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] Donald Trump Third Party

Maybe he can run as a Whig? - Psycho Gecko 23:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

All I know is that Jon Stewart picked the worst possible time to leave Daily Show. Vulpius (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
He's made his feelings there so clear. ArcticVixen (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Good one! --Sophophobe (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm loving this. I've bought shares in popcorn. BicyclewheelModerator 10:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Imagine if he wins though: November 8 — the Day Americans Elected Donald Trump and the World Gave up on Democracy. >.> (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
But it would be the dawning of a new golden age of comedy. BicyclewheelModerator 09:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To all of y'all who say trump is too much of a joke to win. I agree, but I shudder at the thought that this is exactly what was said about Saint Ronnie when he first ran... (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Susan G. Komen

If Planned Parenthood survives the war on women in bad shape, that will be a stain on history. Susan G. Komen "For the Cure", not so much. Have they cleaned up their act in the 3+ years since that blog post? Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong I hate how commercialized Susan B. Komen is, but that aren't being cut from the bill for that. They are being cut because the Republicans want to kill Planned Parenthood by hurting their private donations so that when the Fed defunds them it will be a major loss just like with ACORN.--Owlman (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
OK. So the Susan B. Komen Foundation cut their contribution to Planned Parenthood, flipped, flopped, and is now best buds with them again? Friends like that, who needs enemies, and all... Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Like I said I would rather see their organization change or lose their nonprofit status (they are one of the richest nonprofits), but removing them on this principle is ridiculous and sets a precedent for those organizations who support cancer research to not invest in women's healthcare like contraceptives and abortion. These are services that Planned Parenthood offers and if they don't get that funding then they will have to close facilities.--Owlman (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-discrimination bill

I was expecting the bill to be labeled as preventing discrimination against LGB"T" people, but not actually do anything for trans people like myself. I was pleasantly surprised to see that for once, we were included! (Of course, with GOP opposition the way it is, there's no way it'll pass and it's essentially just posturing from congressional Democrats, but at least it's inclusive posturing.) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Since discrimination of trans individuals is in relation to people's views on sex/gender, technically the T should already have said protections. Sadly the reality doesn't reflect this, though. (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The T is something that you'd hope never would get thrown under the bus for the LGB part, but we end up there every once in a while. At least we don't seem to be there this time around. ArcticVixen (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] A Clinton, first name Hillary

Am I missing something with the Clinton link? It seems weirdly hostile. I mean, everyone can see that 25% > 8%. It's like pointing out a candidate who says she wants to "put food on every table" that not all tables are meant for food. Clinton's position on green matters are certainly on the lacking and/or fuzzy side, especially compared to top-green-legislator-in-the-Senate Sanders and we-want-100%-renewable-in-35-years O'Malley, but I don't really see what the problem is here. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As much as I'm not really a fan of her, yeah, that comes across as very Nirvana fallacy-esque. ArcticVixen (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Sanders' Immigration Position

Well I have been following a lot of Bernie Sanders' positions in the media and I stumbled on his most recent views on immigration. He is apparently against open border policies because he believes immigrants threaten American jobs. Now I disagree with him on his stance on GMOs and nuclear energy, but this seems to be a major issue that he, IMO, is on the wrong side.--Owlman (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well this article gives greater background on his opinion.--Owlman (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems like a nuanced position to support immigration but looking at the problem of giving work visas for cheaper alternatives to US workers and sometimes to break unions (like hotel workers). Especially programs that tie a worker to a job to the point of being unable to look elsewhere since it limits competitiveness. I don't see this as a bad thing...it's taking a nuanced position in a difficult and complex situation that cannot be boiled down to sound bytes. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Which of course means some of his statements will be taken out of context for a cheap attack ad or "news" piece on Faux noise (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, now that I have read more into his opinion and why he believes it, it seems overblown.--Owlman (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
News is always overblown. Who would take time to read an article "Politician has well reasoned position on immigration"? Which seems like an Onion parody of news medias hysteria now. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
As are attack ads. However, there should be some instance in media that actually digs deeper. There should be some place for a serious conversation. Not just people shouting and yelling at each other. What could this place be? - I honestly don't know... (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Treason charges against German journalists

There are allegations (Ger.) that the treason charges never even had the aim of an eventual indictment: In order for the police to be allowed to use heavier investigation methods, there need to be accusations of graver crimes — treason, for example. So the allegations go that the primary goal of the treason charges was to be allowed to use these methods in order to better surveil the journalists and thereby, for example, uncover their sources or, by the threat of it, deter them and others from such subversive reporting.--Sophophobe (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I object to the Guardian's calling the FDP only a pro-buiseness party, especially in this context. They have a large record of sincerely championing civil rights—even though I strongly disagree with their economic etc. policy. --Sophophobe (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] hitchBOT

Quick, let's decide Americans are evil robot-killers based on a small, unrepresentative sample size. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... --Unregistered(talk) 11:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
#notallbrutalrobotmurderers - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Especially when it's really just Philadelphians who are evil robot-killers. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 17:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Same bastards who threw shit at Santa, don't you remember? WalkerWalker(It's the conflict, stupid.) 07:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Bernie Sanders interruption

In my undo of a revision I referenced a statement of Black Lives Matter from their Facebook page, in which they say that Bernie Sanders had done to little in the past. Here it is. Sorry for having you search for it, Owlman. --Sophophobe (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond idiotic. And they are barely members of Black Lives Members they are part of some fringe anarchist group and just called themselves members of BLM, but the BLM on reddit nonetheless decided to block everyone off and leave a "fuck Bernie Sanders" message behind. It's sad this social movement is going to autocannablize itself and burn out without changing anything, this was all easily avoidable. They set a precendent at Netroots, now any nut can put on a BLM shirt, make them look bad, and everyone will believe it was the whole movements fault. ClothCoat (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem I didn't realize it was under their Seattle branch's page. Yeah I would say that the Netroots incident wasn't without reason since they wanted to get their message across. At the time, both Sanders and O'Malley hadn't made a platform against racial injustice even though they had spoken out against these issues in interviews. Sanders was especially odd because he fought against racial injustice in his youth and had a 100% rating from the NAACP. Afterward, O'Malley created a racial justice platform and Sanders included these issues in his speeches. He may have been slow in adapting to these issues, but if any good comes out of this it is that he has hired a civil rights activist.--Owlman (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a real shame this happened. Luckily the media is too busy talking about the latest thing Trump said that they didn't mention it on the antenna networks, which is good, because it makes Bernie Sanders look better. I just hope that he rocks this issue in the debates, bringing up the fact that he was part of the March on Washington, and even organized a sit-in! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem wasn't that they protested at Netroots but the way they did it. They drowned out the candidates when they tried to speak (even when they tried to talk about their issue) and angered everyone there without any apparent goals. They made themselves look unreasonable and now anyone can make them look bad with minimal effort. ClothCoat (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a major mistake. If you want someone to change their message or hear you out you should let them talk. To me Netroots wasn't that bad since there have been protest in the past and those candidates are going there to talk about issues they are using in their campaign, but Seattle was a campaign run he had organized. When you take over an entire event where a candidate has been invited to speak about an issue that the group cares about. When you do that, not only will that group be against you, the media will trivialize it as a bunch of crazy 'lefties' attacking this candidate with a strong civil rights record.--Owlman (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories are already starting to form around this. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Well the BLM protest hasn't hurt his momentum in Seattle or Portland for that matter. He has adapted his racial inequality message as well.--Owlman (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Sanders wasn't hurt with Democrats but it's hard to imagine the BLM movement wasn't damaged. Everywhere I look they are treated like crackpots. It's hardly a victory, it's not like they got some moderate to flip their views on the issue, Sanders was always in favor of these measures. In fact before Seattle he gave a speech that laid out the generals of what he wanted to do about the issue, this proposal is more specific but it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have done this regardless or supported such legislation if it came up and from what I know he was preparing to hire that civil rights activist before Seattle anyways. This is definetly not a "win" for anyone. ClothCoat (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
One aspect of the reaction shows why the hard left will always be faintly ridiculous to me. The ones who say there was nothing wrong with taking over the podium, we can't condemn them for it, because their pain/fear/deep conviction somehow entitled them to do it. To condemn them would be to diminish the worthiness of their worthy cause. There's even a hashtag for that. I don't really care whether those people were legitimate allies of BLM or plants from Clinton or the Republicans. If you accept the legitimacy of this line of reasoning, does it even make a difference? And do you realize how daffy this sounds to anyone who doesn't accept all of the premises of identity politics activism? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm still blown away by that incidence. Poster children for shooting yourself in the foot. I have nothing to back this up, but I'm speculating that it was a simple matter of Bernie being an old, white, male politician, and because of this, he can't possible be sincere about his platform (which, based on prior history of old, white, male politicians, seems somewhat of a reasonable assumption). InfinitelySingular (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Their problem is that they need to subtract the old, white, and male part (Kwame Kilpatrick and Hillary Clinton, anyone?), then they'll be completely spot on. This incident is just a reminder that no group, anywhere, is free of excessively dogmatic lunatics. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] El Niño

The El Niño headline is bothering me. The relationship of the short term cyclical climactic patterns like El Niño to longer-term climactic trends like global warming are poorly established at best. I've certainly never read anything tying them closely together in a way that validates the headline's sarcasm. What may happen is that we'll get a blow-out year that will finally leave 1998 in the dust for severity. Maybe. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it pretty remarkable how readily people will jump on the opportunity to shout "Climate change!" whenever some big weather event happens. Thematically related does not equal causally related. Instead of convincing the denialists that climate change is real, it just gives them more ammunition to paint the whole thing as a big media scare. (talk) 07:04, 18 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
And on the AGW denial side, we have things such as Inhofe's snowball. People just don't seem to realize that global warming doesn't mean it's going to get suddenly warmer overnight. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 20:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
So the problem is the unprecedented rate of change compared to geologic time scales. It's the hitchikers guide to the galaxy problem, where really big numbers just don't fit in people's heads. Warming 4 C in a century is monumentally fast, compared to similar shifts that would previously happen over hundreds of thousands of years. But compared to 10 years ago, the noise is almost impossible to distinguish from the signal without particularly good statistical methods. It can simultaneously be terrifyingly fast, and too slow to point out in a human way. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Subway

I don't get it, what's RWish about this news story? BicyclewheelModerator 16:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing, just like the rest of "What is going on in the world?" It's just what's going on in the world. News. Events. Things!TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
They are *supposed* to have some sort of relevant angle. Otherwise I could post stuff from my local paper. BicyclewheelModerator 20:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do! Sounds like fun. (talk) 20:19, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yeah, I tacitly agree, because I'm not enthralled with celebrity news, and a skeptical filter tosses out a lot of that particular class boring stuff. This counts as celebrity news. And I could do without it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Pedophilia is somewhat relevant to our mission though. (talk) 20:31, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
enjoy! BicyclewheelModerator 20:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Awesome. :) (talk) 20:29, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
added - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's not forget, Oranges are not the only fruit. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess he wanted to eat fresh! — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

[edit] suggestion: IA radio host claims slavery as solution for mexican immigration

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/19/ia-radio-host-jan-mickelson-enslave-undocumente/205020 — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 16:11, 20 August 2015

Thanks for the suggestion! It looks more appropriate for the WIGO:Clogs than here, since it's something that someone said rather than something that occurred. (And someone already beat me to the punch on posting it there) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Privilege ?

I'm not against having the article on WIGOW, but I'm fairly certain we could do without that small snippet. It's both quite offensive towards the police officers (as it implies that they'd have harmed the two men had they been black) and fairly heartless towards the victim. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree. If it were part of the article (i.e. if it were an editorial or led into a study comparing responses to race in arrests) I could understand, but not in this case where black/white race relations aren't even brought up. To me, going "Oooh, this white guy wasn't beat up by the cops when he was arrested. I wonder why?" on this article kind of comes off as similar in tone to saying, "Oooh, these cancer patient kids had chemotherapy and died young anyway. I wonder why?" on an article about the Internet's response to the new Ghostbusters actresses visiting children at Tufts Medical. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that in this case the subjects are actually related, though. Both are about brutality directed at racial/ethnic minorities. (talk) 15:51, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'm that close to editing it to say "Two guys who beat up Latino man arrested" - anything beyond that makes us look like arseholes. I have a pretty complicated relationship with the police but even I freely admit that they're not all racists. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how mentioning Trump would be unjustified in this case. (talk) 16:12, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
@142.124.etc.etc: And both in the example I made are about how terminally ill kids should be treated. Your point? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd say "celebrities visit cancer patients" and "cancer treatment is bogus!" are two rather different subjects. (talk) 16:08, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

