RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive11

This is an archive page, last updated 23 June 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>

, (new)(back)

Castro memoirs

This is a bit too CP-centric for WIGO World. Try and keep them separate, folks. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The memoirs are interesting no matter what the wingnuts think, but the CP angle is too funny not to include. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Dishonest" rape

RE: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com//heather/ron-paul-if-its-honest-rape-woman-should-g

I think it's putting words in Ron Paul's mouth to talk about "dishonest" rape like this - he certainly doesn't use those words directly. I think the point that no one notices that he's almost certainly comparing rape to false accusations of rape (I hope people at least recognise that distinction), not whether it's the "right kind" of rape. This isn't in the same league as the "forcible" debacle from a few months back. You see, if you're going to have a "except in cases of rape" caveat to your anti-abortion position, it becomes quite important as part of your rationalisation to add invisible connotations to "rape" to mean things like real, legitimate and so on. In this case, Paul chose to add "honest", he didn't have to as it's implied by only the word "rape" anyway, but he has to highlight that he doesn't want an "except in cases of rape" caveat to be abused. The problem is that rape has been somewhat used as an emotional football to the point where any discussion about a "real" rape immediately makes people assume you're saying something along the lines of "it's only real rape if the woman struggles and fights back", or something similar, rather than "it was rape and not a false accusation of rape". So we seem to have lost a quick and easy way to differentiate between a legitimate crime and a false accusation of one. The latter case is almost undoubtedly what Paul is referring to because it's an essential part of clarifying this kind of anti-abortion law.

Eugh, can't believe I have just defended Ron Paul... but seriously, people need to be wrong on their own merits, not on what people have imagined that they've said. ^moral 11:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the outrage that I'm seeing blow-up on Facebook and elsewhere (HP, TP, Raw Story) can be boiled down to two points:

1. The use of the word "honest", which does provoke suggestions of questioning to the alternative, can be seen as a word usage that belies an underlying viewpoint, much in the same way certain outrages occur when a politician in everyday conversation accidentally lets use of the word "colored" or the N-word slip. Regardless of whether you apologize for it later (like, on Twitter) or try to rationalize it ("it's just a word from the old railroad days!"), it's out there.
2. Paul's attempt to differentiate what types of abortion would be acceptable and which would not, regardless of his terminology, still suggests a governmental control that takes the pregnant woman, her family and her doctors out of the equation and places it in the hands of the government—definitely anti-choice stances. Suggesting that a woman might lie about the terms of her fetus' conception, no matter what truth might be behind it...well, it's certainly not endearing.

-- Seth Peck (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is never any excuse to talk about "honest" rape. "real" rape. rape is rape. there is not one that is more rape, "realer", or "honester" than the other. period.GodotGrow a vagina 18:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

By teh way, if you read what he said, it was NOT the "some rare few rape accusitions are not factual", but that there is one type of rape. "if it is a real rape, you go to the police'> do you? GodotGrow a vagina 18:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, Godot, which I'm certain is something you've thought about in regards to this...the details behind the conception should not factor at all into the decision to abort. Qualifying an abortion as "acceptable" or "unacceptable" based on rape or incest or a drunken haystack romp or daddy won't commit shouldn't even enter into the conversation between patient and doctor. Any woman who had to work up the energy to go talk to someone about it in the first place should not be forced to discuss the particulars if they've already made up their mind. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That goes without saying. But i've seen so much discussion of "rape" this year, of what "is" or "isnot" a rape. and to be frank, my anger stems from the fact that *once again* it is men, who have not faced rape, faced spousal rape, faced pressure to have sex who are "defining" rape. And they do it, by and large, to protect the rapist, not the victim. Hence, my anger at "real rape", "honest rape", and what you "should do" after you've been rape. and to suggest that it "doesn't happen often" or "is not likely" further inflamed my problem with this argument.GodotGrow a vagina 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that false accusations of rape are still "real"? ^postate 18:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't even matter. The issue is about abortion. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he used a poor choice of words and by "honest" meant actual rape, and not a false accusation (something which would certainly increase if only rape victims were allowed to get abortions). Also, who says men aren't raped? It's more rare, sure, but hardly unheard of. Also, the quote at the end of the WiGO, about how rape "almost never happens, but just imagine it could," I didn't see that in the transcript. Is it a real quote from him? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying in context, they are extremly rare. I"m saying they have all the relevance of Ron Paul's constant "late term abortion are a real human being - therfore ban abortions" arguments. I"m saying it's inappropriate to bring up "real" or "not real" rapes, when statistically according ot the CDC, around 90% of all claims ARE real, they are actual bona fida rapes, "I said no, he said yes". to play the "not real" card, is to vastly overstate exactly how many unreliable accusations of rapes there are out there. Do they happen, yes. But they are not that common, and when you say "only the real rapes need apply" you present an image of a world where rape is not common (again, read the transcript - both he and the intervierw all but say real rape rarely happens), and that a woman should not be trused cause she's probably reporting a "fake" rape. Rush says it. Beck says it. Candidates all over the repbulican party say it. "rapes are not really that common, and mostly you have a bunch of women who regret the sex saying they were raped.". GodotGrow a vagina 18:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know currently false accusations are rarer, that's a given (and I am at no point addressing anything other than this "honest" thing). But you have to come at it from Ron Paul's perspective for a moment, throw out the emotional football. Here is a guy with a strong conviction that "abortion is wrong". To overturn that you need to have a very good reason, in this case rape, which is a criminal offense. Because it is overturning a very strong conviction, he needs it to be clarified well. So from Paul's perspective here, the idea of people "faking" a rape to get access to abortions - and if this sort of thing went into law, I'm pretty sure we'll see it happen more frequently - then this exception becomes very, very salient. You would need to clarify it and phrase it in these terms to say "this is my exception and I need to enforce that this exception is rigorously applied". In fact, this is precisely why such a ruling is ridiculous, because you can't go around assuming a woman is lying just to get access to an abortion because that would be fucking reprehensible. ^postate 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That last sentence pretty much sums it up, AKV. I think the point that conservatives/pro-lifers still don't get through their skulls is that "exceptions" are bad things, as it perpetuates the "some are more equal than others" mentality that is inherent in male-dominated societies, white-only golf courses, churchs as land-owning tax exempt organizations, etc.

Also, pretty sure a man being raped, while still just as abhorrant as a woman being raped, doesn't result in a pregnancy which may or may not wish to be terminated. I could be wrong. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Dick, the interviewer says "this isn't likely, i know, but IMAGINE IF, but i know it's not really common).

He says "and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen." Which is not the same as saying it almost never happens. I think he's also saying it as a way of taking the edge off a question in which a close family member is hypothetically violently attacked. Downplaying its likelihood sounds better than saying "and there's a good chance you wife is getting gang-raped by hooligans as we speak!" when one wants to be delicate about a very personal thing. Also, one in four is significantly higher than the stats I found, which are closer to 18% (still high, but still unlikely), and consider Ron's family is probably in a demographic where the rate is lower than the average (his daughters I imagine are married, and therefore unlikely to be victims of date rape). And if he's saying it's very unlikely that they'd need an abortion from a rape, he's correct, as most rapes do not result in conception. So, yes it is pretty unlikely any of Ron Paul's daughters or granddaughters will need an abortion from having been raped, and regardless, I wouldn't blame Morgan for stressing its unlikelihood when putting an uncomfortable question to an interviewee. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Romania's government collapses after protests

Been meaning to post here; and decided spamming SB with this one is to off topic for that; but the Romanian government resigned. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, good to see some people stand up for themself. Tielec01 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm more worried about Greece... Osaka Sun (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I hear the phrase "government collapse," images of anarchy and chaos pop into my head unbidden. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "government collapses" is a much more dramatic term than "administrators resign" (which is basically what's happened) - but it's an eye-grabber, and that's what gets people reading the story. Rennie McGreet (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Our new ant overlords

There's nothing "new" about them. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 06:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[1] Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Every Sperm is Sacred" Amendment

It seems that trolling and invocations of Poe's Law have worked their way into state legislatures. A similar amendment was added to Indiana's Welfare Drug Test bill that eventually killed the bill. A Virginia legislator attempted to attach prostate exams to prescriptions of ED drugs, an amendment that was defeated but only by a slim margin (21-19). The legal use of poison pills is nothing new...but these new attempts by Democratic state senators seems to go above and beyond that. This amateur troll approves. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Tribler

Maybe it's just me, but I find it fantastically ironic that the site for the "unstoppable torrent" appears to be down...
--PsyGremlinTala! 17:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's got masses of publicity since SOPA, so I think they've just DDoS'd their own site. ^{d hominem} 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have taken the main site down due to "high popularity" but redirects to a basic download page. ^pathetic 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone here actually tried it yet? It sounds interesting, but according to the comments in this article on Slashdot form a year ago, it's not really doing anything new aside from maybe the search thing, and obscure stuff was next to impossible to find compared to centralized trackers. --CoyoteSans (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As the article notes, it's just a small circle of users so wouldn't have so much obscure stuff. It's a userbase thing. So you'd only expect it to have your normal, mainstream animated tentacle porn, rather than rarer, specialised tentacle porn. ^theist 22:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum abortion

I've read that story before, and I don't trust it. How did anybody get word of Mrs. Santorum's medical records? Just because someone is a major asshole doesn't mean he's a hypocrite, sorry.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Even if every word of that story is true, that article is still all sorts of intellectually dishonest.--NTemple (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The moral ground here is extremely shaky. Mrs S had problems with a pregnancy and, for the health of the mother, it was decided to deliver the child at ~20 weeks - I'm doing this from memory so I may be a little off. Not surprisingly the child failed to survive. There's a fine line here between an abortion and a stillbirth. Especially as the child was actually alive outside of the womb for a short while.

To say that Mrs S had an abortion is disingenuous at best. What one can say is that the range of medical options available to Mrs S would have been reduced if some of the bills that Mr S has put his weight behind had become law.

I strongly believe that it does RW no favours when we attack Santorum on this issue. We should be concentration on the areas which are far more straightforward. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems Rick thinks other women who have the same problems his wife had should die, see Rick Santorum’s Anti-Abortion Politics Would Have Killed His Own Wife (Updated). Americans please comment, how reliable is this newspaper? Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jezebel is normally a credible source. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Er...that "French" keyboard

isn't, exclusively, French. And the "English" keyboard doesn't sound that English to me. From the description the "French" one sounds a lot like the one I am using right now, in England, you know where English things come from. The "English" one seems more like some Canadian/US thing. Toffeeman (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In England all the keyboards come from China. We don't seem to make anything except food products any more. Rennie McGreet (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

QWERTY v. AZERTY. didn't read teh article, though. now i'm curious who's tlaking about keyboards. --GodotGrow a vagina 17:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, that article is just friggin stupid - or the users are. you go to windows and "add keyboard", and choose "english qwerty" and you are touch typing away. what's teh problem? GodotGrow a vagina 17:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The article mentions physical changes on the keyboard, not just key layout.

"For a touch typist in particular, quite a bit. The U.S. English keyboard has a wide, flat “Enter” key with the backslash and right bracket keys above it. The multilingual keyboard has a tall, narrow Enter key that’s two rows high. That pushes the backslash key down a row, sitting where someone familiar with the U.S. English layout would expect the left half of the Enter key. On the left side of the keyboard, the English layout offers a wide “Shift” key, while the multilingual version chops the key in half and sneaks an extra key in beside the Z."

It sounds like the keyboard I'm using right now, though. There's a \ to the left of the Z on mine. The backslash part doesn't sound right though. Not sure why the article doesn't have a diagram or a picture. X Stickman (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In Mother Russia, the stupid is strong

From the article: "St. Petersburg human rights groups have said that the bill is clearly homophobic and that this attack on gay rights is simply an attempt to divert attention from other, more pressing issues." That's not stupid, it's politically astute. Pandering to the hate mob works, as we see in many countries. It's vile and disgusting, and rips up progress in the cause of careerism, but it's not stupid if the party doing the hating benefits in the end. I suggest a change of wording to "the hate is strong" - which also avoids the common RW mistake of saying "you espouse views I disagree with, therefore you are stupid." Cue calling me a right-wing homophobe in 3...2... Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Changed - David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Racist Arizona judge"...

Not allowing somebody with insufficient language sklills in the official language of a state to run for public office isn't racism. It's common sense.

Don't get me wrong, I find the idea of a country in which 10.7% of the populance speaks a language (with high native percentage) and that language isn't one of the official languages atrocious, but law is law, and if a city council member isn't able to understand that law that's not going to end well. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have issues calling it both "racism" and "common sense". ^gnostic 00:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick look at Wiki-pee-dia, and it's more like 22% Spanish speakers in Arizona. And I have a vague recollection of relatively similar things like literacy tests being done in the South in the past, to keep some people from voting. Somehow always black people. Not that it was racist of course. Dendlai (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the other problem is that if you total up the numbers in all accurate statistics that say "X% of the population speak this language", you get a number that's larger than 100%, which renders the whole point moot. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should that render the point moot, the same thing happens when you ask for ethnicity/race. And if that still doesn't do it, try native speakers. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 12:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Moot debatable or moot pointless? ARGH I'm so confused now...-- Seth Peck (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

YOu have no right not to "allow" any legal citizen to run for office. you have every right to say it's stupid as all get go, but there is NOTHING in the laws to prevent anyone from running. on those grounds, deaf people could not run, since they are not fluent (usually) in english. god i hate AZ. GodotGrow a vagina 17:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Erm: Age? Mental Capabilities? --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 12:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as an Arizonian, I can safely say your hatred towards the state is warranted. This place is packed full of racist morons. _{Side note: I booed Sheriff Joe at a parade a few months ago. It felt good, despite the looks and comments I got for it.} Cow...Hammer^time! 18:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Go Wildcats. (Q: What do you get when you drive slowly through Tempe? A: A degree.) -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I"m so proud of you, Cow! he's one of the few people I'd want to actually boo. I've heard so many things about how he treats "mexicans". (spanish speakers, actually, as many many of them are born right here). what the white "recent to teh state" idiots forget is that the state was originally settled by mexicans. they were there first, and are american citizens. they are not *just* immigrants. even ones fluent in spanish and not fluent in english. GodotGrow a vagina 18:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

An Ontario Superior Court judge tells Stephen Harper to go shove it.

I don't see a connection to, or even a mention of, Stephen Harper in the linked article. I assume there's some background here that non-Canadians might not be aware of. Sophie^{because liberals} 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich and Taitz

He didn't tell her to STFU, in fact: "That's a project you should pursue," Gingrich responded. A lukewarm reception, maybe, but Newt was being VERY careful to not discount/alienate the birthers. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a slight tendency now towards hyperbole in WIGO writeups. It's not necessary. Sophie^{because liberals} 20:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to me. It's not like the news is our write ups. exaggeration, whitewashing, or just some fun jibes doesn't harm anything. "necessary" is in the eye of the beholder. enough time listening to the Right makes all kinds of unnecessary things, necessary. GodotGrow a vagina 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, racist much? ""Somebody who wouldn't be good enough, who wouldn't be certified to pick tomatoes or clean bathrooms is sitting in the White House," Taitz told Gingrich. Illegal immigrants only clean toilets and pick tomatoes. GodotGrow a vagina 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And (mis)manage Elvis. Sophie^{because liberals} 21:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure illegal immigrants do other things, too...like cook food, clean houses, repair vehicles, stock groceries, and cross the Canadian border to work for American companies. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Seen the first episode of The Thick of It? "What were the Prime Minister's exact words?" - "He said this is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing." - "Yeah, SHOULD! SHOULD DOES NOT MEAN YES!!" ^pathetic 21:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks Britain is becoming too secular.

Lord Carey warns 'Christianity marginalised'

Well in the UK they do a lot of stuff like teaching Christianity in school and school prayers but Carey thinks they aren't doing enough. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, a former archbishop saying there isn't enough prayer isn't really controversial. It'd be wigo-worthy if a politician said it, or if the current archbishop ventured into areas he'd be best steering clear of. However the Daily Mail splash headline today - CHRISTIANITY UNDER ATTACK - was a hoot. I was half-expecting a ZOMG in there somewhere. Sophie (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The headline should REALLY be "Christianity Almost Gone!" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9696000/9696135.stm) CodeMaster9000 (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well... this is you're fault for wanting a national church mr. archbishop. It made people do religion cause it was there, not cause they believed in it. --il'Dictator Mikal 08:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There's the interesting theory that the US forbade church and state mingling, so the only way for it to survive was to embrace free market principles, and thus it grew more powerful. In contrast, state religion in the UK basically marginalised the CofE because there was no reason to care about it - it would be there whether you went to church or not. So naturally, people took the path of least resistance and we got where we are today. Certainly, if you look at the answers to the RDF Ipsos poll, it seems like most people identify as Christian literally "because it's there". ^bomination 09:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

RDF Ipsos-Mori poll

I find the results of this question particularly telling:

Q49. When it comes to right and wrong, which of the following, if any, do you MOST look to for guidance?

Answer	%
My own inner moral sense	54
Parents, family or friends	25
Religious teachings and beliefs	10
Philosophy and reason	7
None of the above	2
Don’t know	1
Prefer not to say	1

(Full data here). -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not nearly as telling as the one that asks "why did you tick this box" and only 28% of people actually chose "I believe in the teachings of this religion" ^narchist 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That works out as only about 15% are actually Christian if you go by belief. And yet archbishops still get a say in the House of Lords... *sigh* ^gnostic 21:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't find this that surprising for the UK. Would be fun to compare it to America. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

@Seth Peck, that was indeed very interesting, I love perusing surveys and stats, but I give my apologies, because I am not sure what point it is supposed to make? That Christians rely more on their internal sense of right and wrong than what their religion tells them to do? And that it is more or less equivalent to what non-religious people do? Or something else? Please forgive me for being a little dense, and not understanding the point you are making, I admit I don't always get the things that other do right away, but I really would like to know, if you wouldn't mind explaining it to me, thanks. Refugee^{talk page} 23:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Refugee: One of the biggest arguments for believing in God is that a lot of the loudmouths (especially in the USA) say that atheism lacks morality. But the survey says that only 10% of Christians even believe that the Bible provides morality, and 79% either get it internally or feel it is defined by their friends and family (e.g., they learn or share it). There seems to be a belief, particularly among the loudest clerical members, that if it weren't for the Bible, we'd be killing, raping and stealing everything in site. We (RW'ians) may know that assertion is BS, but this survey shows that even the 4 out of 5 true believers don't feel that way. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for explaining! :-) Refugee^{talk page} 01:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Uganda

^{[citation needed]} --★uːʤɱ libertarian 20:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum & an insufficiently biblical stance by the White House

Jesus Christ, just when I didn't think that Santorum could get any more fucking stupid... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/19/santorum-phony-theology_n_1287475.html Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Priority #1 for the Democrats: get this man the nomination. - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Damn right. I can think of roadkill that I'd rather vote for. Well, as I'm a Brit I can't vote, but my wife's American, so she'd rather vote for Badger "Pancake" McArmadillo-Crow. Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What was the largest margin of victory in a Presidential election? Because if it does come to this, crazification factor will be one of the top political terms this year. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Not counting the unanimous election/re-election of Washington, it would be James Monroe over John Quincy Adams in 1820 (JQA only received one electoral vote). In recent memory, it would definitely be Reagan over Mondale in '84. Source.-- Seth Peck (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So, if Santorum beats Obama in a landslide? Or should we not even joke about that? ^gnostic 08:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's just say that my country will have a bit of an illegal immigration problem. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well,

at least there's no youtube video at the end now. Distracts from the content. sterile^talk 07:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Men aren't disappearing WIGO

It seems to me like this should go under something like Feminism or Female supremacy, as it's one of those ideas that militant feminists (or Glenn Beck's "Feminazis"?) like to prattle on about. I don't mean to include it as an "in your face!" kind of way, but rather a "Science: it works, bitches people." kind of way. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Do militant feminists go on about it? I've seen the whole shrinking chromosome thing before, but it's always struck me as bad genetics rather than anything pushed for ideological reasons. ^narchist 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It is akin to FoxNews finding some Muslim with either extremely pro-western or extremely anti-western views and parading them. Saying feminists, or even a noticeable portion of feminists, prattle on about this is kinda stupid. It is more of a thing anti-feminists love to talk about, because then they can ignore the real issues and focus on the absurd extremes. Dendlai (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we have an article on Bad Genetics? This belongs there, along with "blond/red hair will become extinct" stories.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Harper fraud

I can see the glee on your face from here, Osaka, but what can actually happen if this is confirmed/they are found guilty? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be the kicker. I never expected the government to last until 2015 anyways. Even the National Post is calling them out. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

So they could actually lose seats from this? Or will people just not like them to extent that they will have to give up?

What's their majority anyway? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

23 seats. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not all that many, for a 300 seat parliment. How many of those are part of this? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Still speculating on the number of seats, but here's a little tidbit: 14 seats were won nationwide by only 6000 votes. An estimated 10 million calls were sent out. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be quite a hit to their majority, then. How big is an electorate in Canada? 6000 votes would be a comfortable majority over here, I believe. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Around 100,000 on average. The 6000 number is combined, the margins of victory were from tens or hundreds depending on the riding (including mine, the Liberal in my area only lost by 26 votes). We can only wait and see. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's beginning to look like you have more than just a chance. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt anything at all will come from this. Remember Harper was nailed with contempt of parliament and he just laughed in their face. --Revolverman (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully a judge will order rerun elections in the affected areas. Sophie^{because liberals} 12:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

They are going to kill this man

A 23 year old man who had "tweeted" that he didn't always understand or agree with the Prophet Mohammed was forcibly removed from an airplane in Malaysia while on his way to New Zealand to request asylum and was returned to Saudi Arabia to face a death sentence for apostacy. They will surely kill Hamza Kashgari for practicing the free speech that we take for granted. http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/12/world/asia/malaysia-saudi-tweets/ Although Malaysia has no extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia, they said they wouldn't harbor a criminal, despite the fact that his "crime" was only a Twitter tweet and no court had convicted him, and despite the fact that he wasn't asking them to harbor him, he was merely on a routine airplane layover on the way to New Zealand. Also, Saudi Arabia wanted him so badly that they abused the function of Interpol, flagging his name in red for "highest terrorist threat" in order to pinpoint his location and capture him. Refugee^{talk page} 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The death penalty sucks, no matter what crime it's being meted out for. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 17:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I just can't imagine the US, UK, Australia, etc, killing someone for making a fairly innocuous twitter tweet. It's mind-boggling. Refugee^{talk page} 17:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Theocracy in action: Catch the (scarlet) fever! -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I just can't imagine The UK, France, Canada or Sweden killing someone for...anything really. It's mind-boggling. I think that's the debate to have, AFAIC. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 18:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There's an angle on this about Interpol's role. They're not supposed to deal with political cases, yet they rolled over and did the KSA's bidding. Sophie^{because liberals} 19:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now they are going after anyone who merely says they object to Hamza's arrest. Talk about severe restriction of free speech, this is ridiculous. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/319642

"Saudi Arabia threatens supporters of blasphemous writer Hamza Kashgari" - By Katerina Nikolas Feb 15, 2012 - "Now the Saudi Arabian authorities are even threatening those who would seek to speak out in support of Kashgari. According to Death Penalty News the state prosecutor in Jeddah who is preparing to file a case against Kashgari has also called for others who have replied in encouragement or agreement to Hamza Kashgari’s Twitter remarks to be prosecuted. Authorities have not stated what punishment they would intend for anyone speaking in Kashgari's defence, but are quite clear on the punishment due to the writer if found guilty of apostasy. Saudi cleric Sheikh Saleh bin Fowzan Al Fowzan, a member of the 7-man supreme committee of scholars, said "he must be killed" if found guilty, Emirates 247 reported." Refugee^{talk page} 23:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Saudis are famous for religious extremism, and this goes way, way back, the sect that effectively controls the country was responsible for the murder of anyone who disagreed with their opinions, over a century ago, and ongoing, in total contradiction to Islam itself, as interpreted by the majority around the world. The shocking thing in this case was a seizure of the alleged criminal from a flight passing through, due to abuse of Interpol, and without any assurance of fair prosecution and treatment, as would normally be the case in marginal extradition situations. Malaysia is famous for draconian application of law, however. Don't carry illegal drugs into or through Malaysia. Death penalty. --Abd (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I was also shocked by the mis-use of Interpol, and that it seems nothing will be done about this. I guess they couldn't just let him leave and live in peace in another country - he must be silenced as an example to others. It's just really a shame, and sadly, as you pointed out, just one more in so many cases of people's free speech being suppressed. Refugee^{talk page} 22:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Zombie Muhammad "assault" case

How about a little critical thinking here? Judges, especially at the more informal level represented in this case, add dicta to decisions, side-comments that are not the basis for their decision. It's unclear from the primary report on this case what the basis for the judge's decision was, but there are hints that no actual assault was shown. (Is pulling on a fake beard, as alleged, "assault"? It might be a tort, but this was a criminal harassment charge.) So the judge added comments that the alleged victim was a doofus, which he may or may not have been. And then piles of Randies from Boise add their opinions on blogs, etc. The most hilarious is the claim that the judge was Muslim, which is inconsistent with the full text of the commentary, it's a near certainty that the judge either said, "I'm not a Muslim," or misspoke, which happens. This wasn't a court transcript.

The headline on Freethinker was "Zombie Mo attack justified, says judge."[2] That's not what the judge actually said. It's an implication made by Freethinker. (And lots of others, apparently.) The judge gave personal advice to the alleged victim. That was dicta. The headline in the original report was sloppy, itself.[3] Judge rules against atheist attacked in costume. No, the judge ruled against the prosecution, which was the State. Not against the alleged victim. The alleged victim (whose atheism was irrelevant, though his behavior may have been relevant) could still file a civil action, which would then gain an actual ruling, by a different judge, on the matter, based on preponderance of the evidence. This was a criminal case, with a requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and, based on the reported facts, the judge's decision on the case was probably within normal judicial discretion. Had the victim been injured, if the "assault," as our hysterical report terms it, had clearly included an intention to harm, it might well have gone the other way. Remember, in a criminal case there must be criminal intent, and the report didn't show that. A lack of understanding of American norms, yes, and if the defendant repeats the behavior, he'd be in hot water. --Abd (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Berlusconi goes scott free thanks to statute of limitations

I believe that the Italian government should have already changed all the laws that Berlusconi made up. -- RationalSpanish ^{Sí, soy español, ¿y qué?} 21:08 26 February 2012 GMT+1

You expect things to get done quickly in Italy? Sophie^{because liberals} 09:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You expect things to get done at all in Italy? Dendlai (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Ban the kids" WIGO

Regarding the WIGO about church that banned kids, really, that's one thing Jesus was pretty clear on.

More seriously, and pardon my language, but what the fuck is wrong with the people at that church? Even if you put the above Bible verse aside (which is one of the most well-know quotes in the Bible), they're siding with a damn convicted sex offender!

As I've seen it said elsewhere, "the shortest verse of the Bible is 'Jesus wept'. The only problem is that it's in the past tense." MDB (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sabu rolls over for the FBI

I believe the term "No honor among thieves" seems appropriate right now. --Revolverman (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dueling Banjos

Deliverance took place in Georgia. Southern solidarity isn't THAT strong (ask a Louisianan what they think of Mississippians...Ty, care to chime in?). -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Mississippi has slightly better roads, but is in every other way inferior. They are far worse drivers, their food sucks, there is an average on one church every 3km of highway, as opposed to our one church every 4km, and is the only place I have ever mistaken a house for a church due to its massive cross and ten commandment sculpture in their yard. Тy^Ahoy! 18:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought of the South as a decadent place, in that the people seem to only have ten teeth each. (Sorry, couldn't resist recycling a Pratchett joke there).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrinos

Article headline: "Neutrinos not faster than light"

First comment: "I am amazed to know that Neutrinos are faster than light"

[facepalm] I guess reading comprehension is a rarity online. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully it's a spambot. Because you would hope that the bottom half of Nature would be an improvement over the rest of the Internet... Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 08:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think of that. That actually makes me feel a lot better. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Memes are stupid

and unfunny 216.146.97.240 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What's this about? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_world%3F&diff=prev&oldid=990192 and http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_world%3F&diff=prev&oldid=989698

They add nothing to the news. 216.146.97.240 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel "meh" about them, though I see your point that they don't add much. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

New anti-piracy initiative by ISPs

Damn. I pirate nearly all my media (excluding videogames, DRM's too much of a pain for those). I don't think Peerblock will protect me anymore, if it's ISP-side. Which means I might have to watch TV shows with commercials, online... Movies and music I can live without. I already have a vast wealth of music obtained in a variety of ways, legal and illegal, and I don't really need more. Movies, meh. But I don't have a (working) television. All my tv shows I get from EZTV, but if this shit comes to pass, it'll be much easier to go after even the slightest copyright violations (like, TV shows). And since it will be tracked through my own connection, I won't be able to rely on Peerblock, since it only blocks the IP's of anti-p2p groups. Looks like my life will get a lot more boring starting July 12--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for giving us your records in such lurid detail. Now "Shut up, Brx." ArchieGoodwin (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

cool story bro; gota sequel. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you should both take a step back and look at the vitriol you've been throwing at people on this wiki. I think you'll find you look quite ridiculous.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I give anger when i see it is needed. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"I am a self-admitted thief. Now I might not be able to get away with stealing stuff anymore. This makes me the victim." You're such an asshole. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

When did I say I was a victim? As for my being a thief, well, capitalism is theft, and speech is free. --User:Brxbrx/sig 02:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you were being a whiny bitch about it. and "free speech" isn't the same as "free beer," but I doubt you're bright enough to understand that sort of subtlety. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

How about this: stealing is wrong because when I steal something, someone is deprived of what I stole from them. I steal your beer, and you have no beer. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm "stealing" information. Nobody is missing anything from me pirating. Information should be free. Naturally, people make their living off of intellectual property, and when I pirate their work, they are not getting remunerated for their efforts, even if they are not technically bereft of anything they previously had. Yet, I usually still do pirate from these people. That is because we exist in a flawed system, and every purchase I make only reinforces this broken society we live in. Surely, you, as a fellow communist, would understand this. I do try to support smaller artists, but when it comes down to big labels I am not putting down a single fucking penny.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Shut up, Brx."--il'Dictator Mikal 02:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Ahh, so this is why you eat shit off the side of the road and imbibe house hold cleaning products. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hooray Maturity! --Revolverman (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually he does. I'm not making this up: [4][5]ArchieGoodwin (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the term "irrelevant personal attack?"--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well... Huh... Thats... ya. --Revolverman (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Anybody know what ISPs are going to be doing this, so I can avoid subscribing to them when I move? DMorris2 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the link provided by the BoN, all of them. No escape.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Guess I'll be torrenting through public wi-fi hotspots then, because I refuse to actually pay for crap games that I fully intend to mod the hell out of to make more interesting. As for movies and TV shows, I usually just watch them on TV or buy them at the store if it's worth having. I think ISPs have the right to do this, but it pisses me off that they'll do it for copyright violations but they won't monitor MMS on cell phones to stop the wp:sexting of child pornography. Who cares if the network abuser is the girl or boy in the picture sending pictures of her/himself, if they're minors, then they need their service shut off for a year by somebody other than just mommy and daddy. DMorris2 (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fucking kids nowadays, expect to get everything for free rather than working or paying for it. Let me share with you that you will get a lot more satisfaction out of life if you actually put a bit of time and effort into it instead of being a leech on the efforts of others. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Nobody is missing anything from me pirating." "Nobody" is the person losing money they should earn from you buying the product through a legal channel. By illegally downloading it you are depriving every single person that worked on producing a piece of media from a payslip, from the artists and actors to the technicians and teaboys. Being a communist does not excuse you from the usual laws that apply to everyone else Brxbrx, and being in favour of a political system which advocates wealth distribution and support for the lower classes, you should really just think about where the money for the guys working behind the scenes comes from, you fucking prat. SJ ^Debaser 12:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The UK is getting those picketts at abortion clinics just like the US.

They're doing things like photographing the women who are about to get abortions. I suppose you're used to all that in the US but I'm just sick that it's happening here as well.

• Anti-abortion campaigners like 40 Days for Life have resorted to intimidation. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Gay marriage in Maryland

OH MY GOSH I'M SO HAPPY FOR YOU GUYS THAT YOU GOT YOUR MARRIAGE BILL THROUGH! Maybe you can do that whole "coming back" thing now? Pretty please? Blue (pester) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's like half this country wants to move into the 21st centry, and the other half wants to run back to the 18th. we are a strange country, indeed.--Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm apprehensive about gay marriage always taking center stage when, in reality, it's not a truly defining issue. It's a capstone right for LGB people, but a right that only indirectly affects the larger LGBT community... especially those of us more interested in basic nondiscrimination, a keystone issue. Blue (is useful) 23:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"those of us" — uh, did I miss something? --★uːʤɱ secularist 19:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

About the WIGO.

Please.

For the sake of all that is holy.

Do not keep doing that "X down, Y to go" thing every time another state legalizes this.

It's only going to get as annoying as that person who says "Only 364 days to go until next Christmas!" every bloody year. -- 00:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I love not being American.23.16.216.127 (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Santorum WIGO

Guys - what's the point in linking to a fucking hour long video? Do you really think we're going to sit and watch it, just to try and catch the point you're trying to make. Either find and article, or at least write a headline that explains the fucking story. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You only need to listen for 8 seconds or so. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 13:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

YouTube has a cool feature where you can toss a timestamp in the URL and it auto-seeks to that point in the video. This WIGO was done right. -Apokalyps2547 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"an offensie to my religious freedom".

I'm so tired of everyone being fucking OFFENDED by everything. Especially the religious nutters who run around thinking their right to hate, or control others is some how part of a religious freedom. It is your right not to USE birth control; it is your right not to go to an atheist soldier's funeral; it is your right not to "catch the gay" and "get gay married". It is not your right to tell others that they must do the same. I was reading something by an Ultra Orthadox American Jew (American is critical here, cause the UO sect in isreal is quite different) who said that one of the reason most Jews, even Ultra orthodox jews vote democratic is that they wish to practice their religious freely, and wish others the right to do the same. And the only "enforcement" you should ever do of your values and religious views is within your community by non-legal standards. I didn't know even Ultra Orthodox were that "liberal" in voting, but it makes sense. People have tried to tell them how to worship for the better part of 2000 years. They are smart enough to figure out their own freedom to worship comes with other people's rights to do the same. Why can't our Christian Extremists figure that out? BULLING IS HORRIBLE. what religious freedom would say otherwise? Godot What do cats dream about? 17:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It takes an intelligent person to be able to see beyond their own worldview. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear. But you do know that this would require them admitting that other faiths are equally valid, right? The key word being equally, because if you have, say, 10 "equally valid" religions, then you have only a 10% chance of being in the right one. As soon as you take this secular view - and this is why they hate secularism, even though secularism grants far more religious freedom - you diminish your own importance. No, I don't think these people will ever be able to embrace a world where they don't, or can't, enforce themselves upon others. That would almost defy the entire point of religion. ^moral 17:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

See persecution complex. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Crosses and Atheist symbols

Britain's most senior Roman Catholic Church cleric has called for Christians to wear a cross every day and some Christians are appealing to the European Court of Human Rights because their employer refused to allow them to wear a cross with their uniform. Well personally I’ve no objection to Christians wearing symbols or their irrationality so long as atheists, agnostics and others have the same right to wear relevant symbols . Those clerics and other campaigners may be less enthusiastic when they consider the effect any legal decision may have over faithless symbols. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck would an "atheist symbol" or an "agnostic symbol" look like? Who the hell got to choose those symbols for all those people who don't believe in gods? Is there an "I-don't-believe-in-unicorns symbol I can wear? P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 18:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck are you on about? no one cares if atheists wear a symbol of their atheism, and why should anyone care if you wear a cross or a kippa. Beliefs are not "irrational" by the way, just cause you do not agree with them. Especially in the context most UK christian take their beliefs (ie., not literal or fundamental). I do think that it's fair to say "if you are not allowed to wear jewelry", then too bad for you cross or Atheist A. But if you can wear a necklace, you should be able to wear a cross. --Godot On a perdu le contrôle 18:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Gnu Atheists
• Atheist symbol Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There’s more today, a Cardinal is telling the faithful to "wear proudly a symbol of the cross of Christ", it comes low down in this article.
Rowan Williams to warn of downgrading of religious education
Are they looking for conflict? There have been times in America when disputes over public display of religious material made the Christians who fought more popular whoever won. The UK takes religion less seriously so getting popular that way is less likely here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You understand that the people who created those "atheist symbols" don't speak for atheists, but only for themselves, right? It ain't my symbol, I've never seen an atheist wear one, and they're probably only relevant to those obnoxious Dawkins wannabees who can't seem to just not believe in God and shut the fuck up about it. Who the hell would be so stupid as to wear their non-belief in something on their sleeve like that? P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 18:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

derby's article

Warning, it's pretty much straight out of some Klan speech. [6] --Godot On a perdu le contrôle 07:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

100 internets if you resist reading this in Palpatine's voice.

I resisted reading a news article in some film character's voice. Where do I get my hundred internets? </sarcasm> No more memes as wigeaux, please. Sophie^{because liberals} 11:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't resist it. The man is just spookily like Palps. Darkmind1970 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

a number of popes have historically been crazy sith lords anyway, so to me it's amusingly appropriate. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 21:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Painful inaccuracy

The article about the anti-evolution bill that passed in Tennessee says that creationists lost the Scopes trial. The sad truth is that Scopes (who taught evolution) lost and was fined $100. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

TSA and Houston

I think that WIGO headline is misleading. While the most visible part of TSA's mission is providing airport screenings (and the Air Marshal service to a lesser extent), a significant portion of what they do has to do with determining methods (generally in the form of consulting and checks) of securing land, sea, and pipeline transportation. In fact, if you watch the video the reporter says it's a collaboration amongst the Houston police, the bus system, and the TSA. To me, it sounds like TSA is cutting checks for this and Shelia Jackson Lee managed to ensure that Houston was the first jurisdiction to get that money.Jsonitsac (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The funniest thing about Trump's bullshit....

...is when he was asked for evidence for his claims and he said 'I am expert, I am the evidence'. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If money = power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then absolute money also must corrupt absolutely. Somebody phone in and remind him that being Mr. Trump does not actually make him a god.±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 17:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Mark your calenders! Here we go again!

June 30th, 2012, for sure this time, with added 666! ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ hi there! 17:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It makes me cringe every time I see an article that casually references the myth that the Mayan calendar claims the world will end in December 2012. Fact-checking really is dead. Omar (gibber) 17:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I also twitched, you're not the only one. :/ ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ hi there! 17:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Heartland Institute

Doesn't this bullocks belong in the Clogosphere? Or at the very least the Blogosphere? User:Lady Corvex

I'm going to copy it over to clogs. ^sshole 17:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I figured that, since they're putting up billboards, it'd go under news... Balaam (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's always a tough call. But it's a stupid thing sourced to their own site (a clog) as opposed to a reputable news organisation, I'd side with Clogo on this one. ^moral 17:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Introducing the 100% effective, reversible male birth control"

It's called a vasectomy.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither effectiveness nor reversibility is 100% Also, the longer you wait the less chance of successful reversal. --24.212.154.38 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Party and the Carbon Tax

Hey, I didn't vote for harpoRandonGeneration (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Look ugly, and aids will go away

Dear god. I'm always up in arms about "victim blaming", but I think that comment is about the most horrific I've ever seen.Godot 19:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Dubya war criminal thing

I don't understand the purpose of that article...wasn't the Malaysia decision a good while ago? And it was never a moonbat call for arrest, I believe The Hague or Switzerland have already considered it. 99.235.89.240 (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As A.A. Milne put it, "a very long time ago now, about last Friday." ListenerX^TalkerX 05:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Rise of Fascism in Europe

I recall about six years ago, my grade 12 History/Law teacher talking about Europe and how semi and full on Fascist parties were popping up in Europe, and all it would take would be one bad recession to turn Europe back to the 1930s. We all thought he was nuts.

I sure wish he was. --Revolverman (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

we have the right conditions, but it isnt sure it can rise again. --il'Dictator Mikal 22:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if we'll see the take over they had before WW2, but a lot of ideologist have been pedaling simple solutions to very complex problems, and people seem to be starting to eat it up. --Revolverman (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Just no. We do not have the same conditions. Were should I begin. Fuck, I'll just start.

