2016 Board discussion

A discussion on the future of the Rationalmedia Board has been started in the Bar in advance of the upcoming elections. Please give your input there (or wherever it may be moved).

from Paravant (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 05:34, 1 December 2015

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


[edit] The new defense spending bill will kill the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Agency

1. That WP link don't work. 2. Why is this important? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is just generally interesting that with all the talk about sending soldiers against DAESH we will be cutting the agency responsible for fighting IEDs. I mean we spend billions of 'national security' and this is the cut Congress decides to make.--Owlman (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. Seeing as sending soldiers to fight Saddam pretty much created DAESH, I am really eager to see the fresh nightmare that will arise from sending soldiers to fight DAESH. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well of course I can't (and don't want to) imagine what will come from the abyss if we attack them. I think that at that point they will attack the Saudis which if we step foot in there then we will become the crusaders DAESH wants us to be. I also fear, based on the Drone Papers, that the Afghan Taliban will join DAESH since our attacks led Al-Shabaab to join Al-Qaeda.--Owlman (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
RE: DAESH in Afghanistan, I'm looking forward to watching this on Tuesday... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Depends on whom you ask. Some say, that the US attacks will lead to Al-Shabaab joining history and I doubt, that the Taliban would want the ISIS to play in their sandbox. All the Islamists see the US as so-called crusaders anyway (all the while they're leading a crusade).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, AH, I will be watching this as soon as this comes out. And I agree, Arisboch, but the Saudis have peddle this anti-Shia and Wahhabi propaganda and now that DAESH sees them as takfir the Saudis have shit the bed. The main reason that Daesh could exploit US forces in Saudi Arabia would be based on the view that we are coming for Mecca and that this is the apocalypse.--Owlman (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
US troops in Mecca? What for and does that exist anywhere except in the sick minds and propaganda of the DAESH?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, we had troops in Saudi Arabia for almost 15 years, which was among the grievances of OBL and AQ. George W pulled 'em out.---Mona- (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course there aren't any and probably never will be, but that is what DAESH would use a propaganda if US did fight them in Saudi Arabia.--Owlman (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
But what would be the better course: help the Saudis or not, risking, that one Islamist shithole is turned into a worse Islamist shithole or is there a plan C?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure. I would lean to say help the Saudis with a regional force, the GCC, along with the UN. I am not trying to disagree with you I am just pointing out that that is what DAESH wants us to do.--Owlman (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
They see us as crusaders, but the Western word is "imperialists." They are leading their own counter-crusade which doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.---Mona- (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Also Daesh could always try to get the Shias to revolt by killing many of them, which they have working on. This would cause the Saudis to crackdown on them and lead to Iran puching for intervention whether through arming them or directly attacking them.--Owlman (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Syrian Refugee Crisis Idiocy

So the governors and elected leaders of 24 states, including my own, have all simultaneously declared they will not accept any Syrian refugees. It fills me with shame to say I am an American. This kind of inhumane, barbaric xenophobia has no place in a modern liberal democracy where all people are treated equally. Of course, it is illegal for the states to say they won't accept refugees under the 1980 Refugee Act, but it seems Republicans don't care about the law passed by a democratically-elected legislature, only their personal opinion. The fact that any elected official in a republic like America would be willingly to openly state that they do not want to provide care and assistance to some of the most oppressed and war-battered people in the world sickens my soul and dampens my heart. The coldness and apathy these Republicans have shown towards fellow humans in desperate need of shelter and food only further confirms my political views. I call for everyone to vote against all of these officials to show that the people will not respond kindly to this kind of barbarity. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still surprised this mess didn't happen with the Lebanese diaspora in the 70s. Then again, the Lebanese were much wealthier than the average Syrian. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png as much fun as requiring a double mastectomy 02:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Republicans who virtually all supported the war in Iraq which directly cleared the way for, and created ISIS. The same ISIS the Syrian refugees are fleeing. We birthed ISIS, and now as the fine "Christian nation" so many claim us to be, we turn away the victims of our monster.---Mona- (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Fellow ashamed US citizen here. Didn't take the GOP long to use Paris to springboard back onto the saddle of bigotry. It's sad that I wasn't even surprised to find Republican presidential nominees demonizing Syrian/middle eastern refugees and demanding closed borders less than 6 hours after the attacks. Yet more exploitation of tragedy to peddle racism and xenophobia. (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No politician can resist from using tragedies as munition for propaganda, no matter, if s/he's left, right or center!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The US, if anything, has made the Syrian War worse by flooding the region with guns and missiles. I thought America was supposed to oppose violence in the Middle-East? Instead, the US has made the situation worse by giving guns to armed Islamists in the Middle-East! And yet Americans are not even willing to own up to solve a refugee crisis that they themselves caused and exacerbated! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What? We only give a shit about violence when the guys doing it aren't on our side. You know we armed Osama when he was fighting the Rooskies, right? --Ymir (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Osama was not armed by the US.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
What was it that endeared ethnic Albanians to America, then? While that may be true in many cases, asserting that the U.S. has never tried to do the right thing ever is a bit much. It's not as if they were just piling on at the end, either, the rest of Europe refused to do a goddamn thing to stop it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Wigo candidates

There are so many WIGeaux about presidential candidates I'm almost tempted to spin off a separate WIGO:ELECTION page. The main thing stopping me is that I have the coding skills of a glass of water. BicyclewheelModerator 18:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I might take a crack later if nobody beats me to it/objects loudly. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick, thanks! Bicyclewheel::Moderator 19:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Later was in this case a relative term. Now what would be really sweet would be if there was a good way to include x many lines of that page in this one. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the only reason i'm distrustful of this as a separate WIGO is that there are going to be long stretches of dead space when the only nations holding elections are minors like Togo or Cambodia, and so it won't really be able to be added to the WIGO list, but because it won't be consistently active enough to make the main list getting to it will be difficult during actual election seasons in countries we might talk about, while leaving our actual "world politics/events" page oddly empty of electoral political events. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any advantage in a WIGO page devoted to all elections everywhere anytime. Make one for the US 2016 Presidential Election while it's current & then we can always create a new one for future elections. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Do we really need that though? I think we need less inactive WIGO: 4reichs, not more--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Then it's better not to create a new one. It will be active for the 2016 Presidential Campaign, then peter out soon after. I don't see anything wrong with that if it's designated as a 2016 Presidential Campaign WIGO, to go with our pages on 2016 candidate nominations etc. Trying to put stuff in about other unconnected elections is going to look awkward and it will still peter out after the 2016 election and be left inactive or barely active for long periods. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's gather round the AfD and sing our AfD song, see what the rest of everyone wants to do with it? WalkerWalkerWalker 18:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we need more actual discussion, which AFD's never really foster because pople go right for the votes and then maybe say something. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
En, that's true. Throwing questions of practicality aside for a moment, what if this page had an expandable pen for electoral wtfery when such was in season? WalkerWalkerWalker 19:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
What about something simple, like a tag/easily-distinguishable label for election-related articles? (P.S. What does "AFD" stand for?) (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
AFD might explain itself. SmartFeller (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

So should I rename it to be presidential election-specific or let it be a catch-all bin, presuming people remember it? WalkerWalkerWalker 05:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason not to keep it as being about election stupidity in general - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow crescents?

The Name of God, the merciful, the compassionate: the crescents should be green. (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I see your issue. I will fix it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, kind RW person. (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
it was a reference to yellow stars--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I know. I just thought that if teh gheys had pink patches, Muslims could have green ones, for reasons. (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Allahu ackbar! - Shouniaisha (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Boy Scouts

While I agree the Boy Scouts are an organization that are in marked need of a change in groupthink and leadership, why is keeping out girls so 19th century? The Girl Scouts don't allow cis boys to join, only boys who identify as girls; their FAQ even says "Boys too, have unique needs and interests, which are addressed by organizations designed specifically for them." Wouldn't the Boy Scouts be that organization, by definition? If the Boy Scouts aren't an organization that can be "designed specifically" for boys, then what is? Thanos6 (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

They aren't designed specifically for boys any more than they're designed specifically for girls. They're designed to promote (not even current!) gender stereotypes. Been there, did that. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Boy Scouts of America is also a weird outlier. It's out of communion with scouting organisations internationally, largely because of the strangehold that religion has over it. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I do tend to forget that, being somewhat of an American. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
That and a somewhat odd idea of leadership. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
So then should someone basically just take the Girl Scouts, flip the genders, and create some new, I dunno, "Young Male Scouts" organization? Thanos6 (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Good luck getting traction with that, and by that I mean building an organization with anything near the scope of the BSA, not even by several orders of magnitude. In other news, the US Boy Scouts have morphed into a front group for the LDS church since the last quarter of the twentieth century or so. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
My father is a long time member of the Boy Scouts and is a current leader, so these things get brought up whenever a new story comes out. First off, this isn't the first time the BSA has had this issue, they "solved" it initially with Venture Scouting, a branch of official scouting that girls 14-up could join and focused on more "high adventure" stuff. He's always lamented the amount of power the Mormons had over the national organization, however, and thinks that the BSA and GSA should and probably will merge at some point, but that it's traditionally been the GSA who has resisted the idea (possibly because they don't want to share the cookie money.) Really I've always thought the denial of faithless was more egregious than their stance on anything else, their policy on gays was essentially the same as the US Armed Forces- still bad in general but justifiable at least under those auspices. Discriminating based on religion is something that went out of style long before GSM discrimination. Hentropy (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Vestra Inet

Goddammit, I can't think of a punny name for this question.

Out of curiosity, is Vestra Inet a famous company in Canada? Yes the posting is sexist, but I feel like this is similar to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado -- terrible practice, but not really massively newsworthy and very quickly forgotten. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I've never heard of it. Glassdoor says it's under 50 employees, under $1M revenue. Appears to be a dime-a-dozen web design firm. Compro01 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] 4th Precinct

Can somebody add that? I'm going to bed. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 08:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. I could have expanded the entry a little more, I suppose, but I didn't want to post anything that has not yet been verified. --OverworldTheme (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi Arabia

So, how much does King Salman have to do with this? Should we tweet "King Salmon is a total DAESH-bag" at him? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 20:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, he has lots to do with it? Okay. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 20:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Well you know it is a Palestinian on the receiving end of state sponsored violence... In this case the Palestinian is likely innocent... Yet I hear deafening silence... Probably that's just me having earphones on... ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Shut up.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
That would be the only plausible explanation, yeah. WalkerWalkerWalker 10:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Mona for one has been silent. As has been fake-BoN... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
If only you wouldn't break the trend.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Well I think terrible abuses by those claiming to be a "state" calling itself "Saudi Arabia" have to be called what they are: Cold blooded murder. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
You could probably drop both sets of scare quotes and be fine. Try it. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Bredbandsbolaget

I look at that and go meh. I mean, I understand that sometimes copyright enforcement is a little heavy-handed, and that the state of the law makes that easy, but... I still think it's overall for the better. My perspective is of course somewhat skewed though, I admit. WalkerWalkerWalker 10:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Tebow

Not that I'm not a big fan of bashing Tebow, but I don't believe the article. I had a lot of friends at UF and, while he maintained his goodboy image to the press, he was well-known for sleeping around. I'm calling PR stunt. AyzmoCheers 13:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of something else. Starting with the reason why the article was there and what point its presence there was trying to make, I do not approve. (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools