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?/Archive5

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 29 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, (new)(back)

Contents

"Baraq O Bahmah"[edit]

Took me a while to find the New Testament in Hebrew, but Luke 10:18 in Hebrew is: "וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם רָאִיתִי אֶת־הַשָּׂטָן נָפַל כְּבָרָק מִן־הַשָּׁמָיִם" the specific part that he was referring to would be pronounced as: "kevarak min-hashamaim." Yet another person exhibiting linguistics fail. Just for reference, Obama's name is spelled in Hebrew as: "ברק אובמה". "Barak" is however the Hebrew word for lightning. (But then "snow" in Persian is "barf", so these sorts of accidental coincidences do happen, and mean nothing.) The other verse, Isiah 14:14 is: "אעלה על־במתי עב אדמה לעליון" emphasized is a word that comes out as "b-m-h-i", but it would not be pronounced "Baw-maw", but rather likely at best "bah-mai". But at this point, one would be searching for coincidences to prove a desired preconceived notion. Recall that Luke 10:18 already can be shown to not line up with the person's assertion. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Gays caused the earthquake[edit]

This came to my attention yesterday but I didn't wigo it simply because I don't know how to vote on such things. You can't vote "up" because it ain't no fucking joke but voting "down" means you don't find this important or serious. We need a "Fucking Disgusting" button. Ace of Spades 18:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

dunno about other people but I vote things up on the basis of "interesting article" or "nice find!" rather than "i endorse the article's message." I assume others do a similar thing, otherwise WIGO:CLOG would be full of three-figure minus scores. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't even think such claims are even WIGO worthy anymore... every natural disaster that comes out, someone is stupid enough to blame it on a lack of morality in the world or that particular nation... I'm sure there were people blaming natural disasters during the period just after the Civil War on the nation giving black people equal rights. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out...[edit]

... We are four WIGO-Clogospheres away from number 666. Just sayin' is all... MDB (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Make that 2. I bet number 666 has to do with WND. Or Palin. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 13:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fox (again)[edit]

I'm curious. Given that Fox have clearly lied in their WI coverage, is there any course of action that can be taken against them, by citizens. Here we have something called the Broadcast Complaints Authority, where TV stations, or programs or even adverts that offend or mislead can be reported. Is there such a beast in the US, and shouldn't Fox be hauled before it? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think someone did do so a while back. Fox won in court. ТyTalk. 13:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's the court case. In short, it concerned an employee of a Fox News affiliate employee who sued under a "whistle-blower" statute after being fired. The court ruled that the fact Fox may have been lying did not give them protection under the whistle-blower law, because Fox had no obligation to tell the truth.
As to the question as to whether or not a US citizen in general has a legal recourse if Fox lies, my non-lawyer guess is "probably not". They'd have to prove actual harm from being lied to by Fox, and I doubt that would be true in this case in particular. It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where that might be true, though -- if Fox, say, reported that eating a teaspoon of plutonium a day was good for your health, and someone took that advice, then the person (or, more likely, his surviving relatives) might have a chance in prevailing in a law suit. MDB (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
(e/c)Details here. It's quite astonishing that they can get away with this. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
So the US has no regulatory body that oversees the media? Scary. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Such is our "Freedom of the Press" ТyTalk. 13:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Legal pedantry: This case was all in Florida; it was not a Federal issue other than involving a Florida court ruling based, in part, on FCC regulations. It's more accurate to say Fox has a legal right to lie in Florida. I don't think there's ever been a case like this at the national level.
As for Psy's question: the FCC has some authority over the media, but only broadcast media. Cable TV (like Fox news) is pretty much completely unregulated. The FCC regulations had an effect in this case because it wasn't Fox News proper, but a Fox-affiliated broadcast station. MDB (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The US, of course, has libel laws. If Fox New reports inaccurately about me, I have every right to sue them. We have a somewhat stricter standard for "public figures", which basically says that to be libelous, the media outlet had to either report it knowing it was false, or show "reckless disregard" for the truth.
To summarize, if Fox News said I knocked over the liquor store down the street, just the fact it was false would be sufficient to win a libel case. If Fox News said Barack Obama knocked over the liquor store down the street, Obama would have to show they knew he didn't do it, and ran the story anyway, or at least prove they didn't care whether he did it or not, and ran the story anyway. MDB (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It slays me that anyone can act like FOX provides valid public discourse in segments such as these, as if it's an equal counterbalance to the other side of two-sided American politics. I defy anyone to find comparable deception coming from a comparable "left-wing" source. It's audacious that they call themselves "journalists" or "news".Apokalyps2547 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is the scandal over the Dan Rather report on George W. Bush's National Guard service. Dan Rather's career at CBS was ended due to that, along with the producer's (I think.) MDB (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistent message[edit]

Confusing product placement is confusing.

Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

GLP & Telescopes[edit]

I try to avoid reading their posts, because the stupid is too much, but do we have any idea just why they're buying a telescope? --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Nibiru/Planet X/pole shift "doom" is often being hotly discussed there, with various pictures thrown around for "proof". One of the resident sane voices (at least on the topic of astronomy), Astronut, rigged his telescope so that he could stream videos from his observations via Ustream, showing that the Moon is expected to be where it is, that the stars are not out of alignment, etc. The streaming shows proved to be popular, so this is probably what gave Trinity & Co the idea. The local "doomtards" often get obsessed with astronomical phenomena ("Comet Elenin" being the latest) so I guess they decided they needed an independent information source for the heavens, and the things snowballed from there.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A telescope isn't just about the price but also the knowledge of how to use it properly. I imagine that they could spend whatever the hell they like, but thanks to being clueless about its operation and the basics of astronomy, could be able to prove any space-based conspiracy crap they liked. I imagine it will lead to more facepalming all round, but with the added hilarity of them having spent fifteen grand for their trouble. Scarlet A.pngbomination 11:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The people buying the telescope are relatively sane (for the place), have at least enough technical knowledge to run a website and can rely on people like Astronut to advise them. The most probable source of facepalming will be the audience - the "doomtard" crowd, some of whom will probably start calling Trinity & Co "shills" after the telescope fails to confirm their preconceptions.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
First fail: they are pouring the piers/pedestals of the telescopes as a part of the floor slab. Usually, when working with high magnification telescopes, people try to minimize vibrations - and take care to isolate the foundation of the telescope from the floor of the building. :D (amateur observatory example and a more professional one)--ZooGuard (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

God is calling for Japan to repent[edit]

Is this really a Poe? Maybe I'm just desensitized to fundy insanity, but any natural (or man-made) disaster always seems to set off a round of "It's a sign from god to repent" crankery in the clogosphere. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's Poe even if it is real, because it's difficult enough to distinguish from a satirist writing up crappy articles to make the right look bad. Poe works in two cases: you thought it was real, but it wasn't, and you thought it wasn't real, but it was. This particular one seems to be the later. Are they using bad spelling and punctuation just to make it look real, but really it's all just a plot? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 19:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Poe, that Arthur Owiti (the chap behind the site) is just mad bonkers hatstand. DogP (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me state this again... MAD BONKERS HATSTAND is Poe precisely because it is the reason it is so difficult to believe it is serious. Things are not "Poe" just because they are satire, but also because they appear to be so absurd that they become indistinguishable from satire. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Comedy is tough. DogP (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
"Poe?" is quickly becoming shorthand for "Are they taking the piss or not?". So "a Poe" is a parodist that's really hitting near the knuckle with their *ahem* 'work'. It's not the strict original definition (indeed, read the original law, which is about people's reactions and not about the fundamentalist/parodist in question, and we see that no one uses it in that sense), but it appears to be the direction the trope is taking in common parlance. Scarlet A.pngbomination 12:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
When I saw the post in question, I honestly couldn't tell if the person was a parody, or seriously intended. I think this is the whole point of "a Poe", it's gotten so far out there that it is more likely (or near certainly) parodist... and just because it's what common perception is, should we support that usage? Occam's Razor isn't "the simplest explanation is most often the correct one", and "begging the question" isn't "raising a question"... Let the common culture mutilate meanings all they want, we can't really stop them, but here on RW, can't we at least strive to be accurate? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 07:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Poe. It's making fun of those who haven't read the book of Job (which basically starts with God allowing malfortune fall someone who is considered righteous, and would be recognized by anyone who attempted to read the Bible cover-to-cover. Especially the ones that insist others should read the Bible cover-to-cover. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Faith "Healing" Article[edit]

Did anyone read what she says near the end? It's fucking hysterical, something along the lines of "I don't think that it's a coincidence that more of the major medical and technological advances happened AFTER Jesus came than they ever did before." Move over Andy, there's a new champion of the Foreknowledge camp: instead of cherry picking ambiguous verses, this chick has implied that ALMOST ALL of scientific advancement is thanks to Jesus. Saladin (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

whale.to[edit]

While clicking through various links here, I came upon whale.to, and now I can't stop link hopping through there... really going down the rabbit hole now. Ay. άλφαTalk 18:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean JESUS it's bad! Between that and reformation.org I'm really going to burn a whole straight through my mind. άλφαTalk 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That's why Scopie's Law exists. Scarlet A.pngbomination 18:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That's actually the article that referred me to it, even though I'm not sure how I came across Scopie. Still, though, it's barely even coherent English and it's just blowing my mind. άλφαTalk 18:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
educate-yourself.org is smaller but similar. It made me think Amitakh Stanford was worth writing - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Tim Ball lawsuits[edit]

So this is the second libel suit that Ball has been slapped with in the last two months. Interesting to see that the tables are turned and it's the pseudoscientists getting hit with the libel suits, though I'm not holding my breath on it having any serious adverse effect on the denialism machine. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Climate deniers: "THEY'RE TRYING TO SHUT US UP!! This is CONCLUSIVE PROOF that we're right, and that they're trying to hide it!" *sigh* I clearly agree with your pessimistic outlook for the results. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 13:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I love how a creationist has become their rallying point du jour now. They've been really scraping the bottom of the barrel for the past couple of years. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama/Ayers Authorship Conspiracy[edit]

These people might rival WND and CP for levels of blatant delusion and grasp of "science", which as we all know is quite an achievement. To any American Thinkers (or miscellaneous fluffer nutters out there that actually believe this article is accurate) I ask you this: If Obama is truly the trickster you claim that he is, doing his best to deceive the American people in order to gain power through political means, why oh why oh why to the umpteenth power would he jeopardize his master plan by going out of his way to get a man guaranteed to hurt, if not completely destroy, his political image to ghostwrite his book when he ALREADY was a skilled writer? Perhaps he wants to see just how much un-American activity he can get away with? Or perhaps the person who wrote this article is a delusional moron who thinks that throwing around the word "theorem" somehow strengthens his batshit crazy conspiracy theory that his mind has constructed in order to prevent him from realizing that he's either a mindless FOX news butt boy worshipping at the altar of Reagan or just a plain old fashioned racist in denial who can't stand to see a black man in office. Your pick folks </rant> Saladin (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

American Stinker might be worse than World Nut. Read the comments section for extra fun. It's Bayesian! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

WND NWO WTF BBQ[edit]

WND is selling an NWO book, but they have plenty of insane bullshit in the bookstore. Have they written anything editorial on that level of batshit? - David Gerard (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bugger the clogs[edit]

I've always been against this damn WIGO page - I've never understood, and I don't think new visitors understand - the difference between a clog and blog. If we're claiming that the clogosphere is where TimeCube-like madness reigns on the internet, why is an item about Fox News here? It makes no sense. I think Clogs and Blogs should be coalesced. All in favour? Me, for a start. DogP (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. 07:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC) SusanG Toast
C®ackeЯ
Clogs are appreciated for their idiocy, blogs for their worthwhile insights. Both are large pages now, combining them will make one very large page. - π 08:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Explanation FAIL. DogP (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Recall P-Foster's deletion of WIGOCP. ТyTalk. 20:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Technical difficulties with a previous merge are not a reason to not discuss the issue though.... DogP (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I am for merging the two pages, particularly because there is room for dispute about what constitutes a clog and what constitutes a blog. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a clear difference between a clog and a blog, but people tend to not actually follow those divisions when posting. Either strictly enforce the separation or merge. ThunderkatzHo! 20:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that "clear difference" is very much a matter of opinion. A quick scan through both pages reveal that really the vast majority of posters to both WIGO pages have no clear understanding of the differences - clogs in blogs, blogs in clogs, etc. DogP (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I propose: Clogs = We're making fun of/disputing/attacking the author. Blogs = We're agreeing with/supporting/admiring the author. So, for instance, a blog post supporting homeopathy is clogs, but a blog post attacking homeopathy is blogs, even if it quotes clog-type material. ThunderkatzHo! 20:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I know. That's how you Cloggers want it to be understood, but my point is that no-one gets it. Maybe, it's just a matter of a better written manifesto for each page, but I've yet to see that ever achieved. And, in fairness, if you can translate what you wrote into an easily-understood rule for posting that's any better than what is currently written on both pages - and fails to be understood - go right ahead! I still vote for merging. DogP (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The main problem I've noticed appears to b confusion when an astute blogger makes makes fun of or responds to something that should be in clogs. If we're not linking to the original moronic post, but rather a response, then it shouldn't go in clogs. Some people don't seem to get that. I say we smack 'em upside the head until they learn, and keep things as they are. DickTurpis (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I say you're crazy to expect anyone to ever understand the difference, and as your punishment, I block you forever. DogP (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been operating under the assumption that a "Blog" is for when a site runs a story critical of the anti-science movement, homeopathy, or even to showcase sites that run articles that represent free and rational thought. I thought the "Clogs" were for blogs supporting non-evidence based theories and charlatanism. Basically, if it seems like it came from CP but didn't, it's a clog. But I'm relatively new here. Majintahu (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Trig Palin birthers[edit]

Not on the rise...rising from the dead. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, rising from the dead is still rising... I can't believe it's coming up again... it's like, god damn it, you sit there and complain about the Obama birthers, and then turn right around and support this Trig birther shit? WTF? (Anyone who is wondering why this is RationalWiki, it's because we put down liberal nutjobs, too.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
If Palin would just show Trig's birth certificate then that would put the controversy to rest. Until then, how do we know he wasn't born in Kenya. Amidoinitrite? Stile4aly (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, while I despise the idea of this as an actual belief, I do dig the potential as a parody movement for calling birthers out on their shit. Same idea as pointing out that this shit doesn't seem to matter when candidates or presidents are white with American sounding names (looking at you, McCain, you Panamanian you!) Saladin (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, McCain was born on what was technically American soil, kind of the same as being born in Puerto Rico or Guam... or more accurately, on a US Military Base. Jus soli arguments still hold that certain locations are exclaves of another nation, especially known: embassies. Invading the embassy of another nation is considered just as hostile an act as invading their nation proper, because legally, they're considered the same thing. So, no McCain has no right to Panamanian citizenship by jus soli at all. (You know, the US outright owned the Panamanian canal for a while there anyways... which is why I brought up the Puerto Rico/Guam analogy.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Youredoingitperfectly. :) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Trumpeters and Schoolers on the Birth Certificate[edit]

I love that not one of these people is acknowledging that they were flat out wrong about the birth certificate. It's either "It's not real just cuz!, "why'd he take so long to cave in?" or deflecting onto his school record now. Not one single birther has come out publicly to say "Wow, I was wrong, he's a citizen, let's move on". No birther was saying "he's not being transparent" they were saying that HE WASN'T BORN IN THIS COUNTRY and have just been proven 100% wrong (really they were proven wrong 2 fucking years ago with the short form) and now they have the nerve to say that it's a waste of time or that they have somehow been vindicated because of this? What a bunch of pathetic delusional losers... Saladin 02:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Deficits don't matter, money is debt, get used to it.[edit]

Good to see a basic introduction to monetary theory in the clogosphere of all places. Read and learn. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You are suggesting perhaps that the dreck belongs somewhere else? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Heh, of all the stupid stuff on Truth-out you pick the one thing that actually gets it right. Try reading the link and getting a basic understanding of MMT before dismissing it as "dreck." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(1) You might have picked your link more carefully to avoid shattering an irony meter. To quote from it:
Some people claim that Modern Monetary Theorists say deficits don’t matter. That is a vast misrepresentation of MMT. No Modern Monetary Theorist would ever say such a thing. Deficits most certainly do matter.
(2) This is a question on which I am somewhat torn. On the one hand, I would love to see this whole Ponzi scheme reach its day of reckoning, if only for the comedic value of the tantrums the shysters will throw when they discover that all their wire-dancing acts and frantic pretense cannot make white out of black. Going by the hysterics that have greeted the recent threat to the U.S.'s "AAA" bond rating, this would not be extraordinarily difficult to bring about.
On the other hand, as the "Pragmatic Capitalism" article correctly notes, economic expansion is much more difficult when deficit spending is restricted or eliminated as a policy option, and I would not wish the consequent economic hardships on anyone. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, just a difference in wording. How the deficit is spent is what matters the most (I'm just recycling Cheney's line here for rhetorical effect). I'm well aware of what Roche, as well as his colleagues have written. Good to see we actually agree on this point. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That is just common sense, though, that if you borrow money, then you should invest it rather than throwing it on a bonfire.
But lest I am misunderstanding something here, a question: If the government were hampered in its ability to borrow further, say by a reduced credit rating, and had to resort to massive inflation of the currency to make the debt payments, how is the country not in hot water? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That's the thing, the gov't doesn't "borrow" money (some of the further reading on Fed operations and taxes might help make this more clear). A de facto default could be induced if suddenly all the private holders of US treasuries decide to dump them simultaneously (which still amounts to only somewhere around one quarter of the total debt as the rest is held by the Fed, intragovernmental holdings, state pension funds, etc.), which is extremely unlikely. I'd be worried about that if the bond vigilantes start hitting monetarily sovereign countries with high debt-to-GDP ratios. Until then, it's mostly just bull (indeed, Krugman recently called out the WSJ for its repeated bond vigilante scare stories).
Much of the MMT stuff is counter-intuitive at first, partially because it requires a slightly more in-depth knowledge about the workings of the banking system and runs counter to conventional wisdom much of the time. Once it "clicks," however...Incidentally, I'm probably on the more conservative end of the spectrum when it comes to MMT types and I disagree with them on a number of things (I don't think they take into account enough things, like, say inflation of food prices due to climate change, but then again not many other economists do either), but when you start reading their stuff, the operational realities are the important things to grasp. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Truth-out.org on this page?[edit]

I'll admit they do occasionally bring The Crazy, but politically they're somewhere "Left" of Ralph Nader. --Gulik (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the "Clog" vs. "Blog" distinction was apolitical, this page being the place for mockery. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 00:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I was under that impression as well. ТyTalk. 02:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Part of rational thought is applying the lens of skepticism and criticism to all ideas, not just those we actively disagree with. Majintahu (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Gulik (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Brown for Antichrist[edit]

I followed the link in the Conservative News And Views article to this blog. Now the blog is quite obvioulsy bogus. Giveaways include

New legislation will ensure that local councilors, librarians, postal workers and community support officers will be delegated with the responsibility of accessing medical records,

Librarians??? Or try

mandatory tuition of homosexuality to 5 year olds

The question in my mind is whether CNAV are dumb for falling for it or whether I'm dumb for falling for CNAV's spoof on a spoof. I suspect the former but then I would, wouldn't I? Jack Hughes (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Poe strikes again! As soon as I read the quotes I thought this can't be right. I followed the link to the Gordon Brown Blog spot and was fairly sure it was a parody. I think CNAV have fallen for it.Old Fashioned Architect (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Things in the Bible you were too lazy to read[edit]

From one of their testimonials:

This book is truly fantastic! I can't stress enough how eye-opening the facts are. The book reveals Scriptures that I never knew were in the Bible. Why haven't we heard these before? It also points out precisely what is NOT included, and how most people wrongly assume what the Bible says. It's like the whole world has been living in some sort of 'Matrix'-style dream world, only hearing certain famous verses over and over. Now I know the rest of the story, and everything I was ever told about the Bible is the opposite of the biblical truth.

Oh shit, Whirled Nut is promoting deep cover atheism! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As the saying goes, if you want your kids to be atheists, give them a bible. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 16:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

AFA Sears porn[edit]

I love the cover of the porno DVD: A naked girl surrounded by phrases like "Hours of nonstop action," and then the minuscule "Parental advisory suggested" sticker in the corner. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone want make hours of non-stop porn? ADK...I'll dry your Volvo! 14:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Torture porn? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Anything over 45 minutes without a break is silly IMHO. Z-Rex (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Coal Cares[edit]

I normally just come to RW to read the WIGOs and some other stuff and I never posted something before. But now I need someone to tell me that Coal Cares is a Poe. Please tell me it is! Just read the section "Clean" Energy:

"Coal power is, of course, solar power. That’s because millions of years ago, before coal began to form from decaying organic matter, the sun provided the energy that organic matter required to grow and spread. Other forms of fossil fuel—oil and natural gas—are also ways that Nature has found to store solar energy in ways that can be predictably, safely, and reliably released to power our lives."

"One problem with solar energy is that many proposed solutions include placing solar collectors on every rooftop[..] obviously, a complete absence of quality control. If everyone can collect and distribute energy, there is no guarantee of that energy’s quality. Would you trust your neighbor’s four-year-old child to operate on your kidney—or even on a potentially malignant skin mole? Surely not."

"But there are also much, much bigger potential problems associated with wind energy. Every science student has heard of the so-called “butterfly effect” [..] that the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in the wilds [..] can set off a massive, community-shattering tornado"

"a simple calculation shows precisely how much. Suppose a butterfly flapping its wings, producing about 12.5 W of energy, can unleash a tornado producing approximately 100MW of energy. By this measure, a large wind farm—producing 781.5 MW of energy, or the equivalent of approximately 63 million butterflies—could unleash the equivalent of 63 million tornados, or over 6 quadrillion watts of energy. That's still less than one one hundred millionth the energy of an asteroid hitting the earth, but it's nothing to sneeze at, either!"

This could could be the actual opinion of some crank but then I read the FAQ:

"How do you decide where to build coal plants?

For humane reasons, and in order to keep energy costs low for you, the consumer, Peabody locates coal plants strategically in areas where the health effects of coal particulate exposure will be as small as possible in statistical terms. More precisely, areas already associated with enhanced mortality rates, such as lower-income or underprivileged areas, will experience the effects of long-term particulate exposure in a proportionately much less profound way than areas in which residents lead statistically above-average lives in terms of health. The relative costs—in health terms, as well as from an insurance perspective—will be lower."

I'm totally speechless. 79.239.59.13 (talk)

Try highlighting the area to the right of the WIGO. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The link to some Peabody Energy firm got me...79.239.59.13 (talk)
Well the "coal is actually solar energy" is true, but beside the point. The problem is that it's millions of years worth of CO2 fixing being released back into the atmosphere in the space of a century or two. Not good. (On the other hand biofuels are, in principle, carbon neutral because the CO2 produced by burning them is reduced and fixed by next years crop and there's no net atmospheric CO2.) It could well be satire of some kind but I've definitely seen worse misunderstandings than that butterfly effect paragraph. The final paragraph kinda gives it away because while I'm sure some people may think that as actual reasoning, none of them would dare say it out loud. ADK...I'll glug your steak knife! 00:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Have a close look at the word square in the Kids Korner. There are a few extra hidden words! Old Fashioned Architect (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I found "propaganda" and "lies" ADK...I'll putrefy your bass guitar! 14:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Antifeminist Stuff[edit]

--Open sketchbook (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC) : What's up with the feminist posts on the Clog listing? Sure, they aren't the best thought out articles in the universe, but they are hardly on the level of the normal content of this list.

If the posting has been voted down, it's obvious that people agree with you, so it's not really worth complaining about. I know you didn't make the argument explicitly, but making an argument that feminists can't be on this list is a little over the top. --Mariposa (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
--Open sketchbook (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC) : I didn't intend to imply that feminists can't be on this list, just that I didn't think these examples (well, specifically, one of the examples) really belonged on the list, and that both of them being there, particularly with one of them linking to the other already, reads like somebody with an axe to grind.
For "not the best thought out articles" read "torrents of ludicrous dreck." It is irrelevant that the people spewing it also chatter on command about patriarchal power dynamics. This is something that feminists are doing less and less of; the same cannot be said for pinkos. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this entry was bullshit largely because it ignored the main thesis of the article, that being the analogy between violence against women and the IMF's violence against the developing world. The use of the personal anecdote was simply meant to underscore the point. Furthermore, the author wasn't saying that "The Patriarchy" hired a hitman, but that random gropings and sexual assaults perpetuate very real systems of violence against women. — Unsigned, by: Noah / talk / contribs
It is very simple to draw a parallel between two variations on the same theme; that is barely worth mentioning. But pray tell, what part of the sentence
His action, like so much sexual violence against women, was undoubtedly meant to be a reminder that this world was not mine, that my rights -- my liberté, egalité, sororité, if you will -- didn’t matter.
is being misinterpreted in the WIGO? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Incredible Martian Pixel Mush[edit]

(in reference to this)

Oh god, the Mars "base" thing is escalating. Along with bullshit reasoning of the "lookit, the structures are all rectangular" kind and some just plain hilarious comments. Here are some hilarious examples:

"Each of the three 'buildings' on the end are EXACTLY 66 feet smaller than the next. Granted, it's ony measurements on a set of 3, but significant all the same. This is an incredible discovery! Can't wait to hear NASA pipe in! Sent it to all the news organizations, (AP, Reuters, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, Headline News). Left out FOX on purpose. Put my name on the return email address 'just in case'."
"why would you leave out fox? thats just stupid, nothing wrong with fox news."
"Sorry, I meant to type 62 feet-not 66. They also appear to have pointed roofs-like a house roof (due to the way sunlight reflects at that point)."
"Careful guys, this could be bait. NASA with probably release a statement in a few weeks to make us look like fools."

I sense great lulz potential in this one. --Orcinus (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Obama Birther Birth Certificate Forger EXTRAVAGANZA![edit]

Too fucking funny...

I loved this part, where all of the hyperlinks are missing: "As WND has reported in a three-part series, published here, here, and here,". (Yeah, just like that.) Furthermore, the comments section is a comedy goldmine in a diamond mine in a uranium mine with steam powered excavators that use thousand-dollar bills and Picasso paintings for fuel. Awesomesauce. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL I'm betting that if someone were to go to the website below, create a Kenyan birth certificate, and send it to Orly Tatz or Joe Farah, they would publish it on their website saying it's Obama's real birth certificate.

And these guys, who couldn't even tell a homemade Kenyan birth certificate from the real thing, want us to trust their insight on Obama's real birth certificate being fake, surrrre:

http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/

"Civil rights activists" who work for dictators[edit]

Could someone who voted this WIGO down be so good as to explain why? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I voted neutral because I was confused--"Shut up, Brx." 03:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I voted it up -- because the PRC is a horrific totalitarian regime and doesn't represent any kind of leftism I subscribe toP-Foster (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Your link only mentioned he worked for some land-use stuff for China. I don't really know how damning that is.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Dude rails against Wisconsin's plan to make it harder to vote in that state. Dude works for a country that has a far worse record on allowing citizens to vote freely. dude is a hypocrite. P-Foster (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
P-Foster has it about right. However, there is the additional irony that one always hears (from that same news source, no less) about how somebody's opinion is invalid because they work for company X, or are funded by evil boogeyman Y; the Koch brothers' funding of think tanks, for example. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Slightly OT, but the difference with Koch Bros. funding is that besides the dough they dump into their outlets, they also sit on the boards of most of these think tanks and so exert a lot more message control over them, as in the recent FSU incident where new hires must be approved by the Kochs themselves. As they say in the journalism biz, "consider the source." (And I say this as a regular reader of several Koch-backed (and formerly Koch-backed) bloggers. And I've got a puppet of Soros on there too, for good measure.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
because I couldn't independently verify any of it, and it sounded like the same kind of crazy rhetoric we would post ABOUT on our WIGO:clogs. As an aside, who the fuck is Michael Berkowitzthat I should even care? He's not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
He is the man who wrote the article. There is a biography of him at the end of the article itself, which states that he works for the Chinese government. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Woopie, he wrote YASAOTI (yet another stupid article on the internet). What else? Why is he meaningful? Who cares? Does him working for the Chinese government in some way invalidate his opinion or facts on the matter? Ranting about "zOMG you work for the bad people" and dismissing his argument with only that is a fallacy of ad hominem. Which is exactly why the comment is something that RW should be pointing to and laughing ABOUT someone writing. "Hahahaha, sensationalism and ad hominem fallacy all rolled into one!" --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
That is not an ad hominem, as his employment is directly relevant to the topic at hand. Firstly, it is not general practice among civil rights activists to be employed by dictatorial foreign governments, and this employment would itself suggest hypocrisy on his part. His hypocrisy is made even more obvious when considering that on the one hand he decries a bill that does not actually disenfranchise a single person as "suppress[ing] the popular vote," but on the other hand cheerfully offers his services to a single-party state that actually does "suppress the popular vote," in a de jure capacity, no less.
Similarly, it would not be an ad hominem to point out that most of the people in the U.S. "anti-war" camp during World War II were Nazi sympathizers with ulterior motives for opposing the war. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight. Blogger posts about a Wisconsin Assembly Member calling a piece of legislation "voter suppression", and in some ways, this is totally apt claim to make. Are poll taxes voter suppression? Requiring someone to obtain photo ID to vote is in some ways equivalent to a poll tax... have you ever gotten a photo ID that didn't cost some amount of money? Plus, you have to prove residency, with a mailing address. This law will disenfranchise every homeless person in Wisconsin. Unless you're going to argue that the Assembly Member is a hypocrite for working for China as well? It is true that there is some cognitive dissonance going on with his opinions about China, but holding those opinions does not seem to interfere with his ability to rationally evaluate this particular bill. I mean, I own a registered copyright for GPL code, and am a staunch believer in the ideas of copyleft, and that all operating systems should have their kernel open source... I still worked for Microsoft... after all, they wanted to give me money. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 07:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
...holding those opinions does not seem to interfere with his ability to rationally evaluate this particular bill. You seem to be misunderstanding the strategy employed by shysters. Generally, they prefer bullshit (in the Frankfurt sense) to lies, and when they do lie, omission is a favorite tactic, as is dodgy use of statistics.
We see an example of bullshit here in the chanting, with dubious sincerity, of 60+-year-old rhetorical formulae (e.g., the allusion to the Jim Crow Southern poll-taxes) aimed to get a rise out of a certain segment of the population. Whether or not these are being applied validly is of no concern to the shyster.
We see an example of the use of omission in the statement that the bill "triples the length of time a resident must live in a voting district." This is true, if you round off a little — the minimum increases from 10 days to 28. One can understand why Mr. Berkowitz did not give those exact numbers; but what I cannot understand is what effect this has on the ability of the homeless to vote, as they would be disqualified under either rule.
There is also an example of twisting statistics, although not a direct one. Mr. Berkowitz argues by assertion that the bill will affect members of a laundry-list of identity groups, primarily due to the photo ID requirement you cited. Evidence cited in support of these assertions is presented elsewhere; but the evidence is highly dodgy, since it is based on a study that estimates the number of driver's licenses in circulation among various groups. The study says that the proportion of the population with photo IDs could not be properly estimated; so, naturally, the people citing it try to pretend that the only kind of photo ID is a driver's license. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones rant[edit]

Best Alex Jones episode ever! I wonder if he knows that DMT is one of the proposed mechanisms for dreams. Oh no, the elves!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL I of course knew who Alex Jones was but I'd never heard his radio show or podcasts. The rant makes me want to look into his material though. --Roofus (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
He is batshit crazy but that takes it to a new level. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I tried to watch his interview with Christopher Monckton (or, to use his full aristocratic title, Christopher Monckton). I lasted thirty seconds, not even past the intro - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Internet Christians' greatest threat[edit]

Lol, so true - and that's what the irony is. This nutter doesn't realize that he's actually admitting that Christianity can't stand up to a debate on an open forum where free speech is allowed, and facts aren't censored - it only thrives when leaders can control the information that their minions receive.

That's one thing that Christianity and Communism have in common. Notice how China views the internet as a huge threat too?

I honestly predict that fundamentalist Christianity will be dead by the end of the last generation, or at least marginalized into the same corner as the KKK or Neo-Nazi groups.--108.193.118.126 (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Chris Hedges...?[edit]

Geez, when did this guy hop on board the crazy train? Even the points I agree with him on still sound like they were written by a guy wearing a "The End Is Nigh!!" sandwich board. And he seems to have developed a curious affinity for quote mining Sam Harris as of late. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The man with the perfect IQ (TM)[edit]

Worth reading for a good laugh. Even better, you can spend money on becoming a genius too! Tielec01 (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Carbon dating WIGO[edit]

The author of that bit of insanity is one Dr Richard Kent (a retired MD), the genius who's also behind the incredible exploding nostrils. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The way he keeps saying "18 inches long" makes me wonder if he's somehow jealous. ADK...I'll pilot your lobster! 15:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
His first premise for biblical creation is that Jesus Christ created everything, too. Not god. I halfway go out of my hat each time I hear that. I understand the whole trinity thing, I think, but if they are one in the same, why draw the distinction at all between the father, son, and holy spirit? Is this some sort of cheat-code workaround so they can worship Jesus instead of god and not violate the first commandment? The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, his "informative links" both belong to Kent Hovind and/or CSE Ministries. Fail. EDIT: The whole damned page is a regurgitated version of Hovind's Water Canopy Theory. EPIC FAIL. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It's WIGO:Clog, if you're eyes are bleeding, it's doing the right thing. ADK...I'll vitiate your shank! 08:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's working. It's a veritable Event Horizon moment over here. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Kanon Tipton[edit]

I'm sure the kid has talent, but he's just another Marjoe Gortner, who's having his preaching beaten into him. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Atheist register[edit]

RE: http://pastorstahl.blogspot.com/2010/09/putting-atheists-on-national-registry.html#comment-form

While either Pastor Mike himself is a deep-cover Poe or if just that post is some dark satire (fuck knows these people have an odd view of what "comedy" entails) is an open question. Unfortunately, you can't comment on the blog without being a member, so I thought I'd leave the comment here instead. Too unsubtle?

A registry is a first step, but people need to be able to identify atheists without the use of an internet connection first. Small but prominent badges in a distinct color (yellow, perhaps?) would be a step in the right direction. This wouldn't be too intrusive but would allow them to be identified by Christians. This is far from the final solution, though.

ADK...I'll fumble your milk! 12:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

His other blog has a few sermons, starting in June. And there is a Living Waters church in Miramar... be very afraid. Тytalk 13:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't access that blog? When I click on the WIGO link, it brings me to a sign-in page for Blogger. I'm not familiar with how Blogger works, though; do I need to sign in to view a blog? άλφαΤαλκ 14:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It has since been made private. Тytalk 15:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Gah! I don't get it - what's the point of blogging and then restricting it to the chosen few. It's bad enough conservatives & religious fundies turn off comments, but private blogs are a whole new level of stupid. --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Nobody got a screen capture of it, right? All I could find is this pageimg, which sounds like it's quoting the blog post in full, but I was hoping for the primary source. άλφαΤαλκ 15:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It was made private when the adverse reactions began to roll in. apparently - and I forget where I read this - it's not Poe but quite serious. When the flac started to arrive he realised he'd over stepped the mark by an iota or two and locked down the blog. Bob Soles (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense. But if you are going to pose in a position of authority (a minister) and say things in the public sphere (an open blog) then if you say something stupid you deserve the comments to roll in. That's the point, right? ADK...I'll reiterate your minefield! 19:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Coincidence or Miracle? You decide.[edit]

You guys may have seen these before, but surely not collected into the one group. Amazing revelations - "A Walnut looks like a little brain, a left and right hemisphere, upper cerebrums and lower cerebellums. Even the wrinkles or folds on the nut are just like the neo-cortex. We now know walnuts help develop more than three (3) dozen neuron-transmitters for brain function."

There are twelve (12) of these entries, each more miraculous than the last. To rub salt into the wound this was sent to a good friend of mine who previously belonged to a church, but has since lapsed into the evils of atheism. He's got cancer at the moment so the suggestion was that these vegetables/fruits and some prayer was all that was needed to cure his cancer.

One is tempted to wonder why god gave cancer to him in the first place - but he probably had it coming. Tielec01 (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Inquisition.ca[edit]

I, Stefan Jetchick, hereby make my Profession of Faith, my Pledge of Allegiance to the Pope and the Bishop of my Diocese (insofar as he is himself in communion with the Pope), and I also make the vow to defend the teachings of the Catholic Church, even unto death (what is called a Vow of Martyrdom).[edit]

Probably the best Québecois website i have seen yet Alain (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. (Facepalm) Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

AboveTopSecret[edit]

Good grief I haven't seen ATS for years! I was hoping that it had died off by now, but I guess that I underestimated the need for paranoia. I stopped going to ATS after someone on there tried to convince me that Mars wasn't actually red, it was being made to look red by some ebil gummint conshpiuracy via a hologrammatic thingy that hid its actual greeness. And yes, he/she/it then said that there was life on Mars. When I pointed out that the Romans knew that Mars was red and that Julius Caesar probably didn't have any hologrammatic thingies I was denounced as a BLASPHEMER for doubting! Meh. Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, ATS is going strong. 9/11 seems to have given conspiracy websites the shot in the arm they were needing and then some. Though, photos of Mars (the surface at least) are often artificially tinted red even though it's brown. It's dust in the air that gives it the famous hue. But this is usually an image processing and balance issue because colour perception is about 3-4 orders of magnitude more complicated than most people realise (there's no such thing as "true" colour, for instance), nothing to do with a conspiracy as many may claim. ADK...I'll abandon your oven! 14:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Palin (D)[edit]

If you had any lingering doubts that Joseph farah was insane, this should dispel them? Palin a Dem? Seriously? I rather liked this comment: "She would add some excitement to the GOP race, but she might not stand out all that much." For her not to stick out shows just what a bunch of wingnuts the GOP is putting forward. If only Farah would realise that Palin probably contributed more to McCain losing than anything else. --PsyGremlinPraat! 17:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann[edit]

So, I don't quite get how these work outside of WIGO:CP. Are we voting up things that are hilarious? Or good / true?

The back of the envelope calculation in the Bachmann stuff is wrong, but in a way that's subtle enough I can't tell if the person who submitted it understood. The error is assuming that serious effects are specifically a consequence of the vaccine. Cognitive bias steps in here in a big way. Every day a certain number of teenage girls will get hit by cars and die. Their parents almost certainly won't blame this on vaccines. But another (much smaller) number of teenage girls will come home, lay down, and never wake up, if they've just (maybe that afternoon, or the day before... or the week before) had a jab there is fairly high chance their parents will associate the two things. Excess deaths is the correct measurement. We already know humans are mortal, what we care about is whether they are significantly more likely to die after a particular medical intervention. Otherwise we can conclude that eating Skittles, Rap music, and playing video games are deadly and need to be banned urgently. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Lockerbie[edit]

Sorry, but the "conspiracy" bit is almost certainly true. Megrahi is undoubtedly innocent. Whether or not he knew of the conspiracy to frame him I can't say, but this is one case where at the the very least, the minimal conspiracy theory is true. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC) So he's framed and has no idea of a 'conspiracy'? He never even suspected slightly? Come on Perry Mason, who really did it? Scherben 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)scherben — Unsigned, by: Scherben / talk / contribs 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hurlbut the Hilarious[edit]

Terry's posts never fail to amuse me. Righteous anger oozes from every pixel but is still smothered by the torrent of ignorance pouring from the screen.

It's difficult to see how the Republicans could possibly engineer a better opportunity to kick out an incumbent Democrat president. The economy hasn't recovered from eight disastrous years of Bush, and the administration's one big Win (the Affordable Care Act) is still viewed as a Bad Thing by a large proportion of idiots who swallow GOP rhetoric. To beat Obama, unite around a candidate who won't scare off independents and spend the entire campaign saying "Wow! See how bad the Democrats fucked up?" and when challenged about the solidly negative voting in the House, come out with "Yes - we stopped the Democrats fucking things up even more!" Net result: Rep ~300 electoral votes, Dem ~240. Easy win.

Instead, we get the Teabaggers. These people are often portrayed as a political movement. They aren't. They are only interested in ideology and aren't prepared to budge an inch by negotiating. They almost forced America into default and look like they're trying to do it again now. This isn't politics, it's a hostage negotiation. And it's going to get Obama re-elected. By forcing the whole Republican party to the right, they alienate wavering Dems and independents and cause them either to stick with the Democrats or abstain. Better even than that is this sort of purity drive shit from idiots like Hurlbut. I can just picture Obama frantically writing cheques (sorry - checks, since this is the US) for the maximum allowed amount to these "We Don't Understand The Constitution Party" people because every vote they get is one less that Obama has to get.

It's more than "black and white" for Hurlbut and his fellow morons: it's a black so dark as to suck every photon from the universe, and a white full of the blinding light of ignorance. There's no nuance. No scope for subtlety. His utter inability in that article to understand the phrase "lesser of two evils" illustrates this perfectly.

Obama might not be the president a lot of people hoped he would be, but he's head, shoulders, torso and legs above the alternatives. My thanks go out to Terry Hurlbut for guaranteeing his reelection in 14 months.

Rant over now. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 19:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Courage Fund[edit]

That really is a great ad..."I'm basically retired, have a small farm, and work as a clerk part-time" -> "we get maybe 7 marriage licenses a year" -> "please make the gays stop ruining my immersion!" ~ Kupochama[1][2] 14:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes you want to give them a good, tight neck-hug until they stop moving. ADK...I'll acidify your Playstation! 19:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's why we have those Obamacare death panels. It's all coming together... ~ Kupochama[1][2] 11:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I like the name, "The Courage Fund". It takes a lot of courage to stand against the rights of a minority. «-Bfa-» 18:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should post a response encouraging the courage fund to stand up for other poor people fired for having the courage to stand up for their personal beliefs about marriage againsts laws forced! on them by the evil activist supreme court without even a vote let alone a referendum, like the poor JP in Louisiana Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Back on Commie Trannie Action[edit]

Before ya'll get your collective panties in a knot, if this is to be added, you should be aware:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/10/12/occupy-l-a-occupy-philly-turn-to-mao-communism/

http://adfki.wikinet.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://789chan.org/cwc/res/109688.html

Basically, a very messed up person who changes ideology/sexual orientation at the flip of a dime to feed his persecution complex got interviewed as a joke, feeding the Beck's propaganda machine. — Unsigned, by: 178.32.50.56 / talk / contribs 09:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Nazi hashtag[edit]

I urge y'all to read this one. Take a stiff drink before hitting the comments, wherein the author doubles down on the stupid. This is quite definitely the very stupidest thing I've read this week, and I'm from the Internet - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Garghhhh! Teh stoopid, it buuuuurnsss! What a bunch of utter morons! Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
What the actual fuck. I am blown away. WF Lizardbrain (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Well shit. Uke Blue 02:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll probably get drunk before reading this. It might be the funniest clogosphere headline I've seen in a while though. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Fareed and Iran[edit]

I don't get the WiGO. Where does Fareed suggest invading Iran in that article? DickTurpis (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh[edit]

I just realized that I can vote about four times on any given post. Kneel before me, for I am a God, who may up promote or sink whatever he sees fit! BWAHAHAHAHA! Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Stabby, there isn't much support for you being God in the scientific community. You should look at the links HERE and HERE. Lagrandbite (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Prof. Henry A. Giroux[edit]

Who is he, and why are those comments ironic? Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 06:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

He is a former professor at Penn State who got in a snit about the place being "corporatized" (translation: his dean was insufficiently enthusiastic about his work), and subsequently fled to the haven of a corporate-endowed chair at McMaster University in Ontario. To determine why the remarks are ironic, I suggest reading the article; it is one of his more legible specimens. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah. It wasn't all that clear from the clog itself, but that certainly fits the bill... Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 07:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

One hell of a conspiracy[edit]

I just came across this website and thought it could find a place in WIGO. Some of it is fairly dated because it concerns Sarah Palin. However, there are a ton of lulz-worthy items to be found. http://palinsdirtylittlesecret.blogspot.com/ Bobafan (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a... ummmm.... ah.... ok, it's a batshit crazy set of theories. Whitney Houston = White House? Darkmind1970 (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Earth as alien battleground WIGO[edit]

Is that a serious website? Maybe I just don't want to believe that actual people are that nutty, but does anyone know if that's actually a serious website or just an extremely poorly disguised parody? άλφαΤαλκ 20:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It was on Doubtful Newsblog, so it must be true! Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 21:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Iceland Story is Bullshit[edit]

That first Iceland story is in fact filled with errors and mostly bullshit. See here. Aceace 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I had to confine myself to the two most egregious ones for the WIGO. The writer says that she "looks at the big picture from a systems and spiritual point of view;" it seems she does not want to be bothered with minor details like facts. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Facts? We don't need no steenking facts! Psaw! Darkmind1970 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ararat wood[edit]

For a creationist that's actually some surprisingly good research... Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 03:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I like how they use carbon-14 dating in their reasoning. The same carbon-14 dating, let us not forget, that disproves their model of a young earth. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Goddamn Christmas music[edit]

Sorry, gotta agree with that one -- one month+ straight of Christmas music is way too much and you can't even play one of the few good songs on the radio. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

At least during the Christmas season they have the hardihood to play a few older offerings, in consequence of which the muzak vaguely resembles music on occasion; not as good as some Christmas music, but still... Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The grand irony being that you HAVE to sing that song that badly. It's How It's Done. It's the Law. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yuh. This entry should be in blogs, not clogs - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Elephant in the room[edit]

I'm not a formal editor, but has anyone else noticed the increasing number of pro right-wing entries being placed in this section?

98.87.159.44 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Those I could be bothered to investigate seem to have been added by ListenerX, who is not, as far as I know, part of a pro right-wing conspiracy. Also, insanity can come from all ends of the political spectrum etc (although those aren't very good WIGO entries in my opinion). Call me if we're forming a lynch mob, though. -134.76.184.103 (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. It just seems to me that ListenerX is, currently, using the Clogosphere section almost solely to denigrate OWS without justification. I feel that this goes against the spirit of RationalWiki. Just my two cents. 98.87.159.44 (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why his OWS WIGOs have been massively downvoted. Uke Blue 04:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
My recent Occupy Wall Street-related WIGOs have been directed at individual cranks/shysters who are exploiting the movement for their own ends. I generally can predict which of my WIGOs will be voted down, but I hope I am never found excusing a crank because I happen to be in the same political current as he is. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but that would require going into the entry and assessing it's actual content, wouldn't it. You should know people don't like such vulgar things as effort. Scarlet A.pngtheist 22:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Creationism in TED comments[edit]

When a female reproduces , she can only reproduce eggs. There is not possible way for her to produce sperm without supernatural interaction. Therefore, females cannot be part of evolution.

Beautiful. A masterful example of total fucktard beauty. I cannot begin to fathom out whatever-the-fuck she means.

Creationists don't understand evolution's basics, how do you expect them to understand the more complicated parts concerning sexual reproduction? Scarlet A.pngnarchist 15:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
What they've done here, I think, is taken the fact that only males are responsible for the Y chromosome, and thus the gender of offspring, then made the blind assumption that only the Y can mutate. Somebody kill me. Please. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 15:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Coyne and scientism[edit]

Good grief, Coyne is attempting to "do" philosophy again? His post belongs in clogs, not the one he is supposedly "refuting." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The post you link there is a pink fluffy cloud of words - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
They may be pink and fluffy, but they make far more sense than the philosophical ignorance Coyne is prone to spouting. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)