My tuppence: not being subject to unnecessary use of force should be an expectation, not a privilege. (and most of the time, that expectation holds up, though most is, of course, not enough) WalkerWalker(It's the conflict, stupid.) 16:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, but look at how many blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans get brutalized. Just look at the police wrong and they will brutalize you. They are more likely to harass them because they have less power than their white counterparts. Just because not all cops are racists doesn't mean these white guys didn't benefitt from being white. For a comparison, look at how bias the death penalty is applied towards ethnic minorities; does that mean all jurists are racist, no, but it does mean that white people benefit from the jury's assumption that their crime isn't heinous enough for death.--Owlman (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is denying that a racial problem of this kind exists in America; however, it doesn't make it any less unfair and disingenuous to imply that things would have gone differently had the victim been white or the perpetrators colored. If you want to discuss this kind of thing in-depth, well, post an article that studies this particular matter. — Unsigned, by: NewFrenchHotness / talk / contribs 23:08, 21 August 2015
First please sign your name on talk pages. Secondly, fair enough. I haven't changed it back and I won't.--Owlman (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that non-white peoples suffer far more, but I still dispute the use of the term privilege for what should be a matter of right; it serves to belittle the disparities you discuss, and asserts that people can't rightly demand decent treatment, but that it is rather merely a privilege. WalkerWalker(It's the conflict, stupid.) 03:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well sure I understand what you are saying, but these white guys weren't assumed to be a nuisance to society or so dangerous that they had to be brutalized. I will reiterate that a since they are white they have more power to take action against the police for violating their civil liberties.--Owlman (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Correct. We seem to agree on what happened, why it happened/didn't, etc.; the disagreement is really just me being semi-pedantic about semantics. WalkerWalker(It's the conflict, stupid.) 03:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks more like you misunderstanding the concept of privilege. Look at the examples in our article on the subject: walking home alone without fear, displaying affection publicly, buying services without being ripped off, using a public toilet without being treated with suspicion, etc. These are all things which should be an expectation for all. In practice they an expectation for some & not for all. This is what makes them examples of privilege. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The term "privilege" isn't intended to portray certain treatment as a privilege to be earned, rather, it is intended to compare the treatment certain demographics receive to a privilege. In the context of what should happen, yes, freedom from police brutality should be a right, however, since non-white people are more often brutalized than white people, what actually happens is white people are receiving what amount to special privileges on account of their race, those privileges being that they are statistically less likely to be brutalized by the police. The endpoint of the privilege argument is that what should happen is the special treatment one group gets should apply to all people, not just that one group, and that in comparing the situation to a special privilege, it is hoped that the listener/reader realizes the inequity of the situation. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 04:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
^This is the best way of putting it.--Owlman (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] What do the votes mean?

I mean like seriously, like oh my goat, like what do they even - you know - mean? You know? Are they like something totally aaaawwwwsum? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, they determine what goes on the "best of" page, for starters. WalkerWalker(It's the conflict, stupid.) 01:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
And what does "best of" mean? I mean, it's the same with the like button on certain pages.... Should I "like" a story about horrible events? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Follow your heart. Nobody else can tell you what to like. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
But I thought RW (unlike WP) was about telling people what to think... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Then vote everything up. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
NEVERmore! I will vote everything down (insane laughter of the dammed) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Greenland?

The recently added link with text about Greenland actually seems to be about air quality in Middle Eastern war zones. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems they copied the wrong link. Fixed now. (talk) 14:51, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Madison post

Is it really necessary to bring it up now? I mean, revealing the fact that people's details weren't being removed was the whole point of the leaks.-- Forerunner (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought the point was "for da lulz" Just like 87.3% of all "hacking" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I re-read it. I didn't see the whole "ratio of men to women being 40,000:3" problem and just saw the "deleted accounts weren't really deleted" part.-- Forerunner (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools