G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!)
  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards)
  • Just asking questions to the candidates

Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 12:44, 29 April 2012 by Armondikov (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>


Fascist China WIGO

Bit late, I know, but I've not been on here much lately and just noticed it. I think whoever posted the WIGO has made a rather hysterical reading of the article and just gone "ZOMG LOL, HE SAID FASCIST! UH UH CHINA IS COMMIE!"

But the point is that there really is an increasing preponderance of highly nationalist, right-wing authoritarian thought in China, and the convergence of business and politics does tend toward the Mussolini view of Fascism. You don't have to be an Austrian, genocidal anti-Semite to be fascist. China certainly isn't Communist. Even though some of it's authoritarian tendencies have been brought over or inherited from the Communist era, these elements are those which are shared between all authoritarian societies, be they ultra-left or ultra-right. Many elements however, are new and are only applicable to fascist or fascist inclined right-wing authoritarian societies. Admittedly the author did not touch upon many of the most disturbing cases, but for example:

  • Collaboration between the state and business. This is not local corruption, but a systematic issue of the police being used to dispossess local people in order to facilitate major state-allied business interests, i.e. farmers being forced off their land by police to clear the way to property developers and prevent dissent about damage caused by business to local communities or environments.
  • Extremely strict but highly un-equal enforcement of the law, not so much in terms of corruption (which applies to virtually all societies) but more in a systematic manner of use of the law to promote elite factions whilst cowing local populations and opposing elements (i.e. rival business not allied to the state, foreign interests etc. - this has been seen recently in Guangdong where Taiwanese owned sweatshops have been closed down for violating labour laws, whilst mainland Chinese ones operate with impunity)
  • Use of the police to break trade unions
  • Promotion of perceived national cultural and religious traditions and links to ancient culture to promote modern nationalism. Commented on by the author, though I think he brushes over the use of Confucianism as justification for authoritarian policies and to promote a sense of Chinese exceptionalism.

Many of these positions are the antithesis of much hard-line Communist thinking which decries traditional culture and religion as tools that facilitate "bourgeois" oppression, the idea of private business and profit is T3H EB1L, whilst the promotion and alliance with organised labour is of central importance to modern Marxist thinking. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. As someone who studies Chinese politics myself, it's relatively clear to me that the idea that Chinese is a fascist system is a very widespread one in the academic literature (and one I personally agree with, though I'd only generally say so in an academic context given how often the term "fascist" is misused). State corporatism is definitely the order of the day in China. Regardless of your opinion on the idea, though, it's an academically respectable one and it doesn't belong here -- I was very surprised to see it listed. --Lord Shang (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC) (One example - William A. Joseph, "Ideology and Chinese Politics", in "Politics in China" (ed. Joseph), p. 161: "The case has been made that the prevailing ideology of the leadership in China is fascism" (author's emphasis) -- He does not evaluate the idea, it is just referenced. --Lord Shang (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC))
When people say "communist" I think "not capitalist", even though I know that's not exactly accurate. But I also don't think of China--I think of the old Soviet Russia and stories of bread lines being longer than the toilet paper lines. I was in Beijing six years ago: at least in the city, and at the cultural landmarks like the Great Wall, it was hard to look around and NOT see a capitalist society, particularly while on foot with street merchants constantly trying to sell you fake silk and souvenirs and bootleg DVDs, but especially in their marketplaces where competition for buyers (jade, fabric, electronics, pearls, seafood, whatever) was rather fierce. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is a similar situation to South Korea under Park Chung Hee, a system which is fairly uncontroversially regarded as being fascistic in its later post-Yushin manifestation. Essentially a developmentalist state directing vast corporate power and presiding over a strongly skewed capitalist market.--Lord Shang (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Wait, wait. Since when has union-breaking been "antithetical" to hard-line Leninism, rather than part and parcel of it? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell sends a letter that says marijuana causes death.

Sure, marijuana has never killed anyone by overdose but it is well supported scientifically that it causes lung cancer, which is what he says right before. Lung cancer is one of the deadliest, even deadlier than brain cancer. In other words, Mitch McConnell is technically correct. Marijuana, when smoked, does kill.Kamizushi (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, lung cancer from cannabis smoking is not well supported scientifically. Whether lung cancer is deadly is irrelevant if it's induced only rarely. Pancreatic cancer is deadly, but it doesn't mean that a lot of people die from it. Flu and obesity are not deadly, but they kill a lot of people. --Tweenk (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's agree one what we are arguing on exactly. Mitch McConnell said "The detrimental effects of drugs have been well documented: short-term memory loss, loss of core motor functions, heightened risk of lung disease, and even death." In the context we will assume that by "drugs" he meant marijuana because in the context any other meaning would be dishonest.
Now, what if he had said "The detrimental effects of the Flu have been well documented: Fever, coughing, risk of pneumonia, and even death" or again "The detrimental effects of obesity have been well documented: lowered physical ability, lowered self esteem, heightened risk of heart disease, and even death"? Wouldn't you agree that it would be correct?Kamizushi (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Flingbooty fails reading comprehension forever

Moved from [RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Flingbooty_fails_reading_comprehension_forever the saloon bar] His reaction to the title "The Blind Watchmaker"img --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Simply putting his fingers in his ears and saying "LALALALA I can't hear you" would have been too obvious, I guess. Godspeed (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this goes on WIGO:Clogosphere. CopperheadHisssssss 15:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Santa Claus versus the godless world

To be fair, he does punch out heretics - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hardcore. Scarlet A.pngtheist 12:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Paganism in schools? How dare they. How very dare they!


It's long been known that people only cry "freedom of religion" for their own religion, but I think this one really does take the cake with this attitude. Though what strikes me is that Odone tries to assert that " one dares distinguish between occult and Christian values, the tarot and the Torah, the animist and the imam." Yet... she provides no distinguishing characteristics of these things. As Stephen Fry remarked on an episode of QI, you can't really get a definition of superstition that doesn't also include most, if not all, named religions. Would Odone say that Christianity is a practised religion by a majority? Well, 3000 years ago ancient Egypt practised a religion by majority that we wouldn't recognise today, and around the same time Druids and other pagans would have been the majority in Britain. What about age, as Christianity is an ancient religion while neo-paganism tends to just jump on New Age style bandwagons? Well, again, that's already answered because Christianity dates back 2000 years, and its present Anglican form (which I presume Odone is most familiar with) only a few hundred years, really (ritualistic Anglican, as opposed to unceremonious Protestantism barely a century, in fact!), while our Druids were being all priestly long before. So, what is this magical distinction? There is none. They're all equally legitimate, or equally non-legitimate if you prefer. "Ah, but that's different!" isn't an argument. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 13:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I see Odone must be on the front-line in the fight between the Daily Mail and the Telegraph as to which one can be make teh best liberal bait. Scarlet A.pngbomination 13:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Odone's not Anglican, she's catholic. In fact she's Kenyan-born, half Italian and half Swedish, which probably explains her screaming ignorance of British religious history. --Fergus Mason (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I made a quick assumption of "most familiar with" as opposed to "is", but perhaps being Catholic is less of an excuse because that's the variant that very explicitly ups and changes its extra-biblical dogma on the Pope's say-so. Catholics should be well-aware of the mutability of religion because they still have a very Earthly leader pointing them in their direction. So, would the Roman Catholicism of now be a valid religion but the Orthodox Catholicism of Spain a few hundred years ago not be? Or other countless variants? There's no logical separator between a simple variant of a religion and a different religion, and also no logical separator between religion and these "not really religions so they don't count". I suppose this is the curse of a secular worldview, you notice these things and can't quite compute the thinking behind it because it's so damn arbitrary. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 13:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This old pagan tortoise thinks that Cristina Odone should be reported to the authorities for investigation for possible prosecution for fomenting religious hatreds. Tortoise of Tor (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Negroes with guns

You would think that Ann Coulter would have been a big supporter of the Black Panther movement reading that article. - π 11:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia May Redefine Term “Pro-Life” in Every Abortion Entry" (this article cites Conservapedia!)

Discuss this evangelical website whining about reality having a liberal bias. AP (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oldish WIGO

Anyone who seriously uses the phrase "autism epidemic" is just not to be taken seriously. There's just no such thing and there never has been. Uke Blue 04:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that there has been a spike in cases recently because of altered breeding patterns among the autistic population, specifically the clustering of "Aspies" around technological hot-spots such as Silicon Valley, but applying the term of "epidemic" to a genetic disorder is indeed rather dodgy. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Its not suprising that many people use that term, since the Vaccinations = Autism crowd grows every year. --Revolverman (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Or, more generally, the Noxious Things That Big Government/Big Nasty Corporations Expose You To → Autism crowd. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Never mind the fact that as a condition becomes more understood and more well-known, it becomes more diagnosed due to cases of it being recognized rather than ignored or mistaken for other conditions. It's a misconception that when a disease is identified and named, it's 'new.' So of course there will appear to be a sudden 'outbreak' of autism diagnosis: it's only been recognized widely as a condition for a relatively short time (modern usage from 1960s, though widespread awareness not until much more recently), but claiming that cases of autism didn't exist before it was understood is silly. The broadening of knowledge about a condition doesn't make it more common; it makes cases more recognized and identified. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRwalls of text while-u-wait 04:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a study floating around, which I need to look up, that basically used modern diagnosis criteria on adults and compared the results to autism rates in children. Lo and behold, the same proportion of adults turned out to be autistic! It's totally that the diagnostic criteria are changing. I'm not socially awkward, it's my Aspergers!! Scarlet A.pngnarchist 13:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I decided that Clogosphere needed some more good Hate Mongers,

So I added Logan's Warning to the list of Egregious sources.

Check out the link and tell me this paranoid bigot does not belong there. Logan's Warning

There are some critics of Islam who are quite reasonable and rational, many of them I would recommend, especially when it comes to countering Muslim apologetics. Many of them try to critique Islam objectively without demonizing Muslims or peddling paranoid conspiracy theories, but its obvious that the person who runs Logan's Warning Islam isn't one of them. The guy most likely also a part of religious right, or more accurately the religious far right in America, since he's determined to pit Christians against Muslims. To Him Christianity is pure good and Islam is pure evil. He probably doesn't have a problem with dominionism and in fact he may well be a dominionist, Do yourself a favor and do not use him as a source and beware of any website, especially if it deals with Islam that recommends Logan's Warning, and stay away from it.CriticalDragon1177 (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)



Yet more multi-level standards! Of course, this is probably blatantly obvious but let's get it down on record anyway:

The other problem is that if paganism is taught alongside the religion that children’s parents practise at home, it implies that paganism is a religion just as well-founded as Presbyterianism or Islam.

Presbyterianism: A particular offshoot of orthodox Catholic theology, associated with John Calvin and Martin Luther. Founded: ~1500s CD

Islam: Another offshoot of the Judeo-Christian sects, founded by Muhammad and said to restore the original meaning to OT texts that was lost since Jesus came along. Founded: ~610 CE

Paganism: Not a religion as such, but a blanket term used to describe non-monotheistic and non-popular beliefs - basically, the old style Celtic religions that Christianity absorbed as it made its way across Europe. Founded: Druids: 200 BCE Celtic polytheism: 500 BCE Norse religion: ~6000 BCE Ancient Egyptian religion: 3000 BCE... you get the idea. These things are very much as well-founded and lasted for far longer than any of these mere judeo-christian offshoots have so far. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it appears there may be a RWian in the comments section of the article that has already brought this up. Scarlet A.pngbomination 12:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools