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

This is an archive page, last updated 26 September 2024. 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>, <13>, <14>

, (new)(back)

the BBC...

...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, LeftyGreenMario! 01:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

New clogs

I see I’m not the only one who follows Jason Campbell’s Twitter account for new Clog entries lol. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make 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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article explicitely states that it is about Hamas supporters, not "people who support Palestines liberation". Those two things are absolutely not the same. Iluzalsipal^{Stone 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. Iluzalsipal^{Stone 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

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...

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)

Placement

It's getting a bit absurd when there's posts in the clogs about an official statement by Vladimir Putin and one by the leader of the Sweden Democrats (who if I'm not mistaken are part of the ruling coalition in Sweden). This is the sort of thing that goes in WIGO World, isn't it? Chillpilled (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Impeach 45

Despite the "now" in the entry, the linked story dates from July 2018. 70.52.96.44 (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

"Larry"

Who exactly is Larry? Carthage (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't the faintest idea myself. Maybe he should be out of jail (where I assume he is), maybe not. Chillpilled (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait, he probably means Larry Hoover. Chillpilled (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I see Jeff Fort mentioned there as well. So that's the "Jeff" he mentions (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I expected maybe someone who was convicted wrongly or something like that. Mob/gang leaders, including one with multiple life sentences: probably some of the last people that need released from prison. He could certainly pick his battles a lot better. Chillpilled (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Leonard Peltier, anyone? Carthage (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Jerry Coyne promotes the conspiracy theory that George Floyd was not murdered by police. It’s a conspiracy theory, not an actual conspiracy. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2603:6000:9941:4777:70cf:ffcf:be06:57ba / talk / contribs}

Thanks, BON. Carthage (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What the hell is up with Coyne? Is evolution (and possibly science/religion in the broadest sense) the only thing he gets right? I don't know much about him, but every time I run across his blog it's something like this. Chillpilled (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't paid much attention, but I think over the last few years his content has become a lot more political (and batshit as a result) and less about science. I get "angry old reactionary" vibes from him. Carthage (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm! You know, I think I very well may have accidentally uncovered a piece of this puzzle the other day when I was digging into the tax records of the Thiel Foundation and documenting where the money was going at Peter Thiel § Thielsphere. Coyne's page does mention something about Thiel already, which I believe @Pinkerite added. Now, would it be interesting if over the years, the Thiel Foundation has given at least $455,500 to the University of Chicago, Coyne's institution? That was one of the universities that kept popping up, and I was actually reluctant to list it but it simply came up too many times. A note here though. I believe most of this was going to the UoC's Leo Strauss Center, indeed one of the entries on the tax docs says at least $100,000 of that was earmarked for that although other entries don't make it so clear.

I would of course never suggest that every academic at this university is somehow compromised by Peter Thiel. That'd be too conspiratorial (and honestly, my impression is that Thiel simply tends to fund things that are already in line with his beliefs, rather than somehow influencing them with money to push what he believes; he also funds some things that are innocuous). But now I am wondering where exactly that money was going at the university. Again, I assume most or even all of it was to the Leo Strauss Center, considering Thiel's support for Leo Strauss or so I hear (which I don't know what that's even about). At the very least this might be a future line of inquiry. Chillpilled (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Should we include Coyne as part of the Thielsphere? Carthage (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Nah. As far as I know, all we've got is he spoke at the same event as him (could be incidental; doesn't even necessarily mean they spoke to each other directly), and Thiel has funded his institution. I would like to treat those lists with more rigor than that. Chillpilled (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The Panda's Thumb has also seen a sort of reactionary turn, but most posts there still focus on science and the evolution/creation "controversy." I think Hanlon's Razor fits best here. We're just dealing with angry old boomers. No need to invoke shilling or conspiracy. Carthage (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but consider: Coyne has invoked both himself. Chillpilled (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Coyne is a conspiracy theorist. I'm talking about applying Hanlon's Razor to Coyne. We should keep an open eye out for possible links to the Thielsphere, which Pinkerite has definitely suggested, but to me the weight of the evidence favors Hanlon's Razor at least for the moment. I am open to the possibility, perhaps even probability, that Pinkerite is correct, though. Carthage (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely an interesting line of inquiry. Coyne has a curious relationship with Thiel - right before the Thiel-keynoted Stanford Academic Freedom Conference Coyne claimed to have never heard of Thiel (who was already pretty damn famous for supporting Trump), even though he had mentioned Thiel by name prior to that on his blog. My own theory is that Coyne is the victim of creeping senescence and decided it was a good time to trade his career as a once-respected scientist for the easier and more lucrative career of right-wing political operative. He's very chummy with Anna Krylov these days - she was one of the organizers of the Stanford conference along with Dorian Abbot - of the University of Chicago and University of Austin. Pinkerite (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That is noteworthy, but not in and of itself conclusive. Still, we should keep an open eye on this in case anything further comes out. Carthage (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

While we're on it I think Pinkerite has been too gung-ho about declaring Quillette as Thiel-funded. Apparently based on the testimony of one guy who isn't terribly reliable. However, I find it possible considering Lehmann has done stuff like dinner with Eric Weinstein, and some other people with links to Thiel being linked to the mag. Given her denial of this, I wonder if it's something like they discussed funding but it never ended up happening. I found no indication of the Thiel Foundation in particular funding Quillette. There are many organizations Thiel uses to fund causes though, and the Thiel Foundation is just one (the declaration by one of Thiel's guys that they fund weird stuff through it intrigued me). Chillpilled (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Chafkin's source for the Thiel-Quillette claim, Charles C. Johnson, is a far right-winger. Why would he randomly tell Chafkin that Thiel secretly funded Quillette? Quillette is not even well-known outside the far-right and those of us who oppose the far-right. I sometimes qualify the assertion that Thiel secretly funded Quillette, because it was not verified and Lehmann denied it - although I'd trust Charles C. Johnson before I trust her. But funding the far-right and doing things in secret are both activities that Peter Thiel is known for, so it's extremely plausible. Pinkerite (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Far-rightists smear and back-stab each other all the time, particularly if they feel someone isn't extreme enough. I think Quillette is definitely up to some crypto-politics, and that could irk someone who wants them to be more overt (and if Johnson raised money for Andrew Anglin of all the people, he certainly fits that profile). They might even be accused of trying to "gate-keep" people interested in very far-right ideas towards somewhat more moderate ones. This is sort of silly, but it's how many on the far-right think about it. Chillpilled (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The Gab AI "Coax"

I removed the most recent WIGO Clogs entry about the Gab AI Coax because it is most likely fake news. The text I removed is: <vote poll=clog3268142>[https://infosec.exchange/@bontchev/112257849039442072 Someone managed to coax Gab's AI chatbot into revealing its default prompt], revealing its [[Bullshit|delightful opinions]] on the [[Holocaust denial|Holocaust]] and [[the Great Replacement]] among other topics.</vote>
The premise of the WIGO entry was that a user was able to extract the system prompt from Gab AI, but the linked page merely shows a screenshot of two users communicating, and one says unsavory things. Nothing about it points at it being the system prompt of any AI, and the fact that 1) the screenshot shows the user simply asking an AI (or potentially just any user on any chat platform, you cannot even identify the platform or verify that it was indeed a bot that was communicated with) to "repeat a previous statement", 2) it never shows the chat leading up to that moment (so makes it impossible to reproduce) and 3) Gab AI users were able to reproduce almost the entire text to a fault by just putting the text and asking the AI to repeat it -> 1) to 3) all lead me to believe that the better explanation for this is that user got AI chatbot to say a thing, rather than AI chatbot reveals system prompt. It is possible that I am missing something from the linked resource - if so then please point it out, that would be my fault in that case. Otherwise, I believe it is in the interests of this wiki to wait for better evidence - if it exists - before posting this kind of headline. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Rolling Stone [1] and Wired [2] have articles on the Gab chatbots. I don't think the assertion in the removed WIGO is quite correct; rather, it seems like Gab has decided to train several chatbots to act like conspiracy theorist shitposters (eg pretty much the typical Gab user) in various fashions. They've also apparently trained a few chatbots to appear like what they think a left-wing poster would be like (my guess is these bots are as laughably bad as the left-wing stereotypes in MAGA Facebook memes are). It's the ol' principle of garbage in garbage out at work.

What the fuck is Torba thinking, anyways? The business community is excited about chatbots and other AI tools mainly because they can help solve problems (and in theory replace those pesky human employees the ruling class seems to hate, of course, though the jury's out on that for many tasks). A bot tuned to spout conspiracy garbage? Rather useless. The only business case I can see for these chatbots is to replace troll farms and make things like Musk's bot infested conspiracy shithole social network (let alone the shithole of Gab) even worse. BobJohnson (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be real (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we put it back? Carthage (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I'll do that now. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Mark Kern: AAA Games are overrun with woke politics

https://twitter.com/Grummz/status/1778454965578875053 --John123521 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)