RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?/Archive9

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 19 October 2014. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Coulter soccer column[edit]

Wait, aren't some of her reasons to hate soccer-- like not using hands -- an echo of something Schlafly wrote a few years back? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Love it, by her attitude Luis Suarez is a hero as she seems to like the fact there are fights to liven things up. As for mocking it for not needing ambulances tell that to Fabrice Muamba, or an even sadder story, Marc Vivien Foe or even fucking worse, 50 or so people whose lives could have been saved with the proper medical treatment during the Hillsborough disaster. And as for it being a liberal sport, tell that to Southampton FC who look like loosing all their top players this summer, those damn liberal Manchester sides look like taking them all in an extreme example of laissez faire capitalism. She obviously does not have a clue. I will add to this. Her remarks about personal humiliation, David Beckham, who she mentions, had effigies of him burned, hatred spewed at him at every away ground and genuine concerns for his and his families safety after being sent off in the 1998 World Cup.--Mercian (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If I have some great-grandparents that are foreign and some that aren't, how do I know whether I'm allowed to watch soccer? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 22:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you're not a pure-blooded American if one set of your great-grandparents were foreign, so it doesn't matter either way. Watch it or don't; you're an un-American foreigner regardless! - Grant (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Un-American foreigner-ness has never been so much fun. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Stay by my side / Mabushii sekai wo misetai 22:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
By this point, it should be clear that Ann Coulter just says shit to offend people and get press. She's not worth engaging or even thinking about.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think I would say this, brx, but Good post! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the theory that Ann Trollter is a meaner version of Stephen Colbert crossed with Andy Kaufman who never, EVER breaks character. --Gulik (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The lesbian haunted house thing[edit]

I don't know… I think there is a bit of a problem with that, but mostly because it seems to be promoting homophobic stereotypes of lesbians ("lesbians are just man-haters!", et cetera). But then, I've only really read about on the Reddit thing, and MRAs have a tendency to exaggerate shit like that. Oh well. DØØM MĖSSIÅH …But spirit is foulest, devoid, askewDolan.png 11:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, they're probably just making fun if the stereotypes or something. Eh, whatever. Other people can sort this out. GØØBY PLS Clam down dere, matey!!1Dolan.png 11:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It's currently stickied on the subreddit as an "action opportunity". I honestly think the haunted house itself is ridiculous, but the way that they framed it in the discussion, Solanas reference and all, is equally ridiculous, as is the fact that they would bother to create a petition against it in the first place --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


The Watergate controversy was wonderful for at least two reasons: 1) It put impeachment of a president on the table. 2) It led to “rapid desanctification of our national secret police.” It’s no accident that after Watergate, Congress passed multiple pieces of legislation attempting to rein in the CIA, the FBI and other organs of the American secret police. Most of that is all null and void now, however.

What part of that is "Watergate apologism"? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"As Rothbard notes below, the watergate scandal was an excellent event precisely because it undermined faith in government." I guess not exactly apologism so much as boosterism. The original CNN article heavily leans in the direction of apologism, though. I will change the WIGO to be more accurate. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Replication and Failed Science[edit]

Especially in light of my last epic fail around here, I'm considering just getting rid of this one already. As a standalone piece, it seems to make some good points, and I'm less knowledgeable about how successful scientific replication seems to be in general. However, he doesn't propose any sort of way to determine whether a history of failed replications is due to a lot of psychologists not knowing what they're doing, or if the results were just fudged in the first place. Ironically, his cookbook analogy is a great example of that. Most of the time, the reason your food doesn't look like it does in a cookbook or a menu is because the people taking pictures do all sorts of things to make a dish look far better than it really is(fluffing the bun, using coloring, using paste instead of milk, etc.). Someone else want to weigh in, or do I get to attain Clog infamy again? User:PsychoGecko 19:00, 8 July 2014

I think a lot of what he's saying is an issue for social psych in particular where there's not always a great deal of methodological rigor. Studies are often performed using ill-defined terms and using measures that are not entirely validated. We have major studies with vastly contradictory results at times. And of course there are studies like Milgram that has been replicated ad nauseum and people still refuse to believe. In general I think replication of studies is a fantastic idea. It shows that it wasn't just that 5% chance. AyzmoCheers 20:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Esquire article on the Texas Republicans[edit]

