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>

Contents

[edit] Are we seriously going to do this?

Endorse Satanic Ritual Abuse in the name of Skepticism? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. That article was ridiculous. The author actually said there was a reason for the McMartin trial to go on so long. Yes, ridiculous claims like flight, children being flushed down tunnels, and secret tunnels were totally legit accusations that warranted an investigation/trial spanning nearly a decade. AyzmoCheers 13:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The article also assumes that prosecutors are much less clever than defense lawyers. While this might be true, it's not that big a difference. The same problems with highly leading and suggestive investigations existed, as did the assumption of large clandestine networks of child abusers. The prosecutors simply learned not to mention Satan or cults in the courtroom. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] why we need labels like...

While I agree with the gist of the article, I do feel that many of these labels do tend to pigeon hole and dehumanise people when used in conversation outside of academic discourse. I certainly see the term 'cis' used as a term of abuse or dismissively here quite frequently. I am sure these are useful discriptors in the right context but there is something to said for more general and vague terms in the interaction between human beings, rather than going into specifics or your sexual or gender orientation and the continuing tribalisation of the gay world AMassiveGay (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, there's a simpler problem underlying all this. The contest between human psychological complexity and the need for brevity and specificity in language. No one likes being reduced to a stereotyped identity based on a label, but, as a matter of convenience, it's nice to be able to identify your sexuality in a word or two. Ikanreed (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Where the hell do you see "cis" used as a slur? Serious question. I mean, I'm sure you can find some obscure tumblr blog calling for the deaths of cis people, but I'm sure you can find some obscure tumblr blog calling for the deaths of straight people as well. It's not really relevant. 66.116.36.35 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. "Oh no, they called me 'cis'! That must mean I'm something bad, not normal, 'cos otherwise there wouldn't be a word for it." - David Gerard (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I've probably over stated the point. I have seen it used here dismissively in a check your privilege fashion, not often I grant ya but it has appeared on occasion and for some reason lodged in my mind. I do not recall where. I stand by initial post even if its non existent here. Certainly all the bullshit I'd rather not dwell on with Facebook business had it in spades if only in intent rather than specifically using the term. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
It's just briefer and more clear in intent than "not-trans". That's all there is to the term. I don't use it, because I haven't had a time when it's important to me to draw attention to the fact that someone is trans or isn't. But it doesn't cause harm by existing. Ikanreed (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else of the 23 people who voted down the link care to elaborate? I'm curious what exactly they found to be off about it.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

just to be clear I didn't vote down I orange buttoned it. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I probably voted it down for the same reason you want an explanation as to why people downvoted it. "Do you hear how self-centered and self-serving that sounds? ... Again, do you hear the closedmindedness? The myopia? The self-centeredness? The arbitrariness?" I don't mind the labels, but I am extremely tired of that kind of moral aggression and scolding. The author needs a session in the cucking-stool. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Roko's Basilisk

Is anybody else miffed that none of these new people finding out about Roko's Basilisk are mentioning us, and that they appear to be taking it seriously?--"Shut up, Brx." 12:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Slightly annoyed, given it was Slate's main actual source. But they're certainly finding the article and telling each other about it - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Kinda miffed that it left out the best part: That the torturing of people would be be the 'justified' action of a Friendly AI, to punish them for not doing everything they could to help it come into being. Instead the article paints it as malevolent. --74.182.83.96 (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. The basilisk article has been revised by the process of "read this and explain it back to me" (I have exceedingly patient friends) and shoring up the bits that people's brains just balked at - David Gerard (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "Disagreement is inevitable, but bullying and harassment are not."

Reading this article just made me think back to other discussions I've had in the past with others who share my stances/experiences over how to present ourselves and our views, and have been accused variously of "derailing," "tone trolling/policing" and "invoking the tone argument," among others. I'm not saying we should get carte blanche to act like assholes to anyone we please, but I have to ask: what's the difference between that and this? Thanks. Noir LeSable (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that you were entering a discussion and addressing people directly, while the article is addressing people indirectly. If you say "don't be a dick" to nobody in particular as a general moral statement, people don't get offended, but if you say "don't be a dick" to a specific person or group of people, they react as if you called them a dick, even if you're not trying to. The statement is the same (and it's a perfectly good statement), but the context is different. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 18:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Dawkins

Is there something he said or intended that I missed? It really did seem like he tried as hard as he could to make clear that he wasn't trivializing the lesser of two crimes, and that which one was worse depended on the person. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not here to start a fight (although I wouldn't mind a civil debate) TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

He was molested as a child himself, so speaking of him as not being included in sexual assault survivors is erroneous - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Shorter: He's in a hole and should stop digging! Scream!! (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I think someone at the Friendly Atheist made a good point about how to most people, "mild pedophilia" is a bit like "mild decapitation". If he wanted to address that, he needed to lead up to it better. He probably should have found a better place to discuss it than Twitter, too. - User:PsychoGecko 19:07, 30 July 2014

[edit] reasons to lose faith in humanity

That some folk are a bit thick and/or make crap jokes is the reason and not all that war, murder, and assorted mayhem going on. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

In olden days people went down to Bedlam to laugh at the loonies. Now they are freely available on t'internet. Feeling superior gives that warm, fuzzy feeling inside. Cloud Yeller (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "Humans Need Not Apply"

Scary shit. I hope it all turns out false. 76.4.254.80 (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Zoe Quinn Controversy

So... what's going on here? I step away from the computer for a night's sleep and some morning work, and when I returned, Reddit and Tumblr (or, rather, the relevant parts of them) appear to be exploding, Phil Fish is having conniption fits on Twitter, allegations of censorship are flying, and there's something about Five Guys (the burger restaurant?). Even the WIGO here has a 21-vote -5 score attached to it in the 3-ish hours it's been up. Is there an unbiased source or something close to it that currently hits all the salient points out there? Noir LeSable (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing worth RW time, I suspect. IP posts apparent slander, it quickly acquires downvotes ... I comment out - David Gerard (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It appears it's something that's actually happened rather than slander, but the mudslinging is too strong to make heads or tails of it (not to mention doxxing?). Agreed on moving on. Noir LeSable (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the guy who posted the original WIGO. I felt that the controversy was on-mission because of the strong ties to corruption in journalism and social media junkies tend to blindly follow their "feels" without pausing to examine the situation. As for an unbiased source, there generally isn't one because most of the outlets who would cover it are suppressing it at the moment, and those that were covering it got downed shortly afterward. Everyone else is understandably rather pissed about it, so I don't know if you could call them unbiased, and most of it's on the shifting sands of 4chan anyway. The Internet Aristocrats video is currently the definitive entry-level source for explaining to people what the whole mess is all about, so I'd recommend checking that. 50.29.204.179 (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It's being discussed in the Clogosphere where it belongs, I'd hope most of the community aren't so easily swayed by a sensationalist youtube video created by somebody who has never spoke to the woman --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It speculates and makes "strong conclusions" given uncertain evidence. It's only good to get what a biased view would look like. Nullahnung (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Noir LeSable, here is as close to an unbiased point of view (it's not possible with shitstorms like this) as you'll get from someone who actually has a public face: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s4nmr1/

TB still doesn't get some of the things that he broadly calls "SJW", but at least he tries to stay out of things he has no clue about, hence the lack of much bias. Nullahnung (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Should we call ISIS evil?

Yes.--Mercian (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Because that's easier on your brain than seeing them as human beings who have, through various and complex motivations, done evil things? Ikanreed (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
For quick catchy descriptions of the group or for treating the group as a kind of person, I think it works to say "evil". But, for me, it actually hurts less to describe the actions as evil and assume the actors (evil or not) are just making horrifically bad choices. MarmotHead (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
And keep in mind that as an organization, there are going to be people who see themselves as moderates, doing overall less harmful things, and forgiving those doing worse things as doing bad things for the right reason. You're right in that you can use the word "evil", but to repeat it over and over or talk about it like it's an important point does more harm than good. To get indignant about those not using the word highlights a broken xenophobic psyche. Ikanreed (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] ¿Una conspiración? QuiZARAs no.

Can I be honest here? I call Hanlon's razor. I hardly think that there was any intention for it to look like a concentration camp uniform (and even so, I didn't see it the first time I saw it... Although I have to say that I'm not crazy about the thin-striped blue-yellow contrast; a solid cream background or brown stripes if any would've fit the theme better). The swastika bag incident was less understandable, yes (I mean seriously, how many people do you have on your QA team?), but this seems more like unfortunate coincidence for a company already known for at least one Nazi-related gaff to me. :\ Noir LeSable (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Their reaction does suggest it was an honest mistake. They need better QA but they aren't Nazis. Abed Nadir (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support