RationalWiki will be going through an upgrade cycle this weekend. This will cause some down time, details are at the tech blog. As a reminder, we try and add information to the tech blog during any outage, you can always refer to it for details or as a form of communication if the site is down.

from Tmtoulouse (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 15:23, 18 April 2014

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>


[edit] Daily Mail Racism story for the clogosphere or not quite blatantly racist??


Just wondering if anyone things this should go in the clogosphere. The story is based on a pilot study which is anecdotal evidence (link in the article) looks like it's meant to be used to start a debate rather than be a definative report however the Mail has turned it into a bit of a racist tirade. The captilisation of Muslims is particularly amusing.

Sorry if someone has already spotted this (first time contributor).


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2416586/Gangs-Asian-men-grooming-MUSLIM-girls-plying-drink-drugs.html — Unsigned, by: Newtsboots / talk / contribs

[edit] Poooof, it's gone.... it's back:


And the text of the piece for when it vanished from Google's cache:

Different Types of Monetary Grants That Can Lend Assistance To The Small Sized Commercial Organizations January 22, 2014 Writer Marie No comments Print Friendly

If you are a small business owner comprising of 1-100 employees, you must be interested in availing the benefits of government programs/financial grants that can assist you in the right way. The benefit that remains associated with the grants/government programs is that there is no need to pay anyone back. However, in this respect, it needs to be understood that, in order, to be able to benefit from similar types of loans you are supposed to put in some effort.

   Uncle Sam Grant

The first and foremost grant that you can expect to benefit from is the Uncle Sam. The same proves to be the right alternative that you help you in being able to expand/start a business venture. As a business owner, you will be encouraged in learning that the specific programs are suited for all entrepreneurs and businesses. A few of the examples include; green product development and health-related research.

   Amber Grants

As a business owner, you are supposed to understand that a small amount of cash can hold a significant impact. It has been since the year 1998 that the Amber Foundation Grants have been extending their support to all concerned women entrepreneurs. The amount of the grant that you can expect to benefit from is within the range of 500-1000 dollars.

   Love A Local Business

This type of grant has been made available to approximately 1.1 million dollars. These types of nominations are considered to be the ultimate choice for all concerned vendors, customers and employees. This is the best weapon that can provide rewarding benefits to your business.

   Opportunity Fund

The different types of financial assistance that you can expect to enjoy including; micro savings, microloans and commercial real estate financing. It is important to search around the financial grants that can benefit you.

   Local And State Agencies

As a small business owner, you will be able to benefit from the financial options such as the low-interest loans. If you are unaware as where to start from, it is important to contact along with the economic development agency of the state.


The underlying purpose behind enacting the HIRE act is to provide a break to all concerned employers interest in hiring employees working on a part-time basis. As an employer, you will be able to make a claim of an additional amount of 1,000 dollars credit.

   State Workforce Training Funds

The reason behind making available similar types of grants is to lend assistance to all small business owners looking to impart training to all concerned unskilled workers. These types of grants also assist workers to be able to find jobs within the region.

   Work Opportunity Tax Credit

If you avail the benefit of the same, it will help in reducing income-tax liability on the part of every concerned employer. This holds valid if you are hiring former prisoners and veterans, as well.

   Innovator of The Year Award

The package you can expect to associate along with the same is approximately a package worth of 100,000 dollars. The same includes a cash prize of 50,000 dollars, as well.

   I Lab

The grants are made available at the federal level. In a bid to lend assistance, there are different types of state-based funds that remain available to all concerned fledging entrepreneurs. There can be little doubt that the financial grants can benefit you in the ultimate manner.

— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

[edit] Condoning "trolling"

I don't think the website should be condoning trolling or hacking of other sites (maybe with the possible exception of Wesboro Baptist Church's, but enough about that). Politics aside, anyone who's bored enough to spend all day in their mom's basement trying to "hack" some website that they don't like needs to get a job/hobby/girlfriend/life/or something - and if this site's promoting it passively then it's just going to harm it's reputation and make it look more like 4chan than a site dedicated to "debunking pseudoscience"

Here's an example of what I mean (from the January 2014 section)

"Facebook trolls Goat even MORE Conservative pages. Apparently, Andy isn't the only conservative who keeps handing the keys to trolls. UPDATE: aggrieved racist idiot complains on YouTube"-- (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly not the most mature response, but this was a freaking Facebook page. It's about as important as my userpage here. This is more like teasing than actually hurting anyone or anything. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicizing non-English names

To be fair, my name isn't correctly pronounceable by any non-native French-speaker, and it bugs the crap out of me when they try. So I introduce myself with a fairly Anglicized version of it.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That's you being nice about it. They were being cunts about it :) Scherben (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what is your first name? I like to challenge myself linguistically. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 04:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It's my last name that's the problem (although pronouncing my first name, Camille, the proper French way is beyond most non-native speakers anyways)--"Shut up, Brx." 04:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"kah-mi-ya"? "ka-mie"? I seem to recall that "ll" is like English "y" in both Spanish and French, no? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 04:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
[kaˈmij] Frederick♠♣♥♦ 01:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Shiite Einstein

I find it disturbing to observ, how this article wants to report on wack theories about Einstein's alleged affinity to Islam, whilst calling him „Jewish“ right in the headline, without any further distinction. Sure, in the one sense of this word (origin) he was Jewish, but his metaphysical beliefs were far from what Judaism teaches (and Islam, too, of course). This gives the article some “Muslims want to steal Einstein from the Jews”-tone. Sophophobe (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind the article, but I do believe Einstein would have self-identified as Jewish; it being the sole reason why he had to flee from his home country. More to the point, I think it's not really up to outsiders to decide whether "Jewish" was an ethnicity, religion or both. Bismarck (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Non-binary-gender character guy

I had mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, the article was pretty rude in tone, and didn't seem to understand what people mean by "ending the gender binary." On the other, it seems that whoever submitted the link here at RW misunderstood what was being said. He specifically said that the problem he has is not with people pushing boundaries but with people sacrificing story quality in order to tackle social issues. And I agree with him on that. There are good stories that ask difficult questions, and there are rants masquerading as literature. So I think I agree with the essence of the post, while taking issue with the way he said some parts. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 03:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Good point, bad representation. It should be noted, however, that no work of art is ever apolitical. It may be very subtle. Overt political propaganda/moralisation is pretty boring though.
What do you think an artist is? An imbecile who has only his eyes if he is a painter, or his ears if he is a musician? ... on the contrary, he is at the same time a political being, constantly on the alert to the heart-rending, burning, or happy events in the world, molding himself in their likeness.
—Pablo Picasso
Bismarck (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] The Daily Bale.

I see the moron who runs the daily bale is in rather a lot of trouble for making more shit up about immigrants. Nice to see the wing nuts in the UK trying to keep up with the standards of the US wingers. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Crimea Hypocrisy

I get the not-so-subtle feeling that for the hypocrites on the Crimea Crisis, namely the right-wing Paulbots in the US and the left-wing Stop the War Coalition in the UK, their position is grounded not so much in opposition to warfare so much as taking sides. (That's not to say it's necessarily intellectually inconsistent to support/oppose some conflicts but not others, so long as one has a consistent rationale supporting these stances, but these two groups claim to be anti-war on principle.) I honestly don't know what's up with the Paulbots, but it's no secret that left-wing antiwar movements often attract people who are more anti-Western than anti-war. (Of course, touting oneself as just generally anti-war tends to attract more followers in western countries.) The left-wing hypocrites appear to subscribe to an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset, viewing Putin as some sort of beacon of hope against Evil Western ImperialismTM. While the right-wing Liberarians don't seem to be anti-Western, I have seen some anti-NWO nuts going on about Putin being an ally against the NWO (while others claim he's a part of it), but not all winguts believe in the New World Order. What does the rest of the community think? Am I generally right about the hypocrites on the left? What's the best angle we have on the Paulbots? The One They Call Mars (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

While I won't make any pronouncements about whether you're correct in the broad sense, or whether most left-wing radicals do espouse such views, it wouldn't surprise me if it were a common thought process. It's really no secret that the western world has had (and continues to have) a long history of interventionist policies. That said, the Paulbots strike me as a bit less obvious. On the one hand, patriotism is usually a big rallying point for the right, but on the other hand, Paul's brand of libertarians aren't a fan of government in general. Tough call. - Grant (Talk) 16:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
While I can't speak for Paulbots I think you're very much over simplifying the Stop The War Coalition's position on Putin. Try this
WHEN HILLARY CLINTON STARTS talking about the new Hitler, it's time for all of us to recall exactly who has been on the receiving end of this epithet before.

In 1956, we were told that Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt was the new Hitler, when he had the temerity to nationalise the Suez Canal and resist an invasion by Britain, France and Israel.

In 1990, we were told that Saddam Hussein was the new Hitler, when he invaded Kuwait, which triggered the first gulf War.

The Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic was dubbed the new Hitler in 1999, during the Kosovo war.

In 2002-3, Saddam Hussein became the new Hitler for a second time, as George Bush and Tony Blair banged the drum for their illegal war against Iraq.

Dictators, tyrants and autocrats many of these may have been, but new Hitlers they certainly were not, remembering that Hitler was the leader of one of the most powerful imperial powers in the world.

Those of us who have opposed wars justified on these spurious grounds -- from Kosova to Iraq, from Suez to Libya, from Argentina to Syria -- have been labelled as supporters of whatever regime was our government's enemy at the time.

So let me make clear: I have never been a supporter of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, General Galtieri, head of the Argentinian Junta at the time of the 1982 Falklands war, or Syria's Bashar al-Assad.

And certainly not Russia's Vladimir Putin, now deemed the latest Hitler in the Ukraine and Crimea crisis.

The Stop the War Coalition has always taken the view that its main role is to oppose the actions of the British government. That is why we focussed on criticising US and British imperialism, rather than taking an even handed approach which stressed opposition to both sides (despite some on the left wanting us to do so). We would not otherwise have been able to build such an effective movement.
From this official website.
I have watched all to often the British government do the "we've always been at war with East Asia" line so many times that, while not for one moment supporting Putin, I feel that the demonisation of him is part and parcel of softening up public opinion to justify the unjustifyable. So maybe a little more care with the accusations of hypocracy. Placeholder (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
How many of those "New Hitlers" have been in command of the country with the 2nd strongest military on the planet? Just because lots of powerless people, like Saddam Hussein, have been proclaimed the "New Hitler" doesn't mean the analogy isn't relevant when talking about the 2nd most powerful country on earth, militarily speaking. Russia is on an entirely different level compared to all the other "New Hitlers". Like, Nasser, Milosevic, Hussein... At their peak, they had what? A hundreth of the power of Putin, if that. Dendlai (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
And you're massively missing the point. It's not whether the Stop The War Coalition is right - that's a different debate - it's whether they're being hypocritical. From my knowledge of those involved, and I know some of them quite well, hypocrisy is not one of their failings. Placeholder (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Missing *what* point? The hypocrisy is in the details. Russia is a completely different beast compared to the other supposed Hitlers. And really, do you think anybody takes you seriously when you claim you have special knowledge of some of the people involved? Okay, name them. And finally, about missing the point: Somebody made a post listing some irrelevant 3rd world dictators who have been compared to Hitler by the US military and some of the more loyal media outlets. How is it missing the point to point out that most of the world laughed at that, and that the 2nd most powerful military in the world is another matter completely? Is the point that the US have overused the Hitler metaphor so much that some people can't see the relevance when it is, well, relevant? Dendlai (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure Placeholder is referring to the "New Hitler" comparisons in the hypocrisy debate. I think what Placeholder is trying to say is that the STWC isn't hypocritical because, if you look at their actual platform, they've never claimed to be an even-handed antiwar organization, rather one that opposes the actions of the British government as its primary purpose. You might claim that platform position is stupid, inconsistent, or irrational, and I would agree with you. You might point out that the question of whether Putin's actions were just and the question of whether Western military intervention is a good idea are two separate debates, as one can oppose Putin's actions while not favoring a Western military intervention, and I would agree with you. Again, I believe Placeholder's point is that the STWC's current position is in line with their platform, and thus doesn't meet the definition of hypocrisy or inconsistency. As for Putin being a new Hitler, I still think that's a bit of an overreaction. He may have a strong military (I'm not going to rank it because I don't want to go into statistics or different definitions of strength such as size, technology, power projection, etc., but Russia is certainly in the big leagues.), but as far as we can see, his territorial ambitions don't extend beyond his hissyfit over Ukraine (which may die down after Ukraine's next elections). Were he plotting irredentist land grabs in other CIS states, I'd be more worried. The One They Call Mars (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Placeholder, the hypocrisy of the "Stop the War" coalition comes from this quote: "The Stop the War Coalition has always taken the view that its main role is to oppose the actions of the British government. That is why we focussed on criticising US and British imperialism, rather than taking an even handed approach which stressed opposition to both sides." If you oppose all American and/or British military intervention no matter what the reason for that military intervention but at the same time turn a blind eye or worse in the case of the Paulbots attempt to justify a full-blown military annexation just because that country's military is a country that is "the enemy of your enemy", then it's absolute hypocrisy. When they do that they're using the same logic as the despots around the world, they're using the same logic as both the US and the Soviet Union used in the Cold War, they are being Putin apologists and thus they are part of the problem. I hear almost no one except a few chickenhawks (such as John McCain) squawking about the need to "do something" militarily. What they want to do is not very clear. Quite frankly, to paraphrase Eisenhower, their numbers are few and they are stupid. Nchriste (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Does the CNN piece really belong here?

Sure, it's sensationalist, arguably dumbed down, and annoys the author, but it's not a clog or crankery. With so much material floating around by actual downright nutjobs, why are we padding this WIGO with sensationalist-but-non-kooky mainstream news pieces? The One They Call Mars (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ask the user who put it there. SophieWilderModerator 20:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Sensationalism aside, I might even go so far to as to say that CNN's example is justified here. For better or for worse (especially in our scientifically illeterate society) a lot of Americans don't realize that it really is pitch black underwater, especially the people whining on how "we can find a rover on Mars, but can't we find a plane on our own planet!?" as if the ocean is just a chlorine-treated swimming pool. --OverworldTheme (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you. Many sensationalist media gimmicks are annoying and pointless, but they're not always unjustified. This one serves to get people's attention so that an important fact many people have been missing will hopefully sink in. If its purpose is to combat ignorance, and it's effective in that regard, I'm all for it. The One They Call Mars (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Muti murders

OK, but this article is over four years old (dateline 7th Jan 2010). Placeholder (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Photographic proof of fairies

Oh come on. How could whoever wrote that possibly have missed including a reference to the Doyle fairy photos? I mean, good entry and all, but in some way referencing and including that would have made it so much better! Theoretically I could add that, but I don't like to change WIGO entries, as a rule. Dendlai (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like overkill. The article itself already mentions the Cottingley Fairies. --OverworldTheme (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Those fairies.... we used to drive through great clouds of them in the wetter areas of Canada in early summer, then one day they'd all die and leave a stinking mess. Their lives are so short, because we do not believe. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel from seawater

It appears to be a real thing but victimized by poor framing by the media, probably based on the misconception that (hydrocarbon) fuel is an energy source, not a storage medium. See the original Navy press release. In reality, a) the process probably works, unlike most "gasoline pills", b) it's intended to alleviate logistical problems of carrying around X types of refined fuel, not to solve the general problem of getting fuel in the first place. The problem is how viable is the process at larger scales.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Today's military actions involve a lot of "dwell", where you're not allowed to go in, kill everybody and make yourselves at home, but you are also not allowed to go home. A nuclear powered carrier can sit there, running off E=mc² for months at a time. But after not very long the planes which are the very purpose of that carrier can't go anywhere without a refuelling base. Smaller support craft for the fleet, too, run out of fuel. Ideally you would just go into port and buy more fuel. I've seen an allied nation's (conventional, non-nuclear) submarine just casually sat in a civilian dock with a couple of local fuel supply trucks lined up to fill up her tanks. But obviously that submarine had permission to be there, we mostly want to put a carrier fleet off the shore of nations who are decidedly not happy to see them. So, you end up buying the fuel in country X, filling up a navy tanker, then escorting that tanker to the fleet over by country Y. Military leaders don't like that kind of dependence on civilians, what happens when country Y signs a pact with country X that they won't sell you any fuel? Making gasoline from first principles using the abundant fission electrical power of the fleet will never be directly cost effective (otherwise nuclear power plants would start selling discount gas), but it might well be tactically advantageous. Tialaramex (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
"A nuclear powered carrier can sit there, running off E=mc² for months at a time." - Just dropping by to say props for this phrase. Scarlet A.pngsshole 08:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It just astounded me that someone would write a story that, on its face, would appear to describe a process that contradicts several laws of thermodynamics. US experts have found out how to extract carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas from seawater. Then, using a catalytic converter, they transformed them into a fuel by a gas-to-liquids process. They hope the fuel will not only be able to power ships, but also planes. That means instead of relying on tankers, ships will be able to produce fuel at sea. Without describing what this process burns in order to produce fuel at sea, it certainly sounded like some kind of scheme to convert water into gasoline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Eh, it might eventually be, depending on the relative costs. From-the-ground oil seems likely to keep getting more expensive. And liquid hydrocarbons still have the not-inconsiderable advantages (over batteries, hydrogen, etc.) of being quite energy dense, even after factoring in efficiency, and being pretty easy to move around. Compro01 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
SmoTlö, the problem is that the linked article is crap, but your description of it in the WIGO dismissed the project itself, not the article. So the number of negative votes is unsurprising.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools