Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?/Archive8

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 15 August 2014. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)


Gave the Indy a little while for their sub-editors to fix this, but it's still there:

“BBC figure in warns that shared understanding of different faiths is now so low the even jokes are losing their meaning”

"figure in warns that" is an error and so is "so low the even jokes are". Never mind kids who can't spot a not really that funny joke about the sermon on the mount, let's worry about a newspaper industry that can't even write a coherent sentence. Tialaramex (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A biggus dickus wrote it Scherben (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Virginia Libertarians should have just shut up and voted Republican![edit]

The Examiner columnist is quite a whiner, isn't he? Maybe he's a Democrat in 2000, and his party is entitled to the votes cast for that pesky third party! This was a great thing, people actually voted for a third party in significant numbers. The 146,000 people who voted for Sarvis (the self-proclaimed "Libertarian") weren't just "Pot-smoking Republicans" -they didn't make a lot of proud talk about "muh freedoms" and then quietly vote GOP (because tax cuts!), they actually made the hard choice and voted for someone they agreed with, not someone they feared less than the "demoncrat" or whatever the fuck term the GOPers use. Sad that it took a vote between a crook and fascist to make this happen. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So i just said. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Typhoon Haiyan Hitting Britain[edit]

That piece in the Star, about Haiyan making landfall in the UK at Christmas, is so wrong that it makes not-even-wrong right. And I love how it deftly illustrates the blizzard it will bring, so as to prove climate change is a hoax. BUT, the link at the bottom to The Making of The Kate Upton in a Body-Paint Bikini Sports Illustrated Cover is worth the mental anguish. Thank you, Daily Star. Whoover (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

On top of which, they deleted the original comments, all but one of which were packets of stupid Scherben (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
In an odd way I don't mind the Star. It is so blatantly drivel that you know you're not expected to believe the stories. It doesn't take itself seriously and nor do its readers. The Mail, on the other hand, is an instrument of the devil. Innocent Bystander (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I see your point, until I see disgusting stuff like this: related to this: Makes me fucking puke Scherben (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

CMI on "Salad Bar Christians"[edit]

In response to a gentleman named Robert about how it's important keep up with talk.orgins to know what people are saying about science (all the better to ignore it!), Gary Bates wrote,

"Robert, while I appreciate your response I'm not sure I completely concur with the idea that most Christians can see through the lies of the enemy."

So, we're the "enemy"? The feeling's mutual... what con artists. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


PLEASE, someone techy make it possible for me to "upvote" that WIGO a hundred times! Scream!! (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I want that site to be a poe, because the alternative - that people actually are that batshit insane - is too horrible to contemplate. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 10:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

JFK as a conservative?[edit]

Well, a bungled invasion of one foreign country, and setting the table for a long and ultimately fruitless counterinsurgency that his successors would be stuck with the bill for certainly reminds me of one recent conservative president. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 05:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The original neocons were former leftists after all. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe the term is "liberal hawk." Besides, let us point and laugh as they glorify the thing they hate most. (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Northern Europe attacks Ukraine. Roll two.[edit]

Of course we need to intervene in the Ukraine! Fighting a land war in Russia is something every aspiring superpower needs to do. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

its usually the last thing they do. Except for Finland. Worked out fine for them. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin vs. Feminism...[edit]

What that clogger actually meant to say is "I have a lot of money tied up in bitcoin, it's time to pump and dump". I almost feel bad for the MRAs that will get conned, but to be fair, their motives are really quite nasty. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

AFA's Naughty or Nice[edit]

What amused me most about this was the part where they suggested boycotting Radio Shack for not mentioning Christmas on their website.

"Take action" the website proclaims in bold letters as if this were something of such significance that we must boycott them or something terrible will happen. The Mad World (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Madiba Burning in Hell[edit]

Don't you think that site is a tad too good to be true? Whoover (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I should have spotted that before I posted the link. I still think there's a good probability that they're genuine though. Even in spite of articles like the one about dog anuses.Vajrapani (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Megyn Kelly's White Jesus[edit]

The link to the Megyn Kelly story doesn't mention the fact that she insisted, on national television, that Jesus was white. Even the article itself sort of glosses over it. For shame. --OverworldTheme (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

How does this belong?[edit] I see the claim "Study: Religious more likely to lie for financial gain" being backed-up with the statement "Among those more likely to lie for financial gain were: [...] Those for whom religion was more important to their lives. “This is surprising,” Childs writes, as most religions “promote honesty as a virtue".

So what's the problem exactly? A Real Libertarian (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

School shootings now a result of involuntary celibacy[edit]

Rarely is someone's attempt to shoehorn their own pet issues into a completely unrelated tragedy so laughably transparent. "We cannot speculate on this guy's motives, but obviously it was because he was horny and couldn't get laid!" If lack of sex caused violence we as a species would have died out long ago. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 04:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I blame the feminists. It's because of them that nobody knows how to masturbate any more. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If I didn't know who you were, I would have sworn you were joking. All I can say is... not even wrong. Accountless Procrastinator (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
He is joking, dude. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 01:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I've seen Smerdis of Tlön's arguments before, and while he obviously didn't mean that literally, his statement is in line with his actual ideology (i.e. that we're stuck in some sort of time warp/parallel universe where all feminists are sex-negative and trying to suppress our biological imperatives or something). From my perspective, any demarcation between sensible voices and cranks/Jacobins seems to be lost on him. In fact, if I recall, you've had some experience arguing with SoT. Anyway, my point was not to conduct an in-depth dissection of this user's POV, merely to point out that his "joke" becomes rather unfunny when placed in the context of what he actually believes. Accountless Procrastinator (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I figured it would actually be funnier in light of what I actually believe. Oh, phoo. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I have had some arguments with him, yes. Enough to know he's intelligent and wouldn't say something that stupid except as a joke. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There's a teachable moment here. If you want to poe yourself, you need to try harder. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll admit I totally jumped the gun in taking that one seriously. It's not often I see people satirizing themselves in that manner. I guess the joke's on me. Happy 2014. Accountless Procrastinator (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
One other thing. I see we lack elephant in the room. (See the Wikipedia article on Elephant in the room.) It needs to be added to our list of logical fallacies and figures of rhetoric.
See how the poor thing dies under the microscope. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
In fairness the social pressures placed on the dateless young (or even not so young) male with poor social skills are less than ideal. That said the solution is find ways to reduce those pressures rather than enforced dating.Geni (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
They're a group of your neighbors who nobody speaks up for; that much seems certain. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Keanu Code[edit]

I have no idea whether the author actually intended it, but that was the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. Kudos to Gulik for the link. Plus: check out the pledge amounts. They're the most arbitrary-ass pledge amounts I've ever seen. (Yes, I just used the phrase "arbitrary-ass." No, I'm not sorry.) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Earnings for women[edit]

I read the linked article, and I'm a bit confused, because it doesn't seem to suggest what the WIGO seems to think it suggests. The gist of the article seems to be "women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, but Hispanic and African American women make even less". Perhaps there was an incorrect link inserted or I'm misunderstanding, but as it stands right now it seems like the WIGO is just plain wrong. - Grant (Talk) 15:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It is. It's not a good WIGO - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
For now I've commented it out, as it's blatantly misleading and doesn't make sense. If someone wants to come along and fix it, then they can do so. - Grant (Talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the WIGO is particularly misleading, & certainly not enough to justify removing it. The point of the WIGO is that Liberaland claims Obama's summary of the wage gap was incorrect, then backs up this claims by linking to a NWLC webpage summarising it in the same terms.
Anyhoo, clearly there's a racial wage gap as well a gender one, but the NWLC's claim that "The wage gap is even more substantial for African-American and Hispanic women" seems rather flawed, since this conclusion is drawn by comparing their wages directly to white men's (i.e. the other side of both wage gaps) while there is also a similar wage gap between white men's wages & black/hispanic men's wages, which are closer to women's wages within the same racial categories than they are to white men's. If you compare within racial groups (based on the bar chart shown), white women earn $0.78 to the white man's $1 (78%), African-American women earn $0.64 to African-American men's $0.73 (88%), and Hispanic women earn $0.54 to Hispanic men's $0.61 (89%). This leaves me a bit puzzled how these can balance out at women earning 77% of men's wages, since in each category the wages of women against men in the same grouping appears to be higher than this figure. I guess it may be affected by the proportionate numbers of men & women of these ethnicities within the work force, or be skewed by the fact that medians are used, which can present misleading statistics. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The title of the Liberaland article makes me think that they were going for "incorrect" in the sense that it's not the full picture. To me, the WIGO seems to make a stronger statement than that of the article, which is why I didn't think it was suitable as written.
As for the content of the article in question, without knowledge of how the statistics were generated, it's hard to know where that figure comes from in the actual report. As you say, it may have been weighted by population, or there may be something else going on. - Grant (Talk) 20:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The "Liberaland" blogger wrote, "But where [Obama] is incorrect is saying that they make 77 cents on the dollar. Professional white women make 77 cents on the dollar." How could one interpret that but as a claim that women in general make less than 77 cents on the dollar compared to men in general? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The report linked in the article does go on to explain after the brief summary that when race is also taken into account, that number drops. I don't think the article was trying to claim anything other than the fact that the addition of minorities to the mix widens the inequality. - Grant (Talk) 05:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Now, one could argue that's not a great use of statistics, and it isn't. African-American women, for example, face both a gender gap and a race gap when compared to white men. That said, it's a bit unclear to me whether the Liberaland article is trying to conclude that Obama should have mentioned that the race gap still exists, or whether it's trying to claim something more sinister (though I suspect it's the former, perhaps poorly worded). Also note that the report it cites (as Weaseloid points out above) also begs some statistical questions, given that it does not outline how the overall 77% figure was obtained. This makes it a bit difficult to see how things add up. - Grant (Talk) 05:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
(EC) But it does not "widen the inequality." The report she cites states very clearly that women (of all ethnicities) make 77 cents on the dollar compared with men (of all ethnicities). To quote it verbatim: "In 2012, women in the United States working full time, year round were typically paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men working full time, year round."
Now if Obama, instead of saying "man," had said "white, non-Hispanic man," the blogger's criticism would be valid. That is the point the report makes on its second page. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and I understand that. However, I think the title of the article makes it clear that the word "incorrect" is more or less being used as a hyperbolic way of pointing out that there's more to the story, which there is, because a race gap still exists. - Grant (Talk) 05:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the blogger did invent a strange new hyperbolic definition of the word "incorrect;" but a less entity-multiplying explanation is that she was, perhaps unintentionally, moving the goalposts. Obama was comparing against men in general, but the blogger assumed at all times that he was comparing against white, non-Hispanic men — and, by extension, that his 77% figure only applied to white, non-Hispanic women. This also explains the title — if the blogger thought Obama was taking into account only white men and women, that would certainly be only half the story. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I really just don't see that connection, and I don't think it's necessarily a violation of Occam's Razor to assume the blogger wasn't making it either. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, since we're clearly generating two different interpretations of the article. - Grant (Talk) 06:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I have a solution to feminist bullshit, KILL ALL ATHEISTS, YOU KNOW, BRING BACK THE INQUISITION. It's the right thing to do to slaughter homosexuals, feminists, Japs, Chinese, Russians, atheists, humanists, League Of Legends fans and Warlocks.--Thrinaxodon (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Goddamn it. Who forgot to renew Thrinaxodon's Xbox Live membership? Now he's bothering us instead of telling the guy who headshoted him about how he's a Marine sniper with 300 kills and his mommy will make that guy sorry and that guy is totally a camping fag. A Real Libertarian (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

22 messages from creationists[edit]

Fucking hell. Scherben (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you explain a sunset if the earth isn't flat? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Tide goes in; tide goes out Scherben (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Fucking Magnets, How Do They Work? A Real Libertarian (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
How come we can't hear the Big Bang? Scherben (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki software to edit bills[edit]

I actually don't think it would be that bad an idea. There would need to be constraints, naturally, but I think the format of it all would lend itself well to the legislation process.--"Shut up, Brx." 08:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is to carry out legislative debates by collaborative editing, not to write the bills themselves that way. If anyone were to take such a debating website seriously in the way suggested in the proposal, there would be a very strong incentive for whoever operated the website to pull Ministry of Truth-style tricks with the database logs. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 09:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Well, I don't think that memory holing stuff would be much of a problem. Even here on RationalWiki, you can't just burn something without someone else knowing. There'd have to be a conspiracy for such a thing to happen.
But for debating, I don't see it as practical. I mean, we do debates here, and they can be a bit of a mess.--"Shut up, Brx." 09:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
There'd have to be a conspiracy for such a thing to happen. The people pushing this proposal think that the government is in the hands of a covert conspiracy led by Satan, s.n. "corporate special interests." If this debate-construction website were set up, it would not, I think, take very long for these people to start slinging accusations of database-tampering.
Even here on RationalWiki, you can't just burn something without someone else knowing. That did not stop people here raising a ruckus over, i.a., Nx's server access. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 09:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see--"Shut up, Brx." 16:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
There was actually a Daily Show bit where they suggested this – well, tongue-in-cheek, of course. It gets taken over by Twilight fans within hours. There's a "No Werewolves" constitutional amendment and everything. The moral: let the lawmakers make the laws. (Though considering how godawful our current lawmakers are, Twihards might legitimately be a better option at this point...) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Really sick of people comparing modern society to 1984 here[edit]

Did Giroux actually read the book, or is "American society has become Oceania" just a more literate version of Godwin's Law at this point? I mean, really. We don't have private thoughts anymore? Um, news flash, you can keep a thought to yourself, and all you have to do is NOT FUCKING POST IT ON FACEBOOK!

Orwell didn't know what kind of technology we could have nowadays; that's true. But there's more to Orwellian dystopia than just spying. 1984 was a world in which people were literally incapable of thinking things that the government didn't officially sanction. The concept of political equality simply did not exist. Anybody the government didn't like was erased from history. Dissent was a completely alien concept. If this sounds like America to you, or any country other than North Korea for that matter, you need some fucking perspective. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I wholly agree, Wehpudicabok. And it's not just here where people abuse the lessons of 1984, it seems that everybody misses the bigger, dystopian picture of that book these days, in favor of just a small lesson about spying being bad. But I seldom hear people connect the dots as to why the spying was bad, which is an huge shame really. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You must be either be very literal-minded people or English majors. Yes, if you apply strict scrutiny, a comparison between modern times and 1984 doesn't hold, and "worse than Oceania" is even less reasonable then. However, 1984 and Oceania at this point have become metaphors. And yes, largely metaphors about surveillance, even though the book was mostly about a form of hyper-totalitarianism. But that's more or less always been the case, even before the NSA scandal, before Facebook, even before the WWW. People have always associated 1984 and surveillance/espionage. So, yeah, at this point it's a metaphor, and not an accurate reference to the book. Besides, do you really want to hold up the society 1984 of all possible books as measurement yardstick for modern society??? Who cares if, yes, that fictional society is still far worse than modern conditions? Modern conditions regarding privacy are still plenty bad (bad enough to justify the use of rhetoric metaphors, like 1984 and Oceania)! This seems like an extra absurd form of Not as bad as to me...
And really, on that note, this isn't clog. This is totally justified criticism, moreover, rhetoric aside, it's right. I don't get it what it with this authoritarian lackey attitude some people seem to display here when it comes to the NSA affair. To me this seems to go against every progressive or leftist spirit! That article shouldn't be in the clogosphere WIGO. Octo8 (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Just because there's a legitimate complaint buried in the hyperbole doesn't mean we can't complain about the hyperbole it's buried in. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 22:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. Octo8's argument sounds to me like "Hitler is a metaphor for evil, so there's nothing wrong with me comparing Obama/Bush/whoever to him, regardless of whether the comparison is historically valid." And I totally agree that the spying program is a horrible, unconstitutional violation of our liberties. I just think it's going to take a whole lot more violations of our liberties before comparisons to 1984 start to become valid. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and one other thing: If surveillance is all that people remember about 1984, they suck at reading comprehension. That's like saying that all people remember about Shakespeare is the blank verse. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 23:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Well that's just what happens if you didn't really absorb something. One or two core themes might survive in some fashion but the rest is quickly forgotten. I'm sure Never Let Me Go had interesting things to say beyond "We don't talk about death and maybe we should" but I didn't end up remembering them after reading it once and so I'll probably never know. The interesting thing about 1984's surveillance is that it only applies to bureaucrats like the protagonist. 1984 actually doesn't feature "total surveillance", the proletariat go largely unwatched because Big Brother (on behalf of Orwell) believes they're unable to revolt on their own. Tialaramex (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, even if you don't "post something on facebook", it's remarkably possible to infer that something from what you do say and establishing correlations between those knowns and similar things from other people that do post that something on facebook, given a large enough data set and appropriate analytical resources. Compro01 (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Which is a disturbing thought, admittedly, but now we're not even talking about spying anymore. Nor are we talking about government, considering that the only groups I've heard of doing this so far are corporations, who use it for the heinous crime of targeted advertising. (Heinous is a word which here means "mildly annoying".) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Which translates into the English language as, "Only a totalitarian society could make films like The Matrix."[edit]

Which, in turn, translates as "The article makes my brain hurt so I'll settle for a straw man."

Giroux may be smug - a fault that many critics have - but his ideas are nothing new or difficult to understand. London Grump (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've bee on a tear against paranoid themes in popular culture since The X-Files was on. I am also quite weary of lone heroes wreaking violent revenge on corrupt corporate or government bureaucracies; it's something you can easily OD on in US popular culture. It isn't easy to resist the idea that the prevalence of these fantasies in entertainment isn't somehow related to US social pathologies. The Matrix, I thought, was this theme collapsing into parody, in which reality was the ultimate conspiracy theory. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You just want us to believe that... Scherben (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Obama won't step down![edit]

I do recall the same was said of Bush (obviously, WND would have been disgusted by such allegations!)... I suppose there was some logic to this paranoia -why on Earth would the president accumulate so much power if he didn't plan to stay forever? Hanlon's Razor suggests the US is run by well-meaning idiots, not wannabe dictators, but no partisan cares about that. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There's very little, if any. logic to their arguments anyhow (judging by the comments). Scherben (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Terry Hurlbut's said the same thing multiple times on CNaV, so I called him out on it one day. My offer was that if January 2017 rolled around and the presidency didn't get handed off as normal, I'd stand in Times Square for 8 hours wearing a dunce cap and a large sign saying "I was wrong about Obama". Of course, he'd have to do the same if he was wrong, and since the offer was made out in the open on his site, everyone would know if either of us failed to own up. Not much of a surprise that he didn't take the offer despite his tough talk - instead, he just claimed that Obama would step down in title only, but continue to run the world as a behind-the-scenes puppet master. Some people are just no fun at all. --DinsdaleP (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Yikes. Paranoia is a horrible illness. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
its a win-win for nutjobs isn't it? You get to demonize the man in charge as a communist dictator, but when he does step down its because of your righteous defence of freedom and constant vigilance. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Summat not quite right[edit]

A Wigo I've just submitted has 56 up votes the second it's submitted? Scherben (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This generally means you reused a number - David Gerard (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
That's understandable considering how fucking stupid I am :s - thanks for clarifying Scherben (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Evil Microwaves[edit]

My favorite excerpt: For the experiment pictured above, microwaved water produced a similar physical structure to when the words “satan” and “hitler” were repeatedly exposed to the water. If it's not a parody (and I suspect it's not) it's as close as you can possibly get. Whoover (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

All the "evils" attributed to the microwave can be said of wood stoves as well.

Wood stoves were not researched at all before their adoption in the United States.

The heat from wood stoves destroys certain nutrients in the exact same manner as a microwave.

Cooking meat on a wood stove can create carcinogens, such as heterocyclic amines. In fact, pre-cooking meat in a microwave can reduce the amount of heterocyclic amines present by reducing the time the meat is exposed to high temperatures.

Wood stoves expose consumers to unnecessary amounts of thermal radiation, to which prolonged exposure can lead to burns, cancer, and even death.

Wood stoves can create health issues by exposing consumers to smoke and open flames, and when not properly cared for, can be a fire risk. Plus, fire is found in profuse amounts in the domain of Satan, which is also where Hitler's eternal soul supposedly lies.

Frederick♠♣♥♦ 02:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I can twist snowflakes into evil, hideous things with my mind? Kewl! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I've had a bit of a poke around the Food Babe's site and we really ought to have an article on her. She's not quite as nutty as Mike Adams, but she's in the same neighbourhood. I'd do it but I haven't quite got the time. Placeholder (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
IMO, Vani Hari is arguably more dangerous than Mike Adams, as she has (or at least has a high potential to have) mainstream appeal. She's young, attractive, apparently well-spoken, and doesn't appear crazy. While Mike Adams is drifting off into conspiracy land (not to say the Food Babe website doesn't contain conspiracy-type material, but it's nowhere near the level on NaturalNews), Vani Hari is arranging meetings with PR reps from companies such as Kraft and pumping up her "investigative journalist" image (her site doesn't look like a webshite at first glance, either). Politically, going by the "Non-medical conspiracy theories" and "2013 predictions" sections on our NaturalNews article, it appears Adams' crank preferences tend toward a far-right wingnut variety, which has the potential to damage his credibility in left-wing and mainstream circles (though apparently this hasn't driven moonbats away from NaturalNews in practice). Vani Hari, on the other hand, has a clear left-wing bent, having brandished "Label GMOs" signs at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Additionally, I haven't been able to find much in the way of skeptical material debunking her online, even though she's just as nutty as any other promoter of chemophobia and nature woo out there. The One They Call Mars (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mummies of human-alien hybrids in Peru[edit]

In case someone feels inspired:

Some context:

--Xyr (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Condoning "trolling"[edit]

I don't think the website should be condoning trolling or hacking of other sites (maybe with the possible exception of Wesboro Baptist Church's, but enough about that). Politics aside, anyone who's bored enough to spend all day in their mom's basement trying to "hack" some website that they don't like needs to get a job/hobby/girlfriend/life/or something - and if this site's promoting it passively then it's just going to harm it's reputation and make it look more like 4chan than a site dedicated to "debunking pseudoscience"

Here's an example of what I mean (from the January 2014 section)

"Facebook trolls Goat even MORE Conservative pages. Apparently, Andy isn't the only conservative who keeps handing the keys to trolls. UPDATE: aggrieved racist idiot complains on YouTube"-- (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly not the most mature response, but this was a freaking Facebook page. It's about as important as my userpage here. This is more like teasing than actually hurting anyone or anything. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Anglicizing non-English names[edit]

To be fair, my name isn't correctly pronounceable by any non-native French-speaker, and it bugs the crap out of me when they try. So I introduce myself with a fairly Anglicized version of it.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That's you being nice about it. They were being cunts about it :) Scherben (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what is your first name? I like to challenge myself linguistically. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 04:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It's my last name that's the problem (although pronouncing my first name, Camille, the proper French way is beyond most non-native speakers anyways)--"Shut up, Brx." 04:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"kah-mi-ya"? "ka-mie"? I seem to recall that "ll" is like English "y" in both Spanish and French, no? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 04:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
[kaˈmij] Frederick♠♣♥♦ 01:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Shiite Einstein[edit]

I find it disturbing to observ, how this article wants to report on wack theories about Einstein's alleged affinity to Islam, whilst calling him „Jewish“ right in the headline, without any further distinction. Sure, in the one sense of this word (origin) he was Jewish, but his metaphysical beliefs were far from what Judaism teaches (and Islam, too, of course). This gives the article some “Muslims want to steal Einstein from the Jews”-tone. Sophophobe (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind the article, but I do believe Einstein would have self-identified as Jewish; it being the sole reason why he had to flee from his home country. More to the point, I think it's not really up to outsiders to decide whether "Jewish" was an ethnicity, religion or both. Bismarck (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-binary-gender character guy[edit]

I had mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, the article was pretty rude in tone, and didn't seem to understand what people mean by "ending the gender binary." On the other, it seems that whoever submitted the link here at RW misunderstood what was being said. He specifically said that the problem he has is not with people pushing boundaries but with people sacrificing story quality in order to tackle social issues. And I agree with him on that. There are good stories that ask difficult questions, and there are rants masquerading as literature. So I think I agree with the essence of the post, while taking issue with the way he said some parts. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 03:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Good point, bad representation. It should be noted, however, that no work of art is ever apolitical. It may be very subtle. Overt political propaganda/moralisation is pretty boring though.
What do you think an artist is? An imbecile who has only his eyes if he is a painter, or his ears if he is a musician? ... on the contrary, he is at the same time a political being, constantly on the alert to the heart-rending, burning, or happy events in the world, molding himself in their likeness.
—Pablo Picasso
Bismarck (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Bale.[edit]

I see the moron who runs the daily bale is in rather a lot of trouble for making more shit up about immigrants. Nice to see the wing nuts in the UK trying to keep up with the standards of the US wingers. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea Hypocrisy[edit]

I get the not-so-subtle feeling that for the hypocrites on the Crimea Crisis, namely the right-wing Paulbots in the US and the left-wing Stop the War Coalition in the UK, their position is grounded not so much in opposition to warfare so much as taking sides. (That's not to say it's necessarily intellectually inconsistent to support/oppose some conflicts but not others, so long as one has a consistent rationale supporting these stances, but these two groups claim to be anti-war on principle.) I honestly don't know what's up with the Paulbots, but it's no secret that left-wing antiwar movements often attract people who are more anti-Western than anti-war. (Of course, touting oneself as just generally anti-war tends to attract more followers in western countries.) The left-wing hypocrites appear to subscribe to an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset, viewing Putin as some sort of beacon of hope against Evil Western ImperialismTM. While the right-wing Liberarians don't seem to be anti-Western, I have seen some anti-NWO nuts going on about Putin being an ally against the NWO (while others claim he's a part of it), but not all winguts believe in the New World Order. What does the rest of the community think? Am I generally right about the hypocrites on the left? What's the best angle we have on the Paulbots? The One They Call Mars (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

While I won't make any pronouncements about whether you're correct in the broad sense, or whether most left-wing radicals do espouse such views, it wouldn't surprise me if it were a common thought process. It's really no secret that the western world has had (and continues to have) a long history of interventionist policies. That said, the Paulbots strike me as a bit less obvious. On the one hand, patriotism is usually a big rallying point for the right, but on the other hand, Paul's brand of libertarians aren't a fan of government in general. Tough call. - Grant (Talk) 16:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
While I can't speak for Paulbots I think you're very much over simplifying the Stop The War Coalition's position on Putin. Try this
WHEN HILLARY CLINTON STARTS talking about the new Hitler, it's time for all of us to recall exactly who has been on the receiving end of this epithet before.

In 1956, we were told that Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt was the new Hitler, when he had the temerity to nationalise the Suez Canal and resist an invasion by Britain, France and Israel.

In 1990, we were told that Saddam Hussein was the new Hitler, when he invaded Kuwait, which triggered the first gulf War.

The Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic was dubbed the new Hitler in 1999, during the Kosovo war.

In 2002-3, Saddam Hussein became the new Hitler for a second time, as George Bush and Tony Blair banged the drum for their illegal war against Iraq.

Dictators, tyrants and autocrats many of these may have been, but new Hitlers they certainly were not, remembering that Hitler was the leader of one of the most powerful imperial powers in the world.

Those of us who have opposed wars justified on these spurious grounds -- from Kosova to Iraq, from Suez to Libya, from Argentina to Syria -- have been labelled as supporters of whatever regime was our government's enemy at the time.

So let me make clear: I have never been a supporter of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, General Galtieri, head of the Argentinian Junta at the time of the 1982 Falklands war, or Syria's Bashar al-Assad.

And certainly not Russia's Vladimir Putin, now deemed the latest Hitler in the Ukraine and Crimea crisis.

The Stop the War Coalition has always taken the view that its main role is to oppose the actions of the British government. That is why we focussed on criticising US and British imperialism, rather than taking an even handed approach which stressed opposition to both sides (despite some on the left wanting us to do so). We would not otherwise have been able to build such an effective movement.
From this official website.
I have watched all to often the British government do the "we've always been at war with East Asia" line so many times that, while not for one moment supporting Putin, I feel that the demonisation of him is part and parcel of softening up public opinion to justify the unjustifyable. So maybe a little more care with the accusations of hypocracy. Placeholder (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
How many of those "New Hitlers" have been in command of the country with the 2nd strongest military on the planet? Just because lots of powerless people, like Saddam Hussein, have been proclaimed the "New Hitler" doesn't mean the analogy isn't relevant when talking about the 2nd most powerful country on earth, militarily speaking. Russia is on an entirely different level compared to all the other "New Hitlers". Like, Nasser, Milosevic, Hussein... At their peak, they had what? A hundreth of the power of Putin, if that. Dendlai (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
And you're massively missing the point. It's not whether the Stop The War Coalition is right - that's a different debate - it's whether they're being hypocritical. From my knowledge of those involved, and I know some of them quite well, hypocrisy is not one of their failings. Placeholder (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Missing *what* point? The hypocrisy is in the details. Russia is a completely different beast compared to the other supposed Hitlers. And really, do you think anybody takes you seriously when you claim you have special knowledge of some of the people involved? Okay, name them. And finally, about missing the point: Somebody made a post listing some irrelevant 3rd world dictators who have been compared to Hitler by the US military and some of the more loyal media outlets. How is it missing the point to point out that most of the world laughed at that, and that the 2nd most powerful military in the world is another matter completely? Is the point that the US have overused the Hitler metaphor so much that some people can't see the relevance when it is, well, relevant? Dendlai (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure Placeholder is referring to the "New Hitler" comparisons in the hypocrisy debate. I think what Placeholder is trying to say is that the STWC isn't hypocritical because, if you look at their actual platform, they've never claimed to be an even-handed antiwar organization, rather one that opposes the actions of the British government as its primary purpose. You might claim that platform position is stupid, inconsistent, or irrational, and I would agree with you. You might point out that the question of whether Putin's actions were just and the question of whether Western military intervention is a good idea are two separate debates, as one can oppose Putin's actions while not favoring a Western military intervention, and I would agree with you. Again, I believe Placeholder's point is that the STWC's current position is in line with their platform, and thus doesn't meet the definition of hypocrisy or inconsistency. As for Putin being a new Hitler, I still think that's a bit of an overreaction. He may have a strong military (I'm not going to rank it because I don't want to go into statistics or different definitions of strength such as size, technology, power projection, etc., but Russia is certainly in the big leagues.), but as far as we can see, his territorial ambitions don't extend beyond his hissyfit over Ukraine (which may die down after Ukraine's next elections). Were he plotting irredentist land grabs in other CIS states, I'd be more worried. The One They Call Mars (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Placeholder, the hypocrisy of the "Stop the War" coalition comes from this quote: "The Stop the War Coalition has always taken the view that its main role is to oppose the actions of the British government. That is why we focussed on criticising US and British imperialism, rather than taking an even handed approach which stressed opposition to both sides." If you oppose all American and/or British military intervention no matter what the reason for that military intervention but at the same time turn a blind eye or worse in the case of the Paulbots attempt to justify a full-blown military annexation just because that country's military is a country that is "the enemy of your enemy", then it's absolute hypocrisy. When they do that they're using the same logic as the despots around the world, they're using the same logic as both the US and the Soviet Union used in the Cold War, they are being Putin apologists and thus they are part of the problem. I hear almost no one except a few chickenhawks (such as John McCain) squawking about the need to "do something" militarily. What they want to do is not very clear. Quite frankly, to paraphrase Eisenhower, their numbers are few and they are stupid. Nchriste (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the CNN piece really belong here?[edit]

Sure, it's sensationalist, arguably dumbed down, and annoys the author, but it's not a clog or crankery. With so much material floating around by actual downright nutjobs, why are we padding this WIGO with sensationalist-but-non-kooky mainstream news pieces? The One They Call Mars (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ask the user who put it there. SophieWilderModerator 20:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Sensationalism aside, I might even go so far to as to say that CNN's example is justified here. For better or for worse (especially in our scientifically illeterate society) a lot of Americans don't realize that it really is pitch black underwater, especially the people whining on how "we can find a rover on Mars, but can't we find a plane on our own planet!?" as if the ocean is just a chlorine-treated swimming pool. --OverworldTheme (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you. Many sensationalist media gimmicks are annoying and pointless, but they're not always unjustified. This one serves to get people's attention so that an important fact many people have been missing will hopefully sink in. If its purpose is to combat ignorance, and it's effective in that regard, I'm all for it. The One They Call Mars (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Muti murders[edit]

OK, but this article is over four years old (dateline 7th Jan 2010). Placeholder (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Photographic proof of fairies[edit]

Oh come on. How could whoever wrote that possibly have missed including a reference to the Doyle fairy photos? I mean, good entry and all, but in some way referencing and including that would have made it so much better! Theoretically I could add that, but I don't like to change WIGO entries, as a rule. Dendlai (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like overkill. The article itself already mentions the Cottingley Fairies. --OverworldTheme (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Those fairies.... we used to drive through great clouds of them in the wetter areas of Canada in early summer, then one day they'd all die and leave a stinking mess. Their lives are so short, because we do not believe. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Fuel from seawater[edit]

It appears to be a real thing but victimized by poor framing by the media, probably based on the misconception that (hydrocarbon) fuel is an energy source, not a storage medium. See the original Navy press release. In reality, a) the process probably works, unlike most "gasoline pills", b) it's intended to alleviate logistical problems of carrying around X types of refined fuel, not to solve the general problem of getting fuel in the first place. The problem is how viable is the process at larger scales.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Today's military actions involve a lot of "dwell", where you're not allowed to go in, kill everybody and make yourselves at home, but you are also not allowed to go home. A nuclear powered carrier can sit there, running off E=mc² for months at a time. But after not very long the planes which are the very purpose of that carrier can't go anywhere without a refuelling base. Smaller support craft for the fleet, too, run out of fuel. Ideally you would just go into port and buy more fuel. I've seen an allied nation's (conventional, non-nuclear) submarine just casually sat in a civilian dock with a couple of local fuel supply trucks lined up to fill up her tanks. But obviously that submarine had permission to be there, we mostly want to put a carrier fleet off the shore of nations who are decidedly not happy to see them. So, you end up buying the fuel in country X, filling up a navy tanker, then escorting that tanker to the fleet over by country Y. Military leaders don't like that kind of dependence on civilians, what happens when country Y signs a pact with country X that they won't sell you any fuel? Making gasoline from first principles using the abundant fission electrical power of the fleet will never be directly cost effective (otherwise nuclear power plants would start selling discount gas), but it might well be tactically advantageous. Tialaramex (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
"A nuclear powered carrier can sit there, running off E=mc² for months at a time." - Just dropping by to say props for this phrase. Scarlet A.pngsshole 08:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It just astounded me that someone would write a story that, on its face, would appear to describe a process that contradicts several laws of thermodynamics. US experts have found out how to extract carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas from seawater. Then, using a catalytic converter, they transformed them into a fuel by a gas-to-liquids process. They hope the fuel will not only be able to power ships, but also planes. That means instead of relying on tankers, ships will be able to produce fuel at sea. Without describing what this process burns in order to produce fuel at sea, it certainly sounded like some kind of scheme to convert water into gasoline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Eh, it might eventually be, depending on the relative costs. From-the-ground oil seems likely to keep getting more expensive. And liquid hydrocarbons still have the not-inconsiderable advantages (over batteries, hydrogen, etc.) of being quite energy dense, even after factoring in efficiency, and being pretty easy to move around. Compro01 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
SmoTlö, the problem is that the linked article is crap, but your description of it in the WIGO dismissed the project itself, not the article. So the number of negative votes is unsurprising.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky SSM[edit]

According to the article, it was the Governor's lawyer, not the Governor himself that make the statement. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. Most other articles online attribute it directly to the Governor in their headlines, even though the articles themselves note that the quotes in question are from a legal brief, not the governor himself. Beshear, a Democrat Governor in a heavily Republican-leaning state, has generally tried to play both sides on this issue, for better or for worse. (He is, after all, a politician.) In deciding to appeal the lawsuit even without his attorney general, he cited his belief that same sex marriage should ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. There's also the pivotal Grimes-McConnell going on at the same time, so Beshear will likely do all he can from giving McConnell a chance to attach the issue of legalizing same sex marriage in Kentucky directly to Grimes. --OverworldTheme (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

RE: "Segregation is good for black kids!"[edit]

That's not what McWhorter is arguing. The argument is that being around white kids did not automatically lead to improved education for African-American children, that all-black schools have an historical reputation for proucing excellent students, and that applying proven educational techniques in already all-black classrooms is probably a more effective strategy for fostering learning than changing the racial profile just for the sake of changing the racial profile. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not breaking up the racial profile for the sake of breaking up the racial profile. It's about breaking toxic centuries-old patterns--"Shut up, Brx." 04:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
He's arguing that just changing the complexion of the kids in the classroom isn't necessarily breaking any patterns besides phenotypical ones. Father Vivian O'Blivion : Dreamed I was an Eskimo 04:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
And, to the extent that you believe that African-Americans all share a culture that differs from that of white Americans, there may be practical advantages to having classroom space devoted to that culture. But observing the pieties is more important. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough...[edit]

Stupid as he is, Sam Wurzelbacher has a point. The Bill of Rights shouldn't be altered in response to tragedies... Unfortunately, That has already happened repeatedly. The Bill of Rights was gutted in response to the September 11th attacks, but he didn't notice.

Wurzelbacher is so inarticulate, no one needs to silence him; so desperate for the limelight, he isn't worried about his privacy; and, being white, will likely enjoy due process in court were he ever to run afoul of the law. I'm not mad at him for being heartless, I'm mad at him for only suggesting this now that this actually affects him, instead of agitating for rights, he's explaining how the Second Amendment is so fucking special, when so many others have been deemed luxuries US citizens cannot afford. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You have to wonder how many deaths elevates the issue of gun deaths in the U.S. from a huge collection of tragedies to a systemic problem. I believe one of the guys involved with the process of creating the country may have had an opinion on this matter:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson
Basically, the 2nd Amendment in no way accomplishes what it was created to do. Even if the government did turn on its people, how many drones do you think are going to get shot down by Joe the Plumber and his trusty handgun? How many stealth bombers? How many ships in our huge navy? Will an AR-15 purchased for self defense do anything at all to a tank?
Hard to tell. People who buy them for self defense are too busy using them to kill other citizens of the U.S. to defend those other citizens they killed from the government. --User:PsychoGecko 21:23, 28 May 2014, (UTC)
Armed rebellion is pretty fucking hopeless, yes. What angers me is knowing that only now do dumbfucks like Joe the Attention-Whore realize something is amiss. He's a day late and a dollar short, like all Tea Baggers. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 22:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think he does realize there's a problem. I think this is just your usual post-shooting response by conservatives, right up to claiming that liberals will try to use it as a political issue when he's doing that himself with this letter. I'd settle for at least some sane regulations to keep this from happening, aka wishful thinking. Just like healthcare, though, they aren't offering any better solutions. --User:PsychoGecko 22:33, 28 May 2014, (UTC)

Maureen Dowd's Bad Trip[edit]

While this story is worth its weight in guilt-free schadenfreude, how is an op-ed piece from the print version of The New York Times clogospheric? Has it really come to this? Whoover (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hyperventilating about marijuana legalization in Colorado? I'd say so. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian's response to this was absofuckin'lutely hilarious, but crushed Adderall? Jesus Christ, I take a pill of that stuff in the afternoon to stay focused, not to get high! You're not even supposed to get high off of Adderall, it's labeled "amphetamine salts" on the bottle. Speaking of amphetamine, the pills I take are blue. If I recall, the methAMPHETAMINE Walter White dealt in Breaking Bad was blue as well. This can only mean one thing: Walter White is my pharmacist. I'm certain of this, and I swear that I'm sotally tober, or is it tobally soter? --Captain Wolff (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Reason's article on school shootings[edit]

What exactly makes this a clog? It should be noted that crime often gets hyped and sensationalized in the media. The article was pointing out the flaws in what exactly constitutes a "school shooting". We need perspective whenever something like this happens and not scare-mongering. Otherwise fear is going to lead to stupid policy like armed guards in schools. And every time something like this happens in the United States, gun sales soar. So we need perspective. Nchriste (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A BoN deleted part of my entry. Yes, what Reason says is factual, but it's glossing over the larger problem that the US is a goddamn disaster when it comes to gun violence. In fact, I agree with you about scare-mongering. under "Funnily enough..." I complain about this exact problem. Crises should not be used as an excuse to curtail rights, but it's too bad the people saying this already fell down on the job for all those other amendments... too bad. Too little, too late. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Has any other industrialized democracy had a similar ratio of incidents involving firearms being discharged in educational institutions over the past few years? Reason is arguing that your kid is way more likely to die out of school than in school. That may be true, but is your kid more likely to die in an American classroom than in a Dutch or Canadian one? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
It glosses over gun-control but it doesn't argue that "They're scaring us to take away our second amendment rights" either. Instead of regarding this as a clog, this is actually more like a stopped-clock moment for the folks at Reason Magazine. My take away from the article is that this is a problem not of school shootings specifically but that America is just a more violent country than the rest of the first world (Although he didn't talk about other countries). The author, Jesse Walker, is spot on on this issue. He also has a history of detailing paranoia in American body politic in his book "The United States of Paranoia" which discusses these issues and builds on the work of people like Richard Hofstadter, Chip Berlet and others. These are all take-downs of paranoid thinking and a call to skepticism and rational thought. This is hardly a clog, it's the opposite. Nchriste (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, you could move it to WIGO:Blogs and someone would argue the reverse: that glossing over gun-control makes it a clog, stopped clock moment be damned. I've put The United States of Paranoia on my reading list. I doubt my local library would have it in circulation, so I'll have to get it through my kindle. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In fairness to the Dark Enlightenment article[edit]

The quoted writer did say that "Sith Lord" was a media buzzphrase not used by neoreactionaries, and some dupe could very well have called himself Legolas because he thought a high fantasy name would be badass somehow. There are other holes in the story, though. For one, "Dark Enlightenment" is a sensationalist umbrella name Nick Land gave to the broad neoreactionary movement, not an actual secret order of any sort. At best, the storyteller stumbled across a scam order claiming neoreactionary ties. On another note, Mark Shea did make a "stopped clock" argument which can be used against actual neoreactionaries:

"The thing about nascent movements like this is that it’s hard to know when to pay attention and when to ignore them. If you ignore them they can grow in the dark, like mushrooms on dung. If you make too much fuss, you can attract idiots–particularly extremist idiots–who automatically assume that anything normal people find objectionable must be awesome, radical, and 'not PC' and therefore good. But of course, cannibalism is not PC either and embracing something simply and solely on the basis that it is a 'reaction' is one of the stupidest things humans can do. You can’t build a life on protest and reaction. You have to be for something, not merely against something. And at the end of the day, the only real core of DE 'thought' is to be for racialism."

Of course, there are probably some non-racial neoreactionaries out there who are just monarchists etc. and would regard this as a strawman, but I digress. The One They Call Mars (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes dear, of course it wasn't a Poe that caught the guy - David Gerard (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Cracked "Check your privilege article"[edit]

Ive read and reread the article a few times and there is no claim that the phrase "check your privilege" is racist, only that it is rather presumptuous and tends to cause and exacerbate more problems than it solves. One might disagree with that but it hardly seems worthy of being declared an example of egregious internet douchebaggery/general evil. Maybe I can get a clarification as to how the article is objectively terrible and reprehensible, because as it stands I think the entry should be removed. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 08:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually I just found it does contain the claim "In a very odd way, "check your privilege" is kind of racist, because it assumes someone's background dictates their opinions", though again this seems hardly sufficient to damn the article, the author, and cracked itself as some bastion of bigotry. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 08:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought that was sort of a good point myself. Racist isn't the right word there, but it is making presumption based on background so it's not exactly a different ball park. And generally speaking being as the rest of the article makes a long series of good points, I'd also be up for punting it out of the clogs page.
(And I may very well only be saying this because I've had it up to HERE with self righteous dickheads on Tumblr throwing the phrase around every time someone says anything at all that I'm all ready to throw it into the same category of 'technically you might have a point but realistically you don't' that "Were you there?" is in) --Certified Sick Bastard 13:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Racism is one kind of prejudice. Unless I'm mistaken, "race prejudice" was in use before "racism" became the common term. Just this one time, I will bring an argument ad dictionariam and say that the root connotation, premature judgement, fits this case pretty well. Until the particulars of someone else's situation are known, there is skimpy basis for accusing them of wallowing in privilege. Such an accusation comes from prejudice. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
So we can take out all reference to white privilege from the article on privilege? It notes in there that white people have certain privilege, like not being racially profiled. Can probably drop the part about any privilege of men or women, too, which seems to leave an article about straight or cisgender privilege. And is it really a good idea to dislike a concept just because you don't like seeing it on Tumblr? If so, we better hope someone starts using Tumblr to make reason and atheism less scorned by the Christians.
At the end of the day, the article seems to be saying that those with privilege shouldn't have to try and think of how they are privileged, that it's the responsibility of the less privileged to explain themselves to the rich white man. "If you're a black transsexual woman arguing with some white cisgendered male and you truly want to explain how his "privilege" prevents him from understanding your point, your struggle, or simply you, then spouting "check your privilege" isn't going to help. "Check your privilege" fosters no mutual understanding. Why not talk about you? Explain you? Share you?"
To bring it closer to home, Christians shouldn't educate themselves about atheism before getting into any sort of debate with atheists. If they've got some misconception, the atheist is the one who should be explaining everything about it to them, and noting that most Christians don't understand atheists because they are Christian is apparently now prejudice. I'm not saying that someone shouldn't point things out to those with privilege, but they seem to be suggesting that the privileged person shouldn't have put any effort into it themselves.
It reminds me of the Bria Crutchfield thing, where someone asked a black atheist what black people were doing to fight black on black crime, out of nowhere and unrelated to the speaker's presentation. Then when someone else later asked about what atheists could do to reach out to minority groups, Bria Crutchfield gave an emotional tongue lashing that pointed out why black atheists felt unwelcome with examples including the earlier question. And then afterward, some in the atheist community characterized her as an angry black woman who just went off on someone whose question wasn't meant to be racist. This article says the person who asked the question shouldn't have put any thought beforehand into why asking a question like that of a black atheist just because she was black would be a problem.
Overall, though, it appears that the person who asked what the atheist community could do to be more welcoming(the one who seemed to consider their own privilege) got a very satisfying answer, even if other people were unsatisfied with the woman from earlier being used as an example.
So that's what I took away from it. User:PsychoGecko 16:18, 24 June 2014
The thing is, no one cares what you think they should do. That is why all your points are moot. You really need to look at this with some more nuance. When people hear "check your privilege", they do not go "ok", what they do is they pick up some memes and stereotypes and go on to live them, probably altering any parts that reflect badly on themselves. --Someon (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: Point addressed to me. Probably not. I do have other reasons, but I couldn't be arsed so was noting the conflict of interest just for posterity. --Certified Sick Bastard 20:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, i will try to address each of your paragraphs in the textwall....with another textwall
1) No one suggested the concept of privilege be dropped or dismissed, nor the concept of race privilege, either here or in the article. In fact the article acknowledged the author's recognition of privilege quite a few times I seem to remember. It merely took issue with the use of "check your privilege" as a brainless buzzword used willy-nilly to shout down other viewpoints. The fact it has become a cliche of Tumblr SJW to do so just further evidences how important it is to not misuse it further lest the concept of privilege be further pilloried.
2) How exactly is suggesting more communication between those in privileged groups and unprivileged groups a bad thing? If someone is so certain in themselves and their convictions as to throw around "check your privilege", why is it unreasonable to want some elaboration?
3) Setting aside the fact that the article did not refer specifically to debates, formal or informal, between groups, I doubt any atheist here would look kindly on an atheist screaming CHECK YOUR PRIVILAGE!!! at a Christian after the latter voiced an innocent misunderstanding (as in a misunderstanding held not due to bigotry but simple ignorance) before flouncing away demanding said Christian "educate him/herself" instead of trying to explain him/herself. If someone wants to bring any concept into a debate, they cant just drop it on the table and presume to auto-win the argument.
4) While I am not familiar with the incident you cite, I think "Nutpicking" (i.e. taking lone individuals who voice horrible opinions or do horrible things in the name of the cause, and declaring them to be representative of the movement they claim allegiance to as a whole) as what seems to be the case in that incident is also a mistake that needs to be avoided. Characterising the whole atheist movement based on one asshole's racism seems overly harsh at best and disingenuous at worst. A common comparison might be the trans exclusionary radfem branch of feminism (which to their credit, even SJW despise). There are a lot of them who are very vocal, but to judge the ENTIRE feminist movement based on them, or even radical feminism in general is unfair and intellectually dishonest.
In conclusion I think the author of the article made it quite clear he acknowledges the concept of privilege and is aware of it's adverse effects. The fact his opinion differs from yours on how it should be used in discussions does not make him worthy of the vitriolic entry you gave him. He is not some "rich white guy" presuming to give orders to the unprivilaged masses, he is just some guy voicing an opinion that it should be used more carefully and more thoughtfully, and that any discussion of privilage should not be ham-stringed by it's misuse. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 17:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
On "#4 - nutpicking) The trouble I see here is that when you talk with individuals in a minority, they almost all express situations where they become the "token Black Voice for All Black Women" in conversations. Or that they can never be "just an atheist" because there are a whole host of issues that exist for women atheists that do not exist for atheists, and for black women atheists that do not exist for other, etc. AND, this reduction to parts (the black in black women atheist) that is read as racism, happens constantly for minorities. That is, because privilege is such a status quo of most people, they often are not even aware of the effect of their comments or actions. ("I have never sexually harrassed a woman!" "i respect people for their ideas, not their color!") There is a video running the net right now, of a black professor who says "people complement me by saying 'You are so articulate' not realizing or admitting to themselves they are adding the unspoken 'for a black person'". It's not a complement - it's an unseen form of privilege leading to a subtle racist comment. So while you may think someone in a minority group is "nutpicking' (looking for the one guy who says something bad) they may be trying to tell you this is the norm.One tin soldier (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
That is indeed true, and I didnt want to assume anything about said incident so take my reference to nutpicking as just a general thing that is applicable in pretty much any circumstance. However in this case I believe a key factor in why her comments caused such offence was due to the fact that the vast majority of the Atheist community wholeheartedly and sincerely rejects and dislikes racism, and thus react negatively when someone seems to tar them with the same brush as lone assholes (or lots of lone assholes in this case) which somewhat blinds them to any point the person in question was making.
As for the "credit to your race" part of your comment, I would think its less about overt privilege (i.e though this is still a key factor, and can be seen in other circumstances like someone from a lower economic class being complimented as "unusually articulate/talented/whatever" with the implicit follower being "for one of you people") and more like a concious/unconscious acceptance of racist stereotypes which would make them think being both black and articulate is worthy of note and condescending compliment. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 20:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
1. Considering he goes from "So you pointed out someone was rich and white, so what?" to "Even transsexual Puerto Ricans are different from one another" in a few sentences, it suggests that he doesn't see that as a matter of privilege, but like differences on par with food preference or hair color.
2. You're the one who called this a textwall, which I've seen used primarily as a derogatory term or as something for someone to be ashamed of. Maybe that explains how attempting to communicate more and explain things is seen as a negative? And it maybe doesn't help your case to put into my mouth the idea that I'm just butthurt because I don't like the article, rather than acknowledge the reasons in my "textwall" here. It suggests that I could have graphs and charts, but your own bias would prevent you from acknowledging the good reasons I feel the way I do.
3. So every time someone throws out the same old "I hear you atheists worship evolution, but if people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" line, it's always up to me, no matter what, to explain not only how wrong they are but how evolution isn't some dogma of atheism? I should treat that person as being on the same intellectual level as someone who has actually gone out and done their homework? There's a reason why some conversations/debates are considered a waste of time.
4. Is it nutpicking when it's a subtle, invisible bias that wide swaths of people hold? It's not like that's the one problem black atheists ever had being accepted into the atheist community. To quote a little site named RationalWiki: "Privilege is the benefits and advantages held by a group in power, or in a majority, that arise because of the oppression and suppression of minority groups. Often these benefits and advantages are not codified as legal rights and arise as secondary qualities to suppression (see the examples below). This causes them to become difficult to spot, and remain unseen or unrecognised. This aspect in particular is known as privilege blindness. "
And finally, just because it amused me: "A common comparison might be the trans exclusionary radfem branch of feminism (which to their credit, even SJW despise)" Your defense of an article about how you shouldn't paint everyone in a group with a wide brush involves claiming there's a group called Social Justice Warriors identified by their use of this phrase, which you're biased against, but luckily they're a credit to their group (good thing they aren't a race) if they despise a bad group. User:PsychoGecko 00:33 25 June 2014, (UTC)
Oookay. Lets break this down further
1) He pointed out that screaming "check your privilage" adds nothing to an arguement as it does nothing to disprove or refute the "privilaged" person's arguement. For the third time, that is not denying privilage.
2) If you had cared to look a few centimetres to the right of where i called your comment a textwall, you would have found me calling my own response a textwall. Neither did I dismiss your points out of hand as "butthurt" (which im sure is hompphobic btw, nice going there) which is why I took the time to make the self admitted textwall response in as polite a manner as I could.
3) Yes. I think in every case an atheist/someone who accepts basic science should not just scream "YOUR WRONG AND STUPID" and then run off declaring victory, since if they have the moral and intellectual certitude to make such a judgement on their own "rightness" they should show their reasons and evidence for it. To pull a "check ur privilage" makes all atheists look fucking stupid and immature by association. Misconceptions are not cleared up by obnoxious posturing, and for what seems like the fiftieth time, someone on Cracked suggesting a better exchange of views and ideas to better enable the concept of privilege to be understood is not Clogworthy, and in my opinion not even whineworthy.
4) As I said before, and elaborated to in the comment exchange later, i do not know about the case in question. However unless there is some actual evidence that "vast swaths" of the atheist/sceptic community hold racist views, tarring them all with one brush because of individual assholes seems a lot like nutpicking, which I then criticised as a general principle rather than as referring to her in particular. Also, how the hell does this have anything to do with the article in question?
And finally it is common knowledge, near enough cliche that SJW are ostensibly protective of transgender rights, in much the same way it is common knowledge that TERF radfems hate transgendered people. The fact you seem to think that me pointing this put is comparable to (or infact somehow is) being racist speaks volumes about your understanding of it. And since I seem to have plenty of agreement from others in this thread im gonna go ahead and delete the clog entry. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 09:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't know who, but it looks like someone brought it back. Not like its score got any better when they did. Just pointing it out because even if I think you're wrong, blah blah blah, something respect for the process. User:PsychoGecko 16:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't want the TSA digging their grubby hands through my privilege. Carry-on privilege only. That's the way to travel. Ikanreed (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if being told to check their privilige has caused anyone actually to check their privilege or just caused them to tell you to go fuck yourself? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Suuuure, way to offend the asexuals now while we're at it. That was a joke. I'm not sure if you offended autosexuals, though, because they've got their heads up their own asses. Either way, looks like the best way to get a negative reaction around here is to either put Cracked in the Clogs or to do something that somehow sides with people that are memetically annoying on Tumblr. I don't think I could have gotten 70+ people to pay attention to a single clog if it had been Alex Schlafly caught on tape reenacting the Pulp Fiction Pawn Shop scene with Neil deGrasse Tyson. User:PsychoGecko 23:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Cracked is pretty good when it's good. But about that tape ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to this discussion at the moment, and will probably do so in the future, but I would just like to point out that if the "Best of the Clogs" page set to a -999 point threshold is to be believed, this entry has now become tied for second place in having the most negative score ever, tied at -42 with Clog #2333 (Woman Rapes Man #firstworldproblems) and second only to Clog #2868 (Latest wisdom from Faux News: "Don't wash your chicken.") at -71. I believe congratulations are in order? Noir LeSable (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll make sure to put "Eye of the Tiger" on repeat, fellow Earthicans.User:PsychoGecko 18:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)