RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?/Archive6

This is an archive page, last updated 5 October 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>

, (new)(back)

Scientists abandon belief in God!

This alarming fact must be true because a Christian website says so, and they quote the New Scientist.

WHAT IS MILITANT ATHEISM? Alarmingly scientist follow the sinful Path of Doubt, the majority abandon virtuous faith and stop believing in God! God is Lord (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

random loons on youtube

does every random no mark loon on with youtube vid that wigo posters disagree with require a wigo? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Anything anyone comes across that they think is worth sharing is worthy of a wigo. I don't see why we limit our notability discussions just to YouTube. ^theist 21:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We've always allowed random loons on YouTube in Clogo. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We've always allowed random loons. That's the point, for some reason RW generally only seems to hold notability to be important when it's YouTube. This isn't just WIGO, but article notability and SB topics follow the same idea. ^narchist 23:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no real difference between random no mark loons on YouTube & random no mark loon bloggers. Basically the notability criteria for blogo/clogosphere wigos is pretty low. For mainspace articles, on the other hand, I think we should only cover relatively notable/popular bloggers & vloggers. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WND's flying banner

Fuck you who ever wrote that, I was so going to mock them for that on Psy's blog. - π 11:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Now thousands of sports fans will see our message... through that... thick... opaque... metal roof... DERP. ^postate 12:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Uuuummmm.... did they fly over the parking lot before or after the game? I hate want to defend WND, really, but this may not be quite as stupid as it looks at first glance.

And even if they only flew it during the game... the coverage of it has gotten far more people viewing it than could have seen it during the game. MDB (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the number of cars, hours before the game, probably in the morning. There are car parks available right in front of the stadium. - π 00:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious comment on Buzzfeed's 2011 Fox News recap

Go down the page and it's listed as a TL,DR. Some wingnut says that he wants to gun us all down because he and other conservatives are to "school quarterbacks" as liberals are to "nerds."

Oh, America. The home of 150 million idiots. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see what he's trying to say. I also see that he's a complete idiot. Probably from Alabama. Also, just to be clear, are the half of the Americans who are idiots all resident in the Deep South? -- 23:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't be possible--the Deep South doesn't contain that many people, and many are there not by choice. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore...and I'm not at all offended by the implication (cuz there are some total idiots in the South), but comments like these make me think that many people could benefit from an "Ask an American" forum (including many Americans U.S. citizens who don't know the history of their own country) to help get a few misconceptions out of the way. I don't want to sound uptight (cuz I'm pretty laid back), but it might be helpful for citizens of other countries to understand the diversity of viewpoints and not simply rely on the words of politicians, celebrities and a few backward bloggers/conservative wiki authors/media personalities--just like a British individual wouldn't want a 'Murican mistaking a Liverpudlian from a Brummie from a Northern Londoner from a Southern Londoner, much less someone from Wales or Scotland. I know I'd certainly welcome a discussion on the different types of Canadians or Mexicans (I once got a rash talking-to from a dishwasher from Oaxaca when I made the mistake of asking him if he was going back to Sonora for the holidays--Sonora just happened to be the closest state to where I was living in Tucson. Oops). -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Racist problem?

I wouldn't want to speculate on whether or not britain has a problem with racism, but 2 youtube vids does not to my mind indicate 'a racist problem'. The overwhelming majority of comments condemn the women in the vids, and certainly in London, where both videos where taken, is such a melting pot, if such incidents were common enough to be a problem, the videos wouldn't be news. The wigo, like the last one, is misleading hyperbole. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

^moral 21:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Britain certainly has a history of sweeping things like that under the rug, if the wildcat strikes and popularity polls that followed Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech are anything to go by. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Err... what!!!! We have, and have had, a certain amount of racism and the Rivers of Blood thing - which for those not in the know was 43 years ago - was not our finest hour. But, before you talk too loudly, I was watching a documentary - Blues Britannia - about the blues artists like Howling Wolf and Muddy Waters who played extensively in the UK in the sixties and one of them commented that it made a pleasant change to be able to eat in the same restaurant as the rest of the band. One (or two) foul mouthed chav(s) does not portray a country. Indeed, as AMG pointed out, it was the rarity of the event which made it newsworthy. Bad Faith (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"In the UK in the sixties," when Great Britain had only quite recently given up or was still in control of colonies full of dark peoples who had been deemed unable to rule themselves for generations because they were insufficiently "developed"/"civilized." PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If these incidents were naturally rare, the British government would not feel the need to curtail freedom of speech in order to silence them. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's only you yanks who are so hung up on freedom of speech. It's not that big a deal for us and that law was part of implementing the change that has brought us from the sixties to the current age. It says a lot about a country that we consider verbally assaulting a person to be as criminally wrong as physically assaulting them. That's the reason for the law, punishing a wrongdoing. Bad Faith (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's only you yanks who are so hung up on freedom of speech... Ah, yes, such a trivial and unimportant right that it did not even make its way into the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention, the U.K.'s Human Rights Act — oh, wait... ListenerX^TalkerX 19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Pfft, we've got cages for those "free spech" troublemakers these days. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC)That will be the European Convention on Human Rights which gives freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". - so not quite freedom of speech then, not in the way that you Yanks see it. The UK act simply ratified the European act except where it clashed with UK law which was sovereign. So again, not quite as you portray. So, yes, we have a certain amount of freedom of speech but recognise that it has it's limits. In particular incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred is illegal. So, it's not granted in two out of the three things you mention.

Now, going back to the Enoch thing, using your analogy, I could say that ALL US soldiers are murdering bastards - why? Just look at Kent State. The reasoning is the same, the argument is just as invalid. We've all moved on since then. Bad Faith (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nitpick all you want; the pinkos who currently lead the cheers for such laws whistle quite a different tune when it is their people getting censored.

The mention of Enoch Powell was not an "analogy," but historical evidence. You will note that I referred to "popularity polls" in that post. These popularity polls indicated that the majority of the British population at that time agreed with Powell. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you really just say "pinkos" without irony? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you really never encountered ListenerX before? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I knew he talked like he'd been raised by a Cold War-era PSA, but I didn't realize it was that bad. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Did I say "pinkos"? I meant Reds. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the racists are loudest. Also, I don't know much about the UK's media, but if it's anything like the media in the US then there's a bias towards sensationalism. So, a couple of youtube vids are blown out of proportion. You'd have to look at statistics and poll numbers to really know about such a problem.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wo. I thought I was posting in the Saloon Bar. Trippin'--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh great, the hate speech/hate crime argument again. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

True, the BNP does make a lot of noise, but their opponents have mounted quite a hearty response, just like various groups did against the Brownshirts in Germany in the 1920s — and unlike the BNP, their opponents have the use of the mainstream press.

As to the hate-crime business, one must understand that the Reds, who are the primary movers-and-shakers of the so-called "antifa" movement, do not give a flying flap about "hate speech," of which they are themselves voluminous producers; they are simply gaming the law to have at their political enemies, just as every other restriction on free speech has been gamed down the centuries. A number of the prosecutions that have come under these laws are of a similar nature, although more benign in intent. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: it's the 21st century, and Communists are still "movers and shakers" of something in Britain. Fascinating... Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Due to all the Red-baiting that went on in the 1950s, etc., it is very difficult to get people to understand that Marxists did not go away with the collapse of the Soviet Union — they just splintered into a thousand and one derivative movements, like any religious cult does when the original prophet dies.

A short history of this particular case can be found on Wikipedia: wp:Antifa#United Kingdom ListenerX^TalkerX 06:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And here come the REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! conspiracies...forget it, we've completely diverted from the topic at hand anyways. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

┌<span style="display:inline-block; overflow:hidden; width:em;">────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You still haven't explained why its bad whenever Marxists get their way. As non-Marxists, don't we have the luxury of addressing each of their policies on their merits, rather than reflexively dismissing them due to their source? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a step ahead of that. The argument is as follows: I consider the curtailing of free speech to be a bad thing. When I bring that point up in this case, the counter-argument is usually: "But this is racist hate speech!" The next point, then, is that the Reds are not going after it for being racist or "hate speech," but for coming from people whose other beliefs they consider politically unacceptable. History shows that once "reactionaries" and "fascists" are eliminated in this way, Reds tend to turn on the liberals. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the root of the problem is an attempt to interpret UK culture with a US mind set. Despite the similarities our fundamental beliefs are so different that what is obvious for one culture is absurd to the other. An easy example of this is health care. Even the most rabid UK right winger would find it hard to understand why the US hasn't adopted some sort of socialised medicine whereas, to even the more left leaning Yanks, this is obvious. Trying to interpret the politics of one from the cultural viewpoint of the other leads to absurdities such as giving fringe groups more prominence than they deserve. OMG!! The Socialist Workers Party!!! Or OMG!!! The EDL!!! Neither of these represent the UK any more than the KKK represents the US. Bad Faith (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody would reasonably argue that the EDL "represents" the UK of the KKK the USA; but that doesn't mean that UK-style racism and American-style racism aren't serious problems that need to be talked about. Most racists aren't card-carrying members of racist groups; if they were, it would be a hell of a lot easier to deal with racism and racists. Racists and racism are not fringe elements of society; they are structural, reflected in the fact that, say far more African-Americans are prisoners than they are CEOs. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 13:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought of UK-style and US-style racism as being different things, although I'm open to alternative interpretations here as I only have to go on what I've seen so far. The way I see a lot of US racism is a genuine "blacks are inferior people" attitude - it's really motivated racism. Perhaps this is rooted in how slavery and then segregation lasted compared to Europe, I don't know, but it often seems very straight-faced and serious and very much about racial purity and you get very, very strong dividing lines of racial groups that view it as (pardon the expression) black and white. In contrast, when I see some Burberry wearing charver on the street corner shouting "PAKI!!" at a shop keeper I don't get that inferiority and racial purity vibe - indeed, I grew up around people using it and didn't realise it was short for "Pakistani" for a long time, I wager people using it probably don't know that either. It's more like that inside their heads they click a button marked "I want to feel superior by acting like a twat" and they get a little drop-down menu of insults appropriate to whoever is passing: are they fat, are they Asian, are they a goth? The underlying motive is the same in all these cases that they target a group with a slur just because they want to target any group with a slur and find one that works. So I really don't think there's a similar attitude at work when you hear about racists in the US talking about niggers, and EDF members complaining about pakis. In fact, racial slurs in the UK seem more grounded in xenophobia than anything else; note that they always use the term "immigrants", that's not a euphemism for racism there it's actually a hatred of foreigners. EDF - English Defence League, it's not a euphemism for racism, it is actually about extreme nationalism - perhaps racism is tacked on, but it's not a motivator as it is with the KKK. The EDF's attitude is exactly the same towards Poles and other eastern Europeans yet they're pretty much racially white, are they not? Hell, they have an identical attitude towards the French, or Germans, and are more than likely to keep banging on about getting out of the EU instead. It's nationalism, not racism at play with the EDF or even those people shouting on buses if you actually listen to what they're saying. I suppose you could summarise it as in the US, racism is a cause, in the UK, racism is a symptom. ^sshole 14:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Clog dancing

Could there be a link to some clog dancing as a form of light relief? (Anyone care to do a clog dancers and morris dancers conspiracy theory spoof).

As an example of misinformation - Harold Wilson said that half the children in his school did not wear shoes to school: they were, actually not barefoot. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the series of letters above. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

False flag feminism

RE: http://manboobz.com/2012/01/03/manosphere-dudes-lets-set-up-fake-feminist-blogs-to-take-down-feminism/

Just as a comparison, isn't this basically what is happening when someone sets up a parody religion site? ^postate 02:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If Jesus was aborted

My first thought was: "Holy fucking shit." -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Would be fine with me. --★uːʤɱ atheist 20:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my REAL first thought (when I read the blog post) was "Poe's Law". Then I looked at the rest of the site, and realized, "Holy fucking shit." -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WIGO Doom

Anybody got any good 2012-related sites that might be worth keeping an eye on this year? There some good wackiness here, for a start. ("Ragnarok has also been the prophecy of many different religions world wide. The most popular being the people of the Mayan tribes. The Solstice on Friday December 21, 2012 precisely at 11:11 AM Universal Time, marks the completion of the 5,125 year Great Cycle of the Ancient Maya Long Count Calendar. Rather than being a linear end-point, this cycle that is closing is naturally followed by the start of a new cycle. What this new cycle has in store for humanity is a mystery that has yet to unfold...") Balaam (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That Thatcher WIGO

1. I once had a conversation with a Daily Mirror journalist about the possibility of Thatcher lying in state when she died. We had a little sub-conversation about spitting on her corpse and said neither "spit" nor "corpse" once. We didn't need to. We knew what we were talking about without vocalising it: if you see a dead Maggie then you'd be tempted to spit on her corpse. It's understood without saying it.
2. My parents are of the generation that don't swear. My grandparents were of the generation that would actually get upset by someone swearing. Playing "Pictionary" one Christmas (you have to draw something to represent a word that others then try to guess) my Dad drew a pair of legs and an arrow. "What's that?". "Maggie Thatcher". "How is that Maggie Thatcher?". "It's a cunt". No shock, no argument, no offence. On to the next drawing.

I hate Thatcher.

I am sorry she has Alztheimers. Not because I'm nice, not because it's a shame even when Thatcher suffers that awful disease. I am sorry she has Alzheimers because if, as I think quite possible, the Hillsborough documents to be released utterly shame her I cannot bask in the knowledge that she will go to the grave knowing she's been found out.

The article linked to, though, is so wrong-headed, so utterly fuck-witted, so typical someone who knows fuck all that I almost started to think well of the vile bitch.Toffeeman (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Has everyone spread this link around their Arsebook and Twatter this week as yet? No? Go and do so. 100,000 signatures for a mention in Parliament! - David Gerard (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering, was Thatcher really that terrible of a Prime Minister? I don't know much about her, but I don't see her getting that much bad press outside this site. Sam ^Tally-ho! 00:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, this site is full of liberals! Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 00:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Billy Elliot, for one. Blue (is useful) 01:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In a thousand years, archaeologists will speculate as to why a twentieth-century leader was entombed in a uric acid crystal a mile on a side - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thatch was a juggernaut who insisted on her way. No criticism. No discussion. No moderation. She didn't care who got hurt. She didn't care if "her way" was wildly impractical (The Poll Tax is a paradigmatic example of a half-baked idea latched onto because of ideology and forced through by Thatcher against the advice and pleas of her own party). She constantly associated "her way" with "freedom" and (especially) "free enterprise" but her "freedom" was, strictly, limited to making money and "free enterprise" was free on one side of the transaction only (her friends). And Thatcher would stitch up deals with those pals. Why do you think the Murdoch press supported her so much? Because she let them into the constitution and massaged the media laws to suit. Why was there a scandal about MP's expenses? Because Thatch decided it would look better if she limited MP's pay, but don't worry boys: you can make up the difference on your exes. A stauch believer in democracy she abolished any local authorities that disagreed with her. She favoured “constructive engagement” with apartheid South Africa. Back at home we found out that “liberty”(and prosperity) did not extend to gays, asians or scousers.

As the WIGO said though, a stopped clock is right twice a day. The problem with the article linked to is that it picks those two when Thatcher was right. Well, not right exactly, but at least on the right side. Sort of.

The IRA were not a cuddly bunch of freedom fighters trying to defend their people (the Irish) against an tyrannical force (the Brits). They were a bunch of murderous gangsters loathed by the majority of the Irish, seeking to ‘’be’’ a tyrannical force (seriously, they were opposed to the Eire regime and were avowedly Marxist. And Gadaffi thought they were great). They were rivalled in their ugliness only by the murderous “loyalist” gangsters loathed by just about everybody.

The miner’s strike was led by Thatcher-in-the-mirror Arthur Scargill a juggernaut who insisted on his own way. No criticism. No discussion. No moderation. He didn't care who got hurt. He didn't care if "his way" was wildly impractical (the miners strike was a fucking disaster). Oh, and he thinks Stalin was a good chap.

Starseed?

An Excellent specimen of a clogosphere post. For all it is worth, I think that its notion that the Indians were closest to the ETs is an insult to the ancient composers of Indian mythology belittles the skills they had in the composition of fantasy fiction. ^{— Unsigned, by: 75.41.123.44 / talk / contribs} 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam was ousted by the CIA

I haven't heard that one in a long time. Almost as good as the Harold Holt was kidnapped by a Chinese submarine in Australian political conspiracy theories. - π 05:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

John Pilger went a little cuckoo somewhere along the way and now thinks the CIA is responsible for most things he dislikes, rather like the more fanatical Christians blame Satan when things go wrong. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

ListenerX...

New article: Truthout

Here you go. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Mobocracy doesn't work"

Hilarious, how some people trumpet the virtues of democracy right up to the point at which the mass of the people disagree with them too sharply. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Every now and again someone expresses their horror that Hamas has political power in Palestine. Their own views tend to make such a comment rather ironic. Can the Security Council impose sanctions on the U.S. already? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 08:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can go into argumentum ad populum, "tyranny of the majority", etc. Back before the 60s the masses voted for not letting "blackies" have basic rights. Is that particularly democratic?

All I'm asking is, should we always conflate mob rule with it? Osaka Sun (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Even so, that doesn't mean it's democracy's fault (or the 'mobocracy'). Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 08:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the rule of law is a more important concern, as evidenced by the fact that when people decry the lack of "democracy" in some instance, they almost always cite examples that actually show a breach of the rule of law. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think when most people say "we need democracy" it's the same thing as when they say "you should keep an open minded" - i.e., "WHY WON'T YOU AGREE WITH ME AND SWALLOW MY BULLSHIT!!!" ^gnostic 11:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What is Niall Ferguson, insane?

Alright then, if he wants WWIII, let him have it. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Metaphorically, I hope you mean. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Niall "England started World War I" Ferguson? He's AWESOME. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 04:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember him as Niall "English school children need a connected narrative in their history curriculum and this means teaching them that there were absolutely no downsides whatsoever for anyone anywhere in the world at all to the British Empire" Ferguson ^postate 00:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Word. 131.111.184.8 (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disgusting Bible

A great insight into the minds of these people:

"And rather than shy away from difficult and painful topics, the Old Testament includes vivid descriptions of murder, cannibalism, witchcraft, dismemberment, torture, rape, idolatry, erotic sex and animal sacrifice."

Erotic sex? Erotic sex is a "difficult and painful" topic? Up there with rape, torture and murder?

I suppose it shows why they didn't do anything about child rape. If erotic sex is just as bad as rape they take it that rape is only as bad as non-procreative consensual sex:

Hey! You stop with the erotic sex and we'll stop with the kiddie-raping! Until then, well, none of us is perfect we all do something difficult and painful. And, of course, we feel absolutely dreadfully guilty about it, we pray for forgivness and we accept that we've done wrong and need help. Not like you smootchie bastards who don't see anything wrong with luuurve! So there! Who's the evil ones now? Toffeeman (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

They forgot shit-eating. It's in there more than once. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Uncommon Descent

I started an article on Uncommon Descent (until now only a subsection in the article on William Dembski. I'd like to add this blog to the clogosphere. Thoughts? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Surewhynot. Тy^Yes? 22:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama might be Kenyan

You have to love that article. As I understand it, their theory is that the attempts to cover up Obama's provenance are so extensive as to include selectively deleting records of aircraft passengers arriving in the US in the week in 1961 when he was born to cover up an accusation that has never been made before? Right? Maybe he arrived by ship? "What to do, what to do?!" Have they thought about looking for border crossing records in Mexico? He could have come in from Mexico you know. DogP (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory ^sshole 20:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Game On (the Santorum song)

That is all. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they're serious. ^moral 19:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell sends a letter that says marijuana causes death.

Sure, marijuana has never killed anyone by overdose but it is well supported scientifically that it causes lung cancer, which is what he says right before. Lung cancer is one of the deadliest, even deadlier than brain cancer. In other words, Mitch McConnell is technically correct. Marijuana, when smoked, does kill.Kamizushi (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, lung cancer from cannabis smoking is not well supported scientifically. Whether lung cancer is deadly is irrelevant if it's induced only rarely. Pancreatic cancer is deadly, but it doesn't mean that a lot of people die from it. Flu and obesity are not deadly, but they kill a lot of people. --Tweenk (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's agree one what we are arguing on exactly. Mitch McConnell said "The detrimental effects of drugs have been well documented: short-term memory loss, loss of core motor functions, heightened risk of lung disease, and even death." In the context we will assume that by "drugs" he meant marijuana because in the context any other meaning would be dishonest.

Now, what if he had said "The detrimental effects of the Flu have been well documented: Fever, coughing, risk of pneumonia, and even death" or again "The detrimental effects of obesity have been well documented: lowered physical ability, lowered self esteem, heightened risk of heart disease, and even death"? Wouldn't you agree that it would be correct?Kamizushi (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Flingbooty fails reading comprehension forever

Moved from [RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Flingbooty_fails_reading_comprehension_forever the saloon bar] His reaction to the title "The Blind Watchmaker"^img --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Simply putting his fingers in his ears and saying "LALALALA I can't hear you" would have been too obvious, I guess. Godspeed (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this goes on WIGO:Clogosphere. Copperhead^Hisssssss 15:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Santa Claus versus the godless world

To be fair, he does punch out heretics - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hardcore. ^theist 12:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Negroes with guns

You would think that Ann Coulter would have been a big supporter of the Black Panther movement reading that article. - π 11:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Paganism in schools? How dare they. How very dare they!

RE: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9206178/Its-beyond-belief-to-teach-witchcraft.html

It's long been known that people only cry "freedom of religion" for their own religion, but I think this one really does take the cake with this attitude. Though what strikes me is that Odone tries to assert that "...no one dares distinguish between occult and Christian values, the tarot and the Torah, the animist and the imam." Yet... she provides no distinguishing characteristics of these things. As Stephen Fry remarked on an episode of QI, you can't really get a definition of superstition that doesn't also include most, if not all, named religions. Would Odone say that Christianity is a practised religion by a majority? Well, 3000 years ago ancient Egypt practised a religion by majority that we wouldn't recognise today, and around the same time Druids and other pagans would have been the majority in Britain. What about age, as Christianity is an ancient religion while neo-paganism tends to just jump on New Age style bandwagons? Well, again, that's already answered because Christianity dates back 2000 years, and its present Anglican form (which I presume Odone is most familiar with) only a few hundred years, really (ritualistic Anglican, as opposed to unceremonious Protestantism barely a century, in fact!), while our Druids were being all priestly long before. So, what is this magical distinction? There is none. They're all equally legitimate, or equally non-legitimate if you prefer. "Ah, but that's different!" isn't an argument. ^narchist 13:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I see Odone must be on the front-line in the fight between the Daily Mail and the Telegraph as to which one can be make teh best liberal bait. ^bomination 13:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Odone's not Anglican, she's catholic. In fact she's Kenyan-born, half Italian and half Swedish, which probably explains her screaming ignorance of British religious history. --Fergus Mason (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a quick assumption of "most familiar with" as opposed to "is", but perhaps being Catholic is less of an excuse because that's the variant that very explicitly ups and changes its extra-biblical dogma on the Pope's say-so. Catholics should be well-aware of the mutability of religion because they still have a very Earthly leader pointing them in their direction. So, would the Roman Catholicism of now be a valid religion but the Orthodox Catholicism of Spain a few hundred years ago not be? Or other countless variants? There's no logical separator between a simple variant of a religion and a different religion, and also no logical separator between religion and these "not really religions so they don't count". I suppose this is the curse of a secular worldview, you notice these things and can't quite compute the thinking behind it because it's so damn arbitrary. ^{d hominem} 13:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This old pagan tortoise thinks that Cristina Odone should be reported to the authorities for investigation for possible prosecution for fomenting religious hatreds. Tortoise of Tor (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia May Redefine Term “Pro-Life” in Every Abortion Entry" (this article cites Conservapedia!)

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/04/24/wikipedia-redefines-term-pro-life-in-every-abortion-entry/

Discuss this evangelical website whining about reality having a liberal bias. AP (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oldish WIGO

Anyone who seriously uses the phrase "autism epidemic" is just not to be taken seriously. There's just no such thing and there never has been. Blue (pester) 04:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that there has been a spike in cases recently because of altered breeding patterns among the autistic population, specifically the clustering of "Aspies" around technological hot-spots such as Silicon Valley, but applying the term of "epidemic" to a genetic disorder is indeed rather dodgy. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Its not suprising that many people use that term, since the Vaccinations = Autism crowd grows every year. --Revolverman (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Or, more generally, the Noxious Things That Big Government/Big Nasty Corporations Expose You To → Autism crowd. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind the fact that as a condition becomes more understood and more well-known, it becomes more diagnosed due to cases of it being recognized rather than ignored or mistaken for other conditions. It's a misconception that when a disease is identified and named, it's 'new.' So of course there will appear to be a sudden 'outbreak' of autism diagnosis: it's only been recognized widely as a condition for a relatively short time (modern usage from 1960s, though widespread awareness not until much more recently), but claiming that cases of autism didn't exist before it was understood is silly. The broadening of knowledge about a condition doesn't make it more common; it makes cases more recognized and identified. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 04:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a study floating around, which I need to look up, that basically used modern diagnosis criteria on adults and compared the results to autism rates in children. Lo and behold, the same proportion of adults turned out to be autistic! It's totally that the diagnostic criteria are changing. I'm not socially awkward, it's my Aspergers!! ^narchist 13:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I decided that Clogosphere needed some more good Hate Mongers,

So I added Logan's Warning to the list of Egregious sources.

Check out the link and tell me this paranoid bigot does not belong there. Logan's Warning

There are some critics of Islam who are quite reasonable and rational, many of them I would recommend, especially when it comes to countering Muslim apologetics. Many of them try to critique Islam objectively without demonizing Muslims or peddling paranoid conspiracy theories, but its obvious that the person who runs Logan's Warning Islam isn't one of them. The guy most likely also a part of religious right, or more accurately the religious far right in America, since he's determined to pit Christians against Muslims. To Him Christianity is pure good and Islam is pure evil. He probably doesn't have a problem with dominionism and in fact he may well be a dominionist, Do yourself a favor and do not use him as a source and beware of any website, especially if it deals with Islam that recommends Logan's Warning, and stay away from it.CriticalDragon1177 (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Witchcraft!

RE: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9232097/Letting-the-witch-out-of-the-bottle.html

Yet more multi-level standards! Of course, this is probably blatantly obvious but let's get it down on record anyway:

The other problem is that if paganism is taught alongside the religion that children’s parents practise at home, it implies that paganism is a religion just as well-founded as Presbyterianism or Islam.

Presbyterianism: A particular offshoot of orthodox Catholic theology, associated with John Calvin and Martin Luther. Founded: ~1500s CD

Islam: Another offshoot of the Judeo-Christian sects, founded by Muhammad and said to restore the original meaning to OT texts that was lost since Jesus came along. Founded: ~610 CE

Paganism: Not a religion as such, but a blanket term used to describe non-monotheistic and non-popular beliefs - basically, the old style Celtic religions that Christianity absorbed as it made its way across Europe. Founded: Druids: 200 BCE Celtic polytheism: 500 BCE Norse religion: ~6000 BCE Ancient Egyptian religion: 3000 BCE... you get the idea. These things are very much as well-founded and lasted for far longer than any of these mere judeo-christian offshoots have so far. ^gnostic 12:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it appears there may be a RWian in the comments section of the article that has already brought this up. ^bomination 12:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Breitbart

From the Corsi piece on the death of Breitbart: On Feb. 5, Breitbart had dinner cooked by Ayers at the home of Ayers and Dohrn after Daily Caller publisher Tucker Carlson won a “Super Bowl Dinner” auctioned off by Ayers for $2,500.

Sounds like thallium poisoning. How could Breitbart be so stupid as to eat food served by Ayers? Must have been a death wish. Whoover (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Fascist China WIGO

Bit late, I know, but I've not been on here much lately and just noticed it. I think whoever posted the WIGO has made a rather hysterical reading of the article and just gone "ZOMG LOL, HE SAID FASCIST! UH UH CHINA IS COMMIE!"

But the point is that there really is an increasing preponderance of highly nationalist, right-wing authoritarian thought in China, and the convergence of business and politics does tend toward the Mussolini view of Fascism. You don't have to be an Austrian, genocidal anti-Semite to be fascist. China certainly isn't Communist. Even though some of it's authoritarian tendencies have been brought over or inherited from the Communist era, these elements are those which are shared between all authoritarian societies, be they ultra-left or ultra-right. Many elements however, are new and are only applicable to fascist or fascist inclined right-wing authoritarian societies. Admittedly the author did not touch upon many of the most disturbing cases, but for example:

• Collaboration between the state and business. This is not local corruption, but a systematic issue of the police being used to dispossess local people in order to facilitate major state-allied business interests, i.e. farmers being forced off their land by police to clear the way to property developers and prevent dissent about damage caused by business to local communities or environments.

• Extremely strict but highly un-equal enforcement of the law, not so much in terms of corruption (which applies to virtually all societies) but more in a systematic manner of use of the law to promote elite factions whilst cowing local populations and opposing elements (i.e. rival business not allied to the state, foreign interests etc. - this has been seen recently in Guangdong where Taiwanese owned sweatshops have been closed down for violating labour laws, whilst mainland Chinese ones operate with impunity)

• Use of the police to break trade unions

• Promotion of perceived national cultural and religious traditions and links to ancient culture to promote modern nationalism. Commented on by the author, though I think he brushes over the use of Confucianism as justification for authoritarian policies and to promote a sense of Chinese exceptionalism.

Many of these positions are the antithesis of much hard-line Communist thinking which decries traditional culture and religion as tools that facilitate "bourgeois" oppression, the idea of private business and profit is T3H EB1L, whilst the promotion and alliance with organised labour is of central importance to modern Marxist thinking. -- 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. As someone who studies Chinese politics myself, it's relatively clear to me that the idea that Chinese is a fascist system is a very widespread one in the academic literature (and one I personally agree with, though I'd only generally say so in an academic context given how often the term "fascist" is misused). State corporatism is definitely the order of the day in China. Regardless of your opinion on the idea, though, it's an academically respectable one and it doesn't belong here -- I was very surprised to see it listed. --Lord Shang (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC) (One example - William A. Joseph, "Ideology and Chinese Politics", in "Politics in China" (ed. Joseph), p. 161: "The case has been made that the prevailing ideology of the leadership in China is fascism" (author's emphasis) -- He does not evaluate the idea, it is just referenced. --Lord Shang (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC))

When people say "communist" I think "not capitalist", even though I know that's not exactly accurate. But I also don't think of China--I think of the old Soviet Russia and stories of bread lines being longer than the toilet paper lines. I was in Beijing six years ago: at least in the city, and at the cultural landmarks like the Great Wall, it was hard to look around and NOT see a capitalist society, particularly while on foot with street merchants constantly trying to sell you fake silk and souvenirs and bootleg DVDs, but especially in their marketplaces where competition for buyers (jade, fabric, electronics, pearls, seafood, whatever) was rather fierce. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a similar situation to South Korea under Park Chung Hee, a system which is fairly uncontroversially regarded as being fascistic in its later post-Yushin manifestation. Essentially a developmentalist state directing vast corporate power and presiding over a strongly skewed capitalist market.--Lord Shang (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, wait. Since when has union-breaking been "antithetical" to hard-line Leninism, rather than part and parcel of it? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In whose interests is it undertaken? When combined with the other factors it is pretty clearly not Leninist (cf. Jiang Zemin's ideology that the Communist Party represents the most highly developed entrepreneurial portion of society, i.e. capitalists though he doesn't name them as such). Even accepting that union-breaking might be characteristic of Leninism, it hardly changes the fact that it was pretty silly to post that article here. --Lord Shang (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

ListenerX, I mentioned Marxism, not Leninism. Communism predates Lenin, just as Capitalism predates Regan. -- 22:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't edit Wikia

As of 9th May 2012 Wikia is impossible to edit, rollback works but other edits don't. The bug will probably be sorted out soon meanwhile it's frustrating. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's nice. Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 13:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Best in Show WIGO

I think it should be pointed out that she is schizophrenic, a legally protected person, her brother is her caretaker, and she lives in an assisted living center because she is too mentally ill to take care of herself. In other words, the attention given to her is inappropriate. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, yet also remain a bit skeptical. She also seems to attain large amounts of flyers about... something (unknown by the article. Presumably it's her own ramblings) that somebody had to print and prepare for her, unless she did so herself in that assisted living center. And then she seems to spend a large amount of time either unsupervised (yet in an assisted living center? Really?) or supervised with no one doing anything about her heckling the students, handing those flyers out on a college campus in an area that in order to get anywhere you need a car, which means someone likely drove her unless an old folks home is somehow situated right there, which I somehow doubt. I don't doubt that she needs help, but I have a hard time pinning her as a sweet innocent crazy victim and we-should-be-ashamed-for-wagging-our-fingers-at-her. If what the family says is true, she really should be gotten help (and they have confessed they can't get her much) and in lieu of that, probably shouldn't be letting her do these things, no, probably shouldn't be paying to let her do these things. Unless, you know, they somehow agreed in some way with her, or have somehow been guilted into it. Which doesn't sit well with me either. I dunno, this whole thing stinks to me like a bag of dead monkeys. Not in a sinister way, but in a manipulative, ass-covering way. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 02:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious, how it is completely inappropriate to call a person crazy and delusional unless they are not crazy and delusional. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The article I read said she frequently speaks at these meetings, and they are being polite by allowing her to have her five minutes that every other citizen gets. It could have been a healthy outlet, and I think her brother wasn't technically allowed to stop her. I don't know for sure. But he did say that he was counting down on how soon it would take for a video of her to get out.Senator Harrison (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Knight - "assisted living" just means someone checking you've taken your pills, had a shower recently and have enough food to eat etc. It doesn't mean someone supervising whatever you do. Sophie^{because liberals} 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Farah's losing it.

Not easy to WIGO, but I had to share the crazy. Farah posted his latest birther crap (thanks to π for pointing it out), listing the 10 reasons why some don't care about eligibility. However, the real crazy comes out in the comments, courtesy of one HapHarris:

1. The Psychopathic Criminal Bankster Elites have taken charge of the American Government.
2. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been flushed down the Memory Hole of History.
3. The only vestige of your Rights left to you is the 2nd Amendment...And that is because 200,000,000 Americans are armed to the teeth. [But they have no leadership].
4. BO has been selected to bring you into the NWO. He was selected by Henry Kissinger and groomed by the CIA for this job.
5. You will be "Disarmed" by Russian, Canadian and other NATO forces while the majority of our troops are busy all over the globe.
6. War with Iran will lead to WW3. Worldwide Nuclear Exchange will wipe out millions of persons
7. Things will become so preeminently bad, the 1st Born of Hell [Obama's Boss] will step forward to solve all the worlds problems, and; you will bow down and worship him.
8. The Centerpiece of their plans is the Depopulation of the world and in particular the United States where they have claimed they want to return America to a Pristine Condition.
9. I doubt there will be an election in November, but, if there is...a Corporation in Spain has been appointed to count the votes. This Corporation is controlled by none other than George Soros.
10. Whether its BO or Mittens Romney, the NWO is coming to a neighborhood near you.

God Love You, Hap

Poe? I dunno. Given the average WND reader, probably not. --PsyGremlin講話 14:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Just. Wow.

Take a look at thison that ICR site:

The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite.

The First Cause of endless time must be eternal.

The First Cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent.

The First Cause of universal interrelationships must be omnipresent.

The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient.

The First Cause of spiritual values must be spiritual.

The First Cause of human responsibility must be volitional.

The First Cause of human integrity must be truthful.

The First Cause of human love must be loving.

The First Cause of life must be living.

A more fuckwitted example of psuedo logic would be very hard to find. Toffeeman (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OurOriginsMatter blog by ICR

hmm, same old stuff. Thats-a-fact section is fun with The Flood, @nd law of thermodynamics and other gems. For example "God made our sky filled with all kinds of beautiful and unique features that remind us of His power and artistry when we look up at night." and thats-a-fact. ;) Hamster (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

LOLZ. "Tracy" is awesome. "Great video! Is there more? Also, do you teach geocentricity?" Ha ha ha ha ha... - The Foxhole Atheist, too tired to log in. 146.229.66.134 (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Me again. The jerks have the comments moderated. "Conversation", indeed. 146.229.66.134 (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, they allowed my comments in, even though I used my Foxhole Atheist screen name. Surprise, surprise. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Billboards

Fire-breathing dragon? What the fuck is Ken ham smoking? --PsyGremlinPraat! 08:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's clearly God's own brand. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 08:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Tomato pareidolia

It's not always the cross. [1][2][3] ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Klinghoffer on Wikipedia

Somebody sounds bitter, don't they? Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 02:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

obamacare and MRA

Serious question: where do they possibly find that this is somehow "against" men? Last time I checked, all it does is make sure women are not paying more than men to get the same coverage. And birth control, but men don't have uteruses, so it's not really an issue for them. I can't find any points MRA makes, other than "canada offers health care for men and women, obama care does not". WTF?--GodotFire! Fire! Fire! (please send spare firefighters) 15:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

MEN ARE OPPRESED TOO YUO MISANDRIST - David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Accusations that Obama's mother is really A MAN?!!!?1!??/!?

Aside from the fact that "became a transvestite" still sounds like the silly terminology these loons were using in the '60s, allegations that various female members of the Obama family are transgender often rear their heads among the militantly misogynist wing of the president's opposition. Though, we ought to remember, that the technique was used by our very own Dan Savage against noted Republican politicians, which is one of many reasons why he is an unrepentant asshole little better than the fundies he likes to throw shade at. I wonder if we can now add "transgender" to the list of things to which dishonest liberals say "HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE PRESIDENT OBAMA OF BEING"—Muslim, or socialist, or gay or whatever—only to quickly have to backtrack and assure us "not that there's anything wrong with that..." Blue (is useful) 16:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

lolwut? --MtD^{Prematurely Indeterminate} 16:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we have anything on the "not that there's anything wrong with that..." meme, or just roll it in to the friend argument idea? ^pathetic 16:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a meme, it's a running gag from Seinfeld. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

....about homosexuality. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Holy Plan site gone.

The "Holy Plan" site has gone.^{— Unsigned, by: 203.56.94.11 / talk / contribs} 06:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Who? Peter ^{"a sarcastic remark between every mouthful"} 06:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fox's Baffling Romance Tips

I can't access cracked.com at the moment, so please could someone check that the story is the same as this one and update the WIGO to include the fact that Fox is stealing romance tips from children's website? rpeh •T•C•E• 14:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The cracked article does mention that fox ripped off a kids site AMassiveGay (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WND on Romney

I hate to defend WND, but really, they're not contradicting themselves in the WIGO. The "a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan" piece is an article on a pastor who made that claim, and "Christians must vote for Romney" is a letter to the editor. It's not fair to claim either represents their official viewpoint. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Straight male gamer

Christ, Dragon Age 2 didn't suck because there were gay people in it. It sucked because gameplay was oversimplified and the poor decisions made by NPCs and the poor decisions offered to the character made the plot ludicrous. Hey, let's blow up a church, that'll teach them to accept mages! Also, it was very buggy on release, which was incredibly disappointing considering how before that Bioware was like the Blizzard of RPGs--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even play it, but that post is great. "Cater only to the lowest common denominator, i.e. me! Minorities should get proportional amounts of in-game presence (rounded down to zero)! Dragon Age 1 (and KOTOR and most other Bioware RPGs) totally didn't have gay biased options!" He keeps taking both sides of his own arguments, too... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

While the entitlement thickness is great, this is old controvery from over a year ago... not exactly "what IS going on" as "what DID go on", but I guess WDGO doesn't have the same ring to it. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 22:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I only played the first one, and as far as I can tell, you only go gay if you play the obviously gay choice, ie. actively pursuing the chaps. Perhaps he kept coming onto the male characters by mistake accidentAMassiveGay (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what he would make of the fact you can go on an awkward date with Barrett in FFVII. ^{d hominem} 00:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You have to go through quite a lot of hassle and careful play choices to date Barrett. I bet he's never played it, however, because "omg PS1 grafix sux moar leik Polygon Fantasy". Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 00:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bryan Fischer

Christ, hes on a roll lately. You think theirs a scandal brewing with him soon? --Revolverman (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Natural News Clusterfuckery

A friend of mine linked this on Facebook asking my opinion...... 45 minutes later, I had almost 1000 words of critique and I figured, why waste it? What do you think? If this should be moved to essay space, I can do so.

I had already been linked to this article, but I have no prior experience with it.... I can tell you that this whole article is such a steaming pile of shit, I've had to air out my computer room.

A fairly shallow, but detailed critique based off their headlines:

"His behavior doesn't add up"

Actually it does. There is probably a reason why he would do such a horrible thing, my initial thought is for publicity and to make his own mark on history (I especially think, seeing as how he appears to be a frustrated students who was having troubles in his studies, but my opinion is worthless and I don't have any real facts other than the media reports). As for calmly surrendering, The Norway Massacre ended in a peaceful surrender, The Oklahoma City Bomber, The Uni-bomber and many many others have surrendered peacefully when caught by police. It's pretty standard. As for the bombs, they were rigged to a timer hooked up to a loud stereo. He probably assumed that the bombs had already gone off. He wasn't warning, he was claiming.

"Holmes was clearly provided with exotic gear"

Nothing he bought was exotic. He was armed with a tactical shotgun, an AR-15 and two Glock handguns. He was wearing a flak jacket, a gas mask and a riot helmet. These items can be purchased freely in retail stores (The guns have already been traced to various stores around the Metro Area) and the total cost does not add up to anywhere near the $20,000 this site pulled directly out of their asses. My research, granted, it's limited, but I'm getting a rate of approx. $3500 for the basic equipment ($600 each for handguns, $800 for the AR-15, $300-$500 for the Bullet proof vest (I used 500 for my calculations), and $109.95 for a set of two smoke grenades, $572 for the tactical Shotgun, $50 for the gas mask and leaving an extra $200 for ammunition. Well within a student loan budget The authorities haven't released details on the explosive devices in the apartment, but since they were talking about sending in a robot to detonate them, they obviously aren't volatile explosives, like C-4 or TNT. Most likely, they are improvised gasoline bombs, which require nothing but a gallon jug and some form of incendiary device (again, I'm speculating based on the evidence available to me). Instructions for devices such as these are freely available over the internet and are not particularly difficult to devise.

A note about training. The site claims, again out of their ass, that he obviously had specialized training, but there is no evidence to support this and in fact, based on his actions (witnesses reported hearing 20-30 shots fired off in about minute, which is pretty slow for a semi-automatic rifle). He was taking a long time to line up shots.

Needless to say, the FBI has never "admitted to setting up terror plots, providing the weapons and gear, staging the location of the bombings and even driving the vehicles to pull it off!" This is nonsense. The FBI has put moles into groups and has been accused of entrapping easily led groups into terrorist plots, but that's a different matter.

"Mystery man Holmes has no background"

This is a simple confusing (or conflating) of having no criminal record with having no history. As usual, the media is already starting the investigation of classmates and neighbors. I'm sure more will come out about this as time goes on. Add to it that a woman called the police in Colorado, identified herself as the alleged shooters mother and said "You have the right person, I have to get to Colorado" tells me that there is some history or red flag that set her off.

"Staged just in time for a vote on the UN small arms treaty?"

The UN small arms treaty has been as big a sticking point for right wing loonies since Obama took office. I'll let Snopes deal with the general information behind it (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp) Long story short: The Senate would need a 2/3rds vote to ratify the treaty (which the administration would never get) and even then, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties (Reid v. Covert, 1957). Finally, the treaty in question is dealing with the international trade in small arms, not private sales.

"Governments routinely murder millions"

Completely irrelevant section intended to make it appears as though the planned murder of US citizens is but a drop in the bucket compared to other governments. Never-mind that A, the numbers are faulty (They include Holocaust Numbers, not all of whom were German citizens, and numerous cases of counting civilian casualties during a state of war.

The last two sections are borderline rants and have no bearing on the argument other than to restate the opinion of the author that this was a false flag operation. However, if you read the article closely, you will notice that something major is missing: Valid motives and reasoning. The UN treaty is a red herring. There are bigger issues that would prevent the treaty and there is no explanation given why the government would recruit a sane, law abiding citizen and brainwash him when they could have just as easily created a false identity for a true government agent to do the job much more efficiently.

Finally, whenever you hit a theory like this, think of the rule of ten: Any plot involving more than ten people is inevitably going to unravel. Look at most major crimes in history and you see that the more people involved, the higher the chance that word gets out and people start blabbing. An operation like this would require hundreds of people. No way it's going to be pulled off successfully. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 07:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I agree about your rule of ten. It's true that large conspiracies are difficult, which makes grand conspiracy theories (in which thousands or even millions of otherwise unrelated people are knowing conspirators) implausible, but I don't think ten people is necessarily problematic. The Ultra secret was known to far more than ten people, and they seem to have successfully kept it from friends, family and of course the general public for some time after the war was won, at least into the 1950s. So quite large numbers of properly motivated people can keep secrets. That doesn't automatically mean every significant event you see in the news was planned by the CIA but it does mean that sometimes things are not what they appear to be and it could be decades before you find out the truth. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Inner Earth Expedition

So... are they lunatics, or con-artists? If they're lunatics, I feel bad for them, because they'll die up there. If they're con-artists, then they're not going to the North Pole, they're going to the Caymans, so that's nice for them, I guess.TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Con artists, 100%. This disclaimer on their parent site says it all: "The North Pole Inner Earth Expedition (NPIEE) is for entertainment purposes only. We reserve the right to direct investments and donations to any legitimate purpose pursuant to the exploration of the mysteries of the universe and of the Earth." --DinsdaleP (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

NHS and Voldemort

We may scoff, but the music was the theme from the Exorcist. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.14.127.37 / talk / contribs} 15:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. It was the music from Tubular Bells, written by (British) composer Mike Oldfield, and which launched the (British) record company Virgin Music, and thus the career of (British) entrepreneur Richard Branson. (Can you see the common theme here?) The fact that a portion of Tubular Bells was used in the Exorcist is a side issue. VOX^HUMANA 12:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"U.S.A! U.S.A!"

RE: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/fox-news-why-dont-our-athletes-love-america

You know, this enforced patriotism, where have I seen it before? You know, just saying. ^narchist 12:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the relentless jingoism at the Atlanta Olympics pissed off so many IOC members that most of them will need to die of old age before the US gets the chance to win enough votes to get another Olympics. VOX^HUMANA 12:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This is my opinion, but fervent reinforcement of OUR COUNTRY BEST COUNTRY often reminds me of war or warlike nations: the need to justify oneself and keep up morale. In my mind, FOX's demand for constant reinforcement of USA GOOD (and not even USA's policies or ideas, just the blanket concept of 'good us-ness' or outright stating their own ideas and then saying they are the USA's True Beliefs) gives me the impression it is trying to appeal to a barbaric people. Like, I already know FOX likes to swindle stupid people, but even as a journalist I almost never say something is trying to appeal to 'violent people,' or 'warlike people.' It kind of makes me hear everything FOX says in a stereotypical barbarian voice. "ME FOX. USA GOOD. USA. USA. YOU NEED USA OR THEY TAKE OUR WOMEN AND GOLD. UGH GRAH." ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 12:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"FoxNews, what is best in life?" "To defeat your Olympic rivals, to see them win silver while you take gold, and to listen to the lamentations of the liberals." MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 13:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I forgot we had that gif and how fucking terrifying it is. ^postate 13:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We already had it? Whoops, I uploaded another version of it. Noooo. D: ±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 13:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)