Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?/Archive11

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 31 October 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

"What if you can't see their skin color?"[edit]

As disappointing as it is, it seems like she might have been saying that one of the problems with profiling people based on race as a means of spotting criminal activity was that not all criminals look like stereotypical bad guys, and sometimes you can't see their skin color so it wouldn't work then either.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That's very charitable, but doesn't really match up with what she said. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be charitable, just honest with myself. I really do like it when people say stupid things, but I don't like to pretend they do.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a moon in the sky. (It's called THE MOON!)[edit]

I suppose what made that QVC video so hilarious was that the host was the one who was actually trying to reason from data. She invoked the list of planets she learned in school, and noted that the Moon was not among their number. Ergo, the moon is a star. QED - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

it might be an idea for them to avoid episodes of QI when they discuss how many moons the earth has AMassiveGay (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I sincerely hope that person was on drugs. That's so stupid I can't cope if it was real. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Rebecca Watson[edit]

I love how readily she talks about how punching unpleasant people in the face is "glorious", whereas if Buzz Aldrin had punched a woman I think it would have been a bit different. Nothing to do with doxxing, just wanted to add that.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In the particular case Aldrin didn't punch Sibrel just because was "unpleasant" - Sibrel had tried to interview Aldrin under false pretenses, then prevented him from retreating twice. The second time Sibrel directly blocked his way and prodded him with a Bible, saying the now infamous "You are a coward and a liar and a [thief]." The punch was prompted by those specific circumstances, including the difference in age and body size. In most cases a woman a) wouldn't be on the same level of physical threat to Aldrin to warrant the same physical response, and b) wouldn't be so dumb to behave in the same manner. And in the hypothetical alternative universe where Bart Sibrel was a woman, all other properties unchanged, I doubt that Watson would be a great fan of her behavior.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You're probably right about the last part, but even if it were a physically threatening woman, Watson and most people in fact wouldn't call it glorious. That would be glorifying violence against women, of course.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the guy who was punched presented a physical threat to Aldrin or that Watson is arguing that he did. As for a woman being less "dumb" than a man, what are you basing that on? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are confronted like this by an animal, for most species all else being equal the threat level is very dependent on the gender. H. Sapiens are no exception. The thing with various maninists is that they attack various compensations and variations that society puts around the sexual dimorphism of the species (as those are pretty much the only existent instances of something being seemingly stacked against males in the world of still widespread workplace discrimination). Dmytry (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what your precise point is, I'm very wary of the phrase "H sapiens are no exception." There's a lot of ways in which humans need special treatment, due to our intellectual complexity and ability to understand the implications of things. In this case with respect to violence and its interrelationship with our ability to formulate and discuss moral systems. Ikanreed (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, presumably the moral system at work is that you shouldn't punch others unless you're seriously threatened (rather than that you should enforce gendered punching quotas). What I'm saying is that in h. sapiens and most if not all other primates, males put on specific threat displays, and if you see that threat display you should feel way more threatened. Dmytry (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"Justified" v. "Unjustified"[edit]

Just wanted to add here: While I'm pretty vehemently against doxxing in principle, I'd say the threatening situations that Rebecca talks about is pretty damn justified if the source is confirmed. General misogyny or -isms on the other hand, not so much (compare Alana Pearce/Facebook-linked threats vs. Brianna/Getting Racists Fired tumblr). Noir LeSable (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, doxxing as a way of outsourcing shitty behavior isn't good, and she ought not to have done it. But she's also right that context matters, and doxxing people who are using anonymity to cause trouble for others is substantially distinct from doxxing people in a way that delivers their home address to people who are known to be threatening them. To argue she's wrong about context mattering is crazy; completely insane. There are times when something can be wrong without rising to the level of hypocrisy(also, from what I've seen of her videos, she's never condemned doxxing herself). Ikanreed (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem with Watson's defence of her actions is that she's totally subjective. "Oh, it's ok to dox those guys, because we're the good guys here." And that's the problem - who exactly decides who the good guys in each fight are? And who decides who deserved to be doxed? Does Ray Comfort have the right to dox you, because you question his dogma? Can Andy Schlafly dox you for trolling CP? The fact remains, people are dicks on the internet, and if they act like dicks, there are processes to deal with them. Acting like a douchebag, just to out another douchebag isn't one of them. Watson has committed a Dawkinsesque level of dumbassery with this posting. PsyGremlinTala! 14:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm gonna come back and say that doxxing can mean multiple things. Outing a person hiding behind anonymity's real name isn't the same as publishing home addresses, for example. Context matters. I'll also repeat that she's wrong that it's okay. Just right that context is meaningful. Ikanreed (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Ray Comfort absolutely has the right to dox you. Yes, Andy Schlafly has the same. There are no laws against it. And it's not a 'douchebag' maneuver; that in itself is subjective. Doxxing is just a tool. Unless you think you have some right to have your internet actions divorced from your IRL self - and I do not agree with that at all. --Castaigne (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"There are no laws against it." Yes there are. At least against doxing federal officers in certain positions (18 U.S.C. § 119). That was the crux in one of the counts of the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. case. Either way, the legality of doxing is still very murky, depending the sources used (Stalking?), the purpose of/motive behind the doxing (Harassment? Defamation? Threats?), among other things. [Insert Not A Lawyer Your State May Vary Disclosure Here]. Noir LeSable (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to acknowledge that doxxing the information of federal agents in pursuit of official duties is Not Allowed. However, I don't believe that's what we're talking about here. As for the legal "murkiness" of doxxing, to me that is mostly bull. As the article itself says, as long as nothing illegal is done in acquiring or publishing the information, it's all good. Keeping it legal keeps it legit. --Castaigne (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And here is the alternate viewpoint: I don't see a problem with what she's saying, since doxxing is a null threat anyway. There hasn't been privacy on the internet since the 1990s, no matter what people would like to believe, and if we wanted to drop $35-50 we could have a background firm dox someone instantly. She is right; doxxing by itself is neither good nor bad, it is just a tool. Like hiring a PI. Like doing a background check. Secondarily, why should she NOT publish the names of those who harass her? Why is she obligated to protect them on the internet? The whole idea that you should be able to harass with IRL immunity is frankly ridiculous. (Obligated notation: This is coming from a person who happily made sure a now-imprisoned pedophile rapist's internet harassment of women was made known to his IRL associates.) When PZ says "I suspect the only reason that “doxxing” has been elevated to such a sacred level of knee-jerk abhorrence is not out of some virtuous desire to protect the innocent, but entirely to protect the guilty.", he is entirely correct. It was totes OK for the 4Chan/GG/ED crowd to dox others, until they themselves were doxxed. It's good for that crowd to do it to Quinn and Sarkeesian and anyone else they want to, but not to have their own tactics turned against them. I'm just not seeing anything controversial or stupid here being uttered by either person. --Castaigne (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that doxxing can and does turn into worse things sometimes. People delivering actionable threats to your home because some idiot dumped your address online isn't a game. If you've got a good reasons for publishing peoples' private information in a widely disseminated way: it's not a illegal, and I can't stand in your way. If you don't, I have good reason to condemn you for it. Us vs. them tends to be a easy conflation to make here, but subtlety and nuance aren't going to go away. Ikanreed (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it is not a game. But then I also state that others are responsible for their actions. Doxxing is a value-neutral tool. It's used for good things and bad, with good and bad being subjectively defined by the user thereof. What Watson and Meyers are talking about is not the validity of doxxing in and of itself, which is a null subject, but the fucked premise that there's some sort of internet social etiquette that you don't dox people. That's never been true. It hasn't been true since I first got on the internet full-time in 1993. And for a certain crowd of people to pretend that it's true? They're lying. And that's just fact. --Castaigne (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't dump people's names and addresses online. I don't care who you are or how right you are. People have a right to anonymity, and either noone has that right or everyone has it. People say dumb things on the internet. They float unpopular ideas. They let off steam. That does not justify escalating things by bringing it into the "real world". If someone escalates it themselves by stalking or harassing or doxxing, then they should be reported to law enforcement, not left to such imprecise, unreliable, arbitrary, and unaccountable people as internet mobs (the police may be all those things as well, but not to the extent of Everyone on the Internet). (Agrajag (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC))
I agree but disagree at the same time. If you want to talk shit online but then somebody puts you on blast for it and has evidence of it, bye bye. But I wouldn't find their address or their real name and do that, that is creepy, wrong and extreme. However, I can't say I feel bad when a woman takes a picture of a guy on Tinder/Facebook/Twitter/Instagram who says stuff like "You stupid bitch! You won't let me fuck?!" and then puts it online.(BlackProg (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC))
1) People's names and addresses are already dumped online. ALL of them. It's just a matter of connecting the dots.
2) I don't agree that everyone has a right to anonymity. If you like, you can tell me where you derive this idea from and why it should be legally enforced. My position is that no one has a right to anonymity, just like no one has a right to anything not absolutely guaranteed and enforced by law.
3) You say "That does not justify escalating things by bringing it into the "real world"." This exemplifies the exact type of problem I see. There is no difference between the real world and the internet. NONE. People have maintained this fiction since 2000 or so, but it's simply untrue. Terri "Tickle" DeSisto learned that to her (his) despair back in the late 90s. ( There is no escalation and I'm quite confused when you refer to the revealing of publicly available information as such.
A major problem with such discussions is that "doxing" covers a lot of behaviors, so blanket statements are nearly meaningless.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No. You don't escalate stuff like that while leaving it online. Other people will be bastards. That's a fact of life. Either refute them (morons), block/ignore them (trolls and assholes), or report them to the police (harassers and stalkers).(Agrajag (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC))
I don't see how revealing the identity of vicious psychopaths to the world can be considered a morally bad thing. When doxxing is used by vicious psychopaths to harrass and terrorize people, it's obviously a bad thing of course. (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Because not everyone is a consequentialist ethicist. Some people believe, though I do personally disagree, that your own actions towards others is the only valid criteria for judgement. Ikanreed (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Is disrespecting one person for the sake of protecting everyone else from that person not the best action to take? Even if protecting those people involves me committing a type of act that is intrinsically immoral, it is still preferable that I sacrifice my moral purity for the sake of preventing graver immoral acts from being committed. Though I suppose someone like Kant would decide otherwise, choosing "moral purity" over lying to a murderer about the location of their intended victim. Though I don't see how being complicit in murder would make Kant more morally pure. (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If you ask me, the matter under contention isn't "vicious psychopaths" and (somehow) "murderers", the but rather things like "I think they're a bigot", "We had an argument and I disagree with them", "This person made a [very/vaguely/could be interpreted as] sexist tweet", "That person is/did X! Look at this [damning/misleading/vague/fabricated/nonexistent] evidence!" and so forth. Revealing the identity of a "vicious psychopath" with proof of their harassing or threatening behavior is a lot less contentious on the justifiable scale than, say, doxxing someone who made an off-color joke on a personal Twitter. Noir LeSable (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If you release that shit to the general public then you are inviting every drooling sociopath on the interwebz to come along and play. End of story.--Madman (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Nothing new[edit]

For ages, Pharyngula has had a version of this disclaimer:

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

It's not an empty statement, Myers has done it a few times. In one case this resulted in a woman losing her job after her dumb husband used her work-related e-mail address to threaten Myers. And given the existence of an article about Dennis Markuze on this wiki, I also find the whole conversation a bit hypocritical. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How are back-and forth discussions ever hypocritical? She made an argument for nuance in determining the harm of doxxing, and some people think that there's no legitimate reason to do it(for certain definitions of "it"). I find both to be true and not mutually exclusive. Ikanreed (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not a fan of Doxxing anyone as any type of punitive vigilante action, but the one exception is threats/harrassment in order to figure out who to stop. It's nearly impossible to do already. Such as nothing was done about Dennis until people figured out who he was and contacted the police literally thousands of times. I have been in the situation where we even knew who the person was and it was near impossible to get the authorities involved until that person did something physical. We only were able to convince the cops before it went too far because we found out this guy was convicted of doing the same escallating things previously after kicking in the door of the person he was stalking and assaulting her. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"How to make young people conservative"[edit]

I don't think they're aware of it, but my generation's emerging conservatives are defined by being racist and sexist shitheels, like gamergate and /pol/ types. All they need to do is continue to be a mindless hate factory and they'll retain 30% of voters. Ikanreed (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That editorial was so clueless. He thinks young people will worry about medical privacy, when millions of them wouldn't even have medical care if it weren't for government intervention? On top of that, the most prominent breaches of privacy for the last few years has been not just the NSA surveillance program, but corporations losing millions of customers' private information to hackers. (I'll give you a hint which of those privacy breaches the common person resented more: the government breach didn't require you to throw out your credit card and wait for a new one to come in the mail.) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It just seemd like the entire point was to spew a bunch of tired tropes, some of which was not even close to reality, and say it was liberals fault. It's extremely idiotic when the thrid point is about how conservatives don't care about investing in the future...when these young people are that future to invest in. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Mary Ham, Frozen, and The Shining[edit]

Never thought someone would ever make that connection.

But I guess, in some regards, Jack Torrence did.... *puts on sunglasses* let it go.

YEAAAAAAAAHHHH! {{Dwbaker994 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)|Dwbaker994}}

I was watching a movie about various crazy theories regarding The Shining (room 237), there was one guy who gone on all about the clues Kubrick left in the Shining with regards to him having faked the moon landings. It seems that finding stuff in The Shining is a thing... Dmytry (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I saw that movie too. That was weird, wasn't it? {{Dwbaker994 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)|Dwbaker994}}
Get it out, get it out...get this song out of my head. Get it out, get it out...I would sing anything else instead... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like somebody watches a lot of Honest Trailers. {Dwbaker994
I think it's quite the ample song when preoccupied by constipation troubles. (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no evidence that it was a "Roleplaying thread"[edit]

Yo, dog, they were paying real money to send "scouts" last I heard. Ikanreed (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, fuck. And I thought /fringe/ was the wackiest b8chan could get outside of cheese gr8tergate. --Madman (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
You gotta remember, 8chan exists because people felt 4chan clamping down on child porn was suppressing free speech. Legal-and-awful like neo-nazis is no surprise. Ikanreed (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I totally agree that it's pretty much a given that Neo-Nazis and white supremacist nutjobs would be on a site like 8chan, make no mistake. On the other hand, these guys are pretty much the kings and queens of doing or saying offensive crap just to get a rise out of people "for the lulz". They're cut from the same cloth as the people behind #CutForBieber, Hitler Did Nothing Wrong Mountain Dew, #endfathersday, SecondLife's Furry concentration camp, and a host of other "pranks". Until more concrete proof arises than "last I heard", I don't think there's any particular reason to believe that they're anything more than a handful of neckbeards and teenagers doing something else offensive "for teh lulz". Noir LeSable (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Lulz extraction happens on outsiders. They didn't go out of their way to draw non-8chan attention. I'm also not about to pretend it's gonna happen. They're sincere, in the same way "Galt's Gulch" or MGTOW groups are sincere. They're never going to do anything. It's absolutely bullshit, but it's braggadocio, not trolling. Ikanreed (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but Smiley believes in the Green Pill and political non-elucidians. It's hard to top Smiley for craziness, so this is rather impressive to me.--Madman (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

From "Egregious sources" down[edit]

Should this stuff be moved to a new RationalWiki:Clogroll page, to parallel RationalWiki:Blogroll, or does it serve some special purpose here? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No. It's already largely duplicating RationalWiki:Webshites and the list of internet kooks. We don't need yet another page covering the same ground. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
All right. Then should all three be merged? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Quite possibly. Though the word "webshites" should be binned IMO. I like "clogroll" a lot - David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@DG: If we binned webshites, where would you put non-blog websites that we don't like? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
mmmmmm, good question ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Do we have a good answer? :P FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*cough* FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Is clog-stuff restricted to blogs? (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Why? FU22YC47P07470 (gossip/stalk) 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Homophobes and unborn children[edit]

So, my first thought was "Ugh, homophobes." Then I wondered "Why are some of these tweets phrased so formally?" Then I started wondering "You know, if it was possible to determine if a baby was gay before it was born, these people would undoubtedly abort them." Is that something that should be allowed? In one way, it'd possibly be good in that the unborn child doesn't have to grow up in such a hostile environment (though whether that's sufficient reason to deny a person-to-be their existence I leave up to you), but it would also empower bigots and reduce diversity. This is a similar concern as with sex-selective abortion, though people having a preference for getting either a boy or a girl is generally accepted in society. (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why, exactly, shouldn't it be as accepted as gender selection? Abortion equals murder or something? Dmytry (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for completely missing the point. Now other people will have a stellar example for what not to do. (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It'd be useful if you actually gave any sort of a reason why it should be any less accepted than gender selection. Genders less worthy of protection than sexual orientation? Or what? Dmytry (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a bad reason to be sure, but I call my position pro-choice for a reason. If I though that people should only get abortions for reasons I agree with, my position would be far more restrictive than it is.--TiaC (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is this posted in February 2015 instead of March 2012? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Because things aren't always discovered as soon as someone posts them on the internet? (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Wake up call for atheists?[edit]

I can't actually suss out what I'm supposed to wake up from? I think it's been pretty clear forever that there are serious anti-Muslim bigots in the atheist community(and among atheists who aren't part of our "community"). I read through the article looking for some indication of what I was supposed to do as an atheist, and all I found was a broadbased accusation that I didn't know or care about minority rights. Ikanreed (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, "A Wake-Up Call For Xenophobes" wouldn't be inflammatory, would it? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 19:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Clogosphere or Blogosphere?[edit]

I have noticed a few messages on this forum which I think belong in the Blogosphere. Articles written from reputable sources about internet wingnuttery rather than by wingnuts themselves. Can someone please clarify what type of article goes where? Thanks.--Mercian (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's a good article, Blogosphere. If it's a shit article, Clogosphere. If it's a good article about shitty things, your pick. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ben Carson[edit]

That's dupe entry number 3 I think. I'm not merging that one into the other ones again. Mayo2017 (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


I'm not a fan of Kotaku, but speaking as someone who is 75:25 Koreo-Japanese, am I missing something about the article on biracial people in Japan? Is there something Clogworthy about it that I'm not getting? Japan is pretty notoriously xenophobic (particularly towards certain groups), and the Internet populace of Japan isn't significantly less vulnerable to the Online disinhibition effectWikipedia. Noir LeSable (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It was put there by the 74 IP, so they might not have had a particularly good reason to add it here. (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The Clog About Cenk Uygur.[edit]

I notice that it's getting a mixed reaction. I didn't submit it, but I do agree that the youtuber atheism-is-unstoppable is a nut and he's a pedantic nitwit too. Yeah, Cenk Uygur goes soft on Islamic issues, but that's to be expected, considering he deconverted from Islam. The most important thing is that he doesn't support Daesh/ISIS, right? The other, more anonymous youtuber seems to get a bug up his ass if someone isn't as xenophobic as Sam Harris. What exactly is the goal of being more contempuous of Islam itself? It's not like you can go to war with 1 billion people. Hotwateramericano (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's getting a mixed reaction because it's so confusing. I downvoted it originally because I had no idea what I was watching in the video. After I saw this, I understood it better and went back to upvote it. CombustibleLemon (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I was confused about why the guy put all of the clips that pretty much disprove his case that Cenk is a Muslim apologist in the beginning of the video.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe I did word the post poorly (most people probably don't know who atheism-is-unstoppable is or that he's a massive Sam Harris fan), but that fact that people don't understand what the guy who made the video is talking about kinda proves my point that he's nuts. Nuclearneo577 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mama Schlaffy[edit]

She's making some wild assumptions about the Walter Scott shooting and her dismissal of the relevance of racism is obviously bad, but she's not wrong in pointing out that there's a big problem with the way the justice system handles poor people that fail to pay court-ordered payments or fines. (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you think she is at all interested in the question of how the courts treat poor people outside of the narrow patriarchal reading of the situation that she wrote about? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
See Stopped Clock--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1. I'm not going to spend 20 minutes watching a comic explain a complex issue like child support laws. Find a proper article I can read and I'll comment on the issue. 3. She never mentions "fines," so that's not at al relevant to the discussion. she only discusses child support, as far as I can see. 3. She's a "stopped clock" for arguing that men shouldn't have to pay child support? ("The whole idea that a poor man is expected to support two households, including one with a child he never sees and may not even be his, is contrary to common sense and to all human experience. In too many cases, DNA investigations revealed that the poor guy is not the father of the kid for whom he is ordered to pay child support.) That's the argument you want to go to bat for? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Child support and imprisonment for debt are indeed similar problems. Child support is also a major recruiter for the underground economy, and as such tends to compound the legal issues faced by its victims. Fortunately, medicine offers hope; there is a cure called abortion. Abortion heals welfare babies, and is so wonderful that it is able to stop crimes from happening twenty years in the future. If you recognize the problem you should want abortion on every streetcorner. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering that abortion is only a solution if the children weren't wanted in the first place and that the majority of child support comes from failed marriages where the children WERE wanted, I fail to see the support for post-birth abortion here. Also, child support is in the best interests of the friggin' child; if you're going to make the MRA argument that child support is a burden amongst the menz, just fucking say so. --Castaigne (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm mostly peeved that despite this brief moment of lucidity, Mrs. Schlafly and the rest of her ilk will not throw their support behind something that works at least some of the time. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Since the kids in question are already in existence, saying abortion is a solution is just as relevant as saying contraception or abstinence is a solution. And since the kids in question are already in existence, I'd add that you suggesting they shouldn't exist just so that one of their parents wouldn't have to make payments seems pretty offensive. The problem here is that poor people that can't keep up with payments are being thrown in jail and having their licenses suspended, making it even harder for them to make money in order to pay their debts. Preaching abortion whenever you see the opportunity isn't gonna make the justice system fix itself. (Also, saying that people that might not be able to pay child support later in life should have their pregnancies aborted pretty much amounts to "poor people shouldn't procreate".) (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It simply struck me as odd that someone would recognize the problem that child support demands cause without supporting a right to abortion. And yes, as far as I'm concerned, abortion should receive every encouragement, if for no other reason than to reduce the human biomass. And yes, other forms of debt relief are also necessary. At minimum, child support payments should be subject to the same restrictions as other garnishments are. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You know, if you wanted to reduce the human biomass, starting a nuclear war or making certain volcanic islands go boom would be far more effective means of achieving that goal. (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Both of those things would also help deal with global warming as well. I smell a win-win here. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So, you'd devestate Earth's environment for the sake of stopping global warming? Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose? (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we have to destroy the Earth in order to save it. I'm not going to shrink away from making the hard choices. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
My biggest secret is that I felt sorta sympathetic to the Eugenicist villian of Moonraker who wanted to reboot humanity and civilization. But really, owning a space station is probably enough to get me to like anyone. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
In the book he was a honest-to-god Nazi.--Madman (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
Well, yeah, I'm not actually in favor of eugenics either. Just there's something about a dream to "making humanity right by starting over" that seems powerful. We're a very fucked up species, and wishing for an easy out on solving that by means other than slowly and progressively fixing systemic problems against the wishes of those abusing those problems is a nice mental shortcut. Actually doing it would be inhuman on an unprecedented scale, and anyone who'd volunteer for participating is almost certainly not someone you'd want founding a civilization. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"It simply struck me as odd that someone would recognize the problem that child support demands cause without supporting a right to abortion." You were surprised that Phyllis Schlafly doesn't support abortion? Really? Even if you disregard any prior knowledge of who she is, and ignore the advert for "Who Killed the American Family?" interjected in the middle of the text, it's still pretty clear that she's appealing to notions of the traditional family and family values here, and most likely sees both abortion and the child support system as negative symptoms of the nuclear family's decline. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It isn't like I didn't expect her to take that position. On the other hand, if she believes that all families ought to look a certain way, there are multiple paths to achieving that goal. If you want to guarantee your children that white upper middle class future that's their birthright, from time to time access to abortion's going to be a necessity. The anti-abortion cult is for people who have no futures to lose. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Google +[edit]

Are Google Plus blogs Applicable for this? Because this blog. — Unsigned, by: / talk 03:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I really don't want to click that link, but that title is exactly as horrible as it sounds, right? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck did you just make me see? If you'll excuse me, I'm just going to rinse my eyes out with some bleach. --TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 18:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Six Million 4 Truth"
lel. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the 6e6 figure is a reference... PacWalker 03:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Tumblr Dry[edit]

Er, I just noticed that the Tumblr article is at -14. Should we move it back to Blogs? (COI disclosure: I also downvoted it) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Or just get rid of it.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Why would red votes mean that it should go back to Blogs? >.> (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete it or ignore it; same as should have happened wherever it was first posted. Kicking shitposts from one WIGO to another doesn't seem a worthwhile task. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Tell that to the person who moved it first. :P ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It was originally posted to Blogs by one user, then moved to Clogs within the first 10 minutes by a different user who apparently disagreed. It still sits at +1 under the Blog vote. I don't particularly like the title that the original user used either, but I didn't think it was Clogworthy. At least, not enough to merit the first move to Clogs. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


The blurb posted about Rep King's bill isn't quite accurate. Separation of powers does allow Congress to limit the cases that courts can hear. Even SCOTUS can have its appellate jurisdiction limited by Congress. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 allows SCOTUS to take appeals "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." The only part of SCOTUS' purview that cannot be altered is their original jurisdiction, those cases which fall directly in their realm of first responding. What's interesting is that this would preclude a bill banning SCOTUS from hearing gay marriage cases as they often involve Constitutional questions or suits in which a state is a party. A disagreement between two district courts/states would also fall under SCOTUS' original jurisdiction.

Federal Courts are bound by the same parameters by the same Article/Section/Clause. Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Courts but not their original jurisdiction. As far as the District Courts of Appeals go, their original jurisdiction is basically the same as SCOTUS.

I'm not sure how this would work with state courts. In looking into Florida's statutes I can't find anything that allows the Florida legislature to limit the jurisdiction of the court. I can find a section laying out the circuit courts' jurisdiction though. The Florida Constitution, however, does allow the circuit courts' appellate jurisdiction to be limited.

Fun stuff. Links provided for your interest. AyzmoCheers 19:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that no one has ever squarely faced the issue of whether Congress can limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts based on the substantive law they're applying, rather than on purely procedural grounds. The distinction between substantive and procedural law is itself rather ill-defined when push comes to shove, of course. In Boumadiene v. Bush[1], the Supreme Court held (in a 5-4 decision) that Congress could not remove the right of Guantanamo prisoners to sue for habeas corpus without providing an equivalent procedure, and held that the Military Commissions Act of 2006Wikipedia was not an adequate substitute. That would suggest that a statute that simply said that the Federal courts cannot overturn state marital law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional would not fly either. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed in that it is somewhat murky, but I don't think it would fly. The problem with saying "no rulings on gay marriage" is that a suit challenging a state amendment places a state as a litigant, which places the case in a court's original jurisdiction, which cannot be limited by Congress. Almost any such law could run afoul of that problem depending upon the specifics of the case. I'm not saying that Rep King's bill makes sense, rather that the blurb about "separation of powers" didn't make sense within the context of this law given that Congress does have jurisdiction limiting authority via the Constitution.

Nice, emdrive got a mention...[edit]

Someone linked me that thread before, and my eyes glazed over so bad I didn't even notice the laser spacetime contraction shit. Glad there's rationalwiki. Dmytry (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sommers and "rape culture"[edit]

Why so many downvotes? The event sounds pretty unreasonable.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I found it interesting; lefties going Gamergate on people who had dared to sponsor a speaker, and trying to intimidate people into silence. I figured it wouldn't play all that well with this crowd, though. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with you. See below. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I actually didn't vote on this one. I wasn't sure if upvoting the Clog meant that one agreed or disagreed with the article or the protest or whatever. The main issue is that the wording of the Clog makes it sound like upvoting it indicates disagreement with the protest, while the tone of the article itself disapproved of the protest (thus making upvoting the clog indicate agreement of the protest). FWIW, while I can't comment on the speaker, I do disapprove of the activists/protests. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I put it in Clogs because it highlighted people's bad behaviour and carrying-on; and because it was from Reason magazine, which isn't held in all that high esteem here either. But occasionally they get it right. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I gave it a "meh" vote. While the issue we're dealing with on college campuses is real it is absurd to go that far and brand a bunch people for the reason that they are giving. Simply put, this is what the right means when they complain about "censorship" on college campuses. What they are complaining about is the culture of intimidation that anyone with an opposing conservative (or even centrist) leaning viewpoint of any kind meets when they venture onto a college campus that has a strong left-wing activist community. And yes radicals putting up posters declaring that a bunch of college republicans support rape culture by allowing someone whose views they don't share to talk on campus is intimidation. Prodding and annoying administrations to take sexual assault charges seriously is one thing, intimidating a speaker and the people who invited that speaker whose views you don't share with a serious but rather tenuous accusation is quite another. Alsto003 (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Alex

Bruce Jenner rant[edit]

As ever, don't read the comments. Ugh. (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"claims it's anti-semitic when it's really anti-muslim"[edit]

It's certainly anti-Muslim in that the people orchestrating it intend to slander a whole population group as anti-semitics. But that it's been appropriated to target non-Jews doesn't stop the message from being anti-semitic, in my view. (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. There's two interpretations of publicly made statements. One with context intact, which is clearly anti-Muslim bigotry, and one without context, which is anti-Semitic as as hell. When you're running an advertising campaign, you can be held accountable for what something seems to say without context. If the context makes you look bad, you're accountable for that too. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of context & intent. It's a matter of the effect it has on people, i.e. whether it offends people and/or influences/reinforces people's prejudices. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That too. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't help but think that the group that sponsored those ads scored something of an own goal there, though. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The point of radicalizing propoganda isn't to appeal to a majority, but to create hardliners out of moderates on your own side. This seems more like that than the wider net of broad appeal. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

10000 times stronger than chemotherapy[edit]

I wonder if the person with that bullshit alt med actually stopped to think about how being 10,000 times stronger than chemotherapy isn't necessarily a good thing (not to say that it actually is). I mean chemotherapy isn't known as a particularly pleasant thing and indeed it essentially amounts to trying to kill cancer cells with poison. A better headline would have been 10,000 times more poisonous! Although tbh as it is essentially the bullshit idea that you need to "balance the pH of your body" it isn't necessarily the most stupid alternative medicine therapy you could try. Samstr (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well... unless you try to "rebalance" it really quickly, by drinking something with a pH of 1. That'll end you even faster than those things you list. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
When I was a child, I was addicted to mixing vinegar and baking soda. The fizz still makes me smile. Makes a great water balloon. And you're keeping that pH balanced! - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
An idea occurs as a result of this. Divided paintballs. One side is filled with dyed baking soda, one side with dyed vinegar. PAP *FIZZ* ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I personally can't wait.....[edit]

... for Hollywood to finally get around to making Kriemhild and the Nibelungen. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Pregnant Hands[edit]

I almost posted this story myself earlier today, but I couldn't tell how serious the guy was being. I'm pretty sure that he said it fairly tongue-in-cheek, so I wasn't convinced it was quite blog worthy. He seems to be retweeting the story on his Twitter account without commentary, so I'm assuming he's amused at how serious everyone seems to be taking it, but I don't read Turkish so I can't be sure either way. All that said, at the very least we know it's not a Poe. --OverworldTheme (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've heard of babies being born out of weirder body parts. Granted, it was in a story from Greek mythology. (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't mention bitcoins on the first date[edit]

Lol. Just lol. (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Psh, amateurs. I mentioned Bitcoin on my first date with my girlfriend and I totally trickled down her economy later that night, if you know what I mean. --Kungo GumiQui ça ? 07:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So apparently, gay rights is a communist conspiracy...[edit]

I found this little gem this morning. It must be from the infiltration of our precious bodily fluids. --Umichcynic (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It always confuses me how communism and homosexuality are connected. I'm sure Kenny has written something about it, but I don't feel like vomiting. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Stalin, at least, was not a fan of homosexuality. Big on the whole "Make us lots of Russian babies to conquer the world" philosophy. At any rate, I'm almost certain this is just derived from the Christian-Capitalist identity movement. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't know much about British politics[edit]

... but it strikes me as entirely possible that the Tory party in the UK may well be the least conservative major party over there. It certainly is true of US politics, where the One True Conservatism of the Republican party has turned itself into an ideological checklist. The ideology is full of Big Plans to dismantle some of our institutions and fundamentally alter others. That's the opposite of conservative AFAIAC. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You're equivocating the word "conservative". Calling the Tories a left-wing anything is an absurdity - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. I tend to prefer Bierce's definition of 'conservative': "A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." Anybody with Big Plans to reorder society according to an ideological blueprint is not a conservative, even if they're working from a right-wing blueprint rather than a left-wing one. You can be right-wing without being conservative. The US Republican party has ceased to be conservative for some time, and the more right wing it becomes the less conservative it is. The same might also be true in the UK. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 13:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
If their blueprint is one once buried in the past and dusted off, though, there is no better term than 'conservative'. Part and parcel of wanting to uphold the old status quo is undoing previous changes to the status quo you disliked. By your definition, the only 'conservative' position would be one of complete inaction, which would render it a useless term. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
In fact, there's a term for wanting to roll back social changes. It's "Reactionary" which is synonymous with "far right" in the old french system for which the directional identities are named. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


Yeah, that article is really off the rails with the whole "Donald is a plant" theory. But what's interesting is how little the author is willing to address and acknowledge the popularity of the so-called plant. His party's base is in life with Trump, and no amount of conspiracies about the man himself can justify that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's easier to veer off into conspiracies rather than address the 10-20% of the people who are voting in the same primary being wackjobs. It happens with any party....but any sane party would express distain and disgust the GOP needs to somewhat embrace those groups to even stand a chance because their policies are so unattractive. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Huh, what's interesting is that another columnist at the same news outlet has proposed the idea that Sanders run will, either by intent or action, push Hilary to the left with popular ideas. Is Trump pushing other more likely GOP candidates to the lunatic fringe? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
He's not further right. He's more openly racist. That's his selling point right now to his party. Openly racist. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
At the moment those two things seem to be the same in the GOP. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

12 Years a Slave[edit]

Didn't we have a thing about this article in 2013, when the article ran? Whoover (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Dunno, but either way it shouldn't be posted as July 2015. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Block the page[edit]

This page isn't blocked to BoNs like WIGO:World, so please block it. Faunas (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

What for, was there some increased vandalism and/or trolling by BoN's lately?--Arisboch (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it's because this page and pages like it are just for already registered RW editors to edit. Faunas (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
NO, it isn't. Scream!! (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


The vid is from 2011. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Instagram filters[edit]

What the hell? The article gives examples, notes the blatantly white-biased standard card, and details the problems with techonology that pretends not to be political. What's cloggy about this? - David Gerard (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Since "racism", in popular usage, carries a connotation of malicious intent, calling such unintentionally exclusionary things like not realizing you should calibrate your image software for more than just white skin tones "racist" offends the kind of people who don't realize or don't want to realize that you can be racist without intending to exclude people. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 23:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
That's complete BS. Nobody at the sharp end of the behaviour in question cares or should care about the intent, when the problem is the effects. And also when pretty much every blatant racist tries to argue intent so as not to change their behaviour - David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course any argument can be used as a pretext, which doesn't render the argument in question invalid.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 12:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, David. My point was that there are people who do not realize or actively avoid acknowledging that a person's actions can have racist effects without that person having racist intentions, and those are the people that would put an article like this in the clogosphere section. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 17:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Because it's ridiculous, that's why. It mentions one or two filters that change a person's skin tone. Some people might not know this, but the point of a filter is to alter colors to produce a certain aesthetic (e.g. "old-looking picture"). How does a filter that produces a certain effect and as a byproduct make skin slightly lighter "exclude" anyone? If you don't like the way it looks aesthetically, then don't use the filter. But if you're so obsessed with racial identity and skin color that the mere ability to choose a filter that doesn't perfectly capture its exact shade really makes you feel oppressed, then that's more of a personal problem.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem wasn't just that the filter changed the color of the picture, the problem was that the filters were changing the color more when used on people with dark skin tones than when used on people with light skin tones, and that this is perhaps due to such filters not being tested on people with dark skin tones before being added to the app, similar to the issues with Kodak film mentioned in the article. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 17:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Dark skin reacting differently to certain filters is not a social issue. Why does it matter if a filter that you have the *option* to choose make your skin is a little different in shade in a photograph? Why is it a problem if not every available filter keeps your skin color pure?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The filters are not a social issue in and of themselves. Society would probably be the same whether or not the filters existed. The problem is that a major multi-million dollar software developer can release an image adjustment product without realizing (or realizing and not caring) that it basically erases dark skin tones. The problem is that Western beauty standards have traditionally favored light skin tones over dark skin tones, and a major multi-million dollar software developer releasing image adjustment software that automatically lightens your skin does not help to buck that trend. The problem is that asking Instagram to develop filters that don't ruin dark skin tones is considered an overreaction. All the article was asking for was improved Instagram image filters. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 02:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, it doesn't "erase" darker skin tones, it makes them slightly lighter, just like everything else in the image. It's not like it turns you into a white person, you still look black.
Secondly, Instagram has plenty of other filters that don't make dark skin appear lighter, so it's not like people are being forced to change their race (which the filter doesn't do anyway)
Thirdly, the purpose of the filter is to recreate an aesthetic created by old pictures, not to lighten skin. Changing whether it lightens things or not would make it a completely different filter.
This article isn't a well-though-out piece on racism, it's a knee-jerk reaction. Something completely unrelated to race (i.e. an Instagram filter) has maybe a single aspect (it makes darker colors slightly lighter) that, to some random person on the Internet, sounds in the most superficial way like racism (since colors are involved somehow), and then the author covers it up with pseudo-intellectual nonsense.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If I might politely suggest, the enormously subtle question of whether intentionality is a necessary component of racism is well outside the bounds of what would seem to justify inclusion in the Clogosphere, which is not, as I understand it, a catch-all for "articles I happen not to like." There's no crank science or ludicrously unfounded claims here, and its inclusion in the Clogosphere list with no actual snark or clarifying comments is, frankly, the sort of thing I expect on Conservapedia, not here. (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether it's intentional or not, it's that somebody calling something so incredibly unrelated to race "racist". And it's funny. Just like it's funny when creationists stretch things to fit their beliefs (like dinosaurs' nostrils catching on fire due to decreased oxygen after the flood), it's funny when people stretch things in order to find racism in them (like Instagram being racist because one of the filters *gasp* affects colors!). If you don't think the article is bad or funny, don't upvote it. And if you truly think the article has truth to it, join the debate. But as it stands the majority of people have also shown that they find it amusing by upvoting it, so I think it should stay.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not in any way unrelated to race, what the fuck are you on. Visibly racist effects without intention are called "systemic racism" and are a way of being stupid that is of note - David Gerard (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
"Racist effects"? Did Instagram add a Blackface-filter or what? What a stupid hysteria.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 10:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
How is an old-timey filter lightening someone's skin tone as a byproduct "racist"? Is it based on the superiority of any one race? Does it widen the gap between races? No, what widens the gap between races is people who insist on making everything about race. You know who insists that skin color is sacred and shouldn't even accidentally be altered in any way for fear of looking like another race? People who are obsessed with race, also know as Racists. Imagine anyone complaining that a filter makes them look blacker. It's not only offensive, it's illogical and paranoid, right?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Let me take the filter bit out and make it real lighting. Is the sun a form of systemic racism? WalkerWalkerWalker 05:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Or flash photography?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
These aren't arguments having to do with any sort of skepticism or crankery. Again, this is entirely outside the remit of this site. You may find it funny; I even understand why you do. But it's not something that has to do with what this site's about. (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
↑ pillock. Scream!! (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
So it's stupid, but not the kind of stupid we're looking for. Right. Does a website's stance on abortion or people interviewing Americans who don't know what the Fourth of July is fall under "skepticism and crankery" then?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there social discrimination against minorities? Of course there is. However, do Instagram filters, a feature not designed to appear realistic, count? I would say not. If you don't like the way a particular filter changes your appearance then don't use it. Perhaps you could petition for the addition of different filters specifically for different skin tones. That being said I suspect that the real reason all of the filters brighten an image is that that is the easiest way to hide blemishes without using a more intelligent algorithm. Samstr (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Rob Rhinehart[edit]

Who the hell is he? Is he on our list of internet kooks/webshites? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Creator of Soylent, which we do have an article on. Dunno where the Uber gushing comes from though. Vulpius (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
If he's one of those Silicon Valley technolibertarians, he's obligated to love Uber, as it's a triumph of the free market over the big government regulated yellow car taxis. Also, because libertarians seem to love unethical business practices. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
His rambling nonsense was also featured on Ars technica by the way ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


Aren't 4135 & 4136 bot about the same thing - Natural News & Us involvement in Tianjin explosion? (I I just just can't can't believe believe that that anyone anyone could could dduupplliiccaaattee an an entry entry like like this this. Scream!! (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

They were the same link. Merged - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin Article[edit]

There is nothing more amusing to me than modern day American libertarians who rail against the dollar for being a fiat currency while using bitcoin. At least gold is shiny, what inherent value does a complex code have? That being said I feel that bitcoin is pretty much harmless and I actually agree with libertarians on a number of things. Indeed technically I am a libertarian but that's a discussion for another day. Samstr (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I know people who invested thousands of euros in Bitcoins, so it's not quite harmless. Plus, the Bitcoin miners take up a lot of power, so Mother Nature isn't quite happy either... Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
What got me is before the whole Silk Road things people were extolling how Bitcoin would conceal what people ware buying (and avoid surveillance or tax I guess). Then when the feds reveled it could be easily tracked back to the Silk Road guy, along with all the hands it passed through, it's been quietly deleted from the virtues of the currency. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


The article now redirects to another article called "Top ten scientific achievements of Natural News and the Health Ranger (so far)", which seems like it deserves its own article, now that they point it out... -Einstein95 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The link's still working for me. Maybe they're just redirecting requests from your IP? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 06:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hm, yeah, you're right. Wonder why they'd redirect IPs from NZ, unless I'm just caught up in a wider IP range redirect. -Einstein95 (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, it appears as though it's a referrer redirect, as copy/pasting the URL works, but clicking on it redirects. RationalWiki hostility, maybe? -Einstein95 (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I forgot I had turned off referrers. Yes, NaturalNews has a history of redirecting RationalWiki users. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 17:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
That's weird, since I tried to follow a direct link from here and the site didn't look any different than what I got by accessing it through the method of linking, that obscures the referrer. They stopped doing it, perhaps?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Probable online advertising scam[edit]

It seems to me that there is another new online scam designed to woo people out of their money. I have recently came across ads like this:

I did some research, as I wanted to know exactly who was doing this scam. The ad is from a company called "Live Cell Research", that goes out of its way to say that it is not a scam and that it is scientific, which leads me to believe it is a scam. That and its obvious marketing techniques. The main product it sells is something called "Niagen", that contains a chemical called Nicotinamide riboside, which the company claims makes your life great, increases energy, makes you fit, happy, etc. Since this is obviously woo and fake medicine, I think it would be a good idea to write an article debunking this, since there is a lack of anyone else on the internet talking about this. Would anyone care to write an article? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)