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

Dear Patrons! Your feedback is always appreciated.

• - Currently, there is 1 page marked for deletion
• - and no pages are marked for demotion.

Are we like...doomed doomed from the Climate?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-carbon-sink-collapse-global-heating-models-emissions-targets-evidence-aoe?CMP=greenlight_email

I'm just wondering if maybe the clock on the drastic change is going to be WAAAYYY faster than we originally thought.47.5.66.54 (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Last year's COP28 was a fucking joke. "We believe that there exists room for fossil fuels in a green future." World leaders pay lip service to "taking effective action against climate change" all the time, but then they turn around and take a big fat donation from the oil industry. As long as there remains an active incentive to continue using oil, and to punish attempts to transition to renewables (hopefully as a stopgap to nuclear), we will be fucked. There are solutions, but there has to be a will to actually enable those solutions. Those in power are signaling they don't have that will. Don't just take my word for it either. According to this paper, all technological civilizations will face a point where they face collapse or a switch to sustainability. That's simply the cost of having a civilization dependent on scarce resources. Carthage (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not that clear-cut. Oil and to a lesser extent coal will still be needed in the medium term for their non-burny uses [for example, production of plastics and resins including making solar panels and wind turbines], the 'transition stage' will still have some fuel demands, it will take time and investment effort to remove the fossil-using kit and there shall be situations where the continued use of fossils [at least for now] makes more ecological sense [example; bottled gas for cooking in the developing world to stop them burning what's left of their forests].

Anyway, the critical issue isn't really 'end user' energy/fuel consumption itself [or more correctly, this is an issue which already has solutions and is being wheeled out], it's the fact we in the advanced world simply consume too much shit which comes with a big ecological bag tied to it [this is about 25-33% of the 'average' American's spend]. Clothes, electronics, furniture and so on - all cheap, throwaway crap, almost always mass-produced in the Far East using dirty methods and then shipped across the globe in large oil-belching steel monsters. Even shit like 'carbon footprint calculators' are iffy - for example, your '£2k' for clothing/footwear could be a van load of said Far Eastern nylon fast fashion shit or a suitcase-worth of well-made pieces which will last for eons.

That, people is the fucking problem. Not only are Govts too timid to outright say 'stop buying so much crap' but they're also aware of the fact how much fairly pointless consumerism props up the economy. All the while, we've effectively 'outsourced' our ecological damage to places like China [then blame them for it and use it as an excuse for inaction] and then dump the waste in places like India and call it 'recycling'. It's all well and good touting 'personal responsibility' but this can only go so far - asking me personally to bear significant extra costs simply so I can be a bit 'greener' is at best going to remain the preserve of virtue-signalling middle classes who can afford do to it. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what I wrote, which is probably my fault as I didn't evidently write clearly enough. Nothing you have said here is in fundamental contradiction to my statement that there are active incentives to combat any real switch to a sustainable system, and that world leaders are only really paying lip service to real attempts to switch to more sustainable systems of energy infrastructure. You can't have that without really seriously changing the way we do business and run global systems, and I don't think global leaders are really willing to do that. You yourself mention that consumerism is unsustainable, but our economy runs off of consumerism. Off of relentless profit-seeking. Even the meager reforms that have been implemented (which also aren't enough) are in real danger of being rolled back by reactionaries. Carthage (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

While I doubt we are doomed doomed per se, at this point I think "the consuming will continue" until some combination of generation change and significant pain points occur. Sadly, I'm more pessimistic about progress on climate change than I was, say, a decade ago. Leadership worldwide has increasingly embraced "right"-authoritarian/fascist models, many of them embracing authoritarian capitalism as a policy plank which tends to favor (often corrupt / kleptocratic) business and either ignore (or pay lip service) to climate change concerns. Former futurists like Elon Musk who once promoted solutions for climate change have gone bonkers and now come eerily close to climate change denialism. Science as a whole is more mistrusted than ever among the rubes thanks to populist anti-intellectualism movements. So even though the evidence for climate change is more compelling then ever, I meet so many people that try to find every excuse they can think of to dismiss some of the patterns we are seeing.

Ultimately, if Big Capitalism wins against the environmentalists and scientists on climate change... it will likely be a pyrrhic victory. It's difficult to estimate the impact of climate change to the business economy... but I certainly would lean towards those that estimate very significant effects, particularly when you add the negative effects of climate change to other elements of capitalism that wreck the environment. (There will obviously be bad effects on a humanity level, too, but it is the economic hit that will be the ultimate irony.) As I think I've mentioned before, IMHO it's one of two major trends (the other being low birth rates, which is hardly a problem in itself but *is* a problem for the GDP-addicted business model) that pose a serious challenge to the "go-go growth at all costs" paradigm of today's capitalism markets. And, no, leaders don't have an answer for either one yet. BobJohnson (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm more optimistic than say, 15 years ago but that's because I expected zero change then, and now I'm seeing some. Yes, there's been some definite backsliding in some areas of the world [*looks at the Orange One*] but that's not all parts of the globe or at even all levels of the govt. What's more, the vast majority of the world's biggest companies operate on a 'one product, one world' model [such as the 'one Ford strategy'] - thus meaning that if one large market [often EU, Japan and/or US] tighten their regs on X, they'll shift their entire line to fit the rule so they can maintain their globalised supply-chain. What, you think if [say] Trump and heirs slash 'all the green crap' to get the US economy to roar the likes of the EU would roll over and allow their own standards be violated by 'greyer' imports? Like fuck they would - they'd put in tariff walls etc to protect their own 'greener' industries from unfair competition. Similar could be said with the Chinese.

Public perception, I believe is changing too. 'Green issues' are generally speaking getting stronger on every poll and the right/populists like the AfD and Reform UK will surely find their overt denialism a significant cramp of extending their support-base [good!]. The Overton Window is shifting and those intending to 'gum up the gears and roll back' generally don't win [though they do often manage to stall for a bit]. Ultimately, a lot of this appears to be demographic in nature [I remember one journalist describing a denialist conference 'smelling like Old Spice and old tobacco' ie filled with elderly men] and like in many things, a lot of political systems are currently gummed up with the 'Boomer bulge' which is working it's way out [I had to smile when Grant Shapps warned the Tory conference to not pin their hopes of winning election '29 because as-is a lot of their '24 voters would be dead.] So like many of the culture wars shite, I think when things move, they'll end up moving fast [folks often say 'you grow more conservative as you age' but I don't believe this - instead what I think happens is you remain fairly static, but the Overton Window shifts which makes you conservative.]

The main thing I've come to accept of late is that 'green initiatives' only really succeed when a) where there's other benefits to them for the end-user [example, most folks are getting solar panels etc 'as an investment to save money in the long run'] and/or b) it's easy for people to do the 'right thing' [example; buying used furniture is a lot harder/stressful than simply ordering it all new via Ikea, Amazon etc]. That like with say, veganism I think there's a kind of peak 'ideological greens' about [ie ones who will put up with significant extra cost/effort/results] which means any effort past this needs to be making it easy-ish for 'normal folks' to do the right thing and/or have other benefits too. And the onus here will be on 'authority' to make it as easy as realistically possible, all the while accepting that there isn't any 'one size fits all' option.

Anyway, Carthage I was trying to expand the topic. One of the things I've increasingly noted is that consumerist capitalism appears to be falling to bits anyway because of the increasingly shit economic situation for so many folks in the advanced world in many directions. That a lot of the 'steam' has been kept in the box because of repeated slashing of prices [and invariably, quality] and/or cooking up more finance options. I personally thought this model was doomed in both counts when I saw you could get gued-together shit kids shoes on finance. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I see, and thank you for the explanation. I will admit that my pessimism on the subject is, at least in part, broadly informed by a more American-centric perspective on the issue. Carthage (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Your pessimism has some grounds. The USA is [in my opinion] the country with the most resource-dependent lifestyles, coupled with a political landscape severely corrupted by factional interests, a guiding ethos of 'who dies with the most toys wins', an economy slanted heavily towards continuous consumption and a strong backdraft of selfish individualism which fights bitterly against any limits on 'ma fweedoms' or taxes but also refuses to have 'personal responsibility' and actually do shit to help their communities and future generations of. It's also difficult to keep a reasonable temper towards the ecological White Moderate who says 'yes I get the ecological destruction of the planet and all that but I fucking refuse to do any action which causes me to lose time, money or change my SoL in any way'. I am also fairly concerned of the increasing signs that 'the billionaire class' seem to believe they can survive the coming ecological collapse in some form [which is partly why I think they're so interested in robots/AI - they want android fuckbots, guards and servants so the 'hired help' doesn't get any ideas (like say, shooting them in the head) when societal collapse happens] which is damaging because if they think they can 'walk away' this makes them more irresponsible. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, I see some reasons to be pessimistic even outside the scope of the United States. Canada for instance is creeping towards some degree of Trumpism factionalism (led by the politics of Alberta). Some developing world countries are also every now and then embracing leadership that emphasizes a "consumption, environmentalism be damned" attitude. Oil isn't the only threat to the climate... deforestation also contributes to climate change... so figures like Jair Bolsonaro and Javier Milei were/could be quite damaging. Vladimir Putin is also an obvious significant negative factor... Russia's economy is super dependent on fossil fuels, and unlike similar countries like the Gulf states, they seem to be doubling down on oil instead of making contingency plans. (Quite a long term economic mistake if you ask me, but whatever...) So they have every interest in directing their troll farms to spread bullshit about climate change. And, sadly, there's plenty of people that believe it.

You are right though... it is not *all* doom and gloom. Even in some countries with significant climate change denial embedded in the politics (I'm thinking the United States and Australia), things *are* being done, both within states with better politics and some private enterprise even in "red states". And I agree that the crusty Boomer demographic is a significant part of the problem -- not all of them for sure, but anecdotally, in talking with climate denialists, I'm struggling to remember one that *wasn't* a gray-hair. Now, I still am curious whether the efforts made in Europe and Asia are real or "lip service"... we'll see, I suppose. BobJohnson (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There's many provincial elections happening in Canada right now... New Brunswick wrapped up theirs with the Liberals defeating the Progressive Conservatives (who have engaged in much American-Republican rhetoric I've read) in a landslide. British Columbia is finishing their ballot counts and it still appears extremely close between the NDP and Conservative party (the latter of which has been called reactionary and have also engaged in Republican-style rhetoric). Then there's the Saskatchewan election which is currently underway, also between the NDP and the incumbent "Saskatchewan Party" (conservative - had to rebrand after the party committed fraud with public funds in the late '80s); the Sask election is also quite close, and again the conservative party has engaged in Republican-style rhetoric and policies. Generally seems positive though with the conservatives losing right? Maybe, until one realizes that the progressive parties (NDP, Liberal) in each province have been getting dragged to the center of the political spectrum due to all the recent reactionary ideology. In the city I live in the same people voting progressively provincially say that federally, they'll be voting Conservative; all despite the fact that the provincial Cons that they despise so much are aligned with and are endorsed by the federal ones. Insanity really. Impiricism (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Too much of the messaging over climate change has an personal austerity about it - ie consume less, eat less meat etc. This stems from the simple fact the leading greenies traditionally were well-heeled people in rich societies - it's easy to preach austerity when you've got an 'Affluenza' SoL [plus, the carbon footprint scam by BP]. This argument falls fairly flat for the poor folks in rich nations [who don't consume much for starters] and even flatter for folks with worse SoL in developing nations [even less]. Poor-ish countries like Brazil are in a double bind - not only to they need development to raise their SoL but they also get lectures on why they shouldn't develop places like Amazonia. In this case, our attack needs to be twofold [I believe]; a) to help with technological transfer so they can get growth without carbon and b) subsidies for maintaining places like rainforests etc. I would also change the tenor in advanced nations too, so it was less preachy and more nuanced; that [for example] 'get rid of car [does not apply if you live in a rural area]' and 'buy less clothes [does not apply if you are replacing worn-out clothing]'.

Here in the UK, I think it's about 50/50 between 'humbug tokenism' and 'genuine efforts'. There's a lot of buck-passing, backsliding, statistic-massaging and greenwashing going on, but the public is getting wiser to the tricks and more importantly are becoming a larger demographic. 'The more votes in it' there is, the more the politicians etc will do about it. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we're doomed. The recent WIGO item on climate change gives a clear picture... everything and anything that might be getting done now to mitigate climate change should have been getting done decades ago. People and politics are not prepared or not willing to take the hard steps necessary for real change to happen. If you're an adult, I strongly urge not to have any children. To take heart though, if you're in a richer country you'll probably be fine. Top thing you'll encounter is politicization of the numerous climate refugees (migrants) trying to enter the country, due to theirs quite literally becoming unlivable. Impiricism (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This thread got me thinking the whole ESG ("environmental social governance") thing... still promoted by CEOs and big business as a way forward in getting action done for the climate, despite a key executive at BlackRock who helped develop the idea later calling it bullshit. Impiricism (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Google enshittification self-pwn

My Google search result

For your amusement:

“”AI Overview Google is considered an example of enshittification, a term that describes the gradual decline of a service or platform's functionality. Enshittification occurs when a platform initially offers benefits to users to attract them, then prioritizes profits over users. Here are some examples of how Google has been criticized for enshittification: Increased advertising Google's search results have become less relevant and more ad-heavy over time. Search engine optimization Google has used search engine optimization to benefit its advertising customers. Fraud Google has been accused of fraud. Jedi Blue Google colluded to rig the ad market through Jedi Blue to regain value for itself. AI search chatbot Google is developing an AI search chatbot that will show users what it thinks they should see, rather than what they ask for.

Bongolian (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

one could always use bingAMassiveGay (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Microsoft's version of AI is called "Copilot" and their AI at least tried to show that they were Concerned.

"It seems like you're referring to the concept of "enshittification," which is often used to describe a decline in the quality of online products and services over time. In the context of Microsoft, this term has been used by some to describe changes or updates that users feel negatively impact their experience. Is there a specific aspect of Microsoft's services or products you're concerned about? Maybe I can help clarify or provide more information!"

If Twitter had an AI, its response would probably be a poop emoji. BobJohnson (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Twitter does have an AI though. Elon was concerned that ChatGPT wasn't racist enough and spun up "grok". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 13:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, thanks for reminding me. Of course, there's no fuckin' way I'd actually pay for a "Premium Plus" dumpster fire subscription to Twitter to try this "grok" bot out... BobJohnson (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget the abundance of AI generated "art" that you have to filter out manually. 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 19:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This is probably the most accurate result I've seen in ages. Been using DuckToGo for a almost a year. While not as good as Google on its prime, it's still IMO better than any alternative. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Google still gets my business when I am looking for stuff to purchase online; find their results superior to Duck's. Otherwise, Duck gets my 'general' searches while Wolfram gets my data-based ones. Apart from shopping, the only other use of Google I have is doing searches merely to see 'what people using Google' see. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Question - are certain parts of the Internet demonstrating de(-)evolution? Anna Livia (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Internet enshitification is in many ways not new in media; I think it's quite similar to a television concept that Wikipedia calls channel drift and TV Tropes call "network decay". It's not really "de-evoltuion" to me. The crux of the issue is advertising-supported media chasing fads and profits, with the result being that the original (often more niche) purpose of the media is often neutered or even completely abandoned. (This even applies to Internet enshitification. Remember Google's old slogan "don't be evil"?) Media quality (not always but usually) declines in favor of low-cost sensationalism. (The poorly named "reality television" is somewhat equivalent to the Internet's clickbait.) Essentially, it's a "capitalism side effect" thing to me, where chasing consumers over time trends media towards lower costs and "lowest common denominator".

I would not be surprised if one could find this phenomenon in other historical advertising-funded media. (Though advertising in its modern form really didn't exist before the late 19th century, so you probably won't find a good parallel before then). BobJohnson (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Reddit is perhaps the best example of this. It just might be me, but a lot of the subs these days seem to be half-dead or worse. Some are now populated by nothing more than some chatbot attempting to drum up topics which nobody bites. Almost all old-school forums have the fraction of the traffic they used to, and even RW is sitting on something like 20% of the traffic it used to in the mid-late 10s [which might be seen in retrospect as it's 'Golden Age']. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What Are Your Thoughts On This.

https://nypost.com/2024/10/23/us-news/doctor-refused-to-publish-trans-kids-study-that-showed-puberty-blockers-didnt-help-mental-health/?utm_campaign=nypost&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social ^{— Unsigned, by: Tryhardbutnottoomuch. / talk / contribs}

That the NY Post is normally a shit source? NY Times version. In this edition, the doctor in question isn't 'refusing to publish', from the looks of it they'd like a bit more time before publishing to try to work out why it goes against other studies [including ones funded by the same batch of cash which did this one] and their own professional experiences. If you get anomalous results, it's basically standard procedure to rule out problems etc before releasing [like when CERN found a particle breaking the speed of light but then it turned out to be a measuring error].

But you'll be shocked to learn that the NY Post coverage [which I also read] didn't mention either the other studies or it's not a refusal to publish, only a refusal to immediately publish. Perhaps the fact this coverage called her 'woke' was part of the reason? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

My thought is that I'm not going to click on a NY post link. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't. I read an archive.is copy. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

NYT piece (from which the NYP piece is derived) is by Azeen Ghorayshi, a recurring character the paper assigned to write its articles on trans medicine. Known for misrepresentations in the past, apparently considers James Cantor reliable. The NYT's own journalists protested its coverage of trans people in the past, the company responded this protest would "not be tolerated." So it goes. Chillpilled (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, please, this is not difficult! Sign your posts with (~~~~) or (if that's too fucking hard) by clicking on the fucking sign BUTTON: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) This keeps the place tidy and stops you looking like a complete arsing tool so please, just fucking do it already. Carthage (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that not all keyboard layouts include ~ without needing an alt-code. Also there is no sign button above the edit menu or anywhere for me. Namako (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a pain in the arse to dig out when I post from my phone. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a 4 tilde button underneath the edit dialog that will insert it for you. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What Do You Think.

Theirs This Twitter User @Maia Poet I Want Your Thoughts On Her. ^{— Unsigned, by: Tryhardbutnottoomuch. / talk / contribs}

My thought? You are hanging out in some really shitty bullshit circles on Elon Musk's bullshit Twitter de-evolution if you've even heard of this obscure purported transgender "detransitioner". BobJohnson (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like your average detransition grifter. Also for the love of god will you start signing your posts? Carthage (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Tryhardbutnottoomuch may be entering the troll zone here: posting a bunch of whatdoyouthinks without giving a reason or an opinion of their own start. Bongolian (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

And Here I Thought That The Only Ones Who Capitalized Every Word Were The Nuwaubians. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

We have at least one other established user who uses non-standard capitalization. We currently don't have any who blatantly disregard out signing conventions - though we have had in the past. Possibly our new user could comment on these two somewhat irritating issues.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Trump and Nixon

If it was a straight election battle between Donald Trump and Richard Nixon who would win? Anna Livia (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Nixon. A somebody. (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Nixon would have a lot of trouble with modern politics, where digging up one piece of dirt on someone is way less effective than it was in the 60s/70s. One forged bigoted letter could ruin Muskie but a livestream of Trump calling Harris a slutty curry-eating chimp wouldn't dent his support at all.-Flandres (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Assuming Nixon can adapt/modernise (Watergate was 50 years ago). What would RN make of Putin?

Also (from my limited knowledge) LBJ and the Orange One? ('The Orange Man being something else entirely) Anna Livia (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I might be giving Dicky a bit too much credit here, but I actually got the impression [from reading about his achievements/actions etc] that while he was hardly the 'self-sacrificing public servant' he did give a shit about things past himself. As all the reports that he was also a pretty intelligent guy, Nixon wins by a fucking mile.

...people forget China, and your war on Cancer... KarmaPolice (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Assuming people would even care about that (They don't, judging from the fact that Trump has a decent chance of winning despite the fact that he is possibly the worst candidate of the entire election) TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘More notable was that the Nixon-run executive branch was the first to prosecute Fred & Don Trump in 1973.[1] The three of them were all flaming bigots, Don the Con managed to weaponize it far beyond Nixon. Hypotheticals like this are nonsense. Bongolian (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Bongolian There is at least one wiki devoted to AltHistory, several computer games, and 'enough books and magazines etc to keep one amused for a long sea cruise' (along with Kriegspiel etc). The genre, in its various forms can be useful. Anna Livia (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Immediate thought is Nixon, that he would ratfuck Trump hard, but then there is the general cult insanity with Trump too... maybe it comes down to which era of voters are present in such an election battle? Impiricism (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Nixon would utterly destroy Trump, like Trump isn't that intelligent, Nixon is and it wouldn't even be a close election. A somebody. (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Anna Livia, I don't see how the alt-history genre is useful other than as a form of entertainment. Bongolian (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. There is also at least one wiki devoted to Star Trek along with several computer games, and a vast collection of other media. But the existence of these things simply speaks to the entertainment value of Star Trek.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say alt-history can be educational. A serious 'what if' requires the maker(s) to know what happened in RL and the reasons behind that. Quite often you'll get someone pose an idea of an alt, and in short order they'll normally have explained that either a) that simply wouldn't/couldn't have happened and/or b) it would have had zero ultimate effect on the wider timeline. This means that people learn not just what happened, but why it did. What's more, good 'alting' shows people that the 'Great Man Theory' is shit, much of history happens due to 'historical determinism' [ie decisions made years, decades, occasionally centuries before dictate the present], that true 'butterfly events' are rare and it's quite possible another 'Great Man' will rise to fill the vacant role and end up with a very similar end result [for example, if Churchill had died in 1931, the new British PM who 'led the war against Hitler' might have been Anthony Eden]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

(Ec) Counterfactual models are widely used in social sciences. IMO Alternative scenarios can be more than just fun, we can learn some things from them, even if people like Niall Ferguson often abuse this sort of methodology. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

What makes this scenario difficult is that the coalition was quite different then and now. In 1968 and 1972, the American Independent Party was the significant refugee for the hardcore racists and conspiracy nuts. Many of the less nutty of this sort were still tied to the Democrats thanks to the Republicans being the party of Lincoln and LBJ's civil rights only being passed relatively recently. Though one led to the other, Richard Nixon to me was more neoconservative than Trumpism (and actually a wee bit more reasonable than the Reagnism to come). Though the Southern Strategy would open the door up for the hate-preacher sect, the Religious Right wasn't an active force in politics yet.

So this is a case where the times matter. In the modern era, many of the neoconservatives that have tried to put on a Trumpism face have fallen flat. Also, a significant amount of neocons have repudiated Trumpism, even to the point where former Nixon staff members like Dick Cheney are endorsing Kamala Harris these days. Nixon may have "opened the gates" to make the modern Republican party what it is, but I don't see him quite fitting in the modern Republican party very well. In the 1960s, Trump's public boorish act would have been way out of step with the high society (or even the middle class) norms of the time (even Nixon was rather boorish by those standards!). Trump's modern runs are fueled by a mixture of hatred, conspiracy, appeal to celebrity, and lowbrow entertainment theatrics. None of which quite mattered as much at the presidential level in the 1960s (though 1960s American high/middle class society was rather racist in its own way). Sure, the hate preachers and the hardcore racists crowds existed back then, but folks like George Wallace had no chance nationally. Other nuts like the John Birch Society were fervently shunned by your William F. Buckley Jr. types (whereas Trump tends to flirt with conspiracies that hold him in a positive light, like QAnon). "Times were different", as they say. In a primary, I think Nixon would have crushed a hypothetical 1960s Trump in 1968. I think Trump would crush a hypothetical 2020s Nixon today. BobJohnson (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think if we're gonna play counterfactuals, we need to a) establish the 'time' they're fighting in and b) the age of the pair. Nixon '60 was a different man to Nixon '72, just like Trump '16 is different than the '24 model. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

There is also the 'compare and contrast' aspect (see school/college exam and essay questions), and sometimes considering how A, B, C etc would have acted/viewed the situation suggests what could be done etc.

The other major difference - the Cold War then and the more complex/multicentred set up now; from what I understand Nixon was able to write his own books - could Trump? Anna Livia (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

"It's just entertainment" is a statement that is the bane of any media critic. Carthage (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘might i remind everyone that nixon established the epa. trump wants to abolish it (and probably will, if he can get away with it). The G (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

please, florida: do the right thing.

elect mucarsel-powell for senate. hoping for an electoral upset. The G (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Me, too. Also don't forget to vote Yes for Amendments 3 and 4. Zontar (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Drafts, are these ready for mainspace?

I've been working on Draft:Oswald Spengler and Draft:Alfred Rosenberg. Although I have sysops rights to move them to main space, I'd like a peer review to know if these are in presentable condition. Also a grammar check, in case if I overlooked something while writing in haste and/or if some sentences sound weird. -- DangerousTomaccoUser (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably good enough for mainspace: plenty of citations. Probably needs cleanup, but so do a lot of mainspace pages. They'll get more eyeballs in mainspace. Bongolian (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Reality television and scripting

While some reality television is certainly "faked," to claim that "all reality television is scripted/staged" misunderstands what "scripted" means. For example, it's entirely possible to construct a narrative out of a month's worth of raw footage that was shot in the moment. Plus, people will act a certain way when they're on camera that they wouldn't if they were off-camera. Lady Emily points out in her video essay "The Constructed Narrative of Kitchen Nightmares" that if someone had remodeled her house, even without her consent, and video-taped it, she would probably act incredibly grateful on-camera simply because of the psychological incentives at play. It probably wouldn't even be "fake" gratitude. Someone did go through the effort of remodeling her house, even if it was without her consent. So while reality TV may very well be scripted, it often is, that doesn't mean it's "faked." Carthage (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

They shoot 'the script', but it's not one which the participants are mandated to follow - I've seen KNs where the owner(s) appear more surprised/shocked with the 'restaurant refresh' which if cut right in post-production, can look like 'gratitude' [shown that a few of them did at least a partial resurrection of the 'old shit' after]. However, quite a few are genuinely grateful; however these were often the folks who had wanted to improve the front-house anyway, and while KN rarely gives away much of freebies [the 'refurbishment' is usually not much more than a cosmetic revamp/deep clean - a new oven or ordering system only appears if Ramsey/the team 'feels it is vital' to future success] they still throw something like 80-120 hours of labour into that one night which they knew they simply couldn't do themselves.

However, there is a wider 'shooting the script' going on in respect the team [because it is 95% 'the team', the interaction they get with Ramsey is literally what you see on-screen] that they've pre-screened the target/victim to ensure they'd make good copy. It's gotta be real shit in at least one direction [ideally three] with at least one seriously stubborn/clueless persona so there's some sparks, but not so stubborn that they don't 'bend to Ramsey's will' by the end of it [or more correctly, a repeated pointing out by KN staff that this is the advice-book from a millionaire famous owner/chef and where's your system got you?]. If you watch enough of KNs you would soon enough note that almost all the advice is generic [good generic, but still generic] that could be applied to almost any retail/hospitality business - such as 'watch waste like a hawk', 'remember your margins', 'give customers something they can't get elsewhere' etc. Sometimes, the 'clueless ones' are the most entertaining; such a the ones who think the only problem is 'bad reviews online' and if Ramsey could fix that [because they're all trolls, obs], everything would be hunky-dory. But occasionally, reality shows get it wrong; I remember one of those fat people ones which was boring as hell because the subject/victim did everything they were told, when told and it worked.

Another aspect to remember is that a lot of these are pretty hectic, intense schedules. If you've been 'bounced about' over the space of a weekend or week, there's a decent chance by the end of it you're half burnt-out by all the emotional labour etc to the point you're not computing properly what you're seeing etc. Only later does it all sink in. Lastly, some of these presenters are very 'alpha personality' types and it's hard to 'go against them' to their face [which is why a lot of the backsliding happens afterwards]. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The typical person who spouts shit like "all reality television is scripted" are thinking that whoever participates in reality TV is a paid actor rehearsing lines. That's not really the case most of the time, although there are cases where that has happened. Carthage (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

While there's been cases of this (I've just read about a Japanese dating show from the 90s where a significant % of the 'dates' were in fact call-girls) I don't believe this level of humbuggery (where participant colludes with makers) happens now due to the SuperWeb - ie folks can easily search and locate their acting social media etc. However, there is the question of how much the participants are duping the producers (and vice-versa) and then how much the producers are then duping the public. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of reality television is that it is rarely scripted per se, but is often heavily directed. That is, there is a narrative that the production team is going for in these shows, and they are going to do their darndest to make sure they capture it. "Boring shit" in the background is going to be cut. Participants may be "nudged" to act a certain way or say certain things. Selective editing is extremely likely, as is other dramatic enhancements. Some participants themselves may have figured out an "entertaining" act, angle, or role to play.

In other words, the model being used here is more like professional wrestling -- which rarely is scripted, but almost always has a predetermined outcome. Another example from the past would be The Jerry Springer Show, which also had a vague carnie like atmosphere, and (no matter how much the show producers denied it) had a similar pro-wrestling style "lack of authenticity", so to say. Which is fine -- most reality television aims for lowbrow entertainment, after all, and a lot of reality really isn't that entertaining. This is a general statement, of course -- some reality television is going to be "less directed" than others. But I sort of get what is meant when people say reality television is "fake" (it is similar to people saying professional wrestling is "fake"). It's incorrect, but also somewhat true at the same time. BobJohnson (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Why in the world is there no template or cite button

Ignoring all the other topics that are usually talked about here, why in the world is there no cite or template button? Admittedly, Wikipedia (where I mainly edit) only pushed out the "cite" button a few months ago, but why not a "template" button? Tavantius (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

US Election Update: Dawn of the FInal Week

Can you believe it, guys? The Election! Just a week away! Anyways, stealing KP's shtick and (possibly outdated) memes aside, what are your thoughts going into the last week of lead up to the election? Any concerns (or positive expectations) about what might impact the final results? Any concerns (or positive expectations) in general? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the GOP might try to go for a second Bush v. Gore decision. They are already pulling a bunch of legal stunts with the hope that it will go to the notoriously corrupt and Trump-friendly Supreme Court. ([2]) Carthage (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I am genuinely looking forward to American Democract supporters becoming less of a drain to talk to. It seems every election season the democrats obtain a kind of morally sacred status given the threat of Trump possibly getting re-elected. It would be a bad thing if he got re-elected but I can’t really take folks seriously that they take the threat seriously if the only thing they are willing to do to prevent it is vote and guilt others into voting. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Not from the States so I always get confused by this. Shouldn't that be "American Democratic (party) supporters" as opposed to "American Democract (party) supporters"?

Feel free to go firebomb a Wal-Mart, then. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)