RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive21

Removed the Christmas Goat
Given that the live feed shows the goat is still intact, I removed the article about the goat by using. Barring a rewrite or a likely awesome arson, of which I am too tired to do the former and too far away to do the latter, I hid the article. 06:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I put it back with what I hope is better phrasing. (And I think I'll add the live feed.) --Gulik (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Bob Jones University
Why put the emphasis on "they"? Its not as if the investigative agency was supposed to be on their side really.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 74.108.228.157 / talk / contribs 19:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate
Got onto BBC Radio 4's flagship news programme Today here in the UK yesterday as well. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ooh crikey. Today or PM? Summary? - David Gerard (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * MY message to GamerGate STOP MAKING THE GAMING COMMUNITY LOOK BAD. YOU ALL SUCK GO DIE IN A FUUUUCKING WHOLE "from"--N7.Geth (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You just resurrected a really old thread with a lot of anger. I don't mind being angry at idiots, but shouldn't anger be at least a little temporally focused?  Ikanreed (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Reduction in the quality of chemotherapy
So, alt-med not only gives false hope, but it does direct harm to cancer treatment? I think we have a (forget this. take the link yourself Category:Cancer_woo|whole category to update). Ikanreed (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that many chemotherapy drugs are anti-vitamins; which is one of the reasons they have drastic side effects. I remember reading that feeding B vitamins was a disaster for victims of leukemia, and this is how the idea of chemotherapy arose. Since alternative medicine sets great store in vitamins and anti-oxidants, it isn't surprising that it works at cross purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 17:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Fetal Personhood
How on earth is drinking a ton of booze during pregnancy and giving your child brain damage not considered a crime in any way? If someone were to, say, get drunk and hit their child, it would be child abuse.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because a fetus isn't a person. I think I summed that up rather nicely. AyzmoCheers 21:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that fetus is a person now, and she has brain damage. Yay?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether mothers who drink during their pregnancy should be held liable for harming their child. The issue is that if the court ruled in favor of the prosecution in this specific case, then they would have set as precedent the idea that fetuses should be considered to have the same rights as people, which would effectively ban abortion in the UK.  Frederick ♠♣♥♦ 04:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It probably isn't a good idea in any case to give pregnant women who drink an incentive to reject medical care when giving birth. When you turn a medical diagnosis into evidence of a crime, that's what you do.  People everywhere need to get over this idea that any time something undesirable happens, someone should be punished. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 20:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't about someone getting punished for doing something bad, though. It was about the poor girl that has to live with brain damage being made eligible or ineligible for receiving financial support through the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Apparently the victim has to be a person at the moment the heinous act is committed for it to be considered a crime, so I guess this means you can't commit any crimes when you're hurting a non-human animal either. *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it means that you can't use a law designed to protect persons to prosecute someone hurting a non-human animal. Courts base their decisions on the law-as-written, not the law-as-somenone-wishes-it-to-be. --ZooGuard (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether it was a person or not at the time the mother harmed it: it ended up as a person who was severely harmed. So the mother harmed her child, and that's a crime. Plain and simple. Crimes shouldn't be ignored just because prosecuting them gets even remotely close to some political agenda.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there an article on "There should be a law"? If there isn't, someone should write it.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Having a disabled child isn't a crime. There are many situations where mothers are at high risk of having a disabled baby, due to lifestyle (as in this case), maternal age, hereditary conditions or other factors, and choose to conceive &/or carry the pregnancy to term.  If we make it a crime for an alcoholic woman to have a child, would we also make it a crime for a middle-aged woman to have a child?  21:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hells yeah, let's jump right into this cesspit of an idea with both feet. Sickle cell, Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis - if you have the genes and you carry the fetus to term, you're a criminal. Insist on a homebirth or a VBAC and get a shitty outcome? Refuse a C-section in the first place and have a kid with CP? Jail. Poor materal diet leads to neural tube defect, cleft palate, or heart disease? Prenatal vitamins: ITS THE LAW. Not to mention those selfish bitches on antiseizure meds or SSRIs, only thinking of their selfs and not thier babbies. Directly harmed by their mothers, who should only have the absolute best interests of their potential unborn children at heart instead of themselves. Goddammit.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it a bad thing to discourage behaviour that can damage the fetus during pregnancy when the mother has the intent to carry the pregnancy to term? It's not necessarily a horrible thing to lead a disabled existence, and carrying a pregnancy to term when the child is known or likely to be disabled shouldn't be a crime, but is it wrong to disallow mothers the option of actively increasing the likelihood of their yet-to-be-born children to be born disabled to the point where they're almost certainly dooming their offspring to this fate? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it a bad thing to discourage behaviour that can damage the fetus during pregnancy? No.  Is it wrong to disallow mothers the option of actively increasing the likelihood of their yet-to-be-born children to be born disabled?  Yes.  There's a lot of ground between "discourage" & "disallow".  21:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When something is disallowed by the law, the ramifications are mostly just that the action is discouraged through the threat of punishments and that a foundation is solidified for public disapproval of the action. Would it be so horrible if the justice system discouraged fetus-damaging behaviour through the threat of a financial punishment? Surely if anyone besides the mother assaulted the fetus it would be considered a crime, so why not hold a mother accountable when she negligently or knowingly harms the fetus inside of her (outside the context of an abortion)? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Whole lot of fallacies here. Let's go through them:
 * When something is disallowed by the law, the ramifications are mostly just that the action is discouraged...
 * Well, no; the law does actually have to be enforced & you've already suggested that's what you want. The 'deterrent' principle of punishment, something perennially used to prop up the death penalty, is pretty dubious & there's not much evidence it really works that way.
 * the action is discouraged through the threat of punishments and that a foundation is solidified for public disapproval of the action.
 * Isn't there already public disapproval of drinking heavily during pregnancy? Isn't having a disabled child when it's preventable already a deterrent?  Do you really think somebody who is unconcerned about these things will be influenced by the existence of fetal personhood laws?
 * Surely if anyone besides the mother assaulted the fetus it would be considered a crime...
 * Yes, it would be a crime against the mother since it would be an assault on her body. In jurisdictions that already have fetal personhood laws, it may be considered a double assault with the fetus as an additional victim.
 * so why not hold a mother accountable when she negligently or knowingly harms the fetus inside of her (outside the context of an abortion)?
 * Why the distinction? If you attribute to the fetus a right not to be harmed, how can this not extend to a right not to be killed?  I don't know of anywhere with laws like this (allowing abortion but forbidding other fetus-harming behaviours during pregnancy) or how such a distinction could be defensible, either legally or morally.  22:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Whole lot of fallacies"? Disagreeing with some of my claims doesn't mean that I stated fallacious things. "The 'deterrent' principle of punishment, something perennially used to prop up the death penalty, is pretty dubious" Isn't one of the main goals of making a certain act illegal to reduce the occurrence of that act? The 'capitalness' of capital punishment may fail to deter most criminals in major ways, but I imagine there's at least some difference compared to a complete lack of punishments for heinous crimes. "Isn't having a disabled child when it's preventable already a deterrent?" There are in fact some people who would prefer children that are disabled in a certain way; people with Münchausen by proxy for example, or a couple that shares a certain disability and wants their child to be 'like them'. "Yes, it would be a crime against the mother since it would be an assault on her body. In jurisdictions that already have fetal personhood laws, it may be considered a double assault with the fetus as an additional victim." Obviously in many cases where the fetus is assaulted, the mother would be assaulted as well, but the fetus isn't actually inherently part of her body. A tapeworm wouldn't be considered part of someone's body because it's inside of them either. I'm talking about damage being done to the fetus alone. If the mother intends to give birth to and raise her child, surely it'd be immoral if someone harmed her baby, in utero or ex utero, personhood or no personhood. "Why the distinction?  If you attribute to the fetus a right not to be harmed, how can this not extend to a right not to be killed?" Why? Because I'm not arguing for fetal personhood here. The fetus's right not to be harmed is dependent on whether or not it survives to be an actual person someday. If it's harmed but survives, it can grow up to be a person that suffers daily because of the consequences of the damage inflicted on them prenatally. If it dies, accidentally or intentionally, the result is obviously that it never gets to develop into a victimized person. "I don't know of anywhere with laws like this (allowing abortion but forbidding other fetus-harming behaviours during pregnancy)" Many US states have laws matching your description. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it doesn't matter if the harm was intentional or an accident? EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course that matters. Where did I give the impression that it wouldn't? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A couple of things. The last paragraph gives the impression (such as specifying accidentally or intentionally), and that while claims of mothers being prosecuted for accidents are supposedly extreme cases no desire to change/amend the law to stop it seems to be addressed.  In later entries those abuses are just blamed on overzealous authorities (briefly abusive authorities and pro-(prenatal)-life fanatics) that still have the right to do so based on the language of the law.  With requests that examples of how it is working right being ignored.  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That last paragraph refers to the fetus quite logically losing the rights based on its assumed future personhood upon its death, however that death may come about. It quite clearly wasn't referring to the specific fetal-harm-doing that I'm suggesting of making unlawful. And indeed, I haven't yet responded to your post at the bottom of the section that focuses on the situation in the US, a focus which wasn't explicitly present in Weaseloid's post, the post that I was just now replying to. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not really very clear what criteria of harm you are trying to argue. I like using the US as an example because there is a decent sample size of where it has been applied (~200 cases), a good record of why it is being used, and what the consiquences have been.  Also you have not given an alternative venue to use as an example except that it is not what anyone has said so far.  You have also not stated what is wrong with the laws in the US vs elsewhere except the over-zealous enforcement of it...which you dodged again when I asked above.
 * This might be better to be in a debate so you can cleary define what you want, what you mean, and the desired intention. All you seem to be doing is going off in 10 different directions when people ask for clarification.  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "I'm talking about damage being done to the fetus alone." Give an example.
 * "The fetus's right not to be harmed is dependent on whether or not it survives to be an actual person someday." How can an entity's rights in the present be determined by what happens to it in the future? Your argument would make a woman who drinks heavily during pregnancy a criminal if it causes fetal alcohol syndrome but blameless if it induces a miscarriage.  18:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant by that first sentence was "I'd like you to consider the fetus separately from the mother and consider the possibility of damage being done to the fetus alone" to be clear on that. As for actual examples, I think various methods of abortion clearly demonstrate that it's possible to damage the fetus without harming the mother.
 * And yes, that would indeed be a perhaps counter-intuitive result of this argument. But remember, we're working on the assumption that abortion, i.e. ending a pregnancy and at the same time killing the fetus with the mother's consent, is morally permissible. This automatically means that any inherent or prospective rights the fetus may have are secondary to the mother's right to have an abortion. And I don't see why a mother can't be allowed to end her own pregnancy if she can do so safely. Admittedly, drinking lots of alcohol isn't exactly a preferable method for executing an abortion. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So your example of a crime against a fetus which doesn't harm the mother is an abortion. And yet you claim to be working on the assumption that abortion is morally permissable?
 * I agree with you that "any inherent or prospective rights the fetus may have are secondary to the mother's right to have an abortion". But I would go further and suggest that "any inherent or prospective rights the fetus may have are secondary to the mother's rights". Full stop.  Either she has full sovereignty over her own body (as the pro-choice movement argues) or the fetus has a stronger right to her body than she does (as the pro-life movement argues).  Trying to combine both positions in a strange kind of hierarchy of rights as you're doing just makes for a lot of strange loopholes & contradictions.  The mother has a right to abort the pregnancy but not to drink (unless she drinks enough to abort the pregnancy).  The fetus has a right to be able-bodied but not a right to life.   20:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Come now, don't go the simplistic either one extreme, or the polar opposite route. If the fetus has any rights at all, even merely prospective ones that the mother can take away if she wants to, as I'm positing in this case, then there has to be a point where the fetus's right to not unnecessarily suffer irrepairable damage overrules some of the mother's very minor rights. Exactly which rights are to be considered minor enough to be overruled can be a matter of contention, of course, but to deny that any alternatives besides the two extremes might exist because one such alternative has counter-intuitive ramifications is just fallacious. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Weaseloid has a point. Your theory is that it should illegal to harm a fetus unless you decide to end its life (abortion).  I don't know any situation where no harm is allowed unless it involves ending a life.  Except maybe industrial livestock operations, which I am not saying is correct just it's the only example that seems to be analogus, but seems pretty disrespectful to the idea of human life beginning at conception.  Also from above: And indeed, I haven't yet responded to your post at the bottom of the section that focuses on the situation in the US can I have an idea when?  Just wondering since it's a busy time for many people.  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing up animals. Animals often get summarily euthanized/slaughtered/destroyed without any concern for a supposed "right to life" they might have. Some reasons for such killings (e.g. to free the animal from continued suffering, to protect society from dangerous animals, to protect the ecosystem) are more moral than others (e.g. because their presence annoys some people, so we can eat them, for entertainment). Yet society does provide laws that protect animals from cruel treatment. If animals can have rights without being acknowledged as having a right to life, why is it so hard (for some) to imagine that the same might apply to human beings that lack sentience/personhood? And to be clear, the only right I've so far been arguing for is the right of a person to not be burdened with a permanently damaged body through the (non-accidental) actions of another. This right entails that the person's body should be treated respectfully not only when one can speak of personhood, but also before the body in question is identified as belonging to a full-fledged person.
 * As for replying to your other posts, I'll try to write a comprehensive response to the things I haven't addressed yet a bit later. Though it might be helpful if you explain what "10 different directions" I've allegedly gone off into, because I think I've been arguing for the same thing quite consistently. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point in inflicting punishment, jail time or financial, on new mothers. | Mothers have also been prosecuted and jailed for opting not to follow doctor’s orders (bed rest/C-sections), forced to have medical procedures, charged with murder for miscarriages, charged for abuse after falling down, and having a detectible amount of cigarette smoke/alcohol/pot. Even for drug users that have gotten pregnent it gives the grim options of seeking help (and being jailed for a felony), stop using (with a much higher chance of fatal complications to one or both), or keep using and pray you aren't tested.  The ideal might seem like it is in the best interests of kids...while the use of it so far has been devastating to families.  It's a completely fucked up concept for people who are pro-family.  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the examples you cite are certainly an undesirable extreme, but that doesn't mean that a complete lack of punishments for fetal abuse is the answer. There are other options besides "complete denial of mothers' rights" and "legalization of all forms of fetal abuse". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's called "people who know fuck-all about the real world think it sounds like a good idea, even when it works out as really horrible whenever it's tried." That is, it sounds like a false dilemma, but it keeps ending up as an actual one - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you confine the real world to the USA, sure. Not all nations in the world are rampant with abusive authorities and pro-(prenatal)-life fanatics, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The single worst first world nation for mother choice is right next door to you guys, though. Ikanreed (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not British, and I wasn't saying that these problems only exist in the USA, but it seemed like Gerard was arguing that laws against fetal abuse are inherently wrong because they've repeatedly led to considerable human rights abuses while ignoring the relevance of regional prevalence of abusive authorities and pro-life fanatics in said human rights abuses. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, okay. Both the thing you said, and the thing I said can be true at the same time.  I phrased it as a disagreement, and I need not have.  Ikanreed (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC) Laws that undermine a person's ownership of her own body because of the alleged rights of her unborn child/fetus are already authoritarian and pro-life in nature. & There's a good case for seeing such laws as a human rights abuse in principle, regardless of what abuses do or don't result from their enforcement.  21:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your examples of such laws working out the way you claim they could, because all we have is examples of such laws working out the way they actually do - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Same here. The examples I provided are how it is being used for the ~200 cases it has been applied in the US.  Also, even if they are extreme cases...those actions are still being done and the law hasn't been changed to prevent that.  Even in the new laws for fetal personhood that have been introduced.  It sounds like that is how the law is intended to operate.  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Phoenix shooting
The police officers shouldn't be shooting an unarmed man, but there has been some confusion on his possessions, which could've been the polices' (weak) reasons for the shooting. But anyway, if the Washington Post is correct, the story is sketchy. Brisbon has drugs according to the police, fast food according to the observers. Either way, Brisbon shouldn't have been shot, but I'm wondering if the drugs thing is a smear to the victim. So, my revert was on my confusion on this whole thing. :( LEFTY  GREEN  MARIO 07:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He had marijuana. However, it was medical marijuana and he had a medical marijuana card, facts that have been conveniently left out of most of the stories. I've yet to see anything about whether or not the gun in the car was legally registered to him or not(not sure how long that takes). Interesting how they're working hard to smear him already. AyzmoCheers 17:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't like Dawkins much anymore
But in a world where talk show hosts ask what evolution has to say about gay marriage, he can come off as comparatively enlightened. I disagree with his assertion that they should study Darwinism to understand the problem with it, though. People should maybe study Hobbes, instead. Not enough people are familiar with The Leviathan. Ikanreed (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My thought on it was that conservatives are going to run around with that quote about going against Darwin as claiming Dawkins is no longer a "Darwinist"(buzz word for evolution). I can just see it on CP now. AyzmoCheers 21:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * His actual opinion seems to be very close to my own. Behaviors we are primed for by evolution present problems.  This is especially a problem if you want a society in which sex role expectations and suspicion of outsiders are minimized.  It probably is a good idea to work towards such a society.  Those who do need to know what they're up against; and too often, but unwisely, prefer to place faith in hypotheses in which evolutionary influence on human behavior is minimized. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 06:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I still quite like him. He can be a bit hot-headed and inflammatory at times, but he's a sound intellectual and unquestionably on "our side". Some of the sexism stuff got blown a little out of proportion, and I think it was more pride and defensiveness on his part than actual bigotry. As for the accusations of islamophobia, I frankly agree with most of what he's said.(Agrajag (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Oh, it's totally fair to treat him as a fallible human being with useful insight sometimes. That's really the most anyone can really ever be, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of making poorly thought out sarcastic attacks on people who've hurt no one.  "Dear Muslima" was a pretty awful thing to do, and he's never apologized for it.  Ikanreed (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He has apologised for "Dear Muslima" 80.254.147.148 (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How would Hobbes be any better? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The beginning of Leviathan talks about how shitty the "natural state" is as far as governance goes. It's a better take-down of social Darwinism as an idea than any book about evolution.  Hobbes makes the quite reasonable assertion through the book that structuring a society to avoid those problems is a good thing.  Any argument to how nature is with regards to how society should be is quite handily deconstructed through his arguments.   That doesn't mean I endorse everything the book stands for: democracy works better than tyranny, e.g. Ikanreed (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My recollection (it's been ages) is that Hobbes argues that fear of violent death is what drives people to form political societies for mutual security. Hobbes's true opposite is Rousseau, who thinks that people are naturally virtuous and only become violent by bad upbringing.  Evolution dissents from both of these positions.  It suggests that there's never been such a thing as a Hobbesian state of nature since the emergence of the apes.  Against Rousseau, it points out that much human behavior is innate, including the capacity for lies and violence. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 23:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hobbes' philosophy predates natural selection as a science. We can forgive him a few simplifications.  Ikanreed (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @SOT: That is completely true, and why state of nature arguments are bullshit. There never was a state of nature. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Boo! Human nature is a real thing, even if it isn't simple and deterministic like Hobbes implied.  Ikanreed (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Human nature is not the same as the state of natura. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Hobbes's "state of nature" is a hypothetical state of universal warfare of "all va. all". Humans, and just about all of our closest primate relatives, have always banded together in social units whose purpose is mutual survival.  - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 19:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's relevant that, for all the annoyance his idiotic tweets cause the more enlightened variety of skeptic and atheist, Dawkins is still the Atheist as far as the religious are concerned; even quite moderate, mainstream and intellectual types like the liberal end of the Church of England. I hear fake and ridiculously out-of-context Dawkins quoting from these people lots and lots. He's still the big target to their thinking. (Basically 'cos they really don't have an answer to the fundamental claim of The God Delusion, that God as a coherent hypothesis is ridiculously unlikely. But YMMV of course, the logic-chopping a smart Christian can manage is truly stupendous.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I don't actively decry him either. Being a target for fundies with an axe to grind means that I don't need to be adding any fuel to the fire.   Ikanreed (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Calling theater chains "cowards" for pulling The Interview
... is easy to say when you didn't work at a movie theater the day after the Dark Knight Rises shooting. Do you really think artistic expression is more important than safety? Abed Nadir (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think people consider them cowards mostly because they "let the terrorists win". Of course, some people do consider freedom of expression more important than protecting people's lives, though I wouldn't count myself among those people. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Giving in to empty threats is a great way to promote injustice. Hell, giving in to legitimate threats is too.  Policies against negotiating with terrorists don't come from nowhere.  I mean, this really is letting a dictator call the shots about their own image.  Ikanreed (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's understandable that theatres are worried about security issues and wouldn't want to show it. That isn't the problem, and I just updated the outdated WIGO. What is is that Sony just cancelled the entire release (no online version or DVD) which is not only "beyond the realm of stupid" but ensures that the film is eventually going to leak. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this thread so I didn't have to. It seems that when some internet troll gives someone death threats, it's a huge deal and that person should definitely cancel whatever they're doing (the Anita Sarkessian thing that happened a while back, for example). But of course when a hacker representing a hostile Nation State threatens to murder hundreds of people, you're suddenly a coward if you pull the movie.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While you're accurately describing a lot of hypocrites on the Internet, the chilling effect is concerning in both cases. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that the chilling effect is a serious problem and that we need to address this going forward. But I do think that in the short term at least, Sony did the right thing.  Abed Nadir (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If I were Sony, I'd release the film on Bittorrent, and figure out a way to make it plausibly seem either that the "Guardians of Peace" did it, or that some other warez group did it by hacking the GoP. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not be at all surprised if Sony were using it as an excuse to bury what looks like a truely abysmal film. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * even if the '9-11 style attack' is not credible, they did get hacked pretty badly (again, but thats a different story). Perhaps its a repeat of that they fear. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the nature & origin of the hacking & the threat, I doubt that Sony is taking this decision independently & without appropriate guidance from either whatever official agencies are involved in investigating the matter (FBI/CIA?) or from other experts on terrorism. Branding them as cowards seems rather shortsighted.  13:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Poor Sony, I do feel sorry for them. They are always so careful not to hack, threaten or censor others. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 94.1.178.240 / talk / contribs14:43, 19 December 2014‎

Violence against women and mass shootings
Is there an stronger correlation between abusing women and mass shooting than other behaviors caused by an abusive personality? If publicizing domestic abuse against women more often is a good thing, shouldn't publicizing all crimes help too?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) Don't know. (2) Possibly. Research it and find out. 22:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting. It does make a good case that a number of mass shooters have issues with women, but does point out all domestic abusers are not mass shooters.  It also seems to make a pretty good point that stalking/abusing women doesn't get a lot of attention in comparison.
 * I've been personally in the situation where some creepo fixated on a woman in my life where the authorities really didn't take it seriously till he tried to get into our apartment. Even though he had a long history (including violently assaulting two woman), extensive photographic evidence, and having him arrested/jailed several times for violating the temporary restraining order...they still got it largely expunged from his record about a year later.  We found out about this when a new victim reached out to us after he bashed in her window while she was on bed rest in her last trimester.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * People who hate everyone hate women? Ya know, this is on of those things that I would never have guessed at. In all seriousness, the thing about domestic abusers being more likely to commit other (less minor than mass shootings) crimes is interesting. Maybe there are certain sets of offenses that go together? Secondly, is it possible that many of these "creeps" are in need of serious mental assistance as opposed to contempt and a jail cell (though what passes for mental help in the US is often a prison cell anyway)? (Agrajag (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Well, they make the good point that it tends to come out that way at first. Like Psycho's tend to be incredibly abusive towards animals.  It would be good to see what other behaviors are correlated.
 * Prison is where you go if you have a mental illness that bothers others in the US. | Where if you are lucky you might get some medical treatment at all, | let alone help for mental problems.  I think the way the US treats many people with a mental illnesses is criminal, but it's a fact of life.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to say, that's what I thought as well. It makes total sense that if someone is highly predisposed to violence as a solution to whatever problems they may face, that the ones closest to them (i.e. their family, spouse, or significant other) are the most likely to be their first victim or victims. It's kind of like saying "Most accredited medical doctors found to have done well in college-level biology". Domestic and spousal violence/abuse does need to be taken a lot more seriously, buuuut IMO it doesn't really need semi-exploitative headlines like this. Noir LeSable (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Tired of Shillgate material.
Really, this isn't a important issue. People like Brianna Wu (MY PATERON GAIZ) and the gladly jettisoned chunks of 4chan (OLOLOL ETHICS IN OVERANAlYSIS AND TROLL SHIELDING) are the only thing keeping this manufactoversy alive and it's starting to get annoying at this rate when they use it to boost their egos.--Madman (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman
 * I'll take your opinion seriously when your WIGOs aren't downvoted to -30 or further - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take the BOT members's opinions seriously when they don't hold secret email arbitration. And apparently, some people actually believe the end actually justifies the means. --Madman (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman
 * But it does! Well, not necessarily all means, of course. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering these are largely the same people who have been harassing Sarkeesian for nearly 3 years now, and that during most of that time outside attention was minimal, I don't think that paying them attention is what is keeping it alive. That being said I do think we can cut down on the GG-related WIGO's a tad.  Those of us who (like me) follow GG obsessively probably get their news from GamerGhazi anyway, so reposting minutiae here is largely redundant.  Abed Nadir (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Trynna keep it to the finest comedy gold. I thought the current one counted (hence upboats). The Jimmy Wales one made a pile of press too (and upboats) - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Mommas....
..... don't name your sons "Gaylard". No good can come of it. - Smerdis of Tlön, your friendly local Ruritanian despot. 15:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Appropriate name.--Mercian (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do parents give their kids names that basically ensure that they'll be bullied in childhood? >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What denomination was he? Church of God?  I blame the heresy of anti-paedobaptism.  Seriously, there's something about taking your baby to the altar as an infant to be baptized that curbs unwholesome invention in names.  When infant baptism is abandoned, you get Gaylards, Nerolis, and Placentas. - Smerdis of Tlön, your friendly local Ruritanian despot. 16:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the us is a nation of stupid names AMassiveGay (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with Gaylard? It's a perfectly cromulent name, like Queertin or Poopert.  17:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Dude's name
is actually Jim Croce. Yes whenever it's Chris Moss morning and someone is very slightly wrong on the internet, I'll be there. It's just as easy to get these things right as wrong. Also, there are no regularly sheduled flights to the moon but when there are, we at Balfour will of course be in the vanguard. Or the Trident. Ooops, kid waking up. Have a cool Yule, y'all. MatsFan (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

What happens >9999?
So, um, what happens when the WIGO counter goes past 9999? Does is break the voting app or not? It's probably going to happen this year. Sterile (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I predict a huge anticlimax. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been vote numbers larger than 10k inserted by mistake and nothing broke, so...--ZooGuard (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above is by an anti-P10K government shill, please ignore it. As a representative of the new "Poll 10K" movement, I predict something between a colossal space whale invasion and instant nuclear annihilation. 00:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Computers don't think like you or I, sterile. You can get worried at 2,147,483,647.   Ikanreed (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"Salon": blog, clog, or world?
I was unaware that Salon is considered a sketchy source. Comment? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not the greatest nor the worst, but opinion columns really belong in WIGO:Blogs rather than World. The same goes for the Newsweek piece about the Bible.  17:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Weaseloid. Yeah, I wondered about the placement, but it seemed like it was legitimately reporting on this article more than anything else. Yes, there was background spin provided... Apparently the Quanta article was republished by Business Insider, but somehow I don't care to link to that. Yet another site on the edge of respectability? IDK. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a fuzzy distinction but I would say it looks more comment & analysis (i.e. blogging, or the journalistic equivalent) than reporting, & not really 'news', given that it was about an article from about a year ago. 18:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Salon has occasional straight-up news pieces, but its most-clicked stuff is blogs/clogs. You might have to apply editorial judgement or something - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with teaching the law as it exists
More of a debate namespace thing, but since an item here brought it up, I'm gonna engage here. I can't condemn anyone who opposes gun control on strictly legalistic grounds. Rule of law matters, and constitutionally recognized rights are important. Teaching children about what the constitution says is good. A healthier electorate might recognize the constitution as a living document a little better, but the tone of the headline here is essentially denialism.

It's no different than fundamentalists opposing teaching evolution because they don't like the implications. To me, as a rather radical gun-control proponent(I believe it's evidentially supported) the implications of the second amendment are grim. But those implications don't mean I should ignore the reality of what is law or should oppose teaching that law to students at appropriate education levels. Ikanreed (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PArt of the issue with it comes from different ideas of what the amendment means though. Teaching the context of the amendment, what its historicaly meant and means now can vary across states or even cities/districts within cities, and not all of them are going to have gun control-style ideas about what to be saying about the second amendment. -- Mie kal  20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that goes for other things they teach in school, like free speech or due process as well. I can't bring myself to say that the second amendment is somehow special in its flexibility.  I'm also all for teachers who wish it taking the opportunity to tell students that gun ownership increases your annual death rate by a couple percent during the lecture.  Ikanreed (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering, as the article says, the curriculum on gun rights is going to be all grades, a minimum of three weeks, and decided by a combination of State board of education on the recommendation or approval of the NRA, i don't see anything but "Yay guns pro gun hate the control" coming from it.-- Mie kal  20:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and that's a point worth mocking. Teaching extant rights isn't.  I can criticize the tone of a headline, right?  Ikanreed (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the headline itself is crappy, i was just pointing out that the bills themselves aren't so innocent "teach us about the amendment" as your post seems to want it to be. -- Mie kal  20:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was raging specifically about the headline. Another failure of clarity on my part.  Ikanreed (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the article headline or the WIGO entry?
 * Schools should teach about key amendments & what legal rights they provide, including the 2nd amendment, but don't they already do that? What these bills are trying to set up, on the other hand, is very much politicised teaching that would push students to one side of what's a very divisive issue.   20:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WIGO entry. Ikanreed (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Faux news 'expert'
Talks shit on faux news, forced to appologise to the entire city of Birmingham, UK and much of London as well. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added to WIGO:Clogs. 20:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My county has 580 goats!
Anyone do any better? Ikanreed (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey David Cameron
You know it's possible to send encrypted messages over unencrypted messaging services, right?  Frederick ♠♣♥♦ 07:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Pope Francis
Well, he isn't a hypocrite when it comes to satirical commentary of religion within free speech.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 74.108.228.157 / talk / contribs 16:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Look
If we wanted to use non-black mugshots for target practice we'd have to start arresting people who aren't black. And frankly, that just doesn't make much sense, does it? We're police. We arrest the right kind of people. Ikanreed (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, are US police departments competing for some Most Openly Racist Corps Award or something? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's Florida. Blech. I'm normally the optimistic "kumbaya" type that assumes the best intentions in everyone before leveling accusations, and even I can see that this was an extremely terrible idea. Noir LeSable (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is only about 15-20 minutes from me. That is a nice, white area that borders on a mostly minority, not-so-nice area. Doesn't surprise me in the least.AyzmoCheers 18:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if the mug shot was selected at random, it's not really racist. What I don't understand is why they are an actual person's face. At least use a dead person. And don't cops usually shoot for the center of mass instead of the face (where the bullet holes are)?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember that this is Florida, a place with kinda' a low bar for police departments. The state was, after all, home to the incident where the Key West Police Department was declared a criminal enterprise for acting as a racket for cocaine smugglers. It is easy to get by when you can just say "I know that what we did was stupid, but we have not crossed our 'the police department is literally a racketeering operation' threshold yet, so I think we're still normal by Floridian standards." Crow7878 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Baked Bads
Just wanted to add clarification on the whole Azucar Bakery thing: According to Silva, the bakery never refused or denied the guy service outright. She did offer a workaround.

Honestly, I think that's one of the best ways to handle it. Offer to make the blanks/partials (or the one with the two guys holding hands), and then give extra icing or sugar letters for the message/red X/whatever. Guy gets his cakes espousing his views, baker gets a customer without compromising her views, everybody's happy (Except for Bill Jack and whoever the hateful message is directed towards). Noir LeSable (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "RARGH, you won't let us discriminate against people and NOW YOU WON'T LET US FORCE PEOPLE TO DISCRIMINATE! DOUBLE STANDARD RARGH."   Fundies can just fuck right off.  Ikanreed (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ironically, fancy cakes are kinda gay. X Stickman (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * *turns into a little black kid* That's gay-cist! And cake-ist! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You want doctors and pastors to be allowed to deny service based on their beliefs, but when a bakery doesn't want to put an anti-gay message on a cake due to their non-homosexuality-condemning beliefs, it's religious discrimination? Sheesh, religious right, make up your mind. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is specifically about trying to bait liberals into a double standard, thinking that forcing someone to say something specific is the same as offering service to people you are bigoted against. They don't understand how one is free speech, and the other is a gigantic social problem people already suffered through decades of tough struggle to reform.  Ikanreed (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Typical activist troll, in other words. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 15:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Um...
Call me crazy, but why would a landowner asking for recompensation for a damaged bathroom floor impose on a person's right to pee while standing? To me it seems like it only violates a person's 'right' to fail to aim properly while peeing and fail to clean up the mess they make. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost everywhere there's an expectation that landlords are responsible for maintenance of properties, especially with respect to superficial property damage from day-to-day use. Ikanreed (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is the point. By my understanding, the ruling does not make it an unalienable right for men to pee in ther flat however they please without having to pay for damages. It simply states: It is common for men to pee standing, and because there were no provisions on this in the rental contract, the man could justly assume that he could do so without being charged for damages caused by it. Because in Germany, reparation of damages caused by day-to-day use are mostly the landlord's obligations upon moving out. --Sophophobe (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Al Sharpton story
I've just come in from a ride, and haven't had my second coffee of the morning yet, so maybe I missing the irony. A tabloid article, equating racial politics in the US with entertainment in the headline, presented on here in a snarky tone which suggests some uppity folks are over-entitled? I'm not a fan of Hollywood and I neither know nor care about the Oscars. I can, however, see that racial politics in the US are still fucked up and I can see a racist subtext from 100 yards. Someone needs to fix up. London Grump (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems rather tame in comparison to the John Boehner entry. But then maybe I'm just guilty of having skewered a sacred pig. Slings and Arrows (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More like puking out the same old reactionary bullshit...London Grump (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the way the article shoehorns in the phrase "master race" time and time again speaks volumes. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should move that story to CLOGs. 17:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no kidding. "Most annoying person on the planet" wut? >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a term for people believing silly things about their political foes with respect to who they look up to etc.? You see it a lot with creationists and Darwin and Dawkins, and teabaggers with Gore, and racists with, well, Al Sharpton. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, portraying the enemies as mindless fanboys/sheeple (which is pretty similar to portraying them as mindless fanatics) is a common strawmanning tactic. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sharpton in general seems to be defined by people vaguely arguing he's incendiary, without ever, ever citing something he's said. Ikanreed (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * True enough. I've seen him accused of being a black supremacist with possibly genocidal ambitions but when I ask for evidence or give them Sharpton quotes which contradict this people shut up. It's like the whitey tape, except there's no timeframe, an eternally regenerating rumor mill. Al is, at worst, a slightly skeezy attention whore. But hey, in the interest of fairness I'll keep the challenge open ended. If anyone can produce a verifiable quote of Sharpton saying he hates white people or calling for black supremacy link it here.--Zipperback (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The post and article are still racist, even if there's film of Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan in a milk bar with their feet on the backs of white women looking like Alex and his droogs, planning the revolution. London Grump (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are a few of the more controversial quotes from the Reverend Al Sharpton. Now whether they are racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, or just incoherent babbling is open to interpretation.


 * "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.” – Quoted in Newsday (August 18, 1991)


 * “White folks was in caves while we was building empires. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” – 1994 Sharpton appearance at Kean College


 * "There is a systemic and methodical strategy to eliminate our people from doing business off 125th Street. I want to make it clear … that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." -- On the Freddy's Fashion Mart incident (20 March 2000).


 * “They tried to say that being gay is a sin, and I said that adultery is a sin. Adultery is responsible for breaking up more marriages, but do we put that in the Constitution? It’s absurd.” -- Remarks regarding homosexual marriage (3 August 2005).


 * “Jim Crow is old. That's not who I'm mindful of today. The problem is that Jim Crow has sons. The one we've got to battle is James Crow Jr. He's a little more educated. He's a little slicker. He's a little more polished, but the results are the same.” -- Remarks at the funeral of Rosa Parks (3 November 2005).
 * Slings and Arrows (talk)
 * So... the most recent of these is from 10 years ago and is completely fucking reasonable statement of modern racism's manifestation. Now, you aren't going to find me approving of anyone using the phrase "the Jews" to say anything at all, but even that isn't nearly as racist or incendiary as what people attribute to him, even today.    Ikanreed (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Jews seem like nice people. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The link to the Sharpton story (which has now been deleted from RationalWiki), was an article that appeared in the New York Daily News; a newspaper that is owned by media mogul Mort Zuckerman (who also owns US News and World Report). Zuckerman is a Jewish businessman, with a predominantly Jewish staff of writers; which is altogether irrelevant, but perhaps worth noting in light of the recent Charlie Hebdo incident.

The Daily News is the fourth most widely circulated newspaper in the United States. To suggest that it is guilty of distributing racist material, borders on insanity. You can usually find the newspaper on display at your local supermarket. Slings and Arrows (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm doing something wrong (I'm damn good with Google though) but after 15 minutes of searching, I can't seem to find source for the second one anywhere. I have a couple Yahoo answers search results and page upon page of right-wing blogs. Not a single reliable source for that quote. As far as I can tell, that's the only real problematic quote in the bunch and it seems to not actually be real. Wikipedia has the quote linking back to a google book that can't be accessed and then has a link to another article supposedly appologizing for it but doesn't. Even if it is in the book, why can't I find a single news article commenting on it or a transcript of the speech. 1994 isn't all that long ago. AyzmoCheers 06:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * White folks was [sic] in caves while we were building empires…. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and those Greek homos ever got around to it. Speech at Kean College (1994), transcribed in The Forward (December 1995), as quoted in Foolish Words : The Most Stupid Words Ever Spoken (2003) by Laura Ward, p. 192. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton Slings and Arrows (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's at least understandable to look with a jaundiced eye upon anyone who did what he did during the Tawana Brawley fiasco. He was responsible for throwing an enormous amount of gasoline on the fire, taking some remarkably crass actions in the process, and engaged in defamation which irreparably damaged the life of a completely innocent person. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Tawana Brawley incident is a classic example of Sharpton's tried-and-true technique. Rush in front of the cameras with allegations of racism, before the facts are even known. And when the story is later discovered to be an outright fabrication, then blame it on media bias. Slings and Arrows (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

North Korean restaurants
Is it possible the restaurants are just mafia dens? Cracked.com already posted that North Korean agents are known to swap counterfeit notes for real ones and then send them back to the state. They also cite articles relating to North Korea's restaurants already open in East Asia, which are believed to be big on money laundering (also for the purpose of financing the state).-- Forerunner (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Teacher Shooters
So let me get this straight, a student could freak out in class and start breaking desks. Under that law the teacher would be able to shoot at that student. And, if they missed and hit another kid, they wouldn't be liable for a penny? That's kinda fucked up. AyzmoCheers 16:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that kinda is kinda unnecessary. As is my kinda. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RW's twitter is providing an excellent demonstration of why Poe's law is
First we get this, then less than 2.5 hours later, they post the GoP anti-vaxxer's commentary on non-hand washing.


 * That was fun. Lunch at the Republican Cafe, today's special Libertarian Listeriosis! ... let's eat somewhere else - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins
Is he implying that cultures that aren't big on eroticism are inherently inferior and they should be educated through imperialistic trolling? >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, now you're reading too deeply into this. Noir LeSable (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope I am. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Protesters and private security firms?
So I'm kinda wondering... If the stuff they want the police to do for them can also be done by a private security firm, might it be a good idea if they started their own non-profit security firm that consists of volunteers? Wouldn't that be a way to avoid the supposed 'protest tax'? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

NYC Subway
When I read 'Hispanic and Asian genes' I died inside. I hope that's an error introduced by the journalist, because it makes zero sense. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking they meant some sort of shorthand for "genetic markers common to those of Hispanic or East-Asian descent", but I'm the sort of person to be a little too optimistic in people's writings. Noir LeSable (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They're stealin' our genes! --Ymir (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Question
Things like school schootings and terrorist attacks can generally be added to this page; what about a Belgian mother locking her three daughters in a shed and setting it on fire? Yeah, despite what reports about ISIS and Boko Haram might have you believe, there's still plenty depravity to go around in the West. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody's suggesting that there isn't. You can add any news story to this page.  13:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to lecture me about the crimes the Christian west has committed. The difference between the story you cited and the Daesh and Boko Haram is that the lady in the news-story doesn't control territory and terrorize the civilians of said territory. Alsto003 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Alex
 * I'm not trying to lecture; it's just a personal musing. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I reported the laundry ball scam to kickstarter.
They have a rule against making misleading statements, and I referenced our page about the scam in the report. I'm not sure if it'll go anywhere, but I'm not sure what else to do. Ikanreed (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * They've been embarrassed by pseudoscience kickstarters before, we'll see ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I reported as well, with links to what our article references plus ridiculing some of their specific statements. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I reported it as false claims, with links to the FTC's decisions on previous laundry balls. Mayo2017 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be reading into/reporting it when I'm not on a phone. Hopefully it'll be taken down by then, but we'll see I suppose. I'm just surprised they made it this long if they've already been testing with a micro pH sensor. (And being a chemical engineer, this sort of thing does interest me, woo or not) (Edit: To be clear as that parenthetical is vague, this product is complete bull. I'm just into surface/interface science and this is one of those times the kind of crap people pull to sound science-y overlaps with my knowledge) Noir LeSable (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)<
 * They posted a study and claim to have more. We'll see ... I added some info to Laundry ball btw, if you know more than me why this is bullshit, then please edit :-) I do like how they say "NO CHEMICALS!" and then go on to say their product uses hydrogen peroxide to clean your wash. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They published more docs: http://www.crystalwash.com/assets/SCIENTIFIC_DOCUMENTATION/ ... Haven't had the time to read them Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like they had an idea, read a few journals they didn't understand, threw whatever they found together, and used those journals as evidence. Then, there's some papers from an obscure Korean company that aren't saying anything at all. To top it all off, the claims they're making perfectly mirror other laundry balls, except for a few pieces of seems-legit science-babble thrown in. I think the reason why this one is different, reaction-wise, is because they've hit "not even wrong" levels at just the right angle to make people dubious about everything. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 01:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They should've picked IndieGoGo, aka the site that dealt with frauds by deleting their anti-fraud guarantee. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ [[image:Red rose 02 -.jpg.svg|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] Now I'm not tense anymore, I'm just miserable. Hooray! 01:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

To Register Some Doubts
Something to help boost credibility: UK's The Register posted a negative review of the original product the 2.0 is based on. Might want to tack that onto the reports you guys are making. Noir LeSable (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

/baph/ founder's legal problems
Have you ever managed to shitpost so hard that you're in (well deserved) legal trouble? Do you seriously believe in political non elucideans and the Green pill? Are you a edgelord supreme? Do you support eugenics in all seriousness? Then come to 8chan, or /x/'s BDSM-laden one night stand with /pol/ made manifest in the form of the internet's Eye of Terror! We apologize if the laws of psychics stop working, we think that's a database glitch. --Madman (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
 * Psychics don't have laws, though. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 11:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I read about a band of escaped psychic midgets in the newspaper. They're small mediums at large. HomoHeisenbergensis (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Whiteness
Are you seriously going to criticize Fox News (or anyone really) for disagreeing with a course that says that being white is bad? Also, what does it matter if they're all white? TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because that's not what the course is. That's what they're saying the course is.  Hope that helps.  Ikanreed (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do get the vibe that this class is going to take a 'critical' stance towards the "White" identity in ways that would be considered impolite if directed against other racial identities. And that "being white is bad" is a superficial but legitimate take on it.  But threatening to murder the professor for daring to hold these opinions remains absolutely out of bounds.  - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 04:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I hardly expect anything less from the likes of the people at stormfront. Nevertheless I was under the impression that the racist netizens thought Fox was too liberal. Than again, given some of the comments I've seen under their articles I probably shouldn't be surprised by the fact that the more fascist elements of the right watch Fox. So do all the hardcore racists get their news from Fox News? Or do they get their news from sources which do? Or does Fox News gets their leads from place like stormfront? All of these possibilities can be considered. Alsto003 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Alex
 * It's best to respond to the internet Nazis the way in which we and the Russians responded to the actual Nazis. But I digress, in regards to the saner conservatives all being worked up, I actually have difficulty blaming them for interpreting classes or courses on "whiteness" the way Fox News did, the negative reaction to such courses is common because it would appear that some of parts of the academia actively use the term "whiteness" to define all phenomenon in the world which is evil, whiteness apparently causes a whole bunch of nasty stuff. For instance Chauncey Devega basically wrote in this article on DailyKos  after the Isla Vista killings, that whiteness drove Elliot Rodger to kill all those people. In essence he declares that adhering to whiteness means adhering to racism and appears to imply that the very act of being white does too. I don't care if he using the terms metaphorically, it is downright offensive to use a term with an overtly racial meaning to also be a stand in for what you see as problems in society. As far I can tell the author (among many others) uses the word "white" and "whiteness" in the same way Gilad Atzmon would use the word "Jew" and "Jewishness". And to be frank it is not surprising that most white people in general (let alone conservative white people), find that usage of the term to be insulting. Do black people not find it offensive when some random idiot politician laments that all the white kids are "acting black"? Of course they would be offended. Do I as a Jew not find it offensive when someone says that they jewed another person out of their money? Of course I would be offended. Than why on earth should a white person not find it insulting when they hear the word "whiteness" being used to represent all that is wrong with the world? Alsto003 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Alex
 * # NotAllWhitePeople, amirite? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not really the point, the point is that while previous and current (albeit lesser) oppression and the accompanying bigotry can explain and help us to understand animosity the oppressed group have towards the oppressing group, it cannot be used as a justification for more bigotry. The usage of term "whiteness" as a synonym for that which is wrong in our society is inherently offensive (due to fairly straightforward semantics). And as far as I'm concerned it is patently absurd to use an inherently bigoted term in order to combat bigotry. Alsto003 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Alex
 * I don't see how "the problem of whiteness" (i.e. Whiteness "is" a problem, not "has", or anything) could be interpreted any other way. Also, it seems like the site is blaming Fox for the Neo-Nazis targeting this guy. They're a news channel. Should they just not report the news?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If only Fox News really was "a news channel" which would "just [...] report the news", rather than being Fair and Balanced...
 * One cue is the way that the Fox freakout only speaks with a right wing activist and not even bothers to actually check her story or provide any context outsider of her angle. As far as I can see from the little actual information the activist bothers to provide on the course (a U.S. literature course, btw), it's basically offering a take reminiscent of that which point out that viewing male/female gender issues in terms of women only makes men an unexamined standard. Such perspectives aren't controversial at all in academia, as all it says is that we can't properly understand "blackness", "asianness", "latinoness" or other such identities without also examining "whiteness" and the unspoken assumptions an unexamined use of "whiteness" can encompass (I'm pretty sure that's the "problem" referred to in the course's title).
 * Yet the Fox story make the course out to be some form of racist anti-white class indoctrinating students that all woes are due to the "white race". This is a serious allegation, and it rests solely on the opinions of a right wing activist and less than sound bite-sized snippets (probably provided by said activist) from the course literature. This is not a news story, it's a classical Fox "opinion piece dressed up as news"-story. Sure, Fox is not responsible for the threats against the professor, they "only" gave airtime and legitimacy (for those who still thinks Fox has some) to a partisan activist who directly links to said professor's contact details, and Fox did this in a way that suggests the professor is indoctrinating students with rabid anti-white ideas - hey who could have foreseen the results, right? ScepticWombat (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)