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

The revisionist fiction of Joy Reid

[1] "Past racist KKK Democrats were right-wing!!!11!11!!"

Reminds me of when I read The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-Wing Movements and National Politics, which arbitrarily assigns a random label to "right-wing" and *accidentally* admits the Second Klan was, in actuality, a progressive movement! And the advocacy of gun control shown by the First Klan is indisputable. Then comes the "KKK opposed labor unions!!" argument [2], which is deceitful propaganda as highlighted in this Cambridge University publication. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, as the sun sets where I live, I can honestly say this was your best saloon post I ever saw. Good job. Andrew5 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is the same old points you've been trying to advance using your flawed, narrow definitions of what's "right wing" and "left wing". I'm tired of it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You know, if you actually bothered looking into this issue you might make good points about how oversimplified the modern conception of left/right is in regards to historical figures. Or you could engage in terminal tribalism like an utter hack. The choice is yours. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Actually, the left/right spectrum is a French Revolution concept, but historical context matters so much, and I still believe the development of those terms were ongoing, with modern definitions of them most likely not cleanly fitting the political beliefs of people back then. I think a lot of what made up some ideological lenses such as class conflict and such wasn't really organized and put forward until Marx and such. Trying to apply modern lenses and definitions of the ideological spectrum, which is already flawed by design of being a linear gradient, to these historical figures is gonna put you into oversimplification territory, so it's not a really recommended thing to fixate on. It hasn't been since the first time you first got criticized (rather harshly too) for your trite "analyses" of historical political figures and ideas, and you're still engaging in that fixation. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't get your point. The old South politics was partywise Democratic. They certainly were not liberals. What about them them was not overall right-wing? They were conservatives favoring wealthy agricultural interests. The northern rightwing were conservatives favoring wealthy industrial interests. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The agrarian politics of the Old South preceding the Second New Deal era was left-wing and progressive. 1920s progressives thought of Southern Democrats as allies. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The founding of the Democratic party in 1828 and Jacksonian Democracy was a reaction against the elite rich landowners of the Jeffersonian Democrats and founding fathers. It traces its origin back to the Whisky Rebellion when the first Congress and George Washington tried to tax backwoods hillbillies to fund the government founded and run by slave-owning aristocrats. By this definition, the Democrats were the oppressed 99%. Dutchbag (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The mistake both of you are making is viewing Big Tent style parties as internally homogeneous, rather than a loosely aligned group of factions, each with their own goals. But like I said, the choice is yours on whether to acknowledge the complexities of history or whether to try to smear people you don't like in the present. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and USHA cited a wordpress blog. Really going for prestigious academic sources there ain'tcha buddy? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyhow, the Democratic Party isn't really "the oppressed 99%". Both parties representatives were generally pretty well off. Sure, Jackson himself had poorer beginnings but iirc he always had strong ties to Southern gentry. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This type of originalist argument is typical of Southern apologists. Whatever Jackson thought or did, by the time 1860 rolled around sentiment in the American south was anti-free labor where about one third of the labor force was enslaved. In fact, at that time it was argued that chattel slavery was more humane than the "wage system" as practiced in the north. That doesn't make them left-wing. The American left in 1860 was largely Republican and anti-slavery. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The hillbillies and moonshiners were hardly well off. The three/fifths rule made the landed elite powerful. Andrew Jackson's use of the spoils system is the only thing that empowered Democrats. Conscription into the Confederate Army of non-slave-owning whites created no loyalties or stake in Confederacy, either. Dutchbag (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

OK! I'm glad you understand their problems, but hillbillies and moonshiners were not in control at anytime. The militaristic right-wing southern states compelled service when necessary. But hostility towards the invading north was sufficient to supply Southern armies with enlistees. Overabundant patriotism is a cornerstone of the American right. Ariel31459^{more history for you!}20:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The Republican party of 1860 (founded in 1854) was a single-issue party - Abolitionism (kinda like single-issue Pro-Lifers). By 1865, having achieved its goals, had no reason for further existence.

The hillbillies and moonshiners can be compared to tax protesters who resented domination by the rich slave owning elite, be it Confederate or heirs of the founding fathers. In a sense they were anarchists, but "Jacksonian Democracy" empowered them through the spoils system, a payoff with postal jobs for voting Democrat (and the spoils system trickled down to state and local government jobs, too). Dutchbag (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Lol, that's not what any of those labels mean. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The 1860 Republican Party Platform included the plank " That the history of the nation during the last four years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph." And no, antislavery was not their only interest. The platform included planks concerning tariffs, immigration, vituperous anti-democrat sentiment, pro states rights exclamations (excepting the spread of slavery), denouncements of federal spending, denouncing slave trade, advocations for squatters rights on public lands, that congress should pay for river and harbor improvements (you know, infra-structure), and that a railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded (completed in 1869).

Ariel31459^{let me know if I missed anything}22:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Wow, truly amazing. It's almost like these two sprawling parties are more analogous the party coalitions of European style parliaments than actual parties proper. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it is.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The GOP of 1856 simply absorbed the issues of the defunct Whigs in its platform. But the founding Republicans were single-issue voters cause the Whigs rejected their issue. And the pro-civil rights "Radical Republicans" of Reconstruction were leftists, demanding Black equality. Dutchbag (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As to "Big Tent" parties, it is the Electoral College that requires a 51% majority to win the Executive branch. So the Big Tents are made up of coalitions. For example, the United Autoworkers labor union in bed with environmental and climate change groups who want to destroy their jobs in the Democratic party coalition. Dutchbag (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

How come we don't hear anything from climate activists and public transit proponents everytime Biden jumps behind the wheel of big rig gasguzzler and claims he used to be a redneck trucker? Dutchbag (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Joy Reid is a fucking idiot, enough that she makes regular appearances on BadLegalTakes (side note, absolutely one of the best things to come out of Twitter, and strictly non-partisan). No political movement is remotely honest with itself, the most obvious I can think of are the conservative "anti-censors" squawking about "Big Tech" and the environmentalists who crap in their hands and fling it at anyone who even suggests nuclear power as a solution. None of them in history do either, Cesar Chavez (to use one) was an insufferable dick if you were unfortunate enough to actually know him and the anti-union Reaganites hated unions but were always fine with police unions. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose; what more is there to say? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights And none of that has anything to do with the central topic, namely the political classification of the Democratic party historically and presently. @Dutchbag Firstly, no they are not, not in the sense of parliamentary coalitions no. Each caucus within either the Democratic party or the Republican party can be understood to be its own narrow focus faction, which will in turn have a very specific set of demands which the party overall must meet if it hopes to win the support of that caucus. Therein lies the central problem with USHA's inane pseudo-history by the way. The Dixiecrats' demands were not met by the Democrats, so they swapped party loyalty. Secondly, your post about environmentalist groups supposed hypocrisy is such a juvenile attempt at a "gotcha" as to be laughable. Such groups are only partly aligned with Biden and the Democratic party as a whole. Ergo, they do not see Biden as a member of their group, but as an avenue to enacting their goals. Ergo, they do not condemn Biden for supposed hypocrisy because they don't need to. He is part of a group they are only partly aligned with, not a member of their ingroup. I know you kids really want to "own the libs" but Jesus fucking Christ get better arguments, you sound like fucking 14 year olds. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh and learn to hide your "gotcha" attempts better, that one was so obvious that it's frankly insulting that you bothered posting it. You might as well have used child level ad homs and been done with it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dutchbag Oh and USHA? When operating a sock, some level of discretion is generally required. Vomiting the same talking points in a near identical manner on both accounts gives the game away to anyone with basic literacy skills. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you are misreading everything. Tell me, Who were the Radical Republicans?, and why were they called 'radical'? Dutchbag (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I love how A) You aren't denying the sock accusation and B) you're trying to pivot away from the points I made. This tells me two things. Firstly, that you're second account is indeed a sock, and secondly that you're terminally dishonest. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Easy. The Democratic Party is two things. On a local level, in any city with a critical mass, it's about the slug monster who's paid off enough people to get in office (lest you think I jest, just look up Joe Ganim). On a national level, it's split between older and younger people; the younger ones are a parody of the lyrics to the song War Paint (to the beautiful and the wise, the mirror always lies), the older ones are stuck dealing with a Republican party that started with a mission of minimal government and lost its way long ago. And absolutely nothing that any of us do will fix it; trust me, on a personal level I'd love to take a left out of my street on my daily walks, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. What can you do besides live with the hand you're dealt and terrorize the uppity suburbs while you're at it? (Seriously, with my height, long hair, and increasingly long beard the police in the town to the west have suddenly taken an interest in me; profiling is fine if it's not racial or ethnic, I guess) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights to whom and/or what are you replying to? It certainly wasn't anything I said, since I didn't ask how the Democratic party voter base operates. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I find that I have to shave whenever I go on an airplane, or I get "randomly" selected for more screenings.

As for the Dems, I would say that if the don't stop getting either the crazies (the squad) or the geriatric slug monsters (Pelosi, Biden) to represent them they are doomed to become ever more obscure, but the Republicans have done an absolutely piss poor job of appealing to the general public as well. "NO ABORTIONS!!!" might appeal to evangelicals, but no one else. "TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH" pisses off something like 5 voters for every 1 voter it appeals to. If the Republicans could ever get their act together and rally behind a moderate with a decent track record (e.g., McCain pre-Bush, John Kasich or Pataki in 2016), they'd slaughter the Democrats from now until forever. It's as if they are allergic to victory. CorruptUser 16:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

My bad, my indentation was off; was replying to Dutchbag. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Firstly, as I've repeatedly pointed out, "radical" does not automatically translate into unreasonable, nor does "moderate" de facto translate into reasonable. Those labels merely speak to the subject's position relative to the mainstream, which itself is only a highly subjective "consensus" (for lack of a better word) on what is acceptable to discuss, which is extremely period dependent. Abolishing monarchies was once radical, abolishing slavery was considered radical, etc etc etc. Secondly, you mistake the GOP and the Dems as having equal ideological cohesion and diversity. Proportionally, the Dems have more ideological diversity than the GOP, which is actually one of their biggest weaknesses since it increases infighting and prevents them from unifying behind anything more substantial than "not the GOP". Meanwhile, the GOP has steadily narrowed it's platform to series of, what appear at first glance, idiosyncratic positions, but are on closer inspection all built around the idea of placating their base and increasing turnout on their side. In terms of behind the scenes mechanics this also works to decrease the number of people able to vote for the Dems. That is to say, the racism and such of the GOP is far more cynical and manipulative than most people give them credit for.

@The Blade of the Northern Lights Ah, fair. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"Radical Republicans" were deemed "radical" because post-1865, they were Abolitionists who had moved past abolition and unto Black equality, which was a 'radical' concept outside the mainstream. Dutchbag (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The Abolitionist amendment (12th Amendment) which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States, did not empower equal rights for blacks. So the 'radical' 13th and 14th Amendments empowered blacks ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude.") This nullified early attempts at Jim Crow laws. And there the Civil rights movement rested for 100 years. Dutchbag (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Above Ariel quotes the 1860 GOP platform, "the history of the nation during the last four years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature...". This is a reference to the Dred Scott Decision, which ruled "having lived in a free state and territory did not entitle an enslaved person, Dred Scott, to his freedom." So the program of the 'Radical Republicans' of equality, beyond abolition, was fully articulated in the platform as "permanent". Sure, many Union soldiers signed up to share the spoils of victory under the spoils system and abandoned the cause of black equality after 1865, but the Radical Abolitionists remained Radical proponents of equal rights for Blacks after 1865 when the limited aims of the Abolition movement were achieved. Dutchbag (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

And these are the same as the modern Republican party how exactly? These milestones are enforced by what? Magic? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The idea the modern GOP wants to "put ya'll back in chains" is ludicrous. Dutchbag (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think no one will disagree that the 'radical' program of the Radical Republicans of Reconstruction has become mainstream after 1965, even by the Democrats. This is essentially what the 1619 Project teaches. Dutchbag (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Why? Because in the past people who flew that flag opposed racism? So? Further, they don't want to "Put us back in chains" they want to enact certain polices, which having racist qualities, will appeal to their base. Why? Because in the mid to late 1900s the GOP decided that racists were a more viable demographic than black people. Because the GOP is a political party and not a fucking fairy tale social club. Its primary concern as a group entity is the perpetuation of its power, by any means necessary. To address your aside, the 1619 project is not an accredited historical body. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You aren't actually interested in discussing this issue, just spouting shit. I say this because you aren't addressing anything I said and are continuing to cite a political landscape from around two hundred years ago, whereas I cited a shift that occurred withing the last 60-70 years. (If we wanted to be really technical it'd be withing the last hundred years.)☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I am addressing the historical question, which you want to edit war over. Go ahead. prove your ignorance of the subject matter. Dutchbag (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Before you go a step further, answer my original question: Who were the Radical Republicans?, and why were they called 'radical'? Dutchbag (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dutchbag To prove your case that the modern GOP is in fact not racist you're citing historical examples from so far in the past as to be obsolete. Perhaps, if you were more honest, you'd cite more recent examples that are more applicable to the present. Unless of course you don't have those... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've said nothing on the modern GOP. What the hell are you talking about? Dutchbag (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dutchbag Don't lie. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. And my apologies for responding to you. It's obvious you are not interested or capable of engaging in a historical discussion, which is what I thought this thread was about. Dutchbag (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dutchbag Nah, this thread was started by someone who denies the reality of the Southern Strategy, mainly because he's a right winger who can't handle the fact that he supports a party that by and large supports racist policies. You came along and started carrying water for him. Obviously, I have a low opinion of that kind of weaselly bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You don't know shit. You sound like contemporary Blacks who say "Radical Republicans" were called radical cause they were too hard on the South. Dutchbag (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

If you are talking about felony disenfranchisement and voter ID, I'm not opposed to those on principle, they just need to be done properly. Id's need to be free and no more onerous to obtain than anything required for the paperwork needed to get a job. As for felony disenfranchisement, the process for re-enfranchisement needs to streamlined, because it's such a convoluted mess with regards to states, counties and cities it's often hard to tell if you are breaking the law or not by voting. If you are talking about defunding polling centers in working class neighborhoods such that a guy making minimum wage has to spend 4 hours waiting to vote and risk getting written up for performing his most "sacred" of civic duties, or making it impossible to do mail-in ballots for someone who is planning in advance, Fuck. That. Noise. CorruptUser 18:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser The fact that you're confused by such a straightforward reference betrays your ignorance on this subject. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Just saying, allowed USHA back from their ban they decided to post two big ole turds on the Saloon Bar.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Dutchbag Please read the article about the Southern strategy before you give everyone in the bar a giant fucking migraine arguing about concepts that are generally already understood and not denied by people who aren't Tucker Carlson hacks. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

More of an aside. Given the "Southern Strategy", which Democratic presidents are actually Republicans? E.g., were any of FDR, JFK, Truman and Wilson Republican? CorruptUser 20:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser I've told you this before, so it annoys me that I have to tell you it again, but calling the "Southern Strategy" a switch is severely oversimplifying the events in question. It was a less switch and more a period of platform realignment for both parties due to a shifting political landscape that they each sought to navigate, as well as internal party power dynamics. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The major shift at play with the southern strategy race politics; the Democrats and Republicans already had their economic positions solidified at this point thanks to the New Deal (and many years after that truth be told). Roosevelt basically defined the general economic line the Democrats and Republicans would follow later; Roosevelt happened to be a Democrat, so Republicans became the counter party to that idea. It's like many things in history not a hard and fast "now dems are republicans" thing. Everything is gradual and even right now party positions are always moving. (Just look at how Sanders went from a 2012 failure candidate to a 2016 contender to a 2020 contender whose ideas were actually considered by the rest of the party or how ~4 decades of Reaganism led to Trump and the current GOP). The Republican party feared their voterbase (which was originally supportive of civil rights, since Republicans were the anti-slavery party at one point) evaporating since even Republicans are aware that their economic positions are at best unworkable, so they began appealing to racist sentiments in the south with a soft coat of paint so it wouldn't be immediately obvious who it would affect the worst. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As a matter or fact, they are still evolving, as both are becoming more extreme, and it appears it will move that way for a while. (Albeit Maryland did let Andy Harris stay intact - [3].- Andrew5 (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

So much of this is a crock of shit. Hillbillies in 1789, who didn't own slaves and took part in the Whiskey Rebellion, were the first 99%. And Hillbillies today are still Democrats. And if that were not true, Joe Manchin would be a Republican. Dutchbag (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Scranton Joe, the coalminer and redneck trucker, family came to America during the pre-Civil War Irish potato famine. They were Democrats then and they are Democrats now ("That's only because we couldn't figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way.") 150 years later, Joe Biden finally figured out "poor kids are just as smart as white kids." Dutchbag (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

There's so much red herring in those the above sentences, it's moving into not even wrong territory. In light of this strange conflation of past and present, I look forward to modern "hillbillies" raising a big boycott over Hamilton the musical in protest of his complete bullshit excise task on whiskey. (And did you know "Let's Go Brandon" actually means "Fuck George Washington"? Yeah, fuck the Federalists!) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Pardon my occupation in the past days with other matters. To respond:

• @GrammarCommie Actually no, for your information, I do not support the party headed by a man who praised Talmadge and Eastland, says blacks who don't support him "ain't black", and calls black advisers "boy".
• @Techpriest It is evidently difficult for you accept the truth that RationalWiki's "Southern Strategy" article is deceitful. I will address your minuscule understanding of United States history with several refuting points:
  • The first "Southern strategy" occurrence was in 1876.
  • The lasting Republican inroads into the South first appealed to middle-class residents on the motivation of economic mobility. The example of the re-established Florida Republican Party under William C. Cramer highlights a coalition of Northern migrants and Cuban voters among St. Petersburg residents breaking the Democratic stranglehold. The similarly re-established Mississippi Republican Party under Wirt A. Yerger, Jr. relied on appeals to economic mobility.
  • Thurmond/Wright supporters, in other words the Dixiecrats, became a bloc throwing backing to liberal Adlai Stevenson. The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South attributes '52 Eisenhower Southern inroads by congressional district primarily to '48 Truman supporters, not '48 Dixiecrats.
  • The trend towards Southern Republicanism among agrarian rural counties was not solidified until decades following the 60s.
  • The popular vote of the Deep South went to Jimmy Carter in '76 and '80.
• @Ariel31459 @Dutchbag Abolitionists and Radical Republicans were leftists? Sure! So long as you ignore those who were considerably conservative or right-leaning. The "Radical" aspect of RRs only pertained to abolitionism/war policy/Reconstruction and no rigid bloc unity was maintained on monetary policy, tariffs, nor railroads. So some were liberal-leaning while others conservative.

UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is the Left/Right paradigm is a flawed paradigm, especially when applied to the United States, as LGM rightly pointed out far above. Dutchbag (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

USH, I really don't see what this changes about my greater point, which is that Dutchbag is arguing about certain concepts as if they don't exist. I don't mind a greater summary (although with due respect, I will not take these as permanent fact given obvious bias from your end; allow me to do my own quick research, I am not an American and thank god for that), but in the end all you're proving to me is that as I said later, history and party affiliations aren't set in stone; stuff changes over time. I appreciate the examination of the way that Republicans dropped slavery from their agenda because it wasn't appealing to the South, but all that really leaves you with is two parties with a distinctive lack of care as to what happened to the freed slaves, which just allowed the states (general because of migrations, leading to northern states doing this as well) to put the Jim Crow laws in place. That said, that is not exactly the same thing as the Southern Strategy. The goal of Hayes and his ilk seems to have been to merely get the federal government to drop any serious decisions on the matters of race to permit states to just put the Jim Crow laws in place. That is not the same thing as the Southern Strategy (although they did employ similar tactics, see "states rights" balking from Republicans nowadays). The Southern Strategy is more akin to a several decades long attempt by the Republican party by now to be a "counter voice" for those who wanted the civil rights of the 60s gone (and notably did not want any further civil rights or reparations for those damaged by it and those still suffering from the lack of those reparations), which I will say is rather inherently racist. (This is where I do diverge from our article; I don't believe the Southern Strategy ever really ended, nor do I think you can encompass it in a single attempt (it failed with Goldwater, it barely succeeded with Nixon due to a third party candidate who promised to be more extreme and managed to push "Republicans are the party of Lincoln" one last time and it only worked when Reagan employed Lee Atwater, who was clever enough to realize that you can't do it as openly anymore). Rather the Strategy eventually solidified into Reaganism and is now morphing into Trumpism, where Republicans don't even pretend to be about anything other than "what the Democrats are not" while appealing to their financial donors by givig the wealthy as many tax breaks as possible and don't try to "play fair" anymore). By this end, I do not consider our article of the Southern Strategy to be deceitful, it's just that which you consider to be the Southern Strategy is not really tied to what is considered to be the Southern Strategy these days. It would belong more in an article about the Jim Crow laws to explain how these were brought about (and the Jim Crow laws led to the Civil Rights movement...). Your examination is historically interesting (assuming it holds water) but it does not directly map onto the modern day Southern Strategy as cleanly as you try to put it. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@UShistoryanalyzer I never for a moment thought you supported the Dems. You're insecurity with the idea of the GOP embracing racism to hold on to power dispels that notion pretty damn quickly. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's get back to facts; Kamala Harris called Joe Biden a racist in a primary debate. He was rewarded with the nomination while she didn't even make the first round of voting. More currently, Biden snubs her, won't sit next to her at Bob Dole's funeral, and sends her to the back of the bus. And if you think Blacks don't notice these slights, you're living in la-la land. Dutchbag (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Techpriest, it's hard to begin where your understanding is off base. Jim Crow laws existed only in the South, passed by Southern Democrat legislatures which violated the 14th Amendment rights of blacks for 100 years. You'd be hard-pressed to find any Republican-controlled state legislature anywhere in the United States from 1863 onwards that passed what is commonly referred to as "Jim Crow laws", because you can't. The fact that you mention "Jim Crow" in the same sentence with "Republican" shows a glaring ignorance or understanding of U.S. history and politics. Dutchbag (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's talk about this comment, momentarilly:

• what happened to the freed slaves, which just allowed the states (general because of migrations, leading to northern states doing this as well) to put the Jim Crow laws in place.

It is true, many Freedmen migrated to the North after the Civil War & Reconstruction. They were often brought into Northern cities as strike breakers. That's how a town like Kenosha, Wisconsin today has a 10% Black population. There was no minimum wage until 1941. Blacks were used as scab labor, driving wages down. If there were state laws in Northern states that discriminated, it would be in union states (as opposed to Right-to-Work states) that required membership in a labor union to hold a job, because it would be difficult then, by law, for an African American to obtain membership in a labor union. Dutchbag (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I find it discouraging that the first thing you say is a lie. Harris did not call Joe Biden a racist in any debate.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"Right to work" laws exist specifically to break unions, nothing more. The implication that they're "good actually" is either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why y'all are bothering, especially given the other link, quality Youtube "whargarbl Democrats bad" fake news shitposting from a channel with the description of "We have been temporarily banned. For the next 7 days we will post new videos on our backup channel." Place your bets on whether the ban was for bullshit on COVID-19 or bullshit on the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no implication that "right to work" is good; the simple fact is that organized labor and collective bargaining rights prior to 1936 often discriminated against unskilled black scab labor. Dutchbag (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Does subtext actually exist?

It's something I didn't really get. If it isn't explicitly said then how can you be sure that it exists? Isn't it just imagination at that point? I mean people are talking about how the original intent of an artist doesn't matter in a work (meaning people can read what they want into it) so how can it be said there is something there when it isn't explicitly said.Machina (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Simply, that's the power of interpretation. Even if you make something relatively straightforward, everyone who reads it will have a slightly different interpretation. There is no guarantee that everyone will see something the same way. Take something like Supernatual. The characters of Cas and Dean were never meant to be in a romantic/sexual relationship, as far as the writers were concerned, but many in the online community saw aspects of their relationship and character as being indicative of gay romance. Some part of it comes down to imagination, as you say, or just personal headcannon, but the ultimate truth is that subtext, whether intentional, present, or neither, will always be around. Some subtext is projected and some is interpretation. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 19:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I like Jake's example. "Subtext" is a critical term. When one observes a play, for example, the critic can claim all sorts of implications that one may or may not take notice of. Do they exist? Well, they are implications. You either experience such ideas or you don't. They are cognitive events, thoughts. Are thoughts real? Yes. Yes they are. When a bunch of people get the same ideas indirectly from an experience, the critic calls interpretation due to subtext. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

How are thoughts real though? A lot of philosophies I have read say that thoughts aren't real, they don't actually exist. It's all in your head, just like sound and color. In reality there is no subtext, at least that's what the conclusion is. It's like how we take our personal reality to be objective truth which is where these head cannons take place that people try to make real and claim the "subtext" says so. But as you say it is interpretation and it doesn't matter how many people interpret it like that, that doesn't make it fact. Doesn't the Bible have similar issues?Machina (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not so much that people take subjective thoughts to be objective truth as it is that people project their own traits onto characters because their interpretation of the character fits with their headcannons. I myself have projected certain characters I like as being autistic, not because the author intended them to be, but because intentionally or not their behavior is close enough to typical autistic behavior (or my own, as I am ASD) that I project this trait onto them as a way of relating to them. The bottom line is that subtext is never truly correct; subjective interpretation of media necessitates that every person will see something differently. People will completely miss intentional subtext and see unintentional subtext in its place. In a sense it goes back to what you said: thoughts aren't real. When someone makes a headcannon, they essentially create a separate interpretation of the original media, which they can do with what they please. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 14:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a lot of philosophy maintains thoughts don't exist. If you think about it, you have to have the thought to make the claim. It is a self refuting idea.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not self refuting though. You can't point to a thought, you can't reach out and grab it, you can't even precisely locate one (if at all, assuming it has a form). So how can you say such a thing exists? From the looks of it sounds like they don't exist, just like color and sound.Machina (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If, by your logic, our thoughts don't exist, then the ideas that created media to begin with don't exist at all, and any abstract concept like love or hatred or symbolism also doesn't exist. Thoughts aren't tangible, and neither are intentions. To say as much concedes that any interpretation can be made and that all interpretations are equally valid, since the thought never existed to begin with. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 20:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Short answer: yes.Machina (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Things exist because we experience sense evidence that they exist. Since our ideas are constructed from our sense evidence it would be incoherent to assume that they did not really exist. Take color or sound. What does it mean for sound to exist? Sound is caused by a vibration in the air to which ones eardrums react, it is created as sense data. If the sound did not exist, how would physiologists explain perfect pitch? How would human ears discern the many possible messages afforded by the human voice? No, it is clearly incoherent to assume sound does not exist. It exists as information. Now, one could claim that information doesn't exist. But, it basically denies the relation between things and our ideas of things, which is incoherent. What we are telling you is you must assume ideas don't really exist, and doing so leads nowhere. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

But sound does not exist though, that's the point. You are, again, trying to project subjective experience as reality. Sounds itself is just in our mind it's not real. Color is the same way, nothing is red or blue except in the head. Thoughts aren't real either as you cannot directly interact with them or point to them. It's not an assumption it is fact. Even information cannot be said to exist as it is just mental, not real. Neither do things as they are really just concepts of "things" and not static objects (Vsauce did a good video on why chairs don't exist).Machina (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

For someone who has unambiguously declared philosophy as useless, you are spending a shit-ton of time on philosophical questions. There are multiple theories on what thoughts, abstract concepts and even phenomena like "the transfer of heat" are. "Emergent phenomena" and/or "cultural constructs" are two concepts which may be useful to helping you explore things such as "thought" and "subtext". Just stay the fuck away from blogs, non-philosophy led discussion groups and quora on these subjects. If you are pressed from time, get the Oxford a very short introduction to books. Ones I would recommend for you are (in order of relevance): Reality, Consciousness, Objectivity, Thought, Metaphysics, Causation, Knowledge, Perception. I have read Consciousness, Objectivity and Thought. I have read two dozen books on totally different topics as well. They are extremely well written and give a solid introduction to all of these topics. If your library doesn't have it and you are poor and have no problem with pirating, they can be pirated. ShabiDOO 00:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yet despite reading all that you have no idea what is going on. I already know you don't know what you're talking about and are more of an emotional reactionary than anything else.Machina (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, Machina has sharpened his defensive claws again. One day you will learn to concede something (anything) by at least a micrometer and drop your intellectual dipshittery. My lord...what astounding intellectual dipshittery. ShabiDOO 02:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A visual aid of what I mean.Machina (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You also misunderstand the argument. Real things are represented by sense data in consciousness. The sense data is also real, as it exists. Who told you that subjective experiences are not real? They are ontologically objective, while epistemologically they may fail to be universal. You keep using this word "real." I do not think it means what you think it means.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Not really. If there is nothing to receive the data then it effectively does not exist. So in a sense "sensory data isn't real" as it doesn't exist out in the world but is dependent on there being something to "pick it up". Nothing is soft or hard, hot or cold, not ultimately.Machina (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What it comes down to is that people see what they want to see, whether it's actually there or not. If you want to see subtext, then you can find evidence for it in the narrative. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, I suppose. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The fuck is this about sound not being real? Do you know how many accelerometers I've calibrated to detect bearing faults in engineering blocks? Sound is shockwaves with a frequency greater than 0, which are absolutely real. Now all sensory information must be rendered in an abstract way, such as for my system where we often convert vibrational energy into voltage and then measure it with a voltmeter, but the information can also be digital. Now was the original vibrational energy (sound) voltage? No, we converted it into that so our customer's computer system can register it. That is all your brain is doing, converting sensory data into an easily parseable form for internal calculations. Those internal calculations are absolutely real, but they are an abstraction of the original. Where is the problem exactly? Same thing goes for color. When I calibrate tlcamera systems, we very carefully generate specific frequencies of light (which is what color is), and this color is usually represented in the parent system by a 16 bit integer. Is color a 16 bit integer? No it is an abstraction for ease of calculation. How your brain perceives color is again just an abstraction for ease of calculation, and it absolutely exists and is functioning properly. If I ask people who aren't color blind to sort 20 objects based on whether they are red, blue, or green, I will get very consistent results (unless I play some trick like make all the cups weird color mixes or stripes or some petty shit). MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Except they aren't. In reality sound is purely pressure waves, anything you "hear" is, in a sense, fantasy. Color itself also DOES NOT EXIST. It's again, just the brain's imagination. It's based on past experience, so in a sense all of humanity is delusional and seeing something that does not actually exist. Asking someone else to sort based on color proves nothing since we all share in this delusion we call color.Machina (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not right either, though. What we call color, and the names of the colors we have, are societal and social constructs. But color, whether perceptible or not, does exist. The world isn't black and white; the existence of rainbows shows us that light can pass through different spectrums and form new wavelengths, which due to our color rods we understand to be color. If there were no people around to interpret colors, everything would still have color. The same is true for sound; the fact that we live on a world with an atmosphere allows for sound to travel and move, and even in space things make noise that we can detect. Just because something isn't physical per se doesn't make it not real, and even then light waves and sound waves are physical, they're just not touchable. To bring the point back home, the same is true for subtext. Subtext exists whether or not you perceive it. That's the bottom line. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 01:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, no. Color does not exist. It is NOT light, it's purely an invention of the brain. It does not exist in the world. One light can take on any color as optical illusions illustrate. Without things to "interpret color" it would not exist. Same with sound, it's also just in our heads. It doesn't exist out in the world. IT's just pressure waves. Without a human or some other biological entity there is no sound. You technically aren't perceiving anything. IT's just your brain deluding you. That is what color is, a delusion.Machina (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Machina, these are tiresome first year student arguments. You argue as though you have some sophisticated understanding of these concepts when you don't. Pick up a book and read and for the love of God...learn to concede arguments at least, say, once a year or two. Intellectual stubbornness is not a virtue, it stunts your own development, contributes nothing to any conversation and wastes people's time. Again...pick up some books and read. ShabiDOO 10:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Machina an abstraction is not the same as a delusion. Just because information is interpreted based on sensors and isn't the original information does not make it a delusion. It *does* mean it can be incorrect, but it doesn't mean it *is* incorrect either. In fact, it is incredibly useful and repeatable for not only survival, but interacting with one's environment. Color is literally the wavelength of light, our perception of color is based on chemical responses to specific frequency bands of light. Our eyes are not imagining color, they are color sensors and are perceiving real phenomena (albeit at a level which is not great by modern tech standards). An X-ray is literally just taking a picture of you at a different color of light, but at a color beyond the spectrum of human vision. The amount of work that goes into creating precision thermal imaging systems (again just a different color than what we see) and you are going to say it isn't real? That's just silly. Satellites communicate through Frequency Modulated radio waves (again just a different color band of light). Frequency Modulated means they communicate the information *with color*. By varying the color of the signal the satellites communicate information so you can watch a VSauce video that apparently convinces you that chairs don't exist or some shit. Abstractions are not the original, they are representations of the original. The abstraction can still be valid and verifiable without being tangible. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

How likely is Russia to invade Ukraine?

While Russia is capable of launching a full scale invasion of Ukraine, it would piss off most of Europe. I doubt that the US would help Ukraine (probably for the best) as the US is already focused on Taiwan.

If Russia invading Ukraine, the tipping point would be if Ukraine is accepted into NATO. The obvious thing to do is working on a peace agreement to avoid (more) bloodshed. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually it's a tough one. What is not really clear to me is why Russia would want to invade Ukraine. (Which it could do relatively easily in a military sense.)

Crimea was understandable because of the port facilities and sea access. But the rest of he country? I guess (from Putin's point of view) it's nice to be bigger and it it would distract his population from the miserable Covid situation in Russia - but that's hardly a reason to run such a massive risk.

But there again, Putin is pretty hard to predict. I agree with you about NATO though - if it looked like Ukraine was on the point of joining NATO then that would probably trigger the invasion it was intended to prevent.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Russia would invade as a means to cover up their situation with COVID. What is a better way to cover up your country coming apart at the seams? Armed invasion to make yourself look powerful. Much like Bulgaria keeping North Macedonia out of the EU as a means to cover up corruption in their government. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes but it might actually shed more light as an invasion of Ukraine will cause negative attention drawn to them. Andrew5 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Russia isn't going to invade. It's not worth the effort for them. Saber rattling is. Proxy bullshit is. Invasion, again, isn't. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Ideologically, the Kremlin desires to create a greater Russia ("Eurasia") in opposition to trans-Atlanticism (EU and NATO). That's why Russia has particular interest in keeping eastern Slavic speaking areas within its sphere of influence (Belarus, Ukraine). That said, the practicality of invasion is not so good. Russia did much worse than expected when the invaded the Ukraine proper: seizing only the poorer eastern part that is basically a coal economy. Russia also failed to install the puppet government in Kiev as they had intended, instead rallying a very diverse coalition of Ukrainians in opposition (Revolution of Dignity). Since the first invasion by Russia, Ukraine has substantially increased its military capability. The cost of invasion could again be quite large for Russia, and not sensible strategy, which is not to say it won't happen. The sensible strategy for Putin would be to declare victory and run away. You can read a good analysis of the background in Timothy Snyder's 2019 book The Road to Unfreedom. Bongolian (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be a disaster for Putin. Russia is weaker than the old USSR was, and Ukraine is stronger than Afghanistan was, and remember what happened when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 18:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan was a series of mountains populated by religious nutjobs being financed by half the world. I'm not sure what nutjobs live in Ukraine or who would supply them. CorruptUser 19:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Consider that there are four Nato members on the Western sides of Ukraine. If those nations allow the Ukrainian military safe harbor, the conflict might continue indefinitely. Putin would lose through attrition.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Russia could probably nuke the shit out of Ukraine and do it that way, but that risks like a billion people dying. Andrew5 (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand, when Russia annexed Crimea, it caused a financial loss so bad that it will not break even till 2023. Then again, if Russia has irredentist plans, I highly doubt that they would care about the loss of life and possibly economic collapse. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes they would. Putin is aggressive and ideological but he’s not a freaking idiot. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 20:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said before: it's not clear what specific advantage Russia would get from such an invasion - apart from some far-fetched idea of rebuilding the territory of the old Soviet Union. But that would involve invading states which are now clearly in both NATO and the EU such asl Latvia or Estonia; and it would also involve invading states like Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan to the east which would certainly involve pretty big problems too.

So if he can't rebuild the Soviet Union, why take the enormous geopolitical risk of invading Ukraine, it won't go any further. Not seeing it. It looks like all downside for Russia to me.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bob M Like I said, Russia isn't going to invade. There isn't enough to justify the risk, but, again, making a big show of military force so as to generate leverage internationally makes far more sense. Putin can't use the threat of gaining nukes, he already has those. So he's using the threat of an invasion to pressure his rivals into a deal favorable to him. To all, it's a mistake to act like Putin believes in any cause higher than enriching himself and dying of old age in the Kremlin. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I very much agree. The advantage may simply be in looking tough rather than in acting tough.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ All the above may be true, but we cannot rule out miscalculations (on either/both sides), random events or the situation getting out of the hands from the principals. NATO/USA reeks of weakness right now, and Putin can taste it. The question is whether he knows how far he can go without causing Euros like Germany, France etc to finally throw themselves into the 'anti-Russian' camp proper. However, dictators are often rather rubbish at reading democracies on this.

Anyway, my personal suspicion is that Putin is planning do rip off the Donbass 'properly' like Sudetenland was back in '38. The mass buildup is to convince Kiev and her friends to accept the formal annexation as a fait accompli and so, not resist. He's doing it during winter so the threat of gas supply cut-offs are more potent. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wait, wasn't Sudetenland the one that the Nazis did in 1938? Andrew5 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really understand this: "The question is whether he knows how far he can go without causing Euros like Germany, France etc to finally throw themselves into the 'anti-Russian' camp proper"

"Russia" or more properly, Putin - is already largely considered to be a dangerous demagogue by the EU in general. I agree that he could use gas supplies as a lever, but I'm still not sure what his invasion of Ukraine would gain him.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Europe at the moment is hugely split over 'the Russia issue'. It could be said the UK/Poland are the leaders in the 'hawk' faction, Turkey/Hungary the 'doves'. But the majors – like Germany – are still unsure which method to work. That's the risk. Russia can go far on divide and rule, but too much naked belligerence will force more into the 'hawks' and their stance to harden – including stronger rearming, cutting the gas links etc. It's all about knowing where that line is.

Anyway, there's a lot of similarities between Sudetenland and Donbass. Larger, autocratic states ruled by revanchists using the threat of war with a smaller, democratic state to get them to surrender a large border region using the 'national minority' excuse. And like Sudetenland, the revanchist has quite a bit of form for doing this now (Crimea, Georgia etc).

Let's remember the Donbass is already ruled by Moscow via local proxies. The 'invasion' in this case could be merely Russian troops crossing into the 'disputed zone', rolling up to the Donbass cease-fire line and daring the Ukrainians to fight back. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, there's little to be gained by follow through, and a lot to be gained by posturing. Putin would be more than happy if all or part of Ukraine "just so happened to" align with Russia. Invasions, being nontrivial endeavors, would not make him happy. The real question isn't whether an invasions will occur, but what concessions Putin hopes to gain by this gambit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure. It's why I'm more worried we'll end up stumbling into the tar-pit through miscalculation/accident than actual design. And while I think Putin dreams of 'flipping' Ukraine back into a pro-Moscow stance, I don't think he really expects it. A Donbass 'bloodless' annexation *might* kick the stuffing out of Kiev's will to continue resisting and instead settle for a level of grudging Finlandization for a quiet life, however... KarmaPolice (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Zero chance of invasion. It's all neocon warmongering agitprop. The military industrial complex needs more funding to develop hypersonic missiles. Dutchbag (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like blanket denialism. Russian forces are amassing there, that's not up for debate. And the "peace-loving Russians" have already made a hypersonic missile, they even bragged about it.–Ryan1257 (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I semi-agree. Putin has *form*, to deny the possibility of something merely because 'that can't happen now/here' is wishful thinking which can really bite you on the arse later on. This is part of my worries of miscalculation - we (the West) think 'oh, it's just for domestic consumption', fail to sufficently warn, Putin thinks 'he can get away with it' and next thing we're watching Ukraine being ripped apart and armed intervention becomes vital.

In short; always beware of the Black Swan. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, apparently Putin was responsible for the lighting at this Billy Joel concert:

Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 00:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Putin's demands are in; in short, 'NATO, abandon our "near abroad" forthwith.' As this will involve throwing the Baltics into the fire the answer will surely be 'go to hell'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59696450

KarmaPolice (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Mandatory Vaccination Policies.

A number of European states are going to bring in mandatory vaccination and the EU has said that it's something which should be examined generally.

Obviously it's a good idea to get as many people as possible vaccinated. But I'm in two minds about the policy as it could be difficult to implement and counter-productive.

In some EU countries up to thirty percent of the people have not been vaccinated. Let's imagine that that number is reduced to 20 percent after the mandate. That's still a whopping 20 percent of your population your are a loggerheads with. And if you make it a legal requirement: what will the sanction be? You clearly can't imprison them, but fining so many people might prove difficult as well.

The other option would be to insist they stay at home unless they present a vaccine passport. But in many countries the vaccine passport is becoming the norm anyway - so what difference would the extra layer of mandatory vaccination make?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

To me, it might be counter productive. Take the mask mandates, many places outright refused to enforce it ("assault on muh freewdom"). How many government and law enforcement would refuse to enforce it? Campaigning to get people vaccinated is probably the best choice. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Our World Data vaccination rates. Japan certainly has a higher vaccination rate at 79% than the UK (75%) and the US (72%). But on the other hand rather anarchic Spain has 82% and its neighbor Portugal has a whopping 89%. (All percentages for at least one jab.)

So I can't say that I'm completely convinced by the argument.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The Japanese have a 100 year history of wearing masks. In Japan, if you're overweight, there is a "fat tax". Slim people have a lower morbidity rate and infection rate for Covid-19. The only strike Japan has against it when it comes to the coronavirus pandemic is an aging population. Portugal is a Catholic country and Catholic countries tend to be less individualistic than Protestant countries. Portugal also put a military man in charge of the vaccination program who executed the vaccination program with military efficiency (And many people trust military men more than politicians). Sandmore (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

All that may well be true. I'm just pointing out that there are European countries with higher vaccination rates than Japan's. And others with lower ones.

So there is a lot more than national national rates of individualism involved when looking at vaccine take-up rates, including - as you point out - how well vaccination campaigns are run. I would also suggest that initial levels of vaccine skepticism would also play a significant role than individualism.

I would certainly accept that trust in the state (or otherwise) is also very important. Something reflected in Russia's miserable vaccination rates for example.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say yes, but on the other hand there's also the unfortunate truth that a lot of the unvaccinated also happen to work in the hospitals which are already short-staffed (mostly due to deliberate anti-vax attempts to target medical professionals). -- Techpriest (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a bit of government idiocy surrounding the vax mandates. Someone who already had COVID might benefit from a booster shot, but there's not much benefit to the vaccine if you already had COVID itself. Yet, proof of having been COVID+ doesn't exempt you from the mandates. When anti-vaxxers claims that Pfizer and Moderna are calling the shots, since more vaccines = more revenue, there's a nugget or two of truth there... CorruptUser 15:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Welcome to capitalism. To all, yes the gov can and should mandate vaccination. This isn't controversial or even new. People are just selfish and lazy, as per usual. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And all current medical advice is that vaccines are a good idea even after natural infection.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If you compare someone who got the vaccine vs had COVID, the person who had COVID but not the vaccine has less than half the rate of infection as someone who had the vaccine but not COVID.

Relevant tidbits "In the unvaccinated recovered cohort, the infection rate was 10.5 per 100,000 person-days at risk, if previously infected 4-6 months before the study, but this went up three times, to 30, when those infected more than a year before the study were examined"

"For vaccination in uninfected individuals, the rate per 100,000 person-days was 21 for vaccination within the last two months, to almost 90 if vaccinated more than six months before the study"

Note the timeframes; the unvax-recov cohort has much longer timeframes and thus more time for immunity to wane, yet still has between a half and a third the rate of infection compared to the vaccine. Of course, the lowest risk is from someone who recovered and got the vaccine, which is why it's recommended that even those who recovered get the vaccine/booster. In terms of risk, your coworker who got the vaccine but not COVID is a much, much greater risk than the person who got COVID but not the vaccine.CorruptUser 18:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (EC)@GrammarCommie I don't know if you've ever read my article on Walter Block, which was my first, and I still believe, one of the best contributions to our little site. A couple of months ago I found out that even he kinda supports mandatory vaccinations. It's kinda weird how even the nuttiest anarcho-capitalist libertarian seems to be right on this subject and yet some people still use the "freedom" token to oppose mandatory vaccination. GeeJayK (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@GeeJayK Well, that pretty much settles the issue doesn't it? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh, not exactly. Any Imam or Rabbi worth their beard will tell you "savings lives is more important than worrying about a bit of porkfat", but there will always be some that deserves a shave. Furthermore, extreme vegans might be horrified that vaccines are tested on animals, and they will have objections too. While a lot of people hide behind bullshit of "safety", the truth is that the first COVID vaccines weren't FDA approved, merely that the FDA decided to skip parts of the approval process because emergency. The public had a right to be hesitant about the vaccine then, but much less so now that the results are in.

As I said before, there's a lot of nonsensical policies around the vaccine mandates. Recovering from COVID is far more effective at providing immunity than the vaccine itself, and while getting a booster should still be encouraged, the recovered non-vaxxed workers should still be allowed to work given that they are less likely to contract/transmit than the vaccinated non-recovered workers. CorruptUser 20:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(EC)I think it's fair to say that a one-size fit all approach just really isn't going to work, each country has their own historical context that may reflect their feelings about mandates. I will say that the "Make Life Hard" policy instituted by France, Italy, New York City and Austria, probably is the best of bad options. Just like those people who don't vaccinate their children for MMR or Polio, they are allowed to be in society but are denied public schooling, amusement parks and libraries. You have a right to control what goes in your body, but not the right to threaten others. I know a friend of mine was perfectly happy not being vaccinated, until he couldn't go to a college football game.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's use a non-COVID metaphor.

"Due to drunk driving accidents, all cab drivers are required to have a breathalyzer-ignition installed, just in case!"

"But I've been driving 10 years without an incident, I don't even drink, can I skip this?"

"No! Studies show you'll be safer still with the breathalyzer even if you are already a good driver."

"But even without the breathalyzer I'm still better than your average driver. If you get rid of me and use the other drives more, you are increasing the chance one of your drivers has an accident!"

"Accept it or find another job."

"How much do these breathalyzers cost; is the manufacturer friends with the owner?"

"You're fired!" CorruptUser 20:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

On the vague libertarian angle, I ask the utilitarian question; does denial of the individual freedom (to be stupid) *plus* the disquiet such a policy would cause get outweighed by the general societal benefit? I am not sure it is, at least in the UK.

Current vaccines don't stop entirely transmission/infection, merely drastically cut down the risk of the jabbed from getting seriously ill. Therefore, most of the benefit is for the vaccinated, not wider society. So, I shall rate 'getting vaccinated' as a element of what folks can do to help themselves - like eating right, not smoking, keeping fit etc. Is it within the state's remit to enforce such things?

If you have a nation (like the UK) where (most) healthcare is paid via taxation, it could be argued that it is the state's remit - my (and everyone elses) taxes paying for that avoidable treatment, and the state in this case is merely watching my interest. This is pretty much the same argument for say, anti-smoking campaigns. Which leads to an idea; like smoking, make the refuseniks carry the excess costs of their obstinacy. If you insist on doing vaccine passports, allow the idiots to buy an exemption pass for say, 1%-3% of their annual income. Also allow travel insurance / private health cover to do charge more due to their higher risk.

If your 'freedom' to not be vaccinated leads to you taking that hospital bed which was meant for me and my hip operation, well I want you to buy your own damn bed. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

First off, depends on the numbers. My right to be a drunken idiot gets further and further reduced depending on what I'm driving. If I'm walking down the street drunk, I'm not much of a threat to society. If I drive a car, I might kill someone so that's not allowed. If I'm flying a space shuttle, the disaster involved means I can't even enjoy a drink the night before being strapped to the world's largest conventional bomb.

Vaccines DO lower transmission/infection. They aren't perfect, but saying it isn't 100% effective therefore it's pointless is like saying that condoms aren't 100% effective therefor they don't reduce the chance of pregnancy. CorruptUser 21:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned the vaccine efficacy not as an excuse not to have it, but as pointing out that 'covid elimination' is an impossible task right now. If we get a vaccine which reduces transmission/infection rates down to the floor (thus making elimination viable as a strategy again) then I'll re-ask the question (for the facts have changed). While this phrase has been stolen by the crazies, we do have to 'learn to live with Covid' and this involves working out what measures need to be introduced/stay/repealed.

Nor do I deal with the situation regarding, for example workers in higher-risk occupations (say hospitals). That's another question too. And it could be said that some of the damage alcohol causes in society is 'paid for' through the taxes on the stuff (at least in some countries). KarmaPolice (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

You don't NEED to get transmission rates down to 0; you just need to get it below 1. If the vaccine is 90% effective and COVID has a base reproductive rate of 5 (i.e., 1 person will infect 5 others), everyone getting the vaccine reduces the rate to .5, and the number of people with COVID will keep going down by half until it's gone completely. CorruptUser 21:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't deny vaccines playing a big part in public health vs Covid. But it's merely part of our armoury. We need to work out doing cost-benefits on all the options and pick the best ones, and compulsary vaccinations may not be the best - if nothing else, it will cost quite a bit to introduce, run and enforce and that cash might be more effectively spent on say, better cleaning and ventilation for public transport or making it easier for the sick to self-isolate. Part of me suspects that we in the advanced world have basically forgotten on how to handle highly contagious diseases like Covid and we've had to re-learn old lessons our grandparents did all the time.

What's more, the vaccines have reduced the severity of the virus in the vaccinated (at the moment), which has made Covid a less serious a public health risk. This means there's less a general benefit for violating that bit of liberty; esp as some folks their refusal is down to complete lack of trust of 'them', healthy scepticism regarding the long-term safety, poor personal medical experiences and suchlike. Bullying them into doing it may backfire long-term because next time (you never know) their 'hesitancy' might have deepened into soured, full-blown refusal. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

These comparisons are all rather silly when the nature of an infectious disease, and the history of dealing with infectious disease is so deeply rooted, it can be found religious texts for all three major monotheisms (Leviticus 12-14 comes to mind), as well as case law, at least in the US, dating back to the countries founding. Ostensibly, this whole conversation isn't one about whether a government has the right to enforce public health measures including vaccinations, it does. Nor is it really that it should, because it must, even the most extreme anti-mask/anti-vax people still admit there need to be protections for the most at risk. The real question should be, what privileges can be denied.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"If the vaccine is 90% effective and COVID has a base reproductive rate of 5" Using actual numbers for the Omicron variant, vaccines are about 23% effective, and the basic reproduction rate is around 10 (via preliminary comparisons with Delta spread, which is estimated at 5-ish). As should not be news, leaky vaccines are not capable of ending epidemics. Anyway, that aside, I find it interesting how different camps regard "my body, my choice" in different contexts. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Precedent isn't the same as 'collective memory' or capabilities; when was the last time public health in advanced nations had to deal with something like this – the 1950s? It's partly why we were caught on the hop; our medical systems no longer had the capacity for widespread infectious disease (it's why the elderly are most pro-vax in UK; they remember the 'bad old days'.)

There's a difference between the right (of the state) to do something, the ability to do it and lastly, the wisdom of doing it. We need to remember that.

Lastly, the UK is an excellent case in point. We got our vaccination rates close to adult herd immunity and then took a gamble on ditching most other measures, hoping the vaccines will keep hospitalisations low while 'topping up' our resistance via mass asymptomatic infections. And this looked like it might actually pay off as infections boomed but deaths remained low-ish - it's only this new variant which put the frighteners on UKGov. And winter (but that's a different issue).

Question: if the UK had been more gung-ho in vaccinating kids (it was this hesitancy which caused our % rates to stall in the summer) and more coercion of our refuseniks (so getting to herd immunity level) do you think we'd be in a completely different position than now? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that in the United States precedent has been well established, beginning with Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905, that the states have the authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. I'm on the fence with full-on government mandates with the COVID vaccine though, since COVID is far less of a concern compared to diseases like polio and smallpox, and the COVID vaccine is not quite as effective at the vaccines of those disease for preventing one from catching it (though it seems to do a great job in reducing deaths and ICU visits, and the later, being something that very much impacts overall public health, leans me into not minding a stricter protocol just a wee bit). I do think that the right of private businesses to enforce whatever COVID protocol they decide is their own damn business and I do think that the right of local government agencies and districts to experiment with what works best (since there were a lot of unknowns) should be allowed.

One thing that makes me think compulsory vaccination laws is not the way to go at the moment, though, is that the developing world is sorely in much more need of the vaccines than the developed world. There's probably much greater impact in getting the vaccine to those who want it in developing nations right now, versus forcing the anti-vaxx crowd in the developed world to get vaccinated instead. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"We got our vaccination rates close to adult herd immunity" No, you didn't. Leaky vaccines do not produce herd immunity at any level of vaccination. COVID-19 spreads uncontrollably in 100% vaccinated populations, and travel / social restrictions on unvaccinated people are breeding for vaccine resistance. Which group do you think is spreading new variants through air travel?

"beginning with Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905" It didn't end there. It led to Buck vs. Bell in 1927, which is also still on the books. Bodily integrity is not a right to give up lightly. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"Leaky vaccines do not produce herd immunity at any level of vaccination"

Bovine Stool. Every vaccine is a "leaky" vaccine. The original Polio vaccine was only 60-70% effective against Polio 1, but with everyone vaccinated it didn't matter; the virus reproduced too slowly to sustain itself, and now Polio is extinct in nearly every country on the planet. CorruptUser 19:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, a bit of verbal slippage there - the UK got close to the point of Covid being (mainly) endemic/asymptomatic, thus something we could 'live with'. Plus, our refusenik level is much lower than say, the USA. Want another example? How about Israel? They did perhaps even better on this than we did but still were unable to 'get out of this' entirely. Aka forced vaccination for all is *not* the silver bullet.

Anyway, while smallpox as precedent is legally correct, it looks to the layperson kinda dumb as Covid is *really* not smallpox and they know it. Similar could be said for using TB precedent to force the Covid-positives into sanatoriums. This fails on my third strand; 'is it wise to do this?' KarmaPolice (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Israel has sick tourists constantly coming into the country. "Herd Immunity" doesn't mean no one can get sick, it means that enough people are immune that the virus can't replicate fast enough to sustain the number of infected people. If 20,000 people with measles came into the US every single month, there'd be thousands of Americans catching measles too but it wouldn't be self-sustaining. CorruptUser 19:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This is stupid. Going for herd immunity means you're ok with a fuck ton of people dying/being seriously injured to achieve an end that does not require those casualties. You get vaxxed, you have minimal risk, you become resistant, the virus ceases to be a major threat. There isn't an actual case opposing this, just a bunch of political bullshit that primarily exists to benefit one party in one country, the American Republican Party. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that public vaccination creates herd immunity, right, bro? CorruptUser 21:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and "herd immunity" is also used as term to describe simply letting enough people become infected to achieve that state. Realistically, we have two major options. Either we vax the unvaxed, or we shoot them dead. This farce cannot continue indefinitely. Our medical system cannot support this insanity. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Umm... literally the first sentence on our page refers to vaccination. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I felt that mass infections were "better", only that someone who recovered was less likely to contract again and thus safer to be around than someone who only had the vaccine, ergo they should be allowed to work even if we'd all be better off if they got vaxxed too.

As for "shoot the unvaxxed", look, there are lots of people who I truly believe the world would be better without. However, somewhere out there is someone who also truly believes the world would be better without either me or you. So be very, very careful about advocating that we shoot people... CorruptUser 22:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser "Herd immunity" was floated as a talking point during the lockdowns as an alternative to lockdowns and/or vaccination. You can hardly blame me for being suspicious. As for shooting people, I don't want that. Jesus Christ, my whole point about vax mandates was that they'd reduce casualties from covid, and really, the freedom to spread a plague is like the freedom to rape, something we're all better off without. Side note, I say "casualties" rather than "deaths" because even if covid doesn't kill you it can really fuck you up. So yeah, again, we should bring the numbers down, and freedom to be stupid be damned. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comrade... you do realise that neither recovery or (current) vaccination confers immunity, right? A combination of 'leaky vaccine' and fading coverage, with a large enough pool means it's quite possible for it to float around indefinitely... KarmaPolice (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I know the basics of how vaccines work yes. I just don't buy into your crap. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

And which bit is 'crap'? The bit which says that even if we literally got to 100% vaccination rates we still wouldn't be rid of Covid? Or that the efforts to nailing down that last 10% by big stick might outwiegh the costs?

I never denied vaccine coverage was one of the best tools in the arsenal - I'm looking at Cuba, with their ~90% coverage rates and resultant reduction of Covid to 'managable levels'. We're actually closer than you think; I merely reject *forcing* it on the most stubborn refuseniks on pragmatic reasons (basically, is not worth the effort). However, I'm all fine putting in fines on them, and/or making it somewhat a pain to live without it.

Anyway, in advanced nations vaccine rates appear to have stalled around 75%. I'm working on the theory ~5% can't be and perhaps half of the remainder can be *gently* stick'ed into getting it. Screw the final hardcores, shore up the vaccine defences of the rest with boosters then work on the mitigations side of things. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ok, this "Leaky Vaccine" bullshit has to stop. It isn't a real thing. Most effective vaccinations have an efficacy between 60% and 90%. It was a stroke of luck that we managed to produce multiple vaccines to a disease in less than a year, that have that level of efficacy. @PanGalacticGargleBlaster mentioned this, but the reason new variants keep popping up is because the virus keeps mutating in places where vaccination rates are low and spread of the disease is high. Society is so interconnected, international travel opened to a degree, which created new spaces for variants to spread. To end the pandemic requires herd immunity through vaccination, not infection, which requires way more vaccine in general. Those same companies that put a massive effort into developing the vaccines have frankly failed to live up to their commitment to produce enough. But moving to an endemic stage would be likely with more serious measures, especially during the colder months of each country where virus's in general spread more.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Came up with a YouTube video idea

A highly contagious viral infection that turns people from one biological sex to the other. I call it Gender Reassignment: An EAS Scenario! I still have to work out details but I think it will be interesting. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Which is actually the plot of The Virus,a multi-crossover Anime fanfiction written back in 2000 by Christopher Jones. Admittedly, there people turned from one sex to the other, and then back, and then back again, and then-- look, basically the human race becomes genderfluid in a very literal sense. Its' core precepts are from the somewhat classic Ranma 1/2. You can find relevant information at this page. Kencolt (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure this idea has been done in lots of porn before. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The Virus isn't porn. Just clearing that up. Kencolt (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kencolt I honestly never heard of it before. As for my story, the virus is a biological weapon developed by anarchists to throw society into pure chaos. People end up dying from the intense pain of transition and or the psychological damage. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha, so it is more of a David Cronenburg-esque take on the concept then? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Never heard of David Cronenburg either. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

never heard of davod cronenberg? enjoyAMassiveGay (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No I have not. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Then check out his early masterpieces, Rabid and Shiver. And maybe Brood. As well as Videodrome. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

i was watching scanners just the other day AMassiveGay (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

his recent stuff like eastern promises and a history of violence are legitimately quality flicks AMassiveGay (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Promises and History of Violence are definitely high quality movie making and story telling. Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm Non-Binary And I Don't Know How To Tell My Parents

Hi, I know I haven't been active but I am non-binary and use She/They pronouns. I'm a biological male, and being cis was a cage. I felt trapped in the need to be masculine. I don't feel that anymore and it's great, but I have no idea how to tell my parents. I am a teenager. I tried to come out to my Mom back in June but she refused to use my pronouns at the time (They/Them) because she "didn't wanna call me an 'it.'" Since then, I've been trapped in this prison, trying to convince myself that I'm not trans, that I'm cis. But I'm not, and I don't know how to tell my parents. I don't know how they'll react, especially if they learn through other means. I'm sorry if I'm bothering you, but if there's anyone who's more familiar with this type of thing, then please help me out here. I've been much happier since I came out to my friends because I can explain my feminine behaviour now. Thanks for reading this, if you did. ICan'tThinkOfAUsername (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That is kind of a difficult one. All I can suggest is this: try to ask your parents about their views on LGBT+ people. That is a start. If they are cool with LGBT+ people, then it is safe to come out of the closet. If they are bigots, then it is a no go. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Wait, I thought Trans and NB are two different things. Did the definitions change on us? CorruptUser 17:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Trans just means that you aren't cis (you're gender isn't the same as your biological sex). All non-binary people are trans, but not all trans people are non-binary. And my parents are supportive of LGBT people in general, but my Mom isn't supportive of non-binary people and I don't know about my Dad. ICan'tThinkOfAUsername (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

People who say this kind of thing may be quite estranged from their own families, and that is lamentable. However, you should give your parents the benefit of the doubt that they are not complete blockheads and don't understand a lot about you, even facts that you are unaware of yourself. Be truthful, and let them know as much as they can handle. They may surprise you. Good luck! Ariel31459 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As someone else said, get their feelings on what they think of gay marriage and the like. If they aren't supportive of it, I'd wait till you're out of the house to reveal it. If they're supportive of gay marriage, while that may not extend to trans rights, it's at least an opening. If you want to open them up to the idea, try to avoid things like trans in sports or wider issues involving national politics, they may not be "prepared" for such things and it could easily turn them off. Instead, introduce your new identity in areas that are more relatable and personal since that's where their empathy lies. Unfortunately, everyone's situation is different where some have more accepting families and others have more violent, explosive families. Both will influence someone's advice. Don't let people on the internet tell you how you should feel and what you can and can't do, you're the expert on this and I believe whatever the outcome, you will do right.-Ryan1257 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think that definition is correct either. Genderfluid people are definitely NB, but I'm sure they are not Trans. Wikipedia seems to believe that no, neither NB nor Trans are subcategories of the other. I always thought Trans was where you started male and became female (or reverse), whereas NB was where you were never completely male or female to begin with. I'm not quite sure what the difference between "very effeminate male" and NB actually is, but, eh, whatever. I wonder if my out-of-date thinking helps... would you be ok explaining to your parents that you are an extremely effeminate male? CorruptUser 18:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories can be confusing. It is not helpful to confuse other people when you want to enlighten them. The truth is, we don't understand the abstract distinctions as well as some might claim. Talk about what you want out of life, not what some expert says is your category.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's part of what I was getting at. Your parents aren't likely to understand what "Non-Binary" or "Demigender" is, and that alone is going to scare them, even if they'd be ok with "Effeminate male" because they know what that means. CorruptUser 19:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"I've been trapped in this prison" A la The Matrix, there is no prison, only your perception that there is one. Gender identity is not a particularly useful concept. Gender is fine as a descriptor, but basing your identity on membership in demographic groups often leads to touble. There are statistical trends in physical and psychological traits that differentiate what is typical for men vs. women, which has led to gendered associations and social expectations (and consequences for not meeting them), but "feminine behavior" doesn't mean much as a strictly-defined category unless you mean sex-differentiated behaviors like ovulation, menstruation, or giving birth. Most people don't perfectly meet the social expectations of their demographic memberships, and while this can lead to stress in interactions as you weigh the consequences of violating expecations or your own preferences, you don't have to let it trouble your notion of who you are. You are a person, and that's far more important than any other demographic membeships you may have. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I posted this in an earlier Saloon: "You may find these useful: LGBT National Hotline 888-843-4564 (https://www.glbthotline.org/national-hotline.html), and The Trevor Project, which has phone/texting/chat support (https://www.thetrevorproject.org/). You can also find a list of support services here: https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/support/hotlines." Bongolian (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICan'tThinkOfAUsername there is also the LGBTribe- https://support.therapytribe.com/lgbt-support-group/ --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Painful learning experience has taught me that 'coolness' with gay marriage or even trans rights does not mean they'll be fine with non-binary. Or even understand it. Firstly, the first one is sexual, not gender (and so different) and secondly, MtF/FtM trans people still conform to the traditional layout - they merely wish to 'switch sides'. NB argues the choice doesn't *have* to be a binary one.

ICant had the classic fallacy; 'I'm not comfortable with male, so I must be female' – this one got me for a long time too. And while ICant's definition of trans is correct (dictionary term, at least as far as I can tell), it's not one quite a lot of trans people / their allies appear to accept (see first line).

However, onto practicalities. I am going to ask whether it is *necessary* for you to announce to your parents (or anyone else, for that matter) your inner feelings on this. NB an umbrella term, more a 'neither of the above' box than anything else. It frankly all depends where you are and where you end up, really. Taking a look at say the NB subreddit shows this. It's possible that they might not even notice unless you actively pointed it out...

There's no preset mould for you to go into. It's confusing, liberating and scary in equal measure. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm noticing a lot of responses here, so I'm gonna address as much as I can. First of all, I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my use of the word "trans," I identify as trans and NB at the same time but I didn't know that non-binary/trans people don't accept that definition, and I'm sorry. Second, I think it's clear that not a lot of people actually read my post, and even if they did I should've elaborated more. KarmaPolice said that I had the fallacy of "I'm not comfortable with male, so I must be female," when in reality I do identify as non-binary with She/They pronouns because I have both boy and girl traits, but I have much more girl traits than guy traits. And I do agree that there's a possibility that I won't have to tell them. I've come out to all my friends, and they've been extremely supportive, but I know that it's not absolutely necessary. I still wanna tell them someday because I want to be able to freely express myself both in their presence and outside of it, but I don't have to if I don't want to, and I know that everyone's different.

Moving on, 192․168․1․42 made a lot of points, most of which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I'm not saying that they are wrong, I'm just saying that I don't necessarily agree with their points. I don't identify with any specific category, and I do think that gender identity is important. This study shows that gender identity is part of psychology, so I think that it is important to not only look at people on an individual level, but to be able to put them into a category that they feel comfortable with, no matter how broad that category is. And if I do decide to come out, I'm asking for advice on how to do that.

Obviously this discussion is important, so I just want to chip in. and give you guys my point of view. Thanks to everyone who commented on this, I'm glad that we can have this discussion. This is extremely important, so thank you. ICan'tThinkOfAUsername (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There are two main possibilities: if you don't know a person well, then delicate discussions can be impossible; if you don't understand a subject well, then explaining it is out of the question. I would go with the first choice: get to know your parents better than you ostensibly have done. You cannot truly understand a person without affording them an understanding of yourself. Take responsibility, because only you can improve your own situation. UncleKrampus (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"I do think that gender identity is important." What, then, is its utility?

"This study shows that gender identity is part of psychology" So is identification with political parties or sports teams. The formation of an identity is important to humans, and lots of concepts can be used as part of that process. That doesn't make basing one's identity on gender useful. That link's main focus is on the trouble that comes when someone's gender identity doesn't match social expectations or what they feel is appropriate, which aligns with your comments above. Treating gender as an identity vs a description is a cultural practice that varies in time and place, and like other cultural practices, some produce better results than others. My point is that your anxiety here stems largely from formulating your identity in a way that you don't have to.

"to put them into a category that they feel comfortable with, no matter how broad that category is." There is no limit to the number of categories by which you can conceptualize things (mathematically), so the question becomes, "What sort of categories are useful, and how should they be used?" You can certainly categorize people by gender identity and all sorts of intersectional demographic memberships (see the increase in length of the acronym that used to be LGB), but does that actually help things? Does that advance the goals of interested parties, or does it divert attention to identitarian infighting? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

ICan't; when I said 'I'm not comfortable with male, so I must be female' I meant that the question is phrased as though gender is a male/female binary choice, therefore if you're not one, you *must* be the other. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

On the 'expressing self' issue, my question was on the simple fact that NB is a large umbrella term, rather 'new' and a lot of folks are so wrapped up in self they wouldn't notice 'subtle' changes unless pointed out. A decent % of NBs go by he/she anyway (some merely as a 'gender of convenience', like I do) so don't even give out that more obvious marker. And I really get the 'desire for a quiet life' thing - esp if you're still trying to work things out, last thing you want to do is have to face constant questions which are insulting/confusing/hostile/creepy etc.

Which you will get. Including from a fair few from our alleged 'community'. I've had a few hurtful things lobbed in my direction, some of which looked rather like TERF'ness in their 'policing of definitions'. We do not fit their nice, clean-lined category boxes. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

one can do what i do with my parents- dont tell them shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that does depend on the person's circumstances. I would have had to 'fess up if I'd still been living with relatives. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The conspiracy that the COVID-19 vaccine causes Prion disease

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrR8myrYWJY

Recently the CJD Foundation, which does research on prion disease and provides resources for families who are afflicted with prion disease, has been getting calls about the conspiracy involving COVID vaccines causing prion disease. How is that for sad? --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I've dug into this a little more; seems there's been a case where a Covid patient developed CJD and then died a couple of months after. Current hypothesis; Covid *may* have accelerated CJD onset. I'm not a medical bod, but appears they've discounted Covid causing CJD (for now) on the basis we'd have seen way more cases by now, rather than the one confirmed. The timestamp for this was last June, so CJD specialists surely have been watching for this possible link (and because there's no other mention, it's not been found. At least not yet). Plus, makes no mention of the subject being vaccinated - if we work back from the publish date, the case was no later than perhaps April '20.

For the tin-foil hat brigade, credit where it's due; they've at least found a condition where medical knowledge is kinda low - 85% of cases are still of unknown cause. That makes it a bit harder to refute. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This is based largely on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein having prion-like regions speculated as being capable of catalyzing the misfolding of proteins responsible for Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. As KarmaPolice mentioned, if this is a likely interaction, we'd probably see an obvious rise in incidence now, but that's not certain. Amyloid interactions may be more likely instead, which is still potentially a big problem. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Wew, what a relief. I thought it was Peronie's disease. Dutchbag (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Another tornado threat

The last outbreak may have spawned an EF4 and killed 80+, but a new threat is suggesting a tornado outbreak in Iowa. While not expected to be as significant, we don't know what the tornadoes, or storm at large, could do. People may still die. Andrew5 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

My area's been on a soft tornado/high wind watch since yesterday. We had 98 MPH wind gusts, and trees are knocked over, the power's out in a third of the city, etc. Some of the smaller towns around were hit hard, and apparently nearby Manhattan had a small tornado-like cell hit it. Crazy stuff. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

USHA pseudo-history, again

A Denver elementary school is facing backlash for planning a 'Families of Color Playground Night' And only a matter of time before the "UShit promotes Dixiecrat fallacies!!!11!11!1" maniacs realizes they are long overdue for eating their own words. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yawn. At first it looks like just a school volunteer type group on the web site, ala others that are scheduled such as the "community equity collective" or "family crew morning". Next thing you know, the school's "Bike and Walk to School Day" is outrageous due to fat shaming, and the "Principal Coffee Chat" is an outrage due to the principal pushing "recreational drugs". The real mystery is why Business Insider (who Yahoo reprinted the story from) actually gives a fuck about a story that is only mostly being regurgitated in shit media like Fox News and the Daily Mail. (And National Review, in one of their embarrassing blog-style moments.) Then again, Business Insider isn't the greatest source in the world. The root source of this story is a tweet is Christopher Rufo, who as the Wiki notes has embraced many a "woe is me, the white oppressed man" bullshit story in pursuit of going in Dumb Activist Mode against the kinda questionable but not that questionable critical race theory. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a real slow news day when this "backlash" amounts to "criticism from Twitter users". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Who cares about twitter anyway? It's not a real place.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmhm! My community college had an Islam Day! Wow what government-enforced racial segregation!!!! That anti-vax anti-masker lady "Christina Pushaw" person on Twitter[4] that was cited in that news article UShit failed to vet must be right. 👏👏👏 I'm sorry, UShistoryanalyzer, about criticizing your crappy analyses. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yahoo is a (generally) crummy source of news. At least, the UK edition is. I've got a relative who keeps on sending me messages about them. Normally, it's a poor exerpt of news which was on a better source one/three days before.

I think this is a minor case of nutpicking at worst, shoddy reporting at best. I've been to volunteer group 'restricted events' before; they might be held on the grounds, but that don't mean it's organised by the school. Hell, the culty church I attended for a bit in the 90s held their services in a Catholic school's hall (rental). And minority groups *do* need a few refuges from the constant pressures of conformity to the majority norm.

However, one thing I don't get; wouldn't a 'Families of Color' include Hispanics too? In that case, if the stats are right, that's about 60% of the schoolkids and thus, they *would* be the majority already... KarmaPolice (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sees title, determines it's from USHA, sees no point in anything other than mockery of a bad faith actor. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Seriously. If USHA had typed "Demorcats bad" fifty times, it would be more honest and more productive than these garbage attempts at "gotchas". ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I love how USHA implied that fucking Denver is left-wing...--April ^Chat? 22:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused as hell. Please explain why it's bad for Communities of Color to be together...? It just seems to be a safe space, how is that segregation? The fact that a bevy of white, racist, redneck, chickenshit, motherfuckers are screaming about it on twitter just attests to the importance of safe spaces for People of Color who have to deal with perpetual racism every single day.--April ^Chat? 22:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"We need to end racism by driving a wedge and promoting safe spaces on the basis of racial identity!111!11!1" Finally the rest of you arrive out of the closet to demonstrate what little self-awareness you all have! My other note to state is that critics of left-wing segregation are not racist white rednecks. Both white nationalists and leftists (of which evidently includes the rest of you) believe in segregation on the basis of racial identity, opposed by all normal decent people. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You sound like a bitch who'd yell "reverse racism" at marginalized people for being weary around you.--April ^Chat? 23:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

...says the user who makes the implication that segregation can be beneficial for minorities. Remind you of a certain someone? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

See what I mean about this bullshit being pointless and bad faith? Nothing you say will change USHA's mind. No evidence you provide will be accepted. Literally engaging with him in any way will be turned into a soapbox for spurious attacks and pseudohistory. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, GC, it's stubbornness at it's finest.--April ^Chat? 00:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not segregation and equating this with segregation demonstrates cynical, bad faith, and tasteless appropriation of serious historical eras to advance exaggerated talk points of "reverse-racism". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The mob doesn't like your topic, USHA. Stop changing the section header back to your original one. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

And this is why I never use the term 'safe space' unless unavoidable. But USHA does need to be answered, if nothing else to stop them running away claiming victory. For very technically, they are correct. But by the same logic, gynaecology clinics, old-people's homes, schools and veteran's associations are also 'segregated' - because they all have admission criteria and thus, is 'discriminatory' against the ones who don't make it.

The reasons this 'Playground Night' is not 'segregation' in the non-pedantic definition of is twofold. #1: It's merely a community get-together, not much different from say, a church BBQ or a sports club dinner - it's my party and I'll invite who I want to and all that. #2: Some whites would have attended; parents of mixed-race kids, adoptive/foster parents, siblings and so on. Thus, it is not segregated. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"Bu- bu- but, segregation isn't actually segregation!!11!11!11!" Remind you of someone? What manages to amaze me is the ability of you "Rational"-wikians to stoop below bedrock bottom in your sheer denial of reality. All your vanities and all your foolishness will not age well! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I know you are somewhat intelligent, so I will assume you are trolling or, unhappy to say, simply stupid. You appear to be conflating segregation with aggregation. An invitation for POC to aggregate to meet one another would be a segregated event if others were told they were not welcome. That is the hallmark of segregation. You aren't fooling anyone, except that we are not certain as to the question of stupidity.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The question is around using a public or taxpayer-funded institution for a group that believes in racial separatism. This question is not unlike a public school that leases out its facilities for Sunday morning church services, which is common in America. Now, if the school itself organized the event, that becomes a different question or matter. Dutchbag (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but what does it have to do with the case in Denver, which was basically a get-together for POC? "Separatism" is a policy and we are discussing a mere temporary format. Do you find this idea difficult?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You're really overthinking this, Dutchbag. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice Give up. There's no way in hell USHA is going to own up to the fact that specialized spaces are not, in fact, the same as Jim Crow. He's determined to make this false equivalence, and by god he'll do it, reality be damned. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the "we need to respond or else they'll declare victory" isn't going to work. When you're engaging in bad faith argumentation with them, you're playing their game with their rules, a game you'll never win. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

just been to drs

to get my bloods done and get pneumonia vax, got back via a stop at greggs for cake and my tea i mde before i left still warm.

tis a christmas miracle AMassiveGay (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

ive gotten vaccinated against everything you can be vaccinated against. i think im probably immortal now AMassiveGay (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

and ive got cake. yummers AMassiveGay (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Everything is a win really.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you vaxxed against Polio, Smallpox and HIV?

Yes there was an HIV vaccine. It was only 31% effective so it didn't make it out of testing, but theoretically you could still get vaccinated... CorruptUser 16:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And what cake did you get?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

i got polio vax years ago - thats the one with the sugar cube i seem to remember. go tb vax ages ago, had chicken pox and measles, and there is no small poix in the wild worry about. bit late for a hiv vax but meds make it like its no thing. covid, flu, hepatitis, that one for genital warts - all vaxxed. id have to ask me mother for anything i might have got vaxxed young. i dont ask none of these, i just get txts asking to me come and get em. at no cost. yay nhs AMassiveGay (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

as for cakes ive had belgian buns and a couple of caramel filled doughnuts. and still have a flat stomach. truly i am blessed. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

never had mumps though so maybe my one weakness. stay away from me if your throat is looking a bit puffy, thanks AMassiveGay (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The HPV vaccine keeps getting better. The first one only protected against the 4 most dangerous strains but now it protects against a dozen or so. I did a bit of work on the HPV vaccine article we have, someone else did more, but campaigning against the HPV vaccine was the biggest gift the Reps ever gave the Dems that they then utterly squandered. The Reps literally became the "pro genital wart" party, and the Dems didn't milk it for all it was worth. CorruptUser 17:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I remember the HPV drama was more like foreshadowing the current realignment. I remember Rick Perry being all pro-HPV vaccine mandate. Until the fundie vote (along with some libertarian types and "concerned parent" types) spoketh and reacted against it. Democratic ads then portrayed Rick Perry's decision as promoting a "controversial drug for sexually-transmitted diseases" that is only being pushed because Perry was financially motivated by the Merck profits (big pharma oogie boogie!). Thus, naturally Perry backtracked. Politics is sure a big sea of shit, isn't it? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

\what is the TB test with 'the circle of dots' I had long ago - and what does a positive reaction look like? Anna Livia (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

thats the bcg jab or at least the tester to see if you need the bcg jab. thats the one that leaves a scar on your arm like a little tit. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The JELL-O Company prevented the 2012 apocalypse wake up sheeple

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7M_cpovLX8

I remember when this commercial aired, me and my brothers laughed about it. The commercial was hilarious and I love how it made fun of doomsayers. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The Real War on Christmas.

The Gävle Christmas Goat torched again. Heretical Jerboaites deny any involvement. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

They've just gotta stop putting up at some point. It'll never work, fellas! Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 16:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Add that to the hysterical Wikipedia page about it.--April ^Chat? 04:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Greetings

I have been alerted that someone impersonating me on this site. Where I find contact info so I can deal dis privately? ^{— Unsigned, by: ThereSussyLordAmongUs / talk / contribs}

For legal complaints, please contact the RWF. You can find contact details over at RationalWiki:Legal FAQ. -- Techpriest (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not making a legal complaint. I just want to make a formal request to recognize that the following user is not me, and that I would like to be renamed to that user. ThereSussyLordAmongUs (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Elaborating on the original post, please take the time to contrast my editing habits to that user. ^{— Unsigned, by: ThereSussyLordAmongUs / talk / contribs}

Could be Taylor Swift’s biggest fan due to this diff. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:99 (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario pinging to see your thoughts. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:99 (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Account has been renamed. You can try to register with that name now. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I shall move on with my day. ThereSussyLordAmongUs (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Minor notice for the future: user User:Darubrub was renamed to User:Null0001 (and was subsequently blocked for vandalism). User:Darubrub has since registered their account and created a userpage. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Am I the only one confused by this exchange?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No Scream!! (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

There was a vandal that registered as "Darubrub". Vandal vandalized and got blocked indefinite. Another user came in, using an account named "Darubrub" in another wiki, and noticed the shared name of them and the blocked vandal. User requested a rename, action was taken. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)