RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

edit

Dear Patrons! Your feedback is always appreciated.

• - Currently, there are 2 pages marked for deletion
• - and 2 pages marked for demotion.

Russia fires Ballistic Missile

My original question was going to be why Russia fired an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile at a country right next door, but now it seems that it was a medium-range missile presumably fired from central Russia. My next question was if this was the first time a ballistic missile has ever been used in combat, but plenty of missiles have been fired during this nearly three year long war. So my final question is if ballistic missiles have ever been used in combat before the current Ukraine war. Vital Forces (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No, the first ballistic missile used in combat was the German V-2 in 1944. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

And there have been several uses of ballistic missiles since WWII as well, with the Scud missiles originally developed by the USSR being the most frequently used: By Egypt against Israel in the Yom Kippur War, by Iraq against first Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, then against various other countries during the Gulf War, the Afghans used them against the mujahideen and Pakistan in 1988 and during their civil war in the 1990s, and Scuds have later been used in Libya, Syria, Chechnya, Yemen and Nagorno-Karabakh as well. Iran has also used its own missiles to strike various opponents including via its proxies.

So, while ballistic missile attacks haven’t been prevalent since their inception in WWII, they have never been entirely absent, either. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"Ballistic" literally means "unpowered". Mortars, rockets after their boost stage and even bullets are "ballistic" by this definition. However, when intercontinental nuclear missiles were developed they were made to enter low orbit and then drop "ballistically" onto their targets. Hence "Intercontinental Ballistic Missile". But then "Ballistic Missile" and "Nuclear Missile" started to become combined in the public consciousness. At this moment, until we know a little more about the weapon, telling us that is was "ballistic", does not tell us a lot.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

'But then "Ballistic Missile" and "Nuclear Missile" started to become combined in the public consciousness'.

I think the above sums up the reasoning hehind this. He is hoping that this news will sufficiently scare Western opinion into ditching Ukraine - his repeated dick-waving has garnered nil to even minus result [I think British opinion has hardened against Putin for repeatedly threatening to incinerate us]. He fights this war like a mafiya boss would - and because we didn't heed his 'advice' even after being shown the blade, he's decided to give Ukraine's arm a little slash.

But this also tells us that despite the above, Putin is attempting somewhat to avoid direct war with NATO. There are things which he could do which would be a genuine esculation - for example, a huge spate of cyber attacks, cutting internet cables, paying Western crime groups to kill particular 'anti-Russian' individuals etc - but he has not done this. Hell, did you know that Europe is still getting some gas from Russia? Cut that off entirely; let the Euros freeze during this winter. How much of this is his own decision and how much of it was Xi perhaps literally giving him a list of 'shit you must not pull without 'consulting' us first' we perhaps will never know.

Oh, and useless factoid of the day: the V-1 was the world's first cruise missile, which is the more usual tech for missiles right now. Some of these can be nuclear-armed, such as the American Tomahawk. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Technically anything which moves through the air by itself is a "missile". A thrown rock in the literal sense would be a "missile" - and a ballistic one at that.

Obviously, in military terms, these words have more specialized meanings, where a "missile" is a big complicated thing which explodes at the end of its trajectory. Such missiles can be wholly powered during flight like a cruise missile, they can be wholly unpowered (ballistic) like a glide bomb or they can have a boost stage followed by a terminal ballistic stage like an ICBM. And you could put a nuclear weapon on any of them if they were fitted out for it.

The advantage of a ballistic missile dropping vertically from low atmosphere is that it is bloody hard to shoot down. Partly because of its trajectory and partly because it has no (or very little) heat signature.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure I follow the logic of why would Putin need to rely on Western crime groups for assassination, or why such crime groups would risk being designated as terror groups (as they almost certainly would, if they started to act like Moscow hit squads).

There have, apparently, already been credible and serious Russian threats against key people, such as the apparent plans to assassinate the CEO of Rheinmetall, Armin Papperger. Then there are the various “mysterious fires and explosions” at certain arms and munitions producers and storage facilities, both leading up to and during the current war. It’s also worth remembering that Putin has repeatedly (and often successfully) had dissidents and opponents assassinated in Europe for years, and well before the start of the war, too.

Similarly, there have already been cyberattacks on/in various European countries and businesses that almost certainly originated in Russia, although Putin has been able to maintain some level of plausible deniability, just as with the apparent sabotage.

As for the gas, my guess is that reason Europe still gets some from Russia is that Putin badly needs the hard currency and has already found out that Europe is not actually going to freeze if he cuts it off entirely, though it would have to pay more for its energy needs.

I completely agree that Putin wants to avoid a direct war with NATO and this view is reciprocated by NATO for the simple reason that it would run a very high risk of “going nuclear”. If such a Russo-NATO war was entirely conventional Russia would almost certainly just outright lose it, and since this would not be acceptable to Putin, the nuclear option would have to be taken, in which case everyone would almost certainly lose, again including Putin.

It is indeed both possible and likely that the Russian use of a ballistic (rather than cruise) missile is yet more sabre rattling at NATO to keep the alliance from scaling up its support from Ukraine. It’s probably especially intended to keep the lame duck Biden in check and to scare off the European parts of the alliance from trying to somewhat compensate from the expected Trump cuts to the aid to Ukraine.

Putin has a lot to gain by keeping the current, if fairly limited, Russian momentum going into 2025, while pushing the narrative that Ukraine’s struggles are hopeless, in order to get Trump to give him as good a settlement as possible, if this is indeed where things are heading. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I said 'huge spate' of cyber attacks etc. Like the explosions, they're currently fairly intermittent. But why use criminal gangs? Plausible deniability. It's old KGB 'craft'; if you're going to do something really iffy, you if possible pay a third party to do it for you in a manner which isn't traceable back to you - the Iranians have also been doing this for years. There is also some grounds to believe that FSB 'capabilities' in Western nations physically is relatively limited - they very well might be hoarding said capabilities for the point they 'really need them'. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There is precedent for intelligence agencies hiring organized crime groups to serve as their proxies. Carthage (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's both ways: Putin does not want to go to war with NATO, because the likelihood of it going nuclear thus everyone losing is very high, moreso knowing the Russian army even before this shitshow was and is much smaller than the Red Army and in that area of Europe it has just Belarus instead of the Warsaw pact, and Xi allowed to show that new toy knowing it mounted a non-nuclear warhead as a warning because in the case of nuclear war everyone loses, China included. To Moscow's credit, they at least supposedly warned US of the launch of the missile half an hour before.

I remember how shortly after Putin's "special military operation" began Poland offered to give Ukraine some old Mig-29s no longer in use and Moscow threatened with "consequences", so no Migs in that moment, and how as time went by how many red lines were crossed by NATO to give equipment to Ukraine, receiving just threats from Russia and at worst that announcement about moving tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus after Zelensky got depleted uranium shells for the Abrams tanks. This was going to happen after the warnings about letting Kyiv use long-range missiles against targets in Russia, and I'm afraid we'll see more of this at least before Biden leaves. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I must admit I still don’t see why criminals would risk the kind of public exposure and harsh prosecutions and crackdowns that would follow if they started acting as Moscow hit squads.

That said, there is a nexus of criminal groups originating from or tied to Russia (incl. Chechnya) and they might be available to some extent, as they have figured in other assassinations of Russian expats. But that might be more due to the presence of Russian intelligence networks in (or outright overlaps in personnel with) this part of the criminal underworld, rather than a portent of a larger pattern.

Even criminal groups with Russian ties would have to weigh their loyalty to and rewards from Moscow against their future abilities to operate in Europe, which would almost certainly be sharply curtailed if they start conducting assassinations on Moscow’s behalf. Especially considering the heightened tensions and thus intelligence surveillance, I don't see many criminal groups considering becoming Moscow's hired killers worth the risk.

That’s why I think it’s probably more likely that any assassinations will follow the patterns of those we’ve already seen: The perpetrators are probably not openly tied to Moscow (i.e. enough distance to provide plausible deniability), but also evince enough of a “Russian odour” to create a clear impression that the murder was ultimately carried out on Moscow’s behalf, thus providing a clear warning to other dissidents and critics. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

And some groups would turn down the 'hiring' offer; though I suspect more out of suspicion it's an agent provocateur than anything else. But you're forgetting a critical point; if you're a leader in an organised grime group which runs brothels with sex slaves, traffics heroin, extorts businesses and corrupts authorities you've kind of crossed the point where 'harsh prosecutions and crackdowns' really have an effect in dissuading you some time ago. There is also the little fact that law enforcement generally need actual evidence to start making arrests and they've learned from experience that not only can they afford very good lawyers but usually know exactly 'how the enemy thinks' and thus, can stay one step ahead. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the “don’t care about crackdowns” interpretation, simply because not all of these examples are treated with equal zeal by law enforcement, the intelligence services or politicians. See how authorities tend to (over)react the moment crime is seen as having crossed over into what is perceived as a threat to national security (as Russian sponsored hits definitely would be interpreted).

Similarly, I would expect that several of the potential caveats to normal procedural and evidential standards that can be invoked in the name of national security would indeed be used immediately, and it’s even possible that emergency legislation and rules would be introduced that could go even further.

In that situation, I can’t really see that there would be a public outcry or a host of human rights lawyers lining to defend people who already have a long and serious rap sheet and have now sponsored/carried out domestic assassinations on behalf of a hostile, foreign power. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Sad to say, there's nations which have a sliding scale of 'gives a fuck'. Here in the UK, chances are while they'd get very worked-up if say, an MP or a very prominent exile got clearly whacked, there is a chance our special branch folks don't even get the notification if a more minor target got 'stabbed in a mugging gone wrong' or 'pushed out in front of a bus'. What's more, it's possible for the FSB to provide the means of the hit - for example, epi-pens of poison similar to the Markov hit. And like in The Godfather, you can simply organise it that the hitman goes to ground straight after; that by the time the police work out it was a hit, start the electronic chase the person has already flew out of Heathrow to Tirane and none of the Albanian authorities have a clue where.

Anyway, there's a rash of dodgy actions right now which have this MO all over it. I mean, like the drones which 'coincidently' have repeatedly flown over RAF airbases in the last week or two. This is all part of the 'hybrid warfare' model and yes, assassinations by third parties will be a part of this and we'd better fucking wake up and start preparing for it. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thinkpiece: https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-russia-hybrid-war-vladimir-putin-germany-cyberattacks-election-interference/ KarmaPolice (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, the drone thing I’d totally believe. It both has the plausible deniability and the sort of “balanced terror” effect that means it’s effective and disruptive without quite escalating to the seriousness of, say, assassinations in the broader public consciousness.

These kinds of “hybrid/harassment warfare” can be very disruptive and difficult and expensive to deal with for an open economy and as such I would not be surprised to hear that Russia is experimenting with such means to target Ukraine’s European allies in particular. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that in the second link a decent % of people were 'disposable agents' - some not even knowing that their ultimate hirer was the Russian state. In fact, for a lot of these we cannot prove they were hired by the Russian state even after the relevant police investigations because it turns out ultimately they were say hired by a someone via a load of VPNs etc with no visuals and paid in cryptocurrency which had been kept in a digital slush fund kept deliberately away from anything which smells 'Russian'. If said VPN gives the details of the target, the hitperson might not even personally Google them in worries that it could create a digital trail which might be used against them later. With a lack of forensic evidence and/or obvious suspects, the vast majority of investigations would run legally into the sand. If they succeed, enemy taken out. If they fail, well they're disposable and can't be directly traced back to us. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent elections, to what extent is it all about global economics?

Some time back, elsewhere I saw discussion of a Financial Times article (non-paywalled copy) arguing that the US election, the UK election before it, and further recent elections, were all decided by global economics getting shaky due to pandemic after-effects, war, etc., bringing financial strain to populations. The good and bad moves made by the campaigning sides largely didn't matter at all, the argument goes. Regardless of the ideology of incumbents and which policies they push, they're automatically doomed to be rejected in favor of the opposition as soon as widespread economic shakiness like this sets in. Is this too reductive a view, or does it get to the heart of the matter? Are all the other things, the focus of nearly all debate surrounding the elections, dwarfed in significance? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The immigration/border issue played a major role too. Arizona was the reddest swing state this year, and it's also a state where people are very angry about the border. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Immigration has sure been a major political theme across the Western world of late. The article briefly touches on that as well, suggesting that instead of inflation+unemployment, a new idea of a "misery index" for how a population deems its situation could be inflation+immigration instead. Immigration is also linked to larger global developments much like inflation is, but policy can affect it more firmly and directly. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the anti-immigration moves etc is a symptom of the wider disease, not the cause. And the cause is this: the advanced-democratic world never politically 'dealt with' the after-effects of the 07-08 'Neoliberal Crisis', and we've been slogging about that muddy field since then - the war, pandemic, inflation spikes etc have merely been exacerbating factors. For example, here in the UK we suffered worse in the pandemic because of 'Austerity' in the '10s [brought in after bank bailouts meant 'there was no money left'] made our nation in every respect a lot less resilient.

I will also argue that Corp interests and Third Way between them have proved simultaneously 'too strong' but 'too weak'. The former because there's enough strength left in them to resist any genuine 'left-wing'/'populist' moves to even simply getting capitalism functioning 'fairly' again but they have proven too weak/timid to be able to confront right-wing populism and the authoritarians who use them for their own malign dreams. A lot of shit we're dealing with now is due to their decisions way before 2008; the Big Public are susceptible to fake news because you for a generation encouraged a passive democracy where the voters only turn out to vote so you deliberately didn't bother building up voting blocs or even simply educating them, while the increasing hardening of class into caste while all the while pretending class no longer exists and the malign arrogance of giving poor people lectures in 'personal responsibility' while proving to be the biggest lazy welfare mamas in town [this is worse than it looks because it's reducing arguments to 'zero-sum games' which I personally describe as 'lifeboat politics' - throwing twenty people in a boat with 15 MREs and then showing them the dozens in the water swimming towards them...]

To quote Gramsci: 'The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.' And while history doesn't repeat itself, it does have a tendency to rhyme...

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3871147-the-21st-centurys-gramsci-problem/

KarmaPolice (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting towards the end of Brian Merchant's book Blood in the Machine, and as it happens, he mentions toward the end a Brookings Institute commentary. The commentary argues that automation in industry, which displaces workers, also increases the Red-Blue divide, with the displaced workers more likely to vote for "radical political change", whatever that happens to be.[1] The commentary is based on the statewide results of the 2016 election in which Shitler won the first time. The automation tech bro CEOs, for the most part, bought his second election this year with the help of his xenophobic rhetoric, that miscast their problems as "other" rather than the unrestrained tech CEOs who bought him. Bongolian (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Fascism is really appealing to the executive class because it redirects class resentment away from them and towards whatever minority they've decided to scapegoat. Carthage (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe that as a 'Red-Blue divide', Bongolian; I would call that more a divide between those who like the current status quo and those who don't - and this cuts through political lines; a huge amount of folks who voted Labour and Democrat this year did so not because they liked or supported their shitty Third Way, but because they hated the alternative more, just like a decent % of Tory/Reform and Republican voters did so because they felt the other side would take their advantages away. The problem with automation and coming AI is again, the old-fashioned Marxian 'Crisis in Capitalism' - aka capital has developed the means to make product with so little labour that labour can no longer afford to buy the products it makes, thus making the whole system gum up - the spiralling debt-mountains from corps to the state to the individual suggests we're increasingly only dodging this crash-point by constantly magicking up 'money' to keep the show on the road for a bit longer. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the longer-term picture, there's also now a rise in left-wing populism in Europe, as in France and Germany where a new left grows, and in the Nordic countries where the old left adapts and changes as in Denmark (and expect Sweden to follow along fully). But this is populism with features progressive people don't like, it is social conservatism mixed with economic left or sometimes just Third Way ideas (or a varying blend). It adopts the xenophobia of the right-wing populists so as to steal their appeal, and sometimes, like in Germany and France and in countries where it goes illiberal (like Hungary) it also goes "anti-West" and anti-EU and flirts with Putin. This may well grow to be the main competition to the old ideologies and the right-wing populist challengers. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

However, social progressivism as-is has compromised itself by a too-close linking with Third Way - after all, it was the hope of the folks like Biden in the 80s that if only we could 'have more social progress' we wouldn't need to actually work on actual economic inequalities. What's more, I think a decent % of said progressives have been angered/dismayed/saddened by the shallowness/ineffectiveness of their 'past reforms', mainly due to a) a lack of Big Public 'buy-in' and b) effective neutering by the NeoLib elites the moment it steps on their toes [or lessens their amount of money/power possessed]. In some respects, they tried a kind of 'revolution from above' with some very tepid allies.

It is perfectly possible to be on the side of 'societal progress' while not being 'a member of the woke brigade'; a lot of this is merely admitting that for a lot of your 'electoral friends' they are of limited to nil interest and as such we're giving it less priority in speeches, legislation plans etc. One good example of this was British Labour under Harold Wilson in the 60s; we had a lot of 'liberal social reforms' which dealt with a lot of the woke causes of this era [homosexuality, censorship, abolition of hanging etc] but Wilson officially rarely backed them - instead he merely gave room for senior politicians to 'make the case' for it and if they could snowball enough support for it to get it into law. In a way, he scored good 'cakeism' - he wasn't hugely associated with the 'woke reforms' by those who didn't like them but he got a bit of credit by those who did like them that he didn't actually block them. And we have to remember, a lot of the minorities progressives supposedly support are also poor and therefore, more left-wing economics would instantly benefit them too.

Put glibly; we tried your way for forty years and it didn't really work. It's time for another strategy to be attempted. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't throw advocacy for social minorities to the wayside. There's nothing stopping someone from being both a social and economic progressive at the same time. They kind of go together in a way, and lot of progressives are dead-set against "woke capitalism" because capitalists don't actually care about the changes needed to bring about equality. It's "performative wokeness." The fact that there are a few token women and people of color now in power does not do anything to end the structures of power that harm minorities. The takeaway to "woke capitalism" shouldn't be class reductionism and rejection of social justice, it should be to fight back against neoliberal co-option of social justice movements, and the hate mills that also have a vested interest in tying a perception of social justice activism to the socioeconomic elites. Carthage (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

There's a minority both socially and economically progressive. Indeed what I had in mind when I just wrote 'progressive' earlier. That however does not appeal to the masses, and is a way only tried before in the form of the "old social democracy" that's long gone out of fashion. It seems like there's currently a polarization in which the majority is split into two camps, where in one of them supporting the old "establishment" goes hand in hand with social liberalism or indifference, while in the other, social conservatism or even a socially reactionary attitude goes hand in hand with wanting change, regardless of whether the change is otherwise to the left or the right. Yeah, this seems to point to the most likely "new left" of the future. I don't care much for what I read a socialist describe and reject as the politics of "corporate feminism" either. It's just a shame that when a new way is to be tried, blind contrarianism and scapegoating of minorities has to be blended into the mix by popular demand, as that's what the majority craves. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You're throwing terms out all over the shop. So, what socially would you regard as 'dead centre' of American social attitudes right now? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Dead center? The "dead center" is firmly in the right. But that doesn't mean we should give up activism for, say, trans rights. If you have a left-wing that's not motivated by a fundamental belief in solidarity and equality, then I would call that a left-wing that has betrayed its values. Economic justice is social justice. The New Left of the 1960s got this. The Black Panther Party got this. Hell, plenty of people today get this. Hbomberguy produced an entire video about how "woke capitalism" is merely just a marketing stunt. It's a recognized phenomenon in progressive circles that established structures of power will try to co-opt liberatory movements to rob them of their revolutionary value and bring them in-line with the status quo. We should combat the fact that the Overton Window is being pulled to the right by trying to pull it back left. We don't go right with it. Marginalized people don't stop existing just because recognizing that they exist and have their own grievances becomes inconvenient to politicos, and they won't stop agitating for their rights either. Carthage (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

But the centre can't be right-wing. The right wing is right wing, oddly enough. If right-wing positions were 'centre', that would become the new centre and I assume the 'further right' becoming the right. Overton windows shift all the time; for example the idea that women should be permitted to vote [or even all men should be allowed to] was a 'left-wing position' in about 1900, while the centre was a very tepid 'hmm, I'm not sure' and the right was 'over my dead body'. This is part of why social reactionaries are getting more and more shitty; American fundies are still peddling the same old shit they were in the 1980s and then it was perhaps 'a bit on the conservative side' but now is full-on 'reactionary' and they kind of know it in their heart of hearts [though don't want to admit it].

But now to the main point; a) what evidence do you use to believe the 'dead centre' is firmly right and b) can you provide a kind of 'example line' where you think they've got to socially? KarmaPolice (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

How do you define "left" or "right"? If they're just sections of a map, then I suppose you're right. In some cases, even antisemitism can be seen as a "centrist" position. And I myself have argued before that politics is ultimately contextual, so you're preaching to the choir. This isn't mutually exclusive with the notion that "left" and "right" also carry certain connotations with them, that can convey a person's general set of beliefs with a short label. So when I said, in response to "what socially would you regard as dead center of American social attitudes right now," the fact that I said "it's firmly on the right" has obvious connotations of "it's becoming more conservative." Was that a poor choice of words on my part in response to what I perceive as a "gotcha" question? Maybe. I don't appreciate games like this, KP. Trying to distract from my criticism of your contention that the left should embrace class reductionism, and that the "economic justice advocates are separate people from social justice advocates" talking point is, a) demonstrably an overgeneralization, b) the result of neoliberal co-option of liberatory movements a la "woke capitalism," and c) a reactionary talking point peddled by grifters who deliberately conflate woke capitalism with genuine social justice activism and then pass that conflation (and its associated connotations) off to their very big audiences. In case I'm wrong, then I apologize. Carthage (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Am I a person who plays games? Or engages in gotya? As you've seemingly completely missed the point I was trying to make, I'll spell it out.

Here in Blighty, I hear a ton of crud all the time about 'how the British people are conservative' and all that [I blame the fact partly because I watch GB News etc]. But it turns out when you actually do proper polling on their views they're more socially liberal than given credit for; that for example about two thirds are 'very worried' about climate change, 75% believe that 'government action' should be main/primary driver for change on that front and 49% think transphobia is a serious issue in the country.

Welcome to the 'centre' of the British people's social views. Not like you'd know this from our shitty media, politicians and that cess-pit which is social media, though! Thus me asking; 'what is the American people's 'centre'? Because I have a suspicion that here in the UK, a lot of the perceived 'right swing' socially was not because there were more of them, but they simply got a lot louder and the media etc amplified them. That in some way this is a positive development, because like with the 'woke capitalists', these fuckers have merely dropped the pretence, shown their true colours and god, it's horrible. It's like what I've argued before; that when it came down to policy there wasn't much difference between a 'moderate Republican' and 'MAGA' - only the style and tone was different, and now the latter has repeatedly fucked over the former in full view of all so we all know now where they really stand.

I admit, I am a bit on the 'Old Left' side of things, but not so hidebound to see anything that not class as 'false consciousness'. Just that ultimately, a lot of the issues regarding minorities and so on is about class - for example, one of the major issues facing Native Americans is the fact they have so little intergenerational capital because they were so violently shoved into an extreme underclass position and then held down there, while a lot of the anti-immigrant rhetoric is down to the 'labour aristocracy' fearful of competition eroding their relatively cushy positions. No, what I advocate is to primarily focus on 'economic justice' and to make that the centrepiece of campaigns, stressing universality over factional interests, telling any 'performative wokeness' to go to hell while doing some actual effective reforms which would help social justice [for example, police reforms which both increase it's competence and reduces the institutional racism] without it explicitly being labelled as such [I would ban terms like diversity, equity, inclusion and intersectionality from all official documents, for example]. Lastly, social justice half the time sucks when it comes to propaganda. I mean abolish the police? Come on, surveys show that even a majority of black Americans support the concept of policing! It makes us look like a bunch of out of touch cranky weirdos. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You have to admit that when you bandy about terms like "woke brigade," and you react more harshly to my point that "the problem isn't as much social justice as it is the perception that woke capitalism creates and the right-wing exploits" than to "It's just a shame that when a new way is to be tried, blind contrarianism and scapegoating of minorities has to be blended into the mix by popular demand, as that's what the majority craves," (which you didn't comment on at all) that it's understandable that leaves a certain impression. I'll fully admit to being wrong with my impression that you're a class reductionist, but I think that impression is still an understandable one. Framing matters, and the way progressivism has been framed in this thread, as basically being "woke capitalism that doesn't give a shit about economic justice," (cf: "However, social progressivism as-is has compromised itself by a too-close linking with Third Way."/"And we have to remember, a lot of the minorities progressives supposedly support are also poor and therefore, more left-wing economics would instantly benefit them too.") is what I take issue with. From what I see, it's the progressives who are advocating for policies like a minimum-wage increase, universal healthcare, and public housing expansion/protection. Biden only promised student debt relief in 2020 because of pressure from his progressive flank. Carthage (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I reacted a bit harshly on this. It's a sore spot of mine, I admit. I hail from minorities that said brigade never really gave a toss about, from a class ignored by previous, have had to stomach many condescending lectures on 'my privilege' and similar and have had enough crash-ups with them over the years that it every well could have spun me into the arms of the hard right [let us remember, Mussolini was a socialist in his youth...]. Even now, the words 'social justice' conjure up in my head rainbow lanyards, horrible 'diversity' training, tokenistic corp crap, bourgeois women asking/expecting 'female solidarity' with the working-class women they exploit on a daily basis, 'degrowth' types demanding the poor consume less now and never aspire to have nice stuff, militant vegans, anti-policing cranks and the very earnest 'human gramophones' who talk in polysyllabic jargon and organise the occasional heresy trials within their little communities because they have little to nil power on the actual world.

Do the right-wing exploit the above? Sure. But all the above comes also from direct personal observation [and I'm amicable towards the goals of social justice]. More importantly, I came to the conclusion some time ago that all too many 'social justice' are distinctly iffy in smell - that all too often, it ignores the class divisions within the minority - the 'bourgeois woman wanting sisterhood with the working class women they exploit' and guess who's oh so often are the self-appointed leaders for 'their people'? I noticed this most glaringly in #MeToo; almost nil coverage of the millions of working class women who have to deal with all that disgusting crap day in/out and with even less of a platform to be heard or weapons to fight back with. Seven years later, what did it actually achieve apart from 'increasing awareness' and perhaps sending a very small clutch of slimeballs to the sin-bin? Almost fuck all, like most of the other social justice campaigns I've seen over the years.

It's why I say social justice got neutered because it was too tight with Third Way. That every time there has been a genuine 'revolutionary upsurge' [BLM, Grenfell, Banking Crisis] the movement's leadership has either decided, was persuaded and/or was tricked into funnelling it into supporting Third Way ends and means - directing folks to passively vote for the 'right' party and basically, let them get on with it [they don't] and that energy is then dissipated. And as a result, it now has a terrible smell about it and the term should be retired from folks vocab and that strategy book burned. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, I can understand this. Thank you for clarifying. Carthage (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

KarmaPolice in a nutshell: Liberté, égalité, fraternité, not diversity, equity, and inclusion! LongStylus (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, it's a good concept which hasn't been properly tried out yet. Plus, when it comes down to it social justice doesn't really have any answers regarding economic inequalities outside of it's designated minorities [ie the ones they like]. Lastly, this doesn't mean a party advocating this would have to be 'socially conservative' [ie more 'right' than the people's centre] - in fact, it can be cautiously socially liberal - I go back to my Wilson example, and here today the way the vote on assisted dying was handled [a Govt can make it a lot easier for liberal legislation to get done without officially coming out to support it, which can be in a way described as 'woke by stealth']. But this requires working out where the people's 'centre' is in the first place. So I repeat my question from above; where do you think the American people's 'societal/cultural centre' is right now? I mean above it was said 'it is firmly right', do you mean you genuinely believe that 'centrist America' has in fact become less in favour of stuff which had been accepted as 'generally okay' say, twenty years ago? KarmaPolice (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Social justice advocates are often the ones advocating for economically progressive policies: for economic democracy, for unionization, better work conditions etc. Economic justice and social justice are not separate concepts. I've gone on about this at length. Carthage (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

From my own experience, reading and hearing - no, they're not. All too often, their advocating for economic justice is only in relation to their own preferred minorities. It's part of the reason why the white working class hetro males are so fucking angry; they've fallen behind because almost no 'social justice' types have even bothered considering that they are also an oppressed group which deserve support [or worse, they are considered 'the enemy' due to their pasty skin, possession of external genitals and attraction to women]. Then there's the little issue that many minorities end up being led by self-appointed 'community leaders' who all too often are bourgeois and steer 'their movement' to their personal goals and then promptly desert, sell out or drive into a ditch once completed. To paraphrase Lenin on the failed 1905 Revolution in Russia - 'the bourgeois is only revolutionary to further their own interests' - that the moment they've got that, they're out the door quicker than you can say 'allyship'.

This argument isn't anything new - in fact, it's the one Sylvia and Christabel Pankhurst had some 110 years ago and fell out over regarding the fight for Women's Suffrage. In short, Sylvia 'got' that many of the issues of women were class-based in origin and thus saw 'the true enemy' behind it all, while Christabel wasn't having a second of that rot and while militant to the point of extremism was very conventional in the respects that her goal was to extend the bourgeois revolution of the late 19th Century to women and then leave it at that. And while I can't say what your particular POV is on this, from my seat it appears that most things which come under the banner of 'social justice' has far too many 'Christabels' and not enough 'Sylvias' about. What's more, capitalism has become very adept in presenting minor cosmetic improvements to either trick or neutralise many Christabels.

Economic and social justice are related, yes; but experience tells me that social justice minus economic justice means precious little because in capitalist societies your 'rights' degrade and vanish the poorer you get - therefore, [for example] the poor woman shall continue to be shit on daily while her rich 'sister' gets to actually to enjoy those rights and freedoms because she has the capital to ensure they get given to her. Economic justice minus social justice? Well... we've just given those shit-on minorities the capital to allow them to fight [and fight well] for their own social justice. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

To me, that's just the distinction between liberal feminism and more class-conscious milieus of feminism. There are plenty of "class-conscious feminists" out there, so while there are probably more Christabels than Sylvias, that does not mean the Sylvias are by any means rare. The antidote to liberal feminism is intersectionality. Socialist feminists and anarcha-feminists tend to be intersectional feminists. TERFs are not. Carthage (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I am skeptical of the distinctions between "politics", "global economics" and "social issues" tbh. I can't really think of any issue in one of these camps that is not simultanously a problem in the other two. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Response from Government of BC (Canada) Regarding Traditional Chinese Medicine being offered at a Public University

So a while back I read about Kwantlen Polytechnic University, a public institution, in British Columbia offering the country's first degree in Traditional Chinese Medicine. Greatly dismayed, I wrote an email to the BC government's minister of health and post-secondary education detailing as such... got a reply back which I'm posting here for general discussion.

My initial email:

Good day,

I am writing to express my great dismay at discovering that Kwantlen Polytechnic University will be offering a traditional Chinese medicine diploma program. Are you aware that doing so legitimizes pseudoscience?

Like Feng Shui or Reiki, much of traditional Chinese medicine is based on the idea of "Qi" (or "Chi"), a "vital energy flowing through the world and all living things"; Qi is supposedly channelled through a system of "meridians" in the body, with illnesses and maladies believed to be due to the blocked or unbalanced flow of Qi. Procedures such as acupuncture attempt to correct the flow of Qi in a body through the manipulation of meridians, though exactly how many meridians there are in the body can vary among self-proclaimed experts in the field. Putting it bluntly, there is no scientific evidence for a fundamental force like Qi.

I am appalled that a publicly-funded institution would promote traditional Chinese medicine as a bona fide field of study for students interested in medical science; the decision to do so is on par with Georgian College's former plans to offer homeopathy as a program in Ontario. I strongly urge the reconsideration of such a degree being offered.

"… But that didn't matter to me, eventually went to Nanjing to attend school K. In this school, I knew natural sciences, math, geography, history, art, and physical health for the first time. Biology was not included, but we saw books like On the Whole Body and On Chemical Hygiene. I remembered arguments and prescriptions of the old doctors, compared them with that of today's, and slowly realized traditional Chinese medicine is deceit, willful or not, but also felt great pity for the patients and their families scammed. From translated history I also knew Japanese Reformation has much roots in Western medicine. ..." - Lu Xun, in the preface of Nahan (1922)

The response received:

Dear Impiricism:

I am writing in response to your email sent to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, regarding Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s Traditional Chinese Medicine program. As post-secondary education is within the responsibilities of the Honourable Anne Kang, Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, your correspondence has been forwarded to me. I am responding on behalf of the Honourable Josie Osborne, Minister of Health, and Minister Kang. I apologize for the delayed response.

Traditional Chinese Medicine has been a regulated health profession in British Columbia under the Health Professions Act since December 4, 2000. Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture, along with Registered Massage Therapy, Chiropractic, and Naturopathic Medicine are regulated by the College of Complementary Health Professionals of British Columbia. The College of Complementary Health Professionals of British Columbia’s legal obligation is to protect the public through the regulation of its registrants and is responsible for ensuring that regulated health professionals provide health services in a qualified, safe, and ethical manner.

As you note, Kwantlen Polytechnic University currently offers a Traditional Chinese Medicine program through its two-year acupuncture diploma. This program has been offered since 2016. On July 26, 2024, Kwantlen Polytechnic University announced that it would begin offering the first degree-level program in Traditional Chinese Medicine in Canada, beginning in September 2025.

Prior to receiving approval, the new degree program underwent reviews through the Degree Quality Assessment Board, the University Senate at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, and the College of Complementary Health Professionals of British Columbia.

Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners and Acupuncturists are identified as a high-opportunity occupation in the 2023-33 Labour Market Outlook with an estimated 570 job openings in the next 10 years. By training more Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture practitioners Kwantlen Polytechnic University is being responsive to meeting this labour-market demand and provide more healthcare choices for people in BC.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Executive Director Post-Secondary Programs Branch

Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills

My initial email could have been better written upon reflection, but nonetheless I find the response disheartening. The BC government is basically saying "we've verified that the pseudoscience is mostly harmless, and besides that it gives much financial opportunity for both the province and program graduates themselves". Blegh. Impiricism (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As a fellow BC Resident, I would maybe want to emphasize that "complementary health" is another term for alternative medicine, and that there is a boatload of bioethical issues in providing alternative medicine as "healthcare" when it is completely devoid of the evidential standards regulated and required by medical care that is based within biomedical science. There are also substantial risks and duties to inform patients when providing care that has not been demonstrated under controlled trials to demonstrate any kind of clinically significant effect, especially when there is significant risk of worsening existing medical conditions, toxic drug interactions, infection, cerebral hemotoma, etc. Meeting the labour demand for a unethical pseudomedical industry that is largely based on a false and distored history of traditional healing practices isn't justified because a bunch of special interest groups that benefit from the profits generated by such an industry have decreed that the degree is of a "high standard". - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

When even laser hair removal has more evidence of beneficial health outcomes (for trans people at least [2]), you know the school really messed up. LongStylus (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

They don't want to hurt Chinese feelings and national pride, such as of that idiot who argued with you in the Talk page of TCM article and believed that the Chinese are superior to "evil Westerners". 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 07:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

They don't want to turn away Chinese wallets do we? The 'Chinese student market' is like one huge buffet table which advanced nations have noticed and rushed into, and BC wants a slice of that action. Offering a TCM course with an Anglosphere branding... that's what we call proper value added and with not many competitors offering it [the only UK one I could find with this cachet was Westminster]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

As someone who lives in this actual part of the world, the presence of acupuncturist shops and reflexology centres are already unavoidable in the commercial sectors of the Greater Vancouver Area (especially Burnaby and East Vancouver). But as a private service I am fine with it being provided given that the service is provided under the standards of disclosure that medical professionals are already beholden to by law. Patients are not providing informed consent if they are uninformed about the risk-benefit profile of such services, which would violate their bodily autonomy.

It should also be said that we already have a very high asian population in this part of Canada, and with the federal government cracking down on immigration I don’t suspect it is likely that a growing Chinese demographic is going to increase the demand of such services. I am not even sure that the market demand is primarily coming from Asian populations. The majority of the people I know who speak favourably of such practices like Acupuncture have been white folks. But I wouldn’t doubt the older generation of Chinese immigrants being predisposed towards TCM, you explain that by the propaganda produced favourably for it during the cultural revolution, and the expansion of TCM to “healthcare” to inflate the number of jobs available in that industry within China itself.

But in my experience it seems more an older generation thing if ever see people of Chinese descent engaging in TCM at all, but I think primarily the market demand is a lot more general than that. I would single out Austrian migrants for creating the demand for homeopathy, though I recognize that isn’t completely analogous. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The appeal is from students from China coming in on their own coin, dumping a load of Yuan into the Uni's coffers and getting that degree which as it's a Western sheepskin appeals to the snobs and those with a cultural cringe 'back home', which they hope will give them the edge in their currently rather saggy labour market. The fact the region already has a well-established Chinese community means their often very insular, clannish mentality [before anyone calls me racist on this, this is a well-documented thing] can be preserved even better. Overseas Chinese is a different question; if I was one who wanted to study TCM and could afford overseas study, I think I would look to Taiwan first [which is clearly not an option for mainlanders]. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

speaking of yuan on an entirely unrelated topic, i found a 1 yuan note on the southbank the other week. its worth a princely sum of 10 english pence, so thats a result. its interesting to see what/who foreigns put on their money. it shouldnt be a surprise or unexpected to see mao on there, and it wasnt, but still thought to myself 'oh that guy'. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice I am just uncertain of the relevancy to the motivation for KPU if the federal government is cracking down on lowering the number of international students in the country. It has gotten to the point that it has resulted in massive drops in departmental funding at my Uni, because the amount of tuition from international students has greatly dropped due to these increasingly stricter caps. If the appeal for KPU is the potential revenue from Chinese Immigrants, then I couldn’t think of a worse time to implement a program like this. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

All is revealed in the emails - BC Govt. Won't be the first or last time two tiers of govt were working at cross-purposes. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The aftermath of the invasion of Mexico.

So after being reminded that Trump really, really, REALLY wants to invade Mexico I got to thinking a little about all the other major modern US interventions and how much suffering they directly caused, and how much suffering they indirectly caused via blowback. Somalia in my opinion is the most obvious and possibly most relevant example here. We overthrew the Islamist government, only for their youth wing to continue the fight and become more and more extreme and more connected with Al-Qaeda as we bombed Somalia more and more and more. But that is not why I bought that up, you see in 2017 US special forces and their Somali allies killed 10 civilians, a few months later a man from the village where the massacre was committed drove a truck filled with bombs into Mogadishu and killed hundreds of people. Now I can't predict the future, but I do believe we can look to the past to help understand what might happen in the future, and the past tells us that the invasion of Mexico will go swimmingly with zero American deaths and blowback, and infact we should invade Canada as well. A somebody. (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Clearly this would be a dreadful idea. But how likely is it?

Trump is quite a blowhard. These are some of the things he promised he would do last time: build a wall paid for by Mexico; jail Hillary Clinton; institute torture as policy; leave NATO; expel all illegal immigrants; reduce the national debt - and so on. Of course there was stuff he did do as well - but the fact that Trump says he's going to do a thing certainly does not mean it's actually going to happen.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

True, but he now has incentive to stay in power for the rest of his life (lingering court cases), get-out-of-jail-free card from the Supremes. He would have to be pardoned by the New York State governor to dodge the existing felony conviction (unlikely). Also a pardon requires him to admit guilt, something he's never done. Bongolian (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump won't really 'invade', because he's a bully by nature and Mexico is strong enough to mount the porcupine strategy; ie to be so spiky that the eater ends up with a a painful face even if America could ultimately win an conventional war. Bullies hate actual real fights with enemies which can really fight back, which is why the interventions are gifts to opponents who realistically can't fight back [Haiti, Iraq] but not on ones which really could [Brazil, North Korea]. On Bob M's point, I am reminded of the quip that it's wise to generally take the Orange One seriously but not literally; so we would read every single thing he says as 'I wanna do and if nobody stops me I shall'.

Yes, Trump will spend his next four years basically making himself legally immune post-Presidency - following my above maxim, he will try a '28 run, but be so shot down he'll abandon it [that is assuming he is still alive and competent, which is something for what will be by then 82 years] so he'll do his best to court-pack, neuter and rig '28 so Vance/Junior gets in and issues another ton of pardons [Trump will self-pardon the day he's in office, but just to make sure].

One aspect I do wonder is whether he has seriously considered that a) if he does do most of the shit he desires there might be some folks who simply do not care that he's legally invulnerable and decide to attempt extra-legal methods of physical removal [and not just a few amateur lone wolves either] and/or b) he goes too far and ends up like the President did in the Civil War film. I'm reminded here of the bit out of Pratchett's Night Watch in which it's monologued that Lord Winder [the ruler] had simply gone on too long, had pissed off too many people, had not paid heed to the warning signs and had declined to quietly walking away after adequate self-enrichment.

Who are the people in the Orange One's circle now who will tell him that he's mortal? That he needs to avoid becoming despised and hated? That riches do not profit in the day of wrath? That one can abuse the law so far that there comes a day where folks no longer accept that as a defence? That you can prod the most docile of creatures into attacking if roused enough? In short; where are his 'honest advisors' [even the likes of Pence, Bolton etc count here]? Because I don't see any and that is what is scaring me. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I honestly have not seen much evidence that either MAGA or all of the other similar movements around the world that kind of look like ruscism is very into territory conquering... Vladimir Putin's version being the big exception. It's actually a key difference between "fascism 1930s style" and the modern day right wing populism personified by Trump and Viktor Orban and Bolsonaro and whatnot... whereas much of the 1930s style fascism *was* more revolutionary and into conquering and empire building, much of the current movements are more reactionary and inward-looking... lots of moaning about the good old days, Other, appeal to tradition... but not a whole lot of appeal for empire-building. In fact, it is perhaps the opposite: elements of Trumpism seems perfectly willing to abandon NATO and all of the other outward elements of United States global power in the name of retreating inward. Such is why, instead of wanting to conquer Mexico, Trump has more been about tariffs and fighting immigration -- all signs of a turtle retreating in its shell instead of a warrior wielding its sword.

Now, ruscism is all about authoritarian capitalism and kleptocracy too, and such may or may not still desire the neoliberalism gun-ho global economic elements. Personally, I actually see a conflict between the more libertarian elements in the Trump 2.0 administration that still adore globalization and merely just hate those pesky other regulations, and the more protectionist elements that are more gung-ho on the tariff side (complicated by loose cannons like Elon Musk who I have no idea what the fuck he's about these days). Wall Street seems to think that the former side will win out the day, from what I see. We'll see... I'm not so confident personally. As KP points out, there is much less "stopgaps" in the Trump 2.0 administration, and thus a much greater chance that his desired tariffs actually do far more economic damage than Trump 1.0 2018. BobJohnson (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

That's true that Iraq as a state crumpled up really quickly after invasion, but it's also true that the US was never able to root out the insurgency that popped up almost immediately after Saddam's fall, even with the surge in troop numbers. Carthage (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The main thing about 30s fascism more than anything is 'might makes right'; this applies to within the state or outside of it. That your 'opponent' is either weaker than you [demand placating] or stronger than you [must be placated] - the concept of 'equality','fairness' or 'legality' is alien to it. Therefore, if the weaker party denies the requests, it's perfectly fine to take it at a point of a sword. If you carry it off, you clearly deserved it. But they can be open into 'cutting deals' aka realpolitik - part of the more realistic MAGA arguments against the Ukraine war was to say it was a failure of American politics because it didn't directly sit down with Russia and firmly draw Yalta-style 'spheres of influence' in Europe [of which I suspect all the former USSR would have been '90% Russia', W. Europe '90% US' and 'Eastern Europe' 50/50].

Therefore, Trumpian posturing over Mexico is that of a 'sphere leader' telling their subject that their current policies aren't good enough. It's up to Mexico to either deliver the desired actions or face... consequences. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, golly gee, almost sounds like imperialism to me. Carthage (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Has imperialism ever ended? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not, but some people would have us believe differently. It's funny how people use all these euphemisms to describe the same thing: "spheres of influence," "great game," etc. Carthage (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not really an euphemism when it describes an aspect of a situation which has been the 'normal state of affairs' since perhaps 1850. Just because a load of people [mainly Americans] live in a delusional world where 'imperialism doesn't exist anymore' is irrelevant in this situation. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Proper use of funspace

Why are our articles about subnational units in fun space? Those seem about as missional as our articles on proper countries to me. Carthage (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

e.g.? Scream!! (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

every single us state and some canadian provinces. to be fair, a lot of them are more light-hearted in tone than our usual articles. they contain a lot of jokes, and some of them need a little quality clean-up (updating, etc.) before they can be moved to mainspace. The G (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

One long, long, long term goal of mine is to create short-ish mainspace articles for US states. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

They were all originally in mainspace. Due to the aforementioned lighthearted nature as well as being not very thorough, itt was decided (voted?) to move them all to funspace. Bongolian (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure funspace is really used for 'fun'. It's more a generic dumping ground for stuff which isn't a) mainspace b) draft or c) an essay. Perhaps a better definition is 'fluffspace'; as in stuff which due to either lack of citations, RW mission relevance, seriousness and/or notability but has been decided to retain... well, decided back then.

If I was God-King I think I'd memory-hole about 95% of Funspace, leaving a few remainders such as BIRTH CONTROL IS SINFUL IN THE CHRISTIAN MARRIAGES and also ROBBING GOD OF PRIESTHOOD CHILDREN!! which I think would have been a mainspace if only it got enough refs. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I made a new video

https://youtu.be/6Ru2_I7PyQ0?si=yp62ySflOcvdqV6U

I hope you all like it. --Trans Fem Agenda 17:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I really like your intro and the first half of your disclaimer. Way cool that the 'shelter in place'is a realistic first solution, but it has times and locations, I love it. I would put that suspenseful ambient music lower than what you've done. You deserve it to be quiet background, two locations, a time stamp, lady, this is actually insanely cool. Torrent (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

My channel has experienced stagnation in the past year. I appreciate your input. --Trans Fem Agenda 13:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Watch Hereditary. It has that ambient stress music throughout, if you can use it subtly it can punch up the other things you're nailing.Torrent (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Found this...

'Independent Wiki Federation'

Thoughts? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Their FAQ page says that political wikis aren't eligible to join. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

a) I was thinking more in general terms and b) I like how being anti-lies and BS is now a 'political position'. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Self-congratulatory nonsense. RationalWiki (or rather the behavior of its resident editors) would have to change significantly before one could call it objective or receptive to argumentation. One with a dissenting opinion can hardly get a word in without being labeled a troll or some such unanswerable slur. Accumulator (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

We are receptive to argument and debate. What we're not 'receptive' to is BS arguments where the foundation comprises of 'because I said so', other users digging out evidence to prove you incorrect only you to 'yeah, right' handwaving away. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

A rather selective recollection. It doesn't seem to include all of the quite reasonable points I'd made in various discussions or the thousand-and-one times I'd been called a troll, hatted and threatened with sanction for advancing those points, before (and after) I uttered those words of terrible incredulity and exasperation - 'yeah, right'. I'll concede that particular point (whatever it was), remove the hats and we can resume the discussion(s), if you like. Accumulator (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I take it that Accumulator has never been around any fandom communities, where of course everything is kumbaya all the time, and there are never any hardcore disagreements, shouting matches, turf wars, and all the other fun dramas of humanity. *cough* *insert multi-page flame wars on "Kirk or Picard?" or "my Doctor is better than yours" or some Pepe-iconed troll yelling about how sci-fi is just too woke.* ^{— Unsigned, by: BobJohnson / talk / contribs}

I don't see what that has to do with anything. My point was not about IWF. Accumulator (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course not, my little troll friend, even though the IWF is the point of this thread. If you want to not be called a troll, don't go off topic on a conversation just to stir up shit. Trolls do that sort of thing, eh? BobJohnson (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Surely you understand my position and the point I'm making. If RW's users rely on ad hominem attacks then this sort of self-aggrandizement is quite unbecoming. It's not very dialectical to persistently name-call or characterize. It appears that you've already settled the main question of the IWF, about which I have no particular interest. I suppose I'd have to agree that RW is a "political" wiki. Accumulator (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't 'name-calling' or 'characterising' you a couple of months back, I was providing 'fair comment' regarding the policies you were advocating in a pithy statement which made you sad because I described you as an uncaring cunt. Which I totally stand by, BTW - and yes, I did re-read the whole thing so no, it is not 'selective recollection'. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't fool me with this act for a moment. I've been more civil the whole way along than many of you have. Save your crocodile tears. Accumulator (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't feed the troll, but "I'm the super duper civil one, now here's an ad hominem in the next sentence" is a pretty funny speech pattern. Carry on now. BobJohnson (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Amazing that you miss them when they come from everyone else - "troll", "uncaring cunt", etc. Accumulator (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Tone argument and Pathos gambit in action, alongside balance fallacy. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Shall we return to the original discussion(s) then? That is, those in which I was called a troll, hatted, and summoned to your kangaroo court on an unfalsifiable charge? Accumulator (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone's salty. Carthage (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

But yes, IWF is focused on "lifestyle, entertainment, and gaming" wikis. That is not RW, at all. BobJohnson (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

In a sense, I would say it always has been. And this has always been a political wiki. Anti-authoritarianism is a political position. Carthage (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, in a sense, everything is political.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

"Reality has a well-known Liberal bias." Impiricism (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should make an alliance with 1d6chan, too. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the details of Luigi's idea were that great, but the general principle that perhaps we should try to at least reach out a little to other groups where our goals/missions align somewhat isn't a stupid one. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

But isn't that just being a person? Torrent (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Tell your friends about RationalWiki. I have. Spud (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I do - I bitched about the Oak Island Money Pit page because someone asked me about it, it was RW's time to shine and it fucked up by being a shit article. But I was more thinking of us 'as RW' doing stuff to try to get more new blood in. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I did not read above this apology, but I am going to chime in anyway. Being a thug means never having to say you're sorry, which is a strange thing that came to mind. I looked it up, it's from the only Weeds episode I ever saw, woof what a memory castle, but if Trick Daddy taught me anything, it's that if I was stricken with locked in syndrome, I'd blink out 'this is the life for me'. You did nothing wrong. Apology ignored https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OA8plLojVp8&pp=ygUWdHJpY2sgZGFkZHkgaSdtIGEgdGh1Zw%3D%3D . Torrent (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A new Euromaiden?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/12/01/europe/georgia-protests-spread-intl-latam

The current protests in Georgia reminds me of the Euromaiden revolution in Ukraine their president didn't sign the EU agreement, moved closer to Russia and experienced democratic backsliding. Will History repeat itself. --Trans Fem Agenda 13:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, but it's rhyming. The Caucasus unit fighting for Ukraine has issued a statement that they will return to Georgia if the get a signal from the outgoing president. The timing rebel retaking of Aleppo was apparently due to 1) viewing Russia as weakened by fighting in Ukraine and 2) Hezbollah military being greatly diminished by Israel. Ukraine is reporting mass desertions by Russian troops a Russian military officer reported that highly-trained soldiers were instead being sent into the meat-grinder (front line assaults) to cover up false claims by Russian officers of territorial gains. Overall, it's a very chaotic situation. Bongolian (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that revolution is coming. It is the same recipe as the Euromaiden revolution. By the way, the Georgia Dream Party is already blaming the United States for the protests against the rigged election; apparently everything is the fault of the United States (easier to blame someone else for problems caused by a government). --Trans Fem Agenda 22:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

How to handle Richard Dawkins and other former skeptics?

Hi people, noting his outrageous Xitter posts about eugenics, his apparent re-affirmation of Christianity, and "criticism" of what is really a new, a "woke scare"...wouldn't it be time to massively change the nature of his article? I'm not normally one for making articles on academics too negative, but he is so popular among self-described skeptics. This guy is clearly demented at this point and just about one step away from endorsing race science. It's not surprising if you remember his age and how things used to be back when he actually studied biology. We should really make sure here and potentially also on his main Wiki that he is not to be trusted anymore. His "classics" are old and stale rubbish anyway. Basically, the only people that still claim to read them are from the Muslim world, and I think they'll do just fine with one fewer old WASP teaching them about the universe, haha. I'm interested in what you guys have to say about my idea before I make the attempt.

It's a similar story with Michael Shermer bashing the excellent work of Scientific American, with James Randi, effective altruism grifter Peter Singer...and. it. just. goes. on. I think we should be a lot more decisive in our opposition to these people precisely because they have falsely adopted/attempted to shift the label of "skeptic". True skepticism means to deterritorialize the power structures of all sorts of supremacism. Kadashova (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, these things are being mentioned, but they really tarnish their "legacy" so much that they arguably should be the main focus of their articles. Kadashova (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you write an objective article and let the reader make up their own minds? Not that I necessarily agree with whatever Dawkins is on about these days, nor am I advocating "neutrality" per se, but setting out with the object of writing a "negative" bio isn't very different from a smear. Accumulator (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "objective" article, every article is written from some point of view. No human being is capable of making content that describes things from a "view from nowhere". Factuality is what is important -- but that is stating a value judgement, nothing neutral about it. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You were very recently accused of being a troll, were you not? Kadashova (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You're deflecting. Address the point instead of calling me names. Accumulator (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"objectivity" is precisely the kind of dog whistle that one should never take too seriously from potential trolls like you. Women for example were historically accused of being "less objective", "too emotional", and therefore not as good scientists! And de facto fascists like Peter Thiel talk about "free speech" all the time. Kadashova (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The user Pinkerite has documented the race pseudoscience of some of these including Michael Shermer so may consider updating Dawkins article, you might want to leave a message on her talk-page. She also updated the Jerry Coyne page. It's just Shermer/Coyne/Dawkins who have jumped on the anti-woke wagon to gain more views. It's not an epidemic that is investing the skeptic community at large, it's just those influencers that are grifting. Dawkins is nearly 84 and doesn't look in good health, I doubt he will be with us for many more years. I listened to Dawkins debate Denis Noble on evolution last year, Dawkins knowledge about evolution is about 20 years out of date. He's unfamiliar with all of the recent work on epigenetics. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree! Thanks for the details. Wiki has a really good article on Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Dawkins is so out of touch that I legitimately believe he has probably never even heard of it. Kadashova (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the point. Accumulator (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit doubtful about basically turning his article on its head, with the emphasis on the bad stuff. Is there anything objectionable from a RationalWiki standpoint in his published books? I've only read two of his books. That said, I'm in no way endorsing whitewhashing the article, so if there's more to add or expand on about his bad or dubious qualities, then go ahead. I'm not so sure that age is the explanation either. With fame, there seems to be a great temptation towards ultracrepidarianism. Bongolian (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hm, also makes sense. My comment actually sounds a bit ageist now that I read it again, sorry. What's certainly another possibility, is that he lost all the money he made publishing and now gets paid for appearances like that. Kadashova (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And, yes, I'm very sure there are sources to paint a clearer image. Actually, I've heard that there'll be an article in a few months, discussing their ongoing super-grift. Kadashova (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This video is a long one, about how to accept 'The Death of the Author' but it's Specifically about Neil Gaiman's unfortunate humanity. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T31HKuabyMA&pp=ygUOVGhlIGxlZnQgY29va3M%3D It is long, and rambly if you just want it to hit a couple points. But the main point is, when I was into Dawkins, he had some really good shit to say about theism. When I was less into Dawkins, he had some really stupid things to say about specific religions. And when he went full anti-Muslim, I was like 'I have some friends who are Muslim because you taught me all religions are equally incorrect, eat a Dick Richard.'. It's not that I'm less atheist or antitheistic now, but I understand he might have been caught up in that bullshit anti-muslim sentiment that also shone through with Sam Harris and Bill Mahr, like, get a spine. Apologetics for anti-religion bigotry targeted at Muslims is still apologetics for bigotry. And it's a huge bummer that Gaiman did the awful shit he did. I think it's fine to accept them as influence and do better. Torrent (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Dawkins has had a profound influence on both Skepticism and atheism and he has raised the profile of both in the public consciousness. There can be no doubt about that and this should be recognized. His books on these topics have influenced millions and he deserves praise for this.

Where his more recent comments have been offensive and wrong this should also be recognized. People change and nobody is perfect - I would suggest that all this be in his article. why wouldn't it be?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Tbh I am a bit skeptical that his influence on skepticism and athiesm has been positive and genuinely deserves praise. It is figures like him that force me to caveat my belief in scientific skepticism by avoiding the personal label of "skeptic" because of the political and cultural baggage associated with it. I think the sort of "New Athiesm" association that figures like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris share actually brings a lot of what is of epistemic importance in the value of skepticism closer to obscurity. I also don't think a lot of these figures were consistent about their self-proclaimed evidentialism. This has only become more aparant over time. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This! Just think about Christopher Hitchens who already had certain tendencies. Soon enough, his brother Peter Hitchens came out as a crypto-fascist, even appearing alongside alt-lite grift-god Jordan Peterson multiple times. As we were told by comrade Brecht on a similar issue: "The womb he crawled from is still going strong." It's especially noticeable how intense all their islamophobia is. Many of them really hate Muslims both on a personal and ethnic level. I think the problem is a naive reading of skepticism not carefully structured and constrained by good institutions. In other words, they reason so much and all over the place, apply pseudo-deep math all over the place (like in the "eugenic math" of population statistics or the burgeois pseudo-science of neoclassical economics) and so on, just to fall right back into instinct in the end. So there is a clear line from the overly reflective talk of Dawkins to the vulgar "Noticing" bigotry of Steve Sailer. Kadashova (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I generally think that "New Atheism"'s influence died right around the time of Elevatorgate. The New Atheism movement had some elements that were welcome, but in retrospective, it ended up having a similar problem among other heavily upper-crust male-dominated sects (like, say, libertarianism) -- very little empathy and far too much bravado and macho posturing. Since it was unable to expand beyond this (and, as Elevatorgate proved, actually resisted such to some degree), it has become irrelevant, and even more so once much of New Atheism drifted towards bullshit like the alt-right / alt-lite or crypto (which, particularly the later, also have a "upper-crust male-dominated" flavor). Richard Dawkins may still be tweeting, sure, and his opinions may have drifted to the point where he swallows Russian transphobe bait hook line and sinker. But who out there actually cares other than the neo-Nazis that remain on Twitter?

I can't speak for other countries, but from my American perspective, the biggest "advocate" for atheism was not the New Atheism bros, but the overall transformation of the American Christian church into an intolerant political cult, as exemplified by the Religious Right. Over the last 20 years, I see this as the primary reason why "nones" (including agnostics and "nothing in particulars") have transformed from a rather small minority of Americans into a little under a third of the American population. BobJohnson (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Also religious dones, which are people who left religion because of bad experiences associated with it; A lot of queer people fall under this category, and I know a few. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The Paradox Institute

Made this recent discovery of a think-tank masquerading as a science communication organization, headed by a guy named Zachary Elliot. The dude seemingly spends a lot of time shitter/“x” being a reply guy to any and all attempts to use biological science as a way of being gender affirming. Often through the use of supplying statistics and operational definitions used in a particular research context within biology and applying it to contexts the information was never intended to conclude anything about; i.e. using statistical summaries of the difference in grip-strength of the average male compared to the average female as implicative of the grip-strength of transgender women. I don’t know how it would be a justified inference to assume that even being AMAB, transgender women competing in sports required to undergo HRT would be representative of the “average male”. There is also just a lot of stuff that is pretty par for the course TERF talking points regarding folks with DSD’s (they don’t count apparently because they are “disordered”), insistence on the binary sex model (though unknowingly contradicting it repeatedly), and denial to any research identifying biological correlates to gender identity. Maybe missional enough to keep tabs on, and I suspect the “Paradox Institute” will become a growing resource for gender-affirming care denialists in the coming years. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I actually got recommended a video from that channel while watching a video about how sex isn't binary either; It seems like PragerU for TERFs to me. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This guy's not even at a "think-tank" level - he's (as of 2021, probably graduated by now?) an architecture university student of an Oklahoma college. In some ways, this is similar to the engineers and woo topic; some engineers are unfortunately prone to ultracrepidarianism and may spout bullshit on things they know nothing about. Architects aren't engineers, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is something similar in that field as well.

The other thing this demonstrates about social media is how it gives a much more level playing field to both bullshit and actual legitimate research than was the case in past media forms. Not that cranks and charlatans didn't exist before, but there were more "barriers" to publish. These days, the barriers are gone. This isn't all bad by any means as a whole, but one of the consequences is that legitimate research on more "difficult" technical topics tends to get buried on social media under a sea of easy-to-produce PIDOOMA bullshit videos, especially on "controversial" topics. You are pretty safe on YouTube with some topics (things like DIY repair hints or dives to find obscure music for instance), but I wouldn't touch YouTube for any academic subject with a 100 foot pole. Let alone Twitter, which is a complete dumpster fire by now of little if any worth thanks to the Elon Musk wrecking ball. BobJohnson (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I called it a “think-tank” for lack of a better name. Calling it an educational organization seems a bit far-fetched. The website for the Paradox Institute features a pretty small team, but the motivations seem less desiring to communicate sex education and the science of sexual reproduction, insomuch it serves an ideological function as Cirrus aptly puts it “PragerU for TERFs”. There is a cognitive psychologist and a PhD candidate in neuroscience working for the “institute”. As I said, it’s a small team, but it’s curious that no endocrinologist or developmental biologists are part of the team. What annoys me the most about this kind of ““science communication”” is that there is no nuance to the conceptual issues related to categorization in science, the kind that both biologists and philosophers of science are privy to (arguably more so the biologists than the philosophers). They just run with the gamete criteria for biological sex without any attention to the exceptions or nuances. Okay, that doesn’t annoy me the most, the exclusionary motivations do, but it irritates the philosopher of science in me all the same. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

What I'd call it is propaganda. I suspect this is an attempt to get into the pundit grifting wingnut welfare circuit ala Dennis Prager or Ben Shapiro ("Facts over feelings" merch? How original.)

They do their best to act all Science-y and link to a lot of papers in their bullshit. I guess they are hoping that the reader never clicks on the links. For example, in one story, they claim that an Endrocine Society claims that "there are exactly two sexes". I clicked on the link. That is not what this paper says. The paper is about considering biological sex when designing research projects (there are differences here and there so this is a legitimate thing to consider). Yes, one sentence does state that there is a classic biological "sex" definition ("The classical biological definition of the 2 sexes is that females have ovaries and make larger female gametes (eggs), whereas males have testes and make smaller male gametes (sperm); the 2 gametes fertilize to form the zygote, which has the potential to become a new individual.") But, shortly afterwards, the paper goes on to say "a simple biological definition of male and female, satisfactory to all people, is elusive." And more - there is absolutely far more additional nuance on sex and gender in the Endrocine paper. It does not support the binary absolutism being pushed by this silly "Paradox Institute" college kid.

I've seen this pattern of "research paper abuse" in a lot of woo webshites and I suspect this site is yet another one that plays the same game. BobJohnson (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's a little more nuanced than the bwave warrior KenBot's tendency to link to anything which has a remotely supportive title, but not by much. The reasoning is this;

a) Most folks won't click the link.

b) Most folks who click the link won't bother to read the paper.

c) Most folks who read the paper won't really understand what they're reading.

d) Most folks who do understand what they're reading won't bother to come back to us to bitch.

e) Most folks who do come and bitch can be fobbed off with variants of 'you didn't understand' and other shite.

f) Those three people who can't be given the gaslight fob-off can simply be blocked.

KarmaPolice (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

can't be fobbed to do much of anything personally, to be honest, but calling Twitter 'Shitter' I can't believe I've never seen that before. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qGIgIXaVs0A&pp=ygUnYm9iIGFuZCB0b20gbXIgb2J2aW91cyBnYXJiYWdlIGRpc3Bvc2Fs I am as stunned by this as the time I heard somebody say Mitch McConnell can munch my cornhole. It is just there, why am I so blown away every time? Torrent (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

big reminder, this is the saloon, you can suggest an edit on any page in its talk, or you can create a page. Best advice, if you know or understand something, go for it. Torrent (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@BobJohnson Thank you for sharing that catch, I appreciate it. Ironic how in the effort to appear scientific for propgandistic purposes one has to put a specific effort in maintaing that one adequately misrepresents the science they cite. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Such is the way of the transphobe. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)