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] Cameron third term

He's actually running for a second term this May, his "third term" would be in 2020 if he ran for it, but he's saying he's not. The reason it's a news story is that it'd lead to an odd position at some point during the end of his term where he'd have to step down and have someone replace him before his term was properly up, which is a fairly unusual thing in the UK. The way it's written on the page makes it seem like he's not going to run for this election, which he is. X Stickman (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't get that! --Sophophobe (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
'Salright, the only reason I knew it is because I've got a new car that doesn't have an MP3 player built in, so rather than listening to my own collection, I've had Radio 4 on whenever I'm out. Now I'm all knowledgeable. X Stickman (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Cruz does not break the law, unlike Al Sharpton who has not paid his taxes

Ted Cruz complies with federal law even if he doesn't like it. He may try to shut down the government over that law, but he personally abides by the law. Al Sharpton, on the other hand, wants more taxes to redistribute the wealth, but won't pay his own taxes. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am absolutely glad Ted Cruz complies with federal law, being a large believer in law and order. As for Al Sharpton, I a) don't care what his opinion on taxes is, as he's a private citizen and not a public official, and b) believe that he should be prosecuted if he's engaging in tax evasion. And to my non-surprise, action is being taken against him for it.. I am glad to see law and order prevailing for both Sharpton and Cruz. --Castaigne (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

–––Everyone knows that Al not-so-Sharpton is the standard by which American morality is measured by. I sure am glad Al Sharpton is a congre- oh. Besides, Ted Cruz seems to have a hard time understanding what federal law is. Gotta repeal that there common core legislation. Mayo2017 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] stopping bills becoming coins

I don't think this is a bad thing. Here in blighty there are too many coins weighing down and rattling in my pockets making my wallet look empty. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Preferring paper over metal is not a bad thing. Creating bills preventing "Washington elites" from ordering the production of dollar coins because you have an irrational fear of anything "European" is a bad thing. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 00:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Meh, I'd be annoyed if I had to muck about with paper for quantities as low as £2. Looking forward to the groovy new quid, too. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to think of it as the "Yes, we still hate blind people" act. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, here in the continent 5€ bills get dirty and worn fast enough due to the constant changing of hands, I only can imagine how worse it would be with 1€ and 2€ bills. I personally think metal is better for small denomination currency, but of course each one has his preferences. (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
coins were an issue in Australia. I normally carried 20 dollars or so in bills in my wallet. Suddenly I had to carry maybe 15 coins for small purchases or use $5 bills for everything and collect a lot of change. coin Purses for men was a small trend that went nowhere. Hamster (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The Daily Show with Trevor Noah

So... any thoughts on Trevor Noah replacing Jon Stewart? I think he's good, but I would have preferred Samantha Bee or Aasif Mandvi to take the helm. Then, Jon Stewart is absolutely a tough act to follow, considering his accomplishments. Dwbaker994 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: ‎Dwbaker994 / talk / contribs The world is not enough.

Sign your posts with four tildes, please ~~~~. And... I'm gonna be terrible and say that Stewart is a mediocre actor, but a great writer. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
What's terrible about that? Comedians don't need to be good actors or good writers, so you basically just gave him a compliment. (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand how he got the gig. He's only been on The Daily Show since December 2014!?! I would've thought one of the longer running contributes would get the gig. Haven't watched The Daily Show in a while so I never even heard of this guy before today. Saw a clip of him today and he seems OK. (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I originally expected John Oliver to get the job, but he went his own way with Last Week Tonight. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Aaaaaaaaaand people already want him fired.

It's another sign that we live in the digital age and ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you post on social media can haunt you in the future. People have dug up old tweets of his with sexist, racist, and anti-atheist jokes, and there are calls for him to not get the job because he is such a "giant dope".

Reddit isn't up in arms about this yet, although there are grumblings in /r/Atheism and one of his tweets hit frontpage on /r/FatPeopleHate. Tumblr's #Trevor_Noah tag is ostensibly split between "This witch-hunt is stupid and/or highlights double standards and/or is unfair," and "Fuck that prick, Jessica Williams should've gotten it."

Personally, I still stand behind the guy. Nobody's perfect, after all. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I for one cannot wait to see the Tweets, Facebook updates and blog posts from both the left and the right when a black guy looses his job in a racism scandal. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I have no qualms against the guy, but if I had to pick between him and Jessica Williams, then yeah I'd go with the latter. (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I too was rooting for Williams, but I assume that the people in charge know what they're doing. And historically, all he has to do is be better than Kilbourn. Yeah, the witch-hunt is stupid. People who treat jokes about race or gender sex like cartoons of Muhammad need a session in the cucking stool. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Westminster paedophile ring

I'm wondering if we're gonna need a page on this soon. It's getting popular in British newspapers, and evidence suggests a major coverup going as far as Prime Minister Thatcher being notified of it (and the documents mysteriously disappearing). The benefits include: an on-mission list of corrupt politicians, and the chance to be real snarky at any MP real big on "family" values. The problems faced are false leads (there was that case a few years back where the police had a man accuse the wrong ex-politician) and newspapers milking stories considerably (take note of the Enoch Powell stuff - more focus is given to "he might have been a Satanist" than "he might have been a child rapist") as part of a Moral Panic.-- Forerunner (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems like one of those things that you could only make a reasonable article about after the dust has settled, and the establishment shifted its narrative from 'nothing to see here' to 'they were always a bit iffy and anyway none of them are still around'. Given how long the scandal's been brewing, that could be years away. Queexchthonic murmurings 09:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
How about an article that focuses on the timely order of the revelations, actions and official statements resp. the lack thereof? So as to have some sort of protocol, which could later allow to check any narrative that may be told. In general I agree that this story is significant enough, plus it fits the purposes of RW (authoritarianism/monitoring the media). --Sophophobe (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
If nothing else, a background providing historical complaints, etc. Also, what we already know of when the newest revelations and papers were uncovered. AyzmoCheers 21:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
A timeline, then, with minimal analysis for now? AFAIR, Gamergate is the only timeline article RW currently has, and has got a lot of natter back and forth about brevity, missionality and so forth, but I'd certianly find it handy to have a ready reference for the ins and outs, with references. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
anything written would need to be fully sourced and made clear of fact vs allegation Hamster (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
And all references to government pages should be made through archive.org or the like. Wouldn't be the first time an official statement gets tampered with when a contradiction shows up. --Sophophobe (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Snowden video

"The uploader has not made this video available in your country." So where can I see it? Or preferably, read it? BicyclewheelModerator 10:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a collection of news stories that Google decided were about the video. Hopefully one of them will help. -Soviet Hologram God (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Oddly, that link doesn't show any results for me. (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Basically Snowden said "nobody cares that the NSA knows your secrets, but people do care that the NSA have copies of your dick pics." BicyclewheelModerator 08:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You know what we're going to get out of this? Some sort of "Public Encroachment on Nude Image by Survelience Act" that specifically addresses John Oliver's rather clever take-down of the concept, while not doing anything about stuff that matters. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Tennessee Bill Allows Counselors to Reject LGBT Students

For the people wondering why this entry is getting voted down, check the date. The story is from 2013; it's over two years old. --OverworldTheme (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary for President

OK - I'll bite...what is it that is "truly bizarre" about this?? --Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. It's like a freak circus advertising their two-eyed, one-nosed man. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Two eyes?!? Only one nose? O_O (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hillary is running for President? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4 --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

[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. (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. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.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? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.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. (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. (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. (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?" (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? (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. (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.) (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! (talk) 00:03, 26 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. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.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)

[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. (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. (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] EmDrive warp field

I posted this item:

Lasers fired through the EmDrive's resonance chamber show variances consistent with a warp field, including travelling faster than the speed of light.

It was removed. I should have seen that coming, but I think this topic deserves more discussion. [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.1860 — Unsigned, by: ‎HomoHeisenbergensis / talk / contribs

Look, buddy. It's not the subject that's the problem. It's the site. Look at every other article they have. "Why it's so hard to be a UFO photographer like me", "How everyone is mind controlling the sheep", I'm big into the future of space travel. But I'm not taking my news about it from a conspiracy site. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't look like there are any other websites reporting this. Would you rather I linked to the forum thread filled with jargon, or a reddit discussion? HomoHeisenbergensis (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
If your only sources are a forum and a conspiracy site, you might want to reconsider the accuracy of what you're seeing reported. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
A forum thread with the scientists themselves who are working on this drive. HomoHeisenbergensis (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
If it's on the internet it must be true... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:28, 24 April 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)
Personal tools