Congratulations to the 2015-16 RationalMedia Foundation Board of Trustees (in alphabetical order): User:David_Gerard, User:Human, User:ListenerX, User:Stabby_the_Misanthrope, and User:Scream!!.

from Nutty Roux (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 21:22, 27 February 2015

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?

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>, <8>, <9>, <10>


[edit] Rebecca Watson

I love how readily she talks about how punching unpleasant people in the face is "glorious", whereas if Buzz Aldrin had punched a woman I think it would have been a bit different. Nothing to do with doxxing, just wanted to add that.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In the particular case Aldrin didn't punch Sibrel just because was "unpleasant" - Sibrel had tried to interview Aldrin under false pretenses, then prevented him from retreating twice. The second time Sibrel directly blocked his way and prodded him with a Bible, saying the now infamous "You are a coward and a liar and a [thief]." The punch was prompted by those specific circumstances, including the difference in age and body size. In most cases a woman a) wouldn't be on the same level of physical threat to Aldrin to warrant the same physical response, and b) wouldn't be so dumb to behave in the same manner. And in the hypothetical alternative universe where Bart Sibrel was a woman, all other properties unchanged, I doubt that Watson would be a great fan of her behavior.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You're probably right about the last part, but even if it were a physically threatening woman, Watson and most people in fact wouldn't call it glorious. That would be glorifying violence against women, of course.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the guy who was punched presented a physical threat to Aldrin or that Watson is arguing that he did. As for a woman being less "dumb" than a man, what are you basing that on? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are confronted like this by an animal, for most species all else being equal the threat level is very dependent on the gender. H. Sapiens are no exception. The thing with various maninists is that they attack various compensations and variations that society puts around the sexual dimorphism of the species (as those are pretty much the only existent instances of something being seemingly stacked against males in the world of still widespread workplace discrimination). Dmytry (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what your precise point is, I'm very wary of the phrase "H sapiens are no exception." There's a lot of ways in which humans need special treatment, due to our intellectual complexity and ability to understand the implications of things. In this case with respect to violence and its interrelationship with our ability to formulate and discuss moral systems. Ikanreed (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, presumably the moral system at work is that you shouldn't punch others unless you're seriously threatened (rather than that you should enforce gendered punching quotas). What I'm saying is that in h. sapiens and most if not all other primates, males put on specific threat displays, and if you see that threat display you should feel way more threatened. Dmytry (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] "Justified" v. "Unjustified"

Just wanted to add here: While I'm pretty vehemently against doxxing in principle, I'd say the threatening situations that Rebecca talks about is pretty damn justified if the source is confirmed. General misogyny or -isms on the other hand, not so much (compare Alana Pearce/Facebook-linked threats vs. Brianna/Getting Racists Fired tumblr). Noir LeSable (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, doxxing as a way of outsourcing shitty behavior isn't good, and she ought not to have done it. But she's also right that context matters, and doxxing people who are using anonymity to cause trouble for others is substantially distinct from doxxing people in a way that delivers their home address to people who are known to be threatening them. To argue she's wrong about context mattering is crazy; completely insane. There are times when something can be wrong without rising to the level of hypocrisy(also, from what I've seen of her videos, she's never condemned doxxing herself). Ikanreed (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem with Watson's defence of her actions is that she's totally subjective. "Oh, it's ok to dox those guys, because we're the good guys here." And that's the problem - who exactly decides who the good guys in each fight are? And who decides who deserved to be doxed? Does Ray Comfort have the right to dox you, because you question his dogma? Can Andy Schlafly dox you for trolling CP? The fact remains, people are dicks on the internet, and if they act like dicks, there are processes to deal with them. Acting like a douchebag, just to out another douchebag isn't one of them. Watson has committed a Dawkinsesque level of dumbassery with this posting. PsyGremlinParlez! 14:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm gonna come back and say that doxxing can mean multiple things. Outing a person hiding behind anonymity's real name isn't the same as publishing home addresses, for example. Context matters. I'll also repeat that she's wrong that it's okay. Just right that context is meaningful. Ikanreed (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Ray Comfort absolutely has the right to dox you. Yes, Andy Schlafly has the same. There are no laws against it. And it's not a 'douchebag' maneuver; that in itself is subjective. Doxxing is just a tool. Unless you think you have some right to have your internet actions divorced from your IRL self - and I do not agree with that at all. --Castaigne (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"There are no laws against it." Yes there are. At least against doxing federal officers in certain positions (18 U.S.C. § 119). That was the crux in one of the counts of the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. case. Either way, the legality of doxing is still very murky, depending the sources used (Stalking?), the purpose of/motive behind the doxing (Harassment? Defamation? Threats?), among other things. [Insert Not A Lawyer Your State May Vary Disclosure Here]. Noir LeSable (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to acknowledge that doxxing the information of federal agents in pursuit of official duties is Not Allowed. However, I don't believe that's what we're talking about here. As for the legal "murkiness" of doxxing, to me that is mostly bull. As the article itself says, as long as nothing illegal is done in acquiring or publishing the information, it's all good. Keeping it legal keeps it legit. --Castaigne (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And here is the alternate viewpoint: I don't see a problem with what she's saying, since doxxing is a null threat anyway. There hasn't been privacy on the internet since the 1990s, no matter what people would like to believe, and if we wanted to drop $35-50 we could have a background firm dox someone instantly. She is right; doxxing by itself is neither good nor bad, it is just a tool. Like hiring a PI. Like doing a background check. Secondarily, why should she NOT publish the names of those who harass her? Why is she obligated to protect them on the internet? The whole idea that you should be able to harass with IRL immunity is frankly ridiculous. (Obligated notation: This is coming from a person who happily made sure a now-imprisoned pedophile rapist's internet harassment of women was made known to his IRL associates.) When PZ says "I suspect the only reason that “doxxing” has been elevated to such a sacred level of knee-jerk abhorrence is not out of some virtuous desire to protect the innocent, but entirely to protect the guilty.", he is entirely correct. It was totes OK for the 4Chan/GG/ED crowd to dox others, until they themselves were doxxed. It's good for that crowd to do it to Quinn and Sarkeesian and anyone else they want to, but not to have their own tactics turned against them. I'm just not seeing anything controversial or stupid here being uttered by either person. --Castaigne (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that doxxing can and does turn into worse things sometimes. People delivering actionable threats to your home because some idiot dumped your address online isn't a game. If you've got a good reasons for publishing peoples' private information in a widely disseminated way: it's not a illegal, and I can't stand in your way. If you don't, I have good reason to condemn you for it. Us vs. them tends to be a easy conflation to make here, but subtlety and nuance aren't going to go away. Ikanreed (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it is not a game. But then I also state that others are responsible for their actions. Doxxing is a value-neutral tool. It's used for good things and bad, with good and bad being subjectively defined by the user thereof. What Watson and Meyers are talking about is not the validity of doxxing in and of itself, which is a null subject, but the fucked premise that there's some sort of internet social etiquette that you don't dox people. That's never been true. It hasn't been true since I first got on the internet full-time in 1993. And for a certain crowd of people to pretend that it's true? They're lying. And that's just fact. --Castaigne (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't dump people's names and addresses online. I don't care who you are or how right you are. People have a right to anonymity, and either noone has that right or everyone has it. People say dumb things on the internet. They float unpopular ideas. They let off steam. That does not justify escalating things by bringing it into the "real world". If someone escalates it themselves by stalking or harassing or doxxing, then they should be reported to law enforcement, not left to such imprecise, unreliable, arbitrary, and unaccountable people as internet mobs (the police may be all those things as well, but not to the extent of Everyone on the Internet). (Agrajag (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC))
I agree but disagree at the same time. If you want to talk shit online but then somebody puts you on blast for it and has evidence of it, bye bye. But I wouldn't find their address or their real name and do that, that is creepy, wrong and extreme. However, I can't say I feel bad when a woman takes a picture of a guy on Tinder/Facebook/Twitter/Instagram who says stuff like "You stupid bitch! You won't let me fuck?!" and then puts it online.(BlackProg (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC))
1) People's names and addresses are already dumped online. ALL of them. It's just a matter of connecting the dots.
2) I don't agree that everyone has a right to anonymity. If you like, you can tell me where you derive this idea from and why it should be legally enforced. My position is that no one has a right to anonymity, just like no one has a right to anything not absolutely guaranteed and enforced by law.
3) You say "That does not justify escalating things by bringing it into the "real world"." This exemplifies the exact type of problem I see. There is no difference between the real world and the internet. NONE. People have maintained this fiction since 2000 or so, but it's simply untrue. Terri "Tickle" DeSisto learned that to her (his) despair back in the late 90s. ( There is no escalation and I'm quite confused when you refer to the revealing of publicly available information as such.
A major problem with such discussions is that "doxing" covers a lot of behaviors, so blanket statements are nearly meaningless.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No. You don't escalate stuff like that while leaving it online. Other people will be bastards. That's a fact of life. Either refute them (morons), block/ignore them (trolls and assholes), or report them to the police (harassers and stalkers).(Agrajag (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC))
I don't see how revealing the identity of vicious psychopaths to the world can be considered a morally bad thing. When doxxing is used by vicious psychopaths to harrass and terrorize people, it's obviously a bad thing of course. (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Because not everyone is a consequentialist ethicist. Some people believe, though I do personally disagree, that your own actions towards others is the only valid criteria for judgement. Ikanreed (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Is disrespecting one person for the sake of protecting everyone else from that person not the best action to take? Even if protecting those people involves me committing a type of act that is intrinsically immoral, it is still preferable that I sacrifice my moral purity for the sake of preventing graver immoral acts from being committed. Though I suppose someone like Kant would decide otherwise, choosing "moral purity" over lying to a murderer about the location of their intended victim. Though I don't see how being complicit in murder would make Kant more morally pure. (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If you ask me, the matter under contention isn't "vicious psychopaths" and (somehow) "murderers", the but rather things like "I think they're a bigot", "We had an argument and I disagree with them", "This person made a [very/vaguely/could be interpreted as] sexist tweet", "That person is/did X! Look at this [damning/misleading/vague/fabricated/nonexistent] evidence!" and so forth. Revealing the identity of a "vicious psychopath" with proof of their harassing or threatening behavior is a lot less contentious on the justifiable scale than, say, doxxing someone who made an off-color joke on a personal Twitter. Noir LeSable (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If you release that shit to the general public then you are inviting every drooling sociopath on the interwebz to come along and play. End of story.--Madman (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman

[edit] Nothing new

For ages, Pharyngula has had a version of this disclaimer:

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

It's not an empty statement, Myers has done it a few times. In one case this resulted in a woman losing her job after her dumb husband used her work-related e-mail address to threaten Myers. And given the existence of an article about Dennis Markuze on this wiki, I also find the whole conversation a bit hypocritical. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How are back-and forth discussions ever hypocritical? She made an argument for nuance in determining the harm of doxxing, and some people think that there's no legitimate reason to do it(for certain definitions of "it"). I find both to be true and not mutually exclusive. Ikanreed (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not a fan of Doxxing anyone as any type of punitive vigilante action, but the one exception is threats/harrassment in order to figure out who to stop. It's nearly impossible to do already. Such as nothing was done about Dennis until people figured out who he was and contacted the police literally thousands of times. I have been in the situation where we even knew who the person was and it was near impossible to get the authorities involved until that person did something physical. We only were able to convince the cops before it went too far because we found out this guy was convicted of doing the same escallating things previously after kicking in the door of the person he was stalking and assaulting her. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking news

It turns out Fox News is a no-go area for facts. The police there are known to arrest anyone not wearing a flag pin. Ikanreed (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham police being grossly pro-their-version-of-Britain? Nah, no way. If that were true there would be things like incidents in the past where the West Mids police didn't care to practice proper investigations into terrorist atrocities, and just beat confessions out of whoever they thought they could blame. Even if there is something comparable to that from the past things would have changed by now, or the police would be major advocates of surveillance in the city based effectively along racial or religious grounds. BrowserWarVet (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Hate Speech Laws

The person who posted the link to the Peach video regarding the Charlie Hebdo attacks seems to imply that hate speech laws should exist. I'm somewhat surprised that the denizens of this wiki are in favor of such laws, which are a pretty obvious violation of the principles of free speech, they provide pretense for ridiculous arrests (that guy who called a policeman's horse gay, for instance), and are much more often applied to vocal atheists than to hateful preachers. Do many people here share his/her view?(Agrajag (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC))

Yeah, I'm pretty damn 'Merican in that I don't tend to sympathize much with any infringments on freedom of speech without extraordinarily reasonable justifications(i.e. people being directly harmed). So I agree hate speech laws don't make much sense, unless you goal is to dictate discourse. Ask me about hate crime laws, though and you'll get a very different perspective. Ikanreed (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ikanreed here. However, I probably wouldn't put too much truss into the WIGO results as a barometer for RW userbase opinion for several reasons:
  1. There are only 16 votes as of posting, 8 of whom ostensibly agree with hate speech laws existing (see point 3). A relatively small sample size.
  2. Anyone, regular user or no, can vote on a WIGO, and possibly multiple times if they have a mobile device or access to public wifi hotspots.
  3. People can downvote something for any reason they want. Maybe they hate Youtube videos in WIGO topics. Maybe they think her editing or scripting was bad. Maybe they don't like the Charlie Hebido magazine and will blindly downvote anything that has to do with it, critical or no. Maybe they thought it was self-serving advertising for her Youtube channel. Maybe they have a compulsion to downvote any WIGO that has precisely 163 letters. We can't say.
So yeah. Noir LeSable (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
And of course speech can't cause harm... You're right, that particular stance is really common in the US. :/ (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I was just thinking that the opposition to drawing Muhammad voiced by numerous people in the "Draw Muhammad Day" thread might indicate support for hate speech laws, which would be odd, since this site might well be in violation of the British ones (though it seems that it's pretty hard to be sure until you get arrested). (Agrajag (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC))
I haven't actually read that thread yet, but I'd say there's a bit of a difference between disapproving of certain speech and wanting it censored or illegal, imo. I don't particularly approve of Jack Chick tracts, white supremacist propaganda, anthropogenic climate change denialist rhetoric, or Twilight, but I wouldn't want them to be outright banned by the government or illegal (unless they were, like, calling for violence or something). Noir LeSable (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
If you've read those things and they didn't incite violence in you, I think you've been reading them wrong. >.> (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure whether or not that was meant to be sarcastic. Noir LeSable (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It's meant to be cynical. I hope that helps. (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Luckily, we're too jaded to be violent.--TiaC (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I voted it down out of insane bigotry against YouTube links in clogs - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, actually me too. I don't actually have a profound hate of youtube. It's an okay site. It's just anytime someone links me a youtube video to prove a point, I die a little inside. Ikanreed (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] "What if you can't see their skin color?"

As disappointing as it is, it seems like she might have been saying that one of the problems with profiling people based on race as a means of spotting criminal activity was that not all criminals look like stereotypical bad guys, and sometimes you can't see their skin color so it wouldn't work then either.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That's very charitable, but doesn't really match up with what she said. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be charitable, just honest with myself. I really do like it when people say stupid things, but I don't like to pretend they do.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] There's a moon in the sky. (It's called THE MOON!)

I suppose what made that QVC video so hilarious was that the host was the one who was actually trying to reason from data. She invoked the list of planets she learned in school, and noted that the Moon was not among their number. Ergo, the moon is a star. QED - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

it might be an idea for them to avoid episodes of QI when they discuss how many moons the earth has AMassiveGay (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I sincerely hope that person was on drugs. That's so stupid I can't cope if it was real. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] "How to make young people conservative"

I don't think they're aware of it, but my generation's emerging conservatives are defined by being racist and sexist shitheels, like gamergate and /pol/ types. All they need to do is continue to be a mindless hate factory and they'll retain 30% of voters. Ikanreed (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That editorial was so clueless. He thinks young people will worry about medical privacy, when millions of them wouldn't even have medical care if it weren't for government intervention? On top of that, the most prominent breaches of privacy for the last few years has been not just the NSA surveillance program, but corporations losing millions of customers' private information to hackers. (I'll give you a hint which of those privacy breaches the common person resented more: the government breach didn't require you to throw out your credit card and wait for a new one to come in the mail.) Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 14:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It just seemd like the entire point was to spew a bunch of tired tropes, some of which was not even close to reality, and say it was liberals fault. It's extremely idiotic when the thrid point is about how conservatives don't care about investing in the future...when these young people are that future to invest in. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Ham, Frozen, and The Shining

Never thought someone would ever make that connection.

But I guess, in some regards, Jack Torrence did.... *puts on sunglasses* let it go.

YEAAAAAAAAHHHH! {{Dwbaker994 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)|Dwbaker994}}

I was watching a movie about various crazy theories regarding The Shining (room 237), there was one guy who gone on all about the clues Kubrick left in the Shining with regards to him having faked the moon landings. It seems that finding stuff in The Shining is a thing... Dmytry (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I saw that movie too. That was weird, wasn't it? {{Dwbaker994 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)|Dwbaker994}}
Get it out, get it out...get this song out of my head. Get it out, get it out...I would sing anything else instead... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like somebody watches a lot of Honest Trailers. {Dwbaker994
I think it's quite the ample song when preoccupied by constipation troubles. (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] From "Egregious sources" down

Should this stuff be moved to a new RationalWiki:Clogroll page, to parallel RationalWiki:Blogroll, or does it serve some special purpose here? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No. It's already largely duplicating RationalWiki:Webshites and the list of internet kooks. We don't need yet another page covering the same ground. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
All right. Then should all three be merged? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Quite possibly. Though the word "webshites" should be binned IMO. I like "clogroll" a lot - David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@DG: If we binned webshites, where would you put non-blog websites that we don't like? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
mmmmmm, good question ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Do we have a good answer? :P αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*cough* αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Is clog-stuff restricted to blogs? (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Why? FU22YC47P07470 (gossip/stalk) 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] There's no evidence that it was a "Roleplaying thread"

Yo, dog, they were paying real money to send "scouts" last I heard. Ikanreed (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, fuck. And I thought /fringe/ was the wackiest b8chan could get outside of cheese gr8tergate. --Madman (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
You gotta remember, 8chan exists because people felt 4chan clamping down on child porn was suppressing free speech. Legal-and-awful like neo-nazis is no surprise. Ikanreed (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I totally agree that it's pretty much a given that Neo-Nazis and white supremacist nutjobs would be on a site like 8chan, make no mistake. On the other hand, these guys are pretty much the kings and queens of doing or saying offensive crap just to get a rise out of people "for the lulz". They're cut from the same cloth as the people behind #CutForBieber, Hitler Did Nothing Wrong Mountain Dew, #endfathersday, SecondLife's Furry concentration camp, and a host of other "pranks". Until more concrete proof arises than "last I heard", I don't think there's any particular reason to believe that they're anything more than a handful of neckbeards and teenagers doing something else offensive "for teh lulz". Noir LeSable (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Lulz extraction happens on outsiders. They didn't go out of their way to draw non-8chan attention. I'm also not about to pretend it's gonna happen. They're sincere, in the same way "Galt's Gulch" or MGTOW groups are sincere. They're never going to do anything. It's absolutely bullshit, but it's braggadocio, not trolling. Ikanreed (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but Smiley believes in the Green Pill and political non-elucidians. It's hard to top Smiley for craziness, so this is rather impressive to me.--Madman (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

[edit] Homophobes and unborn children

So, my first thought was "Ugh, homophobes." Then I wondered "Why are some of these tweets phrased so formally?" Then I started wondering "You know, if it was possible to determine if a baby was gay before it was born, these people would undoubtedly abort them." Is that something that should be allowed? In one way, it'd possibly be good in that the unborn child doesn't have to grow up in such a hostile environment (though whether that's sufficient reason to deny a person-to-be their existence I leave up to you), but it would also empower bigots and reduce diversity. This is a similar concern as with sex-selective abortion, though people having a preference for getting either a boy or a girl is generally accepted in society. (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why, exactly, shouldn't it be as accepted as gender selection? Abortion equals murder or something? Dmytry (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for completely missing the point. Now other people will have a stellar example for what not to do. (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It'd be useful if you actually gave any sort of a reason why it should be any less accepted than gender selection. Genders less worthy of protection than sexual orientation? Or what? Dmytry (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a bad reason to be sure, but I call my position pro-choice for a reason. If I though that people should only get abortions for reasons I agree with, my position would be far more restrictive than it is.--TiaC (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is this posted in February 2015 instead of March 2012? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Because things aren't always discovered as soon as someone posts them on the internet? (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Wake up call for atheists?

I can't actually suss out what I'm supposed to wake up from? I think it's been pretty clear forever that there are serious anti-Muslim bigots in the atheist community(and among atheists who aren't part of our "community"). I read through the article looking for some indication of what I was supposed to do as an atheist, and all I found was a broadbased accusation that I didn't know or care about minority rights. Ikanreed (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, "A Wake-Up Call For Xenophobes" wouldn't be inflammatory, would it? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 19:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools