RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?/Archive14

This is an archive page, last updated 7 January 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <15>

, (new)(back)

Do we really need to reproduce clickbaity headlines here?

The article bigs posted, "Who's more compassionate, democrats or republicans?" Is a hell of a clickbait headline, that refuses to actually answer the question it presents in the body, though it takes a stab at it at the end, alleging that trump supporters aren't.

In addition to my dislike of us using clickbait headlines, I have other problems with the article in question. She links to "my research", in the summary, but her CV actually only has one paper published in a political science journal, and then she's only the second author. And that paper barely touches on compassion at all. It's measured twice on really quite old data that reflects a modern electorate in no way.

Her dissertation does a little better, but it also becomes clear, skimming it, that her MO is the equate anti-abortion rhetoric about "innocent babies" to compassion, which really really represents most of the extent of her data's backing the presence of compassion existing in republicans. To me, that's always been the thinnest veneer that immediately transitions to the far more conservative political debate of "defending" from "attackers".

Oh man, I don't even know what I'm complaining about. It's fine. There's not that much wrong, other than her hanging way too broad a conclusion on her dissertation. It's a blog post. By the original author. It's fine and I'm being a pedant. But the clickbait headline sucks, bigs. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that why they aren't in the "world" section? I do feel for you, though. They should be in the "clogosphere" section. Tyrian (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I just like to pretend we're cool and have smart, skeptical editorial standards here. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, yeah. I wish we had stricter quality control, but sadly, people get pissy if you ask them to prove their own point, or demand proof that's of a decent quality, or aren't fooled by logical fallacies. Tyrian (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

We need clickbaity headlines here now. Here's why

1. 9 out of 10 clickbaity headlines are clicked annually by more people per year than 1000 kW.
2. Clickbaity headlines are becoming surprisingly popular in China.
3. The Silver Age of clickbait - what does it mean?
4. What does this signature say about pictures of baby animals? 2.122.180.163 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Facebook pays teens to install VPN that spies on them.

Shouldn't really come as a surprise, and yet people still remain deeply invested in the Zuckerberg ecosphere. https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/

Delete your facebook account, you really don't need it. Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Atlantic blog post on school shooting shits on ADHD out of nowhere

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/active-shooter-drills-erika-christakis/580426/

I think for the most part, it has a point, but there's one paragraph that completely goes into the ADHD and medications trope, and it's the worst thing in this otherwise good read. Made me stop reading for a bit.

Similarly, we expect children to match adults’ capacity to hurry or to be still for long periods of time; when they fail, we are likely to punish or medicate them. Examples abound: an epidemic of preschool expulsions, the reduction in school recess, the extraordinary pathologizing of childhood’s natural rhythms. ADHD diagnoses, which have spiked in recent years, are much more common among children who narrowly make the age cutoff for their grade than among children born just a week or so later, who must start kindergarten the following year and thus end up being the oldest in their class; this raises the question of whether we are labeling as disordered children who are merely acting their age. The same question might be asked of newer diagnoses such as sluggish cognitive tempo and sensory processing disorder. These trends are all of a piece; we’re expecting schoolchildren to act like small adults.

No... NO! This trivialization of ADHD is pure bullshit and came completely from left field. ADHD isn't just "kids being kids" and it isn't a means of "extraordinary pathologizing children's natural rhythms", (nice word choice in "extraordinary"; ADHD is a real mental disorder that entails in children truly struggling in school (with poorer grades than expected, not paying attention, not understanding directions, poor emotional control) and in turn leads to actual real life problems such as causing or aggravating anxiety problems, impeded social life, aggravating depression or suicidal thoughts, and so on; ADHD is often compounded with other disorders. What gets more on my nerves is this point is made on top of the pity-appealing moralizing about how hard kids have it and how dare we try to to medicate and "correct" them. The reality is that medication for people with ADHD are often a life-saver, and they level the playing field, as they are at a huge disadvantage. We have more ADHD diagnoses not because we try to "pathologize" children behavior but we have more awareness of a disorder that has been documented well over a century ago. This whole thing is like arguing that the existence of migraines are just "pathologizing headaches", imagine how ridiculous and short-sighted that sounds.

The Atlantic, keep your ADHD denialist shit out of this as well as your uncalled for attack on psychiatry in an article about psychology. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

ADHD is absolutely real. I was diagnosed when I was a child, and even in adulthood I still have some issue with the symptoms. However, the exact thing they describe is also bad. The fact that being less physically and mentally mature than your classmates is deemed a mental illness is a serious red flag for misdiagnosis happening. Type I and type II errors are both bad. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 23:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

On a broad scale, I believe there's no case of overdiagnosis of ADHD. The problem is that public perception and media reporting that ADHD is overdiagnosed is common, and there's the issue of underdiagnosis in other places. The Atlantic is feeding to this one-sided perception when it talks about it, and if it doesn't use the denialist trope of "ADHD is just pathologizing normal behavior", it comes dangerously close to it. There are problems with how ADHD is diagnosed; it's a clinical diagnosis after all, and it has fuzzy edges. There are better ways to discuss about how to deal with the fuzzy edges; there are huge downsides to both those Type I and II errors, but how The Atlantic treats it is irresponsible, by presenting it the same way as the deniers and the media does it, by exaggerating this "epidemic" of misdiagnosis and overlooking some of the more complicated parts of clinical diagnoses. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair thing to believe, but I'm not sure there's a valid way to scope the epidemiology. I wish there was. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 23:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm seeing enough links in the scholarly field to suggest that there is some concern that ADHD is being over-diagnosed for certain populace / characteristics at this point. This doesn't dismiss ADHD as a real phenomenon, nor necessarily dismiss the equal possibility that ADHD might be *under-diagnosed* for certain populace at the same time. In particular there seems to be a concern that ADHD is over-diagnosed in boys and also over-diagnosed among the age pattern described in the Atlantic, but equally there is concern about ADHD being under-diagnosed in girls. As far as medication is concerned, the general pattern I'm getting is that there is some justified concern over the lack of physician time in evaluating ADHD thoroughly, and also there is concern over an overemphasis on medication over behavioral theory (the best case treatments involve some combination). So I have no problems with the Atlantic paragraph in one regard, however it is not the complete perspective of concerns in the field and IMHO is too tangential to the topic of active-shooter drills to justify inclusion.Soundwave106 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Is someone getting this confused with Clogs?

Recently we've seen a bizarre article about "A Secular Case Against the Notion that Death is the End of all Experience" (which seems to be a mix of misunderstanding metaphors and tilting at a solipsistic strawman) and a rant about abortion leading to Nazi eugenics. It's offputting enough that I have ended my decade-long period of simply lurking on this site to comment on it.

Did someone post these here by mistake? ^{— Unsigned, by: Mecharonin / talk / contribs}

Maybe. It might have been snarkier if it was intended for the clogs. Sometimes people post bad blog WIGOs, no biggie. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been the one tending to the blog WIGO section recently, so they weren't put there by mistake @Mecharonin @RoninMacbeth. — Palaeonictis ^{Fossil beds} 15:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

God's Not Dead take on Planned Parenthood

Are they still doing it under the team behind God is Not Dead 3? God is Not Dead 3 actually treats atheists much more fairly than in the first two. So does this make the punch at the WIGO text accurate? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I got the WIGO text directly from the linked article's opening paragraph. I trust the source, so I left that text in. Cheers, Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"Gods not dead, gods not dead" I continue to insist as I shrink and transform into a atheist professor. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Neoliberal pundits might be dumb

But if you see the way the wind is blowing, and don't realize that the institutional resistance to Bernie is profound and widespread, and see in that wind we're likely to end up with another candidate with the nearly unique ability to lose to trump, I don't get you. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Polls showing me hope that I'm wrong right now. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

McSweeney's Internet Tendency

@Fastzander Re: the Thanos satire. McSweeney's is a great site. What's not to love about articles with titles like "God Has Heard Your Thoughts and Prayers and He Thinks They Are Fucking Bullshit"? They make nice books, too, and are a very good literary source worth a look or two. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

That Off Guardian article is complete rubbish

Like, it apparently cares about facts and figures, yet it doesn't quite to read the links it trots out. NASA's links show "an average" fire season, but you see that some areas are getting more fires on average while others aren't. But that science20 link says the opposite of what the article claims, that if you factor data prior to May, then the season is a record burning one. It gets some things right such as the misleading "lungs of the planet" claim but I think it seriously downplays the burning and also ignores the context of Bolsonaro's regime. Oh, and the word choice for the WIGO entry is crap too. It's one thing to try to get facts straight and then word it to your ability, but there's another thing if the entry misleads me into thinking Bolsonaro isn't actually trying to do anything to damage/destroy the rainforest. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

There are two problems with that simple average by NASA: it is average for the whole Amazon rainforest, not just Brazil's part of it, and secondly the 15 year period has two huge outliers: 2004 and 2005. If you get only Brazil's data, you can see even though 2019 is "slightly below average", it is still on track to be the third worst year in that period. 2004 and 2005 were so horrible that they push the average way up. 201.95.57.200 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That's very good to know. But even if you don't factor the burning, even if the burning isn't as bad as in 2005 and 2006, there's still Bolsonaro who actually threatens the rainforest. While it's bad we have a tendency to not care for things until there are legitimate threats (like voters who sat out during the election) and we should probably should devote more effort in protecting the environment rather than let fire in our pants motivate us, that distracts from Bolsonaro's nakedly aggressive plans on the rainforest and its people, unlike previous leaders' attitudes, which tries to capitalize on that apparent complacency.

Anyway, I think that has been the most downvoted entry I've ever seen at my stay in RationalWiki. Impressive. Should we comment out or show off that trainwreck? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: OffGuardian is a known "fake news" / Russian troll amplifier site, and the Ann Coulter-esque style writing of this article frames things exactly how you would expect. (I love how this supposed Catte Black reporter represents itself using an image of Marla Singer, from the movie Roger Ebert correctly predicted would be worshiped for the wrong reasons, "Fight Club". 20th Century Fox should sue.). This is not the worst year of Amazon fires, sure -- because compared to the slash and burn era of the 1990s that led to the initial efforts to stop deforestation, of course the stats will look better. It's still way in the wrong direction, coupled by a Trump-esque leader who doesn't understand why clearing the forests slash and burn style for agriculture is a pretty stupid way to go. This is really a clogosphere article, not a blogosphere article. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Their self description is of people who have been kicked out of the Guardian comment sections. Even I haven't been kicked myself, though I despise vegans, sobriety campaigns, and all else that stinks of Moral Endeavor. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 22:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Little known

Cummings has been a known cunt for years AMassiveGay (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

About that paper on religiosity and empathy

Turns out it was a coding error, and that completely whacked out the results. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember this paper, did it fall off the WIGO already? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I commented it out. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

My recent addition regarding economic freedom

This was the article I added which was reverted. I didn't see an edit reason, so why is it not considered suitable for WIGO Blogosphere? Colossal Squid (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Considering the author is a red link account, it's probably a libertarian edgelord who thinks socialism is teh evolz! Reversed that edit. Tuxer (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Decolonizing games

To all of those who downvoted, how many of you actually watched the video rather than compulsively clicking the downvote button because it hurt your cishet heteronormative WASP special snowflake sensibilities? — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

While no doubt the majority of the downvotes come from alt-reich snowflakes, the presentation could be better. Something like "A [ link a video ] analysing how non-white cultures and civilizations as barbaric savages or magical monsters in video games". Tuxer (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Man these are some petty bastards. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I've always considered it poor form to make an argument by sharing a YouTube video without context. I'll downvote a link just for that. AcidTrial (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

In agreement here (although I wouldn't go so far as to downvote it). I don't mean to sound like Carl of Swindon here, but I've been told some variety of "Instead of responding to you, here's a Youtube video link I copy-pasted. Watch this," way too many times over the years. It's to the point where I've kind of stopped caring about orphaned links to talky internet videos (unless it's by a videographer I already know).

At least with written articles and posts, I can read the first and last paragraphs or skim the text for the main points of the piece to get a feel for the overarching arguments, and then decide if I'd like to do a more in-depth read. That's not as possible with audiovisual media like videos or podcasts, which require more attention and time commitment. As for this, I'll give it a watch later. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I added a more detailed description btw. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I saw, thanks for that. I'd mentioned I'd give it a watch later. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The chuds keep coming. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

My down vote is because I downvote things that I think are bad - like longwinded boring videos with no context. I consider your whining as an adequate reward for a correct decision. Aloysius the Gaul 19:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You realize I corrected that error, right? Are you always this big of a prick, or no? — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It's nothing specific to this link: YouTube videos seem to get far more negative votes than anything else here, almost regardless of content. Maybe this is an indication that people don't want to watch YouTube videos or see them listed here. Maybe RW needs another, more obscure WIGO for YouTubes so that most people can forget it exists. --Annanoon (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll admit, it sounded like more generic identitarian whingeing to me. Another person who probably identifies as some flavor of leftist, out there making enemies because of that weird drive to impose moralistic drama on other people's entertainments. But if the link were to text, I would at least have allowed them to state their case. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because it's not like "entertainment" wasn't political already. (cough Watchmen cough) — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, you didn't even watch the video, wherein he says that "this is not a criticism of people who like these specific types of games." — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Web link hygiene

Apparently the frequently encountered issue of paywalled links came up again in an article from Haaretz. I was able to read it by opening it in a private window, which removes all cookies set by the site after the site is closed and gets around the "You have two free articles remaining" issue in most cases. Some sites attempt to detect whether you are reading in a private window and try to object. In most cases, including New York Times links, this can be dealt with by turning Javascript off. In Firefox I use a simple addon called QuickJava to do this. I think it a good idea for links to carry reminders if they are to these sorts of damaged websites. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Should we have a template for this like we do with the country flags, telling users how to read the article?—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 05:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That strikes me as a good idea, but the details might vary depending on the user's browser. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

On the RawStory "reporting" of brain damage and religious fundamentalism

Really!? We're now posting sensationalized crap from RawStory on a study from 2017 that found a (potentially spurious) correlation from a sample of 119 male brain-damaged patients from Vietnam War veterans (which I couldn't determine if it's a randomized sample)? As well as a completely tasteless picture of Michelle Bachmann, who, as far as I've checked, isn't a male brain-damaged Vietnam War veteran. This is far from a representative sample. Even in that sample, there's relatively limited applicability as noted in the study:

Cognitive flexibility and openness are by no means the sole predictors of religious fundamentalism. We found that PFC lesions along with cognitive flexibility and openness explain less than 20% of the variation in fundamentalism scores. Therefore, these factors are only a few out of a number of other factors that play a role in modulating adherence of religious beliefs. Other key factors contributing to the formation of fundamentalist beliefs can range from genetic predispositions related to cognition to a host of peer and other social influences.

In other words, while there's some damage to areas that govern flexibility and openness to other beliefs that can contribute to fundamentalist beliefs, it explains only a minority portion of the variance.
Finally, can we just not post stuff from RawStory? They're purveyors of sensationalized garbage. It's not the first time I had to despin its content and I always groan a lot inside whenever someone who should know better shares a story from it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Point taken, I will nuke the entry now. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. We do need to learn more about the sources especially from news that seems outrageous and plays into your biases. RawStory's intention is to provoke your emotions against the right-wing rather than use more reasonable criticism. We should smell rat from the shocking headlines as well, think about the intentions of the headline and article; it'll help a bit when dealing with news. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The Marxist won the debate hands down

Krugman's a sellout, and mainstream economics is a cult anyways. Centrist calls for "moderation" and "sensibility" don't cut it anymore, people want change, and they've been consistently sold out time and time again on that front. Krugman seemed middling, and wasn't really able to respond to any of Professor Wolff's comments in a satisfactory manner. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Paul made poor articulation and his seeming shock at being considered centrist was annoying as well desapointing for someone so well educated. The most interesting portion was that both Wolff and Krugman agreed that Medicare For All would be an uphill battle, which tragically is very likely considering it was the Dem who killed Obamacare's public option. Tuxer (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Shameless

"So utterly shameless!" "Yes," Oxyaena, a god amongst men, responded. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Biden and me-tooery

Do the people promoting these allegations have any sense of proportion? Any capacity for strategic thinking? Any thought for the consequences of what they're doing? What do they imagine they can achieve by dredging up thirty year old allegations of vague sexual misconduct by Joe Biden? Other than handing more ammo to the Trump campaign? No, he wasn't my first choice either, but that ship has sailed. Replacing him as the Democratic candidate is simply impossible at this point. And if elderly Black church ladies saw something in him, I figure they know what they're facing better than I do.

Me-tooery was a terrible idea from the get-go. It always did trample on the presumption of innocence. Attempting to shield accusers and their stories from skeptical scrutiny is one of those things that fails every time. I remember the 1980s too well to 'believe the victims.' I know where that bullshit leads.

Then again, the goddamn prissiness of 'feminism' has always been a problem. For an alleged left-wing cause, it's always had a disconcerting number of right-wing fellow travellers. And this frankly looks like another. If this is what 'feminism' is today, then fuck feminism. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There is already a debate about this on the Joe Biden article talk page if you want to make yourself heard there.-Flandres (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

— Oxyaena ^Harass 18:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I was following you until you turned it into a short-sighted rant against Me Too and feminism (with air quotes) and now you lost me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This site seems to have an unhealthy reverence for almost anything labeled Feminism^TM. How bad does it have to be for Betsy DeVos, Madame Fractal Wrongness herself, to have been the one to restore some semblance of fairness to Title IX; Joe Biden is fine with due process for himself, just not men on college campuses. Just because something claims the mantle of feminism doesn't mean it can't have serious excesses that end up causing horrible problems. And what would by this site's definition be unquestioned Feminists^TM have pointed this out; Nancy Gertner, Jeannie Suk Gersen, and Janet Halley have all written at length about serious problems with this in great detail, can provide links as necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Every cause, even the worthy ones, have their idiots. I think concern for the environment, for instance, is generally a good thing, despite the often laughable shenanigans of PETA. Feminism is the same way, but I'm not sure how Reade really relates to those that are extremist feminist to the point of idiocy (other than perhaps the automatic believer crowd). As far as "strategy", I honestly doubt at this point the Reade story, no matter how truthful or not it is, will move the voting intentions at all. Partisianship, mostly negative partisianship, is too strong. Politically, it's just fodder for Fox News to babble about in between telling their audience to go outside and catch COVID-19. Soundwave106 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Often times, people complain about how far-off the mark "modern feminism" mesh in right with anti-feminists so it's really hard to distinguish between people lamenting about actual loons like TERFs or those stereotypical tumblr types that don't like the term "history" ("HIS story"?) and people that just don't like intersectional feminism for whatever reason. It's not unique to feminism, it's like lamenting about how anti-racists are on the deep end because there are people that complain about "picnic" as a phrase. So I don't follow any criticism that makes such a broad sweep over a very broad movement. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that's part of the problem right there. I use scare quotes because 'feminism' is so protean that at times it seems impossible to pin down. It's a body of tropes and metaphors that can be used to castigate whatever any particular woman wants to castigate. It's way too invested in cultural criticism, in ways that come close to attempts to police other people's inner lives. The other day I was reading a piece pouring all sorts of 'feminist' grief over the film Pretty Woman, which struck me as killing a butterfly with a cruise missile. There is this weird drive to insert politicized drama where it isn't welcome. Then there's the whole project of intruding law and bureaucracy into people's sex lives, which are probably going to be messy and usually without the advice of counsel (TY Jeannie Suk); I remember when it used to be about 'liberation', and this seems the opposite. I am all for the right to choice and equal pay. That ain't enough for contemporary 'feminism'. And I don't know what is. And as for PETA, I do thank the anti-abortion nuts for making me immune to animal rights. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Feminism *should be* the advocacy of equality of the sexes. Feminism tends to fly off the rails when people advocate things other than core equality of the sexes subjects under the "feminism" guise. Nothing to me illustrates this better than the ongoing war between "sex positive feminists" and "anti pornography feminists" - although there are some definitely some issues on this subject that touch into equality of the sexes, the core of this issue really is sexual morality, which is why the essence of this "battle" ends up looking more like the old church lady traditionalism vs. free spirit hippies trope then anything else. Cultural tropes to me are semi-tangential as well. On the one hand, yeah there are some sexist tropes. On the other hand, *most* tropes, not just the sexist ones, are pretty fucking stupid stereotypes at their core. I would rather promote fiction that rises beyond stupid tropes than wallow in bad fiction that overuses them. (I have not seen "Pretty Woman" so I don't know which category it is in.)

(I'll also be fair here, "Men's Rights Advocates" are equally poor if not more so in choosing their battles, with too many of those on this side using the MRA banner to advocate misogynist apologism. And yeah, MRA's are also overfocused on cultural tropes these days, as all the RottenTomatoes movie review bombing has shown.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

feminism probably isn't helped by not having a clear and unambiguous goal that all can agree on, with clear indicators for success. all could agree on wanting the vote. women can now vote, job done. equal pay, glass ceilings probs has a lot of concensus, but progress is more incremental. sex positivity vs anti porn? not gonna touch that one. no stoopid wimmin messing up my porn, thanks.

MRAs have it even worse, never having a clear generation defining goal to begin with. the freedom to say 'get back in the kitchen, sugar tits', and their hilly billy sexist attitudes are always correct and they never have consider or amend any of their views or behaviour ever, maybe. their problems are best fixed with counselling to cope with women being more than pets they can fuck and that the world has moved on. they appear to me very similar to incels to me, only these ones appear to have managed to breed. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Pretty Woman is a romantic comedy - i.e. the women's genre. Films like these become hit by finding an audience of women, and this was definitely a hit. (Got dragged to it by a date in the early 1990s.) It had Julia Roberts - made her a star - and Richard Gere. Roberts plays a 'hooker with a heart of gold' who gets picked up by a rich guy. As a depiction of the realities of prostitution (or is it all 'sex-work' now?) it ain't much. She has no pimp, no air of desperation. The film is entirely fantasy, made and tailored for women, and fulfils the mostly female fantasy of being swept off your feet by a rich guy who caters to your every whim. To the extent there is anything political about it, it showed an admirable class consciousness: the most memorable scene is when she goes shopping at some ritzy shops with his credit card, and gets looked on by snooty clerks who tell her point blank she doesn't belong there.

In other words, some women of the chattering classes, miseducated enough to learn the cant, are taking a dump on other women's escapist fiction. I don't have a dog in that fight. There is always that unpleasant class dynamic about 'feminism', though. And if you wonder why so many women don't identify with the label, I suspect this is a small part of the reason why. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 17:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

how badly is britain really doing with covid? i remain in non the wiser

highest number of deaths in Europe, Britain clearly not doing. but how much worse is Britain really? deaths per million and spain and italy are have a higher rate, Belgium of all places has the highest rate of all by long way. the 100 days later article in the wigo, is damning, but doesnt really say how much worse we are or better other countries have been. telling us that germany done so much better, doesn't really tell us anything. they have done so much better everyone in Europe.

the linked article does not in fact, tell us anything. it gives no concrete reasons for britains relative failure just that we cannot pin them on differences in demographics, population densities, and the like. the reasons that are given are amount to a slower of response, poor planning, arrogance. not saying thats not correct, but it gives no more depth than that. it doesn't tell us how much slower we than others. doesn't tell us where what we were doing or were not doing compared to others. it stresses 'arrogance' and we should have learned from others. probably should have learned from others like china, spain, and italy, but again learn what? we locked down on the march 23. france in march 17. germany march 22. thats only 6 days longer france to get going, only 1 day longer than germany. all before the death rate exploded.

its more than just when the lockdowns started. germany was already working on getting a test in late jan so they had a start on everyone there, and we know testing has been key to controlling the pandemic. Britain has been struggling to even get tests, an adequate testing regime pretty difficult without them. france has struggled. it seems its only germany that hasn't struggled. britains had problems with ppe and ventilators but so has everywhere. just how much worse is Britain doing? why is so much worse? who is it worse than?

theres nothing in the article. no dates, or figures, no real comparisons, nothing that would be enlightening. its very keen to let us know that Britain is not doing well. thanks for that. tell me something I dont know. condemnation is great and all, im not asking for Britain to get big slap on the back. I would like to find more than just the condemnation, seeing as the varying death rates are an unreliable measure, and I am finding it very difficult to find just where it Britain has gone so wrong, what it is we are doing, haven't done or is doing that has made all the difference.

I very much suspect that one decision early on, put us back a few days compared to the rest of Europe. just few days. exasperating all the organisational differences and their resilience to disruptions in supply chains. im finding difficult to more comprehensive comparisons between countries to get a better picture, just death rates that are not a reliable measure, or comparing Britain to a variety of countries that are doing well but not really applicable or just germany.

its disappointingly frustrating to just find more articles like this one, that just say should be doing better, should be doing this. its pretty clear by now what should have been or should be doing. what I want to know is could we or can we and at what point it became harder to do?AMassiveGay (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The War in Ukraine

Just read the article you guys posted here.

I just can´t believe that fucking non-sensical, imperialistic war between Ukraine and Russia is still on. Nor I can´t believe things are suddenly quiet over there just because the media doesn´t cover anything related to it. Plus I´m sure the coronavirus has changed something, as it usually does.

Gotta wonder how things are doing there...

I´M BACK TO THE BACK Blaze_Zero85.58.203.69 (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The Eastern Ukrainians are of Russian ethnicity, the situation is extremely complicated, much moreso than "Ukraine good, Russia bad." — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I can imagine. ::Personally, I knew of a Ukranian (western or eastern idk, I think the latter) who has turned quite aggresively nationalistic after Russia invaded Ukraine back then in 2014.

Understandable? Absolutely. Desirable? No way.

It's like many other wars in history I believe: the Russian and Ukranian used the ethinic nationalism of either side for their own interests. Last time the Putin was the one who took advantage of the chaos but I believe Ukraine would have the same if their leadership was irredentistic enough and saw a chance.

Both sides go to war for revenge, they go for adventure or they go for a wage. Both countries want to dominate the other side, both support and have fascists inside their armies.

There was supposed to be a treaty in October last year between Ukraine, Russia and the small states which came from that time, all of these are supposed to join the Ukranian states with special priviledges after a voting.

But I can't believe Putin will be happy with just that. And honestly, I don't think Ukraine and it's supporters are either.

I wonder how he'd feel like if he read this. Probably, he wouldn't believe it. The war propaganda machine works wonders.

Blaze_Zero85.58.203.69 (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I was in Kiev last year and talked to "Eastern" and "Western" Ukrainians - over there the difference is between those who learned Ukrainian or Russian as their main language at school and that is mostly a west/east divide, but not an ethnic one. Sometimes in the same room together. The Russian speakers were unanimously appalled by Russia - they had regarded it as "big brother", and with some fondness, and they feel betrayed. As far as they are concerned the nationalists/provocateurs are all Russian immigrants - not Ukrainians. Aloysius the Gaul 23:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The Buzzfeed article is why I just blandly post "Twitter" when people share viral Twitter videos

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/hoax-misleading-claims-george-floyd-protests

Particularly this one. Please understand. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A Bit Rich of Thailand to Make Fun of the US

Considering they have a lese majeste law that makes it illegal to even insult the princes pet dog, describe a dress designed by the princess as "ugly" , failing to "criticize or take action on" personal Facebook messages, and of course, that case where a blind woman was arrested after her text-to-speech program read out something critical of the monarchy. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mecharonin / talk / contribs}

The difference is that, thankfully, the United States has a solid enough governance structure to (by and large) prevent an authoritarian wannabe and constant freedom of speech / freedom of press attacker like Donald Trump from doing *too* much harm. (Though corrupt US cops attacked plenty of journalists recently, so all is not hunky dory here, for sure.) Soundwave106 (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

(I'll add a note that the "Thai Enquirer" appears to be a small online only news media source; given the little information out there about this news source (it's not listed as notable English oriented Thai news that I see) and the repeated names who author many of their stories, I'd treat it as citizen journalism quality level until I see more information. Take that for what it's worth.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

a late response i know, but highlighting thailands democratic and governance shortcomings because an article rips into the us by just describing the place in the fashion it would be described if it were just an other country, ie one not so full of it own importance, is just a little bit lacking a sense of humour, thailand may very well have a less than free press, and its politics is not the most stable or democratic, but it also doesnt tout itself as the land of free, or present itself as the gold standard of democracy, where all are equal under the law, where all are free to live how they like, to worship who they want, love who they want, where a billionaire is no better or worse than a poor street sweeper, and the only limits on your dreams is how hard you work to make them come true. nor does thailand beat you over the head its constitution to reinforce how super free and equal and full of rights america is while doing its darnedest to make sure every other country is as chock full of freedom and democracy and we should god bless america, even if the america that it sells to the world is all lies and hypocrisy which everyone went along with because the us is rich and its military powerful.

its a piece of satire, but i guess the schadenfreude of the piece is difficult to appreciate when its your own misfortune that inspires it, but probably well deserved.

the uk has been the target similar of ribbings from places we once thought we were better than though to be fair, i would hope we are better than amin. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Great Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usb2FEfzfRM ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:a066:e6f2:5d13:2368 / talk / contribs}

Why should we watch this from The Rageholic? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if he said it or someone else, the points he makes in this video are correct ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:9941:a408:87e9:bf1c / talk / contribs}

An Oldie but a Goldie

Enjoy :D ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:a860:1230:c731:caea / talk / contribs}

That free speech moralizing in Wigo Blogs..

...... Thanks, I hate it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

JK Rowling on this list too? Give me a break. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This sort of thing is unfortunately common nowadays...-Flandres (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Eh. The letter really was about internet mob mentality. Whether you agree or disagree, mobs often are counter-productive at best (generally, Internet mobs rally around the flag using emotional appeals with demagoguery and preaching to the choir -- who's that going to convert to the cause?) and a dumpster fire at worst (both when it gets violent ala Gamergate, or worse when the mob is completely wrong -- mob mentality can be relatively easy to manipulate, just ask a troll, or fuck ask Rod Serling in 1960). Mob mentalities have always been around, but social media has massively upped the speed of the mob, thanks to Silicon Valley's fine manipulative techniques (likes/retweets/etc., prioritization of what gets clicked, etc.)

Most of the people on that article were long-form editorial column writers, academics, and a smorgasbord of other highbrow types (most probably didn't have large amounts of IT experience either), so it's easy to see why they made the argument the way they did... but they IMHO did take the wrong angle. Personally I see the trend towards angry social media mobs as a "flaw-by-design" of the Silicon Valley big social media company. As seen here at Rationalwiki, the most page edits tend to happen during times of drama and intense anger. "Engagement" is what the Silicon Valley folks are looking for (so as to drive maximum profit). Why not have a system that encourages drama and intense anger? That's sure one way to get there. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are good points. Social media is all about presenting a highly curated version of yourself, seeking applause along every step. So it exaggerates moralism along with other social problems, and encourages extremism as another game in the Can You Top This games it generates. And because social media is corporate space and run for money, this moralism encourages people to join campaigns to run perceived enemies out of town on the several platforms. It doesn't help that corporate culture invented the term 'human resources', the latest version of elite propriety in the service of money and power. And the forums are subject to the whims of sponsors, who have no particular desire to be associated with 'controversy' or even a pro forma commitment to free speech. And this has alwways been one of the weapons of wounded propriety: you go after the sponsors, and the media may just bend. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If nothing else, the absolutely ridiculous reactions to said letter only further prove its point. I'm impressed at how much people believe in free speech right until it hurts their delicate little feelz. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of free speech or "delicate little feelz". This letter a signature solicitor and has unsavory figures like JK Rowling and Bari Weiss that undermine this things' points. As if JK Rowling's viewpoints are up for debate. They are not. They concern basic human decency and not spreading dangerous lies about people. These kinds of pretentious "let's not get angry and let's encourage a free market of ideas" are always just a bunch of talk and always seem to crop up in reaction to assholes getting ratio'd on Twitter. Whatever message is has on mob mentality is lost once they got in a bunch of people with varying degrees of authority and validity to sign this useless toothless call for "toning it down". Spare me your "delicate little feelz", this has TERF shit smeared all over it; as if people shouldn't be angry over it and just suck it up to legitimately vile remarks on Twitter (for the record I do not endorse death threats for anyone nor do I endorse any sort of gendered insult nor do I encourage people to just "suck it up" because THAT is is also a problem yet people like JK Rowling has actual power over what they say). In fact this letter is precisely by people who can't take it and have considerable position to take it and has a bit of serif to its text. If you're going to say that people's reactions to TERFs and their bile on Twitter is "delicate little feelz" you are an asshole. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh also there's a handy "subscribe for full access" at the bottom of their article while the article unwittingly emphasizes that "The free exchange of information and ideas [is] the lifeblood of a liberal society". I'd seriously question their integrity. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

And an example of an empty platitude. This is their thesis: "The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away." It's utterly naive to think this way. Do they not understand that intellectual dishonesty exists? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

JK Rowling probably signed on with this letter for different reasons then Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie, Wynton Marsalias, David Brooks, Matthew Yglesias, and Margaret Atwood etc. did. She's also the biggest household name and she's off the freshest controversy that I'm aware of. So I suspect a lot of the "lightning rod" viral nature of this letter was due to her name being included. Most of the names I'm familiar with I would not describe as TERFs. Some of these have been on the receiving end of social media mobs (Atwood apparently clashed with feminists in 2016 for a reason I don't quite understand at the moment, Handmaid's Tale notwithstanding), but some I think are more highbrow writers concerned by Twitter mob opinion (for IMHO the wrong reason, but hey). Soundwave106 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Whenever people talk like that, it reminds me of when politicians invoke the rotted corpse of bi-partisanship-it assumes good faith and usually means the speaker will not budge on this assumption. A free market of ideas where everything toxic is dealt with via refutation...that does not exist.-Flandres (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, since I'm no Harry Potter fan I'll bite; what exactly is the controversy over JK Rowling? All I know is she's the author of a poor man's Lord of the Rings fantasy world, what did she ever say that dehumanizes anyone? (Genuine question, since I don't at all keep up with her; I knew about this because of the ludicrous whining about Steven Pinker, who I actually do read). And while I'm vaguely aware of Bari Weiss, I'm also unclear on exactly what that's all about, what little I have read of her seemed like any other Jewish northeasterner (while I'm not Jewish I am a northeasterner, and I know plenty of Jewish people both in and around my family); what am I missing? And more importantly, are you (generic you) willing to argue against free speech because the people arguing for it said something you don't like? That strikes me as enormously self-defeating. And as to people who want to question my humanity, let them. The more they speak, the more they sow the seeds to defeat their own arguments; I grew up in the 90s when theories of "refrigerator parents" still abounded as the cause of autism, yet somehow it didn't make me less of a human. Shocking, I know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As for JK Rowling, she said some rather regrettable things about Transgender people recently(well to my knowledge only recently anyway).-Flandres (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I find these sorts of things trite and naive. They always seem to be in defense of someone with a massive soapbox and more power than most of their critics. And said people in power always seem to get this sort of support after saying reprehensible things. As to what those things are, Rowling specifically is a transphobe, one of the worst cases I've yet seen. (Though not quite as bad as Brennon, yet.) Have a read for yourselves. I counted around 8 transphobic tropes. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I should also mention that I heard that Harper's farmed for signatures, and did so dishonestly. Though I have of yet been able to get more than hearsay on that charge. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)\

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ J. K. Rowling is an interesting example. The fact that she expressed unease with transgender people, hardly all that rare, shows the reductive reasoning we're dealing with. This is called an outrage against human decency. Her entire significance is reduced to those offhand remarks. Demands for insincere repentance and insincere apologies are made, with the threat of ostracism and harassment if these apologies are not forthcoming within the time deemed appropriator by her accusers. This kind of horseshit is typical of the mentality we are dealing with, and why these free-speech bromides are something some overzealous and overheated people who suffer f0orm this mentality have a problem with it. I don't have to endorse he remarks to think she shouldn't be subjected to this kind of harassment for making them. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "free speech" is a great descriptor of the problem, though, this really isn't the issue. People are free to speak about being pissed off about J.K. Rowling. People are free to get into mobs, too. I'm also free to have the opinion that joining in a Twitter mob to vent frustrations with Rowling is, in my opinion, the type of thing that often is counter-productive. A lot of people are apolitical about many things, and will rally around more what they care about compared to a political issue that they don't. Donald Trump's recent tweet attacks on NASCAR driver (and African-American) Bubba Wallace, for instance, from what I see is actually did a great job pulling the NASCAR community (traditionally pretty Southern conservative) a little bit to the left. A lot of racing fans care way more about auto racing than Trump's white nationalism shit, and so easily rallied around Bubba. That's my "general opinion"; I'm unfamiliar with the Harry Potter community or the extent of Rowling's transphobia so I don't know how the fan dynamics worked in this case. As a general rule, I do believe that the typical discourse Twitter enables is not very effective persuasive communication. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I will agree that it isn't about free speech per se, in that posting various sorts of vituperation at Rowling is also covered by my very expansive definition of free speech. Free speech comes in when people start lobbying authorities, particularly the tech companies that own Twitter and other outlets, to remove Rowling and others for thoughtcrime. The willingness to imagine that other people might disagree seems to be vanishing, overwhelmed by a rising tide of performative moralistic zealotry seeking applause. And a willingness to entertain different ideas is the key to persuasive writing. But cogency is not rewarded by the social media businesses and their algorithms. They aren't complex enough. What they do reward is sheer numbers of shares and eyebslls, which rewards extreme stances and demonstrations of commitment to whatever cause you're seeking applause from. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 18:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Calling the content of the likes of JK Rowling a "thoughtcrime" is appallingly charitable. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to take these 'free speech' campaigns particularly seriously. I've yet to see one, in the west at least, that isn't either a poorly thought out reaction to private corporations regulating their digital space (which they are entitled perhaps even obligated to do) or just petulant whining about the fact that their opinions are being criticised.

Yes dog-piling is an issue, as is mob mentality, and tolerance is a virtue, but the solution is not to force social media companies to turn every platform they own into 4Chan where we can all be as horrific to one-another as we'd like. Add to that that the majority of attempts to found alternative platforms (Gab, ThinkSpot) have tended to be little more than thinly veiled attempts to curate conservative/alt-right safe spaces and well... you get my cynicism.

It's also telling that when certain public figures finds themselves being criticised (often for saying very dumb and/or insensitive things but also sometimes not) the fact that some people are rude and aggressive tends to get used as a deflection to avoid criticism. Sometimes it is unfair dog-piling, sometimes it is just an entitled journalist or author shocked to find out that when they say bigoted and dumb shit they get dunked on like everyone else. Get ready, it's... (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I do get confused by alleged progressives invoking the sanctity of Property as an excuse for corporate censorship. And yes, the issue is not so much free speech as it is moral aggression, language policibng, and the labelling of anyone who transgresses your party line as a monster and a pariah who deserves to be run off of whatever media they used. To return to JK Rowling once again, the tweet that apparently started the whole shitshow was ‘”People who menstruate”. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"’. For a writer to cock a snoot at wordy, unpleasant, and pointless jargon is not even a bad thing. If this text contains an outrage against 'basic human decency', it's so small as to be invisible. Apparently a noisy claque has a substantial moral investment in 'people who menstruate' and she allowed herself to get sucked into controversy with people who will never be satisfied short of public penance and submission to all that Holy Church teaches. The real problem is that this kind of identity politics is one of the vessels into which the old Puritan or 'Nonconformist' fire has poured itself into. And that mindset is a blight wherever it takes root. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to say, screwing around with terminology makes things irredeemably confusing. I'm a guy with The Big A, at a social event it's enough of a chore to remember to forsake my Irish heritage and actually say goodbye; keeping track of what the latest term for [insert condition/personality here] is beyond my capacity, and will only exacerbate my general lack of social graces. Whatever else Rowling has said (and I did read GC's link above, how she relays her own personal experience shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the science), if it really was that one tweet which set the latest round off I can't honestly say I'd die on that hill. I dislike Harry Potter because I find the writing simplistic and not especially engaging (I'll take Tolkien or Ursula Le Guin any day, and would someone do a good Earthsea movie!), not because of her views on matters utterly unrelated to her writing. If I was a fan, that'd seem like cutting off my nose to spite my face. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights Roling's latest Tweet is the latest in a long line of similar behavior that goes back at least a few years now, if I recall correctly. Also, yes, Tolkien (I haven't read Le Guin's work yet, it's on my reading list though) is better than Rowling by far. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I also can highly recommend Le Guin's works, especially the Earthsea trilogy, worldbuilding at least equal to Tolkien's. (A pity she wasn't more of a conlanger.) But she is usually encountered in the frequently anthologized The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 18:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Inside the secret indoctrination of white people’s board games

Inside the secret indoctrination of white people’s board games ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:d1fe:f05a:634a:45a9 / talk / contribs}

Is this a joke? "Playing board games is a slippery slope to white supremacy". Please tell me this is supposed to be a joke but just isn't funny. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mecharonin / talk / contribs}

This story seems untrustworthy. This source is also seems to be more than a bit dubious. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I just finished going through the front page. It's a 4chan version of The Onion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Economic decentralization flowers article

Can someone fluent in Dense Leftist Theory please explain this one for me? 96.241.209.54 (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Biden Campaign Cancels Trip Upstairs

Biden Campaign Cancels Trip Upstairs^{— Unsigned, by: [[User: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:1C2B:190C:615D:621F| 2001:8003:59DB:4100:1C2B:190C:615D:621F]] / [[User talk: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:1C2B:190C:615D:621F|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/ 2001:8003:59DB:4100:1C2B:190C:615D:621F|contribs]]}

Can't decide which is worse, Babylon Bee or Stonetoss--Hastur! (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid responding and just revert. Treat it as bot spam from this point given its record of trying to insert links wherever it can. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo in the Spiked article on poverty porn

Anyone else find it funny that it's of Trellick Tower, Erno Goldfinger's grade II listed masterpiece, where a family flat will set you back about £800,000? LondonGrump (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A garden variety aspect of capitalism is called communism

Am I reading that correctly, that a feature of capitalism is being called a communist dictatorship in Business Insider which probably has no qualms defending capitalism? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

'in an unusual twist'

dunno if this paper is rabidly 'protestant' in its unionism to say something positive about a catholic, it was once a republican rag after all, but i do not think is any kind of official endorsement. it is a letter to the editor from an austrailian. the scope of the paper is primarily centred on NI, international news only where there is some kind of link to there it seems. i dont think it has an opinion on trump nor his court pick. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The real authoritarian threat

Are we sure the article belongs here? In the article only he downplays Trump's white supremacy support as "hysterical Trump-as-despot script was all melodrama" (not thanks to him), downplays the need for a pandemic response and Trump's response to the BLM protests and essentially assert that since silicon valley "supported" Joe Biden he would then essentially let them go. Even when he has points, in the last few years he burned his reputation by repeating far right talking points. --Pasqui23 (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

And not even a week after he's proven wrong… --Pasqui23 (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hence the number of downvotes. I consider Greenwald a clog, personally, these days. Note that this editorial is sandwiched between an article where Greenwald does the Russian hacking denialism dance and an article defending the once notable but now Russian stooge Julian Assange. Real authoritarian threat my ass, if Glenn wasn't busy sucking real authoritarian Vladimir Putin's cock, he'd have some credibility. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Elite Panic

It's almost as if the anarchists were right all along.... — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"Extreme liberal moonbattery"

What the fuck does that even mean? Is liberalism and its place on the political spectrum really so scary that it makes people incoherent? LondonGrump (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia tells me occupy democrats are hyperpartisan and known to push fake news. Saying democrats who are against tax cuts are right wing doesn't seem outrageously crazy or partisan enough to warrant much more than 'meh'. Doesnt have me LMAO. I can't make head nor tail of the face book it links to. Lotsa of meme about Liz Cheney. I can't be bothered to go through it all in search of the relevant sections. Im sure it must have been hilarious to have wigo poster lmao'ing.

Also if it were meant to be drawing attention to something ridiculous, it probably should go the clogs.AMassiveGay (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I nuked it. UncleScrooge needs to find a better link to push bullshit like that.

"Extreme liberal moonbattery" does exist but in general would refer to woo nonsense pushed by lefties. Some of the New Age woo would qualify, for instance, combining with movements that have drifted rightward lately like the anti-vaccination movement. Stunty left wing activist groups like PETA or Extinction Rebellion also count in my mind. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

In which alternative universe are lefties liberals and vice versa? The same one where single issues like climate change and animal rights are issues of left or right? LondonGrump (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The American political universe. "Liberal" has different meanings in Europe, I know. Generally environmental issues are put on the "left" over here, probably due to traditional hostility from business interests that are seen as "right". New Age is probably seen as left, likewise, as it is esoteric and therefore contradicts the "Christian right". PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"Food myths busted"

That Guardian "food myths busted" article is terrible. A ton of Naturalistic fallacy: we should eat what cavemen eat because they did just fine and nature would never try to poison us. Apparently it's totally natural to pasteurise and homogenise milk and adjust the fat levels to keep it between 3% and 3.2% but to reduce the fat level below that is tampering with natural food. It also distinguishes between good and bad meats (fresh and processed) to argue meat is good for you, but fails to distinguish between bad highly processed carbs and good wholegrains because it wants to argue all carbs are bad (whereas almost every healthy eating advice says to eat "higher fibre or wholegrain varieties"[1]). A lot of its claims aren't backed up with any kind of evidence or references - it's almost certainly true that we're eating more sugar, but unlikely that most of that sugar is coming from butternut squash. Some of it may be true - the value of eggs and dairy are debated endlessly - but there's also a ton of paleo bullshit. --Annanoon (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm... The article had the following points:

A) Whole fat dairy isn't as bad as some of the bullshit of the past advocated. (Note that per one of the studies nothing was said about low fat dairy products being bad though. But the current advice at least is not the "OMG all saturated fat including whole milk bad!" panic of the past.)

B) Salt isn't terrible (unless it is). It's a Guardian article, so it's not going into a lot of detail. For those with high blood pressure or other heart conditions, yes, reducing salt is a good idea. But reducing everything to a simple mantra is never a good thing and hyponatremia (too little salt in the blood) also is a possibility if you take out too much salt from your diet. If you are active and healthy, what I hear these days is... don't worry too much about the salt.

C) Red meat has a bit worse of a rap then reality. This is true. A steak or burger every now and then is fine. (Not in article: High consumption of red meat may be problematic. High consumption of processed meats is worse. It's all about the balance, as usual.)

D) Avoid refined grains. This is fine. (I'm not sure who has advocated "base your meals around starchy carbohydrate foods" for a while, to be honest, though, wtf is Joanna Blythman referencing?). Though there is nothing wrong, really, with a balanced amount of high-fiber / whole grain carbs, either. Baked potatoes are pretty healthy on their own.

E) Eggs also have gotten a bad rap. They're not that bad for you. And (not in article) they are quite filling, which makes eggs a much better snack then, say, a bag of chips.

Now, the "five a day" veggies complaint admittedly seemed weird. Who complains about the amount of sugar in fruits?

So, a mixed bag with not a lot of detail, which is par for the course with the Guardian. Not complete bullshit. Some good points, some wtf. Just meh overall from my perspective. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The Good For You and Bad For You lists change constantly because there has to be always something else for you to buy. Most diet advice in popular media is no worse and no better than this. I pay no heed to any of it. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me if the article was sponsored by meat-producing or dairy companies. I don't know how the Guardian is funded, but that's one possibility. LongStylus (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Rather unlikely. Might want to look into how the Guardian is funded Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. LongStylus (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I was astonished to see it in The Guardisn, given their tiresome drumbeating for the vegan cult. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

the article is bullshit though, particularly when you look at the 'official' advice or the apparant 'government led lack of trust in the healthfulness of wholefoods' isnt generally what the government has been pushing, official advice the article attempts to counter doesnt reflect whats actually being advised (im basing the official advice on the NHS's eat well guide, which the article at times lifts direct quotes from)

the initial assertion that dietary advice is pushing natural ingredients 'meat, dairy, eggs and more' and saturated fats contained within these foods are damaging to one health. saturated fat does get a bad rap, id agree, ad im not commenting on if thats justified or not, but to say meat, milk and eggs have anything close to any kind of official campaign against them is just dog shit. the writer clearly cant remember 'go to work on an egg' or the adverts telling us to drink a pint of milk day. mad cows disease probably made a lot of folk think twice about meat and edwina currie claiming eggs were riddled with salmanella did eggs no favours, but these werent claims of well balanced meals and healthy living but genuine health scares.

right after this the writer claims the result is 60% obesity in britain as a direct consequence of this imagined vendetta against whole foods, which is simply bullshit. people arent getting fat because they think eggs are unhealthy, they are fat because they sit on the arse all day stuffing their faces with cake and crisps and wash it down with small oceans of coca cola.

the dairy section makes a big deal of he eat well guide suggesting to go for low fat dairy where possible 'still', and how embarrassing for them because a report came out just last week saying dairy fat has protective qualities against cardiovascular disease. in deed, 'how embarrassing' they have updated advice based on information only just now published? reports also only moderate amounts dairy fat would do the trick, you still shouldnt go over board because saturated fat is still bad for you. its also true going with the lower fat dairy isnt actively harming you either.

the five a day section is all nonsense. more fruit and veg is proven to increase protection against mortality in all areas. the problem with the five a day thing is its too little, 7 at least should be the bare minimum. as the writer notes, few people are getting the five a minimum as it is in the uk. you'd have a hard time getting people to increase the amount consumed to an increased recommended minimum when they are not even meeting the current lower recommended level. the comments about sugar are just idiotic. the eat well guide recommends no going for too much fruit juice or smoothies for this reason, but the sugar in fruit isnt going to make you diabetic (especially at the too little of we eat in the uk). high levels of sugar in diets isnt coming from a fondness of bananas over eggs, its coming from the cake and the sweets more addictive than crack. saying the five a day mantra is causing us to eat more sugar is unvarnished bullshit.

the salt section is very meh. too much is bad, too little is bad. moderation is is the magic word. you'd be hard pressed to remove salt from diet that you'd be in danger, its in pretty much everything processed - why it might be wise to look at the labels and why people became concerned at levels of salt intake in the first place. its not because we are adding it directly to our meals. the report referenced notes there is absolutely no chance of countries reaching an average level of salt intake that is anywhere to close to the level that would be deemed too low and damaging to ones health.

processed meats are not good for you, everyone knows this. red meat as a steak, unprocessed, depends. it contains a tonne of saturated fat and cholesterol. you should go sparingly. no one is saying it is poison except vegans.

i am unaware of government advice thats been making all scared of eggs. honestly dont know thats coming from.

with starchy foods being recommended as the base of most meals being supposedly awful, recommendations usually always make clear refined grains are bad for you, and its the wholemeal pastas and brown rice thats preferred over the white stuff. no ones confused by tyhis except apparantly the writer.

as with all dietary advice you need to look more holistically at the food your consuming. thats why recommendations are always as part of a 'balanced' diet. and in providing general advice governments generally have to look at the kind of diets people have to provide decent guidance. in the uk as stated in article, 60% of people are obese, from lack of activity and poor diets rich in processed foods laden with fats and salt packaged in ready meals and salty snacks and sweets. guidance reflects. low fat dairy is recommended because people are too fat. its advised to reduce red meat because we are too fat. to eat more fruit and veg because we are too fat. starchy foods are preferred as the primary source of calories because we'd need to get the calories elsewhere and thats going to be from fattier foods, and we are too fat. because we are too fat, high salt intake becomes more of an issue. the eat well guide that the writer clearly hates recognises this, it gives holistic advice about what your diet should look like, why it should look like it and gives advice on what to reduce or limit should you need to. as a guide it reflects what governments seem to me generally recommends, so is a good stand in. there are no mixed messages about dairy or meat or eggs. there is no demonising them. no one is confused or been scared off whole foods.

the article would have us believe we being told whole foods are poison and we being advised to eat actual poison instead. it cherry picks the advice we are given, misrepresents it and ignores why its being advised. at the very best some of counter claims presented suggest tweaking of the advice given to give better protective benefits for our diets, but does not succeed in making the case that the advice given as it is is detrimental to our healths. it is not official recommendations that are the cause of our poor diets and lifestyles, they are a response to them. the article would have done a lot better if it didnt try so hard so hard and fail harder to show how damaging the official advice is. it might have done better if it gave an overview of what the advice looks like rather than few specific instances that give looked like in indication on their place an significance to to overal advice. it would have been helpful to give some idea of what 'good' advice should like. the counters might have made better sense if we could see how they would fit in an alternative plan. an evolutionary approach is all that is hinted at. draw your own conclusions from that. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Another day, another day Smerdis shares article filed under clog

What was that bilge full of vague holier-than-thou posturing did I just read? Why am I reading a nasty undercurrent this guy, which you'll likely find out if you push him exactly what beliefs he's talking about (extremely convenient he doesn't specify ANY stances he thinks are unpopular opinion and should be heard; why specify when you can just be vague and sound smart). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Progressive institutions are too scared to defend the material reality of biological sex difference, without which the theory of evolution, with its emphasis on sexual selection, could not exist. Like creationists, they have locked themselves into anti-Darwinian obscurantism. But unlike the religious right, they cannot claim that God made them do it." That's some real TERF bullshit there. Then again, this is the Guardian we're talking about. Plutocow (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh that's not the only quote that smells of UK Guardian TERF.

Last week, an inquiry for the UK’s sports councils described how athletes and administrators had been reduced to “swearing, shouting, crying and anxiety” by the demand that they admit trans competitors with the physical advantages that male puberty confers to women’s sports.

Anyone who wishes the Conservatives gone must worry that the Tory party will soon say that it at least does not think “women” is a dirty word and it will not allow workers to be punished for speaking out of turn.

And while JK Rowling shouldn't get death and rape threats, which whoever did that are despicable hacks who set back the cause for trans rights, JK Rowling does not get to claim persecution for her views. This guy, however, is providing cover for her. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I realize that 'transphobia' is one of the holies here, and it's something I always dealt with by the 'mind your own business' principle, which may not be good enough. But I did think he made good points about the invocation of corporate power. And that's why Rowling gets to claim persecution. Look at what you're saying. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 11:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Corporate power? JK Rowling is super rich, is on top of a giant media empire, continues being super rich in spite of disgusting people in social media, and she has a tendency to weaponize social media to have her fans dog pile on trans people she doesn't like, who also get death threats but they don't have benefit of corporations like JK Rowling does. This very man you shared got paid to write this crap on a platform read by millions. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The way these people lobby big businesses and social media companies to silence or fire perceived enemies or sic HR departments on them is what I am talking about. Which may or may not be justifiable, but still seems rank hypocrisy or misguided ignorance in self proclaimed 'progressives'. It does create a climate of fear and self-censorship; it is the powerful pressing down on wage earners. And, as you note, getting death threats is canonical persecution, even for Rowling. The use of TERF talking points is irrelevant; no opinion should subject those who express it to work related reprisals or similar persecution, and invoking corporate hierarchies to do so bolsters ultracapitalism. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There was a time when any "cancel culture" claim (before this phrase was such a thing, but the umbrella of concepts this wraps certainly existed) for Rowling was more among the uber-religious, particularly in the sector of America who got the jeebies for anything even remotely "occult" sounding, no matter how non-"occult" Harry Potter really is. In that article, we could probably replace progressives, "woke" culture, and universities with evangelicals, "Christian" culture and churches and come away with the same silliness. If the article was to tell the outraged-by-words woke mobs to not be so silly, that'd be one thing, but that article was just a whine fest. Oh noes, someone doesn't like something I said and I'm being oppressed! Boo hoo, no you aren't, the Guardian is letting you write and publishing this, so clearly they believe there is an audience for this trite. As long as you are seen to be an asset that helps sell papers, this will continue (and to the op-ed columnists who lost their jobs for being out of step with the paper's audience opinion, boo hoo too, welcome to capitalism, motherfuckers). At least it's easier to get away from the outraged-by-words Twitter mob crowd, you can simply log off Twitter. Those born into shitty evangelical cultures aren't so lucky. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of this. But under current social conditions, people need jobs, so lobbying to get them fired is an existential threat. The fear is real. And what annoys me most about about 'woke mobs' is their resort to shunning, boycott, and extralegal censorship, tactics made familiar by the old religious censorship. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 18:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed self-awareness isn't really a trait among these people, that's for sure. The methods are the same, only difference is whose ox is being gored. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Smerdis I'm sure you think your -30 entry is only more evidence of oppression rather than being closer to the experience of what most "cancel culture" targets get. Most people who were "canceled" still managed to find jobs and still have clout. If Bill freaking Crosby can't get "canceled" then this relatively well-off monied man that wrote this will be fine. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It surely was the author's mistake to use mostly transphpbic talking points as the large majority of his examples, and certainly more variety could have easily been found. Whether this indicates a second agenda on the writer's part is something that I, not being a mind reader, can't say. I find the 'correct' way to talk about trans people and issues rather confusing and obscure. I also believe in the reality of biological sex, for what it's worth. The fact that transitioning involves medicalisms like hormones and surgery suggests to me that biology is involved somehow. Having no strong opinions on trans people other than to support their right to live unmolested, for me the 'mind your own business' principle seems enough. But the jargon and doctrine used by more engaged activists does seem treacherous. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Whatever perception of what constitutes biological sex you believe in is likely just an extreme simplication of the actual mechanisms that influence how people look and behave. Even what I believe is a simplication but remember whatever you learned in an unspecialized textbook is meant to be easily grasped before you decide to pursue the field and then learn all the caveats of tje basics. This is what they're telling you, and if you want to know the "correct" way to talk about these issues, then hear them out, make them feel safe to talk to you, and listen and show them you care. You shouldn't have shared this article nor should you be using the "doctrine" accusation. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I meant by 'treacherous'. Not everyone can be expected to deeply engage with this material. I don't consider 'doctrine' to be an 'accusation', either, just a body of lore that some people have heavily invested in. I am not one of those people. There are many more like me, I think. I confess that I struggle to remember whether a 'transwoman' is man > woman or vice versa. The main take home for me is to use people's preferred English language pronouns, which seems basic decency and requires no commitment to a belief system. What I am saying is that malice should not be presumed and that people should be cut some slack around this stuff. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 17:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Several non-Western cultures have the concept of a "third gender" and in some ways it would have been cleaner if non-binary people were not shoved awkwardly into Western gender binaries. Gender binaries "work" as they do in society because most people are going to be both biological and gender male or female (even if all are more a fuzzy spectrum rather than a fixed point). For those outside these sex / gender male/female fuzzy clouds of definition, of course, the terms don't work at all. But the solution for gender dysphoria has simply been to flip the binaries around. This will do, but it's nothing I'd treat as gospel to defend in a tweet storm, it's IMHO a little awkward, and also doesn't seem to really address other non-binaries such as intersex individuals. Now, I will say that one problem with this Guardian article is that this author almost over-point's "biological sex difference" to a tee. Certainly it exists, massively for certain things (testosterone is usually one of them since he mentioned the difficult athletic trans problem), but it's not as cut and dry as he makes it. Certainly for certain hormones and other characteristics, for most people, there are often stark differences between the sexes. But there are exceptions even here (intersex), and for many other things, even if there is some sexual dimorphism, the "range" can overlap, if that is there is dimorphism at all. It seems like there's a lot of people (this goes too for many tweet-storm activists) who fail to recognize that the biochemistry of life is fuzzy and insist on vehemently arguing biological absolutes that aren't. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Even granting all that, it doesn't excuse people making death and rape threats to people who don't speak in the same shibboleths. Having received a few decidedly less than serious ones over the years (comes with the territory of being a Wikipedia admin), I can't say they ever made me want to listen to someone more, if anything it seems like a guaranteed way not to convince someone of the righteousness of your cause. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Heh. For a while as a Wikipedia admin around ten years ago, I was on the warpath against management-paperback jargon and non-notable tech businesses, all of which offered 'world class' 'solutions' and operated 'globally'. If they got more physical I'd probably let them slide. This did not make me popular among the single purpose accounts making these articles. :) And whatever else, I've gotten more engagement than anything else on the blogs page. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 12:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

So...

...are we gonna move this dumpster fire of an article to its rightful place, or are we gonna just keep it here? G Man (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If it challenges the orthodoxy around here, which despite the caterwauling to the contrary absolutely exists, why bother moving it? Let whoever will read it do so, and if your righteousness over... whatever... is so convincing it'll speak for itself. If it somehow hurts someone's delicate little feelz, well, this site is decidedly less than concerned with that on a whole host of other topics, so there's no reason to protect from the squawking Grievously Offended Because I Say So ^TM crowd. Must be a miserable existence, pissing away your life to find things you can shriek about being "offended" at. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, trans people concerned about those who want to take their rights away are such whiners. Great take there. Plutocow (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Tell that to the "non-binary" (narrator: obviously a male who looks like a man and goes by an obviously male name, talking to someone who's openly expressed he's straight and actively shuns all physical contact from anyone) person who openly expressed a desire to shag me and wouldn't take my repeated no for an answer (I did manage to extricate myself before I was ever in any actual danger, not that it means anything if it's coming from a man). No one has a monopoly on being a complete fucking whackjob, claiming some non-straight sexual orientation/expression doesn't get you a free pass from being a complete fucking whackjob. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice strawman there. One non-binary person being mean totally means it's okay to take rights from trans people. Plutocow (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The only straw man is you claiming one article posted to this website is taking anyone's rights away. Nice try. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

That is a strawman, dammit. The article is defending people who advocate for trans people's rights to be taken away, which is an understandable reaction. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a whiner looking for reasons to be offended. It's a bit of a hypocritical take anyway as these people are the ones whining for receiving pushback for their views. Plutocow (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Bearing in mind I'm a lifelong New England resident, which is usually at the forefront of social justice issues (unless it involves Jews or autistics, since I'm the latter I've had my problems on that front), I haven't ever seen a significant issue with regards to the rights of transgender people living their lives. I have seen issues with the way the rest of us are supposed to govern ourselves, apparently I'm the bad guy for not wanting to date a transgender woman (even though I'm not inclined to date anyone, I intend to live and die alone) or hook up with some "non-binary" person who won't accept I don't want anyone touching me. I can't speak to anyone else's problems anywhere else, at least here I know it's all well and good to not date someone I'm "expected" to want to date (I got horribly poisoned to that idea very young) but I'm somehow marginalizing anyone else if I even say I just want to be left alone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Strawman alert! Plutocow (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm talking about the article while you're bringing up a ton of crap that has no relevance to the current discussion. What are you even trying to argue at this point? Plutocow (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"If it challenges the orthodoxy around here" oh, buzzoff with that. Find better material. This article isn't some well-thought out unpopular opinion. It's trite, it reiterates the same old crap the same old group keeps complaining about when their ideas get stomped on (just like what you're doing). The article you defend, in fact, only reinforces the "orthodoxy" with its terrible prose and bad arguments and bad support for the arguments and your constant doubling down. Just take it with stride, man. Take the L: you shared a bad article. Just accept that, rather than imply your opponents are close-minded, "offended" and not open to thoughtful argumentation. Seems like you're really butthurt at that -75. You ought to set an example, not act like the "squawking Grievously Offended" you're accusing people of being. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk about proving my point to a degree... if you can't read the article and see how over the top some rhetoric about non-cisgender people can be, I'm not sure what else to say; nonetheless, I'll try. It's not as if there aren't dissenting viewpoints on this matter, and if they don't all meet the most Politically Correct^TM fad of the moment the article makes a decent case for not wasting your life to dig up dirt on someone else in an effort to "expose" whoever it is for whatever non-Politically Correct^TM view that person happens to hold. Take it from a guy with The Big A, no one but you determines your level of humanity, if you have issues like that it cuts way deeper than whatever gender/sexual orientation you happen to have. And absolutely none of the preceding is a free pass on being a complete fucking whackjob, if I say I want to be left alone I don't appreciate whoever the fuck it is that won't just leave me be. Amazing how that argument is infallible at the altar of certain schools of thought towards certain people, yet the same people squawking in other scenarios are silent as the grave when it comes to someone like me. (I also want to say, however my tone comes off, I'm glad for the engagement; even if I'm right this is by far the most I've ever had to try to defend my views, and if I'm wrong this is where I might learn something) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I read the article. I read your comment. It's the same old song and dance. The only new thing I'm seeing is that... you're using an unpleasant anecdote to justify.... this article's viewpoints? What is your point? People can be creepy assholes? Fine. I don't see how this is applicable at all though. And the other point is that... people say dumb crap online all the time and use the guise of anonymity to say reprehensible things to each other? Cool. JK Rowling is still rich though. Random trans people she encourages harming are still harmed and the random trans people don't have the benefit of a multinational media empire or well-off men hosting content on giant media publications coming to their defense. Hell, no one is covering for trans people here when it's documented that Rowling also has her fans dogpile on trans people with no condemnation at all from her part. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Now that I've had time to cool it, I guess I'm unclear why anyone would take life advice from her in the first place, or why it'd be a fireable offense if you end up holding the same views. My employer doesn't know anything about my stances on things outside work, and barring me doing something like joining the KKK wouldn't care either. Seems like a good policy to me. And I only bring up the anecdote to point out that this sort of craziness can come from anywhere and be directed at anyone, wish I'd done it in a less incendiary way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I was considering coming back to this site. i used to love it here. nice to know it's as much a haven for transphobia as the rest of the internet. can't go ten fucking seconds on the internet anymore without some brit talking about how me and my loved ones need to be removed from polite society for being degenerates.

All that article tells me is that it's not safe to be a trans person here. Makes me wonder if there's anywhere it's safe to be trans. The people who talk about "free speech" didn't seem to care when Judith Butler's words got censored by the free-speech loving Guardian, because she was criticizing terfs. They would much rather protect the words of people like Maya Forstater, who are determined to make life a living hell for me and others like me.

Blade, or whatever you go by, I am sincerely sorry some trans person treated you like shit, but that doesn't make this okay. Janice Raymond and her ilk want to mandate trans people out of existence. They have repeatedly said so. I do not feel safe here.

And Smerdis, glad to see you're still here, pearl-clutching as always. Rowling didn't "express unease", she lied. Repeatedly. Vocally. Adamantly. She repeatedly spread lies, lies that sites like this are supposed to be about debunking, lies that legislators then used to justify curtailing my legal rights. This isn't a game. My people are dying because of these lies. And nobody who talks about the importance of free speech seems to give a fuck. (wehpudicabok)^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:8801:1b90:2b00:289e:e215:5b15:ce5a / talk / contribs}

Tbf just because one dude posted such drivel doesn't mean the community endorses it. In fact there was a huge amount of pushback. Not in a while I've seen an entry so overwhelmingly downvoted, not since THE most downvoted entry in the site, the one about Bolsonaro and the rainforest. I'm sorry you found that entry to be a threat, though I have not much control over what gets added in the first place, but hope it's not enough to ruin your day. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I am just bringing myself up to speed on the Judith Butler/Guardian thing, and I am appalled. Apparently a section of an interview in which Butler harshly and dramatically criticized TERFs, to the point of calling them fascists. After, of course, your Twitter and emailstorm, the paragraphs in question were removed from the interview.[2] And more's the pity. These have to be some of the most lucid paragraphs that Butler has ever seen to print. The text does not bother me a bit, but it goes to show you the evils these sort of social media campaigns can give rise to. And about TERF and unTERFed feminists, I don't have a dog in that fight.
I always looked to the Guardian for even national news, finding a reliable outside impression was more intuitively trustworthy than any domestic paper, and it gets old dealing with the paywalls. My mistrust started with their relentless promotion of animal rights and veganism, culturally clumsy and insensitive cults. And you are right, this is another issue to be aware of. I miss it mostly because the 'feminist' content does not usually persuade me to click on it. Life is short, y'know? It also shows me how identity politics requires identity policing. Ideologues here seek to valorize some politicized identity -'woman', 'African American, LGBTQ &c - and turn that identity as something both aspirational and prestigious, worthy of admiration, and not getting everything it deserves. If you are going to magnify an identity group like that, you eventually have to start deciding who is worthy of its benefits. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

All right. Shut up now. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What's the surprise here? I've been lurking for years and Smerdis has always been a disgusting, unrepentant right-wing bigot. Read his rants, I mean "essays", his statements on feminism and issues of race. I often see very little difference between him and people like Jordan Peterson, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, etc. You people are way too generous for not kicking him out, and anyone willing to defend him. In fact, I think that it makes you look quite bad.--Orbis Tertius (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ctrl+F: The article

A firey flump of F-bomb. 115 instances of that fine word? It's funny for a frivolous facetious facade maybe, but finishing it gets extremely fumblesome extremely fast. Fond folk might find that funny, but for a forlorn fastidious freak like me, it flops. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The fatalistic furtherance of this fungible term in this factual, but ferocious essay feels familiar to a foppish, flimsy piece fumbling its way to its final conclusion fueling a feeling that any forthcoming humor that isn't forgotten being forever lesser than that of even fetid flatulence.Ryan1257 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Give that blogspiel a Rory Award for the most gratuitous use of the word "fuck" in a serious indie publishing company website. (For us Americans, replace the word "fuck" with "Belgium". EG: You Belgium moron. Go in the Belgium ocean and Belgium a piranha. Belgium. Belgium that. Belgium you. Get vaccinated. It will delightfully put you in the mood to get vaccinated while dipping your fries in tangy mayo!) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Just makes me want to visit Belgium now. That's some great hidden advertising you got there! Ryan1257 (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Go Belgium yourself. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Xi

Wtf rw

I was being sympathetic figuring maybe it's an examination of his new propaganda campaign/powergrab, but nope, it's a straight, unadulterated piece (with the implication the poster might agree with this) that should have been placed in the clogs. Ryan1257 (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

RationalWiki did big OOF with this one. BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

mahogany skinned frog man

is farage mahogany skinned? hes not especially tanned at all from what i can see. are we just recycling trump insults now? they dont fitAMassiveGay (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

it only works on trump because hes the exact shade of an oompa loompa AMassiveGay (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheeto dust on my hand and my Xbox controller. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It's an old and ongoing description of the man from BBC Radios satirical show Dead Ringers. Usually coupled with, "I'm Nigel Farage! No! No! Let me speak!" As well as Andy Zaltzman's old refrain of the man from his Bugle days before taking over The News Quiz. And is a description older than Trump's Cheeto complexion. But I'll edit it to the more apr and less likely to upset you, "Nicotine stained" unless smoking is a trigger. Is it?Cardinal Chang (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)