RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 11:58, 23 February 2012 by Armondikov (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

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

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Archives: - 0001 -- 0002 -- 0003 -- 0004 -


Santorum abortion

I've read that story before, and I don't trust it. How did anybody get word of Mrs. Santorum's medical records? Just because someone is a major asshole doesn't mean he's a hypocrite, sorry.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Even if every word of that story is true, that article is still all sorts of intellectually dishonest.--NTemple (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The moral ground here is extremely shaky. Mrs S had problems with a pregnancy and, for the health of the mother, it was decided to deliver the child at ~20 weeks - I'm doing this from memory so I may be a little off. Not surprisingly the child failed to survive. There's a fine line here between an abortion and a stillbirth. Especially as the child was actually alive outside of the womb for a short while.
To say that Mrs S had an abortion is disingenuous at best. What one can say is that the range of medical options available to Mrs S would have been reduced if some of the bills that Mr S has put his weight behind had become law.
I strongly believe that it does RW no favours when we attack Santorum on this issue. We should be concentration on the areas which are far more straightforward. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems Rick thinks other women who have the same problems his wife had should die, see Rick Santorum’s Anti-Abortion Politics Would Have Killed His Own Wife (Updated). Americans please comment, how reliable is this newspaper? Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jezebel is normally a credible source. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What NASA calls The Most Amazing Highest Resolution Image of Earth Ever.

I didn't know the earth consisted entirety of Northern America. Amazing. AceModerator 19:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You know the Earth is a sphere right? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 20:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that was an especially stupid thing to say... I'd now like to see you go on a nobs-like defense of it. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You know that it is a composite image, right? :) Previous versions of the Blue Marble have included both hemispheres and the 2004 Blue Marble collection includes full Earth maps.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I was being facetious. AceModerator 21:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You were supposed to say: "The earth is a 3-dimensional object and this is nothing but a two dimensional picture. Why don't you ask resident mathematician and geologist Andy Schlafly if the earth is two dimensional?" Occasionaluse (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
What I like most about it is that you can't see any human influences, save for a few black spots from man-made lakes (due to dammed rivers). Gives a new meaning to "Mostly Harmless". If there were Schlafly-esque extraterrestrials whizzing by outside the Clarke belts, they'd probably look down and say "Not even Kardashev I, no major contributes to the galaxy. Not notable." -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Julia Gillard

So, how's Australian politics down there? Osaka Sun (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Moon base

I'm all for it, but hearing a Republican suggest it is pretty damned ridiculous, given their small government minds and tax breaks for the wealthy. "Oh, but that will help stimulate innovation!" Since WHEN has it ever? Didn't GWB give a speech about wanting the same thing? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A moon base before 2020 in these economic times, and from a neoconservative.
Someone's a little kooky. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It's hard not love Gingrich. The crazy is really starting to come out now. I really hope he wins the nomination, it will make 2012 so much more entertaining. DogP (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I know I've said it before, but I'd prefer it if someone slightly more insane wins the nomination. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
At this point everybody except Mitt Romney means a second term for Obama.
I wonder how he thinks that would be possible; maybe he thinks cutting taxes will make the economy grow so fast (hahaha, yeah, sure) that he will make enough taxes to actually built that thing? Wouldn't he have to increase taxes? Which would (after him, not reality) kill jobs, and the US would go into recession. I think it might be possible to start building a station on the moon, but for one country alone? Nope, neither really possible nor wise. --ʤɱ libertarian 00:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
UHM, I hope what you meant was "everybody except Mitt Romney means a shoe-in for a second term for Obama", because while it may be a good fight, I honestly I don't see a majority backing a flipflopper or a multi-millionaire or a Mormon (say what you will about the rest of his politics). -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
That's what I meant, yes. I wasn't aware there was that much of a difference. --ʤɱ secularist 16:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm far more concerned his stated endgame for this plan is to make The Moon the 51st state in the union. I know conservatives have nothing but disdain for any treaties that are not unfair in the US's favor, but damn. --CoyoteSans (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh yuck, now I have a vision of a moon base filled with clones of Newtie, like in that film Moon. Ugh. Darkmind1970 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Headscratcher on Fred Goodwin

A lot of anti-Labour comments on Twitter about the knighthood revoking. Sure, Blair should have never given him that honour, but every single thing Goodwin did would make Alan Greenspan blush. Libertarianism at its finest. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

One town's war...

RE: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202

Sigh... sometimes I feel quite tired of backing things up with reason, with calm discussion, with evidence, with politeness. I feel drained by it. I feel it's repetitive, pointing out flaws and dissecting comments and ideas. I feel I've thought enough that I don't need to justify things to myself any more... so sometimes I feel like, instead of all that, we should start saying what we really mean. These people are disgusting. They're an affront to what is good. They're a disgrace to humanity. They're vile. They're full of hatred. They're, frankly, stupid. They couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag if I gave them a calculator and step-by-step instructions. They're wrong. They speak of personal responsibility but take none of it, as if it's something other people have to do. There are people dead, and they can deny it all they like but we all know, and they - deep down - know it too: they're responsible.

I want to go up right into their face, real close, personal-space-violating close, eye-to-eye and say two words: Fuck. You.

If they're lucky, I might not punch them in the face immediately afterwards. Scarlet A.pngmoral 15:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The awful irony there is that these suicides had very little to do with the youths being gay; anyone who is bullied like that would be at a suicide risk. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes... but they were bullied because they were gay and teachers were expressly - well, at least confusingly given the rulings and guidelines they were told to abide by - forbidden from helping them because of it. If you were bullied because, say, you had the wrong hair colour they could do something about it... if you were bullied because you were gay they had to "remain neutral". No fucking irony anywhere. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 16:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
That teacher who stood calmly by and watched the gay student get beat up — if he said the "neutrality policy" prevented him from stopping the fight, he was lying. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Whether it's a confusing policy or that teachers were quietly supporting of gay bashing is beside the point: this bullying only got to that level because they were gay, or even just perceived to be in some cases, no other reason. It would not be acceptable in any way, shape or form with any other motive, but in this case it's "controversial". Scarlet A.pngbomination 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I doubt they were bullied because they were gay. They were bullied for being different. This article's main character says it started before she even had an inkling of what being gay was, and the first insults were "cock muncher" and "whore". they "dyke" came later. But, there is an institutionalized numbness toward kids that are "different". Especially in a town like this that thinks gay is a choice. They see you as choosing this life, so "suck it up, babe". Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 16:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way, i *loved* this line (rolls eyes), cause you know, trolls and bullies respond so well to insults. " The school's principal, looking pained, had suggested Brittany prepare herself for the next round of teasing with snappy comebacks – "I can lose the weight, but you're stuck with your ugly face". HOw about fucking putting the bullies to chores each day? (by the way, whoever thought up suspensions is just fucking stupid. kids get to not go to school, and that's PUNISHMENT?Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
(EC2) I disagree. Without the SPLC, etc., etc., to go to bat for you, no one can hear you scream. Bullying with any other motive would never reach such prominence in the press for anyone to hear about, but it does happen all the time.
Agree with WaitingforGodot. It is unfortunate that the root cause of the suicides has been misidentified. On the other hand, I know Anoka, and can say with some confidence that the issue is the town's collective inability to stand up to those few bad apples in the "Parents' Action League." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
All this is a sophistic debate anyway. Whatever the directness of the causal chain between the policy and the suicides, the fact remains that this policy - coined by people whose role should be to PROTECT the children - sent a clear homophobic message and created a climate that implied that some kind of bullying is acceptable: calling it confusing is too nice, when one cannot even say that some other perfectly adjusted people are homosexual, it is homophobic, full stop. I hope this will go to court and a judge will rub those adult their responsibility in enabling bullies in their faces! dx (talk)
That is giving the policy too much credit. Bullying has been endemic in the Anoka schools since at least the 1950s. Gay-bashing is just the latest fig-leaf under which it operates. What I am hoping is that this pressure will cause the district to tackle bullying seriously instead of just making teachers go "Now, Johnny, we don't say 'faggot'." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
+1 for proper use of term "fig leaf". -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Castro memoirs

This is a bit too CP-centric for WIGO World. Try and keep them separate, folks. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 08:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The memoirs are interesting no matter what the wingnuts think, but the CP angle is too funny not to include. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Dishonest" rape

RE: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com//heather/ron-paul-if-its-honest-rape-woman-should-g

I think it's putting words in Ron Paul's mouth to talk about "dishonest" rape like this - he certainly doesn't use those words directly. I think the point that no one notices that he's almost certainly comparing rape to false accusations of rape (I hope people at least recognise that distinction), not whether it's the "right kind" of rape. This isn't in the same league as the "forcible" debacle from a few months back. You see, if you're going to have a "except in cases of rape" caveat to your anti-abortion position, it becomes quite important as part of your rationalisation to add invisible connotations to "rape" to mean things like real, legitimate and so on. In this case, Paul chose to add "honest", he didn't have to as it's implied by only the word "rape" anyway, but he has to highlight that he doesn't want an "except in cases of rape" caveat to be abused. The problem is that rape has been somewhat used as an emotional football to the point where any discussion about a "real" rape immediately makes people assume you're saying something along the lines of "it's only real rape if the woman struggles and fights back", or something similar, rather than "it was rape and not a false accusation of rape". So we seem to have lost a quick and easy way to differentiate between a legitimate crime and a false accusation of one. The latter case is almost undoubtedly what Paul is referring to because it's an essential part of clarifying this kind of anti-abortion law.

Eugh, can't believe I have just defended Ron Paul... but seriously, people need to be wrong on their own merits, not on what people have imagined that they've said. Scarlet A.pngmoral 11:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the outrage that I'm seeing blow-up on Facebook and elsewhere (HP, TP, Raw Story) can be boiled down to two points:
  1. The use of the word "honest", which does provoke suggestions of questioning to the alternative, can be seen as a word usage that belies an underlying viewpoint, much in the same way certain outrages occur when a politician in everyday conversation accidentally lets use of the word "colored" or the N-word slip. Regardless of whether you apologize for it later (like, on Twitter) or try to rationalize it ("it's just a word from the old railroad days!"), it's out there.
  2. Paul's attempt to differentiate what types of abortion would be acceptable and which would not, regardless of his terminology, still suggests a governmental control that takes the pregnant woman, her family and her doctors out of the equation and places it in the hands of the government—definitely anti-choice stances. Suggesting that a woman might lie about the terms of her fetus' conception, no matter what truth might be behind it...well, it's certainly not endearing.
-- Seth Peck (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
There is never any excuse to talk about "honest" rape. "real" rape. rape is rape. there is not one that is more rape, "realer", or "honester" than the other. period.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 18:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
By teh way, if you read what he said, it was NOT the "some rare few rape accusitions are not factual", but that there is one type of rape. "if it is a real rape, you go to the police'> do you? Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 18:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
More to the point, Godot, which I'm certain is something you've thought about in regards to this...the details behind the conception should not factor at all into the decision to abort. Qualifying an abortion as "acceptable" or "unacceptable" based on rape or incest or a drunken haystack romp or daddy won't commit shouldn't even enter into the conversation between patient and doctor. Any woman who had to work up the energy to go talk to someone about it in the first place should not be forced to discuss the particulars if they've already made up their mind. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
That goes without saying. But i've seen so much discussion of "rape" this year, of what "is" or "isnot" a rape. and to be frank, my anger stems from the fact that *once again* it is men, who have not faced rape, faced spousal rape, faced pressure to have sex who are "defining" rape. And they do it, by and large, to protect the rapist, not the victim. Hence, my anger at "real rape", "honest rape", and what you "should do" after you've been rape. and to suggest that it "doesn't happen often" or "is not likely" further inflamed my problem with this argument.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
So are you saying that false accusations of rape are still "real"? Scarlet A.pngpostate 18:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't even matter. The issue is about abortion. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Meh, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he used a poor choice of words and by "honest" meant actual rape, and not a false accusation (something which would certainly increase if only rape victims were allowed to get abortions). Also, who says men aren't raped? It's more rare, sure, but hardly unheard of. Also, the quote at the end of the WiGO, about how rape "almost never happens, but just imagine it could," I didn't see that in the transcript. Is it a real quote from him? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying in context, they are extremly rare. I"m saying they have all the relevance of Ron Paul's constant "late term abortion are a real human being - therfore ban abortions" arguments. I"m saying it's inappropriate to bring up "real" or "not real" rapes, when statistically according ot the CDC, around 90% of all claims ARE real, they are actual bona fida rapes, "I said no, he said yes". to play the "not real" card, is to vastly overstate exactly how many unreliable accusations of rapes there are out there. Do they happen, yes. But they are not that common, and when you say "only the real rapes need apply" you present an image of a world where rape is not common (again, read the transcript - both he and the intervierw all but say real rape rarely happens), and that a woman should not be trused cause she's probably reporting a "fake" rape. Rush says it. Beck says it. Candidates all over the repbulican party say it. "rapes are not really that common, and mostly you have a bunch of women who regret the sex saying they were raped.". Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 18:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know currently false accusations are rarer, that's a given (and I am at no point addressing anything other than this "honest" thing). But you have to come at it from Ron Paul's perspective for a moment, throw out the emotional football. Here is a guy with a strong conviction that "abortion is wrong". To overturn that you need to have a very good reason, in this case rape, which is a criminal offense. Because it is overturning a very strong conviction, he needs it to be clarified well. So from Paul's perspective here, the idea of people "faking" a rape to get access to abortions - and if this sort of thing went into law, I'm pretty sure we'll see it happen more frequently - then this exception becomes very, very salient. You would need to clarify it and phrase it in these terms to say "this is my exception and I need to enforce that this exception is rigorously applied". In fact, this is precisely why such a ruling is ridiculous, because you can't go around assuming a woman is lying just to get access to an abortion because that would be fucking reprehensible. Scarlet A.pngpostate 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
That last sentence pretty much sums it up, AKV. I think the point that conservatives/pro-lifers still don't get through their skulls is that "exceptions" are bad things, as it perpetuates the "some are more equal than others" mentality that is inherent in male-dominated societies, white-only golf courses, churchs as land-owning tax exempt organizations, etc.
Also, pretty sure a man being raped, while still just as abhorrant as a woman being raped, doesn't result in a pregnancy which may or may not wish to be terminated. I could be wrong. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Dick, the interviewer says "this isn't likely, i know, but IMAGINE IF, but i know it's not really common).

He says "and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen." Which is not the same as saying it almost never happens. I think he's also saying it as a way of taking the edge off a question in which a close family member is hypothetically violently attacked. Downplaying its likelihood sounds better than saying "and there's a good chance you wife is getting gang-raped by hooligans as we speak!" when one wants to be delicate about a very personal thing. Also, one in four is significantly higher than the stats I found, which are closer to 18% (still high, but still unlikely), and consider Ron's family is probably in a demographic where the rate is lower than the average (his daughters I imagine are married, and therefore unlikely to be victims of date rape). And if he's saying it's very unlikely that they'd need an abortion from a rape, he's correct, as most rapes do not result in conception. So, yes it is pretty unlikely any of Ron Paul's daughters or granddaughters will need an abortion from having been raped, and regardless, I wouldn't blame Morgan for stressing its unlikelihood when putting an uncomfortable question to an interviewee. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Romania's government collapses after protests

Been meaning to post here; and decided spamming SB with this one is to off topic for that; but the Romanian government resigned. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, good to see some people stand up for themself. Tielec01 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm more worried about Greece... Osaka Sun (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Whenever I hear the phrase "government collapse," images of anarchy and chaos pop into my head unbidden. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "government collapses" is a much more dramatic term than "administrators resign" (which is basically what's happened) - but it's an eye-grabber, and that's what gets people reading the story. Rennie McGreet (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Our new ant overlords

There's nothing "new" about them. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 06:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[1] Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Every Sperm is Sacred" Amendment

It seems that trolling and invocations of Poe's Law have worked their way into state legislatures. A similar amendment was added to Indiana's Welfare Drug Test bill that eventually killed the bill. A Virginia legislator attempted to attach prostate exams to prescriptions of ED drugs, an amendment that was defeated but only by a slim margin (21-19). The legal use of poison pills is nothing new...but these new attempts by Democratic state senators seems to go above and beyond that. This amateur troll approves. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


Maybe it's just me, but I find it fantastically ironic that the site for the "unstoppable torrent" appears to be down...
Problem loading page Tribler.png --PsyGremlinRunāt! 17:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's got masses of publicity since SOPA, so I think they've just DDoS'd their own site. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems to have taken the main site down due to "high popularity" but redirects to a basic download page. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone here actually tried it yet? It sounds interesting, but according to the comments in this article on Slashdot form a year ago, it's not really doing anything new aside from maybe the search thing, and obscure stuff was next to impossible to find compared to centralized trackers. --CoyoteSans (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
As the article notes, it's just a small circle of users so wouldn't have so much obscure stuff. It's a userbase thing. So you'd only expect it to have your normal, mainstream animated tentacle porn, rather than rarer, specialised tentacle porn. Scarlet A.pngtheist 22:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Racist Arizona judge"...

Not allowing somebody with insufficient language sklills in the official language of a state to run for public office isn't racism. It's common sense.

Don't get me wrong, I find the idea of a country in which 10.7% of the populance speaks a language (with high native percentage) and that language isn't one of the official languages atrocious, but law is law, and if a city council member isn't able to understand that law that's not going to end well. --ʤɱ heretic 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have issues calling it both "racism" and "common sense". Scarlet A.pnggnostic 00:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Quick look at Wiki-pee-dia, and it's more like 22% Spanish speakers in Arizona. And I have a vague recollection of relatively similar things like literacy tests being done in the South in the past, to keep some people from voting. Somehow always black people. Not that it was racist of course. Dendlai (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course, the other problem is that if you total up the numbers in all accurate statistics that say "X% of the population speak this language", you get a number that's larger than 100%, which renders the whole point moot. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Why should that render the point moot, the same thing happens when you ask for ethnicity/race. And if that still doesn't do it, try native speakers. --ʤɱ heretic 12:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Moot debatable or moot pointless? ARGH I'm so confused now...-- Seth Peck (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
YOu have no right not to "allow" any legal citizen to run for office. you have every right to say it's stupid as all get go, but there is NOTHING in the laws to prevent anyone from running. on those grounds, deaf people could not run, since they are not fluent (usually) in english. god i hate AZ. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 17:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Erm: Age? Mental Capabilities? --ʤɱ netlabelist 12:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Speaking as an Arizonian, I can safely say your hatred towards the state is warranted. This place is packed full of racist morons. Side note: I booed Sheriff Joe at a parade a few months ago. It felt good, despite the looks and comments I got for it. Cow...Hammertime! 18:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Go Wildcats. (Q: What do you get when you drive slowly through Tempe? A: A degree.) -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I"m so proud of you, Cow! he's one of the few people I'd want to actually boo. I've heard so many things about how he treats "mexicans". (spanish speakers, actually, as many many of them are born right here). what the white "recent to teh state" idiots forget is that the state was originally settled by mexicans. they were there first, and are american citizens. they are not *just* immigrants. even ones fluent in spanish and not fluent in english. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 18:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Er...that "French" keyboard

isn't, exclusively, French. And the "English" keyboard doesn't sound that English to me. From the description the "French" one sounds a lot like the one I am using right now, in England, you know where English things come from. The "English" one seems more like some Canadian/US thing. Toffeeman (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In England all the keyboards come from China. We don't seem to make anything except food products any more. Rennie McGreet (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
QWERTY v. AZERTY. didn't read teh article, though. now i'm curious who's tlaking about keyboards. --Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 17:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, that article is just friggin stupid - or the users are. you go to windows and "add keyboard", and choose "english qwerty" and you are touch typing away. what's teh problem? Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 17:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions physical changes on the keyboard, not just key layout.
"For a touch typist in particular, quite a bit. The U.S. English keyboard has a wide, flat “Enter” key with the backslash and right bracket keys above it. The multilingual keyboard has a tall, narrow Enter key that’s two rows high. That pushes the backslash key down a row, sitting where someone familiar with the U.S. English layout would expect the left half of the Enter key. On the left side of the keyboard, the English layout offers a wide “Shift” key, while the multilingual version chops the key in half and sneaks an extra key in beside the Z."
It sounds like the keyboard I'm using right now, though. There's a \ to the left of the Z on mine. The backslash part doesn't sound right though. Not sure why the article doesn't have a diagram or a picture. X Stickman (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In Mother Russia, the stupid is strong

From the article: "St. Petersburg human rights groups have said that the bill is clearly homophobic and that this attack on gay rights is simply an attempt to divert attention from other, more pressing issues." That's not stupid, it's politically astute. Pandering to the hate mob works, as we see in many countries. It's vile and disgusting, and rips up progress in the cause of careerism, but it's not stupid if the party doing the hating benefits in the end. I suggest a change of wording to "the hate is strong" - which also avoids the common RW mistake of saying "you espouse views I disagree with, therefore you are stupid." Cue calling me a right-wing homophobe in 3...2... Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Changed - David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks Britain is becoming too secular.

Lord Carey warns 'Christianity marginalised'

Well in the UK they do a lot of stuff like teaching Christianity in school and school prayers but Carey thinks they aren't doing enough. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, a former archbishop saying there isn't enough prayer isn't really controversial. It'd be wigo-worthy if a politician said it, or if the current archbishop ventured into areas he'd be best steering clear of. However the Daily Mail splash headline today - CHRISTIANITY UNDER ATTACK - was a hoot. I was half-expecting a ZOMG in there somewhere. Sophie (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The headline should REALLY be "Christianity Almost Gone!" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9696000/9696135.stm) CodeMaster9000 (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Well... this is you're fault for wanting a national church mr. archbishop. It made people do religion cause it was there, not cause they believed in it. --il'Dictator Mikal 08:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
There's the interesting theory that the US forbade church and state mingling, so the only way for it to survive was to embrace free market principles, and thus it grew more powerful. In contrast, state religion in the UK basically marginalised the CofE because there was no reason to care about it - it would be there whether you went to church or not. So naturally, people took the path of least resistance and we got where we are today. Certainly, if you look at the answers to the RDF Ipsos poll, it seems like most people identify as Christian literally "because it's there". Scarlet A.pngbomination 09:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

They are going to kill this man

A 23 year old man who had "tweeted" that he didn't always understand or agree with the Prophet Mohammed was forcibly removed from an airplane in Malaysia while on his way to New Zealand to request asylum and was returned to Saudi Arabia to face a death sentence for apostacy. They will surely kill Hamza Kashgari for practicing the free speech that we take for granted. http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/12/world/asia/malaysia-saudi-tweets/ Although Malaysia has no extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia, they said they wouldn't harbor a criminal, despite the fact that his "crime" was only a Twitter tweet and no court had convicted him, and despite the fact that he wasn't asking them to harbor him, he was merely on a routine airplane layover on the way to New Zealand. Also, Saudi Arabia wanted him so badly that they abused the function of Interpol, flagging his name in red for "highest terrorist threat" in order to pinpoint his location and capture him. Refugeetalk page 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The death penalty sucks, no matter what crime it's being meted out for. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 17:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I just can't imagine the US, UK, Australia, etc, killing someone for making a fairly innocuous twitter tweet. It's mind-boggling. Refugeetalk page 17:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Theocracy in action: Catch the (scarlet) fever! -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I just can't imagine The UK, France, Canada or Sweden killing someone for...anything really. It's mind-boggling. I think that's the debate to have, AFAIC. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 18:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
There's an angle on this about Interpol's role. They're not supposed to deal with political cases, yet they rolled over and did the KSA's bidding. Sophiebecause liberals 19:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, now they are going after anyone who merely says they object to Hamza's arrest. Talk about severe restriction of free speech, this is ridiculous. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/319642

"Saudi Arabia threatens supporters of blasphemous writer Hamza Kashgari" - By Katerina Nikolas Feb 15, 2012 - "Now the Saudi Arabian authorities are even threatening those who would seek to speak out in support of Kashgari. According to Death Penalty News the state prosecutor in Jeddah who is preparing to file a case against Kashgari has also called for others who have replied in encouragement or agreement to Hamza Kashgari’s Twitter remarks to be prosecuted. Authorities have not stated what punishment they would intend for anyone speaking in Kashgari's defence, but are quite clear on the punishment due to the writer if found guilty of apostasy. Saudi cleric Sheikh Saleh bin Fowzan Al Fowzan, a member of the 7-man supreme committee of scholars, said "he must be killed" if found guilty, Emirates 247 reported." Refugeetalk page 23:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

An Ontario Superior Court judge tells Stephen Harper to go shove it.

I don't see a connection to, or even a mention of, Stephen Harper in the linked article. I assume there's some background here that non-Canadians might not be aware of. Sophiebecause liberals 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich and Taitz

He didn't tell her to STFU, in fact: "That's a project you should pursue," Gingrich responded. A lukewarm reception, maybe, but Newt was being VERY careful to not discount/alienate the birthers. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a slight tendency now towards hyperbole in WIGO writeups. It's not necessary. Sophiebecause liberals 20:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
It's fine to me. It's not like the news is our write ups. exaggeration, whitewashing, or just some fun jibes doesn't harm anything. "necessary" is in the eye of the beholder. enough time listening to the Right makes all kinds of unnecessary things, necessary. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, racist much? ""Somebody who wouldn't be good enough, who wouldn't be certified to pick tomatoes or clean bathrooms is sitting in the White House," Taitz told Gingrich. Illegal immigrants only clean toilets and pick tomatoes. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And (mis)manage Elvis. Sophiebecause liberals 21:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure illegal immigrants do other things, too...like cook food, clean houses, repair vehicles, stock groceries, and cross the Canadian border to work for American companies. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Seen the first episode of The Thick of It? "What were the Prime Minister's exact words?" - "He said this is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing." - "Yeah, SHOULD! SHOULD DOES NOT MEAN YES!!" Scarlet A.pngpathetic 21:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

RDF Ipsos-Mori poll

I find the results of this question particularly telling:

Q49. When it comes to right and wrong, which of the following, if any, do you MOST look to for guidance?

Answer  %
My own inner moral sense 54
Parents, family or friends 25
Religious teachings and beliefs 10
Philosophy and reason 7
None of the above 2
Don’t know 1
Prefer not to say 1

(Full data here). -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not nearly as telling as the one that asks "why did you tick this box" and only 28% of people actually chose "I believe in the teachings of this religion" Scarlet A.pngnarchist 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
That works out as only about 15% are actually Christian if you go by belief. And yet archbishops still get a say in the House of Lords... *sigh* Scarlet A.pnggnostic 21:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't find this that surprising for the UK. Would be fun to compare it to America. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
@Seth Peck, that was indeed very interesting, I love perusing surveys and stats, but I give my apologies, because I am not sure what point it is supposed to make? That Christians rely more on their internal sense of right and wrong than what their religion tells them to do? And that it is more or less equivalent to what non-religious people do? Or something else? Please forgive me for being a little dense, and not understanding the point you are making, I admit I don't always get the things that other do right away, but I really would like to know, if you wouldn't mind explaining it to me, thanks. Refugeetalk page 23:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Refugee: One of the biggest arguments for believing in God is that a lot of the loudmouths (especially in the USA) say that atheism lacks morality. But the survey says that only 10% of Christians even believe that the Bible provides morality, and 79% either get it internally or feel it is defined by their friends and family (e.g., they learn or share it). There seems to be a belief, particularly among the loudest clerical members, that if it weren't for the Bible, we'd be killing, raping and stealing everything in site. We (RW'ians) may know that assertion is BS, but this survey shows that even the 4 out of 5 true believers don't feel that way. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. Thanks for explaining! :-) Refugeetalk page 01:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


[citation needed] --ʤɱ pervert 20:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum & an insufficiently biblical stance by the White House

Jesus Christ, just when I didn't think that Santorum could get any more fucking stupid... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/19/santorum-phony-theology_n_1287475.html Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Priority #1 for the Democrats: get this man the nomination. - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Damn right. I can think of roadkill that I'd rather vote for. Well, as I'm a Brit I can't vote, but my wife's American, so she'd rather vote for Badger "Pancake" McArmadillo-Crow. Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
What was the largest margin of victory in a Presidential election? Because if it does come to this, crazification factor will be one of the top political terms this year. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Not counting the unanimous election/re-election of Washington, it would be James Monroe over John Quincy Adams in 1820 (JQA only received one electoral vote). In recent memory, it would definitely be Reagan over Mondale in '84. Source.-- Seth Peck (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
So, if Santorum beats Obama in a landslide? Or should we not even joke about that? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 08:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's just say that my country will have a bit of an illegal immigration problem. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


at least there's no youtube video at the end now. Distracts from the content. steriletalk 07:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Men aren't disappearing WIGO

It seems to me like this should go under something like Feminism or Female supremacy, as it's one of those ideas that militant feminists (or Glenn Beck's "Feminazis"?) like to prattle on about. I don't mean to include it as an "in your face!" kind of way, but rather a "Science: it works, bitches people." kind of way. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Do militant feminists go on about it? I've seen the whole shrinking chromosome thing before, but it's always struck me as bad genetics rather than anything pushed for ideological reasons. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools