RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?/Archive11

This is an archive page, last updated 14 January 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>

, (new)(back)

Why Did White Workers Leave the Democratic Party?

Because those lower-class white workers who were left failed to realize their occupations were obsolete, failed to upgrade their skills appropriately to something high-tech, and then became upset that it wasn't the 1960s anymore. So they went to the party that wants it turned back to those days. I have no pity for the unnecessariat. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely fair, even if their jobs did become obsolete I don't think it's crazy to suggest they should have been able to find replacement jobs that were just as if not close to the same quality. The article suggests a certain narrative, which I think is still mostly correct, that racism basically killed the labor movement. The Democrats were a broad coalition at one time, able to win or at least contest in every corner of the country because they included populist, working class racists we would currently classify as "socially conservative" so long as they believed in subsidies for farmers and unions. When Democrats tried to excise the racists from the party and went all-in on "liberal" social ethics in the 60s and 70s, many working class whites, union and non-union workers alike, bolt for the anti-labor Republican party, first with Nixon and then with Reagan. Many of these same "Reagan Democrats" who were fine with throwing the labor movement under the bus because they didn't like blacks/gays/abortion are now rabid supporters of Trump with his ambiguously left-wing protectionist rhetoric, once again swallowing the line that Mexicans are to blame for the economic woes and not the gutted labor movement they were responsible for. Anyway, Jacobin tries to make the argument that because some union leaders were in favor of civil rights, they shouldn't be blamed... but I don't think anyone was really blaming the internal union leadership themselves, but rather the average workers (union and not) who took those jobs for granted because they wanted all this social change stuff to just stop. Hentropy (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

{q|even if their jobs did become obsolete I don't think it's crazy to suggest they should have been able to find replacement jobs that were just as if not close to the same quality|Hentropy}

OK. Like what? Because the only answer I have for the 45-year-old factory worker who doesn't have a factory to work in is either a) become IT and move to the city or b) work fast food.

{q|who took those jobs for granted because they wanted all this social change stuff to just stop|Hentropy}

I do not have a capacity to care about people who don't have an ability to adapt and change. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Why must anyone tolerate their jobs being obsoleted by technology? Who is in charge here, anyways? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 14:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If it makes you happy, I will absolutely support the stopping of all technological innovation and progress, which is the only thing that will prevent people's jobs from being obsoleted by technology. What year do you want to have technology fixed at in order to preserve jobs? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sometime before those damned smartphones would be nice. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So how does 1998 sound? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't understate that bigotry was a long-time American value and by opposing it the democrats made a wide slate of enemies. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, I do not have a capacity to care about people who don't have an ability to adapt and change. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the Democrats are beholden to the trial lawyers doesn't help either, their interests are far from aligned with working class anybody (one obvious one being their obstruction of some common sense reforms around malpractice lawsuits). That said, at least here in New England the Democrats are overwhelmingly in control with pretty much every demographic, and most Republicans here (like myself) would hardly be considered as such anywhere else, so I question just how much they've lost favor with all white working class populations. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No amount of judicial reforms will prevent your average factory work from being outsourced to Mexico on the cheap or replaced with robots. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This is bad ideology that we shouldn't swallow. Outsourcing (and robots) aren't the result of some kind of inevitable natural process like the weather. They are the results of decisions made by human beings of the sort that are amenable to political control. It's just up to us to seize the throttle and control it. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Capitalism requires that profits be maintained or increased. Human costs (employing people) are ever-increasing; if profits do not increase, they eventually decrease profits. The two ways of decreasing human costs are to reduce the the human costs (reduce wages, reduce cost of benefits, reduce personnel, etc.) or to transfer the human cost to a fixed capital cost (machinery, automation). Unless we stop using capitalism (which I do not see as happening any time soon or in the even middling future), we don't have other methods (especially with expansion note being possible, as the global Earth is a closed economic system). Which do you choose? Or if you don't want to choose either, what do you propose replacing capitalism with and (most importantly) how? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

At some point in time we will have automation to such a degree that we won't need (much) human labor. What then? And as to the "closed system" earth: Space colonization. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

At some point in time we will have automation to such a degree that we won't need (much) human labor. What then?- Laurogeita Hamabost

I'm not a corporate CEO, so my answer is "Not my problem." I just work here. I personally assume they'll adapt or die, just like everything else.

And as to the "closed system" earth: Space colonization.- Laurogeita Hamabost

Show me a profit to be had and I'll be happy to invest. Until then, it's just a boondoggle. More money in coming out with the latest smartphone. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Shortsighted businessmen and shortsighted politicians are the reason there are no space colonies yet.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 23:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you tell me what the purpose of colonizing would be, other than "Hey, look at us! OK, we're going to sit around on moon rocks now."? Yes, that is a serious question. Before we should do anything, we should have a set and defined purpose. Exploration and colonization on Earth did not happen except for a) economic reasons or b) state-funded or private-funded ego projects. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it.

That naturopath who walked away from the snake oil peddlers she believed were really helping people? I feel like she's a hero. I want to believe that if I had been indoctrinated into a pseudoscience career of misleading people for money and I saw an egregious ethics violation, and the head of my professional organization told me it wasn't a big deal, I'd still have integrity to walk away and reconsider my life.

I want to believe that. I'm not sure if I'd be able to overcome my biases that far. I'm impressed by her and really wish there was something I could learn from her example. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Threaten the business of these well-meaning gurus and you see their true face.^{— Unsigned, by: 193.62.251.21 / talk / contribs}

Twitter Trolls Are Reporting Pro-LGBT Muslim Women to Their Governments, Where Punishment Can Mean Death

Oh yeah, maximum chan action! Total doxation! Stick it to those Muslamic SJWs, shitlords!
I love shit like this. It confirms everything I know about the true base state of humanity. Getting Muslamic SJWs in jail or put to the death or tortured FOR THE LULZ. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not even "for the lulz", they're genuinely trying to make a stupid fucking bigot point about how dangerous muslims are, by being psychopathic bastards getting people killed. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

What you just described IS the lulz; that's funsies for most people in the world. Nothing happens to them, the people they don't like get it in the ass, totes W1NZ0RS!!

Welcome to humanity. This is what we all are, underneath the skin. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess the concerns about the returns of fascism have me seriously concerned. If every alt-righter died randomly, I have this feeling no one would lose any friends they like and respect. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The lesson is required. I want the alt-righters to win. And then, I and others can show them the true meaning of authoritarianism. The lesson will probably stick for a few generations. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You know, after your 30 years in prison for being a social-democrat. Then you can really laugh in their face about how the US utterly destroyed itself. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Except I won't be. IRL, I am an authoritarian. The majority of people view me as terribly conservative. It'd be funny in other circumstances.

What is funny is that these alt-righters think they'd be the ones on top. I personally relish the look on their faces when they get thrust in the camps or jails or whatever with all the people they despise. Their lack of self-awareness is charming. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

60 million people died from the last group of authoritarian dictators without a lasting lesson learned. A higher death toll must seem reasonable if you don't think you will be one of those next time. -MasterofLogic (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well surely if a omnicidal maniac becomes dictator some country(ies) will open its (their) borders to let in refugees fleeing the carnage? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

like they do now? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think most people simply view you as annoyingly edgy, Castaigne. Most people outgrow your mentality by the time they're 12. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

But remember, it's the SJWs who don't care about third world women. Vulpius (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Alex salmond

Nothing to do with corbyns shit performance in the referendum then? Bullshit. Everythings a conspiracy. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are 8 white people who pointed guns at police officers who didn't get killed!

And here are over 1400 parents who say that vaccines gave their kids autism, Asperger's, or injured them in some other way!

There are plenty of ways to show that race and class and the history of police brutality/excessive force are deeply intertwined. Let's use the ones that stick with our standards of proof. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Such as? -MasterofLogic (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

i dont think finding a few examples of white people not getting shot is particularly informative unless the officers involved have been shown to use less restraint with black people. I am sure you could find similar examples of black people not getting shot and it wouldnt lessen the fact that black people are disproportionately getting shot for nothing or even legitimately. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I get that it is fallacious but the media in the US usually assassinate black people's characters after they are killed. Gun nuts usually get upset about people talking about gun control but you don't see them defend black men who legally had a gun like Philando.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 19:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

i'm not sure how more polemics in the media is helpful beyond further eroding trust in the media. This is problem - the other side comes up with a bullshit lie or exageration and and wecare all outraged. We come up with a bullshit lie and exageration and we are 'they started it'. Everyone else starts to distrust either side or just believe what best fits their existing prejudices. We are all enjoying the resulting polarization. If its bullshit its bullshit and serves no ones cause. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah you are right. If I wanted to point out hypocrisy from gun nuts, like the NRA making statements after Newton and Orlando but not after Philando's murder, then I should've found a blog on that. I was trying to point out how both cops and the media react differently when a white guy has a gun compared to a black guy who had a gun.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 19:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess I really struggle as to why showing those hurt by racial disparity in policing in order to provide evidence of racial disparity in policing is so wrong. -MasterofLogic (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

mainly because it does none of that AMassiveGay (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Then how do you do it? -MasterofLogic (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

the specific artic!e does not do what you say for the reaxons i stated i meant. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I am really struggling because I have asked what would 3 times now and you have answered a completely different question I didn't ask. -MasterofLogic (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Dallas police

Surprising number of downvotes for an article preaching unity and against discrimination. Why?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Same reason why an article that's essentially a massive anecdotal argument is at +12, I'm guessing (it's 9+/20- versus 22+/10-). Votes are open to anyone passing by to vote on. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably because it's fact-free moralistic guff full of trite & frankly odd assertions about moral decay, framing #BlackLivesMatter as a threat to civilisation. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

When was that exactly? You can't just take any criticism made of something that happens to be on your side of the political spectrum and exaggerate what they're saying until it's absurd. I could just as easily say "Weaseloid thinks that people not wanting to cops to be killed are racist Nazis".TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Liberals Need to Stop Writing Off Non–College Educated Workers — Before the White Working Class Writes Off Liberals

...what is this bullshit?
No, seriously, what is this bullshit?
I'd really like to clue the author in on something - the "white working class voters" don't want what the liberals have to offer. They don't want to have what the educated conservatives have to offer. Or the educated libertarians. Or, frankly, anyone living in modern society. They want yesterday, where a guy could go turn screws in a factory for 8 hours and live off of it.

"But a good first step would be to stop insinuating that non–college educated workers are destined to live miserable lives because their skills are obsolete."

Guess what? The truth is unkind. Their skills are obsolete. If they want to have better lives, they'll need to adapt. Otherwise, they're looking at shit wages and a shit life and considering how the white working-class has been fucking mollycoddled for decades, I have no time for them. Here's another - "But his basic premise — that the economic decline of America’s non–college educated workers is an inexorable fact of economics — is often implied in the rhetoric of Democratic politicians." Surprise! It's a premise that exists in any economics that deals with math. Human labor costs are ever-increasing. Capital costs generally are not. If you can spend $20,000 + $500/year in maintenance on a machine that will take the place of a human worker, why wouldn't you? The costs will be infinitely less! The human worker needs ever increasing salaries, benefits, CoL increases, sick days, vacation days - it makes no logical sense, no financial sense, no money sense to keep the human worker. At all. And yes, my parents are correct when they say that the 55-year-old factory worker who's job has vanished isn't suddenly going to learn to text on smartphones and program and retrain for higher technology. My parents are absolutely right. But here's the issue - there ain't nothin' for them to do. Unless we want to create jobs that are meaningless, like moving one grain of sand from one pile to another with a tweezer for 8 hours a day. I don't even need them to vacuum the floor; I've got a Roomba for that. They need to face it. They are the unnecessariat. You are superfluous to the corporations and we're the ones making the money. We keep the economy going.

"At the same time, these governments did little to compensate the “losers” of globalization; made it more difficult for workers to unionize; and further decreased their leverage over employers by cutting the social safety net."

No shit, really? What do you expect when the mantra since I was 4 fucking years old is "We need to reduce costs.", "We need to cut taxes.", "We need to reduce costs MOAR.", and so on? As far as I remember, that's what the "white working class" fucking voted for. They killed their own unions. They killed their own safety net. These Boomer fucks took all that away from Gen Xers like me. Now they're whining about it. I adapted; they can fucking adapt. Reap what you've fucking sowed. They're the ones who decided against maximizing value over profit. This is what happens when you maximize profit. Eat your fucking peas.

"And there’s little evidence that our economy has an overwhelming demand for college-educated workers"

No, there's no demand. But if you don't have one? My employer will not hire you. At all. No degree? Straight into the trash, even for meanest low-entry job. And that's becoming de riguer at all global, national, and mid-size companies. No degree? No room for you. And it's not about demand; it's about making sure “certain types” of people are kept away from certain job opportunities. I.E., low-rent knuckle-draggers lower the tone in the corporate office, thanks much. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with the article but I felt that it was trying to say that liberals need to try and save these communities from extinction. I agree that Americans voted for this reality but we must reverse it. The two links on class you posted horrify me and I realize that they are all "obsolete" and couldn't adapt. I know that Gen Xers are fucked even if millenials turn the US into a social democracy since your wealth has already been extracracted so this trend will likely continue until it just stops.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Some questions.

1) Why is it necessary to try and save these communities from extinction? Why not let them go the natural way out?

2) Why must we reverse the trend? What about the vast majority, like me, who are fine with that trend? --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If their skills are genuinely obsolete, then why are corporations scouring the world for cheaper sources of them? I mean if I don't need something at $10 I'm not going to need it at $5. Cheap labour is one of the advantages of setting up manufacturing in third world nations, not necessarily access to a highly skilled workforce. You say human labour costs are 'ever increasing' - Pew say that real average wages have barely budged for decades. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

You further expose your ignorance of basic labour conditions within the US by pointing to sick and vacation days. The US is the only advanced economy that doesn't have mandatory paid leave, and also has no paid sick leave. In other words, it appears you don't know what you're talking about. Tokeloshe (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

For the moment non-minimum-wage muscle labor is still cheaper than capital costs. That is changing; China and the rest of the "third world" factory countries have now begun automating and you are seeing a trend of factories returning to the USA - sans jobs, of course. See the recent reversal of textile factories coming back to the USA as a prime example. The "cheap labor" in those countries is now becoming more expensive than automation. This trend shows no signs of slowing; within the next 10 years, automation will be cheaper than a $2.00/hour worker. It's all about miniaturization and maturity of technology. (And is why technology is its own mathematics variable in economics.)

You also make the mistake of thinking that wages are the sole human labor cost. Wages are only a small part. Loss of production due to sickness is a labor cost. COLA increases are a cost. Benefits of any type are a cost - and a human will require more and more in health benefits as time goes on. Every single perk that an employee gets that does not involve production (be it service or manufacture) is a cost; these costs are ever-increasing. They are never amortized.

And yes, I'm aware that the USA does not require mandatory vacation or sick days. As evidenced by your English spelling usage, you are a non-American. Socialist elements in non-American government subsidize or by law require these mandatory items. The USA being more capitalistic in nature, we have over time decreased vacation/sick in order to reduce costs. That does not reduce costs enough, so we've started eliminating people. shrugs Welcome to the sociopath ethics of American corporate capitalism. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't labor becoming obsolete be good news?

Work is by definition people don't do voluntarily (otherwise they wouldn't have to be paid). And the jobs that have been disappearing in the last century or so are mostly of the figuratively or literally backbreaking variety. Shouldn't that be good news? After all, we still get the stuff that people used to ruin their health for but now machines do that work for us. Surely we can spread around that wealth somehow? And if really everybody needs to be employed for some intrinsic reason, we can lower work hours to divide the work by more people. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds great to me too. Unfortunately you're fighting against centuries of social programming that work is inherently noble, everyone needs to work, if you don't work you're a lazy bum leeching off society, and my stuff is mine mine mine and you can't have any of it. Unfortunately I think it'll probably get worse before it gets better. The right is increasingly moving towards neo-feudalist ideas (for instance neoreaction), where the ultra-rich will own all the robots that make everything and you get to beg them for the right to live. This is a fairly good sci-fi look at where we might be headed. --Ymir (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Indexing all fines to income

Why don't we just index all monetary fines to income? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you hate the rich? CLASS WARFARE!!! --Ymir (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What does that have to do with hating the rich? Obviously someone earning fifty thousand bucks a month will feel differently about a five hundred Euro fine than someone earning five hundred thousand bucks a month. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

So you think people should be punished for being successful? --Ymir (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think people should be punished for breaking the law. And the punishment should hurt similar amounts no matter who you are. Having millionaires breaking laws that are a (to them) ridiculous fine if they get caught cannot be what this is all about. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The rich being able to break laws with impunity is a reward for their hard work. If it weren't for that no one would work hard and get rich, because the government would just take all your money and give it to leeches on welfare. Really, the poor should be made to pay more, to motivate them to work harder. --Ymir (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I hate the idea, and it reeks of the kind of toxic statism that is wrong with so much of the policing in this country. Putting aside the fact that the police-industrial complex already has too much money, fines should be fixed. Crime doesn't become more wrong or expensive if you're rich or poor. It's philosophically abhorrent as it paints police work as nothing more than a way to generate revenue for the government, which partially leads to overpolicing and fatal encounters as police are pushed to pull over as many people as possible. Policing needs much more fundamental change, not just more money or incentives to go after those dastardly rich people speeding in their convertibles. Hentropy (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

But won't these fines continue to leave poor people who commit minor crimes in debt?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 23:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how fining rich people more will address that particular problem, poor people will still be in debt when they are fined regardless. When someone commits a crime or does something the law doesn't want them to do, you have to punish them somehow. If the idea of putting poor people in debt when they're caught committing minor traffic offenses offends someone, maybe we should look at loosening traffic laws. Fining poor 20 bucks so that it's not a burden to them is hardly a deterrent to them committing more offenses. Rich people are more likely to just bring their lawyer to court and get them out of the ticket rather than pay it anyway, because anyone who has had a ticket knows the ticket is not nearly as bad as the raise in insurance after you're convicted. Hentropy (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of a fine is to hurt, not to generate revenue. Which is why they need to be indexed to income. If you want to have a slap on the wrist fine, you can't have it be 500€ for someone who earns USD750 a month. So indexing fines to income really means what it says. Poor people pay less, rich people pay more. In my opinion its the definition of common sense. And it is done (including for traffic offenses) in a couple of countries. See this another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I live in the US and your average speeding ticket where I'm at is in the $100-150 range. The only fines that total more than that are for things like DUIs or if you actually hit someone or something. Maybe it's just the former anarchist in me, but the whole idea of fines for "minor offenses" is offensive itself, if you're not willing to remove someone from society (put in them in jail) for an offense, then you shouldn't be outlawing it. Everyone knows that the vast majority of people who get pulled over for "minor offenses" weren't really doing a whole lot wrong. And of course, it ALL has to do with revenue, whether you're American or Angolan. If we're just going by policing actual dangerous things on the roads, then you could probably take half the traffic cops off the street. Hentropy (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Excessive velocity can actually kill people. As can drunk driving. A cavalier attitude to those offenses is exactly what lat rate fines produce. And of course a consequence of the racist and classist enforcement. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, if it is that dangerous, then put people in jail for it. Even if it's only for a day. That way everyone gets the same punishment and you don't have to scale up the punishment to someone's income. The money being collected from speeding tickets is not being reinvested into the community or given to cancer kids, it's going to fund the justice system and police departments. Which means police departments get more money the more people commit crimes. Don't see a problem there? In my view, if putting someone in jail even for a day seems too harsh a punishment, then it should not be criminalized. Dats jus me doe. I'm well aware most of my opinions are unpopular. Hentropy (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for it. A few complications:

• Unemployed people? Who pays?
• Minors? Who pays?
• Pre- or post-tax income?
• What kinds of income?
• What if your income has drastically changed within one tax-year -- but the only data to work with is based on last year's taxes? A rich man gets a $10 fine, a poor gets a $1,000,000?

Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Given that several countries do this (albeit more do it only for criminal fines and not minor traffic things) there are surely several good approaches. You can also offer some alternative: Either pay the fine or do X amount of community service. Or whatever. Surely better than making a fox an elephant and a fish jump to measure their competence. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This section is yet again people who thnk anything that doesn't happen right near them is inconceivable - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Clinton writes off the Left.

Bullshit article. Assumes that the left are only Sandalos. Clinton and Kaine ARE on the left.
I'm getting really tired of the Sandalo Progressive-Only Puritans. Next thing you know, they'll be kidnapping prominent Leftists and "trying" them in a kangaroo court on "crimes against Progressivism!", all Robespierre-style. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The reasons I would label him "not really left" are actually present in RW's own article about him. "He declared his opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion while supporting a ban on "partial birth abortion", defunding abortion clinics, and the death penalty. As a senator, Kaine voted in favour of fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership,[12] which some have suggested may dissuade populist swing voters;[13] indeed, many Sanders supporters at the 2016 Democratic National Convention held up signs against the TPP in protest of Clinton's support for the partnership.[14] Kaine strongly supported Virginia's "right to work" law and was against giving public employees collective bargaining rights.[15] He was one of 13 Senate Democrats who didn't sign a letter in support of strengthening regulations on payday loans.[16][17] He has voiced support for offshore oil drilling and voted in favour of fast-tracking the construction of natural gas pipelines" Arawn Emrys (talk)

"DOn't vote for Jill Stein"

I thought this was funny coming from The Guardian and so I put it in here. Should this go to the clogosphere? Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be right where it belong already. Voting for Jill Stein is a terrible idea, period. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

How so? Her "questions" on vaccines? Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ehem.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 05:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Evolution Yeah, like this person is a sane option for any type of public office. Hah. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Perfectly fine links, but arguments like the above are why WIGO:Elections was invented, and that's where I've just moved them - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Stance on Gawker

I'm not sure if this has been covered elsewhere, we don't seem to have an article for them. Personally, it's really hard for me to conjure up sympathy for them as an organization. Sure, it's never happy when people who did nothing wrong lose their livelihoods. But I don't think we should be obligated to defend them just because they released a handful of decent articles per year, buried and sandwiched between mountains of trashy tabloid dreck. They basically exemplified the shitty side of new media and made the "clickbait" style of journalism into an art form. To try to put them on the same level as the NYT and Politico is really stupid. I have a feeling that if Pete Thiel had been a liberal and Gawker was right-wing, liberal news outlets would not be writing soliloquies about the state of journalism, but rather writing about the righteousness of and bravery of taking them on. Hentropy (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, my distaste for the whole matter mostly comes down to the details of the implementation of the law and absolutely nothing about what Gawker did wrong(more than a little) or deserved(they weren't exactly a worthy cause). Laws that allow outrageous judgements to be "locked in" before the appeals process is fully followed strikes me as a violation of the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments. If I've got an objection, it's to Florida's government and the judge of the case. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That's really the main issue I take with the court proceedings as it is right now. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I know I haven't posted here in a while, but I completely agree. And while there are certainly questions regarding free speech and the US legal system that can provide plenty of discussion material -- particularly Thiel's behavior, precedents with Trump, appeals, and the Legalist startup Thiel's funding (linked in the WIGO pages) -- the Boingboing article posted felt largely disingenuous overall. Like seriously? Trying to garner sympathy for AJ Daulerio, the guy who responded to a young woman wanting a video of her RAPE taken off the site by telling her that the video was staying up and "The best advice I can give you right now: do not make a big deal out of this"? Yeah. Sure. Guy has a right to an attorney, but because he hasn't filed for bankruptcy protections like Denton and Gawker, he's liable for 100% of the judgment, and somehow, I'm out of fucks to give. Blah, blah, blah.

This wasn't "one serious lapse in editorial judgement" that cost the writers their jobs, this was a series of serious lapses that kept them dancing on the edge. If it wasn't Hogan, it would've been Brett Favre. Or David Geithner. Or James Franco. Or Lenore Zann. Or Christina Hendricks. Or Chris Christie. Or one of dozens more people that they've smeared.

Frankly, I think that BoingBoing writer is reading a bit too much Niemöller.ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think if one wants to make an argument about the legal process or about the influence and a billionaire can wield in said legal process, then there's valid discussions and debates to be had there, but those aren't exactly new issues. But the moment one starts trying to defend the content of Gawker as if they were some important member of the media and the world is better off with them in it... that's when you just start sounding like a paparazzo defending their "craft" as important and necessary. Hentropy (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Technically, the Boing Boing article was a repost of an article written by Trevor Timm who works at the Freedom of the Press Foundation. I, personally, don't want to limit rights based on whether someone isn't important to the media or some such. I agree with Hentropy's statement at the top and I think that it sucks that those writers lose their jobs but a lot of the articles were pretty scummy. I think the legal aspect is a mess but Peter Thiel has every right to fund a lawsuit against Gawker for something they did wrong even; Hogan wouldn't have been able to sue them otherwise.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that gawker.com is shutting down but all the people associated with it are just being shuffled around to other sites/organisations within the group (which includes Jezebel, Gizmodo and Kotaku, which alone are probably enough to keep the Gawker guys writing, especially if they retool at least one of them to fill the void that Gawker left, which I have to assume they will). I find it hard to care too much about a brand name being gotten rid of because, effectively, it became too mired in its own sleaze to continue on. It was only a matter of time before it was taken down by something or other, and given the specifics of this case, I really don't buy the slippery slope "now billionaires will shut down any newspaper they don't like" argument either. The only controversy I'd accept from the whole affair is whether Thiel used his money to somehow undermine the legal process, but funding the best lawyers possible for the case is not undermining the legal process; although it is a bit sleazy (and personally I've always found the concept of "the best" lawyers to be an inherent flaw in the legal system to begin with), it's effectively just using the law really well. But I don't know enough about the legal side of things to know if there's anything dodgy about it; I did think the monetary amount was really high, but then again Gawker was openly defying a court order to remove the video in the first place (I think? I definitely remember that being something I read before the final judgement). X Stickman (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Billionaires already have a much easier way of shutting down media they don't like: Buying them. Most of the US media are in the hands of a few conglomerates. That is to me more worrisome than some gossip site shutting down another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sexual is political

This article is apparently despised based on the voting. I am curious what the objections are.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

One can argue that postgenderism is the truth of transgenderism. The universal fluidification of sexual identities unavoidably reaches its apogee in the cancellation of sex as such. Recall Marx’s brilliant analysis of how, in the French revolution of 1848, the conservative-republican Party of Order functioned as the coalition of the two branches of royalism (orleanists and legitimists) in the “anonymous kingdom of the Republic.” The only way to be a royalist in general was to be a republican, and, in the same sense, the only way to be sexualized in general is to be asexual.

Huh? This kind of writing grinds my gears. Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 11:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, dat b sum postmodern word salad, by the looks of it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough and I agree that it is a word salad, I just didn't expect it to be so hated.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm genderqueer and I agree with the essay. I use female toilets where possible and male toilets where my workplace has outed me. I'd personally rather have a '+' toilet to use.

Just as how we don't have toilets for coloured people any more, my hope is that one day we shall all prefer to use the '+' toilet and we can get rid of the male and female toilets.

My politics used to be similar to Smerdis's, but I've since become something of a '+' in the political binary too, and modern political systems leave me feeling apathetic and helpless.Vajrapani (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

So essentially this article is hated because of its word choice? Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Disliked because of its style redolent of twenty year old bullshit,yes. The conclusion, and closing counsel, the position the screed argued for:

The great mistake in dealing with this opposition is to search for a proper measure between two extremes. What one should do instead is to bring out what both extremes share: the fantasy of a peaceful world where the agonistic tension of sexual difference disappears, either in a clear and stable hierarchic distinction of sexes or in the happy fluidity of a desexualized universe. And it is not difficult to discern in this fantasy of a peaceful world the fantasy of a society without social antagonisms, in short, without class struggle.

OK. Tell me how to start. And explain how 'class struggle' appears out of the blue. Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Because the Homosexual agenda is full of sexual Bolshevism and cultural Marxism, duh. Everything the left says or does is ultimately shilling for class struggle. Didn't you know that? (Only some of this text is humorous hyperbole) another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The world could use a bit more class struggle right now. But if you hope to reach the classes that are struggling, you need to talk in a language they understand. Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 12:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This Reddit[1] has some good summaries of the arguments that Zizek makes.Vajrapani (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. It does indeed help clarify some of the word salad that is Zizek's "style". I downvoted the article not because I am opposed to this or that notion of gender or identity, but because it's the same old deliberately obfuscatory crap that postmodernists always write. Jagulard (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The "black wall street" article.

So this is more a complaint to the author than to the person who posted the headline to the wigo, but "Black Wall Street" was the actual conventional term for the commodities exchange in Durham, NC, during segregation. Richmond, while having a number of black owned banks, was not called "black wall street" with any regularity. Just a note to anyone who read the article and might get confused in the future. Only pointing this out because I'm sitting 2 blocks from the buildings in question right now. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you live near it now, but were you there?? Jagulard (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Was anybody? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course not, and they could never tell you if they were. Jagulard (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I have always heard Greenwood, Tulsa referred to as "Black Wall Street".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, all three are listed under that title on the other wiki. Jagulard (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Fake Hitler quotes

This deserves note in our articles on Atheism, Hitler, Nazism and Richard Carrier. For starters. Yay, Uppsala University! I could go and knock on the door of the professor Dr. Carrier worked with, for the record. :P Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

More detailed captions

What happened to them? I don't want to have to click on the link to know what the article is about. If an article says "aiding and abetting Apartheid", I presume it is a look back at the 1980s and before, maybe on the basis of some newly declassified files. "The two Chomskys" is also rather vague, as is "Money for nothing" or "Britain's secret wars". Please create WIGOs that give a bit more detail and don't revert attempts to provide detail. Thanks. I am not the Ombud's man 20:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a little eye-rolling, that the headline used by the article itself is just so completely uninformative. Like it's not really worth edit warring over, but come on. It's silly to feel the need to clarify that particular point. The article is also about the US, and Obama, and our foreign policy. It's like a trigger-warning for Israel-Palestine politics. You can have one if you really think it matters, but come on. Really? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a general problem of WIGO. It should in my humble opinion give readers enough background (both of the content and the bent of the writer/publisher) to avoid clicking on something only to vomit after the first three lines. Imagine clicking on shiny happy people and getting what you see behind this link. Or clicking on kabuki and getting what you see behind this link. The vast majority of people vote without reading the links (just do the math on the number of votes and the amount of time people have), so they vote based on the caption. At the very least, those captions should not be vague or misleading. In my opinion the ideal WIGO says what happens or what opinion is expressed and links half to support the point half to provide further reading for those interested. I am not the Ombud's man 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

+1. Please everyone, EXPLAIN YOUR FUCKING LINKS THERE'S NOT SOME SORT OF MAXIMUM WORD QUOTA THIS ISN'T FUCKING BUZZFEED WE DON'T GET A PENNY FOR EVERY DECEIVED CLICK DAWKINS' BONES Y'ALL thank you - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I probably would not have put it in all caps and bold, but I agree with the sentiment. I am not the Ombud's man 18:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sing it, sister! We're in the fight against clickbait together. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Well this was not the argument earlier and doesn't justify labeling links but I will personally try to better explain my links.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about the descriptions. You can rest well assured that every item has been reviewed by own arbiter of objectivity. Jagulard (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Make goat love, not edit war

For the drama I'm trying to prevent with this vote, see here.

Methinks it might be time to vote on the thing we've been edit warring over, with the naming of sources?

• Pro: It's mildly convenient.
• Con: The effect can already be achieved by mousing over the link.

All I ask is that we either write out the sorce for all WIGO posts, or for none. Otherwise it'll just be a source of eternal cockfighting. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yay to typing out the name of all sources

1. Jagulard (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
2. That'd be very convenient for the user and Owlman wants just to label sources HE dislikes (and of course not Greenwald's propaganda rag The Intercept or the moonbat rag Alternet).--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 16:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
3. I stand by the position that I have always held: You are free to add the source and strongly encouraged to make your text as clear and descriptive as possible, but you should not revert sources added by someone else, because... Why would you even do that? It's more work for you with the result of less convenience for the reader. I am not the Ombud's man 17:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   Just look at how ugly WIGO:World is right now. It's not improved. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. I don't think it has become uglier. And even if it did, should this really be our top criterion? I am not the Ombud's man 18:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

4. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
5. I'm open to discussion on this, but my impression is that naming all (as opposed to naming no) sources will soothe the zealots most effectively. Correct me if I'm wrong.Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Nay to typing out the name of any sources

1. In the long run it'll lead to elitism & a blacklist.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 01:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Needless bureacracy that will create an echo chamber.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   How will it create an echo chamber? I am not the Ombud's man 20:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

3. Dont see why it is necessary Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 12:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Chances someone is seriously hurt by a source being absent: 0%. Chances that it creates a giant hassle that needlessly complicates the process of submitting to WIGO: 100%. Conclusion: this is a spat about one entry that an editor decided to try to turn into a policy so they can be right. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   What harm is done if an editor adds a source to an entry? Is there a specific reason that should be reverted? Jagulard (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   Your counter-argument here seems to present a false dilemma: either a source is mandatory by rules or a source cannot under any circumstances be added. I'm sure you can see that neither of those need be true. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

5. If you want to know the source before you click, it's there at the bottom of the screen when your mouse is over the link. 109.204.116.189 (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC) (Sophie)
6. If you feel the irresistible urge to add the name of the source to your entry, you are of course free to do so (I have occasionally done so myself, in fact) but there is absolutely no reason to make it mandatory or to force it upon other editors' entries.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
7. What Joris said. Nerd271 (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   @JorisEnter @Nerd So, does that mean other editors can take yours out constantly? That was the nature of the edit war just now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   No. I think it should be optional. That of course does not mean entries without labels should be taken out. If an editor wants to, they can label an item. But there is no need to require labeling. This is the system that has been in place and I think it is working just fine. I am open to suggestions to the contrary, however. Nerd271 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   It is working just fine, with the minor exception that people are now cooping each other over these exact labels. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

8. So basically there are people who want "Trigger warnings" for news articles? Give me a break. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 21:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   Yeah if "trigger warnings" means printing the name of the author on the book and putting it in the shelf according to its genre, I guess. I am not the Ombud's man 21:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   Apparently there are some who will be "triggered" into annoyance when they see the web design of a site of which's political leanings they disagree with. Let's not pretend that the concept behind it is completely unrelated - why would it be necessary then to inform such people before they accidentally click on such a link? If somebody is so discontent with that scenario then they should install a block filter to their browsers. This is just ridiculous, not to mention the hypocrisy of clicking on a link somebody genuinely thought was interesting from the short write-up and then deciding it's not worth somebody's time just because of the very site which hosts the article. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 06:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

9. Nay! PBfreespace (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
10. Actually, screw it. Mouse over the link, people. Smartphone users: press and hold the link. It'll show. It'll show. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
11. Not necessary unless they're editorially useful in that particular case (e.g. "TW: Daily Mail" or "why is this source publishing this garbage"). This is not something to exempt from judgement - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat love

• First question I have is what the problem with sourcing all of them is. Lately, the blog stuff has seemed shady as hell. I mean, the Intercept? That's Greenwald's personal masturbation organ, and while they sometimes have stuff of interest, they're mostly to be ignored. Alternet? Consistently shit. American Spectator? Consistently shit. I just want to know whether I should bother before clicking the link. Sources help that immensely. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  AlterNet is an aggregate so they can be hit or miss so I have no problem labelling them. I agree that The Intercept is Greenwald's echo chamber but I don't think that justifies labeling them. Lastly, who link the American Spectator?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yet you've labeled others, and reverted when we've labeled Alternet. All of which begs the question again, what's your criterion for labeling? Jagulard (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  Firstly, you were the only one to label AlterNet. Secondly, my criterion, as if it matters, is whether the community views a source as unobjective.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  Where did the community decide this? Pease point me to the list of "unobjective" sources. Jagulard (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  Boy, your concern trolling is nonstop, isn't it. Clearly, there is no list so it is up to the individual user to decide. If a source catches a lot of flak then it is probably for the best to not use it but there isn't any way to stop it. Regardless, no single user can mark another user's link or remove it for being "unobjective" unless that source is clearly wrong or pure crankey.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  So, they're labeled according to "whether the community views a source as 'unobjective'," but "it is up to the individual user to decide." Just like you decided that LH was wrong to label Al Jazeera and reverted it, but decided that, of all the sources listed, only the American Conservative was so untrustworthy as to deserve a warning? Try all the handwaving and ad hominem you like, but you're operating under a double standard: the only "echo chamber" you're worried about is the one that's not your own. Jagulard (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Given that one can determine the source of an entry by floating the mouse over them, I'd say putting in place a requirement for calling out sources to be creating bureaucracy where it's not needed. However, I completely agree with David that contributions should be summarized. Just putting headlines in a big link is lazy; why not add some context, like a link to something relevant on the site, or even some snark? —Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  The link doesn't show up on mobile devices. Jagulard (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  You just have to press and hold the link for it to show you.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  No, it does not work that way on the ipad I sometimes use. SmartFeller (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  In other words, make the users sort through it all rather than make it convenient for them. Jagulard (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  Another important point David (among others) have raised, as I understood it, is that we ought to snark and give context (among other things) in order to reduce the Clickbait-level of certain headlines when given "as-is". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  I think this is strongly supportive of labeling as well. In my opinion, labeling the source of an entry a) allows me to decide whether the article is worth reading according to my own opinion of the source, and b) prevents the WIGOs from being too "clickbait-y": I don't want to give ad revenue, no matter how small, to a site I find objectionable. Jagulard (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'd settle for people providing meaningful and informative descriptions/appraisals, rather than stuff I can get from mouseover/glancing. Or people voting on what they consider to be shit. Annquin (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• We take the time to include labels for autoplay videos as warnings. Is that really such a tremendous "bureaucratic" hassle? Jagulard (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  I am not the Ombud's man 17:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Can someone explain to me, in a relatively unbiased manner, what this is really about? CorruptUser (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  Editors here have different views on which sources/media outlets are particularly bad and particularly good. Some editors here thought that the particularly good or bad ones deserved to have their name mentioned in parenthesis next to the actual, traditional WIGO summary-and-link. Others disagreed with which deserved to be named and which didn't. Drama and a coop case ensured. The above vote is to set the record straight — either we mandate all WIGO links name the source, or we mandate none do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Jerboa lovings

• If we label like this, then... well, WE NEED SOME CSS MAGIC UP IN THIS Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  What would really be impressive is not CSS, but some JS magic that would add the label automagically. Jagulard (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  RMF board member here. One of our primary goals for the site is updating the MediaWiki softare, generally — not adding additional custom code or applets to the current Wiki platform. After this hypothetical upgrade is completed, however, the sky may or may not be the limit... But for now, expect nothing that would diverge from the priority of freshening up the Wiki softare generally. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Point of order

To avoid the next fight breaking out, does not requiring all sources to be labeled mean any user can label the sources of a WIGO not created by them without fear of being reverted cooped or desysoped? I am not the Ombud's man 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

This discussion was moved here from the Saloon bar.

Everybody has the right to add sources to any WIGO (Frankly the concept of "ownership" is a bit weird in non-userspace) and once there (and correct, naturally) they should not be reverted. If a source has an article here, a link is allowed. Nobody is forced to add sources to either their own or anybody else's WIGO. WIGO entries are only ever commented out due to downvotes never due to source or content. Please state your objections clearly, so they can be addressed. I am not the Ombud's man 18:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It's obnoxious and pedantic and this whole argument is the most unnecessary debate since we were told to teach the controversy. You've always been allowed to edit WIGO entries, and that hasn't changed, what has changed is a change that adds nothing got reverted. Just... stop acting like this is a free speech issue, for god's sake. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I never said this is a free speech issue. Also "adds nothing" is a doubtful statement, because who writes something is important, especially when we are talking about opinion pieces (most entries in WIGO) I am not the Ombud's man 18:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I wish fewer of my interactions with you ended in exasperated sighs at how far you push small things. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well it is a small issue to allow adding of sources, so I do not understand why some are so virulently opposed to it to the point of edit warring. I am not the Ombud's man 18:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, well, as someone who has, on multiple occasions, given up making a change to a wigo entry when the original editor who placed it reverted it because they felt it didn't help: you were the one edit warring, nitwit. And then you made a stink about it. And then you made a policy proposal about it. And now you're proposing a "compromise" that really is just you getting your way, and I'm having none of it. I didn't revert you here. Not once. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I never said you edit warred, if that is what you understood I apologize. I am not the Ombud's man 19:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so re-reading your statement with that in mind, why were you so virulently in favor of it to the point of edit warring? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I defer to the judgment of the +++Reverend+++ as to whether I was edit warring. I thought adding sources should be uncontroversial, and more editors agreed that removing already added sources was a bit stupid. I am not the Ombud's man 16:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"soft" paywalls

There are a couple of websites (The New Yorker and the New York Times among them) that have a paywall that does not automatically block access to some or all articles if you don't shell out, but grants access to a certain limited number of articles per period of time. Now for the most part, those paywalls don't care if you just click on the article and close it five seconds later or whether you read it. Should there be a "warning" for soft paywalls like we do with autoplay videos? I don't care either way (and I certainly won't add it unless someone with mod authority explicitly says that I can or should), but I thought this topic might be worth raising. If not, just archive this. I am not the Ombud's man 16:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC):::

That wouldn't be a big deal but from what I understand, one can just use incognito mode to get around the paywall.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Really? I thought they worked via IP tracking rather than cookies... another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 19:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I could be wrong, I know that it doesn't work with all sites but I haven't had any issues with NYT or WaPo.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember which ones are which (between NYT, Washington Post, etc.) but I've found at least one that you can dodge with incognito mode (so must be cookies-based), and another where (when you follow a link to an article) the article loads followed by the message in front of it telling me I've reached the limit, so with these I just click the 'stop loading' button in the address bar after the article text has loaded. I think it means any videos embedded in the article won't work but the rest of the content is there. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Downvoting my own wigo

Whoops, I missed an important bit about the Dawkins research. Sorry for failing to read the whole article. I think I'm probably due some castigation for that. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that article earlier but didn't link to it because of the bias. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding it, though. Just clarify next time.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole article, clearly. If I'd read that part, my reaction would have been pretty much the same: not worth linking. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No they're not

The article claiming pundits are scapegoating minorities for Trump's win. It should not be difficult to understand that pundits who are blaming "identity politics" for the Democrats loss are not blaming MINORITIES for the loss but left-wing outlets and the DNC for relying on "identity politics". Conflating those two things are why people feel progressives are too quick to throw the leftist label at them. "I represent minorities therefor if you disagree with me you're a racist". Newsflash: Minorities didn't have a high voter turnout either. They're voting for the lesser of two evils, not because they love identity politics. What a fucking joke. 2nd Newsflash: DONALD TRUMP CONTROLS THE WHITE HOUSE! DONALD... TRUMP! And here are the same "leftists", doubling down on the same shit, calling everyone with a suggested improvement (including Bernie Sanders) a racist. Fuck me mate. Please stop losing everything, or would you like eight years of Donnie Trump followed by eight years of Ted Cruz? ClothCoat (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but what are you responding to?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh just the title of the article posted "Lashing out at Identity Politics, pundits blame Trump on those most vulnerable to Trump" sorry should have been more clear about that. It appears to be put out by a left-wing version of Accuracy in Media or something? Anyways I was mostly just venting after seeing its upvote ratio and realizing Donald Trump may be our president for eight years sorry if I annoyed anyone. ClothCoat (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I assumed so and linked the article. I am not quite sure how you came to that conclusion which doesn't deride Sanders (FAIR has criticized the media for blacking out his campaign and misrepresenting him). The article itself points out how these op-eds attacking identity politics with no evidence. One example of this is David Brooks attacking pollsters who reduced individuals to a hive mind identity w/o citing any such pollster.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I read the article but I'm not really sure how you would even collect data on this? Most voters don't really know what "Identity politics" even is per se so you couldn't even ask, though most of the polling data shows economic issues are the main reason people voted Trump so that would be a point in their favor. That's why they're pundits, they're giving they're suggestions/opinions, you can agree or disagree. I'm saying that the title inheriently presents them as blaming minorities for Cinton's loss by conflating identity politics with "minorities" which is disingenious. Here is what we know about the campaign:

1) The DNC and Clinton primarily avoided economic issues and instead focused on various forms of (what could be broadly termed) modern "identity politics", focusing on "first female president" rhetoric, celebrity endorsements, labeling Sanders a "sexist", and so on.

2) Donald Trump won by both focusing on economic issues such as free trade in swing states in the rust belt with a heaping of white identity politics.

3) Donald Trump won.

If you want to disagree with the analysis that identity politics lost Clinton the election (despite it being her main strategy) fine, but articles like this are, yes, making it impossible to disagree without being called a racist/misogynist/etc. because it suggests they're throwing minorities under the bus for Clinton's loss rather than "progressive" activists. ClothCoat (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion and I have argued the same as well as linked to op-eds which have linked articles criticizing this strategy. I think that it is odd to attack this article for this; I agree that the title may be making an assertion about the prejudice of a pundit but it does point out that Mark Lilla belittles stories about trans people in Egypt as unimportant. I don't understand your point on polling on identities since it was Brooks, not the article, which asserted that the pollsters declared that entire identities would vote homogenously for one candidate over another.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying the article is claiming that "There's no data identity politics pushed people to Trump" when there is no obvious way of collecting such data. You can't walk up to most voters and ask them whether identity politics played much of a role since A) many voters don't even know what that is, even if they like or dislike it in practice and b) most voters operate on a "gut level" on which candidate connects more with them. Again my main beef is they call the attack on identity politics A) totally bogus despite it being the DNC's main strategy and therefor perhaps relevant and B) yes, completely accuses people of bringing up the emperor may not have clothes of being closet racists/sexists/bigots. ClothCoat (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay but I think you would be able to ask them if they thought Trump was politically incorrect and if that was something that they liked. Also, I think the Dems rejection of their grassroots and their refusl to have any class politics have forced them intoo a state of disrepair.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we're mostly in agreement but I found some data on "political correctness" and it doesn't look good for the Dems (at least from a PR standpoint). ClothCoat (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yikes that isn't good especially since the Dems are usually associated with political correctness, at least, where I am from. I do agree with you but I don't reject identity politics, only when it is used as a cudgel against class politics. I do think the Left is to blame for using racist (among other words describing oppression) as an insult that ends debate rather than an abstract concept on societal structures which has led to most people misunderstanding oppression as an individualistic phenomenon.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)