RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive14

This is an archive page, last updated 17 May 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <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>

, (back)

Arizona Posse[edit]

Question: After having a look at the Sheriff's website, I think he means to say "not [convicted of a felony] and [not convicted of a misdemeanor in the last 12 months]. I think this WIGO is maybe misrepresenting the good sheriff a bit. Anyone else think so? Chasanidya (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd tell you if I did, but I can't get the link to work. Also, why do we have two posse WIGOs? Peter ^mqzp 01:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say grammar problem on this one? It doesn't parse well either way because only one of the three items got a temporal quantifier (If you have a list of items linked by the word "or" I suppose they should have same quantifications). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Cease and Desist request[edit]

Caroline Glick blogs. Unless it's for the Clogosphere. Scherben (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Щєазєюіδ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Minister ignorant of science, economics, morals[edit]

BBC news says The UK minister of employment thinks geology isn't so important to the modern economy (not that supermarket workers aren't important). He also thinks it's okay to subsidise supermarkets with free labour in a time of high unemployment, and the rest.Tombo1bo (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This Fucking Government!!! ^{That is all} Scream!! (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not free labour, Tom. We're fucking paying for it instead of the employer. London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

He's scum, simple as that. It's also a deflection attempt, to make it seem that those who object to slave labour are merely just snobs. I hate that bastard. Scherben (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Buddhist one is terrible[edit]

The linked article itself says the protest against halal was against the method of slaughter, which is in fact a matter of strong concern elsewhere. I appreciate they're using Buddhism as a cover for nationalism, but the original text of this WIGO was just stupid - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Athletes to look up to -- Kobe Bryant?[edit]

"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter." Yeah, a real hero. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 02:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In the nine years since, Kobe seems to have matured quite a bit. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not too mention that was the sketchiest Rape charge in history. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if he's matured or not, I'm not really a sports fan, so all I really know about the guy is whatever makes the non-sports section of the paper. As for how "sketchy" the charge was, well, at best he cheated on his wife,and figured there was enough against him to warrant settling a civil suit out of court. I don't know about you, but nobody I've slept with has come forth and said that "she feels that she did not consent to this encounter." To me, that speaks to some sort of issue with the question of understanding what "consent" means, so still not a guy to look up to. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 04:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say every incident involving a celebrity and some sort of crime (or flagrant violation of rules, or moral codes dictated by their religion/business practice) is unique. Michael Vick has expressed remorse for his crimes, has been mostly forgiven by his fans, and turned his jail experience into a motivational tool in order to further his football career. Mike Tyson rebounded from his convictions, though without as much apology. The idea that one can be forgiven after paying for their mistakes and expressing remorse is ingrained in human nature and western culture (particularly Christianity), despite the fact that many people (particularly Christians) take a "once a criminal, always a criminal" attitude. I think that's why if one were to look at Kobe and say, "He stubbornly fought it tooth-and-nail when he was younger, but now he's matured and sees things a little more clearly," that's really an admirable trait; compared to someone like, say, O.J. Simpson or Andrew Wakefield or Dick Cheney who have NEVER apologized for their sins, and you find very few people willing to see them as role models. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Forgiveness is pretty core to my world view, so I get where you're coming from --off the court, what has Bryant done to show that he now "gets it"/has had some growth about the idea of what sexual consent/violence against women/not stepping out on people who trust you are all about? Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, grabbed a basketball player's name out of the air, I don't follow American sports. Change it if you like, or just whine about it here. Sophie^Wilder 22:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm good with whining. That's what tiggers do best! Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 22:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was Eeyore. Sophie^Wilder 22:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Does baseball involve getting hit in the head a lot?"[edit]

The one time we played it at school, the ball hit me on the nose. Sophie^Wilder 22:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"You gotta keep your eye on the ball, son. Get it? Eye...ball? I say, that's a joke, son. Kid's about as sharp as a sack full of wet mice." Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 22:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And this is why we wear batting helmets. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Baseball is cute. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 18:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"South Korea's erratic behavior would only herald its final destruction"[edit]

I hope the that was the result of bad translation, and that Mr Ryong isn't quite that unselfaware. Peter ^mqzp 22:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. A country threatening another country backed up by a country with a huge nuclear arsenal with "final destruction." There's no way that could ever escalate completely out of control; I'm sure the Chinese, Russians, Indians and Pakistanis will all respond in a reasonably subdued manner to a nuclear exchange in Asia. Who'd've thunk I was going to die in the Korean War? Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 22:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a WIGO once, long while back, that is summed up as "another day, another north korean war threat". It's more saber rattling and the moment they actually tried something, China if it had enough warning time or people inside north korea who actually like getting to lead a fiefdom would move to stop it. --^Mikal_lakiM 22:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, North Korea isn't that erratic. They've been doing the same impotent violent posturing for years. Either that or they've always been consistently batshit--"Shut up, Brx." 18:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"Capitalist spits..."[edit]

It's worth noting the letter to a French government official was written in English. 'Murica. TheLateGatsby (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuck the bosses Scherben (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And fuck the stupid language. This isn't "capitalists" vs. The union. It's some rich dick vs. the French. Brx's stupid framing of the issue misses the point entirely. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The rich dick's use of English is pretty much the only thing that interests me about this story. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please add something like the following to this page?[edit]

I'm not sure where it would go best, but a notice that reads something along the lines of: "To avoid unnecessary duplication/for the sake of clarity, please try to give a hint as to what the linked article is about. 'Pat Robertson ups the stupid' is a better choice than "OMFGFICAN'TBELIEVEITWTF.'" Thanks! Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 16:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We reach the point where anyone who needs to be told is too thick to tell. Downvotes work, as does fixing it - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Rat experiments from 'we are as gods'[edit]

These sort of experiments disgust me as cruel and unnecessary. So, help me out, please Scherben (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

this will lead to rat war. Have we learned nothing from Halo Jones? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dutch neo-nazis[edit]

I'd cite a corollary to Godwin's Law if the whole "if you're against Israel you're a Nazi" shit wasn't so poisonous. London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any real evidence for Nazi views in that article. Also, the use of the phrase 'satanic' is pointing it towards the clogosphere for crankery. Scherben (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is linked in the article as evidence and I think it is at least an indication of something that isn't just anti-Israeli tendencies. EGKunz

I don't doubt something very depressing is happening; I just wondered about the crankery of those behind the report. Either way, attitudes like anti-semitism make me not want to live on this planet anymore Scherben (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I cannot help but agree with your statement, well put. EGKunz

"[James O'Keefe] regrets any pain suffered by Mr. Vera or his family."[edit]

...Like Hell he does. Regrets he got caught, I'm sure. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholic corruption[edit]

Gay sex rings, 'The Filth' corrupting the Vatican...and why the Pope REALLY quit

How true is all that? Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering the source, fuck all Scherben (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources are slowly building up though I'd like to know how Tatchel worked out the percentages of gay clergy. I'd really appreciate it if anyone could add links to sources that are less subjective than Pink News. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

These from CBS News and Huffington Post look reliable but the more I can get the better. Proxima Centauri (talk)

I've started writing thanks for the links. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Drug resistant bacteria and Creationists[edit]

Many a true word ...[1] Bevo74 (talk)

My favorite take on the issue. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 18:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's good. Bevo74 (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

End of the armistice[edit]

I don't know about you all, but I find that very, very scary. By that, I mean I would almost liken it to the Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of just how scary a nuclear-armed, insanity-led North Korea backing out of the peace agreement is. Robot Opera Singer Who Fights Crime (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing over at the Saloon Bar about North Korea's latest antics. A war involving North Korea would be short and brutal, because even their only ally, China, is getting fed up with their shit. Ochotonaprinceps ^{not a pokémon} 08:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know there was such a place for those discussions. I just found this page via the home page, went "They're not talking about it?" and posted something. Robot Opera Singer Who Fights Crime (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Welcome aboard. VOX^HUMANA 08:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

New York's Rat problem.[edit]

Assuming that the thing works as presented, that's likely a damn good way to cut the rat problem down. Unless rats move in from other places faster then they die off... --Revolverman (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I read enough of the article to see that part of the process is a rough and ready rat census, with the aim of bringing their numbers down just to a point where their turf is unattractive to strange rats, but still so there aren't so many of them that they hang out on the subway tracks flipping off the tourists and disparaging their style. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fukushima article[edit]

It's not clear from the article what exactly is broken (hopefully World Nuclear News will write something actually informative tomorrow), but if it's the spent fuel pool cooling system, it's not a big deal. During the accident itself, the spent fuel was without any cooling and partially exposed to air, yet it didn't catch on fire or anything. Even if the cooling system can't be fixed, the spent fuel pool just needs to be periodically refilled using the concrete pumping trucks which were used during the accident - evaporating water is very effective at removing heat. --Tweenk (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"The scumbags receive a whole one year in juvie."[edit]

That's what happens when you live with laws that understands that minors do not have the same sort of legal responsibility as adults. I would be interested in learning what the person who added that sentence would like to see happen to young offenders. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 16:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

As the article says, one of those animals will be out of jail in time for his senior prom. Why? Why should he get off so easy, whereas if he'd been an adult, he'd sit for longer. His age doesn't make his crime any less severe. If I had my way those animals would spend the rest of their lives in jail. After being castrated. --PsyGremlin^Parla! 16:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, castration -- as well as most other forms of corporal punishment and torture -- are against the law in the United States and most other liberal democracies, and while I don't know much about the legalities of "chemical castration," I'm pretty sure that it would be unheard of for a first offender, so that's off the table.

As for why he should get off so easy as a minor as opposed to if he had committed the crime after the clock struck 12 on the day of his 18th birthday, well, that's the law, and, like it or not, we accept that there is a certain degree of arbitrariness in the law. I would rather live in a society that embraces forgiveness and gives young men a chance to make a fresh start than in one that throws away lifetimes of human potential in the name of vengeance. An eye for an eye makes us all blind, my brother.

So if I was king for a day and had to in judgement on this guy? Juvenile detention until he's an adult, coupled with intense therapy and extended volunteer work that benefits the victims of sexual violence. Said therapy and public service to continue until a panel of psych. experts have agreed that he has learned about how "consent" works, with annual check-ins for a few years after that. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 16:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"The law is an ass." That said, I hope these animals learn all about consent and rape in the showers at their juvie facility. If I was king for a day, they'd get the death penalty. No appeal, no reprieve, they're taken from the courtroom and killed. Same for any sexual offence. It might not be a deterrent, but those animals won't do it again. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 17:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Rape as punishment? I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. As someone who would not have condoned the death penalty even if Hitler had been captured alive (ZOMG, reverse Godwin!!!) I don't think there's much of us for a way to come to common ground on this. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 17:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Cut their fucking eyelids off, the filthy, vile bastards Scherben (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Mind, they'd have a retinue of excusers if they changed their names to Roman Polanksi Scherben (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see that everyone is still willing to throw away the rule of law the second it does something they don't like. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 17:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir Chuck, for that breath of fresh, humanistic air. When the bar has dropped to "let's mutilate criminals," it can be mightily despairing. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You gonna stop shedding tears for these poor lambs we've been nasty to? Or is it bleeding heart day? Scherben (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care much about the case, other than to say I have some serious issues with testimony that came solely on an offer of immunity (yeah, nothing coercive or questionable about those witnesses) but I do have a problem with people exploring their own sick fantasies of "justice" because the legal system doesn't do enough to satisfy their primordial blood lust. If you want to hunt down criminals, you can always go patrol the border with Sheriff Joe and his posse.... OR you can order a Batman costume and stalk the rooftops. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 19:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

God damn it Chuck, I wanted to say that. Now I want your hands cut off, be blinded, castrated, have an X burned into your cheek and have your tongue cut out. (I think that's all of them.) --Revolverman (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, had this girl not drank until she was fucking blitzed (while still underage) and then refuse to leave with her friends, she never could have been put in a vulnerable position to begin with, but no. That's victim blaming. 72.205.215.192 (talk)

Yes. It is. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 02:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's not. Victim blaming would be saying "it's her fault she got raped." What I did was point out that had she made better decisions, she couldn't have possibly been raped. I refer you to the dark alley argument. 72.205.215.192 (talk)

Bullshit. You said if she had behaved differently, she wouldn't have gotten raped. That's victim blaming. And hey, sober girls get raped all the time, so, maybe you're wrong. Do you know how she definitely wouldn't have gotten raped? If those boys had decided not to rape her. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 02:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say that? Do you have some sort of magical computer glasses that read words that don't appear on the page? 72.205.215.192 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"had this girl not drank until she was fucking blitzed (while still underage) and then refuse to leave with her friends, she never could have been put in a vulnerable position to begin with." The only thing that made her vulnerable was the fact that she was with boys who decided to rape her. "What I did was point out that had she made better decisions, she couldn't have possibly been raped." That puts the onus on her. As though her drunkeness, and not the rapists, is what raped her. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 02:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your twisting of my words is worthy of a birthday party clown, but you're wrong. I didn't say drunkenness raped her you twat. I said that had she not been passed out drunk, the acts probably wouldn't have occurred. If I walk down a dark NYC alley, nobody is gonna shed any tear if I get mugged.... But we must protect the precious flower of femininity and pretend that her choices and actions had no effect on the situation. I mean, drinking until you vomit all over the carpet is just like getting abducted at gunpoint. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 02:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No no. Please continue. Your mystical powers of perception and undeserved sanctimonious arrogance have me wanting more. Use your gifts and tell me honestly: Was Oswald really the only shooter? Did Regan really not know about Iran/Contra? Did Thomas Jefferson really cut down that cherry tree and call it macaroni four score and seven years ago by the dawn's early light? 72.205.215.192 (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 03:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay 72.205.215.192 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thats no "Cool Story, Bro"--Revolverman (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've gone and wet the powder. It should be back to its normal state in a few hours: Unstable and ready to explode. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Is your point that her condition should have somehow mitigated the sentence? Under the law, opportunity does not ever diminish/transfer culpability, so her drunken condition was legally irrelevant. If you are simply saying that it would have been better for her to not be drunk and incapable then fine, that's good general advice to anyone. However crimes of opportunity occur, and it is a legal principle that none of these ever transfer any culpability onto the victim. Even the legal tests of recklessness and negligence have been attempted against the victim (typically in rape cases) as defenses and all have failed. This is because we all have the opportunity to commit crimes daily (eg... say, running over a pedestrian in a car), but as citizens, we are duty bound not to. Opportunity cannot ever diminish culpability. VOX^HUMANA 03:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Vox, your comment was intelligent, well thought out and actually hit on the right question. There may still be some rationality here after all. No, I don't think her condition in any way changes the responsibility of the football players. Rape is rape, pure and simple. However, we have reached an age where the internet backlash against people is insane. You dare point out the poor choices of the victim, you get pilloried in the square and labeled all sorts of nasty names. How about in addition to these "don't rape people" campaigns that are so popular online, we might try a little "Hey, it's probably not a good idea to get so wasted that you don't know where you are" campaigns for EVERYBODY! 72.205.215.192 (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"However, we have reached an age where the internet backlash against people is insane. You dare point out the poor choices of the victim, you get pilloried in the square and labeled all sorts of nasty names." That's because you're making what might be a valid comment in the wrong context on something people are very sensitive to. Compare various statements in various contexts abut Barak Obama’s race. In discussions about just how much progress has been made in racial equality in the US it may be highly relevant, in a discussion about the economy it is not. What would you think of someone who said “our black president is ruining the economy” rather than “our president is ruining the economy”? You’d almost certainly think that the mention of his race was motivated by racism, something you wouldn’t think if they said “I think having a black president shows X about race relations in this country”. As people are very sensitive about racism it’s likely that “our black president is ruining the economy” will provoke a negative reaction.

If we are discussing young girls’ welfare, then the issue of whether they should get blind drunk is just as relevant as the fact that there are people out there who think rape is other than an inexcusable crime. But when discussing the fact that there are people out there who think rape is other than an inexcusable crime and what to do with them, whether or not girls get blind drunk is utterly irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant unless you think that girls getting blind drunk either contributes to forming the opinion that rape is other than an inexcusable crime or lessens the culpability of those whose reaction to a girl drunk into incapacity is not to take care of her but to “take care of her”. Now I’m happy to take it that you think neither of those things, in which case why the fuck bring up the subject of her being drunk? If you make a statement that only makes sense if it’s blaming the victim then you shouldn’t be surprised if people take it that you were blaming the victim. And, as there is a huge problem with misogynistic strands through our culture it should come as no surprise that people react badly.Toffeeman (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that's called D.A.R.E. We already have anti-alcohol campaigns, so your point is moot. She made a poor choice, that doesn't change the facts, nor does it let the players off the hook. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 03:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Dare is about abstinence, not moderation. It most certainly does change the facts. Everyone wants to jump on our "rape culture" as if that is a real thing, but nobody seems to be saying that the girl's poor choices put her in danger. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