1. The crisis is of a different matter.
   • The great depression was triggered by an actual abrupt end of demand and triggered enormous job loss and an unemployment high. This crisis isn't even happening, yet. It's hysteria over a possible crisis that would ensue should one Euro state go bankrupt, over inflation, for which markets can adjust.
   • Back then, social safety nets were neither well constructed nor complete. Today they are. One of the reasons of the rise of fascism was extremely high unemployment and no money from the state, therefor poverty. From poverty comes desperation and you can rhyme the rest together for yourself.
2. Fascism was new back then. It was never tested and never used. People wen't for this new idea because they hoped it might work. Instead it brought Europeans the greatest war in the history of mankind, don't think Europeans don't know this — or, have somehow forgotten.
3. Modern Europeans have something called "an education". We're talking about a time in which a great portion of society was taken out of school at an early age, some elders probably just never went. Today's Europeans know history, and they know not to be blinded by some-half-arsed "utopian" fever dream.
4. The so-called "fascist parties popping up all over Europe" get what we call "protest votes" in Europe. That means swing votes from people that are so annoyed by the established parties not doing anything, that they have decided to give the establishment the hard-right or left-wing finger and annoy them for the next few years.

With all due respect to your teacher, Revolverman, the man's not even nuts, but just an idiot without a clue. --Raga Man (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You give the modern western consumer far to much credit/.--il'Dictator Mikal 19:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Western and European aren't the same thing. --Raga Man (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As a Frenchman, I'd say you're then giving the average European too much credit.dx (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree Raga gives Europeans too much credit. Fascism doesn't have to be people with swastika flags goose stepping up and down a massive stadium giving one armed salutes, and neither does it have to mean trying to take over the continent. Also, whilst not complete nor certain, a lot of the 1930s social conditions are being recreated in some countries where cuts to welfare have been extreme, social services have been privatised or closed down, and the education system is ignored. Greece and Italy are obvious examples, but Spain, Britain and Ireland are not fare behind, even though Britain's economic situation isn't that bad.

What we could well see, especially if no attempts are made to rebuild social services after the actual financial crisis has passed (which is a distinct possibility) is a combination of deep unpopularity of all mainstream political parties resulting in weak, unstable coalitions and an increasingly vocal - if not necessarily large - right wing fringe groups. These groups don't have to secure power. Rather, all that it requires is for the mainstream parties to lurch increasingly to the right in order to outdo each other in securing the fringe vote for themselves. We've already seen this happen to a considerable degree in the UK and France, where figures like Sarkozy, and Cameron (and also in the previous Labour government) turned vitriol against "immigrants" up to 11 in a blatant attempt to steal the far-rights thunder and claim it as their own. As unemployment really starts to bite, and particularly if the EU does unravel, this is only going to be exacerbated. When you throw into the mix the already existing British paranoia over Europe and her government's inclinations toward both pervasive surveillance and strict laws dealing with "subversives" - both new laws and those left over from the 80s (anti Trade-union legislation and the legacy of "The Troubles") - it's not hard to see the country tipping over the edge into some kind of "Diet Fascism". -- 09:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

When I hear of read the word "fascism" my thoughts do not go toward a corrupt politician, but to representatives being shut out or down, not to security cams everywhere, but to people not having a say about it, not to a culture of fear in which the minorities which ever minorities they are are not liked nor welcomed but still are treated rightfully, but to people beeing thrown in jail or silenced without due process. What you are describing is a surveillance state or and authoritarian democracy, but not fascism. I'm sorry you havn't gotten over the snarl aspect over the word. --Raga Man (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What you describe is the scenario we already have at the moment, and I agree that is authoritarian-right democracy rather than proto-fascism. However, it is not hard to envisage a scenario where what we have now lurches father to the right simply by continuing the current trend toward restricting the rights of minorities and attempting to by-pass public consent through use of legal devices like orders-in-council, the parliament act and resisting FOI requests. Indeed, the rights of minorities are already badly compromised by a mixture of anti-terrorism and immigration legislation that targets racial and religious minorities, employment, social and welfare legislation that targets the poor, and a combination of terror, employment and public order legislation that targets organised dissent. None of this, even taken to far more absurd extremes than at present would require the overt dismantling of a parliamentary system and the show of democracy, as places like Singapore, Malaysia or Russia show.

The question really is at what point do you say something is fascist rather than plain authoritarian, and at what point has democracy ceased to be a meaningful way for the population to affect change and simply become a formality and a public show? The rise of ultra-low turnout elections (not something new in Britain) combined with a FPTP electoral mechanism, a mono-ideology accross all main parties, and an unelected upper house to which appointments are made by the party in power means that the ability for the populace to effectively challenge or change the system is possible only in the most technical sense. If this system were amplified into a UKIP or BNP wet-dream situation, one could choose to call it "Authoritarian hard-right within a nominally parliamentary-democratic framework" or one could call it "proto-fascist" or "pre-fascist" - none of which would change anything to the lucky people living in such a scenario. -- 11:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And I fully agree with you that even such pre-fascist stages have to be fought hard to not let them become the status quo, but Revolverman wrote and all it would take would be one bad recession to turn Europe back to the 1930s and that is what I tried to rebute. But such pre-fascist stages as we all agree can happen, aren't Europe in the 1930s by any stretch of imagination. Is it possible that European states become more authoritarian? Yes. More paranoid? Yes. Will we see it as the 1930s in which parliaments were practically dissolved show debates? No, I don't think so. I think it is fully possible that immigration laws (outward from the EU) will be strengthend, that there will be more poverty than before (and if anything poverty will turn out bigger for left-wing parties than right-wing parties, as we have already seen in France and Greece) and other rights will be cut, but even with the fact that these are elements of fascism they temselves do not constitute fascism. Neither does the rise of hard right-wing parties to 10-15% say anything about that government being at the brink of a fascist state, as long as left-wing and generally liberal parties rise at the same time. That is not a rise of fascism, but a rise of fringe parties. The centre-right parties you are talking of that might possibly if so and if not lean towards and adopt fringe policies all have a democratic tradition, many even have it in their names, so even if they adopt more nationalist themes, a nationalist theme does not equate towards fascism, or even proto-fascism. --Raga Man (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)