Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Saloon bar)
Jump to: navigation, 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.
Invision-Board-France-355.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives.Friends.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (*cough*) (hic)

Pointless poll


Sure, why the heck not?19Vote
Porn is immoral and unclean and damages your relationship with God.2Vote
What I do for extra money is none of your business!3Vote
The more implausible and badly made the better1Vote
Only if no goats are involved1Vote
I mean, it’s not my thing and there are some ethical issues in the wider industry, but hey, have at it if you want9Vote
It objectifies women 5Vote
Sex education yes, porn no4Vote

Should the US enact Voter ID laws?

Yes, unconditionally0Vote
Only if the US also provides cheap/free IDs43Vote
No, unconditionally14Vote
Not until goats can vote too1Vote

What is your favorite Alternate History video game series?

Assassin's Creed3Vote
C&C: Red Alert5Vote
Crimson Skies1Vote
Deus Ex8Vote
Goat Simulator13Vote

Which is more important for Rationalwiki longterm?

We protect Freeze Peach and associated trolls36Vote
We become a haven for ultra-woke SJWs11Vote
We can have both!8Vote
We want neither of those groups26Vote
To do list

What was the world like pre-9/11?[edit]

So I’ve basically grown up with 9/11 and the war on terror and Iraq etc, as just the natural background state of how the world is. I literally can’t picture a world where the twin towers existed and we weren’t all constantly at war in the Middle East. For any of the Older Individuals here: what was world that actually, you know, like? Is it true you could literally just get on planes easy? Was there a distinct shift in how people viewed the US as a result? This is all v difficult for me to picture lmao. 💖 A S E L A ಮಾತು 💖 02:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Mostly the same, just with different excuses for the bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't remember things being all that different before 9/11 (other than restaurants having smoking and non-smoking sections, which has nothing to do with the attack), but then again I was a little kid when that happened, and the first time I ever got on an airplane was in the 2010s. (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I was in first grade. Big smoking building. Life before first grade for me was probably better as I hated school. I'm the wrong person to ask, though. ^^' --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
So I was old enough to remember the cold war. Big scares, bullshit regarding nukes at any time, but was too young to understand much. The 90s though, best time to be alive honestly. There were problems, sure, but the US economy was raging forward with the debt actually being paid down, this newfangled internet was going to allow the little guy to start their own business and take power away from The Man, Israel and Arafat were able to sit down to talk and there'd be peace there, world peace seemed inevitable, the music was good, Islamophobia really wasn't a thing in the US, the EU was viewed mostly as a joke but a friendly one, etc.
But, well, we can't have nice things. I'd say the only really good thing to happen since the 90's was the advent of gay rights. Grew up thinking gays were a bit weird, but who cared. Friend's dad once said he didn't care that people were gay, but it freaked him out finding out just how many there were. Like, instead of 1 in 1000, it's like 1 in 30. I sort of understand how he feels now, considering that somehow that 1 in 30 has become 1 in 3 in the Zoomer gen. Like, just, what's going on here? Entire percentages are now trans? What. Cork (covfefe) 03:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Internet was slow. It would take literally hours to download a couple of songs on Napster. I remember leaving my computer on all night to download The End of Evangelion and about three or four days to download Love Hina at that time. Since they were subbed in English and I was like, 8, I couldn't understand anything, so it was a waste of time. GeeJayK (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Also you originally had to pay by the hour for the internet.
And there were those AOL floppy disks, to be replaced by CDs. They only existed because the law hadn't kept up with technology. So you see, AOL had declared every single CD to be an asset rather than an advertising expense, to pretend that they were worth more than they were... Cork (covfefe) 03:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I abandoned a small empty suitcase at London's Victoria coach station in September 1999 and I'm not aware of it causing a bomb scare. I left it open to show there was nothing inside it. Spud (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
i disagree that you could leave suitcase anywhere without causing a bomb scare. you left it open is why it did not suffer the fate of a controlled explosion. AMassiveGay (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

unattended packages were possible IRA bombs rather than from islamic terrorists AMassiveGay (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

its because of the IRA that train stations do not have bins AMassiveGay (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
It was like one element of 1984, where the "enemy" suddenly switched but appeared like it had always been the enemy. Before 9/11 in the US, the commies were the mortal enemies in propaganda, afterwards it was the Muslims. Before before 9/11, security was much laxer for air travel. I have actually walked on to commercial planes with no security checks whatsoever, as well as onto commercial planes where machetes were allowed on carry-on. The security state definitely accelerated after 9/11 with video cameras just about everywhere in public spaces. It used to be that one could easily get away with minor infractions that didn't hurt anyone like trespass with no damage involved. Bongolian (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I also told the woman who checked my ticket before I got on the coach (to Poland for my second teaching job) that I'd left an empty suitcase behind. i don't know if that made any difference. She didn't seem to be the least bit interested. Maybe now she'd tell me that I couldn't do that. Spud (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Biggest thing I miss is people waiting at the terminal or being able to just wander the airport and people-watch without a boarding pass (there's a great scene at the beginning of Kevin Smith's Dogma that captures this experience). I also miss the complete absence of the TSA. Artificius (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The world was obviously different in many ways 20 years ago. But I assume the question is about how 9/11 changed the world. The wars which followed are the most obvious thing, along with Guantanamo. Another would be increased suspicion of Muslims. Yet another increased airport security and finally it gave the US the benefit of the "Patriot Act". So nothing really positive that's for sure.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

An even more drastic change: 30 years ago the USSR was entering its last four weeks of stable existence -not that they knew it at the time. (I know the situation was more complex, and the actual unwinding took four months.) Anna Livia (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I was working, preparing to go backpacking and remember getting a message from a friend about some idiot flying into the World Trade Center just before hitting the cinema to watch Shrek, then coming out from the film to news filled with horror and confusion. While the Middle East had been in focus prior to 9/11, the emphasis certainly changed and suddenly not only the US but a number of European countries had “boots on the ground” which certainly wouldn’t have otherwise. There was some tightening of airport security overall (the “security theatre”), but flights to the US were extreme; however I was flying to the Far East and Australia from Europe for said backpacking just two months after 9/11 and while security was definitely tighter, it was not too bad.
At least where I live(d), the “Muslim panic” and accompanying fear mongering definitely long predated 9/11, though it got a new impetus and focus subsequently. It was also weird how quickly and generally it was accepted that Islamist terrorism should be regarded as a threat on a par with the massive conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear arsenals of the former Eastern Bloc, i.e. that Islamic terrorism posed an existential threat to “the Western World”.
9/11 and the Iraq War also clearly affected views of the US, at least in my neck of the woods. While leftists had always been critical of various aspects of US policies and culture, there was an initial wave of support for the US and to a large extent the invasion of Afghanistan. However, this quickly turned with the advent of the Iraq War, which seen by large numbers as illegal and immoral, and the decision for the country I live in to join in it was controversial, to say the least. Things didn’t really improve for the US PR and image when Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the extraordinary rendition scandals followed one upon the other. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a Canadian, and I grew up relatively close to the US border. I was also fairly young when 9/11 happened - my 17th birthday was a few days later, and I remember having a hard time having a "happy birthday" that year. But what I mostly remember about pre-9/11 was that it was really easy to cross the border. You didn't need a passport - birth certificates showing whether you were Canadian or American were sufficient. We used to do back to school shopping on the US side when the exchange rate was good enough for that to be practical, and we used to take day trips across the border for sporting events, museums, etc.. My grandparents used to cross every week or so to buy cheap gas. Immediately after 9/11, you still didn't need a passport, but I think the writing was on the wall as far as a relatively open border was concerned. I just remember thinking to myself that restrictions at a land border crossing wouldn't do much to stop planes.

It also changed the way a lot of my friends thought about the US. Prior to 9/11, the Iraq War, and so on, I don't think many of us thought very much about the US at all - they were the big, noisy neighbour, but that was about it. Suddenly with the world changing the way it did after 9/11, we all had opinions about the US government and foreign policy, as if any of us actually had the smallest idea of what we were talking about. AcidTrial (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I was studying at a Canadian university at the time. A light disdain for Americans was fairly common amongst Canadians. I remember when Canada beat the US at the world hockey championship there was a party for several days (a joyous David vs. Goliath fuck you). We were only an hour from the border and despite suggesting we "go have an adventure trip" in the US, nobody was interested. After 9/11, there was certainly sympathy for what happened and empathy towards Americans but if anything I found unease about America increased. Canadians already had a dim view of American politics with the populous choosing Bush over Gore and the electoral circus in Florida, but opposition to the Iraq war was very high in Canada. It seemed like a no brainer that it was about a Bush historical agenda and possibly American politicians searching for oil adventures and personal enrichment over any remote military threat and distress over how it would destabilise the Middle East and possibly have a run on with Canada. How on Earth it is possible that American politicians could own shares in a company that highly profited from war and post war contracts is beyond my comprehension (and 20 years later it seems no US laws have been enacted to prevent this). Fortunately, Canada has seen very little Islamic terrorism since America's adventures in Iraq and the knock on effect it had in the region. It is us in Europe who have enjoyed the monthly Jihadists attacks since (thanks America and the UK for that). Meanwhile it seems the US has done a completely inadequate job in dealing with Islamic extremism (on all fronts including addressing the issues from which extremism arises but also disrupting actual extremist cells) nor dealing with islamophobia. ShabiDOO 15:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Last I checked, Europe had been dealing with terrorism for, ever, as far as I'm aware. There's much less now than there was in the 70s, though that was in part due to the IRA. I don't have much evidence but I'm sure the IRA was funded and directed by the Soviets far more than official accounts, because the USSR would be foolish not to exploit the situation to weaken a major NATO member, and only ended because the Cold War did as well.
As for Islamist terrorism, it's all but impossible to tell what effect the Iraq War had on Terrorism worldwide. Cork (covfefe) 16:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the real reason that Europe has higher rates of Islamist terrorism than Canada is because unlike Canada, Europe is kind of a dick to their Muslim populations. In the UK, "Pakis" are treated like Black people are in the US. France does its very best to pretend that all French are equal, yet 70% of their prisons are Muslim. Germany is a little better with their Turks, but then again, there were always issues. What it comes down to is that Europe decided they would import working-class folks from the former Imperial possessions, but things like "education" and "rights" weren't things to worry about because the Gastarbeitern would be booted out of the country and replaced with new ones. But it turned out the workers wanted to stay, even as second class citizens, because their home countries were just that awful. Then they had children who only knew Europe, and wondered why they were growing up poor.
Of course, Muslims are hardly the only people with grievances, so the question does need to be asked why a higher fraction of Muslims turn to terrorism than, say, Jains and Ba'hai, or the Romani and Sami. Cork (covfefe) 16:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
It's probably a proportional thing in regards to the former two, there's more Muslims in Europe than there are Jains and Ba'hai. Oxyaena Harass 17:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
LMAO as though islamophobia isn't a serious problem in North America. Muslims are treated with disdain throughout the Western world. Jihaddism now happens in small European countries with miniscule Muslim populations. And countries that almost never saw terrorism before now have annual Jihaddist attacks. Jihaddism events were infrequent ubefore 9/11 and jumped up quickly after America endangered the world with its invasion in Iraq. I do not understand how anyone can conclude that the destabilising events of the Iraqi war did not significantly contribute to murderous Jihaddism in Europe. ShabiDOO 17:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Oxy, it's relative to their populations. Europe is like 90% Christian but they commit much less than 90% of the terrorist acts these days.
Shabi, it's complicated and the Iraq War certainly didn't help, but it's hardly the only thing going on. A lot of the terrorism is being funded by Iran, and I would agree that this was indirectly because of the Iraq War. Just one look at a map before Iraq shows Iran with the US and allies on 1/2 of their borders, and with Iraq that jumps up to 3/4ths. So of course they would freak out and fund anything at all that would destabilize the West to force them out of the region. Cork (covfefe) 18:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not very sure about this. Maybe Europeans don't commit these crimes because they have institutions that prevent terrorists incidents from happening. I honestly think that one of the main reasons why the KKK became so weak nowadays was because these institutions prevent them from gaining power, not only a change of heart of the American population (although that's also important). And when these institutions fail, well... GeeJayK (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
At least in France, I am wondering if some of it might have to do with echoes of the colonial past. The French-Algerian war isn't *that* ancient (ended in 1964). My understanding is that a lot of the French Muslim community comes from ex-French colonies.
A unique thing about Canada is that, at least of lately, it's possible to argue that incels are a greater terrorism threat in Canada than Islam extremists. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
But "incel" and "Muslim" aren't mutually exclusive. Remember, before he went to Afghanistan and stole a camel, Osama bin Ladin was known as Hassan bin Laid. Cork (covfefe) 18:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah... Our most famous school shootingWikipedia here was perpetrated by a Muslim incel. GeeJayK (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I've mentioned it before and have had quite a few arguments about it, but I'm convinced the majority of Islamist terrorists are suffering from some form of sexual frustration, whether that's because they simply can't find a girlfriend/wife, they are gay and believe themselves to be monsters in need of redemption, or are rape victims who view themselves as permanently tainted and want to purify their souls somehow.
It's not the only broad category of reasons, of course, but my conjecture is that one of the reasons for Islamist terrorism being more frequent than others is because men are at a disturbingly high risk of being raped in many Islamic societies such as Iraq and Afghanistan. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, NO, SERIOUSLY Another reason being polygyny, which appears to increase the relative rate of violence in society. Cork (covfefe) 19:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Trying to reduce the cause of anything to a single factor (ie reductionism) is always shoddy scholarship at best, Cory. Oxyaena Harass 19:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @GeeJayK The reason the original KKK vanished was because most of their goals had been accomplished. There was simply no need for a KKK to exist anymore, they had reversed most of the effects of Reconstruction to begin with. Oxyaena Harass 19:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Also to pretend that Europeans don't commit terrorism is bollocks and Islamophobic. Need I bring up the vast plethora of hate crimes committed against Muslims in both Europe and America since 9/11? Hell, Anders Behring Breivik is just one example of a white, European terrorist committing terrorism against Muslim populations. Oxyaena Harass 19:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hell, to take Northern Ireland as an example (which is in Europe), most of the terrorism committed there to this day is by mostly various Republican and Ulster Unionist groups (who are, again, white European Christians and not, say, Muslims). Y'all seriously need to critically examine your own assumptions about a lot of subjects. Oxyaena Harass 19:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
1) I specifically said it wasn't the only reason.
2) If 90% of the people are committing 50% of the violence, that doesn't mean they are as equally culpable as the 10% that are committing 50% of the violence.
3) The first Klan ended in 1871. Reconstruction ended in 1877. Cork (covfefe) 19:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Most of their goals had already been accomplished by the time Reconstruction officially ended. And you're saying that Muslims as a whole in Europe are responsible for 50% of the violence? You're saying all European Muslims are responsible for a significant chunk of the violence in Europe. How is that not Islamophobic? Oxyaena Harass 19:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I thought it was clear Iwas talking about the Third Klan when I said it "became so weak nowadays". Also, as far as I know, despite his Islamophobia, Breivik's target were members of the Norwegian Labour Party. Not only Muslims. I think what Cory is trying to say is that Muslim terrorist attacks are, on average, more common today than Christian attacks, not that the later is not also a problem. GeeJayK (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
This varies by location; I would argue that in America, the threat from domestic right-wing terrorism is actually greater than Islamic terrorism at the moment. I would say "sexual frustration" has nothing to do with most terrorism (bar the incels), it's usually a mixture of politics and/or tribalism (which of course is related to each other). Often a touch of doomsday cultlike fanaticism as well... in fact, on occasion (like when religious cults commit terrorism ala Aum Shinrikyo) it might be the *primary* reason. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, White Nationalists currently cause more total damage in the US than Islamists, but White people also make up something like 75-80% of the population. Muslims are 1% of the US population. Cork (covfefe) 20:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Sure. Of course, this perhaps can be partially explained by the high-percentage of not-always-very-friendly military adventures the United States has engaged in the Middle East. I can't think of an Islamic terrorism incident over here involving a Punjab, Malay, Turkish, or Indonesian... the wacky world of oil sheik politics or Israel politics does not pertain as much there. (There was one Chechan Muslim attack in the 2010s, that was a bit different.) The other partial explanation, of course, is that Islam unfortunately has some very strong fundamentalist sects, the type that produces that sort of doomsday cult fanaticism that mixes well with terrorist activity. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
All three Abrahamic religions inspire endless violence and fanaticism. Only 25 years ago the Balkans were ravaged by Christian and Muslim conflict and Belfast is still recovering from sectarian divide. Lebanon was also destroyed by Christian and Islamic conflict. And before Christian Europe secularised Christianity went pretty fucking nuts with extremism. Muslim countries which have secularised see very little extremism (think Albania, Azerbaijan and to a much lesser extent Turkey). It is not Islam in particular, it is the monotheist Abrahamic faiths that inspire absolutely fucking deranged violence and extremism when not kept in check by secularism. ShabiDOO 21:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Oxy you often tend to argue about things that nobody is arguing about. I don't see anywhere, where anyone claimed that Muslims are responsible for all terrorism in Europe and that Europeans do not commit terrorism. Having said that, in Western Europe in the 21st century if a bomb goes off you can confidently bet money it was a Jihaddist attack. CorruptUser, I also never said that the Iraq war was the only cause of Jihaddism in 21st century Europe. There used to be PLO bombings and hijackings in the 20th century. Having said that, despite Europe's colonialist past and large muslim populations in some countries and large cities, Jihaddist attacks were pretty uncommon before the year 2000. They started happening with alarming frequency once America's oil adventure started in Iraq and became a fact of life once that spilt over into Syria and the emergence of ISIS. This is but one of the many fallouts of America's ghastly second invasion of Iraq (I believe the daily nightmares were much worse in Syria and Iraq). It has so destabilised the Middle East, which was already terribly destabilised, the ripple effects it cause go far beyond just more frequent Jihaddist attacks in Europe. ShabiDOO 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh great, here we go with the reddit atheist religion bashing. Oxyaena Harass 21:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm tending to agree with you about Iraq and European terrorism... Cork (covfefe) 21:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
i am wondering if the uptick in jihaddist attacks is as much to do with the internet as it is any particular cause. would it be as bad it is if we were all still on dial up and took all night to download a 15 minute porn clip? how would radicalisation take place without internet? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
If the terrorists had Twitter, we'd have some bizarre photos from the cockpit. "Me about 2 crsh this plane! Death to America!" #AlluhahAkbar #FreeBritney
Side note, ever watch The Expanse? The backstory is basically the Age of Imperialism, in space. The first three seasons are about the Cold War, and space sure is fucking cold up there. The next 3 seasons are about The War on Terror. In space. The next three books seem to be something about Chinese super-soldiers, I guess the writers are now making a hypothetical guess about what Earth will be post War on Terror? But there's no plans to make seasons 7-9, yet, considering there's a time-skip of about 30 years and so all the actors would be replaced. Plus one of the main cast members sexually assaulted dozens of women so they had to fire him, complicating any adaption...Cork (covfefe) 21:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Shabidoo I'm really tired of people assuming the PLO are Jihadists when they're an explicitly secularist organization. I'm also really tired of people conflating Palestinian nationalism with Islamism as if the two are the same thing. They're not. Hell, not even all Palestinians are Muslims, a substantial amount of them are actually Christian and a fair few are also Jews. Oxyaena Harass 21:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Oxy the PLO suicide bombs were a produce of Islamic radicalism. The largest faction of the PLO was Hamas, an organisation that completely supported Jihad. Christian population amongst Palistianians is small (like at most 2%) and ALL Jihadism is both political and religious. Your appologetics of Islamic extremism and terrorism is baffling Oxy. ShabiDOO 21:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
As for the internet: Jihadist suicide bombs bombs and extremism were a common reality in Israel for a long time well before the internet existed and 9/11 happened well before social media existed and youtube was commonly used. Radicalism was also a major force behind the worst parts of the Lebanon war, again, well before the internet. Wahabbism was developing throughout the 20th century and extremism in Afghanistan was already a serious problem well before the 21st century. I agree that the tools of the internet certainly make radicalisation easier. ShabiDOO 21:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hamas was actually helped founded by Israel to counteract the secular PLO. No, this is not a conspiracy theory. See here. I'm not apologizing for Islamic extremism. Palestinian nationalism is a matter of national liberation. Oxyaena Harass 22:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes of course an organisation which supported Jihad and sent suicide bombers who called out Alahu Akbar before blowing themselves up was entirely political and had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Of course Oxy. ShabiDOO 22:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hamas bad. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Israel worse. Oxyaena Harass 22:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!! You're so cute that you think there's good guys there. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Oxy, I am extremely sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians and I agree the continued occupation and dismal treatment of Palestinians is awful, worse with Israel slowly picking away at their land is absolutely fucking bonkers (how the state can claim to be a moral actor while doing that and claim to be a champion of democracy and human rights while they exclude people based on religion and blatantly discriminate based on religion is beyond my comprehension). None the less random murdering of civilians is reprehensible under any circumstance. There are countless occupied people around the world that do NOT engage in random murdering of non military targets and general terror. If it is bad when the US recklessly dropped bombs on civilians in many conflicts and when Axis powers randomly killed civilians just for the shit of is bad regardless of the end. And it is bad for the same reason as doing so while living under unfair conditions. You should not qualify any form of terrorism and random murder of civilians with ANY argument like "oh yeah well they are mistread" or "the other people are also bad" or even "it's complicated". It's never complicated enough to murder random non-military targets. Or try to dismiss the religious element involved when it is CLEARLY there. ShabiDOO 23:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hamas wouldn't exist if it weren't for Israel, so yeah, Israel's worse. @GrammarCommie Where the fuck did I say that I think there are any "good guys" in this situation? Oxyaena Harass 23:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
You're simping (is that how this word is used? I feel old) for Hamas. I piss on both Hamas and Likud (not Israel, a varied mass of people), with zero need to apologize for either. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Oxy as a pansexual defending Hamas, it's not like Islamist groups are throwing LGBT people off buildings. Yes, Likud is bad, but at least it's not kahanist. Monet talk 06:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
They still perpetuate apartheid, so they're hardly any better. Oxyaena Harass 08:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
If my history serves me correctly, Israel was founded as an "iron lance" that the British Empire would use to shatter the Arab liberation movement in their colonies by dividing them as to whether the Jews should be expelled or whether the land was justly Jewish. It should no longer seem suprising that they still carry out the puropse it's master set for it, just now without it's master. An Advocate (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think one good and important change is how the so called "rape culture" waned. I remember that in the TV adaptation of Ace Ventura there was a forced kiss scene. Basically, a woman was sent to kill Ace, but he forceful kiss her. Later in the episode, she falls in love with Ace and saved him. That was in a cartoon, for children. On the WaterfrontWikipedia has a very similar scene and it took literally decades for people to understand that the rape scenes on other classic movies like Gone with the WindWikipedia and GoldfingerWikipedia weren't ok.

We hardly ever see this blantant normalization of violence against women in mainstream, newer movies.

Also, do they still make cartoon adaptations from successful movies? I can remember of many others on the period: The Mask, The Mummy, Jumanji, Ghostbusters, and more adult stuff, like Robocop and James Bond, just to name a few adaptations we've got during the 80s and 90s. GeeJayK (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, Disney movies still get turned into tv shows, but it's not like the days when someone said "Hey, Beetlejuice is a popular live action movie, let's make it a kid's show!"
As for rape culture and whatnot, there was a time when the Pepe Le Pew cartoons were actually feminist. Pepe is a smelly French rapist, and it's clear Penelope doesn't want his advances. That's the point, that it's wrong that he doesn't know to back off. Also, fun tidbit, originally he's American and only pretending to be French, and has a wife and 2 kids. His first assault victim was actually a man. Yet, you never seem to hear complaints about Pepe being a negative depiction of bisexuality. Cork (covfefe) 16:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Problems with Pronouns[edit]

I'm writing background lore for my sci-fi setting and keep running into this same problem. The issue is that a large group of the population are genderless robots, and using they/them/theirs is vague. An example: "The admiralty wanted to remove the upstart in their ranks. They decided to station Junius and their fleet at the remote colony world of Bevin-3, where they would be unable to gain fame through valor and conquest." The problem with the "their" is that it isn't obvious if it is the admiralty's fleet or Junius' (it is Junius'). The problem with the last "they" is that it isn't obvious if Junius or Bevin-3 would be unable to gain fame through valor or not (here Junius is being referred to again). It would be so much easier if Junius was a male or something so I could just use his/he for those two cases. The problem is that while he/him/his/she/her/hers only ever refers to a single person, them/them/theirs can refer to people, objects, organizations, groups of people, or abstract concepts. I feel like if I started throwing around ve/ver/vis only like a fifth of people would know wtf I'm talking about, and if I made them all "hims" and "hers" it wouldn't make sense why they are picking genders for themselves when the entire concept of sexuality is meaningless to them. Does anyone know of any authors or books/publications which have found an elegant way to deal with this problem? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns in general are confusing.
"Sally met up with Sarah. She said something nasty, and then she punched her. The fight lasted for quite some time, and she ended up in a coma. She visited her in the hospital, but she died a week later. She was charged with murdering her, and now she faces up to 40 years in prison. She regrets what she did to her".
That's why I hate speaking with my mother, because she overuses pronouns to the point that no one can understand what she is saying. Cork (covfefe) 16:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the second "they" is pretty clear in referring to Junius, as previous sentences were discussing how Junius was a thorn in the admiralty's side. I'd ordinarily suggest finagling with the sentence structure and increasing the number of nicknames or descriptors (for example, with the caveat that I don't know your worldbuilding so I don't know if this is apt: "The admiralty wanted to remove the upstart in their ranks. They decided to station Junius's fleet along with its arriviste captain at the remote colony world of Bevin-3, where they would be unable to gain fame through valor and conquest.") but I imagine you're doing a lot of that already.
Either way, yes, anaphora can be confusing. It's actually considered one of the next Turing tests. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
So use the names more often - eg "The admiralty wanted to remove the upstart in their ranks. They decided to station Junius and their fleet at the remote colony world of Bevin-3, where Junius would be unable to gain fame through valor and conquest.". Reading a SF novel series at het moment where ve/viz/ver is commonly used - so far I'm not actually sure whether the subject is male, femail or robot!! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC).
In the example you have given you don't need the first "theirs" at all. "The admiralty wanted to remove the upstart in their ranks. They decided to station Junius and the fleet at the remote colony world of Bevin-3, where Junius would be unable to gain fame through valor and conquest." Presumably the existence and ownership of the fleet would have previously have been made clear to the reader.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@BobI know I didn't have to use their and they in that context, my point is that I could have used his/he in that context, but can't with their/they. Of course there are ways to get around it, but I was complaining about how the options for pronouns are worse than if it was a gendered character.
@Aloysius the Gaul what book is it? If it is a pretty successful book series that might give me the confidence that people would be familiar with ve/vis/ver. Also in my case I am not writing a novel, I am writing background lore for a pen and paper game. Having succinct descriptions of events is important, and repeatedly using the character's name could make it take up too much space. Depending on the final format of the book, Junius' story might only be an index card sized bordered rectangle at the corner of the page on the Bevin star system. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
If you want to see how another author has treated the issue then read the "Culture" series by Ian M Banks. Sentient AI's (frequently warships) make up a large part of many stories. It's been a while since I read the series, but I don't recall him having any pronoun problems.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Using 'ze'/Swedish 'hen' or some equivalent may be appropriate in this context - 'X (robot) looked at Y (person) "Lorem ipsum" ze said.' After a few uses the reader will have no problem.
Possibly relevant SF writers groups on FB might be more useful. Anna Livia (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@MirrorIrorriM -
Eh? If them robots are really genderless perhaps you should use "it." I assume a genderless robot would not be insulted, after all, they are only objects. Do these robots have feelings? If so, was that a good idea? UncleKrampus (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems that Lithuania might recognize the Taiwan government with new de facto Taiwan office[edit]

I will not say that Lithuania will truly recognize Taiwan but it is looking possible. I hope so (probably out of my complete dislike for the People's Republic of China). I don't believe that I am being petty over the issue as the PRC is happily engaging in genocide or at the very least, ethnic cleansing. I hope other countries will stand up to the PRC and tell it to piss off. Dictatorships won't last forever considering the fall of many communist and fascist nations in the past. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Everyone expected the Cold War to last forever, and only ended because of Chernobyl. There's no guarantee that the same will happen to China. Or perhaps it has happened; COVID has some parallels considering how hard China pushed to keep everything quiet until it was far too late, and it's only a matter of time now. But, maybe not. The lockdown hurt China in numerous ways, but it hurt other countries just as hard. Cork (covfefe) 18:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll be honest, it's the first time I've heard that Chernobyl was the reason the cold war ended. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Here's that claim made by Mikhail Gorbechev. Cork (covfefe) 21:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Basically, the containment bankrupted the USSR and turned entire swaths of some of the most productive farmland in Europe into a wasteland. The disaster and exposed coverup ruined the legitimacy of the government to its citizens, which meant more support for those trying to leave the union or otherwise revolt. Cork (covfefe) 21:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I've seen that claim a few times but I didn't realise it was taken not only at face value but seriously too. I was under the impression that the Soviets had already realised that the arms race in the Cold War was if not already it was going to bankrupt the state. The whole Reagan lunacy of the SDI project and it's funding was more a wake up call. Not to brush aside the events of Chernobyl. But, Gorbechev's changes to the economic system, positioning away from a State Capitalist Dictatorship towards transparency (Glasnost) and restructuring (Perestroika) more inline with other Western capitalist states was what truely ended the Soviet project, as for the Cold War, I suspect in the long run, it may have taken a break and is creeping back. Plenty of old school Soviets feel utterly betrayed by what happened following Glasnost, and the closure of the KGB. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I blame GHWB and Clinton for missing a huge opportunity for outreach and so forth to prove to Russia itself that the US was never its enemy. There should've been a "Marshall Plan 2.0", give Russia a few billion/yr in foreign aid to stabilize their governments contingent on honest moves toward democracy, inspection and investment in infrastructure, expanding of industries, etc. Cork (covfefe) 22:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The arms race was unnecessary, Republicans love to claim that Raegan's overspending on a bloated military killed the Russians but it was utterly irrelevant; when it comes to the nuclear equation, 100 nuclear bombs and 100,000 nuclear bombs are the same number. And that's if you don't factor in that more bombs means more chances of a colossal fuckup, as the US did accidentally drop a nuclear bomb on itself. So the US could spend all the billions in the world, and Russia was in the same position as before. Cork (covfefe) 22:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Was SDI about building more bombs? (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Strategic Defence Initiative Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, but my point was asking if "[Reagan's] overspending on a bloated military" being useless because 100 bombs and 100,000 bombs are similar is a good description of SDI? It seems like SDI was less "build more bombs" and more "develop [or pretend to develop] an anti-bomb" (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The news story means that a "Taiwan Representative Office" will be opened in Lithuania and a place that will probably be called something like "Lithuanian Trade and Investment Office" will be opened in Taiwan. Since the WTO recognizes Taiwan as a separate area, China has to allow Taiwan to have trade offices in other countries (even in Hong Kong and Macau) and other countries to have trade offices in Taiwan. Those trade offices act as unofficial embassies in the absence of diplomatic ties. You can contact your country's trade office if you have any troubles in Taiwan. Sometimes they have names that refer to cultural exchange as well. The American one is called the American Institute. The British one is just called the British Office. I've renewed my passport through the British Office in Taipei.

The news story does not mean that Lithuania will be severing diplomatic ties with China and recognizing Taiwan instead. Although, if I remember rightly, Lithuania was the one country in the world that tried to have full diplomatic ties with China and Taiwan but China wouldn't allow it. Spud (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you know any devoted Christians that you appreciate?[edit]

I'm not talking about like family, but like Christians that actually love thy neighbor instead of justifying their bigotry as "Biblical". An example I can think of on the top of my head is Sufjan Stevens. I recently listened to "Illinois" for the first time and that album was one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard. It has a lot of biblical themes to it, but it's not polarizing to anyone else because of how relatable it is to a lot of us. "Casimir Pulaski Day" had me in tears because it reminded me of my papa that died of lung cancer in the winter 10 years ago. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 07:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr Rogers? Cork (covfefe) 07:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Sure. Why not? One of my best friends is a Christian and she is a really lovely person. A better person than me for sure. On the other hand she has some pretty "out there" Christian beliefs including that Christ was not the son of God. But she self-identifies as a Christian and I'm not going to tell her she can't be.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Klavan. Roman Sionis tends to be inactive during summer 15:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 18:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Desmond Tutu. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Vince Lombardi. He was very adamant about integration and gay rights because of his Catholic faith. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I could find some devoted Christians I appreciate, I could also find conservatives and cops I appreciate. This question is pointless, because anything good I could say about those people would be in spite of those traits not because of them. VerminWiki (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I know any actual Christians. Lots of Buddhists thoughAMassiveGay (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Gauss, Newton, Gödel—the Trinity. LeucippusJodie Foster made me do it! 20:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
others: Heisenberg, Pauli, and Alonzo Church (who first proved the decision problem). For a more contemporary choice I’d pick Cormac McCarthy: I don’t know if he’s actually Christian (he was raised Catholic), but he uses the bible as a rich source of metaphor and to inform his gripping, powerful prose LeucippusJodie Foster made me do it! 20:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Gregori Mendel anyone? Being religious is not in itself an inherently bad thing. Remember, Fundamentalists don't worship God, they worship themselves. Equally important to remember, arbitrary and confusing rules don't exist to make you better, but to keep you too busy to question anything. Cork (covfefe) 20:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I thought the question was more about who you personally know rather than listing every Christian you can think off. That could take awhileAMassiveGay (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Best alternate history video game- Wolfenstein.[edit]

It is a very gorey bloody good time bringing down Nazi scum.

Okay, it is the only alternate history video game that I know of. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought the soundtracks and gunplay in the Machine Games Wolfenstein games were excellent. The Fallout series is set in the future, but based on an alternative history in which Atomic Age technology become much more widespread and the Silicon Age didn't happen. Some of the games in that series are pretty good. (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
To me, Wolfenstein was always Wolfenstein 3D, which basically invented the FPS, and then the company decided to cannibalize their own code from W3D to create DOOM, solidifying themselves as the gods of FPS... until Half-Life of course. Sure, Ultima UW technically did more and sooner, and was simply put a much "smarter" game, but W3D was the simpler "ok, here's a gun, who cares about story, just shoot some Nazis!"Cork (covfefe) 05:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Kirov reporting (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't Bio-Shock also be considered "alternate" history too? Assassins Creed? Chaos Engine? Shadow Hearts? Metal Gear Solid? I'd say you probably know far more alternate history games than you think. Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Don't forget Deus Ex.
Command and Conquer: Red Alert takes place in a timeline where Einstein uses time travel to assassinate Hitler, which results in Stalin becoming an unstoppable power. This paves the way for Yuri to become the main villain of the Tiberium Wars, or something. I think they gave up on C&C:RA being a prequel to C&C with the first expansion pack. Oh man, I do miss me fighting giant radioactive ants...
In more recent years, there's Frostpunk, which takes place in Victorian England during an ice age, though I haven't played that. Looks cool, just for the fan rap-song. Heave lads! Ho lads! Are our hearts cold or just cold-hearted? So pray to your lord or your foreman, that the sun might rise in the morning! They told us Hell was warm, but our empire fell for shelter from the storm. Cork (covfefe) 18:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Who is John Sullivan?[edit]

Conservative keep saying shit like he was responsible for the Capitol Riot. Who is he? (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

John Sullivan? Isn't he an "as seen on TV" guy? An Advocate (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The BoN is referring to this: [1] UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
There's a whole Wikipedia articleWikipedia on the guy. He's one of the few protesters with any sort of leftish connections (tenuous, he did latch onto Black Lives Matter, but no one -- BLM or Proud Boys, which he also seems to have some connections with -- seemed to like his shitstirring very much. I would call him a mere Rebel Without a Clue, with more emphasis on the "without a clue" part than usual). Of course, this means that the Trump Deflection Engine goes onto hyperdrive because, surely if one guy in the riot has a BLM connection, it's all antifa's fault or something. Meh. We all know the instigator of the riot was Angry Baby Without a Clue and his Russian tool "America's fallen mayor", anyways. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
First acknowledged heavyweight boxing champion, and last major bare knuckle fighter. In his case, the right wing media may be on to something. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Guy I went to school with and who started an apprenticeship the same company and time as me without either of us realizing it. Haven't seen him for over 40 years... why... what's he done?? :) Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm getting my first Covid vaccine tomorrow[edit]

So if I don't edit tomorrow or for a few days after that, it'll be because I'm feeling a bit under the weather after getting it. I'm sure I'll be fine and even if I'm not, it will be a small price to pay. I'm cock-a-hoop about getting the jab. And since private language schools in Taiwan will be allowed to reopen from tomorrow, providing that all the staff have been double vaccinated for at least two weeks, I'm a step closer to getting off Zoom and going back to teaching face-to-face. Spud (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice. I didn’t have any side affects when I got mine, but I know everyone’s different. Hope it goes fine. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 13:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Great news Spud. My first shot laid me low for a day and a half. Had my second yesterday and just got a sore arm. Good luck!
Moderna here. First shot was a sore arm, like, someone had punched it the night before. That's what happens when you inject fluid and stretch the muscle fibers, of course. 3 days later it was fine. Second shot was the same thing, except 24 hours later I was exhausted. But I survived.
Plus side, Moderna has the highest effectiveness vs the Delta Variant, so, yay for that.
Ugh, what we need to do is open up all the nightclubs but only for those who've been vaccinated. The doormen are allowed to be as rough as they want; if the person makes ANY arguments about why they shouldn't be required to get the vaccine, they get sent to either the back or booted out of the line entirely. There's too many customers and not enough establishments that the places can afford to simply filter out all the assholes. Cork (covfefe) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Happy to hear it. To be honest, I'm somewhat surprised you hadn't gotten one already. I received my first Pfizer shot in late May and will get the second in just over two weeks. I was under the impression that you are fair bit older than me, but maybe Taiwan has had difficulties getting the vaccine.
Taiwan tried the close-the-borders tactic, which was initially successful, but apparently airline personnel brought the virus in anyway. Consequently, Taiwan has been slow to vaccinate and has not had enough vaccines. Bongolian (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, great news things are moving up for you. All the side-effects I got from the first shot was a sore arm for two days. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 16:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the 5G zombie club! --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Pfizer kicked my ass for like 16 hours after the first one. Drink lots of fluids.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Astrazeneca gave me three days of fever. Good luck. GeeJayK (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
MODERNA GANG. MODERNA GANG. Anyways, I remember posting here when I got both doses. Since, I'm type 1 diabetic, I'm already used to getting shots in the arm, so the worst that can happen to me is it being very sore. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 18:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely NO effects from either Pfizer jab. Scream!! (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Mild temperature after my second jab. Pfizer I think. Don't know didn't askAMassiveGay (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Little bit light headed the morning after I had the Pfizer jab, other than that, no noticeable side effects. To be honest, I’m surprised with you Spud, you being a junky and all … you, Begbie, Sick boy and Renton, must of shot up loads back in the day. LeucippusJodie Foster made me do it! 19:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Getting my 1st shot in about 6 hrs.... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
So, umm, I need a new computer chip. Can I have the one that comes with your vaccine? Cork (covfefe) 00:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Duinno - why do you want the downgrade - it's only an i, single core, 1 bit, 0 cache..... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Spud, one last thing: before you get the jab, don’t forget to ask the nurses to play Lou Reed’s Perfect Day. LeucippusJodie Foster made me do it! 01:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I took the first of two injections this past Friday. I take the second in just under a month. And I got it... at my local supermarket, a Kroger. It's interesting to get the jab, then buy my Mountain Dew to go with my Moderna, then... well, sleep most of the weekend. Not that that's so unusual, I'm old and nap a lot, but I napped more than usual, so that might be the vaccine's much spoken of side effects... Kencolt (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)\
For me, I had a slight headache in the evening and a sore arm the next day. 1 person I know was in bed vomiting for a week after the first dose, everyone else I know had either mild side effects or no side effects at all. --RWRW (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I've had the jab and I'm feeling great![edit]

So I had my first vaccine about seven hours ago and I'm feeling absolutely fine. No side effects at all. And the jab itself didn't hurt a bit. To get my Taiwanese work permit renewed I have to have an HIV test every year and I've had some right butchers stabbing away at my arm to get the vlood for that in the past. You can also insert your own Trainspotting joke here if you must.

To satisfy the curiosity of @Knight Commander, I'll be 48 next month (you could find that out by looking at my user page). And everything Bongolian said was true. My life had been almost entirely untouched by the pandemic until 18 May this year when Taiwan finally went into "soft lockdown: for the first time. I'm actually surprised I git the first dose this quickly. My name was only put on the waiting list last week.

For a bit of local colour, I had the vaccine on the basketball court of the sports centre at a military academy. I got the jab while looking at a portrait of Sun Yat-Sen and the flag I love so dear. They were playing soothing classical music the entire time. And if you're interested, the vaccine I got was the AstraZeneca one

And then there was talk at my school this afternoon about when some students I haven't seen since May come back in September. It's been a pretty good day. Spud (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Kinda surprised it's only now you've been offered the jab. I was offered mine months ago. But apparently I'm in an at risk Group. Just surprises me whenever I hear some group or other is offered the jab, and I think "they are only being offered it now?'. I think that I was offered it so early when I don't think I should be considered 'at risk' at all has skewed my perception. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Some countries have done better offering the vaccines than others. Around our area (US), it's been pretty much available to most since around, April or so? (I got the second Pfizer shot in mid May.) I understand the UK has been quite good at making the vaccine available as well. Taiwan apparently had less urgency due to avoiding some of the worst of the pandemic, and that seems to have been the case for other countries not slammed by the disease. But some of these countries are making up for lost time now. In other cases, some countries run by Bebê Bravo types have had shitty corrupt government to partially blame for the lack of availability. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, in Kansas we’ve had full availability for adults since May, which is when I got mine. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I got my first jab today too actually. My left arm hurts and I was a bit tired earlier but I feel good. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I've been hesitant to tell anyone, because I'd hate to contribute to the blowback, but when I got my second dose a couple months ago, the immune response caused a minor but persistent chicken pox reactivation that has left me with scabies sores on my mouth and a low grade cough ever since. It's finally starting to recede, but it's been pretty annoying and painful. Still better than dying on a respirator while COVID's active immune-antagonizer proteins cause the same thing, but side effects with a 0.5% prevalence have to hit somebody.  :-/. Maybe if I'd had a chicken pox vaccine instead of chicken pox as a kid... ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Do you mean shingles rather than scabies? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes I think I do. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Got mine - no issues at all - barely felt the injection - other than being 12 minutes after the booked time!! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I have to get blood tests every few months, and I was honestly shocked at how little the initial shot hurt. I’ve only had my first Astra-Zeneca so idk how it is the second time, but for me, it made my normal chronic pain a lot worse. That’s kind of expected tho, bc any amount of muscle pain does that to me. The first day after I was really tired and kinda feverish, but the second day was just like a normal bad pain day, and then afterwards fine! 💖 A S E L A ಮಾತು 💖 01:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The Walgreens people told me to move my arm around afterwards to work the muscle. It worked for both shots, and I only had mild soreness the next day. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Voter ID[edit]

So, I found out the other day, that there's only a single European country (UK) that does not require photo ID to vote. It's basically the norm everywhere. So what makes the US so different from Europe that voter ID would be worse here than in France? In the US, you are legally required to have a photo ID in order to work (I-9 form, for instance), to say nothing of opening a bank account or boarding an airplane. Some states don't require photo ID to buy a gun (seriously, wtf?!), so that's probably a more important issue to focus on, but I really don't understand why it's as controversial as it seems to be.

If the issue is that photo ID costs money, shouldn't the focus instead be, I don't know, making it so that any state that requires photo ID to vote must provide all government issued photo IDs free of charge? Cork (covfefe) 16:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Most countries in Europe have a compulsory national identity card. The UK does not. Neither does the US. Which is why both nations I believe fall back on other documents, such as Social Security numbers (US) or driver's licenses (both). Historically, opposition to national identity cards has come from multiple sides (it's an issue, for instance, which the ACLU and Rand Paul both agree on). Personally, I'd be okay with a national identity card if it was securely designed -- Lord knows that it would be pretty hard to design anything worse than the current identity hodgepodge, and in these computerized times something better is needed. But there's a strong opposition to this.
At any rate I don't think a photo ID voting requirement would be any sort of problem with a decent identification system. It would make things more secure, even, if well designed. But without one, the "information unaware" or those with other issues regarding the ID face barriers to voting. The "political take" is that it affects minorities / Democrats mainly, although I'm not so sure that is the case (too lazy to search if anyone has done a study on this). I do remember a photo ID voter law in Pennsylvania affecting the traditionally conservative Amish and Mennonite communities in that state who have a religious objection to taking photographs, so such a law would need to designed carefully (instead of being a slapdash political talking point) to work well. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
In conversations with others I've tentatively proposed a single federally issued photo ID at no (direct, obviously taxes come from somewhere) cost to the citizen for voting purposes: in one shot it solves the phantom issue of dead people and other non-citizens voting, steps around the BS of closing DMVs in strategic areas to keep one's political opponents from the polls, and prevents people from voting in multiple states. At the time, it seemed like they (being persons largely on the traditionalist end of the political spectrum) were quietly opposed to it for reasons 1 and 2 (1 being the rhetorical red herring they use to excuse losses and 2 being the real reason, their fear of certain demographics exercising their right to vote), but there could be resistance just because it accords power to the federal government normally reserved to the states: it might brush up against the right of each state to decide how it appoints its electors, yadda yadda. And this is leaving aside the religious, primordial fear of the Beast: perhaps this ID is his mark, and ye shall know Tribulation by it? Artificius (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The main problem is what counts as a valid ID. In Texas, for instance, a student ID does not count but a concealed carry permit does. Plutocow (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
A concealed carry license is issued by the state, a student ID is not. I don't know Texas law, but I would hope a CCL already requires having shown proof of residence and identification. As for the Amish refusing ID, let's be honest here. They don't believe the camera steals your soul, they simply ban anything that would enable any Amish child from ever having a chance at escaping from their way of life, and photo IDs along with internet, cell phones, or a high school diploma would allow the kid to get a job other than farm-work and achieve some level of independence. They are the world's most adorable cult, but they are a cult and we shouldn't have to put up with cults. Cork (covfefe) 17:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Since I'm one of those kinds of Europeans who have a national ID, I want to point out that the cost of a national ID is ludicrously cheap for your average citizen. The price for a dutch ID is 64 EUR (doubled more or less if you need one urgently), which sounds like a lot, but it's valid for 10 years, so in terms of budgetary concerns it's not even remotely an issue. You're required to have one on you at all times and law enforcement can ask you for it. It's also a valid travel document for the Schengen area at the same time. A full passport is more expensive but most citizens don't need it. One other thing that I do want to point out is that unlike the US, we don't have an SSN that lets you do a ton of stuff and is a disaster if it leaks. Rather we have a citizen number and a document ID. Together, they're a valid identifaction, so if your ID leaks into places where it shouldn't, you can just replace your ID and invalidate your old one so it's not a problem forever. Some food for thought I suppose. I see no reason why the US shouldn't have a national ID either from my point of view. Techpriest (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know the UK before it was the only EU country that didn't have mandatory identity cards. And in most countries by law one must carry their identity card with them at all times (in most countries it contains a lot of government related and even emergency medical data) They are extremely easy to get and replace and are usually very cheap. It makes requiring voter ID a negligible hindrance to voting. This is not the case in many US states that do not even have identity cards and getting some form of ID which isn't a license (for those who do not or cannot drive) quite a burden. This invariably overly affects marginalised people. Clearly the point of these laws. Any law which makes voting difficult is sinister and the motives behind changing these laws are usually immoral. ShabiDOO 18:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

So it seems like we all agree that we could have a cheap/free national ID and voter ID laws without there being any real issues? Maybe I'll make another poll... Cork (covfefe) 18:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
k, poll added. Are the categories good enough? Other positions that we are ignoring? Cork (covfefe) 18:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that in the US, the conversation around voter ID is mostly about keeping people from voting, specifically black and brown people. While a smaller and smaller segment of people is effected by decades of institutional racism, like not have birth certificates for black babies, or not allowing black people to run birth announcements, and forcing black people to pay excessive fees for basic forms, voter ID functioned as a codeword. Older Black Americans born primarily between 1930 and 1970 in the South were among the ones whom getting an ID was a burden, because they couldn't prove they lived where they lived or they were born where they were born, and the system to get those documents was intentionally unnecessarily difficult and expensive. In the six decades since the racism inherent in this system has been generally dealt with, and the importance of this group of voters has waned with their passing and new voters coming in. My feeling now is that carveouts need to be made, and money needs to be allocated to provide ID's for this group, and a drivers license should be enough to vote. Especially when you consider that Congress passed the Real ID Act in 2005, and has given states multiple opportunities to comply when it went into effect in 2008. However the group of people shouting loudest about being right about voter ID, have generally moved on to other methods to disenfranchise voters, like requiring signature matches, or removing drop boxes, or banning drive-thru voting. I just tend to not people seriously if they are pushing for voter ID's and not acknowledging that there are barriers it creates.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
So then shouldn't the response be to remove those barriers or couple the various voter ID acts with stuff that addresses those very issues? Literally 80% of Americans favor voter ID laws, and the more this is in the news the more out of touch the Democrats seem to be to the average American. So solve it in a way that the dog-whistlers can't complain about without actually sounding deranged; complaining about government not charging for IDs is about as suicidal a position to take as complaining the government didn't raise taxes. Then we can move on to more important discussions, such as water rights or the electric power grid. Cork (covfefe) 19:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there is no need for ID anyways. Voting fraud is exceptionally rare. Since the US doesn't have mandatory ID carrying laws, it is still burdensome for the poorest people to take time off work and go get an ID (even if the card was cheap or free). As poor people are more likely to vote for one party than another, their default disenfranchisement skews the vote more than any voting fraud ever would. Unless the photo ID people made house visits for the poorest citizens or if the government paid the poorest to take time off work to get their ID in order to vote...adding in ID laws would be anti-democratic. ShabiDOO 20:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
On average, there are more poor Dems than Reps, but poor Dems tend to be concentrated in the cities where there's the most access to social services. It's not impossible that restrictive ID laws would hurt Reps more than Dems...
And yes, voter fraud is not likely to be a serious problem. If anyone rigged the vote, it would be the politicians, not the people. From a personal standpoint, I think there should be some filter on who is allowed to vote, and that should be anyone who has their shit together enough to show up on election day, and anyone who picks up the ballot to vote early has their shit together enough. Cork (covfefe) 21:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The thing is @CorruptUser, the GOP has already taken the position that the federal government shouldn't pay for these ID's. When you examine this issue through the lens with they operate, fundamentally the GOP doesn't believe American citizens have the right to vote. Two-thirds of them view it as a privilege which can be denied.[2] You can't negotiate in good faith when one party fundamentally doesn't believe in the primary tenant of democracy.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
But to not negotiate at all, even if the other person isn't acting in good faith, is to lose the public. The Dems need to push for voter ID with federal payments, because right now, the Republicans are making sense to the public even though they have other objectives. It's an albatross around the Dem's necks, but if the Republicans hold it up in congress then it becomes their albatross. Similarly, it's also absolute shit for the Democrats to push to deny Cuban refugees asylum while simultaneously encouraging it for all the other Latinos crossing from the South. It's being perceived as nothing more than blatant electorate rigging, because current Cuban-Americans tend to vote Republican, and it will be used against the Dems in 2022.
And while we are at it, how about increasing student visas by a few hundred thousand people, and also making easier for them to apply for citizenship after attaining a degree? I keep saying it, but the US government is downright insane to not have a near-unlimited cap on student visas, considering that it's basically rich foreigners paying you to both spread pro-American propaganda and take their best&brightest citizens. Cork (covfefe) 22:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
"The public" consists of many sides, and my impression is that the public on the side of nativism and reacts to shit culture war nuggets isn't going to care about any justification for opening borders. It's just furriners to them, and they mad about furriners. And this lot tends to hate universities as well, so bright furriners won't be a convincing argument to them, either, even though you are spot on. I've seen articles that suggest that there has been a negative affect in foreign appeal of US universities during the Trump years for various reasons, including stricter bureaucratic measures on foreign students. A shame if that effect really turns big and permanent, it's one of the US's top assets.
Biden seems to be tip-toeing around Cuba, probably because even among Cuba activists there seems to be a lot of strongly felt opinions in both directions on issues like the embargo. Kind of wish he'd at least reverse Trump's tightening personally.
Everything's so politicized these days, unless you dig into the issue, I think people tend to be for photo voting ID if you are a Republican, and against if you are a Democrat, and for many people they don't have really good thoughts beyond that. The interesting thing is that the Republican push for this though is coming at a time where Angry Baby politics is sort of causing a realignment. Working class whites (particularly in rural locations) are drifting towards Republicans, while white collar suburbia is drifting towards the Democrats. So ID laws might not do what is intented. The biggest shit going that may have some future impact IMHO is laws that some Republican states are making that politicize election boards and secretary of states, making it potentially easier for a future Angry Baby to pull shenanigans. Though hopefully that Cyber Ninjas fiasco in Arizona, which has over the last several months moved from pure farce to batshit insane dumpster fire, discourages that sort of thing. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


Actually, 60% of Democrats are in favor of photo ID. It's higher amongst Ind and Rep, but it's a clear majority for both major parties. Being anti-ID is just bad politics, but being in favor of easy/free ID's may not be. Cork (covfefe) 17:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Over here passport or national ID card required for voting costs about 50€. It lasts for 5 years. I can manage that easily, but I can see how that disenfranchises bunches of people. You can actually get The Social Insurance Institution to pay for it, but it requires jumping through a bunch of hoops. To put it simple, you have to care pretty mightily to put the effort to get your voter ID if you don't have steady enough income to pay for it (which makes it really easy).
I'd prefer free (as in taxpayer payed) national ID cards to solve the problem. But the fact that you can't lose the civic confidence anymore by being convicted is a significant improvement to U.S. system. And you might have to jump through the hoops (and I'd prefer you didn't have to), but everyone still gets to vote in theory. Hell, we have special arrangements for in prison voting. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 18:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Felony disenfranchisement is a separate issue, but I don't oppose it on principle. What I do oppose is it being permanent; if we say you are ready to reenter society, you should be allowed to vote. Cork (covfefe) 18:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Id is needed in to access services like the dole, or starting new job. It usually a combination of passport, drivers license and/or bank statements/gas bill sort of thing. If dont have none those things getting hold one type of id requires other id - you cant get id without the id and if have some its really expensive to renew a passport. It took me months of ballache to get signed on (and the old dear registering me vote far from where i live. Paying the 80+ quid it cost to renew the passport) fuck how you get all that if you didnt have friends + family to help in a crisis. You only need the voting card to vote, that gets sent if are registered to vote in your area. Nothing more on the day than a bit of card board. There pressing need for voter id in uk, no massive election fraud or anything. You could argue for some official gen purpose id, but voting? Aint needed here. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to see a homeless guy with a sign that said "Can't afford the $80 paperwork needed to get an ID in order to work, please help, God Bless!"
It's something I've complained about IRL but not too much here. I don't believe government should ensure every last person is living in luxury, or even comfortably, but rather that absolutely no one is too poor to work. Government should do everything reasonably possible to break the poverty cycle. If you are freezing half-to death in your run-down apartment or suffering from malnutrition or lack of basic medical care or don't have the clothes to even let you get a job, well, you are kind of stuck aren't you?
What I have said before is that the system is cruelly designed to keep people perpetually in poverty. Neither side has any intention of fixing this, Republicans don't want people to be capable of living independently of church, and Democrats don't want people to be capable of living independently of government. "E pluribus unum" is Latin for "Fuck the poor".
I think the difference between us is that, while yes, Racism is still very much a thing, I think today, Racism is a drop in the bucket compared to Classism. Yes, Historic Racism was the original reason Black people's ancestors were forced into poverty, but today it's the entrenched cycles of poverty that keep them there. Break those cycles, and most of the disparity will disappear. Reform public school funding, expand all the public universities and have auto-acceptance for anyone at the top of their school no matter how bad the school is, don't let people simply move to a suburb to avoid property taxes, make it easier for ex-cons to get jobs, stop putting people in prison for low-level first offenses, require minimum wage for prison labor even if those wages get garnished by the state (because if the companies have to pay those wages...), and for the love of Noodles, actually fund CPS. No, seriously, prisons are often warehouses for the kids that CPS has failed. Cork (covfefe) 14:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am Aaron James[edit]

Hello, I am new to RationalWiki. Aaron James (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Alcoholics Anonymous. We have stale donuts and bland coffee over there. Why don't I tell you about what my rock bottom was. So I had spent the weeke-
Oh sorry, was on autopilot there. Welcome! Cork (covfefe) 19:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
My name is Bongo, and I am a listicle addict. Uh… sorry, wrong door. Bongolian (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Evil Atheist Liberal Communist club. We strive to turn everyone fabulous and make people into atheists. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like some county level officials are in hot water[edit]

In my home county, numerous county level officials (all Republican) got extremely large hazard pay checks meant for frontline workers during the COVID pandemic. Actual frontline workers got very small amounts of said money. All this was decided behind closed doors and with almost no public disclosure. These county officials might be in violation of Open Meetings Act. This law means that all county matters are supposed to be publicly disclosed and completely transparent. A Genesee County judge ruled that the county officials had to return the money that were given. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Confessions of a pessimist[edit]

When I was a teenager I was deeply attracted to the ideals of the enlightenment (science, rationality, and scepticism), and the potential they had for transforming society. I believed that political ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism could be compared in terms of being more, or less, intelligent and rational. I believed in socialism; I couldn't believe that people couldn't see how outdated their concepts of society, justice, and equality were—how outdated they all were in contrast to the developments of science. I was convinced that science, reason, and intelligence could both transform and organise society, into one favouring liberal and socialist ideals, where decisions would be made using the best scientific knowledge available.—This, the old cliché itself that has characterised the state of youth for time immemorial.

As I matured (I am 22 now) both emotionally and intellectually I realised, and appreciated, the structure one is born into: I recognised the slowness of change, that socialism is not feasible, that the current "capitalist" economic system is the best we humans can do and is supported by our best science (ideally a Keynesian system with a socdem government). One also realises that there are large hordes of humanity who will never care about science, rationality, art, or culture; about gaining knowledge and improving the world. The world we live in is one in which a significant proportion of any society would rather eat cheeseburgers, play the lottery, have followers on social media, watch tv, and engage in magical thinking (the content has changed throughout history, but the form remains constant). I've learned to tolerate this melancholy fact, I don't expect much to change—but I'll sure as hell continue to try my utmost to change the world for the better and to defend science, reason, and human decency—the world is, in spite of all its horrors, worth fighting for!

I end this bloated rant with a question: what value is there in engaging with people who don't accept basic scientific premises? LeucippusSalva veritate 00:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Modern Mixed-system socialism is not just feasible, it is currently in practice in dozens of countries.
  • Just because many people do not care about science or reason does not make the endeavour important nor keep it from transforming and improving society
  • You are 22. To say that you have matured is perhaps a little pre-mature
  • While it is one thing to be sceptical that radical change will happen, it does sometimes happen, but more importantly we are living in a society that is the result of extreme radical change. Go just about anywhere, anytime in the past and suggest to them that women could openly take part in the governance of a country, that the average citizen could enjoy the quality of life of an aristocrat did in their time, that one of the biggest political issues at the moment is which bathroom transgender people use, that in several countries atheists are in the plurality (and a couple cases majority), that most people have instant and free access to an enormous library of information and that political leaders cannot arbitrary destroy you because they do not like what you said etc and they will think you are a possessed daemon and try to kill you or think that you are crazy and will stick you in a cage and poke sticks at you.
  • Most people do not realise how exceptional it is to live in a country with a long list of (imperfect) rights. This IS the end result of the enlightenment (though certainly made possible by growing wealth...however unfairly it was achieved). Reason and secularism made it possible.
  • There is little value in engaging with people who do not respect the rules of intellectual discourse. Try to show them the value of intellectual discourse ShabiDOO 00:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
"Which scientific premisies?" would be an imbecilic answer, fit for an empty discussion that would go and change nothing. Science, obviously in the thrall of Capital and the State can only provide a magical justification all of capitalist societiy's "limitations" and "alienations". Another said it miles better then I can in "The Conquest of Space in the Time of Power", you should read it, it is barely four (4) pages.
"As I matured" (As if you can mature in any real way beyond child-consumer and adult-consumer). "(I) both emotionally and intellectually I realised, and appreciated, the structure one is born into" (Capitalist society would obviously mold individuals into liking it. Even the most insanely moronic subject would swear themselves sworn enemies to Capitalist society when they witness this, but there seems to be no greater madness then the Capitalist mode of production). I am wasting my breath here. For someone who thinks and acts for the transformation of society, there is no point in listening a second too long to those who find something good, or even merely something worth tolerating in Capitalist society. Even and especially from those anarchists, socialists and communists we who later see prostituting themselves in service of their sworn enemies. An Advocate (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Are you a religious nut? Have you even read Marx? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I am not religious. Yes, I have read Marx. An Advocate (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
So you're aware he argued that capitalism was in fact good in comparison to previous systems, and that further it was necessary for the industrialization of a society. So you're earlier statement is incorrect. Ergo you should formally concede that capitalism does in fact produce some good results, even if it is not itself an optimal system. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
No, he did not say that Capitalism was good in comparison to previous systems, He said, verbatim "that socialism is not feasible". I don't know where you are getting that from. An Advocate (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @ShabidooI don't know what countries you're talking about, but if your talking about Nordic countries they aren't socialists at all. If you're talking about China, well, that's not the most humanist model... GeeJayK (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering Shabidoo is a humanist, It seems more probable that what he means by “mixed-system socialism” is not Cuba or Venezuela, but rather one of the Nordic countries. However, as GeeJayK already noted, the Nordic countries aren’t socialist, they are social democracies. LeucippusSalva veritate 17:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
There are many different kinds of socialism, I would think by this point no one would seriously consider there is one definition of socialism. The world has seen dozens of radically different variations. Several countries in Europe have socialist parties governing them and consider themselves socialist countries. So yes, none of them have economies which are entirely controlled by the people but new industries and weaker industries are protected (EU agreements permitting for EU countries) and regulated and there is a moderate redistribution of income through generous social assistance. So if the statement is: an effective prosperous stable state which which the economy is entirely controlled by people is not possible: then yes I would agree. "Socialism is not possible" is an extremely overly broad statement. ShabiDOO 18:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I've never seen any of these parties considering their countries socialists (although it wouldn't surprise me). I agree that there are many different forms of socialism, but in the end it does boil down at least in part to public ownership of the means of production, and I'm not aware of any western European country where the majority of the means of production aren't private. Most of these countries also have a far better fiscal consolidation than America and UK (most of these mechanisms of fiscal consolidation were created by the social-democratic parties), and their welfare system is far more sustainable. Meanwhile the Chinese tax burden is extremely low, the country has almost no labor rights and most of the population doesn't know any form of welfare state. Does that mean in some aspects US is more socialist than Sweden and China? I don't think so, but it does show how shallow the discussion of socialism vs not-socialism can be. Regarding socialism being impossible or not, well... Of course it is not impossible, Cuba has been a socialist country for 60 years after all. The criticism is that it is (at least in my opinion) a very inefficient system. GeeJayK (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
When I used the word “Infeasible” I meant more precisely that in highly developed nations such as the UK or the US, socialism—with centralised planning, or calculation in kind, or large worker cooperatives that own the means to production—would probably be incredibly difficult to implement in a way that can efficiently meet the needs, and deal with the demands, of the population of a large scale economy. Of course socialism isn’t impossible!—Science changes and is never completely certain. If our best economic theories, in connection with political science and sociology, were to develop in a way that demonstrated socialism’s feasibility, then to blindly cling to capitalism in spite of its obvious faults would be antiscientific and, to quote Popper, would be rejecting a “beautiful dream”. However, our best science has not, as far as I know, demonstrated socialism’s viability. Marxism, which is socialism’s theoretical base, is: unfalsifiable, outdated, effectively disconfirmed by the wealth of historical failures, and mainly occupies the fringe of reputable academics. This user “An Advocate” is precisely the kind of juvenile rebellious radicalism that gives a bad name to mature, sophisticated, left-wing thinkers like GC, who recognise that reform as opposed to revolution, is the practical reality of living in this world. I don’t think anyone who is intellectually honest needs persuading of the attractions of egalitarian socialism—if it can be got-off the ground. LeucippusSalva veritate 20:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@An Advocate Capitalism is an improvement over previous systems follows directly from "the current "capitalist" economic system is the best we humans can do and is supported by our best science". 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 15:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Saying that "Capitalism is better then the systems that preceded it" is irrelevent because the original statement, as I read it, was that (paraphrasing) "the Capitalist mode of production is the best that a society can do and the supremacy of Capitalism is a scientific certainty". An Advocate (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
As a staunch supported of free market capitalism, I personally consider the term "scientific certainty" an oxymoron. GeeJayK (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
It is relevant in the context of your statement "there is no point in listening second too long to those who find something good, or even merely something worth tolerating in Capitalist society". If capitalism is an improvement over previous economic systems, then that is something good found in capitalism. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 15:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
(forgot to put an a inbetween listening and second) For those who think and act in the transformation of society. You missed the preceding statement that makes it for a certain group of people, making it subjective and not objective. From this misunderstanding, I don't think you or GC actually read my comment. An Advocate (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you read your own statement. You argued that no good comes from capitalism. If you misspoke, then simply say so and correct yourself in a later statement. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I definitly read my own statement, and you obviously didn't. My statement, for those with the attention span of a fly, was that, and please read closely: That for those who want to transform society, then (subjectively, remind you) no change eminating from the source of the ills of society can ever bring good to society as a whole. For those who fight in the name of Marx, of Socialism and Communism, and the Proletarian, then there is nothing coming from Capitalism that one can respect. An Advocate (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
"For someone who thinks and acts for the transformation of society, there is no point in listening a second too long to those who find something good, or even merely something worth tolerating in Capitalist society" Don't lie. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
To address your latest series of claims. Please explain to me how misogyny and homophobia (social norms) are rooted in capitalism (an economic system). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not lying, if you think I ment the statement of those who want to transform society having nothing good to say about Capitalist society as an obective one, I ment that as a subjective one: "FOR those who want to transform society", and I definitly have nothing good to say about Capitalist society. As for homophobia and misogyny being rooted in Capitalism, I never made a claim even near such a topic, and I can twist my mind into an interpretation where I could. An Advocate (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@An Advocate " change eminating from the source of the ills of society..." It seems to me that you need to proofread your posts before you submit them, lest you basically argue that capitalism is the source of all of society's ills. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Fine, I will closer read my posts before posting them. I was just angry and ranting at someone making the imbecilic arguement of the victory of Capitalism being a scientific certainty. An Advocate (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Fine then, we'll leave it at that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Critical Race Theory[edit]

Hey RatWiki, I am constantly being bombarded by news about bans on CRT at schools across America. I am trying to understand what the hell CRT even is. What the hell is Critical Race Theory and why is politicians are so angry about it? SixtyNine

In layman's terms- it is a legal-academic study involving a critical examination about racial politics in the United States. An example would be teach an unbiased history of the US. Now the GOP wants it banned because it goes against their nationalist views. Many right wing politicians want things like the Trail of Tears and slavery to be glossed over. It is similar to how religious groups want to shoehorn creationism in schools under science sounding names and terms (Intelligent Design). --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite certain that CRT is most definitely biased. Cork (covfefe) 00:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
CRT is an academic movement saying that American institutions are tainted with racism on a fundamental level. Laws, social norms...all of these play a role in perpetuating racism even if they seem benign. Some of its ideas are influential because the U.S.A is having a lot of deep-seated racism exposed in recent years, but the movement itself is pretty small.
On the other hand, the term itself is mostly used as a boogeyman in popular discussion because a healthy amount of well-off white people are still triggered beyond belief by any discussion of racism that is not skin-deep and overly idealist. Most people ranting about it cannot define it accurately, and these school bans are hilarious because barely any (if any) schools teach CRT. In this case, CRT is "any discussion of racism that offends insecure white people." It's a less vile way of saying "Cultural Marxism."-Flandres (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The function of CRT is a divisive blame-shifting tactic. The despicable, racist evils of the Democratic Party that covertly perpetuate to the modern era are presented as a sin of the entirety of America. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I know I shouldn't bite, but if the modern Democrats are the real racists, then why are Texas Republicanss trying to remove things like why white supremacy and the KKK are morally wrong from the school ciriculum? Plutocow (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Ezekiel 18:20, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Bongolian (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense, not blaming the modern Democrat party for the sins of the Klan. Will you condemn the lie that the Republican party had something to do with it? Dutchbag (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dutchbag Elaborate. What do you mean by "Will you condemn the lie that the Republican party had something to do with it?"? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Bongolian seems to imply that yes, the Klan tradition originated within the Democratic party, but the sins of the fathers don't fall upon the modern Democrats. Yet the Republican party - who were the first victims of Klan violence - get blamed for the Klan, which is a complete lie. Furthermore, there are virtually no lynchings today (maybe one per decade, not one every three weeks as was common as late as the New Deal era), yet lies persist about some kind of connection between the Republican party then, and now, with the Klan. Dutchbag (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dutchbag Start reading. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
C'mon now, you have to do better than that. Bongolian admits the Klan started with Democrats, but you can't blame their kids for the father's sins. However, under the party switch myth, you can blame the kids. Dutchbag (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dutchbag I know you're just spitting off talking points, but show me how it's a myth. Because for some reason the party of Lincoln really likes the Confederacy. And the Nazis. And the KKK... And the KKK likes them right back. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
(ec) At the height of Klan terror in the 1890s, Democrats were lynching one black every three days. By the New Deal up to WWII, Democrats were lynching blacks at a rate of 1 every three weeks. That's progress. When was the last time anyone ever heard of Republicans ever involved in lynchings? Dutchbag (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
It is an out-of-date theory that the nutbar right has bitten into trying to generate racial hostility. It looks like it's not working thank christ. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Why would you say it is out of date? ShabiDOO 02:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Well, that's a good question. First of all, it is a law-based theory and the laws have not remained the same. Secondly, I see it as unscientific, as it is really a legal theory. The condition of Black people is different today, than in the 1970's when all that was going on, the CR movement, the Viet Nam war, the urban unrest, and the historical tangent created by that and more than I know to say. Thirdly, all historical theories are subject to revision, and I don't mean to pick on the fellas responsible for CRT. Fourthly, I don't think much of theories not solidly based in science and am liable to libel any one of them. These are all pretty good reasons, I suppose. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
So far the best summarized explanation I have seen comes from, a site run by academics. It's pretty lefty academic sort of theory, an offshoot of critical legal studiesWikipedia which in itself ties back to the Marx-Freud inspired critical theoryWikipedia. So you get hints of Marxism (from the original critical theory) and the Black PowerWikipedia movement and other 1970s lefty sort of movements.
A theory as nebulous as CRT cannot possibly be confined to the decade it first developed. While it may have its roots in legal theory it has broadened into issues of civil rights not confined to legal issues. Laws have have the scope and details of works written by CRTists. I do not know of any single field of study which has not adapted to social, political, technological and scientific change over the decades. To say democratic theory is out of date would be equally it originated in a political reality we would find almost completely foreign and it was born in the world of philosophy but has obviously not been confiend to just philosophy but broadened into political science, sociology and even economics. ShabiDOO 18:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
At the risk of appearing to be captious, The Standard Model of Social Science itself has been claimed, by some, to be out-of-date. I am intellectually helpless to fend off the likelihood of conclusions born from the dilemmas posed by determinism. Just to address your one example: pure democracy is an ideal, it doesn't exist instantiated anywhere as you know. Our American democracy comes down to us in a corrupted form, and it is in fact out of date.UncleKrampus (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
At any rate, the six points written at this site (taken from a book written by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic on the subject) seem like a good overview of what the acadameic part of CRT is, even though the authors note that the theory is kind of amorphous. The book the site recommends (Critical Race Theory: An Introduction) itself sounds like a good introductory text if you want to go further in depth.
Academia is not as universally far left as the GOP thinks it is, and as notes some of it is provocative even in academic circles. On the other hand, because it is an obscure leftist theory, it has become a general boogieman for the GOP to use to promote the "white grievance" theme that gets the working white class to the polls. Same with promoting the rah-rah "American exceptionalism" view, the GOP paradigm is tied to this and CRT is something the GOP can point to as Bad Folks for not always being a jingoist cheerleader or something.
It's a great boogeyman for the GOP because it was so obscure. Doing something like banning critical race theory from primary schools does nothing, because no primary school was teaching it. Few if any GOP politicians can summarize what critical race theory actually is. They don't need to though. The mere thought of this theory sure has got all those people who spend their life at Breitbart waiting to get pissed off about things pissed off again. And the GOP is all about courting the "I'm not racist but this webshite blog about a Black person is pissing me off because reasons" voter. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I had a look at the 6 points on the site and to be honest, I quite surprise it took so long for the GOP to get so crazy over CRT since it has been around for decades. So I assume it must be all rhetoric. I am honestly not a fan of CRT, since the assumption that all (or most) white people is racist and want to disadvangate people of colour is so stupid. And I say this as a person of colour. SixtyNine
It doesn't say all white people are racistAMassiveGay (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The true leftie left is honestly very weak in the United States, at least for now. Something like Pacifica Radio for instance is truly on the left side of the spectrum, but since its existence is only at a few various urban community radio stations, most people probably aren't even aware of its existence. Better for certain GOP types to attack CNN as supposed commie enemies then, which is laughable. Meanwhile, far right blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and his numerous imitators are easy to find. (From what I remember, the New York Times's 1619 ProjectWikipedia may have been what led the GOP to finally discover this theory, but I can't find any links at the moment.)
I am not a huge fan personally of what I've heard of the academic "critical race theory", which admittedly is Cliff Notes understanding, so I might be wrong. At any rate, it is no secret that tribalism exists and it is no secret that tribalism shapes laws. It is also no secret, contrary to many people's instincts, that "race" is a socially constructed concept. Where it fails for me is its seeming tendency to be a pure black and white American framing, and some overaggressive points that seems to oversimplify how tribalism shapes laws. Critical race theory does not explain, say, the caste system of India, but tribalism does. We've moved in history from where Germans massacred Jews in WWII, as everyone knows, to a point in time where Jewish supremacists in Israel shouting "Death to Arabs" is an actual thing (a small minority thing for the later, but still). Tribalism explains that. Critical race theory does not. Even from a United States perspective, it misses the mark on other minority groups. Asians have had a different experience compared to other American minorities, for instance, and I've heard some voices of dissent from Asian-American minorities on the CRT framing. LGBTQ challenges at first glance seem to be ignored. The challenge is to move beyond primitive ape instincts, and I'm not sure what critical race theory accomplishes in this regard.
At any rate, honestly there really wasn't a need or the GOP to call for bans. Many historians found the 1619 Project meh. Critical race theory had never been mainstream sociology, until now, it was fringe. It would have never gotten anywhere on its own. But it has served the GOP well as a dogwhistle for its racist base. The calls for bans, however, have conversely led to some people to actually consider using critical race theory and the 1619 Project in classrooms. Who knew, eh? For these types of teachers, I think there's a general goal to avoid whitewashing and actually teach that some of the United States hasn't treated minorities well over the years (a "no shit Sherlock" statement considering there was a war fought over exactly that, but I guess a "controversial" one for certain types of people). Even if both of the above are a wee bit meh and maybe overly leftie in this regard, not whitewashing history is a good goal to have. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@PanGalacticGargleBlaster From my understanding of the cliff notes version, CRT posits that institutional racism exists in the United States, primarily in the legal system (because it's a legal theory), and that this affects black people in the modern day. Of course it doesn't address anything else. You might as well ask why the theory of evolution doesn't explain how life or the universe began. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I should probably also mention that CRT is an advanced law course, second or third year if I remember correctly. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should ease back just a little on the left/right dichotomy. Left and right stands as a useful tool for vaguely placing parties in a spectrum but you should be careful and weary of overusing it and overgeneralising. The world's political ideologies and people's own political stances cannot be meaningfully divided into two groups (even if you subdivide those groups into centrist to extreme subgroups). It should work as a starting point barometer, not as a general classification. As for critical race theory, it is a nebulous concept. If you extrapolate more academic and less post-modernist narrative type works, their goal is to mainly normalise recognition of institutionalised racism. This is an extremely worthy goal as institutionalised racism is obviously the case for anyone who dares to look and denial of this is very widespread. Even in countries which have reputations for more tolerance like say Canada or Finland are still suffer from institutionalised racism and you will meet fierce resistance from even progressively minded people if you suggest the extent of that racism. What do they hope to accomplish? Recognition of that this racism is system deep and the motivation to chip away at their roots and slowly reform. The amount of garbage mischaracterisations I have read about CRT, including here is astonishing. The goal is NOT to brand all white people as racist or make white people culpable for past misdeeds (or even current misdeeds). That is what opponents of CRT say to create a boogeyman out of something that shouldn't even be controversial. The only problem with CRT, is that some of the work takes a wishy washy narrative like post-modern approach that deviates from academic rigour, goes too far into relativism or uses evasive lingo and terminology that is hard to read (and possibly overgeneralises) making it difficult to critique. That is certainly not all CRT. It should not be something to be afraid or weary of. ShabiDOO 14:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


The unstated topic is that a lot of this has to do with the Reparations debate. Reparations really do mean all White people are culpable (and Asians and Hispanics too, for that matter). The money doesn't come out of thin air, there's no way to give Reparations that doesn't act as a transfer of wealth from non-Black people to Black people. Cork (covfefe) 17:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
And reparations is one of those inevitably divisive and scary topics that automatically generates a voting bloc in solid opposition. Let's face it, reparations is a political non-starter, even as 'defund the police' is scary and a stupid slogan that you suspect was an opposition plant. And all of my ancestors who weren't in Sweden before 1916 were as far as I can tell 100% Yankee, even as I am 100% Yankee. All who fought, fought for America. My reparations are already paid. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 21:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
As a European, the entire debacle of CRT as a thing is... curious to observe to say the least. From my end, it really reeks of being a manufactroversy. It's not a cause the left was advocating for in any form directly, it was something that the right randomly started whining about a few weeks after Biden got elected. Reminds me a lot of "SJW" in it's stereotype, right down to the fact that I've never seen it used as anything other than a generic scary boogeyman. Techpriest (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser No. It means the US GOVERNMENT is culpable. You know, because it made slavery legal? Because the Government kept slavery legal, enforced it, and protected as an institution. What are you, mentally enfeebled? Are you too stupid to understand that if the government wronged someone, then that wrong should be put right? Is the idea of legal compensation for past wrongs (under the fucking law) too much for your retarded brain to comprehend?!?!? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
You know what? Don't bother responding. Whatever you say is almost guaranteed to be wrong because you won't do the bare minimum to inform yourself on the topic. I fucking regret doing the bare minimum, and even more, since apparently I could have learned nothing and shat verbal diarrhea from my lips while being an absolute poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. Apparently learning shit is now fucking too much of a hassle for RationalWikians... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Plus the government enabled Jim Crow legislation, allowed blacks to be intentionally under-educated, took no action against lynching and race massacres, and used tactics like red-lining to concentrate black people into impoverished ghettos. It’s about a lot more than slavery. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini Thank you for correcting me. Genuinely, than you. I was so pissed I forgot the rest of the shit the US government pulled. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini I'm not disagreeing with you on this, but that's not my point in the slightest. The underlying issue with all the anti-CRT hysteria, and really anything to do with discussions on racism, is that there's a concern the discussion will move towards reparations, which as Smerdis noted is a complete non-starter. Cork (covfefe) 22:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I wasn’t really responding to anyone. I was just noting that the issue of historical mistreatment of black Americans extends far beyond slavery. Many of the crimes committed by this nation against black people happened in post-bellum Union states, too. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Also don't forget that New England used to allow slavery as well, and in terms of the wealth generated by cotton, where exactly do you think the textile mills were? Cork (covfefe) 23:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Which brings me to my broader point, that the legacy of institutional racism is an albatross that hangs on the neck of the entire country. And the fact that the USA beat the CSA does not absolve our nation of the crimes it committed after. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion moving to reparations.... Is that something we should really be concerned about, implied by the language, because on things I worry about in the race relations in the U.S., reparations isn't one. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There is a variety of opinion on culpability for slavery and the Jim Crow era. There would have been cotton mills in New England with or without slavery because cotton was in demand worldwide. Black people helped to build America, but their labor accounted for about 14% of the labor force. Some, not many I hope, think that Americans are descendants of slaves and slave owners. That is trivially false. While slaves were about one seventh of the US population in 1860, there were only about 400,000 slave owners, and a white population of about 27 million. It stands to reason that the Federal government was unable to free slaves in the American south without a fight. Thousands of poor immigrants from Ireland gladly took the Federal bounty of $100 to take up arms and march on the south in the Army of the Potomac. Also, about 100 million immigrants arrived in the US over the 20th century. They may have benefited from the isolation of American blacks. One should keep in mind that the economic hegemony that produced slavery was beyond the influence of working class people. To say now that working people are holding the bag for economic injustices they are not responsible for creating is a weak political hypothesis. UncleKrampus (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@UncleKrampus Who passed the laws? Who allowed the wrongs to occur? The government of the United States of America. Who therefore, is liable? The government of the United states of America. Every one of you who speak out against the idea of reparations betray your ignorance of the topic with every word you utter. How do you solve racist policing? By addressing the entire institution from top to bottom and reforming or replacing it as needed. How do you address gentrification and racist hiring practices? By addressing poverty and income inequality as a whole. How do you think I know all this shit? BECAUSE I READ ABOUT THESE FUCKING TOPICS!!!! I fucking feel like an evolutionary biologist talking to a bunch of creationists. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The only sound argument against monetary reparations is that a lump sum cash payment has no chance of overturning the effect generations of institutional racism is various forms has had on the lives of people living today. The worst you can say about it is that its nowhere near enough. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
True. I feel like that is not brought up enough in these sorts of debates. I would also like to point out truly "leveling the playing field" (as I often see it called) when it comes to racial discrimination would take political action on a scale that...well, "unprecedented" is putting it far too lightly.-Flandres (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Well GC I see you are passionate about these things. What gives with the "ping" thing? It didn't notify me. Some anthropologists claim there is a type of culture that supposes magical explanations for misfortune. I think Ruth Benedict described it in one of her books (Patterns of Culture). e.g., tribes on the Northwest Coast of America, once believed that misfortune was due to witchcraft or the evil doings of ones neighbors. In short, someone else must pay for ones misfortune. It was not uncommon, when there was an unexpected death in a family, for one of the members of that family to go looking for someone to kill as a response to even the score, so to speak. Other tribes, especially in the southwest (Hopi), would explain such events as part of the life cycle. I claim that the men who ratified the US constitution and the men who started the civil war represent the same "government," but also that they are different from the present government. The Immortality of governments has always been a subjective claim. UncleKrampus (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
So you are saying that the US government enslaving hundreds of thousands of people because of their race, and then later governments ensuring a lack of equality from those liberated slaves and then later governments enacting laws which make real justice for black people a challenge...was not necessarily immoral? Are there any circumstances where a government enslaving people because of their not immoral Krampus? ShabiDOO 03:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@UncleKrampus Are you seriously trying to justify not paying one's legal dues with fucking semantics? Have you no fucking standards? Just call black people fucking niggers already and be done with it. Just openly be racist. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Just putting it out there (not directed at anyone in particular)... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
If intellectual honesty meant spewing as much mindless profanity as possible at people who don't agree with me, I'd be a tenured professor somewhere. Not that I'm immune to it or anything. I actually have a history degree, so I know how to do research. Just like you, I am not a god among men, so I don't expect people to unequivocally agree with everything I say. And if I'm off to hell, perhaps I'll run into you there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The Blade of the Northern Lights is recommending a book (How to Win Friends and Influence People) that teaches people to feign interest in others so as to "screw things out of them" (Sinclair Lewis), and was wildly popular in Nazi Germany.[3] I read it… it sucked. Bongolian (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
It is pretty dull, actually, but like 1984 worth it to read just so you can say you did. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie You really need to check your tone. You are seriously sounding like your are in a tamtrum. We are trying to have a civilised debate and you are ruining it. In my opinion, I seriously don't think it will be possible to send reparation for actions for things that happen over 150 years ago is a bit much. Should Rome send reparation to Carthage over the genocide in 146 BC? - SixtyNine

Anyone else wan to fucking pick at my tone? Or strawman my explicitly laid out position based on actually reading up on what reparations are? Speak up. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Less than a minuteWikipedia. That's how long it took to pull up an overview article from Wikipedia. But of course, Wikipedia is the neutral encyclopedia anyone can edit. Here's one two opinion articles laying out positions similar to my own. Oh wait, there's actual debate about how this idea should work? Wow, maybe you'd all know that if you read up on it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't want read self harm ideation again. Stop, all of you. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course I would love to hear GrammarCommie response to this but if I make a rebuttal, GC will block me again. But anyway, why should we do reparations for things that happen 150 years ago. Why don't Rome send reparations to Carthage? Instead of bring people of different people together it will be drive people apart. SixtyNine

I’m not into reparations as a concept, but I need to point out that this wasn’t 150 years ago. People are today living in ghettos that the government deliberately kept in poverty. Victims of the Tulsa massacre are alive today. People who were brutalized under Jim Crow are alive today. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 04:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
True, the Wikipedia article that GC shows is for reparations for slavery, not for Tusla or the Jim Crow laws. I would like to see reparations for those events since people TODAY actually experienced it then their great-great-great grandparents or something. Though the Tulsa massacre happened over a 100 years, I am not sure what reparations they could be. I mean all that alive today were kids when that event happened. They didn't owned any property. So I assume mental health services SixtyNine,Discussion
I’d be wholeheartedly against delivering a check to people just based on their skin color. However, I also think that the government needs to direct funding to historically redlined places like South Chicago or East St. Louis (both also the sites of race massacres) in order to help uplift the populations from poverty. You can’t change the past, but maybe we can stop the past from shadowing the future. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 04:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I definitely support getting people out of poverty and focusing on areas that have been disadvantages like buliding public infrastructure like schools, libraries and colleges. However, I don't think slavery reparations will do anything except bring 150 years of history back into the present. Plus the government of 1860 isn't the same as it is in 2020. The world has came a long time since slavery ended and Jim Crow laws have ended SixtyNine
And I agree something needs to be done, but both Affirmative Action and Reparations are too blunt. As someone said here or elsewhere, it should be class-based Affirmative Action. The current system of AA is broken because if you have two Black kids and one gets sent to prison because of a broken justice system, it's the other kid that gets a leg up in getting into a top school or a good job while the first kid can get fucked as far as the system is concerned. Cork (covfefe) 04:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I've said this before, but I think that employers should have a bit more immunity from the actions of employees with a criminal record. What I see happening is if an employee has a record, and there's an incident with a customer, the record is brought up as "proof" the employer created a problem. So even though the employee might've been a good candidate, too bad, the company doesn't need the aggravation. This is also why any time there's any sort of "incident" in a minimum wage job, the employee tends to be fired, because if there is a second "incident", well, there's a paper trail. Just imagine if the police were this overzealous in firing cops, but they have qualified immunity. So if you protect the employers, they start hiring ex-cons, and then the revolving door that is prison is smashed and maybe we could get the prison population down to 6-figs again. Cork (covfefe) 04:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"Why doesn't Rome give reparations to Carthage" is a pretty dumb red herring. Mainly because the Roman Empire hasn't existed for centuries, with the last remnant dying out at 1453, while the U.S. government of today is very clearly the same entity that profitted off of slave labor around 150 years ago. Plutocow (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You're still buying into a flawed premise @Plutocow. As @DuceMoosolini was correct in reminding me earlier, it's a lot more than slavery. @CorruptUser So all the policy proposals I laid out are too blunt to handle over 300 years of abuse? Or maybe you're arguing against a strawman again. Maybe you should argue against my actual positions, rather than whatever bullshit keeps popping into your head. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The easiest solution to this sort of topic is programs designed to help reduce inequality overall. Any fair policy in this regard will likely "lift the boats" of African Americans in greater proportion due to the historical injustice. Politically, due to lingering racism, I think many "reparations" actions that would specifically target African-Americans would not "sell" well unless you can find solutions akin to some programs for Native Americans, like the Alaska Native Claims Settlement ActWikipedia, where public opposition was not too strong. I can't think of any personally that would work. At any rate, since the US's high Gini coefficient is also a big problem, programs to help reduce inequality would help solve multiple issues at once (including other non-Black minorities with historical issues). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@PanGalacticGargleBlaster You're telling a political nerd something he already knows. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
My position is based around countering abstracted and technical racism. To reference Lee Atwater, I'm not basing my positions on policy around people saying slurs, but around laws that are subtextually racist. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
You told me specifically not to bother responding to you. So for the most part, I won't. Cork (covfefe) 13:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of text. Does anyone else have trouble getting notified? GC has pinged me a couple of times and I have not been systemically informed. By the way GC, I am impressed with your fervor. Am I mistaken or did you not state, here in the Saloon sometime last year, that you were opposed to reparations for various practical reasons? What changed your mind? @ Shabidoo: with regard to your question "So you are saying that the US government enslaving hundreds of thousands of people because of their race, and then later governments ensuring a lack of equality from those liberated slaves and then later governments enacting laws which make real justice for black people a challenge...was not necessarily immoral?" In a word, no. The number of slaves was tens of millions, but it was not the Federal government enslaving them: it was the several states. I should like to see class action suits against confederate states to see how far the claimants could go with that approach. UncleKrampus (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Slaves were allowed in DC and other federally controlled territories, not to mention various federal acts such as the Fugitive Slave Act that protected slavery. It would be absurd to say that the federal government held no responsibility for slavery, especially considering that ten of the first twelve presidents were slave owners. Plutocow (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
And then of course there's the Reconstruction era institutional racism (the original KKK, lynching, under-the-table attempts to retain slave labor, straight up domestic terrorism), the Jim Crow era institutional racism (Lynching, domestic terrorism, redlining, the second iteration of the KKK, literal laws prohibiting housing loans from the US federal government in any neighborhood with non-white people, Segregation, educational discrimination, etc), modern institutional racism (stop and frisk, racialized police abuse, the war on drugs, over-policing in black neighborhoods, disparities in how the death penalty is applied across racial lines, gentrification, more housing discrimination, more educational discrimination, generational wealth disparities, literally just all the shit from Jim Crow that wasn't obvious at first glance)... As for fervor, I literally just read up on this shit.
The best you've been able to muster is "we shouldn't punish all whites", which then shifted to "we shouldn't punish the working class" which shifted too "wow you actually engage with the topic" and is now "it wasn't the federal government's fault, only punish the Bad States".
As for my previous position, I changed it after learning more about the topic. You know, that thing you people don't do. And twice now, nay, thrice, I've made my position on reparations (for all of the previous wrongs) clear. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
It's a lot to take in on how thoroughly embedded racism is. It's really too bad people misunderstand it and reduce all the theory behind reparations to "I don't think I individually owe people", but I think the spirit of reparations is a broader scope than individual responsibility, similar to ACAB and defund the police, which was brought up in the thread. I'm not sure how reparations are defined but while I agree with its spirit and I think Black Lives Matter, I don't think payments go anywhere near the horrific grossly unfair centuries long kicking down, exploitation and spitting on black Americans, where people fought the bloodiest war on U.S. history over these practices, only for disgusting policy to keep on going for another century. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. Krampus. I will phrase my question differently: So you are saying that the certain state governments permitting the enslavement of people because of their race...was not necessarily immoral?" ShabiDOO 20:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
No. You know, I have a special respect for you because you appear to have some training. Why would you even think that?UncleKrampus (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Because Krampus, you said: "The Immortality of governments has always been a subjective claim." I am curious to what extent this moral relativism of your goes. ShabiDOO 20:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
As with Plato, ideas are immortal, but their reifications are not. It is dubious to assume that the morality of a people, a nation, belongs not just to its time, but to all time. One might imagine such ideas harbor original sin. Now, I am not here to disprove catholic-style notions. They are worthy of interrogation, however.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
So are you a moral relativist or not? ShabiDOO 21:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
It is not only a lot to take in, it is yet to be thoroughly demonstrated how embedded racism what exactly? Not exactly a shiboleth, yet vague enough for most Americans not to want to understand your emotional outcries. Not saying it can't be found. Looking backwards is a tough way to move forwards. And GC where did you get from what I wrote "we shouldn't punish all whites?" I would never make such an argument. I would say that reparations would be looked on as a punishment by the majority including millions of POC, people who look like AOC, for example. By the way, it's not my responsibility that most people don't agree with and won't accept cash payouts to the descendants of slaves. It doesn't matter to me either way because I don't know whether it would cause more harm than good. Studying history won't answer that question for you GC. You are, of course, free to guess the answer.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think GC was arguing for a cash payout to block people, and I explicitly rejected the idea earlier. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I like the idea of socially engineering visible disparities away. So, I guess I don't get what some folks are expecting.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini I was not. I literally linked to a different position three times. Krampus is now explicitly strawmanning my position. I would hope that the Moderators would seek to discourage such shameless dishonesty as fervently as they seek to discourage the use of slurs. I really would hope that, because otherwise they aren't doing their jobs. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Now wait a minute GC. I may be guilty of not comprehending your true intention in your comments, but I do not mean to misrepresent them. If you tell me your opinion is so and so, I will never claim it is otherwise. The moderators cannot help you explain yourself.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@UncleKrampus Bullshit. You were given access to the information but chose to willfully ignore it. You then argued against a position I explicitly do not hold. You engaged in dishonesty, and any impression of good faith is in tatters. Again, I would hope the moderators aren't hypocrites when it comes to enforcing behavioral standards. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
No, if I ignored anything I'm sure it was casual ignorance. If you want to come to my talk page and chat, I promise to have an open mind. If not, I do understand. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Correction; it was Cory who claimed that reparations would be punishing white people as a whole. @UncleKrampus I formally apologize for putting words in your mouth. I'm still pissed you misrepresented my position. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Apology accepted. The misrep was unintentional. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that modern America is inherently racist. As a person of colour, I think America has came a LONG way since the days of Jim Crow in the 1960s. I mean in 2008 America elected a black president! @Plutocow Your right that Rome (as a country) died out a long time ago, but no-one alive has lived before slavery was decleared illegal.The government of America in 1861 is different than in 2021. SixtyNine
The US government of today is still the same entity as it was in 1861 as there have been no successful revolutions, invasions, or collapses since that point. If I kill a person today, I may be a much different person sixty years from now, but I would still hold responsibility for the murder, and the same principle applies to the US government. Furthermore, while things have changed a bit in the last sixty years, segragated cities have largely remained as such and the modern schooling system is still disadvantagous to most minorities due to systemic issues like funding schools based on property taxes. (I was lucky to live near a gated exurban community so I could go to a decent school, the other schools around me in my blighted rust belt Appalachian area were so underfunded that one of them had to spilt their gym into five classrooms.) Systemic racism still exists from such issues that were never really addressed in the sixties and seventies, and those are directly issues descended from ex-slaves not getting any proper land or wealth from when they were freed, and many being forced into exploitative situations like sharecropping that wasn't really any better. And all this and I'm not even getting into the War on Drugs and the prison system that disproportionately affects blacks, with many still barely getting any pay for backbreaking work. Just look at the Mississippi River Delta, an almost entirely black area that is so poor that many areas don't even have running water or electricity. Systemic racism is still all over the rest, and while paying individual black people may not be the most efficient solution to the problem, the US government needs to do something to address this great injustice that has been going on ever since Jamestown (earlier, if you count the Spanish). Plutocow (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I think you mix up poverty and racism. This is an issue of people being too poor to live in gated communities and force to go to schools that receive less funding. And you know the solution to the War on Drugs? Either legalised all drugs (which I support) or just don't take any drugs at all (which I support whenever illicit drugs are legalised or not). SixtyNine,Discussion
@SixtyNine These issues are interconnectedWikipedia. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I, as a person of colour, has experienced racism from time to time. I also come from a well-to-do family. I believe that intersectionality only promotes victimhood. Let me explain why. SixtyNine (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I am incredibly glad that I live in the 21st century as life for people both white and of colour has greatly improved and that racism has been thoroughly deleted from our world (or to be more specific the parts where I live in). Back in the 1960s, nobody would have cared if for example a friend were racist and in fact you might like them for it. Now, being considered racist is a huge blow to your moral character. Those holdout racist now have to content to webshites like Stormfront and like to spread their filth. Can you consider such a change? Its amazing!SixtyNine (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
That is why I dislike this new anti-racist movement (intersectionality, white fragility and now CRT). They constantly tell people of colour that America is "inherently racist" and that we as POC have no hope. Yet, the founder of intersectionality, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw is very successful and she is a full time professor at UCLA School of Law and Columbia Law SchoolWikipedia! When these people are asked on proof that America is racist they answer with vaguely with "when someone says urban, they actually mean black" or "when someone says dangerous neighbourhood they actually mean black neighbourhood". Its frustrating with talking to these people.SixtyNine (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@SixtyNine if i may interject,perhaps this video and excercise will help you better understand the issue of race relations and America’s systemically racist system. I also think this video also helps explain in partly what CRT is about. SensaurC-137 (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@SensaurC-137 Could you please give a condensed summary of what Dr. Richards is saying? It really long and I don't feel like I can understand his points unless you give me a TL;DR. SixtyNine (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for your worldview beyond mere rationalization and GOP talking points? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Ahhh... There is people of colour in politics, science, law, economics, military, agriculture, mecidince, film/TV, law enforcement, sports insert job here... SixtyNine (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I asked for data, not random factoids. Just as we can't infer that every white person lives at the lower middle class level because I do, so too can we not infer the scoio-economic status of literally millions of people by what amount to anecdotal examples. If such logic was so, I could, for example point to the Jews who were friendly with the Nazis to downplay and even deny the holocaust. Give me hard data. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
For example, here's an example of data I found using a search engine and a knowledge of reputable sources. Do you have such? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
And how does this show anything? Yes sadly, on average people of colour have been hit worse by the Great Recession. But how does support your case? The economy is racist? SixtyNine (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
As I said before, you mix poverty and racism. SixtyNine (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, I obviously understand that poverty has a huge effect on many of these issues, a I a person from the mostly white (though becoming a bit more diverse in recent years) and incredibly poor Appalachian region would obviously be aware of. However, you have to be aware of the historical issues that led to a vast majority of blacks being very poor, still to this day, such as slavery, sharecropping, segregation, redlining, being overly represented in prisons, etc. The town I grew up in has a poverty rate of 30%, but I guarantee you that for the minorities that live there the rate is closer to 90%. You can't use an example like Obama to disprove the existence of systemic racism, just like a cold day doesn't disprove global warming. The stats speak for themselves, as well as many historic racist policies that either haven't been meaningfully addressed or are still going on. Plus, one of the main reasons for the drug war, especially the targeting of cocaine, was specifically meant to target black communities, and one of Nixon's advisors even admitted as such. You can't pretend that all of the problems caused by slavery went away just because we admitted it was bad. Plutocow (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@SixtyNine You're begging the question here, especially considering that I've provided data and you've provided anecdotes. Here's more. Here's a respected sociological journal publishing a paper on CRT. So more data. Where is your data? Can you provide data to support your position that "intersectionality only promotes victimhood"?
Where is your data to support your position that the "new" (where is the clean line dividing modern movements from older movements?) black rights movement "constantly tell people of colour that America is "inherently racist" and that we as POC have no hope."?
I can't in any honest capacity consider changing my position on massive numbers of people based on one person's notions of how they reckon the world works. Give me peer reviewed data from reputable sources. If you can't, then reconsider your positions. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Racism or lack of interest in properly dealing with it is endemic in the united states government in ALL branches from legislative, to judicial to enforcement. Minorities are targeted by the police at completely disproportionate levels (far beyond their portion of population or even their level of crime), they face harsher treatment, are more likely to be profiled, stopped, charged and face violent treatment. At a legislative level, politicians do next to nothing about this. They could create legislation to reform enforcement practices (there is nothing stopping them), which would include reforming police unions and applying penalties to police to break policies. Not doing this shows tackling these issues are not important to them. This is either through wilful ignorance, ideological denial, political opportunism (it is an unpopular position) and I am sure there are more factors. Governments also pass laws which overwhelmingly affect minorities and marginalised people like voter laws which disproportionately affect minorities, penal system laws which disproportionately make it so poor black people have a harder time negotiating the justice system (for example bail). If the government cared about bringing about equality it would introduce a litany of social programs that would actually help level the playing field. They don't because they don't want to or it is not politically convenient. The judicial system is just as bad where minorities are more likely to be found guilty and more likely to be given harsher sentences. I do not understand how anyone could not find the over all system racist at every level. Inaction (not dealing with obvious problems) is just as bad as creating blatantly racist laws. Worse is the wilful ignorance. Having had a black President, having racism being more taboo and seeing more visible anti-racism campaigns is not the same thing as actual meaningful change. 10% change is still petty change. ShabiDOO 11:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I have gay friends who live in their illusionary gay paradise in the central gay neighbourhood of Madrid (Chueca). They have typically gay jobs, live in a gay neighbourhood and have mostly gay friends. While Spain is, compared with most countries, an extremely gay friendly country...that doesn't mean that homophobia is not a massive problem. Yet two of them believe that homophobia is gone, gays are completely accepted and that gays have nothing to complain about. I can point out the number of LGTBQ+ hate crimes per week (that occur in Madrid alone), the fact that not a single professional football player in Spain is out of the closet, the reports of LGTBQ+ suicides due to school bullying, that I hear phrases like "shut up...don't be a fag" in public all the time, that I have friends in sterotypical masculine roles like the construction industry who hear homophobic language every day and know their career would be stunted by coming out. And however much easier it is for gay people, lesbian culture is relatively invisible and transphobia is rampant even within the gay community. There are also regional government which are not implementing national LGTBQ+ policies. None of this changes their conviction that homophobia isn't an issue any more. Yeah there are gay celebrities, politicians and rainbows everywhere, companies support the movement and in the right bubbles you can live a life without encountering much homophobia. But to say that things are fine now is to ignore the suffering (including documented suffering) of countless LGTBQ+ people in the country. ShabiDOO 12:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The thing with America is that there's always been a sort of "multiple worlds" aspect. How can America be both inherently racist and a melting pot at the same time? Well, it kind of is, particularly these days, there's pockets where racism is still strong and pockets where it is less so. We're now the country that elects a Black president, and then follows this up by electing a New York City reject who hypnotized the other sort of American character by calling Mexicans rapists and drug dealers. Even 60 years ago I would say America had some of the stronger civil rights movements around (certainly there was nothing I can think of comparable outside of Western Europe) in spite of having Jim Crow laws, one of the strongest racial apartheid clones outside of colonial Africa I can think of, dominating Southern politics.
Things are much better for many minority groups in America compared to 60 years ago; the "bubble" where people don't care as much about sex or race has greatly expanded. On the other hand, anyone who thinks the "bubble" of racists is limited to a few blowhards on Stormfront is delusional. A tour of the rural South or other rural areas would perhaps be instructive in this regard. Hell, I thought the election of Angry Baby would have been instructive alone. The only reason Trump won the Republican primary in 2016 was because he said he was going to build a wall to keep out those Mexican rapists and he was going to deport the Muslims. He "told it like it is", or at least how the racists feel it is. And while most of the things said poster mentioned like CRT is small, white grievance politics is not small, else wise Fox News would not be so big. Fox News thrives on white grievance. (And yelling. Lots of yelling. That channel makes my ears hurt with all of these angry people shouting nothingburgers.)
There is nothing about this that means a minority cannot be successful. There absolutely is a Black middle and upper class in America these days, and in my opinion less chance of a Tulsa these days too. But there still is very much a wealth gap in this country, and some of it can be explained by systematic racism, especially counting the strong systematic racism in the past. It's hard to build up assets when others are willing to readily destroy it, we're only 100 years from Tulsa and only 50ish years from the (official only) dismantling of Jim Crow laws. That's not many generations away. So you create policies designed to reduce the Gini coefficient, they will happen to probably benefit those who have been systematically wronged in the past more, and that's okay. It's not that hard. It will help lift other boats too, of course. The main problem here is that the blowhard right is aware of this, and has weaponized safety nets exactly etc. with racist epitaphs before. When you think "welfare queen", do you picture some "white trash" stereotype scamming SSDI in order to buy steaks, lobsters, and Extremely Jacked Up Pickup Trucks? The people Ronald Reagan aimed that stereotype at certainly didn't. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
When I think "welfare queen", I think of Walmart and absentee landlords, where all that welfare money actually goes. Maybe I'm just weird that way. Cork (covfefe) 15:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
its pretty easy to avoid homophobia if you avoid certain areas and dont draw attention to ones self. homophobic people at least. unless you live in a scary area. or if you provoke homophobes by accidently living your life. obs if that happens thats your own fault. probably too camp. they probably cause homophobia, someone once told me. fucking straight acting bores. they got all arsy when i questioned that after all the battles they fought for us gays. how dare i question his commitment to the cause. he liked a pint down the pub like real man. let that be an example to us all.
homophobic people. individuals. i am fortunate to enough to know how to avoid such people. (move to central london. if you live in the sticks you can avoid it by never going out locally). the institutional kind of homophobia? i dunno. i dont really engage with any services where it might be a issue (some where its worth mentioning in case it qualifies you for better treatment.) honestly for me personally where i am in the world, gay rights that affect me personally are done. minority communities or if i were trans plenty to do. outside of the area of london i live? or away from western europe, there is much work required.
tis much thew same with racism. i can avoid overtly racist people. i look like an aryans wet dream. racists arent racist to me. without swastikas or something to let me know (i didnt notice one guys swastika tattoo on his chest till i was literally fucking him. (didnt have me specs on) i dont know if someones racist. if race dont come up in conversation, or they dont make any racist jokes racism aint a problem. or like were i grew up loads of racists but everyones white and arnt exactly fixated on issues of race. you ignore the bad jokes and call it a night before going to an indian with ya mates pissed up scaffolder headcase pals. think joe pesci in goodfellas (are they joking? probably joking.but i hear stories) i can hear about what happened and how many coppers it took the next day. you never saw many indian guys outside of their restaurant.
in london, where i am? is very tolerant racially. moving to east, canning town, some lone drunken fool's racist tirade might make the metro. if you see it its late night, public transport and involves drunks. i avoid the pub if england play germany, but im not the target of overt racism normally. thats all about racist people.
institutional racism the structural stuff, dont come my way. but id have to be blind to not see it. or hear about, it more accurately. like stop and search and who gets stopped and searched still as racist as the old suss laws fuelling riots back in the eighties. id have to look at figures for education and stuff like that, but its not exactly hidden or hard to find or be unaware broadly of who have it tougher. knife crime has an obvious racial dimension (less so outside of london). im not worried about getting stabbed - i hardly match the likely victims. its difficult to see workplace racism. its not directed at me, or likely to disadvantage me, and ive worked mainly government and public sector or nhs. central london thats probs the most diverse (at my level) working environments with strict policy and guidelines over that kinda thing. actual overt government policy like the hostile environment produces things like the windrush scandel, plus increases in casual racism caused brexit and pandering by tory cunts and vacuous grifters. none of it is directed at me. most of it is read about, or heard second hand. if i lived in a quaint picturesque village, were everyone was just lovely and kind you'd have to be blind or willfully so to not see that not everywhere is a benetton advert.
this is all the uk though. london uk aint the west midlands. uk aint america. and new york aint florida. texas aint bumfuck alaska. what one sees and experiences personally varies from person to person, place to place. theres a limit to the awareness of problems and issues at a distance. but you would have to go something to be oblivious to believe racism aint an issue in the us. going into the detail of the prison system or police or education or any thing else is not ncessary here. theres away a hell of a lot a google search away. its an overwhelming amount of info just from wikipedia alone. if one hasnt already, then they are not interested and just want to regurgitate someone elses talking points.
the problem as it seems to me from the uk looking at the us is just how entrenched and interwined racism is in all areas of american society. any change comes piecemeal, painfully slowly, and fought hammer and tong at every stage, addressing issues in isolation. the sweeping changes required seem to me so wide reaching as to be impossible to make any kind of significant change. the us political seems only able to manage sticking plasters and plugging leaks. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
That's not a uniquely American phenomenon. Europe, and especially the UK, has long-standing issues with racism and the legacies of Imperialism. As the non-White minorities in the EU tend to be the descendants of mostly-willing immigrants and thus better off than the average from their countries of origin, one would expect racism issues would be much less drastic in Europe. I.e., the people and societies harmed the most from slavery in the US are still within the US, whereas the people most devastated by Imperialism are still in the former Imperial possessions while much of the Best&Brightest emigrated to Europe. Yet, correct me if I'm wrong that doesn't appear to be the case. Cork (covfefe) 18:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
PS: Here's an interesting paper on racial discrimination in hiring. The only country to beat the US was Germany. Cork (covfefe) 18:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It isn't remotely a uniquely American problem. Anyone who says racism isn't a serious issue in Europe is full of shit. It is obviously less of an issue in countries with tiny immigrant communities. As per the best and the brightest coming to Europe as tends to be the case with Canada? It depends on the country. Some have a points based system taking in mostly educated immigrants. Others don't. Some took in tons of uneducated immigrants to replace their lower class (France, Germany, Netherlands) and are dealing with the aftermath of this. Some countries recognise the issues of racism, others deny it. It is quite a mixed bag. There are many social programs inmost countries that deal with marginalisation and poverty (to widely varying success). I would imagine I'd rather be an immigrant from Pakistan going to the uS than to Hungary or Poland. Though I'd might prefer Ireland or Luxembourg if I were educated. They still all have racism at every level of government. ShabiDOO 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as the best and brightest, I think we are talking past each other. The Indian plumber coming to London is healthier/smarter/wealthier than the Indian plumber who stayed in India. Britain doesn't have to deal with the aftermath of the British Empire directly; India does. The people and their descendants who were most harmed by Imperialism, the destruction of families and generation poverty, those happened over there. The descendants of American slavery are mostly still in the US, not just the "best" with everyone else's situation somebody else's problem on some other continent. So one would expect that the immigrants and their descendants in Europe would have a much easier time integrating than slaves and their descendants in the US would have, even without the bitterness of Civil War and Reconstruction clouding things. Yet, that doesn't seem to be the case. Cork (covfefe) 20:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
i dont wanna retread futile uk better than us nonsense - comparisons are pretty pointless when the situations are very different and shit in another way to each other, and through europe too (uk is best though just leave it at that). all i will say the police dont murder minorities quite so often. they still do but itchy trigger fingers less of an issue AMassiveGay (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I have yet another idea that I am trying for a zombie story (my Google Drive is filled with partially written stories)[edit]

It is an alternate history story where the Axis Powers won WW2. With that, a horrifyingly corrupt and sadistic puppet government that controls that United States, Canada, Mexico and Cuba. It is also a zombie apocalypse story. The story takes place in 1985. My main character lives with his son in an internment zone along with a variety of ethnic groups. Jews are automatically put into forced labor camps by the twisted government. Japanese people and Italians are given high social status.

That is the main world. This story involves the main character and his son living in an internment zone. At the very beginning the main character is trying to overcome his homophobia because his son is gay and he did not want him being killed by the government. His homophobia is due to the government policy of slaughtering gay people. However before the father and son could talk about it, the boy's homosexuality is found out by the government and is violently murdered in front of the father. This leads the dad on a quest to start a revolution when a zombie apocalypse is starting.

My main themes are personal growth, acceptance of differences, questioning of morality and striving for freedom. --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds cool. I've always liked to think about historical "what-if"s. --Goatspeed. In science we trust🇺🇸CircularREmail2.gifasoning🇺🇸Prototype lab 02:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem with "I think therefor I am"[edit]

This isn't about solipsism but I was arguing with a user in the thread about how thought doesn't prove "I" just thinking. They then shift to trying to justify "I" as an identifier to which I would say that it is meaningless as such a thing if there isn't an existing thing to correspond with it. That aside I did check out the original phrase "I think therefor I am" and find the criticisms of it more valid than the phrase itself.Machina (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The error apparenly causing your problem is, in leaving the idea of "existance" sufficiently vague, to fail to be able to determine what could qualify as existing. Well, the things we perceive as existing are automatically assumed to exist. If no, how do you define "existence?" How can we question "existence" if we do not define it? The definition is "those objects we can mutually agree are perceivable through our senses. Without this definition we cannot understand what we are speaking of when referring to "existence." The fact that Descartes thoughts are invisible to others is a problem. More accurately, "we apprehend each other, therefore we are." UncleKrampus (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, the I is presumptuous but the general meaning can be updated to: "I can contemplate my existence, therefore there must exist something of which I am a part (even if I isn't the right pronoun) which may or may not be an autonomous being. It doesn't prove that you exist as an individual or an individual human on Earth in the here and now, just that you exist at all. It really is a tautology, and nothing particularly profound. He coined the phrase as part of a fairly innovative approach to philosophy where he starts with extreme scepticism of everything and tries to answer questions about if we even exist. Descartes does bring up the possibility that we are something else (for instance the evil daemon thought experiment) though he gets out of this by some terrible argument about God's nature. Modern versions of this: brain in a vat, ghost in a machine, elaborate simulation or something more exotic like being part of a hive mind with the illusion of individuality are all possibilities that cannot be dismissed (though there is certainly no evidence to take any of them seriously). That we contemplate our existence means some phenomena is occurring of which we are a part, even if we possibly have no control over it and it is an illusion. Something must exist for this to take place, though yes, it may be an illusion that the "I" plays any role in it. Though again, there is zero evidence that the "I" does not ShabiDOO 21:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden twisting eight-year old girl's nipple[edit]

Senator Daines’ niece, Maria Piacesi, says Biden pinched her nipple: Underage victim accuses Joe Biden of assault. I saw this on 4chan, have not heard anything about it from mainstream media. Poptopic doesn't look like a very reliable source. Is it "fake news"? DepressedAustralian (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have to ask?ShabiDOO 00:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Your first two sentences answer the question in your third. (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The basic gist: if what the website says is correct, Poptopic is two ladies, one a "experienced game designer who has interned for some of the biggest studios in Europe" (tee hee, lolwut), and a "former, albeit small time, reality TV producer" who run this bloggy-news-thingy from a corporate co-habit space (read: very small) that publishes whatever they get from "anonymous sources", and the site is mostly light tabloid entertainment bullshit. We all know that Biden is a bit touchy feely but I'd treat this as bullshit until confirmed by a source with more heft. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Stop getting things from 4chan. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

There's video. Is the video a deepfake? DepressedAustralian (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@DepressedAustralian Both the people in the thread you cited actively push misinformation. (The one who posted the video also pushes election conspiracy theories.) As such I'd say they are unreliable sources for allegations this serious. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Why the hell are you on 4chan?~April Chat? 14:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The original video is from C-SPAN, it's here, at about 1:21:00. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 15:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking for direction in updating an article[edit]

Hi I'm new to RationalWiki. I want to make some improvements on this article but I'm looking for some feedback.

I'm having a hard time determining the intent of this article. Is it intended to be informative or a critique? It seems like a little of both to me, perhaps a little more informative than crtiquey, but could use some improvements either way.

Secondly, what's the best way to make improvements? I've left some feedback in the talk page but it seems awful quiet in there. I'm guessing maybe stir up a debate? I think some points are correct and some points are not. So a debate would have to address point by point, and I'm not sure if that's appropriate in a debate page.

Thanks in advance. Hansen128 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is critical, but it doesn't need to be. If you want to see two examples of articles that were critical and became more neutral, you can see wha I did here on fiscal responsibility and this one (which I still disagree, but I don't have time nor knowledge to edit on HAES. That being said, most articles tend to be critical because one of our missions is to document pseudoscience. If you prove to us that the Venus project is just a normal project, then, well, the article might even be deleted. GeeJayK (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
In terms of our mission statements I guess that it would be justified under "crank ideas". If it's just some thing which exists in the world - why would we have it?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Doomer rant[edit]

Video of a guy who “proved” JFK was assassinated by CIA. Thoughts?[edit]

Somehow I got in the conspiratorial side of YouTube and found this video where the guy is cocksure his explanation of the JFK assassination is correct, he says at the end that it’s a joke and you shouldn’t believe this but I feel like it’s just to save face as it makes the entire video pointless.

This is the video, I watched it at 2x speed because the guy waffles a lot but this it what that gist of the video I think:

James T got hit but his testimonies didn’t line up therefore there should be a second shooter, smoke was seen from a different area, CIA purposefully hid information about this, footage that would prove second shooter “mysteriously disappeared.” Umbrella man was the person to have the go ahead for the shoot, JFK’s brain went missing during autopsy. The narrative of Oswald doing the shooting on his own was made and popularised by the CIA who suppressed information. Director of the CIA was meant to protect the president but failed and then was promoted to become the director, says he can’t remember being there despite being there.

What do you guys think? Everyone in the comments is saying how absurd the one shooter and magic bullet things are and the conspiracy is correct.

Sorry if this is rushed, I’m at work, having OCD episode about this and my manager is really on me so just making this quick. Thank you Just gonna put the link here as having trouble with it .-WMS (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Approaching 60 years after the assassination - Freedom of Information requests, 'loose ends and passing mentions in documents', 'Muggins here is keeping some official documentation #whatever they say# in case #they# try and make me carry the can, and arranging for someone else to look after it (as #they# will go through my own documents, as in the movies/novels)' and nothing has 'escaped into the public domain.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)