RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $5800Goal: $6000
Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator election has started! We are electing 6 moderators and 2 alternatives to serve in 2019. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?/Archive12

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 23 March 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <13>, (new)(back)

I'm a Christian, but... (Matt Walsh article)[edit]

I feel like the only one who sort of agrees with Walsh at least on his main point, it's always eyeroll-inducing when someone says "I don't agree with any point of accepted Judeo-Christian morality, but I'm totes Christian! #Saved" No, you're not a Christian, you want to call yourself Christian because you don't like the alternative, whatever that is (atheism, parents getting mad at you). If anything the article unknowingly highlights the problem Christianity faces today and why it is shrinking quickly in the west, in order to really be a Christian in today's world, you have to make yourself boring, anal, and angry at everything, the only alternative being cutting out 90% of the scripture in favor of the lovey-dovey inspirational quotes. Now if only Walsh would be as harsh on those "Christians" who never go to church and generally don't care about it outside of hating queers/Muslims/everything that is not them (ie the Trump caucus). Hentropy (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There are no non-cafeteria Christians - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
THIS. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
But there are plenty that order a mixed platter(like the Southern Baptist meal for 5) and eat everything on their plate, including the disgusting bits. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
As ikanreed alluded to, there's a difference between ignoring all the stuff that is about how many goats are acceptable for a dowry (stuff that was rather specific to the time and situation), and completely ignoring the basic moral teachings because you don't like them. There are plenty of fundies that don't take divorce or pre-marital sex as seriously as gays, but there are those that do. When given a choice between some obscure teaching from the Old Testament and Jesus, they choose Jesus, and I don't think that's inconsistent. Hentropy (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The basic moral teachings? Look, the Bible is a Rorschach blot the Christians of the given time and place project their prejudices onto. I found myself in the local CoE and the vicar (who is a top bloke, very smart and nuanced) gave a thundering sermon citing Galatians 2:1-10 as a firm biblical injunction against racial discrimination. He was very sincere and convincing too, it was frankly an excellent argument. The only problem is the centuries of Christians also proving the Bible firmly endorses racism. And the answer is that you can prove anything and its opposite from the Bible, and observably people do - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The Bible never clearly talks about race relations in the same way we talk about it, however, but it DOES talk about sexual morality in a very clear, very precise manner. There is no accepted theological interpretation that says that Christians should be accepting of sodomy, incest, pre-marital sex, bestiality, etc. These things have always been prohibited in all sects, and the prohibition has only been challenged in the last 50 years or so. You can't "prove anything and its opposite" that's like saying you can find a passage that supports murdering one's parents or worshiping pagan gods, there are some things that are so fundamental and basic in the theology that there really are no arguments, and sexuality is kind of one of those areas that the Bible is super clear and not contradictory about. Red letter Christians are at least honest when they say they ignore everything but Jesus' words (which still aren't super progressive on all issues), but if a mainline/evangelical "Christian" are feminists who are accepting of gays, then they are not interpreting the Bible differently, they are outright ignoring/invalidating parts of it to make it more socially acceptable, which is internally dishonest. Hentropy (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
"The prohibition has only been challenged in the last 50 years or so." Isn't that just demonstrating David's point that people's interpretations of Christianity's teachings change with the times? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
And my point is that it's not a "reinterpretation". It's willful ignorance of scripture they claim to hold dear in order to keep it from looking "mean" in a more socially progressive world. If President Extreme Example decided to make the US a theocracy and jail everyone who's not Christian, he wouldn't be "reinterpreting" the First Amendment, he'd be completely ignoring it. That doesn't mean the meaning and intent of the First Amendment is 100% clear, people fight about it all the time, but everyone agrees that the government can't outlaw religions. If you're a Christian you can make a theological argument that we shouldn't kill sodomites outright, but there is not interpretation or argument to be made that gay is okay and should be accepted by the church. Hentropy (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Your point only works if we assume that your point of view on what scripture means is the correct interpretation.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
You are arguing in the precise manner of every Rorschach-blotting Christian ever. I'm slightly baffled as to how you think this will even slightly convince a bunch of seasoned Internet atheists who've heard this shit ad nauseam - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
As I said, the Constitution is also a Rorschach test for most people, but no one debates whether or not Senators should have 6 year terms. If your argument seriously is that the Bible can literally mean whatever you want it to mean and that there's no agreed-upon fundamentals, then get the altar ready for my wholesome Christian blood sacrifices to Baal. Hentropy (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Someone should startS a parody religion, that does exactly that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The thing I've never understood is: how do you know that the entire Bible (focusing on the new testament, the old testament is too easy to bash) actually describes Jesus' teaching accurately? Everyone agrees it wasn't written by Christ himself, are you *sure* nothing is exaggerated? Misunderstood or misremembered by the author? Or changed in some other way? Even if the writers were divinely inspired, they were still human. And even if we assume the Bible *is* 100% accurate in telling Christ's teachings, how do we know we've understood it correctly? It seems spectacularly arrogant to me to assume that *you* of all people have deciphered *one true* reading of Christ's teachings, probably based on a translation (KJV) that we know contains errors. The Muslims got this right by insisting that the Qu'ran can only be read in Arabic. I've read a number of books in both Dutch and English, and I can guarantee you that even without errors many subtleties will be lost in translation, and many subtleties will be *added* in translation, simply because the languages differ... c'est impossible to translate everything without changing the meaning. For example, I've been given to understand that that "thou shalt not kill" can arguably also be translated from the original as "thou shalt not murder", which has a rather different meaning! So even a simple 4-letter sentence can create a misunderstanding/confusion in the precise meaning of the text... Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
You bring up a lot of great points, but that's kind of the point, if you doubt the Bible is the 100% valid word of God handed down through prophets, then who is to say all of it isn't just bunk, Jesus is made up, all the stories are just stories, etc.? If you say parts of the Bible are up for very loose and accommodating interpretations, then the Bible loses much of its authority and ceases to become a real religion when you can just believe whatever you want about it. Christianity across the centuries has been built on the presumption that the current Biblical canon is trustworthy as an accurate account of Jesus' life and teachings (along with all the Tanakh stuff before it). You can present an alternative like the Mormons or JWs or even Muslims, but you throwing it out without an alternative then it starts to mean nothing. Of course Christians argue all the time in good faith about translations, and that's fair game, but most of those same people arguing don't have a degree in ancient Greek, so it usually comes down to what they want to believe. But there is no credible alternate translation that completely changes the meaning of most of the moral lessons. Hentropy (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
You are assuming there is agreement on this stuff at any level. The evidence of observation of Christians and what exegesis actually results in say otherwise - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Jesus himself taught with deliberately ambiguous parables and analogies. They are not meaningless by any stretch of the imagination, but they contain most of the deliberate ambiguities of fiction, and are meant to provoke thought rather than tell you what to think. (This is one reason why I don't doubt that Jesus existed. His story is told by multiple hands who are often inconsistent. But there is a personality and a shared style that shines through the several inconsistent accounts.) - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
And the translation of version into English is further called into question by the meaning/interpretation of the original languages. You can go back to the Talmud and read the various interpretations of the Tanakh by the different masters. Rava may have vastly different interpretations of lines of text than do other rabbis. There are lines as simple as "In the beginning" which have been debated as some believe it reads "In a beginning," which gives it a vastly different meaning. You then try and distill that into other languages and into modern language. I have very little hope in an authentic translation over 2k+ years and multiple languages. As for the arguments about sexuality, I've heard a literal hour-long exegesis of Leviticus 18:22 by a rabbi who argued that, according to the grammatical Hebrew, it is only a sin to bottom as a gay man. He also pointed out that the Hebrew does not make lesbian sex to be a sin anywhere. Now, we all know that the modern understanding of that is vastly different. Of course the ideal of homosexuality as an identity, rather than an act, was not something that was even considered 2k years ago. I see no point to sit here and argue that Leviticus 18:22 doesn't mean being gay is a sin under a modern interpretation, but to say that it always carried that meaning is absurd given the contexts of the time. AyzmoCheers 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Justin Bieber's hair[edit]

wut? It's like THE DONALD in a strong wind. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

When they both combine, they become the epitome of assholery and douchebaggery. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Allnews Pipeline[edit]

Yeah, I'm the guy that posted all those Allnews Pipeline articles on the clogosphere, and I think I should stop that, 'cause all I'm doing is clogging up... the clogosphere. Like, if I posted every single thing that this site has to offer, I'd be the most annoying thing ever, and I want to apologize if that's the case. However, if there IS something truly ridiculous that this site has spawned, I will post it on there of course. It's just... you just have to take a look at that site and be amazed at the massloads of fear-mongering and just straightup crackpot going on in there, and it just gets crazier and crazier every new article. So I wanna ask, should we make a whole wiki page about it, or should we just ignore it? -- Ferigeras (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2015 (CET)

Sounds worth an article, if you think there's material for a good one - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Judging from the site's content, I'd say an article is in order, too. Dear God, the website is so wingnutty. It pretty much endorses Zero Hedge and other sites, too. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I was curious about this webshite, and took a look. It appears to be run by a couple of cranks who were former contributors to Before It's News. They write some of their own conspiracy crap, and copypasta from other conspiracy sites. There appear to be some allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of one of the people who run the webshite, but all this data, it seems, is from other crank sites and blogs. So who knows what information about them, if any, can be trusted. The site's alexa rank is in the 40,000's. I see that they're already mentioned on Webshites. Not sure if they are notable enough to warrant their own page, but we'll have to keep an eye on 'em. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of the alleged criminal misconduct you're talking about, I'm assuming you're talking about this: http://fusionlacedillusions.com/2015/02/12/warning-urgent-all-crime-pipeline-where-hard-hitting-news-alternative-news-disinfo-and-criminal-elements-inform-you/. Yes, one of this shite's developers was accused of rape, just read it for yourself and be amazed... -- Ferigeras (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
As for the worry of clogging the clogs: stories from the site get upvotes. But thank you for considering the overwhelming riches the site offers, and I suggest you just keep to the very finest purestrain crack to be found there - David Gerard (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm in on that. Those ones I've posted so far were the most outrageous I could have found, so... I think I'm doin' good. In any way you can expect more stuff from them to appear there. -- Ferigeras (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Damn... I seriously promised I wouldn't clog up the clogosphere with too much Allnews Pipeline stuff but... I can't, the crap they make on there is just WAY too horrendous, and like I said, with each article it gets crazier and crazier. You always think they couldn't be more paranoid, or you'd think they'd draw the line somewhere, but then it gets worse and worse. I mean it is hilarious at first, but the novelty of how stupid it is actually starts to be come boring after a while. I do seriously we should make an article of this hole. I'm not really good at actually creating an article on a wiki though, but I can always pick out their most retarded stories and add them there, just to give people a taste of what they're doing. What do you guys think? -- Ferigeras (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
All News Pipeline - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Vaccines and pregnancy[edit]

This is nothing new. Lord Kitchener investigated the problem back in 1963: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRBAfwErAsY London Grump (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

global research election story[edit]

While GRC is a cloggy source, it is an actual story covered by the CBC, among others. 1 2 Compro01 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Undertale[edit]

The game has (spoilers!) a goat-like monster who rules over an underworld and wields a trident. That probably would have thrown them for quite a loop. 209.169.81.34 (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Satanism's best recruitment tool has always been friendship and pacifism. It also includes a (spoiler) lesbian dinosaur SCIENTIST so it's basically the creationist's worst nightmare. Hentropy (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sex Ed[edit]

What's remotely cloggy about that? Queexchthonic murmurings 15:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved it to the WIGO.--Owlman (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Satanic schism[edit]

The article about divisions in Satanism is actually rather interesting. And somewhat deja vu; I was into neopaganism during the 1980s and early 1990s, the years it was Starhawked and politicized. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Star bucks boycott[edit]

Ive already been boycotting Starbucks for not paying tax. That, and because I do not like coffee. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Are they evading taxes or just using the loopholes in the tax law?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You don't like coffee?!?!?!?!? He's a witch, burn him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Umichcynic (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Scott Adams[edit]

File:Dilbert hugging & killing.jpg
Because it's funny (& also creepy). WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I lost it at "I'm a normal boy." Blitz (Complaints Box) 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
As creepy and wrong as Adams is, I can't help but be reminded of a good point made by one of the first marines in Iraq during the Iraq War. Though, to be fair, he's talking the infrastructure in third-world countries, not the first-world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OubHHtNM94s&feature=youtu.be&t=52s Psycho Gecko 4:54, 25 November, 2015 (UTC)

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit[edit]

This is my favorite paper. It's something that needs to be automated to you can it to your local idiot and go "Look, the computer can tell what you're saying is bullshit, please stop" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

At first I thought this paper was a joke, but after doing some research it seems that this is an actual journal (I don't know how credible or reputable it is). The discovery that the term bullshit has now appeared in a journal delights me to my very core. Samstr (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason[edit]

The story about demons flying commercial is repeated from yesterdays post in WIGO clog? Oldusgitus (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Commented the CLOG out Pippa (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought about doing that Pippa but didn't want to stamp on anyones toes. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ginger Jihadis[edit]

I ain't giving that filthy webshite my traffic, but I'm going to guess. Is this Milo's retaliation for that CopperCab fellow's tirade against him? Blitz (Complaints Box) 19:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

"Ginger jihadis"? That weird even by Breitbart's standards.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Which is why I strongly suspect it's a hitpiece against CopperCab (the guy who made that "Gingers have souls!" rant) in retaliation for his latest video ranting about Milo. Blitz (Complaints Box) 03:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't decide, who's more brainless, CopperCab or Milo?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Daily Fail / Video Game photo[edit]

Has the offending photo been removed from the article, am I being particularly stupid, or is there another reason why the WIGO doesn't make sense to me? rpeh •TCE 21:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

In the comparative size image, the rocket on the far right is a fictional rocket from the Kerbal space simulator.70.62.74.74 (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah thanks. Never heard of that one. rpeh •TCE 18:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Likewise. Would the average reader be expected to know this? A quick reverse image search shows various versions of this chart exist & DM has probably just posted the wrong one without realising. A little sloppy maybe but pretty weak as a Clogosphere entry about the MAil "outperforming itself yet again". WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a pretty subtle one. I should probably have spotted that the "Kerbal" design is ridiculous, but then again, today's "ridiculous" is tomorrow's "normal" in a lot of stuff. I'm glad it wasn't just me that didn't spot it though. rpeh •TCE 20:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


The Triggering[edit]

The impression I got from #TheTriggering was that it was meant to make fun of how saying some mundane things like "manspreading is not a thing" or "criticizing your viewpoints isn't harassment" can get people worked up. Maybe some people see it as a grand defense of free speech from the SJW menace out to get them, but I don't think that is characteristic. Now obviously there are going to be racists and far-right people saying derogatory things, and they shouldn't necessarily be dismissed, but at the same time it's kind of dishonest to call everyone using it an "asshole reactionary" and acting like its a targeted assault on minorities or something. As one poster said, no matter how many people post intelligent things via #thetriggering, people will always focus on the few racists.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Just tell me, how you like my... rationality[edit]

Regarding the Everyday Feminism article, this... is kind of why I tend to be a little easy on the people who complain about "SJWs". Because, despite being a minority of people, the anarchists and supremacists do sometimes land a soapbox at prominent press like EF. And then confirmation biases take those articles and run with it.

Reading through the article, I'm not entirely sure the author knows what "being rational" is. For instance, they write:

Their goal was to ensure that Black people had the same treatment under the public transit system as whites and they never compromised their goals, even as transportation was denied to them over the course of a year. Without transportation, Black lives were completely disrupted. They had to either walk (for those who had that physical ability), or they had to find other forms of transportation.

As a result, they found a new way of operating — they relied on one another.

Black taxi drivers lowered their prices dramatically, Black people with cars began supplying rides to those without cars, and churches bought cars and station wagons to help those who didn’t have access to a vehicle. They organized carpools and collectively established on pickup and dropoff locations.

That was how Black community members developed their own autonomous, sustained transportation system for thousands upon thousands of people that didn’t involve the American settler colonial government.

How rational do you think that was?

That's... incredibly rational. They found an alternative that protests against the established state of public transport while simultaneously minimizing the effect on the largest number of protesters' personal lives through sharing of resources and cooperation. Boom. A logical recourse to a clear problem. What else were they supposed to do? Blow up buses and take bus drivers hostage? Stay at home and do nothing, while sending a note to their employers that they will not be arriving to work due to a protest against the bus system?

I seriously don't understand what they're getting at here (aside from "Let's abolish the police, jails, and the largest government in the world because that will totes make everything better for anyone who isn't cis, white, straight, or male!") ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, and as a sort of 2nd wave feminist (and certainly a feminist by self-identification) I think we currently do a poor job of covering non-fringe feminist cranks like the one you quote above. Our article on feminism could use some help to more critically spotlight and refute garbage like this. No less than we already bash the extreme right, the racists, the MRA's and the tankies. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
That entire 'Everyday Feminism' site seems to have dropped off the deep end. If the worst thing that happens to me today is that I get 'marginalized', I'll count it as a fine and lucky day. There are articles that might have a point -- my disgust at animal rightsers began when I saw a report about how a gang of white people going on about animal rights tried to disrupt Native Americans trying to exercise fishing rights promised to them by a treaty -- but the 'marginalization' mummery is inherently self-undermining, and framing arguments in those terms seems to be a massive case of unconscious privilege. (Privilege of that kind isn't a bad thing, however.) - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Wise words. I mean, it is plain - this is feminist crankery of the highest degree and it needs to be refuted by us. As a feminist myself, I'd prefer to call the above "feminism" within quotation marks, but I won't no true scotsman these nutjobs. This whole discussion should possibly be moved to the feminism talk page? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
So there's more than one example, there's this charming defense of North Korea from someone who clearly adheres to that line of thought (my favorite line was "privilege can be a hell of a drug"—what would someone who claims to have none of it know about that!). Really, that's some impressive mental contortions to 1. apologize for sentencing someone to 15 years of hard labor under the current owner of the country for taking a sign and 2. ramrod the cant of "privileged straight white male" into it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
That's absolutely nuts, and I also agree perfectly with what you say. I'm thinking... Based on the above discussion, with four esteemed editors all agreeing that this level of third wave feminism is absolute nonsense (and I remind everyone that if it weren't for the scotsman fallacy, I'd very much like to not even call the above feminist), I'm carefully allowing myself to get excited over the idea of us actually debunking cringeworthily postmodernist third waver nonsense (like the above linked) here on RW... We've given the MRA community due snark and refutation, with more to come. Could it be that it's finally time to also adress the elephant in the room and start refuting the third wave radicals as well? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
So you are against the entire third-wave?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC) 02:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
That is a delicate and proper question, one which requires deliberation and nuance in its reply for that answer to be anything but the reply of an ideologue. Add onto that, that I am actually more shallowedly versed in the inner machinations of the feminisms than I'd like to be, so I run a literal risk of taking water over my head if I get too technical... But what I dare say right now is that the material quoted above is absolute crankery. What's worse, it's not as fringe as you'd think. Sweden has an entire party based on the above ideas, who equally naïvely want to "uninvent guns globally" (?), "eliminate prisons entirely" and such postmodernist crap. I've personally debated people of the above political persuation who literally claimed that hermeneutics were more important than physics for ultimately understanding reality. So, to try to tentatively answer your question in short; no. To answer it at length; I am an opponent of illiberalism, of power + prejudice, of postmodernism, of continental philosophy over analytic philosophy and so on. Which, in a sense, pulls the rug out from under the third wave as far as my limited understanding goes. But again, it's a good question and this is literally a half-baked answer to it. I will end this rambling statement by underscoring that I am a proud feminist myself, and call myself that whenever I get the chance. And I see all the flaws in the MRA movement clear as day, believe you me. And I am just elated that we now may possibly converge on the literally equally nonsensical above crankery. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I usually wouldn't ask such a broad question, but you stated that you were a proud second wave feminist and seemed eager to discredit third wave concepts. I will say the AFAIK the most famous TERFs have been from the second wave such as Germaine Greer. I am not opposed to postmodernism myself, but I agree that there are problems with it. I am not of fan of imprisonment as well, but I am unaware of the Swedish party you are referring. I do agree with Aneris when it comes to SJWs, but where he sees malice I see incompetence. The internet has unleashed a volley of academic concepts that the mainstream doesn't understand; it has given a platform to everyone which can reach a mass audience. Both the alt-right and SJW have misinterpreted these concepts or manipulated them in order to fit their narrative. Honestly, the best comparison I can come up with is Maoism since they have picked their underclass which they rely on and have demonised a ruling class in which they may combat.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC) 02:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I consider myself a "third wave" radical feminist (although I suppose I may be too old school for some), and the article was still rather silly to me. The concept that the patriarchy and gender binary only came to town with European colonists makes me throw up in my mouth a little. It seems to set out to make a point that should be made about tone policing, but then goes off the deep end even by social justice standards as it starts to advocate that rationality is a oppressive concept (which is actually using the oppressor's definition of "rationality" as being calm and level-headed) and advocating for anarchism and "decolonization", whatever the fuck that means or is supposed to look like. Third-wave feminism is, by my understanding at least, is nothing more than being more mindful of intersectionality and other social issues, at its philosophical core it is not that distinguishable from "second-wave" feminism. That's if you put a lot of stock into the "waves" at all. The issue at play has more to do with the introduction of the Internet and the perpetual race to be the person who says the most "radical" and righteous thing, which used to only happen in closed academic circles where less people could see. Hentropy (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
^ This is probably the best introductory explanation of third wave feminism I have heard.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC) 03:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In fact, the 'patriarchy' is largely the result of the two great disasters, the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, both of which made for larger, more hierarchical societies and, by doing that, put male social instincts at the forefront and sidelined female social instincts. I entirely agree that this is the paper posturing of 1980s academics brought out of the unintelligible prose of minor journals and into the light. It's all about problems with words, so the solution appears to be more and different words, and this is one of the reasons why we haven't had a politically effective left in this country for the past thirty years. And the business about 'marginalization' carries this focus on words and images forward, which is why its reappearance is so dismaying. I'm no Marxist, but a functioning left wing needs a dose of materialism that this sort of posturing puts out of reach. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the patriarchy is a result of any event, it's a part of human nature just as rape and tribalism/war is and has endured between prehistoric man and the agricultural revolution. The basic social order or women being "protected, but subjugated" existed before civilizations and is a result of woman's peculiar ability to have babies, but with so many different peoples and tribes it is hard to generalize. There are some early societies that embraced women as administrators, but it did not become a trend. The industrial revolution and the fall of monarchies did indeed change the game, because under feudalism and despotism your average peasant man and woman did not have more rights than each other. Which is not to say that they were equal. With more social mobility, however, there became a gaping chasm between what men could do in society and what women could do, and the weakly-supported ideologies keeping women from full citizenship could not last forever in a liberal society. I do agree that a true leftist movement in the US largely failed due to it being too confined to the ivory towers, but it can also be blamed on that old nemesis, racism. The white American working class was simply unwilling to accept the academic Marxist ideas of races being united in class struggle, so we got the softer left-wing populism of Wilson that was racist as hell and not the "true" socialism of Debs. Hentropy (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
"Disasters"? Yeah, I hate grocery stores and antibiotics too! I long for the days when you didn't know when or if you'd eat your next meal, and you could die from a little scratch. --Ymir (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm guessing they meant "disaster" strictly in terms of gender roles? Kind of like how German chemist Fritz Haber was a "disaster" by pioneering chemical warfare and the weaponization of chlorine, cyanide, etc., while simultaneously a "savior" through his invention of the Haber-Bosch nitrogen fixation process, a miracle that saved countless lives from hunger by revolutionizing fertilizers and allowing for the kind of prodigious farming and food production we see today.
At least, I hope that's what they meant. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The Neolithic agricultural revolution was indeed a disaster with regard to gender roles. The same phenomenon has actually been observed among captive chimpanzees in zoos. They know where their next meal is coming from reliably, so all of the social hierarchy games that they tend to play are exaggerated. Likewise, agriculture created larger societies and gave a free hand to both status seeking hierarchies and communal violence, and as a result magnified the effects of male instinctual behavior. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Louie Louie[edit]

I'm not entirely sure where that "headline" for the Louie Gohmert news post is coming from. As stupid as his reasoning is, he focuses more on the "we need to encourage both genders #alleducationsmatter" line rather than anything religious.

If it's meant to be a direct quote, PZ Myers already commented on that aspect: no reliable sources actually attribute that quote to him.

There are lots of these lying "news" sites out there that rely on making shit up to stir up interest, because apparently the real idiocy going on in the Republican party is just not enough. Shut them off.

ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WSJ on CERN[edit]

Tagline for the link is terribly misleading. The article addresses how CERN is often a focal point for weirdos and their crankery, but in no way endorses any of it. B4Xiphos (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

John Stossel[edit]

I really don't know why he's complaining. In the thriving free market of cells within his libertarian body, nimble cancer has outcompeted the sluggish and inept cells of his lungs. The invisible hand dictates that he become a nest of tumorous growths. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

-1 That's not funny.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 20:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
[EC] Not really too surprising. He thinks that everything he hates is one ideology, and everything that is good/dear is another, no matter what they actually are or why it's happening. (addendum) It really isn't funny because people like him get heard by people who make decisions, then make the wrong one, so it only gets worse. Look at Sam Brownback. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I thought he died years ago going 200kph down the Japanese freeway. Who knew he was just a boring news guy. Hentropy (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I love how he compares it to airlines. Obviously he hasn't flown Spirit or, after the CEO moved, Frontier. I could see them running your credit card and waiting till it is approved before starting resuscitation. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Who's Been Putting Garbage in the WIGOs?[edit]

I just pulled two of the crankiest stories from WIGO News and WIGO Blogs and put them into the Clog section. I do not suspect they were from the same person, but what the hell? The one yanked from clogs was even about some weird end-times bullshit. BORT (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I posted the Telegraph link because I thought it was interesting but I didn't realize it had anything to do with UKIP.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 04:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't. It's implicitly leaning towards a pro-Brexit PoV, but what it says about the shortcomings of the claim system for agricultural subsidies appears to be valid. I certainly wouldn't call it "full-on, pants-on-head UKIP". As for the Sang Rael thing, it was a drive-by post by a B0N and looks like a standard green ink apocalyptic site. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we had another DBP with some weeping statue crap, which I relocated. My apologies to Owlman; it's not Kipper stuff, but it is Brexit stuff. BORT (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I could tell it leaned toward Brexit but I thought that the claims were valid.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 03:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

He's onto me[edit]

My plan to drain all the power from the sun has been foiled. How did he know about the hidden flux pull-up inducers attached to each solar panel? I carefully hid each and every one as a regular old polycrystaline elements. Curse you David Wolfe! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Mike Adams[edit]

Wow. I just. Wow. What.

For a while, I thought Mike was just in it for the ad revenue and selling supplements and prepper gear to his reader base. But this is... just off the wall. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

He has a very marketable psychosis, and his followers likely have few places to turn for these far beyond pale of crazy beliefs, so he'll get money for being himself till it's unpopular IMHO. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
whats odd about believing in demon infested humans running the CIA ? dont you guys watch SUPERNATURAL ? now hush or you will wake up the Bat of the endtimes. Hamster (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Blaze Marriage Article[edit]

I don't really agree with the article that much, but I'm not sure how it's transphobic. The only relevant line I can find is "It’s crazy. And I mean really crazy, especially now that we’ve started removing body parts in order to ensure that kids don’t spoil our chances of climbing into the next tax bracket." but I think it's fairly obvious from the context that the author is talking about egg preservation, not transfolk. It's still kind of a dumb thing to say, as well as a dumb article in general, but not sure if it's clog worthy. Hentropy (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even realize the egg preservation thing. My bad. I was really pissed off when I posted and thought the content was chuckle worthy. Feel free to take it down.

On Christians and "Hitler 2"[edit]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/7/11174064/do-christians-really-favor-trump He doesn't have the sort of support some think he does apparently.

Bristake[edit]

About the people who made a protest vote to Brexit before Brexit actually happened and now are really regretting their decision. Why do I get the feeling that we'll be seeing people saying similar things here about Trump? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

How did they make a protest vote? Weren't there only two options?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC) 18:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
They voted pro-brexit to "send a message". Castaigne-like thinking. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not! I believe in pragmatic voting only. "Sending a message" is idealism, and I frankly despise idealism in all its forms. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
there seems to be little you dont despise. You must be fun at parties AMassiveGay (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
There is much in the way of media I like. Books, movies, music...right now I'm very much enjoying the collection and dissection of classic ghost stories in the tradition of M. R. James, but no one here has any interest in that at all. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@ikanreed Well, if they voted for Brexit then they must have agreed with it in part; the only thing I could imagine they would be "protesting" would be austerity, immigration, or trade deals. I mean, if I voted for Trump then I would have to believe that he would fix our trade deals, immigration policy, or economy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC) 04:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Jennifer "Christy Sheats is a Martyr for Jesus" Mayers[edit]

There is zero possibility this is not a parodist. Why are sane people allowing themselves to be trolled?

From her post about why Nicole Brown Simpson had it coming: This applies to my own life, as I feel the need to share the one and only time that my husband and I have had a disagreement. Our youngest daughter was just a baby and I guess maybe I was aloof that day and was feeding her improperly. The bottle was at the wrong angle and she became gassy and fussy. My husband disapproved and struck me across the face in our kitchen. Our two oldest daughters were aware of what happened and I do regret that somewhat.

However, I immediately apologized to my husband and asked him to forgive me. And he did. I should have been watching more closely. I should have done what he asked of me. I should have been a perfect mother. And on that particular day, I strayed. And I deserved the consequence that I received.

All her posts are textbook Poe. Gimme a break. Whoover (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Climate Change[edit]

Truth or Fiction. Robert Scribbler put on his blog that the "Wrecked Jet Stream Now Runs From Pole-to-Pole". Now, one might dismiss this as pretty Pseudoscience that puts actual climate scientists in the toilet. However, a Mr. Paul Beckwith from the University of Ottawa, according to this washington post article picked up on Mr. Scribbler's blog post and decided to investigate himself and published a youtube video about it. After hearing critics, Mr. Scribbler posted updates that "However, the inference taken from my article was somewhat misconstrued. Stating that a global climate emergency due to loss of seasonality is currently upon us and is far-reaching. The message in my article is that the situation appears to be worsening and that this particular global climate crisis may be something that we’ll face over the coming years and decades." Also, Professor Beckwith has added an update on his youtube video that reports he was misquoted by the post in that he says "Unfortunately, the Washington Post article erroneously attributed my "climate emergency" claim to one jet stream behaviour in one video." So, the question is, is this a clog or a good blog? Psuedoscience or sound science (considering the level of peer review is in question here).— Unsigned, by: Sascholl / talk / contribs 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Turkish coup conspiracies[edit]

Should the conspiracies about the coup in Turkey being false flag go to Clogosphere or the Blogosphere? On one hand they're unsubstancied and unfounded conspiracies, but on the other hand Erdogan is Islamist-friendly and became increasinly authoritarian in the months leading up to the coup (after all he did shut down the largest newspapper in Turkey)? Tuxer (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

lol @ reddit[edit]

Anyone who thinks there's a biologically identifiable marker that you could use to identify the "bottom 90%" of intelligence with time, effort, and any modern lab equipment you wanted is most definitely in that bottom 90%. We can scarcely identify any genes that predict intelligence at all, in spite of gene sequencing, much less in a way we could engineer a plague to specifically eradicate some arbitrary slice of.

This is over and above the extremely stupid ethics of their ideas. Pragmatically, the reactos are just completely and utterly full of shit and it floors me the irony of talking about intelligence while knowing so little about it. They take a flying leap from "IQ appears to be pretty heritable" to "obviously g is so simple to identify a bacteria could do it" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to SlateStarCodex! Here's your unfortunate historical connotations of the otherwise-wonderful word "eugenics" - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Bioengineering is magic, just like computers. Haven't you watched the documentary Jurassic Park? This is why GMOs are evil, because Monsanto will inject sterilization genes into our food! --Ymir (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Blockchain garbage[edit]

Corporations thrive on secrecy, duplicity, and obfuscation. A blockchain eliminates all of those things. They don’t want it, and any corporation relying on a blockchain would be at a disadvantage against those who aren't. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The actual objection to blockchains is that they solve made-up problems that wouldn't exist without them, and the few advantages they give, they do a bad job of. They are bad and useless technology. The closest to useful the vaporware "blockchain" products for businesses come is being able to quickly cryptographically verify that the transaction record is the one you think it is - and you get that with anything with a Merkle tree, e.g. just putting it into git (which is super-fast) - David Gerard (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The impression I'm getting here is that, at it's most benign, a blockchain is a Rube-Goldberg implementation of open-book accountingWikipedia's W.svg. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
With the addition of a libertarian's understanding of human nature, and that if you make a "trustless" system it attracts, like flies to shit, people who can't be fucking trusted - David Gerard (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The Alt Right supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist[edit]

*Sound of Europe shattering into a hundred nations*

And lo did the Mighty White Civilization devolve into dozens of tiny, weak, bickering nations. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So let all of Europe Balkanize into tiny, homogenous states with few resources. Since the alt-right opposes the EU, on anti-"multicultural" grounds, and would like to see tougher border restrictions you would end up with WW1 all over again.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
If only ethnic groups people lived in nice neat separate but contiguous blocks. And didn't intermarry. Europe already has some ridiculously complex borders, e.g. between Italy and Switzerland or Belgium and the Netherlands, that depend on free movement and absence of customs barriers to function. Annquin (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The thing that really gets me is how rabidly atheist some of the alt-right is, but how freely they also accept the idea that Christianity is an intractable part of their identity. It's bizzare. "Feminism is YOUR RELIGION, but Vox Dei, a literal theorcrat is okay by me". I mean, everyone knows that when extreme right wing groups get power the first thing they do is start arresting and killing their allies who differ in small subtle ways, but it's weird how none of them see this in each other. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
^^This. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

THE SUN DOES NOT EXIST[edit]

Who found this? It's AWESOME. (It seems to be parody - he has a page on how Canada was behind 9/11, with speculation on whether the Towers even existed or not!) Will Drumpf be revealing the TRUTH about the sun conspiracy and Crooked Hillary's part in it at his next rally? Will Conservapedia save us from the solar lie machine? What is this horrible light shining in my window, REALLY? Pere Ubu (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Podesta brothers accused of being involved in the disappearance/abduction of Madeleine McCann from Portugal.[edit]

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-bombshell-multiple-reports-tie-clintons-podesta-brothers-to-child-abduction-case/34348/ An alt-right troll just posted this on a discussion board I use. I thought i'd leave it here as i'm unsure how to add it to the WIGO: Clogs section myself.(could someone who knows what they're doing please do so. Thanks.) not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 13:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a part of what is now being dubbed as "pizzagate". It seems to be a conspiracy theory started by Trump supporting alt-right types on 4chan and reddit. The BBC today ran this article on the subject. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38156985

I think rationalwiki needs an article debunking pizzagate asap, or perhaps added as a new section to the Alex Jones article, as he has been ranting about it a lot. not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 22:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be just another entry for the listWikipedia's W.svg, but it turns out pizzagateWikipedia's W.svg is already taken. Oops. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Bill Maher reveals himself to be a reactionary asshole by stating that Trump will rid the US of "PC culture and Islam apologists"[edit]

I wouldn't call him a reactionary. In fact, this article most certainly deserves a spot in the clogospere page. I mean this blogger just labelled one of the most progressive political pundits out there a reactionary, based on a reverse Broken clock moment. As for Maher, well, this position, which seems to be one taken by some proponents of liberalism, including, Sam Harris, is profoundly a stupid one. It's like, "hey grandson, sorry about the melting ice caps and rising sea levels. But look on the bright side, we sure showed all those PC police, SJW, and Islam apologists.". "Hey daughter, sorry you have to see that unwanted baby to term, but hey, at least you don't have to worry about political correctness anymore. Trump sure showed them!". "Hey, buddy, sorry you can't bring your Muslim wife into the country. But, hey, Trump really gave it to those Islam apologists, huh?". "Hey, guys and gals in 2030, sorry about the conservative majority Supreme Court, but on the bright side, no more PC, regressive, SJWs! What's that you say? They're still around?" --Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC) −

  1. Do you actually think they favour climate change denial, pro life and xenophobia? You would be deeply misguided if you did, and yet you present as if this was the case. Why is that?
  2. "Bill Maher reveals himself to be a reactionary asshole [...] I wouldn't call him a reactionary" . Such things still astonish me. I mean, what the heck!? ~ Aneris 15:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
To your first point, it would seem that once again, this almost uncontrollable urge of yours to leap to the defence of every and any New Atheist as far as criticism of Islam is concerned has led you to misread another comment. I was clearly poking fun at the cognitive dissonance of some, like Maher, who think Trump's victory is some kind of victory against political correctness. You're probably a student of that school of thought, aren't you? Also, you seem to have missed the part where I referred to him as "one of the most progressive political pundits out there". I also explicitly say that I wouldn't call him a reactionary. I also state - EXPRESSLY - that that article belongs in the clogosphere. But somehow you seem to have missed all of that. As for your second point, I don't even know what the hell that is about and I don't really care.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought you were calling him that, and then saying the opposite in the first line. I didn't see that you refered to the URL of the article (the headline is different). My uncontrollable urge to defend New Atheists obviously depends on an uncontrollable urge of people like you, that make defending them necessary. I'd say I jump on every fifth or so opportunity. ~ Aneris 17:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Besides being an anti-vaxxer, Maher has always been an Islamaphobe. If you watched his interview with Obama, if displays a profound stupidity when he can't even comprehend Obama's idea that there have been evangelicals who were scientists. On Harris, well he has proven himself to be an intellectual coward and has always misunderstood world religions. He pulls stats out if his ass and whitewashes state crimes. I have no respect for either's intellect.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember watching Religulous a few years ago, expecting a humorous deconstruction of religion(i.e. one of the softest targets in the history of soft targets for humor), and just got utterly depressed at how facile and childish his attacks were. No witty banter, just interviews of the format Maher: [Stawman], Subject: I think that's not quite right. Maher: [leading question], Subject: [doesn't fall for it], then cut to a monologue piling stereotypes. It was sad. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I ever saw his movie but I have heard that it oversimplifies, at best, the comparison between Horus and Jesus.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Well like many liberals, Maher was just trying to find a silver lining after a day full of suck. And there are many liberals who are either lying to themselves thinking it won't be as bad as it will be or trying to dig up some 1980s quote of Trump's proving he's a deep cover liberal. So I think we have to cut him some slack. On the other hand, the left does have a problem with Islam. Not all criticism of a religion is bigotry against the people holding said religion. Saying Christianity is a stupid religion that has brought the world mostly evil is not bigoted towards Christians. And yes, the left has focused too much on the concerns of urban upper class people who really do give a crap about whether Starbucks uses the right pronouns. There are a lot of people in America who have real economic problems and I think it behooves the political left to address the economic hurt of many Americans instead of having esoteric debates about Wonder Woman's milk glands. I am not saying there is any justification to vote Trump, but the problem in politics is that being right is not enough. Bill Clinton may have actually had an economic and crime policy that ended up hurting poor and African-American people, but he could go there and "I feel your pain" the pants off of voters and he played the sax like no other. You might not remember it, but some even called him "the first black president". Talking about pronouns and bathrooms may be important and it may be right, but it sure as hell is not winning any votes. Worzelpete (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

So at what point in between NAFTA and the financial deregulation did Bubba start to feel the working classes' pain? Also, don't whitewash the Clintons' racism as a "might" when their policies and remarks were clearly directed against minorities in order to regain the racist, white vote. On another note, I always find it funny that the solution to the problems with the Left is more purging; the calls for purging are always directed against those who have very little influence like those who might be "overprotective" of minorities instead of the neoliberals who currently have power.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice way to frame the argument, everyone who shows concern that annoying PC types are giving fuel to Trumpism is now a de facto purity troll racist apparently. You do know that the "overprotective" of minorities types often don't seem to actually do much good for minorities, instead they just seem to piss off a bunch of people and give ammunition to bigots. And there seems to be a lot of overlap between the neo-liberals and the "overprotective" types, passing de-regulation on the one hand while trying to protect their radical flank by indulging in a little Idenity politics that seemingly gives a tiny amount to minorities instead of actually helping them by, I dunno, winning and then providing medicare funding for, say, sex change operations free of cost for transgender people as part of a general package of medicaid expansion, for instance. ClothCoat (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea how you ended up interpreting my statement as framing people as racist. I was addressing Worzel's claim that Bill Clinton's policies "may have actually had an economic and crime policy that ended up hurting poor and African-American people" as blatantly false since the Clintons' purposely tried to get the racist, White vote.
My point about purging is that there seems to be this undefined idea of "regressive leftist" who supposedly have so much power that they are hurting the Left as a whole; in this case, this group is "overprotective" of minorities but no examples are brought up of this overprotection so I wouldn't know whether I agree with Worzel or not. I can infer from this statement by Worzel, "Talking about pronouns and bathrooms may be important and it may be right, but it sure as hell is not winning any votes.", that I would not since this is purposely meant to minimize and abandon oppression felt by trans people. If you are going to purge from the Left for being destructive, then purge those who continue to defend and endorse neoliberls who are already in power.
Lastly, I agree with you that neoliberals always seem to use identity politics as a form of appeasement to minorities in order to mask their class war against them. They scare these minorities with propaganda about the other side being oppressive which, even if true, seeks to inspire minorities to empower them. I have posted blogs on this in the WIGOs before so I am not sure why you think I am in this supposed class of people.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
At what point did I say Bill Clinton actually ever really felt anybody's pain? And remember that the crime bills of the Clinton era were actually popular among many African-Americans (don't ask me why). But Bill Clinton was/is a damn smooth talker. Hillary is many things, but she is not a smooth talker. It is high time the left start talking about economics. And they should not stop any time soon. I know it is hard to say "people are hurting economically" when you are "in power" (most of the shit hurting people was passed on the state level, where the repugnant party reigns), but right now is the time for the Democrats to become aggressively populist on economics. I mean, what do we have to lose? And yes, colorblind populism a la Bernie Sanders might cost a few votes among African Americans, because sometimes it really is about race and not economics, but the fact of the matter is that most poor white folks can get behind colorblind populism, but not any message of "everything ultimately is about race". Even though everything ultimately is about race, economics or gender and often a combination of any of those three. So to sum up:
  1. Don't throw LGBT and so on under the bus, but don't pretend it is the only issue in the world
  2. Economics, economics, economics
  3. Colorblind populism
  4. Oppose everything Trump says or does, it worked for the repugnant party, it might work for us.
If you find fault with this, please speak. Worzelpete (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
First off, you stated that Bill Clinton, "could go there and "I feel your pain" the pants off of voters", which I interpreted as a show of empathy from him. Though African Americans supported the crime bill, that doesn't make it right; Bill Clinton also used it to encourage racist White voters. Secondly, Bernie Sanders didn't run a "colorblind campaign" because he had a racial justice platform even if it wasn't radical. I never stated that identity politics is more important than economics but that doesn't mean there aren't laws you can pass to bring up an identity. I disagree that you must run a colorblind campaign to win or that such a campaign is necessary in order to concentrate on economics. In the US, this would be contradictory since the proletariat is overwhelmingly non-White and racial injustice has long been intertwined with racial oppression.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "reactionary" is increasingly becoming a left-wing analogue to "SJW" as used by wingnut types. It often seems to mean "anyone who disagrees with me on two or more issues". Remind you of anyone? ClothCoat (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, a tone policing argument I can get behind. That's new. Especially since Trump is likely to be stocking the executive branch with actual reactionaries soon. And almost certainly actual white supremacists. And hypothetically actual neonoazis(though I haven't heard of that one yet).
Things wrong with Maher: he's a shitty skeptic who buys into pseudoscientific nonsense, he's a shitty liberal who tends to buy into a lot of imperialistic policies, and he's not exactly a great comedian either. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Cloth I disagree with Bill Maher on vaccines, GMOs, germ theory, alternative medicine, Islam, and economics so, by your logic, can I call him a reactionary? Regardless of this, I see no reason why anyone should not point out someone's beliefs for being reactionary when they clearly are, even if you agree with them on most issues; I don't see how I am even using the word "reactionary" incorrectly. If Maher was saying thatTrump will rid the US of Jewish apologists, would you not criticize that statement was reactionary?
@Ikanreed You seem to be arguing that Maher is not as bad as Trump so, therefore, he shouldn't be called a reactionary. I don't see why we shouldn't see Maher as not as dangerous since he has a large platform to spout his views while his opponents do not. By your logic, is calling him a bullshit artist for his pseudoscientific beliefs unfair because it isn't as bad as Jenny McCarthy's?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, I know trans folk are hurting and their problems are very real and important. But politics is not the same as social activism. If you are a social activist, you can dedicate all your time and energy to preaching about a single subject, to get the base riled up and/or convince those on the fence. But in politics you gotta get elected. And when you are talking more about how the first female President is a symbol and how gay marriage is a good thing, you might leave some warm fuzzy feeling in the hearts of those who'll vote for you regardless, but you will not get anybody on the fence to vote for you.

For years, millions of Americans - most of them white and male - voted against their own best economic interest. Now some of them do that because they honestly believe that some day they are going to become rich, but many of them do it because "dose dam libruhls are so annoying". If you talk about economic issue and you never stop talking about them, they don't have any time to get annoyed with your pet causes. Because frankly, if you do not believe in or do not care about any given pet cause - no matter how worthy - hearing someone drone on about it is annoying as fuck. And another thing we should draw from this election: Being there in person is the best campaigning you can do. Yes, doing fifty trillion rallies where you say basically the same is boring, but people have incredibly short attention spans. The only people who listen to an entire speech of any politician on Youtube are PolSci majors or people who vote for you anyways.

Most people will just listen to the soundbites coming out of their preferred Bullshit machine, be it Fox News, Breitbart or some clickbait bullshit on Facebook. I mean "You didn't build that", there's context and background, if a statement is used to bludgeon you over the head someone else made that happen. But you also made that happen yourself. Why? Because you were not out there talking to people enough. If I say to a friend who leans the other way politically "Hey let's go to that rally" he says: mh, okay, let's at least hear what they got to say. And once they hear a thought out argument tailored to them, they get to thinking. I for one think we should even bring back the whistle stop tours.

Flying from New York to Miami and from there to LA may make sense in "covering a great area", but if you tour the country in a bus or train and stop every fifty miles, you get to breath in the feel of the area, you (or your staff) see and hear what the people say and think and you can much more effectively target your message. Of course you can go to Iowa and promise BS about corn like everybody does, but what about talking to people in Flint? Or treating Philadelphia like more than a cheese-steak photo-op? Of course the national popular vote would make campaigning a lot easier because a voe in Maine would count as much as one in California and one in New York would count as much as one in Cheyenne, but it is what it is. Campaigning even where you don't think you can win might even energize supporters that turn into members of state legislatures, that in turn run for congress from their state.

Because if we can learn one thing from the repugnant party it is activism. Their causes may be silly and they may be wrong, but instead of liking shit on FB, they went to town halls and bored their politicians to death, they called in about guns and gays and gravy and they got what they wanted for the most part. Yes, the system is rigged in favor of the repugnant party, but every system in history was rigged in favor of those in power. That did not stop change from happening, did it? And of course the most important thing is to stop Trump by all means necessary. The "Let's see what he does." and the "If Trump succeeds America succeeds" are not only bad politics, they are dangerous. Worzelpete (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Try breaking up paragraphs with this nifty template {{parabreak}} which you simply throw into your wall of text (don't add manual paragraphs). Alternatively, make them manually, but then you have to add the same amount of indent-colons on each paragraph (this can be annoying when you have to adjust it after an edit conflict, for instance). ~ Aneris 17:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
As Tolkien said "the tale grew in the telling"... Worzelpete (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Owlman's entry[edit]

Are you saying pointing out where Russian propaganda inserts fake "news" into the conversation is evil? Maybe you should take a look at your prioridades, compañero. Worzelpete (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No. The organization has no proof that there any connections and they themselves are anonymous.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Washington Post has a tortured relationship with the truth of its own,what with their own Richard Cohen claiming that " Only a fool – or possibly a Frenchman – could conclude" that Iraq was not a dangerous state in possession of WMDs and intent on using them. How is it 'rational' to take a completely anonymous source with transparently partisan intentions at face value,as an indisputable purveyor of facts? Are we supposed to discard all of these sources as 'fake news' without bothering to see what any of them have to say? Including not only the obviously crazy ones (infowars) but some of the more well regarded ones as well (IE wikileaks?) I agree that naively accepting sources that lack credibility is a bad thing,but that very principle prevents us from accepting the WaPo article,as well!209.179.88.251 (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC) 19:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we need concrete proof of the Russian connection before claiming it as the Truth. Also let me quote Aristotle: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." But here comes the but (hehe): I think however that WikiLeaks lost a lot of its credibility with the "white noise" machine claims and other dubious statements. In Additon i consider it plausible that the Russians have their hand in that Buisness. (It is plausible not proven or true kay? )--Benaresh (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Saddam had to be toppled. The only problem was that the US was unwilling or unable to ensure his replacement would be better. Worzelpete (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
White Man's Burden, eh? London Grump (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)