Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (*cough*) (hic)
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>

Quantum Physics "Rogue Scholar"[edit]

I have made an account specifically to ask about this, as it is making me feel unwell. A search through the internet which started with this very site's article on Alternative Cosmologies has led me to someone called "Michael Bush" on Quora, who calls himself a "Rogue Scholar" (bad sign, I know). He keeps putting certain images (made by himself, as, he doesn't cite any other sources in anyone of his answers) in all of his answers regarding questions of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity (he says that the first is unequivocally false and that the second is true). I will give you the question where he has detailed his beliefs: (first answer). I understand that his crackpot index is off the charts, and that his mighty dismissal of every single quantum physicist on the planet is obviously wrong, but I would appreciate if anyone knowledgable in these subjects would look at his grand unifying diagrams. I would like to know what specific part of them is wrong (if they truly are). Thanks in advance!--RoAwesomeFace (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The Nation colomnist Katha Pollit[edit]

She recently wrote an colomn about Joe Biden, in which she says: “I would vote for Joe Biden if he boiled babies and ate them.”


Article by The Hill:

Should this be added? Dr. (“LiNK” 49) (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Washington Times Baphomet Statue Tomfoolery[edit]

The Washington times has published an article stating that since confederate statues are coming down because they are offensive, christians have the right to wrap american flags around statues of Baphomet and set them alight failing to realise nobody actually worships ol' Baphy and most people on the left would see that as the absolute sickest most kickass bonfire party ever


Even if they don't do it (which lets face it they won't) I think this should be added to clogs because its good for a laugh. On the very slim chance they do go through with it we should be giving out invites to the shindig of the decade (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Jeez, that web page consists of several megabytes of advertisements and Javascript abuse as a wrapper for a stupid "editorial" consisting of a mere 163 words that looks like it was written by a middle school student. No one will organize and attend a protest resulting in the destruction of the Baphomet statue. The Washington Times and their irrelevant opinions should be ignored. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Twitter thread about UK brexiteers in France[edit]

Its a fake as exposed by Alex Hern of the Guardian. Reverse image search showed the profile pic is a generic stock image. Still funny and there are plenty of entitled Brits who actually think like that to mock especially in Gibraltar but alas lets not get caught up in frauds. Source : (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's also no "David Saunders" book series either as specified in fake Twitter account profile (there's a guy who's collaborated with a few management books by that name, that's it). Removed it. We really need to be careful making WIGOs out of social media junk IMHO, this shows why. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Clogosphere is perfect for this. It's an entertaining piece of performance art, I say let it stand--Hastur! (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Magic Nerds mad about tiddies[edit]

A creator from the Wizards of the Coast creator program has been fired for allegedly sexualising the game with her onlyfans content and antifeminist chuds are blaming it on her being 'too hot so feminists shut her down' instead of a corporate decision about their image. Read the comments on this Source: — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

tory voter gives vague disapproval of jeremy corbyn[edit]

full headline - imagine the state we'd be in if corbyn had been in charge' - the view from the red wall'. its click baity for sure, but not especially considering its revisiting a constituency that was an unassailable labour stronghold but voted tory the last election. it a vox pop of first time tory voters (and a school girl who might now vote tory when eligible but voted labour in a mock election of some form) to see if the sunak's summer statement had made them regret voting tory (it hadnt). a couple had been spoken to before in another piece asking first time tory voters their opinion on the cummings row. leighs not a massive place and theres been a lock down. i imagine it quite difficult finding people who are tories and willing to talk to you. and they've got the emails of two first time tory voters already, and one of them owns a restaurant which is relevent to the summer statement. corbyn is mentioned in that one line and isnt eleaborated on. it doesnt warrant questioning the working class credentials of a member of the public, whose class isnt even mentioned (a small pizza place is hardly elon musk and i couldnt anything for the property thing) and isnt especially relevant - being a tory voter in a working class town that voted tory for the first time in 100 years is. its a lightweight piece with a clickbait headline. not some nefarious plot from the lame stream media nor a scathing and vicious slander needing to be addressed. corbyn's already gone. we can drop the hard done by act now. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi AMassiveGay. The article puts that quote next to a sub-headline that reads "Working-class voters in Leigh do not regret voting for Tories after listening to chancellor’s summer statement". It's pretty obvious that we are suppose to conclude that such a quote comes from someone who is representative of 'the working class'. A position which is only tenable if your idea of working class is something laughably vague like 'born poor + has an accent + drinks stella'.
The fact is that a small business owner (whether it is Musk, or 'Mom n Pop's organic bakery farm for free-range gluten free banana bread loafs that are ethically slaughtered') has very different economic concerns from the people who receive a wage/salary. The opinion of a man who sits on the directors board of four different companies, is not going to be comparable to a bar-maid collecting glasses for minimum wage or even a decently paid contractor.
It is lazily sourced and although it would have taken more effort to get hold of people who could actually represent the working class more broadly, you would think that that is a price one would be willing to pay as a decent journalist.
Even if that wasn't an option, it would take barely any effort at all to just drop the working class from the lead in and put 'people'. In which case it would be a lazily put together vox-pop, rather than another embarrassing example of the liberal tendency to reduce class to mere cultural affect.

Get ready, it's... (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

working class IS a laughably vague term. its use in this article is vague and need not be anything more. it isnt an academic article. it doesnt need a strict or narrow definition, outmoded and bearing no resemblance to the poorly delineated concept of class in britain today. its term that has no official usage, only informal and often as a subjective self descriptor and no one wants to say they are middle class. here it is used in broad terms. people either self describing as working class or within the broad church of what people nowadays mean by working class. likely no bankers or landed gentry. that any one person or group could be representative of the mixture that is working class is itself idiotic.
but a discussion of the working class is beside the point. your taking a clickbait head line as if it were being presented as a strongly argued and well supported fact instead what it is - click bait. the crack at corbyn is the bait part. the sub headline explains what is meant by the crack. a punchy way of saying former labour voters in a former labour stronghold now a tory seat suggest they are standing by their switch to conservative 6 months on and after hearing sunak's summer statement.
the article, such as it is, supports this, while explaining at the outset is revisiting an earlier look at the 2019 general election, where labour were destroyed after seemingly being abandoned by former labour heartlands in the north - the red wall in the headline.
as i have said from the outset, its a thin piece of vox pop that doesnt warrant the attention its gotten - ive seen two articles inflating the importance of this one just because of corbyn got a shout out, and it does not warrant the disingenuous clog that tries to discredit a guys opinion because they are not in its view sufficiently working class as a small business owner (i havent seen where it gets the director of a property development firm anywhere), when his class is not explicitly stated nor of particular relevance or necessary within the article, and implies he might be some kind of stooge as he was interviewed and featured in a earlier article which can be explained by the article revisiting the area earlier as already stated, and directly referenced with another interviewee in the piece. and his particular small business very relevent to the summer statement.
far too much is being assumed from far too little when all we can really take from this article is vox pops are difficult amid social distancing and you've got a deadline to meet. that and click bait is a super effective tactic AMassiveGay (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
In the words of the philosopher kings Paul and Barry Chuckle, ‘Oh Dear Oh Dear.’
The term working class is used with some variation, yet generally refers to those receiving low levels of income in the form of wages or a salary – i.e. not those earning the majority of their income from profits derived employing others. It can be loose at times, but come on… let’s not take the piss here.
To describe the owner of a pizza restaurant (who also sits on the board of directors for 3 other companies:<this link is wrong but I'm leaving it here for accountability reasons>) as ‘working class’ is to stretch the term so painfully that it leaves one asking why the author even bothered to use it in the first place. Its a hilariously sloppy application of the term that's inclusion has roundly made the article a target for mockery.
The clog does not debate the failings of labour strategy or whether the pizza-bar owner was correct in his assessment or not. The clog isn’t a conspiracy to undermine the interviewee, so calm yourself down. A click-baity Guardian article tried to pass the views of a local business owner off as working class and ended up a laughing stock. Get ready, it's... (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Mea Culpa time. I argued that Andrew Twentyman who is featured in the article owns several businesses when in actuality it is his brother who owns them along with the pizza restaurant. Regardless, the point stands that someone who employs several people in a restaurant that he owns is far from any meaningful definition of 'working class' and attempts to spin him as such to make his words carry more weight is desperate. Apologies for the mistake, operating on very little sleep on this end due to a shoulder injury. Usual infallibility shall follow shortly! Get ready, it's... (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
since you've decided to be such a patronising prick about it i'll keep this short.
one - your description of working class is far too narrow and hasnt been true or useful to classify the working class in the uk for years, its a far from homogenous group that can be stratified on not least social, cultural, and economic basis, even by race and age, and by self description and ones roots.
two - i'll repeat again, thats all irrelevant as the this chaps social class and whatever criteria is being used, the article is not explicit in its assessment of his social class nor is it important or necessary - being a newly tory voter who previously voted labour in a previously labour constituency now in tory hands and the mini budget.
three - the clog is both disingenuous and conspiratorial seeing as it implies one interviewee has been mischaracterised as working class, when the article does not assign his class nor make important or necessary for an explicit confirmation. it further implies something shady by referencing the appearance of this one interviewee in an earlier article - something explained in the article. it just looks like more of 'corbyn was sabotaged' carping that appears once in a while with less than stellar evidence.
at the very best its a clog that criticises a clickbait headline while ignoring the actual, though admittedly thin, article which makes the clog wholly trivial and misses the point by a long way. its articles and the content contained within that are important here, not their sloppy headlines. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
AMassiveGay. Please read my responses properly.
At no point have I presented ‘my’ or even ‘a’ singular definition of working class. Nor have I argued that it is a homogeneous group. I have merely pointed out that academic definitions along with most common use dictionary definitions (see: Oxford and Cambridge) tend to overlap and identify a necessary condition for being working class in a persons relationship with businesses – i.e. not owning one.
With any given definition, not just in sociology, it is likely that not every person/thing will fit neatly into one camp or the other and it is guaranteed there will be plenty of variation between members of each grouping. The same can be said for splitting biological sex into the categories of male and female. Yet the existence of intersex people does not mean that distinctions between men and women are meaningless nor does it mean that such a distinction papers over differences between individual men and women. The same is true for definitions of working class, or definitions of the colour 'blue' for that matter.
The paper leads with the interviewee’s quote and a sub-heading about working class opinions. It’s pretty obvious what conclusion we are to draw from this. What’s more the author has gone on twitter to defend her decision to portray the owner of an artisanal pizza restaurant as “working class”… so.. you know… there’s also the authors own admission that that’s exactly what she was implying…. Oops!
It’s a lazily researched article that among other things attempts to launder the opinion of a restaurant owner as working class. The only way it can do that is by stretching the term working class to the point of tortured absurdity, hence its place in clogs.
The clog doesn’t seek to undermine Andrew’s opinions or set up a conspiracy about Corbyn being sabotaged. Nor do you have any grounds to call it ‘disingenuous’. Not everything you disagree with is a Corbynist plot to save ‘Dear Leader’. Get ready, it's... (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the 'done thing' but I've now changed the description of the clog so its more clear that what is being referred to is the out of touch positioning of a business owner as 'working class' and not any deep-fake conspiracy. Get ready, it's... (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
how about you knock off the patronising bullshit, you fucking gobshite, particularly when it fails to address anything i have said. a few comments on twitter, the site that nuance forgot proves nothing except concur with an earlier point -a too narrow a definition (you basing your argument on a dictionary definition, seriously?). at the very worst its maybe a stretch. and just how is he out of touch? the twitter link you provided would suggest not being on universal credit is 'out of touch' judging by some objections to pidds classifications - the reasoning for such objections are absent i might add. perhaps you refer to something in the actual article that suggests out of touch? or make reference to anything in the article that is an point of contention for? anything that might be at least vaguely interesting.
because your still focusing the supposed class of some no mark. there isnt even a look at his comment on corbyn, the sole mention corbyn gets in the article, and a pretty vacant comment at that. its not all he said. restauranteur is actually very pertinent to the article. you can base a judgment on the validity of his opinions with actual useful context.
its also worth noting that reasoning for this article, why they were in leigh in the first place, was for the first time in 100 years voted tory, dropping corbyns labour, and nationwide corbyns labour were annihilated. of the many reasons for this, one was taking for granted northern voters, those traditional labour heartlands. where labour held - london and liverpool mainly, working class looked very different to those in the north. in average age and race for example. their values differing consequently. voting differently. the point here is the labour party, the defacto party of the working class, is no longer so, failing to reach so many it claims to represent. the conservatives no make that claim. the tories led by an old etonian. i posit the problems labour has surrounding the disparate groups under the umbrella of working class are addressed by a rigid and inflexible definitions that ignore who these groups actually are now and what it is they want or need are now, and to juggle conflicting needs.
if there us a problem with this article it is that there is no representation those on the bottom rungs of the scale for what is working class. the bickering over clickbait headlines and obsolete definitions of class does not address this, missing the point of the article in favour of inanity.
the clog is still disingenuous by its focus on inanity over the content of the article, and it does look like the familiar carping from corbyn supporters, whether it is or not is of no matter, because thats what it looks like and it provides nothing else. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask some questions before I go any further. I just want to check that we are on the same page and see if we can get some kind of mutual understanding going forward. Also I want to take the tone down, I'm aware some of my jokey comments may have come off disrespectful (and at least one of them definitely was) but I really don't think calling each-other names on the internet is doing either of us any favours.

So just trying to articulate my position while teasing out your own.

1. In what way would a definition of working class that centres on those who receive wages/salaries be too narrow on the front of culture/social background/age or roots?

An explicit hypothetical example would be great, perhaps also with a reason to believe that these examples are numerous enough to cause serious problems.

2. Considering the author has publicly stated that they believe the owner of the pizza restaurant is working class, and that his quote is accompanied by a sub-title discussing 'working class opinions'. Do you believe it is unfair to argue that the article puts him forward as a representative of the working class (or at least a meaningful sub-section of it)? Just yes or no.

If you still feel that your answer is 'no' on that one then I fear we might just have to differ.

3. Do you feel I should be held responsible for other people making bad arguments (or not making arguments) on twitter? Why am I being told about them?

4. You seem to be presenting views on post-Corbyn labour as though they are points of contention in this discussion. I'm not sure what you're expecting from me here... you're aware that I'm not taking umbridge with the content but with the framing of one particular source? I get that you might find that shallow but I'm not really sure why your posting your opinions on the state of UK labour or what you think I'm suppose to make of them. Get ready, it's... (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

1. a doctor recieves a wage. a banker receives a wage. the prime minister receives a wage. its irrelevant. nor is the how much that wage is on its own. not all working class are working poor, and at times some trade professions such plasterer or plumber for example have been highly lucrative. you need more. the decline of manufactoring and the rise of of an economy based on the service industry along with the proliferation of tertiary education, makes things so much more nuanced.
2. i say read the article. it contains more than one persons views, and the headline is irrelvant clickbait.
3. yes, if they form part of your own argument - the twitter link you provided and the comments pridd was responding too.
4. this is the whole point of the article and why this whole is discussion a trivial inanity. the headline does not exist on its own and is secondary to the articles content, and is barely relevant at all. the article concerns labour and former labour supporters, ostensibly working class, and their views after labour was so thoroughly destroyed at the polls. it helps to provide some understanding for reasons that happened and the mountain labour needs to climb to come back, and what labour as a party stands for today. but sure, keep up with your pedantic reading of a headline of no concern to anything and your stellar no-true-scotsmanning. ive spent too much time on something i could have just responded to with 'read the fucking article' AMassiveGay (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Do book reviews go in the clogosphere?[edit]

If so, here's a good one, from a soldier in the Spanish Civil War. Enjoy! — Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:c477:8214:79d9:b102 / talk / contribs

Fuck Amp[edit]

Your Wall Street Journal Kyle Rittenhouse article's url is infested with AMP. It should be instead. (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the problem with AMP? I've never seen to have an issue with it. Rockford the Roe (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Herman Cain Again, Again[edit]

It's amusing, but do we need 2 WIGOs about it? Whoover (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I was sure I saw this here last week, but I don't see it here now. Whoover (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Militant Vegans[edit]

The left wing media thing is complete bollocks, of course. The rest of it, however, is not. Environmental and animal rights groups have been on MI5, Special Branch and MOD police's radar for at least 30 years. Maybe not as long as the New Age Travellers of the mid 80s but far off. Extinction Rebellion has been on the terrorism watch list since the beginning of the year. The Home Office is at the moment turning up the heat on left-wing, anarchist and environmental activism. They are all now included in the Prevent counter-radicalisation programme. All thanks to Priti "Nosferatu" Patel. LondonGrump (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Animal rights is basically a bobo version of the anti-abortion cult. There's something extremely toxic about rhetoric that fiercely sentimentalizes something normal people just don't care about. It encourages acts of violence: we'll -force- you to care about our lost darlings. Farm and food processing facility invasions ought to be treated as harshly as clinic blockades. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Ethics (and dipshittery aside), is there really a moral equivalence between PETA and National Action? Extinction Rebellion and the UDA? LondonGrump (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
'Moral equivalence' is itself a treacherous notion, conflating complicated problems into a simple 'as bad as' scale. Fortunately, I don't know of any successful murders perpeetrated by animal-rightsers in the way the anti-abortion cult has pulled off. If that's the scale, then no, animal rights is not as bad as anti-abortion nuttery: at least not yet. I do think there are similar mindsets involved, and some of the stunts pulled on the west coast of the USA by an outfit that calls itself DXE ('Direct Action Everywhere', apparently not very good at acronyms) are easily as obnoxious as the similar stunts from outfits like the Lambs of God. More importantly, the anti-abortion nuttery is probably too deeply embedded to entirely get rid of. With this, we may still have a chance. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 06:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

John Waters and Gemma[edit]

There must have been something special in the water at Hot Press, John Waters, Olaf Tyaransen and Craig Fitzsimons, if it's not rape, it's abusing wives and citing God or stirring up hate and condemning any who oppose as a Pedo. There's video footage doing the rounds of Gemma and Johns little Gestapo-esque aide-du-idiocacy, Dee Wall (real name Delores Webster) coughing at protestors and giggling. Cardinal Chang (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


I think we should have a template which show whether an article covers stupidity or the article is the stupidity.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 11:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump Fox Noise News interview (note to the editors)[edit]

I added two sources, just in case one of them is deemed unreliable and/or too biased. You're more than welcome to delete one and keep a preferred source of your choice if you want to keep the entry more concise. -- G Man (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

To whoever posted UN Watch Whataboutism[edit]

Go back and read the tweet. We have standards here. LondonGrump (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppression in the British aristocracy[edit]

Fuck the aristocracy, fuck them all and painfully, but what part of titles and estates only passing down the male line is not discriminatory and therefore not oppressive? And since when does titled mean wealthy anyway? I know an Honorable who hasn't got a pot to piss in. The only difference between him and any other loser is the title on his bank card and his posh accent. Fuck him too. LondonGrump (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

i'm not convinced people always read the articles they post. i was about to grumble about the wigo, but beaten to it (i know i'm a little, only just seen it). AMassiveGay (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

More "brain training" BS[edit] is advertising a card deck, and the website says at the top "The cards that enhance Creativity", and it has lots of sciency-sounding things. Except further on down, the homepage says "Intùiti is not an algorithmic function that can 'make people creative'". Which is probably to cover their legal asses. Anyway, these "brain training" games should be illegal. --Interiot (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ebenezer Scrooge is the good guy[edit]

Can't be arsed to find a way around the WSJ paywall but what's the issue?

Perhaps, like 1984, it's more written about than read but A Christmas Carol (a shit book written like Dickens was paid by the word) is about the redemption - not the punishment - of Ebenezer Scrooge. Ergo he's the good guy. LondonGrump (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that according to them Scrooge didn't need any redemption, he was good at start. His wealth hoarding and business practices were good for the economy and for the people. Scrooge and Marley accumulated wealth and that somehow triggered a revolution that boosted wages, literacy and nutrition. 2804:431:C7F2:EE4B:547D:9798:DB53:565F (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)