RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>

Contents

[edit] Podesta brothers accused of being involved in the disappearance/abduction of Madeleine McCann from Portugal.

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-bombshell-multiple-reports-tie-clintons-podesta-brothers-to-child-abduction-case/34348/ An alt-right troll just posted this on a discussion board I use. I thought i'd leave it here as i'm unsure how to add it to the WIGO: Clogs section myself.(could someone who knows what they're doing please do so. Thanks.) not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 13:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a part of what is now being dubbed as "pizzagate". It seems to be a conspiracy theory started by Trump supporting alt-right types on 4chan and reddit. The BBC today ran this article on the subject. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38156985

I think rationalwiki needs an article debunking pizzagate asap, or perhaps added as a new section to the Alex Jones article, as he has been ranting about it a lot. not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 22:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be just another entry for the listWikipedia's W.svg, but it turns out pizzagateWikipedia's W.svg is already taken. Oops. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Maher reveals himself to be a reactionary asshole by stating that Trump will rid the US of "PC culture and Islam apologists"

I wouldn't call him a reactionary. In fact, this article most certainly deserves a spot in the clogospere page. I mean this blogger just labelled one of the most progressive political pundits out there a reactionary, based on a reverse Broken clock moment. As for Maher, well, this position, which seems to be one taken by some proponents of liberalism, including, Sam Harris, is profoundly a stupid one. It's like, "hey grandson, sorry about the melting ice caps and rising sea levels. But look on the bright side, we sure showed all those PC police, SJW, and Islam apologists.". "Hey daughter, sorry you have to see that unwanted baby to term, but hey, at least you don't have to worry about political correctness anymore. Trump sure showed them!". "Hey, buddy, sorry you can't bring your Muslim wife into the country. But, hey, Trump really gave it to those Islam apologists, huh?". "Hey, guys and gals in 2030, sorry about the conservative majority Supreme Court, but on the bright side, no more PC, regressive, SJWs! What's that you say? They're still around?" --Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC) −

  1. Do you actually think they favour climate change denial, pro life and xenophobia? You would be deeply misguided if you did, and yet you present as if this was the case. Why is that?
  2. "Bill Maher reveals himself to be a reactionary asshole [...] I wouldn't call him a reactionary" . Such things still astonish me. I mean, what the heck!? ~ Aneris 15:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
To your first point, it would seem that once again, this almost uncontrollable urge of yours to leap to the defence of every and any New Atheist as far as criticism of Islam is concerned has led you to misread another comment. I was clearly poking fun at the cognitive dissonance of some, like Maher, who think Trump's victory is some kind of victory against political correctness. You're probably a student of that school of thought, aren't you? Also, you seem to have missed the part where I referred to him as "one of the most progressive political pundits out there". I also explicitly say that I wouldn't call him a reactionary. I also state - EXPRESSLY - that that article belongs in the clogosphere. But somehow you seem to have missed all of that. As for your second point, I don't even know what the hell that is about and I don't really care.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought you were calling him that, and then saying the opposite in the first line. I didn't see that you refered to the URL of the article (the headline is different). My uncontrollable urge to defend New Atheists obviously depends on an uncontrollable urge of people like you, that make defending them necessary. I'd say I jump on every fifth or so opportunity. ~ Aneris 17:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Besides being an anti-vaxxer, Maher has always been an Islamaphobe. If you watched his interview with Obama, if displays a profound stupidity when he can't even comprehend Obama's idea that there have been evangelicals who were scientists. On Harris, well he has proven himself to be an intellectual coward and has always misunderstood world religions. He pulls stats out if his ass and whitewashes state crimes. I have no respect for either's intellect.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember watching Religulous a few years ago, expecting a humorous deconstruction of religion(i.e. one of the softest targets in the history of soft targets for humor), and just got utterly depressed at how facile and childish his attacks were. No witty banter, just interviews of the format Maher: [Stawman], Subject: I think that's not quite right. Maher: [leading question], Subject: [doesn't fall for it], then cut to a monologue piling stereotypes. It was sad. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I ever saw his movie but I have heard that it oversimplifies, at best, the comparison between Horus and Jesus.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Well like many liberals, Maher was just trying to find a silver lining after a day full of suck. And there are many liberals who are either lying to themselves thinking it won't be as bad as it will be or trying to dig up some 1980s quote of Trump's proving he's a deep cover liberal. So I think we have to cut him some slack. On the other hand, the left does have a problem with Islam. Not all criticism of a religion is bigotry against the people holding said religion. Saying Christianity is a stupid religion that has brought the world mostly evil is not bigoted towards Christians. And yes, the left has focused too much on the concerns of urban upper class people who really do give a crap about whether Starbucks uses the right pronouns. There are a lot of people in America who have real economic problems and I think it behooves the political left to address the economic hurt of many Americans instead of having esoteric debates about Wonder Woman's milk glands. I am not saying there is any justification to vote Trump, but the problem in politics is that being right is not enough. Bill Clinton may have actually had an economic and crime policy that ended up hurting poor and African-American people, but he could go there and "I feel your pain" the pants off of voters and he played the sax like no other. You might not remember it, but some even called him "the first black president". Talking about pronouns and bathrooms may be important and it may be right, but it sure as hell is not winning any votes. Worzelpete (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

So at what point in between NAFTA and the financial deregulation did Bubba start to feel the working classes' pain? Also, don't whitewash the Clintons' racism as a "might" when their policies and remarks were clearly directed against minorities in order to regain the racist, white vote. On another note, I always find it funny that the solution to the problems with the Left is more purging; the calls for purging are always directed against those who have very little influence like those who might be "overprotective" of minorities instead of the neoliberals who currently have power.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice way to frame the argument, everyone who shows concern that annoying PC types are giving fuel to Trumpism is now a de facto purity troll racist apparently. You do know that the "overprotective" of minorities types often don't seem to actually do much good for minorities, instead they just seem to piss off a bunch of people and give ammunition to bigots. And there seems to be a lot of overlap between the neo-liberals and the "overprotective" types, passing de-regulation on the one hand while trying to protect their radical flank by indulging in a little Idenity politics that seemingly gives a tiny amount to minorities instead of actually helping them by, I dunno, winning and then providing medicare funding for, say, sex change operations free of cost for transgender people as part of a general package of medicaid expansion, for instance. ClothCoat (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea how you ended up interpreting my statement as framing people as racist. I was addressing Worzel's claim that Bill Clinton's policies "may have actually had an economic and crime policy that ended up hurting poor and African-American people" as blatantly false since the Clintons' purposely tried to get the racist, White vote.
My point about purging is that there seems to be this undefined idea of "regressive leftist" who supposedly have so much power that they are hurting the Left as a whole; in this case, this group is "overprotective" of minorities but no examples are brought up of this overprotection so I wouldn't know whether I agree with Worzel or not. I can infer from this statement by Worzel, "Talking about pronouns and bathrooms may be important and it may be right, but it sure as hell is not winning any votes.", that I would not since this is purposely meant to minimize and abandon oppression felt by trans people. If you are going to purge from the Left for being destructive, then purge those who continue to defend and endorse neoliberls who are already in power.
Lastly, I agree with you that neoliberals always seem to use identity politics as a form of appeasement to minorities in order to mask their class war against them. They scare these minorities with propaganda about the other side being oppressive which, even if true, seeks to inspire minorities to empower them. I have posted blogs on this in the WIGOs before so I am not sure why you think I am in this supposed class of people.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
At what point did I say Bill Clinton actually ever really felt anybody's pain? And remember that the crime bills of the Clinton era were actually popular among many African-Americans (don't ask me why). But Bill Clinton was/is a damn smooth talker. Hillary is many things, but she is not a smooth talker. It is high time the left start talking about economics. And they should not stop any time soon. I know it is hard to say "people are hurting economically" when you are "in power" (most of the shit hurting people was passed on the state level, where the repugnant party reigns), but right now is the time for the Democrats to become aggressively populist on economics. I mean, what do we have to lose? And yes, colorblind populism a la Bernie Sanders might cost a few votes among African Americans, because sometimes it really is about race and not economics, but the fact of the matter is that most poor white folks can get behind colorblind populism, but not any message of "everything ultimately is about race". Even though everything ultimately is about race, economics or gender and often a combination of any of those three. So to sum up:
  1. Don't throw LGBT and so on under the bus, but don't pretend it is the only issue in the world
  2. Economics, economics, economics
  3. Colorblind populism
  4. Oppose everything Trump says or does, it worked for the repugnant party, it might work for us.
If you find fault with this, please speak. Worzelpete (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
First off, you stated that Bill Clinton, "could go there and "I feel your pain" the pants off of voters", which I interpreted as a show of empathy from him. Though African Americans supported the crime bill, that doesn't make it right; Bill Clinton also used it to encourage racist White voters. Secondly, Bernie Sanders didn't run a "colorblind campaign" because he had a racial justice platform even if it wasn't radical. I never stated that identity politics is more important than economics but that doesn't mean there aren't laws you can pass to bring up an identity. I disagree that you must run a colorblind campaign to win or that such a campaign is necessary in order to concentrate on economics. In the US, this would be contradictory since the proletariat is overwhelmingly non-White and racial injustice has long been intertwined with racial oppression.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "reactionary" is increasingly becoming a left-wing analogue to "SJW" as used by wingnut types. It often seems to mean "anyone who disagrees with me on two or more issues". Remind you of anyone? ClothCoat (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, a tone policing argument I can get behind. That's new. Especially since Trump is likely to be stocking the executive branch with actual reactionaries soon. And almost certainly actual white supremacists. And hypothetically actual neonoazis(though I haven't heard of that one yet).
Things wrong with Maher: he's a shitty skeptic who buys into pseudoscientific nonsense, he's a shitty liberal who tends to buy into a lot of imperialistic policies, and he's not exactly a great comedian either. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Cloth I disagree with Bill Maher on vaccines, GMOs, germ theory, alternative medicine, Islam, and economics so, by your logic, can I call him a reactionary? Regardless of this, I see no reason why anyone should not point out someone's beliefs for being reactionary when they clearly are, even if you agree with them on most issues; I don't see how I am even using the word "reactionary" incorrectly. If Maher was saying thatTrump will rid the US of Jewish apologists, would you not criticize that statement was reactionary?
@Ikanreed You seem to be arguing that Maher is not as bad as Trump so, therefore, he shouldn't be called a reactionary. I don't see why we shouldn't see Maher as not as dangerous since he has a large platform to spout his views while his opponents do not. By your logic, is calling him a bullshit artist for his pseudoscientific beliefs unfair because it isn't as bad as Jenny McCarthy's?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, I know trans folk are hurting and their problems are very real and important. But politics is not the same as social activism. If you are a social activist, you can dedicate all your time and energy to preaching about a single subject, to get the base riled up and/or convince those on the fence. But in politics you gotta get elected. And when you are talking more about how the first female President is a symbol and how gay marriage is a good thing, you might leave some warm fuzzy feeling in the hearts of those who'll vote for you regardless, but you will not get anybody on the fence to vote for you.

For years, millions of Americans - most of them white and male - voted against their own best economic interest. Now some of them do that because they honestly believe that some day they are going to become rich, but many of them do it because "dose dam libruhls are so annoying". If you talk about economic issue and you never stop talking about them, they don't have any time to get annoyed with your pet causes. Because frankly, if you do not believe in or do not care about any given pet cause - no matter how worthy - hearing someone drone on about it is annoying as fuck. And another thing we should draw from this election: Being there in person is the best campaigning you can do. Yes, doing fifty trillion rallies where you say basically the same is boring, but people have incredibly short attention spans. The only people who listen to an entire speech of any politician on Youtube are PolSci majors or people who vote for you anyways.

Most people will just listen to the soundbites coming out of their preferred Bullshit machine, be it Fox News, Breitbart or some clickbait bullshit on Facebook. I mean "You didn't build that", there's context and background, if a statement is used to bludgeon you over the head someone else made that happen. But you also made that happen yourself. Why? Because you were not out there talking to people enough. If I say to a friend who leans the other way politically "Hey let's go to that rally" he says: mh, okay, let's at least hear what they got to say. And once they hear a thought out argument tailored to them, they get to thinking. I for one think we should even bring back the whistle stop tours.

Flying from New York to Miami and from there to LA may make sense in "covering a great area", but if you tour the country in a bus or train and stop every fifty miles, you get to breath in the feel of the area, you (or your staff) see and hear what the people say and think and you can much more effectively target your message. Of course you can go to Iowa and promise BS about corn like everybody does, but what about talking to people in Flint? Or treating Philadelphia like more than a cheese-steak photo-op? Of course the national popular vote would make campaigning a lot easier because a voe in Maine would count as much as one in California and one in New York would count as much as one in Cheyenne, but it is what it is. Campaigning even where you don't think you can win might even energize supporters that turn into members of state legislatures, that in turn run for congress from their state.

Because if we can learn one thing from the repugnant party it is activism. Their causes may be silly and they may be wrong, but instead of liking shit on FB, they went to town halls and bored their politicians to death, they called in about guns and gays and gravy and they got what they wanted for the most part. Yes, the system is rigged in favor of the repugnant party, but every system in history was rigged in favor of those in power. That did not stop change from happening, did it? And of course the most important thing is to stop Trump by all means necessary. The "Let's see what he does." and the "If Trump succeeds America succeeds" are not only bad politics, they are dangerous. Worzelpete (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Try breaking up paragraphs with this nifty template {{parabreak}} which you simply throw into your wall of text (don't add manual paragraphs). Alternatively, make them manually, but then you have to add the same amount of indent-colons on each paragraph (this can be annoying when you have to adjust it after an edit conflict, for instance). ~ Aneris 17:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
As Tolkien said "the tale grew in the telling"... Worzelpete (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Owlman's entry

Are you saying pointing out where Russian propaganda inserts fake "news" into the conversation is evil? Maybe you should take a look at your prioridades, compañero. Worzelpete (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No. The organization has no proof that there any connections and they themselves are anonymous.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Washington Post has a tortured relationship with the truth of its own,what with their own Richard Cohen claiming that " Only a fool – or possibly a Frenchman – could conclude" that Iraq was not a dangerous state in possession of WMDs and intent on using them. How is it 'rational' to take a completely anonymous source with transparently partisan intentions at face value,as an indisputable purveyor of facts? Are we supposed to discard all of these sources as 'fake news' without bothering to see what any of them have to say? Including not only the obviously crazy ones (infowars) but some of the more well regarded ones as well (IE wikileaks?) I agree that naively accepting sources that lack credibility is a bad thing,but that very principle prevents us from accepting the WaPo article,as well!209.179.88.251 (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC) 19:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we need concrete proof of the Russian connection before claiming it as the Truth. Also let me quote Aristotle: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." But here comes the but (hehe): I think however that WikiLeaks lost a lot of its credibility with the "white noise" machine claims and other dubious statements. In Additon i consider it plausible that the Russians have their hand in that Buisness. (It is plausible not proven or true kay? )--Benaresh (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Saddam had to be toppled. The only problem was that the US was unwilling or unable to ensure his replacement would be better. Worzelpete (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
White Man's Burden, eh? London Grump (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] 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.


[edit] Daily Kos laughs at coal miners who lose health insurance

One of the joys of reading Conservapedia is tracing back some of their MPR articles, through the partisan secondary and tertiary sources they cite, back to the original event or news article. Much fun!

One of the joys of visiting Rationalwiki is the balanced, rational approach to news and information. Much fun too.

So what the fuck is a Conservapedia MPR item doing on a Rationalwiki WIGO page? Why wouldn't the poster link the original Daily Kos article, an article that anyone with a reading age of 13 could see was ironic? Why did he/she/ze choose to link to a partisan think tank instead?

Rationalwiki is a broad church but there's no excuse for this kind of disingenuous bullshit. London Grump (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The WIGOs are basically Owlman's personal linkstorm. What were you expecting? By the way, I'm totally with the Daily Kos here. Enough Democrat self-flagellating. If people vote for a party for whom this kind of policy is front and center and actually fucks them, it is 100% on them. They're fucking adults. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The Left gets blamed for everything that went wrong. Now i think it got its entry in WIGO Clogosphere for exactly missing the point of the Daily Kos Article.--Benaresh (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
In what way is the article is the Daily Kos article ironic? I highly doubt Markos is being ironic since he wrote how great markets were for the Cato Institute. Oh, and how I am not surprised the racist NewFrenchHotness hopes people lose their healthcare because they didn't vote for a warmonger. Why don't you tell me again why the party that authorized torture isn't fascist.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Uhhh...maybe I shouldn't be dipping my toe into this drama, but Dems turning up their nose at working class folks is part of the reason we're in this damn mess in the first place. Plus, the writer of the article got a whole lot of heat for it in the comment section. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Try to ignore NFH, she he is mostly a troll and I probably shouldn't have even engaged. Nonetheless, this idea that somehow Markos is being ironic is bizarre; I don't see any proof of this. Clearly, as MNIM pointing out, his readers didn't get the joke. It certainly hasn't ceased to amaze me how many liberals have reduced this election to "idiots are running things now" since they were the morons who lost to them but classism, and racism for that matter, is certainly inherent to their meritocracy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Classism I can definitely grok, but explain to me how racism and meritocracy figure into this please? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Well normally the poorest people in a society are the most disadvantaged race. This is especially true in countries that have been successful settled by colonizers. When Americans think about the South, they usually think of an uneducated White monolith. Through the idea of a meritocracy, liberals will justify White working class suffering by suggesting that they actively chose to be uneducated instead of them being unable to afford higher education. Through this ideology, these people deserve to lose their benefits because "they are adults" but taking these benefits away always hurts racial minorities the most because they are the poorest. This classist BS is what justified the liberal support for Bill Clinton's welfare 'reform' which "ended welfare as we know it"; that legislation ended up disproportionately affecting Black people but they were deemed to be collateral because they were probably welfare queens. When you deny the poor free education, you end up denying more Black people than White people a chance at a higher education; when you reject universal healthcare, more Black people will go without health care than White people. This meritocracy that liberals will tell you only needs to be reformed in order to work was the same meritocracy that rewarded Trump, a lying scam artist, his entire life; it would make no difference if Trump was a Black man.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah okay. You're talking about centrist Dems, the liberals-in-name-only that broke the party's back and the very same ones that are running around like headless chickens and pointing at white women gender traitors, the Russians, Bernie, Jill Stein, something, anything but their savior Hillary Clinton and their own weaknesses. They're all dead weight that needs to shape up or ship out. Even Republicans had the self awareness to do an autopsy after the 2012 loss, these chumps are spending energy deflecting and denying their weaknesses instead of, you know, examining these weaknesses and fixing them. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm a man, for one thing, and I don't see why you bring up racism in this. The truth is that there comes a time where the reasonable people have to stop bending over backwards to placate petty, reactionary assholes who'll cut their noses to spite their face. These people had a choice: they chose to massively vote for people whose stated policies would directly, by simple cause and effect, lead to this kind of thing. You vote for GOP, you get the GOP treatment. You choose to fuck over minorities by your vote because the only thing that matters is your own ass, pity isn't something you deserve.
Goodpost.gif Seriously. Saying that white poor working class got ignored by the Dem's in the election isn't quite factual, there was a Blog post about this a while back. Also i get that those very poor white people felt desperate and left out, but voting Trump?
A Third Party Vote would have shown that neither GOP nor Dem's adressed the Issues you cared about in a meaningfull manner. Also as Owlman Post described the problem with "Liberals" we also need to adress this false moderation a lot of people describe to. From here it looks like you had the choice between Center right(Clinton) and Far right(Trump).--Benaresh (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay okay, what we really need to do is not reach out to Republicans that consistently vote Republican. That might very well be a lost cause. But, but, seven million people that normally vote Dem stayed home and about a hundred thousand flipped. Those people we can win back, definitely. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@BoN, who I assume is NFH. First, I apologize for misgendering you. Secondly, race runs intersectional to class issues. Though Obamacare was largely bunk, its removal will harm Blacks more than Whites. Tho reduce this to "Whites deserve it for voting the way they did" removes any opposition and creates a cudgel against Blacks that says "Blacks deserve it for not voting". It is a false narrative to say Trump won on the backs of the White working class. To reduce Trump's rise to mere racism is problematic; Obama managed to win many states Clinton lost without a problem. This narrative that "reasonable people" lost out is arrogance; reasonable people don't cover their eyes and pretend the other side has no legitimacy, reasonable people vote to better their lives.
@Benaresh A third party vote is nice but in the US a protest vote means very little. I think Americans have come to that conclusions since the two main parties never seem to change; in my precinct, there were only three positions that had a third-party candidate: comptroller, Governor, and POTUS and two of those positions weren't winnable. This idea that the Dems didn't abandon the working class is ludicrous; Thomas Frank explains how the Democrats moved away from working-class politics in his book, Listen, Liberal. On the issue for why the white working class voted for Trump, The Guardian had a great series not too long ago explaining that they believed Trump would smash the system.
@MNIM The problem is, the Democrats don't want those people back.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Well they better get their heads out of their asses or they'll lose in 2018, 2020 and beyond. Jesus Christ. Is there no hope left for any kind of fairness for my generation and the next? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] 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: 66.31.161.240 / 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools