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>, <11>


[edit] I'm a Christian, but... (Matt Walsh article)

I feel like the only one who sort of agrees with Walsh at least on his main point, it's always eyeroll-inducing when someone says "I don't agree with any point of accepted Judeo-Christian morality, but I'm totes Christian! #Saved" No, you're not a Christian, you want to call yourself Christian because you don't like the alternative, whatever that is (atheism, parents getting mad at you). If anything the article unknowingly highlights the problem Christianity faces today and why it is shrinking quickly in the west, in order to really be a Christian in today's world, you have to make yourself boring, anal, and angry at everything, the only alternative being cutting out 90% of the scripture in favor of the lovey-dovey inspirational quotes. Now if only Walsh would be as harsh on those "Christians" who never go to church and generally don't care about it outside of hating queers/Muslims/everything that is not them (ie the Trump caucus). Hentropy (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There are no non-cafeteria Christians - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
THIS. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
But there are plenty that order a mixed platter(like the Southern Baptist meal for 5) and eat everything on their plate, including the disgusting bits. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
As ikanreed alluded to, there's a difference between ignoring all the stuff that is about how many goats are acceptable for a dowry (stuff that was rather specific to the time and situation), and completely ignoring the basic moral teachings because you don't like them. There are plenty of fundies that don't take divorce or pre-marital sex as seriously as gays, but there are those that do. When given a choice between some obscure teaching from the Old Testament and Jesus, they choose Jesus, and I don't think that's inconsistent. Hentropy (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The basic moral teachings? Look, the Bible is a Rorschach blot the Christians of the given time and place project their prejudices onto. I found myself in the local CoE and the vicar (who is a top bloke, very smart and nuanced) gave a thundering sermon citing Galatians 2:1-10 as a firm biblical injunction against racial discrimination. He was very sincere and convincing too, it was frankly an excellent argument. The only problem is the centuries of Christians also proving the Bible firmly endorses racism. And the answer is that you can prove anything and its opposite from the Bible, and observably people do - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The Bible never clearly talks about race relations in the same way we talk about it, however, but it DOES talk about sexual morality in a very clear, very precise manner. There is no accepted theological interpretation that says that Christians should be accepting of sodomy, incest, pre-marital sex, bestiality, etc. These things have always been prohibited in all sects, and the prohibition has only been challenged in the last 50 years or so. You can't "prove anything and its opposite" that's like saying you can find a passage that supports murdering one's parents or worshiping pagan gods, there are some things that are so fundamental and basic in the theology that there really are no arguments, and sexuality is kind of one of those areas that the Bible is super clear and not contradictory about. Red letter Christians are at least honest when they say they ignore everything but Jesus' words (which still aren't super progressive on all issues), but if a mainline/evangelical "Christian" are feminists who are accepting of gays, then they are not interpreting the Bible differently, they are outright ignoring/invalidating parts of it to make it more socially acceptable, which is internally dishonest. Hentropy (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
"The prohibition has only been challenged in the last 50 years or so." Isn't that just demonstrating David's point that people's interpretations of Christianity's teachings change with the times? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
And my point is that it's not a "reinterpretation". It's willful ignorance of scripture they claim to hold dear in order to keep it from looking "mean" in a more socially progressive world. If President Extreme Example decided to make the US a theocracy and jail everyone who's not Christian, he wouldn't be "reinterpreting" the First Amendment, he'd be completely ignoring it. That doesn't mean the meaning and intent of the First Amendment is 100% clear, people fight about it all the time, but everyone agrees that the government can't outlaw religions. If you're a Christian you can make a theological argument that we shouldn't kill sodomites outright, but there is not interpretation or argument to be made that gay is okay and should be accepted by the church. Hentropy (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Your point only works if we assume that your point of view on what scripture means is the correct interpretation.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
You are arguing in the precise manner of every Rorschach-blotting Christian ever. I'm slightly baffled as to how you think this will even slightly convince a bunch of seasoned Internet atheists who've heard this shit ad nauseam - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
As I said, the Constitution is also a Rorschach test for most people, but no one debates whether or not Senators should have 6 year terms. If your argument seriously is that the Bible can literally mean whatever you want it to mean and that there's no agreed-upon fundamentals, then get the altar ready for my wholesome Christian blood sacrifices to Baal. Hentropy (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Someone should startS a parody religion, that does exactly that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The thing I've never understood is: how do you know that the entire Bible (focusing on the new testament, the old testament is too easy to bash) actually describes Jesus' teaching accurately? Everyone agrees it wasn't written by Christ himself, are you *sure* nothing is exaggerated? Misunderstood or misremembered by the author? Or changed in some other way? Even if the writers were divinely inspired, they were still human. And even if we assume the Bible *is* 100% accurate in telling Christ's teachings, how do we know we've understood it correctly? It seems spectacularly arrogant to me to assume that *you* of all people have deciphered *one true* reading of Christ's teachings, probably based on a translation (KJV) that we know contains errors. The Muslims got this right by insisting that the Qu'ran can only be read in Arabic. I've read a number of books in both Dutch and English, and I can guarantee you that even without errors many subtleties will be lost in translation, and many subtleties will be *added* in translation, simply because the languages differ... c'est impossible to translate everything without changing the meaning. For example, I've been given to understand that that "thou shalt not kill" can arguably also be translated from the original as "thou shalt not murder", which has a rather different meaning! So even a simple 4-letter sentence can create a misunderstanding/confusion in the precise meaning of the text... Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
You bring up a lot of great points, but that's kind of the point, if you doubt the Bible is the 100% valid word of God handed down through prophets, then who is to say all of it isn't just bunk, Jesus is made up, all the stories are just stories, etc.? If you say parts of the Bible are up for very loose and accommodating interpretations, then the Bible loses much of its authority and ceases to become a real religion when you can just believe whatever you want about it. Christianity across the centuries has been built on the presumption that the current Biblical canon is trustworthy as an accurate account of Jesus' life and teachings (along with all the Tanakh stuff before it). You can present an alternative like the Mormons or JWs or even Muslims, but you throwing it out without an alternative then it starts to mean nothing. Of course Christians argue all the time in good faith about translations, and that's fair game, but most of those same people arguing don't have a degree in ancient Greek, so it usually comes down to what they want to believe. But there is no credible alternate translation that completely changes the meaning of most of the moral lessons. Hentropy (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
You are assuming there is agreement on this stuff at any level. The evidence of observation of Christians and what exegesis actually results in say otherwise - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Jesus himself taught with deliberately ambiguous parables and analogies. They are not meaningless by any stretch of the imagination, but they contain most of the deliberate ambiguities of fiction, and are meant to provoke thought rather than tell you what to think. (This is one reason why I don't doubt that Jesus existed. His story is told by multiple hands who are often inconsistent. But there is a personality and a shared style that shines through the several inconsistent accounts.) - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
And the translation of version into English is further called into question by the meaning/interpretation of the original languages. You can go back to the Talmud and read the various interpretations of the Tanakh by the different masters. Rava may have vastly different interpretations of lines of text than do other rabbis. There are lines as simple as "In the beginning" which have been debated as some believe it reads "In a beginning," which gives it a vastly different meaning. You then try and distill that into other languages and into modern language. I have very little hope in an authentic translation over 2k+ years and multiple languages. As for the arguments about sexuality, I've heard a literal hour-long exegesis of Leviticus 18:22 by a rabbi who argued that, according to the grammatical Hebrew, it is only a sin to bottom as a gay man. He also pointed out that the Hebrew does not make lesbian sex to be a sin anywhere. Now, we all know that the modern understanding of that is vastly different. Of course the ideal of homosexuality as an identity, rather than an act, was not something that was even considered 2k years ago. I see no point to sit here and argue that Leviticus 18:22 doesn't mean being gay is a sin under a modern interpretation, but to say that it always carried that meaning is absurd given the contexts of the time. AyzmoCheers 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Bieber's hair

wut? It's like THE DONALD in a strong wind. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

When they both combine, they become the epitome of assholery and douchebaggery. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Allnews Pipeline

Yeah, I'm the guy that posted all those Allnews Pipeline articles on the clogosphere, and I think I should stop that, 'cause all I'm doing is clogging up... the clogosphere. Like, if I posted every single thing that this site has to offer, I'd be the most annoying thing ever, and I want to apologize if that's the case. However, if there IS something truly ridiculous that this site has spawned, I will post it on there of course. It's just... you just have to take a look at that site and be amazed at the massloads of fear-mongering and just straightup crackpot going on in there, and it just gets crazier and crazier every new article. So I wanna ask, should we make a whole wiki page about it, or should we just ignore it? -- Ferigeras (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2015 (CET)

Sounds worth an article, if you think there's material for a good one - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Judging from the site's content, I'd say an article is in order, too. Dear God, the website is so wingnutty. It pretty much endorses Zero Hedge and other sites, too. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I was curious about this webshite, and took a look. It appears to be run by a couple of cranks who were former contributors to Before It's News. They write some of their own conspiracy crap, and copypasta from other conspiracy sites. There appear to be some allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of one of the people who run the webshite, but all this data, it seems, is from other crank sites and blogs. So who knows what information about them, if any, can be trusted. The site's alexa rank is in the 40,000's. I see that they're already mentioned on Webshites. Not sure if they are notable enough to warrant their own page, but we'll have to keep an eye on 'em. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of the alleged criminal misconduct you're talking about, I'm assuming you're talking about this: http://fusionlacedillusions.com/2015/02/12/warning-urgent-all-crime-pipeline-where-hard-hitting-news-alternative-news-disinfo-and-criminal-elements-inform-you/. Yes, one of this shite's developers was accused of rape, just read it for yourself and be amazed... -- Ferigeras (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
As for the worry of clogging the clogs: stories from the site get upvotes. But thank you for considering the overwhelming riches the site offers, and I suggest you just keep to the very finest purestrain crack to be found there - David Gerard (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm in on that. Those ones I've posted so far were the most outrageous I could have found, so... I think I'm doin' good. In any way you can expect more stuff from them to appear there. -- Ferigeras (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Damn... I seriously promised I wouldn't clog up the clogosphere with too much Allnews Pipeline stuff but... I can't, the crap they make on there is just WAY too horrendous, and like I said, with each article it gets crazier and crazier. You always think they couldn't be more paranoid, or you'd think they'd draw the line somewhere, but then it gets worse and worse. I mean it is hilarious at first, but the novelty of how stupid it is actually starts to be come boring after a while. I do seriously we should make an article of this hole. I'm not really good at actually creating an article on a wiki though, but I can always pick out their most retarded stories and add them there, just to give people a taste of what they're doing. What do you guys think? -- Ferigeras (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
All News Pipeline - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccines and pregnancy

This is nothing new. Lord Kitchener investigated the problem back in 1963: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRBAfwErAsY London Grump (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] global research election story

While GRC is a cloggy source, it is an actual story covered by the CBC, among others. 1 2 Compro01 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Undertale

The game has (spoilers!) a goat-like monster who rules over an underworld and wields a trident. That probably would have thrown them for quite a loop. (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Satanism's best recruitment tool has always been friendship and pacifism. It also includes a (spoiler) lesbian dinosaur SCIENTIST so it's basically the creationist's worst nightmare. Hentropy (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Ed

What's remotely cloggy about that? Queexchthonic murmurings 15:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved it to the WIGO.--Owlman (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Satanic schism

The article about divisions in Satanism is actually rather interesting. And somewhat deja vu; I was into neopaganism during the 1980s and early 1990s, the years it was Starhawked and politicized. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Star bucks boycott

Ive already been boycotting Starbucks for not paying tax. That, and because I do not like coffee. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Are they evading taxes or just using the loopholes in the tax law?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Adams

Dilbert hugging & killing.jpg
Because it's funny (& also creepy). WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I lost it at "I'm a normal boy." Blitz (Complaints Box) 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
As creepy and wrong as Adams is, I can't help but be reminded of a good point made by one of the first marines in Iraq during the Iraq War. Though, to be fair, he's talking the infrastructure in third-world countries, not the first-world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OubHHtNM94s&feature=youtu.be&t=52s Psycho Gecko 4:54, 25 November, 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools