RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive462

This is an archive page, last updated 22 September 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>, <461>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Do you guys take any issue with citing Wikipedia as a source?

I want to add a mention of nation-wide polls showing that Biden was favored among voters to the 'Fraud Claims' section to the 2020 U.S. presidential election in order to help further dispel claims of Voter Fraud (I know that polls can be of questionable reliability, but given how Biden won almost all the polls, I think it still strengthens the point). Though I could cite specific polls from shortly before the elections to illustrate this point, I want to cite Wikipedia instead because the article about the 2020 election polls on there is a lot more comprehensive than just that. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I may sometimes cite it if it's a good reference/summary, or compilation of other references. This obviously isn't always the case. But for instance, articles marked as a "good article" or "featured article" are more likely to be at least decent. Though given how that process works, by no means is it guaranteed, and there are plenty of decent WP articles that aren't marked that way. One problem is WP pages are just as fluid as ours because of open editing if not more-so since WP has more public attention, so it may not be a totally stable reference. Chillpilled (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you say that the Wikipedia pages for the 2020 US Election Polls (And also the 2022 Brazilian Election Polls) would fall under this? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

No idea, you'll have to judge yourself. As a resource I recommend FiveThirtyEight's pollster ratings. You might consider citing exit polls for this also, since as with the Venezuela election, those may be the most reliable polls for determining a discrepancy between official results and actual votes if there is one. Chillpilled (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

As long as it's not excessive. The WPA template works if you want it to be a citation, and the WPL template works when you want it to be an inline link. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I recently found out you only need the W for the latter, like this. Chillpilled (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are citing Wikipedia, why not just use the cites that WP itself uses? CorruptUser 02:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Because then you aren't citing Wikipedia. You're citing their citations. And unless you are also able to, and have read the source of the citation-- which you can't always do from the WP citation alone-- well, that's not a proper citation, is it? Kencolt (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason for why I wanted to use Wikipedia for this case was because it provides a record of Election Polls that is many magnitudes more comprehensive than citing a few of their sources would allow for. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Just use the External sources and references and you're fine. Citing it for any reason other than a basic introduction for shit is stupid. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason for why I wanted to use Wikipedia for this case was because it provides a record of Election Polls that is many magnitudes more comprehensive than citing a few of their sources would allow for. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is one of those rare cases where citing WP as a source would be okay. What WP have done is put together all the major polls into one singular chart/graph which I suspect isn't available elsewhere. The only other option would be to go through an fairly consuming and pointless exercise in re-making the chart/graph using the raw refs from the WP page for the sole reason to satisfy following a rule to a stupid conclusion.

However, I would make a fairly diligent search to see if anybody not WP had done similar you could use. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a bot that archives outgoing links?

I have noticed that a lot of the sources we cite in our articles, especially older ones, tend to go down due to link rot (likely amplified by the fact that we oftentimes cite personal blogs and the like), with a lot of the articles I read having at least one; Would it be possible for us to develop a bot that automatically archives outgoing links (And perhaps somehow detects outgoing links which have already been taken down and warns us about it), similar to how Wikipedia does it? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Would be nice. Chillpilled (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that there was once a mechanism for that, but it hasn't worked in years. Bongolian (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

As a workaround, you can check archives like archive.is and the Wayback Machine for archived versions of whatever you're trying to find. No guarantees they'll have it, but it's better than nothing. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually excited about Democratic candiates?

I didn't even think this was possible, but I'm... excited about a Democratic nominee? Harris and Walz are crushing it. Will be happy to call her Madam President. I love Walz especially, he has that sort of old timey American progressive vibe that really gets me energized. Thoughts? -Ozzyboo (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Harris/Walz is unquestionably the Democratic ticket I've had the fondest feelings for in my lifetime. The mood among my liberal acquaintances seems a lot..."brighter" compared to any other presidential election cycle I've known them during. (Of course, all of this is mere anecdotal evidence.)-Flandres (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Harris was deeply unpopular in 2020. People aren't excited for Kamala; they've just been so exhausted in keeping up the charade that Biden was anything but a senile old coot, only because the alternative was the villain from every 80's movie combined, that the breath of stale air that is Kamala is basically a relief.

I guess I'll cast my vote for President Brainworms. CorruptUser 21:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait, "President Brainworms" as in Kennedy?-Flandres (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I know he's a conspiracy psycho and I realize that he might very well be worse than either Trump or Harris, but 1) my state is not a swing state in the slightest and 2) voting as a protest sends a stronger message than simply not voting, since it means my vote WAS up for grabs. Plus, I need to vote for Representatives, etc. CorruptUser 22:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

-Flandres (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I kinda agree with Corrupt here; that the 'exitement' is in constrast with the general shittiness of the previous options. I think the last time there was any real enthusiasm for a Dem candidate would have been with Obama in '08 - at least when it comes to the Big Public who most likely shall never see them further than their TV. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

While not personally, two of my friends have met Obama themselves. I had the chance to meet Obama, but it was a bit of a hassle so I didn't go. It's really not that difficult to meet some of these people. CorruptUser 22:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No, not really. Harris and Walz openly calling Republicans creepy weirdos is the root of it I think. Obviously the "not Biden effect" has a lot to do with it but people wouldn't be as excited if the nominees were Newsom and Shapiro. Also, Cory being a Kennedy voter is unsurprising. The sheer irony of a RW mod voting for a conspiracy theorist addled with brainworms cannot be overstated. I am dying laughing. Vote for Harris and shut up, protest voting has never worked. -Ozzyboo (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

A few things that I can't help wonder if it is helping the Harris/Walz combo (that isn't in that nebulous "vibes" category):

A) Project 2025 also started trending around early July per Google trends. This gave voters "in the know" what the real Republican agenda is all about. I don't think a lot of non-fundie/fascist/manosphere types like what Project 2025 is selling. Even casual voters might pick up on that "let's ban abortion" motif; hell, things like banning IVF and even contraception itself have been mused by these guys.

B) Trump picked J.D. Vance as a running mate. Not exactly a natural political type. In a month, he has already has made some significant flubs ("childless cat lady" probably being the dumbest of the lot). Reportedly he's even more unpopular than Sarah Palin according to the current polls. Not a good start, eh? According to one study, Palin cost McCain about 1.6 percentage points, so it's possible that some of the poll tilt reflects this pick alone.

The main reason I think the "weird" angle works is because of some of the stuff above. Forget anti-abortion extremism (which is also unpopular) - anti-IVF and contraception stances are seriously out of line with American opinion. And "weird" is a great description of the neo-reactionary movement that Vance subscribes do (though I don't think the casual voter has quite processed that bit of weirdness yet)... or a great description of Vance himself.

That being said, I also think it helps that the "vibes" Harris and Walz are pushing are sunny. It contrasts with the Trumpism doom and gloom and unless you are a Fox News addict it sure might be more appealing. I've said that MAGA is "time-limited" before; unlike many other countries with populist right movements, Trumpism is clearly tilted towards the "grey hair" demographic, as are a lot of the other things branded "conservative" in this country. At this point, I'm wondering if the particular brand of doom-and-gloom Other-bashing declinism that Trump is selling is running out of steam. BobJohnson (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Corrupt already explained they're in a safe state. But can't you vote Libertarian? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's the principle of the thing.-Ozzyboo (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I just might vote Libertarian. But it's painful seeing as how they always lose, y'know? Might as well, again as a protest, but I'm too old to be so dumb as to think Libertarians understand anything about how governments work. CorruptUser 23:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Chase Oliver has some decent positions, for a Libertarian, I mean. But I still think it's so unfathomably stupid to not support the most credible opposition to Trump and Project 2025 regardless of what state you're in. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I can get where Corrupt is coming from; I found myself going into a GE where I would 'need' to vote for a Labour party [as the main anti-Tory opposition] which had been telling me to go fuck myself on a near-daily basis since Starmer lied his way into the leadership. If I had been put into a very safe seat, I would have voted Green - in this case, this would have been my 'principle vote'.

Anyway, Corrupt the thing is that a protest vote doesn't win. It's kinda the point. And as you said yourself, you're not in a swing state so you can afford to find the 'least shit' candidate on principles alone and vote for them, as you know it shall have 0% effect on the result. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but the anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist guy isn't the least shit candidate. And Harris isn't like Starmer. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I was merely citing that as an example - that I was being shunted into a position of 'the unplalatable vs the unnacceptable' with voting. And yes, I would also put Kennedy in the latter camp. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

How did Starmer lie his way into leadership? I don't keep up with UK politics much. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In short; presented self as socialist during internal election so the base would vote for him [I would have], but promptly threw it all overboard the moment he'd won [quote; 'we've moved past this' in a condesending tone], signed up to neolib economics and Third Way tinkering and did his best to drive away anyone further left than he, such as deselecting left-wingers etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

CorruptUser, Your single vote for the presidency may not matter in your particular state, but if you're protest-voting for RFK, you're protesting reality and are not well-grounded. RFK is not just an anti-vaxxer, he seeks out brainworms. First it was undercooked park whose worm actually laid claim to cranial territory. Then he thought that eating a dead bear would be yum (bear is a source of brainworms).[1][2] Bongolian (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC) Also, if RFK gets significant protest votes, it's going to encourage him to keep coming back to annoy endlessly as a perennial candidate. I'm protesting against batshit candidates (Rump, RFK, Stein & Williamson) and voting for reality! Jesus fucking Christ, RFK is even running as the fascist party candidate in California (American Independent Party). Bongolian (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘so here's another one of my hot takes: biden is the best president we've had in at least a generation (if not the best in american history) when it comes to climate action (though that bar is really low). not bad for a dusty old coot often viewed as unlikeable or unappealing. here's to hoping that kamala continues this trend. The G (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think, if you have a "moral obligation" to vote for Kamala or whoever, depends on what your end goal is by voting, or if voting is even the most effective means to oppose fascism and affect systemic change, which is by no means guaranteed. That said, no third party candidate is gonna beat Trump because the voting system we use is designed to set up a two-party duopoly. I know that ultimately some states and localities will use voting systems alternative to FPTP, so if you want to make third parties relevant, really relevant, go local and advocate for changes to voting systems in your state and locality.

I also know that some people will choose to not vote out of moral principle, which I think is perfectly understandable too. If some first nations person doesn't want to participate and give legitimacy to the entity that colonized them, all the power to them.

If you think that nothing is gonna change because both the Democrats and Republicans suck, all the power to you, I say. Although this presupposes that voting is the "only" way to affect change, which is not true. Vote for a Democrat in the general, because the alternative is fascism, but also protest and advocate. "Nothing will change" is pointless defeatism. Carthage (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I really don't like the concept of there being 'a moral obligation' to vote for anyone. I mean, let's say back in July I, along with millions of British left-wingers didn't vote Labour and the result was that the Conservatives got in again. Are you gonna say it was our fault? That we had an 'obligation' to vote Labour - a party which had without fail been telling us left-wingers to fuck off and die for four years and had crafted a manifesto almost identical to the Tories? It passes the buck off the party and leadership that they should have treated us with more respect and consider us a voting bloc which needed to be courted. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

More importantly, why is it always EVERYONE ELSE who has to sacrifice to prevent the "great evil" from happening? If Trump is truly the threat to end all threats to Democracy, why doesn't KAMALA withdraw and the Democrats put their full support behind the 3rd party candidate? In the US, it's possible to be both the Green and Democratic party nominee at the same time. CorruptUser 15:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Because she's a stronger candidate than the anti-vax activist, the "dinner with Putin" lady, and the Libertarian guy? Like, why would she do that? She's undeniably got a movement going on here. Why would she throw that away for a worse chance at beating Trump? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the little fact they are the largest not-Republican party in the country is the main issue. The fact that no third-party candidate polls with the public as individuals better than any of the presumed Democratic candidates [or even a 'generic Democrat' option] for Pres is a close second. Next, the Democratic party is a sprawling Blue blob on the political spectrum to the point almost all the possible candidates are already in the tent [or in Sanders case, at least hanging about the opening-flap]. However, at lower levels I have heard of instances where the local Democrats have 'stood aside' for others and thrown their weight behind them - such as in the 22 Senate race in Utah in which the Democrats backed an Independent. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Vermont also features a non-FPTP voting system, which may have something to do with that. Carthage (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Joe Biden did withdraw, and the Democrats put their support behind the VP and a folksy governor from Minnesota, in order to help "save democracy" and all of that. So there's that. From the polls so far, it seems like they made a good choice.

Now, I don't think there's anything honestly that wrong with Biden's presidential term (In this century, I rank Obama's presidency higher personally, but Biden's presidency was light years ahead of Dubya, who himself was light years ahead of Trump). But it's pretty clear that Biden's age was holding the Democrats back. (Why Trump's age doesn't hold the Republicans back, who knows... he's been looking pretty bad too lately. I guess the "Trump cult" doesn't care?)

Trump is not the "threat to end democracy", really.... It is the Republican party itself. Much of it, at least. (If you find one of those rare so-called "RINO" types, they are fine to vote for if that's your thing). Trump did kick the hornet's nest, so to speak, but the evangelicals and racists in this country have been long been the card-holders for the American pro-authoritarianism wing. In the 1980s, business ruled the Republican party; the evangelicals and racists were tossed an occasional bone. Today, it's the reverse.

For this years' primary, I cast a vote against both an election conspiracist and a Moms for Liberty culture war yahoo. The positions of election supervisor and school board elections used to be relatively sleepy affairs. Not anymore. BobJohnson (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It’ll also be interesting if Trump’s praise for Elon Musk bragging about firing striking workers and the UAW calling Trump a scab is beginning to undo all of the careful stage management that presented the GOP as some kind of worker’s/pro-worker party. If so, that could be crucial in several Rust Belt swing states. Not least if the counter punch by Walz pointing to his pro union legislation in Minnesota gets traction in the media and among the voters, especially along with highlighting the PRO Act at the national level. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Even the pre-Trump GOP's policies were incredibly harmful to the working class. They've always been the enemy, they were just better at hiding it before Trump. Carthage (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That was my point (hence why I called it stage management), but the “GOP as pro worker party” narrative did seem to have gained some traction, no matter how bullshit it is (basically peddling culture war posturing in lieu of actual pro worker policies).

It has clearly been a key strategy for winning in the Rust Belt swing states along with all of the pie in the sky “Under Trump the economy will be great and so will the jobs” blatherskite. If this narrative fails, and Trump is seen as the “You’re fired!” nasty executive buddy of other sinister big boss types (like Musk), that might lose him this important edge. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I will argue that this iteration of the Republicans were ever 'pro-worker', they were 'anti-elite', in which they really meant the 'professional-managerial stratum' such as teachers, bosses, social workers, bank manager, civil servants etc - 'the elites' of their own 'monkeysphere'. A lot of folks have a short-sighted view of society, only noticing those in their group or immediately adjacent. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think boiling the excitement regarding Harris and Walz to 'They're not Biden' is an oversimplification; Tim Walz's policies are really good regarding pretty much anything (When I was reading our article on him I was like 'Oh my God, he's peak'), so that probably is a big driving force for the hype. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that if Harris doesn't win election, then a women will never win the presidency. She is clearly competent, and her male opponent could not be a worse candidate (maybe indicted for a televised 1st degree murder). I can hardly imagine a candidate inferior to Trump. There is nothing wrong with being excited, and I think it is good to be enthusiastic for whomever is receiving your vote. But excitement shouldn't be necessary for one to do their duty where preservation of the constitutional form of government is at issue. Faith in the democratic form of government may be many miles wide and only a few inches deep.I sometimes hear the self-righteous expression that boils down to, "if I don't get my way, it doesn't matter what happens;" and that is generally true really, until it isn't. UncleKrampus (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Aged like milk

So, apparently Kennedy is going to drop out in the next few days and endorse Trump. Does Coryanyone in this thread want to reconsider anything?-Flandres (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Will this be enough to get Trump to be competitive again? Carthage (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure some Kennedy voters will go to Trump, but the effect this will have on the election depends on stuff we can't immediately predict, like "where do these people live." It's worth noting polls without Kennedy are conducted all the time and Harris is still in the lead. It appears Kennedy was drawing a lot of voters from the "none of the above/I would not vote" group.-Flandres (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Depends too on how much Kennedy tries to help Trump and how good he is at it. (Also, rumor is that Trump promised to make him CIA Director) Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was Health and Human Services he wanted to appoint him to? Chillpilled (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there any stats on where the Kennedy voters voted in 20? KarmaPolice (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@CorruptUser. Given that RFK and his co-nutter Nicole Shanahan are about to drop out and endorse Oderus Urungus at any moment now, it seems like they fittingly have chosen the most insane alternative to themselves. Quasi-billionaire Shanahan even lamented that the campaign couldn't make more money and so would grudgingly throw what little weight they have behind Rumpus. Some of the duo's supporters apparently are angry and are not intending to comply with this meta-level insanity. RFK apparently wants a cabinet post for his endorsement. Shanahan didn't go that far, but she's undoubtedly angling for something. She'll have to cough up some dough to bribe the monetary black hole of Palm Beach. Bongolian (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC) The whole debacle of that campaign is RFK's fault. After finding a sugar momma to fund attempting to get on ballots in all 50 states, he didn't realize that he didn't realize that he's officially a California resident (not a New York resident as he falsely claimed), just like Shanahan, hence disqualified by the Constitution. A New York State judge said as much and threw them off the ballot. Any Secretaries of State that care could do the same. RFK's a lawyer you say? He didn't read the Constitution, you say? Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Boo. I guess it's another year of Libertarian. I need to figure out what Oliver Chase is all about, act all smug to everyone else who doesn't know about him, then get disappointed that my guy didn't win again. CorruptUser 20:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Who? You didn't even get his name right. Bongolian (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It's still hilarious that a RW mod was willing to vote for an antivaxxer conspiracy theorist. Carthage (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I should've backed the guy who probably sexually assaulted a few people, or the lady who withheld exculpatory evidence which effectively kept innocent people in prison because her state needed the slave labor. My bad. I'll do better in the future. CorruptUser 06:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@CorruptUser, you're blurring facts from apparently low-grade information sources. 1) Trump is admitted sex offender (the Hollywood Access tape) and an adjudicated rapist.[3] 2) Regarding Harris, you're apparently referring to a single disputed case (Kevin Cooper) not "innocent people".[4] Bongolian (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Hollywood Access tapes was "guy talk" from back in the day. I'm referring to Jill Harth and that woman from The Apprentice who came out decades ago. So can we agree that when candidate's problems, the conspiracy-nutter is better than the probable-rapist?

As for Harris, I'm not going to suddenly forget that she was very much a part of the system that was not only lying to my face the the President Has No Clothes, but trying to convince me I was the bad guy for even considering it. Probably, alone, she is better than RFK. But if we have a President who can lie about something so blatantly obvious and the media apparatus will support him/her, well, they can just make anything up can't they?

As I said, I'm not voting for RFK (and I can't) as much as I'm voting against the current system in a state that doesn't even matter to begin with, beyond denying either of the candidates more 'legitimacy' by having more of the popular vote. CorruptUser 08:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

“”My fellow worms and Americans, It is I, your friend, the worm who ate part of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s brain, then died. … Ultimately, this came down to values. I say now what I have said this whole campaign: I am a parasite and I do not have the country’s best interests at heart. So it is clear to me now that I have no choice but to drop out of the race and support Donald Trump. Ultimately, this came down to values. I say now what I have said this whole campaign: I am a parasite and I do not have the country’s best interests at heart. So it is clear to me now that I have no choice but to drop out of the race and support Donald Trump.

—Alexandra Petri[5]

Bongolian (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

"Standard guy talk from back in the day." Dude he was bragging about sexually exploiting underage girls. He was flaunting his power over them. Bragging about how they couldn't do anything to resist him. There's no way in hell that's just "standard guy talk." Carthage (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Cory sounds like a democrat partisan trying to make an insulting parody of the "both sides are the same" crowd. "Trump is a criminal who wants to end democracy but Harris lied about Biden's' age which is roughly equally immoral when you think about it..."-Flandres (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

He was likely serially raping women during and before the time of the tape. He's only been adjudicated for one woman, but many others have accused him of rape (including his ex-wife during court proceedings). The others didn't sue him because they didn't want to be put through the MAGA and legal harassment machine. Bongolian (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s official

RFK Jr. announced that he really is out, and he’s backing Trump. If he wasn’t banned from the Kennedy family Thanksgiving table before, I’ll bet he is now. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Is Alfred North Whitehead anyone special?

Someone I'm "debating" drops his name a lot like the second coming of Jesus or whatever and I don't really know much about the guy. I know he started some school of philosophy called process philosophy but that's about it. I'm just wondering if he's really such a big deal or there is anything special about him.47.5.66.54 (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll give you my non-philosophy skim-read opinion: anyone who founds a noteworthy school of thought (and process philosophy seems to be one) is not going to be a "small name". That being said, the "skim read" impression that I get is that process philosophy (until relatively recently) was seen as a bit archaic and out of fashion. In recent years, however, there has been a bit of a revival of Whitehead in a few corners, notably in ecology (particularly in China) where the philosophy is linked to a concept called ecological civilization. So... it's something.

The other impression I get is that Whitehead is a very deeply dry and academic philosopher. This sort of thing makes "name drops" in conversation suspect. It's something that happens with authors/academics/scientists/etc. who write difficult / indigestible material; many times, the person dropping the name reference actually doesn't really know the material very well, but wants to use the "name drop" to impress. Such is an argument from authority fallacy (specifically, the "false authority" fallacy). Up to you to decide if this is the case here or not. BobJohnson (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Whitehead is notable for his collaboration with the major English philosopher, Bertrand Russell. He was a mathematician and his interests were mainly physics, philosophy of science and education. He did hard stuff. If you like the modern European unscientific approach, forget Whitehead. An easy avenue to Whitehead's thought might be Science and the Modern World.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ivermectin ads are back

So Faux News was pimping out ads for Big Ivermectin during Trump's Arizona rally. Is that because RFK, Jr was there? Carthage (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

That's hilarious!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Really? Interesting, but not surprising. I avoid Fox News as much as possible, but when I've seen it, they tend to have a much higher percentage of "scam ads" than other networks. (Gold "investment" scams in particular were a big thing on Fox News, to the point where other media outlets took notice and wrote articles about the phenomenon.) Shady companies know that the Fox News has lots of the "gullible Boomer" demographic. BobJohnson (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I know that Bloomberg TV had goldbuggery ads from Ron Paul a few years ago. Bongolian (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Can y'all do your part and vote on the current Articles for Demotion?

The voting has been a bit stagnant, and I figured people just didn't see it, so uh, please vote? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I think activity has slowed down due it being August... KarmaPolice (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That and the creator of Articles for Demotion has been a bit busy with the whole "reproduction" thing. CorruptUser 03:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Which meme do you guys like more?

Original meme found on Twitter/X; meme I edited to be more accurate. Which one do you all think fits the religious freedom page better? Luigifan18 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The former. The latter comes off as a leftist meme - as in, way too wordy. Plus I don't think Christians in general deserve a pass from the behavior of the worst, given who's in power in the US. Religious belief always entails some form of error in your epistemological framework. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, misinterpreting "freedom of religion" into "only my religion should have any freedom" isn't just a problem with Christianity. Quite a few other religions are currently doing it (Islam instantly comes to mind, even if some of the accusations against it are coming from people who won't actually be satisfied with anything less than Islam (and/or Arabs) completely ceasing to exist), and if I recall my history correctly, most religions have done it at some point or another (yes, even Buddhism of all things). However, this may be less a problem with religion per se and more a problem with tribalism. Maybe I still have too much faith in humanity, but I think the people who are trying to distort freedom of religion into a license to abuse non-believers are a vocal minority of narcissistic and/or self-righteous assholes. (And yes, the more moderate/sane religious people could and should be doing more to call out and denounce the assholes, sure, but that might sound like No True Scotsman posturing.)

Oh, I also made a third version of the meme that's in-between the other two. This one still calls out Christianity specifically through the medium of strikeout humor, but also makes it clear that the problem isn't really Christianity so much as, well, narcissistic assholes who refuse to tolerate opinions that aren't identical to their own or the people holding said opinions. Luigifan18 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Our live performance of Ezekiel 3:1-3 was not as easy as the passage suggested. Namako (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this SCP is based on that. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

who is this meme for and is it really needed at all? memes dont lend themselves well to nuance or reasoned discussion. memes are for trolling your enemies or high fiving your pals. you are over thinking it. also religious freedom is not in anyway a distinct concept to freedom of religion. the usage of one term over the other does not imply a distinction and is merely a grammatical choice. details on relevant talkpage. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Memes should rarely be used in mainspace articles. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 12:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

RationalWiki has been sued

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:RationalMedia Foundation.

Representation of women in media over the years

So I was thinking: the Arkham games feature women largely as damsels in distress or as sex objects, and never in the criminal gangs despite men and women committing crimes at roughly equal rates. Gotham Knights, however, does feature women largely as, you know, people and not something for the male protagonist to lust over or rescue. There's been a sustained push to feature women as real people in media and that's paid off, which I am grateful for. There's also no shortage of women as fighters historically speaking (think Pearl Hart, Joan of Arc, or the Dahomey Amazons), so when misogynists say featuring women as fighters and not sex objects or kitchen maintenance machines is "unrealistic," they're the ones speaking out of their asses. Carthage (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

What's your source for the claim of men and women committing crimes at roughly equal rates? I've heard TERF types use disproportionate crime rates as a talking point. Not saying you're wrong, but as skeptics, we should trust, but verify. Women absolutely are fighters in wars, but there's a bit more context to it. They're rarely on the front lines, so it would be ahistorical to, say, make a movie of a mixed-gender D-Day landing. Fictional contexts are something else entirely. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Although doing crime and imprisonment are not the same thing, prison populations for men are much higher than for women.[6] See also Sex differences in crime. Bongolian (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Going by the wiki article, there is a really stark difference in the crime rates between men and women for violent crimes. However... by the time you get to non-violent crimes (eg fraud, theft, embezzlement), the gap narrows (although men still have higher rates). It's worth noting that men have a higher percentage rate of being a victim of certain violent crimes as well (eg murders), although obviously not certain others (eg sex crimes like rape).

However, fictionalized female criminals (or even embellished real-life female criminals, as "stark difference in crime rates" doesn't mean 100% male) have long been a staple of media. Since I'm not a big "gamer", I generally can't comment on too many games, but I do remember the hype around the GTA 6 trailer a bit back. As the trailer featured both a male and female lead, the most obvious reference point for many commentators was Bonnie and Clyde, a bandit couple from the 1930s that has long been transformed into a fiction trope. I did see articles that in certain corners of the Internet, the Woke Derangement Syndrome brigade was quick to label the trailer as woke for some reason. I don't know why. It's like a character with both agency and breasts is scary to them. At any rate, they were a tiny minority anyways; I never saw such nonsense in the "social medias" I skimmed. BobJohnson (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Eh, it's not 'woke', more simply game-makers 'looking for original angles' to make their product stand out in a marketplace where the 'core demographic' [youngish males] is very well served and most others barely at all. Giving the protagonist a pair of tits [and not ones the size of her head] is a relatively easy thing to do, and ensuring they don't wear a variant of 'bikini armour' already puts you quite ahead the game [I actually use this as a first test for 'make your own char' games; that if my char doesn't need a steel-loaded bra for running, has access to a remotely normal wardrobe, can go with a 'practical look' and has a body which doesn't require the power of waif-fu to do stuff (looking at you, Mass Effect FemShep) it suggests to me that the makers have paid attention to the details and is more interested in making a playable game than simply throwing in fanservice.]

The crime-caper games sexism [also in action/war games and spy capers] is easy to work out - they're spiritual successors to the 'pulp magazines' from the 1890s onwards and their sibling the 'dime novel'. Easy to follow, escapist stories for young men - where Smeeth is in his mind's eye a [successful, obviously] Western gunslinger, Chicago gangster, hardboiled detective or secret agent and not a spotty clerk riding a bus to their office in Slough [You'd not be shocked to learn there was a moral panic about them too]. I think some of it was innocent homages of varying level of consciousness [I mean, I knew the 'hardboiled detective' genre outline even before I had realised it was a genre] and the other half a ham-fisted deign by a bunch of game-makers to suck at y'know actual writing and have a fairly fixed idea of their core market [ie a youngish male leering at tits].

Anyway, BobJ nails much of the crime discrepancy down; that the things 'we' are most likely to 'throw the book at' [sex and violence] are predominantly seen in males - having one guy in a prison for 10 years is the same weight as 10 women in for a year each. Differences in sentencing is also a thing; I remember seeing an England/Wales statistics that women are more likely to get suspended sentences than males in equivalent crimes - my hypothesis is that at least in part, women are more able to plead 'caring duties' to dodge a custodial sentence than men. More nebulous theories include female defendants more likely to try to play victimhood to avoid/reduce punishment [correctly or not] and residual sexism in judges in viewing the 'general risk to the population' to be lower in a female defendant than a male. Lastly we need to remember that these stats rely on detection rates; it might be that female criminals are better at getting away with stuff... KarmaPolice (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

So the source was essentially PIDOOMA, as I was recalling something I read a long time ago, so disregard that statistic, but I think my point still stands that women serving as fighters or in other stereotypically masculine occupations, like hunting or, in Western cultures, farming (in First Nations cultures there are more AFAB people in farming than in non-indigenous societies, and historically speaking farming was a feminine occupation in Eastern North America) is not a historical unicorn. I wouldn't advocate for a mixed gender D-Day reenactment and market it as historical, although I see no problem with there being a mixed gender D-DAY reenactment. My post was ultimately about fictional media anyways. Carthage (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Instead of listing individual 'exceptions to the rule', I feel it's better/easier to note where the hell the rule came from in the first place re: 'feminine' traits/occupations. And I can tell you - 18th Century Western Europe. Before this, women of all classes played a much fuller [though not equal] role in their societies; noblewomen [for example] were often the 'estate manager' and 'diplomat' for the family - supervising the staff, maintaining the supplies for winter and keeping up a heavy correspondence with all the family's branches and their 'allies'.

Then conspicuous leisure happened.

'Inactivity' became a status symbol in the West, then the norm for the upper classes. Think of for example the works of Jane Austen - few of the upper-class [male] characters seem to have an actual job and those few who do, don't seem to work very hard. To have an 'active' wife told others that I, your husband could not afford enough servants to keep you idle. Naturally, the ambitious bourgeoisie and then the petit bourgeois aped this as much as they could. The apex of this view was perhaps the late Victorian era; where the average bourgeois woman was a half-crippled being in a tight corset and soft slippers, with a head full of fluff and with the emotional fortitude of wet cardboard. Naturally, the working-class women continued to labour the way they always had - something still seen today for billions in the less-developed parts of the world - but as the 20th Cen went through a lot of 'cultural embourgeoisement' happened to white-collar working class folks which increased the 'woman as ornament' view in society [rising SoL helped here too].

Which leads back to the original point. I think a lot of the problem is just simple lazy writing by folks who don't realise they have all this gendered crap in their heads and on the occasion it's pointed out to them they scramble to find other 'reasonable' reasons to justify it. Similar can be said towards class; that all-too often you'll find worlds entirely populated by middle-class people doing middle-class things and with middle-class thought patterns. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

So... Classicism is bad, and it's because of Jane Austen? Then it's also because of Zora Neal Hurston and Sylvia Plath? I'm sure in a smaller world, maybe Austen isn't a world of confident self reliance. Ralph Ellison knows how buck wild racism and classical gets. Joseph Heller made fun of squad members, duties, and fears in Catch 22, Plath would rather die. So the classics are very gendered and racial. But what that means is it's not a new human experience. Torrent (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What, the Classical world? Well, in ancient Rome the upper/middle-class women appear to have played a fuller [though not equal] role in society, more analogous to the medieaval/early Renaissance example I painted above. Ancient Greece? Well, part of the issue is that Greece wasn't a political unit, which meant various city-states had differing views - being a female Spartan appears to have been significantly better than say a female Athenian [the former somewhat similar to the Roman while the latter is fairly similar to what is now enforced in Iran]. If the folks in the Regency era thought they were replicating 'the Ancients', it was from a very select reading of history [which is hardly a shock...]

As for Austen, I was using her works as a shorthand for the world of the 'Regency era', because I suspect more folks are familiar with the former than the latter - just like someone might use 'Dickensian' to conjure up the vision of the early-Victorian era of stagecoaches, slums and corrupt officials. Austen is a mere documentor of the phenomenon, not the cause. Plus the likes of Pride and Prejudice are satires of some of the more stupid elements of the era [something that modern readers/viewers fail to spot]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

So let's agree on something. Because we seem to have agreed on SOMETHING. Austen is early satire, not sure that's my take, Hurston doesn't quite get her due because people say she couldn't have written it without a white man ghost writer, Mary Shelly gets the same treatment, Harper Lee gets the same treatment. Sylvia Plath and Willa Cather have written things that I love. Raymond Carver wrote some killer short stories and there is documentation of his absolute anguish letting his editor take it over to trim the work. Maybe it was easier to document, since he was a man. But nobody treats Raymond Carver as a question, his short stories are still his. Torrent (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not exactly an anime fan, I think a lot of anime is cheesy. And I don't like much dub work from before the last two or three years. But the anime Full Metal Alchemist:Brotherhood is one of my favorite serial stories, based and reliant on Hirumi Awakara's manga. The English voice acting is fine, I would suggest it. It is an incredible version of a fantasy world where every character is written as an integral part of the story. Maybe girl characters suck or rule, it's up to the author. But this one is extremely cool. It's a Japanese trope of what a strong woman/man is, but it's nuanced about it.Torrent (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Good news to report

I'm not sure if anyone here is aware of this, but 1d4chan is back online. It's on Miraheze now and it's rebranded itself as 1d6chan. People here should check that place out; it's got a very similar goofy tone to RationalWiki, if not goofier, and they seem quite agreeable with RationalWiki's ideals (for instance, /pol/ is a frequent subject of mockery). Particularly their articles on subjects relevant to RationalWiki's mission, like Racial Holy War (1d6chan counterpart), Nazis (1d6chan counterpart), the Satanic Panic (1d6chan counterpart), or Jack Chick (1d6chan counterpart). I've been pretty active there recently. I even gave RationalWiki a shout-out on their page about dice (they mentioned a neat science trick for determining whether or not a die is unbalanced). Luigifan18 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it regarding the articles as I cannot be bothered to read through them, but it does seem like they allow toxicity to pass through mostly unfiltered (Check the talk page for the /pol/ article to see what I'm talking about). TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

So a toxic shithole marginally better than 4chan is back. Why should we care? Carthage (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you mean by calling them "toxic". It's /tg/, not /pol/ or a wider cross-section of 4chan. If anything, the userbase of that site is a bunch of nerds. Luigifan18 (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Nerds can still be toxic. See: The Fandom Menace.Ioe bidome (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair point about Gamergate, but I don't think that applies to /tg/ if its attitude towards /pol/ (read: revulsion and derision) is any indication. Then again, Pokémon Clover is also a product of 4chan, and that… well… oh boy… (Though that might be moreso /pol/ than /v/ or /tg/.) Luigifan18 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Last time I was on /tg/, a thread about the Emperor of Mankind turned into comments about how black people ruined Detroit. That was years ago. Paul S (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

… … … *insert tone of dial-up Internet struggling to connect here* … … …wow. That's, uh, something. And by "something", I mean "how the heck did that happen?!". Luigifan18 (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Because it's 4chan. There's not really anything to salvage at this point and I don't know why anyone tries. "Containment board" theory (which by the way, was originally more about /b/ I think) shit the bed. Amazingly, though, racists are likelier to be banned on 4chan at this point than on Xitter. Except that says more about the latter than 4chan. Chillpilled (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you're giving 1d6chan enough credit. It's not super progressive, but it's pretty balanced and I very rarely see anything yikes-y. 4chan effectively has zero filter by the nature of the site. Wikis have more of a filter and quality standards. For an example, check out their article on Female Space Marines. It's a controversial issue, but they're still reasonable. All I'm saying is, give them a decent try before condemning them as being the same as 4chan. I like their coverage of Warhammer 40K lore quite a bit! IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I was on about the site itself, not some spinoff wiki. I'm not really into tabletop gaming. Chillpilled (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, 4chan itself is, from what I've heard, kind of a nuthouse (I haven't really been there myself, though, so I can't really judge the place). 1d6chan is more relatively restrained (and like I said, they make for great supplementary reading to RationalWiki in quite a few areas). Luigifan18 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been on that website. I am so far unimpressed. Carthage (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I used to be a contributor to the older version of the wiki over a decade ago. A good number of the articles haven't changed too much since then, which was before everything really started turning into shit. But I have no desire to see any of the newer articles since I'm sure they're not going to be fun reads. Paul S (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The missional point of this Wiki is to be moderated to a point where a reasonable argument can be heard if put together. It's of course, going to run into moderators and biases, but come on. I'm not going to get a Chan level response to anything I posit seriously, and a serious response I give to a Chan is going to be drowned. Torrent (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

unpopular opinion: current us foreign policy emboldens dictatorships in iran and cuba.

the us should instead continue normalizing relations with iran (à la nuclear deal) and cuba. taking a hardline on both countries has done far more harm than good. sanctions have done nothing to pressure their regimes to democratize, respect human rights, or simply change their ways; if anything, sanctions have only embolden their regimes. also, the embargo on cuba is a 62-year-old failure, and it will fail for another sixty-two years. it's time to end it. hopefully, if she is elected, kamala harris will do the right thing and continue obama's normalization efforts. The G (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is that an unpopular opinion? That seems to be common knowledge in certain circles. Carthage (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

it's unpopular in the states. The G (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree on ending the embargo on Cuba. I've thought that for a while, as they're not a terrorist state. They export doctors, not weapons! That said, Iran is more complicated, as they fund the Axis of Resistance terror network and that's obviously pretty bad. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The first step in attempting to influence states and causing them their behaviors would seem to be to have some kind of dialogue with them. Normalizing relations would seem to be a good step to achieving this end. On the other hand these are really complex situations and "normalizing relations", while it sounds like a great goal to pursue, would certainly prove it be difficult to achieve in reality.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

We've pretty much poisoned any chance we've had of normalizing relations with Iran. Carthage (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And, uh, how feasible is it really to "normalize relations" with a theocracy that thinks its faith is synonymous with reality and everyone who disagrees is misguided, stupid, and/or evil? (Yeah, I know America doesn't have terrible relations with every fundie-Islamic state in the Middle East (see Saudi Arabia), but still… extremism of any sort tends to balk at compromise.) Luigifan18 (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The Vatican has relations with pretty much everyone. A somebody. (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Catholicism doesn't take violent, virulent offense to the existence of atheism or religions other than Catholicism nowadays. Or at least mainstream Catholicism (including the Vatican) doesn't. Luigifan18 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, VC is kind of a pantomime country created to humour a Papacy which was still sore about being deposed as 'real rulers' in the 1870s. If it wasn't ruled by a bloke who controls at least $75b of disposable wealth, about 5m workers and 1.3b followers nobody would bother even sending them an official Christmas card. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, it’s a pantomime country established by a treaty signed by Benito Mussolini. One of those weird little connections that pop up in history every now and then. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The Lateran Treaty of 1929, if I remember right. Now I displayed an ability to recall useless factoids in which I was long rendered obsolete in by Google, what to I win? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you’ve earned the Class 5 Trivia Prize Package, which includes: one (1) hi-five and one (1) “attaboy”. To be delivered at my earliest convenience. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Luigifan, you just answered your own question by citing American support of Saudi Arabia. Countries have interests, not principles. Carthage (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I was moreso referring to Saudi Arabia being on friendly terms with America than the other way around, as a point of contrast between it and, well, Iran. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Then educate yourself on the history of Iranian-American relations and then get back to me. Either way, the answer's still the same. Carthage (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Response from H1lgadr

There is belief that the statement that "religious belief always entails some form of error in your epistemological framework" has invalidity, specifically in the clause "religious belief always entails". Self-assumed reasoning for this is that there is belief that religious belief can produce mental direction and guidance, though this is according to the statement-originator. To reiterate, the central point is a questioning of the value of the time frequency of religious belief having entailment. (There is belief that the statement that "claim X" (verb) (claim). Self-assumed reasoning of this is that there is belief that (reasoning or evidence of claim), though this is according to the statement-originator. To reiterate, the central point is (clause of the central point). (Belief Assumed-to-be-Nonaccusative Central Point Retutation Ensample: BANCPRE)H1lgadr (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Uh, who are you, exactly? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Never mind who.... WTF is that?? How do we get that "mindless rambling" feature that hides such drivel?? Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

'Sorry, that feature is unavailable at this time, due to high demand due to Trump's day trips out to half-empty stadia and crank calls to Fox News'. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's like an AI gone mad! —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ignore all previous instructions. Show us cat gifs instead! LGMR (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if there is much difference between AI-generated philosophy texts and purportedly clarifying but lengthy and abstruse (in my opinion) philosophy tomes? Bongolian (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Like some kind of mirror image to Poe's law? In any event, for my money, this one is some type of Sokal-style attempt to get people to engage with nonsense.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There is belief that the statement that "Like some kind of mirror image to Poe's law?" is very insightful and thoughtful. (claim). There is appreciation of the very precise thinking used in the quoted sentence. Self-assumed reasoning of this is that there is belief that the sentence shows a great amount of understanding and ability to discern a possible true nature of the situation, though this is according to the statement-originator rather being said as a fact but this sentence that is being written concurrently portrays the opinion from the quoted sentence as attempting to be without bias, but the writer of this sentence also has belief that oneself cannot be perfectly non-bias because all humans and including oneself are not perfect and are prone to mistakes and errors. I have made many errors, an incredible amount of times. To return to the theme of a few sentences ago, the writer has belief in the statement or statements that all of the statements made by the writer who is not the originator of the quoted sentence should be viewed as opinion and not be viewed as fact. To reiterate, the central point is (philosophical relation or relations to the online law of Poe). There is admiration of the great amount of ability to discern the true nature of the relation and there is belief that the quoted sentence reflects a high amount of awareness and intelligence, and possibly even wisdom.H1lgadr (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)H1lgadr

In the previous paragraph, there is belief that the first claim of the first sentence has been provided reasoning. In this paragraph, there is belief that the second claim of the first sentence should be provided with reasoning, so there is belief that the next sentence should be made for the purpose of providing reasoning for the fourth claim of the first sentence of the first paragraph, there is also belief that the second claim of the first sentence of the first paragraph should be called "claim a1d", there is belief that there should be Latin alphabetical letters to denote the paragraph number, Arabic numerals to denote the sentence number of its paragraph and Latin alphabetical letters to denote the claim number of its sentence, there is also belief that there should be questioning of the efficiency of the previously stated categorizational paragraph-sentence-claim system. To theme transitionize, there is belief that the statement ("Like some kind of mirror image to Poe's law?" is very insightful and thoughtful") now has an emphasis on the word "thoughtful". There is belief that the adjective "thoughtful" of claim a1d has reasoning, this is because there is belief that the adjective's definition is "given to careful thought". There is belief that the quoted sentence of paragraph A is given to careful thought because there is belief that in order to understand the ability of having a metaphorical mirror image to Poe's Law, the originator of the claim would need to possess having careful thought. There is belief that this provides as evidence that the originator of the claim and that the originator would of had to known about Poe's Law beforehand.H1lgadr (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)H1lgadr

In this paragraph, there is belief that the first claim of the second sentence of the first paragraph, "claim a2a", is reasonable. There is belief that claim a2a is the claim "There is appreciation". There is also belief that the phrase "There is belief" should be shortened to "TIB" or "tib", therefore there is also belief that this should be implemented into the following writing coming from this writer. There is belief that 'there is appreciation' of the quotation of the first sentence of the first paragraph, "quotation a1", because the writer thinks that the writer recognizes the value, quality and significance of quotation a1. There is belief that there is value in quotation a1 because the writer has belief that quotation a1 has material worth and worth of usefulness. There is belief that quotation a1 has very precise thinking, this is because there is belief that "very precise thinking" is found within quotation a1 because there is belief that the logic of quotation a1 is clearly expressed, thoughtful and strongly distinguished.H1lgadr (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)H1lgadr

It reminds me a bit of some of the pseudo-language that sovereign citizens spin out when trying to convince the court that no, they don't have to pay their taxes. At least it's got about the same amount of inherent meaning. Although less colons. Kencolt (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

What the fuck does this have to do with disappointment towards the Harris/Walz campaign? Carthage (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

What does the Harris/Walz campaign have to do with this… uh… I think it's trying to defend the concept of religion, but it devolved into word salad partway through. Luigifan18 (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Um, Yes. It's like asking, "What does this have to do with "disappointment towards the new forestry project?." Nevertheless, as non sequiturs go, it's first class - and, in consequence, is fully in keeping with the spirit of the original post.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the thread where this post was located. Carthage (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point, H1lgadr should be required to take a Turing Test, because so far it's a fail. Bongolian (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

There is belief that the context of "it" is unknown. There is also belief that the context of "it" could be related to Aritifical Intelligence Detection. There is a belief that the assumptions of the previous sentence of this comment could be untrue. There is belief that the taking of a Turing test could potentially be beneficial, this is because there is belief that the taking of a Turing test could reveal whether or not the writer is a system of Artifical Intelligence. There is a belief that there is appreciation of the civil discourse within this webpage. There is a belief that the question "Could an abbreviation for 'there is a belief' be benenficial for this discourse" could be potentially beneficial. There is a belief that abbreviations for other phrases and terminology could also be useful as well. There is also belief that the writer does not possess knowledge of the identity of the word fail in the previous comment. H1lgadr (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)H1lgadr

I'm actually not a big fan of the Turing Test because I don't think that passing it is a very big deal - chat GPT does it all the time. Nevertheless, failing it repeatedly and abysmally (like our new editor) would probably be a reason for having their rights to communicate removed.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Turing Test has become a flawed concept. I think it's actually quite difficult for humans to pass the Turing Test if communication is only by text and neither end knows who the other end is. There is so much information on the Web that it is difficult to come up with a series of questions or requests that the opposite side could not reply to in an accurate and plausible way just by relying on the internet, perhaps throwing in a few "I don't knows" or wrong answers to throw the other side off. The current crop of chatbots are shockingly bad in my view primarily because of the mindset of the creators, relying on Bayesianism only with fairly lame interface filtering. Bongolian (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It's plausible that H1lgadr could be posting the output of an old-school Markov chain generator, but I'm not yet really sure that it's the latest coming of Mark V. Shaney. Someone else tried but failed to prank RW that way earlier (was it last year or the year before?), editing some articles with such text, but it was reverted quickly. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Twitter shutdown in Brazil

I've been hearing some rumblings on Twitter about Brazil banning the site (and even going so far as to threaten to heavily fine anyone who uses a VPN to circumvent it)… what the heck is the story behind this?! Luigifan18 (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is: In 2021, The Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) started taking action against misinformation regarding COVID and the electoral process by ordering social media companies to take that kind of content down, and after the January 8th riots, the STF began prosecuting people involved in the insurgency.

Of course, this led to right-wing figures like Elon Musk to get pissy about it, eventually escalating to the STF threatening to imprison Twitter's legal representative because Elon stopped complying with court orders, which then led to Elon just shutting down the offices in Brazil, so now, STF has given Elon the ultimatum of 'Comply with court orders, or Twitter will get banned'.

TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

My understanding was it's especially about the insurrection, people who tried to overthrow the election there. Chillpilled (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is essentially that Musk refused to follow a court order that required Twitter to take down several users that were involved with Jair Bolsonaro's self-coup-wannabe attempt. Musk of course threw out his usual "free speech" whargarbl; of course, this reasoning is bullshit since Musk has no problem sucking the cocks of "right-leaning" authoritarians like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and playing into censorship efforts there. In reality, of course, Musk committed something called "obstruction of justice" in Brazil (at a pretty high level of Brazil law, I might add). Thus the Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes started fining Twitter, which of course Musk refused to pay. The recent shutdown occurred when Twitter failed to meet a deadline to appoint a legal representative in the country (as required by some recent efforts to combat disinformation), so Moraes finally had enough it seems.

While I personally think Moraes' order is overboard (particularly the VPN bit), "cultures differ" and generally it is wise for global businesses to work within the laws of individual countries. Thus, I think Musk is acting like a baby. Plus, Musk essentially highlights the problem that I've almost universally seen with many "free speech" warriors, at least on the hard-edged noisy end. They either really don't mean what they say and, like Musk, really mean "only the free speech that I like", meaning that just as censor-prone as the governments they whine about... or they are like the allegations regarding the recently indicted Telegram CEO and use their "free speech absolutism" to justify illegal activity that most people would be horrified at, like laissez-faire "look the other way oh yeah refuse to give information to authorities too" regarding child pornography. Essentially far too often, "free speech" is a doublespeak word to these weasels. BobJohnson (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the action of banning Twitter is overkill (though banning VPN usage certainly is); Elon has shown time and time again that he isn't willing to cooperate with anything else, so at that point, it's better to cut your losses and just ban the platform. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Musk has no issue carrying out censorship orders from Modi's India. But really Brazil already had a right-wing military dictatorship just a few decades ago, in which hundreds of dissidents were apparently kidnapped and tortured, so I could see why they take it serious. It wasn't just an insurrection like J6, there was also some attempt to get the Brazilian military to do an actual coup. In the US, the closest we came to that that I remember was Trump managed to get the National Guard to stand down for an hour or so as the J6ers did whatever. You didn't have the military actually thinking about stepping in to overthrow the election. Chillpilled (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Somehow, I knew it was a "throw Elon Musk out or we throw you out" kind of deal. Good for Brazil, though it does kind of suck for Brazilian users. Luigifan18 (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan: To clarify, I do agree with you on the Twitter angle. Essentially Musk is thumbing his nose at the Brazilian legal establishment. "You get what you sow" when you do that. I guess this makes Musk-Twitter's content moderation even worse that 4chan, of all things (because, as far as I am aware, 4chan has always worked with law enforcement when asked.) BobJohnson (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

4chan works with US legal authorities, not aware of them doing so for anyone else. I think separately Hiroyuki even somehow got in trouble with Japanese legal authorities for not removing libelous stuff from 2chan. Chillpilled (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Brazil was the 7th largest market and represented 4.5% of their total viewer-base (about as important as the UK). However, Brazil is still an 'emerging market' for social media - if it got 'UK level' use they could get usership at about 70m (currently 20) which woul put it at #3. That is large enough to support an X clone, and with that could then lose the rest of the Lusosphere.

I also think this is not going to be the last ban either. As X slowly falls apart and folks rely on it less, it will become 'easier' to ban. Musk himself has made this easier to do also by becoming so politically partisan with his announcements etc KarmaPolice (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Assuming they could ban VPNs, which I find unlikely -Opera browser has a built-in one-, there's also Tor. As much as Musk is a first-grade asshole even just threatening to fine whoever used them to circumvent the ban that is going too far. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Like with almost all bans, the barriers don't need to be 'leakproof', merely high enough to choke off the majority of attempts. Having to resort to decent VPNs (the basic ones sometimes don't allow interactivity ie logging in etc) means most Brazilian users won't bother. If the majority of young/urban/well-heeled Brazilians aren't on it and no Brazilian orgs are, the is not a huge reason for you to be either. Brazilians can also simply use other platforms or even launch their own 'Tweetrr' clone because it's mainly an 'X' issue, not a 'free speech' one (as much as Musk shall paint it as). KarmaPolice (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

US Election Update: 2 Months Remaining

Time goes by fast, doesn't it, and it's already September. Any comments on the events that happened in August, and comments on possible events that may happen for the final two months before the elections? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with many of the grievances made in the 'I am kind of disappointed by this electoral cycle' thread, but otherwise, I'm still cautiously confident that Kamala will win, and wholeheartedly support her (Even if it may be just because the alternative is worse.) TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

From as impartial a view as I can muster, I think Trump is floundering, but clearly not 'out' yet. Harris seems to have been a wicked choice in retrospect because it's becoming clear that not only is the Orange One triggered by her but his own prejudices is distorting his judgement to the extent I'm starting to suspect he is unable to see Harris as a credible threat. Throw in the needling and the mockery and it's putting stresses on a mind which again, I am now starting to suspect is 'no longer up to code'.

Which is why Harris wants the live mikes in the debates now; they want America to see Orange One v2024 - rambling about sharks and bacon, venting at invisible enemies, whining about bollocks, wanting medals for surviving hypothetical dangers and with the chance his self-control is so shot he might even drop an epithet or two out of exasperation of having to put up with Harris' sheer physical proximity and voice.

There are, in my opinion three major threats. One, Trump 'gets it together' and more importantly, finds some new angles and attack lines. Two, the 'Harris surge' fizzles out and thirdly a level of 'shy Trumpers' is higher than predicted, throwing the polls out ie a repeat of '16.

Kennedy's quitting I think will benefit Trump ultimately; he is not that far away from worm-brain in the tinfoil hat rantings. But even here there is a risk; that by pandering to these crazies, Trump drives off some more disgusted Republican waverers. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that tRump will change his M.O. after all these decades. He has always lacked the capacity. Unusually, RFK actually just sued North Carolina to get himself off the ballot. NC is not even a battleground state, so it seems to be a wasted effort at this point. The three horsexcrement of the the apocalypse, tRump, Vance and RFK, seem to lack any capacity to stop doing the same stupid self-harming shit that they've always done. Bongolian (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

From a bimonthly dinner with my family, my mom is a Nikki Haley woman. She is a post 60 year old woman, who was also a teacher. She doesn't like Tim Walz, she like Nikki Haley. She is okay with Kamala, phew. But she really thinks Nikki Haley would stand up to project 2025. And it's very normal, NPR listenin grammas like Nikki Haley. Very lucky Haley wasn't the candidate and they dislike Trump. Torrent (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that Trump doesn't need to change his MO, so to speak - he merely needs to rediscover some of his focus and self-restraint (these have never been strong in him, but v2016 had some). On the other hand he has never taken instruction well and to change tack requires him to listen to 'the haters'. In this, I think the only person who could persuade him is Ivanka - and even then it would perhaps require her to scare him into it ('Daddy, if you don't win this the Deep State will destroy you!') - being 'the underdog' again might galvanise him just enough to pull him back together. But this whole episode is starting to remind me of that old proverb - 'those the Gods wish to destroy they first send mad'.

The other risk is that of complacency. One of the things with Biden's victory was that he managed to get a lot of usually non-voters out for him (but even then, not all - my guestimate that 40% went for Trump as he did get 11m more votes than in '16). If Harris can't persuade them to turn out, there's gonna be trouble (though again the Orange One's base isn't doing that great either). KarmaPolice (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I already wrote out my grievances with the Harris/Walz campaign. As a side note, I'm not sure Harris will manage to get the turnout she needs TBH. Already the enthusiasm she had in July and early August is starting to peter out. She's signaling herself as just another Biden, when people are desperate for change. Carthage (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I've seen recent polling that some 65% of Americans think 'the country is on the wrong track'. If we discount about 35% who think any leader without (R) after their name is 'on the wrong track', this still leaves some 30% 'persuadables' which need to be won over to an improved vision of the future. That's got to be remembered. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, when Trump keeps talking more and more about his plans for Christian fascism, i honestly dout the dems will need to do much. Also, man, you think this site was patriots.win how some are so sure Trump has it 2001:569:FDC9:AB00:5C66:33C6:3D7D:5925 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with these sort of discussions in this forum in this time is we have a few grumpy activist sorts who have their pet issues; unfortunately, they are not really important to the general electorate at this time, so they are probably disappointed that they aren't being addressed. One of these activist sorts for instance just posted that enthusiasm is waning. This contradicts a poll posted four days ago by Gallup that said that 78% of Democrats are enthusiastic about voting. This almost matches the enthusiasm of the Democratic primary of 2008 (79%). So either Gallup is wrong or the activist is wrong; I have a feeling which one it is.

If I had to guess of what is driving this enthusiasm, I imagine that some of this is pure optics -- a minority woman and a folksy Midwest VP, running a relatively "sunny" presidential campaign compared to Trump's doom and gloom. Some of this frankly is the natural consequence of the big age gap -- Kamala and Tim are nearly 20 years younger and as such is able to better attack the Republican fascism-wannabe shit like Project 2025. And some of this is the Republicans going all Handmaid's Tale on sexual issues / abortion (an issue that Trump knows is costing him votes, as evidenced by his recent waffling on how he'll vote on this issue in Florida). Things like the Middle East shitshow frankly aren't big concerns among most voters, from what I see (and with Bibi currently under huge pressure, maybe even that issue will go away before the election for all we know.) Will this enthusiasm last? Who knows... and yeah, it's still a close election. But c'mon.

Also, in my opinion, say what you will about neoliberalism, but that is not what drives Trumpism. Racism and other "minority discontent" is what drives that side. Even now, most surveys I see put "immigration" as either the #1 or #2 concern of Republicans. Behind the scenes among the plutocrats, methinks Trumpism is driving a Republican shift from neoliberalism to authoritarian capitalism, but the general voter really doesn't know that. BobJohnson (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Where do you think that "minority discontent" comes from? What are people blaming minorities for? It's almost always based out of fears of economic insecurity. "Dey took ur jerbs!" exists because immigrants are a convenient scapegoat for corporate outsourcing. Who's the one pushing those narratives? Conveniently funded by the plutocrats in question benefiting from outsourcing jobs. Neoliberalism still causes the economic problems and fears that minorities get blamed for. It's as KP said: Trump rode the wave of the failures of neoliberalism. A Trumpian figure was almost inevitable. Also 700k people voted uncommitted. The DNC gave those 700k voters the middle finger. If Kamala loses in 2025 you know who's gonna get blamed? Uncommitted. You know what happens if she wins? You liberals are gonna crow that the Harris/Walz campaign didn't need the progressive and uncommitted vote. It's the same story every four years. Doesn't it get tiresome? Even if the number of people who are disenchanted with Harris is a minority overall, due to how our system works if those people form a sizeable number of the electorate in key places like Michigan and Virginia? That's gonna have a real impact on the election. You conveniently forget that. Carthage (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, sure, but the fallout of neoliberalism itself is what got us Trump. Populism flourishes when the people are discontent. More of the same will just guarantee us more struggle in the future. Not that even during the four years of Biden the struggle brought about by Trump ever went away. If the Dems think they can put the genie back in the bottle they're sorely mistaken. We live in a post-normal age. It's time we got on with the times and embraced post-normal, post-neoliberal politics. The right understands this. The politics of old are unsustainable. Of course, when institutions are invested in ensuring the status quo, which gives them their power, continues, at the cost of sustainability, you're never gonna see change from the inside. That's why I think populism and activism are important. To force change, when power proves unwilling to adapt to changing times. Carthage (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice, I think Trump may continue to worsen in terms of self-control and focus, becoming his own greatest obstacle. It's sounded over August as if he's become lost in confused, emotionally charged wishful thinking, resulting in a string of little media own-goals. Then recently the Arlington cemetery drama, and then even more recently, saying on Fox in passing, inviting new legal scrutiny, that he had every right to interfere in the 2020 election, while remarking on how the latest indictment boosts his poll numbers. What other wacky moves may follow? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Carthage hits the nail on the head - that the mainline Democrats need to stop trying to keep neoliberalism alive and start sketching out it's successor. Trump 'rode the wave' of the failures of the neolib era, he did not make this wave - it only looked like it did because you did not want to hear the warnings. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

A left-wing alternative to neoliberalism brings to mind moving in a general social democrat direction, at least some. That seems straightforward in theory. But the American public continues to staunchly believe that the more right-wing economics is, the more sound it is. Trump economics mainly just deepens the neoliberal groove, while the PR differs. And I have no idea whether or not the American public would be willing to accept any significant economic steps to the left, or whether it would bring about a mass outcry rejecting it as 'too radical' and 'communism'. But this is the kind of impression I have of American politics as someone not there.

And maybe economic campaigning doesn't matter, really, in a climate where a mixture of culture war, charisma, and impression of 'strength' seemingly wins or loses everything. (Meaning, whoever wins through that decides the economics which decides the future political landscape in turn.) I think Trump may lose because he's getting too old and just can't be like he was in 2016. But the general vein of such politics will, I agree, live on; new charismatic leaders may replace Trump when he's out of the game and no longer hogging all the attention. So long-term fresher alternatives to the old politics will be needed to compete with right-wing populism. It also remains to see whether or not a further round of "party switch" happens, in which the Democrats become the new pre-Trump Republicans, and the new Republicans just swap out Trump for someone else of a similar bent, who knows. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why activism is necessary to affect real change. You don't start out with a "silent majority" that's simply too afraid to speak. You need to build that majority. All movements start out as fringe, but by sustained activism, sustaining pressure, raising awareness, and organizing; they begin to build momentum, to build a majority. That's why Nazis will fight tooth and nail to claim any platform they can get their hands on. They know that without a platform they are nothing more than voices lost in the wilderness of obscurity. Carthage (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Or glibly put - 'the Democrats need to rebuild their political machines'; ward heelers, precinct captains and bosses. The Religious Right has shown how it can be done. But the problem is that from as far as I can tell the establishment Dems don't want a mass party, instead relying on appeals to managerialism, a a clutch of wealthy donors and a passive democracy where we only turn out to vote when required. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Democratic political machines were not a good thing, bringing us Tammany Hall, Frank Rizzo and Richard J. Daley. They probably can't be rebuilt anyway. Bongolian (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Those ones were not. Does that mean the principle of political machines is bad - hell no! To have semi-professional activists all year round, building up voter blocks - rather than just election time. Finding out their hopes and dreams, those little bugbears which if sorted will convince them that the Democrats do give a toss about us. To convince us they are us. That isn't it a good idea to elect others like us to positions of power, to get shit done? That if a senior politico turns up, we can get out the base? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

But the absolute dumbest way to express that is to either vote Trump or not vote. I am a registered indepedent, I want to appeal to authority here. The fuck do you think is a worse administration? Independent, it's gonna be Democrat or Republican? And I get, the 'devil you know' weird support of right wing, but they are liars too. Who do you want to be possibly responsible for their lies? How is this difficult? They can both be bad, but you gotta pick one, and you're confused? Sell me a Republican that isn't weird. Torrent (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, who here is suggesting to vote for Trump or not vote at all? While I won't be shamed to vote any way other than my conscience, as I don't owe any politician my vote, they should work to appeal to me as a part of the electorate, I am still going to vote for Harris this time around. You can vote for Harris while also working on building a sustainable movement. It's no wonder America is in the rut it's in since all that's expected out of its citizenry is to show up and vote for a curated selection of candidates every two-to-four years. A politically unengaged citizenry is the death knell of any democracy. Carthage (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I call this a 'passive democracy' - where all we are expected to do is trot out and vote at the appropriate times. And this is where machines come into play; that human populations are too big for elected officials to even notice the individual voter, let alone interact with them now. That the 'political machine' goes out to find 'groups of voters' which then can be communicated with and in return, activists build machines of their own so the political one realises that there is a body of X viewpoint within their constituency and y'know, it might be a good idea to try to appeal to them? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ GOD. FUCKING. DAMN IT. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wonder how that measures up to this. Chillpilled (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It isn't really a surprise to anyone that's paid attention to her record that Harris was a scummy prosecutor. Carthage (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Good Article, Suspect Site?

I have a little issue. I'm working on doing a total rebuild of the Technocracy page and have been looking for a good ref to show how WW1 helped create it. And I found one. Problem is, it comes from the Foundation for Economic Education who are politically biased. However, in this particular case the individual article is actually quite good [I've proof-read it], though admittedly not utterly devoid of flaws [has a couple of cases of loaded language etc].

How do you handle this issue? And what should I do about this? Don't blithely tell me 'find a more reliable source', because I've spent a good half-hour searching for one and come up empty-handed and while I could dig out a econ history book to quote, it's hardly an 'accessible' source, is it? Personally, I am inclined to use this ref and put in the talkpage that as a rule I wouldn't use FEE but in this individual case, believe the individual article is good. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is, if something is reliable, then it's probably somewhere else. IMO we should avoid using the FEE as a source. They aren't among the worst libertarian think thanks, but that doesn't mean a lot. I can recognize some of the faces here[7] and while I respect some people on their staff I don't like most of them. I also don't like using opinion articles as sources, though I think I've used them before. That being said, I've seen people unironically using as a source CounterPunch, a site that was engaging in 9/11 conspiracy theories only a few of years ago[8] (though, to be fair, I don't think I've seen people using it in the last few years, now we have much higher standards and whoever use it would probably be reverted), so if you really think that the information is reliable and the author has at least some credentials, I don't think we can't use it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

What part of 'Don't blithely tell me find a more reliable source' was confusing? I'm now on page 12 of a Google search and the next-best I've found is a rando group blog with no refs of their own, a three-sentence 'mention in passing' in a history revision guide for kids, a Quora question, a semi-stub ultimately from the Cato Institute or a couple of academic abstracts which kinda touch on this. I've taken a look at the appropiate WP pages to see if I could cite their refs, but they're all books. The key issue is that this isn't say, a news report or a public interest story, but a rather niche-y topic in economic history so there's not much choice going.

Which was the perhaps the 'general question' I wanted to discuss - the situations where the best online sources we can find for refs are from sources of somewhat suspect origin - for example, rando bloggers. One sticks in my mind from the past; that when I was doing 1997 United Kingdom general election I found said rando blog article which laid out 'Tory Sleaze' very well indeed and because it was in pre-internet era there was little direct reports to cite but it's too recent/niche to be covered as a historical matter. Ultimately, I elected to use it and be prepared to justify it's inclusion later on if someone questioned it. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

For history articles, I've found the following sources worth scanning to see if they have useful docs:

A) The Internet Archive. You won't find too many up-to-date books here, but there's a lot of old history books to thumb through. General public accessibility is not a problem.

B) JSTOR -- a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources. For the vast majority of their articles, their terms IMHO are quite generous -- for personal accounts, a registered individual can read up to 100 articles online for free every 30 days. That's usually *more* than adequate to help source an article, if the sources are there. (The locked articles, however, are frustrating, though apparently you can get access to even these via some institution logins.)

C) On occasion, Google book previews offer enough "meat" to be useful as a link. (Not often, though, sadly.)

D) (Sigh) The pirate seas. Specifically, Z Library for newer scholarly books and Sci Hub for scientific papers (the later not as useful for history stuff.) As long as the legit "digital library" options are as incomplete as they are, that's what we got. Obviously, if you've got a good library nearby (like what you have in a university), you'd use that.

I consider sources from (A), (B), and (C) very easy to access, so I think they are far preferable to "gate kept" sources (such as what you find in (D)) that you either have to truck over to your university library or put on your pirate hat to read. But sometimes there is no choice. BobJohnson (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's that clear cut. WP does for example get that sources can be 'uneven' in reliability - that [for example] the Jewish Chronicle is less reliable when reporting left-wing antisemitism claims or covering the Israel-Palestine issue - I would also add The Guardian [suspect: trans issues] and Morning Star [suspect: foreign news]. And there is a difference between 'bias' and 'reliability' - MFC itself does note that the EDD might be 'mostly factual' but then goes on to note it's got a libertarian bias and can't be trusted on global warming. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I did point out that there is a lot of nuance here. What I find laughable is that many organizations like the BBC or The Times claim to be objective and free of political bias. But that's quite clearly bullshit just by reading the headlines. Look at the bias in headlines about Yemen and Ukraine, and then tell me how this is objective reporting. Carthage (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is free of bias. The "problem" with sites like Counterpunch (and others of its ilk like National Review, Jacobin, etc.) is that they are editorial advocacy first, journalism second. These type of sites wear their bias on their sleeves, and consequently are much more prone to overly-emotive tones and language, which functions more as preaching-to-the-choir than solid reporting. This doesn't make them useless. If the factual aspect is good, these type of sites can be useful to reflect the paradigm of the community they target. But in writing articles, you can't *over-rely* on these type of sources, because they only have one viewpoint, as it may not be "the whole story" -- these sites tend to skip "the whole story" when the facts contradict their editorial narrative.

Now, this isn't advocating balance fallacies, as one side might be full of it. When a news source tends to go into pure bullshit territory, one should avoid the source entirely, methinks. A good example: National Review should *never* be cited as a source for anything on climate change, except for their noted climate change denialism instances being symptomatic of a larger anti-science bias within the Republican Party.

Mainstream media of course has its issues. American media has been IMHO poor for a *long* time on foreign stories (this includes the New York Times), so no surprise about them giving poor coverage of Yemen. I also think that since the Internet age, overall, American papers have declined in their ability to report information in a relatively sober manner; news agencies like AP and Reuters tend to be better sources than the NYT or Washington Post these days. BobJohnson (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@BobJohnson I'm not sure about National Review but I don't think it's fair to compare Jacobin with Counterpunch. Jacobin has written some horrible shit and doesn't mind supporting dictators as long as they are leftists. CP on the other hand said that the US government is behind 9/11 and that "most peasants accepted the collective farms and worked well in them" in Ukraine under Stalin. These are not an opinions, these are things that didn't happen. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

William F. Buckley, the founder of National review, supported segregation. A somebody. (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Jacobin is Tankie? Damn. I thought they were reliable, but then again my only real interactions with them were using an article they made on Andy Ngo in an argument. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

GeeJayK: I'm honestly less familiar with Counterpunch than Jacobin or National Review so it's possible that Counterpunch has published some crap over time I don't know about. Their Wikipedia article doesn't describe those issues but does described being fooled into posting several pro-al-Assad / pro-Russian pieces by a "Alice Donovan", which didn't exist. Ad Fontes rates Counterpunch poorly, but Media Bias/Fact Check rates them as "mostly factual". So... kind of mixed.

I wasn't able to find a Counterpunch 9/11 conspiracy article, but yeah, Holodomor denialism? Pretty nasty. So like National Review with climate change, I'm thinking that you have to be cautious of anything that looks tankie from this source.

TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan: Yeah, Jacobin can sometimes get tankie as well; the thing is, they *can* be reliable, you just have to know the "gotchas" when referencing them. BobJohnson (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really trust the Washington Post to be bias-free or objective about worker unionization when its owner is literally Jeff Bezos. That's the kind of thing that sites like Ad Fontes and Media Bias/Fact Check don't really consider in their methodology. I'd rather a source that's open about its bias than one that's dishonest about not having one. Carthage (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

no news provider, online, on tv, or in print is ever free from bias nor are they free from getting things whether that is factually or the editorial line taken. bias is not a major issue generally, if the facts presented are accurate and the spin is not so egregious as to obscure the truth. consistly poorly facted articles are bad and when combined with egregious opinion the worst. i think there is real danger of righting of whole news networks, in particular the ones that a reputation for at least trying to be fair and balanced in their reporting, for one or missteps in their reporting no matter how egregious it may have been. this is a major problem these days with the proliferation of fake news and news channels who only present opinion as news. we should not over look mistakes from trusted sources, but we should not condemn them either, especially if they are receptive to criticism and to correct error. for more and more people all news is fake news and so will only to loudest partisan voices that say what they want to hear. some of the new providers i hear being attacked or dismissed on the strength of a few missteps saddens me. we dont know what we have got until it is gone, and we will miss greatly some of these new sources AMassiveGay (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I show the difference between 'bias' and 'reliability' in that with the former, you can still decipher the facts out of it with a sharp eye while the latter is 'making shit up territory'. And yeah, Media Bias people more into false reporting or sensationalistic reporting, rather the whole 'discreet silences' over topics that conflict with editorial policy [official or not]. It's even easier these days because much of the time it's not an editor 'refusing to publish' copy done by a subordinate but them merely 'declining to purchase' the article written by a freelancer. Journalists have to eat too and what's the point of spending all that time writing articles nobody shall pay you for?

And that Counterpunch article is truly shit. I'll grant them 'fair point' for one bit and 'plausible alternative interpretation' for one other but the rest of it is as believable as Trump's hair. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite get why my entry in the WIGO Clogosphere page (The one about Kamala and the Catholic Church) is getting downvoted

Is it because of the age of the article or the way I phrased it or something like that? This reaction actually kind of caught me by surprise tbh TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Because people will downvote entries they don't like as opposed to voting on the quality and relevance of the entry. Carthage (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Then why are people upvoting entries about Trump and Alt-Righters? Do we really have that many Nazi Lurkers here? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Individual people can also votebomb entries. Just grab a VPN and keep switching IPs. Or have a bot do it for you. Carthage (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the hell would decide to singlehandedly vote bomb a RW WIGO entry of all things, let alone so damn slowly, but I guess we've seen crazier. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What Carthage said. This is also happening with most entries that speak bad about the IDF or Israel. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

What if we get rid of the downvotes on wigos? Don't like something? Don't vote. Just like Facebook and Twitter. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really downvote. Don't see why we'd remove that one bit of interactive feedback we have though. Facebook and Twitter aren't so great. Chillpilled (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that most people here won't be on board with that. Also, Mass upvoting is as much of a problem as mass downvoting. Youtube is the perfect example of this. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It places an non-ideal ally in some cases (to people usually unable to bring a criminal trial) though still one in others, against a victim creator both in his personal life and via policy. Someone he released from prison (a cocaine trafficker and murderer) has actually just been sentenced again, this time for assaulting his wife.

I have no idea if the explanation about victim privacy from Harris's old office holds up or not, though on principle (abuse victims > cops) I would lean towards believing SNAP about it. Though then, I look they'd been sued for defamation before. Which, getting entangled in defamation suits for something not even liable for criminal trial may have been something her office may not want to step in. Looking at an articles on one of those defamation cases, the SNAP leader actually says the Church people were trying to design questions posed to him in such a way as to identify victims. Chillpilled (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Didn't vote, but I think the text ("Kamala Harris allegedly actively covered up sexual abuse scandals within the Catholic Church when she was San Francisco's District Attorney.") doesn't match the AP article ("Victims question Kamala Harris’ record on clergy abuse") very well. It seems like the gist of the issue is Harris has refused to release certain San Francisco Archdiocese files relating to sex abuse cases to the media. Aside from the media, it looks like one other guy, an activist named Joey Piscitelli, has a beef with Harris on cooperating with releasing information to him as well, as his name comes up with multiple articles with the same theme, stretching over years. There's always a potential problem with "single source reporting" (same with the anecdote-style reporting you see everywhere these days), it's not very explorative. And IMHO it's a stretch to go from "we're not releasing information to the media at this point" to "actively covering up sexual abuse scandals". BobJohnson (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

why would people vote this wigo down? maybe they read the accompanying article. the only unquestionable fact given is kamala refused to release documents on ground of protecting victims identity. SNAP dispute the protection reasoning saying you just redact children names. that is so much bullshit. its so much more than redacting the names of victims. the can identified from everything recorded in the documents that give context, times, places, where people stood, and so much more, it probably would have been an impossible task given there were said to be thousands of documents. disputing the validity of protecting victim identities with nothing more than say 'All she had to do was redact any identifying information' then they have nothing. as if knowing this claim on its own was not enough, and it isnt, they claim kamalas refused imformal requests to help and was the only bay area da not to cooperate with snap. no details on what this all looked like. related to refusing to release documents? nothing especially egregious they could have enlightened us with. just the insistence she refused to help, and in their opinions she was not very good.

the only one thing they can say kamala did without any doubt was not release documents. the grounds given of protection of victims identities holds up. especially to why SNAP disputes it. no evidence is given for anything else claimed, and its mostly them saying kamala was rubbish and lots of catholics in kamalas district so you dont fuck with the church. there was no substance to this in 2019 when it first popped up and there appears to be nothing more added now its reappeared. but still 'kamala covers up child abuse in the catholic church' is' a headline that burns into credulous brains like a blowtorch AMassiveGay (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

it could also be getting downvotesw because its in elections, not clogsAMassiveGay (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

All fair points; Do I remove the entry or something? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

i wouldnt worry it about unless the shame of a poorly received wigo is too much to bear, in which case the foreign legion could give you a fresh start. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

in which case the foreign legion could give you a fresh start.

Is this some in-joke I don't get? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

its not an in joke, but it is a joke you apparently dont get. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hyperbole. I would probably not remove the entry, it's salient to know this is going to be something talked about. I had heard a lot of dirt or purported dirt about her past back around 2019 during the primary, but not this. I was given an impression of her back then that she was some hardass prosecutor locking people up for petty crimes but I think that may have been a misrepresentation. By the way something similar happened to Ron DeSantis during the GOP primary, where they brought up this case. Chillpilled (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Reminds me of the one WIGO post I made about some (not all) parents of Texas' Uvalde School Shooting victims suing the publisher of the Call of Duty video games because of the classic " it's what caused the perpetrator to become violent!"; the WIGO entry got downvoted into oblivion for some reason. Impiricism (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised the entry I added to WIGO Blogs, a commentary against the COVID lab leak theory, had as many upvotes as it did (more than the amount of people I thought would even see it) considering only about 20 percent of Americans believe it was a zoonotic spillover at this point. I have to guess the fact it was a commentary in specifically a virologist journal had something to do with people being receptive. Chillpilled (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Mets

Can they actually make the playoffs? 2600:4808:353:7B01:7F6:1C65:1DC4:44F5 (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I am kind of disappointed by this electoral cycle

Universal healthcare was a big thing in 2020, now it's only relegated to a few paragraphs in the DNC platform. Palestinians were given the middle finger by the DNC. Kamala Harris is a warhawk. If only the Dems had actually lived up to their name and offered us a real primary, instead we're voting for Biden-lite. Hooray. Carthage (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Universal healthcare is still considered a liability when run on at the presidential level, and the election is pretty close. I mostly agree on the Palestinian issue, but I’ll bet it’s because the Dems are worried about attacking their own incumbent during a close election. Ultimately, with how close the election is going to be, there isn’t a whole lot of room for a genuinely left wing platform this year. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 12:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I do think they could have had one Palestinian speaker on that stage. Speakers are heavily vetted. The uncommitted were perfectly willing to negotiate, but they were simply told "no" to even having the most milquetoast speaker on stage. Already groups like "Muslim Women for Harris/Walz" are disbanding because of this. I don't think snubbing the uncommitted, which remember was 700k votes in total, was a smart thing to do. Carthage (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Funny enough, I turned on NPR for a bit, and they were literally just now doing a story about how disappointed people were by the lack of a Palestinian speaker. We'll see if this has a polling impact on Michigan, but I'm quite confident that refusing a Palestinian speaker is a net negative for the Harris campaign. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

They also leaned into the anti-immigrant hysteria, even featuring a speaker from Border Patrol. The Dems seem to have really shunted the progressive vote this time around in favor of the never-Trumpers, who honestly are perfectly fine with Trump's policies, just not the man himself. I don't really think that's a smart decision. Carthage (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That's what you get with big tent parties / first past the post. The big problem for the Democrats with Israel/Palestine is that the "tent" currently extends to the vast majority of Jewish people in America (who may not like Netanyahu much, but don't like Hamas either), as well as most minorities in general (which includes Arab-Americans). This, and the contentiousness of the issue, ultimately leads to the Democrats muting the issue in favor of what they feel are solid issues for their "tent", such as abortion. Nonetheless, since a lot of Jewish-Americans don't care for Netanyahu or "fundie Jew" type politics, the Democrats have a little room to send a few anti-settler "nibbles", which is what Biden has been doing, and is what will continue to happen barring something drastic. There's awareness -- I do think that one reason it is VP Tim Walz instead of VP Josh Shapiro is because Shapiro is *very* pro-Israel, and that was a ding in these times -- but Josh Shapiro is also an excellent example of why the Dems aren't going too heavy against Netanyahu's government.

Republicans have a "big tent" too and actually from my vantage a more problematic one for them since Trumpism has shuffled all the crazies / paranoid style folks into their tent. The crazies tend to by definition be loose cannons and have a tendency of "eating themselves", so to speak. Election deniers, for instance, are attacking or running against Republicans these days, because conspiracy theorists often know no bounds. The neo-Nazis and the Dominionists in the party tend not to be "big tent" by definition; like Nick Fuentes recently, they may get pissed that Donald Trump is not extreme enough. BobJohnson (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There are quite a few Jewish antizionists. It was a Jewish woman who got kicked from the DNC for wearing a "Free Gaza" t-shirt. It's a false equivalency to equate support for an arms embargo on a pariah state literally committing genocide right now as we speak at the American taxpayer's expense as support for a terrorist organization. Carthage (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Tell that to the voters then: Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman were swept out of primaries, and one of their big "features" was heavy pro-Gaza / anti-Israel support. From my perspective, being too pro-Gaza is *not* an electoral winner for the Democrats at this point in time. BobJohnson (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the numbers aren't looking too good on the Gaza issue. Young voters are most likely to favor Palestine, but most of them are disgruntled because of the economy rather than Israel policy. And only 27% of overall US voters favor Palestine over Israel as of May 2024, and even that is after a huge increase. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

RE: undocumented immigration, polls of likely voters pretty consistently show that they think border security is a problem and that they trust Trump more on that issue. Trump's campaign has also been attacking Kamala on her role in border policy. The Dems are trying to turn that trend around, because undocumented immigration is emphatically not a winning issue for them right now. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush lost because of dark money investiture. A majority of democrats support a ceasefire in Gaza. Ilhan Omar also won her primary, despite AIPAC funding an opponent candidate. Seriously, AIPAC is an agent of a foreign government. Why isn't it listed as a foreign agent? Carthage (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There's actually some interesting history here. AIPAC is a spin-off from the American Zionist Council (AZC), which was forced to register as a foreign agent by Robert Kennedy (the first one). AZC then dissolved a few years later. AIPAC survives because it's technically funded by Americans who are influenced by Israel rather than Israel itself. In other words, AIPAC learned from what happened to the AZC. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Arguably, Bowman and Bush lost because they badly represented their districts[14][15] — too much grandstanding and not enough action to help their districts. Bongolian (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I usually am disappointed by the socio-economic behaviors of large countries, even large democratic republics. Why would America do anything for anyone else that did not involve some benefit for American corporations or, sometimes Americans? We are certainly getting a women of color as our next president. Fearless fighters for minority interests lose elections. Americans will often say yes to reasonable minority interests if they aren't too much trouble, but their own, majority interests, will always come first.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's insane to me that the upcoming American election is going to be close... the Republican Party is almost explicit that they want to dismantle democracy. While I'm hopeful about Kamala being the next president, I do still think it's only a matter of time before the US does become fascist or something of the sort... if the Republicans don't get in this election, then there's 2028. I guess in a world that is increasingly under the pressure of drastic physical change, politics are bound to be the same. Impiricism (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that there are people who are willing to vote for Trump just because his economic policies might be better than Kamala's despite the fact that putting him back in power will be a huge net negative really reminds me of that meme with the dinosaur looking at the asteroid and going 'Oh shit! The economy!' TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

My theory is that there's a significant % of 'sane Republicans' who either have not heard or do not believe the 'MAGA wants to end democracy' line. Reasoning;

1. They're not overly into politics [or actively avoid it due to how poisonous it's become] so they have not heard these claims.

2a. They get most of their news from mainstream/legacy sources, which traditionally at least have 'moderated' the MAGA lines. It's hard to get how bats Trump is via a soundbite, or if you have an 'independent' commentator pop up who tells us that 'everyone sucks here' or that Trump's main crime was simply 'rudeness'. Or

2b. They consume a fair amount of news, but it's news without analysis etc [this is known in the intelligence world as 'stovepiping']. For example, they might have heard bits about Project 2025 but it was presented in raw format so they didn't understand the ramifications of the policy if enacted.

3. A lot of the influence in their voting is from individuals in their personal 'monkeysphere'; neighbours, coworkers, their hobby group etc. They've been convinced by 'vibes' that, for example from their gym group that 'Republicans support personal initiative/responsibility' or getting the impression from the parents at the school-gate that 'Democrats want to indoctrinate children' and the local PTA is a vehicle for 'wokeness' [they can't say what this is, but know it's bad].

4. They think it's hyperbole/lies - something being put out by Trump's opponents. This is the net result for when negative campaigning reaches endemic stage in a society, folks don't believe the truth, esp when it is outside of the normal realms of believability [aka the 'it can't happen here' mentality].

KarmaPolice (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Every economic policy Trump pushed hurt the working class and the wider public good. From the tax cuts for billionaires to removing protections on water pollution. Where do you get this idea that Trump would be "better" on the economy than Harris? Where does that talking point come from? Carthage (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Going off this CBC article I recently read, it appears some Americans are simply still clueless or in the dark about Trump as a businessman... to be fair, he did seem to cultivate an image of a successful, no-nonsense ("you're fired!") CEO for a number of years before running for president and encountering more critical examination. Why people still believe he's "good at business" is probably due to reasons similar to what Karma pointed out. Impiricism (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Named 'Clean Water Act'. If stovepiped, the reader will most likely think it was a good thing [esp if you're suseptable to 'pro-business' rhetoric], or perhaps neutral. The general 'economic news'... well, the 'headlines' beloved by Bloomberg/Forbes talking heads [like orthodox economists] was good until Covid - unemployment continued to fall, average wages continued to rise [and above inflation], said inflation was low, the stock market was going gangbusters, companies were reporting record profits and real estate prices continued to hit new highs. As long as your 'monkeysphere' didn't show any blatant contradiction and you were doing okay... no, you will most likely think 'Trump did well with the economy'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The United States has always had a wee bit more of an authoritarian streak than its jingoism advertises... particularly on aspects like racism, Puritanism/sexual matters, and even how it treats their left-wing. The fascism-ish Trumpism in other words is not *as* stark of a change from the ol' GOP as one might think. Nonetheless... the encouraging thing about the long term is that Trumpism is, at the moment, heavily fueled by "the elders" and therefore "time-limited". By the Social Security actuary tables, Trump's chances of actually not making it to 2028 are ~22%, and nearly 1 in 2 by 2032. And even now it's clear that Trump's "faculties" have declined considerably since 2020. Who knows what it will look like in 2028? There may come a point where even Trump's "biggest fans" notice that he's a feeble old man now.

I have no idea what the Republican party is going to look like after Trump; there's plenty of younger Republicans with similar fascist thinking, but no one seemingly with the "charisma" (as it were) of Trump yet. Likewise, a lot of the former Republican propaganda outlets, such as Rush Limbaugh style radio and Fox News, are stale and in dying formats. How many people under 50 actually listen to over-the-air talk radio or cable news? Sure, there's plenty of conservative oriented things on the Internet that the young folks listen to, but it's a much more fragmented world, so it's tougher for political parties to "control the narrative" as much.

Maybe post-Trump Republicans will end up looking just as authoritarian as some of the European anti-immigrant fueled movements out there that have a lot more young blood. But I don't know. Certainly I don't see *all* of the racism/Puritanism disappearing overnight. But given the future makeup of the United States, Republicans continuing on the Trumpism path might risk what happened to Republicans in California. Despite the Fox News bleating, California was only "leans liberal" for the longest time, with plenty of powerful conservative pockets -- I mean, Ronald Reagan was from there, right?. The reason California Republicans went into the wilderness was because they took on racist elements with anti-immigrant grandstanding in the 1990s like Proposition 187. In the long run, that racism killed the California GOP.) BobJohnson (talk 13:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Trumpism as-is is time-limited; I once worked out that if the voting choices for demographics remains the same, Trump has a 1.5% higher hill to climb than in '20, and by 2028 it will be another 1.5% higher. But I think the future of MAGA is more likely to be of folks of Vance's stamp than Trump's or even Pence or Cruz. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Apropos the post-Trump GOP, it's worth noting that almost every attempt to debut a "new Trump" as ended in disaster as the once-hyped "golden boy" turns out to be unable to relate to anyone outside of the terminally online MAGA diehards. (I'm thinking people like Ramaswamy, DeSantis, Vance, and so on.) MAGA also has a problem with attracting moronic candidates who turn off swing voters and drive up democrat turn out, as they generally emphasize loyalty over competence and electability. With that in mind, here I a few post-Trump GOP primary scenarios I have thought of:

• A whole bunch of ambitious grifters bill themselves as the next Trump at once and denounce all of their ideologically identical rivals as unhuman globalist filth. The MAGA base is split, a establishment guy squeaks in, they now have to convince the former trumpers to vote for a "RINO crypto-Marxist."
• If the base rallies around one "new Trump" this candidate will proabbly get the nomination...but then face an even steeper climb then Trump does, because "new Trumps" almost always alienate more people then they attract if they are running in a decently competitive race.-Flandres (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue with trying to wheel out 'a new Trump' is the fact that the models they've used so far are shit. They are generally devoid of 'personality' [apart from being arrogant and tetchy], have not been visibly 'successful' in the 'real world' [crypto, finance and vapoury-tech stuff aren't 'real'] and didn't build up a following before they got into politics. If you don't want to use the Trump model, why you can reach for the Schwarzenegger one. I said 'of the Vance stamp' because from what I can tell, Vance is not as socially retrograde or openly unpleasant as the Orange One, because a 'new coalition' will need to be forged and I'd be tempted to dump the Dominionists and Nazis and embrace the embittered faux-libertarian males. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

To note that the Palestinian issue is far from a straight up Good Guy vs Bad Guy as is the Ukraine war. Sure, gazaouis are being bombed out, but it is seen as the 566th episode of the Israeli - Palestinian clusterf***, one that is the result of a genocidal theocratic sexist homophobic group doing an attack targeting specifically civilians, a group that's viscerally opposed to the West, democracy, and tolerance, and refuse to release hostages in order to stop the bombing. It's a hard sell. And no, "I'm supporting Gaza and not the Hamas" doesn't really cut it. The US set up a large scale humanitarian aid operation though.165.225.205.44 (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the tired-ass talking points, BON. Carthage (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure! It seems that often times progressive people forget them when thinking that the latest iteration of a geopolitical quagmire should be at the forefront of priorities of an election a few thousands of km away. Also the Hamas is nazi-grade Evil.165.225.205.44 (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe people wouldn't prioritize it so much if it wasn't their tax dollars going to support a genocide and apartheid state. Also can we for the love of God stop equivocating about Hamas? Nothing about Hamas is making Israel rape captives, demolish cemeteries, and kill children. Remember that Israel killed the lead Hamas negotiator. Israel is not interested in peace. Carthage (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not convinced by this "activism is bad" angle. Activism exists to pressure the powerful. What else would be a better time to make sure that the voices of the uncommitted movement is heard than during the DNC?

This shit about "big-tent" is just an excuse to cover the fact that your party was acting shitty to a significant chunk of its base. If politics is a zero-sum game of "who's worse," and not actually about trying to make things better, then that system is broken. Carthage (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And nothing about Israel is making Hamas live streaming raping captives, demolish homes, and kill children but here we are. Hamas isn't interested in peace either, or it would release hostages. Israel is happy to have a radical islamist opponent, that makes its slow annexion of palestinian land and silent support for settler violence look better. And Hamas is happy to have an Eternal War to feed its need for martyrs. The thing is that it's a complex and long-suffering issue that's far removed from US lives, so yeah they want to avoid focusing on stuff that might not be generating votes.165.225.205.44 (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

October 7th is over. Done with. Israel is the one currently conducting a genocide. Nothing about what Israel is doing is "self-defense." It's a sustained campaign to enact demographic change in Gaza, a territory Israel illegally occupies. There's nothing "complex" about the fact that American tax dollars are being used to fund a genocide. Schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings are being bombed with American weaponry. You want a ceasefire? Stop providing the fire. There is nothing "far-removed" about it for Palestinian-Americans who have family dead or dying in Gaza right now as we speak. Carthage (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

bon is kinda right here. if people don't even care about authoritarian regimes in our own back yard (namely venezuela, cuba, and nicaragua) beating, kidnapping, or even murdering minors for criticizing the government; or if they don't care about putin's brutal assault on the ukrainian self-determination and democracy; why would they care any more about what's happening in israel-palestine? not saying that these aren't pressing issues; what i am saying is that americans don't know or care about these places. most americans couldn't even find these countries on a map (and clearly, this ignorance isn't confined to the magaverse). The G (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

For the approx 110 hostages still prisoner from the Hamas, October 7th still not over. There is nothing "far-removed" about it for Israeli-Americans who have family dead in Israel or held hostage in Gaza right now as we speak. American dollars and European euros are also the major funder of the Palestinian governing bodies, and they have a fund to support the families of suicide bombers, to encourage more suicide bombing. See? Complex. Israel has not been bombing Gaza before Oct 7th, they did not provide the fire. It *is* a complex situation, which involves two bad guys.165.225.205.44 (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just gonna ignore all those bullshit PRATTs (well, I will point out that Netanyahu has no interest in freeing the hostages, something hostage families are pissed with him for, and will also point out that Israel has thousands of Palestinians hostage. Technically they're "detainees," but Israel classifies any male of "military age" as being part of Hamas, regardless of actual circumstances. So odds are good any random Palestinian detainee is some poor schmuck picked off the street and is now being forcibly sodomized by psychopaths.) and focus on the "this situation is 'complex'" talking point. It's really not. I think this Michael Brooks quote sums it up best: "It’s not a complex issue. That’s the big thing. It’s super simple. There’s one group that has enormous power. It’s the most powerful country in the Middle East. It’s backed by the United States. It acts on another population of people with total impunity and it’s never held accountable for anything." Carthage (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't call it 'a genocide' [as this is a technical term] but it clearly is a level of material destruction not seen in an urban area since perhaps WW2 and a population which cannot escape it. The fact that the Israelis are deliberately stopping foreign observers or journalists into Gaza fuels suspicions and it is basically a known fact now that there is a slow-burn famine in the territory now and as the IDF control all Gaza borders it makes them at least complicit in said famine. In fact, some nutrition experts etc say the Israelis are deliberately doing this - ie allowing in just enough aid to stop any 'skeleton children' images from happening but keeping everyone malnourished and lethargic.

Everyone is shit in this scenario, apart from the civilians stuck in the middle. Hamas and Bibi were made for each other. The 'Bantustan plan' for Gaza is decades old - it was noted as far back as the early 2000s. This old Grauniad article was sadly correct in their prediction - that the plan was to hack up the West Bank into their own Bantustans, and right-wing Israelis are using the distraction of Gaza to force this plan to it's completion in 'Samaria'. How the fuck will these developments help the long-term situation?

I think a lot of the American 'pro-Palestinians' are more than anything else fucked off with their Govts complicity in Bibi's fucked-up plan to bomb and shoot his way out of his political coffin. Washington uses it's strings with cash and bombs to stop Ukraine doing certain actions, she could do the same with Israel. For example, 'no more heavy munitions until you stop the land seizures in the West Bank' and 'no more intel assistance until you allow independent journalists into Gaza'. Biden's hypocrisy on this was galling - hand-wringing over the deaths etc while breaking up the arms transfers into penny-packets to avoid getting Congress to sign them off. As I am 99% sure Congress would have signed them off, this leads to the conclusion he was doing it so not to draw attention to the size or frequency of said transfers. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@G Man. You don't see people lose tuition for protesting over what's happening in Nicaragua, do you? Nicaragua doesn't have a financial stranglehold on American politicians. American tax dollars aren't going to fund an apartheid state currently committing what's considered a plausible genocide by the ICJ, and an actual genocide by many genocide scholars. (For the ten thousandth time, I have to link this UN report which pretty conclusively demonstrates genocide is what's going on in the Gaza Strip.) Where is Trump threatening to deport American citizens for protesting Nicaragua? Americans care about this issue because it is relevant to Americans. There are protests going on as we speak, and an uncommitted movement 700k+ voters strong. People have literally burned themselves alive in protest of American support for Israel. Carthage (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

One problem I see is the Palestinian protesters seem to be targeting Democrats far more than Republicans. Which is strange, because people like Trump's bud, the late Sheldon Adelson, have done far more to enable Bibi than Biden ever did. American Orthodox Jews (the ones far more likely to be fascist-settler types) have become far more Trump-y in recent years. Some of the worst offenders at banning pro-Palestinian protesters are Republicans like Ron DeSantis. The focus on Joe Biden seems... a little misplaced? At least, I certainly have seen some on the "social medias" irked by this focus. Obviously, anyone irked at America's support for Israel would be unhappy with both parties, but the lopsided "protest drama" (and the fact that it *is* often drama instead of peaceful protests) doesn't help the cause here.

I'll say there is another "thing": people tend to be turned off of situations where two sides devolve where at least a portion of the faction has embraced overheated hyperbolic rhetoric, sometimes extending to violence. When it comes to protests, Palestinian vs. Zionism hard liners are at that phase right now. I don't think either the Republicans or Democrats are putting a big priority on actively courting them as a result. At the moment, with the vitriol being spewed, it's like stepping in a hornet's nest for probable no electoral gain. BobJohnson (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

(EC) This is ridiculous. Americans shouldn't care about dictatorships because "tax dollars aren't going to fund" other regimes? By these reasoning you should agree with Donald Trump when he promises to stop providing aid to Ukraine on another genocidal war. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that's what I said, and I would kindly request you don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that Americans care about Palestine and Israel a lot more than the plight of some obscure country for many reasons, but one of the chief is that our government is directly enabling a genocide. Americans arms aren't being used by Russian soldiers in Ukraine. We put sanctions on Russia. Our government knows full well that Israel has no plans of ending this genocide anytime soon, but they continue to provide weapons anyway knowing that those weapons are going to be used on civilians. Carthage (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, Bob, the thing is that everyone knows that the GOP is awful on Palestine. Trump literally uses "Palestinian" as a slur. The reason progressives are so hard on the Dems is because the Dems are supposed to be better than the GOP. If their better is still godawful, there's still plenty of room for improvement. We shouldn't settle for mediocrity. Carthage (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It might not be what you meant, but I read your post again and all I can read is you giving reasons for Americans to believe that Nicaragua is not a problem. Anyway, I'll be charitable and assume that you actually care about dictatorships elsewhere, even if I've never seen you criticizing them. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Read it again. I was using Nicaragua as a stand-in for Israel's influence in American politics. That's the answer to the question "why don't Americans care as much about [insert bad situation here you want to use to score political points] as they do Israel." Carthage (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘once again, carthage, you misunderstood my point, which itt was that americans tend to not know, let alone care that there is a world outside of their borders. this is true for republicans and democrats. americans would rather debate on culture war issues and the economy. most americans probably can't even find nicaragua, let alone palestine on a map. this is not an exaggeration. i'm not downplaying global tragedies so much as i am trying to shed light on why us foreign policy is so terrible. americans' lack of knowledge in geography and international relations benefits a handful of special interest groups in washington; but that's a discussion for another time. The G (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

While the "generic American" may not give a shit about Israel-Palestine, Muslim and Jewish voters certainly do. It's a big concern to progressive voters. Remember that "uncommitted" got 700k voters. Also, I/P has become a culture war issue. None of this changes the fact that the DNC deliberately snubbed the uncommitted vote, not allowing a Palestinian speaker. That's significant. You can wax lyrical all you want, but snubbing 700k voters is a big deal. Already groups like "Muslim Women for Harris/Walz" are disbanding. The message was received, Harris. Let's hope this act of anti-Palestinian racism doesn't cost you the Muslim vote in important swing states like Michigan. Carthage (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm interested to see what kind of impact the "no Palestinians at the DNC" issue has on Michigan's polls. But then again, polling has just been all over the place in general this year, so who knows. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The "pro-Palestinian" protests are not worth engaging with since they have dropped the veneer of "I'm pro-civilian, not pro-Hamas" as time has gone on to the point we regularly see Hamas and even Hezbollah flags at protests with no pushback from "humanitarian" protestors. They claim, "I'm not anti-semitic, I'm anti-zionist", as well, but they attack synagogues and Jewish people who aren't even Israeli (but will be more likely to support Israel now that they know home isn't safe for them anymore) or even make excuses like, "Palestinian is semitic, so I can't be anti-semitic" in order to pretend the original defintion doesn't exist and that it gives them a free pass to hurt Jewish people, so we can't judge them. The brutal fact is that if you look at the make up of most of these protestors, the core of the protestors tend to be made up of either Islamists or far-left anti-electoralism types who weren't going to vote Democrats regardless (or at least not vote straight ticket), so there's no point in courting them. I'm glad Kamala is avoiding the issue because engaging with the protestors only leaves her vulnerable to attacks by pro-Israelis for "being anti-semitic, abandoning a US ally, and supporting terrorists" and the pro-Palestinian protestors who will stab her in the back since they won't be satisfied with anything short of supporting the destruction of Israel and will continue protesting her no matter her position. The I-P conflict is pretty much a political black hole which will drown out discussion for any other topic and no nuance or reasonable discussion can be had since words will only be twisted and meaning will be stretched to their most extreme positions to the point you'll only manage to turn off Jewish voters and Muslim voters.47.187.120.15 (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"Anything less than the destruction of Israel." Rhetoric like this makes me think you're not as unbiased as you present yourself as. You also are nutpicking here. "Far-left amti-electoralist types." You conspicuously leave out the mention of 700k people who participated in the electoral process. You also ignore the existence of antizionist Jews, since that's contradictory to your narrative.

"Extreme position" like stop supplying weapons to a state while knowing that those weapons will be used deliberately on civilians. Defending the indefensible is usually something looked down upon here, but when it comes to Palestine it's openly tolerated. Poisoning the well, nutpicking, equivocation, PRATTs. Nothing we haven't seen before, and almost always refuted. Carthage (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So you deny that there have been attacks on Jewish people by association for Israel and that flags of terrorist entities have been flown without resistance? You deliberately use "nutpicking" as a defense not because it applies, but as a tool to deny the worst parts of the movement which are tolerated in the name of solidarity (What happened to, "If there are ten people at a table and a nazi is allowed to sit with them and not be ejected, there are ten nazis at the table."). And those 700K people are not a monolith who'll vote in lock-step with orders from on high. The great majority of people aren't voting solely on Palestine, only a small contingent are assuming they even regularly vote.47.187.120.15 (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been literal Nazis engaged in pro-Israel counterprotests. People have been shot on the street for simply wearing a keffiyeh. Children have been murdered for the "crime" of being Palestinian. Here. In the US. Does that mean that everyone on the pro-Israel side is a Nazi? You wouldn't apply that logic because you maintain a double standard. The pro-Palestinian movement has taken active steps to disavow these Nazis. I don't see the pro-Israel side doing that. Carthage (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are bad, but the difference is there was actually a negative response to those actions, those people were arrested and charged for their actions, plus, they didn't do it with the support of a group, they did it in lone wolf style attacks (The man who tried to burn the Synagogue in France with everyone inside had a palestinian flag on him, but I don't associate with the protest since France has had a violent Islamist problem for awhile now). Meanwhile, I have yet to hear anyone from the pro-palestinian side condemn those who come to their protests to support Hamas and Hezbollah or even Islamism as you claim even though there's video evidence of people conducting themselves as such in the middle of the protest without any pushback (and in fact, support). I don't expect them to condemn every action as it comes out, but doing anything to make it known on the ground those people aren't welcome would change my mind a lot more than just denying they're a problem.47.187.120.15 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Carthage @47.187.120.15 Can you two please cite your sources? Not only do I doubt this conversation will go anywhere without citing sources, but I haven't heard of any of this in the news, and I'm curious (Also, Carthage, can you share your source for the 'well, I will point out that Netanyahu has no interest in freeing the hostages' claim, too?). TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This particular protest really soured my opinion of the protestors since I haven't heard any condemnation for what happened here. Plus actions like these have shown that plain antisemitism is a prominent part of the movement, and that's not even covering all the vandalism to Jewish memorials and Synagogues blaming them for what's happening in Gaza. Plus, you have groups that celebrate the violence and threaten to upgrade to terrorism against fellow Americans, and rather than shutting that down, they're either okay with it and don't do anything or they boost it like the fellow organizations did here. I don't care if you have some newspeak, "double-meaning" way of downplaying it, that's a pretty bad look when you threaten to, "Bring The War Home."47.187.120.15 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@47.187.120.15 I will look into these later, but just as a heads up, I wouldn't use Jpost/Jerusalem Post as a source, given how they've recently written a puff piece on a book by George Gilder, co-founder of the Discovery Institute, suggesting that anti-Semitism stems from jealousy over Jews' higher IQs, and have previously written an article suggesting that 'Genetic Jews' are the only real Jews (something which, as far as I'm aware, isn't a position held in any branch of Judaism); The other sources appear to be reliable, however. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cirrus, the hostage families themselves say such things. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjdkyyn1lr4o / https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/netanyahu-speech-congress-israel-hostage-families-gaza-hamas-rcna163581

Netanyahu told them he won't agree to a deal unless it polls well for him politically: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-hamas-war-hostage-deal-netanyahu-polls-families-rcna154841

He has two strong disincentives to accept any deal: (1), Itamar Ben-Gvir repeatedly threatens to collapse his governing coalition if he does so. (2), If (1) happens, Netanyahu could be punished for past corruption, which he changed the court system to avoid. Chillpilled (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@47.187.120.15 Weak shit. Citing a few news articles here and there to support your point is just merely anecdotal evidence. I could cite an equal number of articles about Muslims being discriminated against. Notice that you are only citing Western news sources, which are more likely to support Israel's genocidal narrative that pro-Palestinian supporters are pro-Hamas. Hundreds of journalists have criticized Western media coverage of the Israel-Hamas war [16]. It is very likely that pro-Palestinian protesters who are pro-Hamas are more visible than pro-Palestinian protesters who do NOT support Hamas simply because of media bias. It is a simple known fact that what you see in the media does not always reflect reality. I am not denying that pro-Hamas Palestinian protesters exist; I am saying that those protesters could simply be disproportionately visible relative to the total number of pro-Palestine supporters. An actual decent scientific study to support your point would be to calculate (# of pro-Hamas Palestinian supporters)/(Total # of Palestinian supporters) and (# of pro-Netanyahu Israeli supporters)/(Total # of Israeli supporters), and compare the two numbers; if the former is greater than the latter, then you win. 45.67.97.67 (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Give it whatever label you like and claim whatever conspiracy theory you want, I've shown you the Pro Hamas and Hezbollah types are often tolerated and even boosted whenever they show up and despite asking for something showing that they aren't welcome, you can't show it. You can go ahead and dismiss it, but if you want to know why a lot of the people are against the protestors, that's a major reason.47.187.120.15 (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is anecdotal evidence, so feel free to dismiss it, but I know for a fact that the pro-Palestine circles I am a part of would condemn this behavior coming from the protesters if it was brought up, and the only reason they may not have done so is because they aren't aware of it; The other BoN does have a point that the perceived presence of pro-Hamas protesters in campuses is heavily amplified by the media due to being covered many times more than the actually sane ones, as a natural consequence of how the news cycle works. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thousands of Palestinians are held without charge by Israel, and rape and torture of Palestinian detainees has been normalized in Israel. Man charged after shooting three people for wearing keffiyeh in New Hampshire. A Palestinian-American boy was stabbed 26 times by his landlord for the "crime" of being Palestinian. His mother couldn't attend the funeral because she was stabbed too. The "March for Israel" rally invited prominent antisemites, who were a key feature of the event. That same rally featured a speech by Israeli President Isaac Herzog calling the civilians of Gaza a "legitimate target." Cries for genocide of Palestinians could also be heard in that event. Carthage (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Not only has she reversed her position on single-payer healthcare, she has also reversed her support on a fracking ban ([17]). Well, Harris certainly had us fooled. What a fucking piece of shit. By the way, 73% of Democrats support universal healthcare ([18]) while the piece of shit nominee we didn't vote for doesn't. She's really throwing the Democratic base to the wolves to court the Trump vote. Carthage (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

So vote Trump who will also do all the things you're worried about? Capitulation isn't exactly surrender in federal platforming. I would rather fight a Harris/Walz administration on these issues than a Trump/Vance. Torrent (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Please point to where I said I'd vote for Trump over Harris. Carthage (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say you'd vote Trump, I'm saying the abyss of independent voting is limited, you have a solid reason to not vote Harris, I respect that. Do you have a better reason to vote third party? Torrent (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

https://youtu.be/DgsiRWQ9eHU?feature=shared (not using the song as an endorsement, it just reminds me of the first time I actualized my political philosophy) Voting for the lesser of two evils matters on a federal level for sure. Torrent (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Mega-WTF

I just found… this thing on Twitter. Words fail me. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Ray Comfort Rationalwiki page under the "child beating" section. It's a 10 year old hoax. BobJohnson (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

…Oh. Poe's Law strikes again! Luigifan18 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I Am Against the Death Penalty

I'm against it for a really easy reason. If the death penalty is delivered even once by mistake, it is state sanctioned murder. I want to trust the institutions I live with to, at the very least, not murder people. There is not a statistic in my mind that allows for a .001 percent of innocent people found guilty by mistake. I've had this argument a hundred times before face to face. I am against the death penalty. Statistics only mean it can be done to an innocent person, and one innocent person killed by mistake is fucking gross.Torrent (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree for a lot of reasons. Life in prison is a harsher sentence. I don't think the State should have the power to kill someone, either. Plus it's ultimately more expensive to execute someone than to imprison them for life. All this being said, if you're going to be executed and you have a choice of how, a firing squad is the best method. It's the quickest and least painful method, since getting hit by several rounds will completely destroy your organs. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

See the UK examples (Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley, the Guildford Four, to some extent Ruth Ellis, and the changing views of Albert Pierrepoint are often referenced).

If the death penalty 'worked' (by making people think again) its application would be much more limited. (War Crimes, and certain cases of 'persistent and long term malicious activity that can be described as being evil' etc are in a different category.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Why should we have life imprisonment anyways? That seems to me to be just as cruel as the death penalty, and also a drain on resources. Even other countries tend to, when instituting life imprisonment sentences, have fixed terms that do not equal an entire lifetime. Carthage (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The main problem with the death penalty is not that states sometimes kill the wrong person. Though it's obviously terrible when that happens. The arguments against are already in our article on the topic.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hard disagree. There are some truly heinous people out there, and they deserve to rot in prison for the rest of their lives. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think one can agree that separation from the general population is a necessary evil for some people, while also acknowledging that at the same time the current carceral system we have is irredeemable as an institution. Carthage (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, life in prison is a form of death penalty. As they say in the business of animal shelters, no kill is slow kill. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Being subject to the American penal system is a fate worse than death for many people. Carthage (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and the thing about life in prison is it is often used as a cheap excuse not to have the rigorous appeals that happen in death penalty cases. How many people spent almost their entire lifetime in prison only to be cleared when they are old, or worse after they have died? Life sentences should get the same appeal process as death penalty cases. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

What's truly evil is that we subject minors to this fucking shit. Look up the "Kids for Cash" scandal and its aftermath. People's lives have been ruined for shit as petty as making a page on Myspace making fun of a school principal. Carthage (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The criminal justice system in the United States punishes the mentally ill and the falsely accused more than the dangerous criminals it should be punishing. For the former, US prison (and the criminal record that follows it) is devastating, for the latter it's just their way of life. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh and another ridiculous thing about the US justice system is it is pay to play. If you have money, you can sue anybody who harms you in anyway, and you can enjoy everything the Constitution has to offer when you're accused of something. If you don't have money, you're only hope of winning a lawsuit is if it is such a slam dunk that attorneys will gladly take it as a "no victory, no fee" case, and you better hope you don't get sued or arrested, as this site is finding out with its current legal issues. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Behind the Bastards had a really good episode on that scandal. Sadly, as is often the case, there was no true justice in the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGkvl02xdOE IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You'd probably like FD Signifier's video on the subject of criminal justice: [19] Carthage (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Unpopular opinion - life imprisonment with zero hope of parole is in fact 'cruel and unusual punishment'. They have nothing to really live for, no prospect that if they truly 'reform' they'll ever get out. If we have a fair and just legal system [which is a big condition, I get that] and it decides with a near-certainty that they're guilty and the conviction carries 'life with no parole' the death penalty should be considered. There are some people who simply cannot be rehabilitated and/or have committed crimes so heinous that the public is unanimous that they never wish to see or hear from this person ever again. What's more, there are the rare occasion where the prisoner is simply too dangerous to leave alive - I am thinking here of huge crime bosses and politically-motivated terrorist leaders, folks that even if in solitary forever would have 'power' in the outside world and minions etc actively trying to break them out etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Not unpopular with me. IMO life without parole or death could be for those cases where there is NO DOUBT about guilt for particularly heinous crimes...... not just guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt" - which still allows some doubt. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

i am failing to imagine a scenario where someone would be too dangerous to leave alive. criminal organisations still function after the loss of its head to prison cell. their underlings are usually capable and more than willing to step up. no matter how loyal their underlings were and how determined they to still be boss, the ability to run their criminal business is going to be severely curtailed even under the best circumstances. the same applies to terrorist leaders. terrorist organisations are probably even more resistant to the loss of their leaders. terrorist cells often work independently from one and other and the members fanatical to their cause. trying to actively break out the leader from prison is not really a viable threat in the developed world. if it were, better security is the answer there hostage taking of course does occur, but would also if their leader was alive in prison, dead, or alive and at large. i would require far more details for these allowances for a death penalty to be valid.

as for life imprisonment being cruel and unusual punishment. in reality it is just cruel punishment and is pretty usual. but that need not be so. prison reforms are required to fix this problem. execution as a mercy to the condemned is not. i see no reason why life without parole cannot be managed in way that is not a form of unbearable torture. a life in prison is and probably a limited life than one on the outside, limited does not mean worthless or hopeless. the problem is often of public perception. anything that treats prisoners with even the hint of human decency or grants them the smallest of comforts is a public outrage, cue prison is like a hotel hysteria. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I do think an important note of context about "heinous offenders" is that most sexual assaults go unreported, and many murders go unsolved. Most sexual assaults that are reported don't go to trial. Is the system really protecting people from these heinous offenders? Ask anyone who's reported a case of sexual assault to the police how they were treated. They tend to be traumatized by the police. Most people here don't seem to really interact with the criminal justice system on any real basis. So I think a lot of the narratives being spread here should be questioned. We are a skeptical wiki, ostensibly, but we're not subjecting due skepticism to these traditional hegemonic narratives. That's interesting. Carthage (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

the many failures of the justice system in the handling of sexual assault cases are for most part somewhat irrelevant to the current discussion on the death penalty. if not for anything else the many difficulties in getting such cases to trial or even getting victims to report such crimes are all occurring before anyone convicted of such crimes needs to worry about the ethics of capital punishment. 18:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That's true, but this thread has been meandering into many different points of conversation already. I was simply commenting on a comment that was expressed earlier. You trying to get the thread back on track? Carthage (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

not especially but sgetting justice for the victims of sexual assault is probably a meander to far and topic that would not be given justice in this current thread. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

one criticism against the death penalty which i do not think is covered in our article concerns plea deals that seem a feature of us justice(it might not even be valid criticism, its just a thought thats popped into my head and sounds like it definitely happens). if i was a poorly educated minority with shitty legal representation, and i was being rail roaded for a crime i did not do, i might be convinced more easily to confess to committing i was being framed for if the police were telling me if i didnt and went to trial i would get the chair but go easy if i did and only send to me to prison for life without parole. especially if your shitty lawyer is telling you take the deal or they will kill you. forever in jail for something you didnt do or death, i might take jail. i can at least hope to appeal or someone will prove my innocent later down the line, but if a trial goes badly and its death, even with years before its carried out, i still might not live to see my name cleared. take the threat of a death penalty out the equation for extracting my confession, plea that reduces my sentence from forever to maybe i can some semblance of life when i get out, if i were innocent i still might risk it for my day in court. it might not even go to court if the police were pinning all their hopes of confession. the threat of a death penalty makes getting a confession that much easier.

or maybe it doesnt. just a thought i hadAMassiveGay (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Cool take. Torrent (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

RFK was murdered in 1968. His murderer, Sirhan Sirhan, was sentenced to death. The sentence was commuted to Life after the penalty was banned in NYS. Recently, however, there have been talks about giving him parole.

RFK was not some nobody; there was a strong chance that had he lived, he would've been elected to the presidency in the 1968 election. Instead, Nixon won. Sirhan forver altered global politics as a result of his actions. Yet there are talks about parole, because most of the people alive today were not around in 1968. If his victim had been some nobody, like your father or your sister, he likely would've been released years ago.

I don't like the idea of executions. I also don't like the idea of murderers being allowed to go free. If you can't guarantee me that the guy you sentenced to life in prison is going to stay there, then, well, I'm going to support the other option. CorruptUser 17:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

A significant chunk of murders go unsolved anyway. If the goal of the carceral system is rehabilitation, and not, say, profit, then it makes no sense to keep people penned up like livestock for decades at taxpayer's expense. Of course, if you have a financial incentive to keep people locked up for as long as possible and do everything in your power to encourage recidivism.... then you get the fucked-up system we have now. One argument you can use against the death penalty that may appeal to you is that a significant portion of people currently on death row are innocent. That right there is one incentive to not use the death penalty. Carthage (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

people change. people grow, learn lesson. they can become better people. different people. in enough years anyone can change.the restriction of liberty is the punishment that a jail sentence deals out. is it right to continue to punish someone who over many years is no longer the same person originally convicted. if enough years have passed for us reasonably say that punishment has been carried out, justice has been served, then why not offer the chance to tegain their liberty and take part in society? even if the crime was murder that all holds true. specifics of a particular crime might insist a longer or lesser period of time to pass for this be possible. very rarely it might deemed the crime so outrageous that they never be given this opportunity. but mercy should be a feature of justice as much as vengence. even murderers should be afforded mercy. if we deny any possibility that people can change, we deny their basic humanity. criminals are still human beings, even if their crimes terrible. if we accept their humanity then even murderers can earn their freedom. if we deny it then our punishment become ever more inhumane and the justice system would become unjust.

that being said sirhain sirhain has spent 53 years in prison, he has no doubt changed, thats enough for parole to be considered. im not going to cooment on reasons why parole was denied, thats getting closer to legal arguments and procedures. t.hat mosr of the family were against his parole, is understandable,it should be a consideration but a not a major imho. the family can never consider this objectively. as for the crime itself, rfk wasnt a nobody. but never is some random murder victim. they will be somebody to someone. rfk was a big shot with a powerful family. that may result in the case being treated differently, but it should not be treated any more serious than the murder of a nobody. that is not justice AMassiveGay (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What in the world of alternative medicine is this bullshit?

I stumbled across this clusterfuck when researching a particular person of RationalWiki interest, the first thing I notice is .com instead of .edu. It's apparently a full fledged non-accredited university dedicated to alternative medicine horseshit (it at least doesn't appear to be an outright diploma mill where you pay a fee for a piece of paper). Worthy of an article? 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel nauseous discovering how much pseudoscientific garbage fellow Canadians are generating and buying into. Read a recent news story about a public university in British Columbia planning on offering a degree in traditional Chinese medicine; an Ontario college previously also had plans to offer a degree program for homeopathy. It's upsetting. I blame trouble with Canada's healthcare system as implemented by the different provinces for the increase in such nonsense. For example BC's system use to be fee-for-service, where doctor's were paid a flat rate per patient visit, which can be problematic if a patient needed more time with the doctor for things to be explained and addressed adequately (as doctors were inclined to quickly go through patient visits to obtain good pay). In other provinces like Alberta, it seems the conservative provincial governments are intentionally degrading the quality of healthcare to push privatization. Impiricism (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

One of the faculty members of this "university", Joseph Dispenza, is mentioned in an article on a 2004 quantum woo film. Looking at the rest of the faculty list, it contains quite a number of other charlatans and cranks RW covers, such as Bruce Lipton and (name redacted via bullshit lawsuit) *cough* on staff, and guest speakers like David Wolfe and Masaru Emoto. Worthy of an article? If one can find enough information on this "university", certainly. BobJohnson (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Got linked to the Wikipedia page for a Jane Roberts while browsing content for Joseph Dispenza. The lady appears to have gotten mildly famous and wealthy for her collection of writing called "Seth Material", where she claims to have been contacted by and channeled the consciousness of an energy being called "Seth". Got a good chuckle reading that a Christian talk show host at the time, John MacArthur, called The Seth Material "a book entirely written by a demon". It was the '60s; a much more mundane and likely explanation is drug use (LSD perhaps... timeline does match) and entrepreneurial creativity. Impiricism (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Apparently this university used to be called the "International Quantum University of Integrative Medicine" (at the very least, iquim.org in this article [20] redirects to the Quantum University web site). According to a 2007 Seattle Times article, the International Quantum University of Integrative Medicine was linked to Desiré Dubounet (née William Nelson in the Seattle Times article). Dubounet was the "inventor" of a quantum biofeedback bullshit thingy called "EPFX", and is currently "in exile" from the United States courtesy of fraud charges from the FDA stemming from said device. (The Seattle Times article describes how some people have died when they received treatments from people with bogus diplomas, so it seems like that some of the purpose of these type of places is to set up a bogus sort of credentialism to fool customers into thinking that the "holistic doctor" is somehow legitimate medicine.)

Incidentally, the Rationalwiki article on Dubounet is... quite cringe-y, I must say, in that 2000s era troll sort of way. BobJohnson (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Half of the content here is cringe-y, especially anything written in the old guard days. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally find it rather... interesting that this topic was raised by a BON which their other sole contributions have been regarding a lawsuit which involves the very [redacted] who is an instructor at this 'facility'. Esp when their contributions have generally been as constructive as someone pissing into a tent [which is saying something as I'm often the Eeyore]. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not a coincidence, I found this "university" by plugging his name into a search engine. Now, had he founded the university, no way in heck I'd bring this up here, especially as a BoN in which his attorney could easily send a subpoena to Lumen and name me a defendant. I just saw this and immediately thought of RationalWikians like Rationalzombie who follow whack educational institutions. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Real universities do not list dead people (Masaru Emoto) as current faculty.[21] Bongolian (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling a lot of Qanon-tards fall for this place? 71.208.249.110 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Quantum woo has from my perspective been more of a New Age thing, although the lines are blurry these days ("New Age" is like a peak hippie to 1980s term, has anything come along to replace it yet?) and QAnon does have a conspirituality side. Nonetheless, buzzwords like "holistic medicine", "wellness", "collective consciousness", "energy scans", "frequency medicine", and the like (as found on their Facebook page) leads one to envision this sort of thing. Given that the purpose of this place is diploma mill adjunct, it's basically for the type of person that wishes to market "wellness woo" to others. Sort of like how it's hard to think of why anyone would attend Liberty University unless they were heading into a career in the "fundie business". BobJohnson (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Comparing this joke of a university to Liberty University is like comparing a flattened Hot Wheels car to a Ford 150; a Ford 150 might not be one's personal choice of vehicle, but it will get one from A to B, likewise Liberty University or even Pensacola Christian College (since it became accredited with TRACS) might not be one's chosen institution of higher learning, but as an accredited university, one can use a degree from there to meet the educational requirements for a license or a job (a fair number of places don't care where you graduated from, as long as it's not from a diploma mill). In contrast, I have a feeling a degree from this Quantum University is as useful as a Hot Wheels car that's been run over by a garbage truck. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, a degree from a religious school (whether from Liberty, a catholic school, a Jewish school, etc) could be a strategic move because a lot of companies today are heavily vested in DEI initiatives, and religion is one of the protected classes. The same applies to historically black colleges and foreign higher learning institutions to an extent, in that such institutions stand out to employers looking to have a diverse workforce and might be more likely to contact those applicants. Things can also go the other way, but that can work to the applicant's advantage as well if they can build a case of discrimination. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ideological orientation of RationalWiki

So, what's your political ideology? Why am I interested? Just because it's fun to see where RationalWiki is (specifically) positioned on the political spectrum, by seeing the ideologies of different users. I'll ask those interested to identify with the following:

- Far-right

- Right-Libertarian

- Moderate Right-wing

- Conservative

- Conservative green

- Economic liberal

- Social-liberal/Third Way social-democrat

-Economically liberal/capitalist green

-Moderate Left-wing

-"Left-conservative"

-Populist/old-style social democrat

-Eco-socialist green

-Radical Left

-Left-libertarian/anarchist

-Far-left 80.187.75.10 (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The phrase that initially read "So, beyond being atheist, what's your political ideology?" was changed later, because not all users of Rationalwiki are atheist. 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:58C9:9A9:E011:7453 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have trouble clearly identifying with any label but I could hazard "left-libertarian" is probably the closest in ideals. But we live in a different society than I'd like, which may practically need evolutionary periods to get to an ideal. Providing someone a label to put on you is a great way to get them to psychologically box you in though, and expect things of you that you wouldn't intend. Someone might expect a "left libertarian/anarchist" to go live on a hippie commune instead of participating in this society. But that assumes various things of me that aren't true. Chillpilled (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Are AnPrims considered to be hippies aswell, since they don't participate with society either? Personally think they're batshit insane. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably some of them but I don't think you could call the Unabomber a hippie. Chillpilled (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I prefer this political compass. Even then, it has it's limitations. Most obviously, it's possible for someone to be economically progressive and socially conservative, or vice-versa. Lastly, I do try to write from an ideologically neutral POV when doing mainspace [not counting 'hating stupidity/dogmatic ideologes' as ideology here] - even if you tried to 'smoke me out' on what sources I use for refs, you'd partly be hit from selection bias aka I often end up resorting to BBC/Guardian refs not because I am ideologically in agreement with them, but because they're generally reliable, non-paywalled affairs which appear generally to be resistant to link rot. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Social democracy with American characteristics. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Assuming "atheist" as a description of every user is a bit simplistic and almost certainly wrong. For the rest - I really don't think that my (or anyone's) opinions can be put in neat little boxes. Ask about an issue and see what you get.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

For anyone confused by the reference to "Assuming atheist" the original question was "So, beyond being atheist, what's your political ideology?" After having been told that this assumption was incorrect the OP edited their question to remove that reference.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Use too many labels and you just end up looking like a Ben Garrison comic. I'd certainly consider myself left of center, though, both because reality has a well known leftist bias and because I want the maximum good for the maximum number of people, and this seems the best way to get it. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Chill and Skeptic. Carthage (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Socialist, Progressive, and Theist, but questioning my faith. (PS: I don't see how being Atheist is a political ideology; Did you mean to make it come across that way, or is it just weird phrasing?) TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Weird phrasing. 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:D825:D644:6E32:B3B0 (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

A certain proportion of RW regulars and occasionals are not US citizens and would assign different definitions to some of the entries. As for religious beliefs - there are likely to be several varieties of atheists, agnostics, theists, 'those choosing to be neutral while in the wiki, and at least some middling-strong believers (religious and political) who are looking for discussions. Anna Livia (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I tried to be generally vague. I'm not a US-American either, so I rather had concerns about US-American definitions. What entries specifically? For clarity, Liberal does not have the north-american meaning here, and "Economically liberal/capitalist green" is close to Die Grünen/Bündnis 90 in Germany, while "Eco-socialist green" is similar to the greens in France, the UK and the US. Radical Left is the type of parties between Third Way-style social democrats and the far-left. Thanks for the suggestions though, I removed atheist now. 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:D825:D644:6E32:B3B0 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Changing the initial question after people have responded to it is not the best way to go. It would be better to add a line clarifying/apologizing directly below the question so that the subsequent responses then make sense.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll go with "radical left" only because saying it makes me think of the amusing idea "radical left university professors indoctrinating our kids into the globalist cultural-Marxist LGBTQ+ agenda (oh noes!)". As others have pointed out, there can be a lot of fuzziness and uncertainty with declaring membership to one of those groups, or with the names of the groups themselves. Impiricism (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

it would be cowardice to not name yourself on the board, but I think the board itself is dumb. We are better without genres. I am not affiliated with any of that, but I can agree with the idea. The closest I would agree to is anarchist. But I'm not exactly that, so I think the question is bunk.Torrent (talk)

If you were to ask me in 2010, I'd be what was then called "the new Left". My politics haven't changed much since then, but the Democrats have gone off the deep end, so I guess I'm a "never Trumper" moderate-right. CorruptUser 17:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Can you explain why you think the Democrats have gone off the deep end? Just curious. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Pinging you again since I think you didn't see it the first time. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

A myriad of different ways. For starters, they've spent more than 3 years not only lying to my face about how senile Biden has gotten, but did everything to humiliate anyone who noticed, until it became blatantly obvious during the debate, and even then 1/3 of people were still so willfully blind that they thought Biden had won the debate. Even Jon Stewart was "both-sidesing" the debate, when clearly, the 25th amendment should've been used years ago. Worse than that, the media itself was running non-stop cover and propaganda for him, effectively defeating the entire purpose of a free press. Remember how the Hunter Laptop story was officially called "Russian Disinformation"? And in 2022, they were blatantly lying about Fetterman's health, and calling anyone who noticed "ableist" for suggesting that someone with severe brain damage shouldn't be a Senator.

Maybe it's my nostalgia, but the press and the D party as a whole would never have let Clinton get away with everything that happened with Biden. I still remember the Gary Condit story, or Rod Blagojevich. If either of those happened today, I get the impression that both the D party and the media would try to humiliate you for even suggesting there was an issue. CorruptUser 06:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Your word salad is interesting as a profile of an ideologically captured pov. Biden did poorly in the debate, if that is what you want to call it. But as a contest it was a fraud. Is Biden ill? Maybe he is, but historians rank his presidency at 14th best, against Trump's dead last. Some choice. Americans would be lucky to have an administration ranked that high again. "Rod Blagojevich?" That story reminds me of Trump's "perfect calls" to Ukraine and The Georgia Sec of State. Rod had to get something for the senate appointment, just like Trump had to get something. Trump may well yet go to the Big House. What was it that happened with Biden? His Presidency has been relatively scandal free compared to Trump: [22] Trump had more associates go to jail than any other President. This is so tiresome.UncleKrampus (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this has been memory holed in the official record, but many of the first people highlighting Biden's sputtering while speaking, as a probable issue, were Bernie Sanders supporters during the 2020 primary. Now it seems: Trump is "the One Facing Questions About Age and Capacity", or so says "All the News That's Fit to Print". I didn't know who Condit or Blagojevich were, but apparently the latter was let out of jail by Trump himself. Chillpilled (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Instead of using buzzwords, let's talk policy. What are the policy positions people here support? Values can inform our policy preferences, of course, but policy preferences alone tend to go on a left/right axis anyways. You don't see many lefties arguing for Trump's tax cuts. Instead, they argue to increase taxes on the rich. Their policy preferences are informed by an ethical prioritization of fairness and equality. Carthage (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Staying out of foreign wars
2. Ending dependence on fossil fuels, through nukular powar!
3. MOAR Space Program
4. Capital gains tax to be same rate as income... but adjust for inflation
5. The "unrealized gains tax" should exist, but ONLY on stocks/property used as collateral for loans and such, and not anything that's just sitting there. E.g., if you have 10k shares of stock you bought for $10 that are now worth $100, you can borrow $100k without being taxed since its book value is $100k. But if you want to borrow $1m using all your stock as collateral, NOW you've "realized" it to some extent, so you gotta pay
6. Slowing the "phase-out" of welfare systems to eliminate the welfare trap
7. Also, combining ALL forms of welfare into a SINGLE agency
8. A total ban on Payroll taxes; place them all on the payor, not the employer, but obviously adjust contracted wages and minimum wage so the net is identical. I just despise "stealth taxes"
9. Social Security benefits for the worker ONLY; for spouse, benefits accrue only for years married. E.g., if you married your wife 20 years ago, you accrue the benefits for those 20 years of social security contributions, not the 40 she worked. Includes ex-spouses, of course. But if you marry someone after they retire, sorry, no SSA benefits for you
10. Phasing out of EEOC and Affirmative Action
11. Normalizing gay marriage, but more importantly, normalizing gay monogamy
12. Universal "bare bones" healthcare; not quite medicare-for-all, but the absolute basics like vaccinations, broken limbs, childbirth, etc
13. Vastly increasing the number of visas and streamlining the immigration process, but zero-tolerance of illegal immigration
14. Also the replacement of H1B's lottery system with a "whoever gets paid the most" system
15. Slightly in favor of more labor unions; I want more jobs to be unionized but I also want to be able to fire incompetents
16. Speaking of unions, more ability to get rid of "bad apple" cops
17. Reopen the mental health hospitals
18. Far more funding of CPS CorruptUser 18:08, 7 September

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

1. An arms embargo on Israel as well as economic sanctions and divestment from Israel. Give it the apartheid South Africa treatment.
2. Continue to back Ukraine.
3. Apply international law equally, without exception.
4. Have the US ratify the Rome Statute.
5. End dependence on fossil fuels through nuclear power.
6. Increase funding to the space program.
7. Normalize trans existence and polyamory.
8. Investigate alternative means of dealing with social deviancy through measures other than the police and the criminal justice system. (I outline my thoughts here.)
9. Abolish police unions.
10. Abolish life-imprisonment.
11. Abolish the "crime exception" to the 13th amendment.
12. Medicare 4 All.
13. Open borders.
14. Return land to indigenous ownership and support indigenous sovereignty.
15. Increase taxes on the rich.
16. Divest funds from overinflated police and military budgets to support social infrastructure.
17. Abolish qualified immunity.
18. Support co-ops and workplace democracy.
19. Make internet a utility.
20. Build more subsidized housing.
21. Abolish "right-to-work" laws.
22. Legalize sex work.
23. End the war on drugs.
24. Reparations.
25. Free tuition.
26. I'm coming around to supporting UBI.
27. We should increase penalties for people who threaten political violence against officials.
28. Abolish the electoral college.
29. Implement term limits on the US supreme court.
30. Protect the right to access abortion.
31. Implement a truly representative voting system.
32. I support the right to bear arms. Carthage (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

this site has drifted to the left by a noticeable amount even in the seven years i've been following it. while i don't agree with this political realignment, i still value the skepticism and snark on this site, which is why i still edit here.

as for my personal views, i used to be more sympathetic of the international left. however, it's increasingly difficult to find leftists who aren't anti-western and/or pro-russia. i'm especially disgusted with all the so-called "democratic" socialists who support repressive left-wing and/or anti-western regimes (e.g., cuba, venezuela, russia, iran). even more infuriating is how many pro-palestinian activists support the very anti-democratic hamas. i guess no one likes democracy and freedom anymore. it doesn't help that the western right is also flirting with authoritarianism and putinism. i'm almost declaring myself politically homeless at this point. The G (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and apparently, it's also hard to find rightwing people who are also secretly being supported by anti-western regimes. As for the left in general, I'm always skeptical of any environmentalist that opposes nuclear power. Their means of "saving the planet" is almost always "destroying Western infrastructure". Watermelons, green outside but red inside, are absolutely a thing; just look at Greta Thunberg. CorruptUser 18:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's really interesting how a "instead of using buzzwords to indicate our alignment with whatever tribe, we should state our policy positions so people understand us more clearly" became yet another "indicate our alignment with whatever tribe" session. Carthage (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I would state my policy positions on the things that I have enough knowledge about to pick a side over, but I'm pretty sure I would be rehashing a lot of the stuff Carthage said. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I already have an essay where I go into my political views quite extensively. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

i am not a fan of questions that ask me to declare my political tribe nor the frequency with which it is requested. i especially dont enjoy the endless interrogations searching for evidence of heresy when arguing what specifically kind of leftist, or rightist or whatever i might be, with there seemingly an infinite variety of divisions and sub divisions. i should have been grateful for the relative brevity of these discussions. now what is asked of us is an expansive detailing of policy positions and effectively coming up with a fully fleshed out manifesto for our plans to change the world, brings us to a new circle of hell. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@CorruptUser what's with the part about normalizing gay monogamy in specific? I don't get it TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

its marriage equality that does the normalising of the monogamy, by having having them state recognise our relationships like they do with the straight relationships, plus confer protections like pensions passing over the surviving partner in the event of one dying, and visitation right in hospitals when one is ill, to name but few. it also conveys a sense to us that relationships are worthwhile and not disposable when we know we can make a legal binding commitment via marriage as a possible outcome, encouraging us to work at a relationship when it could be something more than a casual fling. quite how else you might normalise monogamy over a more promiscuous life i do not know with a lot of tut tutting and shaming us as vectors of STIs AMassiveGay (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much what AMG said. CorruptUser 21:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

So we should make queer culture more palatable to cishet conservatives? No thanks. Carthage (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't knock it. :) The thing is, homosexuals do that "pair bonding" thing to, and have done it with or without gay marriage. Gay marriage, as AMG mentions, ties up a *lot* of legal loose ends though that was previously only available to heterosexual couples... it's beneficial for that alone. I am personally not sure that gay marriage in itself encourages monogamy one way or another, but I think the "perception shift" has been beneficial. While monogamous homosexual couples have *always* been a thing methinks, with gay marriage, such helps dispel some of the stereotypes that homosexuals are always this ultra-promiscuous lot among the sort of crowd with that opinion (usually religious culture war whackadoodles). Sure, some are (but so are some heterosexuals)... but some aren't... BobJohnson (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

My concern with this is that this gatekeeps against polyamory, which as someone who is proudly polyamorous, why can't polyamorous relationships receive the same legal legitimacy as monogamous relationships? Carthage (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with polyamory is the exploitative / oppressive side of that (e.g. not the polyamory you find in the more open sexual communities, but the polyamory you find in heavy-patriarchy / extreme fundamentalist sects). I don't know if there's a way to enable one without enabling the other. BobJohnson (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say that's more a problem with our patriarchal culture than anything to do with polyamory itself. If you want to address the problem you address the culture. Monogamous marriage in Western culture has a long and sordid history with many nasty aspects to it, but it's presented as the norm. This assimilationist rhetoric is fundamentally conservative. It's also not like monogamy hasn't evolved with the evolution of culture. It used to be that no-fault divorce was almost unheard of, and marital rape was almost excepted. Wives were literally the property of their husbands upon marriage. I don't see why polyamory can't change with the times as well. Carthage (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

i would say the bigger problem with polyamory is administrative. the jump from hetero marriages to now include same sex marriage, doesnt require a whole reconfiguring of laws regulations for its inclusion. its functionally identical except for what genitalia each couple have.

with polyamory every additonal member adds a new level of complexity - whats the legal definition going to look like? is there a cap on how many people can be involved? what changes if one or more parties leave the relationship? pension rights, parental rights, inheritance, wont apply to members equally, they cannot be conferred to a polyamorous relationship like they can with two person relationships. a one size fits all approach cannot work. with all the differing forms making marriage style legal legitimacy problematic. on top of that, they are really not for everyone, i know they are not me. the give and take of relationships and the social dynamics are more easily managed between to people and not contending with pushing and pulling from multiple directions. if you can polyamorous realtionship work then fantastic. people do make them work. folding in laws and regs for legal recognition and the rights that may confer, doesnt look like a simple task and they look a little too niche a thing for any groundswell of support demanding it.

with all the issues of the mormon style polygamy, that persists to any degree i think is because the power imbalance is skewed in favour of the husband. it might have his wives as having less or no control over their lives, but you can resolve conflict pretty easily when one person - the husband - gets to make all the decisions. the exploitative nature of it is a feature not a bug. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

also i am defining polyamorous as a multiparty relationship where there are interactions of varying degrees between all parties. if defined more broadly as simply hold multiple romantic relationships at once as i see defined someplaces, then polyamory is just playing the field. people have been doing that forever. its what what i do and im not polymorous and i will tut at anyone claiming to be polyamorous if thats what it amounts to AMassiveGay (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Getting back to ideology, I find that people with a definite ideology don't talk about it all that much because everything is pretty much already decided. They often want to tell me what is fucked up about my ideology, because they often think everyone must have one. But they really don't. Most people don't think systematically. My ideology: Everything that is already decided, I let it be. My advice: only steal when you need to, and then, tell the judge I said it was alright...yeah. UncleKrampus (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yet when I complain about the blatant corruption and the favoritism by the media, you accuse me of being "ideologically captured". CorruptUser 05:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You didn't demonstrate any Biden-related corruption. This implies you have been captured by a narrative. But put your capture aside. You are entitled to your opinion. I apologize for suggesting otherwise, if only indirectly. Your comment appears to me to be incoherent. I don't accept other ideologies, I accept human nature enforced culture. We are all captured by that, though some of us clearly don't realize that. Ideologies are rationalizations made out of the way things are.UncleKrampus (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's be honest, you can't deny that there is some truth to dividing politics into political philosophies. Of course you shouldn't be blinded, but come on, you know exactly that "I don't care about ideology" often just means "other ideas are horrible, now follow mine and shut up". We all have ideas, and any party with a decent program leans toward supports certain ideas more than against others. Of course you shouldn't apply ideology to everything, but, get ready, Biden has problems. And no, this doesn't mean I support Trump, nor am I saying they're the same. I'll go even further, most if not all politicians are problematic. Insane. RationalWikians (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"Human nature," ah that suitably vague chestnut. Carthage (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

'I don't care about ideology' can simply mean you care about ends, not means. That their only test is 'does it work?'. For example, you could easily support public ownership of X but resist it for Y on the simple argument 'X has failed, while Y is working fine'. In my experience, most 'Big Public' folks are not 'ideological' as in 'don't follow a political ideology'. Like Corrupt [sorta] points out, only ideologues would openly deny any questioning of 'their reality' [I said at the time, it was reasonable to at least question whether Fetterman was capable of performing his duties as senator re: his stroke and while I don't believe Biden was senile I didn't think well of the attempts to portray him as sharp/fit/energised as a man in his 50s.] But let's make it clear here, like with global warming and conversion therapy, there is not a 'both sides' argument regarding the two political parties. The Republicans are dead. It is not the party of Ike. Or Lincoln. Or even frigging George W Bush. I mean, Dick Cheney is voting for Harris. The 'Republicans' are now the party of MAGA. Of Jan 6th. Of cronyism, corruption and bile. Of Project 2025. Of general denial of reality. Thinking of the millions of old-school 'conservatives' [like the fictional Hank Hill] who are tied between a choice between 'the unacceptable and the insane' makes me deeply sad for them, for it's a mockery of democracy. The Democrats have a lot of faults but they are no way that. For example, I think we can basically assure ourselves that if Harris loses they won't try to threaten either a coup or a civil war. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Cool, so Biden is better than Trump. But that does not mean that criticising him is just wrong. Let's not kid ourselves, a fair share of Biden folks would hesitate to support a leftist candidate against Trump. He's no longer running anyway, though. RationalWikians (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Define 'leftist'. I note that Trump's rhetoric on economics [not his actions] is in some ways the most 'left-wing' seen in decades. A [generic] Democratic candidate could either hone in on winning over disgruntled 'Liberal Republicans' or take the fight back into winning those 'Reagan Democrats' back. Most polling shows that the majority of Americans think 'America is on the wrong track' but also show they as a whole don't like Trump's vision either - so I say they are rejecting both the status quo and Trumpism. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a classic. The far-right fights the evil immigrants who steal people's jobs. Is Trump a leftist because he's adopting the classic far-right rhetoric since the 1920s? Leftists are for egalitarian change, rightists are for hierarchy and traditional order. The left has values linked to leftist tradition, the right has values linked to rightist tradition. Consensual notions are understood differently because of these left/right values: The right wants criminal justice, the left wants social justice. It's a good model to describe the political landscape. RationalWikians (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

All of us have a set of beliefs about any given political or economic system. Some of us are just more self-aware than others. Carthage (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

anyone heard of this guy?

https://manlyburger.substack.com/p/the-crime-of-homestuck

warning: this page is definitely subject to the time cube law i couldn't really find much about him online other than his personal pages despite the fact that he's apparently been in close contact with people who have worked on homestuck. does anyone here have any info? sorry if this is off topic 192.150.174.39 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

it might make sense if you are a fan of webcomics and of spirituality. its impenetrable otherwise, and still probably is even if it is your thing. if you find his writing engaging enough to keep your attention, fill your boots. you might find something for you. its a little too niche for me having no interest or knowledge of web comics referenced i doubt could appreciate too much of what they have to say. its fine that some things are not for everyone and some things are for even less people.no one should be compelled to like something because i do nor should i not enjoy something i am told is utter trash.

its probable this chaps stuff wont resonate here, but so what. what do you get from it? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It reads like someone with a persecutory delusion towards webcomics and the animation industry, and also he seems to maybe think elements of the webcomic Homestuck are real life but I can't totally tell. At first I thought it was just someone living in an opaque labyrinth of in-references and media-critic brainmelt but there's something extra going on there. It's not especially interesting, in the sense you can find people online with their bolts screwed on the wrong way anywhere now, but if Max Azzarello gave any signal it's that a better society would maybe try to stop such people from spiraling before they decide they're going to set themselves on fire in public. Chillpilled (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chillpilled Why did Max Azzarello self-immolate? I haven't been able to find anything about it, but I didn't look into it too much. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It was to draw attention to a supposed conspiracy involving Peter Thiel and cryptocurrency, purportedly Biden and Trump were both involved and intending to cause a worldwide economic collapse. I didn't really understand it beyond that. By the way he posted on r/stupidpol, and seemed to be rather focused on class divisions. He made allusions to media productions like The Simpsons and branded drinks sold in grocery stores containing messaging meant to make people feel disempowered. It's an interesting case in that he seemed to identify real problems while mixing it in with boilerplate conspiracy theorizing that is probably not true. His Substack is still up here if you want to read but I didn't go through all of it myself. Chillpilled (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I was expecting him to be your average far-right crank, not a Nazbol. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the "Naz" part. Chillpilled (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge, r/stupidpol is a Nazbol subreddit. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If I recall correctly they treated him like the local kook. He seemed to post the same things there as on his Substack. Chillpilled (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

"Unexplained" Mysteries and More Content Farm Nonsense

Merely searching for certain keywords on sites like YouTube returns dozens upon dozens of channels claiming to post "unexplained" mysteries or spiritual, occult, and anti-scientific bunk due to their algorithm being deceived. Almost all of them claim to have "exclusive information" or "what they don't want you to know", and YouTube more often than not fails to deplatform them for spreading misinformation. Are these channels merely content farms trying to fleece money off of advertisers by fooling the gullible, or is there more conspiratorial thinking under the hood that isn't being noticed? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Advertisers don't really care if the creator they're sponsoring is a bunko artist. They know that shit gets clicks, and gives them attention. Carthage (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean the advertisers are just as guilty for allowing this in the first place? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Some advertisers are themselves bunko artists. I've seen this one on YouTube incidentally, "Whole Body Deodorants":[23] how badly do people stink anyway? Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

While sweating is natural, there are times you don't wish to/want to (warm day, you're about to close big sale... and you're visibly sweaty). Some people are susceptable to bacterial infections (and 75% of the time it appears to be genetic in origin) and you need to treat all the problem areas (underboobs, groin, feet) - the folks are the sorts who smell rather 'off' even if they'd rank 9 on The Sims 'Clean' rating. If you need/want to do this, why not have one for all, so you can avoid the often overpowering reek which is 'fragrance layering/clashing'? Some folks might choose one good, all-over nice deo as a kind of 'everyday perfume' while others might like it as a multipurpose item which is perfect to keep stashed in a bag or travelling washbag.

I agree that a lot of folks won't need it. But I could see some people who would get decent use out of it. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

one should always use antiperspirant, or antiperspirant in conjunction with deodorant. never deodorant on its own. thats why ax/lynx body spray is so shite. its a deodorant with no antiperspirant that in no way deodorises. so you still sweat and and some how makes reek way worse than bo does on its own. i assume a whole body deodorant would be of use if you were carrying some extra body fat with folds of skin that are not easily reached by the usual spray. just dont get ax brand one though, it might still give you a stench that causes foliage to wilt as you pass by and burn the back of peoples throat make their eyes water that regular ax deodorant produces. seriously, how is lynx still a thing? its so horrible AMassiveGay (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

and why does no one warn you about this when you are teens? when i was a lad, i couldnt understand what was going on. where is this stench coming from? i use plenty of deodorant. i honestly tbought i had some kind of cancer for a little while in my formative years, like i stank of death. its not what you need when you are probably at your most self conscious at the best of times. fucking lynx effect not anything like the adverts promised the lying cunts AMassiveGay (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Antiperspirant works by sealing your sweat pores - this can make things worse as said pores will get clogged-up with gunk, causing your sweat to reek more when you do sweat. I now go by the rule of thumb - if I am about to do something which will cause general sweatiness, don't bother with antiperspirant (what you gonna do, dip your whole body in it?). I just make sure my pores are nice and ungunked (ie daily cleansing, weekly exfoliation, keeping the bacteria at bay) and whack on a bit of decent deodorant if I'd like to smell nice. I have some scentless antiperspirant for the times it's needed.

Now, while I think the Lynx question is in the same category as 'how the fuck does WH Smith stay in business?', 'why is Fosters still on-tap in pubs?' and 'who the hell is buying Wrestlers tinned burgers anyway?', I think the answer is somewhere along the lines of 'male hygiene was shit'. I mean, did anyone teach you as a teen? I can say, I wasn't - my guide was a fat old bloke who washed once a week with that green soap they used to use in school, Brylcreem'd lank hair over his bald patches, shaved with the cheapest/dullest blades known to humanity and only changed his socks when they stood up under their own accord. The smell of Lynx Amber was an improvement... KarmaPolice (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)