RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

edit

Thoughts on illegal immigrants?

Uan (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Now, that's the laziest effort for possible trolling I've ever seen. Not even a single comment or even a crummy link. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

well it could be a genuinely curious question. Which in that I would argue that the immigration laws that enforce that many undocumented migrants are “illegal” is wholly unjust, and pretty much only stems from the need to sanctify and justify racist policing at the border; in addition to, exercising the nation state’s need for control and restriction. Establishing the boundaries and occupants subject not only to it’s rule, but moral responsibility to provide for. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hardly. Immigration is usually a good thing, but the idea that immigrants are always a net positive for society is delusional thinking, and can be disproven with a simple question; why haven't any of the poor countries solved their economic woes with unlimited immigration? The truth is that there's virtually no situation in which allowing in immigrants will shrink the "pie", but the per-worker slice does not increase unless the immigrants have a "technology" factor greater than the native workers. Note that "technology" is a vague economics term for anything other than capital or number of workers that affects GDP; strong work ethics are "technology", good education or skills are "tech", etc. Most governments do let in workers that are such, e.g., the H1B visa nonsense, or various guest worker programs.

More cynically, the illegal immigration is a handy way to create an underclass to do the necessary but dangerous jobs your own people would demand too much money to do, without having to worry about giving them rights or protecting their health, etc. It's far from slavery, but then again there's quite a lot of similarities.

I'd also defer you to the Repugnant Conclusion. Basically, in scenario A there's a socialist island paradise. In A-, an impoverished island pops up out of the ocean but is unconnected to the paradise. In B+, the two islands are equal and in total greater than before, but neither island is as great as the original island. In B, the islands are connected to become a bigger island. Clearly we can argue that B is superior to B+, to A-, to A. So repeat the process until overcrowded scenario Z, where everyone is living a fate that is only barely better than death, but because the sum total is greater than in A, the Repugnant Conclusion is that this hellscape is "better". But that's where we are today. CorruptUser 04:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that’s a dumb argument especially with that leading question, as the simple answer is no one is itching to move to dirt poor countries. People tend to immigrate towards countries with sufficient wealth and economic opportunity. You lack those properties you lack any demand for people to want to immigrate to your country. Also the problem of capitalist exploitation of undocumented migration isn’t really the fault of undocumented migrants. In fact it’s draconian immigration laws and the threat of deportation that makes them so easy to coerce and exploit to begin with. I don’t know what you mean by “net positive” because depends wholly on your value system and what you see as “positive”. If you think that “disproving” question is an argument for more restrictive immigration policies that’s entirely flabbergastingly stupid. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

i seem to recall that the us has whole industries reliant on undocumented immigrants, construction for instance. it seems the problem of the exploitation of the undocumented is one that is more of a us problems than it is a european one. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser For an outspoken Liberal, you really need to reread Locke. Like, a lot. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 10:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Seriously. Liberal democracy and immigration controls don't mix. Read Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Mainly Hobbes and Locke. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 10:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, this is a major oversight on Cory's part. You can't have consent of the governed if you can't meaningfully consent to be governed by a sovereign. And you can't meaningfully consent to be governed by a sovereign if you can't meaningfully choose your sovereign. And you can't meaningfully choose your sovereign without open, or at least porous borders. This is like, the bedrock of Liberalism. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 10:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole 'legal' / 'illegal' definition is utterly arbitary. It's often defined merely by political expediency or at best, something approaching 'economic need'.

Anyway, there's an argument to be had that immigration is partly how the rich and poor nations remain so; most economic migrants are the ones who have a bit of skill/qualification/drive/capital behind them and are youngish folk - the very people which the poor nation really needs to develop. What's worse is the fact that the educated ones would usually have been 'invested in' by the poor state and now that investment is walking out of the door even before the investor got to break-even point.

We also need to remember that often migration is a kind of business plan in itself; I've heard tales where family members have 'invested' in an individual's journey (sometimes quite heavily; I've heard tales of property etc being sold to fund it) in the hope the remittances shall provide a good return. Question; is this the best use of the limited capital-stock the poor country has? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"I don’t know what you mean by “net positive” because depends wholly on your value system" It actually doesn't. Repugnant conclusions are a part of all utilitarian systems that use a utility function that is simply added from each part to reach a systemic score. GDP comparisons are a notable example. You may value quality of life, but if you don't carefully consider the mathematical implications of your preferences and make sure your scoring system reflects that, you may not like some of its conclusions.

"This is like, the bedrock of Liberalism" Rather than, say, the utility of spreading around political power among the citizenry as discovered by, e.g. ancient Greeks?

"And you can't meaningfully choose your sovereign without open, or at least porous borders." This doesn't follow. You can totally have a representative democracy with closed borders. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You have no idea what "sovereign" or "Liberalism" are do you? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 11:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

A sovereign is an entity with supreme legal authority. Modern polities typically split this among a written constitution, a chief executive, a legislative body, and a court system. In a representative democracy, those positions are subject to votes by an eligible subset of the general population.

Liberalim is a political/moral/social philosophy that advocates for individual liberty, particularly via the establishment of rights.

If you have other definitions in mind, perhaps you could share them with the class. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you actually got it right. And yet for some bizarre reason you tried to conflate "Liberalism" and "democracy". ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 11:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. A representative democracy with closed borders was a counterexample to your statement that "you can't meaningfully choose your sovereign without open, or at least porous borders". 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

AHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! THE SOVEREIGN ISN'T THE PEOPLE IN THE GOVERNMENT DUMBASS!!! FUCKING REREAD HOBBES!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Page-widening trolls went out of style ca. 2005, GC. TFTFY. Zontar (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

GC, a sovereign has more or less ignored the consent of the governed when they refuse to let people leave, e.g., NK, East Germany, etc. That is not the same as another sovereign refusing to let others in. To use a farcical example, NYU loses the "consent of the educated" when it's a crime for you to transfer to Harvard, but it's not a lack of consent of the educated when Harvard rejects your application, rather "consent of the educator".CorruptUser 13:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser An interesting analogy, but I'd still argue against it. Consent of the governed is more akin to consent toward impartial law, since the idea is heavily tied to the concept of a social contract and the formation/preservation of society. If you don't trust the mediator and are barred from seeking another, are you really free? Locke argues you are not, and that the ability to seek out a more amicable sovereign is vital to freedom. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Care to share your preferred definition of "sovereign" then? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Preferred? What the fuck are you smoking? There's no preference about it, you're just a dumbass who hasn't read the people who coined these terms to start with. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you aren't truly free, but that's kind of irrelevant when talking about a foreign government's legitimacy. It's "consent of the governed", not "consent of everyone"; Italy only needs the approval of Italians to be legit, not the approval of Libyans, Algerians, etc who are being denied entry. CorruptUser 14:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Barriers work both ways. If I lock you out of one room, that could trap you in another room. I don't know how to explain this any better, sorry. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I do understand what you are trying to say. If everyone in town locks you out of their homes, you aren't really free to leave your abuser. That doesn't mean everyone else in town has a requirement to unlock their door; "should they unlock their door" is an entirely different question from "do they have a right to lock their door", and I have a hard time discussing immigration with people who don't even recognize that countries have a right to decide who is allowed in.

As an aside, I am bemused that people seem to think illegal immigration is a uniquely American phenomenon. Heck, it's not even a uniquely Western phenomenon; Iran has struggled to deal with the influx of Afghanis for decades, which is a self-inflicted problem but still.

In terms of "big picture", again, it's useful to look at labor and the comparison of the words for forced labor throughout culture and time. The economy has always depended upon someone doing the boring, dangerous tasks so that others can do the skilled tasks. A leatherworker was a relatively respected blue collar job, but that person could not exist without the filthy tanner dealing with the disgusting smells, or the only person below "tanner" in medieval society; the orphan child whose job it was to collect all the dog-poop to make tannins for the tannery. Today, nobody could be a surgeon without someone being the garbagemen or slaughterhouse workers. So if those jobs are taken by either foreigners, or the "lessers" in your society so that the "betters" can do the better tasks? All the better. The US never imported African slaves to work as university professors and concert violinists, as far as I'm aware. That those tasks are essential doesn't mean they get paid well, and it's a bit of a shit position to say to an illegal immigrant "hey, you work 70 hours a week at suppressed wages, but you aren't contributing enough to be worthy of staying".

Another aside, through the lens of "we need someone to do the boring tasks, so it might as well be some filthy inferior" is actually how I think the criminal justice system operates; you can't tell me that no one in charge understands that making it illegal for companies to hire ex-cons creates a permanent underclass that does all the menial tasks. CorruptUser 15:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Those asides are borderline well poisoning strawmen, as I did not advocate either of those positions. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Those asides weren't meant for only you. But for you specifically, can we agree that "countries have a right to decide who is allowed in"? CorruptUser 15:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser The right? Of that I am unsure. The authority? Most definitely. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Tempted to put that one up to a vote in a pointless poll. Any objection? CorruptUser 15:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Truth isn't a popularity contest. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Optimistic Nihilist here. I don't believe rights even have an inherent "truth-value", rights are what everyone believes everyone should be entitled to. Cancer doesn't give two shits about your right to life. No bear goes before the pearly gates before St Wojtek the Ursine, who says "you were a mostly good bear, ate lots of salmon, shat in the woods as all bears should, but it appears that you once mauled a shaved monkey and so we must deny you entry to the Land of Poorly-Guarded Picnic Baskets, and instead banish you to the Land of Infinite Winter and Disturbed Hibernation". So yes, what is a right is very much what everyone else agrees is a right. CorruptUser 16:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So I'm a white guy living in another white European country. (In terms of this discussion I'm a legal immigrant, but I'm not sure how much people care about the distinction.) Evert so often my more right-wing acquaintances will complain about all the problems which "immigrants" generate - or all the extra benefits which the government allegedly gives them. I listen to them for a while and then point out that I'm an immigrant to this country and I don't believe that I cause problems and that I don't think that I've received any special treatment and I ask them where I can apply to obtain all the wonderful benefits they claim exist. It's always amusing to watch them as they try to explain that I'm "not the sort of immigrant they were talking about" while simultaneously trying to avoid saying something overtly racist.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

But you do use the local healthcare system, ever so slightly increase traffic congestion by buying produce, benefit from emergency services, increase water consumption and waste disposal, and if you have children they are using the classrooms paid for through taxes, so you do cost money. You also provide money too. Part of the problem is the mismatch of value, which is at its core the largest valid criticism of modern capitalist societies. If you are an immigrant doing some menial but essential job, you are paid, e.g., $20000, you are actually providing about $50000 in value to society, and you are using $25000 in services. On paper, you cost $5000, but you actually net $25000 for society... CorruptUser 16:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@bob there does not appear to much of a worthwhile distinction between illegal and legal immigrants in the above conversation nor is there any (is there any?) distinction between illegal and undocumented immigrants. such distinctions should be made though as the situation for each is different in different locales. i read a above about illegal immigrants doing the work that the natives just wont do. that may be true in some areas, the us for one, but its simply not true in some other places. i know in the uk the work that the locals wont do - seems to be stuff like fruit picking - is not done by illegal immigrants or even undocumented immigrants. it is work done by legal and documented immigrants mostly. in the uk, no industry is reliant on illegal immigrants for labour. companies employing illegal immigrants are a minority and face heavy fines if caught - as do the immigrants themselves. no idea about the eu, but i would imagine the same situation applies in most places there for those jobs no one seems to want to do. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The situation is largely the same here in Spain. Immigrants, pick the fruit, clean the streets take care of the elderly etc. They do the jobs which the locals don't want or or wouldn't do for the money. There are some differences - The UK tends to have immigration from what used to be the British Empire and Spain tends to have a lot of immigration from what used to be the Spanish Empire - South America. My impression is that Spanish society is somewhat more relaxed about immigration than the north of Europe though. They shouldn't be employed without papers but you rarely hear about legal problems.

Of course, as I implied above, there are "immigrants" and "immigrants". And, societies being racist, there is a sort of hierarchy. There are black Africans, northern Africans, south Americans, southern Europeans (from Rumania for example) and northern Europeans. White northern Europeans with cash in the bank have an easier time. Surprise!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Gay, I do think it needs to be pointed out that UK.plc traditionally didn't use illegals not because we were 'better' or something, merely that we had seemingly oodles of cheap legal foreign labour to tap instead. Whether the UK ends up becoming a mass user of illegals in this post-Brexit paradise where fish are happy and passports of the deepest blue of hues remains to be seen. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that 1) any illegal immigrant would have to pass through Spain and France before getting to the UK, and 2) the only access to the UK by road/train is the Chunnel. Refer to the Calais Jungle for what happens to illegal immigrants trying to get into the UK. CorruptUser 18:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I read somewhere that the main route for UK illegals was via plane, not sea or land routes. But the latter is focused on because it's impossible to see a leaky overloaded boat in the Channel as anything else than 'full of migrants'. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, planes and boats are actually things too.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

EC we can imagine all we like for what might happen, i was merely stating what does happen as it changes the nature of what the issues around what illegal immigration looks like in one area compared to what it looks like in another area where aside from the usual political posturing, there are whole industries dependant on that posturing not amounting to any action, where illegals are made legal is not wanted because that comes with proections under labours laws and they can demand a fair wage, whilst crackdowns make it difficult to fill those jobs. it should also be mentioned that in the uk, arguments around brexit where not about illegal immigration so much, (tharts a perennial target for somne groups) but legal immigration AMassiveGay (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

i will add the route that is taken by illegal immigrants to their destination is neither here nor there AMassiveGay (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

most illegal immigration to the uk involves staying on when visas expire. overloaded and sea worthy boats crossing the channel is a relatively recent state of affairs. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Not enough of a concern for me to pay much mind to the issue. It's mostly just unfortunate that legal immigration is difficult. Revenant Raven (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no incentive for the governments to actually streamline the process, because it doesn't matter how many people get scared away as long as there's millions more who would still be willing to suffer through it. Heck, the process is a proficiency test to weed out those who can't handle byzantine systems. CorruptUser 19:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the unfortunate results of the difficulty in getting to wealthy first world countries is that the people who are most needed to develop their countries of origin are the most likly to leave.

It is an option for those who have enough cash to pay people smugglers; those who are young enough, strong enough and healthy enough to survive an arduous journey across continents seas and deserts; or those who have a high enough level of education to make them attractive as legal immigrants. As I said - the people who would be of most use in their countries of origin.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Is that what happened to Europe when the US spent a century absorbing European immigrants? CorruptUser 19:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

To a certain extent, yes. Especially post-WW2. European countries just didn't get fucked over as badly as say... Nigerians. Or some of the now-former Warshaw Pact nations. There are whole regions in eastern Europe that still haven't recovered from the disparities during the Cold War. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Nigeria is different, though. It's not a "country" so much as "giant territory with a bunch of different ethnicities that all hate each other", along with recovering from a civil war over one of the largest oil fields in the world, not to mention the legacies of Imperialism where the British completely eliminated the skilled labor and middle class, built up the infrastructure but made damned certain the locals never learned how to do anything but the most menial of tasks, only the Brits and the Indians. So when the British left, so did the economy.

I'm actually tempted to do a SciFi novella where medieval humans (ie, stand-in for Africans and Asians) are invaded by aliens (ie, Britain), and have their civilizations "uplifted" to an extant, but in the most parasitic way possible. Humans work horrific conditions mining the "useless" pitchblende (i.e., Uranium) that the aliens use to power everything, but never taught how to operate the nuclear plants, instead another race of sub-alien aliens did all of that (ie, the Indians). Skilled labor is made outright illegal (ie, the weavers of India and so forth). Conditions are "better" than under the kings but the humans are always third-class citizens in their own land (ie, apartheid). It'd make very clear that the medieval kings were brutal monsters who oppressed their own people and should not be missed, that whether the aliens improved the life of the average serf didn't justify serfdom with a different name, and why the removal of the aliens caused everything to collapse further. CorruptUser 20:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

BoN trying to “debunk” me with what boils down to “according to this value system I uncritically accept as ‘objective’ that is controversial both in philosophy and economics I can conclude these repugnant conclusions, therefore you are wrong” - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"There's no preference about it, you're just a dumbass who hasn't read the people who coined these terms to start with." The English word "sovereign" well predates Hobbes's birth, and French/Latin cognates go back rather longer. It seems that you no longer agree with the definition I gave above. So, suppose that I have never read Leviathan and know nothing of tigers. In your own words, what do you mean by "sovereign" such that it's relevant to your points here?

"I ask them where I can apply to obtain all the wonderful benefits they claim exist." I think things like free housing and living stipends are usually means-tested. Not typically for the gainfully employed. Most cities should have an office that handles that sort of thing if you want to check your local situation.

"White northern Europeans with cash in the bank have an easier time." Any immigrant with cash in the bank tends to have an easier time. Nigerian immigrants to the US do better on average than the average native, for example. Immigrants with a more similar linguistic/cultural background can better integrate into the host culture than those with significant differences. And where racism is involved, immigrants of the same ethnicity as the majority group tend to face less discrimination. White northern Europeans aren't the majority everywhere.

"Nigeria is different, though. It's not a "country" so much as "giant territory with a bunch of different ethnicities that all hate each other"" Nigeria is a country (a high-level political entity that occupies territory), but it's not a nation (a group of people with shared language, culture, ethnicity, and territory).

"“according to this value system I uncritically accept as ‘objective’ that is controversial both in philosophy and economics I can conclude these repugnant conclusions, therefore you are wrong”" Utilitarianism isn't a value system. It's a method for evaluating the desirability of situations according to a chosen value system. You pick some set of values (e.g. larger GDP is better than smaller GDP), and then quantitatively evaluate situations according to those values to find out how well those situations instantiate those values. For example, with bigger GDP being good, you total up the economic activity in the area in question (with nuance for nominal vs. PPP or other topics of interest) to determine how "good" that situation is. And when considering whether to implement some policy, its effects on future GDP are calculated and compared to expected GDP according to business as usual, or to some other proposal. A simple moral system with a simple utilitarian calculus. And one which includes an obvious repugnant conclusion showing that there are more things in life to care about than GDP. You can, of course, evaluate situations according to bellyfeel rather than quantitative measures, but if you're taking these matters seriously as a matter of evaluating policy, you're doing it quantitatively (that is, utilitarianism). If you think that philosophers and economists disagree, I'd like to hear where you determined that. Most disagreement is about how to formulate utility functions for various purposes, not whether one should try to be quantitative. After all, it's all well and good to favor deontological ethics, but without some method for comparing how well rules are being followed, it's not very useful beyond trivial situations. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"Utilitarianism isn't a value system. It's a method for evaluating the desirability of situations according to a chosen value system" desirability is basically another means of describing value. It is a value system both in the context of economics, and in normative philosophy. It's definitely utilized differently by different fields, but you can't talk of "benefits" and "downsides" without applying a system of values. Things are not inherently desirable or undesirable in of themselves. Nothing is desirable objectively, which is another way of saying nothing has objective value. Adding numbers to values doesn't make it any less arbitrary and subjective. How I determined utilitarianism is controversial as a normative system is by actually having an undergraduate education in philosophy and having taken more than one ethics course. They are many many criticism of utiltarianism not just in normative ethics, but in the social sciences as well. Just look to behavioral economics, the writings of Robert Nozick, social contract theorists, feminists, anthropological objections, or criticisms from cognitive psychology, etc. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC).

If you guys want a good book on the subject, read Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration, by Bryan Caplan and Zach Weinersmith. Or just watch some of their videos on the Internet, they are very good. GeeJayK (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I take issue with that because Zach is an artist and thus almost completely immune to the effects of immigration.

The truth is that in total, every form of immigration from menial guest workers to H1B visas helps Business Owners and Immigrants combined more than it harms Local Workers, but it doesn't always help Business Owners more than it harms Local Workers. From a single country perspective, a government's duty is only to its own population, and the internal affairs of any country should be to maximize benefit to its own population and thus the immigrants' benefit should not be included in the calculation. From a more international perspective, immigration will help both countries in total and so any alliance or trade federation (EU, NATO, etc) becomes stronger with open borders within that alliance.

At the same time, you need progressive taxation to ensure that the benefits conferred to the wealthy business owners are shared by the local workers as well.CorruptUser 21:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @CorruptUser That's because it's a comic book. Just read it, you can finish it in a couple of days, and it's really cool, even if you don't agree with everything. GeeJayK (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I remember Zach advertising it on his website. I read his comic daily. CorruptUser 21:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"It is a value system both in the context of economics, and in normative philosophy." If your philosophy and ethics education was worth the paper the syllabus was printed on, I shouldn't have to parse what I said for you. You're making an elementary analytical mistake here. I can give a belabored explanation if you want. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Might be a useful video to refer when TERF’s and conservatives ask this troll question.

https://youtu.be/i6m3CzzYSOs the video is called What is a woman? By Lily Alexendre. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's how I answer it:

• "The gender identity for socially feminine traits" (rarely)
• "You tell me"
• "Google is your friend"
• "They're definitely not a loaded question that you just asked"
• "What's a man?"
• "I can tell you that they aren't just baby-makers, you fucking misogynist"

Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 16:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Those are all quality responses ngl - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

My response is very simple. I politely ask them to define women in such a way as to exclude all trans women, include all cis women, and that I can use practically in a social setting without committing a sex crime. To date the opposition has had no success. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

'Why is this important, again?' Because when it comes down to it, they've got barely any actual evidence for their fears (like bathrooms etc).

If I desire to troll them, I'll point out my blockhead of a Prime Minister (Johnson)'s latest intervention which means any pervy guy can apparently gain access to women's public bathrooms by saying they're transmen. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe that Lily Alexandre completely dodges the question. She/he/they basically starts by talking a whole lot about the origin of the patriarchy and how womanhood is basically an old colonial concept from ancient farming societies in Europe. She/he/they then complains about how much this hurts women for centuries. However when Lily finally gets around to actually answering the question, She/he/they said "Women like being called women and it is harmful when you don't call them that!". Like, what, the concept of womenhood is incredibly harmful yet women today completely embrace the concept of the "woman"? What? Is all women just simply self-hating masochist then? Then Lily goes on and on about how the "women" as a social concept is made up and is drilled to every second infant at birth. Yet transwomen "womanness" is innate and has nothing to do with conditioning. So being a women is both a social concept and not a social concept at the same time which makes no sense whatsoever. Also woman is too vague to be defined yet transwomen are definitely women and you shouldn't question it at all.

Lily Alexandre logic is faulty because he/she/they misses the whole point of the women: Sex and Sex-determination. A women and girl is a female member of homo sapiens. Like all mammals and most (if not all) multicell organisms, human beings have 2 sexes male and female. A person who is below the age of majority and is part of the female sex is a girl. A person who is above the age of majority and is part of the female sex is a woman. What the age of majority is (let the age of majority be 18 or some other number is not really that important for this argument). I laugh when Lily said that the word "adult" and "human" where too vague to have a clear definition. Is there now humans now identifying as a chimp or something or clearly adult people now identifying as kids?

What I don't get is why we have decided that only women wear makeup and dresses. Why do you need to identify as a woman to enjoy those things? If Lily enjoys to dress and do womanly things all day, then by all means do that. But why call yourself a woman? I mean, according to your definition Lily, woman is too vague to be defined and woman and man is made up anyway. So getting upset that your being "misgendered" shouldn't matter then!

Let me break it down with you even further. Let say they were to twin boys who at the moment at birth became the stereotypical girlish people imaginable. One was called Albert and the other Bruce. Yet when both boys reached adulthood, Albert declared himself a woman, while Bruce remain a man. Albert then spent tens of thousands of dollars to get neo-genitals of the opposite sex and grew breasts and such while Bruce remained as a very effeminate man. What I want to ask, if both boys are completely have done the same actions since their birth (makeup, long hair etc) then what makes Albert a woman and Bruce a man? Could (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Youtube videos usually make for awful discussion, so I won't comment on whatever Lily Alexandre said. Just two comments. A) Transvestism (dressing up in opposite sex clothing) is not necessarily the same as gender dysphoria. And B) There is a little bit of "fuzziness" in gender biology even beyond dysphoria, as intersex people demonstrate. (Though a vast majority will end up close to the two biological sexes, of course.)

We're at the stage, of course, where we are well beyond the "there are only two genders!" phase of discourse, and back to the /s "good old days" (hah!) where teh gay are being accused of being pedo "groomers" by conservatives. (Never mind that, historically, the most "pedo-friendly" open platforms on the Internet have typically been right-wing "free speech" shitholes like 4Chan and 8chan. Good luck, Elon Musk, with your probable desire to turn Twitter into the same!) My assumption is people JAQing off on "what is women" are mostly completely insincere. They are doing so simply because homophobia is no longer kosher in much of polite society, but transphobia is perfectly acceptable in some circles, so certain politicians and "Youtube shitposting" types can use it to rile up the 'rubes. Generally you don't feed trolls and typically you should ignore JAQing off like this. For those actually wondering, there's plenty of scientific resources on the Internet that are probably better than a Youtube video for this sort of question. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Could Have you considered getting tested for SPD? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

“Could” coming here not even bothering learning someone’s pronouns with their page long strawman fallacy and 3rd grade biology lesson. Providing another unsatisfying answer to the question that has just been argued can’t be satisfyingly answered.- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak for other nation's TERFs, but the British ones appear (to me at least) to be mainly motivated by misandry. Their disdain for men is so wide, their sense of 'gender injustice' so hard-wired and they simply can't get their minds away from the dogma that 'all men are rapists'. This, along with the almost mythical belief regarding 'womanhood' all becomes a heady brew in which the concept that a man would *choose* for 'non-exploitative' reason(s) to become a woman simply 'does not compute'.

Anyway, I *do* see worth in answering trolls/sealions - to help you formulate précis for later use. That while your current 'opponent' might be disingenuous, chances are you'll encounter later on folks who are genuinely confused or a blank slate. If you've got a decent potted answer ready it can be instantly wheeled out against the BS-peddlers pushing their 'feels' and non-thinking, 'easy' answers. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice I mean, they did ignore my challenge and just vomit up transphobic garbage so... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

My best answer to the question is to remove myself from the argument with the understanding "a word means what the user thinks it means, until they change their mind." It always takes a moments reflection to decide whether I have a chance to change someone's mind. Planting a seed of doubt concerning the certainty of another is usually the best one can hope to accomplish.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I have already answered your question: A woman is a person of the female sex who is above the age of majority. Read my response above. And no I am not a transphobe. I might disagree with them but I'm dont hate them.Could (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That exact answer is addressed in the video and Lily’s other content. Anyone with a passing familiarity on the topic knows there are many different ways you can classify sex, and what constitutes “female” isn’t universally designated since different contexts and different sciences use different criteria. It also doesn’t capture the distinction between sex and gender. “Age of Majority” is also legally defined and varies from region to region. Are you saying that a 18 year old is a woman in some states but not others who place the age of majority at 21? So one’s status as a woman is determined by location? Also it’s not up to you to determine if your transphobic or not. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Could Yeah, you didn't answer the question/challenge. Unless you're saying that I should demand to see the genitals of everyone I meet? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb No, they're vomiting up talking points because A) they can't think for themselves, and B) that's all they have. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Ewww... Don't be a perv. You could lose your job if you do that. Could (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Could what is the correct way according to you to verify someones gender? You know besides the obvious of just asking someone and taking their word for it, aka the correct way. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC).

People speak truthfully. They can lie and say that they are female or admit that they are a transwoman. Either way being honest is always the best. Could (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Could That doesn't actually answer the question. Also stating that a transwoman is lying by stating herself as female is textbook transphobia. "female" as a term is not unique to denoting a person's sex, but can be used to denote their gender identity. Also sex for humans can be broken down to about five categories chromosomal sex, genital sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, secondary sex characteristics, and gamete sex. It is totally possible for someone to be "biological male" in one dimension but not others. Take for example folks who had the SRY gene on the Y chromosome translocated onto a X chromosome from their inseminating parent. These individuals may have XX chromosomes and be classified as having a "female" chromosomal sex, and yet they may still have "male" gonads, genitals, and secondary sex characteristics. Some of these characteristics can be altered, some cant. Some folks arguably don't even have just one chromosomal sex. Some folks are genetic chimeras whose have a mix of cells with different genetic make ups. There is a case for example of woman who had cells with XX sex chromosomes and cells that had XY due to having absorbed her male twin in utero. Is she female or male chromosomally speaking? Well she is a bit of both, but her primary sex and gender identity is still female. The truth is neither sex nor gender is a strict binary, and even if you can't alter your chromosomal sex you can still alter other aspects of your biological sex. This is all to say that transwomen are not strictly speaking "biologically male" nor are transmen strictly "biologically female" and they are not lying when they insist upon the gender identity that most closely matches their sense of self. Transphobia is not just simply the hatred or discrimination against transgender people, but also actions that serve invalidate and delegitimize their identities. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC).

"female" as a term is not unique to denoting a person's sex, but can be used to denote their gender identity — when did that happen? I thought the terminological divisions had been settled; surely melding them back together achieves nothing but reintroducing confusion? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Serene if I were to take a guess sometime longer before you were born. The term "gender" itself wasn't even used until the mid 20th century, and it's not a cultural abnormality that people use "male/man" and "female/womwn" interchangeably, and have been doing so for centuries. Exclaiming "when did this happen?" is the sort of thing that may warrant the response "please go outside more". It's the sort of cultural gaslighting that makes people comfortable referring to transwomen as "biological males". We don't even bat an eye when someone refers to a character as a "female AI" despite having no discernable biological characteristics. and why would we? There is nothing particular atypical about such use. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC).

@OnlySortaDumb but there's also the practical social aspect, which in my view is the most important. If I walk into a room full of people, I have to make a semi-educated guess about them based on their external appearances. I do not demand to see their genitals or chromosomes. Gender is not only a series of social categories, it is defined by the social aspect when it comes to practice. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @GC There's some contingency in the social aspect, at least as far as immediate judgements. An inaccurate initial judgement can be overridden by subsequent (verbal) correction, and the correction should be durable in stable social groups. The relevant distinction is, I think, between being a woman and being feminine (or feminine-presenting), and between being a man and being masculine (or masculine-presenting). Immediate judgements will be primarily sensitive to the latter, which are merely correlated with the former. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Serene While true, I would classify all of those as social aspects, just of varying sorts. But again, we make reference to the Self and the appearance, not to genitals and chromosomes when we practice and observe gender. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb Evidently, my question was unclear. I am, of course, aware that in informal contexts, the terms are used interchangeably. If I had realized you were referring to such broad contexts, I wouldn't have asked the question; there would have been no need. But in my experience, the terms are used more specifically in more careful contexts, and I have encountered both (i) TERFs (self-described gender critical feminists) complaining that 'woman' has been misappropriated so as no longer to be synonymous with 'female', and (ii) counterpoints that the division is appropriate, because the social construct 'woman' is divisible from the biological concept 'female'. Recently, there's also been fairly prominent criticism of several conservative politicians offering the definition "adult human female" for 'woman'. In short, based on my own experiences, it is typically those who insist that to be a woman is just to be a female who are engaged in a form of gaslighting. Based on your reply, I guess I've missed something, and I'll gladly admit that I could have misinterpreted any part of this, but I ask that you at least extend the charity of presuming good faith; it was meant as question, not an exclamation, certainly not as gaslighting, and if my experiences are not representative, or my understanding inaccurate or incomplete, I do want to know. (It might also be worth updating, e.g., our gender article.)

@GC I don't think I have any disputes with what you've said. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 04:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I sense that Platonism is doing its work to confuse the issues at hand. "Gender" has a history as a word, but the word doesn't mean more than we understand it to mean as it is used in any context. By that I mean, we will use it in conversation and gradually understand what one another mean by it.This is nominalism. "Gender" is a kind of word that can be described as primitive. That is to say, we cannot really define it with the vocabulary associated with the concept of gender. We must assume that we already know what the word means. Since gender is primitive our understanding of it can be different for each of us. Problems of understanding can arise when an idea which is contingent upon emotions, drives and desires is conflated with a formal, structured concept. The latter is unlikely to completely determine the former.05:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Ariel31459 (talk)

@OnlySortofDumb Its like asking someone if they are married or not. People will tell the truth and some people will lie. That's all there do it. And if you lie about your biological sex you can get into LOADS of trouble. If we decide that sex doesn't matter than we get to situations like Lia Thomas a biological male who is completely destroyed women's sport for his/her/they/xer/per benefit. Could (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Except it’s not the same. Marriage is entirely a legal category that can unambiguously be legally declared on the basis of it’s acknowledgement by the church and state. Your biological sex does have some physical reality to it and is not simply determined by the sanctity of the state (nor should we desire such), though the classification between male/female is a bit arbitrary and not at all unambiguous. You are not actually reflecting our current understanding of biological sex within science, but instead insisting upon a gross ideological essentialism. I mean you refer to one sex as being “opposite” to another which albeit is normal parlance still speaks to a cultural bias. What would it even mean to lie about one’s sex if one doesn’t even have a certain grasp to what ones sex even is? It’s not as if trans women claim no difference from themselves to cis women — they don’t claim to be cis. Also fuck off with the cherry picked sports shit there isn’t any evidence that trans women have a systematic advantage over cis women in competitive sports. Trans women do in fact lose to cis women in sports, it’s just this gross assumption that people assigned male at birth are just inherently stronger and better at sports then people assigned female and that’s just sexist stereotyping. Also can’t you have the common decency to learn and use peoples pronouns instead of mockingly going through an entire list. It just makes you look dumb like you can’t even figure out the basics of how to refer to someone. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC).

Uhhh... the biological nature of sex has been known for hundreds of years. I mean all species of mammals and birds are sexually dysmorphic. If you disagree with this concept then you literally deny reality itself. Also, if you don't know what sex you are then you have to be insane. "It’s not as if trans women claim no difference from themselves to cis women — they don’t claim to be cis." Wow your very close to what I am saying! Just instead of calling them "cis-woman" say "female sex" and you understand it. Also, Christ, don't get so upset over pronouns. They literally just three letter words and have only became offensive in the last decade ago. I wish for the times when no one gave a shit about the "wrong" pronoun. Could (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Sex chromosomes weren’t discovered until 1905, that’s only 117 years not “hundreds”. We didn’t even know what genes were for most of the 19th century. I didn’t deny sexual dysmorphism. You may want to seriously consider having your reading comprehension tested by a neuropsychologist if that is seriously what you understood me as saying. Here is some reading material to help you out: https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a. It didn’t become “offensive” to misgender people in the last decade I am sure if you kept referring to a grown man as “mam” or referred to him as “her” in the 19th century you would piss them off. Again the conflation of cis women with “female sex” may not entirely be what you are referring to. Cis women may be assigned female at birth but it is still totally possible for some components of their sex to be “biologically male” and it’s totally possible for trans women to have dimensions of their sex be “biologically female”. This would be obvious if you paid any attention to what I said, but I have a feeling you are more so motivated by transphobia then any interest about the facts regarding sex and gender. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC).

@OnlySortaDumb Yeah I know of the existence of intersex people. But that doesn't mean the male sex and female sex don't exist. After all biological males become "transmen" and biological females become "transwomen" all the time. Also if you call a grown man a "woman" then its obvious that its wrong as its clear that they are biological male. However if you call a transman a "woman" then it just make sense.

Also about the "transphobia" accusation. You do know that you can disagree with people without hating or fearing them right? I like vanilla ice cream. My brother doesn't like vanilla ice cream. However, I don't have to call my brother a "vanilla ice-creamphobe". I would like to address your point about but also actions that serve invalidate and delegitimize their identities is an example of so-called "transphobia". "Gender Identity" doesn't exist. People don't "feel male" or "feel female" no more than a person of Chinese descent "feels Asian" or a redhead "feels like red haired person". Your genitals and breasts don't define your identity. Its only describe your body. This "If I don't have a penis my world will come crashing down!" is silly. Its why transgender people are mentally ill. The only people in the world who get depressed to the point of harm about their normal and natural bodies are the transgenders and other dysmorphic people.

Let me ask you something: Why are transgender people so insistent about forcing other people to see them as the "correct" "gender" like the "correct" pronoun or the "correct" gender be placed on their driver's license? Why don't these people focus their minds on something more productive of their time? Go play video games or touch grass or something. Focusing on being the "correct gender" is just unhealthy. Could (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Could Are you a man or a woman? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I am a man, if you wanna know. Could (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Could So, do you think, as a woman, it might be a bit destructive to your mental health if people kept referring to you as a man? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Could It’s not just a matter of acknowledging intersex people exist, it’s the degree to which biological sex is actually a continuum and that biologically male and female are not in fact mutually exclusive discrete categories. On the basis of that it makes no sense to simply assume everyone is either only male or only female whether they are trans or cis. So the entire insistence that trans men are female and transwomen are male at the exclusion of their biology in anyway conforming to the sex they desire is simply baseless. Especially when things like hormonal sex, genitallia, gonadal sex, and secondary sex characteristics are all medically alterable. Also “fear or hatred” is pretty much implied when you give zero shits about how you may be harming a marginalized demographic and insist on denying the legitimacy of their existence. Like you would be homophobic if you insisted that people must be attracted to people of a different gender/sex than themselves and that their same-sex sexuality is a choice or lifestyle that they can just “get over”. What would it mean to “disagree” with the identities of jewish people, gay people, or roma people?It would mean you’re a bigot. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC).

Side note, "phobia", or so I've recently heard, does not purely refer to "fear or hatred" but more "extreme and irrational aversion". Food for thought. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The phosolipids in your cell membranes have what are described as hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails. Fun thing to point out to bigots that the part of the molecule doesn’t fear or hate water. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

So when did belief became an idenity? Should we ban all political discussion because people who identify as a conservative or identify as a liberal will call you "politicalphobic" because you invalidate and delegitimize their identities? Trans people believe that there is such thing as a male and female gender idenity. They are free to believe that, however people also have the right to disagree with you on that. I believe that we shouldn't try and place identities around body parts. Also I understand that not all people fall into "male sex" and "female sex" after all, its just one spectrum of all sorts of variabilities within humans. If we are all the same, what would be the point? However this doesn't deny the fact that 99% of human beings fall into a clearly demarked "male sex" and "female sex".

Also “fear or hatred” is pretty much implied when you give zero shits about how you may be harming a marginalized demographic and insist on denying the legitimacy of their existence. Are trans people a marginalized demographic? From what I see from the media and many corporations as well as universities they tend to be celebrated for their beliefs. I cannot see how trans people are marginalized.

Like you would be homophobic if you insisted that people must be attracted to people of a different gender/sex than themselves I don't give a shit about other people sex lives. Do whatever you want. I mean I wouldn't want to have sex with another man, but don't call me a homophobe for it.

“disagree” with the identities of jewish people, gay people, or roma people? What does it mean to "disagree" with the identities of jewish, gay or roma people? I don't get it at all. I said I don't believe that you should place identities around body parts. Its silly and just make people unhappy. Could (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a truly dumb response as it misunderstand like so much social phenomena it's honestly pretty impressive, that and you argued yourself into absurdity.

For one, concerns about bigotry and hate speech are so due to their tendency to lead to harm and discrimination against people with immutable characteristics. Things they cannot control like their sexuality, race, and yes arguably their status as a transgender person. Being a police officer, or a liberal, or a punk rocker are NOT immutable characteristics of one's identity.

You also greatly undermine yourself if you truly believe that people shouldn't identify on the basis of "body parts" something that isn't even essential to being trans. Why even support the idea of people identifying as a particular gender on the basis of their sex at all? Like if you believe yourself to be a man because of the anatomy you were born with then you are de facto forming an identity on the basis of body parts. That's what you are doing, not trans people, if anything they are the people pushing that people don't be classified into political identities on the basis of their body parts. If you truly support this idea then you should absolutely support transgender people and the individual right to self-identify one's gender. if you don't support that at all then you are contradicting yourself. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC).

Of course trans people are marginalized! Look at any of the stats on sexual assault, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, medical discrimination, victimization by hate crime rates, suicidality rates, poverty rates, and representation as sex workers and all these things are significantly higher for trans people then at they are for the general population. This what motivates legal protections and the like, such as bill C16 in Canada. How can you possible say a demographic being more likely to be discriminated against, raped, or experience homelessness is not marginalized? Their presence in media as of recent doesn't represent the average experience of transgender people living in the world today. It's like looking to Elon Musk for the experience of working class white guys because he is a white guy. The average working class trans people is not being celebrated in media. Being transgender isn't a "belief", that goes in straight denial of all the relevant scientific literature on the subject, no different then suggesting being gay is a lifestyle that is a product of their beliefs. Something bigoted fundies do in fact say about gay people. Attacking trans people today is just recycling the old tropes used to attack gay people before them. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb Ad Hoc reasoning is a hell of a drug. That's how. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Could Hey, transphobe lady. Do you think gay people should have rights and protections? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Definition of female from Wikipedia
A distinguishing characteristic of the class Mammalia is the presence of mammary glands. Mammary glands are modified sweat glands that produce milk, which is used to feed the young for some time after birth. Only mammals produce milk. Mammary glands are obvious in humans, because the female human body stores large amounts of fatty tissue near the nipples, resulting in prominent breasts. Mammary glands are present in all mammals, although they are normally redundant in males of the species.
Most mammalian females have two copies of the X chromosome, while males have only one X and one smaller Y chromosome; some mammals, such as the platypus, have different combinations. One of the female's X chromosomes is randomly inactivated in each cell of placental mammals while the paternally derived X is inactivated in marsupials. In birds and some reptiles, by contrast, it is the female which is heterozygous and carries a Z and a W chromosome while the male carries two Z chromosomes. In mammals, females can have XXX or X.
Mammalian females bear live young, with the exception of monotreme females, which lay eggs. Some non-mammalian species, such as guppies, have analogous reproductive structures; and some other non-mammals, such as some sharks, also bear live young.
In sex determination for mammals, female is the default sex, while in the poplar genus Populus the default is male.

Definition of woman from Wikipedia
Womanhood is the period in a human female's life after she has passed through childhood, puberty, and adolescence. Different countries have different laws, but age 18 is frequently considered the age of majority (the age at which a person is legally considered an adult). The word woman can be used generally, to mean any female human, or specifically, to mean an adult female human as contrasted with girl. The word girl originally meant "young person of either sex" in English; it was only around the beginning of the 16th century that it came to mean specifically a female child. The term girl is sometimes used colloquially to refer to a young or unmarried woman; however, during the early 1970s, feminists challenged such use because the use of the word to refer to a fully grown woman may cause offence. In particular, previously common terms such as office girl are no longer widely used. Conversely, in certain cultures which link family honor with female virginity, the word girl (or its equivalent in other languages) is still used to refer to a never-married woman; in this sense it is used in a fashion roughly analogous to the more-or-less obsolete English maid or maiden. There are various words used to refer to the quality of being a woman. The term "womanhood" merely means the state of being a woman, having passed the menarche; "femininity" is used to refer to a set of typical female qualities associated with a certain attitude to gender roles; "womanliness" is like "femininity", but is usually associated with a different view of gender roles. "Distaff" is an archaic adjective derived from women's conventional role as a spinner, now used only as a deliberate archaism. Menarche, the onset of menstruation, occurs on average at age 12–13. Many cultures have rites of passage to symbolize a girl's coming of age, such as confirmation in some branches of Christianity, bat mitzvah in Judaism, or a custom of a special celebration for a certain birthday (generally between 12 and 21), like the quinceañera of Latin America. Trans women have a male sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology.

Basically female is the term used in biological context and woman is used in socio-cultural context. That's why referring to trans woman as woman is not a violation of the biological sciences.Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 03:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC) 22 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumbFor one concerns about bigotry and hate speech are so due to their tendency to harm and discrimination against people with immutable characteristics. Things they cannot control like their sexuality, race, and yes arguably their status as a transgender person.

This proposition has a flaw as it excludes religious discrimination like islamophobia. If one goes by this definition one could justify the imprisonment of communists during the red scare.Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 05:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You need to sign the end of your edits as it's not at all obvious who is talking. Arguably those forms of discrimination and persecution become problematic on the basis of their violation of universal human rights i.e religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc. Also in the case of islamophobia its not uncommon to suggest that Muslims from Muslim majority countries have been racialized, and THAT the hatred against them has less to do with their actual religious beliefs but more so the presumptions about their cultural background and beliefs on the basis of where they come from -- which reduces back to immutable characteristics. Arguably similar to the reason why "being jewish" gets lumped as a immutable characteristic despite Judaism primarily being a religion. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC).

@OnlySortaDumb No, I don't "identify" as a man, my body is male. There is no such thing as a "gender identity". Its completly made up. You cannot "feel like your a man" or "feel like your a woman". That's complete and utter nonsense. I do believe that people should not be discriminated against. People who discrimination against transgender people are misguided and stupid. Wear whatever you want, put on makeup, wear a wig, shave, cut your dick off, do whatever you want. But I am not going to be forced to say that transwomen are women. I'm not going to deny literal biology and reality just because your soul is female.

About your comment about hate crimes aganist trans people, transgender people recieve less hate than many other group. Attacks against race make 61% of hate crimes! Look here from the FBI! Gender identity make up only 1.7% of hate crimes. You are FAR FAR more likely to be attacked due to race and religion than for being transgender. That being said, hate crimes against anybody is despicable and I wish for a world where there is no hate crimes. Your claim suicidality rates, poverty rates, and representation as sex workers is suspect for two reasons: Transgender people tend to have far less money because they spend tons of money on pointless surgeries that do nothing to improve quality of life (its like buying new clothes at H&M. At first you are excited and wear it everywhere, then you get bored and throw it in the trash). Second reason is probably because trans people tend to be more depressed. This may be due to the fact that switching "gender" does nothing to improve your quality of life. Your genitals do not improve your quality of life. I have never seen how having a vagina or a penis is suppose to change anything. Does money suddenly fall from the sky and I suddenly have 3000 new friends? Could (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Cloud, you should try not to confuse the percentage of overal hate crimes directed to each community with the percentage of people within a community that suffers hate crimes. The trans community is much smaller than say the African American community. So while more African Americans over all may suffer hate crimes, that doesn't mean a larger proportion of the trans community doesn't suffer hate crimes. Try to put a little more thought into things before you form your arguments. It is really easy to punch holes into a lot of what you say. Are you arguing just to keep hold of your position and replying however necessary to defend your argument or are you capable of conceding some points and rethinking things? I am not sure you are capable of this yet and it is a good skill to develop if you actually want to gain knowledge instead of forming opinions and sticking with them.

Things as an adult in a Western country that I have control over: My religion (or lack of religion), my occupation, my political ideology

Things I do not have control over: my sexuality, my race, my gender

Is being criticised for being gay the same as having your political ideology (for example your views on taxation) criticised? ShabiDOO 09:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Could On gender affirming stuff...

“more than 25 years of scholarship on transgender mental health and found a strong consensus that undergoing gender transition can improve the well-being of transgender people. The year-long review screened more than 4,000 studies and identified 56 that assessed whether gender transition improves the mental well-being of transgender individuals. The analysis concluded that 93 percent of the studies found positive effects from gender transition, indicating “a robust international consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that gender transition, including medical treatments such as hormone therapy and surgeries, improves the overall well-being of transgender individuals.”

Source: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/04/analysis-finds-strong-consensus-effectiveness-gender-transition-treatment -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC).

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age. They certainly aren't misguided or stupid.Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 11:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb Could may say that she's a man, but clearly she is in fact a woman. I for one think we should refer to her as her real sex gender. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Getting back on topic:

If you look the word "woman" up in a dead-tree-printed English dictionary, you'll probably find something functionally equivalent to "an adult female human". Those are biological terms. What do those terms mean? An "adult" is an organism that has attained sufficient maturity that it could or would normally be capable of reproduction. A "female" is an organism that has produced or would normally produce ova. For context, these two terms are applicable to most multicellular life (and all that reproduce sexually). You can check whether, say, a corn plant is an adult or a female via observation. A "human" is a member of the genus Homo, as defined by various anatomical traits. So there were "women" among Neanderthals, and their membership in that category is something that can be identified from fossils.

So why would we have a word for that? Because until quite recently, new humans only came about from the input of both an adult female human and an adult male human, and that's still how the vast majority of new humans come about. So those categories are rather important.

With that in mind, I have another question with a straightforward answer, but which also runs into certain ideological stumbling blocks that are popular today. Where do babies come from? Explain as you would a child. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Not too long ago a citizen was defined as a white male of voting age with x and y prerequisites. Today it is quite different. Those arguing against changing the definition to include women and non-white people called such ideas "ideological stumbling blocks". Would you agree those were ideological stumbling blocks? Or was it sensible to change the definition to allow what western constitutions apparantly say they want with things such as equality and the subtext being: giving a minimal shit about those who aren't lucky to be in the prestige group? A romantic relationship until all those pesky ideological stumbling blocks came along, was one between a man and a woman. Now it basically includes two or more consenting agents. Until recently, those resisting such change called it all ideological stumbling blocks. Thanks to those stumbling blocks, I can now walk down the street holding my boyfriends hand with minimal chance of being spat on, verbally abused, beaten or arrested. I would call enjoying this scenario rather than living in a loveless sham-marriage where I resented my family and took out my emotional bitterness out on them as a remarkable improvement. To follow the "what is a woman" stumbling block to its final end, I would say making the, what is a rather effortless requirement on our part to mentally amend the definition of what a woman is to include, for example, people born with x and x body parts but for whatever sincere and practiced reason identify as a woman and have them enjoy less pointless misery in life, beurocratic stumbling blocks and useful legal rights...is a useful trade-off. The only stumbling block I see here is someone resisting making a very minor mental amendment of the definition of something in their mind and a fairly tiny cultural/social adjustment so that a LOT of people can be less miserable and enjoy that so called equality most of our constitutions pretend to protect. ShabiDOO 15:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If you don't think it's a stumbling block, answer the question. Where do babies come from? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wombs. Are we really reducing women down to the ability to give birth? Seems a bit sexist if you ask me... But hey, I expect definitions that don't dehumanize people. And that I can use outside of niche contexts. Literally no one has actually defined women according to my, honestly reasonable, parameters. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain what you were referencing thing with ideological stumbling blocks. I'm sincerely confused. ShabiDOO 22:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"I'm sincerely confused" Then actually answer the question. It wasn't rhetorical. It was formulated specifically to address the issue at hand from another direction. You know the answer to that question, and so does GrammarCommie. But does your ideology permit you to explicitly answer it? That's the sort of stumbling block I was referring to. It's why Ketanji Jackson refused to define the word "woman" when asked despite a lengthy legal career in a country with different laws for men and women.

And so let's examine GrammarCommie's response. "Wombs" is, of course, correct, in a sense that doesn't answer the idiomatic question that the hypothetical child is asking. It's like replying "grocery bags" in response to "Where does food come from?" But wombs. Apparently wombs just spontaneously generate human babies. Any wombs, like the ones mice have, or even that of a baby currently in a womb herself. Actually explaining the conditions under which certain specific wombs can produce human babies would require grappling with concepts relating to adult female humans and adult male humans, and the utility of the words used for those categories. And it seems that GrammerCommie regards the recognition that humans have sexual attributes relevant to human reproduction as sexist and dehumanizing, which really raises the question of what in the world he could possibly mean by that. Or that something experienced by literally every single human that has ever existed is a "niche context".

"Literally no one has actually defined women according to my, honestly reasonable, parameters." "An adult female human" does that. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@192․168․1․42 How to I verify whether they're female? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I see that is really interesting how you are complaining about avoiding answering a question while you are doing the same. What exactly do you mean by stumbling block? ShabiDOO 13:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

In response to the BoN I think restricting oneself to the "English dictionary" sort of tells on oneself given that the dictionary isn't itself necessarily prescriptive and isn't technically the authority on the meaning of words in language. This is why in philosophy giving the dictionary definition of a term isn't exactly considered proper conceptual analysis. It should be said the cultural concept that there are more than just men and women, or even that one can be a little bit of both, or change from being a man to a woman or vice versa is something as a tendency exists cross-culturally and cross-history. Usually in the social sciences when you find something that persists cross culturally and cross history you take that as evidence to the phenomena having somewhat of a biological basis (at least this is what evolutionary psychologists argue). You can look at our article on non-binary gender for examples. So this isn't in actuality a recent phenomena, not in the slightest. Also to treat "adult human female" as like solely uncontroversial natural kinds that are clearly delineated shows a massive amount of ignorance to ontology, and the philosophy of science -- especially the philosophy of biology. "species" for example is not a concept that has a clear essential categorization that biologists uncontroversially all agree upon, and if we can't even agree what species are how can we agree what counts as part of the human species? Historically the categorization has been hugely contentious.

in response to your question as well, it's fairly easy to describe to a child where babies come from using the vocabulary of gender-inclusive biology. You just have to refer the reproductive anatomy by technical name. It's not hard to say folks with penises, or folks with ovaries. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC).

@192․168․1․42 Here's a language guide if ya need it. https://www.genderinclusivebiology.com/bettersciencelanguage - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC).

I would appreciate some advice

My dad is conservative, always has been and there’s nothing that’s going to change that. I’m trying so hard to explain to him how Tucker Carlson isn’t a source to be trusted, and how he can be called a white supremacist given what he’s peddled on his show in the past. I got emotional. I’m so disappointed in him that he can’t see this and that he’s burying his head in the sand to what I’m trying to say. I don’t want him to fall in with uninformed bigots who actually buy Tucker’s shit. My dad’s always been reasonable but this has left me so very disappointed in him. How do I show him the truth about this bile of human garbage? This is a rant and I’m sorry for that, but I really don’t know what to do. ^{— Unsigned, by: NeedsAHug / talk / contribs}

There is a simple way to explain your POV to your father. Don't criticize Cucker Tarlson (sic) in conversation with your father, unless you are watching Fox together. Say for example, Carlson says " I haven't been vaccinated," you could point out that all employees at Fox are required to be vaccinated. Everybody knows it. Do fact checking in real time. Just don't be overbearing about it. If you do this for your father, show him that you are willing to spend the time, no matter what he decides to believe, you will have done your best to help your father, something you should never forget.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m admittedly a bit embarrassed to say my mind couldn’t come up with something so obvious in our moment of disagreement. assumed the worst after our argument. My father is not a bigoted man, and doesn’t buy Tucker’s more conspiratorial rants. In my mind, why someone would listen to anything Tucker says is confusing, given his demonstrable aversion to being truthful. Looking back I should have cooled my jets before posting anything. Honestly embarrassing on my part. I’d go back and delete it if I could. ^{— Unsigned, by: NeedsAHug / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I've always found Daryl Davis to be especially helpful for such things. He talks to KKK members, and just by doing that he's managed to get dozens to leave. Here is him talking about how he does it. Your father certainly doesn't sound like a KKK member, so there's something to work with. One of his main points is that, even if it's a small thing, if there's one thing you can agree on it'll help; I'm no Trump fan, but he has said that anyone who doesn't get vaccinated and boosted is an idiot (and, for a lighter example, ended the requirement that every government agency had to file an annual report on how they were handling the Y2K glitch); the relatively few times I've had occasion to speak to Trump supporters (the ones that live in CT aren't typically in my milieu), just that made the conversation much less of a minefield. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

You’d be right in that regard. I worried that the picture I painted of him in my first post was not a flattering or accurate one.NeedsAHug (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)NeedsAHug

I think personally you need to find 'wedge issues'; ie one where your father and you agree but Carlson is clearly on the other side. The thing which would worry me is not that he laps at the Fox teat, but if it was his *only* source of news. Try to ensure he gets a quota of less biased news. Also ensure he understands the difference between 'news' and 'opinion'. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

He understands the difference. He bounces from different news sources, even the BBC at my recommendation of finding a more balanced take on world events. I think what this has shown me more than anything is that if I’m going to change minds, I should keep my emotions in check, even if it’s something I’m passionate about standing against. NeedsAHug (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)NeedsAHug

I think in this case, you need to understand *why* he watches it and how much 'trust' he grants it. It's quite possible he watches it for entertainment value, not news - I know folks here who 'read' the Daily Fail but honestly don't believe a lot of it. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

My dad is a noted dumbfuck whose racism is gotten worse in his old age and even dumber if it were possible. no talking points or tropes regurgitated from the mail to dismantle, just unprompted adn unasked for opinion 'the blacks' being trouble, criminals, and thugs. when i say unprompted its like me after a year away - 'hello dad, merry xmas' reply, literal reply - 'they all wrong uns. its always them'. we are all convinced, my brothers and me, hes got some kinda of brain damage or something not right with him. you cant just avoid a subject and his reasoning and argument consists of repeating the same thing over and over but louder each time. any how. last year i thought maybe i had a break through of sorts. told him every black person hes ever met hes gotten on with, had no problems with them and has never seen these uppity ne'er do wells hes convinced himself black folk are. i left him that year not with the usual xmas sweary shouting match as is the tradition in my family but 'you are right, i'll have to think about that'. progress at long last i thought. next time i saw him 'hi dad' him 'they are all rapists'. oh for fucks sake. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I would ask whether you were visiting my father by mistake, but you didn't mention a ouija board. As kids, he'd often sit us down and 'teach' us how the world was; which mainly comprised of ranting monologues of every -ism possible, how great he was, pro-IRA propaganda and/or open lectching over any female old enough to have breasts. However, I think I can beat you becase he'd also lecture others about 'the truth' too; a sibling remembers him turning up once at their school and lecturing the headteacher about the 'incorrect' teaching about something in full public. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

So, your dad believes in ghosts & supernatural BS? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No. He's dead. Thus the 'ouija board' requirement for communication. Though why the hell you'd want to is a different question entirely. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Donbas, NATO, and Putin’s nuclear threats

It looks like Russia finally beginning to concentrate on the Donbas area, although I don’t know if the current attacks are just probing or if they began their full assault in earnest. Russia is having a manpower shortage that is being gradually bled away and can’t be replaced easily without a national mobilization and even then, it takes time. Look at how Russia is fighting, with piss poor infantry support of armored vehicles. This will be especially problematic because even though Donbas has lots of plains like it has been characterized as, there are lots of urbanized areas, and the ugly fighting will only further deplete Russian forces. Whatever the outcome of this Donbas offensive is, the Russian conventional military will be pretty much a spent force after a few week.

The problem though, is that I don’t know how much Putin even grasps this reality of how poorly his ambitions will pan out. And I’m really afraid that, in order to not look weak, he will just keep escalating to the point of tactical nuclear weapons. When has Putin ever blinked, even when it was in his best interest or the better informed decision? And with Finland and Sweden about to join NATO, how will that fuel Putin’s sense of grievance and ambition?

And this brings up the question of nuclear deterrence. If all of NATO’s nukes are strategic, how would we be able to deter Russia if they use a tactical nuke? We won’t escalate by nuking Russia with strategic weapons in response to a tactical one, and Russia probably knows this. As much as I hate nuclear weapons, I think what we’re seeing unfold might very well lend credence to the concept of flexible deterrence and not having only strategic ones. This also presents another problem: as far as I know, this is the first time that the threat of nuclear weapons has been used to support a war of conquest. I know that some will draw parallels with the US and Vietnam, and certain comparisons are valid, but I will argue that the US never intended to conquer Vietnam and deny its sovereignty, whereas this is practically an explicit goal that Putin has for Ukraine.

Very scary times ahead, because I can definitely see a possible path to nuclear weapons being used. 98.186.204.159 (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Tankie tears are fucking delicious. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not strictly true that NATO has no tactical Nukes. Though it doesn't have very many of them.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Tankie apologism for Putin has been among the most baffling thing I’ve seen. The guy is literally threatening with strategic weapons and tankies are espousing him as an “anti-imperialist” or “anti-Nazi”. 98.186.204.159 (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Not really. Tankies are - having lost the 'existing socialist' examples of the Soviet Bloc and the Chinese sell-out to capitalism to cheer for - mainly fired by an anti-American / 'anti-Western' POV. Therefore, anyone/thing which 'stands up' to these evils is by definition at least NotBad or perhaps a bare minimum 'Bad But Justified' in extreme cases (NKorea, Iran). A more 'moderate' view is shown by the likes of Redfish (a Kremlin front org) peddling 'whataboutism' propaganda which is more effective because it's actually based in truth (it doesn't back Putin, but seriously dumps on USA/NATO etc). A good example of this level (let's call them 'Tankettes') is the UK Communist newspaper Morning Star.

Lastly, we need to remember that for a far-left POV there's not a lot of water between say, Putin and Johnson/Biden/Macron etc. In fact, it can/is argued that most of us in 'the West' have become so corrupted and comprimised (income inquality, mass SLAPPs gagging media, increasing signs of oligarchic castes, policing issues and so on) that Putin's model is merely a darkened mirror to ours, a land of where *we could get to* if only we backslid a bit more, let the rot penetrate a bit deeper etc (shameless plug; I did a blog post about this). KarmaPolice (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

i thought most of putins western supporters were leaning more to the right. dunno why people care what tankies think anyhow. ive never crossed paths with anyone that could be considered a 'tankie' in the wild. im sure they exist and all, but by and large i reckon you'd have to seek em out in 'their' part of reddit or log on to affiliated websites. its been a while since ive seen socialist party members get ignored by everyone at an event they were latching onto. i am far far away from anywhere communists might be a legitimate concern for folk that i can ignore them. far right fuckheads on the other hand appeal to something lurking in our baser instincts. its best they not be left alone to fester. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Well as 'Tankie' is a pejorative it's very unlikely anyone shall admit to being one. Plus, please go re-read my previous, perhaps also following the Redfish article too. I do lay out that as a rule the harder-left types don't *like* Putin (in fact quite a lot hate him) but they can't stand the USA/'the West' either. Therefore, lots of 'bothsidesism' goes on, sometimes going rather close to being Kremlin apologetics.

As for their prevailance... in the UK, more than you think. A decent % of the Labour left has *some* drift towards it, for starters. There's this one old guy who's shown a fair few signs over the years you might have heard of, and others have shown tendencies (there was even a 'both sides' petition over Ukraine which 11 MPs signed). Their influence is perhaps 'disproportionate'; they're often the most active/dedicated activists, trade unionists and amateur journalists/social media campaigners etc.

We in 'the Left' find ourselves in difficut times. We keep on being told that to oppose the evil which is Putin, we must (in effect) 'fall behind' NATO, Johnson, current model of capitalism etc. That to point out that we are not 100% innocent in the path which led us to this craphole 'helps the enemy' and so we should simply... shut up. And to point out much of our current jam is due to a generational incompetence, greed and myopia from our own ruling class (and in some respect is a 'hoist with his own petard' territory) is de facto apologia. As for the left... I've already had a few sharp words with folks I've known for decades.

Think this piece sums it up the issue better I ever did (in fact, suggest it gets put in the WIGO Blogs section): https://unherd.com/2022/03/why-the-left-is-split-over-ukraine/

KarmaPolice (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. We, people of the western countries, are 100 per cent innocent of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Capitalism has not been replaced because it is too lucrative. Too many people get lifted out of poverty for the idea of abandoning it to be popular. It is the source of more pleasure and pain than any other system that is not an autocratic state like Russia. But I don't like the split on who gets the pleasure and who gets the pain in Russia, or China for that matter. We could have better government than we do have but anyone who would trade their place in the west for the lot of a Russian recruit going to Ukraine, or a foreigner in China looking for a "white monkey" job is not on the top of my list of great career planners.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Erm... just no.

The West made a series of strategic errors between '91 and '22 in which led to this point. To name just three committed by Europe; we disarmed to a stupidly low level, we became critically dependent on Russian energy and we didn't react hard enough when the previous 'red lines' were crossed. You don't have to be Kissinger to realise this sent the wrong message to Putin.

These crimes were committed mainly by our leaders, who *should* have known better. But our 'crime' was mainly that of ignorance... and yes, I include myself in this group too. Almost all the flags passed me by, barely noticing them. And even when I started to, I didn't think things through and workout the severity or the 'angle of progress'. Our leaders were stupid, but so were we.

So our 'guilt' was that of stupidity, hypocrisy, laziness, greed, appeasement and on occasion cowardice. So no, we are not '100% innocent' on this and to argue we are does stink a little of 'Westsplaining'.

As for the left-wing issues, no this isn't a debate on capitalism per se. For the obvious point in this case *both* sides are capitalist. Go and read the Unherd article I linked to above, it explains much of the issue. And if you think that we socialists *should* fall into line saying 'neoliberalism is fine' because Putin's model is worse... well, I think I speak for many of us when my retort to this is 'you can take that and shove it'. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice has this nailed right on the head. Most of the tacit support for Putin, across the political spectrum on the west, centers on the idea that imperialism is only a function of the west, and I would argue many would specifically say the US. This of course ignores the very real imperialist history of Russia, China, Japan and focuses almost exclusively on the Western established world order after WWII. When you worldview only goes back that far, then the idea of spheres of influence or historical unity is much easier to swallow. It doesn't matter how Russia got so many Russian speakers to have significant populations in former Soviet countries. It doesn't matter that Han Chinese make up the majority of the population, and culturally seek to dominate any other Chinese cultural experience. They refuse to engage critically with these concepts and simply revert to "Well [Insert Western Country] did the same thing."

Unequivocally, in my estimation, the most dangerous supporters of this worldview are those on the left that are completely disconnected from reality. I had a multi-day back and forth when I posted a Tik-Tok comment 'Democracy > Authoritarianism.' The most delusional excuses were that; China is more democratic than the US because is has 8 political parties, and the largest representative body. Also that all governments are authoritarian, and that I shouldn't have an opinion unless I thought highly of the USSR and Cuba under Castro, a ridiculous bar to reach. On Chinese democracy front, even a cursory Google search would tell you China is a One-Party dictatorship, but this person clung to a backwards definition of "Democracy" were only having political parties matters, ignoring that a common feature of dictatorships is fake elections.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

i suspect shallow and vacuous argument is a feature of tik tok and instagram, more so than twitter which at least has its immediacy going for it. deep political thought interferes with the influencer marketing. there is probably only so many political discussions to be had via lip synching to k-pop and flogging gymshark AMassiveGay (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

From a Marxist POV, China did score better as 'democratic' during the Hu-Wen era; it was a collective leadership which meant there was a fair amount of 'internal democracy' going on and there were semi-legal methods for groups to lobby/pressure the state into changing course on certain policies. However, Xi has now destroyed all this and it's only with the HK protests the Western Leftists deigned to notice that 'China has changed' (I noticed a bit earlier on this, when I first saw reports that Chinese Marxists were being disappeared. Yes, quoting Mao is an offense now).

Liberal also brushes up on the true ideological fault-line of this era (of which the Ukrainian/Russian war is merely the first phase); freedom vs control. To be allowed to publically dissent from the state's opinion, to publish information which does not support their POV, to campaign directly against them if you feel strongly enough - all without fearing their coersive power being turned against you. And at a more 'passive' level; to live your life in a manner you so desire, not dictated from above. Even if said 'dictates' could be legitimatly be argued as being 'in your interest'.

This is important, and worth fighting for even if you think your country is going in the wrong direction on all fronts (*glares towards Westminster*) - that our societal model *is* superior over the 'Putin/Xi model' in this regard because it allows organic change. We can flex, develop with the situation, while they are brittle and try to make the situation fit them. This ironically also makes our societies more stable; if Russia/China are nations ringed by sea walls, ours are nations edged by rip-rap.

Anyway, those folk on Tik-Tok cannot be hugely blamed with their definition of 'democracy' for I've seen equally stupid definitions being posted by the 'other side'. Is the USA truly democratic, when it's an extreme 2-party system? Is the UK one too, even though it's almost an 'elective dictatorship' and for around 80% of the population your vote is effectively worthless? And that when it comes down to it, while the name-plates change now and then, the majority of the same policies continue to be pushed? This isn't new; it's what led Trotsky to deride this as 'bourgeois democracy'; a tweedle-dum/dee electoral choice which is almost worthless in value. And ironically, allowed Putin to sneak up on us because he was 'elected'. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It's fine and dandy to criticize Western democracy, it's far from perfect, definitely in the US, republic is probably a better definition. However one party doesn't have sole control of the electoral process, like many dictatorships do. And it's perfectly reasonable to point out that, power in China doesn't emanate from the elected representatives, of which only the parties allowed by the CCP get to run. Instead all the power comes from the unelected executive branch, to wit all members are also in the CCP.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

However, for a long time it appeared that nations like the USA/UK were almost de facto 'one party states' because the leaderships of both major parties agreed with each other 92% of the time, followed the same policy trajectories, took funding from the same people and pretty much hailed from the same stratum of society. It's only when the Trumpians and ToryKippers arrived on-scene did some real water open up between the pair, and *only* because that side simply put their underpants on their heads. It's why it was really difficult to get up any excitement over Clinton in '16 and Biden was perhaps the nearest to being the 'American Brezhnev'.

The truth is simple enough; we get fixated on the trappings of 'democracy' (parties, voting etc) but not enough of developing the *spirit* of it. It was this that killed Weimar, the reason why almost every post-WW2 state the USA has tried to build fell apart and why we got taken in by Putin for so long. As I explained above, it's possible to have non-elective states which are run on a level of 'collective leadership', which normally could be seen as a kind of political alliance of several factions, and thus some elements of 'internal democracy'. What's more, lobbying was also permitted, so other 'outside' factions could make their views felt too. This could be superior in outcome to a kind of 'elective dictatorship' model where the winning side simply sees it as a chance to hit the opposition and loot the place, ignoring all complaint from anyone, however reasonable they may be.

Now, I'm aware that I'm sounding a little like Hayek here, but I consider 'democracy' less vital to a healthy society than 'freedom'. The above non-choice elections didn't really mattter much because they were becoming leaders of nations which were generally speaking 'free-ish' and that there were enough brakes on absolutism within the system to stop really stupid actions. What's more, it allows the society to put up with significant minorities which desire to live in strong contrast to the majority - that if the issue was forced, blood would run.

The other fly is the simple fact that there's massive swathes of our lives in which we have little to nil say on. Corporations, education, government organisations and so on. Roughly speaking, these are all absolutist entities that if we are lucky we *may* get a bit of 'flex' out of, if we know what people to hit up and/or what levers to pull (which the Soviets used to call 'blat'; connections). Otherwise, we're in a 'like it or lump it' situation, particulary in the swathes of the economy which are dominated by a very few providers or more commonly, the myriad of providers appear to be the same level of crappiness. Naturally, this was the *exact* point the Bolsheviks argued in 1917; that why should the working class, having won political freedom, then meekly submit to the economic despotism of the capitalist class via their corporations? KarmaPolice (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPoliceI can only speak to the USA experience, but democracy is realized beyond national politics. State and local elections have serious consequences, and often are experiments for future national campaigns. From the national level, countries like the US are so large, and institutions are designed to limit big changes from happening. The intention was to create consensus, however instead it has manifested itself inertia.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

In the American case, I think the problem is that the Republicans have learned two things. One, that 'consensus' can be found by simply digging in heels, being shitty and shouting loudly, in the expectations that the Third Way-er Democrats shall be chanting 'we need to be reasonable' and 'the people have turned rightwards' as they surrender to almost all the Republican's demands. Two; that simply rigging elections (jerrymandering, voter suppression etc) is easier and more effective than having to actually appeal to folks outside the base.

I would go as far as to say part of the electoral paralysis seen in the 10s was the simple fact Democrats simply got sick of being the ones who always dropped their underwear and started to do the shouty obstructionist tactics the Republicans had been doing for decades. And the Trumpian answer is simple; more jerrymandering and suppression to get 'victories'. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Is love an illusion? Do we really love someone or just some "thing"?

Very much so, you know.

Everything around you is an illusion in fact. For example, if you are one light year away from the earth and you see the earth, you see events from one year ago. So what does that mean? Every event is so unreal that our perception of stuff mattering is almost comical.

One more thing is what love are we talking about here? Is it love towards the immortal stuff like music, science and art? or are we talking boy-girl love here?

First, let me come to the latter part

Human beings are fickle.

It is said in Bhagavad Gita

“canchalam hi manah Krishna pramathi balavad drdham tasyaham nigraham manye vayor iva su-duskaram”

(Translation - Oh Krishna, the mind is fickle, turbulent , obstinate and restless. To control it seems more difficult than controlling a full blown storm) Arjun mentions a problem that we have all faced at some point in our lives. We just cannot control our mind. One minute, I’m thinking of focussing on work and the next minute, here I am on Quora answering random questions. How many days have you procrastinated stuff? As Arjun mentioned, its easier to control a storm than to control the human brain.

This is the fickle mind that we are dealing with. It is just impossible to create a “real” bond between one such human mind and another….especially when one has choices in choosing another mind - that is, your love towards your mother can be true because , one can have only one mother…thus in fact your love is towards maternity than towards the mind of the mother itself…no one would love their mother if the mother wasn’t kind and loving….would you love your mother if she had harassed you verbally and physically as a kid? No…because, you love the concept of maternity..which is care…and not the human being, that is the mother itself.

Now coming to lovers, a person has more than one choice for another human being as a “lover”. Now he/she categorizes a lot before choosing one ....and that narrows it down to around a million rather than a billion choices. Now can we trust our fickle mind to bond “really” with another such fickle mind? The answer is no, the bond is not real. It is an illusion. This illusion is created because we want it to be created. As things stand, no “normal” human being will like to admit that deep inside they are lonely. How much ever you claim to love a person, all the person can do is stand by and watch during some of your sufferings. Sure you’ll claim that him/her “being there for you” is a great sign….but no, its not a great sign…its a sign of weakness…if your mind is strong enough, you won’t need anyone to “be there for you”

Popularisation of idiotic things like mocking the guy who eats alone or mocking a guy who is single and forty years old in our sex-minded society is what has led to the popularisation of the concept of love. People want to believe that they have found their true lover….so that they aren’t “forty, single and eating alone”...

To sum it up - Love towards abstract things is ironically real…mainly because abstract things are a perception of one’s own mind…and hence your mind is totally attached to it.

Love towards “real” things is ironically an illusion…mainly because both of your minds are fickle"

It's got me in knots wondering if when we say "I love you" do we really mean the other person or just some abstract concept that we place on them.

Like the example he uses with the mother. If you loved your mother it wouldn't matter how she treated you, but that's not the case. You love care and maternity, not really her.

The part he says about other people is a non argument as it's not really a point, but his earlier one had me thinking what I really meant when I said I love someone. Is it just the trait I love and it doesn't matter who has it? Am I really just falling in love with concepts?Machina (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Your existential angst is keeping you from living a fulfilling life. Try not reading about this religious esotericism for a month, it might help. Bongolian (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't. Once you start questioning the reasoning behind things it's hard to live a fulfilling life when it's deconstructed.Machina (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - the less I seek my source for some definitive, the closer I am to fine. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Would an admin please collapse this? Hastur keeps undoing it. ShabiDOO 18:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Bongolian's a moderator and did the initial collapse. I'm putting it back in. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no basis to collapse this. It's not in a moderator's, or any administrator's, remit to collapse this-Hastur! (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The real question isn't "is love real?" but "does it matter?" ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The real, real question is "why does Machina keep doing this same tired fucking jack-off session even though everyone else hates it?" Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Is Machina real? How would we know?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(EC) Let's pick this apart a bit, shall we?
Everything around you is an illusion in fact. For example, if you are one light year away from the earth and you see the earth, you see events from one year ago. So what does that mean? Every event is so unreal that our perception of stuff mattering is almost comical.

• P1: If you are one lightyear from Earth, then if you look at the Earth, you will observe events from one year ago on Earth.
• C: Every event is unreal, and our perceptions don't matter.

This argument is ridiculous on its face. Adding [P2: Everything around you is an illusion] fails to salvage the conclusion, and is also a contentious premise that ought to be argued for in itself. Moving on:

• P1: Your love toward your mother can be true (because you only have one mother).
• P2: It is impossible to create a 'real "bond"' between 2 human minds.
• C1: Your love toward your mother is not love toward her mind.
• P3: Nobody would love their mother if she wasn't kind and loving.
• C2: Your love is towards maternity (i.e. kindness and lovingness), not your mother's mind.

P3 is false; people do sometimes love their mothers even when they are not kind or loving. The part of P1 I put in parentheses is rather strange, but P1 otherwise seems unobjectionable. P2 is unclear: what is meant by 'real bond'? The argument as it stands seems to justify neither C1 nor C2.
The paragraph about lovers is a bunch of edgy whinging, which both projects the author's feelings of loneliness onto others and buys into stereotypical tropes about the "strength" of refusing to form emotional bonds with other people (the author is apparently oblivious to the tension here). The paragraph does nothing recognizably argumentative; it only makes a series of unsupported assertions.
Could your love for somebody be reduced if, say, you learned that they were a conniving sleazebag? Sure, but it's not a profound insight that your attitudes toward other people have a basis in your beliefs about those people. It does not follow from this that your attitudes toward those people are actually attitudes toward your beliefs. 'I love vanilla ice cream', 'I love my beliefs about vanilla ice cream', and 'I love the concept of vanilla ice cream' are all distinct. Likewise, if I did not know who my mother was, I could not love my mother, but I could still have beliefs about my mother, and love those beliefs, and I could still have the concept of motherhood, and love that. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 20:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but it is also said in the Ramayana, "Garm hava kee thailiyon se javaab na maangen." Buck (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I only opened this up because I was betting that it was Machina attempting to waste more of our time. I was not wrong, alas. Zontar (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know where people are getting that this is solipsism when it has absolutely nothing to do with it but rather with whether the love we feel is about the person or something else that we end up attributing to the person. You seem to have no qualms about science saying things are illusions (and it has some takes on "love") but this is a matter of whether we really love the person or just a concept or idea or abstraction that we think is the person. It's something I wondered when people say they love someone, that's the problem when you start questioning stuff you eventually find how little there is to prop it up. People say they love their parents but if they were mean to them then they wouldn't love them. So in a sense you love kindness and not really the person. So how can I say I love someone and have it mean anything at all when it's not the person but just traits people love and if those change then you don't love them anymore? But I guess instead of thinking critically it's just easy to dismiss it as solipsism when it's clearly not.Machina (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

people like to be treated with kindness and love. therefore they like the people treating them like that. can and do love such people. people tend not to fall in love with people who do nothing but give them shit. fall out of love when the shit people give outweighs everything else. people love the people that provide the things that makes them feel good about themselves, and provide these things just for them. the person and what they provide to someone are not seperate things. ones loved ones are a package deal. this is just more of your inability to engage with people, or another excuse to not have to, to write of anything that normal people (not in denial about their issues have) feel about themselves and other people and their relationships as being false, made up and delusional. its tiresome. you are like a broken record. and you insult and demean people and their loves and their lives and whole being every time you repost these dogshit variations of a theme. peoples loves and live have worth and meaning to them. its entirely subjective to them, and you cannot tell them they wrong because they are not your lives and loves and know fuck all about them and you cannot tell them they are based on your inability or refusal to find any worth and meaning in your own existence. does it make you feel better about your own circumstances to think people not as troubled by morbid navel gazing to believe that people living their lives how they see fit and as best they can are delusional? fooling themselves? stop pretending your own bitterness is anything other than bitterness, as if you are revealing some profound truths. stop pretending to we should care or need to know that you have decided for us all our lives and loves are meaningless and delusional because you have been unable to believe this of your own liive and loves. thats why the collapse was in place, so solipsism not especially accurate in this case. would you have preferred a more accurate description such as 'self absorbed twat insists peopls lives are worthless and delusions and should all stop living theit lives and be bitter about life like a self absorbed twat looking for excuse after excuse to avoid confronting their own short comings' its a mouthful, granted, but if didnt like the solipsism thing, but well...there you go.

stop insisting your own own hang ups and inability to see the worth in your own life and existence means everyone elses lives and existence equally has no worth. subjective meanings and worth people have of their own life trumps your stubborn insistence that only objective universal truths matter, and stop insisting people are delusional or in denial purely because you need them to be delusional and in denial to not have to face up to whatever missing in your own life.

seek professional help. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

How much longer do you think the Russo-Ukraine war will last?

Can't go on for that much longer surely. 1.152.109.184 (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

People in Beirut went on vacation once the civil war started expecting it to be over in weeks. They didn't come back for years. Vietnam was supposed to be over in no time. This kind of thing is impossible to predict. ShabiDOO 23:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Even if the war does end, I'm worried that Russia might invade Moldova or other countries next. LongStylus (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the current state of the war, it's unlikely that they'll pull off another invasion.Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 05:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean, for all Putin is being told, Russian troops are occupying London as we speak. Revolverman (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

if it is to drag on for years we could hope for it be a frozen conflict where not much fighting actually takes place. would war in the ukraine outlast putin's reign? how long will putin remain in power, if there is no coup or is forced out? he could be in power until 2036 in theory, but would stay that long? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. So it's been going for quite a few years already.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I worry it will escalate beyond Ukraine despite how unlikely it is. I don't know how well-equipped they are to defend against Russia in the long-term.--Spoony (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia only had enough for a single wave of a Blitzkrieg. Blitzkriegs require multiple waves to work properly. Russia is going to be bogged down in Ukraine until they either win or lose. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe from running out of supply, but they are still taking a city or two.--2friedeggs (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I've seen claimed May 9th -Victory Day in Russia, to commemorate the victory against Hitler in WWII- is some sort of deadline. If Putin does not get his objectives by then, which given claims of the Ukrainian army suffering heavy losses despite them giving still more to the Russian one seems unlikely, some suggest he could announce mass mobilization, sending more people to the meat grinder, to defeat Ukraine once and for all even if after Moscow's use of hypersonic missiles, submarine-launched ones, etc. I'm afraid some tacnuke could be used to force a surrender given that the decisive battles are said to be fought now.

I think Russia will win and will get the Donbass, possibly Crimea too, and could even link to Transnistria landlocking Ukraine and presumably forcing them in the long term to join Russia as no exit to the Black Sea would ruin their economy. However expect lots of headaches there for Moscow (terrorism, etc) and its army will be left in quite bad shape so I doubt and hope they'll not try further adventures in a long time, even if having Finland and Sweden joining NATO would be a source of tension and nuclear weapons-based threats. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that Russia will get anything close to what it wants. They spent months marshalling an army to attack on all fronts and then had to withdraw and redeploy to concentrate on the northeast and east after their big push from Blelrus failed. They spent a lot of time regrouping for that (continued) thrust. Now according to the Guardian "Russia has now been forced to merge and redeploy units from failed advances in Ukraine’s north-east, the UK’s ministry of defence has said." So yet again (after significant losses) they are pulling back from one area to regroup and concentrate forces to attack an area they were concentrating on all along.

Meanwhile Putin says everything is going "according to plan". One hell of a plan.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Putin still hasn't admitted that it's an actual war, yet, has he? Mostly what I hear is butthurt. How dare that fake country have the temerity to fight back! I'm waiting to see what happens when the Ukrainians occupy Belgorod, myself. Zontar (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's evident that he's both evil and incompetent. (So I guess that it's no great surprise that certain groups who share these characteristics support him.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The Russo-Ukrainian War will likely become a greater war for control across eastern Europe. As people conceding is rarer, it is unlikely Ukraine will surrender even if occupied, which would still result in recognition. Russia will likely not just invade Moldova, but also Sweden and Finland if they can't join NATO in time. However, a war with Moldova will likely trigger a war with Romania. Romania is a NATO country, which will mean a full on war with NATO - including the US, if Russia tries to invade Romania.

But what is likely is NATO will not only free Ukraine and eastern europe if Romania is invaded, but push into Russia, forcing them to give up some territory. Andrew5 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

did you get all that from what you left in the bowl before you flushed? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I see Andrew has once again created grandiose narrative from thin air. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he has not lost his ability speak earnestly and at length about subjects in which he has zero expertise.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This source mentions possibility of invasion not just into Moldova, but also Georgia, which warred Russia in 2008. This source mentions a Russian empire, so it is not coming out of thin air. Andrew5 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Andrew, I know you're an idiot, but do try to read the part where Russia only had enough troops and vehicles for a single wave of a Blitzkrieg, and has suffered excessively large numbers of causalities since then. It's kinda important. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

China is siding Russia. If Russia can get China to side them, the result is scary...Andrew5 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew5 Andrew, if you don't actually engage with what's being said I'm going to just delete your comments. Where is Russian High Command going to get the troops, vehicles, and materials to invade other countries besides Ukraine? Where? Are they going to magic them out of the same place as your assertions? Where? Where are they going to come from? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Moldova is the only "other country" for which there is a plausible scenario for Russian invasion - no extra troops are needed.....it is a small country and not in NATO - if the land bridge through Odessa does get conquered you can see it disappearing into the new Russian empire pretty quickly. The Baltic States not so - they are NATO and have NATO (international) troops in them already. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie They'll probably get them from China, and they have plenty. But now I also see how they could run out. Andrew5 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew5 And why would the PRC do that? What do they have to gain from becoming overtly involved to that degree? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

What proof do you have that China is giving Russia supplies? I've never heard anyone say that China has officially sides with Russia, only Belarus, because Lukachenko is an asshole. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Damnit, I again didn't read carefully. As it turns out, it was an unofficial alliance. Andrew5 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

there is a hell of a lot of the abusive ex boyfriend in putins russia. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

How long after Putin's departure will the last? Anna Livia (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Another possibility is that Putin is in full sunk cost mode and will go on no matter the cost, up to annexing Ukraine as some say must happen, would mean to cripple the Russian army or even worse (I doubt China and India, especially the latter due to its relationships with Pakistan, would like to see tactical nuclear weapons being used). One advantage is that the world is no longer just US and Russia, and for China the US and Europe give far more monies than Russia. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's becoming clear that the Russians (from their POV) cannot beat Ukraine outright. In fact, if current trends continue it's possible by summer the Ukranians might be able to mount full-scale counter-offensives which could be successful (even the Russian General Staff can read graphs). This has become a war of production and if the West's arms bazaars continue to be at Kyiv's disposal I do not see how Russia can win that (though it's possible they're holding some power back; like the fact precious little of the Russian air force has been used as yet).

What's more, the Russians' actions in the 'occupied territories' seem to show they have sod all knowledge of history or even common sense. Cack-handed Russification, Soviet nostalga, looting, torture, raping and mass murders... between them, it's almost like it's designed to encourage 'mass resistance to death'. What's that line about if you want to see how hard someone can fight is to make it clear there's no other option?

A 'Transnistria front' would - I suspect - be a good thing for Ukraine. I bet they've had to leave lots of forces on that border to check any 'adventure' and if they could destroy the units they've bottled up they could then send their forces south/east to reinforce the 'main front'. I suspect Moldova won't overly complain if the Ukranians do their dirty work and trash the puppets so hard Chisinau can then finally settle the issue in their favour. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia I think will pursue two paths; Forcefully defending their territorial gains, then pushing to integrate as much as possible so it can't be returned to Ukraine. Seeking to bleed public support for Ukraine, and hope NATO partners convince Ukraine to give up territory. Every documented atrocity makes it harder to get to that point, but Russia won't leave, they need to be rooted out. I think Russia also has a red-line before engaging in a full war footing or deploying WMD's, namely control of Crimea.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, the second sentence has just become a bit harder to do; EU is banning Russian lobbyists and other white-collar mercenaries. Being a European lawyer for a crony of Putin's used to mean you simply had little to nil soul. Now it shall make you a criminal too; something I suspect is too far even for them. I paraphrase Morty from Layer Cake; you can't enjoy all that blood-stained cash from a prison cell. Now we need to get the UK and USA on-board and enforce it hard... KarmaPolice (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I ref properly here on RationalWiki?

Hi, I am quite new here. Do you guys have a preferred referencing style that you use here? Thank you very much! ♈︎♉︎♊︎♋︎♌︎♍︎♎︎♏︎♐︎♑︎♒︎♓︎ (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You can find guidance on references here: Help:References. We have no preferred style, but for silver- and gold-level articles, it is nice to have consistency within the article. Bongolian (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Astroyoder (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Changing titles

Hi. I would like to change the title of Apelar al fe to "Apelación a la fe". Can anyone help me? ^{— Unsigned, by: Rabbitseatcarrots / talk / contribs}

Actually, I think "Apelar a la fe" would be a better title Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Dicho y hecho. Spud (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Title change seems good. But why did you use "apelar" in the title but "apelación" in the lead? LongStylus (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. I think article titles should be nouns instead of verbs whenever possible. I have moved Apelación a la fe again and have moved Apelación a la piedad as well. Spud (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia seems to flip-flop between the verb and the noun: Apelación a la probabilidad and Apelación a la Naturaleza being two that use the noun, whereas three other articles use the verb. Interesting phenomenon. Nevertheless, we'll yield to your native-like judgment on this. LongStylus (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to change my title to Tsar of All the Americas and Protector of Ukraine. Zontar (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Or would you rather be titled with verbs instead: Ruling all the Americas and Protecting Ukraine? LongStylus (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Stalin's ethnicity

I came across somebody who stated that since Mao and Stalin killed a lot of people Asians are more violent(tacit meaning uncivilized) than Europeans? Is Stalin Asian? Georgia is in Asia but their culture is similar to that of Europe right? Also Georgia was part of the Russian Empire at that time. Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 11:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure whether such extremely broad and vague terms as “Asian” and “European” makes sense when trying to describe individuals or explain their actions. Whether the various Caucasians or Russians should be regarded “Europeans” is something that has been debated for centuries, and “European” dismissals of Russians (and/or Caucasians) as “uncivilised savages” have tended to use Yellow Peril style rhetoric to portray them as Asian. All of the three Caucasian states (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) are members of the Council of Europe, as was Russia until the Ukraine invasion, so by that definition they are all “European”; but then again, Kazakhstan is eligible to became a member of the CoE, so… ScepticWombat (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I think that any sweeping definition of Stalin as either “European” or “Asian” is pretty pointless in and of itself, and if the purpose is to explain his behaviour, I think it says more about the one positing this connection, which I would consider silly, not to say ludicrous (and probably a sign that the claim is grounded in the kind of “culturalism” that has been pushed by, say, Samuel P. Huntington, or in outright racism).

However, some attempts at “othering” Stalin have indeed stressed his Georgian heritage, as this also fits in with the kind of Russian stereotypes of Caucasians that have parallels in some “European” views of the Balkans as filled with bandits, blood feuds and a certain level of exotic free booting. This is kind of hilarious, considering that while Stalin never denied his personal background, he was hardly sympathetic to the various minorities in the USSR, being more in tune with earlier Russification attempts or at least suppression of the minorities.

Should Georgians be considered “Europeans”? I guess that will depend on what you consider the salient features of a “European” to be. Ditto for “Asian”. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

So, I guess this is a Not even wrong case.Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 12:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Kinda. Or at least a sort of “completely beside the point” sort of thing. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This really is "who cares" territory! Trump apparently has German ancestry. So does the Royal Family of the UK. Can somebody make something of this?

Biden apparently traces his roots back to Ireland. Boris Johnson's great grandfather was Turkish. (I have just discovered). But so what? Really? Who cares apart from some racists?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The real question is who or where this "came across somebody who stated that since Mao and Stalin killed a lot of people Asians are more violent" tidbit actually came from. This is both appallingly racist and appallingly ignorant. Typically it is not even worth wasting any time on this sort of bullshit, since even casual world knowledge of world history is enough to prevent one from declaring any ethnicity of homo sapiens "more violent" (basically, human beings are extremely violent animals overall, I certainly can't think of another species that actually commits violence against others of its kind in the en masse style humans have used countless times over the ages). However, the one thing I will say is the above "logic" is similar to what you see in the type of propaganda to get ignorant people to commit violence against people they don't even know. 35.140.177.2 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

chimpanzees apprently 'war'. they are violent fuckers - really vicious. gombe chimp warAMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

most of russia is firmly in asia geographically, but most of its people live in the europe part. russia always been viewed with heavy dose of eastern exoticism in west, orthodox christianity gives it part of this. various tsars have been very westward looking in their outlook, seeking to emulate western culture and industry, when european empires ruled the world. when its been in direct opposition to the west, i still dont think it was looking eastward. maybe it will now with china in the ascendence, but i understand the more 'asian' members of its peoples face a hell of a lot of racism from far right russian nationalists.AMassiveGay (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

according to the beeb georgia is geographically in asia, so stalin was asian i guess. the same bbc article say homophobic protestors were shouting at a small lgbt march to 'go back to europe'. so there is the answer for all it matters. interesting trivia abpout where the borders of europe and asia lie which is kind of interesting to me even if we are accepting it has little significance otherwise. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

or even better stalin was eurasian. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

What about Genghis Khan - and Hitler? (This is not argumentum ad Godwin's Law). Anna Livia (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Conclusion: I've realized that this question is pretty stupid because the European/Asian dichotomy is 20th century bullshit and I should stop responding to amateur racists. Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 05:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Some geographer draws a line arbitrarily somewhere on a map and somebody else apportions a series of labels to all the people on one side of that line and another series of labels to everyone on another side. Then history is interpreted using these labels. And, of course, as we are fitting our explanation to these preconceptions - everything makes sense!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Other Warlike Species

As an aside, a BoN mentioned they couldn't think of any warlike species that kills each other en masse other than humans. Chimpanzees do it as well, but the answer to your question is ants. Ants fight constant and incredibly bloody wars for territory even amongst close relatives. Only a single matriarch generation is sufficient for them to brutally murder and enslave each other. Since they do not have higher brain function and only fight through mechanistic application of pheramones and are still able to form battle formations without the need of a guiding authority, I would argue that ants are the most innately warlike species on earth. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, ants are probably the ideal case of warrior species. Since the primary combatants are all sterile (unable to breed), loss of individual ants is insignificant to the reproductive success of the colony. Bongolian (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly warlike in the same way, but when male lions and male gorillas become the dominant male they may kill any existing youngsters so that they can get the females pregnant again. (At least that is my understanding.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

there seems to me a distinction between warlike behaviour that is purely instinctual and that which is done as a pissing contest or shits and giggles. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

A lot of species do that, polar bears and grizzly bears will hunt young for the same reason. A bold move, trying to mate with someone whose offspring you killed. Chimps will also occasionally murder gorilla young, they don't even bother eating it like they do after dismembering chimp babies; that behavior isn't yet fully understood. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bob M The whole lion killing cubs is not as prevalent as some would have us think. https://lionaid.org/faqs_lions/why-do-male-lions-kill-cubs.htm#:~:text=It%20was%20originally%20proposed%20that,females%20then%20become%20receptive%20again. Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 03:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Your link to the "Lionaid" website seems a little unclear on what it wants to say - and it is possible that a society dedicated to helping lions will want to put the most positive spin they can on the behavior. Africa Geographic says :" When a new coalition of males takes over a pride, they almost always kill the prides’ cubs." But I'm guessing that neither of us are experts.Bob

^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

nature is red in tooth and claw as tennyson puts it. i think everyone is kind of aware that even the most majestic of natures beasts have to be massive dicks to survive. any david attenborough doc will show this and they get massive numbers watching them. people, if asked and push comes to shove, make noises about survival as an epic struggle to exist. some might just quote the lion king and mutter something about the circle of life. but chimps being absolutely fucking vicious, shaking trees and throughing branches at cute little monkeys to catch and bite their heads of, brutally resolving power struggles in their troop leaving the losers barely alive and left to die alone outside of their territory, or against rival troops (gombe chimpanzee war - see the link above i posted. its realy fucking brutal), and all of that, i think people try to pretend doesnt happen or ignore it. chimps are cute to people, they are humanised by us, seen as like young children, think they are almost just like us people think. its disturbing for people to see chimps as violent motherfuckers, when we think of them in those terms. lions are majestic wild beasts, chimps and gorillas you can teach sign language and have rudimentary conversations with them - theyn are not animal animals. they are like people animals, civilised almost. it would probably be even more unsettling for people to think that yes, chimps are like people in many ways that we can identify with them like we do, but their proclivity for chimp on chimp violence is one such way they are like people.

this would be compounded if people ever found out they do not speak with cockney accents or drink much tea. it would be just too much. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The "apes using sign language" idea remains controversial.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter

What is going to happen to politics and the world as a whole as a result of Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter? It has been in the news a lot. Higgs (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The same thing that happened when Bezos bought Washington Post? CorruptUser 21:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

twitter is probably going to need the same kind of moderation as it does now less he wants twitter to be fined into oblivion in markets like europe. see the article i posted in blogs.

also did/does the washington post have the same sort of reach to make it comparable? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Twitter affects America's politics/culture and American politics/culture affects Europe. So European regulators can't entirely eliminate Twitter's affects on Europe. Higgs (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I know a lot of people are catastrophizing, but I'm honestly taking a wait-and-see approach on this. I really don't think he has the bandwidth to be micromanaging Twitter in between Tesla, Tesla Energy, SpaceX, Boring Company, etc., so I'm not sure how much of an impact on the day-to-day that he'll have (at least, before he gets bored of it), and in turn how much loosening of moderation there'll be.

That said, full disclosure, I do have a very negative view of the state of Twitter moderation in the first place so I forsee a lot more of the worsening in the personal user experience coming from emboldened trolls rather than any sort of moderation backslide (given, IMO, there's not very much space to slide back to). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Worst case scenario, Twitter joins MySpace, Friendster and AIM. Oh noes, a social media site changed, whatever shall we do?! It's not as if we have some sort of interconnected network, like, an "inter-net", where another social media company could pop up instantly. We're doomed, doomed I tell you!CorruptUser 01:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The real question IMHO is what happens to Tesla, the current leader of electric car manufacturers, but with well known QC problems and many other manufacturers hot on his tail. It certainly doesn't sound like the optimal time to focus on shitposting on Twitter, particularly as he starts to enter markets like China where the wrong post could have you face the Jack Ma fate. (I smell a potential Netflix kerblamo, but who knows?) Also from an American cultural perspective I do also find his recent Twitter "woke" bashing a wee bit curious, considering that electric cars probably are still more bought by those concerned about climate change than not, and those types tend to especially be on "the left" here. Meh (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If Tesla gets graphene batteries scaled up to industrial levels, it's game over for everyone else. Basically, graphene batteries store more, are safer, charge faster, last longer, etc. The real questions are what materials will be used for the production of the stuff, and total cost. But graphene batteries store 6x as much, so even if they are 5x the price for the same weight of battery it's still an improvement. Once the price drops to $100/KWH, electric cars become cheaper than ICE. Which is a benefit in the long run even ignoring the environment; electric cars last much longer simply because the motor has far fewer moving parts and doesn't operate on the principle of "constant small explosions". CorruptUser 04:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If Musk finds a way to mine cobalt or lithium from the asteroids that could reduce the prices of EV. It could also end the child labour industry in DRC. However I'm pretty sure that the space miners will need a hell of a raise. Also, it's pretty unrealistic anyway. Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 06:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If you could mine asteroids, why the fuck would you bring the metals back down to Earth? The biggest cost in space-travel is getting out of Earth's atmo; the metals are already up there in orbit, make more spaceships. CorruptUser 06:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Spaceships aren't made from ores. https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/are-satellites-and-rockets-made-out-same-materials#:~:text=A%3A,%2Dcadmium%20or%20aluminum%2Dberyllium.Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 08:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You would refine the metals in space. The material requirements for spaceships are driven mostly by the intense forces required to get to space in the first place. If it never needs to land on earth or another planetoid, you just have to make sure your materials don't degrade in space. So basically any metal will do the trick. The article you post is wrong in this context, because the *reason* satellites have to be made so light is because they come from earth. If built in space and fueled using resources in space, it becomes far less demanding. Remember, getting off earth takes half the energy required to go anywhere in the solar system, and going to mars vs the moon is only a 10% difference in energy requirement. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

question: is anyone mining asteroids currently or on the verge of doing so? no? then we are back to will tesla, which has major stock price crashes every time musk shitposts on twitter, has to ask the sec permission shitpost on some subjects, and who loves to shit post so much he bought the company, be affected now twitter is now musk's new personal blog? personally i dont really care what happens to tesla, and would that maybe twitter dies from a musk infection, but the suggestion that tesla will be fine if it just makes a major significant breakthrough doent answer the question just ducks it entirely with a colossal if, and thats if the battery isnt just fantasy for the immediate future. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Tesla will be fine without graphene batteries. Point is if they do get them, Tesla will be an order of magnitude more than fine. Not fine enough to be worth $1T, but certainly worthy of being worth more than Chrysler. CorruptUser 12:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

on a sidenote, or rather in line with the op's question, i hear musk has been chatting to some far right fuckhead currently blocked by twitter by trying to arrange for people to shoot blm activists and is telling them they be back tweeting in no time once everythings gone through. free speech means hate speech to musk, or that he doesnt give to much of a fuck about free speech only his free speech and an opportunity to spite the board of twitter and anyone who may have sleighted him in some way. what is it with obscenely wealthy gobshites and fragile egos? you'd think once some is rich enough that the little people become just ants to them, and would not even be aware even of the existence of them, let alone care what they might be saying about them. if musk were a poor nomark wronged by someone on twitter - likely the only mention by someone on twitter about him that he would notice and he'd no doubt start a flame war until made to stop twitter. musk the billionaire though, sleighted by someone twitter - celeb, politician, or just some rando - and musk instead of thinking why give a fuck when he could buy and sell his detractors 10 times over, billionaire musk must respond to every sleight 10 times over, accusations of paedophilia and hiring private investigators to boot, and failing that hes now bought twitter. couldnt he have just done just done what some other massive but rich pricks have done and just pay to produce his own hip hop album vanity project and then pay off all the music critics to say its good? it would have cheaper for him AMassiveGay (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The reason I mention Netflix is because I sort of see a similar situation with Tesla. Netflix was riding in hog heaven when it was the only game in town, but if you bought Netflix stock at its peak, you'd be down 62% at this point. They too had major issues (content management in particular was awful), but no one cared until they were no longer the only game in streaming. Now all the warts are exposed. Netflix will be "fine" but is a neutered FAANG these days, they are no Apple or Amazon. Tesla certainly will be "fine" too, but even with Musk's Twitter bullshit (plus the general tech stock malaise) crashing TSLA 25% from its peak, the stock still seems overpriced considering the competition coming up, as long as it is run by a CEO who seems to value shitposts more than electric cars. As far as "politics and the world as a whole" I don't see much difference whatever happens (if it happens). Twitter is a cesspool of relatively meh importance these days, and the social media vibe seems to be moving to Tiktok or Snapchat. We've seen what happens when libertarian Silicon Valley bros start "free speech" platforms, they get barely used. Most people social media for fun IMHO, and there is not much fun at a Gab or Parler. The terms of service at major social media platforms is largely IMHO advertiser driven as well, major companies don't want their brand appealing next to some right-wing shithead Heil Hitlering (or jihad terrorists or child exploitation shit or other content in the TOS). So too much "free speech" might kill your ad revenue stream. Really, there are no real questions other than how much can Musk ruin Twitter with his libertarian broism, which is honestly a topic of low importance. Meh (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ethan Zuckerman, Director of the Initiative for Digital Public Infrastructure at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, said that Twitter punches above the weight of its user base because of its worldwide accessibility and the mainstream media’s tendency to mine the site for information and perspectives.

Elon Musk Will Make an Indelible Mark on Twitter, Experts Say. Higgs (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Back to the original point...

a) Musk will have a lot of debt to service, and is plodding the path of the old 'asset strippers' of yore; speaking of 'increasing monetisation' from Twitter (ie heavier use of data and/or ads) and 'efficiency savings' (ie job cuts etc). It's a rare bird where these things prove to be good for end users.

b) I have heard a semi-convincing argument that some of the main reasons Musk bought Twitter was a) a possible exchange system for his 'Dogecoin' crypto, b) access to the massive Twitter data-dumps for Tesla AI to chew on and c) a product for SpaceX's 'Starlink' worldwide internet. Tie this into d) the Tesla Pi Phone... well, do I need to draw any more dots?

c) Musk's history with 'free speech' is rather similar to the other 'big tech libertarians', intersperced with the classic "boss is always right" ultra-rich egotism shown by not only say, Agent Orange but Bezos too. While he's no way an Bob 'Eat Shit' Murray he does have a tendency to harrass and attempt to gag negative press reports on either him or any of his companies/products. What's more, several of his utterings suggest he likes the FB 'no anonymous accounts' rule.

In conclusion; I think we've hit 'peak Twitter'. Musk is in a bind; he shall need to 'squeeze value' out of it harder to service the debt but almost everything to do this points to causing folks to leave in droves. Many of the 'innovations' he's mooted will seriously hurt the 'integrity' of the thing. What's more, he's said that 'this isn't a way to sort of make money'. This points to two main ways he'll 'get value' from Twitter; the crypto and the monster data records.

Folks have drawn an analogy between this and Bezos/WashPost but that's kinda wrong. The paper is, well a paper/website. It generally controls it's own output, and is a top-down system; Bezos doesn't need to 'interfere', just make sure the senior editor is generally in-sync with his 'worldview'. What's more, I think he considers the occasional tooth-grinding situation with a particular article as a price worth paying for what he gets in return - influence.

Twitter is bottom-up. It relies on us to produce the content to attract folks. The platform itself is merely a publisher. It's not even like a traditional publisher like say, Penguin because it has almost no quality control. The platform has power, but the moment they start flexing such power is the moment it shall start to rot away. The 'best' bet in Musk's case is if he realises the best way to maximise 'value' is to basically not interfere in it - even if he tries to subtly 'steer' it in a more desired direction folks shall notice quite quickly (like progressive/socialist outlets/groups/persons did when FB declared war on them in the last couple of years).

Which is the ultimate problem Musk shall face. To allow the right-wing trolls, slime-monsters and MAGA debris Musk has increasingly been flirting with 'back on the land' will if not controlled *gah!* shall very quickly cause Twitter to die (as more moderate or simply apolitical folks leave) - just ask any of the admins here about what a 'moderation-free RW' would look like? What's more, these folks aren't 'profitable' in a big way (if they were, their alt-tech would have not sucked) and what's more, Musk shall know this.

KarmaPolice (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur with everyone else here, who the hell pays attention to Twitter anymore? It's just a bunch of bickering and fighting in my experience. 71.208.x.x (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Twitter is the 5th most popular website in the world and in the USA. The website is worth billions of dollars. Higgs (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is Twitter useful/relevant? A good quick way of responding/announcing stuff for the non-crazies. I don't do Twitter, but I do at times look at individual's accounts (for announcements etc). You can follow (for example) your local MP and get their reactions to new policies, issues and so on. Or an academic/campaigner you respect. Or even your local train network to tell you if there's delays etc (well, if you use it alot like I do). Because it's devoid of direct images, video etc it puts it somewhat anti influencer/eyecandy and it's brevity (due to format) means it's very quick/simple to produce. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Any website which has a lot of political material and perspectives and has user interaction is going to have a lot of bickering and fighting. That comes with the territory. And a lot of people enjoy watching conflict and even aggression. Presidential debates, battling political pundits, boxing, football, rugby, hockey and MMA fighing draw big audiences. Higgs (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Meh Frankly, I suspect companies worrying about their brand appearing next to extremist content is going to be the downfall of TV and Radio advertising in general and certain types of internet advertising (ads by Google, etc). Take for example sports players getting political on the field and causing Republicans to boycott the advertisers. Many of the advertisers probably wouldn’t have thought sports would be that controversial. It’s easy for a liberal to say the companies don’t care, but I can guarantee that the shareholders don’t want half of the US population boycotting their investment, so when advertising on a particular medium causes the company to lose as many or more customers than the company gains, they’re going to remove that platform from their portfolio. This is not to mention, of course, there’s no way for an advertiser to stop its TV or radio ad from playing at a Nazi bar or a brothel. 71.208.x.x (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between the political sports bruhaha in America and "pedophile comment section, sponsored by Nestlé" (this actually happened on Youtube in 2019, causing a temporary ruckus among advertisers). "Free speech" includes a lot of not so nice stuff, much of it not even related to the American tribal political thing. We'll see if Musk discovers what other social media CEOs already know. Meh (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think 'consumer political boycotts' are more right-wing talking-points than anything else, a variant of manufacturversy. I don't think the majority of people even follow them, just a kind of right-wing 'slacktivism', of showing 'you're on our side' of the Culture Wars™. You think every conservative/Christian in the USA is going to totally boycott/cancel Disney over the thing in Florida? I really doubt it, and the lack of reaction from the serious donkeys in the business world suggests similar. (Corp America is more concerned about *staff* resistance to corp policies, as younger generations are much less willing to 'suspend' their moral/ethics when they punch-in for work than older generations were).

Anyway, one point to consider; Musk's financing of this (in simple terms). He's got his 'deposit' (cash), then a lot of cash raised through a loan on his main asset (Tesla shares), then the same again through partners and then finally a loan on Twitter itself. In short, Twitter shall end up with a $13bn loan and $600m yearly payments for the honour of being (mainly) Musk's. Now, even before this Twitter's credit rating was questionable at best. He's also got the weak link in that a Tesla margin call could seriously wreck his prospects.

The very fact that Twitter made a $220m loss last year and had an revenue of $1.6bn suggests a $600m yearly payout on top of this is the last thing it needs. My fag-packet says if he's unable to significantly raise income levels, Twitter will need to cut their operating costs by perhaps 50% to simply break even. I think part of his 'free speech' BS is partly because he thinks moderation is a kind of cost he can do without. But now I've crunched the numbers, I honestly don't see how this is gonna pay unless he is planning to loot it for it's data (or similar). If he'd just wanted a soap-box, he'd have bought a few news websites or newspapers with his spare change. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not a question of if the Foxification of social media is going to happen, but when. Where there is a demand for something, suppliers are going to pop up. And the American right has begun to launch organizations and initiatives that fight against the leftward drift of American corporations.[1][2] Higgs (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I really like that idea. All you lot can go into a safe bell-jar where you're simply talking to yourself, while not noticing the world changing outside the window (that's the 'leftward drift' you're bitching about; society moving on). There you can simply get stuck into a feedback loop, becoming more demented, senile and obsessive about crap nobody else cares about anymore. Then when you occasionally come out into the wider world, everyone shall think you're a reactionary loon, like that elderly relative you see at Christmas who still thinks it's 1992. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Fox News is reporting that Trump's Truth Social was the top downloaded app on Apple last week. The "Foxification" and growth of right-wing social media is in its beginning stages.

As far as advertisers, it looks like the proliferation of new conservative groups forming to push corporate America farther to the right is happening faster than I thought. I found more conservative groups popping up to achieve this aim.[3][4] . So the NY Post is reporting on this matter (The New York Post is owned by Rupurt Murdoch). Higgs (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Why do I smell Ken in the room? 71.208.x.x (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I dunno. Do malfunctioning chatbots smell of anything in particular? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Elon will probably will have to ban any hate speech on his platform anyway or face the fury of regulators. ♈︎♉︎♊︎♋︎♌︎♍︎♎︎♏︎♐︎♑︎♒︎♓︎ (Discuss)

He'll have to, for as explained above he cannot *afford* to do otherwise. If he truly held as a 'free speech absolutist' he could have used his spare change to fund to eternity a kind of MuskChan or something. The issue is that kind of thing simply attracts sewer-dwellers. For the truth is some ~85% of users find the current Twitter Overton Window fine. We also have to remember that Americans only comprise 37% of the Twitter-base; in this case, the 'one Twitter, one world' model means that it shall *have* to follow the strongest regulation standards of the markets it operates in. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky has lost me

Chomsky praising Trump over Russia

Up until recently, the Chomsky article looked like it was written by some fan of his. At this point I’m not sure if he has a coherent ideology other than “USA bad”. 98.186.205.221 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

not so long ago chomsky was urging people to make sure trump was not re-elected as he considered an existential threat to humanity. watching the source video, he does not appear have changed his mind, immediately after the clip on twitter he tells the interviewer just what he thinks of trump. that clip was 2 mins of the 57 minute interview and that was literally the only part that referred to trump, and was not about trump so much as saying what he thinks should be done be about - diplomacy, largely- and that trump was the only high ranking politician currently who has advocated this approach. hes not suggestioning he should be in white house. hes not saying he likes the man or that he would be anyway good the us nation or or the world. just that he is only person of note who say we should be trying diplomacy in ukraine and not escalation. he also says trump is vague on the details and the more comprehensive explanation of this diplomatic option chomsky describes is chomskys ideas not trumps.

the message to take from tha clip and is clear to anyone watching it is, according to chomskys view, diplomacy over non escalation is the best policy to end the ukraine crisis. chomsky is well aware of the irony, so is greenwald probably, who is obviously very aware of the concept of clickbait. i assume also that he believe more people than not will watch the clip and realise this is barely praise and is not the point of what was being said. i dont agree with chomskys assessment tbh, and i think greenwalds mistaken (if the retweet the above link is any indication) if he thinks most people will see even bother watching the video - the clip or in full - and just reference it to support a notion of trump as not a self serving fucknut who would have cheered putin on if he were in the whitehouse, and/or to attack chomsky by inferring hes big trump fan, with links titled something 'chomsky praising trump over russia'.

Clickbait pure and simple. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

most of the comments (on greenwalds twitter at least) is discussion about the appropriateness of chomskys diplomacy suggestion to the current crisis btw, next to no discussion of chomsky and trump sitting in a tree, k i s s i n g AMassiveGay (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Joe Biden is incompetent and not well-respected. I hope France's Emmanuel Macron gets Putin/Zelenski at the bargaining table. Higgs (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think Macron would look a utter fool and tool if he was still trying that. Putin treated him like crap, and the Ukranians have near-nil desire to 'negociate' with a man who's burning, looting, raping and killing their country. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The whole point of peace negotiations is to stop the killing, looting and raping of wartime. The world needs grain, fertilizer and oil so the sooner the bullets and artillery stop flying through the air in Ukraine/Russia, the better off the world will be. France has a lot of dipomatic connections in Africa. As far as diplomacy, Macron is Africa's best hope to stop the brewing food crisis. Higgs (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No point signing anything with Putin for he wouldn't keep to it. He would simply dig into the bits of Ukraine he's stolen, brutally Russify them, rearm and regroup. And try again in a couple of years time. He is the *cause* of all this shit, and you're saying he should be rewarded for this?

You can go to hell, 'Higgs'. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The Soviet Union had plenty of bad actors. The USA and the former Soviet Union had some fruitful negotiations during the Cold War. The strategic arms limitations talks (SALT) helped stabilize USA/Soviet/Russian relations. Higgs (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Putin is quite possibly mentally ill. Negotiating with him would be problematic. He simply need to withdraw or lose.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The long distance diagnosing of others mental health is unreliable. That is why the American Psychiatric Association has the Goldwater rule. Without peace negotiations the Russia/Ukraine war could drag on for months or years. Meanwhile, a very large amount Africans would die or suffer the consequences of malnutrition and many Ukranian civilians will die of Russian artillery attacks. Ukraine/Russia: As War Continues, Africa Food Crisis Looms. And the longer this war drags on, the higher the chance of nuclear war or WWIII. Higgs (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Higgs If you google "Putin mental illness" you will get multiple hits. I said he was "quite possibly" mentally ill. In any event he is not an honest negotiator.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Higgs The Russian Federation isn't the USSR. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

ECthere seems little hope for diplomacy. that requires some give and take, russia has nothing it can give in return for taking ukrainian land into mother russia. ukraine has evrerything that russia want and would be expected to give up some portion of it, ie land, to russia, and only being able take from the russia in return is russian troops leaving their lands. and russia will have ukraine pinky swear to say no to nato, and remain non aligned which as russias direct neighbour non aligned means russia's bitch. its a win on all fronts for russia, and ukraine are not going to go for it meaning soldiering on without western arms which means russia wins militarily too just putting up with low level guerilla actions from die hard ukrainians. the time for diplomacy was before the invasion, and putin was not having it, invading when he did to prevent any solidification of ukraine defence (he blew it). its only because russia has nukes that west 'are' mainly doing diplomacy ie sanctions that than we can drop if russia gets the fuck out of ukraine. without nukes russia would not not have dared a confrontation with nato forces, or just us and uk forces, which no matter how much of a fight they might have put up, would have been costly to even contemplate.

by having capitulated with diplomacy now, where next do you think russia can chance it and gain everything via diplomacy? what about china too, looking on in wings? taiwanese folk might start to feel less secure at the very least. and every other nation currently in dispute with their neighbours seeing how nukes lets states act with impunity and seem like a good idea to get cracking on acquiring some.

diplomacy is the option here for 94 old leftist like chomsky whose views a world that might been possible a while back but no longer as viable, and fuck nut like trump who were fellating putin before the invasion, and would like ukraine to just shut up and take it because they would love to get fucked by putin, ukraine are just ungrateful AMassiveGay (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The current Russian Federation and USSR were both expansionistic in modern times. The Russians played a big role in the Soviet Union. The SALT talks lessoned aggressions between the Soviet Union/USA and stabilized USA/Soviet relations so peace negotiations in this conflict may lesson or even end aggression between Russia/Ukraine. Modern war puts a strain on countries in terms of lives and treasure and as war drags on citizens grow war weary and more and more pressure is put on countries leaders to end the conflict. As this war drags on, the door to peace negotiations should stay open. Higgs (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This is like asking a victim to negotiate with a thug attacking them on the street. The last time western powers went for appeasement to stop aggression it didn't work out so well.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Most wars start with one side firing the first shots and being the initial aggressor. And peace negotiations don't require appeasement. Higgs (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Big difference being, the aggressor wants total and complete surrender, and also doesn't think the country it invaded has the right to exist. There is nothing to negotiate.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@HiggsOK. If you are negotiating with Putin then presumably you would be prepared to give him something in return for him stopping his war. The same as the western powers attempted with Hitler (sorry Godwin) in order to stop his aggression. That was called appeasement. How would giving Putin something (presumably part of Ukraine) be different?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing to negotiate when one party has shown no interest in good-faith negotiations. The Russian government has shown bad faith on multiple levels: declaring that it was not planning to invade just before invading, violating the UN charter with a full-scale war of aggression, massive war crimes (both by individual soldiers, by intentional bombardment of civilians, hospitals and schools, theft and kidnapping). How does one negotiate with an entity that actively attempting genocide? Every minor commitment by Russia at negotiations in Turkey (cease fires) has been violated by the military. Bongolian (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's a more important question. Why should they? Why should we in the west carve up Ukraine, who it appears does not desire this? Why? Why should what we want override what Ukrainians want? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

To point out the parallels with the example of Germany's initial conquests, none of the conquered people were consulted on what they wanted. Third parties carved up their land and their lives for schemes and motions that were beyond the interests of the conquered peoples. The Polish people were not consulted in the Molotov-Ripponthropt pact. The Czechoslovakians were not consulted when Britain signed agreements with Germany. Why on earth should Ukrainians abide by any agreement between the West and Russia? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the war will end with Ukraine merely promising never to join NATO or promising not to join it soon. Zelensky has already floated that trial balloon publicly. And there is a growing risk of USA/European/global recession and modern war isn't cheap to engage in. On the Russian side of the fence, the Russian/Afghanistan war ended due to mounting Russian war casualties. I don't pretend to know what future peace negotiations will be worked out, but the West invading and conquering Russia is not going to happen. And Russia conquering and holding Ukraine long term is not going to happen either. Higgs (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Higgs Fucking answer the question! Why the fuck should they?!?! Why? Because it makes our cushy lives easier? So does killing the lot of them. Why should they sign? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

GrammarCommie is correct. Allowing Russia to get away with this atrocity will only embolden it. Giving in to bullies only further emboldens the bully. If Russia succeeds in the war, they will continue on this path across Eastern Europe. Bongolian (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bongolian Not only that, but we would be explicitly acting against the will of the Ukrainian people, and basically telling them "we know what's best, shut up or else". At which point, what the fuck is the difference between us and Russia? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Pay the Putin-geld, never get rid of the Putin - no more appeasement. We've tried that for over a decade and he simply took and took and took. Now he's following the argument of the violent husband and the 'look what you made me do' to their battered wife.

Your argument, Higgs is that in this case the wife should meekly drop knickers to stop the blows and to accommodate his needs. That's only a policy that seems to work when you're always on top and don't know what it's *like* to be shat on for no fault of your own.

And for that, you can truly go to hell for your excellent 'AmericaSplaining' to the world yet again.

(What... I agree with GC? Suppose it's bound to happen eventually...) KarmaPolice (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Russia has already taken two bites out of Ukraine after guaranteeing its security only a few years earlier. We can't trust Putin and it's not down to "us" anyway.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

In April Reuters reported that a record number of Ukrainians support joining EU, but Ukranian backing for NATO membership falls. Ukrainians have surely weighed the pros/cons of pursuing NATO membership and the popularity of wanting to join NATO has fallen. America is funding the lion's share of Ukraine's military support and NPR recently reported that Most Americans don't like Biden's Ukraine response and worry about inflation. And America is war weary due to the Iraqi/Afghanistan War. Higgs (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to clarify my last post by quoting the news source I just gave: "More than 6 in 10 Americans want the U.S. to give Ukraine some of the support it wants, while still trying to avoid a larger military conflict with Russia. Fewer than 2 in 10 say the U.S. should give Ukraine everything it wants, even if it risks a wider war."[5] Americans are not committed to end this war quickly by dramatically ramping up the funding of the Ukrainian military. And there are clear signs that the USA is heading towards a recession so America's willingness to fund this war could easily wane. Therefore, keeping open the door to peace negotiations is going to be the quickest way to end the Russia/Ukraine war. Higgs (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

And why should we end it quickly? You dancing around this central point here. Why should we make these choices? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Higgs Answer the question. Why should we, the Western powers, make these choices? Why not let Ukraine decide what's best for Ukraine? Engage in non-sequiturs and I'll just delete them. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Higgs If you keep hiding behind IP socks I'll just ban your account. There's no point engaging with the terminally dishonest. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Just ban them, whoever they are, bad faith arguments about fascists should be enough.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this user never seems to respond to any questions actually put to them. I note that they began their contributions with a criticism of Joe Biden - but at no point have they said anything negative about the apparent war criminal Vladimir Putin.

It would be instructive if they were to (1) give their opinion of Putin and (2) explain why giving Putin some part of Ukraine (or pressurizing Ukraine to do so) wouldn't be appeasement.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see Higgs saying that Russia should be given a part of Ukraine. So far the only concrete idea that Zelensky has floated publicly is promising to not join NATO which is a significant concession. Peace negotiations are fluid things and greatly depend on how much power each party has and how much future power each party thinks it will have. For example, Vladimir Putin's top military commander General Staff Valery Gerasimov was wounded this month and flown out of the war zone. Events like this change the dynamics of the war. Vladimir Putin keeps losing military commanders to Ukraine snipers. But wars are difficult to predict and so are dictators like Putin. Russia was badly losing WWII at first, but then bounced back. So far, the Russian military has shown itself to be weaker than it what was largely thought to be by Western intelligence analysts and big changes would have to be made to make the Russian military more effective. Benson (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No he hasn't. And when I asked him exactly what should be be negotiated he - as usual - ignored the question. If he doesn't mean that Ukrainian territory should be ceded to Russia he had ample opportunity to say so. The war exists because Putin invaded Ukraine. Giving Putin any kind of a reward for this criminal act would be a mistake and would - under any reasonable definition - be appeasement which would encourage him to more adventures. Obviously you - completely new user who just joined the conversation and is certainly not Higgs - cannot answer for Higgs. But what would you suggest that this untrustworthy war criminal should be offered?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried to post a thoughtful response, but your spam filter is very aggressive. I am guessing it limits the byte size of posts by new users or maybe all users. Your Saloon bar forum is definitely not user-friendly for new users. If I want to discuss politics or social issues online, I will go to more user-friendly forums. Benson (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This is seriously like talking to Andrew. Never a response to a question. Deflections, non sequiturs and strange new accounts who appear out of nowhere to support some other user making a losing argument. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Now I think about it you might also want to look at our mission. Our primary purpose is not, in fact, providing a political and social discussion forum. (Though many people who are interested in the primary mission are also interested in those topics.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I had a midsized post with two embedded links in it to mainstream news sources. It definitely was not a big block of text nor did it contain dodgy links. If you want people to participate in your forum, then make it more user-friendly. Someone should fix your overly aggressive spam filter. Benson (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you read my post directly above telling you what our mission is? If you contribute to the main mission your ability to post in these tangential areas will gradually improve. If you appear out of nowhere to spam a chat forum in order to "spontaneously" agree with some other new user who is making some dumb political argument then I agree things will initially be difficult.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The website's main page says: "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." Your website falls short of what it promises on its main page. Benson (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"constructive dialogue".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Dialogue - 'A conversation between two or more persons'. Vaguely-relevant monologues on shifting subjects while avoiding answering any question/point put to you does not count. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade likely overturned

A draft opinion has been leaked, and with a conservative majority in the court, Roe v. Wade is likely to be overturned. This is a major setback in reproductive rights.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 ^{— Unsigned, by: 73.167.237.144 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ♈︎♉︎♊︎♋︎♌︎♍︎♎︎♏︎♐︎♑︎♒︎♓︎ (Discuss) 10:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You could move to Australia if you want. I can pay for plane tickets. ♈︎♉︎♊︎♋︎♌︎♍︎♎︎♏︎♐︎♑︎♒︎♓︎ (Discuss) 10:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Everybody who refused to vote for Hilary Clinton in 2016 because she wasn't radical enough or whatever can go fuck themselves-Hastur! (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

HAHAHA, you expect that the Democrats to have done something to stop this? Roe V. Wade was always a fundraising item for the party and now it looks like them playing politics with it instead of codifying it into law has fucked everyone over. You do realize that voting isn't a solution to all of your problems? We aren't living in some magical fictional reality where there are "good guys and bad guys". The Democratic party is a feeble entity that is unwilling to use the force necessary to oppose the republican party. Things will continue to be like this until changes are made. (Besides, the supreme court is an undemocratic institution that should really be dissembled). Fuck this shithole of a country. Revenant Raven (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It is bad news, but not either a) catastrophic or b) unexpected. Part of the leaked exerpt I heard referenced that the majority 'felt' it was a decision to be ultimately made by legislators, not the judiciary. What's more, if I remember American law right it merely throws the fight down to the State level.

Plus, it wasn't 'non-voting progressives' which threw the 2016 election, Hastur. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The 'answer' possibly variously involves the Lysistrata manoeuvre (no reason for abortions as a result), mandatory male contraception, blocking the internet and mail (so there is no way of finding out information on the provision available), persons in favour of the ban being required to adopt the infants arising (including the ones with severe disabilities) - and for Latin America and Canada to provide US women with the opportunity to immigrate variously. Anna Livia (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice The majority of governor seats are held by Republicans. This is a de facto ban on abortion for the majority of the country. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The "post-Roe" expectation as I understand it is pretty predictable: "Bible belt" states (along with some generally less populated desert/mountain states and some scattered Midwest states) are largely going to go for THE TOTAL BAN, while west coast and New England states (along with a scattering of the other Midwest states) will keep things generally as is. Early abortion is largely by medication these days, which means that the TOTAL BAN crowd probably won't succeed, but will hurt the poor while trying (with maybe a future Savita Halappanavar story here and there). (sarc) Good times. (/sarc) As I understand it, this is the first time a Supreme Court draft has been leaked like this (edit: not quite, but it's very rare), which is also significant in itself. (However, possibly it's something one should expect when one is overturning a court decision with 50 year precedence that about 2/3 of Americans like.) Meh (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Abortion drugs will join the ranks of narcotics in the war on drugs in red states. 71.208.x.x (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Pro-choice Americans will have to get a constitutional ammendment to get abortion be a right throughout the USA if they want it to be enduring. The last Gallup poll has 48% of Americans wanting some restrictions on abortion and 32% of Americans wanting abortion legal under all circumstances. Benson (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at your link - fractionally less than 20% want abortion to be illegal under all circumstances. That's quite a small minority.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

16 states and the district of Columbia have state law allowing abortions. 26 states have trigger laws that will ban abortions the moment that Roe v. Wade fails. There's also the fact that the wording of this ruling could spend the end for the legal right to privacy, which opens up a whole lot of other legislation to fuck over things like interracial marriage, the right to have gay sex and the right to crossdress, all of which are followups from the right to privacy. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean, there's a few other ways to get basic human rights through, though most of them involve a lot of... unpleasantness. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Benson I highly recommend that your ilk doesn't push their luck. Desperate people do really... unpleasant things. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Overturning Roe v. Wade and subsequent total bans on abortions in some states (which seems a fairly likely consequence) is likely to open up a complete viper’s nest of interstate complications and laws penalising women who travel to get abortions in those states where it is still legal. I can’t see abortion opponents just accepting women availing themselves of such differences in state laws, given how much of a political hot topic and identity marker abortion is in the US. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

There is pretty dramatic language in that opinion, which I'm sure will be toned down considerably. Alito very specifically LGBT issues still being protected, tailoring this only to abortion, but I can't see White Christian Nationalists thinking anything other than, "Roe was 56 years old, these other cases are more recent." I'm more concerned about the anti-abortion crowd feeling particularly emboldened, and start thinking they can pass a national ban.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal So he claims, though he seems to just be pinky swearing that there won't be further repeals. Given that he's basically opened the door wide to said further repeals and then said they won't happen, I wouldn't bet against them. And then things will get really nasty... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not kidding about the hints I keep dropping. Give people nice stuff, basic protections and all that, then try to take something they have a strong investment in? Might as well just commit suicide outright. I'm saying what they're doing is stupid and potentially very dangerous. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I agree with that, the logic is tenuous. Alito is so declarative and forceful, it could very easily be used to justify overruling Ogberfell, Bostock, Zarda and could honestly could be an argument overturning Loving. Christian Fascism is ascendant in the US.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Overturning Roe will also strip away the final, thin veneer of “legalism” along with whatever remains of Roberts’ personal credibility and his pretence of separating law/jurisprudence from politics. It will emphasise that there is essentially no difference between politicking in Congress and in the SCOTUS and if ever the Democrats were to find the courage to fight the kind of total political warfare employed by the GOP, this will be an excellent argument for, say, court packing. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Very possible this was done to lock the draft in place. In which case everyone being salty over 2016 would be an idiot. @ScepticWombat I'd honestly be less hostile to Roberts. He has his own issues, but he usually takes his role as Chief Justice seriously. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Your point raises an interesting question: Has Roberts lost control of his own right wing majority at the SCOTUS? Otherwise, it’s hard to see this as anything but a sign that all of his former protestations of sticking to precedent etc. was just bullshit to pass the time until he had a clear majority in his corner. If I had to pick, I personally would tend to favour the former interpretation, or some variant of it. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@ScepticWombat I'd say it's very possible that Roberts is losing sway over the SCOTUS. Again, this is my general impression along with what I know of his style, but Roberts has always seemed more like a Conservative and less like a reactionary, as opposed to the Likes of Barret or Thomas. At least, to my knowledge. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

RE: Rep Governors. I suspect quite a few of them (and other GOP politicians) want this as much as a hole in the head. It's something which pleases a hardcore fringe, but gathers little votes outside of it (in fact, it might turn off more folks than attract). Roe/Wade was a nice excuse to why they 'couldn't do' what they had no real desire to do anyway. Now they are gonna be called out on this and it's gonna hurt. Lastly, it was a nice campaign to mobilise them to support you, which shall almost vanish once the goal has been reached.

Anyway, I suspect there's gonna be movement in Washington to do something legislature-wise. Now, the numbers ain't there to do a 'complete' protection but at very least, trying to cement in the 'rape/incest/non-viable/threat to life' exemptions to at very least stop the insane 'total' bans.

Though as part of the work-around to this problem would to encourage the use/access to birth control as wide as possible. Some of the anti-abortion crowd only object to 'babies being killed' (sic), not stopping the cell formation in the first place. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice Part of the problem is internal power struggles within the GOP, with the older and more cynical neocons being forced out by younger fashy types who have been raised on a steady diet of party propaganda. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

True, which is a problem (for the GOP). That latter species (in general) cannot survive on the coastal areas, or in any major metro. The Mountain States is an somewhat iffy proposition, and even some Southern gubernatorials etc would be at risk as above metros throw out the electoral calculus (for example, Texas). This is a classic 'red meat' policy; sort of thing only a % of your base really caring about. At best, everyone else doesn't care. At worst, they are actively hostile. I'm going to put abortion bans generally in the latter group.

What's more, there's splits in the pro-pregnancy movement. Some hate birth control and sex ed too, others don't. Similar can be said for exemptions, very early terminations and so on. There's debtates on what - if any - extra provisions (finance support etc) should be put in if the state is effectively forcing you to have a kid and so on. What 'side' do you back?

Anyway, there's an aspect of the whole thing which as it dawns on me kinda sickens me. When you ask the placard-wavers what should happen to the now-existing babies, the answer is always 'adoption' - after all, 'there's always more loving families' and all that. That is true. But the whole system of adoption creeps me out, and the American model even more so. One of the main bits being that these (mainly) middle/upper-class white people seemingly desire to see more of my (lower) class knocked up and screwed so *their* well-heeled friends and relatives can have nice white babies to adopt (of which there's a chronic lack of). I know it's not that cynical, but I simply can't shake this suspicion. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

its just as well the anti abortion folk are not the same people who throw a fit about having to provide contraception as a requirement of any medical insurance available to people.

do companies providing medical insurance still get an opt out? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Given how expensive childbirth is, medical insurance companies would mandate sterilization if they had the choice. CorruptUser 17:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Damn, if only there was some kind of voluntary medical procedure that could act as a reasonable middle ground between forced childbirth and forced sterilization.... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

An abortion costs about $750 if done early, but there's medical screenings, etc, so it's a bit more than $1000 all in all. The IUDs last anywhere from 5 to 12 years, the copper IUD costs about $1000 and has the added benefit of not using any hormones at all. At $100/year, that's less than the cost of condoms. Which is why it's just stupid for Hobby Lobby to ban IUDs.

In terms of the "homeless guy in your home" argument for abortion, some forms of abortion are like opening the window of your home open in the middle of winter. If it's open, the homeless guy freezes to death and you indirectly cause his death. But the IUD is like having the window open before the homeless guy shows up; it's your castle, your choice, so you didn't kill him even if the point was to make it dangerous for vagrants, he killed himself by wandering in. CorruptUser 18:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If conservatives actually cared about being 'pro-life' then they would support universal funding for pre-natal care, births, maternity/paternity leave, child care and pre-k. They would also support comprehensive sex education, free birth control, and severe consequences for rapists. But they don't. This is only about controlling women.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes and no. There's a world of difference between shooting someone to death and leaving someone to die, even if the end result is a corpse. It is indeed possible to believe "abortion is repugnant" even if you also believe "I shouldn't have to pay higher taxes to support others". After all, if you truly want to lower your tax burden you should be the most pro-abortion (and pro-immigrant) person on the planet. CorruptUser 19:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That's the rub, by their logic there is no difference between murder and leaving someone to die. Also to insist that an individual would take a higher tax burden is farcical, in context to where that money could be obtained. It requires a belief in scarcity of resources, which is essentially absent. Conservatives instead are engaging in a moral argument; death of human life bad. That's what it comes down to, and basically nothing else. Even though they support capital punishment, police violence and military conflicts, they rationalize this hypocrisy by placing the blame on an individual, or race/ethnicity or a country. It's just a dressed up way to control women.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it's worse. It's virtue-signalling. Consider it. If you 'care about kids' you'll be asked if you've fostered any, or adopted or whatever. If you care about global warming, you'll be told that you'll have to be a vegan who makes their own shoes and walks everywhere. If you're 'pro-refugee', you'll be told by right-wing idiots 'well, why don't you have one in your house' and so on. To be 'pro-life' requires you to do hardly nothing. Just donate a little bit of cash, sign a pre-done petition and perhaps turn up to a rally with a placard now and then. It does not require you to give much sacrifice, or no personal long-term commitments. What's more, fetuses don't make no demands on you, or tell you you're being useless, or say you're doing it for the wrong reasons or that your condesending tone makes them want to die. They are even better a 'victim' to help than animals because you don't even bother to follow on the fetuses that you've managed to 'save'.

Even worse, it's another aspect of middle-class moralising and hypocrisy. I'm reminded of the clip where comedians were asking pro-pregnancy campaigners how many kids they'd adopted personally, the answer was always *none*. But I noted more; that they said 'oh, I've already got two real ones'. Now, even leaving the horrible idea of 'real children' on the shelf, they were happy with the two/three they already had. More was surplus to requirements. Middle class people, ensuring that they don't end up with 'too many' kids. But folks who can't support kids right now, or are really not in the right place to have one, or screwed up on the contraceptive front are generally the folks they're harassing. Sometimes, the most mature and sane thing is to realise when you can't do something. The most generous response I can have for such moralisers is that you have no god damn clue about folks on the bottom live like, that your suggestions as ever are useless 'richsplaining'. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

An Aside

I don't think we have a liberal justice or clerk to thank for this leak. It seems clear the vote was 5-4 with CJ Roberts joining the minority. If that was the case, as the most tenured justice in the majority, Clarence Thomas would be the one to assign writing the opinion. The language in this opinion is abrasive, and lacks the sort of reserved veneer that many majority opinions have. There was an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal recently,[6] where there was some indication that Roberts may have been trying to pull a justice, (my guess would be Kavanaugh or Goursch) to back a much more limited action on Roe. This leak would then clearly indicate that at one point, the justices sought to remove Roe completely, and if a later opinion were released that was narrower, conservatives would view the person who flipped as a traitor. Just something to consider.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Huh, that's actually a really new/frightening point. I think most of us really chalked it up to a scared Aide who leaked it, but with the stunts that Republicans have been able to pull, this seems like an exceedingly smart move on their point, and also still allowed them to blame [7] the Democrats because obviously, they would be the ones to leak something because muh emotions Stingraey (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

People really overgeneralize the Dems. Seriously, have these people met the Average D.C. Liberal? Boring cowards who'd rather avoid upsetting the apple cart than actually stand for anything. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Superdeterminism

Sabine Hossenfelder has stated that free will does not exist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY&t=0s
I found a video that has provided an apologia for free will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFX_PphQSyI
The terminology is pretty obscure. Can somebody translate the jargon?Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 10:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

So he made that video because 'a primordial particle moved [just so] and not [a fraction different]?' Anna Livia (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t watched either video in full, but I can already tell that Hossenfelder is strawmanning both compatibilism and dualism. The second video is half an hour long; it would be easier to help if you posted some of the particular terms you don’t recognize here. From the first few minutes, I’d guess ‘doxastic’, meaning roughly ‘about or related to belief’, and ‘conative’, meaning roughly ‘of the mental process(es) directed toward action (as opposed to reflective thought or emotion)’. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 11:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's a transcript: http://dustbringer.blogspot.com/?m=1 Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 12:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Obscure part: Let us start with the so-called “laws of nature”. Not only do all laws of nature not work with differential equations, but laws of nature do not work or do anything at all. -> The form determines the matter also, and while particles do indeed cause life, the form of life (especially in the human case where volitional consciousness manifests on the conceptual level) pushes back with no ghost in the machine necessary

(Paragraph 5) Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 12:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics laughs in the face of determinism. The universe is fundamentally stochastic. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (EC) Ah, ok. The very first phrase is extremely awkward: not only do all laws of nature not work with differential equations, but laws of nature do not work or do anything at all is not well put. It would be better phrased, 'Not all laws of nature work with (i.e. involve) differential equations, and furthermore, the laws of nature don't actually do anything'. The first part of the sentence isn't really important: they're just accusing Sabine of being wrong to generalize and say that all laws of nature are expressed as differential equations, rather than some other kind of equation. The second part he spends a lot of time going into. The argument is essentially:

• P1: The Laws of Nature are a mathematical human construct, derived from observations of the physical world.
• P2: Mathematical constructs are not causally efficacious. I can use math to describe and predict how physical systems will behave, but the physical behaviors I observe do not occur because of the mathematical constructs. The planets would orbit the Sun whether or not any mathematical constructs were ever developed.
• C1: The Laws of Nature are not causally efficacious (P1 and P2, by deduction).
• P3: The Laws of Nature are sensitive to the behavior of physical systems. Whereas the behavior of physical systems is not due to the Laws of Nature, the form of the Laws of Nature is due to the behavior of physical systems. If physical systems were to be observed to violate the Laws of Nature, the Laws would be adjusted.
• C2: It is fallacious to say that free will is impossible because it is not predicted by the Laws of Nature (C1 and P3, by induction). The problem is that the argument tries to constrain the behavior of a physical system (a human brain, say) by appeal to certain equations, when these equations are inherently constrained by the behavior of physical systems. If careful observation of the brain indicated the reality of free will, we would not conclude that free will doesn't exist anyway, because the Laws of Nature say so. Instead, we would revise the Laws of Nature so as to be compatible with our empirical evidence for the existence of free will. To do otherwise would be to reverse the procedures of science and engage in dogmatism.

The above is what they're getting at when they talk about the planets' motion, and say that Things do not obey physical law; physical law must be made to obey the nature of things, and everything up to that point. They next segue into the claim when Sabine talks of free will being incompatible with the laws of nature what she means is that certain laws of nature can be modeled for things which appear to behave deterministically, human beings are composed of these same things, therefore human beings must be deterministic. But this inference would be much too hasty. This is a reconstruction of Sabine's argument. Her argument can be reconstructed in the style as above:

• P1: Certain things can be modeled using deterministic Laws of Nature.
• P2: Human beings are made of the kind of things described in P1.
• C1: Human beings can be modeled using deterministic Laws of Nature.
• P3: Whatever can be modeled using deterministic Laws of Nature is deterministic.
• C2: Human beings are deterministic.

They then give a reductio of that argument:

• P1*: Certain things can be modeled using non-deterministic Laws of Nature (i.e. quantum mechanical entities).
• P2*: Human beings are made of the kind of things described in P1.
• C1*: Human beings can be modeled using non-deterministic Laws of Nature.
• P3*:Whatever can be modeled using non-deterministic Laws of Nature is non-deterministic.
• C2*: Human beings are non-deterministic.

Here, C2* is supposed to be obviously false. At the scale of human beings, quantum effects are insignificant, and human beings can be modeled as deterministic. The underlying idea is that the whole does not always resemble its parts in every respect, so you cannot infer from the parts have property X to the whole has property X (I point this out because I think it's kind of a bad argument on its face: strictly, C2* isn't wrong). After this brief argument, they attack Sabine for giving particles privileged metaphysical status. This argument continues into the following paragraphs, but the quote they're going after overall seems to be "we know [the amusing emphasis is hers] that we can derive from the laws of the constituents what the whole object does". Within the paragraph, it gets a bit vague, but their point is that nature itself does not endow things at any particular scale with metaphysical privilege. The emergent properties of the human: the abilities to see, think, feel, etc. have equal metaphysical status as the properties of the quantum particle: mass, charge, spin, etc. Partly, I'm not sure to what extent this part of the paragraph is actually attacking Sabine — they seem to be seeking to refute a perceived position (that particles are more real than the larger entities they form), rather than an expressed one. None of this (in this paragraph, anyway) seems to be incompatible with the notion that the properties of the whole can be explained in terms of the properties of the parts. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 14:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I like the way you manage to break down monologs into premises and conclusions and provide a detailed explanation.Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 14:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia, Israel and the Nazis

Hello everyone. I just want to take a second to say that this is without a doubt, one of the most idiotic political mistakes I have ever seen in my life which is quite impressive. So basically, after offending Israel (one of the last remaing "western-aligned neutral states" if you will) with some ludicrous claims that Hitler had Jewish ancestry and that the Jews were the ones persecuting themselves the most, instead of backpaddeling and going into damage-control mode, Russia blames Israel for being "anti-historical" and supporting a "Neo-Nazi Regime". Yes, you read that right, Israel supposedly supports a Neo-Nazi regime. It boggles the mind but frankly I have to say "bravo" and stand back in awe at the sheer inane stupidity.NastyNugget (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it logical to assume 'Mossad is not amused'? Anna Livia (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the fantasy land which Putin has taken Russia to.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The "Hitler was Jewish" canard began during the Nuremberg trials when someone claimed that Hitler's dad, Alois Schicklgruber (that's the original name; just try to intimidate anyone with a "heil Schicklgruber"), was fathered by a Jewish man by the name of Leopold Frankenberger. This can be disproven by pointing out that there were no Jewish people in Hitler's Grandma's village. But, people believe what they want to believe. Plus, "Schicklgruber" sounds exactly like the name a neo-Nazi would make up about a fake Jewish person. I mean, "sheckel-grubber", really?

What makes things weird is that as Alois was illegitimate. The two most likely fathers were brothers Johann Georg Hiedler and Johann Nepomuk Hiedler. JGH eventually married Hitler's grandma, but took an unusually long time before legitimizing his "son", if that even happened. But JNH was also Hitler's great grandpa on his mother's side. Which would mean that Hitler's mom married her nephew, instead of her cousin once-removed. Which is likely the real reason Hitler had his Grandparent's hometown razed to the ground, not any alleged Jewish ancestry.CorruptUser 14:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct regarding the claim that Hitler had Jewish ancestry. Hitler's lawyer, Hans frank, wrote a memoir in prison while he was awaiting execution for the war crimes that he committed while running occupied Poland. The memoir was published posthumously and made those claims. Historians found numerous errors in the memoir, so they don't regard it as a reliable source in general, and there is evidence specifically refuting the claims about Hitler's Jewish ancestry.[8] Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Israel is incredibly not neutral vis-a-vis Russia. Their standing relationships with the US(extremely close) and Russian allies like Syria(extremely hostile) do not lend themselves to neutrality. That said, it's not terribly surprising that Russia puts forth increasingly reality-disconnected narratives regarding their already-spurious justifications for war. It's not particularly different from what the US has done in living memory. "If you're not with us, you're with the enemy, who are unfathomably evil because [tenuous connection played up 1000x past the point of reason]" is mind poison. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Israel may not be neutral, but it also wasn't actively working to support Ukraine against Russia. They made platitudes about ending the conflict, and scoffed at providing military equipment or air defense systems to Ukraine. These statements might be enough to get Israel off the fence and start actively engaging. Even something simple like providing Iron Dome to cities like Lviv or Odessa would be massive.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Israel and Russia are weird. Russia recognized Israel before the US did. People forget that Israel was practically communist with the Kibbutz version of socialism. But that didn't work out forever, and a lot of the Left felt "betrayed" that the experiment was "abandoned", which is yet another reason that people have such emotional issues over a strip of insignificant land the size of New Jersey. CorruptUser 16:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I heard a former-Israeli government official say on BBC that while the statement has caused outrage in Israel, it is unlikely to move the needle for Israel to support Ukraine because of strategic necessities (Syria and Russia's Jewish population). Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

One, assuming the Russian-Jewish community shall be 'pro Moscow' by default is not wise (at least not without evidence). Two, this might help in increasing pressure within Israeli govt/society itself to harden against Putin (which Europe/USA shall clearly be putting them under). Thirdly; if any nation would instinctively 'get' how Ukraine feels right now, it's Israel. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

the existence of the azov brigade, far right militia now folded into the ukraine military proper, no doubt makes israeli support for ukraine problematic. it was certainly an issue before the war. as recently as 2018 the funding, arming, and training of this group prohibited by law in the us due to its far right extremism. it is claimed they have been depoliticised since, but opinion varies on how effective this has been. ukraine nationalism has a complicated history with nazis, and it seems a complicated present making it ripe for russian for propaganda that draws analogies to the 'great patriotic war'.

of course such propaganda doesnt play so well outside of russia (though you dont have look to far to find people more than willing to buy into it in the western world) and the whole 'hitler was a jew' thing is just dumb factually and self defeating in propaganda terms taking that line with the israelis of all people. its even dumber when if they really wanted to go down that road, they perhaps could have made something of the Azov brigade's jewish-ukrainian fiancial backer. but as stated, its a complicated history and present, and nuance is not a friend to propaganda.

the irony is that the azov brigade is a direct consequence of russian interference and aggression in ukraine, energising far right movements and swelling membership beyond the usual white supremacist fuckheads. while we can discount russian claims of de-nazification as obvious propaganda, and we can ignore some ukrainian soldiers having swastika tattoos while all of ukraine have a common enemy to unite them, russias actions have created a potential for future problems with far right extremism for ukraine, post war. a post war ukraine where military service has legitimised for many the far right, and made the honest to goodness war heroes. really dont if thats likely all or not (maybe fighting alongside each other will have ukraine come out more united tha ever), but it must be a worry for any minorities in ukraine when the far right have not got the russians to distract them.

and i do stress that this is not meant as some 'both sides' dogshit, or that russian aggression is any way justified, or they have ank kind of 'point'. this is not russian apologia for an unjust and brutal invasion. i hope sucha disclaimer wasnt necessary, but its here anyways. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia created its own enemy? As an American, such a thing is completely unthinkable to me. CorruptUser 05:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine has the Azov brigade, Russia has the Wagner Group founded by a Nazi Denazifier. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, Putin apologized. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/sorry-we-called-hitler-a-jew-russian-prez-putin-apologises-to-israel/ar-AAWYtu8?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=7b0e5313736a45d7b9c087ea855b9918 Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 05:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Turning into half-wits

I feel like quoting the weird old psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski. Recently, in thinking of Russia's statements and actions, the phrase "turning into half-wits" which he used in his work has come to mind more and more often... Here, "group" is to understood very generally, it can be larger as well as smaller. From Putin's inner circle outwards over time...

Once a group has inhaled a sufficient dose of pathological material to give birth to the conviction that these not-quite-normal people [psychopaths and others of destructively malformed personality and character] are unique geniuses, it starts subjecting its more normal members to pressure characterized by corresponding paralogical and paramoral elements.

Any human group affected by the process described herein is characterized by its increasing regression from natural common sense and the ability to perceive psychological reality. Someone considering this in terms of traditional categories might consider it an instance of “turning into half-wits” or the development of intellectual deficiencies and moral failings.

--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Scifi/Trans Question

Let's say hypothetically, we live in a world where brain transplants are possible. You are in an accident or some other situation where you need a new body, and you're in luck, there's one available! But it's no guarantee that the body resembles your old one. It's likely to be some combination of different age, race, height, and/or gender. As can be guessed from the topic title, we will assume it's a different sex from your own. Heck, it could even be intersex. Do you accept this new body as-is and attempt to live as your old gender with a new body, do you adapt to your new gender as best you can, or do you surgically alter the body to match your prior body as best as medically possible? CorruptUser 13:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I would embrace whatever form I take. The opportunity to be a different form could break up some of life's monotony. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If it represented the opportunity to continue living a healthy life I would take it under all circumstances.

It would be interesting to see if my sexual preferences changed as a consequence of the the change of body and the different set of hormones and body. So it would be difficult to give any hard and fast prediction prior to the event. I'm pretty solidly cis male - but, as I said, it would be difficult to predict would would happen.

With regard to the other stuff: any body I got would almost certainly be younger than my present one so - win! Skin colour - I suppose that there may be people who would say they would rather be dead than black - in which case I would support their decision.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally, if I ended up in the body of a woman, I think I'd be fine with it, but I would be a bit disgusted by "heterosexual" sex and I'd become a Lesbian at first. I don't know what those ovaries would do to me though, or how long before I tried some D. CorruptUser 14:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd at least give it a short while for the biochemical effects of the body to affect my mind and see where I am after that. We sometimes think of our brains as these isolated organs that are "us" with the body being a meat sack for transporting that mind, but there's a lot of interchange with every single system. My first thoughts wouldn't even be about gender, probably I'd be interested in how different my sensory organs are. Can I hear sounds I couldn't before? See colors differently? Do I feel warm or cold at different temperatures? Those are all experiences I see varying between individuals that would make for a surreal experience. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. As I understand it men see less colour or are more likely to experience colour vision problems because we only have one X chromosome. Anecdotally, women are more likely to experience cold. Taking it further, there is the female menstrual cycle - something which is beyond male experience. Without even mentioning giving birth.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Conversely, there's morning wood and the general male sex drive, a lot of people who start testosterone really find that hard to contain. For me, I'd have a harder time adapting to height and bulk differences than anything else; I'm used to being a sturdily built 6'3" and would find it jarring to suddenly be more average or even below average height (if it was one of the very rare women's bodies taller than mine I'd be good, though I'd have to adapt to the decrease in body mass). That and I'd still want long hair, that looks better on men and women both. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's really hard to know the answer to this, since there are certain to be differences that I presently take for granted. The societal context matters: is there stigma against body modification? I assume that having the technology to put people in different bodies would reduce it. Some degree of body modification might even be seen as standard given the technological advancement necessary for this scenario. A new body would be a chance to have new experiences, though. I would probably take a "wait-and-see" approach. Vomitorium (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

R. A. Heinlein already did the SciFi part, in his novel I Will Fear No Evil. Kencolt (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Men don't see less color, they are at risk of seeing less color. However, in rare circumstances women can have the DNA to produce 4 different cones in the eye, whereas "normal" vision requires 3.

As for seeing different colors? Yes. Humans have variations in their rods and cones, the proportions and where they are centered will change slightly from human to human. CorruptUser 16:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As a 5’9 135lb man I guess it depends on if my insane metabolism changes. Frankly my biggest concern wouldn’t be how I perceive myself but my wife’s feelings about the issue. I’d probably keep painting the house and leaf blowing though. Probliknaut (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Plot twist; your wife was the donor.

Also, she got your old body. So now you need to ask yourself a not so serious question; is it gay if it's your own dick? CorruptUser 03:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Joke’s on you; this is my fetish Probliknaut (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I've never had more than an almost always unrequited hug from a girl/woman (I guess it's fine as long as it's a tall guy on the receiving end, or something) to say nothing of a committed relationship (I was 16 when a 26 year old married woman falsely accused me of "coming on to her", which helped me conclude the much-overwrought "committed relationship" is the most toxic condition of human existence), so I'd be at the opposite extreme. Besides my height, if I could retain my basic personality of being a wandering hermit who's noticed but rarely approached in a crowd, I'd be fine. I mean, I'm not a total prude so I don't (and wouldn't) necessarily turn down a little platonic talk, but that's good enough for me. If I encountered a female who'd taken over my old body... I'm familiar enough with it that I don't need to see anything underneath regular clothing, but I sure hope whoever took it over kept my long hair (shave my beard if you must, but I look like such a faceless clone with a business-length pretty boy haircut). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Yes. Very. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Wait, Blade, you've not been in a relationship before?

Only advice I can give is "live your life". Not playing video games, but hobbies. You'll bump into people that way, etc. CorruptUser 04:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll never say never. But since I play the bodhrán as a second instrument, upon discovering this song a few years ago I thought it had a point (if you don't recognize the band think Titanic, the actual music in the movie and not the Celine Dion soundtrack crap); for purposes of this thought experiment, I figure it'd be easier for me than a lot of people to switch between bodies since I'd have a lot fewer people to explain things to. Even though my immediate family is open minded about such things that'd still be an awkward conversation, I can't imagine it being easier with a friend or SO. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser, while I'm inclined to agree, the exact mechanics of monozygous protein production is subtle. Having two copies of a gene gives twice the machinery to express it and two places in the exome that need to be downregulated in order to stop production, which, depending on regulatory mechanism, can mean a little or a lot more protein. That can mean more receptors of a given kind. It's further complicated in human vision because what the proteins from the X chromosome actually do is mediate the localized inter-cellar balance of turning rods into either the red or green cones, by signaling what each specific cell produced, so it could believably do nothing to have two copies, or conceivably give a more balanced distribution, but the density of receptors overall is likely to be the same. But only likely because all these processes interact with each other in complex ways. Punnet squares a gross simplification for children. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

My own eyes actually see ever-so-slightly different shades. Like, not enough to notice unless I'm looking for it because I'm so used to my eyes, but my right is slightly more orange-ish and my left blue-ish. While I can't say for absolute certainty what other people see, I think that's enough proof for me that I don't see the same as others, ergo we don't all see the same colors. CorruptUser 15:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Other question. Anyone mind if I create a pointless poll for this? CorruptUser 15:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

this hypothetical is complicated by the fact it posits this as the result of an accident, as a stark choice between taking a body of unknown stranger or death. its not likely something anyone will just be able accept just like that, looking in the mirror and seeing a stranger staring back at you. i imagine counselling would be required to deal with even a new body that looks pretty similar to your old one, a like for like swap, without even going into issues surroundinga different biological sex entirely. id imagine there would be problems even if you could consider the new body objectively an 'upgrade'. how many of us have difficulty accepting the bodies we already have and have spent lifetimes getting used to? the fantastical nature of this hypothetical is apparent from the lack of considering the likely and immediate consequence would be some kind of profound mental health crisis. and to say nothing of the reactions of loved ones and/or significant other to the the complete stranger insisting they are the same person as before AMassiveGay (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

i dont like hypotheticals. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

And transition, including the feminizing facial surgeries and everything else, don't create a massive shift in appearance? Admittedly it's not instant, but still. If you need to make it "better", you're on a waiting list for a new body for whatever reason, whether it's old age or because you are bedridden, whatever, it's not a split-second decision between life and death and there will be different bodies available as time goes on. So do you accept the first body that's available or do you wait?

And this hypothetical is something that may very well happen in our lifetimes, so it's a question we need to be ready for. CorruptUser 05:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

transitioning is not same thing in any stretch of the imagination. its a gradual process for one. its altering your body not replacement of it wholesale for another. and importantly, transitioning is something you opt for - it is a conscious decision someone has to have made. and you know what? there is still a heap of counselling required for the more irreversible procedures. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Analogies are like frogs; they die when you start dissecting them.

The purpose of the question is twofold. First off, at some point we will figure out how to graft spinal tissue. When that happens, brain transplants will become possible. It won't be tomorrow, but it's likely to happen in our lifetimes, so it is a question that needs to be asked. Second, Trans people are, e.g., a Man in the body of a Woman. This is difficult for someone that isn't Trans to grok, I don't fully understand it myself, but I want to have a bit of empathy. So here's a case where anyone can end up in the body of the opposite gender, where there's no confusion at all as to whether the person really is "Man in Woman's body". Does this brain transplant turn a man into a woman, if it's still the same brain? Is our gender determined by bodies alone?

Later on, we will reach some point where we can clone genitalia, and it's possible we will have women giving birth who were once men. At this point, I can't help but imagine the Ousters from the Hyperion Cantos. The Ousters lived in space, but they were rather weird in that they freely practiced body modification. Extra arms, fur, genital enhancements, you think it they got it. I'm not sure they would even have a concept of "gender" given their variety. CorruptUser 14:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Irony of anti-vaxxers

I find it funny that anti-vaxxers scream about "toxins" in vaccines yet they have no problem dumping toxic crap into rivers, lakes, oceans, forests and air; many of which can cause birth defects and cancer. Any of you see something wrong here? --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

In America, in times past, a fair bit of the anti-vaccination movement was linked to New Age types who generally also had a problem with people dumping toxic crap into rivers, lakes, oceans, forests, and airs. So there is more consistency to how they got their "woo side". Generally the "other side" of anti-vaccination here these days tend to be reactionary types that are very paranoid style, very tribal, and *cough* not very bright. I've never found that crowd to have consistent logic. Meh (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No far right or far left person is sane at this point. Andrew5 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Bothsidesing far left and far right in the US is incredibly dangerous and stupid. The far right commits more acts of violence by at least one, maybe two orders of magnitude. Please, please, DO BETTER! 138.207.198.74 (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Andrew "... if nicer people ruled the USSR it would actually be a place I might want to live." 5 calling other people insane. Zero. Self. Awareness. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew5 You need Stalin more than he needs you! 138.207.198.74 (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In theory, communism works - everyone gets equal pay, no wealth desparity. Problem is, people like Lenin, Stalin, etc. abused communism. Andrew5 (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

In theory, Andrew5 works - everyone gets equally gaslit, no true scotsman. Problem is, people like GC, BoN 138.207.198.74 etc. abused Andrew5. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It has a beautiful kind of symmetry, doesn't it? 138.207.198.74 (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That just plain hurt my feelings. Are you, perhaps, the same as the 5.151.22.148 IP series? Andrew5 (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I dont keep strict track of my IP. It is interesting to note that you claim to have feelings, you should be careful with that, your fellow NazBol might think you a weakling. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I never liked liars, especially the ones that lie to themselves. Oh, and @Andrew5? Your thought terminating cliche might hurt a bit if, you know, I was a communist. Which I very explicitly am not. It'd still be stupid though. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Every time I try to share my political beliefs I always get attacked. I'm out of here before I waste even more time here. Andrew5 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

"Why are people hostile to my mindless stupidity?" @Andrew5 asks. Gee wizz, why indeed... Maybe it's because your politics are braindead passivity, excuses, and utter complacency? I mean, have you ever considered that? Maybe, for someone who isn't looking at the world with rose tinted glasses, who actually looks at the utter garbage heap we live in, you're the absolute worst? Like, worse than Nazis. Nazis at least want something. They want garbage fucking nonsense, but they want something, anything. You're just complacent. And when someone points this out, when someone points out that what you stand for, stagnation and a refusal to evolve, is basically just death, you spit out childish excuses and refuse to reflect on any of it. It's like listening to a corpse. Because ultimately, that's what you are Andrew. Your politics are the negation of improvement, self reflection, of just wanting anything. Hell, it's the negation of the political itself. You are functionally no different than a corpse. And to make matters worse, you're a coward to boot. Unable to engage when people call you out and refuse to coddle you. You're a suck up, a coward, intellectually stunted, deprived of any insight into anything, entirely devoid of self awareness... In technical terms, a nonperson. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Antivaxxers in some circles are starting to turn it into a religious issue. I've seen claims about the Covid vaccine that have just never really happened with the last few ones. I think the term "Pharmakeia" in the bible became more popular because of it and the idea of "Luciferase" finally hit less fringe news outlets.--2friedeggs (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that anti-vax now turns up everywhere. It's not a right-left thing or an extremist vs moderate thing. If you go looking your can find anti-vax types in all these groups, but the views are not exclusive to them. It's the same with all conspiracy theories. Obviously the American QAnon stuff is associated with the nutty right and Trump in the states, but by no means all anti-vax comes under that umbrella and even less so in the rest of the world.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Well with COVID here in the US and the fact that Trump riled up the far right with anti-vaxx BS, you can see how they took the nutcase center stage. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

(EC)For once I'm not sure you can blame Trump. He actually wants to take the credit for developing the vaccine, it's many of his nutty followers who who are anti-vax. Of course if you a conspiracy theorist then holding two mutually contradictory opinions at the same time seems to be par for the course.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's true that, for the moment, the conspiratorial side mainly shows up only in one political party in the US. However, the QAnon conspiracy has recently been grabbed onto by a few of the nuttier New Age / wellness type people (as an example, the infamous QAnon Shaman at the Capitol riot has been described as a "ecofascist" with a blend of New Age and conspiracy views). It'll be interesting to see if in the future the conspiracy crowd gets a little more "muddy" politically, as they were in the past in the US. Meh (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The mgtows are at it again

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWu-IOxbeSD-MRM2Q87ZF0A Looks like nasal Sargon of Akkad is rising in popularity.Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Abortions being overturned?

1.145.187.251 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

:}Probliknaut (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I investigate the more outlandish claims of Conspiracy theorists like the Illuminati without losing my mind?

Is there something like a debunking site rather than sitting through a 2 hour youtube video about how the force in star wars is satanic and googling every fact purported in it?--Droog (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You can instead implement a quick critical thinking exercise instead of debunking every claim depending on the type of conspiracy theory. This works primarily with "grand" conspiracies, that if were real would need to have thousands upon thousands of people to be "in" on it. If the conspiracy theory in question involves an absurd number of actors to keep it secret, then this raises the question about it's sustainability. The higher the number of actors involved the greater the probability of failure in keeping the conspiracy concealed. Such conspiracy theories if they were real would produce a substantial amount of evidence of their presence that would need to be kept behind closed doors, with so many potential sources of error, risks of whistleblowers, journalists getting themselves involved, etc. Any grand conspiracy theory would likely collapse as the number of factors needed to be kept under control could not realistically be suppressed with that level of synchronized cooperation required. That makes grand conspiracies on the face of things highly implausible.

Another thing you can ask yourself is "would the implementation of this conspiracy or method of control hurt the wealthy and powerful?" if so, it wouldn't make any sense for conspirators to implement a plan that would ultimately hurt themselves.

Doesn't hurt to ask yourself as well to who would benefit, and if the results that conspiracy theorists claim would actually be the consequence of the theory. What additional evidence can they provide to show a real cause and effect? If they have none then it is baseless. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC).

These are all excellent points.

A good example is Flat Earth. It would need to involve all the governments in the world. All their high-level military personnel. All the world's transportation organizations - airlines, shipping companies. And so on. And then: why does the conspiracy even exist? Why would anyone benefit?

So asking the global questions before getting down to debunking individual tiny details is certainly the way to go.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Make sure you balance out your research with content that debunks the BS. You need a lot of mental strength to drink down BS. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Does the theorist have a financial motivation? Like, “COVID-19 doesn’t exist. Stay healthy by eating right and exercising.” <link to book available on Amazon>. Then you’ve got a red flag that it’s just crank magnetism spam looking to grift, anything after that you can allow yourself the luxury of thinking guilty until proven innocent. Antigem (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Getting back to the question asked about about looking at every fact proposed in a particular conspiracy theory case. The number of real true facts in the world is truly enormous. The number of incorrect ones will be larger by order of magnitude.

If a conspiracy theorist starts with the conclusion "my particular conspiracy theory is true", then finding a series of true facts which seem to support that case while ignoring facts which don't fit it is easy. If they then add in a random selection of false "facts" it becomes very difficult for a skeptic to work through the whole mess to establish which facts are true, which are cherry-picked and which are simply false.

Which is why it is wise to start by asking - what is the face validity of this claim - before getting down in the the weeds.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is a debunking site (along with Snopes etc.). For many things, I think basically looking things on non-conspiratorial references is the clue.

For instance, for "The Force" in Star Wars. As a fictional work, this is a fictional device used to advance the plot. TV Tropes is a site that catalogs fictional cliches and plot devices, and sure enough, they have one on "The Force". Clicking here, you learn that "The Force" is essentially a magic fiction trope.

RW's magic article doesn't go into the of-the-devil angle very much. But "search term Wiki" on Google sometimes can give you a clue by looking up all wiki sources, including Wikipedia and others. For instance, when I Google "magic satanism wiki", result #2 is the Magic (supernatural) article. In this article, you will see that "magic" is a term frequently used throughout post-AD Western history by Christians to demonize "the other". So, there is a very strong chance that the person who made this video is a Christian. If you examine more Wiki articles, which includes the Christian views on magic Wiki article, you'll see that having a strong anti-magic attitude, even if it's silly pretend magic in fiction, is strongly associated with evangelicals. Famously, many evangelicals denounced the Harry Potter book series back in the day, as noted there's a whole article on that ruckus within the Christian views on magic article.

There is nothing to debunk, you can't debunk "oogie boogie". However, it is possible to figure out the motivation for the "oogie boogie". Chances are good that the 2 hour video is a bunch of half-assed garbage strung together with zero logic to simply try to allude that everyone else is an Other that is going to hell. There is therefore no need to watch it. Meh (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Often, there's simply too much to be practically possible to debunk for most people, sometimes by design. Videos such as those mentioned by Droog may contain Gish Galloping and other deceptive rhetorical patterns. It saves a lot of time to look at the character of presentations in terms of basic honesty in order to decide which to bother with further. (More slippery ones tend to waste your time and energy more efficiently.)

Rather than checking everything, it's also good to try to seize on some details that seem particularly important and check those. (A better pick makes scrutiny more efficient, it's guesswork to some extent.) If you knock down a central pillar, that's really enough, it disproves the theory. But the quality of more peripheral arguments says less, if they are bad it simply means there's a lot of nonsense floating around the core of whatever it is.

Keep in mind that when it comes to long-running things, like the claims of David Icke or of Laura Knight-Jadczyk, there's a certain fuzziness to what exactly it is about, and a basically populistic morphing of the message over years, including a moving of goalposts, so as to stay in tune with a morphing loyal audience. If there's any wiggle room to say, "Well, it may have been/meant that." when something looks suspicious, then that's usually used by the loyal audience to counter all debunking of predictions and ambiguous messages of other kinds. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Falsification

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-paradox-of-karl-popper/ In this article, the author asked Popper if falsification can be falsified. Popper didn't really give an answer to that. So, can falsification be falsified?Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 03:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Popper didn't really give an answer to that." No, he answered it in that interview, and correctly. Popperian falsifiability is a criterion for distinguishing matters that are empirical vs. those that are not. As a tool of logic and analysis, it is not itself an empirical matter. It is instead a philosophical matter. The difference is important . 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hypothetically, though, you could perform a somewhat weak falsification of falsification. We know that the point of falsification is to establish empirical validity of hypotheses and thus theories. You could take theories constructed with reliable application of falsification and compare their predictive accuracy and precision against those constructed by other means(both restrained to a given domain) with the hypothesis that the falsification derived theories produce better results. Should such an exercise not repeatedly prove to validate the falsified theory's strength, falsification itself could be falsified.

The point that the philosophy of science is not itself science is a good one, but I think you could nonetheless make a good attempt. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Melenchon's big coalition

So, The Socdems & greens for some reason agreed to join in a coalition with his party & the Communists from PCF: https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1521833634109562880

Moonbats on twitter calling Macron a Neo-Nazi and Right-Wing. Centre to Centre-Right, correct. But Right-Wing & neo-nazi? And everyone seems to be forgetting Melenchon's Anti-NATO statements, Simping for Maduro, Anti-semitism & Conspiracy shit. Apparently he's pro-Russia aswell. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone have the footage of police beating up pro-choice protestors?

I saw it online but I forgot to save it. Brutal stuff. Be careful out there. 1.152.108.195 (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.vice.com/en/article/akvbvj/lapd-abortion-rights-protesters Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 08:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you check YouTube by chance? 71.208.x.x (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is this Wiki's view(s) on overpriced military programs?

After ghosting around this wiki for a while, it seems like there are a lot of different viewpoints, which I really enjoy, but I haven't really seen much discussion as to the Military and its relation to Politics and other things, so I want to throw out the most contentious of these topics and see what the reaction is: the F-35

A huge money dump, the F-35 has cost and will cost us murican's a ton of money, and a big left-wing consensus has been that this is a stupid amount of money for a plane.

This is where my personal bias starts though; the F-35 is an amazing and unparalleled aircraft. apart from Civilian grade simulations and hypothesizing, the F-35 still is unparalleled as an airframe in both testing and now funding, as it has continued to be disseminated into western airforce rosters and beating out the most competition.

Now, there may be a bunch of reasons for this other than combat effectiveness, but the point still stands (especially when viewing current theatres like the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict), that Uncle Sams credit card used to binge spend on the military-industrial complex instead of on free health care (yes ik it's unlikely either way) has proven its worth and how we actually have a military compared to our Kleptocratic Counterparts. With the rise of Near-Pier threats like China though, and the threatening of other allies like Taiwan, are programs like this (or a wider question, the ludicrous spending we have on Defence) worth it in the eyes of you guys? (Oh and if I got any of the formatting here wrong please call me out, still figuring out all the gizmos here, thanks) Stingraey (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a great deal of knowledge (or any knowledge) about foreign military budgets. But your question might have been better phrased. If something is defined as "overpriced" in the question then you are sort of assuming the answer.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell, bloated military programmes normally fall into one or more of three traps...

- Bleeding edge tech. Result: bloated costs to iron out all the kinks, heavy maintenence/running costs.

- Too many cooks, wanting their own stuff in the design. Result: a 'jack of all trades' design that pleases nobody.

- Repeated shoehorning of new features, tech etc on the design while it's being designed. Result; oddities which don't really 'seem to work right'.

From what I can see all of this happened to the F-35. It was supposed to be a no-frills, decently-crafted and *cheap* multipurpose fighter plane, something to help the USAF rebuild their inventories as heavy amounts of F-15/16s start being scrapped due to age in the 20s/30s. The F-22 was supposed to be this replacement, but that proved to be simply too expensive a plane to become the backbone. For reasons outlined above. Again.

The issue is not the 'sticker shock' so much, but whether it's worth it over the whole lifespan, spread over all the units made. The F-15 programme itself was lambasted at the time for being too unproven, too advanced, too expensive and too heavy (thus leading to the F-16). But it paid for itself over the years. The problem is that you only know if a system has 'good bones' after you've made it and tested it in the real world. What's more, designers are getting better at 'future-proofing' designs; for example the two new British aircraft carriers have intentional 'gaps' and 'spaces' within the ship to allow later retrofitting and thus, increase the lifespan. And the F-35 was the first plane which was explicitly designed to this principle (I believe). There's the possibility that a decent % of the first cost was due to the fundimentally different method of design this entails.

If done well, it's very possible the F-35 airframes may end up flying into the 60s/70s. And future military historians shall remember it as a kind of 'ugly duckling' aircraft, which had a rocky start but finally blossomed. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

F-35 is controversial because of many factors, and the media loves to make a mountain out of fairly inconsequential molehills with the aircraft. Any article which talks about dogfighting capability doesn't know anything about modern air-to-air combat. The basic premise of modern combat is you-see-it-you-killed-it. Modern missiles and detection systems are meant to attack your opponents *before* they appear over the horizon, and good missiles cannot be tricked by any reliable means and kill any target in a single undodgeable attack. But any design target missed is considered a failure by the media, when in engineering bleeding-edge systems missing design targets is the norm; you aim high but sometimes have to settle with good. I worked on an acquisition project for a spectrum analyzer. At $70k a unit, it's a pretty pricey system in the context of metrology. The project took 19 years and faced a host of accuracy problems that still aren't all fixed. It had significant cost overruns and over a decade of delays, but the project was still a success. It successfully managed to do a job which took a dozen other instruments before, massively simplifying logistics chains as it proved to be a very reliable system. In the F-35's case, all variants share a common engine, which is the most expensive and complicated component on an aircraft. This allows all who field it to share parts and maintenance crews. Time will tell how reliable the aircraft actually is. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

True... but thing is, 'dogfighting is obsolete' has been said before. In 1960 - then we had Vietnam. It was said again in 1980 - then we had the Falklands and the Iran-Iraq War. Never say never when it comes to warfare - I'm looking at pictures of mud, trenches, duckboards, barbed wire and machine-gun posts. France, 1917? No, Ukraine, 2022.

Which is a major issue with military programme 'overruns' and high costs; when a company buys a spectrum analyzer they know what it's going to be needed for and what the attributes desired of it. Militaries to some extent don't - that while they can make a decent stab at needs and so on, they can't be sure. Even less so if it's a system which shall last decades. There's a tendency to want to desire to 'situation-proof' the design. Sometimes, this gets to almost absurd territory; that the 'overengineering' then requires more engineering (and $) to overcome the limitations created by the overengineering in the first place. A non-plane example being Western infantry; being expected to lug about between 25-50kg of load (just in case!), so slow you can't run after the enemy, causing serious injuries and requiring lots of R&D to come up with tech solutions, like electronic packmules, exoskeletons and so on. Unfortunately, the suggestion 'carry less shit' appears to be generally a non-starter. In fact, some infantry officers quip that if *somehow* the load was reduced (say for body armour) 'they' would simply think it was an invite to pile on *more* shit for them to carry, thus nullifying any reduction.

Another point Ukraine has reminded us is that modern full-scale war simply mainlines ordinance (even above the predictions) and it's very possible that in a full-blown conflict the USAF may burn through their entire AA missile stocks in a month or two. Then what? This is similar to the situation in the Falklands again; where British ships found their arses uncovered when their AA missile systems failed or ran out, leaving them to fend off jets with a handful of WW2-era AA guns almost left as historical curios.

The last problem is that while it appears to be a reasonably-promising aircraft, it's too expensive to buy and maintain - at least to the numbers the USAF need to replace their ageing F-15/16s. Which was basically the original 'design brief' it was sold to the politicians on. You can't really blame them being a bit pissy when it appears that their order turned out to be merely a somewhat less boondoggle-y F-22. Some may even suspect the Pentagon did a 'bait and switch' on them and they'd been planning for it to turn out to be this bloated all along.

And there *still* isn't a clear replacement for the F-15/16s. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Building on the F-15 point, I agree that the War in Ukraine does help to show that more resilient technology in more quantity has been proven effective, and I'll bring up the F-15EX program also being created by the airforce to complement and replace existing Airframes as it is cost-effective, futureproof, and has a bunch of missiles which is always fun. With that in mind though, I think that it will still be important to find a medium between our new 5th gen toys and the 4th and 4.5 gen airframes, which is why I personally think that the F-15 and similar aircraft are still crucially important.

At the same time, I still think that the F-35 and more out-reaching tech are still important. Mainly for the reason above. As tech continues to advance, the F-35 will get cheaper and cheaper and will fill the role of the baseline aircraft as the new age of hyper-complex tech takes the front seat (For example NGAD). I think that this proves a valuable point in total though that we need to be more careful before saying that x new piece of tech is a waste of billions of dollars.

I think that yeah, the Military-Industrial Complex has proven to not be efficient at times and that we need to look more into making the process as efficient as possible and reduce the amount of inefficient money drain, but the goal of something like this shouldn't be to cut the amount of funding, but to make every dollar buy more for our defense and safety from states which are continuing to be more and more aggressive. Stingraey (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that Ukraine might be showing a future the USAF futurists predicted; that ground AA systems shall make low-level flight too risky and that a lot of the missions once filled by either helicopters or non-stealth planes shall be drones instead (one of the biggest head-scratchers of the war; where is the Russian Air Force? Is it hiding from all the air defences?). Thus F-15EX is simply a stopgap, to stretch their lifespan a little bit before jet fighter drones come on-stream in sufficient numbers/capabilities. Thus the F-35 is the new workhorse, but it'll be joined by a drone packmule. Either human-controlled, AI or most likely a mix of both.

And it's quite possible that as the tech becomes more solid, the F-35 maintenence/run costs are squeezed down (which are the true evil, not the sticker shock). In fact, it might even be possible for the designers to revisit the design and slash said costs. And/or do a spin-off craft which is much cheaper/simpler to run. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

One of the reasons given for the F15EX to be 2-seat is to operate autonomous drone swarm at some future date!Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It's necessary to have harsh investigative journalism against defense contractors to keep them accountable. That being said, some of the arguments being leveled are also downright disingenuous. One of the famous ones is how some are claiming that we've already spent 1.5 trillion on the F-35 that doesn't work. That's simply false, because that is the entire cost of the program, from research, development, procurement, and operations all the way to 2070. Our relatively free press and the age of easily accessible information nowadays means that whatever flaws that are discovered during testing, which is expected for developing a new and highly sophisticated system, tend to get disproportionate coverage and doom-splaining on the internet. If you only knew just how many F-16s crashed during development, even though now it's regarded as a highly successful fighter. Point is, it's important to have journalists who are honest, technically competent, and as much as possible not driven by agenda. 98.186.206.84 (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the bigger problem is the relative illiteracy of the public themselves. For example, the relative focus on the 'sticker shock' but not enough on the high flight-hour / maintenence costs, which shall be a much heavier burden on the budget (which could result in making false economy decisions).

There's also a lot of opaqueness regarding funding, sales and so on. Just looking at the F-35, I cannot find out whether the billions the Pentagon threw at it count as 'advance sales', 'investment' or 'loans'. This is important because if it's investment, Uncle Sam is *justified* in taking a cut of foreign sales.

Yet I looked up the 'Foreign Military Sales' programme and, no word on whether they're making a profit off those F-35 sales. Another aspect is that it appears the F-35 'partners' kicked in cash to the program; but the only word I saw was that Canada's membership fee was $71m. Was this factored in or not to the number above? Other parties would have put in more; the main foreign funder so far would have been the UK yet the British MoD or Treasury never revealed how much in fees they paid for R&D, only that their order was 'about £89m per plane'. Even then, little info on what was or was not covered in that sum.

Lastly, there's the issue whether if Sam shall get a taste of any other programmes built off the back of the tech developed, future orders and so on. But we don't know any of this because all the contracts etc a secret.

In short, I don't think even the most diligent economic journalist could piece together enough info to answer the question whether it's a decent investment or not. There simply isn't enough figures/facts to make a conclusion. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Are Ionizer footbaths safe?

My mother is currently having me and my brothers take a foot bath everyday after school after hearing about Ionizer Radioactivity I am currently worried. I would like to know how BS my mother's "health" endeavors are. (she is into Functional Medicing and listens to Funtional rheumatologist")^{— Unsigned, by: User:Tr3ll15 / talk / contribs}

I thought we had an article on this but it seems we don't. Nevertheless my understanding is that they are completely useless but non-toxic. Like homeopathy the only danger they represent that that they may prevent people taking real treatments.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

They are not safe for one's wallet, but are otherwise probably harmless. "In this proof-of-principle study we found no evidence to suggest that ionic footbaths help promote the elimination of toxic elements from the body through the feet, urine, or hair. While unlikely to cause harm or result in any increased uptake, the use of ionic footbaths may release minute quantities of [potentially toxic elements] into the aqueous environment."[9] Bongolian (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually has an article on these things -- detoxification foot baths. There is no "radiation" involved, they "work" by providing electric current to electrodes in salt water, which rapidly causes rust. Obviously not "detoxing" and probably not harmful, no more than soaking your feet in rust water would be. A Youtube electronics guy named "bigclivedotcom" took apart a cheap Chinese version if you want to get into some nitty gritty details. Meh (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-dubious-practice-of-detox .BTS of foot pad detoxHighboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 18:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

do they not at least feel nice? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

As Bongolian indicated, the main problem is that some of these ionizing bath devices are extremely expensive. Hot water foot baths do feel nice. There are limited studies like this to suggest there are health benefits to hot water immersion, perhaps, as well (mostly anti-inflammatory / circulation related). If you have a tub / bucket and hot water system in your abode already, it's also pretty cheap. No need to add crap that turns perfectly good water into rusty stuff. Meh (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian failures are making me laugh

https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-most-advanced-tank-in-service-destroyed-after-days-reports-2022-5

I obviously don't feel sorry for the Russians, this is too comical. I wonder what other failures they will get? --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

With possibly up to twelve and at least four confirmed RU generals killed, and one of the most disastrous military offensives in modern history, one tank feels kind of underwhelming. But yeah I think it was a prototype even? Wild stuff. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Mainly it's such a modern weapon, that conceivably would have the necessary counter-measures to deal with the sort of anti-vehicle weapons that have been flooded into Ukraine. You would also assume that Russia wouldn't trust such advanced technology to be close enough to the front that it could be destroyed, both for propaganda reasons, and the concern that NATO countries are scraping destroyed weapons systems for info about Russian military technology. (Spoiler Alert: They definitely are.)-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the reason it was there in the first place may have been for propaganda reasons, to produce flashy state TV of high tech new weapons in action, but as RU leadership seems increasingly detached from the reality I doubt they even all are aware that it has been destroyed. UA propaganda has been far and away the winner with combat footage of successful strikes and images of destroyed RU vehicles. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The T-90M isn't Russia's most modern tank - that's the T-14 Armata. T-90's are essentially nothing more than updated T-72's - given a new name because the reputation of the T-72 was in the gutter after it's bad results in various wars in and around Iraq. The T-90M is the latest production upgrade, with improved fire control and the latest in ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour - the wedges on the outside of the turret and blocks on the side and front of the tank) - but at it's roots it remains a "Super-T72". But propaganda must have it's day in the sun...... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

ETA - the initial production T-14's were supposed to be being issued to a regular motor rifle unit some time this year - that unit was one of the ones defeated at and withdrawn from Chernihiv.... be interesting to se if they still get their flash new tanks and whether those are then used in Ukraine!! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm also pretty sure that there have been reports of the Russians not actually having ERA on their tanks, just the holders, so yeah at this point all of the fancy tech Russia has stated to have is basically very sparkly parade toys- speaking of, can't wait for May 9th to see what they do lmao Stingraey (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian boys and men are being sent to die in a pointless war with little preparation or concern for their safety. Meanwhile, the innocent of Ukraine are being brutalized and murdered. As amusing as Putin's clown show can be, let's not forget that. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 06:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

These days, the Russians can't do combined arms to save their lives. It also doesn't help that they're facing the might of NATO, particularly the US, intelligence and surveillance capabilities.

As amusing as their failures are, we can't just discount that Putin has a nuclear arsenal that he repeatedly threatens to use. Consider the situation: their Donbas offensive looks like it's stalling, and given the attrition suffered so far, they will be a spent force in terms of offensive potential by the end of this offensive, regardless of how it turns out. He's already down to what, 80-90 battalion tactical groups (BTGs) out of the 120 or so he started the invasion with. So with conventional forces exhausted and Putin's delusional goals nowhere near realized, the scary part is what will he resort to? I can't discount that he might very well launch a battlefield tactical nuke out of desperation. The problem is how does NATO or the US respond? This is the first time in history that nuclear weapons has been threatened to back a war of conquest and seizing territory (as awful as the American conduct was in Vietnam, the US goal was never to annex that territory), and if Putin launches tactical nukes, it would be insane to not have some kind of response, given the precedence it sets, i.e. "I have nukes therefore I can conquer as I wish". But the response has to be proportional, and I'm not sure if it won't runaway into nuclear apocalypse. These are honestly very scary times.

I used to loathe tactical nukes, because I think they greatly lower the threshold that they can be used. That's still the case, but if regimes like Putin's exist and have access to these weapons, I can't help but feel that they are a necessary evil in our nuclear arsenal too. I wish the future can be free of nukes, but it's clear that we're not there yet, and disarmament would be downright foolish right now. 98.186.205.183 (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently NATO planning is to respond "in kind" if Russia goes down the tactical nuclear weapon route.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

One of the main issues with the Russians is basically, they've not 'moved on' from the tactics, strategy, weapons etc of the late Soviet era. One of things which strikes me is how *similar* Ukraine is panning out vs the predictions of how a Soviet offensive into West Germany in say, 1983 would have turned out - Soviet armour groups being chewed up on masse with Manpad AT missiles in every German hamlet, Western low-level air dominance retained (thus semi-protecting infantry from helicopters), failed 'desants' on key targets at the outset and every km of advance costing a lot in Soviet men and materiel, ending with the advance spluttering and stalling, and then talk of nukes...

Ukranians, on the other hand *have* moved on. They've taken their own battle experiences and melded it with Western ethos, which at it's core is 'take care of your people' (unlike the Soviet, which is that people are expendable), while being given many a weapon which was often *literally* designed to chew up Hinds, T-72s and BMPs.

But the Russian problem is that it is *not* the late USSR. She does not have enough existing forces in-theatre and is logistically unable to transfer enough from other sectors. She does not have a bottomless pool of folks fit for military service. Her vaunted stockpiles appear to have spent thirty years mouldering in old depots while the quartermasters stole and goofed off. Nor does she have the colossal military-industrial complex capable of churning out kit by ton to refit the old and arm new divisions.

Truth be told; Russia can't cope. Every conflict fought in the Putin era either involved some select elite forces (Syria) and/or swarming an enemy weaker and often more militarily backward than they (Chechnya). What miltary exercises she had seemed to be geared towards showing off new bling and scaring neigbours than actually giving the whole system a decent work-out to see deficiencies for later correction. The constant threats with nukes makes me give a little grim smile; it shows Putin is fucked and has little else to work with. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The Russian tank design philosophy is such a stark difference with the West. Russian systems focus on overwhelming fire, with an auto loader underneath personnel. The auto-loader function allows them have one less person, but the right weapon system can ignite the ammo, vaporizing the crew, and popping off the top. Western armor designs put the ammo in the rear, literally separated from the crew. It requires another crewmember, and has a lober fire-rate. If that ammo ignites, it is designed to ensure the crews survival. The logic being that you can replace armor easily, but replacing an armor crew is harder.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was reading about this recently. Apparently Russian tank design has the ammunition directly below the turret. And the turret is exactly the area which javelin ATM's aim for. Which explains those phots of Russian tanks with the turret blown completely clear of the tank. And while Russia has a stockpile of cold-war tanks (which may or may not be functional) they certainly won't have a stockpile of trained tank crews.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The 'design philosophy' isn't the problem, the fact that almost all the gear already existed in 1991 is. Worse, the level of modernisations have been even more limited than Western sources expected; a lot of the destroyed tanks show they're the vanilla 70s/80s models (though admittedly, this can be partly inverse survivor bias). But enough of the dead is also the new/upgraded versions, the very sorts which the Russians had boasted less than five years ago as being as superior to current Western tanks. As pointed out, many of the blowups are either ammo and/or fuel hits, known as 'jack-in-the-box' hits. Unfortunately, the wire mesh frames ('cope cages') tank crews have been rigging up in the hope to cause AT missiles to prematurely detonate (a trick first used in WW2) make it harder for crews to escape. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini I have not forgot that and seeing the footage from destroyed towns/cities, I never will. Putin is a cruel, sadistic, genocidal monster who deserves punishment. Putin's claims of "not intending to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine" raises all kinds of red flags (much like when they entered Donbass under the guise of "peace keeping" but chose to directly invade Ukraine). I would trust a Mafia boss or a drug dealer quicker than I would Putin. I hope Ukraine fights the occupation and prevails, their deaths can not and will not be in vain. --Gender Fluid Beer (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

A fundamental difference between the Ukraine and Russian leaders

The Ukraine has a professional comedian. Kencolt (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

In Rest of world Politician become Comedian, in Ukraine Comedian become Politician Stingraey (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't our previous President an entertainer? CorruptUser 14:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Technically. Kencolt (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Another, perhaps more important difference, is that one wants to commit genocide and the other doesn't. Or that one is a mentally unstable old man and the other isn't.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

In Soviet Ukraine, comrade comedian laughs at you! 71.208.x.x (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You think Ukraine is part of the USSR? That's a timewarp!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well it was, just as much as Russia was. Remember the Russian Reversal meme? As a matter of fact, the warship that the Ukrainians just sunk was ironically built in Soviet Ukraine. 71.208.x.x (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

So ... The USA is part of the British Empire because - well - it was once?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

On the same token, Russia is not part of the Soviet Union anymore either. 71.208.x.x (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bob It is perferctly reasonable to refer to the Americas pre-revolution as "British America" - as it is to refer to Soviet era Ukraine as the Ukraine SSR or "Soviet Ukraine. Let others be the idiot - they are much better at it than you. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we please stop with the idea that Putin is insane? Seriously, what the fuck mental illness is he supposed to have? And who sat down with him and diagnosed him? Hey, fun fact, did you know that in psych fields remote diagnosis is heavily discouraged as extremely unreliable? Did you know that? Please stop. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the word "insane" above. I wrote "mentally unstable" and I certainly stand by that. Do you really think that his recent decisions have been completely rational? Ok, like you (I assume) I am not a mental health professional, but it's unquestionable that he has made a long series of "unproductive decisions".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/05/03/reckless-and-ruthless-yes-but-is-putin-insane-no/ Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 17:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bob M He invades Ukraine for a popularity/resource boost from pure annexation, rather than the "special operations" he's been conducting up to this point, something he's done in the past, overestimates his own military's capabilities while underestimating the Ukrainian's due to relying on out of date information and lying advisors, and so has imperfect information. Russian troops run rampant engaging in atrocities because either A), it's shock tactics to break the will to resist them or B) they're command structure is shit, possibly both. Putin any the other Oligarchs have "sancionproofed" the Russian economy, though they still underestimated the backlash from other nations and are now scrambling to fix the areas they didn't sanctionproof.

TL;DR if I use cognitive empathy and don't drink Russia's propaganda koolaid about Putin being a supergenius, yes, I can rationally explain pretty much everything up to this point. Any other questions? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If you think that he's being completely rational then, no, I don't. But we may have different opinions.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't really know, I think he's still extraordinarily dangerous and has been lashing out due to not actually having any Hard or Soft Power he can use externally on western nations, and for the invasion of Ukraine its the normal situation of "oh god I look like an idiot" so he's acting like one too, its not any real mental problems. However, I think what's strange is the whole 50 foot table situation. Yeah, Covid is one of the excuses, but no other state leader has done stuff like this to my knowledge, and you have to wonder what other insane security measures he's now implementing that a bunch of hid goons may be having second thoughts about him in leadership.

So yeah, sure, he's not mentally incapable, but there has to be some severe stress or some other mild problem going on to warrant this amount of dumbassery. Stingraey (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I have a somewhat different armchair analysis than thinking Putin insane. I think that, like many other overconfident people, Putin has a defect of character in the form of not caring enough about objective facts, i.e. not honoring reality. Such a thing has, throughout history, often made the most powerful people shoot themselves in the feet. Relativising facts and believing in one's own propaganda is not technically insane, but is just as ruinous in its effects. I think that's probably a sickness spreading around Putin, too, as those who truly commit themselves to the course taken have to make a similar inner investment, or find themselves feeling a world apart. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Stingraey and ApooftGnegiol What reasons do you have to believe those things? Why? What would you do differently, and why do you believe that would be a better option? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

As far as "doing differently" is concerned, I think when the war plan was developed and then approved, a larger systematic problem was already too big. It seems the FSB and military government structures have a culture of loyalty (pleasing superiors) mattering far more than accuracy, which Putin probably also lived and breathed in earlier years, and no doubt knew all about. The "everything is fucked" FSB whistleblower, for example, wrote in one of his letter about how at each step of the hierarchy, superiors demand a more simplified and optimistic take on situations. Those higher up know more about the planning, but know less about the accurate detail-knowledge discarded throughout the chain of command. If Putin had truly cared about reality, and I think he must know much about the defects of the system he is surrounded by, then he could have taken steps to get more accurate information and then act on it. He's instead been happy to take a path of lesser resistance, probably becoming his own worst enemy in the process. ApooftGnegiol (talk)--20:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@ApooftGnegiol Why would he be aware of things on a systemic level? What basis do you have for that assumption beyond "he's an insider"? Most American politicians take the system they exist under or granted. Hell, most American rich fucks take the system for granted. So why would Putin be any different? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@ApooftGnegiol Huh, I read a similar thing with Afghanistan for the US in a west point article. Basically, everyone below wants to please those above, or you are not being promoted, and I think that this problem might be even worse for Russia because you need to whitewash or your being whitewashed. It's not like in the US where if you tell the truth you won't get your promotion from captain to colonel if you piss off people in Russia your life is at risk because of the system, corruption, and silence in place. Putting those together, I think that further helps explain ( @GrammarCommie ) why Putin might be cut off from the true facts, and whether Putin is aware of that or not doesn't much matter, what I think matters is that the stress of that situation and the deep amount of tunrustworthiness Putin has had to have his entire life with everyone else may have contributed to a mental problem he has, as mild as that might be. Of course, this is all speculation, but it could explain some things. Stingraey (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There has been a fair few commentators/clips of Putin which show the 2022 edition is quite different to the 2019 edition in temperament. Macron, for example (who's met him quite a bit over the years) said he was different (much ruder and demanding, for starters). What's happened since then? The pandemic. Who is a senior citizen and hugely worried about their heath? Putin. I wouldn't say he's insane by any stretch of the term, but if you told me he has somewhat 'warped' under the strain of long periods of isolation with only is own views, Imperial/Soviet nostalgia and brooding over his own mortality/legacy for company... yeah, I can believe that. I know RL folks who have changed from the various lockdowns; myself included (and my isolation was relatively light).

The other issue is perhaps simply that Putin's fingers are no longer 'on the pulse'. He's an ageing autocrat who's been in-post for twenty-two years and spent much of the last two in isolation. This is prime 'dictator trap' territory; where their knowledge of the state of the nation/world outside their compound has become dated and mainly theoretical, their 'honest advisors' (ie ones who shall tell them the truth, even bad) have either died, grown silent or been exiled and years of being at the top has made them conceited, full of the belief they know all about every subject. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice Exactly. This is what I've been driving at, to a certain extent. Watching the situation unfold, I get a similar impression of Putin that I get when retrospecting about Chavez era Venezuela. An aging ruler who is (mostly) rightfully paranoid, has only really stayed in power via illiberal and anti-demoncratic means, who's exiled or killed anyone who wouldn't tell him what he wants to hear (mainly due to paranoia of disloyalty) and is now surrounded by opportunists and sycophants, who runs a petro-state who's economy is... delicate at the best of times, who has cultivated a personality cult, and who makes up conspiracies in order to justify his policies. The only real difference is that the Russian Federation, unlike Venezuela, has up until now been able to get away with various forms of military adventurism and imperial annexation. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie, I actually don't think the contrast needs to be large between Putin and many Western politicians and rich people regarding this aspect of character, honoring reality vs. not really caring to know it. Any society in which rhetorical might makes right, or brings great power, is a society which will tend to be ruled by people lacking in character in that respect. I see that as one of the main historical and present problems facing humanity, and why, to take just one example, the climate crisis is handled poorly. Real change would need a change of philosophy as large as the Enlightenment, and building upon it rather than undoing it. A change towards some kind of logocracy, in which the failures of human judgment are accounted for and compensated for technologically. Anything less is a non-solution.

My point is basically that what people learn from situations and do with them has a lot to do with their priorities and character, and to me Putin seems to care more about power than about accurately mapping reality. He seems to care about power at the expense of the accurate mapping of reality. He has that in common with an awful lot of powerful people. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

... all this from a minor quip. What hath I wrought. Kencolt (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Bro thats why i'm here c: Learning and debating is funnnnnn Stingraey (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If you read Russia's side of the story, they make the same bullshit claims (oh, we're going in to help them). Russia is full of shit, and so was the western media/US government with the excuses in Iraq; America was pissed off at the Muslims over 9/11, and Bush had a score to settle with Saddam (who was an ass, but what else is new, a lot of national leaders are assholes). 71.208.x.x (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And thats where I personally just cant agree. Sure, at the time, I bet many americans were whirled up in a racist mania over 9/11 and wanted to bomb something and feel good about it, I cant actually give a good perspective on this though. What I can say though, is from what i’ve seen and what i’ve experienced, I think that we actually do (did) care, some americans, about the people in places like Afghanistan, and us turning our backs on them was a horrible mistake. I think that, at heart, we wanted to help another country and create a democratic and stable government, and that was our public intention, forget about private internal conflicts and greed.

On the other hand, we have a tyrannical dictator trying to infringe on the state sovereignty of a democratic country. There is no other way around it. With the US its us invading not very free countries, with Russia its a dictatorship invading free countries. I understand the anti-US sentiment in a lot of ways, but comparing its actions to that of dictatorships is hyperbolic and dangerous to other Democratic Nations, because if we cant help out other democratic nations because at home we look like imperialists, then we cant compete with our adversaries on the geopolitical front. Stingraey (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

At the end of the day I think we all need to avoid both the "Not as bad as..." and "Just as bad as..." arguments that are getting toss around in these debates. Despite Russian atrocities being far worse in terms of scale, there really isn't a good justification for the US invasion of Iraq, as murderous as Saddam was. Not to mention that the US has chalked up some notable war crimes of its own, even if it's not systematic or institutional like the Russians. On the other side of the coin, it's also disingenuous to draw moral equivalencies between the US and Russia simply because again, the Russian atrocities are far more terrible in terms of scale, and the intentions and methods are more cruel and nefarious. It's good to keep one self grounded in this aspect. 98.186.206.84 (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Questions of morality are multi-dimensional, i.e. there's several areas or qualities to consider. The whole is one thing, specific facets are another. In total, to me Russia's government, and in some ways the culture of that large country (which brings a revolving door of tyrannies over time), stand out as rotten. In specific areas, there's good cases to be made for either "just as bad as" or one or the other side being "not as bad as", but it's not good when people try to distract from the whole or whitewash the present through such. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If peterson were to teach you psychology

Does Jordan peterson actually teach conventional psychology in UoT? Is most of what he teaches original research?Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 17:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

He teaches both conventional and unconventional things, and has branched out into (in)famy from the more conventional academic work. Years ago I looked at Jordan Peterson lectures on YouTube, and there's a lot of basically standard material there. He provides both good and original things, but the good isn't so original, and the original isn't so good. He seems a basically good lecturer as long as he sticks to conventional stuff, but begins to practice bullshit artistry as soon as he talks about something outside of it (becoming deliberately vague, excessively long-winded, and somewhat Deepak Chopra-like except his focus is different). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson retired from the University of Toronto, and got the National Post to print his spiel about it. From this it is pretty obvious where his focus is now; suffice to say, "teaching" and "research" is likely no longer a part of it, so any commentary should now focus on his Youtube personality. I've only seen a couple of clips from his controversial Joe Rogan appearance this year that were being passed around, and honestly was not very impressed. A lot of it sounded very "deepity", profound sounding but empty-headed, with the sort of ^{[citation needed]} stuff that you also see in his National Post article. I'm guessing he was better when he talked psychology, of course, but he isn't now I guess. Meh (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that update, I hadn't followed up on all the news. I was pointed to him years ago by a crowd who seem to have remained long-term fans, but felt more lukewarm about him in general. Then I got more wary after seeing some debates, in which, yes, deepity is the name of the game. (If you'd like to see Sam Harris at his finest and actually agreeable, you'll find that in the first debates between him and Jordan Peterson.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Lutfur Rahman

Just got re-elected in London. Anna Livia (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The ironic hypocrisy of the right wing

When the state mandates vaccines, they scream 'my body, my choice'. It's funny that the same thing does not apply to the reproductive choice of gestational parents.Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 05:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, they're pissed that somebody infringed upon their 'right' to keep that opinion a secret.Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 05:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, they say love to say that the establishment government should not become the type of government you would see in an Orwellian dystopia. Yet here we are.Highboi♟When the king and the pawn are in the same box♚ 05:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

There should be a 'combined bill' - reproductive rights (along with free access to contraception #particularly for men#) and gun control. Anna Livia (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep Conservapeida-related shit out of the Bar

Moved the bollocks here where it belongs. Spud (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)