RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive458

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 27 June 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>
, (new)(back)

Are allergies just us “doing it to ourselves”?[edit]

Warning icon orange.svg WARNING: Emotions conversation ahead may rot your brain!

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

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Carthage (talk) 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".Wikipedia
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 ShockleyWikipedia 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[edit]

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 thatWikipedia 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 huntWikipedia" 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 🥉[edit]

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[edit]

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!Wikipedia 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[edit]

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[edit]

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).Wikipedia 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake 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 SmotrichWikipedia 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 GantzWikipedia 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 haniyehWikipedia 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[edit]

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...[edit]

.. 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[edit]

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 CircleWikipedia 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[edit]

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".Wikipedia
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 FloridaWikipedia) 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,Wikipedia 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 BuffettWikipedia 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 crisisWikipedia). 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?Wikipedia That's diaspora Chinese food! Bongolian (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)