it is in desperate need of more working-class economists, women economists, etc. MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Parts of today's scientific consensus might become tomorrow's quaint ancient theories of the past. Plus, scientists are human and make mistakes of various sorts. So, no, I don't think it's a problem to look at science with a certain sort of critical eye. (Without this sort of thing, certain things like, say, the plate tectonics theory would not have come into existence.)

The problem here is that this sort of "critical eye" is very different from what the charlatans, cranks, and con artists do. For instance, on alternative medicine these days, 99 times out of 100 the challenge to the "scientific establishment" uses various marketing techniques to promote their wares. Instead of the scientific method or any other sort of critical thinking, you generally get anecdotes, hype men and women, appeal to authority (or an appeal to anti-authority -- those gosh darn scientific elites! -- or *both*), branding, and the like. In almost all cases, the actual product touted as "medicine" works poorly. (Occasionally, there's an exception to this rule, especially when you are talking about things that are more protoscience than pseudoscience, like traditional herbal medicine. These exceptions become medicine if science can prove that it works.) BobJohnson (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yet... what truly destroyed 'racialism' as a scientific theory? - the understanding of modern genetics, esp with genetic mapping which showed that the 'races' were much more 'admixture-y' then folks had ever thought. So in short; science was disproven by better science, which 'won' the debate [in the scientific community at least].

Outside the 'hard' sciences, the concept of 'scientific consensus' is a lot more fuzzy - like with say, economics because while you can draw 'general theories' from evidence, they never fit every circumstance [which means it would be classed at best as an 'incomplete theory'] - even the basic 'law of demand' has it's exceptions. But even within econ/business schools there isn't a hard consensus going - the issue is with the politicos, business people, bankers, financiers and mainstream media which likes to portray there being a really hard consensus that this brand of 'orthodox economics' has to be done, no argument [so don't ask for better pay/conditions or why sweatshops have to exist etc]. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the understanding of modern genetics played an ultimate role in destroying racialism. What I'm saying is that diversity helps to "cement" and "expand" that consensus. For example, in a 2013 survey of 3,286 respondents from the American Anthropological Association, only 53% agreed with the statement "No races exist now or ever did". Whites, particularly white males, are more likely to disagree. Of the 417 white males surveyed, only 44.12% fully agree (they're called "lumpers"). [7]. Scientific opinion doesn't change instantly, and that change can be accelerated through more diversity in the scientific community. MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yet that is up from the 17% registered in 1978. And 89% of 2013 respondents agreed with "Biological variability exists but this variability does not conform to the discrete packages labeled races”, up from 79% in 1978 [here's the abstract for others]. They also note that 'The data also revealed a correlation between familiarity with genetic ancestry testing (gauged as personal or professional experience with or interest in genetic ancestry testing) and perspectives on race' which suggests that modern genetics was the main killer for racialism. But in retort in your 'diversity factor' I will put forward my 'association factor'; that in the 70s racialism could still muster some 'big names' to support the view [and thus was still 'respectable'] but by 2013 it had clearly become the preserve of cranks, racists and/or ancient professors suffering from Nobel disease and what's more, has been for some time. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a huge problem with (lack of) diversity in the field of economics. I wrote about it in our article here. One of the problems this leads to is a "homogenization of thought, and a discouragement of innovation." Fields primarily dominated by women and POC are also undervalued heavily, which definitely affects the quality of the econ field. Carthage (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

On the British perspective, I think the biggest cramp is it's corruption by Mammon [ironically]. That too many have become adjuncts to Business Schools, 'business' have become enthralled with the mathematics of finance and due to their physics envy economists have become hugely enamoured with the idea of everything being bloody quantitative which obviously becomes really helpful because so many Econ grads seem to wish to be bankers or fund managers [Ironically, these are the very subsections of economics which shall be most threatened by AI]. Why would it innovate, if it's not to come up with some more equations for a new finance product? KarmaPolice (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's actually the whole point of that DEI thing that has become a Republican buzzword of the norm of late. The real term is a strategy centered around the notion that the more diversity, the more perspectives, the less likelihood of group-think. Sure the term is management-speak, and it's easy to do DEI wrong by just scheduling a bunch of "diversity training" meetings everyone will sleep through and call it a day. Do it right, however, and there's less chance of "groupthink" typically based on whatever culture dominates the business community of the era. Such can apply to more than just business, methinks.

(Side note: IMHO the other Wiki article on DEI is actually pretty poor; it swallows the Republican manufactroversy too much. The concept has been around for at least 20 years, and while academia did embrace the term as an alternate term for affirmative action and similar, I see the primary definition as a business management strategy; it was always that way when I saw it for a *long* time. Someone *finally* added a paragraph about corporate diversity to the Wiki article, I see, but it's still largely overfocused on academia.) BobJohnson (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

'More diversity' doesn't automatically equal 'more persepectives'. We've seen it here in the UK; the soon-to-be-dead Tory Govt is 'more diverse than ever' in measurable metrics but their 'diversity of thought' is in fact a lot less than before. The Marxist sociologist within me would snipe; 'the ruling class does what it always has - by allowing a select few 'tame' Others [ie the ones who already think like us] to the top table, we scotch allegations we're a caste, neuter possible ambitious outsiders trying to ofterthrow us and giving us a weapon against allegations of running an unfair society... and a minority spokesperson or two to peddle the 'I made it, so can you!' bullshit.'

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss... even if it's now a black gay woman from immigrant stock. In some respects, the 'old boss' might have been better because at least he might of been vaguely aware of his limitations of thought re: his white/male/cis/rich-ness and tried to break out of it. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Econ lit is still rife with old racist tropes and myths. You seriously think diversifying the field would have no impact here? Carthage (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There are many ways to approach the "DEI buzzword" wrongly; IMHO token appointments to satisfy an arbitrary quota or something similar would not work. To use another buzzword, it probably takes a "paradigm shift" that in practice most business culture has not yet made in full. I do think things have progressed a decent amount compared to, say, 100 years ago, in the lower ranks. But despite this DEI concept being around for a long time, most of the C-suite in most companies still looks like a static monoculture (there has been a *little* progress, but it is at glacial pace). It's business, and business can be chummy to a fault.

Politics has its own, shall we say, "paradigms"; a lot of it is marketing and image and gloss. In the United States, the "paradigm" has narrowed; but much of this is due to the decline of local politics and the rise of the national. Why the fuck, for instance, is Kristi Noem, governor of South Dakota (read: pretty far north), actually caring about illegal immigrants in Texas? Because it seems like if you have any national ambitions at all, you've got to get on the National Political Bullet Point Train and repeat a bunch of checklist shit with zero relevance to your current job. (Sarah Palin actually demonstrated this phenomenon even more so, if I recall.) Unfortunately I can't fault the politicians for riding this train because sadly, for too many people, the "dumb bullet points" are the stuff that actually works to get them motivated to vote. BobJohnson (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

RE: Carthage. Not really when much of Anglosphere economics hides behind their quantitive graphs and homo economicus, is corrupted by the needs of finance and banking and does it's best to ignore the fact that economic life is also political life and cannot be divorced. The 'racist tropes and myths' is more a symptom of economics chasing the star of 'we're a science too, look at these graphs!' and thus ignoring the other social sciences from which it sprung from. I've heard/read stuff in my time which could be seen as 'racist'/'sexist'/'classist' but I've become convinced it's more a simple inability to look beyond their maths and models than massive bias. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

everything that does not conform to scientific establishment

Such as what? 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 08:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, this site is opposed to a lot more than that. Lot's of social stuff has little enough to do with science.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a little unfair; good social scientists do try to apply the scientific method in generating theories etc. Just that it's harder to gather indisputable evidence and thus said theories are much 'softer'. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Time travel and space

Let's pretend that backwards time travel is possible for a moment. Given that everything is in motion, including the planet itself, and to travel through time also means to travel through space, how the hell can you be sure you wouldn't end up in, say, empty space or at the bottom of the ocean? Carthage (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Good question. Not my area, but it is fun to think about. Think about the position in space you occupied one solar hour ago. We can pinpoint the position of our planet with respect to the sun at that time. But the sun is nearly half a million miles from where it was one hour ago. We can pinpoint where the sun was in the galaxy one hour ago, but the galaxy is traveling 1.3 million miles an hour. Everything is moving very quickly. I don't know if it is possible to locate a point in absolute space from a relativistic frame of reference.UncleKrampus (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That's one of my favorites. If you traveled through time, you absolutely couldn't precisely land. It's not a problem with a solution, except the idea that you could smoke all that in a faster than light ice chamber, photons moving against K0, but that's not it. So fantasy, which is often called 'sci-fi' but is actually fantasy, pushes multiverse, which is fine, but much like time travel, the massive motions of stars and planets would have to be congruent. That's why multidimensional stories are a little more popular than time travel. But it's true, if there is an unlimited number of universes, there would be a number of universes like ours, maybe also unlimited, infinity is a strange number. But to the same idea of time and space, how the fuck you gonna do that? Torrent (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

If light can go slower than light, maybe time is relative. And if time is relative, maybe it can go faster or slower. If it can go slower, maybe it can go into negatives, but I don't think negatives work in physics. I think you can move more quickly or slowly in time, but, much like gravity, I don't think it's avoidable. I am not convinced time cannot be slowed, but I really don't think it can be reversed. Torrent (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Torrent "Light traveling slower than light" is due to the index of refraction in a material; it is not the same as time slowing. Time slowing is, however, a proven phenomenon and is known to be caused by moving at a high velocity and by gravity. Time Dilation (as the phenomenon is officially called) has been experimentally observed, and is a necessary correction that must be made for things like GPS satellites to function properly. For instance, GPS could not be more accurate than +/- 1 mile if you didn't correct for time dilation. It is also extremely important in particle physics, where the high speed of subatomic particles causes them to experience time orders of magnitude slower than our frame of reference. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The physical displacement issue would also give you problems if you traveled into the future. Of course everything is moving relative to everything else, not - as far as I am aware - relative to some arbitrary fixed point. If you are going to fantasize time travel then you could equally fantasize that your time machine automatically makes its location such an arbitrary fixed point (with everything else in motion) and thus you end up in the same physical location as when you started.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The 'speed of light' is usually taken to mean the maximum speed that light. That does not mean that all light travels at that speed. Automobiles regularly travel faster than the slowest recorded speed of light (38 miles/hour or less).[8] Bongolian (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Kelvin 0 (K0) is aspirational, I think matter itself goes againt the idea of zero friction, zero gravity, so zero Kelvin is useful but imaginary. what would happen to a photon at the actual cold death of the universe? It would slow to nothing, but how could it become nothing? I don't think the universe will succumb to a cold death or a heat death, I think it is already a bunch of exploding gravity wells. It leaves the origin of matter wide open, but I really don't think it has a beginning or an end. Torrent (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi7egXgYcgk Chillpilled (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Genetic "Determinist"

I am becoming a Genetic determinist, as time goes on. Combination of seeing people as unable to change their behavioral traits as well as finding environmentalist explanations most unconvincing. Is there any reason why I'm wrong to feel this way? And by determinist I don't mean 100%, but the supermajority, especially in adulthood. Formerly, "Skeptic". 72.239.161.225 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do you find most environmentalist explanations "unconvincing"? What makes you think these hypotheses are insufficient? Carthage (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The biology of life is, shall we say, very complicated. Genes can be best thought of as a "blueprint" at best that biologists still don't know everything about. (Even the "blueprint" metaphor is a lie-to-children, as I understand it, as such hides a lot of the technical complexity of genes.) If it was as simple as "gene 123 makes people do this", biology would have been done after the Human Genome Project was completed 18 years ago, as we would have known all there is about life. It isn't that simple at all for many aspects of human life; our understanding is still far from 100%.

For an example of a (bit of an obvious) "environmental factor" that has pretty much been proven to cause "behavioral problems" on its own, I give you lead. Now, I don't think "environmental factors" are ever 100% of what makes a human. But neither is DNA. The RW biological determinism article goes into some of this. BobJohnson (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You see, I find this to be much overstated. Taiwan, Singapore etc have extremely high BLL. Higher than any American demographics, yet seem to be getting along well. They arent violent or unintelligent or traumatized. I think the BLL thing has bene overstated. In my own life, even if anecdotally, it seems like people hardly change and continue to stick with their old habits mostly throughout their life. Even when its totally nonsensical to do so and they know it would benefit them not to. 72.239.161.225 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's too anecdotal and broad of a statement; I could counter with a similarly broad statement like "Jamaica has extremely high BLL and in 2022 they had the highest murder rate in the world". Neither proves much of anything; it ignores so many other factors. (For this reason, the lead-crime hypothesis is extremely difficult to prove.) What I think is easier to say, and that evidence clearly shows, is that lead exposure is associated with potentially significant adverse health impacts on the development of the brain and nervous system in children, and has been linked to behavioral problems. In fact, I was able to Google research articles specifically focusing on lead exposure within Taiwan workers [9] and Chinese preschoolers [10].

The point of the lead example, frankly, was that there's obviously more to a person than "just the genes"; if you need more examples of environmental pollutants or diseases that can permanently screw up a child's development, well, it's pretty easy to come up with a laundry list. And that's just the obvious poisons and diseases. I think that "social codes" are a more subtle environmental factor; a person raised in the rural Amazon forest is going to have a different "social code" than someone raised in an American city. (Insert any other social environment as an example here).

Nonetheless, genes still matter a lot; I think by now it's equally evident that the "blank slate" theory is incorrect, too. BobJohnson (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

What is a social code? 72.239.161.225 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with determinism. But human behavior is not likely determined entirely by genetics. Humans have about 19,000 protein coding genes. The human brain has about 86 billion neurons. There isn't much hope that neuron interactions can be completely determined by genes. Probably more like they make suggestions.UncleKrampus (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In all animals, behavior is the result of the combined effect of genes and environment. I don't think this is controversial.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You can almost guarantee mental illness by torturing someone enough as a toddler or adolescent.

While some people have more "potential" than others, Nurture really does matter. CorruptUser 16:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Get slammed. While I agree that, yes, people have a hard time changing their ways, I believe this is much better explained with modern psychology than Mendelian biology. Humans learn their survival strategies early in life and, if certain strategies are particularly successful in sustaining that child's survival, helps the child cover its needs, later in adulthood it will have a lifetime worth of experience and a very ancient, fundamental belief in those strategies. This is how most 'personality disorders' work. They may not believe in them rationally, but they’re almost hardwired into these behavioral patterns and it takes a lot of conscious effort to overcome them (plus, of course, the will to overcome them in the first place). While, of course, genes may make a person more predisposed towards certain attitudes, the strategies you come up with as a child are - so I think - almost entirely situational and depend almost exclusively on what kind of strategies work for the child. This can mean aggression ("extroversion"), isolation ("introversion"), appeasement, trustfulness, trustlessness and many, many more. Children are smart, much smarter than they themselves are able to comprehend, and they will carry these learned strategies throughout their life. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Kenya Capitol Insurrection

https://apnews.com/article/kenya-protests-finance-bill-33a20092285f1d663264f7b0d513e1da

Anti-Tax protest in Kenya. --Trans Fem Agenda 00:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I had a coworker who was originally from Kenya. The one day we got to discussing just lifestyle differences between there and Canada... he described that in Kenya many basic necessities are cheap, such as new clothing for under a dollar, but any luxury goods (a new iPhone) are outright unaffordable for almost everyone. What surprised me the most though was how religious the people of Kenya were, and I guess Africa in general; I recall reading an article critiquing modern Christian missionary work in Africa as the last dregs of colonialism... I thought I originally found the article in WIGO Blogs, but looking there and I can't readily find it. Impiricism (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

How would you like links to notes in articles to look?

On the Discord chat it was brought up how Wikipedia has links to notes which read like "[a]", "[b]", etc. instead of "[note 1]", "[note 2]", etc. Meanwhile links to ordinary references look like "[1]", "[2]", etc. (plain numbers) in both styles. Some people like the Wikipedia style more and would like to see a change on RW. I figured out how to do it, but a discussion would be in order first to see if people generally prefer a change.

Here you can see a quick a rough comparison which also has an explanation of what seems to be the simple step to take if you want to change it. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of the change, much less clunky. Christopher (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The "New style notes" section on that page as the notes as 1. 2. 3. Shouldn't it be a. b. c.? Will you plan for the unlikely 27th note just in case (aa.)? Bongolian (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

27 notes is easy to reach; the Donald Trump article currently has 34. I do prefer the current system, as notes are more easily distinguishable from references, although I'm willing to put it to a vote. Plutocow (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the current RW style heaps better, and have often wished That Other Wiki would switch to it. Zontar (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't say that I have much of a preference.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bongolian, the labels go up to azz, not only z, allowing 26*27*2 = 1404 notes. That's how much Wikipedia planned for. But you're right that the listing under the notes heading should also change, using lower-alpha style instead of numbering items. That requires a CSS tweak to the reflist template when it's used to list the note group. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I made that tweak to the sandbox version of the reflist template (and updated the comparison link). Now it looks consistent under the notes heading too. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is very low on the list of RWs issues, that is assuming it is an issue. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's also easily changed. The extra thing I did last requires copying 2 template pages in addition to put in effect.

So, time for a vote on whether the majority wants the style changed or unchanged? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Put up a vote in the ModZone if you wish. I shall come out on 'Nay' on the simple reason 'Note X' is more obvious to readers what it is rather the more academiese method like by WP. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Left-wing in the USA

Having seen your two rich retirees debate last Thursday, I'm seriously troubled as to why the 'left of rupture' and the democratic socialist Party don't ever break with the Democratic Party. At least in France, this has helped show the 'true colours' of many, with a liberal camp, a left camp, and a far-right one. Would that risk splitting the vote in the US? What exactly is the electoral potential of the left of left? Would non-voters be tempted? It would be especially interesting to know if center-right voters would choose the liberal party or the Trumpist Republicans. New world (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

If the United States was a parliamentary system and did not use first-past-the-post voting,, the alliances would have split for sure. There are several factions of the Democrat party (progressives; minority groups; Third Way; women concerned about abortion and similar issues; etc.) and several factions of the Republican party (evangelical; libertarians; neoconservatives; white nationalists and men's rights types; rich folks who care solely about tax; etc.). Due to FPTP, large parties are favored. So what results in the United states is two "big tent" parties, where both parties are in effect coalitions. (You even see this in parliamentary systems like Britain that use FPTP; although it's not as bad as the United States, there are also two dominant political parties in Britain, too.)

I do think that it's possible to split things too far; the Dutch are a great example of overkill, with their 18 parties in their parliament that seem to take forever to form coalitions. But United States politics could use some shaking up, and some systematic changes might be worth a try. Ranked choice voting has been floating around for a bit as an alternative process that might help things. Mind you, the worst thing about American politics IMHO is the sheer amount of money sloshing around the system; ranked choice probably won't clear the damage done by Citizens United. BobJohnson (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Tactical/useful voting is a problem in many places, but wouldn't it be possible for a left-wing party to get the revolutionary far-left, the left, to some parts of the more radical centre-left captivated to (tactically) vote in the US? After looking up electoral systems in the US, I found that some states, like Texas, have a two rounds system, but, at least in Texas, nothing seems to have happened locally. New world (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is, with FPTP, party splits often end up dividing the vote. The party with the least amount of "split" then wins. That being said, it can work locally or at a state level on occasion; there's a few people elected under the Libertarian Party and some other state-specific parties such as the Vermont Progressive Party and the Independent Party of Oregon. A further few elected officials are independent of any affiliation. BobJohnson (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It could be said in the UK the left/right parties are more 'ginger groups' than anything else - that while Reform nibbles the Tory right the Greens are increasingly nibbling Labour's left. That normally true political skill was when the leader was capable of 'stretching' the party wide enough where they a) can capture much of the centre ground but also b) can also occupy enough of their 'harder' side that a hard party can't really get anywhere.

The thing which makes this viable in the UK is that the political barriers to entry are much lower. A minor party could (and does sometimes) make headway in an election for an MP with £5k and a few dozen volunteers - partly because no party is allowed to spend more than about £25k per constituency, meet thresholds and you get free advertising (TV ad, mailshot, interviews etc) and sometimes you can't buy more and each party has an upper 'national spend' which for the Big Two will be about £24m. But in the USA, each House seat is like $1m each and PACs can end up spending so much more on more generic adverts and there is no limit. In this world, it's incredibly difficult for any Third to break through.

It will be pointed out that lower tiers in the USA will be cheaper, but it is again for the UK - a 'local government' post (like a 'town council') the limit is about £1,500, and you could make a decent go at it with £500 and a dozen mates. Quite within the ability level of the individual person. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

In view of the fact that Trump borrowed 8.4 Trillion net , compared with Biden 4.3 Trillion. Seems like the nation can't afford Trump.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll admit, I curious to how 'inflation' is unduly hindering left-wingers organising politically [as in comparison to others]. I know it was KenSock #1285 who said that and thus the answer will be BS, but there's times I wonder what type of crazy/stupid it will be... KarmaPolice (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The skill issue of the century.

I have been hearing about student debt for quite a while. I always wonder why as a florida resident this shit is never a problem at all. Everyone I knew that went to college in life worked hard and smart to have little to no debt. They hunted for scholarships, grants, APs, dual enrollments, high sat,act scores, community college. Yet, in other states this seems to be a serious issue. My state might just be lucky because the government has a lottery-funded scholarship program called bright futures where you js need a decent gpa, sat,act score to get the scholarship as long as community hours are on point. Every person I heard complaining about their student debt is basically the opposite of Floridians that went to college. They did not bother hunting for scholarships, grants, APs, dual enrollment, etc. This is in addition to choosing a goo goo gaa gaa shit major. I understand some scholarships don't provide full coverage but this isn't a fucking excuse. The skill issue of the century and I'm saying this as a plumber apprentice that didn't bother going to college since my extracirriculars were shit despite my grades being good. RicardoElPlomero (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I always wonder why I have yet to hear a floridian that has severe student debt. 2600:387:F:D16:0:0:0:6 (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It takes two seconds of googling to figure out that floridians also have severe student debt. A somebody. (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that a lot of the student loan problem is the shithole for-profit diploma mills, who take anyone that pays (no questions asked), and provide little employment opportunities afterwards due to poor quality education. Some of them like ITT Tech were outright scams. More subtle is places like University of Phoenix; while perhaps arguably not quite "scam" level, it is clear that their #1 priority was getting that sweet government loan money, instead of actually providing a good education.

I don't think Florida is unique in having generally decent state schools that for residents are not terribly expensive. So yes, it would be nice if everyone shopped around and knew the above information beforehand. But ultimately, if the government is providing money, I also think that there should be better enforcement on preventing this money from going to completely crappy schools. BobJohnson (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Ye im not sure about that unless like they’re some sort of silent majority since most Floridians I talked to in life went to college and already set for life unless the primary reason is that they chose a high demand high paying major. 2600:387:F:D16:0:0:0:6 (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence possible. Do you have hard statistics? Carthage (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

So it does seem to be silent although barely not a majority. Doesn’t excuse their stupidity, whats the point of bright futures then. 2600:387:F:D16:0:0:0:6 (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking AS a Florida resident I can say you have no idea what you're talking about. Bright Future's doesn't cover everything (plus there are a lot of weird exceptions and for anything above undergrad you have to pay out, which these days is mandatory). Futures only covers tuition. Anything else like books (Which are an arm and a leg), distance learning, online classes, housing, etc, you gotta pay up. AP's are limited class size and additional money folks don't have. Grants and scholarships is mostly just luck, they get thousands of requests and only a handful of students get them. I also call BS on the working hard as you'll be hard pressed to find many jobs in FL at a student level that pay over 15/hr. It's not a skill issue you're just an idiot. My guess is that the people you talked to are pretty lucky.

Nevermind that strong performance in school is also based on luck as depending on where you live and what your school is like your quality of education can vary. If you're lucky to live by the burbs you're good. Though in some places you're outta luck. Just to give an example everyone in my family is a doctor and even with all that they still end up in debt. Nowadays you have to at least get a masters for a career anywhere.47.5.66.54 (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Florida has the fifth highest student debt in the US. So some of the comments above are certainly in "citation needed" territory.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 05:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

OP does strongly give me the impression of a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" type of guy who got lucky with his own experience. Reading the post and it does generally seem to be a re-hash (albeit with a pro-Florida twist) of the stereotyped response "university grads can't find a job because they're lazy, and the degree that they have is stupid anyways"! Impiricism (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep. There is a reasonable debate to be had (in my opinion) on the whole model of Anglosphere university systems - not just including costs, but also whether so many people need to go as present - but the OP is not really contributing anything new or useful to it. I also suspect that if Florida's system was so different/ great compared to other states, I would have heard something about it my now. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

US News has estimates of college costs. To give an example of probably the top state school, University of Florida, you can visit here. They estimate a little over $10K a year on average net for in-state students; this includes room and board, books, supplies, etc. The tuition part is $6.3K a year.

Although way cheaper than private colleges... this is not cheap (and I'll add way more expensive then what I remember from my college days, even considering inflation, something backed up when I look at cost tables like these.) But... at the same time, if it gives you a lifetime career earnings boost... it could be worth it monetarily (for this discussion, we'll ignore everything else that goes into picking a career path). You can also earn some pretty good money in the trades as well as via the much cheaper 2 year associate degrees, so it all depends on skillset, what you want to do, etc.

The big problem with Florida right now is that the pay in many careers sucks compared to the cost of living in the state, college educated ones included. (It's not a high cost of living state... yet... but it's not a low cost of living one, either, in the big cities, esp. Miami.) And the more expensive college is, the bigger the paycheck difference must be if it is worth it to go into that debt. There's been some fun anecdote filled articles on Gen Z often picking trades instead of college, but I wouldn't be surprised if these articles had nuggets of truth in them, since colleges in the US have become much more unaffordable than they used to be. BobJohnson (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see much hope for gen Z in the trades due to the intense physical stress careers such as electricians put on your body as well as the adults they looked up to pushing that college is their only option, even with the good pay. 2600:387:F:D17:0:0:0:6 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not really it. Electrician is a very dangerous job to do. More than that I don't think people want to have worn out bodies by the time they retire to the point they can't even do anything. That's the REAL racquet. You spend the best years of your life where you're the strongest and healthiest working most of the day and the only time you have off is when you're near the end of your life and hindered by old age. It's such a scam. Life doesn't have to be like that but we choose to keep it that way because...reasons.47.5.66.54 (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that article matches mine (and many others) experience of living in the state, you'll be hard pressed to find anything that pays a decent living wage even with a degree.47.5.66.54 (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Same, what a fucking mess with rent and food inflation. 2600:387:F:D17:0:0:0:6 (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the stigma around 'manual labour' is a major issue here; that not only are education systems pushing as many to do the academic path, but it's also adult relatives, the media, wider society etc. This is compounded if [as I suspect has happened in the USA] 'manual work' has become the preserve for the lowly educated and more importantly the immigrant.

And while it is very true that folks in more physical demanding occupations will 'wear out' quicker [any discussion regarding raising retirement ages needs to take this into account, most likely by allowing a lower age if for medical reasons] and more importantly you hit your 'career ceiling' a lot earlier too but it ignores the fact that quite a lot will at least attempt 'sideways' moves when older - a skilled builder can with a bit of cross-training go into supervisory, management and/or educational roles, where they are more tapped for their knowledge/experience than their physicial ability to do it. However, we have the issue that things are becoming a lot more 'academised' - for example the 'engineering technician' [local community college] is being forced out by engineers [university grads] which makes it much harder for already-employed adults to get that cross-training. Even harder if you live in a place - like the UK - where you've had rapidly shrinking provision for 'night school' too which clearly compounds the issue. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Election blues...

I [slightly surprisingly] really like my local Labour candidate. Enough to get over the little fact Starmer and co have been effectively telling me to go fuck myself for the last four years and volunteer to help out said candidate. Except... I'm just being diverted to help in obvious nearby 'target seats' instead. Who are all Starmerite parachutes [so no]. I've contacted the local group directly to see if they are doing anything, but I'm really not hopeful. The cynic within me says the reason I like the candidate is because the local party was allowed to chose a decent 'local person' because Labour HQ had concluded a) they weren't going to win anyway and b) no resorces were going to be 'wasted' on them. So *sighs*. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Do not be surprised if there is not another general election soon.

What would happen if everybody voted for the 'minor party candidates' (apart from repealing the 1313 Act on wearing armour in the Houses of Parliament)/the 'spoilt ballots' outweighed all the others combined?

With both the local and the general elections I have seen far fewer posters in the gardens. Anna Livia (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It is... odd. In my area, nobody is really campaigning. I've seen less than a dozen posters, I've only had a single leaflet from Labour/Reform and nobody has either accosted me or run my doorbell. The biggest odd thing is that the Tories aren't apparently making an effort to defend this seat, even though they're the incumbent sitting on a ~15k majority - I am not sure whether this is due to them thinking 'this seat is in the bag' or it's a lost cause. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Well it's a similarly-sized Labour majority here, and there have been leaflets from all the major parties (two from labour, hilariously), except the Tories. No campaigners yet, and a particular giant house-width Conservative Party banner is conspicuous in its absence.Namako (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I know the Tories are fighting a seriously 'defensive' campaign, and if you bothered to get inside your local Tory party HQ, I think you'd find what they have of local activists etc have been diverted to your nearest Tory [sic] 'safe seat'. I've heard rumours that Labour 'safe seats' and 'non-targets' are being stripped of resources, including the candidate themselves - now, it's understandable if places like Namako's don't get much advertising, activists etc but you'd expect the candidate themselves [some have been somewhat acerbic about this, pointing out it was 'taking voters for granted' that lost Labour Scotland in 2015 and the 'Red Wall' in 2019 and 'not even fucking allowing the candidate themselves 'bee seen' by their constituents' is a prime example of that mentality.

But I have seen some Tory activity! Went last week to Welwyn Hatfield [Grant Shapps] and lots of posters etc out in force, firm leafleting etc [somebody said it was the first time they'd seen an activist since 2005]. Checking the Labour volunteering section now shows they're really throwing activists at not just Welwyn Hatfield, but non Labour bits of the constituency. But the simple fact that a guy who had a majority of 11k in 2019 is now getting a lot of attention to save his arse shows just how poorly CPHQ is fearing the result will be... KarmaPolice (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

So now, as well as the previous Labour, LibDem, Green and Reform leaflets, we now have Workers Party of Britain, Heritage Party and two independents' (one from the Independent Network) leaflets. I wonder whether campaigners might show up over the weekend, especially with the weather cooled down a bit, but it's still weird there's no sign of the Tories, especially since they're usually among the first (or only in the case of the police commissioner) through the door at election time. I was hoping to see if they're using the same terrible out of focus photograph of their candidate that everyone else has. I'd be tempted to go over to Maidenhead to see what May's successor's campaign looks like...if there was anything actually in Maidenhead these days ¬_¬. Namako (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I've had another Labour leaflet and a LibDem one. Still no Tories. Been chatting with local Labour activist which between-lines reading suggests Labour is fighting an aggressive campaign which assumes about a 10-12 point lead. Have heard a rumour that the Tory no-shows might be due to a simple lack of cash - which I suspect might be a first. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

An activist! For an independent, with a custom T-shirt, even! Also energy, excitement, goals! For a brief moment, the GE was at least as exciting as 2017. Namako (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

A tale from the front; been canvessing for the last few hours. My experiences echo what commentators etc have been reporting; a strong draft of apathy with a decent % of undecideds. Slightly interestingly, a bit of a current of 'I hate Kier' [not Labour, not the candidate]. Somewhat difficult to persuade LD/Green voters to 'lend' their vote - one said outright that Labour/Tory was the same and so there was no point [this is one voter I'd liked to spend more time with but I'd interrupted their dinner]. Apart from the ancient onces, the only Tory I found in the flesh was a veteran who believed the Tory 'good on defence' shit. Tried to persuade them about said shit, but they were firm in belief. Pretty chilled about it, though. Not really finding much call for Reform, though - this might be the difference between say a Tory, 1966 'defeat' and 1997 'annihilation'.

More interestingly was listening from the gripes of the Labour members. Between-lines reading from earlier correct; my candidate has basically been written off, has been locked out of the official Labour campaign system [they refused to go and campaign for nearby 'targets' over their own seat] and has basically had to jury-rig their own campaign out of on-hand materials, private Whatsapp etc. However, they seem to have seen this coming and managed to pull off some critical campaign data etc so they're not completely lost. They're actually a bit upbeat; their personal feeling that they're going to give the Tory 'shute a real run for their money. I suspect they might be a bit optimistic but still, the Tories have barely lifted a finger to campaign here.

But it gets better. Got back from canvessing to find my own home had been leafleted by Labour... from the neighbouring constituency. I wonder if I should tell them their aim is a little off? [I mean, my place is right on the constituency boundary so it is I suppose an honest mistake, but it's a bit of wasted effort...] KarmaPolice (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Summary of Debates

For those that didn't watch;

Moderator: Biden, how would you handle X?

Biden: Where am I?

Moderator: Trump, same question.

Trump: No, I'm talking about Y

Moderator: But what about X?

Trump: FU, I'm talking Y!

Moderator: Biden, your response?

Biden: *dumb face*

CorruptUser 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it’s Joever. (Doomer Duce is back, baby!) Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 07:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Fuck the debates. They don't change the fact that Trump is a lying grifting racist fascist sexist criminal shitbag. Zontar (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but it's pretty clear that Biden is NOT in charge. CorruptUser 08:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Biden doesn't have much experience doing the long con known as "reality TV", and Trump does. Zontar (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Biden has never been good with television; he's a much more old-timey politico in that respect. Anyway, the debate wasn't a disaster [I mean, Trump never KO'd him but that's partly because Trump is a poor candidate too] but it's rather obvious now that Biden is not really fit to be a 'hands on' POTUS [but again, nor is Trump, but for other reasons]. Which is why turning this campaign into more a 'team effort' one might be the only real option left; that Biden is 'the bandmaster', setting the tune, picking the players and sorting out arguments and isn't he good at that? Does it matter if you have the suspicion he might be found napping in the afternoons; his 'top team' is out there, being seen 'doing the slog' and getting things done. However, from what little I've heard Biden is resistant to this kind of campaign, and the more pressing issue is that all the signs are that the public don't really view Harris as POTUS material [which is a cramp because in the 'team effort' campaign would have the VP in a starring role]. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Not from the US but ... Trump is evidently unfit to be President (again). But what does even agreeing to take part in this debate say about Biden's judgement? What does it say about his self-awareness? If he can make this kind of political error - should he be taking other decisions? I really think the Democratic Party should be looking at some way to change horses. I know it's technically difficult, but I'm not convinced that trying to persuade the American public that they are electing a "team" is going to be an easy sell.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been an "error" 10 years ago IMHO.

Although technically Trump "won" the debate methinks, the general impression I got is that it came off as a complete dumpster fire to most non-cheerleaders (a lot of "this is the best we can do?" etc.). Score one point for the double haters, they were the true winners here. BobJohnson (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The big problem with "changing horses" is that the new candidate would NOT have been chosen in a primary, but by the establishment. They might as well choose Hillary. CorruptUser 13:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

We're fucking cooked. I feel that in 2029, ASSUMING the 22nd Amendment doesn't get thrown out the wazoo, that the MAGA movement is going to collapse once Trump retires for good. Think of all the infighting, the ones trying to carry the torch, and chaos in legislation. And that could have a ripple effect worldwide as well. Patty Pat 13:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Crypt keeper back at it again being sleepy as hell. 2600:387:F:D17:0:0:0:9 (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

But while a 'horse change' might be decided by the smoke filled room, it does not mean they can't make soundings to key groups to get a feel of the crowd. But we have to remember; Biden was the 'Establishment pick' in both 20 and 24. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That was, that was fucking terrible. I'd take fucking Obama over the melting wax statue we have in office right now. Carthage (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Somewhere, in the warehouse from Raiders of the Lost Ark, Hillary Clinton stirs. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It was a battle of the ages. A dying old man and an old man dying for attention. Carthage (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hah, 76 year old Hillary Clinton, such a difference from 81 year old Joe Biden.

One problem is that the "national politics scene" in the United States frankly is a shitshow carnival, over-dominated by stunts and weird (often extremist) think-tank ideology. What non-grandstanding politician would want to stoop down to that level these days? (For instance, America's got plenty of very popular governors from both parties. The funny thing is, a lot of the most popular governors are kind of in the background and don't perform all of the stunts that certain other politicians do. My guess is that many of them look at national politics these days and go "hell no!") BobJohnson (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A campaign spokesman says biden is not dropping out. What a clown team. 2600:387:F:D17:0:0:0:9 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

What a lot of people have been asking for is now too late. You can't drop the candidate after you put them in the fight. there is now no going back. It's an awful losing tactic to say 'Trump told lies'. Trump tells lies, he would not have won in 2016 if that mattered. 'yes, Biden is old' like, thanks for admitting it, but so is Trump. It's just so fucking done, Biden can't defend himself, the general public knows they are voting for an administration, not a leader, and Trump did the smart thing, he attacked the administration. I've been saying it for a while now, prepare for a Trump second term. there's a bunch of shit leaking that the Democrats don't like this, it is all Biden's hubris. Fucking figure it out, then, Democrats are supposed to be th administrative power party, the party of Super Delegates and regulation. Never been a huge fan, but admitting Biden is running against your better judgement is fucking pathetic. I believe it. I believe Biden is running against their better judgement. Just like Trump, I also think the Republican party is fucking pathetic, don't get me wrong. A Biden administration is better than a Trump. But how fucking terrible is this? Torrent (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I will also say, I am a registered independent, when I first registered back in 2005. I have consistently voted Democrat. RFK does not represent anything I believe outside of an individual independent vote. please do not confuse running as an independent with political philosophy. Torrent (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, Putin's got Biden covered; he's gonna send some Russian agents and change all the Trump votes to Biden. MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This ought to be the final nail in the coffin of the myth of “moderate competence” (hahaha…) and makes it glaringly obvious that the wide selection of critics and concerned actors (and no, it wasn’t just “loony lefties”…) that have been trying to rouse the somnabulent Democratic leadership for more than a year were absolutely right on the money.

This debate was exactly the situation that this wide selection of people had been warning about was a clear and present danger of running Biden again. Furthermore, the absence of Biden from these kind of settings until now is a clear indication that the Democratic leadership and Biden’s inner circle were almost certainly aware of just how high the risk of such an on-camera meltdown was.

And yet, these supposedly consummate “professionals”, the “moderates” whose prized asset is supposed to be their ability to win elections by picking and fielding “electable” candidates have kept stifling any suggestions that there was any reason not to (re)run Biden, basically by chanting “TINA, TINA, TINA!” while undercutting and warping the process that might have provided a viable and timely alternative.

It also shows that the Democratic leadership backing Biden is, when push comes to shove, not that afraid of a second Trump presidency. Otherwise, they’d prepared and implemented a Plan B a long time ago, rather than just keeping on whistling past the graveyard. And yet, if/when Biden loses to Trump, I doubt whether there’s going to be any serious soul searching or any actual myth busting of the claims that these “moderates” are the experts on winning elections. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought da 'dweep state' already had that covered? Anyway, Torrent is right in pointing out that now the is the spectre if a fight that a decent % of Bidens appeal is despite him personally, he has a better team, while Trump it's another way around.

As for 'the Dem leadership not scared of Trump'... I think it's more a case 'they don't see how they can lose'. Back in 20 I called him 'last of the Third Way mandarins' and The american brezhnev and I think we've now hit eyebrows c1981. And like the USSR pre-glasnost, they don't realise (or wish to admit) that some major work needs to be done - but how can you really expect a bunch of old people who have 'won' under the old rules wish to then change them? For example; why bother building a mass party? Wasn't the support of the local not-conservative elites, a clutch of journalists, a few billionaires and a message of 'technocratic-managerial tinkering' enough?

But the truth is that 'being President' now is so huge a job now, it would be more honest if candidates started to campaign for 'team slates' (of which the candidate themselves is just the captain) but it's also clear this is a significant change in tone from tradition and (from what I can tell) Biden has left it too late to start doing the prep-work (I stand to be corrected, but Harris hasn't really been utilised as VP, has she?). The other issue is (I think) that the 'celeb super-CEO' has infected Pres runs since Reagan, elevating them as super-special individuals with infallible knowledge and instincts, ignoring the fact said folks only function with a solid 'C-suite' team at their back, and they'd sink without them (qv John DeLorean). KarmaPolice (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I have moved beyond merely supposing that the DNC & Co. are simply group thinking themselves into a neoliberal version of the final years Brezhnev stagnation and see them more as a group that simply prioritise not changing their approach over actually winning; even if it means a second Trump victory (and remember how some of these DNC types enjoyed playing the “principled resistance” during Trump’s first term…).

These supposed consummate professionals were warned loudly and frequently about this scenario for more than a year and the problems have only become more and more glaringly obvious as time has passed and they’ve continued to fiddle.

Hell, the DNC/Biden apparatchiks could’ve switched to the “team effort” approach at any point, if they wanted to, but instead they’ve just wasted time and money in spades and tried turd polishing by depicting this as all being a part of a “content over crowds” strategy (and not about simply hiding Biden away from exactly these kinds of live, on-air situations).

Even now, there’s all these pathetic attempts at excusing the disaster by claiming that it was just a fluke and that Biden will definitely make a yuuuge (to use Trumpian terminology) comeback, rather than considering whether a change of course might be a good idea, let alone actually trying to move the helm, even if it’s just a reframing to the “team effort” line. It’s absurd, depressing and, well, absurdly depressing. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think people are unaware that so-called debates have historically no effect on Presidential elections. Trump pretended to answer questions by not answering them at all, instead applying talking points to different issues. Nothing about being president is related to the CNN debate format. I think Biden did alright against an inveterate liar who wants to become an autocratic ruler. It's laughable how the democratic media is losing its lunch. Does anyone remember Obama's first debate performance? It was bad. Didn't matter. If you allow the impertinence, calm the fuck down. UncleKrampus (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The question I barely see answered in the ohnoespanic media on the "replace Biden" question is: with who? Almost any "national name" that I've seen floating around as a "Biden alternative" seems to poll worse than Biden does against Trump (though data is limited and polling has been weird for the last several years). Presidents are more figureheads than anything else; if a good orator like Barack Obama comes up, there may be a case for sweeping then to the top of the line pretty quickly. I am not aware of anyone of that caliber at this time, so all of this ohnoespanic spewed on papers and news websites feels like a gigantic waste of dead trees and electrons. My suspicion is that the whipsaw of 24/7 media will have largely forgotten about the poor debate performance of Biden by Monday, when the latest round of Supreme Court cases drop. Obviously it's far from idea for America that both candidates are geriatric and way past their prime, but that was obvious before the debate.

Trump is a serial abuser of the Gish Gallop, and that debate was another example; to the clueless, I guess vapid word salads impress (since a lot of people in the "sales jobs for the clueless" departments also love to Gish Gallop), but to anyone vaguely aware, it was pretty clear that Trump was spouting his usual word salad of meaningless bullshit and lies. It was strange that Biden seemed unprepared for this, considering that this is Trump's typical debate tactic. But, as I said before, while Trump "won" the debate, it was not a "victory" IMHO; by historical standards, Trump did a lousy job too. The double haters aren't necessarily wrong. BobJohnson (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, Trump just did what he always does (although it could be argued that he was even less coherent), but the imagery of a Joe Biden that confirms all of the worst fears about his decrepitude is what was not expected (or rather: it was much worse than anyone had expected).

Sure, debates aren’t all that important, but the problem here is that this reinforces the biggest argument against Biden - and one that’s shared even by a large slice of Democratic voters, as poll after poll has shown: That he’s simply too old for the job.

It sucks donkeys’ balls that this conversation pops up AGAIN, at this late stage, when it might be too late to fix, but this is what those with any sense have been trying to tell the, apparently deaf, blind and fact resistant, inner circle of the Democratic Party since at least last year and they’ve fuckin’ ignored and tried to stymie this wholly legitimate and absurdly obvious topic until now (and seems hell bend on continuing to do so).

Sure, Biden may make a strong comeback and clean Trump’s clock at the next debate or whatever, but how certain are anyone about this prospect? Especially considering that this debate was so predictable and ought to have been ridiculously easy to game and prepare for in advance, yet Biden still ended up looking horrible.

It’s absolutely terrifying that the Biden campaign is apparently banking on nothing more than the “He’s not Trump”-factor to see them through and just keep banging on about January 6^th (yes, an extremely important topic, I know, but it’s also one that actually makes a case in favour(!) of Biden, but solely one against Trump).

Biden is basically running an even less competent version of the Hillary 2016 campaign with worse polling and the added factor that even a lot of his own 2020 voters think he’s too old for the job and shouldn’t be running. Literally the only thing in Biden’s favour right now seems to be the bet that people will be too scared of another Trump term.

As to the “Who else, if not Biden?”-question my suggestion would be: Pick someone! Or run the “Team Biden”-approach suggested by KarmaPolice. But do something! Hillary’s campaign showed that it’s not enough to just lambast voters for “not voting for the right candidate” and scold anyone and everyone, rather than taking responsibility for your own damn campaign! I saw a comment on another site suggesting that the DNC is afraid that switching out Biden now would leave them “flying blind” to which I responded that it’s still better to fly blind than to pilot a controlled flight into terrain(!)

