RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

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

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>

Contents

[edit] Check Your Secular Privilege, Liberal America

About the "A Moroccan ex-Muslim on being branded a "native informant" by American liberals." Am i wrong to be sceptical about his claims?

He is using his Anecdotal evidence (He was called racist once) as a reason to sweepingly call all liberals uncritcal of Islam. He sounds a lot like the "reasonable" Islamophobes, Sam Harris and his ilk. Also he claims Mona Eltahawy was called a "native informant" wich is not referenced in the Article he links to her. It is not that his arguments aren't without merit, but it reads a lot like "Bash the Liberal" straight out of the New Atheist Handbook.(a subjective claim on my side, but thats why i am asking.) — Unsigned, by: Benaresh / talk / contribs

Assuming good faith, I thought what he wrote seemed perfectly fine? Why are you particularly skeptical against this one man's rather short anecdote? I mean, you've correctly identified it as evidence from which no far-reaching conclusions should be drawn — but surely he is entitled to his tale, and deserve to be heard?
As many women reporting rape or sexual abuse will tragically note, it is easy to either accuse the very telling of the story to be a malicious engendering of negativity, and indeed to simply gaslight anyone with an uncomfortable story to tell.
I don't think it reads like any "handbook" (?) for anything at all, and the only "bashing" in the article is directed at Donald Trump, et. al. He doesn't mention Sam Harris or the likes. Though, what he is criticizing is clearly what some would term the "regressive left", this isn't a term that appears in the blog post.
I'm caused to think by your mention of Islamophobia in this context — which the blog post specifically rallies against in the form of "closing the US to all Muslims" (while also supporting a call to inclusively work closer with muslim-American citizens). Do you think that there is any legitimate criticism to be made against Islam? If so, do the same formal criticisms have different value based on the identity of the person making them?
And as a feminist, I have to wonder how different this man's angle of complaint really is from the perfectly valid one of Postcolonial feminismWikipedia's W.svg? Especially considering his headline of choice. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I started to feel paranoid after i read the Comments of the Article. I didn't say he shouldn't tell his Story quite the opposite. And maybe i am misreading it.
On your points: I dont care much who makes the point (Milos whatshisname is a Gay Breitbart writer how can breitbart be racist? <-bullshit in case you think i believe that.) On your other points. I am not uncomfortable with discussing the failings of a Religion like Islam (or any other tbh) that that Woman unwarranted called him a racist, i even believe. But i get the feeling that his Article is just a form of legitimating uncritical Islam-bashing and similar to Milos, is the Muslim-bashing easier to defend when you can point to a former muslim.
As an Example:

"Not because his rhetoric was utterly hateful and discriminatory, but because, deep inside, I knew that it would push many of his liberal opponents to take on the cause of defending Islam. And so they did." was the sentence that feels odd to me. He didn't roll his eyes at hatred but at the defence by liberals?

He wrote:

" Their very ideological platform is rooted in standing with society’s underdogs: underrepresented ethnic groups, religious minorities, LGBTQs and free thinkers. Yet when Middle Eastern dissidents advocate for the same fundamental rights, liberals would rather not hear it. Why the inconsistency?"

I read this Conversation between maher and Dawkins once on this wiki :
Dawkins: "Oh, that’s their culture, you have to respect it."
Maher: "That’s right! That’s what they say. It’s just insane."
Dawkins: "Liberal about everything else, but then this one exception, ‘It’s their culture.’ Well, to hell with their culture."
which i think sounds oddly similar.
Also the last paragraph: "Middle Eastern expats eager to advocate for secular societies back home have no choice but to seek freedom of speech. When our liberal allies in America try to silence our plea, they ::imply that the Middle East does not deserve the same rights they enjoy here. Interpreting our struggles purely from the perspective of U.S. foreign policy is borderline ethnocentric. Surely, that is not the ::liberal thing to do."
Gives the impression to me, that he implies all Discussions about Islam are shot down as racist by Liberals.
Again i might just be paranoid. But i seen to many links to theReligionofPeace.com in the comments to be 100% comfortable with that Article. After reading why-robert-spencer-is-an-anti-muslim-extremist-an-open-letter i had the feeling (subjective i know) that compared to the open Letter, is way more into critizing "Regressives" and legitimate Islam-bahing than to critisize Islam.
Again it's all feeling from my side and the tone of the Article mightjust hit me wrong and i use the Association_fallacy by the End. --Benaresh (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your nuanced reply! I honestly think that you're not wrong to sense the impending comment field shitstorm when reading an article like that. You better believe articles like these are proudly appropriated and put on display by various self-invited islamophobes. That being said, they don't know what the hell they're doing anyway. Legit, no-bullshit islamophobes are as uneducated, pseudo-intellectual and confused as conspiracy theorists are.
They're still a force to be reckoned with, but my point is — they cherry pick and shoehorn their narrative so wildly that what they claim is rarely claimed by their sources. They combine stories like these, and others, and then say much more far-reaching things than the stories ever said. They are consumed entirely by confirmation bias (which serves to remind us not to trust our own confirmation bias!). Most importantly however, the people who grab and run with that man's article don't represent the man who wrote it, nor his views.
It's important to not fall into splittingWikipedia's W.svg, since doing so deprives us of all nuance. Jonanism is equally a vice to watch out for — jonanism is, indeed, the whole basis for becoming an islamophobe. "They're all ISIS", something something darkside.
I think our Islamophobia article, while far from perfect, atleast shoots for the nuance we sorely need. The first segment (subheaders included discusses the completely hate-driven, xenophobe-type Islamophobia that basically everyone here at RW despises and fights. Those who deny that this exists, or is a problem, are completely wrong.
The second segment (subheader included) discusses the complicated meeting ground between criticism if Islam (which, let's be honest, IS a touchy subject to the faithful) and all other angles and motivations, ranging from good to bad, true to false, and so on. Those who deny that valid criticism of Islam exists, or that such criticism constitutes a problem, are completely wrong.
The second portion of the article is where one's impulse to splitting and jonanism is truly tested. Because there are a LOT of criticisms to leverage against faith-based thinking, against the literal mind (in contrast to the ironic), against religious pseudoscience and superstition, against theocratic reaction and antifeminism — all of which instantiate themselves equally in all three desert dogmas. And, of course, because the people actually belonging to the first part of the article tend to masquerade as belonging to the second part — this process is no different from pseudoscience trying to ape the appearance of science. The important thing to remember, however, is that nobody genuinely belonging to the second part aligns with those in the first.
I had a discussion on that with a fellow who tried to (in the nicest of terms) argue me into his viewpoint — that the word "islamophobia" was the problem. A bit like gay bashers complaining that "homophobe" is a term of abuse, and thus, that people in support of homosexuals are also guilty of something something darkside. Naturally, these strategies are nothing but apology. To deny that muslims suffer prejudice, and that people hold an insane fear of muslim culture, arabic, and (in their eyes) "brown people" is just appaling. And the idea that "calling phobic people out for their phobia is itself a phobic reaction" is nonsensical.
If you want, I highly recommend reading the discussion, both to get a view into the mind of an islamophobia apologist (Onideus), and to see my reasoning on why fighting real islamophobia and fighting for the right to criticize the sensitive beliefs of the faithful are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have just one angle — criticising Islam without also fighting Islamophobia becomes nonsense. Conversely, fighting islamophobia without also criticising Islam becomes nonsense.
We have to be very watchful against those who would dehumanize the faithful, or anyone else. That being said however, the doctrines of Islam are false. Metaphysically, epistemologically, morally. The prophet was wrong (and I get to draw him if I please). Allah doesn't exist, and if he did, he'd be a monster anyways. Thus, the theocracies in which evil is done in the name of these falsehoods are themselves false and wicked. And they need to be resisted, powerfully, with reason and argument.
Forgive the length and ranting themes in this post. It just grew and grew and I tried to boil it down to a point (or two). When in doubt, don't assume the worst (about anyone). Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! You helped me understand the upvotes(of the Article) and that the Article itself is not part of the Problem! You don't know how much fear the normalisation of racism in all its forms scares me, now that AFD here in Germany became somewhat mainstream... --Benaresh (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
No problem! And yes, it terrifies me too. Our own tendency to tribalism is perhaps our own worst enemy; forgetting that others are human beings — no better or worse — just like ourselves. A great lesson of biology is also how closely related we all are — distant siblings at worst, every single human being on this planet. (This is a great book, btw). Also, regarding AFD, don't miss our very own article on them. We also cover the dangerous nut organization PEGIDA. If you can help any of these articles with sources or reasoning, you're very much invited to give it a shot. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] The notion of "resisting" Trump when Trump hasn't done a thing as president yet is ridiculous

Not to defend Trump here, but when parts of the GOP had decided they were going to "resist" Obama and be as obstructive and obnoxious as possible without any possibility of bipartisan work, they were heavily ridiculed in the liberal world, and rightly so. Let's not do the very same thing, it's not gonna lead to anything good.

Also I gotta say that what WHTM is proposing is laughable. There's literally nothing in here that requires any significant effort on the receiver's part, it's activism for lazy people who aren't actually going to be that heavily affected by a Trump presidency. Yaaaaawn. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

By your reasoning we shouldn't watch suspected Terroists because they didn't do anything yet. I don't get why you complain about how little effort it takes resisting, unlike the rights form of Protest (mass shootings). Also yaawn? If this didn't work you wouldn't start a Topic about it, would you?--Benaresh (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The argument that Trump hasn't done anything yet is what's ridiculous. We know what he plans to do, what he wants to do, what his views & those of his supporters are, & there are good reasons why Americans should be concerned about their civil rights, international relations, healthcare, LGBT rights, etc. It's long past time for complacent liberals — those who first thought that Trump would never actually run, then that he'd never get the Republican nomination, or that he'd shift to mainstream Republican stances after getting the nomination, that he'd never be elected, & then that the Electoral College would block him — to wake up to the fact that Trump will be President & focus on what they can do to protect themselves. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
^^^^^^^
My plan is to make some calls to the representatives of my new state and make a "honk if you hate Donald Trump" sign to hold up near the major intersection. People need to know that they aren't just trapped inside their own heads fearful of the monster that's about to be in the White House. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
"Complacent liberals", how ironic. Last I checked, Obama has done everything Trump has already proposed; whether that be subjecting Muslims to warrantless mass surveillance and making them second class citizens or detaining and deporting about 3 million immigrants. If Obama (or any of the Democrats for that matter) were actually worried about Trump, why isn't he doing everything in his power to repeal the tools of the imperial presidency? He could give amnesty to the millions of undocumented immigrants, dismantle the surveillance state, or ban the drone program: instead, he has expanded our unauthorizes wars and attempted to create a new cold war without providing any evidence. The liberals are praising Obama for banning oil drilling in parts of the Gulf and the Artic but hey forget who authorized such disastrous drilling in the first place; they also are praising him for dismantling NSEERS but they forget that the DHS wanted to get rid of it because they already have plenty of lists like the Terror Watch list and No Fly list that keep Muslims under our thumb. Speaking of NSEERS, where were all the liberals when Bush enacted it after 9/11 and immediately used it to detain and deport Muslims with no justifiable cause? Hell, where were all the liberals when Clinton built a fence on the US-Mexico border and authorized extraordinary rendition; where were they when the Democrats voted in favor of the PATRIOT ACT and building a wall. Last time I checked, they were rallying behind the candidate who voted in favor of both. Oh, and yes, what WHTM has proposed thus far is laughable so yawn indeed.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Owlman: Your point is? America voted for a center right Canditate vs a Batshit insane Pumpkin comparing Obama and Trump and saying "Obama has done everything Trump has already proposed" is quite baffling for me! I never heard Obama wanting to erect a Wall along the Mexican border or expanding the Nuclear Arsenal... I agree that Obama isn't a saint and that the Drone Strikes alone should have the People on the Barricades. Anyway about the new Cold War: Russia FUCKING INVADED THE CRIMEAN! RUSSIA BASICALY ANNEXED EASTERN UKRAINE! PUTIN STARTED THE NEW COLD WAR do you get that? Sorry if the all Caps came off as agressive, but i am really tired of all the Putin defenders and i wanted to get the message across. I know Russia is a Pond over for Americans but all the need to do to fuck me personally over would blitzing Poland into submission so they can fuck Germany sideways and your future President would just smile and tweet how great a move that was... --Benaresh (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


@Owlman Who's WHTM? Wait nevermind I got confused. Sorry about that. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Fake news is a scapegoat article...

...or more specifically the claim 'democracy is in crisis'. Just how exactly is democracy in crisis, beyond some votes going a way we'd rather not? Seems more like the ability of our side (generally a more liberal left around these parts) to connect with voters is in crisis. I wonder if democracy was in crisis when bush got in? Or reagan? Or thatcher? If you are more right wing, was democracy in crisis when clinton got in? How about when labour got in after over a decade of tory government?. Seems more like democracy in action rather than crisis to me. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The rise of Authoritan Rulers around the World. Turkey a former Democracy might not be one for long. We Germans talk about "Politikverdruss" hard to translate meaningful but the gist is that people lost interest in the Democratic System since the 90's and the Surge of the AFD marks the current Crisis of Democracy in Germany.
On Trump: He is not quite comparable to Thatcher and Reagan as Ronald Reagan stopped having a boner for Nukes after "The Day after" while Trump thinks we should stock up again. But his extreme Views are not the only thing that is concerning. It is that all of that points to people loosing so much trust in the current system that they want it burned down, they rather vote a guy who admited sexual assault than have a Establishment "shill" again, it was, in a way, like Obamas Change campaing, only angry. So maybe it is not Trump per se, maybe it is the knowledge that a hella lot of people are looking for easy answers that is the Democratic Crisis... --Benaresh (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah the way I see it all of these countries where far right parties are gaining power and the disruption of the EU is seriously bad news. The world doesn't need Russia taking over any more places or more xenophobic authoritarian states. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
so a bunch of cunts got in. Such is democracy, you get fuckholes you dont like time to time. That does not represent a crisis of democracy. Presumably enough people liked them. Have you never been on the losing side before? It is failure of the liberal left to provide a viable alternatives. They saw in banking crashes and austerity. Things werent exactly rosey before. These pricks in power now will run the course, meet with some crisis or other and the pendulum will swing back for the left to rise up with new popular support. Such fickle sheep we are. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I hope you're right. I'm not saying our "side" is perfect, not by a long shot, because when people are centrists that give lip service to lefties people fall for the first right wing demagogue that comes along promising something better. I hope left leaning political parties elsewhere in the world realize this. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It isn't about winning. I don't know why you are so negative about this AMassiveGay. Rather i'd like to know what you think what should be different? Anyway stop calling anyone sheep. Firstly Sheep are more intelligent (and evil) than we give them credit for and also calling Humans Pigs sheep and Cattle isn't healthy for your mindset. Most People i know want easy answers for difficult Politcal problems, for their own life is complicated enough. But we, well at least i, know that nothing is easy about anything. --Benaresh (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
hahaha - you are talking about democracy in crisis (it isnt) and yet i'm being negative. You know what else isnt healthy for your mindset? Being so fucking earnest about everything. This hyping up the setbacks that the liberal left have suffered to be worst things ever, envisaging facists climbing out the woodwork, proclaiming new hitlers at every turn, is frankly absurd. We are along long way from any of that. Its kind like the liberal version of claiming we are living in the end times and just as polarizing and dehumanising of the other side. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You are Evading my question on what should be done . Democratic in Crisis does not mean it is over or in Danger. There is a clear rift between the People and the Politicans... Anyway about the Nazi Analouges: Did you see the "Heil Trump" Video? Or the gushing of "Daily Stormer" on how he is their President? This looks a lot like Fascists climbing out of the woodwork to me. You may be correct that peopel overstate the Dangers and react poorly. However your obvious anger and all your liberals talk (wich means Libertarians where i come from) is a sweeping generalisation. I think you are very happy that Trump has won and People shitting on him here at RW makes you mad.--Benaresh (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

obvious anger? Haha, no. Apathy is is more the emotion. I think you are having trouble gauging tone. Thats an issue with over earnestness. 'Democratic in crisis does not mean is over or in danger' what does it mean then? An empty phrase? Your disconnect between public and government means that democracy has always been in crisis. The likes of the daily stormer and nazis supporting trump, these people arnt new. They've always been. And they put their faith in a chancer, who totally wont throw them under a bus at first opportunity, at the head of a government, with checks and balance, and a sacred constitution, thats notoriously useless at getting any meaningful change through. They only so vocal now because they have lost argument after argument tor years. Its their last hurrah, the last shot at relevance. As for supporting trump, go fuck yourself you godawful prick. Do not misrepresent me when nothing i have said supports that. Twat. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"In crisis" may be a stretch, but there are certainly valid concerns about the state of democracy. E.g. in the UK, a single-issue referendum (EU membership) is being used by the government as a "mandate" to push ahead with a hard Brexit which wasn't voted on, contradicts their own manifesto, & most aspects of which are being kept secret, all while trying to keep parliament excluded from the process. In the US, Trump & the GOP are appointing a corrupt administrator full of business interests & nepotism, & trying to circumvent the checks which normally prevent this. Trump has kept the media away from a lot of his activities throughout the campaign, & there are indications his government may use prosecutions of journalists & their sources to crack down on the media. Plus there's Russia's interference in the US election process, which the Republicans (after yelling about election fraud for months before the election) don't want to discuss. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Seriously what is your problem ? You call people Sheep you call me a Twat and a prick. You still didn't answer my question what should be done.

Anyway to answer yours: a crisis like the Oil Crisis is according to Wikipedia:"A crisis (from the Greek κρίσις - krisis;[1] plural: "crises"; adjectival form: "critical") is any event that is, or is expected to lead to, an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society. Crises are deemed to be negative changes in the security, economic, political, societal, or environmental affairs, especially when they occur abruptly, with little or no warning. More loosely, it is a term meaning "a testing time" or an "emergency event"." Here you go. I am sorry that i asumed you were a Trump supporter but all your "Liberal" bashing here comes off as super angry ranting i expect from one, you voted yes on Brexit then, fine whatever, people are free to do that.--Benaresh (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

look. I am sorry i called you a prick. But seriously, do not misrepresent me. Secondly, i am uninterested in precise definitions of the word crisis. Context is far more important generally, though the definition you just gave does not in my mind make the statement 'democracy in crisis' true. Im more inclined to yield to weasloids view. Simply losing some votes on its own does not cut it - my original point. Thirdly, what can be done? That is not not at all relevant to my point. I can see or say something is wrong without knowing how to fix it. As you said earlier, there are no easy answers and im a poorly educated dumbarse. What can help, i think, and this ties into you misrepresenting me, is to learn to take criticism. Criticism does not mean they are against you or are on the otherside. Self reflection. If something is not working do assumd its because the otherside are arseholes, they cheated, they lied, etc. Look to why your message was not get5ing through, why the people who should hqve voted for your candidate didnt. Lose the them and us mindset. Lose the idea that we have we have to fight the enemy. Its easy to say who you are against, but harder to say what you are for. Fight for someth8ng not against. I guess its this bubble thing people are talking about. I here so much from folk saying working class people should voting this way for their own interests, but i see little about folk actua!ly twlking to them. And then, when they dont vote the right way, they are all racists ands uneducated brainwashed simpletons. That'll get em on yourside. Iam not the most subtle, precise or coherent writer, thinker, speaker in the world so make of this meandering rant what you will. On a more personal note, aside from calling you a prick, nothing i said can or should be read as 'angry'. The sheep comment was about people in general not rw, and was clearly a tongue in chech throwaway line, not a statemeng of sincere belief. Maybe not be so quick to take offence at nothing? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It is cool man! Also i didn't try to take the piss with you. As you said i have trouble to take critsim it makes me kinda prissy as in passive aggressive, so there is that. Anyway have a nice evening until we bud heads again ;D --Benaresh (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
FFS i am to stupid to properly apologise! AMassiveGay I am sorry i took the the discussion in the direction it went. --Benaresh (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Reason magazine

Shouldn't Reason Articles land in the Clogosphere? They did call G.W. Bush an socialist. I mean Faunas does an awesome job digging these nuggets but i think they should be moved over.--Benaresh (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Concur, and definitely not in World - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Wait, if they're actually good articles ("nuggets" in Benaresh's words), why should they be over in the "clog" page and not here in the "blog" page or in the "world" page? Articles should be judged by their own merits, not by the fact that they happen to be published by people who tend to say idiocies! I thought we'd be a bit more rational with this (and yes, Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki and things). Faunas (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Just a Quick Note Before I Post This

By now I'm sure ya'll have heard about Pissgate. Personally, I think it's some kind of batshit conspiracy theory desperate leftists are latching onto in increasingly desperate attempts to take down Trump. It's sad, it really is, and I'd love to get to the bottom of what's really going on. I don't know what's really happening. But I'm going to post a Gizmodo article about it and you can upvote if you like it, downvote it if you think it's bullshit. No skin off my teeth if you downvote. Please read through it and judge for yourselves. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I cannot properly form the words needed to present the mixture of Schadenfreude, pure glee and shame ( about the schadenfreude and glee) i feel when reading up on PissGate on MemeCenter. I sure hope it is fake tough. In addition i don't the hooker and watersports thing is something Trump would do... --Benaresh (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It strikes me as not at all unlikely given the other sexual allegations made against him. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
That a fair point... Crap maybe a part of me don't want it to be true, i mean it is horrifing isn't it?--Benaresh (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
ha, watersports is pretty vanilla these days AMassiveGay (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I remain firm in that I don't accept outlandish claims on suspect evidence. Given that it alleges a conspiracy of control on weak evidence: I will call it a conspiracy theory until such time as there is reason to call it something else. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
We have a name now : Christopher Steele was the former british agent who with his Company Orbis Intelligence Limited was tasked to find dirt on Trump. If his claims turn out to be true, what do you think would happen? I still doubt that it is true but i am not fully aware of the consequences... --Benaresh (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing will happen. I cannot imagine a scandal that would turn the republican party against Trump, and being that they control both chambers of congress, everything will slide. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Why

are Guardian and NY Times links on this page? Shouldn't they be on WIGO:World? ?? (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian publishes plenty of opinion and has a specific editorial slant. (So does the NYT.) I put a piece here rather than WIGO:World because it struck me as very tentative research for discussion rather than hard news. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
If it's an op-ed (e.g. anything in Comment Is Free or NYT Blogs), it goes here - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools