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] The Clog About Cenk Uygur.

I notice that it's getting a mixed reaction. I didn't submit it, but I do agree that the youtuber atheism-is-unstoppable is a nut and he's a pedantic nitwit too. Yeah, Cenk Uygur goes soft on Islamic issues, but that's to be expected, considering he deconverted from Islam. The most important thing is that he doesn't support Daesh/ISIS, right? The other, more anonymous youtuber seems to get a bug up his ass if someone isn't as xenophobic as Sam Harris. What exactly is the goal of being more contempuous of Islam itself? It's not like you can go to war with 1 billion people. Hotwateramericano (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's getting a mixed reaction because it's so confusing. I downvoted it originally because I had no idea what I was watching in the video. After I saw this, I understood it better and went back to upvote it. CombustibleLemon (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I was confused about why the guy put all of the clips that pretty much disprove his case that Cenk is a Muslim apologist in the beginning of the video.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe I did word the post poorly (most people probably don't know who atheism-is-unstoppable is or that he's a massive Sam Harris fan), but that fact that people don't understand what the guy who made the video is talking about kinda proves my point that he's nuts. Nuclearneo577 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Mama Schlaffy

She's making some wild assumptions about the Walter Scott shooting and her dismissal of the relevance of racism is obviously bad, but she's not wrong in pointing out that there's a big problem with the way the justice system handles poor people that fail to pay court-ordered payments or fines. (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you think she is at all interested in the question of how the courts treat poor people outside of the narrow patriarchal reading of the situation that she wrote about? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
See Stopped Clock--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1. I'm not going to spend 20 minutes watching a comic explain a complex issue like child support laws. Find a proper article I can read and I'll comment on the issue. 3. She never mentions "fines," so that's not at al relevant to the discussion. she only discusses child support, as far as I can see. 3. She's a "stopped clock" for arguing that men shouldn't have to pay child support? ("The whole idea that a poor man is expected to support two households, including one with a child he never sees and may not even be his, is contrary to common sense and to all human experience. In too many cases, DNA investigations revealed that the poor guy is not the father of the kid for whom he is ordered to pay child support.) That's the argument you want to go to bat for? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Child support and imprisonment for debt are indeed similar problems. Child support is also a major recruiter for the underground economy, and as such tends to compound the legal issues faced by its victims. Fortunately, medicine offers hope; there is a cure called abortion. Abortion heals welfare babies, and is so wonderful that it is able to stop crimes from happening twenty years in the future. If you recognize the problem you should want abortion on every streetcorner. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering that abortion is only a solution if the children weren't wanted in the first place and that the majority of child support comes from failed marriages where the children WERE wanted, I fail to see the support for post-birth abortion here. Also, child support is in the best interests of the friggin' child; if you're going to make the MRA argument that child support is a burden amongst the menz, just fucking say so. --Castaigne (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm mostly peeved that despite this brief moment of lucidity, Mrs. Schlafly and the rest of her ilk will not throw their support behind something that works at least some of the time. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Since the kids in question are already in existence, saying abortion is a solution is just as relevant as saying contraception or abstinence is a solution. And since the kids in question are already in existence, I'd add that you suggesting they shouldn't exist just so that one of their parents wouldn't have to make payments seems pretty offensive. The problem here is that poor people that can't keep up with payments are being thrown in jail and having their licenses suspended, making it even harder for them to make money in order to pay their debts. Preaching abortion whenever you see the opportunity isn't gonna make the justice system fix itself. (Also, saying that people that might not be able to pay child support later in life should have their pregnancies aborted pretty much amounts to "poor people shouldn't procreate".) (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It simply struck me as odd that someone would recognize the problem that child support demands cause without supporting a right to abortion. And yes, as far as I'm concerned, abortion should receive every encouragement, if for no other reason than to reduce the human biomass. And yes, other forms of debt relief are also necessary. At minimum, child support payments should be subject to the same restrictions as other garnishments are. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You know, if you wanted to reduce the human biomass, starting a nuclear war or making certain volcanic islands go boom would be far more effective means of achieving that goal. (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Both of those things would also help deal with global warming as well. I smell a win-win here. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So, you'd devestate Earth's environment for the sake of stopping global warming? Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose? (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we have to destroy the Earth in order to save it. I'm not going to shrink away from making the hard choices. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
My biggest secret is that I felt sorta sympathetic to the Eugenicist villian of Moonraker who wanted to reboot humanity and civilization. But really, owning a space station is probably enough to get me to like anyone. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
In the book he was a honest-to-god Nazi.--Madman (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
Well, yeah, I'm not actually in favor of eugenics either. Just there's something about a dream to "making humanity right by starting over" that seems powerful. We're a very fucked up species, and wishing for an easy out on solving that by means other than slowly and progressively fixing systemic problems against the wishes of those abusing those problems is a nice mental shortcut. Actually doing it would be inhuman on an unprecedented scale, and anyone who'd volunteer for participating is almost certainly not someone you'd want founding a civilization. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"It simply struck me as odd that someone would recognize the problem that child support demands cause without supporting a right to abortion." You were surprised that Phyllis Schlafly doesn't support abortion? Really? Even if you disregard any prior knowledge of who she is, and ignore the advert for "Who Killed the American Family?" interjected in the middle of the text, it's still pretty clear that she's appealing to notions of the traditional family and family values here, and most likely sees both abortion and the child support system as negative symptoms of the nuclear family's decline. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It isn't like I didn't expect her to take that position. On the other hand, if she believes that all families ought to look a certain way, there are multiple paths to achieving that goal. If you want to guarantee your children that white upper middle class future that's their birthright, from time to time access to abortion's going to be a necessity. The anti-abortion cult is for people who have no futures to lose. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Google +

Are Google Plus blogs Applicable for this? Because this blog.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SixMillion4Truth88/posts — Unsigned, by: / talk 03:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I really don't want to click that link, but that title is exactly as horrible as it sounds, right? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck did you just make me see? If you'll excuse me, I'm just going to rinse my eyes out with some bleach. --TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 18:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Six Million 4 Truth"
lel. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the 6e6 figure is a reference... PacWalker 03:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Tumblr Dry

Er, I just noticed that the Tumblr article is at -14. Should we move it back to Blogs? (COI disclosure: I also downvoted it) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Or just get rid of it.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Why would red votes mean that it should go back to Blogs? >.> (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete it or ignore it; same as should have happened wherever it was first posted. Kicking shitposts from one WIGO to another doesn't seem a worthwhile task. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Tell that to the person who moved it first. :P ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It was originally posted to Blogs by one user, then moved to Clogs within the first 10 minutes by a different user who apparently disagreed. It still sits at +1 under the Blog vote. I don't particularly like the title that the original user used either, but I didn't think it was Clogworthy. At least, not enough to merit the first move to Clogs. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Jurisdiction

The blurb posted about Rep King's bill isn't quite accurate. Separation of powers does allow Congress to limit the cases that courts can hear. Even SCOTUS can have its appellate jurisdiction limited by Congress. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 allows SCOTUS to take appeals "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." The only part of SCOTUS' purview that cannot be altered is their original jurisdiction, those cases which fall directly in their realm of first responding. What's interesting is that this would preclude a bill banning SCOTUS from hearing gay marriage cases as they often involve Constitutional questions or suits in which a state is a party. A disagreement between two district courts/states would also fall under SCOTUS' original jurisdiction.

Federal Courts are bound by the same parameters by the same Article/Section/Clause. Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Courts but not their original jurisdiction. As far as the District Courts of Appeals go, their original jurisdiction is basically the same as SCOTUS.

I'm not sure how this would work with state courts. In looking into Florida's statutes I can't find anything that allows the Florida legislature to limit the jurisdiction of the court. I can find a section laying out the circuit courts' jurisdiction though. The Florida Constitution, however, does allow the circuit courts' appellate jurisdiction to be limited.

Fun stuff. Links provided for your interest. AyzmoCheers 19:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that no one has ever squarely faced the issue of whether Congress can limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts based on the substantive law they're applying, rather than on purely procedural grounds. The distinction between substantive and procedural law is itself rather ill-defined when push comes to shove, of course. In Boumadiene v. Bush[1], the Supreme Court held (in a 5-4 decision) that Congress could not remove the right of Guantanamo prisoners to sue for habeas corpus without providing an equivalent procedure, and held that the Military Commissions Act of 2006[wp] was not an adequate substitute. That would suggest that a statute that simply said that the Federal courts cannot overturn state marital law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional would not fly either. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed in that it is somewhat murky, but I don't think it would fly. The problem with saying "no rulings on gay marriage" is that a suit challenging a state amendment places a state as a litigant, which places the case in a court's original jurisdiction, which cannot be limited by Congress. Almost any such law could run afoul of that problem depending upon the specifics of the case. I'm not saying that Rep King's bill makes sense, rather that the blurb about "separation of powers" didn't make sense within the context of this law given that Congress does have jurisdiction limiting authority via the Constitution.

[edit] Sommers and "rape culture"

Why so many downvotes? The event sounds pretty unreasonable.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I found it interesting; lefties going Gamergate on people who had dared to sponsor a speaker, and trying to intimidate people into silence. I figured it wouldn't play all that well with this crowd, though. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with you. See below. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I actually didn't vote on this one. I wasn't sure if upvoting the Clog meant that one agreed or disagreed with the article or the protest or whatever. The main issue is that the wording of the Clog makes it sound like upvoting it indicates disagreement with the protest, while the tone of the article itself disapproved of the protest (thus making upvoting the clog indicate agreement of the protest). FWIW, while I can't comment on the speaker, I do disapprove of the activists/protests. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I put it in Clogs because it highlighted people's bad behaviour and carrying-on; and because it was from Reason magazine, which isn't held in all that high esteem here either. But occasionally they get it right. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I gave it a "meh" vote. While the issue we're dealing with on college campuses is real it is absurd to go that far and brand a bunch people for the reason that they are giving. Simply put, this is what the right means when they complain about "censorship" on college campuses. What they are complaining about is the culture of intimidation that anyone with an opposing conservative (or even centrist) leaning viewpoint of any kind meets when they venture onto a college campus that has a strong left-wing activist community. And yes radicals putting up posters declaring that a bunch of college republicans support rape culture by allowing someone whose views they don't share to talk on campus is intimidation. Prodding and annoying administrations to take sexual assault charges seriously is one thing, intimidating a speaker and the people who invited that speaker whose views you don't share with a serious but rather tenuous accusation is quite another. Alsto003 (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Alex

[edit] Nice, emdrive got a mention...

Someone linked me that thread before, and my eyes glazed over so bad I didn't even notice the laser spacetime contraction shit. Glad there's rationalwiki. Dmytry (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] "claims it's anti-semitic when it's really anti-muslim"

It's certainly anti-Muslim in that the people orchestrating it intend to slander a whole population group as anti-semitics. But that it's been appropriated to target non-Jews doesn't stop the message from being anti-semitic, in my view. (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. There's two interpretations of publicly made statements. One with context intact, which is clearly anti-Muslim bigotry, and one without context, which is anti-Semitic as as hell. When you're running an advertising campaign, you can be held accountable for what something seems to say without context. If the context makes you look bad, you're accountable for that too. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of context & intent. It's a matter of the effect it has on people, i.e. whether it offends people and/or influences/reinforces people's prejudices. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That too. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't help but think that the group that sponsored those ads scored something of an own goal there, though. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The point of radicalizing propoganda isn't to appeal to a majority, but to create hardliners out of moderates on your own side. This seems more like that than the wider net of broad appeal. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Jenner rant

As ever, don't read the comments. Ugh. (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] 10000 times stronger than chemotherapy

I wonder if the person with that bullshit alt med actually stopped to think about how being 10,000 times stronger than chemotherapy isn't necessarily a good thing (not to say that it actually is). I mean chemotherapy isn't known as a particularly pleasant thing and indeed it essentially amounts to trying to kill cancer cells with poison. A better headline would have been 10,000 times more poisonous! Although tbh as it is essentially the bullshit idea that you need to "balance the pH of your body" it isn't necessarily the most stupid alternative medicine therapy you could try. Samstr (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well... unless you try to "rebalance" it really quickly, by drinking something with a pH of 1. That'll end you even faster than those things you list. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
When I was a child, I was addicted to mixing vinegar and baking soda. The fizz still makes me smile. Makes a great water balloon. And you're keeping that pH balanced! - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
An idea occurs as a result of this. Divided paintballs. One side is filled with dyed baking soda, one side with dyed vinegar. PAP *FIZZ* ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] I personally can't wait.....

... for Hollywood to finally get around to making Kriemhild and the Nibelungen. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools