RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>
The Intersect of Kentucky, NBC's Chuck and Egypt's Eye of Ra
I hope someone can add this to the voting portion of this page, it's apparently locked because of super-vandals. I also hope that it will be done "verbatim" like the eponymous company. Thanks for your attention and assistance to this urgent matter.
- Superman returns from Cybertron to mentally link Minority Report with the Wachowski's Matrix series and suggest the thought-in-and-of-itself will end school shootings ifi appearing on the front page of the New York Times. Kal-El claims that dozens-of-thousands of very intelligent readers (and bystanders and onlookers) are leaning towards agreeing with him at this very moment in time.
paraphrasing is bad
One of the great things I got out of Rationalwiki was the habit of questioning paraphrased or 'reinterpreted' text. The latest entry in the clogs, "The truth about obesogens: can dust and chemicals make you fat? Here's a clue: no" is one example of such paraphrases, which are misleading, and which crop more and more around here. They also show that the author of that entry did not think critically. The article in the Guardian specifically does not contain the conclusion that "obesogens" will not cause obesity - it includes the opinion of certain researchers about that topic, as well as about the work of other researchers. The most important thing that can be taken about that article is not whether "obesogens" cause obesity, but that before such a conclusion can be taken, proper work has to be done. In the meantime and based on the existing knowledge, people with authority to issue such an opinion (i.e. specialists in the field) tell us there's no cause for alarm.
Does this belong in the clogs at all? The guardian is, irrespective of its quality, a mainstream newspaper and hardly part of the 'clogged-up fringes of the internet'. — Unsigned, by: 188.8.131.52 / talk / contribs
- while the guardian is a reputable source of news, this is an opinion piece and therefore would fall under blogs or clogs, depending on if you agree with the message or not. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The problem with this well-thought-out-nothing-could-possibly-go-wrong-this-time ban is that a lot of disabled people depend on them to get water and/or food, and for various reasons other materials absolutely won't work (paper, metal, etc. all have shortcomings that render them useless for many people using plastic straws). As someone who works with this population that would be a genuinely huge problem, one that could easily be fixed but which the law as written doesn't account for. Reducing the amount of plastic in the environment is absolutely commendable, the problem is blanket-banning things without accounting for a fairly obvious problem it creates. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Presenting... the Grand Unified Conspiracy!
- LMAO. This has to be a joke, especially how they have a 4-chan version printed in a green background. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)