RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive473

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 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>, <472>, <474>, <475>
, (new)(back)

Supposedly anti-semitic imagery[edit]

Supposedly, this AI generated image (the one on the left) by LFI of far-right TV personality Cyril Hanouna (who's popular talk show, TPMP, was recently banned and who has expressed dreams to present himself in the presidential elections 2027) is « anti-semitic ». LFI changed the image and attributed the error to the AI (which is most likely what happened). The media have now started a massive campaign on this poster attacking it for « anti-semitic references » (the AI most likely did take into account Hanouna's Jewish Tunisian origins). LFI was convicted now, but for image rights, and not for anti-semitism. New world (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: I did not realise the first link was from a Turkish media close to the government of Erdogan. What is important here is more the image itself than what's written about it by this particular journal. New world (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
My French is not that good anymore and my politics are not that global, so por favor, help me with this one. The black and white photo is called antisemitic, but it's two pictures of this Cyril Hanouna with the same exact quote attributed to La France Insoumise. I don't know what any of the implications are, I have never heard of Cyril Hanouna. Did the politics change with the posters (affiche) or is it simply considered anti Semitic to criticize this person? Torrent (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
The media considers the way Hanouna was represented on the left image in my first link as anti-semitic, because it supposedly takes over anti-semitic themes from the 1930s (Hanouna's angry look). The image on the right was then made to replace the first image on the same poster (the subject of the poster is a demonstration against the far-right, of which Hanouna is a part of). Now, LFI has been convicted of breaking image rights because of the one on the right, what the media criticise though is the AI-generated left one. New world (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
If you want to see him in action, here is the grand Cyril Hanouna. Even with broken French you will get a general idea. New world (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

anonymous is back with dreadnought![edit]

Anonymous is back with operation dreadnough. what are people's thoughts? Koafox (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The only thing that I've heard about that is that when Twitter got PWNED two weeks ago. Anonymous claimed responsibility, but so did another hacking group.
In reality, the root cause of the pwnage (no matter who actually did the hack) seems to be some shitty infrastructure that was a very easy target. Oopsies happen, but they will happen even more when you fire nearly everyone and leave a shell of a social media service to smolder on. Something to think about while Elon Musk tries to use the "Twitter playbook" against the entire US government!
Regarding this "Anonymous" campaign, I have heard nothing since then so I have no idea what else to think at this point. BobJohnson (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Trump/MAGA WIGO[edit]

Self explanatory; all the Trumpian stuff is flooding the WIGOs, so like the Covid one can we have a separate WIGO for it all? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Trumpery and Trumpetry are 'real words' if required. Anna Livia (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm thinking about it. I'd certainly like to see more flags apart from the Stars and Stripes on the WIGO World page more often. But where, for example, would the Trump and Vance being a couple of arseholes to Zelenskyy story go? And what about the Trump and Canada, Greenland and Panama stuff? And Trump's hard on for Netanyahu and desire to get his mitts on Gaza? That and there isn't much RW-related stuff happening outside the US being reported by the mainstream media at the moment. Pity. I could do with a nice story, like an LGBTQ+ person being put on a banknote again.Spud (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
When it's a direct foreign angle, then yes it goes in the 'main' WIGO. The most obvious examples to go in the MAGA-WIGO would be stuff which is happening on the state level. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
WIGO in the MAGAsphere is a better name imo because MAGA and Trumpism are bigger than the man himself - even if he is its central figure. Semantics aside, I'm not against it. Gabaghoul 🥩 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Joining Whitehouse Facebook group.[edit]

Given the fact that Trump's highly professional appointees are using the Signal app to plan military action I figured that they might be planning them on Facebook next time and I want prior warning.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be suprised if some White House staffers were discussing classified info over Discord as we speak. Gabaghoul 🥩 16:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I think we can expect a lot of such cases in the future, given the kind of dingbats that Trump has crammed his administration to the brim with. This is what happens when you put incompetent toadies in charge who think the world of themselves, while openly displaying their attitude that rules don’t apply to them.
What’s interesting is to see whether anyone of the dingbats involved in this flagrant breach of national security will suffer any serious consequences or if the spineless GOP will once again back Trump’s chosen toadies to the hilt. If none of the “Signallers” suffer any serious punishment, then expect even more sloppy procedures in the future.
Dollars to donuts Don the #clownstickvonfuckface will sign a blanket amnesty for all such dingbats at some point. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
This is especially likely, given that this is about national security and anyone can probably imagine that if this is how such sensitive and potentially dangerous information is treated, then procedures and the treatment of confidential and sensitive government information is likely to be even more lackadaisical in other areas.
If this is any indication of how the Trump administration run things, then no wonder if Beijing and Moscow are able to easily anticipate Washington’s moves, due to being able to read along as the Trump cronies jabber amongst themselves on unsecured channels.
Then add the likelihood that the chaos in the bureaucracy and IT infrastructure generated by DOGE is a dream scenario for foreign cyber espionage and you’re looking at a massive risk of foreign intelligence (or cyber crime) penetration at multiple levels, which will make each of these leaks even harder to find, as the sheer number can make it difficult to see any patterns or use a process of elimination to home in on any one of them in particular. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I'd disagree with one of those points. I personally think that due to the utter chaos/unpredictability of the Orange One's rule has made it harder for foreign actors to predict Washington's moves but for the likes of Putin and Xi, it's a lot more friendly Washington which makes it easier to deal with them on the whole. Take Taiwan, for example. I have argued here in the SB and elsewhere for a long time that due to the fact that island is a huge producer of advanced microchips it meant that despite whatever waffle and hedging Washington put in ultimately it simply couldn't allow the Chinese to take those plants anymore than they'd have allowed the Soviets to seize the Arabian oil fields in the 70s/80s because it simply wasn't in Washington's interest long-term to lose these positions [and Beijing knew this and made their plans accordingly]. However, what is utterly plain is that the Orange One and associated drek he's dredged up is that they don't give a flying fuck about 'American interests', only self-enrichment, personal power, ego-blowing and making America 'safe' for them personally so they can die of old age [though I think some are so fucking thick they don't realise being universally hated is possible/important].
In this new Gilded Age, anything and everything not directly tied to the previous can go fuck themselves. I mean, let's think of that Signal chat again; I could easily see the likes of bearded couch-fucker arguing that the Taiwanese were 'losers', that they were 'stealing American profits', being 'whiny' on wanting the US to defend them against China and it not being in the [very, very narrow definition of] 'American interests' to stop any invasion. Hell, I could even see him pushing the narrative that the Taiwanese people 'aren't real' and y'know, if the Orange Negus went to Beijing he could hang out with Pooh-Bear, drawing lines on a map of 'spheres of empire' a la Yalta to Make Everything Great. Let's not forget the very possible risk that by mid-'25 the USA is in quite severe political ferment due to the Negus's plans to become the Orange King; that in this situation Beijing et al might make moves because they believe there's a good chance American troops will be too busy stamping out internal dissent to aid any ally, even if they actually wanted to. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
While I agree that the impulsivity, chaos and narrow minded outlook makes the Trump administration somewhat unpredictable, it also means that any counterpart getting an inside view is likely to be able to attempt to influence it on any question that is not decided on short notice or is one of Trump’s fixed ideas.
This would be extremely valuable, as it would indicate which kind of symbolic victories (and/or personal benefits) that might induce Trump and his administration to make certain “deals”, as well as to take, or refrain from taking, certain actions.
Also, due to the current chaos, there are almost certainly a lot of Washington agencies running on autopilot, as best as they can, in all of the areas that don’t catch the short attention spans of the Trump appointed heads (or Musk or Trump himself). These agencies are prime targets for penetration and potentially reading their analyses could also reveal, or at least indicate, their sources and blind spots. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Funding[edit]

When the total approaches $10k extend the banner line - either further funds for the move or 'funds above [this line] will go towards general RW upkeep (as it suits). Anna Livia (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Annotated Quran[edit]

Wanted to give a big shout out to @Entomoxie who has done a lot of great work on the annotated quran. At this point, we've done 80% of the content of the quran, and have about 10 surahs left to go (all long meaty ones). Project is almost complete!!! ShabiDOO 09:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! The book does a good enough job destroying itself, but I still feel like having a bit of fun. Entomoxie (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

What is being irrational?[edit]

If one believes that Humans are spiritual beings with a mission in the physical universe, is one suffering from pseudoscience?[edit]

Janosabel (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The premise is irrational (belief without evidence). Q.E.D. Bongolian (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I’d argue that being irrational is believing or acting in a way that undermines or prevents oneself from obtaining their interests. The relevance of logical reasoning, the appeal to evidence, and whatever else we may construe as “rational” is due to their relevance to maintaining a consistency in values and methods. If such was inconsistent, read: contradictory, then we couldn’t coherently pursue our own interests without violating our other interests. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Of course, A implies B if B is always true. Because everyone suffers the consequences of pseudoscience just walking down the street. Everything one believes about ones life can have an unscientific justification. That usually doesn't stop us from believing it. Holding to ones beliefs often has a pseudoscientific motivation. e.g., "if I hold to my principles, the world will be a better place." The statement is really unbelievable, but that doesn't stop us from believing it. Zatoichi (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
The main question here is my principle as near to actual truth as possible, even if it cannot rely on scientific validation. If one's principle says mixed marriages should be avoided, one is on shaky grounds socially. Janosabel (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
This whole question is word salad. The title question is, I suppose, tangentially related to the following text. But the following text makes no sense. What is a "spiritual being"? So what "mission" would they be on? Exactly which "pseudoscience" are we talking about? And how does one suffer from pseudoscience? You typically suffer from illnesses - is the suggestion that some kind of generalised unspecified "pseudoscience" is a mental illness? It's impossible to engage with all this.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks (and I am only inquiring), so do you mean that a lifestyle is rational only as far as it can be validated scientifically? What about Pascal's wager?. Janosabel (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

We have a whole article on Pascal's wager.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene being... herself.[edit]

Marjorie Taylor Greene snaps at Sky correspondent when questioned on leaked Signal chat: 'We don't give a crap about your opinion'

KarmaPolice (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

An idea I've been mulling over in my mind is why there just seems to be this... unreasoning destructive hatred appearing in people... most visible in members of the far-right, but also starting to appear across the political spectrum and demographics I'd maybe say. In myself within the past few months, particularly after reading some of the extreme stories and upsetting news headlines that have been coming out, I've found myself stricken with just an... unrelenting desire to hate and hurt something... extremism creating extremism maybe? But then where and why does the former start? Discussing this with my one friend and one possible answer we thought is maybe it's just a "distilled" version of everyday frustration to the widespread injustices that most have simply gotten too familiar with to recognize anymore? Perhaps other factors play into it too. In the one video game, Enderal, there's the "Red Madness" that's similarly described as an irrational destructive hatred that appears in people; the game's setting is a theocratic nation teetering on collapse after the literal death of their gods, while a world-wide existential threat looms. Nihilism and global warming? Or another example is "cyberpsychosis" in the dystopian Cyberpunk universe... is the behavior due to an "overload" of cybernetic implants? Or is it the end result of one's humanity being worn away by the world's cruelty? I don't know... it's depressing. Impiricism (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Or... to apply Occam's Razor; Greene is simply a rather block-headed narcissistic bully. They are angry because their ego is 'under attack' and control is 'being threatened'. They're neither smart/skilled enough to mask their anger /charmingly argue their way out of it / successfully stonewall, therefore the only 'strategy' they have is to insult, belittle and yell - in the hope it makes the opposing party back down. Narcissists crave attention and validation, and Greene keeps on coming out with all this shit because it provides her craving [and why she can't stonewall].
This is one of the reasons narcissists up to the Orange Negus himself loathe 'the MSN' and their minions [also known as 'journalists']. We saw this in the clip; Kelner was 'yellow rocking' Greene in the best traditions of the press [remaining on-task with the topic while denying any emotional feedback to Greene] which was fucking Greene right off because her usual strategies wasn't working. It's why she walked off in a huff; the personal/emotional 'grey rock' of Kelner meant there was no hand-holds for her to exploit and even worse, at least one American journalist backed them up! You can see while Greene stalks off; she is oh-so-tempted to give another, more extreme lashing-out but possesses enough self-awareness that it was unlikely to go well. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
I guess with hateful crazy people like Greene, I have some curiosity to know what events led them to be as such, and then what, if possible, it would take to get them to change. Lack of education and critical thinking / reflection is for certain, but what other reasons too? I assume there has to be other reasons because being a fool doesn't automatically entail being full of animosity. I want to believe that people are generally good, and that it is worth determining why some become so bitter and how to get them to improve because well... it seems like the right thing to do... right? Ah.. to be fair, I'll concede that in most cases it is a neigh on impossible task not even worth any effort... but still...
I wish people were better and kinder. The world too :/ Impiricism (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
My mother, before she passed, was in some ways a hateful person. Not as bad as some, but hateful nonetheless. I recall that when growing up, she always seemed very convinced that the neighbors in our small farming community didn't like her, that they would regularly gossip about her and us kids. It led to strain in some situations and relationships that shouldn't have ever been present. It was only when my siblings and I were on our own that we really got to evaluate why she was like that... main reasons (without going into the lengthy details) were reflected self-loathing from past mistakes, insecurity, and most critically just a lack of a trusted confidante in which to obtain support and reassurance. Impiricism (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
If we accept my narcissistic theory as viable, my money is on 'environmental'. From what little background I've had on Greene suggests she was 'fairly forgettable' until she hit her 40s [this suggests the narcissism was at least 'in check' until then because full-blown narcissists are never forgettable]. Got hugely into fitness [CrossFit] and whispers of gym-room trysts; my hunch is 'mid life crisis'. This was in c2013/4, which was incidently the time where that nexus of 'social media plus smartphone' came onto the scene - Greene was hugely into SM, almost all about fitness. Problem; there's a significant overlap between the 'fitness community' and 'right wing politics', both in the flesh and online - Greene quite likely found herself washed into the whole QAnon/MAGA nexus by a combination of algorithms and gym bros. Narcissists are very vulnerable to being love-bombed, so it wouldn't have been hard for her to be reeled in. They taught her 'how to do shit' to get outrage attention, and that has become her heroin.
On the 'what could get them to change' bit... I am not sure you really can change Karens. They're forged in the flames of a youth in homogenous suburbs, fully-comp healthplans, upscale malls, Daddy's credit card(s), obsequious servants and utter confidence that any problem can be removed by either moaning, lawsuits or pulling strings [okay, not all Karens are rich, but I've never met one who grew up poor]. It's why they're almost without fail hugely hostile to things like 'Marxism' and 'DEI' because [in a tiny-shell] these are things which teach us that the Game Of Life is not equal and the latter attempts to rectify that ['DEI' in this case being their code for 'non-white']. And nobody wants to reach adulthood and be informed they were playing on 'Easy Mode' throughout and even worse, we propose to rectify that [a bit]. As the economic situation declines in the Anglosphere, chances are Karens are coming out in greater force because their experience of Real Life™ [as in, 'the sort of life proles like me experience'] becomes more frequent. Needless to say, this makes them fodder for fascist movements as a major part of the appeal is a restoration of The Good Old Days™ where Karen was queen. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
It seems that quite a lot of the MTG type MAGA heads originate from what some have called “the American gentry”, which fits the profile KarmaPolice has just outlined quite well. These are neither the super rich, nor have they typically attended the most prestigious Ivy League universities, or created nationally successful businesses, but they are still influential and wealthy “big men” in their local area, just like the traditional landed gentry. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
'The American Gentry'
When you draw the lines a bit further, you come to realise that a lot of 'MAGA-heads' in general hail from this class; that Greene's [not literal] brother is the 'fuck you, got mine' vulgar libertarian while 'Daddy' is the 'Boss Hogg' type who hates 'the elites' with the same fervour the English 18th Century 'backwoods squires' despised the mercantile-nobility operating out of the major cities. And their reasons for the despising are about the same; advances in capitalism is causing 'the squires' to be squeezed out by 'the plutocrats' while the latter's controlling of the state apparatus is resulting in policies which are at least non-favourable [Wyman notes a lot of Hoggs are heavy into retail franchises, agriculture and construction where the scream for 'cheap, exploitable labour' is constant and therefore is a foe to any rise in minimum wages, labour protections etc]. More often than not, this is the sort of person right-wing politicians are really thinking of when they talk of 'small businesses' - the gentry 'families' which have combined assets of a million or ten. 'GentryThink' infects other areas too; for example education. Their business models don't need that well-educated a workforce and have even less use for scientists, engineers or creatives so they're relatively happy to gut public education to just 'practical stuff' and attempt carve-outs to reduce the mandatory leaving age [safe in the knowledge their spawn will neither attend the modern blab schools or be driven into work at 14].
But back on the question of 'how to make folks like Greene change'. And the answer is a difficult one, because they generally have an inability to listen, their ego is sufficiently strong to take quite a kicking and many of us have to deal with Karen in ways they very well could make your life hell. The best strategy [I think] is 'yellow rocking'; to deny the Karen's need for validation/attention by curtly remaining on-topic and calm and if there is little/no risk of retribution, to politely but in no uncertain terms to call out their shit. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to "change" people like Marge; not through reason anyway. Once you surrender yourself to all-encompassing conspiracy theories like QAnon for long enough, they become your worldview. They change the axioms you live by. If those axioms are out of line with reality, then there's no point in arguing with them because everything which is true will be rejected a priori. Better to stop people from falling down the rabbit hole in the first place. Gabaghoul 🥩 20:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
One thinks of Edmund Burke's phrase: the great unwashed will take only so much pain before they revolt. What pains? These persons harbor ill will towards many ideas concomitant with theories of social progress. Why? A mind unwilling to accept ideas that violate its common sense understanding can either ignore or contend with them. What awoke them from their dogmatic slumber? Doesn't matter now, because they are awake. They were always likely to awaken. There are many movements that might serve as casus belli in civil society.
There are those that highlight and evoke that sense of discontent with newer social norms and events, such as legal immigration, gendered restrooms, drag parades, and the perennial favorite, "other people getting favors from the government that are unavailable to myself". The idea of losing ones place in a hierarchy along with a sense of isolation and inconsequentiality can result in an acting out of ones frustrations in public situations. Why would one expect everyone to be capable of acting in a way that is consistent with enlightenment ideals? No. It is enough that some people get up in the morning, send their children to school, go to work, come home and go back to sleep and do so without seriously taking up questions of the day. Zatoichi (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Trump discussion leak[edit]

So - stupidity on a Menger Sponge level, someone doing an Alexander Butterfield or some form of The Beiderbecke Tapes (leaking the worst case scenario with the intention of getting the intended plan passed because it is 'not as bad as')? Anna Livia (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

You're talking about the Signal leak or the DoD classified document leak? Bongolian (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
The one with the reporter co-opted into the discussion. Anna Livia (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
The one which was discussed a few threads above?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
The thread is: Joining Whitehouse Facebook group. Bongolian (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

What my crazy aunt is doing on Facebook now[edit]

My crazy aunt is now posting Islamophobic stuff. A few days ago, she shared a post from something or someone called UK Glory that said, "If wanting X, Y and Z means I'm a racist, then I'm a racist." I really don't want to talk to her ever again. The problem is, she's one of my mother's few living adult relatives and if anything happens to my Mum, she'll be the first to let me know. I guess I'll just have to not unfriend her but never look at her profile page and hope none of her crap appears in my feed again. Spud (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Whatever you do, we should respect your choice. If anyone disagrees with your choice you wouldn't really know unless you told them. For some reason there doesn't seem to be appreciation of personal privacy anymore. Your Aunt probably won't change her mind about anything by herself, excepting trivia. You seem to be implying indirectly that it doesn't matter what she thinks--which is almost always true. Personally, I try not to care about what unextraordinary people think because it tends to be mundane and inevitable. It's like getting pissed off by the weather. Zatoichi (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
I had to get this off my chest. But I'm not really interested in changing her mind. I had incorrectly thought that her sharing the post praising Trump for being a brilliant chess player who's 10 moves ahead of everybody else for being an arsehole to Zelenskyy was a one-off thing. That's why I responded to it by commenting, "What a load of bollocks!" She might well go off Trump all by herself if his policies continue to hurt the UK. I doubt that she'll ever embrace dark skinned immigrants or their British-born descendants, apart perhaps from the nurse who'll end up caring for her. Anyway, I'll continue posting stuff on Facebook that shows what a lefty woke liberal I am. I can't help it. And I'm sure my aunt won't like it. I recently added a post in celebration of International Transgender Day of Visibility. I was relieved that my aunt didn't respond to that with some transphobia. Spud (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
A major slice of at least the Anglosphere population seem to operate on the 'silence is agreement' model, which means in Spud's case their relative is posting shit to share with them and if they don't actually speak out against them the relative very well may assume that the OP agrees or is at least sympathetic towards these views. This is how groupthink arises; where a loud, opinionated [usually] minority view gets to be seen as consensus because [in a family example] 'Uncle Fred' is ranting about 'dole scum', 'immigrants', 'Muslims are all paedos' etc around the Christmas table and as nobody is dissenting from this others come to believe their own personal dissent is a minority of one. More often than not, we end up in the 'I'll say something if someone else does first' situation but as nobody takes the plunge nothing is said and Fred goes off thinking everyone agrees with him.
This is part of the 'psychological apparatus' of authoritarianism; that dissenters are atomised and tacitly bullied into acquiescence for the official groupthink by fears of retribution [which also affects the 'loyalists' because it means they are not exposed to contrary opinions and becomes deluded into believing their viewpoint is the centre of the Overton Window]. We also have a habit of blaming the wrong person for shit; going back to the above example if I pushed back on Fred's BS and it turns into an argument, chances are most folks will blame me for it, not him - even by the people who agreed with me ['why did you cause a scene?!' et al]. This is also a hallmark of abusive relationships and bullying; that the victim will often self-blame for the 'incidents' and/or be blamed by seniors [I think this is a common reason for schools punishing the victims of bullying; that the victim's 'crime' is to call out the 'missing stair' for what it is (that there are bullies) and it makes authority Look Bad. Therefore, shooting the messenger is the easiest method of 'fixing the stair'.]
But off the pseudo-intellectual wankery and back to the topic itself. I like Spud's plan; it is making their relative aware that they don't agree with the crap but in a relatively non-confrontational manner. Something which could [if the relative bitches about] be turned 180 if needs be ['well, I don't agree with a lot on your FB feed either'] as well as pointing out it's not like you're personally finding 'crap' to send to them to rile them. As you rightly comment, you aren't really looking to try to 'convert' them [because such things are usually 95% ineffective and requires a lot of heavy lifting to do] but you can at very least provide a shaft of outside light into their belljar of GBeebies, the Daily Diana and 'Billy bunch of numbers and bulldog avatar' rando SM accounts.
If enough of your wider family did this [and felt like you somewhat, obs] to the relative it might help them realise a) they're not as big a 'majority opinion' as they believe and b) develop a bit better ability to not kick off if/when they encounter dissent. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Glad you approve of my approach @KarmaPolice. I doubt my aunt will see much stuff quietly challenging her beliefs from the rest of my family. And I'm not really doing it to challenge her either. just to express who I am and what's important to me. At least I have a cousin (on my father's side of the family) who is in a same-sex marriage with another woman. So, some people in my family are cool. Spud (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
It is useful to come to grips with the fact that a large family will hold a wide variety of opinions. People argue all the time about racism. What is it exactly? Well, as Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography, "I know it when I see it." But we have to assume we know what we are talking about. When I hear the word "racism," I often think that I know what the user means by the word, but not always. For me, not being racist is mostly about not having unkind sentiments towards other racial groups. So, one could, theoretically, hold policy opinions that do not favor a group like black Americans without holding them in low esteem. Such opinions are more than likely also held by virulent racists.
Being woke, as I interpret the word, is an experience in the moment. That is, you cannot always be awake to the problems that confront you or as the activist confronts their social circumstances. What makes a person ordinary, or what contributes to the ordinariness of their nature, is this sleepwalking through normal events. The idea of "being cool," unfortunately can lead to somnambulant experience. Lesbians for Trump T-shirts is a case in point.Zatoichi (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

How ...[edit]

... the hell are Americans talking/writing/thinking about anything but Trump, Musk et al? I'm fairly obsessed with 'em over here in the UK even though we've got a Tory Government disguised as Labour which should be enough to occupy my mind. Scream!! (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

For the most part it's hard to avoid unless one totally tunes out of news. That's their strategy; it was the same strategy in the first term; it was the same strategy for most of Rump's adult life ("Fill the zone with shit" as Bannon put it). I've even mostly stopped listening to BBC World News because there's currently a >50% chance they're going to broadcast audio from the Big Rump (I don't need to listen to him say the inevitable stupid shit; I can read it if I need to). April 5 will be nationwide demonstrations here, likely to be large, with some cities even having more than one (https://www.mobilize.us/handsoff/). Bongolian (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Great question. I am constantly watching internet media, mostly YouTube, following critics of the administration. But normal people don't pay attention. That's how tRump got elected in the the first and second place. People who were concerned with petty, personal issues elected tRump. But, given that tRump is destroying our economy as well as the reputation of the US government as an aegis of democracy, those voters, who are working class, will shortly wake up to the error of their ways. Zatoichi (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
And, based on what has happened in the past 2 1/2 months, who would want to be in the Presidential Palace (is the White House enough for the Don?) after DT?
Will Trump's legacy be the creation of a multipolar world in the positive or the negative sense? Anna Livia (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

In light of the Trump tariff stock market correction[edit]

Courtesy of Radley Balko, who pulled up this Financial Times article written in January 2025, where Wall Street types were looking forward to the Glory Days of Trump 2.0.

Bankers and financiers say that Trump’s victory has empowered those who felt they had to self-censor or change their language to avoid offending younger colleagues, women, minorities or disabled people.

“I feel liberated,” said a top banker. “We can say ‘retard’ and ‘pussy’ without the fear of getting cancelled... it’s a new dawn.”

Ah... the joys of wiping out almost $10 trillion of market cap so you can be "liberated" and be a no-class loutish oaf in public again. Good times, good times... BobJohnson (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

And somebody remind these 'mouthing offs' that the groups described have money and can be aware of being dissed and will react accordingly. Anna Livia (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm having way too much fun imagining some of these guys shouting through tears "why am I broke, you retarded pussy!"-Flandres (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
I wonder how many of said finance cretins voted Orange only for the fweedom to be able to say whatever the fuck you want, when you want? Rather than say, decent econ policies? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Obviously what I am about to say is anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt. Whenever I talk with hardcore trumpers they are obviously most passionate about culture wars, the "right to offend" being one of many fronts in said wars. They absolutely will talk about "the economy..." but they are obviously repeating what some other conservative told them and their opinions on everything except for "when democrats economy it's bad, when Trump economies it's good" are lacking in any substance. Whenever you get an opinion with "personal touch"-they have clearly arrived at this conclusion themselves and they are quite passionate about it-it is cultural. Even issues that are not really related to the culture wars-foreign policy, the fate of government agencies, regulations related to environmentalism-circle back to "DEI, gender cultists, and globalists" eventually. Even though Trump's signature issue right now is tariffs the average trumper can barley explain what a tariff is and only know it is good because Trump wants it. Economic anxiety obviously helps Trump-at least, when he is out of power-but the core of MAGA is social conservatives rage-quitting liberal democracy/pluralism.-Flandres (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I think that Trumpists will always be a rude sort of bad lot. But most of his voters thought he would make eggs cheaper, drill baby drill to lower the price of gasoline, make homes more affordable, create a medical plan much better than Obamacare, etc. In other words, they were motivated by simple moronic talking points on the economy. They were too stupid to see the red flags like his many bankrupt businesses, rape conviction, criminal fraud convictions, and malfeasances without number. The anti-progressive stuff may have driven some to vote for him, but the petty and selfish interests of people of all sorts of persuasions gave Trump the victory. On the right, we have those animated into voting for what turns out to be an economic terrorist because they are angry about their standard of living and resent being told to shut up by younger people. On the left we have those who, being stupid in their own way, believed that the two sides were equally pernicious, not realizing or caring that the end of western democratic alliances would be the price that would be paid after Trump's election.Zatoichi (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
As I said 'somewhere above' - Trump's successor will have 'a few problems' renormalising the situation with the rest of the world, including the Heard Island and McDonald Islands and Nemo Point. Anna Livia (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Trump is ruining one of the greatest advantages Americans used to have over China and Russia[edit]

Yes, most people have reservations over the US for very good reasons, but most countries at least thought that they could trust the US in many aspects and, to put things mildly, tankies and some wingnuts that like the way they treat women and their LGBT community aside, no one likes China and Russia.. This of course started changing when Trump turned its back on Ukraine, but now it's reaching whole new levels with these tariffs. Punishing allies like Vietnam and Cambodia for no reason just because Trump wants an industry to call his own is something I just can't understand. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The Economist didn't mince any words:
"It’s hard to know which is more unsettling: that the leader of the free world could spout complete drivel about its most successful and admired economy. Or the fact that on April 2nd, spurred on by his delusions, Donald Trump announced the biggest break in America’s trade policy in over a century—and committed the most profound, harmful and unnecessary economic error in the modern era."
The only reading that makes sense to me is one that recognizes that Trump is both a narcissistic, a whiny black-and-white idiot who always sees himself as a victim, and one who has zero brain cells capable of critical thought. I do think that his business brain cells (and many others) seem to be stuck in the 1980s (before he failed bigly and went on his entertainer path). Recall that one "theme" of that era was how Japan was going to come and supposedly eat our lunch. Now, it didn't work out that way, but as seen in a letter Trump wrote in that era (and splashed in a full page ad in several newspapers), I think from those sort of themes floating around during the Reagan age, he got a (wrong) impression that America's wealth was propping up all these (supposedly) inferior nations... and they, in return, kicked back at us and laughed in our face. So he latched onto tariffs as a way to show dominance and say "go ahead, see if you can live without AMERICAN MIGHT. Because I will use AMERICAN MIGHT to PUNISH YOU!". He has never let go of the idea since. At least... that's my theory.
Of course, if true, this is a dumb take. Because the likely response from other nations will be a form of "ok, sure, bye bye America." As The Economist article points out, the US share of final demand for imports is only 15%. The world can live with reduced demand from America. The stock market is not the economy, but one thing investors seem to be betting on -- a take I agree with -- is that, while there will be pain from these tariffs, small American businesses will feel far, far more pain than globally connected ones, let alone the global economy.
Now, "people voted for this shit". So I look forward to seeing how the culture war blowhards who are Trump's Biggest Fans end up feeling about their Dear Leader trashing Pax Americana. Hey, at least those folks "owned" those couple of trans women athletes or something. Sure, the "American century" had to end, but for them, I bet it was so worth the price! BobJohnson (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
You say that as a joke but I think a disappointing number of Americans will plug their ears and yap about how making everyone (including themselves) pay more for everything that gets imported into the country is somehow a 500 IQ move. Some of the smarter ones will correctly recognize that this makes no sense from an economic standpoint and is purely an attempt to bully business leaders into bending to Orange Julius Caeser's will, but will crimestop and convince themselves that this will own the libs more than it will own them. Gabaghoul 🥩 19:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
What strikes me is that the tariffs demonstrate that Trump is completely clueless about international trade and macroeconomics, as shown by the absurd formula used to determine the tariff levels towards each country, as well as the EU.
As the BBC describes it, it’s clear that what is touted as “reciprocal” tariffs is, in reality, not based on the tariffs those countries/the EU have put in place on US exports, but on the trade imbalances between the US and the country in question (or the EU). This bizarre approach is why it yields the absurd results that some of the highest rates are slapped on such titans of the global economy and serious US economic competitors as The Falkland Islands (42%), Lesotho (50%), Myanmar (48%) as well as St. Pierre & Miquelon (50%).
This is obviously completely deluded, even if we accept Trump’s stated premise for tariffs (i.e. that US trading partners are unfairly hindering and disfavouring US export and “sniping” economic activity, especially manufacturing, away from the US). It simply shows that he fundamentally doesn’t understand what international trade is and apparently thinks that the US could/should run a neutral or positive trade balance against every single other country in the world, which is frankly bonkers.
Since this notion of universal trade surpluses is apparently his idea of what a “strong national economy” looks like, it also indicates that he apparently doesn’t understand that, on a global scale, some countries must have trade deficits for others to have trade surpluses, unless we begin trading with extraterrestrials. It also ignores that, even at the height of their international economic power, any economic powerhouse in history has run trade deficits with certain trading partners as an integrated part of their economic model. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
An obvious aside, but are non-tangible goods and services like insurance and TV shows counted when calculating net imports and exports? I ask because a lot of the U.S.' core competencies are things like software and financial products as opposed to stuff that gets loaded onto ships and sent across the ocean (this is the case for most mature economies as well). Gabaghoul 🥩 13:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
as i understand it, services are currently exempt from tariffs AMassiveGay (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Gay is right. [prepare selves for infodump]. Here's the state of play for the UK and USA trade-wise. [all figures in £ billions, italics 'invisible' products]
US Bill to UK, 2023
51.8 - Business Services
27.2 - Machinery/Transportation
25.8 - Finance
14.2 - Chemicals/Medical
11.5 - Transport/Travel
10.5 - Insurance
9.6 - Misc Goods
9.6 - Comms/Computing
4.8 - IP
4.6 - Materials
2.1 - Misc Services
2.8 - Food/Drink/Animals
2.0 - Fuels
1.9 - Tourism
0.9 - Govt
179.3 - Total
UK bill to USA, 2023
26.3 - Business Services
19.9 - Machinery/Transportation
18.8 - Fuels
9.0 - Transport/Travel
7.7 - Chemicals/Medical
6.6 - Finance
5.2 - Misc Goods
5.1 - Materials
4.8 - IP
3.4 - Comms/Computing
1.7 - Insurance
1.2 - Food/Drink/Animals
0.9 - Misc Services
0.5 - Tourism
0.4 - Govt
111.5 - Total
Therefore, the 'total' trade deficit the US has to the UK last year was £67.8b - that in 'visibles' [the shit the Orange Negus seems to care about] the deficit is only like £2.5b with the yawning gap is in 'invisibles' [which the Negus seems to not]. But let's not stop there.
When stuff like this is calculated, it doesn't take into account the ownership of the companies who do it. For example, Ford UK makes something like £300-400m profit yearly but sending this profit back to Dearborn will count as 'exporting' from the UK. Now, it appears the USA has something like £550b invested in the UK, which [if we assume a RoR of 5%] so that's £27.5b American orgs extracted from the UK in 2023. But this works the other way too; UK orgs hold something like £500b of American assets so if we apply the same RoR that's £25b back. So, my fag-packet says that in 2023 the USA paid out about £70b [$90.5b] in the last year to the British and the 'American invisible trade' is about 40% [with the EU 20% and China 7%] of the UK's total exports.
However, this opens up possibilities for Brits to fight back against the Negus by boycotting American-owned companies. Not just the obvious targets like Tesla and Coca-Cola, but things which are produced by British subsidiaries. Good examples here being Morrisons, Costa, Cadbury, Beck's, Waterstones, Boots, Weetabix and Sky. For we know the Tesla boycott is one of the few things which has needled the Negus/Boor and if Corp America really starts hurting it might make them get some balls to stand up to the Negus. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
On the level of tariffs themselves, some of the issue is what they see as 'a tariff'. Apparently, they regard VAT as tariffs. I've heard higher consumer/environmental standards are also regarded as tariffs. No sane economist or businessperson would class these as such because both are applicable equally to all comers, foreign and domestic. In this case, it's quite literally a method of trying to bully nations with superior standards; 'well, we'll drop the tariffs to 5% if you quit blocking chlorine chicken, hormone beef and titanium dioxide-dyed foodstuffs'. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Maybe Trump has a fixation for tangible items, kinda like the Soviets used to have? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he just wants to see the "Made in USA" label in kitchen appliances more often, even if that means paying for products that are more expensive and often not as good as imported ones. I mean, I definitely know some people that think that bigger is better, and fail to realize, for instance, that the service sector of the economy can also competitive, dynamic and innovative, just like manufacturing. Heck, even the agriculture sector can also be extremely technological and productive nowadays, just look at Netherlands. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, it takes far more than just raising tariffs to have manufacture coming back, or for that matter to get rare Earth elements from Ukraine. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the Negus gives a fuck about 'Made in the USA' labels, Gee [in fact, it's a very short list of things I do think he does give a fuck about]. I think this is geared in it's entirety to pleasing the MAGA-hats in the Rustbelt sectors of the country - he vaguely promised to 'get those good jobs back' and tariffs Shall Do It. Lo, Lowell shall resume making cotton shirts, Fort Wayne televisions, Flint cars because The Great Orange has decreed it. All the while forgetting that if America wanted those places to make those products again, the shirt would cost now $55, the TV $1,650 and the car $32k, while the McD's server is making the minimum wage [$15] serving you $10 [value] burger meals. The issue being, these folks have a pretty narrow definition of 'Good Job™' and that is making something in a factory, site or farm - office work [in their minds] is just BS paper-pushing crap, which 'produces no value' and they don't consider 'real work' ['you just sit in a comfy chair all day on the computer with a coffee. That ain't hard, boy! When I was your age I was working 20-hour days down mill pounding steel ingots with only my forehead...']. This was seen during the pandemic; in where younger white-collars went back to the family home for lockdown and found their blue-collar very unsympathetic/non-understanding about what they did all day via remote [the story which stuck in my head the most was that of a young woman who's parents kept on having a go at her for 'playing on the computer all day' and 'being so lazy to not help her parents do [shitty task]', even when she had explained fully that she worked in IT and therefore it's via a computer.] Therefore, they simply do not see how 'sitting in chairs with coffee' could snag $26b from the Brits [for example] each year.
The other aspect which is important is that for various reasons they do not want to be retrained. They don't just want 'the TV plant back to Fort Wayne', they want the one where they hand-built teak-cased Radiation King CRTs for $40 p/h plus full benefits and security - it's work they understand and can do. It's one of the reasons Biden's 'Build back better' fell rather flat; that it involved producing things they did not understand using skills they did not possess. Therefore, they felt that these were jobs that Other People would get ['immigrants'] and therefore would be zero to minus benefit to their locality - the lesson here being that if you're going to big up strategic reshoring/reindustrialising you must include in the plan [and budget] facilities for expansion of infrastructure and [most importantly] skilling-up for free locals to work there [because companies simply don't bother training anymore].
The real crux of the problem is that USA.Inc is heading full steam ahead into a huge economic storm of mainly their own making. Not only are they declaring a trade war on effectively the whole world at once [which shall be inflationary and economically damaging short/medium term] but while threatening real war against some of their own allies [making foreigners even less inclined to 'come to a deal' on the previous] hacking up the Federal Govt almost willy-nilly [short/medium-term incapability to actually do shit correctly], ramming through domestically-divisive policies [ie Project 2025] which shall cause significant civil unrest within six months [economic investors etc don't think nations with unrest 'good for business'] with a strong anti-immigrant and anti-intellectual policies which shall bite harder as they go on [as the economy will be increasingly cramped due to labour shortages and brain-drains]. Yes, sweeping tax cuts for the rich are on their way again [they will be funded by the tariffs] which will be interesting how much of the American Big Public realise it's their tariff-paying funding the cuts for the top 10%.
Lastly, the Negus' own utter instability is also a factor here; economic bods cannot be sure that any 'deal' cut with him will actually stand longer than a few hours, or that he won't do something utterly stupid on a whim or on the advice of known morons - for example, if he followed through on his 'suggestion' that the USA stopped paying some of the interest of the national debt. The British example of Liz Truss come to mind here; that if 'the money men' lose their confidence in a country's leadership, they can [and will] pull the plug. Even if they're allowed now to use racial and sexist epithets in the office now with no pushback. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
And Panzer is right; tariffs alone won't make all those factories come back. Labour shortages, unsuitable labour, finding a decent place to put the factory, building it, finding all the capital goods to kit out the factory, getting the associated infrastructure put in, getting the capital to fund all of this - all this will take several years. If they bother doing it at all. Even more importantly, supply chains now snake all around the world which means even if you are 'american made' you'll still be hit with tariffs. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I just want to talk about the inconsistency of Trump's actions. Wholly apart from the fact that these are not "reciprocal" tariffs at all, I have heard three explanations in respect of his objectives. But they cannot all be true as they work against each other.
1. They are bargaining ploy to get a "better deal from other nations. 2. They will obtain more revenue which will be used to offset income tax. 3. They will bring manufacturing and other activity back to the states.
Each of these explanations has it's own problems but taken together they are absurd.
If his objective is "bargaining ploy" then "income" and "jobs" are really irrelevant. If his objective is revenue and tax cuts, then this is absurd because the net impact on citizens will be zero (depending oh how they are targeted) and that also means he has no scope for bargaining them down. If his objective is jobs then he can't bargain - because that would defeat the objective. And the jobs stuff is nuts because some of that stuff isn't ever going to come back to the Sates - especially so if potential US producers are concerned that his real objective is "bargaining".
Of course this is his usual tactic of throw lots of shit at the wall and then claim that whatever sticks was the objective all along! Victory to the Texas Sharpshooter!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
On the note of some of the above: The Economist pointed out recently that, overall, there's one area where America *does* have a big trade surplus. In services. That invisible thingy that Trump and his staff has zero comprehension about. That surplus happens to be nearly $300 billion. Maybe MAGA Blue-Collar Joe can't comprehend how "playing at the computer all day" is valuable. But it is. And, for now, America is actually good at this type of thing.
(Side note: MAGA Blue-Collar Joe also is probably clueless about modern manufacturing and just how automated everything is these days; that person "playing at the computer all day" at home may actually be pushing code and debugging issues for multiple manufacturing floors scattered all over the world. But that's another story...)
Although I still think in general that global businesses will suffer less than small American businesses, and the same on the consumer end (the poor will be far more impacted than the well-off due to higher percentage consumption patterns), this article does add another dimension to said thoughts. If the tariffs stick around, it will be tempting for countries to retaliate targeting American services. With Silicon Valley so heavily entwined in Trump 2.0, Silicon Valley firms are an *especially* juicy target. (Like The Economist article says, of course, if the tariffs are actually meant to be a negotiating tool, this would be a different story. But I tend to assume Trump administration stuff as dumb in a MAGA Type-A-asshole barrel-headed fashion until proven otherwise.)
Shortly after the Trump tariffs happened, news came out that EU regulators are considering a billion dollar fine against Twitter. While the article says that the investigation was "progressing independently", I wonder if in reality the releasing of this news was a bit of a tariff reaction "trial balloon". BobJohnson (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
American multinationals will in fact do a bit better than expected, partly because the weakening of the value of USD will plump up foreign-currency earnings, and thus declared profits. Whether this would be enough to offset a slide in sales/margins within the country is another question entirely, as well as asking how much global 'fucked off by America' turns into a public boycott of American-owned companies.
This widens into being other threats to American economic power. American-owned interests overseas make a lot of cash for the homeland, and if relations end up totally in the shitter, well those interests might be boycotted, hit with punitive taxes or perhaps even forced to be divested. If American tech services become 'untrustworthy' (for example, Google starts to censor their search to be more pro-MAGA) that dominance might crumble fast as competitors grow and consumers defect. If American academia/creatives become increasingly in under the thumb of MAGA-hats, talent will flee overseas. If the xenophobic and anti intellectual tenor grows much further, the worlds elite shall go elsewhere to study, invent and push the bleeding edge. If the American 'rule of law' crumbles into ash, entrepreneurs shall look to try their luck somewhere their success can't be stolen from out from them. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Ho ho. I knew it: "Of course this is his usual tactic of throw lots of shit at the wall and then claim that whatever sticks was the objective all along!" Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
It ain't over yet. :)
At any rate, in the long term, anyways, the Trump administration is chugging on with its plans to ruin universities / education and American science, as well as extending a big middle finger to foreign talent. It is pretty clear to me that while the upper class twits in charge of America have gotten antsy over the tariff thing (due to portfolio damage etc.), many of them have for some reason fully bought in to the idea that universities are an engine of a "woke mind virus" or some other culture war bullshit, and not an engine of innovation.
Personally I see the tariff war thing as "short term" noise. Such is quickly reversible. The long-term damage to engines of innovation, less so. BobJohnson (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
This of course raises another issue. How are Americans going to produce high-quality manufacturing goods if they don't even know how to produce them? In the end, the American population will end up paying for worse goods that are more expensive than their foreign counterparts! I wrote about the infant industry argument here and, as I said, in order for it to work, you also need good education. Trump loves to mention how high tariffs were in the 1900s, but back then American schools, especially those in urban areas, were also among the best in the world, and the country was one of the pioneers on public education. Now, the American government is actively trying to destroy public education. Trump is IMO doing everything wrong. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the wannabe feudal lords around the Negus' throne gives a fuck about that. They're mainly in tech/finance, real estate, dirty energy, extractives, agriculture or retail. Their business model doesn't really need a well-trained mass workforce or tech/sci development. In fact, most don't even need decent infrastructure or a prosperous home market. In fact, turning inwards into a 'Fortress Gilead' offers other benefits - that they can become a full-blown stratified oligarchy protected from internal disruption or external competition. Putinism has shown the way; America is wealthy enough in natural resources for a generation to provide enough for the oligarchy and their support/security apparatus while the masses slowly succumb to despair, anger or resignation.
But I accept the above theory relies on a wannabe lords being smart enough to think like this. It's quite possible a lot of the above simply never think things fucking trough, think everything will continue to function fine however much you shit on it. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Serious question[edit]

So, I checked the "recent changes" page and there's this "Fuerdai" & "Jose Molina" that keep poping up. Who the fuck is Jose Molina & who or what is (a) Fuerdai?? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Fuerdai and most likely José Molina (baseball). Bongolian (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
"Fuerdai", "Jose Molina" and the recent spam shit in recent changes are related to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/BMX On WheeIs. the Wikipedia LTA page just shows how determined the user is at causing disruption. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Kurzgesagt's video "SOUTH KOREA IS OVER"[edit]

Kurzgesagt recently made video titled "SOUTH KOREA IS OVER" which, predictably, talks about a potential major crisis which could happen in South Korea. Particularly, it talks about SK's extremely low[birth rates, which he argues would lead to a collapse on nearly all fronts.

Economically, there would be too few workers to support all retirees, and the smaller workforce more generally would lead to a permanent recession by the 2040s, as well as forcing the government to cut essential public services due to the lack of money from taxes. Culturally, the already existing loneliness problem in SK would be aggravated by the higher number of people with no children or siblings, and the lack of young people would lead to a shrinking of youth culture and various cultural traditions dying out, as older people would have no way to pass them forward to future generations. Militarily, the ongoing war against North Korea would become even more of a problem as there would be fewer young people to join SK's military to deter against a full-blown confrontation.

He also argues "there's really no way back", as SK would still face major difficulties even in the most ideal scenario, where the birth rates rapidly raise to 2.1. However, he still believes it's possible for SK to get out of this mess eventually as long as the country actually faces the root causes of the problem. In particular, he attributes the falling birth rates with the country's workaholism, low wages, high cost of living and education, low spending on family benefit, and old-fashioned cultural norms, in addition to other factors associated with low birth rates such as more wealth and education. He also cites how various nations throughout the world will also face similar problems if they don't treat the crisis seriously.

I'm not used to watching Kurzgesagt's videos, but I've heard he's relatively reliable and he cites various academic sources such as OECD for his figures. Apparently, this was also much more negative compared to most of his other videos. Anyways, I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the causes and consequences of low births aside from superficial stuff. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 19:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I recall reading about the "4B" movement in South Korea.. interesting, but not conclusive as to why birth rates are generally falling not just in SK but across the board in developed nations.
My own thought is that in developed nations people get educated, and when educated they realize that this world really isn't pleasant... or at least not pleasant as it currently is and likely how it will remain for the foreseeable future (likely going to get worse in the future at this point actually).
Go to university or college, get better critical thinking skills, learn about all the nonsense and little big injustices that are continuing to happen right now, tell your parents or any elder person in a position of authority or leadership, and at best they'll acknowledge it but not commit to doing anything. Or they'll smile at you with dim comprehension. Or they'll say you're woke. Guess which two of responses are most encountered?
Sure there are small delights and pleasures that can keep one occupied and sane enough to almost forget about how this world is... but ah the key word is "almost". What intelligent person wants to have kids knowing and living through life's tribulations that they are certain to also encounter? I don't and wouldn't. Impiricism (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Most countries face a similar situation, but what I got from that video (and by the way I adore every video by them) is that with the confluence of multiple factors, all at once, South Korea faces a more brutal challenge than even say, Japan with ageing population. The difference between South Korea and say, European countries facing a somewhat similar issue, is that it is taboo to even discuss this in Korea (partially due to a decades long trend to encourage smaller families and as with Japan, a severe hostility towards immigration [which Kurzgesagt didn't mention for a number of obvious reasons]), which may mean the harm will come when it is too late to take quicker action. I would rate Kurzgesagt very highly for reliability, intellectual integrity and fact checking. They are quite careful about what they put out and even make follow up videos correcting themselves when they get things wrong. ShabiDOO 11:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see low birth rates as a problem per se, especially the "sort of near replacement rates" you see in some countries that regardless get whined about by some natalists. A lot of the lower birth rates is reflective of good things, particularly advances in health and women's equality. Funny that it wasn't too long ago that the moral panic was over overpopulation.
Low birth rates are a big problem for today's go-go capitalism model. This, along with climate change, are the two things I can see that might severely upend the current economic order long-term. Capitalism is just too dependent on a "absolute growth all of the time" philosophy at the moment.
What I find ironic about this is that, from my perspective, this very same go-go capitalism model actually plays a large part in causing low birth rates. Countries that have embraced "work culture", to the point that they are super well known for excessively long hours and even karoshi, "death by overwork" -- Japan, South Korea, and China -- happen to have some of the lowest birth rates in the world. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Even outside these countries, to me there's a paradigm in current capitalism overall that happens to be very hostile towards families, babies, and women. I'll take a recent American example: the Republican House intra-party rules spat over proxy voting for new parents. Mike Johnson (along with most of the House Republicans), ostensibly the "party of family values", opposed this initiative. Why? None of the reasons I've heard are logically sound to me. Making the job easier for parents (with seemingly no logical impact to anything) seems like a no-brainer. (I mean, fuck, even Donald Trump was against Mike Johnson's proxy voting hostility here.) But it would mean that these dumbfuck (mostly male) House twits would have to give up a little control. And many of these pointy head boss shitheads hate that. (See the "work from home" hostility if you want a more generic demonstration of this problem.)
I do think the ruling class capitalist twits are aware of "the situation", but so far, for the most part, they haven't been self-reflective enough to come around to an actual solution (which would involve, you know, things like flexibility. Less control. Less of the paradigm in some places that "pregnant woman = career death sentence". Less embrace of overwork as godly. That kind of thing) In many cases, the twit solutions are even stupider -- most natalism movements I see advocate rolling back the clock and essentially making women baby-plopping second class citizens again. (No surprise that most natalism movements I see are heavily male.) Since the Republicans started babbling the "family values" catchphrase (early 1990s), the United States birth rate has fallen from ~2.0 to ~1.6. Way to read the situation, capitalist upper class twits!
My suspicion is that this "capitalism culture issue" is present even in European countries with better public support systems; despite the better safety nets, it doesn't change the underlying situation much (though I suspect such things might help explain the difference between, say, France's 1.8 birth rate and South Korea's 0.8). There seems to be a globally deeply ingrained paradigm that's going to be hard to resolve as long as the ruling class believes that go-go capitalism and work are the only things to promote in life. Especially since too many twits with this go-go capitalism paradigm have a notion of female equality that's stuck in the 1800s. BobJohnson (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I've read the conservative natalism push as more of a classism/eugenics thing because having kids (at least in developed countries) is a luxury increasingly affordable only to the wealthy. If you want people to have kids, you implement policies like extensive parental leave, make quality K-12 education affordable to as many people as possible, and encourage less gender disparity in terms of labor both in and out of the home (there's evidence suggesting that disparities in domestic labor have a negative correlation with fertility).
These are, of course, things that the type of people who yap about declining birth rates tend to oppose on principle (at least in the U.S.). Funny how that works. Gabaghoul 🥩 13:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I find this subject fascinating, and I wish I could write a wall of text about it. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to answer, so I'll just say a couple of things. Indeed, I couldn't even read the posts above, so maybe people already mentioned what I'm going to say. First, Kurzgesagt despite being great in hard sciences has sometimes a few bad takes in social sciences (though don't ask me to find their older videos, as I said, I don't have time), so take them with a grain of salt on these subjects. The second thing is, does a growing population forster economic growth? Economic growth models, such as the Solow model say yes, but their answer is somehow unsatisfiying. Let's suppose that a country has a working population of ten, with an income per capita of 1000, with a total GDP of 10,000. Now, let's suppose that the population grew to 12. We can expect the GDP to grow to 12,000, but the people aren't better off, their income remains the same. What makes people richer is productivity. Now, can a growing population result in more productivity. I'd argue it can, but the answer is far more complex. There are many reasons why population growth can (I repeat again, can) make everyone better off, but I'd personally say that the most important one is the fact that having more people also means having more ideas - the key of innovation, which is the the main drive of economic growth in the long term. However, people don't exist in a vacuum. People won't be able to have better ideas and/or put them in practice without certain insitutions, such as good education and guarantees that their rights are secure. In both aspects, South Korea, to my limited knowledge, excels, so they are far from doomed. Also, a growing population can also hinder development. It is, after all, much easier, on average, to provide to a small family. If you have six children, it's much harder to give good education to all of them when compared to people that only have two (not saying that there aren't great parents that have many children, I know some). When families are too big, this usually means that someone (almost always the mother) won't be able to work, further harming the economy. Yes, I'm not talking about the problems with healthcare and social security that South Korea will face, mostly because I don't know a lot about their welfare system, but even though they'll have some serious challenges in the next few decades, the country isn't "over" as Kurzgesagt's clickbait suggests.
TL;DR: yes, I think it's possible that things will go wrong for them, but the video's title is hysterical and they can compensate their dwindling population with productivity - and they have been pretty good at it so far. South Korea is a relatively rare example of a country that grew rich before it grew old, and there are many other countries in Asia and East Europe in a much direr situation. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't believe Kurzgesagt's video is claiming that Korea is absolutely doomed (though yes the title is deceptive), but that if they don't address the confluence of multiple issues they are facing (unusual amongst countries facing a shrinking population with little immigration), and that it is in fact taboo to even bring it up, they are in for a bad time. The situation is not unique amongst developed countries. The west is addressing it via immigration and increasing retirement ages (amongst other strategies). However, a significant reduction in working age population (along with other compounding issues) without a long term plan to potentially deal with the consequences could be dire. ShabiDOO 22:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
@GeeJayK, on the productivity point, the video does argue why something similar wouldn't be able to compensate for the smaller workforce long enough (link timestamped):

Of course technological progress means that productivity will be higher and each individual will probably produce more than today. But even if productivity keeps growing at the same rate or more than we've seen in the last decades, South Korea's GDP could peak in the 2040s. In other words, South Korea will enter a permanent economic recession. There are more optimistic projections that see the recession begin as late as 2050, but they are based on the medium UN demographic scenario – and there are no signs we're heading there.

ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 22:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Gaba is very correct to note the link back to old eugenics of the early 20th - they on the whole are not just bitching about 'not enough kids' but also 'too many Bad kids' aka kids from parents who have been judged unfit for various reasons. A classic example is a complaint that too many 'domestic' kids up for adoption these days are not 'mistakes from white college girls' but from mothers with 'problems' (being poor/homeless counting as such) producing lower-quality product (such as being mixed race) which might have 'problems' themselves in later life (because it's all us underclass producing the 'problem people', not respectable folks).
A lot of above view has in a diluted form transferred wholesale into (at least) Anglosphere bourgeois mores; that it was Very Irresponsible for you to ever have a kid without being able to provide everything they need, secure in the knowledge you will never Need Help from the state and you will be able to shower them with the attention/stuff the gossipy busybodies say You Must Provide. Ultimately, a lot of this is down to economics - if you have a situation where a) your're basically on your own spawn-raising, b) the setup means it's hard to get the resources together to 'do it all yourself' and c) any official help is bureaucratic/demeaning/rationed than yeah, a lot of the 'elective' kids simply ain't gonna happen.
This 'middle class arrogance' even leaks into what pro-natal policies they do come up with; for example UKGov developed a free childcare policy a couple years back. Problem is not only is it underfunded but it can only be one through 'official methods' (with associated bureaucracy). This means working-class informal self-help can't happen - in this case Tina and Fiona both giving their £50 p/w to their retired mum to look after Scott and Sarah while they're at work (remembering that Mum might be living off £230 p/w so that £100 would be a modest but welcome increase [also helping to reduce pensioner poverty!]). Most folks would agree, toddlers being raised by Grandma is normally better than a impersonal, bargain-basement daycare who gets fucked off if you're 3mins late for pickup. Hell, strip out all the bureaucratic shit and simply give that £50 to all parents gratis you might both reduce the total bill. But why won't they do that? Fixation of getting 'scroungers', because us working-class cannot be trusted one iota with anything.
This weave/tangent has a point; in which I think we're way overpaying for dependent care/support than we could be - not just kids, but seniors and the disabled too. I mean, we gave a system where authorities will spend £800 p/w on professional carers because they won't bung £400 p/w for a relative to do it themselves (Classism again; assuming said relative does not really need money, should do it for love).
Another thing is that 'economically inactive' people can in fact be quite socially productive. Caring for others, volunteering, mentoring, training etc. Does the Grandma daycare or Grandpa DIY services have value? Common sense says yes, while Econ bods say no as they're not run through any metric to be crunched. Even simple stats are hard to find - the only one I found was a wild-ass guess (£250b p/a) which if correct means the British GDP is 10% bigger than believed.
On the 'permanent economic recession' point, it all depends on how you define recession. Our current definition is very rooted around a presumption of eternal population growth, everything being priced-up and a unusually high % of working people (caused by the 'Boomer bulge' between c1975 to c2025). For economies with flattish (or even declining) pops, we very well might need to depreciate raw GDP numbers. (In fact, think it should be already; UK post 2008 had all the hallmarks of a stagnant/contacting economy but as we had an increasing GDP [due to immigration] our key benchmark 'looked okay'. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I completely disagree with KarmaPolice’s notion of “paying too much for care”, because the underlying assumptions are dubious and the maths are completely off.
First off, the scenario assumes relatives who are both willing and able to deliver this care, and it’s not exactly unheard of for grandparents to still be in full time employment while their grand children need care, or for those grandparents to not be located conveniently nearby. Sure, you could do the self help scheme by pooling resources, but that’s basically just lowering pay for essential services and outsourcing them to unskilled labour in the hope that “love” will cover the difference.
As for care for the elderly, that requires skills too, unless we’re talking minimum levels of housecleaning etc. Even worse, the maths of 800 vs. 400 ignores several obvious problems: That it would mean that that family carer can’t hold a full time job, which needs to be factored in as a societal cost, likely more than offsetting the proposed savings.
It also assumes that one professional care worker only cares for one person per week, thus ignoring economies of scale, let alone the fact that care work for the elderly also requires education for a reason, which needs to be factored in as a counter in quality to “love” (and whether everyone loves their family to a degree able to compensate for training in care work is at least open to debate). And once again, it requires that there are actually relatives nearby willing and able to take on this significant task.
Then there’s the quite likely prospect of gender bias in this “family care model”, because who do we think are most likely to be saddled with this role? My guess would be that it would fall overwhelmingly to women, who are already heavily over represented in (professional) care work, and thus it would be an effective 50% income cut for women, if we assume they currently work as professional care workers and likely far more, unless they’re really low paid or unemployed.
Family care sounds really good — right up until you have to quit your full time job to do it. Indeed, the problem of the state expecting families to handle this important, societal task is one that is keenly felt exactly in those states (especially in East Asia) that rely on it while also having aging populations.
If anything, the “boomer bulge” argues for increased reliance on public care, simply because the larger number of elderly relatives needing care would be unmanageable on a family based model, as one working age person might need to care for between two and four grandparents.
Sure, you might want to subsidise those who are willing and able to take on such care work anyway, but I really wouldn’t want society as a whole to rely on it. It’s not just “unskilled labour of love” and already doesn’t pay particularly well while being physically demanding (and often mentally straining too’), and claiming that we’re overpaying those who are willing and able to do it full time seems frankly bonkers to me. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Think you're misreading a lot.
-I don't assume there would be relatives to be willing/able to provide the care, only that there would be some instances where there would be.
-Don't dump on the 'unskilled labour'. Some of those are damn good at what they do, and because they have 'skin in the game' can be more attentive to their charges than a professional carer. What's more, you get skills over time; so the relative might be more experienced than our professional. Lastly, a lot of care doesn't need skilled labour to do; which is why (for example) a lot of family carers get in a 'proper' carer in for an hour or two do do the stuff they can't.
-Opportunity cost is very important, and is why flexible systems are vital. Sometimes there will be someone who's current 'real job' is low in pay and going nowhere. Or that they'd be willing to do it, but not for free. Speaking of wider societal cost; there's some evidence which shows low-quality daycare is usually inferior than family care for young kid re later development.
-Speaking of cost, you're hung up on the purely example numbers I did. The truth is simple; professional care environments are more expensive due to extra overheads (insurance, admin, operating profit etc). Yes, this stuff has long been shunted onto women's shoulders, which I support family being paid for caring - in many countries, it would result in them being paid something for what they already do for free (mainly, because they have to). KarmaPolice (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
I still don’t think that paying people a pittance, rather than nothing at all is a particularly good argument, either socially or economically. As for the extra overhead involved in professional care work, that’s at least partly due to the kind of protections that doing work professionally entails.
Basically, if you’re a health care worker and injured at work, you’re usually entitled to some form of compensation, but if you’re injured while doing “family charity” work, you’re not. This is also something that needs to be either factored in as a personal cost for the family member or being paid for by society at large, thus eroding the purported savings.
Is public support preferable to working for free? Of course. Is publicly supported family care better than no care at all? Sure. Is it better than “bad” care? Possibly (though I’d question how comparable “bad” daycare is to families with the resources and willingness to provide their own).
The more important question is whether family care is really a viable alternative to public care on a societal scale, or at best a niche supplement. Another issue is that such a system would give a great excuse for certain politicians to shovel all kinds of care onto the families, returning to the situation before comprehensive welfare programmes were implemented in the first place. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Just as a curious real world example: Denmark, despite having a comprehensive public and private daycare system also used to have “a parental daycare subsidy” for, let’s be honest, stay at home moms.
Now, Danish conservatives and others on the right used be in favour of this, because it very much chimed with their traditional Kinder, Küche, Kirche view of gender roles. That is, until they realised that the majority receiving this support were immigrant women (mainly Muslims) who were thus disincentivised to seek jobs, which also meant that the need to learn and use Danish became less of an issue.
Not surprisingly, the scheme was quickly cancelled, but the right wing has sought ever since for some way to reintroduce it while exempting the former main users from being able to use it, but have been unable to because that would be blatant discrimination and thus certain to be struck down by the courts. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)