2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $10064.65Goal: $10000

RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive472

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 29 March 2025. 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>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>, <469>, <470>, <471>, <473>
, (new)(back)

Can't donate from New Zealand[edit]

Donations from new Zealand are blocked - both PayPal and via credit card - what's up with that?? I've donated in the past. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Stabby the Misanthrope as the treasurer is in charge of keeping track of donations. Bongolian (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
You sure you didn't misjudge one of the numbers on your card when typing it in due to a smudge of Vegemite? Impiricism (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
It'd be Marmite here - the proper Kiwi stuff - none of that British or Aussie muck! Didn't get as far as putting a card in - entered the country name and the error came up! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
It's been over a week since the last update to the total, it may well be that the $10,000 target has been met and RW doesn't need your money. Christopher (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Or perhaps they haven't and still do. In any case I'm (finally) in a position where I can (and do) donate what I consider reasonable sums to (what I consider to be) good causes just because I can. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Printed newspaper/magazines[edit]

Does anyone here subscribe to a printed newspaper? I'm asking because, in the building where I live, only three apartments still subscribe to physical newspapers and/or magazines, including mine. As far as I know, printed media seem to be more common in Europe and Asia compared to the Americas. Personally, I grew up with paper, and while I read the news online, I still enjoy reading a physical newspaper on weekends, and once a month, my favorite magazine. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

If I could afford it (income too unstable right now) I would subscribe to the economist and Private Eye - they are the only two I read cover/cover. Prefer print too, find it easier to read on eyes. No newspaper; I only cherrypick what interests me so not really worth a subscription. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
For print: I gave up the local daily years ago. They got really thick years ago (particularly the Sunday papers) before shrinking in size and subscription base. I pick up free weeklies with local news. I subscribe to Science News and Funny Times. Also some non-profits that I support send me their printed magazines. Bongolian (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
There’s a couple of national daily newspapers I might consider subscribing to (I’ve had one of them years ago), but I don’t think I’d go for a daily, physical copy. However, I might go for one model where you get a full digital subscription and physical copies on weekends, when you’re more likely to have time to sit down with an actual paper.
Another thing that mitigates against a daily physical copy is that I rarely want to read any of my prospective choices anywhere close to cover-to-cover and will almost certainly skip entire sections on most days.
Right now, though, I generally keep updated via a couple of large, public service broadcasters (domestic and foreign, using websites and podcasts, not TV) and as I have access to a large, national newspaper database at work, I can usually get any interesting paywalled articles there. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
The next time I go into a convenience store, I'll have to see if they still have any newspapers on sale. I know they had some at the convenience store I went to in another city during my Chinese New Year holiday, including Taiwan's one remaining English-language newspaper that's still available on paper. When I first came to Taiwan in 2001, there were three English-language newspapers. Two of them went online only during the 2010s. The website of one of them no longer exists. While I'm thinking about it, I remember one day when I went to get my copy of The China Post at the local OK Mart (as Circle K is called in Taiwan). There was no barcode on it. Not being able to scan it, the young man behind the counter let me have it for free. Spud (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Interesting that Circle K is still called OK in Taiwan, because they used to be called that in my neck of the woods too, before rebranding to Circle K. I wonder if it’s about some existing company already having taken the name Circle K (or something very similar) locally? I recall a similar situation when backpacking in Australia where all the Burger Kings were branded as Hungry Jack’s, because of a pre existing Australian company name at the time the US giant entered the marked down under. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I think they chose to officially call themselves OK because that's what everybody in Taiwan thought they were called. Spud (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
While you can still get hold of physical newspapers fine, I think it's getting difficult to get deliveries of them to your house (at least in the UK). Periodicals are a bit more evergreen so a day or twos wait for the post to deliver isn't so bad. One thing I do remember reading recently is that there's a funding model difference between American and Euro magazines- that the former rely on ad revenue while the latter rely on reader subs/purchases. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
My wife likes the printed coupons and circulars, so we get actual paper deliveries with our subscription. Only 2 days a week though.
I would not subscribe to this paper if it wasn't an actual decently independent media institute (Poynter Institute, probably best known outside the local area for Politifact) which is much more than what many papers have sadly become, a sorry tiny rag owned by a mega-conglomerate that spits out AP stories and does little more. If it were up to me, I'd be happy with the digital only edition, but hey. BobJohnson (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I have no idea what a circle K is but something clicked in my vault. https://youtu.be/3FbYcu5NhtQ?feature=shared It's the Bill and Ted's excellent adventure gas station convenience store scene and makes a lot more sense. Something strange is going down at the circle K. I worked at a gas station that had a newspaper rack, but in the midwest west of Chicago, there aren't chains that supply independent press. They have a newspaper rack, and it's empty by 8 am. but there's no independent print, and I don't think there could be. I hear ya, Bob, I'll check it out. It's news to me. Torrent (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Being said, there is a small zine community where I live, but it's insulated and focused on self promotion inside the zine community, as if it's hopeless to drop these Zines into the mainstream. Like, 8 years ago I was in a band that got booked for a show during a zine fest, and there were a whole 3 people who showed up for the touring band, who was from the UK and had recently lost a guitarist to Sleater-Kinney. The Zines should be at the very least read and distributed, they aren't Chick Tracts, people have heard of Jesus, but they literally might not have ever seen a tasteful photo of graffiti or a review of a local band or even know where to go to see local music. At least we did give the touring band lodging, dinner and breakfast before they set off, but man did we have a one track mind as an art community that has not payed off. Print Zines with art and opinions, put them everywhere ya dorks. Print a self interested QR code on the back to ask for money to keep printing zines, I don't understand the insular politics of it all. Print Zines for Zine fans, play music for the true fans, like, it's cool to be a tourist but the fuck, tourism implies people are curious and might want more. Don't we want that reach for our own community? Put a stack of Zines where it doesn't belong. Torrent (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The fundraiser[edit]

@Stabby the Misanthrope hasn't updated the total in well over a week. The target may well have been met by now. Anyone heard from them? Christopher (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Following this I left a message on discord last night, and now Stabby has updated it. Seems Stabby is particularly busy IRL but hasn't commented more on that. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I hope everything's ok with them. Christopher (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I've always thought the counter reporting every cent was a bit misleading - gives the impression it's live. Perhaps it should be rounded to the nearest $10 or something, but that might discourage small donations. Christopher (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thomas Fuller and Donald Trump[edit]

'Be thou never so high the law be above thee' [1]. Anna Livia (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Tate is in the USA.What now?[edit]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/27/europe/andrew-tate-romania-us-intl-hnk/index.html What should we do? He is in Florida now. Koafox (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Wait until he starts his porn webcam site again and see if Ron DeSantis blinks? (Florida's one of several US states, all Republican led as far as I know, that have porn website age verification laws).
Though actually, it's Florida, home of the Orange scamster. Plus, cryptocurrency scammers love Miami. So from my perspective there's a good possibility that Tate will choose the crypto scam route instead. I mean, Tate's travel lift was reportedly pushed by Trump. Scammers love to flock together. BobJohnson (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Alas, he is also 'yours' [as in a dual citizen]. I fully expect him to try to remain, claiming that he was a 'political prisoner' in Romania and also why he can't be sent back to the UK. I also expect this to work. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Gotta pander to the terminally online right somehow!-Flandres (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
What Now? Same as usual. Not a very satisfying usual. If they let Tate go, I think that they couldn't prove the claims against him. I do suppose him guilty of awful shit. Now he's here in the US where nobody can apparently prove anything anymore. Funny, even DeSantis doesn't want them in Florida. This is the world we are given. "Accountability," is no more than a charming expression.Zatoichi (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Romanian prosecutors insist they've not dropped the case and that there's 'conditions' attached to their journey to the USA. If Tate hasn't put up some significant assets for bail I'd be shocked. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Correct. Romanian police are holding Tate's Assets in Romania. I guess he has kissed them off for good. Trump DOJ will not extradite should it come to that (or, I should say, that would be a shock). The price of freedom. In America, when you're a star, they let you do it.Zatoichi (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Rape, misogony, sexual misconduct, abuse of minors. I guess Trump wanted company.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I doubt Trump even knows who Andrew Tate is but the fact they lifted the travel ban for him and his brother suggests otherwise. Shitbirds of a feather flock together, I guess (also possible evidence in favor of my completely unscientific pet theory of "grifter magnetism".) Gabaghoul 🥩 19:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Trump may not know or care who Andrew Tate is, but his son Barron definitely does. Antares (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Portal Templates for Hereticon[edit]

If there is an appropriate Template:Portal portal for Hereticon feel free to add it, its just so many types of woo, crappy US politics, and strange US ideas. I suspect that Mike Solana seems some aspects as central and others as camoflage but I can't read his mind. I do think that a Category for fringe networking events like this, the Natal Conference, or the London Conference on Intelligence would be useful. Polydamas (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure how to add a template, could find directions on a cursory search. But Crank Magnetism seems to be one that would fit for that event.Daev (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
The code to add a portal template is beside each Template:Portal portal but I don't see one for Crank Magnetism. Polydamas (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Cosmikdebris added the "Internet" portal template, seems a valid choice! Only two speakers did not have a visible Internet presence. Polydamas (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

What can be done about all that trolling?[edit]

Why would trolls even link to their own Wiki LTA case files. That's rather performative. What, short of CheckUser, could we do to always immediately catch these vandals? Perhaps a bot imported from Wikipedia to do some of the heavy lifting? KaDaShOvA (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

As the little shit seems pretty persistent, I guess that one of the techs could tweak the Abuse Filter to catch his common edits. Though that might just result in him being less predictable until he gets bored enough to move on.
We should start protecting the pages he's targeting too. Daev (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Would it be a good time to leave if this lawsuit fails?[edit]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/28/fec-lawsuit-independent-agencies-executive-order-00002733 Phantasmagoria (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving. Torrent (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)?
It would be much nicer if all the Putin / Trump cock-suckers were transported to that Putin-made shithole called Russia and saw what the Trumpism end game actually is like. BobJohnson (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
My family says they won't leave anytime soon. But I wish we would. Koafox (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Where would you go? I ask not because I want to discount your feelings but because I'm starting to think the same thing. The government is in the process of shooting its own economy, transportation and healthcare infrastructure, and every diplomatic tie it has with the free world in the foot all for the chance to own a few libs. Gabaghoul 🥩 15:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Unless one has special circumstances (e.g., spouse with foreign citizenship, millions of dollars in spare cash available, retirement with a pension to Costa Rica, an overseas job, or a scholarship offer), it is difficult for US citizens to take up permanent residency in most countries. Barring permanent residency, there is the option of nomadic lifestyle: traveling between visa-on-arrival countries until the tourist visa expires. This latter option is not that cheap since one can't legally work in the countries one travels to unless one can work entirely remotely. Bongolian (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Prior to retirement age, your best options involve work (this applies to any country, not just the US). If you have an in-demand career, or want to start a business in a country, or are remote and can take advantage of "digital nomad" visa, then the options to emigrate (temporarily in many cases, but still) are a lot more open. When you reach retirement age, some countries also offer retirement visas as well. You don't necessarily need millions, but the options to emigrate are universally difficult if you are poor and/or unskilled.
But the thing is, while Trumpism is doing considerable damage, there are plenty of other countries whose problems are actually *gasp* worse than even the United States under Trump. So you have to be careful. The "grass is not always greener" on the other side, as they say.
Due to these difficulties, I still think that "move to a blue state" is a far more reasonable goal should one feel the need. This will not resolve the considerable issues that things like the Trump tariffs and DOGE government cutting will create, but this may help many "culture war" type issues, including greater availability of medical care and non-shitty schools for any children you wish to have. BobJohnson (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It depends upon what you would expect to accomplish by leaving. The above point about moving to a blue state is, I think, the only sensible suggestion for 99% of folks not in retirement. For the most part, with any luck, people living in blue states will be annoyed but not much affected by Trump's asshole antics. I fear that if the US really collapses it will be bad in many other places. Folks in red states fucked with the bull and are going to get the horn. If you plan to pay attention to current events for the next four years, you are gonna be annoyed by Trumps stupidity no matter where you are living. The serenity prayer comes to mind as relevant.Zatoichi (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

To quote Kenny Rogers; it's all about knowing when to hold, when to fold and when to run. And I would argue that the need to run has not yet happened under the Great Orange - in fact, part of the shitty 'Second American Revolution' plans hinge on most of the opponents either folding or running. Therefore, metaphorically holding and digging in [like the countless Govt workers right now] is the best thing to do - because not only will it make the plans a little bit harder to implement but shall also inspire wavering 'folders' to hold too. But starting to prepare to run is perhaps wise too; for example, you're not going to get advance warning if they freeze bank accounts or that you will need to get/renew your passport!
'Move to Blue states' is a double-edged sword, in my opinion. It might make you feel a bit personally safer/better but it also has the issue that you're going to be merely reinforcing a 'Blue stronghold' which in political terms isn't going to win the war against the MAGA-storm. That in these cases it's better [if you're in a Red stronghold] to either a) move to a 'Blue front' state or [if you're a bit more adventurous] a 'Red front' so you can aid the fight in an a meaningful manner. If you're actually properly considering the need to flee entirely, I'd pencil in a state 'close-ish to Canada' because barring international flights slipping across the border is perhaps is going to be the easiest manner to get the hell out. So the places to look at could be Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
The idea that there will be a place to which one might "get the hell out," is a peculiar one generally found in a panic-inducing situations. I think it's best not to panic in any event. I can imagine conditions that make residence impossible, but It's not easy to get there from here. The government can't suppress the entire population, we have too many guns, and joining the military to bully the population is nobody's idea of a way to make a living. You should do all that you can to feel better about your own life. If you want to be a martyr, move to a red state. Otherwise Vermont is a nice place. Either way, the world won't change much. Peace of mind is important. Take care of yourself. Vote Democrat by absentee ballot if you move out of the country, and stay calm.Zatoichi (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
While it's wise to not panic, I also think it's wise to not bury head in sand chanting 'it can't happen here' too. Or blithely voting Democrat and not bothering to do fuck all past that. The situation is not lost but it very well fucking could be if too many of the American Big Public simply shrug and let shit slide or simply decide to leave the country. And the idea that 'there will be nowhere to run' makes the assumption that the entire world will be either Ruscist dictatorships or simply slam the doors on everyone - which I will argue is unlikely in the extreme. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Given that It has already "happened here," I think only the trumpists have their heads in the sand. Happily vote Democrat and do what makes you happy. Do not suffer for an abstract reason unless being a martyr makes you feel better. Nothing has been lost but our sense of self-satisfaction. That's a good thing. The first rule of stupidity should always be in mind. There are always more stupid people than you think there are. I, myself, forgot that rule when I thought Trump could not possibly win the election. The only solution for individuals is to locate where there are fewer stupid people. It will be quite a while before the hardships of dealing with life in Amerika, can be overcome by moving to another country. Few places will welcome you unless you have money, and if you are broke, no one will welcome you unless the dogs are chasing you on your way; and even then, expect hardships to continue.Zatoichi (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Well, aren't you a happy camper? Why the hell don't you just say 'give up, keep your head down and perhaps as 'the New Order' is assembled you won't get your face mashed to a bloody pulp?' KarmaPolice (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
From my personal viewpoint, I don't think people really leave on *pure* politics alone. Yes, there's a lot of angry noise on the social medias, but that's bluster.
What really drives people to seek new locales? Life changing events. Falling in love with someone of another nationality, for instance. Decisions on where to raise your family, evaluating mundane things such as education and the job climate and whatnot. Job opportunities. "Black swan" events. That sort of stuff. Politics can drive migration, of course, if such turns into a serious "black swan" event, or if there is nasty tribalism stuff going on. That's not fully Trumpism... yet (though that definitely is Putin's Russia, to give an example in that direction, and there's certainly places in the United States where you do not want to be a minority.)
But. The Republicans (as a party, at least) clearly are anti-education and anti-intellectual at this point, with many thinking that such is "indoctrination" or something. These attitudes seriously threaten future school quality if you are on that path of life; while some "red states" do have decent education for now, many do not, and the future is "shaky" given the current climate. And when it comes to health care, there is a heavy reliance on charlatans and pseudoscience. These are fundamentals that go beyond politics. Yes, it's a double edged sword in some ways as this behavior becomes self-reinforcing. I do think that part of Trumpism (as well as related movements world wide) is due to the well documented rural brain drain. But what can you do?
As an anecdote, I know of a couple. One is from Louisiana. One is from Finland. They ended up moving to Finland in large part because the schools in Finland are so much fucking better. It's hard to tell people "oh, you should mess with your child's future education" simply on the hope that the GOP (especially *cough* Louisiana) gets any better.
The United States benefited greatly from past major brain drains. The current state of many rural communities even now shows what happens when talent flees (and with restrictive abortion laws popping up in many states, there's already been a documented intrastate brain drain too, making things worse.) Imagine if the United States is not the recipient of brain drains as it was in the past, but an exporter of talent instead. I don't think this is *quite* the state now, but this is certainly a possibility if the nation turns fully Trumpist, methinks. (I mean, Elon Musk is already trying to fire as many scientists as possible. History shows that this is a really bad move...)
I sympathize with the "stay and fight" thought, but I don't think pure politics really drives most people's desire (or lack thereof) to relocate. BobJohnson (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't so readily dismiss social media. If there's a good indicator for the modern zeitgeist, I would say it's social media. There's not really an easy way to demarcate social media from meatspace comings and goings anymore. It's become the postmodern town square. Antares (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I think it's a bit worse than BobJ is painting it; we need to remember a keystone of Project 2025 is to basically gut the civil service of non-political professionals and replace them with partisan hacks while the anti-corruption guardrails are chopped up for kindling. It is not stupid to assume that as the New Order is installed, all services will decline due to both the slash/burn from the Boor and what seats are left are filled with incompetents, the bigoted and/or corrupt who promptly start running shit into the ground [while crony capitalism runs riot, sucking what life is left in the state]. A series of purges [esp law enforcement/judiciary] along with a self-neutering of media outcry can further erode folks SoL as more and more 'rights' become more theoretical in nature. Deregulation is another major risk; the effective abolishment of orgs such as the FDA will result in a lot more stuff [from your pork chop to the water] becoming distinctly 'dodgy'. Soon enough, you're in the world where every public official is effectively untouchable, you're having to budget for all the bribes you're paying, bottled water is costing you $500 p/a per person, your workplace is being filled with juiced-in cretins who are being hired in attempt of The Company buying political protection and as media increasingly self-censor you find your ability to simply have a private life increasingly challenged. All of them are both 'political' and also something which would hack off 'nonpolitical' folks and drive them to want to leave.
I don't think social media is a good example of what the Big Public are really thinking, but it is a very important tool in whipping up the modern mob. It's not really 'the town square' anymore [if it was ever], more the organised rallies in stadia or meetings in church halls. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Zelensky Did Everything He Could Even More Than That[edit]

He stretched a foreign invasion expected to last just three days—into three years, crying out to the world for help.

Zelensky became president in 2019, but Russia had already annexed Crimea in 2014, five years earlier. It had also sent troops into Donbas, taking control of the eastern region. This war didn’t start after Zelensky was elected—on the contrary, he initially sought a ceasefire with Russia.

It’s easy to suggest making peace with a neighbor that has occupied your land, but that’s not a simple choice.

When Zelensky took office, the country was gripped with fear for its national integrity and security. Russia had already seized Ukrainian territory and was a looming threat, ready to take more. A powerful neighbor that denied Ukraine’s very existence could swallow it at any moment.

That was the situation when Zelensky stepped up. He defended his country in the way he thought best. He never had a public mandate to surrender, to say: “Take Crimea, take Donbas too, do as you please."

Ukraine lacked the strength to fight Russia alone, and even to protect what remained, it had to seek allies. NATO membership seemed like the only shield. When Zelensky took office, Ukraine’s constitution already included a commitment to joining NATO. He simply pursued that goal, like his predecessors. But the same excuses that had blocked Ukraine’s NATO membership for 20 years remained.  

Russia demanded that Ukraine disarm, dissolve its military, and stay neutral. But even with an army and weapons, Russia had already taken Ukrainian land—what would happen without them? No president has the authority to disarm their own nation. And look at how the very countries that once guaranteed Ukraine’s security—America and Russia—are behaving now!

Russia’s demands weren’t just about Ukraine; they involved NATO. Moscow wanted NATO’s existing eastern members to withdraw. How could Ukraine, struggling just to join NATO, fulfill such demands?

So what was Zelensky supposed to do? Either surrender or defend—those were the only options. He didn’t pick up a gun and declare war to reclaim Crimea.

America and the West had pledged support. The U.S. was even bound by agreements. When help is available, a country will fight for its survival—otherwise, what’s the point of an army? Asking for aid in defense isn’t wrong. Even with cancer, we seek treatment, knowing the outcome isn’t entirely in our hands.

Had anyone believed Ukraine would last three years, better weapons would have arrived earlier. It took months for the world to believe he would even survive. On day one, everyone thought he’d either flee or be killed. Had he run, Ukraine wouldn’t exist today—that much is clear.

Instead, he gave up his comfortable life, risked everything, and fought for his country. What else should a president do? While bombs rained down, he appeared on video, rallying resistance.

A powerful neighbor wants Ukraine’s rich industrial east. If possible, it wants the whole country. At the very least, it has openly declared its goal of seizing the coastline. Meanwhile, another powerful force is eyeing Ukraine’s minerals, eager to exploit them for generations. Yet we blame the war on Zelensky, a man neither a hero nor a traitor, but certainly not a coward. Most importantly, “he didn’t started this war.” Look into his weary face, ask ordinary Ukrainians, and you’ll see just one concern—national security. They are willing to endure anything if it means saving their country. They plead: "Take our minerals if you must, but guarantee our security." This is what Trump mocked as "Ukraine’s humiliation." But if there’s no guarantee of survival, why give anything at all?

Zelensky may not win this battle. His life is increasingly at risk. Sooner or later, he may be assassinated. If Putin offers America what it wants from Russia, Ukraine might not survive at all. After all, more than 50% of the world’s natural resources are in Russia. If the U.S. moves its troops into Canada or Greenland, Russia wouldn’t even need to object.

But if a miracle happens and Ukraine survives, the greatest credit will go to Zelensky.

Ukraine’s future is uncertain. Wait and watch. The way the world is heading, not just Ukraine but all small and weak nations face an uncertain fate. The humiliation, threats, and suffering Zelensky endures today may soon be reflected in many other faces. "Self-reliance" is an illusion. How can Bhutan be self-reliant next to nuclear-armed India? How can Canada be independent of a superpower like America? How can Moldova or Kazakhstan stand on their own beside a nuclear-armed Russia?

If misfortune strikes, none of us are invincible. — Lunar|  11:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyone here still thinks things will go back to normal or moderate themselves once Trump's heart stops from burger grease? Or still waiting to see if the Republicans will allow another free election? If so, I wish I had your optimism. What a world. Impiricism (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
What Trump and Vance did was shameful. They embarrassed the US internationally.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
People voted for this shit, sadly. (And the Trump cock-sucking brigades online, who see nothing wrong with Trump and Vance's embarrassing anger blowup, are doing their best to stifle contradictory opinions in their little terfdoms.)
I mean, regardless of what happens on other angles, there's no question that the "everyone but US" elements in organizations like NATO should work towards a future where the US is an isolated and diminished world power, with "illiberal democracy" or oligarchy certainly on the cards. If Ukraine falls through a combination of Trump getting bigly played by Putin, as well as certain American voters getting bigly played by Trump and the GOP propaganda, it will likely be a "pyrrhic victory" for the US. BobJohnson (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I think this is worse than 'embarrassing self' level. This is the classic 'disruptor' technique - to smash up the status quo to the point it's impossible to go back to ever - in this respect, 'nuke the civil service' and 'dissolve NATO' are one and the same.
I have long said that one of the key advantages of the USA has in the global politics game is it's relative ability to find friends anywhere - that it shall never be fighting alone and is capable of calling on help when needed. Europe's relative military weakness was countered by quite a bit of aquesence towards Washington's leadership and some economic exploitation (Cocacolonisation) which helped soften her slide vs Chinese power.
This ultimate result of this shit might be that while 'Europe' is much more capable of defending herself it might be on a continent which no longer has any US bases and is willing/able to 'defend self' against American interests too. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
As an American, I supported American contributions to European security. Now, I am embarrassed to say, our moron president has abandoned solidarity with the Europeans; an unwritten alliance that had existed since the last world war has ostensibly ended. Now, I hope to see Europe unify in its opposition to Russian aggression. Europe has a GNP three times larger than Russia's, and a population five times larger than that of Russia. It's go time for Europe.Zatoichi (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't really know about the rest of it, but I doubt this was a planned stunt. It doesn't make anybody look too good if you ask me. Bad diplomacy for all parties. Ifordetail (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Planned or not. Trying to carry out international diplomacy in front of a roomfull of camers was a dumb decision on the part of the Trump team.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Not sure on the 'planned' part, but Trump did say he thought it was good that it was broadcast. He also succeeded through this in rallying GOP people who previously supported Ukraine behind him, since now such people had to choose and they chose Trump. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Some Republicans are pissed at Trump's bullshit towards Zelensky and Ukraine right now (see here). Antares (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Tump has done his bit for Europen unity. For instance there is buy european movement (with associated reddit group). And the UK and the EU are being obliged to close ranks even more.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
And the fucking insults just keep coming. Way to go to fuck off one of your oldest and firmest allies! The only plus side on this is that Toad is in full Trump-sucking off mode and that's unlikely to bode well for Reform support. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Oddly enough, this just happened in a moment when Americans are applying for UK citizenship in record numbers.[2] GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Question (and break)[edit]

To what extent does Putin *need* Zelensky to survive/leave in an acceptable manner so as not to be blamed for whatever happened? Anna Livia (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Putin will be happy to see the back of Zelensky, no matter how. Sure, it might bring Putin some personal satisfaction to see Zelensky humiliated during “peace” talks á la Trump, but I don’t think Putin would mind or suffer any serious, adverse consequences, if Zelensky were to have a convenient “accident”, no matter the timing.
Short of Putin personally executing Zelensky on live transmission (and even that would probably give him “badass points” in some circles), there will always be just enough plausible deniability for Putin to hide behind and his reputation is already trash everywhere but his stalwart backers (e.g. Beijing) or fanboys (e.g. Budapest) and neither of these groups are going to change their minds on Putin, no matter what happens to Zelensky.
Nor do I see Putin’s chances of getting a deal fall significantly with Zelensky out of the picture. Indeed, it might even be advantageous for Putin not to have to contend with Zelensky who has built up an international status and reputation unmatched by anyone else in Ukraine. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Putin would probably be happier with Zelensky out of the way. But it far from his main objective - he either wants to take over Ukraine completely or turn it into a client state. This is his aim with or without Zelensky.
In the event that he does not achieve these aims after killing off a large proportion of working-age Russians for little real gain - then the presence of absence of Zelensky will likely be the least of his worries.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
The question was more - could 'damage to Zelensky' cause a backlash or blame for Putin? Anna Livia (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
What Putin needs and what he thinks he needs is two different things. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just need to share this[edit]

My crazy aunt has just shared a post on Facebook praising Trump and JD Vance for being dicks to Zelenskyy and calling Donald Trump a brilliant chess player who is 10 moves ahead. I commented, "What a load of bollocks!" It looks like my family is going to be another one that gets split up by the culture wars. Spud (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I would be prepared to bet that Trump doesn't know how to play chess and lacks the ability to learn it.
His technique is to break stuff and throw it at the wall. And when it falls down in a particular configuration claim that this was the plan all along.
More to your point, I was talking to my brother-in-law recently who was claiming that Trump was a great businessman - my response was that his businesses have gone bankrupt at least six times and that he even managed to go bankrupt running a casino. My bother-in-law changed the subject. I totally agree that it's a problem when relatives drink the Kool-Aid.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I genuinely don't understand people that double down, sometimes triple down on just... nonsense in general. And then still refuse to acknowledge that they were incorrect when things eventually pass. Like the folks that said people getting the Covid-19 vaccine were going to be dead in year... you ask them about it and they just scowl angrily, say they never said such things, or say that it definitely will still happen. Are such folks straight up crazy? Or just very stupid and insecure? Impiricism (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
None of the above, on the main. I put most of this stuff down to an combination of 'path of least resistance' and 'emotional sunk cost'. That if you've 'invested' so much in Belief X it is easier to simply shout down the naysayers, to ignore all the contrary evidence and attribute bad motivations towards 'the opposition' than clamber up 'the long, cold and stony road' [because it involves self-reflection, thinking, learning, emotional discomfort etc] of which the final destination is in fact unknown to you. This becomes even harder to do if you have subsumed said Belief X into a core element of your psyche in which it's challenging/destruction can cause a major 'crisis in confidence'.
What Bob's in-law did was a classic crimestop technique. On encountering contrary evidence to their beliefs, they simply refuse to mentally engage and shut down the conversation, most likely tagging Bob as 'a thought criminal' or 'one of Them' which must not be talked to again. And this is how personal echo chambers grow. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
And I've just gone on to my aunt's Facebook profile for the first time in years. It's full of pro-Trump, pro-Putin, anti-Zelenskyy and anti-Ukraine crap. Some of it's British, criticizing the "BBC propaganda machine" for its pro-Ukraine stance. There's also some stuff about chemtrails. (I know she used to post stuff about chemtrails all the time a few years ago, but I thought she'd moved past that.) She's fucking nuts! Spud (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Another GBeebies viewer, perhaps? There's so much crap floating on that channel it's taking forever for me to cover in the rewrite... KarmaPolice (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
She probably is. Spud (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
One of my aunts told me yesterday that Bridgette Macron is trans and that Candace Owens has conclusive evidence evidence for that. Another one is taking ayahuasca because she fell on the new age loophope. I love them, but I'm really fucking fed up of all this shit. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I’m SO grateful that my parents have never joined any social media platform, but have actively resisted even being on Facebook, despite calls from both close and more distant relatives. While it seemed a bit, well, conservative (as in sceptical towards change, NOT the US political ideology/cult), back when I actually used Facebook on a somewhat regular basis, it seems pretty wise from the vantage point of the present day. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I said similar to the old boy who I work for the very same the other day. He might be almost Mr Burns level of obsoleteness in tech/social stuff but it also means he's been protected from all the crap too. This sounds a little cruel, but I am actually hoping he dies before it becomes literally impossible to live without the internet/smartphone [which technically he already can't... he gets me to do that stuff]. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I still think it’s quite feasible to choose not to be on SoMe without going offline altogether. My dad is pretty “data literate” and has been quite a diligent web user (incl. doing a bit of work on websites in his spare time) for decades. He also has a smartphone etc., but he simply refused to use SoMe, mainly because he considered them to be an annoying waste of time and didn’t think they had anything significant to offer him. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Ukraine Cash[edit]

So trump has decided to stop all aid to Ukraine. That's really depressing.

But individuals can make a difference by making their own donations. It's the only way I can think of fighting back. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

If you're an American, deluging every elected official who 'represents' you with 'this is not fucking on' messages is worth a shot. Democrats need to have some spinal support and half of Republicans are soggy careerists who might be able to be bent into opposition if they feel public backlash is large enough.
Anyway, it's not the cash supplies which are the critical area; it's the weapons. Europe if needs be could pick up the tab for the former, but we simply don't have the industrial capacity to cover the American military shortfall. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Even worse, some crucial systems are either only produced in the US or require US green lighting for export (incl. donation to Ukraine), due to the presence of sensitive US components in them or US co-development. And Trump is just the kind of vindictive, spiteful POTUS who’s likely to prohibit all of these weapons from being donated/exported to Ukraine, even if the European governments are willing and able to do so. Not to mention the risk that the US stops sharing crucial battlefield intelligence with Ukraine and what that might do to Ukraine’s combat effectiveness and the kind of additional civilian and military losses this is likely to entail. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that sending cash to Ukraine will help them. You can also specify if you want your money spent on defense, demining, medical aid, rebuilding or education. So people can help out with things other then weapons.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Sure, cash is nice, but unless Ukraine can be ensured a weapons pipeline too, there are some practical military limitations that no amount of ready cash will help overcome. The EU has already been financing a lot of Ukrainian non-military spending, allowing Ukraine’s own budget to prioritise armaments.
I’m also pretty wary of donor mandated spending in general (whether to Ukraine or elsewhere), because not only does it smack of paternalism (“We know better what’s good for you than you do”), but it can warp priorities on the receiving end towards the donors’ pet projects, rather than what’s actually important.
Not that domestic control is always ideal (local governments can have equally skewed priorities, quite apart from potential issues of corruption), but in a serious struggle like that in Ukraine, I’m more concerned about the limitations and overhead from such targeted donations, than potential domestic problems within Ukraine. The main positive thing about targeted donations is the degree to which they encourage people to donate who otherwise wouldn’t have.
One “good” thing about the war is that any serious corruption can be presented not only as a white collar crime, but as treason or at least a betrayal of the national war effort. This has certainly made it a lot riskier for Ukrainian oligarchs to engage in the kind of pervasive corruption that has unfortunately been very prevalent. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
On the balance of things, I think being able to roughly define where you want your donation to go is the right thing to do. Firstly, it generates a 'personal bond', knowing [well, imagining better] what your donation went on which also gives the ability to be given as a gift - I mean, why not give a goat for a loved one's birthday?. I make use of this quite often for the folks who already have too much crap. What's more, there will be some folks who won't donate to a more general fund if they feel it would 'cross a line' - for example, Quakers generally extend their prohibition of violence towards aiding violence by the provision of weaponry. However, I do agree the conditions shouldn't be too onerous; I won't be pissed that the coin I chipped in 'for a drone' didn't actually go towards a drone, but I would like to understand it did go to something which made a Russian's day a lot more shit [which is an obvious issue; I gave cash to get something which ideally killed people. Knowing that 'there is no real alternative' only allows me to override my gut feelings of wrongness, not silence them].
There isn't actually nothing hugely new with this either. During WW2, for example even before the American entry to the war there was groups fundraising for assistance to the UK while here in the UK there was similar for the people of the USSR [that is when they quit selling Hitler oil, steel and wheat]. And as the UK was a lot more corrupt during WW2 than folks like to recall there's nothing to assume there's any difference in Ukraine right now. In this case, it's perhaps best to plan to get the profiteers etc after the fact; for example, performing an immediate currency change and start hitting folks with unexplained wealth orders. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Sure, there is a long history of stipulating that donations shouldn’t be used for weapons etc. to allow for donations from those of a more pacifist bend and I can see a pretty good argument for doing that. But much beyond such very general and principled outlines, I think that the paternalism, warping and overhead problems quickly begin to outweigh any benefits.
While demining will be extremely important once the conflict is over, it’s probably not a key priority right now, when a lot of minefields are in areas of active operations. As for the other kinds of non military spending, I’m pretty sure that Kyiv probably has a better idea of what to prioritise, than some random internet do-gooder.
To put it crassly, beyond some sort of ethical “no guns” clause, I see little reason for any more detailed stipulations, unless you think that Kyiv is either unable or unwilling to prioritise Ukrainian needs.
There’s also a clear difference between this kind of aid and donating to specific charities of the “buy a goat” or “buy malaria nets” kind, because the latter are targeted to these specific efforts, though we can always argue over whether their chosen means are the most appropriate ways to address the underlying problems (poverty and public health). ScepticWombat (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I make 2 contributions to Ukraine - 1 to a generic "equipment for the troops" fund, 1 to a specific person (my tour guide in Chernihiv in 2019!) who is part of a team who 3-d print on demand for the AFU - I've just doubled this 2nd one. Interesting scheme AFU run - they have a website where they publish their needs, then anyone can pick up the "contract" to make those items and deliver them. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Changing signature is kinda hard[edit]

It took me much longer than I'd like to admit to figure out how signatures work. In my case, I needed to write [[User:Ifordetail|👁️4️⃣🔎]] ([[User talk:Ifordetail|talk]]). I thought you'd have to include ~~~~~ to automatically substitute the date as well. Could somebody make this process more intuitive? This is especially important if new users want to try. 👁️4️⃣🔎 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

President Trump about to shutter DOE[edit]

President Trump will soon sign an executive order directing DOE secretary Linda McMahon to shut down the Department of Education as soon as today. Although it legally can only be closed by an act of Congress, when has a little thing such as longstanding rule of law stopped the king-in-chief from doing stuff like this anyway? 2001:67C:2628:647:7:0:0:CD (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Nearly 40% of project 2025 is complete 2600:387:F:D19:0:0:0:B (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

He may also make the 'Five Eyes' cross-eyed [3] (other sites available). Anna Livia (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Should we spam this link with brain rot?[edit]

Here is the link: https://enddei.ed.gov/ What do you think of this plan? Koafox (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Link is giving me an HTTP403 (forbidden) error message... here's an archived copy though... U.S Dept of Education web form to report "DEI" activity. Concept seems familiar somehow... oh whatever could it be... Impiricism (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Might be because you're Canadian. It shows up fine for me. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Link didn't work for me (Spain EU). But using a VPN to the US it worked. Which might be interesting in itself.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Obviously I did not switch browsers and make a false report to clog up their system. I would not encourage anyone to do such a thing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I found an archived version of one of the longest facfics ever written that one could hypothetically spam the website with (although there's a character limit so I don't think the whole thing will fit). I wouldn't do that, of course, but it might be cool and awesome and sexy if someone else did it in theory (not for real very not real) Gabaghoul 🥩 22:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
There's some strange things with this website; even from the US side, some objects or graphics won't load on occasion, or the site occasionally won't load at all. You expect this on the modern enshitified web, but this is really weird behavior for such a basic HTML site (even the JS isn't minified, a rarity these days).
From another angle, it's a shame. The folks at 18F seemed to be doing a pretty good job modernizing some of the US government websites. I guess this incompetent shit is your replacement. Welcome to Trumpville, eh? BobJohnson (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I didn't have to click the link to say 'no?' If the title was changed, maybe I don't get it, but the question is entirely answered by saying 'no' and that's easy. What do you want to spam a website for? Torrent (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

But - if Trump closes the DOE - then the MAGA crowd won't have a centralised point they can use to report woke activity! Fairly typical non-joined-up thinking.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so it's the Department of Education which is on the cutting board. First, spamming it with "brain rot" is a really valid excuse to shut it down, spamming 'brain rot' is a common right past center way of speaking, and again, the answer is 'no,' but leads to the question 'what the fuck are you talking about?' Is the Department of Education bad?Torrent (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I have said this for, lucky me, decades. There are three things to never privatize. Education, Medicine, and Prison. We need our whole society to benefit from these three things regardless of anyone's origins, means, or intentions. If these three are taken care of by the state, it's not fascism, it's socialism and it fucking works to build the foundation of a state. It's the way towards the American dream if you fucking have a synapse in your brain. Privatizing k-5 is fucking insane, it's a Christian nationalist pie in the sky ideal. Privatizing medicine is stupid, Privatizing prisons is stupid. There should not be an incentive to profit from any of these public needs. Like, take a minute to push it through your brain from the one brain cell you use to the one you know is there but refuse to use. Public education is a good thing. Complain about it for as many valid reasons as you want, but it is a net good that kids in the US can read, eat lunch, and have a place to go when their parents are at work. Reform it, fine. Remove it? Now we got problems. Torrent (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit Filter Update[edit]

We're having a problem here. I think the edit filter needs to be updated. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Does this wiki need an edit filter noticeboard? Wikipedia has its own noticeboard, so do we need one too? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Specify the problem in more detail. Duncan from Teflpedia (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's the issue. The libeler in question is using the same identical spam comment in the defaced articles, so blacklisting that string and similar strings should suffice. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@TheEternalOutsider Will you stop making a mountain out of a molehill with this frigging vandal business. Every admin here has had some troll create a new account with a username that insults them at one time or another. Nobody's going to be searching through our diffs for those rude usernames. Nobody's going to take any vile accusations they make against you in those usernames or on your talk page seriously, not even other trolls. For fuck's sake, give it a rest! Spud (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look into importing some of these versatile anti-vandal bots from WP? I don't know how any of this works on the technical end. In any case, the vandalism is getting rather annoying, and somebody should fix it for good. KaDaShOvA (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kadashova. Is this what you were looking for? [4] TheEternalOutsider (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@TheEternalOutsider. There are some specialised bots that are/were supposed to catch like ninety percent of all vandalism. Most of those weren't approved, though. We could well just install them and see if they work if you ask me. KaDaShOvA (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Same old. Still sucks[edit]

Just saw a libertarian on Twitter ranting about how student loan forgiveness is 'theft' and 'unfair' to people who already paid off their loans. Meanwhile, they’re perfectly fine with billionaires dodging taxes through offshore accounts and corporations getting bailed out with taxpayer money. The mental gymnastics are Olympic-level. Edit0r (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

They simultaneously believe that "people should feel the consequences of their actions" and that "taxation is theft", I would imagine, so "bailing out other people's loans = letting people off scotch free from consequences" while "billionaries dodging taxes = hard-working/intelligent people fighting back against the unfair taxation system", or something. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 16:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
The Silicon Valley scene, with its libertarian-to-neoreactionary movement pipeline (and subsequent embrace of Trumpism), has been perhaps the most mask-off event I've seen of the so-called "libertarian" scene. From my perspective, a lot of so-called "libertarians" are essentially oligarchy / authoritarian capitalism bros in disguise. Albeit one with political naivety. (Like, if the culture war / nativist side of Trumpism ends up being the ones with the levers of control, what will they end up thinking of folks like Peter Thiel (oh noes, gay!) or Vivek Ramaswamy (oh noes, furriner!)?)
There are genuine libertarians out there I think, but I tend to assume (until proven otherwise) that most people who call themselves libertarian are not. BobJohnson (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Isn't it human nature for one to resent people getting what one did not get? It's injudicious, right? But, that's what we got, greedy, resentful behavior. People struggle to be generous. People seldom adhere to strict principles when those principles obstruct results in ones own interests. I hate being this cynical because it is offensive to optimists, and I'd prefer to be with them.
There is the idea of libertarianism, but nobody is really a libertarian. Let's say they have a tendency in that direction. A political philosophy that holds freedom, personal sovereignty, and liberty as primary values, eventually becomes "my freedom, my personal sovereignty and my liberty," as ones actual valuesZatoichi (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC).
I'm not so sure this can be written off merely as sour grapes/greed. The human squirrel mentality is caused by 'fear of the future' and if you add this to a hyper-individualism and a chronic shortage of resources you get the 'fuck you, got mine' and 'two wolves fighting over a piece of meat' mentality. Clearly, this makes people easier to manipulate. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Humans respond to incentives. This kind of "fuck you, got mine" mentality wouldn't fly in a hunter-gatherer gift economy, because that behavior is actively disincentivized. Antares (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I would only note that greediness and resentfulness are difficult to tease apart from the sense of injustice that those feel who do not receive a particular benefit. The sense of justice is highly valued in progressive spaces. I think that sense is also a construct of human nature. The desire for justice is an appetite. Many mammals apparently have behaviors analogous to the consequences of the human motive of revenge for injustice. Zatoichi (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I do wonder why people meat-ride billionaires even through there's a near-zero chance that the person/people they're glazing even realize that they exist. Although I guess that goes for celebrity worship in general.
As for the whole libertarianism thing, big-business tends towards authoritarianism when left to its own devices through things like Taylorism and the autocratic/oligarchic leadership structure of a lot of big companies (at least in the U.S.; maybe it's different in other countries.) Once you realize that being pro-big-business and anti-authoritarian are contradictory, you either become anti-big-business or an authoritarian capitalist (assuming you're not being cynical and just using the whole "libertarianism" thing as a justification for your own selfish behavior.) Gabaghoul 🥩 00:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Given the breadth of the varieties of libertarianism (Libertarianism#Branches and disputes within libertarianism), it seems safe to say that calling someone out as not true libertarian falls easily within the No True Scotsman fallacy. Bongolian (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it should be controversial to say that supporting a system which actively creates less liberty isn't actually libertarianism, unless you define liberty specifically to mean "liberty for big businesses to do whatever the fuck they want (with an * depending on the variety)". ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 02:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Libertarian is historically just a synonym for anti-authoritarian. If your "libertarian" politics leads to you supporting authoritarian policies, you are not a libertarian. You're an authoritarian. Words have meaning. Antares (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Bongolian made a good point. I should have mentioned that I was specifically attacking right-libertarians (pro-capitalist) - more specifically the right-libertarians who interpret being pro-capitalism as being in favor of big-business. There are plenty of libertarians who aren't capitalists and some of the capitalist libertarians make a distinction between being pro-business and pro-big-business. Gabaghoul 🥩 03:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Anytime a libertarian gets into "rules for thee, not for me" classism mode (and that's a lot of the SV "libertarian" types), they are not libertarian by my definition... or from my perspective, by the dictionary definition either. The definition of libertarian is advocating minimum government. If the amount of government that someone thinks is good suddenly hugely increases if you have a different skin color or fall afoul of some Religious Right Dominionism ethos, how does that coincide with the definition on the books?
While I am aware of the "No True Scotsman" principle, I also think that many classifications have significant foundations, of which a deviation should raise serious questions on just exactly how committed they are to the philosophy they claim. If someone claims to be libertarian -- a philosophy that advocates minimal government -- but also endorses heavy state options simultaneously, this really isn't libertarian. In fact, if their "no rules" ethos really only applies for a select "elite" class, and the "non-elites" deserve plenty of rules in their book, that's an oligarchy no matter what they call it. BobJohnson (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
A lot of people here seem to be ignorant of the fact that association of neo-liberal economics and political philosophy with "libertarianism" was largely a cold-war branding exercise to associate "freedom" with a conservative love of the market. Before the 70's, libertarian was largely the polite word for anarchist.. people who arguably had a philosophy and practice that had much more to do with freedom than what was being peddled by the like of Friedman. 2A00:23C8:3D88:E701:B543:77DB:E78C:7DA7 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
That's probably a thing, but there is also an idea of 'kick the ladder' business. It's called disruption. Once you get a solid place on the rung, you should 'kick the ladder' or disrupt everyone under/behind you to secure your place. It is to prove your worth/hold on the the ladder. And then you just say the people below you aren't qualified to handle your disruption and ask for sychophants. And business has been doing this with favors and nepotism for so long To play chutes and ladders that now we've got Trump and Musk, when we always hated Romney for being the Wall Street corporate layoff lord. So, I do agree with a lot of Libertarian ideals, including things like right to repair and ignoring curfews, but I also understand that the 'Don't Tread on Me' flag means something entirely different anymore and it's usually a weirdo culture signifier. Torrent (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the word "libertarian" was more associated with social anarchists in the past. But now, a more typical "libertarian" is someone like Javier Milei. In practice, Milei's "libertarian" is a "polite word" for Peronism, albeit in this case cranked through the Trumpism misogynist / homophobic / "Internet tough guy" lens that so many of the right-wing worldwide seem to aspire for these days. (Who knew that so many people in the world wanted to be ruled by man-children acting like 13 year old boys?) Such is quite typical of those claiming the label now. BobJohnson (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
How do we get the the libertarian idealism back? In a culture of memes, I say just freely claim the the image of 'don't tread on me' and put it on the flag. Just do it. The 'don't step on snek' meme was good, don't tread on trans rights, just steal it. If 'Don't tread on me' coiled snake becomes the center of the LGBTQIA+ flag, actual factual Libertarianism wins. I'm not joking, don't tread on human rights, just Re-appropriate a symbol like it means You agree with something and stamp it on there with your full chest. The guy who created pepe was really disappointed with how pepe memes got built into early alt right, and it took years but pepe memes don't mean much anymore. it's a coiled snake, Put it on your flags, because monarchy and fascism won't define you. Torrent (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
In a US context, “official/organised” libertarianism was literally bought out by the Kochs decades ago (hell, the late David ran as the Libertarian vice-presidential candidate back in 1980). This explains a lot of its contents and why it remains a fringe club, because it really has nothing to offer anyone but oligarchs. So, in that sense, libertarianism in the US has been a propped up zombie/astroturf movement for a very long time.
The problem is that, while this “official” US libertarianism has just been Weekending at Bernie’s for decades, this doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been influential or productive due to the very same billionaire backers and thus it’s hard to compete with in the public space for other (in my opinion, far more genuine) strains of libertarianism. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
So take it from the playbook and just use it for what it's intended for. Torrent (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Mr. Musktard[edit]

Honestly, the Musk worship is baffling. The guy is a master of self-promotion and at generating undeserved hype, but when you actually look at his track record, it's a mess. Tesla's success was built on government subsidies and the work of engineers who actually solved the problems, while Musk takes all the credit. And let's not forget how he called that cave rescuer a 'pedo guy' because his ego couldn't handle being told his submarine idea was useless. SpaceX? Sure, they've done some impressive things, but let's not pretend it's all Musk—NASA funding and a ton of talented engineers made that happen. Oh, and don't even get me started on Twitter. He buys it, fires half the staff, reinstates a bunch of far-right trolls, and then wonders why advertisers are fleeing. The guy is a walking case study in how wealth and arrogance don't equal competence. But hey, at least he's good at memes, right? Edit0r (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Musk was from my perspective a good Steve Jobs-ish futurism type figure from around the mid 2000s until, well basically, that pedo guy comment. By "Steve Jobs" figure, I mean basically the marketing and "vision" type people in technical corporations. Usually, their technical competence is minimal, or (in the manner of Bill Gates) was long given up once they assumed a management role. But most techie types can't market well, so that's not really a big deal normally.
In the mid 2000s, the Tesla Roadster made a splash. Before then, everyone essentially poo-pooed electric vehicles. I have no problem crediting Musk for some of the marketing and public relations stuff during that period.
Unfortunately I think that this initial success led to Musk thinking he was The Genius Of Everything; it didn't helped that a cult of personality had developed around his futurism persona, meaning Musk had a large group of yes-men who worshiped his every move. It also didn't help that Musk was even during this period a bit of a 13 year old boy manchild in an age of 4chan, South Park, and other bullshit where "edginess" was far more celebrated than actual knowledge. (Even back in the Slashdot days, there were a lot of Linus Torvalds "fanboys" who seemed to get really, really excited when Mr. Torvalds said "fuck" on the Linux listserv. As if you could program a kernel by cursing at it...) 'Twas part of the appeal among the normies, methinks, unfortunately...
So, yeah, here we are, and Musk has declined to just another alt-right edgelord. His track record in the 2020s really *has* been quite mixed; SpaceX and Starlink are probably the only bright spots. Tesla's latest releases (Tesla Semi and Cybertruck) have not exactly been success stories, and the whole company looks like a sham when you consider how many times Musk has over-promised and under-delivered. Twitter's a shell of itself. Of the "Magnificent Seven" of the US stock market world, Tesla's valuation looks the weirdest. Even with the recent decline... >135 P/E ratio, for what? Unlike the rest of the Mag.7, I consider Tesla a meme stock in the same manner of Gamestock and all the other r/wallstreetbets bullshit. There's no way in my mind that Tesla is worth 3 times the market cap of Toyota. (If you offered me a Cybertruck or a Toyota Land Cruiser for "tough road" situations, I would take the Toyota in a heartbeat!)
Which is a shame. Because I could see in some other timeline someone taking the momentum Tesla built up in the 2010s, actually fixing some of the "little things" like the nagging form and finish QC issues Tesla's always had an issue with, and creating something possibly actually worth something. Ain't no way now... BobJohnson (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
One of my best friends bought into Musk's hype at its peak... actually got a Tesla, "invested" into various cryptocurrencies, started regularly following and watching SpaceX launches, went so far as to even drive down to the US for one of the Starship launches. Things are of course different now... were discussing it over coffee. My friend regretfully described Musk as seeming to be perhaps one multi-millionaire/billionaire who appeared genuinely interested in advancing technology and general society, even with of course such development being tied to some financial self-interest... a troubling rich guy who nonetheless had the world's best interests at heart maybe. "Saint Elon of the Musk" was the comedic name thrown around at the time. My friend now seems most distressed over how he believed such an image, given the true character that has been revealed since. Articles that I've read about it mention a very, very good PR team that Musk eventually fired when the cult of personality and perception that they fostered eventually went to his own head. Part of life I suppose... innate desire to believe and put faith into an idea/person/thing that promises a brighter future or fulfillment, only to eventually and undoubtedly be disappointed at some point. Acknowledging such things and knowing how to move forward is a lesson that unfortunately can take time and be a struggle (queue What Is Love by Haddaway). Impiricism (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
There's also the problem of the cult of meritocracy. That being wealthy means you're competent and worthy of recognition as an authority. It's definitely a problem beyond Musk, but Elon is where it's most apparent I think. In part because of that aforementioned Dunning-Kruger effect, and also because the guy has no fucking concept of optics. Say what you want about ghouls like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, they're not tanking their brands with a flood of bullshit. Antares (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I think we can't ignore the personal appeal. The elite class on a whole are pretty dull/anonymous bunch, a significant % are old and a lot of the younger techie/finance ones are like Zucker - boring nerds. The Boor has it all; huge wealth while still being actually capable of enjoying it, it's possible for folks to imagine some women could find them genuinely attractive [that is past the wallet] and something which looks like 'a personality' if you don't stare too hard. The fact he 'really does stuff' ie isn't just a finance bro manipulating numbers on a screen simply sweetens the deal.
Or in a TL:DR - I think a lot of his fans had quite the mancrush on him. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
There is evidence that Musk was always a fuckwad: ancestral fuckwaddery (crackpot maternal grandfather, angry drunk father and angry drunk paternal grandfather), leaving South Africa on his not-very-plausible claim that he didn't want to defend Apartheid, fraudulently gaining US citizenship (a "parasitic illegal immigrant" according to Steve Bannon),[5] totalling at least two autos including a $1 million McLaren before buying a car company, the antipathy of his former colleagues (Peter Thiel, Philip Low, and his former workplace buddies who ratted on his US citizenship fraud). Bongolian (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I have always described Musk as American Royalty it's so weird but people who don't pay attention have described him as a real life Tony Stark. But let's point something out, A year past his buyout of twitter, everybody calls it X (formerly known as Twitter). He doesn't have the support he thinks he has, he is a Dauphin who kicked his support in the teeth and maybe has bought in so hard to the idea of heir apparent that he kinda ignored the fact that he's a cabinet apointee. His moves aren't popular, and he's ignorant of that as an idea. Torrent (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
The problem of "wanting to be rich", is a perennial human foible, often found in song and story. My favorite example is by Chaim Topol:
The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them like a Solomon the Wise
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!
And it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong
When you're rich, they think you really know!
Zatoichi (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Word Torrent (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Redirect Pages[edit]

Can someone point me to instructions to create a page foo which is just a redirect to page bar? The instructions for publishing a draft talk abut how to redirect hits to the draft page.

Then if anyone creates an independent page for something that was previously discussed in another article, they don't have to go around changing every Other article#Something to Something 05:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Polydamas / talk / contribs

Use #redirect[[pagename]] or #redirect[[pagename#section-tag]]. However, this feature shouldn't be used to redirect a mainspace page to a draft article. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

LTA Page[edit]

Wikipedia has a page to report cases of LTA, so do we need one here? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

LTA? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
LTA is a regular acronym for Long-term abuse. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
We are much smaller than Wikipedia. We all know who the problem editors are. We also have the mod noticeboard and the Chicken Coop. Spud (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
We might, but I've seen some people here continue engaging with obvious socks of known ban evaders despite knowing (or at least, heavily suspecting) who those socks actually are. Antares (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Having a list of our worst trolls would be a massive mistake. That's exactly what they want. They'd see it as an achievement. Ignore the fuckers! Spud (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure what it would achieve and I agree that it would counter-productive. On the other hand it is quite encouraging that we are seeing an uptick in attacks. We are obviously hitting the right targets.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Seriously, the rollback button is one fucking click. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Nowhere in my comment did I endorse this measure. Antares (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I engage with the socks because as a rule they are not obvious. We have to be careful to not insert our heads in the arse of paranoia, like CP did aeons ago [and driving away good-faith folks too]. What's more, they give you opportunities to practice polishing up your potted replies to the crankery etc which I am sure can be reused by others at a later date. Lastly, it's my bandwidth they're sucking up; you not considered that I might do this deliberately as so to keep them away from others? KarmaPolice (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I think Karma and I have disagreed. But this is fine, I engage with socks because i don't spend the time to learn who is a sock. I don't care about the identity, I care about the argument, which is not paramount to any specific argument. If Machina is ignoring my very generous takes on.his solipsism and goes on to make anti lgbt statements, man, if I'm gonna be honest, I feel like I fucked up for leaving him alone. I had other things going on, I tried really hard to invite Machina to a real world before that. I don't think anybody is a lost cause, and a sock is a statement that above all else, they like it here. I like it here, that's not hard to say. Torrent (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Most socks are here because they hate this place. And we repeatedly told Machina to seek professional help instead of relying on a bunch of non-psychologists like us for help, but he didn't want to know. So, don't feel bad for not being able to help him, Torrent. Spud (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Maybe most socks are here because they hate us, but I can't believe they hate the space and I fully disagree with the idea that connection isn't important. Maybe Machina didn't grab my hand, but it still sucks. And maybe hating the people who try to keep this site available to everyone, who have to take that hate and maintain the site is a dumb way to engage. if you like it here, do the bare minimum, and if you need a sock, reconsider your approach. I was suspected of foul play, because I don't always agree with bunk ass sweeping policies. I don't have a little army, I actually am just one person, who speaks in this place. And I like that I can do that. Torrent (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Article Creation[edit]

In order to combat vandalism, is it possible to restrict the creation of new articles in mainspace to autoconfirmed users? (Userspace can remain as-is) TheEternalOutsider (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Doxxing aside, vandals are mostly harmless. I think you should care less about them. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
The reason why I focus so much on it is because there are the occasional periods of time when no sysops are online. If someone is reading the wiki during those off-hours, there's a risk of an article appearing vandalized or troll articles that haven't been deleted. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
If the countermeasure I proposed isn't up, is there any way for at least one sysop to be online at any time? (It doesn't have to be the same sysop, just having one sysop online to prevent vandalism is infinitely better than having offtime.) TheEternalOutsider (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
As almost everyone is a sysop, I think any 'gaps of coverage' is down to a lack of sysops who actually patrol the recent changes etc. We also have some non-North Americans who help provide more 'off hours' cover than you'd think - for example sometimes I'm on here at 2/3/4 AM EST [also known as 7/8/9 AM GMT] and at times this involves doing some anti-vandal work. But one of the good things with RW vs a lot of other online communities is that the powers to deal with vandalism etc is a lot more spread out amongst RW's member-base - I've seen situations where this power is very narrowly held, all in American timezone folks which means there really is 'gaps in coverage'. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Barely filled in a gap. Close call. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
As for the edit filters, how can I configure them? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Guarding against the risk of people reading this site? C'mon. I dunno how to put a wink here... Torrent (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Some IP contributions to most wikis will be 'reasonable people deciding whether to become active, named, persons on RW, or named users (on RW and/or other wikis) who, for some reason, do not sign in on occasion (using a different computer in a hurry, do not notice they have been logged out, wishing for some reason to be anonymous for the given article) - and quite a few of the vandals and other nuisances sign in under a more or less dubious name.
Asking as a non-expert - would it be possible to have IP-address created articles automatically set up as Draft articles/some other means of flagging them up for checking? Anna Livia (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I bless you all with new YouTube content.[edit]

https://youtu.be/8F_N4gJf1MQ?si=D90_H_f0ANKZH0Tk

It's been a while so I am sharing my new content. Hail to the Trans Zombie Queen. --Trans Fem Agenda 21:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to be the 32nd State.[edit]

I am personally completely okay with the illegal, occupied state of California being rightfully returned to the Estados Unidos en México as El Estado Libre y Soberano de California. Viva México. --Ozzyboo (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Everyday, balkanizing north america becomes less of a joke little by little. Phantasmagoria (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I am from Wales. We were in Great Britain before the Romans, before the Anglo-Saxons, before the Norsemen and before the Normans. I think the whole island should be returned to Celtic rule. I don't care how much time has passed.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The time has now come to reclaim the centuries old illegal occupation by those silly English speaking sorts, and create the 19th region of France. America must return the lands of New France to the French republic where it rightfully belongs! (They can keep Mississippi though.) BobJohnson (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
But you forget, people have been there before the French! The land should be governed by the tribes who were there first! Koafox (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Return Hawaii to the Hawaiians while we're at it. Antares (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Nay, my friends! There is no need for that sort of thing! Just like the days of the Dick Cheney and Iraq, it is absolutely positively certain that, once the Empire steps in and takes over, the natives will take a look at our Empire's awesome Freedoms (TM) and Prosperities (TM) and surely erupt in joy, thankful that they are finally able to be, to quote the dick himself, be "free of the conditions that breed despair, hatred, and violence."
(Footnote: Man, though some GOP is "all the same", some has changed a lot in 23 years. Rhetorically, especially.) BobJohnson (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

China should give Tibet its independence back. --Trans Fem Agenda 21:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

any good articles with anti loli arguments here?[edit]

trying to fight some people who defend it. any recourses for good rebukes? Alastor (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Assuming "loli" = "lolicon"... not here. RW once had a child pornography article for a small bit, but since it was largely written by a pedo apologist and was very bad, it was nuked; nothing has replaced it. The Wikipedia article doesn't look too bad, but the oodles of pages in the talk section perhaps indicate some. "controversy". So I don't know.
I will say that, personally, as someone who is not from Japan and also has literally no exposure to lolicon anime (the dubbed episodes of Crayon Shin-chan that aired on Adult Swim at one time do not count :) ), it is difficult for me to comment on something like this fully in the generic. Cultures do have different paradigms; I have "initial thoughts" but I'm not sure if such are "ignorant gaijin" thoughts from a Japanese perspective. BobJohnson (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
There is a wild amount of subversive content in Hentai and Rule 34, but rape is not cool, even in an imagined sense. Even if it's imagined that an ephebiphelia is causaul to liking loli over big titty dump trunk ass nonsense, putting up with the idea of children in an explicit sex act is a weird expression. But I am going to get even weirder with it. I do not understand Miley Cyrus as a sex symbol. I do not understand Sydney Sweeney as a sex symbol. I kinda get Jenna Ortega, but I have never seen her in anything before the horror movie X, and I saw some controversy about insta thirst traps where she self-done it, but I wouldn't spend the time drooling over her. I grew up watching Full House but too young to remember a single episode, and I do not understand the Olsen Twins as a sex symbol, but people were chomping at the bit for those girls to turn 18 as if that was the day they would stop jerking off and make the marriage proposal. All of it, I think, is down to what a girl should look like around the age of consent, as in weirdo born yesterday kinda ideation of a proper wife. I mean, Belle Delphine was a pioneer of Lolita dress and unfortunately simulated Forest rape. I've seen it, it's not hard to find, and I'm not into it. Probably made the money. As the owner of a male mind, I get it, but it's not great. At a young age every girl is like hella woah, so pretty. Then you get older and it's like 'these girls are pretty'. Then you get older and suddenly it's like 'Those girls are children.' Torrent (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Media criticise Die Linke since it became important[edit]

While polls following the election gave Die Linke at 12 %, the first time they are ahead of the greens (11 %) since a long time, the media go on to attack Die Linke because it has a blocking-minority with the AfD on special spending for arms (they are slowly realising the warmongering greens of the openly centrist Habeck and Baerbock were not so horrible compared to truly left-wing politics). I know this is going to attract interesting reactions from some people here, but, at least those who self-identify as « leftists » here should accept the fact that being neither for the US-American and Russian oligarchies (no matter if a Trump governs or a Biden: both have materiel interests in mind more than the defense of the Ukrainian people) nor inconditionnelly for the Zelensky government supported by the Ukrainian oligarchs but for the creation of a third, pacifist and regulatory block composed of smaller countries, is the position of most left-wing parties worldwide on this conflict. There is nothing « shocking » about the fact that left-wing parties support peace, in Palestine, in Ukraine, in Irak, in Syria, in Tibet, in the Cold War. Being for peace means opposing the superpowers Russia, USA, and China which will support escalation for their interests when they need to. Of course not all wars are completely avoidable, but they should always be well coordinated and conducted in a republican manner, not in the interests of particular parties to take primary commodities hidden by religious or ideological justifications. Missak Manouchian and his 22 murdered comrades of the resistant immigrant workforce fought for peace against fascism, and yet Manouchian's last written words were « I have no hate against the German people ». Jaurès supported peace despite the German and French governments actively wanting war, and was assassinated by a far-right nationalist in 1914, provoking his party's support for war. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were assassinated following their struggle for peace. Léon Blum in France was responsible for a better military security of France, and yet tried to support peace as much as possible. The international brigades fought for peace against Franco's fascist forces. It would be « shocking » if Die Linke supported any superpower to have the ability to profit in any way of Ukrainian primary commodities while putting the Ukrainian people in a very hard situation. What I find « shocking » is the unwillingness to recognise past mistakes by people who now realise NATO is dead, Trump and Russia's invasion of Ukraine hopefully have shown Germany how little it weighs.


On top of this, the so-called « mainstream » parties have not proposed to discuss things with Die Linke, maintaining unclarity of wether or not they consider the party republican or anti-republican. If the CDU can vote with the AfD to get a majority on immigration, Die Linke can vote with the AfD to get a blocking-minority on defense spending and BSW can vote with the AfD in Sachsony to get a majority on starting an investigation on the federal and regional governments' handling of Covid-19. It's surprising seeing the neo-liberal media who always wrongly criticise the left for supposedly being close to the far-right being shocked when the left really occasionally votes with the AfD (and in this case the left is not voting for an AfD proposition or using AfD votes for it's own proposition, it has the ability to oppose a proposition with the AfD). New world (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Read the Wikipedia page on Die Linke, so obviously am very knowledgeable now about the party :3
Most of the ideology and platform that I read I fully agree with, though the stance to restrict or block weapons to Ukraine over some... convoluted moral superiority complex... is appalling. There are indeed oligarchs and some mayhap questionable groups within Ukraine; nonetheless refusing to provide support against a blatantly illegal invasion by an arguably more fascist hostile state is absurd. Not providing assistance to Ukraine due to inconvenient moral hand wringing, and voting with other parties who have a clearly repugnant stance, is ignorant hypocrisy.
That's my initial opinion anyways. Impiricism (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I mean you could argue that it will bring a kind of peace if Ukraine is decisively defeated on the battlefield by Russia, which it will almost certainly be, if military assistance is cut off…
But the problem with the kind of left parties that claims that curtailing military assistance to Ukraine will further peace is that they’re lying to themselves and the public by pretending that this scenario, a Russian military victory is not the extremely likely result and context of the kind of peace this is likely to produce.
Calling out any party that argues for reduced military aid to Ukraine in a situation where Russia shows absolutely no signs of letting up or curtailing their own offensive efforts is not only appropriate, but not doing so would be a failure to hold that party politically accountable for the extremely likely and eminently predictable results if its policy were to be adopted.
I was actually positively surprised to see how few European left wing parties decided to take this stance in the first place, because I’d honestly expected more of them to reflexively join whatever side the US was not on (because it tends to be their default reaction, though often not without some justification).
If a left wing party is calling for reduced military aid to Ukraine right now, considering that it directly aligns that party with both Trump and Putin, I think it’s fair to ask if said party has lost the plot or how a policy that dovetails with the very far from leftist (or peacenik) head honchos in Moscow and Washington (and the AfD as well, btw) is actually a very appropriate course for a left wing party to take. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source: the majority of that section dates from 2014.
1. Both Left Party and La France Insoumise, the most important radical left parties in Western Europe, have nuanced their positions since 2022. However, it is absolutely not « shocking » to see left-wing movements supporting neither the USA and Russia which only have their profits in mind, neither unconditionally the unreliable government of Ukraine.
2. Precisely Trump and Russia's invasion are proof of the weakness of previous European policy, which was more focused on building « european ways of life » and an economic-liberal consensus than cooperating with the new wave of anti-American governments of North Africa and Latin America when the occasion had presented itself. Instead, European leaders, and especially the Germans, stuck their heads in the sand and pretended that, despite Germany depending on Putin's energy (at the time he was still a somewhat respectable president, according to the media) and being vassals of the USA everything was fine. It was France and Germany's decision to bring Eastern European countries without the economic capacities they claimed to have which allowed this to happen in the first place. While German leaders are still having some problems accepting the failure of German foreign policy, Germany will hopefully now take a more humanist and reasoned approach at things. However, this special spending is definitely not the humanist approach Germany should take. Trump's victory and Putin's invasion make Europe realise it should have taken a gaullist path from the beginning, and adopted a clearly republican, humanist, and economically dirigist position. Instead of harassing Greece and disrespecting the will of the French electorate with the Treaty of Lisbon, Germany should have told those little fascists in Eastern Europe to accept a certain amount of immigrants, immigrants who came to Europe because of this reputation as the place of « western » democracy and « reasonable » neo-liberalism. This is the end of the German « voice of reason »: Germany will have to stop acting hypocritically like it did when denouncing the Assad regime while themselves supporting worse people in Syria at the time; it will have to stop giving lessons to countries like Latin America about climate even though it does not understand the fundamental point that there cannot be any green capitalism; it will have to separate from it's idea of the « western world » (USA and allies). Trump's victory will force Europe to act reasonably and to see the danger of the situation. New world (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Uhm, could you at least attempt to stay on topic? You can waffle all you want about Germany’s role in Europe and how terrible both Trump and Putin are, but it doesn’t address any serious issues pertaining to Ukraine or why the kind of peace that any major reduction in arms support to Ukraine is not, in all likelihood, going to involve kind of decisive Russian victory.
I frankly care very little for jeremiads about how “hypocritical” this or that Western leader might have been in his or her public statements on one subject or another, when the issue at hand is a nakedly imperialist land grab against a sovereign neighbouring state whose security and integrity Russia has underwritten (along with the other parties to the Budapest Memorandum). Indeed, the Western support for Ukraine, very much unlike Russia’s invasion, is very much in both the spirit and the words of that treaty.
In this instance, I find it frankly baffling when some parties and politicians on the left (though thankfully not that many) who have long prided themselves on being oh so anti-imperialist and often (and quite appropriate in my opinion) loudly denounced the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, suddenly become very mealy-mouthed about taking sides in the Russo-Ukrainian war while blathering vaguely about a need for peace. Unless, they’re now also going to tell Palestinians to just stop fighting and make peace Israel on Netanyahu’s terms, I don’t see why this stance on Ukraine makes any coherent, ideological sense.
It really does seem that these particular leftists are simply mentally unable to follow the logic of their own ideological stance, if that happens to bring them onto the same side as the US. Hence, all kinds of mental contortions have to be practiced in order to come up with some excuse to not do so, and if, in practice, this entails throwing Ukraine under Kremlin’s imperialist bus (and drones, cruise missiles and mountains of artillery shells) in the process, then, apparently, that’s a sacrifice this particular strain of leftist is bravely willing to make. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh, and before we all get too giddy about the historical role of the far left as an agent of world peace, I’d just play the devil’s advocate for shits ‘n giggles and remind the audience of the about face performed by Western communist parties in the wake of the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact.
I happen to have done a little bit of primary work on this during my history studies, specifically on how one Western communist party portrayed this rather embarrassing U-turn in its propaganda towards its own members (thus reading its portrayal of both Germany’s and the Soviet Union’s invasions of Poland). I must say that some of the “nuances” of certain leftists today in justifying why not supporting Ukraine militarily is not just capitulating to Kremlin imperialism display a similar level of mental contortionism and creative (re)writing of facts and history. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
It is not « off-topic » to say that Europe will have to rethink it's possibilities because of Trump's victory. And what mysterious leftist party are you talking about which does not support in some way or another a peaceful solution to the conflict? Generally, European leftist parties who support warmongering are close to the centre-left in some sort of way (Sumar in Spain for example).
The situation in Gaza is not easier, Die Linke and La France Insoumise support a cease-fire in Gaza and in Ukraine. What is your solution? Escalation? War with Russia? The left in Europe proposed to make the war in Syria a United Nations intervention, it now wants to recognise a Palestinian state and start a cease-fire in Gaza, and it wants a cease-fire and peace talks in Ukraine. With Ukraine, one solution would be giving the pro-Russian Crimea to Russia. This is a necessity. Crimea was neglected in Ukraine, independently of Russia's usage of the conflict as a means to justify the invasion. The region wants to be a part of Russia, and while it previously belonged to multiple powers at different times, it is currently largely Russian-speaking. What other solution is there? Europe needs to escape it's absolutely horrible situation first. Parts of the left in Europe also support removal of nuclear arsenals, which humans cannot be trusted with.
@ScepticWombat « Peace » is coming already. A new age in geo-politics is coming, and the only camp which can be happy about this is the far-right. However, Europe's left parties can be proud about being correct about danger of depending on Russia and the USA. Europe, because of it's previous positions, will have to accept Trump's decision (sadly). An independent Europe could have better defended itself and Ukraine. Propositions from leftist parties on Ukraine do not matter anymore. Europe needs to separate from the USA, a country which is very much capable of starting invasions in the same way Putin did.
Also, Die Linke and La France Insoumise occupy the space that the Socialist Party, the SPD or the Labour Party occupied previously. Mitterrand (not the communist party) was elected in 1981 on a program of abolishing NATO and the Varsovy pact, but because his neighbours were Thatcher, Kohl, Reagen, the application of the program had to be stopped after one or two years of great reforms. New world (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Terms like "left" and "right" can be more nebulous than it seems, but you did mention the Die Linke breakway party BSW, which is often described as "Russophilic". There's a portion of "the left" in various places that is so anti-Western in its outlook, it embraces elements of right-wing populism / ruscism. A wee bit of horseshoe theory in action. In US space, I'm more aware of journalists like Glenn Greenwald who went on this exact path.
I think a lot of people are of the opinion that Europe needs to break away from US dependency in light of the US's current isolationist self-own path, but people who wish to cave in to Putin's demands in Ukraine are, frankly, extremely stupid. There is no way I can see this bringing peace and even a casual observance of Putin's behavior would make this point clear. Most European leaders instead seem to be ramping up internal defenses as quick as they can, and that in my view is the correct response to the election of Trump. BobJohnson (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I have to admit that it’s still quite difficult to follow arguments which remain vague about what the actual concrete alternative to aiding Ukraine militarily is supposed to be, while also dropping new detours (now, it’s apparently Ukraine’s fault that Russia “stealth invaded” Crimea…).
The line of argument becomes ESPECIALLY murky, when it’s accompanied by a criticism of Europe being too reliant on the US, which I can’t see as anything but an acknowledgment of the lack of practical European military independence from the NATO framework, in which the US remains an integral part (for now). I happen to agree that Europe has relied too much on the US militarily, but it’s an odd thing to hear from parties that are notoriously allergic to domestic military spending in general and the build up of common, European armed forces in particular.
In addition, this is argument very hard to square with the repeated complaints about the supposedly “warmongering left” (which I assume denotes the vast majority of left parties across Europe that actually is in favour of military aid to Ukraine). But since every one of these arguments keep being held in these kind of vague, general terms, who can tell.
So, while I’m not the one boasting about my “nuanced approach”, I’ll be happy to give my personal perspective on what actual policy on Ukraine is both realistic and anti imperialist: Keep supporting Ukraine militarily and economically. Consider how aid can be increased without risk of escalating the conflict to include more than Ukraine and Russia as active combatants, just as we have done since 2020.
Russia is having both its military assets and its economy slowly ground down and things are only going to get worse for Moscow, if Ukraine’s allies don’t pull the plug. In the end, unless Ukraine is abandoned by its allies, Putin will have to settle for a lot less than the ludicrous demands he keeps banging on about. Sadly, I think Ukraine will probably be forced to cede de facto control over parts of its eastern territory and I think even Kyiv has long since written off Crimea entirely. But such a deal needs to include some serious security guarantees for Ukraine and should definitely not leave it as an isolated “buffer state”, unless the goal is simply to postpone a Russian victory until another invasion.
The main problem going forwards is to what extent this attrition strategy is feasible without the US, due to practical limitations concerning how much artillery ammunition Europe can produce and procure without relying on the US and the effects of the withdrawal of US intelligence and cruise missile defence support for Ukraine, which the Europeans cannot readily replicate.
So, now I’d like to hear about these “nuanced” policies that are going to create peace in Ukraine without major military aid and what this peace is envisioned to contain: If you’re going to the negotiation table in the near future, how are you going to get Putin to back down from his extensive demands that also include leaving Ukraine more or less defenceless and a rejection of a European peacekeeping force to ensure that Putin doesn’t just reinvade once he has rebuilt Russia’s economy and military forces. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
It's unclear what should be done now after over 30 years of mistakes in Europe. By threatening to cut military aid, Ukraine should be encouraged to peace talks. Guarantees should be given to Ukraine, which Russia will have to respect. If the EU is independent of the USA, it is Ukraine's right to be a part of it. Europe will have to cooperate with Latin American countries, as long as the anti-American left still governs in most of them. One way or another, Trump will be present at the discussion table. Germany should definitively give France the leading role in the EU, and nuclear weapons should stay in France's control (Do you want Hungary to have access to nuclear weapons? Countries like Poland, Lithuania or Estonia might threaten Russia in an unreasonable manner with them). And NATO needs to be abolished first, if the EU has any will of truly building a « humanist » and « democratic » force. Currently EU countries are in an offensive, military alliance built in the interests of and around the United States of America (despite Germany's constitution forbidding it to be in such an alliance). Currently the EU is cooperating with authoritian regimes arguably worse than Russia. The moral argument does not stand, Russia is barely better than some of the EU's current allies.
What « leftist » party is against peaceful solutions to conflicts? Unless you are including the centre-left parties, most clearly leftist (radical left) parties in Western Europe are for de-escalation: Podemos in Spain, LFI in France, Die Linke in Germany (it is for peace, however it doesn't have the weird Russian penchant of BSW), the Corbynists in the UK, and I imagine leftist movements in Italy and Scandinavia too. New world (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
You aren't a troll, right? Impiricism (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Read the page I linked. Like it or not, this position is nothing special within radical left parties of Europe, and I am suspecting democratic socialists in the USA might have similar positions, but I don't know much about inside US politics. I am very serious, and nothing in my responses suggests I am not. Die Linke is not a « far-left » European party either, so it should coincide with this site's opinions. And criticism of German handling of European foreign policy is very common in my country's (France's) more radical left. New world (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
This is not strictly a political site, and military policy is not really covered by the mission. So I don't know about that. :)
The Die Linke policy page you linked to seemed to reinforce ScepticWombat's views, from my perspective. The overall push is for disarmament, diplomacy, less weapons, less military overall, and more social justice type things. Donald Trump is mentioned more often than Vladimir Putin -- this is weird to me.
Their policies honestly strikes me as... well... naive, honestly. It seems to answer nothing about the hows and instead relies on negotiations as a cure-all for peace every single time. That's a nice thought. Wish the world really worked that way, right? BobJohnson (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
The victim blaming of Ukraine ("By threatening to cut military aid, Ukraine should be encouraged to peace talks."), which apparently is sincere naivety rather than pro-Russian trolling, is what made me ask. If Europe's left wing parties truly are of such a position, then that's disappointing. Impiricism (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
If this « shocked » you, even though it was very nice with the EU compared to what it could have claimed, this will be even « worse » to you. There is a time when some here need to accept this isn't just the position of individual « problem makers », but of most of the non-centrist left in Western Europe. Wagenknecht's group is particularly bizarre, and they were fixated on the subject, like the other parties (Greens, CDU, etc.), instead of arguing about interior issues (outside of immigration). Considering this is also the Latin American left's position, I am having trouble believing that leftist parties in Anglo-Saxon north-America want anything else than realistic peace. You can consider these positions « naive », but it would be denying reality to pretend that most of (Western) Europe's leftist parties have different positions. For clarification, the left here in Europe doesn't consider these positions to be something else than pro-Ukraine. Like I already mentioned, we consider ourselves to be for the Ukrainian people. As to Eastern European leftist parties, most of them seem irrelevant (but I don't have much information about Eastern European politics). I can understand the media wrongly representing the European radical left as « far-left » or « anti-republican », but for people who acknowledge that this camp is not « extremist », I find it ridiculous how some here try to paint so-called « naive » positions as « surprising » coming from a radical, but republican and non-extremist left. It is not just that or this individual/party (Corbyn, LFI, Podemos, Wagenknecht etc.). In France, the inside opposition to Mélenchon led by François Ruffin, which was recently ousted, supported the same « questionable » positions on Ukraine (and in this case the media represented the open Wagenknecht-admirateur and « rural » Ruffin as a « moderate »). In Germany, before Wagenknecht left Die Linke, Gysi was one of the supporters of her peace demonstration in Berlin (while BSW definitely had a Russian penchant, it's conflict with Die Linke was, like with Ruffin, more on immigration than foreign policy or internal democracy). I imagine in Spain and the UK pacifist positions are not an outlier either in the radical left. New world (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
This site is a political website by virtue of its opposition to authoritarianism. Antares (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but what that also means is that it is "not necessarily left" all the time. Tankies and other "left" authoritarians are frowned upon here. The same with Russia/Putin apologists from either side. Things like The Grayzone are considered extreme "leftist" by some sources (them being tankies and all), but are just as much fake news oriented as sources like Infowars that are generally considered "far right". Neither get favorable coverage here. BobJohnson (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be talking about the European left I know. Spain's governing socialist party just promised another 1 billion in military aid to Ukraine.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Some people treat leftism as a contest and think that if you are not to the left of Lenin you're not actually part of the left. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
And yes, there's also a mirror image of this on the right, with some people deriding anything short of laissez-faire capitalism or rigid traditionalism as "communism". GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
No doubt we will see some "no true Scotsman" comment at some point.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@Bob M I don't care if Anglo-Saxons can't distinguish between far-left, radical left, moderate left and centre-left, or between centre-right, moderate right and far-right (and to me, right/left are still accurate and should be used today, contrary to what the so-called « centre » and parts of the far-right claim). I specifically mentioned the radical left multiple times. A representative of the centre-« left » (which has truly drifted to the right since the end of the Cold War in Europe) would be Joe Biden in the USA, and a « radical » left personality would be Ocasio-Cortez. While having sympathies with the Russian revolution, the radical left (which occupies the space that was previously called centre-left) is not far-left (leninist etc), so your comment about Lenin does not make sense. And the « right » which compares anything not discriminatory to « communism « , is the anti-republican right (the far-right, not the simple republican right). It's not « no true Scotsman » to say that Roosevelt (not the imperialist one) was left-wing, Kennedy was not. And besides, I explicitly mentioned exclusively radical left parties, and not centre-left ones. So why do you mention PSOE and the close to the centre-left Sumar in Spain? And you say that as if PSOE was extremely radical. This is what I mean by denial of reality. People on this site pretend that aside from literal far-leftists (Stalinists, Maoists etc.) the more moderate, even if radical, left-wing doesn't support peace for the Ukrainian people. To make you understand, this is as if a group was pretending only Leninists claim pacifist solutions (next to open « ruscism »), while the centre-left of Joe Biden/Kamala Harris doesn't claim these, while completely ignoring the pro-Ukraine, pacifist solutions of a Bernie Sanders or an Ocasio-Cortez. I am not claiming the latter two have these same positions, but Western Europe's non-extremist radical left definitely does. New world (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@New worldWhat exactly did I say about Lenin which you take exception to?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
If it wasn't you, it was some other person who mentioned Leninism in some manner at one point. New world (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@New worldI am surprised you didn't check before including it in something you felt was important enough to ping me over. (And from the wording of your response apparently you still haven't checked.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
It was GeeJayK, just between your comments, who claimed that some courants of the left supposedly believe anything « right of Lenin » to be right-wing. Although it was not a literal reference to Leninism, the comment still implied that these parties were « extremist » parties with a « purity »-obsession (however, none of these parties is Leninist, a far-left faction). New world (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don’t think these positions by Melenchon/La France Insoumise (LFI) and Die Linke are representative of the left, but rather a very clear outlier. The pantomime of “solidarity with the Ukrainian people” is simply a classic deflection technique to avoid dealing with the fact that the Kyiv government has a very clear public and democratic mandate and that its policy of staunch resistance remains broadly popular within Ukraine.

Similarly, the call for cutbacks in military aid to Ukraine to encourage peace talks is basically defeatism masquerading as pacifism, because to anyone who has been even barely aware of what has been going on in the Russo-Ukrainian War so far and the sounds from Moscow, it’s obvious that Putin will simply use this to up the pressure on the battlefield to gain as much leverage as possible, if not an outright victory. And he will definitely opt for the latter, if he’s at all able.

Again, it’s also indicative that, rather than discuss this very concrete, serious and acute issue, the answers meander quickly away from Ukraine to grand visions of global solidarity, because, at the very least on Ukraine, the LFI/Linke positions don’t stand up to even a tiny amount of critical scrutiny or the real world circumstances in which they have to be implemented.

The most egregious example, and I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or not at the absurdity of the idea and that it’s apparently presented in all seriousness, is that the tiny Baltic countries would threaten Russia with nukes, even if they had access to such weapons. This clearly ignores why such a ludicrous strategy would not be credible, even on its own terms and within the premises, given that just a few nukes would easily fry the entire national territory of either or all of the three countries, whereas Russia has both the space and arsenal to counter this bizarre hypothetical scenario. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Considering the absolutely anti-republican manners of acting of the SPD and the CDU (they want vote special spending under the pre-election Bundestag), Die Linke and the AfD are bringing the matter to Karlsruhe. Think about the proposition itself what you want, but this is ridiculous and not worthy of a future government. Like in France, but to a lesser degree here (in France, the centre and centre-right have the choice of discussing things with the broad left-wing alliance or the far-right, they chose to create a minority government tolerated by National Rally), the SPDU had the choice of discussing things with either Die Linke or the AfD. In this particular case they decided to « cheat », but the message the two parties send is still apparent: Die Linke is not a discussion partner to them. In that case, Die Linke might as well refuse policy compromise with the SPD once it will be strong enough to double the social-democrats' score in coming elections. The CDU is again using the same argumentation it did when voting with the AfD: Parties supposedly just have to accept it's propositions, then the CDU would be ready to not surpass parliament/vote with the far-right. New world (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@New world: You claimed earlier that, ”Currently EU countries are in an offensive, military alliance built in the interests of and around the United States of America (despite Germany's constitution forbidding it to be in such an alliance).”
Now, I’m assuming you’re taking about NATO here, and I’ll skip over your mischaracterisation of its very clearly defined de jure purpose (i.e. as a defensive alliance), because I really don’t see much purpose in quibbling over that. Considering the other views you’ve already expressed, I doubt anything productive or particularly interesting would come out of such an argument.
What I’m more interested in is your claim that German NATO membership is supposedly unconstitutional, because it seems to be a fairly original and quite interesting one (at least to me). What is this claim based on and how come it has not been successfully litigated at Karlsruhe? ScepticWombat (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Article 24 of the basic law says that Germany is only allowed to be in a defensive alliance. NATO was founded with the idea of defending Western Europe, and to increase US-American influence. Since the end of the Cold War, even this claim does not stand anymore. And before that, it was very clearly a way for the USA to develop it's soft power. In February 1966, De Gaulle had already correctly analysed that the developments since 1949 did not justify the continuation of an alliance of subordination to the United States. In fact, De Gaulle's plans to establish a sort of « latin alliance » and establishing closer ties with non-United Statian parts of the Americas (Latin America and Québec) to increase French influence can still be an exemple for Europe today. New world (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
The heck is "United Statian"? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
A more correct term used largely by (French) academics and leftists to refer to US-Americans (and many Québecois, apparently, to denote autonomy from English-speaking Canada). « États-Uniens » doesn't sound much better than « United Statian », and yet it's used in a neutral manner by academics or occasionally journalists in non-political contexts to (formally) refer to US-Americans. It's not very common, but it's not extremely unusual either, in French. Since « États-Uniens » sounds just as weird as « United Statian », there's no reason not to use that word in English, if you want. New world (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
No results in the OED.[6] I don't that a word that doesn't exist can be a "more correct" demonym for Americans than "American". GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
It exists in French. Not that it « makes more sense » in French. It is just a more specific designation of a country literally named « United States of the American continent/land » (different from Brazil or Mexico, since the latter two are named after historical designations for local regions). It's not very common in French either, but it is occasionally used, even in informal situations. A few academics just have to start a wide debate on usage of « American », and it might become common enough in English to enter dictionaries too. New world (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I really can’t see anything in the contents of Article 24 that clearly bans German participation in anything but defensive alliances, unless you interpret it very narrowly. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the framers decided to both use the far broader terms collective security in the furtherance of peace or that it also allows for some degree of sovereignty to be ceded to this and other types of international organisations. That’s probably also why anyone trying to sue the German federal government at the Constitutional Court to get German NATO membership rescinded on the basis of Article 24 would be almost guaranteed to lose. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Erik Prince[edit]

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/13/politics/erik-prince-return-maneuvered-inside-trump-orbit

Ah, Erik Prince, the Blackwater founder turned Trump administration whisperer—because what could possibly go wrong when you mix private military contractors with presidential politics? Prince, the man who once turned war zones into his personal profit playground, somehow found himself cozying up to Team Trump, pitching all sorts of "creative" solutions to America's problems. Whether it was his alleged backchannel dealings with Russia (because nothing says "patriotism" like a secret Seychelles meeting with Kremlin-linked oligarchs) or his grand plan to privatize the Afghanistan war (because outsourcing worked so well the first time), Prince has always been a master of turning chaos into cash. And let's not forget his sister, Betsy DeVos, who was busy dismantling public education while Erik was out there playing geopolitical chess. It’s almost like the Prince-DeVos family has a monopoly on "disruptive" ideas that somehow always end up benefiting them and their wealthy cronies. From Blackwater’s infamous Nisour Square massacre to his more recent ventures in China (because of course he’s got his fingers in that pie too), Prince has made a career out of skirting accountability while staying firmly in the shadows. But hey, at least he keeps things interesting, right? Whether he’s peddling conspiracy theories, courting authoritarian regimes, or just generally being the human embodiment of "questionable ethics," Erik Prince is a reminder that in the Trump era, the line between government and grift was often indistinguishable. Truly, a family that embodies the phrase "power corrupts"—and boy, do they ever.

Now, I do think that criminal migrants should be deported, but not with the help of some criminal mercenaries. 👁️4️⃣🔎 (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I say send him back to Afghanistan and deal with the problems he was instrumental in creating. Edit0r (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that should do. 👁️4️⃣🔎 (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Getting Blackwater involved in what is shaping up to be almost certainly illegal deportations? What a great idea with no potential for really serious, adverse consequences whatsoever… ScepticWombat (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Elimination of physical money[edit]

Is there any article about the claims about the disappearance of physical money and just digital one being left with all that it would entail according to the people who claim that (ie, money with an expiration date so no one could have savings, corralitos as happened in Argentina including the Gummint taking money of your bank account if they wanted so, and of course people left out of the system if you don't use it), besides the upper limit for payments with physical currently supposedly being lowered so much that it would be nearly useless?. Panzerfaust (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Let them eat cake[edit]

As Trump intends to impose a 200% tariff wall against the EU (see news website of choice)the brioche of the original phrase will be unavailable.

What next?

Whom the gods wish to destroy...? Anna Livia (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

So far... Trump's tariff war and related chaos activity is largely an American made self-own, as I see it.
The Economist certainly has not been amused, echoing what seems to be the general investor mood. They've run articles on how American assets are no longer seen as super-exceptional like they used to and how even the dollar is suffering.
While a tariff war could eventually affect everyone, currently "every stock market but the US" is considerably outperforming the US markets.
One difference between Trump 1 and Trump 2 is that, unlike before, Trump seems hellbent on ignoring the markets (even calling them "globalist" once). So this probably will continue for a while.
The Wall Street Journal's top story currently is something about DEI on college campuses. I guess even in American business world, sticking it to those uppity Others and those uppity college campuses who have the audacity the educate the plebs is far more important than commerce. It's bizarre... it's like the upper class twit sect of society is now fully in charge here. (It's not like there wasn't American big business twits before, Investor's Business Daily wouldn't exist if that wasn't the case, but still...)
I don't think the economic chaos has filtered down to Main Street yet, but Walmart has already warned earlier that pain, in the form of higher prices, would be coming with a Trump tariff war. Should that happen (and my bet is it will), will this break the spell of some of the Trump cult who currently think that Trump can do no wrong? Not confident on that. BobJohnson (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think you need to 'break the MAGA cult'. Just fuck off enough a) those who don't like the Orange car salesman or his 'anti-woke' antics but think he's 'good for business/economics' and b) those 1/3 of the adult American population who were sufficiently unimpressed by both Harris and Trump to not bother voting last November. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
It seems to me that a lot of big businesses in the States have been more concerned with convincing others that they are successful rather than actually being successful. The proliferation of stock buybacks and openings for jobs that don't exist in the past decade or so are examples of this. The on-again off-again tariff bullshit of the current administration is removing the bottom pieces from an already unstable Jenga tower of bad business practices. Gabaghoul 🥩 16:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, a huge amount of the stock buybacks / mergers / takeovers was funded by 'cheap money' [ie debt with very low interest rates] which produced a massive asset bubble which ultimately made a lot of these firms 'less profitable' because their profits vs capital deployed was going down due to the very asset bubble. And while I don't deny the existence of 'ghost jobs' [ie jobs that don't actually exist] I think they're a lot smaller than imagined - that the more common situation is the advertising for openings which won't ever get filled because they are looking to hire [say] 'senior engineers with a decade's experience' on a interns pay and conditions. These Pointy-Haired Bosses then whine about 'folks having lack of gumption' and 'people don't want to work no more' to any who'll listen. But that's not why I came back so quick.
The reason I suspect the likes of the WSJ is still crowing about the 'ending of DEI' is that Murdoch, like most other of the oligarch class is moving to accommodate the 'new order', with the rider for the WSJ's case that they don't need to tell their readers the shit they can work out themselves from a combo of C-SPAN and Bloomberg Terminal. When reporters start saying 'at the risk of my job' before calling out shit you know the boot of self-censorship is starting to press quite firmly. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I feel like any sane, sensible human being who has even the slightest notion of how the economy works is very, very worried about the future right now. None of the policies Trump has enacted are even speculatively good for the economy. High tariffs are universally bad for the economy. The US cannot win a trade war with China. The US **absolutely** cannot win a trade war against China *and* the EU. --Ozzyboo (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I think Trump’s angry reaction, threatening a 200% tariff on European alcohol on response to the one entry (a 50% tariff on US whisky and bourbon) on EU’s extensive, targeted list of counter tariffs shows yet again how unprepared he and his administration was for this eminently predictable counter move and the dynamics of an escalating trade war overall.
The fact that Trump both ups the ante to such a ridiculous degree while choosing just one, seemingly arbitrary entry on the EU’s long list, smacks of the usual random rage responses that are by now a hallmark of both of Trump’s presidential terms.
Trump’s problem is that he’s clueless about how to handle counterparts who don’t just roll over and can’t easily be browbeaten, threatened or pressured into submission. Even worse, he seems not to understand that everyone has already realised that his shiftiness, untrustworthiness and transactional view of negotiations makes it pointless for anyone to try and achieve any kind of grand bargain with him or his administration.
This means that every counterpart who has any real choice in the matter is going to either respond fairly harshly (such as the trade responses from the EU and China and also Canada and Mexico to some extent) or they’re going to sandbag the negotiations with lots of little symbolic concessions (Canada and Mexico) to try to draw out the process until Trump’s limited attention is drawn somewhere else and/or US corporate lobbyists get enough exceptions carved out of Trump’s initial tariffs to make them more practical and less economically disastrous.
In all of these cases, Trump is floundering because he clearly has no exit strategy, or any coherent idea of how to respond to any of these, rather predictable, countermoves, as he also lacks any clear goal or endgame, since he basically doesn’t know what he’s doing and is an effin’ moron when it comes to international trade (and so, so many other areas too). ScepticWombat (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
It depends on what you mean by "the economy", Ozzyboo. While US "stonks" are down, international stock markets by and large are *up* year to date. My inference is that, so far, the "investment class mob" seems to think that the Trump tariff bullshit (and other things) won't harm the rest of the world *too* much. Obviously this is a very broad perspective, your mileage will vary by country / by segment / etc. But hell even Mexico's stock market is actually up by nearly 5% YTD. Given that Trump is flailing around in an unfocused rage like an angry baboon, I tend to agree with this picture. Most nations are responding to Trump's mad king bullshit with focused tariffs (and other target strategies) designed to minimize local pain and maximize US pain. Trump is not only dumb enough to start trade wars for no good reason, he's too dumb to even implement his dumb tariff policies in an actual thoughtful, targeted manner.
It is very possible that the worst harm of Trump 2.0 will merely be to the United States itself. It might even be a far, far worse self-own than Brexit was at this rate (there's another upper class twit driven project for ya). For far, far more reasons than tariffs, I might add.
The stock market of course is not 100% "the economy". In the US, some of the stock market decline is the "AI bubble" being popped, along with meme stocks like Tesla deflating. Many stocks got inflated too much post-Trump election for the usual Republican reasons. But sometimes the stock market is indeed an actual signal of things to come, and to me it's an ominous sign when many of the US stock market warnings are coming from more "Main Street" businesses. BobJohnson (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I meant the American economy. --Ozzyboo (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I think this is providing a good example of how a country can't be run like a business. Trump can't try to fuck over Canada like he'd fuck over a contractor to make more profit because while there's always other contractors to fuck over later Canada shall always be there. And fucked off. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

A mention of Brecht/Weil's Alabama Song from The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagony might be apt.

And there are any number of substitutes for US whiskey and bourbon - the Scottish and Irish versions for starters. Anna Livia (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I will crash into any joint with whiskey or scotch, Alabama, I guess is in the heart. I used to drink Canadian Springs Whiskey, no defense other than it was so cheap, it's always spring in Canada, and Cutty Sark scotch whisky, where I mean, the point was you could taste the peat, especially in the morning after. Look, I like the grass flavored Bertie Botts, I won't apologize. Both are still better than a Kirkland brand handle of Whiskey, which cannot be imbibed without heavy dilution. Then there's Bulleit Bourbon and Bulleit Rye Whiskey, which without a somalier's nose taste exactly the same. If I was gonna go camping and asked a friend to grab Bulleit Rye and they showed up with Bulleit Bourbon, who cares. And to this point, Whiskey or Whisky is only important if you're buying it to not drink it, you are kidding me if you are harmed. I had sparkling wine on new years, it didn't come from the Champaign region, but it was still good.Torrent (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Bu 'Buy American' has been rhetoric that has been obviously less than useful for a long time https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bK0AytpHa00&pp=ygUZQnV5IGFtZXJpY2FuIHJlZnJlc2htZW50cw%3D%3D and I hope it's not anybody's actual stance. Torrent (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

"Barron" Trump meme[edit]

In reality, he's just akward

Do you people know the Barron Trump meme? I keep seeing it on X and really can't fucking deal. A bizarre, semi-ironic prophecy that Barron, the youngest Trump spawn, will one day ascend to the presidency, continuing the Trump dynasty in a way that feels less like democracy and more like a medieval succession plan. It’s funny, sure, but also deeply unsettling—not just because it’s yet another example of the internet’s ability to turn anything into a meme, but because it taps into a very real, very American fascination with political dynasties.

Let’s be honest: the meme is less about Barron and more about how the U.S. loves to cosplay as a democracy while quietly embracing the trappings of monarchy. The Kennedys, the Bushes, the Clintons, and now the Trumps—it’s like we can’t resist the allure of political royalty, even as we pretend to hate the idea of crowns and thrones. And don’t even get me started on the way we treat presidential families like they’re the Windsors, complete with tabloid obsession and breathless speculation about who’s next in line.

The Barron meme is just the latest iteration of this weird, unspoken desire for a king. It’s not enough that we had Donald Trump, a man who literally compared himself to a monarch and once joked about being “president for life.” No, we’ve already moved on to fantasizing about his son, a kid who (as far as we know) has shown zero interest in politics, because apparently, the Trump brand is now a hereditary title.

And let’s not forget the deep irony here: Americans love to dunk on monarchies. We celebrate Independence Day by waving flags and pretending we’re the ultimate anti-royalists, but then we turn around and treat political families like they’re born to rule. It’s almost as if we’ve replaced the divine right of kings with the divine right of name recognition.

So, sure, laugh at the Barron Trump meme. But maybe also take a moment to reflect on why it resonates. Is it because we secretly want a king? Or is it because we’ve already got one, and his name is Trump? Either way, the joke’s on us.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to pour myself a drink and toast to the impending Barron presidency. Long may he reign. Or something. Edit0r (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I saw a conspiracy theory about Barron/Donald Trump being a time-traveler or something. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 16:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Here's the conspiracy. Not sure if it's related to that meme or not. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 16:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I've noticed more conspiracies and MAGA schizo-posting about Barron than DJT Jr. despite the latter's seniority. It's like even they know he's shown himself to be a limp-dicked useless nepo-baby (even more than his (literally) limp-dicked nepo-baby father.) Gabaghoul 🥩 17:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Is he picking behind-the-ear sebum to give it the sniff test? The photo actually reminds me of something… I think Colonel Klink (portrayed by Jewish refugee Werner Klemperer) in Hogan's Heroes occasionally made a salute like that to avoid making a Nazi salute on TV. Bongolian (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't know. We have no real reason to believe that Barron is a nazi, do we? This reaction seems almost comparable to the meme's effect on right-wingers. KaDaShOvA (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
it makes sense that Barron Trump is the no.1 pick for fantasy league dynasties. hes what, 19, and more or less been shielded from political bear baiting, and essentially merely a prop for happy families when appearing with his dad at public events. he can be anything you want him to be right now, theres probably little dirt or controversy from him yet to spoil ones maga fantasies. if you want a more serious contender for the new maga king from the trump dynasty, you got ivanka, and the two older brothers. im sure trump senior is pinning his legacy on barron too. any memes of the older trump bros as king, would be less king arthur and more akin to the problems of inbreeding within the old european monarchies. honestly leave the boy be for bit. hes not responsible for anything yet. let him have his youth. we can all hate on his own fuck ups when hes had more life experience for them be be his fuck ups and not just from growing up in that family at this time in history. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
anyhow americans have always loved dynasties. right from its inception. maybe you can trace ancestry to the mayflower and thus more american than if you can trace em back to ellis island. it ones ancestors owned yours? your kids are probably going to different schools AMassiveGay (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I remember 4chan /pol/ having talked about Barron Trump being autistic back in 2016.🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 01:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

How to find Information on the area between Central Andes (Incas) and Mesoamerica?[edit]

What are some reliable sources on the “Intermediate Area” or “Isthmo-Colombian area” that focus on northern South America (Columbia and Venezuela) and not on southern Central America (Eastern Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama) or the northern central Andes (Ecuador)? Sources focused on Pre-Colombian history. Sorry, I know the question being so specific that receiving a response here is unlikely. OldPerson (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You could use Wikipedia as a starting point both for a summary and for the "further reading" sections. Each country in the region will have its own article, History of Colombia, History of Ecuador, etc. Bongolian (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
I tried Wikipedia, and found the articles to be notoriously unreliable. If it's not literally some 19th century colourful history about the Zipas of Bogotá, Wikipedia uses the Bank of the Republic, or the Museo del Oro, or other Museums. OldPerson (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
An alternative is to look for "history of x" for specific regions or areas but restricted to university presses. There will often be something reasonably recent, and university presses almost always require peer review. I would not recommend Amazon for this search since Amazon search has been thoroughly enshittified to pay for Bezos' self-philanthropy of building ultra large yachts and tearing down historic bridges. Worldcat (https://search.worldcat.org/), the world catalog of library holdings, is a good place to search. The search can also easily be restricted to publication year ranges and publication types (books, theses, journal articles, etc.) One downside of the search is that books will often turn up that are specific to narrow year ranges or topics, as is common in university press books. Another downside is that academic libraries are well-covered for holdings, but public libraries are mostly absent. There are linkouts to Amazon and Abebooks but no other bookselling sites. Example searches:
Bongolian (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

A secular perspective on Ramadan[edit]

Hey, folks. It's Ramadan, and I'm partaking as well. I am not religiously Muslim, but I am culturally Muslim, and engage in it less for religious reasons and more for cultural ones. Please be mindful and respectful to the people around you during this time! Not every Muslim who partakes in Ramadan does so for very religious reasons, and every Muslim engages with Ramadan differently. --Ozzyboo (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I wear a santa hat for Christmas - so no problems from me.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I think this is cool. I worked at a warehouse where one UPS delivery driver was participating in Ramadan, including no water during a heat wave, and that's insane. I've also worked with a guy who needed to wash his hands and feet during working hours, he went to his car to do the prayers, I caught him by accident in the bathroom once and he was shocked, but I don't care. He brought in a bunch of Pakistani biryani, basically a big batch of leftovers the first day, and it was good and generous. I was talking to an Indonesian friend and said I want to give Ramadan fasting a shot some day, and she graciously laughed at me and told me it wasn't my responsibility. And so I also understand that I'd be doing it as tourist, I haven't done it this year, but I still want to do it. Not as cultural appropriation, or to brag or say that I've done it, but just to understand the practice a little better. Torrent (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Most reasonable imams allow the bending of Ramadan rules if they're a threat to health; if nothing else there's been too many deaths of 'no water during heatwaves' scenarios. However, not all imams are reasonable and some folks are riddled with the 'old ways are best ways' without any actual consideration of the after-effects [ie the imam might say of the various exclusions etc but gramps insists their pregnant daughter 'follows the rules']. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Mahmoud Khalil[edit]

Trump is trying to deport a legal American resident for engaging in speech critical of Israel. What happened to "restoring free speech to America"? Antares (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Whenever MAGAs claim to be worried about free speech, what they really mean is rightists have a god given right to say whatever they want and shutting a right-winger up in anyway-arresting them for hate speech, banning them from a private forum, telling them to stop talking to you, anything-is a crime against nature. Left-wing views (or anything conservatives see as a left-wing view) are not protected and left-wingers (or anyone seen by conservatives as a left-winger) aren't really viewed as people entitled to rights.-Flandres (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, the supposed “free speech absolutism” of the right has always been an extremely obvious and openly hypocritical sham. Just look at Mr. “Restoring Free Speech to Twitter/XTM” and his capricious misrule. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I get the feeling that this is a test run. They deliberately chose this man in particular because of the content of his speech. Anyone who thinks they will only target pro-Palestine activists is a fool. Antares (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Of course Trump meant the free speech of populist supporters of his own movement. I always thought Trump's statements to be vapid, deleterious, sometimes ambiguous and arranged in non sequiturs. I recently decided that Trump never expresses objective facts, but only feelings about people, ideas and events. He uses pantomime, slapstick gestures and histrionic vocal performances. This satisfies his target audience, of the wrathful, the greedy, and the uneducated. He can not properly define anything of which he speaks. There are never any correct objective details in his statements because he either doesn't know them or they don't actually back up his claims, so he lies, quoting absurd statistics and inventing defamatory fictions. Egregious falsehoods are very much in fashion among the Maga faithful. You can't present them with facts to any effect because they already know the truth, and therefore any contradictions are necessarily untrue. When politics becomes deranged to the point of being consistently unsound, logic fails as a tool of persuasion. Zatoichi (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah it would be a mistake to claim that Trump's core supporters are stupid. Selfish, bigoted, and ignorant? A lot of them are. Stupid? They knew what they were doing when they voted him in. At least the hardcore reactionaries did. As for the normies who got suckered into thinking that Trump was genuinely a force for positive change? You can blame a significant portion of that three things: the gutting of education in this country, the fact that things are shit for the vast majority of Americans, and are only getting worse, and the fact that the right-wing has a near-stranglehold on the media ecosystem of this country. The right successfully weaponized popular discontent with the establishment to get themselves back into power. I think the oh-so-popular "Trump voter remorse" stories are really mostly examples of normies realizing they were fooled. The hardcore fascists who form the backbone of the Trumpist movement? They love this shit, and quite a few of them are of the opinion Trump and co aren't going far enough with their fascist thuggery. Antares (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
You could write something surprisingly similar about Brexit voters in the UK.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I think while there is levels of sheer stupidity about [there always is] the main culprit is in fact the final destination of anti-intellectualism - the derision towards and dislike of thinking itself. I found this with some Brexiteers; that while they appeared to have sufficient brainpower in general terms they were almost incapable of actually putting said brain into gear to engage with the topic. Or anything, really - for example, I know one person who whines about you 'being a windbag' if an explanation of anything is more than say, two sentences. Another I know appeared capable of engaging with the topic, but almost immediately afterwards would then basically 'reset' themselves to go back to the start. It's almost like a unconscious version of crimestop.
The other aspect I think is groupthink. That unless we actively make the effort, most of our monkeyspheres are ideologically slanted which means folks a) get a somewhat warped view of where 'the centre' is on anything and b) almost by instinct the non-political folks end up sliding towards this 'false centre'. This ends up producing what is known as 'false consensus'; in that [for example] a person ends up believing 'all normal people' believe the Orange One is god because their monkeysphere is filled with people who do. And if everyone already agrees with you, what's the point in discussing further the Orange One's greatness? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
While Trump's core supporters at the top of the chain are not stupid in that Cletus media stereotype manner, I think (like the Brexit dweebs) they frankly are very stupid. Zero long term thinking. Zero strategy. Classism up the ying-yang. I can absolutely see why DEI is a focus for these clowns, because if competence instead of net worth / chumminess / nepotism was used to evaluate these folks at hiring time, they would never get a job. Hell the whole wingnut welfare circuit seems to be a pipeline for rich dumbfuck failures who would have zero career prospects elsewhere.
The Republican focus on gutting education is a great example of this, as I have mentioned before. We live in an increasing world of technology. Especially since World War II (with the help of some nice "gifts" of intellectuals fleeing murderous dictator regimes, I might add), the United States has been a top tier nation at technology, so such has been good for us. Technology rarely comes from out of nowhere; much of the fundamental cores tend to be developed at institutions of learning. So why gut education? My guess is Republicans want to do such for shortsighted power / control reasons... whether it is being offended that professors tend to lean liberal, being irked that sometimes science highlights business health and environmental fails, or being offended that sometimes historians highlight "inconvenient" truths and are not hagiographical jingoism patters. Universities aren't known historically for embracing fascist thought, after all (which is why da Hitler gutted them too). But the Ten Commandments Republicans want to plaster on the walls of every school ain't gonna design fighter jets and drones, now, is it? BobJohnson (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
There is a common conflation of stupid people with ordinary idiots. I suppose a distinction needs be made between "stupid" and "unintelligent." The stupid person need not be unintelligent. A common theme among stupid people involves failures in judgement. The standard definition requires failures in good sense or judgement for an activity to be labeled as stupid. It is, for example stupid for people to believe that floods of immigrants into America cause our increasing poverty, when it is actually the rich acquiring ever larger percentages of national wealth.Zatoichi (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Somewhat depressingly getting back to a Brexit comparison, it takes a hell of a long time for people to understand that one of their committed positions was wrong. By just about any objective measurement I can think of Brexit has been bad for the UK. Support for Brexit has certainly slumped markedly and it continues to fall. But after five years of unrelentingly negative Brexit outcomes support has not exactly fallen through the floor.
So I am wondering how long Trump supporters will be prepared to put up with all the negative outcomes before they become disillusioned en masse.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
The decline in support for Brexit is at least partly demographic in nature - ie a lot of the most firm supporters were already 50-plus and well, the reaper is trimming them off the electoral roll while 'the kids' then are coming into it. This - I think - is fairly normal an occurrence to the point MAGA as-is has a distinct 'demographic problem' even outside of the Orange One's own approaching reapment. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
If the Republicans were smart, they'd hollow out academia by boosting their own guys and out-funding any dissident professors - basically turning every public and private university of note into PragerU - like what Thiel was/is doing. The slash-and-burn "defund and arrest people who don't agree with me" approach Spraytan Palpatine and friends seem to be going with is both counteractive to their cause and bad for optics. Gabaghoul 🥩 17:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, essentially the Republicans are emulating the Viktor Orbán playbook on education already (which is what you described the Thiel types doing). But now we have Trumpian thuggery on top of that. Still not smart either way. I mean, Hungary's "universities" are pretty much dogshit propaganda mills now. You're not gonna make drones and jets with "conservative" sloganeering.
Emulating Orbán is also stupid in that, while Hungary has grown along with the rest of central Europe, compared to other central European countries it doesn't look so great. Orbán's policies are very "rich idiot friendly", so the oligarch class has done well. But nationally, Poland (in spite of PiS attempting the Fidesz playbook, it seems) and the Czech Republic have done a fair bit better than Hungary. BobJohnson (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that's a fair comparison because you don't need that many engineers and math nerds to design and optimize new technology and the 'States, unlike Hungary, has enough money (for now) to poach the best S.T.E.M. workers from other countries. Silicon Valley and the aerospace/defense industries have been doing this since the end of WWII: why spend resources training up your own talent when you could get a guy over from India or Germany or Poland to do the work for a fraction of the cost? Is this a good idea in terms of national security, geopolitics, or the welfare of the average worker? It advances the wealth and power of the people who actually matter and it makes the GDP go up so none of those concerns are relevant (I say this as a frustrated math undergrad one year away from finishing his degree - the market for math nerds like me is not looking too hot.) Gabaghoul 🥩 19:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree it's not a terribly fair comparison -- it's hard to find one, frankly. It's more a demonstration of the "end game" of this sort of populism, and why it is stupid. Most countries that I am aware of have put some value on education, and there are obvious reasons why to do this. Even China's authoritarian capitalism model for the moment encourages knowledge and learning! (Minus a few "inconvenient histories", of course.) Such wouldn't matter much if the ruling class right wing of America still valued developing homegrown talent, but at the moment they seem more concerned about protecting their white male upper class twits. In addition, the oligarchs have fueled a nativist wing of their party. So this means that there's a part that really, really hates the "H1B visa" sector you described, too. At the moment... they are on the sidelines. But you never know when that will change. There was one point when the American fundamentalists were on the outside of the GOP, too.
At the moment, American universities *are* for the moment overall very good, and the same goes for primary education in many locales. Most haven't been "Orbánized", though... yet... and I doubt the "blue states" ever will unless Trumpian thuggery gets real bad. (Anecdotally here in Florida, though, Ron DeSantis has negatively impacted education in all ways. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same for other "red states", especially women hostile ones). So this is more of a "what if" on if the Project 2025 types actually fully get their way. Brain drains typically aren't good things to cheer about, like Trumpians seem to. BobJohnson (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
But for how long will that remain the case? Trump's bullshit McCarthyite attacks on academia is obviously already having a major chilling effect on academic speech. Antares (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
It’s not only Trump’s rhetoric that has made him more successful than prior POTUSes in stifling criticism from academia, but the fact that he has proven to be more than willing to retaliate economically by slashing public funding for universities that did or whose students and/or faculty said things he didn’t like. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
The question is:
A) Exactly how dependent are these universities on federal funds?
B) Will Trump's bullshit affect other sources of funding?
C) What will "blue state" governance due to protect their state's schools from Trump's bullying?
I do think unfortunately the outlook is "negative", sadly, and a US academic brain drain is entirely possible.
Gotta say, those right-wing commentators who were all up in arms about "but the progressive left is stifling free speech on campus!" truly look dumb these days. To them, obviously it's not "stifling free speech" if it blocks what Dear Leader doesn't want to hear, eh? BobJohnson (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
On A)-C) I don’t know the exact exposure in terms of federal funding and it probably varies a lot from university to university, but I suspect that the federal level nevertheless has quite the leverage because:
  • Trump might be able to pressure the states to cut their funding to some degree by threatening federal transfers to the states. I doubt he would care to distinguish education/research transfers from other transfers in such a blackmail strategy (that would probably be illegal, but we’ve already seen that that’s not really a concern for Trump).
  • Apart from direct federal support, Trump could also threaten any research that’s partially funded by the federal government, which might in turn have a domino effect, as a lot of external funding is based on some sort of matching grants from other sources, meaning that removal of federal funds could threaten other grants too.
  • If he really wanted to fuck with university funding, Trump might also look at student loans and how/whether they can be spent at any particular university (again, that this is probably illegal doesn’t mean Trump won’t try it).
Thus, A)-C) are all interlocked and yet another pressure point that some federal agencies have already threatened to use is not being willing to hire any graduates from universities that don’t behave the way Trump or his cronies would like (e.g. by not being zealous enough in removing anything that even remotely smacks of DEI initiatives). This can provide particularly effective blackmail against certain programmes/studies, such as law.
If Trump & Co. get even more creative, they could further fuck with universities by, say, threatening that none of their graduates would be granted security clearance and thus be unable to work a range of jobs, including with private contractors doing work for the public sector (probably also illegal, but…). ScepticWombat (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Mahmoud Khalil has released his first written statement (available here). Antares (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

How can Europe arm itself?[edit]

Many people above are discussing that since NATO is dying due to the Trump's administration, Europe should spend more on defence, especially since there is also a warmonger nearby. I also think it should, but I see at least one problem. Where will the money come from? Yes, the Laffer curve is mostly a theoretical curiosity, that hardly applies to the European finances, but that doesn't mean that raising taxes even more would be a good idea either. Spending cuts, especially on social welfare don't seem to be an option either (though they might be in other areas, if someone could elaborate, I would appreciate, I don't know a lot about European spending structure). Faster economic growth will be hard to achieve when 1 your workforce is dwindling and you don't want immigration and 2 R&D spending is so low that Amazon spends more on it than every company in Britain and France put together. So, how can Western Europe spend more and protect herself from an aggressive Russia? My guess is that the continent will end up cutting at least some social expenditure and raise some taxes, but for those of you that know more about the European economy and politics than me, what do you think? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I would actually argue that Europe, as a whole doesn’t need to spend that much more on defence. The main issue is not that European countries, in aggregate, spend much too little on defence, the main problem is that they get far too little out of their spending, because it’s fragmented along so many national budgets and relatively small procurements.
This means that there is too little economy of scale when compared to total European defence spending and this is further complicated by a lack of standardisation on equipment, which further increases development, running and maintenance costs.
Part of this is due to some countries favouring domestic producers and thus small scale military Keynesianism/industrial policy, some partnering with a limited number of constantly shifting European partners, depending on the type of weapon system, while others use US procurement to curry favour with Washington.
If Europe is not going to simply piss away a substantial amount of resources, then a common defence production and procurement strategy should be top of the list, not just hosing the defence departments with extra money.
One particular priority should be considerations of practical, strategic self sufficiency and how this might best be attained:
  • How far can the US be trusted to deliver systems and components and could Washington potentially prevent or nerf the use of US systems or those containing key US components (not least software)?
  • A friendshoring strategy for those parts and systems not considered crucial for national defence and/or can’t be currently produced in Europe.
  • A longer term strategy for building the necessary common European development, production and maintenance facilities for the systems and components for European security.
One glaring example of duplication and fragmentation is in main battle tanks (MBTs) where there are competing programmes in Germany (Leopard 2), France (Leclerc), the UK (Challenger 2) and Italy (Ariete), while Poland has signed an agreement with South Korea to build up production of yet another MBT model (the K2 Black Panther), in addition to various upgrade packages developed by several former Warsaw Pact countries for their last Soviet MBT (typically T-72 variants). While it’s good to foster some competition and avoid reliance on a single monopoly, that five unique MBT designs, plus the upgraded Soviet stuff. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
There is certainly a plan (or the concept of a plan) to boost European arms spending. I know that both UK and Spain are committed to it as individual countries. There is debate is about how to finance joint EU spending. It's very much "watch this space" at the moment.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
From my little understanding, the problem with Europe's defenses is mostly that a good part of defense spending has been on information intelligence and cooperative R&D with the US (European countries have control over some patents for things used in modern military equipment) rather than simple mass production (which has largely been outsourced to the US); basically the tech is there but not the means to produce it. Revitalizing Europe's defense sector will mostly mean getting a bunch of military factories up and running again. Whilst Ukraine largely being a ground war (due to both Ukraine and Russia having good anti-air batteries), drones in particular are a cheap thing that Europe should be able to get set up fairly quickly, as it's use in an active warzone has proven to be extremely useful.
As for the risk of the US shutting things off; yes that's a major problem. One of the more looming problems with the Ukraine war is that much of the equipment that Europe has been sending to Ukraine has been reliant on them getting implicit approval from the US beforehand. This goes pretty far - the US's Arms Export Control Act basically means that for all of Europe's military equipment, you currently need an okay stamp from the US to use it or to sell it to someone else, even if that party already has an agreement to receive weapons from the US. Particular examples include the fact that the US had to approve the sale of a military airplane (was unrelated to Ukraine) not because the plane was made in the US, but because a single missile that was included in the sale was made in the US. European and American defense spend has been intertwined for a very long time, so untangling that is going to be a mess, but it should be doable. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
-There's more standardisation with kit than you'd think, but more would help. For example, making sure all Euro tanks can use the same ammo and fuel. Quite a lot of Euros use German Leopards [or variants of] which already means it's not such a hodge-podge of kit as implied. Similar can be said about cooperating with development; see the Typhoon and Storm Shadow. However, having to 'do all this ourselves' is most likely going to cost us more and so nullify any 'savings' made from cutting down the duplication.
-Ukraine has shown the Euro assumption of war to be wrong on two fronts; that a) it wouldn't happen in our own hood and b) it would be either 'short sharp shocks' or low-level 'brushfires'. Result; we've become very 'glass cannon' while Russia is doing 'zerg rushes' in the old Soviet style and as it stands now chances are they'd win. There's a serious risk that we increase our defence spend to simply buy more glass cannons while instead what we really need to design/produce new 'cheap and cheerful' kit which is easy to operate/repair, effective enough and can be produced domestically.
-Speaking of which, we know from Ukraine that what we need is not just more weapons, but more ammo/materiel stocks. A lot more. Europe isn't just a glass cannon, it's one where there's only 10 glass balls per cannon to fire. We also need to drastically expand our reserve forces which means I think we need to have a serious chat about the reintroduction of conscription or at least making serving in the reserves a much more attractive prospect for folks to serve in [for example, I'd be willing to give a stipend to any person serving in the reserves].
-Leading on from this, I'd also argue that a decent % of the spending increase should go to a) Civil Defence orgs and b) the creation of a 'civil reserve' which can be called on in an emergency - helping to build 'national resilience'. Experiences from WW2 onwards show that the provision of training and kit to civilians is a very cost effective way of providing extra capacity; ie to turn civilians into first/second responders to assist the professionals. This is more important because Russia is unlikely to directly attack us but is very likely to attempt hybrid warfare - such as hacking vital networks, sabotage, terrorism, use of criminal groups etc to damage and destabilise us. Similar needs to be done with 'reserve stocks' of things like fuel, medical gear etc so if something does foul up [not explicitly war] we have enough on-hand to ride out the crisis.
-Some of the increase should go to intelligence/law enforcement/education too. Crack spy rings, close down dark money networks, counter misinformation outlets. To educate the population about the pervasive nature of shit like fake news and propaganda networks and go after those who peddle them.
-To a certain extent, it's not a direct 'must cut social spending to fund defence' because what's happening is that Euro nations are running into self-imposed 'rules' regarding tax/spend which is blocking them in. I mean, the British didn't have to slash foreign aid to spend more on defence, they only did so because Reeves seems to be auditioning to be the new Philip Snowden and stupidly promised to not raise taxes. Covid debt is also proving an issue; that it [for example] whacked another 20% of Debt/GDP ratio onto UK.Plc's account and 'Treasury Brain' is demanding that we must do austerity again to 'get it down' and it must be done at all fucking costs, even if it actually damages future economic performance, national resiliency, societal cohesion or external soft/hard power. What's that line about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing? KarmaPolice (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
My point was not that European equipment is not interoperable, but that duplication and fragmentation increase per unit cost leading to a very well-known problem in European military procurement:
  1. Because orders are small, per unit cost increase.
  2. This leads to a reduction in the number of units ordered.
  3. This further increases per unit cost and leads to a vicious cycle of further reduction in the quantities ordered and/or postponement of the order to stretch costs across multiple budgets
  4. This not only further increases unit costs, but also tends to makes it necessary to keep older equipment in service, rather than phasing it out.
  5. Older equipment tend to have higher maintenance costs (because it’s close to being worn out), which further zaps the military budget and means some might look to reduce procurement costs to make ends meet, and, well, you get the picture.
Ironically, despite Germany being the producer of the most prevalent MBT, along with a lot of other kit, its own procurement has been one of the worst in falling prey to this vicious cycle, with political horse trading and constantly changing specifications further driving up costs for several of their orders,
These kinds of problems is why it’s a really bad idea to have such fragmentation and duplication and I only used the MBTs, because they’re an easy illustration of the issues of dispersing, rather than pooling resources to run multiple production lines of a fewer number of designs, not to mention that the latter approach would entail a level of redundancy and thus be more resilient to such things as sabotage etc.
It’s very clear that stockpiles have been kept too low, as KarmaPolice pointed out, and that outsourcing has been pursued overeagerly, but the need to combine and pool procurement (whether domestically produced or imported) should be among the top priorities, if Europe is to both build up domestic capacity and avoid waste. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
The reason I worry about the procurement process is that I think there’s a big risk that this “window of opportunity” might create a lot of hasty, non-coordinated procurement orders that will lead to a lot of subsequent headache. I’d also like to see a general approach of “buy European or present a strong case for why you aren’t” adopted to ensure that procurement is mainly geared towards building up and maintaining European capacity to further European strategic independence. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
-There's a solution for this issue [a problem known of since the 50s]; that of modular weapons systems. Dismissively called 'military Legos' systems like the Danish StanFlex means it's possible for a 'small' nation to order an off-shelf military ship hull and then buy/make the containers to make it fit the intended role. This also gives a) greater flexibility [a survey ship could be quickly turned into an ASW escort or AA battery] as well as making it more 'futureproofed' because as the containers become obsolete you can simply buy new containers. If we take this philosophy and also apply it to planes and armour [more widely than it already has, that is] we might be able to get that unit cost down due to economies of scale and the ability for nations to easily 'mod' their tanks to their desires/role and reduce the maintenance costs because it would be relatively simple to swap out sections as they reached the end of life. A good civilian comparison here is what PCs were like before plug-and-play and standardised connectors [younger folks don't realise just how revolutionary the rollout of USB was].
-The main arguments against this is that of the old generalist/specialist one [an ASW-moduled ship will be inferior to the ASW-designed ship] and a lot of attempts to do this [like the USA's 'Future Combat Systems'] fucked up because it fell into the classic 'Western' trap of trying to overengineer the whole thing and/or put in too much bleeding-edge tech which seems to usually cause more issues than solve. Which folds back into my 'cheap and cheerful' point earlier; that Europe/America's obsession with making high-tech, super-specialised systems is with few exceptions pretty out of sync with what Ukraine is showing us of what a modern war between two industrial powers would look like and we'd be better served by focusing more on decently functional, 'no frills' kit which is affordable and reliable than stuff which gives say 20% more function at twice the price [or more]. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I can’t really disagree with any of these points (and am quite familiar with the StanFlex system), but my worry is exactly that these potentially massive investments are going to be channelled into 27 domestic industrial policies, rather than a single, EU/pan European strategy (the latter also involving non EU NATO members, such as Norway, the UK and possibly Turkey).
From what I’ve heard so far, the new EU fund providing common loans for defence spending will require build up of domestic production as one of the conditions for accessing these funds, which is clearly a good thing, but I’ve heard less about more systematic common procurement beyond the existing models, which tend to be fairly limited, usually involving a handful of countries or less, agreeing to some kind of one off common purchase, possibly with a maintenance package added on. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Note that when it comes to collaboration outside of the EU, Norway should be easy, because its vital interests are just as threatened by Russia as are much of the EU member states’ and it’s already deeply integrated into both NATO and the EU (via the EEA, despite not being an EU member). However, I’m a bit more wary of the UK and especially Turkey.
My hesitation vis-á-vis the UK is mainly because I’m not entirely sure how far Westminster can be trusted not to suddenly descend into another fantasy of “Global Britain” and its “special relationship” nostalgia and try to cozy up to Washington. Hence, if I was more certain that Westminster was prepared to acknowledge where the UK is actually located (geographically, economically and politically), I would have little to no hesitation about such collaboration.
The problem with Turkey is the same that prompted the US to stop exporting certain military equipment to Ankara: The risk that, due to Turkey’s military collaboration with Russia and China, sensitive information might seep across and/or backdoors might be opened into common systems and shared technology. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
-I think the best 'pan Euro strategy' would be similar to what the old Warsaw Pact used to have; that it defined a 'standard' rifle, tank, APC etc and while each pact member was free to adopt a different/native design it needed to be interoperable with the 'standard'. For example, 7.62×39mm was standardised, most nations picked variants of the AK but the Czechs picked a domestically made vz.58. I also think there should be more licenced production going on; that often nations aren't hugely fussed about using a 'foreign design' but they are about using a 'foreign-made' system due to reasons of national security, keeping a domestic manufacturing capacity, mollifying defence-based labour unions etc. There are other benefits from such a distributed production web; for example it allows more nations to retain the facilities to repair/service/upgrade their kit, which a lot of nations which simply buy from another don't have - purchase kit from the USA [for example] and you're usually stuck with 'black boxes' you're not allowed to touch and all maintenance/spares etc have to be done by American companies [qv: British Trident missiles] which can bite you in the arse later on [qv: Iran's F-14s].
-Learning from the Ukrainian war, we can see that one of the cramps the Russians are having is 'lack of production capacity'; esp in regards of high-end gear such as carbon forms, microchips and ceramic plate. Part of this is because a lot of this was imported, while the other half is that the precision machine tools etc to produce them are in themselves imported. Therefore, part of Europe's 'grand security plan' would be to ensure not only do we maintain the capabilities to manufacture these things themselves but we also have the ability to wildly ramp it up in times of war. Part of this plan would be [again] the 'cheap and cheerful' emergency/austerity designs we've got ready if needed but also evaluating also what civilian production lines might be capable of making them - for example, before WW2 the British had a 'Shadow Factory' scheme where civilian companies [mainly carmakers] were subsidised to build factories which could easily turn out military aeroplanes. This is already seen in nuclear weapons; nations like Japan and perhaps Taiwan are seen as 'paranuclear' states as while they don't have nukes and don't have an active military programme they do appear to have all the theoretical/engineering/production questions solved and most likely, viable designs ready to go.
-On geopolitics, I don't see much actual risk from the UK [and no, it's not because I'm a Brit]. The UK/USA alliance was based around 'alignment of interests'; that generally speaking what Washington wanted so did London and therefore, it made sense to cooperate [WW2, Cold War, post Cold-War etc]. However, it is now becoming very obvious that MAGA-Washington has interests which in some respects run against London's [sometimes very against] and both her 'reliability' and 'friend' rating is taking a nosedive. Part of the problem very well might be an old one - that of 'British reserve'. We kinda suck at forceful, clear communications to foreigners - this happened in both world wars [the first especially; London's messages to Berlin so polite/reserved that the German ruling class believed the UK would remain neutral]. And like in 1914, ultimately it's not in London's interests to see a Europe dominated by Russia [or Putinist regimes friendly to it] and therefore, we don't have much choice. Lastly, the Second World War is like a major nerve going into our spines and as long as the likes of Putin continue his Hitler impressions I think Europe can safely bet we'll fall into your camp 'late, but not too late'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I don’t think the Warsaw Pact parallel holds or is feasible for European rearmament for one key reason in particular: Unlike in the Warsaw Pact, most European defence companies are private and aren’t guaranteed the kind of substantial, long term government economic and political support that the countries of the Eastern Bloc lavished on their domestic producers.
Furthermore, given the requirements and complexities involved in some of these systems in terms of development and updates and the specialised production facilities and workforce required, you need both a certain, fairly constant volume, as well as long term orders/commitment to keep these lines running and the specialised workforce on hand.
This is why there’s a substantial risk involved in this “spread it all around as long as it runs on the same fuel and ammo” approach, if the goal is also to ensure that Europe is largely self sufficient in arms manufacture. The only exception is if expectations are that substantial exports will compensate for fragmented European orders (and if you can only keep facilities running due to exports, then that comes with certain vulnerabilities too).
This is especially true for systems that use the kind of components that aren’t easy candidates for dual use and production thus cannot simply be ramped up by switching over non military production lines. The latter approach has also become a lot more difficult since WWII, when it comes to heavy weapons systems, as military and civilian production requirements have increasingly diverged.
And frankly, I still don’t trust the UK, and especially its political elite, to ditch its delusions of grandeur, in which the UK is some sort of important global player in and of itself (incl. as the key bridge builder to Washington). I’m not worried about the immediate situation, but about whether the UK can be continuously relied on over a longer time span. It doesn’t mean European rearmament should exclude the UK, just that a European security setup should not be reliant on UK support to function.
Years ago, I used to meet and converse fairly frequently with certain group of British academics within political science (this was before Brexit and they were all of a decidedly pro EU bend). What struck me was how they too, in my eyes, overestimated the UK’s importance on the world stage. Given that these were people who studied international (and especially EU) politics for a living and yet were quite convinced that the UK was a very important international player, I simply don’t want to bet European security on Westminster not veering off into another round of Sinatra (My Way) politics.
That said, the UK is not the only country I have my doubts about. So, just to mention a few of my worries about some of the larger European military powers:
  • France have similar delusions to the UK about its international importance and tends to get sidetracked by, say, actions in its former colonies that are frankly peripheral to European, and arguably even French, national and security interests.
  • Germany has a terrible history when it comes to military procurement and its general aversion to public spending is likely to surface as soon as the crisis becomes less acute.
  • I’m also not sure how keen the “Club Med” countries will be in the long term (Italy is not that enthusiastic even now, and I can’t help wondering about Spain and Portugal too, while Greece still suffers the after effects of its crushing economic crisis).
And that’s not even considering the tendency to cut back once an immediate crisis recedes. Or that some European countries will be eagerly awaiting any excuse to pretend that “things are about to return to normalcy” in Washington. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- The main military competitor to European 'domestic' arms is the Americans. And quite a lot of Euros are rethinking [some quite loudly] whether they should [for example] buy F-35s or divert those orders to Eurofighter or Saab [the latter now being a 'NATO country' and thus getting lots more interest]. In another example, a lot of Eastern Europeans donated their old 'Soviet-model' armour to the Ukranians in the expectation they'd buy Abrams from the Americans to replace; what happens if they decide to take new Challengers/Leopards/Leclercs instead? Let us also remember that Euro export oppotunities shall most likely get larger too; for example, you think the Canadians or Mexicans shall consider purchasing American arms now? Lastly, 'replenishing reserves' alone will be years of contracts.
- Yes, 'milspec' items are becoming harder and harder to produce; but again the Ukranian War has shown us that any 'general war with Russia' will be in many areas rather low tech. The towed artillery piece, the heavy machine-gun, the landmine, unguided RPG and coil of barbed wire have all played a big part of this conflict - notabily, a lot bigger than any Western military academy predicted. And 'dual use' items include gear as mundane as decent boots and rations.
- I won't argue against the British 'delusions of grandeur' but I think that's passing [can't comment about others due to lack of knowledge]. Previous American administrations have long has a policy [perhaps even written down somewhere] of allowing the Brits to publicly 'save face' while privately then twisting their arm. However, this era appears with Trump to have firmly ended and with the likes of Vance insulting them instead and also being hit with [some] tariffs etc. It is not lost on the British public either that the only domestic cheerleaders for America now are Faragist right-wing fuckwits who I seriously doubt number 20% of the entire population and I doubt will get into power until the early 30s in the earliest. I think the next couple of years a combo of being totally jilted/abused by the US, the continuing Brexit failures and a clear inability to forge a genuine 'independent' foreign stance will lead them to fall into the European orbit as long as the Euros can avoid looking condescending about it. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Damn, now there’s talks in Denmark where local lobbyists are trying to get the new ships for the Royal Danish Navy built entirely in domestic shipyards (rather than just customising and outfitting them domestically), despite the fact that there’s no shortage of European alternatives (Sweden gets its hulls from the UK, then outfits them locally).
This is exactly the fragmentation and duplication we really don’t need, if Europe is to build up and maintain its own production facilities. What makes this particular case even more ridiculous is that, when it comes to naval resources, Europe is already quite self sufficient and also a major exporter of both parts (especially engines) and entire vessels.
It’s probably an indication of just how bad this particular Danish idea is that it received a scathing public rebuke from a former senior Danish naval officer, who pointed out why such a pattern repeated on a European scale would be especially bad for the goals of the larger rearmament project. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I think the 'scathing rebuke' was more [from what I can see from a quick search] that there isn't any current capacity in Denmark to build said hulls, which means the project would have to factor in the re-creation of the capabilities to do so [ie expensive]. However, it is somewhat understandable; I mean, let's say the Danes order their new hulls from the UK [perhaps even the same model as the ones the Swedes got]; what's the benefit for Denmark? After all, it's Britain who gets the work, enriching her economy. What's more, the UK [even in her depleted state] is also one of the few nations which with a few exceptions could 'buy native' from boot to tank which means the chances of Danish orders from the UK are small. Which is why multinational projects of the Eurofighter mould is perhaps the most viable method, and having a small 'liaison group' in the centre which is keeping every member updated with all the IFBs etc coming out and letting them know if others are thinking similar. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
The benefit for Denmark, as the retired naval officer pointed out, is that defence funding is not wasted in trying to create a few, very expensive jobs of dubious long term viability, when there are plenty of existing options. Not to mention that outfitting and maintenance would almost certainly still be done in Denmark, so it’s not like the existing model doesn’t support the domestic economy.
This is a prime example of what Europe really needs to avoid, if the rearmament project is going to create viable, long term capacity within Europe. Because this is unlikely to create a viable warship hull building sector in Denmark, will suck up funds that could be better spent in other parts of the defence budget, while also siphoning work away from other European shipyards that already have such viable warship hull building capacities. If all countries were to follow this route, we would end up with a huge waste and a lot of non viable wannabe defence industries trying to get their part of their respective national budgets based on little more than being domestic producers. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

history professor answers dictatorship questions by wired[edit]

by wired. definitely worth the watch. it's a great complement to our dictatorship article. The G (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not just "history professor". Ruth Ben-Ghiat is an expert on authoritarianism and has written several books on the topic, including Strongmen (2020), Fascist Modernities (2001), Italian Fascism's Empire Cinema (2015).[10] She has been cited in many of our articles.[11] Bongolian (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Academic orphan looking for a home[edit]

I am a self-taught thinker/researcher (with a library of about 5,000, mainly non-fiction) into social problems.
Janosabel (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

A matter of Funding[edit]

How many users does rationalwiki have?

I assume it is substantial. A penny a day from each may hit the $10,000 target. Janosabel (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The last time that statistics were summarized for our site was in 2007-2008.[12] This traffic site reports 666.2K visits last month.[13] Bongolian (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh, no... GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I also got a +666 character edit to the Heaven page.[14] Double score!

Someone to feel sorry for[edit]

The US President elected November 2028/succeeding Trump who has to renegotiate so much with all the other states who have been alienated and/or have negotiated alliances where the US is treated as a marginal actor. Anna Livia (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

"People voted for this shit" and that's the problem: I would think that one cannot assume that the United States is the "leader of the free world" anymore. At least, as long as there is a very large audience for the current tribalism-oriented, isolationist, anti-intellectual, and authoritarian Trumpism movement. Pax Americana as a result may indeed very well be dead, or at least neutered, unless the politics here changes significantly.
(Even without Trump, "the GOP propaganda machine" still exists, so I am not hopeful that this element will disappear completely anytime soon personally. Maybe Trump will fuck things up so badly that such will be neutered though. We'll see.) BobJohnson (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Trump got the vote of about 30% of the total voting population. Why is the majority so silent? Janosabel (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
See ScepticWombat's post at the end. Lots of propaganda floating around these days. Plus, a lot of people just don't care.
But also see the people who *are* protesting. SwasticarsTesla is seeing significant protests. There's been several rallies around Mahmoud Khalil. Angry people have forced GOP representatives to flee town halls, even in rural areas.
Part of the issue is that Democrat leadership is corporatist and impotent. So there's no really big organized way to oppose Trump. But people are angry about that too. The 2026 primaries should be... interesting... to see if this anger translates into anything. (There's been some comparisons of the situation with the conditions that led to the Tea Party movement, but it's hard to know what will happen here since, unlike the Tea Party, the corporate astroturfing probably will be minimal.) BobJohnson (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth I noticed a decently sized protest in my town of like 10,000 out in the boonies of New England last weekend. No more than 50 people from what I saw, but it's something. Mostly older people too, which I thought was suprising. Gabaghoul 🥩 18:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
30,000 turned out for a Bernie Sanders / AOC anti-oligarchy rally in Denver yesterday. I mention this because things like this typically aren't being reported too much, in favor of... other things. (The New York Times for instance is currently spending their non-Trump oxygen covering modern Unabomber fans for some reason. Why?) BobJohnson (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the US's political ties with Canada or Europe can be renegotiated. An enormous amount of trust has been lost and will not easily be regained. I have never seen so much anti-American sentiment in my life.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
A benefit for Canada is that, from what I can tell, I think Trump is doing a great job neutering the previously creeping "Trumpism" in Canadian conservatives. Trumpy Canadian stuff like Rebel News still exists, but that site seems awfully out of step, even laughable. The Canadian conservatives making headlines these days are ones like Doug Ford who are punching back at Trump, not kissing his ass.
(Not sure if there's a similar effect in Europe or not. It would make sense if there was.)
(Side note: Isn't it weird that "killing Pax Americana" is "making America great again"? It's like Trump and MAGA never knew what America really was.) BobJohnson (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Another free and fair US election seems a bit optimistic at this point IMO. And Trumpism becoming dead in Canada is maybe occurring in the Eastern provinces, but I assure you that in the prairies, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan, frothing at the mouth MAGA supporters are still present; the incredibly muted tariff responses of Danielle Smith and Scott Moe are, when compared to other provinces, revealing I'd say. Impiricism (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The last national free and fair election would have predated Citizens United v. FEC (2010) giving corporate citizenship, and Shelby County v. Holder (2013) that began the neutering of the Voting Rights Act (1965). It would have excluded the 1968 and 1972 elections in which Nixon committed felonies in each one to get elected and the 1980 election in which Reagan committed a felony to get elected. That leaves the elections of 1976 (Carter), 1984 (double Reagan), 1988 (greater Bush), 1992 (Clinton), 1996 (double Clinton), 2000 (lesser Bush), 2004 (double dubya), and 2008 (Obama) as arguably free and fair (or more accurately freest and fairest). Bongolian (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not able to rule out a third Trump term. I think he'll push for it hard at some point. --Ozzyboo (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Does Trump play chess? Anna Livia (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, the GOP has been playing the Viktor Orban playbook for several years now. By this I mean: elections still happen in Hungary, and they aren't manipulated... overtly. However, many subtle changes have occurred in Hungary's landscape -- such as making media, education, courts, and other institutions Orban mouthpieces, and extensive gerrymandering. The elections in Hungary are still "free" in a "technically correct" sense, but strongly gamed.
The GOP already has implemented much of this playbook. Donald Trump was elected on a wave of propaganda; a lot of American media, ranging from Fox News to Elon Musk's Twitter, exists in an alternate universe where the Democrats can do nothing right and are to blame for everything on the planet; extensive gerrymandering does occur (on both sides in this case, though). I don't think the US is quite fully Orbanized due to the extensive federalism and some independence in the courts still (despite there clearly being GOP suck-up judges as well). But US elections certainly are quite gamed at this point.
How much of the GOP side of the gaming will fall apart once the Dear Leader Trump expires, of course, is an open question, since much seems to rely on his appeal to celebrity "charisma". BobJohnson (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
That might not happen for a while. While Trump is a walking epitome of an unhealthy diet and lifestyle, that's not to mention his age and apparent cognitive degeneration, he also has access to some of the best healthcare on the entire fucking planet. Antares (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Unlike some 'ordinary Americans'.
What will happen as the tariffs and other factors start having serious impacts on 'MAGAists and ordinary working people are affected? Anna Livia (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I’m not optimistic about a direct blowback against Trump from his supporters, unfortunately. I think the calamities and damage caused by Trump and his toadies are far more likely to result in a lot of deflection among his supporters who will blame anyone but Trump, such as Congress critters, “Washington” (but not Trump), “internationalists”, “foreigners” “bad rich people” (again not Trump) etc.
I just saw some clips of West Virginians who were among those hard hit by the recent floods and none were quick to blame Trump or Musk, or they complained about their(!) federal aid being cut, rather than all the supposed federal “waste”. Oh, and they generally clamoured for more FEMA funding and aid, which is quite hilarious, considering they were all old enough to potentially remember all of the “FEMA camps” conspiracy brouhaha.
They also kept insisting that “Washington” and the federal government had never done anything for West Virginia, showing zero awareness of the massive federal transfers the state has received for decades. Instead, everything was about self reliance within the local community.
It’s worth remembering that not only were some of the interviewees self proclaimed Trump voters, but that he won West Virginia by a landslide (almost 70% of the vote), that the state is generally solidly Republican (their one former “Democratic” senator was the infamous Joe Manchin), and that it’s thus not a bad proxy for the reactions of Trump supporters in a crisis.
While I can easily see why these West Virginians feel left behind, the seemingly complete lack of knowledge and/or awareness that this does not mean that their state isn’t already heavily reliant on federal transfers is probably indicative of the kind of selective reactions we’re likely to see to the fallout from Trump’s chaotic and destructive actions from his supporters. I think it’s basically that they never considered the possibility that it would also be their(!) faces that Trump’s leopards would eat. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

What went wrong with Elon Musk?[edit]

I never actually heard of the guy till he bought Twitter and changed its name. However, from research, it seems he was once idolized as a visionary with big plans for humanity, particularly creating a space colony as well as environmentally friendly energy. Then he suddenly become a laughingstock after he bought Twitter and rebranded it. Now he is one of the most hated figures currently engaging in inhumane activities and damaging the country. How did this guy go from visionary to laughingstock to villain? Tunafish (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

IMO He hasn't actually changed at all..... his activities stopped being seen as generally positive and useful..... and people said as much. And he didn't like that. When he as no clothes we can see him as he really is. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Elon Musk is but the loudest voice of what's an issue with many of the Silicon Valley CEO/VC scene.
Take the insanity of the neoreactionary movement.
The media started occasionally noticing this movement around 2017 but the bulk of the RW article is well before that. It's still not exactly well known, though it got some attention in the 2024 election. It's the most naked "techno-fascist" movement in SV. While off its rocker, it's not *unrepresentative* of the scene.
So this shit is not *completely* new.
The thing here is, some US techies have a strong libertarian streak. (And when I say "libertarian", I mean that Ayn Rand-ish style worship of supposed "free markets").
Furthermore, some of these tech libertarians also have that Peter Thiel tendency, of course, of thinking that they are Completely Right with a capital C & R. To the point where pesky things like democracy, which give a bit of a voice to non-libertarians (which are most of us -- American libertarian philosophy is *not* popular), are inconveniences that should be eliminated. Because it is not the libertarians who are out of touch, it is the voters who are Wrong, of course.
It probably didn't help that libertarian tech bros heavily entangled with cryptocurrency, which became the currency of the lawless because what else is it good for?
It also probably didn't help that many of them made a ton of money during the Web 2.0 years. It's way too easy for the uber-rich to loose touch with the common man. Subsequently, a lot of prior facade of even attempting to care for the common man is gone. To give one example, I remember when tech bros were at one point musing about universal income. Haven't heard that angle much lately, eh?
In fact, instead, some of the SV scene has embraced the narrative of being The Smartest Person In The Room. (To the point where even things like eugenics have been brought back from the dead.) Classism, too, is rife. Being "anti-woke" is easy for a classist.
To some extent I also think that the "tech bros" got high on their own supply, too. A recurring topic in tech forums (which tend to, rightly, often be skeptical of tech) is "dark patterns" -- deceptive tactics online services or business do in order to manipulate user behavior. I suspect that for some (Musk, for sure, being a Twitter addict), "dark patterns" -- their very own social media algorithms -- helped fuel radicalization in itself. BobJohnson (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I think what has happened more than anything else is out tech-bros have majorly merged with the older 80s Gordon Gecko 'greed is gorgeous' finance arseholes. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
As this video goes over, Elon has always been overhyped. It's just that back in the day, the only people calling him out on his shit were people knowledgeable about niche topics. Hyperloop for instance met with heavy criticism from traffic engineers. It's just that as Elon Dunning-Krugers his way into topics of interest to the general public, like gaming, more people are noticing that his super genius reputation is just hype. IOW, not much has changed about the man himself at all. Antares (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

RationalWiki got sued again (twice)[edit]

The RationalMedia Foundation has just been hit with TWO lawsuits.

Trent tmtoulouse shared this news in the Board of Trustees chatroom on the official RationalWiki Discord server, and immediately announced that he is completely done with RationalWiki:

Since I am no longer involved in raising or spending money, or making any operational descisions, I feel like I have abdocated that role a long time ago and have essentially resigned my position. I am happy to offer personal opinion if asked. If any of hte suits move forward with me listed as a defendant I intend to file an affidative stating my resignation. As such I can not take action to precure a lawyer or anything for the foundation. —Tmtoulouse

DuceMoosolini read this and immediately resigned from the Board.

There is nobody at the wheel. Unless somebody steps up and starts doing some real heavy lifting when it comes to reincorporating in Oregon (a state with good anti-SLAPP laws that would specifically protect us from lawsuits like this), these lawsuits are, potentially, the death of the Foundation. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

What's funny about the Smith lawsuit (aside from the fact that it is pretty much a joke) is if there are any Oliver Smith nuggets online, they are probably actually *on* Rationalwiki... as, despite his personal ban, the small size of this Wiki (plus the on-topic nature) means that more of his junk is on here. Wikipedia has more protection against "disruptive sock" type stuff and my impression is his sock shit did not go far there. If Smith plays a part in somehow KOing Rationalwiki, way to go on the self-own! Hell, I'm of the mood that a "mass delete" of racialism articles might be a good protection against the long-running brouhaha now that such has reached lawsuit levels. Hope that's what Smith wanted!
The other thing though is the Smith lawsuit has the audacity to complain that being blocked from a service by a moderator is defamation. This not only should be easy to dismiss on Section 230 grounds, but if Rationalwiki is forced to "lets it go", it possibly sets a bad precedent for any Internet service with voluntary moderation service. Add in the fact that Smith is a habitual court abuser (Substack recently swatted a Smith lawsuit away with a motion to dismiss) and you'd think the actual lawyering required to dismiss this would be pretty easy, and maybe one can get some help. Substack has some Kik messenger folks to help out. We don't . BobJohnson (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@Stabby the Misanthrope If the RMF dies, will RW die too? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I would take this threat seriously. If the RMF loses its domain, somebody could still copy and paste the content elsewhere, but we'd no longer have the same PageRank. Also, legal reports to Google could further nuke it at that point. We should probably do some minimal course correction, but also signal that we do mean and will abide by it in the future. This could help us in court. KaDaShOvA (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I suggest [unless legally impossible] that RW raids it's reserves and moves to Oregon now, with the hope/expectation we'll raise the final ~$3k in the interim. What's more, fucking employ someone to do the 'heavy lifting' if we can't find anyone to do it. A nest egg is worthless to a dead org. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
That's kinda beside the point, though. Speaking as a law student, both lawsuits will have to be defended wherever your state of incorporation was at the time of the purported offense. Where was your domain registered? Bookability (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I know that. The point is that to avoid any more hits on RW. Anyway, Oliver is defending themselves from the UK and isn't a lawyer so I actually suspect RW could fight that one if we could find somebody to merely turn up to the courtroom. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Is there a way to download the entirety of RationalWiki's articles for offline viewing? Assuming servers do get shutoff. Impiricism (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Rationalwiki is available on Kiwix for download (like other Wikis), but it has not been updated since March 2021. BobJohnson (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
This is a great website but has proven to be unsafe in a few areas; until a month ago there wasn't even any rule in place to block users from off-site harassment. There should be a proper legal team like Wikipedia and a phone number. The Foundation has had months to move but nothing was done, they are still in New Mexico. There should be a solid board of trustees (2 have resigned in the last 48 hours). Duce is a good editor it's sad to see he resigned.
I have been threatened with legal action from one of the above plaintiffs in the last 24 hours telling me he is going to reveal my identity and expose me if I do not stop editing here. I made the mistake of giving him some information about myself. I lecture at universities on veganism so I do not want my identity leaked because dozens of carnivore diet loons will come after me. I have decided to resign from editing RationalWiki. Other Wikis are safer to edit. There isn't even a check-user here nor a ban list or sock-puppet investigation list and not enough senior admins. If there was a check-user we could have created a sock-puppet investigation for Smith and listed his old accounts. He has complained that trustees have blocked accounts under his real name incorrectly. I am not sure why users were using his real life name. Perhaps a policy should have been in place where real names cannot be used like at Wikipedia per the OUTING rule. I have spent many hours creating detailed articles on this website debunking pseudoscience. I couldn't care less about "HBD" researchers. If RationalWiki votes and wants to delete all those articles just remove them, I would support BobJohnson on that. Oldman4 (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
This is America; when it comes to "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press", money rules above all. Wikipedia has enough income to have a team of 6 figure lawyers to swat aside bullshit suits. We don't.
I personally have long been in favor of "Checkuser" (e.g. IP logging); I am also in favor, in light of the current web, of Wikipedia-like rules on editing from VPNs. There is an "old guard" who used to edit this Wiki in the more wild west days of the Internet; they don't edit much at all now, but will mysteriously pop up anytime discussions about these rules come up, and have successfully swatted those rules away so far. Conservapedia level trolls are not my concern here; they are nothing compared to the trolls and gaming in the current environment. So much of the old guard is IMHO a bunch of naive fucks living in the past.
From what I can tell, Jonathan Anomaly (my guess of who said harasser is) seems to have recently been trying to scrub any perceived "right wing" associations in order to shine up his eugenic, Silicon Valley-appeal "superbaby" startups, and the Rationalwiki article's high Google rank (and the fact that the org is in no state to defend itself) probably irks. I think the lawsuit is incorrect from the start (point 39 is wrong, they fucking spelled pseudoscience as "pseuydoscience" in point 41 showing the slop; point 47 is wrong, Anomaly *is* a public figure by his published books alone; point 51 is wrong, the article says that Anomaly published in the antisemitic Unz Review, not that Anomaly was an antisemite itself; etc.) The lawsuit seems like it tries to quibble with "technical correct", which any competent lawyer should be able to tear apart. But you need money for "competent lawyer".
Anomaly got a nice Hope not Hate investigation into him, which actually led to articles in The Guardian and even the fucking Daily Mail; from what I can tell, significant chunks of the RW articles came from that. This is not one of the "shit HBD" articles, and given that parts of Silicon Valley (particularly the Elon Musk side of the fence) seem to want to do a speedrun of 1920s eugenics intellectual climate (sigh), it's more relevant than a lot of the Smith stuff. But this is America, money rules above all, and shit like this is why our RSF press freedom index is down in the dumps, aligned next to Gabon and Belize instead of Norway and the Netherlands. Fortunately it will be a lot tougher for him to go after the UK orgs (assuming the reporting is solid, which it seems to be); for a start, the UK laws don't like that eugenics IVF shit up there to begin with. BobJohnson (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Anomaly is featured in the weirdly neutral Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Eugenics Ioe bidome (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
As for the offline download, could a board member not get a XML dump from Special:Statistics or Special:Export? Phantasmagoria (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
There was a 2023 dump of RW on the Internet Archive,[15] though one should be very cautious about using Torrent downloads due to the risk of embedded malware from Torrent servers.[16] Bongolian (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Aside from cash donations and New Mexico based legal aid, what concrete actions would be helpful and what is the best private way to communicate with the board about them? Polydamas (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Deleting HBD/racialism articles[edit]

The HBD and racialism articles are the primary reason why Rational Wiki is worthwhile.

The Anomaly lawsuit makes clear that publicizing facts about Anomaly's history of promoting race pseudoscience has impacted his career and that's a good thing.

I think it's very likely that Kirkegaard is assisting Anomaly, since Anomaly appears to be a member in good standing of the Kirkegaard network via Aporia. Kirkegaard has plenty of money thanks to plutocrat racists. And the timing of the Anomaly lawsuit is no doubt exactly because RMF is publicly fundraising to move to a less SLAPP-happy state.

I'm no lawyer, but it looks pretty clear that Anomaly's lawsuit is pure SLAPP. And in addition to deserving to lose the lawsuit, Anomaly deserves - and likely will get - a good dose of Streisand effect in response to his assault on the First Amendment. Pinkerite (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The First Amendment does not apply to private litigation. Zatoichi (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
SLAPP suits in principle are an assault on the First Amendment. Pinkerite (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Oliver Smith[edit]

I have defended Smith in the past at Rational Wiki, because he has been a target of attacks by the race pseudoscience mob, and once gave me a heads-up when I was being attacked on Twitter by Razib Khan and Emil Kirkegaard and others in tandem.

A month ago Smith mentioned to me via email that he wanted to sue RMF and I told him not to, and I thought I had convinced him. So I was surprised when some troll spammed my RW page with the info of the Smith lawsuit. I agree with the assessment that Smith's lawsuit is garbage. He has apparently decided to make RMF his scapegoat since he can't identify the people who are harassing him by sending nasty snailmail to him and his neighbors. I have no doubt Kirkegaard is behind the harassment, since Kirkegaard has a history of harassing Smith and has financial motivation.

Yet ironically, and stupidly, Smith's lawsuit is aiding and abetting Kirkegaard and friends by causing more stress on RMF. So going forward I will not be defending Oliver Smith. Pinkerite (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I told you he was an arsehole. Spud (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Duce is back (and Board response)[edit]

I have rescinded my resignation from the Board due to its near-complete inactivity since the two lawsuits were announced. I am currently in the process of lighting a fire under everyone's asses so we can organize a response. The Board owes it to the community to at least put up a fight. I am making this announcement publicly for two reasons. First, so the community can hold the Board accountable to this promise of action. Second, because myself or other Board members might ask members of this community for assistance or advice. This is RationalWiki's darkest hour, but I believe that if we all come together, this will be followed by our finest moments. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Bravo! Pinkerite (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I have posted the first in a series about Anomaly on Pinkerite. Pinkerite (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, DuceMoosolini! Let's support our board in this fight. Bongolian (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Make that thrice for lawsuits See Talk:Russell T. Warne‎‎ Warne v. Rationalwiki Foundation, Inc. (1:25-cv-00274) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69742296/warne-v-rationalwiki-foundation-inc/. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussing this matter publicly[edit]

Maybe the people responsible for this internet site should not discuss something like this on a publicly available forum? It will only encourage individuals compromised by the site's content to sue too. New world (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

These lawsuits are spurious, get free legal counsel and tell them you are looking for Anti-SLAPP and see where they send you. If it becomes a money game, that's one thing, but I bet there's a lawyer who wants an easy anti-slapp win on the cheap. Torrent (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
There are now 4 lawsuits https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69772253/te-nijenhuis-v-rationalwiki-foundation-inc/ . What does this mean for the RationalWiki Foundation? How is the the Foundation going to put a legal defence up for all these lawsuits? I see that the Foundation is nowhere near moving to Oregon because the fundraiser is not even over. What does the Foundation plan on doing if there is a 6th or 7th lawsuit? 134.122.101.50 (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
@ApooftGnegiol; @Bongolian; @DuceMoosolini; @Flandres; @KarmaPolice; @Spud: Some person should quickly remove this section and hide it from both common lurking users and administrators. New world (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Lawsuits on the weekly and no damage control is being done. 2600:387:15:3C11:0:0:0:5 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
All from the same law firm. It makes me wonder if this lawyer is contacting the subjects of every negative BLP article we have here to make a quick buck by suing on their behalf. 2600:387:15:3C11:0:0:0:5 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Jan te Nijenhuis is best friends with Heiner Rindermann, I predict he will be the next to file. 216.238.66.182 (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh, how surprising, a German now. It's almost as if all this can be traced all the way back to Mengele if you look at the makind Quarterly. They're all just Nazis. It's literally that simple and we should no longer be afraid to say it. 71.125.40.33 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Since we're talking about lawsuits[edit]

Discussion moved to RMF page

Trump Derangement[edit]

In the news. Anna Livia (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

So... when do the (exceptionally large, nation-paralyzing) mass protests begin, with or without violent resistance to the fascist regime? Is it when Trump's administration bans the "sick, evil, and dangerous" Democratic Party or arrests prominent members (midterms mayhap... prolly 2028 election though I would think)? Or- .... oh... there won't be anything like that? Most Americans still don't think it'll get that far? ... that's depressing. Life is depressing. I'm depressed :( Impiricism (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm guessing the summer. Antares (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
"Dog and pony show" bills like this mean nothing, they are just designed for talking points on the political circus. It won't even make Governor Tim Walz's desk.
At any rate, these days, "woke derangement syndrome" is far worse. Always has been. Lyndon Johnson called it a long time ago; racists are willing to empty their pockets if some charlatan comes along and promises to hurt "the right people". (Never tends to work out that way, though, does it?) BobJohnson (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Taking notes from the Soviets, I guess. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 23:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
So, one, it's performative nonsense, two nobody will ever get an official diagnosis, and three, if they did a person classified with a real mental illness would be protected by a lot more than 'DEI' removal efforts would strip, which goes to show these legislators have no fucking clue what they are doing. They are just giddy about their perceived zeitgeist, they are using their elected positions of actual power to be smug clowns. It's not the bill people should be worried about, because no doctor will ever diagnose you with Trump Derangement, you are safe from that nonsense. It's that these people think this is worth their time as elected officials. If it DOESN'T make Waltz' desk/platform as exactly a dog and pony show, then he is failing at explaining why modern Republican governance is wasteful and antithetical to good governance. Call it out for everyone's sake. Torrent (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Sluggish schizophrenia
'How can a sane person oppose a system which is so determined to help the people and country?' Yuri Andropov to Oleg Kalugin, c1977.
KarmaPolice (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
To Impiricism's point, though... there *are* protests going on. Nation-paralyzing? No. But they are there.
Much of the focus that I see recently is on Elon Musk's Tesla. It's enough to get Donnie's little fee-fees hurt and casually throw around "domestic terrorist" in his usual whiny way.
Remember, these protests are not risk free. Musk has his army of brownshit shitposters willing to do the usual doxxing run-around to any organizers the mob notices. There's more than a touch of "mafia state" in Trump's America (albeit a mafia composed of basement dwellers...)
Still, protests are happening, and from what I see, there is some impact. It is pretty clear that some of Tesla's 40% stock price decline YTD is due to Musk's DOGE shit, Hitler sympathies, and obsession with the "anti-woke". Such is killing Tesla's brand and Tesla sales. So all this is not nothing. BobJohnson (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
(I'll also add in the many recent stories of Republican politicians angrily being confronted by their constituents. Nation paralyzing, no, but it's enough where GOP leadership has instructed the politicians to bravely run, run away! from talking to those those pesky voters. Mind you, a lot of folks still like the Trump... the Orange One cult has a hold on so many. But a lot do seem to be pissed off. And it's only March.) BobJohnson (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
There is a distinct lack of coverage; to the point I know people in my [foreign] circle who think nobody is actually opposing Trump's shittiness. However, my circle has noticed a) the Tesla boycott and b) Vance keep on being booed in public. So those need to be strengthened/widened. But I think the main cramp right now is that the Democrats still seem to not get it into their fucking thick skulls that 'the Second American Revolution' is being done right now and if you don't actively oppose it [including mobilising the people] those fucking MAGA tanks will run over your spines sooner or later. So there's talks about who will be the '28 Pres pick? Who fucking cares? At this rate, that election will resemble the one Putin had last year! KarmaPolice (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Keep an eye on the Democrats that *are* putting a good effort in, folks like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and whatnot. The "spineless middle" of the party, the Chuck Schumers of the world, the "leadership", really looks fucking weak right now.
I think the Democrat "leadership", blinded by being part of the donor class, are trying to play up to some imagined Third Way "middle ground" that really doesn't exist now. Or, rather, if it exists, is a small little slice of life akin to the "Never Trumper" Republicans. This is no longer 1995. It shouldn't be about pealing off Republican voters with watered down corporate conservatism. It should be all about appealing to the "double party haters", the apathetic third, those who (rightly) believe that American politics is all about enriching the donor class above all. I mean, hell, the working class seems to like Sanders despite the term "Democrat" being supposedly toxic to them; if the Democrats want to improve their standing, why not look for hints here instead of this mushy Third Way rehash?
Now, the two parties obviously are quite different even though they are both corporatist (and some people are getting a lesson about that these days :p ). But the Democrats won't win too many more votes being the party of the "slightly kinder and gentler oligarch" sect. A few of their politicians know this; a lot don't. BobJohnson (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Speaking purely personally, I think it's got to the stage where you don't need to hugely talk about what you would 'like to see done', simply to stop the New Order. The illegality, the mindless hacking apart of the state, the neutered media, the ever-rising feelings that to speak out is risky, that your freedoms are under direct, organised assault, the personality cult, utter politicisation of the civil service etc. That it is Happening Here now and this might be the last chance to stop it in a manner which doesn't involve a full-blown actual war. It's actually got to the point I don't think it's hyperbole to talk about, say working out how to appeal to the rank/file of the military to defy orders to deploy against the American people.
And history shows us that while 'people power' can work, said people power needs leaders to rally it, to grant visibility to it and to sell 'project liberation' to the wider public. I'd actually suggest thinking of founding some kind of 'Moral Majority' umbrella org which can unify all the disparate groups into a very simple manifesto to oppose Project 2025 and their dreams of a Putinist Randmaid's Tale. And to accept that yes, there will be risks, but that cannot be helped. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Can I mention Vaclav Havel's essay The Power of the Powerless (Internet Archive (also worthy of support) version here? Anna Livia (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The U.S. has always been ruled by businesses and by money to some extent; from its earliest day you needed to own land in order to vote and that requirement excluded a significant portion of the population. Your movement won't get very far unless you can convince some business leaders that their interests align with yours. Part of the reason why Regean and his team were so successful was because they were able to unite business interests (particularly in finance and energy) and religious leaders like Falwell against common enemies; the internal enemy of the secular welfare state and the external enemy of the Soviets.
The current administration seems to be doing a lot to piss off every industry that isn't tech or finance (not just workers, but even the bosses in the form of hurting their bottom lines through things like tariffs on materials and deporting their employees), so now seems like a good time for progressives and moderates to court businessmen and workers who have been hurt by the Republicans' shenanigans. A Russia-style oligarchy where plutocrats and the well-connected get to ignore laws they don't like and crush everyone else is bad both for people who hate capitalism and for capitalists who aren't part of the oligarchy. Gabaghoul 🥩 17:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
There actually have been a couple of "correction" periods to excessive capitalism / business / "big money" rule in American history. Broadly speaking, these would be:
  • The Progressive Era (1890-1920) -- This essentially was a correction to the widespread political corruption and monopoly powers in the Gilded Age, and probably the most significant period in American history where "the biz got spanked a bit".
  • The New Deal (1933-1939) -- sure, the Roaring Twenties was fun, but there was also a lot of idiocy, resulting in the Great Depression. While I don't think businesses got quite as spanked by FDR during this period (compared to the progressive era with its trust busters), businesses hated FDR, to the point where the fascist Business Plot dictator takeover dream was a thing.
The issue here with the "follow the business money" deal is that I think this is precisely what the Third Way mush types are doing. Any Big Business types who are not Republican aligned are still not going to want to rock the boat too much. And for the moment, these types pay the DNC bills (thanks, Citizens United). Yet, a lot of the root cause behind Trumpism and all the other populist right movements is the decline of the middle class, hollowed out by globalization (the source of all the "immigrants" that the rubes detest), automation, and the supply side economics type policies of Ronald Reagan onward. For the moment, the propaganda is working to convince millions that a billionaire New Yorker is actually looking out for their interest because he "talks tough". It's a ruse, of course, but I don't think you'll be able to break that ruse with corporatist Third Way shit. BobJohnson (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
'Follow the money' leads almost immediately to 'we need to accept the New Order' conclusions and in this case, doing what the MAGA-King demands. History notes how few big capitalists actually opposed the building of the Third Reich in the first three years while we can reel off a ton of scientists, creatives, journalists and more ordinary folks who either resisted or fled [military officers also suffered this weakness of lack of resistance]. The answer to this is simple; as Orwell glibly noted then; 'that unless [a designated Other personally] the capitalist has very little to fear from fascism'. History also tells us that there will be 'rich pickings' for capitalists who do accept the New Order; from taking over former-Other businesses cheap to getting govt contracts or other handouts.
We also need to note that even if the American economy goes kuput the major capitalists will almost without fail become richer because their stranglehold over the productive assets of the nation will rise, as well as booking the ever-increasing debt held by the American peons as 'assets' for their balance sheets [an act made easier with DOGE gutting the SEC]. It is also fairly likely that over time the American finance houses shall learn the New Order's tune, making it even easier for the 'loyal' capitalists to get free money to prop up their empires while those still resisting find themselves gutted for parts.
So as a TL:DR; 'don't fucking rely on the forces of capitalism to save American democracy'. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Good luck overthrowing the capitalists when they control the guys who make most of the guns, own and operate most of the communications infrastructure, and have enough cash to pay off the judges. When you run into people who can't be reasoned with on your path to revolution, you'd better have some powerful friends to convince those people to change their tune - politely or otherwise. Gabaghoul 🥩 20:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
On the plus side, most of the capitalist class isn't hugely in favour of the MAGA-King either, so 'overthrowing capitalists' is not automatically required to 'stop the MAGA-project'. What's more, in this case it's not 'making a revolution' but actively stopping the MAGA one. Ultimately, most are fairly flaccid outside their own narrow interests and as such will bend and flex to whoever they think is winning. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I think that the American founders and authors of the constitution and subsequent amendments, designed a system meant to resist authoritarian movements like the one we currently face. Will it hold against the intemperate, wrathful stupidity that seems to have overtaken the Republican Party? Perhaps. We may yet see it as an unpleasant phase of American democracy, one that passes as all others have so far passed. There are no guarantees in life. It is, I think, impressive that the Constitution has survived and even caused our society to develop in ways that have, in the past, advanced justice and social welfare. But, there is no "right side of history."
The desire of Republicans to designate ideological opposition to Trumpism as mental illness is not a symptom of fascism, but of modern authoritarianism. During Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy (1922-1943), psychiatric hospitals were used to punish those persons who did not conform to the new regime, including political enemies. The Nazis decided to eliminate all the mentally ill in general and had no compunction about classing dissidents as such. In the Soviet Union, psychiatric hospitals were often used by the authorities as prisons, in order to isolate political prisoners and discredit their ideologies. And recently, the CCP has been known to incarcerate dissidents in mental hospitals.Zatoichi (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Small (and a bit icky) schadenfreude-y update[edit]

One of the five Minnesota Republican Senators who sponsored the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" dog and pony show bill, Justin Eichorn (age 40, married with 4 kids), has reportedly been arrested for attempting to solicit sex from what he thought was a 16-year old girl. *cough* BobJohnson (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Trump derangement part 2[edit]

From my 'usual source of weird news' (having trained the algorithms somewhat) - his chess involvement and [17] (James VI-and-I's quote 'The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth...' may be appropriate here) Anna Livia (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

There is also [18]. (There is also the comment 'We get the politicians we deserve - what have we done to deserve Trump?) Anna Livia (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)