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.
 Daily Mail trying to trash Snopes and the Forbes article
While the way the Daily Mail is trying to discredit Snopes is shameless, the linked Forbes article raises valid objections to Snopes' lack of transparency and hiring of people who ran for partisan offices. Perhaps the Forbes article could go on the Blogosphere? — Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs
- It really doesn't. It claims such from the guy saying he can't talk to him about a matter completely irrelevant to the content of Snopes, then claims this is evidence Snopes is untrustworthy. That is, it's literally the same attack as the DM article - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 What is this page for?
Are you saying The Intercept is the clogosphere here, or is it the Washington Post? FAIR.org or the Daily Kos? Snopes is part of the clogosphere, really? Nobody can tell whether to vote some of these entries up or down. It's all very confusing. ?? (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 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)
 Odd glitch
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)