RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive476

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 July 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>, <473>, <474>, <475>, <477>, <478>, <479>
, (new)(back)

What is the future of America?[edit]

So far, things seem a bleak. Trump is continuing to cause damage. Can this be easily reversed or will America fall from grace? Even if Trump has caused damage, can the country at least return to basic decency? When will this nightmare be over? Trump can't last forever. Surely at some point Maga will decline. Throwawayuseraccount (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll throw this take from Paul Krugman's column, where he got Yascha Mounk's opinion on "the future". Probably a better source then "rando Internet commentator".

Well, predictions are always dangerous, especially about tomorrow, especially when Donald Trump is involved. And I think the best way of thinking about this is with a broad range of outcomes, right? Any point estimate is going to have pretty low probability attached to it. And there's a range of scenarios.

I think there is a scenario in which, you know, this adventurism, whether with the trade war or whether with a potential invasion of Greenland or something like that is going to be so unpopular with the American public and wreak such havoc in the world that future American leaders remember this as an object lesson for what not to do. And that by that indirect route, we actually go back to an international order that turns out to be more resilient than before.

I also absolutely think that it's possible that, you know, the Trump administration does some really irresponsible things that blow up the century of American dominance in the world and that we enter a multipolar order in which America retains some control over its sphere of influence, we get a lot more global instability, but we have a kind of transactional world that is reasonably stable, avoids World War Three, that avoids a massive undermining of democratic states.

But thirdly, it's also possible that 50 or 100 years from now, we will see this as the beginning of a Chinese century or the beginning of the authoritarian century, as the beginning of a moment in which we got the emergence of perhaps not a new hegemon because China isn't quite there, but a new primus inter pares, a new first among equals that really sets the rules of global politics.

Those are the three kinds of scenarios that I'm thinking about. It's going to depend a lot on what the White House does over the next three years but also perhaps a lot in happenstance, a lot of factors that we don't yet fully grasp, which of those three scenarios we end up in.

My "random Internet guy" addendum here: "Predicting the future" is difficult. Much more so in this case because:
A) I do not see any real obvious contender for "the next big thing" (this wasn't the case in the early 20th century, where brain drains really *did* have a outflow penchant for America). Life after Pax Americana (assuming such declines, but my current assumption is it will more than not) may be a multi-polar sphere of influences, with no real global leader. This isn't unusual in history.
B) Part of the reason: the movement behind Trumpism has echoes in almost every other rich country. Mind you: some aren't "international order threats" at the moment, even if they are shitty in other ways. For instance, some of the "populist right" in Europe seem to be more like Giorgia Meloni, who for now are more "soft Euroscepticism", a stance which lacks the pure anti-institutional / anti-EU rage you saw 20 years ago. This could easily change; after all, Donald Trump changed considerably in a mere 8 years.
C) Some people have naturally concluded that China will be the New Century Leader because its big and makes stuff and its trendy to do so. I see this as merely a guess; they are *the* leading light of authoritarian capitalism, but this model too has considerable disadvantages.
And you never know. "Dark horses" may emerge. Southeast Asia? Latin America? Africa? In the 1980s, the mere suggestion of any of such being influential would be poo-pooed. But so would've the mere suggestion that the Republican party has a "fascism problem". Or that a Cultural Revolution-wrecked China would be so powerful in the world sphere. Times change.
TLDR: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ BobJohnson (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
(EC)As for your first question, nothing Trump has done domestically cannot be undone...provided he is followed by politicians willing to put a lot of effort into long political battles against stiff opposition. It would take a democratic president most of their term to clean this mess up. The problem is that, when I look at the Democrats and their leaders, I don't see the politicians who will do these things. The international stage is a much bigger problem, because we have a reputation as a sort of "bipolar" country-sure, even if our president stands with you now, his successor may actively sabotage you to gain political points with his base for the exact reason that you were allies with his predecessor.
As for your second question, that depends on how you define basic decency. Biden proved a narrow definition is illusory in the grand scheme of things. At any rate, the next anti-MAGA president cannot base his program on "restoring basic decency" alone.
Your third question has the most unsettling answer-I suspect a lot of democrats don't want to admit it. The national nightmare ends when MAGA does, it goes on as long as MAGA exists. A pluralistic political system cannot sustainably house a large movement whose core tenants demand you eliminate those who do not fit in with said movement.-Flandres (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
There is a tendency among authoritarian regimes to bring about their own ruin: "only he can fix it" attitude, excessive bluster, hubris, geriatric doddering, etc. The trump regime has been showing rapid signs of cracking: infighting (Musk vs Peter Navarro), "gentlmen" fighting in Hegseth's war room, the smartest man in the world (according to his mother) shitting on his own name and his own Tesla brand, something he's not going to recover from. The massive number of lawsuits against the trumpian lawlessness is a sign of how bad things are but also the many judicial rulings against trumpist edicts indicates there may be some limits to the damage. Bongolian (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
America has been 'falling from grace' [or falling from her zenith] since 15th August 1945. On that day, the United States held the highest % of military power, wealth, industrial capacity, scientific development etc that she ever did before or since. The era of 'American hyperpower' [c1990-c2015] was not that that she had suddently become 'more powerful' in this era than before it [in fact she may have been relatively weaker], mainly that after the implosion of the USSR there was no major opponent who desired to openly challenge Washington's claims for global hegemon. The best historical analogy here was the 1920s with the British Empire; that her main rivals [USA, USSR, Germany, France] either had no desire for challenging London right now or lacked the strength to really do so.
More important is the fact the rest of the world has never seen the USA as being in a 'state of grace'. It's a nation built on the bones of the indigenous population they wiped out, built up using slave labour and exploitation and run by a bunch of people who felt that God had told them to do all this. That it was a Great Power most riddled with hypocrisy; preaching liberty while retaining Jim Crow, demanding democracy but subverting it the moment the result went against their interests, honouring Horatio Alger's spirit while looking at oligarchs money-bags, taking Jesus and fucking him so hard he starts parroting prosperity gospel, decrying 'foreign interventions' unless the ones doing it had the stars and stripes and insisting that the whole world must look like them in every single way otherwise it is 'wrong'.
Don't get me wrong; America was never a circle of hell, but it was never either the pure 'city on the hill' or the 'land of opportunity' it liked to think itself of either. In fact, America has been wildly successful since Independence - which is the problem. It has never suffered a decisive, obvious defeat - the sort which becomes a 'national trauma' and forces the country's ruling class to face up to. Victory breeds complacency, complacency breeds hubris and incompetence - a ruling class which has grown lazy, stupid and entitled; forgetting how things run and reality actually looks like. In this case, I accuse both American elites ['MAGA' and 'Neoliberal'] of this. Climate change. Inequality. Middle class destruction. Class becoming caste. Treatment of masses like mushrooms. Treatment of foreign entities. General disrespect and lack of actual 'noblesse oblige'.
This is why the Democrats are stuck in the business-as-usual, we'll-get-you-next-time mentality. They still don't get how they 'lost' [in fact, I argue they are incapable of seeing how they did] and believe that MAGA will be so terrible they'll get in by '28 whoever they run. They have to believe this; to not believe this requires them to reach the conclusion that neoliberalism/current American system has failed. But they cannot reach that conclusion because the alternative is obviously going to be a leftist populism plus democratic reforms which simply Will Not Happen. You want to have the true view of the Neoliberal elite's feelings? Better Trump than Sanders. Why the hell not? The golden rule for elite competitions is that while you may shit on The Ordinaries as much as you desire, you don't shit on the opposing elite. And even when you are 'out', you still wield a lot of power and wealth. For the average American now; elections are 'tails I lose, heads you win'.
But what next for America? Unfortunately, history tells us in such a situation incompetent elites rarely reform from within, that it takes said 'decisive, obvious defeat' to discredit their standing with the Masses and cause a major portion of the 'managerial class' [ie the folks who run things] to come out in opposition. Then what happens, is all in the lap of the gods; what leadership has been provided by providence to the factions and the particulars of the 'crisis point'. One thing is clear to me; that 'the centre cannot hold' for much longer and it's a folly of delusion that everything 'can be put together again' with relative ease. It's like those centrist morons who think Trump's death will restore 'business as usual'. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
This is why I am very curious about democratic primaries for the mid terms next year. What are the new congress people like? How powerful is the faction that wants a course change? Do centrist leaders feel the need to throw a bone to the sort of people who talk about fighting oligarchy and so on? How willing are discontent democrat voters to acquiesce to politics as usual if the establishment pulls out the typical "unelectable/too dogmatic/left populists are the same as right populists" rhetoric?-Flandres (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
That, I suspect is all dependent on what happens this year. All the Project 2025/MAGA/Trumpian shit being flung about is accelerating America towards a 'revolutionary situation'; a point where a decent % of the Big Public are sufficiently aroused politically and the ruling MAGA-class is seen as [relatively] discredited/incapable. My money is early autumn; enough time for said shit to sink in and people realise. If savvy, a grassroots political movement [or more likely, several movements a la United Front] could arise, mobilise enough of the Big Public to fight back and sweep the board in '26 and then '28 with a clear mandate for reforms.
The problem is, almost the entire current Democrat infrastructure is against harnessing that ferment and moulding it into a weapon. That despite their claims, they do not want to have a mass party, they do not want the Big Public to become politically active past passively voting for Democrats or giving money, they do not want to reposition themselves on any of the key tenets they'd been peddling since 1990 and they do not want to drop their 'pragmatic' and 'polite' mentality which leads them to become spineless comprimisers where they bend over to let MAGA fuck them.
You cannot build a 'revolutionary movement' out of that sort of leadership. Even Gretchen Whitmer [perhaps the only '28 hopeful which I think could get some traction going here] is stuck in the 'bridge political divides' and 'let's work together as friends' mindset which is about as appealing as a used set of Trump's undercrackers. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
The pre-Trump Era is dead, and those looking back on it with nostalgia really need to take off the rose tinted glasses. The fact that any of this is occurring, and indeed that it is occurring with such weak pushback is indicative of the levels of institutional rot prior to such visible disaster. The house can fall down around us unless it has already sustained an excess of damages. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
The start of empire decline beings at the moment of their greatest strength. And those declines tend to not be reversed. Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan is a a tacit admission of America's diminishing status. But it looks to me as though his policies will have the opposite effect of the ones he imagines.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
While a decline cannot be reversed as such, reforms and revivals can restore and revitalize institutions such that they do not rot as quickly. This is ultimately going to suffer diminishing returns due to the law of entropy, but it doesn't hurt. Trump and co are, however, zigging when they should be zagging, as it were, meaning we are more likely to enter into a period of social revolution than institutional restoration. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 10:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
The "bit of luck...maybe" is that... it's Donald Trump and his economic policies are such complete shit. A lot of dictators take hold using waves of good economic news to consolidate their power. "Mussolini made the trains run on time", that sort of thing. The "news from the front" seems to indicate that a tariff shock and probable recession is coming, with things being quite noticeable to US Main Street in a couple of weeks. It's plausible to see this breaking the Fox News propaganda spell that's taken hold of the Trump bootlickers to some extent. It'll be much harder for Trump to become Emperor if 70%+ of the country are absolutely pissed off at him.
The reason this is "lucky" in a sense is the vibe I got reading this Wall Street Journal editorial on Trump's first 100 days. The WSJ's big complaints about Trump are... tariffs, Trump's Vladimir Putin ass-kissing, and his failure to engage in supply side economics craft a "pro-growth tax bii". Trump's authoritarian attacks on universities and immigrants, and Elon Musk's bullshit "DOGE" wrecking ball? They get a rather mealy mouthed criticism. To the WSJ, yes, Trump was engaging in "needless excess"... but at the same time, the Wall Street Journal applauded Trump's supposed "counter" to "the excesses of the left".
Honestly, the vibe I get is that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Elite would've been happy with an American bloody and ruthless dictator... provided it was the *right* kind of bloody and ruthless dictator. IMHO, if Trump had been akin to an Augusto Pinochet, the WSJ editorial board would've been absolutely giddy. It's yet another sign that the American ruling class absolutely doesn't understand a huge part of what made America great (namely, all of the IP benefits of those universities and immigrants and government-sponsored scientific research). And, to me, another sign that the "American century" is over. BobJohnson (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I think a Trump/MAGA success would look less like a "dictatorship" in the lay sense and more like a "Managed democracy", also known as "inverted totalitarianism". This model of rule seems to be the current "best practice" in regard to elitist regimes for some time now. However, even if that fails, I'm not inclined to celebrate, as the underlying trends that gave rise to support for the platform Trump represents will not simply disappear, but will instead likely seek out new avenues of expression. The absolute worst case scenario, in my mind, is something like the Yugoslav wars, where the country tears itself into both metaphorical and literal bloody pieces. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, the "sweet spot" of too much of the American Republican elite is probably more the mixed "hybrid regime" of Viktor Orbán. My guess, though, is if things went further (ala Pinochet) the WSJ types would be busy tut-tutting the "needless excesses", but nonetheless shouting from the rooftops praise regarding the economic policies. (From what I recall, that was what the National Review actually *did* during Pinochet's regime... this dictatorial half-urge has been floating around American "conservatives" for a while...) BobJohnson (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Which is why I accuse the 'American elite class' of being stupid, greedy, lazy and short-sighted. The 'Reaganites' when it comes down to it have little to bitch about regarding Trump/MAGA excepting 'tone', which is why the vaunted 'Resistance' promptly died. The 'Neoliberals' who control the Democrats seem to have completely [by accident or design] failed to notice this fact, because their Harris strategy was to court a democraphic which didn't exist while telling demographics who did [progressives and leftist populists] to go fuck themselves. And what are they advocating now, hmm? 'Work with Trump', 'move more rightwards on social issues', 'be reasonable' and all that crap. Same old shit they were saying in 1995, which the likes of a young Michael Moore noted back in his Downsize This!.
The critical issue is that I am not so sure all this 'instability' will do too much damage to the American economics in the short-term. That a weakening dollar will help exports and more importantly, will plump up foreign profits declared back on Wall St. That doing a slash/burn on enviromental regs very well may cause energy prices etc to fall a bit. That a decent % of industries will be glad they 'can cut all the woke crap' and look forward to the gutting of workplace protections. That driving away immigrants will make the labour market tighter and thus, help keep employment high. This last one is particulary important for the libertarian white young[ish] males who plumped for Trump this time around; that if the net result of all the MAGA policies are that the 'decent' professional jobs are once again the preserve of middle-class, white, educated American males chances are they'll be very happy.
And enough of those MAGA-hats who have 'lost' can either be tricked into thinking they've really won or told to find new Others to rail against for 'stealing your God-given cake'. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm less inclined these days to believe that the GOP base is passive dupes and more inclined to see them as having a completely divergent conception of the world from the liberals. On the subject of immigration policy, if Trump kicks out too many illegal immigrants, especially in the agricultural sector, see how fast the economy goes to shit. That sector is notorious for going whole hog on the use of of illegal migrant labor to keep overhead low. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
That's the thing: in theory, driving away immigrants will make the labor market tighter. In practice:
A) America's unemployment rate is currently 4.2%; it's been below that since around 2021. This indicates a tight labor market *already*.
B) Many low-skill manual labor industries in the West (and elsewhere) have exploited immigrants for a long time to take advantage of the below-the-minimum salaries. Short of reverting to a nasty exploitation system domestic labor too (Bring back the 1890s! Oh, joy...), a switch to domestic labor will result in either higher prices... *or* a temptation for many of these industries to start exploring automation. (Which, of course, many have already been doing *already*.)
Your "more aware GOP politician" has recognized this for a while; they've become real good at spouting anti-immigrant propaganda to the rubes while quietly letting the exploiters know about things like the H-2A visa so the "biz" to continue to exploit migrants. Donald Trump however is so big of a racist and such a promoter of his ICE gestapo that I can see at least some of this "workaround" being neutered.
C) In part thanks to the decades long GOP "war on education", and in part due to so much of Big Business (thanks to short term thinking spurred by the Milton Friedman style "profits and nothing else" paradigm) giving up on things like "on-the-job training" and "mentorship", regarding skilled labor, I'll be blunt: America ain't ready for factories to come back. All the reports floating around (like this one), and something anecdotally I've also actually noticed, indicates that there's just simply not enough skilled labor for the factories Trump wants. There's even not enough skilled labor for *constructing* the factories. Plus, America's infrastructure has been tired and creaky for a while, and that is a negative.
I could see a smarter politician using tariffs and other national industrial policy tactically; with that, certainly much of what KP said could apply. But Donald Trump is stupid and transactional and acts more on a blunt level. He started a stupidly extremely aggressive tariff war with *everyone* that has zero strategy. As a result, there could be a significant economic shock with dire impacts, particularly for certain industries that have heavy dependence on China or other importers. If such happens, it will take center stage and decimate any of the other potential little advantages from Trumpism policies.
And it's probably not the libertarian white rich professionals who will feel the pain. What are the areas I see most exposed? A lot of MAGA friendly jobs, to be honest. Shipyard workers, truck drivers, farmers. That kind of thing. Retail giants like Walmart too.BobJohnson (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I think the 'GOP Loyalists' [ie the 'Reaganites'] are generally speaking approving of the policies, disapproving of the 'tone' and some details of delivery. What strikes me more than anything else on reading mainline Republican/Conservative thought these days is the utter dearth of either original thought or actual new solutions; that they're trapped in an 1980s intellectual prison. I remember reading an article on City Journal just the other day and what struck me was a) how elequent they could be in 2,000 words [of which about 75% was filler], b) the complete lack of any decent suggestions on solutions past the generic ones ['woke', 'snowflakes', 'dependency culture', 'lack of gumption', 'libruls' etc] and c) a discreet silence on anything which didn't conform to the previous [such as ignoring stats which made their narrative weaker]. Publications like that remind me of an overwaxed parquet floor; the sort a mind can slide over with ease, getting the feeling that 'isn't this all impressive/persuasive', their pseudointellectual tone adding weight to the confirmation bias. I'd argue here that they are on the whole 'actively passive'; in that they are choosing to not intervene against the Negus and his cronies. Legal bods will chime in to say 'silence is not consent' or similar but when it comes to politics, I see silence as at least acquiescence. And they shall be judged on that later on.
The average MAGA-hat knows fuck all about economics. They don't get that it's impossible to have American fast-food workers earning $20 p/h and have Big Macs for under $5, same it's impossible to have American textile workers earning $40 p/h to make bras for sale at Walmart for $10. But they do get zero-sum microeconomics; that if a bathroom needs fitting and your $25 p/h gets undercut by the immigrant's $15 p/h, it's highly unlikely that another bathroom fitting job shall appear to support them both. That they reason [following supply/demand logic] that if there wasn't 'millions of migrants' willing to work at warehouses, stores, food joints etc for minimum wage 'their people' would get those jobs instead at minimum+$3 an hour. But the average MAGA-hat doesn't have experience of actual management roles, so they don't realise management's usual response to not getting enough staff is to a) whine to the state for it and/or b) don't backfill and make existing workers go harder than do something as horrible as offer pay increases.
My best guess is that Trump's tariff strategy is this. First, the 'door in the face'; stupidly excessive demands to your opponent [so they slam the door in the face]. Be shitty; don't give a fuck what they say, or how they react. Ignore all 'experts' or number-crunchers. Look like you don't give a fuck if they agree or not, boast about being so powerful, so important that you don't need them, that you can simply deal with someone else. Then, in the corner of your eye, watch the ones who are spying through a crack in the blinds. Love-bomb them if they open the door to 'chat'. The moment they quit responding to the soft soap, kick them in the balls. Tell them what they will do. Announce to the world that you've agreed to it, even though they haven't. Then announce you don't want a deal at all. Railroad. Browbeat. Bully. Lie. Threaten. Whatever lever you have - fair or foul - use it. Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks; out of twenty random ideas you have off the top of your head, one might be the next money-spinner. Don't give in. ever. They need you, you don't need them. Soon enough, some will tire of this and offer you some tasty concessions. Win!
Trump isn't the only one who does business like this; Jack Tramiel [of Commodore] was very similar. In fact, this is part of his downfall; that by the late 80s nobody wanted to do business with him anymore. Trump is worse; even if dealing with Tramiel was like having trepanning done to your head, at leas the guy kept his word. The Orange One notoriously doesn't. I mean, I've been looking for 9 years now and I've never seen a single example of a business saying 'we liked working with Trump and look forward to doing so again soon'.
I am unsure of just how much of this will really work. International trade is no more like real-estate development deals than a government budget is akin to household finances. I mean, just one example; I can fuck over 'Bob's Building Co' secure in the knowledge there's always other builders to fuck over later, because folks who have been fucked over never touch you again. But fuck over Canada? The EU? The UK? They will remember, they will hold it against you and they will never trust you again. That will bleed into other realms of American power; I mean, I wouldn't be shocked if this all blossoms into a wider public boycott against American goods/services/companies. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Great Prophecy yet - there's more evidence it is coming true than anything from that other one people keep fawning over! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Idiocracy is imperfect as far as satires on American society goes (as is typically the case for satires). For one thing, the citizens of Idiocracy seemed perfectly happy with a black man as president. :p BobJohnson (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Who said anything about it being perfect ffs?? Perfect is the enemy of good enough, and there's still more evidently coming true from it than the bibley :p Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
KarmaPolice’s thoughts on the tariffs seem to pretty much match mine, but I will add that another well established Trump tactic is simply to lie and claim he got a fantastic deal, even when that was not the case and take credit for something that either had nothing to do with him or at least not with the tariff.
We’ve already seen this in his crowing about how Canada supposedly knuckled under, when he cited several Canadian policies that long predated his tariffs, and similar lying posturing is a likely way that Trump will try to paint his tariff shit show as a brilliant success.
Unfortunately, given that Trump has a slavishly loyal propaganda machine, a lot of his supporters are going to be soaked with this “the sky is green” bullshit and are likely going to buy it, just like they have bought his other brazen lies (from his image as a business genius, over the absurd “blue collar billionaire” rigmarole, to the “drain the swamp” nonsense to the lies about the “rigged” elections and oh so much more). ScepticWombat (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
In this, we Brits are ahead of you lot [for once]; for this very strategy is the exact one used by Brexit. That your Gammons have been all promised a free unicorn and by gum, that's what they're fucking getting - even if you 'Remoaners' are 'being doomsters' by pointing out pesky little details like unicorns don't exist. They don't sully their elevated minds with tawdry things like facts; they were shown beautiful AI pictures of unicorns on a side of a bus so it has to be true! What the fuck do you know? I don't give a shit you might be an 'expert' in unicorn-existence, I'm going to believe this rando FB account with a Bulldog avatar instead.
This all goes back to my argument of 'vibes vs facts' - that Trump will get all these wonderful unicorns [and then deliver them to your house] was one on 'vibes' and thus cannot be removed via facts. The issue that the country is so rigidly split is due to the same reason - that you can't remove facts via vibes or get it into people who believe in facts.
That on the 'unicorn delivery date' three lines shall be used, all at the same time. a) 'We delievered your unicorn, isn't it beautiful!', b) 'an Other stole your unicorn from you!' or c) 'no, this isn't a dead fox, it's a unicorn!'. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Trump trying to organize a military parade which just happens to coincide with his birthday may tell us all we need to know about the future of the US.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
This question is not much different from "what is the future of democracy?" There are different kinds of people. Many must maintain a certain level of oblivion in order to live their lives without causing events that can lead to social destruction. A declining America could advance the European democratic project. I like to refer to Michael Crichton's quote on futurism from "Next." Whenever you look at the future, it changes, because you looked at it.Zatoichi (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
It would seem that the Trump administration is now officially endorsing the South African genocide conspiracy theory by extending refugee status to white South Africans, and to white South Africans only(!), making them the exception to the otherwise complete halt to refugees and other asylum seekers being allowed into the US that the administration has touted so far. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

United, the French left could reach the second round in 2027[edit]

| According to a new poll by Harris Interactive, if the left presents a unique candidature for the 2027 election, and the centre and right do not unite, a leftist candidate could reach the second round and surpass the macronist candidate. New world (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Why is drawing your enemies getting eaten by a giant praying mantis so therapeutic?[edit]

Splat! Bongolian (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Why? Koafox (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

You could also employ the 'Monty Python foot.'
In part because 'the police' and 'the head doctors' will recognise 'pure fantasy' rather than 'actual intent' is involved.
Writing stories where 'weird/embarrassing things happen', or which start 'well you see Doctor/Policeperson/other authority figure'/stories that might have featured in the Daily or Sunday Sport (UK newspaper) can also be enjoyable. (Superheroes of choice go on a bender/clothes or casings no longer fit or are all in the wash/get scammed etc) Anna Livia (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Examples of the Daily and Sunday Sport stories can be found here and elsewhere.
There are also 'your weirdest Freud-friendly dreams.' Anna Livia (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The end of WWII[edit]

The crew of the Enola Gay (and many others) want a word with Donald Trump. Anna Livia (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

More controversial was his plan to rename Veterans' Day as Victory in World War I Day. Which he, or at least the White House, is now backtracking from. I wonder what he's going to do to Martin Luther King Day. If he's still in office by January 2026, he might be brave enough to make Lee-Jackson-King Day a federal holiday. Spud (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Trolling the troll[edit]

Musk-pa-Troll.jpg

I couldn't think of the best place to put this, but these have been floating around lately. There's also a corresponding website trolling Musk.[1] Bongolian (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC) I put it on the Musk in the end. Bongolian (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Financial Times more neutral than most French Centre-"left" journals[edit]

Seriously, why is an interview of Jean-Luc Mélenchon in the Financial Times more neutral than an article by Libération? (Both are still better than the Spiegel, that last one literally writes the same way far-right journals do in France. Apparently it's "normal" in Germany though, since no one seriously criticises the German media landscape there. A German discussion about Gaza will always be about the "menaced "Western World"" ["West"=USA and vassals who pay the military expenditures the USA wants them to pay], it's worse than Anglo-Saxon media). New world (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Woah, that's pretty hardcore of the Spiegel. They didn't use to be so far right though or am I mistaken? Then again, considering the state of German discourse and education , I am not surprised.NastyNugget (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

503 Backend Fetch Failed error[edit]

This is displaying regularly - what is the problem? Anna Livia (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

User:David Gerard now believes that its AI scrapers causing the problem (RationalWiki:Technical support#Bots and 503s and etc). Bongolian (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Can we sue people for using this wiki to train ai? Or change the copyright to stop the bots? Koafox (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
A few really big media businesses have launched such lawsuits, but you need a very well-funded legal army to fight a war against adversaries with very deep pockets, with an uncertain outcome. As for blocking, only technical solutions work, since copyright is explicitly ignored, sometimes even with a claim that there's the right to do so, that if it's readable on the web, it implies permission to scrape it for any purpose (this is said by some megacorps such as the likes of Microsoft today). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
The problem is we're getting hammered by AI scraper bots. This is a problem for a lot of sites. The scrapers use literally hacked botnets (e.g. there's one botnet of hacked Android set-top boxes), hitting pages sequentially from a vast number of IP addresses, so any one address might get used every few days. Nobody knows who is running the bots.
Tim emailed me this morning suggesting using Cloudflare to front the site. I dislike the idea, but maybe it'll work?
I absolutely do not have time to contemplate this shit. I am busy doing various courses to make myself more employable before the redundancy runs out and also I'm being a youtube influenza (yes, I'm trying to go viral, boom tish). Anyway I'm busy. But I can look at it on no schedule I can promise - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
It's true Cloudflare started rerouting these AI scraper bots into endless mazes full of scientific factoids to keep them off sites. If nothing else works then that might. Chillpilled (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)#
I think you absolutely should use Cloudflare. I get having issues with the company's business practices, but right now with the AI scrapers going absolutely insane everywhere it's basically use their service or constantly have outages. WARNING: NOTED IDIOT Daemonspudguytalk page 03:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I personally think this is strengthening my argument for RW to go away for a little while. It took ages for me to only get to this point to reply to anything due to AI bandwidth overloading and as David rightly points out, we need a proper Tech to do well, tech stuff. This most likely will require the passing of silver across a palm. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
(Was affected by the 503 issue) If RW is 'obscured' for a little while (possibly in conjunction with the move to a different state, and also having 'various minor issues resolved without 'the rest of us doing what we normally do' etc) there should be a placeholder site for the duration. Perhaps have a word with 'the tech people on Uncyclopedia' and/or Wikia/fandom (and any other equivalents) to see if there are any shortcuts or room for 'doing similar things the same way'. (My tech level is 'enough to know that these are "reasonable points" but not enough to get actively involved/suggest solutions) Anna Livia (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Is it wrong that I want to read the Labyrinth?
Regards, Avarice 20:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

On LLMs[edit]

Consider this. AIs using RW content to teach them is a good thing because it would hopefully help pivot said AI into a more pro-RW position on topics. Just like with public media manipulation, ['the truth costs but lies are free' aka decent reportage is behind paywalls but the prolefeed slop isn't] a coming generation of far-righters, authoritarians, vulgar libertarians, eugenists and other pseudosciencific shit-peddlers may be able to corrupt the AIs by feeding them acres of their shit, causing a GIGO issue.
In other ideas; once the creation of chatbots becomes a lot cheaper, how about having a ScepticBot LLM? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
There are several problems with that proposal, some of which may be insurmountable, that you would find at Large language model. Would you want a dumber version of RW? Who is going to invest in building the human-built interface as a stopgap for the inherent alignment problem? There's a telling problem with how these were built: massive funding inputs from plutocrats means they had to have some hope of return-of-investment, which translated on forcing the AI on their users, particularly in the case of Google, Meta and Washington Post. There's no obvious way to turn it off for people who don't want this shite. It's a theft-construction-enforcement cycle that, gee, might just remind someone of organized crime. Bongolian (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Note the part where I said 'a lot cheaper'. I fully expect we are within two/three years of close to 'plug and play' LLMs which can be bought off-shelf. If it operates on a closed garden model it can make a decent 'question answerer' which is most likely to be a seperate but related project to RW. It's already been done; see Britannica's chatbot. I personally wouldn't mind LLMs using RWs content if they weren't sucking all the capacity - I am not sure our copyright even forbids them doing this.
On dumbing-down; why do you assume that an LLM would automatically do this? This smells a wee bit like medium snobbery to me. It will dumb down if we tell it to. A book or TV show can be as dumb or smart as you desire. People denounced cheap encyclopaedias back in the day because they had to 'dumb down' a lot simply to get them to fit the small space availible. RW dumbs down; we have to to boil down sometimes very complicated concepts to a few thou words. Also, sometimes a bit of 'dumbing down' is a good thing, if said dumbing reduces say, important scientific facts to a précis which a reasonably intelligent sixteen year old can understand.
Lastly, foisting it on people with zero way to get rid [glances at PC and phone] is another design feature which can be well, chosen to not be done. I myself hate the damn thing popping up in the corner of things, like Clippy's ghost. Consider me to be in the 'cautiously positive' AI camp here; I can see the value, the potential of it while I get the feeling the vast majority of RWians are deeply against on principle. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I think there are some positives for AI as long as the scope is more narrowly focused and one recognizes the limitations. If you have a lot of local data, "AI" type methods can help navigate through them. It's also pretty clear that "AI" type methods are very helpful for certain projects like visual detection, text-to-voice, and so forth. Hell I've used ChatGPT to help write blocks of code for me. It's clear however that tech companies are overselling AI, and have half-ruined search engines and other "social" algorithmic models thanks to this sales job.
AI at a Google search level does work okay for "generic questions", I will grant that. It is *much* more useless for more specific, harder to answer stuff; Google's search will often throw up really weird AI generated garbage if it doesn't "know" what you are talking about. The other thing about search engine AI: it isn't able to detect bullshit, whether deliberate (satire, propaganda) or not (idiocy). We've all seen the famous examples of Google's AI quoting The Onion articles as if it were truth. Recently, in my personal searches, Google's AI threw up an answer that was bullshit that was entirely generated from a satirical Reddit shitpost/"circle jerk" style group. Way to go, artificial "intelligence"!
RW is too small I think to influence AI much. The big Wiki "elephant in the room" for generative AI is Wikipedia. It's pretty well known that current AI models lean heavily on Wikipedia even now. Small wonder: it is a large data set, easy to parse, and with an ethos that fits AI training data sets very well. Ideologues may hate it, and you do run into bad articles, but overall it is reasonably well curated and, if not reliable in a primary data source sense, "good enough" for a first pass. In many cases, I've found that the "good generic AI" answers actually are pretty close to Wikipedia article summaries. Search AI and ChatGPT and whatnot would probably have sucked a lot more if it wasn't for Wikipedia's two decades+ of building up its Wiki.
In relation to your Britannica chatbot, a Wikipedia "chatbot" who used an AI model *only* built on Wikipedia data, and *solely* to provide a human language search of Wikipedia articles would possibly be useful. If only because different ways to search can yield different results. But social media companies have pointed their AI training models on bullshit like general social media posts (where a lot of crap existed even in the good old days, and now is even worse due to, among other things, AI generated posts). Eventually, methinks these large AI bots will end up heavily training on AI generated content. AI researchers have warned about this kind of GIGO feedback loop, which might eventually make AI models collapse. Whee! So, to me, the key for proper LLM usage is all about limiting scope. BobJohnson (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
That is generally my conclusion regarding AI [from my half-arsed studies to date]; that it's like a dog - if you train it right, keep it on a short rein and feed it wholesomeness, it can serve you well, if you don't do these things you're buggered. It's why I believe one of the growing job roles in the 20s/30s is going to be variants of 'AI handlers'; tenders/gatekeepers of the 'walled gardens' of data for it to chew on and keeping a close eye ensuring it doesn't screw up or go nuts. And you're right that tech companies have wildly hyped it up, along with the usual 'nursing a semi in underpants from the projected layoffs' from the CEO class who imagine the office of the future comprising themselves, a status-symbol human assistant and a horde of AIs.
I've found the more interesting/realistic projections of AI from [for example] the world of libraries and archivies - from improving book suggestions [to patrons and library both] to making tons of old papers truly accessable for use. For me [but perhaps I'm a bit sad] the most exicting promise of AI right now is that in speeding up information diffusion; AIs which can not only answer the 'specific, harder to answer stuff' but sources said answers from scientific papers, journals etc - this could help both the professional [doctor consulting Watson for current state of Parkinson's treatments] or the layperson [asking whether carbon capture actually works]. This was the kind of thing I was imagining for my 'ScepticBot'; because if Wikipedia does end up with a WP-Bot [which I think is sooner than folks think] it will most likely have the same dull NPOV and thus, all it's weakenesses too. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
One thing I do think AIs really need to have, however is a 'how did you come to this conclusion?' button or something, so we can see it's working-out.
No. Antares (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Like to expand that answer? KarmaPolice (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)


Why? It's a search algorithm with the trappings of a video game NPC that was funded and built by techbro utopians whose model for the future is fiction. It also breaks down under sustained use and every model to date is on the fast track for cryptocurrency style micro-transactions and "live service" design principles. If you wouldn't back cryptocurrencies, blockchains, NFTs, or other assorted silliness, there's no reason to back LLMs other than FOMO. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
You are wrong. Objectively wrong. The two LLM examples cited above [Britannica and Watson Health] are not 'funded and built by techbro utopians' and isn't geared towards 'cryptocurrency style micro-transactions'. Both show much promise as a productivity aid. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not "wrong dead wrong", there is a disconnect between what I've said and your point of reference. Secondly, to the background of the tech, it is simply correct to say that the initial push to create and promote it, as well as its largest evangelists, come from those milieus. Thirdly, to the point about the specific examples you gave, my point about the tech's tendency to show its limits under sustained use is not addressed, and is therefore presumed ceded. Fourthly, to those same examples, while they may not show signs of development in those directions for now, almost every model that I've seen has, so I'm not holding my breath that the initial design will last. Fifthly, as someone with a skeptical at best vantage of Capitalism and the all consuming economic logics it entails, I'm not going to very compelled by assertions of "productivity aides" or other such techniques. Finally, you asked for people's opinions on this subject, and the way you've responded seems to indicate to me that that you did not seek a diversity of views on the topic, but rather affirmation of your own more positive evaluation, which you have not gotten (nor will you get it from me, as my standpoint is largely opposite of what yours seems to be). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
'there is a disconnect between what I've said and your point of reference'. Where? Point it out, please.
'Secondly, to the background of the tech, it is simply correct to say that the initial push to create and promote it, as well as its largest evangelists, come from those milieus.' AIs have been worked on since the 1960s, so they were not behind the initial push. Watson's start was in 2005. Is old Big Blue a techbro now? I don't doubt the existence of the whole techbro/AI hype c2018 which has all the hallmarks of being a bubble, but I'm looking beyond that to the actual tech substance.
'Thirdly, to the point about the specific examples you gave, my point about the tech's tendency to show its limits under sustained use is not addressed, and is therefore presumed ceded.' Everything has limits. A word processor has limits. Doesn't mean it's bad.
'Fourthly, to those same examples, while they may not show signs of development in those directions for now, almost every model that I've seen has, so I'm not holding my breath that the initial design will last.' Elaborate, please.
'Fifthly, as someone with a skeptical at best vantage of Capitalism and the all consuming economic logics it entails, I'm not going to very compelled by assertions of "productivity aides" or other such techniques.' What, that AIs can improve productivity or that productivity increases are not required?
'Finally, you asked for people's opinions on this subject, and the way you've responded seems to indicate to me that that you did not seek a diversity of views on the topic, but rather affirmation of your own more positive evaluation, which you have not gotten (nor will you get it from me, as my standpoint is largely opposite of what yours seems to be).' You assume wrong. In fact, the point that your reply instantly reached for the techbro/AI hype model even though both myself and BobJ made it kinda obvious we didn't support that is telling - that you are so strongly against the whole concept and have emotional investment in that position that a level-headed discussion is difficult. There's no shame in having such biases - just admit to yourself they exist and don't try to project them onto me. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Don't encourage them[edit]


Should I take Lesswrong seriously?[edit]

I feel like it's a stupid question but I have to ask. I came across a few posts on there and well...I'm kinda skeptical about their "Rationality".

https://www.lesswrong.com/s/oFePMp9rKftEeZDDr/p/QkX2bAkwG2EpGvNug

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong

https://www.lesswrong.com/rationality#wAXodw6LPScjrdnkR

One was about thermodynamics being Bayesian, which sounds funky, especially the part where he tries to assert that:

"And don't tell me that knowledge is "subjective". Knowledge has to be represented in a brain, and that makes it as physical as anything else. For M to physically represent an accurate picture of the state of Y, M's physical state must correlate with the state of Y. You can take thermodynamic advantage of that - it's called a Szilard engine."

Which sounds like it's assuming a lot to me, especially the part about knowledge. I've also had my notions of "physical" severely challenged by quantum physics and other philosophies as well. Far as I know knowledge isn't physical, it's not Platonism. I read up about the guy on here and saw that he has no degrees in any of the fields he writes about, which makes me take what he's saying far less seriously. Not really sure why he put subjective in air quotes.

I also read the part (on his page) about wanting to upload your consciousness to a computer or simulation, but didn't recent evidence in neuroscience show that's pretty much impossible? (along with a lot of other things he believes in)

I dunno...is any of this worth regarding or losing sleep over?47.5.66.54 (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There's an inherent problem with one saying that one is rational because everyone is irrational sometimes. We at RW have acknowledged this (RationalWiki). Read LessWrong and Eliezer Yudkowsky to get an idea of LW's foibles. LW has been described as cultish to the point of having spawned two different subcults. Bongolian (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Well reading through some of the titles of the sequences did raise my eyebrows, especially trying to link human cognition with physics or drawing too much from evolutionary psychology (which when I read up on sounds more like speculation than science).47.5.66.54 (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
One can probably find sound arguments on LW, but where the lead might be problematical. Mainstream neuroscience is materialist (e.g. see Non-materialist neuroscience for the non-mainstream neuroscience), which ultimately does lead one to the conclusion that physics is the basis of cognition, though how much more one can soundly argue after that is not so clear. Evolutionary psychology has its own problems, as is the problem of the single autodidactic leader (Yudkowsky) and tendencies toward ultracrepidarianism. Bongolian (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Doesn't saying that physics is the basis of cognition lead one to then say that people don't exist and that animals aren't conscious? At least that's the impression he gives. That there aren't people or things or animals. I mean it would just be physics taking place right? There is no one there or no one feeling.Yokaiwatch (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
No. Antares (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
If you don't live in San Francisco, the main reasons to care about LessWrong is that they now have a lot of money, public acknowledgement from about six billionaires, and converts at American companies like Vox and OpenAI. Until they had money from their friends in cryptocurrency and Effective Altruism, they were just another SoCal subculture with cultish tendencies and an oversized presence on social media.Polydamas (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Rich people aren't separate from the world, there's always gonna be some patron for some random cause, though I think it's worth understanding these various subcultures before they're sitting on a pile of money. The internet has spawned so many though. I feel like I've lost track. Something RW was sometimes decent at was cataloguing these subcultures to an extent, particularly when they started touching on missional issues. I could speculate this capability grew out of a want to catalog all the different Christian denominations and tendencies early on; the through-line being "ethnography". Chillpilled (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Most geeky subcultures are incredibly grateful for one $1,000,000 donation. James Randi's Million-Dollar Challenge seemed like the biggest single donation the skeptic movement ever received. Today EA + LessWrong can find $37 million just to keep Vox publishing their message (three guesses at which finance firm the donor worked for), and there are stories that Vitalik Buterin gave hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crypto to an EA organization and that FTX helped them cash out. Substack openly subsidizes some creators and there are lots of ways to create straw donations. If you want to know why EA and LessWrong look so big on the Internet when your friends in Oakland CA have never heard of them, the short answer is that they have $100 million to a billion or so in assets and you can buy a hell of a lot of blogging and apocalyptic fanfiction technical reports with that.Polydamas (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Er... LessWrong doesn't look "big" on any Internet I know of except for a few particular Silicon Valley-ish subsectors. If anyone "out of the loop" knows about LessWrong at present, I suspect it would be because the "Zizians" got a bit of mainstream media publicity this year for their murders and whatnot, and that cult has connections (well, former connections at least) to LessWrong / effective altruism / SF "rationalism". (Even then, the LessWrong / Roko's Basilisk connection did not appear in all media articles about the Zizians.) Not exactly a flattering way to get people to know about your group... BobJohnson (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Almost every excitable story about chatbots is downstream from the EA-rationalist nexus. EA-rationalist messages regularly appear on Hacker News, on right-wing twitter, in the offices of congresscritters, and in the podcast feeds of billionaires who run social media companies. Mouldy and the RH who we can't mention any more get profiles in newspapers and news magazines. A big chunk of Substack is rationalist/postrationalist. And the SF Bay Area has an outsized influence on English-speaking Internet culture, the only reason any of us have heard of James Damore is that some people in that community tried to shun him and others tried to promote him. The few hundred people in the SF-greater NYC-Oxford EA and Rationalists had an outsized influence on the English-speaking Internet and media because they posted so much and had the right contacts to get shared. Most groups of a few hundred bright foolish people are not 1/1000 as visible.Polydamas (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I'll give you Hacker News and social media companies, which is "Silicon Valley" oriented... or people in that sphere like Kelsey Piper. Substack? Substack is largely where journalists and other folks of what Rationalwiki used to call "Very Serious People" go after they've been booted from mainstream media for one reason or another. It's the resting home for Bill Kristol (under The Bulwark), Andrew Sullivan, Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Paul Krugman, and Nate Silver, for instance. Such is not necessarily a *bad* thing, of course (Kristol's centrist turn that came with his anti-Trumpism is honestly fascinating to me) but in many cases it's a sign of irrelevance (Sully and Taibbi in particular have fallen far from their heights). Having said that, there are also some "newcomers" in Substack too like MeidasTouch. At any rate, of the Substack I know of, I haven't seen LessWrong mentioned once.
Now, there's certainly been a fair bit of mentions of the neoreactionary movement / Curtis Yarvin of late, largely because of the connections with JD Vance, Elon Musk and other Silicon Valley types floating around Donald Trump's circle. Plus, that movement is so techno-feudal fascist insane that it makes for good cover. Hell, Yarvin got a big Wall Street Journal mention just a couple days ago! (Within an article exploring two insane movements that both want to destroy democracy and liberalism and have Trump's earshot, the other being ultra-radical fascist Catholicism as defined by Patrick Deneen.) So, if not specifically LessWrong, I would certainly agree that, due to the attempts to gain influence in Trumpism, there is plenty to be concerned about regarding the generic "from California woo to fascism pipeline". A woo pipeline that doesn't just include the long-winded wannabe-intellectual bullshit "libertarian"/fascist rambles of the Mouldbug types (that perhaps could be extended to include the sphere of LessWrong and rationalism), but also the "from New Age / wellness movement to conspirituality" pipeline as represented by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. BobJohnson (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Part of the EA/LessWrong propaganda strategy is frequently changing names as one become notorious (the same is true for hereditarianism). Their goal is to get ideas out there, or get people into their spaces, before they realize "oh, this is part of that" or "oh, this curious person is curious about some skeevy things, and some of their friends are downright hateful" or "wait a minute, writer A who said writer B is great used to live in a commune with them and didn't disclose?" So you can read a few blog posts by Gwern or articles in Asterisk before you notice they are parts of wider movements, because they want to spread ideas not hear "rationalism" on the evening news. The best argument for TESCREAL is that it does not ask ordinary people with lives to follow all the nuances and factions, just gives them a list of labels and ideas and says "if you see any of these, run."Polydamas (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
LW tis a silly place. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
There was also an article in WaPo last week that pitifully tries to make him worthy of analysis because of whom they're now faced with comparing him to (Vance, Thiel, Andreessen).[2] Bongolian (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I saw the bit on neuroscience and materialism and saying that physics would affect cognition. From what I gather on their page on Lesswrong they take that to mean that nothing else exists and that there is only the on fundamental level of elementary particles. Anything else is just an abstraction, or "multi level" model that we use to simplify how things work. I think this was the page: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tPqQdLCuxanjhoaNs/reductionism#vM59Y3K2ki6sSvAxu It sounds a bit wonky to me, suggesting that planes don't exist because they are really "just patterns of atoms". A lot of comments on the blog also refer to thinking people exist as the "mind projection fallacy" (and yes there is a sequence for that too).Yokaiwatch (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Deleuze at home. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I actually looked through what the guy writes about but I couldn't understand the point being made here, it doesn't seem relevant to what LW is going on about at all.Yokaiwatch (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
If God is real, he is indeed a lobster. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
You're plopping down blogshit from 2008. :p
From my viewpoint, the blabbers of Eliezer Yudkowsky specifically make more sense when you realize that he is not formally educated (not even at a high school level), nor self-taught in a practical manner (at least, I have seen no evidence that he has programmed anything, and from my point of view this shows in his babbles on AI or related). He was also raised as a Modern Orthodox Jew. There is nothing wrong with this per se, of course... unless you are trying to pretend to be some sort of expert in highbrow concepts even if you know nothing about it, stringing together technobabble in ways that are more like an apocalyptic religion, or a dystopian science fiction novel, than anything science (or even applied science). That's EY in a nutshell.
TLDR: EY is full of bullshit; ignore. BobJohnson (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

India and Pakistan...[edit]

...are close to triggering the most pointless war in history, IMO. 2600:1700:103A:D800:60A5:CC66:1088:ADDE (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe India was hitting terror targets like they claim. Seems to me that India attacked civilian targets. I don't trust what politicians say. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I doubt that anyone fully trusts what any given politician says.
But looking at what we know. India was the subject of a terrorist attack from a group or groups who want all of Kashmir united under Pakistani rule. We know that there are militant groups on the Pakistani side of the border who want this end. For that matter, the government of Pakistan wants this end and has historically cooperated with such groups. (The government of India wants, for their part, wants Kashmir under Indian rule.)
The two countries have fought two wars over Kashmir in the past and the current border is really where the last ceasefire was called.
It seems highly likely that India has some intelligence about what is happening on the other side of the border and it seems equally likely that the terrorist attack originated on that side of the border.
So either : India attacked some utterly irrelevant civilian targets in Pakistan: or they attacked a position where they had at least some intelligence which indicated that the position was in some way relevant to the attack they experienced. My guess would be for the second option - but obviously I don't know.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Simply knowing how airstrikes work, it's quite likely that more than a few civilians were killed as a result of India's airstrikes. Antares (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Closeted Gay Festival aka Hetero Awesome Festival[edit]

https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/podcasts/news-this-joke-perez-hilton-reacts-alleged-hetero-awesome-fest-planned-idaho-bar-owner-lgbtqia-pride-month

Come one, come all closeted gays! Honestly, these people should come out of the closet. --Trans Fem Agenda 20:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Eagle, Idaho is a suburb of Boise, Idaho. So this comes in light of the recent story of Boise, Idaho (and Salt Lake City, Utah) adapting "official" flags to circumvent homophobic Republican attempts to ban pride flags. Take that, homophobic bar! :)
Idaho and Utah are quite alike: very pretty mountainous states unfortunately overrun by zealots and crazies in too many places. But nonetheless both states have some sane spots in the big cities, as well as select locations like the ski resort areas. (I haven't visited Boise in a while, granted -- it was pretty nice when I did -- but SLC surprised me on a recent biz trip visit. Plenty of good eats and drinks (!), scenic, and the worst of the Mormon shit isn't *too* visible, at least from what I saw.)
If this guy wants to aim for the "no dem faggots allowed!" / ultra-culture war "conservative" crowd, more power to him I suppose, he won't get my $$$ if I'm in town. (But, then, why does this place have 20 taps of craft beer, a scene that is very "Pride friendly"?) BobJohnson (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
"Haggard's Law" jokes are the liberal equivalent of Conservative "I identify as an attack helicopter" jokes. Fight me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I worked with a guy who, unprompted, looked up at me and said angrily 'There is no such thing as a chick with a dick, there are only guys with boobs.' Uhhh, me? I mean, I don't care, I learned later that was a line from Ted or something, but the guy was legitimately angry about something in his head. A Straight (and I had to check my spelling because I've never typed straight in this context before) pride parade? I'm so straight I guess I don't give a fuck about ANY parade. Have fun, you're allowed to do that, it doesn't concern me. I have a joke that I think y'all are ready to appreciate, it doesn't work everywhere, but you can just have it. "I'm so straight I don't leave the bar until ALL the girls are scared of me.' But for real, I don't really care, the straights wanna do gay stuff, gay stuff is fun, doesn't bother me, shouldn't bother anyone.Torrent (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

State of the bots[edit]

ok! so this week's hammering appears to be a single scraper in Poland, sending very fast complex queries. I blocked that and a bot sending slower complex queries.

I let other bots through cos they were going at a reasonable pace (every 5 sec or so) and were just asking for normal pages, e.g. Googlebot.

my great fear is we get a scraper botnet attacking - where the botnet uses a different IP every query so it's really hard to block. But at the moment we're up.

How I did this: deny lines on the IP in the front-end nginx on cache3 - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the bots. Koafox (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
@David Gerard Sounds like what I've heard of LLM scrapers. They seem to crash smaller sites when they try to repeatedly harvest data. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, David! Bongolian (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently in an arms race with the bots. If you can see this, you're fine. If you know someone who can't, get 'em to ping me and I'll see what I can do to minimise the collateral damage - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Today and yesterday, Internet Archive has been getting 503 errors when accessing RW.[3] That is also true for https://archive.today (https://archive.ph etc.) and Ghost Archive.[4] Bongolian (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
yeah, I tested all three and I know precisely what's wrong and it's their own fault. I've emailed all of them about the issue and how to fix it. I would like to just let them through, but also I would like RW to work - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Can a RW equivalent of a baby play pen be devised (to which the trolls can also be banished) so the bots (and others) can amuse themselves? Anna Livia (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
We considered that, but it won't solve the archiving issue - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
archive.is have responded - they do things the way they do for reasons (which I think are wrong, but hey), so unfortunately we can be archivable by them or we can have a site that's up at this stage - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I have done some scurvier workarounds and the archives can now pick up the pages, though without a lot of CSS etc. Working on refining this - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

What a disgrace[edit]

Deleting the article about the International Society for Intelligence Research. It's an organization, there's no reason to delete it. Unless of course you cut a secret deal with a neo-Nazi piece of shit. This Wiki is a joke unless and until it moves to Oregon and regrows a spine. Absolutely pathetic. Pinkerite (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The cabal would also probably delete a recipe for apple pie, references to Thomas the Tank Engine turning 80, and possibly the latest research on the Bayeux Tapestry.
The first derivative of Godwin's Law - the first person to mention any of 'the usual suspects' #unnecessarily# has lost the argument.
Have a nice day Anna Livia (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Meant to reference this Anna Livia (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Like a few other people, I'm confused by which articles are being deleted and which aren't. It's presumably being done because of some combination of the lawsuits and the vote here, but some articles have been deleted that Oliver Smith had very little involvement in, while some articles about living people that were written almost entirely by Smith are still online. I assume there's some logic behind this, but the way it looks from the outside is that the deletions were determined by spinning a roulette wheel labeled with the names of various RW articles.
Edited to add: it also doesn't seem to be the case that the the deleted articles are all those about people who've sued the RMF. When anyone does that, there's always a public record of the lawsuit, and the number of people who've had their articles deleted is much larger than the number of people who've sued.
I think it would be helpful if the board could give some explanation of what the criteria were for deletion, so that that it won't look quite so random to everyone who isn't privy to their off-wiki discussions. Also, Spud also mentioned on May 10 that more deletions were likely to happen. Is that still the case, or is the list of deleted articles now more or less final? Tetrapteryx (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Charles Murray's article was deleted, apparently without his knowledge (https://x.com/charlesmurray/status/1921244728063893569). He's much more famous than any of the other people involved, and it would've been much harder to purge his name from the wiki. It seems there's been no attempt to do so (see eg The Bell Curve). It'd be good to know if there's anyone else whose article was deleted but whom we're still allowed to talk about. Christopher (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Is the Board just rage quitting on all articles relating to the racialist pseudoscience movement? Antares (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi, not a Board member anymore, but I've been forced by circumstances to be clued in on its current doings. Basically, some very serious shit is happening in the background that the Board is putting together a plan to deal with. I can't say more without violating opsec, but you can probably guess what's going on from what I've just said. DuceMoosolini (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. Antares (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
People should not complain about recent board activity unless they are prepared to pay for a trial lawyer (probably >$50,000). Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I feel like it's more a lament than a complaint. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Bongolian's cost estimate is also significantly lower than the real amount. DuceMoosolini (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I can confirm that the Board has a serious plan. No details are available at this point. Bongolian (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I recognize we're between a rock and a hard place. I just wish there was another option. Antares (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
People have a right to express themselves as they see fit. The conditional is bullshit. Users don't have to prepare to do anything, shit is not their responsbility. We don't owe the board sympathy. It is not against the community guidelines or policies to critique such decisions. It is not an exceptional or unheard-of event of some pseudoscience-promoting quack or ideologue suing a skeptical critic. We have documented such things on this very website. If all it took was one organized effort by a small group of Nazi-adjacent shit-for-brains with a well-documented history of promoting racialist garbage to threaten legal action to get us to bend a knee, then sorry -- there is nothing virtuous about this. I or Pinkerite do not owe this community or the board a positive personal image. Especially when it has yet to be established that the extent of these removals is at all necessary. We are letting the bastards win, our mission has been a farce this entire time. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Since this agreement - I haven't seen evidence of litigation so I'll call it an agreement - is secret, and the rest of us don't know the terms, we are liable to be censored or blocked at seemingly random by certain moderators who love their power. Rather than play censorship bingo, I will limit further commentary to my Pinkerite website. But the more this anti-free speech campaign is publicized, the better for the free world. Pinkerite (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
What alternative do you suggest? To let them seize Duce's assets? Because that was, to my knowledge, what was about to happen? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Er, ok. Individual assets are not normally liable for actions against the assets of the 501(c)(3). So, what gives there? BobJohnson (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm pretty sure they were going after the board members individually, though I don't know the details, and I doubt we'll ever find out exactly what happened. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

A possible explanation is the fact that the RMF doesn't really exist as a legal entity. If you want to blame someone, blame Trent, not the current board members (I know that he is officially part of the board, but he hasn't been active for years). GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure. But you would think any individuals would have had some options not available to the 501(c)(3) (eg public attorneys, self-representation, etc). Oh well, what do I know...
As far as the org goes, we all know that RW was sort of drifting along organization wise. Hindsight is 20/20, unfortunately.
OnlySortOfDumb: My guess is that whoever started these shenanigans (from my perspective) actually had some Big Money to throw around; it takes a fair bit of chunk change to spin up all these lawsuits (I'd say whoever/whatever is behind this is probably also spending six figures, unless the lawyer's "for the cause" and working for reduced rates.). This is different than the "usual fish". But Big Money (Silicon Valley fuel) is floating around the eugenics / hereditarianism areas these days. This is something that's much less common for most of RW's mission focus throughout its history.
From my perspective, it's also just bullying a "small guy" for the sake of bullying. A lot of the people suing are well documented elsewhere in places that cannot be bullshit sued so easily. Their entries in Wikipedia, Guardian, Hope Not Hate, Substack, etc. ain't going away. People will still find out about the bullshit they produce in conversations on Bluesky and YouTube and elsewhere. That's the way it is. So "the mission continues", just in places with a thicker attorney shield. It certainly is sad that you have to have Big Money these days to defend against SLAPP in too many states, but "This Is America". BobJohnson (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Noble ideals are all well and good, but unless the critics are going to cover legal costs, those ideals aren't going to be much of an obstacle to a SLAPP suit. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, with no "virtuous" option. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
If we could somehow reach an agreement that Oliver Smith's articles don't belong on RationalWiki anymore, and that the result of this vote should be allowed to take effect, I think that would be a somewhat more principled and dignified response than the current practice of deleting his articles five or ten at a time in response to legal coercion. Tetrapteryx (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
LOL - "we." Oliver Smith had nothing to do with the Charles Murray article - I created it and wrote most of it. And yet it was taken down. Just stop, for the love of goat, just stop with the bullshit. Pinkerite (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
For the longest time I thought it wasn't worthwhile to write about Jonathan Kane on Pinkerite - but your well-documented and indefatigable efforts on behalf of the "Oliver Smith wrote all HBD articles" bullshit campaign has changed my mind. Pinkerite (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
On second thought, Jonathan Kane really isn't notable, but the saga of the ongoing mob campaign against Oliver Smith needs to be publicly documented. I have my own issues with Smith but there is some seriously coordinated shit happening and some of it is probably not legal. As City Journal/Manhattan Institute discovered. Pinkerite (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The following is no way 'official' and as a mod I am not privvy to any secret information [well, barely any]. There are also some things I am not going to say, mainly on the strength that they're deductions and I don't wish to give the game away if they turn out to be correct. I am also going to ask everyone to stop the speculations on the grounds that a) correct answers cannot be given at this time and b) the speculations might draw even more unwelcome attention to the situation.

However, don't take that to mean I support eternal silence on this topic; the Board is going to need to explain itself to the mob at some point. So 'trust us, we have a cunning plan' will hold, but not for long. What's more, I don't like the comments regarding 50k lawyers and asset seizeure because they are not helpful as we do not have sufficient information to make them actually understandable. I mean, the lawyer fees. Is this the net result of painstaking efforts of folks to trawl the state for legal representation [including but not limited to contacting college law depts to see if they have students who'd help for experience?] or the basis of a sitdown with a single lawyer who's spitballing worst-case commercial basis costs? [no, not expecting answer for this].

As for the 'people should not complain...' line, to some extent I agree with Dumb on this. Just because you, personally are not capable of doing better on X, it doesn't mean you're not allowed to point out sub-par work, bad calls and/or systematic failures. In fact, the most common use of that line in my experience is to shield 'authority' from actually doing any postmortem on the fail and thus, don't learn from the mistakes. In fact, perhaps we as a community failed because we did not complain enough at the point in time where this situation might have been avoidable. Yet I do disagree with their 'Users don't have to prepare to do anything' line because it utterly ignores the fundimental issue that RW is a self-help project; that we all have 'responsbility' to aid the project with donations - money, time, admin work, creative work and so on instead of simply assuming 'They' will sort it out. Who is They at RW? They is Us.

I also partly agree with Pinkerite's point, though will currently not say more on that issue. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I support what the board decides. I don't know precisely what they're faced with. The relevant points have already been made especially by Duce, Bongo, et al. and some people don't really grasp it (and seem to think repetitive discussion will change the options available — it won't). The board is given the confidence of the users at board elections, I trust they'll make the best choices based on the ones they have available. It was a shame to see at least one editor LANCB over this as well. Chillpilled (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Can the RMF provide an update or clarify?[edit]

Can the RMF at least give an update if the legal issue ended since articles have stopped now being deleted (excluding a few talk pages that were missed for deletion and I flagged one). Are more articles expected to be removed? 74.63.235.231 (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we get a statement please? @Spud, @ApooftGnegiol, @Cosmikdebris. Mr.B (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
It is unlikely that any more articles will be deleted at this point. Please do not nominate any articles for deletion based solely on who they are about. Spud (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
@Spud I get that now, but why are these terrible stub articles being left up: and Kenya Kura? Under normal circumstances those would have been deleted. Oddly if you create an AfD about those articles you end up reverted. 98.98.66.85 (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I would support deleting both of those. If that's all that's left of those articles after certain names were removed, it looks like they were only "guilty by association" anyway. Spud (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
In both cases "by association" means verifiably working for a Neo-Nazi organization, which cannot be named here. The "guilt by association" ploy is a favorite of Steven Pinker any time it's pointed out he's boosted the careers of race pseudoscience promoters while lending them credibility with his "celebrity intellectual" status. Pinkerite (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)