RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?/Archive7

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 9 December 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

xkcd on conspiracies[edit]

Many have probably seen it, but it's still well worth a link from RW: xkcd - Jet Fuel VOXHUMANA 02:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Pfft, everyone knows that all the supposed "secrets" revealed by conspiracy theorists are just limited hangouts. They're just a way for the Reptoids to distract the proles and throw them off the scent. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


The man is getting more and more unhinged. First Obama is Kenyan, then he's the illegitimate son of some commie, now he's gay. In any sane society, Obama would be able to drag Corsi's lying ass into court and go "Ok, let's see your evidence." --PsyGremlinTala! 08:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The HuffPo main page didn't mention Corsi's name - it just said "Birther" or something. When I clicked the link and saw who it was and what they were saying, I actually facepalmed. He could only get more ludicrous from here if he went Icke-like and claimed Obama is a lizard. rpeh •TCE 08:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for Corsi or Hurlbut to jump on the "teenaged Obama went to Mars!" story. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 08:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
They need the feeling of persecution, the righteous anger. With a GOP win they'd either need to declare Mitt & Ryan to be RINOs shortly after they win, or live a wretched miserable existence attempting political alchemy on the turd that is the Ryan "plan".
I dunno, I'd imagine Corsi (in addition to the rest of the birther crew) is an asset to Obama. The right-wing has to invent bogeymen, or dredge them up from obscurity. The wingnuts actively promote political cranks that discredit their own causes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Terry's drifting into full Conservapedia mode...[edit]

It's looking Terry's gotten tired of hosting an open comment forum on CNaV and dealing with challengers and their pesky "facts" & "statistics", so he's moving towards the Conservapedia echo chamber style instead. Didn't like the statistics someone pulled out that disagreed with his "Israel can do no wrong" view, so instead of refuting them he just dismisses them, and throws in a curse from God for good measure.

The closer for this is the best part. Terry's now gone into full-out Mullah mode, and pronounced final judgment on the infidel for his heresy:

The case of User Bdor24 against the Republic of Israel is now closed. I dismiss it with prejudice. Which means that this is the last comment of yours on this subject that I will load.

You have to wonder how people like this got by in the world before wikis and blogs came along and gave them a sense of righteous power over the little digital kingdoms they created for themselves. There's probably a thesis in the making examining the connection between the extremism of these echo chambers and the polarization of politics in the USA today. If you don't have to engage dissent and challenges to your dogma in your virtual reality why would you be expected to do so in the actual reality? --DinsdaleP (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much Conservapedia mode, as Terry becoming seriously unhinged. I saw it when challenging him on his gun control bullshit. Like you say, it's not just him ignoring facts and declaring victory, it's him declaring a discussion closed in his favour.
I'm not sure if it's a side-effect of having your own echo chamber - the feedback loop makes you insane. Either way, if he carries on like this, I can him taking to the streets with his gun, or ending up sharing a room with Ken before Obama's second term is up. --PsyGremlinFale! 16:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
"This basement isn't big enough for the both of us!" User:C's final words. C®ackeЯ 16:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Despite all their protests to the contrary, I'd have to believe that Andy, Terry and the rest would all be happier inside if Obama wins. That way they can claim the GOP defeat was for not being conservative enough, and they can then spend the next four years in attack mode instead of spin-control mode trying to justify the inevitable Romney-Ryan train wreck. --DinsdaleP (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
They need the feeling of persecution, the righteous anger. With a GOP win they'd either need to declare Mitt & Ryan to be RINOs shortly after they win, or live a wretched miserable existence attempting political alchemy on the turd that is the Ryan "plan". --TheEgyptiansig001.png 22:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WND says: Obama will win[edit]

Is this some kind of prank? Is Farah writing an editorial dismissing the power of the White House? Or is this meant to get True Conservatives fired up? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Haha - no, just a light hearted story using silly data, that I'm surprised WND published considering it results in an Obama win. But the real gem is that some of the completely serious Schlafly predictions are based on assumptions that are far more ridiculous than this one. Doraemon話そう!話そう! 02:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Might be just a little wingnut magnetism. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ham vs Nye[edit]

"I want Bill Nye to name one invention—one piece of technology—that would not have been able to be invented without the inventor believing in evolution. Just name one!"

What amuses me about this one is how Ken Ham immediately moves the goalposts and says microevolution doesn't count.

What is very sad about this is that he seems to not understand that creationism is part of anti-intellectualism. A rising tide lifts all boats, and a lowered tide does the reverse -to be fair, an argument can be made that Creationism is a symptom of the decline of the sciences in the US, not the cause. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is why with creationists I no longer respond with anything other than blatant misunderstandings and non-sequiturs until they get the point that it's really annoying to be trolled by someone who has no intention of understanding the actual theoretical implications of evolutionary biology. Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator 12:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
My favorite part, though, is where Ham runs out of actual facts to attack Nye with, so he resorts to childish name-calling. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

V-J Day Photo[edit]

Am I missing something, or is there a reason the article about this is in the Clogosphere bin? --OverworldTheme (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoever put it there, and I haven't looked this up, probably thought it was a case of "eeugh, feminists spoiling EVERYTHING again, take a joke!! OKAY??!!?". But the downvoting suggests that many people disagree. This happens on occasion, it's why we can downvote or neutral-vote bad CP or Clog entries as well as World or Blog ones. Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator 16:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Is a "joykill" the Canadian version of a "killjoy"? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought this might be the case, but suspected I was missing something instead since the link text was so ambiguous. --OverworldTheme (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Reading the actual interview with the woman from 2005, Friedman states this (when asked about her role in the photograph): "Well, I think he was the one who made me famous, because he took the action. I was just the bystander. So, I think he deserves a lot of credit. Actually, by the photographer creating something that was very symbolic at the end of a bad period...it was a wonderful coincidence a man in a sailor's uniform and a woman in a white dress... and a great photographer at the right time." Doesn't sound like she feels victimized, but she never explicitly states one way or another either. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether she feels victimized is really a moot point, though. It does not excuse the guy's behavior, or excuse the repercussions of such a widespread attitude concerning a woman's rights to her own body. As a somewhat uncouth example, if he had raped her and she later said she didn't mind, that wouldn't mean it was okay. Of course he did not rape her or anything so deranged as that, but the line of thought is similar: she's a woman, so I can do what I want with her. --OverworldTheme (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I feel like suddenly grabbing the sexist commenters and forcefully kissing them. Frullic (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Also: "homogamy" is a word now."[edit]

It has been for some time. --K. (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure this girl is a Poe. Droxxor (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the basis for your assertion? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I've outlined a few ideas on how to tell. It just doesn't pass the test for "unequivocally genuine". There's no solid evidence tracing it back to who wrote it - true with all letters like this, but that just means they're a good medium to slip through satire/parody - and the unprompted addition of "homeschooled" under the name does set off some alarm bells. It seems like unnecessary information to specifically say "I'm homeschooled", and combined with the general retardness of the content, it suggests it's there intentionally to mock homeschoolers. Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator 00:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Fail's Mystic Meg Moment[edit]

Genuinely embarrassed for them; and the people who'll fall for such rubbish. I can't work out whether to laugh or cry. Scherben 23:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am truly amazed at how the mail manages to outdo even hardened neo nazis when screaming about how horrible a future where darkies are considered human will be. It managed to hit just about every moral panic they have tried to create over the past 10 years

- patriotism being outlawed by PCGONEMAD

- united states of europe

- damn sand people taking over

- everyone being on the dole

- evil real estate businesses

and presenting the entire thing as an insufferably smug warning for what will happen if we don't shoot all immigrants on sight Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 01:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

So much Fail: "Britain’s Second City, Milton Keynes . . . mainstream [school] subjects such as Mandarin, Atheism and Diversity Studies . . . the American civil war between the Federalist forces of the East Coast states under President Malia Obama, and the breakaway New Confederacy of the South and West . . . the Indian Empire . . . the Muslim majority . . ." Facepalm.png ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
No mention of the most assured fact of 2050 however - rising sea levels threatening to drown London, and climate change meaning freak storms, floods and droughts. Of course, belief in climate change is librul - if you shut your eyes, it won't happen. Doraemon話そう!話そう! 14:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, NaNoWriMo is coming up, maybe they're just trying to get an outline done in advance. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 15:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Was it the Mail that has that thing last month that said Human Evolution was going to leave us all looking like A tall hunchbacked Gollum? The hits keep coming with them. --Revolverman (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

'Twas The Sun. Close enough for practical purposes. Scarlet A.pngssholeModerator 00:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Economist[edit]

They really are fucktards. Oppose banker bashing, and endorsed the illegal Iraq War after claiming WMDs were a certainty (and have done a classic Orwellian tactic of omitting mention since). Bollox to 'em. Scherben 01:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Clyde Wilson[edit]

I agree with the bit about how people can't mow the lawn without a riding mower. That's just pathetic. If you have to mow a golf course or something else huge, then yeah, hop on. But your front yard? You're a sad case. Naturally, I am not castigating people with disabilities unable to optimally operate a more traditional mower--"Shut up, Brx." 06:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Or how about >gasp!< planting your yard with plants that do not even require mowing? That is what the ecologically conscious people in my part of Minneapolis do.
I like the one about "American baseball stars who are not American." Apparently he never saw the likes of Mel Almada play. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Mao bullshit[edit]

Does the name Pantsov give us a clue to a very subtle poe? Scherben 20:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you think Google is for. So that's a 'no' then. Innocent Bystander (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You snarky twat, did you think I was being entirely serious? That's a yes then? Scherben 18:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If men have nipples because women need them...[edit]

...then why don't men have vagina's or uteruses? -- (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC) So we go out of the house occasionally Scherben 18:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Outraged Obama won[edit]

Hahahahahahaha, what a mard arse :) (Also, what a cruel, selfish pig) Scherben 14:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So much for that asshat's "libertarian" credentials. It's not at all libertarian to "unperson" people you disagree with. But on that note, let his followers quit their jobs. More jobs for the rest of those who are still looking for employment, and one less unappreciative dumb fuck with a job. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Somehow, I doubt he has many friends to begin with, seeing as he seems to have the mental maturity of a particularly bratty eight-year-old. (I qualified that because otherwise I'd be insulting eight-year-olds.) Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 15:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly my line of thinking RNS. Please assholes, quit your jobs, plenty of people happy to take them. --Revolverman (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like we've got another flood of "Go Galt" types since the election. I doubt any of them actually WILL, but it amuses me immensely that their plan to Stick It To The Man is to... reduce consumption? That's what most Libruls have been wanting them to do for the last 20+ years. --Gulik (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Why not move to Canada? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit those comments are even more unhinged than the article: "THE COUNTRY ENDED YESTERDAY. IT IS OVER!!! THERE IS NO MORE FUTURE FOR AMERICA. WE NO LONGER HAVE ANY FREEDOM. WE ARE NOW LIVING IN NAZY GERMANY 1933/34. " Cow...Hammertime! 19:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfriend acaquaintances if they voted democrat. Quit jobs if the boss is a democrat. One more to complete the set - boycott elections with Democrat candidates! It's the only decent thing to do! SophieWilder 19:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I love how he keeps arguing in the comments. It would appear he's actually quite reluctant to stop talking to liberals, after all.--TheLateGatsby (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Dondero's tantrum has ended, it would seem. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken Ham and Sea World[edit]

I'm not really up to date on the guy, but is everything he writes as stupid as that Sea World piece? SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 20:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC) It appears so Scherben 18:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Gallileo / Spanish Inquisition[edit]

"The 17th century Spanish Inquisition" is only mentioned in the editorial lede soundbite, which probably wasn't written by the blog's author. The rest of the blog refers to "the Inquisition" throughout. I don't think we can assume the error was his. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Truthout in-house pieces do not have "editorial lede soundbites," as their editors are of the "soundbites are a right-wing extremist conspiracy" tendency; in their news dispatches they use quotes from the articles to summarize them instead. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
But it's not a quote from the article. The words "Spanish Inquisition" appear nowhere other than in the italicised summary under the headline, which I suspect was written by an editor rather than the original author. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

EDL tweet's a fake[edit]

[1] I've left the item there struck-out since the fake got so many upvotes - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

New clog/webshite[edit]

Found a clog on wordpress recently, feats your eyes on this pile of crap. Man of Perspective (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Vault-Co: No way in hell its not a Poe.[edit]

Even ignoring the fact all of its icons and such are ripped off of Fallout (A video game), he talks about the oppression and racism towards NEANDERTHALS "Speaking on behalf of the Neanderthal people" " If Hans Asperger had not intervened to save them this would have included thousands of sullen, alienated, withdrawn, reserved, high IQ Neanderthal children the Nazis had decided did not represent their Aryan ideal." You know, that relative of modern humans that died out, what? 50 thousand years ago? Total parody. --Revolverman (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Fallout fetish is probably because the guy is a hardcore survivalist. We have an article on him: Vault-Co. And he's not the only one with weird ideas about Neanderthals.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Then he's never played the damn games because his kinda psychotic shit is what causes almost all the damn problems in the Fallout games, including the nuclear war that started everything. --Revolverman (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Iona's Irish ad, why the sudden popularity boost?[edit]

I've been following OnKneesForJesus4 for a while now and saw this thing when it was first uploaded, comments seemed slow. Anyway, last night I decided to have another look at it, have a peep through new comments, and saw that all of a sudden comments were flooding in pretty damn fast, the like / dislike ratio was the 'usual' situation (more dislikes for content) but had more dislikes to likes than normal (so a lot of people new to the channel), plus at least two individuals who'd created accounts that day to troll on the comments section. Log on here today, lo and behold, someone's posted it. So...did it go viral or something? The view count isn't that high (admittedly though, smallish population), but outrage - and, quite fittingly, localised fellow Irish outrage - seems to be picking up only now, a good while after it's out. Thing is, I haven't seen it on Irish channels of any description, no blogs, no spot on RTÉ, etc, etc. Has this started doing the rounds or am I just imagining things? At least I can take comfort knowing these people are very much a minority here, and it's one of the most popular things to be tackled before, ahem, next November. Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 12:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's gone viral, it was on a few of the big LGBT pages on facebook. Somehow that crossed over to here. SophieWilder 12:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Just seen it posted by a friend-of-a-friend on facebook. Hmm. I'm guessing that 60K is "viral" enough for Ireland. Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 12:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Terry A. Hurlbut, Duke[edit]

His fantasies go beyond militia commander now, apparantly. Not really WIGO-worthy, but still vaguely amusing, I guess. (BONUS: Some stuff about precious bodily fluids, and technology not really having advanced since in the last milennia.) --Yukabacera (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Marijuana & liquor stores[edit]

This post is exactly why I am very reluctant to join or support any organization that promotes the legalization of cannabis. They end up popularizing total bullshit like "marijuana is good for you", alt-med advocacy, anti-GMO propaganda, etc. And of course they tend to have a far left ideology that borders on anarchism. If the organization campaigned exclusively on the platform of harm reduction and rational risk assessment, I'd be all for it, but apparently in this day and age you either make bullshit health claims or get nowhere. (The best example is the situation with airport scanners.) --Tweenk (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I second that. The movement needs more fact-based arguments. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Chronicles magazine database error[edit]

I can't even access the page. Anyone else seeing this? Anyone have a screencap I can read instead by any chance? It sounded funny; I was all ready to upvote. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting it too. From the WIGO entry mentioning other idiots singing its praises), I'm guessing it's got a lot of site traffic. Or people have realised how shit it is and threw it down in embarrasment. Wait a few hours. It's definitely a problem wih the link, and not a WIGO spelling error. Googling "Civil unions and kissing cousins" brings that as the top result, click, same Database Error. Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 10:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It appears to be back. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, with several mirrors popping up at the same time too. Just read it and, ugh. Can't believe some people think the same PRATT is funny - not to mention, in many states without marriage equality, you CAN A: marry your cousin and B: fuck animals already. Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 14:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The new Chick Tract[edit]

I laughed at the mom dealing drugs bit. My guess is that he was channel flipping and came across Weeds.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

All i want to know is why the only character, besides the converted daughter, that we should like and actually -see-, has crazy person eyes. --Mikal 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The chick track artists/writers looked in teh mirror.... that'd be my guess.Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 05:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Beta of the month[edit]

This is January 2013, not April 2009... Hydrogen and Time (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Commented out. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Another moron that doesn't know what "cis" means with a chronic case of "We can talk about you but you can't talk about us". But aside from the article, to get some clarification on the whole fiasco I went through the original piece and surprise surprise, look at who decided to crawl up from R'lyeh. Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 13:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A misleading WIGO IMHO. Julie Burchill, like her pal Toby Young, lurched wildly to the right in the 1990s. She left the Guardian to write for the Daily Mail.
Given that the Guardian occasionally runs pieces from the likes of Charles Krauthammer, and that Observer has been to right of Blair for a couple of decades now, what's the surprise?
Maybe this should read "attention seeking right wing media celebrity is rude about trans people". London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Burchill has a history of saying bigoted & pigheaded things under the excuse of being sassy or outspoken or whatever. It's disappointing that the Guardian continue to work with her. & Protip: if you don't like being accused of privilege, don't lead with a lobster & champagne anecdote. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
People are actually cancelling Guardian subscriptions over this one. The CiF editor has shown up in the comments to try to quiet the storm. Still, remarkable: an Internet news article where the comments are good and the article is loathsome trolling - David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the editor did the right thing in withdrawing the screed, though as to what was going through their heads when they decided to publish what was effectively a badly written piece of hate speech I cannot fathom. I'd even raise my eyes if this type of rant were published in the Daily Mail.
Kudos to the OP for "look at who decided to crawl up from R'lyeh", which is easily the witty takedown of the week. Blue (pester) 12:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The NYT gender imbalance article[edit]

Not sure how this is clogosphere material. Is there some actual clog article with a frothing-crankery take on the same phenomenon which was accidentally not linked? Because the NYT article doesn't sound like it's by a crank and doesn't appear to have obvious outbound links to crankish material. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


It might be too big a topic for here but what gives with Roosh? OK, tastes differ but most heterosexual chaps would be attracted to at least one or two of the "9 Ugliest Feminists"(mmmm Kate Harding /Homer). Is this sour grapes? He can't get a girl (especially not these girls) and so he lies about their attractiveness? Or is it him just lashing out to cope with the feelings arising from repressed homosexuality? Toffeeman (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hell, Jessica Valenti has taken flak for being too attractive. The guy's just a bitter misogynist--"Shut up, Brx." 13:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It's easy (if you're Roosh).
  • All feminists are ugly women - by definition
  • The photos below show pictures of feminists
  • Therefore the photos below show ugly women.
Why can't you grasp such a basic fact. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
But surely his dick twitching falsifies the first premise? Toffeeman (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
He's such a lonely depraved creep his dick is constantly twitching--"Shut up, Brx." 19:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
If your list of "ugly" feminists looks like that, you've just not done your research. I mean, where's Cathy Brennan or Andrea Dworkin? Fuck it, let's just call it what it is: it's a low-brow attack on liberal women that are currently noteworthy. The "ugly" part is just to grab our attention. It's all about the politics on that piece and has nothing to do with attractiveness on any level. Why? Because he's an asshole. Scarlet A.pngbomination 03:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Kanazawa on Dawkins[edit]

WTF? What happened to the Satoshi Kanazawa we all know and love -- the one who loves needless provocation and being "politically incorrect." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Former Communist Aliens[edit]

Go on then, Ivan: let's hear the truth... Scherben (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we could reactivate WIGO:4R saying "EU Times become UFO conspiracy nutters" - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, you've been Sorcha Faal-ed. It even matches the template (see Talk:Sorcha Faal).--ZooGuard (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Well that's a disappointment; contact still as far off as ever :) Scherben (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorcha Faal? I thought it was Alfred Webre's nutcase collective - David Gerard (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It's a Sorcha Faal "report" - look at the source link at the bottom, pointing to WhatDoesItMean.com. Faal's reports are generally compiled from whatever is floating in the clogosphere at the moment, so yes, the ultimate source is probably your guys.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Gay, Commie, Muslamic anti-Christ[edit]

The 'argument from authority' fallacy equates Reagan with Putin, which implies quite a lot... Also, who would (in a right mind) give a fuck if Obama was a Muslim and/or gay? Scherben (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No kidding. However, I think it would be more likely for there to be and affirmative action element to his presidency if he truly was either/both. Then, on the other hand there would be (to coin a new phrase) dissenting action from Christians, homophobes and islamophobes. L'homme de la Perspective Discusez? 09:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Fuck you, Wente[edit]

Fuck Hayden, too. Two shitbuckets with the morals of rattlesnakes (yeah, I know rattlesnakes anthrocentricised here). (And fuck Obama for the drones.) Scherben (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Vegan Poe[edit]

Surely? Just seems a liitle too 'good' to be true... Scherben (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this page gives it away. It has a picture of the word 'vegan' assembled from Scrabble tiles and the point values forming the number 41211. Underneath the text says "I do not know where these numbers are coming from. The 41211 I mean. Possibly these numbers on these characters are from a sort of game." If this is real, it must come from a mentally disturbed person. --Tweenk (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
If it is real, they're one step beyond disturbed. For my peace of mind, I'm sticking with Poe Scherben (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
He's the reincarnation of Moses![2] SophieWilder 22:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
In that case, could he gain entry into Israel? Scherben (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
the original didn't. SophieWilder 19:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, so have the rules changed, or does the prohibition still apply? Immigration should clear this important matter Scherben (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

God's Facebook Page Has The Best Trolls[edit]

In the screen cap, the name of the commenter is not blanked in one entry, while the rest are. Problem? Mcc1789 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's probably the author of the screenshot. --Tweenk (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ray Comfort's "award-winning" movie[edit]

You have to pay to enter, and pay if you win. And there are 300+ Silver winners in the Online Video category for 2013. This is the video awards equivalent of a diploma mill. Now that's a contest WND can win! Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and there are NO Bronze-level winners. All silver. Nice award there, Ray. Only $265 plus shipping and handling. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 20:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

anyone wanny try WIGO this?[edit]

[3] any help? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Google uses all your personal data to predict how you'll vote and shares it with Usama bin Obama. Google gives personal data to anti-christ. Politicians campaign for office. Politicians attempt to exploit demographic data. Anti-christ knows who's going to vote for anti-christ. Someone wins." Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 07:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
"Gmail reads all your email" privacy dog whistle, drink. Yes, there are legitimate privacy concerns with some of Google's services in some situations, but this is blowing the whistle. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 01:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Space Moon UFO Chemtrails[edit]

Why is Microsoft Sam suddenly a crank? --Revolverman (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

He's seen the NWO light, and wants to warn us all... Scherben (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

How dare Obama call the Holocaust "senseless!"[edit]

I saw this earlier and assumed it was from The Onion so I didn't bother posting here. I'd just like to say that for once, the comments sections is the encouraging bit of the story. There can't be too many times in Internet history where that's the case... rpeh •TCE 23:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Not the onion" tag is sadly overused. I usually don't have any good expectations for the comments, but this is somewhat of an exception.--P3A58NT86 00:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The author of that bit of 'journalism' is a fucking cretin: hence a typical journalist Scherben (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand the point the NRO is trying to make. I understand that the far right are trying to bend everything in order to criticize Obama, but are they actually arguing that Nazism wasn't senseless because it's a good thing to unite all Germans (or Americans), because it's a good thing to "demand land and territory for the sustenance of our people" (i.e. America is for Americans and all (illegal) immigrants should get out) and because it's true that no Jew (or Hispanic or Black American, for that matter) can be part of the race?- (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

When I read that article I honestly thought I was at some kind of Holocaust denial site. Balaam (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the author intended to defend the holocaust, although she doesn't exactly make that clear & hence comes off looking like a Nazi sympathiser. Her point is that when you describe acts of violence & genocide as "senseless", it's like saying "these people just did these things for no reason", which dodges the issue of actually looking at what motivates people to do these things. I kind of feel like this when I hear politicians or media toss around the word "evil" in relation to terrorism, etc. Here, I think the point is not very well timed or tactfully explained. I also don't think "senseless" is quite the same, as it's often used as Obama did here to mean "completely abhorrent to our sense of morality and decency" rather than literally "without any explainable rationale or purpose whatsoever". WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
In her follow-up today, she further elaborates. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
What she should have done in the first place was write a piece on the misuse of the word "senseless" when describing tragedies. That would have been a little pedantic, but fine. Instead she decided to write a piece attacking Obama, when all he did was condemn the Holocaust. Turning it into a political piece made her come across as defending the Nazis, whether she was or not. If her intent was misconstrued she has no one to blame but herself, because she was being idiotic. DickTurpis (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Then it seems to me that she's begging the question. If you want to define senseless that way, then it is indeed wrong to call all violence senseless. Maybe it's a better idea to make a point of the usage of the word based on what it is intended to mean.-Strangelove (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)/
Yep, senseless to the beholder not necessarily the perpetrator. Senless violence implies there is sensible violence, a cowardly torrorist attack impliese that it is possible to mount a brave terrorist attack. Ultimately, as Weaseloid says, the use of such phraseology is simply to dodges the issue of actually looking at what motivates people to do these things, and thus avoid discovering that some of your own (government's/society's) actions or inactions may have, in some way, contributed to those things happening or provide an excuse for doing nothing to mitigate the likelihood of them happening again. Auld Nick (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What is thule?[edit]

I might be exposing my ignorance here, but I really don't know what "thule" means. Anyone care to explain? Mcnamara12 (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

See wp:Thule Society.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
A brief Gizoogle didn't give me much, but it's best to just venture through a couple pages on their site. A lot of anti-semitism including the Global Jewish conspiracy, Satanism or pagan stuff, and holocaust denial are all there. Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 14:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Mcnamara12 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
It gets some mention in Hellboy. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Traitor Pope[edit]

Reading that tirade from the journalist, i can't help but think, "Well, this is the pope who's supposed to destroy Rome and the Church, right?" --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 07:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm astounded at the claim that "his election is incomprehensible" because "he's not a polyglot".
First, since when is being a polyglot a prerequisite for being Pope? Can you speak Italian and Latin? If yes, you know the languages necessary to be Pope.
Second, this Pope IS a polyglot by any reasonable definition. He is fluent in Spanish, Latin, Italian, German, French, and English. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It's weird this sort of griping from conservative Catholics. I'd expect it from liberal/hippy/cafeteria Catholics but, from a conservative point of view this guy is the fucking Pope: arguing with him, from a conservative point of view, is next door to fucking Protestantism. The same thing strikes me with that Voris bloke. The "conservative" Catholic approach to dissent is pretty straightforward: you're not the Pope, you're not even a fucking priest. SHUT THE FUCK UP. Toffeeman (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a small but vocal minority in the Catholic Church that thinks Vatican II was a mistake, and everything should go back to the way it was back then. To placate them, and try to make everyone happy, Benedict gave permission for churches to use the old mass, with the discretion of the bishops to decide when and where it would be celebrated. A lot of dioceses basically just let any priest who wanted to do it, but Bergoglio limited it to once a month in one church in his diocese, so the "traditional catholics" are upset about him becoming pope, and they are worried about what will happen to their precious latin mass. Mcnamara12 (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Beck[edit]

Obviously didn't notice what happened 14 years ago in Austria? Also, only he predicted far right resurgence five years ago? Liar or stupid? Scherben (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, Beck considers Nazis and their successors to be far left. Actually, it's not that farfetched that a European nation might elect Nazis, or Nazi-like governments. Greece is a good example. I'd say Sethpeck missed the point in making that WIGO. He could have covered Beck's dissonant love for Pope Francis, a staunch social justice advocate who is a critic of cutting welfare, or he could have gone after Beck's idea that new Axis Powers would arise, which is a markedly more radical prediction than neo-Nazis coming into power. I'd probably have voted it down anyways, though.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Glenn beck thinks everyone he doesn't like is a nazi, so in his mind he will be right. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
So, basically anything other than a far-right government will make him think he's right? Oh, the irony... Vulpius (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Littlejohn and Lucy Meadows[edit]

Just for the record, I actually agree with one small part of that post - it isn't Littlejohn's fault she died, and the people who feel the need to blame someone else for her death disgust me. But I still upvoted it, because the blatant hatred was ten times worse. Wehpudicabok (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Didn't help though did he? And the appeal to emotion that it's exploitation to disgusted by media bullying is sickening in itself Scherben (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Salon article on new atheists[edit]

Besides that article generally being a hack job (the gender segregated seating at UCL was not "voluntary"), I'm glad to see that Coyne is still defending Sam "Racial Profiling" Harris from charges of Islamophobia. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Chriminalizing Christianity[edit]

The youtube user who posted this video claims that "My life is all about getting on my knees and faithfully servicing Jesus until He comes." Sounds legit. Lady Corvex (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Lady Corvex

OnKneesForJesus isn't a poe or anything, he just uploads whatever wacko religion stuff he finds. Should I have put this in world instead, sorry? Is clogosphere only correct if you're linking direct to the source? Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 18:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Youtube clogs are fine Scherben (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Erik Rush[edit]

Pretty sure that's an attempt at humor on Rush's part. At least I hope so Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 22:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you have no idea who Erik Rush is. --Seth Peck (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

PC whining[edit]

Nice to know that advocating for the rights of trans and genderqueer people to marry is just "whining." I suppose it's also liberal claptrap too? I'm trans, and even though I expect to be legally female when I marry (so I don't think it would directly affect me), I want to know that we aren't being left out. The HRC has consistently done exactly that. And it is pretty awful that their logo is what people are choosing to represent the same-sex marriage stance, without considering the HRC's history on the issue. The article was overall brilliant, and I don't think it deserved to be in Clogs.

(I will note that there were some side points made that were questionable, such as the idea that marriage itself may be racist. But the fact that someone is actually paying attention to how trans people feel about SSM outweighs those side points.) Wehpudicabok (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would have preferred the article stay and get downvoted to show how bad it was, but then again I don't know the guidelines in full for commenting out. Considering this place reacted pretty strongly vote-wise to what the HRC did I'm surprised someone thought it would be a good idea to call that "whining" and a "clog".
I can see where you're coming from regarding being annoyed at the HRC getting attention with the icons, but on the other hand A: many people (myself included) using it / versions of it know the story behind the HRC and just use it to show support for SSM (some even say explicitly so, and I decided to make this), and B: many are copying it just knowing what it means and not knowing who's behind it. I'm more interested to see how few people praise the HRC after the case if it passes this summer. I'd wager they'll be all but forgotten, and what attention they do draw to themselves will be put down by bringing up these incidents.
Also, funnily enough, I was wondering this morning if there are any trans or other trans* people on RW. The more you know. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 12:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot more than that on RW. Osaka Sun (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Me for a start, and there are some others here but I'll let them say if they want. SophieWilder 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Er... *raises hand* Balaam (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Me too. - LucidFox (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Donkey Kong WIGO[edit]

Seriously, a Wigo for youtube comments? Yes, 100% vile shit, but I likely could crash the server with Clog WIGOs if the comments on random videos are valid. I'm not going to touch it, but I think thats too low hanging fruit. --Revolverman (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit like Wigoing throw Daily Heil's comments instead of the article. it's the bottom half of the internet. PsyGremlinParla! 07:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It's true that there's plenty of stupidity on YouTube comments generally, but I felt this particular case warranted the link because it's relevant to what's happening elsewhere in the clogosphere: the way some male gamers are responding to feminist criticism of gaming with particularly violent rhetoric. The way they bring up Sarkeesian, a woman who had absolutely nothing to do with this, is particularly telling. Wehpudicabok (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Or they're just latching on to a current name. This is on the level of creationists snarking about fat atheists. Please let's not WIGO youtube comments. SophieWilder 09:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, on second thought I think you guys are right. TBH sometimes I WIGO things to blow off steam. (I've been thinking of starting a blog for that instead.) I removed it. Wehpudicabok (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Bush 43[edit]

"Pronounce us guilty a thousand times over: the goddess of the eternal court of history will smile and tear to pieces the State Prosecutor's submissions and the court's verdict; for she acquits us." Godwin's Law Scherben (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ann Coulter[edit]

Isn't she one of those who screams and cries about tyranny and oppression? Scherben (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tyranny and oppression are fine for Ann Coulter so long as it only affects people she doesn't like.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Weird woman on Enlightenment and the Holocaust[edit]

Apart from the barking mad statement connecting the two, what's the empirical evidence for Original Sin? Scherben (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bible, obviously.OverworldTheme (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

1918 Flu[edit]

I was reading the article about vaccines and came across this tidbit which I hadn't heard before. Apparently the deaths of 3-5% of the world's population in 1918 wasn't caused by the Flu, they were killed by asprin! Pdoke2 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Some links posted to CTSTDT suggested that people genuinely think it was a hoax. Scarlet A.pngsshole 11:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

National Report "FBI raid"[edit]

The picture of the FBI raid in the article appears to have been stolen from this article's photos section. I guess they didn't know Google Image Search is a thing.

Never mind, it's poe. ShadowFan-X (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"We’re not withdrawing this story from publication because the fact that it is false but still believable, is in and of itself, newsworthy." Whoover (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The stupid is strong with these people. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 21:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Welfare is un-biblical.....huh?????[edit]

I just read about what the lunatic mentioned in the article said on that, and my brain is threatening to have an aneurysm. Not only did the Bible have numerous provisions for taking care of the poor and downtrodden by both civilians and the government (since the Israelites lived under a literal theocracy), it's even a major plot point of the book of Ruth for crying out loud!

Not to mention, his reasoning is utterly insane. Just because someone is a dependent of the state doesn't mean they will vote against gun owners. Hell, one of my own relatives is disabled, and he's a proud gun owner who staunchly supports the second Amendment.

......I mean, wow, the stupid in that illogic in that is just mind boggling.

Arcane (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Arcane

Kindness, mercy, etc. are only meant to be shown to others of your faith. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that the "Other" is to be put to the sword. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:39, 26 June

2013 (UTC)

Especially that 'love your enemies' bit. Scherben (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
God orders the Children of Israel to slaughter the Amalekites. There's plenty of hate in there, too. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, and you guys remember that story where Jesus rochambeaued that Samaritan, right?--"Shut up, Brx." 17:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Jesus doesn't need to Rochambeau anyone when he can just run them through. As for the Samaritan, he helped someone in Jesus's in-group. Speaking of another "other" Jesus told the Canaanite woman to buzz off at first, and she had to shame him into helping her daughter. Then there's the slavery thing. Mr. Pratt has more than enough material in the only book he's ever read to justify his position. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Believe me, I'd love to be totally wrong on this -I'd sleep a lot better at night knowing I wasn't interacting with people who think my grandparents are roasting in a lake of fire for being Papists, and that my Grandparents didn't live their lives thinking Jews roast in a lake of fire for sleeping in on Sunday morning. But the world doesn't work like that. People want to be told that they're right, and that people who don't agree with them should suffer, and they write books that tell them this is so. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I'm not mad at either of you. Yes, although I understand the Bible to be a book written by men, there are many people whose lives have been improved by it, and many of them improve the lives of others, even the lives of people that aren't one of their own kind. Mr. Pratt should probably re-read his Bible, and skip ahead to the Beatitudes. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

QE! Blog[edit]

I was under the impression this blog was written by one of Andrew Schlafly's misfits. Should this be filed under WIGO:CP, or is this a statement on how little entertainment value remains in CP (which could also be the Flagship of the Clogosphere, for that matter)? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How is this not parody? Especially the part about colonics. WTF? --Seth Peck (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm envious -I was stupid enough to read a lot about this particular lunatic. He's not serious about the writing per se, but he believes himself to be clever. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I do admit to having found it directly through Conservapedia, but I felt seeing as it wasn't actually on their main site that it belonged more under clogs, if it should be moved then by all means. I just wanted someone else to join me in shaking their head over this nonsense. EGKunz 16:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, we are... --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 10:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
BREAKING NEWS: Head Shaking Lacks Machismo!! See Why 2011 2012 2013 Will Be The Worst Year On Record For Head Shakers Atheists Around The World!!! Pdoke2 (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me why I don't watch FOX News.[edit]

I'm angry about that bullshit all over again. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 03:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --OverworldTheme (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hovind's New Thesis[edit]

I'm sure there's a wealth of stupidity in this thing, but I can't even mentally process the fact that he began a "doctorate" thesis by ending the very first sentence with an exclamation point. --OverworldTheme (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

So? — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 18:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It's quite extraordinary. Illustrated. Not with diagrams, graphs or pictures of evidence but with photos vaguely related to that bit of the text. I'm pretty sure one of them was from an Asterix movie!Toffeeman (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Professional Unified Conspiracy Theory Theorizing Chart-o-Magic[edit]

Is there a bigger version available? It's a beautiful pile. – Nick Heer 20:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. So tantalizingly crazy-looking! Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Transphobic bitching goes here[edit]

Figured I'd make this section ahead of time, since it was clearly going to be made soon.

Oh, and by the way, Brennan: that isn't a manifesto. It's a PowerPoint without the clip art. If you're going to publish a manifesto, complete sentences are a good place to start. You know, readable, basic English. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 20:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The bathroom as refuge stuff is great. Rapists you see, aren't people like you and me, they are horror movie monsters. All male (actually maybe in Brennan's thinking "rapist" and "male" are the same thing?), they are forbidden by ancient magic from entering a room labelled "Women" or indeed "Sows" or just with a pink flower on it or some other vague symbology. But as members of the sinister patriarchy they come up with endless subtle ways to undermine this powerful spell, which a right-thinking woman must always be on her guard against. Dressing up in drag somehow doesn't work (the magic is too strong maybe?) but by declaring themselves to be women suddenly they can penetrate this otherwise inviolable space, and women will be at risk... Tialaramex (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Great point. Her obsession with "female-only spaces" is quite bizarre, and I really don't get it to be honest. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 19:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Female spaces in general are a useful idea, and popular with the sensible edges of the second wave. But they actually work pretty much on asking nicely - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I said "bitching," guys! Not civil and reasonable discourse! Read the header. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 08:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Pentagram in Kazakhstan[edit]

For the record, the description of the pentagram in Kazakhstan says it's an unfinished pioneer camp ("pioneer" refers to the Young Pioneer Organization of the Soviet Union). --Tweenk (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning[edit]

She actually deserves release, a medal and a million pounds. That's just a personal view, like Scherben (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Manning was bound by what Is the US version of the official secrets act, which he would have signed and would have been very aware of. If everybody acted as Manning did there would be complete chaos, all trust between nations would be lost and it could possibly end in war. Having said that 35 years is an excessive sentence but I hear he could be out in 7, which is about right as far as I am concerned--Mercian (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC).
The trust between governments thing is a joke right? Conflict is a human constant since the start; and not all of us want governments Scherben (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course storms are caused by sin.[edit]

This is how we know what the most sinful territories of the USA are. Where do the hurricanes land? Where do the tornadoes touch down? By tracking this data, we are able to map the sin levels of the lower 48 states scientifically. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Nah. The storms hitting the southern red states are just collateral damage. God's having to send the storms through them to deal with the evil sinful blue northern states. Compro01 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thus, the sea levels are rising so that God can bring the coast--and thus, the hurricanes--directly to the blue states up North. --OverworldTheme (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The Islamic nations get all the sunny weather Scherben (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably trying for a good old fashioned rain of fire on them, but he just can't get it up like he used to. Compro01 (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Things We Can't Learn From the Amorites[edit]

I like how only two points in they succumb to critical research failure. "No one lives beyond 120 years, the limit for human longevity which God set after the flood (Genesis 6:3)" According to their interpretation, Jeanne Calment single-handily disproves the Bible. --OverworldTheme (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally I like how god's utter incompetance was portrayed as "patience" and is described as a spoiled child destroying his playthings. Why bible freaks keep trying to justify the more insane and despicable parts of the old testament I will never know, but personally im just waiting for one of them to explain how riding an iron chariot makes one more badass than god. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 10:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"God let his own people, who did nothing wrong, live and die for generations in slavery, so that the Amorites could yuk it up for 400 years, most of them dying peacefully despite their long list of sins." gj there, Yahweh. --OverworldTheme (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
What gets me is that the author of this tripe is an MD - in fact a GP! Scream!! (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, we require a lot of things of a GP and "not believing crazy stuff from the Bible" isn't on the list. There are only a few billion people, if you want more than a dozen of them to be qualified as GPs you've got to stick to qualifications that are actually relevant. So, "has a pretty good knowledge of human biology" check, "understands the difference between a microgram and a milligram" check, but I don't care if they thought Oasis was better than Blur or they put salt on chips without tasting them first, or if they believe Mohammed was a great prophet of God rather than just some dude who manipulated people.
My A level (so, think senior year high school, Americans) maths teacher had a PhD (number theory I think, something to do with infinities) and believed in the literal truth of the Bible. Actual seven days, contradictory nonsense, all of it exactly as written. Since he had essentially no ability to control a classroom any attempt to discuss this would derail the entire lesson, and I'm talking about classes of kids who need excellent grades for their subsequent goals so we didn't do that often for fear of all failing. But we did cover it enough to get clear that he really believed. Tialaramex (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Not doubting his abilities. Just can't see how anyone who's gone through all the education & training can believe the OT so vehemently. I've had some "converse" with him on twitter he really does believe it all. Scream!! (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No borders [Walesa][edit]

That seems a good idea to me Scherben (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Matt Forney[edit]

Mother of God that site is disgusting. There's an entire post about "why fat girls don't deserve to be loved." It's like someone poured sulfuric acid into this man's ideas. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 06:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you see his Twitter? A lot of asshattery there, too. A few days back he was ranting about trans* people non-stop.
And speaking of asshattery, I just found this: "'Freethought' blogger falsely calls me a PUA..."
Yeah. "Falsely". —ShadowFan-X 20:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Scum was my first thought (is that actionable?) Scherben (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


I dunno if they are vetting comments on the blog (mine hasn't appeared after a few mins), but if they are I wonder if this stupidity will get through:

I'm with you pal, stuff with evidence to back it up is always as valid as lack of evidence. To think Mr. Sheldrake is being treated like this is terrible.
It's not like his advocates don't want to just accept that they might have shortcomings in their judgements, and refuse to swallow their pride. It's the "scientists" doing that.

Too sarcastic and dead pan? IMHO the blogger has enough problems understanding ideas at face value, so perhaps veiled meaning can get by? Or have I gone too far and just posted something that the likes of the free energy commenter will lap up? Maybe not the guy who doesn't understand the difference between observation and senses.... or has he just learned some big words? Damn, I shouldn't let myself look at comments, especially blogosphere ones, I get sucked in! (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Am I a dreadful person?[edit]

Is it wrong of me to wish the 'aura baby' of these two parasites to be still born? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Kind of. Have you or someone you loved ever experienced such a thing? Would you really wish that on any human being? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
firstly, an aura baby is not a real human being. Secondly, neither are spencer and Heidi. Thirdly, yes I have loved ones who have experienced such a thing. Lets not get prissy now AMassiveGay (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah. I do not know what an "aura baby is." But Spencer and Heidi, whomever they are, I've not hears of either of them, are real human beings. We all are. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
perhaps read the clog to learn about the aura baby and you will see i am not wishing a dead child on anyone. And Spencer and Heidi are most definitely not real human beings. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Trust me, you do not want that. Stillborn aura babies get flushed down the toilet, where they grow in the sewers to become undead aura babies, as discussed in this documentary. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)