That the leadership of the Democratic Party and Biden’s inner circle have all kept dithering for all of this time, and are still sticking their heads in the sand by pretending that there’s no real problems, show that they’re either not serious about actually keeping Trump out of the White House, or they’ve simply joined the universe of “alternative facts”. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It's too late to replace Biden who doesn't stand a chance of winning against Trump after his catastrophically bad debate performance. The delegates, who are the party elites, could pick an establishment candidate with lower name recognition than Biden at the Democratic convention, but forcing this down the throats of Democrats that close the election will leave a bad taste in the mouth of those who want the president to be the people's choice. This could easily spark a lot of infighting among Democrats. It's a very tough draw for the Democrats any way that you look at it. And the stakes are very high. When Trump won the presidency in 2016, it created a wave of right-wing populism that swept much of the world - especially in the Global South. Two3473 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong.

1. It is not too late to replace Biden (though it is getting close).
2. The 'party elites' won't automatically pick 'an Establishment figure' as a replacement - they won't pick a radical or maverick but they do want to win.
3. The grassroots won't hugely bitch at the change because Biden's reselection wasn't their choice - if they feel that his replacement was necessary. While there isn't time for a full fig campaign, they could do virtually a form of campaign to allow them to have some say.
4. Some Democrats are always a bit sour - the ones who felt Biden was too old in 20, the ones who felt Sanders was better than Clinton in 16 and so on. But they still (generally) line up and vote Democratic anyway. Rather like most non-Trump Republicans (in fact more so, because Trump is the other option).
5. Trump's election hid not spark a wave. Orban was elected in 10, Erdogan in 14, Le Pen and Farage have been slithering around for over a decade. All of which are considerably Trump's superior, skill-wise. I don't doubt a wave, but it was a wave which Trump rode, not made. And said wave is global.

KarmaPolice (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Now Krampus is right to point out that 'so-called debates have historically no effect on Presidential elections' (I think they have a little, esp in razor thin times like 1960 and 2000) - but this is not 'normal times'. The could be millions of Americans who decided to reserve judgement on the 'Biden is senile!' until they'd seen the debate... and I think he didn't do that well in assuring then he's okay. I will argue the occasional slip is survivable but if if the is many more Biden's campaign is done for. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand there is another debate scheduled for Sept 10. Even if this debate didn't move the needle (which I think is unlikely) a similar showing in that one would be an even bigger disaster. And there would me a lot less time to fudge a change.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't seen any indication that the debate moved any of the poll numbers at all. (Though this is very early, all polls still show a slight Trump edge, but enough within the margin of error that it's still a "coin flip" race to me.) Nor have I seen any evidence that any name polled against Trump does any better; most do worse, if only slightly in a lot of cases. I do think that part of the "election strangeness" this cycle is that it's going to be more of an issue based election than most cycles are.

If two weeks from now it is clear that the debate did cause Biden to take a knock in the polls, and someone is polling quite a bit better against Trump, sure, the discussion changes. The polls may kinda suck these days but they are still better than kneejerk random pundit whining. (Given how shitty political pundits are this point, I think you could replace the entire political pundit class with AI and actually improve the quality quite a bit.) BobJohnson (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

For those who need a refresher on social psychiatry (most of you) here is an interview, describing the difference between an aging person without significant cognitive decline (Biden) and the dangerously personality-disordered sociopath (Trump). Try it, you'll like it. It will make you want to get a medical degree to reframe your diagnostic perspectives. UncleKrampus (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the reality is, it matters what the perception is. The public perception is that Biden is suffering significant cognitive decline. Carthage (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Most people can't define cognitive decline, much less recognize it. The Dunning-Kruger effect is very strong in the field of psychology. Everyone thinks they understand what it means to be intelligent, even stupid people. That's not what decides elections. You don't have to agree. It won't change anything. UncleKrampus (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ll hedge KarmaPolice’s point 2: Yes, the party elites want to win, but it seems to me that they don’t want victory at all costs (if so, they’d looked critically at Biden long before now).

They want to win, but not if the path to victory means giving up significant control over the party and its internal processes, and not if the path to victory means significantly shifting the Overton window to the left (with Biden’s reforms being a good example of this, possibilities and limitations alike).

Whether this approach is due to group think or deliberate choice, I can’t say, but it seems to generally track with how the Biden/Pelosi types who’ve run things on the top rungs in the Democratic Party since the (Bill) Clinton era have acted at each crossroads they’ve faced. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger matters not one jot in this case, because arguing to the Big Public that they should ignore 'visible signs of possible decline' because they are not experts smells too much like a courtier's reply and could easily get into full gaslighting territory.

With Wombat's point... I personally think it is mainly groupthink and mental fossilisation - with a fair dollop of selfish reasoning too. I meant more than obviously apparent when I called Biden 'the American Brezhnev' - that in some respects the USA is the USSR in the 1980s and much of the ruling class is the nomenklatura. And history has a tendency to repeat itself.

The 'Third Way nomenklatura' are solidly wedded to orthodoxy ['Give vague assurances to the 'have nots' that their lives with improve to get their vote, give firm promises to the vested interests that no reforms will happen without their permission to neutralise their opposition, get elected and then hope that some managerial tinkering will give those improvements.'] their 'managerialism' means they get into map/territory errors [a starving family can't be fed with reports of abundant harvests] and has a permanent doublethink that any consession to the people was 'populism' [resist to the death!] but consessions to vested interests was 'pragmatism' [cater to as much as possible]. This was bad enough in the 90s, but now Third Way won't admit their previous failures - no, all the past failures are other's people's fault. Or black swans. Current examples; Biden is unpopular because too many of 'the left' end up being employed within the Govt, so the solution is to ensure the state is stuffed with 'politically reliable' Third Way staffers while in the UK the Starmer leadership has tried to make as many of the prospective new MPs politically greige because 'left wingers are unelectable'.

You see this all the time from Third Wayers. People like Trump and Farage are one-offs, demagogues who have 'made a movement' which will die with them. I mean, what were they thinking in 2020? That one defeat of the Orange One would cause all those MAGA-hats to vanish into the soil and 'normalcy' will return? But they have to believe this, because they cannot admit the truth - that it was their own failures [from wishing for a 'passive democracy' to never challenging neoliberalism] over decades which assembled the environment which allowed poisonous weeds like MAGA to thrive.

This is why here in the UK, former Labour leader Neil Kinnock has repeately warned Starmer and Co that basically an incoming Labour Govt has one real chance to destroy Farage - that they need to show that 'the current system' actually 'delivers the goods', and this delivery is not going to happen if they stick to timid tinkering and sticking to the bone-breaking corset of Tory tax/spend plans. That otherwise, chances are they'll simply fall apart. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

https://youtu.be/cu64xOaDe7Y?feature=shared Torrent (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)