Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?/Archive12

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 February 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <13>, (new)(back)

Check Your Secular Privilege, Liberal America[edit]

About the "A Moroccan ex-Muslim on being branded a "native informant" by American liberals." Am i wrong to be sceptical about his claims?

He is using his Anecdotal evidence (He was called racist once) as a reason to sweepingly call all liberals uncritcal of Islam. He sounds a lot like the "reasonable" Islamophobes, Sam Harris and his ilk. Also he claims Mona Eltahawy was called a "native informant" wich is not referenced in the Article he links to her. It is not that his arguments aren't without merit, but it reads a lot like "Bash the Liberal" straight out of the New Atheist Handbook.(a subjective claim on my side, but thats why i am asking.) — Unsigned, by: Benaresh / talk / contribs

Assuming good faith, I thought what he wrote seemed perfectly fine? Why are you particularly skeptical against this one man's rather short anecdote? I mean, you've correctly identified it as evidence from which no far-reaching conclusions should be drawn — but surely he is entitled to his tale, and deserve to be heard?
As many women reporting rape or sexual abuse will tragically note, it is easy to either accuse the very telling of the story to be a malicious engendering of negativity, and indeed to simply gaslight anyone with an uncomfortable story to tell.
I don't think it reads like any "handbook" (?) for anything at all, and the only "bashing" in the article is directed at Donald Trump, et. al. He doesn't mention Sam Harris or the likes. Though, what he is criticizing is clearly what some would term the "regressive left", this isn't a term that appears in the blog post.
I'm caused to think by your mention of Islamophobia in this context — which the blog post specifically rallies against in the form of "closing the US to all Muslims" (while also supporting a call to inclusively work closer with muslim-American citizens). Do you think that there is any legitimate criticism to be made against Islam? If so, do the same formal criticisms have different value based on the identity of the person making them?
And as a feminist, I have to wonder how different this man's angle of complaint really is from the perfectly valid one of Postcolonial feminismWikipedia? Especially considering his headline of choice. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I started to feel paranoid after i read the Comments of the Article. I didn't say he shouldn't tell his Story quite the opposite. And maybe i am misreading it.
On your points: I dont care much who makes the point (Milos whatshisname is a Gay Breitbart writer how can breitbart be racist? <-bullshit in case you think i believe that.) On your other points. I am not uncomfortable with discussing the failings of a Religion like Islam (or any other tbh) that that Woman unwarranted called him a racist, i even believe. But i get the feeling that his Article is just a form of legitimating uncritical Islam-bashing and similar to Milos, is the Muslim-bashing easier to defend when you can point to a former muslim.
As an Example:

"Not because his rhetoric was utterly hateful and discriminatory, but because, deep inside, I knew that it would push many of his liberal opponents to take on the cause of defending Islam. And so they did." was the sentence that feels odd to me. He didn't roll his eyes at hatred but at the defence by liberals?

He wrote:

" Their very ideological platform is rooted in standing with society’s underdogs: underrepresented ethnic groups, religious minorities, LGBTQs and free thinkers. Yet when Middle Eastern dissidents advocate for the same fundamental rights, liberals would rather not hear it. Why the inconsistency?"

I read this Conversation between maher and Dawkins once on this wiki :
Dawkins: "Oh, that’s their culture, you have to respect it."
Maher: "That’s right! That’s what they say. It’s just insane."
Dawkins: "Liberal about everything else, but then this one exception, ‘It’s their culture.’ Well, to hell with their culture."
which i think sounds oddly similar.
Also the last paragraph: "Middle Eastern expats eager to advocate for secular societies back home have no choice but to seek freedom of speech. When our liberal allies in America try to silence our plea, they ::imply that the Middle East does not deserve the same rights they enjoy here. Interpreting our struggles purely from the perspective of U.S. foreign policy is borderline ethnocentric. Surely, that is not the ::liberal thing to do."
Gives the impression to me, that he implies all Discussions about Islam are shot down as racist by Liberals.
Again i might just be paranoid. But i seen to many links to in the comments to be 100% comfortable with that Article. After reading why-robert-spencer-is-an-anti-muslim-extremist-an-open-letter i had the feeling (subjective i know) that compared to the open Letter, is way more into critizing "Regressives" and legitimate Islam-bahing than to critisize Islam.
Again it's all feeling from my side and the tone of the Article mightjust hit me wrong and i use the Association_fallacy by the End. --Benaresh (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your nuanced reply! I honestly think that you're not wrong to sense the impending comment field shitstorm when reading an article like that. You better believe articles like these are proudly appropriated and put on display by various self-invited islamophobes. That being said, they don't know what the hell they're doing anyway. Legit, no-bullshit islamophobes are as uneducated, pseudo-intellectual and confused as conspiracy theorists are.
They're still a force to be reckoned with, but my point is — they cherry pick and shoehorn their narrative so wildly that what they claim is rarely claimed by their sources. They combine stories like these, and others, and then say much more far-reaching things than the stories ever said. They are consumed entirely by confirmation bias (which serves to remind us not to trust our own confirmation bias!). Most importantly however, the people who grab and run with that man's article don't represent the man who wrote it, nor his views.
It's important to not fall into splittingWikipedia, since doing so deprives us of all nuance. Jonanism is equally a vice to watch out for — jonanism is, indeed, the whole basis for becoming an islamophobe. "They're all ISIS", something something darkside.
I think our Islamophobia article, while far from perfect, atleast shoots for the nuance we sorely need. The first segment (subheaders included discusses the completely hate-driven, xenophobe-type Islamophobia that basically everyone here at RW despises and fights. Those who deny that this exists, or is a problem, are completely wrong.
The second segment (subheader included) discusses the complicated meeting ground between criticism if Islam (which, let's be honest, IS a touchy subject to the faithful) and all other angles and motivations, ranging from good to bad, true to false, and so on. Those who deny that valid criticism of Islam exists, or that such criticism constitutes a problem, are completely wrong.
The second portion of the article is where one's impulse to splitting and jonanism is truly tested. Because there are a LOT of criticisms to leverage against faith-based thinking, against the literal mind (in contrast to the ironic), against religious pseudoscience and superstition, against theocratic reaction and antifeminism — all of which instantiate themselves equally in all three desert dogmas. And, of course, because the people actually belonging to the first part of the article tend to masquerade as belonging to the second part — this process is no different from pseudoscience trying to ape the appearance of science. The important thing to remember, however, is that nobody genuinely belonging to the second part aligns with those in the first.
I had a discussion on that with a fellow who tried to (in the nicest of terms) argue me into his viewpoint — that the word "islamophobia" was the problem. A bit like gay bashers complaining that "homophobe" is a term of abuse, and thus, that people in support of homosexuals are also guilty of something something darkside. Naturally, these strategies are nothing but apology. To deny that muslims suffer prejudice, and that people hold an insane fear of muslim culture, arabic, and (in their eyes) "brown people" is just appaling. And the idea that "calling phobic people out for their phobia is itself a phobic reaction" is nonsensical.
If you want, I highly recommend reading the discussion, both to get a view into the mind of an islamophobia apologist (Onideus), and to see my reasoning on why fighting real islamophobia and fighting for the right to criticize the sensitive beliefs of the faithful are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have just one angle — criticising Islam without also fighting Islamophobia becomes nonsense. Conversely, fighting islamophobia without also criticising Islam becomes nonsense.
We have to be very watchful against those who would dehumanize the faithful, or anyone else. That being said however, the doctrines of Islam are false. Metaphysically, epistemologically, morally. The prophet was wrong (and I get to draw him if I please). Allah doesn't exist, and if he did, he'd be a monster anyways. Thus, the theocracies in which evil is done in the name of these falsehoods are themselves false and wicked. And they need to be resisted, powerfully, with reason and argument.
Forgive the length and ranting themes in this post. It just grew and grew and I tried to boil it down to a point (or two). When in doubt, don't assume the worst (about anyone). Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! You helped me understand the upvotes(of the Article) and that the Article itself is not part of the Problem! You don't know how much fear the normalisation of racism in all its forms scares me, now that AFD here in Germany became somewhat mainstream... --Benaresh (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
No problem! And yes, it terrifies me too. Our own tendency to tribalism is perhaps our own worst enemy; forgetting that others are human beings — no better or worse — just like ourselves. A great lesson of biology is also how closely related we all are — distant siblings at worst, every single human being on this planet. (This is a great book, btw). Also, regarding AFD, don't miss our very own article on them. We also cover the dangerous nut organization PEGIDA. If you can help any of these articles with sources or reasoning, you're very much invited to give it a shot. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The notion of "resisting" Trump when Trump hasn't done a thing as president yet is ridiculous[edit]

Not to defend Trump here, but when parts of the GOP had decided they were going to "resist" Obama and be as obstructive and obnoxious as possible without any possibility of bipartisan work, they were heavily ridiculed in the liberal world, and rightly so. Let's not do the very same thing, it's not gonna lead to anything good.

Also I gotta say that what WHTM is proposing is laughable. There's literally nothing in here that requires any significant effort on the receiver's part, it's activism for lazy people who aren't actually going to be that heavily affected by a Trump presidency. Yaaaaawn. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

By your reasoning we shouldn't watch suspected Terroists because they didn't do anything yet. I don't get why you complain about how little effort it takes resisting, unlike the rights form of Protest (mass shootings). Also yaawn? If this didn't work you wouldn't start a Topic about it, would you?--Benaresh (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The argument that Trump hasn't done anything yet is what's ridiculous. We know what he plans to do, what he wants to do, what his views & those of his supporters are, & there are good reasons why Americans should be concerned about their civil rights, international relations, healthcare, LGBT rights, etc. It's long past time for complacent liberals — those who first thought that Trump would never actually run, then that he'd never get the Republican nomination, or that he'd shift to mainstream Republican stances after getting the nomination, that he'd never be elected, & then that the Electoral College would block him — to wake up to the fact that Trump will be President & focus on what they can do to protect themselves. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
My plan is to make some calls to the representatives of my new state and make a "honk if you hate Donald Trump" sign to hold up near the major intersection. People need to know that they aren't just trapped inside their own heads fearful of the monster that's about to be in the White House. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
"Complacent liberals", how ironic. Last I checked, Obama has done everything Trump has already proposed; whether that be subjecting Muslims to warrantless mass surveillance and making them second class citizens or detaining and deporting about 3 million immigrants. If Obama (or any of the Democrats for that matter) were actually worried about Trump, why isn't he doing everything in his power to repeal the tools of the imperial presidency? He could give amnesty to the millions of undocumented immigrants, dismantle the surveillance state, or ban the drone program: instead, he has expanded our unauthorizes wars and attempted to create a new cold war without providing any evidence. The liberals are praising Obama for banning oil drilling in parts of the Gulf and the Artic but hey forget who authorized such disastrous drilling in the first place; they also are praising him for dismantling NSEERS but they forget that the DHS wanted to get rid of it because they already have plenty of lists like the Terror Watch list and No Fly list that keep Muslims under our thumb. Speaking of NSEERS, where were all the liberals when Bush enacted it after 9/11 and immediately used it to detain and deport Muslims with no justifiable cause? Hell, where were all the liberals when Clinton built a fence on the US-Mexico border and authorized extraordinary rendition; where were they when the Democrats voted in favor of the PATRIOT ACT and building a wall. Last time I checked, they were rallying behind the candidate who voted in favor of both. Oh, and yes, what WHTM has proposed thus far is laughable so yawn indeed.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Owlman: Your point is? America voted for a center right Canditate vs a Batshit insane Pumpkin comparing Obama and Trump and saying "Obama has done everything Trump has already proposed" is quite baffling for me! I never heard Obama wanting to erect a Wall along the Mexican border or expanding the Nuclear Arsenal... I agree that Obama isn't a saint and that the Drone Strikes alone should have the People on the Barricades. Anyway about the new Cold War: Russia FUCKING INVADED THE CRIMEAN! RUSSIA BASICALY ANNEXED EASTERN UKRAINE! PUTIN STARTED THE NEW COLD WAR do you get that? Sorry if the all Caps came off as agressive, but i am really tired of all the Putin defenders and i wanted to get the message across. I know Russia is a Pond over for Americans but all the need to do to fuck me personally over would blitzing Poland into submission so they can fuck Germany sideways and your future President would just smile and tweet how great a move that was... --Benaresh (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Owlman Who's WHTM? Wait nevermind I got confused. Sorry about that. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake news is a scapegoat article...[edit]

...or more specifically the claim 'democracy is in crisis'. Just how exactly is democracy in crisis, beyond some votes going a way we'd rather not? Seems more like the ability of our side (generally a more liberal left around these parts) to connect with voters is in crisis. I wonder if democracy was in crisis when bush got in? Or reagan? Or thatcher? If you are more right wing, was democracy in crisis when clinton got in? How about when labour got in after over a decade of tory government?. Seems more like democracy in action rather than crisis to me. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The rise of Authoritan Rulers around the World. Turkey a former Democracy might not be one for long. We Germans talk about "Politikverdruss" hard to translate meaningful but the gist is that people lost interest in the Democratic System since the 90's and the Surge of the AFD marks the current Crisis of Democracy in Germany.
On Trump: He is not quite comparable to Thatcher and Reagan as Ronald Reagan stopped having a boner for Nukes after "The Day after" while Trump thinks we should stock up again. But his extreme Views are not the only thing that is concerning. It is that all of that points to people loosing so much trust in the current system that they want it burned down, they rather vote a guy who admited sexual assault than have a Establishment "shill" again, it was, in a way, like Obamas Change campaing, only angry. So maybe it is not Trump per se, maybe it is the knowledge that a hella lot of people are looking for easy answers that is the Democratic Crisis... --Benaresh (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah the way I see it all of these countries where far right parties are gaining power and the disruption of the EU is seriously bad news. The world doesn't need Russia taking over any more places or more xenophobic authoritarian states. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
so a bunch of cunts got in. Such is democracy, you get fuckholes you dont like time to time. That does not represent a crisis of democracy. Presumably enough people liked them. Have you never been on the losing side before? It is failure of the liberal left to provide a viable alternatives. They saw in banking crashes and austerity. Things werent exactly rosey before. These pricks in power now will run the course, meet with some crisis or other and the pendulum will swing back for the left to rise up with new popular support. Such fickle sheep we are. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I hope you're right. I'm not saying our "side" is perfect, not by a long shot, because when people are centrists that give lip service to lefties people fall for the first right wing demagogue that comes along promising something better. I hope left leaning political parties elsewhere in the world realize this. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It isn't about winning. I don't know why you are so negative about this AMassiveGay. Rather i'd like to know what you think what should be different? Anyway stop calling anyone sheep. Firstly Sheep are more intelligent (and evil) than we give them credit for and also calling Humans Pigs sheep and Cattle isn't healthy for your mindset. Most People i know want easy answers for difficult Politcal problems, for their own life is complicated enough. But we, well at least i, know that nothing is easy about anything. --Benaresh (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
hahaha - you are talking about democracy in crisis (it isnt) and yet i'm being negative. You know what else isnt healthy for your mindset? Being so fucking earnest about everything. This hyping up the setbacks that the liberal left have suffered to be worst things ever, envisaging facists climbing out the woodwork, proclaiming new hitlers at every turn, is frankly absurd. We are along long way from any of that. Its kind like the liberal version of claiming we are living in the end times and just as polarizing and dehumanising of the other side. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You are Evading my question on what should be done . Democratic in Crisis does not mean it is over or in Danger. There is a clear rift between the People and the Politicans... Anyway about the Nazi Analouges: Did you see the "Heil Trump" Video? Or the gushing of "Daily Stormer" on how he is their President? This looks a lot like Fascists climbing out of the woodwork to me. You may be correct that peopel overstate the Dangers and react poorly. However your obvious anger and all your liberals talk (wich means Libertarians where i come from) is a sweeping generalisation. I think you are very happy that Trump has won and People shitting on him here at RW makes you mad.--Benaresh (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

obvious anger? Haha, no. Apathy is is more the emotion. I think you are having trouble gauging tone. Thats an issue with over earnestness. 'Democratic in crisis does not mean is over or in danger' what does it mean then? An empty phrase? Your disconnect between public and government means that democracy has always been in crisis. The likes of the daily stormer and nazis supporting trump, these people arnt new. They've always been. And they put their faith in a chancer, who totally wont throw them under a bus at first opportunity, at the head of a government, with checks and balance, and a sacred constitution, thats notoriously useless at getting any meaningful change through. They only so vocal now because they have lost argument after argument tor years. Its their last hurrah, the last shot at relevance. As for supporting trump, go fuck yourself you godawful prick. Do not misrepresent me when nothing i have said supports that. Twat. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"In crisis" may be a stretch, but there are certainly valid concerns about the state of democracy. E.g. in the UK, a single-issue referendum (EU membership) is being used by the government as a "mandate" to push ahead with a hard Brexit which wasn't voted on, contradicts their own manifesto, & most aspects of which are being kept secret, all while trying to keep parliament excluded from the process. In the US, Trump & the GOP are appointing a corrupt administrator full of business interests & nepotism, & trying to circumvent the checks which normally prevent this. Trump has kept the media away from a lot of his activities throughout the campaign, & there are indications his government may use prosecutions of journalists & their sources to crack down on the media. Plus there's Russia's interference in the US election process, which the Republicans (after yelling about election fraud for months before the election) don't want to discuss. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Seriously what is your problem ? You call people Sheep you call me a Twat and a prick. You still didn't answer my question what should be done.

Anyway to answer yours: a crisis like the Oil Crisis is according to Wikipedia:"A crisis (from the Greek κρίσις - krisis;[1] plural: "crises"; adjectival form: "critical") is any event that is, or is expected to lead to, an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society. Crises are deemed to be negative changes in the security, economic, political, societal, or environmental affairs, especially when they occur abruptly, with little or no warning. More loosely, it is a term meaning "a testing time" or an "emergency event"." Here you go. I am sorry that i asumed you were a Trump supporter but all your "Liberal" bashing here comes off as super angry ranting i expect from one, you voted yes on Brexit then, fine whatever, people are free to do that.--Benaresh (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

look. I am sorry i called you a prick. But seriously, do not misrepresent me. Secondly, i am uninterested in precise definitions of the word crisis. Context is far more important generally, though the definition you just gave does not in my mind make the statement 'democracy in crisis' true. Im more inclined to yield to weasloids view. Simply losing some votes on its own does not cut it - my original point. Thirdly, what can be done? That is not not at all relevant to my point. I can see or say something is wrong without knowing how to fix it. As you said earlier, there are no easy answers and im a poorly educated dumbarse. What can help, i think, and this ties into you misrepresenting me, is to learn to take criticism. Criticism does not mean they are against you or are on the otherside. Self reflection. If something is not working do assumd its because the otherside are arseholes, they cheated, they lied, etc. Look to why your message was not get5ing through, why the people who should hqve voted for your candidate didnt. Lose the them and us mindset. Lose the idea that we have we have to fight the enemy. Its easy to say who you are against, but harder to say what you are for. Fight for someth8ng not against. I guess its this bubble thing people are talking about. I here so much from folk saying working class people should voting this way for their own interests, but i see little about folk actua!ly twlking to them. And then, when they dont vote the right way, they are all racists ands uneducated brainwashed simpletons. That'll get em on yourside. Iam not the most subtle, precise or coherent writer, thinker, speaker in the world so make of this meandering rant what you will. On a more personal note, aside from calling you a prick, nothing i said can or should be read as 'angry'. The sheep comment was about people in general not rw, and was clearly a tongue in chech throwaway line, not a statemeng of sincere belief. Maybe not be so quick to take offence at nothing? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It is cool man! Also i didn't try to take the piss with you. As you said i have trouble to take critsim it makes me kinda prissy as in passive aggressive, so there is that. Anyway have a nice evening until we bud heads again ;D --Benaresh (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
FFS i am to stupid to properly apologise! AMassiveGay I am sorry i took the the discussion in the direction it went. --Benaresh (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Reason magazine[edit]

Shouldn't Reason Articles land in the Clogosphere? They did call G.W. Bush an socialist. I mean Faunas does an awesome job digging these nuggets but i think they should be moved over.--Benaresh (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Concur, and definitely not in World - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Wait, if they're actually good articles ("nuggets" in Benaresh's words), why should they be over in the "clog" page and not here in the "blog" page or in the "world" page? Articles should be judged by their own merits, not by the fact that they happen to be published by people who tend to say idiocies! I thought we'd be a bit more rational with this (and yes, Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki and things). Faunas (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a Quick Note Before I Post This[edit]

By now I'm sure ya'll have heard about Pissgate. Personally, I think it's some kind of batshit conspiracy theory desperate leftists are latching onto in increasingly desperate attempts to take down Trump. It's sad, it really is, and I'd love to get to the bottom of what's really going on. I don't know what's really happening. But I'm going to post a Gizmodo article about it and you can upvote if you like it, downvote it if you think it's bullshit. No skin off my teeth if you downvote. Please read through it and judge for yourselves. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I cannot properly form the words needed to present the mixture of Schadenfreude, pure glee and shame ( about the schadenfreude and glee) i feel when reading up on PissGate on MemeCenter. I sure hope it is fake tough. In addition i don't the hooker and watersports thing is something Trump would do... --Benaresh (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It strikes me as not at all unlikely given the other sexual allegations made against him. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
That a fair point... Crap maybe a part of me don't want it to be true, i mean it is horrifing isn't it?--Benaresh (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
ha, watersports is pretty vanilla these days AMassiveGay (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I remain firm in that I don't accept outlandish claims on suspect evidence. Given that it alleges a conspiracy of control on weak evidence: I will call it a conspiracy theory until such time as there is reason to call it something else. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
We have a name now : Christopher Steele was the former british agent who with his Company Orbis Intelligence Limited was tasked to find dirt on Trump. If his claims turn out to be true, what do you think would happen? I still doubt that it is true but i am not fully aware of the consequences... --Benaresh (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing will happen. I cannot imagine a scandal that would turn the republican party against Trump, and being that they control both chambers of congress, everything will slide. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


are Guardian and NY Times links on this page? Shouldn't they be on WIGO:World? ?? (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian publishes plenty of opinion and has a specific editorial slant. (So does the NYT.) I put a piece here rather than WIGO:World because it struck me as very tentative research for discussion rather than hard news. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
If it's an op-ed (e.g. anything in Comment Is Free or NYT Blogs), it goes here - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Todd Nickerson petition[edit]

"The content of this petition is under review." Not sure what this means, but it probably got removed because someone thought it was encouraging child rape or something.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 17:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Anti-space Luddite or why the Atlantic Article pisses me off without being wrong.[edit]

Sorry if i have to vent my frustation this way, while i agree with that Article i don't think the Person who wrote is really got why Elon Musk and Hawkins implore us to reach the stars. Even with a perfect Society with no problems(Utopia anyone?) staying on Earth would still result in the demise of the Human species. Reaching out unto the stars isn't about captalism it is about progress hope and the inevetability of finite ressources drying up one day.

Yes we need to solve our problems here on earth but we shouldn't let this deter from reaching out to the Stars. In fact pretending that, solving the problems of the now and space exploration are mutally exclusive is not only false but those two are connected. Satelites are used in Farming and mapping climate change, the challenges of Space Travel forwarded the Development in Material Science and Engineering and most Astronauts and Cosmonauts came back to Earth changed people, the sky looks endless from the ground and paper thin to Space Explorers, who do you think has more appreciation for the Life Boat Earth? The Guy who had to Breath in a Space suit or the guy who thinks Snow proofes that Global Warming doesn't exist?

I couldn't put my toughts terse enough to formulate why i think anti-space People are unhelpful in solving the Problems they moan about but do not let you be decieved: These People are Anti-science, and not understanding the benefits of the Space Programs all around the World shows that.

you'll to have to forgive us anti-science luddites for not particularly caring too much about progress, hope and the wonderous prospect of our great great great great great grandkids one day being able to take a shit on Mars. I guess the worry of having to make rent, pay for medication, and still have enough to eat, has warped our myopic perspective. I guess we cant all be visionaries looking at the long picture, like those billionaires like elon musk. i guess us selfish proles will have to learn to appreciate the ability to see photographs of tiny dots in the blackness of space that are tiny dots that mankind has never seen before, while hunting behind the sofa for enough change to buy a tin of beans. i know i will feel so much better about myself when i take my daily medication, content in the knowledge that a handful of pluck dreamers got to see the world fron the void of space can appreciate this squalid rock that much more than i. I'll try to stifle the notion that world war II and cold war politics was any kind of driving force for the miracles of the space race, and I know it is just churlish of me to think it is a fantasy that we wouldn't have found other drivers for technological progress, or that saintly billonaire visionaries like elon musk are the cause and/or symptom of many of the worlds problems. I'll try but i guess i'm no visionary. hmm, its a bit chilly today. so much for global warning. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There is more to fucking life than shitting on other peoples Hopes and Dreams. Also consider this: all other Cold War Posturing had a tinge of Armageddon (Cuba Crisis for one) the Space Race was Scientific and looked less like a prelude for war and more like a Dick Measuring Contest. The US alone spends Billion on Weapons they never use Cancer Research has more funding than all the Space Programs combined. We spend little and gain a lot in knowledge in return.

Elon Musk is a Douche i don't care about, but thats the thing you seem to have a bigger problem with him and Billionaires than with Space Exploration. It seems that People as usually look for a simple solution: Just shut every Space Program down! it is sure to help you find some spare change for your Can of Beans. --Benaresh (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(looks up at the other comments) I have this strange feeling about you guys, and our, wish to "reach the stars". Don't any of you think that this is actually a strange attitude for us to have when it comes to the subject of space exploration? It comes off as needy and desperate and almost religious. I'm not against space exploration or humans being on other planets, but for some reason every time it is discussed it seems to be motivated by some deep seated anxiety that no one wants to talk about directly. Like, seriously humanity, do we need to talk to somebody, maybe see a therapist? I hope this little rant wasn't inarticulate and hard to understand. (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Krashlia

im not sure about the anxiety, but I certainly see the religious mania for it, as exemplarised by time Peake's (the first Brit in space who isn't a woman because they don't count. even space is sexist. honestly, when he was murdering bowie, it was like Helen sharman never existed. I went to science museum recently, tim Peake's face was every where, but Helen sharman? didn't see her. sure she was, but I wasn't looking, but i wasn't looking for tim peake either but you couldn't avoid him) and Brian cox evangelically in an asinine awe struck tone talking about the wonders of space, the immenseness of it all, the insignificance of our lives in the face of the vastness of the eons old universe. the take home from it all is not some existential angst nor some near religious inspiration, but that perhaps we should be making the most of our lives now, here on earth. spend your own cash if like and can afford it, but dont ask me or ask for my tax money when people are starving, homeless, losing jobs, businesses going under, hospitals and schools going under, and people murdering each other for petty prejudices and their own religious inspiration. I particularly dislike billionaires lecturing me for not sharing a vision, nay fantasy, as to what we could achieve decades, or hundreds, of years in the future when circumstance prevents me knowing whats going to happen next week. get back to me when we star trek type replicators are a reality, though I probably wont care then either because what I would be replicating, I wont need a rocket ship to traverse the cosmos. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This complex question actually calls for a complex answer, and here is one from 1970: Why explore space?. The letter is a bit long but worth reading IMHO since it directly addresses some of your points. TLDR: space exploration has indirect benefits for everyday people (technology, knowledge, international cooperation), and when talking about budget, we need to really think about how it works. In addition to that, different people have different tastes and aspirations: someone who is motivated by rocket science may not be motivated by cancer research, and there is nothing wrong with that. All the problems that we have are already being worked on by the smartest people; but sometimes the problems are just too damn hard, and sometimes corruption and incompetence get in the way. --Cmonk (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sexism is like an Envelope choking everday life. In addition to Woman Black men like Bass Reeves and Native American accomplishments aren't part of Americas History leaving a white male dominated History in the minds of people. It is strange how more than 50% of Humans are considered inferior and their accomplishments attributed to men. Even stranger when those Man Babys on the WEBZ always ramble on how "3rd Wave Feminism is unneccesary cancer". My hope is that as the message of feminism is spread, female wont be talked down anymore...

You are not wrong that there is a Religiosity within AstroPhysics: But what i get from it is a reason not to end my miserable life. Space News and its related progress is the little light in my life that lets me dream of Moon and Mars trips as poignant and awe inspiring for me as my first flights in a Plane. Also the little itch of being a Wanderer:

But most importantly we try to eliminate one of the biggest issues of Mankind: Energy. Everything boils down to it and a Dyson Swarm is propably (hey no 100% guarantee) the Key to a post-scarcity Society as envisioned by Iain M. Banks. A future i hope for!--Benaresh (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"The alt-right didn't start out racist"[edit]

What? I'm sorry...WHAT?! The term was frigging coined by a Neo-Nazi. Blitz (Complaints Box) 17:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It goes into Richard Spencer, he wasn't actually always an out-and-proud white supremacist. Some of the article is interesting, but it's all predicated on the idea that the alt-right is a "movement" with clear leaders and an organized ideology. It's more of a coalition of people who can tell you very clearly what they don't like- globalism, immigration, minorities, feminism, etc.- but don't have any coherent ideology outside of that. It's why they loved Trump so much- he was like them. The Nazi types have practiced for decades to polish their arguments and play mind games with these kinds of people, those who don't often have a deep understanding of political history or ideologies, but are just frustrated and using voting as an outlet for frustration. Your /pol/ types are the more "matured" alt-right, those with more coherent (if deplorable) ideologies close to traditional white nationalism and anti-semitism. Hentropy (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I can confirm that there was a paleoconservative revival preceding the alt-right. Lots of Republicans including myself were not impressed with the direction taken by movement conservatism during the Bush years, and were looking for conservatisms that rejected economic libertarianism. The problem is, when you started looking for that sort of thing, sooner or later you'll end up meeting admirers of John C. Calhoun. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The Hoaxers[edit]

This post in particular.

The biggest problem with that article is that the authors conclude that there is a problem with the entire field of gender studies rather than the problem of predatory access journals, which I think is the bigger problem.

“The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” underwent a blind peer-review process and yet was accepted for publication. This needs serious explaining. Part of the fault may fall on the open-access, pay-to-publish model, but the rest falls on the entire academic enterprise collectively referred to as “gender studies.” As we see it, gender studies in its current form needs to do some serious housecleaning.

I think it's a pretty big leap of faith. So, the content itself is good, but their conclusions, I think, is going too far. They keep emphasizing the dangers of predatory open-access journals but weaken their point by trying to criticize gender studies as a whole.

On the other hand, no one is arguing, nor has any reason to argue, that respectable journals like Nature and countless others have adopted a peer-review process that is fundamentally flawed or in any meaningful way corrupt. Much of the peer-review system remains the gold-standard for the advancement of human knowledge. The problem lies within a nebula of marginal journals, predatory pay-to-publish journals, and, possibly to some degree, open-access journals—although it may largely be discipline-specific, as we had originally hoped to discover. This is, after all, not the first time postmodernist academia has fallen for a hoax.

This hoax, however, was rooted in moral and political biases masquerading as rigorous academic theory. Working in a biased environment, we successfully sugarcoated utter nonsense with a combination of fashionable moral sentiments and impenetrable jargon. Cogent Social Sciences happily swallowed the pill. It left utter nonsense easy to disguise.

The thing is, even "hard" science has blips where hoaxes are published in things like Nature. This doesn't say anything about the field but that people are prone to biases and can demonstrate being careless. I.e. humans are human.

It doesn't help that some people in the comments section are using this as a means to celebrate denigrating gender studies, but I read some of the more critical comments and have to agree with them. So, overall, I had to give the post a down-vote, especially since I think RationalWiki is the type that would defend gender studies. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a completely stupid entry and whoever put it in here is a bit gullible. I added PZ's dissection of why vanity publishing in a predatory OA journal mostly proves "I R VERY SMRT" - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, even Sokal of the infamous Sokal affair, which the hoaxers were inspired from, warned about drawing conclusions about the field, so it doesn't seem like even they were following carefully what he was doing. Anyhow, the PZ Meyers article is welcome, thanks! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Legitimate social science shouldn't begin with moral or political assumptions. The stunt demonstrated at minimum that an institution in the field, however new and unestablished, took rank nonsense seriously when it appeared that the language was conventional and the gender politics oriented in the 'correct' direction of misandry. That may be a small point -- and all such abuses of trust are dick moves, that much I grant -- but it is a valid point IMO. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The stunt demonstrated only that you are unduly gullible when you see someone claiming something you agree with - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The journal almost certainly knew it was nonsense, they wanted the money. Christopher (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but is this problem unique to gender politics? And this also doesn't demonstrate accurate representation of the field; it's a problem if it's much more widespread and it's restricted to that field, but time and time again shows that it's more likely a bigger problem of predatory open-access journals and a glitch with peer review, since other fields including "hard" science like medicine (think Andrew Wakefield) had have journals publishing drivel.
Christopher: Yeah, this might be a double play, though the first time it was attempted to be published, it was rejected and redirected to an open-access journal. Still, 600 bucks is 600 bucks.... (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Wakefield may have gotten nonsense published, but (disclaimer: I've never read it) it probably wasn't obvious nonsense, and it likely was written in prose that made sense. He fudged his data, not the text. The problem exposed here is not in any data set, but in the acceptance of text that contains incoherent posturing that is given a pass if the politics seems acceptable. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I've also never read it but wasn't it a non randomised study with no control done on 12 people? That should never have been published. Christopher (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but I believe the gender studies scholars would reject this too regardless of politics. A low-impact journal rejected it in the first place! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
A sociologist reviews the paper in question. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Huh, I'd expect the sociologist to actually show good papers in the field and compare them to this drivel hopefully to convince that gender studies is nice to have (that's what I think IMO). All he did was repeat PZ Meyers and the Joshi dude. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
You'd also expect them to fill their article and paper with examples of similar nonsense from serious gender studies papers, like Sokal/Bricmont did. If what they're saying about the field is true, that shouldn't be hard. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The Boghossian et. al. hoax ended up missing the mark completely by not being accepted by any non-predatory journal of gender studies with any impact whatsoever — an achievement by its own standard, considering there's certainly no lack of Poe-themed papers which manage to pass peer review in gender studies.
The pranksters further manage to deprive their own stunt of a point by arguing that one, single, intentionally Poe paper passing peer review says something about the field in general — a statement which is categorically incorrect. And this, as if the reams of unintentional Poe papers published in (non-predatory and impactful) gender studies don't speak volumes more about the field (whatever one argues they do say).
Importantly: the relative pros and cons any given person sees in Boghossian's stunt is by no means reflective of said person's view on the quality of gender studies research in general. Another surefire sign of the fundamentally failed execution of this particular hoax — which, in my view, ended up being an affront to Sokal's classic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


Someone just posted an new entry for April, in the the april section. Quite aside from why bother posting so late, whats the relevance of the story? is some random carjacking something we should be concerned with? Dunno what arbital is, and while MIRI might be of some interest to some folk here i doubt an intern going nuts is. the srbitsl and miri stuff isnt in the linked article as far as i can see, so what gives? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Why bother posting so late? Because I only just heard about it (on Tumblr, where it was stated that this is definitely the same guy). Arbital is basically a wiki/blog platform associated with MIRI. Some people are interested in drama in the LessWrong-rationalist community. I did worry that this is too much like rubbernecking, and wasn't sure whether to post it, but in the end I came down on the side of publication: if MIRI is trying to solve the philosophical problem of ethics and build an AI that will "save the world", the morals of its employees and former employees are kind of relevant information. I can source the Arbital contributor claim to Arbital and the former MIRI intern to this page... Wait, it turns out he was actually employed by MIRI as community architect for Arbital. Looks like someone scrubbed his LinkedIn profile to removed any evidence of association with MIRI... but they didn't scrub that CFAR web page. --Greenrd (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
im not convinced that this is relevant, and this is assuming its the same chap. its unreasonable to expect all employee of a company to be saints, and even less so to extend that to former employees. He doesnt appear to have any public presence beyond what you have linked. i am inclined to believe your first instinct in that is rubber necking. if he were more high profile, still employed by, and supported by MIRI, then maybe. As it stands, with so little concrete info, id say no. I guess it wont matter too much as no one is going to see the wigo anyway. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

the Ark park lark[edit]

How much state money went into fueling this fiasco, again? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Alt-right" Wikipedia[edit]

The Wired article does draw me in since it sounds like an article that would ridicule this wiki, and besides, it's Wired, but after reading, I have to say that the article itself is a bit disappointing. I find it very annoying that they characterize the "alt-right" more often than I like simply "conservative" rather than "far-right" like they should be characterized. While they did describe them as "fringe" at one point (which is more apt to describe them), just because they're growing doesn't make them less "fringe" and more "conservative". I also don't like how the article characterizes Allum Bokhari, tech writer for Breitbart, as someone who is rational, someone who simply "disagrees" rather than being likely an insidious fringe character who likes Donald Trump.

The problem is, not everyone agrees on the facts. “Just look at the source list,” Bokhari tells me. “The most respectable news organizations on Wikipedia are things like the New York Times and the Washington Post.” (By the tone of his voice, he might as well preface those names with "fake" and "failing.") Meanwhile, alt-right mainstays like Infowars or the Daily Caller don’t have the kind of traditional fact-checking programs to make it into the site.

I give credit to the article for taking this seriously, though, acknowledging Brietbart's rise and being a bit ominous and sad at the end. But I don't like how they described their far-right as "conservative" or "right-wing" when they deserve more extreme labels. If not, I guess I'll just associate conservatism with general shittiness if this keeps up. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Re:Autism can include happiness, belonging and positive health article[edit]

The article relates to outreach by Jonathan Weiss, though the link title implies that there is a finding, which there is nothing to it. While there is nothing wrong about outreach, the entry is highly misleading. This doesn't seem like it really belongs here unless we have a space here linking to support groups. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Bikini article[edit]

Yeah, this probably belongs on the Clogosphere page. Blitz (Complaints Box) 13:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

"Written by Glenn Greenwald"?[edit]

Why are we adding this after every article he wrote? Dogeatsdog (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not? Evil Zionist (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
there was a spat awhiles back where a user took it upon themselves to label wigos with the source. they where usually all sources deemed by the user to be anti israeli. much hilarity followed, it was decided that it was a waste of time and generally fuckwitted thing to do. the user was eventually permabanned for related hijinks. they popped up ocassionally after under new usernames and feigned surprise when their obvious and transparent actions where rumbled. theres one reason why not. what was your reason to adding it again? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I usually add information about writers, especially if we have articles about them, Somebody might want to use the piece to improve those articles. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
We have an article on Glenn Greenwald and some people have limited time and may want to read certain stuff by certain authors and not read certain other stuff by certain other authors. However, if it is so controversial, I'm not married to it. Evil Zionist (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Trump "speaks at a third-grade level"[edit]

"Trump likes to talk about how smart he is. A linguistic analysis shows he speaks at a third-grade level."

Aren't reading-level analyses pseudoscience? I can't see anything on this here website, but Google found this critique on Language Log.[1] --Gospatric (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, Trump uses fillers (um, er, etc) 1/3 as often as Hillary Clinton.[2] --Gospatric (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's an indicator of intelligence. He's probably trying to make his speeches... "easier" to understand, so you don't stop listening out of boredom. You'd really have to analyse how he speaks when not standing behind a lectern. —Kazitor, pending 09:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(Warning: The Guardian)[edit]

What do they mean by this? Is The Guardian not a good source? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 05:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only person to notice that and not understand it. @Cosmikdebris, since you added it, can you explain what you meant? CowHouse (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The "warning" is an artifact from the state of RW a couple of years ago. If I remember right, there was some contention here about The Guardian back in the days of Glenn Greenwald and the I/P debate. Honestly, I added the word reflexively and didn't intend to make a statement about the quality of the source. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cosmikdebris That makes sense. I haven't been here long enough to understand the reference. On an unrelated note, was this an accident? CowHouse (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that was an accident. Thanks, Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Swedish Green Party politician who fought for equality and believed in open borders, shot and beheaded in the Congo[edit]

Upon further investigation into this case, using the Guardian (a left wing source) and the Wikipedia page on her, turns out she was executed April 2017. It doesn't belong in the 2018 clog as such. -- (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

North korea's ivanka trump and other such stories[edit]

OK. i can understand maybe commenting some of em out, but all? why not leave one in? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It is news worthy, case in point - covered by numerous news sources. -- (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Why does the GOP hate children so much?[edit]

An interesting little piece from Rabin. On top, I find the right likes the idea of children but hates when they exhibit opinions and generally manifest opinions. Ibrahim Moizoos (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

YouTube censorship[edit]

This is an interesting article on the recent YouTube purge. If someone would be so kind as to add it to the blog that would be appreciated. -- (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

hate speech[edit]

i go to post a link to an article about free speech and i find ive been beaten to the punch. bastards. still, a slightly different perspective and less us centric, so all good. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

well thats odd. two links, saying braodly the same thing but gets 10 downvotes the other gets 10 upvotes. i am curious to know the reasoning there, if anyone cares to enlighten me. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


Apparently disney movies arnt an accurate description of history. Who knew? apparently grass is green and the sky is blue too. who knew? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

really? john ratcliffe isn't a large, evil-looking fat guy who wears a purple hat and keeps a pug as a pet? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Should we remove the headline then? I'm in agreement with AMG here, this subject is so blatantly obvious that it isn't worth mentioning. Alternitvally some snark about said obviousness might be appropriate here ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Is the video about something we don't already know about Pochahontas or is it just another video that talks about what it does wrong? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Watched the video TL:DR version: Disney movies are inaccurate (we already knew that), Corporatism and Colonialism when combined generally equal bad shit (probably either knew that or had some inkling of that), and Smith exaggerated everything and was kinda a pervert (falls under the first point, also no one who knows history is surprised by this) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

homosexuality and morality[edit]

this seems to address a debate that literally no one is making. i have yet to meet to anyone who claims homosexuality is moral. plenty who say it isnt or is immoral, but never moral. the chap states at the out set that morality is subjective and you can you make all kind of claims as to why it would be immoral, even using his own criteria for morality. i would likely disagree, but to say it doesnt fall under that spectrum is simply false. all that will be achieved by responding to the an argument that it is 'immoral' by saying its is neither is confirm that are are you indeed a filthy immoral queer. you respond with why it isnt immoral. you respond with why their morality is full of shit. anyone swayed by the arguments in this video probably isnt going be a massive homophobe in the first place AMassiveGay (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

homosexuality and heterosexuality and whatever sexuality is just that: a sexuality. all it is says is basically what kinds of people you want to bang. people asking if a sexuality is "moral" or "immoral" are asking the wrong questions: it's WHAT you do with the sexuality that matters, not the sexuality in of itself. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 23:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
but no one is asking that question. there people saying it is immoral, and people saying it isnt. whether it is moral ot does not come i to it. what you 'do' with your sexuality is very much the crux the issue, very much the root of what some find 'immoral'. you cannot separate sexuality and what 'do' with it, its one and the same. do you think anyone would give a shit about homosexuality no acted on it? it would be just some odd curiosity. they wouldnt spit at you in the street. homophobia requires a direct and forceful response. the argument in this video is not that. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
and i'll repeat myself: people who are asking about the morality of a sexuality are asking the wrong questions. no one cares which gender of people you prefer to bang except for bigots, whose opinions shouldn't be even taken at face value in the first place. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 23:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
and i will repeat - no one is asking that question except bigots, and they need to be answered appropriately. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

RE; Autism awareness day[edit]

Daily reminder to medicate autistic children with risperidone. I know this sounds cold but it really, really improves quality of life. Donkey Teeth (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Risperidone has some evidence that it works against irritability and aggression among autistic children, but this is not a universal problem among autistic children. Also, with an admission that this is anecdotal, I have heard from two individuals who had unpleasant experiences with the drug who never really seemed to have these problems. As the preponderance of alternative therapies for autism demonstrates, there are many who are willing to latch on to a treatment even if it is not appropriate, and may even do more harm than good. -- (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

someone someone[edit]

Someone add this interesting article. -- (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


@Cosmikdebris, "diversity without conservatism". -- (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Demographics in the USA 🇺🇸[edit]

@Grammarcommie this right here -- (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And what, exactly, is this technobabble supposed to prove? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is the blogosphere locked?[edit]

Just because trolls are up to their usual bullshit, it does not mean every user should be prevented from adding content to the page. Tuxer (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the page is locked only from BoN and those that aren't autoconfirmed. Still, I'd just ban the BoN rather than lock the page, to be honest. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The offending user is banned, well, for a few days. If they keep putting gibberish into the WIGO they should be cooped. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Granted, I'm no Wiki-wizard, but it looks to me like the blogosphere is still locked. AcidTrial (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
There's a rereg who came in and posted porn in the links, so we had to deter the user. Might unlock for now. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that alternatively, some other friendly, neighbourhood user could consider adding the link I had wanted to add:, if it's sufficiently interesting. AcidTrial (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@AcidTrial Done, sorry about the inconvenience. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
No inconvenience at all! I just really dig the WIGO parts of the site and like to contribute every now and then. Trolls apparently were ruining my fun this time around. AcidTrial (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there's no point in keeping it locked away from BoNs anymore —Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 21:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Court packing[edit]

That just reads like a petulant rant from someone who didn't get her way and now wants to throw her toys out of the pram. Throwing away all policy and procedure out of hatred for Darth Cheeto can only backfire in the end, and it's especially easy this time to see how that'll almost inevitably go horribly wrong. Maybe an introductory civics course would help too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the Republicans have thrown away all prodecure and policy for sake of power, it's pretty much suicidal to want to allow a far-right majority in SCOTUS which has the power to overturn the decisions of actually elected institutions (although thanks to the EC and voter supression, the legitimacy of the US is questionable). Let's not forget that the GOP now has the majority in the Court neeeded to not only overturn Roe but also Lawrence v Texas, Brown v Board of Education, Engel v Vitale and other landmark decisions. Preventing the complete reversal of a 100 years of activism and agonizingly slow reforms is a top priority. Because if that happens, it will prove that reformist reforms don't work and that will open a can of worms that everyone will regret opening. Tuxer (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Stare decisis is actually a thing, so I'm not convinced that they're going to go on a huge rampage reversing cases. And here's a thought; if you (generic you) don't like the way Republicans are handling things... run and elect better candidates to oppose them! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Stare Decisis is nothing more than legal fiction, the SCOTUS has flip-floped on various issues across its history. And voting? Like voting for Joe Manching, who used his power to allow Brett Kavanaugh, a petulant manchild and probable rapist, to get a lifetime appoint to the highest court. The liberal cult-like worship of the ballot box is as annoying and stupid as the conservative cult-like worship of Ronald Reagan. Tuxer (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Definitely inclined to agree with you here. It's a nominal concept that should be respected, but civility and institutions are not actually a thing these right-wing psychopaths care about, they're just a shield they expect their opponents to hold up to. The decisions will not stand. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
That's nice in theory, but no matter how much you chastise democrats to not sink to the republicans' level, they're gonna keep singing like a wad of neutronium dropped overboard: filibuster a year, then take power and ban the filibuster, voter ID laws, historically unprecedented gerrymandering, they're already court-packing my state's supreme court. These are people who will steal every democratic check on their power you can invent, and the urge to do things like court packing to stop them comes from a real place of needing to protect ourselves from them. The right is not some abstract threat of not taking civics in high school. It's a group of very real people who are actively dismantling democracy and human rights for an image of humanity that isn't human.
Maybe you're so lucky as to not be a person whose life and rights are threatened by them, but "being civil" is only a priority to people whose only concerns are abstractions. Shit like this is exactly why I've been unable to respect calls for civility here, there's too much abuse of the concept in defense of the indefensible. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
So your solution to the deconstruction of the democratic republic and its institutions is to...deconstruct the democratic republic and its institutions.
You do realize it's shit like this that allows Republicans in power after Democrats to further their agendas, right? See Obama's expansion of executive power for a good example. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh no, you misunderstand me. I think the "other side" already doesn't care, there's nothing to protect. Building walls around the territory the enemy has invaded and taken from you is really dumb. Especially when they've shown they don't care about walls, only you do. I don't think there's an institutional solution to the fact that republicans have become openly fascist though, it's going to end in a lot of death sometime. Maybe not this decade, but soon. Institutions don't stop the march of fascism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
It probably doesn't matter either way. In the end blood will be shed for a mixture of truth and lies, suffering will accure, both sides will meet somewhere in the middle, and the whole thing will begin again somewhere further down the line. We're past the point where no one suffers, past the point where there are easy answers. The trolley will hit someone, the only question is who, and what comes after the impact, and if history has taught me anything it is that death comes next, again and again and again, in a never ending cycle. The only choice we can make is which one lets us sleep at night. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I really do want the easy out; I don't like the conflict I see as inevitable. I think my "side" is likely to lose. It's just that "protecting and defending our checks and balances and institutions to keep civil society together" has already lost my faith. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Besides, the article says that attempts at court packing has been done before, and apocalyptic predictions turn out to be hysteria. If the past attempts at court packing didn't result in utter chaos, would this one be so? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Would probably be better to just impeach the remaining members of the Citizens United Five as accessories to corruption or something. Even if the impeachment fails, if it gets as far as a Senate trial the justices will get the message, like they did when court packing was first suggested. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
And immediately afterwards, getting a constitutional amendment to prevent a reoccurrence would be ideal. That and running an actually decent presidential candidate, plus if Trump is still holding on the Republicans (I'll certainly do my part in my state's primary!) could come up with someone to unseat this buffoon. It's not about civility, it's about doing it in such a way that you don't end up hoist on your own petard. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's my problem with that very sensible course of action, constitutional amendments that clarify the relationship of obscene amounts of money and our ideals of individual freedom cannot be made in any remotely sane form without the death of at least 20 million people who've fallen for the "free market is freedom" charade. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope it doesn't come to that, of course. Perhaps reading Steven Pinker gives me a bit more hope, though the pessimism sure isn't without cause. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinker is nutso. Not because of the "Let's take aggregate statistics about wealth and pretend they're representative of widespread success" thing that has, if anything, helped make things worse. But because of the whole "writing glowing reviews of openly racist books" thing. He's a right wing prop now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
That... is not exactly the impression I came away with (though I know the alt-right engaged in some deceptive video editing to "prove" things about him). But he's clearly not infallible either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)