RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive29

This is an archive page, last updated 9 July 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>

, (new)(back)

Drowning in Misinformation

Heads up, the story about the three black teens drowing while cops just stood by was a pile of misinformation that blew up in the midst of the whole police/race debate. The Sheriff's Office released a rescue attempt dashcam on their Facebook page. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. I usually check several sources but they were all reporting it the same way; I will remove it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 00:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright I removed the original report and put the Rawstory link on on your post. I hope you don't mind.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 00:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Loo-dicrous Bathroom Ejection

I'm not posting this as a WIGO because there is not very much information on when/where this took place or other background information, but there is a video going around where a woman is being ejected from a women's restroom by officers who believe her to be a guy, with the implication that this has to do with the recent Transgender bathroom laws. Hoo boy. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Flash update: The video is from before the Trans* laws were a thing. Yay skepticism! ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Supposedly, she is lesbian who dresses boyishly.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 17:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeesh, how could someone look at her and think "yeah that's definitely a man!"? But for those thinking this is a purely American phenomenon, a similar thing happened in the UK with no bathroom bill. Hentropy (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain

About that Oklahoma decision: Ken White from Popehat has a write-up about it. TL;DR - It's a legal hitch having to do with sodomy laws that separates lower-body penetration from oral, and it's still considered sexual battery. Hope you don't mind if I put in the slight correction. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. I think they mention that in the story, though, but it is still an unreasonable decision in my opinion.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It was an eminently reasonable decision when you remember the bedrock principle that any ambiguity in a criminal law breaks in the 'not guilty' direction. This principle is too important to yield to moral panic or 'believe the victim'. The accused simply didn't break the law he was on trial for breaking. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

But it seems like it would be reasonable to determine that what he did was "forcible sodomy".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 01:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's part of the point. Criminal laws aren't interpreted "reasonably"; they're interpreted strictly in favor of innocence. The court found that what he did failed to fall within the letter of the law he was on trial for breaking; therefore he must walk. As the blog linked by Noir LeSable, there were other laws he could have been charged with breaking. He wasn't, and he's already been put on trial under the wrong statute, so he must win. Trying him again would be double jeopardy. All of these highly important principles of criminal law and procedure ought to take precedence over mere outrage. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I know, I know. I realize that it is the fault of the legislature and not the court but this guy won't ever be proven guilty because of a technicality. I know that no matter how much I dislike that he did have his day in court.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 04:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Mandatory course in exorcism, my arse.

Am I the only person who's read the article?

For a start it's from the Daily Mirror: the Daily Mail with fewer words, more pictures and a lot less hate.

Second, the word "exorcism" is in quotation marks. In a British tabloid, it means they've made it up.

Third, it's not a course, its a lecture. On "El mal", or Evil as we call it in English where we don't bother with the definite article like that. Not The Evil, not The Evil One, just Evil.

No, hang on, it's not a lecture, it's a seminar for 196 students.

No, it's a course again.

Fuck it. it's all the same when you have a reading age of eight.

In the real world, the one Spanish source - a secondary one, mind you - tells us the college in Spain has scheduled a conference, hang on, no, it's a talk, by a priest - OK, believed to be an exorcist - on the subject of evil.

A college that is connected to a university that is, yes, funded by the Spanish Defence Ministry because it was set up for the children of military and police personnel in Franco's last years. A university that includes Paul Preston on its roster. Hardly the home of voodoo.

I suggest changing the item to something more honest, like "Hey, look at those crazy dagos! They're not like us", and be done with the bullshit in between. London Grump (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, it's been flooding the news pages. I can't find many sources that aren't just copy-pasting the news. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Whenever they say it's arson in Texas (West TX explosion), I trust them.

The authorities would never get that wrong, especially when a defense attorney does tests of his own and is confident of his client's guilt. (Referring to Cameron Todd Willingham case in Corscicana). And yes I'm being sarcastic as fuck. Objective (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

One case from 1991 seems suspect so of course that means everything in every other arson case is suspect. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Rational Wiki Google Play App?

I might be better able to make a Rational Wiki Mobile app.

What features should such an App have? ^{— Unsigned, by: Lord Garland / talk / contribs}

If you had infinite time, the same as the Wikipedia one (though viewing, enhanced editing, and saving favorite pages would be great). Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 17:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like something that would require infinite time. Lord Garland (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This app can at least view Rationalwiki articles.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 20:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think a RationalWiki app would be a great idea. I do know some android app development, but making this would take years, since I don't have the time or energy. An easier project would be making a mobile website a la wikipedia, the current site is readable on phones but the UI is hard to use. --TeslaK20 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The Android version of the Wikipedia app is open source. As RW also uses MediaWiki it should be theoretically possible to change all links which direct to WP's database to the ones of RW. Then the only thing which would have to be done is re-skinning it. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 05:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have experience with mobile and app development, a simple Read-Only app would take just 1/2 months, Wikipedia was started developing in non-mobile era, much has been done to make its UI "mobile responsive" but the sad truth is that Wikimedia started in non-mobile era and so even with much improvements it will still be a fossil (that' why the Apps I guess). My advice is to start with something simple and read-only that has the ability to share pages on other social media. Be prepared you never know when the app "boom" it is very possible that the site get DOSSED by the traffic increment, as is still very possible that the app doesn't bring much extra traffic. I would do that but I don't work for free XD, the read-only part makes also more sense if you think that you are potentially bringin "non-rational" users to this site with an app, thus increasing the chance for getting spam and crap posted. I guess this community works also because there are fewer users than wikipedia Syllabus (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There is already a RationalWiki viewer, it's called EveryWiki.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 11:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

...the literal fuck is this shit. The literal fuck.

From the article about Carl, the fictional pundit,

“”Unlike professional forecasters, who maintain the pretense of objectivity, Diggler’s approach is proudly based on gut instinct and personal bias. ... The success of two amateurs writing a fictional pundit who relies on “gut” and bogus “racial science” highlights the collapse of the expert prognosticators this year. For months, professional data journalists at FiveThirtyEight, Vox, the New York Times, et al, proclaimed that Trump and Sanders had no chance. They checked the numbers and reassured readers that the Trump bubble would pop, that Sanders would win two states and then go home.

What the serious everloving fuck is this? Ignore the data, 'cause gut feelings happened to get shit right this one time!!!

No, no, no, no, no. FUCK NO. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I took it as a jab at those who exclusively rely on polling data and how the pundits have made spurrious predictions about the success of Trump and Sanders or for that matter Bush and Clinton.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 01:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a jab that very particularly focuses on FiveThirtyEight. Even though FiveThirtyEight uses more than just polls and emphasizes that there's a lot that the models don't consider, and constantly emphasizes that polls are fundamentally unreliable and that the data points are few. I'll admit that they're pretty self-absorbed about their models and are a bit coy about reexamining them, but at least they're trying to explain their losses and figure out where their models went wrong.

I mean, take a look at this excerpt from Texas:

“”Good science is falsifiable. Silver’s horserace predictions are not. When he says that Clinton has a 95 percent chance of winning the California primary if it were held today, you couldn’t prove or disprove him (because the primary won’t be held today, and even if it were, it would be held only once, not 100 times so you could see if she lost five of them). It’s an untestable assertion of who’s ahead and who’s behind that relies on the model’s past outcomes to be credible.

