RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?

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: Archive list

Oldest archives: 0001 -- 0002 -- 0003 -- 0004 -- 0005

Contents

[edit] Compulsory balloting

Is the shit. First, how's this insignificant? How are "only" 8 senate seats out of 246 studied (3%) insignificant? How is reducing the share of extremists and increasing the share of moderates (who vote at lower rates) insignificant? How is 95% turnout versus 50% turnout insignificant in terms of political engagement? Second, there's no really justified reason not to compel balloting. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Compelling the disinterested and apathetic to vote isn't necessarily a good idea. For one thing, it could compel them to vote against you. Really Obama, way to give the small-government Republicans something to rile up against. It's not like mandatory voting is something that's ever gonna see the light of day in the US anyway. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Not when so many politicians have a vested interest in discouraging the Masses from voting so they can focus laser-like on pandering to the single-issue loons. --Gulik (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
People who only bother to vote when they're forced to are probably more likely to be swayed by single-issue rhetoric than the average voter is. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Similar issue in the UK. I've seen a lot of non-voters decide that if they had to, they'd vote UKip since that's the only one they know of (no idea the coalition exists, who the Prime Minister is or the difference between parties) and they're always on TV. So they'd be voting for a party that doesn't represent their economic demograph just because some frog-faced guy blames the deficit on earthquake appeals.-- Forerunner (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Problem is, Weaseloid and Forerunner's problems don't seem to occur -- most people, when forced to vote, take time to make it worth it. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
What on earth are you basing that on? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Wishful thinking is my guess. I live in a country where voting is mandatory and I can tell you most people here vote with shit reasons. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Would that be Australia, land of the Mad Monk? BicyclewheelModerator 20:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Nah, just a small European country. Though, quite similarly, the right-wing parties did prominently win our recent elections. Now with their (anti-)social reforms taking shape, lotsa people are starting to regret their votes. Not like that actually stops the politicians from doing as they like though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
One way to look at it is this: Australia has had compulsory voting since 1924, with average national participation always above 90%. Before, participation was about 60% [1]. If those 30% were truly stupid and/or swayable, then you'd expect some climactic shift in Australian politics. It didn't happen. Politics after '24 was largely the same as before. Realistically, I think that this is because most voluntary voters are ignorant and/or swayable, and compelled voters are only slightly more so. Further, Australians are slightly above Americans in terms of how many know their member of Congress [2]. So, if anything, being compelled to vote might increase interest in the political process. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 21:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If I do not like any of the candidates I do not see much point in being forced to come in to spoil my ballot paper AMassiveGay (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

nor do I find it pleasing to validate whatever bunch of cunts get in with high turnoutAMassiveGay (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
also, as someone currently disenfranchised by my less than official living arrangements, am I going to be criminalised for being poor? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Possibly! Being poor is a conscious choice after all. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's really hard to effect cultural change with a legislative change. The problem is a disengaged and politically alienated electorate. Forcing people to vote won't make them any less alienated. Also, I would rather have heard Obama make a strong statement on restrictive and unnecessary voter ID laws and blatantly partisan redistricting than something as asinine as mandatory voting. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@AMG: Then vote "none of the above", and validate nobody. Why would mandatory balloting change how living arrangements affect voting?
@AH: If anything, the compelled voters appear slightly more politically active. And yes, I'd prefer attacking ID laws, but every bit helps. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 21:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
To the former; What makes you think there would be such an option?
To the latter, and I hope Weaseloid won't mind me reusing his question; "What on earth are you basing that on?" 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Australia provides a none of the above option; it's not necessarily part of compulsory voting, but seems essential to me.
See my above post. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see why you'd attribute the fact that Australians are slightly above Americans in terms of how many know their member of Congress to the fact they have mandatory voting. I'd say correlation does not equal causation, but I haven't even seen any strong indication that these two are correlated in the way you say they are. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc maybe? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
They aren't necessarily correlated. My point is, instead, that compulsory voting hasn't reduced Australia's votership to a pile of ignorance; it's comparable to the U.S. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
If it's comparable to the US, I'd say "a pile of ignorance" would be a fairly accurate description. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
And yet neither is the fault of compulsory voting, then. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
fuzzy, I can just as easily vote 'none of the above' by staying at home and not voting without the added cost and bureaucracy of coercing me to vote. My point about my living arrangements is that I cannot register to vote without potentially getting evicted as I should not officially living where I do. Forcing me to vote could make me homeless. This is quite apart from the fact that if I have the right not to vote just as much as I have the right to vote. Why should I have my right not to engage in a political system that does absolutely nothing for me taken away from me for some nebulous idea that I might become more engaged in said rotten system? It is up to parties who want vote to convince me to engage not the other way round. Why would these parties even bother to engage those out side of their core support when all they would have to is to be the least shit option? Being forced to vote for the least shit option hardly seems like a shining beacon of democracy. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
And yet that's what democracy usually amounts to these days. :/
(When people aren't voting for the most shit option, of course.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You know I always used to like RationalWiki for being on the anti-authoritarian left but more and more, I'm getting the impression that that's a contradiction in terms. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Voting is mandatory in Belgium and in the end most people show up and few complain about it. There are significant spoilt ballots but in general their votes are spread over numerous parties with no party remotely approaching 30%. Most parties represent rather specific interests (enviromentalism or redistribution of money or fiscal convervatism or flemish separatism or moerate-marxim ...) and coalitions must include several parties meaning an enormous amount of negotiation, compromise and consensus is necesary. Imagine that...a political system where cooperation and the representation of a broad specturm of interests are met and adressed. But no ... we must avoid the horror of big government forcing people to vote! 92.56.189.233 (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

How is it tyranny if a government makes it mandatory for you to tell it what it should do? It's not like you have to vote for a certain party or any party for that matter. Complaining about the government and not voting is just petty. MassiveGay, you either want a benevolent dictatorship or you're an anarchist because you're certainty not a fan of Democracy. You don't wait for your democracy to get better before you vote, you have to participate to make it better. As much as I don't like them, Tea party activists don't just sit at the computer and complain about the government, they went out and voted and it worked. And LetThemEatCake, I don't know what you're talking about. If we aren't right wing enough for you, there are plenty of other places you can go besides here. — Unsigned, by: 66.249.80.93 / talk / contribs

Did anyone say it was tyranny? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] 15-year old Holocaust denier.

I'd rather not see us participate in the public shaming of a child who did something stupid. If the story were about the situation and focused on the school without naming the kid, that might be one thing, but given that it links to a video she made, and has her name, location and a photo of her, I really think the article (...actually, more of a blog post than a legit journalistic article) goes beyond reporting on a shitty situation to become something of an attack. She is a child. Leave her to make her mistakes. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

For all we know, the report was submitted on April 1st...CorruptUser (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Since the article dates from May 2013, it shouldn't be here anyway. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Edgelords will be edgy at that age. Delete it.--Madman (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
Ugh. In future can we not WIGO stupid things juniors say? Reason one: we all said stupid stuff when we were fifteen, because we haven't finished learning yet. Reason two: attacking minors on the internet should be beneath us. BicyclewheelModerator 15:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't posting on the internet when I was 15, thank god. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
If I'd said something like that when I was 15 I would have deserved a public shaming. Teenagers aren't that stupid. Thanos6 (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
No, you're right. Every human being, especially younger ones, is equally intelligent and equally wise and can equally well see the consequences of their actions. All 6 billion of us are just as smart as you. And you are so very, very smart. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
7 billion. --Miekal 03:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
If teenage recklessness was as bad as you're making it out to be, hardly anyone would make it to adulthood. Thanos6 (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
You're talking shit. Stop it. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Bad advertisement for moderate Islam?

Why would a loony principal of an Islamic school indicate anything about moderate Islam? He thinks ISIS is a plot by the West to secure oil for crying out loud. >.< If this was a principal of a Christian school, people would be looking at the individual and saying he's nuts, not trying to conclude anything about the general religion—let alone specifically the moderate version of it—from it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Bump bump this is true. PacWalker 14:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Changed the headline. Though arguably the "Turns out non-violent garden-variety loons can be found among Western Muslims too" isn't by any means surprising, so that could be easily left out. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
A bit slow reading this sorry - FYI I have no problem wth the change - it's much more accurate. I'm just not very imaginitive with my prose!!--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] "Racism kills a lot of people." Blatantly misleading title....

The study shows that black mortality is higher in areas with higher racism, that is hardly proof that racism is the reason why there is higher mortality. Areas with higher racism tend to have lower education and with lower education there is higher black on black crime as well. Correlation does not equal causation. Note: I am NOT saying that people are not killed by racism, just that the title is misleading the conclusion. NolanSyKinsley (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Nuh uh. They showed the correlations with socioeconomics(including every reasonable confounding variables), and surprise surprise, it lacks anywhere near the same correlative strength. Also the measure wasn't "black mortality rates" it was "gap in mortality rates between whites and blacks". So... next time, read the whole paper. Look at the crosstabs. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel Farage quote

I've noticed something alarming about Nigel Farage's quote, shown in the Guardian: "The Labour vote is incredibly soft. It's like a rotten window pane; all you have to do is push and the whole thing caves in," I think it's eerily close to the popular Adolf Hitler quote about Stalingrad: "we have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down." Does anyone know where these two men got the quote idea from - a book? It's just pretty weird someone saying he's not racist would say something similar to a well-known Hitler quote.-- Forerunner (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That may be just a coincidence or ignorance about the source of the quote.--Arisboch (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Could just be confirmation bias, I guess. We expect him to say something borderline offensive; especially since he's apparently read and approved his Manifesto this time.-- Forerunner (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that they're merely coincidentally using the same (not too zany) metaphor for the same(ish) idea, but eh who cares? He is as he is, Godwin or no Godwin. PacWalker 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Thirty-Meter Telescope

There's obviously a lot to be said about supporting Hawaiian autonomy, to what extent "holy sites" should be protected and whether we really need more ground-based telescopes.

But my question is this: Couldn't the scientists come up with a better name? Seriously, it's like they want the common people to hate this just for its utterly boring name. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Dont forget the Very Large Array among other very generic telescope names Bubba41102 Taste the shortness` 02:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
There is apparently an observatory named after rapper ice cube which is marginally more interesting Bubba41102 Taste the shortness` 03:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Very Large Array... At this point they're just parodying their own naming conventions, aren't they? >.< 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
They wanted to use the word "бля" :D--Arisboch (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, Very Large is already taken, as is Extremely Large, and it's not nearly big enough to be called Overwhelmingly Large, much less Oppressively Colossal. Compro01 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
o________o 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] We British

Can kill people as we arrest them. Admitedly we don't kill quite so many and we tend to be slightly more colour neutral in the people our police kill, although of course not entirely colour neutral I acknowledege. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas

This article is so poorly edited how is it not in Clogs? More of a comment about the quality of CNN "reporting" (6.. 6? 6! 6!?@# flipping contributors for an ~700 word article).. Additional warning: Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller have been summoned. Condescendingwhat (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Because CNN is generally regarded as a major news outlet, not a crazy blog. I don't call the shots, I just fire 'em. PacWalker 10:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Holy shit that's a really unfortunate wording on my part. My bad. PacWalker 11:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear piece of shit terror sympathizers: the culprits were rightfully killed by law enforcement for attempting a terrorist act against people asserting their constitutional rights. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone say otherwise here? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear ConservapediaEditor, I don't get how it went from - CNN writing a nonsensical and poorly edited article about a planned attack and subsequent killing of 2 individuals with POSSIBLE(at the time only guesses at) terrorist connections with redundant statements in the article to you making a "piece of shit terror sympathizers" blanket statement.. the only terror-able thing here is your reading comprehension and basic human decency. Please go away or learn how to play nice with others. Have a lovely day. Condescendingwhat (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The incident that happened was 0.5 miles from my parents home. Save your self righteous indignations. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The geographic proximity of the incident to your family does not justify you calling people "terror sympathizers" for no good reason. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
In America, we have the 1st Amendment, that some terrorists and terror sympathizers don't appreciate. I did not call you a terror sympathizer, but anyone who says Gellar should not be allowed to draw Mohammed is a terror sympathizer. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] WWGO World

"Pew: The Future of World Religions, 2010-2050. One stat: Number of "unaffiliated" to increase from 1,131,150,000 to 1,230,340 persons but decrease from 16.4% to 13.2% of persons."

Reads more like a prediction of what will go on, not a statement of what is going on. PacWalker 04:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's also an article from early April, to boot. --OverworldTheme (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
To be fair I think this belongs in Blogs, not World but "one stat"? The entire report is right there. Key section
As of 2010, Christianity was by far the world’s largest religion, with an estimated 2.2 billion adherents, nearly a third (31%)

of all 6.9 billion people on Earth. Islam was second, with 1.6 billion adherents, or 23% of the global population.

If current demographic trends continue, however, Islam will nearly catch up by the middle of the 21st century. Between 2010 and 2050, the world’s total population is expected to rise to 9.3 billion, a 35% increase.

Over that same period, Muslims – a comparatively youthful population with high fertility rates – are projected to increase by 73%. The number of Christians also is projected to rise, but more slowly, at about the same rate (35%) as the global population overall.

As a result, according to the Pew Research projections, by 2050 there will be near parity between Muslims (2.8 billion, or 30% of the population) and Christians (2.9 billion, or 31%), possibly for the first time in history.
Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
How does the report belong in blogs? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 14:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, two options
  • This is a news item about Pew releasing an interesting report - WIGO World
  • This is an opinion piece released by Pew about their projections for religion distribution - WIGO Blogs
Personally I go for the latter and, now it has been commented out of WIGO World, that is where I would want it. Having said that, I didn't comment it out - I think it's more interesting than that. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand how Pew stats for 2010 are so far off of WIN-Gallup International GLOBAL INDEX OF RELIGIOSITY AND ATHEISM - 2012 where ~36% of the world's population is Not Religious/Atheist vs 16.4% (PEW) Unaffiliated(Atheist/not religious/Agnostic are lumped in this 16.4%). +/- 20% is a pretty big margin for either poll. Please correct me if I misread/misinterpreted/misrepresented these polls. Otherwise, I feel that PewPew COULD be dismissing the majority population.. ? Condescendingwhat (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a definitional thing. Gallup allows for atheist/non-religious to be religiously affiliated (social church goers?) while Pew includes only the non-affiliated. Apples to apples, the figures are more like 13% (Gallup) to 16%(Pew)MarmotHead (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Although I see your what you're trying to get at, the Gallup poll has 3 flavours - Religious (59%), Non-Religious (23%), Atheist (13%). Non-Religious ie: someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God is the definition of Agnostic regardless of attendance. Pew defines Unaffiliated as "atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion" I read these as the same apples. Even if they're different apples it seems like either or BOTH of the polls are wildly inaccurate. Arguing semantics I know but 39%(36%) vs 16% is a bushel of semantic apples. Condescendingwhat (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
It's all fruit. Some of them are apples. Some are apples in disguise! But, yeah, there's lots of room for error from raw sampling error, non-representative samples, incomplete sampling frame, weight-related variance inflation, dishonest answers, and just plain bad questions. I think 39(36) to 16 is the wrong comparison, but, even 13 to 16 is a higher than expected difference if the two surveys were really measuring the same thing with those sample sizes. MarmotHead (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
it's all fruit will have to sum it up then... damn my pedantic brain. thx. edit: I noted the 39% references in both of our last responses as 36% as I quoted it incorrectly in my 1st response

[edit] Poll counter

So it went past the 9999 and continued with 100000 (10^6)? --Sophophobe (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I say just roll with it. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 17:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm just a little disappointed that it ended up being for an article about something stupid that someone said (which is normally a blog/clog). Ah well.
I'd recommend holding off on adding any more WIGOWorlds until Dave or someone more acquainted with the coding takes a look, in case this fucks something up. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, an article about something someone wrote in a book thirty years ago isn't world news. Where are you seeing this poll counter issue? I see world10000 in the wiki code and the same in the javascript link when I hover over the voting arrows. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I see the same as the weasel. Noir? Soph? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 20:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Now I see 10^5, too. It was in the wiki source of World. Guess I should have taken a screenshot. Maybe I was wrong, but I think I looked very closely when I saw or thought I saw that it was 10^6. Whatever the case, now it is correct.
Edit: It actually was there, but the friendly ZooGuard fixed it in the mean time, search for the comment in the page history.
I don't quite know how the poll counter works internally and what exaclt they did to fix it; but maybe the errors might continue when new polls get added.
Oh, and of course, everytime I wrote something like 10^N, I meant 10^(N-1). --Sophophobe (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The counter does not appear to roll over at 16 bits, which is nice. The poll extension is Nx code that no human has looked at since, even though it's technically my problem. (He didn't open source it either, so I can't even put it on mediawiki.org and inveigle others to help) - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it that "click here" instruction box you're talking about? I'd never noticed it and always entered the numbers manually. Most likely Psy did the same & just entered the number wrong. I just tried the "click here" bit and it came up with the right number. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, it was odd sarcasm

It appears not to have been well received, however. WalkerWalkerWalker 23:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic ‘anti-hysteria kit’

How is this not super-woo? Why is this in World? Is it appropriate to move to clogs/blogs? It's non-critical reporting on a subject that has so much make believe involved. Condescendingwhat (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] O'Reilly

When I think of religious changes immediately preceding the collapse of the Roman Empire, atheists don't top that list. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Christianity also didn't kill the Empire directly, as it lasted until the 15th century. Well, in the early 13th century the Crusades sacked Constantinople and it never recovered, so I guess technically Christianity did do it in... CorruptUser (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you can very well call an empire that didn't contain Rome "Roman", which is why the name was changed. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
They called themselves Rome right up until the end. Referring to it as the Byzantine Empire is a modern convention so that we can tell it apart from the Western Roman Empire, and also from the Holy Roman Empire (which itself didn't contain Rome for most of its existence). All that said, I'm pretty sure O'Reilly belongs in the clogs. --OverworldTheme (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The prosperous Rome that loved to party and didn't believe in the gods any more was not the Rome that fell. Because they didn't take the old religion all that seriously, it was ripe for replacement and got replaced. The Rome that fell, fell because people had no longer any confidence in Roman institutions and did not value their continuation enough to sustain them. The current USA does in fact resemble Rome in its actual decline and fall to the extent that fewer and fewer people place a high value on the institutions that define the American government. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
If the US lost the territory that made up the original 15 13 colonies, maybe a sneak attack by the Canadians, would the US cease to exist? Same with Rome; they lost Rome but they had moved the capitol to Byzantium years before, which is why later historians referred to them as the Byzantine Empire. CorruptUser (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Mounted polar warbear cavalry trampling over the corpses of our enemies will not be very sneaky. LONG LIVE CANUCKISTAN! Condescendingwhat (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The noble NRA has made sure that enough Americans are loaded for bear, so your bears we can handle. The problem is all those mastadons. There used to be hundreds of thousands of them, where did they all go? Canada's been hording them away, for who knows what? CorruptUser (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Like maple syrup, Canada's evil oozes over the United States. --OverworldTheme (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
erm.. what mastodons are you talking about? I suppose we'll have to politely apologise after we're done rampaging and looting etc.. Condescendingwhat (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] I can not figure out the right thing here -- FHRITP video.

Guy does something loathsome in public. He is on his own time, not wearing any swag that ties him to his employer, does not identify himself as an employee of his employer. The loathsome act had nothing to do with his job, and it would, I imagine be very difficult if not impossible to convict him of a crime for what he did. Should he lose his job for what he did -- especially in a world where the inability to have employment means one is seriously deprived of the opportunity to provide the basic necessities of life and to participate in society in a meaningful way. I would be loath to hire the guy myself, as he has shown poor judgement, but I'm increasingly uneasy with the idea that "fire him" has become the go-to reaction for public displays of racism/misogyny/ etc. in cases when such displays are not related to the perpetrator's work life. Peace. EDIT One article. Another article AgingHippie (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Since he held a $100,000 salary job, I don't have a lot of sympathy. If he had a minimum wage menial job, sure, I don't think the employer would be justified in firing him, since the public would be unlikely to associate stuff he did outside of work with the employer & hence it wouldn't really be any of the employer's business. But when you're in a position of responsibility at a high level, you also have some responsibility for the organisation's reputation, so acting like a dick in public makes your employer look bad too. Politicians who publicly make a fool of themselves - whether work-related or not - are routinely shamed for it. It's not so different in the private sector. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Right, but then I'm stuck with the question of how his employment became part of the issue. Did someone see him do this stupid and hateful thing on TV and then ask themselves "I wonder where that guy works?" and start poking around in order to get him fired? If that's the case, then the assumption at play is that misogynists/racists/etc shouldn't be engineers at a utility company. I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to defend the guy, and on my current list of things that I will write angry letters about/march in the streets for/petition for/put up posters for/hand out flyers for, getting this guy his job back doesn't crack the top hundred -- if it is even a cause; like I said, I really don't know what is "right" here. That said, "do something stupid--lose your job--get transformed from some anonymous schmo to public figure--have it memorialized forever on the internet" doesn't seem like a way to bring about meaningful change in a structural way. That sid, more importantly, don't fucking engage in the perpetuation of rape culture on the evening news, dumbasses." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, if companies were actively looking into the histories of low-wage employees for misogynist or racist quips to use as an excuse to fire them, I'd be very worried. But in this case you've got a guy with a high-paying high-to-medium-visibility job that gets spotted making a nasty misogynist comment in public. As a company, disassociating yourself from that person is just basic business sense. You're right about the world we live in being rather unfair to those that lack employment, of course. Though if that should mean bad people shouldn't get their comeuppance, by the same reasoning, no criminal can be convicted to serve time in prison in the US, because, well, I'm sure I don't have to explain the problems associated with US prisons to you. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Wait, wtf does his income have to do with the decision to fire him? Either what he did was a fireable offense or it wasn't; the law should never change based on your wealth. CorruptUser (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The distinction, as I stated above, is how a high level employee's reputation is more closely associated with his employer's than is the case for a lower rung worker. The first article Hippie linked to makes the same point: Employees who are in a position in which they are publicly connected to their employer to the degree that their behaviour is deemed detrimental to the company brand can face dismissal for such behaviour. "If you are an employee sitting in anonymity in a warehouse somewhere, it's less likely you would be publicly connected to that brand," Levitt said. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Low-wage implies that these people are nobodies to the company and to the public, while high-paying makes it more likely that they'll be seen as representative of the company that employs them. (Basically what Weaseloid said.) Also, having had a high wage would make unemployment less problematic, at least initially. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
He makes $100k/yr, he's still lower rung. CorruptUser (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Lower, sure, but not low. If he'd been among the top of the company the response would've probably been less "fire him" and more "cover-up/downplay the incident". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
And that's also a problem. Like I said, the response shouldn't change because he makes more or less money. CorruptUser (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree Hippie, although one could actually make a strong case of uttering threats with 100% undeniable proof. It's a public rape threat caught on camera. "I'm going to kill you" is a threat not a joke, "I'm going to rape you" is a threat not a joke. The way this played out is a public crucifixion which I don't agree with BUT I can't morally condemn Hydro One for saying - we stand for diversity and take an active socially responsible role in society. Hydro One may legally be liable, but I'm sure someone higher up in the corporate structure said seriously, Fuck Him Right In the Paycheck. For the rest of you people arguing over higher up the ladder vs lower etc.. you're arguing semantics that distract from the actual issue. Hydro One made a choice of will it cost more to fire him and possibly get sued, or show that we condemn his undeniable horrible behaviour. They're betting that society says "this is shitty behaviour". Condescendingwhat (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
"Morally not condemn"? Is possible breach of contract moral for you?--Arisboch (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, please learn how to argue and quote people properly. You're not adding anything to the discussion. Condescendingwhat (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That was a perfect Courtier's Reply--Arisboch (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want to argue about arguing without adding any counter argument to what I've said then I will dismiss you as per my last comment. You added nothing except basically saying that I'm arguing from authority - I have no authority. Canadian society which is a reflection of our morals and values set into a legal framework says: Uttering threats and sexual harassment is BAD FOR ALL OF SOCIETY. I do not agree with Hydro One yet I don't blame them for making the decision that they did. Legally this could play out against them which is fine. They made the choice they made and determined the public perception is worth this risk. It's not a black and white issue considering the systemic sexism in our culture. I will say again, if you have nothing to add other than trying to flag/dismiss someone's (debatable) thoughtful response with a one liner both times, you do not know how to argue. Condescendingwhat (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Not adhering to employer contracts is BAD FOR ALL OF SOCIETY, too (UPPERCASE MAKES RIGHT!!!!!11), since it could set a precedence, where employers can fire people for saying stuff outside of the workplace (and I'm not talking about such nasty shit this guy has said).--Arisboch (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I've always thought legal precedent was a pretty bullshit thing to base the interpretation of law on. So what if judge X decided to rule Y way Z decades before? Things should be judged on a case-by-case basis, in my opinion. (Isn't that the whole point of having trials?) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Jurisprudence works on balancing two ideas -- attention to the particulars of a case and consistency. The system needs to ensure similar circumstances produce similar outcomes. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused. This doesn't happen now? Because that's been the reality for the 20+ years I've been in the workforce. You've always been able to be fired for what you say outside of work. At-will and all that. --Castaigne (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
This is true. And this is why libertarianism fails: when the economy assumes the role of the government, if you want to have something like a right to free speech, it needs to be enforceable against bosses as well as policemen. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's a story about my employer. There was this guy here once who's occasional habit was going to a strip club. One of our clients saw him there and mentioned it to another employee here. Strip club guy was fired. He was not wearing anything identifying him as an employee of my company. He did not see or recognize the client. Strip club guy was not on company time; this was the weekend and his own time.
So why was he fired? As an executive here pompously announced (unofficially), "You represent this company 24/7/365. Your identity as a human being is as an EMPLOYER employee. That is who you are. That is what you are." Being seen at strip clubs does not meet the "company image", so off that guy went. Never mind his productivity. Never mind his work record.
Do I think this was right? Absolutely not.
But is it corporate reality these days? Yes, as far as I know. If you work in the corporate world, this is just how it is. You want to work here, you deal with that.
The rules that everyone in the corporate arena are going to have to learn (and are learning):
  1. Nothing you do is private. Even if you think it's private, act as if it's completely public.
  2. Everything you do will be tied back to you.
  3. The consequences of everything you do will be the same as if you were caught on TV doing it. --Castaigne (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Holy crap, to what kind of 1984-esque place did the "corporate world" devolve into? Do they do that via sufficiently ambiguous clauses in the employer contract and how is that kinda stuff is even in the purview of conscionable contracts?!--Arisboch (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean I can fire people for being members of the CoS? I don't want them representing my company. CorruptUser (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Church of Satan? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That, or Church of Scientology. Then again, belonging to a religion is one of the things you aren't allowed to fire people for in the United States. What this means in actual practice is that you have to pretend it was for another reason, and make some effort to document your pretended version of the facts. As to the dude who got fired, I don't have a problem with it, it does show poor judgment and inappropriate aggression, although what he was doing was a stupid meme and not a credible "rape threat". - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
"If we had known this about him before we hired him, would we have hired him?" Is what I have known to be used before firing someone. In the UK in the 1990s. Scream!! (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The real story should be about the professional aplomb of the newsreader victim. I suspect she was aware of this bullshit meme and was more or less ready for it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Obongo

The BoN who commented it out was me, so direct your high levels of mad this way if it bothers you. Mayo2017 (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Leave it out. We don't need to humour ConservapediaEditor's racist shitposting. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Bill O'Reilly

I have absolutely no time for the guy but.... domestic abuse claims are thrown around at custody (or place of residence, here in the UK) hearings as a matter of course. It's like getting charged with resisting arrest - it's part and parcel of the process. In fact the whole thing smacks of ad hominum. He's a nasty piece of work so his arguments are invalid. We ought to fight back on the facts, not scurrilous gossip - even if true. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And it's not just abuse claims that gets thrown around like that, but also often molestation (especially child molestation) claims. I have no love for Bill-o (even if I think he's far less stupid than the character he plays on TV), but I don't lend any credence to those rumors (as long as there are no facts to back them up, of course). --Kungo GumiQui ça ? 12:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm rather less comfortable in simply dismissing an accusation of domestic abuse as "a matter of course" at custody hearings, but I agree with the general point that this is simply a piece of nasty gossip. In this specific instance, a reporter at an agenda-driven outlet is reporting that an anonymous source told him that about testimony given by an unnamed expert in a custody hearing about what Bill O'Reilly's daughter told him about an event she witnessed. And we don't even have any indication about how the anonymous source got the information (Were they physically at the hearing? Did they read a transcript? Did they get their information from yet another third (fourth? fifth?) party?) This barely even rises to the level of gossip.70.62.74.74 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Link between creationism and disregard for the environment

It's not that surprising, actually. Think about it. Creationists are often rapturites, and rapturites believe that Earth's problems don't matter because "we'll all be raptured by then so it's not our problem!"

I'm more surprised that JWs are the major outliers. —ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 03:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

IIrc, they do believe the earth still matters for new JW's.--Miekal 04:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Who're "JWs"?--Arisboch (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses. --OverworldTheme (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
They are the most obvious outliers on this chart, at the upper left. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your argument would make sense if creationists were saying that climate change is happening but doesn't matter because of the rapture, or that it's a sign of the apocalypse. We hear this occasionally, but what's much more common is that people who deny human evolution also deny anthropogenic climate change. The reasons, as outlined in the article, are complicated and have a lot to do with the entrenched connections between religious conservatism, social conservatism and economic conservatism. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] TPP headline

What does the US house have to do with treaties, which only need to be ratified with the advice and consent of the senate? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it's not technically a treaty. The TPP is being implemented as a congressional-executive agreement, so it requires majority House and Senate support. The TPP page on Wikipedia links to this report to explain the rational behind this. --OverworldTheme (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone explain the 'logic' of keeping an international trade treaty secret from the people it will be affecting? That more than anything convinces me that this is going to be a massive ripoff of us peasants. (And can anyone think of a way to convince the Teabaggers this is part of Agenda 21?)--Gulik (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The logic is that this is a complex multilateral agreement between a dozen countries involving complex issues in which multiple entrenched interests in each country have large stakes. Just sorting out the domestic politics on an agreement like this for one country is very difficult and complex. Just reaching a consensus among a dozen negotiating teams with one eye on the negotiation itself and the other eye on potential domestic reaction is very difficult and complex. Trying to do both simultaneously, with the goals and tactics of the negotiating teams constantly shifting in response to shifts in internal politics, would be effectively impossible. The only realistic way to negotiate an agreement like this is to at least partially shield the negotiators from public pressure, conduct the negotiations in some degree of secrecy, and then present a finished product to each country for approval. That's also the rationale for "fast-track authority". After a dozen national negotiating teams reach consensus on a complex set of trading rules, having 535 members of Congress trying to unpack it and renegotiate every controversial clause would make it effectively impossible to ever get an agreement. Of course, all of the above is only justified if you think trade agreements are (or at least can be) good things.67.209.3.78 (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Eurovision

Wait, Eurovision is "happy progressivist?" I thought it was just a World's Fair-like showcase of the latest pop sensations. Be this a disgruntled BoN taking a swipe at us? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A BoN has removed this piece. The same IP removed something in January. I'm okay with BoNs adding interesting stuff, but removing it, even without writing something on the Talk page? Yet the post was too polemic that I would put it back up myself. --Sophophobe (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Changed to autoconfirmed. CREATE AN ACCOUNT YOU LAZY BASTARD - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Duggar's Records being Expunged

I corrected this in the main WIGO: Huckabee said that the data was expunged in order to protect the identity of the victims because one of the victims actually did file for the records to be destroyed to protect her identity. It wasn't part of any reputation-covering conspiracy. For reference, here's an article about it and here's a PDF copy of the Washington County Circuit Court filing regarding the destruction of the records, which was pursuant to Ark. state law.

Let's keep our facts straight, folks. Always remember to double check. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support