Any particular reason this is in clogs? While it's indeed sensationalistic, poorly edited, and an Esquire article siphoning Google hits from a much better New Yorker article, it is not quite batshit enough for clogs in my opinion. While it's definitely not good enough for WIGOW, it should probably be moved to blogs or at least deleted and replaced with the original New Yorker article. (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely move to Blogs. Different take on the same material, the hook quote is only in the Esquire version - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


I don't see the connection: How is being a Men's rights activist while being a sex tourism writer being hypocrisy? unless he writes about gay male prostitutes.... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

He attacks gay men for being promiscuous, among other things. I'm fairly sure that sex tourism falls under most definitions of promiscuity. Compro01 (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The fuck writes little more then "How to rape woman in 3rd world nations" books, and he has the fucking gaul to claim gays are a fucking health risk? That idiot's STDs are likely near self aware. --Revolverman (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

5, 6, Pick up sticks...[edit]

I kind of have to ask: aside from the awkward and circular justification made (not the worst I've seen -- see: Dinah and Shechem), is there any particular reason why the page about the guy getting killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath is in Clogosphere and not embedded somewhere in the Wiki? According to the page, it was drafted all the way back in June of 2010... was it featured somewhere that I'm not aware of? Noir LeSable (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You're just asking what some (well, at least one) of the rest of us were thinking. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I usually forget to check the dates. I always thought that the dates in the clogosphere signified when the article was *discovered* by someone at RationalWiki.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Good find all the same. There ought to be somewhere on the wiki to use it. Thinking... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Security reasons?[edit]

I was trying to read the read article explaining that the government is constitutionally required to fight homosexuality as it must for sure be very interesting. Unfortunately I couldn't access to it and instead got this message (I have only copied the 3 first lines): "Your access to this site has been limited - Your access to this service has been temporarily limited. Please try again in a few minutes. (HTTP response code 503) - Reason: Access from your area has been temporarily limited for security reasons". Last sentence is printed in red.

Now I am really wondering what kind of threats for Phyllis Schlafly's site Switzerland (which is the country from which I am surfing on net) might represent. (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Nah. The Schlaflys are just the ancestors of Zapp Branigan, who famously said in a quote from a few years ago in the year 3000: "What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" --User:PsychoGecko 00:27 24 July 2014
Can't be too sure about cyber-threats from Switzerland. It's in the prophecies. Book of Zamboniah, chapter 7.3 mentions that the "dragon" -- could also be "basilisk" in the original High Elvish -- comes from a place where there are, among other things, "mountains." This could lead to the sorts of satan things like the Antichrist likes -- maybe one world financial system or universal health care. So, can't be too careful. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WAPO Channels the Onion?[edit]

This has to be a joke. Who would have thought the Washington Post would channel The Onion? I mean, isn't it obvious that Michele Bachmann is Batshit crazy? Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the gist of their argument: if a woman becomes the Democratic frontrunner (right now likely) it may be electorally necessary for the GOP to get a woman somewhere on the ballot. But you're right in that a Bachmann VP pick would be just as damaging as Palin. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not about the final ballot. Clinton or Warren would both probably be advised to act as though their gender is no big deal in the final sprint after selection. And that means they can't say "Ha, see the other side are a total sausage fest". But earlier, in the bigger field, it's noticeable, especially with the Democrats being able (largely by chance) to field more than one serious possibility. And so you don't need to explicitly draw attention to it. You just let the audience puzzle it out for themselves and come vote for you. Thus yeah, there must be pressure inside the GOP to get a woman into those first weeks of campaigning. If she does well, that's great for her, if she does badly it's valuable experience and no shame for trying so long as she knows when to take the hint and quit.
The argument against Bachmann is, of course, that's she's barking mad. But it's not as though the GOP has consistently prevented crazy people from taking part in this contest. That would be a new rule. If I was a GOP bureaucrat and had one chance to play a veto card against a candidate who was going to hurt the party so badly they'd be worse than just letting a democrat run un-opposed, Bachmann would not be my choice. Millions of Americans believe the crazy things Bachmann believes. An America that votes against Michelle Bachmann is not an America that has definitely lost its patience with the GOP and will never vote Republican again. Tialaramex (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If you replace feminist with Illuminati[edit]

"Facebook is preventing me from logging into our Concerned Citizens Against the Illuminati page! I believe the Illuminati (let’s call them what they are) are behind this censorship. I am trying to regain access but it doesn’t look good. No response.

Maybe it’s time to start calling it “Illuminatibook”. This looks like censorship and it has the Illuminati's fingerprints all over it. I knew Illuminati were all for censorship but this takes it to an all new low. grrrr!" [1] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Normally, I agree with the WAF crowd, but this is frankly incredibly embarrassing. Noir LeSable (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Eh... if you look at the notes, quite a few are taking this seriously. It's what happens if you indoctrinate yourself in a group full of antifeminist conspiracy theories --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Which makes it all the more cringeworthy! Aaagh. Ah well, could be worse, I suppose. Noir LeSable (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Mike Adams[edit]

I think it might have something to do, partly, with smoking ads, no? Even with all the money spent on anti smoking ads and stuff people are still hooked. Maybe that actually works as positive advertisment o_O [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

National Review article on Neil deGrasse Tyson[edit]

Anybody with access care to summarize? I don't feel like giving them my money/info. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about the "Smarter Than Thou" article brought up by Bill Maher, right? I managed to track down a full-length copy of it. I'll give a short version here. Disclaimer: This is what I got from it personally, and may not reflect the author's actual intentions with this opinion piece.
After the first two paragraphs which are available free on the site, the author decries "self-professed nerds" as a combination of hipsterism, smug intellectual condescention, "the belief that one can discover all the secrets of human experience through differential equations." After listing a few examples (including Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye), the author goes on to say:
The [nerdy] pose is, of course, little more than a ruse -- most of our professional "nerds" being, like Mrs. Doubtfire, stereotypical facsimilies of the real thing. They have the patois but not the passion; the clothes but not the style; the posture but not the imprimatur. Theirs is the nerd-dom of Star Wars, not Star Trek; of Mario Kart and not World of Warcraft; of the latest X-Men movie rather than the comics themselves.
He goes on by saying that because science and geekiness are now seen as cool and hip, they're being glommed onto by people who want to be cool rather than who have a genuine interest, that the term "nerd" now carries the connotation "look at me... [I'm not] southern, politically conservative, culturally traditional, religious in some sense, patriotic, driven by principle rather than [data], and in any way attached to the past," and accuses "the nerds of MSNBC and beyond" that they are merely "popular kids indulging in a fad" and living the highball celebrity life. After quoting Neil deGrasse-Tyson on ignorance being a virus, he claims the quote is a sort of call-to-arms for those who believe they're part of the aforementioned nerdy intelligentsia, "thus do we see residents of Brooklyn who are unable to tell you at what temperature water boils, rolling their eyes at Bjnrn Lomborg because he disagrees with... climate change."
The author says that 'nerd' has become a political term, citing Obama's cameo on Cosmos, and those who conflate the political 'left vs. right' with 'science vs. religion'. He also points at the ostensible hypocrisy of "the smarter, progressive class" having wealthy and opulent lifestyles while simultaneously claiming populist views, citing the gaudy display of the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
He concludes by saying that Neil deGrasse-Tyson, et al., have actually damaged politics, scholarship, and culture in their attempt to popularize science. He states that "actual science is slow, unsexy and assiduously neutral." Politics pretending to be science, on the other hand, is "chic." He claims that "Big Data" and "It's just science" are actually a veiled attempt to advance progressivism under the guise of empirical neutrality. He quotes Tyson once again: "Other than being a scientist, I'm not any other kind of -ist. These -ists and -isms are philosophies; they're philosophical portpholios that people attach themselves to and then the philosophy does the thinking for you instead of you doing the thinking yourself." He goes on to say any claim to have "a worldview... driven only by the data" is nonsense because liberals believe in nonscientific ideas too, and concludes by accusing leftists of claiming that the 'old ways' were outdated and contrived, as well as accusing leftists of claiming that we would be saved by the old political ideas of "collectivism, lightly checked political power, and a permanent technocratic class" disguised as being "new" and "assured by ostensibly disinterested analysts," ending with the are-you-seriously-saying-this line of "Science is important, but these are not the nerds you're looking for."
I'll be coming back to tidy some of this up later. Just realized I'm late for a doc's appointment.Noir LeSable (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Jeez "star wars not star trek" is such a choice quote. Like Star Trek has all this intellectual depth, which is being skirted by people who produce science education television. It's totally not a soap opera in space with contrived philosophical puzzles tossed in sometimes. Definetly intellectual rigor there. Ikanreed (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the US sites I read pointed out that deGrasse-Tyson actually does not support nonscientific positions that are popular with the left, citing anti-GMO and anti-vaccine as examples. Both these come down to "Well, OK the science doesn't support us, but our gut instinct should trump science anyway" and as you'd expect from a scientist deGrasse-Tyson says "No, that's not right". The fact that a lot of rich hippies who vote a Democrat ticket believe in auras or Myers Briggs personality types doesn't make those scientifically reasonable ideas. Whatever Neil deGrasse-Tyson is, he's clearly not just playing to the party faithful. Tialaramex (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: Meyers Briggs. Low reliability predictive utility is still predictive utility. Psychology and sociology have moved on from that model, but weak correlations are still useful. Ikanreed (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Justine Tunney Ordeal[edit]

Isn't the whole ordeal too weird? Also there is a guy on her twitter, saying that what she is doing is skillful trolling. But I also checked out her blog and saw a post about how a matriarchy would be better and how men are violent and form gangs etc anyway(a satirical post, meaning she is making fun of progressives and feminists who she perceives as believing such things.).

So... Poe? Or for reals? If so, how can someone pull such a 180 degree turn?

Reading about Dark Enlightenment and how followers of such an ideology very common in Silicon Valley makes me queasy, I have to admit. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Tunney also likes RW, FWIW. I know people who think she should have a Google Glass that helpfully flashes up "FOR GODSAKE STOP TALKING NOW" as needed. I'm sure she's lovely in person - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It's supposedly easier to move from a hard-left to a hard-right position or vice versa, or from fundamentalist Christianity to fundamentalist Islam or vice versa. It's the road to Damascus effect. Even if they change their minds and reject their former cause, they're still looking for a dramatic view of the world that tells them that they're on the vanguard of history. They may switch just because the new cause offers a more compelling vision. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 02:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah ... this substantiates your theory that the problem with activism is generally the activists - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
"Tunney also likes RW" Does she also like the feminism, MRM, HBD and neoreaction pages, too? I don't get it. Wouldn't she find it as too liberal? BTW, don't get me wrong, I can see how one of her tweet that was featured on Gawker ("at least slaves had free housing and food") can be seen as a criticism of the current state of things, like saying things are even worse than slavery(I don't think they are, tbh, although can you calculate such a thing) and that we should be taking care of the poor and needy of the world better. It's just her every other tweets and blogposts seem... just like any other neoreactionary rambling. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
At the risk of "derailing" this (welcome to the Internet, where threads drift) given the two options I'd cheerfully choose the life of an 1820-era plantation field slave over the life of an industrial laborer during the same period. The slaves worked shorter hours, precisely because the slaves had no prospects and better security: they'd always be owned by somebody who'd be obliged to feed and house them. They could be sold, but not fired. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 01:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, no. Remember, slaves are property. That means your wife, and even your kids can be sold to another slaver to straighten out somebody's accounts. That's not a theoretical consideration, it happened fairly routinely. You say slavers "had to" feed and house their slaves. Sure, and people "have to" feed and look after their dogs, so there definitely aren't any starving or maltreated dogs, right? And as a slave you've no option who you work for. You may get lucky and get a "good" owner or not, and there's nothing to be done about it. In contrast a mill worker from the 19th century Bradford slums has the option to apply to work for the mayor, Titus Salt, who has built a new mill on a green field site a few miles away. His workers get brand new company housing, with toilets, and there is even a school where your children can learn reading and arithmetic (but there is nowhere to buy booze, Titus is teetotal). Titus Salt though a humanitarian was not a fool, he did all this in order to obtain the best workers for his company. Titus, unlike the slavers, saw a future in which both he and his workers were richer for their collective efforts. Tialaramex (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
One of the meanest things we did to the slaves was to suddenly subject them to nineteenth century domestic relations law. Slave 'marriages' always had an ad-hoc character just because of what you say. This is the subject of fairly extensive recriminations in the ex-slave narratives. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 04:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd argue the whole "brutally murdering some of them to keep the rest subjugated" thing was arguably worse, but I'm biased that way. --Gulik (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Heroic Doctor/Ann Coulter[edit]

There has recently been a WIGO:World-news post "Heroic doctor dies of ebola" or something. IMO, to avoid ambiguity, the current clog-entry about Ann Coulter should be somewhat specified, since it is now a different heroic doctor. (So the BON who changed this page 5 minutes ago and which change has been reverted, that was me.) --Sophophobe (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Female Selective Service Registration[edit]

Honestly I don't see what's so bad about mandatory Selective Service registration for women. Most men are required by law to do it, and there's nothing wrong with having women as candidates for military conscription. It's equality, plain and simple. The only reason I think anyone posted this is because an MRA group is behind it. Fortunately it has gone into negative votes.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think it's equality in the wrong direction? Shadow Nirvana (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's such thing. Also, feminists don't like women being seen as helpless or not worthy of a man's job (e.i. the military), so they should support it too (according to the forum in question, some of them do). Anyway, there are so many more trivial inequalities that people complain about if you ask me. TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
"I don't think there is such thing." Equality can be established by forcing neither gender into registering for Selective Service or both. I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of the "both" option, I just think it is an utterly unnecessary procedure that will account to nothing, at least not in the near future where it doesn't seem like a draft is going to happen again. And like you said, it is a trivial "inequality" because it is nigh impossible to convict someone for not registering, because apparently, according to Wikipedia, the government must prove that you not registering was willful and knowing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System#Failure_to_register Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Time was when the bearing of arms was considered a defining mark of freedom; but let's face it, those times are now long past, done in by machine guns and the experience of trench warfare. The demands of military service are vastly different from those that prevailed when armed men were free men; now it's just one more form of involuntary servitude inflicted on the politically weak. I'd rather the whole apparatus of conscription be torn down; but until then, yes, subject women to the registration. At least this way you increase the number of people threatened by it. There are a number of bureaucratic penalties still involved in failure to register. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 01:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I gotta agree with that. It's a rare day when I agree with the MRAs, but this is one of them. Obviously, no Selective Service is better, but that's probably not an option. (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Even if the its unlikely you will be prosecuted, you still must be registered in order to get federal student loans, a federal job, or become a citizen, according to http://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I was sort of hoping that posting this here would inspire some kind of debate rather than downvoting. I suppose the big issue I have with it is that this legal change doesn't improve the lives of men in any way. Rather than putting any energy into getting rid of mandatory conscription for men, they push the idea that women should have to sign up for it too. In fact, reading the thread, many were for conscription. Of course, one of these two options negatively affects women, so it's the one that they go for. Maybe I'm alone in hoping for a world where men's rights activists rallied for the removal of conscription rather than the extension of its reach --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I figure i have a better shot of making the "Not a Draft" equal than i do getting rid of it entirely. --Miekal 21:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
So it's not worth your energy whatsoever? How radical --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
No, but if i have to decide between in the end futile attempt to get rid of the draft and atleast making it not be male only, and the latter has a better shot of being worth the time and energy, ill go for the one that isnt me wasting time yelling into the wind.--Miekal 21:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't have the draft here so I can't say that I understand how it feels, but if you are protesting at all regarding it being gender neutral, then the channels exist to protest against it properly. In my opinion, I sincerely doubt they will extend the draft to include women, it's unpopular enough as it is, it just seems an enormous waste of energy when the same resources could be put into protesting against the draft itself. I don't get why they are wasting their time trying to get women to sign up for a system that has been irrelevant for a long time. You think that feminism functioned by removing men's rights to vote or to work? Or that the suffragettes didn't feel like they were "yelling into the wind" a lot of the time? What a joke --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
You realize i'm not an MRA--Miekal 22:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I do, I imagine any confusion in my writing comes from me discussing both your points and that of the MRAs in question at the same time. I apologise for any offense caused --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The clogosphere isn't really a place for debate, the way I see it. It's a place to gather a bunch of stupid articles we can all laugh at. By posting this petition in here, you're basically saying "there is no need to debate this, its laughable and anyone who agrees with it shouldn't be taken seriously". I think this is more of a complex issue than that though (I'm not really decided on whether or not it is a good thing at this stage).TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this must be a cultural difference as I still find it really, really weird. You're welcome to remove it if you'd prefer --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
When I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980, I did so largely on the strength of his campaign promise to end draft registration. So it goes. This is a dog-whistle issue for me. I am an American born citizen who grew up in Ontario. I was quite aware of the Vietnam war when my family moved back to the States in 1973; I would have been 13 at the time. I was rather alarmed that we were doing the obviously wrong thing by leaving the safety of Canada. I was quite relieved when the draft ended, and immensely angry at Jimmy Carter for reinstating registration. I beat the deadline for having to register myself by five months. I am not a pacifist, but I am quite certain that I do not belong in basic training, and that placing me in that kind of environment and then handing me a real weapon and live ammunition is not likely to end well. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
To be fair about Selective service, the chances we are ever going to actually reinstate a full on draft again is incredibly low, Our current military does a decent job and it's not exactly a popular thing barring our country getting physically invaded and paratroopers shooting up children in schools.--Miekal 04:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately, the moment anything like that actually happened, the current and any foreseeable future US government would already surely have crumbled. You gather that there are large segments of the population that say they want to throw off the yoke of the Federal government. The likeliest future major war in the US looks like another civil war to me. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 05:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
To be fair as well, it's not like the lack of a draft necessarily stops conscription from occurring. Canada had a draft on two occasions (during both the First and Second World Wars), yet in both cases the law implementing the draft was only passed during war time (and was later rescinded). While the Canadian Parliament is arguably much stronger than the U.S. Congress, I don't immediately see why the same couldn't end up being the case south of the border. Perhaps someone better versed in American law and/or politics can jump in and tell me if/why I'm wrong.
Also, as an amusing side note, during both world wars, conscription barely accomplished anything in Canada due to tensions between anglophones and francophones (anglophones were largely pro-conscription while francophones were largely anti-conscription). Conscription was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, so Parliament held off conscription as long as possible (one year before the war ended in both cases). Of course, this only led to crises in 1917 and 1944, and yet barely any conscripted troops made it to the front lines in either war because of how much time was spent dithering about it in Parliament. Hooray for efficient government! - Grant (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Because when you get down to it, nobody cares enough about kicking terrorist ass enough to get up and march off to recruitment like we did to go kick nazi or japanese ass. Any politicians who proposes "lets just force our boys on to the military!" would immediately face a vicious and terrible uphill battle against reelection. Theres nothing stopping a draft from being put back in, besides it's career suicide.--Miekal 05:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, it was effectively career suicide for the two Prime Ministers who enforced it here as well. Either way though, the point is that the draft itself is moot if that's the case. Using it is career suicide, and killing it off only to reinstate it is also career suicide. Why is ending it such a bother? Is there just that much bureaucracy tied to it? - Grant (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Lack of interest, probably, would be my answer, but somebody more versed (say, smerdis) may know more than me on it--Miekal 06:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
My impression is that politicians are mostly happy nobody's pressing it as an issue. Abolishing registration could be painted as "soft on terror", and there are plenty of voters who favor an aggressive foreign policy so long as they don't have to pay for it. On the other hand, proposals like this would put the issue in the public mind again, and most politicians would rather just let it lie there. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 16:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense. Of course, I wonder how much keeping the draft going costs the government each year. Ending it would carry an expense as well, but in the long term it would be cheaper. Yet I imagine hawkish voters would find some way to trivialize the cost if attempts were made to end it. - Grant (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Given, afaict, it's "sign this piece of paper, mail it in, they will add your name ot the rolls if we ever actually reintroduce the real draft, then the mail you a card i've since lost" i cant imagine it costs much of anything, and what it does cost is signifigantly less than will make any difference in spending--Miekal 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Well its annual budget is measured in the tens of millions, which is a drop in the pond compared to many U.S. expenditures. However, tens of millions of dollars is still tens of millions of dollars, especially since that money is largely sunk into a system nobody cares about or plans to use any longer. - Grant (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Citizen soldiers are a supportable basis for a republic founded in "the government works for the people" sort of principles. Makes sure the general public has skin in any warlike games that so-called statesmen may try to foist off on them. Hired warriors, sometimes considered foreigners or "others," have gone along with imperial decline, in recorded history. Joining the military is one way for a kid (girl or boy) to find their way clear of a small town that might be felt as cramping their style. So I have heard, and I believe it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's a symptom of the lack of original thinking in US right-wing politics that something blitheringly obvious has not occurred to them. We're supposed to have some kind of crisis involving Latin American immigrants, many of whom are cannon fodder age. We have the problem of the aggressive foreign policy they say they want, and where our options are seriously limited by the inability to put boots on the ground. Even the French figured this part out. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

America's dumbest politician[edit]

I didn't even have to mouse over, I automatically knew it would be Louie Gohmert--"Shut up, Brx." 16:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Gohmert does have a talent for standing out in a field of stupidity. His is a uniquely asinine voice. (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

white riot[edit]

Perhaps they had been listening to the clash and missed the point. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit Wiki?[edit]

Looking at Special:Contributions/ Is someone spamming RW?--ZooGuard (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

They just went and updated all links to the wiki on RW to its new domain.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Zoe Quinn Ordeal[edit]

Thunderf00t and attention-whoring[edit]

So Dawahfilms makes a "death threat"(something that is mentioned in the Thunderf00t page and found non-existant) and TF has no qualms about using this to claim victimhood multiple times.

Anita Sarkeesian gets threatened by someone(she used to get threatened a lot but I don't think with such focused intent) and has proof of this, yet this is simply "a new low in attention-mongering".

Speaking of new lows...Shadow Nirvana (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing new about this and of course opposite sides are going to view different things as attention whoring. Also, hypocrisy is very common in human behaviour and nothing much to be shocked about, especially when it's concerning some insignificant internet celebrity. Nullahnung (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it is "argument to moderation" fallacy to say "Hey it ain't no big deal babydoll, opposite sides are going to see different things as attention-whoring." :) What I mean is that it doesn't matter how he sees it, he is wrong in this particular instance. And yes, people can be hypocritical and that's no news to anybody(and let's be real, with a douche like Thunderfoot, how can you be shocked at anything he does), but that doesn't mean noone should call out bad and inconsistent behaviour. But I disagree with you that he is insignificant. Yes, he isn't irreplacable and if it wasn't him the MRAtheists would be fawning over someone else, but still he has quite an audience.Shadow Nirvana (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The sooner everyone sees him as just another asshole on the internet not worth their attention, the sooner he won't be able to make a big fuss anymore, is what I'm getting at. Nullahnung (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thunderf00t is basically my go-to internet character when it comes to evidence of the "Yeah atheist skeptics can be complete morons too" phenomenon. Ikanreed (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind, Thunderfoot's main claim to fame was deconstructing the creationist arguments of (and getting into petty internet fights with) a mentally disturbed teenager. --Marlow (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, he mainly used the death threats against him to point out how people like Dawah Films handle criticism. He wasn't saying he was persecuted or anything.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If so, then apparently death threats over the internet aren't a big deal to him? Good for him, now if he could just stop getting into internet celebrity bitching about it, that would be swell. Nullahnung (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
And also he's never had to deal with anything on this scale. This is classic "I can't admit I was wrong now" syndrome. Ikanreed (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
'Only on the internet can you say "domestic violence is bad" and be met with "well, let's consider all sides of this debate."' - Sam Sykes - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Where did this come from? Kind of off topic.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Not particularly, I get the point that DG is making, and I've seen plenty of arguments "for domestic violence" from the Manosphere cesspool. It's the same with this, there are death threats made towards a person and her family, including references to their personal address, and gamers/MRAs, already disliking her hugely, go "well... maybe they are fake?" It was actually many peoples first reaction having read through the threads. They are utterly pathetic --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a persistant female stereotype, especially among MRAs, that women lie for attention. I'm kinda starting to want to pull a YHWH and Lot, if anyone can show me just 50 MRAs who aren't disguised sexist shitbags, I'll spare their city. How about 40? 10? Ikanreed (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
You are being dishonest by using a label that's only applied to what you perceive as sexist shitbags and then going "Whelp, I knew it!" when the sexist shitbags turn out to be sexist shitbags, and then you feel justified in repeating your original stance. You are part of the problem. Nullahnung (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Scratch that, I'm actually the one who is part of the problem by unnecessarily antagonising someone instead of trying to understand how they feel and not be too cynical about it. Nullahnung (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I genuinely do go looking for a bit of decency from MRA centric pages. I don't find it often. I mean, I want to be an ally of anyone who's nominally in favor of dealing with systemic inequalities/unfaireness. But the MRA movement picked up a very harsh misogynistic edge early on, and I almost never see them trying to actually redress the major problems. Instead they seem to only ever crop up bringing up their complaints as a means to silence concerns of people they should be seeing as allies. Ikanreed (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
"for a bit of decency from MRA centric pages" That's your problem right there. You don't go to places where people have "an opposition" they can rail against as a common enemy and nobody is there to stop the circle jerk and then you expect to come out of it with a better opinion of the circle jerkers. (And that description applies to RationalWiki to a degree, which we should be careful about.) If you want to meet reasonable people who just happen to hold opinions you think are wrong, but you can see some decency in them, you go to places where there are still "moderates", by which I mean people who haven't taken a definite "side" yet in the discussion. Nullahnung (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Nah, even in places where it's not a circlejerk, MRAs just intercede in discussions about female issues with MRA talking points to justify dismissing those concerns. It's not "fair play" because that doesn't happen with any kind of regularity in the other direction. This isn't a "both sides" thing. MRAs bring too much misogyny to the table. Ikanreed (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
My point being you can't expect to get something out of debating a guy who has "already chosen his side", like whoever you're probably meaning by MRA (Yes, I dislike painting people with broad labels, I believe everyone is an individual with their own set of nuances). If you want a productive discussion you have to seek out the people who have not entered the discussion with an already-fortified position. Nullahnung (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And I get that. But seriously, I'd like to see the non-shitty MRAs. That's the whole point I was making. Ikanreed (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There are no non-shitty MRAs, don't you get it? The whole term is loaded so that whenever you apply the label to someone it's because they're already shitty. That's why labels bring us nowhere. People who are undecided are not MRAs, they are "cowardly moderates" or "simply ignorant" (if you can't live without labeling people). They don't have a barrage of rehearsed and offensive talking points that they're ready to defend their position with. Nullahnung (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI self-labeling is a thing. People who I wouldn't choose to qualify as feminist take on the label, e.g. Ikanreed (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I came late to this argument but there is a definite men's rights movement and that movement is definitely misogynistic. I don't go around referring to people that I meet as MRAs because I don't like what they are saying, I pretty much exclusively use the term when describing the posters on men's rights websites. I have looked hard for an active men's rights website that isn't an antifeminist echo chamber. There are some decent MRAs on r/mensrights but both the moderators and a good deal of the frequent posters are very misogynistic. I read the websites weekly and try to keep up to date with what goes on so I can keep informed with my arguments. I am telling you, the men's rights movement is misogynistic, both at its self-affirmed foundations in anti-suffragism and in its current leaders (Elam, Price, Farrell). I have listened to their arguments, read them over and over, tried to apply my own experiences as a man to them, but it is no good, these people have a negative effect on how people perceive my gender when they spew their bigotry in the name of "men's rights", harm the opportunity for people to talk seriously about depression and male rape. If we take them at face value, by doing little else than being aggressive towards women, men's rights activists actively harm their own cause. I don't go out of my way to find negative aspects of the men's rights movement, antifeminism is, at least in my eyes, what it consists of. Of course there are people advocating for men's rights that aren't bigots, but they do not support A Voice for Men or the Spearhead. It was not the people supporting men in domestic abuse shelters or staying up late on suicide hotlines who were harassing Anita Sarkeesian for making a feminist video. I know that MRA is a loaded term but it applies to a very real demographic of people. They are real people and you can see the effect they are having on the way people see feminism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
+1. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I have seen people who self-label as MRA, yes, which I try to avoid. You guys have a fair point there. Nullahnung (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

[3] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The whoever vs. whoever else thing the internet's got going is extremely petty and helps no-one. We should be looking to facilitate dialogue, not create divides. Nullahnung (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Antifeminism has existed since Suffrage, this movement isn't a new thing, I don't see any harm in making fun of sexist people. The divisions have existed since it started, it's only trying to present itself as moderate as its gained traction. Elam and his cohorts were significantly worse at the outset so naturally there is a movement against them, they offer very little and could undo decades of progress. How can I earnestly trust a movement that once attempted something like Register-Her? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
We are not referring to the same kinds of people then. I think it may be a good idea to abandon this conversation as we seem to have started off from different reference points. Nullahnung (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Which people were you talking about? Gamers in general or MRAs? The antifeminist movement is quite closely connected, the anonymous creator of Woman Against Feminism knows A Voice for Men's Janet Bloomfield and talked to the press through her. I find it all uncomfortable and all dishonest --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Gamers in general. They're annoyed by feminism and they're losing trust (like always, but more rapidly this time) in the games media, and they're young and immature as you might expect. Nullahnung (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad then, I retract a fair amount of what I said when it is applied to gamers, and apologise for any misconceptions --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What does gamer mean though? Lots of people play video games, myself included, and don't hold anything like the views espoused by the so-called gamer community. I've been thinking fanboy would be the more apt term - a community of adolescents and those in extended adolescence who have some serious problems with anyone who disagrees with them. This is borne out in their reaction not just to some rather mild feminist criticism, but to essentially any criticism of something that they like. Just look at the vitriol the spray at each other over something as trivial the difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3 or a negative review of Call of Duty 9: Modern Warfare 4 Ghost Commando 2. When someone they judge to be outside their group, a woman no less, questions the perfection of GTA they go absolutely ape shit. David Futrelle has some links to some good articles on the topic here (though the actual article isn't that interesting). --Marlow (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think when people say "gamer", they mean the sort of person who you'll find on places like /r/games or /v/. (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to discuss how best to generalise people, so excuse me as I abandon this conversation. Nullahnung (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)