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>

Contents

[edit] Ingrid Newkirk's will

Ok, she's a crazy animal activist and wants her body carved up after death to promote her cause. While grusome, I get it. She's a crazy animal activist and all. But wtf?:

"j. That a little part of my heart be buried near the racetrack at Hockenheim, preferably near the Ferrari pits, where Michael Shumacher raced in and won the German Grand Prix"

I love Formula 1 too, but seriously this came out of nowhere as you read down the list of crazy corpse carvings. 208.29.163.248 (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea either. Michael Schumacher[wp] is a pet owner and nothing I've seen says he's any kind of vegetarian or was ever sponsored by PETA. Given the rest of the document, it's hard to tell whether this gift was meant to honor or to mock somebody. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't shock me that a person so crazily devoted to one thing is crazily devoted to another. AyzmoCheers 00:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Holy moly that prostitute for charity thing

Oh woe is us, someone will see this completely shitty idea for what it is. You can't win with those SJWs, if you misogynistically attack a woman for having sex, you get labled a misogynist, and if you auction women off as sexual property, you get labeled a misogynist. It's just not fair. Ikanreed (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

fuckin SJWs just be fuckin crazy amirite! - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
What is this? I'm somewhat afraid to google "prostitute for charity".(Agrajag (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)) Ah, nevermind, just missed it in the clogs. I think that Gamergate is just trying to hit the lowest moral denominator in as many fields as possible at once. Maybe someone astroturfed it to get a world record.

[edit] SCALAR ENERGY PENDANT

Oh, damn, I missed the homeopathic chemtrail detox mixture sale on EBay, but in looking at the listing I found this gem; the description reads like free verse:

this offer is for one scalar energy pendant.

over 7000 neg ions on the pendant +

the authenticity card also have up to 3000 neg ions

this pendants are made of tourmaline gemstone. volcanic lava and ceramic.

like everyone in the world.

is the Shekinah Angel design

and is a 1 5/8 inch by 3/16 inch size.

WARNING:

Like everything in life

everything in life is good till a limit

and the maximun limit you can wear on scalar energy products is 8500 neg ions.

if you buy this pendant please use only the pendant or carry only the card.

never the 2 items at the same time.

snif. 's beautiful, man. Back in the day we just used to call something like this an "amulet", but I guess in these days of modern times you need that quantum scalar woo to make something sound legit.--Pere Ubu (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Breibart article

Is it just me or is everyone getting 404 on that story? Oldusgitus (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Commented out. Scream!! (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Is this too much G*m*rg*t*?

... so yeah, there's Gamergate fanfic. Written by and for gators. I mean, there's a lotta GG on clogs, so I thought I'd check on talk if this would be just one too many. OTOH, it's supremely cloggy - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OMFG that's wonderfully horribly written. Looks like it could use a good MST3K job. --Pere Ubu (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll take that as a vote of confidence - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the poor writing might be intentional. Warriors of Socialus Justicus? That's at least tongue-in-cheek, if not a downright parody.(Agrajag (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC))
Sir has been lucky enough not to read much fanfic. This reads like they're trying to joke and not doing so well enough not to suck even at that - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd put money on this being a joke. It's too perfectly terrible to be legit. 24.153.208.234 (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
That variety of crack needs to be way crackier to convince me it's actually crack and not just shit. This is possibly my favourite of the genre: trollcrack riffing off other trollcrack, that successfully trolled the regulars. "I don't know what just happened, but it was painful and my short-term memory seems to have committed seppuku because of it." - David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] That Dragon, Gamergate

Hey all, we have not received any direct harassment or threats from #gamergate or anyone else. #thatdragoncancer
—Ryan Green, father, via twitter@ryangreen8, 8:21 PM - 17 Nov 2014
If something were to happen, then we could talk about it, but for now let’s not spread rumors on either side of the aisle.
—Josh Larsen, game dev for God At Play, via twitter@GodAtPlay, 8:22 PM - 17 Nov 2014

Ok, seems to me that -- so far -- this is just a few anonymous idiots on 4/8Chan getting their underwear in a twist, and others (on Twitter and elsewhere) overreacting to a few screencaps and a YouTube rant. Not some concerted HashbrownGamergate campaign against God At Play. It definitely would be a clog if they started harassing the game devs, Ryan Green (the father of the child), Indiecade, et al., but it hasn't ostensibly happened. Noir LeSable (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So, are all indy games going to have to get vetted by GamerGaters now to see if they or any of their backers have any anti-fascist SJW tendencies? Seems rather Stalinist to me. --Pere Ubu (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you read what I posted? It's entirely a non-issue. It looks like it's just a few anons and a youtuber with a terrible fake accent. Not a concerted Gamergate effort (heck, from the tweets, it looks like GG support these guys. Good for them. It's a good cause). /r/KotakuInAction has been relatively silent about it, except for two posts wondering what's going on. Searches on Escapist Forums are turning up blank. From what it appears, the only people making noise about this are a smattering of Twitter users following a minor Twitter celeb claiming that Gators were harassing the devs of the game. The Gamergate movement has a lot to be criticized about, but let's keep it to stuff that's actually true, or we risk sinking to their level. The guy behind the game has asked to not be dragged into the GamerGate drama, so I've gone ahead and commented out the Clog. If you want to support the game itself, That Dragon, Cancer, here's a link to its kickstarter. Noir LeSable (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The above happened after ... Sarkeesian mentioned it - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "Andy's Mom"

I know it's not intended that way, but I just realized how incredibly sexist it is to take a famously stupid regressive with her own awful history of doing stupid things and reduce her to the mother of a different famously stupid regressive with an awful history of doing stupid things. Phyllis is her own awful woman. Ikanreed (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I think it's just a RW thing: Conservapedia is a big deal for for some users/readers (though much less so than a few years ago) who are probably more aware of who Andy is than Phyllis, despite her being much more notable in the real world. & I don't think it's particularly sexist as this kind of description goes both ways - whenever Andy gets any press coverage he's always referred to "the son of Phyllis Schlafly". ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I must admit even I went "who's Andy?" until I moused over it. I've changed the link to be duller - David Gerard (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Gulik (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Freeman on The Taser

A sovereign citizen goes out and tests his theories in a real courthouse - Oh, god I am such a evil statist for having laughed at that... he deserved it, though. *snerk* --Pere Ubu (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Pity it's too old to stay linked :-D - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Oh, it is still linked - it's from 2013 ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I wish more would try out their pet theories in reality. There could be a YouTube channel dedicated to it. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Megan Fox

There is no socially redeeming value in watching a random, annoying woman spouting ignorant crap about paleontology. If it were the hot Megan Fox, I'd feel different. Whoover (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to see another celebrity make an idiot out of themselves, but all I got was some old lady being stupid. Misleading advertising, I'm sending the FTC.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
A reddit thread on this video had a lot of "I only made it 28 seconds into the video before puking and bailing" kind of comments. I made it as far as "if there are still eukaryotes, their lack of change disproves evolution" and had enough of that idiot. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Watson

I love how readily she talks about how punching unpleasant people in the face is "glorious", whereas if Buzz Aldrin had punched a woman I think it would have been a bit different. Nothing to do with doxxing, just wanted to add that.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In the particular case Aldrin didn't punch Sibrel just because was "unpleasant" - Sibrel had tried to interview Aldrin under false pretenses, then prevented him from retreating twice. The second time Sibrel directly blocked his way and prodded him with a Bible, saying the now infamous "You are a coward and a liar and a [thief]." The punch was prompted by those specific circumstances, including the difference in age and body size. In most cases a woman a) wouldn't be on the same level of physical threat to Aldrin to warrant the same physical response, and b) wouldn't be so dumb to behave in the same manner. And in the hypothetical alternative universe where Bart Sibrel was a woman, all other properties unchanged, I doubt that Watson would be a great fan of her behavior.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You're probably right about the last part, but even if it were a physically threatening woman, Watson and most people in fact wouldn't call it glorious. That would be glorifying violence against women, of course.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the guy who was punched presented a physical threat to Aldrin or that Watson is arguing that he did. As for a woman being less "dumb" than a man, what are you basing that on? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "Justified" v. "Unjustified"

Just wanted to add here: While I'm pretty vehemently against doxxing in principle, I'd say the threatening situations that Rebecca talks about is pretty damn justified if the source is confirmed. General misogyny or -isms on the other hand, not so much (compare Alana Pearce/Facebook-linked threats vs. Brianna/Getting Racists Fired tumblr). Noir LeSable (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, doxxing as a way of outsourcing shitty behavior isn't good, and she ought not to have done it. But she's also right that context matters, and doxxing people who are using anonymity to cause trouble for others is substantially distinct from doxxing people in a way that delivers their home address to people who are known to be threatening them. To argue she's wrong about context mattering is crazy; completely insane. There are times when something can be wrong without rising to the level of hypocrisy(also, from what I've seen of her videos, she's never condemned doxxing herself). Ikanreed (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem with Watson's defence of her actions is that she's totally subjective. "Oh, it's ok to dox those guys, because we're the good guys here." And that's the problem - who exactly decides who the good guys in each fight are? And who decides who deserved to be doxed? Does Ray Comfort have the right to dox you, because you question his dogma? Can Andy Schlafly dox you for trolling CP? The fact remains, people are dicks on the internet, and if they act like dicks, there are processes to deal with them. Acting like a douchebag, just to out another douchebag isn't one of them. Watson has committed a Dawkinsesque level of dumbassery with this posting. PsyGremlinParlez! 14:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm gonna come back and say that doxxing can mean multiple things. Outing a person hiding behind anonymity's real name isn't the same as publishing home addresses, for example. Context matters. I'll also repeat that she's wrong that it's okay. Just right that context is meaningful. Ikanreed (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Ray Comfort absolutely has the right to dox you. Yes, Andy Schlafly has the same. There are no laws against it. And it's not a 'douchebag' maneuver; that in itself is subjective. Doxxing is just a tool. Unless you think you have some right to have your internet actions divorced from your IRL self - and I do not agree with that at all. --Castaigne (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"There are no laws against it." Yes there are. At least against doxing federal officers in certain positions (18 U.S.C. § 119). That was the crux in one of the counts of the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. case. Either way, the legality of doxing is still very murky, depending the sources used (Stalking?), the purpose of/motive behind the doxing (Harassment? Defamation? Threats?), among other things. [Insert Not A Lawyer Your State May Vary Disclosure Here]. Noir LeSable (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to acknowledge that doxxing the information of federal agents in pursuit of official duties is Not Allowed. However, I don't believe that's what we're talking about here. As for the legal "murkiness" of doxxing, to me that is mostly bull. As the article itself says, as long as nothing illegal is done in acquiring or publishing the information, it's all good. Keeping it legal keeps it legit. --Castaigne (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And here is the alternate viewpoint: I don't see a problem with what she's saying, since doxxing is a null threat anyway. There hasn't been privacy on the internet since the 1990s, no matter what people would like to believe, and if we wanted to drop $35-50 we could have a background firm dox someone instantly. She is right; doxxing by itself is neither good nor bad, it is just a tool. Like hiring a PI. Like doing a background check. Secondarily, why should she NOT publish the names of those who harass her? Why is she obligated to protect them on the internet? The whole idea that you should be able to harass with IRL immunity is frankly ridiculous. (Obligated notation: This is coming from a person who happily made sure a now-imprisoned pedophile rapist's internet harassment of women was made known to his IRL associates.) When PZ says "I suspect the only reason that “doxxing” has been elevated to such a sacred level of knee-jerk abhorrence is not out of some virtuous desire to protect the innocent, but entirely to protect the guilty.", he is entirely correct. It was totes OK for the 4Chan/GG/ED crowd to dox others, until they themselves were doxxed. It's good for that crowd to do it to Quinn and Sarkeesian and anyone else they want to, but not to have their own tactics turned against them. I'm just not seeing anything controversial or stupid here being uttered by either person. --Castaigne (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that doxxing can and does turn into worse things sometimes. People delivering actionable threats to your home because some idiot dumped your address online isn't a game. If you've got a good reasons for publishing peoples' private information in a widely disseminated way: it's not a illegal, and I can't stand in your way. If you don't, I have good reason to condemn you for it. Us vs. them tends to be a easy conflation to make here, but subtlety and nuance aren't going to go away. Ikanreed (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it is not a game. But then I also state that others are responsible for their actions. Doxxing is a value-neutral tool. It's used for good things and bad, with good and bad being subjectively defined by the user thereof. What Watson and Meyers are talking about is not the validity of doxxing in and of itself, which is a null subject, but the fucked premise that there's some sort of internet social etiquette that you don't dox people. That's never been true. It hasn't been true since I first got on the internet full-time in 1993. And for a certain crowd of people to pretend that it's true? They're lying. And that's just fact. --Castaigne (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't dump people's names and addresses online. I don't care who you are or how right you are. People have a right to anonymity, and either noone has that right or everyone has it. People say dumb things on the internet. They float unpopular ideas. They let off steam. That does not justify escalating things by bringing it into the "real world". If someone escalates it themselves by stalking or harassing or doxxing, then they should be reported to law enforcement, not left to such imprecise, unreliable, arbitrary, and unaccountable people as internet mobs (the police may be all those things as well, but not to the extent of Everyone on the Internet). (Agrajag (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC))
I agree but disagree at the same time. If you want to talk shit online but then somebody puts you on blast for it and has evidence of it, bye bye. But I wouldn't find their address or their real name and do that, that is creepy, wrong and extreme. However, I can't say I feel bad when a woman takes a picture of a guy on Tinder/Facebook/Twitter/Instagram who says stuff like "You stupid bitch! You won't let me fuck?!" and then puts it online.(BlackProg (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC))
1) People's names and addresses are already dumped online. ALL of them. It's just a matter of connecting the dots.
2) I don't agree that everyone has a right to anonymity. If you like, you can tell me where you derive this idea from and why it should be legally enforced. My position is that no one has a right to anonymity, just like no one has a right to anything not absolutely guaranteed and enforced by law.
3) You say "That does not justify escalating things by bringing it into the "real world"." This exemplifies the exact type of problem I see. There is no difference between the real world and the internet. NONE. People have maintained this fiction since 2000 or so, but it's simply untrue. Terri "Tickle" DeSisto learned that to her (his) despair back in the late 90s. (http://citypaper.net/articles/040501/cb.onmedia.shtml) There is no escalation and I'm quite confused when you refer to the revealing of publicly available information as such.
A major problem with such discussions is that "doxing" covers a lot of behaviors, so blanket statements are nearly meaningless.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No. You don't escalate stuff like that while leaving it online. Other people will be bastards. That's a fact of life. Either refute them (morons), block/ignore them (trolls and assholes), or report them to the police (harassers and stalkers).(Agrajag (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC))
I don't see how revealing the identity of vicious psychopaths to the world can be considered a morally bad thing. When doxxing is used by vicious psychopaths to harrass and terrorize people, it's obviously a bad thing of course. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Because not everyone is a consequentialist ethicist. Some people believe, though I do personally disagree, that your own actions towards others is the only valid criteria for judgement. Ikanreed (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Is disrespecting one person for the sake of protecting everyone else from that person not the best action to take? Even if protecting those people involves me committing a type of act that is intrinsically immoral, it is still preferable that I sacrifice my moral purity for the sake of preventing graver immoral acts from being committed. Though I suppose someone like Kant would decide otherwise, choosing "moral purity" over lying to a murderer about the location of their intended victim. Though I don't see how being complicit in murder would make Kant more morally pure. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If you ask me, the matter under contention isn't "vicious psychopaths" and (somehow) "murderers", the but rather things like "I think they're a bigot", "We had an argument and I disagree with them", "This person made a [very/vaguely/could be interpreted as] sexist tweet", "That person is/did X! Look at this [damning/misleading/vague/fabricated/nonexistent] evidence!" and so forth. Revealing the identity of a "vicious psychopath" with proof of their harassing or threatening behavior is a lot less contentious on the justifiable scale than, say, doxxing someone who made an off-color joke on a personal Twitter. Noir LeSable (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If you release that shit to the general public then you are inviting every drooling sociopath on the interwebz to come along and play. End of story.--Madman (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman

[edit] Nothing new

For ages, Pharyngula has had a version of this disclaimer:

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

It's not an empty statement, Myers has done it a few times. In one case this resulted in a woman losing her job after her dumb husband used her work-related e-mail address to threaten Myers. And given the existence of an article about Dennis Markuze on this wiki, I also find the whole conversation a bit hypocritical. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How are back-and forth discussions ever hypocritical? She made an argument for nuance in determining the harm of doxxing, and some people think that there's no legitimate reason to do it(for certain definitions of "it"). I find both to be true and not mutually exclusive. Ikanreed (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not a fan of Doxxing anyone as any type of punitive vigilante action, but the one exception is threats/harrassment in order to figure out who to stop. It's nearly impossible to do already. Such as nothing was done about Dennis until people figured out who he was and contacted the police literally thousands of times. I have been in the situation where we even knew who the person was and it was near impossible to get the authorities involved until that person did something physical. We only were able to convince the cops before it went too far because we found out this guy was convicted of doing the same escallating things previously after kicking in the door of the person he was stalking and assaulting her. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support