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 Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

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


[edit] Rational Wiki Google Play App?

I might be better able to make a Rational Wiki Mobile app.

What features should such an App have? — Unsigned, by: Lord Garland / talk / contribs

If you had infinite time, the same as the Wikipedia one (though viewing, enhanced editing, and saving favorite pages would be great). Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. Moderator (talk/stalk) 17:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like something that would require infinite time. Lord Garland (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This app can at least view Rationalwiki articles.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 20:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think a RationalWiki app would be a great idea. I do know some android app development, but making this would take years, since I don't have the time or energy. An easier project would be making a mobile website a la wikipedia, the current site is readable on phones but the UI is hard to use. --TeslaK20 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The Android version of the Wikipedia app is open source. As RW also uses MediaWiki it should be theoretically possible to change all links which direct to WP's database to the ones of RW. Then the only thing which would have to be done is re-skinning it. NameThatNobodyTakes () 05:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have experience with mobile and app development, a simple Read-Only app would take just 1/2 months, Wikipedia was started developing in non-mobile era, much has been done to make its UI "mobile responsive" but the sad truth is that Wikimedia started in non-mobile era and so even with much improvements it will still be a fossil (that' why the Apps I guess). My advice is to start with something simple and read-only that has the ability to share pages on other social media. Be prepared you never know when the app "boom" it is very possible that the site get DOSSED by the traffic increment, as is still very possible that the app doesn't bring much extra traffic. I would do that but I don't work for free XD, the read-only part makes also more sense if you think that you are potentially bringin "non-rational" users to this site with an app, thus increasing the chance for getting spam and crap posted. I guess this community works also because there are fewer users than wikipedia Syllabus (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There is already a RationalWiki viewer, it's called EveryWiki.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 11:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Loo-dicrous Bathroom Ejection

I'm not posting this as a WIGO because there is not very much information on when/where this took place or other background information, but there is a video going around where a woman is being ejected from a women's restroom by officers who believe her to be a guy, with the implication that this has to do with the recent Transgender bathroom laws. Hoo boy. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Flash update: The video is from before the Trans* laws were a thing. Yay skepticism! ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Supposedly, she is lesbian who dresses boyishly.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 17:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeesh, how could someone look at her and think "yeah that's definitely a man!"? But for those thinking this is a purely American phenomenon, a similar thing happened in the UK with no bathroom bill. Hentropy (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain

About that Oklahoma decision: Ken White from Popehat has a write-up about it. TL;DR - It's a legal hitch having to do with sodomy laws that separates lower-body penetration from oral, and it's still considered sexual battery. Hope you don't mind if I put in the slight correction. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. I think they mention that in the story, though, but it is still an unreasonable decision in my opinion.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It was an eminently reasonable decision when you remember the bedrock principle that any ambiguity in a criminal law breaks in the 'not guilty' direction. This principle is too important to yield to moral panic or 'believe the victim'. The accused simply didn't break the law he was on trial for breaking. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
But it seems like it would be reasonable to determine that what he did was "forcible sodomy".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 01:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's part of the point. Criminal laws aren't interpreted "reasonably"; they're interpreted strictly in favor of innocence. The court found that what he did failed to fall within the letter of the law he was on trial for breaking; therefore he must walk. As the blog linked by Noir LeSable, there were other laws he could have been charged with breaking. He wasn't, and he's already been put on trial under the wrong statute, so he must win. Trying him again would be double jeopardy. All of these highly important principles of criminal law and procedure ought to take precedence over mere outrage. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I know, I know. I realize that it is the fault of the legislature and not the court but this guy won't ever be proven guilty because of a technicality. I know that no matter how much I dislike that he did have his day in court.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 04:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Mandatory course in exorcism, my arse.

Am I the only person who's read the article?

For a start it's from the Daily Mirror: the Daily Mail with fewer words, more pictures and a lot less hate.

Second, the word "exorcism" is in quotation marks. In a British tabloid, it means they've made it up.

Third, it's not a course, its a lecture. On "El mal", or Evil as we call it in English where we don't bother with the definite article like that. Not The Evil, not The Evil One, just Evil.

No, hang on, it's not a lecture, it's a seminar for 196 students.

No, it's a course again.

Fuck it. it's all the same when you have a reading age of eight.

In the real world, the one Spanish source - a secondary one, mind you - tells us the college in Spain has scheduled a conference, hang on, no, it's a talk, by a priest - OK, believed to be an exorcist - on the subject of evil.

A college that is connected to a university that is, yes, funded by the Spanish Defence Ministry because it was set up for the children of military and police personnel in Franco's last years. A university that includes Paul Preston on its roster. Hardly the home of voodoo.

I suggest changing the item to something more honest, like "Hey, look at those crazy dagos! They're not like us", and be done with the bullshit in between. London Grump (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, it's been flooding the news pages. I can't find many sources that aren't just copy-pasting the news. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] ...the literal fuck is this shit. The literal fuck.

From the article about Carl, the fictional pundit,

Unlike professional forecasters, who maintain the pretense of objectivity, Diggler’s approach is proudly based on gut instinct and personal bias.


The success of two amateurs writing a fictional pundit who relies on “gut” and bogus “racial science” highlights the collapse of the expert prognosticators this year. For months, professional data journalists at FiveThirtyEight, Vox, the New York Times, et al, proclaimed that Trump and Sanders had no chance. They checked the numbers and reassured readers that the Trump bubble would pop, that Sanders would win two states and then go home.

What the serious everloving fuck is this? Ignore the data, 'cause gut feelings happened to get shit right this one time!!!

No, no, no, no, no. FUCK NO. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I took it as a jab at those who exclusively rely on polling data and how the pundits have made spurrious predictions about the success of Trump and Sanders or for that matter Bush and Clinton.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 01:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a jab that very particularly focuses on FiveThirtyEight. Even though FiveThirtyEight uses more than just polls and emphasizes that there's a lot that the models don't consider, and constantly emphasizes that polls are fundamentally unreliable and that the data points are few. I'll admit that they're pretty self-absorbed about their models and are a bit coy about reexamining them, but at least they're trying to explain their losses and figure out where their models went wrong.
I mean, take a look at this excerpt from Texas:
Good science is falsifiable. Silver’s horserace predictions are not. When he says that Clinton has a 95 percent chance of winning the California primary if it were held today, you couldn’t prove or disprove him (because the primary won’t be held today, and even if it were, it would be held only once, not 100 times so you could see if she lost five of them). It’s an untestable assertion of who’s ahead and who’s behind that relies on the model’s past outcomes to be credible.
They are falsifiable because we do have a quantitative value for what the 538 model predicts. Sort each caucus or primary in the last several elections by the likelihood outcome that the model predicts (Say, 95-99%, 90-94%, 85-89%, 80-84%, etc.), and see what percent of each are accurate with an emphasis on the middling results. Bingo bango bongo, observational study. Now, I haven't done this and I don't have the time to try to put something like this together, but I came up with a way to falsify the model (or at least the current version of it) in a span of 5 seconds while my morning coffee was brewing. Also (emphasis mine):
Maybe a more subjective form of analysis, such as going out and listening to voters, would have understood their passions better than the data journalists’ models.


We should treat any given prediction not as objective science but as one person’s subjective guess about which variables could be more predictive than others. Forecasters should show their work, and pundits who are consistently proven wrong should be ignored in the future. In short, we should be skeptical of anyone who says they can predict the future.
Okay then. Maybe we should be skeptical of the prediction of climate change by the IPCC predicting a 2.5-10 degree rise in global earth temperatures! After all, it's unfalsifiable! There's only one Earth! And vaccines? Well the more subjective form of analysis of going out and listening to parents of vaccinated children are showing a sizable number of a link with post-vaccine injury! They better understand the passions of raising a healthy child after all!!
Look, I'm really sorry about sounding hostile about this; you do have a very valid point about how models should be verified and shouldn't be behind solely shoddy polling. But we deal with shit like the stuff Virgil Texas is saying on a weekly basis. People saying "Ohoho lookit us non-experts getting things better than the experts! That must mean all the experts are wrooooong (or somehow secretly biased)!" They've been hammering on about "look at these two wild gut guesses that beat out the data-driven pollsters! How in the world could they not see this coming when it was so clear??" FFS, we have a fucking article on this!
I'm sorry, it's been a weird week, and I've been touchier than usual about things. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
No, I get it sometimes we get upset and it translates poorly online. Nate Sliver has explained why he was wrong. When you are looking at polling data you have to judge which of the polls is the kost reliable and your implicit bias will get in the way. There are several reasons people lie or changed their mind when they give their opinions so you have to take that into account. Unlike the environment, humans are irrational beings so predicting the future based on their opinions is always going to bring up a problem.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 15:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The question for Nate Silver wasn't "was he right?" but "did he match his own level of asserted precision?" If he gave 5 states a 80% chance of going Hillary, and 4 did, his statistical methods were perfectly valid. Hypothesis testing, in the stats world, isn't driven by right v wrong. Just gonna throw that out there too. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, of course, but we shouldn't fetishize polling and we, as an audience, should be skeptical of pundit predictions since they have implicit biases. WIGO:Blogs recently had an article criticizing macroeconomics for solely relying on mathematics so the same can be said about political science.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 18:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think in some ways FiveThirtyEight wasn't rigorous enough when looking at numbers. Most of their prognostication articles were based around assumptions that the 2012 patterns would hold, and that Trump would be like Herman Cain. If Trump were anyone else, he'd be considered the unquestioned frontrunner and likely nominee throughout the process, but they put far too much stock into measures that only had limited predictive value based on previous elections, such as endorsements and what party insiders think. Doubting Trump's candidacy back in August was totally understandable, but I think as they continued to doubt it throughout the rest of 2015 and even into the new year, they were not making a statistical error, but a human one that was based more on "gut feelings" that the party would unite under an anti-Trump banner, rather than the hard numbers which showed his support being steady and consistent. 538 itself has more or less acknowledged this with multiple mea culpa articles.

It might also be interesting to look at exactly what the result of polling and prognostication was on Trump's support. I think many Republicans realized they looked like wishy-washy bandwagon jumpers in 2012 when they jumped ship for every new fad candidate, especially when they ended up nominating a robotic loser because "that's what the party wants". I think many of Trump's supporters were galvanized by predictions he would implode, which led to the "it doesn't matter what he says his support keeps going up" effect. The rioters in the Republican party wanted the media and data journalists to be dead wrong for once, and that kind of emotional impulse did have an impact. Trump was eventually able to get more and more people because a lot of partisan hacks and Team R cheerleaders hated the idea of a contested convention, as well as the media who was relishing the opportunity for it. Hentropy (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Whenever they say it's arson in Texas (West TX explosion), I trust them.

The authorities would never get that wrong, especially when a defense attorney does tests of his own and is confident of his client's guilt. (Referring to Cameron Todd Willingham case in Corscicana). And yes I'm being sarcastic as fuck. Objective (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

One case from 1991 seems suspect so of course that means everything in every other arson case is suspect. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Fireside Chat about The War

No-one mind my little war report here, feel free to comment if you want. By 'The War', I'm referring to the one going on in Mesopotamia right now. ISIS has lost some villages in the northwest of Syria to rebel groups backed by the United States. ISIS is also fighting some intense battles with both the Syrian Arab Army (at the Sha'er Gas Fields west of Palmyra) and the Kurd-led Syrian Democratic Forces (along the Khabur river in Syria). They're also engaged with the Iraqi Army north of Ramadi and along the Tigris river south of Mosul. Finally, they are fiercely fighting the Syrian Army at the besieged city of Dier Ezzur, where they have lost many field commanders. All in all, I estimate that ISIS is sustaining losses of 100 fighters per day. This is not sustainable for a force their size (50-75,000), so expect to see major battlefield losses for them on all fronts.

The Syrian Army and the rebels are mostly at a truce in all areas except southwest of Aleppo (at a town called Khan Tuman) and North of Homs, at a town called Zarah. In the later, dozens of Shia civilians were killed by al-Qaeda and allies a few days ago. The Syrian Army is currently fighting al-Qaeda in the village. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we dare to hope? Is the DAESH on it's way to it's well-deserved end?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 00:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It's doubtful that ISIS will disappear. They will most likely change from nation building back to insurgency. It is doubtful that Iraq will be able to take back the Anbar or that Syria will be able to take back the territory around the Tigris and Euphrates. Mosul will most likely lay in ruins when it is finally retaken. It is likely that the Kurds will try to fight the Iran-backed, Shia militias and Iraq military while the Sunnis who helped will fracture. The Kurds in Syria will likely be more preoccupied with Turkey's reignition of its civil war with the PKK; this will cause the US to question its support for the Kurds. I see two ways ISIS could grow:
Since ISIS has lost a significant amount of territory ISIS will attempt to gain further funding elsewhere. This will most likely come from the opium trade in Afghanistan. Depending on how well the Spring offensive goes, ISIS could seize a fairly large amount of recruits and opium farms. This could breathe new life into their group and help them spread into Central Asian countries like Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang (the Chinese province made up of Uyghurs), and Pakistan. Turkmenistan has a lot of Shia and is controlled by a despot so they may be able to ignite rebellion among the Sunni there. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan would most likely exist and resist even if ISIS makes major gains in its territory but it would be interesting to see how the Haqqani Network would react to ISIS's presence. It is doubtful, though, that ISIS would have the same amount of growth as it had in Syria and Iraq.
ISIS will need to expand territory and recruit more fighters. They are already in Libya and since Tunisia has a high amount of youth unemployment they could exploit them. They may also be able to convince more Algerians and Malians to fight for them since Al Qaeda isn't as centralised as it once was. The other option would be to try and grow in Yemen. The US and Saudi coalition have beaten back Al Qaeda there; the Saudi's blockade there has created a humanitarian crisis as well as religious hatred among the Sunnis and Shia; the government of Yemen is also quite corrupt. ISIS may be able to exploit the Sunnis there like they did in Syria. This could help them increase their influence in Saudi Arabia and lead to further violence against Shia in Saudi Arabia. If the US gets involved in the possible fighting in Saudi Arabia they will most likely deploy troops, at least in the form of special forces. Such an action could cause certain leaders within Al Qaeda to reluctantly ally with ISIS in order to drive the Great Satan out of the Holy Land.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 04:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

And now we find out that ISIS just destroyed several wells at the Sha'er Gas Field by blowing them up, causing a magnitude 4 earthquake. Hell. I'd like to wait for more information though. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Vote broken?

Just for the sake of information, I was able to vote a news twice, seems that after some time the "vote cast" just get erased from server so news that are listed for much extra time can be voted more than once. (Maybe the old vote cast was "forgetted" so that I didn't changed twice the vote? Syllabus (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Were you logged in? If not, same IP or different IP? Voting here is trivial to rig - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Logged in from same PC and casted 2nd vote within 2 days. (probably that's due to the fact I have dynamic IP (my IP change continuosly). Syllabus (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED!!! Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. Moderator (talk/stalk) 13:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't put too much weight on votes unless it's a very significant number or direction. In low-number votes, it doesn't take too many people to tilt the balance towards positivity or negativity. (See: the news piece about the Lange harassment in WIGO: Elections, which somehow is at "-3" as of posting.) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Oklahoma Abortion Ban

Oklahoma's legislature has passed a bill, without any discussion or debate, that makes abortion a felony crime, punishable by 1 to 3 years in jail. Obviously, the bill is unconstitutional due to Roe v. Wade, but the fact that it passed sends America a message that Oklahoma is backwards. If I were president, I would threaten to sue Oklahoma and remove all its federal funding until it complies with the federal law regarding abortion. I'd turn it into a political battle to emphasize liberalism. It's absolutely ridiculous that they did this, and it gives me a bad impression of the people of Oklahoma (not that I had a good impression in the first place).Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It's so unbelievable, that people have to deal with this kinda shit in the 21th century in a First World Country. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
This is what is happening while American progressives bicker and fling shit about primary rules and trashing "neoliberals" for being "just like Republicans." Hentropy (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Top judges rule identities of 'PJS' and 'YMA' must remain secret

Fuck the rights of the press in a democracy. If it means my wife can't sing along to her Elton John CDs in the car any more, I'm all for it. London Grump (talk)

i am shocked and appalled at your flippancy. Tbe only thing safeguarding democracy is a free press telling us just what some celebs are doing with their genitals. This is why the terrorists are winning AMassiveGay (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
never again will this country witness quality journalism that brought us a picture of chris bryant in his pants or told the world that the bloke who plays phil mitchell went dogging. We are literally in north korea AMassiveGay (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
It now went to the net. Blogs and stuff. You just have to pick yout the diamonds from the shitpile.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 13:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
is that why our grandfathers gave their lives on the beaches of normandy? Would the nazis have fallen if the greatest generation had not shown us hitler only had one ball? Their sacrifice allowed us to know our prime minister once had his cock in a dead pig. Tyrants quaked. Now lights go out in this land, our leaders members shrouded in darkness. I weep that we must look beyond our shores for the hope that one day, the heros of the free press will shine its bright light of truth and justice in this land and we can once again stand proudly exposed for the world to see. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The whole thing annoys the hell out of me not for the freedom of the press angle, but because Britain has a privacy law created in a semi-random, ad hoc fashion by judges, because politicians are too scared of the press to propose an actual statutory privacy law that sets down in black and white what is and isn't legitimate. Tories always whine about activist judges and human rights law, but the existing privacy law was 100% created by judges based on the European convention of human rights, without parliament or anyone else stepping back and considering how freedoms should be balanced, or what the public needs to know, or what the wider effects are, etc. Politicians don't want to restrict the press, partly because it looks bad to be legislating against the press and could lead to embarrassing human rights-related court cases, but mainly because they don't want to offend media barons. And there was a total failure on the issue from the Leveson Inquiry, which was a complete waste of time except as a public hand-wringing exercise (press self-regulation is still a mess, libel law is still a mess, law about journalists bribing public officials is still a mess). Annquin (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The "blame the EU / ECHR" meme is beyond cliche now. If it were true, why are libel and privacy laws so different across Europe? (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
as a sign of solidarity with the noble sun newspaper, i will post photos of my bits and details of where ive been putting them since i became old enough to put them places. While i may disagree with what you say, i will defend to the death your right to see my penis. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
all that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. So sign my petition. Democracy in action, or i have to much time on my hands AMassiveGay (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

So I am guessing using the Telegraph as a source is a bad idea.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 18:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Even the Telegraph today blamed the Human Rights Act, not the EU or ECHR. London Grump (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Not as bad as using the Sun, at least. (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I could always switch the link with the BBC article on this but I thought they were being too neutral on this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 18:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Throwing chairs

Lol. Good to know it was just death threats and misogyny from the Bernie fans, then. <_< Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø Moderator (talk/stalk) 16:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point Bernie fans are obsessing infinitely more than Clinton supporters about airborne chairs. The fracas at the Nevada convention had much more to do with Bernie delegates not knowing the rules and then demanding they be changed specially for them, and complaining about how "fair" and "democratic" the system was at a wildly undemocratic and unfair caucus system that screws over working people. Hentropy (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
My view of people's responses is that both sides reacted to this bout of excessive antagonism with another bout of excessive antagonism and so on ad nauseum, resulting in a metastasis of excessive antagonism on various different meta-levels. (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Eh, pretty much. I trust RobS that this behavior is common at caucuses.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 18:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The jaywalking was the worst offence of all, though. (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a real point to this thing: it doesn't matter. If Trump supporters get all violent, I don't CARE. What matters is the policy positions of the candidates. Why do you think a hundred people at a Sanders rally means Sanders is bad? 'Cause that's what it sounds like you're saying. I don't think the behavior of one's supporters matter that much when making a decision of who to support. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You accuse many Sanders supporters of being misogynists and threatening. Will you admit that many Hillary supporters in 2008 were racist (3 AM) and threatening (he might get assassinated)? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC) And a link for posterity: no Sanders people were throwing chairs. Just a fact-check. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian really are horrible con artists who deserve all their scorn! Be angry! Give it a rest already. Whether or not a chair literally left the ground or not is missing the point. Bernie supporter harassment and misogyny is fairly well documented and has been around for months, not to steal Mona's catchphrase, but dragging up PUMAs from 8 years ago is pure whataboutery. No, Bernie can't necessarily control it, but his non-apologies and stoking anger about "rigged systems" isn't making things better, either. He has no chance to win this election fairly and he should either turn his fire on Trump or get out of the race. Hentropy (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, Sanders has gotten his foot in the door in order to get what he wants so we will have to watch where he goes now. There is nothing wrong with him criticising Clinton, the DNC, or the election because unless people already believe there is a problem they won't act on his accusations; it is not like Ron Paul damaged the McCain or Romney. I, personally, mentioned PUMAs because they were an organized group against Obama and that vile shit isn't unique to any candidate when they run for office; unfortunately, the internet has made it easier to harass people. Yesterday, you posted that Quartz link about how certain people have created an atmosphere that incites people to harass others; one example that article brought up was that Matt Taibbi complained about an article on "Bernie-Bros" and the author was harassed afterwards but I don't see how that is his fault. When O'Reilly called Dr. Tiller a "baby killer" I doubt he ever wanted him to die even though he set up an atmosphere of hate.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 23:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hentropy

I think you misunderstand the point of supporting Bernie Sanders. Even if he can't win (which is actually not yet the case), supporting him is making a statement to the Democratic establishment and the ruling class of this country. We have 22% of the entire voting populace on our side. That's a huge block that can't be ignored by anyone but the most out-of-touch establishment figures. Bernie does not need to apologize for anything. He hasn't done anything warranting an apology. It's not like Trump, where he actually encourage violent behavior on multiple occasions. Also, do you think the system isn't "rigged"? Do you think superdelegates are a perfectly acceptable think that respects the democratic will of the people? Also, he is not obligated to attack Trump, yet he has attacked Trump dozens of times throughout his campaign, every other speech. If Hillary loses the election, it's your fault, not mine. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The allegation that the election is "rigged" suggests that it would be impossible for Bernie Sanders to win no matter what he did, like this is China. It's like the word "censor". You're censoring my opinion! There's a large list of uses for the word "censor" that are all technically correct, but the word carries a certain bombastic weight to it. Censorship is the absolute worst! Are the primary campaigns tweaked in ways to push it towards an establishment candidate? Sure. But Bernie Sanders is not losing because the system is "rigged", or because DWS is supporting Clinton, or any other bullshit reasons. He's losing because he failed to win over black people in the south. He got less votes. Despite some occasional voting irregularities which always happen, every win by both Clinton and Sanders has been free and fair. The superdelegates, despite all the moaning about them, have been irrelevant. Get rid of them, convert them to pledged delegates, do anything short of giving them all to Sanders for no reason, he still loses. The fact is, Sanders supporters don't seem to give one iota of a shit about the three million more people who voted for Clinton, they only care about themselves, frustrated and disheartened that their "revolution" is coming to an end. He could have made more substantive points about how the DNC and primary process can be reformed, all while doing what every other losing candidate has done, acknowledge the will of the voters and step aside. Instead he does what other demagogues do, and stokes passions by using hyperbolic loaded language, conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them, and creating a nice little information bubble where he still has a chance, but his supporters just have to yell and scream and BELIEVE harder and he can win. It's a joke, and it's finally looking more like the joke it is. If Hillary loses in November, it will be because of Hillary, not either one of us. I don't blame people for voting their conscience with a third party, especially if they don't live in a swing state. If Bernie fans truly think that a Trump Presidency is acceptable (because they have nothing to lose, being white and college-educated) just to stick it to the DNC for having the same rules they've had for 30 years, then that is their prerogative. I'll be able to move to Japan and watch from afar (that if Trump doesn't decide to nuke Japan again for some reason), but a lot of people won't and those are the ones I feel sorry for, not myself, not you, not Bernie, not Hillary, but the most vulnerable who will be subject to a country run like Oklahoma is being run now. Hentropy (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean to continue this but I agree with you entirely. This is obviously over. The best thing I can hope for is that the grassroots continue beyond this election. I don't blame progressive Democrats for endorsing Hillary (not that I think that mattered much) but I will be upset if she wins and they allow her to implement right wing policies. Even though I will not be voting for Clinton because of her war hawking, I will likely vote for Baron Hill who is a conservative Dem and supported Iraq. I think that is the one thing everyone has to agree on here is that the legislature has to flip in order to prevent Trump, who I see as inevitable, for gaining any of his insane policies for the next four years, and who knows maybe we can force him to sign actual reforms. Ultimately, I know that my state will not change unless the Democrats win here so I can't punish the DNC for being bias. I apologise if I have ever antagonised you btw.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 04:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the use of the word 'rigged' was to exaggerate and further emphasize important irregularities that occured. Coin tosses literally decided the Iowa caucus; that's ridiculous and should be changed. Hillary won Iowa. 70% of polling places were shut down in Arizona between 2012 and 2016 due to 'budget cuts'. Hillary won Arizona. 120,000 voters in New York were purged from the voter rolls before the primary. Entire goddamn city blocks fell off the rolls, including 60,000 Democrats in Brooklyn, the neighborhood where Bernie Sanders was born! My fucking God! And guess what? Hillary won New York. And now, in Nevada, Sanders delegates were expelled for being 'unqualified', where very few Clinton delegates were. This all reeks of an election that has been decided beforehand by party members and not by the voters of this country. I call for all Democratic primaries to be opened up to independent voters, a rule codified for one polling station for every 5,000 people, and for caucuses to be replaced with primaries. This will ensure open and fairer elections in the future. Do you disagree with any of my points or proposals, Hentropy?

You suggesting that because Hillary "won" all those states, there's a vast conspiracy. The biggest egregious problem with Iowa was not the coin flips, the coin flips only happened because it was an undemocratic CAUCUS. And yet Sanders fans never complain about grossly undemocratic caucuses that disenfranchise the working class- because Bernie WINS caucuses. And by "winning" Iowa, Clinton netted a grand total of... wait for it... drumroll... TWO DELEGATES. If the Democrats are rigging this shit, then just let Trump have it because they're fucking terrible at it. Arizona? States control state election procedures, and Arizona's Republican nutjob governor made the decision to close polling places, something both campaigns and DNC are suing Arizona over. Maybe Jan Brewer and the Arizona state legislature is on Clinton's payroll? THE CONSPIRACY KNOWS NO BOUNDS. Especially when you consider many of the closed polling places were in Hillary-voting urban areas. New York? Again, states/counties are in charge of voter rolls, but Brooklyn as a whole was won by Clinton 60/40. There's no evidence that the screwup was caused by anything more than incompetence, and even if all 60k votes went Sanders, it would have made no difference. Nevada? Another grossly undemocratic caucus state that disenfranchises working people that Sanders fans never think to criticize because he does well in them. Anyway, Hillary won Nevada by 6 points, Bernie rigged the system in his favor by gaming the undemocratic county conventions so that he "won" Nevada while losing the vote. There does need to be reform in the primaries, but I think they should start by abolishing the caucuses, creating a national primary election day in May so that everyone's votes count equally, and it should ideally be a preferential ballot of some sort so there can be automatic runoffs to choose the candidate with the biggest consensus. And surprise surprise, I also think the general election should work the same way. Hentropy (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, a question to Owlman: what state do you live in? If it's a swing state, my opinion on who you should vote for may be different from what it is right now,which is that you should not vote for Hillary. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I probably not vote for a prez this year. Pb, that is the nature of a primary election. These voting irregularities are terrible but they didn't decide the elections in those states. He won Rhode Island even though 60% of the polling places were closed; she won the South and various parts of New England like Pennsylvania w/o voting irregularities. Money was the biggest factor here, not some centralised conspiracy. Even if Hillary is indicted the Dems will likely run Joe Biden like they did with Humphrey after Bobby Kennedy died.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 05:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Assuming what you say is true, then count me as a Hobbesian pessimist and cynic. On many important matters, most people are weak and stupid, unwilling to see the truth and choose the right path. Americans are more stupid than Europeans on average when it comes to religion and politics, and it's enough to make me want to live somewhere else for a while. These elections may ultimately influence my overall view on life, society, and human nature. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, ignorance in democracy is a terrible thing but that is because the government in the US has become so massive that no one understands it. All you have to do is look at how much money we are missing from all the loopholes and unaccountable agencies. Politicians are callous to us and so the public is callous back. So I suggest that you get off your ass and help inform people. Your radical so why not help salt for a union like the IWW. You could work for "Rock the Vote" or intern for some left wing think tank or news source. You could help the state Democratic parties win or you could help the Greens drive off the wackos. Hell, you could try to get your local legislature to hold a mock session so people can learn but laying down and dying will kill any movement we have until shit hits the fan and I don't want anything authoritarian than Trump.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 05:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
U.S. Federal Spending.png
I suppose it depends on the exact meaning of "loopholes and unaccountable agencies", but the vast majority of the U.S. federal budget goes to three places: the military, Social Security, and healthcare. --Ymir (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This is what I was already planning on doing, Owlman. You read my mind. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Not to defend "family values"

But, county leader of a political party, except in extraordinarily populous counties, is not a particularly important position and often is given to any loyalist who actually has time to take care of paperwork. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools