RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

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

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>


[edit] That tumblr thingy with -20 points

Since it was added by that troll, and it's about as coherent as that troll, shouldn't it be removed? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 13:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nah, let's rub it in his face that his trolling has failed spectacularly. BicyclewheelModerator 14:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Stuff tends not to get removed from WIGO unless it's really old or should be moved to a different WIGO - downvoting into oblivion is just fine - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Downvoted it for your guys' pleasure. :) LEFTYGREENMARIO 07:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] That stupid hentai WIGO

Seriously? I could, if not in the interest of this site not being a pornostash, post 150,000 "sex-positive" hentai comics and images from just the sites listed in that article (I mean holy shit, Fakku has tons of good stuff, and that's one that was specifically pointed out in the thing). If I go to Tube8 and say "ugh, all the gay porn out there is just twinks being rammed up the ass, that's all there is" then yes, I would describe a thing that exists, but holy shit did I miss a lot of things and then go "UGH, IT'S ALL THERE IS" because that's all I was looking for. [Semi-anonymous rant mode OFF.] (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sturgeon's Law must surely apply to porn as much as anything else. I guess porn has greater scope for the worst of it to be damaging (depending on how it was made) or displaying the worst attributes of its target market, but I'll take hentai over Nuts any day. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Very true. I was also disappointed the article made no mention of visual novels - most of which are erotic in nature and depict consenting adults. I'm not sure they're "sex-positive" in the most forthright, feminist sense - they sure have a lot of large breasts - but most of them don't focus on rape or other definitely immoral stuff. (There are of course some VNs that do, but they're much the minority.) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 06:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Also no mention of otome games, although otome games are rarely explicit. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg I'm a survivor, keep on survivin' 13:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't really class visual novels as outright hentai, despite their occasional pornographic content. Plus whilst they certainly are a lot less rapey, the relationships in those tend to have a ruthless, coercive "be nice guy to get sex" sort of framing to them, as a result of the player input and premise. Not really all that sex positive either. 21:20 14 March 2015 (UTC) (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] That weak Guardian article on Militant atheism

The gist seems to be that militant atheists are largely liberal, and they think that all cultures will naturally evolve to their viewpoint. It seems like an insipid straw-man argument to me, especially considering that liberal atheists can retort that they don't expect all societies will adopt liberalism as a matter of course. — Unsigned, by: Hotwateramericano / talk / contribs

Not going to argue with that characterization. But I do think that at least for certain liberals, there is the expectation that liberalism will inevitably triumph. Its opponents stand in the way of Progress, and Progress is inevitable. (And so, standing in the way of Progress makes you a Villain.) Been this way since the days of the ancient Whigs. At any rate, I thought the editorial was not crazy enough for the clogs and fairly obviously missional. The author, John Gray[wp], probably deserves an article. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 04:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Davis Aurini and Jordan Owen have broken up

Is the skinny guy wearing the fedora ironically, have these losers "reclaimed" it from ridicule, a la lesbnians reclaiming the word "dyke," or does he actually think it makes him look cool? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he's reclaiming the fedora's ironic coolness. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought the hat was actually the most amicable element in that picture. (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] People who are sick of activists' shit.

Seriously. Graduate students who literally spend 60 hours a week reading and writing about cutting-edge scholarship about things like gender and race attack someone who turned up for the cause and is willing to give time and effort for a common goal, but only has a GED and no idea what the fuck "gender performativity" or "social construction of race" mean or haven't learned that there are more than two possible pronouns for someone or that you shouldn't say "man up", thereby alienating a valuable ally. It happens, and it sucks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware. Being caustic helps exactly zero* sincere causes. But I still downvoted it because it seemed like exactly the sort of narrow-minded policing of language it denounced. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Telling people that engaging in narrow-minded policing of language is itself narrow-minded policing of language. Gotcha. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It can be if all you do is say "Never call people out". If it's a gross simplification, it's a gross simplification, regardless of intent, no? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Except that's not what he said. "There are ways of calling people out that are compassionate and creative, and that recognize the whole individual instead of viewing them simply as representations of the systems from which they benefit. Paying attention to these other contexts will mean refusing to unleash all of our very real trauma onto the psyches of those we imagine represent the systems that oppress us. Given the nature of online social networks, call-outs are not going away any time soon. But reminding ourselves of what a call-out is meant to accomplish will go a long way toward creating the kinds of substantial, material changes in people’s behaviour – and in community dynamics – that we envision and need." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
That's fair. I was overreaching. And I'm a firm believer in the extraordinary value of context. On the other hand, look at Smerdis' kinda hateful reply below to see how some people treat this kind of advice. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Indeed. It's a bit of a shame, because I think this kind of attitude can not only alienate folks, but can also actually lessen the effectiveness of the activism in general. People like their in-groups and are more likely to listen to others within their in-group(s). Turning away someone looking to help just because they come from another background serves only to lock yourself out of that person's group and prevent your message from gaining traction. - Grant (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
To some extent I am inclined to agree with the author, though he does come off as a bit of tone troll in the article. The popular perception of those students who you mention (and who you may be aware are referred to, often derisively, as Social Justice Warriors) is that they lack any concept of proportionality. This is evident (at least to the denizens on the internet) by the fact that their responses to relatively minor actual (or perceived) social injustices tend to be regarded, even by other leftists (let alone centrists or conservatives), as being way out of proportion to the actual offense committed. Alsto003 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Alex
Is anyone who criticizes tone a tone troll? (There's a discussion on that in the saloon, by the way.) (Agrajag (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC))
There's an extent to which that's true. In a totally sincere, rational world, an argument's merits do not vary at all based on the verbal framework that surrounds it. Demanding everyone's sincere concerns fall as secondary to expressing their concerns a certain way is pretty much all a tone troll does. Regardless, we don't live in a totally sincere, rational world, which entails being friendly with assholes who don't deserve it as the only way to alleviate a bit of their assholedom. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It just seems to be that "tone troll" serves as an escape hatch - you use the term and people think "oh, that's a bad thing, isn't it? Ergo, this person must be wrong". I'm sure almost everyone here has seen it used in such a way - to dismiss as a troll anyone who criticizes you and shut down further discussion on the matter. (Not to say, of course, that tone/concern trolls don't exist, but the term seems to be far too broadly applied.) (Agrajag (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC))
Tone trolls are distinguished from those simply disagreeing by their lack of actual delineated counter-argument, and an insistence that the objectionable tone causes incorrectness. Very loosely, it can be thought of as a kind of ad hominimem. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] In which Smerdis shares zher opinion of activism

Activists will always need somebody to dehumanize, because that's what activism is. Activists are people who make enemies lists. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 17:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Your essay sucks, dude. It's twisting the definition of something, then selectively cherrypicking people to fit that definition, then denouncing similar people as problematic, on the basis of that stretched definition. That's not good reasoning, and it's exactly the sort of enemy forming you claim to denounce. As a clue, you cite LessWrong for Christ's sake. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I realized I just chastised you for the inanity of the essay, rather than refuting your central point, so let's do that too. Activism frequently and generally centers on approaching a goal. Anti-war activism doesn't demonize soldiers or politicians, for example. It just opposes military solutions to problems. You can find anti-war activists who are anti-(insert person) and make them out to be a demon, but it's neither central nor necessary to the activist approach. I find your accusation mentally lazy, your attitude ignorant of the way general human nature develops enemies(it's not just activists), and kind of insulting, even though I'm not myself much of an activist for anything. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I was there, and actually starting to pay attention, during the wind-down of the Vietnam War. "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"[1] It is at least historically false that "Anti-war activism doesn't demonize soldiers or politicians..." It may have been that the Vietnam War was a big enough deal to justify resort to activism, but again, activism needs an enemy with a subhuman face. But the call-out culture is simply a self-righteous brand of performance art. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 18:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I've pointed out before that this is part of your issue; you continue to frame everything regarding activism, argument, etc., in terms of the late 1960s/early 1970s activism. It's very nice and historical, but does not necessarily apply to modern day activism. Frankly, your insistence that activism, feminism, and other facets of human nature haven't progressed or changed since before I was born doesn't hold up. You remind me of TERFs who insist that all feminism ended at 2nd Wave Dworkinism and hasn't moved since. --Castaigne (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Human nature has progressed or changed? Really? Now, the kinds of activism being discussed in the blog in question get criticized for being sanctimonious, aggressive, disproportionate, fanatical, and oblivious to context. I'm skeptical that other kinds of activism are even possible. But even if there's some other kind of activism that's full of hugs and flowers, this is not it. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 20:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The amount of disproportionate sanctimony and aggression in this post says more than enough about the relevance of "activism" to that equation. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
You keep confusing processes and procedures with people. I'm talking about activism and methods thereof, not human nature. The map is not the territory. --Castaigne (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow the point you're making here. You were the one who said that human nature had changed over the past thirty-odd years. I'm fairly sure it hasn't. I cheerfully admit that one of the dangers of anti-activist activism is becoming the enemy. Activism leads to an arms race. And people generally aren't even aware of their actual worst behaviors. They are so current and respectable. History only sees them in hindsight. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I did not say that human nature has changed over the past 30-odd years. Activism and the processes thereof has changed over the past 30-odd years. Activism is not human nature, and no amount of you trying to conflate the two will make it so. --Castaigne (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
That isn't what you wrote; so it goes. I'm not sure how you'd go about quantifying this -- counting numbers of pressure groups or trying to make an algorithm that measures hostility in texts, maybe -- but it seems to me that the tide of moralistic aggression is unacceptably high and rising. We're in the middle of a great civil rights catastrophe -- people being segregated, shunned, and driven out into the cold, constantly facing signs that they're unwelcome -- one that's even elaborated its own form of "scientific racism", and people who haven't met me may be hard pressed to figure out what I'm talking about. How is present day activism less cruel or invasive than the forms it took some decades ago? I'm not seeing that. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 18:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you here. If we date the modern activist movement as something that started with abolitionism, was energized by the suffragettes and arguably enjoyed its best days in the last half of the 20th century with a variety of movements ranging from anti-colonialism (including apartheid), anti-racism movements in the Americas (civil rights, Black Power, Red Power), anti-war and anti-nuke activism, the women's liberation movement, the Stonewall moment and its legacy, and a host of others -- you characterise these as "cruel or invasive"? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Damn right they're cruel and invasive. All these angry loud activists have started to topple me off my privileged white male seat at the top of society. Marlow (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Right in one. I see a lot of Smerdis' type in former hippies of the 1960s, specifically my wife's parents and the parents of a punk friend of mine. They promoted the Civil Rights Movements and marched and did their thing...and now that their views have gone from "relevant in the 1970s" to "wow, that's rather retrogressive by 2000s standards", they're all pissed off. They don't want to hear that they're no longer on the front edge of today. They got comfortable with their former activist stance and stopped moving. They especially don't want to realize that they're no different than my great-grandmother or grandmother, who are still confused why "Chinamen" isn't something polite to call all Asians or why "niglet" is a no-longer-socially-acceptable label.
When my wife/friend realized this about their parents, they were shocked. I think I'm just used to it; I was born to a family of reactionary authoritarians and I had nothing but contempt for the Great Hippie Generation of yesteryear to begin with. --Castaigne (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see it a bit different. It boils down to freedom versus authoritarianism. The side of the angels is the side that wants to dial back moralism, cut people slack, and open up new possibilities. The side of evil is the one that wants to impose value judgments, forbid what once was allowed, or impose new restraints. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 20:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Forbid what was once allowed." Do you mean slavery, lynching, denying the vote based on race and gender, imperial rule, and apartheid? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
People who marched for civil rights but are no longer on the cutting edge of activism are as bad as actual, vicious, racists? (Agrajag (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC))
Neither slavery, nor lynching, nor any of those other strawmen have aught to do with increasing the scope of human freedom and loosening the grip of social control, cutting people slack, nor dialing back moralism. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 04:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
What? We're talking about activism, and so I bring up some of the big causes that activists have addressed, and those causes aren't relevant? And "slavery" has nothing to do with "increasing the scop of human freedom"? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
But you would have been happy to allow those things to flourish rather than have people get all "angry" and "activist" and "moralist" about it. Go along to get along. At least, that's what I get from what you say. --Castaigne (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
With regard to slavery in the USA, I suspect that the military might have had more to do with its abolition than activists. The activists may well take credit for raising tensions to the point of secession and war. You could call that a success. And yes, I do think that society and everyone in it benefits from less anger and moralism, and greater tolerance and civil peace. Perhaps the worst thing about activists is their belief that they are entitled to your attention. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 17:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking specifically of the role of grassroots activism in Great Britain in the ending of Atlantic slave trade. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking that integrated transport was coming along fine and Rosa Parks was just some hothead who wanted to have her own way. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Secession and the Civil War actually had very little to do with the issue of slavery; I recommend you actually read up on the reasons for the conflict and update your thinking in that regard.
Despite your weaseling around the subject, let me be blunt: You would rather society suffer large-scale human rights abuses rather than have activists "stir things up", simply because you are afraid of conflict and the upsetting of the status quo. You choose the stagnant path of certainty and stability over change. I understand this; I really do. After all, I'm not liberal - I'm an authoritarian. I like order, hierarchy, certainty. However, certainty and stability and the status quo are not always the correct solutions to solve problems. --Castaigne (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
(EC)Let me explain what's wrong here: you're looking for arbitrarily inaccurate justifications to fit reality to your clearly flawed theory, rather than adjusting your theory for reality. Now, I'm not trying to jump on you too hard for doing that, because I do it too, but please, think for a moment about how you're dismissing large swaths of various kinds of work by great people like Fredrick Douglas and controversial people like John Brown, and outright dismissing them to put all the credit on "the military". Regardless of the extent to which the civil war settled the issue of slavery, it's pretty fucking clear that activists created the issue as something to settle. Both in matters of collective discussion, and in terms of the practicalities. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If John Brown is an example of an activist, then his kind of activism is something that no society is ever going to tolerate, no matter how evil the society or how righteous the cause. (And slavery -- and specifically, the realization that the country was going to be populating territory ill suited for plantation slavery, and that the slave states would inevitably be politically outnumbered, a fate they saw coming to pass at Lincoln's election -- wasn't the cause of the civil war? Really?)

In many ways, I see this country looking rather like it did before the Civil War, two opposing world views, at least one of which is in a death spiral of extremism. The activities of the anti-abortion cranks, the tea partiers, and the creationists are also activism. Activism is what's wrong with the Republican primaries, and thus with the Republican party generally. Activism is not always for a worthy cause. More importantly, the problems with activism are mostly indifferent to the nature of the cause. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, I was thinking about British abolitionists and their activism to end the Atlantic trade, not the Civil War. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you talking about people and things like William Wilberforce, John Newton, Amazing Grace, that sort of thing? I don't know a whole lot about the politics of the period, but I saw a Christian biopic about Wilberforce some years ago that suggested that for all the good he did, he was an insufferable prick. Didn't he also found a "Society for the Suppression of Vice"? He had the printer of Paine's Age of Reason jailed. There's something wrong in the head about that kind of busybody. You wouldn't want him as a neighbor. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 04:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Belatedly: I can understand the desire to have people be less judgmental and more accepting of each other; but I'm also deeply suspicious of anyone who tries to insist on that as an ideology, or to universally denounce "activists" or "moralists" or the like. Taking that position as a hard line (and denouncing people for violating it) is, obviously, itself an action of a judgmental activist, so I find it really hard to accept that anyone who takes that position is being entirely honest (either with others or with themselves; they might actually believe what they say, but their positions and actions are incoherent.) If you want to tell others that they should be more accepting even when it comes to things that deeply offend them (like racism or sexism or ignorance), you have to be willing to start with that yourself; you need to show your willingness to listen to them and recognize what's good about their positions and to lead by example rather than by aggressively decrying the people you feel cross the lines you've drawn in your head. If you're loud, aggressive, and in-your-face with a shut up about racism and sexism! message, then it's reasonable for others to conclude that your position is that racism and sexism aren't a big deal (and that you're defending them, specifically), even if you claim that you're just objecting to their tone; since your actions (in showing a willingness to draw lines in the sand about how people should talk and what they should say, and then denounce people for crossing them) say that you have no problem with their tone, only with their message. It's obvious that Smerdis, above, has very strong feelings about what it should be acceptable for people to say and how it should be acceptable for them to say it; but this sort of puts the lie to any claim that their position is actually based around a sincere love for intellectual freedom. (I am not necessarily accusing Smerdis of deliberately being disingenuous; I think it's easy to fall into the intellectual trap of thinking "my preferences, moral judgments, and culture are normal and natural, and the way I assert them is a neutral position, stating simple moral fact that infringes on nobody's liberty; other people's are strange and political and foreign and wrong, and people infringe on my liberty by asserting these strange new moral positions." But this is an intellectually incoherent position to take.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Way late followup

science doesn't support the notion that activism is a mentally disengaged emotional activity. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] GCPGrey's trifling video.

A video about a very strained and cliched metaphor about ideas and infectious diseases? Why can't he make videos about interesting topics again? — Unsigned, by: Hotwateramericano / talk / contribs 18:54, 10 March 2015

Er. It's a discussion of Richard Dawkins's theory of Memetics[wp]. Dawkins himself makes the disease analogy in The Selfish Gene and his essay Viruses of the Mind, among other works. And I thought it was quite interesting in how controversial or anger-inducing ideas self-propagate and form themselves around maddening "effigies" of the opposing side.
Honestly, I'm just surprised at how much it's being downvoted around here. I know better to judge the views of an entire website by a votebar that anyone and everyone can vote on, possibly more than once, but still. (Also please don't forget to sign your comments with "~~~~", thanks). Noir LeSable (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was great, and hit colse to home. Never seen any of the guy's other stuff. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It was a reasonably good introduction to the concept of the meme, but the "meme" concept is just that: a strained metaphor. Even I think it takes biologizing too far, which should tell you something. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 03:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] My response to that "Atheist Ireland" thing

Oh, no! PZ Myers doesn't like Fred Phelps! And all this started because Michael Nugent asked multiple questions and received a response that he felt didn't answer all of them, forcing him to guess what Myers was referring to. Well, you know, except for the part where Myers used more than half of the words from the question he was responding to in the opening paragraph. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 12:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was accurate for a few of Myers's "wah wah my pet interest" moments. Though, "insensitive" and "hateful" are pretty different. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 13:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I generally don't like PZ Meyers, but I find most of the stuff they list under "Some examples of his [insert adjectives with negative connotations here] rhetoric" as either harmless or things Meyers is totally right about. They would've been better off not listing all the "Oh noes, he's rude and doesn't like these people" examples. (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Myers has told movement atheism to fuck off repeatedly, for the reasons he raises - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It's good to know that "Atheist Ireland" supports the black, libertarian equivalent of Pamela Geller. Makes me wonder who funds them. --Castaigne (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Just whiny idiots. The response article with links to what Myers actually said is most edifying - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Angry polemicist attracts angry polemic. Film at 11. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Cracked article about the troubled teen industry

Friendly reminder that the troubled teen industry article has been rotting in the bottom of the To Do List for God knows how long. I'd start it, but I have exams to study for and TVTropes anime pages to obsessively document tropes in. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg ROAD ROLLER DA! Wryyyyyy! 23:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, I've read a lot on the subject. Maybe I should do it. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 16:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Could you direct me to some literature on the subject? I have some paychecks to burn some interest on the topic. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg This taste... it's of a liar! 22:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] About the The Guardian Article

The parts of the article referring to what we call people is nonsense that borders absolute nonsense. It didn't have to be; They could have stayed focused on how people can say one thing and mean another. But, they didn't. Instead, it's a cynical view of how "oh no, we're making deception easier!" That's not dis-empowering anybody. People are politely asked to treat others with dignity, and that's about it. If they don't comply, they'll just end up with more people asking them to use different words, unless they're a huge jerk about it. And the article complains about not saying people "suffer" from autism, "even if they do." People don't suffer from autism. People with autism suffer from ignorant people. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 17:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Your final point is undeniable but remember this article is written from a left wing perspective, not a liberal one, and should be read in a wider context. Already in the late eighties, it was evident that civility in language might raise consciousness but was not going to bring about any real change. Instead, we got what Tony Judt said: "Pretending we are all separate but equal, he said, “conceals the effects of real power and capacity, real wealth and influence. You describe everyone as having the same chances when actually some people have more chances than others. And with this cheating language of equality, deep inequality is allowed to happen much more easily.”".
It's evident in all aspects of British public life, particularly in education. We respect and value all ethnicities, creeds, family arrangements, abilities etc but if you're a black working class kid you're more fucked than ever. Your chances of being diagnosed with ASD are much lower than a middle classs white kid, but you're chances of exclusion from mainstream education and/or getting arrested are much much higher. But it's OK - the schools have training sessions and special classes and policies and stuff.
Changing the way we speak about others has become a mere exercise in civility or, in too many cases, a fig leaf for deflection onto a different Other. It changes little but gives power an excuse to carry on as usual London Grump (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
"People don't suffer from autism". What about repetitive actions and other behaviors that actually can cause self-harm (eye-poking, head banging, etc.)? What about the problems adjusting to different situations due to their tendency to engage in ritualistic behavior? Pretending that diseases aren't diseases isn't helping anyone, and the only reason to be so offended when people call people with autism "sufferers" is that you're upholding the stigmatizing of diseases.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Those are satellite traits. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 07:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I usually roll my eyes when I read or hear people pushing the postmodernist idea that if we change language, we will change society. However, the idea that political correctness is the reason for the problems of disadvantaged groups is idiotic.
Does anybody of you who upvoted this thing genuinely believe that it is PC that allows politicians to do budget cuts? Cameron pledged not to cut NHS spendings and yet he did. All the SUFFERING of uk PATIENTS didn’t stop the Tories. How would you blame that on PC? Oh snap, it’s ‘cause they allowed female muslim medical staff to wear sleeves, isn’t it. And this year there were cuts in cancer treatment. I blame Jolie, why would the government need to pay for women who kept their boobs instead of choosing the cheaper option. And all those people with cancer on TV who look so strong and brave - why don't you suffer more expressively?
In addition all these people are under the umbrella term “disabled”. Isn’t that enough to show that they "don’t have the same chances". Should they wear signs or badges? Do you believe that pc has had such a profound effect on society that nobody today knows that having a disability is hard? This guy gal with schizophrenia says that “The Bullshit People Believe Impacts Your Life More Than the Disorder”. And that’s a common sentiment among a lot of people with disability or mental illness. That is not to say that there are no people who suffer. Yet claiming that society has forgotten that having a mental illnesses can be bad is utter stupidity. Parents still go through the stages of grief when they learn that their child has a disabling condition.
But let’s assume that everything that Nick Cohen (he probably would have won Pulitzer by now if we still called them "kykes") says is correct. Even then his argument makes no sense. Since Obama took office, some have claimed that now, that there is a black US president - racism is over in the US. Black people (or should I say "porch monkeys", 'cause I don't want to further disempower them) are fine. They just need to pull up their pants and get a job - I heard a "coon" say that on FoxNews once, so it must be true.
By the logic of the argument made in the article, the recent deterioration in relationships between the police and the African American community is all one man's fault - thanks, Obama. You see – it’s bad for black people to be in governing positions, because that allows the police to kill poor black kids and say "But it's OK - the White House has a black president in it, we have black Attorney General, the 14th Amendment, and stuff".
BTW you should never elect a woman president, because that will disempower women even further by becoming another excuse for the patriarchal status quo.
I have read a lot of advocacy groups’ positions and expert reports and I cannot even begin to list all the problems that people with and within the community, who work on the issues, face while trying to change laws, institutions and societies, but the use of the term “consumer” instead of “patient” is not among them. If anyone is concealing the problems that’s Nick Cohen with his very simplistic and out-of-touch take on the issue.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
That's okay. Taking down every dumb new argument as it comes up is fun. It's half the reason for editing rationalwiki, really. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"I usually roll my eyes when I read or hear people pushing the postmodernist idea that if we change language, we will change society. However, the idea that political correctness is the reason for the problems of disadvantaged groups is idiotic." Yeah, totally agree. That people sometimes focus too much on enforcing PC language instead of actually educating people or eliminating discriminative/oppressive systems is a reasonable claim, but this guy takes that idea and does some seriously crazy shit with it.
"This guy with schizophrenia says..." You got the gender wrong, but great article. (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"I cannot even begin to list all the problems that people with and within the community" You're talking about Autism Speaks, right? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg The retarded vomit of disintegrating! 17:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Also: Even the middle class white guy is unlikely to get diagnosed. Psychiatric care still carries a heavy stigma with it, and so many cases of ASD go undiagnosed. But I'm not in the US or the UK, so I dunno. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg The retarded vomit of disintegrating! 17:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Are satellite traits not caused by autism?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
They're correlated. It also hasn't been ruled out that those satellite traits are caused and/or worsened by the way autistic people are treated. Of course, I'm not saying that *is* what's happening, but it would certainly make sense (person gets ostracized from groups, so they obsess about being ostracized from groups and exhibit compulsive behavior; Boom, OCD). There's also always the fact that exhibiting a severe trait increases the probability of autism being noticed. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 15:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd still call that "suffering" TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Periodic table

Uploaded to RW in 2010 File:Woo_Table_v1.4.png by Human Scream!! (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools