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] Clickbaiting

So there's a WIGO that just says "MRAs." MRAs what? can people please say what the article is roughly about, so we can choose whether to read it or not without having to go there? SophieWilderModerator 11:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Chu piece

I'm not normally so grumpy as to complain about the way other people vote on WIGO's (indeed, it's difficult to think of anything more pointless to even be grumpy about), but I'm having trouble understanding how anybody could downvote such an incisive, powerfully written piece. Is it simply a question of missionality? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hovering on the vote band gives you the total number of votes: in this case, 37 up, 2 neutral, 7 down. Note that people who vote on WIGOs don't necessarily participate on the site.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I know that. Just wondering what people didn't like about it. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I am one of the neutrals. I didn't think it was missional. It rubbed me the wrong way; a sermon preached at people who can't tell fiction from reality. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I voted down - he's not speaking for my nerdiness at any level.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
That one really annoyed me. Basically it connected what nerds do on television programs (which aren't even aimed at them in the first place) to what nerds actually do. Criticizing nerds based on that is like telling black people that they're all idiots after watching a Tyler Perry movie.--TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Cracked conspiracy theories

We need to work this chart in somewhere... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It would go well in the Sigmund Freud article. User:PsychoGecko 19:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Climate change and cigarettes

There is a really good book on this subject already called 'Merchants of Doubt' by Conway and Oreskes. Just pointing this out because of the fact that though this article is new, the information behind it is not. EGKunz 13:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

[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. (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. -- (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
Personal tools