RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive461

This is an archive page, last updated 27 August 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>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Barring attempts at complete religious deconversion, how would you go about debunking the 'Homosexuality is a sin' claims?

Personally, I've already formed an argument for this type of situation based on the Problem of Evil, though I find it to be restrictive in regard to the type of religious homophobe it would work well against, that being the more radical Side Y Christians and those who follow the Side Y equivalent of their own religions (assuming the Problem of Evil applies to their particular religion), but not many others.

It would be better explained with a flow chart, but I cannot be bothered to open an image editing program to make one right now, so I hope the following text explanation is easy to follow.

• Starting Question (Question 1): 'Why does Homosexuality exist if it is a sin?'
  • Response: 'It is a choice and not something natural.' Proceed to Question 2.
  • Response: 'The Fall of Man did it/Satan did it.' Proceed to Question 3.
• Question 2: Not really a question, but point out the loads of scientific evidence pointing to the fact that being gay is, in fact, natural and not a choice. Ask Question 1 again.
  • Response: 'The Science is Satanic/[Insert Negative Adjective Here].' Exit the conversation; If they're not willing to listen to science, then they won't listen to you either.
  • Response: 'The Fall of Man did it/Satan did it.' Proceed to Question 3.
• Question 3: 'If The Fall of Man/Satan caused something that people did not choose to have and which sends people to hell for merely having it, then why doesn't God step in and stop it entirely?'
  • Response: 'He cannot stop it.' Then He isn't Omnipotent, and the Bible is fallible.
  • Response: 'He does not want to stop it.' Then He isn't Omnibenevolent, and the Bible is fallible.
  • Respoonse: 'Being gay isn't a sin, then.' Then He isn't Homophobic, and the Bible is fallible.

TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"Sin" is a moral judgement and therefore unfalsifiable.

For overtly homophobic so-called Christians, my biggest question (from a religion only point of view) would be how they reconcile their stance with Matthew 22:36-40, Matthew 7:1-3, Romans 3:9-20, Matthew 9:10-17, and whatnot. One of the big key premises of Christianity is that everyone is a sinner and only through Christ can one's sins be redeemed. Another big key premise is that explicit judging of others is frowned on, humility is favored, and even sinners get treated like people by Jesus. So why do some of the noisier fundamentalist preachers hate on gays in such an overt noisy fashion? Even using the Bible as a framework, your guess is as good as mine; yeah, there's a whole lot of Bible passages saying homosexuals are a sin, but there's a whole lot of passages saying that those hate preachers are in the wrong too.

(Mind you, from a scientific point of view, I think that the notion of homosexuals as sinners is pretty stupid. You might as well apply the label of "sinner" to those who are left-handed. But that's "another argument".) BobJohnson (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

All very good points. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"Sin" is a defined by particular religions. It's not a moral, objective or legal judgement.

So, depending on your religion a sin might be: eating pork, not praying to Mecca in the prescribed way, having sex with the "wrong" people and so on.

But if it's a sin in that religion, then sin it is in that religion. You can debate it and claim that they have not interpreted their own religion correctly - but you are really arguing theology, not logic.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 05:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Q3 can be answered as 'it is a test to challenge your/their faith', making the onus on the sinner to overcome their 'deviancy' through sheer willpower. Only a person who is completely disregarding the OT would argue the Christian god is omnibenevolent. Or is a demented cultist. So they do. In the same way as an abused partner shall explain that no, they were wrong and yes, they deserved to be hit and 'they only did it because they love me'.

Anyway, cultist preachers love 'attacking the homos' because it's so damn easy and low effort. Look, its shows everyone 'what side we're on'! But fuck, we don't really have to do anything which would impinge on our lives [unlike say, doing charity work]. With a sociological hat on for a moment, it's a classic example of defining Inside/Outside status; we on the In hate this 'lifestyle choice' while those on the Out accept it's essentially a baked-in decision [though we must remember that there is not conclusive evidence that their is a genetic base for it, though there fairly strong suggestion there is so Q2 is not as solid as it appears]. More importantly, the cultists hate any form of relationship which isn't a traditional marriage with two cis persons where they have FCC approved intercourse for the sole reason for the begetting of offspring. It's just that if you're going down on another guy/girl it's more obvious you're not doing that than most. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice What does 'OT' mean? I don't think I've ever heard of that term before. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Old Testament. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

why debunk claims that homosexuality is sin? it is a sin according to the bible. i am not christian so i am not bound by its rulings. it would only be an issue if i where a christian of a particularly fundamentalist sort but really liked cock. a better question is without recourse to 'because the bible says(or whatever holy book underpins your hate)' what make homosexuality a sin? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant it in more of a 'In a debate against a Homophobic Christian' sense. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

https://elcvienna.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Booklet-about-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible-Sept.-2016.pdf (hosted by "elcvienna" which seems to be Lutheran) Chillpilled (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Also for consideration see "Hitler was a Heretic", I've only skimmed this but was recently recommended it and it does seem to cover homosexuality from a Catholic point of view: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ltk26ezZILyFT5DqDIkep_KAsxGLVPO55A8zDiD6yfo/edit?pli=1 (Bizarrely enough this doc seems to have been hosted by somebody with the Most Holy Family Monastery which is reportedly some kind of strange antisemitic Catholic group, I wonder if it's something like they rehosted this from elsewhere to demean it...) Chillpilled (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

arguments saying bible doesnt say the gays are sinners and going to burn are really weak imho. its all dubious mistranslations or it refers to something else being condemned that was going at the same time as the homosexuality. it wont convince any christians hating on gays. whatever their version of the bible says is a sin is a sin. its an exercise in futility to argue the toss with them. the only correct response is 'dont care, not a christian'. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've come to the general conclusion that most Christian 'phobes don't hate 'da gays' because the Bible tells them to, they merely use it as a semi-respectable cover for their hate. After all, please tell me how many claims of 'religious discrimination' in the advanced world these days are not basically boiled down to 'wah, I can't be a discriminating fuckhead to [group] no more!'. To attempt to engage with them on a theological level is not only pointless [unless you are a master theologian] but counter-productive because by discussing 'the issue' with them legitimises their shitty position - esp as about 90% of the haters will be of a cultist stamp where you'd not be able to remove a poisonous idea from their heads with an icepick.

So in this, Gay is 100% correct. Don't engage. I don't give a damn what your ancient translation of a translation of a translation of dubious authenticity says on any subject [this is not limited to the Bible] esp as I know you've been cherry-picking. Just like you Mr/Mrs Demented Cultist don't give a damn about what I think on this. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

True. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not a Christian either (though I wish I could be, sometimes, because religion offers some shortcuts to solve certain social problems we face today). You all may find it easy to just blow it off because you don't believe in the religion. Many gay people can't, because they are genuinely Christian, and they struggle with this. I'm not just trying to whitewash the Bible either, I see it as the truth that the purportedly homophobic portions seem to have been botched through misunderstanding. There are other parts that are troublesome, for instance it does seem the Bible is sexist against women. Chillpilled (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not 'blowing it off', it is the reasoning of an ex-cultist who spent much of their youth fucked-up because of attempting to reconcile cultism with reality, and those two with Scripture. The whole thing is an utter mess of contradictions to the point I suspect it would be literally impossible to live by all the strictures within it. We often accuse cultists of cherrypicking but we also need to bear in mind that the very same accusation can [and is] be levelled at various brands of 'Cafeteria Christianity'. One vaguely insightful conversation that a KenBot created here a while back was [no, they didn't say this, it was someone else] was that in effect, Christianity might really be a rather shit religion and it's God a fair cunt and people like me [and from the looks of it, you too Chilled] are attempting a form of theological revisionism to try to salvage it for historical/moral/religious reasons.

My key point is this. Don't bother trying to engage with a cultist, because they have zero desire to reconsider any of their opinions on the issue. You might be able to shame them out of particularly odious actions, but not much more than that. Let us not forget, most cultists take prophesying seriously and will most likely use this as an opportunity to hector you. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not all Christians are of the cultist judgmental type (although that side is doing a damn good job of driving those type away from religion). To those that are not cultist and Christian, this is where such discussions might be valuable. (Maybe.) The cultists are obviously not going to care, they've made up their mind.

I personally think that trying to be "technically correct" on a translation level is going to fail. I do think it is worth noting, however, that some of the context is missing when people reference random Bible quotes (something Chillpilled's paper mentions). For instance, Romans 1 is frequently used to say "see, God hates gays!"... but it's pretty clear when you read this that Paul is talking about homosexuality in ancient Rome... which is very different than what we think of as same-sex relationships in 2024. So how does this then really apply to society 2000 years later? Well, that's a question you can ask about much of the Bible, to be honest. (It's also worth noting the fun of seeing Paul's Rome shit-talking in Romans 1 next to the "you should not judge because we are all sinners" stuff in Romans 2. Contradictions! :) ) BobJohnson (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This makes me wonder about whether or not the whole 'Gays are Groomers' bullshit was inspired by this fact; After all, Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome was heavily associated with Pederasty to my knowledge, so making it seem as if nothing has changed since then would be something people could use to shove the verses in question into something where they really don't fit. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

(EC)I think you may be over-interpreting that. My understanding is that, at that time, sex was sex. They didn't differentiate much between sex between people of the same sex or of a different sex.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Some cultures will, however, associate the recipient partner as feminine, and therefore lesser, than the penetrative partner. Carthage (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Julius Caesar's enemies criticized him for just that. Being bisexual was "so what?" in ancient Rome. But if you were the leader and took a passive role in sex then you might get criticized. But this is somewhat off topic now. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

as i understand it in rome you could do what you liked with your slaves, but it was frowned upon to fuck a citizen, and incredibly shameful for a citizen to be fucked. i believe attitudes would shift over time. interesting amongst the greeks attitudes would vary from state to state. in corinth, i think, it involved showering a boy with gifts and attention before the boy makes a big show of rejecting their admirer who would then ritually kidnap them. some folk were critical of the practise because they feared the population would collapse because the men preferred boys over breeding in athens, a boy would be 'mentored' by an older man until they reached a certain age when it would become shameful to continue and would be expected to marry and mentor someone themselves. it was notable that male relationships were superior to those with women who were little more than cattle for breeding with little to no rights and kept virtually prisoners in their homes. and of course this only applied to the gentry, while for the men, anything goes down at the brothel. not much is known about what the proles thought about it all. it was not all pederasty either in greece, nor was it always shameful to be the bottom. the sacred band of thebes was an elite military unit made up entirely of same sex couples. alexander the great wept for them after he'd destroyed them in battle. but yes, this is all off topic.

more on topic, i find it amusing that after sodom and gamorrah is destroyed for all the gayness and lot is spared for his righteousness, he wanders the wilderness for a bit fucking both his daughters (who were only still with him because the mob he gallantly offered them up to be raped by werent interested.) they always forget that part of the story when folk are preaching against sodomites AMassiveGay (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The main reason the above is "on topic", a little, is because the fact that homosexuality in ancient times had some different practices today may change the underlying meaning of some of the Biblical prohibitions of homosexuality. At least, I have seen this justification used by Reform Judaism (see the Wiki artice [1] and other sources such as this Jerusalem Post article [2]) to downplay the "homosexuality is a sin" versus in Leviticus. So is what Reform Jews are doing a bit of "creative interpreting"? Who knows, perhaps. No one really knows what it was like x thousand years ago. It matters little to me personally because I don't rely on x thousand year old texts for modern morality. But for those that do, I'd rather people "creatively interpret" their Bible towards tolerance instead of "creative interpretations" like the Rapture that allow holier-than-thou pricks to justify being self-righteous dweebs. BobJohnson (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

With a sociological hat on again, it's quite possible that early Christianity developed such a prudish relationship to sex in general to simply make it obviously different to the other religions currently within the the late Roman milieu, so it became an obvious 'Other' to those darned 'pagans' [the lack of physical sacrifices being another]. Just a thought. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That "Hitler was a Heretic" document I linked, reading it a little closer, seems to genuinely be from a sedevacantist, possibly far-right Catholic perspective, quite weird. The document attacks Hitler for believing in evolution, even. There may have been some mix-up on my part because I don't see anything about homosexuality in it on a second search. Chillpilled (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Debunking is the incorrect way to see the argument. You have to out-Jesus people pretend they like Jesus. The more people persecute, the first thing you remind them of is persecution. I think if it comes down to actual persecution the right falls apart. But it is many times over many topics, so it's important to remember the fake things that they are angry about are not responses to persecution. They are persecuting people justified by nonsense. Torrent (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we just respect cryptozoology?

Cryptozoology is hilarious and honestly probably drives people to look at their world scientifically. If your first actual check of geometry is flat earth, there are two groups. One who tells you geometry, wtrigonometry, and astronomy only works with a round earth that orbits the sun, and one belief system that continues to be proven wrong using the principles they work with. Evolution and biology need to be better employed against cryptozoology. Apes do not live asocially and do not inhabit generally cold clImates. Chimps didn't mind Jane Gooddall, bears are scavenger creatures despite their size that will Just walk into somebody's backyard, easy sasquatch and yeti are so improbably documented and just in the wrong place for an ape. Same as ghosts, but easier. That type of ape just does not, would not, survive or thrive in that environment and never be seen. Crypto zoology needs a more credulous debunking if anything. Torrent (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Future war over the Arctic area and resources? Swedish documentary.

Earlier this year I watched a 2021 documentary made for the Swedish military, När kriget kommer (When the war comes), 5 parts (they have English subtitles). It focuses on longer-term scenarios and developments, though not exclusively. It seems doubly interesting in relation to the discussion of a current new Cold War above. Summary of the 5 parts.

1. A warming world faces greater risk of war. Apart from refugees from and environmental crises in other parts of the world, the global North will face new competition over resources as ice melts away and the Arctic area opens up to exploitation. Fish, oil, gas, minerals, travel routes, and more -- including the geographically perfect spot for a military nuke base on Greenland. The U.S. tried to build the latter in the 1960s, to counter the Soviets' in Cuba, but the climate was not only too cold, but shifting ice made it unworkable. This changes in a warmer world -- which explains why Trump wanted Denmark to sell Greenland to the U.S.
2. The "gray area" between peace and war -- hostile actions made with deniability without overt warfare. It may be difficult to tell until after a hot war has begun when the war really started -- it's difficult to say whether cyber-sabotage and other things are the lead up-to that, or just part of an earlier "cold" era.
3. The future battlefield, how it changes with new technology and its uses. A more widespread and geographically fragmented military engagement when it happens, new tools being used to gather, structure, and present information, and use it. And the specter of autonomous weapons using e.g. facial recognition for assassinations in the future, if the world doesn't say no to it in time.
4. "Total defense", and how societies may be targeted and impacted by war in the future, and how to defend against it. In large part having to do with how societies are structured to work with modern technology, as in cyber warfare. General disaster preparedness at the societal level (and cooperation vs. competition between countries, as seen with COVID-19), and the importance of psychological readiness within a society.
5. What's worth defending, or the psychological motivation to defend against an attacker. Also covers prediction and the difficulty of having accurate ideas about the future. And the shortsighted decision to dismantle military preparedness too quickly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as it takes much longer to build than to dismantle. The values of individual freedom of liberal democracy are held up as the ideal to fight for.

So, how likely do you think it is that there'll be a major war in the future between NATO and allies, and Russia and China and their allies, over Arctic resources and territory? (Sweden and Finland, I think both had similar predictions, both joined NATO after, though there's no suggestion of joining NATO in the documentary.) As for the Ukraine war, newer than the documentary, it seems like a mix of the old and new in terms of how the war is waged. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

They've been calling for that Arctic war for 30 years now it seems. I also wish to point out that Canada and Russia have already what is in the Arctic, so I REALLY doubt they will fight a war for stuff they already have easy access to. Revolverman (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Canada and Russia do, but China and (to a lesser extent) the US don't. There's already an international dispute over whether the Northwest Passage is international waters or not. Carthage (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't heard much of it before, but I guess the basic idea could be nearly as old as the understanding of global warming, since military analysts are always considering how changing world conditions affect balance of power and opportunities to change it.

As for Russia, they do have a long-standing territorial approach to the Arctic, but it's difficult to say how much their flag-planting and antics amount to. The documentary mentioned that in 2007, Russia planted a flag at the bottom of the Arctic ocean (or claimed to, it's currently unverifiable whether it's really there) and views some territory as theirs. Recently in 2023, Russia showed off with a gigantic flag on the ice surface. It remains to be seen, I guess, what kind of imperial ambitions Russia may have in the future, especially if there's more strongman leaders and their army builds up over time. (After all, such a war if it happens could be half a century from now, to pick a random plausible-seeming decade.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

can someone please explain to this outsider what's going on in the uk?

i'm not on reddit, but i'm still out of the loop. i've been hearing a lot about the riots. people (mostly non-uk citizens) are telling me that it has to do with immigration or islamic extremism, and that the media is lying to me (again). naturally, i'm skeptical of these claims, so if you're from the uk, would you please fill me in and explain it like i'm five? The G (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This shall be quicker if you explain first what you believe is happening/are being told what is. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

i've heard people say that the uk is paying the price for letting too many muslim immigrants into the country, and that now they're taking over and imposing their ways on non-muslim uk residents (basically, a retelling of the "great replacement" and/or "eurabia" conspiracy theories). oh, and they're effectively inviting terrorists into the country by not properly vetting them or something. The G (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

like, i know it's bs, (because i've heard the same things before – too many times), but how would i refute it being an outsider? The G (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Some of it links up to 'the rebellious masses' - Peasants Revolt, Civil War Clubmen, Luddites, organised football hooliganism, Medieval football, anti-enclosure riots, Swing Riots...

Also '(places where not much happens) rarely get into the news.' Anna Livia (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The "narrative from here" I think is:

A) The 2024 Southport stabbing happened.

B) Misinformation spread on social media, particularly Telegram and Twitter, about the perpetrator, claiming that it was a Muslim immigrant.

C) Chaos ensued! And... is still ensuing.

Sources have tended to point the finger at Tommy Robinson and the now-defunct English Defense League. Though I kind of get the impression (perhaps wrongly) that this "far-right" crowd is less something with central leadership of any kind and more rather hooligan-ish, disorganized, and angry-without-a-clue. Probably Russian trolls are involved with the misinformation (what is new there?). Also Elon Musk spoke out of his ass again, but again, what's new there? BobJohnson (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My potted explanation...

The issue is that we've had about a decade of where politicians of the ruling Conservative Party have drifted further and further rightwards, pandering more and more to the Tommy Robinsons and Nigel Farages of this world to the point by '22 they were effectively sucking them off on a daily basis [coming close to, thought marginally not-quite at say, Le Pen or Viktor Orbán]. However, there's only a smallish minority of the British people who actually lap up this shit, which is partly why the Conservatives got nuked in the general election last month [worst result for the Tories ever, and let's remember they were founded as a modern party in 1835!] which means we now have a Labour govt [first since 2010], which if nothing else is neither malicious or feels the need to pander to the 'angry bigoted right'. This has hugely fucked off said angry bigots, because nobody is blowing them no more. Farage is gunning to mount a takeover of what's left of the Conservative carcass, so he's hugely shit-stirring [portraying themselves as the 'only real opposition' (5 seats) and all that crap] while said Tories start to line up for a little civil war to whether they resist him or give him the keys.

Like any nation, we have our own clutch of fascist morons, violent hooligans and red-faced angry men who simply hates anything he doesn't understand/isn't him [buying into all the shite you listed above]. But now we have a 'lefty' government, these right-wing fuckwits have decided to mount a challenge to the enfeebled British state [blame the Tories for that] and used the horrific murder of some little girls at a dance party summer event [don't look up details, it's really sad] to in effect, try to start 'da revolution'.

These are the current ratio of forces. We've got 'flying rioters' of perhaps five thousand strong [said clutch above] going about kicking off in town/city centres [presenting a moving target], trying to attack mosques, hotels believed to contain 'immigrants', ethnic businesses and so on being egged on by the likes of Robinson hiding in Cyprus and Farage FUDing. There are perhaps another 50k who are sympathetic to the previous and will turn out to fill the numbers if the flyers turn up in their area [most non-violent/criminal] and then the general assorted dross which likes a riot. Then we've got an associated mix of anti-fascists, minorities and pissed-off locals [normally way outnumbering the fascists] turning up to see them off, and with a weakened and overstretched police attempting to keep the two sides apart and then having to take on the 'flying rioters'. There has been a few instances where the local Asian/Muslim community has gone too far, like in B'ham last night where their youths produced a bit of a disturbance by attacking/threatening some white people [ironically, journalists sent there to cover the situation, so well done you!]

I call it 'sad' because the mass of rioters/protestors have fuck all plan. I've heard some of them online/radio etc and their demands basically are 'Me angry! Things must change! Change! Aaaangry!' [I mean how the fuck can you discuss that?] and the ones who can articulate are quite clearly hankering for a nativist ethnostate [which I guess would be supported by less than 5% of the UK population]. There's been some hangers-on who have constantly whined about that 'their concerns' have not been met, that they are 'disenfranchised' and all that woe is me shit [erm, we had an election a month ago, what more do you want?] Again, a lot of these are already missing not having the Tories sucking them off and assuring them that all those malign feelings and resentment are all correct.

I'm not saying this country isn't a kinda a basketcase right now but these folks barely warrant describing as 'mass riots', let alone anything remotely approaching a 'civil war'. Rapid police responses suggest they've got ears on the fascists Telegram channels etc [though they're really overstretched right now] and most importantly, almost the entire Big Public are not with them. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Karma has the very essence of it! Scream!! (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

they have fuck all plan because the they largely football hooligans who moved onto marching to far right causes since footie hooliganism has been largely shut down. they are looking for a tear up with who ever is in the way or who ever they have been directed at by fucknuts on social media, gb news, or the likes of farage. i dont know if they expected more folk to join them but its at least a good sign that the communities that have been targeted are not welcoming them cunts in. they are literally descending on them from outside to stir shit up rather than any evidence of genuine and wide spread discontent. i suspect theyve been waiting for the opportunity to try and get some sort of violent reaction from muslim communinties that would see clashes between muslims and far right fuckheads flaring up on the regular while farright media can talk up muslim violence. no doubt those stabbings in southport generated the necessary outrage to be hijacked and redirected. ultimately, i think the goal is to make communities fearful of each other if its allowed to carry on for too long, while the thugs on the ground get to have a tearup. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My Spanish wife (who is kept up to date on UK politics by me) suggested that the government should send the rioters to Ruanda. After all, the mechanisms for sending them are all in place - and Ruanda has already been paid to provide accommodation. It would seem like an ideal solution.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Eh, there's always been a far-right/football hooligan overlap, going back to the 70s and the NF. And while yeah, it's right to say [to some extent] 'course there's no plan, they're a bunch of fuckwit hooligans' let's not discount the fact that said hooligans can pose a much more serious threat if there was leadership of actual brain to direct them. What's more while their little attempts of societal arson hasn't taken off today, we cannot ignore the fact that there's a lot of kindling kicking about right which a skilled arsonist could get burning. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘thank you everyone for the explanations! the reasons i inquired about this are because of social media posts (of course) and a conversation i had with my mother the other day. she's a huge fan of the royals, and she's always on top of the latest happenings and gossips. unfortunately, some of the people she follows are right-wing to far-right, so they're no stranger to this nonsense. when i explained to her that it's probably an exaggeration, she insisted that it wasn't. then she said that biden and harris' reckless border policies will turn us to into the uk (which again, isn't something i haven't already heard from wingnuts before). ironically, she is an immigrant herself, and she hates trump. The G (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

no disrespect to my mother or anything, but unfortunately, she's very susceptible to conspiracy theories. conspiracy theorists remind me of aesop's story of the boy who cried wolf. one day, something really bad is going to happen, and no one's going to believe it because they're going to think it's just another hoax. in fact, until fairly recently, i didn't really believe we had a crisis at the southern border for this reason. The G (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, to provide a precis of the potted reply to export to others; 'The British riots are a small band of far-right thugs who are acting at the behest of a man who wants to be 'the British Trump' [Farage] and is being flamed up online by at least some dodgy social media accounts. The 'cause' of the riots did not involve [apparently] either 'a Muslim' or 'an asylum seeker'; what happened within hours shitty rumours got about that it was both [historical analogy; the localised antsemetic pogroms in the C19th - nasty thing + lying rumours over cause = synagogues on fire].'

Anyway, I can appreciate just how shitty social media can be, even if you don't ask for it. Due to a change of RL I now spend a decent few hours a week on trains, which also now has decent free wifi. Result; I often spend it watching YT videos on my phone, and a lot of it is fitness related [imagine meal ideas, workouts etc - I do try to only watch folks who are semi-credible] and quickly it's recommendations started to be crap supplements ads and instructions on how to use PEDs [to be expected], but also Tate / Robinson / Faragist shite - and with every fitness vid I watched, the more right-wing shite was offered.

I know this sounds like 'master of the fucking obvious' here, but it was the first time I'd really built a 'search history' with Google/YT [always before I've incog'd, blocked trackers, never been logged in unless must] and realised how quick it can jump to algorithm predictions - was more surprised that it considered personal fitness as a right-wing activity, though this might have been hastened by me looking at GB News a couple of times [but then again, I also went with The Guardian too]. It's only a subsidiary 'phone account' which has no links with my 'main' one but I hate to imagine how strong this algorithmic manipulation could be if I was a 'normal' person who's let them have full reign over my online life.

The nosy bit of me actually wants to see what else this Google algorithm thinks about me... KarmaPolice (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a way you can disable that, if you disallow Youtube the option of tracking search history. Carthage (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I know that. I also pointed out that I've spent some 15 years avoiding leaving such trails. It's more a tale of a time where due to a combi of stupidity and forgetfulness I got an example of 'the vanilla internet' and was a bit shocked of how it was like. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The British media's coverage of this has been absolutely disgusting. You have one BBC commentator referring to far-right domestic terrorists as "pro-British marchers," and the way that one Labor MP was treated on "Good Morning, Britain!" was absolutely abhorrent. Carthage (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

if you find that abhorrent, you should stay away from gb news or talktv. at least the beeb has acknowledged and responded to the criticism.

it is interesting that these attacks are only taking place in england and loyalist areas of ni. it should also be noted that these attacks attacks are not a spontaneous result of misinformation via social media. the misinformation was/is deliberate and the attacks are organised and coordinated via social media, on telegram and whatsapp.

it should also be noted, and has been already here, that these cunts really are a tiny minority. despite appearances and what some gobshites would have you believe, the uk public actually has some the most positive views on immigration and what immigrants bring to country. this from feb 2023 AMassiveGay (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't call them 'Loyalist parts of NI', those fuckers are only loyal to themselves - they can and do turn on their 'fellow Brits' the moment it suits them. It's pretty much a card they've been playing to hoodwink mainland Brits since the 1880s to rope them into defending their dominance of Ulster. But apart from that aside, Gay's right; these riots are planned and have fuck all to do with the alleged 'cause' [if it was, we'd be seeing mass marches re: 'enough is enough!' knife crime]. I have noticed [I watch GB News so you don't have to] that quite a lot of the rightist media/politicos etc are semi-condoning the riots etc by whatabouting 'two tier policing', peddling the 'two sides' false balance crap and doing some serious damn revisionism regarding the last couple of weeks events. Now, it's no way as serious as the Jan 6th shitty putsch attempt in America, but I am seeing a very similar situation where a lot of folks on the right who should know better giving airtime and a veneer to legitimacy to their batshit claims and grievances - I heard one earlier citing The Troubles to why 'the government' needed to 'come and talk' to the protestors which clearly implies that said protestors had some legitimate grievances [as well as blaming Starmer for 'stirring up division' by taking a fairly robust line against them]. A lot of folks are fairly pissed at the moment - including the utter malign, overpriced incompetence of UKGovs' whole asylum/immigration system - but the vast majority of folks a) are willing to give the new Govt a chance to try fix the thing and b) don't like the rioters' 'ideas' for it one bit. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

stochastic terrorism - i learned a new phrase today AMassiveGay (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What would cause reason to snap?

So I was going through The God Delusion recently, and I read the bit where Dawkins laments the tragedy of Kurt Wise - a guy who studied paleontology at Harvard and pretty much all you need to get out of the loony bin, but nevertheless dumped it all and went right back to creationism because "it was the Word of God". What would cause such an intelligent man to snap like that?

Asking since my OCD has been causing me to have a rather paranoid fear of Hell recently, and I don't want to end up like that poor guy. Meow^Purr 02:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Consider how many people have been sent to Hell on various religious leaders' say-so: and how boring some versions of heaven are (spending all your time praising the lord etc) - hell might well be more interesting. (Perhaps, paraphrasing Pascal's wager 'do little good deeds' (being helpful generally), enjoying the beauty and interesting aspects of the world.Anna Livia (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Dawkins is a bit harsh on calling Wise 'pathetic', I would say he deserves sympathy. Wise was brought up in a fundie cult, and a major part of the cult's programming [well, any cult really] is 'if any evidence appears to contradict the cult in any way, you must dismiss it instantly'. He had it hammered into him as a kid that the Bible was literally true on all points, and he was simply incapable of growing past this. Faced with a crisis of faith which would rock his entire self-image [because the cult is everything], Wise took the 'path of least resistance' - that it was mentally easier to ignore scientific evidence and logic than abandon YEC [if nothing else, he preserved his mental/intellectual status quo]. He didn't 'snap', more the fact that his studies in palaeontology and geology caused a theological door to metaphorically open, and discovering the door led into a seemingly dark, windy and wet place - he calmly shut the door and went back to the comfy fire of his youth - Biblical literalism.

In some ways, Wise could be considered a victim of cult brainwashing. He is quite literally practising crimestop to avoid internal conflicts. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Poor guy. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As touched upon already by KarmaPolice, religious belief can be an incredible source of comfort for a person in an intimidating and complex world; for people who were raised in a faith-heavy environment, the effects provided by such belief can be even more appealing and stronger.

If you were taught and believed that 'x' is true for many years of your life, with 'x' being some fundamental belief which you base other beliefs off of, but then encounter something that appears to directly contradict or disprove 'x', outright denial to preserve mental sanity can be a response. The book Nighfall by Isaac Asimov is a fascinating read with the concept in the plotline; to give a spoiler, everyone goes crazy in the end. Impiricism (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For me it seems to be flipped - I have always firmly believed in science and reason. It is the fundamentalist belief that disturbs me; it does not disprove reason at all but simply disturbs with scary innuendo. I used to have the ability to laugh at this innuendo and see it as comical; that is what I want back. Meow^Purr 01:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a movie about this question called 'Lovely, Dark, and Deep' and I don't think it is phony. I really think it is a good question. The spoiler question is, if we got there, and it was hell, would we go Back? And if we got a second chance to answer the question, would we answer the same way? Torrent (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Calling Trump weird is a stroke of genius imo

Hey everyone. As you habe probably heard, the new fashion is to just call Trump "weird" and it seems to hit very deeply with plenty of commentators and the Orange man himself reacting less than stellar. I have a theory to why that is and why I think that this strategy is a stroke of genius. As I have mentioned before, I am a big fan of "The Authoritarians" by psychologist Robert Altermeyer, a summary of 30 years of study of "Right-Wing Autoritarian followers". The book summarizes some of the most common characteristics and tendecies in "Right-wing" (Using the Old meaning "close to the law", not the modern political meaning) authoritarians. On a scale, RWA-followers have higher degrees of submissiveness to authority, higher aggression and most importantly here, higher degrees of conventionalism. RWA-followers that score high on the scale basically just want to be part of a mass and their views to be socially accepted. They also have reduced cognitive abilities, self-confidence and are very conformist. Some of the studies Altmeyer has done show for instance that RWA-followers tend to adapt to whatever the majority says to a certain degree. This means also for instance, that while high RWA-followers tend to be more racist and prejudiced than people that score low on the scale, they also tend to dislike overt shows of racism since this is frowned upon by most of society (therefore dog whistles are used). Of course this has changed a bit with the MAGA crowd getting such traction since it makes them feel like their views are acceptable, first because of the bubble and secondly because an authority figure says it is okay. High RWA-followers also have a special relationship with "Social Dominators". "Social Dominators" are what Altmeyer consideres to be "Authoritarian leaders", a charactertype presented in the book that is strongly defined by a desire for power over everything else, especially other people. RWA Followers and Social Dominators score similarly on the RWA scale, except that social dominators lack the reduced cognitive abilities and irrationalism as well as the elevated desire to be conformist. Maybe you see where this is going: When people attack Trump and insult him, the RWA-followers see it as a badge of honor, when Trump is attacked and insulted, they feel that he must be doing something right, they even feel vindicated and their bubble tells them the same thing. It also says that their "enemies" are offended, that they are hurt, that they are scared. Their enemy takes them and their leader seriously. By just saying he is weird, this severely undermines Trump as well as his followers. It is basically a different version of "OK Boomer". Trump gets offended because he is not being taken seriously and his followers get offended for the same reason. Their enemies are not taking their leader seriously, meaning they themselves are not taken seriously. It is the dismissiveness of it that they can't stand and it's absolutely hilarious. In the long run, this might even have an effect on the RWA-followers since they want to be socially accepted. I imagine it as a MAGA boomer talking down to a teenager with inflated self-importance, thinking whatever they are saying is super important and the teenager just going "Whatever, weirdo". It's also not as easy to counter as an insult, where people can hold their nose high and think that they are better than their opposite. Anyway, those are my armchair psychologist 2 cents. What do you think about the "weirdness" angle ? Cheers NastyNugget (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought and I agree with you. But political insults have a tendency to be adopted by the people they are meant to insult. I would be prepared to bet that in a couple of months we will see badges saying "I'm weird and proud of it!".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

'The Iron Lady' being one example. Anna Livia (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's more polite than calling them sociopaths or control freaks. It's also a step away from me having to call the Democratic party cowards, so that's something. I think they've stumbled ito a slogan, they don't know whether to say 'we are not going back' or 'we aren't going back'. 100 the latter, it's completely American English and way easier to chant. 'ra ra sis boom ba' Torrent (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2024

The psychology of his followers is less important than the ideas they follow. How about you start calling them racists? The far-right is openly racist.

Beyond psychology, the ideas of the far-right are to kick out foreigners (immigrants without papers, but also other groups). Trump could be proposing to establish slavery for all, tax the poor, and remove elections, and they would still vote for him.

Dismissing them seems like normal, but why focus on "weird"? Weird, racist, fascist, xenophobic, psychophobic, transphobic, disgusting, or annoying are all accurate descriptions. New world (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

But a catchall is the language of dogwhistles. Yes, we have seen the mask off of the ethno christo whites first state that is 'totally' not a neo Nazi project. Not everyone backing it knows how weird it is. It is antithetical to a lot of concepts of representative democracy. The first question to introduce to someone being pulled into a cult is 'don't you think it's a little weird?'Torrent (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Weird is good, but this "talk to them calmly", they "aren't all racists", they are just "anti-conformist" (which is probably also common in the USA) is the wrong manner to counter them. The far-right's electoral base is racist and dangerous, just as the far-rights leaders are secretly. New world (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@New world. I do call them all of that but that is beside the point. The point is that for the RWA-followers themselves, probably even more so for the SDs, insults might feel empowering since they can get a rise out of their enemy and feel like they "owned the libs". They can feel like they are doing something right because people are "offensive", they are not "racists", they are "race realists", many of them having been conditioned to think that someone calling them "racist" identifies as a leftist and is just using a slur. It is also important to call the movement and the leaders racists, but there can be more strategies employed than one. When you call them weird, it's strangely neutral, it's dismissive but not in a hostile way, more like in a way someone would dismiss a child. You wouldn't insult a child since they clearly don't know any better. And the victim card also becomes harder to play since it's not an "offensive" word. Calling them insults will empower them in their thinking that someone is out to get them whereas calling them weird is more like they are not allowed at the adult table. Seeing professional commentators flabberghasting over it can be demasking. The goal of calling them weird is to weaken their less extreme elements, cost them votes and maybe make the less extreme elements think about whether their leader truly is a bit weird, it's not there to convert Nazis obviously. You said that they will vote their leader no matter what: That is actually part of the submissiveness. High RWA-followes forgive their authority figure pretty much anything as long as he makes their important points publicly acceptable or reinforces their opinions. So he might be Donald Trump, but he still says what they want to hear about Christianity and gives them a lilttle bit of power so they give him a pass. However, the authority figure must be able to legitimize his authority. Being taken seriously and being insulted by the out-group gives him legitimacy in the eyes of his followers. When the majority of the populace just goes "Eh, whatever weirdo", it signals that people just don't care, that he is basically not relevant, not an authority. His movement stands and falls with the "moderate" MAGAs, not with the extremist ones, I think that the most extremist ones and especially the grifters, are to a considerate part SDs anway. NastyNugget (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Still, this can turn out the wrong way. What if they feel ignored, precisely? What if they feel that their needs are left behind? This also is similar to ignoring the danger they represent. Good luck though, hopefully this works for the democrats. New world (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Secret? Not recently. At least, it's extremely obvious what Republicans who use terms like "DEI president" for Kamala Harris really mean. Such is far less subtle then terms of the past, like "welfare queen".

"Weird" apparently is Tim Walz's term and such fits with the Minnesota nice style of passive-aggressive. :) But it does tend to be the populist right media that loves to raise holy hell on anything artistically "weird" (think of their recent uproar with the Olympics opening ceremony). However, a lot of the right-leaning fringe hate groups and whatnot are far from "ordinary" in their behavior (think of the extremely weird shit of 4chan or the weird shit of the Proud Boys or the extremely odd, dumb, and excessively lengthy garbage in the neoreactionary movement). In practice, "weirdness" matters little to me personally. And it's easy to see this insult as part of a strategy of positioning Walz as the Ordinary Dad You Want to Have a Beer With (in contrast with the creepy behavior of Donald Trump and JD Vance). But hey, turnabout is fair play. BobJohnson (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting analysis, but it could use some line breaks. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the use of "weird" is effective. Walz is appreciated because he represents the common man who has risen in public esteem through hard work and ingenuity in a traditional sense. The word itself is no special denotating term. But neither are the many ill-fitting general adjectives such as "racist," "sexist," "misogynist," etc. These words have been over-exposed in media to the point that they have lost some of their usefulness. Yes, most Trump voters are almost all of those things. But I am willing to believe that all of them are weird. Also, it may be the case that because the other words are typically academic terms, they could be less generally effective than the more commonplace "weird." We all know what is meant by the word: creepy. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, calling them racists didn't work in 2016. Moderates thought that was hyperbolic, and a lot of Trump supporters cheerfully agreed with the label. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Paragraphs: what's that? Carthage (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

'Donald Trump is a weird old man'. I wouldn't have anyone official punt this line, but if you can get it into enough of the Big Public's heads, it might just work. After all, all three are true; he is weird, is old and is a man. And like Biden, I think Trump has gotten 'weirder' since 2020 which might make some folks think there's other reasons for this. The Trump campaign was planning to use age and fitness [esp accusations of senility] in the battle against Biden - now Harris could [and should] easily use that blade on the Orange One, the oldest Pres candidate ever. Plus, needling him a bit might also have the added bonus of making him blow up and act more weird than usual. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Gotta call bs here KP, Trump, like most of his followers, has always been weird; while Biden has only gotten old. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the key to the 'weird' labeling was to reach the relatively narrow group of people who thought something like, "I don't like things now, maybe give that other guy a try. Maybe he doesn't mean what he says. Or, maybe he's changed since the last time he fucked up." 'Weird' encapsulates all the creepy and damaging stuff that they support into something that average Joes/Josephines don't want to be: weird. This election is about winning over a rather narrow group of undecided voters in a few swing states. Bongolian (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think one reason why MAGA reacts strongly to being called weird is that it undermines a key plank of their worldview, which is that they are the silent majority representing true American values, so when push comes to shove the average American will side with Trump instead of the "loony left."-Flandres (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Bongolian is getting at what I was thinking of. Trump's base will either ignore it or cause them to 'rally around' the Orange One with even more fervour, but who fucking cares? They're the base; there's an approx 0% chance they'd be swayed by anything so there's not any point attempting to appeal to them [I mean, they've impervious to the truth for starters]. As they point out, this election is going to be decided by a relatively small % of the electorate and part of the reason Biden was shunted aside was because some of this demographic turned against him due to increasingly obvious decrepitude [I personally said 'enough is enough' around the D-Day celebrations where a) appeared to be shuffling around a la Professor Farnsworth and b) he told us the conversations with dead people - I mean, it was probably just a slip but who can be 100% he didn't think he was talking to Helmut Kohl?]. It's a bit of a low blow [which is why I don't think official folks should push it much] but it's a way to insinuate that Old Man Donald is senile without outright saying it - though the amount of times he goes into 'Grandpa Simpson Rambling Monologues' during his safe-space rallies I honestly don't think it's that much of a push either - half of voters have expressed 'concerns over his age' and all Harris needs to do on this front is to appear less than 78 years old and sane. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The response has been to harp on that one time, in the Military, Tim Walz had to drink horse semen as part of his hazing. It's also unclear whether he intentionally drank it or it was a vile prank. But, it's not really the most important thing, because I'd rather look at Walz's record.

Also, like the couch story, the horse semen story was completely made up.

Which is unfair, IMHO. Because it sends the worst message to would-be politicians;

Don't bother being faithful to your spouse, upright, honest in your business dealings, etc. Because even if you do everything right, we will make up a fake story, and everyone will believe it before you have time to discredit it. And you'll still be ridiculed for something you didn't do. So when choosing to do the Right Thing, don't bother, because the public won't care, be as vile as Trump because we'll pretend you were anyway. CorruptUser 14:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

At present, I don't seem to sense that the "Swift Boat V2" attempts are "sticking" very well (though maybe they are pissing off some veterans who know the attacks are bullshit). It seems like part of the Harris / Walz strategy is to try and run a more "upbeat" campaign Barack Obama style. The conventional narrative has been that in American politics, upbeat / hopeful tends to win over gloom, and Trump's gloomy declinism babbles *really* stand out in contrast in this campaign, compared to Obama's more "normal", less "weird" opponents. The people who believe every nasty rumor mill bullshit meme already are voting for the rumor mill paradigm they want to believe -- that's not who anyone should target. BobJohnson (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who actually went to public school knows a crybully. JD Vance will call a juvenile 'couch ticket' joke evil, Tim Walz will shrug off any dorky insult because that's what public education teaches you to do. I have been called out and called names and really accurately parodied here, it's fine. If you walked in a room and heard people you work with talking shit about you, what stance would you take? Relax a little bit, people will find reasons to make fun of you. When the stakes are as high as the highest executive office of one of the world's largest powers, let's let that dog loose a little bit. Tim Walz coached linebackers. If you're not aware of high school linebackers, they are not professional linebackers. I will say, social studies is a bunk ass class that it so important for high school. It's always the sports coaches who teach them, but to take current events and apply it to what the students are experiencing, very cool. We had a gay straight alliance at my school, I never joined but I was never against it. I was voted most likely to be president my senior class, probably because of my success in student congress and journalism. Of the other candidates, I was approached by one who said 'I am way more likely to be president that you'. I laughed and said 'Probably, but I think this is more of a popularity contest'. This is a man who looks at how we can affect the present, and will not be unfortunately stunted by conservatism at large. I dated a girl from West Point for a bit, can confirm, it is a small ruby red town. Tim Walz is my kinda politician. The red baby that used his brain enough to live it and become progressive. Torrent (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m still undecided on the usefulness of the “weird” attack angle. Yes, it’s decent rhetoric, broad enough to encompass the wide range of extremists and conspiracies among the MAGA hats, but it may be a short-lived fad because it’s also quite vague and it’s unclear if it’ll last until November.

I think it’s a slogan that needs to be used carefully and mainly as a reaction to when Trump and his MAGA hats do or say the kind of batshit stuff that will turn off anyone not already firmly wedded to their political cult. It may be particularly useful right now, though, because Trump is in one of his “brainstorming at the stage” phases.

Trump’s well rehearsed anti Biden stuff needs to be switched out and he clearly hasn’t got anything in his repertoire that is similar tailored to hit Harris. Hence, he’s in his “test things on his audience” phase right now. As a stand up comedian once pointed out, Trump works very much like one of them: He tries out various slogans, lines and monologues and gauges the audiences’ reactions at his various rallies. The material that produces the kind of reactions he wants then becomes part of his spiel at subsequent events.

However, it also means that Trump is likely to say a lot of “new” crazy stuff over the next month or so while he works on his new attack lines against Harris and this means an opening to slap the “weird” label on it. A case in point was Trump’s bizarre claim that Harris “had suddenly become black” instead of Indian (and in front of a gathering of black journalists, no less), which probably came off as quite “weird” to anyone outside of the MAGA bubble. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

it's not the same use of the word as if I said you are being weird about it. But.... Torrent (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

oh if you are waiting, you are also kinda being weird. It doesn't matter what Trump says anymore. Torrent (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

A meme that concerns me

I've been seeing the same meme circulating on social media for years now, and something about it always... bothered me, in a way that I couldn't really describe until now. The meme goes something like this:

"Girls: Make out

Society: They are just friends

Boys: Brush past each other

Society: GAYYYYYYY!"

The point of the meme seems to be that there's some sort of social pressure against the very concept of heterosexual male relationships (as in, any interaction between men must be "queer-coded" somehow, regardless of the men's actual sexual orientations), while also going to the opposite extreme for female relationships and downplaying or dismissing any indications of lesbianism. Is there any actual truth to this, or is it just vibes? Because I feel like I'm being gaslighted by these types of memes. Lizardcreator (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-LtMpDw9B0 so what is respect and what is satire? Torrent (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

After sleeping it over, I realize that I may be overanalyzing this. At the same time, though, I'm worried about this meme becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lizardcreator (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

In 'traditional' British culture, there is this double-standard [though making out would cross that line, regardless of gender]. Women are allowed to hug, be 'touchy' and so on while guys have to be some kind of emotional and physical island in which there's only a tiny list of exceptions to breach this divide [I suspect even now most British males have only hugged romantic partners or where one of the parties were a small child]. Stephen Fry wrote about this in his autobiography, where his last term at prep school almost became unbearable because he got ostracised by the other boys for 'gayness'. His crime? For helping another boy out of the swimming pool when they got cramp and massaging the leg.

Yes, 'helping another human being in trouble' counted as 'gayness' in the world of the 1960s schoolboy. And a lot of folks don't grow up. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Men have gender stereotypes too. And one of those gender stereotypes (in the Anglosphere at least) is that men cannot display emotion and must be stoic (though anger is allowed in many circles) - the "boys don't cry" sort of thing. Does this sort of emotional closing-up affect men's ability to make friends? Probably, though the topic seems understudied. So, yeah, I don't think that meme is a "gaslight". BobJohnson (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There's been talk for a long time that 'traditional male stoicism' has been a cramp in dealing with health issues [esp mental health]. This was one of the ideas behind the 'men's shed' movement; that putting a bunch of [often older] guys in an activity-based third place in which they [amongst other things] might be able to 'drop the mask' a bit while tinkering with a lawnmower or sanding down some new batons for a chair. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There may be simple explanations for human behavior, in the moment, when special circumstances come to bear. When I was a boy, some people thought I must be gay because of my behavior and their own conformist expectations. Males are capable of considerably higher levels of violence. As the saying goes, "when I lay hands on a man, I leaves evidence of it." Sexual advances can be interpreted as dominance displays. If you have not noticed by this time, male primates can become lethal when drawn into a dominance contest. Females, not so much: "isn't that cute?" and a smile is an apt affect when broken bones are not imminent. UncleKrampus (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Humans also display much less sexual dimorphism than other primate species, so you should not extend this analogy too far. In fact, there are some indicators that in some circumstances, women are capable of more aggression than men. So we should not assume that capacity for domination is purely biologically innate, and not influenced by social mediation and other environmental factors. Carthage (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any man who knows his asshole from his elbow really thinks in terms of gay is wrong. Gay was a derogatory term all while I was growing up. If my brother called me gay, it was a fistfight. If I called him fat it was a fistfight. He is not fat and I am not gay. Maybe I'm a little gay, vogue in the mirror, but I know myself. I am not worried about what people call me. Gay as a derogatory term is so silly, and I think it is well treated as such. Torrent (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thought Experiment: Christianity vs. American Christianity

This is a bit of a question I seem to have about the current state of the US and the far right compared to Europe. How Americanized and altered is American Christianity from the myriad of Christianity variants found across the pond in Europe? And any examples of differences that can be found in their usual behavior, daily lives, and Internet activity? (For reference, What I'm labeling as "American Christianity" is the decentralized and mostly Protestant cocktail of beliefs and ideals that currently billows out from the GOP, their countless supporters, and US-based creationists.) TheEternalOutsider (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Local Evangelicals for what I have seen share with them the persecution complex, Biblical literalism with all that entails, to be anti-vaxxers/believers in NWO conspiracies, support of Israel (often asinine), to be pro-life, contempt for LGTBQ people, the same cliches (Christianity is not a religion but a relationship instead, etc), and they're right wing sometimes accepting it. They, however, accept climate change to be real and support the welfare state and to help the poor (probably justified given most of their people are Roma or migrants) even if often seems they'd prefer to be in charge.Panzerfaust (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

From a British POV, there's still a divide between fundie Christianity and our right-wing parties [both Conservative and Reform]. This isn't due to any particular nobility or whatever from said parties [they're both xenophobic, anti-'woke' and Islamaphobic] it's simply that fundie Christianity is just a pretty small % of the population and thus don't really feature much in any electoral calculus. Plus, a lot more of cultists are black but on the other hand Conservatives are a lot less racialised than the Republicans are [so more of them as a % will vote Tory].

With only anecdotal evidence to hand, I am going to proffer the theory that the main cramps is a) if churches 'get political' they lose their charitable status, b) there's not enough of them to warrant that many dedicated media outlets to cater - for example TBN UK only gets 0.02% viewer share (GB News is at 0.18) and as of the last time I saw it, apart from a couple 'lifestream quality' UK church services and a single 'chat show' it's all simply American imports recycled [keeping costs to a minimum, because a TV station can't survive on 1-6k viewers]. Oh, and c) regulations stop them peddling outright shite; the 'Fox News' model simply won't work here. Point is; it means they're harder to mould into a political group, partly due to the simple fact it's harder to silo them societally. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

American Christianity comes in numerous flavors because there is no central organization that can say, "this is orthodox and this is heretical" then force everyone to follow what has just been said. Blanket descriptions meant to encompass all American Christians are not helpful.

Conservative Christians are just heads crowned with blasphemous names on the grand old beast. Their theology is the republican platform, the republican platform is shaped by their theology. Obviously they are going to have some differences with Christians abroad because they are puppets for an intensely American movement. (It's stuff like this that makes Francis cry for the American Catholics at night.)

Liberal or left-leaning Christians are members of glorified social clubs. I've met a few who passionately try to argue things like "Trump is the spirit of the Antichrist, Jesus would vote for Harris," but these have made a negligible impression on popular culture compared to your Moral Majority types, at least nowadays. (Lefty Christians were way more important in the past compared to now.) Most Liberal mainline protestants I've met think religion is private and "private" in practice borders on invisible.

Minority groups tend hug their traditions tightly for reasons that should be obvious. Their Christianity can get pretty conservative but they don't get politically aggressive about it compared to the average republican Baptist.-Flandres (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The continent of Europe is as big as the US and, I would suggest, far more varied. What with lots of countries with different languages, histories and whatever. My impression is that (in general) the further east you go the more religious it gets. I live in the north of Spain (towards the east of the continent) and it would be difficult to imagine a more secular place. Churches are empty and being closed down and all the clergy are past retirement age because nobody wants to sign up for that bizarre life. That said, the south of Spain is said to be a lot more religious - at least as far as processions and such like are concerned.

Unfortunately, Spain does have its own bunch of nutty bunch of right-wing, climate-change-denying, immigrant-blaming, gay-hating bigots. That's a party called VOX. And - what a surprise - they are big supporters of the Catholic Church!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

In regards to conservative parties, the major one here tried to get Evangelical (a minority) votes allying with a particularly insane Evangelical pastor not long ago. It went as well as one could expect and they ended up acting as if that had not happened. Panzerfaust (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's possible to read too much into 'religious processions' and similar; after all a lot of those have been done so damn long they've become 'traditions' in their own right. Plus, if it's a particularly famous saint or something, they might basically be 'doing it for the tourists'. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure that there will be a big part of cultural Christianity involved. But I would be most surprised if they were 'doing it for the tourists'.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Cultural Catholicism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christians) is a thing in Spain, and in what refers to priests they're having to bring them from Africa and South America given that very few people want to become one. And in what refers to Evangelicals they seem to be targeting mostly other migrants as they generally are, leaving the locals alone (supposedly Spain is a place where most of their missions have failed). Panzerfaust (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

When you take into account first nations communities, then the US becomes even more diverse than Europe. The only reason the US is less diverse than Europe is because that diversity was more or less wiped out through colonization. Carthage (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There was a thing in the US where shifting from evangelical to catholic was christo-punk, but I mean, come on. Leave a religion with your chest. Torrent (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Does anyone still listen to him? When I was a kid my dad had a book by him, but that was a decade ago. Carthage (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Now there's a guy I haven't thought of in many years. My dad is a lifelong Republican, but he was much more of a Rush Limbaugh fan. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

He's still on medium wave in these parts, so I suppose at least a few people listen to him. Last time I tuned by, it was the same old weirdo conspiracy fearmongering crap, with obligatory gold bug and penis pill commercials sandwiched in. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Primo Fox News hosts seem to have a much diminished lifespan after the Murdoch gig is up. Bill O'Reilly for instance is still around, but on a much diminished scale, yapping on some low-visibility network called "The First TV" that is quite literally at the bottom of streaming service PlutoTV's "News and Opinion" service category. (Even Glenn Beck's "Blaze" gets slightly higher billing on there.) BobJohnson (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

MW still exists? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure that MW is a part of AM broadcasting, so yeah. Kencolt (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I know a few LW stations are still kicking about, but I've not seen a radio with MW facilities for about 25 years. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

New conspiracy theory

Alex Jones was the Sandy Hook shooter, courtesy of one Alex Jones. Carthage (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not that new. The article is about two years old. And anyway, it's no more accurate a claim than anything else proceeding from the mouth of Alex Jones. Kencolt (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Do Ronald Reagan and George W Bush deserve respect with how the modern Republican party is?

I don't see why this troll collapse is necessary. I strongly disagree with the premise of what's being asked in this section, and I think it's poorly reasoned, but I fail to see how this user is trolling. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So, they're archived now, but this post came as part of a series of dumbass troll questions (like "should we respect cryptozoology" and "is Trump the GOAT?".) Carthage (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Transphobe arguments amount to "I said so"

If you dissect transphobic arguments they amount to mere assertion. --Trans Fem Agenda 16:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your statement is an assertion as well. CorruptUser 02:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Trans phobe arguments amount to shifting goalposts to say 'it's not real, but it is real, but it matters to me.' In real time, every time. tFA, I've seen, listened to, fucked off an EMS idea (sorry), and have never stopped caring about. That's what I'll assert. Torrent (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Name one argument used by transphobes that hasn't been refuted to death. Carthage (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Eh, the "sports" and "bathroom" questions I view as legitimate (even if the later is more a "social mores and customs" sort of thing). Transphobes seriously overblow these issues, though; the former may have some contentions, but the later is solvable (honestly, the "inclusive" restroom designs I've seen IMHO are better, anyways :p ). And even with the former, the conspiratorial hysterics dilute their own cause these days by screaming that everyone on the planet is trans for some reason. BobJohnson (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Carthage

An argument I see a lot is "the majority of trans-youth grow out of it". Not sure how that one has been debunked.CorruptUser 17:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Where did you find this claim? Carthage (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The anti-trans collective actually says this all the time. It's one of their big arguments in favor of banning gender-affirming care for the youth. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Similar is said about you being 'left-wing'... KarmaPolice (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a myth based on ancient Kenneth Zucker studies from the 1980s and 1990s. The majority of kids in these studies were gender-non-conforming cis kids (mostly "effeminate" boys) rather than trans kids. They "grew out of it" after being subjected to a regimen of psychological abuse (aka conversion therapy), or they dropped out of the study and no follow-up was ever done. Burnt Toast (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Back then, diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria were also looser (in at least one key way), which was something Zucker helped oversee the reform of in DSM, apparently completed in 2013 (also saw the renaming of "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria"). But you had outdated conceptualizations, that were leftover from antiquated practices (not least promoted by John Money and Richard Green) suggesting gender nonconformity could be either a kind of (malleable in early life, they thought) "prehomosexuality" or a "pretranssexuality" (concepts that were played fast-and-loose with, often also conflated it seems so they could call it one or the other if they felt like). Zucker seems to have thought the problem with anti-gay conversion therapy, which tried to stamp out this same gender nonconformity, was that it didn't work (and he doesn't seem to have been much for ethical arguments about it). However he was still using some of the leftover schema, or clearly at least quite influenced by it, which conflated any gender nonconformity in children with, simultaneously or alternately, being "pre-gay" or "pre-trans". So when he went to essentially stamp out what he considered "pre-transsexuality" in kids by making them conform to their assigned sex/gender role, the identification of them as "pre-trans" by mere fact of gender nonconformity was really just trying to stamp out gender nonconforming expression in many cisgender gay/bi kids; they present this as a success with stamping out transsexuality but it doesn't seem to follow, in many cases. Even if it did, there are ethical questions about conversion therapy unrelated to whether it works or not. And yeah they didn't just "grow out of it" or get "left alone", they were actively subjected to "treatment" that pressured them not to play with toys from the "wrong gender" or that kind of thing. Side note, but recently I saw this from APA which suggests anti-gay conversion therapy and anti-trans conversion therapy are even more historically linked than I thought. Chillpilled (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

'Because I said so' is a thought/conversation terminating cliche. It's very common in most dicussions - normally wheeled out when the opposing party is vaguely aware that their stance has no reasonable logical foundation and/or has run out of talking-points. Or in the case of my parents, simply to shut you up.

I think 'it's just a phase' [or more correctly, could be a phase] does make a bit of common sense, because the teenage years is the period of having a very fragile self-image and is currently in flux. Are there adults now who 'knew 100%' at ~14 they were trans/gay/whatever? Yes. But not everybody did. Sometimes, a teen's mental processes are so fucked-up that they know something is 'different' but need to work out what one(s) that is. It's why I think LGBT counselling should be a first port of call [in this case, I support the bunching of all of us together, because if they know all the colours of the rainbow they can help the teen work out who they are].

But in some 90% of the time, 'it's just a phase' is another cliche, reading 'I don't have do bother doing anything about this'. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you declare yourself to be "trans" without demonstrating any sort of identifying sensory affect, then you will indeed be engaging in a self i.d. that is exactly the claim " I said so." It would be idle to suppose society to be able to interpret such a claim without additional information; consequently they adopt stereotypes assumed to be transphobic. Alas, most of us are indifferent to such claims, and even that indifference is disturbing to many people.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

so what you're saying is, not knowing is half the battle. And I think that's correct in a roundabout senzse. Not caring or engaging with far right nonsense, recognizing it enough to blow it off, is actually a form of literacy. Saying my bullshit detector has gone off, therefore the rest of the argument is a waste of time is a valid way to deal with a massive amount of information and arguments that aren't worth engagement. Do I know the ins and outs of transphobia? No, because why would I? I know transphobes say shit like 'There's no such thing as a chick with a dick' just out of nowhere because they are thinking about it a lot more than I ever would. But when I hear that, it's obvious that 'oh boy, somebody is thinking about dicks way more than makes sense' and not caring is a normal reaction. Torrent (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Young Earth movie out: The Ark and the Darkness

I watched it and was stuck between laughing my as off and being so mad. Awesome scene of a T-Rex being overtaken by the flood, totally not explained but I am getting ahead of myself. This movie is visually... ok, it might be too easy now. The soundtrack goes fucking nuts. The apologism is on full display. They ask so many legitimate questions and only answer from the perspective of already believing the story must be true. You wanna know why we can't find the garden of Eden? Because God flooded the world you dipshit. You wanna know where the water came from? Mars flooded says everybody in science, it was an undersea fountain and the firmament, you dipshit. Insects and birds and fish and sea mammals wouldn't need to live on an ark for 140 days of a global flood, you dipshit, duhdoi, God said he was going to kill EVERYTHING, but not fish and dolphins and... Insects? Because insects don't have lungs (which I accept as true but...)? Anyway, how about we stop fucking around and talk about how Noah could have taken BABY elephants and lived to 900 years like truly rational historians and understand ers of sciences.

I don't like to FEEL as many emotions as this movie forced me to. All at once sometimes. I guess in this sense, it was true cinema? Torrent (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Holy crap there is a t-rex being swallowed up by water as an Ark floats in the background! It's on the movie cover! Impiricism (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

From the IMDB Storyline: "Join our team of scientists from Answers in Genesis and Liberty University as we reveal the truth about Noah's Flood." AiG / LibertyU "scientists"... that's a good joke, film. Worth a nice chuckle.

At least IMDB correctly labeled the film genre as a "fantasy". BobJohnson (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I had not seen the imdb, but it is true and counting the genre as fantasy is so funny. Torrent (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Peter Gleick is in full troll mode on tRump.

Climate scientist Peter Gleick (of Denialgate fame within RationalWiki) is going full troll-mode on the orange ogre.[4] Sample troll: "Trump just had a rally at the Thomas Wolf Auditorium in Asheville, NC, with 2400 seats. Lol. I gave a keynote address three days ago on the future of water to an audience of 2500. Just saying..." Bongolian (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Prisoners Dilemma and case against National Funding

Consider the following scenarios.

In each case, a thief steals $100 a dozen times a day. 1) Every time the thief steals $100 from me, he buys something from my store 2) Every time the thief steals $100 from my local community, he buys something from my store 3) Every time the thief steals $100 from my state, he buys something from my store

From a moral perspective, I should dislike the thief in all 3 scenarios. From a more sociopathic perspective, in the first scenario I lose a lot of money every time this happens, in the second scenario the harm done to me from having a slightly worse community is offset by me making a sale, and in the third scenario the harm done to me specifically is so minor that I massively benefit from my friend coming back to my store constantly.

So this has several implications.

The first being that the size of the neighborhood itself will determine whether that community will want the thief executed. In the small community, the addition of a single thief adds so much misery to the community as a whole that everyone is calling for blood. In a community the size of a city, a single thief is such a minor inconvenience on average that the thief's friends will be much more vocal in supporting him than the calls for the thief's imprisonment. So, naturally, one should expect that cities will be "softer" on crime whereas small communities might bemoan the phase-out of public execution.

But from the title, that's not where I'm going with this.

Instead of the thief simply stealing the money, imagine instead it's Waste/Fraud/Abuse. If a contractor is fixing my home but charges me $10k extra because he needed to give his worthless nephew a job, I'm going to be livid even if some of that money does come back to me. But if that incompetent worker happens to be paid by the Federal government, and spending money at my store, I have every incentive to make sure he keeps that job.

So this leads to a problem. It's in every community's interest to bloat any service that the federal government funds. For this reason, I'd advocate that any service that can be provided at the local level, should be, because the locals have far more interest in preventing W/F/A if it's their tax dollars instead of from the national coffers. That doesn't mean the Fed shouldn't have some say in how those services are provided, just how they are funded.

Thoughts? CorruptUser 18:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The analogy made is a bit of stretch and overly complex I think. Why would you *not* be upset if a government contractor was wasting/defrauding/abusing his position? It’s a breach of public trust, not to mention that ultimately some of the money they are getting paid is your money or that of your friends and neighbors. It sounds like the argument you are really trying to make is that local officials are more accountable with money than federal officials, but that’s far from being even generally true now isn't it? Impiricism (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(EC) Wait! "...will determine whether that community will want the thief executed". Executed?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Impiricism As an individual, I'd be upset. But I've also dealt with government bureaucracy, even working for one, and they are absolutely designed to soak up as much money as possible regardless of actual need. Because bringing money into the community is their goal, with "actually helping people" being an occasional bonus. CorruptUser 19:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bob We used to execute thieves in the US. The smaller the community, the more "tough on crime" they are, and I think there's a logical reason for that beyond "they are just a bunch of backwater yokels". CorruptUser 19:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But not now. It's an absurd example.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You know I think there's a world of difference between someone stealing an apple from a grocery store because they're starving and lost their job and someone committing home burglary. Carthage (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've seen people shoplift valuable stuff they can sell, but never an apple. CorruptUser 20:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, would you punish wage thieves the same way you would punish shoplifters? Carthage (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That's Whataboutery, but I'll bite.

Depending on the case, yes, some employers do belong in prison for that. But most of the time, Wage theft and Shoplifting are not even remotely comparable crimes. CorruptUser 20:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You're right. Shoplifting was found to only make up 37% of shrink in a 2022 report, whereas wage theft steals billions from American workers every year, at "significant expense to taxpayers and state economies." Carthage (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your cite also gave another 1/3 of shrinkage being from regular forms of theft, and total shrink being $100b or so. 37% is $37b a year from just ONE form of crime, compared to what appears to be $15b in wage theft each year.

As for wage theft, it also depends on what kind of wage theft we are talking about. Are we talking about hiring a contractor, agreeing on $8k, and claiming some BS reason as to not pay the full $8k? That's what the courts are for. Are we talking about a movie studio hiring non-union labor, forming a shell company, declaring bankruptcy the moment the movie is finished, refusing to give the workers their paychecks and telling them to go pound sand? It's a legal mess when it comes to bankruptcy, and there really should be some jail time for the more egragious cases. Are we talking about a company hiring illegal immigrants and then reducing their paychecks knowing they can't complain to the labor board? That should not only result in jail time for theft, but also large financial penalties for hiring illegal labor, but the immigrants also should be deported which is why it continues. It's ugly all around. CorruptUser 00:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, 'take me to court' method is a primary way that The Orange 'makes money'. Get contractor to do work, stiff the bill, drag lawsuit as far as you can so it gets to the point the legal bill is higher than the amount of money lost from the stiffed bill It's partly the reason the business community in general and the ones in NYC specially hates his fucking guts and won't do business with him no more [Do you know how Trump pays these legal bills? He stiffs them too!] The amount of times I see in the likes of say, 'Ask A Manager' the response being 'yeah, it's unethical, perhaps illegal and clearly unfair but unless you can prove it in a court of law and are willing to throw loads of cash at it, give it up and move on'.

Anyway, go and read Wage Theft. It's fairly self-explanatory. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Cool story bro, but honestly it's pretty easy to find stories local government scandals (in addition to corruption of all flavors, because default human is greedy asshole). So I don't think the story matches up. Most corruption is not as "straightforward" per se as simply stealing $100 from someone's pocket anyways; taking your example, the goal of the corrupt asshole is to take that $10K from your contractor project for his useless nepotism hire without you even knowing why. BobJohnson (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts is that yes, this is what the world needs, MORE Regionalism. Lets divide it all in the house level by that An-cap ass logic. Revolverman (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You know that's how the Zapista's operate, right? Virtually everything is local. Same goes for Anarcho-Syndicalism. CorruptUser 00:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Your point? Revolverman (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wanting to decentralize control as much as possible is neither Right nor Left. CorruptUser 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Desired decentralization of government can indeed be for many reasons and causes, however recent calls for it, specifically in the US and Canada, have been coming from right-wing state/provincial parties that are in office. The overturning of Roe Vs. Wade and the immediate banning of it by Republican-controlled states that have long salivated over doing so would be an American example. In Canada the conservative governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, which recently have been getting pulled even further to the right due to Republican rhetoric making its way North, have passed "provincial rights" acts, which serve the dual purposes of reinforcing fearmongering and scapegoating of the big bad librul feds, and the continued enrichment of party members and benefactors (oil and gas if you weren't sure). Impiricism (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Republicans only want decentralization when they aren't in charge.

Democrats only want more centralized government when they are in charge. CorruptUser 22:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Nicholas II of Russia

He assumed control of the Russian Army during the Great War, and when the military weaknesses were revealed he got the blame, and the revolutionaries/opposition of various kinds were able to make capital of the situation. (A simplification I know).

Putin launched the war on Ukraine (for various reasons), expecting a short war and success/conquest - but Ukraine held the line and received support, while previously neutral states joined NATO, and there are 'various problems arising' as a result.

Now that Ukraine has made a successful incursion into Russia - so Putin cannot even claim to be a defender of the state.

How dangerous is the situation/is the inflexion point approaching? Anna Livia (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There's basically no way to say for sure without a lot more information about internal Russian politics. Putin's dedicated to continuing the Ukraine War until he's either won or is no longer able to continue it, and if the latter happens, it will be likely he can no longer continue his grasp on power. Therefore, I don't think the war will end until Putin is removed from power or Russia is simply no longer able to sustain its war machine for one reason or another. (This is also one of the reasons democracies are superior to autocratic rule - there's more capacity to change a leader and allow the country to course correct.) IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I heard Vladimir Kara-Murza speak with The Washington Post by video feed today. Despite having recently been held in solitary confinement for 11 months in one of the worst of Russia's prisons, he is mentally alert and informative. He's a historian, and he noted that both the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union collapsed in 3 days. He's sure that the Putin regime will end, but he wisely declined to speculate when. Bongolian (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I know enough to see that the situations *can* be compared, and also that 'history normally rhymes rather than repeats itself' (partially because knowledge of what happened before is available). There are already statements on news sites that Putin's reputation has been affected negatively (possibly 'among those with access to the information'). Anna Livia (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The critical difference between the two is that while both Nicky and Putin both nailed their trousers to the mast [ie a warmongering policy], Putin is fighting a war which while massively profligate to the point he's driving Russia into Chinese colonydom it also promises eventual victory over Ukraine. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

For Ukraine the expansion into the region and establishing control is a success however long it lasts; at what point will Putin lose his perceived infallibility?

I read somewhere aw while back that there were Chinese settlements being quietly established in parts of Siberia - is there any validity to this?

I am not a military strategist/Mittel- und Osteuropäische expert - but I can understand that the incursion can mark a change in the war or - it will be used to mark a transition in the history books on the topic. Anna Livia (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the government line in Russia is that Ukraine and the West will give up sooner than later if Russia just stays the course. I imagine this line of reasoning will be tougher to justify if Trump fails to win the 2024 US election. But Russia is (not too unreasonably) convinced that a war of attrition is in its favor. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Putin lost his 'infallibility' to the Russian elites within two months of the war, when the offensive on Kiyv failed. His prestige has been slowly draining off since then, with the occasional 'puncture' when something symbolic happens [for example, the '23 counter-offensive to save Kharkiv, the sinking of the Moskva etc] and in this respect, a full-blown Ukranian invasion of 'proper' Russian soil will be another puncture. But the truth is, by this point Putin is no longer in power because the elite/apparatchik classes think 'he's the best person' but the fact they are shit scared of being seen as disloyal.

The opinion of the Russian Big Public matters not one bit. They are treated like mushrooms [ie covered in shit and left in the dark]. I personally suspect the vast majority of them do their best to not think of Putin and the war as much as possible - however, as it's pretty difficult to get 'outside' news now [why the fuck haven't the BBC et al resumed their Russian-language broadcasts into the country a la Cold War is a mystery to me] there's a decent chance they believe at least in part the lying official narrative.

And yes, Moosolini is correct; the 'elite belief' is [still] that a) the West shall give up soon enough and b) that China will help them. In this respect, they've been partly right in both - we've 'helped' but no way to the level we should have and that while China has helped them, again not to the level they'd like [partly because China doesn't wish to get in too much of a fight over it with the Americans]. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And China would have more to gain by increasing its influence (hard or soft) in Siberia than by alienating the US. (There are various articles on the subject: possibly RW mission-worthy/passing mentions worthy.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"both the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union collapsed in 3 days". This cuts both ways. How long would we expect American hegemony to last after, for example, a second Trump victory?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It is 33 years since the 'August Coup event', and the USSR flag went down on Christmas Day 1991; while given the communication systems at the time it probably took a lot longer for news of the Roman Empire (which one?)'s collapse to travel across the territories and beyond.

That the Kursk incursion has not been reversed within a day or so is another movement of the ratchet wheel. Anna Livia (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

'The USSR collapsed in three days' is a load of crap. There had been warning signs past c1975, to the point by [I think] 1985 Gorbachev described the position of the Soviet Union to be a 'pre-crisis situation'. Economic/population growth had got to effectively nil, there was a large [and growing] budget hole due to the collapse of the oil/gas prices, inflation was worsening, corruption had reached a pandemic stage and the 'ruling class' had mainly become delusional. A series of serious events [such as Chernobyl, the Armenian earthquake and withdrawal from Afghan war] blew the final holes in the Party's credibility and fianances to the point by 1989 the entire country appeared to be unravelling.

In a way, 'Mr Soviet Union' didn't die of a massive heart attack which made them drop to the floor, more like a long, lingering disease which slowly, but surely ate them away. The August coup was more the symbol where it became obvious to almost all that the Union was in the hospice. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Would 'an unstable equilibrium' be appropriate - and the new Union Treaty might have kept the USSR going for a while longer - but the group of eight's attempting to thwart the treaty, without ensuring 'Boris Yeltsin and Eduard Shevardnadze' were retired to where Mikhail Gorbachev was sent disequilibriumed the situation.

If one has to consider whether the inflection point has been reached then it is probably only being approached (but some aspects will be developing out of sight - the impact of the criminals recruited into the army returning and causing disruption, the distortions of a war economy, demographic aspects etc). Anna Livia (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it would have made a blind bit of difference, to be honest. I personally believe the whole 'Soviet System' by the late 80s had become so screwed that there was no manner to engineer a 'soft landing'. Gorby's very power rest within a security/nomenklatura system which simply wouldn't allow any major reforms to happen, he couldn't really act through the military because they were 'part of the problem' and there was no tradition of 'appealing to the people' that he could tap. Kinda like a Catch-22; he needed to 'break the scaffolding' to fix the underlying structure, but the structure would collapse the moment the scaffolding was removed...

The only way the death would have been delayed if the plotters had succeeded, threw the country into a level of totalitarianism not seen since Stalin and persued a level of economic austerity similar to the North Korean's 'Arduous March'. Whether they'd have been able to hold the non-Russian bits of the Union together more than a few years I leave to the folks at the AltHistory forum but I suspect the deathtoll would have been in the millions. But enough of that.

Putin is also fairly well stuck in a Catch-22 situation. He coup-proofed Russia by crippling the military, which is why it it's proven itself repeatedly incompetent [in old Russian/Soviet style, all the gains have been made at a prodigious cost] and shored his position up by presiding over a system of almost complete endemic corruption [meaning a lot of Russian resources have simply been stolen]. If he was to allow genuine innovation and competence in the military, I suspect those generals would send their tanks to bombard the Kremlin 'for the good of Mother Russia'. If he stopped the mass thefts, those elites would most likely throw a fit for having their troughs being taken away - leading to Putin being shot dead by the FSB. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a template you use whenever a section contains (possibly) outdated content?

I'm asking mainly because the section that the Google article has on Autism Speaks using a source from 2014 and thus likely being outdated; Does such a template exist on Wikipedia as well? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can put Template:Update on the top of the article. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Agenda 47 and birthright citizenship

So months ago I checked the Trump campaign website and they mentioned abolishing birthright citizenship as a campaign goal. I now have read the official platform of the GOP (available here) and it contains no mention of abolishing birthright citizenship. Was this just something to throw to the rubes all along? Carthage (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

One of the GOP's website designers probably realized that birthright citizenship is mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump has been mentioning limiting birthright citizenship via executive order for quite some time in his stump speeches. He did not do this in his first presidential term, and my guess is that should he get a second presidential term, he won't do that either.

I suppose that there are enough prominent Republicans born to immigrants who have taken advantage of birthright citizenship to nix that thought in practice. (Then again, Vivek Ramaswamy, who is a US citizen by birthright, was silly enough to suggest ending birthright citizenship himself (albeit for illegal immigrants only)). BobJohnson (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If Trump gets his wish of suspending the constitution he might. Carthage (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The GOP had a moral panic about "anchor babies" since at least 2014 as a pejorative for birthright citizenship. There is certainly a significant wing(nut) of the GOP that wants to do away with birthright citizenship and "build the wall". Party platforms usually get ignored the day after election day. They're created to at least create the illusion of a "big tent" within the party, and can be largely disconnected from the candidate's intentions. Vance's wife's parents were immigrants, so she might have been an "anchor baby" herself. Bongolian (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They don't care about constitutionality, they realized that it's impossible to implement. I was born in the US, my parents and grandparents were also born in the US. I did an ancestry DNA test with my mom and we are whiter than Wonder Bread with the crust cut off, do I take a citizenship test? (I love tests and quizzes and puzzles, and am good at them, Project 2025 please make me and all my white people take them) They want to say it but they are cowards. They want to implement something as policy that is impossible, because there is literally no way to say 'White is right' without giving up the game. And it's because too many people have met other people who are sick of fighting ghosts, skin color and IQ are fucking weird ways to measure the world. Torrent (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I call out hyperbole here. The USA is one of few countries which have unlimited jus soli. Simply putting in an extra clause [say, 'parent/legal guardian must have right to reside in country'] wouldn't be wildly out of sync from the rules of say, European nations and no, doesn't mean everyone has to have a citizenship test or something [Torrent, if one of your parents were citizens you would be too via jus sanguinis so no tests, save proof]. I would personally offer a kind of quid pro quo - yes, we'll limit jus soli but in return we'll get a 'will issue' citizenship for people naturalised as minors. But clearly that won't happen right now. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think unlimited birthright citizenship is cool. It certainty lines up with the American Dream (as bullshit as it is), where someone can come from anywhere in the world to the US and make a better life for themselves and their kids. There's so many hoops to jump through to immigrate to the US already, is there any point making citizenship harder to obtain for anybody? -Ozzyboo (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Short aside on the “anchor baby” term: I seem to recall it being thrown around during the Bush years in the 2000s and The Other Wiki indeed points to a longer history with a marked take up in the US around 2006. So, this particular fear mongering has been touted for almost 20 years in something like its current form in the US. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And it's just that: fearmongering. Anchor babies are literally just a net positive for American society. The more Americans there are the better off America is. I am an anchor baby. -Ozzyboo (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Possibly-stupid question; has the 'anchor baby defence' actually worked? As in, 'you can't deport me because my young kid is a citizen and needs someone to look after it?'. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, not exactly. When the baby is 21, they can petition the government to allow their parents to legally migrate, but only AFTER the parent can prove they haven't been in the US for the past 10 years. There is some provision to avoid deportation if you're a parent of a US citizen, if you've been here for 10 years or more; only 4000 of those are given each year. So "anchor babies" really aren't as big a deal as people seem to claim. CorruptUser 22:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

the 'jus sanguini' point I'm making is, what makes an American? If somebody from China visits the US, just to say, see Mount Rushmore and knock it off a really boring bucket list, they are not here illegally. If they can't pay a restaurant tab and are asked to do the dishes, that is unlawful employment on an international scale. What the fuck actually matters in this? If they shat out a baby while visiting, baby is a fucking baby, we can't deport parents for unlawful employment because they have baby with birthright citizenship? The letter of the law is a dead ideal. Torrent (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘it's equally likely that the trump campaign scrubbed it from their website following bad press in a much similar manner that the gop is moderating their position on abortion due to electoral backlash. The G (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding certainty

So I keep hearing the "almost certainly" phrase used for phenomena that seem rather certain. My question is, does this extend to everything? For instance, when I kick a chair, do I "almost certainly" feel pain, if I am speaking in a strictly scientific sense? Or when I see a flower, is that almost certainly a flower, rather than certainly? 49.205.252.58 (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

"Almost Surely" essentially means that the probability of an event, as far as previous observation and models show, is 1. I.e. the chance of it should be 100%. If you have a non-infinite number of outcomes, this is the same as saying "guaranteed". If there are an infinite number of outcomes, the nuance of "Almost Surely" comes in.

Example: If I pick a random point in the universe, the probability of picking the same point *twice in a row* is 1 / infinity. This means the probability of getting the same point twice is 0, but it is still technically a valid outcome so we would say this would almost surely not happen. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have nothing better to do? New world (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@New World what is wrong with asking or answering a question about the terminology used in formal scientific literature? This kind of inquiry is within the spirit of science communication and is therefore completely on mission imho. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

47.5.66.54 New world (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I see 'almost certain' as to mean 'certain, but taking account of the unknown and limitations'. Eg; 'The doctor is almost certain this lump is a lipoma' - their training and examination ticks all the right boxes but they know they are not a specialist and don't have any diagnosis tools apart from prodding it. If contexts like these [and I trust the speaker] I would say they're dealing with probabilities of perhaps 95-99%. But it's not like a term that I've seen used in 'serious' science etc, more a pop-sci and everyday context [they will either cite actual stats/probabilities or hedge-bet by using terms like 'most likely' or similar]. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

i find people who talk with a strong sense certainty deeply suspicious AMassiveGay (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

an election to watch

so, venezuela is having an election on sunday, and it cannot be overstated just how important it is. the outcome could even have an effect on our elections (here in the states) in november. The G (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Not so much of a dictatorship after all? New world (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

i mean, it's certainly no cuba or nicaragua, but venezuela is still very illiberal. they have a habit of banning opposition candidates from running if they perceive them to be too popular. (sounds familiar?) in fact, there's still a fairly decent chance that they might steal this election like they did in 2018 (though it'll be considerably harder to get away with it this time). part of the reason they're having their first real election in years is because they've finally caved to washington's sanctions... sort of. it's that, and the previously fractured opposition has finally rallied behind a single candidate. in that sense, venezuela is trying to get out of it's hungary phase after years of trying. (better start taking notes, florida!) The G (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It is an authoritarian state (what's "illiberal", do you have to be liberal to support representative democracy? No, of course not! Liberal or deliberative democracies aren't the most democratic). The entire representation of Venezuela is ridiculous, it's obvious Maduro had involvement in 2018, but the clown from the opposition wasn't going to be better (the "legitimate president"). Maduro lost the support of his neighbours after having stopped the opposition leader from running in the election. However the constant involvement of the US in the affairs of Latin America is frustrating, whether it concerns Cuba, Venezuela or Bolivia (in 2019). New world (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah, the 2018 elections and 2019 constitutional crisis really were a crapshow in hindsight. i like to think of venezuela as our very own mini russia: a petro-state (though without the natural gas) with strong ties to organized crime – and if it ever was a democracy, it was short-lived.

still, i'm rooting for the opposition here. even if you factor out washington's disastrous interventionism, it's time for the socialists to go. they shot themselves in the foot (and brought the country down with them in the process) with all their corruption and mismanagement (not to mention chavez's systematic dismantling of what few democratic institutions the country had). plus, this could be a key foreign policy victory for biden, which might improve democrats' election odds in november. on the other hand, if maduro is re-elected, another million or so (not an exaggeration) are expected to leave the country, which will only add to our border crisis and increase our own strongman's odds of winning (as his hardline immigration policies might see a surge in popularity). of course, this is all speculation, but there is still so much at stake in both countries nevertheless. The G (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

also, keep in mind that a significant portion of us foreign policy is the result of heavy lobbying by a country's respective exile/diaspora community. this is the case with cuba, venezuela, and even israel. case in point, venezuela – and, by extension, cuba and nicaragua – have a pretty sizeable exile communities in this country, and they will be watching what happens in venezuela tomorrow. many of them live in florida, which is still a coveted state by both parties despite florida technically having lost its swing state status. the fact that both venezuela and the united states are having high-stakes elections in the same year is just one thing that makes 2024 an unusual year for elections (and democracy) globally. The G (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The opposition should definitely win, though the government is probably going to be US allies, surrounded by countries led by parties from the São Paulo Forum. New world (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

..., let's wait for observers. New world (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Exit poll had indicated a 65% to 31% González victory. Even if the poll was a bit off, it's hard to overcome a vote deficit like that. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 12:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah, without massive voter fraud and/or blatant rigging, anyway. of course, the regime is trying to do just that. whether they can succeed this time amid pressure from within (i.e., the opposition) and without (i.e., the international community) remains to be seen. the wild card is the military, who may view the election results as illegitimate and ask maduro to step down (unlikely absent pressure on the electoral council to divulge the results). The G (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the actions of Petro, Lula and the other left-leaning neighbours (while they expressed doubts on the results, they haven't been very clear on consequences). Bolivia has already supported Maduro. It also depends on the support from China and Russia. (Wasn't Putin threatening to place nuclear weapons near the United States recently?). New world (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘you know, this was supposed to be the election where things returned to normal in venezuela. ah, who were we kidding? it's not like dictators ever cared for elections, anyway (especially not ones supported by china, russia, and other authoritarian regimes). still, the statements by multiple government officials saying maduro should step down if he lost (not to mention the election itself) were all classic bait-and-switch tactics.

on an unrelated note, tankies and maduro's useful idiots in the west are out in full force defending the brazen election theft and the violent repressions of protests. you can always count on them to come up with anti-us conspiracies (e.g. ciadidit). The G (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not about who wins, it's about fair elections. The Venezuelan people's sovereignty needs to be respected. No matter what choice the Venezuelan people make (and yes, it's always possible for anyone to win, in defiance to polls. Otherwise why hold an election at all?). I don't know about US intervention, but Maduro needs to let his neighbours look into the results. What other solutions are there? Intervention from the USA is rarely the solution.

If international pressure and internal unrest forces Maduro to step down, the opposition can take charge of the government. New world (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

i think the only international actors who hold the key to maduro's exit are his supposedly pro-democracy allies in latam (lula, petro, etc.). they don't seem to be in any hurry to see the results, though. i've previously posted about how lula doesn't really give much of a damn about democracy (back when he was re-elected and everyone was saying he's a good guy), but few people believed me at the time. The G (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

These geopolitical positions from the left are more common than you think. Since we're often accused of supporting dictatorships out of primary anti-Americanism, this is an opportunity to prove the criticisms wrong. While the American left often has different perspectives on this, that has more to do with different requirements for governing the USA existing than for governing other countries. It would be dishonourable if these South American governments don't act against Maduro, in their own way. New world (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

i'm not on the left myself, but there is a leftist case for ousting maduro and restoring democracy. maduro has also gone after the communist party of venezuela (PCV), the country's oldest political party currently in operation. i used to think the venezuelan left were all acting as one (because this is more or less how they operate in brazil; i.e., different left-wing parties operating as a single coalition), but then i read a social media post from a pcv supporter decrying maduro's persection of his party's leaders. this makes sense, as dictators tend to lose their allies the more they consolidate power. nicaragua has been going the same thing, with daniel ortega steering the country toward totalitarianism. not even his own brother has been spared from his purges.

of course, tankies will always find a way to rationalize this by insisting they're usa spies or cia plants or something. The G (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

(There is a leftist case for democracy. However, I don't think the Communist Party of Venezuela necessarily has much in common with the type of left we're talking about. We're not talking about revolutionary trotskyists, maoists or anarchists and similar groups) New world (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

US involvement in ousting Maduro would be a total PR disaster. This is an issue Latin America has to handle on its own. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I wonder how much of this is G Man's anti-Lula bias speaking, as Lula (alongside Biden) has urged Maduro to release the voting data. Petro and AMLO are also hedging their bets before confirming or denying their recognition of the legitimacy of this current electoral cycle. That's different from previous years. Carthage (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Carthage the heck you talking about? Lula's PT published a piece saluting Maduro's victory[5] and the man himself said that everything on the election was smooth.[6] GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 10:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the media are generally reporting. Lula wants Maduro to publish the detailed results. New world (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As someone that actually speaks Spanish and Portuguese, I'll translate both his party pronouncement and his own declaration on the CNN's video:

The Worker's Party pronouncement: "The PT salutes the Venezuelan people for the electoral process that took place on Sunday, July 28, 2024, in a peaceful, democratic and sovereign journey."

From Lula himself: "There's nothing serious, there's nothing scary, I see the Brazilian press treating it as if it were the Third World War. There's nothing abnormal. There was an election. There was one person who said he had 51%, there is another person who had 40-something percent. One agrees, the other doesn't, goes to court and the court decides." GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 10:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Other than statements by the PCV, and the exit polling, something that convinced me it was an illegitimate election was the fact the Carter Center (who are regular election observers there) flipped and said so. In the past, they said Venezuelan elections were sound and Carter himself actually praised their voting system as the best in the world. Chillpilled (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Uhm, GeeJayK, these headlines and quotes don’t actually state that Lula is acknowledging Madura as the winner of the election or that he considers the election process itself to be beyond reproach, but that he’s acknowledging that there is a controversy over the results and is urging that this be settled in a judicial process.

Sure, it’s a lot more wishywashy than one might consider appropriate, but he and his foreign ministry has called for the public release and verification of the election data. These statements might just as well be read as a call for calm and for both sides in Venezuela not to resort to violence or other non democratic/judicial means to resolve their dispute. The issue is then whether the Venezuelan judiciary can actually be expected/relied upon to deliver an impartial verdict in this situation.

I agree with ChillPilled that the Carter Center’s lack of certification of the process is a pretty strong argument against it being legitimate and when combined with the lopsided exit polls, it strongly suggests that Madura is trying to fiddle with the numbers to stay in power. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@ScepticWombat How is he saying that "there is a controversy" when he said himself that "There's nothing abnormal"? And when his own party says that the elections were free and fair? And when he knows that Venezuela's judical system is unreliable and basically do what Maduro says? Less than a year ago Lula did say that Venezuela is a "democracy" and is the target of a "political narrative"[7]. A month later, he stated again that Venezuela is a democracy and that the concept of democracy is "relative"[8] (something that is not totally incorrect, but given the context this is a terrible statement). Keep in mind that this is the same guy that said that Muammar Gaddafi is his "brother and friend[9], that he is "passionated" about the Cuban dictatorship [10] and that Fidel Castro is the "greatest Latin American of all time,[11] that he feels "proud" of Vladimir Putin's anti-Western positions[12], that compared Daniel Ortega with Angela Merkel[13]... GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 11:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, while his comments may read as wishywashy, the fact he's hedging his bets in the first place is a drastic shift from previous electoral cycles, which certain parties here are ignoring. The fact remains that Lula, Petro, and AMLO still haven't recognized the results as legitimate. Whether or not Lula is friendly with Castro, Putin, and Gaddafi is not only irrelevant, but counts as poisoning the well. Carthage (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ They aren't irrelevant because they show that he doesn't care about democracy at all. Also, as I said, he is not "hedging his bets" when (1) his party said that the elections were fair (2) when the Chief Advisor to the President of Brazil for Foreign Policy said that the elections were fair[14] (3) he said that he trust Venezuela's Supreme Court to audit the election when this is obvious bullshit. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Carthage Would you trust the Supreme Court of Russia to audit the Russian election? Because that's what Lula suggested. The election was rigged, a statesman should acknowledge this. That was what Chile's Gabriel Boric did,[15] and what Lula didn't. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You could point this for the left worldwide, the current election however has changed the situation, as left-wing organisations are increasingly turning against Maduro. The left-wing narrative on Venezuela is changing, and that's rather good, considering Maduro stole two elections and moved power completely from the parliament to the presidency. New world (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@New world. I find this post a bit of a red herring. That's indeed true to a considerable part of the global left, and the reason why I mentioned Boric. Uruguay's Lacalle Pou also recognized the victory of Venezuela's opposition.[16] But Chile and Uruguay aside, a considerable part of the Latin American left-wing didn't realize that the Berlin Wall fell almost 35 years ago, and they still think that being anti-western is more important than democratic values and human rights. And this is especially true about Lula, the guy we were talking about. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I just checked and Lacalle Pou is actually from a right-wing party. That being said, Mujica did call Maduro a dictator when Lula was calling him a democrat.[17] I don't see why some of you are simping a corrupt, incompetent and authoritarian leader. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That's serious criticism, though the reactions from Brazil and Colombia still represent a change in comparison to 2018. Boric is also more moderate in internal and foreign policy than Petro, Lula and AMLO. What do you want them to do? Recognising the opposition leader would mean redoing 2018, and calling for a coup d'état (Milei) isn't helping either. I agree they aren't doing enough, but at least they are doing something. Outside of Venezuela, nobody is expecting for the general foreign policy to change. However with Venezuela they play an important role in overthrowing Maduro and restoring democracy. It's either that or no democracy for Venezuela. New world (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘duce, i said that earlier (it's latam's problem) in an earlier post.

carthage, i know we don't always see eye-to-eye on everything, and i certainly don't know everything (maybe i have a few things to learn on the israel-palestine conflict), but please don't speak on things you yourself don't know much about. venezuela is an authoritarian dictatorship, and this last sham election removed any doubt that they were. now, maybe i wasn't clear about this earlier, but i explained that maduro could not care less about what the west (and especially the us thinks) about him. that's not what i think; he said so himself. russia, china, and other adversaries of the united states have recognized his "victory." honduras has also joined the usual latam suspects (cuba and nicaragua) in defending his election theft. lula, amlo, and petro have only mildly asked him to release the results. they're not in any hurry to see them, themselves. unfortunately, being that they are his allies, i've conceded that they're the only ones who can pressure him to step down at this point. if lula does that, then he will earn my respect. however, i won't hold my breath. (to be clear, bolsonaro wouldn't have handled this much better, because he doesn't care about democracy, either — not that it matters, either way, because maduro doesn't really like him or care for his opinions.) The G (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I have a different reading on the situation. Some angry governments from "The West" (of which Latin America is partly a part of, culturally. Unless "The West" means "NATO and allies") won't solve the situation. Seriously, if the EU, composed of small countries friendly to the dictatorships who are so nice to help them, simply decides to give some additional "lessons" to poor Latin America, that isn't going to help in any way. This is not about "The West" and its values, this election is about the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people.

So far, Lula and Petro seem to be doing what they realistically can, if they want Venezuela to become a democracy. Added to clearer reactions from other countries, this gives a chance for Venezuelan democracy. New world (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

even being pro-western and anti-russia (and china and iran), i don't care about what the eu says, either. lol. The G (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

(ec) and yes, gjk is right: lula has said "there's nothing abnormal" about the election results. so has mexico's chavez clone president amlo. still, in both cases, they've softly demanded maduro to release the full results. (worth noting that the venezuelan government is breaking its own laws, as well as historical precedent, in delaying the release of the election results.) The G (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere in this thread have I indicated that I believe Venezuela is anything other than a dictatorship. I merely pointed out that Lula and co have called on Maduro to release election results: like it or not that is a shift in rhetoric as opposed to previous electoral cycles. Carthage (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you pointed out that. And ignored the fact that this "shift" is utterly irrelevant. I'll ask again. Lula wants the Venezuelan Supreme Court to audit the election. How is that different from the Russian Supreme Court doing the same with Putin's election last year? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

still, i think lula, amlo, and petro could be doing so much more to pressure maduro to step down. to be fair, lula in particular might be taking a more pragmatic approach. after maduro kicked out argentine diplomats from the country, brazil offered temporary asylum to opposition leaders in argentina's building (which maduro said he would honor, unlike a certain country nearby), which is more than i would've expected, so credit where credit is due. The G (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This is seriously going to start again? Thank you Maduro. New world (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

wait, something seems off

look, i understand the us has a long history of disastrous interventionism in latin america, but has anyone else noticed a double standard here, or am i missing something and/or going crazy here? apparently (especially in the feeble minds of tankies), it's wrong for the us to be involved in venezuela against the will of the people, but it's perfectly fine when russia, china, and even cuba do it. if we're serious about vindicating global democracy in 2024, maybe telling the enemies of democracy to back off wouldn't be such a bad idea; if anything, it might even more desirable than taking a hands-off "none of my business" approach. otherwise, the reasoning behind our support for ukraine (and perhaps israel, depending on one's view) falls flat. The G (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Who here is suggesting it's fine when any power engages in imperialism? Imperialism is bad regardless of who does it. So is apartheid and settler colonialism. Carthage (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

What did you expect? At least the USA cares a minimum about democracy, more than its interests. Russia, China and Iran need to stay away from this. But will they? Do they care? China, Russia and Iran (and other imperialists) shouldn't get involved with this election. The difference between those who support the opposition and those who support Maduro is that the latter don't care about democracy. As to Cuba, that was even more expected. New world (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The US doesn't care about democracy more than its interests. If it did, it wouldn't have propped up right wing dictatorships in the Cold War and toppled democratically elected governments, nor would it be propping up the Gulf States. Carthage (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

In comparison to China and Russia, it does. I agree the US is driven by material interests however more than any democratic 'values'. New world (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

in my op, i made a tangential link to our own election this november. one of the rallying cries for democrats this year (and especially the biden administration) is saving democracy, both at home and abroad. think of the second paragraph of this sub-thread as a thinly-veiled jab at democrats (the first being a not-so-subtle jab at tankie hypocrisy, of course). The G (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

regardless of whether saving democracy is a serious objective, both parties have made it a point to counter china's and iran's global influence (the gop is split on russia, while democrats are more united against them). with that in mind, why should a washington bureaucrat want to give those countries free rein in venezuela (aside from the unlikely possibility that they intend to overhaul us foreign policy)? again, even if direct meddling isn't the answer, telling those bozos countries to back off is still worth considering. The G (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Venezuela is a sovereign nation, not an American colony. So I think this kind of imperial parochialism is itself objectionable. "Those uppity poor countries don't know what's best for them, but we, the imperial power, does, and conveniently what's best for them is also best for us." Carthage (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

it is neither a russian or chinese or even cuban colony. the venezuelan people don't want russian warships or iranian drones. and maybe leaving venezuela alone might be the right thing to do, but looking the other way is likely a national security risk. as new world implied earlier, we may see a repeat of the cuban missile crisis in our lifetime. (for context, nw really mentioned that putin was threatening to place nukes near the us.) The G (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

But the US gets the right to put nuclear missiles in Turkey? Look, the Venezuelan people don't consent, obviously, but that's not the US's decision to make. There are practical reasons not to get involved in Venezuela beyond ethical reasons. I don't see how advocating for taking a less hawkish foreign policy is in anyway fallacious. Carthage (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

i just realized i completely misread carthage’s question. oh well; enjoy the above for your reading pleasure. XD The G (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Different situations require different responses. World War 1 was wished by all major European powers, and the support the German social-democrats gave to the war while in other countries socialists were getting assassinated by nationalists for their pacifism could be seen as a mistake. In world war 2 however the situation was different, (hopefully) different from today as well. The "pacifists" of the time from left, right and centre were collaborators.

Intervention on it's own might be morally justified, but then it's better for a UN intervention led by multiple countries to happen, excluding the USA, then an intervention led by the USA which will profit the USA. At least that would have been better for Syria and maybe Iraq.

Do you know how many countries have had similar crackdowns? Is it moral for the USA to intervene there? What about the Venezuelan people, who will suffer more than before? Don't the Venezuelan people already suffer from sanctions? Is that not morally reprehensible?

Did you know that you have a small communist state right next to you? New world (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

yes, and it's that small communist country that's propping up illegitimate regimes in venezuela and nicaragua. again, regardless of morality, imperialism is here to stay – and if the us doesn't do it, someone else will. i'm not blinding defending the us's foreign policy failures so much as i'm (1) pointing out the irrational double standards some people have and (2) defending the will of the venezuelan people at the end of the day. that said, maybe the us getting involved is a bad idea (which i've conceded in other posts), but the venezuelan people are just as fed up with the cuban and russian governments providing materiel and assisting their security forces. i've also noticed that the overwhelming majority of people defending maduro's regime don't actually live in venezuela (including a not-insignificant number of american leftists, which itself suggests a white savior complex; i.e., it's not only the right-leaning capitalist foreign policy hawks who have this). ironically, this talking over people pretty much amounts of ideological imperialism. ideally, we probably should let the venezuelans sort this out themselves (absent any intervention, even most sanctions, dare i say), as we know by example of another caribbean country what undermining a nation's sovereignty does to it. unfortunately, we don't live in such an ideal world, so there is room for debate on how the crisis ought to be approached (especially if a third of that country's population is expected to migrate if nothing changes, and few, if any of those migrants are expected to move to the countries allied with the dictatorship).

the un used to be useful for foreign interventions, the most successful example being the korean war. nowadays, the un does little than sit around on their lazy asses and pass symbolic resolutions condemning atrocities around the world. The G (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"Imperialism is just a fact of the world. If the US doesn't do it, someone else will." So anti-imperialist activism is worthless, then? This is like saying that because murder will always be around, punishing it is a waste of time. Carthage (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

no. i'm saying it's incorrect to assume that us imperialism is bad while giving chinese, russian, and even cuban imperialists a free pass. it's also wrong to assume that the us is the only one with ulterior motives while venezuela's authoritarian allies have benign intentions. (which is more likely: that they want their own grubby hands on venezuelan oil, or that they just love their arepas? i'll let you decide.) The G (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Lol. You seem to be fundamentally opposed to the idea that Cuba is supporting Venezuela to have a "bloc" in the West opposed to the very hostile empire just north of their island, which has tried to coup them multiple times and has inflicted a crushing embargo on them to this day, not to mention everything to do with Batista and how Cuba got its independence in the first place. Does Cuba want Venezuela's sweet, sweet oil? That would be a nice bonus, but that's not the only reason. Carthage (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

true, which would explain why cuba has close ties with nicaragua's ortega, despite not having much to offer. however, this rebuttal still doesn't account for china's or russia's meddling, so i stand by what i said in that regard. The G (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, another reason for china, russia, and iran meddling in latam is to establish a presence in america's backyard. i did forget to mention that. the point is that these countries have ulterior motives. they're not meddling in latam affairs just because they want to save the world from us imperialism out of the goodness of their hearts or anything. The G (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Who said that? If this would be about morality, you wouldn't be suggesting for the USA to 'do more' than they already do, while criticizing anti-American countries for moral reasons. While there is a difference between the USA and China or Russia, your argument about morality works only with non-"Western" nations being the attacked. It's best to prevent wars, whether China, Russia or the USA do them, and it's best to try to reduce the profit these powers can get from them. You see, nobody here is suggesting China is 'good', however you have to understand that China, thanks to the bad reputation of the USA, can come to countries of the Global South and pretend to respect them and their sovereignty (which so far, it largely does). Therefore, invasion is generally not a good strategy for China to adopt. Still, it's (generally) best to prevent wars, simply because they are inhumane, the best we can. And if they happen, it would be good to at least try to establish the republican form of government, which is difficult when an imperial power tries to profit from the countries resources. And if this doesn't happen, I don't think it's that horrible to criticise that. New world (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think fundimentally, the level that offical America 'likes' overseas nations being democracies because they are under the illusion that 'democratic = pro-American'. The moment a democratic state decides to go against American economic interests, they get put on the shit list - because how can a democracy be anti-American [no, anti corp America but it's one and the same in this POV], this clearly is due to 'foreign interference' which means the likes of the CIA et al needs to start 'correcting' them.

When I was a greasy teen, I used to suspect the likes of the CIA were masters of the realpolitik 3D chess. Now I actually suspect most are so naively pariochial they genuinely don't understand how any democratic state could be pissed at the USA. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

an argument can be made that the us doesn't really care too much about oil either (in the same way that washington doesn't genuinely care about democracy), otherwise it would have invaded and plundered so many other countries (not least venezuela). even our article on chavez slightly touches on this view . of course, tankies will still use uncle sam as their favorite boogeyman to handwave criticisms of their ideology and defend gross human rights abuses.

(just for the record: to my knowledge, i don't think any major user of this site is a tankie. i'm just ranting/venting on some of the stupid shit i've read elsewhere on the interwebs – that, or i'm simply exploring crank ideas consistent to this site's mission; take your pick. at the end of the day, i think i'm only preaching to the choir, as nobody here has even come close to stooping to that level. i do appreciate the dialogue, even the disagreements.) The G (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue it's a matrix in which decision-making is made on the old risk-reward, along with how strong the cheerleaders are for courses of action. That [for example] Venezuela there's a lot of corp interests [not just oil] and a well-connected emigre elite who's calling for 'tougher actions' on Caracas, hoping that if you tighten enough screws, they'll fall over and the new regime will be mysteriously pro-foreign capital and pro old elite. However, at this moment in time there is not enough weight [yet] to justify an outright military intervention - to invade Venezuela would not 'pass the Dover test' for the American political class [ie justifying the casulties to the public]. However, if the inputs change [Venezuelan military becomes more decrepit, rebels appear, Russians get a military base there] this might push enough waverers into the 'hawk' camp. But even then, they will normally hope it's an 'inside job' with plausably deniable US assistance.

One thing we need to remember with American foreign policy is that it will normally try to at at least act to the letter of 'the rules based international order' because it's a game which is already stacked in their favour, and so they clearly have a vested interest in preserving it. They don't get everything they'd like, but they get more than they would by 'cheating' and with less resistance too. For example, the promotion of 'democracy' almost invaribly makes the target country more suseptable to pro-American propaganda, influencing etc and it sounds better to both domestic and foreign ears than a cynical realpolitik of 'bending this nation towards our needs'. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Part of the 'non-intervention' in 1956 was due to the fact the French and British were busy invading Egypt over Suez, which the Soviets had backed Nasser to the point they semi-openly threatened nuclear strikes on the pair if they didn't stop [the Soviets 'privately' promised Nasser this... via the latter's London embassy, which they knew MI5 had successfully hacked] and the Americans were also pissed at this because they'd not given 'permission'.

If Ike had decided to 'go in' to save the Hungarians at this point, he would have been doing it alone and most likely would have gone nuclear at the outset. What's more, how would American forces get to Hungary? Here's a map, you plot the course for American forces in W Germany can get to Budapest...

Anyway, Carthage has a good point here. You cannot say 'we cannot allow [foreign nations] to have free reign in Venezuela' but then say 'Ukraine has the right to be friends which whoever they wish'. Well, without being a complete hypocrite. They are both sovereign nations or subsidiary powers which are within the 'sphere of influence' of a Great Power. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Also going to throw in here that "I saw on twitter lots of people from X country calling for "the international community" to help them remove Y" is quite a naive statement. Astro-turfing has been a common tactic of the U.S. intelligence services and one of the few things they've gotten quite good at - no doubt thanks to co-operation from their working relationships with Google etc. Every other attempted coup to overthrow Venezuela's government turned out to be backed by the U.S., so I think the chances that this one "unlike all the others a uniquely native and organic push" is rather unlikely.

That said it doesn't mean that there won't be genuine criticism etc, since real problems remain real problems regardless of who is cynically trying to exploit them. And Hi G Man. Resident Tankie here. Sorry to violate your safe space. :( Tikitime2 (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

nice to meet you, tikitime. i hope you know what site you're on. if you're going to make a claim, the burden of proof is always on you. speculations aren't evidence. this isn't 1960 anymore. us foreign policy has changed a lot since then. it could just as much be that people are simply protesting shitty governments. recall that even the us itself saw mass protests in 2020, and people made up conspiracy theories and hoaxes that george soros or some other boogeyman was pulling the strings. The G (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

regarding kp's post on hungary: yeah, that was sort of my whole point. what's moral isn't always practical. that's the world we live in. trolley problem. The G (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's as sinister as all that; it grants powers of cunning, intelligence and control I don't think the CIA etc has. Like I outlined above, 'American influence/power' is much more like a school of piranhas than a huge octopus with a central 'head' controlling everything. What's more, I think most of the 'useful idiot' groups count more as 'front groups' than astroturfs because the former does have some real people behind it, while the latter doesn't. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Is it just me or do a lot of these countries viewed as an "axis of evil" (like Iran, Cuba, and China) have a long history of Western imperialism interfering, mostly negatively, with them? Like it or not the West is the global hegemon, and many countries we have marginalized do find it prudent to ally against us, even if only out of convenience. This alliance of convenience against the hated West, for good reasons in many cases, which is still globally dominant, makes a lot of sense to me that I feel is being ignored by certain parties to this conversation. The ultimate aims of the members of this disparate alliance is irrelevant to this fact, as is whether or not a multipolar world would be better than a unipolar one. Carthage (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Axis of Evil is nothing more than a Dubya term (actually coined by current never-Trumper David Frum) to purportedly represent countries that allegedly sponsor terrorism and "weapons of mass destruction". The list originally included Iran, Iraq, and North Korea; later, additional talking heads like John Bolton added Cuba, Libya, Syria, and others. The list obviously was a neoconservative fever dream fueled by Reagan era Cold War geopolitics -- the obvious counter-example to point out is that despite Saudi Arabia terrorists being behind 9/11, they never made the "axis". Personally, I see little that links the countries in the list other than that. (Really funny to think about this era these days, since alignment with the Soviet Union was a big part of the equation back then, and parts of Trumpism have tightly aligned with Putin now.) While Western imperialism is definitely a thing with many of the countries in this list, that's a long and complex topic. It would be giving the neoconservative talking heads too much credit to think that they even thought of that, IMHO. :) BobJohnson (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

perhaps i'm a little biased, but if a multipolar world were to exist, i would prefer brazil (or some other other regional latam power like mexico and colombia) or some other brics country like india or south africa to lead the charge because at least those countries are relatively free societies who have enough power on their own to not let uncle sam boss them around easily. even if russia, china, cuba, iran, and even north korea (though they started the war) were screwed over by western/us imperialism, none of that justifies their awful human rights records or lack of democracies. this might be a hot take, but i don't believe countries where human rights are basically nonexistent deserve any spot on the negotiating table (and yes, that especially includes the usa's gulf state allies). china and russia already have veto powers in the un security council. look how well that works out for the world. The G (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where some of you guys get your history lessons (I assume it's from YouTube and Twitter), but America didn't start the hostilities towards Cuba and Venezuela, their governments did. The truth is, any extremist government will have to resort to authoritarian methods, and when their policies fail (it's a matter of when, not if), they have to find a scapegoat. Blaming the US is the oldest con game in Latin America. Juan Domingo Perón, Salvador Allende and João Goulart did it before Maduro, and I think many others will do it in the future. You don't have to resort to any weird whataboutism and red hering to acknowledge that before blaming the US (and the US did some awful things in Latam), they should blame their own governments (which were often elected in free and fair elections) for their failures. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So the US didn't support Batista, a brutal dictator who ruled over a country rife with economic inequality, and hasn't been hostile to Cuba since the Revolution? That's odd. Carthage (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, he was a brutal dictator who ruled over what was possibily the richest country in Latin America. The US did recognize Fidel (a far more brutal dictator that turned the said country in one of the poorest in the regions, despite the USSR pouring money on them) as the legitimate ruler. It only became hostile toward them after Fidel and his gang start the hostilities themselves. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The "richest country" where 70% of the land was owned by foreigners and the right to strike was forbidden? Glad to see where your priorities lie. Carthage (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

in fact, both things can be true at the same time. the us did respond to castro's (mis)rule very poorly. it certainly wouldn't be the last of washington's foreign policy failures, not even toward havana. [18] The G (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (EC) Well, gladly, I didn't say it was good, I just pointed out it was better than the following period. I'm not the one here supporting a dictator, you are. The land being owned by foreigners is just a nationalist gambit: people were still getting a better quality of life back then (although, again, I'm not supporting Batista or anyone else). What is the problem when it is working for most people?[19] Do you prefer a system where people got poorer and poorer? Because that's what they got. My priorities lie in the quality of life. The Castro dictatorship failed at that. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If things were so good under Batista, and again any regime that forbids the right to strike doesn't seem like a very "good" place to me, although you don't care about the plight of labor, the Cuban Revolution wouldn't have happened then. Also nowhere did I state that I support the Castro dictatorship, all I have stated is that Cuban opposition to Western hegemony is very understandable in the light of history. The same applies to Iran, who suffered the overthrow of a democratically elected prime minister and the installation of a brutal US-backed dictatorship under the Shah, which directly led to the Iranian Revolution.

You are also ignoring just what exactly made Cuba "rich", or whose hands that wealth lied in. It certainly wasn't in the hands of the workers toiling away under back-breaking conditions for the sugar plantations. Batista deliberately sided with the rich oligarchs who ruled Cuba over the common masses, and, to quote Wikipedia, "presided over a stagnating economy where the gap between rich and poor widened ever further." You are deliberately obfuscating this fact that Batista wasn't popular with the Cuban people, and that his regime was backed by the US. It doesn't matter if the Castro regime has proven "worse" for Cuba, that is irrelevant. What does matter is that the US backed an unpopular kleptocracy, and when a revolution inevitably occurred, proved to be very frosty to the replacement government. Carthage (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

(EC)How I started my last post: " I didn't say it (life under Batista) was good". How you started your post: accusing me of saying that things were "so good under Batista". Also, the Cuban Revolution wasn't a bottom up event to my knowledge, so the "plight of labor" wasn't a defining factor. If that was true, the revolution would have happened in countries where the conditions were much worse than Cuba, not in the fifth richest country in the Western hemisphere.[20] GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"I just pointed out it was better than the following period." Which is irrelevant to my argument. You can't seem to grasp that fact. Carthage (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant to your argument when you accuse me of siding with Batista over Castro, something that you did more than once. You said yourself "Glad to see where your priorities lie" and "you don't care about the plight of labor". How am I supposed to read these if not a comparison of the two dictatorships GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, your argument has already been objected by the fact that 1: the US didn't start the hostilities and 2: The revolution wasn't a bottom up revolution and the social conditions were much worse in other countries in Latam, so there wasn't anything remotely inevitable about the revolution. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 06:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You're acting like there wasn't popular discontent with Batista. Insurgency doesn't grow out of a vacuum. Tensions were getting higher and higher by the time Castro came back from exile. Every country's material conditions are unique, so it doesn't really matter if other countries "had it worse." The circumstances of Cuba were ripe for insurgency, and that's all that really matters. Also, what do you want me to think? I point out Batista forbade the right to strike and you completely blew past that. Are you seriously going to pretend that doesn't give the impression of complete apathy on your part, or that you don't consider it as important as, say, the right of foreign capital to extract wealth from Cuba? Carthage (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it does matter. In fact, it matters a lot. You said yourself that the social conditions in Cuba led to the revolution. Well, what's so special about the circumstances of Cuba that resulted in the revolution except for the fact that the situation was better than in the rest of the continent? I already answer the question: the Revolution wasn't a popular momovement, even if people didn't like Batista, they weren't part of the revolution. The people really didn't participate. I've said that twice and you just ignored it, and I assume you'll still ignore this part of my argument because it completely refutes yours. I also don't know why you're still talking about Batista when I said twice that I don't support him (indeed, I don't support any autocrat). Also, you are just showing that you don't understand how foreign investment work when you say that foreign capital "extract wealth from Cuba". In fact, foreign capital builded the capital that made Cuba wealthier than the other nations in the region, and the lack of foregin investments are one of the reasons why Cuba is so much poorer today. How do you expect that poor countries to quickly build the infrastructure they need without other countries' money? It is possible. The USSR under Lenin and Stalin (the fathers of this theory of imperalism, which was outdated when they wrote it) did it, and their production possibility curve changed, at least at first (later things changed), without a lot of foreign investment. The result is well-known, I believe even by you. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In essance, all revolutions are 'minority projects'. It's simple historical revisionism afterwards where it gets portrayed as a 'mass popular uprising'. Case in point; the American 'Rebellion' in the 1770s - the best historical guesses I've seen was that about half were 'neutral' and another 15% 'Loyalists' which leaves only around 35% 'Patriots'. Quite often, one side 'wins' because the opposing side effectively falls apart or gives up.

While you're right that 'foreign capital built the infrastructure which raised the Cuban SoL', you conveniently ignore the fact that foreign capital ownership also means foreign profits - [for example] BP would extract crude oil from Nigeria [£ for Nigeria] but then ship it back to the UK [£ for UK], refine it [£ for UK], sell it as POL [£££ for UK] and finally, book the profits in London [££ for UK Govt].

This is often the cause of the classic 'middle income trap'; that primary industry has produced a not-awful SoL but is incapable of moving further due to lack of capital because the bulk of current profits end up overseas [another issue being the small wealthy local elite preferring to salt their wealth overseas or enjoy conspicious consumption than become domestic entrepenurs]. Which is why the control of major resources [such as oil fields or mines] and domestic banking is normally on the top of the list of any ambitious developing nation wishing to 'speed up development' - ie retaining those foreign profits to aid capital accumulation, and then directing it in a corporatist manner to the 'best' places [for example, investing in oil refineries and infrastructure] to expand the economic base of the country.

I duly note that the only countries which have generally been able to significantly jump up the SoL/income rankings past WW2 are nations which have done a variant of this. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Mass mobilization and, while not necessarily adherence to the political projects of movements, support for mobilization isn't that uncommon. The 18th and early 19th century wars of independence or 'revolutions' in South and North America were however minority projects. New world (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Cuba also experienced massive levels of economic inequality, so clearly that wealth wasn't trickling down. I also had in mind extractive industries or shit like sugar plantations when talking about "foreign capital siphoning Cuba's wealth," so Gee's complaint is pearl-clutching. Cuba also had massive corruption under Batista, again primarily benefiting Americans. Also, @New world, I'm fairly certain the Haitian Revolution was a mass project among black slaves. Carthage (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Cuba had a massive inequality and lots of corruption. Which, again, didn't make the country unique, as other countries in Latam had (and still have) the same problem. And yet, they didn't saw a revolution. Again, you are not adressing my main argument: the Cuban people played a very small role on the Revolution, so claiming that it happened because of social issues is a very poor explanation of the causes of the Revolution. Also, what is the problem of the primary sector. Are you suggesting that countries can't get rich when their economies have a huge primary sector? Really? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's all about power relations. All those countries you mentioned are part of the global north, and have benefited significantly from geography and colonialism. They're the exploiters, not the exploited. Countries like Cuba are used as zones of extraction, with the resources transported to the global north, where they are then developed and sold back to consumers in the global south, and the profits kept in the north. Think of conflict diamonds in the DRC, or oil in MENA. It's also interesting how you completely ignored KP's comment. Carthage (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Regarding Karma's comment, I didn't even read it because it's too long and I don't have time to read and answer it right now, maybe I'll do it in a couple of days. I've already explained to you more than once why is wrong to claim that these countries got rich because of colonialism (and although geography is indeed important, it's not the main explanation). It's not a matter of "power". You seem to think that Cuba would be richer without "exploitation" from the amorphous global north. Well, lucky for you, your hypothesis was tested, and Cuba is now poorer than it was 60 years ago. So, no, "exploitation from the global north" is not the root cause of the problems in Latin America. In fact, Latin America (along with Africa) is one of the most difficult places to foreign investors to put their money, and has perhaps the most closed economy in the world. Yes, you can find American fingerprints in many of the problems of the region. But America is not the main responsible for the problems in Latin America - the choices made by the countries in the region are. This is like, basic economic history, for Christ sake... GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"Basic economic history" that academics like Ingrid Kvangraven disagree with you on. You honestly believe that history is of no consequence to why certain countries are rich and others poor? Why is France so keen on maintaining its colonial empire through neocolonial means? You're also acting like the American embargo has had no effects on the Cuban economy. Carthage (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a terrible appeal to authority -Kvangraven is a complete nobody.[21] I never said that history is of no consequence to why certain countries are rich and others poor, I said many many times ITT that the US did horrible things to Latam, you're strawmanning me again. If you want to know how colonialism played a major role on how countries got poor, you can read this paper, written by three relevant scholars.[22] You however don't seem to believe that these countries are also poor because of wrong decisions they made. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"Appeal to notability" should be classified as a logical fallacy, as it is one you use quite often. Carthage (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So, we should give to cranks and fringe people the same weight we do to the most important thinkers of our time? Not that your post isn't blantant whataboutism. You still haven't answered. If the Cuban Revolution was a top-bottom event, how was it caused by social issues - issues that were much worse in other places across Latin America? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Kvangraven is a crank? You didn't even know who she was until I pointed her out to you. Are you even familiar with her research? I don't think you are. There are also plenty of things you have ignored here: such as that foreign ownership tends to translate to foreign profits, and the fact that rich countries like France will fight tooth and nail to maintain their colonial empires, or that corporations tend to outsource labor to countries with minimal-to-no labor and environmental protections (case in point). How does your paradigm explain all of this better than dependency theory? You also seem to actively dismiss and ignore research from anything that isn't orthodox economics. You certainly don't pay attention to post-colonial studies. Carthage (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(EC) If she is your main source on the subject yes, she's pretty much a crank. I did some research on her, she's from The New School, a place known for their cranks. So, she's probably a hack. Indeed, fringe doesn't means wrong, as I said before. What I also said is that there is a huge overlap between those two groups. You still haven't answered my questions (because you know you can). Why should I answer yours? Well, I'll actually do it though.

1. Don't pretend like the social sciences are as hard as the physical sciences

I never did. That doesn't mean that all views have the same value. Some of them cannot stand when confronted with reality. That's the case of your view now.

2. the effects of the American embargo on the Cuban economy.

This is probably the worst argument you could use for a plethora of reasons. I'll just mention a few problems with this excuse of argument. 1 You said that the American investment wasn't bringing prosperity to most of the Cuban population. By using your reasoning, the embargo should be a good thing. 2 The embargo doesn't prevent Cuba from trading with other countries. Cuba received millions of dollar per day (in 1975 dollars) from the USSR.[23] Later, it received millions of barrels of oil from Venezuela [24]. 3 how did you think the US should act towards a hostile country that was expropriating their property?

3. how foreign ownership tends to translate to foreign, not domestic, profit

Do you have a source on that? Where did you get this information? The fact that foreign investment is a key element of a successful development strategy is well-known.[25]

4. why corporations will outsource labor to countries with minimal to no labor protections and lax environmental standards

At this point you're embarrassing yourself. Foreign-owned and firms in pay higher wages and have better working conditions than domestic firms and are typically not attracted preferentially to countries with weak labor standards.[26] Without these investments, these countries in fact get poorer. This is also well-documented by the literature, a literature that, unlike you, I'm familiar with.

5. why rich countries like France actively seek to maintain their colonial empires

What does this have to do with Cuba? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

6. How does your paradigm explain all of this better than dependency theory

Unlike you, I've read the authors of the dependency theory. In both Spanish and Portuguese. Raúl Presbitch? Celso Furtado? Fernando Henrique Cardoso (whom later would say, as a president that people should "rip everything he wrote"? Yeah, I've studied them all. Their theory has been debunked study after study, and the fact that Latin America still pay attention to them is one of the reasons why the continent is poor. Again, many countries got rich with a huge primary sector. Others got poor with a secondary sector. The economy of Latam is extremely closed, they are a perfect refutation of the dependency theory.

7. You also seem to actively dismiss and ignore research from anything that isn't orthodox economics.

No. I dismiss most of the fringe research because those studying it disagree with it and consider it bullshit. And a layman that can't even read the papers on the subject like you will not make the paradigm shift. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's just stop and appreciate how much you're hawking a field of study heavily criticized for its usage of normative reasoning, toxicity, and underrepresentation of women and people of color, and outright denigration of fields of study in economics predominantly filled by women and POC and marginalization of non-Western economics. The same field that assumes in its models that the economy is a perpetual motion machine, that completely ignores ecology and sociology. Anyways.

"Do you have a source on that?"

It's what happened to Ecuador, according to the Harvard Review:

Privatization does generally beget greater economic efficiency and profit for business owners, multinational corporations, and foreign investors. However, its aftershocks — inaccessible essential services and increased unemployment among them — overwhelmingly shake everyday citizens. When foreign companies enjoy a significant share of profits from newly-privatized companies — as is the case in Ecuador, where around 90 percent of mining firms are Canadian-owned — they may prove antithetical to local growth by exporting more profit back to their home countries than a locally-owned business would. Indeed, “IMF programs have profound distributional implications and very often who benefit are big businesses and banks based in the Global North,” noted Dr. Alexander Kentikelenis, associate professor of sociology and political economy at Bocconi University, in an interview with the HPR.

Also, KP covered that in his post you ignored.

"She's probably a crank." Meaning you haven't read any of her work.

"This is probably the worst argument you could employ." You mentioned that Cuba is poor because of its own decisions. Then you defend imperialism. "How should America react to someone expropriating their property." You evidently consider property to be more important than equity or democracy. Interesting where your priorities lie, again. Carthage (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh come now. GJK is many things, but he's definitely not a Pinochet guy. That was a bit too much. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. I don't think Gee supports Pinochet, but I do get the impression that he considers Pinochet to be a lesser evil than Latin American leftists. I could easily be wrong, however. In the interest of civility I'll remove that from my post. Carthage (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Where did I cite any heterodox economist actually? I remember citing Randall Holcombe once. You can see my edits on Murray Rothbard, Walter Block and HHH if you want to know what I think about Right-wing heterodox economists.GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the bandwidth to properly reply to all this right now, but I will say now I'm not impresed on the hills you've picked to die on included 'foreign ownership doesn't equal profit being exported overseas'. If the foreign company didn't get a good RoR on their investment, why the fuck would they bother investing in the first place? C'mon, I thought better of you... KarmaPolice (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is that it's a win-win scenario. Regarding the Pinochet stuff I said on this very thread that every extremist government fails and that I don't support any autocrat, so Carthage, your point is pretty silly. I do think however that you support Castro and Maduro. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Define 'extremist'. To me, political extremes will not respect certain principles and laws associated with republican rule, and 'radicality' is not a synonym of 'extreme'. New world (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Do I support Castro and Maduro? I don't know enough about Maduro to give you an honest answer. Castro I oppose, but I consider the US to be a greater evil. I have, however, read a pretty convincing piece by a socialist not to support Maduro. These reasons being that Maduro is the head of a kleptocracy in Venezuela that hurts labor: ([27]) It's a good read, I recommend it. Anyway, I don't really consider, say, Chinese neocolonialism to be much of a "win" for Africa. Sure they've built infrastructure: infrastructure that benefits Chinese neocolonialism. And they've provided jobs: to Chinese laborers. It may be "win-win," but the foreign party seems to be getting the better deal. Carthage (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (ec) There are too many mistakes on your last posts, so I don't think I'll answer them, especially since you are not answering my questions and chose a motte-and-bailey strategy. You will however tell me when did I add right wing heterodoxity gibberish to this site otherwise I'll ask you to remove this baseless accusation too. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Whatever you say, mate. I made mistakes like "foreign ownership doesn't equate to foreign profit," clearly. Also, I'm not new world, so they should be still be fair game, right? KP too. Carthage (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Considering what Castro, Peron, Maduro, Morales and many others did, no it doesn't. Anyway, my point is that these countries are better off with foreign investment, and everyone gains from them. I've posted studies from top scholars to back my claim. You haven't. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You place a hierarchy on scholarship. "Top scholars" in your view tend to be white people from the global north who work at specific institutions, who also define who gets to be at the "econ table", often to the detriment of women and people of color, or anyone doing innovative research. You also ignore the many caveats associated with economic research, including the replicability crisis, institutional bias, and usage of normative reasoning.

"Considering what Castro, Peron, Maduro, Morales and many others did, no it doesn't." Tell that to Ecuador, which you completely ignored. Also tell that to KP. Carthage (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As someone that has actually published stuff before, this link is a joke. Accusing a field of gatekeeping is the same argument cranks and denialists of other fields use because they cannot get their garbage published. Teach the controversy is not an argument, and pluralism is useless when your views are not based on eviden e. Regarding Ecuador, your link is not scholarship. It is a story that may or may not be true about a single sector of a single country told by a minor professor from an even minor center. Is this really the best you can do? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That blogger has also been published. Please explain what the "joke" is here? That economics is a field plagued by lack of inclusion? Is this bit here a joke:

We discourage undergraduates, women, and men from studying economics. The AEA’s first climate survey of economics clearly shows our toxic profession, especially among under-represented groups. The AEA should commission surveys of undergraduates, research assistants, and predoctoral and postdoctoral students. Harassment begins in undergraduate classrooms and often does not stop unless you leave economics.

We do not nurture the next generation. Many graduate students and economists have mental health issues. Research at Harvard found notably higher rates of depression and anxiety among economics Ph.D. students than other Ph.D. students and the general population. Departments often do send students to campus health resources. The faculty place unrealistic expectations on the students. They are aggressive in private and in public settings. Many do not mentor, even after they have agreed to be their advisors. Faculty suffer too. Leading economists Alan Krueger, Marty Weitzman, Bill Sandholm, and Emmanuel Farhi all killed themselves recently. Rest in peace

That doesn't really seem like a joke to me.

Neither does this:

I mentor many people. They come to me as an ally, as someone who will listen. I do. Some conversations are happy, and people are looking for advice on being an economist. Some conversations are sad; people dealing with painful experiences in economics. Some get better. Some do not. Last year a Black woman undergrad asked me how to get from her satellite-school state university to a Ph.D. program in economics. We talked, and I gave her advice. I emailed her a few months later to see what she had decided. Her brother replied that his sister had killed herself. She will not be an economist. Others became economists then we drove them away. The tenure of a Native American woman economist was revoked after her men colleagues turned on her. I talk with her regularly. We discuss how she could return to academia after she is healthy again. Do you know how many Native American women are economists? Very few. Do you know how many Black economists work at the Fed? One out of 406. Economics is a disgrace.

The indignities are astounding. The new woman economist at the Board was asked by the men colleagues at lunch . Her husband is an economist I know well. An officer sabotaged her work . [Redacted.] I have talked with the woman and her husband several times. Broke my heart. Her tormentor is good friends with mine. I thought it was me. It was not me. It was them, and they have not stopped. I told her she would get better. I did. No one told me that in 2011 when I broke. I was told that I was not the first woman he targeted. No one told me I could report him. Both tormentors are senior officers at the Board, instrumental to monetary policy decisions. Neither said they were sorry.

Or how about the Southeast Asian research assistant, who I met once? He called me hyperventilating as he told me about his abusive work environment. After I hung up, I closed my door and sat in my office sobbing. Economists messed him up. I coached him on how to leave his job and find a new one. He did.

Finally, the woman economics major at Chicago went to office hours. She sat on the floor since the room was crowded. Someone offered her a chair. She said she was fine sitting on the floor. The professor looked at her and said, “I see you like it on your knees; women do.” He did not apologize to her though he did have to apologize for telling a sexually explicit joke at commencement. He continues to teach undergraduates. Economics breaks people, and it is broken. I am angry. You should be too.

The blogger in question is an economist.

There is also stuff more relevant to this discussion, like this little anecdote:

Hostile attacks from senior economists on junior economists are common, often in seminars and other public settings. As one personal example, in May 2015, on Twitter, AAAA a Nobel Laureate, was talking with BBBB [a friend] about the effects of the Making Work Pay tax credit on consumer spending. I sent BBBB my paper with Matthew Shapiro and Joel Slemrod. We find that the 2009-10 tax credit, which was partly based on AAAA’s earlier research, was less effective than the 2008 tax rebates. I shared the link to the FEDS working paper version. AAAA’s public tweet replied, “there is a reason that paper was never published. Badly flawed. Asked people to remember what they did with the money. Huh?” He was the AEA President at the time. I replied politely, “actually, it was published in AEJ: Economic Policy, thanks!” Then he said, “ok, one for your side. I have not seen the published version.” So much for an open exchange of ideas. Our hyper-competitive field allows point scoring over the scientific inquiry.

There's also her mention of the study which found that a majority of econ research is unreplicable. You also ignored this.

The post also covers the issues of diversity and representation in economics. According to the author, who is, again, a professional economist, which you are not, the state of diversity and representation in economics is abysmal. To quote the post:

Top research on race and economics often perpetuates racist tropes.

And:

Leaders often downplay the concerns of women and minority men economists. When economists in under-represented groups report an incident, they are often told they are being too sensitive or unreasonable. The leaders of the profession turn a blind eye to such reports. Often the profession awards economists esteemed positions without checking complaints. HHHH was elected to the AEA Executive, while a case of sexual harassment was pending against him. IIII was elected AEA President in an uncontested election, even as Asian economists were concerned about his views toward them. It should surprise no one that IIII’s work as a paid consultant for Harvard upset our Asian colleagues. IIII argued that systematically subjective ratings on ‘soft skills’ justified Harvard not admitting Asians with higher test scores and grades. Asian economists have long complained others ding their technically solid work for not being creative. IIII will assume the leadership of the AEA in January. I am not here to judge, but I do think a conversation is necessary.

Care to actually address the content now, instead of merely asserting that the highly detailed and cited post of a professional economist is a "joke"? Carthage (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Paradigms have shifted many times in economics (I can give you ten examples out of my head if you want), all you need is a good study showing that your conclusions are evidence-based. The truth the heterodox methodology is just appalling, and often downright pseudoscientific. The problem with heterodox is not gatekeeping. It's the fact that they put their ideology above the real world. The harassement against women is definitely disgusting, though I haven't personally seen it, but regarding the allegedly gatekeeping, I'll change the world. It's worse than a joke. She's either liar or has a huge presecution complex if she things that there is some form of gatekeeping preventing heterodox economists to get better jobs. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

An important point has beem missed here. GeeJay claimed that the U.S. embargo doesn't prevent other countries from trading with Cuba but that hasn't been true since the Helms-Burton Act of 1996! If you ship oranges from Mexico to Havana, you can forget about the U.S. The point is to make Cuban markets not worth engaging in by forcing foreign entities to choose between trading with them or the larger U.S. market.

The fact that GeeJayK either did not know that or DID know it but chose to present it as "the embargo doesn't stop Cuba trading with other countries" says volumes.

Though to be fair, on a slightly seperate note, there are different kinds of foreign investment. Attracting foreign investment can be useful for third world nations looking to build infrastructure and upskill; although if poorly managed, foreign investment provides neither infrastructure nor upskilling and just hefty paychecks to politicians willing to sell the country and its people off for bargain bin prices.

This thread has reminded me though that we will have to review our economics section at some point. Although economists tend to take themselves very seriously, that respect isn't really shared outside their own circles. The work of people like Philip Tetlock has exposed the discipline (among others) on the macro-scale - economists, regardless of their qualifications or experience, struggle to predict the economy any better than binmen or hairdressers. And on the micro-scale the only promising stuff has been in behavioural econ where social-psychology does most of the heavy-lifting. This utter inability to produce working predictive models that operate outside the confines of a lecture theatre, or a carefully massaged set of data, puts them in the same positions as psychics for a lot of people.

Add to the fact that a lot of economic studies fail to replicate (I've seen various figures, some as high as 40%) and the failure to predict really starts to hammer home. I've seen the defence made through an analogy to medicine, that a doctor can't predict exactly how a treatment will work for THAT patient but they can predict its effectiveness overall. The problem is that even in medicine we will generally observe people responding to treatments and suffering from ailments largely as the doctors predicted, enough so that consulting one doctor is a good idea. The same can't be said for economists, even if you do get one of the "respected" one's - who are usually just the one's in vogue not necessarily the custodians or weilders of a powerful body of knowledge.

Put mildly, if your doctor was as wrong about your health and well-being as economists are about the economy. You'd be well within your rights to decline their advice. This may be why some economists are so insistent on credentialism, they are aware that their epistemic standing is not as solid as they'd like, so they lean on authority. The problem is that economics is not physics. It's not metereology. Fuck, it's not even psychology. The simple fact is that Doctors doesn't need to argue with a homeopath because they represent a discipline that while ever evolving and changing, actually works. Econ profs don't have that privilege.

Tikitime2 (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why mentioned medicine and psychology, because, well medicine and psychology are known for a much larger replication crisis.[28][29] It's an overall problem across sciences, and no one is immune, with sociology possibly lagging even more behind than economics, psychology and political sciences.[30] There is, however, something that most are willing to accept: One of the answers to the Replication crisis, is of course, more rigor in the models, not subjectivity – which is what heterodox economists want to do if you ever bother reading them.

I also sincerely don't think you ' re familiar with Philip Tetlock's work. I actually read his Expert Political Judgment a few years ago, very cool book (except for the appendix) and as far as I remember (I can be wrong here) he was mostly talking about people that think they can beat the market, not about economic models, though I can be wrong. That being said, I’ve never seen a DSGE model predicting that the stock market will crash in a couple of months because that wouldn’t even make sense. Something that you'll learn in any textbook is that you can’t beat the market. Tetlock criticized grifters masquerading as coaches, so his work is not a critique to mainstream economics – indeed, behavioral economics is mainstream (and just like the replication crisis cases, he was talking about social sciences as a whole).

Regarding the Helms-Burton Act, you’re right that it is a huge problem and (along with the rest of the embargo), it should be lifted. But you didn't say that. 1 the Special Period started 5 years before the Helms-Burton Act. 2 the Act was softened only a few years later. 3 The worst part of the bill only started in 2019 and 4 Other countries (especially China, but also many Western countries, such as Spain, with Venezuela pouring millions of barrels of oil there) still trade with Cuba, so countries still can trade with Cuba, which was my point. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

yeah. if anything, it would be in washington's best interest to end the embargo on cuba because havana can trade with caracas, managua, moscow, beijing, tehran, and maybe even pyongyang – and some of these countries are already banding together.[31] even powerful us allies like india can trade with cuba, as new delhi has a history of contravening sanctions while washington looks the other way. [32] all this to say that cuba can actually benefit from this embargo (if only by rubbing its failure in uncle sam's face) if it plays its cards right instead of playing the victim – all the while there's a compelling pro-us (and dare i say, "imperialist") case for ending it. but this is already a topic for another post – one which i may introduce in the near future. The G (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Gee, you have made several points throughout this discussion which got my eyebrows.

'So, no, "exploitation from the global north" is not the root cause of the problems in Latin America.'

It's part of the problem. If you have the main sectors of the economy dominated by foreign interests which gets the lion's share of the wealth generated, this means our host nation won't get the capital it needs to invest to develop. In some cases, the 'benefits' that the host nation gets from the 'foreign investment' might be nothing more than a load of minimum-wage low-skill jobs, a small clutch of foreign elites paid off and perhaps a road or two built.

'the effects of the American embargo on the Cuban economy.'

The American sanctions were utterly crippling because Cuba had been an economic colony of the Americans before this point. Not only did the Cubans lose their prime [sometimes near-sole] markets for their goods/services but she also lost her ability to import items from America - from spare car parts to capital plant [because all her capital goods were American in design]. The human 'capital loss' was even worse; it seems that before 1965 Cuba lost perhaps 5% of her adult population and as the vast majority in this wave were the educated urban elite, it was a significant brain-drain for a land which could ill-afford to lose them.

It's also the very thing which made Castro embrace the Soviets - to whit, when the Americans embargoed the Cuban sugar harvest and Khrushchev stepped in to take it all. With hindsight, doing this was totally counter-productive; Castro was more an 'economic nationalist with a socialist tinge' in 1959 but by 1965 was a full-blown Marxist-Leninist and I will say it was mainly how bats and extremely the Americans had reacted to him which caused this 'conversion' [and I will say incidently kinda ruined their chances of trading with other capitalist powers].

It's a little counterfactual I occasionally wonder about; whether instead of doing their nut on hearing about Castro's nationalisations, the Americans sat down with Castro and cut a profit-sharing deal for Cuban hotels, sugar and tobacco in the same manner they had cut a deal with the Saudis for their oil and thus, the nationalisations don't happen but Castro also gets the extra cash to invest in Cuba herself.

'Are you suggesting that countries can't get rich when their economies have a huge primary sector? Really?'

It depends on where the profit ends up and what capital transfers happen. If the host doesn't get any real long-term benefit [skills transfers, infrastructure, decent pay to act as seed money for domestic investment, use of domestic companies in supply chain] while the 'investor' ends up with all the profit sitting in their own nations - no, the host doesn't benefit. In fact, in cases like oil/mineral extraction and logging it's very possible the host is damaged by the production which means their net economic benefit from the enterprise is in fact minus. Let us not forget the opportunity cost with natural resources; once that $100m silver mine is mined it's gone forever - so it might be better for the host to wait until they can mine it themselves [and keep 100% of the profit] rather than allow a foreign company in to do it [and get say 20% of the profit].

'The fact that foreign investment is a key element of a successful development strategy is well-known'

But there's many countries which do get quite a bit of 'foreign investment' but are still poor. This is because the important bit is capital accumulation, rather than the origins of it. If the 'host' cuts very poor deals with the foreign investors and the type of investments don't have any form of multiplier then... what's the point? One example off the top of my head is the assembly plants in the free-trade zones in the Philippines - apart from the bare-minimum wages paid to sweatshop workers, the hosts don't benefit one bit [and when you take into account the pollution etc, they might even lose].

The other issue with foreign investment is that it politically 'boxes you in'. Castro found this in 1960; the moment he wanted to start 'changing things' for the average Cuban [whether it would work or not is beside the point here] the foreign interests screamed blue murder and started calling in all their favours in Washington to 'do something about it'. After all, this was the origin of the coining of the term 'Banana republic' - a land critically dependent on a very few industries controlled by a clutch of foreign multinationals. Cuba was one of these.

'Foreign-owned and firms in pay higher wages and have better working conditions than domestic firms and are typically not attracted preferentially to countries with weak labor standards'

You cannot say that is by default the case. The nature of modern supply lines means that a lot of production is outsourced, sometimes repeately meaning that while the BigCorp sitting in say, New York can say in their bumpf about their great labour standards etc but by the time you've followed it through the murky chain to the sewing sweatshop in Vietnam or Bangladesh said claims aren't worth wiping your arse with.

You're technically correct in saying that firms aren't by default attracted to countries with weak labour standards. However, they are attracted to cheapness - and countries with poor/zero labour protections are almost without fail cheaper per head/hour than the countries which do have them. This is particulary endemic in outsourced production because often the wage-bill is the only spend you can control, and thus you will press on this has hard as possible. Similar can be said for lands with nil environmental protections - if I can simply discharge my industrial poisons into the river rather than actually pay for it do be disposed of correctly, it means my overhead costs are lower, and thus 'more attractive' because my per-unit cost is a little bit lower.

'The truth the heterodox methodology is just appalling, and often downright pseudoscientific ... they put their ideology above the real world.'

True, but much of the same claims can be levelled at orthodox economists too. Most critically, forgetting the 'human element' of it all, instead clinging to theoretical models and assumptions of motivations etc rarely seen in the wild.

KarmaPolice (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

that's a good point, kp. if firms are not attracted to countries with weak labor standards, why are so many of our textiles, for instance, produced in countries like china, vietnam, bangladesh, or even latam countries like honduras and guatemala? this is a genuine question, as i only have a limited understanding of economics. explain it like i'm five. The G (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Every item produced has a 'lump of labour' within it. For example, a single buttoned shirt has two hours of garment-maker labour in it. If you move your factory from America to Mexico, the 'labour price' for this shirt shall fall [say] from about $25 to $4. But it gets even better; if I then move from Mexico to Bangladesh I can squeeze it down to about $1.10. Much of this is down to a low SoL and prices in the country in question - our Bangladeshi can buy a lot more with their $1.10 than an American can and is geared for a lifestyle which involves meals of plain rice and a new pair of shoes a year.

But another cost is labour protections and benefits. From safety protections to maternity pay, mandated employee rest areas to minimum wages - these all add cost to each labour-hour used. So that '$25' in America might every well be approaching '$37.50' once these costs are factored in [aka 'total cost of an employee']. This is why you have a bunch of cheapskate low-pay bosses constantly badgering American state governments to 'make labour more competitive' aka cut labour protections to squash that $37.50 to $35. This sort of nickel-diming is standard proceedure in various low-wage sectors, because if you have 1000 labour-hours a week in your company [only 20 people working 50 hour weeks], that's an extra $2,500 profit for the owners.

But it gets even better. Let's say I've hit on a wheeze where I can get that $35 down to $30. Damn, that's another $5,000 every week for the owners. Issue is, these things are legally murky. But... if you are in a country where enforcement is patchy and legal comeback difficult I could simply cut those corners and be willing to fight those claims in court. This is known as 'the Pinto problem' [Ford judged it cheaper to fight the defective claims in court and pay them off than fix the problem] and is also a main tactic in the business dealings of Donald Trump.

Yet we don't stop there - oh no! I've worked out how to get that down to $20. Okay, it's clearly illegal but I've hired a cut-out to offer the government inspector a bribe to let me get away with it. The country is fairly corrupt, so they'll take it - in fact, they might have asked for it!. Sure, $50k in a briefase [plus delivery] isn't cheap, but the projected 'savings' is $500k for a year. Ask a business, what number is bigger than the other?

This is why often the truly 'most attractive' countries to outsource to are lands where not only is the average pay very low, but it also has poor labour protections, poor enforcement of them and is corrupt as hell to boot. In places like Bangladesh, for a few hundred bucks I'd be able to bribe police, inspectors etc to squeeze that 'unreasonable' $1.10 down to say, $0.85. If your factory is using 10,000 labour hours a week [only about 150 people working 65h-weeks] the projected 'savings' over the year is going to be around $125k. Minus the change for bribes, that is.

KarmaPolice (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Lula

So, Macron asked Venezuela for transparency, explicitly mentioning Lula. Is Macron an anti-American communist dictator now? New world (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

i'm not quite sure where you're going with this. The G (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that "not enough" right now? New world (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

i mean, there is only so much he can do being a whole ocean away on a different continent (and part of the much-maligned western world. i've already stated that maduro's more democratic (or less authoritarian; take your pick) latam allies are the only ones who can really negotiate a peaceful transition of government, should one happen. i've also conceded that they're doing a better job than i expected. truth be told, they are probably doing the best they can given the circumstances. maybe taking a moderate stance is more effective than taking a hard line. if that's the case, then i'll admit that i was wrong. only time will tell, though as it's too soon to make the call. i thought biden's approach (an about-face from trump's "maximum pressure" policy) would have worked, but they seem to have backfired a good bit, as the maduro regime played him like a fiddle. (he immediately blocked the opposition's most popular candidate from running and took some americans as hostages after biden made a deal with him to ease some sanctions – to say nothing of the current situation. overall, he still doing better than trump, though.) The G (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Then we agree. I also agree that only time will tell if this approach is effective. New world (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not been following this thread closely but Lula is apparently calling for new elections in Venezuela. "On Thursday, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said that still doesn’t recognize Nicolás Maduro as the winner of the election and that his counterpart should call for a new vote. Colombian President Gustavo Petro later echoed the call for a new election." Chillpilled (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Asking for elections when there is no doubt that a certain group won (and fogetting that the group that rigged the other election will still be under control of this "new" election) makes Lula look even more like the dishonest moron he is. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

gotta hand it to him, though. he got the opposition and the government to agree with each other. jokes aside, the really sad part here is that biden also thought it would be a good idea. go figure. The G (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course. And you want what, an invasion? Sanctions? To say Venezuela was ruined? How about you try to establish democratic life instead. New world (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

the least he could've done was shut up, in this case. as gee said, there is broad consensus on who won the election, and (might i add) the government knows this. that's why they haven't released the official vote tally. a "do-over" isn't going to solve this, and to suggest otherwise is wishful thinking at best (and dishonest at worst). classic "putting one's foot in one's mouth" moment. The G (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

update: biden has since walked back on this suggestion. The G (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder...

Are there any Atheists in this wiki who believe in life after death? There probably aren't many, for fairly obvious reasons (Though the two beliefs are not mutually exclusive by any means), but if such an atheist is in this wiki, hi! Can you explain why you believe in an afterlife but don't believe in God(s), despite both having the same issue of not having been observed by science? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There's the possibility that this whole "life" is basically a game. Think of the R&M episode where they go to an arcade and Morty spends 55 "years" simulating the life of a regular man, experiencing an entire lifetime of emotion, heartbreak, joy, failure, success, love, and death. Then he exits the game. That's the "afterlife" for the man he simulated. CorruptUser 02:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to believe in an afterlife, but I don't think such an idea is intellectually tenable, for the same reason I don't believe in Russell's Teapot. Carthage (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

no such thing as cognition after death. If I begin to shuffle off, I hope and pray I am not one of those old men who say useless things. But I got a long ways to my natural death, so I got time for it. Torrent (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

what is the difference between actually helping each other and being trapped in some dork ass version of grab everything must be better at the game? It's a boring way to play, and generally unsuccessful, since nobody in the real world likes a guy who hoards wealth. capitalism, very spooky, requires money to be fluid. How can you earn 1 million fun bucks and have no idea how to spend it and say errybody else who got ten dollars had better spend it on.... Torrent (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone - atheist or otherwise - would believe in things for which they maintain there is no evidence.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have my own reasons; Anecdotal evidence, which is why I've never brought it up, though I may make a thread here challenging others to debunk it as per the quote in the Falsifiability article (Not for the purposes of proselytizing, obviously, but instead but to see if there are non-supernatural explanations I've overlooked), but that's beside the point. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to ask people to debunk your personal anecdotal evidence then that's a big ask. It obviously can't be done, as there is no way for another person to evaluate your personal subjective experience. It's not open to external investigation and there is no way to set up an experiment to test the anecdote or to even establish that it actually took place in the way you claim or in the way you remember it. But if you want to run with it then good luck!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 05:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's worth a shot even despite this. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, here is an anecdote. "One day, ten years ago Donald Duck came to visit me. He explained the secrets of life the universe and everything, but I forgot to write them down and now I don't remember them."

So .... Did someone spike my drink with an hallucinogen? Did I have a dream which I later convinced myself was real? Did something slightly odd happen but by thinking about it and re-remembering it so often did I create the memory? Am I lying and did I just invent the whole thing only to make a point about anecdotes? Or is Donald Duck really wandering around the world randomly dispensing profound knowledge?

So you see the problem with anecdotes? (And by the way all the explanations are better then the "Donald Duck is real" one.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

True, perhaps 'debunk' was not the right word for it, but what you've done here is practically what I meant by it in this context; I would tell my anecdote so others can provide (or attempt to provide) explanations that are likelier than the supernatural explanation, like you've done as an example in your message. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been able to find things since the last message that may possibly explain my anecdote while reading a few articles relevant to it; I may not do the thing now. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

OK. That's an very honest response. If you want to work on anything else I'm sure that would be interesting.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I have a pet theory - if consciousness is just a function of neurobiological processes, then those neurobiological processes, or some element of them, will certainly be recreated either here or in some other universe. You could say it is entirely different, but I look at it this way - if you managed to come up with a code for a program on your PC, and someone parallelly brought up a code executing similar stuff on theirs, wouldn't it be basically running almost the same thing? (There is, of course, a flaw in this argument - we are certainly not aware of any "other lives" in this lifetime.) Meow^Purr 01:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not against this line of thinking, I think it is very reasonable. We are particles and energy, and we through our lives have totally different cells. It's the Ship of Theseus paradox, but biologically it is kinda... Fine. Our selves are piloting our ships, and as we change and grow in our bodies, we change and grow as we live in these bodies. A problem with the Ship of Theseus is to ask, what does the captain, or pilot, lose? and that always hurts because we grow. The body changes, the personality is tinkered with but still grows. if the ship is the body, you'll sail à distance, maybe some ships are equipped to sail further than others, by biology. If the captain is your self, you'll have to sail that ship. but by ship of theseus terms, I really think it is cool to accept that building a boat and learning to be a captain from parts you get along the way makes it both your boat and everybody's. Why can't the answer to the Ship of Theseus be "both are true?" There are many other questions where I would say "that is true/false" but this one paradox is so easy. Your ship, respect that it's been rebuilt along the way, do your best to build it. Torrent (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I found a new(?) racist claim yesterday

I found it under the VSauce short about color context, under one of the 'VSauce just solved racism' comments, though it's been hidden, and I was only able to find it thanks to the Mobile Version feature where you can see other comments posted by the same person under videos by the same channel.

The claim was that other races came to be because of early humans breeding with other species like Neanderthals or some shit like that; I called bullshit when I saw that not only because the person making this claim was also spreading other racialist bullshit, but also because it contradicts the fact that race is, to my knowledge, mostly a social construct and how skin color can vary by quite a lot between generations.

Should we add a debunk of this claim to one of our articles regarding Racialism if we haven't done so already? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you think can be debunked? Would it be bad if the claim were true? I don't see why. It is likely unfalsifiable. However, the hypothesis really explains nothing. There is maybe 10 times more neanderthal dna in Europeans than there is in African folks (2-3% compared to 0-.3%). If it is just a nameless comment attached to a video, who cares? I could say, red haired people came to earth from Mars half a million years ago. Don't embarrass me by repeating that to anyone.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"Who cares?" is right. We gain nothing from engaging with racists on their own ridiculous and irrational worldview. We know they're wrong, even if they weren't racism would still be bad. -Ozzyboo (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

early humans did breed with neanderthals. i doubt the 'other races' part of the equation. its the half truths that sells the dogshit AMassiveGay (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You all make true points. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

So some context I found Googling via this AAAS article: [33] back in 2007, there was a study entitled: "A Melanocortin 1 Receptor Allele Suggests Varying Pigmentation Among Neanderthals". This suggested that some Neanderthals had some genes that reduced MC1R activity, which is "associated with pale skin color and red hair in humans of primarily European origin." Of course, racialists took a look at this study and twisted it to be, "Aha! There is more Neanderthal genes in us Europeans! But not with those nasty black people! And Neanderthal=white! Therefore, Neanderthal superior, and thus, we superior!" Which actually isn't the case... in reality, while the archaic Neanderthal human's main range is in Europe, their later range extended into central Asia as well. From there, Neanderthal genes have spread all over the world... Articles have noted that Asian Indians also have a significant percentage of Neanderthal genes. And, not in the AAAS article, but it's pretty fucking obvious that one stinkin' receptor that regulates melanin means nothing for vague and pointless judgments like "superiority" (or even "race", even though superficial characteristics are often used to create racial constructs).

While it is true that engaging with racialists is foolhardy, I think it is worth documenting their garbage viewpoints. Racialists tend to produce "scientific papers" that on the surface might look very Sciencey, with fancy graphs and dry language. Any "paper" I've seen however from a racialist has ridiculously obvious flaws. It's probably helpful for those not used to reading actual academic papers or similar to document how shitty the racialist reasoning is. As the AAAS article notes, some actual academic studies actually cited Richard Lynn's garbage. Apparently even academics get fooled. BobJohnson (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Neanderthals were ostensibly dark-skinned and brown eyed, possibly with red hair. Today, we have reason to think that other species of the genus homo, including Neanderthal, were mentally very similar to modern humans, and in no way inferior. The "he is a neanderthal" insult is a literary artifact. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Neanderthals also had larger brains than Homo Sapiens. It's believed that they were slightly less adaptable than humans, however, which is why they got displaced. CorruptUser 21:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The Neandertals and the Denisovans lost out to Homo Sapiens relatively recently - though after a long and successful run. We know they were similar enough to us to interbreed but as to why we ended up with just Homo Sapiens remains a mystery. Though speculation is free - and Homo Sapiens presumably had some advantage because we are here and they are not.

I often wonder how different the world would be if we had two other species of Homo to share the planet with though.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If they could interbreed and produce viable offspring, they weren't a different species. CorruptUser 19:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"Species" is not as clear-cut an idea as you seem to think it is.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a Map vs Territory issue. It's basically a question of whether or not the populations could ever merge into the same population or not; whether or not they could produce viable offspring is a handy metric. Horses and Donkeys will only ever produce sterile offspring, ergo different species. Lions and Tigers will produce no fertile males and only in exceedingly rare cases will the females be fertile; left to their own devices, there would not be genetic drift and the populations could not merge. Coyotes and dogs can produce fertile offspring, but left to their own devices it's pretty much only male dogs and female coyotes, and the male dogs abandon the pups resulting in the pups dying, thus if dogs and coyotes were to share the same area they would not merge over time.

In the case of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Sapiens, well, let's just say there are people today who still insist that Black Africans are a different species, and "produce viable offspring" is pretty much the simplest proof that those people are wrong. CorruptUser 20:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So you now accept that Neandertals and the Denisovans were different species of Homo who were able to hybridize with Homo Sapiens?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

No; I'm going to need to see some strong evidence that if their populations overlapped, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Sapiens would be unable to merge into a single population. The fact that Europeans/Asians have a significant chunk of Neanderthal DNA indicates that Neanderthals and Sapiens did produce successful hybrids which flourished. To me, that indicates that they were no more a separate species than Beagles and Rottweilers. CorruptUser 17:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Then you are wrong. That is simply not the scientific consensus. Many people have both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in their genomes showing that they are the descendants of fertile hybrids.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Sometimes two animals typically regarded as "two species" are actually similar enough to actually interbreed... to some extent. (Does this mean that they shouldn't be called two species? Good question, that something for the scientists to figure out... which I think they still are. :) ) The Forbes article BobM linked to mentions chimpanzees and bonobos (but they are very close, to the point where at one point they were not thought of as two species). Another example I can think of is bison and domestic cattle; they can interbreed to some degree, and (with the help of cattle ranchers in the 1800s) did so to the point where most current bison herds have a little bit of cattle DNA in them. Coyotes and wolves have also cross-bred without human help (well, sort of... wolves started looking for coyotes after human-induced population decline), forming a "hybrid" called coywolf. The key to this interbreeding is: do the chromosomes match up well? In the case of the coyote-wolf and the bison-cattle, they actually do... to at least some extent.

I don't know if we have really good evidence how well archaic humans cross-bred with homo sapiens, apart from the DNA traces. Cross-hybridization probably worked better than mules, which are cross-bred from species with slightly different amounts of chromosomes, and thus are usually infertile. The "other side of the coin" is that coyotes and wolves seem to be quite compatible with each other; in fact, from the Wiki articles it seems that the eastern coyote is actually considered a coyote-wolf hybrid these days. In between, as seen in the beefalo article which covers bison-cow hybrids, you have hybrids species with better success than mules, but still "with issues". My "hunch" after reading the Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans Wiki article is that while interbreeding did occur a little, the homo sapiens characteristics tended to dominate (perhaps due to some interbreeding "issues")... thus the percentage of archaic human DNA is quite low in even those that have some. BobJohnson (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It still seems to be a "map vs territory" issue, along with a hefty dose of historical baggage. CorruptUser 02:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ While Neanderthals and Denisovans were psychologically very similar to modern humans, there were important differences that I think is being glossed over here. Neanderthals, in some instances, had slightly larger brains that modern humans, yes, but most of that brain was in the hindbrain, which deals more with the senses, than the forebrain, which is where the bulk of modern human grey matter is located. That's why modern human skulls are globular whereas Neanderthal skulls tend to be low and sloping in shape. Carthage (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)