RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>
Fix on "Newspaper Snark" December 2016 Entry
I am inexperienced and didn't know where to put this; someone copied the vote counters from the Brietbart Kellogs post and the "Newspaper Snark" post, so I fixed it, which is why it is reset. I also moved the Brietbart entry up to December and put in a better link.
Just... wow... I'm speechless about how many nutjob bells this clog manages to hit
I stumbled on this sub page of Christipedia while digging for some confirmation of Kent Hovind's teaching record that wasn't based on his affidavit and boy does it have all the clog hallmarks. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- That damn website nearly crashed Safari and gave me an awful headache! Screen-grabbed and posted to Webshites. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
So I added a thing on Rockefeller being called a eugenicist, and suddenly a whole bunch of info got deleted. I hope to god that this glitch can be fixed. I didn't mean to throw out a bunch of stuff. The living oxymoron (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- No worries, friend. Fixed it for ya. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much. I'm sorry if I caused any kind of panic among the staff. The living oxymoron (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
We're all rational (d...does that trigger the drinking game?) adults here, can't we just have the word "nigger" without the most unnecessary and inefficient censorship imaginable, especially when it's in a quote about how the person saying it is bad? Do we REALLY need "n*gger", as though that's somehow better and an impenetrable code that disguises the power of the base word? Hell, reading the linked article, he doesn't even say "nigger" he says "N-Word". Unless Right Wing Watch is censoring him in the quote without saying it. X Stickman (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. Its the kind of shit the Daily Mail does to protect the servants who might read the newspaper as they bring it with your breakfast. Even if you're not into the whole appropriating the power of language thing, context is key.
- What next? Lady bits or front bottom for vagina? London Grump (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Female The Doctor?
- Definitely canon. It was speculative for quite a while in the tv canon, though I could have sworn I remember it being discussed in one of the book series pre-revival. The JohnSimm!Master regenerated into a female incarnation played by Michelle Gomez. There was also The General from the 50th anniversary (played by Ken Bones) and the end of last year's season - who stated that the Ken Bones incarnation was his first male one and who's next was female. Daev (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- In Clogosphere, generally yes. But can fail due to anger at the text convincing others it's bad and voting down just because. Here's a WIGO(W) example, since I have no Clog examples:
- User A hears there's been a possible terrorist attack in France.
- User A writes up a sarcastic WIGO about how funny it'll be when American Liberals find out a Muslim did it rather than it being an accident.
- WIGO gets massive vote down due to User A being an asshole.
- User B, who isn't an asshole, fixes the text so it's about a terrorist attack in France and nothing else.
- WIGO still gets massive vote down since newbies mistakenly think it's been voted down because people are showing how they're angry the attack happened.
That's generally the kind of reasoning behind strong vote-downs. If it's a weak vote-down (e.g. a -2 rating and only like 10 people actually voting) because they don't think it's a relevant news piece; thought the Blog was crappy or that the Clog wasn't actually that crazy. So, in conclusion: If we're supposed to laugh, be jovial. If it's serious, be serious.- Forerunner (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)