RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?/Archive15

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 13 April 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

the BBC...[edit]

...does not imply anything at all regarding the gender recognition reform bill. the bbc does not in any way imply it will lead to men harassing anyone in restrooms at all. the bbc is not continuing any sort of 'tradition' of transphobia in the uk media in any way.

what the bbc is doing is reporting about the passage of the bill through holyrood, about the current law, the proposed reforms. and the significant controversy around the bill within the snp itself, between the scotish and uk governments, within the UN even, and the grounds for potential legal challenges floated by its supporters and detractors depending on if it passes or not.

this clog does trans people a disservice by instead of railing against those oppposing this bill with transphobic arguments, it has us attack the bbc instead in a gross example of shooting the messenger.

the clog is dogshit misrepresenting both the article and the bbc itself. do people even read the articles they post here? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed here, the BBC has run some dogshit transphobic stuff, but this is not one of them. All the bathroom stuff comes from JK Rowling so I adjusted the clog to reflect that. BobJohnson (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I was going to pipe in that the article wasn't about the BBC. You could say, "Why does the BBC present both sides" but at that point it's not really a CLOG thing and you can rebut that too. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

New clogs[edit]

I see I’m not the only one who follows Jason Campbell’s Twitter account for new Clog entries lol. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 10:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad Media Matters exists to document this shit (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Crime[edit]

Didn't crime go up at least partially because of the economic troubles? I don't think it even went up that much, either. Violent crime has been on the general decline for decades, no? Chillpilled (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It actually fell recently according to a New York Times survey of 30 cities, after a rise related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yes, the COVID crime peak was still very well below the peak violent crime per capita rate of the early 1990s.
I mean, that's very Charles Murray, is it not? Cherry-pick statistics (three big metropolis cities only?) to fit a pre-defined conclusion that those with a more comprehensive view of the data find dumb and racist. To throw an obvious wrench in Murray's cherry pick, for instance, the "COVID crime bump" (edit: which really was a homicide and shooting bump, many other crime categories dropped) included rural America too. BobJohnson (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

RT Vaccine conspiracy theory headline potentially fake?[edit]

Looking at the posted Twitter link for the story it adds a warning box:

"Readers added context they thought people might want to know The pictured headline is fake, intended to satirize anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists: twitter.com/shayan86/statu…", which links to a post claiming that the picture is fake (https://twitter.com/shayan86/status/1694761569312227443). I cannot find the original RT article and no other media outlets are reporting on such an RT article, which makes me lean towards believing that it is indeed fake. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. Good catch. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Post-left[edit]

I have a minor quibble with the naming of the Twitter account. Post-leftism is a specific trend in anarchism that rejects the traditional methodology of leftist activism as a failure and self-defeating. Otherwise the naming of the account is pretty spot-on that tankies act in a pretty reactionary manner. Carthage (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Civil war[edit]

Is it really that unthinkable? Hostile rhetoric and incidents of political violence have been on the rise in the US for years. Brookings notes that high rates of social and economic inequality, disparities in living standards, climate change, the criminalization of abortion, and whatnot all have a destabilizing risk. Different groups in America have very different ideas of the state of public society and what to do about it. Brookings ends the article by stating that it's foolish to dismiss the idea of a Second American Civil War. Everyone thought it was foolish that a fascist would get into the White House. Everybody thought that it would be unthinkable to attempt to coup the government. It can happen here. Brookings notes that safeguards to ensure the rule of law remain strong, however, but we should still take the possibility seriously.

In light of recent democratic backsliding I'm faintly skeptical of the strength of the "rule of law" to prevent creeping fascism, but I remain perhaps foolishly optimistic. After all, what can the law do to combat fascism when the legal apparatuses have been co-opted by fascists? The institutions of liberal democracy remain functional only as long as the people making up those institutions are willing to defend those institutions. Centrism has historically been very weak at doing that, and often have actively helped fascist co-option of liberal democratic structures as we saw in Weimar Germany, or as we can see right now with the lack of meaningful opposition to Trumpism in the GOP and by the toothless opposition offered by the Democrats.

I am skeptical of one of the "limiting factors" Brooking notes: that there's no clear geographical distinction other than "urban vs rural". But no one is assuming that a Second American Civil War would resemble the old one. That's stupid. The only effective way to combat the US government would be asymmetric warfare. That doesn't require a geographic base. We already see lone-wolf attacks happening anywhere at any time. I think they overplay the strength of this supposed limiting factor. A Second American Civil War would undoubtedly be one of insurgency, not open conflict between belligerent states. They make a similar note about the fact that the old Civil War was fought through public entities capable of conscription, but that also seems as specious. Insurgencies don't need the power of coercion to operate. Carthage (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The big question any 'civil war' scenario has is the positions/actions of both 'the elite' and 'the service class' when confronted by an attempt at an 'illegal change in direction'. The elite is obvious; the individually powerful people such as rich businesspersons, financiers, CEOs, military generals and so on. The 'service class' is more opaque in identity; consider them to be the folks which 'makes the country actually run'; the civil servants, professional classes, company executives, LEOs and military officers. To even consider a coup attempt [of some form], the wannabes need to have either on-side or neutral a majority of both groups [as well as a horde of 'nobodies' to fill out the ranks].
What the Trump presidency really showed was the general lack of support for his plans from these two groups, from Corp America to the Pentagon. This lack of support was evident in during the Floyd riots [wot, no Insurrection Act and martial law?] and then finally in the Jan 6th putsch which can be described as a bunch of oddballs and duped cultists with zero 'generals' with a cohoerent plan and nobody joining them. Which is odd, when you remember the key shibboleths in fascist civil-warmongering is that 'the LEOs/military will be on our side'... yet nobody threw their lot in with the putsch save at an individual level [and not many at that]. Conclusion? At this moment of time, both key groups are mainly loyal to the current setup. And there shall be no classic 'civil war' while they continue to be.
The much larger risk is the 'insurrection' style civil war, where there are smallish groups which have rejected the current setup and are attempting [to various levels of success] fight a guerrilla/terrorist campaign against the state while hiding behind a decent-sized minority who are sympathetic to their aims - two good examples the 'Years of Lead' in Italy and 'The Troubles' in the UK. I generally discount an 'open insurgency' model as seen by FARC in Columbia or the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka becase I judge the American state to be too in control of their own country to allow such open revolts to survive.
So in short; I believe the fascist dregs which swirl around Trump etc are paper tigers and while paper-cuts still hurt like hell, aren't lethal. The true threat for the US right now is of the 'constitutional coup' by a group of people smart enough to avoid spooking [at least at first] both the elite and service classes. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I am against democracy because Americans coddle authoritarian dictatorships overseas while pretending to care about democracy. (See: Saudi Arabia) Civil wars have historically led to violent bloodbaths. Do we have to repeat the past? No, we do not. Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result is not the solution. Let’s not bang the drums of war and lead to a situation that will lead to many innocent civilians dead. We do not need another Syrian Civil War scenario that leads to an endless war. — Unsigned, by: 2607:fb90:3954:afb8:2434:7e41:46a2:2b66 / talk / contribs

@KarmaPolice I think a Years of Lead style situation is most likely too. For one thing America is just too big. What this means is that there will most likely be "islands" of conflict or insurgency separated by "oceans" of relative stability. Most people will only feel the aftershock of events if that. Carthage (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, mysterious person - if the American Big Public quit being so damn insular and actually paid attention the rest of the world more, that would be a good start. That would promptly lead to them realising what the DoS/CIA/etc was actually up to and to twig [hopefully] how corrupted by special interests many policies are. And your last comment... no, there's no 'banging the drums of war' here - merely a cool analysis of the possibility of it. And with the current setup right now, if a 'civil war' starts, it will be the right-wing's fault. So go bitch at them, yeah?
On 'America being too big'... in fact, traditionally this increased the chances of a full blown 'insurgency' - but tech has seriously eroded the geographical bonuses that our plucky/evil 'Wolverines' would enjoy [drones, choppers, IR/NV, reliable all-terrain vehicles etc] and coupled with the fact they won't be able to win a conventional action means they'll have to 'hide in plain sight' amongst the civilian population to avoid immediate destruction and get supplies [from civilian sources and occasionally a sympathetic official looking the other way]. More importantly would be the need to fund the conflict, which invaribly leads to criminal activity - bank raids, extortion, drug production / trafficking, charitable frauds and similar. This would put them right in the eyes of the LEOs, who I suspect in the American case are utterly unprepared for dealing with 'politically motivated crimes'.
While your analogy is generally right, I would caution to think of these 'islands' as static. Successful 'urban' groups shift about rapidly, often building up 'support networks' [sometimes, folk who are in very deep cover]. They will also be very wary of either expressing their views or recruiting, knowing that the state would be watching online etc for it - MI5 noted [for example] that there's often a small window of radicalisation to notice before the target drops off the radar. And speaking as a Brit who remembers The Troubles, I think America is perhaps 2cm from this stage. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Current paramilitaries in Ulster typically fund their activities through drug-dealing and protection rackets. The Taliban also resort(ed) to growing and selling opium (something they're still doing to skirt around sanctions BTW). Carthage (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
It would be much easier to list the groups which didn't resort to criminal activities to fund their activities. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Twitter Links[edit]

Twitter is basically unusable without an account anymore. As in, you literally can't read a full thread. Probably best to find some sort of more accessible source for anything you want to link to --185.30.74.29 (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Could use one of the many Nitter front-ends I suppose. (Like nitter.net). Chillpilled (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

celebrity open letter[edit]

the headline doesn't capture the full context. the letter itself says that two hostages is great news but it's not good enough. "calling for the release of all hostages" in this case simply means "let's not rest until all abductees are brought home to their families." anyway, that's why i removed the entry. The G (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ADL[edit]

They caved to pressure from Elon, why wouldn't they from N.O.I. and LoTT too? Chillpilled (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

They actually didn't cave in to LoTT: https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/what-grooming-truth-behind-dangerous-bigoted-lie-targeting-lgbtq-community --Äxl (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post[edit]

The article explicitely states that it is about Hamas supporters, not "people who support Palestines liberation". Those two things are absolutely not the same. IluzalsipalStone them! 09:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I have to call bullshit on you there. The article is obviously conflating these things. There aren't "American Jews who say that killing the act of 1,400 Jews was consistent with the ‘Palestinian right to resist’", and the article directly accuses IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace of being pro-Hamas, when they are not. The article directly criticises calling what Israel is doing a genocide—twice—and says "I have been overwhelmed by the unity and support for Israel of the global Jewish community". These are not just anti-Hamas sentiments, we're attacking all people who want Palestinian liberation here. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Both IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace attributed the terrorist attacks to Israel and their supporters in the US without even mentioning Hamas. IluzalsipalStone them! 12:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Care to elaborate? Carthage (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
JVP is a group that thinks you can convert yourself to Judaism through this bizarrely loose process completely out of line with mainstream Judaism. As in, they unironically think you can do an at-home conversion, without practicing Judaism, using a tea cup, without anyone else being involved (they seem to file this as a form of "queered mikveh", I don't even know what that part is about). This is not even the view of Reform Judaism which holds you need involvement with a community at least. It's the sort of process you would expect of many types of Christian conversion, not Jewish conversion. And even with Christianity there's some sort of adherence to the religion. Chillpilled (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, not insinuating they're some secretly Christian group (though those legitimately exist, and do try to convert Jews by pretending to be Jews, oddly enough). Just for comparison. And, the name alone is likely to attract American Jews to the org. But stuff like this does not inspire confidence that they're not a fringe group, and that some of their members may be claiming to be Jewish from these dubious at-home conversions. I don't know anything about IfNotNow, on the other hand. Chillpilled (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Oof, you know, I've read through the PDF again, and I think it's more of a prayer guide than a conversion guide. Think I was misled. Chillpilled (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Economist[edit]

I forgot that I originally got that article from Bongolian's edit to their page. Chillpilled (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you mind if I add italics to your entry? Carthage (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
That would just be minor copyediting, so no it shouldn't bother anyone. Chillpilled (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Congressional violence...[edit]

Man, this reenactment of the Charles Sumner caning incident is a lot more pathetic this time around... Carthage (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

What reenactment? Oh God, what shit is the GOP doing now? --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Here you go. Your elected representatives, everybody! Carthage (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)