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>


[edit] Conservative Protestants and traditional marriage

Classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc there. I don't suppose the study being referenced controlled for income, or for educational level. Those make a large difference in divorce rates as well. We should know better.

There's also the 'do as I say' phenomenon at work, which you see a lot of in that culture. They whoop and holler about the sanctity of marriage at least in part because they know in truth that their own relationships, and those of their neighbors, are fragile.

The Bible Belt is a land of unfortunate feedback loops. When the culture tells you that to touch beer or liquor to your lips marks you as one of the unsaved and damns you to hell, the idea of responsible drinking tends to fade into the background: you ain't going to learn from these folks. And the drunken misadventures of the newly damned prompt another round of sermons. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling paper

Although I would be ready to believe trolls are typically sadistic and childish (Especially those that make threats and spend lots of time obsessing over their targets, not just shitposting snots), trolls are not exactly honest -was dishonesty taken into account when the researchers came to this "Dark Tetrad" conclusion? Or would misrepresenting oneself to seem even worse be part of all that? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I object to merely being called a sadist! I'm also not sure how they came to this conclusion, when the trolls were clearly going to be lying for the lulz. Take it from me, I'm one!--The Madman (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)The Madman
I wonder what their definition of "troll" was, since in my experience, people labeled as trolls run the gamut from "plays practical jokes on people" to "eggs on suicidal persons". Frederick♠♣♥♦ 22:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Attractive convict

She's not suing because she's a meme. She's suing because her picture is being used for an advertisement. She's more or less okay with the meme (except for the whole suddenly-becoming-the-target-of-a-bunch-of-creepy-internet-people thing)--"Shut up, Brx." 17:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

She has every right to sue against the use of her mugshot for commercial purposes. Also that meme is creepy. Bismarck (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Mugshots are pbulic domain, personality rights are an entirely different kettle of fish - using the pic for advertising engages the latter - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] How do you discuss Darwin in a language doesn't have a word for species?

Fuck knows, but I'm reliably informed that Arabic - and Urdu, for that matter - does have a word for "species". Maybe its another group of backward darkies, eh? Those crazy mooslims! London Grump (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that Arabic has the word now. The review makes it appear as if there was no word at the time that evolution became a topic to distinguish "species" from concepts such as “variety” or “kind”, and that many of the words needed for the discussion were crafted as needed, in the late 19th c. But I haven't read the actual book, so take that for what it's worth. TeenageWasteland (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
This isn't much different to many European languages of the time, I think. Octo8 (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"Species" itself is in one sense not an English word, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"Darkies?"--"Shut up, Brx." 00:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] /r/mensrights survey

Either they got bot-trolled, or... excuse me, I need to stop laughing to take a breath.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do people link to fucking twitter instead of the actual survey? Twitter is for idiots. DickTurpis (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The MRA Pac-man army! Swerve (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems there was a spike in responses around the tenth. Does that mean bot activity? Personally, I'd have thought the crowd would be older, with more frustrated divorcees and Romeo Rose types--"Shut up, Brx." 23:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Ross Edelman on the RW FB did a chi square against the previous survey, said this one looked wrong ... then he spotted the obvious: there are only 570 responses, not 3000; the graphs are a glitch - David Gerard (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
O_o And I thought that there seem to be around 2400 suspiciously similar answers...--ZooGuard (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Canada's Tumultuous Years

I'm not sure if I necessarily agree that the damage is "relatively reparable." Even leaving aside all of the terrible, terrible reforms hidden in omnibus budget bills, even leaving aside the extent to which Harper has stacked the Senate, Courts, and civil service with his henchmen, even leaving aside the profound policy shifts that would be necessary to, for example, restore the prestige of scientific research--- it seems that Harper has set a number of awful legal precedents for Prime Ministerial power and parliamentary procedure which would necessitate a (notoriously difficult) constitutional amendment to fix, and I'm not convinced that any of his successors will have any interest in giving up these powers. Regrettably, I think that clean-up will take the better part of a generation.Lady Corvex (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"It seems that Harper has set a number of awful legal precedents for Prime Ministerial power and parliamentary procedure which would necessitate a (notoriously difficult) constitutional amendment to fix" I'd love to see some examples. Almost all of his egregious policies that can be reversed through simple legislation - Trudeau is running on abolishing the Fair Elections Act (if it even passes in the first place) because he can do that. The Senate has quite a reputation problem at this point, so you won't see them pulling many stunts during the next administration. And things like the NRC mess, to the census and land treaty rights, may take one or two governments to fix but not a generation.
The ultimate worry was that with the Reform/PC merger, Canadian conservatism would radicalize to a point that Harper would attempt a Reagan/Thatcher-esque reshaping of the country. And what we've found is that the centre-right, Red Tory streak of the party - which always dragged our Tories out from the abyss whenever they were out of touch with reality - is far from dead. (And a non-partisan Supreme Court helps.) Osaka Sun (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The question is will Trudeau not just say "Hey, now that I control this thing, I think I'll keep it." --Revolverman (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Osaka Sun:I'd like to see some of these mythical "Red Tories". With the exception of Danny Williams and Hugh Segal (the former who has already left politics and the latter who is on his way out), I see absolutely none. The Tories are essentially running the Republican playbook right now. They are just 25 to 30 years behind the Republicans right now. Just like how the Republicans have driven out all the "Liberal Republicans", the "Red Tories" are becoming fewer and further between. There are hardly any that hold elected office today, none amongst the current Conservative/PC Party leaders across the country.
Revolverman: Another question is will the Liberals go back to the routines they had when they were last in power in the when they enacted the largest austerity regime in the history of Canada, when they broke their promises on climate change, when they had some of the largest corporate tax giveaways in the history of Canada and when they created a propaganda program to make Quebeckers feel good about Canada and instead siphoned the money to their well-connected financiers and corporate ad executives. I am still very skeptical about the Liberal Party. The fact of the matter is all the major political parties in Canada have move to the political right. The NDP has dropped most of its desires for nationalization and has even supported a few free-trade agreements recently. The Liberals had an economic agenda in the 90s that dismantled large portions of the social safety net (in particular cuts to the funding of provincial government services which hurt the poorest), and the Liberals still have yet to come out with a platform. And the Tories are becoming more and more like the Republicans in the United States were 30 years ago. Harper as prime minister is very similar to Richard Nixon in political style and on policy he is a lot like Ronald Reagan.
In all of these things, I find it very difficult to have hope for Canada's political future. Nchriste (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Which is why a non-ethnic-nationalist vision of an independent Quebec, something along the lines of what Quebec Solidaire might present, is becoming more and more attractive to me. TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That sounds even less likely then what the PQ peddles. -- (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh great, I remember that some on our wiki think that protectionism is good (and free trade with the EU is a bad idea), that corporate taxes in most social democracies in the world haven't been lowered to the twenties (in replace of others), that Dion didn't yell for carbon taxes, that a 'blue Liberal' party in British Columbia didn't impose carbon taxation, that Canada's welfare, health care, regulatory, and tax systems aren't still revered by Democrats, that Michael Chong isn't scaring the Tory caucus, that a Conservative Senate didn't block a draconian anti-union bill, that right-to-work isn't considered political suicide, that Brian Mulroney isn't speaking at progressive conferences, that Jim Flaherty didn't throw away his Harris background by engaging in massive Keynesian stimulus, that Harper hasn't had to dampen most of his socially conservative views in order to stay in power, and that Alberta isn't increasingly governing from the centre. In Alberta.
We have a lot of problems in this country, especially in regards to poverty, climate change and particularly to the conduct of this government. But if we exaggerate it'll be much more difficult to solve them. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools