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

Contents

[edit] Negative rating feedback loop

I notice one of the mods changed some asshole's entry about a machete attack in Paris (which was more about mocking people who don't blame Islam right away) to a neutral entry just saying what happened. Funny how people continued to vote it down anyway despite there being nothing controversial in the news or the way it was reported. Wake up Sheeple!

But yeah, is there a way to just reset certain entries, or should we just move the rewritten ones to a new WIGO code?.-- 194.81.33.234 (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am the newcomer who posted the link on China/AIDS/TCM. It seems to be getting a lot of downvotes so I am wondering if there is anything I should do about it. I tried to look at the newcomer guide and the community standards but I can't tell whether I missed something. Where can I get some help?

--Cmonk (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

From what I've experienced, users are liable to downvote based on how the entry portrays the writer rather than the credibility of the information just like a real democracy. Or they just don't like the information period. Based on the article's info itself, I've come up with two alternative entries. One is pure snark; the other more serious.
1. "In an effort to tackle 'AIDS-related homosexual behavior', China intends to increase production of the one thing all gay men fear: Herbs!"
2. "In an effort to tackle the spread of HIV and AIDS, the Chinese government is growing support for home remedies."

-- Forerunner (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! FWIW I don't defend TCM or the "reduce homosexual behavior" stuff, I just thought it was newsworthy to know that China had announced this health plan. I tried to get the source article (from AFP) but I couldn't find it (and for all I know, the source might have been a badly translated Chinese with an original meaning "reduce AIDS" which would make more sense). I will change my text to your option 2 if that's ok.
--Cmonk (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It feels like users vote more for how they feel about the subject of the article than for its relevance to the site. e.g. Most users disagree with the Chinese government backing alternative medicine, so they downvote the WIGO entry; most users agree with the Russian government denouncing homeopathy, so they upvote that WIGO entry. Also notice how votes get wonky when satire shows up. I say take the fact that your entry garnered a lot of votes as a measure of success. 71.188.73.196 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Duck off

Is the saloon bar getting edited? Boo Gaul Dernitt (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Flynn

So if nobody is prosecuted in the Obama administration's illegal wiretapping of private citizens and political opponents, specifically the violations of Michael Flynn's civil rights, it's safe to say Trump has failed to drain the swamp. 10:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)nobs

Nice redefinition of "drain the swamp" there. "Drain the swamp" refers to Trump's promise to remove lobbyists and campaign finance bribery from Washington, which is obviously now revealed to be a complete joke and a lie, now that he has literally hired Goldman Sachs and Exxon executives into his administration.--Greenrd (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] LGBTQIA

Quite apart from the issues I have with continually adding to LGBT, I take particular umbrage with the addition of Q to the alphabeti spaghetti. Quite apart from the fact that for many Queer is a term of abuse (it illicits panic attacks in my flat mate), even when 'reclaimed' i am yet to find definition of the word (there appears to be no concencus as to what the word represents, reason enough on its own to warrant its omission) that is not already covered by the already very broad LGBT or a is a divisive political statement. As i said LBGT is is already a broad church, continually adding to it with more and specific subsets narrows the scope and makes us focus on our differences rather than our shared experiences and struggles. Quite apart from it starting to look just rediculous and unwieldy. I can see merit to some additions, but Q for queer? No. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

personally, i'd prefer a return to idea of the word 'gay' encompassing all of the above. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I always thought "lesbian and gay" was a bit puzzling. I thought lesbians were gay. 90.205.111.198 (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I mean, apart from the fact that for many of us "queer" doesn't have a negative connotation, you simply don't speak for all of us. Queer can mean anyone who falls outside of sexual/gender/romantic norms. As simple as that. It can be an umbrella term or it can mean something specific to any given person. You're also ignoring that many people consider the Q to also stand for "questioning," a very important demographic that is often ignored, but which I frequently work with as part of my job. My bigger problem with your post though is that you seem to believe that some identities deserve to be recognized as belonging in the top ones. Why are "gay," "bisexual," "lesbian," and "transgender" any more important than "intersex" or "asexual." All your posts says to me is that you only view some groups worthy of recognition and others aren't as important and don't warrant recognition. AyzmoCheers 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

the very fact that you cannot give me a single definition of what the Q stands for tells me that it is an unnecessary addition. Nothing you have said explains what it covers that isn't already covered by the very broad church. And Questioning? Thats like 100 percent of the human race. How are we served by making these arbitrary distinctions? It narrows the scope of the existing groups, makes them less inclusive. How is this helpful? As the A and the I, i made no mention of those. I did say i saw merit in some editions, but is the superfluous Q i was discussing. If you think i am saying some groups arent as important then you clearly havent read what i have properly. The point is everything you mentioned is ALREADY covered. I have never claimed to speak for all. Neither do you. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
though i dont speak for all as was needlessly made clear, i am sure some will have similar experiences to me. For most of my youth, i have always felt apart. Seperate to whatever group i was desperately trying to fit in with, to connect to. Never sure who i was. Searching to belong. Then i came out, and suddenly i knew who was. These where my people, people like me, this was my place. I belonged. There were so many different backgrounds, different cultures, races, political persusasions yet we were somehow the same in a way that in previous life were i shared the exact same background of my friends and those around me did not seem possible. I could start to live. On the thankfully infrequent occasions i recieved verbal or physical abuse, it didnt matter. I was not alone. Then as the years went on, i am told 'you are not one of us'. Too camp, not camp enough. You sleep with trans so not really gay, you a cliche, you are the reason why the straights hate us, too mainstream. Etc, etc, the list can be endless. Not all directed at me, not all malacious, but all the wrong kind of gay. I am not opposed to different groups. It is the diverse range of identity that i found welcoming, that helped me belong. We were all so different but intrinsically the same. These arbitrary inclusions feel me like it is officially seperating us, validating the petty distinctions that have marred my experience. I no longer feel the connection i once did. This is a step back. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't give you a single definition of "trans" either, or "gay." Both have at least two definitions, but are included. You see it as divisive. I see it as inclusive. I don't expect us to agree on this. And that's ok. I do know that providing visibility for groups who are often ignored does wonders for acceptance by themselves and others. I'm sorry for your experience. There are many petty differences at times, but that doesn't invalidate the larger need to work together or the need to recognize all those that we encompass. There is the problematic question of where to draw the line, and I don't have the answer to that question, but I know that there is less harm in including more. AyzmoCheers 18:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Mosul airport

Iraqi forces retake Mosul airport with US "bombing the shit" out of ISIS for cover. What is the significance of this? (A) The grand coalition envisaged by Putin to defeat ISIS (LIH in Google translators of Russian) is under way. This deal likely was finalized on the Saturday morning, January 28 telephone conversation between Putin and Trump with Flynn present. (B) It further signifies elements of the deal remain operational (again, LIH = ISIS in translation). (C) This gives a clue how the Trump administration operates: significant shifts in policy can occur by phone agreement w/o principal characters, such as Tillerson or Mattis, ever having a first contact with their counterparts. Also individual appointees, such as Flynn, once their primary task is completed can be dispatched with a "You're fired". No room for bureaucratic careerists or careerism in the Trump-style management. (D) Controlling the Mosul airport is key to transporting in additional troops and material. (E) After "bombing the shit" out of 'em, he'll send in Exxon to rebuild. (F) The Mosul action could have been completed in mid-to-late 2014, if a commander-in-chief had the willpower to do so. Trump is not even serving his own agenda yet. (G) Remaining question: With the fall of ISIS, who will the US back in the vacuum for regional hegemony, Saudi Arabia or Iran? nobs 21:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Punching; American Tradition

I'm... not sure how I should feel about that article. For a rather odd reason; my great-grandfather was involved with Lansky, and once sucker-punched the Nazi advocator Father Coughlin. CorruptUser (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools