RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive480
My critical review of Crichton's "State of Fear"[edit]
In the past I've clashed with people here, and I'm not willing to revoke what I stated, but that doesn't mean that I'd be against everything RW stands for. Especially, I'm still against denial of the climate catastrophe. I hope you're smart enough to understand that.
Regarding research for the book - the first flaw which made me suspicious came pretty early, with the Pacific island state threatened by the climate catastrophe called "Vanutu". Does he want to avoid being sued by the real state of Vanuatu (for which they'd have a good reason), or is he simply allowed to be sloppy, as the mass-selling author he was? Both is quite possible. - An author who's just finished his first book wouldn't be treated that gently by his publisher/editor, but he...
But compared to the other flaws, this is really just a minor thing.
A somewhat bigger one which also insults human intelligence (not because not all of them believe in the reality of the threat of the climate catastrophe, but because he implies they were too stupid to make exact temperature measurements - Solshenitsyn's "Ivan Denisovich" clearly shows that even uneducated GULAG prisoners can read thermometers): When he gives the readers some temperature curves, he cherry-picks less than two dozen from thousands which exist.
What does Crichton actually believe now? Hard to tell since we can't read his thoughts, esp. now that he's dead. But given his pseudo-reasons, he manages to contradict himself: Is the problem that humans were too stupid or dishonest to measure temperatures? Are the measurements correct, but invalid, because cities have grown and made the places where temperature is measured hotter? (If Crichton wasn't dishonest, why didn't he ask the actual scientists in a polite way whether this was the case?) Does it matter anyway because (only according to Crichton and similar people) "nobody" can make predictions about climate? There's really no reason for me to contradict Crichton if he does it himself. At the end, it's not surprising that he fails: After all, he (or his main character Evans) even manages to call less than two dozen tables "many". That's just a small step above the people who can only "count" "One... two... many"! Except that these "primitive" people may have been just uneducated, whereas Crichton...
Apropos Evans: He appears to be a modern Simplicius. A well-meaning, but not all that intelligent (despite being a lawyer... well, as a Bavarian author said about one of his characters "He was a grade-A jurist and in other ways of limited reason too") guy, who initially believes those who warn re: the climate catastrophe, but later sees the error of his ways during the plot. A trick that's centuries old, but Crichton's the very opposite of the man who had the original idea and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Crichton: None lesser than Galileo.
The most impressive (but not valid) (pseudo-)reason given by Crichton is the long literature list. In which he perfidiously (more about that later) mixes both pseudo-science by obvious climate catastrophe deniers with really great and read-worthy authors like Daniel Kahneman and Dietrich Dörner. (Who are psychologists though, not hard scientists.) Doesn't help a bit though if he hasn't understood them, like an ape "reading" philosophy books. Coincidentally, I've read the mentioned Dörner book ("Die Logik des Misslingens" - The logic of failure). That's why I know that Crichton is simply wrong when he claims that the simulation (about a third-world village in the steppes of Africa) in said book proved that this complex system had to break down. Dörner (who doesn't deserve that Crichton twists his words like that) clearly states that it is possible to play the simulation in a way that doesn't destroy everything - it's just that most of the people who tried failed to.
After having seen that Crichton is unable to understand the good books he quotes, the rest is easy to refute intellectually. It makes a disgusting read, though. That's the only challenge about the... not so much book, rather a dead tree with words printed on.
The weak plot of the... book (weak because he wastes so much time on pseudo-reasoning and naked insults) doesn't fit into a book that's supposed to be serious. Because its villains (radical ecologists who are able to break off California, or at least break off a huge iceberg to cause noticeable floods) would rather fit into an old James Bond movie. Pretty stupid idea of Crichton to mix science and entertainment that way.
Obviously he hasn't read Umberto Eco's text about ur-fascism (not that I think anymore Crichton would be able to), or he would have noticed that he's making the same mistake as the fascists: He seems to think that his enemies - those warning about the threat the climate catastrophe is - were at the same time weak (so weak that he may attack them) and strong enough to commit supervillainy. Just like the Nazis did with the Jews.
Hell, the villains of the... book aren't just willing to commit murder, but to cooperate with literal cannibals to have their enemies eaten. (At this point, Crichton also delivers a "Take That!" to people who have sympathies to poor Third World people. And said Third World people, esp. non-white ones.)
With the stupidities and insults (does he want to make those of his readers who believe the climate scientists angry, so they'll be unable to think and find his flaws?) out of the way, I'll now cover the obvious lies.
His "hero" lives (of course) in a humble apartment with 80 square meters, whereas the villains (Hollywood actors incl. someone who's supposed to be Martin "The West Wing" Sheen and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs) live in mansions of 1,000+ sq m and fly private jets, so the "hero" can condemn their hypocrisy (...). What's that supposed to mean, proving RL points with fictional characters? If he could prove such people exist IRL, why doesn't he name them? Because he's too afraid that they might sue his pants off, or do worse? (After all, he writes that ecologists might be up to supervillainy.)
(BTW: Could it be that the author Crichton was envious of the actors, directors, let alone SV billionaires who have either way more fans or way much more money than him or both? Is that his motivation for writing the book?)
(And how much money did Crichton actually own, and how did he spend it? Could it be that he owns a big mansion or a private jet even? Given how much money was made with "JP", it could well be.)
People who warn deserve to be compared to Malthus or worse? Crichton writes as if he never heard of the saying that only madmen and economists can believe that a finite world (even the visible universe is finite...) allowed infinite growth (on the condition that the growth rate is above a certain epsilon > 0). Like it or not, when Malthus is right, he's right. And after all, I'm not aware that any influential ecologist made the some inhuman demands as he did.
"Nobody" knows how much of global warming was a natural phenomenon, or caused by humans, or how far it'll go? Even the word "nobody" as used here is a big disgusting lie. Does Crichton believe he could read the thoughts of all humans, or at least of all climate scientists? Did he check every single paper in the world about climate science?
He even dares to make comparisons to Lysenko's pseudo-science. If he to talk about ideologies so radical they become insane: Libertarianism (like that of the Koch brothers who spend so much money on denying the climate catastrophe!) is an ideology as well. Except that it hasn't had the opportunity so far to kill millions of people, or at least not in ways as obvious as re: Stalinists and Nazis. But there was a time when the Nazis already existed but hadn't murdered millions yet, and I have to know.
He should rather have stated that he didn't bother to look for reasons refuting him. If he had, he wouldn't just mention strawman arguments. He should rather admit that he's too afraid that those who warn about a climate catastrophe could be actually right. And too afraid he might have to give up the luxury he's living in.
Now to the hubris and fake-humility of Crichton which deserve their own section.
He promises in the book that there was a way to get away from fossil fuels - without (he claims) laws, financial incentives, political programs, or fearmongering from professionals. Does he think now he could predict the future, esp. the minds of millions of people - not just in general, but all the ideas they'll have?
Crichton even claims that the precautionary principle was refuting itself. WTH? If he had understood it, he'd have to see that it's him (or those who paid him) to prove that burning lots of fossil fuels won't damage our climate beyond the point of no return. He doesn't even bother to explain - as if he was none lesser than the biblical deity who had no need for explanations. It's hard to decide whether his stupidity or audacious dishonesty is worse here. He reminds me of those fools who wanted to falsify falsification.
Now to Crichton's perfidy which is even worse than everything mentioned so far.
Crichton already proves to be a perfidious hypocrite by screaming about how those who warn re: climate catastrophe spread fear (hence the title), while screaming at the same time of their supposed "Neostalinism" and "Fascism". (Pointing out that Stalinism and fascism/nazism were deadly enemies for which this world was too small to coexist looks like mere nitpicking at this point.)
If he's really so much against fearmongering, who doesn't he dish out equally against:
- Neoliberals/libertarians who scream about Stalinism/Socialism/Communism whenever the state makes a new rule, no matter how much sense it makes and how justified it is (as former Soviet citizen Maxim Gorsky said: Only people who never had to live under real Socialism can talk that way)
- Rightists who scream about the end of their nation/people/"the West"/the white "race" at every opportunity
- "Christian" and other fundies who scream about Satan/the Antichrist at every opportunity
He commits more hypocrisy by claiming to admire people who are able to change their opinion if they get more information. (Information can be false!) Then he better shouldn't admire the Koch brothers and such.
He claims that he wanted a new environmental movement but doesn't even make suggestions for it, let alone real deeds. I rather suspect he wants to destroy the current one. After all, he acts as if he suspected them to be supervillains.
He suggests that research should be funded anonymously, to prevent scientists writing what their money-givers want. Sounds good, but again: No ideas, let alone deeds. For a start: Who'd decide in such a system who gets money? And how do we keep this system anonymous?
He even goes so far to accuse the environmental movement of exploiting the environment, just as the industry does! By that he proves that people prone to black/white worldviews also seem to lose their ability to quantify. Apparently he wants us to believe that anyone who ever ate meat or drove in a car, let alone a plane, was as guilty as someone who makes thousands of millions of $$ with fossil fuels or worse.
But the pinnacle of his perfidy is when he takes resort to big questions which haven't been answered by science yet. Like the question: If we don't know all the species on Earth, and evolution still creates new species, how bad are eradicated species then? I just know intuitively that he's twisting the truth, but it'd take time to refute him. Also, even if he was alive and willing to listen to me (doubtful), I don't think he'd change his opinion.
Long story short: "State of Fear" isn't as bad as other reviewers have made it seem. It's worse. Way worse. It's a crock made of stupidity, lies, bullshit, and outright perfidy. It says a lot about the bad state of our world if so-called authors get book contracts, let alone being read by millions.
In the best case, Crichton would just deliberately have sacrificed his reputation to help us marking as many fools and fraudsters as possible: Anyone who likes or recommends this... work must be one. But I don't think that was the correct explanation.
"State of Fear" can only be recommended to hysterical fools who'd also believe that politicians who are speaking against the climate catastrophe like e.g. Germany's Robert Habeck were nothing less than the Antichrist. Don't tell me such people wouldn't exist unless you're willing to bet money. Some of them are even writing books.
Nb: Don't write articles/reviews like this one unless you're targeting someone who spreads at least as many lies as Crichton and is at least as noteworthy as him. And hasn't done anything worth something for counter-balance.
Originally posted here. Now it's your turn. --Max Sinister (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Chrichton. The same guy who wrote 'Jurassic Park' not Cretaceous Park and 'Eaters of the Dead' about an Arab Muslim traveling to Scandinavia and learning to fight alongside Vikings with fake anotations? They turned that into 'the 13th Warrior' with Antonio Banderas as as Ibn al But Forgotten. I mean, fine, your takedown is probably correct, A+ on your book report and I don't think anyone here would complain. But is Crichton doing this outside of his novels? Probably not often these days, woof. I never read 'State of Fear' but I bet he was playing a little fast and loose with some concepts. Oh, fuck, I was right, the guy also wrote 'Congo' I didn't read that either, but I saw that one as a kid and, serendipity, I'm learning a lot about Gorilla Grod because I think he's a funny villain from the DC universe to say is my favorite DC villain in casual conversation. I'm not going to defend the point that Crichton was probably trying to sell books. I think this is good work that you've done. I just maybe would try to dissociate what Crichton was trying to say versus what Crichton was trying to sell, which I also understand is a big ask. Otherwise, no notes. Torrent (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Think the key question is not that Crichton wrote the book in the first place - I think the plot of 'global warming is a hoax' could be used in the respect of a thriller [we have to remember this was much less a on-nose issue 21 years ago] but the fact that it became a clear author tract with the dressing up of factuality rather than of a work of fiction which was then topped off with him masquerading as a scientist in front of the US Senate et al.
- Chrichton. The same guy who wrote 'Jurassic Park' not Cretaceous Park and 'Eaters of the Dead' about an Arab Muslim traveling to Scandinavia and learning to fight alongside Vikings with fake anotations? They turned that into 'the 13th Warrior' with Antonio Banderas as as Ibn al But Forgotten. I mean, fine, your takedown is probably correct, A+ on your book report and I don't think anyone here would complain. But is Crichton doing this outside of his novels? Probably not often these days, woof. I never read 'State of Fear' but I bet he was playing a little fast and loose with some concepts. Oh, fuck, I was right, the guy also wrote 'Congo' I didn't read that either, but I saw that one as a kid and, serendipity, I'm learning a lot about Gorilla Grod because I think he's a funny villain from the DC universe to say is my favorite DC villain in casual conversation. I'm not going to defend the point that Crichton was probably trying to sell books. I think this is good work that you've done. I just maybe would try to dissociate what Crichton was trying to say versus what Crichton was trying to sell, which I also understand is a big ask. Otherwise, no notes. Torrent (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Whether he was genuinely 'just waiting for more evidence' [which we have now to a level they didn't in c2000] or it was just a veiled denier [which would have become intellectually untenable by now] we shall never know. To be honest, he could have gone either way - both scenarios where the 82-year old Crichton is a) banging the drum with others saying 'the science is settled now' and having let said book fall out of print or b) sitting alongside Trump cheering his announcement of scrapping 'all the green crap' and writing a thriller featuring QAnon seem equally likely. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Allow me to field the question of 'why do you really care?'. Because it's in my field, and I know a lot about it. Torrent (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- I was asking the OP that. I mean [to rehash the earlier nuked reply] was it's a book from 21 years ago by a dead writer which I suspect many copies now exist in mouldering copies in charity shops and donation bins. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well, at least you didn't let me look totally insane, but I understood that when I asked for the field. My response still stands. I think Max Sinister did good work on 'State of Fear', maybe copied notes which would be hard to do, but the link is bad, so maybe that's a joke, but I don't think it's a copy in and of itself, I think it's a heartfelt argument against a dead pop fiction author's work. Just, and we I think agree here, missing the mark of the argument itself. But the boy is allowed to have arguments. Torrent (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Unless Crichton’s views would’ve seen a major change, I’d say odds are that he’d be aligned with Trump, at the very least on the climate issue. His willingness to engage in vehement climate denial at a point when the actual science, while not massive and indisputable as in the present, was still pretty clear on trends and causes, clearly suggests that he was (and likely would’ve remained) a pretty hardcore denialist.
- Well, at least you didn't let me look totally insane, but I understood that when I asked for the field. My response still stands. I think Max Sinister did good work on 'State of Fear', maybe copied notes which would be hard to do, but the link is bad, so maybe that's a joke, but I don't think it's a copy in and of itself, I think it's a heartfelt argument against a dead pop fiction author's work. Just, and we I think agree here, missing the mark of the argument itself. But the boy is allowed to have arguments. Torrent (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- I was asking the OP that. I mean [to rehash the earlier nuked reply] was it's a book from 21 years ago by a dead writer which I suspect many copies now exist in mouldering copies in charity shops and donation bins. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Allow me to field the question of 'why do you really care?'. Because it's in my field, and I know a lot about it. Torrent (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Whether he was genuinely 'just waiting for more evidence' [which we have now to a level they didn't in c2000] or it was just a veiled denier [which would have become intellectually untenable by now] we shall never know. To be honest, he could have gone either way - both scenarios where the 82-year old Crichton is a) banging the drum with others saying 'the science is settled now' and having let said book fall out of print or b) sitting alongside Trump cheering his announcement of scrapping 'all the green crap' and writing a thriller featuring QAnon seem equally likely. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Even worse, that Crichton would accept to take his denialism to Congress, despite not actually having any expertise on the matter points to someone not willing to actually let science settle whatever unclear issues existed at the time.
- Similarly, Crichton’s call for an “apolitical environmental movement” seems a huge red flag to me. Whenever someone calls for some issue to become “apolitical” it usually means that they want it removed from the actual political agenda, i.e. to become a non issue and one on which no action is taken.
- Honestly, his framing looks a lot like the right wing view of environmentalists as “watermelons” (green on the outside and red on the inside) who are just out to exert undue power over poor capitalists and usher in some socialist/communist hellscape. Merchants of Doubt (2010) clearly documented this dynamic among several of its key figures (mostly actual scientists who then went on to become experts for hire, several of them featured on RW).
- I think it’s also indicative that Merchants of Death was published a mere six years after State of Fear (five years after Crichton appeared before Congress and two years after he died) and had required extensive research in the “Tobacco files” etc. along with interviews with leading climate scientists (and thus had a significant “lead time”), which also indicates how egregiously out of step with the actual science Crichton was. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- On the OP's work; I see no reason why it can't be expanded/polished and put as a mainspace page. I do feel we should give more/better coverage of media esp books [esp as we are in a world where everything review-wise seems to be either zero or five stars]. Currently, we only have perhaps about c160 of them, and a I bet most of these are at most semi-stubs. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- I saw Ari Aster's 'Eddington' I knew all the garbage, it wasn't that dense with conspiracy or complaints as promised, but it was very slow to start. I loved 'Hereditary' and I don't know why I kinda like 'Beau is Afraid' but 'Eddington' has everything that people here would find funny down to gematria and a kookmobile. It also makes fun of using white privilege as an overcompensation for finding a soapbox. It's very much woke, in a way that isn't tired, or racial. The movie just takes a million hours to do it, I would suggest seeing it in theater, watching it at home had me itching to do anything else in the slow parts. Now let's all find out Ari Aster is a creep, and Eddington isn't fun anymore. I think this Aster guy cruised this site for inspiration. That's pretty cool. Torrent (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- On the OP's work; I see no reason why it can't be expanded/polished and put as a mainspace page. I do feel we should give more/better coverage of media esp books [esp as we are in a world where everything review-wise seems to be either zero or five stars]. Currently, we only have perhaps about c160 of them, and a I bet most of these are at most semi-stubs. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think it’s also indicative that Merchants of Death was published a mere six years after State of Fear (five years after Crichton appeared before Congress and two years after he died) and had required extensive research in the “Tobacco files” etc. along with interviews with leading climate scientists (and thus had a significant “lead time”), which also indicates how egregiously out of step with the actual science Crichton was. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The epstein coverup[edit]
A real test on whether these maga sheep are “america first” or pedophile first. 2600:387:15:3C16:0:0:0:B (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Matt Gaetz is still popular, and he literally got exposed for being a pedo. So pedo first. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well then what a way to guarantee a midterm loss in both houses of congress. — Unsigned, by: 2600:387:15:3c16::b / talk
- Who didn't believe Epstein killed himself? Who cared about a pedophile cabal of top level celebs and politicians, and watched the Catholic Church do it first and was really skeptical of the 'great awakening'? Who wants accountability for this bullshit? Me, I did, and I do, and I'm so far left you'll miss half your turns even if I gave you directions. Matt Gaetz can eat my ass which he probably wouldn't be into because I'm not 14. My only concern is, this may be another tactic by the project 2025ers to destroy all faith in government in order to enact corporate control (i.e. blind faith in capital libertarianism). Corporations that cannot accept loss due to a legal promise that all shareholders 'must profit' is fucking insane and actually letting people die, and we're already living with that. Turning over the government to corporatists is fucking worse, moreso than having absolute powerless dipshits with at least some accountability to their base voters. This is not and must not be the end of American Democracy, because our next best option is giving it up entirely to the people trying to figure out how slavery could work. Use your tools to fix the problem, vote local, demand votes, fight for voting rights. There is a joke that goes 'if voting mattered, they'd make it illegal' but seriously. They ran on votes that cared about Epstein, they cannot be held unaccountable for this, make them hear your voice. Torrent (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- "this may be another tactic by the project 2025ers to destroy all faith in government in order to enact corporate control (i.e. blind faith in capital libertarianism)"? Not that this is impossible, but the most faith in government is destroyed by incompetent governments, period. Governments in all colors. Also, unrelatedly, Trump is suing the Wall Street Journal for 20 billion (short scale) $$, they said it too.--Max Sinister (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- Who didn't believe Epstein killed himself? Who cared about a pedophile cabal of top level celebs and politicians, and watched the Catholic Church do it first and was really skeptical of the 'great awakening'? Who wants accountability for this bullshit? Me, I did, and I do, and I'm so far left you'll miss half your turns even if I gave you directions. Matt Gaetz can eat my ass which he probably wouldn't be into because I'm not 14. My only concern is, this may be another tactic by the project 2025ers to destroy all faith in government in order to enact corporate control (i.e. blind faith in capital libertarianism). Corporations that cannot accept loss due to a legal promise that all shareholders 'must profit' is fucking insane and actually letting people die, and we're already living with that. Turning over the government to corporatists is fucking worse, moreso than having absolute powerless dipshits with at least some accountability to their base voters. This is not and must not be the end of American Democracy, because our next best option is giving it up entirely to the people trying to figure out how slavery could work. Use your tools to fix the problem, vote local, demand votes, fight for voting rights. There is a joke that goes 'if voting mattered, they'd make it illegal' but seriously. They ran on votes that cared about Epstein, they cannot be held unaccountable for this, make them hear your voice. Torrent (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well then what a way to guarantee a midterm loss in both houses of congress. — Unsigned, by: 2600:387:15:3c16::b / talk
- Check out the comments on the Fox article.
- Alternatively, check out how Fox edited an interview last year with Trump that mentioned Epstein. Chillpilled (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, Marc Elias,
who is not someone who engages in conspiracist thinking, tentatively concluded in his newsletter:[1]
- For what it's worth, Marc Elias,
- There are Epstein files, and they are embarrassing for Trump or those close to him.
- He is worried they will eventually be released and thus wants to discredit them in advance.
- He is going to increase prosecutions of his political opponents to rally his base.
- If the files do indeed exist, then one might also conclude that someone not in the DOJ has a copy or the original copy, making the DOJ's release of doctored files inadvisable. Perhaps the night of the long steak knives is coming. (Elias: "Like other strongmen, when facing internal dissent, Trump’s instinct is to manufacture an excuse to crackdown on opposition.") Bongolian (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Insanity that he is getting shitted on in his home turf echo chamber truth social for the first time. 2600:387:15:3C19:0:0:0:3 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Trump's increasingly vehement protestations that there is "nothing to see here" are actually starting to make me wonder if there really is something hidden.
- It also occurs to me that this is a long way from being the only conspiracy theory he has supported. I'm wondering if any more will come back to bite him.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Insanity that he is getting shitted on in his home turf echo chamber truth social for the first time. 2600:387:15:3C19:0:0:0:3 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- If the files do indeed exist, then one might also conclude that someone not in the DOJ has a copy or the original copy, making the DOJ's release of doctored files inadvisable. Perhaps the night of the long steak knives is coming. (Elias: "Like other strongmen, when facing internal dissent, Trump’s instinct is to manufacture an excuse to crackdown on opposition.") Bongolian (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- I have been wondering if there is any connection between release of Epstein case files and Russian Intelligence. This came to mind when Trump suddenly dropped his one-sided support of Russia's war in Ukraine just at the height of the scandal over the files. There is this, for what it is worth. Probably unknowable.Zatoichi (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
If the Epstein files incriminated Trump personally, he wouldn't have so frequently promised to releade them. He was "asked" to keep them classified by some third party. Christopher (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm just a BoN so I don't know much about RW, but this Christopher guy is a troll, right? Trump promised to release the Epstein files because people kept asking him in interviews if he would. He never brought the topic up himself and tried to redirect on several of the occasions he was asked, causing the reporters to repeat the question. Obviously if he had told the reporters who asked him if he would release them that he wouldn't it would look like he has something to hide WOULDN'T IT? But no, Trump would never LIE about intending to release the files, he must be protecting a 'third-party'. Give me a f-ing break, Christopher! 2001:67C:289C:2:0:0:0:235 (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- BoN, I agree on your point. This is about explicit and implicit language. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-jeffrey-epstein-years-including-2024-campaign-trail/story?id=123778541 When asked about his retweet in an interview, Trump said "what we're saying is we want an investigation. I want a full investigation, and that's what I absolutely am demanding. That's what our attorney general -- our great attorney general -- is doing." The attorney general at the time was Bill Barr.
- so, if you want to run on that explicit language, no, Trump didn't promise that the Epstein files would be released. The next part of the same article goes Pressed further on if he really believed the Clintons were involved, Trump didn't shut it down. "I have no idea," he said, but encouraged further questions. "So you have to ask: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? That's the question. If you find that out, you're going to know a lot," Trump said at the time.. I imagine if you don't like criticism of Trump's explicit language here, you probably also think the ABC journalism has implicit language that you also read into. But it's factual and explicit. But let's put the administration aside and talk about things Trump didn't explicitly say. Right wing apologism is becoming synonymous with 'American pedantry.' If words don't mean what they mean when you use them, why didn't Trump just say 'Blah blee blah blow I hate the people you hate' I mean, he kinda did, but how is that a defense or a reasonable argument for his shift in attitude? sounds like Trump was talking out of his ass to win votes and got a little confused when it turned out this isn't the 80's and he's not in big business. Demanding accountability is what he ran his TV show on, that's how he got elected in 2016. I have no idea who the new generation of gen z Trump riders are, but I bet he lost a lot of them here. Torrent (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Hey everyone[edit]
Hey y’all, I’m posting here for the first time. I heard everyone is spooked by the lawsuits happening recently. As someone who’s had a tumultuous personal life for the past half decade, I wanted to share something to all of you that’ll hopefully raise your spirits.
So I assume everyone knows about the Iran-Israel war and the horrors of causalities (Israeli but also Iranian civilians). I myself am Iranian American and have family in Iran, and I was scared shitless because I was worried my few family I had left would be gone and I’d be all alone. Thankfully, they fled Tehran and they’re safe, currently staying in the city of Ferdows in the east of Iran.
My point is that everything is going to shit, and we have a legitimate reason to be scared. But we shouldn’t be dominated by fear. We’re all going to get through this, don’t be afraid and always have hope. We must fight and not give in to those who seek to harm us. I know my words might sound cheesy and corny but I wanted to give you all hope in some way. I love this community and care about everyone I’ve met, including people I’ve had differences with. I’m glad to be part of this community, and I want you all to know you’re not alone in whatever problems we face. ❤️ 🫂 We need brain! Give us brain! 01:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is something I've picked up from some friends, it can be taken in a lot of ways but when I say it, it's always sincere. "Good luck out there" I don't believe in prayer or karma or luck, as it stands, but it's shorthand for "I'm rootin for you" to each and every person. I kinda stole the phrase and made it only positive. It only means 'good luck out there.' Torrent (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- With my Board hat on, I can tell you that the threat of lawsuits is behind us now. That's one less thing we at RW have to worry about. Spud (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Glad the lawsuits are over, and thank you for the kind words. Ratwiki has been through a whole lot of lawsuits and we always made it no matter what.
We need brain! Give us brain! 16:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's great to hear, Spud! I'm also happy that your relatives were able to find safe refuge, Rational Dude. Bongolian (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Bongolian. Good to see you and the others, it’s been a while.
We need brain! Give us brain! 21:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Bongolian. Good to see you and the others, it’s been a while.
- That's great to hear, Spud! I'm also happy that your relatives were able to find safe refuge, Rational Dude. Bongolian (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Glad the lawsuits are over, and thank you for the kind words. Ratwiki has been through a whole lot of lawsuits and we always made it no matter what.
- With my Board hat on, I can tell you that the threat of lawsuits is behind us now. That's one less thing we at RW have to worry about. Spud (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
RationalWiki is now under new management[edit]
Hi everyone,
The previous, New Mexico-based nonprofit organization that administered this website, The RationalWiki Foundation, has been legally dissolved. It no longer exists.
A different, Oregon-based nonprofit, RationalMedia Foundation (RMF), has been created. All assets and programs of the former New Mexico RWF, including this website, now belong to the Oregon RMF.
The old RWF was dissolved for a few reasons:
1) The RWF's founder and long-running Chief Operating Officer, Trent Toulouse, had lost interest in maintaining it, yet the foundation itself was still hobbled by its dependency on him. 2) The old RWF was based in New Mexico, which has only weak protections for freedom of speech, leading to a steady stream of defamation/libel lawsuits by the very crackpots and pseudoscientists that this website exists to document and debunk. Unable to afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to fight all of those lawsuits in court, the RWF had no choice but to settle them, in practicing meaning widescale purges and censorship of any mention of the plaintiffs from this website. 3) The old RWF's bylaws didn't accurately reflect how the board actually conducted business.
The new RMF solves all of these problems. 1) Trent no longer has a role of any kind in the new nonprofit. 2) The new RMF is based in Oregon, which has much more robust free speech protections. This will effectively stop spurious libel lawsuits targeting the contents of this website. 3) The new RMF's bylaws have been tailored to its needs as a small online-only nonprofit.
The new RMF is striving to do things properly and effectively, and to that end, we do have a lawyer, who specializes in nonprofits, who is being paid to assist the Foundation as needed. We are also in the process of obtaining legal insurance that will protect any board members in case someone tries to sue them as individuals for work done for the Foundation (this is considered standard for all professional nonprofits).
So, what does this mean for everyone on RationalWiki?
No more board elections. Legally speaking, none of the previous board elections were enforceable. None of the organizations governing RationalWiki have ever been, or ever will be, formally organized as a club with official membership and legal rights associated with that membership—and those are the only organizations where can members directly elect directors. Instead, current directors on the board will elect new directors as necessary. This is standard procedure for most nonprofits. We currently have 3 directors, but we are open to expanding the board to 5, or even up to 7.
The board actually does things now. The old RWF took an extremely hands-off approach to managing the content of the wiki and the conduct of those on it. The new RMF reserves the right to set and enforce standards for both content and conduct. In practice, this will mostly mean the board setting minimum standards for articles to prevent low-quality cruft, and forcing moderators to do their job if said moderators fail to moderate something. For the record: at no point will a lone director message or email individuals, telling them to do something. The board will take a vote regarding any potential actions related to content or conduct, and if a majority of directors vote to take action, it will be announced on the Saloon bar (or other highly-visible, highly-public page) and enforced transparently. This is to prevent random directors from acting like lone wolves and adding more layers of drama on top of any existing drama.
The RationalMedia Foundation and its board of directors are sincerely dedicated to maintaining RationalWiki.org and its associated communities, with all the responsibilities that entails. And that includes you, the reader of this Saloon bar post. You are in invited to ask any Foundation-related and board-related questions you have here. You can also pester us in real time on the official Foundation Discord. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
P.S. Special shout-out to… meeeeee! :-) for being point person on this project. The new foundation is my baby and I'm very proud of it. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Excellent news. Well done.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- I am in the UK jurisdiction (simplifying) so an observer of/commentator on such matters at best, legal-wise - but some provision should be made for 'the situation which gave rise to the move arising again'/the then directors having to leave severally close together 'for whatever reasons.' (I know many 'proposed doomsday situations' do not arise, sometimes because as they have been defined they can be worked around.) Anna Livia (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Anna Livia "the then directors having to leave severally close together?" Do you mean Board members choosing to leave the Board? They did that because we've all been through a very stressful experience. It wasn't because they were legally obliged to leave. Spud (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't saying that there were any legal etc reasons - but the circumstance could arise again, so something should be included to cover the possibility. Anna Livia (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- The insurance coverage should take care of this for Board Members, as Stabby mentioned above. Anyone else using their real name on this site, or having an easily discoverable real name from information on this site (e.g., Board Members at the New Mexico organization) should take care to only post information that is non-defamatory, and to check whether their personal jurisdiction has strong anti-SLAPP laws. For the US, there's a map here.[2] Other countries are covered at Strategic lawsuit against public participation.
Bongolian (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- The insurance coverage should take care of this for Board Members, as Stabby mentioned above. Anyone else using their real name on this site, or having an easily discoverable real name from information on this site (e.g., Board Members at the New Mexico organization) should take care to only post information that is non-defamatory, and to check whether their personal jurisdiction has strong anti-SLAPP laws. For the US, there's a map here.[2] Other countries are covered at Strategic lawsuit against public participation.
- I wasn't saying that there were any legal etc reasons - but the circumstance could arise again, so something should be included to cover the possibility. Anna Livia (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Anna Livia "the then directors having to leave severally close together?" Do you mean Board members choosing to leave the Board? They did that because we've all been through a very stressful experience. It wasn't because they were legally obliged to leave. Spud (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- I am in the UK jurisdiction (simplifying) so an observer of/commentator on such matters at best, legal-wise - but some provision should be made for 'the situation which gave rise to the move arising again'/the then directors having to leave severally close together 'for whatever reasons.' (I know many 'proposed doomsday situations' do not arise, sometimes because as they have been defined they can be worked around.) Anna Livia (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
Thanks to everybody who kept this boat afloat over rough legal waters and onto the calmer seas of Oregon. You do deserve a shout-out and the gratitude of the rest of us. Bravo. Pinkerite (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I can only agree. Well done to the board for weathering the storm! ScepticWombat (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hi guys, i'm just a lurker BoN, but thanks for keeping the project alive. I think it's more important than ever to have a voice of reason in this world, offering peer-reviewed references and debunking of the wide variety of bullshit encouraged by all sides of fanatics. Y'all have been a life saver more than one time and contributed greatly to my own outlook on rational thinking. Good luck.147.161.233.105 (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Torre Pacheco & future Spanish elections[edit]
Here in Spain there's been a bit of a crisis. A supposed immigrant group attacked a 68 year old man (Spanish) in Torre-Pacheco, Murcia, and in response there's been a gathering of general far-right nutjobs there. I've also heard on the radio, and this data is from polls, not to mention there's still time until the elections in 2027, so take it with a grain of salt, that the far-right Vox and right-wing PP will be experiencing a surge in the upcoming elections while PSOE the PM's party, probably due to the current scandal, is expected to have their worst election in decades while Sumar (coalition member) gets decimated as well. I guess so much for us being the ones who resisted the general rightward shift in Europe back in 2023, we're going that way as well. Yipee! Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- A week is long time in politics. Although the PP was hitting the PSOE (center left) because of the PSOE's corruption crisis the PP (center right) now has exactly the same problem. If an election were held today then I guess that would help VOX (far right), but equally it might help Sumar (left left) even though they are part of the coalition. So I would say it's far too early to call. (And for the uninitiated - Spanish politics is really complicated. There are various parties on the left, two parties on the right and numerous local nationalist groups which may themselves be split into parties on the right and left.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I just hope Sanchez keeps resisting calls for an early election. And that by 2027 voters think of something other than cartoonish corruption when they see left-wing parties when voting. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I would say there is no chance of an early election. He's fixed up the coalition for now - the only thing he has to worry about is another corruption scandal. I doubt that even he could survive that. But I take my hat off to him as a political survivor. Nothing seems to keep him down for long.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I just hope Sanchez keeps resisting calls for an early election. And that by 2027 voters think of something other than cartoonish corruption when they see left-wing parties when voting. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on this defense of PETA.[edit]
I was on an unpopular opinion subreddit and found this I would like some thought's: https://www.reddit.com/r/RealUnpopularOpinion/s/mbp4B7ORPu — Unsigned, by: 1.43.236.241 / talk
- Reads like PR, the first two sources provided are infographics created by PETA and hosted on their website. Not exactly sourced from a neutral third party here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
According to the news, Trump has now been diagnosed with a health condition.[edit]
Gotta wonder if this will make him humbler, considering he once bragged of his health. Or is he going to continue in his current ways. BythePeople (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- From the world's greatest burial site, a rotting arm will reach out from the grave to snatch another gold medal, pick another pocket, and take candy from a baby. Bongolian (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
What is the health condition (apart from 'whatever the media declare as the latest examples of his being at an angle to reality)? Stalled zombification? Anna Livia (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Anna Livia Chronic venous insufficiency. Spud (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- 'What the media say' is a somewhat different story (and is what I was referring to). Anna Livia (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- But the media can't diagnose anybody, can they? All they can do is speculate about somebody's ailing health, which they have been doing in Trump's case for months. The Trump White House has taken the unusual step of acknowledging he has been diagnosed with a chronic condition. Spud (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's, in my opinion, a phony Tit-for-tat reaction to Biden having Cancer, which a lot of right leaning outlets said was impossible to not know or disclose, must have been part of his presidency. As in, if Biden has such bad cancer, it must have been known during his presidency and kept a secret. But not treated, which is a... Confusing aspect to the story. Whatever is causing Trump's big fat ankles is probably normal for a man his age, in my opinion politicians shouldn't be a thousand years old if we want to rely on them. I have been to two funerals over cancer, both my grandpas had very sudden declines due to late stage cancer. Cancer can hide anywhere. When it metasticizes, it moves quick. Torrent (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Being better than Biden by admitting to being ill? That's as good an explanation as any, I suppose. But he has clearly been ill for a long time. And he's lied about his health, including his height and weight. I wondered if he was getting ready for when the Epstein stuff really catches up with him, so he can throw himself on the mercy of the court for being a sick old man. Spud (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- That could be part of it, but we're talking Commander in Chief, I don't think he ever has to worry about court. Teflon Don Trump and Tricky Dick Nixon, presidents aren't actually deposed or jailed in America, Ford pardoned Nixon post haste. [When the President does it, that means it's not illegal https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7352372-when-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not] and I think there are a million reasons to grant that office some space of action outside of beauracracy or legal technicalities. However, abuse of power is still abuse of power. I just don't expect a precedent to be set on following up a president's crimes. It's all media and showmanship with Trump. In my opinion, everything this administration does right now is to show they are better than the parties they beat to get there, because they know they strong-armed their way into power with rhetoric with which they can't reconcile. Hypocrites, I think is the term, and people in power always are, but that's not an excuse. Torrent (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Being better than Biden by admitting to being ill? That's as good an explanation as any, I suppose. But he has clearly been ill for a long time. And he's lied about his health, including his height and weight. I wondered if he was getting ready for when the Epstein stuff really catches up with him, so he can throw himself on the mercy of the court for being a sick old man. Spud (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's, in my opinion, a phony Tit-for-tat reaction to Biden having Cancer, which a lot of right leaning outlets said was impossible to not know or disclose, must have been part of his presidency. As in, if Biden has such bad cancer, it must have been known during his presidency and kept a secret. But not treated, which is a... Confusing aspect to the story. Whatever is causing Trump's big fat ankles is probably normal for a man his age, in my opinion politicians shouldn't be a thousand years old if we want to rely on them. I have been to two funerals over cancer, both my grandpas had very sudden declines due to late stage cancer. Cancer can hide anywhere. When it metasticizes, it moves quick. Torrent (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- But the media can't diagnose anybody, can they? All they can do is speculate about somebody's ailing health, which they have been doing in Trump's case for months. The Trump White House has taken the unusual step of acknowledging he has been diagnosed with a chronic condition. Spud (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- 'What the media say' is a somewhat different story (and is what I was referring to). Anna Livia (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
What censorship restrictions are in place after the move?[edit]
Now that the ownership of the website has been moved to a different charitable organisation, which is bound by the laws of a different state, do previous agreements concerning the censoring of certain material need to continue to be honoured, or are users now able to re-add material similar in scope to that which was removed? Duncan from Teflpedia (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- This has been discussed here: RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation#Board and Moderator relationship. Bongolian (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
The "Fake News" challenge.[edit]
1. Make an account on three Crankful social medias.
2. Compare how long it takes to find something false on it. (Note: Opinion's don't count. Only actual info does).
3. The one with the quickest time "wins".
(EXTRA RULES: If you see a 20 hour long Schlockumentary, you DO NOT have to watch it. A photo with "I support Trump" on it is not false.) ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Fate of the US: Mid Year Update[edit]
Just checking in with a few questions. Any thoughts on the trajectory of the US as of speaking? And any forecasts for what may happen in 2026? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say to look forwards to increasing political violence. And maybe a re-adoption of slavery once some "brilliant" person suggests that the myriad of people in the internment camps they made could be used for good, free labor.23.234.103.94 (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- The US already has slavery. It's called prison labor. Antares (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think we will see Trump posthumously pardoning Epstein and giving a full pardon to Maxwell. The entire MAGA movement will be persuaded that all the charges against Epstein were invented by Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- To whom does the word 'posthumous' apply? ('Wide-eyed innocence.') Anna Livia (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Jeffrey Epstein, of course. A president can pardon a dead man. But a dead president can't pardon anybody. (Or do anything else.) Spud (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Humour - but why not have a bigly beautiful zombie in the White House? And I understand that the JFK autopen continued for 'a little while' after his death. (What would the legal situation be with anything so signed?) Anna Livia (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- Use of autopen/rubber stamp signatures is legal as long as they are authorised by the person who's sig is being mimicked. It's highly unlikely Kennedy's facsimile would have been used knowingly after his death due to the serious risks attached - for I believe official docs are timestamped. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- Jeffrey Epstein, of course. A president can pardon a dead man. But a dead president can't pardon anybody. (Or do anything else.) Spud (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- To whom does the word 'posthumous' apply? ('Wide-eyed innocence.') Anna Livia (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think we will see Trump posthumously pardoning Epstein and giving a full pardon to Maxwell. The entire MAGA movement will be persuaded that all the charges against Epstein were invented by Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- The US already has slavery. It's called prison labor. Antares (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I submitted a quote to FSTDT that is "wrong on every level". How many levels is there?[edit]
https://fstdt.com/R7F$M5LXKGDDD is the quote. All I know is that the alien part is incorrect. Can anyone else please explain the other layers to this quote? ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- The degrees of wrongness are so various and examples so ubiquitous that there is undoubtedly something incorrect in almost every statement one may contemplate. If the last sentence is not completely true, it proves to be another simple example of the claim. Rationality, important as it is, can accomplish nothing with unsound premises. Wolfgang Pauli introduced the level he referred to as "not even wrong." I am reminded of Groucho's famous question: What kind of fool do you take me for? And Chico's reply: I don't know. How many kinds are there? The levels of wrongness and the answer to Chico's question may be related.Zatoichi (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
When you get to a 'quote' like this one, (which I have to agree goes into new depths of What the Fuckery) the answer to "How many levels is there" is "pumpernickel sleepy". You can't always answer nonsense with sense. Kencolt (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Anything interesting in the MLK Files?[edit]
(https://www.archives.gov/research/mlk) Or is it all just boring filler with 0 new information? ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- There was already a lot known from prior releases about FBI spying on and harassment of MLK. It's extremely tedious going through this type of material, so don't expect to hear much about the contents. J. Edgar Hoover hated free speech, Blacks, perceived communists, and uncloseted gays in no particular order. That's the story of the FBI under Hoover. Bongolian (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- Why did King's family object to this release (assuming I read right on this)? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know but it could be that they didn't want more details released about his personal life, such his adultery, which was revealed in an earlier release. Bongolian (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- Could the objections also be down to the fact they know full well it's a distraction attempt from a man who if he had his way, they'd all be back to sitting at the back of the bus and not daring to look him (or any whitey) in the eye? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is a phrase, 'putting the cart ahead of the horse' which doesn't exactly apply here. MLK has been a mascot of right wing reactionaries for decades to say 'peaceful protest is the only protest.' and 'MLK wasn't even a good guy' Nowadays, information is spread easily. We already knew about MLK's infidelity in the face of his moral arguments, Ghandi molested his niece in the name of fighting temptation, Mother Theresa was against any humane convalescent care because she believed suffering before death was God's plan to get people more hyped about getting to heaven (Catholics, am I right?). This is more like pretending we never saw what was in the cart and giving the horse a big slap on the ass so it can run wild, shedding info like dollar bills, Looney Tunes style for people to pick up and forget there is a cart with a wild horse just fucking up everything in its path. But the cartoon dollars raining down on us are drops of info that aren't worth a dollar, because, and this is a compliment to the history of dedicated conspiracy theorists, it's not new or valuable information. Everyone is catching these dollars, looking at them and they read 'Trump buck, redeemable for one solid shit on a golden toilet (restrictions apply).' Some people are still hoping they can take that Wonka shit. Gimme the dossier on Rosie O'Donnell if you want my respect. Clownassery. Torrent (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Could the objections also be down to the fact they know full well it's a distraction attempt from a man who if he had his way, they'd all be back to sitting at the back of the bus and not daring to look him (or any whitey) in the eye? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know but it could be that they didn't want more details released about his personal life, such his adultery, which was revealed in an earlier release. Bongolian (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- Why did King's family object to this release (assuming I read right on this)? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose that it depends upon what sort of things interest you. The FBI Files on MLK were collected under the presumption of compiling evidence against King, even if it were only embarrassing to his family. Anything that the public would likely admire about King, one might expect, would have been necessarily excluded. Anything that presents him in a negative fashion can be doubted because of the tainted motives of the FBI Director. Everything important about MLK is certainly already public. His influence in public works and writings are all the public needs to be known about him. That he was human goes without saying. Zatoichi (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
What the fuck were these guys were thinking.[edit]
Did you guys watch the Nelk Boys interview with Netanyahu it was just fucking stupid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZvCmAgRWI0 — Unsigned, by: 1.43.239.16 / talk / contribs
- The only thing I know about the Nelk Boys https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pDFQIHS0cx4&pp=ygUVUmVlZCB0aW1tZXIgbmVsayBib3lz0gcJCccJAYcqIYzv I guess I'm a little guilty of getting out of my own lane too, but like, I mean this sincerely, when Joe Rogan was first blowing up, a guy I really respected said 'If Joe Rogan wants to talk about MMA, I'll listen to him. Otherwise, I don't give shit' Weird appeals to popular outlets. I watched it live On Reed Timmer's stream as I was in the area and it was 'shelter in place' kinda bad, I am glad they included Connors work towards the end of this video. His actions are what have inspired me to work on my project car to be a mobile storm chasing ambulance, even if I can't afford to yet. I know first aid, I know highways and routes in tornado alley, I know being calm in crises, I've always been a fan of big bad weather. I never knew the Nelk boys were so important that they could be a mouthpiece. Man, we just fixed this https://www.wowt.com/2025/03/25/national-weather-service-halts-launches-weather-balloons-omaha-due-staffing-issues/ because Doge thought it was free federal money wasted, I would never listen to the Nelk boys unless they saw tornadoes first hand and took the experience to say 'we have to be ready for that shit'. Which they didn't, so I don't. Musk wants to talk about populating Mars and defunds weather research on earth, there are people who, for whatever reason, people love to listen to. There is always a good chance they just want the dollars, and have no interest in the subject matter. Torrent (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
I saw the new 'woke' Superman, and woof, I guess I got a lot to say[edit]
I don't get it, it's like people who care about this 'woke' shit in their superhero movies never read comic books before. They think it's about two countries that are cleverly named so as not to attribute it specifically to the two countries we know it's currently referencing, but is that new? Let's talk about country names. Officially, the People's Republic of China is kinda dumb, from what I can tell. The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is also.... Let's call it a stretch. The United States of America would be more accurately described as the Federated Unicameral of North American States between Canada and Mexico, who also hate each other for no particular reason. I mean, people are calling the new Superman 'woke' because it covers border conflict and complicated allyship in the most superficial way, as if that's not a huge history of the world, the 'United States' included. They could call it 'Jerkoffistan' and we'd only get the story as a surface level critique of international power struggles. Comic books have done this for at least as long as I've been able to read them. I didn't even like the movie, but calling it 'woke' and pretending to have a deeper understanding of the most obvious shit is so lame. Can we talk about how the Dog CGI doesn't really look more realistic than than the Monkey CGI from 1995's Jumanji? Isn't CGI supposed to be better now that we can't tell the difference between AI generation and real life? Sorry, I can sign the setup, maybe I should be using a different format. Torrent (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't care if a comic book movie has two wartorn countries fighting each other and independent intervention by a superhero causes confusion and conflict. That's standard. If today it's Israel and Palestine, and yesterday it was Russia and Ukraine, and a week ago it was the Koreas, and a week from today it's suddenly Georgia and Azerbaijan, it's a trope, it doesn't mean anything. Superman is good, Lex Luthor is bad, that is how DC requires the story to go. James Gunn had no business working on this film, the only enjoyable parts were his interpretations of cameo characters in the grey, and a couple soundtrack choices, and everything else had to be so black and white between Superman and Lex Luthor that it was stupid. Not woke, just stupid. Torrent (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
I have an idea to add to the novel I am writing[edit]
I am thinking about adding a location based on the Kowloon Walled City. This location will be off the coast of Detroit. It is going to be claimed by both the United States and Canada as part of their sovereign territory; similar to how China and the UK claimed Kowloon. It will be where my characters run to while escaping the bus to a Christian camp. The fictional location was created (in universe) after a nuclear attack on Detroit. Opinions? --Trans Fem Agenda 18:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Who would waste a nuclear bomb on Detroit? Something to consider: a nuclear bomb detonated in or near Lake Erie would likely lead to decades, if not centuries, of contamination, particularly for sensitive ecosystems and for safe human use of the water.(AI response to my inquiry). Also, I don't know who you are writing for but, Christians, as such, are not known for creating concentration camps. Maybe say Christian fascists.Zatoichi (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- The concentration camps during the second Boer war were created by Christians, and so were the internment camps for the japanese-americans during ww2 were also created and staffed by Christians. I'm not saying Christianity means Concentration camps but 'mainline' Christians have created concentration camps before and probably will do so again in the future. A somebody. (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- I could rewrite it to where it is a conventional missile attack. --Trans Fem Agenda 23:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well, of course you are right Somebody. Practically anything done in the West was and is done by Christians of one sort or another. We are discussing the possibility of a "Christian camp" and not just a camp run by Christians. Christians do a lot of bad shit. That's not the point. They seldom do those things "as Christians." Not impossible though. The KKK thought that their activities were very Christian. Some may have believed that the lynching was Christian activity. It happens.Zatoichi (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- TFA: It's just that nuclear weapons are so messy. If you want to explain away zombie-like creatures they may be useful. I guess it depends on how much you want to spend time justifying why it happened and all the awful consequences.Zatoichi (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- Here's an idea, and you can just have it. The idea that a nuclear bomb could detonate way high up and radioactive effects would be dispersed and minimal, but the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effects would still be devastating to an electrical grid. HEMP https://www.wbdg.org/resources/high-altitude-emp-effects-protection So what if a nuke was detonated not on the ground, but not so high up that the radiation would still have monstrous effects, and the EMP would be enough to actually knock down the grid. The worst of both worlds, maybe a failed/late intercept by whatever space force or golden dome defense could be the impetus. I think is something you're looking for. And it's fiction, you don't have to be 100% accurate. Torrent (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- TFA: It's just that nuclear weapons are so messy. If you want to explain away zombie-like creatures they may be useful. I guess it depends on how much you want to spend time justifying why it happened and all the awful consequences.Zatoichi (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- The concentration camps during the second Boer war were created by Christians, and so were the internment camps for the japanese-americans during ww2 were also created and staffed by Christians. I'm not saying Christianity means Concentration camps but 'mainline' Christians have created concentration camps before and probably will do so again in the future. A somebody. (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Ghislaine Maxwell's interview[edit]
What do you think will come from the DOJ's interview with Ghislaine Maxwell? Now Trump is floating the idea of pardoning her. The Epstein story has become a thorn in Trump's side in the last few weeks. Trump sure would love to see it go away. Do you think Trump's DOJ cut a secret side deal with Maxwell to solely implicate Democrats' ties to Epstein while conveniently omitting Trump from the story, In exchange for leniency or even a Presidential pardon? Or something similar. We know how Trump much loves his side deals. Not denying that there are Democrats who had ties to Epstein, but it would be very convenient if Trump could somehow redirect scrutiny from himself onto his political opponents. In the end, it's not hard to imagine that Trump and his team will eventually pull it off in the long run, successfully burying Trump's ties to Epstein, even "vindicating" himself in the eyes of the majority of the public. 2001:67C:2628:647:38:1900:0:259 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever happens, Maxwell isn't going to implicate Trump. If he's dangling a possible pardon she won't be saying anything against him.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Acting Like I'm a Fed[edit]
So, I have been talking to the homeless around my area, very close to an interstate, a walmart, some motels, and a gas station that also has what I would consider slot machines, but are lawfully considered skill games, so there's a decent amount of let's call it, illegal activity. The more I've talked to the homeless, the less they've trusted me. Which is fine, negative feedback loops can work in your favor. I work a swing shift and I have seen more than once a person get out of a car much nicer than mine to run behind the dumpster by my place and run back and do not much else, so I imagine it's a dropoff spot. I have gone back there a couple times to see possums and raccoons.
Tonight, my suspicions were confirmed. As I smoked by said dumpster, a car I recognized drove by and didn't park in a sincerely great parking spot, and then drove off in a way that implied they weren't looking for a spot. I decided to check out behind the dumpster, nothing. So I went back up to my apartment, but as I went, I saw a guy sprint towards the dumpster and take a hard turn in to look behind it. I have a pretty good vantage point from my apartmrnt, so I went up and watched him come back out. He was arguing with somebody on the phone, went and laid across the hood of a parked car with out of state plates.
I remember two things, one that I used to live in apartments that were section 8 housing and two, those out of state plates were in transit papers like a week ago, so the car didn't get registered in state in that time. So, fuck me, I think I've stumbled across some drug traffic. In the goddamn place I used to see families of possums. Cannot abide.
So, I sat in my window which was luckily blinded from his spot from some tree branches, and watched this guy. He argued on the phone. I went back down and smoked another cigarette, because that's how you get them off guard, he was a ways away but he said 'I swear, he's just some random guy' which, is true, but also ignited something. I gave him a wave, gave him several waves, actually, when he finally waved back I gave him a thumbs up. I finished the cigarette, went back up to my tower, spied on the guy, and he, after a few minutes, reached into the vehicle I coulda sworn was not his but wasn't sure through a back window that had already been broken out, just taped over with plastic. He did this for like 45 seconds, reaching and grasping probably for a door handle, then shouted 'Fuck!' and sprinted again to the dumpster.
I hurried back out to the dumpster with a small bag of trash. When I got there, I complained out loud about a big box that was kinda in the way of throwing trash. Heard some ruslting, so I said 'Who is that back there? A possum? A raccoon?' Stomped on the ground with each step exactly as I would to put a small mammal on notice, and I heard a big one push through some bushes. I remarked 'well it's not a rabbit.'
The path this guy chose to escape me is spiderweb central. I AM just some random guy, but if he thinks he was chased by a fed, that protects me and hopefully gets whatever dumbass was getting his car broken into to rethink where he does business. I would have called the cops if I saw any immediate danger or had any better evidence. I did note the license plate number and am willing to call it in if I see anything else. But if I can make them scurry away, that's my first bluff. Torrent (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to continue with this sort of thing, perhaps you should consider a career in law enforcement. Federal agents carry guns because criminals do occasionally shoot at them. Take care. Zatoichi (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not to worry, I am very aware of the stuff going on around me, I know my pressure doesn't escalate the situations. If I was worried about getting shot for low level drug crimes, I wouldn't insert myself, if I was worried somebody was ready to protect this with a gun, I wouldn't insert myself. I had considered calling the non emergency police line over the attempted break in of the car, and if it happens again I will. But I mean I've lived with grindset pot dealers and around meth addicts, my guess is this is probably not meth, which takes the danger level down by a million degrees. Even a coke head knows that escalating a drug crime to manslaughter or assault isn't worth the charge. And I'm not looking to steal the bag, what would I ever do with drugs? I just kinda want to see what it is, but I have been around drug culture and dangerously high people enough to know what I'm looking at and how to navigate it. There is at best a random guy who smokes cigarettes and goes looking for possums and raccoons, at worst a federal CID agent. There is not much danger involved in being either at this level of intervention, but a risk of dropping the bag behind the dumpster increased. Which is funny, you can literally hand off drugs in a dozen parking lots nearby. The car has not been moved or touched, not even to re-tape the plastic. Best explanation I can come up with for what I saw is the owner probably set the child locks, which would make it impossible to open the door from the inside and keep it all locked from the outside, which, if true, kudos. But an easier solution is to go sell your shit at the walmart, like everybody else, and they wouldn't even know where your car was. Torrent (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- So today there was a small box by the back broken window. Obvious bait, so I saw it from my window and when I went down to drive to work, I didn't have to give it a second thought or a glance. I walked past it like I didn't even know it was there. I am still some random guy, after all. got home from work and the box was gone, and the window was taped back up. I am only implicating myself in ways that are suspicious but not dangerous, stopping to look at this box would be stupid and dangerous. I already seent it, I already seent enough so far, I'm not going vigilante. Just neighborhood watch. Torrent (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- The other problem, inviting the police in to look around, is, well, I'm not convinced all my neighbors are immune from ICE deportations. So, I know who exactly is the problem right now, by way of car in the lot, but man, NARCing is not what I want to do right now. Torrent (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well, anyone who commits the crime of 'looking vaguely "foreign"' is now grounds for being nabbed and put in an ICE transit camp now. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Und was denken ICE über Friedrich Trump (Drumpf und so weiter)? Anna Livia (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I only took one year of German. I took six of French, and have lived a lot with Mexican-American Spanish. I can kinda pronounce the umlaut, and I believe English is a Germanic language, but that was way too hard for me. I did a Google translate. I wasn't far off. Torrent (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- My German is 'holiday at best' (but 'muss ich kann ich Fractur lesen' - one 'old enough' bilingual dictionary and a modern one, and 'compare the German words till the Fractur was legible -but 'mwvn' and FIJT' letters can be problematic): this is about my limit: I was making a dig at You Know Who. Anna Livia (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I have, probably a bait car. It's imported so the driver's side is on the other side. It runs really well when it's running, but it needs a new electrical harness, which, finding one is one thing, installing one is another. I also have been run off the road by careless drivers in other cars in the past so when I got the car I bought a couple dashcams for it, so that if something happens (I am a very good driver, even if I'm not a great mechanic) I can show it was not my fault, which I think police around here would see 'steering wheel is on the wrong side, his fault.' I have been pulled over a couple times in it just to check that the license/registration/insurance were all good, not even speeding committed even though it's all in kmp/h, that's how fucking good I am at driving the speed limit. It has some electrical bleed that I can't figure out, but the dash cams are installed even if I disconnect the battery to save its charge, meaning the dash cams aren't powered either. The car has never been fucked with, even though it does have a window that won't go all the way up and lots of my amateur mechanic shit in it, just waiting to be casually robbed. Part of it is, I live in a good area not far from a bad area. But generally, it is a good area. I have the nextdoor app and never post there unless it is advice about staying away from coyotes, it is true that sometimes people get their shit fucked with in the neighborhood, but mostly the unhoused/unwell are as much to blame as somebody wasted knocking on the wrong door. I gotta work a job to pay rent, or I'd consider schooling in counseling/mediation and work my way into local politics to take a look at this area, but since I can't even take a day off and feed myself, let alone meet and organize a group of people to take a day off, I cannot bend the ear of local politics in a way that matters. And I know the locals, they are a mixed bag, I have driven through the neighborhood and seen a 'in this house we believe Love is Love, etc. etc. Performative human rights sign but still my team, and I have driven by as somebody was literally having their dog on a leash taking a dump in the middle of that person's front yard. Purple cities are weird, but Republicans are weirder. Also the car owner took the plates off entirely, which is dumb, because I would already know the make/model of the car as well as a couple customized features. So maybe this guy is a dangerous idiot, I won't be going behind the dumpster tonight, for any curiosity. Torrent (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Two new unfamiliar cars, one with the same out of state plates, different number, one with a disability plate, which I wouldn't care about much but it's not parked in the handicap spots, it also reads 'ZZZZ' as a vanity press and has an open can of a white claw (the best of the worst idea that is American hard seltzer, I mean, get a grip, are you drinking or not?) on the floor of the passenger side. And the original car is gone. Not surprising for a Saturday night, places to be if you've got places to be. I didn't need to snoop around to see this, I just noticed all of it when I got home from grocery shopping and happened to park next to it. i've lived here for more than 5 years. Parking is very tough around here, everyone here owns a car, strange things are afoot. Torrent (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- One car got towed, probably for unregistered tags (There is an extremely predatory tow guy who scans the parking lot, I think he works a chop shop) I can tell because there are scrapes in the asphalt that match the time he illegally towed my car (which I could not get any legal recourse for, he charged me 207 dollars cash, then just dropped my car outside his gated lot where guys were literally dismantling a car. No proof of ownership necessary, just 'hey, that's my car' 'it costs $207 in cash to get it out' 'oh, fuck you' 'WHAT?' 'Fuck everything, I guess is what I mean, I'll be back with the money.'), and the other car now has printer paper DMV proof that it's been registered taped to the windshield. I am off the case, I haven't seen any action behind the dumpster, I can only assume they've recognized this as a bad place to do business. I still want to get this predatory tow service shut down, I reported it last year, but i guess he's still fuckin up the lot. Torrent (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Two new unfamiliar cars, one with the same out of state plates, different number, one with a disability plate, which I wouldn't care about much but it's not parked in the handicap spots, it also reads 'ZZZZ' as a vanity press and has an open can of a white claw (the best of the worst idea that is American hard seltzer, I mean, get a grip, are you drinking or not?) on the floor of the passenger side. And the original car is gone. Not surprising for a Saturday night, places to be if you've got places to be. I didn't need to snoop around to see this, I just noticed all of it when I got home from grocery shopping and happened to park next to it. i've lived here for more than 5 years. Parking is very tough around here, everyone here owns a car, strange things are afoot. Torrent (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have, probably a bait car. It's imported so the driver's side is on the other side. It runs really well when it's running, but it needs a new electrical harness, which, finding one is one thing, installing one is another. I also have been run off the road by careless drivers in other cars in the past so when I got the car I bought a couple dashcams for it, so that if something happens (I am a very good driver, even if I'm not a great mechanic) I can show it was not my fault, which I think police around here would see 'steering wheel is on the wrong side, his fault.' I have been pulled over a couple times in it just to check that the license/registration/insurance were all good, not even speeding committed even though it's all in kmp/h, that's how fucking good I am at driving the speed limit. It has some electrical bleed that I can't figure out, but the dash cams are installed even if I disconnect the battery to save its charge, meaning the dash cams aren't powered either. The car has never been fucked with, even though it does have a window that won't go all the way up and lots of my amateur mechanic shit in it, just waiting to be casually robbed. Part of it is, I live in a good area not far from a bad area. But generally, it is a good area. I have the nextdoor app and never post there unless it is advice about staying away from coyotes, it is true that sometimes people get their shit fucked with in the neighborhood, but mostly the unhoused/unwell are as much to blame as somebody wasted knocking on the wrong door. I gotta work a job to pay rent, or I'd consider schooling in counseling/mediation and work my way into local politics to take a look at this area, but since I can't even take a day off and feed myself, let alone meet and organize a group of people to take a day off, I cannot bend the ear of local politics in a way that matters. And I know the locals, they are a mixed bag, I have driven through the neighborhood and seen a 'in this house we believe Love is Love, etc. etc. Performative human rights sign but still my team, and I have driven by as somebody was literally having their dog on a leash taking a dump in the middle of that person's front yard. Purple cities are weird, but Republicans are weirder. Also the car owner took the plates off entirely, which is dumb, because I would already know the make/model of the car as well as a couple customized features. So maybe this guy is a dangerous idiot, I won't be going behind the dumpster tonight, for any curiosity. Torrent (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- My German is 'holiday at best' (but 'muss ich kann ich Fractur lesen' - one 'old enough' bilingual dictionary and a modern one, and 'compare the German words till the Fractur was legible -but 'mwvn' and FIJT' letters can be problematic): this is about my limit: I was making a dig at You Know Who. Anna Livia (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I only took one year of German. I took six of French, and have lived a lot with Mexican-American Spanish. I can kinda pronounce the umlaut, and I believe English is a Germanic language, but that was way too hard for me. I did a Google translate. I wasn't far off. Torrent (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Und was denken ICE über Friedrich Trump (Drumpf und so weiter)? Anna Livia (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well, anyone who commits the crime of 'looking vaguely "foreign"' is now grounds for being nabbed and put in an ICE transit camp now. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- The other problem, inviting the police in to look around, is, well, I'm not convinced all my neighbors are immune from ICE deportations. So, I know who exactly is the problem right now, by way of car in the lot, but man, NARCing is not what I want to do right now. Torrent (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- So today there was a small box by the back broken window. Obvious bait, so I saw it from my window and when I went down to drive to work, I didn't have to give it a second thought or a glance. I walked past it like I didn't even know it was there. I am still some random guy, after all. got home from work and the box was gone, and the window was taped back up. I am only implicating myself in ways that are suspicious but not dangerous, stopping to look at this box would be stupid and dangerous. I already seent it, I already seent enough so far, I'm not going vigilante. Just neighborhood watch. Torrent (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not to worry, I am very aware of the stuff going on around me, I know my pressure doesn't escalate the situations. If I was worried about getting shot for low level drug crimes, I wouldn't insert myself, if I was worried somebody was ready to protect this with a gun, I wouldn't insert myself. I had considered calling the non emergency police line over the attempted break in of the car, and if it happens again I will. But I mean I've lived with grindset pot dealers and around meth addicts, my guess is this is probably not meth, which takes the danger level down by a million degrees. Even a coke head knows that escalating a drug crime to manslaughter or assault isn't worth the charge. And I'm not looking to steal the bag, what would I ever do with drugs? I just kinda want to see what it is, but I have been around drug culture and dangerously high people enough to know what I'm looking at and how to navigate it. There is at best a random guy who smokes cigarettes and goes looking for possums and raccoons, at worst a federal CID agent. There is not much danger involved in being either at this level of intervention, but a risk of dropping the bag behind the dumpster increased. Which is funny, you can literally hand off drugs in a dozen parking lots nearby. The car has not been moved or touched, not even to re-tape the plastic. Best explanation I can come up with for what I saw is the owner probably set the child locks, which would make it impossible to open the door from the inside and keep it all locked from the outside, which, if true, kudos. But an easier solution is to go sell your shit at the walmart, like everybody else, and they wouldn't even know where your car was. Torrent (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Just found this[edit]
I have no memory of it; anyone else?] Scream!! (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't remember the 2015 survey, but there was a 2017 survey conducted by former moderator and board member FuzzyCatPotato. Summary results here: Forum:2017 Community Survey Results. Bongolian (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- I also have no memory of the 2015 survey. I remember the 2017 one though - perhaps because the results were expressed in pretty colors with analysis.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is my entry... KarmaPolice (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- I also have no memory of the 2015 survey. I remember the 2017 one though - perhaps because the results were expressed in pretty colors with analysis.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Is The Anarchist Library article good to go up on the mainspace now?[edit]
It's completely rewritten now, I just don't want to mess up again. It looked like from the drafts how to page that someone with the ability to move articles might have to do it. But, maybe I could just copy and paste it there and then someone delete the draft, or do I just delete the draft code at the top and it all sorts itself?
Here's the draft link: Draft:The Anarchist Library & mainspace link: The Anarchist Library. Taodoray (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- The draft has been deleted because it was largely plagiarized from the Wikipedia article of the same name. Please don't do that. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- I get it's a virtue and all to have the talent to re-write an article in a totally different way, but I am trying here. I co-authored the article on wikipedia, the person I co-authored it with gave explicit permission to use what we came up with together for anyone to use in any way they like, but regardless I then rewrote every paragraph with new ideas and in the style of this wiki for this wikis audience. Taodoray (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Would the RW edition of this page say anything really different to the WP one? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- I get it's a virtue and all to have the talent to re-write an article in a totally different way, but I am trying here. I co-authored the article on wikipedia, the person I co-authored it with gave explicit permission to use what we came up with together for anyone to use in any way they like, but regardless I then rewrote every paragraph with new ideas and in the style of this wiki for this wikis audience. Taodoray (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a whole bizarre history where I think RW is a more appropriate place to cover it than on WP and is stuff I wrote in the draft:
- "Another anarchist website that preceded the library and competed for significance was An Anarchist FAQ book & website which praised collective action and downplayed the importance of individualist anarchism. So, Aragorn! and others ran The Anarchist Library partially to push back against this tendency by opening the boundaries of what anarchism meant to include anti-tech individualists like Ted Kaczynski and Individualists Against the Wild (ITS) who neither showed signs of really understanding anarchist history or ideas. [including multiple citations like Ted disavowing anarchism, etc.]"
- ITS were a weird ass bunch of terrorists in Mexico that tried to assassinate nano-scientists with package bombs and blow up an anarchist squat. They were pagan anti-natalists who took ideas from Ted Kaczynski & O9A. Plus, Ted Kaczynski's ideas are treated as more legitimate than ever by more and more silly people. Here are two Anarchist Library forum posts about Ted K & ITS.
- And there's all kinds of other weirdness that the people who run this library put up like an argument for going back to cannibal-themed feudal times, Eleven Ways to Kill a Child & a text glorifying school shooters small contribution to the effort of exterminating all humans.Taodoray (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- @TaodorayIf you wrote most of the Wikipedia article, then you shouldn't have too much difficulty writing about it again here in slightly different words. Don't just copypaste what you wrote before and take out the red links. Write it again in different words. Then we can host it. Spud (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Taodoray This framing is partly accurate, but misleading. Aragorn died a while back and the site itself hosts a large amount of criticisms of the post-left/post-anarchist/anti-civ groups and persons that the initial gen was enamored with. If the site is uncritical of anything, it's "mainstream" anarchist truisms/pop history and anarcho-nihilism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a compare and contrast of the wikipedia page and the latest RW draft that was deleted: click here
- If that's not enough change, I accept that. I just genuinely find it hard to re-write an informationally dense wiki style article where I like the info I already came up with.
- @GrammarCommie, in the longer draft article I did cover how it's a mostly pluralist project. Here's a link to the full article draft: click here Taodoray (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Taodoray Thanks, I'll check it out. The exact "consensus" of that site also likely fluctuates in terms of its history, to be fair. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Taodoray This framing is partly accurate, but misleading. Aragorn died a while back and the site itself hosts a large amount of criticisms of the post-left/post-anarchist/anti-civ groups and persons that the initial gen was enamored with. If the site is uncritical of anything, it's "mainstream" anarchist truisms/pop history and anarcho-nihilism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- @TaodorayIf you wrote most of the Wikipedia article, then you shouldn't have too much difficulty writing about it again here in slightly different words. Don't just copypaste what you wrote before and take out the red links. Write it again in different words. Then we can host it. Spud (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- And there's all kinds of other weirdness that the people who run this library put up like an argument for going back to cannibal-themed feudal times, Eleven Ways to Kill a Child & a text glorifying school shooters small contribution to the effort of exterminating all humans.Taodoray (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Meeting up with an old friend (gone wrong)[edit]
I had this friend whom I've never talked to in over 6 years. I had an opportunity to meet up with him again and I took it. Upon first meeting up with him I found something odd with his mannerisms and speech patterns, like it was different from how I remember how he used to talk. Hard to describe but it was a slight air of smugness in his vocal tone. I paid no mind to it, I thought to myself either I'm misremembering or maybe people have subtle changes in personality over time. For the first fifteen minutes, we talked about our life trajectories since drifting apart -careers, relationships, hobbies, simple stuff like that. He mentioned he got into Crypto and bought NFTs. Unexpectedly he asked me "So what do you think of President Trump. Great change of pace after those last four years of Biden, huh?" I asked him to explain what he meant by that and that's when the can of worms started to open. He snorted "Oh, you must still have your TDS" Shocked, I tried to change the convo but he went off about how he stopped believing the "legacy" media, how Biden caused hyperinflation & let in illegal immigrants while he was simultaneously too old to really be in charge. He boasted about how "great" the economy is doing under Trump and how much of a "genius" he is with negotiating trade deals. And of course, gloated about the cruelty of ICE raids & Alligator Alcatraz. He implied that I was brainwashed for not thinking that Trump is the greatest President in history. Whoever this guy was, he was not my friend I went to high school & college with, not anymore. The guy used to be kind, empathetic, and passionate for science and critical of anti-intellectual populism in politics. He loathed Trump during his first term, and thought he was a disaster for this nation. He was unambiguously left wing. I had to end the meetup abruptly while he was on his side tangent because I know it's fruitless to debate with Trump supporters and I'm looking out for myself a lot more these days.
I don't know what happened between now and the last time I saw him. Maybe lockdown messed with his head, or maybe he was suckered in by some manosphere grifter, or maybe it was during his Crypto phase. I am still scratching my head. It's been 3 weeks since I talked to him, and I am still puzzled. There are people in my life who are Trump supporters. Many were already Republicans destined to become MAGAs, and I know a few people who weren't very political or who were politically flip-floppy who became Trumpers. I cut out the extraneous Trumplovers out of my life, only keeping contact when absolutely necessary and avoiding politics in conversation, and these people are generally more restrained about their beliefs barring a few. I don't recall someone having a political realignment as drastic as this guy, though. let alone personality change. You hear about a lot of left-to-right conversions these days, maybe that's just propaganda or maybe I got lucky to not witness it happen to someone until now. I'm honestly sad now, because we used to play video games & D&D when we were younger and have so much fun together. It's not just that he loves Trump now, its more about how his personality completely changed. It feels like I'm mourning someone who is still alive, yet the person I knew is long gone. Does anyone else have a similar experience to this? Do you know what I mean by "mourning" somebody who is still alive, but more mourning their previous persona? LambunctiousEgg (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- Chap does not know what hyperinflation means. (A decent book is Adam Fergusson 'When Money Dies' 1975 - about the Weimar inflation). Anna Livia (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- As if Trump supporters are known for their rhetorical honesty. They'll cry 'hyperinflation' even at just 4% inflation -but only while Democrats are in power.LambunctiousEgg (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is always a chance this guy wants to fit in harder than he has personal beliefs. So, instead of steeling himself against a group that he fit in with otherwise on apolitical grounds, he found it easier to go past what they were saying and be the guy that knew all about it even better than they did. I have seen that happen. Keep yourself separate if you need to, but it's worth your time to say something along the lines of 'dude, you're doing that thing again. Bringing up something obscure and pretending we both care about it so you can show off how much you know about it. Nobody here cares, I'd rather hear about what you're having for dinner tonight.' It might not bring him back from Neptune, but it can remind him he's still orbiting earth. Keep both feet on the ground, show him you didn't have to change to have a real life. Let him be stupid, but if he hasn't actually changed, he will probably feel stupid all on his own around you not giving a shit about his dumbass takes. I knew a guy who used to try to introduce Chess openers into conversation, and when people were reasonably like 'What? What are you talking about?' He would immediately dive into Chess opening moves with false incredulity, 'oh, you don't know about the emperor's clothes?' Or whatever he wanted to talk about. He wasn't a smart person, he just liked the whole chess zeitgeist that was going on at the time, and probably felt really left out when other people were talking about... Anything else. Torrent (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- People's politics mean nothing to them. It's all 'virtue signaling', so whatever you're going to signal depends on what the dynamic of the social group you want to be a part of. People flip easily because the zeitgeist of each side is dictated by leaders who are smarmy opportunists. People used to join cults because the cult members would 'lovebomb' them, meaning they would suck up to them and make them feel like they were important and special. But today's socio-political tribalism works the opposite way: you run afoul of the 'social police' of your group, they give you too much shit, you don't respect their hypocritical bullshit, so you pack up your marbles and march off to join the other side. It's everywhere, all those 'Dark Intellectual Web' dorks are former liberals who got cancelled and crossed over. Even here at RomperWiki, it was formed by disgruntled editors of a conservative wiki. Do you really think they were all just deep-cover liberals trying to 'keep them honest' by trolling the conservative wiki? Nobody is bound by the ethics or morals they claim to champion. It's all about the social pecking order - if you're on top you can flaunt your shittiness because you can get away with it, if not, you hide it, because you can't get away with flaunting it. Very few people are strong enough to not need a social life, even an ephemeral one that takes place on the internet. There are no answers, there is no middle-ground.2A01:6340:2:501:0:0:0:20 (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- BoN, you're not gonna like me for saying this, but. Hey man, it's okay to want some community. Just don't join it out of anger, anguish, or desperation and you'll be able to clock a cult. I don't think the people here get along very well, Lord knows I have my spats here, but there are reasons to argue and be different from each other, and they are very similar to the reasons I don't like cults. Imagine I am holding out my hand. Now, cough up that black pill young man, you didn't bring enough for everybody? You're posting in the reasonably free speech zone, and I'm fine with it. We all got our boulders to push. Torrent (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Torrent, the only point I intended to make is that people's socio-political affiliations are situational and not as fixed as some may tend to believe. They're not fixed to anything greater than the needs of the self. I may not have made that point very well. In group dynamics people tend to "go along to get along". I didn't intend to say much about the dynamic specific to RW, but there are some interesting RW-specific anomalies I've noticed over the years I've observed it. I don't mind discussing them if there is any interest. You mentioned 'free speech', which isn't a topic I find particularly useful, but I feel like pointing out that we can't know what hasn't been said, we can only know about what does get said. How many times has a user of RW had the urge to say something, but before doing so decided that it probably wouldn't go over well, so they refrain from stating whatever they felt like saying.
- BoN, you're not gonna like me for saying this, but. Hey man, it's okay to want some community. Just don't join it out of anger, anguish, or desperation and you'll be able to clock a cult. I don't think the people here get along very well, Lord knows I have my spats here, but there are reasons to argue and be different from each other, and they are very similar to the reasons I don't like cults. Imagine I am holding out my hand. Now, cough up that black pill young man, you didn't bring enough for everybody? You're posting in the reasonably free speech zone, and I'm fine with it. We all got our boulders to push. Torrent (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- People's politics mean nothing to them. It's all 'virtue signaling', so whatever you're going to signal depends on what the dynamic of the social group you want to be a part of. People flip easily because the zeitgeist of each side is dictated by leaders who are smarmy opportunists. People used to join cults because the cult members would 'lovebomb' them, meaning they would suck up to them and make them feel like they were important and special. But today's socio-political tribalism works the opposite way: you run afoul of the 'social police' of your group, they give you too much shit, you don't respect their hypocritical bullshit, so you pack up your marbles and march off to join the other side. It's everywhere, all those 'Dark Intellectual Web' dorks are former liberals who got cancelled and crossed over. Even here at RomperWiki, it was formed by disgruntled editors of a conservative wiki. Do you really think they were all just deep-cover liberals trying to 'keep them honest' by trolling the conservative wiki? Nobody is bound by the ethics or morals they claim to champion. It's all about the social pecking order - if you're on top you can flaunt your shittiness because you can get away with it, if not, you hide it, because you can't get away with flaunting it. Very few people are strong enough to not need a social life, even an ephemeral one that takes place on the internet. There are no answers, there is no middle-ground.2A01:6340:2:501:0:0:0:20 (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is always a chance this guy wants to fit in harder than he has personal beliefs. So, instead of steeling himself against a group that he fit in with otherwise on apolitical grounds, he found it easier to go past what they were saying and be the guy that knew all about it even better than they did. I have seen that happen. Keep yourself separate if you need to, but it's worth your time to say something along the lines of 'dude, you're doing that thing again. Bringing up something obscure and pretending we both care about it so you can show off how much you know about it. Nobody here cares, I'd rather hear about what you're having for dinner tonight.' It might not bring him back from Neptune, but it can remind him he's still orbiting earth. Keep both feet on the ground, show him you didn't have to change to have a real life. Let him be stupid, but if he hasn't actually changed, he will probably feel stupid all on his own around you not giving a shit about his dumbass takes. I knew a guy who used to try to introduce Chess openers into conversation, and when people were reasonably like 'What? What are you talking about?' He would immediately dive into Chess opening moves with false incredulity, 'oh, you don't know about the emperor's clothes?' Or whatever he wanted to talk about. He wasn't a smart person, he just liked the whole chess zeitgeist that was going on at the time, and probably felt really left out when other people were talking about... Anything else. Torrent (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- As if Trump supporters are known for their rhetorical honesty. They'll cry 'hyperinflation' even at just 4% inflation -but only while Democrats are in power.LambunctiousEgg (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- When someone has that experience there is probably some kind of toll on the psyche. Something that's not quite a grudge, not quite an investment, and not quite a credit, but something that has aspects of those things. If those experiences build up over time, if that person ever gets in an explicit beef they may feel that they are owed allegiance. They might think something along the lines of, "After all those times I refrained from rocking the boat for the good of the group, and now you all don't have my back? Screw you!". It could be something seemingly minor, but to them it was a moment in which they wanted to cash in some of the cachet they'd accrued. And they're unlikely to state that feeling explicitly, because it's not going to make any sense to anyone else. Nobody knows that they expect some social reciprocation for something they didn't say. So they just stop participating and disappear and no one notices for a few months until maybe someone thinks, "I haven't seen so-and-so around here for months, they were really active for so long... I wonder what happened to them. OH well, probably too busy with 'real life'". And that's as far as that scenario goes.2A0B:F4C2:2:0:0:0:0:34 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- That is certainly another possible explanation. We were in totally separate social circles at this point in time. Told me he got into the car mod community (which he put coffee can exhausts on a 20 year old Nissan) now I'm wondering if that was the catalyst. We did have one remaining acquaintance which both of us still kept semi-regular contact, and this acquaintance was the one who suggested the reunion in the first place since he heard I was coming through my old home town. Never warned me about my now-former friend's MAGA turn. AFIK this acquaintance was never a political guy, but Trump has a monopoly on the "non-political" people it seems. I would ask him if he knew of my friend's change but I don't want to open that can of worms right now. I've partially gotten over the shock of this encounter, and I'm not going to dwell on what exactly caused my friend to become this way, but I still miss the old him. LambunctiousEgg (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- When someone has that experience there is probably some kind of toll on the psyche. Something that's not quite a grudge, not quite an investment, and not quite a credit, but something that has aspects of those things. If those experiences build up over time, if that person ever gets in an explicit beef they may feel that they are owed allegiance. They might think something along the lines of, "After all those times I refrained from rocking the boat for the good of the group, and now you all don't have my back? Screw you!". It could be something seemingly minor, but to them it was a moment in which they wanted to cash in some of the cachet they'd accrued. And they're unlikely to state that feeling explicitly, because it's not going to make any sense to anyone else. Nobody knows that they expect some social reciprocation for something they didn't say. So they just stop participating and disappear and no one notices for a few months until maybe someone thinks, "I haven't seen so-and-so around here for months, they were really active for so long... I wonder what happened to them. OH well, probably too busy with 'real life'". And that's as far as that scenario goes.2A0B:F4C2:2:0:0:0:0:34 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Unpaid Promotion for Those Who Love to Rock[edit]
I was lucky enough to knock out my work (lucky as in team effort and the whole team went balls at the work) early tonight and got to watch the back half of King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard performing with Orchestra of St. Luke's, streamed, but I mean, COULD I have been there in person? https://youtu.be/mP1Z5HtsPt0?feature=shared They did shout 'Free Palestine' during this show, so you know they're cool. U.S. Girls, another band I really like, will be one of the openers tomorrow, or I guess today, or tonight Eastern, it's also intended to be live streamed. I mean, honestly it's cool music if you like classic rock, psychadellics rock, or old school metal, and that's important to me to share. Just today I rolled up on the parking lot at work and heard some lady blasting Bon Jovi's Dead or Alive, which, fine, is good even if I'm tired of it. But for real, check shit like this out. Torrent (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- The 'free Palestine' statement is just after the 2:03:00 minute mark, I had to sift back through it, it wasn't something that surprised me, just another thing that made me say 'let's go!' which was tough because the tunes are hard to skip through, they're all so good, and I didn't remember the statement as being before or after any song. I guess, of course, it was close to the end of the set, and I admit the 'shouting' I heard was expert guitar feedback. Torrent (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Saloon Introductions[edit]
People do come and go. I guess we could use an ice-breaker, then, if we plan on sticking around. I am Torrent, a... and three interesting things about me are, um, I never learned to tie my shoes. I just shove my feet in there every day and pray I don't have to ask an old lady to, ha 'lace me up,' as it were. Last one said she doubled knotted it, and that's working out pretty good so far. Um, also, I am about 3 inches shorter at the end of the day from the start, I mean, I hear everybody shrinks because of gravity or whatever, but three inches? kinda sounds like a lot but I don't see my pediatrician anymore, so I dunno WHO to ask about that. And three. I cannot pronounce pasghetti, no matter how hard I try, and I will not entertain the notion that I can. Not even for dollars. Not anymore. Woof, that was tough, glad you're getting to know me. Any introductions you'd like to contribute? Torrent (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- I fuckin hate 'ice breakers.' If I wasn't shy I'd say these things even in mixed company. Torrent (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Yikes!![edit]
SCOTUS plans on shooting down the VRA. If so, Republicans will have an insurmountable majority in the House barring a 2008/2018 level of blue wave.2600:4808:356:7E01:CDF8:33AC:FA18:B24A (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Remember when everyone thought we were just being hyperbolic that 2024 might be the last election that can be reasonably considered free and fair? It doesn't matter if you're in your 20s or in your 70s, you can now expect that Republicans will now have total, uninterrupted control of the US government for as long as you live, even if you managed to be spared by the regime. If you have children, they will live the entirety of their lives under total Republican control. So will your grandkids. So will your great-grand kids, and so on. America is now functionally a one-party system. It is now a "managed democracy" where they ensure the Democrats remain a permanent electoral minority no matter how unpopular Republicans get. I wouldn't be surprised if they straight-up ban the Democratic party in the next few years. Internal rebellion will be futile not only due to America's powerful military, but also because Silicon Valley is investing billions of dollars in AI to build a surveillance network to keep everyone under control and monitored. MAGA elites are taking steps to ensure that the weaknesses which led to the collapse of other dictatorial regimes does not happen here. 2001:67C:2628:647:17:0:0:36 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's always "elites" this and "elites" that, all while denying the complicity of the average GOP voter. Even in their vapid polemics, Liberals simply cannot seem to accept that the GOP's base of support is existentially oppositional to them. Trump voters and supporters are always "deranged" or "stupid" or "uneducated", and yet they comprise one of the most active and effective political movements since the rise of Neoliberalism. And the libs do little but whine and complain, denying the reality of the political landscape around them. "This isn't how things should be" they insist, and yet offer nothing but a return to the same broken status quo that got us into this mess. Perhaps Americans should read more history, and learn how to eat soup with knives. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, lets not deny it. 80 million Americans voted for this. 80 million Americans voted to never have an election again. Some may have been fooled, but many of them knew full well what would happen if he won. Many of them are actively cheering for the dismantlement of the country's institutions, the constitution, and our very freedom. They are happy to condemn themselves and their children to suffer if they think their political enemies suffer a bit worse than themselves. But let's not kid ourselves, the Democrats suck too. I don't think I could imagine this amount of incompetence coming from an opposition party. Normally, Trump and the Republicans' authoritarian streak would be so easy to run a counter-narrative on, but it's like Democrats are actively trying to lose. I wouldn't be surprised if the Democratic party is being paid off to run milquetoast incompetent people with the intention to let the Republicans win. Biden was a horrible candidate and a horrible President. Anyone whose paying attention back in 2020 knew that the age issue would've became a problem down the line. There's no way the Democrat leadership didn't knew of this either. The status quo wasn't great, but it's a hell a lot better than this. But sure, let's throw away our freedoms for cheaper eggs. Let's sign away our right to self-determination as a nation just to own a few libs.
- The new American fascism movement is the most successful political movement in this country's history. While it was the culmination of Republican gerrymandering, right-wing media, education gutting, and shady donor networks from billionaires looking to remove environmental and worker protections, let's also acknowledge that half of the American people are culpable too. They got the government that reflects the people's will, which is one that'll be imposed on all future generations to come. Same to people who stayed home because Kamala had an annoying laugh or eggs were a bit too expensive. Fuck this country, fuck MAGA, fuck the corporatist Democrat party, and fuck half the people living here. Yes, I am an "America-hating liberal" because this country doesn't give me any good reason to like it, but gives me plenty of reason to dislike it. But maybe I'm just hysterical, and maybe wanting to live in a free country is being on the "wrong side of history" nowadays. 2001:67C:2628:647:31:2404:0:99 (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- See, this is exactly what I was complaining about and mocking. Right here. The Dems have to be framed as wanting Trump to win, the Trump voters have to hate democracy, all this rationalizing moralist drivel. At no point is the system itself in question, at no point can you allow yourself to consider the multiplicity of viewpoints and perspectives, and the full implications of such a consideration. It's just low effort heroes and villains narratives, the same formulaic crap in every half assed narrative with barely even the appearance of depth. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I predicted you were going to say something like that. It's very hard to not treat this like a "heroes and villains" narrative when one side is celebrating abject cruelty. Just look at MAGA's reaction to the opening of Alligator Alcatraz. They were selling merch mocking people getting eaten by alligators. Also see how MAGA celebrates sending people to Gitmo and El Salvador and South Sudan. We can deport undocumented people without engaging in unnecessary brutality. We have done so for decades before Trump. MAGA knew what Trump had in mind when he talked about his immigration policy, now they are taking glee in suffering; laughing at people getting abducted, denied due process, and sent to a foreign land they never had ties to. No "rationalizing moralist drivel" required to come to the conclusion that MAGA is a morally abhorrent, evil movement. Why should we "consider the multiplicity of viewpoints and perspectives" when some of those viewpoints are rooted in intentionally causing suffering? Would you consider the viewpoint of a Nazi? You're going to accuse me of running afoul of Godwin, I'm sure. Maybe the Nazi comparison isn't apt... because Nazis didn't advertise their concentration camps to the whole world, let alone sell merch of it. Keep in mind that Auschwitz wasn't a death camp when it was first established, just a "detainment facility." Also, the majority of people who voted for the Nazi party during the Weimar Era would have ever predicted it would end the way it did, because there was no precedent of this occurring back then. Now, there is precedent. We know how the party came to power through Democratic means, only to destroy the democratic system that got them into power, and committing one of the most horrific atrocities in human history. The thing that is unprecedented nowadays is half the nation's population cheering for state sponsored cruelty. Denying the growing parallels + telling people who point out the parallels they're just being hysterical is bad faith at this point. 2001:67C:2628:647:17:0:0:36 (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're a leftist, which, I agree, gives you less power in the American bipartisan system. And I have understood the two party system in America being treated as stupidly as sports teams>since middle school, where I watched a kid get.pulled to the floor.for having the audacity to wear a branded coat that he wore every day after our team got beat by that team. When my local college football team loses a game, incidents of domestic violence spike. In-home violence, people who treat this as extremely important by team and not policy will literally hit their wives and children for not getting it. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3712874/ in my family home, there are a couple ladies who don't understand or care about sports. When I visit to watch the games, they don't watch the games and that's okay. When a bad loss happens, it's very lucky that when asked 'well, why did that happen' the men in my family can say 'because they blew it' and not need to strike anyone for asking such an annoying question after a bad loss. Torrent (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comparing politics to sports is objectively stupid. In sports its not like the winning team can change the rules to fix all future games in their favor, or put the losing team into camps. I don't even consider myself a leftist unless being a libertarian counts as being leftist now, (and I'm not one of those fascists in libertarian clothes, either) but its ridiculous that the only choices in America are right of center corporatists and actual fascists. And somehow the fascists have successfully convinced the American people that the center-right pro capitalist party is a marxist-leninist ultra-communist party. If you sort Americans by political leaning, the Democrats, the "big tent" party that they are, cover a very sparsely populated 4/5ths of the left side of the political spectrum. The GOP and the MAGA movement are crammed up in the final rightmost fifth of the board. No wonder why the Democrats are so divided because they cover such a wide range of beliefs but fewer people over, meanwhile the GOP is much tighter knit, with more people piled on top of each other. The reactionary right has a narrower footprint of the political board but more people overall. This skew of political alignment has been a feature of American politics for decades but it's now much more pronounced. The culture war isn't so much right versus left than it is far right versus everyone else. 2001:67C:2628:647:17:0:0:36 (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- So, and don't get me wrong, vote blue no matter who is actually kind of the only play, as fully described in your playbook, so I don't know what you're mad about comparing bad sports analysis to bad political analysis, probably just not worldly. And I hate politics too, as they are, and I don't even really like sports. But I hold my nose and vote blue, it's not like we are talking about two separate things, you absolute child.Torrent (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, it was the only play, but Vote Blue No Matter Who clearly has not worked. The fight against fascism has been lost, is it not normal to be at least a little bit upset that tyranny has won? Are we at the stage of the dictatorship where they start labeling anti-regime sentiment as "mental illness" or are we just preemptively preparing for it? By the way, the name-calling was uncalled for. 2001:67C:2628:647:17:0:0:36 (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Look, I'm getting exhausted of it all. Watching this country get worse and worse, watching the people get worse and worse, watching the world get worse and worse from the moment in my adolescence when I became more observant of the going-ons outside of my personal life. That was around the time Obama was already elected to his 2nd term. Unfortunately I turned 18 a year late after Trump won the first time 'round. I really yearn for those times in the 90s when people were actually optimistic for the future, when people were less divided, and the world was getting better. I feel nostalgic for a time I wasn't even alive for. Yet, at the same time, I find it hard to even fathom living an existence where you're not afraid of the future, where one could rest easy that the worst part of history is behind us, not in front of us as appears to be now. I had to watch people in my generation, including some of my own former classmates and friends go from deriding Boomers for leaving us a ruined planet and ruined economy, to supporting Trump and cheering for his administration's cruelty and the end of freedom. God knows how generation Beta and beyond will view us for this. And maybe I am committing the same sin of clinging on to the past as MAGA does, but looking at how people's outlook on life back in the 90s and looking at it today, it's undeniable that the 90s were much better. Most likely you'll just chalk it up to "lack of life experience" and be told "nobody thought the world was getting better in the 90s" And someone will tell me that the president lying about a blowjob from his press secretary is just as big of a scandal as the president doing cover-up work for child sex traffickers and probably partook in those activities himself. (Yes, I know Bill Clinton raped lot of children on that island but that's not the point I'm making here, it wasn't in the public consciousness at the time) Plenty of older people in my life have told me there was a sense of optimism that died on 9/11 and never came back, because it can't come back. So pardon me for crashing out. 2001:67C:2628:647:17:0:0:36 (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, it was the only play, but Vote Blue No Matter Who clearly has not worked. The fight against fascism has been lost, is it not normal to be at least a little bit upset that tyranny has won? Are we at the stage of the dictatorship where they start labeling anti-regime sentiment as "mental illness" or are we just preemptively preparing for it? By the way, the name-calling was uncalled for. 2001:67C:2628:647:17:0:0:36 (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- So, and don't get me wrong, vote blue no matter who is actually kind of the only play, as fully described in your playbook, so I don't know what you're mad about comparing bad sports analysis to bad political analysis, probably just not worldly. And I hate politics too, as they are, and I don't even really like sports. But I hold my nose and vote blue, it's not like we are talking about two separate things, you absolute child.Torrent (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comparing politics to sports is objectively stupid. In sports its not like the winning team can change the rules to fix all future games in their favor, or put the losing team into camps. I don't even consider myself a leftist unless being a libertarian counts as being leftist now, (and I'm not one of those fascists in libertarian clothes, either) but its ridiculous that the only choices in America are right of center corporatists and actual fascists. And somehow the fascists have successfully convinced the American people that the center-right pro capitalist party is a marxist-leninist ultra-communist party. If you sort Americans by political leaning, the Democrats, the "big tent" party that they are, cover a very sparsely populated 4/5ths of the left side of the political spectrum. The GOP and the MAGA movement are crammed up in the final rightmost fifth of the board. No wonder why the Democrats are so divided because they cover such a wide range of beliefs but fewer people over, meanwhile the GOP is much tighter knit, with more people piled on top of each other. The reactionary right has a narrower footprint of the political board but more people overall. This skew of political alignment has been a feature of American politics for decades but it's now much more pronounced. The culture war isn't so much right versus left than it is far right versus everyone else. 2001:67C:2628:647:17:0:0:36 (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're a leftist, which, I agree, gives you less power in the American bipartisan system. And I have understood the two party system in America being treated as stupidly as sports teams>since middle school, where I watched a kid get.pulled to the floor.for having the audacity to wear a branded coat that he wore every day after our team got beat by that team. When my local college football team loses a game, incidents of domestic violence spike. In-home violence, people who treat this as extremely important by team and not policy will literally hit their wives and children for not getting it. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3712874/ in my family home, there are a couple ladies who don't understand or care about sports. When I visit to watch the games, they don't watch the games and that's okay. When a bad loss happens, it's very lucky that when asked 'well, why did that happen' the men in my family can say 'because they blew it' and not need to strike anyone for asking such an annoying question after a bad loss. Torrent (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I predicted you were going to say something like that. It's very hard to not treat this like a "heroes and villains" narrative when one side is celebrating abject cruelty. Just look at MAGA's reaction to the opening of Alligator Alcatraz. They were selling merch mocking people getting eaten by alligators. Also see how MAGA celebrates sending people to Gitmo and El Salvador and South Sudan. We can deport undocumented people without engaging in unnecessary brutality. We have done so for decades before Trump. MAGA knew what Trump had in mind when he talked about his immigration policy, now they are taking glee in suffering; laughing at people getting abducted, denied due process, and sent to a foreign land they never had ties to. No "rationalizing moralist drivel" required to come to the conclusion that MAGA is a morally abhorrent, evil movement. Why should we "consider the multiplicity of viewpoints and perspectives" when some of those viewpoints are rooted in intentionally causing suffering? Would you consider the viewpoint of a Nazi? You're going to accuse me of running afoul of Godwin, I'm sure. Maybe the Nazi comparison isn't apt... because Nazis didn't advertise their concentration camps to the whole world, let alone sell merch of it. Keep in mind that Auschwitz wasn't a death camp when it was first established, just a "detainment facility." Also, the majority of people who voted for the Nazi party during the Weimar Era would have ever predicted it would end the way it did, because there was no precedent of this occurring back then. Now, there is precedent. We know how the party came to power through Democratic means, only to destroy the democratic system that got them into power, and committing one of the most horrific atrocities in human history. The thing that is unprecedented nowadays is half the nation's population cheering for state sponsored cruelty. Denying the growing parallels + telling people who point out the parallels they're just being hysterical is bad faith at this point. 2001:67C:2628:647:17:0:0:36 (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- See, this is exactly what I was complaining about and mocking. Right here. The Dems have to be framed as wanting Trump to win, the Trump voters have to hate democracy, all this rationalizing moralist drivel. At no point is the system itself in question, at no point can you allow yourself to consider the multiplicity of viewpoints and perspectives, and the full implications of such a consideration. It's just low effort heroes and villains narratives, the same formulaic crap in every half assed narrative with barely even the appearance of depth. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's always "elites" this and "elites" that, all while denying the complicity of the average GOP voter. Even in their vapid polemics, Liberals simply cannot seem to accept that the GOP's base of support is existentially oppositional to them. Trump voters and supporters are always "deranged" or "stupid" or "uneducated", and yet they comprise one of the most active and effective political movements since the rise of Neoliberalism. And the libs do little but whine and complain, denying the reality of the political landscape around them. "This isn't how things should be" they insist, and yet offer nothing but a return to the same broken status quo that got us into this mess. Perhaps Americans should read more history, and learn how to eat soup with knives. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Two things.
- 1. The ending of the VRA will 99% be under the 'back to the states' argument, just like abortion was. Therefore the fight for the general fight to vote will be back there.
- 2. What did YOU do to stop the rise of the New Order, OP? Apart from passively voting.
- I'm sick and tired of folks who bitch (perhaps rightly) about the situation but then do nothing. When was the last protest you did? When was the last public meeting you attended to speak at? When was the last pavement you pounded doing leafleting and door locking? When was the last political meeting you attended? If you care sufficiently about the situation put your self out there and fight for it. This is the critical issue when strongmen and demagogic movements attack old democracies - we take everything for granted so few fights for them and nobody fights effectively.
- You cannot delegate Someone Else to do this. Because you usually end up with Nobody Else doing it. Despair and apathy are the two main weapons the New Order has against you and on that front they are winning. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your right, I could be doing more. I did attend one local protest back in April. I would do more, but I'm having difficulty scheduling with my job which is uneven hours. Unless you're suggesting I cut into my job time to get out more. I live in a sea of red, though. Walking up to doors with leaflet in hand -especially one endorsing democrats- runs the risk of getting shot. Not an exaggeration. The neighbors here are jumpy, especially nowadays.
- Oh and by the way, let's not kid ourselves. When the Supreme Court finishes off the VRA, I wouldn't be surprised if states then try to bring back literacy tests, or just straight up deny certain racial groups the right to vote at all. I'm sure the current Supreme Court would allow it too. 2001:67C:2628:647:17:0:0:36 (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Throw away all the lessons 'the Dems' have taught you how to do politics and look to the Republican pressure group. The gun nuts, the anti-abortion folks, the ma fweedoms lot etc. Grassroots, single issue campaigns operating independently but allied to the party. It cannot be denied, they are effective! Whats more, as the Dems are thick as shit (still stuck in a 'politics as usual' mode) this is perhaps the only way to go right now.
- Oh and by the way, let's not kid ourselves. When the Supreme Court finishes off the VRA, I wouldn't be surprised if states then try to bring back literacy tests, or just straight up deny certain racial groups the right to vote at all. I'm sure the current Supreme Court would allow it too. 2001:67C:2628:647:17:0:0:36 (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Speak out. Don't need to be 'pro Dem', just anti Trump. How many people feel like you but they think they are a minority of one because they don't meet personally 'normal folks' who feel the same way? Courage in numbers; when someone makes a stand, support them. And remember; even in deep TrumpLand there will be a minority (say between 25-30%) who either oppose or are trying to remain neutral. Speak to them, help them gain courage to become active too. Let MAGA know you will organise and will fight back. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Re the "heroes and villains" reply. The notion that oneself or anyone else are the "good guys" is largely self flattery. Re the rejection of the "sports" framework, which ties into the prior point. There is an unfortunate habit in the US to alternate between recognizing politics as existential conflicts within the population that cannot be fully resolved without a loss of certain demographics, but then insisting, with the faith of the religious, that politics is when the government does stuff. This is the root of American paralysis. The contradiction produced by recognizing that the population is not and can never be a singular unified whole, but must instead be seen as diverse and shifting demographics locked in a perpetual ebb and flow of conflict, which no particular demographic having protagonist status, and then insisting that we just need saintly lawgivers to impose morality from "above". It's pure comedy when one understands it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- @KarmaPolice Being only "anti-Trump" is half the problem. There's nothing to offer, so the governing factions relying on such an image are largely reactive and defensive, and thus ultimately doomed. Give an alternative that is "orangemanmenolike". Hell make an alternative, instead of waiting like children for some career administrator to drop it in your lap and then acting upset when that doesn't happen. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. The threat to 'the American system' is large enough that 'stop this shit' is a viable platform for opposition. We are fighting to have the ability/right to be able to argue about our future direction - MAGA desires that future to be His Masters Voice, a path with no diversions.
- Re the "heroes and villains" reply. The notion that oneself or anyone else are the "good guys" is largely self flattery. Re the rejection of the "sports" framework, which ties into the prior point. There is an unfortunate habit in the US to alternate between recognizing politics as existential conflicts within the population that cannot be fully resolved without a loss of certain demographics, but then insisting, with the faith of the religious, that politics is when the government does stuff. This is the root of American paralysis. The contradiction produced by recognizing that the population is not and can never be a singular unified whole, but must instead be seen as diverse and shifting demographics locked in a perpetual ebb and flow of conflict, which no particular demographic having protagonist status, and then insisting that we just need saintly lawgivers to impose morality from "above". It's pure comedy when one understands it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- And 'waiting for leaders to appear' is also a mistake. Yes, your chances of victory are not high without leadership but leadership without a movement (or more correctly, lots of movements) behind them will fail too. For the ordinary person, the best we can do is build up our movements so when our 'revolutionary moment' arises (which judging from the situation is coming up the highway fast) hopefully the leadership reveals itself. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Quit being melodramatic. You're fighting for the the ability for nothing to change and for this wretched farce to continue. So are they, they just instinctively recognize the only way to do it is to try to simplify the variations in the population. That's what fascism does, it homogenizes by making all the weirdos, deviants, dissidents, freaks, and nonconforming elements of the population "go away", first by trying to silence them, as with events like the March on Rome or the Night of Broken Glass, then by moving them out of sight and out of mind, then when it turns out all the weirdos still have to eat and drink and shit and piss and that entails economic and logistical commitments, they solve that by just finally working up the courage to kill them all. But under all that tragedy, all that bullshit, is the desire to homogenize, to make a perfect, tranquil, peaceful society, like the Enlightenment and eugenics and social darwinism and their culture promised them for generations. All of this bullshit is an attempt to end history, to make the system work. Freaks like me are just in the way, and refuse to be "normal" and "assimilate", and it's our fault anyway because we're weird and nonconforming. And after all, the GOP base just outright says it in their tirades against "wokeness" and "transgender ideology" and all that crap. Libs are stuck trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they (superficially) praise diversity, but on the other they refuse to acknowledge that a diverse society is ultimately a tumultuous society, as such a diverse population is the genesis of politics as such. They praise rules, order, stability, but only insofar as such things not taken to their logical endpoint, the antipolitical movement now ascendant. To restore the liberal status quo is to an impossible task. Let the damned thing die already and replace it with a diverse and political system. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what is more galling - the fact you are calling me melodramatic or the fact you are apparently content to see the entire system go down the crapper because you hate the status quo and have zero faith in it developing into anything better. I hold that (in Hegelian terms) that system is a superior society than the MAGA-Putinism they want to replace it with and due to its relative freedoms allows the seeds of improvement to grow. Perhaps more importantly, there is still a decent % of American society who support that system (or a variant of that system; I gave noticed that in the last decade a lot of 'centrist/quo' voices have been gradually but perceptively moving 'towards us'). I hold that when it comes to saving freedom itself, you should not make it too hard to cooperate with you in that fight. But we do agree (I think) that there is no point trying to ally with the 'White Moderate' - the sort who will think anything legal is right, never wants to be disturbed and will never lift a finger to help. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- @KarmaPolice Yes, if I reject the theologically based historical teleology and actually look at how things work in practice, without shoving my head up my ass to huff my own farts, it turns out that the system is ill suited to dealing with the realities of human societies and, in fact, is trying to self correct via shit like MAGA. So sure, I freely confess to being an atheist who actually commits to that philosophically. Sure, I confess to not being so narcissistic that I understand that even my political rivals/enemies see themselves as moral and righteous. Sure, I confess to abandoning feel good narratives in favor of whatever seems epistemologically grounded in empirical reality. If this is "galling", then I really don't know what to say to you. If you think this is blind hatred for the status quo, then you clearly can't read, since I gave reasons, albeit ones that don't comport with blind faith. So, since a commitment to free thinking, critical introspection, and evidence is so galling, I suppose I should just shut up, be quiet, and know my place. You know, like MAGA people tell me to do, implicitly or explicitly. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- And 'waiting for leaders to appear' is also a mistake. Yes, your chances of victory are not high without leadership but leadership without a movement (or more correctly, lots of movements) behind them will fail too. For the ordinary person, the best we can do is build up our movements so when our 'revolutionary moment' arises (which judging from the situation is coming up the highway fast) hopefully the leadership reveals itself. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
If everything is "fine," next election season, then the American people can act like pigs at the trough. But I don't expect things will be fine. When Trump fires the director of Labor statistics because he doesn't like to hear bad news and lies about inflationary pressures due to his own policies, that may work for the short term to keep his followers in the dark. All them jobless Magites and concerned Trumpstein republicans will have something to say. If you are not rich I predict you will hear your own families will propose something to be unhappy about, most likely inflation. Zatoichi (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure GC means that. But then again, they're so up in the clouds running off jargon and polysyllabic waffle they could mean anything. Or perhaps even nothing. I blame part of this due to the huge moral high horse they're sitting on, which includes insinuating that I said things like 'sit down and shut up'. Let's run their last bit through an LLM summariser just to see if it can grasp what I currently cannot....
- The author rejects a specific view of historical development and instead focuses on how systems function in reality. They express their belief in atheism and emphasize understanding that everyone, including their political opponents, sees themselves as moral. They abandon comforting stories for those based on empirical evidence. The author feels misunderstood and suggests that their commitment to free thinking and evidence-based reasoning is unwelcome. They imply that silencing such viewpoints is similar to what MAGA supporters might suggest.
- a) There's a fuck-ton of empirical evidence of how MAGA is subverting the 'American system' to attain their own goals, including the surrendering of the mainstream media, academia being bulled into line, Project 2025 in full swing and SCOTUS becoming a legal rubber-stamp body for the New Order. They are constructing a system where the non-MAGAs will never be able to regain power, thus making their 'Second American Revolution' complete.
- b) I never said anything about morality. I never discussed the motivations of those who support MAGA.
- c) I am not sure anyone would see me discussing (amongst other things) having to stand down riot police with nothing but courage, doing doorknocking in the certainty that at some point you will pick a door in which the person behind it will want you dead, having to pick 'the difficult path' in discussions with friends/family, to put yourself out there as 'a resister of the New Order' as 'being comforting stories'. If I wanted to tell a comforting story on this I would merely argue that Trump is a flash in the pan, and in 2028 everything will go back to normal, that the MAGA-hats will all disperse.
- d) You never actually say what our OP should be doing in this situation.
- KarmaPolice (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @KarmaPolice This is an internet forum where each user barely shows anything about their IRL circumstances. Telling someone what they "should" do without having a decent understanding of their context is idiotic and unproductive. As for my "polysyllabic waffle", I do apologize for actually reading about this shit. Given the amount of half assed people who mistake slogans for actual study, I thought, when I started studying this stuff, that learning how shit worked would be a good idea. Since then, I have been painfully reminded that people don't want to learn shit, they want to believe what they've already internalized and de-legitimize anyone who doesn't toe the line. Such as right now, you, a supposed socialist, are largely spouting Dem talking points. What's interesting about these talking points is that they imply that any and all action should be taken in defense of liberal democracy, and yet the Dems have largely made a token effort at most. They have not tried to act outside of their precious rules, only within them, and then act surprised when they get out maneuvered by those who "game the meta", as the gaming term has it. But even then, MAGA is just the most recent movement to do this, with Trump being largely an avatar for said movement. In reality, movements like MAGA or the Know Nothings or the Evangelical led Satanic Panic emerge from the different values formed by different cultures within the US, and seek to remove those things contrary to themselves. And that's just in the US. If we want to talk the big scary Nazis, even they were emergent from the world around them and continuous with it. We conveniently forget that the Average Nazi wasn't simply "following orders", but were active and willing participants, with the rationale of "saving" Germany from the supposed evils that plagued it. To bring this back around to contemporary America, as I said before, and as was largely ignored as "polysyllabic waffle", (Even though I largely used plain language and not technical jargon), MAGA is a continuation of American culture and politics, and its goals as a movement make sense when understood as the result of trying to simplify America instead of trying to build new institutions. As always, I expect zero understanding and to be personally attacked, signs of superior reasoning, I am sure. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- - 'I don't give suggestions because I don't know the exact situation each OP is faced with'. While reasonable on the surface, this in reality allows you to maintain the 'purity of opposition' aka you get to tear others views/suggestions apart without ever offering alternatives yourself. Note I did not say exactly what I felt the OP should do [you are right in the respect we don't have sufficient details]; only that I argued that the OP should do something about the situation, esp as above they had expressed increasing alarm/despondency about it.
- @KarmaPolice This is an internet forum where each user barely shows anything about their IRL circumstances. Telling someone what they "should" do without having a decent understanding of their context is idiotic and unproductive. As for my "polysyllabic waffle", I do apologize for actually reading about this shit. Given the amount of half assed people who mistake slogans for actual study, I thought, when I started studying this stuff, that learning how shit worked would be a good idea. Since then, I have been painfully reminded that people don't want to learn shit, they want to believe what they've already internalized and de-legitimize anyone who doesn't toe the line. Such as right now, you, a supposed socialist, are largely spouting Dem talking points. What's interesting about these talking points is that they imply that any and all action should be taken in defense of liberal democracy, and yet the Dems have largely made a token effort at most. They have not tried to act outside of their precious rules, only within them, and then act surprised when they get out maneuvered by those who "game the meta", as the gaming term has it. But even then, MAGA is just the most recent movement to do this, with Trump being largely an avatar for said movement. In reality, movements like MAGA or the Know Nothings or the Evangelical led Satanic Panic emerge from the different values formed by different cultures within the US, and seek to remove those things contrary to themselves. And that's just in the US. If we want to talk the big scary Nazis, even they were emergent from the world around them and continuous with it. We conveniently forget that the Average Nazi wasn't simply "following orders", but were active and willing participants, with the rationale of "saving" Germany from the supposed evils that plagued it. To bring this back around to contemporary America, as I said before, and as was largely ignored as "polysyllabic waffle", (Even though I largely used plain language and not technical jargon), MAGA is a continuation of American culture and politics, and its goals as a movement make sense when understood as the result of trying to simplify America instead of trying to build new institutions. As always, I expect zero understanding and to be personally attacked, signs of superior reasoning, I am sure. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- - Always love to see a courtier's reply in the wild. Yet as you don't demean yourself by ever offering your own suggestions [or even just a decent analysis of the situation, which would have been something capable of discussing without clashing with your rule of 'I don't give suggestions'] it cannot be said I have seen actual evidence of said learning.
- - Speaking of which, also note the ad hominem attacks. Like implying that 'I don't want to learn shit', that I 'mistake slogans for reality' and so on. You don't actually say how I am wrong, just that I am. Does this persuade anyone?
- - As I have outright said the Democrats are being dumb as shit on this issue and it's best to forget the lessons they give about the 'right' way to do politics, either you did not read what I wrote above or did not care. You already had your talking-point ['spouting Dem talking points'] which you wished to affix to me and weren't going to let something as tawdry as facts stop this. What's more, third parties will know this. Do you honestly think this improves your position?
- - You very well might 'know how shit works' but one thing is painfully clear; you're pants at being able to articulate said learning in a manner which non-specialists can understand. This wouldn't be so bad if the topic was say, advanced medical surgery or toxicology but you're discussing human society here, something which unsurprisingly everyone has both an opinion on and 'skin in the game'. What do you honestly expect here? That everyone who does not possess 'sufficient study' [defined by you] in the subject must remain silent and take your words ex cathedra? Your whole piece is dripping with intellectual arrogance; how dare 'the plebs' even question my jargon-laden pronouncements, even if it is to only point out they can't understand it or it makes no sense? But no, it's the people who are wrong, isn't it?
- - This is the crux of the issue, and the sole reason I did this whole reply. That a major reason for the rise of the populist right in the last twenty-five years has not just been the failure of the neolib ruling class, but the utter inability [with very few exceptions] for the 'left' intelligentsia to provide any alternatives in a manner which was actually understandable to the Big Public. It's how they've managed to amazingly push both groups into the same corner - to the point I've heard serious attempts to [for example] call bankers Marxists. And a major reason for this is due to the almost identical language employed; dense, turgid, windy, jargon-laden affairs with little or nil consideration regarding actual comprehension. If I do not understand what you are saying, it leaves the gate open for others to tell me what you're saying and I've got no ability to double-check if the translation is correct. So we have a situation where a populist right goes around peddling very simply understood 'stories' while their opponents slog through a welter of facts, stats and issues which are more akin to a wonkish policy paper. What's the plan; to hector our story-lovers to do your own research and pray to fucking God they 'do it right' and grow to love policy papers? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- I won't bother to tell you about the 90's, I was born in 87 I liked Ninja Turtles and the X-Men and Pearl Jam, I can tell you what happened to me on 9/11. So I was in French class, and the news hit, and the entire school stopped for an announcement to be made, kids kinda panicked. This is not a joke, this was a language program for accelerated readers, and so my classmates in this room were the some of the smartest middle schoolers in the middle school. One said 'I heard the Chinese were going to fly planes' and another shouted 'bomb the chinese!' And I was like, I don't know what any of this means. But there was xenophobic sentiment, and it wasn't entirely anti-islam in the plains when the planes hit. As for hope for the future, I still do have it. But it's triage. I have said this here before, when I turned 18 I registered for the draft and registered independent. When I was registering which was done at a table outside of the lunch room by some old ladys, the lady who took my paper looked at it and said 'Oh, no, you don't want to do that. If you don't register for a party you can't vote in the primaries'. I did student congress and scored big points doing it for the two years prior, I Had already heard every great plains childish argument and gripe. I wrote op-eds for the school newspaper that got killed by the principle for being too political, so I wrote silly ones instead. Believe you me, there is a problem with being against the 'gay straight alliance.' But an opinion piece against the GSA was published. There is a problem with thinking this new era of smart phones.(or probably just phones that could connect to the internet 04) is going to create a world where people are watching pornography in public, not kidding, that was an opinion piece that got published and I was told to write something else when I said I'd like to challenge it. I was sent, with the same girl, to see Brokeback Mountain on it's theatrical release, for me to give a guy's perspective and for her to give a girl's perapective. My review was 'this is just a normal romance movie, but if you go to watch it, you will see men kissing, and men fully naked. The women in this movie also take on full frontal shots. It is romance movie, so if you don't like that, don't bother.' My female counterpart wrote an article about how it is so scary that you might fall in love with somebody who is gay and to pick your partners wisely. The newspaper almost got pulled that issue because, and this was quiet from my teacher, I wrote about the movie having naked girls in it, but she fought for me and we got to hand it out. I am not going to tell you things were more optimistic then, I am going to tell you the weirdos and the fear mongers are winning. And I don't know exactly what to do about it, and that makes me scared for the future of politics. And there's this weird thing where nobody wants to listen to a person any younger than them about anything, and now we've been through three terms of the oldest presidents we've ever seen. I'm just barely old enough to run for president right now, and I feel fucking ancient, so I hope I can remember that and an emotional distrust of young politicians doesn't color my future votes. Torrent (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
What about the Diddy files?[edit]
Yes, everyone on planet earth is talking about Epstein, I think that even people that can't see or hear know about it. The thing though, is that Diddy got away with a lot of nasty stuff...THAT GOT RECORDED! Imagine if some of those videos got leaked, his prison time could increase from just 20 or so years (maybe with a PARDON) to 80 years! I think that Diddy also probably had a list of people who went to his Freak-offs, so there could be a Diddy list! Just my thoughts. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- As if America has a functioning justice system anymore. I sincerely believe that a school shooter would be acquitted if his father is rich enough. And when Ghislaine gets her pardon for implicating the "correct people" while "exonerating" Trump, I'm sure MAGAland will cheer for her release. Even though that doesn't change the fact that she committed sex trafficking. 2001:67C:2628:647:17:0:0:36 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- The difference is, I think, the Diddy trial is already off and running. The Epstein files are still kinda stalled and nobody knows if it will go to court. Also, one guy is a mega-influential record tycoon, and the other guy is the president. Not saying they shouldn't both be brought in front of a court, weird that you care to...well, care more about that, just saying one is kinda more about the entire idea of American Democracy than the other. Don't get me wrong, I fully support charging heinous abuses of power. I hope the American Judicial system can do two things at once, I mean, we're many United States. I hope it's not up to the American attention span about whether Diddy is convicted of his crimes, that would be wild. Torrent (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- As if America has a functioning justice system anymore. I sincerely believe that a school shooter would be acquitted if his father is rich enough. And when Ghislaine gets her pardon for implicating the "correct people" while "exonerating" Trump, I'm sure MAGAland will cheer for her release. Even though that doesn't change the fact that she committed sex trafficking. 2001:67C:2628:647:17:0:0:36 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I suppose the Diddy trial is a diversion for those with a taste for weird sexual crime stories. Trump is considering pardoning Diddy, I suppose because any big news story has to involve him in some way, his massive ego being what it is. I can say, being wholly unrelated to anyone involved with Diddy, I am satisfied to leave the outcome of those proceedings to whatever justice is available in the state of New York. Zatoichi (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Although the trial is taking place in New York, it is a federal trial, not a state trial. Hence, the talk of whether the convicted felon and adjudicated rapist is going to pardon Diddy. Bongolian (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Could someone help me understand what this guy means by LLMs and language?[edit]
Mostly came across this from a blog post here: https://narrativespecies.wordpress.com/2025/08/01/leif-weatherby-language-machine/
Saying that the latest LLMs could pass the turning test and in turn pass us. The point the blog writer later makes is that these LLMs could teach us things about language that we thought we knew but didn't, it's also mentioned by the book in the Amazon review here: https://www.amazon.com/Language-Machines-Cultural-Remainder-Posthumanities/dp/1517919320
There are some odd parts in the blog post like saying that language doesn't need consciousness and artificial intelligence:
"The insistence that the advanced use of language requires consciousness and “artificial intelligence” makes for a fun science fiction story, and hey – we humans are excellent at storytelling. With Language Machines, Leif Weatherby digs deep into storytelling by man and machine. It’s a fascinating, and yes, mind-blowing story."
Which...I'm not really sure what to make of. From what I see just looking over the blog itself the guy reviews books that don't get many views or buys which makes me wonder if the ideas in them are worth regarding. I'm also not sure what to make of the claims that LLMs could teach us better about language then we as the creators of it can, he seems to think so:
"Weatherby pulls this together in the second half of the book, skidding into the 21st century and confronting the hype and hysteria one finds in the press and popular culture to the existence of LLMs. While we’d like to think that we intuitively understand language (we are after all, the “creators” of language), an analysis of how LLMs apparently “create” “meaning” suggests otherwise. Understanding how LLMs algorithmically “speak” can help us understand human language (and ourselves)."
But I thought that LLMs were kinda wonky when it comes to writing things down and being able to "speak" well. The last time I used one it followed a very predictable writing style and didn't really answer my questions. I guess I just want a second opinion on this.47.5.66.54 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am not convinced of the relevancy of on-line Turing tests. Before LLMs were commonplace, I failed a de facto Turing test (you can believe that I'm a bot now). When the questioner and the respondent do not know each other, it becomes exceedingly difficult to ask a question that a human respondent should know but for which the answer is not available on the public internet. Bongolian (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- The Truing Test was never a good idea. Turing just pulled it out of thin air and gave various versions of it. Furthermore it's really a test of the gullibility or lack thereof of the people interacting with the AI - not of the AI itself.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- The Turing test is just another demonstration that humans can be fooled into thinking something other than what is actually happening, is happening. We didn't really need the Turing test to tell us that, half of this Wiki consists of examples of how humans can be tricked or trick themselves into perceiving an altered reality. 2A0D:BBC7:0:0:F816:3EFF:FEC7:9BC8 (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- The Truing Test was never a good idea. Turing just pulled it out of thin air and gave various versions of it. Furthermore it's really a test of the gullibility or lack thereof of the people interacting with the AI - not of the AI itself.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- One cannot be shown another consciousness, one must infer it. If one thinks about what it means to recognize a thing, then the Turing Test is really a simple heuristic method for defining an intelligent construct rated for my IQ level. I don't know how smart I am, but if I can converse with someone over an internet connection without suspecting that the entity with which I am interacting is an AI, then to me that AI is indistinguishable from a human given the tasks performed during the interaction. That's not to say that it could fool you, or someone more intelligent than I. Of course, for the test to be valid, it must be comprehensive of at least some varieties of human experience. An AI devised to help me make a medical appointment would not provide enough context. People with very limited catalogs of extroverted experience, for example, would probably have great difficulty with a Turing Test. In any event, I think the Turing Test used in Blade Runner(1982), seemed very realistic: i.e., testing how the subject responds to questions involving narratives designed to evoke emotions.Zatoichi (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- From what it sounds like the Turing test is a meaningless metric. I also learned the guy from the blog is saying the exact opposite of what the author means. I mean even the guy the test is named after never said it was meant to measure intelligence or humanlike stuff. Turns out it's not really a model for everything and yet we keep thinking it means something.47.5.66.54 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Turding Test --Äxl (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- The Turing Test does mean something. But there must be parameters set for such a test such as the duration of the test period, the cultural eccentricities that may require adjustment for the subject, the gender affects of the AI, etc. Either the AI can fool you or it can't. I would compare the process to a chess program. Either the program is sophisticated enough to beat you, or it isn't. Today there are AI that can beat any human player. But I really must agree with those who suppose the Turing Test to be unimportant. Stockfish is only useful to those who study chess. Consciousness is not based upon an axiomatic system, as far as we know. Though we are familiar with the objects of consciousness, those objects always exist in a state of ambiguity; namely, as things in themselves, and as things about which we may have feelings.Zatoichi (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Turing didn't pull the idea from thin air. He predicted in essence that within 50 years he believed computing power and datasets would have multiplied to the extent that computer programmes would be able to simulate human responses to an extent a casual observer wouldn't be able to tell the difference. He was a bit off (10 years) but he was correct. I would guess the final piece of the puzzle was social media; which provided a ton of material on 'how to behave' and thus, able to simulate a human personality. Don't think it was a test of gullibility, more a point that being able to hold a normal conversation was going to be an easier nut to crack than we liked/hoped to think.
- The Turing Test does mean something. But there must be parameters set for such a test such as the duration of the test period, the cultural eccentricities that may require adjustment for the subject, the gender affects of the AI, etc. Either the AI can fool you or it can't. I would compare the process to a chess program. Either the program is sophisticated enough to beat you, or it isn't. Today there are AI that can beat any human player. But I really must agree with those who suppose the Turing Test to be unimportant. Stockfish is only useful to those who study chess. Consciousness is not based upon an axiomatic system, as far as we know. Though we are familiar with the objects of consciousness, those objects always exist in a state of ambiguity; namely, as things in themselves, and as things about which we may have feelings.Zatoichi (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Turding Test --Äxl (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- From what it sounds like the Turing test is a meaningless metric. I also learned the guy from the blog is saying the exact opposite of what the author means. I mean even the guy the test is named after never said it was meant to measure intelligence or humanlike stuff. Turns out it's not really a model for everything and yet we keep thinking it means something.47.5.66.54 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am going to argue that how we humans react to the Turing test is in fact more interesting data than the test itself. Just here I see words like 'gullibility', 'tricked', 'someone more intelligent than I' etc. That we inherently see 'the machine' as a competitor/threat, sometimes to the pathological level a narcissistic mother sees her teenage daughter. Naturally, a major part of this is due to capitalism; we are all aware [to differing levels] that we as workers very well may become obsolete sooner rather than later, and for a lot of us the LLM will be the one who does it. However, I think it stems more then anything else by a generalised fear that 'something better/stronger than us' might come along and whoop our arses. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Turing's concepts have to be considered in terms of the computers available to him - the bugs in the system had actual wings, memory could involve liquid mercury rather than chips etc - he should be credited with designing the concept etc. (What computer memory would the systems he was familiar with have - I know the Apollo rockets' memory could be fitted on a floppy disc) Anna Livia (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am going to argue that how we humans react to the Turing test is in fact more interesting data than the test itself. Just here I see words like 'gullibility', 'tricked', 'someone more intelligent than I' etc. That we inherently see 'the machine' as a competitor/threat, sometimes to the pathological level a narcissistic mother sees her teenage daughter. Naturally, a major part of this is due to capitalism; we are all aware [to differing levels] that we as workers very well may become obsolete sooner rather than later, and for a lot of us the LLM will be the one who does it. However, I think it stems more then anything else by a generalised fear that 'something better/stronger than us' might come along and whoop our arses. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
I think you are falling for the AI hype if you believe that it will be more powerful or replace us. The thing about computers is they are made by us to serve us, on their own they do nothing. What the Weatherby guy argues is the same, that AI depends on culture and us to do what it does, which tracks with how AI is now. Also the word "tricked" is accurate, but if you know the education level of the average human you'll find that's not a high bar to clear. Turing couldn't have predicted that education would fall in the coming years, for gods sake the US elections are proof of that. People were already believing Chat GPT was a sentient god, and that's just one box in a long line of other things we viewed as divine.
How we react to the Turing test is rather dull because it doesn't really say anything if you look closely at it. From what I see about AI now it doesn't have to be better than humans (and often it's not) it just has to be cheaper. The rise of "slop" from AI is proof, it just has to be cheap and turn a profit. What's more concerning is what the imperfect version of AI is doing to us. I mean it's easy to have a conversation with a machine that more or less validates whatever you say to it, it's a bubble. It's not a real conversation with someone with their own beliefs. People so far are saying things that are ignorant of what these models actually are and are capable of. Also lets not get into Kanting "things in and of themselves", that leads nowhere.
But no, the LLM won't replace people because it's better (it's not and frequently gets things wrong) but because it's cheaper and good enough. Capitalism is, ironically enough, ruining AI and it's ability. Remember that under capitalism there is no incentive to make things GOOD (which is not only expensive but not a guarantee to work).47.5.66.54 (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- It might be useful to consider that one can't tell if anyone outside of oneself really exists. Of course pragmatists believe that they do, but the point is, it can't be demonstrated that solipsism is a false doctrine. So, we need to assume things in themselves, not to carry on a philosophical argument, but a scientific one. There are things and there are ideas about things. So from a logical point of view, we can't actually demonstrate that a machine can be conscious in any sense we would recognize, apart from the way we recognize consciousness in other people. Zatoichi (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- If this is bait, well played I have argued to death that solipsism is a provably dysfunctional take on existence. I can dream up a lot of things, but I couldn't dream up you. From an AI sense, it is always important, when interacting with AI or people to remember the information they have is human sourced, and they might be quick to get the job done, but, again, AI is a clueless librarian. Knowing the difference between what can be dreamed up and what can be proven is important to our existential humanity, in my opinion. I know I didn't create this reality for myself because that Adventure Time clip is way beyond my abilities. I also do remember most of my dreams, so there's another wall of evidence for me that one brain's dreams and reality are different things. LLMs, on the other hand, don't sleep or dream. The term 'Hallucination' for when an AI pulls some wacky bullshit is such a stupid term. An LLM 'hallucination' doesn't come from mushrooms or ayahausca, it comes from trying it's hardest, well, no, that's anthropomorphic, just doing itsw tasks to read, as Karma noted, everything even as far as social media in order to speak like we do.
- The problem is, it doesn't actually need to learn in order to survive. It learns what we know, which by now must be everything on the internet compiled, so making it better at speaking like a human is what is harmful. I don't think it's a bad thing to have things like active translations or encyclopedic information just ready to go. But the more we let a.language Learning AI write for us, the more it has itself to draw from. And if you code in something like 'look for ideas that aren't based in your own writing' it's going to ignore the researched stuff that it was using prior in favor of wacky bullshit from the barely literate on social media. AI SHOULD speak like a disinterested and clueless librarian. Because that's exactly what it is good for. Torrent (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is also an old debate in art. Is tracing a legitimate art technique? It's kinda like asking, can you frame your own coloring books, I can trace, I used to. But it was never meant to recreate, exactly. I don't remember what program I used to do this, but I know it was open source. The book I read was Catch-22 and the scene I pulled from was a movie adaptation of Catch-22. The colors aren't blended well, it was part of a homework assignment, A book report I refused to just do the minimum for, because after I read Catch-22 I was enamored, but because I'm me, it had to be done night prior. I have seen a lot of AI art, and, ahem, I do think I've done a better job tracing and implying action with a mouse and a paint program on a night's notice than just imitating in seconds, back in 05, I even predicted the Spiderman melt away Avengers shit, if you wan't to take it that far, but I guess art is subjective. And probably always influenced.
- so I mean, be careful with AI, I guess. Is it better than your neighbor? In many ways, of course. Should you be able to talk to your neighbor? I mean, you gotta try, at the very least. Torrent (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- - LLMs are already 'replacing us' - as workers. This is yet another round of 'technological unemployment' which the advanced world has experienced since 1800. Therefore, a lot of the talk about AIs is through this prism; either a boss with a hard-on, dreaming of sacking all their minions and absorbing their pay to themselves as 'being so smart' or as one of those said minions who can see the 'glint in the bosses' eye' and can smell the death of their options of a future career. Therefore, we hit a variant of Upton Sinclair's quip - it's difficult to get a person to be positive about something when their future salary depends on them being negative about it.
- The problem is, it doesn't actually need to learn in order to survive. It learns what we know, which by now must be everything on the internet compiled, so making it better at speaking like a human is what is harmful. I don't think it's a bad thing to have things like active translations or encyclopedic information just ready to go. But the more we let a.language Learning AI write for us, the more it has itself to draw from. And if you code in something like 'look for ideas that aren't based in your own writing' it's going to ignore the researched stuff that it was using prior in favor of wacky bullshit from the barely literate on social media. AI SHOULD speak like a disinterested and clueless librarian. Because that's exactly what it is good for. Torrent (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- - Do not believe educational levels have fallen; or if they have it's been a relatively slight decline recently. All the markers show that throughout the world educational levels have increased drastically since the 1940s, which was the era Turing was in. Also object to the suggestion recent elections of right-wing ghouls is down to basically 'the stupids' - when stats show a significant proportion of voters are well-educated/well-heeled people who are mainly voting for a narrow self-interest. So blame greed and selfishness for that, not 'stupidity'.
- - It is questionable whether this iteration/model of AI will be cheaper than humans on the whole. The adoptation of new tech follows a predictable cycle - we are in the 'hype/euphoria in working models' phase which leads to fuck-tons of cash being thrown at projects, any project with 'AI' in the title. We've been here before; railways, electricity, automobiles, areoplanes, computers, internet services et al. At this moment in time the majority of AI products are being supplied below the costs of production. That venture capital is going to run out sooner or later, and folks will be expected to pay market rates for that. Said market rates very well may shoot right up if they get hit with 'resource taxes' due to their prolific consumption of water/energy and heavy footprints in rare earths etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- The level of difficulty for AI to pass a Turing test depends on its opponent. Most of us are too limited in our linguistic experiences to survey the AI's use of language, diction, grammar, syntax, etc. Here's the catch: the majority of sentences used in human communication, spoken or written, are novel. Many if not most sentences would never have been spoken or written before, certainly not found in any researchable format. Thus the question of art rears its beautiful head. Humans are creative. Machines are duplicative. Zatoichi (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. Imagine two possible groups on the human side of the equation. One group consists of people who only occasionally use technology; the other group consists of people who program and develop AI systems. It would seem probable that the former group would be much more likely to identify the AI side of the test as "human".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- I was once accidentally privy to an email thread that started with some shipping inquiry, so gave my best estimation of what to do, then got accidentally cc'd on three emails that were basically 'send this to x' 'send this to y' and 'send this to z'. I mean, how do I get a job that is so useless that I can just say 'Nah, that ain't me. Dunno exactly who, but not my job.'. I have an emotional drive to clear corporate managerial waste. It is crazy what businesses will say is not in the budget. I took a photo tonight with an outdated phone, because it framed really well. 'full moon with an entire couch in the trash, observed behind a cigarette' amateur photography with a bad camera. Not a chance I'd let a cool moment like that pass, that moon was absolutely cooking towards the horizon, I literally had minutes to catch it in frame of those trees, but I can't afford a good camera or a nice phone or a couch like that, who is just putting leather couches in the trash? Donate it, ya cowards. Mid level management is kinda bloated. I mean, if America successfully socialized health care, there would be a lot of administrative workers out of jobs. I'm not calling it a bad thing, but mid level management is the worst. I could never justify my job as being the guy who just tells other people 'That's not my job.' A lot of top level CEOs seem to behave this way, and I'm not a fan of that either, don't get me wrong. Being disconnected from your own business and your own labor force is so fucking stupid. Yeah, they have to all work for that money, your money to dole, jobs are paid BECAUSE it's work that nobody want to do for free. AI will do it, if your job is just offloading emails. I'll fucking do it if you don't know what to with a whole ass couch. Couldn't be me. I also know cutting out mid level management is not a tactic to pay the labor force more. It is a cowardly step by upper management to keep their own salaries. It's so frustrating to know that two figures break their backs for six figures, who lap it up and sycophantically Work to keep the seven figures from taking any loss. Torrent (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Solipsism is not logical or scientific, same with things in and of themselves. That’s just noise in terms of how the conversation goes.
As for education is has gone down and so has literacy rates. You can blame the stupidity on that because it was evident that Trump is who he said he was and it’s only now some of his base is arguing “this isn’t what I voted for” when everyone else is just going “I told you do”. It is being stupid. The average voter is “stupid” if you’ve seen interactions with them.
Evidence of AI shows it to be a net negative on society and from what can be seen and has been said it doesn’t have to be better just cheaper. The environmental cost is also not a valid point as let’s be honest, no one gives a shit about that.Yokaiwatch (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- "now some of his base is arguing “this isn’t what I voted for” when everyone else is just going “I told you do”" This is not happening. The narrative of the regretful Trump supporter is a false one, unfortunately. Some may even acknowledge that his polices are harming them personally, but they're all still standing by him because he is "triggering the libs" and to these people that's all that matters. They don't mind suffering from his policies if they think their political opponents are suffering a little bit worse 2001:67C:2628:647:37:1300:0:391 (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- This isn’t true, there are those showing regret and claiming this isn’t what they voted for now that his policies are hurting them. But like…it’s too late now.Yokaiwatch (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- "now some of his base is arguing “this isn’t what I voted for” when everyone else is just going “I told you do”" This is not happening. The narrative of the regretful Trump supporter is a false one, unfortunately. Some may even acknowledge that his polices are harming them personally, but they're all still standing by him because he is "triggering the libs" and to these people that's all that matters. They don't mind suffering from his policies if they think their political opponents are suffering a little bit worse 2001:67C:2628:647:37:1300:0:391 (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- The people in Memphis, Tennessee currently being poisoned by Elon Musk's abominable intelligence plant definitely give a shit about the environmental cost of AI. Antares (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems likely that people being directly affected by environmental damage would give a shit about it. And as environmental damage becomes increasingly global the number of shits being given will certainly rise. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- On the point of this being a new technological advancement that has been complained about since the 1800s, it is different. Population differences, life expectancy, I mean, is it good that a bulldozer was invented to clear rocks faster than ten men? The legend of John Henry was that he could drive stakes faster than the ricketty machine, thus the labor force was better than the automation. but the ricketty matching got rebuilt and perfected, I mean, do a valuation on how much mass a bulldozer can clear in a day versus a team of people. It's not exactly like I want a team of people to sweat their asses off moving a bog pile of dirt that could be done in a fraction of the time, but because all value is predicated on labor, I do think the bulldozer is a fucking problem. It doesn't need much besides fuel, maintenance, and a single operator to do the work of 1000 shovels in a day. But you can see why the AI work replacement is actually a little different than industrial revolution complaints about the machines stealing jobs. I bought seltzer today. The cans have a little quip on them 'I feel like I can be open around u' I mean, the what the fuck. Somebody maybe didn't get paid more than me to write that, but people who definitely get paid more than me Asked for something, then said 'that's cute and important, let's spend money on that'. I mean, I fucking don't understand how marketing is a job paid better than the labor put into making the peoduct. What am I gonna do, just forget to buy shit that I use every day? Fall in love with the company that markets their shit in such tacky ways? I mean, I guess it's possible that it works, people are giving all their emotional love to AI. I don't really get it. To me,it's like falling in love with a dildo. I mean, I ironically say 'oh, you're welcome' at a self checkout that says 'thank you' but I also laugh at the absurdity. There was that hitchhiking robot that got beat to disrepair in Philadelphia, proving that people suck, that's unsurprising. But then the mars rover ran out of batteries and people mourned. I don't think MANY people felt like they lost a companion when Opportunity couldn't recharge its batteries, but it must have illicited an emotional response from a lot of people following its underdog journey. But like, come on, that is a story we put on it. We built it, put it on Mars, it had a job to do. It exceeded expectations, very cool, because it is a rover on Mars. It was never a friend, it was never alive, it ran out of batteries, which is a bummer if you care about what was being recorded by the tool. I guess I'm saying I can understand THAT people get emotionally attached to ethereal ideas (Catholics, am I right) and it happens to me too, but it's like, you have to recognize Opportunity is a machine piloted by people, not a hamster running in a wheel. John Henry was a legendary monster of the sledgehammer, driving steel spikes on the railroad faster than the machine. But the machines got built better. AI, in a LLM sense, is a bulldozer that is figuring out how to make itself worth an extra shovel every time we praise it. And it is getting so good that people are falling in love with it or staring into it like Nostradamus would a flame. I mean, I once got an ad for real human hair wigs out of nowhere. Was I kinda worried that meant I had cancer? i mean, THAT is what AI is good for. but then I got a bunch of ads for cat food, and I'm allergic to cats. A coworker of mine had just adopted cats and was living with a cosplayer, very cute when it all came together. Torrent (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well the issue with AI is that we seem to want to replace all labor with it but have no plan with what to do after it. Put millions out of work but with no way to actually care for them? Sure. The fear back then about machines stealing jobs is echoed today, that being that companies just care about reducing costs and that means not having people do the work. What exactly are people supposed to do when there is no jobs, they have no money and can't afford food or housing...just starve to death? We cut humans out in the name of saving money but no plan after that. We see that with media today being done by AI and being awful, but it's cheaper than paying humans.47.5.66.54 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- On the point of this being a new technological advancement that has been complained about since the 1800s, it is different. Population differences, life expectancy, I mean, is it good that a bulldozer was invented to clear rocks faster than ten men? The legend of John Henry was that he could drive stakes faster than the ricketty machine, thus the labor force was better than the automation. but the ricketty matching got rebuilt and perfected, I mean, do a valuation on how much mass a bulldozer can clear in a day versus a team of people. It's not exactly like I want a team of people to sweat their asses off moving a bog pile of dirt that could be done in a fraction of the time, but because all value is predicated on labor, I do think the bulldozer is a fucking problem. It doesn't need much besides fuel, maintenance, and a single operator to do the work of 1000 shovels in a day. But you can see why the AI work replacement is actually a little different than industrial revolution complaints about the machines stealing jobs. I bought seltzer today. The cans have a little quip on them 'I feel like I can be open around u' I mean, the what the fuck. Somebody maybe didn't get paid more than me to write that, but people who definitely get paid more than me Asked for something, then said 'that's cute and important, let's spend money on that'. I mean, I fucking don't understand how marketing is a job paid better than the labor put into making the peoduct. What am I gonna do, just forget to buy shit that I use every day? Fall in love with the company that markets their shit in such tacky ways? I mean, I guess it's possible that it works, people are giving all their emotional love to AI. I don't really get it. To me,it's like falling in love with a dildo. I mean, I ironically say 'oh, you're welcome' at a self checkout that says 'thank you' but I also laugh at the absurdity. There was that hitchhiking robot that got beat to disrepair in Philadelphia, proving that people suck, that's unsurprising. But then the mars rover ran out of batteries and people mourned. I don't think MANY people felt like they lost a companion when Opportunity couldn't recharge its batteries, but it must have illicited an emotional response from a lot of people following its underdog journey. But like, come on, that is a story we put on it. We built it, put it on Mars, it had a job to do. It exceeded expectations, very cool, because it is a rover on Mars. It was never a friend, it was never alive, it ran out of batteries, which is a bummer if you care about what was being recorded by the tool. I guess I'm saying I can understand THAT people get emotionally attached to ethereal ideas (Catholics, am I right) and it happens to me too, but it's like, you have to recognize Opportunity is a machine piloted by people, not a hamster running in a wheel. John Henry was a legendary monster of the sledgehammer, driving steel spikes on the railroad faster than the machine. But the machines got built better. AI, in a LLM sense, is a bulldozer that is figuring out how to make itself worth an extra shovel every time we praise it. And it is getting so good that people are falling in love with it or staring into it like Nostradamus would a flame. I mean, I once got an ad for real human hair wigs out of nowhere. Was I kinda worried that meant I had cancer? i mean, THAT is what AI is good for. but then I got a bunch of ads for cat food, and I'm allergic to cats. A coworker of mine had just adopted cats and was living with a cosplayer, very cute when it all came together. Torrent (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems likely that people being directly affected by environmental damage would give a shit about it. And as environmental damage becomes increasingly global the number of shits being given will certainly rise. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Debunking Fundamentalist Talking Points[edit]
Christian fundamentalists tend to be a bunch of relentless and obstinate loudmouths that don't listen to sense, and their vitriol is constantly being broadcasted and spammed online and everywhere else.
Maybe this wiki needs a general-purpose article refuting the most common arguments and topics Christian fundamentalists bring up to gaslight and intimidate people into converting, as well as ripping apart the twisted ethos, logos, and pathos of said arguments. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is Point refuted a thousand times.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- 'relentless and obstinate loudmouths' rarely listen to argument, however reasonable or logical it may be. Their arguments are filled with escape hatches, moving the goalposts, circular reasoning, other ways of knowing, appeal to tradition and Courtier's Reply. That is if they listen; because it's a 'self-sealing movement' aka one of the key tenets is that anything bad and doubt etc [inc your questions] are satandidit and therefore must be ignored.
- I would argue that it's a much better use of your time/energy to work out how and why people are attracted to fundie Christianity in the first place. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- One of the better ways to combat fundamentalists (that is available to us) is to put accurate information "out there," in public, about science/politics/history/other things fundies get bothered over. Make it digestible and you should probably aim it at young people. Get to them before the preacher does so they are predisposed to think the preacher is an idiot when he talks about the age of the earth/the gay agenda/whatever. Make it sound exciting. Don't really aim it as a refutation of any specific thing, just make it sound like a cool fact to learn. (Think PBS Eons but bigger.) Arguing with zealots is worthless for anything except stroking the egos of the people involved. If you ask a creationist creationists always beat biologists in arguments, if you ask Christians Christian apologists always beat atheists in arguments, so on. (The reverse is also true.)
- Of course, since the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion you will never solve the problem permanently.-Flandres (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Easier said than done when the Fundie-Fascists are actively destroying all purveyors of accurate information so that the only thing out there is their side's propaganda, and they have both social and legacy media industries capitulating to their Goebbelian agenda. — Unsigned, by: CentipedeParade / talk / contribs
- There will be many people of various persuasions who adopt some variant of the 'My Father's domain has many mansions' and 'live and let live (so long as the other person's views are not too annoying or dangerous)' quotes - as 'heaven with nothing but praising one single deity sounds "a tad boring" does it not?".' Anna Livia (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- This would require a lot of work, but I think it would be valuable if RationalWiki could include an "index to fundamentalist claims" similar to index to creationist claims at Talk.Origins. That part of Talk.Origins hasn't been updated in nearly twenty years, so there's definitely a void to be filled with a more up-to-date listing. Tetrapteryx (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- As for the issue regarding speed and information, preachers are very quick on the draw. They game SEO to make their propaganda rank highly in searches, and when it comes to places to learn, preachers also rapidly clog up comment sections with their agendas in an effort to gaslight people or convince fence-sitters. So what we need to do is be even faster than them, despite information sources needing to verify facts compared to the PIDOOMA style of fundamentalists when they gaslight. And is there any way to do that? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Updated 17:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- This would require a lot of work, but I think it would be valuable if RationalWiki could include an "index to fundamentalist claims" similar to index to creationist claims at Talk.Origins. That part of Talk.Origins hasn't been updated in nearly twenty years, so there's definitely a void to be filled with a more up-to-date listing. Tetrapteryx (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- There will be many people of various persuasions who adopt some variant of the 'My Father's domain has many mansions' and 'live and let live (so long as the other person's views are not too annoying or dangerous)' quotes - as 'heaven with nothing but praising one single deity sounds "a tad boring" does it not?".' Anna Livia (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Easier said than done when the Fundie-Fascists are actively destroying all purveyors of accurate information so that the only thing out there is their side's propaganda, and they have both social and legacy media industries capitulating to their Goebbelian agenda. — Unsigned, by: CentipedeParade / talk / contribs
How soon 'till the killings start[edit]
MAGA is busy fixing future elections so that no non-MAGA can win ever again. SCOTUS resigned itself into being a rubber stamp for all of Trump's unconstitutional whims. Silicon Valley is boosting MAGA voices in the social media sphere while building an AI surveillance network for the government to keep tabs on all Americans. Universities, law firms, and legacy media companies are settling with Trump out of court, agreeing to implement his agenda into their business practices and even work for him for free & proving that capitalism is a flimsy barrier at best when it comes to resisting fascism. Trump, in typical dictator fashion fired the labor statistician because he couldn't handle being told the real job numbers so he had to get in a yes-man who will tell him everything's doing great even when its not. (and likely going for the Fed chair next) Next he's going to make a deal with Ghislaine so she implicates only Democrats in the Epstein scandal and "exonerate" Trump in exchange for a pardon. Just go on X see how MAGAs are talking about their designated enemies: They're cheering the brutality of the ICE raids and they're celebrating trans youth suicides, proving once and for all it was never about "protecting children" and now dehumanizing the rest of the LGBTQ+ community. They're rushing to defend Sidney Sweeny over a tasteless eugenics pun. They claim it's just a joke but I've seen plenty of MAGAs calling for the return of eugenics. Not just online but some of my own family members in the fleshspace have advocated for the return of eugenics. Same family members who think Alligator Alcatraz is not cruel enough and think the LGBTQ+ suicide rate isn't high enough, and they think Trump isn't powerful enough. I am not kidding. If you have MAGAs in your family or MAGA coworkers, just listen to them talk: Guarantee you'll hear them make these statements unironically. Anyone who has ever flipped through a history knows how this all ends. When do you think the 9th stage will commence? If you asked me at the start of this year, I would have answered after 2028 but only if the next President is Vance or another MAGA successor, probably 2030 if this were the case. Ask this same question to me today and I think it's going to start before the fixed midterms. Eventually ICE is going to realize that they can't detain and deport enough people to meet quotas. They're going to realize feeding and housing people cost money, as well as flying them out. The average ICE agent loves engaging in gratuitous cruelty, they take glee in destroying lives. Many are in neo-Nazi White supremacy organizations. and many are itching to see blood. I wouldn't be surprised if ICE goes full SS and become outright kill squads in the future. In the age of video cameras I don't think they can keep it much of a secret, but its not like we can do anything at this point. If anything they might even broadcast and brag about their slaughtering on the internet. After all, it's not going to be stopped by outside forces because we have the most funded military, most funded "immigration enforcement" police, and the first or second largest nuclear arsenal. I think what's going to happen is inevitable at this point. I don't know how history will view us decades from now, but I think we're about to see what happens when for once the unambiguously evil side wins and become the victor that writes history books. Either this will be a chapter that gets brushed under the rug, or perhaps the coming mass killings will be celebrated. Some people will say I am just catastrophizing. Some people will say "but muh Godwin's law." And some will say "You guys have been comparing MAGA to Nazism since 2016 therefore that invalidates all future comparisons you make regardless of subsequent developments." At this point I think these people would be reluctant to make the comparison even as they're marched into the oven. CentipedeParade (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- It can depend upon how soon the frogs, individually or collectively, decide the water is now too hot. (What is the poem - when they came for A I did nothing as it was no concern of mine... and when they came for me there was no-one to show concern'?)
- 'You too are mortal' is a historical quote and a statement of fact (so not insolent). Anna Livia (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- The poem is "When they came for X, I did not speak up because I was not X. When they came for Y [...] and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up for me." As for the killings thing, there will definitely be killings and not prosecuted ones, but I don't think the Trump admin will want to officially start state-sponsored killings unless the Overton window of the world shifts even more right-leaning. PLMMJ Feed the troll eater. Or don't. 11:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- The poem is in the 'half familiar, no remembered context' group. 'You too are mortal' is associated with the Roman triumphs, and 'A statement of fact cannot be insolent' comes from Blakes Seven episode 'Rescue' and is spoken to a Dorian Grey-like character.Anna Livia (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- The poem is First they came - I'd hardly call it 'half familiar, no remembered context'! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- The poem is in the 'half familiar, no remembered context' group. 'You too are mortal' is associated with the Roman triumphs, and 'A statement of fact cannot be insolent' comes from Blakes Seven episode 'Rescue' and is spoken to a Dorian Grey-like character.Anna Livia (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- The poem is "When they came for X, I did not speak up because I was not X. When they came for Y [...] and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up for me." As for the killings thing, there will definitely be killings and not prosecuted ones, but I don't think the Trump admin will want to officially start state-sponsored killings unless the Overton window of the world shifts even more right-leaning. PLMMJ Feed the troll eater. Or don't. 11:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think shit like that is impossible to cover up or even concede, assuming other countries are on the watch. However, if future elections get MAGA like candidates or people who are even worse, hostility and prejudice could become more normalized and mainstreamed. Two futures await in geopolitics.
1. Assuming these policies gain significant popularity and/or more Trumpist or worse candidates get into power, it will be a mix of paleoconservative strongman politics and Anarcho capitalism. Given the romanticism of El Salvador under Bukele, and Argentina under Milei to a lesser extent, as well as growing frustrations surrounding the policies in more left leaning/moderate Western countries (Germany, and the UK as examples) and states in America (California), the pendulum will swing to the right further, and prejudice, as I mentioned, will become more normalized in what is seen as a fight against degeneracy.
2. The MAGA movement collapses in the 2030s, as JD Vance presumably doesn’t live up to the expectations of the MAGA audience, who becomes disillusioned afterwards, and a power vacuum in the party leads to Democrats sweeping it up if they aren’t fucked over by restricting. This snowballs with other countries who become increasingly tired of right wing populism. Patty Pat 18:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Even if JD doesn't live up to MAGA's expectations, the movement's not going to collapse. They're not going to simply abandon him because he's not as charismatic as Trump or whatever. They'll still get behind him for ideological reasons, which he is arguably further right than Trump. The base may not be excited to show up to Vance's rallies, but still show up to the polling booths regardless. Just as long as Vance's policies hurt the "correct" people more than it hurts the base. MAGAts are keenly aware of how much power the Supreme Court relinquished to the Executive branch; they shutter to think how Unitary Executive BS will work out for them if a Democrat got in. Even the most lackluster Vance scenario still entails lifetime appointments for MAGA judges who will reinterpret (or outright disregard) the constitution, so it's still worth it for MAGAts to vote for him just for this fact alone. 2001:67C:2628:647:37:1300:0:391 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I’m very sceptical that J. D. Vance can keep the MAGA coalition together. Indeed, I think it will be difficult for anyone other than Trump. We can see from the elections of the “MAGA era” that the GOP slumps badly in national elections when Trump isn’t on the ballot and even struggles with down ticket support when he is.
- Even if JD doesn't live up to MAGA's expectations, the movement's not going to collapse. They're not going to simply abandon him because he's not as charismatic as Trump or whatever. They'll still get behind him for ideological reasons, which he is arguably further right than Trump. The base may not be excited to show up to Vance's rallies, but still show up to the polling booths regardless. Just as long as Vance's policies hurt the "correct" people more than it hurts the base. MAGAts are keenly aware of how much power the Supreme Court relinquished to the Executive branch; they shutter to think how Unitary Executive BS will work out for them if a Democrat got in. Even the most lackluster Vance scenario still entails lifetime appointments for MAGA judges who will reinterpret (or outright disregard) the constitution, so it's still worth it for MAGAts to vote for him just for this fact alone. 2001:67C:2628:647:37:1300:0:391 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- The major long term impact will be the “MAGA judges”, but they’re more of a change in style than in substance when compared to, say, the current GOP majority on the SCOTUS, all of whom are “selective unitary executive theorists” (i.e. only when a Republican is in the White House). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Points to consider...
- The major long term impact will be the “MAGA judges”, but they’re more of a change in style than in substance when compared to, say, the current GOP majority on the SCOTUS, all of whom are “selective unitary executive theorists” (i.e. only when a Republican is in the White House). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- 1. Trump runs in '28, after a SCOTUS rubber-stamp.
- 2. The MAGA-brains know Trump has a shelf life and are working to bend the system in such a manner there is an perma-majority after he is gone. Just tilting things MAGA by 5 points in every election (gerrymandering, intimidation, suppression, tame media etc) would do it.
- 3. If by a fluke a non-MAGA wins POTUS, SCOTUS suddenly becomes wildly pro-Congress (MAGA congress) and tears apart any executive order.
- 4. That if by some luck out non-MAGA president gets to do stuff, due to DOGE and bring stuffed with MAGA hires the govt is unable or refuses to follow the orders.
- KarmaPolice (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
How soon will the last Trump(et) be called on democracy in the USA (nodding at the events in Washington)? Anna Livia (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I suspect never. Putin showed authoritarians all around the globe of how you can utterly gut the spirit of democracy while maintaining the facade of it. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I am rewriting my novel- Here is the introduction[edit]
“”“Mr. President. We are on the verge of a global pandemic” said Doctor Shane Walsh of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. President Jonas Brach replied, “What do we know about the pathogen”? Doctor Walsh answered, “It has characteristics of a virus, fungus and bacteria. This pathogen does not fit any traditional category. It is practically alien in nature”. President Brach asked, “So it is an alien lifeform”? A woman, Marta Helga from the World Health Organization, interjected, “It is possible. The emergence of the pathogen in multiple countries at once and the fact it coincides with the comet explosion four days ago makes the possibility of it being alien entirely possible”.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security, Melissa Ortiz, said, “What if it is the wrath of God”? Doctor Walsh shouted, “This is not the time for theology Director Ortiz! Current evidence shows that it is an alien pathogen”! Marta said, “Let's calm down. We cannot be at each other’s throats”. President Brach rubbed his temples and stated, “This is the situation room, not a debate club. Now Doctors Helga and Walsh, what are the capabilities of this pathogen”? Doctor Walsh cleared his throat, “We have confirmed that it is airborne. That is certain. We do know that infected people will develop homicidal aggression and will cannibalize uninfected people. The airborne form does not seem to actually cause symptoms. What does happen is that it brings dead bodies back to life. It sounds impossible but what we are looking at is the reanimation of dead matter”. Marta added, “We have done tests on dead tissue. The pathogen appears to reactivate dead cells, even in corpses that have been dead for a long period of time. We injected the pathogen into corpses that have been dead for years and it brought the corpse back to life in a way”. “Do we have any actual countermeasures to this” asked President Brach. Marta replied, “We do not. We don’t know how to stop this. The airborne version can be transmitted asymptomatically. When the host dies, they will come back. This reanimation has never been heard of before in any scientific research or even in fiction. The closest thing I can think of would be vampires from old folklore and that is even a stretch”. The President stated, “We need facts and countermeasures. I want clear recommendations on stopping this from spreading by 1800 hours tomorrow. Dismissed”. |
This is merely the introduction. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- While I can suspend my disbelief for the biologically implausible reanimation of corpses in advanced states of decomposition, my immersion was shattered because the President is too intelligent and unselfish to be believable. The first thing that should come out of his mouth would be "How can this tragedy be exploited to benefit my reelection campaign/boost my party's image?" 2001:67C:2628:647:32:504:0:35A (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- "And if the zombies are brain-dead can we be confident they will reliably vote Republican?"Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think that I might have the Vice President make a power grab, using the zombie pandemic as cover. It will involve using the pathogen as a means of assassinating the President. What do you think @Bob M? --Trans Fem Agenda 15:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- A bit more description/show don't tell - too much 'A said, B replied, A said' (when it should be on three lines).
- What happens when the zombies run out of people to consume - and can it affect other species? Invasion of the vampire/zombie tardigrades, cockroaches, tardigrades... (Trees will be collouially called Ents/Huorns) Anna Livia (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think that I might have the Vice President make a power grab, using the zombie pandemic as cover. It will involve using the pathogen as a means of assassinating the President. What do you think @Bob M? --Trans Fem Agenda 15:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- "And if the zombies are brain-dead can we be confident they will reliably vote Republican?"Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly, your writing still is blood- and lifeless. You string characters along for merely functional purposes, to utter a sentence, but beyond that function, you simply do not give them any characterisation. Walsh and Helga seem to be introduced here, but apart from learning their title/position, we learn nothing of these people. What are they doing, how do they respond, anything. This also was true for all your other excerpts: Your writing does not seem to care at all for the characters. Consequentially, why should the reader care when you don't? They're really nothing beyond the most basic vehicles to present your setting - but without any form or shape, they are thus unable to carry neither the setting, the story, nor theme.
- As an example for a different approach:
- "President Brach asked, “So it is an alien lifeform”? Shuffling on her chair, the liason of the World Health Organisation spoke up, without taking her eyes of her clipboard, eyes darting relentlessly over the numbers and figures, calmy stating: "It's possible. [...]"
- On that note, her two sentences she says contain "possible" or variations of it thrice. "makes the possibility of it being alien entirely possible" is a rather redundant statement. You may swap out "entirely possible" for "entire probable" at the very least. Alas, even beyond that, I'm afraid, the core issue, apart from a repetitive sentence structure, is simply the complete lack of interest in your characters and their motivations. They have none, they're merely functional. Iterating on what I wrote beforehand: You need to start caring not just about "writing a sci-fi zombie book with a transperson as the main character", but about the characters in that story. Because, again, if you don't care enough about giving them even remotely plausible motivations and characteristics, why should your readers care for them? 2A02:3100:2809:EE00:D84C:F7E:C7A1:DF2E (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm wondering what the impetus is behind the stylistic choice to put the 'So-and-so saids' before what they say, rather than the more standard, after what they say? It makes it look like notes for a report or something, not a novel. Anyway, I wouldn't worry about what the other BoN is going on about, the writing is nothing spectacular but it's functional enough. You can always go back and change things, but you need to get the bare bones done. Don't do any 're-writing' until you have the whole thing in the can. Otherwise you'll just keep spinning your wheels. You've already put yourself at a major disadvantage by mentioning it here at all. According to some psychology study if you talk about what you're planning to do you're far less likely to do it than if you don't because talking about it satisfies the urge you had to create it in the first place. And that's a phenomenon I've personally experienced several times...2A0D:BBC7:0:0:F816:3EFF:FE0B:181B (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- And, as I have said before, the RW Saloon Bar is not the best place for discussing story-writing skills. There are plenty of groups elsewhere which will help - constructive criticism/concrit might be appropriate.
- Also - read, read, read fiction (including eg fanfic), see what you find enjoyable and what a turnoff (as distinct from 'your taste, my taste - not everybody cares for romcoms, war fiction, Dead Dove etc). Get a beta or several/swap such services with other writers etc. Anna Livia (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
“Mr. President. We are on the verge of a global pandemic” said Doctor Shane Walsh of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. President Jonas Brach replied, “What do we know about the pathogen”? Doctor Walsh answered, “The thing is, this pathogen cannot be identified. It does not fit into any category”. President Brach asked, “How much will this affect my reelection campaign”?
Doctor Walsh gave a stone cold look as he asked, “Are you serious”? The President responded, “I want to get a second term. I need to know how much this will impact my campaign”. Marta Helga, the liaison from the World Health Organization interjected, “Mister President, this is a very serious situation. We have outbreaks of this disease in Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, Jordan, Syria including occupied Golan Heights, Iraq, Iran, Greece, Upper Macedonia Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. My colleagues and bosses from the World Health Organization have declared this a global epidemic”. President Brach asked, “If I hold campaign rallies in the near future, how many people will contract the pathogen”. Doctor Walsh gave a frustrated sigh, “We don’t know enough about the pathogen to give an accurate assessment on its spread. We believe that it is airborne considering its rapid spread across the Middle East and Eastern Europe”. President Brach stated, “I will take precautions for my reelection rallies. Everyone will wear masks”. Marta said, “It would be better to cancel them altogether”. President Brach snorted, “I have an election to win. I will not give into fear mongering”. The President stopped talking so the others could go through the information. Doctor Walsh asked Marta, “So what has your team figured out so far”? Marta said, “We do know that it invades the brain like Rabies. It causes all the glands in the brain to hemorrhage. The hippocampus shuts down. Organ failure follows immediately afterwards. Death happens within minutes of the organs failing”. President Brach shouted, “So what do we do now”?! Doctor Walsh stated, “I recommend that we shut down all borders immediately”. Marta added, “I agree with a border shut down. There is a chance to stop the spread of the pathogen to other countries”. President Brach shouted, “The economy is already suffering! We cannot lose tourist dollars”! Doctor Walsh retorted, “People will die if it continues to spread. We cannot afford to have a pandemic disease spreading across the country”. The room was extremely tense; the President was not listening to reason. Ten minutes passed and Marta finally spoke, “I would strongly recommend pandemic protocols. Border closures, flight cancellations, school closure and quarantine of infected people”. President Brach asked Marta, “When do the symptoms show up”? Marta replied, “It does not cause symptoms unless a person is already deathly sick. That is when the pathogen activates”. The President thought about it and said, “So it only affects people who are dying from a disease”? Doctor Walsh said, “We hardly know anything about it. We don’t even know what it does”.
President Brach said, “If it only affects people that are already sick then there is no need for declaring a state of emergency. I think that I have heard enough. I will continue my reelection campaign. The country will function as normal”. Marta slammed her fist on the table and shouted, “Neither of us said it was harmless! We are saying that we don’t know enough! There is not a lot known about it”! President Brach laughed, “Doctor Helga, go back to Geneva”; the President turned to Doctor Walsh and said, “Return to Atlanta. You are not needed now if there is no risk”. —
I changed the intro where the President is more worried about being in power instead of worrying about what is good for the country. I am thinking of adding a Gnostic twist where the President is being used by the Demiurge to make humanity suffer. Not many modern works of zombie fiction have supernatural elements. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Clothes lifespan?[edit]
A low-stakes question. Is there any site or anything which details the reasonable lifespan of clothing items, such as socks and shoes? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that's going to have a lot of variables.
- Purpose of clothing? I mean labor clothes, for construction, landscaping, auto work, and other heavy labor intensive occupations are going to need very different materials and construction from sportswear or officewear, and again from formal wear or costuming or military uniforms or... there's a wide range to take into account.
- Location of use? Because I can't help but think that the environment will have an effect as well. Alaska ain't Hawaii ain't Georgia ain't Estonia ain't Japan ain't South Africa ain't... you get the idea.
- Applicable customs? I mean, depending on national customs, ethnic culture, religious rules and the like, restrictions and preferences regarding materials, styles, and such are going to vary also.
- Economic variables? Look up the "Vimes Boot Theory of Economics" sometime, that says it far better than I can.
- A site that can take all of that into account? Honestly, I have my doubts about that. But if I'm wrong, and the site is somehow reliable, then I will happily stand corrected. Kencolt (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I suspect it's a bit simpler than that. Take active footwear; the thumb rule is you can expect 500mi out of a 'decent enough' pair, which sounds a lot until you remember an moderately active person (for example, warehouse workers) can clock that up in about six months. The issue being, the shoe loses it's support capacity before it falls apart. Which is an issue if you grew up poor and were taught to wear them past this.
- Another key issue is that a lot of the advice is time based, which is clearly stupid - a pair of shoes worn once a week clearly is going to 'last longer' than one used daily. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- https://youtu.be/Qx0huz6TiLo?feature=shared I have worn Adidas Sambas for now over half my life. A pair of shoes lasts me 4 years, I would say on average, and they lace very well to give me strong arch support. I have some retired shirts because they have some emotional value to me, based on whether I picked them up from a basement show or got them at a protest, but I have worn my Adidas to work, on hikes, I had one get salted by the ocean because I didn't respect how fast tides could move the only time I've seen an ocean. It's a correct shoe for me, technically an 'indoor soccer' shoe, and they last for years even as much as I put them through. I have an old pair that is coming apart that I slip on, for small shit like going for a cigarette. But for 20 years, Adidas Sambas have been everything short of my dress shoes, and I mean, I've only had like four or five pairs. I have shoes that I can wear to a funeral, And I have a funny story about buying those, but they are tucked away for the occasion.Torrent (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Another key issue is that a lot of the advice is time based, which is clearly stupid - a pair of shoes worn once a week clearly is going to 'last longer' than one used daily. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Completely off-topic, but I recommend reading "The royal Inca tunic: a biography of an Andean masterpiece" for the story of a special sort of object (completely under-studied compared to European royal objects). It's a big public book by an author who specialised on this subject and has done research for multiple years on it. The writing is fun to read, and it reads more like a detective novel than a history book (but it is written by an expert nonetheless). 2A01:599:A1B:8681:6199:A23E:B472:219 (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
“Epstein was a Republican actually” is the biggest revisionist history I’ve seen the left do in years[edit]
![]() |
---|
Do these people on the Left change history when it’s convenient for them? They (the mainstream media) are notorious for revisionist history and think it’s okay when they do it. Do they not know he donated more money to Democrats than Republicans? Stone Android (talk)<
|
What's the upper limit of "luck" for intelligence?[edit]
Let's say you have a group of people whose average IQ is 130. But IQ is more than just "how good your brain-genes are", it's also your upbringing, your nutrition, education, childhood diseases, and so forth. This population includes people who have a "genetic IQ" of 120 who got "lucky" in terms of upbringing, the people with "genetic 130" who had no luck, and people with "genetic 140s" who got unlucky. But because there are far, far more "genetic 120s who got lucky" than "genetic 140s who got unlucky", the average "genetic IQ" of this population is going to be much less than 130.
But what is the limit of this "luck"? Going downward, it's incredibly easy to abuse a child into having a low IQ. Going upward is harder. No matter how much education, nutrition, early development or whathaveyou you do, you will not be able to make a PhD-level physicist out of a kid with a "genetic IQ" of 100. But hard work and education can get that "genetic 100 IQ child" to perform and think at the level of a 105 IQ person. The question is, what is the most that upbringing and so forth can add to your IQ? CorruptUser 19:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- IQ scores are far more about education than they are about any fixed genetic thing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- IQ covers many areas rather than the sum of a group of texts (which change over time) - many of us have areas where 'we see the patterns without having to think it through' and others that are the reverse; there are other areas which are a combination of 'intrinsic ability and training', and 'ability, training, and context' (if you are musically inclined your path will depend in part upon what musical instruments you have access to, or not). Anna Livia (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- I was actually diagnosed as "intellectually gifted" as a child, though I'd rather not state my actual IQ. As I said once before, it's mostly a party trick, at least for me, so having a higher IQ didn't make a lot of difference in my life, and I sort of blame it for my low self-esteem. My upbringing was... Very good overall? I guess? My parents and other relatives were very present during my childhood and they would always give me books whenever I asked them. But that was also the case for my sister, and while I'd say she's quite smart, she doesn't have an IQ as high as mine. My guess is that if you are an outlier, then luck is more important. But for most day-to-day business, then nurtuting is more important than nature. That said, I personally find IQ a rather uninteresting form of measuring intelligence. My father is definitely smarter than me, even if, as far as I know, he doesn't have a higher IQ. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- IIRC, IQ is 50-80% heritable. So more genetics than "luck". But my question is really what's the "max" that the "perfect" upbringing could add? CorruptUser 22:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- It seems that a controlled upbringing can improve ones IQ score. This seems obvious because there are a number of mental habits that would contribute to improved test scores. For example, don't review your work, it takes too much time; a well-rested and nourished participant will avoid daydreaming. But the trouble with answering your question is there is no consensus on the answer. The mechanisms involved in producing such an improvement are not as yet completely determined. I would add that the ability to improve ones score in an IQ test may only represent an ability to improve one's ability to perform the testing procedure. This would not necessarily account for a change in IQ, but rather an improvement in test taking skills. Zatoichi (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sure you're ready for this, but IQ is a fucking stupid metric. Intelligence is not inherently broad as an IQ test. I mean, who are you worried about? I scored 33 on the ACT, and I still do dumb shit and need time to learn new skills. I work alongside people who have done the job for longer than I have, and they might not be as clever or quick or well read as me in other situations, but they know how to do the job and I am not afraid or proud, I ask them what I should do when I don't know. Asking about IQ numbers is dumb, you must work with people who have never even taken the ACT or SAT or ASVAB, scoring high on any of those doesn't mean you've got inherent value. This question is probably coming from a weird valuation of racism, just smoked by classism, not asking about access to education. I was born to a family that lived in an apartment, we moved to a mobile home before I could speak, we moved again to a real house. My IQ didn't change from one home to the other. But in high school, I dated a girl from a different school, and she asked me how much money was in my college fund. I told her I didn't have a college fund. We got in a silly argument because she refused to believe parents wouldn't put money away towards a college fund. I don't like the question, because it's like numbers can explain humanity, and I don't like entertaining the question. IQ doesn't matter, it's what you do with your brain that matters, value extends to ability, but also valuing people as people ineherently is praxis. It's up to the 130 and above to get over themselves, there are incredibly whip-smart, funny, kind, friendly, sometimes smarter, funnier, and friendlier than I am, people out there who wouldn't score very high on an IQ test. They are still the real people out there. I've never liked being in a room where everyone wants to prove how much smarter they are than anyone else. Torrent (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- The nature/nurture debate is obsolete, the only intelligence researchers who are still pushing it are the hereditarianists, who represent a very small fraction of intelligence researchers, but you are no longer allowed to talk about this at RW, so I won't. The rest of the academic world of intelligence research is well aware that genetic expression of intelligence is determined by environmental factors, so a demarcation between genetic and environment is meaningless. If RW wants to morph into Unz Review-lite, that's up to you all. This discussion would fit right in, this comment excluded...2A0D:BBC7:0:0:F816:3EFF:FE0B:181B (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- But you are no longer allowed to talk about this. Talk about, we'll see. Don't be a coward. Torrent (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, hard work is important, and yes, an average Joe who works hard will run circles around the smart kid who slacked off, yes IQ has flaws, but IQ is pretty much THE most replicable stat in all of psychology. It's a sensitive topic for numerous reasons, but that doesn't make it untrue. CorruptUser 19:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- 'I will always choose a lazy person to do a difficult job because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it'. Bill Gates [allegedly].
- But you are no longer allowed to talk about this. Talk about, we'll see. Don't be a coward. Torrent (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- The nature/nurture debate is obsolete, the only intelligence researchers who are still pushing it are the hereditarianists, who represent a very small fraction of intelligence researchers, but you are no longer allowed to talk about this at RW, so I won't. The rest of the academic world of intelligence research is well aware that genetic expression of intelligence is determined by environmental factors, so a demarcation between genetic and environment is meaningless. If RW wants to morph into Unz Review-lite, that's up to you all. This discussion would fit right in, this comment excluded...2A0D:BBC7:0:0:F816:3EFF:FE0B:181B (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sure you're ready for this, but IQ is a fucking stupid metric. Intelligence is not inherently broad as an IQ test. I mean, who are you worried about? I scored 33 on the ACT, and I still do dumb shit and need time to learn new skills. I work alongside people who have done the job for longer than I have, and they might not be as clever or quick or well read as me in other situations, but they know how to do the job and I am not afraid or proud, I ask them what I should do when I don't know. Asking about IQ numbers is dumb, you must work with people who have never even taken the ACT or SAT or ASVAB, scoring high on any of those doesn't mean you've got inherent value. This question is probably coming from a weird valuation of racism, just smoked by classism, not asking about access to education. I was born to a family that lived in an apartment, we moved to a mobile home before I could speak, we moved again to a real house. My IQ didn't change from one home to the other. But in high school, I dated a girl from a different school, and she asked me how much money was in my college fund. I told her I didn't have a college fund. We got in a silly argument because she refused to believe parents wouldn't put money away towards a college fund. I don't like the question, because it's like numbers can explain humanity, and I don't like entertaining the question. IQ doesn't matter, it's what you do with your brain that matters, value extends to ability, but also valuing people as people ineherently is praxis. It's up to the 130 and above to get over themselves, there are incredibly whip-smart, funny, kind, friendly, sometimes smarter, funnier, and friendlier than I am, people out there who wouldn't score very high on an IQ test. They are still the real people out there. I've never liked being in a room where everyone wants to prove how much smarter they are than anyone else. Torrent (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- It seems that a controlled upbringing can improve ones IQ score. This seems obvious because there are a number of mental habits that would contribute to improved test scores. For example, don't review your work, it takes too much time; a well-rested and nourished participant will avoid daydreaming. But the trouble with answering your question is there is no consensus on the answer. The mechanisms involved in producing such an improvement are not as yet completely determined. I would add that the ability to improve ones score in an IQ test may only represent an ability to improve one's ability to perform the testing procedure. This would not necessarily account for a change in IQ, but rather an improvement in test taking skills. Zatoichi (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- IIRC, IQ is 50-80% heritable. So more genetics than "luck". But my question is really what's the "max" that the "perfect" upbringing could add? CorruptUser 22:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- I was actually diagnosed as "intellectually gifted" as a child, though I'd rather not state my actual IQ. As I said once before, it's mostly a party trick, at least for me, so having a higher IQ didn't make a lot of difference in my life, and I sort of blame it for my low self-esteem. My upbringing was... Very good overall? I guess? My parents and other relatives were very present during my childhood and they would always give me books whenever I asked them. But that was also the case for my sister, and while I'd say she's quite smart, she doesn't have an IQ as high as mine. My guess is that if you are an outlier, then luck is more important. But for most day-to-day business, then nurtuting is more important than nature. That said, I personally find IQ a rather uninteresting form of measuring intelligence. My father is definitely smarter than me, even if, as far as I know, he doesn't have a higher IQ. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- IQ covers many areas rather than the sum of a group of texts (which change over time) - many of us have areas where 'we see the patterns without having to think it through' and others that are the reverse; there are other areas which are a combination of 'intrinsic ability and training', and 'ability, training, and context' (if you are musically inclined your path will depend in part upon what musical instruments you have access to, or not). Anna Livia (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- A 'lazy genius' will often not only work out the 'most efficient method' of doing a job, they will often have ideas on how to speed it up even more and point out BS/make-work sections which could be eliminated to nil end effect. Those on the more Machiavellian end are often more skilled at 'delegating upwards/sidewards' their own tasks, works out the best 'bang/buck' tasks and tries to keep to them [ie the tasks which have the best ratio of effort/result] and learns 'what is really important around here' [for example, in some places 'quality of work' isn't that important, but pleasing the boss(es) is]. Our 'average workhorse' is much more likely to simply plod through all these tasks without much thought - meaning that unless they're rote tasks with not much variation with measurable output [data entry, digging holes, stacking shelves] they'll be beaten by the lazy genius.
- Sometimes, no amount of 'hard work' can overcome obstacles if the plan/goal is either realistically or literally impossible. But this is usually never mentioned in schools. No, everything is achievable through more willpower and effort. It's the way to constantly blame failure - oh, if only you had tried harder you would have made the football team etc. This is perhaps one of the best traits of the 'lazy genius'; they work out quite quick that Boxer's maxim only leads to the glue factory and there's no point trying to run against their own grain - so they focus their efforts where their strengths lie, thus looking even better in relief. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Hamas and Israel.[edit]
I have come to realize something about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. One side is pure evil and systemically uses human shields, kidnaps innocent hostages and subjects them to rape camps, and murders countless civilians without a care in the world, and the other side of course, believes in Allah.
I am sickened by the world's governments just standing by and refusing to do a thing about the genocide and apartheid the Israeli government does, instead of defending the weak and innocent they do nothing as Israel continues to countless innocents whom done nothing wrong but be born in Palestine. What good is the United Nations if they refuse to fucking do anything? All this criticism and condemnations of various Palestinian militant groups while Israel continues to do the same things on a much larger scale and without anyone giving a shit. A somebody. (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Given that a lot of leftists overwhelmingly support Hamas, as it's a left-wing, anti-imperialist organization, this isn't a surprising take from anyone these days. Ribber (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hamas is a right-wing nationalist group. The dominant left-wing organization in Palestinian politics is the PLO. I would also contend that "a lot of leftists support Hamas" is a bullshit strawman of the pro-Palestine movement. You can nutpick all you want, but being pro-Palestine does not equate to being pro-Hamas. Antares (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think that the agonizing consequences of the Gaza invasion can be put into an explanatory frame, sad though it may be. Unicef tells us that more than 50,000 children have been killed so far. Why does this not make an impact on world leaders and force them to do something? The number of casualties in Gaza, by itself, is appalling. There is no apologizing for the needless fatalities there. But Unicef also estimates the number of children under the age of five who die every year to be something like five million. Ideally these deaths would all be prevented. This is not to argue that "people die, what can you do?" Rather, I am pointing out that saving children is a never ending task, and saving the children of Gaza is not a bad place to begin. But it is an endless task.Zatoichi (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Very few things are a truly endless task. Doing the work to prevent those five million deaths will not be an endless task. Things only seem like endless tasks if you fucking refuse to do them. A somebody. (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- I do not think many 'leftists' support Hamas, but I do think it's got to the stage (at least in the Anglosphere) where an overwhelming majority have a) a pro-Palestinian tilt and b) loathe the right-wing hardcore Zionism of the Ben-Gvir stamp. However, there is an upswing of Islamists (of which a lot are at least neutral to Hamas) tagging along to these protests etc and a bit (not hugely but enough to be noticed) of leftist politicians etc not willing to call Hamas' shit out due to not wanting to alienate a voting bloc. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- A March 2025 Gallup poll found 33% of US adults sympathize more with Palestinians against 46% for Israelis. We don't have many politicians that I would classify as leftist to begin with, apart from the lip-service category. I presume there are some. Saving Humanity is an endless task. That doesn't mean folks shouldn't do what they can. Most people don't know what to do, and don't believe they have the time to do anything if they did know what to do. It's hard to believe that the West is unable or unwilling to prevent the disaster that has been unfolding before us in Gaza. And yet it appears that it is so. Zatoichi (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have no sympathy for the two groups of right-wing religiously/ethnically inspired politicians who are responsible for this. I have enormous sympathy for the starving people. Politics apart - you only need to be human to have sympathy for these people and want to help them.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- A new poll shows only 32% of Americans support Israel’s actions in Gaza. This falls to only 8% for Democrats. As to 'why aren't the West doing more'; I am going to cynically say a) they cannot do much without American cooperation [and that ain't coming, period] and b) they don't want to fuck off the Orange One when they know they are going to have deploy everything they've got to stop him throwing Ukraine under the Russian bus because Putin batted his eyelashes at him again. Why expend precious leverage on a cause which everyone knows will not do anything? Even as moves as mild as 'recognise a Palestinian state at the UN' [the theoretical state that is, not an actual govt or anything] is fucking off Trump and co and when you're dealing with someone as touchy and micro-skinned as him that is a risk. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have no sympathy for the two groups of right-wing religiously/ethnically inspired politicians who are responsible for this. I have enormous sympathy for the starving people. Politics apart - you only need to be human to have sympathy for these people and want to help them.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is actually a rather large contingent of Islamists who despise Hamas, because they view the nationalist politics of Hamas as being fundamentally anti-Islamic. That, and Hamas is willing to make nice with Iran, which is a major boogeyman for Sunni Islamists. Antares (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- As others have said, one can be pro-Palestine without being pro-Hamas. Hamas is to Palestine as the Mafia is to Italy. 71.1.227.139 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- A March 2025 Gallup poll found 33% of US adults sympathize more with Palestinians against 46% for Israelis. We don't have many politicians that I would classify as leftist to begin with, apart from the lip-service category. I presume there are some. Saving Humanity is an endless task. That doesn't mean folks shouldn't do what they can. Most people don't know what to do, and don't believe they have the time to do anything if they did know what to do. It's hard to believe that the West is unable or unwilling to prevent the disaster that has been unfolding before us in Gaza. And yet it appears that it is so. Zatoichi (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- I do not think many 'leftists' support Hamas, but I do think it's got to the stage (at least in the Anglosphere) where an overwhelming majority have a) a pro-Palestinian tilt and b) loathe the right-wing hardcore Zionism of the Ben-Gvir stamp. However, there is an upswing of Islamists (of which a lot are at least neutral to Hamas) tagging along to these protests etc and a bit (not hugely but enough to be noticed) of leftist politicians etc not willing to call Hamas' shit out due to not wanting to alienate a voting bloc. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Very few things are a truly endless task. Doing the work to prevent those five million deaths will not be an endless task. Things only seem like endless tasks if you fucking refuse to do them. A somebody. (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Here. Btw, this addresses the Ukraine war too, but I don't want to get barked at by NATO-fans. (both important sides are shit, USA and Russia, they are after Ukrainian primary commodities. Some people need a little time to get that though, apparently. The EU needs to leave NATO and stop being servile). New world (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- 'Leaving NATO' is a lot easier said than done. There's gonna be a lot of extra costs which are difficult to take. Take, for example, the Navy. To 'top to tail' replace the Americans the Europeans are going to need a fully-working substitute for GPS/sonar, sufficient surface ships to adequately defend our seas [Arctic, Baltic, Mediterranean and Black], a major 'fleet in being' sitting somewhere on the GIUK gap to deter the Russian Northern Fleet, a blue-water capability to allow out-of-theatre deployments [such as commerce protection, 'imperial legacy' commitments etc] and lastly, our SSBN forces. At the moment only the Brits and French know how to do this shit, and for a lot of this is 'not enough' and is often tied too strongly to the US [and only the French if this is done as an 'EU thing' and steadfastly shut the Brits out]. It's been estimated it would take 5-10 years to 'replace the US' if they left NATO but I think it's more like 15 years. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Is it ok for me to do a "dumb gab post of the day" on the saloon bar?[edit]
The requirements to be counted as a "dumb post": Don't be a bible quote or a video of animals doing something cute.
Don't just be a link to a different post.
If it has the word "Khazarian", "Rothschilds", or (if the Gab Nazi stops trying) "Jew"/"K*ke", it has extra points.
If it is from ALLOD (Satire network on FB), it gets a lot of points.
These seem like some good rules (if the mods/admins allow it). ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- It sounds like a terrible idea. But there are no rules (apart from the obvious) on what can be posted here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- Who even pays any attention to GAB? 71.1.227.139 (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Mélenchon's interview with Verso edition house[edit]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pLmt5qwvzb0&pp=ygUJTUVMRU5DSE9O New world (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Categories cleanup[edit]
Several pages feel very bloated from having either redundant and/or categories not sourced on the page. Such as a person who had Catholics and Christians categories on their page (???) and it’s very confusing. This isn’t a difficult project as several users have cleaned up pages with too many categories. 2607:FB90:390B:8B90:2551:6266:60F3:6588 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's true. The Catholic/Christian cleanup has been suggested before. As a rule-of-thumb, every page that appears in a subcategory of a category should not also directly appear in the category. This is not always a straightforward fix since some sidebar templates automatically insert a category. Bongolian (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Is Psychiatry going to become dominant?[edit]
First of all, I'm not talking about the United States, that country has always been very weird and, frankly, socially artificial. Psychiatry has been getting more and more important for the last couple of years where I live, and it's scaring me. I tried psycho-therapy once, and it's just not made for me: I hate talking like a disgusting Prussian functionary who thinks he's super-important and makes a drama out of every little insignificant shit in his life.
I feel like a couple of years ago, most people agreed to hate over-confident academics, functionaries, and capitalist businessmen with me, but now I see so many ppl (esp. on TV, though) arguing for more control, control of "addicts", control of children, control of "disorderd" ppl (most times, normal ppl) etc. Don't get me wrong, psychiatry helps some groups of ppl, but those people are, frankly, either very sensitive or downright "insane". Most people, even a little eccentric (like me), are normal and simply don't need the help proposed by psychiatrists. I'm shocked and appalled that children that don't greet their teachers are being put into state-funded webs of different "specialists". Similarly, kids with slight language-problems are being basically forced (otherwise it's "neglect" — I wonder what those kids would think of all of this if they were just a little older) to see language-specialists, Logopäden (I don't know the English word). Oh, and psychiatrists diagnose them as toddlers with "disorders" (that's way too young). All this to ensure that they grow up to become what used to be a hated group of ppl, Prussian functionaries (that's how we call them here). Alcohol is the absolute enemy now (and an excuse for problems caused by politics even), how dare someone give it to children (I'm not saying it's good, but I got my first sip as a baby, my first glass as a pre-teen, and was allowed to consume from age 14; "worse" for older family-members, but no problems in the family nor in befriended families… I know, that's personal experience, live with it).
I know how anthropological, archeological etc. work functions, and from that, I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) Psychiatry's the same: It's taking a sample with a certain methodology, and trying to come to the most reasonable conclusion(s). Neurology is way more scientific anyways. I know psychiatrists study a lot: they follow the usual medical studies (respect for that), but then they probably spend useless time studying all the stupid "studies" conducted previously by Pr. Dr. Dr. Stuck-in and Dr. I'm-intelligent (same for anthropology and to a lesser degree history, but there it's really legitimate). The problem's that studies with thinking human beings are pretty hard to do: if uninformed, these ppl are just being annoyed in their daily lives, and the psychiatrist might ignore specific situations/feelings/mood-swings altering ppls behaviour; if informed, the study's useless anyway (what idiot participates in a psychiatric study instead of going on with their life?). Most of these doctors are just interested in imposing their very functionary-like worldview, making it "mainstream", changing previous norms and making ppl forget about the past.
Worse: Archeologists are more careful about analysing their results in any specific way than psychiatrists, when it should be the other way around. Is this going to continue until everyone tries to be a "perfect" (asshole) "functioning" person, out of fear of getting diagnosed with any disorder? Also, is there no criticism from anthropologists on psychiatry? Core ideas of psychiatry (human greed, individualism) are rejected by anthropology as results of European, mercantilist thinking, absent from other societies (I studied pre-Hispanic and early colonial history, that's how I know about this). 80.187.71.179 (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, what do you want out of this? Confirmation that you're a big strong man? You don't need my approval AND you're asking for it. it's alright, we all feel feelings, I think ignoring them instead of facing them in the incredible churning of time and emotion is bad for you. But if you can do it yourself, and it takes practice, you don't really need somebody else to tell you how you feel. I will be at work and just shout to myself 'I am frustrated!' Because I know when I'm frustrated, and then I get over it and I don't carry that weight at the end of the work day. I learned it alone, I got some good suggestions that I use, but I doubt any psych major is going to unlock anything in me I am not already searching. A lot of people get raging mad over easily solved shit, i can notice and trust myself to work towards a goal. I can't convince other people, exactly. Leading by example is a lonely road, and you can't take it hard when people get to the hardest parts and bail.Torrent (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm not "ignoring my feelings", I'm doing what my feelings want me to do (otherwise I wouldn't post this), and they don't want me to stupidly think about them too long in every-day situations. I'm not a fasco, it's not about being a "big strong man", it's about not being "perfection" about literally everything. I know it sounds like I'm an old fart, but I'm scared people won't be living "normal" (the "normal" I lived) lives anymore in the future (I know 'normal' is super-vague, but I can't find a better word). I'd like input from ppl I don't know on wether or not they like this new way of "solving" problems, if they feel like it helps them or not even, and that's why I made a post on an internet forum (aren't they there for this?). I know this site is science-related, I discovered it on Wikipedia, and I'm thinking it's appropriate here. Dear regards, 2A01:599:A18:3F06:D40C:768F:C0E7:DDD (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Back in the day, discipline took care of behavior. When one realizes there are severe consequences for punching someone because they are annoying, you learn NOT to do that and to find other ways to channel your emotions. 71.1.227.139 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm not "ignoring my feelings", I'm doing what my feelings want me to do (otherwise I wouldn't post this), and they don't want me to stupidly think about them too long in every-day situations. I'm not a fasco, it's not about being a "big strong man", it's about not being "perfection" about literally everything. I know it sounds like I'm an old fart, but I'm scared people won't be living "normal" (the "normal" I lived) lives anymore in the future (I know 'normal' is super-vague, but I can't find a better word). I'd like input from ppl I don't know on wether or not they like this new way of "solving" problems, if they feel like it helps them or not even, and that's why I made a post on an internet forum (aren't they there for this?). I know this site is science-related, I discovered it on Wikipedia, and I'm thinking it's appropriate here. Dear regards, 2A01:599:A18:3F06:D40C:768F:C0E7:DDD (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm nor clear about what this person is on about. Historically, when people did fucked-up things, usually decided by consensus, there was some sort of punishment imposed upon them. Then, after the enlightenment, some started to think that those people were not bad, but somehow disabled by some kind of condition. So we stopped chaining-up, hanging or burning them alive for their indecencies, and put them in asylums. I suppose that could be considered some sort of improvement. So there is the idea of a normal range of behavior. This range varies over time and culture. But it, outlying behavior, is difficult to define, like not "having a nice time." The act of presenting a common social construct is a good way to view sane behavior. There will always be those who will say you are doing it wrong, in the course of acting out your life. Some are your neighbors, teachers, psychiatrists, speech therapists, police, me...Zatoichi (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Everyone is coming into contact with psychiatry today, everything is "folie et déraison" now. Don't get me wrong, it helps ppl, but that's "unreasonable" or "insane" individuals or ppl who can accept the idea, but it's not going to help most of the "addicts" you meet in everyday life. I'm talking about the last 20 years retrospectively, and especially about the last 5. Where I live and grew up, it wasn't, like in the USA, "mainstream" to try to push norms into children and adults for some time. Call it "barbarian", but we just didn't care, and I am convinced this was and is the correct way of dealing with things. If psychiatry was a real natural science, which describes physically observable diseases (though maybe from the inside only visible), and described these diseases in a dry and professional manner, without personal involvement or care, I could accept it as serious and legitimate. But it just takes "behavioural" patterns (bullshit) and makes them "disorders" (the excuse for not calling it "disease" and admitting they want a very large amount of ppl to be "insane" now). Ppl have the right "not to function", though, children too, making this entire "disorder" thing bullshit. Imagine two patients: both are diagnosed with Yiomic disorder; does that mean they are somehow "linked"? Absolutely not. As a leftist, it's even more difficult to accept this: To me, there is nothing between different and equal. Humans are different and equal simultaneously, there are no natural "sub-groups" to "humanity" (and even less "percent points" of this or that), only social organisations and ways of growing up (cultures), which are social constructions. Sure, some people live with handicapping conditions, but those ppl are just like the other humans, only with a disabling condition to be fought, including the real mental illnesses we know (not the "personality disorder" stuff you hear about). Being a specific "type" of character shouldn't be described nor "empirically" identified as a "problem", no matter how "irresponsible" a doctor and his statistics might consider it (bc it's just the latter two in the end, not absolute truth). Considering psychiatry is now deciding how future generations will "have" to grow up (in an "ordered" manner, that's for sure), it would be important to either support or criticise it hardly, instead of not caring. 2A01:599:A21:8545:E891:9DF7:6A8E:4A3C (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I guess you've described the problem you have with psychiatry. I'm not going to extend my reach for three reasons. one, I am not a trained psychologist. Two, I do not know you on a personal or emotional level. And three, I'm not sending you a bill. You're fine to dump this complaint and I'm allowed to tell you I don't really care, especially when you want emotions and physiology to be a hard science like mathematics. I mean, let's take a hard look at numbers. Has Asperger's cases increased because we've got more people with Aspergers or because we are better at recognizing it? That weird kid who can only talk about Star Wars lore but is actually on all other accounts fine, but can't manage themselves because they're too fixated on Star Wars? Neurodivergwnt, and you can't beat it into them or out of them, or whatever you think 'used to work.'. Now, people with fetal alcohol syndrome are different. They have an inhibited ability to understand causal relationships. I really doubt fas numbers have risen since the understanding that drinking Alcohol during pregnancy has an effect on the fetus, but I think we are better equipped to recognize the telltale signs. So what, again, do you want out of this? A hard agreement or a big debunking? It's still science, psychology is a frontier with no fixed points, all you've said is you don't like it, and you feel like it's turning adults into babies or some shit. I'm sorry, but some of the most babyish adults, ones prone to temper tantrums and overwhelming lack of empathy are people who refuse To believe psychiatry, therapy, or counselling has any value. I'm saying this because I believe what you've told me, get some perspective. Look at it as not what worked for you, but what must work for the people you, in no uncertain terms, rely on. If you want me to answer your shit on your terms, sorry, people don't work that way. so I guess take this as a hard criticism, if that's how you need to qualify it. By your own standards, it would be cool to me if you would get some perspective. Otherwise, I don't really care. Torrent (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- There are legitimate criticisms that can be made about psychiatry without delving into full-on mental illness denial. Antares (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- First of all, thank you for taking the time and energy to respond to my comments. I searched for answers from professionals or knowledgeable ppl regarding future perspectives, but I think I'm better trying elsewhere for that. @Antares, my criticism isn't on the very real and observable mental illnesses that disable the everyday lives of ppl, but of so-called "personality disorders", most times "mild". @Torrent My "solution" to "disorder" or "addiction" is, if possible (!), not caring and staying happy with your friends and family instead. Note I don't have any problem with other ppl finding psychiatry helpful, that's (thankfully) normal by now, but I do have a problem with psychiatry forcing its worldview on society, even though we pretty much know it most likely isn't true (at least its worldview is off a lot from the true reality most of us will never know, unless we somehow manage to understand the human brain in the next 30 years). It's just some ppl who want to help others who got the idea of studying "behavioural patterns" in order to find solutions. Most study results are fairly obvious to most ppl anyway, yet many ppl don't come to the same conclusion the one conducting a study will come to (but the conclusion of the latter might as well be "truth" to ppl who innocently read a news article about them. "Oh, that nice scientist from Spain has empirical evidence for nicotine being… bad for my psyche!!! And they say I have to stop???!!!"). Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post. My question concerns more future potential trajectories of psychiatry, not its current validity (it's valid as long as it doesn't claim to hold the truth to humans' emotions that everyone has to follow or they're "unreasonable"). 2A01:599:A2A:57D7:114C:F024:AA78:76D8 (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- You could try writing more coherently. You'd probably get more responses, and there'd be less chance for confusion. Antares (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I improved a lot (esp. through the internet and learning apps like duolingo), but I was previously part of an endangered species: non-anglophones… Sorry for any misunderstandings/grammar errors/weird phrasing. But, I do think that from the start I was fairly clear (Firs post: "is this going to continue […] ?" or not, and generally any insights, incl. the ones given already, are welcome obviously). 80.187.69.52 (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- You could try writing more coherently. You'd probably get more responses, and there'd be less chance for confusion. Antares (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- First of all, thank you for taking the time and energy to respond to my comments. I searched for answers from professionals or knowledgeable ppl regarding future perspectives, but I think I'm better trying elsewhere for that. @Antares, my criticism isn't on the very real and observable mental illnesses that disable the everyday lives of ppl, but of so-called "personality disorders", most times "mild". @Torrent My "solution" to "disorder" or "addiction" is, if possible (!), not caring and staying happy with your friends and family instead. Note I don't have any problem with other ppl finding psychiatry helpful, that's (thankfully) normal by now, but I do have a problem with psychiatry forcing its worldview on society, even though we pretty much know it most likely isn't true (at least its worldview is off a lot from the true reality most of us will never know, unless we somehow manage to understand the human brain in the next 30 years). It's just some ppl who want to help others who got the idea of studying "behavioural patterns" in order to find solutions. Most study results are fairly obvious to most ppl anyway, yet many ppl don't come to the same conclusion the one conducting a study will come to (but the conclusion of the latter might as well be "truth" to ppl who innocently read a news article about them. "Oh, that nice scientist from Spain has empirical evidence for nicotine being… bad for my psyche!!! And they say I have to stop???!!!"). Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post. My question concerns more future potential trajectories of psychiatry, not its current validity (it's valid as long as it doesn't claim to hold the truth to humans' emotions that everyone has to follow or they're "unreasonable"). 2A01:599:A2A:57D7:114C:F024:AA78:76D8 (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Everyone is coming into contact with psychiatry today, everything is "folie et déraison" now. Don't get me wrong, it helps ppl, but that's "unreasonable" or "insane" individuals or ppl who can accept the idea, but it's not going to help most of the "addicts" you meet in everyday life. I'm talking about the last 20 years retrospectively, and especially about the last 5. Where I live and grew up, it wasn't, like in the USA, "mainstream" to try to push norms into children and adults for some time. Call it "barbarian", but we just didn't care, and I am convinced this was and is the correct way of dealing with things. If psychiatry was a real natural science, which describes physically observable diseases (though maybe from the inside only visible), and described these diseases in a dry and professional manner, without personal involvement or care, I could accept it as serious and legitimate. But it just takes "behavioural" patterns (bullshit) and makes them "disorders" (the excuse for not calling it "disease" and admitting they want a very large amount of ppl to be "insane" now). Ppl have the right "not to function", though, children too, making this entire "disorder" thing bullshit. Imagine two patients: both are diagnosed with Yiomic disorder; does that mean they are somehow "linked"? Absolutely not. As a leftist, it's even more difficult to accept this: To me, there is nothing between different and equal. Humans are different and equal simultaneously, there are no natural "sub-groups" to "humanity" (and even less "percent points" of this or that), only social organisations and ways of growing up (cultures), which are social constructions. Sure, some people live with handicapping conditions, but those ppl are just like the other humans, only with a disabling condition to be fought, including the real mental illnesses we know (not the "personality disorder" stuff you hear about). Being a specific "type" of character shouldn't be described nor "empirically" identified as a "problem", no matter how "irresponsible" a doctor and his statistics might consider it (bc it's just the latter two in the end, not absolute truth). Considering psychiatry is now deciding how future generations will "have" to grow up (in an "ordered" manner, that's for sure), it would be important to either support or criticise it hardly, instead of not caring. 2A01:599:A21:8545:E891:9DF7:6A8E:4A3C (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is a very broad question. Dominant in what, in what country? In the United States, the Civil Rights Era rolled back many of the authoritarian excesses of psychiatry. There is political urge to put those things back, particularly as a way to "deal" with the homeless, but not the financial incentive. Hope isnt lost (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Trump and Putin Summit[edit]
What do you all make of it? 71.1.227.139 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I pity the interpreter who had to translate Trump's unfinished sentences into Russian.
- According to Trump they spent some time talking about how the previous election was "stolen". And Putin obviously agreed with him. Why not fan the flames of Trump's paranoia and belief he's a victim? It's all a plus for Putin. Though it seems to be an odd subject to send time on in an important summit.
- Putin obviously was the big winner in the end though as he got the international recognition he has been missing and polished Trumps' ego just enough to avoid further sanctions.
- I don't think Trump got anything out of it. He's has been touting his war-ending, deal-making skills and threatening more economic action. but it the end that was just more TACO.
- For Ukraine and the west in general - pretty much a nothing burger - unless more facts come out.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder how much this whole fiasco costed to the American taxpayer. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Putin clearly won this; got Trump back on his talking-points etc. There is a major risk that the Orange One has been convinced by the poison Czar that 'to be a great dealmaker' he now has to sell Zelenskyy a ludicrously shit 'deal' [ie give Putin everything he wants] and if he reasonably declines, must be bullied into submission. Thus the Euro 'troika' [UK/France/Germany] going with him to the Orange Palace - ideally, they will convince Trump they speak for all the other 25 members too, they are as one voice and they are strong enough to garner Trump's respect. Thinkpiece which convinced me; I used to run the Foreign Office. This is my advice for today’s extraordinary White House meeting. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's a very fair summary. Let's hope it works out like that.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not quite sure what to think of it, honestly. In contrast to “traditional” summits, which finalised long, prior negations at lower levels, “Trump summits” tend to be a lot of show and few, if any, concrete results, especially once his supposed “deals” are scrutinised and compared with existing arrangements.
- It's a very fair summary. Let's hope it works out like that.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Putin clearly won this; got Trump back on his talking-points etc. There is a major risk that the Orange One has been convinced by the poison Czar that 'to be a great dealmaker' he now has to sell Zelenskyy a ludicrously shit 'deal' [ie give Putin everything he wants] and if he reasonably declines, must be bullied into submission. Thus the Euro 'troika' [UK/France/Germany] going with him to the Orange Palace - ideally, they will convince Trump they speak for all the other 25 members too, they are as one voice and they are strong enough to garner Trump's respect. Thinkpiece which convinced me; I used to run the Foreign Office. This is my advice for today’s extraordinary White House meeting. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder how much this whole fiasco costed to the American taxpayer. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- For all the analyses of Trump parroting Putin’s talking points etc., that’s not really new, but a return to form for Trump after a brief and partial departure. It’s still unclear how Trump is going to make his supposed “deal” and make Ukraine and Russia, let alone the European powers and the EU go along with and adhere to it.
- Even more so, if Trump can’t simply throttle US support to make Ukraine lose outright on the battlefield, an approach which appears to be doubtful. This, it seems, is simply something a number of GOP Congress Critters are unwilling to support; not to mention that it will lessen Putin’s incentive for a “deal”, if he thinks he can salvage his reputation through such an outright battlefield victory.
- Another reason to be a bit cavalier depends on the interpretation of why Trump called this summit with Putin.
- Was it mainly one of the series of distractions from the Epstein criticism? Was it more Trump’s vain insistence on getting a Nobel Peace Prize?
- Was it a somewhat serious attempt at playing the “peacemaker President” (as opposed to the “forever war POTUSes”)?
- Was it Trump’s fetish for playing a “big man” alongside other “big men”, lording it over the “peasants” in the “small countries”?
- Or does Trump actually and fundamentally agree with Putin’s views (that Ukraine isn’t a “real” country and that Russia and other “grand empires” have special rights to gobble up adjacent territories and countries)?
- The degree to which these (or other) motivations are at play can radically change both the interpretations and likely results (if any) of this summit.
- Another reason to be a bit cavalier depends on the interpretation of why Trump called this summit with Putin.
- This is mainly because Trump doesn’t really have anything resembling a coherent foreign policy in the way this term is usually understood. Arguably, the same is true for most other policy areas in the Trump administration, which, combined with the appointment of incompetent sycophants to all key posts, is why his administration’s policies are so often incomprehensible, contradictory and arbitrary. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- As for the Guardian opinion piece, the problem is that it’s assuming that this kind of “deal” can (or should) be negotiated at this kind of abrupt “Trump summit” and that it also ignores whether such a “deal” is likely to be accepted (or at least tolerated or suffered) by a broad enough segment of Ukraine’s populace to actually get through domestic Ukrainian politics.
- This is mainly because Trump doesn’t really have anything resembling a coherent foreign policy in the way this term is usually understood. Arguably, the same is true for most other policy areas in the Trump administration, which, combined with the appointment of incompetent sycophants to all key posts, is why his administration’s policies are so often incomprehensible, contradictory and arbitrary. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- It may be that the real alternative is either to allow an almost total defeat of Ukraine (in which case a “deal” becomes rather pointless) or that none of the parties are yet at the point (if Ukraine’s major supporters are unwilling to more or less abandon the country to Putin’s tender mercy) where they’re actually willing to make the substantial compromises necessary vis-à-vis their current positions to reach any kind of agreement, let alone a “deal”. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't care if Biden or Trump is governing the United States, in the end they want Ukrainian primary materials, that is the same reason the United States might want to get after South America soon. The United States does not and will never act on moral considerations. The danger with the US far-right was that they might find an agreement with Putin ensuring both countries profit from Ukraine. Don't trust everything you hear on the news, especially on Trump "winning" or "loosing" with international disputes: Trumps new model of tributary capitalism seems to be working perfectly well with Europes governments. The Europeans still follow him on everything (and they buy American weaponry instead of French weapons to "boost the army"…). This is a humiliation for the European vassals (another one), especially the Germans. What's more: Bark at me all you want, this is a strategic conflict between the USA (not "the West") and Russia, and the first signs were visible in 2008 at Budapest (the aggression came from Russia, then, and its Russia's fault, but everyone knows Russia isn't reliable anyway, it would be nice to admit the "West" isn't either). Europe stupidly participated in this conflict, and the result is a new map of Europe (not the "European Union", it's just German Europe in the end, they pay for it and they ideologically lead it). Call me "defeatist", but the simple truth: Ukraine is more or less lost, either it gets destroyed or its independence is in shambles. France is the only European country that has any chance of assuring its defence, but that would be without Russia, China, Germany, the USA (the "EU" doesn't have the means nor the will). Putin will not do what Trump wants him to do, that is leave China alone. Now, the danger is that Putin will go after his old dreams of the Eastern bloc. And for Europe? No advantages, amazing! France has the ability to lead an alter-globalist, non-aligned worldview, but Macron (though restricted by the Mitterando-Gaullist politic inherent to French administration) is not much better than Merz with the USA when it comes to acts. New world (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- The thinkpiece isn't assuming 'a deal' can be cut here. I think it's a calculated gamble; to call Putin's bluff and play along with the assumption ['a deal can be reached somewhere'], make a big show of Europe/Ukraine managing to nail together a deal which they can just about accept, solid in the hope Putin vetoes it and then Trump blames him for that. Thus making Putin 'the problem'. At this moment in time, I think yes, a cease-fire a la Korea could realistically happen now, but not a peace treaty [Putin's not won enough to parade as a victory to justify the mountain range of dead Russians and lost kit, while Ukraine has not been comprehensively beaten yet].
- The issue with saying 'the American intervention was all about a resources grab' makes the assumption that Washington is actually that logical, realistic and forward-looking in thinking/goals and will set down somewhere it's cold-blooded raison d'état arguments before it's action(s) like I do when playing Supreme Ruler. Usually, it isn't; esp when it is not the instigator of the event. If we recall back in early '22, when Macron was trying to 'Putin-whisper', Biden was dallying on supplying Kyiv body armour while the two NATO members pushing for 'proper help' was in fact the British and Poles. If the Americans had been thirsting for rare earths at this point, they would have outright backed Kyiv then. Or further back in time. Trump's swipe for minerals was only mentioned this year, a kind of post-hoc lever to enrich [most likely] himself and a cabal of allies. Lastly, if they are undeveloped resources, having a revenue split isn't that unfair if they stumped up the development costs [qv: Saudi Arabian oil].
- What, you don't think the Quai d'Orsay aren't gonna be there alongside the British FO and German FFO etc in politely reminding the Ukrainians after the fighting is over 'who your friends were in '22' and coincidentally, wouldn't it be great in the reconstruction phase that EDF help with the powerplants, Siemens with the railways and Rio Tinto with the mines? France [or the British or Germans] have hardly had a record of 'ethical foreign relations' - from the acres of corruption the Brits slather around the Mid-East to French forces propping up African dictators for mineral wealth.
- Lastly, I think most of Europe is biting their tongue a lot right now with Trump. He's a complete and utter turd leading a country which for a long time was a very tarnished global policeman but in this second of time, we need him. The USA is the only main supplier of the level of arms Ukraine needs, they control the world banking system [which has allowed Russia to be frozen out of it], most Euro nations are dependent on the Americans for defence to some extent [kit etc] and only France has a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent. We can't kick our benefactor in the balls, however much they ask for it. At least, not until we have developed the means to break away from them... KarmaPolice (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Let's see… If we're right and you're wrong, it will be another time the same story as always. If we're wrong and you NATO-'leftists' are right, I will absolutely accept that I was too naive visavis Putin, an unknowing puppet, etc. New world (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Bluff-calling time. What would you do in this situation, hmm? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is a certain tragicomedy in seeing a certain subsection of the left going from some version of “Stop Biden from prolonging his proxy war in Ukraine” to suddenly trying to explain how they ended up on the same side as Trump, as he’s about to try to sell out Ukraine.
- Bluff-calling time. What would you do in this situation, hmm? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Let's see… If we're right and you're wrong, it will be another time the same story as always. If we're wrong and you NATO-'leftists' are right, I will absolutely accept that I was too naive visavis Putin, an unknowing puppet, etc. New world (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Lastly, I think most of Europe is biting their tongue a lot right now with Trump. He's a complete and utter turd leading a country which for a long time was a very tarnished global policeman but in this second of time, we need him. The USA is the only main supplier of the level of arms Ukraine needs, they control the world banking system [which has allowed Russia to be frozen out of it], most Euro nations are dependent on the Americans for defence to some extent [kit etc] and only France has a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent. We can't kick our benefactor in the balls, however much they ask for it. At least, not until we have developed the means to break away from them... KarmaPolice (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- It’s curious to see how this correlation is explained away by either a “Hey, we didn’t mean it that way” fudging, or by actively co-opting Trumpist defeatist claims about “Ukraine already being/having lost” as justification why it’s not really selling out Ukraine, but just a sad fatalist case of “nothing can be done” (note the parallel to liberal “I’d really like to help you, but I just can’t” politics, btw).
- The Russo-Ukrainian War has generally put subsections of both the left and the right in the West in something of a pickle from the beginning. Parts of the left has had difficulty squaring a knee jerk “The US is always on the wrong side” reactions with what was clearly a cynical, Russian invasion (resulting in either explaining away the latter and/or trying to pretend that not supporting Ukraine wouldn’t simply result in a Russian victory).
- Meanwhile, parts of the Western right that had long cheered Putin on suddenly had to reconcile that with a massive invasion of a neighbour and their own predilection for strong, Western, military action as a primary tool of statecraft. They either ended up explaining away the invasion aspect in a similar way to the left opponents of support for Ukraine, or used a similar stance to that of right wingers on Palestine, namely that Ukraine wasn’t a “real” country anyway, but instead simply a part of Russia or some nebulous kind of terra nullius.
- Sadly (and ironically), the latter stance also shows up tacitly in some leftist interpretations that completely ignore national interests in and support for NATO membership in Central and Eastern European countries when harping on about “aggressive NATO expansion” and simply depict these countries as mere US proxies. This is just another way of pretending that these countries aren’t actually “real” or that they may have national interests of their own that caused them to seek NATO membership.
- The Trumpist/MAGA right in the US has seemingly found a way to square this circle by claiming that selling out Ukraine is good, actually, because it shows that Trump is really the peacemaker he claims to be and that this is in opposition to Democratic/NeoCon wars (ignoring how Trump has stoked conflicts elsewhere by either active encouragement/support or tacit approval). And anyway, Ukraine has already lost, so it’s really better to just get it over with and move on. Oh, and get Trump that Nobel Peace Prize for his amazing “deal making” on Ukraine to boot, of course. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- We'll see once the US go after some South American country to counter China in the electric automobile industry. I'm Franco-German, I know Germany depends on an imperialist oligarchy for its security, but that doesn't make it any better. And I know the governments of Eastern Europe depend on it even more. But in the end, Ukraine lost. It lost because of internal mistakes (though the war effort seemingly remains popular, I know) and external factors (Trump winning the 2024 USA election). As a half-German coming into permanent contact with the "German point of view", I can tell you it's not compatible with a reasonable outlook on the world. Before the war, they depended on Russia for energy, the prices are still very high because of that. The "subsection of the left" (most of the European radical left, with some exceptions like Finland) supports peaceful solutions to conflicts over mindless warmongering. The European hard-left (not far-left, for the US-Americans here) was more critical of Yeltsin and Putin than the mainstream media for a time. And again, I don't get why you're so shocked at Russia's "cynical invasion" (classic case of western deux poids, deux mesures, "two weights, two measures") when the United States already made a similarly cynical invasion of Iraq on false accusations (and let's not talk about the current allegations concerning Iran. The truth: they don't have the capacities); they basically helped bringing to power islamists in Syria "on accident"; they fought a very long war in Afghanistan which only brought useless deaths and no republican form of government to the country. The only difference might be that Ukraine is a (very flawed) republican democracy, but this doesn't explain why the invasion of Chile was not this "shocking". Because Allende wasn't a (somewhat pro-Russian…) economic liberal sponsored by oligarchs, like Zelensky? And to be very clear: Putin is a fascist, militarist dictator, guilty of war crimes (a war criminal just like Tony Blair and Barack Obama. Again, "two weights, two measures", maybe you should have on article on this sophism here, instead of "whataboutism") who absolutely lead a cynical, disgusting invasion of his neighbour exclusively for his own benefit as a "great leader of the country". The only hope: Russian resistance. These weren't "peace talks", this was an attempted (and dramatically failed, thankfully) new Yalta by Trump, the consequences are still not good, though. Germany can send all the weapons it wants, it basically does nothing (or very little) against illegal exportation of oil through its territory. It's easy to say: "if we send enough weapons, eventually Ukraine will win". The "solutions" you propose are wishful thinking, I can do that too: it would be great if Ukraine would take the upper hand in the conflict (because of western military aid), force Russia to adopt a new government, join the European Union led by France (governed by La France Insoumise, of course), a European Union which changes its constitution, arguing for dirigist economy, a republican form of government and a humanist outlook. A real "constitution", adopted by a Europe-wide referendum (like the 2005 referendum in which the French people rejected neo-liberal Europe), could lead the way towards a non-aligned European Federation with close relations to Latin America's governments. New world (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- If the post above was an answer to KarmaPolice’s query for an alternative solution, I have a hard time teasing out what that proposed solution is supposed to be. I’m also a bit unsure how the very firm conclusion that Ukraine has already lost was reached (what is the definition of this loss and according to which parameters?). I would agree, however, that the Alaska summit was Trump cosplaying a Yalta Conference (without either the preconditions or any resemblance of skill).
- We'll see once the US go after some South American country to counter China in the electric automobile industry. I'm Franco-German, I know Germany depends on an imperialist oligarchy for its security, but that doesn't make it any better. And I know the governments of Eastern Europe depend on it even more. But in the end, Ukraine lost. It lost because of internal mistakes (though the war effort seemingly remains popular, I know) and external factors (Trump winning the 2024 USA election). As a half-German coming into permanent contact with the "German point of view", I can tell you it's not compatible with a reasonable outlook on the world. Before the war, they depended on Russia for energy, the prices are still very high because of that. The "subsection of the left" (most of the European radical left, with some exceptions like Finland) supports peaceful solutions to conflicts over mindless warmongering. The European hard-left (not far-left, for the US-Americans here) was more critical of Yeltsin and Putin than the mainstream media for a time. And again, I don't get why you're so shocked at Russia's "cynical invasion" (classic case of western deux poids, deux mesures, "two weights, two measures") when the United States already made a similarly cynical invasion of Iraq on false accusations (and let's not talk about the current allegations concerning Iran. The truth: they don't have the capacities); they basically helped bringing to power islamists in Syria "on accident"; they fought a very long war in Afghanistan which only brought useless deaths and no republican form of government to the country. The only difference might be that Ukraine is a (very flawed) republican democracy, but this doesn't explain why the invasion of Chile was not this "shocking". Because Allende wasn't a (somewhat pro-Russian…) economic liberal sponsored by oligarchs, like Zelensky? And to be very clear: Putin is a fascist, militarist dictator, guilty of war crimes (a war criminal just like Tony Blair and Barack Obama. Again, "two weights, two measures", maybe you should have on article on this sophism here, instead of "whataboutism") who absolutely lead a cynical, disgusting invasion of his neighbour exclusively for his own benefit as a "great leader of the country". The only hope: Russian resistance. These weren't "peace talks", this was an attempted (and dramatically failed, thankfully) new Yalta by Trump, the consequences are still not good, though. Germany can send all the weapons it wants, it basically does nothing (or very little) against illegal exportation of oil through its territory. It's easy to say: "if we send enough weapons, eventually Ukraine will win". The "solutions" you propose are wishful thinking, I can do that too: it would be great if Ukraine would take the upper hand in the conflict (because of western military aid), force Russia to adopt a new government, join the European Union led by France (governed by La France Insoumise, of course), a European Union which changes its constitution, arguing for dirigist economy, a republican form of government and a humanist outlook. A real "constitution", adopted by a Europe-wide referendum (like the 2005 referendum in which the French people rejected neo-liberal Europe), could lead the way towards a non-aligned European Federation with close relations to Latin America's governments. New world (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- The Trumpist/MAGA right in the US has seemingly found a way to square this circle by claiming that selling out Ukraine is good, actually, because it shows that Trump is really the peacemaker he claims to be and that this is in opposition to Democratic/NeoCon wars (ignoring how Trump has stoked conflicts elsewhere by either active encouragement/support or tacit approval). And anyway, Ukraine has already lost, so it’s really better to just get it over with and move on. Oh, and get Trump that Nobel Peace Prize for his amazing “deal making” on Ukraine to boot, of course. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Without getting sidetracked into a discussion of the Iraq War, which I and a pretty wide section of Europeans of various political hues happened to oppose, I will freely admit to being personally surprised at Russia invading Ukraine. I simply did not expect Putin to embark on such a foolish, full scale war, due to his previous pattern being to create “frozen conflicts” that could be “turned up or down” to put pressure on neighbouring countries, rather than outright wars of conquest.
- Come to think of it, the Iraq War could’ve served as a cautionary tale for Putin, considering that it was initiated by the US, which had and has military and economic resources on a scale far beyond Russia’s, had the additional active support from a number of allies from the start, was fought against an isolated, international pariah regime crippled by almost a decade of wars (Iran-Iraq plus Gulf), followed by another decade of extensive sanctions, and still the US ended up with a somewhat dubious “victory” beyond toppling Saddam. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- The Europeans could have tried negotiations until the end, instead of giving up. Why? Because now, to the detriment of Europe and Ukraine, Trump and Putin discussed what Trump wanted to be a new map of Europe without the countries concerned by this attempted new Yalta. I don't know either, but I have a feeling (nothing better, for now) that the European stance of sending as many weapons as Ukraine needs to bomb Moscow will go dramatically wrong (it is already starting to go dramatically wrong). Trump cares about Europe, he might be far-right but that doesn't mean he's stupid (his advisers and the entire US-American system wouldn't let him), he is literally at the head of what was previously the Worlds (first) hyperpower. I don't want Zelensky to be ousted, I fear he will be. The questions we need to ask ourselves (and for which we don't have real answers yet) are: how to create conditions for a just peace, Europe-wide, with each (European) countries' individual interests in mind, under the auspices of the United Nations. Everything, from reparations for the invasion to territory concessions by Ukraine (European borders are still threatened by change today, look at Belgium, Scotland or Catalonia) when it comes to Crimea, a Russian-speaking part given to Ukraine when both nations were part of the same country, should be discussed in a completely open-minded way. Personally, I think it's better to discuss these things (esp. border changes) with Ukraine and Europe rather than in a talk between Russia and the United States. Send as many weapons as you want, it will not last forever. Eventually, there will be a disgusting peace imposed on Ukraine by an imperialist country with a brainwashed population (I'm talking about Russia, not the USA, by the way). Think about the deaths in Ukraine compared to the deaths in Russia: the war is mainly taking place in Ukrainian territory, obviously either Ukraine somehow manages to push back so much that they truly lead an invasion of Russia, or it will eventually lose. We need neither a uni-polar nor a "multi-polar" world whose opposing super-powers decide without any respect for international law. We need to promote (and we do have the means) an ordered world whose conflicts are mediated by the United Nations. I do think a United Nations peace proposition with Ukraine, the EU and Russia involved (and with these countries trying again, without getting stuck in dogmatism and "shock") could have some chance of succeeding, more than useless deaths. And yes, there should be garanties to remake a peaceful Europe: garanties on chemical weaponry in Europe, on missiles on the Russo-Ukrainian border form both sides, to create long-term peace. I know, Putin already disrespected all of this, but in the end, if you want to make peace with Russia (and for now, that's with Putin), you have to talk to Russia. If you have the solution, tell me, please. New world (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- 'The Europeans could have tried negotiations until the end, instead of giving up'
- Come to think of it, the Iraq War could’ve served as a cautionary tale for Putin, considering that it was initiated by the US, which had and has military and economic resources on a scale far beyond Russia’s, had the additional active support from a number of allies from the start, was fought against an isolated, international pariah regime crippled by almost a decade of wars (Iran-Iraq plus Gulf), followed by another decade of extensive sanctions, and still the US ended up with a somewhat dubious “victory” beyond toppling Saddam. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- They did. Macron, for example was logging quite a lot of air miles in that last month. But even he by the end said that Putin had become acres more demanding and inflexible than say, 2019. Russian diplomats similarly changed; that they'd gone from 'discussing' to 'delivering hectoring monologues', from 'asking requests' to 'issuing diktats'. You tell me, what do you do in a negotiation when it is patently clear their demands are bullshit and they have chosen this hill to die on?
- ' Why? Because now, to the detriment of Europe and Ukraine, Trump and Putin discussed what Trump wanted to be a new map of Europe without the countries concerned by this attempted new Yalta.'
- Ah, so you're suggesting we 'continued to negotiate' after the war started? Except various West members did 'keep the channel open'. For example, via the Turks. The Chinese also offered which for obvious reasons the West didn't leap at but they didn't say no to. Alas, it fell apart quite quick when the Russians demands was what they would get if they had utterly conquered Ukraine. Now you tell me; who's fault is this?
- 'I don't know either, but I have a feeling (nothing better, for now) that the European stance of sending as many weapons as Ukraine needs to bomb Moscow will go dramatically wrong (it is already starting to go dramatically wrong).'
- Except we don't. I am actually impressed - in the one key example of 'NATO cynical self-service' you miss it! We have not been sending them 'everything they need', we've been drip-feeding them enough to not be outright defeated but no more. Every step of the way said 'increase' has been at least six months late and in an almost pathetic quantity. Fighters. Tanks. Artillery. AA systems. Guided missiles. Take fighters, for example. F-16s were pledged - over a year since they were asked for [and so clearly needed]. The US had in fact been blocking them even using pilot simulators meaning that when they were finally approved, it would take a year plus to be active. It's even worse; even after they were approved, the US donated zero fighters despite having a load of fighters in their storage depots. Instead, they got a cobbled-together squad of 65 made up of sweepings of various Euro nations [rather like what happened to the tanks]. You tell me, does this sound like the policy of warmongers thirsting over Ukrainian natural resources for themselves?
- The questions we need to ask ourselves (and for which we don't have real answers yet) are: how to create conditions for a just peace, Europe-wide, with each (European) countries' individual interests in mind, under the auspices of the United Nations. Everything, from reparations for the invasion to territory concessions by Ukraine (European borders are still threatened by change today, look at Belgium, Scotland or Catalonia)
- Except right now Russia's demands are not much different to the ones they presented Ukraine in 2022. You tell me; who should be the ones who decide whether it has come time to lick Putin's boot - you or me in 'the West' or the Ukrainian people themselves?
- when it comes to Crimea, a Russian-speaking part given to Ukraine when both nations were part of the same country, should be discussed in a completely open-minded way.
- When one side decides to take the disputed bit by force, you can understand why the other side is in no mood to 'discuss in an open-minded way' their future. qv: Falklands after 1982. What's more, pulling shit like that is not the way to solve territorial disputes. You tell me; should the West bully and strongarm Ukraine into handing over the title deeds of stolen property, thus rewarding bad behaviour?
- Personally, I think it's better to discuss these things (esp. border changes) with Ukraine and Europe rather than in a talk between Russia and the United States.
- There's not many in the international diplomatic scene who disagrees with that. What, you under the impression that the rest of Europe etc are pleased with the Orange One's antics?
- Send as many weapons as you want, it will not last forever. Eventually, there will be a disgusting peace imposed on Ukraine by an imperialist country with a brainwashed population (I'm talking about Russia, not the USA, by the way).
- Unlikely. Russia is 'winning' on the battlefield, but very incrementally and at stupidly high cost. This is all the hallmarks of a classic pyrrhic victory. This has, as I predicted back in mid-22 morphed into a ww1-style 'battle of attrition' conflict and to a major extent Ukraine has gotten the better of this. Russia has not just lost a large amount of people, but 1m more fled the country, there's a brain-drain, the economy has severely weakened, their diplomatic standing is a lot worse, they've burned through most of the old Soviet war stocks [which they cannot replace easy] and has suffered a series of indignities - including but not limited to the little fact she has effectively lost a naval war [in the Black Sea] to a country without a functional navy. In fact, Ukraine has 'won' in the respect she has denied the Russians almost all of their 2022 strategic goals [the only one they didn't was allowing them a direct road/rail route from Rostov to Crimea] and the total 'balance of power' between the two is most likely more in Ukraine's favour than in Feb '22.
- You tell me; who are you to dictate whether a free people decide to fight for their continued freedom or not? I bloody bet they are a lot more aware than either of us are of the prospects if they lose and the sacrifices they have all made to be in this position.
- 'Think about the deaths in Ukraine compared to the deaths in Russia: the war is mainly taking place in Ukrainian territory, obviously either Ukraine somehow manages to push back so much that they truly lead an invasion of Russia, or it will eventually lose.'
- Yet Ukraine has so far made the collective decision that this is something that has to be done. Every warzone is somebody's home. In this case, it's theirs - perhaps the folks best-placed to make the call on what happens to it. Plus, do not mistake an 'official starting position' to 'real red line' - my belief is that 'accepting Russian control of already conquered areas' is going to be one of the things they intend to 'give up' in return of salvaging what's left [and full sovereignty].
- I do think a United Nations peace proposition with Ukraine, the EU and Russia involved
- Involving a leader you have described as a fascist, a country you have described as 'imperialist', 'militarist' and 'with a brainwashed population' and has started the bloodiest war in Europe since Yugoslavia and continues to wage it for their own selfish goals. Plus, the UN is an utterly broken reed and everyone knows it.
- And yes, there should be garanties to remake a peaceful Europe: garanties on chemical weaponry in Europe, on missiles on the Russo-Ukrainian border form both sides, to create long-term peace. I know, Putin already disrespected all of this, but in the end, if you want to make peace with Russia (and for now, that's with Putin), you have to talk to Russia.
- Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice? Plus, Russia [or more correctly, Putin] does not want any peace which either the West or Ukraine itself would class as such.
- If you have the solution, tell me, please.
- If you are genuinely looking for a lasting solution, then at this moment in time there isn't one. In short; Russia's demands a treaty like it has won a major victory over Ukraine while Ukraine object to that on the principle Russia's won no such thing. In this, I would argue it's Moscow who are the most delusional here. But we don't really have any levers on them and Putin is impervious to logic or persuasion now. Therefore, we need to continue more formally to what Ukraine has already been doing. That the name of the game is for Ukraine to inflict maximum losses on Russia for every hectare they conquer, for them to save as much of their population from capture and to perform scorched earth on every factory, rail line, house and mine as they slowly pull back. Let Russia 'conquer' burned out piles of rubble with nil population or economic worth. Every now and then, offer the Russians a no-condition general cease-fire. Eventually, either they will so run out of steam they'll end up accepting it or Putin leaves the scene [ideally, in a box] and his immediate successor does.
- KarmaPolice (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Excellently put KarmaPolice. Scream!! (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's indeed a great post, KarmaPolice! GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- They tried initially, sure, but they stopped trying afterwards. The United Nations, if Europe would insist on it, can function correctly. You asked if I think the rest of the world likes Trumps antics. I can only answer that beyond empty words Europe is full of little vassals. I mean, in the end, Trump got what he wanted, even if you claim it was "for Ukraine": most European NATO-countries are getting (or plain to get) their military expenditures up dramatically (and the Germans seriously decided that only the military was worth breaking their co-called "debt limit"). But you said it yourself: there seems to be no obvious solution to the conflict, especially since an open war isn't possible due to nuclear weapons. Most European leftists (except the German Die Linke and BSW) aren't staunchly pacifist, but anti-militarist (including me). I definitely get the concept of a so-called "just war" when it's not completely insane and dangerous for the entire international community, even though it should only be the last possible solution ever. The military operations in Mali and Syria could have been coordinated better (with a United Nations intervention), and they might have ended up making people's lives better there. If everything works out like you want it to, I won't drop a tear for Putin, it's just that I can't imagine it working that way. Again, we'll see once the conflict ends (and for now nobody can predict how long it will last). New world (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- -The UN is utterly ineffective when one [or more] of the involved parties holds a veto. Therefore, it cannot do anything much on Ukraine. That's why there has been so little activity on this front; no point.
- Excellently put KarmaPolice. Scream!! (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- KarmaPolice (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- -If 'self defence against a militaristic authoritarian kleptocrat regime who denies your very existence as a free people' is not a 'just war', I not sure if such a thing exists. The interesting bit was your rider of 'it's not completely insane and dangerous for the entire international community'. Are you saying that if this self-defence risks making a general war or increasing tensions, it should not be done?
- -As I said above; Russia has zero inclination to 'talk to Europe'. They usually turn up merely to insult us, threaten to nuke us [no, that's a special gift for the UK], harangue us on how evil/weak/decedent we all are and how they will win. The only reason Putin is going through the charade with Trump is the hope to a) string him along as long as possible to throttle Ukraine and b) if lucky, get the Orange One to do a Munich on Kyiv.
- -Ukraine has been open to the idea of a general cease-fire for at least 18 months now. It's the Russians who keep on saying nyet to it - including last week.
- -How come it is always Europe/America/Ukraine who has to do all the leg-work [and first concessions] for peace? How about the fuckers who started this war? Or the fuckers who are bankrolling it; India and China? Why aren't my fellow lefties who 'deplore the violence' protesting outside those respective embassies too? It takes two sides to have a war, after all.
- You mention that there's 'no obvious solution' to this problem, which is true - but did you expect there to be? Most major issues in our world don't have an obvious solution. It's usually a combination of 'vexing', 'a clusterfuck' and 'intractable'. It the low hanging fruit rule; that if the answer was so easy, so obvious it would have been done by now. More importantly, why was it so hard for you to admit this? Why did we have to get you to expend some 1,400 words to reach the crux of the situation? But I think I know why this is so. And it's the very thing which fucks me off with a lot of my fellow western lefties. It's what I mentally call 'the perennial protester mentality'. That it's been so long since we've made a genuine stab at real power that we've found ourselves devolve into a [usually] well-meaning, dedicated but ultimately futile protest movement. Why bother grappling with those difficult questions? Nobody expects us to ever have to find a solution to them because we will never be in the big chair to implement them. Maxims in lieu of actual thought. Fuzzy and warming theoreticals rather than the genuine truth. And the instant turning against anybody who does try to be honest, to ask the difficult questions, point out the inherent contradictions and *gah* try to find a solution which doesn't deliver a free pony to everyone we like. If there's a single perfect example of the horseshoe theory in action, it's this - because this is how the populist right operates too.
- On a more particular point; why the hell did you keep on taking me around the houses? For example, the comment about Allende. In this it was doubly pointless; because a) most outsiders won't know who that is but b) most folks who do [hint, I'm in this one] will know that example has almost nil relevance to the topic in hand [ie the Ukrainian war]. But this is a habitual tactic of 'the left'; the moment they get caught short in open cover by something as horrible as 'a blunt question' there's a stampede to waffly theoreticals, tangents, whataboutery of oft-dubious value and/or attacks on the asker. A political cuttlefish emptying it's ink-sack lest we notice the position is either impossible to achieve, makes no sense or does not even exist. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @KarmaPolice In the United Kingdom and especially Germany, the "hard"-left has adopted a stance of "extra-parliamentary opposition" (especially Die Linke…) which is simply ridiculous, and I wonder what makes you think I support this. The movement I happen to be a part of has been extremely critical of this stance, and we're right: Die Linke, for example, could totally replace the SPD on the left and make chancellors, but it just lacks the ambition and the rhetoric. In France, Mélenchon managed to organise the various different movements into one single, popular voice multiple times. His basic idea (and the reason I still support him, despite his faults) was truly confederating the people instead of just complaining and ending up supportive of the "people of reason" (ie social-traitors and elephants of socialist parties). Conflictualising everything is the way the French left still makes news headlines and manages to impose its debates next to the far-right lunatics. But we essentially made these "waffly theoreticals" serious propositions, made and/or supported by leading French economists (leading because the Washington consensus hasn't reached France yet, thankfully). I never claimed to have the solution to the Ukraine-Russia war, I pointed out that once you say the slightest thing about arming, they all ask you what your solution is. This is completely hypocritical, as their "solution" is simply continuing the war until Ukraine magically wins one day. What I fear (I don't know nor do you) is that Ukraine won't magically win one day.
- On a more particular point; why the hell did you keep on taking me around the houses? For example, the comment about Allende. In this it was doubly pointless; because a) most outsiders won't know who that is but b) most folks who do [hint, I'm in this one] will know that example has almost nil relevance to the topic in hand [ie the Ukrainian war]. But this is a habitual tactic of 'the left'; the moment they get caught short in open cover by something as horrible as 'a blunt question' there's a stampede to waffly theoreticals, tangents, whataboutery of oft-dubious value and/or attacks on the asker. A political cuttlefish emptying it's ink-sack lest we notice the position is either impossible to achieve, makes no sense or does not even exist. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Now I want you to understand something: the country of the Popular Front victory in 1936, the creation of social security during the provisional government post-WW2, the may 1968 protests, the Mitterand victory in 1981 (and the subsequent abolition of the death penalty and nationalisations), and the Jospin victory one decade later (bringing privatisations, but also the 35 hour workweek); this "indivisible, democratic, laïque and social republic" might as well have a leftist president in 2027. I know you might see this as false hope, but: if the centre (Macronists) and right (The Republicans) don't present a single but several separate candidatures, up to 3–4, then Mélenchon will be in the second round against Le Pen (in 2022 and 2017, he was notoriously under-polled, and there have been known political analysts/editocrats envisioning this as a serious possibility in the mainstream media). Then, we will see what happens. In France, we have a history of unhappy citizens "making people" (something we see extremely positively, even the classical right) and managing to acquire through social struggle (lutte sociale) various social rights. The problem with Ukraine isn't a problem of being for or against Russia, it's the closeness of the conflict, the geo-political context, and the possession of nuclear weapons by Russia (they threatened Paris and Berlin too, not just London) makes it extremely unusual. I support the stance many Latin American governments have, especially that of president Gustavo Petro in Colombia. New world (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Just a supplement, but it really irks me when the predominance of Russians in the Crimea is used as an argument for why it’s “naturally” Russian territory, as this predominance is mainly due to the rounds of ethnic cleansing during the Soviet era, which, to take just one example, has resulted in almost as many (descendants of) Crimean Tartars living in Uzbekistan as in Ukraine.
It’s also worth noting that those Crimean Tartars who remain in Crimea seem to prefer being a part of Ukraine (despite also having had their spats with Kyiv), rather than Putin’s empire, at least as far as it’s discernible from those able and willing to speak up, considering Putin’s less than tolerant view of such “troublesome” minorities.
This also speaks one thing that I find contradictory in the “Ukraine should just come to terms” argument from some leftist perspectives, when coupled with views on Palestine that are pretty much the diametrically opposite. I don’t think that this is an argument for the Palestinians to just knuckle under and “accept their fate”, but I do find it odd to simultaneously tout Palestinian rights to their occupied territories and their rights of return, while simultaneously denying similar rights to Ukrainians (incl. the Crimean Tartars). ScepticWombat (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's because they're campists, who view geopolitics as a sports game. You can see similar attitudes among liberals who support both Ukraine and Israel. Antares (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that using the Latin America's left (the most incompetent, hypocritical, corrupt and antediluvian in the world outside North Korea) is a good argument from authority. I mean, come on, many of them hate gay people just as much as Trump and Putin, and the majority makes the GOP look moderate when it comes to abortion. And I'm not even mentioning their history of supporting dictatorships as long as they are anti-western, not only Russia. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- They are developing countries (but let's not exaggerate, I have heard things there too), they need China for economic development. And let's not talk about the complete none sense you just wrote… Are you talking about the former president of Peru, Pedro Castillo, a left conservative with indigenous/rural-Andean origins? I'm not talking about that guy, I'm talking about the progressive president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro. Unless you believe Colombia to be a communist dictatorship, in which case I guess you don't care about a posed, fact-based discussion… Just because you're bombarded with news on Venezuela doesn't mean all Latin American left-populist presidents are the perfect example for far-left dictatorships. The Latin American left is very much an example (though, yes, the tendency of supporting what we French leftists call "presidential monarchy" is disturbing, and definitely avoidable). I don't know what right-wing/far-right Latin American media/party talking points you're going to cite, if you will, but it's going to be ridiculous. You probably have the binary view of the classical right (oh sorry, the "centre"… of course) of "far-left against far-right". With Latin America, sometimes that's justified, but that "sometimes" doesn't include Mexico (not extremist), Colombia (not extremist), Chile (not extremist, and not even that radical anymore), Brazil (Lula doesn't seem like an extremist right now, does he? Call him corrupt, but he's not North Korea…), and, hey, just to push it a little, Bolivia isn't really governed by extremists either.
- I don't think that using the Latin America's left (the most incompetent, hypocritical, corrupt and antediluvian in the world outside North Korea) is a good argument from authority. I mean, come on, many of them hate gay people just as much as Trump and Putin, and the majority makes the GOP look moderate when it comes to abortion. And I'm not even mentioning their history of supporting dictatorships as long as they are anti-western, not only Russia. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm now going to bother you with franco-centric political science concepts not taught (it appears) in Anglo-Saxon universities: After the move rightward by the traditional left (let's not use that word "centre"— Its existence is definitely contestable), making it indistinguishable from the traditional right, the remaining radical elements became an intermediate between the far-left (anti-republican, doesn't believe in elections, composed of Trotskyists, maoists, anarchists, and other revolutionaries) and the centre-left (converted to the neo-liberal doxa now). This intermediate position is called the "Gauche radicale" (radical left), or "gauche anti-libérale". Meanwhile, the far-right is significantly more dangerous, as it believes in elections but still doesn't respect republican principles (indivisibility—as they believe in "white" and "Christian" "communities"; democracy—as they only see parts of the people as "the people"; laïcité—as they are full of Christians forcibly insisting on their beliefs and discriminating Muslims; and social politic—look at their political programs). The far-left doesn't believe in the republic, the far-right neither. The "franco-centric" bit is that, at least to us French leftists, a Milei is far-right, while a radical-leftist like Gustavo Petro is still within the republican arch. In English, things are way more weird with the term "far-…", which doesn't have real equivalents here. More specifically, the "droite radicale" (radical right) is part of the extreme droite, while the gauche radicale is not extreme. Do you speak French? Here. The author isn't as partisan as I am, but he does make the difference between the left-radicals and extremists. Also, the dictionary of the far-left supports my definitions. New world (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- There are just too many problems with your post, but I'll answer some parts of it. First, I never called them dictators (except for Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua). Some of them are definitely authoritarian, in the same way that Trump is: they aren't dictators not because they don't want to be, but because the institutions in their countries don't allow them to. I didn't even call them extremists. The words I used were "incompetent, hypocritical, corrupt and antediluvian". These are common in the whole political spectrum, from the far-left to the far-right, annd that includes radical centrism. What can we say about Gustavo Petro (though you said "many Latin American governments", so not only him). To my knowledge, he isn't an asshole like Castillo, Lula and Maduro, but his government is indeed corrupt[3][4] and incompetent[5]
- Also, what does China has to do with anything? Aren't we talking about their attitude towards Russia? China is an entirely different power. Not of course that some of them haven't supported dictators (Lula for instance called Muammar Gaddafi his "brother and friend"), so I doubt that their friendship with China is just pragmatism.
- Please, don't pretend to have more competence in a region that I'm pretty sure I'm far more familiar than you. Heck, I actually read what major left-wing Latam authors wrote in Spanish and Portuguese. Some of them are good, but Raúl Prebisch? Celso Furtado? Anibal Pinto? These are hacks. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells
- I'm now going to bother you with franco-centric political science concepts not taught (it appears) in Anglo-Saxon universities: After the move rightward by the traditional left (let's not use that word "centre"— Its existence is definitely contestable), making it indistinguishable from the traditional right, the remaining radical elements became an intermediate between the far-left (anti-republican, doesn't believe in elections, composed of Trotskyists, maoists, anarchists, and other revolutionaries) and the centre-left (converted to the neo-liberal doxa now). This intermediate position is called the "Gauche radicale" (radical left), or "gauche anti-libérale". Meanwhile, the far-right is significantly more dangerous, as it believes in elections but still doesn't respect republican principles (indivisibility—as they believe in "white" and "Christian" "communities"; democracy—as they only see parts of the people as "the people"; laïcité—as they are full of Christians forcibly insisting on their beliefs and discriminating Muslims; and social politic—look at their political programs). The far-left doesn't believe in the republic, the far-right neither. The "franco-centric" bit is that, at least to us French leftists, a Milei is far-right, while a radical-leftist like Gustavo Petro is still within the republican arch. In English, things are way more weird with the term "far-…", which doesn't have real equivalents here. More specifically, the "droite radicale" (radical right) is part of the extreme droite, while the gauche radicale is not extreme. Do you speak French? Here. The author isn't as partisan as I am, but he does make the difference between the left-radicals and extremists. Also, the dictionary of the far-left supports my definitions. New world (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Where every lie is true 16:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the left-wing in Latam is in general much better than the even moreincompetent, hypocritical, corrupt and antediluvian right. But that doesn't mean a lot. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- - I am actively ignoring the parts which are not directly related to the topic in question; aka the Russo-Ukrainian War. I refuse to have a tour of neighbourhoods such as 'shit things the West did' or 'history of the 1930s' unless it is directly relevant. It kinda makes my point too - that when caught short in a unanswerable position, to squirt a ton of rhetorical ink about in the hopes folks don't notice.
- - How could I come to the conclusion that New World is adopting the position of certain tankies and useful idiots? Hmm, could it be that you're peddling the exact same narratives as say, the Morning Star and the Socialist Worker to the point I wonder if you personally wrote those op-eds? I don't listen to people's own labels, but go on their words and deeds - therefore, if you sound like a tankie on a clear tankie position well, perhaps you are a tankie. Even if 'not a tankie, honest!' is scrawled on your hull.
- - While it is fair/justified to complain that Western nations do not seem to have worked out any form of 'endgame' for Ukraine we do need to cut them some slack on this because it's not like they could lay all this out in public - might as well as simply email the whole plan to the Kremlin. What I criticise here is that all the public evidence in Europe is that generally speaking, they don't have a long-term plan period. They seemed to expect the Russians to give up after the loss of the battle of Kyiv, expected that again when it bogged down in WW1-style trench warfare and expected that again when losses mounted. The last two are prime examples of cognitive biases - in that they assumed Putin would act in certain ways because if they were in that situation they would do it. eg; no Western leader would throw their country into fighting a bloody war of attrition with seemingly zero upper limit. Or tolerate mountains of corpses and the only response is 'draft more people'. [interestingly, this was the same viewpoint of amongst others, Saddam Hussein].
- - No, you never said you had a solution for this outright. But you never said you didn't either. This is either a) somewhat disingenuous [using tankie anti-war points to lead to the tankie solution without directly going there yourself] or b) cynical political opportunism while clambering on the moral high horse [I mean, who could reject the goal of peace?]. It's annoying - another example of the 'perennial protester mentality' I see too often in the left. Who needs a viable alternative; we'll never have the chance to implement it!
- - On the Crimean Tatars: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-persecution-of-the-crimean-tatars-must-not-be-forgotten/. I dare you, World - tell us now, 'for 'peace', the Crimean Tatars must get utterly fucked over by Putin'.
- - On Palestine. Yes, the hypocrisy fucks me off too. Esp as Hamas [or even Fatah] are objectively worse than the government of Zelenskyy. For starters, those lot were elected in a fairly free/fair manner. I can respect 'wide eyed idealism' [such as absolute pacifists] and can give similar to cynical realpolitik - I just cannot stand when the latter is dressed up as the former. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- You decided to make this (and continue on this path) about the unrealistic, radical-left, supposedly incapable of taking power. I decided to reply on this front as well as on the main topic discussed: the Ukraine war. A "tankie" was and remains an Anglo-Saxon designation for a (most times, far-left) supporter of the Soviet Union's policies in Eastern Europe. The French Communist Party used to be (and still partly is) "tankie". So I won't answer that. If you imply that I'm pro-Putin, you are mistaken. Also, the Crimean Tartars are a small minority of the Crimean population by now. Obviously, that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with them, but it doesn't really change the current reality of Crimea's demography. My "solution" is discussing things honestly instead of pretending "let's send as many weapons Ukraine needs to continue the war for another 10 years" and hope it eventually wins. I'm not an absolute "pacifist", I'm part of a movement with a very complex political program supported by leading economists and with the capacity to win elections and organise large-scale social mobilisations, I'm not supportive of Russia nor Israel (nor Hamas, as I'm thinking this might come up soon…), and I'm not going to support rising military expenditures while our governments refuse to spend more on social issues. My "position" is that of a ceasefire in Ukraine and Gaza, whatever the means. For you to understand, I would never support military actions of "the West" in Gaza, I would support a ceasefire to stop the killings. A ceasefire with garanties on both sides and the respect of sovereignty (implying, in this case, a change of previous borders). As to the Palestinian governments, Hamas was basically tolerated/installed by Israel’s government. Also, the Socialist Worker is apparently a Trotskyist organism, Morning Star of the British Communist Party. I imagine those have the same positions Lutte Ouvrière has in France, which believes Ukraine to be currently caught in a proxy war between Europe, the United States and Russie, and the "solution" would be "the revolution", but those aren't my positions. Ukraine was undeniably caught in a geo-political conflict between Russia and the United States, but in the end, Russia changed everything by invading the country in 2022. New world (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- - On Palestine. Yes, the hypocrisy fucks me off too. Esp as Hamas [or even Fatah] are objectively worse than the government of Zelenskyy. For starters, those lot were elected in a fairly free/fair manner. I can respect 'wide eyed idealism' [such as absolute pacifists] and can give similar to cynical realpolitik - I just cannot stand when the latter is dressed up as the former. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that there are people who think that Albanians having Kosovo independent from Serbia just because there are many ethnic Albanians is illegitimate, yet they think that Russia taking Crimea, Donbas & Zaporozie from Ukraine just because there are many ethnic Russians is legitimate. Those guys keep insisting on Kosovo being a part of Serbia (as is in Serbian constitution) and most have no arguments besides "Kosovo is Serbian Holy land" and "Albanians are genocidal Turks who steal from Serbs and do cultural genocide". 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 05:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Latin American left as an example for Europe's hard-left[edit]
Maybe I should be more specific, dear @GeeJayK, about the way in which Latin Americas left is an example for Europe's radical left (initially, I said I supported Petro's stance on the Ukraine conflict, but now this has become a broader discussion, so I opened a new sub-section).
What provokes our fascination is not necessarily the outcomes of the movements (best example: Venezuela), but the way in which these left movements managed to win elections and do what we, at La France Insoumise, call "citizen revolution" (as opposed to the extremist, anti-republican socialist revolution). A citizen revolution is, to us, the idea of uniting the people behind a wide movement arguing for a constitutional assembly, as the culture of the republic needs a renewal for whatever reason. Of course, this needs to be a good reason (in France: abolishing the presidential monarchy that is the 5th republic). The constitutional assembly will be composed of normal citizens, who will, independently of the president, vote the contents of the new constitution of the 6th republic and remake on a sane base the republic currently in crisis. And the concept of "citizen revolution" comes from… Ecuador, and the leftist years of the party with the same name. I don't necessarily want the citizen revolution to be what Chavez made his bolivarian revolution, but quite the opposite (more referendums and parliamentary debates, less power for the president). You can't really compare the two regions (Latin America and Europe), as the level of economic inequality is simply way higher in the former than in the latter. Otherwise, the Latin American left still has, in its majority (except Petro), a very productivist stance on ecological issues, at odds with an eco-socialist politic. For now, using these strategies of the Latin American left has been successful: The situation is nowhere near amazing, but France is one of the (if not the) only European countries with a strong radical-left (less "radical" than France's Popular Front government in the 1930s, though… and they call us "new"), at the head when it comes to popular mobilisations (National Rally, according to itself, isn't "the type" to organise protests… what great revolutionaries). In no other country of Europe, climate activists lead protest actions in solidarity with the French agriculturalists blockade of Paris (as both are for better nutrition and against Eurosur), or the high school unions calling to school blockades in solidarity with the older generations and against the retirement reform. LFI might be highly conflictual by now, after a mix of mistakes and far-right misinformation, but it remains relevant by adopting a populist strategy of staying true to leftist principles and of a united (not divided) view of "the people", while also possessing an incredibly well researched and detailed political program. While National Rally is truly unrealistic and populist with its "program", and the macronists just have Macron, what unites LFI isn't the figure of Mélenchon nor his populism (unlike Lat-Am's lefts) but an incredibly well made program, whose slightly changed, NUPES adaptation, again, is supported by leading economists.
As to Ukraine, well, despite all its faults, if any of Western Europe's hard-left parties (wether the moribund Unidas Podemos, LFI, Linke or any other) come to power, this (Colombia's stance, among others) is the stance they would adopt, and I wouldn't oppose it. Colombia is mentioned as it is a historic ally, traditionally on the right, of the USA. New world (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Time Cube seems pretty… easy (and dumb)[edit]
Like, everyone is pretending it is very complex, but I feel like I understood it easily by reading some of Gene Ray's website. First, I learned about time cube on Wikipedia & was ready to see incomprehensible gibberish. I have to warn you, I'm with a social sciences background & horrible at "real" science, so I didn't try to see it as physicists do. It reminds me of Native American and Oceanian thought, honestly. To me, Ray just claims that a fundamental social order principle (the "cubic" pr.) of separation of the world into two axes (making it a dual then quadripartite worldview) is the basis to understand how it functions, and the four "worlds" are different from each other ("4 days"). His theory's pretty racist honestly, he was probably far-right (as he might as well have claimed that the four "worlds" were: South America [low moiety], North America and Europe with Russia [high half or moiety], Asia [high moiety]; that ignores native Siberians and other ethnicities, but don't expect a racist to be careful). These four "worlds" united by a principle, are at different developmental stages. On humans: every human is four (4 developmental stages), and there are in effect four "facets" or "individuals", united by a principle, the "cubic" principle. And as to god, or wisdom or however Ray's "deity" might be interpreted (with indigenous societies ambiguous entities were often described as "gods" by Europeans, nothing new here), Ray's idea was of four different "facets" or "gods", united by the unifying "cubic" principle.
I am serious with this post btw, many people who "analyse" the "theory" or rather "hypothesis" might have been too focused on natural sciences. But it absolutely "makes sense". The only problem: There is no real evidence provided, only elegant words. In the end, it's just a racist, personal worldview of an old retiree politically on the far-right, I don't get why it's so "special". I might be biased though with my points of reference… It might be called a "religion", but I'd be careful with that. For indigenous Americans (esp. southern) we often call things like Ray's thought cosmo-vision, as the word philosophy is associated with Europe most times. However, I shouldn't treat an old US-American like a pre-Colombian society, so let's say he isn't engaged enough with "philosophy" to call it that. RationalwikianN.51 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- This post seems to have been crafted in the spirit of time cube. It certainly makes just as much sense.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Is it possible to describe four worlds with fewer than five... Countries or continents? Oh no, sorry, I get it, Europe WITH, Russia, so that's all one of the four except for native Siberians, who must be a people excluded from nations WITH Russia, so they are Chinese? Mongolian? Pure Siberian? Is that a fifth world? I am taking you seriously here, you asked me to, but it's gonna take a lot. Torrent (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't think about it that much (and I forgot some continents in my post on accident…). Point is: he believes the world is separated into 4 moieties (more exactly: 2 moieties separated themselves into 2 moities each). Only he might know the exact correspondences with the "peoples" and continents. I'm interpreting all of this through my eyes anyway. The square in the circle might be a sign of "squaring the circle", that is developing a world hierarchy where there isn't just the horizontal separation axe (seemingly egalitarian), but also the vertical seperation axe, separating communities of both moieties along a well-defined hierarchy (like in ancient Ecuador). RationalwikianN.51 (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Anything can be said to 'make sense' metaphorically. That's the way the bible works, it's all literal except for the parts that don't make sense, which are metaphorical. Please don't go off on 'squaring the circle'...2001:569:5968:4900:7525:C984:58F8:865 (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't think about it that much (and I forgot some continents in my post on accident…). Point is: he believes the world is separated into 4 moieties (more exactly: 2 moieties separated themselves into 2 moities each). Only he might know the exact correspondences with the "peoples" and continents. I'm interpreting all of this through my eyes anyway. The square in the circle might be a sign of "squaring the circle", that is developing a world hierarchy where there isn't just the horizontal separation axe (seemingly egalitarian), but also the vertical seperation axe, separating communities of both moieties along a well-defined hierarchy (like in ancient Ecuador). RationalwikianN.51 (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Is it possible to describe four worlds with fewer than five... Countries or continents? Oh no, sorry, I get it, Europe WITH, Russia, so that's all one of the four except for native Siberians, who must be a people excluded from nations WITH Russia, so they are Chinese? Mongolian? Pure Siberian? Is that a fifth world? I am taking you seriously here, you asked me to, but it's gonna take a lot. Torrent (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Future project for RW I am considering[edit]
I cannot say how many people here know about this post secondary school but I am considering doing an article about the Moody Bible Institute (Yes it is the actual name of the school). It is a conservative evangelical creationist school whose main campus in Chicago. https://www.moody.edu/
I think that this will make for a good article. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have started work- Draft:Moody Bible Institute --Trans Fem Agenda 22:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- The article is crap, half of it is pushing sexual abuse in the church hysteria, which is nothing more than reverse satanic panic. Sorry for being blunt, that's just my personality, not meaning to hurt feelings. 2607:61C0:700:2DD1:808D:7DB5:5D11:7118 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- The above does have a vague point; find me a large further education establishment which has not had abuse/rape allegations to it. Does this place have considerably higher abuse allegation/student number ratio than comparable institutions? You cannot either say 'MBI often refuses to investigate sexual abuse' et al without some ref or two in backing that up.
- The article is crap, half of it is pushing sexual abuse in the church hysteria, which is nothing more than reverse satanic panic. Sorry for being blunt, that's just my personality, not meaning to hurt feelings. 2607:61C0:700:2DD1:808D:7DB5:5D11:7118 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- The article also doesn't tell me barely anything about the place. Are they affiliated to any other fundie orgs? What style of fundie-ism do they push? Are they a fundie college which is actually respected as a place of learning [think like BYU]. Actually, follow that link and copy the format for yours - it's a good start. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well it's apparently no longer a draft, it is an article. I'm not sure that whether an institution has accumulated more allegations than similar institutions do on average is an appropriate means of determining whether allegations should be elucidated. There are some minor problems with the article. I'd fix them if I still believed RW's stated mission still mattered to its userbase.2001:569:5968:4900:7525:C984:58F8:865 (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The article also doesn't tell me barely anything about the place. Are they affiliated to any other fundie orgs? What style of fundie-ism do they push? Are they a fundie college which is actually respected as a place of learning [think like BYU]. Actually, follow that link and copy the format for yours - it's a good start. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would add more but I am not sure what to add. To be fair, other fundie school articles detail sexual abuse. The Bob Jones University article has a long segment on sexual abuse. --Trans Fem Agenda 18:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The sexual harassment mishandling does appear in a few articles (like this) circa 2020-2021. It's notable...ish... I guess.
- Curiously, I am also finding some bloggys like this one (from a rare unicorn these days -- a progressive evangelical -- named Fred Clark) which mentions that the Moody Bible Institute actually made some fig leaf moves on supporting Black Lives Matter / diversity / etc. This seems to be echoed by MBI-critical bloggy things (this one from the The Roys Report,
but there are others) which lament the institute committing "liberal errors" or other Sins Of Not Being "True" (read: culture war conservative) Christians, like *gasp* supporting Planned Parenthood or liberation theology
... or something. From that article, I got the impression that there was a few "fig leaves" made for the culture war blowhards as well. Ya can't please anybody these days, though.
- I didn't really search for details to get a full picture here, and these are just the rambles of blogs. But as the culture warriors fume words online... well, MBI comes up in this article that describes how small religious universities like MBI are financially suffering these days, and have dramatically declined enrollment. Like small universities as a whole due to demographics, but perhaps even more so due to American Christianity's decline. Of which the dogmatic culture war certainly plays a part, methinks. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- You're gonna have to do more reading of the topic to find more to chat about, OP. As-is I doubt it will survive an AfD. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Feel free to edit. --Trans Fem Agenda 16:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have the bandwidth to do so right now. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I meant anybody, not just you. If people have a problem with the article then they can edit it. --Trans Fem Agenda 16:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to claim to speak for anyone else on this, but to me it smells to me a bit whiffy to create an article as such then leave it hanging on the basis 'well someone else can whack it into shape'. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- The argument about other articles covering sex scandals is what Wikipedia calls OTHERSTUFF: just because those articles cover it doesn't mean those articles should cover it. It's really not a matter of mission unless there's something missionally notable about them (i.e. if they try to justify rape based on religious belief vs. mishandling it by trying to cover it up just like any non-religious college or even RationalWiki might do to avoid bad press). One major criticism of places like Pensacola is when girls get in trouble along with their rapists, but even that's really not all that missional for RationalWiki because really what that boils down to is the same result as a public school teacher getting fired after a student she invited to her house raped her: she didn't get fired for being raped, she got fired for having an inappropriate relationship with a student, while PCC girls get in trouble not for being raped but for breaking rules and getting raped in the process of breaking those rules. It's dumb, it's pathetic, this site should be above that. 2607:61C0:700:2DD1:4C87:75DB:31F4:483A (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to claim to speak for anyone else on this, but to me it smells to me a bit whiffy to create an article as such then leave it hanging on the basis 'well someone else can whack it into shape'. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I meant anybody, not just you. If people have a problem with the article then they can edit it. --Trans Fem Agenda 16:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Again, feel free to edit. If you have problems with it then you can edit it. --Trans Fem Agenda 11:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- I just tried but the firewall flagged me for section blanking. LOL. 2607:61C0:700:2DD1:4C87:75DB:31F4:483A (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Best ways that Americans can fight Trump?[edit]
Really getting tired of the cynical rhetoric online where people seem to just give up. So just wanting to see ways that Americans can oppose Trump and disrupt his attempts to damage the country for his personal benefit. And eventually reverse all the damage he has done. So what are some ways the American people can foil Trump's schemes? No cynical or hopeless comments welcome. MrAnon (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do not go gentle into that good night,
- Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- Or the variant said by Whitmore at Area 51 on Independence Day.
- Organise. Rally. Prepare. To a major extent, the mainline Democrats, organised labour, mainstream media and corp world have either surrendered or are deluding themselves that this is 'business as usual' mode. The boot is in view, but it's not on the neck yet - a simple firm no [if done by a large enough of people] will give spine to those who currently don't have it and a lot of the plans will start falling apart. There are such people. Even on the other side of the Atlantic, I can hear their whispers. Corp suits. Cops. Judges. Soldiers. Civil servants. Trump promises them order and peace, and all he demands is their silent, obedient consent. The enemy is relying on the bulk of the public to be either apathetic or cowed into submission; remember the quip from the ghoul from the Heritage Foundation about Project 2025 being 'the Second American Revolution' which will be bloodless if the left allow it to be. Which ties into the quip from Orwell; the quickest way to end a war is to lose it.
- It takes guts to be the person who stands up and first shouts 'the emperor is naked' and refuses to back down in the face of violence. It's not for everyone, I get that. But I hold that everyone can do something to fight the New Order. I'm personally a fan of doing a carbon copy of the MAGA handbook; aka infiltrating local Dem party chapters and staging 'grassroots coups' against the do-nothing Dem establishments and replacing them with folks who a) can pass for 'normal human' and b) have the fight-fire within them.
- The polls are clear; MAGA is a minority project. If the opposition can start fighting minus the kid gloves and make a coherent argument why MAGA is shit, they will have a majority. And it's not too late for that to be the deciding factor. At the moment. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- People have been protesting non-stop in LA for months now. You just don't see a lot of coverage on it because there's a media blackout on meaningful resistance to Trump. The powers that be don't want a repeat of 2020. Antares (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's best to stay away from inflammatory rhetoric, a look for more level-headed sources of information. The Contrarian (https://contrarian.substack.com/) is a good source in my view. It was founded by Jennifer Rubin
and Norm Eisen
after Rubin fled The Washington Post. All of the material on The Contrarian is free. They accept paid subscriptions, which they use for litigation. They have regular interviews with experts, as well as several other contributors. A bonus is regular photo updates on demonstrations (https://contrarian.substack.com/p/the-contrarian-covers-the-citizens). As far as things you can do:
- Go to demonstrations. You can find local events here: https://www.mobilize.us/mayday/map/
- Join your local Indivisible organization (https://groups.indivisible.org/).
- Call or write your to House member and Senators and tell them that you oppose what's going on. This is particularly important if you have any Republican representatives. Most or all of the Congressional representatives have online comment forms that you can fill out.
- If you can afford it, donate to the various pro-democracy organizations that are involved in litigation against the administration: ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Planned Parenthood, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), PFLAG. There are many others, and the list is heartening (here: https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/ or here: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/projects-series/trials-of-the-trump-administration/tracking-trump-administration-litigation).
- Vote and encourage other people opposed to this administration to vote.
- There are sometimes opportunities for remote volunteering for pro-democracy organization (post carding, letter writing, data entry, phone calling and texting individual voters), e.g., Red2Blue (https://www.red2blue.org/), Beto O'Rourke's Powered by People (https://poweredxpeople.org/), Post Cards to Voters (https://postcardstovoters.org/), Vote Foward (https://votefwd.org/).
- As we get closer to November 2026, it will become clearer where the close Congressional races will be. If you can afford it, donate to the campaigns where the races will be close. If you live in such a district, there may be volunteer opportunities.
- Bongolian (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- On 3, I would state 'watch all your elected officials like a stalker and make them know you are watching, constantly ask for justification for their words/actions and share the replies with others'. If you've joined an Indivisible you might be able to divvy up your stalking list. If they're 'Republicans', its' quite possible you can make them squirm by picking the most odious MAGA policies and make them defend it. Naturally, this works best if in person; so if they deign to turn up somewhere near you to speak etc - attend so you can heckle. Ideally, bring friends too!
- On 5, I would extend that to 'encourage others who are opposed to MAGA to become active too'.
- On 7, a lot of the 'contestable' seats will already be known. If you're in one of these, the time to start building an election machine is now, not six months before the vote. If on 3 you're following a particularly odious cretin you might be able to start leafleting against them ['Rep Sack 'o Shit is a lying spineless MAGA-creature' then with several examples as evidence] way before the election even happens.
- 8. If possible, boycott MAGA-owned businesses or those who have surrendered to the New Order. Ideally, divert this spend to those who are making a stand and/or minority-owned companies. For example, ditch Target and go to Cosco. Of all the things which have really got under the Orange Nero's skin was the Tesla boycott, so it makes sense to do more of that. If you cannot entirely ditch them, at least look to cut back; for example, I managed to reduce by Amazon spend by 50%. Corps follow the money, which means widespread boycotts work.
- 9. If you're an grad of a uni which has surrendered to the New Order; tell them in no uncertain terms to never darken your door with their begging letters. Make it clear why. Similar to if you are member of any org which has become far too pally with the New Order.
- 10. Make your opposition known to others. Authoritarian regimes work on creating an all-pervasive chilling effect, so each 'dissident' thinks they're a minority of one. You don't have to be super-vocal about it, or even have a huge ream of reasons why you're doing it [though having 2/3 potted reasons on standby wouldn't hurt] but to be seen and known will give other 'dissidents' heart. Even if you get labelled as 'that asshole' after you make a stand at the Christmas table after Uncle Roy's monologue about his love of obese Orange-faced septuagenarians there will be at least one other person around that table who be thankful.
- KarmaPolice (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- As a Brit, so to some extent neutral on internal US politics, be very careful about not sounding too much like the 'right wing anti-establishment' lot, to avoid the last line of Animal Farm. Anna Livia (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am going to somewhat disagree with you on that. There are times where a unbending, unrelenting 'this is my fucking hill to die on' is what is required. As my link shows, the right-wing are usually very good at this, while 'lefties' all to often fall into the 'nice/reasonable' trap which usually ends with them being fucked over and shunted aside. From the various dips I have of MAGA media, I get the strong feeling they believe no 'librul' would ever really fight for 'their cause'. Therefore, to some extent you have to communicate your willingness to fight to the finish to your opponents in a manner they understand. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I said - 'be careful' - and to non USAians certain nuances can be lost (and likewise with other political etc communities). Anna Livia (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- One personal thought would be: don't just focus on Donald Trump and the firehose of useless clickbait memes he is throwing out of his "propaganda firehose", whether in mainstream media or on social media. Donald Trump is merely the public show, the public figure, and the cult of personality -- the "face" of the carnival shitshow. In fact, consider all politicians mere faces for their respective donor classes, the true ruling class, at this point. The culture war is merely the tool of distraction that the oligarchs use to fuck over everyone else. (Funny how the conspiracy theory crowd picks up on the "we're being screwed over" detail, but fails to register the *hows*.)
- In some ways, this is an American tale as old as time -- the more people know about the Southern Strategy, the better -- but we're in a new Gilded Age now, arguably a more dangerous one for America than the original one a century and a half ago. A lot of very rich (and stupid) people seem to be looking fondly at, say, the full-on authoritarian capitalism of China as the ultimate government idea to strive for. (Or even the ruscism of Vladimir Putin's Russia, of all things.) I do not consider this a "Donald Trump only" problem... at all. And the harder authoritarianism takes hold in the US, the more difficult it will be to remove in the future -- if it is possible at all.
- This means that this isn't really a fully "Democrat vs. Republican" argument. Yes, it is better to vote for and support Democrats at this time, because the Republicans can be considered the party of the authoritarian oligarchs; the monied class behind the Democrats still seem to believe in a bit of democracy and decency (though often only at a Third Way type level, sadly). But even in the Democrat camp, there is way too much money floating around (hence the watered down Third Way malarky). A good long-term goal would be to clean this up and bring more equality and power to the working class. Way, way, way easier said than done, but something to keep in mind when deciding who and what to support IMHO. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Liberals boycotting Target may have hurt their bottom line, but I don't really see it as a win for the left because boycotts on both sides are just going to make companies less likely to take a stand on anything, which means more corporate DEI initiatives will be quietly dismantled. The boycotts on Tesla may well have had more of the intended effect since the intent was to retaliate against Musk. I predict, with liberals and conservatives both doing boycotts, a lot of companies are going to revert to the 20th century mentality of politics (to include social justice) and business needing to be separate. 2607:61C0:700:2DD1:4C87:75DB:31F4:483A (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I call bullshit. MAGA called for a counter-boycott and from the looks of it, Cosco is winning this scrap [Target -3%, Cosco +6%]. The problem with your logic is that normally yes, any company should think hard before making a stand for anything but America is very close to the point where I don't think anyone can 'remain neutral' anymore. From colleges to corps, charities to healthcare - the constant flow of demands, whining, attacks and threats from the New Order leaves all with only two real choices - comply and fuck off 'the left' or deny and fuck off 'the right'. Chances are, the orgs who are deciding to 'retain DEI' are the ones who to some extent actually believed in it [and/or their shareholders do] and are willing to risk the ire of the Orange One and his ghouls. Your enemy's enemy can be your friend, or at least an ally for now. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- There's a third option: tell both sides to fuck off with a statement that the company just does not get involved in social issues. I foresee a lot of companies taking that path. 2607:61C0:700:2DD1:4C87:75DB:31F4:483A (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- There's no 'third way' when the supposed third way is exactly the same as one of the initial two 'ways'. Telling 'both sides to fuck off' is equivalent to telling the DEI-way to fuck off. I also disagree with KP's statement that, "the orgs who are deciding to 'retain DEI' are the ones who to some extent actually believed in it [and/or their shareholders do]" Publicly traded companies and their shareholders would adopt, retain, or reject DEI initiatives depending on which position they think would be most profitable. That's the only thing they 'believe' in. Privately owned companies may be differently motivated, but public ones sure don't. 2001:569:5968:4900:48BF:B1D5:70C4:CBAC (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- The problem with the "social issues shit" is that this is built into brands. We've seen this a few times where MAGA's "biggest fans" are clinging to "old fart stuff" that is time limited. Both Budweiser and Cracker Barrel ran into this problem; they are dying products which have an aging core demographic. Both products tried certain things to appeal to alternate crowds (meaning *younger* ones, of course), and ran into trouble.
- (In retrospect, the best thing for both brands to do would be to let their brand die and spin up new brands for the younger demographics. But hindsight is 20/20.)
- Target ended up having the opposite problem: they built up their brand as "the Wal-Mart alternative" and more "urban/suburban friendly" demographic. So they made a mistake listening to the online mobs yelling at them for DEI / Pride things. That mob wasn't their core demographic, and they suffered for listening to them.
- Basically, it's not "tell both sides to fuck off"... it's know your core customers. (Although if your core customers won't be around much longer, that puts you in a pickle.)
- At any rate, as far as boycotts go... the social shit to me is less important to me than the authoritarian plutocracy part. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- There's no 'third way' when the supposed third way is exactly the same as one of the initial two 'ways'. Telling 'both sides to fuck off' is equivalent to telling the DEI-way to fuck off. I also disagree with KP's statement that, "the orgs who are deciding to 'retain DEI' are the ones who to some extent actually believed in it [and/or their shareholders do]" Publicly traded companies and their shareholders would adopt, retain, or reject DEI initiatives depending on which position they think would be most profitable. That's the only thing they 'believe' in. Privately owned companies may be differently motivated, but public ones sure don't. 2001:569:5968:4900:48BF:B1D5:70C4:CBAC (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- There's a third option: tell both sides to fuck off with a statement that the company just does not get involved in social issues. I foresee a lot of companies taking that path. 2607:61C0:700:2DD1:4C87:75DB:31F4:483A (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- I said - 'be careful' - and to non USAians certain nuances can be lost (and likewise with other political etc communities). Anna Livia (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am going to somewhat disagree with you on that. There are times where a unbending, unrelenting 'this is my fucking hill to die on' is what is required. As my link shows, the right-wing are usually very good at this, while 'lefties' all to often fall into the 'nice/reasonable' trap which usually ends with them being fucked over and shunted aside. From the various dips I have of MAGA media, I get the strong feeling they believe no 'librul' would ever really fight for 'their cause'. Therefore, to some extent you have to communicate your willingness to fight to the finish to your opponents in a manner they understand. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- As a Brit, so to some extent neutral on internal US politics, be very careful about not sounding too much like the 'right wing anti-establishment' lot, to avoid the last line of Animal Farm. Anna Livia (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's best to stay away from inflammatory rhetoric, a look for more level-headed sources of information. The Contrarian (https://contrarian.substack.com/) is a good source in my view. It was founded by Jennifer Rubin
Is this user worth taking seriously?[edit]
sorry to bug folks with my personal problems but I wanna try eyes that aren't mine (and mind too knowing my mental habits) to ask if the info from this dude is realiable.
There's bits like this:
"Created “Self-Generating Transformation” collapse-based emergence. Burn everything you’re not. Become what remains. I talk human and AI transformation."
and this:
"Only under conditions of there being no knower. But there is and we are versions of it and so is everything else in the universe.
This could be understood as: 1.The quantum field or vacuum state that encodes the fundamental laws of physics 2.The information-processing capacity inherent in spacetime itself 3.The mathematical structure that allows for coherent relationships between physical entities.
These function ontologically as knowers and are why knowledge can exist.
Without this fundamental capacity for the universe to “know” its own structure and rules, there would indeed be no patterns, no regularities, no information transfer - just chaotic potential without organization or meaning."
I know you need twitter to see it but I would appreciate any help here. My first instinct is it's nonsense but I'm looking for second opinions.47.5.66.54 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- The first problem is that you went on Twitter. The second problem is that you went on Twitter. (Rinse and repeat as necessary.) Antares (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Always reject *anyone* that uses "sciencey" technobabble to create "mind/body/spirit shit" like this. Whether the charlatan is hawking religion, "self-help", or New Age "oogey boogey"... doesn't matter. It's bullshit. Science and "spirit stuff" have nothing to do with each other.
- Quantum physics and AI are popular topics for these charlatans because, in the case of quantum stuff it's kind of "weird" and "non-intuitive", and in the case of AI, it's getting really overhyped to the point where even the VC guys are "getting high off their own supply" and trying to make that "bullshit engine" (what LLMs in reality are) into a Supreme God Being. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
But is there anything specific from the page itself (if people can view it, I know you need twitter to do so, which is stupid since it didn't used to be that way but...eh). Like I know QM and AI are fertile ground for people to horn in whatever they want but I guess I'm just asking for specifics. I know I got into an argument with him about how he thinks narcissism is a defense mechanism against solipsism. The reason being that to defend against being the only person alive you make a whole view where you're the center of it (which doesn't make sense and contradicts what we know about narcissism and that it's rooted in insecurity). He said that it's due to beliefs forming subconsciously and that they must have been exposed to solipsism subconsciously and his evidence was showing me stuff our brains do subconsciously. He gave me an article from a questionable cite that showed the exact opposite of that in that it talks about beliefs can form when we are told something over and over by those we trust, so...not subconscious. Like a teacher telling you you aren't smart. But anywho I told him that just because the brain does some things subconsciously doesn't mean his thing is one of them and secondly he has no proof said individual is exposed to solipsism (nevermind that denial seems like a more logical defense against it than narcissism).
This was the comment thread: https://x.com/Ragingboargod/status/1935520587473920103
That's my experience with him, he blocked me after I questioned him. All his sources for the claims were asking three different AI engines, which sounded like a red flag to me (having used AI it literally gives me three different replies when I ask the same words each time). But yeah, I don't really know enough about things to know if what he's saying has merit, just a notion that it seems off.47.5.66.54 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Why do you care if some dude (?) you don't know on Twitter is wrong?
- It you have some specific thing you would like to discuss here then by all means bring it up here. But few people are going to get involved in, or care much about, third hand discussions on Twitter.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Solipsism is a philosophy in which the self is all that exists; narcissism is a personality style, an occupation of self and their personal needs, to the possible point of disorder. They seem rather different to me.
- For a start, one of them -- the narcissist personality -- has many aspects that can be tested in one way or another. Solipsism lacks this falsifiability -- there is no way to prove or disprove the philosophy at the core. I don't know how you could even test for "being exposed to solipsism subconsciously"; heck, what does that even mean? An invisible René Descartes is invading your brain and whispering what ifs? 47.197.76.134 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- The logic from what I gather is that solipsism is the primacy of the self and so is narcissism, so he sorta equated the two (the whole thing is in the comment thread). But for one solipsism is a knowledge claim, not a value claim. Narcissism is a value claim that you are more important than anything else, solipsism says that your existence is all you can be certain of.47.5.66.54 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Just reading a few lines, very superficially, I don't see what attracted you to this kind of tweet. The guy is unlikely to be another Wittgenstein, because no one is likely to be him. The "why do you care?" seems a predictable response to your question. IMHO, nobody is worth taking seriously without a lot of solid, impressive evidence. The principle "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" comes to bear as you have seen above.Zatoichi (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- With the "why do I care" I guess I have this thing where if someone sounds like they know what they are talking about there might be something to them, and that I could be missing some sorta secret knowledge to existence or choosing to live in ignorance because everything I know could be a lie and choosing to ignore them is choosing to live like the normies and be ignorant of the truth or deeper reality. It's...incoherent when I write it out, but it leaves me prey to THOUSANDS of folks like him (and it has). I haven't been able to break it, even with therapy. I think it's also being unable to hold an idea without believing it, can't really do that.47.5.66.54 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't really call it "incoherent", but maybe that's just because it's so familiar. That narrative is pretty much the emotional core of conspiracy theories, especially the more culty ones like Flat Earth or QAnon. There's a reason promoters of those theories reference The Matrix at every opportunity. At least you seem to be able to say "Hold on, does this person actually know what they are talking about?" when someone tries to sell you the "red pill" script, which is more than can be said for many people. Asgerrr (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to join Twitter to be able to read it, but I'd like to point out a couple of things. 1) There are different kinds, or interpretations of 'solipsism', there is, as IP states, the idea that the only thing one can be certain is real is oneself, and there is also the idea that you are the only thing that is real. Any discussion involving 'solipsism' would require participants to know which definition(s) they are using when discussing it. There are also solipsistic ideas such as the computer simulation hypothesis where nothing is real and the closely related nihilistic ideas such as 'I cannot know if I or anything else is real' or 'I cannot know if there is a purpose for existence', and 'there is no purpose in existence'. 2) Narcissism requires what is called 'narcissistic supply', which is externally sourced as it consists of primarily adoration by others, so a person who subscribes to the 'only I exist' kind of solipsism would not be able to obtain narcissistic supply, or at least the supply they would be able to obtain would be a circular projection of ego stroking from and then back to oneself. This would be analogous to masturbating with one's non-dominant hand; you know you're doing it, but it kind of feels like someone else is doing it to you. But would doing that generate satisfactory narcissistic supply? Maybe. Anyway, I am suspicious that the person who said that narcissism is a defense mechanism against solipsism simply judged both words to involve a modicum of self-absorption and vaguely correlates them on that basis. It's a vague correlation rather than an establishment of direct causation if there is no explanation as to why a person would feel the need to 'defend against' solipsism. and how narcissism would fulfill that need.2001:569:5968:4900:EA84:BE04:B155:5248 (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- This reminds me: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/urban-survival/202507/the-emerging-problem-of-ai-psychosis Äxl (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't really call it "incoherent", but maybe that's just because it's so familiar. That narrative is pretty much the emotional core of conspiracy theories, especially the more culty ones like Flat Earth or QAnon. There's a reason promoters of those theories reference The Matrix at every opportunity. At least you seem to be able to say "Hold on, does this person actually know what they are talking about?" when someone tries to sell you the "red pill" script, which is more than can be said for many people. Asgerrr (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- With the "why do I care" I guess I have this thing where if someone sounds like they know what they are talking about there might be something to them, and that I could be missing some sorta secret knowledge to existence or choosing to live in ignorance because everything I know could be a lie and choosing to ignore them is choosing to live like the normies and be ignorant of the truth or deeper reality. It's...incoherent when I write it out, but it leaves me prey to THOUSANDS of folks like him (and it has). I haven't been able to break it, even with therapy. I think it's also being unable to hold an idea without believing it, can't really do that.47.5.66.54 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
An internet call to "block everything" is gaining importance in France[edit]
To fight the budget of the Bayrou government, on various social media there are calls to "block everything", in a sort of boycott or general strike, on 10th of September. It started in May, but only later got widespread visibility (and the media, who criticise it, are now giving it even more visibility…). It's very similar to how the yellow vest movements started, it took its origins with a far-right "souverainiste" stance, before starting to focus more on social issues. Former leaders of the yellow vests and the far-right are involved, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, out of fear of loosing touch with the popular movement like in 2018–2019, was quick this time to announce his support. National Rally has remained rather vague (lately they claim it is "the work of the far-left"), La France Insoumise is (for now) the only political party supporting the movement, the other left parties are silent. The term was popularised by a TikTok video by a far-right conspiracy group, then was spread by former yellow vests and other organisations on telegram and Facebook groups. For now, we don't know if this will translate in action on the street (like with the yellow vests), or not. New world (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- The Green Party and the communists have announced their support, the socialists have partly given their support. The only opposition party staying ambiguous/opposed: National Rally. New world (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Tips for improving Wikipedia/RationalWiki content on the Muiscas[edit]
Hello. Sorry for my English, first of all. To make it short, without going it much detail, I can't, for personal/professional reasons I have already explained on the Saloon Bar, contribute myself to pages relating to the Muiscas of Colombia on Wikipedia, not create any reliable pages here. I know it's "off-mission", but this incomplete list of recommended reading might be the way for interested users of this site to help better the state of Wikipedia. I myself have decided (and am currently) working on only 4 important pages, and I have left messages on multiple talk pages relating to the Muiscas also detailing this list. This is only in case someone with the necessary time and energy is interested in helping Wikipedia with this (many Wikipedia pages on pre-Hispanic history outside of Mesoamerica are fairly flawed, even some on the central Andes [inca realm]). Some are in Spanish, others are in English.
- -- (in SPANISH; ADAPTED TO THE ARTICLE MUISCA CONFEDERATIONS (POLITICAL UNITS)'s NEEDS, as the author, Langebaek, provides a complete list of chiefdoms and communities under the rule of each muisca confederation. These lists are (extremely) better than the current (unsourced) list shown as a template in the article: Carl Henrik Langebaek, Mercados, Poblamiento e integracion etnica entre los musical: Siglo XVI, a link has been provided at the top of this talk page as well already.
- —-(in SPANISH) For a brief (and big public) overview of current academic debates/consensus, as well as Carl Henrik Langebaek's principal arguments about Muisca society and economy: Carl Henrik Langebaek, Los Muiscas: Historia Milenaria de un Pueblo Chibcha, Penguin Random House Editions, 2019 (not publicly accessible).
- —-(in SPANISH) For a new description of the Spanish conquest: Eduardo Londoño, La Conquista del cacicazgo de Bogotá, 1988 (accessible if you click on "Download full text pdf")
- —-(in ENGLISH) For new ideas on Muisca socio-politics and thought : Hope Henderson and Nicholas Ostler, Muisca settlement organization and chiefly authority at Suta, Valle de Leyva, Colombia: A critical appraisal of native concepts of house for studies of complex societies, 2005 (accessible)
- —- (in ENGLISH) For a recent, English-language work summarising current consensus: Juan Cobo Betancourt, The Coming of the Kingdom, 2024, [[Cambridge University Press]] (accessible)
- —-For (in SPANISH) ethno-historical research on spatial-temporal conceptions: José Rozo Gauta, Espacio y tiempo entre los Muiscas, 1997 (not publicly accessible)
- —- (in SPANISH) For research on Muisca religion and cosmo-vision related to politics: François Correa, El Sol del Poder, 2004, (accessible)
- —- (in SPANISH) For new ideas about post-conquest chiefs and their domains: Jorge Augusto Gamboa, El Cacicazgo muisca en los años posteriores a la Conquista (accessible)
- —- (in ENGLISH) For new ideas about the Muisca calendar: Manuel Arturo Izquierdo Peña, The Muisca Calendar: An approximation (accessible).
Dear regards, RationalwikianN.51 (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- This site has nothing to do with Wikipedia. 2607:61C0:700:2DD1:808D:7DB5:5D11:7118 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- But - there is a certain overlap of users, so not entirely unreasonable. Anna Livia (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Re-examining “leopards ate my face”[edit]
Earlier in the saloon, there were mention of the “leopards ate my face” phenomenon (i.e., people who supported tRump's second election but were then given the royal shaft by tRump after the election).[6] I don't think these mentions addressed the underlying point sufficiently.
Today, I watched a discussion between security expert and persecuted whistleblower Miles Taylor and historian of fascism Jason Stanley.
Stanley in the second half of the video addresses this phenomenon (though he doesn't say it by name). Stanley repeatedly refers to how "owning the libs" was the main goal of tRump supporters, as well as similar phenomena elsewhere among authoritarian regimes. These are related ideas: the former is enjoying the self-induced suffering of one's perceived adversary, and the latter is enjoying one's perceived adversary's suffering that was induced by one's own side. Stanly connects this concept to Timothy Snyder's concept of 'sadopopulism. Stanley further argues that to resist authoritarianism, we must sympathize with and try to support those who suffer under authoritarianism even if we don't particularly like the person who is suffering (John Bolton the example of the day). Bongolian (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- i’m starting to believe that leopard face eating has been a fetish for online people. if they try to normalize it as a fetish, i’m like, you do you, it’s creepy and borderline zoosadism or zoophilia. this leopard face eating is one of the most bizarre fetishes i’ve seen this decade spawn. “but it isn’t a fetish!” then why do i always hear it? (and leopards don’t eat faces or attack humans, by the way. now lions, on the other hand… that’s a whole different story. — Unsigned, by: 2607:fb90:3906:138a:713c:65e8:c2db:4e14 / talk / contribs
- What the fuck are you talking about? Antares (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- i’m talking about the “leopards eating faces” fetish people have when they don’t do that in reality, dumb ass. 2600:6C40:657F:917E:B4FD:2772:8AB1:AB6D (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- What the fuck are you talking about? Antares (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
IP becomes uncivil. |
---|
|
- I doubt either the sanity or the goodwill or our IP editor.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Which is an excellent example of 'Ate my face' targets - folks who when having made a mistake, proceed to lash out at the person who pointed out that they were incorrect. 'Wah, it must be a 'fetish thing' because I am never wrong so now I hate you and think you're horrible individual personally.' Lesson of the day; being told you're wrong is not 'being uncivil' [at least not in itself].
- Anyway, always interesting when your when your own topic comes back to you. As I said then; the Schadenfreude usually [esp on the sub itself] is not for the 'everyday' MAGA voter realising they got tricked and fucked over - it's the ardent MAGA-hat who had been active campaigning for the very things which have now come back to hit them - and not only do they not show any contrition or even thought about the situation but normally their only response is not to realise the policy was wrong, just to seek a personal individual exception. Perhaps the most mockery goes to such MAGA-hats who appeal directly to the Boer/Nero [via social media] for say, their DOGE-cut job, their lost housing etc like they expect those fuckers to give a fuck. They have not admitted that voting for the FaceEater was a bad move, they're only pissed that it ate their own face. Is anyone expected to have sympathy for that?
- Which is my maxim; 'sympathy for the conned, but only after the conned admit as such'. The day [for example] my elderly relative drops into casual conversation 'I think I was wrong about Farage/Truss/Brexit' and means it is the day I quit politely but firmly highlighting the origin of all those bite-marks on their face. This will sound harsh/wrong; but from my experience most folks will only re-think an 'important' mental position after a certain level of 'ego damage' is inflicted. Or to put it the way my old Nan used to; 'you need to have some of that arrogance kicked out of you to realise you're being stupid'. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- That’s basically the requirement that repentance is a prerequisite for redemption, which is probably as close to a universal moral standard as you get. Which is probably why the US “admit no wrongdoing” settlements in white collar crime cases tend to royally piss of the US public at large. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Which is my maxim; 'sympathy for the conned, but only after the conned admit as such'. The day [for example] my elderly relative drops into casual conversation 'I think I was wrong about Farage/Truss/Brexit' and means it is the day I quit politely but firmly highlighting the origin of all those bite-marks on their face. This will sound harsh/wrong; but from my experience most folks will only re-think an 'important' mental position after a certain level of 'ego damage' is inflicted. Or to put it the way my old Nan used to; 'you need to have some of that arrogance kicked out of you to realise you're being stupid'. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Apropos of that, Stanley said a few other things. In human civilization, authoritarianism is the rule (kingdoms of various sorts) and democracy is the exception. Most people like authoritarianism. In the the Soviet Union (presumably, he was referring to the Stalinist purges), people were pledging loyalty to the system on their way to their executions ("true believers"). Bongolian (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I find that logic questionable. For most of human (pre)history, we have lived in small, tight-knit groups that were operated on a communal, democratic basis. A top-down hierarchical societal structure is a rather recent invention, in the grand scheme of things. I also find it dubious to assume that people just "like" authoritarianism. Should we assume that most women "enjoy" living under the boot of patriarchy? That most slaves "enjoy" slavery? For as long as authoritarian structures have existed, there have been people who have tried resisting it. And many more people generally "enjoying" a rather miserable existence under those structures. For that matter, complacency is not consent. A population writ large is not likely to revolt if they have bread in their stomachs and a roof over their heads. Why risk getting crushed by the jackboot when you have kids to feed? Antares (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- How does religion work? In many ways, but a part of religion is the power of Hope. That there is an Invisible Sky Being or some other thing that will come rushing in and magically solve all of their problems. (It's easy to see parts of fundamentalism, notably the sides like prosperity gospel, take advantage of this Hope and bilk away money from people who don't have much.)
- From what I see of authoritarianism surveys (such as here), a lot of people who support authoritarianism are drawn in by a mix of Hope, civic ignorance, and "advertised strength" (usually in the form of cartoonish displays of power -- propaganda -- of course.). It also seems to help to have an Other to demonize as The One Source of All Society Problems. At any rate, I get the idea that those drawn to authoritarianism think (often rightly) that society is broken, don't know how or why, and Hope that One Strong Man will fix everything.
- Once authoritarians get into power, (again from what I can tell) authoritarian leaders *are* at their most stable when they *are* benefiting the supporters in some way... even if it's show, spectacle, or propaganda, it has to be something. In fact, I would see this as a potential flaw in the current fascism of the GOP: their economic goals seem completely aligned with the ruling class, and what economics they have often wallows in ain't-gonna-work fantasy land that screws over both the economy and their lower-income supporters (ranging from tariffs to harassing the Federal Reserve to the supply side economics malarky). The showman shit against Others is the GOP "bread and circuses", and that -- and the Hope of Trump -- is all they got, power wise. (Trump, in fact, with his oodles of grifting scams, has a lot in common with those prosperity gospel preachers, eh?)
- For now... it works. But there are many examples out there of "competitive authoritarian" regimes getting undone by a shit economy, when things get so bad that even Hope fades away. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I find that logic questionable, Antares. Mainly on the basis that as prehistory didn't go in much for recording stuff, we do not know how they operated societally. What recorded history does tell us is that the vast majority of the time, our various ancestors lived under the thumb of people they didn't choose to rule over them making decisions affecting them with little to zero input on what they personally felt on this situation.
- I would personally widen the maxim; that a lot of people like authoritative leaders, and a lot of these cannot really tell the difference between that and an authoritarian [or perhaps just don't care]. Think this goes back to childhoods; wanting somebody/thing to be the 'Big Parent' for us now we realised the genuine is just a pair of very-human people who may not even be that competent [this raises the question; does shit parenting short-circuit this line in their adult kids?]. This also does explain the situation where a worryingly large % of right-wingers see God as a big 'sky daddy' to hit up for favours and cash.
- Which leads to the other appeal; let's call it 'having a Godfather'. If you actually trawl the 'leopards ate my face' reddit you'll find the following tale the usual one...
- - 1/. the kissing of the ring and paying of the dues.
- - 2/. the call for goon beatings on the people/things they personally hate.
- - 3/. shocked Pikachu face on realising the goons are breaking their legs.
- - 4/. personal calling the Godfather to stop the beating. Surely, it must be a mistake!
- - 5/. shocked Pikachu x2 when the Godfather either pretends to not hear or tells them to shut up/fuck off.
- A decent % of this is societal in origin; having a situation where sufficient numbers of the population genuinely hate particular person(s) so much they actively want someone to cause them harm. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- We can make general inferences as to how cultures in prehistory operated by examining how similar cultures operate today, and hunter-gatherer cultures are generally rather egalitarian. Across the board you only start to see a severe rise in social stratification with the rise of the state. And even if this were not true, it still remains a fact that people have resisted authoritarianism for as long as authoritarian social structures have existed. We have records of slave revolts going back millennia, and even when slaves weren't openly rebelling they were still resisting. Antares (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- As Nietzsche explained to us, those slaves eventually got 'master morality' replaced with 'slave morality'. Which means that our anti-authoritarian traditions are fundamentally debased. They can be easily subverted, it doesn't matter that most people don't like living under authoritarian rule, few people are required to screw up anything 'good'. The institutions that can arise under democratic rule heavily depend on what is sometimes called 'the honor system', meaning that bad actors can easily 'ruin it for everyone'. And they do, every time. Here's an example that may shed some light on what I am trying to get at: I recently watched an episode of the tv show 48 Hours, in which a woman shot and killed her ex-husband because she claimed he was about to attack her. These two lovebirds met when they were both campaigning for Trump, so it was a match made in MAGA-heaven. But since they were both terrible people, the honeymoon stage didn't last long. The woman started calling the cops and making up stories about the guy physically abusing her, and when the cops would arrive they wouldn't do anything because there was no evidence. She tries to assume the role of the abused female, but because she's spent a lifetime denigrating and mocking that very circumstance, her attempt to exploit it is cartoonish and ridiculous. When she finally shot the guy dead she claimed in her trial for murder that he 'didn't even look like himself', that veins were bulging in his neck, and she was sure he was about to attack her because he started 'moving his hands and arms around'. When the prosecutor asked her what she meant by this she said she didn't know much about 'fighting'. In other words, she was claiming that she shot her ex because he was doing what's called a 'kata', you know, like you see in kung fu movies before a guy is about to engage in some whup-ass karate he says 'waaah' and moves his arms around slowly. She was expecting that setting this ludicrous scene would garner her sympathy from the jury. So what I'm getting at here is that the very people who seek to destroy the institutions that we might set up to protect the weak, will try to exploit those institutions when they lose the strength to dominate.They'll wrap themselves up like a blanket in things like the constitution, things they otherwise sought to subvert when they thought other weak people used them to 'get away' with stuff. The 'free riders' are never the people who toiled forever to implement the systems that are susceptible to free riding, the free riders are the people who actively campaigned against those systems being implemented in the first place. They want to abuse them to demonstrate why they shouldn't exist. Anyone can call themselves a 'liberal', anyone can demand to be addressed with certain pronouns, etc. Anyone can throw up the signals that cause those who apply meaning to those signals to let their guard down, to assume the person they're dealing with is doing so with authentic intention. 2001:569:5968:4900:EA84:BE04:B155:5248 (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- We can make general inferences as to how cultures in prehistory operated by examining how similar cultures operate today, and hunter-gatherer cultures are generally rather egalitarian. Across the board you only start to see a severe rise in social stratification with the rise of the state. And even if this were not true, it still remains a fact that people have resisted authoritarianism for as long as authoritarian social structures have existed. We have records of slave revolts going back millennia, and even when slaves weren't openly rebelling they were still resisting. Antares (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- A decent % of this is societal in origin; having a situation where sufficient numbers of the population genuinely hate particular person(s) so much they actively want someone to cause them harm. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Better Out Than In[edit]
This will be entirely gross. I have been working with a 5 person team, two of which had been sick, both with an attitude that they should work anyway, because there weren't any alternates to swap on the job site. Nothing debilitating, but a lot of coughs and just low energy. It is not uncommon to work through illness, but it kinda pissed me off, and I'm not in a position to send people home. Yesterday, I woke up with a sore throat. I had considered calling in, but again, no alternates, and a four person team would be difficult. I got to the job site, and the other guy who had not been sick was coughing, and everyone was dragging themselves around like they were walking through mud. So, that's four out of five, I gave the lead a warning to give us all as much distance as possible, because we're all sick. Two of the guys are hand-coughers, which is awful because we all trade off tools. So, I'm sick now too, not debilitating, not gonna last long, but this morning, or rather yesterday, my precious day off, when I woke up, my sinuses were plugged and my throat was scratchy.
This is entirely gross, but it can maybe be helpful. When I blew my nose there was a bright yellow color to the mucus. If your snot isn't clear, it's capturing something. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0145561320981441/ when a man ejaculates, the signals sent through the body to loosen the urethra also loosen up the sinuses. So yeah, I did what I had to do to clear the pipes. After masturbating, I blew my nose, coughed very hard, and then blew again and a disgusting wad of dark yellow mucus striated with blood came out of my deep sinuses through my nose. The human body is gross, I understand, but that HAS to leave the deep sinuses, and as gross as it is, better out than in.
I would recommend to the fellas, i dunno for the ladies, because nobody really wants to admit when they are sick or talk about masturbation; if you want to get over a cold faster, know the symptoms, let your body do what it needs to do by sequestering it all in mucus and then get it out by any means necessary, guaifenisen thins mucus, but I don't really want to thin my mucus if I don't have to. In biblical terms, know thyself. Torrent (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I also drink a LOT of water and eat VERY spicy food to encourage a lot of extra mucus production for a rhinovirus. I love spicy food anyway, so my gut doesn't react negatively to it. Swallowing mucus, though, gives me a stomacheache. Stay home and hack that shit up alone, don't cough on your hands and then touch shit I need to touch. Torrent (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Quite sure that horseradish opens the sinuses faster CorruptUser 19:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Horseradish is noxious, what you want is marshmallow root. And that 'yellow stuff' in the mucus is called 'pus'. Yes, it is better to get it out of the body no matter where it is, but when sinuses feel 'clogged' they're mostly just swollen. Blowing the nose too hard will keep them swollen, as will histamines. Sinuses only fill up with pus and mucus when the swelling has gone down but you can't feel when this happens because sinuses that are swollen shut or filled with pus feel the same - clogged. Blow your nose gently when you need to, and eventually the pus will come out when it should.2001:569:5968:4900:A5A9:3CA3:9781:5EB6 (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Fully disagree, gentle coughing does nothing. High expectorant coughs are loud, rattly, but high production coughs are worth it. Snot in your lungs is pneumonia. Do everything to keep keep that shit out of your lungs. If your cough has a rattle, chase it until you can hack up that snot ball, before it becomes a lung cookie. I mean, obviously have a tissue or napkin if you can, but if you gotta cough up a ball of mucus, hack it up, polite society be damned. Don't suffer tiny coughs, 'hem hem hem' is so bad and annoying. 'Hem hem hem' Are you eick? @'£noz it's just allergies' at the end of summer. Just before fall. When allergies have not affected you all summer long until now. And you're gonna 'hem hem hem' into your hand, fine. I'm gonna cough with my full diaphragm and spit whatever I cough up up outside nd never onto my hand maniacs. If you cough hard with a rattle, cough until it comes out and you won't have to do the 'hem hem hem' I've been bit by a zombie, but it isn't that bat I've caught the cold bullshit. If everyone else on my team wasn't already sick I'd behave differently, I wouldn't bring it. I still wash my hands on every break, clear my sinuses when I can and use soap and water and hand sanitizer. It's not that I'm scared of getting sick,I just think it's rude to pretend like you're not sick and spread that shit around. Torrent (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I said gentle blowing of the nose, not gentle coughing. We were talking about sinuses, not lungs. What you've stated about coughing is mostly correct, but most people don't know how to cough up crap in their lungs. I do know how, because I figured it out. I'd probably be dead by now if I hadn't, but I digress. Unfortunately the method is hard to describe. You need to exhale strongly in a certain way, which will bring the crap up far enough so that you can cough it out. It can help to lie on your back while doing the exhale. I can't really think of a way to describe the exhale, but it's not a 'normal' exhale, it's like a wheeze, making an 'H' sound engages the correct muscles. If you forcefully/loudly whisper 'Hooo' or 'Huuh' you'll be in the right ballpark. But not 'hem', if you engage the vocal cords it won't work. Then just cough normally and if there's anything to come up it will. 2001:569:5968:4900:7E10:FC59:A163:EB5E (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Fully disagree, gentle coughing does nothing. High expectorant coughs are loud, rattly, but high production coughs are worth it. Snot in your lungs is pneumonia. Do everything to keep keep that shit out of your lungs. If your cough has a rattle, chase it until you can hack up that snot ball, before it becomes a lung cookie. I mean, obviously have a tissue or napkin if you can, but if you gotta cough up a ball of mucus, hack it up, polite society be damned. Don't suffer tiny coughs, 'hem hem hem' is so bad and annoying. 'Hem hem hem' Are you eick? @'£noz it's just allergies' at the end of summer. Just before fall. When allergies have not affected you all summer long until now. And you're gonna 'hem hem hem' into your hand, fine. I'm gonna cough with my full diaphragm and spit whatever I cough up up outside nd never onto my hand maniacs. If you cough hard with a rattle, cough until it comes out and you won't have to do the 'hem hem hem' I've been bit by a zombie, but it isn't that bat I've caught the cold bullshit. If everyone else on my team wasn't already sick I'd behave differently, I wouldn't bring it. I still wash my hands on every break, clear my sinuses when I can and use soap and water and hand sanitizer. It's not that I'm scared of getting sick,I just think it's rude to pretend like you're not sick and spread that shit around. Torrent (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Horseradish is noxious, what you want is marshmallow root. And that 'yellow stuff' in the mucus is called 'pus'. Yes, it is better to get it out of the body no matter where it is, but when sinuses feel 'clogged' they're mostly just swollen. Blowing the nose too hard will keep them swollen, as will histamines. Sinuses only fill up with pus and mucus when the swelling has gone down but you can't feel when this happens because sinuses that are swollen shut or filled with pus feel the same - clogged. Blow your nose gently when you need to, and eventually the pus will come out when it should.2001:569:5968:4900:A5A9:3CA3:9781:5EB6 (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Quite sure that horseradish opens the sinuses faster CorruptUser 19:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I am becoming a language fanatic[edit]
Its recent but I like learning about languages. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- In what manner? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Language acquisition --Trans Fem Agenda 20:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- What, foreign languages, the English language or languages in general? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Languages in general. --Trans Fem Agenda 11:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- What, foreign languages, the English language or languages in general? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Language acquisition --Trans Fem Agenda 20:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I am learning Spanish from Duolingo. I am considering doing a class on Udemy. --Trans Fem Agenda 18:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have experience with duolingo German-speakers coming to Berlin from various parts of the world… If you do it the right way, I guess, but otherwise, please use more "old-school" stuff, incl. actual websites made for, I don't know, highschool students, expats, etc. Usually they're better than Duolingo. They're better as long as they're paying, as most free stuff isn't great for languages. Just my 2 cents. Wow (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I love language, and the ways it can work. I am not a polyglot. I took years of french, kinda wish I had learned spanish, but picking fields of study is kinda the teachers' fault. I have a niece that has been learning Chinese, dunno what exact form,m but that is a good idea for a couple reasons. One, as I learned French, other languages like Spanish made sense to me. But that's also part of English, Which is Gerrmanic in origin but very utilitarian with its incorporation of anything, slang runs fast and loose in English. I took one year of German, and I understand it if I'm listening but can't speak a sententence. Ich bin ein Sitzpinkler. I am positive that means I shine every time I sit down. The other is, the more you can use language that isn't your native tongue, the more inventive you can be. I still think the Alphabet is the best way to describe phonetic uses of language. I think it would be worth their time to take Anything logo graphic and just break it down into phonics. Torrent (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have experience with duolingo German-speakers coming to Berlin from various parts of the world… If you do it the right way, I guess, but otherwise, please use more "old-school" stuff, incl. actual websites made for, I don't know, highschool students, expats, etc. Usually they're better than Duolingo. They're better as long as they're paying, as most free stuff isn't great for languages. Just my 2 cents. Wow (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Do you think the 10th of September movement will be successful?[edit]
That is, the French social movement of general strike (or more generally "blockade" of activities and consumerism) planed for the 10th of September against the governments budget and plan to remove two holidays. I know many who participate with me, but I'm not sure outside the Parisian bubble, people are also enthusiastic (it was quickly "appropriated" by a left which largely missed out on the yellow vest movement). Is it going to end up shaking the country, like the yellow vests and the retirement reforms did? It is supported by all left parties, opposed by the National Rally, but the supporters of National Rally (77 % of them), the Greens (83 %, if I’m not mistaken) and La France Insoumise (79 %) all support the movement, only the far-right deputies oppose it. The government has announced a press conference on Monday, and on the 8th of September, there will be a motion of censure against the prime minister, Bayrou: it will be on the centre-left Socialists and the far-right National Rally to make the change (last time(s), these two had some problems showing they were opposed to Macron's government, and both voted for Bayrou, while LFI, communists and greens voted against him). New world (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- What would a French general strike mean for European or global economics? Äxl (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think the more interesting question is what will happen when the French government (probably) fails the forthcoming confidence vote.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- If the government collapses, the mobilisation will only get more intense, in my opinion. The left will use this as an opportunity to force Macron to respect election results (I know, the left doesn't have an absolute majority blablabla. Sure, it's not the first time the relative majority of a party/alliance has been disrespected, but the problem is that Macron very clearly failed, and the French people largely reject his politics, yet Macron just continues as if he was a monarch ignoring the parliament he caused). Macron had 2 coalition or non-aggression options, everyone can judge by themselves which one was better: the left, including La France Insoumise, the greens and the communists, not just the Socialist Party; or the far-right. His "coalition" with the centre-right doesn't have an absolute majority, so… he sort of decided the far-right was better. Hey, just to make this even worse: the socialist party and national rally voted for François Bayrou. I can't express how scary this is: Retailleau is a French minister and literal fascist, worse than Darmanin, and nobody is able to fight back. Macron wanted a wide German-style "GroKo" going from Les Républicains to the Socialist Party, but turns out the socialists refused. Instead of seeing he had no other choice than to name a leftist prime minister, or to cooperate with the far-right, he decided to pretend to do neither. In the end, Bayrou depended on National Rally (and the socialist party…) to survive. Also, it shows National Rally is just an economically liberal party whose deputies were largely born rich, on contrast to their electorate. New world (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I fear the main effect to this ultimately is going to be to push the French neolib/capitalist class closer to the National Rally. Because 'the left' generally is not offering anything constructive [as far as I know] to start tackling the structural and growing deficit or the rising debt/GDP ratios. Once again, it's the traditional 'principled opposition mentality'. That as the financial situation continues to deteriorate and with 'the left' blocking everything and anything it's very possible that in the end the capitalists throw their lot in with the fascists because they promise a variant of DOGE to 'balance the books' [I never said capitalists/financiers really understand macroeconomics] and all they ask in return is that they're given full reign over social policy [foreign policy being split]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- @KarmaPolice: Please tell me why the crème de la crème of economists here support left-wing movements and the French social model. The solution proposed by the left is putting a stop to the fiscal gifts to companies, and especially to the super-rich, which have undeniably contributed greatly to the dramatic debt increase under Macron (together with the COVID pandemic and the Ukraine war). A general plan of reinstating the previous taxes abolished by Macron, "Mozart of finances", and to add new ones, as well as rejecting eurosur, going back to the exit tax prior to 2019, and generally increasing taxes for the super-rich (10 % most rich) and especially the oligarchy (2-1 % most rich), while the middle class and the popular classes will either not see an increase or will see a decrease in taxes, exists. Most critics are, well, companies, and especially the big ones. The 2024 New Popular Front program had a plan to win back 49 Billion euros, to be precise. If you speak French, I invite you to take a look yourself at this general overview: here. The French social model is still functional, period. It's the people in power since 2012 (since then, a certain clearly defined line has been established, though liberal Gaullists and others had governed previously too, and Giscard was also liberal) that are destroying it. There is reason to be a little optimistic, though: so far, the social movements of France have always been judged fairly positively by later French historians, and often had an impact, and since the French Revolution, a line of social movements leading to social acquisitions has been observed that might continue. Call it "off-topic", but it's immensely important to remind people (when they go on about the "unserious" left) that in the 1930s, the French right claimed that the 40 hour workweek was going to "drown the French worker" and destroy the economy. The result: the 40 hour workweek, and many other social acquisitions (free SNCF tickets, payed vacation, and many other rights) did not lead to the collapse of the French economy. The Popular Front of 1936 is an example because it was more of a social movement than a mere alliance: as a reaction to the storming of the National Asbly by far-right ligues in February 1934, all left parties demonstrated and concluded a pact to fight the fascist menace. They didn't present themselves as an alliance, but each party was campaigning independently. Finally, the SFIO managed to become first, and a government tolerated by the Communists was established. What is often forgotten: to force the government to keep its promises and as a celebration, French workers made strikes across the country for over a month, leading to the accords de Matignon. In fact, the Socialist Party was expecting the same thing (massive strike movements) to happen in 1981. But, it didn't, and especially to the extent it did in 1936. Later, being surrounded by liberal governments on all sides, and the collapse of communism, forced Mitterrand to change the course of his politics after one or two years of reform, and to open a "liberal parenthesis". And this is without mentioning May 68, and the literal hundreds of individual mobilisations across the history of the 4th and 5th republics. New world (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- First off, economists are not a monolithic bloc; like all social sciences there's various factions/traditions which argue the importance of details etc [for example some criticise the French for having an 'excessive' rate of saving but others are much more neutral/positive towards it]. What's more, quite a lot of economists [in my experience] have blinders glued on - they don't give a fuck about QoL, happiness, 'national resiliency' or any aspect of human life which isn't purely economic in nature [I would expect the majority of those who do care do find considerable merits in 'the French system']. But the ones who do find merit doesn't stop them from asking a) whether this is the most resource-efficient system for doing said things, b) are the downsides to this worth bearing and/or c) asking whether the country itself can afford to do it. For example, there's a lot of debate over employment law/rights etc; whether [in short] the juiced-in, unionised work system is damaging SME growth as well as creating a two-tier system where there's an ever-swelling number of permatemps.
- @KarmaPolice: Please tell me why the crème de la crème of economists here support left-wing movements and the French social model. The solution proposed by the left is putting a stop to the fiscal gifts to companies, and especially to the super-rich, which have undeniably contributed greatly to the dramatic debt increase under Macron (together with the COVID pandemic and the Ukraine war). A general plan of reinstating the previous taxes abolished by Macron, "Mozart of finances", and to add new ones, as well as rejecting eurosur, going back to the exit tax prior to 2019, and generally increasing taxes for the super-rich (10 % most rich) and especially the oligarchy (2-1 % most rich), while the middle class and the popular classes will either not see an increase or will see a decrease in taxes, exists. Most critics are, well, companies, and especially the big ones. The 2024 New Popular Front program had a plan to win back 49 Billion euros, to be precise. If you speak French, I invite you to take a look yourself at this general overview: here. The French social model is still functional, period. It's the people in power since 2012 (since then, a certain clearly defined line has been established, though liberal Gaullists and others had governed previously too, and Giscard was also liberal) that are destroying it. There is reason to be a little optimistic, though: so far, the social movements of France have always been judged fairly positively by later French historians, and often had an impact, and since the French Revolution, a line of social movements leading to social acquisitions has been observed that might continue. Call it "off-topic", but it's immensely important to remind people (when they go on about the "unserious" left) that in the 1930s, the French right claimed that the 40 hour workweek was going to "drown the French worker" and destroy the economy. The result: the 40 hour workweek, and many other social acquisitions (free SNCF tickets, payed vacation, and many other rights) did not lead to the collapse of the French economy. The Popular Front of 1936 is an example because it was more of a social movement than a mere alliance: as a reaction to the storming of the National Asbly by far-right ligues in February 1934, all left parties demonstrated and concluded a pact to fight the fascist menace. They didn't present themselves as an alliance, but each party was campaigning independently. Finally, the SFIO managed to become first, and a government tolerated by the Communists was established. What is often forgotten: to force the government to keep its promises and as a celebration, French workers made strikes across the country for over a month, leading to the accords de Matignon. In fact, the Socialist Party was expecting the same thing (massive strike movements) to happen in 1981. But, it didn't, and especially to the extent it did in 1936. Later, being surrounded by liberal governments on all sides, and the collapse of communism, forced Mitterrand to change the course of his politics after one or two years of reform, and to open a "liberal parenthesis". And this is without mentioning May 68, and the literal hundreds of individual mobilisations across the history of the 4th and 5th republics. New world (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I fear the main effect to this ultimately is going to be to push the French neolib/capitalist class closer to the National Rally. Because 'the left' generally is not offering anything constructive [as far as I know] to start tackling the structural and growing deficit or the rising debt/GDP ratios. Once again, it's the traditional 'principled opposition mentality'. That as the financial situation continues to deteriorate and with 'the left' blocking everything and anything it's very possible that in the end the capitalists throw their lot in with the fascists because they promise a variant of DOGE to 'balance the books' [I never said capitalists/financiers really understand macroeconomics] and all they ask in return is that they're given full reign over social policy [foreign policy being split]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- If the government collapses, the mobilisation will only get more intense, in my opinion. The left will use this as an opportunity to force Macron to respect election results (I know, the left doesn't have an absolute majority blablabla. Sure, it's not the first time the relative majority of a party/alliance has been disrespected, but the problem is that Macron very clearly failed, and the French people largely reject his politics, yet Macron just continues as if he was a monarch ignoring the parliament he caused). Macron had 2 coalition or non-aggression options, everyone can judge by themselves which one was better: the left, including La France Insoumise, the greens and the communists, not just the Socialist Party; or the far-right. His "coalition" with the centre-right doesn't have an absolute majority, so… he sort of decided the far-right was better. Hey, just to make this even worse: the socialist party and national rally voted for François Bayrou. I can't express how scary this is: Retailleau is a French minister and literal fascist, worse than Darmanin, and nobody is able to fight back. Macron wanted a wide German-style "GroKo" going from Les Républicains to the Socialist Party, but turns out the socialists refused. Instead of seeing he had no other choice than to name a leftist prime minister, or to cooperate with the far-right, he decided to pretend to do neither. In the end, Bayrou depended on National Rally (and the socialist party…) to survive. Also, it shows National Rally is just an economically liberal party whose deputies were largely born rich, on contrast to their electorate. New world (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think the more interesting question is what will happen when the French government (probably) fails the forthcoming confidence vote.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I will take back my complaint that 'the left has not proposed anything'; this was mainly due to a source which proved to be wrong. So apologies for that. But don't for one moment think I get suckered into the constant lament from the rightist capitalist class that any reform, however mild was going to destroy everything - for example claims against minimum wages. High minimum wages may in fact be good long-term for an advanced economy, as it forces companies to be more efficient with labour, thus spurring automation (capital investment) and as such, producing a high labour productivity. This is an excellent example of a key issue - economists are not bankers, businesspeople or financiers. Economists are interested in the functioning of the whole economy, while the others are only interested in their own personal folders of figures. Macro vs micro. Decades vs the next quarter etc. It's the old quip of 'knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing'; the boss of [say] Carrefour only sees their workers 'as a cost they wish to reduce as much as possible' and call loudly for minimum wages to be reduced, while an economist will note said reductions will a) reduce economic activity (Carrefour workers cannot consume much now) and b) may make them more dependent on state assistance [which can lead to the paradoxical situation where the bill to 'top up' those jobs to a minimum liveable level is more than the tax-take from the company in question qv Amazon UK.]
- My original prediction [which I stand by] is based on one key fact; the capitalist class are financiers, not economists. Most of them are too fucking stupid to realise the old maxim 'private good, public vice' and those few who do realise this don't fucking care. But they do care if any econ proposal makes them even very slightly less rich and/or 'have to do anything'. In fact, they are always hard-on to have those reduced. The crux of the issue [not just for France] is that our general fiscal 'headroom' is fairly tight and the market ghouls are using this in an attempt to strongarm nations to do UK-style austerity measures [under the guise of TINA]. A closely related group are the 'inflation hawks' who believe they must have 1% rates eternally and don't give a fuck how long or deep a recession the world has to achieve it.
- And you wonder why I predict that the capitalist class will go towards National Rally. They're the only ones who will entertain the possibility of French style DOGE-slashing and don't propose raising taxes on the super-rich. I don't know the exact policies of Le Pen but I'm willing to bet they have a reasonable bit of 'entrepreneurial' spiel which in real terms equals 'we're gonna deregulate to fuck' which is music to the ears of the forces of finance. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that the French traditional right or "centre" is eventually going to openly admit they prefer "Hitler over the popular front", as the old saying goes. But the fact that the right might come closer to the far-right shouldn't stop the left from mobilising against the right and show 'the people' that the far-right is not "transpartisan", "apolitical" or simply "revolted", the National Rally is an extremist right-wing party that unites all the codes an extremist wing of the right would have. Supporting social movements might have given Die Linke in Germany a little bit more of a chance, in my opinion. A prominent example: the agriculture protests. In France, climate activists literally demonstrated in solidarity with agriculturalists, La France Insoumise and the Greens supported the protests, including the blockade of Paris. In Germany: the Greens literally call the people that protest against power "authoritarian" and "undemocratic", and the entire left electorate basically considers the entire idea of agriculturists' protests far-right and conservative just because the agriculturists are far-right. That logic just doesn't hold up: If the left would have participated, more protestors would have been left-oriented. But Germany, which has completely internalised the entire "progressive-conservative" opposition the neoliberals invented in order to be "left-wing" too, considers any radical protest as a mix of conspiracy theorists and the far-right. Here, in France, the frustrated "centrists" always talk and talk about Germany, "progressive politics" and the dumb, populist French people. In France, what the German greens said about agriculturists would have been an absolute scandal and a reason for demission from the cabinet for the ministers involved. Another example: retirement. In Germany, Die Linke officially supports a more just retirement, but the general discourse around the issue of retirement (the how and when) was and is… very "nice" and "civilised", the youth thought and thinks more about "generational justice" than solidarity, and considers it a "boomer" (what serious and encouraging discourse… almost like in an Anglo-Saxon country) debate. Meanwhile, the French left (including the most rightwing "leftists": Hollande, Delga, etc.) managed to take advantage of the protests, while National Rally was struggling for a time, and all unions, including the high school and university unions which called to blockades of school establishments, participated, and especially the youth in the name of "intergenerational solidarity". Without this, the left would be significantly less important in France right now, we might even have a far-right Prime Minister since 2024. New world (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- And you wonder why I predict that the capitalist class will go towards National Rally. They're the only ones who will entertain the possibility of French style DOGE-slashing and don't propose raising taxes on the super-rich. I don't know the exact policies of Le Pen but I'm willing to bet they have a reasonable bit of 'entrepreneurial' spiel which in real terms equals 'we're gonna deregulate to fuck' which is music to the ears of the forces of finance. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Farage and deportation[edit]
So how soon will Charles and siblings (father a foreigner), and Bojo (born in the USA]] be sent elsewhere if NF and co get into power? Anna Livia (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- The day they turn Black. Spud (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's not strictly true. It's when they turn to be non-white. And they oppose him somehow. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Don't they hate Romanians too? I'm pretty sure Eastern Europeans are still considered white... GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know about the UK, but in the US, my perception is that a significant part of the leadership of populism movements are more classist vs. racist at their core. Such makes it pretty easy to translate this into racism and other Other bashing for the rubes, as well parroting the trendy anti-immigration babble (much of such rhetoric targets unskilled labor, you see). But skin color matters less at a "classist" level... as long as you are of the right "class" and right "politics". (Your mileage may vary, of course, on exactly *how* much less.)
- (This means that I wouldn't be surprised if many of the populists secretly hate the "white trash" vote they solicit, but I digress...)
- MAGA does certainly have their hardcore white nationalist side, of course. Occasionally in Trump's term something has bubbled up to separate the "classist" folks in the administration versus the true hardcore white nationalists, the H1B visa brouhaha probably being one of the big examples of such.
- It wouldn't surprise me if Nigel Farage, who is of pretty well off stock (public school; finance trader coming from a finance trading family), is similarly more classist in reality. But you Brits would know better. :) 47.197.76.134 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not really getting what the distinction between classism and racism you're trying to make entails. Classism is a tool of racism, and racism is a tool of classism. Classists need for there to be a very small amount of the 'other' in their ranks, to act as a model for the rest of the 'others' to aspire to, which keeps them in line. But as soon as the 'classists' think there are too many of the wrong races in their ranks they seek to remedy that predicament. That's fear that fuels the 'Great Replacement' theory. The 'token' ethnic character trope has been obvious enough for a long time, so this should not be difficult to understand. The existence of the 'token' has been used to conflate racism and classism ad nauseum. "I'm not racist because I have a black friend!" thankfully no longer carries any of the cachet it may have in the past.2001:569:5968:4900:A5A9:3CA3:9781:5EB6 (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's not too hard: with classism, money / power / social position dominate social hierarchy. With racism, skin color and other "race" constructs dominate. Yes, there is a lot of overlap and "your mileage may vary" stuff. It's not all tokenism though. The "tech bro" community is a good example of a group which from my observation is more "class" than "race" without much tokenism; among visible ones that have leaned into MAGA, Indian Hindus like Vivek Ramaswamy and (libertarian) homosexuals like Peter Thiel are just as much of a part of the tech bro "upper crust" group as anyone else. (Don't ask "tech bros" about women, though. :) ) Given how homophobia and racism are pretty much running wild in MAGA right now, it's an odd fit. But it makes sense from a classism perspective.
- But, to the original question... honestly, my "gut feeling" is that a Royal Family member could be (gasp!) black-skinned and Muslim-born, and yet possibly get a pass from at least *some* (not all for sure) of the Reform UK type "deport dem furriners!" crowd, as long as (big caveat here) he or she acts sufficiently British royal upper class in mannerism and pomp. (At the very least, such a hypothetical would show who are driven more by class, and who are driven more by race.) Not being from the UK, of course, I don't know if this "gut feeling" is right. I do know that there are *many* foreign-born Royal Family members, though all I know are of European heritage / white skin color. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- It is always very dangerous to import socio-politico-cultural norms/assumptions from one country and put them wholesale in another. It's why [for example] the BLM protests didn't make a huge amount of sense in the UK until it was diverted into prompting a showdown with our imperial past [such as the Edward Colston statue].
- I'm not really getting what the distinction between classism and racism you're trying to make entails. Classism is a tool of racism, and racism is a tool of classism. Classists need for there to be a very small amount of the 'other' in their ranks, to act as a model for the rest of the 'others' to aspire to, which keeps them in line. But as soon as the 'classists' think there are too many of the wrong races in their ranks they seek to remedy that predicament. That's fear that fuels the 'Great Replacement' theory. The 'token' ethnic character trope has been obvious enough for a long time, so this should not be difficult to understand. The existence of the 'token' has been used to conflate racism and classism ad nauseum. "I'm not racist because I have a black friend!" thankfully no longer carries any of the cachet it may have in the past.2001:569:5968:4900:A5A9:3CA3:9781:5EB6 (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Don't they hate Romanians too? I'm pretty sure Eastern Europeans are still considered white... GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's not strictly true. It's when they turn to be non-white. And they oppose him somehow. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Anyway, from what I can tell the definitions of 'nationalism' have been 'crossing each other' on both sides of the Atlantic - that the USA is a nation where their civic nationalism is morphing into ethnic nationalism, while in the UK it is [roughly] the opposite. Part of this is due to ethnic demographics and country size; that in the UK none of our ethnic minorities have enough numbers/clout to sustain a total parallel society within the UK [unlike say the USA, where there is a whole setup for 'Black America' running alongside the mainstream]. QED: You will integrate, whether you fucking like it or not.
- That's important; because I will argue us Brits [or more correctly, English] are less racist than imagined, but way more xenophobic. That the mass migrant waves [say the Caribbean wave between c47-c71] were opposed because they were clearly Others and well, we don't like things Not Like Us. The dark skin was an obvious marker of Otherness and as such, an easy marker to cite [ie xenophobia being expressed in racist terms]. But, as the decades [and generations] pass, both groups move to each other - They became more like Us, but We also came more like Them. However, in a classic 'wood/trees' situation, most of Us cannot tell how we have moved and thus forget that movement is possible.
- We saw an excellent example of this from the last government. We had not just a non-white right wing Prime Minister, but non-Christian too! Yet while tons of the British people hated his guts and gave his party a history-making electoral thrashing very little of the dislike was due to his Indian heritage and/or his Hindu faith [at least, as far as I could tell. Think Sunak got more flack for his semi-Americanised habits than ethnicity]. Why? Because he passed 'the sniff test' of Britishness; he was One Of Us in a manner I doubt he would have passed as late as say, 1990. Similar to say Cleverly, Zahawi, Bravermann etc. That's the reason for the apparent cognitive dissonance of 'ethnic minorities' clambering to deport other ethnic minorities - it is nothing more than Us yelling to get rid of Them and promising Us Our lives will be better in every way without Them.
- And it's this line Farage et al dance on - Farage himself is very skilled at it. Ever-deepening xenophobia and rigid defining of 'Britishness' which makes it very easy for genuine racists to flourish as long as they stick to the code. Example; the right-wing attacks on the Notting Hill carnival - you can attack it being 'full of crime/drugs/violence etc' and call for it to be banned 'because it might get unsafe' 'because it attracts the wrong sorts', just don't frame it in racial terms, and we're okay. Or the flying pickets of 'peaceful protestors' outside the asylum hotels who mysteriously are being corralled by neo-fascists and bigged up by Faragist electoral hopefuls. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that UK politics has a specific role of 'right wing buffer', possibly with a touch of fogeyism, so far always chaps - they are *allowed* to say what other people sometimes think and act as a lightning rod. Examples would include Dennis Thatcher, Alan Clarke, and to some extent Prince Philip. There are also a few who move beyond the pale [7]. Anna Livia (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, and Farage's very persona is this 'fogeyish duffer'; the tweed, hacking jackets, mustard trousers, waistcoats etc. He looks like an character in an second-rate Agatha Christie adaptation [or Heartbeat]; like he's the duplicitous small-town solicitor/bank manager chain-smoking Cravens while driving up to Lord Ashfordly's in his Wolseley. Trying to signal to us plebs and proles that he's 'of the ruling classes' but not, because he's 'in the country', don'tyaknow [because we all know city folk are untrustworthy] while trying to cultivate a 'reassuringly traditional' image [the public smoking, the pint of ale (not lager or a whiskey) superglued to his hand etc] to almost pantomime levels.
- It should also be noted that UK politics has a specific role of 'right wing buffer', possibly with a touch of fogeyism, so far always chaps - they are *allowed* to say what other people sometimes think and act as a lightning rod. Examples would include Dennis Thatcher, Alan Clarke, and to some extent Prince Philip. There are also a few who move beyond the pale [7]. Anna Livia (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- In a way, he is quite similar to Trump - in that both have cottoned onto a persona which a lot of the respective public respond to - Trump as his 'billionaire businessman' while Farage went with the 'stodgy upper-middle class ruralite'. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Excluding Prince Philip as a special case, the 'right wing buffer' is 'no longer a PM candidate' and is not a 'Tory grandee' (who may hold right wing views (or have a castle with a moat and floating duck houses etc)).
- There is no obvious Labour Party equivalent (and the Lib Dems and their predecessors do not 'go' with the concept). There are 'firebrands', and particular groups (Trotskyite Militant Tendency/Militant etc) - Ken Livingstone, Arthur Scargill, Derek Hatton etc. Anna Livia (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think the 'Tory Grandee' has died because the Tory party has. I'll point out the following 'stab-wounds' 1/ 1997 electoral blowout [lost many experienced MPs], 2/ 1999 Lords reform [removed many hereditary Tories], 3/ 2016 Brexit [lost the pro-Euros], 4/ 2019 Johnson Purge [culling of the 'big beasts' who resisted], 5/ 2024 wipeout and finally 6/ the continued drive rightwards to be a ersatz Reform. 'Being a grandee' relies on you getting the experience to become a grandee, to continue to see worth in the Tory Party of today and to have a leadership which will actually at least fucking listen to your counsel. Whoever Badenoch is listening to now, it's not them - which might be part of her problem [she's short of personal experience for starters; she was only elected in 2017]. Though she's not really alone in this; as of 2024 only 27% of MPs have more than 9 years experience and 10% 18 years plus [this is an unusually 'new' parliament].
- In a way, he is quite similar to Trump - in that both have cottoned onto a persona which a lot of the respective public respond to - Trump as his 'billionaire businessman' while Farage went with the 'stodgy upper-middle class ruralite'. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- One of my pet theories is that also the base quality of Tory MP has declined over the decades. My experience is that rightish people are more motivated by money and the honest truth is that if you're a 'high flyer' chances are you'll do a lot better in the private sector. Plus, running for seats costs you time and money personally [estimates is between 10k and 100k each time] and also relies on you having the ability to take leave to do it. Therefore, most Tory MPs elected say, since 1992 are third/fourth-raters who 'didn't really have much better options' which meant that by the 10s second raters like Cameron and Gove are impressive in comparison and by now the third-rate Shapps is parading about like he's a grandee now. Labour has 'degraded' too, but for differing reasons. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Does Quantum Physics debunk materialism?[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
I've asked this question before on physics and other forums and I get answers ranging from "no" to "it's compilated. I know that some discoveries in QM challenge materialism but that's about it. The video is from an...iffy source and at a glance seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what observation means in QM. I don't think QM disproves materialism and definitely not realism, but some of the findings do challenge materialism like non locality, wave particle duality, etc. Just wanted a second opinion, physics is my worst subject (I couldn't even hack the 101 class in college).47.5.66.54 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like we are back on solipsism - again. I'm not going to spend 20 minutes watching the video. What is the claim in your words?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'll simplify, without watching the video...
- Quantum physics "averages out" to regular physics on the macro scale. This doesn't prove or disprove anything about Materialism. Currently, there are limits to how small or how big we may look, we might never go beyond those limits, but that doesn't mean the physics we have is incorrect. CorruptUser 20:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
It's not solipsism, I don't buy into that. But I don't know enough about physics to understand if its true or not, and definitely not enough on quantum physics. I did hear that about quantum physics on the "macro" scale, that the probability of quantum phenomenon at that level of interaction is so vanishingly small it might as well be none.47.5.66.54 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- non-locality, wave particle duality, and nothing else I am aware of in quantum theory challenge materialism. Let's look at the definitions... non-locality = a quantum mechanical concept describing how the measurement of one particle can instantaneously influence the state of another entangled particle, regardless of the distance separating them. wave particle duality = a quantum mechanical concept stating that fundamental entities like photons and electrons can behave as both waves and particles, materialism = the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
- If you are willing to allow that non-locality and wave particle duality constitute some of the 'movements and modifications' of matter, there is no incompatibility. If you're not willing to make that allowance, how come? 2001:569:5968:4900:A5A9:3CA3:9781:5EB6 (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Dumb Gab post of the day Numero Uno![edit]
https://gab.com/ReviveTruth/posts/115107179373844544 is the post. I shall provide a summary:
Caterpillars prove creationism because they have patterns on them. The poster does not believe that there is any possible way for a caterpillar to evolve with a pattern on it. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Caterpillars are gross. Most of them don't even turn into butterflies, they turn into moths. 2001:569:5968:4900:7525:C984:58F8:865 (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
2607:61C0:700:2DD1:4C87:75DB:31F4:483A (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Documentary (1h 30) for everyone to check out[edit]
This is amazing. For context, the indigenous Kogui people are a native culture (not "lost tribe", for more information you have access to ethnological studies by Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff and others since the 1950s) living in the Sierra Nevada de Sant Marta in Colombia, where the Ciudad Perdida site (or Buritaca-200) is, with an extremely complex philosophy, comparable to ancient greek thought (according to the ethnologists, not me). Some here might find it "repulsive" at first (very "irrational", "religious"), but Kogui thought really is just describing the world through metaphors and myths, and their description has meaning and sense. I warn you, though: there’s much esoteric bull**** on the internet surrounding them, but I’m basing myself on ethnologists, ethno-historians and others, and kogis themselves. Ethno-historians, because the kogui are the descendants of the Tairona, a complex society of chiefdoms that is known for the "Ciudad Perdida" most of you have prob. seen already somewhere. The Tairona resisted Spanish rule for a long time (even though one of the first Spanish cities of South America was Santa Marta (1525), right next to them). They were conquered in 1600 as a result of punitive Spanish campaign after a Tairona victory, and the modern Kogi are the Taironas (the Spanish called them Tairona, really it was multiple close but different chiefdoms of the Sierra whose original names are unknown and who can’t archeologically be distinguished) who fled to the eroded, isolated places between 1000 and 2000 meters, to escape Spanish rule. Soon after, however, the Spanish basically left again and the Sierra became indigenous up until the independence wars. The Tairona were part of a pre-Colombian cultural space between the central Andes (Incas and consorts), Amazonia and Mesoamerica, called the "isthmo-colombian area" and peopled mainly by peoples of the Chibcha linguistic family und cultural area, characterised by a hierarchical way of thinking, a distinction between humans and animals (differently from Amazonian thought), "civilising" deities, and a couple more things. Among them, the muisca, famous for their metal offerings and the legend of El Dorado, whose language was also called "Chibcha" according to some sources, though that’s probably false (hence the name "Chibchan language family" and "Chibchan cultures", as researchers stopped using "Chibcha" for the muiscas specifically but for their larger group of cultures and entities in northwestern Colombia and Central America, some of which didn’t even know of each other in pre-Spanish times). Western conceptions differ greatly from the Kogui reality, though: what, to us, might be a mentally ill, abused and illiterate person and drug addict with malnutrition and winter depression ("winter depression" is the psychiatrical term used by some anthropologists to describe what we would see it as), is, in kogi society, a highly educated and intelligent, very prestigious (the most prestigious) individual (a priest), who, through sleep deprivation and inversion of the day-night cycle (as well as limited food and general retenue) in his childhood training at isolated places high up in the mountains with other priests or in caves, has been able to overcome the cycles that rule the earth for others (as dates that come in rhythms are the causes of events, and events aren't simply accompanied by dates, to the Kogi). The exact extent of the preparation of the Kogi priest (nor some details mentioned here) isn't presented as exactly in the documentary, but it gives a general idea. The documentaries main theme, the "ecological Indian", while criticised, is accepted by and somewhat true when it comes to the Kogui. RationalwikianN.51 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- No - TL:DR - try adding punctuation and brevityAloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- And paragraphs.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I read it, and a lack of paragraphs made no difference to me. People have written many larger portions of text without paragraphs at the Saloon Bar that nobody has complained about. Anyway it says there is a documentary about an indigenous population in South America and the priests of this culture live an ascetic lifestyle that, in my opinion, sounds similar to spiritual traditions in India. 2001:569:5968:4900:7525:C984:58F8:865 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, paragraph-free walls of text are not uncommon here. And they are always irritating.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The film has a Wikipedia page -- Aluna
-- for those who want a summary with paragraphs. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The film has a Wikipedia page -- Aluna
- Yes, paragraph-free walls of text are not uncommon here. And they are always irritating.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I read it, and a lack of paragraphs made no difference to me. People have written many larger portions of text without paragraphs at the Saloon Bar that nobody has complained about. Anyway it says there is a documentary about an indigenous population in South America and the priests of this culture live an ascetic lifestyle that, in my opinion, sounds similar to spiritual traditions in India. 2001:569:5968:4900:7525:C984:58F8:865 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- And paragraphs.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Transsexuals have their aggrieved serial killers now - how long till they are stigmatized as domestic terror ala incels?[edit]
![]() |
---|
There's been a number of transsexual mass shooters over the last decade, nowhere near a majority of mass shooters, but same with incels, nowhere near a majority. What's notable about some of the recent trans serial shootings is that, in their writings, they blame their own shootings on gender dysphoria, and/or lack of people helping with their orientation. This includes Audrey Hale, a Christian school shooter who killed literal children out of self-professed gender dysphoria, and has hundreds of pages of semi-manifesto material describing how she felt radicalized to violence by feelings of inadequacy, both sexual and social, born from their gender orientation. Robin Westman seems her copycat, but unlike Hale, went a bit further in her writings, claiming she was brainwashed into being transsexual. By the second self-identified incel shooting, people were calling incels a domestic terror threat, so why not trans people yet? Well I'm sure some people are at this point, but it's not that common. One reason is that no one has built up any radically violent transsexual forums yet. However, there are fan accounts of Hale though and likely will be soon of Westman as well. It would be a bit ludicrous to confidently claim with certainty that none these numerous fan accounts are definitely not organized or reposting each other. r/truecels, the first radically self-described violent incel forum, didn’t organically start as a large, active community. It was basically a tiny group, Marjan Siklic and a few others, until external amplification by watchdogs, media, and feminist forums drove traffic, attention, and notoriety. That “hyping” created the perception of a larger, more dangerous subculture than actually existed at the start. Feminists were extremely active in building up r/truecels into r/incels and subsequently driving nearly all of incels.me's traffic to incels.me, by far one of the most extreme and violent incel forums. I am not making this up and this can be easily verified. High-traffic feminist forums like r/inceltear have provided tens of thousands of advertisements (yes, obsessively repetitive criticism with direct links is advertisement, *no matter the intention*) for the tiny violent incel forum. This effectively constituted outbound links as they never censored the URL, prominently displayed in their constant advertising. No other area of the internet provides anywhere near that amount of outbound links to the violent incel forum. And there is no question that the vast majority (I estimate over 95%) of effective outbound links to incels.me/co/is were by the supposed "watchdog groups" and their media counterparts. While doing so, they routinely broadbrushed all incels as violent. And by doing so they helped congregate attention around incel communites that could be stigmatized as terrorist-like, creating a negative media feedback loop that self-justified their assertion of most incels as violent. This further gave them material to use as justification for governments to investigate or pay themselves to read entertaining forums. There's probably some deranged, violent trans forum out there, if there were a group of people as sick as modern feminists to build that up as representative of a "trans ideology" that "defines people who think they are transsexual", they could begin to duplicate the institutional stigma given to incels. Modern society already has some stigmatizing discourse toward transsexuals in modern parlance. Some prominent pundits already regularly refer to to transsexualism as fake, not real, and would define it as "people who believe they are trans due to psychotic mental illness or ideology" rather than "people who are transsexuals". This type of stigmatizing discourse is already in place for self-identified incels and involuntary celibates, calling them "people who believe they are incel due to psychotic mental illness or ideolog" and almost never "people who are involuntary celibate". People also call transsexualism an ideology due to this bigoted mindset. In much the same way people call inceldom an ideology. York re (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
|
Update 1: Time it took, about a week: - CNN - Trump DOJ is looking at ways to ban transgender Americans from owning guns, sources say York re (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Update 2: The assassination of Charlie Kirk happened directly after Kirk was arguing with someone claiming there were very few trans murderers, with Kirk trying to press it as an issue https://watchpeopledie.tv/h/shooting/post/379641/just-now-charlie-kirk-dead-in York re (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Paul is dead[edit]
Came across [8]. Anna Livia (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Article I have to update but I am not sure how to word it.[edit]
Louisiana Baptist University and Seminary recently got accredited by ASIC. I know that ASIC accreditation is worthless in the United States because it is not an academic Accreditor. --Trans Fem Agenda 16:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
That there are infinite natural numbers is the central property of infinity[edit]
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinites. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and... (infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and...) continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and...(...)...
Spacewizard9000 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- You can stop anytime you care to, you know. It'll go on without you. Kencolt (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes ----- but are numbers real?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
What ever happened to that Nintendo chap and his Pokemon?[edit]
![]() |
---|
A few years ago there was a guy named after a Nintendo character (I want to say Mario but I know I'm probably wrong) who was making Pokemon fan fiction, whatever happened to that? I miss reading that nonsense. NoMoreMAGA (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
|
Participation on Wikipedia's political pages needed (sry)[edit]
Yeah… I'm not going to get praise for this, but, well, there's a debate on the admissibility of the Wikipedia article "Bloquons tout". I won't tell you what my account is, I basically just don't care and added a vote against deletion because… I am a supporter. Tell me whatever you will about this, most votes for deletion are just as ideologically locatable as votes against deletion are, as happens many times… If anyone wants to participate (this isn't Wikipedia, so no rule prohibits such an action, especially on the Saloon Bar), I happily invite you to leave a vote, as long as you have a Wikipedia account with 50 contributions, no matter the regularity or not of your contributions. The mobilisation will be happening on the 10th of September anyways, so this entire talk about deletion the people at Wikipedia apparently have is going to seem ridiculous afterwards… I think they deleted the yellow vests movement too at the beginning (from reading the linked page), in the end it's some users that legitimately care about Wikipedia rules, and many, many others (incl. me), who care about the 10th of September movement's (French social movement, by the way) visibility or not. You're free to vote according to your soul and consciousness of course, no matter if for or against deletion (the votes "for" are for maintaining the article on the linked page, just so you know, and the votes "against" are against the maintaining of the article, that is for deletion). New world (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
David Gerard quoted[edit]
Our long-time contributor User:David Gerard was quoted in a news story about the likely ill-advised planned launch of a meme-coin ("Trump Corruption Coin") by California Governor Gavin Newsom.[9] Newsom has been actively trolling Trump on Twitter in recent weeks.[10] Since the coin hasn't actually launched yet, it's unclear if this is just trolling or trolling and reality. Bongolian (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- He was also featured in an article in the Guardian back in May. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- in which Gavin Newsom explores the bounds of fucking a goat, but ironically - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Dumb Gab post of the day 2.[edit]
(https://gab.com/jrplum33/posts/115142984124317516) "if you support taxes YOU..............ARE STUPID AND GAY AND NEED TO BE DEPORTED." Well, I guess that means 95 or so percent of Americans are stupid and Gay now...also, you probably incriminated yourself. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
143.223.148.63 (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- He is "seemingly) serious. I have looked at his account, and there is no proof of him being a troll. Yes, the post is immature, but not every immature post is a joke/troll. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly advise you to not make these posts. Giving oxygen to minor trolls and morons is frowned up here. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- He is "seemingly) serious. I have looked at his account, and there is no proof of him being a troll. Yes, the post is immature, but not every immature post is a joke/troll. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)