RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Saloon Bar)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

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

What is going on?

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

Pointless poll

Favorite vampire?

Sheridan Le Fanu's CarmillaWikipedia (1872)

13

Vote

Bram Stoker's DraculaWikipedia (1897)

18

Vote

F. W. Murnau's NosferatuWikipedia (1922)

7

Vote

Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan's The Tomb of DraculaWikipedia (1972-1979)

4

Vote

The legendary Chupacabra vampire goat sucker

18

Vote

To do list

Is there a pre-existing term for this?[edit]

I have met individuals in the past who have been non-white and have used their status as non-white to dismiss or provide defences for other forms of oppression. I.e. adultism, ableism, queerphobia, etc. I am not speaking to the more justifiable criticism of critiquing the way these struggles draw analaogies to racism, that may be displaced. No, I think there is a genuine case to be made there. I am talking more so about people who state something like that because casually using the word "retard" isn't racist, it's morally permissible. If I object to it, saying that it's ableist, the criticism of ableism is framed as "white bullshit" and the individual continues using the word.

I have also witnessed people leveraging their status as non-white to defend iffy stances like the Irish slave myth or defend class exploitation, child abuse, etc. I feel like language to describe this behaviour should already be a thing, but I find it hard to find any literature on it. Asking around if anyone knows of an appropriate term to call this behaviour? An example may be something like a black person thinking that objecting to the word "faggot" is white bullshit, etc. Obviously, that is homophobic, but I am interested specifically in the use of one's oppressed status to justify oppressive behaviour. Like often these arguments have a weird implication that says disabled people or gay people don't exist in non-white communities....which is absurd. It probably works to marginalize such people in such communities even further, as it sort of implicated their non-existence, rendering them invisible.

Is this simply appealing to one's own authority? Anti-intersectionality? Oppression Olympics? I have only met a handful of people like this in my life, but dealing with some Palestinian acquaintances right now who throw around such language as "retard", and make weird casually homoerotic rape jokes in online games like it is an endangered species, then go on tell me "shut the fuck up, you're white" if I say something like "I don't like language like that, I think you should maybe stop using it" is getting hella exhausting. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It is just up to you. You never have to engage with hate online, but if you do and get dismissed, it's their loss. And if it's online, you aren't really being oppressed, you're having your opinion challenged, probably disingenuously because a lot of people believe that trash talk works. I would say the word is a snarl word, but again, online, it's what you do with it. Growing up, my older brother knew if he called me a retard or a faggot, I was throwing hands and employed them in order to kick my ass. I tried a million insults on him, but the problem was he already knew them because I learned them from him. Not speaking on it is not the solution. The homoerotic rape joke stuff, I saw it coming from a real weird guy I worked with named Anus, not his real name but in real life somebody called him Anus and he thought it was hilarious, he was in high school and also thought the joke 'Hitler did nothing wrong' was top shelf, I did my best to discourage one of the jokes that wasn't OK, but I do remember him saying he was gonna fuck my dad before that meme blew up. I looked him straight in the eye, as his elder, and said 'you don't talk about my family'. He didn't talk like that to anyone afterwards, but he still made strange edgy jokes. Honestly, Anus was a naturally funny kid. A gem. His edge, for moving from online only to a group of real people only sharpened.
The must be retort more powerful than the insult, I would suggest rather than picking an insulting term, a response might blow their minds. Respondingg with 'hey, don't cut yourself on all that edge' Or a your mom response 'Weird, because your mom and I are friends, and we talk about you.'. I mean, if you can't vamp on that one, Then you don't know enough about these guys to worry if they are syour friends. I know a lot of guys who think, from movies, just giving each other shit and laughing about it is male friendship. I have run a majorally male warehouse , and I have had to interrupt, and say, literally 'Are you guys doing that thing where you're pretending to give each other a hard time but actually your feelings are getting hurt?' Adult men. And before I was in charge, I witnesIsed fistfights and wrestling matches. You ask that question, and the pride of no masculine feelings destroys all tension. But you have to understand your snarl words enough to know that the people who use them are ignorant of them and they don't have the understanding to use them in a truly harmful way against you.Torrent (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The truth is, a lot of folks only give a damn about societal issues when it hits their 'own bubble'. In my experience, this is more often seen in people who are politically right-wing - that the moment a problem [such as homelessness] runs outside of their own personal experience they are incapable of empathising. Lack of empathy means lack of understanding, which leads to a complete lack of action on the issue. I've actually coined this issue 'the Cheney factor'; that the moment his daughter outed herself to him was the day LGBT rights became personal to him and he moved to dampen down the most homophobic elements swirling around Bush Jr. I've seen instances of where in the space of five mins a person has given a nuanced and intelligent decription of a marginalised group's problems to repeating the worst stereotypes of another.
The only time I've remotely managed to get through to anyone with this issue was arguing 'mutual tolerance/respect'. That if you want people to not call you [redacted], [redacted] or make jokes about [redacted] in return you must not call them [redacted] or make refrences about [redacted]. I don't give a damn in this case if you think the others 'mean nothing', it's simply about avoiding fucking blood on the carpet - there shall be some people elsewhere who think nothing of you but they are also biting their tongues. There's not much futher you can really go on this unless they've genuinely wish to learn, which in my experience is rare as hell. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
There is no pre-existing term for a marginalized group acting bigoted; this is because they are just bigoted. A black person, to give one example, certainly can be homophobic (hip-hop has been justifiably criticized for some pretty nasty examples of such). RW has an article on black supremacy for a reason. A group that is marginalized in one place may be the majority in another, so this has led to some very nasty anti-LGBTQ laws in Africa, eg Uganda.[1] Blacks are just an example here; you can pretty much rinse and repeat for *every* group out there, marginalized or not. TERFs and transphobic homosexuals, Jewish supremacists, racism in Asian countries, Islam xenophobes, the list goes on and on. Empathy is not the norm for humanity, unfortunately, IMHO. I agree with KarmaPolice that traditionally it is more the so called "right wing" (at least in Western-space, probably Asia-space too from what I can tell) that engages in anti-empathetic behavior, due to a greater emphasis on "traditional" society values or roles. But as noted above, it is not *exclusively* within that domain.
A lot of people's "bubble" involves them absorbing stereotypes without actually meeting the people in said stereotypes and failing to understand how much bullshit is involved with them. Even if there are elements of truth in the stereotypes, such is often grossly exaggerated. And yes, "the Cheney factor" reminds me of a compilation of anecdotes widely circulated on the Internet in the early days entitled "the only moral abortion is my abortion". One of the great ironies of religion is that so many of them actually do contain text encouraging empathy, but so many followers of the religion ignore said text and use the cloak of religion as justification for bigoted self-centered behavior. While Cheney had his "bubble" pierced a little, this doesn't happen for everyone who is personally affected on something they are bigoted about, unfortunately. BobJohnson (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
i dont know why anyone would be surprised at this. membership of an oppressed group does not prevent someone holding prejudices against another oppressed group. this should not come as a surprise. it should not come as a surprise certain prejudices are super common in some groups and super virulent too. with reference to homophobia specifically as an example, its no secret homophobia is present in most muslim communities, in the islamic world and in the west. in london, there are obviously going to be lgbt muslim people with the muslim communities there. but they are functionally invisible in those communities as a result of the homophobic sentiment in those communities. you either stay in the closet or you leave that community. either way, no gays in the muslim neighbourhood. that means all criticism of the homophobia in those communities comes from outside. often these communities already feel under attack from the outside, islamophobic sentiment common in the press, from, politicians of all stripes. they are attcked for being muslim, their defining identity, by a non muslim majority. people who just want equality attack them for their homophobia but say its not their muslim beliefs, and attacked by white racist groups who are probably just as homophobic say homophobia is fundamental to the being muslim. to muslims probably sounds like they both hate muslims. to them probably looks like white people hate muslims probably looks like white folk trying to diminish their faith, water it down by imposing something alien and in antithesis to their culture and religion and values. something abhorrent to them. a corruption not from within but from outside. they pull up the drawbridge and resist this poison from the white infidels.
should one be surprised that palestinians may be homophobic? sadly probably not. should a palestinian friend be taken task for homophobic comments? no doubt. will they appreciate the criticism? well that comes down to the individuals involved. palestinians have a cause in need of support and no doubt grateful to all it may come from. but whatever your intentions, you still look and sound like their oppressors and beating them with the same stick. the last person they heard that 'white bullshit' from probably used it to justify shelling his home.
criticism from white folk directed at a group once or currently oppressed by white folk doesnt make the criticism invalid, but it does make it very easy to ignore. ::::AMassiveGay (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Stereotypes are also frequently fairly outdated too; for example, I've heard right-wingers going on about the unemployed sitting around watching their 'widescreen TV' [when was the last time you saw a non-widescreen TV?] all day while living the lifestyle of Onslow from Keeping Up Apperances [ended 1995]. This is unsurprising when it's recalled that in the UK a lot of these are being peddled by Boomer journos to be read by other Boomers, some of which literally haven't updated their worldview for decades [qv, Littlejohn - telling us how it is in the UK from his Florida condo since the late 90s]. But the truth is, shite like this isn't designed to be evidence, they're simply thought-terminating clichés to stop critical thinking.
The other aspect which is notable is the 'exception makes the rule' situation some folks end up in - for example a person feeling that the unemployed are 'dole scoungers' because their own mother spent their entire live 'playing the system' so they could avoid having a job for twenty years and was/is always trying to get 'more gives' out of anyone [no, they really did]. This is more difficult to counter because we have elevated 'personal experience' to some kind of indisputable position [ie feels over facts] - which can be deadly if we have some totally unrepresentative minority idiot [qv, Braverman, Patel, Sunak etc] telling 'their story' which a non-minority person would feel uncomfortable in refuting the conclusions of even if they have literal stats to show it [like Gay points out].
[Hey hey, Gay!] KarmaPolice (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
This is one of those things that has been bothering me as of late. It really takes you down a rabbit hole of dilemmas over tolerance, respectability politics, tone policing, freedom of speech, "freedom vs equality", loaded language and all that other fun stuff. Granted, I've been in a shitty state in the last few months, but it has shown me how people can get really conflicted over this sort of thing and can seek out conclusions that just "feel better." For instance, there's this one little part in the back of my mind that starts acting up any time someone with a pro-Palestinian position says something questionable. I'm trying to push that down for myself, but I can see other people being influenced by it all, letting emotional arguments pulling them to an opposite side. Again, respectability politics and all, but that does influence a lot of people. Doesn't really seem like you can do more than ask people to play nice, but that's not going to work (and someone's going to start yelling "You can't tell people what they can and can't say!").
I don't know. The whole thing just a pile of despair and my brain's been a goddamn mess with too much shit floating around. Paul S (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify the thing of novelty for me is not of minorities being bigoted, that isn’t novel. The novelty is in appealing to one’s status as a minority as a rationalization or grounds of dismissal to the accusation of bigotry. There is no “surprise” in finding minorities being bigoted, and I do think Karma is right to assert that in a lot of cases it is about people being concerned about their “own bubble”. I know that is definitely true in the case of my acquaintances. But I am more interested in the fallacy of the rhetoric (beyond the obvious ad hom). I.e. given you’re white you cannot criticize me for x kind of bigotry, because whatever it is it is not as a big of deal as the racism that effects me. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think actually the most pressing example that y’all might of experienced online is in the comments section on a post about hitting kids. You’ll often see PoC who were hit as children themselves along side the usual crowd of “I was hit and I turned out fine”, stating that opposition to hitting children, or those who haven’t been hit as children are “predominantly white” — and that is appealed to as reason why doing so is okay. I had a Vietnamese co-worker express as much to me once, talking about how normal it was among his family for kids to get hit and that it was some “white bullshit” to oppose “physical discipline”. You can call this attitude “adultism” but there is something characteristic about the rhetoric afforded to non-whites, that white people who engage in similar practices can’t appeal to. That phenomena is something I desire a term for. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd argue more the simple fact that if it's within your 'own bubble' you're basically forced to learn more about it [well, unless you simply disown them]. For example, Cheney had to re-consider any stereotypes he held re: lesbians when he realised he had 'produced' one. What's more, they have a ready-made 'guide/teacher' who will [usually] be more willing to field the stupid/insane/insulting questions with relative good humour - including but not limited to 'can't you stop feeling that way?'
For the latter bit... if anyone ever pulled the 'you're white so you cannot comment on any minority' I would simply turn around and say 'does this apply to the likes of Suvella Braverman [or some horrid example of humanity] too?' for this is just minority ultracrepidarianism. However, in the case in particular I would point out that no, the LGBT community does find that offensive and if you say otherwise, I will then curtly inform them that they are now policing my own feelings.
In fact, if I was in an onery enough mood, I might say that to them even if it wasn't true, just to fuck with their heads. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The perennial problem concerning justice with respect to minorities is that, given a chance, minority groups can be as intolerant as any larger group. African Americans are culturally conservative. LBGT people are the alphabet people to many including one another. Minority groups, on average consider their group to be paramount and all others worthy of criticism. Asians are white-adjacent, and if they or middle-east people call out "white people," if you listen closely, they are often calling out western enlightenment values, and it has nothing to do with "whiteness". Every minority has its hierarchies. In general, it's hard to understand the hardships of minority groups to which one is an outsider. I know of no theory that adequately accounts for these problems. — Unsigned, by: UncleKrampus / talk / contribs
Being a part of a group that's faced a lot of trouble may give you extra potential interfaces for empathy with other groups that have faced a lot of trouble, but it's hardly a sure thing. At the least I might tell them that there are certainly people who are from their own communities who are part of both groups (thus where intersectionality came from), although I don't know how effective saying that really is. It seems more effective if they hear it from an actual breathing person from that experience, especially a friend or family member. (Assuming they are in fact the sort to retort "well you're white" or some such when this comes up.)
If we want a kind of "case study" minority community for these subjects, we might look at black Americans. There are a lot of black people in this country with anywhere ranging from very socially conservative to very progressive views, all in sizable numbers. You can look at discussions about how black people suffering mental illness are treated, or how black women are treated, and how these problems have been addressed as well as partly but not quite fully ever solved. I believe decades ago there was some kind of internal dialectic in the Black Panther Party regarding sexism, and even pro versus anti gay sentiments and that Angela Davis had something to do with that shift towards more inclusion long before gay inclusion was more mainstream. The history with things like that would be somewhere to look to understand how inclusion can come about organically within minority communities that previously may have held more prejudiced views. Chillpilled (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I cannot believe how many people have engaged this with an 'actually, minorities DON'T get a pass for being upset about any of this shit.' All racism is bad, yes. Systemic racism is real, yes. Parking racist/cultural ideas I that don't apply to an individual is racist, yeah? Existing in a multicultural system means you're going to carry the weight of your culture. Be a good white and laugh it off, I'm not joking, it's OK. They aren't after you. I know a white kid who honestly thinks he has the n word pass because he was friends with all the black kids at his high school and has been to jail. That's stupid. I have never witnessed him use the n word in front of a black person he doesn't know. I think he is happy he's got it, but fundamentally understands there's no such thing as the pass. Torrent (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
which brings me to my next point, there is no such thing as the pass. Racism is racism snarl words that have been coopted and colored are not that powerful. If I am called a 'cracker' and have space to defend myself, I generally tend towards 'I like to see myself as more of a honkey than a cracker'. Which is a very recognizably white American thing to say. I've lived with black and native and Mexican people around me, just, casually, all of us living. I had the lucky spot of being a little kid for a lot of it, in a trailer home across the street from a black family, going to school with a Shawnee kid, who had his family come to do a powwow in the gym, with a strange exchange program for a native girl from Alaska who almost always refused to speak, but had a big smile, and with nobody cartoonishly saying 'people aren't people.' Culture is culture. White culture is ambiguous, you have to carry that weight. Torrent (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
my idea for a modern white culture is one of informed anti-racialism. This will be hard to explain. defending your whiteness is not accepting your whiteness, which if you've read anything worth reading about race, white people are generally doing this wrong. It doesn't reach as far as white critics of white are doing it right, all race criticism is still bad criticism, this isn't that. What, at least I mean is 'what a silly insecure world, that cultures would continue to be bloodthirsty for something so inauthentic as a line on a map.'Torrent (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The only thing worth reading about race that I ever read is Negros with guns, by Robert F. Williams. This argued that having a gun and an opinion about civil rights is on the whole superior to just having an opinion about civil rights. Seemed to make sense at the time. UncleKrampus (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I am also very familiar with Malcolm X, you have to be prepared to meet violence with violence. And I agree with that, until the tide shifts. Then, violence is insular and a show of who is really making a point and who is really violent. Is that the only thing, because there's a bunch a shit abot ZNH being edited or ghost written into obscurity. Fuckin, williams, so I don't know him, but that's nothing hard or special. On his side forever. Torrent (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Except that the LGBT community has been predominantly nonviolent, and has gotten farther in the last 50-60 years than the Black community has in 170. CorruptUser 06:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I REALLY didn't want to have to respond to this. Before I do, is there something else to say there? A clarification? Please? Torrent (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Apparently CorruptUser forgot about the Stonewall riots.Wikipedia
How the fuck did we get into this tangent though from the original topic? BobJohnson (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Would Corrupt like to explain what "Except that the LGBT community has been predominantly nonviolent, and has gotten farther in the last 50-60 years than the Black community has in 170" even means? Carthage (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure.
While Stonewall riots were a thing, it caused 0 deaths, and AFAIK everyone that was injured was either the LGBT rioters or the cops that attacked them, never any bystanders. Compare that to the MLK riots just a year prior, which had a death toll of 43 and injured 3000 more, or any of the riots since then. The LGBT community has been very good at making itself "harmless", and never the aggressor, and the message has generally been "we are just people who want to live our lives, please stop attacking us!" As a result, the average person is not afraid of Gay people. And while the progress from less-violent or non-violent means seems slower, the progress that is made generates less pushback. Violent methods get more things done in a shorter amount of time... but result in so much pushback that any gains made with violence can be easily undone with more violence.
In 1960, it was worse socially to be Gay than to be Black, while today the opposite is true. How can we tell? To (badly) paraphrase Dave Chappelle, "if a Gay man and a Black man have a dispute, the Gay man remembers he's White and calls the police"; that was not the case in 1960. So in 60 years, Gay (White) men went from being "less" than Black men, to being "more". Which means they've made far more progress than the Black community has in that timeframe. And extending it back the 170, while being Black meant you basically had a few more rights than cattle, being Gay was actually a capital offense. So even at that time, Gay was below Black. CorruptUser 08:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This completely ignores intersectionality (you, and by extension Chappelle, don't think gay black people exist?), and I don't really think we should be citing Dave Chappelle on anything. Also, while there are a lot of problems with this wall of text: you neglect to mention that during those exact same 1968 riots African American gangs in the south side of Chicago actually put a stop to the violence in that part of the city. There are also queer groups arming themselves in response to bigotry. No bigot expects a trans person to have a gun. I have actually heard stories where queer people have warned off bigoted would-be attackers by being armed. Carthage (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

That's why "White" was in parantheses... While no one likes Oppression Olympics, a couple questions do need to be asked.
Who was more hated by society in the 1950's; a Straight Black Man, or a Gay White Man?
Who is more hated by society in the 2020's?
Because it seems to me, as bad as life was for Black Straight men in the 1950s, it was worse for Gay White men. And that today, while both have it better than in the 1950s, Gay White men have it better than Straight Black men. That means the LGBT crowd has made a LOT more progress. CorruptUser 15:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The answer to "who is more hated by society in the 2020s" is transgender men and women, which kind of throws a bit of a "monkey wrench" into your "analysis". BobJohnson (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The question doesn't make a lot of sense. Society doesn't love or hate, or pay taxes, people do. The question collapses into an abstract statistical subject. Do trans people get more hate from society than any other extreme minority? Maybe, but I don't know how to decide that either. Generally, I would say that the Jews are more hated than any other minority group in America. They have their sponsors though and take violations to court whenever they can. Their condition and place in America is stable and nobody worries about their future other than their own ngos.UncleKrampus (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
It's so laughable that all of this is still ignoring intersectionality. "The most hated group in America" is a meaningless phrase because oppression intersects. Nor does it matter what form oppression takes. Positive discrimination (like philosemitism) is still discrimination. Carthage (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
It makes sense to talk about, but how is intersectionality useful? There are elements of every group from Aborigines to Zoroastrians that hate the Jews. So? Trans folks, Mormons, Catholics, British nobility, gay men, incels etc., even Jews as a group, all intersect non-trivially with the aggregate of anti-Semites. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
"Hmm, CorruptUser answered what we initially asked of him, and he has a solid argument, so let's bring up 'intersectionality' in order to drag down the conversation rather than admit that he's got a point" CorruptUser 03:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
No scholar worth their salt would consider your argument to be "solid." Furthermore, I bring up intersectionality (which you completely ignore) because while a white gay person may be able to claim white privilege in an interaction with the law, a black gay person doesn't have that same privilege. You are acting like "black" and "gay" are two completely separate sets that don't overlap, and so must be analyzed separately. This is shoddy scholarship. You have no argument worth taking seriously. Carthage (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
If White Privilege is stronger than Straight Privilege, you've proven my point. CorruptUser 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
When Kimberlé Crenshaw introduced intersectionality to legal scholarship the whole point was that there mere "additive" conceptions of discrimination were insufficient. She used specific cases where black women were being discriminated against legally by employers specifically for being black women, but the presence of black male workers and the presence of white female workers was used by courts to dismiss such claims. The rationale was that the presence of black men in the workplace "proved" that racist discrimination was not occurring, and that the presence of women workers "proved" that sexism was not occurring. The existing civil rights law at the time had no room to treat black women as if they could be a unique case for discrimination. This is ultimately what intersectionality is about. In many cases, it does not make sense to think of those existing within intersecting systems of oppression as simply experiencing (x + y), but rather the systems of oppression interact with themselves to produce unique forms of discrimination and prejudice. To talk about gay black people as if oppression exists simply as (racism + homophobia), and that one can identify the larger sum contributing to the equation is mistaken. Gay black folks are subject to forms of discrimination entirely unique to them that are not experienced by other black people, or other gay people. The fact that such individuals are then systematically worse off as a demographic compared to straight black people, and white gay people suggests that the compounding effects are unique enough to make any discussion about which prejudices or discrimination axis is "stronger" entirely misinformed. It doesn't work like that. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Except that nothing says that Black Female is always socially lower than Black Male or White Female just because overall racism/sexism exist, it's entirely possible for Black Female to be above Black Male or White Female even if, on average, Women are below Men and Black below White. So then you'll have to look at every category. But even ignoring bi-racial people, if we include Hispanics and Asians (ignoring other ethnic groups and how you can be both Hispanic and African and all that), that's 8 categories that need to be evaluated separately. If we also include Gay, Bi, Straight, that's 24 categories, without getting into all sorts of variations of Bi or Asexual. Now add in Trans, and you have 48 categories, even if we kept it simple and ignored NB, Queer, etc. Add in neurodiversity, and you have 96. Add in disability, and it's 192. Add in religion, polyamory, age, and suddenly we have tens of thousands of categories. Is a Buddhist Hispanic cisgender neurodivergent disabled asexual woman in a worse place than a Atheist Asian transgender neurotypical ablebodied bisexual man? Or is the superlative superfluous at this point?
Intersectionality has its uses, but when it comes to the general status of Black or Gay communities in 2024, versus the status of Black or Gay communities in 1954 or 1854, these distinctions are being used as nothing more than rhetorical technique meant to distract from the simple, hard to deny reality; that while life has improved overall for Black people since the 1860s, life has improved far more overall for the LGBT community in less time, to the point where socially, on average, a Gay White Man has it better than a Straight Black Man. CorruptUser 05:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Without any statistics (a Dave Chappelle quote does not count), this is all just "Internet hot air" to "prove" a rather spurious suggestion -- that A) LGBT people have advanced far more than African American people, and B) that violence is the reason why. These are honestly frankly sweeping statements on a complicated, long lasting historical topic that from my perspective is *extremely* too simplistic. To throw (yet another) monkey wrench: there is no equivalent of the Tulsa Race Massacre for homosexuals, nor there is the equivalent of Ku Klux Klan mobs for homosexuals (not that the KKK didn't hate homosexuals, mind you... they also hated Jews and Catholics too. But I can't find the equivalent of lynch mobs that the Black community experienced. The KKK hated African Americans above all else.). The truth is, if you were homosexual but in all other respects part of "the majority society", you had one options that black people did not: you could hide it, Rock HudsonWikipedia style. It's much harder to hide skin color.
A general statement I can easily make is that life has improved for both LGBTQ+ and African American communities; however, phobias still hugely exist, and that we have a way to go with both. I don't think it's easy to directly compare "which has improved more or less". I think even discussing the legacy of more "radical" activists in whether they help or harm is more complicated than you have made it. Feminism has had their weird and kooky extremists, same with environmentalists, yet the "core movement" has remained unaffected, and progress has been made with both (as has been made with race relations). I don't think radicals have the impact that you think they do. In my experience, the radicals are often used as "crutches" to justify deeper racism. In my lifetime, the one event that has provoked the most racist white backlashWikipedia has not been anything that some radical Black activist has said. Rather, it has been the election of Barack Obama as president. BobJohnson (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Kimberle Crenshaw doesn't actually say that "black females" are always "socially lower" than black men or white women. That's not the argument. Look back at what I wrote. The argument is that black women experience unique forms of prejudice and discrimination specific to being black women that are not reducible to simply (anti-black racism + sexism against women). Black women are specifically the targets of certain forms of prejudice that neither black men nor white women are subject to. Likewise, there are stereotypes about black men that black women aren't subject to. Black women are not framed as a sexual threat to white women the way black men are as an example. We have tropes and stereotypes specific to black women (i.e. the angry black woman trope). So when we talk about "gay" people, and specifically look at the intersections of black gay people -- the stereotypes, prejudices, and forms of discrimination that such a demographic faces likely are not generalizable to homophobia and/or racism as a whole. We cannot make sense of that racism by looking at the racism faced by non-gay black people, nor can we make the same inference from homophobia experienced by non-black gay people. The fact you frame it as categories that need to be analyzed separately proves you are not getting it. Intersections of oppression are not tools to be used, they are a current objective fact of our social lives. When refusing an intersectional analysis you are, in essence, refusing a factual analysis and distorting the realities of oppression. You're entire response to based in a very poorly constructed strawman that provides strong evidence you do not read what I wrote. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
> "life has improved far more overall for the LGBT community in less time, to the point where socially, on average, a Gay White Man has it better than a Straight Black Man."
... and there you go, proving once again you do not understand the issue. You are making inferences about the LGBT community as a whole based on the advances that gay white men have received. That's distortive. Gay white men do not make up the majority of the LGBT+ community, that would be bisexuals who have a much higher rate of poverty. The poverty rate for LGBT people on the whole according to an analysis published in 2023 was at 17% by 2021 [2]. According to census data, black Americans have a poverty rate of roughly 17% as of 2022 [3]. If this data is correct this disproves your claim, the poverty rates are comparable if not statistically insignificant in difference. Notice though, that breaking down this data, the highest of those in poverty among the LGBT populations are trans people and people of colour. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
if the point is that there are inalienable human rights of just being, existing not by choice but by horrible happenstance, and then somehow some people don't agree about the terms of you existing, just because you've been born? then I would hope you and I both default to human rights before we make anything other than just being dead or whatever harder than it needs to be. A lot of thought in the US has placed importance on racial terms instead of on just being, which is stupid, because I've talked to those guys that say that, and not only do they really buy into it, they all look just like me. So, I personally don't think saying LGBT rights advocates in America have made the generally peaceful headway to where they are now on their own. I don't think every 'hey hey I'm gay, I'm here to stay' action has actually caused real change in America. Sometimes, it's as simple as 'Look man, I know this date is important to you, and you, you can't wear khaki shorts.' and I honestly don't think anyone who was being honest would think otherwise, let alone actually care. It is the exact same as saying black America shoulda been a culture that begged their way to equal rights, 'They could have done it non violently' is like saying violence was never part of it, like nobody kicked the shit out of them for just being. Not for having ideas or lives. They got the shit kicked out of them because somebody was like 'here's a really easy reason to' I don't think you could ever say , without being a small, dumb dumb idiot that the LGBT community begged for their place without actually having merit while constantly getting the shit kicked out of them if not murdered. And getting some acceptance? I don't think you'd ever voice a documentary with Morgan Freeman and say 'before they could fight for their place, the white American community just kinda told them 'that's ok, but if you gotta drink water, please do it from that fountain over there because it kinda grosses us out to think about sharing water. Not with us, with you, specifically'. And then whitey crawled through a tube of poo, and everything was solved' It's really, really strange to whatabout these movements against each other when neither is finished or currently particularly violent. Torrent (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────late, but i have some thoughts. one term that comes to mind is oppression olympics. i'm very much allergic to people who do this kind of thing. i see latin americans doing this a lot when they say racist things about black people. "well, i'm hispanic/latino. there's no way i can be racist." never mind that latin america and the caribbean have much the same racist history that the usa does. they might be able to fool (most) gringos and (some) lat-ams, but they can't fool me.

in general, though, i find it very off-putting when people pretend to be victims. i especially find it amusing when those holding the levers of power still think they have a claim of victimhood. (example: white americans are the most privileged people to have ever existed, and they still play the victim when it cones to things like affirmative action and teaching minority history, among so many other things. but i digress.) that said, i don't find it any better when minorities do it, and then weaponize their own victimhood (real or imagined) to push their bigotry. The G (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

is there no reason to say something like racism is a white person problem? Obiously.everybody here is screaming 'I'm not racist, look who is racist' and that's not the point. The racism,if you hide behind culture, is always going to zero in. We have answered the preexisting question, how the fuck does this do any good arguing on nonsense termz? Torrent (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I would never replace an s with a z, that is inauthentic.Torrent (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

On the "Celebrate Pride or Else" mindset.[edit]

Warning icon orange.svg Warning: Nutpicking ahead!

Nuts on Spice Bazaar in Istanbul 01.jpg

The Compassionless Pandering of Corporate Pride[edit]

This part doesn't have to be collapsed, but it's a topic that irritates everyone for the same reason. No matter how you cut it, corporate Pride is compassionless and sterile pandering that is definitely not genuine towards inclusivity and mutual acceptance, and in the worst cases is straight up tokenism. It's just corporations doing what they've been doing for centuries, maximizing profits over everything else. Any examples of irksome corporate pandering over the course of June that you'd like to share here? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Time Before Things Get Really Bad for Climate?[edit]

Maybe it's just the "climate anxiety" described in some articles that I'm having, but things are definitely not looking good for the environment in Canada. An important tributary in Alberta dried up just this past February, there's recent articles of Great Slave Lake in NWT having the lowest water levels ever recorded, and in my own city I've visibly observed water levels in the municipal river be exceptionally low compared to previous years in the last decade. Haven't even gone into detail yet on the exceptionally early wild fire season that has started in Canada. Despite all this, conservative provincial governments still want to expand oil drilling and water irrigation. I think I recall headlines saying the last full IPCC report from the UN reports 2060 as the time that profound effects from global warming will be most explicit and felt, though I'm sure there are newer articles giving closer dates. It's all a little bit dreary really. Impiricism (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I am starting to think we as the so-called Canadian public may need to abandon the focus on federal elections as the means for towards a ecologically sustainable society. We can turn our focus to municipal and provincial bodies, and more towards local grassroots organizations. We can establish penalties for externalities that negatively impact the environment, outlaw fossil fuel companies in province from receiving government subsidies, implement participatory economic policies, push for guaranteed housing, organize more unions, establish a universal basic income, establish policies to ensure a right to repair, and implement penalties on practices of planned obsolescence, etc.
Most importantly we should be ensuring a greater level of indigenous sovereignty over relevant tribal territory to restrict the extraction and alteration of natural resources without their say so from their traditional systems of governance, and organize cases for the violation of indigenous rights to land with international legal bodies when such sovereignty/consent is violated by the Canadian State or relevant corporations.
We may also want to put an end to oversea mining operations Canada is engaged with.
Neither Liberals, or Conservatives will support this. I am not even sure the Greens will. It may require that we focus our efforts in establishing new political organizations, push for participatory budgeting, etc. It’s is not as if the public is against implementing dramatic changes to our society to combat climate change, even miners and oil workers could be willing if they were provided a green job guarantee that implemented their skill sets and provided equal or greater pay/benefits. Federal level Politicians only care about maintaining their power, and they will avoid risky policies if it effects their chances for re-election. This is a product of the centralization of power, and is not a manner of simple moral failing, but how the system itself structured. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
So, as a green supporter, I will say the global oil economy is overblown but also not vital. Oil companies will make a huge stink about jobs if their projects don't go through, but their projects are generally construction enough masse and then maintenance by a few. So, what they know is the same as the 'concrete project,' where it looks really good on paper to hire a bunch of people to tear down a building, pour concrete, and build something else. It is not harmful to a construction business for an area to need a new building, or in the worst case scenario, a simple parking lot. I'm gonna sound like a boomer here, but the absolute Economy of construction doesn't mean anything in 3 to 5 years. And if we're going to put people who have actually spent their lives honestly in construction in the position of a promise of training a one time job that they might get beat out over for a maintenance job that they might get beat out over isn't inspiring. And the people big industries hire for oversight and maintenance jobs are not inspiring. It fucking sucks to need a construction job, nobody is addressing that, and it blows my fucking mind. Economics don't work without the workforce, and economics are so fucking reliant on them, but at some point when it hits peak efficiency, the workforce disappears. This isn't an anti AI argument or a pro coal mining argument. We build the highways and the oil rigs and the parking lots and skyscrapers, we dig out broken pipelines only when they break production by breaking. We work for business. The line of thinking is entirely turnaround labor, as if nobody should ever get a raise. Unless you just create building projects whether they matter or not, that goal to sustain the idea of 'working for working's sake' in which labor is it's own reward, undervalued labor and redundant projects are honestly just a really stupid way to spend resources. In order to prevent unemployment, over preventing poverty. It's the way it's going to be done. The promise of green jobs for people already established in hard labor jobs does not mean anything but 'oh no, I gotta fight for my job again.' Construction workers are not gonna suddenly flood the green engineer market. That's not a plan. Torrent (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Now, I'm not Canadian, but from what I know of the situation [and economics/politics] is not that the oil industry 'creates lots of jobs' [I personally think they don't, or at least not as many as the Big Public thinks] but the fact they usually are a disproportionately large contributor to Govt coffers without them having to 'do'/'spend' much [which is tasty because it allows them to spend without having to tax people so much]. This is the 'resource curse' which coupled with the sheer size/natural wealth of Canada has led to an overly heavy economic dependence on extractives [with their short-termism] coupled with a perennial 'there's more where that came from' belief.
However, the crux of the issue on questions like this is how much of Canada's total 'carbon footprint' has been outsourced. Successive UKGovs have parroted repeatedly over the years how 'how well we've done in reducing emissions' without ever mentioning that the benchmark was 1990 and the country has hugely de-industrialised and much most of our 'dirty' production to the Far East - and the methods of production might be even worse ecologically as well as adding up the costs of shipping [but isn't on our books]. In this respect, it is perhaps a reasonable [but counterintuitive] policy for advanced nations like Canada/UK to accept some 'bad' industries to be reshored [steel, concrete, timber, electronics] so they can be done as 'greenly' as possible. In this case, this also means that yes, we do still need oil and to a lesser extent, coal. But Canada exports her crude but buys back from the USA refined POL. Why? Another bit of ecological legerdemain, so the refining costs are left in the south?
The other frankly, infuriating aspect of this whole debate is that the 'total cost of ownership' carbon-wise is rarely, if never discussed. Go on, buy an electric car, it's good for the planet... but is it? What about the more tons of carbon locked into the car, the electricity used, the building of infrastructure to support them [power plants aren't free] and finally, their scrapping after how many years they last. No business would ever make an investment decision on anything without these stats... but we are expected to. It's like all we give a toss about is the 'current spend' of carbon, not how much gets locked-in view the production and scrapping stages. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
So that would be a vote with your dollar free market capitalism ideal. And it just doesn't work that way. The American Capital system really reads like it wants you to go into debt so it can claim future capital to pay its own. Promise a manufacturer 80,000 for a big dumb truck, they can say they sold an 80,000 truck and your capital is promised to be whatever cost plus interest. It's speculative. So much value is speculative, credit cards are designed to build credit. Can you spend less than what it costs to have a credit card? It's not even horseshit, cause you could put that grainy turd into a fire and get a spark. The debt economy relies on debt. Austerity doesn't solve it, tarriffs don't prevent it, it's just a stupid thing we all have to work ourselves out of. Buying Electronic Vehicles is not our job or responsibility, and there are a lot of downsides, including a lack of charging stations, distance between charging stations, and a steady decline in charge versus distance (not the batteries anyone was promised, bad batteries from the manifacturer) that make the promise of a full ev A dream.I still think, if you are able to afford a big dumb truck, the hybrid is the answer. Did you know UPS runs a bunch of their trucks on natural gas? They consider is either compressed natural or liquid natural. Both of which sound a little stupid but they come from the same source. Renewable Natural Gas. Fuck everyone. Torrent (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm fairly cynical about the whole 'personal responsibility' thing re: climate change, for I know the line 'carbon footprint' was coined by the ad people at the behest of those friendly folks at British Petroleum. And historical examples of no-penalty voluntary reduction schemes show that at best, they work a little [mainly on the middle classes] but it's never near enough. There's been countless examples of where responsibility has been fobbed off on us final consumers, rather than the producers or the state [most obviously with plastic recycling; making us donate our own time/labour to clean/sort/transport shite we never wanted in the first place for 'recyling' which normally does not even happen].
With EVs, I think they're part of the solution with transport emissions - to whit, for folks who live in suburbs-density locales in urban enviroments where mass transit isn't a viable option, barely ever make a round-trip of 75 miles and most importantly, have ready access to low-carbon electricity. It would also be suitable for other niche uses, such as small 'local delivery' vans in which much of the time it's sitting at the company depot [and charging]. However, we do need to sort out some quite serious issues even before we get to this point; such as such as 'product lifespan' [we'll only get 'trickle-down' EVs for poorer folks if they know a 10-year old EV is 'still good'], 'enforced standardisation' [such as charging plugs], the state to actively build a standardised public charging network [such as having all the charging companies use the same fucking app] and perhaps most critically, breaking open the 'black box' and allowing independents [or even skilled home mechanics] to fix their own EVs.
The 'renewable natural gas' you mention is known as normally 'biogas', produced as a byproduct from the rotting of organic matter. Drained off old landfills or produced deliberately in large plants, it can be considered fairly 'green' as said methane would have been produced normally and to a major extent, said waste cannot be avoided in the production of food and similar. However, the crux of the issue is whether the feedstock really is 'waste' - there's moves to start deliberately producing crops for this [which in my opinion is totally missing the point]. Similar can be said of the old coal power plants converted to burning wood; okay [I suppose] if it's simply consuming waste but not if they're fucking importing virgin Canadian logs to be shipped over to the UK for some 'off-budget' carbon emissions in the UK. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Find a fill-up for biogas, and we'll be square on this argument. I know a lot of places to get blue rhino propane, where does one find the infrastructure to fuel a personal natural gas vehicle? In the best case, over 75 miles away from home? And that's the point, you can't have the consumer lead the infrastructure, that is a capitalist blind spot. Torrent (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it is a chicken/egg situation which often happens in capitalism - consumers won't buy X due to a lack of infrastructure, while companies won't build the infrastructure due to lack of demand. Sometimes a forward thinking company or two will 'invest in the future' thinking long-term, but esp in the Anglo world, they don't [because our companies are run by financiers, not true 'I have a dream' entrepreneurs]. This is closely allied to the 'path dependency' issue; that future decisions are made based on past actions re infrastructure, training etc - for example, EVs really came about because almost every location in the advanced world has an electrical connection.
Your gripe in fact shows part of the problem - the desire/expectation to have a omni-solution to all transport issues, when the answer is a myriad of solutions. Biogas 'does not scale' as a solution - there is insufficient 'natural' supply to warrant use by the general public. Fleet vehicles [such as delivery vans and buses] are more suitable for this because normally they operate out of a single [or perhaps a couple] of depots which could easily have their own supply laid-on from the biogas plant. But even then, there's times where the biogas makers have decided to use it for electricity generation rather than go through the palaver of trying to ship the gas to a consumer. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
look, I don't think there is a single solution, and I understand the allegation that I would be dumb and think if a solution might help it is what I believe,but to not solve the whole thing would be a worthless effort. That would be kinda accurate on me, but I'm always ready. Torrent (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
as a drunk statement I do mean there isn't a single sole solution we can put every effort towards. And I'm not here looking for activism. For any solution it would generally have to pass through a cynical test, and I generally think this is a place to test it. I'm not in charge of anything, if comedians steal my jokes or politicians steal my rhetoric, I'm still hard up and writing here for no monetary reason. The day I leave is the day I get paid to. Torrent (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Eh, my swipe was more at the general desire of the 'perfect' cure-all solution. I mean, for example your points regarding biogas are right but then it's used to justifying not using it at all (often by bad-faith actors). KarmaPolice (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thought Experiment: The Gigachurch[edit]

This thought experiment is just based on suggestions I have heard from others over the continued consolidation of churches in the United States, as regular churches dwindle and megachurches continue to consolidate and get bigger. Eventually, do you think all American churches, regular and mega, will consolidate into one single gigachurch, how would a unified gigachurch function and look like in structure and operations compared to megachurches and regular churches, and what it will mean for the United States? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

What is wild to me, is somebody has always already written a song about it. There's no jobs in the city Torrent (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It seems unlikely to me unless there is some overriding national authoritarian orthdoxy. From the book The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church (page 78):

Ironically, “mergers and foundings sharply raise the likelihood of schism.”* Efforts to reunite the church can go wrong and sow further and deeper divisions. Ironically again, schism can reduce the chance of schism, though only briefly: “one year after a founding or merger, rates of schism are five times higher than they are one year after a schism.” Pursuing unity or enforcing uniformity may be the quickest way to destroy whatever unity already exists. In some cases, consolidation and centralization can lessen the possibility of schism.” At times, it is the very effort to prevent schism that causes it.

Bongolian (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If anything, churches are probably driven by money, and megachurches are definitely driven solely by cold hard cash. So how do you think the almighty dollar would influence the current trajectory of churches? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Briefly, no. Just imagine the Catholic Pope saying to the Christian diaspora (45,000 Christian denominations across the world), " Aw, you protestants were right all along, let's forget the whole thing." UncleKrampus (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
In short, the 'Gigachurch' wouldn't work because the business model of a megachurch would not scale that far.
Megachurches are built on charismatic authority [Weberian term] of the pastor(s) within it, and much of their product is not the message, but the 'show' given - in this case, psychologal manipulation of the crowd to 'feel the Holy Spirit' all together at the same time in the same physical location. Yes, you have TV/radio/podcasts etc, but it simply does not work half as well because you don't get emotionally swept up in the crowd's emotions and your sense of self is aborbed into the group [this is why fundie pastors led the charge against Covid lockdowns; they know much of their business relies on the 'personal touch' and feared an elongated absence from the endorphin-hits would cause their flock to drift away]. But that's the issue; there's only so many services a pastor can do in one day, building/maintaining a 2,000+ seater-venues is expensive and not every area would have enough donating congregants to make it economically viable.
There's ways to jump this cramp, of course; for example the old 'touring preacher' model [qv: Billy Graham] in which his big-tent meetings helped build up a national [or even international] following which then supported his radio/TV shows etc [though he preached that he was a suppliment for their flesh/blood pastor, not a replacement]. Another model which is being tried in the current era is a multi-church one; where the 'daughter' churches show the pastor's syndicated show from the 'parent' church. Problem is, that cuts off the emotional flow between the preacher and audience; whipping up the crowd is harder and they don't have their finger on the local pulse [good public speakers learn how to 'read' the audience and tailor their message, mannerisms, tone etc to help fit]. Again, some churches try to get past this cramp by making it 'hybrid'; that the 'daughers' will have their own pastor who acts as a kind of warm-up act to the main pastor etc - but this them means the church needs to find not only another charismatic pastor but also one who is doctrinally effectively identical to the main one.
Which is where the model comes under strain. Charismatic pastors are... well put politely are often 'of strong personality and will' and it makes collaboration with possible 'rivals' difficult to impossible. As in, the 'junior pastors'. Demarcation issues arise - the junior will often try to make their area 'theirs', while the senior will continue seeing it all as 'thiers' to meddle in as they see fit. If they're in phyisically different locations, the senior will often end up trying to micromanage from afar, perhaps even start fearing that the junior is planning to 'steal' the congregation or even usurp the whole church from under them. This is assuming there is zero doctrinal or even 'style' disputes...
Most importantly, not everyone wants to go to the 'same style of church', nor do they all believe the same things or have the same needs. It's like asking why aren't all the restaurants in the country be owned by the same chain. Religion is a 'personal service' [perhaps the most personal], and thus one where the individual 'human touch' will always be important [which is also why being a rabbi/imam/pastor/etc might be the most 'AI-proof' occupation ever]. Which in fact one of the most common criticisms of the megachurch; that they are simply too impersonal to have this touch [I would guess a pastor can 'effectively' personally pastor at most 100, which means the megachurch attendant only has a parasocial relationship with their pastor] and as such rapidly devolve into becoming Jesus-themed infotainment and political adverts to tickle the fancies of their well-heeled, low-maintenence congregation. Even the Southern Baptists deride megachurches as 'triggering false spiritual highs', only created by showmanship and 'crowdfeels'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
so basically, you are are saying this is an improbable concern, because a man will die and that could free a culture. if I have read that wrong, please. Torrent (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
In very short; it won't happen because the model does not scale that far, too many preachers are egotistical and there's always going to be a significant % of believers who genuinely want the 'personal touch'. Not sure how that involves people dying, though. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
let's just say Kim Jung il died, but it isn't a sudden or healthy reaction for a country based in holy dictatorship. Torrent (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Though the average RR megachurch-goer doesn't actually worship their pastors [or at least shouldn't]... though yes, at times some will become so strong in the parasocial relationship with an individual super-pastor that when they 'err' it can cause a crash in belief [which is why some fundies criticise the whole megachurch concept; that it places simply too much strain on the pastor, which can result in stress/ substance abuse/ egotism/ narcissism as well as ending up with money-hungry machines which they have to serve in lieu of y'know, actually tending your flock].
Again, I think the thing which sinks megachurches is the little to zero actual pastoral work. They're 'fair weather churches'; only interested in you when you're low maintenence and generate cashflow. One blog I read about a fundie detractor from megachurches put it aptly; that when it's a small [under 200 members] church and a member is clearly in trouble you cannot help but notice [and the community should 'rally around' to help] and if a family stops attending it's noticed/queried [which might lead to the pastor attempting a 'wellness check']. That he's telling you about how you should live, not 'serving' you spiritual McDonalds.
The most obvious cramp for gigachurches is quite obviously that on doctrine. It's not really obvious to an outsider, but there are significant cleave-lines between different sects. For example, the issue of 'good works' and salvation - those churches coming from a Lutheran tradition say 'it is vital', those who are from the Calvinist say 'it is unnecessary' while the Catholic tradition [which includes Anglican] hovers around 'it shows good faith on faith'. If nothing else, it is difficult to reconcile a believer from one sect to another, even if they've long lapsed in the interim. If you put a Pentecostal in a Southern Baptist service [or vice-versa] I suspect they'd walk out before end.
A good example is this is the reports from the 'Mystery Worshipper' series [4]. You think all these folks would be happy attending the same church? KarmaPolice (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Part 2: On Vanquishing Bad Churches[edit]

Since the previous consensus is that a unified gigachurch isn't likely to form in the US, now what can be done as to prevent the damage from or even shut down the greedy megachurches, lying cretinists, and the endless circus of the Religious Right bozos? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
That really is up to the American Christian community; the biggest harm the bozos are causing is to themselves. It's well documented that: A) American churches are overall in decline in the last 30 years; B) politics and extremism are a big part of the reason for this, and C) the decline is more noticeable among the young and liberal, with the former making many church congregations "time limited". Essentially, the greed, scandals, politics, and extremism within the American church community (more the megachurches and Religious Right than anything else, though certainly other scandals like Catholic children abuse played a part too) have transformed America from a thoroughly religious country into one that is just as secular as Europe in many pockets. Way to go, Religious Right! BobJohnson (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, and they're very stuck in a 'no, it's the children who are wrong' mindset so they won't change - so they are their own worst enemy. However, I would argue you should 'support local journalism', because it's often them who break the stories of greed /scandals /politics /extremism etc to the wider public and well if nobody buys local papers etc... there will be no journalists to dig out the dirt. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
the target is the children, so what is being done is very Jerry Faldwell-esque. The fight is about your core beliefs, go to church to get them OR ELSE. Abrahamic religions are the 'make a man prove himself until he deserves a daughter's (contextual 12 to 14 year old) hand in marriage even if it requires straight father or brother incest.' it's a throughline. why does porn really succeed with two adult actors pretending to be step siblings? Because biblically, that's the only necessary way to perform if you don't want to suffer the fate of Onan. Torrent (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Arab Jews: An interesting topic with little information[edit]

I have been trying to read about Arabs who practice Judaism as I think that the concept of Colored Jews (I believe that is the term) is interesting. If anyone can point me in the right direction I would appreciate it.

Note: I hold no hate for Jews or Israel existing. That said I believe that both Jews and Palestinians can live side by side if leaders would get their heads out of their religious nationalistic asses. Religious nationalistic beliefs get innocent people killed. --Trans Fem Agenda 16:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Arabized Jews.
Basically, outside of the Arabian peninsula, there aren't a lot of ethnic Arabs (beyond general intermarriage and all that), but rather, millions of people who "converted" ethnically to Arab. The Syrians, Egyptians, Libyans, etc, are actually made up of various ethnic groups, but they've basically adopted Arabic as their mother tongue and all that. That's actually the biggest reason for the Persian/Arab conflict; Persians have always viewed themselves as the guardians of civilizations, and it was the barbarians from the west (the Arabs, not "The West") who conquered them, whereas the Arabs despise the Persians for not giving up their culture, language, identity, etc. CorruptUser 20:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Given that races are statistical constructs from a modern perspective, one might ask what you think an Arab Jew is? Most Jews in Israel are not "practicing Jews." It is, for them, an ethnic identity. That is a "because I say so" identity. Arabs are not a race. They are just folks that live in North Africa and west Asia and share cultural attitudes. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Judaism is classed as an "ethno-religion" that one can convert to. If someone had an arab parent or both parents were arab, and the mother was a follower of Judaism, then their child would be considered Jewish. Also, races are not, really "statistical" constructs. The whole point in refuting racialism was that racial groupings are not statistically meaningful. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Anything can be made statistically meaningful. Race is not a scientific construct. Statistics is something else. Science is expected to make sense. Statistics is just a group of theories of probabilistic modeling. Races, like the rainbows are real in a very limited sense.UncleKrampus (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
You can just say you never took a stats class before and save us the howler of “ Anything can be made statistically meaningful” —- no, not if the standards for acceptable margins of error, statistical significance, and effect sizes have anything to say about it. This is like saying any treatment can be made effective. Do you think when a meta-analysis reports that a treatment is not statistically or clinically significant from the placebo control they are reporting that there is a statistically meaningful difference between the treatment and the control group? No, honey. That’s being illiterate in statistics. Alarming for a community that is about promoting scientific literacy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being too charitable here, but to be fair with Krampus, he said "statistically meaningful" (a term that is not common on the literature so maybe he was criticizing the abuse of statistics by some people), not "statistically significant" (a very common term that means p-value<α, where α is usually 0.05). GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes you are being charitable, but I am not proud and I do accept charity. I have a degree in mathematics and I know enough to know that the models are abstractions that we do not always accept when they generate cognitive dissonance, which, by the way many here seem to experience without being aware of it. Sorry sweetie.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't know you have a degree in mathematics (I assume Sorta didn't know either), and from now on, I'll assume you're a lot better on the subject than me (which is not very difficult, but whatever). Still, I think I understood your point, you were saying that statistics can be abused and/or ignored based on what people believe. That being said, I don't think the backfire effect is always true. Not saying that I'm 100% rational or everything but to quote Keynes (ok, the quote isn't his) "When the facts change, I change my mind". I've changed my mind on many subjects that I once hold very firm positions, and I expect to change many times in the future as I am confronted with evidence. This is an interesting conversation (IMO far more interesting than demographics of the I/P conflict), but the three of us derailing the thread now, so I'll stop now. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Don't be, you were quite correct, I think. Even sorta was more or less accurate. Social science buffs depend upon the idea that statistics is a way to see the truth. Mathematicians see it as removed from a posteriori knowledge, and, a pure form of knowledge, but that is a little too incoherent for me. I would say that statisticians think it is the art of making numerical conjectures. We use statistics to make educated guesses. That's good.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
it's kind of a Harry Potter house thing. Anyone is allowed to convert to Judaism, but the tenets matter to orthodoxy. It's like, you can join a Catholic family, but you're not getting off with an unbaptised child. Non practicing is fine and included, but it's also not fine. It's not that different to me with judaism. It IS ethnically tied, but it is so cultural that I just can't buy it as an ethnicity at large. Would an Arab Muslim be held to a different standard? I worked with a Pakistani Muslim and he brought his family's leftovers to the break room the day Ramadan started. What a fucking cool thing to just do. Was he Muslim? Well, I made sure I was in the break room any time he had to run his socks under water before prayer, I've seen worse done at a sink. Torrent (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Torrent (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
There is so much kindness and humility in any religion that wants to exist, and it works so much better than distrust and exclusion. As an atheist, kindness and humility is not suspect. it's just how we all get by. Torrent (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel
https://jewishcurrents.org/our-white-supremacy-problem
https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/racism-in-israel-some-jews-are-more-equal-than-others-28109
?
KarmaPolice (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The timeline I’ve got for this thing which I have no stake in yet like any modern major jerk have opinions of (and please, mods please smash this if it is pure flame bait but I ask only that ye not banhammer me) is that:
Artificius (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
There do exist people who identify as both Arab and Jewish, but they are few and far between. Carthage (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
It's quite amazing how, rather than owning up to a fuck-up, G Man just decides to hide this entire thing behind a collapse. Carthage (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
i collapsed it to improve readability. to be fair, i did take this discussion a bit off topic, and it took up more than half of the thread because of the lengthy replies.
anyway, i gave up (just like cory apparently did) because i didn't want to keep dragging the conversation on forever. it's evident that we've reached an impasse. my mind has not changed, and i'm not going to change anyone's mind. consequently, rather than just going around in circles forever, we'll just have to agree to disagree for now. The G (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
You were debunked a multitude of times, and are now hiding the thread so less people are exposed to posts debunking the misinformation provided by someone who admits to have never read a single book from an academic publisher on this topic. Your mind hasn’t changed because you didn’t come to the conversation to have your mind changed. You have established yourself as a someone who contradict expert viewpoints. You have thrown the very idea of rational skepticism out the window, refusing to engage with the empirical evidence. If the “impasse” is acknowledging palestinians as a distinct ethnic group, or that there existed Jewish Palestinians. I don’t know what to tell you. Motivated reasoning is going to kick no matter what I say. Even with your changed goalposts, I scored. You are really ill equipped and ill informed on this issue. I even explained the nuance of acknowledging many of the oldest Jewish settlements as being arguably without fault to the settlers themselves due to their very real status as political refugees. This is still reconcilable with seeing the Palestinians as a colonized people. Political and Labour Zionists still contributed to this, and are not completely without fault. You can describe this conflict as a complex of interplay of European antisemitism, colonization, and political forces pushing mass relocation of their Jewish population onto the land of non-consenting Palestinians. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hell, you can even acknowledge the role of religious antisemitism, and the motivations of pan-Arabic nationalism in all of this too. It also be worth acknowledging the heavy American Evangelical influence to desiring that Israel is in control of Jerusalem. The way that Israel can work as a advantageous economic and militaristic ally for the US in the Middle East. Said Pan-Arabic nationalists who have a vested interest in supporting HAMAS, etc. This is a deeply convoluted issue. Not helped by denying the very real history of Zionism self-identifying a settler colonial project since its very early days. I am not interested in white washing this shit, various Palestinian factions have done horrendous shit too. I still think the more powerful, more stable actor with the exceedingly higher death-toll in all of this holds the greater responsibility solely because they are the only faction with the stability and power to do so. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
i will admit to leaving out one key fact: while i did say there was no state of palestine prior to the 20th century (which is true), i did leave out that israel is also a product of 20th century politics. i should have mentioned that earlier, and it was my mistake to leave that out.
besides that, i've already stated where i stand on the issue. i refuse to buy into the nonsensical "jewish settler colonialism" propaganda. i don't care what your favorite historian says. there are just as many who disagree (including the one i mentioned), and your senseless gatekeeping does nothing to change that. the fact is that jews are just as indigenous to the holy land as the palestinians are due to their historical connections to the land. saying otherwise is like saying, "might makes right," given the historical context. (it's like saying the western armenian diaspora has no right to return to eastern turkey just because they lost it in a genocide/ethnic cleansing campaign.) as long as people keep playing the blame game, and as long as people fail to acknowledge these basic facts, there will never be peace in the region (israel-palestine). The G (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Your position is not informed by reality, especially when a) early Zionists themselves called Zionism a settler colonial project and b) they are still literally colonizing Palestine right as we speak. This is something you continue to ignore because it contradicts your propaganda. Carthage (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "the fact is that jews are just as indigenous to the holy land as the palestinians are due to their historical connections to the land. saying otherwise is like saying, "might makes right," given the historical context. (it's like saying the western armenian diaspora has no right to return to eastern turkey just because they lost it in a genocide/ethnic cleansing campaign.)"

This is funny, because Palestinians, who you acknowledge are indigenous to Palestine, are currently being ethnically cleansed from Palestine, and have been for decades now. Also, again, it's irrelevant if Jewish people have an ancestral connection to Palestine. Israel is the dominant power that is ethnically cleansing the indigenous Palestinians and stealing land they have inhabited for millennia. Why should a return to Palestine necessitate ethnic cleansing and land theft? That's colonization. It's disingenuous to paint it as anything but. Even early Zionists recognized this fact, which you continue to ignore. If you had any shred of intellectual honesty you would at least stop ignoring historical realities and admit that early Zionists viewed themselves as colonizers. Carthage (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This point about ancestral homeland has already been addressed when I drew the analogy of Italian Fascists and claiming the territories occupied by ancient Rome. The Kingdom of Israel hadn’t occupied that territory since roughly around 930 BCE. You have close to 2000 years of history between the fall of that kingdom and the establishment of modern Israel. It doesn’t change the fact that Palestinians had been living in that region for centuries before the Zionist settlements were erected, and they have been displaced from the region ever since.
You are using blatantly nationalistic politics to reason about this, akin to the claims of other nationalistic movements looking to “restore” their civilization to their former glory. Ancestral homeland or not, that doesn’t justify ethnic displacement.
Acknowledging that historians contest Israel’s status as settler colonialism (complicated by nationalistic politics, and the specific scholarly tradition of “new historians” that started specifically in Israel), should not lead you to conclude the claim is “nonsensical propaganda”. That is not adopting historical consensus, that’s choosing a side. If anything you should withhold judgement to whether or not Israel is a settler colonial state if the state of humanities literature is really that mixed. You been backed up into a corner repeatedly though, given most claims you have made to Israel not being a settler colonial project implicates many a non-ambiguous examples (i.e. Canada, the US, Australia, South Africa, etc.) as not being examples of settler colonialism either. Do you actually think North Americans never claimed Europeans occupied the land before the indigenous people they found there? Do you think actually think Europeans never saw themselves as entitled to the land as a chosen people by God? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The Election is on![edit]

Sunak has called a snap election in the UK; Thurs, 4th July 2024.

I've set up a draft page for the election https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Draft:2024_United_Kingdom_general_election Idea being; if everyone adds to it during the campaign [with refs please], I will then review and make it fit for mainspace afterwards. Thanks in advance. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It feels a bit symbolic that Sunak was drenched by a downpour while announcing the election. Quite apart from the unplanned background music. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
That music was planned. Just not by CPHQ...
In other news, the talking heads on LBC are predicting a Labour majority of 50-60. I think this is going to come down to a) level of tactical voting, b) how much Reform run, c) how 'suppressed' the vote is by the summer stuff going on and d) how bad the 'Gaza sore' is to Labour. The fact the Unis will be out I think will nullify itself; it might diffuse a very anti-Tory vote from a few [perhaps] marginals and disenfranchise folks not registered to vote at 'home' [though this can be sorted by a big advance postal ballot push] but it also means a lot of students will be in places like the Shires which might prove a resource that can be tapped to help with canvessing etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the summer recess will potentially play against the Tories since they can’t rely on the “on campus voting ban” to suppress the student vote. They’re probably still hoping that their voter ID law might give them a crucial edge in very close races, though.
And the short campaign is probably also to forestall any (further/formal?) collaboration between Labour and the LibDems to further magnify Tory losses by not attacking each other and ensuring that the party with the best chance of beating the Tories in a particular constituency will not be hampered by a split vote, and thus encourage tactical, anti Tory voting.
I also agree that Reform UK presents an important uncertainty: If they eat into the Tory vote, the results could be truly disastrous for the Tories (especially if combined with anti Tory tactical voting). But there are a couple of asterisks here: Are the people who’ve said in opinion polls that they’ll be voting Reform UK actually defecting Tory voters? And if they are indeed former (potential) Tory voters, will they actually end up voting Reform UK, even if that risks a Tory seat going Labour/LibDem? ScepticWombat (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I've long bitched that Mandelson has in effect moved into Starmer's head, but in this case it's a good thing - for the Kennedy-Blair 'cease fire' in '97 was part of the reason for the Tory wipeout. It also helps that there's basically zero straight LD/Labour fights [I think the only one is Sheffield Hallum, Clegg's old seat]. Having done lots of reading on every GE since 1992 for RW, I think Davy must rule out a coalition with the Tories or Labour [but say they're open to ad-hoc arrangements] but also state another vote for PR isn't going to be the 'price' they demand for 'collaboration'. In return, I believe Starmer is going to need to make a 'people of the left, please lend me your votes' pitch and cherry-pick a totemic couple of policies which appeal to Greens/socialists/etc while being fairly honest that while yes, Labour is hardly appealing to them they're a damn sight better than the Tories. However, I seriously doubt he'd do the latter as he's basically been shouting at me to go fuck myself since becoming leader.
With Reform voters, from the looks of it they are almost solely the old Farage-era UKIP vote - the ones which 'lent' their votes to the Tories in '17 and '19 due to Brexit. I'm actually interested to see how strongly Tice and co are going to push this, and in response how rightwards Sunak will lean in to 'accommodate' them - I suspect that while yes, chanelling Braverman over immigration, othering and woke might save a clutch of Rustbelt seats, it very well might sicken enough in the Shires and 'Cameronian' suburbs to bolt to Lab/LDs. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If there was a 'None of the above (candidates)' option on the ballot paper the results might be interesting (as with getting fewer votes than the Official Monster Raving Party). Anna Livia (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sunak not only got soaked but also got trolled during his announcement with anti-Brexiteer Steve Bray blasting the song "Things Can Only Get Better" from beyond the security barrier.[7] Some have speculated that the earlier than expected election date is because Tories have come to the conclusion that things will not get better before the election deadline in January. Bongolian (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I think it’s absolutely the reason for the snap election that this is the “least bad” time for the Tories and it’s likely that things would get even worse for them, if they’d waited.
Right now, the Tories can at least pretend that they’ve “beaten inflation”, and, due to the season, some voters aren’t in the “heating or eating” dilemma that might fuel yet more eagerness to stick it to the Tories.
The water companies are only going to keep increasing their prices and pouring shit into the rivers and oceans, so there’s no improvement in sight on that front either, quite the opposite in fact. And since even their latest promises of tax cuts didn’t move the polls, the Tories’ political ammo pouch is basically empty as it is. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
One good personal good thing. Expat UK voters have finally got our right to vote back!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, nothing good 'seems to be sticking' for the Tories - they've been blaring out their Greatest Hits for a year now and the polls are stuck. My guess is what has happened is what I warned Grant Shapps about in 2017; that a political party needs to avoid becoming hated - shown in this case by the fact perhaps the majority of the people have quit listening to them. I think they did want another giveaway in Sept/Oct, but the sounds from the IMF etc about them being in effect unaffordable [well, even more than the last ones] and this spooked them.
The other reason is I suspect the Conservatives chose now is the 'Gaza factor'. My fag-packet tells me that 'Muslims' [I hate lumping people into demographics, but you have to for some extent in conversations like this] make up more than 10% of the electorate in at least 85 seats, traditionally vote Labour by about 70% and quite a lot are concentrated in Rustbelt seats. If say, a third of these ditch from Labour... that's worth at least 1,300 votes per seat in Labour/Tory fights.
This leads me to discussing hat-man. Galloway's 'Workers Party' on the surface appears to be a 'socialist' splinter from Labour [actually mainly a cut-out for the Stalinist splinter from the CPGB]... but if you actually read their manifesto etc [yay, lucky me] you'll spot that their main Venn overlap is in fact with Reform [anti-woke, anti-establishment, 'patriotic' and populist] which means they're more a threat to the working-class Tory flank too. This leads to two questions; a) how strongly with 'the Muslims' does the WP become associated with and b) does Tice tacitly come to an 'arrangement' where there's no seat where both WP and Reform stand?
Lastly, I've been seeing Communist posters about recently, apparently from the 'Revolutionary Communist Party'. Anybody else seen them? KarmaPolice (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I saw one the other day. Which flavour of Communist is the RCP? Have such posters been seen in Tooting? (Obscure Brit joke) Anna Livia (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Trots, it seems.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/66095/revolutionary-communists-are-plotting-a-comeback
The “Gaza effect” doesn’t sound implausible to me, now you mention it. But damn, I’d forgotten about Galloway and his nonces. I really hope no one who’s actually on the left gets sucked into his cesspool by mistake (i.e. not bothering to actually check the party’s views and just going by sound bites and slogans).
Still, I’m pretty doubtful as to whether Galloway’s voters would’ve actually considered Labour as an alternative. Like Reform, it seems that the WP goes full on with the “anti establishment” rhetoric/conspiracy theories, as already mentioned. But while there is a wing of the Tories that very clearly overlaps with some of this Reform nonsense (e.g. Braverman and Badenoch), which at least mean they’re competing on Reform’s turf, I don’t really see a similar situation with Labour and the WP. This is why I don’t see WP as much of a threat to Labour. Oh, and I doubt that, even if they agree to a “non aggression pact”, WP and Reform will get any seats (possibly Galloway might, if he’s popular enough in his constituency, but that’s probably about it).
Not in the UK so I don’t really get to see election posters and thus cannot contribute to the question of Communist ones. Anyone voting Communist in the UK in July was probably not going to vote for a viable candidate, though. However, I have seen some new Communist parties in other countries in Europe, as well as a bit of noise from those Communist parties that survived the Cold War. But it seems they all remain Lilliputian fringe parties with barely more voters than members (if they’re even able to get on the ballot). ScepticWombat (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The 'Gaza effect' is also a risk on the left-wing flank of Labour too; as seen in the locals where quite a few defected to the Greens [though this is simply a resumption of the general 'left bleed-out' from Labour since '10, which in the Ashdown/Kennedy era had been to the LDs]. Like you, I don't think WP is that much a threat on this manner to Labour [or more correctly, no more a threat than the UKIP/Reform threat was/is] because as a rule we socialists know all about that slimy carpetbagger and perhaps more importantly, the likes of Corbyn and Momentum have stiffed hat-man's approaches. I don't believe either Reform or WP getting any seats [hat-man only won due to Labour not contesting Rochdale], which is why Toad has declined to stand again. Tice has just now committed to running a Reform candidate in all non-NI seats; which now means Sunak has about two weeks to work out how to 'deal' with this [the 7th is the deadline to withdraw]. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I must confess, though, that I do feel a bit uneasy about the kind of Labour landslide that the polls have long predicted. Not because I feel sorry for the Tories or subscribe to something like the frankly mental logic of some in the USA Democratic leadership that “We need a strong right wing opposition party” for democracy to be healthy.
What worries me is the kind of leadership that Starmer has espoused when he and his wing became dominant within the Labour Party. His notion seems to be that there is essentially no room for internal debate or opposition (at least if this is on the left). If Starmer gets to run the UK with a whopping majority and those kind of attitudes, I’m sure glad I’m not a UK citizen (especially one that doesn’t particularly like or agree with Sir Keir Starmer).
Of course, it could very well be that Starmer the PM leads differently from Starmer the Labour leader, or that he’s “only” targeting “the left”, but I just don’t see him as a man that can be easily trusted with power. Especially not the kind that an overwhelming parliamentary majority will give him in a UK political system that has few other checks and balances beyond Parliament itself. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
However, it's notoriously difficult to project polling into actual seats; I've seen recent projections that have Labour sitting anywhere from a Feb '74 [Labour minority] to 1997 [huge landslide] results. I've also seen that there's upto about 20% mismatch between polling/voting - not just lying to the questioner, but tactical voting, finding desired party not standing in seat, not voting at all etc. They then simply extrapolate using census data etc, which can throw the result if those ratios are wrong [qv, 2017. Under-30s turnout much higher than projected].
Starmer - I fear - is going to fall into the 'you have nowhere else to go' fallacy which has been played against left-wingers for a century [or even worse, 'there are no votes on the left' one]. Which is why I wholeheartedly welcome the rise of the Greens; I am hoping it will show quite graphically that no, Labour's left flank does need to be protected... because we do have somewhere else to go [ie the Greens turn out to be Labour's Reform] KarmaPolice (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
How true do you think the rumours that Sunak called the election because the 'loonies' in the party were coming close to triggering a vote of confidence in him? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I got a friend in London who says Tories wana Un-drop the writ. (which, if true, is hilarious since even if its legally possible, it'll buy them what, 4-5 months?) Revolverman (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────slate gave him a royal roasting with this one: "In a symbolic move, Sunak scheduled the election for July 4, a date synonymous with British failure." [8] The G (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Good grief, now the Tories are trotting out ”national service”. That’s when you know they are just keeping up appearances and have already resigned to being trounced in any but the most diehard gammon pensioner landlord constituencies. Quite apart from all of the “rats leaving the sinking ship”-resignations, of course. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
We truly are at the 'lob crap onto the wall and see what sticks' stage of the election, and it's not even been a week! Even on the objective level of being a policy, it's shit; '30k volunteers' for the military [for a year], everyone else has forced-volunteers for a weekend a month [so 24 days in total] 'helping' other orgs. It takes about 10 months to bring someone remotely 'fighting fit' [assuming they're already in a educational/emotional/physical condition to do Basic] which means unless you're gonna then discharge them into the reserves it's a relative waste of effort. And you know what the others will be used for? Free labour. I forsee these people being used to empty bedpans, clean road verges, fish crap out of ponds and make police officers cups of tea.How is that going to build 'community spirit'? Or 'provide training for later life' [wait, what was school meant for then?] I've worked in the voluntary sector before, and truth be told unskilled voluntary labour is shit, and is only really welcome when it's that or nothing.
I am not inherently against this concept [I more favour building up our reserves and establishing a 'Civil Reserve' to increase the country's resiliency] but as you point out, this one is to appeal to the Alf Garnets of this world. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I’m not categorically against conscription either, btw, and live in one of the countries that never rescinded it.
The major argument for it in my neck of the woods has traditionally been that having “citizens in uniform” is a potential democratic check on some of the risks of having a wholly “professional” army which might start pursuing its own priorities (incl. ideas about the army’s role in society). I’ll admit that this is one argument in favour of conscription that I’ve always thought had some merit.
In addition, alternative service has been available for decades here, so no one is actually forced to serve in the military against their will, even if “their number comes up” (a friend of mine basically worked as a roadie at a rock concert venue for his stint).
Still, the UK has generally had little of such a tradition and this version sounds outright absurd, even on its own terms. And I agree that should the Tories somehow both win the election and implement this nonsense, it will probably be something like a postmodern version of corvéeWikipedia labour. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
"The major argument for it in my neck of the woods has traditionally been that having “citizens in uniform” is a potential democratic check on some of the risks of having a wholly “professional” army which might start pursuing its own priorities (incl. ideas about the army’s role in society). I’ll admit that this is one argument in favour of conscription that I’ve always thought had some merit." How does it have any merit? Coups are done by flag officers, not privates and corporals. If anything, conscription arguably makes it worse, with a huge number of bodies said Flag officer could employ in a coup. The argument makes about as much sense as people voter fraud happens IN FRONT of the ballet box. Revolverman (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The argument is this. Most democratic all-voluntary militaries recruit from rather 'narrow' pools [the American is strongly Republican/Southern/rural] and often end up living in variants of 'garrison towns' where they associate too much with each other to the point they've started to become 'a caste'. That over time, our hereditary warriors get it into their heads that only they 'know what is best' for the country, that only they are competent/incorruptable and so on - something not helped if one party festishises the military. That over time, the military starts believing that they are the state, that their needs must always be served first and so on. If unchecked, this can end up becoming a full-blown 'stratocracy' where retired/current military officers effectively control the state, like they did in Imperial Germany before WW1.
If a military instead is majority conscript, it lessens this 'disconnect' because the career military will see what/how the civilians think [well, the 18-20 year olds] and said conscripts will be a much better cross-section of general society. It will also help demythologise the military because eventually [if you have universal service for both sexes] everyone would have been in the military at some point [might also help with recruitment too, as some 'non-traditional' folks might decide a military career is for them, thus widening their 'groupthink']. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
"If unchecked, this can end up becoming a full-blown 'stratocracy' where retired/current military officers effectively control the state, like they did in Imperial Germany before WW1." Given imperial Germany had full 2-3 year conscription, it seems it didn't matter, no? Again those that create those situations are the FLAG officers, who will ALWAYS be carrier in a modern army derived from European traditions. A completely unrelated pool to the Rank and File who are drafted. Thats ignoring the fact its a fucking warcrime but everyone ignores that. 2001:569:FDC9:AB00:611B:4152:10F2:233A (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It was unchecked for generations. Germany was also only semi-democratic and was riddled with militarism. They did not need to coup the state because it was it. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure, it’s officers who usually tend to initiate coups, but it’s a lot easier for them to successfully carry one out, if they command forces whose future is entirely dependent on the army and where long serving professional soldiers are at risk of identifying more with the army and its interests than with that of the government or society at large. Of course, it’s not a guarantee against usurpation (not to mention the development of a militaristic society, let alone a military-industrial complex), but at the very least, it’s not likely to increase such risks.
And then there’s the other argument, which I grant is a bit ghoulish; namely that a broad and fairly enforced(!) conscription can be at least a concern for democratically elected politicians wanting to go to war, because it literally risks bringing dangers to life and limb into every household. When similar interventions are conducted by purely professional forces such dangers can be brushed aside as just an “occupational hazard” for people who “chose to join the military of their own accord”. Let alone that there seems to be a tendency for professional armies to disproportionately recruit their front line grunts from the lower strata of the societal hierarchy. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
And throughout history the elite have NEVER been drafted. I'm shocked that argument is still trotted out after just the history of the Draft in the US. Hell, they still majority draw on lower class people in the draft anyway ("They draft white trash here first round anyway"). All these theoreticals are great, but history has shown conscription has target the marginalized the most, and let to VERY military dominated societies. I can't believe people still act like somehow, this one will be different, and really whip the people into some bizzare super democracy (Is this were Helldivers 2 came from?) Revolverman (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The 'ghoulish' arguement is what I would call merely making everyone have 'skin in the game' re war - that if it's your kids having to fight and your taxes being raised to pay for it - well, you're more likely to be a wee bit more responsible regarding hawkish policies.

And Revolverman, you are wrong - there have been times/places were 'the elite' did have their kids conscripted (and to the front too) - for example, the UK in both World Wars. Many of the issues you cite are issues that American conscription has had due regarding details of it's operation - which are political discussions. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Gratitude doesn't work[edit]

“If you’ve been doing the “Gratitude” exercise you’ve found out that if you really focus your attention, you create your emotional state and you create it to be whatever you want it to be. I just give that “Gratitude” exercise as repetition, so that you can see, “Yeah, at any moment I can change my emotional state, shift the point of view I see things from and I create a whole different emotion.””

I know I posted from that site with that Gary guy before but this is more about the practice of gratitude. The post above is from a larger segment about how we can create emotions by just making commitments and that we feel as we do now and suffer because of automatic programs we pick up through life. Essentially saying if your commitment is strong enough you can be happy no matter what happens.

But I digress, I generally have a bone to pick with gratitude because the practice seems iffy to me. I know there is supposed to be a lot of science behind it but I have to wonder how reliable that data really is. I know for me gratitude never really helped change my emotional state, mostly because I don't really have anything to be grateful for and trying to force it doesn't lead to anything happening. I can't help but wonder if maybe this has something to do with toxic positivity or something like that, and whether the results from the science are really accurate because modern society does have a positivity bias.

But even then wouldn't the practice depend on you having stuff to be grateful for among other things outside of your control as well? To me that makes the original quote about a commitments wrong since our emotions depend on things out of our control. We can't just create our emotional state to be whatever we want it to be just by focusing enough, it doesn't work like that (nevermind where the motivation behind that wanting to comes from if emotions are the reasons we do anything).47.5.66.54 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

People vary in how they relate emotionally to the world and life I guess. Myself, I'm anchored in something and emotions are tied to meaning both ways. I find it weird and useless to try to put on artificial emotional "postures", much like I don't spend much time forcing my muscles into making weird physical postures. But some people have the latter as a major part of life, and I guess the same may go for the former as well. Some like to live with their feelings not rooted in anything meaningful and just forcing their minds and hearts into weird postures. That's something various kinds of mystical folks are into, but not all. Likewise, some folks like to push their minds into believing whatever rubbish they want to believe moment by moment, losing touch with reality; that's pretty common in the New Age. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This 'Gary' can go fuck himself. With a concrete bollard. Minus any lube.
This crap is nothing more than woo being peddled from the school of 'stop feeling that way' and the module titled 'that sounds like a you problem'. If someone is in a bad position, no the 'solution' is to simply force youself to be happy with it, that you should be 'grateful' because it could be worse. Next stop, rationalising it's 'not that bad', finally ending with you gaslighting yourself into thinking the situation is okay. Hmm... who shall benefit from this? Guilt-tripping parents, manipulative bosses, abusive partners, user 'friends' and spite/malice-filled politicians because you shall simply 'look on the bright side', suck up the shit and not expect better.
Negative emotions are part of us. They make us. They drive us. To deny their existence simply... why, exactly? Does stubborn denial of issues ever work for the Stepford Smiler? Imagine this 'advice' being handed to a survivor of PTSD, an escapee or neglect/abuse or someone who really has taken a kicking from the Game of Life? That's not 'bone to pick' territory, that's downright malign and trivialising 'advice' which is actively damaging.
KarmaPolice (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean you can take a look at the website to get an idea of what he's like. https://pathwaytohappiness.com/blog/feeling-connected/ Personally I don't know what to make of him, when I try to ask him questions he seems kinda evasive with answering them.47.5.66.54 (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

gratitude towards a black hole doesn't work. I think the idea is, no matter whatcha got, entirely your effort is what you give, and it will not return by virtue of giving. So if you give honesty here with an expectation of return, it's truly a human act, but giving honestly is tough. You can only expect a human response to a really tough question. I don't expect anything. If you can give and let go, that is closer to a humane act. Would you like to go back and tear it all down? That would make sense, but I don't really think you're recruiting an army here. It's ok. It's alright. I'll ride if needed, as long as it's truth to power that doesn't spill into anger. I can't promise I'll behave on my ideals, but I would like you to call me out any time I mess up. Torrent (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Torrent (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Clicking through the website you linked to I couldn't see anything instantly objectionable, though it certainly has the capacity to be "woo adjacent". I couldn't find any actual qualifications listed apart from self-identified experience for Garry. It looks like a lot of his stuff is free but then you have to start paying, but on the other hand I guess it's a business. I didn't get a really "pay-over-your-life-scientology feel" though. On a quick search I couldn't find anything negative about him on the net. His book on amazon has a lot of positive reviews. If you feel he is helping you then - well he's helping you. If you don't get that feeling - then drop him.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

His "events"[9] seem fairly objectionable to me. The Teotihuacán one is particularly nutty ("If you are ready to dissolve your fears, false beliefs, and identification with your mind, and experience unconditional love from which you can create a new life that you love, then join us at the ancient pyramids of Teotihuacán Mexico.") I was there many years ago. It's a real tourist trap by night when they have a "sound and light show" rigged up on the pyramids. Similar hogwash is proposed for the Egyptian pyramids trip ("Raising your consciousness and levels of unconditional love through the power and energy of temples in Ancient Egypt. This 11 day guided spiritual journey will take you past the limiting beliefs of your mind to feel and embody your Self as Consciousness and Love. Dissolving your fears, false beliefs, and identification with your mind becomes a byproduct of your experience through these ceremonies that initiate and activates your Consciousness.") Bongolian (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
There is also the whiff of Carlos Castañeda fraud about this "gary guy" (Gary van Warmerdam): inspired by a purported Toltec shaman, don Miguel Ruiz.[10][11] The ToltecsWikipedia were a pre-Aztec civilization (c. 950–1168 CE), so you know this is total bullshit that they're churning out. Bongolian (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I remember reading Journey to Ixtlan, when I was a kid. I think the modern view of it ignores the value of Castañeda's work. It always was fiction. Fantastic, Steven King type fiction. The Teachings of Don Juan, is written in a way that appeals to an academic mind, but how it deceived actual academics, I have no idea, except to suppose that the University administrators, more interested in commercial success than academic quality, wanted to promote their own institution and co-opt the success of the books. Even as a kid, I read the books as romances.
The ethical transgression of passing them off as anthropology may be eventually forgotten. But those who were willing to promote the work as serious anthropology are , in my view, primarily responsible. As a writer, I just send the manuscript out into the world. What I meant by it is entirely up to the reader. Frankenstein was bullshit too, but I have no doubt that there were gullible readers who assumed the plot was plausible. There still are, really. The fault belongs to people who take this stuff seriously.UncleKrampus (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
maybe its legit but just requires human sacrifice to make it work. i start every morning with a nice cup of tea while holding the still beating heart i cut out of young boy. the toltecs probably drank coffee i know, or maybe hot chocolate, but really any tasty beverage works for your ritual murder to set your mind at peace. unless you just dont want to be happy. so closed minded here. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Coffee originated in East Africa and southern Arabia, so it did not arrive in the New World until post-Toltec times. Chocolate is much more likely as it originated in Mesoamerica (Xocolatl). Bongolian (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
When this guy came up before, I noted that Warmerdam wallowed in a fair bit of New Age hogwash, although less oogie-boogie and more aligned with self help. As I mentioned then, I thought it was "mostly harmless" hogwash except to sucker who actually pays this "guru"'s wallet, but it *is* a lot of hogwash nonetheless. I compared him with Deepak Chopra at the time. The problem with self-help stuff as a general rule (this also includes "motivational" speakers too) is that (as the RW article states) it does not derive from anything scientific, and embraces a sort of "pop spiritualism" "pep talk". In America (I wonder what self-help books look like outside it, if they exist?), this means wallowing in gentle gym-coach style rhetoric where the aim is to drive out "negative" and embrace "positive" through a series of generic "motivational" platitudes, calmly positive deepity text that as a generic summary I'll describe as "DesiderataWikipedia-isms". The New Age influences for this guy particularly shows up when he appropriates the religion of ancient culture as a noble savage sort of thing, as in the events, which are an absolute rip-off. $850 for a week at Zion National ParkWikipedia (entrance fees and "ceremony" only, not including transportation, lodging, and meals)? Go grab an annual park pass for $80 (if you are 62 and older that's the cost of the lifetime pass), and you can see well more natural wonders than Zion.
There is nothing wrong with gratitude and it is widely seen as a moral positive (which is why it shows up in practically every religion), I just don't know if this is something that can be driven through some sort of exercise alone. I mean, gratitude is an appreciative response to kindness. I couldn't find a link for the OP quote, so I have no idea what sort of exercise Warmerdam was thinking was needed for that? BobJohnson (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Well pretty much everything I list is from the forum where you can find his lessons. You cannot access it unless you sign up. I only listed stuff from the free lessons, I'm not shelling money out to him. But suffice to say it includes stuff like "things don't make us feel, it's our beliefs that do that because how else can the same thing offend and make someone laugh", which seems off to me. The thought that beliefs create emotions and you just have to do a belief inventory to change things to what you want. But then that begs the question of what is fueling the motivation to change your beliefs. If it's about personal power then where is that motivation coming from and what is driving it? No answer from him. I can't post the lesson because it's too long and I got flagged last time.47.5.66.54 (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thing is, they are not trying to teach you to 'be more grateful for what you have' by fighting back against consumerism, peer pressure, Hollywood etc, it's 'positive thinking' on steroids to enforce feelings of gratitude onto yourself for no reason except it is a 'good' emotion. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
It indeed sounds like the toxic version of “positive thinking” along with its horrendous subtext that the problem is really about you and your feeling, not anything structural, in the world or caused by others.
That’s really some perverse Panglossian gaslighting to peddle, not to mention that it’s also detrimental to any legitimate calls for change. It’s basically taking the slogan ’Why change the world when you can change your mind?’ at face value. Where did I get that line? From the fictive marketing slogan for the mind altering CHIP in the dystopian cyberpunk squad shooter, Syndicate…Wikipedia ScepticWombat (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Sooo....[edit]

I just wanted to say that macroevolution (not just micro) is rock solid, humans came from Africa recently, Jews do not control the world, Jews don't hate non Jews/white people, Jews didnt invent communism, string theory is true, relativity is true and the consensus is usually correct. 9/11 was done by Al Qaeda, the Jews didn't do most of the things they're accused of, we landed on the moon, mass shootings are real and so is global warming. I felt the need to say this, because I denied it in the past. But after a lot of critical thinking and studying science I have changed my mind. 2603:9001:300:81A:786D:60BD:5DFF:35D0 (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean String Theory is true? How do you know that?UncleKrampus (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the rest is obviously true. But string theory is a bit of an outlier. Not that I would claim to understand it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know string theory is so far unfalsifiable, hence neither true nor false. Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, in science, the 'consensus', even vague, when it exists, so much that it's existence is consensual and majoritarian, is 'truth' as we surely understand it, however in democracy, there is no rationalist solution which can be both 'consensual' and 'true' at the same time (there can, however, among respectable political factions, be conventional usages accepting and supporting democracy, liberty and equality (with various interpretations and applications of those systems) which tell us far-left and far-right are simply bad and inacceptable if anti-republican). New world (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bongolian falsifiability doesn’t imply a proposition or theory is not truth-apt. It just means the claims of a theory can be subject to a critical test that has the potential to refute the theory. Failing falsification wouldn’t necessarily imply the theory’s claims are true. All falsification can provide is a logical inference via modus tollens to falsehood. Logical tautologies like the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle are arguably not falsifiable, if they were they wouldn’t be laws of logic classed as necessary truths. Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think scientific consensus is that String Theory is correct, or even on the right track. I see more criticism of it than support. Pop-Sci seems to love it though, just like multiversus. It is so far removed from empirical testing that I wouldn't even call it science, it is mathematicians larping as physicists. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Classical Christian Education: A mission worthy topic[edit]

https://classicalchristian.org/glossary-of-terms-home/

It is popular among fundies and the GOP. It is generally Creationist in nature. Hillsdale College, a far right Christian College, advocates Classical Christian Education as a substitute for public education. School vouchers are used for these schools and it comes at the expense of public education. --Trans Fem Agenda 19:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

If you feel like it's a good missional topic for the wiki, you could either start up a draft for it or leave a suggestion for it on RationalWiki's "to do" list! Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This doesn't look a whole lot different from homeschooling I've seen. The worry would be if the college funneled up in a meaningful sense, otherwise you're looking at an HVAC repairman trying his best to support 5 or 6 kids while the wife stays trad, because you can't pay for 5 or 6 kids on an HVAC repairman salary. Well, it comes from the government, and if you're really against public schooling, every child you have meets a home school stipend, their education standard meets not much. The money with the best intention to buy supplies and help those kids. and I truly believe childcare costs are prohibitive, you can't just get a 14 dollar job and leave a preschooler at home alone.
Public schools are so stupidly underfunded that they can't have baby wranglers from 4 am to 7 pm, but that's what they need, isn't it? People whose job it is to keep your kid from hurting themselves or others from the time you go to work until the time you can pick them up, and in the mean time, some real experts at teaching work with them on how to read and do math and shit. I think public schooling should be a national priority that extends and replaces home daycare, because at its core, that is what it is doing. It really doesn't take a lot to keep a kid safe and alive. If every kid can be expected to link up for a virtual classroom, it's really dumb to say every kid who might need a breakfast gets it run by a bus route that used to pick up kids. All these things are possible, public schooling just needs to also be funded for before and after care. If you can pay 15 year olds to babysit or work at a church daycare, you can pay them to work at a school. If school bus drivers exist, I mean, who and how do you wind up in that job? Picking up and driving a bunch of middle schoolers to school, and you're the only adult on the bus? How is that a job? Torrent (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't look that different to homeschooling' because homeschooling is 'traditional American' which was a derivative of Classical Education as originally practiced in C19th England - and this 'new movement' is simply harking back to this.
RW does not have a page on Classical Education. I recommend a page on that is produced first - mainly because they share the same strength/weaknesses, format etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I Fully disagree. I'd be blown away if the 'format' couched in your expectation, to start, would be enough, because I'm saying, schools as also daycares and would say it will never be Much more than a yesterday project on account of pretty much nothing but a disagreement, but also I'm now curious, were you homeschooled? Torrent (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
'Schools as daycare' is an argument which can be levelled against all formal schools. My point was that from what I can see, the curriculum of these schools are simply an updated classical education given a fundie-isation. So there would be a lot of redundancy between a RW page on each, so might be better to write the first, well first and put in 'its like (link) but cultified' KarmaPolice (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

RationalWiki dark mode[edit]

A mock-up of a possible dark version of the front page.

It's probably not gonna come in the near future, but it would be awesome if there was a "dark mode" that could be applied to RationalWiki at the click of a button, because I was getting off of watching a video on YouTube and had my eyes blasted with a sudden burst of BRIGHTNESS. And yes, I know the "custom CSS" option exists, but I'm no good with CSS tbh :(

Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 07:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I could not agree more. My old, worn, and tired eyes would benefit from the option and I haven't a clue about how to properly do any CSS stuff. Kencolt (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
One already exists; go under "Preferences" -> "Gadgets" -> "User interface gadgets" -> "Dark mode" Plutocow (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
So it does. Thank you for telling me, It's much easier to read now. Kencolt (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Needs some work, if you ask me. Navboxes, for example, are all transparent. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Besides that, a number of smartphones have a dark mode or at the very least some browsers for them come with such mode. In AMOLED screens and the like it's actually black (pixels turned off) and helps to reduce battery usage too. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned about the the thing I say here[edit]

I'm not happy to say the easist thing, That It is really cool that you made it here.— Unsigned, by: Torrent / talk / contribs

Did you want an argument?UncleKrampus (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I think we'd need a translation before that. Kencolt (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Has someone been drinking again? Carthage (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I feel like I accidentally started with the second book in the series. Semipenultimate (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
It's a coded message to the followers of Raëlism.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
All of it would be very funny if you weren't really bad at it. Torrent (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we create emotions?[edit]

Warning icon orange.svg Warning: Emotions conversation ahead may rot your brain!

Man photographing himself in cornered mirror to generate illusion cropped.jpg

Sorry about going on about the Gary guy it's just that what I read from him got to me and I'm sorta hitting a wall figuring this out (autism stuff I guess) and I'm hoping a fresh view helps. The emotions bit just gets to me because it's suggesting things don't make us feel that it's our beliefs that do that but when I ask how I got nothing about it. Some lady on the forum mentioned how she had memories of her time on a farm and when she saw a rooster picture it made her feel good because of the memories not because of the rooster, but something seems off about that to me. Like what made those memories good, among other things.

To me it seems like since the feelings come from us that we create them and things don't make us feel. When I was talking to a dude on there from a zoom call I mentioned how I love the ocean and it always makes me feel at ease and all these feelings come up. He then said something about how the feelings are coming from me not the ocean, I don't remember much else. But like...obviously the feelings are from me since it's my brain but something is triggering them right? Just replace my case with the ocean with just about anything we value and their thoughts are it's the beliefs that create emotions, not said thing you like. I kept turning it over in my mind but with everything I like: video games, character classes in games, movies, etc, I couldn't avoid that some belief about that was affecting my feelings and I'm wondering if I'm not actually making a connection with said things but just imagining it or making it up. Does that make sense? IT's like the "we make our own meaning" but IMO taken to a kinda extreme. I'm lost on how to respond. Again I can't really post the lesson on here because it is LONG and I get flagged as spam trying to do so.

But I can give some quotes that I think captures the point, these are a collection so don't read them as one:

"This leads us to a whole different behavior which we get into later with relationships. Which is about we then have to control that person and make them do certain things so that they don’t do the things that make us upset. We end up trying to control another person, which we can’t do, based on the assumption they are controlling us or our emotions, which they aren’t doing. But if we believe the story that they tick us off, we believe they do and then we have to compensate with this story of “Oh, I have to make sure that they don’t do this” or “I have to make sure they do this, this way.” We end up trying to control people. Why? To minimize our reactions not to them, but to our agreements about them. The whole time not noticing that it’s our agreements, cause we hypnotized ourselves with our own story that they are causing it.

Let’s break down the structure of just the words and why words are so powerful in this. If we say, “He makes me feel”, “She makes me feel.” If we look at the actual words structure, this is saying, “They have a power to create in me a certain emotion.” We abbreviate it down and say, “He makes me feel”, “She makes me feel.” Just a couple of words. But if we look at the structure of what’s actually being said, it’s that they have a responsibility and power over what I feel emotionally. And they are able to control my emotions. If we said it that way, we’d kind of go, “Hah? That doesn’t make sense!” But if we say it in the short hand version and that comes out of our mouth so fast, we don’t know the lie that’s going on, we don’t know how we’re abdicating power over our emotional state and say, “Oh, they are in charge.” And this is huge."

“I was chatting with the client and I asked her, “What determines our emotional state?” And after doing the “Gratitude” exercise and having some mastery over shifting her point of view, which she learnt through hunting her attention, she could say, “Our attitude”. Then I asked her, “What do we say determines our emotional state?” She said, “Well, other people and outside circumstances”. And I had to laugh cause it was joyful to see she nailed it.”

“Sometimes people will see that and say, “Ok, if I just make all these agreements, then I’m going to make the agreement that I’m going to be happy about everything and commit to that.” That’s a wonderful direction to go and one we can eventually get to. However let’s be honest. We already have a lot of our personal power committed to these other agreements about what will make us happy and what will make us upset and angry or sad or fearful. And because we make the new agreement that we’re going to be happy about everything or certain things, even if someone is yelling at us, we have to be honest with ourselves that that new agreement we make may not be as strong and as powerful yet as the ones that we’ve been living by for years.”

The agreement part in that last one was REALLY iffy to me because it's saying that liking and disliking stuff is pretty much some agreement we made (unconsciously) to feel that way about X or Y.

Let’s say it’s cold and snowy. One person can say, “This is really bothering me out”. And another can say, “Oh, this is so beautiful, I love this, I enjoy this weather”. Now, one person saying, “This weather bumps me out, this weather depresses me.” The other says, “It makes me so happy”. Now, is it the weather that’s actually determining our emotional state? Does weather somehow go into each person’s emotional body and do something to facilitate a different emotional response? No. The weather is just the weather. It’s just doing what it’s doing. It’s not out there to determine anybody’s emotional state. With our agreements about weather we determine our own emotional state. We decide consciously or unconsciously about our agreements that this weather really depresses us or thrills us. What’s really happening is that we have an agreement to be down or up emotionally depending on a weather. We ignore that completely and say that the weather’s causing it.

What’s really happening is we have an agreement to be depressed or be down and we are committed to that agreement and when the weather is down we act in accordance with that agreement we have about the weather. It’s kind of “if-then” situation structure of agreement. “If the weather is lousy I’m going to feel this way.” Then let’s be clear. There’s the weather, this independent entity, there’re the agreements we have about it and we respond emotionally to the weather according to the agreements we’ve made. And how we respond emotionally to it just by agreement. Big problem here is that we don’t notice the agreement. What we do is instead of noticing the agreement we run off to our story, “The weather is causing me to feel this way.” We run those stories and in those stories we are telling ourselves to commit to the story that the weather is determining our emotional state. This is pure fiction. What’s actually determining our emotional state is our agreements about the weather. But we tell ourselves a lie we believe. What we’ve done is we’ve abdicated in our lives power to these agreements that determine our emotional state. We say, “He frustrates the heck out of me”, “If she does that one more time I’m going to get so pissed.” These are putting the power over our emotional state onto someone else, some other circumstances and then saying, “It’s them that’s causing us to feel this way.” As long as we do that, we are putting ourselves in a role of victim, where we’re powerless and by that token we are not in control over our emotions. They are responsible for our happiness, for us being upset.

This leads us to a whole different behavior which we get into later with relationships. Which is about we then have to control that person and make them do certain things so that they don’t do the things that make us upset. We end up trying to control another person, which we can’t do, based on the assumption they are controlling us or our emotions, which they aren’t doing. But if we believe the story that they tick us off, we believe they do and then we have to compensate with this story of “Oh, I have to make sure that they don’t do this” or “I have to make sure they do this, this way.” We end up trying to control people. Why? To minimize our reactions not to them, but to our agreements about them. The whole time not noticing that it’s our agreements, cause we hypnotized ourselves with our own story that they are causing it.

Let’s break down the structure of just the words and why words are so powerful in this. If we say, “He makes me feel”, “She makes me feel.” If we look at the actual words structure, this is saying, “They have a power to create in me a certain emotion.” We abbreviate it down and say, “He makes me feel”, “She makes me feel.” Just a couple of words. But if we look at the structure of what’s actually being said, it’s that they have a responsibility and power over what I feel emotionally. And they are able to control my emotions. If we said it that way, we’d kind of go, “Hah? That doesn’t make sense!” But if we say it in the short hand version and that comes out of our mouth so fast, we don’t know the lie that’s going on, we don’t know how we’re abdicating power over our emotional state and say, “Oh, they are in charge.” And this is huge.

Again I'm sorry about all this but I'm just hitting a wall with this material. I wish I could post the actual stuff but it's too long. I'm just hitting a wall. All I have is this sense that something isn't quite right about all of it but can't put it into words. Maybe folks not on the spectrum can help me, not to give the impression you are tools. More like I'm starting to learn my limits with my thinking.47.5.66.54 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Darwin advanced the theory that the physical behaviors, sounds, and expressions that accompanied emotions were probably instinctive developments that appeared in humanity's animal ancestors. This stuff bothering you is probably free-will related.The human brain is not a perfectly programable device. Humans are not angels and are not, and cannot be according to Darwin, in complete control of their emotions. But some people can be more controlled than others. It is not surprising that an individual person, with practice, can demonstrate extreme control over their emotions. The fallacy is the conclusion that anyone can do it or, that the person making the claim can always control themselves. Just saying something should be so is not evidence of anything, even that the speaker himself believes it.UncleKrampus (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess there is a point to that, I know something is off about what they say. Mostly that if you drill all the way down you will find something you don't or can't control and sometimes it might even appear to be the illusion of control.

They say stuff like "you are not the heart and mind" which sounds like you aren't your thoughts and feelings. Sorta like this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stop-avoiding-stuff/202204/you-are-not-your-thoughts

Which at first sounds ok to me, but the more I think about it the less sense it makes. Saying that you are not your thoughts because thinking something means that you can do the opposite of what you think, but isn't that a thought too? Also the fact that you are reading their words and being affected by them means you are the mind since you are influenced by them. The guy on the forum asked me if "are you the thought of you on the beach" and I told him yes. He asked how so. I didn't give a well formed answer on the spot but what I think is that all that is based on what you know. If you know not what a beach or anything like that is then you can't think about it. The same would go for any sort of philosophy or lens you examine reality with, despite what they believe there is no such thing as an unmeditated or direct experience of reality free of concepts and the like, despite them insisting they have felt it. The thought of you on the beach is imagining you, one the beach, based on what you know such things are, and that knowledge is also how you based your view and navigate reality. So in a sense it is you, but sorta not. It's complicated.

But that article in psychology today begged a lot of questions, like what is doing the opposite of what you are thinking or ignoring thoughts but just another thought? It sounds more like shifting the value you place on things. The same would go for the guy saying you aren't the heart, or your feelings (something I also heard in Buddhism). Emotion is the reason we do anything in life at all, since without it logic can't work and there is no better or worse choice to make. Despite what such people think we are ruled by emotions even if they think they are in control of them.

I just have a lot of doubt and questions when I start thinking about it, which sorta leaves me wondering how to feel and navigate my own life. Though I'm learning people of any spirituality aren't the ones to ask on this, they have what I call fake open mindedness.47.5.66.54 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Google The Onion Google The Onion[edit]

Google Answers, its recently released chatbot, actually used The Onion as part of its training set. This should have been an Onion story! This was according to Usama Fayyad.Wikipedia[12] Bongolian (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

What, you don't like glue pizza or eating your daily rock for health? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Other recent answers include: Cats on the moon, blinker fluid for your car, dogs playing professional sports. And some dangerous advice.
Google seem to be injecting search results from some system into the chatbot for it to summarize, also known as "retrieval-augmented generation" and mentioned as a way to mitigate hallucinations in our LLM article. That would seem to go along with how their AI Overview displays sourcing for the info. Maybe it should be added that such techniques don't improve matters when Onion articles and Reddit shitposts are used as the sources. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Notably one part of Google is working against another part of Google. At about the same time that the bullshit machine known as Google Answers was released, there was a report by mostly Google engineers describing the dramatic increase in falsified images since 2023, apparently surpassing other types of disinformation (mostly textual).[13][14][15] Bongolian (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The Atlantic is also working against itself, reporting on the CEO's "devil's bargain" with OpenAi.[16] Bongolian (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The new Google thing is called "AI Overview", not "Answers" (though it offers "answers"). "Google AnswersWikipedia" was an earlier human-driven question-and-answer site they had in the 00s.
Those items you found on disinfo point again to it being a good idea to have more articles. A general "Generative AI" article, beyond the current focus on LLMs, is a to-do I haven't got to starting (I may get to it later this year if no one else starts it first). And the related Deepfake is looking a little dated too. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Bad Financial Advice and Fake Gurus[edit]

Well, I just thought of this situation once again involving the Internet, and I am unsure as how to proceed concerning YouTube and many other platforms. It turns out, that because con artists like Robert Kiyosaki (and eventually scammers like Tai Lopez) got relative impunity for the deceitful words that came out of their mouths (The proper penalty grifters like Kiyosaki should have received back then and should receive now is life imprisonment without parole, but still.), there's been countless copycats that prowl the Internet and set up shop on YouTube and other platforms as influencers, with relative impunity themselves. One of the most common clickbait titles seen from nearly all of them is called "How They Keep You Poor". And major financial watchdogs are currently doing nothing to moderate the Internet concerning these scammers. Many of them claim to offer courses promising quick riches, but really contain tripe that lines the pockets of these influencers. And it's difficult to sniff out the fakes, since almost everyone clickbaits to get attention online. What should I do to put an end to these influencers and their financial scams? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Get-rich-quick scams have been on the Internet since... well, since pretty much the beginning of the Internet. No, really.Wikipedia Anything that will promise to make you a millionaire, won't.
That being said, Kiyosaki's book is in a category that is not necessarily a scam per se. Though I've heard plenty of bad things about Rich Dad Poor Dad, the category this book (or websites / podcasts / etc.) is in (personal finance), if it is a more *legitimate* media, could be useful for someone who lacks knowledge on how to budget etc. I do not personally have recommendations on what books, websites, etc. are good unfortunately, but I would be suspicious of *anyone* that asks for $$$ for info (unless its something like a highly regarded book, but these days I'm not sure you need to start there), as well as anyone that promises the moon; both are "seems shady" signs. There is a lot of free information out there that is good, you just need to sort through the bullshit. To give one example (from a quick Google, so "research further"), it seems like the Wiki for r/personalfinance on Reddit is well regarded. And it is free. BobJohnson (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I really wish those scammers and clickbaiters across the Internet get thrown behind bars in prison where they belong (preferably for life and without parole.). But how do we get to that point… TheEternalOutsider (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, to start, they'd have to be doing something that actually is, y'know, a scam in criminal terms. Writing a book full of bad advice isn't a criminal act. Neither is clickbait. :) There's no reason why either of those should be, neither are overt attempts to take your money in a deceptive way. Kiyosaki's advice may be shit, but I bet he really believes in it himself personally. There's definitely some "tightening up" that could be done with certain things though like multilevel marketing that are more deceptive at the core IMHO...
I have noticed that in recent years, the Federal Trade Commission has caught up a bit on things that truly would be scams if it was not done online, such as all of the cryptocurrency scams that has utilized some form of pump and dump manipulation or other shady finance techniques. So there's that. BobJohnson (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Don't take financial advice from the internet. Like seriously, don't.
If you want a more thoughtful answer though I assume and hope watchdog agencies do try to shutdown the most egregious misinformation and scam peddlers online, though I also imagine it is like playing whac-a-mole. And to argue both sides, the internet can be useful in learning general information about things such as finances... but the keyword is general information. Obviously, like other professional fields, the best thing to do before acting on such information may be to speak to a real life professional in said field (a financial advisor at your physical bank maybe?). The internet can be good, but should still be navigated with weariness IMO. For myself I've found that limiting the number of websites I visit and the time spent on them has greatly improved my day to day. Impiricism (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I like https://www.investopedia.com/ - good resource for teaching yourself about finance etc (though is very America-centric). For only knowledge is the defence against bad gurus.
Speaking of, once you get past the obvious crap, shills and cranks, the best most gurus can say is 'well it worked for me'. Now, if a pro bodybuilder is guru-ing me on how to get ripped, yes they are worth listening to but I shouldn't take everything as gospel - instead I running everything past my own knowledge base / common sense, keeping the old Sagan Standard handy and being wary of bias.
If you've got to the stage where you find yourself able to intelligently 'talk back' at sites /videos /books, you know you've got somewhere. Which means in short, you've gotta put in the effort to educate yourself first. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Sadly, it seems even Investopedia has a few hiccups with fake gurus themselves. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The Natural Law Argument: Am I on the right track?[edit]

In Dr. Jeff Miller’s book, Science vs. Evolution, he claims that since laws of science exist, they must have been created by a “lawgiver,” the God of the Bible. The problem I have with this argument is that natural laws are simply linguistic articulations about exceptionless facts about objects in the universe and their relationships to the universe, not rules created by humans that can be broken. The fact that scientific laws cannot be arrived at without a universe tells me that these laws are really human statements about objects in the universe and their relationships to the universe. What Dr. Miller can’t explain is how definite objects and relationships can exist without possible definite descriptions. Is this good reasoning? If not, how can I improve it?ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would say you are on the right track. Governmental laws resemble religious laws as delimitations of human behavior, while physical laws are simply accurate descriptions of physical objects and their interactions with their environment. UncleKrampus (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
That seems to be quite a jump in reasoning, doesn't it? Because there are scientific laws, they must obviously have been designed that way by the Christian god; why not Brahma, Zeus, or Cthulhu? Anyways. I do find your definition of scientific laws a little too artful... I'll use use this following definition from Wikipedia so that we're on the same page: "Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena". Snazzy right? When I was younger I was taught, and still am of the opinion, that scientific laws don't really explain why they work like they do, they just do. Why does something with a very large mass pull things towards it i.e gravity? Nobody knows "why", we just are very, very certain that it does through rigorous and exhaustive testing (apples almost always fall to the ground when dropped!). So I think this answers your question... this Dr. Miller (is he actually a doctor?) person does appear perturbed by the fact that finer details such as why are absent from scientific laws, and so he jumps to the fallacious argument of goddidit. Impiricism (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The "why they work like that" for natural laws is what research in quantum physics are working towards/trying to discover - eg string theory. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Ha, after re-reading my description of a scientific law, it does seem a little... contrived. The definition given by Wikipedia certainly is more succinct. As far as I know, Jeff Miller is a doctor. He has a Phd in Biomechanical Engineering from Auburn University. Engineers and woo.ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Why is it always engineers? Carthage (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The very use of the word "law" in science is a bit anachronistic. What we really have are repletely verified scientific theories. Nevertheless where "law" is used it simply describes what happens, it is a descriptive law. Human laws tell people what to do under threat or sanction. They are proscriptive and people can obey them or not depending on their inclination or appetite for risk.
I suspect that we are looking at equivocation.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
String theory? I'm actually in the middle of Brian Greene's book, The Elegant Universe! Personally, I think it sounds too good to be true. It really hasn't got much for it except elegance. Still waiting for them to discover gravitons.ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that is the fallacy of relevance here Bob. It should be said as well to Joshua that even laws in science are not per se exceptionless. It depends on the law itself, but the main difference between laws in the scientific sense and laws in the legal sense is that the former is merely descriptive while the latter is prescriptive. There is arguably a faulty analogy fallacy built into here in addition to the fallacy of equivocation. Many laws describe idealized conditions that do not genuinely occur in reality, as the law itself is merely to describe a functional relationship between variables. Laws are more like observed regularities, or abstracted relations between variables then they are exceptionless facts. There is a very influential but someonewhat controversial book in the philosophy of science that may be worth looking into. It is called "How the Laws of Physics Lie" by Nancy Cartwright. Though it should be said her target of exploration is specifically in the formalized relations expressed as "physical laws" and philosophers disagree if the laws in sceince are truly meant to describe the equations we ascribe as "laws" or if the "true" scientific laws are the one's expressed by forces in nature independent of human description. Which is to say, what is and is not a law is controversial. What prompted Cartwright's work specifically was the claim that biology was not a "true science" because it didn't possess "true exceptionless laws" like physics did. She wanted to prove that physics didn't possess such things either, but not possessing such things does not make physics any less of a science, so there is no reason to exclude biology from being a science either. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
So we agree?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, scientific laws are generalisations at best. Even the good old second law of thermodynamics doesn’t seem to hold sometimes! [17] [18].ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Rather weird my edit was reverted[edit]

Qwertydiy (talk) I decided to clarify that another person was not E. Michael Jones as they had the same name. I don't get why mine was reverted. Could you please clarify?

We're not in the business of shilling randos on the internet. Your hatnote is also poorly written and formatted. Carthage (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
"Michael Jones" is not an uncommon name at all (I can name at least one other Michael Jones) so I don't think that note is necessary in any way Plutocow (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Name confusion is something all persons with 'commonish' names have to deal with at times. I would only support disambiguation notes if the other X was also notable (ie has their own RW/WP page). KarmaPolice (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Your Michael Jones is a Christian apologetic who seems to have some bad takes on science (notably quantum stuff) and a few out there (for "mainstream" theologians, at least) philosophies (some seem to think that he follows Molinism.Wikipedia) Not fundie (often against fundie stuff, it seems) and not super cranky at first glance, but also not notable and quite off the mission. So not really something RW would cover one way or the other. BobJohnson (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Trump Guilty on all 34 counts![edit]

Trump is in a tight spot now son.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If he had just used some sense... I'm not sorry for people like that.ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
"12 New York jurors said they unanimously agreed that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to influence the 2016 election." This apparently means he's the first former US president convicted of felonies. Chillpilled (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Lock him up. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Rule 34!
Wait. CorruptUser 22:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
[EC] It may take a number of months, possibly over a year before Trump faces consequences, though. It seems to be generally believed that indecisive and "middle" voters are likely to abandon Trump now, though, so it may cost him the election even while he's free for perhaps another year while appeals etc. take place. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I doubt he'll be "locked up" even if he exhausts the appeals; this is a "biz" crime (falsifying records) at its core. The only reason it is a class E felony (the lowest kind in New York) is because the law [19] allows such when the intent is to commit, aid, or conceal a crime. (Which the prosecution apparently proved that he did, in that the hush money was a part of a conspiracy to commit election fraud.)
It is darkly amusing that this is promoting a "rally around the criminal" effect among Republicans, conservative pundits, and wingnut media. (Ladies and gentlemen, the Party of Law and Order!) But who cares about them? We know who they will vote for, it would probably take something like Trump shooting a puppy to get them to change their mind (and maybe not even then). Personally I doubt it will have much effect on the election (maybe a little around the edges among the undecideds, don't cares, and fuck 'em both crowd) compared to lots of other things... but we'll see. BobJohnson (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I think this means we should be absolutely terrified of whoever Trump chooses as VP; if he wins, and then gets removed from office... CorruptUser 23:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
He wouldn't be removed from office unless he resigned. Chillpilled (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
If he wins the general election, how could he serve as president while there is a possibility of him going to prison? There's no way he could perform his duties (such as meeting with foreign diplomats) from his cell, and he also can't pardon himself for a conviction that came from a state court. Tetrapteryx (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
An oldster that obese is basically a walking cardiac event. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with BobJ. This result won't move those solid supporters (either way) and I don't think it will move the needle much - even with moderate/floating voters. I will be amazed it this causes a 3% swing away from the Orange One - and if Biden doesn't pull his finger out he stands a very good chance of losing. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thinking about it, the main thing I can see maybe moving the needle a *touch* is the very probable likelihood that Trump will *constantly* whine about this case, that He's So Much A Victim Of The Democrat Elite or something, and tries to make a martyr out of himself. This of course will be "red meat" for his Biggest Fans, but honestly (should this happen, as I think is likely) I am guessing that this will seem rather pathetic to anyone looking at this objectively. Anyone observant of the last 8 years of Trump behavior of course would already know that Trump whining about always being the victim is "par for the course", but it's pretty clear that there are a *lot* of "low information" voters out there.
And, in fact, the "low information voter" is one of the "features" of the recent polling that makes predicting the 2024 election tough to me. At least in the New York Times polls, a curious feature was noted recently: Biden actually still has a small lead among people who actually voted in 2020; much of the Trump swing has been concentrated among people who didn't vote in 2020.[20] This repeats in a few other ways (there's a "Trump bump" among those who only get their "news" from social media or barely pay attention to politics). Will the constant Trump whine actually connect with non-MAGA Trump supporters, or will it help make some of this low-information "Trump bump" say "fuck em both" and stay home? Who knows. This is a wilder "wild card" than a few other of the "election questions", such as "how much will 'the Israel deal' hurt Biden?" or "are pollsters underestimating the pro-choice vote again?" But... it's "something". BobJohnson (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Busted!Koafox (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I could see him passing off some responsibilities to his VP the way presidents already do when they're hospitalized. Cheney was acting president for a few hours when W. Bush had a colonoscopy at least a couple of times. There's reportedly already been some planning by the Secret Service on how to maybe work this out though, from at least a security angle. Chillpilled (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Need more convincing.[edit]

Would you guys mind devil's advocating me? I'm not convinced that intelligent design shouldn't be given equal footing with abiogenesis, because neither intelligent design nor abiogenesis have been observed. As an agnostic, I find it helpful to argue with myself over [metaphysical :)] questions, because it helps me see both sides of the argument. I'm excited to hear your responses!ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What mechanism would intelligent design use? Research into Abiogenesis includes seeing organic molecules all across the universe and mechanisms for producing most if not all of the pre-life requirements - proteins, peptides, sugars, etc., and or working models for how these might have combined. And research into abiogenesis is ongoing whereas research into intelligent design stops after reading Genesis. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
We have much more evidence for abiogenesis, and as Aloysius says, working models for how abiogenesis may have taken place, than we ever will have for intelligent design. On the other hand, we have created synthetic life in the laboratory, so a kind of ID is possible. Just, you know, made by naked apes and not divinities. Carthage (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
True. If we take the widest sense of the term "evidence," I suppose one could say there were evidence for intelligent design, but it would not be sound evidence. It would not be sound because the sequence of cosmic causation resulting in life would have been interrupted by miracles, not only once, but for as many instances as would be necessary to establish God's existence, by repeating the same arguments. We can't explain what was behind the first one-celled creature (sometimes called LUCA). There is clearly a "god of the gaps" argument in play. Intelligent Design is not a sound argument because of the infinite regress implied by accepting such arguments. If we accepted such an etiology, and subsequently a standard scientific explanation were discovered, then, it could be argued, on the same evidence, intelligent design must have been in effect prior to the first appearance of LUCA. There is no end to it, because ID is unfalsifiable as a general theory. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The intelligent design design is circular. It either already assumes a "god" exists and then uses this "god" to explain the world. Or it claims the world is designed and that this is evidence the "god" exists.
To put it another way it needs two unsupported assumptions. "A God exists" and "The world is designed". Each unsupported assumption is then used to support the other.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

is fear the "mother" of morality[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3e-DNsUEIZg

I was linked the above by someone who quoted Nietzsche and I think he's got it wrong, on top of it being JP. Thinking morality is based on fear sounds like someone stuck in the Christian notion of it with "be good or else". But that's stupid and narrow minded, most people I meet aren't actively thinking of harming others and as we developed the world (IMO) has gotten more stable as we see that we are all humans and not separate tribes.

Like...the "Bad things" are harmful not just because they hurt others but they affect us too. Murder for one does harm to the mentality of the person who does it, just look at soldiers in war. It's not really a fear of doing the bad stuff it's just that "why would you do the bad stuff"? Most people with basic empathy wouldn't harm others I'd think.47.5.66.54 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there's more evidence supporting the altruistic gene as such a driver than fear. Fear is likely an influence, but that video has no actual evidence - it is all supposition and some pretty shoddy reasoning IMO. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
There is work by Jonathan Haidt, which I haven't read, which explores emotionally rooted dimensions of morality and how they vary in people. It seems like a sort of temperamental variation in how people compare in these. This suggests various areas of brain circuitry are involved.
Fear plays a part in that it's arguably tied to all motivation to avoid bad things, speaking fully generally. A lack of such brain function may lead to a life fully free from the pressure subjectively experienced as fear, but likely at the cost of dying quite early. Placing the center of attention on fear seems to miss the mark, as it's more a basic function than anything specific to morality. However, people who have no moral scruples, like psychopaths, but who still avoid certain things that are seen as immoral when it suits them, may come closer to having a fully fear-based "morality". ApooftGnegiol (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
"...fear is the "mother" of morality..." is a poetic statement and not a scientific one. Metaphysics and poetry are not all that different in the use of metaphor. Therapists often use poetic language because their clients would not typically benefit from a scientific explanation.UncleKrampus (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
We evolved as cooperative social hunters, so the evolution of normative behaviors to maintain group cohesion would come about as part of the package suite of adaptations that came with a switch from the "competitive collaboration" model of other social primates to the truly cooperative model of hunting-gathering only exhibited by members of the genus Homo. Carthage (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Jordan Peterson has gone from philosophy to autor, in the strongest way, to protester to author in also the the strangest way, this would be his lobster era, to a really strange era filled with crying. Which, I get that. A lot of substance Abuse leads to involuntary crying. Kavanaugh crying was like, was that a man who likes beer or can't go a day without it? And since Peterson's incredible resuscitation from coma, he's not talking about addiction. What a dork. Torrent (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you stupid?[edit]

It's never the end, I mean what terrible end is this? I like you guys because you'll do shit that isn't reliant on ratwik. Do it. You need a Scooby snack? You don't, and let's make June a month less about ourselves, you weirdos. Torrent (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I will go first. I think, living alone, paper plates bowls and cups is greener than washing stoneware. Torrent (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
All right. This is the 32nd annual St. Stupid's Day Parade brought to you by the First Church of the Last Laugh, the world's fastest growing snack religion, 150 percent less dogma. The religion has one holy day a year and I'm Bishop Joey, secretary First Church. I'm here to bring you to the first station of stupid… the Federal Reserve Headquarters.

[21] Bongolian (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Does the header qualify for a drink? Anna Livia (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it has to be a stupid drink.[22] Bongolian (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Can someone make Trumpism icon[edit]

I'm making a Trumpism navigation sidebar and I want to make an icon but I can't because I can't draw so can someone make the icon ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just use the U. S. politics icon? Monet Ye 15:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
An orange trumpet festooned with trumpery? Anna Livia (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
A MAGA hat because that is Trumpism's most known symbol ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
A MAGA asshat (variously "Make the Asshole Go Away" or "My Ass Got Arrested"). Bongolian (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Do we even need a sidebar for “Trumpism” though? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Good question. Are there any devoted to single person? I don't think so. It just feeds into the cult. Bongolian (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)