2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

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

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $9223.37Goal: $10000

RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Saloon Bar)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Winoes.gif For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.Spit.gif

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

[hide]Pointless poll

It's the end of the world as we know it. Do you feel fine?

Yes

76

Vote

No

228

Vote

My enemy is...

Pigeons

10

Vote

Geese

76

Vote

Ducks

3

Vote

Corvids

16

Vote

Gulls

29

Vote

Starlings

6

Vote

Owls

5

Vote

Parakeets

4

Vote

Hawks

4

Vote

Cliff Racers

39

Vote

Zubat

42

Vote

Has KarmaPolice been watching The Birds?

68

Vote

To do list

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

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

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

Serious question[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Umberto Eco's famous quote about fascism and Fundies[edit]

I have noticed that at the very least among some Fundies such quote (Trumpism has nothing to see with this, if anything local ones are quite silent about both him and the support he receives from their US brethen) about fascism seeing their enemies both so weak they're not a threat and so powerful they're the opposite applies, when they see their enemies (Satan and demons, witches, sorcerers, etc. I'm talking about Pentecostals obsessed with spiritual warfare) unable to affect them because they're bathed in the blood of Jesus that protects them of such enemies but other times they have to pray away them because the opposite happens (demons being behind mental illnesses medicine can't treat, such witches and sorcerers cursing them, etc. I'd really like this was made up.)
And why such obsession with witches and sorcerers in this epoch, when besides them being very few and far between for what I have seen online they seem to have far more important to worry about than cursing Christians?. These people seem to love LARPing. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Erm, sorta wrong.
They're immune to Satan's whiles because their faith in Jesus is steadfast. Temptations from Satan's minions are everywhere, constantly looking for inroads. If you succumb, it means your faith wasn't steadfast. And the main way for the steadfastness is to live your life to the literal word of the Bible and constantly repent for your sins.
Biblical literalism is all the way through. For them, we are living in the final days before the Great Tribulations - all that shite in Relevation involving Whores of Babylon and Marks of the Beast. This also means all the bits about miracles, spirits and direct divine interventions etc is all literally true too, so why can't these things happen now?
From a sane sociological POV, it's all quite self-sealing. Anything Bad is Satan's work; Bad is anything which takes you away from uncritically accepting Scripture and how your pastor etc interprets it. Therefore, it is ultimately hostile to not just other religions, atheism etc but also the principles of the Enlightenment, such as rational enquiry and logic. Even the most glaring evidence of all this being BS is written off as The Red Guy 'testing your faith'.
TL:DR? The average Pentecostal mind is riddled with fear - of sin, of being 'led astray' by Satan's minions, of the imminent Apocalypse (and missing the Last Boat out), to be condemned to burn in Hell for eternity etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
There's a concept in Protestant Christianity -- from the beginning -- which is called sola fide. This kind of explains the root here. Under sola fide, your path to salvation is merely acceptance of Jesus Christ alone. Good deeds don't matter as much, if at all. It's one of the big differences between the Protestants and the rest in Christianity.
Personally, on this issue, I'm more on the side of the "old school" folks like Catholics -- this concept is honestly Biblically questionable in my opinion (though, to be fair, what Martin Luther was reacting to, the Catholic church selling "indulgences", is bullshit as well). And also to be fair, this concept is not interpreted to-the-letter in many Protestant churches. But "Jesus *IS* Salvation" is certainly an important part of the more us vs. them type churches, of which I see the Pentecostals as one of those types. As a lot of that side of the evangelical experience is more about the *cough* mystical side of the Bible (miracles and all that jazz). Small wonder that sola fide has devolved in these churches to where it's now "Belief in Jesus Is Your Shield Against Those Evil Demons".
The ironic thing here is that such belief is often aligned with the view that they believe in "Biblical literalism". Yet, they don't seem to, really. To give one huge glaring example, in Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus literally states that the second most important commandment in Christianity is to "love your neighbor as yourself". This certainly doesn't line up with the fact that many (IMHO correctly) perceive large portions of American Christianity as intolerant. (8 in 10 "nones" see it as such), something backed up by all those angry preacher types that seem to do nothing but hate. Furthermore, evangelicalism is peppered with a lot of screeds on things that often have extremely thin (if any) Biblical justification. The Rapture is an excellent example -- its Biblical support is thin. But it sure is a great vehicle for uppity types who think they are morally superior than everyone else because they have their Jesus Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free card or something and they will get whisked to paradise while all those evil Others will suffer fire and brimstone etc. (There's Biblical warnings against that type of judgmental shit, e.g. Matthew 7:1-5, James 4:11-12, etc., but such is yet another example of passages that the "Biblical literalists" seem to ignore.).
In other words, if their religion really *was* real (it isn't methinks, but let's entertain the thought), there's a helluv a lot of so-called Christians who might be surprised where they end up. BobJohnson (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Sola fide needs a rewrite - most non Calvinist mainline Protestants state you need genuine repentance and reasonable efforts of retrofication (ie 'good works') - which means the Pentecostal loophole is semi-sealed. To whit; even the Negus can be by their lights 'a good Christian' by occasionally repenting, saying you love Jesus and then toddling off to do Evil In The Eyes Of THE LORD. (Though some Pentecostals have soaked up the Calvinist idea that earthly rewards are sign of divine grace - and that if the Negus had lost said grace surely the rewards would be removed?)
The way I started to self de-programme from this cult was realising this loophole (and abuse) and then calling out evidence of it being used (one time literally quoting the Good Samaritan parable). I then realised that if suicide wasn't a sin most Pentecostals were fairly likely to kill themselves when they were certain 'they were in a state of Grace' to make sure they got to heaven. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance but was is the UmbertEco quote? Bongolian (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
"By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak."
Number 8 on Eco's list of 14 Common Features of Fascism. Nowhere Man (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Jacob Collier invents post rock[edit]

https://youtu.be/TURkB9zqxa0?feature=shared

Obviously I'm being hyperbolic. I am frustrated that this method of composition looks new or out of the box when it is very established, but I mean, I get it. I am impressed Collier finds a way to conduct/force a specific audience response. I am in no way against this. It is just a little tough when you see this and know it has been done very well before and the credibility goes all to this guy. It's a net good that people are giving a go to less than traditional compositions, and I know Jacob Collier isn't some chump, he knows his shit in and out. But it sucks to be the 'I told you this shit was cool' guy. Check out Godspeed You Black Emperor! , or as they take themselves less seriously by, Godspee. It is very cool, and I'm glad millions of people know that it's ok to like it now. 'I told ya so' is the burning desire, but I mean, we're all winning if the music is good. It's weird to see something familiar that has been poo-pooed go mainstream in an instant. Torrent (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

(Serious) Is the internet full of bullshit?[edit]

Hello. I discovered Quora and Reddit about two years ago, and I'm shocked by the amount of pure hullshit there. I originally thought these sites were simply there to answer questions, but apparently they have many communities full of three types of people: Annoying "young" people, mentally ill people and obsessive functionaries. Especially Reddit makes me sad. Do people on there really believe what they write? Is there really someone who believes that you have to reflect about wether your a boomer or a generation X'er or whatever (even though these labels are obviously bullshit to most people I know). Except as an insult or a joke, I've never heard someone who seriously identified someone born between 1940 and 1960 as a "boomer", or a person born between 1960 and 1980 as a "generation X'er". And everything on that site is super-perverse: Some people treat "atheism" as an ideology, which I thought was very far from reality, and had to be some American bullshit. In my country, an "atheist" is a non-religious person, and to most people an "agnostic" doesn't mean anything. To find other people angry about Reddit, I searched the site, and I found people obsessed with a particular hat variety, which made me completely forget about the first thing. Apparently, a "trillby" is a very "cringe" hat. Originally, I thought the hat they were randomly making fun of was called "fedora", but apparently it's a "trillby" which they call "fedora". I looked up "fedora" and apparently these terminally online people are talking about the literal Indiana Jones hat. So, apparently, people in real life don't wear that anymore? That's just not true. Some people wear it, others don't, most people don't care about the hat, including those who wear it. Then I looked at random posts about various subjects, but everyone on the site is always extremely annoying and obnoxious. Apparently, leaving your 6 year old alone on the playground right next to your house for not long is "neglect", and letting your 8 year old have an IPhone without time restrictions is "abuse". Apparently, being normal is called being a "stupid boomer", and insisting on something means you have "ADHD". Apparently, being a little arrogant (something that happens to everyone) makes you a "Karen", and your child is then most likely "neuro-diverse". Apparently, your very "cringe" if your not a sexist, and "races" exist. Apparently, you are necessarily some bullshit stereotype put in a "Starterpack". Apparently, you're a "jock" if you show off muscles, but you need to "hit the gym" with your "gym bros" if your slightly above average weight. Apparently, you will be bullied to death if you're overweight (I'm not overweight, but this is just ridiculous and obviously has to be far from reality considering most of those comments come from American users). Apparently, you have to analyse things (an irrelevant TV show, life stages, some movie, a video game, an arrogant attitude, a rebellious child, etc.) which most people in real life just do not give a fuck about.

Am I becoming crazy, or is that site full of bullshit? Or is that just how American daily life is? 2003:EE:6F10:1AF2:868:94CB:C87C:FA56 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

PS:This is not a shitpost, I'm seriously perplexed and I'm seriously asking myself if these people really mean what they write. 2003:EE:6F10:1AF2:868:94CB:C87C:FA56 (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)