They are falsifiable because we do have a quantitative value for what the 538 model predicts. Sort each caucus or primary in the last several elections by the likelihood outcome that the model predicts (Say, 95-99%, 90-94%, 85-89%, 80-84%, etc.), and see what percent of each are accurate with an emphasis on the middling results. Bingo bango bongo, observational study. Now, I haven't done this and I don't have the time to try to put something like this together, but I came up with a way to falsify the model (or at least the current version of it) in a span of 5 seconds while my morning coffee was brewing. Also (emphasis mine):

“”Maybe a more subjective form of analysis, such as going out and listening to voters, would have understood their passions better than the data journalists’ models. ... We should treat any given prediction not as objective science but as one person’s subjective guess about which variables could be more predictive than others. Forecasters should show their work, and pundits who are consistently proven wrong should be ignored in the future. In short, we should be skeptical of anyone who says they can predict the future.

Okay then. Maybe we should be skeptical of the prediction of climate change by the IPCC predicting a 2.5-10 degree rise in global earth temperatures! After all, it's unfalsifiable! There's only one Earth! And vaccines? Well the more subjective form of analysis of going out and listening to parents of vaccinated children are showing a sizable number of a link with post-vaccine injury! They better understand the passions of raising a healthy child after all!!

Look, I'm really sorry about sounding hostile about this; you do have a very valid point about how models should be verified and shouldn't be behind solely shoddy polling. But we deal with shit like the stuff Virgil Texas is saying on a weekly basis. People saying "Ohoho lookit us non-experts getting things better than the experts! That must mean all the experts are wrooooong (or somehow secretly biased)!" They've been hammering on about "look at these two wild gut guesses that beat out the data-driven pollsters! How in the world could they not see this coming when it was so clear??" FFS, we have a fucking article on this!

I'm sorry, it's been a weird week, and I've been touchier than usual about things. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I get it sometimes we get upset and it translates poorly online. Nate Sliver has explained why he was wrong. When you are looking at polling data you have to judge which of the polls is the kost reliable and your implicit bias will get in the way. There are several reasons people lie or changed their mind when they give their opinions so you have to take that into account. Unlike the environment, humans are irrational beings so predicting the future based on their opinions is always going to bring up a problem.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 15:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The question for Nate Silver wasn't "was he right?" but "did he match his own level of asserted precision?" If he gave 5 states a 80% chance of going Hillary, and 4 did, his statistical methods were perfectly valid. Hypothesis testing, in the stats world, isn't driven by right v wrong. Just gonna throw that out there too. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, of course, but we shouldn't fetishize polling and we, as an audience, should be skeptical of pundit predictions since they have implicit biases. WIGO:Blogs recently had an article criticizing macroeconomics for solely relying on mathematics so the same can be said about political science.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 18:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think in some ways FiveThirtyEight wasn't rigorous enough when looking at numbers. Most of their prognostication articles were based around assumptions that the 2012 patterns would hold, and that Trump would be like Herman Cain. If Trump were anyone else, he'd be considered the unquestioned frontrunner and likely nominee throughout the process, but they put far too much stock into measures that only had limited predictive value based on previous elections, such as endorsements and what party insiders think. Doubting Trump's candidacy back in August was totally understandable, but I think as they continued to doubt it throughout the rest of 2015 and even into the new year, they were not making a statistical error, but a human one that was based more on "gut feelings" that the party would unite under an anti-Trump banner, rather than the hard numbers which showed his support being steady and consistent. 538 itself has more or less acknowledged this with multiple mea culpa articles.

It might also be interesting to look at exactly what the result of polling and prognostication was on Trump's support. I think many Republicans realized they looked like wishy-washy bandwagon jumpers in 2012 when they jumped ship for every new fad candidate, especially when they ended up nominating a robotic loser because "that's what the party wants". I think many of Trump's supporters were galvanized by predictions he would implode, which led to the "it doesn't matter what he says his support keeps going up" effect. The rioters in the Republican party wanted the media and data journalists to be dead wrong for once, and that kind of emotional impulse did have an impact. Trump was eventually able to get more and more people because a lot of partisan hacks and Team R cheerleaders hated the idea of a contested convention, as well as the media who was relishing the opportunity for it. Hentropy (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Fireside Chat about The War

No-one mind my little war report here, feel free to comment if you want. By 'The War', I'm referring to the one going on in Mesopotamia right now. ISIS has lost some villages in the northwest of Syria to rebel groups backed by the United States. ISIS is also fighting some intense battles with both the Syrian Arab Army (at the Sha'er Gas Fields west of Palmyra) and the Kurd-led Syrian Democratic Forces (along the Khabur river in Syria). They're also engaged with the Iraqi Army north of Ramadi and along the Tigris river south of Mosul. Finally, they are fiercely fighting the Syrian Army at the besieged city of Dier Ezzur, where they have lost many field commanders. All in all, I estimate that ISIS is sustaining losses of 100 fighters per day. This is not sustainable for a force their size (50-75,000), so expect to see major battlefield losses for them on all fronts.

The Syrian Army and the rebels are mostly at a truce in all areas except southwest of Aleppo (at a town called Khan Tuman) and North of Homs, at a town called Zarah. In the later, dozens of Shia civilians were killed by al-Qaeda and allies a few days ago. The Syrian Army is currently fighting al-Qaeda in the village. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we dare to hope? Is the DAESH on it's way to it's well-deserved end?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 00:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It's doubtful that ISIS will disappear. They will most likely change from nation building back to insurgency. It is doubtful that Iraq will be able to take back the Anbar or that Syria will be able to take back the territory around the Tigris and Euphrates. Mosul will most likely lay in ruins when it is finally retaken. It is likely that the Kurds will try to fight the Iran-backed, Shia militias and Iraq military while the Sunnis who helped will fracture. The Kurds in Syria will likely be more preoccupied with Turkey's reignition of its civil war with the PKK; this will cause the US to question its support for the Kurds. I see two ways ISIS could grow:

Since ISIS has lost a significant amount of territory ISIS will attempt to gain further funding elsewhere. This will most likely come from the opium trade in Afghanistan. Depending on how well the Spring offensive goes, ISIS could seize a fairly large amount of recruits and opium farms. This could breathe new life into their group and help them spread into Central Asian countries like Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang (the Chinese province made up of Uyghurs), and Pakistan. Turkmenistan has a lot of Shia and is controlled by a despot so they may be able to ignite rebellion among the Sunni there. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan would most likely exist and resist even if ISIS makes major gains in its territory but it would be interesting to see how the Haqqani Network would react to ISIS's presence. It is doubtful, though, that ISIS would have the same amount of growth as it had in Syria and Iraq.

ISIS will need to expand territory and recruit more fighters. They are already in Libya and since Tunisia has a high amount of youth unemployment they could exploit them. They may also be able to convince more Algerians and Malians to fight for them since Al Qaeda isn't as centralised as it once was. The other option would be to try and grow in Yemen. The US and Saudi coalition have beaten back Al Qaeda there; the Saudi's blockade there has created a humanitarian crisis as well as religious hatred among the Sunnis and Shia; the government of Yemen is also quite corrupt. ISIS may be able to exploit the Sunnis there like they did in Syria. This could help them increase their influence in Saudi Arabia and lead to further violence against Shia in Saudi Arabia. If the US gets involved in the possible fighting in Saudi Arabia they will most likely deploy troops, at least in the form of special forces. Such an action could cause certain leaders within Al Qaeda to reluctantly ally with ISIS in order to drive the Great Satan out of the Holy Land.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 04:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

And now we find out that ISIS just destroyed several wells at the Sha'er Gas Field by blowing them up, causing a magnitude 4 earthquake. Hell. I'd like to wait for more information though. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Vote broken?

Just for the sake of information, I was able to vote a news twice, seems that after some time the "vote cast" just get erased from server so news that are listed for much extra time can be voted more than once. (Maybe the old vote cast was "forgetted" so that I didn't changed twice the vote? Syllabus (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Were you logged in? If not, same IP or different IP? Voting here is trivial to rig - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Logged in from same PC and casted 2nd vote within 2 days. (probably that's due to the fact I have dynamic IP (my IP change continuosly). Syllabus (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED!!! Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't put too much weight on votes unless it's a very significant number or direction. In low-number votes, it doesn't take too many people to tilt the balance towards positivity or negativity. (See: the news piece about the Lange harassment in WIGO: Elections, which somehow is at "-3" as of posting.) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Oklahoma Abortion Ban

Oklahoma's legislature has passed a bill, without any discussion or debate, that makes abortion a felony crime, punishable by 1 to 3 years in jail. Obviously, the bill is unconstitutional due to Roe v. Wade, but the fact that it passed sends America a message that Oklahoma is backwards. If I were president, I would threaten to sue Oklahoma and remove all its federal funding until it complies with the federal law regarding abortion. I'd turn it into a political battle to emphasize liberalism. It's absolutely ridiculous that they did this, and it gives me a bad impression of the people of Oklahoma (not that I had a good impression in the first place).Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It's so unbelievable, that people have to deal with this kinda shit in the 21th century in a First World Country. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This is what is happening while American progressives bicker and fling shit about primary rules and trashing "neoliberals" for being "just like Republicans." Hentropy (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Top judges rule identities of 'PJS' and 'YMA' must remain secret

Fuck the rights of the press in a democracy. If it means my wife can't sing along to her Elton John CDs in the car any more, I'm all for it. London Grump (talk)

i am shocked and appalled at your flippancy. Tbe only thing safeguarding democracy is a free press telling us just what some celebs are doing with their genitals. This is why the terrorists are winning AMassiveGay (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

never again will this country witness quality journalism that brought us a picture of chris bryant in his pants or told the world that the bloke who plays phil mitchell went dogging. We are literally in north korea AMassiveGay (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It now went to the net. Blogs and stuff. You just have to pick yout the diamonds from the shitpile.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 13:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

is that why our grandfathers gave their lives on the beaches of normandy? Would the nazis have fallen if the greatest generation had not shown us hitler only had one ball? Their sacrifice allowed us to know our prime minister once had his cock in a dead pig. Tyrants quaked. Now lights go out in this land, our leaders members shrouded in darkness. I weep that we must look beyond our shores for the hope that one day, the heros of the free press will shine its bright light of truth and justice in this land and we can once again stand proudly exposed for the world to see. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing annoys the hell out of me not for the freedom of the press angle, but because Britain has a privacy law created in a semi-random, ad hoc fashion by judges, because politicians are too scared of the press to propose an actual statutory privacy law that sets down in black and white what is and isn't legitimate. Tories always whine about activist judges and human rights law, but the existing privacy law was 100% created by judges based on the European convention of human rights, without parliament or anyone else stepping back and considering how freedoms should be balanced, or what the public needs to know, or what the wider effects are, etc. Politicians don't want to restrict the press, partly because it looks bad to be legislating against the press and could lead to embarrassing human rights-related court cases, but mainly because they don't want to offend media barons. And there was a total failure on the issue from the Leveson Inquiry, which was a complete waste of time except as a public hand-wringing exercise (press self-regulation is still a mess, libel law is still a mess, law about journalists bribing public officials is still a mess). Annquin (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The "blame the EU / ECHR" meme is beyond cliche now. If it were true, why are libel and privacy laws so different across Europe? (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

as a sign of solidarity with the noble sun newspaper, i will post photos of my bits and details of where ive been putting them since i became old enough to put them places. While i may disagree with what you say, i will defend to the death your right to see my penis. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

all that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. So sign my petition. Democracy in action, or i have to much time on my hands AMassiveGay (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

So I am guessing using the Telegraph as a source is a bad idea.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 18:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Even the Telegraph today blamed the Human Rights Act, not the EU or ECHR. London Grump (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not as bad as using the Sun, at least. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I could always switch the link with the BBC article on this but I thought they were being too neutral on this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 18:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not to defend "family values"

But, county leader of a political party, except in extraordinarily populous counties, is not a particularly important position and often is given to any loyalist who actually has time to take care of paperwork. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Throwing chairs

Lol. Good to know it was just death threats and misogyny from the Bernie fans, then. <_< FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point Bernie fans are obsessing infinitely more than Clinton supporters about airborne chairs. The fracas at the Nevada convention had much more to do with Bernie delegates not knowing the rules and then demanding they be changed specially for them, and complaining about how "fair" and "democratic" the system was at a wildly undemocratic and unfair caucus system that screws over working people. Hentropy (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My view of people's responses is that both sides reacted to this bout of excessive antagonism with another bout of excessive antagonism and so on ad nauseum, resulting in a metastasis of excessive antagonism on various different meta-levels. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh, pretty much. I trust RobS that this behavior is common at caucuses.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 18:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The jaywalking was the worst offence of all, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a real point to this thing: it doesn't matter. If Trump supporters get all violent, I don't CARE. What matters is the policy positions of the candidates. Why do you think a hundred people at a Sanders rally means Sanders is bad? 'Cause that's what it sounds like you're saying. I don't think the behavior of one's supporters matter that much when making a decision of who to support. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You accuse many Sanders supporters of being misogynists and threatening. Will you admit that many Hillary supporters in 2008 were racist (3 AM) and threatening (he might get assassinated)? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC) And a link for posterity: no Sanders people were throwing chairs. Just a fact-check. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian really are horrible con artists who deserve all their scorn! Be angry! Give it a rest already. Whether or not a chair literally left the ground or not is missing the point. Bernie supporter harassment and misogyny is fairly well documented and has been around for months, not to steal Mona's catchphrase, but dragging up PUMAs from 8 years ago is pure whataboutery. No, Bernie can't necessarily control it, but his non-apologies and stoking anger about "rigged systems" isn't making things better, either. He has no chance to win this election fairly and he should either turn his fire on Trump or get out of the race. Hentropy (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, Sanders has gotten his foot in the door in order to get what he wants so we will have to watch where he goes now. There is nothing wrong with him criticising Clinton, the DNC, or the election because unless people already believe there is a problem they won't act on his accusations; it is not like Ron Paul damaged the McCain or Romney. I, personally, mentioned PUMAs because they were an organized group against Obama and that vile shit isn't unique to any candidate when they run for office; unfortunately, the internet has made it easier to harass people. Yesterday, you posted that Quartz link about how certain people have created an atmosphere that incites people to harass others; one example that article brought up was that Matt Taibbi complained about an article on "Bernie-Bros" and the author was harassed afterwards but I don't see how that is his fault. When O'Reilly called Dr. Tiller a "baby killer" I doubt he ever wanted him to die even though he set up an atmosphere of hate.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 23:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hentropy

I think you misunderstand the point of supporting Bernie Sanders. Even if he can't win (which is actually not yet the case), supporting him is making a statement to the Democratic establishment and the ruling class of this country. We have 22% of the entire voting populace on our side. That's a huge block that can't be ignored by anyone but the most out-of-touch establishment figures. Bernie does not need to apologize for anything. He hasn't done anything warranting an apology. It's not like Trump, where he actually encourage violent behavior on multiple occasions. Also, do you think the system isn't "rigged"? Do you think superdelegates are a perfectly acceptable think that respects the democratic will of the people? Also, he is not obligated to attack Trump, yet he has attacked Trump dozens of times throughout his campaign, every other speech. If Hillary loses the election, it's your fault, not mine. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The allegation that the election is "rigged" suggests that it would be impossible for Bernie Sanders to win no matter what he did, like this is China. It's like the word "censor". You're censoring my opinion! There's a large list of uses for the word "censor" that are all technically correct, but the word carries a certain bombastic weight to it. Censorship is the absolute worst! Are the primary campaigns tweaked in ways to push it towards an establishment candidate? Sure. But Bernie Sanders is not losing because the system is "rigged", or because DWS is supporting Clinton, or any other bullshit reasons. He's losing because he failed to win over black people in the south. He got less votes. Despite some occasional voting irregularities which always happen, every win by both Clinton and Sanders has been free and fair. The superdelegates, despite all the moaning about them, have been irrelevant. Get rid of them, convert them to pledged delegates, do anything short of giving them all to Sanders for no reason, he still loses. The fact is, Sanders supporters don't seem to give one iota of a shit about the three million more people who voted for Clinton, they only care about themselves, frustrated and disheartened that their "revolution" is coming to an end. He could have made more substantive points about how the DNC and primary process can be reformed, all while doing what every other losing candidate has done, acknowledge the will of the voters and step aside. Instead he does what other demagogues do, and stokes passions by using hyperbolic loaded language, conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them, and creating a nice little information bubble where he still has a chance, but his supporters just have to yell and scream and BELIEVE harder and he can win. It's a joke, and it's finally looking more like the joke it is. If Hillary loses in November, it will be because of Hillary, not either one of us. I don't blame people for voting their conscience with a third party, especially if they don't live in a swing state. If Bernie fans truly think that a Trump Presidency is acceptable (because they have nothing to lose, being white and college-educated) just to stick it to the DNC for having the same rules they've had for 30 years, then that is their prerogative. I'll be able to move to Japan and watch from afar (that if Trump doesn't decide to nuke Japan again for some reason), but a lot of people won't and those are the ones I feel sorry for, not myself, not you, not Bernie, not Hillary, but the most vulnerable who will be subject to a country run like Oklahoma is being run now. Hentropy (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to continue this but I agree with you entirely. This is obviously over. The best thing I can hope for is that the grassroots continue beyond this election. I don't blame progressive Democrats for endorsing Hillary (not that I think that mattered much) but I will be upset if she wins and they allow her to implement right wing policies. Even though I will not be voting for Clinton because of her war hawking, I will likely vote for Baron Hill who is a conservative Dem and supported Iraq. I think that is the one thing everyone has to agree on here is that the legislature has to flip in order to prevent Trump, who I see as inevitable, for gaining any of his insane policies for the next four years, and who knows maybe we can force him to sign actual reforms. Ultimately, I know that my state will not change unless the Democrats win here so I can't punish the DNC for being bias. I apologise if I have ever antagonised you btw.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 04:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the use of the word 'rigged' was to exaggerate and further emphasize important irregularities that occured. Coin tosses literally decided the Iowa caucus; that's ridiculous and should be changed. Hillary won Iowa. 70% of polling places were shut down in Arizona between 2012 and 2016 due to 'budget cuts'. Hillary won Arizona. 120,000 voters in New York were purged from the voter rolls before the primary. Entire goddamn city blocks fell off the rolls, including 60,000 Democrats in Brooklyn, the neighborhood where Bernie Sanders was born! My fucking God! And guess what? Hillary won New York. And now, in Nevada, Sanders delegates were expelled for being 'unqualified', where very few Clinton delegates were. This all reeks of an election that has been decided beforehand by party members and not by the voters of this country. I call for all Democratic primaries to be opened up to independent voters, a rule codified for one polling station for every 5,000 people, and for caucuses to be replaced with primaries. This will ensure open and fairer elections in the future. Do you disagree with any of my points or proposals, Hentropy?

You suggesting that because Hillary "won" all those states, there's a vast conspiracy. The biggest egregious problem with Iowa was not the coin flips, the coin flips only happened because it was an undemocratic CAUCUS. And yet Sanders fans never complain about grossly undemocratic caucuses that disenfranchise the working class- because Bernie WINS caucuses. And by "winning" Iowa, Clinton netted a grand total of... wait for it... drumroll... TWO DELEGATES. If the Democrats are rigging this shit, then just let Trump have it because they're fucking terrible at it. Arizona? States control state election procedures, and Arizona's Republican nutjob governor made the decision to close polling places, something both campaigns and DNC are suing Arizona over. Maybe Jan Brewer and the Arizona state legislature is on Clinton's payroll? THE CONSPIRACY KNOWS NO BOUNDS. Especially when you consider many of the closed polling places were in Hillary-voting urban areas. New York? Again, states/counties are in charge of voter rolls, but Brooklyn as a whole was won by Clinton 60/40. There's no evidence that the screwup was caused by anything more than incompetence, and even if all 60k votes went Sanders, it would have made no difference. Nevada? Another grossly undemocratic caucus state that disenfranchises working people that Sanders fans never think to criticize because he does well in them. Anyway, Hillary won Nevada by 6 points, Bernie rigged the system in his favor by gaming the undemocratic county conventions so that he "won" Nevada while losing the vote. There does need to be reform in the primaries, but I think they should start by abolishing the caucuses, creating a national primary election day in May so that everyone's votes count equally, and it should ideally be a preferential ballot of some sort so there can be automatic runoffs to choose the candidate with the biggest consensus. And surprise surprise, I also think the general election should work the same way. Hentropy (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, a question to Owlman: what state do you live in? If it's a swing state, my opinion on who you should vote for may be different from what it is right now,which is that you should not vote for Hillary. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I probably not vote for a prez this year. Pb, that is the nature of a primary election. These voting irregularities are terrible but they didn't decide the elections in those states. He won Rhode Island even though 60% of the polling places were closed; she won the South and various parts of New England like Pennsylvania w/o voting irregularities. Money was the biggest factor here, not some centralised conspiracy. Even if Hillary is indicted the Dems will likely run Joe Biden like they did with Humphrey after Bobby Kennedy died.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 05:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Assuming what you say is true, then count me as a Hobbesian pessimist and cynic. On many important matters, most people are weak and stupid, unwilling to see the truth and choose the right path. Americans are more stupid than Europeans on average when it comes to religion and politics, and it's enough to make me want to live somewhere else for a while. These elections may ultimately influence my overall view on life, society, and human nature. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, ignorance in democracy is a terrible thing but that is because the government in the US has become so massive that no one understands it. All you have to do is look at how much money we are missing from all the loopholes and unaccountable agencies. Politicians are callous to us and so the public is callous back. So I suggest that you get off your ass and help inform people. Your radical so why not help salt for a union like the IWW. You could work for "Rock the Vote" or intern for some left wing think tank or news source. You could help the state Democratic parties win or you could help the Greens drive off the wackos. Hell, you could try to get your local legislature to hold a mock session so people can learn but laying down and dying will kill any movement we have until shit hits the fan and I don't want anything authoritarian than Trump.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 05:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the exact meaning of "loopholes and unaccountable agencies", but the vast majority of the U.S. federal budget goes to three places: the military, Social Security, and healthcare. --Ymir (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This is what I was already planning on doing, Owlman. You read my mind. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ammon Bundy in prison

That it'd be a bad idea to let inmates practice their Second Amendment rights is self-evident, but there's something of a point here about the government denying convicts the very rights it claims to secure to justify its existence. The US is supposedly founded to safeguard the protection of inalienable, God-given rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, yet it considers violations of these rights by the state as a legitimate application of justice. Peculiar, no? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well that's one argument against the death penalty: Namely that the state should protect even the life of dangerous criminals... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's also an argument against imprisonment, since that's pretty obviously anti-liberty. Which would leave us with the dilemma of what to do with dangerous criminals. Exile maybe? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well you could always try restorative justice. There is an more interesting question, though, which is can the government continue to withhold your rights after you have served your time?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 18:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it'd go counter to the idea of doing time as a clearly delineated (and, ideally, proportional) punishment intended to balance out the crime committed. But much of the justification behind locking people up has nothing to do with punishing people, but with protecting society from the transgressors. And with prison often not having a positive effect on the inmates, chances are the latter justification is still as relevant as at the start of the sentence, maybe even more relevant. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that prison has little to do with punishment, at least in the US. I would say imprisonment has very little to do with rehabilitation but that isn't always the fault of the justice system; most people who commit minor crimes will not commit them again so there is no need for the system to rehabilitate them. Justice isn't just about those who commit crimes either; we believe that those who have been harmed must be able to retaliate and seek retribution. This is why I have a hard time understanding why imprisonment (at least the way everyone but Norway does it) can be justified since you are completely removing someone from society where they can do nothing to make amends.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 19:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally believe that rehabilitation should be used in all cases where it can be shown to be effective. Punishment (prison time) should only be used in cases where rehabilitation will not work beyond a reasonable doubt. There are some cases where the person is an irreparable danger to society and cannot be rehabilitated, and this is where long-term incarceration should be utilized. The criminal justice system should focus on reaching the lowest recidivism rate possible. The private prison industry, which has been shown to increase unnecessary incarceration for nonviolent offenses, should be eliminated, and all prisons should be owned by the government to eliminate this malignant profit motive. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any lawyer who would argue that any right is absolute. Even life is subject to limitations (don't murder people). There is a legitimate reason to deprive inmates of certain rights such as the 2nd and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a sane person who disagrees with that. Punishment is based on the premise that you lose something. Ammon Bundy subscribes to some weird-ass FOTL or other ideology that believes whatever it is he wants it to believe. In this case, that he has a right to a mossberg in prison. Also, the Declaration of Independence has no force as law in the US and therefore "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are no inalienable rights, technically. The rights we do have are delineated in the Constitution. Ayzmo^Cheers 16:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting oversight, though, how commonly constitutions, statutes, charters etc. phrase the rights they grant as being fundamental, inalienable, absolute and so on, when in practice they're never executed as such. The US Constitution decrees in several instances that a right "shall not be infringed/violated" without specifying any exceptions. The Second Amendment is one example of this. Technically, that means any such exceptions are unconstitutional. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that's really seriously starting to touch on Sovereign Citizen territory. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of the reverse actually: Here it's the US government de facto treating a group of people as non-citizens to their detriment, at least in some ways. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Magna Carta. "No free man shall be taken imprisoned or in any other way destroyed except by the lawful judgement of his peers". As for the US in particular, I think the general reasoning is that inalienable rights that endowed by their creator refers to things which governments can't themselves restrict, but a jury can. Though personally I don't believe rights are inherent to begin with; all rights are "things we agree to based on what we want" rather than "things we inherently have irrespective of anyone's desires". We just pretend some things are not pliable because if you let morality be flexible, people will bend it to suit their own desires. StickySock (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"which governments can't themselves restrict, but a jury can" That doesn't sound very inalienable then, though. Especially considering these rights are supposedly bestowed upon us by the Creator, so where would a bunch of measly mortals get the authority to go against that? I agree with the last two sentences though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I took a philosophy class on ethics once. Rights aren't real at all, they're a construct. 108.41.190.141 (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Krashlia

13th Century juries were a lot different from today, take note. Back then the jury consisted of twelve members of the local gentry who were also hired by the state to investigate the crime as well, a task handed to the civil service once the police; CSIs and coroner professions were established.-- Forerunner (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Syria Thought Experiment

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

Merged with duplicate thread in Saloon Bar. Please don't fork the same discussion across multiple pages. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Birstall, Leeds shooting

Let me guess. Someone interpreted Paul Golding's vague threat of retaliation against political enemies (post-London mayoral election) as an order to actually assassinate them-- 2.99.106.41 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Was there a knife involved? By the way, I am the IP that has been editing on Hamas and Israel recently... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There was a knife involved, but a bystander (a Pakistani shopkeeper if the report I got was correct)attempted to stop the attacker, and the attacker pulled a gun. The shopkeeper backed away and the guy shot the MP three times. 68.200.26.93 (talk)

CDC research ban

So I posted that article but it is from 2015. I felt that it was relevant with the atmosphere in the US but it might need to be removed for being so old.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 15:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it. If anyone wants to read it here is the link.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 15:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Brexit Live Thread

The British EU Referendum vote is today. I predict that Britain will vote to remain by a narrow margin, based on the trend of polling in the Scottish Independence Referendum (+2 stay) leading to a 10 point stay margin: the polls for Brexit show it tied to slight leave, so if we assume a similar spread, the vote should be a narrow stay. I personally support 'remain'. PBfreespace (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

+1--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 03:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 03:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

i dont think you can tell anything about brexit from the scottish independence referendum. its going to be way too close to call. The whole campaign has been a disgrace leaving many voters confused as the effects of staying in or leaving. Its going to a tense night. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed increasing voter apathy among younger voters. Considering the 18-35 group is more in favour of Remain, that's problematic; especially with the European Presidents insisting this week that there wouldn't be another deal which only raises apathy among Remainers. I expect a close referendum that will keep people unsure about the future. I'll either go with a 51% Leave; 49% Remain where Cameron does nothing (claiming that it's nearly 50-50 so not really 'fair', though losing more support of the party's right wing, who hate him anyway), or a 49-51 where the nationalists demand another referendum to be scheduled for 2021.-- Forerunner (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope for a resounding remain win, but I fear too many people "vote yes and hope no" or could not be arsed to vote. On the other hand the drunken Hooligan crowd (who probably does not vote remain) is abroad right now, which is nice... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Numbers of voters abroad for Euro 2016 & those at Glastonbury Festival pretty much cancel each other out, assuming that these reflect mostly leave/remain demographics (as most commentators suggest) and that similar numbers in both sets did/didn't arrange a postal or proxy vote. Unfortunately, voter apathy is more common among those who would support remaining in the EU & leave supports are statistically more motivated to vote. It's gonna be close. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, even though I know nothing about the particulars and am a foreigner I'm going to form a positive opinion of one side because of the clearly xenophobic attitudes of a faction of the other. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

there have been lies exagerations fear mongering and wishful thinking rampant on both sides. No side comes out of this looking good. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

One side explicitly argued "Let's leave the EU so we can shut the borders airtight" for me as a proponent of open borders that makes the case pretty clear. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

that is not really the argument being made though is it. Its about having control of borders not sealing the completely. the claims and counter claims about the economy, immigration and we get out of/contribute to the eu have left many i have spoken have been left confused about what is fact or fiction. Both campaigns, which are essentially a tory civil war, have acted appallingly. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The lies, fearmongering & wishful thinking of the Leave camp (especially UKIP & the smaller organisations that are doing a lot of the advert campaigns) have been much more egregious than those of Remain. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

i would say the remain camp corners the market on fear mongering. But there is enough bullshit going around to make you question both sides. When i look at the people leading both campaigns, its like the end of animal farm 'the creatures looked from pig to man, from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which'. I am not alone in thinking this and i know folk who are not voting because of it. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you have voted, AMassiveGay? Ahh. I should've campaigned yesterday to all the redcoats British users here. PBfreespace (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

i am disenfranchised by my living arrangements. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The polls in which Scottish independence had an edge were pure fear-mongering and contradicted by the steady 10-percent lead the anti-independence camp had for years.

However, they made silly Cameron shit in his pants and give a few extra concessions out of panic. Will be fairly similar today. Brexit never had a clear lead in any poll. ^{— Unsigned, by: 193.62.251.21 / talk / contribs} 22:06, 23 June 2016‎

Bremain hasn't had a clear lead in most recent polls either. They're worrying close. & Scottish Independence will be pretty much inevitable within a few years if we do quit the EU. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

[Reply to AMassiveGay's man to pig comment:] I don't see that at all. Much as I dislike Cameron's government, if you look at the broader picture it's notable that the leadership and bulk of the UK's big four parties all back Remain, along with many leading figures & spokespeople in business, law, education, etc. Meanwhile Leave's champions are largely oddballs & lesser-knowns from the major parties + dubious allies like UKIP. Very few experts in politics, economics or law advocate leaving the EU, & many think it will be disastrous. It's disturbing that the public is so heavily divided while all this is the case, & a lot of it comes down to several big lies peddled by the Leave campaign - and by the British right wing for decades: that EU membership is a threat to Britain's sovereignty, that laws are handed down to us by Brussels, that we have no control over our borders, that EU immigrants leach off the state & drain the economy, that the EU is intended as a superstate that will supersede national governments, etc. etc. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

its largely a vote for our corporate masters in the eu or our corporate masters in uk. the leading figures on both sides a largely tories. Farage and ukip are merely tory splitters. Sure there are others involved but they've barely made an impact. Labour certainly hasnt. Corbyn says remain but doesnt seem that enthusiastic. Its largely a tory spat that has brought us to the brink. The remain camp has been phenomenally awful. They underestimated just how unpopular the eu is. Anything less than a resounding victory should be seen as failure for remain. It seems even people voting remain have little love for the eu, but a fear of economic apocalypse. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to see a lot of voter apathy from the Leavers. Seems they were hoping for a 60-70% clear victory, and are fearing a 51% at best, which risks making even winning pointless as the debate will ultimately continue for years. Anyone else seeing this apathy?-- Forerunner (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the most telling arguments of the leave side (besides the immigration fear-mongering) is the "reduce EU regulations" line... Now what kind of regulations are we talking about? Small one like what marmalade is what jam is? (On which Britain got its will) Or bigger ones like the EU antitrust laws (remember that Microsoft got sued under them and lost?) Now which of those does Britain get rid of an why? It makes me wonder. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The average idiot regurgitating this stuff about regulations probably doesn't know. It's a vacuous buzzword talking point, like bureaucrats or sovereignty. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Newcastle result just in: 50.7% Remain, 49.3% Leave. Worryingly close. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

How does Newcastle usually tilt? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Labour, buy a wide margain. --Mercian (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

England, as it stands, voting to leave, NI, Wales and Scotland voting to stay. Constitutional crisis?--Mercian (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

BREAKING: 'Leave' Wins

Based on all current numbers, it looks like leave has won, meaning Britain will most likely leave the European Union. Major cities like Birmingham, that were expected to vote remain, went 'leave'. This really contradicted the beforehand polling. Pretty high turnout. PBfreespace (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Birmingham has not yet called. But yes, leave will win. What the fuck have we done?--Mercian (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The pound Sterling plunged to its lowest level since 1985. And leave said there'd be no negative economic impact. PBfreespace (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This feels like an appropriate play off.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC) 04:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Well, now that the Pound Sterling is bombing, I wonder how much imports will cost? Food prices ought to be fantastic.

That's all right. Future Prime Minister Farage can just nationalize everything. BRITAIN FOR THE BRITONS! --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Farage looks more like a "privatize all the things" kind of guy. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The political compass has UKIP as both far-right and "far-authoritarian", so that might be appropriate.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I tire of being told that such things as globalization and free trade are inevitable like the weather. They are not the results of political decisions made by human beings who can be held accountable for their actions. I tire of the notion that governments exist to serve the financial markets. It pleases me that Britons have the mettle to endure the hardships needed to say no to all that despite the immediate costs of rejecting it. I hope we here in the States can do likewise. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

So you're happy that Britain is likely to lose Scotland, for Spain to take back Gibraltar, and that Britain will undergo a long and painful recession as they're cut off from the European common market and the global market?

I mean, there are long term effects for this and it's not going to be good for Isolationist Britain. Privatization of most social services is a given. We here in the US are going to be cutting the UK out of a USA-EU trade agreement.

So why, exactly, do you think this is a good thing for them? What benefits do you think will be reaped from Brexit? --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I admire their willingness to endure the hardships they were told would result for the sake of greater political independence. Those hardships will fall largely on the investor and professional classes. From a US perspective, those are the people who have derailed the Democratic Party. Reducing their influence here won't be good for the stock markets either. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you're dead wrong on that one. The investor and professional classes will shrug their shoulders and swan off to other countries that can use them. The poors, who are stuck where they are, will feel all the pain of the job losses, price increases, and lack of imports.

I don't think that you understand that professional and investor types have mobility; they can abandon the UK with little loss to themselves. It's the British equivalent of Joe Six-Pack who can't swan off to another job in another country. They're just shit out of luck, much like the poor rural whites here in the USA. The unnecessariat. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

those hardships are going fall on working class folk, already abandoned by the left, and will come realise just how badly they have been lied to. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What happens to Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Gibraltar now?

So first the thing which seems certain: Scotland will try to get another vote on independence. Whether they actually get it is an open question. Northern Ireland will have serious conflicts (maybe even violent) about independence, joining Ireland or some other outcome. Wales will likely not leave its "linked at the hips" Union with England, but Plaid Cymru and other pro-autonomy forces may get an upsurge in the polls. Gibraltar voted stay with similar margins that it votes "not join Spain" usually. So it's not clear what will happen there, but Spain might end up putting pressure on Gibraltar on a level not seen since Franco's death. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Scots will attempt to leave once more - and they might actually succeed (if they get their referendum, that is). Not sure what Northern Ireland will do; as opposed to Scotland it's a bit too small to actually manage itself in international politics, and "Big Brother" Ireland (with all of them evil Catholics) is probably also not too attractive. Gibraltar is pretty screwed.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

wales voted to leave so i dont know where this upsurge will come from. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have heard conflicting news on the results in Wales... Sure that the results you got are for "England" , "Wales" not "England and Wales" (which is commonly used in many statistics) Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is TOW's neat map of the UK vote distribution. Most of Wales has voted "Leave", though I doubt that they'll separate themselves from England.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Compare the Northern Irish results to religion and identitiy. Ho boy. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Overall, it looks like the Catholics wanted to stay in the EU (Spain, France, Italy) whereas the Protestants want to leave. Interesting that that still plays such a big role. In America it's obvious too. PB (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Martin McGuiness has spoken. What exactly does he say? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

They have their own leave/remain referendum, but about a different Union. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Has a high ranking representative of the protestant / loyalist side already weighed in on this? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

BREAKING, part two: Cameron steps down

And it's already in his Wikipedia article.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The bad thing is that the Twat was probably the best Tory around right now in anything close to Leadership. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's all hope the next PM is less right-wing. I'm not intimately familiar with the UK system. Will there be new elections in October, or will Cameron appoint someone? PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

more left wing? Hahahahaha, no. Remember the whole leave thing that just happened? We are looking at boris johnson or heaven forbid, michael gove. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping Boris would be available for Trump's VP pick. Vulpius (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The Prime Minister is picked by the Commons majority (as are all ministers). As the Conservative Party has an outright majority, that means they pick it. If it's contested (as it appears to be this time) the party generally holds an internal election among its Members of Parliament. Although with that said there has been a bit of talk about possibly calling new elections. The core thing to remember is the public doesn't vote for PM. They elect members to the Commons and the Commons picks its ministers. For us 'Muricans imagine if the Speaker of the House was equivalent to the Presidency. (I'm a 'Murican and I know this! Go read some Wikipedia articles! :p) --Ymir (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that they changed the law regarding Parliament terms recently. It used to be that the PM could calls new elections whenever and was not actually forced to do so at any point (but usually chose to do so within five years of the last election). I know they have now introduced an upper bound for calling new elections, but is there a lower bound? Could the new PM call new elections a couple of months from now? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

what usually happens when the pm steps down, the winner and now pm will either call an election immediately to capitalise on the electorates goodwill if they are popular, or they will wait lut the governments full term if they are voter poison. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no lower bound. The law in question is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. As stated in that article, there actually has been an upper bound on the length of Parliaments for a long time. --Ymir (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Could Parliament just extend its term for no reason other than "it amused me"? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Legally, yes, they could just change the law. See parliamentary sovereignty. Obviously this would be subject to the court of public opinion. --Ymir (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

We Yanks are envious; if it were only so easy to shit-can our deadbeat leaders.... nobs^{Bern baby bern} 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

UK Federalization

Will the UK federalize in order to stay together? I don't see how Scotland or Wales leaving in order to rejoin the EU will greatly benefit them over just staying within the UK; they would become the smallest econimies with the EU. I have some doubts that NI will give up their reproductive rights in order to rejoin Ireland. I remember all the party leaders promised to allow Cornwall some kind of referendum in order to become their own autonomous community.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC) 04:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Dammit I wish both islands were EU Schengen members, that way there wouldn't be any problem. In absence of that, I say let the people decide. If they end up getting a bad result, they will have only themselves to blame. PBfreespace (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Well sure but that is why I am suggesting federalization since that would be more beneficial IMO. Also, what islands are you talking about?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC) 05:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

scotland wil! probably leave. Wales is not going anywhere - they voted to leave the eu, remember. Reproductive is not a big issue in NI. Its split on sectarian lines. And cornwall? Hahahaha. @Pb what difference would thd schengen agreement have made beyond ensuring a more convincing leave vote? AMassiveGay (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Remember that the Protestants in Northern Ireland are also known as Ulster Scots. So it may well be that Northern Ireland will have the three options join Scotland, join Ireland or stay independent if and when they vote for independence. Scotland would not be a small economy in the EU and with its growing renewable energy sector and its attractiveness for EU students it will be better off in the EU than outside of it. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't see a Northern Ireland union with Scotland as a viable option. NI is divided between those who feel very strongly part of the UK & those who feel very strongly part of Ireland. If there is any kind of referendum there it will probably take years to happen, & it would either be a referendum on uninifcation with the Republic of Ireland or more likely on NI independence as a prelude to later Irish unification. Whether anything like that does happen & whether there is any sectarian violence in the meantime, there's no doubt that Brexit will deepen the old divisions & resentments that have been largely dormant in recent years. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@AMG I understand that Wales choose to leave but I doubt Plaid Cymru won't use the Brexit arguments like "restoring the tradition of Wales", "giving Wales beck to the Welsh", and "restoring Welsh sovereignty" in order to argue for a federalized Wales. You can laugh at Cornwall but they were still promised a referendum by every party if I remember correctly.

@LH Scotland might benefit from the EU but I doubt Spain or Belgium will accept them since they have their own separatist movements.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC) 17:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

so plaid cymru will continue to push for independance? Same old same old. How does that translate to more support if most voted to leave. As for cornwall, have they been promised a referendum? What on exactly? I think you misunderstand the naturd of cornish 'nationalism' and how fringe a position it is. They were recently given 'devolution' - they now have control of buses in their county. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If I got to rewrite the map of Europe, I'd unite the whole of the island of Ireland with Scotland, making them a single country separate from England and Wales. The religious antagonisms would likely balance out and keep the whole mess from influencing policy. The Protestant Ulstermen would have the company of their cultural forbears to balance the Catholics without feeling overwhelmed. And the entire conglomeration would have a livelier culture than England, and a more attractive standard of English phonology to boot. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

i cant help feel that there is altogether to much glee about the leave vote and a possible break up or the uk. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me, it isn't that Plaid Cymru will again call for more autonomy but that Welsh nationalism may increase despite their support of Brexit. If the Welsh, Scots, N. Irish, Cornish, and English people stop identify as British and more as a Union of various ethnic groups it may be more beneficial to them to just federalize instead of seceding from each other.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 18:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Regrexit?

Some outlets are reporting that another referendum is being floated. (Autoplay video) I'm far from an expert on how likely this is, but I think given everything that has gone on, another referendum would probably go Stay. Hentropy (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope no such thing happens, simply to teach people to take their fucking votes seriously. Of course, I'm 'Murican, so understandably my perspective is a bit different. --Ymir (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

If anything it does show that there can be dire consequences to "protest voting" simply because you're pissed off *coughberniebroscough* Hentropy (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand how someone can "protest vote" when there are only two options available. I mean, if someone voted for Brexit rather than Bremain then they have to agree with it to some extent. Also, couldn't the next Conservative PM completely ignore the result since it is non-binding?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 05:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no way this is going to fly. Regardless of voters' motives, the lies sold to them & how they feel about it now, the fact is that there was a majority vote with a high voter turnout on a straightforward question. A ridiculous petition to move the goalposts arbitrarily after the fact won't cut any ice. If it had been a Remain victory & Leave supporters were pulling this stunt, it would be laughed out of town. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

We know fro history that a remain victory (pretty much no matter the margin) would not have kept the Brexiteers from trying to get Brexit onto the ballot again. And eventually they would have succeeded. It's kind of like soccer and one side has to only get in one goal to immediately win. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Labour

Anti-Corbyn Labour MPs ponder whether to break away and intvestigate party name ownership.

