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?/Archive13

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 30 October 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, (new)(back)

Daily Kos laughs at coal miners who lose health insurance[edit]

One of the joys of reading Conservapedia is tracing back some of their MPR articles, through the partisan secondary and tertiary sources they cite, back to the original event or news article. Much fun!

One of the joys of visiting Rationalwiki is the balanced, rational approach to news and information. Much fun too.

So what the fuck is a Conservapedia MPR item doing on a Rationalwiki WIGO page? Why wouldn't the poster link the original Daily Kos article, an article that anyone with a reading age of 13 could see was ironic? Why did he/she/ze choose to link to a partisan think tank instead?

Rationalwiki is a broad church but there's no excuse for this kind of disingenuous bullshit. London Grump (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The WIGOs are basically Owlman's personal linkstorm. What were you expecting? By the way, I'm totally with the Daily Kos here. Enough Democrat self-flagellating. If people vote for a party for whom this kind of policy is front and center and actually fucks them, it is 100% on them. They're fucking adults. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The Left gets blamed for everything that went wrong. Now i think it got its entry in WIGO Clogosphere for exactly missing the point of the Daily Kos Article.--Benaresh (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
In what way is the article is the Daily Kos article ironic? I highly doubt Markos is being ironic since he wrote how great markets were for the Cato Institute. Oh, and how I am not surprised the racist NewFrenchHotness hopes people lose their healthcare because they didn't vote for a warmonger. Why don't you tell me again why the party that authorized torture isn't fascist.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Uhhh...maybe I shouldn't be dipping my toe into this drama, but Dems turning up their nose at working class folks is part of the reason we're in this damn mess in the first place. Plus, the writer of the article got a whole lot of heat for it in the comment section. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Try to ignore NFH, she he is mostly a troll and I probably shouldn't have even engaged. Nonetheless, this idea that somehow Markos is being ironic is bizarre; I don't see any proof of this. Clearly, as MNIM pointing out, his readers didn't get the joke. It certainly hasn't ceased to amaze me how many liberals have reduced this election to "idiots are running things now" since they were the morons who lost to them but classism, and racism for that matter, is certainly inherent to their meritocracy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Classism I can definitely grok, but explain to me how racism and meritocracy figure into this please? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Well normally the poorest people in a society are the most disadvantaged race. This is especially true in countries that have been successful settled by colonizers. When Americans think about the South, they usually think of an uneducated White monolith. Through the idea of a meritocracy, liberals will justify White working class suffering by suggesting that they actively chose to be uneducated instead of them being unable to afford higher education. Through this ideology, these people deserve to lose their benefits because "they are adults" but taking these benefits away always hurts racial minorities the most because they are the poorest. This classist BS is what justified the liberal support for Bill Clinton's welfare 'reform' which "ended welfare as we know it"; that legislation ended up disproportionately affecting Black people but they were deemed to be collateral because they were probably welfare queens. When you deny the poor free education, you end up denying more Black people than White people a chance at a higher education; when you reject universal healthcare, more Black people will go without health care than White people. This meritocracy that liberals will tell you only needs to be reformed in order to work was the same meritocracy that rewarded Trump, a lying scam artist, his entire life; it would make no difference if Trump was a Black man.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah okay. You're talking about centrist Dems, the liberals-in-name-only that broke the party's back and the very same ones that are running around like headless chickens and pointing at white women gender traitors, the Russians, Bernie, Jill Stein, something, anything but their savior Hillary Clinton and their own weaknesses. They're all dead weight that needs to shape up or ship out. Even Republicans had the self awareness to do an autopsy after the 2012 loss, these chumps are spending energy deflecting and denying their weaknesses instead of, you know, examining these weaknesses and fixing them. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm a man, for one thing, and I don't see why you bring up racism in this. The truth is that there comes a time where the reasonable people have to stop bending over backwards to placate petty, reactionary assholes who'll cut their noses to spite their face. These people had a choice: they chose to massively vote for people whose stated policies would directly, by simple cause and effect, lead to this kind of thing. You vote for GOP, you get the GOP treatment. You choose to fuck over minorities by your vote because the only thing that matters is your own ass, pity isn't something you deserve.
Goodpost.gif Seriously. Saying that white poor working class got ignored by the Dem's in the election isn't quite factual, there was a Blog post about this a while back. Also i get that those very poor white people felt desperate and left out, but voting Trump?
A Third Party Vote would have shown that neither GOP nor Dem's adressed the Issues you cared about in a meaningfull manner. Also as Owlman Post described the problem with "Liberals" we also need to adress this false moderation a lot of people describe to. From here it looks like you had the choice between Center right(Clinton) and Far right(Trump).--Benaresh (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay okay, what we really need to do is not reach out to Republicans that consistently vote Republican. That might very well be a lost cause. But, but, seven million people that normally vote Dem stayed home and about a hundred thousand flipped. Those people we can win back, definitely. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@BoN, who I assume is NFH. First, I apologize for misgendering you. Secondly, race runs intersectional to class issues. Though Obamacare was largely bunk, its removal will harm Blacks more than Whites. Tho reduce this to "Whites deserve it for voting the way they did" removes any opposition and creates a cudgel against Blacks that says "Blacks deserve it for not voting". It is a false narrative to say Trump won on the backs of the White working class. To reduce Trump's rise to mere racism is problematic; Obama managed to win many states Clinton lost without a problem. This narrative that "reasonable people" lost out is arrogance; reasonable people don't cover their eyes and pretend the other side has no legitimacy, reasonable people vote to better their lives.
@Benaresh A third party vote is nice but in the US a protest vote means very little. I think Americans have come to that conclusions since the two main parties never seem to change; in my precinct, there were only three positions that had a third-party candidate: comptroller, Governor, and POTUS and two of those positions weren't winnable. This idea that the Dems didn't abandon the working class is ludicrous; Thomas Frank explains how the Democrats moved away from working-class politics in his book, Listen, Liberal. On the issue for why the white working class voted for Trump, The Guardian had a great series not too long ago explaining that they believed Trump would smash the system.
@MNIM The problem is, the Democrats don't want those people back.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Well they better get their heads out of their asses or they'll lose in 2018, 2020 and beyond. Jesus Christ. Is there no hope left for any kind of fairness for my generation and the next? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail trying to trash Snopes and the Forbes article[edit]

While the way the Daily Mail is trying to discredit Snopes is shameless, the linked Forbes article raises valid objections to Snopes' lack of transparency and hiring of people who ran for partisan offices. Perhaps the Forbes article could go on the Blogosphere? — Unsigned, by: 66.31.161.240 / talk / contribs

It really doesn't. It claims such from the guy saying he can't talk to him about a matter completely irrelevant to the content of Snopes, then claims this is evidence Snopes is untrustworthy. That is, it's literally the same attack as the DM article - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

What is this page for?[edit]

Are you saying The Intercept is the clogosphere here, or is it the Washington Post? FAIR.org or the Daily Kos? Snopes is part of the clogosphere, really? Nobody can tell whether to vote some of these entries up or down. It's all very confusing. ?? (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just... wow... I'm speechless about how many nutjob bells this clog manages to hit[edit]

I stumbled on this sub page of Christipedia while digging for some confirmation of Kent Hovind's teaching record that wasn't based on his affidavit and boy does it have all the clog hallmarks. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That damn website nearly crashed Safari and gave me an awful headache! Screen-grabbed and posted to Webshites. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Odd glitch[edit]

So I added a thing on Rockefeller being called a eugenicist, and suddenly a whole bunch of info got deleted. I hope to god that this glitch can be fixed. I didn't mean to throw out a bunch of stuff. The living oxymoron (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries, friend. Fixed it for ya. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so very much. I'm sorry if I caused any kind of panic among the staff. The living oxymoron (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Not at all! Heck, we're just happy that something's going on around these parts. Think of RW as a digital old folks' home; you'll get the picture. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"N*gger"[edit]

We're all rational (d...does that trigger the drinking game?) adults here, can't we just have the word "nigger" without the most unnecessary and inefficient censorship imaginable, especially when it's in a quote about how the person saying it is bad? Do we REALLY need "n*gger", as though that's somehow better and an impenetrable code that disguises the power of the base word? Hell, reading the linked article, he doesn't even say "nigger" he says "N-Word". Unless Right Wing Watch is censoring him in the quote without saying it. X Stickman (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Its the kind of shit the Daily Mail does to protect the servants who might read the newspaper as they bring it with your breakfast. Even if you're not into the whole appropriating the power of language thing, context is key.
What next? Lady bits or front bottom for vagina? London Grump (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
i think you will find the correct term is lady garden. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as Wayne Allyn Root appears to have said "the n-word" and Right Wing Watch uses "the n-word" I've changed it. Christopher (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Female The Doctor?[edit]

So, I'm not all that much of a Whovian, and haven't seen anything after Matt Smith, but isn't it cannon that a reincarnation doesn't have to be male? -- Onychoprion (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Definitely canon. It was speculative for quite a while in the tv canon, though I could have sworn I remember it being discussed in one of the book series pre-revival. The JohnSimm!Master regenerated into a female incarnation played by Michelle Gomez. There was also The General from the 50th anniversary (played by Ken Bones) and the end of last year's season - who stated that the Ken Bones incarnation was his first male one and who's next was female. Daev (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I think something funny about this is that a lot of female fans, and there are a lot of female Whovians, will be upset about this because the last few doctors have been nerd-girl sex symbols. But it gets spun by certain interest groups to say "you see there! the nerds are working with the patriarchy". Though, perhaps the British fandom is more of a boys' club. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Upvote question[edit]

Do we upvote articles here based on how stupid, crazy and entertaining they are? The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat! 23:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

In Clogosphere, generally yes. But can fail due to anger at the text convincing others it's bad and voting down just because. Here's a WIGO(W) example, since I have no Clog examples:
  1. User A hears there's been a possible terrorist attack in France.
  2. User A writes up a sarcastic WIGO about how funny it'll be when American Liberals find out a Muslim did it rather than it being an accident.
  3. WIGO gets massive vote down due to User A being an asshole.
  4. User B, who isn't an asshole, fixes the text so it's about a terrorist attack in France and nothing else.
  5. WIGO still gets massive vote down since newbies mistakenly think it's been voted down because people are showing how they're angry the attack happened.

That's generally the kind of reasoning behind strong vote-downs. If it's a weak vote-down (e.g. a -2 rating and only like 10 people actually voting) because they don't think it's a relevant news piece; thought the Blog was crappy or that the Clog wasn't actually that crazy. So, in conclusion: If we're supposed to laugh, be jovial. If it's serious, be serious.- Forerunner (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is still relevant now, three months later. Take "Dear white people, you're never discriminated against so shut up. The irony is astounding.". The article linked to in the first sentence is good stuff: provocative and makes a valid point. The second sentence sounds like one of the snowflakes reacting in the comments section. Do I vote up for the article or down for the snowflake snark? London Grump (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I've changed it to make it belong in the clogosphere and changed my downvote to an upvote, the downvotes from other people stay though. Christopher (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
What a piss-poor bit of ranting. Yes, clearly Tawana Brawley, the Duke lacrosse case, and the Jena Six nonsense never happened. And since the tendency is for white people to have advantages, it is clearly impossible for individual white people to ever experience discrimination (I was absolutely the subject of explicitly race-based harassment, it's only anecdotal but illustrative of the micro-level things that can happen). If I, as a white man, ever wrote something starting with "Hey black people", it would bring about appropriate condemnation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Guardian staffers entry[edit]

"More molestation in the media: four Guardian staffers are accused of sexual misconduct. Sources? Why, Milo and Brietbart."
I have two main problems with this entry:
1. The commentary seems to suggest the allegations are illegitimate because of the (admittedly crap) source used. Even if it wasn't the intention, it comes across like we're dismissing the allegations. Also, better sources such as Buzzfeed have covered this. @LeftyGreenMario, since you added the commentary, can you clarify?
2. I originally re-wrote the section but realised it doesn't really belong in the "clogosphere".
If my assessment is correct, should this entry be deleted, edited or moved? CowHouse (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I also think Buzzfeed is a little biased but the moment things like Brietbart and Milo gleefully seize on it, I always get my guard up. I feel there is always a catch when those two "report", moreso than other biased sources, like they have a consistent track record of deception. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Buzzfeed's not perfect, but they don't have a track record of deception and they're not alt-right. I doubt they would corroborate this story if it was fake. The fact that Breitbart and Milo will gleefully publicise stories like this if the allegations involve anyone left of centre doesn't necessarily make the allegations illegitimate (e.g. their coverage of Weinstein). Again, I don't think it was your intention to delegitimise the allegations but it can be interpreted that way.
Since the entry has a vote of -10 right now, would you object to simply deleting it? CowHouse (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The notion that all accusers in these matters have automatic legitimacy and credibility is dangerous nonsense. Right now we're confronted with an invitation to all sorts of people with all sorts of agendas to revisit and revise their memories. The motive behind circulating all of these allegations is to do maximum career and political damage. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I trust Buzzfeed more than the other two though eh, I was skeptical of the allegations at first but all these allegations are making me so worn and jaded. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
It was amazing how Gillibrand gleefully squawked about calling one of her constituents a serial rapist, yet suddenly rediscovered due process when one of her buddies stood accused. So too did Franken, who's done plenty to try to remove 5th and 6th Amendment protections until it was him. These things exist for a reason, Catharine MacKinnon's bizarre rants about this notwithstanding. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Policy on removals?[edit]

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

the BBC is discriminating based on race for an internship per Rascism at the BBC - This internship is only open to candidates from a black, Asian or non-white ethnic minority background.. Is this not notable? And if it is not notable, how is it not notable --101.181.55.194 (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You can undo my edit if you want, but your entry will probably get down voted to death (by the way, it's spelled "racism"). For the record, are you a fan of Jordan B. Peterson? CowHouse (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure why not --101.181.55.194 (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
If you like him, why are you adding this to the clogosphere page? It is meant to be for egregious posts/editorials/videos. CowHouse (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I really don't think this is racism. I'd assume they're opening a position to a minority ethnicity/race but they're not necessarily denying opportunities in general. It seems like just this job slot, they're more interested in finding applicants from those minorities. But again, I'm sure there's a reason behind it and I'd like to know. Knee-jerking and accusing the BBC of racism, however, is not helpful and is jumping to conclusions. That'll be the reason it'll be downvoted, not because people think anti-white racism is acceptable. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The job position was clearly targeted at someone from a minority background. That just happens to mean non-white in the UK. I very much doubt the BoN who added this would complain about racism if a country that isn't majority-white did the same thing (e.g. a Chinese broadcaster was looking to hire non-Chinese people for the sake of inclusivity). CowHouse (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree the implication that all entries should be more than just a headline or description of the clog. The Twitter entry on Trump supporters I added, for instance, doesn't need additional comment; I let the words speak for themselves and let people come to their own interpretation and reaction; less is more here. As for others, some statements are indeed not as clear if it's crazy or not, along with the vagueness of the upvote / downvote system, and that has been an issue for quite a while. I do think some need commentary, and this isn't exclusive to Clogosphere: this entry, for instance, just regurgitated the headline and my editing and specifying the subject in the headline, I hope is far more helpful. The rule is this, when the clarity of the "WTF" is doubt, use commentary, but otherwise, quote plainly the crazy words. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Good point. Certain entries do not require commentary. I still think it's bad practice to use headlines. They are often clickbait, sensationalised and not a fair representation of the article as a whole. Reactionaries often quote headlines without reading the actual article and it's a big pet peeve of mine. For example. a BoN added this article: "It's OK to be white: how Fox News is helping spread neo-Nazi propaganda". This was the BoN's entry: "Apparently it's not OK to be white and Fox News is spreading neo-national socialist propaganda - according to Newsweek". The article points out that the whole campaign was in fact propaganda, and says "it's ok to be white" is "an ostensibly benign statement":
  • Like many other trolling campaigns that have emerged in the era of President Donald Trump, “It’s Okay to Be White” started on the imageboard site 4chan, a favorite online hub for young, white males who consider themselves part of the so-called alt-right movement. Anonymous users of that site posted a “game plan” urging people to hang “It’s Okay to Be White” signs on college campuses in an attempt to bait people into an overreaction against an ostensibly benign statement. As one anonymous 4chan user envisioned it, media outlets would go “completely berserk” after the signs were discovered, revealing what the alt-right perceives as the media's anti-white agenda.
Nobody who read the article could have came to the conclusion that the BoN did. They could only come to that conclusion if they had only read the headline. CowHouse (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@CowHouse I myself try to avoid copy-pasting headlines (though I think I've done it before) especially if the headlines aren't too descriptive and I especially try to include catches in the article if there are any. I'm aware that headlines aren't even written by the author of the article, it's someone else instead. As for that BoN entry, that's the one I downvoted because, as you said, Newsweek is correct about the "It's Okay To Be White" being white supremacist: check It's Okay To Be White article. The entry itself is a knee-jerk and absolutely not appropriate for a clog. Oh, and when it comes to entries, I also try to avoid being too lengthy too. They take up space and they don't look good. Brevity is key here. I do agree that the entry should be removed because it's just not well-thought out and will probably be downvoted to oblivion. In fact, I think there was concern over a bad entry and the response was exactly that: "just let it be and let it get downvoted to oblivion". But yeah, sometimes the downvoting doesn't work out, so I say use your own judgement when it comes to handling entries. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The BBC is discriminating on its internship based on race. Therefore it is racist. Case closed. Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. If this was a position was for whites only, would you be trying to defend the BBC then? --101.181.55.194 (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you should put the shoe on the other foot, as I have already commented above. CowHouse (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I would be just as displeased at a job being advertised as whites only as it is if a job were advertised as non-whites only. --101.181.55.194 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe seeking particular traits in potential applicants especially from the minorities pool is not new nor is it necessarily racist. You just seem to have a poor understanding of racism; it would be racist if the employer wanted nonwhites because whites are assumed to be *negative trait stereotype that implies whites are an inferior race*. And the "whites only" reversal applies only when whites are a minority race to begin with as with how BBC looks for minority races; whites are a majority in BBC's case and employers really don't need actively search for whites to find them. This entry is indeed crappy and I hope you understand why. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? If someone is discrimatined against because of their race, that is racism. It does not matter if they are discriminating against in favour of a minority or a majority or this race or another race. You cannot change the definition of racism just because it is not congruous with your racist view. --101.181.76.21 (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The results when you google "racism definition":
(1) prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
(2) the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
The BBC is advertising to non-white people because they are minorities not because they hate white people or think they are superior, inferior, or have specific racial qualities. So no, it does not fit the definition of racism. CowHouse (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Even so, I find there something disturbing about discrimination based on ones race for the position. The best persons should be selected for this position, irrespective of their race. --101.181.76.21 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
They just want new perspectives as racial identity and culture-ethnicity ties is still a thing. In a perfect world, yeah, race shouldn't matter, but we're in a world of racial profiling and growing up Asian, black, or white are indeed different experiences. So, on the not-far-out idea that different perspectives are related to different races and ethnicity, BBC is hiring minorities to attract minorities and then select the best people in that pool. Again, it's not like hiring is denied entirely to whites, and hiring isn't denied because whites are assumed to be inferior, so I see little reason to get so worked up over something like this. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

why is this not visible?[edit]

worlds greatest genius calls for altleft[1] sjw alliance against trump [2][3] — Unsigned, by: 101.180.193.48 / talk / contribs 13:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Your entry linked to pages from January and April 2017. It is not relevant. If you look at where you added it, the section is called "November 2017".
Besides, what does your entry even mean?
Also, when on talk pages, please sign your comments at the end by using four tiles (~~~~). Thanks. CowHouse (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
this is good infomation on the alternativeleft and robertlindsay its creator who desired a alliance with the sjws va trump , read the guy especially his old articles 2010ish i like them more 101.180.193.48 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is this good information? Two of the pages you linked to are not even specific articles. You might like his articles, but this page is not the right place to add them. This page is "RationalWiki's snarkilicious take on some of the more "WTF?" or egregious blog posts, editorials, videos and social media posts out there." If you enjoy an article, then you should not add it to this page, and it's no longer relevant if it's older than a month.
To clarify, was your description of Lindsay as the "world[']s greatest genius" sarcastic or serious?
Feel free to add Robert Lindsay to our suggestions page: RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions. Your information would be more relevant in an article about him. CowHouse (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not visible because its bollocks. Trump has done a great job of getting everyone else to work together. A movement so small it might as well be fictional - like the alt-left - isn't going to make much difference outside of the likes of Breitbart. London Grump (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

why https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_clogosphere%3F&action=edit This page has been locked. You have insufficient permissions to edit. 101.180.193.48 (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

I am inexperienced and didn't know where to put this; someone copied the vote counters from the Brietbart Kellogs post and the "Newspaper Snark" post, so I fixed it, which is why it is reset. I also moved the Brietbart entry up to December and put in a better link. — Unsigned, by: 66.31.161.240 / talk 00:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

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

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

;( sad 101.180.193.48 (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet another bad clog[edit]

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

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

Don't trust headlines[edit]

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

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

YouTube videos[edit]

What's wrong with the Crowder and Sargon videos? --120.158.3.120 (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The links in question being Jared Holt of Right Wing Watch caught patently lying and Crowder and Jared interrogate Amazon Alexa, receive absurd answers. --120.158.3.120 (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Apparently nothing. I'll put them back. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mr1.136.108.2 Holt did not lie. Crowder's video could be added, but only to point out that his video was probably fake (as shown here). CowHouse (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Holt did lie. Sargon perspicuously shows that in the video. And since you've posted what you view as a rebuttal to Crowder's video, here, watch Crowder rebut the rebuttals. I look forward to your response. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mr1.136.108.2 Give me an example of something Holt lied about.
Assuming the footage was real, it appears to be a glitch that only occurs when you ask the specific phrase "who is the Lord Jesus Christ?" and Alexa does not provide that answer anymore. Besides, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the clogosphere page. If the footage is real and you think the answers are absurd, then it does not belong on this page (ditto for the Sargon video). This page is for terrible blogs/videos. CowHouse (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Organic farming and fascism[edit]

Just out of curiosity, why is this here rather than in blogs? Organic farming is a natural fit for fascism and other right-wing ideologies, since they share a common concern with bodily purity and the fear of contamination of your precious bodily fluids. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön That was added by a BoN whose entries have all been questionable. CowHouse (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

the guardian thinks quoarn is evil[edit]

Maybe read the article. it says nothing of the sort AMassiveGay (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Commented out. (Also *quorn, I don’t usually care but I thought you meant Quran at first). Christopher (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Have a header line to the effect 'Are you looking for this?' (Unless there is an article on 'folk hobbies (being partly fakelore) designed to amuse tourists who will put money in the collecting basket' the cloggers do not fall within the remit of RW.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

According to NBC...[edit]

Looks like someone doesn't know what an op-ed piece is and how it does not represent the editorial position. I guess that's what happens when you rely on echo chamber media. London Grump (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Add This silly entry[edit]

Oh look, some fool put up some A440 woo. On AEON, of course, which is a garbage website. Here is the link. --UglyRat (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we make up a rule?[edit]

Like upvote if you think the entry is a clog, and downvote if not? —ClickerClock (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The Intersect of Kentucky, NBC's Chuck and Egypt's Eye of Ra[edit]

I hope someone can add this to the voting portion of this page, it's apparently locked because of super-vandals. I also hope that it will be done "verbatim" like the eponymous company. Thanks for your attention and assistance to this urgent matter.

Heytheresuez (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

paraphrasing is bad[edit]

One of the great things I got out of Rationalwiki was the habit of questioning paraphrased or 'reinterpreted' text. The latest entry in the clogs, "The truth about obesogens: can dust and chemicals make you fat? Here's a clue: no" is one example of such paraphrases, which are misleading, and which crop more and more around here. They also show that the author of that entry did not think critically. The article in the Guardian specifically does not contain the conclusion that "obesogens" will not cause obesity - it includes the opinion of certain researchers about that topic, as well as about the work of other researchers. The most important thing that can be taken about that article is not whether "obesogens" cause obesity, but that before such a conclusion can be taken, proper work has to be done. In the meantime and based on the existing knowledge, people with authority to issue such an opinion (i.e. specialists in the field) tell us there's no cause for alarm.

Does this belong in the clogs at all? The guardian is, irrespective of its quality, a mainstream newspaper and hardly part of the 'clogged-up fringes of the internet'. — Unsigned, by: 145.64.134.245 / talk / contribs

while the guardian is a reputable source of news, this is an opinion piece and therefore would fall under blogs or clogs, depending on if you agree with the message or not. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Plastic straws[edit]

The problem with this well-thought-out-nothing-could-possibly-go-wrong-this-time ban is that a lot of disabled people depend on them to get water and/or food, and for various reasons other materials absolutely won't work (paper, metal, etc. all have shortcomings that render them useless for many people using plastic straws). As someone who works with this population that would be a genuinely huge problem, one that could easily be fixed but which the law as written doesn't account for. Reducing the amount of plastic in the environment is absolutely commendable, the problem is blanket-banning things without accounting for a fairly obvious problem it creates. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Presenting... the Grand Unified Conspiracy![edit]

Look on it, ye mighty, and despair! 88.105.149.153 (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

LMAO. This has to be a joke, especially how they have a 4-chan version printed in a green background. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Joke? your argument from incredulity is just what they want you to think. Open your mind to the truth or risk losing credibility! 88.105.149.153 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's an accurate brain scan, actually. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)