RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

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


[edit] The Violence of Sacred Literature

The violence isn't going to be found in the Quran, but the Hadiths. The Quran is unlike the Bible on account of the Quran just being a book of sayings, without a recollection or contextualization of events. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Not to say the Qur'an is in any way blemish-free, however. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Communism vs the environment

Concerning the WIGO post about Communist coverups of nuclear pollution, it's worth noting how God-awful communist rule has always been for the environment. No, really. There's tons of sources on the fact that industrial Communism overtakes any capitalist alternative by far in terms off how few fucks have consistently been given for the environment. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a by-product of the condition that in capitalism if you pollute the environment, your personal/company reputation is stained and that is a very real financial and personal incentive against pollution, whereas in industrial/centralised/totalitarian communism the government is in on it, so reputation doesn't really matter as much, the spreading-of-responsiblity-over-a-large-body-of-people effect, so-to-speak. (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The article gives 3 reasons: authoritarianism (people are afraid to complain), lack of individual responsibility (and the government doesn't care), and low wealth/technology. The technology point is debatable, but their management and priorities were definitely unsound. It is ironic how some people reject the idea of government intervention to help deal with environmental issues when the lack of such intervention actually caused irreparable environmental tragedies. As for the reputation, there are examples of corporations who either don't care or lie about it. In addition, the melting of the ice cap allows access to huge arctic oil fields, so at least we know we won't run out of oil. --Cmonk (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Study about depression

I don't have access to the papers themselves, only the abstracts. If there is something wrong with them, please explain and I will update the entry accordingly. --Cmonk (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong at all. Th hug.gif Abstracts can be perfectly sufficient if it's credible research, etc. Atleast for a reputable user. As long as it's POSSIBLE to check up on the sources in full (e.g. with university access), abstracts are enough to prove that the study isn't just made up, etc. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Gay only concentration camp

Did Hitler open gay only concentration camps? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on a relatively brief search, it looks like they were placed wherever the Nazis needed heavy labour; in late-war terms that's pretty much anywhere including Auschwitz-Birkenau; Dachau and Buchenwald. It even overlaps into reparative therapy territory with Dr. Carl Vaernet's research into turning gays straight by repeatedly injecting testosterone into their junk to de-girlify them, with inmates only being allowed out if they convinced him they were ex-gay.-- Forerunner (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Nazi camps were somewhat inclusiveWikipedia's W.svg. There have been (too) many concentration and internment camps, before and after WW2 (listWikipedia's W.svg including some managed by the US). According to the Wikipedia list, the book A Contemporary Cuba Reader (I haven't read it) mentions concentration camps in the 1960s that were also used to "reeducate" homosexuals (sourceWikipedia's W.svg). --Cmonk (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit] North Carolina wants to ban same-sex marriage WIGO

"North Carolina" wants to do no such thing. Four Republican legislators do, but the bill doesn't seem to have any traction even in their own caucus or support from the party leadership, and the (Democratic) governor has vowed to veto it if it does get passed. It's newsworthy that four elected officials in NC apparently don't understand how our Federal system works, but to say that "North Carolina" is ignoring the Constitution is counter-productive hyperbole. (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Assange

The Deep State's got Trump by the nuts now. He'll do anything to prove his bona fidas with them, dump Flynn, sweet talk NATO, bomb Syria, drone Assange. But they can't give him back his lost honeymoon. Time for Wikileaks to start dumping its Trump treasure trove, and we'll see if the Deep State rises to defend Trump. nobs 05:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that'll embarrass Trump would be Wikileaks proving that he's been broke for decades. Anything else he'll somehow twist to make himself sound good to his followers. Got three teenagers pregnant? He'll claim that it's because he's so manly! Murdered a man? He don't take shit from no one. Dug up George Washington's grave to use his femur as a sex toy? He's patriotic!
So no, I'm not wasting any breath on Wikileaks revelations. CorruptUser (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, ssshhhh, I let u in on what's behind the Russia probe...the unspoken allegations...Russia has earnings from crude and natural gas sales...but the targeted oligarchs who are big earners from it can't convert it to cash ("cash" meaning something other than the worthless Russian rubble) so they have to engage in elaborate money laundering schemes...one such scheme happened to involve Manhattan real estate that was purchased by a guy who knew a guy who happened to know a guy who happened to ride the elevator in Trump Towers. And the same guy 'cousin's best friend had an uncle who lived nextdoor to a guy who once met Vladimir Putin. U connect the dots. nobs 07:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and ah Preet BhararaWikipedia's W.svg, who was investigating all this, wound up on the Russian's shit listWikipedia's W.svg in retaliation for sanctions. Trump made it one of his first order of business to fire Bharara. nobs 07:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
So rather than make unfounded accusations on incomplete evidence, all critics can do is speak in innuendo (note: it wouldn't matter if a dummy corporation purchased a Trump property before, during or after Trump's candidacy or presidency. All that matters is intent to circumvent sanctions. Any billionaire would have this same problem. And there is an interesting legal issue that pertains to critics who maintain Trump should be forced to liquidate (what the IRS would call an 'involuntary conversion'. Laying aside a person's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, suppose the only interested buyer in a Trump property was a front for the Russian mafia?) I note we don't hear anymore about 'the Emoluments Clause', which was the Deep State's first attack back in December & January. That may suggest further investigation has exonerated Trump of knowledge or intent in any Russian money laundering scheme. nobs~
Personal tools