Information icon.svg See the 2017 Moderator election results here!

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>

Fix on "Newspaper Snark" December 2016 Entry[edit]

I am inexperienced and didn't know where to put this; someone copied the vote counters from the Brietbart Kellogs post and the "Newspaper Snark" post, so I fixed it, which is why it is reset. I also moved the Brietbart entry up to December and put in a better link.

Policy on removals?[edit]

Is the policy to just leave anything anyone adds here and down vote it if you think it sucks? To address the "up vote question" mentioned above, I think entries here should be more than just a headline or description of the "clog", otherwise people will down vote because they think it's not an egregious post and others will down vote because they think it is an egregious post. Some commentary should ideally be added. To illustrate why I think commentary is necessary, this entry was recently added by a BoN: "Jordan Peterson university talk on the topic of campus indoctrination". Without looking at their other contributions I can't even tell if this BoN is a fan of Peterson or not.
If they are a fan, they will be horribly misled if the post receives many up votes, not realising that this would largely be due to people finding the idea of "campus indoctrination" ridiculous. CowHouse (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

the BBC is discriminating based on race for an internship per Rascism at the BBC - This internship is only open to candidates from a black, Asian or non-white ethnic minority background.. Is this not notable? And if it is not notable, how is it not notable -- (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You can undo my edit if you want, but your entry will probably get down voted to death (by the way, it's spelled "racism"). For the record, are you a fan of Jordan B. Peterson? CowHouse (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure why not -- (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
If you like him, why are you adding this to the clogosphere page? It is meant to be for egregious posts/editorials/videos. CowHouse (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I really don't think this is racism. I'd assume they're opening a position to a minority ethnicity/race but they're not necessarily denying opportunities in general. It seems like just this job slot, they're more interested in finding applicants from those minorities. But again, I'm sure there's a reason behind it and I'd like to know. Knee-jerking and accusing the BBC of racism, however, is not helpful and is jumping to conclusions. That'll be the reason it'll be downvoted, not because people think anti-white racism is acceptable. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The job position was clearly targeted at someone from a minority background. That just happens to mean non-white in the UK. I very much doubt the BoN who added this would complain about racism if a country that isn't majority-white did the same thing (e.g. a Chinese broadcaster was looking to hire non-Chinese people for the sake of inclusivity). CowHouse (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree the implication that all entries should be more than just a headline or description of the clog. The Twitter entry on Trump supporters I added, for instance, doesn't need additional comment; I let the words speak for themselves and let people come to their own interpretation and reaction; less is more here. As for others, some statements are indeed not as clear if it's crazy or not, along with the vagueness of the upvote / downvote system, and that has been an issue for quite a while. I do think some need commentary, and this isn't exclusive to Clogosphere: this entry, for instance, just regurgitated the headline and my editing and specifying the subject in the headline, I hope is far more helpful. The rule is this, when the clarity of the "WTF" is doubt, use commentary, but otherwise, quote plainly the crazy words. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Good point. Certain entries do not require commentary. I still think it's bad practice to use headlines. They are often clickbait, sensationalised and not a fair representation of the article as a whole. Reactionaries often quote headlines without reading the actual article and it's a big pet peeve of mine. For example. a BoN added this article: "It's OK to be white: how Fox News is helping spread neo-Nazi propaganda". This was the BoN's entry: "Apparently it's not OK to be white and Fox News is spreading neo-national socialist propaganda - according to Newsweek". The article points out that the whole campaign was in fact propaganda, and says "it's ok to be white" is "an ostensibly benign statement":
  • Like many other trolling campaigns that have emerged in the era of President Donald Trump, “It’s Okay to Be White” started on the imageboard site 4chan, a favorite online hub for young, white males who consider themselves part of the so-called alt-right movement. Anonymous users of that site posted a “game plan” urging people to hang “It’s Okay to Be White” signs on college campuses in an attempt to bait people into an overreaction against an ostensibly benign statement. As one anonymous 4chan user envisioned it, media outlets would go “completely berserk” after the signs were discovered, revealing what the alt-right perceives as the media's anti-white agenda.
Nobody who read the article could have came to the conclusion that the BoN did. They could only come to that conclusion if they had only read the headline. CowHouse (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@CowHouse I myself try to avoid copy-pasting headlines (though I think I've done it before) especially if the headlines aren't too descriptive and I especially try to include catches in the article if there are any. I'm aware that headlines aren't even written by the author of the article, it's someone else instead. As for that BoN entry, that's the one I downvoted because, as you said, Newsweek is correct about the "It's Okay To Be White" being white supremacist: check It's Okay To Be White article. The entry itself is a knee-jerk and absolutely not appropriate for a clog. Oh, and when it comes to entries, I also try to avoid being too lengthy too. They take up space and they don't look good. Brevity is key here. I do agree that the entry should be removed because it's just not well-thought out and will probably be downvoted to oblivion. In fact, I think there was concern over a bad entry and the response was exactly that: "just let it be and let it get downvoted to oblivion". But yeah, sometimes the downvoting doesn't work out, so I say use your own judgement when it comes to handling entries. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Setting aside the obvious failure to understand what racism is, this reminds me of a friend of mine who worked in HR at a Famous Publisher some 25 years back. The board realised there were hardly any BME people working there and charged her with trying to recruit more diversely. Her solution? To include a statement along the lines of "We welcome applications from black and minority ethnic candidates" in the same old job ads in the same old places. When I asked her why she wasn't advertising in black media like The Voice, she explained that people who wanted to work in publishing didn't read newspapers and magazines like that. Catch 22. Her project flopped and she left soon after to retrain as a teacher.

A quarter of a century on and organisations like the Famous Publisher and the BBC are more white, middle class and privately educated than any time since the 1950s, particularly as many internships depend on financial support from parents.

This entry is shit. Had it been an ironic entry, linking to a commentary on the ad, then yes, OK, it's a clog. A bald link to the ad is just trolling. London Grump (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The BBC is discriminating on its internship based on race. Therefore it is racist. Case closed. Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. If this was a position was for whites only, would you be trying to defend the BBC then? -- (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you should put the shoe on the other foot, as I have already commented above. CowHouse (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I would be just as displeased at a job being advertised as whites only as it is if a job were advertised as non-whites only. -- (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe seeking particular traits in potential applicants especially from the minorities pool is not new nor is it necessarily racist. You just seem to have a poor understanding of racism; it would be racist if the employer wanted nonwhites because whites are assumed to be *negative trait stereotype that implies whites are an inferior race*. And the "whites only" reversal applies only when whites are a minority race to begin with as with how BBC looks for minority races; whites are a majority in BBC's case and employers really don't need actively search for whites to find them. This entry is indeed crappy and I hope you understand why. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? If someone is discrimatined against because of their race, that is racism. It does not matter if they are discriminating against in favour of a minority or a majority or this race or another race. You cannot change the definition of racism just because it is not congruous with your racist view. -- (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The results when you google "racism definition":
(1) prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
(2) the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
The BBC is advertising to non-white people because they are minorities not because they hate white people or think they are superior, inferior, or have specific racial qualities. So no, it does not fit the definition of racism. CowHouse (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Even so, I find there something disturbing about discrimination based on ones race for the position. The best persons should be selected for this position, irrespective of their race. -- (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
They just want new perspectives as racial identity and culture-ethnicity ties is still a thing. In a perfect world, yeah, race shouldn't matter, but we're in a world of racial profiling and growing up Asian, black, or white are indeed different experiences. So, on the not-far-out idea that different perspectives are related to different races and ethnicity, BBC is hiring minorities to attract minorities and then select the best people in that pool. Again, it's not like hiring is denied entirely to whites, and hiring isn't denied because whites are assumed to be inferior, so I see little reason to get so worked up over something like this. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

why is this not visible?[edit]

worlds greatest genius calls for altleft[1] sjw alliance against trump [2][3] — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 13:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Your entry linked to pages from January and April 2017. It is not relevant. If you look at where you added it, the section is called "November 2017".
Besides, what does your entry even mean?
Also, when on talk pages, please sign your comments at the end by using four tiles (~~~~). Thanks. CowHouse (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
this is good infomation on the alternativeleft and robertlindsay its creator who desired a alliance with the sjws va trump , read the guy especially his old articles 2010ish i like them more (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is this good information? Two of the pages you linked to are not even specific articles. You might like his articles, but this page is not the right place to add them. This page is "RationalWiki's snarkilicious take on some of the more "WTF?" or egregious blog posts, editorials, videos and social media posts out there." If you enjoy an article, then you should not add it to this page, and it's no longer relevant if it's older than a month.
To clarify, was your description of Lindsay as the "world[']s greatest genius" sarcastic or serious?
Feel free to add Robert Lindsay to our suggestions page: RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions. Your information would be more relevant in an article about him. CowHouse (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not visible because its bollocks. Trump has done a great job of getting everyone else to work together. A movement so small it might as well be fictional - like the alt-left - isn't going to make much difference outside of the likes of Breitbart. London Grump (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

why This page has been locked. You have insufficient permissions to edit. (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It was locked because a BoN was edit warring. If the page is locked and you have something you want to add, just mention it in the talk page here. CowHouse (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
If you, BoN, weren't posting nonsense and actually listen to our advice, the page wouldn't have been locked. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


For some reason this page has become a magnet for trolls. To prevent trolling, would it be fair to protect this page indefinitely so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it? CowHouse (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree on infinite protection. It is just that one BoN making freaking terrible entries. Saying "I won't sexually harass people" and then making perhaps an offhanded remark about men's Twinkies and Ding Dongs now means you will campaign because you have a donette instead? Repeatedly putting It is Okay to Be White "outrage" without clarifying that it is Milo's opinion? Accusing BBC of "racism"? Putting in complete word salad blabber as an entry with little care for grammar or formatting? I am still mixed of we should restrict privileges or just let the mob downvote its entries. It doesn't seem to be abusing it despite its depressing lack of what goes on a clog and makes seriously unfunny entries. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
WIGO pages are not a talk pages, where opinions are clearly a single user's, and signed as such. If page content reflects exceedlingly poorly on the community, it should be culled. Downvoting doesn't matter if we're still serving it to the public. Limit the page's editors to autoconfirmed users or comment out the egregiously bad submissions. Either way works. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario This person (if it is only one person) is nonetheless incredibly persistent. To me, it feels like feeding the troll when we allow their entries to stay up. CowHouse (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps temporary protection might be the answer? Long enough enough that the BoN gets bored and gives up, but not long enough to hurt the community at large. GrammarCommie (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
How does a lengthy protection hurt the community at large? I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, I just don't see how it does. It is very rare than BoN's produce high quality entries on this page. CowHouse (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the BoN is clueless or just a troll, so I assume cluenessless. Still, I'm just worried that we'd just block out things we disagree with, I don't want it to go that far. I'm very iffy on indefinite protection because that's generally reserved for very high-traffic pages, user pages, templates, pages that generally shouldn't be messed with in the first place. There are BoNs that post decent stuff and BoNs that post bad stuff, so I don't think we should lock the pages. After all, it's easy to comment out or revert bad posts, so it's not a huge loss if some chuckleboos think it's funny to link a bad clog with a poorly written description. I support semi-protecting for a week or so, which is generally a lot of time in Super Internet Land. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Indefinite protection is not synonymous with blocking out things we disagree with. It's incredibly easy to create an account and become auto-patrolled. Besides, commenting out or reverting entries is effectively the same as blocking out things we disagree with anyway (the difference being protecting the page means we don't have to waste time doing any of that).
"There are BoNs that post decent stuff and BoNs that post bad stuff". This is true, but ignores that the vast majority is bad stuff (either trolling, vandalism or people who are clueless). There's nothing stopping the good BoNs from creating an account, or using the talk page for suggestions. CowHouse (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I was trying to equate indefinite protection as "blocking things we don't like". I just don't want to apply an indefinite blanket protection for a page that only one user repeatedly adds bad entries. Saying that "it's easy to create an account and become auto-patrolled", while it's true, why would we even enable I.P. editing in the first place? People probably don't like to go through the trouble of registering and remembering a new password I'm assuming, or they're just visiting. Anyhow, I don't see what's wrong with just temp-semi-protect the page and just comment out or revert bad posts. The page has already been semi-temp-protected, so.... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That may no longer be needed as Cosmikdebris banned the BoN in question for 3.6 days GrammarCommie (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I also protected this page for a day or two, because it appears that the BoN in question is on an ISP down under that randomizes IP addresses. This BoN appears to be the same person who is obsessed with the "Alt-Left" and Robert Lindsay and is currently on a rant over in Talk:Realist left‎‎. I can't tell if it's a troll or just an unexperienced and/or young contributor. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
We may want to do something about about that talk page soon, it's starting to look a tad odd... GrammarCommie (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the user is a troll. Doesn't sound trollish enough, but I think the user is incompetent for slapping in links all over the place, bad grammar, and bad formatting. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
They don't sound trollish because they're painfully, obviously a crank. All the more reason to keep them from crapping up the page. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

;( sad (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet another bad clog[edit]

The one about Cracked laying off its staff. The post says nothing about how the source itself is a far-right website that thinks Cracked is doomed "when its editors found the warm embrace of progressive politics". It also accuses Cracked of being anti-gamer and doesn't like it pushing feminism. The link is highly speculative; because the author found a few writers who don't work for Cracked anymore (and it's the fault of Cracked embracing "social justice" according to the post), this means massive layoffs and Cracked is doomed for sure. The post says none of that shit, and so I downvoted it. I wouldn't be opposed to outright removal given the low-quality BoN edits recently. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The author of that article is Ian Miles Cheong, a popular alt-right moron on Twitter, so the entry is actually appropriate for clogs this time. It just needed some context. WIGO:Clogs, more than any other wigo, needs some kind of comment to highlight how stupid the source material is, otherwise it can look like we're just parroting the bad opinions of crackpots. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I changed my vote. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget the good lads from Age of Shitlords. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The article you linked to is just a copy of the one written by Ian Miles Cheong. CowHouse (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Good article though. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't trust headlines[edit]

This was too long to be a clog entry so I'll put it here. So apparently there was a guy who was caught on CCTV smashing windows and lights with a machete after breaking into a mosque. He also left a slice of raw bacon by the front door. He was recently sentenced to 15 years in prison after pleading guilty to the break-in, and he had numerous previous convictions for burglary.
So this was the headline for that story: "Man jailed for 15 years for hate crimes after leaving bacon in mosque".
The worst part is that this was in The Independent, not the usual suspects like Fox News or Breitbart. CowHouse (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Clickbait headlines seem pretty prevalent for most if not all news websites. The BBC comes to mind as especially egregious. As does CNN. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The independent has always been shit. Christopher (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh come on now. It used to be good...back in the last century when it was an actual newspaper. Boredatwork (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, aren't headlines and the article content written by two different people? That being said, you're correct: don't trust headlines and if you get your news from headlines, you're a moron. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario My understanding is that many headlines (not all) are written by editors. CowHouse (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I recall the information but wasn't confident enough to make a definite statement. Sorry for the wishy-washiness. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario No apology necessary. You were correct after all. CowHouse (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

YouTube videos[edit]

What's wrong with the Crowder and Sargon videos? -- (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The links in question being Jared Holt of Right Wing Watch caught patently lying and Crowder and Jared interrogate Amazon Alexa, receive absurd answers. -- (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Apparently nothing. I'll put them back. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mr1.136.108.2 Holt did not lie. Crowder's video could be added, but only to point out that his video was probably fake (as shown here). CowHouse (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Holt did lie. Sargon perspicuously shows that in the video. And since you've posted what you view as a rebuttal to Crowder's video, here, watch Crowder rebut the rebuttals. I look forward to your response. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mr1.136.108.2 Give me an example of something Holt lied about.
Assuming the footage was real, it appears to be a glitch that only occurs when you ask the specific phrase "who is the Lord Jesus Christ?" and Alexa does not provide that answer anymore. Besides, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the clogosphere page. If the footage is real and you think the answers are absurd, then it does not belong on this page (ditto for the Sargon video). This page is for terrible blogs/videos. CowHouse (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)