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.
Spit.gif For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.Friends.gif

What is going on?

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

Pointless poll

Worst Vice President in US history?

Aaron Burr



John C. Calhoun



Richard Mentor Johnson (believed in a hollow Earth and was so bad that van Buren ran for reelection without a VP pick)



John C. Breckenridge (became a general in the Confederate army)



Spiro T. Agnew



Dan Quayle



Dick Cheney



Mike Pence



Which pronunciation of the cacao/cocoa bean do you prefer?







Why should we care it's fucking chocolate



To do list

Above IP[edit]

@Christopher, So, the above IP is a sockpuppet of User:Machina? New world (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, suspicious from that post alone, but quite obvious when looking at the BoN's edit history. It's a rare exception of a 3-week block for a BoN, which should be escalated to 3-months if the existential dread postings persist after that. Bongolian (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the user contributions, @Machina seems to be banned only from editing the Saloon Bar. Why not ask the user himself? He should be able to edit outside of this page. New world (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Machina can offer a defense on RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation Bongolian (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Can someone open a ticket? Am on phone and it's really shit for stuff like that. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump rally shooting[edit]

Idk if im gonna witnes a shinzo abe 2.0 soon.

Edit: not sure if gunshot so far the sound is described as popping. 2600:387:F:4710:0:0:0:6 (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Elevating fascist politicians to martyrs is a terrible idea. New world (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
To all of you who think this was a good idea: one audience member was killed and another was critically injured. MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
cough cough r/politics 2600:387:F:4710:0:0:0:6 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I have a bad feeling that this will be the American Reichstag Fire moment, where the right uses this as an excuse to turn the US into a police state. Not to mention this almost certainly solidified his chances of winning. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This is exactly what I thought. Now the MAGA movement is going to be out for blood at this rate. The base is absolutely going to use this as “The Deep State” hellbent on stopping him. Patty Pat 01:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The only way this hurts Trump is that people are no longer paying attention to Biden's flubs. Things are NOT looking good for the Dems this November; Biden really needs to step aside ASAP. CorruptUser 02:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
His big ass ego is not letting him and trump knows this by calling him an "old broken down pile of crap" to troll him. 2600:387:F:4710:0:0:0:6 (talk)
I don't think its an ego so much as Biden genuinely does not know how terrible he is. CorruptUser 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thomas Matthew Crooks, the dead perp was a registered Republican,[1] but that won't stop MAGA cult members from blaming Biden/BLM/Antifa/Nancy/Hillary… There is a history of autocrats surviving assassination attempts (Berlusconi was shot once; Mussolini survived several assassination attempts). It feeds into their sense of victimhood and invincibility. Never mind that the orange ogre has been calling for violence since 2015, expect him to make the most of this one. Bongolian (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This might very well be the moment that wins Trump the election, no matter what the Democrats do. Trump now not only has his martyr story served on a silver platter, he also has an obvious justification for all of his authoritarian Project 2025 ideas, and the Democrats now have practically no chance to make the election about Trump’s ideas and not his person. Fuck. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and I’m pretty sure the Biden cabal will try to spin this as a reason not to introduce further “chaos” into the race by switching out Biden, so that door might well also be closing now. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly a gift for Trump. That photo of him with blood running down his face, with his fist in the air and the American flag in the background couldn't have been better if he had posed for it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Trump is going to be presented as a martyr by his followers, and protected by God given the way the assassination attempt failed. Mark my words. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest conspiracy news (Swedish edition, the stuff my mom reads on Facebook). This was all the start signal, and now Operation Storm will unfold Very Very Soon (but no time table, nothing definite). Martial law is hereby in place globally, the entire financial system will shortly be replaced by Quantum Financial System (QFS) bringing justice to finance, the Khazar mafia responsible for everything bad in the world will be defeated, all the energy needs of all the world will be filled by Tesla free energy brought out of suppression at last, and all the news media all over the world will be replaced by military transmissions Busting Wide Open all the terrible goings-on in the world that are now brought right. Very Very Soon, but no date and no time. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Social media is shit, Ric RomeroWikipedia reports (for all you old fart Farkers out there). Also, the Republican media spin cycle certainly protects their geriatric candidate better than the Democrat media spin cycle does. (Regardless, we are at a point where, when it comes to presidential politics, both sides have their ~40% base and -- so far -- no story has changed that.)
I'm going to wait a few news spin cycles to comment further. In another Ric Romero statement, United States politics tends to be a wee bit more violent than the politics of most developed nations. And yes, this gives Trump a "martyr" motif, but the real question is: does this "motif" actually change any minds? BobJohnson (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The martyr thing isn’t gonna change minds, but it doesn’t have to because that’s not what this election is about. This election is about which candidate can get their base to turn up to the election booths. One side is depressed and demoralized at the prospect of voting for a senile old fool who's bad on Gaza and has seemingly already lost. The other side is angry about the state of the country and are now eager to vote for the someone they see as a badass who just took a bullet for them. Which side do you think is a winning electoral coalition? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 11:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
You don't think the liberal side is *not* angry about the state of the country? You must have not seen all the chatter about Project 2025 of late (as well as the lingering folks pissed off that Roe v. Wade was appealed). All that mainstream media pissing and moaning about Israel / Gaza and Biden's age has resulted in FiveThirtyEight's electoral vote forecast to be, er, roughly tied... like it has been since mid-May (and only slightly down since early May when 538 started the poll).
In addition, the United States is not a monarchy (yet). There are Congressional elections, state elections, and local elections. Yes, it seems like half the electorate in the United States doesn't give a shit about this stuff... that civic failure is a conversation for another day. But Trump v. Biden is not the only thing going on. BobJohnson (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh the Dems are mad about the state of the country too, no doubt, but that’s hardly useful when the incumbent is a Democrat. A lot of Dems might stay home because of it. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This very well may not have much of an effect; the Orange One was perhaps hit in the 'best' bit if the body regarding damage, blood loss etc - if they overplay this 'I'm sooo bwave!' thing (qv; Musk's comment earlier) it might put the backs up of a non-zero number of voters.
But there's one bit I want to deal with. I am aware of some comments (not here, elsewhere) that this was 'a setup' or something. I don't believe it is on the simple reason that a situation like this is hard too pull off and Trump is a coward personally. The Secret Service also wouldn't have gone along with this either. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
It also argues against a setup that the shooter being killed was an extremely likely outcome, no matter what happened to Trump, and I think that would make it pretty difficult to recruit a shooter who was “in on the game”.
A “serious but duped” shooter, on the other hand, would not be something that Trump would dare (as mentioned, he’s the classic coward bully), and I doubt he would even risk a “sympathetic shooter” scenario either.
Not to mention the obvious fact that things were already going his way in the campaign and there was thus no need for such risky, conspiratorial shenanigans. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't trust a Navy SEAL sniper to "only" graze my ear with a bullet while I'm talking and moving around, let alone some random kid who looks like one of the Hapsburgs. CorruptUser 11:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
When Raygun was shot it won him 49 out of 50 states. I'm calling it right now. It's Joever. Carthage (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
4 more years! 4 more years!
In the long run, I really really REALLY hope the Dems have a lot of introspection as to why they lost 2024, and not just blame it on the failed assassination attempt. Stop giving us candidates that belong in a nursing home. Actually focus on the issues the vast majority of the public wants; affordable healthcare and housing, stable employment. Stop doing things which only piss off the general public; entering into new wars hasn't made a party popular since 2002, you aren't going to win any voters through invasions. CorruptUser 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Trump I feel is more a figure-head symptom of a bigger problem in the US, of almost half of Americans desiring, apathetic to, or maybe just plain ignorant of the country sliding into Fascism. Even if Trump were to die at this point, I'm not sure it would change the course the US is heading. I guess we'll see what happens in the next couple decades; with looming climate change as well, it's sure to be interesting anyways. Impiricism (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Randomly woke up to see a fundraiser has started and 800k of donations already with people like vivek, shapiro, and kid rock donating in the 5 digits https://www.gofundme.com/f/president-trump-seeks-support-for-butler-pa-victims. 2600:387:F:4717:0:0:0:9 (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@CorruptUser I heartily agree. Unfortunately, the DNC seems stuck in an ideological 1990s time bubble where it’s forbidden to discuss anything along those lines. That’s also convenient vis-à-vis the donor class which really doesn’t like any of those suggestions.
If that’s going to change, it may require a bottom-up takeover like the one attempted (and partially successful) by the MAGA hats in the GOP, as depicted in Finish What We Started (2024) by Isaac Arnsdorf.
Now, I’m not familiar enough with the party structures of the GOP vs. The Democrats to say whether a similar strategy is feasible in the latter, but I think something along those lines is a more likely avenue to change than hoping that the Democratic grandees are suddenly going change.
They didn’t after Obama turned off a large slice of his electorate by failing to reform, they didn’t after Hillary lost to Trump, they didn’t after Biden scraped by under very favourable circumstances and they didn’t when it was obvious that running Biden again would likely be courting disaster, but there was still a decent amount time to find another.
They are now panicking about Biden, but that’s just because they realise just how badly they’ve messed up on a tactical level, not because they recognise that “Biden’esque” candidates simply won’t cut the mustard. In other words: They will not change unless forced to.
The donor class sure as hell won’t force them, meaning that only a political challenge, either external via a third party (which means fracturing the vote and almost ensuring at least one GOP win) or from an internal bottom-up party movement is likely to change anything. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


As with Lee Harvey Oswald the perpetrator was killed - wo we will not know 'the logic/reasoning' and so can act as the focus for fever-dream conspiracies.

The most dangerous attackers are those individuals who operate alone (even if they have 'a particular viewpoint') and do not act so as to draw attention to themselves, as they operate under the radar. Anna Livia (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The big difference is that Oswald was killed by a third party well after he was apprehended, rather than shot during the act, with the latter being much less obvious “conspiracy fodder”.
But there is still a chance that the shooter left some kind of “testament” about his motives (think, Breivik or the Christchurch shooter), but that he didn’t leave it online in order to reduce the chance of advance detection. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
They could have easily have scheduled it's release by a time delay. Very easy to do. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but I think it’s a bit early to discount that such a fairly clear statement of the shooter’s motives exists and that we’ll never know what those motives were. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I've seen a few people on twitter claiming that this was a false-flag by Trump. This can be debunked instantly by pointing out that at 150 yards, no sniper in the world is guaranteed to hit ONLY a willing participant's ear, and just an inch off would've struck Trump's brain. And bullets are not like they are in video games; bone and bullets both shatter.
What I am seeing also are claims the Secret Service are a bunch of incompetent "diversity hires", promulgated by Musk because prior to working the Service, the director Kim Cheatle oversaw the security for PepsiCo, keeping America's Doritos safe. Nevermind that she was working as deputy director in the Secret Service before this. CorruptUser 11:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Sigh, I hadn’t thought of that particular scenario, but it’s hardly surprising that someone in the Xdiocracy would launch the “because of incompetent DEI hires” allegations. It’s totally on message with several pre existing GOP/MAGA narratives that blame all kinds of failures on DEI for, basically, excluding all of the supposedly hyper competent white dudes from [insert relevant job title here]. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Given that Elon Musk has royally fucked up Twitter, would he consider himself an incompetent "DEI diversity hire"?
((sarc)It's those gosh darn Canadians like Musk infiltrating the tech-bro scene that's fucking Silicon Valley up, I tell ya! Blame Canada!(/sarc)BobJohnson (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Details are a bit sparse right now, but I shall say with some conviction the Secret Service does have questions to answer.
The suspected shooter (apparently) had a reasonably clear aim at Trump, the distance was about ~140m and was apparently armed with an 'AR-15 style rifle'. If we take this to mean it's a longish barreled with 'intermediate' rounds (like 5.56 or 5.45mm) as long as the shooter was fairly competent and rifle not in shit condition hitting the target would not be that hard. A decent scope etc would continue this. I will therise that it might be windage alone which saved Trump. And if they'd have used an old-school bolt-action (like the Carcano used on JFK) he would have been hit 'properly' (as long as it had a good zero).
Point being; if I know this, the Secret Service clearly would. And more. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Why not shoot-to-disable so there are 'words out of the gunman's mouth'?
For some of the first conspiracy theories see [2]. Anna Livia (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd guess the shooter was prone so a shallow target. Chances are they had a decent magazine capacity so the Secret Service sniper did 100% right thing - immediately located the hostile and took them out. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Anna Livia No such thing; this is real life, not a video game. If you shoot, it's to kill, and you keep shooting until your target stops moving. CorruptUser 21:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Some of us live in contexts where 'what we have read about such matters' is all we know. Anna Livia (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Corrupt is wrong. For example, British 'SWAT' teams aim to incapacitate the targets - only killing when they judge there is no other option. I expect Secret Service is about the same - if possible they will try to disarm/ incapacitated but the health of the principal is paramount. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
incapacitate in this case usually involves killing targets. shots to chest area is considered the most effective way to incapacitate which generally results in death. if the target is deemed a possible suicide bomber, this might set off of any explosive vests, as might a taser. incapacitate in this case is via shots to the head. generally even more fatal than shots to the chest. ultimately, if it becomes necessary to shoot someone, then it is invariably going to be lethal, in effect if not by design. they are not going to try and wing them. just ask jean charle de menezes. any kill by the armed response will be referred to the iopc to be independently investigated. this is no sense a whitewashing of the police officers involved either. they can and have been prosecuted for murder if found the a shooting was not justified. the point is, incapacitate is not disarm, and they only incapacitate when there is no other option, because invariably it means death. there have only been about 80 or so police shootings since 1990. the uk is not the us. it is relatively rare for there to be no other option but shooting is rarely the first option, and never the default option. sadly, sometimes there really no other options. the differences with police cultures between the us and uk not withstanding, i dont see how there would be any other options for dealing this gunman after he had already started shooting at people that would not have resulted with his death. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Or put more glibly; 'incapacitate' in regards to firearms normally means 'shoot them somewhere not immediately lethal and hope they quit it'; ie through being effectively disabled by pain and/or survival instinct. Problem is, people can be temporarily immune to pain from say, adrenaline, drugs, determination etc and continue to fire back. This is compounded by some modern popular calibres [like the 5.56mm and 9mm] which have fairly poor 'stopping power' - there's been many a report in the 20th where militaries have found their weapons good at poking holes in people but not that good at 'stopping' the enemy from continuing to attack before they bleed to death.
In this, Corrupt is a bit correct; while you don't have to always 'shoot to kill', trying to 'shoot to incapacitate' is kinda difficult and really not something guns are designed to do [though there are 'less lethal' options like say, rubber bullets and baton rounds]. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

How to get US gun control at last[edit]

Currently floating around on the inner tubes:[3]

Democrats should introduce a gun control bill called the "The Donald Trump safety and gun control bill" and make republicans vote against it.

Bongolian (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that might be hilarious, I don’t think it’ll be “good politics”, but that it’s more likely to be viewed as “nefarious politicking” and thus turn voters off. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
How fucking .close was this to being an entirely different conversation? An untrained kid, 20 years old, took a shot and knocked the ear. Armor of God is in the whackadoo conversation. Iron sights from 150 Yards, dumb ass kid almost made the shot, missed and killed a person because guns are built to be long range killing machines. And the conversation from both sides is Thank God it wasn't Trump? Torrent (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Why should I give a shit if Trump's ear got grazed when unstable gun fanatics with a name to gain can just crawl up a roof and enact indiscriminate violence, and even if it is targeted, it is indiscriminate because a bullet doesn't care who it hits. Torrent (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a lot of 'dork can't shoot, haha' shit going around. Dude missed by an inch and still killed somebody, guns are fucking killing machines. There is no purpose for a gun other than to kill something, and if you mess that up, big surprise, somebody might die. Nobody should be allowed to run around with an AR-15. Torrent (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
One oddity with certain pro-extremely-loose Second Amendment types (particularly the guns-as-identity right-wing crowd) is that they seem to be convinced that their side is the only side that owns and can handle firearms. In reality, there's not only plenty of left-wingers that own guns... there's also plenty of apolitical that own guns, and (as seems to possibly be the case here) some mentally disturbed (or parents of the mentally disturbed) that own guns. I do not expect the conversation here to change at all; after all, a lot of this crowd simultaneously is Very Concerned about inner city crime, which loose gun laws help perpetuate. Alas, this crowd often prefers to evoke stereotypes on that issue and leave it at that. Furthermore, events like mass murders of children have not moved the dial at all, either. BobJohnson (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The right-wing has a very strong doublethink going on regarding stuff like this. It not only fails to realise that 'the left' can [and I suspect will] stock up on weaponry and learn how to use it right [also put in the effort for physical training etc] but also will most likely be willing to fight and die for what they believe in as much as they would be - to the point that if they needed to, the US Army would be able to build new field forces out of traditionally 'librul' [and low-recruitment areas] like New England and the Pacific states to [let's say], put down a Gileadian rebellion.
This mental blind spot frankly put, scares me more than anything else. Balances of power last because each side respects the strengths and determination of their opponent - they know that they must never push them too far or slam their back to the wall, otherwise they will fight back with everything they've got. If you don't respect your opponent, that you believe you can get away with anything because 'They're wusses' and will fold the moment you bring ut a blade... this is how wars happen. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Good luck with that. There are more guns than people in the US, and you can bet your ass off that many of those gun owners would rather be branded criminals than give up their guns. The problem isn't guns, the problem is gun culture. Too many people treat their guns as replacement dicks, rather than the tools they actually are. You don't see people posing with their power drills, do you? Also, any serious attempts at gun control are gonna be directed against people who need them the most. The marginalized. Trans folk, people of color, etc. Carthage (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
And how many people are realistically suggesting let's call it a 'general disarming' policy for America? It is impractical to the level of insanity, and most get that before we get into Charlton Heston impressions. I will cite the 'weapons ban' in Discworld's Night Watch too, where Vimes noted that the majority of weapons confiscated was from law-abiding citizens, meaning that basically, you've disarmed the 'good citizens' but obviously, left the 'bad citizens' armed. Smart.
There is also issues with the phrasing of the issue. Does America have a gun problem, or a violence problem? Are the guns a cause, or merely the favoured tool? Similar can be said about other things; for example, does America have an obesity problem, a ultra-processed food problem, or both? Chicken or egg, or perhaps chicken omelette? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
How realistic do you think even a "minor" attempt at regulation is gonna be when you not only have the GOP controlling one and a half branches of government, but also have sheriffs who straight up refuse to enforce any gun laws no matter what their content is? Of course, those same reactionaries would love to disarm queer folk and people of color. Carthage (talk)
Let's be more accurate here; those fuckers would prefer to disarm everyone who's not a right-wing white. But there's an issue that a lot of the 'mainstream left' in America loathe all firearms with an understandable venom which makes 'reasonable discussion' impossible, or a general lack of understanding which means the suggestions are hugely impractical [who was it who suggested all guns should be registered with a gun club?]. Anyhows, while you're right in that almost nothing will actually pass right now due to the extremist capture of legislatures etc, the Democrats need to show they've actually got some reasonable policies ready 'in the drawer' if only they could get it passed [the sort of answers which have their angles protected in advance against the usual counter-arguments, such as 'this proposal is utterly impractical']. And part of this is a critical analysis of the myriad of problems which is causing the problem [for like obesity and drug use, there's no single cause or solution]. In more general terms, it is not a good idea electorally for a major party to become associated with the top view when it's something 35% possess.
And I shall offer 'toxic individualism' to this analysis. That there's a percentage of folks who think their rights to do X is absolute, that it comes with zero responsibilities and that it cannot ever be remotely hedged in. You see this in for example, free speech extremists who shall angrily lash out if they are brought face-to-face with the effects of their airing of views. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Most legislators also know next to nothing about guns. That's why you get stupid shit like bans on "assault weapons" (a category know-nothing legislators invented out of whole cloth) that don't do much, or anything at all, to reduce rates of gun violence. Most gun violence is committed with pistols, not "assault weapons" BTW. According to a Pew survey, in 2020 only 3% of firearms fatalities were the result of rifle usage. Carthage (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
In discussions with "the gun folks" (short of the absolutist true believers of whom the firearm is some sort of identity religion, of which nothing will change their minds), the one point I have brought up that "seems to get some of them to think" is that a lot of the "NRA schtick" IMHO is pure cold marketing. With outdoor recreation on the decline, catering to the "paranoid style" allows gun manufacturers to make up some lost revenue. There's a lot of shit in the US (and elsewhere) that tries to market a "SPEND!" solution to things that require some dedication to get good at; it takes some time to become a decently proficient marksman, but (in true musician-style "gear acquisition syndrome" guise) a helluv a lot of firearms marketing is spent trying to convince people that they can successfully become a Gun God by simply spending a lot of money. The same applies to the "paranoid style" marketing regarding personal protection; far more marketing is spent convincing people that they need Super Gee Whiz Expensive Semi-Auto Shit for personal protection when in reality, simply honing your technique will probably do far more. (As an example of marketing over competence, one of the things I remember about the St. Louis gun-toting incidentWikipedia in 2020 was that people who actually had some experience with guns commented on just how shitty the McCloskey's form and protocol was. They should've spent their money buying that Fancy AR-15 learning how to actually hold a weapon.)
The other fun aspect of the NRA is a bit of that outdoor recreation aspect that is ignored these days. The United States has historically been very good with public lands IMHO, and it's more than just the more environmentally protected stuff like national parks. Let's face it: if you didn't have public lands like the national forests, what happens with hunting land is that it's bought up by some uber-rich weenie who will proceed to prevent the general public from hunting on their land, either charging up the wazoo in order for people to hunt on their land, or only exclusively allowing other uber-rich weenies on their "dude ranch" retreats. There's plenty of non-protected land that falls in that category. Generally speaking (not historically, Teddy Roosevelt would've been pissed with the modern GOP) the Democrats tend to be the ones promoting public lands these days, which means that given the current political environment, the NRA (despite being "pro-hunter") says nothing about this stance, at least that I can find. (I vaguely remember during Obama's era they had some tepid support of public land expansion buried beneath the fearmongering whargarble, but these days I don't even see that.) BobJohnson (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a growing number of queer people who have taken up arms in response to current events. They don't believe the state will protect them, when the state is the very same entity persecuting them. Do you think these people are paranoid? Carthage (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Depends on whether they are learning to use their weapon or are Spending Money on Fancy Shit without learning how to use it. Queer culture that has taken up firearms is too far under my radar (I'm aware of groups like Pink PistolsWikipedia but don't know too much about them). Although my personal knowledge is limited, from the little I've seen, left wing gun groups like Redneck RevoltWikipedia have personally impressed me more than current NRA culture. The term "paranoid style"Wikipedia refers to a term coined by historian Richard Hofstadter which addresses a specific sort of right wing personality that is heavily into conspiracy theory, and has existed for decades (examples range from the John Birch Society to QAnon). While there are left-wingers into conspiracy, my usage of "paranoid style" follows the 1960s essay convention and doesn't apply to them. BobJohnson (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, 'Gear Aquisition Syndrome' is in almost all hobbies; fitness, art, cooking, sports, gaming, camping, photography etc - blame American hyper-commercialisation. Truth is, the 'gun market' in the USA is very mature; there's not been any serious technological developments since the advent of plastic polymers in the 80s, they are usually pretty durable products which are [relatively] easy to repair there hasn't been much in the way of capability improvement for at least 50 years [in regards to hunting rifles / revolvers, perhaps a century], the vast majority of very good weapons are now 'out of patent' which means anybody can produce them [qv Norinco of China, churning out decent/affordable clones of iconic weapons] and they use [as a rule] generic ammunition types.
All this is shit for a gunmakers POV. I can't lock you in using the 'razor and blades' model with some wierd calibre of ammo, my 'new' hunting design from 2020 is not going to really be superior to one from 1920 [and most serious folks know it], my new design is nothing to shout about, a lot of those ones from 1920 are still kicking about, there's a huge cottage industry of gunsmiths refurbishing weapons so they can be returned to the market and it's fairly easy to get spares etc to do this. Thus, marketing more shit to the paranoids, dressing up my wears in 'tacticool' garb, using every chance to stoke the 'they're coming for your GUNS!!!' flames so they come in and clear out my inventory and constantly throwing out more aftermarket shite for folks to collect like Pokemon.
The interesting thing is [as Carthage notes] is that this crap has infiltrated the anti-gun group too. They think banning things like the scary-looking AR-15 is really important, when at best it's just a distraction to the real issues. The more sane part of this realises that they've fallen into the 'politicians fallacy'; that gun violence is horrible, something needs to be done but this is one of the very few things we might actually succeed in doing. Some folks might believe/hope that if they can start with say, getting back the Federal Assault Weapon Ban from the 90s they might be able to gradually 'salami-slice' their way to a reasonable level of firearm restrictions [but I would argue this is now moot with the MAGA-majority in SCOTUS]. But we need to remember there is a segment of the American population who is at best rather blase regarding gun deaths in general, merely objects to 'mass shooter' events - reasoning [with some logical, though cuntish reasoning] that a lot of those attacks/deaths would have happened even if the murderer hadn't had access to a firearm.
From what little I've read, it would appear those non right-wing gun owners are getting their shit togther, but in a haphazard manner. Like with leftie preppers, they're aware that they're in the distinct minority, that a lot of 'their community' is very anti-gun and they [usually] don't have the funding levels right-wing groups enjoy from sympathetic millionaires. I would put my money on ethnic-minority based groups being the most organised, because often they're plugged into their local community, can be spread via word-of-mouth and have the example of the Black Panthers to follow [or not].
Good thinkpiece: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/john-brown-gun-club-armed-anti-fascist-1234733200/
KarmaPolice (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


Maybe trump is what you got better alive than dead. Maybe I'm the kind to say if you're awful take the shot. Take the shot for me. Insanely close but the plan isn't ever violence..Torrent (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You want my honest take? Torrent (talk)
I think we should regulate guns. Torrent (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
What will it take for 'the legislatures' to introduce legislation regardless of the squawking and more of the gun-nutters?
In the UK most people do not feel threatened by having to undergo checks to get the various gun licences (including black-powder and other categories). Anna Livia (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
In the UK, you need a licence to even operate one (we'll, good as) - and most don't go further than side/side shotguns or perhaps a varmint rifle. But for starters, we don't have any big game to take down.
But the problem is (apparently) there's not much which could have been done legal-wise. If it turns out they used an 'AR style' (aka 'scary looking') weapon banning them wouldn't really have done much because they could have simply used an old Marlin, Garand or Mosin (all legit hunting rifles) instead. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The point is that there is a general awareness that 'people need licences for guns and other weapons, apart from criminals who don't' - and many of us not of the 'hunting, shooting and fishing brigade, or with military connections' will never knowingly cross paths with weapons unless seeing museum displays and historical re-enactments (plus a few 'old weapons found in attic/dug up in garden' type stories). Anna Livia (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Pro-gun people have lots of arguments that are shit, but the 'there's too many guns in circulation to do licensing' is not one of them. Or pointing out that due to a combination of shit policing and the above plethora law-abiding citizens do need a means to defend themselves. However, the shittiness starts when they oppose licencing of the weapon holder rather than the weapon, or even making it mandatory for the above to have secure methods of storage (one of the main sources of firearms for mass shootings is 'legal pieces taken from a relative without consent').
As for 'knowingly crossing paths with weapons'... well the 'knowingly' is the part. There has always been some 'leftish' owners, and 2016 found an upswing of ownership amongst groups such as LGBT, women, minorities etc (no prizes for guessing why) and from what little studies I've seen is that they are a lot more circumspect about their ownership (for example, they don't talk about it, attend ranges outside of their locality) as well as the folks who simply don't talk about 'stuff I don't think you'd care about'. 35% of Americans own at least one firearm and 44% said they lived in a 'gun household' as of 20 (Gallup poll) - while some will be Dale Gribble types, some clearly won't be. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
it can't be about punishing gun owners when their kids go incel bang bang, if my parents had any kinda gun safe I'd have cracked that. The idea I have is to require all guns to be registered to a club, with federal standards that would absolutely be in odds of state open carry laws. There are buildings in the US that have to use signs, similar to no smoking, that show in no uncertain graphic language, no guns https://images.app.goo.gl/p3qAjN5gAp5X8nCg6 I can't think of the last time I've seen a no smoking sign. Torrent (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
And how would this work, exactly? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I was using 'knowingly' in the UK sense; we can all think of contexts where weapons will be present but not visible.
In various contexts guns (of whatever kind) can be a visible part of local culture, but that they have to be treated 'as what they are' (much as in other cultures 'serious' knives and bladed weapons are carried, whether or not as a status symbol/part of the normal costume).
'The weapons' and 'the culture' have to be considered as at least partly separate. It does not matter how many guns or other weapons there are if the general attitude is that they are 'used correctly' and not as the answer to any question or problem (so, on one level, they are no different to a box of matches or a lighter). Anna Livia (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree, it is the 'gun culture' which is a major issue in the USA, as seen by the relatively low level of gun violence in 'high gun ownership' places (Canada, Scandinavia, Germany etc). I mean, I've heard folks talk about 'knife culture' but I've spent the weekend working with a 45cm heavy machete which would truly ruin anyone's day. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I am a little in the weeds here and I want to clarify something. A pistol and a rifle are different. The gun club would require standards of understanding ownership, at the very least, proper storage. It is Illegal to have a 3 inch knife, Google it and you will get a bunch of places selling a millimeter under. So I don't think in America you could just walk around with a machete and claim right to bear arms, which is a part of this.
So then, to own a gun is still easy, but register all guns at a club requires at least a two step regisistration process. It's honestly barely a protective measure, but misuse of the highly defensive weapon of gun needs be addressed. I'm not saying making it illegal to run somebody over with a car makes it impossible to run somebody over with a car, It's a much more consistent argument that pointing a gun at a living thing increases its chance of dying. And if I have to argue on that, I will. Guns, especially rifles, need to be accounted for. In numbers, users, location and uses as much as it is important to register a modification like a suppressor to a gun club. I wouldn't say a gun club would be responsible for a member's bad action, but man, that kid almost smoked a presidential candidate. Was he, at 20, just fully in charge of a rifle? It's silly and speculative to think, but if he had one extra responsibility to log taking that rifle out, he could have lied or not logged it, still 100% on him, but knowing who has a rifle in the first place, even if it doesn't turn out to be any of the gun club. Demolition Ranch has gun club rights, ATF requires registration and they have no reason to harm anyone or leave their range. It simply means they can use modifications that must stay on their property. If I said all their rifles needed to be registered the same as their modifications, they would be bothered for at most 30 minutes, I guarantee they have a very capable team logging every gun and modification. Torrent (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
In a practical sense, Q: 'you have logged your AR-15 for what purpose?'. A: 'Range shooting' Q: 'You are not storing your AR-15 at the designated clublocker, are you storing it in a safe?' A:'yes' and then it's extra penalties from there IF the gun is used in impropriety, as in irresponsible of the gun owner to fail to meet the standards of the gun club, which at least some terms must be mandated, like if a dumb kid or an angry person acted outside of a mandate. Torrent (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1/ This will turn gun clubs into arms of law enforcement. They shall hate that, and I don't trust them all to 'do it properly' either - one of my legal/regulatory maxims is to never outsource compliance to folks who can't be relied on to do it right [just imagine; Dale Gribble or Jimbo and Ned doing the questioning?]. Plus is there even enough clubs to do this?
2/ Your system doesn't do a jot about all the 300m+ weapons which already exist, or those which could be made later on from construction/assembily methods.
3/ The system of each gun being registered will be hugely bureaucratic and include a massive database which quite a lot of folks would object to. Even more so, if you start demanding all mods etc being re-registered too.
In short, this is [to your own admission] a lot of work for not much actual effect. In fact, it smells more like 'security theatre' than anything really productive, because the vast majority of current 'shooters' would still get their mitts on those weapons. Now, there are politicos out there who [I think] would put their political lives on the line by standing up to the NRA/fweedom nutjobs but I don't think they'd count this hill as worth dying on.
Personally, I think the UK example is a better one - where you licence the person, not the weapon [closing 'gun show', 'ghost gun' and 'preexisting firearm' loopholes]. This check would be functionally to the current NICS background checks done if you've bought your piece through an authorised dealer [which means the system is already in place]. It would be an 'shall issue' basis [as it is a right, not a privilege] but there would be a couple of conditions attached ['you will not sell/lend weapons to unlicenced people', 'you are legally liable to keep your weapons secured when not in use to prevent theft' etc]. To sweeten the deal, I'd also make said firearms permit a legal form of photo ID. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
okay, it's now known the shooter was part of a gun club. But turning gun clubs into militias is nuts bonkers. Gun law maybe irks libertarians, but an ID to own a gun sounds reasonable. If you're walking around with a gun, maybe keep that permit in your wallet. I would happily work with you to make a gun license as culturally relevant in America as a Driver's license. Torrent (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
While I think the prevalence of guns is the biggest issue, undercutting all attempts at licensing, I do think that something equivalent to a driver’s license would probably be the most feasible. That way, you could also have several classes of licenses for various types of weapons (a handgun/shotgun/rifle division would probably be fairly easy to handle) just as you need different licenses for different types of vehicles.
However, while it is probably not politically feasible, I’d say that banning certain classes of weapons would probably limit the lethal potential in mass shootings, while still allowing plenty of room for personal protection, hunting etc. A very simple technical definition would be a ban on detachable magazines, period, alongside a maximum magazine capacity (say, 5 or 10 rounds). Or you could go further and additionally ban autoloading weapons altogether.
This would still allow for revolvers, shotguns, a lot (most?) of bolt action rifles, and even some semiautomatic pistols and rifles (that is, if autoloaders aren’t banned, of course), but the latter would be less attractive without their high capacity, detachable magazines. The lack of high capacity, automatic weapons would likely reduce the lethal potential in mass shootings, because they allow any shooter to get a lot of rounds off in very little time. However, this probably wouldn’t change most shootings, which are likely to be one on one, or at most involve under a handful of people.
And yes, I know that people can train to a high proficiency with bolt actions as well (“mad minute” and all that), but the point is that this takes time and effort, unlike the time it takes to become equally (or more) lethal with a semiautomatic rifle (especially with a large, detachable magazine), say one of the many AR-15 clones. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I got to fire a Mosin. I had just fired an AR, so I kinda 'Sally'd' it and my first shot went very high. I put the rest of the rounds direct, but it is not a hunting rifle, the target will explode. Torrent (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


What are the important figures able to replace Biden which could realistically win the US election? Is there any chance the left faction of the Democratic Party could take the leadership? New world (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say Bernie or AOC, but they have both endorsed Biden. Carthage (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Neither are widely popular, and AOC in particular has a national hate-dom greater than her support base. Better off with some governor. CorruptUser 13:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I would like Gretchen Witner, but all the signs are Harris will insist it's her if not Biden. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Sadly, I think KarmaPolice is right, although I agree with those suggesting that one of the more popular governors would probably stand a far better chance of saving the sinking Democratic ship. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Due to the shitty way that elections are held in the US, having enormous amounts of money counts for a lot in running a campaign. If Biden stepped out, Harris would control the funds that they've raised together. That makes it extremely unlikely that anyone could run without her on the ticket as presidential candidate. The pundit class has been fueling this nonsense about an 'alternative' candidate to Biden since the debate. One good thing about the incident is that it could end distract the easily-distracted pundit class from that foolishness. Bongolian (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we need to remember Harris is running (effectively) to be President because there's a reasonable % of the electorate who suspect (for whatever reason) Biden won't see out a second term. Even the most pro-Biden people will at least privately that folks of Biden's age can go from 'fine' to 'dead' worryingly quickly. So she really needs to get out there and convince America she is a damn fine backup. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I think a workable compromise might be to run Harris for POTUS, but adding one of the popular governors as VP, which might be able to secure at least one key, swing state (as LBJ was chosen by JFK to essentially “deliver Texas”). This way the Democrats could strive for a combination of “sensible continuity & change” in contrast to “risk complete chaos with Trump”.
But it also requires the Democratic campaign to really start talking about what it’ll actually work to deliver in terms of policies and concrete results in the coming presidential term, not just trying to scare the electorate and claim they already delivered.
The one upside to the assassination attempt is that it might force the Democratic campaign to talk about policies and promises, exactly because it will be harder for them to just run negative campaigns about Trump without sounding as if they at least tacitly endorse the attempt on Trump’s life. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, there’s nobody else but Harris. And that’s because the “popular governor” candidates are white, so the party would have to struggle to explain to black voters why the party just completely snubbed the first black woman vice president and replaced her with a white person. And with the election bound to be so close, any decrease in black turnout would severely hurt the party both presidentially and down ballot. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I am happy to recant if evidence shows otherwise, but a) I think Harris is less popular with minority (esp black) voters than it's assumed and b) I think said voters would be more attracted to actual policies which effect them/ communities than a mere face. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I’m sure, but it wouldn’t be a good look at all. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
True, but this is a situation where every situation looks shit. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Fox poll finds Harris the most viable of any, at least on favorability/unfavorability measures. (Before dismissing because of the source, see here.) Chillpilled (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Who would she pîck as VP, btw? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
It would never happen, but it would be pretty cool if Harris was president and Ocasio-Cortez VP. I just imagine conservative heads exploding because it's not just one, but TWO women in powerful political positions. Impiricism (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I am as confused by this as I was by The McCain and Palin ticket. Are you trying to lose? I, in my conspiratorial mind, think the two party system in America is really trying to keep a center that benefits big money. There is no dark horse Democrat, aside from Harris. I just have never bought the idea that a two party system would work against itself. Guns are bad murder is wrong. Torrent (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not. The right-wing have well-oiled political machines which 'gets out the vote' really well and gets lots of said oil from a clutch of megadonors. There is no real 'left' equivalent. In short; if you are a progressive/ socialist in the USA and you want to be actually noticed by the smoke-filled room folks, build yourself a political machine if your own (not just ad-hoc lashups for particular issues/ elections). KarmaPolice (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qyXNcCOMeVc New world (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Funny but man, the French version of the American accent is exactly the American version of the French accent. Incredible. Torrent (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahn hohn hohn, c'est incroyable. (En chhr like you got stuff in your throat, oi like oyi, then ah bluh like you got other things to do) Torrent (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump VP[edit]

He's headed to the RNC and my bets are he will pick J. D. Vance as his VP. Chillpilled (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

JD Vance is the smart choice to ensure he gets Ohio and a couple other key Hillbilly states, but Trump doesn't like people who have a chance to outshine him. That's why the prior VP was a sentient #2 Pencil that a fairy godmother forgot to "deal with" after the princess found her prince. CorruptUser 00:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The one thing authoritarians don't want is someone stealing the spotlight. For that alone Vance is unlikely. Count on the idiot billionaire from North Dakota or someone similarly unnoticeable, who's more in the Pence-mold. Bongolian (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
That's... quite a description of Pence. Impiricism (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
You win a prize, my friend. He's now the official candidate.
This user is RWs self-appointed culinary expert

N A Z U N A -H I W A T A S H I-

Feel free to copy my signatureTheAlePower (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Mildly surprised that Trump chose Vance and not someone with a lesser personal profile. Apart from the advantages it could bring in terms of the electoral college, it might also be a sign that Trump is banking on a “tech bro billionaire alliance” to raise funds from the likes of Thiel (who basically invented Vance as a politician) and Musk who, while having different political projects from Trump, also see him as a potentially useful “agent of chaos”. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
So, Vance confirmed now? What tweets from 12 years ago yall gonna pullup about him now? 2600:387:F:D13:0:0:0:2 (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Why do we need tweets? J.D. Vance gained fame by writing about a "Cletus safari" book essentially blaming the culture of the poor for keeping them poor. Whatever you can say about that aspect, the one thing I wonder about is the contrast in education between his life story and GOP rhetoric. From what I can tell (he hasn't seemed to go into this part as much), Vance appears to have used America's university system to lift his way up out of "Appalachia" (actually, Middletown Ohio, a Cincinnati suburb, but whatever) into becoming a hedge fund manager. This stands in contrast to the Republican party's hostility to public education -- at least when it comes to that Project 2025 Heritage Foundation side, as well as the anti-intellectualism among many of the rubes. From what I can recall (and have Googled), during his Senate term, Vance was happy to patter the usual DEI/critical race theory bullshit in order to attack colleges, so I guess he's now firmly part of the "got mine fuck you" class of America now that he "made it". Le sigh.
Vance the politician has oddly made himself a "champion of the working class" when in reality, if you just look *slightly* beneath the marketing, he's essentially a tech-bro aligned with the increasingly authoritarian capitalism side of such (as epitomized by Musk and Thiel). That's quite similar to Trump in some ways (in that the "champion of the working class" is a ruse, though Trump is far from a tech-bro). It's just another sign that probably the most comparable political party to the GOP is not anything democratic, but Viktor Orbán's "illiberal democracy" of Fidesz. And that if you really are working class and voting Republican, you are going to get economically fucked over... again. BobJohnson (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Vance has so many skeletons in his closet that this could end up sinking the ticket a little. Some of the background on Vance's benefactor Peter Thiel is this right here. And then also this. Chillpilled (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Heh, at some point the neoreactionary movement article should be updated when the "dust settles". Vance does seem to have loose connections to the movement at first glance. In which case, that weird techno-libertarian movement full of incredibly strange long-winded bouts of hot air is not quite the "largely insignificant and mostly an object of curiosity" thing that it was several years ago. BobJohnson (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The connections are hardly "loose". He is personal friends with Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel. He follows Richard Hanania, BAP, that kind of crowd on Twitter. This guy should not be anywhere near power, much less a heartbeat away from the presidency. I figured he would run for president in 2028 but I wouldn't have guessed this would be the way he would make himself the heir apparent to Trump. His recent rhetoric and image are a deliberate act, evidenced in part by his radical switch in opinions. He has ulterior motives of some kind, probably simply fulfilling whatever Thiel wants in addition to personal careerism. He is the furthest thing from someone with this country's best interests at heart and manages to be someone who would be worse than Trump (in my initial estimation). I've just added something to WIGO Elections, where Vance calls for devaluing the US dollar. Some of you may remember that Milei recently took Argentina for a similar ride. Along with Trump's call for a 10% base tariff against every single country in the world, this looks like some real economic recklessness. Chillpilled (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Truly, a shit idea...[edit]

I'm not sure how terrible the idea to deliberately devalue the dollar is has resonated with folks. Trump's 10% world tariff is the stuff of a sane economist in comparison.

1/ USD hasn't been pegged since 1973 [when Nixon ended the gold peg] which means the only real methods to 'devalue' the dollar would be a) the Fed flooding the market with USD and/or b) buying up colossal amounts of Euro/Sterling/Franc/Yen so those rise in value. Now, the first will be inflationary and the second massively expensive. Like, 'costing more than the increased revenues from more exports would be'. Now I think of it, inflation will kick in regardless because all American imports [from timber to medical gear, oil to consumer goods] will become more expensive. The US domestic market would in fact be more hit by this than most advanced economies, because she has decided to allow said markets to be ruled by 'market forces'.

2/ The world will go apeshit. Every country holds their official reserves in mostly USD. Why? Because it is relatively stable in value and accepted almost everywhere. How did this happen? Partly because America has built over a century plus of being 'a serious donkey who never fucks about'. Pulling something like this will damage that hard-earned rep. Cue, for example losing that AAA rating for US Treasuries. I'm assuming Uncle Sam having to pay more interest on debt is such a good idea. Politically, it will be worse, as everyone [friend or foe] will feel fucked over.

3/ China's currency is pegged, so it could easily neutralise this by switching to a USD peg and 'riding it down'. Other nations who have pegs can do similar, such as [if I remember right] the Gulf States. What's more, chances are without further interventions, the USD will 'float' up to something approximating it's previous level. Minus the economic damage, that is.

Now, it's not insane to argue that USD is currently 'too strong' and needs to weaken a bit to encourage exporters and for domestic consumers to choose domestically-produced goods [I've argued this for the UK for years] but this would perhaps be the worst manner to do it in. However, as the holder of the de facto world currency in this particular situation the USA has less 'freedom to manoeuvre' than say, the UK does because [basically] Sterling is something measured, not the stick to measure with. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

'And that, my dear children, is how the (Mongolian tögrög, or other obscure currency of choice) became the official reserve currency of the world...' Anna Livia (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It's basically the financial Nuclear Option. That $34T the US owes? It's almost all in dollars. The US can print $34T in dollars anytime it wants. The problems of course are that the US will never be able to meaningfully borrow in dollars again, at least not in the lifetime of anyone currently alive and probably then some. This isn't too much of an issue if the US doesn't need to borrow money to function... which it does, even without interest payments on debt. Compounding that problem is that, well, collapsing the US debt would effectively collapse the financial systems of the entire world as well; the second great depression would effectively cut off a lot of the government's revenue, and nobody would lend to the government to make up the shortfall, leading to even core functions of government being gutted, which would lead to even more drastic problems that either last for generations or simply end the "Pax Americana" of the past few decades. CorruptUser 04:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

So Trump will now see the value of gun control[edit]

For crying out loud, he has experienced now the dangers of shootings. If he has any sense he'd cut ties with the NRA and support gun control. The guy may be foolish but he's certainly selfish enough to not want to endanger himself. — Unsigned, by: Drivingcars / talk / contribs

If I recall correctly, he implemented one or two mild gun control measures when he was president, like the bump stock ban (overturned by SCOTUS later). I had a theory the shooter could've been a hardcore gun nut who was pissed about this. Would be a very curveball motive and I don't put much stock in it, but it's one that was on my mind. Chillpilled (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
What realistic gun control measures would have stopped the shooter's father from legally purchasing a rifle? Christopher (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the reaction, if there is one, will be anything but gun control. Something along the lines of "we must have more police officers, with far-reaching surveillance, and of course MORE GUNS". It's America, where bullets can be quickly obtained via vending machines. Impiricism (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps if the father had kept his firearm secure, his son wouldn't have taken it to try to assassinate the ex-President. Perhaps if the father had been more aware of his home-life, he might have spotted his son fucking up to the stage they started planning to assassinate said person.
However, it is predictable that the result will be more guns for Good People™ and blaming 'Democrats' / 'hard left' for stirring up hatred. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
too late for that. whatever you do, don't log on to facebook. The G (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
[4] Found this while checking News section on Google. So the NRA is suggesting banning elections now? Drivingcars (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Chaser is a satirical news source. Impiricism (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Wonder why it was mixed up with actual news sources? That said, wonder what response they will make. Will they continue to resist gun control or not. Drivingcars (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course "they" will - but only for people who are not Faux-xians and/or paid up Magamorons. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Where to go in Florida?[edit]

Miami resident, shit gotten so expensive over the years. I heard inflation hit hard here because of the abundance of new yorkers and other businessemen moving here due to less state and city income tax. What hope is there for the residents that were born here. Plan on moving soon but I’ll need ideas where. — Unsigned, by: MeesteeGerry / talk / contribs

Troll rating, 2/10. *yawns* KarmaPolice (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
go to your next city council meeting and demand zoning reform in favor of more affordable housing. The G (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Is there a troll scale somewhere? Might be a good idea for a funspace article. Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
If such an article is created then this troll post should certainly be included for its high farce quotient.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
It scores lowly for it's very low originality scale. I suggest to the OP that they demand all taxes to be cut to zero at their next city meeting - no ifs, no buts. It's not like anyone needs them things like the alleged 'services' they provide with those taxes, right? Bet 90% of it goes on 'hug a criminal' woke policing, gender-neutral bathrooms, the daily Pride parades and giving to welfare queens watching their flatscreen TVs, right?
Failing that, I suggest the OP moves to Somalia. I've heard they have 0% taxes because there's not actually a functioning government [and thus, no tax collectors]. But business will sort all those things out, right? Government is the problem, not the solution to anything! KarmaPolice (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Any real Floridian (who has experienced the enshitification of I-75 over the years) knows that a lot of the "Florida growth" is Boomer retirees moving to planned community like The Villages, FloridaWikipedia in order to spend their last days not shoveling snow and getting angry watching Fox News. Also, there's that pesky factor of climate change that Ron DeSantis doesn't want you to know anything about, but insurance companies nonetheless are absolutely pricing in as best as they can. BobJohnson (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I have a strong suspicion that the vast majority of jobs 'created' by creepy geriatric Disneylands are neither well-paid, offer career development or have decent benefits. It's something which I've noticed more and more of late; that quite often the 'money magnet' places of the world [like tourist destinations] run on the blood and sweat of a legion of folks working enshitified jobs. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if this was the same drive-by-poster who posted the lies about low student debt in Florida? Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
If it's not KenBot, it's a clone of. Look past the subject-matter and to the points they're making. KenBot got an update around '22 that 'inflation' is the #1 Bad Thing™ and so they're pushing it hard [as 'inflation is Biden's fault'] but in true KenBot style, they don't have a frigging clue of what they're actually talking about. I mean, why can't it data-scrape Investopedia or something? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Does Ken live in Florida? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
No, he lives in buffalo, ny. 2600:387:F:771B:0:0:0:A (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Or did. Servers can be moved, y'know. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


The genocide in Gaza has claimed 186 thousand victims. Paid for with American tax dollars, of course. Carthage (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a research study, but an estimate marked "correspondence". Which in The Lancet, means a letter, kind of like a letter to the editor. Also, it's a projection of the ultimate death toll, not a count so far. But there was some discussion at Wikipedia about how and whether to use this letter as a source and I think some people make decent arguments it's not an implausible estimate, referring to other sources lending it credence: 1 2. Chillpilled (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
"Source: We made it up" CorruptUser 04:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Do you not see the difference between 'guestimates' and just 'making stuff up', Corrupt? The bits of data used to extrapolate includes from the UN, Hamas estimates [generally backed up by Israeli intelligence estimates] and using ratios gained from previous conflicts. Al-Jazeera might have exagerated the figure, but it's not one which was simply siezed on randomly. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
War is truly terrible, no matter who finances it. Looking back, it has been claimed, that nearly 10% of the world's population was killed during or immediately after the Mongol invasions. I do not point this out as a "what-about" fallacy. The point is, even with only knives, swords and arrows, Mongols killed maybe 40 million people. Taking away those folk's weapons won't stop them. They want to kill one another with a passion. Cutting off Israel from military aid will probably happen, eventually. Unfortunately, bulletsare cheap. UncleKrampus (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I remember that after one of the earlier wars, Hamas bragged that more people were born during the war than had died. I suspect that's still the case. CorruptUser 03:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
You have no evidence of them saying it this time, so who's 'making stuff up' now? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
In an area with no food, no water, no medicine, in increasingly crowded areas as people are pushed closer and closer together all the while starving and dehydrated and suffering relentless bombing campaigns? This "war" isn't like the others. Because it's a genocide, not a war. Carthage (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Israel has the power to shut off food, water, and electricity to Gaza. Palestine and Israel are not equal parties here. Palestine is under hostile military occupation from a military power that denies its very right to existence. Carthage (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is this site so damn slow?[edit]

For me, at least. It will take me occasionally 5-10 seconds to load pages on RationalWiki, despite other pages operating normally without this lag. Is a constant DDOS attack happening or what is the cause of this? --Chicken4War (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Inactive server maintainers, 3 simple words 👏👏👏. 2600:387:F:771B:0:0:0:A (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This has been discussed in Technical Support (RationalWiki:Technical support#Is it just me or is the searching function getting slower? and RationalWiki:Technical support#The DDoser is back). We have been under DDoS attack for a while. David Gerard implemented an easy but suboptimal fix that limits number of page loads per unit time. Someone yet to found to spend the time to make a better fix. Bongolian (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I honestly can't say I've noticed regular slowness being an issue.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I've had some real slow loads recently. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The two main symptoms that I've consistently seen are 1) the main page text loads quickly, then the icons on the page load slowly 2) the autocomplete search feature does not work until after a few seconds after the full current page has completed loading. These are explicable by the anti-DDoS fix that David Gerard had implemented. Bongolian (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Clovis first[edit]

Clovis arrowhead from 10,000 to 2,000 BPWikipedia Bongolian (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Clovis first, America second. FirstAndFormost (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems incredibly niche... I'm assuming this is a shitpost? OP's account just created today too. Impiricism (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, saying a American first nations tribe was here before America isn't exactly conspiracy thinking. I dunno what the point of saying this at all.2001:569:FDC9:AB00:1A2:B9FD:C9F4:AE48 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Impiricism It's pretty much archaeological consensus that Clovis was not the first culture in the Americas. Carthage (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
That's what I gleaned too from the Wikipedia page I linked. My above comment was supposed to express mild confusion at OP's statement "clovis first, america second"; the entire subject of early cultures in the Americas and which one is the first seems like quite an obscure thing to post about. Impiricism (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The article is garbage, bull's shit, outright stupid to a point where you know it's all wrong. Dumb. The americas oldestes site is positing at the site of Monte Verde, in Chile. Please fix that fucked up piece of lies article. The peopling of America is on-mission, please cover it you geniuses. Oh, yea, my lord. Nothing. Anything. FirstAndFormost (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Why don't you fix it yourself instead of wasting your energy whining about it here? —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Fuck, I confess. Oh great lords forgive my stupidity. New world (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia Politically Biased?[edit]

A report published by the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute suggests Wikipedia has a left-leaning bias. It says that Wikipedia entries are more likely to associate negative/positive sentiment with right/left-leaning terms respectively. There's a Wikipedia Signpost article discussing this report: [5]. What are your thoughts on the report? Personally, to put it mildly, I think the report is bullshit. Sorry for poisoning the well. MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool Story, bro. Revolverman (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Manhattan Institute has been spreading disinformation for decades, hence not a trustworthy source. Perhaps the 'bias' is well-deserved, and that the institute thinks that fascists and fellow-disinformation artists should be treated better. Don't forget:
And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Stephen Colbert[6]
Bongolian (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
You should read the RW article on Manhattan Institute before commenting. :)
Essentially, would you trust the so-called "think tank" heavily behind the propaganda effort to snarl word-ize "critical race theory", "woke", and "DEI" to be objective on anything? They're just whining that Wikipedia is actually a pretty decent source of information (and therefore is not a Republican propaganda mill), and that the one attempt to make a Republican propaganda mill Wikipedia ended up being a complete joke.
I noticed that even the paper's bias classification itself was called into question in the discussion (for instance, Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald was classified as "from the left", which is a complete joke). The "left-right" political binary really isn't terribly good when examined in close detail, and I would be skeptical of any paper that tries to be Science-y with that.
If the United States ends up embracing the Orban-style "illiberal democracy" courtesy of reactionary Republicans, it is very probable that sources like Wikipedia (as well as public education in general) will be under attack in the future. Many of the Manhattan Institute's snarl words have been specifically designed for attacking public education. Orban did a fine job warping higher education in his country to be propaganda mills after all. No doubt this is a space to watch as at the moment I believe our higher education system (flaws and all) is one of the US's competitive advantages. BobJohnson (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Another thing to skim read... and Bonglian is correct in their not-that-obvious guess to what MI's gripe is. Manhattan Institute/City Journal is mainly rated 'right', which means chances are they think the 'zero' is perhaps around the National Review you're gonna be seeing 'liberal bias' in loads of things, such as say, The Economist [something which can be described as the last tender of the flame of classical liberalism].
They start nit-picking about word usage, for example bitching about WP not using terms like 'death tax' but instead using the line 'estate tax'. In their world, the former is 'correct, neutral' while the latter is 'misleading, biased'. Shame that the latter term ['used by Democrats' *snarls*] is the official term while the one favoured by CJ is in fact informal and an example of mild loaded language. WP, being an encyclopaedia has a general desire to use correct termonology for shit. Let's see exactly what pissed them off, yeah?
In the United States, the estate tax is a federal tax on the transfer of the estate of a person who dies. The tax applies to property that is transferred by will or, if the person has no will, according to state laws of intestacy. Other transfers that are subject to the tax can include those made through a trust and the payment of certain life insurance benefits or financial accounts. The estate tax is part of the federal unified gift and estate tax in the United States. The other part of the system, the gift tax, applies to transfers of property during a person's life.
In addition to the federal government, 12 states tax the estate of the deceased. Six states have "inheritance taxes" levied on the person who receives money or property from the estate of the deceased.
The estate tax is periodically the subject of political debate. Recent opponents have called it the "death tax"[1] while some supporters have called it the "Paris Hilton tax".[2]
[WP, 'Estate Tax in the United States']
However... they do have a very minor point here. I picked another 'tax' which had a nickname and looked it up... the 'Community Charge' introduced by Thatcher in 1990. While the blurb is correct, the page is titled 'Poll tax (Great Britain)' - an informal [and perhaps politically loaded] term the opponents managed to glue to it. Something noted within the Talk page. There is a bit of a lack of consistency here.
(insert) 'Poll Tax' was used because of the historical references - the Poll Tax and the Peasants' Revolt. Anna Livia (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Technically, it was a flat tax, not a poll tax - it was the same rate regardless to whether the amount of 'heads' were in the property. It also was not it's official name, which was my main objection for it being titled it on WP. I referred to it as it as 'poll tax' for our 1992 general election page here, but we're not WP. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Next, let's look at MI's bitch that 'coverage of American polticians is biased' [link to the graphs here]. Now, ignoring the first one [I am not exactly sure what they're trying to prove here] you'll notice while on average Democrats appear to have higher plus rating, the real issue is a general clutch of very minus Republicans at the end [who will significantly drag down the median score]. Note that here the MI instantly concludes [with no evidence] that it 'must be librul bias' for this, rather than [for example] the possibility that the quality of Republican politicians might be lower [my pet theory is this; as rightist folks are more drawn to money, the 'cream' is more likely to go into finance, business etc than politics than their leftist counterparts].
There's another issue which ,NPR noted a decade ago as a rule there's more Republican Governors than Democrat. This means simply statistically, if you're sniffing for 'dirt' you're more likely to hit a person with a red rosette than blue. The nexus of money raises it's head again; as the article suggests, 'Republicans are more likely to be tight with local business interests' and thus raises the possibility of the very negative word [according to MI's survey] corruption in their WP article.
Lastly, I take issue to the methodology used here. Why, for example did you not combine the scores of 'Boris Johnson' and 'Prime Minister Johnson' - are they two different people? Could his very poor scoring be due to his name turning up next to 'emotionally negative' terms like 'pandemic', 'death' and 'war'? Why is a description in a WP page of 'conflict' between ideologically opposed persons/groups counted as 'negative'? Why didn't you mention in your conclusion that part of your results are clearly skewed due to the presence of a few very poor 'Right' outliers? Is is possible that more 'left' politicians are likely to have say, worked in the charitable sector or something which according to your wonky measuring 'generates a positive emotional response' which learning a rightist politician who formerly worked in say, a retailer's HQ doesn't [I accept there might be a slight coverage bias here; a person who worked in public service for 20 years is more likely to have their achivements noted in their WP biog, which the private corp achievements are much less likely to be].
Every remotely serious study shall make notes of the limitations of their study. This one doesn't [in fact, it tries to throw doubt on their own tools by suggesting the LLM used to evaluate might itself have 'liberal bias']. Why the hell do you need to suggest 'conservatives are happier'? That has fuck all to do with this topic.
So in my own conclusion, I say this is a very dubious bit of crap which tells the reader more about the biases of this Rozado believes exists and/or the rightist think-tanks have requested more 'evidence' of librul bias in everything. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
We've also seen this type of argument before, one that argues for truth-independent absolute neutrality, as with Wikipedia self-exile Larry Sanger's Citizendium and its promotion of a "neutral" chiropractic article written by a chiropractor. Bongolian (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Aren't objectivity and neutrality different things though? New world (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
They're overlapping, but related. When WP lauds it's 'NPOV rule', it doesn't literally mean it's neutral on every topic, merely that it endevours to be free of editorial bias. WP is 'biased', but towards stuff like 'reliable sources', 'expert consensus' and the 'reality-based community' in general. It is not 'neutral' in debates regarding, say discussing who caused 9/11 - there is a consensus they explain in the main page, the cranky conspiracy theories get shoved into the 'cheap seats' in this case literally called '9/11 conspiracy theories'.
And yes, the CJ 'report' literally cites Sanger about Wikipedia being biased. They have just enough self-respect to describe it as an anecdote. WP's response to this has been generally either calling out the shittiness of the report, making arguments regarding false balance and/or arguing that they'd be a fan of more 'right-of-centre' [sic] sources if they quit peddling their arses to Trump and his myraid of failings and outright lies. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
As it is said of various other 'providers of information' - if persons of different viewpoints complain that [whatever] is biased against them then [whatever] has a degree of neutrality. There is also likely to be 'bias' against 'constructed interpretations' and 'topics on the borderlines/yet to be analysed/where multiple interpretations exist' etc. Anna Livia (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


Is it normal for Inferno bot to take so long to archive? New world (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

'Someone said' when I asked before - sometimes if a number of discussions are (intermittently ongoing' the bot sits on its hands (or equivalent) until things settle down. Anna Livia (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Article 8K[edit]

What - no attempt by people of a sensible or look-at-me nature trying to hit the target? The probable article 'The US 2024 Election and its aftermath' should be at a slightly higher number. Anna Livia (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Farm labor supply[edit]

I wonder how farmers are gonna replace their supply of labor when the politicians they vote in deport their supply of undocumented, underpaid labor. Prison labor, perhaps? Carthage (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Republicans might be happy to have less food; that way, more poor people, Black people, indigenous people, etc. will starve. Fuck, that sounds dark. MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It gets even more fucked when you realize much of the global food supply comes from the US. Carthage (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Prison labor as a large-scale solution is disturbingly possible. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Most of the food harvesting is practically automated, even for things like carrots and blueberries. It's just a few crops such as tomatoes and peppers that require unskilled labor. Meat is a bit tricky, given how much illegal labor they use, in spite of the amount of automation those man-made horrors already have.
While the rising cost of meat and some veggies would in theory raise the demand for all other foods, given how much farmland is used for feed, the lower consumption of meat would end up causing a collapse in the price of grains. So no, we won't starve, nor will every food item go up in price. CorruptUser 03:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
People may not starve, but there would definitely be disruption to the orderly function of society. You forget that people rioted over masks and quarantine. Often times protests or riots or whatever over whatever issue is a symptom of deeper, systemic problems. If someone who is stressed, underpaid, depressed, anxious, and atomized from their community suddenly can't get the coffee they need to stay awake during a 12 hour work day? I can guarantee you there'd be at least a few mass shootings over that incident. Plus, there are entire industries that rely on crops like the tomato. You think that a sudden loss of labor won't have undue effects on those industries? I can see them lobbying Congress to institute prison labor in replacement of the labor lost to mass deportation. Carthage (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Coffee tends to be imported from Columbia. If anything, tens of hundreds of thousands of unemployed Columbians returning would result in coffee becoming cheaper. CorruptUser 13:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It's ghoulish enough for the GOP to salivate over, yeah. Carthage (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
They won't, they just want to maintain the threat, the problem is they care so little that the threat of deportation is getting mixed with the right to just shoot. There are people at the border leaving water as a gift, because you can't just walk across Texas without water. There are also people https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-border-patrol-mexico-water-bottles-video-migrants-kick-over-video-illegals-mexicans-hispanics-a8165591.html who truly believe the 'other' aren't people. In what world would an immigrant steal your job as an abhorrent border patrolman? In what world would kicking over some water, what should be a human right, make your job easier? Fucking wait for them to need water and then arrest them, if you're honestly trying to nab criminals. The point is dumbass cruelty is a nonsense social survival tactic and it's the easiest way to be accepted. Violence as an invitation to a group is caveman shit, but so is fire, so it's not easy to discount. Kicking water into the ground because you have water and you don't like the idea of somebody, when the idea literally applies to a human someone is worse than caveman shit. Torrent (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Old age care homes are also heavily reliant on immigrant (not necessarily undocumented) labor (US & UK). Also regarding the automation angle. I've recently started working my way through the book Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech by Brian Merchant. It's quite interesting regarding the parallels between Luddites in the Industrial Revolution and the reactions to "distrupter" tech bros of recent years. The complaint of Luddites wasn't anti-technology per se but against the technology that eliminated livelihoods. Bongolian (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Right-wing politicians don't really care. They are - at best - myopic businesspeople. They have a 'more where that came from' mentality when it comes to labour in their heads. They're the sort of 'pointy-haired boss' who will whine and bitch about not having enough staff for their fast-food joint but the reasons are never their fault - like being a PHB and your shitty pay and conditions. I expect if they actually go through in really cracking down on foreign cheap labour, their stock response will be 'why don't you hire all them Tammy Welfares and Johnny Sicknotes?' [which allows them to attack these groups due to being 'lazy'/'entitled' too]. They revel in their ignorance of actual business - like the fact some 95% of the people they're referring to are either physically incapable of doing the job and/or aren't in the correct area.
Businesspeople, in my experience are often pretty lazy thinkers and very entitled [this is what you get when you have a century-plus of fetishising the businessperson]. Their first stock response [when cut off from cheap labour] will to whine about it being restored - such as demanding exceptions for the ban etc. They will then say it is the state's responsibility to sort it out for them. And when I say 'sort it out' I mean 'put it in a cute box, tied up with a bow and hand-delivered to their desk'. They hate the idea of having to actually train them, or make any accomidations to them or even pay them a living wage. And don't you dare suggest they would invest in capital plant to make better use of the labour they do have or - gasp! - actually fucking improve your pay/conditions to attract more workers.A
Nah, I'll just continue to whine to all who'll listen while simply scheduling 5 people to do the work of 10 and putting them on PIPs when they don't do all the work. Easy.
The more cynical end of PHBs will believe the 'migrants ban' is just the circus for the plebs to believe in while they still can employ them via the backdoor because of 'light touch' enforcement. In fact, they might welcome it because it will make said workers even easier to exploit and underpay than before. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
"BaN tEH mIgRANtS!" is nothing new in the United States. See Alabama HB 56Wikipedia and Arizona SB 1070Wikipedia (both enacted in a 2010ish wave of anti-immigration sentiment). In both cases, the effect after a few years was... not much. Executive summary: Businesses whined, there was a few rather embarrassing incidents (such as a couple of C-suite folks detained for not having "the papers" in Alabama), courts struck down some parts of it, the remainder was quickly forgotten.
As I've mentioned before, the easiest way to stop illegal immigrants from coming in is to strictly enforce E-Verify and other checks when employing someone, and arrest C-suite level execs that fail to enforce this. I would be seriously surprised if something like this happens (for one, the economic impact will be significant; for another, the ruling class that drives American government won't like the notion of actually being held responsible for the situation). Instead, what we are seeing here is the development of what looks to me like two-faced politicians that throw out a lot of "red meat" "tough talk" but merely perform stunts (like all those busing stunts Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott do) to satisfy the Fox News crowd. (Though both Florida and Texas have enacted "tough on migrant" legislation, long term I think those bills probably will have the similar fate of the Alabama and Arizona bills 15 years ago.) BobJohnson (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. In my experience it's more important to actually have reasonable chances of being caught than having a huge punishment but near-zero chance of being convicted. Thus, beef up enforcement (but businesses don't like this *whine* 'limits In fweee enterprise' *whine*) KarmaPolice (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail[edit]

according to Homer, the blade itself incites to deeds of violence. When I was younger and more prone to fits of absolute despair that I believed I couldn't live through, it is maybe lucky I didn't have access to a gun. I once tried to kill myself with a helium mask. I figured I could do it if I built it myself and my worst fear is drowning. I thought, if I could go full hypoxia but keep breathing, it would be easier. My blood burned and I woke up with the mask off. I would love for my name to echo down the halls of history. I love in a way that I don't exactly get in return, and that's my lot. But, death will occur, whether I am in charge of it or not, so I'm willing to ride this nonviolent shit out. Getting to know myself has been a lot harder than just offing myself, but it has made assholes and bullies a lot easier to deal with. Torrent (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I have officially dumped all theology[edit]

My beliefs in terms of Satanism is the same as the Satanic Temple. I am in the ranks of the Godless. I consider myself an atheistic Satanist.

It took thought and consideration but I just can't believe in any God or supernatural. --Trans Fem Agenda 13:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)