RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Oldest archives: 0001 -- 0002 -- 0003 -- 0004 -- 0005

Tooltip[edit]

The tooltip on the downvote button is completely useless. Yes, I know it means vote down - but what does voting down mean? Does it mean you think the story is bad news for the world, or does it mean you don't think the story belongs here?

Having said that, for some reason this ambiguity never bothers me on Reddit, but it does here. I guess that's because here you can actually see the proportion of votes that are downvotes, and it feels like that should really mean something.--Greenrd (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It means different things to different people, whether a review of the article or a review of the quality of the post. A story on a terrorist attack could be upvoted for being a good-quality news article; it could be downvoted for the WIGO summary cracking a joke about it. Then you factor in the groupthink that occurs when you see a massively-downvoted thread - even if that WIGO joke was cut out so it's just a decent comment, people will instinctively downvote anyway.-- Forerunner (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest entry[edit]

Ummm... what exactly is that supposed to say? I'd fix it, except I'm not sure what point it's trying to make. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Texas church shooting[edit]

I noticed that the main source regarding Devin Kelley's atheist posts was the Daily Mail, so I went looking for corroboration. Most sources I found also cited the Daily Mail, but the NY Times seems to corroborate the gist of the story.Quantheory (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The shooter had posted pro atheist and anti theist stuff on his Facebook page, which is mentioned in numerous news articles on this topic. His atheism and anti theism are patent. --101.181.112.248 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Also an interesting episode of the Ben Shapiro show on this topic, though I am well aware that the Daily Wire is outside the rationalwiki echo chamber. --101.181.112.248 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the Video and we here at RW do not want an Echo chamber! So be welcome to discuss your views here. Now about that atheism of the shooter: It was inevetable to happen. There not a single :::movement or belief without their share of extremistst and nuts. --Benaresh (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Related to the Nuts i mentioned: Where the hell is Nobs? I miss RW's crazy old Grandpa. :( --Benaresh (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


Breitbart?[edit]

Why the fuck is anything from there on the WIGO World page? London Grump (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It was added by @Mr1.136.108.2, reverted by @GrammarCommie, and then re-added by @FuzzyCatPotato.
See FuzzyCatPotato's justification here.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that it does not belong on the page and should be removed. CowHouse (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
My position on this matter is obvious of course. GrammarCommie (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, sorry for the language. I come once in a while to rational wiki to mostly look at the WIGO as there are good stories there. Some dumbass put it on that list here, so it probably needs to stay. Maybe it should stick up more so that it looks like the sore thumb that it is... But, I also think it should maybe be used as a pedagogic example (ain't that a bit the purpose of this site?) as Breitbard is just an horrible news source and nobody is protected from having that in a thread somewhere. Which was knowable from studies such as this: https://www.nber.org/papers/w23089
Also, if someone is really bored, maybe a debunking of that article? It might be more proper for a personal blog that...204.174.112.231 (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe someone should add this story to the list: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/opinion/trump-racism-white-supremacy.html
As it pretty much rebuf everything said in that breitbart story.204.174.112.231 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

My issue is that by hosting links from Breitderp, we allow more clicks to their site and we're helping them get views. I don't mind diversity of opinion, but the person who writes the entries do it in a half-assed and highly misleading way and we keep having to edit this person's stuff. That's annoying as hell. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't an unavoidable risk of these kinds of page? 204.209.150.91 (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The rules say WIGO:World should feature "news stories from news sites", not "commentaries and editorials", and it shouldn't include blog-post-style articles which are just "go look at this story/video/cartoon on some other more authoritative site": as far as I can see the fast majority of content from Breitbart is editorialising or reposting - the specific Breitbart story was a link to a CNN video, so the CNN link should have been posted if it was newsworthy (which IMO it wasn't), but not the Breitbart link. --Gospatric (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

CDC "Word Ban"[edit]

Some conflicting follow-up reports:

http://time.com/5068160/cdc-banned-words-transgender/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cdc-director-says-there-are-no-banned-words-at-the-agency

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-trump-banned-words.html

TL;DR There's no indication the "ban" came from Trump or even the White House. New reports indicate it came from the CDC (or HHS) itself; the agency claims "word ban" is a mischaracterization. It was likely an internal memo detailing strategies to secure funding from the current administration and congressional body. Basically, "These words tend to make Republicans angry, so try to work around them when writing budget proposals."

So Trump isn't censoring the CDC, it's just the entire Republican party coercing the CDC into self-censorship just so it can do its job. That's b̶e̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ actually somehow even worse. 98.110.112.28 (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)