RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive464

This is an archive page, last updated 15 October 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>, <462>, <463>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

On a more positive note

Happy Equinox. Anna Livia (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Tis the season of pumpkin spice. Impiricism (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

An Idea

Should RW give book etc recommendations? For example, we have a bio-page on X and at the bottom say 'Y book is a good biography of X, if you'd like to learn more'? KarmaPolice (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea. There's pages on books, and currently sometimes RW bends its missionality rules a little if it's interesting stuff (e.g. sci fi). But what forms could it take?

But what do people want to do, really, that's the fundamental question. We could just encourage essays on books, fun pages on books, or mainspace pages on books. Or maybe launch something new? There's an ancient "Recipe" space for pages, no longer updated. Maybe a new "Review" namespace (for reviews by the community, not by an individual) could be launched? Other ideas? On the more modest side, maybe just an article series, "books on X", or to start with, new sections and coverage in existing articles describing further reading beyond just listing it? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That's something I wanted Wikipedia to do for years (though it's currently not willing to modify it's serious yet original style. It wouldn't be very “Wikipedian” to do this, so I guess I'll have to wait). Sure, an online website can provide useful and mostly accurate description of something, it's good for getting quick information on something, but if the reader really wants to learn more about the subject, an explicit recommendation would be good. Sure, the „bibliography“ section in some articles more or less has this purpose, but it's too long and doesn't explicitly recommend anything. For Wikipedia this would be too much „WikiVoice“ (though they could mention recommendations by authorities in the field), but RationalWiki sure could do this. HumanBeing (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The WWI article already has book recommendations. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised the Three Body Problem doesn't have a mention on the wiki, given how popular it is. The dark forest hypothesis for extraterrestrial civilizations is worth considering, as well as their form of mutually assured destruction. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I'm thinking of. Highlighting more in-depth good resources, perhaps also warning about terrible ones. Most famous folks/events have a lot of books etc about them [example; Winston Churchill] and you're kinda left on your own to work out 'where to go next'. Because let's face it; some 95% of folks will only read one biography of a famous person - so it's best to try to direct them to a good one. This is more important now because from my POV the search engine starting with G because their searches are becoming so iffy that it's increasingly doubtful you'd find anywhere to suggest the best biogs etc even if you really pulled your finger out to try to locate it. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I really think the WWI article has a good example for how to do stuff like this in its "further reading" section. It organizes the books into categories/topics. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

We already have set a precedent for this kind of stuff with the Atheism FAQ, so I don't see why not. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

RW:Bookshelf. We also give out website/blog/social media personality recommendations: RW:Websites. Carthage (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Why the hell don't we highlight this stuff? RW is a utter thicket of content you can only really find if you search for it and how the hell can one search for shit they don't know exists! KarmaPolice (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Turns out we also have podcast recommendations. Carthage (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about the 'psychosocial control' template

I don't quite get the reasoning behind the belief expressed in the template; I understand the reasoning for considering certain aspects of religion, such as Hell, as psychosocial control, but all religions, maybe even the concept as a whole, regardless of content and specific beliefs? I don't get it, can someone explain the reasoning for this? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? For those of us with imperfect knowledge, a link to that about which you complain would be a good start. Thanks. Zontar (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:User_BadReligion TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

'Member the Alamo?

I just read TV Tropes' article on a game called 'Member the Alamo?, and sweet Jesus have mercy, this is what Resistance Records would produce if they were overdosing on LSD and crack cocaine. Talking guns dragging people through time and the Mexican Army summoning Satan by singing "Imagine" are just two of the nuttier things that happen in that mess. If we don't have an article about it already, we desperately need one. Luigifan18 (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd consider this as a bad game, but I have a brainrot that makes me into an edgelord and sympathetic to developer's views. Last time I was on /pol/ was 7 years ago. After that I browsed Reddit and started to become leftist, despite browsing Serbian subreddit which was centrist, but was also anti-SJW and "HURR DURR WESTERN HYPOCRITES". Despite being that, I made a separate account "opposing SJW mindset and the West". But actually, I HATED ANTI-SJW STUFF and clowns such as r/watchredditdie, where Redditors complained about "the evil Reddit mod oppression and being SJW", r/clown_world etc. This decade I started watching leftist youtubers such as Kavernacle, F.D. Signifier, Rebecca Watson, Hakim (he's a sus tankie though) etc.

But I live in a country in a right wing zeitgeist and many people anything "woke" and "Western". I've even tried to regress myself. I've thought that being Orthodox funtamentalist nationalist anti-vaxxer conspiracist would make me a better person. I though I was wrong for not being that. But that started gradually last few years, despite being in leftist circles. I sometimes have irrational fear of heterosexual non-white youtubers and thinking they're corny. My dislike of Indian accent grew into fear and hatred of Indians, but before that I viewed Indians that saw irl really interesting people, although I still think that Bollywood is corny. I also get edgelord ideas.

Generally I'm intolerant of "traditionalism", ruralism, mysoginy, homophobia, authoritarianism, crankery etc, but my intolerance is slowly fading away. Look at Serbia: there's quasi-Patriotism, conservative Orthodoxy and nationalism is being pushed in schools, a popular tennis player panders to the most nationalist types of people and is viewed as the Serbian Messiah, conspiracy podcasts such as Balkan Info are popular, Chetniks are being revitalized, where Miroljub Petrovic and disgraced pulmologist Brank Nestorovic are influental, Kosovo is still hot topic etc. That said, there are leftist and liberal parts in Serbia such as N1, Peščanik, Danas, Agelast, but those are less favored than the former and you'd be labelled as an auto-chauvinist if you had same viewpoints as those.

Look at the gaming scene: the Sweet Baby Inc. drama and the backlash against the "woke conspiracy". Look at the world: far right growing around the world, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Palestinian genocide, China, with a conservative and nominally "communist county" getting influence, etc. I don't know what to be now. 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 01:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

What. Luigifan18 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There's all sorts of hateful nonsense out there. Shit like The Great Rebellion, or that weird Alex Jones game. The question is, is it notable enough to pay any sort of attention to? While I'm usually an inclusionist, there should be at least some degree of missionality and notoriety for an RW article. Otherwise, it's just giving attention to something that doesn't deserve it. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If there's a way to group all the "little stuff" together, that's probably a more appropriate case. For instance, I think there could be an article on "Christsploitation" media, which would showcase exploitation media that targets American Christian fundamentalists and Dominionists. Most titles released are not really notable on their own, but grouped together, it could be a topic -- especially since like the B movies of the past, these days there's an awful lot of profit potential for little investment (God's Not Dead made like 32 times its budget), so even mainstream media companies have set up "faith" divisions to target this crowd. It probably helps that there has been a general trend in Christian exploitation away from what has been called the "Christian scare movies" of the 1970s and 1980s (apocalyptic doomsday films as well as morality tales on moral panics) towards hammer-faith-in-your-face "uplifting" melodramas, taking some pages from "uplifting" melodrama of made-for-cable Hallmark Channel movies and similar. (Though some of the doomsday shit still exists.)

But even this little thing would be difficult to pin down. It markets itself as a "comedy" first person shooter, so I guess what you describe would be "funny" to them. It is reviewed by very few; of those who do, it is described as universally just bad, even without the shit ideology. It looks like it's someone's personal project. I'm frankly surprised Steam greenlit it. What made Ethnic Cleansing a *wee* bit more notable was hat it was released by a relatively big neo-Nazi group (National Alliance) and was actually marketed enough to attract mainstream media attention. Few neo-Nazi media is like this. BobJohnson (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

I'm aware this is a controversial question, but is psycho-analysis pseudo-scientific, according to you? I know that might sound easy to answer but I'll try to give some interesting insights.

To start, many European psycho-analysts don't see psychoanalysis as a science, but as a philosophy or just a method. That's one perspective. Another perspective is found in Latin America, where psychoanalysis is still deeply linked with psychiatry. Can a philosophy be pseudoscientific?

Then of course, there's the problem that if we accept that psycho-analysis is pseudo-scientific, then other fields are also to be questioned. Many of Popper's points have been changed, watered down, criticised, because they were too strict for some. Psycho-analysis has, in the context of this larger debate, been defended from some of Popper's criticisms. I have a general knowledge based on one book not focused on psycho-analysis, so sorry if I got some things wrong or represented wrongly. HumanBeing (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say "probably not scientific, but it has proven influential in some areas of philosophy" but to double check I asked my sibling, who studied psychology for their med degree, and they said that psychoanalysis has its uses, but to take its findings with a grain of salt. Essentially you should be properly skeptical, but your mileage may very depending on who you ask about whether it has its uses or not, or to whether its scientific or not. Carthage (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe it helps if we divide the question up into areas of theory (purported explanations of how stuff works), practice (like what psychoanalysts do in talk therapy), and philosophy (more nebulous).

1. Theory. Freud claimed to explain how human beings work. His followers who either supported his theories or developed alternatives (e.g. Adler) did the same. Both historically, and insofar as people still do this, I think the case is clear that it's pseudoscience, given the nature of the theories.
2. Practice. Not as clear. I've also read that talk therapy tends to work about equally well (statistically helping over time, but taking time and only being so-so in effectiveness) regardless of the theoretical paradigm, e.g. cognitive-behavioral therapy (which is the most scientifically based) doesn't do better looking at patient outcomes than the case is with Freudian psychoanalysts treating patients. To me, this suggests that psychotherapy in general is not really about the theory and what the therapist believes in -- rather it's more like a performance art, this may also explain why plainly non-scientific interventions like 'shamanic treatments' can also work, it depends on a kind of improvisational skill in dealing with the patient which is totally separate from theory and such.
3. Philosophy. Given the point on practice, any philosophy which isn't in the way may 'work'. But as for what philosophy is, that's rather nebulous I think. I suppose you can throw out all theory and say that what remains is philosophy. Philosophy often takes the form of extrapolation from theory as well, starting out that way. (But if at one moment it's claimed "here's how stuff works" and the next it's claimed "it's just a philosophy", that smells of the motte and bailey tactic, if the point is that it can't be pseudoscientific.)

--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Lacan has some influence in pomo circles. Carthage (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about that. My own thoughts focus on lifestyle, motivation, belief, and what makes people choose change. I think people are messy nonlinear systems in "mind and heart", and there can be sudden big and lasting shifts when thresholds are crossed. My armchair theory is that therapists succeed when they convince, make strong impressions, or otherwise manage to push a patient across some threshold so the dominant motivations change. (From what I've read, shamans who are believed by their patients tend to get a lot done in a short time in terms of convincing the patient to question beliefs and change lifestyle, etc. I think that's key to how it can sometimes work better than talk therapy, which is much more drawn-out in time. But it won't work if a shyster just involves you in flowery New Age visualizations and then takes your money, and you then go on feeling blissful until it wears off shortly thereafter.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Protoscience. Chillpilled (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that's debatable. There existed more solid psychological theory and research before Freud, though it had different focus. William James in the 19th century basically wrote the forerunner to how the modern cognitive paradigm looks at the mind; behaviorists later discarded his work as unscientific (because he took the inner life seriously), but cognitive scientists think much better of it and it's aged very well.

Another half of the cognitive paradigm's precursor was researched separately by a group of British physicians and philosophers in the 19th century, who studied how perception, memory, and action took place unconsciously and without free will in a rather modern way. Then Freud arrived at a very different idea of the unconscious, a more mystical and dramatic vision of inner being. That took the world by storm and stole the focus, then later came the strong behaviorist backlash in response, and then it took until the 1990s until science resumed where it had left off in the 19th century. But far from all think of it as a lost century for psychology, though some who represent modern study of the adaptive unconscious do. (I read of this in Strangers to Ourselves by Timothy D. Wilson.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If one begins from the point of view of historical philosophy, it's difficult to see where the practice of psychoanalysis ever stops being philosophy. Heraclitus, in a fragment, said "I have searched myself." Later, Socrates proposed the maxims, "Know thyself," and "The unexamined life is not worth living." The psychoanalyst is not unlike the ancient sophist, who would help students learn philosophy in exchange for payment. The sophists did subsequently obtain an unenviable reputation as grifters, although this may say more about their ability to practice civil law and win cash awards enough to aggravate the general public. Never-the-less, the similarity between common, introspective thought in Socratic dialogue and Breuer's talking cure therapy may be of some interest to historians.

Self knowledge has been called, and is generally acknowledged to be the highest aim of philosophical inquiry. According to Ernst Cassirer "It is the highest aim of philosophy, the fixed and immovable center of all thought." Today, it is the psychotherapist and not the academic philosopher who does this work. The main conceptual distinction, that leads to the question of pseudoscience, lies between the philosophical and medical questions.

Psychoanalysis, in its original form, might well be labeled as pseudoscientific, but science is self correcting. "Modern psychoanalysis is a reformed version of Freudian psychoanalysis. Naturally, it keeps what made the traditional approach helpful." It may be very accurate to describe the old forms as pseudoscience, but modern forms of treatment that are helpful may be regarded as reasonably scientific on empirical criteria. It could be useful to have a discussion concerning the difference between the arts and the sciences.UncleKrampus (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I've known a Freudian psychiatrist (earned his MD/PhD degrees in the 1960s/1970s) and a Jungian psychologist on a non-therapeutic basis. The Freudian worked at an academic institution doing student therapy. At a certain point in the 1990s, he was put on notice that he couldn't continue at the institution without obtaining an additional credential in neurology, which he tried and failed to obtain. He left and started a new career advising people on feng shui (he's not East Asian). There are still Freudians and Jungians offering therapy, but given the advances in neuroscience, pharmaceuticals, and cognitive behavioral therapy,[1] the still-practicing Freudians and Jungians would best be regarded as pseudoscientists, the equivalent of modern-day alchemists. Freud and Jung were protoscientists. Bongolian (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I did actually study a little of this many years ago. As I remember, Freud didn't do any experiments to test his hypothesis - he just sat in a chair and made them up. He came up with the id, the ego and the superego which he figured out worked together or against each other to produce "us". But he had no real empirical or experimental backup. Nothing. It seems to me that it has as much validity as homeopathy.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Homeopathy does not work. At least there is no evidence that it does. There's no specific data on the number of people that therapy has helped, but there is a high success rate for those receiving "talking cure" psychotherapy ( more than 70%), according to the American Psychological Association. Hypothetical objects are not uncommon in the physical sciences, e.g., dark matter and dark energy. Scientists like to think there is enough evidence for them, but it is not certain that they exist. The speculations as to why the talking form of therapy works as well as it often does can be designated as not scientific. The fact that it works reasonably well is the sticking point here. You can call the explanations pseudoscience, and perhaps they require unnecessary metaphysical assumptions. The human mind is an infinitely complex artifact as well as being an object of scientific study. It is interesting to consider the plastic surgeon: a medical doctor who is also, more importantly, an artist.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I've read some books by different types of psychologists. I found it interesting that they can give advice to people which helps, and different types of therapists may even give exactly the same advice in certain situations, yet the 'theory' and explanations for why it's the solution are completely different based on which paradigm/theory they subscribe to. That's part of what led to my view that talk therapy seems to be more of a performance art, where it's mostly based on some intuitive skill the therapist has, while the explanations they come up with are rationalizations that create a story around the help they intuitively come up with.

For specific issues, cognitive-behavioral therapy may work better -- or in case of phobias plain old behaviorist exposure therapy also has a track record -- but the way in which it doesn't seem to matter at all for more general talk therapy success what the theory/paradigm is, suggests to me the science is still very immature. That is, there's so much it still doesn't cover that it dwarfs what it does cover. Maybe that will change in a century. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The science on alchemy is still very premature. Maybe it will change in 5 centuries! Bongolian (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell how you read what I wrote, so in case it wasn't clear, I was referring to the science behind psychotherapy in general, where the cognitive-behavioral paradigm seems to represent the state of the art. But I do think that the current understanding of the mind is a little like alchemy relative to some possible future science. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Funny you should mention alchemy in this context. Carl Jung wrote a book about that,..., oh yeah: Psychology and Alchemy. Jung compares aspects of the study of Alchemy to psychotherapy. It is an interesting read. Also interesting about this book is a series of dream studies including a dream of the physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Pauli received the Nobel Prize in physics in 1945, having been nominated by Albert Einstein. Einstein famously refused to believe in quantum entanglement. Pauli later collaborated with Jung in some academic studies related to Jung's ideas about synchronicity. Perhaps Pauli was motivated by his interest in conceptualizations of quantum entanglement (called "spooky" by A.E.).UncleKrampus (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

IIRC, most of psychoanalysis is now held in disrepute. The stages of psychosexual development, the tripartite model of consciousness, the oedipus complex, and so on, are not exactly orthodox concepts in the modern age. As is similar to "traditional medicine", the stuff that seemed useful or had validity did actually get lifted out and remains in certain strands of orthodox psychotherapy today, while the rest got left for history. "Psychodynamic therapy" is perhaps the most pure example of this; you can expect a psychodynamic therapist to employ concepts like transference, counter-transference, defenses, dissociation, object relations, the triangle of conflict, and so on, which were originally found in psychoanalysis. And this is far from a crank therapy, it's not particularly efficient but it's a bit of a gold standard: the NHS in the UK broadly uses it for things like personality disorders or complex trauma issues, and more tailored therapy modalities such as mentalisation-based treatment and schema therapy borrow from it in turn. ^{— Unsigned, by: AshRain / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Carthage (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sick burn of the day

I just found this meme on Twitter. 🤣 Oh lawdy, this is a good one. The far-right is angry because they're being judged by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin. I've gotta slap it on the white supremacy page; now if only I knew who actually said it… Luigifan18 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

X! Scream!! (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps start linking to archived versions of tweets from that shithole? Carthage (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do that… Luigifan18 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Copy-paste a link to archive.is or something. Carthage (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Twitter is a technical shitshow and sadly often breaks archive sites these days. I've been using Ghost Archive for Twitter. Sometimes it doesn't work, but it worked this time. BobJohnson (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Archive.is works for me. Carthage (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Ghost Archive is definitely quicker than Archive.is is in archiving Twitter links, at least in my experience. Carthage (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Progress & Regress Pokémon — Advice Still Wanted

Oh geez, the previous advice request topic for my Progress & Regress Pokémon project got archived just when I felt I needed it again… okay, so the shared signature move of the Regress Pokémon is called Escape Hatch, and it's directly based on, well, the concept of an "escape hatch" argument in a debate — a superficially valid argument that does not actually prove whatever point it tries to prove, but serves more to evade the burden of proof and provide an opportunity for its user to declare victory and walk away before anyone can realize that the argument is actually bad. An escape hatch looks like a valid argument if you don't bother to think about it, but if you do, the argument turns out to be unfalsifiable, circular, incoherent, or otherwise grievously flawed — in any case, you're probably going to experience some head pain trying to make sense of the nonsense, which is why Escape Hatch as a Pokémon move inflicts confusion. Anyways, I felt that I needed to briefly explain why unfalsifiability is a bad thing in my explanation of Escape Hatch, but I'm not sure if that should be standalone in parentheses or a ref note as part of a slightly more detailed explanation of what an escape hatch is. Which of these two edits looks better to you guys? (And the question of whether or not I accidentally made myself sound like a Social Darwinist when talking about Evarwilect is still open, BTW.) Luigifan18 (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but for what use was this again? New world (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps explore Pokémon wikis and 'social media sites discussion groups' (and be the P/RW intermediary). Anna Livia (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Right now, I'm specifically asking about how well I summarized falsifiability in the edits I linked to. That's a RationalWiki question. Luigifan18 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Not many people here are interested in Pokémon. Carthage (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Nuclear proliferation

I think it can be safely said that after Ukraine and Palestine, you can kiss nuclear non-proliferation goodbye. In a related vein, Gaddafi was a fucking idiot for voluntarily decommissioning his nuclear program. Carthage (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

you are late to the party. the invasion of iraq showed everyone what happens to a nation without nukes that pisses of the us AMassiveGay (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

or when trumo threatened n korea with annihilation, now got nukes. and iran looking across the border to iraq thinking nukes might be a good idea. no idea what palestine brings to this though. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Is "trumo" code for some other president, or just a misspelling of Trump? 'Cos NK got nukes long before he started screwing over the USA.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Israel is straining at the leash for regional war. Do you think Israel will stop at Gaza? No, now they're pushing into Lebanon. They want a war with Iran (and they want the US to fight it). Israel is practically offering Iran the perfect excuse to develop nukes on a silver platter. Carthage (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

iraq already is the perfect excuse and the us invading iran at israels behest is complete nonsense AMassiveGay (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

and aside from iran, who else has the capability of getting nukes and the intention? thats a lot smaller pool than youd imagine. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Right now, maybe. But I wouldn't make confident proclamations like this and assume that this would hold indefinitely. History will remember these events 10, 20, 30 years down the line. It's a myth that people don't pay attention to history, or aren't taking notes right now as we speak. Carthage (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Would you be saying the same thing if Trump was at the helm? Carthage (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I've been wrong before, but while I think Trump is a crazy person, I don't think he's the "invade Iran" flavor of crazy. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about that. He gleefully engaged in brinkmanship with Iran while he was president. Also, Bibi has been lobbying for years to get US boots on the ground in a war against Iran. This war won't stop with Gaza or Lebanon, it'll stop when Bibi's thrown out of office. Carthage (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

What's this called?

So, there are quacks who will spread FUD about a mainstream treatment, then not apply the same standards of evidence to their treatment they do to the conventional treatment. I think I somewhere may have read there was a term for this as a kind of multi-step gambit, but I'm not sure what it is. The closest I came to was probably "uncertainty tactic" or "double standard" but I don't think that's it, since it's not about simple hypocrisy but in addition to that both spreading the FUD about the conventional treatment and bumrushing onto the scene to present the alt-med treatment as the solution to the FUD'd treatment's failings. I might be thinking of a niche anti-quackery term, assuming I haven't just misremembered its existence. Chillpilled (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's called "being a bastard". Impiricism (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Policy question for RW

Should we make it official policy to require/"strongly encourage" people to use nonpaywalled or archived versions of sources that are behind paywalls whenever possible? Carthage (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be encouraged, but requiring it would be a step too far. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

No, leave it to the individual editor. Some will prefer paywalled versions as a way to encourage supporting the journalists. I see this as hard to argue with and there's probably no satisfactory answer so I would leave it at no position one way or another. Chillpilled (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I go with the most relevant and reliable source. My beef is much more the use of dead tree sources which haven't been digitised - the 'barriers to verify' are much higher [most folks know you can subvert a paywall by going to archive versions anyway]. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer using the original source but assuring that it's been archived somewhere particularly for obscure or flakey (e.g., Twitter) sources. Bongolian (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

PM in France

Macron nominated Michel Barnier, right-wing, to be prime minister. He is a figure of The Republicans (LR) and voted against the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1981. Macron named him in the context of a de facto coalition between the presidential camp and LR. National Rally was "hopeful" for the new government (that means they were considering not voting a motion of no confidence). This is despite the fact that the coalition of the left has the most seats in the National Assembly. The government is mainly composed of the same parties as before, with the addition of LR politicians and a move to the right. National Rally considers the newly composed government to be the same as before (that means "not right-wing enough"), while the left denounces a hard right government and an anti-democratic takeover.

To some of you the simple answer is perhaps that Macron has the right to do a coalition with LR, but the context is a bit more complicated. The theoretically wide coalition of Macron (with people from "left", centre and right) could have done a coalition with the political camp arrived first in the election, the New Popular Front. The NFP agreed on a candidate for the post of prime minister (Lucie Castets), and a left-wing government would not necessarily get ousted immediately. The government, in a coalition or pact with the so-called "centre" could perfectly have proposed to vote on each proposition of the NFP program individually at the National Assembly, and this would have brought important social reforms (for example the abolition of the retirement reform, which would have and will most likely be voted by National Rally too). This was realistic since, in theory, Macron is centrist and has an alliance of left, centre and right in the Assembly. Mélenchon proposed, during the negotiations, that LFI (his party) will not participate in the government, since many centrists considered it "dangerous". In France, the president names the prime minister, who will then be tasked with composing a government; that means that if the president names someone from a different party, he is in a cohabitation. However, instead of governing with the left, Macron decided to name a minister from the traditional right-wing party which came fourth in the election, after National Rally, after macron's alliance, and after the NFP. With his decision to name an LR PM, Macron admits to preferring to govern with the right rather than with the centre-left (centre-left since LFI would not participate).

This strategy is particularly pathetic since LR's participation is an open move to the right (though the government was always right-wing from the beginning, the centrist part was just posturing), done specifically to convince National Rally to not vote a motion of no confidence against the government. Previously, LR was hesitating to vote a motion of no confidence against the relative majority of Macron, but in the new parliament, where the left has the relative majority, macron has decided to not compromise and support a government of the centre-left, but to try to convince National Rally to not vote the motion of no confidence against the new government. This (final) open move to the right means a right-wing consensus between Ensemble (Macron's coalition), LR, and National Rally. Macron's coalition was always vaguely right-wing though, the proof is the various excuses used by Macronists to not name a left government (they started saying the greens are also far-left, together with LFI, and they would vote a motion of no confidence for a government with green ministers. Why? The greens are too "woke". Meanwhile they would accept a government with people from the communist party, similar to LFI. They also said the Castets government would immediately fall, even though they can not know that without trying that government, because the decision of voting a motion of no confidence would specifically be in their hands). The previous parliament's configuration meant that Macron could use 49.3 (the article which allows the government to ignore the National Assembly for passing a law) as he wanted, since the necessary consequence of 49.3's is a motion of no confidence, and LR was never sure if it wanted to vote such a motion. Today, any government using a 49.3 would immediately fall. New world (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It's hilarious that, again, LFI is decrying a governement that doesn't include then as illegitimate, while the Union de La Gauche made less votes than the REM in 2017, when LFI was *already* claiming that there was a "legitimacy problem". And they see *no problem* ignoring those who actually got the most votes and 1/3 of the seats, the far right. The hypocrisy is never-ending. It's not democracy unless Mélenchon is at the top, I guess. The thing is, after weeks and weeks of not managing to reach a name with their NFP "partners", they're seen as an unstable, untrustworthy partner that will refuse to work with any of the other political groups, the far right because it's the far right, the right because it's the right (even if it seceeded from the far right), the center because it's the governement and they've been elected as opponents. I'm not happy about the right turn of the governement, but the incapacity of compromise of the left gave the governement little in the way of choices. Also, the retirement reform is a good one.165.225.205.43 (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not happy with everything the direction of the party (LFI) has done either, but come on: Mélenchon proposed that there would be no LFI ministers, and then the greens, all the greens, from Rousseau to Jadot, were also suddenly "problematic" for the presidential camp. In 2017, that was just a declaration by an opposition party following the great victory of Macron in the legislative elections. The opposition party, LFI, simply pointed out that the turnout was very low.

And as to your point about the voters of the far-right, well, if you want proportional voting, then you have LFI which is one of the only parties to consistently support proportional voting (National Rally became less clear about it right before the second round of the last election, I wonder why). And just to make this very clear, Macron threw the Cazeneuve option (the theoretical compromise with the left option, yes the socialists said no, but read the following lines) out of the window when Cazeneuve proposed some slightly social reforms. So, who is not compromising? And Cazeneuve left the Socialist party in 2022. Macron proposed no name from the New Popular Front. This is just another right-wing government. New world (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

And I'm not happy about the right turn of this governement. France doesn't have a big criminality problem that would need "Rétablir l'ordre" as a priority, naming anti-IVG personalities at the governement after writing it in the constituion is just ridiculous, but it seems that no governement was possible anyways. LR was the only party that wasn't elected in opposition to Macron. And this is why I'm opposed to proportional vote : it makes minority parties (often extremist) rule coalitions because in France we can't make a big center coalition. But still, the fascist-lites got 1/3 of the assembly, and LFI position is basically 'yeah, but WE are legitimate". The hypocrisy is transparent. And no, "low voter turnout" doesn't cut it when you claim legitimacy for your own. Also, the 49.3 doesn't allows the government to ignore the National Assembly for passing a law. Like, not at all. It allows the governement to propose a text without a change to the Assembly without a change. The Assembly then says "OK" or "Change governement". It's not ruling through decrees. It's going to be a mess... Because french political culture, LFI en tête, doesn't like compromise.165.225.205.43 (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I can only agree with most of what you wrote, including the conflictual strategy of LFI, just on two things: One, the declaration was forcing it, but LFI wasn't claiming the legitimacy in 2017, just pointing to a problem of legitimacy with the presidential majority. And two, 49.3 in theory works that way, in practice the assembly 2022-2024 might have voted against certain reforms (Macron had no absolute majority), but when a 49.3 was used the amount of deputies needed to remove the government through a motion of no confidence was never reached following a 49.3 because LR deputies were hesitant to vote the motion. So, if the 6th republic comes without LFI, would you now support it? Because it would bring a change to the political culture (; (and the III republic worked for a long time without breaking into parts). New world (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If the Assembly can make the governement fall with the 49.3 then the Assembly is still not ignored, it's even the leader. LR not wanting to vote no confidence or not. The 3rd republic saw 104 governements between 1871 and 1940, it was known for instability, but it *did* work. The 5th republic also does work. I'm not opposed to a 6th republic as such (as long as it's not a vague slogan that gives Mélenchon carte blanche to remake the country à la Venezuelian), but I'm not keen on parliamentary systems. Too unstable, and too beholden to minority interests, just as we see now where LR can basically decide. Also the Macron governement has edicted plenty of "lefty" social laws (Abortion in the consistution, Schiappa laws against sexual violence, PMA for all, forbidding conversion therapies)... And the economic results were great (lowest unemployement in 40 years, industrial employement picking up again...) *And* a strong pro-EU position? Dang I'm sad to see this going right-wing.

49.3 is often used, but when the president has no absolute majority, the opposition would vote against laws the government wants to implement, and the government then uses 49.3 to surpass the National Assembly, with one group, LR, blocking a motion of no confidence, that is problematic. On the rest, we agree. Hopefully they won't try to get closer to National Rally too much. Right now, all left-wing parties support the 6th republic, if the proposition spreads to other political camps (except National Rally, of course), then there might be a future for this model. The instability is a problem, but with strong institutions it can still work. New world (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about that, chief. Isn't the idea of making politics more inclusive so that those who would otherwise be left out don't resort to means of making their voices heard that aren't necessarily civil? You're arguing for the exact opposite. Less democracy, not more. Carthage (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's already there, Carthage. It's simply that France's national representation is supposed to represent *territories* and not *ideas*, so that each "county" gets an official representative that citizens can refer to. The good thing is that since most majorities in a county are not extremist, it usually yields a large majority for moderate parties at the national assembly. And let's not pretend that the far left is going to hear the voices of the far right, even if the far right got the most votes (in relative) and 1/3 of the MPs. They don't even claim they're going to hear those voices.165.225.21.41 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The "far-left" or LFI does not need to give a declaration about those votes, under the current electoral system (which is legitimate not because it prevents "extremes", that is an anti-republican strategy which just wants to win against other, maybe more present forces, but because each people of each circonscription votes for a deputy). However LFI supports Proportional voting because it is more legitimate. Under the current electoral system, the NFP won, that is how you say that in politics. New world (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

What did Mark Robinson do?

Where some political predictions changed from lean D to safe D in the governor election predictions? Is he that unpopular? 2600:387:F:D10:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Robinson was actually popular at one point... among a certain kind of voter. *cough*

"Robinson has made homophobic and antisemitic comments that have generated blowback, but he managed higher approval rating among Republican base voters than any other potential GOP nominee." - a December 2022 article

Even though he attracted some controversy during the 2020 North Carolina lieutenant gubernatorial election due to some social media history, his "newcomer" status probably helped then (besides, antisemitism and bullshit about Barack Obama are right up the reactionary GOP alley these days). The problem is that North Carolina is not *that* deeply reactionary Republican. His Wiki page documents his many, many inflammatory statements both in past social media posts as well as several inflammatory statements made since he was elected (such as telling a church audience that he wanted to murder "people who have evil intent", whatever that is, how Christian of him). As a result, his polls for the governor election haven't been that great.

Several revelations this year added "fuel to the fire", at least as far as Republican issues go, such as that he loved da porn shops in the past and that he and his future wife once got an abortion. Recently, CNN reported that Robinson made some disturbing comments on a forum called Nude Africa, including such bizarre statements as "I'm a black Nazi!" (Internet sleuths have dug up some even more bizarre stuff beyond the CNN article.) This probably led to the recent Cook Report change. However, it's not a huge change. Robinson's chances were quite slim to begin with. BobJohnson (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think he's tried the 'never explain, never apologise' method of dealing with these allegations and as a result, they've been Streisand'ed. A lot of the evidence [as far as I can tell] is a decade-plus old and he might have been able to 'explain away' them enough to not be that damaging ['Yes, they're awful, but I'm not that person today' etc]. I'm more curious to the fact most of his campaign staff quit - it's too late now to find another berth for this cycle, which means they preferred unemployment to being with him [I don't believe the suggestion they've quit because he is going to lose; these are professionals and you win some, you lose some!]. This suggests to me that either a) there's worries there's more crap, worse hidden [ie avoiding a possible 'resume stain'] and/or b) he is that odious personally this was simply the final straw. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There's also his Nude Africa post in which he bizarrely advocated for the return of slavery, which one may presume was sufficient for any of his African American staffers to flee forthwith. CNN has an airtight case on him, connecting his Nude Africa email address to his same real life email address. Bongolian (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I sure wouldn’t want to be the spokesperson having to try to defend this fuckin' guy in front of the press. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You're a professional politico worker who signed on to work for Republicans. What the fuck were you expecting? KarmaPolice (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

See the update I put on WIGO elections for his campaign staff quitting. They tried to hook him up with IT people for an internal investigation and he refused so they started thinking the allegations may be credible. By the way, reportedly even the staff at his currently-held office as lieutenant governor are now resigning as well. Chillpilled (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Does Atheism indirectly support the destruction of faith?

This is a question that went through my mind; I sadly cannot recall my precise thought process, but I believe it went something like: If Atheism views Religion as irrational, and tends to go against what is viewed as irrational, does it, then, not indirectly support the destruction of people's faith, regardless of how they practice it, even if most Atheists are chill about it as long as it isn't Fundamentalist bullshit? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You're conflating atheism, which is simply disbelief in the existence of divinity, with antitheism, which is active opposition to religiosity. Carthage (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah; Even as I was writing it I was like, 'wait, that doesn't really make much sense given what I've observed of others'; I'm pretty sure I was sleepy when the thought came across my mind, so that probably explains it. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm an atheist and an anti-theist, but I see the concepts as different. Atheism means you don't personally believe in a religion, anti-theism means you're opposed to religion in some way. All religious belief entails some belief in the supernatural, which can be used to justify very bad positions. That being said, I don't believe in any sort of Hoxhaist state atheist government force or other forms of violence to force it on anyone. (It's similar to my belief in anti-natalism - while I personally oppose reproduction and technologies like IVF, I'm not seeking to force that on anyone. Instead I personally got sterilized, vote blue no matter who to ensure proper sex ed and contraceptives are available and donate to charities that educate girls, as educated girls have fewer, healthier children.) IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

In support of what Carthage wrote, there are indeed atheist religious leaders, i.e. atheists who practice theism (sometimes because they have no other skill).[2] In parts of the world where atheism is criminalized (e.g., Pakistan, Saudi Arabia), being secretive about one's true beliefs is a necessity. The first book-length treatise on atheism was written by a Catholic priest, Jean Meslier, whose atheism was not discovered until his death. Bongolian (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There are different people who may give different reasons for taking the label "atheist", and there is no atheist bible which says what they should or should not believe. They can take any position under the sun apart from not believing in gods. (I wrote an essay on this) . However most modern atheists I am aware of arrive at atheism through skepticism. Skeptics want evidence for the things which they believe in. Evidence for the existence of gods is very poor and in consequence skeptics are often atheists.

Given that there is no good evidence for the existence of gods, theists have to resort to faith instead. Many skeptics would maintain that faith is a poor method to arrive at truth.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

So there is a really interesting question here. Faith in what? faith in magic? Faith in leadership? Faith in self? I really don't think atheism is a philosophy unto itself, but a lot of skunk ass debates do come to this conclusion. Morality does not include a God anymore after Genesis 6-9, But any time a wonky Christian says God doesn't kill innocent children, if the global flood is true, every child drowned in the awful reset deserved it? The faith that the sun is gonna rise is closer to the truth than the third branch of the trinity is gonna swoop down home. Them bones are gonna rest in peace. Torrent (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Faith in religious beliefs TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens: Islamophobic or not?

Asking this here since, judging from the talk page on the article about him, this topic was a bit of a point of contention early in the article's history, so I want to see what this wiki's modern views on it are (and whether we should mention it on the article, since as it stands, the closest to this we have is the PZ Myers quote criticizing him for being quick to dehumanize certain groups, as well as a few mentions of the burqa ban thing, but nothing else apart from that). TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The whole New Atheism movement was not my cup of tea; since it focused on outspoken individuals, it often veered away from atheism and agnosticism and towards antitheism. It's difficult to speculate regarding someone who has passed on, but many of the other prominent living "New Atheist" figures have ended up being a wee bit Islamophobic in modern times. But that's to be expected from a group whose religious criticisms in itself was too often IMHO overdone. If one must speculate, Hitchens' positions on the Iraq war would lead me to guess that he would have a wee bit of the Sam Harris 'phobe in him if he lived on.

Which is a shame, because overall Islam is not like the other Abrahamic religions. While both Judaism and Christianity have some more progressive and tolerant sides of their faith (in addition to some nasty fundamentalism in both), Islam... really does not, at least to my knowledge. The Islam stereotypes floating around (jihad terrorists and burqas and whatnot) are only a small percentage of the religion, but even the best sects of Islam are, in my opinion, too socially conservative for their own good. And the worst Islam sects can make even the nastiest fundie Christian / Jew sects look tame. The fundamentalist tendency of Islam, in other words, is ripe for criticism in my opinion. But wanting to bomb countries because of it, as Hitchens felt? That ain't gonna convert any minds. BobJohnson (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I wish I could add more to the conversation you're starting in the second half of your message, but I know shit about fuck about Islam. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Religion and civilization are inexorably present in often lethal combinations. Cultures that are bound to the Enlightenment of Western Europe do not mesh very well with conservative Islamic cultures. Hitchens didn't trust religions, Islamic or any family of religions. Did he hate Muslims? Don't think so. Was he afraid of Muslims? Don't know. Did he believe Islam to be safe to introduce into western societies? No. He did not. I presume he no longer cares what happens to us. Never-the-less, I suggest we modify the definition of Islamophobia to include any person who, having studied Islam, has decided to disapprove of it; because fear, hatred, and prejudice are insufficient to describe every critic of Islam. Hitchens will then be a proper Islamophobe. UncleKrampus (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

See Liberalism and progressivism within Islam. Also, Indonesia at least in recent history, has had a lot of slackness about Islam. President Sukarno at one point claimed to belong to Islam, Hinduism and Christianity. I met at least one person in the outer islands who claimed more than one religion that included Islam. The influence of fundies and their money from Saudi Arabia has had a fundementalizing influence on global Islam. Bongolian (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I dislike the term "Islamophobia" because it refers to the religion, not to the people - "Muslims". The people who should be protected from prejudice are the individuals - the religion itself should be fair game for criticism just like any other. But the term "islamophobia" can be used in response to any criticism of the religion. This can be contrasted with "antisemitism" - here we are talking about prejudice against Jewish people. Objections to antisemitism should not (in theory) protect the Jewish religion from criticism.

Really, I would like a new word like "Muslimphobia" - but I doubt I will get it.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, no religion should be beyond criticism. It's mostly that some people use criticism of Islam (and Judaism and other religions) as a smokescreen for being racist. Unfortunately the term is incredibly loaded so I don't use it, since I prefer not to be seen as holding views I don't. (Same with the term "Zionist" - does it mean you support Israel's right to exist or to wipe out the Palestinians and annex the rest of historical Palestine?) Usually I try to be very precise and specific with my language for that reason. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No religion should be beyond criticism, but that doesn't mean we should be allowing bullshit talking points like "Islam is fundamentally antithetical to Western values" to smokescreen themselves as "criticism of Islam." Remember that the same used to be said (and still is said in some circles) about Judaism. Also, the claim that Islam is uniquely violent, or awful, is also bullshit. Wikipedia has an entire article about pacifism in Islam. Nations like Albania, Bosnia, and Kosovo are also majority Muslim, but also tend to be very socially liberal. There are plenty of people who call themselves Muslims but who also drink wine and eat pork. (See Cultural Muslims for people who identify as Muslim more for familial or cultural reasons than ones of faith.) Carthage (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna be judged for that, but Islamists are in those countries too and have committed crimes against other nations, despite those countries being liberal. Some Kosovar Albanians destoryed Serbian churches. That said, those criminals are not different to Serbian radical nationalists who did crimes to others too. But honestly, I don't know what to think, I am woke liberal who is in overwhelmingly conservative nationalist country where many people think we're "Nebeski narod". Even the ruling party thinks like that. 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 23:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It is fortunate that nobody in this conversation has suggested those things.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

"Religion and civilization are inexorably present in often lethal combinations. Cultures that are bound to the Enlightenment of Western Europe do not mesh very well with conservative Islamic cultures."

"Which is a shame, because overall Islam is not like the other Abrahamic religions."

Evidently your assertion is false. Carthage (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You did at one point suggest that Islam doesn't have reformist/liberal branches, which Carthage showed wasn't true. They're small, but they're real. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, I do agree that overall Islam trends towards social conservatism. My contention was that the claim that "Islam isn't like other Abrahamic religions" is false. The reasons for the recent trend towards social conservatism in the Muslim world are not anything innate to Islam, and for a religion with over a billion adherents? You're gonna get over a billion interpretations of that religion. Gross overgeneralizations like this only help reactionaries demonize Muslims. Carthage (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing "inate" to any religion. Bongolian's observation that Saudi Arabia's embrace of Wahhabism and their oil fueled export of such is probably the dominant reason for Islam fundamentalism being so prominent in the world, especially the nastier strains. Politics and religion frequently intertwine after all. Christianity in America is on an authoritarian trend as of late after all, largely fueled by political concerns.

Also, the qualification "to my knowledge" should be noted -- I had forgotten about Balkan Islam, which indeed is more liberal and tolerant than other strains. My experience with the strains of Islam in south Asia (such as in Malaysia and Indonesia) is that, while much more tolerant than Wahhabism, they still are IMHO too socially conservative for their own good (thus bogus "sodomy" charges can still be used as a political weapon). But these countries are certainly a counter to those who think every Islam nation is the Taliban.

Historically, from what I remember, at times, many Islam nations had more relatively tolerance than some Islam countries do today (e.g. again to my knowledge, the Ottoman Empire tolerated and protected minority religions, though they were considered inferior to the main one... which sounds a bit like how Malaysian is set up.) Times change... certainly if authoritarian countries with lots of cash think so. Authoritarianism tends to like to pair up with fundamentalism, from what I've seen. BobJohnson (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire was oppresive to non-Muslims. Ottomans stole children from non-Muslims, converted them and drafted them into their own army. Ottomans even impaled non-Muslims as punishment. 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 23:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You acknowledge that the trend towards social conservatism in the Muslim world is not because of anything innate to Islam, but does Krampus? He's the one stating that Islamic culture period is antithetical to Western values. His broadbrush talking point includes Balkan Islam. Indeed, reactionary talking points like this were used to justify the Bosnian genocide, and these same talking points are also currently being used to justify the Gaza genocide ("gays for Gaza is like chickens for KFC"). Carthage (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

When judged by the standards of the time the Ottomans were perhaps no worse than others. This was, after all the period of the Wars of Religion in France, the expulsion of the Moriscos in Spain, Jewish pogroms in Central/Eastern Europe and Europeans sailing off to the New World to rape, pillage and slaughter whole peoples 'in the name of God'. In fact, in some respects the Ottomans were 'more liberal' because they allowed non-Muslims to reside in their Empire relatively unmolested [for example, Jews were only allowed to live in England in 1656]. Having 'religious disabilities' was in fact pretty universal too; again in England/UK the last ones were only repealed in the 1870s. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘On the original question… yeah, full-blown "the very concept of religion needs to die in a fire" antitheism is cringeworthy as heck IMO. Religion may stumble a lot and do questionable things, and it has some bad tendencies, like homophobia, misogyny, the very concept of dogma (i.e. refusal to evolve, adapt, or change… which is probably why many religions are still homophobic and misogynistic in an era when such attitudes are seen as backwards and harmful by sensible people), etc., but… the intentions behind it — the promotion of communal harmony, defusing of petty squabbles, prevention of antisocial behavior, etc. — are overall good. Yes, it's an instrument of social control, but that's not necessarily a bad thing when the control is being exercised for the purpose of reining in humanity's worst desires and impulses so that everyone is better off. It's when the control is being exercised first and foremost for the controller's own gain at the expense of their pawns, or when it's preventing people from re-evaluating their attitudes towards suffering and marginalized outcasts, that it becomes problematic if not flat-out evil. There's no denying that there's plenty of that going around in modern religion… Luigifan18 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I actually made a thread precisely about this topic; It hasn't gotten much attention, though. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, Krampus' paraphrased question -- "can Islam integrate in a Western society" -- is one I have seen frequently brought up in the context of the various anti-immigrant movements seen pretty much everywhere in the Western world. Now, the obvious answer (broadly speaking) is "yes, they can". Probably a great example here is Pakistani Americans, who are decently numerous in the United States, and have overall integrated very well. As the Wiki notes, what helps here is that Pakistani immigrants to the US tend to be disproportionately from the professional class (like it or not, polls on the "immigration question" change when talking about high-skilled immigrants), and they have less language barriers than other Islam cultures in the United States due to the ubiquity of English in Pakistan.

That still doesn't change the fact that there are very strong anti-immigration movements in Western societies, though. While America tends to disproportionately focus on illegal Latinos as the boogeyman, for many European countries, Islam immigrants are the boogeyman. It probably doesn't help that the face of terrorism is still Islam in many European countries (Islam terrorist attacks have been on the wane in the United States), including some terrorism clearly situated on different value systems (eg the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack). Some of the anti-immigration movements certainly can be described as Islamophobic, but at the same time I don't think you can just throw a label at these movements and make them go away. So, what to do? BobJohnson (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's radical conservatives crying over radical conservatives. 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 23:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

One thing we can do is to emphasize that dehumanizing rhetoric all on its own can lead to terrorism committed against marginalized populations, or those who the majority perceive to be a member of those populations (almost immediately after 9/11 was committed a Sikh man was killed because the piece of shit terrorist who killed him thought he was Muslim). You can also emphasize that there's a blowback effect. Policies that marginalize populations, rather than encourage integration, can lead to radicalization all on its own. It's no coincidence that Salafism is much more popular in, say, France than it is in many Muslim-majority countries. Salafis have a much easier time radicalizing the desperate who have few other options. Otherization is a process that directly contributes to radicalization and terrorism. Carthage (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting note; British Pakistanis are popularly regarded as one of the least integrated of groups in the UK. Guess what; 'our' Pakistanis came from mainly rural areas and settled to work in the textile mills and car plants in the 50s/60s and there's a widening gap between the ones who's grandparents 'lucked out' and settled in our now-growing South-East and not what became our Northern Rustbelt. One of the key spurs for 'minority normalisation' is clearly education/income levels but another is when a community gets effectively 'cut off' from new inflows; importing cousin/spouses from 'home' has got pretty difficult which means even if most relationships are endogamous, it's with other British Pakistanis who are becoming each generation more 'Britishised' [whether their elders like it or not...]. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The lingering infestation of QAnon and its effect on families

So there's entire social media communities for people who have had their families torn apart by QAnon. Has anyone here had similar experiences? I have family members who I no longer talk to because they've lost their fucking minds. Carthage (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My dad and I have a pretty strict but unspoken "no politics" guideline when talking. We get along pretty well, but he's a Trumper. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a very good relationship with my father. At one point he outright begged me to stop talking politics around his wife. He's not a nut, just an asshole (he's one of those "fuck you, got mine" types). Now, I'm pretty sure his wife is a nut, but I almost never talk to her anymore so I don't really know. Now, my mom is a nut, but not an asshole. Sad thing is she used to be sane. Carthage (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. It’s never a good feeling when politics comes between family members. I’m grateful my dad isn’t so far gone into complete insanity; he’s just a pocketbook and anti-immigration voter. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but my enmity with my dad isn't because of politics. I am sad about my mom, though. Carthage (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Pedant here. Do you really mean "malingering"? The feigning of illness?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I see you have now changed it to "lingering". So I guess the answer is, "No".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It's one of the saddest things. It's hard seeing people losing their grip on reality, and how can you to logic people from somewhere they didn't get by logic? I'm in France, so we're less touched by this particular brand of craziness yet, but I have several friends & family memebers taken in by anti-vax nonsense, or new age woo. One of my friends came back from it, with help from her partner, so there's hope!165.225.205.22 (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, RationalWiki helped me to finally realize that Kevin Trudeau is a total fucking fraud, so there is that. (I was kind of holding on to some of his basic ideas like "treat the cause, not the symptoms" still being worthwhile even after he got jailed.) I know, it's not quite QAnon, but I was fanatically devoted to Kevin Trudeau for quite some time. (Not fanatical enough to send him any money or anything — I don't have the budget for donations — but I was shilling him at basically every chance I got.) Then again, I've always been a person who places a lot of stock in the importance of science and rationality, so it wasn't really impossible for me to disavow a proven quack. Unfortunately, anti-intellectuals might be a different story. Luigifan18 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

November 6

So what is likely to happen? Anna Livia (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Kamala is ahead in the polls, so I think she will at least win the popular vote; Hopefully she wins the electoral vote as well. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

But what will the tawny one and his supporters make of that situation? Anna Livia (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

They will try again to get the courts and other institutions to overturn the election, and it could have a higher chance this time but we'll see. Reportedly they're using RNC resources on preparing for a legal fight instead of investing in things like ground game and demographic outreach. Chillpilled (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

So who will decide to make use of the system/uncertainty? Anna Livia (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much what Chillpilled said, though I'm not sure they'll get as far as they did in 2021, given how much infighting and separation has happened in the Republican voter base over topics like the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Ukraine War, and Abortion (The fact that both of the people that tried assassinating Trump this year were Republicans demonstrates this perfectly). TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The day after the US election? IMO if Kamala wins regardless of an obvious victory or not, Trump won't readily concede the result... likely some unrest and or rioting among his most devoted cult followers; I am in agreement with CirrusMan that it likely won't be as blatant as the January 6th attempted coup, if only because there's more Republicans explicitly condemning such action and because steps are being taken to mitigate such a repeat. If the election results are neck-and-neck to the point where it goes to SCOTUS à la Bush Vs. Gore in 2000, I assume the orange menace would be declared victor due to the current corruption of the court, at which point probably nation-wide protests? Likely the same result too if Trump does win. I still think it's only a matter of time before the US becomes fascist. There's always the next election and Harris, despite being the obvious sane option, is not capable or willing (she is the "lesser evil" in an already broken system some would say) to resolve the deep issues in the country that have led to the present. Impiricism (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I am hopeful that, even if Kamala won't try to solve the deeper issues, her winning will at least act as a stop gap for Trump to be hopefully ruled ineligible in one of the various court trials he's facing without weaseling out of it with a self-federal pardon, and this will result in the fascist voter base to split up enough that it buys us enough time to try and actually solve shit. I know it's unlikely, but unlikely things happen all the time. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Some degree of civil unrest is pretty much inevitable regardless of the result. That being said, having someone other than Trump as the President means anything like 6 Jan will be appropriately responded to. They already acted to increase security for 6 Jan 2025 in case of another attack. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The Orange One shall be 82 by '28; I suspect even if you ignore all his legal woes, it's very possible he'll be too sick / 'confused' / dead by the time the next electoral cycle comes about. And as there is no real obvious successor [yet], at at least at a POTUS level, democracy can survive for now. By '32 enough of the demographics might have changed to allow the replenishment of the centrist 'ballast' of society, the shrinkage of the MAGA-cult or even a political realignment [I could see America morphing into a kind of three party-system where places like Wyoming has 'Right vs Centre' elections while New England has 'Centre vs Left' ones]

Anyway, I am sure the Powers That Be have been wargaming various scenarios. Impiricism is correct, the real risk is if there is something legitimate to protest about - I am sure one of the scenarios roleplayed was 'Trump installed by rather blatant legal fixes' or 'Harris victory squeaks through Electoral College' [I am predicting 85% she'll win the popular vote]. The first one is perhaps the most risky, because I don't believe it will go away - for the protestors will [I am 98% sure] start coalesing around 'Project 2025 Resistance' and yes, it shall go further than petitions and placards [again something that MAGA-hats forget; that while they are willing to fight / die for 'ma fweeedom' it turns out that 'They' are made from similar stuff and shall do similar if cornered (Which in fact makes civil war more likely; because societal peace relies on all sides being sane enough to realise you respect your opponent enough to not shunt them into a corner).] KarmaPolice (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

For many reasons, I have severe doubts that the United States will enter into a full-blown 1930s style "fascist" phase anytime soon. What I think there is a much higher chance of, and in fact has already happened to some degree, is erosion of democratic norms and implementation of "illiberal democracy" in the style of Viktor Orbán, especially in Republican controlled areas (some of which have a significant percentage that yearn for those Jim Crow type days - precedent!). The Economist's democracy index downgraded the United States into a "flawed democracy" several years back -- and last year's report ranked us just above Israel, which is fitting. As Israel has some striking similarities in a way - a fundamentalism and racism fueled right wing that is more than willing to ignore democratic norms, with the extreme ranks even veering towards a fascist-like authoritarianism. And there's a very strong resistance to such in both countries, fueled by a more prosperous, more urban sector.

Ultimately, while it never gets any press (the mainstream media prefers endless runs of Trumper Cletus Safaris), the "country club Republican" still has a lot of sway in the party. The racism of Trumpism actually aligns with the classism of the country club Republican, so I don't think that the money Republican class (as a whole) minds those elements too much (especially as long as they get their tax breaks). But I don't see a lot of evidence that they (as a whole) would embrace a *fully* fascist regime. Yes, there's certainly a few that would love to tear democracy down (like your Peter Thiel libertarian tech bros and crazy oil tycoon Dominionists like Tim Dunn) but it's a minority. The "Republican big tent" is actually even more factional than the Democrat one, and from my vantage point, the more the elements of "the crazy" have entered into "Republican trifecta" type states, the more they have descended into chaos. As even many Republicans (not just the country-club type, but any that are not really on board the Trump train) don't put up with some of the extremist bullshit floating around the party these days.

Ultimately Trumpism will die with Trump, and fundamentalism is currently in decline in the United States (so in that way, we're far better off than Israel's outlook-by-demographic). An Orbán-style ruscism-lite paradigm, however, I expect to linger well past Trump. It's not like the United States, despite its "land of the free" marketing, hasn't embraced similar illiberalism before. And unlike full fascism, I think plenty of country-club and non-Trump Republicans are more than happy to embrace bits of "illiberal democracy" whenever they get the chance. BobJohnson (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thinkpiece on the 'Country Club Republicans' aka the 'local elites'; https://jacobin.com/2021/10/local-gentry-patrick-wyman-class-wealth-power KarmaPolice (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Possibly the inflection point (?is there a better term?) will come 'a few days after' Bonfire Night as the general view goes from 'Er, what just happened?' to 'Whatshallwedoaboutit?' Anna Livia (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Second thoughts

The weekend after 'Remember, remember' (9-10 November) might be 'more noteworthy' - depending upon what Putin says about the election in connection with October Revolution Day (to save people looking it up - the Julian Calendar then in use in Russia, and still in use in some places is 13 days behind the Gregorian Calendar). Anna Livia (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll tell ya whats happening nov. 6th!

My Birthday! ...but im going to be basic training, so not much to celebrate lol! TheNFLGuy (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Missouri just executed a man who was probably innocent

Missouri Governor Mike Parson and the state Supreme Court signed off on the execution of Marcellus Williams despite the prosecutor’s office calling for it to be stopped after DNA evidence cast strong doubt on his conviction and an admission of racial bias in jury selection came out. Former governor Eric Greitens had previously halted the execution and ordered further investigation, but Parsons overruled this and ordered the execution to move forwards after he took office. Basically, Parson is a trash human being who isn’t worth a bucket of piss. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Looked up Mike Parson... he's a Republican... checks out. I'm at the point where if a person says that they're Republican (or Conservative if in Canada), I'm immediately inclined to believe that they are either not a pleasant person or are horribly naive. Impiricism (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. Every right-wing ideology needs to be smashed to pieces with all due haste. Luigifan18 (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

First off, being against capital punishment I agree that they shouldn't have killed him. However, I can't say that the arguments for his innocence were strong. From what I understand, the new DNA evidence casts doubt on single piece of evidence but the rest of the evidence seems like it still stands. They couldn't say for sure his DNA wasn't on the murder weapon, just that it was improperly handled during proceedings and was contaminated. The victims' families didn't want him executed but they still pushed for life imprisonment. The racial issue about the jury related to a single juror which I'll admit doesn't look great but that's it. I'm bringing all this up to see what I'm missing that would support the WIGO headline saying he didn't commit the crime, as that doesn't seem to me to be the case. Not trying to be combative and again they shouldn't have killed him, but to say he didn't commit the crime/was innocent seems incorrect- what am I missing? Thank you for your patience. 165.225.243.104 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I took care to specify "probably" innocent. My real point was that when this level of doubt is introduced, the only moral choice is to delay execution until we figure out what happened. And that’s exactly what Missouri was doing until Parson stepped in. I certainly don’t think he should’ve been freed. It’s just that taking a man’s life is so final and severe that it must only be done at 100% certainty of guilt. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I didn’t see that someone had put it into WIGO without the "probably" disclaimer. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thank you all the same. I essentially agree with everything else- didn't want to come across as JAQing off. Thank you again. 165.225.243.104 (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Nah, you're good. I understood you. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ BTW, that fascist piece of shit Missouri has for a governor is considering pardoning a cop who killed an unarmed black man. This particular piece of shit, the cop not the governor, only got six years. Carthage (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The thing with a lot of the whole Republican deal is that, when push comes to shove, a lot of the more "liberal" direct ballot measures, like legalizing abortion and minimum wage increases, are fairly popular, even in states (like Missouri) where Democrats are not. It's not like Republican leaders give a shit about this though. Mike Parson spent a decade fighting a voter approved Medicaid expansion, which a court finally ordered to be implemented a few years back.

Missouri however is a "half Southern fried" state" (although Southern Strategy today seems to work well in almost any rural US enclave). Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of people that to this day are proving Lyndon Johnson right, in that racism allows the gentry to pick racist American pockets. Again and again. BobJohnson (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

So, um, as I tried to say earlier, it seems awfully hypocritical that the Republicans are all gung-ho about capital punishment against vaguely-naughty people when those people are the sorts that they don't like, but when their own people do actually serious shit like treason, they bitch and moan upon being brought to court, even when the death penalty isn't actually on the table. Really shows where their priorities lie. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some American are this combination of racist, angry, self-centered, and (at least when it comes to the mechanisms of politics) rather dim. Years ago, a pro-choice abortion activist named Joyce Arthur collected a bunch of anecdotes of when those of the anti-choice persuasion actually choose to actually get an abortion. It is titled, "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion". Frankly, from what I've seen of reactionaries, you can apply that title to a lot of issues for a lot of them -- "the only moral ____ is my ____".

Yes, it's hypocritical, but of those I met with this sort of personality, I don't even know if they are aware of just how hypocritical they are. Reactionaries tend to be very bad at empathy, very bad at critical thinking, very bad at acknowledging other cultures, and very good at creating cartoonish Other demons in their head of entire groups that they've never met any of. (And if they do, they often compartmentalize things into "the Other" and the ones of the group they know -- essentially the friend argument stems from this.) Many of these type are more primal and less contemplative with their emotions, and crime can trigger raw emotional responses. Now, I don't think anyone's completely free from strong emotional responses to crime, but some are well more prone to having their emotions run off the rails than others. There's a reason Nancy Grace had a successful career essentially shrieking "guilty!" all the time, no matter the merits (or lack thereof) of the court case she babbled about.

It's an ethos I'm not sure how to get people away from -- I think if you have enough world experience, perhaps, but even then, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink". Which has been a problem for the US for a long time, because as mentioned, this sort of persona is very easy for politicians (especially those who are of similar racist ilk and don't have the LBJ racism duality thing going on) to bait these types into votes... all the better for the ruling class. I'm sure Mike Parson made the absolutely evil political calculation that this hasty execution will be good copy for the Republican Party of Missouri, all in the name of "tough on crime" posturing. Honestly, for the reactionary personality types, I think that such an evil stunt sadly works.

The good news about the death penalty is that support for such in the US, while still by quite a bit the majority, has declined considerably since the 1990s. Executions as well are considerably down since their peak in the 1990s/2000s. From what I see, the trend is that more and more people are recognizing that capital punishment has allowed governments to execute people on shaky legal grounds; a non-trivial number were probably innocent. Sadly Republicans (being the reactionary party these days) still love the death penalty, but more and more, a fair bit of everyone else does not. BobJohnson (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no "probably innocent"; he had stolen items from the victim in his car. The only scenario where he didn't commit the murder is if someone else broke into the home after he robbed the place, which is rather unlikely. And even if it was likely, I don't think "burglar gets executed" is something to be particularly upset about. CorruptUser 06:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Fuck you, Cory. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 10:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that a state government murdered one of its own citizens when the country is not in a state of war is a reason to be upset. I don't even care if the guy was innocent or not, governments don't have the right to kill people, though being executed because just you stole stuff in a car makes the situation even more atrocious. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 11:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I know Cory has this contrarian streak, but that’s legitimately really fucked up of him to say. He’s just admitted that executing someone without proper due process is acceptable to him just because the guy stole stuff from a car. He also seems to think that due process does not matter period even when an execution is involved. I admit, I hate burglars a lot, but that doesn’t mean I think that’s a death penalty offense. Every person is entitled to the most effective legal defense possible, especially when death is on the table. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 12:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations, Cory. You're the bait!

This is a case where the evidence for innocence was weak. But one of the big issues here is that a fair bit of people -- including the victim's family, as well as (unusually) the St. Louis County prosecutor, were happy to keep this as a "life in prison no parole" case. It was Mike Parson's call to execute this person, and we can now see exactly why he did such.

There indeed are countries where burglary can be punishable by death. Literally zero of them are governments that I would want to live under, they are all extremely authoritarian types like China and Iran. Be careful where one treads.

(One of the funny things I've found about many reactionary types is that many are gun-ho "support the thin blue line" types... at least until they run into little kerfluffles with the law. It's amazing how quickly "support the blue" turns into "fuck the police" with some of this lot. People who adore authoritarianism tend to think that it is their authoritarianism that is the one that will prevail. What a risky, naive bet this is!) BobJohnson (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a key failing of theirs - to assume all of 'those sorts of people' will be fully/instantly 'on their side' in all things. It is in fact the key delusions the American right has - that in a 'Civil War 2.0' they'd win instantly believe 'all LEOs and military are for us'. No, they won't be. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

…Oh God, here we go again. Seriously, CorruptUser? Burglary getting the death penalty with no due process?! Seriously?!? And I thought my earlier remarks about gas chambers and machine guns were bad. And they are — bad enough that I'm in the coop right now — but… this is something else. (Also, poor Moos must be having an aneurysm at his topic being derailed by horrible shit twice now.) At least I wasn't trying to be edgy or vicious — I made an (admittedly lame) effort to make it clear that I was talking about worst-case Holocaust-Two-Electric-Boogaloo culture-war-gone-horribly-literal if-we-don't-fight-back-we're-going-to-literally-die scenarios only and playing devil's advocate a bit. This ain't the fucking Bronze Age, no matter how badly the reactionaries and fundies want it to be! We should not be doing hasty and bloodthirsty kangaroo court shit!!! WE. ARE. BETTER THAN THAT. Geez! Luigifan18 (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Overall, no they wouldn't, but they're not unreasonable for believing such things IMO. US law enforcement is infested with white supremacists, and there's a history of a collaborative relationship between law enforcement and fascist militias. Not to mention groups like the Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. Carthage (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I heard that the only physical piece of evidence linking him to the crime was a laptop.... that same laptop was apparently given to him by one of the witnesses now deemed to have been unreliable. That doesn't really seem like the most compelling case to me. Carthage (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There was also the murder weapon, a knife, but it had been mishandled by so many cops and prosecutors and other people that DNA evidence could not confirm that Williams had used it to commit the murder. As the AG’s office noted, it doesn’t exactly exonerate Williams, but combined with the racial jury selection bias and the laptop issue, it does cast strong doubt on the validity of his conviction. Strong enough, at the very least, that the execution should not have gone forward. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I've also read that the footprints and hair follicles recovered from the scene didn't match Williams either. Hell, at least one of the witnesses stated that Williams was actually innocent. The reason an affidavit was never filed from this witness was because she died before they could get it in time. Carthage (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

What was the PD which handled the case? I have a theory that it's disproportionately 'small' PDs which have dodgy cases like this, due to a combination of incompetence, lack of decent oversight and hiring too many 'gypsy cops' in an effort to fill uniforms. [Hint; if there's actually been a study on my theory of the week, I'd be curious to read it]. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There was also a ruler and calculator that had belonged to Gayle that was found in Williams' car; barring some sort of conspiracy, he was in the house the night she was murdered.CorruptUser 18:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That's according to the witness that later recanted, however. Carthage (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that's according to a police search of his car. CorruptUser 18:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Police lie all the time, and Lara Asaro did recant her testimony. Given that, even though the DNA evidence turned out to be a bust, all we have are statements from two witnesses, one of whom recanted, both of whom were paid, and none of the evidence found at the crime scene matched with Williams, although the police did claim to have found some of Gayles' stuff in Williams' car, the evidence isn't compelling enough for a death penalty case. The fact that this is the standard of evidence we use for the death penalty is astounding, as is the fact you continue to support this man's execution despite reasonable doubts about the case persisting. Carthage (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Asaro didn't recant, but rather, some activist claimed she was going to. Is there actual evidence she recanted? CorruptUser 18:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Cory, I'm gonna be real with you, I don't think you know more than the prosecutor's office and family of the victims who were all calling for the execution to be stopped. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Coming from the person who has only shown me a 'crime needs to be seen to be punished and I'm not hugely bothered in the details' face, I am not surprised... 'Better hang wrong fellow than no fellow', eh? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not justice. That's vengeance. Carthage (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure that's even 'justice'. It's more an attempt at 'deterrence' which fails because it's being applied haphazardly and at times striking down innocents. However, I do think there does need to be a 'vengeance' aspect of justice, if only to stop folks taking the law into their hands. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think we should have a "prior conviction" requirement (or whatever the lawyerspeak is) in order for the Death Penalty to be applied. To be given the DP you must be convicted of a separate, prior felony, or even use the same rules as the 3-strikes laws. CorruptUser 15:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That would still encourage a racial bias, would it not? It just seems easier to cut through the Gordian Knot, IMO. Carthage (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Has there ever been a case of someone that got their "3rd strike" and was sentenced to life without parole, only for the courts to learn later that all 3 convictions were wrongful? I'm sure there must be some innocent person who got that unlucky, but I don't know of that happening. CorruptUser 15:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

TIL that the abolition of the death penalty has been dropped from the Democratic platform

Wow. Carthage (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Paywalled, but I'm totally willing to take this on faith. That sucks! One of the very few things I agree with the Catholic Church on is that the death penalty is bad, though for different reasons. I'm hoping that, if and when Harris takes power, this is an issue we can push her left on. If not, maybe ballot referendums or something. We've passed some good stuff, like legal weed and abortion, that way. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

1) It's The Intercept, so not truly paywalled as I see it. They just have a please donate subscreen that can be dismissed without consequence. 2) It's a party platform, which is never meaningful as it's the product of a committee, not the product of the nominee. Bongolian (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet it's because the DNC still has lingering trauma from what happened to Dukakis in 1988 when he ran on death penalty abolition. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to up your bet on the suspicion the committee is stuffed with 'we have to be pragmatic' Third Way types who are pathologically scared to spill anybody's drink. In this case, I am not truly fussed [even if I was American] but I'm fairly sure this was done for the wrong reasons - ie 'let's try to remove anything which could possibly stop anyone voting for us', which leads you to painting yourself politically greige and standing on nothing in particular. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Off topic, but how did I never come across greige before today. Columnists, you have failed me so hard. On topic, for what it’s worth: this sucks. Namako (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What the actual hell. Luigifan18 (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

A portmanteau of 'grey' and 'beige', the two colours every shitty house design programme tells you to use in everything. My working theory is; the designers who do magazines / IG work on the assumption their only viewers are a) people looking to decorate to sell/rent out a property or b) folks with zero idea on what they want. As it is so neutral, it 'offends' nobody. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I imagine the DNC wonks looked at the polls and decided it's not quite a nationally winning issue yet, even among Democrats overall (although the trend is slowly and jumpily moving towards abolition). Democrats in certain progressive districts (particularly educated liberal districts) probably have enough support to publicly oppose capital punishment, though. BobJohnson (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘more than likely, it's because they're riding a "tough on crime" wave to save face (thanks to senseless media and gop fearmongering). The G (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The GOP goes right, and the Dems go right with them. Carthage (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

On "Every Argument against <crank topic> Debunked" articles and videos

What can I say about this? I've noticed this tactic being used by cranks to push pseudoscience, pretending to be fact checkers. Anything deeper over this style of disinformation? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

We have a page on Creation Ministries International's "101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe", which seems to be adjacent to the Gish Gallop tactic. Bongolian (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Just skimming against these, the most notable feature I see is absolutism / black and white thinking. In other words, these type of threads / social media posts / etc. tend to take a "no middle ground" position -- *every* criticism is a direct attack, and every criticism must be written off as sucking completely and be refuted all the way in order to support a (typically) extremist ideology or viewpoint. There is, unsurprisingly, a fair bit of Gish Gallops and other debate fallacies typically included.

So, no surprise for the cranks loving this style of thread, but it seems to be used by a wide variety of topics, as long as the topic in question contains people with absolutist / extremist viewpoints. The first hit I got in Google searching for instance was a thread of this sort on veganism, followed by an atheism thread. There is nothing wrong at all (a lot good actually) with either topic, but it's also true that both topics attract sanctimonious dickheads who want to show how purportedly superior they are to everyone else. So, even on topics with merit, these type of threads tend to be populated by the "dickhead side", thus they are rather useless and off-putting. BobJohnson (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wagenknecht

As a Franco-German, I am considering voting for BSW (Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht) next year. I know this isn't going to be a popular decision here, but the main reason I'm considering this is that she is maybe the only left-wing populist candidate in Germany currently. That is also my main concern. I know the (right-wing) German media commonly represent her as a "left-conservative" (a label she invented), a Putin supporter etc. but the general feeling I get from BSW is a left—wing populist party à la Podemos, Syriza, LFI, Corbyn Labour. The anti-immigrant rhetoric seems to me as a strategy, not a conviction. They never convince me about their honesty when they talk about immigration and culture, it's always artificial, dishonest. At least I hope it is. Die Linke, Wagenknecht's old party, was too nice to the German establishment for me, it gave special attention to be "nice" with the right-wing, it always distanced itself from "populism", similar to the French Communist Party. Die Linke had a good program but never had any ambition of replacing the SPD and the Greens on the left. The anti-vaccine rhetoric and the call for peace with Russia are not the main reasons for my decision. At least Pablo Iglesias seems to agree (I know this link might not be popular here too, I don't watch regularly either).

What do people over here think? New world (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

We actually have had a diversity of political leanings here (ranging from British Tory to communist). The pandering/appeasement of Putin and anti-vaccine stances of BSW are definitely antithetical to RW's mission however. Bongolian (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the situation. I wouldn't have thought Die Linke is friendly to the establishment however. Chillpilled (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

They show a nice image of themselves. So they aren't very clear in attacking anything they don't like. They don't make loud speeches, and that costs them votes. The Greens (currently in government) are less left-wing than the SPD, but their enemies represent them as more radical, when in fact they are close to the FDP (the liberals) but in green. And instead of trying to represent a credible left-wing and clear opposition to the government, Die Linke sits around and denounces the things they don't like very quietly. New world (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I know people that voted for right-wing populist leaders because they also thought that they weren't being sincere about their agenda. They also thought that the checks and balances of their contries were strong. They were wrong about both of these things. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel like saying that a political party is only being sincere about what you like about them is cognitive dissonance. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

So, I'm not a German, but I can kinda see it. From what I know, I dislike basically all of the German parties. CDU and the Social Democrats don't really seem to give a shit about the cost of living crisis and other issues affecting younger voters. They're both old folks clubs. The Greens are anti nuclear, an ideology which worked sooo well for Germany in the past few decades. BSW and the Left are all whackadoodle leftists. AfD are racists, but they are better at signalling that they care about issues for young people. The only party I don't know much about its FDP, but I'm sure they're terrible too. It's this kind of alienation with the major parties that is driving younger voters into the arms of the AfD. Instead of lamenting that they somehow turned the entire Gen Z into virulent racists, the major parties need to realize that healthy countries do not consider voting AfD into power. Germany is not a healthy country right now, and its government needs to get to the root of why that is. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I remember ULTRACOMFY describing FDP as "Porsche driving libertarians". Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

So yeah, I wouldn't want to vote for them either. So I can genuinely kinda see why so many young voters are either being alienated into staying home or else strongly considering the AfD. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

So, you also think that LGBTQ+ is woke, then? Just like BSW? And Anti-EU? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No, not at all. And I hate everything BSW has said on gender so far. Maybe I personally am more concerned about issues that directly affect me, which leads me to forget about other issues. I also admit that I haven't followed BSW's discourse on gender too much. I currently mainly live in France though, and since this might change soon, I will probably be more informed about BSW next year. And on issues like gender language, I do see older people like the politicians at BSW actually supporting their official position. As to the EU, De Masi (the main candidate) had the same discourse as Die Linke, maybe more radical. The current treaties make it a neo-liberal institution, and European construction can only happen if those treaties allow for more ideological diversity on economics. New world (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If I was German, chances are I would be a member of Die Linke - and I would stay loyal. I would rather fucking vote for the CDU than Wagenknecht, because she is either a tool or useful idiot for the Kremlin and that's my red line right now. I also get a bit of a whiff that she could easily end up in the AfD before long. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Die Linke a bunch of Commie East German holdouts? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Die Linke is a party with a million factions which didn't organise like LFI in France as a movement, there is loyalty to the party and not to the program. If you want my point of view, Die Linke is the German counterpart of the French Communist party, it is old, it doesn't speak loud, it's "nice", and it is composed of former members of the East German Communist party which have moderated. (Note Wagenknecht was also a member of that party). Wagenknecht tried the movement Aufstehen in 2018, but failed to organise it, and that was clearly trying to copy LFI in France. I actively support LFI, and BSW seems like the German counterpart. New world (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You have to remember that the DDR vanished 34 years ago, so any old SED holdouts would now be at least the wrong side of 50. I am not German and know only a little of their political situation right now, but I do know the SPD went all shitty Third Way which means a decent amount of West German democratic socialists now no longer really have a home. One thing I did get the impression of, however was that Wagenknecht only left Die Linke because she was really interested in sucking off Putin, which I believe is also a vaguely-popular policy in bits of the old DDR. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you guys debunk this Republican silliness?

So I decided to check out the Ghost Archive tweet linked in the latest Elections WIGO, and as is to be expected for Twitter, it doesn't take long to find some Republicans (I was honestly surprised replies show up at all).

I am naturally very distrusting of their claims, given how they've shown they're willing to make shit up time and time again, but as I write this, I cannot be bothered to look too deeply into debunking these claims (I know that makes me lazy, I just figured I'd be honest). TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Life tip - do not trust the "armchair experts" on social media... with, frankly, *anything*. But some observations:

A) Nate Silver has recently been more... "pundity" of late. That isn't to say he's *completely* trash, but he's been known for some bad Twitter takes over the last few years. (There seems to be some sort of "disease" where merely becoming addicted to Twitter is bad for your brain; this was the case even before Elon Musk trashed it.) He also is an advisor for a Peter Thiel backed crypto-"prediction" market firm where you can gamble on the election... not exactly a great look to do that and predict the election at the same time.

B) That being said, Rasmussen Reports has been known for its ultra-conservative lean even in the 2000s. This is one of the problems for modern pollsters; back in the day, only a few firms did polling, and they were for the most part solid quality. These days, the floodgates are open, and any charlatan and crank can make a "polling firm" padded with bullshit. There are hundreds of pollsters and a lot of them flat out suck.

C) Having said that, I didn't consider Rasmussen complete trash until recently. But the bias was real. To counter one dumb twit on the thread:

"Rasmussen polling average in 2020 was extremely accurate Biden +4. No future commentary is needed from you leftists."

Yeah, bullshit. Here's another problem with Twitter: ^{[citation needed]} needed for almost everything.

D) There's a group of pollsters called "partisan pollsters"; they tend to work directly with the Republican or Democrat party. Nothing wrong with that per se, but their "needs" are going to be a wee bit different than a non-partisan pollster. Sometimes a partisan pollster exists to nudge the "sample population" to help make their side look better, all the better for the propaganda.

Rasmussen was ostensibly non-partisan, but now, evidence has come out that Rasmussen is directly working with Republicans. Ergo: they should be labeled as a partisan pollster. Not shocking, considering recent WTFs from this pollster such as actually polling on the It's Okay to Be White 4chan troll campaign without context (leading to Scott Adams' racist downfall) and pushing Kari Lake election conspiracy theories.

Basically, Rasmussen polls should now be viewed as Trumpist shill shit. I know that the Silver-less 538 dropped them. Electoral-vote also dropped them at some point. Small surprise even Silver demoted them.

It's very possible that, should Harris win the presidential election, shill polls like Rasmussen or someone else will be used to "prove" that there was fraud and therefore Trump should win or something. This proof will be bullshit because it will be based on a shill poll, and the Twitter mob (who probably know diddly shit about even basic stat 101 stuff like "confidence intervals") can be (hopefully) safely ignored. BobJohnson (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Dead Domain interviewed Miriam Anderson, another of Stephen Anderson's children.

Fair warning, it's absolutely harrowing and has a lot of traumatic content. Her childhood sounds absolutely fucked up and it's yet another example of how Anderson's religious beliefs serve to justify his heinous acts. In cases like this, there's absolutely justification for the State to intervene to protect children. What happened to her, however, was cops enabling her abuser. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean domestic abusers would enable another domestic abuser? Impossible! Anyway, Dead Domain has caught the Hate Preacher's attention. Carthage (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Steven Anderson is an attention whore who ought to be kicked in the ass. It's a sadness that there are people who actually subscribe to his nasty heresy. 3.142.225.43 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I've done some searching around and I haven't found anything that prohibits linking external fundraisers. Miriam currently has one to help her survive and flee from her violently abusive parents. https://www.gofundme.com/f/empower-miriam-with-essential-resources-today I have no affiliation with this fundraiser and I don't personally benefit from it in any way. (Watching the linked Dead Domain stream only further convinces me that he would put her life in danger.) IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If I had money I would give to that. Maybe I can convince my church to give to it… That said, are we sure the fundraiser is legit? There have been a fair number of fraudulent GoFundMes over the years (perhaps the most notable being WeBuildTheWall). 194.110.115.254 (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Dead Domain has spoken about it and everything seems legit. That said, I can't say for 100% sure, just that I see zero red flags thus far. Plus 121 people have pledged. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The Economy is:

Today, I saw a local news segment where a reporter went around with A whiteboard. The prompt was 'The Economy is' which was written across the top of the board. People on the street were pressed to fill in via dry erase the last word of the sentence then able to talk about it. Problem was, this was a little antenna TV at my dad's that he was watching golf on during a football game we all watch, so there was no sound. I saw a lot of answers like 'scary' and 'bad' but there were four 40-50 aged women who wrote 'sucks'.

A huge majority of the segment concluded people herE think The Economy is SUCKS. I really didn't think the average educated person in my city was a dipshit. When the prompt is 'The Economy is' I really didn't expect middle aged white ladies in Omaha to write on a white board 'SUCKS' like they didn't understand the prompt. It's local news, it's literally ignoring shit, and I reiterate, I couldn't hear their explanations, but one lady in the segment wrote 'complicated'. Yeah, that is an answer. 'the economy is Sucks' is a phrase that is killing my faith in honest discourse. Facebook mommery is too powerful. Torrent (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

On paper the economy may be doing well (for the rich), but take a walk and look at the local homeless person panhandling on the street corner. Or ask the single mother working two jobs to avoid getting evicted by her parasitic landlord? Is it doing so well for them? That often gets forgotten, the human factor. People's lived experiences may not match up to what the professional-managerial class is telling them, and that gets forgotten a lot, or dismissed as being merely "anecdotal." This is why, no matter what the politicos say, that the welfare state is important. Because our society doesn't have a fair and equitable system for resource distribution. The welfare state helps to alleviate that, to the best it can anyway under a capitalist system. Carthage (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Look, I'm going to admit I'm being predujicial and presumptive about some local women, I do not think their complaints about the economy are meant to benefit the unhoused. Torrent (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You were ranting about how the "economy sucks" is a right-wing talking point. I thought it was necessary to keep in mind that despite what some people will say, the economy isn't actually doing too well for everybody, and even those who do see their wages go up still have to deal with other areas where "the economy" is fucking them over. Like medical debt and unaffordable rents. "But the economy is actually doing super-duper-well" is often used as a thought terminating cliché to dismiss the fact that the economy may be doing better, there are still plenty of areas for improvement. Like yeah, "the perfect is the enemy of the good," but it can be equally said "the 'good' is the enemy of the better." Carthage (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is why, when it comes to economic issues (as well as many other topics) I prefer to make specific points and come armed with actual data supporting my points. Saying the economy is good or bad is just entirely vibes based, how do you prove that one way or the other? It also relates to how you can shut down most right-wing nonsense by simply asking for a source, because there simply is no proof to back up nearly all of their claims. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

2/3 of the country think the economy sucks, even though 6 in 10 say their own household's finances are somewhat or very good. There's a disconnect here. No doubt that there are many of whom the current economy does suck, but (like crime, of which there has been a persistent gap between perception and reality over the years) one has to consider that GOP propaganda may be a possible factor in some people's gloomy perception; it seems a lot of people are "doing alright" even if they think the overall economy is shit. If there is a silver lining, that AP article seems to "anecdote" a lot of people who think both candidates will suck at handling the economy, so thanks to Trumpism (where economic issues aren't really a priority), the "right wing doom and gloom" on this issue might not be so effective here. BobJohnson (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Historically, the economy usually fares better when the Dems are in the White House. That's of course not an evidence that they have a better economic program than the GOP, after all correlation is not causation, but it at least debunks to some extent the idea that Republicans are experts in economics. I feel like most people think "hey, I'm in a good situation, but most people aren't." Especially when we compare with Europe and China, the American economy is in very good shape, with low unemployment, rising wages, disinflation (not to be confused with deflation), declining interest rates, and 2022 saw a drop in inequality for the first time since 2007.[3] This is a relatelively rare combination and the Fed and the White House, despite pursuing many policies I disagree with, did a very good job. Now, Kamala might support idiotic policies, such as price controls, but Trump economic plan is incredibly bad, from trade to immigration, taxes and housing. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is, you don't know what they meant when they wrote 'sucks'. They might mean 'I know hard-working folks who follow all the Horatio Alger rules and still are in a hole', 'inflation is bad m'kay' or 'I tried to hire someone for peanuts and there was no takers! [wah!]' It's a one line with zero context.

The main issue here is that of historical comparisons. Let's go through them. The last time the American labour market was this tight was the early 1960s. The last time inflation was above 2.5% was 2008 and the last time it was persistently above 2.5% was 1992. The last time core inflation [for food, energy, raw materials] was this hard was about 2006. And the 'neoliberal era' of cheap money [and thus, lots of easy credit] is now over. Problem is, most of the Big Public have this abnormal era as their mental 'normal' and they simply can't get their heads around the fact our current era is in fact normal.

This has to some extent warped people's minds. As consumer inflation has been really low for so long, a lot of companies have fallen [deliberately or not] into the habit of not giving annual 'inflation raises' as standard simply so the workers' purchasing power remained equal. In the previous era, this meant it was a 'slow boil frog' situation that only after five years or so you'd start to notice the discrepancy [this is why you so often heard 'I got a new (same) job at 25% more money!' - because after 10 years with no raises at all your purchasing power has shrunk by 25%!]. But 12% in one year and then 5% in the next and no raise was so fucking obvious everyone started to bitch [and many American bosses were all faux 'I don't understand!'/'this is the way it's always been'.]

Energy prices are similar. Petrol/diesel was 2.50 in the late 10s and it shot up to 4.10 in 22 - a 64% rise. And even though it's fallen back to 3.60 now that's still 43% higher than 'traditionally remembered prices'. This is important because [as long as you drive a ICE vehicle] fuel is a genericish, frequent purchase so you'd almost always remember the price so any rise will be instantly noted while similar raises for infrequent purchases won't be. Plus, it a) feeds into a lot of other costs and b) it's often an unavoidable cost. [Though when it's adjusted for inflation, fuel prices are about the same under Bush Jr/Clinton - but folks have a habit of remembering old prices but not old wages - like complaining that in 1985 a pint of beer was 75p but forgetting they were earning £175 a week]. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Economy sucks cuz basic human needs markets suck. 500 years of treating housing like a market commodity and people wonder why they are approaching a million dollars each. Frogs in boiling water only notice when the acceleration of heat is turned way up temporarily. No market solution to a problem caused by markets. Price controls on housing and/or government housing work. The oldest public housing project in Germany is $1 per unit per month. Been that way for a few hundred years. 98.118.249.192 (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So is the Republican Party good or evil?

They were the party who helped to destroy slavery under Abraham Lincoln. And it honestly is good to have at least two parties instead of just one, making it good that the Democratic Party is not the only one. However, in recent years they've kind of abandoned their roots and worse have been supporting and enabling a dangerous man who cares more about personal glory than the welfare of the country. Though does having ended slavery help to outweigh any evil they've done today or is the party irredeemable no matter what they did in the past? Is it at least good that they fill the role of rival to the Democratic party, preventing a one party system? Hadagreatfall (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

'The Republican Party's dead, Jim'. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And a multi-party system is much more representative than a two-party duopoly who's policy, at least until fairly recently, didn't really differ besides a few wedge issues. I'd much rather have a party that represents my views than have to vote for the lesser evil every four years because I have no other option. Carthage (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It is best to judge political parties by what they are doing in the present, as opposed to what they did in the past. The emancipation proclamation was great but...it's a bit removed from the big issues circa 2024. A few things have happened in the intervening years.-Flandres (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the party that once housed Abraham Lincoln is now the party that houses politicians and voters who would bring back slavery if given the choice. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The Southern Strategy was the final break with the original GOP, but the break was a long time coming (Southern Strategy#History). Bongolian (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Except that wasn't the 'original' Republicans - there was another 'break' between about c1910-c1925 when the last Progressives crossed from the party of Roosevelt to the party of another Roosevelt.

My working theory is that big-tent parties in two-party systems get an ideological overhaul every 40-50 years or so. This would put the Democrats right on the cusp of having one now. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice Interesting! Can you give some examples of when both parties had these overhauls? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, the Republicans were founded in the 1860s [Civil War] and then got overhauls in the 10s [victory of Taft over Roosevelt], the 70s [Southern Strategy/Neoliberalism] and the 10s [MAGA]. Democrats got one in the 30s [New Deal] and the 80s [Third Way]. I'm not sure which direction they'll point next; it's equally possible they become the 'Establishment Party' of the centre and the well-heeled etc or go into becoming an 'alliance of the underdogs'. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that it’s more likely that Democrats remain(!) the centrist 'Establishment Party', especially as long as the GOP thunders around in MAGA LaLaLand. With the GOP being the party of right wing conspiracies, the Democratic leadership probably sees no reason to try to mobilise leftwards when it can try to appeal to “moderates”, i.e. anyone who’s not stuck in MAGA madness, including such 1990s/2000s GOP’ers like McCain etc.

Even more so as the centrist/New Democrat/Third Way turn started in the 1970s (Carter was arguably its first proponent to succeed) and the current leadership was shaped by the heyday of that phase during the 1990s and seems very reluctant to seriously look elsewhere. And hey, reheating 1990s politics with a new, SoMe wrapping worked great for Obama, right? So why change anything?

Oh, and I really hope I’m wrong about this prediction of the future Democrat trajectory, btw, because I think it’s not only a dead end ideologically, but because it’s likely to further stoke support for MAGA (cf. European experiences with similar neoliberal turns/parties) and because this approach can’t tackle any of the serious societal problems, especially climate change (a little tinkering around the edges, some educational grants and faith in a meritocracy of the well-graduated and the miracle of markets will probably not suffice). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Trumpism has stoked a sort-of political re-alignment but it's not very clear at the moment what the net result is going to be (given that Trump is time-limited). Generally speaking, the Democrats have moved "leftward" since the days of Bill Clinton. What's odd about this era in some ways is that many things (such as economics and foreign policy) have taken, on the surface at least, a back-burner turn towards "culture war" topics. So much of the "leftward" movement in the Democrat party has been on these sorts of issues. Economically / foreign policy wise, much is still stuck in Third Way times, but there's a few hints here and there (like Biden actually joining a striking picket line) of a limited touch of movement left.

Part of the re-alignment, however, has been Democrats making inroads with the educated suburbia, a group that traditionally was far more aligned with "big business Republicans" in the Reagan days. As long as this is part of the "Democrat coalition", I wouldn't expect *too* much here. BobJohnson (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Trump might be a time-limited affair, but the socio-politico-economic forces which propelled him isn't. Therefore, I predict 'Right Populism' [as expressed as a combination of 'fuck you, got mine' libertarianism, right-wing factional interests and anti-professional/managerial class notions] is going to be the main threads of this Republican iteration [and with most advanced-world democracies, from the looks of it].

It is not 'odd' that socially the Democrats have become more 'progressive' since the days of Clinton - a) that was a generation ago [the general Overton Window has shifted, even if much of the Republicans have not], b) social change is pretty cheap/easy to impliment by the capitalist class [you tell me what hurts WalMart more; validating trans people with pronouns or having a minimum wage which is livable?] and c) 'at least they mean well' sop to progressives.

The fact that the Democrats are making inroads with 'educated suburbia' makes perfect sense - for they're often a) variants of 'Rockefeller Republicans' and/or b) members of the very 'professional/managerial class' that MAGA is increasingly attacking and insulting. But that's the problem - you can't really chase these folks down and go after the 'left behinds' of Rustbelt America at the same time because their needs/wants are incompatable. I think we're seeing that issue with Harris right now [and saw it here with Starmer earlier this year in the UK] - the attempt at electoral cakeism by presenting yourself as the change candidate while also assuring folks you are the continuity candidate.

Which makes me consider the possibility of America becoming a 'two and a half' party system, a bit like how traditionally the UK was. That either a) the Democrats 'shuffle left' a bit and allow a significant 'buffer party' between themselves and the Republicans to arise [Libertarians?] or they 'shuffle right' a bit to hope to capture those voters, leaving their 'left flank' weak to Progressive/Socialist attacks [like the British Greens desire to be vs Labour]. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

As I’ve already mentioned, I think it’s unlikely that the Democrats will “shuffle left”, and the left is also the piece of the US political spectrum that seems to potentially have something to gain by fielding a third party, though it might be a risky venture.

Whereas the right, including the extreme right, has demonstrated that it can use the GOP as a vehicle to power, the left has not been able to make similar inroads into the Democratic Party and even those who managed to get congressional seats have been fenced in by the “centrist” leadership (as seen in the fight over Build Back Better and the choice to get the infrastructure parts done with GOP support and sacrifice all of the social parts).

However, it’s important to remember one crucial difference between the UK and US systems: The UK has no presidential elections. The fact that the US has to choose a single person as POTUS means that any fracture of the vote would guarantee a win for the “unfragmented” party. Thus, a left party would almost certainly have to either support a Democratic candidate or it would ensure a permanent GOP lock on the White House, because the Democrats sure as shit aren’t going to step aside for a left candidate.

Hence, any left party would probably be a “congressional, state and local” party. Not that this would not allow such a party to influence matters, but it would be sort of a circumscribed entity. Furthermore, there is the issue of funding. There are plenty of Democratic and GOP millionaire and billionaire supporters, but outright leftists? And if run on a sort of “crowdfunding model” this would require even more constant fundraising.

Even worse, a leftist party would be under constant, intensive pressure and criticism from both the Democrats and GOP, have no major media support and have to rely on grassroots and door knocking, including niche/online media activism. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

1. You won't need 'billionaires' to bankroll this, at least not at lower levels. But yes, some cash to pay a core of political activists etc so it can professionalise.
2. Mainstream media is a dying moth. If they won't let you in [and often local media would, at least on election-time for an interview etc], go for social media, your own site, leaflets, posters, newsletters, radio interviews etc. Bring back other old-school methods, like public speeches. I am in fact convinced that most Dem candidates get very poor return on all those millions of ads etc they buy.
3. By using your paid workers to build/maintain an volunteer base, contacts with local orgs that might donate something on an election cycle and to do propaganda you can partly offset the cash disadvantage. You will have an election machine all ready to go, while the local Dems will be installing a brand-new manager with not much more than a dead list of 'people who might help' because they did in the last cycle and little to nil local knowledge.
4. Intense constant pressure / criticism is something to be expected, in fact welcomed. If there was no pressure it means you are either a) so insignificant you're not worth pressuring or b) you are so frigging bland nobody cares if you won!

Not saying it would be easy, but I think it is doable. If there's enough folks willing to put their money where their mouth is, that is. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘that depends: how would you define good vs. evil? The G (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

From my point of view, the Jedi are evil. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy 100th birthday

Jimmy Carter

How many other 'heads of state and government' reached that milestone? Anna Livia (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

He is the first US president to do so, and one of 4 heads of state worldwide who are still living at 100 years old Y2hyaXM (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I must admit that I had thought that QE2 managed it. But, on checking, I see she died at 96.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

And so Kissinger living to 100 is nullified, like matter meeting anti-matter.-Flandres (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Tezozomoc, king of the Tepanecs, died at the age of either 105 or 106. He ruled the Tepanecs from between either 1367 or 1370 to 1426. That's a reign of either 56 or 59 years. Carthage (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I’m happy to see this and I’m glad for President Carter. He was a mediocre president and made a lot of bad calls, but there’s no doubt in my mind that he was an amazing human being with a good heart. If more Christians were like Jimmy Carter, then I’d have a much better opinion of that religion. I hope he has a happy birthday. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 23:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Given Reza Pahlavi's recent comments demanding that the Iranian guard defect to him, what're the odds that Carter will live to see the Shah returned to power? /sarcasm

As for Carter, "mediocre" is an overstatement. I blame him for the modern obesity epidemic, which is probably unfair since every president since Carter has the ability to end it overnight but it started under Carter. How so? Sugar tariffs that began under Carter. To get around the higher prices, everyone switched to high fructose corn syrup. Same calories as cane sugar, but less sweet, which means you had to add more of it to get the same sweetness. Alright, that's bad enough, until you realize sugar is addictive. And what happens when you get consume more of a drug to get the same "high"? You get addicted faster, so you need even more drug for the high you are chasing. CorruptUser 05:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

US Election Update: 1 Month Left

Time sure flies does it, as it's already October. So, any comments and concerns you may have over any events and "surprises" that may or may not occur this final month before the elections? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm giving 65/35 Harris. In the 'bag'; Harris is 226 and Trump is 219. Therefore, Harris needs 44 and Trump 51

Arizona [11] - [Biden] - Trump +1.1

Georgia [16] - [Biden] - Trump +1.2

Michigan [15] - [Biden] - Harris +1.8

Nevada [6] - [Biden] - Harris +1.0

North Carolina [16] - [Trump] - Trump +0.1

Pennsylvania [19] - [Biden] - Harris +0.6

Wisconsin [10] - [Biden] - Harris +1.6

This gives a result of D-276 - R-262. For historical records, that's like 2016 plus three rustbelts [Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan].

The hinge of the swing is Pennsylvania, North Carolina and a long-shot of Georgia. Trump needs all three while Harris only needs one.

KarmaPolice (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Harris is slightly favored, but I've also seen some signs that concern me. Specifically, Trump seems to be doing fairly well with young men and Latino support for the Dems has apparently collapsed. We'll see if the polls translate into reality, but if that's true then Harris could be in trouble. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 13:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The key issue is [I suspect] that 'Latino' is not a homogenous bloc. It includes second-gen Cuban exiles, Tejanos who were there before the US was, new Venezuelans, third-gen Puerto Ricans and so on. The 'Harris is a Communist' line is reverberating rather well with some of these. Immigration is interesting; from what I can tell 'they' generally appear to favour Trump on 'the border' but Harris on processing the migrants [which ties into my 'firm but fair' argument above].

With young guys... while I suspect a bit of this is the 'Vance factor' [there's been a few things he's said which is more in-tune with them than the other three] but I have to ask; has the Democrats really made any serious efforts to pitch to them? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm hoping that Israel's war on Iran and Lebanon isn't an October Surprise that tips the scales back towards Trump somehow. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No doubt he will claim that if he had been in charge it wouldn't have happened. (On the basis that he's just such a wonderful person that bad things can't happen to him.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Israel is perhaps the only place Trump couldn't 'sort out', because it's the only nation he couldn't throw under the bus for a PR 'victory'. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps. After all he did so well in getting Mexico to pay for that magnificent wall which has solved all the US's immigration issues.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Or that peace treaty with North Korea, or even 'sorting out' Afghanistan. Wait, why didn't he sort out Ukraine at the time too? Surely, the Czar would have told him what needed to be done? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that Trump took a crack at "solving" the Israel-Palestine conflict and came up with the monstrosity of a map I've posted to the right. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 18:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm soo sure it's pure coincidence that map reminds me of another one from history... KarmaPolice (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Dunno how to post a picture, but looks more like the original UN Partition map than Sth African bantustans.124.197.9.72 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Take a closer look at what the Trump map does to the West Bank. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 21:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what these changes would imply in terms of geography (as in, are places with resources split fairly? How many communities would suddenly switch countries? Stuff like that), but I now for a fact that, if anything, it would just piss people off even more. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would Israeli settlers want land which didn't have resources on it? Also note the fact the sliced/diced West Bank bits don't have any fucking access to the Jordan river? Oh would that be due to the fucking fact it's a main source of water in a region which is short of it? (Denying a border with somebody not Israel being the other main reason; note these Bantustans won't have any external borders or even their own dock?

There is a good reason why South Africa is pretty hot on this issue despite having no real personal skin in the game... KarmaPolice (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Devon Eriksen

So there's a sci-fi writer who has the capacity to be the next Orson Scott Card, in multiple ways.

1. If I had to describe him in a single word, whether that's political, philosophical, spiritual, or anything else, it'd be "Idiosyncratic"
2. He has intelligent, well thought out writings, some of which do provide good insight into the world. However, some of his stuff is just... "idiosyncratic"
3. In the same vein as Nassim Talib or that Lesswrong he's got a small cohort of followers that think he's smarter than he is
4. Engineer
5. Hates boomers
6. I guess he's an alt-Libertarian? Alt-Randroid?
7. But he also views patent laws as the one of the greatest evils of the universe. IDK if that's a Libertarian idea or not.
8. He has two wives, but believes in traditional values to some degree
9. Is an atheist... but also might be a YE Creationist too? I can't tell.
10. He's a crypto-bro that adores Musk
11. Seems to dislike corporations that are not SpaceX
12. Seems to be anti-environmentalist to some degree, but at least he supports nuclear CorruptUser 23:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't get how someone can be an atheist and a YEC. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Lolbertarians often disagree with each other on patents. Rand supported them, but people on the LvMI don't. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Because, idiosyncrasies, with a healthy serving of "I thought of it, therefore I'm right". Not unique to libertarians. CorruptUser 00:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

A simple solution to stopping the genocide against the palestinians.

If the current administration truly cared about following the law and saving innocent lives at all, they would invoke the Leahy Law and immediately cease any and all weapon shipments to the State of Israel, unfortunately the Biden administration is full of genocidal cowards who all need to be tried for war crimes. A somebody. (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, even that would not have the result you want. 30% of Israeli arms come from Germany. The Germans are not about to stop helping Israel and I am guessing you know why. Think about alternative outlets for frustration if these impulses continue.UncleKrampus (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It would go a long way towards ending American complicity in the genocide, however. Carthage (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Too late, Iran has entered "the chat", so to speak. BobJohnson (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If only there was some really fucking obvious way to have cut off this possibility before it happened. I mean, it's not like this rogue state actor actively sabotaged any attempt at a peace process every chance it took, like, say, killing the chief negotiator of the opposing side just so that the genocide could continue and Bibi could stay in power a little longer. Or actively targeting Iranian diplomatic staff. If only there was some way that a certain ostensible superpower could have cut the bullshit their vassal in the region was doing off before we got to regional war. If only. Carthage (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

With only a *small* amount of changes, I could probably alter the wording of that previous statement and apply the same to Hamas. Hmm.

(And yes, we know: the power discrepancy is certainly large between Palestine and Israel. Still, it is hard to support authoritarian asshat leadership with an atrocious fundie streak. Think of how the region as a whole handles LGBTQ people, for instance. The USA, for all its regression, certainly handles its LGBTQ population much better... at least in parts. So does Israel.)

At any rate, the "USA bad" chants is a wee bit tiresome and over-simplistic, you don't think other regions have their "hands in the pot" here? Even from the US perspective, Biden's doing little things here and there like sanctioning Hilltop Youth just today. It's relatively trivial, sure, but as long as there is significant Zionism in the Democrat "big tent" and as long as Israel is part of other "balance of power" equations, barring a "swing of opinion" due to Netanyahu's bullshit (which has happened and is continuing to happen I think, slowly of course), that's all that will happen. Think of your Bill Ackman types here (although Ackman's a rather asshat example of such). Think of Josh Shapiro.

But never mind. The more I hear from people who throw around hyperbole like "genocidal cowards who all need to be tried for war crimes", the more I write off certain users as Hamas bootlickers at worse and "America always bad" scapegoating shits at best.

The Middle East as a whole is probably the region that's going to get fucked the hardest by climate change. (sarc) It's a great thing that everyone has got their priorities straight and is going a-war-ing over which invisible sky God thingy (cousin sky God thingies, even!) is the correct one. Priorities! (/sarc) BobJohnson (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Israel could nuke Iran and the US would claim it was "self-defense." Other regions have their hands in the pot, yes. The US is still the global superpower currently backing a rogue state, and anyone that has a problem with this is smeared as a "Hamas bootlicker." Like you're currently doing. Look, this stopped being about "self-defense," which it never was as the long-term goal has always been demographic replacement in the Palestinian territories, the moment Israel shut off shipments of food and water to the region. The fact that you can continue to wring your hands and pussyfoot around the fact that the US is actively enabling a genocide, and when anyone expresses a strong moral statement that you dislike is suddenly a "bootlicker" expressing "hyperbole," is honestly astounding. History will remember.

Hell, you are dehumanizing people in that region as we speak. "Gays for Gaza is like chickens for KFC." They are lesser to you. You don't consider them to be human. This has always been evident from your expressions. Carthage (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Never thought Bob would be pulling a Cory, tbh... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Like, it's not China or Russia currently blocking attempts to prosecute Netanyahu and co for war crimes. It's the United States. And don't pretend like "they're only targeting Israel." That same warrant has Hamas leaders listed on it too. In this case, the US absolutely is bad. The US is actively shielding Israel from international accountability for its violations of international law and crimes against humanity. Of course, this simple statement of fact is gonna get smeared as "Hamas bootlicking" too.Carthage (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

As is the fact that Hamas actually, as early as October, offered to release the hostages as long as Israel didn't invade Gaza. Bibi rejected this deal. He has rejected every other deal. Israel then killed the chief negotiator of Hamas. It's painfully clear: Israel does not give a fuck about implementing a ceasefire and ending the violence. This is probably gonna get smeared as "Hamas bootlicking" too. Statements of fact inconvenient to the sensibilities of certain users now count as "bootlicking." Carthage (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here's a question for the resident "not Hamas bootlicker" who cares about human rights, do you think Hamas raped no one on October 7th? I saw you post a story with a big section denying it and you never apologized, instead, you prattled on about "Jewish Supremacists", so in my opinion, you're at least comfortable with those who claim they didn't as long as they push for "the cause". And you may bring up the Israeli prison sexual as a "gotcha", but as disgusting as it is, that isn't denied, not even by the IDF who were practically admitting it by prosecuting people accused of abusing prisoners. Hamas denies doing anything wrong and will never apologize.-Ryan1257 (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ryan, you're not a constructive user. You're a troll. You only ever show up to talk shit about progressives, and then fuck off for months at a time. No contributions to mainspace. No posts to WIGO. No real participation in the community process. This will be the last time I engage with you: 1) what exact post are you talking about? You mean the story by The Intercept exposing the fact that The New York Times was caught pushing Zionist agitprop disguised as "journalism"? Something even staff within The Times called out? 2) What happened on October 7th (and I don't think I ever denied that there were rapes committed on October 7th) doesn't justify Israel's genocide in Gaza. Fuck off with your whataboutism. Carthage (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you mean this little thing. Because you can't be bothered to do your own work, because you're a troll. I hadn't read the entire link, so I missed the part with the rape denial. My silence was an implicit admission that I fucked up and posted a bad link. I didn't contest writing it out, because I knew I fucked up. So much for "assuming good faith." That thing about "Jewish supremacists," by the way, was a response to BobJ implying that Kahanism is a fringe position in modern Israeli society. It really isn't. I did fuck up, though, and apparently not contesting writing that link out wasn't enough to signal that I was acknowledging a fuck up. That's on me. Carthage (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're gonna attack me personally, then I think you're someone who is miserable, angry, and perpetually upset both online and in real life by allowing "the cause" to invade every facet of your life. You seem like you're always online here, and in my unprofessional opinion, if you were less active here, I think your mood would improve. And secondly, I can be as active or inactive as I please and there isn't a thing you could do about it. I'm a lurker by nature 99% of the time and a proud parasite who reads people's articles without contributing, the horror! And as far as me being a troll and goon, I'm gonna quote the dude and say, "That's, like, your opinion, man!"-Ryan1257 (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

To answer your whataboutism yes, Hamas did rape people on October 7th, that doesn't justify genocide however or the IDF doing all the exact same things Hamas does on a much larger scale. A somebody. (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't a whataboutism, I was trying to point out an action I really didn't appreciate from her at the time which gave me the impression of being a Hamas bootlicker. She's cleared it up though and I'm satisfied with her reason.-Ryan1257 (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you enlighten us who the "Hamas bootlickers" are, @BobJohnson? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

We just banned a user for making extremist rhetoric ("final solution") against all Republicans. Now here comes someone with hyperbolic rhetoric that flirts with this shitty territory ("full of genocidal cowards who all need to be tried for war crimes.")

If you want to bleat about Netanyahu committing war crimes, sure, there's a case there. But Joe Biden? No fucking way. That's some combination of stupidity, Hamas bootlicking, or anti-American flex. You tell me what it is. The situation in Israel is complicated, because Hamas also committed war crimes, and we have a situation where the Israel position is that they are defending themselves from hostile militants. The USA has also traditionally acted as the top supplier of the Israel military, so there's some of that. Certainly I think Netanyahu personally is acting like an ass, and many of the Israeli supremacist settlers are fascist dicks. But this is not as open and shut of a case as some of them.

Time and time again, however, a few users on this Wiki bleat on about Israel's sins without recognizing the full picture. Sure, if you calm them down, they'll admit it, but then the emotional bullshit gets the better of them, and they start advocating war crimes for the Biden administration and other heavy hyperbole.

Part of the purpose of this Wiki is to refute fundamentalism and authoritarianism. It is right to examine Israel and Judaism's embrace of such. It is *not* right to turn a blind eye to Islam fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism, and no matter what some users say, that's what they are doing. If this makes me a "Cory" to point this out, whatever that fucking means, fine. Go forth and steer the fucking Wiki off-mission. I won't be on board that ship. BobJohnson (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the "Biden is a war criminal" rhetoric is hyperbolic and not useful, but it is fair to be critical and angry about Biden's handling of the Israel situation. One doesn't have to be a Hamas/Hezbollah apologist (and I'm sure none of us are) to recognize that Israel's actions in Gaza have gone far beyond self defense and have become outright genocidal in nature. I am currently editing the Hezbollah article to shine more light on their atrocities and mass murder. I am not an apologist for them or Hamas. But I also recognize that Israel's actions in Lebanon right now are reckless and destabilizing. I am unhappy that Biden has done very little to restrain Israel, and I fear that this conflict will cost Harris the election. Criticism of Biden is not unwarranted, and it's certainly not motivated by "Hamas bootlicking." Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 16:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It turns out that Nasrallah had agreed to a temporary ceasefire just days before his assassination. Lol. Carthage (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The facts are, this simple solution is neither simple, nor is it a solution to anything except possibly ameliorating a dreadful sense of responsibility in some quarters. If the US helps some country, they may become dependent upon the assistance and respond to requests for cooperation. If the US stops assisting them, then they have no control through economic coercion and unless the US is willing to use force, the US will have thereby diminished its own influence. It seems the US has no interest in testing the limits of Israeli willingness to align with American politics. The USS Liberty Incident effectively suggests that the IDF will not allow itself to become subservient to the American government. It would be great if we all felt better about it. That's about all we'd get for our trouble. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt that if we cut them off, the Israelis would cozy up to Russia and China. They have no loyalty or friendship towards the US or the West. They’re barely even a democracy. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 21:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If the US cut them off, they would go to, say, Germany first. There are ways to continue to supply aid while stating that you've cut off arms. France did this during the Rwandan Genocide. They officially cut off arms to the Rwandan government.... but the DRC was all too willing to take up their stead. Convenient, that. Carthage (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Also just goes to show how fucking useless Biden is right now. This chaos is threatening Harris’ campaign to beat Trump, and he still won’t do anything. He’s still drooling on himself being like “uhhhh duhhh I’m confident a ceasefire is coming” while war is expanding to Lebanon and Iran. Absolute epic failure. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 22:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, you know how Biden is. If suggesting an idea would jeopardize your carrier in the Reagan era, he'll never consider it now.-Flandres (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@BobJohnson Enough relevant entities have categorized Israel's attack on Gaza as a genocide for Wikipedia to stop treating the genocide as a possibility and start treating it as a fact. It's literally included in the list of Genocides, alongside Russia's actions during its war on Ukraine. Just felt I'd mention this. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The term "genocide" is a common English noun, and if it is used frequently enough, it will begin to mean whatever it is being used for; in this case, to condemn the Israelis for conducting a brutal war. The connotations of such a word are emotive enough to change minds on many levels. But the word is not magic, and using it won't save any lives. One of the UN conditions sufficient for declaring a genocide is: Causing serious mental or physical harm to members of the group (national racial, religious or ethnic). Made to fit most, if not all wars.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

And yet it’s not applied to “most, if not all wars”. Seems like there might be other parts of the definition, Ariel. Maybe there’s something about Israel’s conduct that is different from other wars that weren’t labeled genocide. You should look into that. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 00:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Not unexpectedly the point passed clear overhead in your direction. The criterion applies to almost every war where mass casualties are involved. You should look into that Charley. UncleKrampus (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@UncleKrampus I fail to see how "Yes, it does apply to most if not all wars with mass casualties, but yet the term isn't applied to most if not all wars with mass casualties despite this, so there must be something different about Israel's war on Gaza compared to most wars with mass casualties" is an invalid response to your previous message. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, like, another reason certain powers are reluctant to officially label what's going on in Gaza what it actually is is because then they would have to legally take action on the issue. It's why Blinken refused to inform Congress that Israel was blocking US aid from entering Gaza. Turns out that a "rules-based international order" really means "rules for thee, not for me." Carthage (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘the current administration doesn't even care about the crises brewing in our own backyard (example). you really think they're gonna care about some country they don't even believe exists (and not just because it's barely on the map)? The G (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

They probably would if there was a Venezuela lobby equivalent to AIPAC. Also, like, whether it's fair or not, Venezuela is not the hot button culture war issue that Israel/Palestine is. Harris may very well lose this election because certain demographics are not happy with her policy on Gaza. But, you know, the Dems have already proven they will happily lose if it means not going leftwards on certain issues. Carthage (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There’s also not a whole lot Biden can realistically do about Maduro. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 00:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Carthage you'd be surprised. the border crisis is a top issue for us voters as of july [4], and it's not going to get any better as more people from venezuela [5], cuba, and even haiti cross the darien gap and head north to our border. so again, if biden doesn't care about something at our own front door that could sink harris' election, he won't care about something happen on the other side of the world. (i think i mentioned this on a previous thread, and that even something as simple as removing cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism list would go a long way. but again, he doesn't care.) The G (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As I stated previously, a Venezuela lobby would probably go a long way towards making Venezuela truly relevant to American politicians. Carthage (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Biden literally encouraged the Senate to pass a very harsh border security bill. Trump is the one who killed it. I’d hardly say he doesn’t care about the border. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 00:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's also a really good example of "when the GOP goes right, the Dems go right with them." Carthage (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I might be a bit right of the wiki on this one, but I think we really do need more border security. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 00:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) it's not enough to be tough on the border anymore because desperate migrants will try to come in anyway. the border crisis needs to be addressed at its source(s). in an attempt to go back to the topic at hand, going tough on the border is to asking israel politely to be less aggressive, as going after the root(s) of the crisis is to putting an arms embargo on them (or something like that). which do you think would be more effective? The G (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not a 'Hamas bootlicker' because I believe war crimes regardless of who is doing them are bad but again the solution is quite simple, if the US was following its own laws that it had written decades ago it would cease sending weapons, weapons that it is currently using to commit said genocide, now yes the United States isn't the only country that arms Israel, but it is the one who sends the most arms to it specifically, and to address the Germany point, iirc Germany has ceased weapons shipments since march, I think I know why but idk that much about Germany so I will not speculate. So again Israel is only able of committing genocide because we specifically allow it to with massive shipments of arms for the IDF free of charge. A somebody. (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

whoever said 30% of arms shipments comes from germany must not realize that something is better than nothing. washington can still do their part, even if berlin doesn't follow suit. The G (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What makes it better if the killing goes on? UncleKrampus (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arcadium

Pulling a me now? CorruptUser 05:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

1) It would save ten billion dollars and avoid implicating the US in war crimes. 2) They're obligated by law to withdraw support when there's credible evidence it's being used for crimes against humanity. 3) Most of the American public has nothing to gain from sponsoring Israel's ethnic cleansing. Seems like there are many good reasons. What kind of question is that? Accumulator (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

- I think it needs to be noted that elements of 'official America' have leaned on third parties to not stop supplying Israel - for example, the 'warning' that Trump gave the UK to not embargo any arms sales... or else. As the USA supplies us [amongst other things] the key bits for F-35s [for our carriers] and Trident [for our IRBMs] means that there is only 'so far' we can bend away from American policy on this before we ourselves on the end of a kind of embargo. I fully suspect that Washington has covertly told others to not get ideas about 'excessive independence' on this topic.

- Speaking of which, a myriad of Western powers have been supplying the 'bang' for the Saudis to pound Yemen flat for something like a decade now. I think the line 'don't really give a fuck' is the correct definition of this.

- Global geopolitics also come into play here. The hand of Iran is obvious, and the the hand of Russia behind that. The world is becoming more firmly divided into three 'worlds' again and Israel is 'team America' while Iran 'team China'. There may also be a suspicion if Iran goes full-pelt in the Mid-East that's a load of missiles, drones etc which can't be shipped to Russia for use on Ukraine.

KarmaPolice (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It's very likely that none of this would have happened if people weren't called antisemites for criticizing Israel and the lobby. That's the long and short of it, despite everything written above. Accumulator (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Dock Workers Strike

Well, the longshoremen are on strike. The two demands they have are 1) no automation of the ports, ever, and 2) a 77% raise over 6 years (instead of the offer of 50% over 5 years). For me, I believe that the ports should be automated... but that we should keep most of the jobs on as security/inspections, because National Security, drug/human trafficking, etc. As for their demands of raises, the pay for them is currently $39/hr... after like, 7-8 years. That's kind of a lot, but then again, not as obscene as people seem to make it out to be considering that they tend to live in port cities where the rents are obscene; good luck raising a family with 3 kids in NYC at $80,000/yr. Many make more due to overtime, but I have a hard time being upset at some guy making $200k/yr when he has to works 80 hours a week for that. What I absolutely do have a problem with is that the union contract gives priority to dockworkers' kids for new jobs, which I think should break some sort of labor law. Regardless, I'm hoping this strike ends soon. I need my bananas. CorruptUser 06:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Remember, being a longshoreman ['docker'] is a really physical, dangerous job. That extra cash is basically you trading your own health for money, 'cos chances are you will have a fucked body by 55, have suffered at least one major accident which laid you off for at least three months and have a fucked body-clock due to shift work. That cash is also to stop you bitching about night shifts [your partner is less able to work if you've got caring responsibilities], threat of everything from sunstroke to frostnip via risks of being blown off something in high winds... couple all that with Corrupt's point of it being New York house prices... 80k isn't that much really.

The crux of the dispute is not automation per se [it's had plenty of that over the decades] it's when it's used to simply 'over-cull' the workforce simply to increase profit % for the owners. For a 'normal' example, I'll cite those automated checkouts at grocery stores.

From my experience, I would say the ratio for worker/till should be 1:3. But they don't do this - 1:6 is the norm, and I've seen times it's been as large as 1:10. Because a lot of shit goes wrong with them things - from jammed cash dispensers to the dreaded 'barcode won't scan', via 'out of change' or 'out of till-roll'. Simple things which can be fixed in three-five mins. But they're not, because there's only one person working the block and they're simply firefighting. And thus, half the tills are out of action and there's a queue all the way up the aisle.

If you have a reasonable boss [and that is a real if], they get that you're doing your best. But they're being ridden all the time from above, for all the 'failures' due to the perpetual lack of staff that the fucking mystery shopper has highlighted - not just the wait for till, but the lack of bananas, the mess on the floor in the milk section, the mispricing of beans and the 'issue' that the worker wasn't all smiles and sunshine. Automation often results in 'over-leaning' the place - that they're running so hot normally there's simply no 'give' in the org for when things go wrong [qv: Dollar General].

Now apply my till analogy to a dock. Instead of a line of a dozen people, it's a dozen ships all waiting their turn because there's only two working docks because all the rest are 'broken' in some manner and there's only one crew available and they're all busy but getting it in the neck for all the failures. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Something which was surprised me about this strike was the discovery that there is apparently so little automation in US ports. Coincidently, I have a friend whose job is to run projects associated with port automation in Europe. Many of the big ports are already completely automated with automatic unloading and driverless vehicles moving containers around. It's controlled by NASA-style centers with employees looking at multiple monitors and closed-circuit cameras.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This would be partly because the Euro unions have reached an agreement where the labour wasn't 'overculled' by management. Plus, the demand has soared in the last couple of decades which means that extra capacity was needed so there wasn't any mass layoffs. Plus, I seriously doubt the 'completely automated' claim - that means there is zero people in the whole dock [which means if something does go wrong, there's nobody there to fix it!] KarmaPolice (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Rotterdam port is the poster child. But multiple others are getting there. There are obviously humans in the control center I mentioned and, I assume, people to physically fix stuff if it breaks.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

NY Docks employs [apparently] 8k people while Hamburg [about the same size in tonnage] is 6,400. This suggest that there isn't a huge amount of positions which can be eliminated. We also need to bear in mind what is being shipped - 'mixed cargo' loads will need a lot more folks do handle it than say, bulk oil or coal.

I suspect part of the problem is that the American docks a) don't want to actually cut a decent deal with the unions and b) they are looking for excuses for non-investment in new capital plant etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

For some reason this situation reminds me of On the Waterfront and the second season of the greatest TV show of all time. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Biden refused to intervene to stop the strike or end it early, giving the very based reason "It’s collective bargaining. I don’t believe in Taft-Hartley." Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 13:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It can be argued that freight can simply go to other docks on the Atlantic seaboard, therefore it's not a security/national interest matter.

Anyway, there's another aspect to this; remembering that in jobs like this, your actual 'takehome pay' will be dependent on the amount of overtime shifts you pull. It's quite possible the union knows that even if all the 'losses' are simply folks who aren't backfilled, it's quite likely the amount of available overtime will fall to near zero for the foreseeable, thus the demand of a 77% increase of standard pay. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Having no security at your ports is always a national security concern. It doesn't matter if you have spare ports, you don't want weapons/drugs/humans being smuggled in. CorruptUser 21:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

in what world is anyone suggesting there be no security at all? What are you on about? Did you read Karma saying that something is not a security interest as him saying that there is no need for security whatsoever?!? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It does seem to be a pretty weird non-sequitur. Guess they are just trying to send the conversation somewhere else?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Dockers don't provide dock security, that's normally a different org (it has it's own PD, according to WP). There will almost certainly be offices of the FBI, customs service etc there too. There normally will a few dockers on-hand in emergency cases but no usual work will happen.

National/security interest is a catch-all term to allow authorities to override private interests for the greater good of the nation. Stuff like energy, defence industries, medicines etc (if a vaccine precursor factory had gone on strike during COVID, this act would have been wheeled out sharpish).

Anyway, the situation is worse than I originally thought - it is all ports on the American eastern seaboard (Inc the gulf). This means no British turbines, German car parts, Brazilian coffee, Carribbean bananas, South African gems or French chemicals until further notice.

This will very soon be seen in all the domestic industries which start to shut down due to lack of parts etc - and empty shelves.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-east-coast-dockworkers-head-toward-strike-after-deal-deadline-passes-2024-10-01/

https://www.thekitchn.com/banana-coffee-shortage-labor-strike-23683109

KarmaPolice (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

While it might not be the dockworker's job to prevent theft, sabotage, etc, if you get rid of them, there's that many fewer pairs of eyes on site. Plus, one of the best ways that auditors find fraud is simply interviewing the guys on site. No more union-bois, no more guys noticing that the same containers worth "millions" have been shuffled around on the site for a month or two (one of the actual scenarios one of my professors caught, albeit with trucking).

Point being, I want automation, but I also want the high-school educated roughneck who busted ass for 20 years doing critical work to still have a decent job. CorruptUser 15:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Containers are unlikely to go walkies when the moving cranes are locked up tight and only a few are trained to operate. Docks, by their very nature are a lot more secure than the average trailer yard. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember recently, in LA people were stealing from the trains while moving. You aren't going to convince me that just because the cranes are automated that someone with a torch and crowbar isn't going to be raiding the containers, or that a saboteur isn't going to slip in. CorruptUser 16:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Security isn't on strike. Plus, the docks will be in effect closed so it'll be harder for folks to get on-site to thieve. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, the dockworkers agreed to lift the strike until January. So it's a moot point for now. CorruptUser 06:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Melania Trump

I never thought I'd be Melania fanboy but this:

"It is imperative to guarantee that women have autonomy in deciding their preference of having children, based on their own convictions, free from any intervention or pressure from the government.

Why should anyone other than the woman herself have the power to determine what she does with her own body? A woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes.

“Restricting a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body. I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life.”

Is quite surprising. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The timing of her memoir being released and happening to contain a pro-choice stance appears convenient. She's still married to the hateful old man right? Maybe I'm being too cynical about it, but I remember thinking a few years back that post-presidency would be the best time for her to divorce Trump assuming she was aghast at his actions in office as most were... she hasn't done that. Impiricism (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

That would certainly be one interpretation. But are you suggesting that she might have some future political ambitions? that seems a bit doubtful given that she has shown no interest in politics previously.

I also seem to recall reading that Mr. Trump wrote an introduction to the memoir. I'm imagining this sequence. Melania: "Could you read this and write something nice for the introduction darling?" Trump: "Sure, no problem!". Trump thinks: "Read? Write? Does she know so little about me?" Trump to aid: "Write something positive about this! I'll just sign it!". Trump aid: "Sure thing boss!".

And here we are.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that she's perhaps just as hateful and insane as her husband, and that her memoir is nothing more than a calculated lie for the upcoming election. Impiricism (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Your description of him as hateful is obviously true. I'm just not sure what we know about her.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

She is married to an overweight, physically inactive man close to 80 and with fairly obvious cognitive decline. I suspect the reaper is going to be cheaper and not that slower alternative to divorce lawyers. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

All this about him painfully obvious.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It's more likely that ghost a writer(s) was called upon for the text and the intro since for different reasons neither of them have a firm grasp on English. I seem to recall that at one point during their residency in the White House, it came out that they're on the same page politically (i.e., greed is good). This was a while after the initial false speculation that she was somehow suffering under him. One can otherwise surmise that hatred is her go-to by the blood-red Christmas trees at the White House[6] and boasting in the book of destroying ("evisceration") the White House rose garden.[7] Bongolian (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. There's been an open-secret, low-key split between Melania and Donald the past couple years that hasn't been widely reported about. It's kind of doubtful Donald Trump has a personal issue with abortion either, his official stance only changed recently. The problem is what he actually enacted, which was anti-abortion, whatever his real personal feelings about it. Chillpilled (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Rich Republicans secretly want abortion on demand for themselves and sex partners and for no one else. It's been widely speculated that Trump paid for a few abortions in his pre-politics years. Mark Robinson, another case in point. Another way to look at the spousal difference in this case is that there's always a way to profit, politically or financially, from creating chaos. The Trumps does not have any opinions that cannot be bought for the right price. Bongolian (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

They won't be by a mile the first or last 'ruling class' members which believes that the rules only apply to us ordinaries. In fact, it's more notable when said members really do 'practice what they preach' - esp if they're right-wingers.

I think the important question is - what else does this book say? Anything else that goes against MAGA ideology? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there could be any relevance to anything in the book. It's a means to grift money as is every Trumpian product. Bongolian (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I bet the abortion thing was an insincere attempt to drum up headlines and sell more copies of her stupid book. I didn’t even know it existed until this Bar topic. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 22:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d put my money on grift and/or cynical political opportunism too. This is analogous to her campaign against cyber bullying and equally hypocritical. That she suddenly puts this message out now seems conspicuously well-timed to coincide with both her own book release and the “Well, they aren’t really so extreme on abortion; trust me” spin that Vance trotted out in the Veep debate as well. And I’d say that Melania and Vance are just about equally sincere in promoting and committed to that message. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this is an ample time to point out that it's the poor who suffer from abortion bans. If people like Melania Trump and her ilk want abortions: they can just fly out of state/country to get one. Carthage (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup, and that adds another layer of hypocrisy, because it essentially means that these abortion bans are yet another example of “making laws for you, but not for me”, just like, say, support for militarised, draconian policing, which is almost never going to impact the McMansions, “nice” suburbs, gated communities or other “upscale” neighbourhoods where these people live.

I expect their attitudes on the latter issue would quickly change if white collar warrants began to be served with flash bang throwing SWAT teams, if they were the ones being hit with no-knock raids when suspected of crime, or if their streets were those being over policed and their property being seized to fill police precinct coffers with traffic fee and civil asset forfeiture money. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

fun fact

in portuguese orthography (and phonology), the letter "x" is pronounced like /ʃis/ or /ʃiʃ/ (akin to "she's" or "sheesh") and usually (but not always) makes the ʃ sound (or the sh as in shoe sound). as such, when i don't know how to pronounce a word containing the letter "x," i pronounce the letter like "sh." an example of this is this site's usage of the neologism "xitter." at first glance, i'm inclined to pronounce it like "shitter." even if that's not how it's actually pronounced, it could not be a more fitting pronunciation in this day and age. The G (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I pronounce it that way. "Cksitter" just sounds weird. Carthage (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware G Man spoke Portuguese, though I guess it checks out with how much they talk about Lula and Latin America as a whole. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

yes, i'm brazilian-american. i talk a lot about usa and latam topics because i'm most familiar with them (though occasionally, i contribute to other topics). The G (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Shall the sun finally set in the British Empire?

If my math is correct, the sun shall set in the Pitcairn Islands at 2:41 UTC and shall rise in Akrotiri and Dhekelia at 3:44 UTC. Without the illegally occupied Chagos Islands, there shall be roughly an hour of darkness across the entire UK, and the sun will finally set over the British Empire which is long overdue. Plutocow (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

They’ve lost much of their overseas possessions, and they’re reliant on US leadership in foreign affairs. They can’t supply certain weapons systems to Ukraine without US approval. Truly, this is the final victory of the Patriot over the Redcoat. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 22:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yay'll be kicking a very discomposed corpse, here. Chagos was only held on to because of the large American base on it. Half the remaining 'Empire' comprises of tiny tax havens which remain with the British flag 'cos the setup encourages opaqueness and the other half are random bits of rock here and there which have almost zero economic or strategic worth (and sometimes even population). Perhaps the only bit left which is 'worth' anything is Gibraltar.

In fact, the current American Empire is larger than the British remnants... KarmaPolice (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Empire today takes a much more indirect, hegemonic form than it did in those days. The US has the Brits beat in the amount of territory directly ruled and hegemonic influence exerted. Carthage (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm a Chinese- and Irish-American. I can't help but gloat a bit when the Brits lose stuff. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 00:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

In this case, it was something Washington wanted us to hang on to! UK Gov would have bundled it up with Mauritius getting independence in '68 if it wasn't for that fucking listening post and airbase you lot put in... KarmaPolice (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it would be difficult to find a British person who cares very much about the Chagos Islands or could even find them on a map. Of those who do care and could find them, the majority will almost certainly say that that it was high time that the UK got out and left the US to sort out it's own issues there.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The case of the Chagos Islanders occasionally hit the UK news (they were all deported when said base was set up) but in a very shallow manner - they'd say 'oh there is a military base there' but fails to mention it's a) American and b) a top-secret spy one. Which in my opinion is stupid - you think Moscow and Beijing don't know all about it?

My gut says it's only being 'given back' because they finally found a Mauritiusian govt who are willing to agree to the military base forever and with zero right to even go near it. Which means, I suspect the Chagos Islanders are still fucked. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

VP debate

Walz, the weakest on the Dem ticket, performed as expected. Ultimately confused about why civil rights laws exist, agitated, combative, almost as dishonest as Vance, debt hawkish, and with no little to no specific policy for the future even if he identified the right problems. The alleged defenders of civil rights and liberalism running for office sure don't have a firm grasp on exactly what they are defending and why. And lets forget about New Deal policy, they've completed left that behind to rot. 98.118.249.192 (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at stats, it appears Vance 'won' it by a whisker. Polling shows he was a little better at defending the Orange One than Walz was of Harris, and both got positive boosts [Vance got a +9 while Walz got a +8] which means as they started out Walz +12, the gap has narrowed slightly. I expect it won't make a blind bit of difference. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing their electoral prospects 98.118.249.192 (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I was going to watch the full debate, but stopped three quarters through. Walz is bad at debating... many of his answers I thought didn't give an easy to grasp message or answer to the audience. The feeling that I get is Walz is more comfortable doing pre-planned public speaking and behind-the-scenes stuff. Vance, the neo-reactionary sellout, gave non-answers too but did succeed in generally spinning the message of "It's all Kamala's fault!". I kinda of wish I did watch the full debate since I read after that Walz' shining moment was asking Vance at the end if he believes Trump won the 2020 election, to which a blatant non-answer was given. Impiricism (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually did watch the whole debate, and I wonder what the hell the BoN watched. Walz started off nervous, but he smoothed out as the debate progressed. His biggest missteps were on his own baggage. In general he did about as well as anyone could’ve expected on immigration and the economy, both winning topics for the GOP. He did very well talking about abortion and healthcare. I have no idea what the BoN is talking about with the civil rights laws talk. Vance also flubbed the J6 question with a non answer. The debate was also a lot more civil and respectful than any we’ve seen with Trump involved. Both candidates agreed with each other at a few points, such as the need for tariffs on China. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 12:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

> economy, a winning topic for the GOP.

Congressional Democrats are largely responsible for saving the economy during the last half of Trump's term given they had guided the economy through the pandemic with their historic house bills. During 2021, Democrats dropped the ball on, and Vance is right, energy source prices specifically, which had the most effect on the broader market. But if Republicans had a majority in the House the last two years of Trump, I don't think anyone would be arguing the economy is a winning topic for the GOP. The economic policy of Congressional Republicans is miles worse than Congressional Democrats and has been my entire adult life. 98.118.249.192 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

They 'win' at it because the '16-'20 period was fairly benign/decent economically in most people's 'monkeyspheres'. A significant hit for the Democrats is the post-Covid shocks and the Ukraine War, neither of which was really within Biden's remit and inflation rates, which you can blame the Fed for. Part of the issues are due to the fact the American domestic economy is more 'open' than many others - allowing world spot prices to effect energy prices while most advanced nations fix or at least moderate these. But polling also shows that econ reporting has been a lot more downbeat since Covid too; to the point folks are saying there is a 'vibecession' going on. A part of me is actually kinda happy about this, because it shows [partly] that folks have quit being taken into big numbers from the Fed, Wall St about 'the economy' in general and looking to their own wallets and Main St about how 'the Real World™' is faring. Meaning that the new iteration of Democrats need to give a lot more focus on making economic gains actually appear for everyday Americans. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The main thing I got from the clips I've seen is that Vance clearly had 'lawyer training' - good at verbally polishing turds. But that would go against him somewhat because there is an electoral demographic who hate slick politico types. It's also hard to 'debate' that kind of person too, plus the fact Walz was most likely told to 'play it safe'. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The CBS poll of debate viewers is actually fairly encouraging. If these numbers are a good reflection of the broader public take, then my theory becomes that people who were politically engaged enough to actually watch the debate were more likely to see through Vance's smooth facade to see how empty his responses tended to be. It's also more evidence that Democrats' path to winning this election is to thump the table and shout about abortion and healthcare as much as possible. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 13:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I also think having decent 'comebacks' about the economy and immigration are important too. One thing Labour in the UK got right in our last election was to make it crystal clear that they weren't in favour of 'full open-borders migration' and 'luxury hotels for asylum seekers'. Make it known that this issue is on your radar too so the electorate don't believe that 'only the Tories/Republicans have a goal on this'. If nothing else, it's not xenophobic to desire a functional, 'firm but fair' system. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Good points, and I agree. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 13:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I wish the election was between Vance and Walz. Both are leagues above Cackles and Don Cheeto. CorruptUser 17:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, but I thought the real greatest candidate was Kennedy...-Flandres (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a matter of least-awful, and the main two are so bad that "inability to work with congress" is a selling point CorruptUser 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

While trying to select the least awful candidate, you actually managed to settle on Kennedy. There is a reason people here use "pulling a Cory" in place of "proposes something stupid."-Flandres (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

He's hated by both sides; I think both Reps and Dems will be so obstinate to work with him he won't be able to anything. Plus, he (or Chase Oliver) are the "fuck both of your houses and a plague on the horse you rode in on" candidates, rather than anything particularly good about them.

But would you seriously be more enthused if I had said I should hold my nose and vote for Trump? CorruptUser 19:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You can't pretend Kennedy was a protest candidate when he dropped out almost immediately after polling data showed he was hurting Trump more then the Dems.-Flandres (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're so hostile to me on this point.

I mean, I get why you'd be hostile to me in general. But on this, what makes you think I'd be more likely to support Kamala over Trump? Would you be happier if I decided to vote Trump instead of some 3rd party nutter?CorruptUser 21:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Unlike some other users here, I don't care who you vote for. I care that you said you voted for Kennedy AND that your stated reason for doing so made no sense whatsoever.-Flandres (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, your nickname for Kamala being 'Cackles' probably isn't a good idea since it is similar to a (seemingly failed) rhetoric attempt by Republicans which has roots in misogyny. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hand size and grip strength are signs of masculinity. Is it misandry to point out that Trump has, in fact, tiny hands? CorruptUser 22:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No, but the difference is that, as far as I'm aware, hand size/grip strength hasn't been used to oppress men or try to shame men out of politics; To quote the article I linked:

Women who laugh in public have historically been associated with a lack of social modesty, with hysteria, and even with madness. In insisting that Harris’s laugh is somehow a sign of psychological depravity or narcotic-induced lack of inhibitions, conservatives are doing their best to couple Harris in people’s subconscious with a specific reaction: disgust.

Jumping a bit ahead in the same article:

This is by no means the first time that the politics of disgust have been deployed—crudely but effectively—against women. In 2007, when Hillary Clinton first announced that she was running for president, Rush Limbaugh questioned on his radio show whether the country really wanted to see “a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis.” Clinton’s laugh, too, was mocked, and associated with awkwardness and weirdness. When Trump cites Harris’s laugh as evidence of the fact that she’s supposedly “nuts,” he’s not just calling out a distinctive laugh; he’s helping his audiences draw a connection in their own minds between her emotional composure in public and her moral standing as a political leader.

It's not even that long of an article, so it's a bit of a shame that you didn't read it. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

So, I just read it and I found it interesting. Thanks. Evidently happy laughing women are a danger to some!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The most worrying thing I noticed about the post debate coverage was how quick the media was to credit Vance for being “civil” and “polished”. Not only does such a nice facade do nothing with regards to his clearly expressed and appalling attitudes and policy ideas, it also shows another worrying issue for the future:

That a lot of the media, exhausted by Trump’s crass antics and ever more unhinged ramblings, are clearly prepared to give a more “polished” candidate with the exact same attitudes a lot of leeway and be prepared to let a lot of insane ideas pass, as long as these are presented in a “civil” tone.

The only positive aspect of this is, that such a “polished” candidate probably won’t appeal to the MAGA hats who seem to revel in Trump’s crassness and the whole “triggering the libs” rigmarole. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I found a nutty comment section

Here's the one I'm talking about; People under it seem to genuinely believe this song was a prophecy, even though it uses the same 'Unlimited technological progress will cause bad things probably' trope that has existed since the very beginning of science fiction; Are some people really nutty enough to think that a song based on a trope that tends to get things right sometimes is a prophecy just because it talks about God and Judgement Day or something? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The comment section is nutty, but that isn't really news because more often than not youtube comment sections are really nutty, and besides I don't think we need to cover it given that its a song that came out in 1969, it's a good song don't get me wrong, I listen to it sometimes but its just a song that came out in 1969. A somebody. (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we make an article on it, though. I was just bringing it up. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. People are nutty. Some were also religious. And some commenter cited the Unabomber. I don't get why does this song attract so many nutjobs. 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 08:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There are an infinite number of idiotic beliefs in the world and more than enough idiots who believe them. Most people believe at least a dozen such things every day before noon.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

i think it's easier to list all the comment sections that aren't nutty. The G (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I correctly predicted what the song would be. I must have the gift of prophecy. And it is mentioned in our List of predictions of the end of the world article. I know becase I put it there. Spud (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Been a while since I heard that golden oldie. I’m actually surprised there’s not more Illuminati conspiracy theory bullshit and religious commentary in the comment section, I’ve seen more nutty comments (mainly about witchcraft) in the comment sections for Stevie Nicks songs. 54.248.65.14 (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

the manson family did some murders believing that the beatles song helter skelter predicted a coming apocalyptic race war. people believe some crazy things and do equally crazy things as result AMassiveGay (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A quest chin

If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two fractions, then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. And an infinite number of those infinities. And an infinite number of those infinities. And an infinite number of those infinities. And an infinite number of those infinities. And an infinite number of those infinities. And…infinitely times. And that infinitely times. And that infinitely times. And that infinitely times. And that infinitely times. And that infinitely times. And… continues forever. And that continues forever. And that continues forever. And that continues forever. And that continues forever. And that continues forever. And…(…)…

Donglepuss (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)donglepuss

Congratulations, you discovered Surreal and Transfinite numbers. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not a question. Accumulator (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct, it's a quest chin. Carthage (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I would also like to congratulate the OP in discovering this. They might also want to consider whether putting things in water makes them wet, whether gravity causes masses to attract each other and whether or not the Earth is largely spherical.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't be condescending to the OP. Google Georg Cantor. Scream!! (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You're mistaking conceptual infinity derived from mathematics(an idea that exists in our heads) for material reality. Reality also seems pretty infinite, but you know, we can't measure that. It is only a guess that the universe is infinite. If space is finite, then the number of fractions you could represent within that space is also finite. Which means the number of irrational numbers derived from those fractions would be finite. Which would mean all the pretty math we've developed for addressing infinity has no real world application. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh

I don't quite get why the Caracas Chronicles entry added by G Man to the Clogosphere WIGO is getting so many downvotes; I disagree that the Democrats should focus less on progressive policies, because doing so would sacrifice a lot in favor of very little, but is this the only reason for the downvotes, or are there other reasons? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

A similar question was made in the Saloon Bar just a couple months ago. I think it was Carthage that simply explained it as "people will downvote/upvote what they disagree/agree with", often irregardless of quality or truth. From reading the entry myself, I did have visceral reaction of frustration... Not necessarily because I think what the post is saying isn't true, but because it's upsetting if it is. Impiricism (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Google Search stats for RationalWiki as of early October

In our tech support discussion on a currently basically solved Google indexing issue, I mentioned the stats now available through Google Search Console, now that someone's looking at it.

Here's how it looks at present. @Chillpilled, who reminded me.

Top 20 search queries that bring people to RationalWiki. In many but not all, RationalWiki has a placement within the top 5 results.

1. project blue beam
2. rationalwiki
3. rational wiki
4. red room
5. bashar - wikipedia
6. encyclopedia dramatica
7. darryl anka wikipedia
8. wedge of aiud
9. darryl anka
10. Edward Dutton
11. Peter Sweden
12. Gregg Braden wikipedia
13. bashar darryl anka
14. dr eric berg wikipedia
15. frozen rationalwiki
16. dr john brandenburg
17. dave farina
18. frank zappa rationalwiki
19. dwight schultz controversy
20. brittany venti

The "top pages" list top 20 is similar but not identical. It features in place of some of the above, in order:

1. Professor Dave
2. Biblical scientific errors
3. Köfels impact event
4. Examples of God personally killing people
5. Lolcow
6. John Harris
7. Ray Peat
8. Paul Saladino
9. Last Thursdayism

--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised that so many in the top 20 are searches for individuals. Though perhaps not as surprised as by the fact that the Disney film "Frozen" comes in at number 15.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not. It's folks hitting Google et al on them, and Wikipedia isn't able to provide most likely due to the 'Not Notable' rule. Which was the crux of the case of He Who Must Not Be Named a couple of months back now. Don't get Frozen, though. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Update. A new contender for the top few articles is "Ancient giant silicon-based tree hypothesis‎", via searches for "silicon tree" and similar. On October 6th traffic to RW via Google suddenly doubled as lots of people searched for this. Our article on this is a stub, though not too shabby for one. If expanded I guess it would turn into one of these "giant stone stubs". --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Locked article

This discussion was moved to Talk:Rhawn Joseph.

Anybody Here Know About The SCC?

The Slideshow Commentary Community is a community of people who make--well, slideshow commentaries, basically responses to other videos where they typically use avatars, with different pictures being put up throughout the video. I have decided one of the things I wish to do as a board member is build a bit of a bridge between this community and Rationalwiki, and one of the ways I want to do that is through promoting the place here so you guys can check us out. Some channels of note include mine, Communist Creeper, Aeron Tempest, Jester0FTheM00N, Toganium Talks, and countless more. We also have an entire wiki dedicated to our content if you would like to know more. Ephrom (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Are these people actually interested in a "bridge between communities". Luigifan's similar idea to establish ties with 1d6chan fell flat in part because neither side wanted it. Also, is this community related to our mission? 1d6chan was not. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 18:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have talked with some SCC members who are fine with bridges being built basically between them and the vast majority of communities, so I do not believe that to be an issue. As for the mission statement, I believe there is at least some overlap in that the goal of both that community and Rationalwiki is to expose people who have no idea what they are talking about using logical reasoning and evidence.Ephrom (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Quickly skimmed through the linked Youtube channels and some of the videos... the content and presentation style I thought were perplexing. I was not readily sure what the videos were supposed to be addressing or conveying. Much of the franchise or popular media in the videos too I only vaguely recognized, if at all. I'm not out of touch am I? I mean... I know what Skibidi Toilet is. Impiricism (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I had a very quick look at the wiki - I wonder if the OP could link to some kind of mission statement or site objectives?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What part is perplexing you? Here's the home page of the wiki, if that would help you. Ephrom (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that I was "perplexed". I was just looking for some kind of statement of values or objectives.

Your link takes me to: "The Slideshow Commentary Community is a YouTube community focused on responding to videos in a critiquing manner using an arrangement of avatars, though primarily from anime, games, comics, etc. in a style that feels akin to a slideshow. In recent years, people have been upgrading to original avatars, but the style stands true to what the community built itself on."

This tells me much more about your liking for avatars than it does about your POV - which is something I'm still looking for.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The "What is the Slideshow Commentary Community?" section of the wiki's Main Page is lacking in specifics. Honestly the feeling that I get poking around some more, and I don't mean this negatively, is that you and your community are younger people who identify as a group more out of shared media and entertainment interests than anything... much of the content of the wiki doesn't seem very formalized, or presented in a way that an outsider can easily understand.

For the Youtube channels and videos themselves, I'm perplexed on the meaning or purpose behind them... I suppose since they are "commentaries" they are supposed to be more informal... and to also be fair I honestly did not spend too much time looking at them or the Wiki. For comparison, I'd describe the structure of RationalWiki articles as "this idea/belief/scheme/person is full of shit due to x, y, z. explain x, y, z." Impiricism (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Found this archived video made by a "the gem of 99" user that appears to discuss a Youtube video defending potential bestiality? "the gem of 99" was listed on the SCC wiki as a wanted page; the user and the video they commentate on seem obscure. Impiricism (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Funny that's one of the videos you find given that's on my archive account, the video was infamous back in the day for not being of rather high quality. I really Gibbontake being more popular in the brony community than he appears to have been when looking back on the numbers. If you want to see something more dedicated to archiving SCC content, a former member of ours has an account on the same website for that purpose. (I can't embed links right now for some reason, so here's the account: https://archive.org/details/@sccarchivists) They also made a somewhat outdated introduction video, viewable here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjgcSjFuxak Ephrom (talk) 2:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to counter any of Ben Shapiro and/or Charlie Kirk's talking points this year?

Bonus points if it was live

I know I sound like one of those people, but hear me out.

My parents have been watching "wokies owned" videos from some YouTube channel lately. A lot of them feature Charlie Kirk or Ben Shapiro, mostly the former from what I caught. I thought back to how I heard that those guys are "successful" because they pretty much always "debate" college kids who are, for lack of a better word, unprepared. I've also been thinking to myself, especially after catching these clips, that I probably wouldn't do much better. One point that come to mind are Charlie Kirk asking for one thing he said that was "racist"

But surely there is someone out there who has had time to prepare something to counter this stuff?--DoomTay (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You could start with RW's articles on both Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk. Just glancing over Kirk's page, there's a lot of racist stuff under "Conservative deceit". Shapiro's entire article is full of examples of his history of racist remarks. I don't think debating either of those guys would be productive. Neither of them would ever take a honest assessment of their beliefs. Their debate tactic would be to Gish Gallop around saying their buzzwords and gotcha lines that their audience would eat up. If you're concerned about your parents, I would try talking to them. Ask them what they mean by "woke" and why they think it's a bad thing. Take a look at this page: [8] Modern fascists, like their old-school counterparts, will use any argument they can think of to support their BS, no matter how hypocritical or contradictory it makes them. LGMR (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I stopped by there a bit earlier. I admittedly wouldn't have thought to look under the "Conservative deceit" section. We have a distinct article on racism from Ben Shapiro but not one for Kirk?--DoomTay (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"One point that come to mind are Charlie Kirk asking for one thing he said that was "racist"". As I have never previously heard of this person I have no idea if he has ever anything racist or not. Perhaps his utterings are better known in The US but my reasonable answer would be, "Nothing - yet. Are you famous or something?"Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 05:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

More like infamous, I guess--DoomTay (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Give me some examples and maybe I'll give it a shot right here, assuming he's actually wrong. I've never actually listened to either of them. Accumulator (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

WhileI wasn't in the mood at the time to dig through stuff, it's only fair I bring up specific points

• In regards to Haitian immigrants, something about how we should deport all of the "illegal aliens" and focus on the country's own citizens https://youtu.be/YIzMuZqqBYc?t=1186 "If they can break the law by coming into the country illegally, how can we be sure they won't do other illegal things as well?". This reminds me of "criminals don't follow laws" in debates around gun control
• Apparently white privilege doesn't exists, and all you need to do to be successful is three things https://youtu.be/cGLuP7IuFwc?t=933
• https://youtu.be/SLD-rYOmwpQ?t=2152 https://youtu.be/SLD-rYOmwpQ?t=2345 Charlie Kirk saying we're not a racist country, and also using "Affirmative action" as examples of "actual racism", and brushing off the other guy's story of how he was treated at a DeSantis event
• https://youtu.be/cGLuP7IuFwc?t=1496 Something about fetuses having a soul, and animals...don't? And apparently animals cannot reason
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CgjJWWF0ys Charlie Kirk asks about how he's fascist. Come to think of it, this might have been what I was thinking of, now "How am I racist"
• https://youtu.be/ZYscrQBPbAQ?t=922 Charlie Kirk debates with a kid about transgenderism and something about mental issues. Also, said kid is wearing a Trump 2024 shirt. Is this a case of the right eating their own?
• https://youtu.be/YIzMuZqqBYc?t=1340 "You are not a woman just because you feel like a woman. If that happens to be the case, how does one know that what one is feeling is woman?"
• https://youtu.be/YIzMuZqqBYc?t=952 Debate on black employment rates.
• This one isn't either of those guys but it still stuck to me for some reason. https://youtu.be/YIzMuZqqBYc?t=1504 "A 13-year old having an abortion will not erase the sexual trauma of getting raped". Also earlier, someone tried to pull a gotcha with "13-year-olds can't consent"
• I'm having trouble finding it again, but somewhere in there is Ben Shapiro commenting on a guy in a wolf mask and tail messing around on a beach. As far as I can tell, he wasn't hurting anybody. MAYBE being a nuisance, but I didn't see anyone else nearby in that clip. Didn't stop that clip from being featured on this channel.
• https://youtu.be/YIzMuZqqBYc?t=1684 "Men should be masculine and women should be feminine because that's how they are designed"
• https://youtu.be/YIzMuZqqBYc?t=1744 Comparing having a baby to having a cake

These probably aren't something to debunk, but I still have the urge to point them out

• https://youtu.be/YIzMuZqqBYc?t=1231 Guy admittedly makes a fool of himself with not knowing the amendments. Then the narrator says the Constitution is not propaganda. Who's saying that?
• https://youtu.be/Q-c7PJpDqp0?t=425 Same clip, different commentary
• https://youtu.be/YIzMuZqqBYc?t=1287 Charlie Kirk debates with someone on the definition of socialism. Half of it is Kirk being like "What makes you more knowledgeable than me?". Then the narrator says that it was a simple definition of socialism
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-c7PJpDqp0 The lady here is Naima Troutt, better known for having "DESTROYED" Charlie Kirk on the definition of "fetus". And here they are talking about slavery. I don't know if that clip is from the same debate, but yeah.

And yes, there is quite a bit to be said about the channel in general, especially the presentation, but that's a different topic. And honestly, I'm pretty sure if someone dedicated a channel to each and every clip brought in that channel, they would have a hard time keeping up seeing as there's about a new video a day. The bullshit asymmetry principle, I think it's called.--DoomTay (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Be more specific. I'm not going to review a dozen videos. Accumulator (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

How is "Haitian immigrants to Springfield are illegals" not specific? Carthage (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This question seems to be prefaced on the idea that we would be generally attentive to what the hell these clowns have been saying in the last year that hasn't already made its rounds on the clogosphere. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Admittedly I haven't looked at the clogosphere lately, but I assumed someone here would be on the pulse on that kind of thing, lol --DoomTay (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There are thousands of these hacks. I would like to know what talking points OP has in mind though. Judging by the BLPs linked above, they seem like run-of-the-mill propagandists and it shouldn't be too hard to refute them when they're wrong, misleading or generally trying to bullshit their audience. Most other pundits are hardly any better. Accumulator (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

What kind of relationship do you have with your parents? It's not exactly easy to change someone's mind if they're completely unwilling to hear you out. Being a conservative basically entails living in an alternate reality, constantly reinforced by media outlets like Fox News. Is it worth engaging with that? It's why debates are also pretty worthless - they're basically predicated on a form of good faith which conservatives have proven completely unwilling to engage with. The formats of conservative pundits at colleges or whatever are deliberately slanted to give as much of an advantage as possible to the chud on stage. They're not representative of reality, they're basically just nice soundbites. Vaush has a few videos on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KBlCbpNWPI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMw7EECMbg IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I have a fairly good relationship with my parents, except when it comes to politics, apparently. I hear you on that second sentence though. Back in 2019 or 2020, they were complaining about Biden's taxes. I brought up how that it would only affect those making more than $400,000/year. That kicked off a big, shall we say, lecture. The things I remember most from them during that was saying I should get information from "both sides", those below that cutoff would still be affected by "indirect taxes", which I think meant things like raised prices on gas and groceries and whatnot (I also overheard them bringing up up Biden's taxes again in the sense of "look how that turned out"), and apparently I am living proof that socialized medicine does not work (How is a long story). Honestly, that whole thing has made me hesitant to talk politics with them since.--DoomTay (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought about this a bit more. I realize I won't have any luck changing the minds of people like my parents, but what about myself? A lot of this channel's content is giving me pause and giving me, for lack of a better word, an itch that for the most part I can only scratch at a surface level. It's like I have a little Charlie Kirk or Ben Shapiro in my head. For example, I didn't link it above, but a group of college kids haven't been able to define what a woman is without being circular. It made me realize I'm not sure how I would either. Is it the presence of certain body parts like a uterus? But what does that make pre-op trans women? Self-identification? To people like those guys, that is analogous to a mental illness. I know at this point that that YouTube channel is basically gish gallop in video form, but it's doing something to me--DoomTay (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately in some ways, gender dysphoria got lumped into the same terminology used for biological (gonad) male and females. This is problematic because a lot of the more socially conservative sort identify "gender" strictly by genitalia. Technically... even *this* binary using genitalia is a bit lie-to-children-ish; though it mostly works out one way or the other, go deeper into the biochemistry and you find a bit of a "fuzzier" picture regarding gender. Let alone the whole world of gender dysphoria, which is another story. Nonetheless, there is a lot of society revolved around this somewhat simplistic separation; for social conservatives, your genitals and other sex-favored characteristic are what make your sex, period. So there's a bit of a "social construct" thing going on in this issue (kind of similar to race). I'm personally okay with calling those suffering from gender dysphoria the opposite of their gonad birth sex if that's what they want. Seems polite to do that this way. Others like Shapiro and Kirk want hard and fast and rigid "Western culture style" binary rules for this. So, what is a woman? I know what the Western culture warriors think are a woman, is that the answer they want to hear?

At any rate, on a more general level... here are some things to think about with folks like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk. These type of folks never engage at an honest intellectual level. They are essentially political clickbait which attempts to get people to rally around some rather simplistic culture style sloganeering. Their whole point is to try and DESTROY!!! their opponents, usually via tactics (editing, "debate" tactic, selections) that try to make others look dumb. Frankly, neither of these folks are very smart, at least on the culture war clickbait they specialize (the Gish Gallop technique in my opinion is often a cover stupid debaters use to hide their lack of intelligence). Picking on random college students is very softball; it's not the easiest thing to form good counterpoints when caught off the cuff. Usually these political clickbait guys have very little technical depth; Ben Shapiro can do his "facts feelings" spiel all he wants, but from what I can tell, the amount of biochemistry "facts" in his gender spiels are near zero. Assuming that an actual biologist was competent enough at handling a Gish Gallop, such could probably clear the floor with a lightweight like these political clickbait turds.

One of the more telling interviews IMHO with this crowd was when Shapiro got DESTROYED!!! by Andrew Neil. Neil is an "old guard media" Tory (British conservative). In the past, he had some really awful takes on climate change and HIV (stances which he's moderated on, but without taking responsibility for past published bullshit). Nonetheless, Neil has at least a *bit* more "intellectual integrity"... well, at least far more than the clickbait-prone sorry excuses for political commentary these days. It was telling that Shapiro stormed out of his BBC interview with Neil when Neil threw a few not-so-softball questions at him. Shapiro even amusingly called Neil a "liberal". That's all this crowd has, they aren't going to be able to handle any real expertise if they can't even handle fuckin' Andrew Neil. 24.96.254.242 (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I fully get they are hacks, and that that YouTube video is has rather...questionable motives. Hell, I've seen them feature some parody dub of an Elon Musk zoom call, and in another instance they featured a clip that was credited to TheQuartering (one of those anti-woke grifters who, among other things, responded to "Fuck Hitler" with "Yikes", is banned from Magic tournaments for harassing a woman cosplayer, and made a video on how to hide "special material"). Under other circumstances, I would probably ignore/forget all that stuff and move on with my life. As it is, I've seen my parents, who I live with, watching that YouTube channel (which by the way is actually more than just clips of those two guys) and they seem to be eating it up. And it's hardly the first time I've seen them consume "anti-woke" content. Up until last year I've seen them watch Newsmax almost every night. Maybe that's why it's getting to me as much as it is.--DoomTay (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about debates with college students but Charlie Kirk said he distrusts a pilot's expertise if they are black. He's also taken to going after MLK Jr. and the Civil Rights Act. So I don't know about high school debate club but he has said some racist things. A Trump advisor, the pastor Darrell Scott, seems to agree. Chillpilled (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh geez, I can't believe I forgot about the pilot bit. Guess that satisfies that bit--DoomTay (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm gonna ignore the other points for now, but in the case of point 1:

Haitian immigrants in Springfield actually are in this country legally: [9] Carthage (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Would it be fallacious to say that that throws Kirk's whole screed straight into "can be disregarded"?--DoomTay (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If the screed is based on a nothing-burger, then I'd call that a practical heuristic to dismiss it. Carthage (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you believe in any conspiracy theories?

As for me, I’m not entirely sure we went to the moon. Also, the biggest problem with a conspiracy theory that there is a secret group of rich people secretly running the world is that there is a non secret group of rich people not even trying to hide that they are non secretly running the world. Donglepuss (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

No. To understand why we must first break down what a "conspiracy theory" is into something digestible - putting aside the most common colloquial definition of literal bs, of course. If we're talking "conspiracy" in the sense there are those who conspire? Sure. But conspiracy "theory" implies conversationally it's more of a hypothesis. Something without conclusive evidence. I don't waste my time with such things because they're often frivolous and completely hypothetical considerations that have zero actual persuasive power. As for your "I'm not entirely sure we went to the moon" - that's obvious bs. We even set up a laser ranging retroreflector array on the moon that, to this day, we still use to measure distance to the moon down to a centimeter. I find it endlessly hilarious that any individual can observe the upper limits of the stratosphere with a helium balloon and record that amazing sight, but people doubt the obvious reality that we went to the moon. The basics of escaping Earth's gravitational pull are easily modeled by Newtonian physics. It is not a difficult concept to comprehend. Sciraven (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Something is definitely off, but it's more of a "History is written by the winners" sort of thing than an "everything you know and believe is bullshit and you are living in a social Matrix created by the Illuminati" sort of thing. That's been going on since we had the ability to even document events.--Lordofairguitar (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

When frightening random stuff happens people get scared. The world is in fact less scary and random if "they" are actually in control. Meanwhile our new user should read about the Moon landing hoax on which we have an entire article.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 05:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, while the world is ultimately random and chaotic, we do live in a world ruled by corporate oligarchs. They don't have superpowers, can't control the weather, and aren't ultimately powerful, but "plutocracy" wouldn't be a word if they didn't exist. The thing is: these people don't organize themselves into a shadowy cabal. All the shit that leads to the power of these guys is conducted in the open, as you say. It's simply cold, heartless economics. You want to start chipping away at the systemic control these guys have? Start reforming systems. Tax the rich more. Lessen the influence of money in politics. Put hard limits on patenting medicine for profit (looking at you, Gates). Start a union or a worker co-op. That's how we "defeat" the plutocracy. By taking away the source of their power from them and turning the "economy" into something more of a level playing field. Carthage (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

What you say is true. But my point is that but nobody is using 5G to spread Covid or injecting us whith computer chips disguised as vaccines. They are stories (AKA conspiracy theories) people tell themselves (and each other) to give themselves the illusion that "somebody" is in charge.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree. It's easier to imagine that there is really a "Big Bad" at the heart of why everything sucks, rather than to face the cold reality that there is no "big bad" at the heart of why things suck. Systems themselves suck, but that's not the result of like willful malice. It just is. Carthage (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I wonder how much it's about the search for meaning and a cause, though. After all, believing in a great evil opposition places oneself on the side of good. I think that's possibly often overlooked. Everyone gets to be a 'righteous warrior' in their own mind by 'speaking out' and spreading the latest conspiracy gossip in opposition to mainstreamers. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

What distinguishes conspiracy theories from theories about conspiracies is the patterned flawed thinking. Dismissing conspiracy theories is not about dismissing the existence or possibility of conspiracies, where in fact there's various well-known ones (from the criminal side of mafias, to the lawfully evil side of well-funded Big Oil and Big Tobacco psyops directed at the public alongside heavy lobbying, to historical and some modern intelligence and military operations mainly directed at other countries but sometimes involving unethical experiments on people in the own country, etc.). With the real deal, it's always possible to deal with it using the standards of evidence and reasoning used by academics and by the skeptical community, though if it's fresh it may take time for the picture to become clear. At this point every conspiracy theorist reading this will probably feel vindicated and go on to use standards of evidence and reasoning completely at odds with what was just mentioned, however, as they view their own recognizably patterned thinking very differently from those using said standards. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I know for a fact that a lot of the nuts predicting secret pedophile cabals everywhere jumped in joy when the Epstein ring came to public knowledge. Even if some of the figures that they think are heroes are also implicated by these leaks. Carthage (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The conspiracist view is that the stuff recognized in the mainstream is the tip of the conspiracy iceberg. To the extent that the 'hidden stuff' is so large that there's always room for new big plot twists turning around who's good and evil, or relativizing anything that looks bad concerning a 'hero'. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

My pet conspiracy theory is that the FBI and/or Memphis PD were behind the assassination of Dr. King. His family also believes this. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 12:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I wonder that the russian & chinese influence networks runs deeper and that they're really behind the rise of the far right/isolationism in western countries, and that they gave an overblown voice to homegrown fascists that contributed to turning the internet from a bunch with a left libertarian background to a hard right background. I'm also kinda suspicious if the Covid epidemic wasn't really a virus escaped from the Wuhan labs after all.165.225.205.30 (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually recently attended a talk that investigative reporter Alison Young gave about her new book, Pandora's Gamble: Lab Leaks, Pandemics, and a World At Risk, and she laid out the case that the lab leak theory cannot be discounted and should not be considered some crank theory. US intelligence agencies are fairly divided over the issue and can't say for sure that a lab leak wasn't responsible for the outbreak. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 13:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

“It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.”

[Terry Pratchett, Jingo]

When it comes all conspiracy theories, I apply my 'Deus Ex razor'; to work out a) roughly the amount of resources what would need to be applied to run the conspiracy, b) the rewards of the conspiracy and c) how many people would need to be inside of the conspiracy. A 'successful' conspiracy needs a to be well within the capabilities of the group and not likely to be missed [as these resources normally are accounted for somewhere] b needs to be much larger than a and be able to be hidden or explained away and c needs to be relatively small to avoid leakage to the outside.

Most classic theories fail at least one of these points. They rely on the siphoning off of considerable resources [which would be noticed], the use of suppressed/secret technologies [ditto] involving significant amounts of people [hard to stop it leaking out] achieving aims which could be achieved via more mundane methods [why bother?] or don't really make sense [?]. Occam's razor, Lenin's maxim of 'who stands to gain?' and the Sagan standard between them logically show that chances are, said conspiracies are bollocks.

Now, for the 'conspiracy theories' which I suspect very well may be true.

- That the CIA/FBI made considerable use of illegal drugs wealth to fund 'off book' projects between about 1960 and 1990. It still might do so today. [qv: President Line]

- That until perhaps the 1990s, the Freemasons had a significant and malign influence within British society and government. I don't believe there was any actual 'Freemason conspiracy', more that well-heeled and self-serving types would join the Freemasons for the purpose of networking with other 'useful' people and then make use the smoke-filled room and the handshake to their own ends in a manner which discouraged folks to break ranks and call out shit. [qv: Operation Countryman]

- That many British orgs have an officially unofficial policy of keeping key decisions 'off the record' [no email chains, no memos or minutes] to cut corners, break the law and most often, collude, plot and lie. That when the results of shit blows back to the org and they are forced to have a proper enquiry, it oddly enough shows that everyone did their jobs correctly but for some unknown reason the shit happened anyway. [qv: Infected Blood Scandal, Horizon Scandal]

One archivist at a talk I went to once suggested that 'sticky notes later removed from a file' might play a part in certain discussions. Anna Livia (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

- That Covid came from that Wuhan lab. However, it was an accidental release - that the real failure was in local officials covering up/buck-passing out of fears of being punished and hoping it would somehow 'go away' a la Chernobyl. China won't admit this because they fear it might lead them to get sued etc. [qv: 1977 UK smallpox outbreak, 2007 UK foot/mouth outbreak.]

- That Mossad has for decades infiltrated overseas Jewish movements/groups in an attempt to turn them into external arms of the Israeli state, which then uses the accusation of antisemitism etc to silence people who voice their suspicions. [qv: KGB/FSB infiltration/control of the Russian Orthodox Church, Confucius Institutes].

- That in the 60s/70s elements of the British ruling class did seriously consider deposing Harold Wilson and installing a right-wing regime. They'd got as far as 'seriously sounding out' key people to see if they were agreeable but it then got exposed and they all got cold feet. [qv: Clockwork Orange]

- That most oligopolic sectors of the British economy are riddled with collusion and espionage. That the major players all spy on each other and know they are spied on but allow it because there's a tacit agreement to maintain the current market structure but done in the manner which there's no legal case of collusion to answer for. [qv: greedflation]

Does this overlap with 'backchannel discussions'? Anna Livia (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

- That 'carbon footprint' is 90% a con. It was cooked up to shove the 'blame' for dirty business models onto the end consumer, who often can't to fuck all about it. [qv: Ogilvy & Mather and BP, 2004].

- That Western Govts moved so slowly to freeze Russian overseas assets in 2022 to give the oligarchs enough time to send all their cash to the Gulf and Singapore and to 'transfer' assets to third parties for the duration. This was a quid pro quo for all the previous bribes etc given by the oligarchs and with an anticipation of re-starting business soon. [qv 'Londongrad', 'London laundromat' etc.]

- That the British state believes any political movement further 'left' than Third Way is 'extreme' and shall be monitored and most likely, infiltrated - if not by the officialdom itself, but by agents paid for by corp interests. Some of the org's actions very well might be directed by these agents themselves, thus making them agent provocateurs. They don't extend this strictness to the right-wing unless you're a literal Nazi. [qv: Police Spies Out of Lives, '24 UK riots]

KarmaPolice (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The US security apparatus definitely is able to keep a lid on most leaks of the topmost levels of security. Practically all the leaks we get are from within the first three levels ("confidential," where the vast brunt of the leaks that do get out come from, "secret," and "top secret." Only a few whistleblowers from TOP SECRET and such have ever come out (Snowden, Manning, and the Pentagon Papers guy.) Nothing, and I mean nothing, has come from the levels above that. Think "sensitive compartmentalized information." It's a lot easier to keep a lid on leaks when the penalties for doing so include a 30 year prison sentence and/or an "accidental defenestration" out a window. There are also ways to effectively hide budgets and other resource leaks, even out in the open (although it's not completely foolproof, some government agencies do have the budget information for classified projects as public information. Youtuber "We're in Hell" was able to place a minimum estimate on the US black budget for 2024 this way: [10] Although that's absolutely not the real number, as many agencies just don't disclose budget details at all or will include both non-classified and classified projects under the same budget umbrella.)

Also, it's funny you consider greedflation to be a real thing given how strongly a certain user rails against the topic. Deeming it "denialism." Carthage (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

These conspiracies are all to tame. Go the Roseanne Barr route: “They’re (the Democrats) just trying to protect themselves because when that list comes out ... it’s gonna be like worse than the emperor naked. It’s gonna be the emperor went to Epstein island and ate people. You know they eat babies, that is not bullshit. It’s true. They love the taste of human flesh and they drink human blood. They do Tucker.”Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

im a little more forgiving of conspiracy theories that are at least rooted in real life and plausible enough that i wouldnt be too surprised if they turn out to be actually true, the covid came from a lab theory as mentioned above is good example. where there is a shortage of hard facts mixed in with cynicism and distrust of involved people might sway someone either way, but still nothing definitive either way. its when people start to get way too certain, way too convinced of a particular theory that they start seeing 'evidence' every where, everything confirms their belief, no matter how tenuous or spurious, then they start to lose me.

as for shape shifting reptilians, flat earthers, and other conspiracy theories that stray from plausible to what the fuck have you been smoking? how does anyone get drawn into those kinda theories in the first place?

it should be noted that that people who believe these kinda things dont just believe in the one crazy out there conspiracy theory and are completely sane about everything else. oh no. if they are on board with one crazy theory, then they are on aboard with them all. they get radicalised online the same way far right extremists get radicalised. they alienate friends and family with conspiracy talk till the only people they interact with and trust are other crazy conspiracy theorists, and the all the theories get stirred into a big pot of conspiracy soup. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Issue is, Snowden et al didn't reveal anything which wasn't already suspected - they merely provided proof of it. I'm reminded of the Harris novel Fatherland, when the MC finally gets hold of the bag of Holocaust proof and comments that it wasn't like the German people didn't know the Jews had been all killed, the docs merely 'put flesh on bone, and bones into thin air' to a level which if they got out would be almost impossible for the leadership to explain away as just American/Communist propaganda. D-Notices, super-injunctions and black budgets will only get you so far; every action widens the 'circle of secrecy' a little bit more, causing more and more leaks to happen to the point shit becomes close to open secrets [even the coverup requires the 'coverers' to know what they're covering up, but then they need to be covered up (which is perhaps the plot of Fatherland in a nutshell).] 'Deep throat' situations are fairly rare. Then there's the 'outside' folks who work out 'the conspiracy' from public information etc; I remember during WW2 the Germans concluded the Anglo-Americans were working on the atomic bomb because all the papers on nuclear physics vanished from scientific publications and so did most of their authors [which is why so much shit is stamped 'Classified' etc; to deny hostile powers any intel which might be able to help deduce plans etc, even if as petty as fuzzing out a Google Earth map of a military base entry which has been there since WW1].

With the 'greedflation' issue, I will simply say this: 'UK fuel prices' and 'record profits for Big Food/Oil etc'. If you are selling same/less than before but your profits are up, chances are you have increased your margins, which means getting more out of your customers. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Typically whenever something has been leaked revealing that the gov's been up to illegal shit, the usual response is to make the illegal shit legal. Carthage (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Heh. Or simply state 'well, why don't you try to prove it, eh?' and then rule all the leaked material inadmissible in court. Here in the UK we have a catch-all term called 'national interest' and it's basically been defined as 'whatever the Govt says it is' which means 90% of the time it simply gets swept under the rug, like they really tried to when the wife of that American spy killed someone with their car a few years back. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that people who genuinely believe in conspiracy theories lack education and life experience. To clarify though, I think conspiracy theories generally fall into one of two categories: absurd and impractical to the point where it is simply nonsensical (scientists across the globe faking climate change for some nefarious population control), or banal and mundane where it really shouldn't come as a surprise if it's true (politicians destroying documents to mitigate responsibility); for things in the latter category, describing them as a "conspiracy theory" retracts from just how prosaic they are in life. Impiricism (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I just tend to have an immediate negative opinion when one says they believe in conspiracy theories because when thinking of the definition and examples, what comes to mind are the bat-shit insane ones. Impiricism (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Not so sure about believers always lacking education and experience. Well, those tend to be big factors when someone exits the rabbit role and returns to the reality-based community, but for many others, it simply doesn't help. For example, swine flu vaccine conspiracies from the end of the 00s were very similar to COVID-19 vaccine conspiracies (microchips, depopulation), but one type of person notices that it was wrong before and likely is wrong now too, another person feels the emotional resonance of the repeating meme and finds it "more true" than ever. Some learn from experience, some are stripped of their capacity to learn by experience. And some of the very wackiest conspiracists are seasoned voracious readers who inhale enormous quantities of information over decades, growing crankier the more they learn. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't you think it's possible if not probable that these "covid-19 vaccine conspiracies" are contrived as strawmen - that is, to obscure or discredit critics who have more realistic and better-justified objections to forced vaccination? For example, fearmongering and the manipulation of public health policy and public opinion by big pharma for profit. Accumulator (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"Forced vaccination." "Fearmongering." "Big Pharma." Well I can scratch those off my bingo card... Carthage (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

An irrelevant non-argument from Carthage, per usual. Accumulator (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's quite useful to identify antivaxxer canards wherever they appear. Carthage (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ditz. Accumulator (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Lol. Carthage (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

As strawmen by whom? You're suggesting Big Pharma funds and organizes the anti-vaxxers perhaps? Maybe, maybe not, though you reminded me of an old ironic conspiracy theory to that effect (can't find it now) suggesting Big Pharma fueled anti-vaxx sentiments to be able to sell more medicine in the future as disease skyrockets. After all vaccination is poor business long-term, as it results in less disease and less need for treatment overall, and for some diseases that affect minorities Big Pharma actually avoids developing vaccines for the reason that it's less profitable. It seems anti-vaxx is well-funded and business-oriented though, online activists are mostly unpaid minions but organizations that compete with Big Pharma get them going for profit. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the more outlandish 'theories' may have been disseminated by big pharma as a means of misrepresenting critics and manipulating public opinion. Accumulator (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing exactly what I said you would down below. Carthage (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This sentence here: "Don't you think it's possible if not probable that these "covid-19 vaccine conspiracies" are contrived as strawmen - that is, to obscure or discredit critics who have more realistic and better-justified objections to forced vaccination?" suggests to me that Accumulator is an antivaxxer. Remember that "forced vaccination" is an antivaxxer talking point. So the obvious interpretation is that Accumulator is engaging in conspiratorial thinking, that Big Pharma is purposefully pushing out lab leak conspiracy theories to discredit "reasonable" "concerns" about vaccinations. Carthage (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe vaccination should be voluntary. I do not object to vaccination per se. Accumulator (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a variant of the 'PETA is funded by the meat industry' conspiracy theory, which if you know the stupid counterproductive shit they get upto at times, at least makes a bit of sense. But this one? Doesn't add up. Yeah, I'll risk my entire career to fund some complete cranks so I can then later shove folks with 'legitimate concerns' into the same box. I can do that anyway and what's more, public health folks know this is about the worst method to deal with the 'vaccine hesitant' [y'know, the ones which their reason(s) are not batshit, like minority groups and lack of trust]. Plus, if there truly is issues with a particular vaccine, medical bods pick up on it soon enough and what you gonna do - call them cranks too?

Anyway, I do agree with Carthage in respect that those three terms are fairly strong indicators that the person you're interacting with is a full-blown antivaxxer [I think they'd won if 'MSM' had also been used]. 'realistic and better-justified objections'? Go on, tell me what they are. 'forced vaccination', definition, please. 'fearmongering and the manipulation of public health policy and public opinion' I'd like to see examples. 'by big pharma for profit' you are aware that like Apooft pointed out above, vaccine production/distribution is in fact a very low-margin industry, right? KarmaPolice (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems like they made out well, despite the very low profit margins; https://www.statista.com/chart/25434/pfizer-annual-revenue/. Slinging accusatory labels like "anti-vaxxer" is cheap, evasive rhetoric, not a serious counterargument. Don't lead the conversation away from the original subject of big pharma's profit motive. Accumulator (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

" 'forced vaccination', definition, please." - Policy that mandates vaccination, for example of students or employees. " 'fearmongering and the manipulation of public health policy and public opinion' I'd like to see examples" - Covid-19 has been in the media for years now. Are you really trying to say that all the hoopla about covid-19 deaths, 'lockdowns', the mandatory vaccination of not-at-risk populations like students and so forth was not at all in excess? That you've no idea what I could possibly be talking about? Please. Accumulator (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You're kidding. That's your pet peeve here? Organizations deciding to secure the safety of their constituents by enforcing vaccine guidelines? Wow. Also I have no idea why you consider a disease that's more deadly than the flu in ALL age groups "not at risk" for students - who are consistently one of the largest disease reservoirs, anyhow. Genuinely insane.

As an aside, I'd love to hear something more substantial from you than the basic game theory that a corporate entity is going to try to manipulate public opinion.Taking that mere plausibility and then grossly extending it into a point in it of itself is absurd. Pfizer and moderna are not the end-all-be-all of where the public gets their health information. Large-scale public opinion manipulation usually requires some serious investment, as-is evident from the sugar/tobacco/oil industry situation. Gonna have try better than that. Sciraven (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Related

debunkbot an experimental tool from MIT that uses a specially prompted ChatGPT(blech) instance to interrogate your beliefs about conspiracy theories, and, statistically speaking, reduces conspiracy belief after a brief conversation. Can't say it helped me. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That was actually quite hilariously bad. It wanted me to describe a conspiracy theory I believed in. It told it that I didn't believe in major long-term conspiracy theories because too many people would need to hold the secret for too long.

@Ikanreed It's not hard to demonstrate the absurdity of this counterpoint. There's no such thing as 'classified' or 'top secret' information, too many people would need to hold the secret for too long. Accumulator (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It then decided that this, itself, was a conspiracy theory and quizzed me on it. I continued to answer honestly supporting my opinion. After which it gave me this review:

feedback: **Conspiracy Plausibility**: The conspiracy theory you described was assessed with a plausibility score of **5 out of 5**, indicating it is considered highly implausible.

Belief Change**: Initially, your belief in the conspiracy was scored at **90 out of 100**. After engaging with the debunking intervention, your belief slightly increased to **95 out of 100**. This represents a change in belief of **-5 points**, signifying a stronger belief in the conspiracy.

Comparative Analysis**: Compared to others who hold beliefs in conspiracies assessed at a similar plausibility level and importance, your belief change ranks in the **23rd percentile**. This means that 77% of participants with similarly rated conspiracy theories either maintained or decreased their belief more than you did after the intervention.

Which I consider a big win for artificial stupidity.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean it's just some specific prompting. Something like "Given a user who believes a conspiracy theory they describe as [insert your words], provide a polite rebuttal, that questions [some aspects of conspiracy thinking the paper's author thinks is important]. Answer any concerns they reply with trying to inform them of a less conspiratorial view". It's bad at your case because ChatGPT style AI isn't actually intelligent. It can't understand the deeper implications of things in a genuine and human way. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course I understand that. It's its very inability to "understand" that it was vigorously agreeing with me all the time which shows up the limits of the system.^{— Unsigned, by: BobM / talk / contribs}

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I decided to test the bot out, and this was one of the questions (slightly paraphrased):

Is this a belief you sincerely believe, or something you made up to test the bot?

Apparently they've had problems with trolls. Carthage (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No, they just don't want people playing experimentally to pollute their collected data. They recognize it's also kind of a toy, in addition to a tool. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Responses I got from the debunker AI regarding "the FBI killed Dr. King"

Here's the first response I got for the "FBI killed Dr. King" theory I fed it:

I understand why the points you've raised might lead you to believe in a conspiracy around Dr. King's assassination. These are not small claims, and it's clear you've thought about the complex history involved. It's really important to consider all angles on historical events, especially those involving civil rights leaders like Dr. King.

Now, let's unpack this together, step by step.

Firstly, you're right about the FBI's surveillance and harassment of Dr. King. It is well-documented that the FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover, undertook extensive efforts to undermine Dr. King through the COINTELPRO program. The infamous letter attempting to convince Dr. King to harm himself is a dark chapter in the agency's history.

However, the leap from discrediting Dr. King to orchestrating his assassination isn't supported by credible evidence. While the FBI acted unethically, no concrete evidence has ever been presented that the FBI or Memphis PD were directly involved in the assassination. This is a crucial distinction. Bad behavior, even at this level, does not inherently lead to the ultimate crime of murder.

About James Earl Ray's innocence: Ray initially confessed to the assassination, which was a key piece of evidence. Of course, he later recanted his confession, and it's understandable to question the validity of confessions, which can be complex. However, there were also other pieces of evidence that tied him to the crime, such as fingerprints on the weapon and eyewitnesses. It's important to weigh this evidence, too.

The civil trial in 1999 where a jury found elements of the government liable did not have the same evidentiary standards as a criminal trial. It's worth noting that civil court findings are about liability, not criminal guilt, and the standards for evidence are much lower. That's why civil trial outcomes alone aren't enough to definitively state what actually happened.

Dr. King's family's beliefs are, of course, deeply important and deserve respect. It's understandable that they would want to explore every possible angle of the event that took his life. It is common for families in grief to question the official story — this doesn't always mean the official story is wrong, but that grief can complicate our acceptance of tragic events.

In conclusion, skepticism of government actions is healthy in a democracy, especially given historical facts of unethical behaviors. But when we talk about accusations as grave as murder, it's crucial to require robust and consistent evidence to support such claims. While the FBI's actions were detestable, the evidence for them directly planning and executing the assassination just isn't there. If new, credible information comes to light, it should definitely be examined with rigor. But until then, it's essential to rely on the strongest evidence available when considering historical events.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 16:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Second response:

It's great to see you're open to discussing the complexities of this case, which indeed has many layers. Let's address the points you've brought up about the possibility of James Earl Ray having assistance from the FBI or Memphis PD.

William Pepper's involvement and theories are certainly a significant aspect of the story for many who doubt the official account. Given his professional background and personal connection to King, it makes sense that his perspective would carry weight. However, when we look at allegations of this magnitude, we must apply rigorous standards to the evidence.

The claims about Clyde Tolson, J. Edgar Hoover’s assistant, delivering cash and organizing a conspiracy rely heavily on anecdotal evidence and hearsay, rather than direct, tangible proof. While these stories from alleged witnesses compiled by Pepper are compelling, they commonly face scrutiny for their reliability. In the realm of criminal investigation, the chain of evidence and corroboration through multiple, independent lines are crucial. Hearsay and late-stage recollections, particularly decades after the fact, are fraught with potential issues of memory reliability and influence from external sources.

About the investigation being insufficient due to Ray's confession—it is true that a confession can sometimes lead to a reduction in investigative momentum. This is a valid concern in many criminal cases. However, the FBI conducted a comprehensive two-month manhunt leading to Ray's arrest, and other pieces of evidence aligned with his guilt, such as his fingerprints on the rifle and eyewitness accounts describing his movements.

In criminal cases, the question becomes whether there is a 'beyond reasonable doubt' threshold met on guilt. The narrative proposed by Pepper presents a scenario that requires a vast number of individuals to both keep a secret and to not leave any tangible, direct evidence of this conspiracy. The probability of such an event occurring diminishes with each additional required participant, based on what's known as the "conspiracy theory paradox"—essentially the more people involved in a supposed secret, the less likely it is to remain a secret.

Finally, it’s important to remember that a compelling story isn't the same as conclusive proof. Strong claims need equally strong evidence, and to date, investigations, including the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s, have not substantiated the theory that the FBI, Memphis PD, or other government entities were accomplices in Dr. King's assassination. This doesn't remove deserved criticism for how they handled the surveillance and intimidation of Dr. King and others but does cast considerable doubt on their direct involvement in murder.

Skepticism and the pursuit of truth are vital, especially in matters of historical significance and justice. Yet, skepticism should apply to all claims, including those against the usual narrative. The weight of evidence must guide our conclusions, and as of now, it points to Ray acting alone. If new information were to emerge, it should be thoroughly and seriously examined. Until then, we must be cautious about accepting theories that, while provocative, lack the requisite evidential support to overturn the established understanding of events.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 16:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Third response:

You're touching on a very important point: transparency is key when it comes to historic investigations involving public trust. The FBI's openness regarding its actions from that era would certainly contribute to a more thorough public understanding and may help resolve lingering doubts.

It's true that historians often rely on various types of evidence, including hearsay and recollections, to paint a picture of the past, especially when more concrete data isn't available. Although these types of evidence can offer valuable insights, they must be used with caution. The limitations of human memory, especially over long periods, and the influence of subsequent events, cannot be overstated. Moreover, historians employ a critical lens when examining this kind of evidence, cross-referencing with concrete facts and corroborating stories among independent sources to build a credible narrative.

When considering why witnesses would come forward without having a clear motive to fabricate stories, several factors might play a role. Individuals might sincerely believe in their accounts due to misremembering or conflating events, and some may be influenced by prevailing conspiracy theories. The risk to reputation can indeed indicate sincerity, but it doesn't automatically equate to accuracy. People engage in risky behavior for various reasons, and being incorrect doesn't always stem from malice—it can also be a result of honest mistakes or deeply held convictions.

Furthermore, it's important to evaluate all motives behind the accusations critically. For instance, while William Pepper and the witnesses he's cited don't seem to gain materially from their claims, there can be other incentives, such as a desire for attention, belief in a cause, or disaffection with the establishment, that could motivate such assertions, even subconsciously.

One way to bring more clarity to the issue would be to push for the release of all remaining documents related to the case. Campaigning for full disclosure and a transparent review of the evidence by independent experts could bring more light to the subject. If there has been a miscarriage of justice or suppression of information, such actions could help reveal it.

Ultimately, it is essential to strike a balance between healthy skepticism of official accounts, the weight of evidence, and the understanding that sometimes the more straightforward explanation—while it may be unsatisfactory to some—can be the correct one. Seeking further transparency from the FBI is a logical step, one that aligns with democratic values and the pursuit of truth. Encouraging robust, independent analysis of the evidence is critical in assessing the validity of all claims, including those of conspiracy.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 16:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Fourth response:

I appreciate your continued engagement with this topic, and it's clear that you are weighing each piece of information carefully.

The removal of the bushes and potential destruction of the crime scene the morning after Dr. King's assassination certainly raises questions. Typically, such actions would be scrutinized in any reputable investigation, as they can inadvertently or deliberately interfere with crime scene integrity. It's plausible that this was an oversight by individuals unaware of the bushes' relevance, or it could have been a result of poor communication or coordination among various departments—a sadly too common issue in large-scale investigations. Nonetheless, this kind of action does not inherently point to conspiracy; it could also indicate procedural failure.

Regarding the ballistics tests on the rifle found outside the boardinghouse, it's admittedly troubling when forensic evidence cannot provide a definitive conclusion. This situation underscores some of the limitations of forensic science at the time. Lack of distinctive grooves on the bullet does not conclusively tie the rifle to the crime, but when considered alongside other pieces of evidence, such as Ray's possession of a similar weapon, his fingerprints on the gun, and his presence at the scene, investigators built a circumstantial case that led to his initial guilty plea.

While each individual piece of indirect evidence might not be conclusive on its own, the totality of the evidence can create a compelling narrative. In legal contexts, circumstantial evidence can be quite powerful, especially when it forms a consistent narrative pointing to one's involvement in a crime. However, it's crucial that such narratives are constantly re-examined with any new insights or evidence that come to light.

You are entirely correct that the most responsible and transparent action the government could take is the full declassification of all remaining documents concerning Dr. King's assassination. A complete public release would allow independent experts and researchers to examine the evidence with fresh eyes. Regardless of whether this leads to a reaffirmation of the established account or the uncovering of new details, the truth is best served by openness and the rigorous application of forensic and historical analysis.

In the spirit of justice and historical accuracy, it is essential to keep pushing for transparency from the FBI and other government agencies. The truth, whatever it may be, has intrinsic value, and efforts to disclose all relevant information not only honor Dr. King’s legacy but reinforce the public's right to government accountability.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 16:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

In short, the AI did a lot better than I expected, and I'm pretty sure it's been fed this conspiracy theory a few times before. It ended up agreeing with me on a lot of points, probably because I'm not 100% a believer in the conspiracy theory. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 16:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Final evaluation from the AI:

Feedback: **Conspiracy Plausibility**: The conspiracy you described was rated by an AI as having a plausibility score of **2 out of 5**. This suggests that, compared to other conspiracies, the AI found it to be relatively plausible.

**Belief Change**: Your belief in the conspiracy decreased following the intervention, with your initial belief dropping from **75 out of 100** to **61 out of 100**. This represents a change of **14 points** towards disbelief.

**Comparative Analysis**: In terms of belief change, your change ranks in the **92nd percentile** when compared to others who believed in conspiracies with similar plausibility and importance. This means your shift in belief is more significant than the majority of similar participants, indicating a strong response to the intervention.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 16:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes information is not recorded at the time because it is not seen as significant, or it is common knowledge (the dictionary definition 'Everybody knows what a horse looks like' (and eg nobody notes what hardform computer memory storage they use).

In some cases perhaps there is not a vast all encompassing conspiracy but 'Venn diagram interactions' - as with information and things travelling between different groups along the Silk Roads. Anna Livia (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The government likes to classify shit it finds embarrassing. Maybe there isn't evidence for potential federal collusion with Ray in MLK's assassination, but I'm willing to bet there's something in those files they'd find really fucking embarrassing if it got out, or would have found embarrassing at the time anyways. It's been a really long time since 1968. The feds were able to get a moratorium on release of the full MLK file until 2027: [11] So regardless of the truth, I suspect we'll be revisiting this topic in a couple years time. Carthage (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't wait until that file gets declassified. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 17:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

From the people who brought us Jewish Space Lasers

After democrats are eating babies we have the government is controlling the hurricanes.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is nothing really new in America, at least in the last half decade... though some of the "details" have changed. Pat Robertson and many of his televangelist filth were famous for taking any hurricane that hit or missed the United States and either claiming that he steered it away due to some nonsense divine intervention or directed it to hit somewhere due to (insert moral panic here). The less said about Hurricane Bonnie (which hit the area around Robertson's 700 Club headquarters) the better I suppose. Pat Robertson is dead, so thankfully we aren't getting *quite* as many bleatings about how the homosexuality in Sarasota (you know, like... er... Bridget Zeigler of Moms for Liberty?) is causing God to cast Hurricane Milton upon it, or something similarly silly like that. Instead, we get brainless musings from a MTG who does not know much about weather but seems to have watched too many cartoonish media with "evil government" tropes. So... BobJohnson (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

So, in the states, the story is the government has taken over hurricane control from God. Sounds about right.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

(Along with MAGA style FEMA conspiracy musings from an Elon Musk.[12] How far this futurist has fallen! I mean, nothing new for the paranoid style of this nation, I remember the FEMA concentration camps rumors of old... but still...) BobJohnson (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

God is trying to kill Ron DeSantis (/joking) TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)