Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?/Archive10

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 March 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Chopra quote generator[edit]

Awesome! The strangest one I got was "Dogs are insects." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought that was whales. SophieWilderModerator 20:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Islam is Socialism[edit]

Anyone else click on this and get a 'Date Muslim Chicks" ad down one side?MatsFan (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's "Date Muslim Chicks and educate them out of their evil socialistic ways"? Shadow Nirvana (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Obsidian Article[edit]

Man hits woman multiple times in an argument, knocking her out; this guy's saying "Feminism isn't about justice, it's about sacrificing men"(conclusion paragraph). This guy used to talk about how protesting street harassment was demonizing and illegalizing male sexuality and how rape was a natural part of male sexuality in the Dr Nerdlove comment sections back in the day. He is quite something.

Also, I couldn't read past the "NFL is completely feminized" part in the comments. dafuq?

P.S. I read past it a little bit, only to be stumped by a "black women are ratchets" comment. Can't believe I used to follow these guys. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent possible hacking of iCloud and leakage of nudes[edit]

Not a WIGO, but what are you people's opinion about the whole leakage of actress nudes that went on yesterday? I feel a bit disappointed how many people decided to share illegally obtained photos and not standing for justice, for once. Maybe I'm too optimistic? Shadow Nirvana (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The most disturbing thing is just how many people blamed the celebrities themselves for having the images saved on iCloud. I haven't come across many people defending their right to privacy outside of feminist forums. It makes me very concerned for the women that I know how little people care --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Right? Isn't safety one of cloud's features? That's what people are paying for. Isn't it nearly the same thing as storing the pictures on a computer with internet connection? And the logic... Even if they made a mistake trusting cloud, the fact that people go "Well, they shouldn't have done that." before damning the person who hacked their accounts seems a lot like saying "Look at what she's wearing." Yet, near zero speaking out against the criminal. Hell, I've even seen people saying that the hacker had done a great public service, was going to get into heaven for such a deed and getting so many prayers etc.
The people who were questioning the morals of these women and the ones who are accusing others who are speaking against this of being whiteknights were pretty disturbing, too. This whole session made me feel a bit depressed. Take the manosphere, dilute it a bit and spread it to the general public and you get this disaster.
After this I'm so for surveillance, even the NSA wouldn't be so pro-NSA. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It's horrible, I doubt any of these people would appreciate it if it were them. It's the danger of anonymity on the internet. It allows people to be bestial and because society is so sexist, it's women who they attack, whilst simultaneously claiming that there is no need for feminism anymore. Absolute creeps --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if things would have been different, had the celebrities been men. Probably would have received just as much victim blaming. Nullahnung (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, it happens much less often but when it does there is the same victim blaming. I'm trying to find examples, the ones of Pete Wentz and Kanye West come to mind. I don't think people talked that much about West's but with the fan base that Fall Out Boy attracts Wentz's leak was quite a big deal. He seems to be cool with it now but it seems he was quite hurt by it at the time [1]. Unlike the current celebrities, there's nothing about it in either's Wikipedia profile though --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It always annoys me when people always cry "___ism!" when something nasty happens. Thanks for providing an island of sanity. TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That island was paid for with taxpayer money! Socialism! Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You're a famous person and a) you take nude selfies and b) you think the best place to keep them is some amorphous space out there "somewhere" that has passwords, so it's totally safe. What could possibly go wrong? PsyGremlinFale! 12:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
So it's their fault. Got it. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is victim blaming. The celebrities probably didn't know that iCloud is open to hacking. Apple are a pretty big company and it's recommended on the devide to have it on. My android phone used to back photos up without me realising through my Google+ account until I turned the option off. Sure, it could go wrong, but it's not like you can blame them for not understanding how it works. If anybody is to blame it's the hacker, the people sharing the photographs, and in some part Apple --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
As any tabloid editor will tell you, the frailties of the rich and famous have a dreadful fascination. If you look at the biggest selling papers then you'll find they're the ones with celebs in embarrassing situations, even if the papers have to make these stories up. 'Twas always thus and lamenting it, or expecting it to be different, is pointless. I'm not, for one moment, saying that the victims are to blame but I am saying that it is part of the price of fame. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh well that's a different argument, I agree that the press will always jump on stories like this, it's what happens when millions of people are invested in the life of an individual. Things like this do happen all the time to non-celebrities though, it doesn't make it any more right. I suppose that's what makes it a big story, that they are so famous, but I know somebody who had pictures stolen from their private Tumblr blog and posted on an image board after it was hacked into, it could happen to any of us. There's the revenge porn thing which is quite popular as well. It happens and there is a community built around it, this should hopefully bring the problem into the public eye. It's a shame that the option people offer is not to take them, it's a normal expression of sexuality. There are lots of cultural factors involved in this, including that of celebrity, but primarily I would blame it on the people consuming and spreading the images --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
too many people virtually liveblog their lives through the likes of Facebook twitter tumble etc. They seem to have no concept of their own privacy why would they give a fuck about anyone else's? With the fact that various governments and google reading your emails not generating more than a murmur, someones nudey pix going public is par for the course. Get used to everyone watching everything you do online AMassiveGay (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It's still a huge breach of privacy. I wouldn't want hundreds of thousands of people masturbating over that sort of media involving me. When you consider that most new phones automatically upload to iCloud or Google Drive or whatever then we have a real problem that can't really be attributed to the individuals themselves. You certainly can't blame people for taking the pictures, I imagine they all intended for them to remain private. Look at it this way, imagine somebody breaks into a celebrities house and sets up a secret camera. They film the celebrity having sex and then upload it to the internet. Would you blame the celebrity for having sex? What if the secret camera was an unprotected webcam? If we cared enough we could prevent things like this from happening. There's a real problem and it seems that there is going to be some kind of governmental action against it. If it's illegal then it's illegal, there are people who use Tor to buy and sell credit card information. Would they be prosecuted if the police found out? Of course. We can pretty much accept that people will be using the internet to breach the privacy of others nowadays, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to have private lives. The fault here is in the people hacking and distributing the content. I think they should at least expect letters from their internet provider, if to just make the point that what happens online is real life --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
i am not blaming the victims for having accounts hacked and photos distributed online but I am far less concerned with such illegal breaches privacy. There are already laws against such things. People can and will be prosecuted. Its a non story. The legal breaches of privacy are more worrying and too few people care about those.AMassiveGay (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
"People can and will be prosecuted. Its a non story." Yeah, I'm sure hundreds of people who actively shared the pics and the hundreds of thousands who fell over themselves to view them will be prosecuted. I'm also sure the pictures will be removed from the interwebzz also. So, you are right, this is a non-story. Man, this mushroom is good.
After this "fiasco" and realising that people have zero interest in privacy anyhow, I am completely for government surveillance. I just wish that we could do away with internet anonymity in the process. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I personally think everybody who shared/downloaded the pictures should receive a letter in the post from their internet provider explaining what happened for the pictures to surface, much like the plan to prevent internet piracy. I know it's possible. No "you've commited a crime", just explaining that the pictures were hacked from a private server. It would at least stop them from thinking what happens online isn't real or doesn't harm real people --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
shadow nirvana: the people who did the hacking and stole the photos are likely to face prosecution, you know the people that did the crime. I believe the feds are looking into it. As for people viewing them, they were on Perez Hilton's website at one point for all to see, so they could found with little effort. Do you know what angers me about the whole thing? The myriad of revenge porn and z list sex tapes have been finding their way into the public domain for years and no one gave a fuck. A poplar but bland actress get her account hacked and suddenly outrage. When it blows over more such material will continue to appear to nothing more than meh. Privacy is dead. That disgusts me. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of people gave a fuck. It is a shame that it takes this for people to care but I guarantee you that there are communities of people who put energy into fighting revenge porn. It's partly because of the activism of feminist groups that the laws were passed against it in some States. Search "revenge porn" on any feminist website, I'm sure you will find numerous articles on it. There are people who care about these issues out there, this should make more people aware of it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty messed up to spread people's private pictures everywhere and justifying it by saying they shouldn't have put them up in the first place. But I don't think its fair to shout down anyone who says the celebrities shouldn't have put them on the internet in the first place. I mean, people shouldn't ignore the ones who hacked the accounts and spread the pictures everywhere, but the victims played a part in this whole thing, the way an Orca trainer might play a part in their own death (the animal's tame after all, and attacks are very rare, but it's still a 30-foot carnivore). So I guess I'm on the fence. It's an interesting issue really.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, you di'nt! Giving up a token "of course x is bad" and continuing to victim-blame, is still victim blaming. First of all, some of the actress' had their pictures stolen by different measures, like apparently Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who says she never uploaded to cloud and deleted to pictures 3 years ago. Okay, so let's talk about the others, who uploaded their pictures to iCloud. Some of them apparently left the backup option automatically open, as it is recommended. Some may have uploaded the pictures themselves. And I say, so what? Cloud technology and modern banking have similar working and logic. With both you give what you want to store(money or data) to a private specialised corporation, which they do for a fee on the digital plane. Security is one of their selling points. If someone's money was stolen from the bank, you would say "I'm very sorry this happened to you" and perhaps hug that person. I've never seen a person get chastised and asked why he'she would ever trust somebody else with their money. Similar to this, the only thing we should be saying to those who have had their cloud accounts hacked is "I'm very sorry this happened to you", not "You shouldn't have done that". These people didn't go "Hmm, here's some random place that I can dump these pics.". They trusted a company with not many errors like this in the past(that I know of) and their trust seems to be misplaced(although maybe not, the information just isn't solid enough.)
I'm not even mentioning the people who get their internet-connected computers hacked and their private info distributed prior to this. At what point of suggested precautions do you become the dude pouring sriracha sauce in a used condom to reduce the chance of getting spermjacked? Shadow Nirvana (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Suggesting that maybe you should be careful about what you do on the internet ≠ saying it's all your fault for this terrible thing that happened to you. I'm not sure why this is difficult for people to grasp, but I guess they've heard that argument so many times they've just decided it's fallacious.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've explained why it isn't people being careless that's the problem. Funny how you skipped that part. But I guess, it's just "difficult for people to grasp such a concept". People can and will continue to make small mistakes or trust seemingly secure stuff that they couldn't have known to be compromised. For example. Standing around waiting to throw a self-righteous "Hey, you have some of the blame" under acute situations seems more than lame. It is a fallacious argument(Historian's fallacy or hindsight bias/knew-it-all-along effect - here is a research that studied hindsight bias in victim-blaming, here is another. ) and criticising it isn't "shouting people down".(even writing that made me feel I'm arguing against someone who is saying that the liberal Cathedral is shouting down neoreactionaries). For more information about victim-blaming, one can read Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology, Chapter 5, Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending.
But do go on. Tell us how maybe that girl at the party shouldn't drunk alcohol, too. Also, don't break up comments in the future, please. Thanks. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't mean to intrude upon the exchange you two are having, but technically: It's only victim blaming if you're actually meaning to lay any of the blame on the victim for a problem that happened, see. If you're just making a suggestion that you think may be a smart course of action, then technically you're just trying to be helpful. Nullahnung (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It depends whether it's done it retrospect or not. It's one thing telling people you know how to better protect their iCloud after reading that this is possible. I messaged a few of my friends and gave them security tips for their iPhones. It's another making the point when the people have already had their devices hacked. What good does it do them now? It helps nobody and lots of people have been doing that to excuse their spreading of the photographs (i.e. well they should have better protected their phones, so it's fine what I'm doing) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Write all the blogposts and security lists before these types of incidents all you want. I don't necesarily think it will change too much, because this, for example, was a flaw not on the user-side but on software-side. But think twice before you talk after such incidents because like I said, hindsight is 20-20(she shouldn't have sent that photo to her then-boyfriend, then the ex-bf wouldn't have been able to release it etc.) and your intention isn't a magic shield that will protect you from being "misunderstood". Shadow Nirvana (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You know that guy who talks to you about what you could have done better after the situation passed and you can no longer apply it? Yeah, that sounds like a coach, right? They'll tell you what you could have done so you can be better prepared for the next time, in the future. Nullahnung (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A coach? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Or a bragging, self-righteous douche?(Not directed at anyone here, more towards the people in the comments section of news sites. Or maybe?...) Shadow Nirvana (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Intent isn't magic. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not telling you what to think, I'm just saying that technically intent decides whether it's victim blaming or not. Nullahnung (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I also think it's worth emphasizing the point made prior that in many cases, these cloud features are outright recommended or even enabled by default without any notice. Consider, for example, that most Android phones automatically upload any phone images to Google+ (to a private album) as soon as a Google account is linked to the phone. Those who know about that feature can turn it off by default, but those who don't may not even notice if they don't use Google+ or their Google account regularly.
It's also worth asking the question: at what point is it no longer the victim's fault? Online services (including online banking as Shadow Nirvana mentioned) are very much prevalent today, and it's generally considered fine to trust systems like Google Drive or GMail using two-factor authentication. However, if Google suffered a severe enough security breach, even two-factor authentication wouldn't save all of that information. Should the victims be chastised for using such systems? Sure it's far safer to encrypt every email using PGP or similar encryption schemes, but is it fair to expect that to be the norm and blame anyone who isn't that rigorous should their information be stolen due to a breach? Victim blaming is a dangerous game in situations like these, given that most technology significantly blurs the line between what's online and what's offline, often with little to no transparency. - Grant (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not intending to shout down people for saying they shouldn't have put them up, per se. We should educate people about the different security measures that can prevent it, such as two step verification [2], but people are always going to want to take pictures like that when the technology exists, especially those who spend time apart for business trips or because they are in long distance relationships. I personally think it's a normal expression of sexuality that is sadly very easily exploited by predatory scum. I'd like more to be done to prevent the hacks from happening in the first place --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't clarify: I wasn't referring to you when I made the comment about shouting down people. Just anyone else reading it who might have been doing that.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Who is shouting anyone down? Are you one of those people who go "They are shouting me down" when you get criticised in any way? Shadow Nirvana (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the conversation here has been relatively civil --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A lot of talk here about how we're all supposed to not be 'blaming the victims' here. I agree with the general sentiment at least. On the other hand, carrying on about how horribly they've all been violated (!!!!) strikes me as more than a bit overheated, and itself constitutes a sort of victim blaming. The suggestion seems to be that being photographed or photographing yourself in a state of undress breaks an awful threshold and puts the resulting images in a moral category somehow different from other private snapshots. This reaction to mere nudity probably only makes it worse for them, and I think it too inherently blames the victims, by investing these particular images with fearful significance. When in fact part of a more reasonable reaction would include an acknowledgement that it isn't that big a deal. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 18:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A person who probably hasn't ever been on the receiving end of such a violation, calls the leakage "not that big of a deal". Someone might call it privileged, I call it ignorant(the view, not you, although you do have a lot of bizzare antifeminist views). We don't walk around naked and we call our genitals our "privates"(at least a lot of us). To acknowledge this and the fact that a lot of people apparently view sex as an intimate and special activity, isn't victim-blaming. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
or maybe it really isn't that big deal these days. Embarrassing sure, but not much more than. You should see my gaydar profile. You don't even need to be a member. The actual hacking - thats the real crime. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
All of their friends, parents, bosses, colleagues etc saw the pics. Even if some of them chose not to view the pictures, facts are a lot of people in their social circles will have, even if by accident. More than just a little embarassment, I think.Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I've thought about this more and I think there is some truth to what you say. Although not too much :P. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
This is one of many cases where noisy outrage will be counterproductive; that's the main point. All it does is to advertise the material's availability, and automatically makes it a bigger deal than it ought to be. 'Awareness' here is specifically unhelpful; once awareness is reached, the Streisand effect and Total Depravity™ do the rest. I wouldn't have heard of this until somebody decided they had to deplore it in public. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 04:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Just saw what you've written. How about "fuck no"? The pictures had already made the rounds on a lot of social media websites, had an entire subreddit for them, people even posting links on frigging Facebook and somehow it's the fault of those who spoke out against this injustice? No. "Awareness" had already been reached and even if it hadn't been, the fact that one can look at a picture after he/she knows that picture was meant to stay as private and was stolen(meaning that looking at it is non-consensual) means that one is not that much of a swell person either. End of story. No "but"s, no "what if"s. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't the people who are in the pictures get to decide if it's a violation or not, or whether or not it was a big deal? Lawrence clearly isn't happy about it, lots of websites have been hit with takedown notices. As I said earlier, taking/sending naked photographs is a normal expression of sexuality, so I get what you are saying, but consent is important. I'm just as much against "creep shots" and the such, that doesn't mean I'm not sex positive, I just hate the entitlement these people have and lack of respect for consent --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay yeah this thread is relatively civil. *Retract previous statement*. Also @Shadow Nirvana, sorry if I screw up other people's comments, I haven't quite figured all this out yet. And honestly, I would probably also trust a major corporation to protect my information too. Previously I was posting my initial thoughts that were not totally informed. Probably should have specified that.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
trusting major corporations to look after your data after so so many hacking attacks and their own nosing your private information seems increasingly naive these days. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It's cool, as I think I said earlier, I know somebody who has had naked pictures of them stolen from a private Tumblr blog and posted on one of those image boards, so I knew a little about this before now. It happens more often than you think and people rarely just shrug it off, especially as they often find themselves reading the predatory comments on the public forums. There are real human beings behind these photos, a little empathy goes a long way. I'm sorry again if I haven't been civil in any way, this topic makes me quite angry but I've tried my best to discuss it calmly --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I also apologize if I have been ultra-snarky and insulting. This situation made me more than a little disgusted, I actually felt somewhat close to tears of frustration and sadness reading some of the callous comments made by people(not here, but generally. People here have generally created a good converstaion I think). I don't know how feminists do what they do and endure what the things thrown at them without having mental breakdowns every 3 minutes. Also, screw Larry Wachs and most ancaps/libertarians. :@ Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
as has been said before its sad that folk are so willing to publish the private photos or data of people. But really the issue for me is not what people are doing with these things once they have been thrust into the public domain but how they came to be there in the first place. Trusted service providers have been hacked. Trusted service providers security , whose boast that their security is top notch, is joke. Repeatedly shown to be a joke. The trust is misplaced. Your data is not secure. This is the crime. This is what the focus should be. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how feminists do it either, it shows real strength to fight for women's issues in the face of an organised antifeminist movement. I get emotional sometimes too, it's frustrating to see so many hateful and ignorant people out there. I'm just happy websites like this exist. I think you've pretty much been on point Shadow Nirvana, I'm happy that we've managed to keep the discussion revolving around the people involved as well as the technical reasons why it happened. I agree, it's a huge issue, companies like Apple put more resources into creating new apps and design features than protecting their existing customers personal data. We should design new software to help prevent these attacks by hackers, as well as educate people on the dangers of cloud storage. It's going to be very satisfying when some of the people selling the pictures get caught too --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Given my own exhibitionist tendencies and general ultra-pro-sex-positive beliefs, I wouldn't mind if this happened to me. Hell, I would absolutely love to be walking in public for strangers to just come up and start groping me. I would seriously enjoy that. The problem is that other people wouldn't, so strangers shouldn't grope people in case they wouldn't enjoy it, and likewise shouldn't expose their nude photos in case they wouldn't enjoy it. Even though I personally would. (Is there a way I can get that to happen to me? Wear a "GROPE ME" T-shirt or something?) Thanos6 (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Reddit is innocent" comments in this article's comments section is hilarious. And by hilarious, I mean generally depressing and a presentation of exactly how people think what they have done is nothing wrong. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

you should know by now about the bottom half of the internet. 22:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah it's pretty fucked up, they did the same thing with the Zoe Quinn fiasco. They spent days harassing her, even going so far as to publish her personal details, hack into her accounts, and file tax fraud reports. To try and deflect their criticism, they donated to a charity set up to get more women working in the industry. Considering the number of people that it would take to sustain these online movements, as well as subreddit subscriber counts, I can imagine it's a small amount of the groups overall income. It's a way of avoiding criticism, or making them seem like they "aren't such bad guys". It won't work, and I respect the prostate cancer charity for returning the money, they probably need it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you do not simply ascribe all these things to the same amorphous mass of people and expect to have expressed something meaningful. These are all individuals with their own nuances we're talking about here. The people who harassed probably have overlap with but are not quite the same as the people who hacked and filed tax frauds reports who are not the same as the people who gave generously to a good cause. Caught unawares in the midst of all the flak are of course once again people who aren't even willing to become part of the shitstorm, who are just calling for cool heads to prevail and appealing for moderation because they don't know any better, and who just gave as soon as they saw what by all accounts is a good cause, like TotalBiscuit. Nullahnung (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I seriously doubt 4chan would have spearheaded such a campaign if it weren't for the criticism concerning the Quinn incident. And the people donating after the hack? Couldn't they donate under their own name rather than "the Fappening" in that case? The money was returned, they can redonate without giving positive press to these movements --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
(EC)Oh, you mean this?:
Because I totally have not heard of that before you mentioned it (not being the type who likes to follow controversies).
What I meant was this:
We really have got to stop starting conversations from different reference points...
This is the most I could find about the Fappening: and I really fail to see any connection to "the gaming community" and Quinnspiracy. I mean, I suppose you could ascribe some cross-pollination/inspiration, but to blame the same amorphous blob of people every time is not very meaningful. Nullahnung (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, in hindsight I probably should have looked at those verge links from above. I would have been made aware of the Fappening before Drowninginglimbo mentioned it... Mistakes were made. I still think I've got a point, though, about the TFYC donations! Nullahnung (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I guess I felt there were similarities, what with them both happening on the same websites (4chan/reddit), and both being campaigns targeting specific women. It seems to be a repeating trend from the outside that's all, what with there being overlap in userbase, and them both starting charity campaigns at the peak of their criticism. I've also spent a lot of time, probably too much time, engaging with these online communities in order to properly understand and criticise them, whilst also feeling some level of revulsion towards them, so I am definitely starting to generalise, something that I apologise for. I wouldn't otherwise choose to use 4chan or reddit and probably don't understand the nuances of their cultures. I presumed that, if the front page of /b/ was full of threads concerning Quinn one day, and the next day the "Fappening", then it is the same people posting, at least, if the threads are frequent? At what point does it stop being generalising and start being a valid criticism? While I'm here, I want to say that I have nothing against the gaming community en masse, my issue is primarily these particular sexist individuals within it. I think that might be why we argued earlier. A substantial amount of gaming journalists wrote in support of Quinn and I respect them for that. I am also sorry for lumping them in with the pervert hackers, that's not really fair. Well, other than the people posting her naked pictures. I guess that's a definite similarity. Again, I am sorry if I have spoke out of turn during these debates, I think I might take a break from all of this. I find it quite exhausting and I am probably beginning to make emotional arguments because of that --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I definitely have not been following these things as much as you did and even I need a break because I find the obsessive detailing as well as shallow generalising that runs through these controversies like the plague very draining (still referring to Quinnspiracy, again, I am sorry for slightly derailing this thread about the Fappening). Nullahnung (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"5 million ‘compromised’ Google accounts leaked"[edit]

If anybody here has an Android mobile they should check the list and their log in history: [3] [4] [5] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

All this Illuminati BS, where is it coming from?[edit]

I don't consider random bullshit youtube videos about the Illuminati to be of any importance, they are a dime a dozen posted by the hundreds on a daily basis, so why the hell are they showing up so much in the clogs lately? I mean they are showing up a FUCKTON, more than I have ever seen before. I remember seeing them a lot in the paste week or so, but I look back now and there is only one, are they being removed? I mean people rambling about the Illuminati is not even "WTF" worthy anymore, it is not surprising what anyone in that mindset will say and we have pretty much heard it all from that particularly nutty corner of the internet. NolanSyKinsley (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It does get a bit samey. I haven't tended to vote on videos unless they're so outlandish I'd actually watch them (tv;dw). So yeah, I'd suggest applying downvotes as sensible, and that posters consider the novelty factor - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Those videos were (with one exception) months or even years old, so Weaseloid went through and removed them. That's why you only see one now. As to why they were there in the first place, one BoN was responsible for all of them. - Grant (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
One guy but he's changed IP a couple of times so may not have seen the message I put on his talk page. If it keeps up, maybe a temporary lock against non-autoconfirm edits would make him/her get the message. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Did Dan Brown publish another book about them? As a rule of thumb, when Dan Brown talks about a conspiracy theory every other conspiracy theorist in the USA starts talking about that conspiracy theory (tailored to suit there particular interests of course). Look at this graph <> notice now the release of the Angels & Demons movie in 2009 coincides with (read: causes) a massive increase in interest in the Illuminati. Conspiracy theorists are nothing if not predictable. Alsto003 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Alex

Richard Dawkins, again(yes, really.)[edit]

Not a WIGO, but Goddammit... Dawkins has gone full anti-feminist slimepitter this time. Remember the times he used to advocate for sociobiology against Gould and Lewontin? What a swell fellow. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh, context? Not that I have any sympathy left for his political views after "Dear Muslima" and "Pedophilia isn't so bad". Ikanreed (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
All I can find today are complaints on clickbaiting and "So are you now saying you'd jail a man, however poor the evidence, because STATISTICALLY rapes are common in the population?".-- Forerunner (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Those two arguments(one regarding criticism of Sam Harris's idiotic argument and his "excuse" post, the other regarding Shermer (Mark Oppenheimer article),never minding the fact that this wasn't an isolated incident and forget being jailed the guy didn't even get reprimanded for his behaviour despite the fact this stuff was blown open.), basically. Also peddling Christina Hoff Sommers, calling opponents Feedingfrenzy Thoughtpolice Bullies(he made an acronym joke, you guys.) etc etc etc.
Ophelia Benson's and other FTBers' take on the issue is also good. Although as the issues are the same if you read all of them it may get repetitive maybe.Shadow Nirvana (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Much has been said about Dawkins' self-immolation, but as long as we see people like Sam Harris (probably the most vitriolic of New Atheists on Islam) embrace gender stereotypes without a single thought, the skeptic community shouldn't be surprised that it isn't gaining influence. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know about that though. How many people think about gender critically, in any way? Shadow Nirvana (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is poe?[edit]

I just can't take it seriously. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Likewise... I've marked it with the Poe tag. Mayo2017 (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I have never understood what cultural Marxism is supposed to be, but if the "bee challenge" is the best that they can come up with, I don't think that we need to worry too much. (Agrajag (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC))
Originally, cultural marxism was an actual concept foisted upon academic institutions in soviet nations, wherein certain academic ideas were supposed to be rejected automatically without critical consideration for not being in line with communism: like sociology, economics, and evolution. Now it's a conservative snarl word for describing academic ideas they automatically reject withing critical consideration, for not being in line with conservatism: like sociology, economics, and evolution. Ikanreed (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't know what you're talking about. Cultural Marxism (including the Marxist school of history, Marxist literary criticism, etc. etc.) was and is a hugely influential phenomenon in nineteenth & twentieth century thought, applying Marxist analysis (e.g. the influence of economic relationships, power relationships and class divisions) to culture, popular culture, society, history, language, etc. It was at least as popular in free countries as communist ones, and influenced people such as Foucault, Derrida, and generations of historians, as well as movements like feminism, the civil rights movement, deconstructionism and postmodernism. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: GOP really wants to lose the Asian vote for good[edit]

Ehhhh, distasteful as it was, speaking as a Korean-American, I think it's more likely to be primarily the Japanese vote rather than a broad East Asian vote. As far as I'm aware, not very many Koreans were held in internment camps during WWII, outside of prisoners of war. Sure, they faced discrimination and racism from Americans who didn't know better (see: "How to tell Japs from the Chinese" pamphlets and articles), but at that point in time (and even now among older and more nationalistic Koreans), the sentiment against Japanese and Japanese-Americans from Korean-Americans was very strong. Noir LeSable (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Know Your Meme[edit]

KYM isn't really worth mentioning on here IMO. They get their marching orders from 4chan. Nothing they post is worth reading. Abed Nadir (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Proof? (And in any case, the link in question appears to be a user-uploaded image rather than an actual article by KYM)
Either way, I think it might be best to just let this GamerGate crap die already unless something major develops. The last several times it's popped up around here, it exploded in drama. Noir LeSable (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Proof. 4channer says "KYMfags lurking this thread... do your fucking job, you hear?" Image is posted onto KYM page on GamerGate. Image gets over 300 upvotes.
Also (and this isn't directly relevant but it really pisses me off) many of the highest-voted comments on the GG page are anti-feminist memes that have nothing to do with video games in the first place. Yeah I don't follow Vichy KYM anymore. Abed Nadir (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I would hardly call that proof. If I called that proof, I'd also have to call half of the GG garbage proofs for a mass feminist conspiracy.
I also concur with Noir LeSable that we should just let this GG crap die already. It's done nothing but stoke fires over meaningless crap people on the internet spew at meaningless labels. Nullahnung (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'll grant it's not the best evidence. I still don't like the site though.
Also, as much as I would love to just step back and let the controversy die, I think the fact that Zoe is still being harassed means that the "ignore it and hope it goes away" plan isn't going to do any good. I understand that there's some opposition to us covering this topic, but I think I'd like to start a personal essay about it on here. Abed Nadir (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The motivations and culture of the whole mess is very on-mission. It's very hateful, paranoid, cranktastic and with the usual suspects of Breitbart and InfoWars cashing in on it, the whole thing will just get even more bizarre before it ends. Hell, these are people who think that cultural critics and independent game designers are able to get police departments to forge records. While I hope it fizzles out like all the other crusades and campaigns that the anons have pulled in the past, I'm worried about any possible long-term effects. --Paul S (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
My primary concern is they will succeed in bankrupting one or two of the gaming websites by getting them to pull adverts under false claims of corruption and then proceed to do this continuously with left-leaning news outlets of any kind. It's harder to make money with online media anyway. This is definitely a negative thing for free speech --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Pressuring advertisers to dictate a website's content just screams journalistic integrity, doesn't it? Vulpius (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
DING! At least somebody gets it. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 16:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, what can we do about it? I mean, yeah, it really sucks that Zoe's still getting crap over this (especially during a time of mourning), but we aren't the police or some vigilante techno-justice force, and I don't think the Boot to the Head over IP protocols will be implemented anytime soon. In my opinion, the harassment is most likely coming from a small group of asshole dickbags and/or immature teenagers, most of whom are probably so entrenched in their own opinion about this controversy that they don't give two shits about the opposing side (otherwise, why would they go so far as actually going out of their way to harass her?). The RL harassment is best dealt with by the RL police and authorities, who have the resources available to track down the harassers. I doubt any of us will stop you if you want to write and post an essay about this for the undecided, the uninformed, and the gray space between sides, but keeping this crap in the limelight for trivial things (Oooh! Look at this picture someone posted on a site where anyone can submit pictures!) when discussions of this topic already turn so toxic and divisive and only serve to encourage the RL harassment to continue -- that's just counterproductive.
It's like an internet troll or Westboro Baptist; the more attention it gets, the more people will do crazy stuff to harass others in order to draw attention to themselves and get "cred". Noir LeSable (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Well yes it's a self perpetuating controversy, I'd prefer it weren't covered at all but many reputable media sources have covered it, and the numerous articles on it do create a weird sense of credence to their corruption claims to some. Hell, there was even an article on it in Jacobin today. I don't really know what to do, I was looking at the Wikipedia article today and it's ridiculous just how lengthy and bloated it is considering very little has actually happened --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Cosplay and the Economy[edit]

"People in bad situations seek distractions." It's not especially cloggy, the writer is just stating the obvious. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock )Moderator 14:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Describing following a personal passion as "fleeing reality" is pretty stupid IMO, especially when you consider the jobs created by cosplay equipment sales and convention organization. Not to mention, why are (say) sports fans never accused of fleeing reality? Running a fantasy football league is exactly as unproductive as creating a costume of a fictional character, but the former seldom gets attacked like this.
Though it's far less horrible than that godawful Reason article on Gamergate. Reading that one, I saw so many distortions, long-debunked lies and bizarre non sequiturs, I thought it must have been from Fox News. Abed Nadir (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
No, running a fantasy football league is considerably less economically productive. Costumes cost money to make (though cosplayers tend to make their outfits themselves, subtracting those hours from the world of business - this may be this fool's objection), and money is spent aplenty at cons - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Satan's Hollow[edit]

"Haunted" places are some of the most pathetic kinds of bullshit out there. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It somewhat warms my heart that legend tripping hasn't changed much since Mark Twain wrote Tom Sawyer. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 15:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I was excited to see this on here! I live nearby and have explored it numerous times over the years - it's just a big storm drain with weird passages and tunnels. Nothing spooky unless you're superstitious. I'm only a littlestitious though, not quite superstitious. Jrock1203 (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Argumentum ad X-Hominem[edit]

I tried reading the comments on that article. OW MY BRAIN. --Gulik (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The dude deletes and edits comments too. Someone on the RW FB page posted screenshots - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, when they finally allowed my comment through, they only allowed PART of it. Apparently my snide comment about how you'd have to be an idiot to take fictional character with supernatural powers who come back from the dead as applicable in real life didn't go over well with them. --Gulik (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ingrid Newkirk's will[edit]

Ok, she's a crazy animal activist and wants her body carved up after death to promote her cause. While grusome, I get it. She's a crazy animal activist and all. But wtf?:

"j. That a little part of my heart be buried near the racetrack at Hockenheim, preferably near the Ferrari pits, where Michael Shumacher raced in and won the German Grand Prix"

I love Formula 1 too, but seriously this came out of nowhere as you read down the list of crazy corpse carvings. (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea either. Michael SchumacherWikipedia is a pet owner and nothing I've seen says he's any kind of vegetarian or was ever sponsored by PETA. Given the rest of the document, it's hard to tell whether this gift was meant to honor or to mock somebody. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't shock me that a person so crazily devoted to one thing is crazily devoted to another. AyzmoCheers 00:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Holy moly that prostitute for charity thing[edit]

Oh woe is us, someone will see this completely shitty idea for what it is. You can't win with those SJWs, if you misogynistically attack a woman for having sex, you get labled a misogynist, and if you auction women off as sexual property, you get labeled a misogynist. It's just not fair. Ikanreed (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

fuckin SJWs just be fuckin crazy amirite! - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
What is this? I'm somewhat afraid to google "prostitute for charity".(Agrajag (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)) Ah, nevermind, just missed it in the clogs. I think that Gamergate is just trying to hit the lowest moral denominator in as many fields as possible at once. Maybe someone astroturfed it to get a world record.


Oh, damn, I missed the homeopathic chemtrail detox mixture sale on EBay, but in looking at the listing I found this gem; the description reads like free verse:

this offer is for one scalar energy pendant.

over 7000 neg ions on the pendant +

the authenticity card also have up to 3000 neg ions

this pendants are made of tourmaline gemstone. volcanic lava and ceramic.

like everyone in the world.

is the Shekinah Angel design

and is a 1 5/8 inch by 3/16 inch size.


Like everything in life

everything in life is good till a limit

and the maximun limit you can wear on scalar energy products is 8500 neg ions.

if you buy this pendant please use only the pendant or carry only the card.

never the 2 items at the same time.

snif. 's beautiful, man. Back in the day we just used to call something like this an "amulet", but I guess in these days of modern times you need that quantum scalar woo to make something sound legit.--Pere Ubu (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Breibart article[edit]

Is it just me or is everyone getting 404 on that story? Oldusgitus (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Commented out. Scream!! (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this too much G*m*rg*t*?[edit]

... so yeah, there's Gamergate fanfic. Written by and for gators. I mean, there's a lotta GG on clogs, so I thought I'd check on talk if this would be just one too many. OTOH, it's supremely cloggy - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OMFG that's wonderfully horribly written. Looks like it could use a good MST3K job. --Pere Ubu (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll take that as a vote of confidence - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the poor writing might be intentional. Warriors of Socialus Justicus? That's at least tongue-in-cheek, if not a downright parody.(Agrajag (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC))
Sir has been lucky enough not to read much fanfic. This reads like they're trying to joke and not doing so well enough not to suck even at that - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd put money on this being a joke. It's too perfectly terrible to be legit. (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
That variety of crack needs to be way crackier to convince me it's actually crack and not just shit. This is possibly my favourite of the genre: trollcrack riffing off other trollcrack, that successfully trolled the regulars. "I don't know what just happened, but it was painful and my short-term memory seems to have committed seppuku because of it." - David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That Dragon, Gamergate[edit]

Hey all, we have not received any direct harassment or threats from #gamergate or anyone else. #thatdragoncancer
—Ryan Green, father, via twitter@ryangreen8, 8:21 PM - 17 Nov 2014
If something were to happen, then we could talk about it, but for now let’s not spread rumors on either side of the aisle.
—Josh Larsen, game dev for God At Play, via twitter@GodAtPlay, 8:22 PM - 17 Nov 2014

Ok, seems to me that -- so far -- this is just a few anonymous idiots on 4/8Chan getting their underwear in a twist, and others (on Twitter and elsewhere) overreacting to a few screencaps and a YouTube rant. Not some concerted HashbrownGamergate campaign against God At Play. It definitely would be a clog if they started harassing the game devs, Ryan Green (the father of the child), Indiecade, et al., but it hasn't ostensibly happened. Noir LeSable (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So, are all indy games going to have to get vetted by GamerGaters now to see if they or any of their backers have any anti-fascist SJW tendencies? Seems rather Stalinist to me. --Pere Ubu (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you read what I posted? It's entirely a non-issue. It looks like it's just a few anons and a youtuber with a terrible fake accent. Not a concerted Gamergate effort (heck, from the tweets, it looks like GG support these guys. Good for them. It's a good cause). /r/KotakuInAction has been relatively silent about it, except for two posts wondering what's going on. Searches on Escapist Forums are turning up blank. From what it appears, the only people making noise about this are a smattering of Twitter users following a minor Twitter celeb claiming that Gators were harassing the devs of the game. The Gamergate movement has a lot to be criticized about, but let's keep it to stuff that's actually true, or we risk sinking to their level. The guy behind the game has asked to not be dragged into the GamerGate drama, so I've gone ahead and commented out the Clog. If you want to support the game itself, That Dragon, Cancer, here's a link to its kickstarter. Noir LeSable (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The above happened after ... Sarkeesian mentioned it - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Andy's Mom"[edit]

I know it's not intended that way, but I just realized how incredibly sexist it is to take a famously stupid regressive with her own awful history of doing stupid things and reduce her to the mother of a different famously stupid regressive with an awful history of doing stupid things. Phyllis is her own awful woman. Ikanreed (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I think it's just a RW thing: Conservapedia is a big deal for for some users/readers (though much less so than a few years ago) who are probably more aware of who Andy is than Phyllis, despite her being much more notable in the real world. & I don't think it's particularly sexist as this kind of description goes both ways - whenever Andy gets any press coverage he's always referred to "the son of Phyllis Schlafly". WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I must admit even I went "who's Andy?" until I moused over it. I've changed the link to be duller - David Gerard (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Gulik (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Freeman on The Taser[edit]

A sovereign citizen goes out and tests his theories in a real courthouse - Oh, god I am such a evil statist for having laughed at that... he deserved it, though. *snerk* --Pere Ubu (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Pity it's too old to stay linked :-D - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Oh, it is still linked - it's from 2013 ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I wish more would try out their pet theories in reality. There could be a YouTube channel dedicated to it. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Megan Fox[edit]

There is no socially redeeming value in watching a random, annoying woman spouting ignorant crap about paleontology. If it were the hot Megan Fox, I'd feel different. Whoover (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to see another celebrity make an idiot out of themselves, but all I got was some old lady being stupid. Misleading advertising, I'm sending the FTC.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
A reddit thread on this video had a lot of "I only made it 28 seconds into the video before puking and bailing" kind of comments. I made it as far as "if there are still eukaryotes, their lack of change disproves evolution" and had enough of that idiot. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hounding[edit]

Ok yeah, it's Fox News. Not exactly the bastion of scientific/skeptical thinking there.

But good grief, give them some credit. I could pretty easily see how someone who's kinda sorta vaguely familiar with relevant scientific events (i.e. the Mars Climate Orbiter crash of 1999) could think of that potential issue without completely thinking it through. And as Christ-crazy (Chrizy?) some Fox reporters can be, Kooiman included, it doesn't look like she was at all bringing religion into it or demonizing the metric system outright. Noir LeSable (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

George Will and Cassandra[edit]

Is this just standard neo-conservative puffery, where they use something out of classical education, like archaic words or mythological figures, to help establish an unwarranted image of education and worldliness, or is there some self-aware explanation that would actually justify the invocation?

Certainly, I've seen enough of the former from the "dark enlightenment" types who purposefully cloak their meaning in unreasonable metaphor so as to accuse people of "not getting it". But George Will isn't their type of idiot. He's, even if as politically uninsightful as they come(also a vindictive, petty person), a writer, and should know how to use language to make a point. What actually explains this? Ikanreed (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an off-chance that George Will was being sarcastic, "these degenerates are thoroughly convinced history will vindicate them", of course, he could have had a senior moment. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock )Moderator 18:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
That does fit pretty well with neocon pettiness. I subscribe to your theory. Ikanreed (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with the odd classical allusion. Of course, he got it wrong and said the exact opposite of what he (presumably) wanted to say, and simultaneously hit on the truth. I think it was pretty great. (Agrajag (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC))

Patheos on Charlie Hebdo attack[edit]

I've got a feeling this is a pretty polarizing issue around here and somebody was bound to start this discussion sooner or later, so it might as well be me. Personally I think there's an important distinction to be made here that Friendly Atheist isn't making, or at least is glossing over. And that's that criticizing the works of Charlie Hebdo, without condoning the attacks those works precipitated, is not in and of itself a form of victim blaming. Saying that its creators deserved to die certainly is, but some of the people FA cites (e.g. Jacob Canfield) say nothing of the sort. FA seems to want to hold people like Canfield responsible for statements made by others in the comment sections of their blogs, which in my opinion is disingenuous. Abed Nadir (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Eh. Strictly true, in a disconnected verbal sense. But the problem with this line of thinking is that if all you do, in the wake of someone being a victim, is discuss their flaws, particularly those that relate to how they were attacked, it's essentially victim blaming. It's like if a woman was raped and people say "She dressed like a slut" rather than "She was raped because she was dressed like a slut" you can't just pretend there's no implication there. Their worst crimes do not stand up to the crimes that were perpetuated upon them. Ikanreed (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think people like Canfield intend solely to "discuss their flaws" so much as criticize the "Je Suis Charlie" crowd, who have taken to lionizing CH in the name of "free speech." Attacks on Muslims are on the rise now in a twisted form of "retaliation", which is completely unacceptable. But I doubt you disagree with me that that's unacceptable, and I can see where you're coming from too... It's a complex issue. Abed Nadir (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, And I don't think "all they did" was discuss their flaws. That's an over-representation to make the core case that victim blaming doesn't only extend to strictly blaming victims for the acts of criminals. Ikanreed (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Victim blaming"[edit]

Now, lest anyone accuse me of terrorism apologetics, let me assure you that I strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms. No matter what perceived wrongs people may have committed, murder and violence should never be the answer. But let's look at the case of Charlie Hebdo. Their last cartoon before the attack is basically the magazine goading terrorists to commit an attack on French soil. (How is this humour?) I don't know about you, but as far as the definition of the phrase "asking for it" goes, I think it definitely applies here. That doesn't mean the massacre was justified, of course, but that they've become the victim of a terrorist attack doesn't mean the questionable way Charlie Hebdo chose to use their freedom of speech can't or shouldn't be criticized. Frankly, with the way they were endangering French citizens, I'm somewhat relieved that the attack only targeted Charlie Hebdo and wasn't accompanied with the bombing of a crowded public space or somesuch. (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's kinda mean though. You're gonna pile criticism on top of being murdered. It's just kinda harsh. Ikanreed (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
A fair point, but given Charlie Hebdo's firm pro-free-speech and pro-satire stance, wouldn't refraining from criticizing them because it'd be "kinda harsh" given the circumstances be kinda hypocritical? (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Whether the criticisms of Charlie Hebdo are right or wrong, they're fair comment, as in turn are the criticisms of these criticisms. What I find rather disappointing is that many of these counter-criticisms carry heavy implications of "you shouldn't say that because innocent people have been killed", "you shouldn't say that so soon" or "you should be respectful and keep those criticisms to yourself", which I find rather ironic coming from people who are ostensibly standing up for freedom of speech & the right to criticise. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Good post! Abed Nadir (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Breaking news[edit]

It turns out Fox News is a no-go area for facts. The police there are known to arrest anyone not wearing a flag pin. Ikanreed (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham police being grossly pro-their-version-of-Britain? Nah, no way. If that were true there would be things like incidents in the past where the West Mids police didn't care to practice proper investigations into terrorist atrocities, and just beat confessions out of whoever they thought they could blame. Even if there is something comparable to that from the past things would have changed by now, or the police would be major advocates of surveillance in the city based effectively along racial or religious grounds. BrowserWarVet (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hate Speech Laws[edit]

The person who posted the link to the Peach video regarding the Charlie Hebdo attacks seems to imply that hate speech laws should exist. I'm somewhat surprised that the denizens of this wiki are in favor of such laws, which are a pretty obvious violation of the principles of free speech, they provide pretense for ridiculous arrests (that guy who called a policeman's horse gay, for instance), and are much more often applied to vocal atheists than to hateful preachers. Do many people here share his/her view?(Agrajag (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC))

Yeah, I'm pretty damn 'Merican in that I don't tend to sympathize much with any infringments on freedom of speech without extraordinarily reasonable justifications(i.e. people being directly harmed). So I agree hate speech laws don't make much sense, unless you goal is to dictate discourse. Ask me about hate crime laws, though and you'll get a very different perspective. Ikanreed (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ikanreed here. However, I probably wouldn't put too much truss into the WIGO results as a barometer for RW userbase opinion for several reasons:
  1. There are only 16 votes as of posting, 8 of whom ostensibly agree with hate speech laws existing (see point 3). A relatively small sample size.
  2. Anyone, regular user or no, can vote on a WIGO, and possibly multiple times if they have a mobile device or access to public wifi hotspots.
  3. People can downvote something for any reason they want. Maybe they hate Youtube videos in WIGO topics. Maybe they think her editing or scripting was bad. Maybe they don't like the Charlie Hebido magazine and will blindly downvote anything that has to do with it, critical or no. Maybe they thought it was self-serving advertising for her Youtube channel. Maybe they have a compulsion to downvote any WIGO that has precisely 163 letters. We can't say.
So yeah. Noir LeSable (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
And of course speech can't cause harm... You're right, that particular stance is really common in the US. :/ (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I was just thinking that the opposition to drawing Muhammad voiced by numerous people in the "Draw Muhammad Day" thread might indicate support for hate speech laws, which would be odd, since this site might well be in violation of the British ones (though it seems that it's pretty hard to be sure until you get arrested). (Agrajag (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC))
I haven't actually read that thread yet, but I'd say there's a bit of a difference between disapproving of certain speech and wanting it censored or illegal, imo. I don't particularly approve of Jack Chick tracts, white supremacist propaganda, anthropogenic climate change denialist rhetoric, or Twilight, but I wouldn't want them to be outright banned by the government or illegal (unless they were, like, calling for violence or something). Noir LeSable (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
If you've read those things and they didn't incite violence in you, I think you've been reading them wrong. >.> (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure whether or not that was meant to be sarcastic. Noir LeSable (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It's meant to be cynical. I hope that helps. (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Luckily, we're too jaded to be violent.--TiaC (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I voted it down out of insane bigotry against YouTube links in clogs - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, actually me too. I don't actually have a profound hate of youtube. It's an okay site. It's just anytime someone links me a youtube video to prove a point, I die a little inside. Ikanreed (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)