Why not just call themselves... New Labour? --Sophophobe (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Or the SDP. Bicycle^wheel 17:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

or just incompetent fuckwit party. Though corbyn is a useless sack of shit whose only skill is invisibilty. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeesh. I may agree that it is spineless to have lukewarmly supported Bremain when he always supported Brexit but it would've likely have been political suicide to do so. Also, what I don't understand about this whole fiasco, as an American, is why those MPs don't join the LibDems since Britain has multiple parties?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 18:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

hes failed to provide an opposition, hes failed to provide any leadership for the labour party, and worst of all he failed to provide any leadership during the referendum. He presideses over a party that has abondoned its principles and abondoned its traditional working class support making them easy prey for the liars and racists. Much is made of his 'strong left wing principles' and i'd hope we'd get back to a real labour party for the working class, but no. He has failed appalling and has failed appallingly where it counted. He did not even try. Now labour is dead. New labour tories will be resurgent and he holds all the blame. The prick should fuck off now. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I mean you aren't wrong but I think having a figurehead that is principled is more appealing than some actively cutting social welfare programs.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 18:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Principled is very wonderful when it doesn't affect anyone else.

Leaders, however, are judged on results. What are the results? He's done jack-shit. Therefore, OUT.

It's like working on some project and you have this programmer that doesn't do his job, fucks off all the time, can't make deadlines - but he's REALLY PRINCIPLED. I'm still firing the fucker. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@owlman we would have principled figure head who would be crushed at the next election by someone actively cutting social welfare. sure hes principled, so principled hes shown no passion no drive no energy no belief no competence. he is not going to win back voters his party abandoned to racist ukip and other liars, hes not going to win other tory voters or undecided, and hes not go win a general election mumbling about a fairer society in a shit suit. it was fun to begin with seeing someone different until reality set in and he showed what he has in common with every mp in parliament - hes an incompetent cunt who shares equal blame for fucking us. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@AMG Hmm... I get where you are coming from I and I certainly am not seeing the results Brexit first hand. I guess I assumed Corbyn had... something and I hope that whatever gumption that man has would be shown after this referendum but I admit tat I am likely being unrealistically hopeful. I still think Labour would be better off if they had him as their leader rather than some neolib but it likely doesn't matter. No offense, though, but weren't you a Brexiter before all the shit hit the fan?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 20:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

no i was not. I was disgusted with the tactic of labelling all in the leave camp as liars and incompetent fools. Remain underestimated them, underestimated how much the eu was loathed, underestimated how much those in the remain camp were loathed that were believed and that somehow farage and boris were not part of the establishment. Poor working class people already suffering from years of austerity beleived the lies and and scapegoating, were given a chance to be heard for the first time in years and they took to say fuck you to an establishment that had long since abandoned them. They ignored before the referendum and they ignorec during, lectured and insulted by those who are unaffected either way - rich oxbridge celebrities, millionaire footballers and duplicitous politicians. We are all fucked now, but those people wont care - they were already fucked. I was firmly in the remain camp. But dont think for second i had any love for those cunts. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Understandable. I agree that there has been a surprising amount of ageism and classism from Bremain that has boiled this whole thing down to "every Brexitter is an ignorant, uneducated, poor, racist, xenophobic, old person and they should be ashamed of themselves" which is counterintuitive. Even though I am not a big fan of the EU, I, personally, would've voted to remain because of the economic uncertainty and rise in xenophobic ultranationalism. The working class was likely fucked whether they voted to remain or leave and young people won't ever get to experience the free movement the older generation gets. I am also unsure what will happen to all the British expats and those EU citizens residing in Britain.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC) 00:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I honestly think many of you dont understand what has happened. this is not some election where some weasel has got in and you get to try again in a few years. the uk has left the eu. while many here rub their hands in barely contained glee at the opportunity to spout school boy political theories and a shallow understanding of human nature, MY country is going to BREAK UP. our economy is going to tank. MY country is going to BREAK UP. our nation is as divided as its ever been. MY country is going to BREAK UP. no one has a plan. no one knows what is going to happen and MY country is going to BREAK UP. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ain't it great? Fook off ya fookin pikeys and jockies, ya coonts! --Ymir (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

dont take this the wrong way, but please go fuck yourself. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

How can something break up when it was never properly unified to begin with? Though the UK could still save itself by having another referendum. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

the next referendum will be for scottish independence where they will abandon us to unopposed tory rule, whether they call themselves conservative or labour. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

one grandfather was irish, the others family hailed from scotland and the family name is welsh. The uk is or was as unified as any other country on this planet. And my country is going to break up. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Well the Conservative pols can certainly ignore this referendum since it is non-binding but that would be political suicide and would likely throw their party into the trashbin of history. Even if they did this, though, the ultranationalism won't go away. Assuming Article 50 is invoked the country will go into the darkness with results no one seems too certain about. If the Scots get a referendum then Labour in Scotland will have to choose to join in on the SNP's calls to secede or, again, fight to keep the Scots within the kingdom risking their existence. If Scotland does leave they are unlikely to be allowed in the EU since Spain has always refused to recognize secessionist movements. Labour's only choice, as a national party, is to create a coalition with these nationalistic parties or risk bleeding out to the LibDems and Greens. As I have said before, though, the best solution may be to federalise.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 22:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

please try to understand that jolly parlour games of what ifs do not impact the reality of 72% of the popu!ation turned out to vote and returned 52% to leave. As much as it disgusts me this is the will of the people. It is a fantasy to suggest we could even contemplate ignoring the result. It is a fantasy to suggest the lib dems can gain anything from this when tbey are still loathed as spineless failures from their only taste of power in a coalition with tories. It is fantasy to suggest the green are going gain - they could i guess double the number of mps to a grand total of 2. The only hope of labour gaining power is to hope that the loss of scotland and and complete economic collapse the tories will be pariahs. Even then i doubt labour will have got their shit together and the will likely be tories in all but name anyway. And my country is going to break up. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

and 'ultranationalism'? Really? Please give it a rest. My country is going to break up. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The will of half of the people. Probably less than half if a new referendum is held. Really, it's a very easy way out of the whole mess. What's the EU and the Leave-camp gonna say? No, we need to go by the less up-to-date registration of the will of the people? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand you are afraid, but I don't believe that this is the end of the UK. There is no way the SNP can actually guarantee that an independent Scotland could rejoin the Eu so this talk of a referendum is more likely a political ploy because if they actually do get a referendum and secede then the SNP will implode just as quick as the Tories are now. The Tories will likely cave in and UKIP may increase in power but there is no way that all of these people who voted for Brexit agree with UKIP.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC) 00:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)