RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 13:59, 17 May 2012 by ORavenhurst (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

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

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>


Pew Polls, Evangelicals, and Evolution

Jerry Coyne's book was fantastic, but his summary of the Pew poll is misleading. He says that 3% of Evangelicals accept evolution. In point of fact, it's 3% of selected Evangelical leaders in South Africa, and 3% is the number of people who agreed that evolution is a purely naturalistic process with zero divine involvement. Those who accept evolution as directed by God was substantially higher. Given that Christians generally believe in divine involvement in everything, this should have been a no-brainer. (Of course, I'd like to see the numbers for acceptance of evolution go up generally; Evangelical ignorance is simply deplorable on this topic. But the answer to miseducation is not to misrepresent and exaggerate the problem.)

Conservapedia is touting the fact that Creation Ministries International just compared them to the Nazis


House of Lords

Get this reactionary shit into the clogs. For fuck's sake Scherben 23:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough and well-reasoned rebuttal. Scarlet A.pngsshole 19:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome; though I take it reactionary privilege is beloved of the 'rational' everywhere? Scherben 04:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!-- Seth Peck (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann is a socialist

Lenin and Bakunin were also fans of Thessalonians 3:10. I smell a Red! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


I have invoked the wrath of Farah. This is a good thing. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Congratulations--"Shut up, Brx." 16:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Nice! Apokalyps2547 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
"After all, look at the bright side – you’re looking at another 4 whole years to rail against the Black Man in the White House." Hehehehe.... Scarlet A.pngmoral 18:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

" internet users who manage to be so gullible that they will believe any myth, story or hoax they hear AND be complete skeptics regarding actual verified historical events. "

Blogpost fail. The author is confusing ignorance about historical fact (not knowing that the Titanic was actually a thing) with the choice not to believe in something in the face of incontrovertible evidence (believing in a young earth, etc.). I didn't see anybody tweeting that the Titanic didn't really sink, only that the existence of that fact came as a surprise to them. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 13:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the line there is pretty blurred, though. For the vast majority of, for example, creationsts, the ones with their boots on the ground ticking the box marked "6000 years" when asked in surveys, their error is equally ignorance, they have no intention or need or desire to go and gain information. Similarly, with the ones that perpetuate myths and hoaxes via Twitter and Facebook simply don't know any better. They're both ignorant of fact, and that's okay. The difference is whether this turns to wilful ignorance in the light of information presented. For that, it depends on how central certain beliefs are to a person's identity. Being unaware of the Titanic being an actual ship is probably less a core value of someone's identity than something like "9/11 was an inside job". But it's a lose-lose situation in any case, as you can sound really dumb with a "I didn't know that" tweet, or really really dumb with a "no, we didn't go to the moon and you can't convince me otherwise" tweet. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Willpower and glucose

The glucose model of self-control has been seriously challenged. See here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

^My new random catchphrase of the day Тyrannosaurs 19:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Either way, I'm going for a fucking coffee. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 10:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


While the Ayn Rand one is funny enough, it's really this one that is really like being smacked on the face with a baseball bat. But it does give the xkcdsucks clog a chance to prove that it's ran by heartless assholes. Scarlet A.pngsshole 09:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of xkcd, when will this page be renamed "What is going on in the tumblverse?" Occasionaluse (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
When my corpse is being used for science. Scarlet A.pngmoral 15:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to steal that line.
Also, call me a heartless asshole, if you will, but I think that cancer strip goes way too far into Tom Batiuk territory to be effective. Vulpius (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, if I start saying "over my reused organs", it might force me to get around to filling out those damn forms. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 17:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we have more specific WIGOs than

"Thanks, Captain fucking Obvious." I mean can they at least hint at the content of the link? sterileevolutionist story telling 14:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I try. But seriously, as mentioned in the CAPSLOCK comments on WIGO:World, the more specific and less cryptic ones also help prevent repeats. Sometimes it can be hard not to snark, but there is a compromise between getting across information and making a snarkastic point. Scarlet A.pngbomination 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Red Dawn 2012

To the person who wondered why North Korea, there's already a precedent in the game Homefront. The deal is they want a modern setting with REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!!, but they still want to be able to legally sell it in China. The game was widely regarded as terrible, by the way, and I'm in no way defending the decision or the works, but explaining that it's basically a marketing thing. --CoyoteSans (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Difficulty setting

RE: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

Actually, a fascinating an apt analogy in many ways. Though I'm sure someone, somewhere, in that oversized comments section will have said this already, we can extend it further. Notice that on the net people like to bitch about people playing on easy, and look down on anyone who plays on anything less than the hardcore uber-mode that was installed just for the PC port. That's kinda what it feels like reading the average blog/rant over privilege. I never got the choice about what skin colour I was born with, and yet post after post and essay after essay is written disparaging me for it. Because that's what it feels like; blame. I'm to blame for the world's ills, personally - and it's all because of something I didn't chose, a selection that was made without my knowledge or input.

But of course, it makes total sense, doesn't it? You can tell exactly how easy my life is, how many legs up I've been given, how many points I started with, entirely from the colour of my skin and not by, you know, actually looking at my life in more detail. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 11:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Scalzi's essay addresses this, you poor oppressed dear. The point is not to be a dick about it. Can you manage that? Sure you can. - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Where am I ranting about me being oppressed? And where am I being a dick about it? And where does Scalzi actually address how it's okay to be judgemental about people for things they didn't choose? Scarlet A.pngnarchist 00:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Did you actually read the article? It's not about being judgmental in any way. Omar (gibber) 13:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Twitter map

Looking at the levels of Mail v Guardian clicks, I notice that us wildlings from north of The Wall seem remarkably liberal. Scarlet A.pngmoral 00:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools