RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

edit

Trump rejoicing and "honoured" over probably innocent deaths; posts video of shooting

What a piece of sh*t. I've been watching this situation as I'm sure it won't end well for Mr. « 7 wars ended ». New world (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there any strong evidence that these were anything other than drug runners? Because unless you wanna say that England & France were the good guys in the Opium Wars... CorruptUser 06:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@CorruptUser There is clear evidence (and declarations from close ones) the second Colombian ship was of an innocent fisher from Santa Marta, a Colombian coastal city which is fairly touristic and off a little from the Venezuelan coast. He drifted for some reason and got shot in Colombian territorial waters. There is less information on the Venezuelans shot, but Venezuela exports way less drugs than Colombia. And Colombia's president isn't a "drug leader", that's false: in fact, he wants to legalise cocaine (the substance, coca plants are legal there anyway and it's normal), which would greatly hurt the illegal market ruining millions of lives, as has been proven with alcohol and cannabis.

Beyond that, you can't just shoot people in other countries' territorial waters and then rejoice over it (especially without proof of wrongdoing, and while clearly planning an invasion of Venezuela for its ressources). New world (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to wait until actual evidence comes out one way or another. On the one hand, probably a smuggler, but on the other, the military has lied before... CorruptUser 07:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to ask: are you a Trump supporter? If you don't support him, then I suggest you look into the situation a little more, independently of political orientation beyond Trump. Because the US-military (there are many who don't live in your country) definitely doesn't have the right to shoot supposed drug smugglers without proof in the Caribbean, especially if the supposed "smuggler" was, according to most experts, just a fisher, and a fisher of a historic US-ally, Colombia, killed in Colombia's national waters. All of this while the world is reporting Trump wants military escalation in Venezuela. Now, if you put the dots together, you realise there are American bases in Colombia, but Colombia's president is opposed to Trump's invasion plans. Seems like this has nothing to do with drug dealing.

And honestly, legally this is dubious, @CorruptUser, it is not the job of the USA to shoot Colombian citizens even though Colombia's president doesn't want them to do that. It's not some kind of joint military operation, it's legally speaking a legitimate casus belli. And in Venezuela's case, the quantity of drugs exported from there to the USA is not high, like, at all, so it's pretty clear this is just an excuse. If you want to "liberate" Venezuela, at least say so, instead of killing fishers from other countries. It might even just be a mistake, but that's unlikely. New world (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Not a fan of Trump, he's basically "Nixon, if he was slimier and less competent". This administration is a mix of one or two really good things, some ok things, some dubious things, and an unending deluge of horrifying things. CorruptUser 05:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Even if (and that’s a pretty big if) these people were indeed drug smugglers, since when did that become grounds for what amounts to execution without trial by a foreign power?

Also, how is a colonial drug trade that was run by a state backed companies and supported by the navy of the mother countries in waging an outright war of aggression to compel another country to accept the import and sale of these drugs equivalent to seemingly random, suspected criminals that might be smuggling drugs being killed by the most powerful military in the world operating well outside of its own territorial waters?

Hell, would anyone condone any other countries/militaries behaving this way? What if countries started shooting down civilian US planes and sinking civilian US ships suspected of smuggling illegal drugs or some other dangerous illicit goods (say, guns)? It’s not like there aren’t plenty of less drastic, lethal and irrevocable alternatives to this kind of shoot first and (maybe) ask questions later (or just shrug). Nor is there any claim that these killings were in any way some form of self defence. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Trump threatens Colombia with war

I know it's a lot of posts on this, but it's justified. The US possesses military bases in Colombia, and this situation is acutely dangerous and everyone should realise. Petro is a left-wing president of Colombia and supported détente with Venezuela, Trump might plan to start in Colombia before continuing in Venezuela. Let's hope he fails. New world (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely hate humans

Caution: SEALION ahead!

I did not attend the no kings protest, not because I do not oppose the Fascist United States (I absolutely despise the current regime), but because I have zero empathy or sympathy for the people of this country or anyone on this planet. Call me a victim blamer all you want but everyone who opposes the system had every opportunity to mobilize and actually take action but just didn't for some reason, holding up signs in the street and shouting doesn't do anything, shooting a fucking gun does. Even if you don't live in the United States, look at South Korea, yet for some reason nobody in the EU, North America, or anywhere is doing anything about the global slide to authoritarianism. A pen is useless against a sword when AI writes everything people see and money decides the views of the articles AI trains on, humanity had multiple warnings and yet they were ignored. Humanity got what it asked for and I hope it suffers for it. I genuinely have no love in me for anyone anymore. TheAceOfOne (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It's important to bear in mind that many people are not attuned to politics. Just living one's life can be exhausting for the poor. As an individual one can feel helpless and give up. The only hope in opposing fascism is solidarity (building bridges across personal or group interests), and compassion for others. Alone, we have no power but in groups, we can exercise power. Historian of authoritarianism and fascism, Timothy Snyder, and others have written about the importance of compassion in opposing authoritarianism.[1] The Heritage Foundation, the architect of the current regime, has directly opposed the idea of compassion.[2] Lack of compassion is basically misanthropy, and quintessential misanthropic tech offering is LLM/ChatGPT, which has been gloated about by tech CEOs in connection with mass firings of workers[3] (in Marc Benioff's case, he used the dehumanizing term "heads").[4] So, which side are you on?[5] Bongolian (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bongolian Why would I like AI? Why would I like something that was conceived and brought to life by the absolute worst of humanity, then mimics human behaviors, consuming information and regurgitating it? This is a genuine question by the way. TheAceOfOne (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

If you truly have "zero empathy or sympathy for the people of this country or anyone on this planet" then why would you bother worrying about the current regime? What is the point of this whining tripe?Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it makes perfect sense to be worried about fascism from an egoistic perspective. The Niemoller poem doesn't go "and then they didn't come for me" after all. Antares (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't claim that you liked AI, and that wasn't really the point that I was trying to make, that many tech CEOs who are aligned with AI being used everywhere lined up quickly with the current regime (Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Cook/Pichai). Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bongolian If anything that proves my point about a pen being useless against a sword when the money is deciding what the AI slop is training on, I'll start feeling better about humanity when all the NASDAQ 500 CEOs get assassinated TheAceOfOne (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I do have empathy, but less and less sympathy over the years (I used to have too much for everyone, which just made me sluggishly stuck in inner considerations that led nowhere). Actually, as someone not in the US, I'm very torn currently on whether the current US political situation and such is comedy or something to be upset about. I also think it may be good for the world to have less of the bad aspects of US leadership, and the global role of the US is crumbling while the rest of the West is closing ranks and looks set to grow stronger without the US. The only problem is, the order in the US falling apart as the circus intensifies doesn't necessarily mean that something good-enough for those concerned will replace it.

As for humanity at large, I've felt very torn ever since I was in my teens. If you have a heart and see past contradictions, then you know that the world runs on misleading rhetoric and that by and large, people simply don't care about people, in fact most people like to turn a blind eye to those who hurt others for fun and don't mind civilized institutions shielding things like ordinary bullying, otherwise the world would look very different. By and large, people do not care nearly as much as rhetoric makes it seem like they do, in many areas. In general, people are pretty nasty when not in a social context that puts their finer behavior on display. Concerning these general things, little more can ever be expected in the absence of radical genetic engineering.

So, on current trendy fascism. Online, some people abbreviate it as "fash", which at first made me wonder what they were shortening -- was it "fashion" perhaps? Well, these are the current political fashionistas, aren't they? A few decades later it will be something else. Now it's fascism. This has happened because, well, people at large don't care much about stuff at odds with it, and so historical 'accidents' are always possible. But in the US, people still cling to some US tradition stuff which happens to clash firmly with the radical developments of Trumpism now, hence "no kings" and such. I.e., they're too conservative for Trump, wanting to conserve the old, and who knows if that will lead to something or will fizzle out. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The solution is actually pretty simple, just jump off the fucking deep end and become a nihilist. I'm a prime example, when nothing matters, you don't care that you are most likely not going to die under your preferred name and pronouns, plus, what's even the value of dying under your correct identity if you won't be there for people to honor your passing? It doesn't make me less scared of dying, but it does help me care less about not coming out to anyone. TheAceOfOne (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Self-indulgent bullshit. Go outside. Christopher (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Scream!! (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

New world (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Ioe bidome (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

And? TheAceOfOne (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

And what the fuck have you done personally to fight authoritarianism in your own country? KarmaPolice (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice What do you want me to do? Go out and hold an anti trump sign up? That is about as effective as sending a mean tweet except I could go to jail for that. TheAceOfOne (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Your plan for fighting fascism is to hold up signs and shout things, their plan to beat us is to SHOOT US, WITH GUNS. TheAceOfOne (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you 'what you need to do' because I don't know who you are and what is realistically within your power to do. What's more, you do not know what my plan would be if my own country was engulfed in the shitshow which is happening in America right now. Nor can you really lecture folks 'in not acting' when you yourself won't do it 'because I might go to jail'. Your total hypocrisy on this reeks. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The heck are you saying? They are clearly doing something, telling strangers on the Internet how they are better than everyone else, those pesky inferior humans. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

If I want to listen to someone going on about how horrible it is being a perfect person living in a world of cretins, jackanapes and lollygaggers I'll go and talk to my sibling. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Interesting specimen we got here. TheAceOfOne, why are you arguing with some old guys on RationalWiki about this if you think everything is so pointless? Mariofan18 (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The world is not nearly as bad as social media makes it out to be. Stop whining and do something to improve your own life. Acquire skills, go to the gym, get a hobby, work harder, meet someone.

For most people, their biggest oppressor is in the mirror. CorruptUser 06:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

So... in the world of Corrupt, all the concerns that American democracy is in it's death-throes is 'all in social media' and don't really need to worry about it? KarmaPolice (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

So Karma, what do you do for work? CorruptUser 16:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

What the hell has that go to do with the question? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

It does seem like a bizarre non sequitur. I was looking forward to the justification.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how to respond without stepping on your toes, so to speak.

But, short answer, life is far better than social media would have you believe. Social media is like the news; you get more clicks from reporting things are bad than things are good. The whole "our rights are being violated", well, our rights were always being violated but less so today than decades ago. If you do have a job (part of why I was asking), you are actually doing pretty well, except for both rent and health insurance, but you probably don't want to hear my solutions for those. If you don't have a job, you're probably gonna have trouble as the government shutdown interferes with welfare.

But if you want me to scaremonger the way social media does, Canada is drowning in a wave of sexual predators that nobody wanted, and the person responsible for it is in a Lesbian relationship with Katy Perry or something. Europe is being conquered, everyone is too scared to fight back, the courts have just decriminalized rape if the rapist has premature ejaculation. Blah blah blah scaremongering. CorruptUser 23:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now. You think I'm some kind of basement-dweller who spends their huge amount of spare time on social media doomscrolling? Well, sorry to burst your stereotypes here, matey. I not only have employment [and the sort which you cannot watch say, FB on the sly], but a series of interests/tasks which take me away from screens. I don't do social media, I'm not online much either. And the internet enshittification is making me to 'go back' to things like books. My main sources of info on 'the American situation' are the BBC, Simon Marks, the Guardian, the Economist and the Times, with the occasional entries from American sources such as Newsweek, CNN and The Hill - hardly folks who are unreliable sources and more importantly, mainly have their own reporters so it's not a situation where they're all coming off the same source with no verification. What else? Oh, I have my own property, thanks very much. It's the opposite of a 'neckbeard basement' what with it's pleasant decor, lack of trash and anime porn on the walls. Is there any elements of character assassination I've missed?

But anyway... let me nail you down. Are you saying that all the concerns about Trump, MAGA, ICE, Project 2025, erosion of law and demoacray et al are all just fabrications and/or exaggerations on social media? That in the grand scheme of things, America is 'as free and democratic' in 2025 as it was in 2015? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

How the actual fuck did me ranting about the failures of humanity turn into denial of authoritarianism? TheAceOfOne (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Trump isn't a prick/authoritarian, only that he isn't any more so than Obama was. Yes, there are legitimate issues, but the media exaggerates things. Calm down and live your life.

When the media itself is constantly singing the guy's praises then worry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ CorruptUser 04:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

And by that time, Corrupt you have lost your country. You are either utterly ignorant, a liar or a fool to peddle the line 'Obama was as bad as Trump'. Let us just pick one aspect - the way that Trump is blatantly and repeatedly weaponising the justice department, federal investigators etc to go after people he personally hates. Obama never did that. But we know the main reason for claiming that, no? It's because if you can sit there beating bothsidesism and declaring they're exactly the same, you don't have to do anything about it. Fuck, I'd have more respect if you'd just said outright that as you don't believe Trump will hurt your own world personally, you don't give a crap. Just don't bloody come back to whine if the leopard then eats your face.

Corrupt's advice - which is basically, 'to retreat into OwnLife and ignore the maelstrom of shit flowing about you' a depressingly good advice. Because the truth is, authoritarian regimes usually make an implicit deal with domestic detractors; that as long as you become utterly politically inert, that you turn into your own 'little bubble' of life and nay make a peep about the crimes you see being committed, we will leave you alone [exception; if you are a designated Other]. It's why in places like the late USSR you'd see millions of folks distracting themselves [consciously nor not] by sports, hobbies, kids, the garden, dense classic novels and the vodka bottle - using these to either fill the void in your life which should be filled with self-expression, philosophical debate, political discourse and simple human curiosity or distracting your energies. That you learn [and learn well] the concept of 'face'; in that you develop an bland, amicable and politically safe public face you show the world and keeping your 'private face' [ie the real you] only to be shown to those in your circle of trust. Which realistically shall only be a few select members of your immediate family - if even that. Naturally, this falls to bits the moment 'Authority' designate you an Other and offers zero hope things might ever get better - but hell no plan is fullproof.

How did we get onto this, OP? It's because I took you here deliberately. Because the world is full of 'Corrupts' of varying levels and they're hard to argue against because they live in a world of profound cynicism - that 'nothing really changes', 'everyone is equally shit', 'both sides are equally crap' and so on. Never do they offer any positive suggestions ever and almost to a person I have seen them ultimately fall into shades of the 'Contrarian Intellectual' subtype on 'who goes MAGA?' who properly hits the glide-path into hat-dom when they say that Obama was 'equally authoritarian' as Trump. Yes, because don't we all remember those screeds of hate Obama used to do, those speeches where he'd reel off his 'enemies list' and order federal officials to go after them? All those times he threatened allies with invasions, deliberately ignored court rulings and deployed the armed forces into American cities?

But this is the worse variant of 'Contrarian Intellectual' because I'd have some respect for them if they did genuinely believe 'Obama was as bad as Trump' [or similar] and was equally as vocally against Trump as they had been Obama. But oddly enough, that's really fucking rare - like all those folks who bleat about 'loss of free speech' on uni campuses re: transwomen or abortion but they go suddenly fucking silent when Gaza protests are banned and staff members being sacked for 'antisemitism' aka 'critiquing the Israeli govt'. In some ways, they're even worse than 'the White Moderate' who usually accepts your points but then steadfastly refuses to fucking do anything about them unless it doesn't cost them anything at all, is not opposed by anyone and they don't have to do anything. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

awarded for the brilliant takedown of Cory.-Flandres (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Gee, I hope he doesn't use the IRS to go after his opponents' political action committees, collaborate with big tech to censor stories he doesn't like, drone strike US citizens without trial, consider expanding the Supreme Court in order to pack it, or import tens of thousands of migrants into swing states in order to nudge them permanently in his direction. That'd be super scary. CorruptUser 03:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Pop-science on how conspiracy theorists tick

I read in a Swedish pop-science magazine[6] (paper) about research on conspiracy theorists. What distinguishes them is not something well-covered on RW at present, so I thought this may be particularly interesting. An older finding from other studies is that roughly a third of people believe in more common conspiracy theories. Roughly half as common is belief in more fringe conspiracy theories. This appears stable over time.

During the covid pandemic, people were recruited into a study at Karolinska Institutet that ended up examining how their conspiracy theories developed over time, in relation to their personality traits. From older work more tied to psychiatric questions, there's the personality factor of how prone to psychosis and prone to delusion a person is. Everyone is somewhere on the spectrum of that trait, few are truly extreme either way. (Positive features tied to the trait have been speculated about, such as possible increased creativity, or even survival in genuine totalitarian hellholes where things are as crazy as conspiracy theorists believe the rest of the world to be.) Information processing in the brain is tied to the trait, and genuine psychosis (ill states) show a more extreme version of how brains work in healthy people high in the trait.

So the finding was, those high in the trait did indeed form more covid conspiracy beliefs, and that was stable over years. People were also given the BADE test (bias against disconfirmatory beliefs), which measures another trait -- how rigid people are in maintaining beliefs once they have formed them, in the face of conflicting evidence. Turns out that trait goes along not only with the other trait, but with the conspiracy thinking too. (It was already known that psychotic and psychosis-prone people score high in BADE, but conspiracy theories as such hadn't been looked at the same way.)

The article mentions a theory about how this works in the brain. There's a hierarchy of predictive models in the brain, and when stuff we're faced with doesn't match one, an "error signal" alerts brain systems. This may lead to the model changing, and/or to our perceptions and judgment changing while models do not, bridging the gap from one or both ends. If lower-level models are more flaky and error signals are sent upward all the time, it may make people experience the world as generally strange or different, and may make things more screwy in the more abstract and mental higher-level models. That's generally believed to be the case in psychosis. The tentative conclusion from the research is that the same holds true to a smaller extent for people prone to adopting conspiracy theories. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I can't remember where I read it, but it was about flat-earthers and their desire to be counter-cultural, intellectual, and part of an in group. Most flat earthers believe the Bible is an accurate account of the entire cosmos, so not being skeptical of that, their bullshit detector goes *ding* well past the point. It's like applying Occam's Razor to a recipe you used the wrong ingredients for, but refuse to admit your steak tartare got you sick because you used pork instead of beef. It must be something...Torrent (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Alt-Tech Spillover

Just to gauge the current situation online, just how dangerous are various alt-tech platforms (individually and collectively) to the greater Internet and society at large? While alt-tech platforms by themselves are insular and full of lunatics anyway, the spillover of users onto other sites or to the public is what is most dangerous about these dens of hatred. That's because some of their words turn into actions. (Some examples of alt-tech include 8kun, Kiwi Farms, Gab, BitChute, Rumble, and others just to name a few.) TheEternalOutsider (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. Because all the lie/hate peddlers can happily sit on 'main Tech' now, which means the main reason for the alts to exist is now gone. In fact, the dwindling folks who don't want to lap from a sewer might need their own 'alt tech' to satisfy those non-turdy needs. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, affirming what KarmaPolice has said, though I will disagree with absolute statement "not at all"; they are certainly dangerous. But are they much more dangerous than the "regular" tech platforms? Handles like LibsofTikTok have done their damage's worth and didn't need to use any of these sites to their advantage. The guy that sniped that one smirking man in Utah got a gun and chatted in Discord with folks. I still think the alt tech stuff is host to some of the worst of the worst and they're probably the kind of site that would further radicalize the person to buy a gun (oh yeah let's not forget how the current gun laws abet in making these people more dangerous). But their influence is relatively limited to the dumpster island they're on, and this is on top of the fact that the kind of reach of social media sites like Twitter (formerly known as 4chan) and Facebook is already somewhat limited. Mariofan18 (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Why is the site down so much?

Wikipédia also experiences immense quantities of vandalism, yet it is not nearly as vulnerable to shutdowns as this site. New world (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's more the bots than the valdalwankers.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Technical_support#Rolling_503s. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Category proposal

I think that there should be a category dedicated to Military occupation. Several countries are under Military occupation such as Palestine and Ukraine. --Trans Fem Agenda 23:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

At what point will the USA get a (dis)honourable inclusion on the list? Anna Livia (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

After the occupations of Iran and Afghanistan. RagingHippie (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

In the traditional sense, no. In a different sense, the US streets are occupied by the military. --Trans Fem Agenda 23:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I was noting that there was an element of military occupation in some localities. (A military presence to deal with disasters, crowd control, 'sniper presence on tall buildings along the route of a state visit (I have seen this once) etc which then disperses does not count). Would Northern Ireland during The Troubles be included in your category? Anna Livia (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't see why not. --Trans Fem Agenda 21:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Generally as per WP, military occupation refers to occupation of a territory that is not formally part of the occupying country's territory. So, The Troubles would not be included in this definition since Northern Ireland has been part of the UK since before The Troubles. If one makes the definition broader to include domestic military occupation, then most parts of the world have had it at some point in time. Bongolian (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Trump’s latest trick to bilk the public coffers

Trump is now trying to cash in on his BS about being a poor innocent victim of persecution by the evil/deep state under Biden by trying to bilk the Department of Justice for $230 million in “compensation” for this supposed persecution (e.g. the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago in 2022 and the subsequent indictment for having illegally taken classified documents, as well as the investigation into Trump’s possible involvement in the Russian attempts at interfering in the 2020 election).

Normally, this would be tossed out immediately, but with his hacks and loyalists in charge of it, the DoJ will almost certainly waive the normal privilege of sovereign immunity. Hence, the question is whether it will be possible to stop the DoJ from just coughing up the money, given that the current DoJ leadership is probably not going to contest the claim. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to stop this - but only if the Big Public scream loudly enough about it. Or more particularly, the Republican Big Public. Quite a lot of the Republican 'elite' who have kissed the MAGA ring owe fuck all actual loyalty to either the Orange Nero or the MAGA project in general. But as we all know, they have no spine either - it's all about self-preservation and good ol' 'path of least resistance'. We should all fucking know this by now; never rely on them doing the right thing, but the easiest thing and the best thing for themselves personally.

Therefore, if sufficient weight is placed on their backs and [this only applies to elected officials] they start to wonder if this will cost them their re-election their jelly-spine will flip into resisting it. This is a little easier than it looks, because Trump is really unpopular and shows no realistic hope that it shall improve - some of them shall already be eyeing up their seat polling and starting to sweat [it's why they're leaning in super-hard in voter suppression and gerrymandering, because they won't be able to win otherwise]. This might be the thing which 'breaks the spell'. Probably won't be, but you never know. But the reason that I say that 'it just could be' is because the logic-chain in justifying this claim is so fucking iffy.

On a counterpoint to this, we very well might end up with the thing not getting built because the contractors/suppliers refuse to do the work because a) they don't know who's gonna pay their bills and b) Trump is a known deadbeat and fucker-overer in the construction industry. I wouldn't put it past him [for example] simply sending those bills to the Treasury with a note ordering them to pay it. What happens if Congress flips [or even grows some balls] and orders a block on this? No company wants to be sitting on tens of mil debts for possibly years. Or having to write it off, because it enters a 'can't pay, won't pay' territory? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

My brain is working again and I am getting back to writing.

I am starting the story with a diary entry. I have the idea of a post apocalyptic civil war; the remaining federal government vs. pockets of survivors. I plan on having fast and slow zombies. There will also be variants of zombies. Everyone in the world is infected with an inactive form of the zombie virus. Upon death, the virus activates and reanimates the bodies of the dead. People bitten by zombies will turn much faster. My world will be divided into micro-states. Some countries are completely devoid of living people. I take inspiration from the Newsflesh trilogy by Mira Grant, the Walking Dead and Left 4 Dead. I intend on creating a detailed universe. --Trans Fem Agenda 20:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

This is by far the best work I've seen from you. The diary format is exactly what you were missing for your exposition, I think you've figured that much out. Torrent (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Federal lockdown

How are things proceeding? Anna Livia (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It's a shutdown, not a lockdown… quite different. The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has refused to reconvene. This has made it become apparent that Johnson is doing so to keep the FBI's Epstein papers from being released, and thus protecting the Orange Anus in the Sky, who is known to be named in the papers. Opening the House would force him to swear in a newly elected Democrat who tip the vote for obtaining and releasing the papers. Bongolian (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

'Shut' and 'lock' have a certain overlap and 'shutdown' is not in common UK parlance. But at some point the workers involved will run out of funds/decide to go for paying jobs - and those with skills may get head hunted and not return. Anna Livia (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of Epstein, Anna Livia… Doesn't the House of Commons' proposed investigation into Prince Andrew's finances open op a can of worms for every Royal's corrupt finances? Bongolian (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Probably only Andrew and Harry(-and-Megan) are poorly regarded - the rest are seen in a positive (eg Anne) or neutral (eg Edward) light, and some at least of their spending would happen regardless (the palaces would have to be maintained, patronage spent etc. Besides the HofC is poorly regarded 'hands in the till, snouts in the trough and fingers in the fleshpots' (this last from someone for whom English was not a first language).

How is Jeremy Corbyn doing the UK?

Mélenchon in France, Mamdani in the USA, and Die Linke in Germany seem to be on the rise again, but what about Jeremy Corbyn's new movement "Your party"? Especially considering the English seem to be not far from facing the collapse of the social-traitors on the centre-left, with the rise of the far-right. The situation is honestly extremely similar to Hollande's presidency, but with Manuel Valls as president (as Starmer seems more conservative and liberal). In 2015–2016, the media largely ignored Mélenchon as a secondary candidate, and it only became clear to them very late that La France Insoumise was becoming the dominant movement on the left (with the PS imploding as the social-liberals went to Macron and the socialists to Mélenchon), while National Rally's rise was much more documented (and nobody was expecting Mélenchon to be a big player in 2015, discussions even revolved around "tripatism", which we now have, but in a completely different manner). New world (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

My guess; Corbyn is 'yesterday's man'. Unlike the others you've listed, Corbyn already had 'his chance' at the top, twice [2017 and 2019] and the second outing was a rout. Now, a lot of this 'was not his fault' [weaponised antisemitism, right-wing hit pieces, Third Way sabotage and Brexit] but he was proven to be incompetent at party management [ie his handling of the previous issues]. This general shambolic organisational ability has carried beyond Labour and now into Your Party; the way that the mooting of said party ran for months on end without any real sign, the half-baked launch [or not launch] where Sultana and Corbyn had a public spat over internal politics and their continued inability to really get their arse in gear. At a time [as you note] the Starmer Labour party seems to be doing all they fucking can do drive away from Labour anybody remotely left-wing, socialist or progressive and as such, should be capable of picking up millions of supporters and political defections. But they're not; hit up UK political polling and they are not even being polled on.

Why? Where has all that 'Corbynista energy' seen in the 10s gone? Well, I can tell you; quite a lot has ended up either in or near the Green Party's orbit. And to some extent they've done an 'entryist' action on it; swelling the membership over 100k, getting an avowed 'eco-socialist populist' elected as leader and the polls suggest they're eating Labour's left. Now, some of this is 'new leader bounce' and the fact official Labour seems to be fixated on Farage to exclusion to all other electoral threats but I think the seeds of a 'big tent' leftist party is there [whether they grow is another question].

That's the problem. That not only were the Greens savvy enough to 'park their tanks on Labour's lawn before Corbyn even got in his' but Polanski is young [42] and an unknown quantity. Corbyn is old [76] and a very known quantity. And a lot of those 'knowns' are divisive. His extreme floppiness over Ukraine puts him too close to tankie territory for many folks liking and even folks who support his positions can't deny he's had a long history of liking a series of odious individuals and orgs - yes, folks made too much over his nice words for Hamas but the fact remains he did fucking say them. What's more, Polanski now has on his team quite a lot of the activists Corbyn used in the previous decade [which was vital in Labour's '17 NotShit result by using social media etc to bypass the biased old media].

But it gets worse. Corbyn has thrown his lot too much with 'the Gaza lot', aka the four independent MPs who ran on a Palestinian ticket in the last election. Three of which are distinctly socially reactionary, devoutly Muslim men who in most of the outings I see instantly makes me think the term 'regressive left' and at least once the term 'political crypto-Islamism'. This was in fact one of the rumours of the Corbyn/Sultana feud; that she ran afoul of the mafiya of said type of people [who have been hanging around Corbyn since the 90s] who if nothing else, won't like a woman talking, let alone being in a position of power. Though this isn't anything new; I'm old enough to remember quite a lot of 'them lot' back in the old Stop The War rallies in '03 which then morphed into the Respect Party, which then became the base support of another old Corbyn ally - George Galloway.

Which is the other issue Corbyn faces. That while Polanski squeezes Corbyn on the 'progressive' flank, Galloway [in his Worker's Party] is squeezing him on the 'socially reactionary, anti-Western' flank. And I don't believe Corbyn is either more charismatic/organised/funded than either of them to prevail and due to the electoral system, cannot support all three. The last issue is that Corbyn has managed to get almost no defectors from Labour's elected politicians [as of yet], even though he has tried to woo them [esp the ones who have been suspended for basically 'being too leftie']. That's not a good sign. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Admittedly, Mélenchon, if not an « exception française », is certainly a very French version of the phenomenon, but: he was first part of a European populist left inspired by the pink tide and later the Arab spring, lead at the time by Oskar Lafontaine. The UK's political culture seems just left enough for a "British Mélenchon" to seem plausible. There is a certain strategy associated with La France Insoumise which could work there too (and which is identifiably imitated by the Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders as well as Die Linke. That's not surprising, as France's left is an anachronistic exception to the current political climate in Europe). The basic idea revolves around ideas of "citizen revolution" in the Maghreb as well as Latin America, with various different "steps" which the left should take part in. I don't know if the UK could be considered as in a "citizen revolution" yet, but the political climate is definitely very heated. Next, you need to create a populist movement, centred around mass protests and new modes of struggle. For example, La France Insoumise has three official members, while the other adherents join through the internet website and participate in local groups, which organise and take part in political protest across the country as well as in other places, like French speaking Belgium or large foreign cities. The central idea: support someone, for now Jean-Luc Mélenchon, as candidate for the presidential election to put in place the very well-made political program “L'avenir en commun”, intended to revolutionise republican culture by ending the system of the fifth republic and calling a constituant assembly. In theory, the electorate of such a movement should be composed of "the people", the 99 % or 90 %, those neither part of the oligarchy nor super-rich. In practice, the electorate is mainly composed of disappointed socialists, the popular classes (which have a high amount of so-called migratory background, leading to accusations of "Islamo-leftism" not less ridiculous than those of "Judeo-Bolshevism" in the past) and the DOM-TOM (oversee territories) electorate.

Something like this seems very adaptable to the United Kingdom, but no movement seems to be seeing the day. The Starmer government is an immense disappointment (like Hollande's presidency), as many left-wing proposals of the political program were not respected. On top of this, a conservative political line was adopted, which shouldn't be OK with most Labour voters. Second, the political system seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) deeply flawed. There is no true constitution, and the practices and excitement around "the crown", which cost a lot of money, certainly could be removed. This means a populist electoral machine built around the proposal of a constituant assembly shouldn't be immensely unpopular, as it would mean giving the country any constitution at all. And third, the far-right is using a populist boulevard which the left could and should pick up on, but cannot with traditional "parties" (like the greens or "Your party").

Mélenchon's case is indeed very specific: he is a Mitterrandist with Trotskyist culture who decided to follow Mitterrand strategy to "eat" the communist party, and the rest of the left, just at a much smaller level. And it worked, with NUPES IN 2022. At the end, this strategy failed, but it definitely put Mélenchon on the same level of importance as Macron and Le Pen/Bardella. Now, the strategy is to have Glucksmann (the utterly uncharismatic new Macron, favourite "social-democrat" of the media and son of the pro-CIA philosopher and ex-Maoist André Glucksmann) as the other "left candidate", and a ton of centrist and traditional right-wing candidates, in order to end up with the far-right in the second round. To come back to the UK: The Green Party seems like Die Linke or the French communists, they might vote an eco-socialist at their head, but that won't change the internal disunity and debate which "parties" necessarily have, and they might stay "too nice" with Labour to take its place (as that should be their goal). In anything, a Corbyn-like figure could be "eating up" the greens to the point of irrelevancy, like what has happened multiple times with the communists, but that doesn't seems to be planned for now, from what you told me. New world (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Escalation in the Caribbean continues

Especially with the aircraft carrier they just sent. Considering many wars of the USA have been conducted completely illegally, it seems like this is headed to military escalation. Unless sending an aircraft carrier of that capacity is just "a warning"… but that's highly unlikely. New world (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

You can't invade a country the size of Venezuela with a carrier alone. That job would require a significant amount of forces etc to be put in, which the world would notice building up in Puerto Rico, Guantanamo Bay, Miami etc. However, there's a very good chance the Orange One will order them to blow up some more boats which may or may not be containing drugs and may or may not be within Venezuelan waters. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

He's preparing for an intervention. There is no other possible reason for his actions. Thankfully, we're not yet there, but it's going to come. And hopefully it won't succeed, but Trump clearly wants it to happen. New world (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't Venezuela trying to invade Guyana just a year ago? I think the US and Guyana have ok-ish relations, and there's the whole business of Exxon wanting to start drilling. I think that's the bigger reason for the carrier group. CorruptUser 04:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Military escalation/intervention need not be in the guise of an invasion and the latter is arguably the least likely means, if Trump decides to strike directly at Venezuela. I doubt that moving the carrier reflects any more than an escalation in posturing and sabre rattling, especially as I don’t see any sort of media blitz to lay the groundwork for direct military action, let alone invasion.

Sure, Venezuela has been a bogeyman for the US right for years and Trump has used it as one of his absurd justifications for doing an end run around the constitutional order with his self declared “invasions”/“emergencies”. But I see little evidence of the kind of targeted, intensive media campaign that preceded the Iraq War and an invasion of Venezuela would also risk putting Trump in the same basket as George W. Bush, a figure not held in high regards in the MAGA movement.

That’s not to say that other forms military strikes aren’t possible, though, and if it comes to it, I think that air/drone strikes are a far more likely scenario. That it won’t topple the Maduro regime doesn’t matter, because I don’t think Trump or anyone in his administration particularly cares about that, quite unlike the deep dedication to toppling Saddam that pervaded Dubya’s administration.

Instead, the primary focus of the Trump administration’s media campaign (if its haphazard communication can even be called that) has been on the use of military force domestically, rather than preparing for overseas action. Hence, the carrier relocation seems to be Trump’s version of gunboat diplomacy, something, btw, that’s not unique to his administration, as the redeployment of carrier groups to bolster US political posturing has an extensive history prior to Trump and is far from being a sure sign of actual, direct military action. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

There is worldwide reporting on the issue. Trump isn't as stupid as he’s often represented. This should be compared to the other wars of invasion of the USA in Latin America. It's just a matter of staying vigilant. If this is the case, more reinforcements will be sent. Regardless, the ones supporting the "It's just a psychological weapon" explanation most adamantly are people in the Trump administration and experts in support of US-interventionism. Again, better stay careful with such explanations. New world (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk's Grokipedia Launches.

Elon Musk has launched new venture, Grokipedia, as he think the other wiki is "too woke". And in turn it's another folk of the other wiki.

Elon Musk just launched “Grokipedia.” Users say it’s a biased Wikipedia clone John123521_{Democracy Dies In Darkness} 10:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

They have an article on us. Apparently Grok doesn't know how format sources. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 10:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean, it appears to be… fine. Not even far-right, just right-wing occasionally. At least from what I saw. New world (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

At least that's the impression I got from reading pages about French politics (Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Emmanuel Macron) and the one on RationalWiki. Apparently though, especially the pages on France are just Wikipedia rip-offs. New world (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)