D.A.R.E. teaches (albeit with a bit of fear-mongering) the dangers of alcohol. IMO, if people haven't got it through their fucking head by the time they hit their teen years, they're not going to. By that point, they have been told endlessly by their parents and the schools. Guess what, teenagers and underage people make poor choices, it's who they are. They have hormone issues and their brain chemistry hasn't fully developed. This doesn't give them a free pass, but it does mean that some of them aren't going to be the best decision-makers. So, we, as a society, have to take this into account. We can have all the campaigns we want, rebellious youths will still be a thing. Rape is rape and is never to be tolerated. End of story. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 03:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@BON: What, then, is the point of bringing it up besides concern trolling? This entire thread has earned a well-deserved

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that all conversation had to be cleared through Nebuchadnezzar. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh look, a whiner. Osaka Sun (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's spelled wiener. Weaseloid

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hot Dog! When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 14:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow.... You guys really don't suffer anyone to step outside the groupthink do you? 72.205.215.192 (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

What did you expect? This website exists to mock anyone stepping outside the groupthink.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm noticing that Zooguard. The funny thing is that on most other issues I agree with the general idea of the wiki, but if you step out of line on small issue, the ostracizing begins. It's like being Amish. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not very much like being Amish, and nothing to do with groupthink; just a tendency of people at RW to call out bullshit when they smell it. Wéáśéĺóíď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is Weaseloid. That's all it is. You RW people have no problems with groupthink, you just have an amazing ability to call out "bullshit" It just so happens that all of this bullshit is anything that falls outside of your group's stated opinions on every little subject. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that canard. I'm a wing nut, but it's you that's mad. How about you sign in so we can see you (though thanks for the IP address) Scherben (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Another RW user putting words in my mouth. You guys have some serious superpowers around here. As to your offer of signing up, no thanks. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your persecution complex is fully functioning, I see. Don't worry, it's the rest of the world that's crazy Scherben (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Now your powers extend to psych diagnoses via the internet. There is no end to the marvels of RW. On another note, you seem very angry Scherben. Maybe you should see a counselor about that. Or is it a mighty righteous anger at the "bleeding hearts" who dare to question your sense of ~~revenge~~ justice? 72.205.215.192 (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Rape culture[edit]

"Everyone wants to jump on our "rape culture" as if that is a real thing, but nobody seems to be saying that the girl's poor choices put her in danger." This is a strange little paradox: on the one hand you're saying that just by being drunk at a party this girl was making herself available for rape (by default), but on the other hand you're denying that a culture which normalises rape exists. How does that add up? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing even resembling "(she made) herself available for rape." I said that had see made better choices, she wouldn't have been in a situation to be victimized. She wasn't just "drunk." She was so inebriated that she had no idea where she was or who she was with. According to defense witnesses, she refused to leave with her friends and physically repelled their efforts to get her out of danger. We rightly condemn the players who committed a crime, but we ignore the glaring elephant in the room. I have been drunk many, many times in my life, both in public and in private. I have never been so plastered that I refused to leave a party when my friends said that was enough and although I've blacked out a time or two, I never did it when I wasn't safe at home with life-long friends. You claim we have a "Rape culture" that normalizes and accepts rape as normal, but your own examples, as per your article, are poorly defended and often dead wrong. Ironically, while you sit up on high and attack me, your own people were gleefully predicting and reveling in the potential for rape of the players while in prison and SirChuckB is only one who stepped forward to put a stop to it. I guess being knowledgeable about "rape culture" doesn't prevent you from falling into it.

No, I don't think rape culture is real. I think there is a huge difference between the actions of individuals and the systematic acceptance of a crime. The examples given are ridiculous in the extreme: members this wiki engaged in a deep discussion of whether fictional portrayals in movies, some approaching 30 years old, were representative of the rape culture. These same people will rant and rave about how video games have no effect on people playing them, but believe that people take their cues from what movies say are acceptable behaviors. America has been fighting to prosecute rapes nearly since it's founding. Rape has long been considered a serious crime, in fact, as recently as the 60's, people were still executed for rape (and rarely, attempted rape). In addition, legislatures have expanded rape laws to include acts that formally would not legally be considered rape, we extend protections to rape victims that are never afforded to victims of other crimes, and we allow the court of public opinion to destroy those accused of rape, even when there is no conviction. What about any of that suggests an institutionalized acceptance or normalization of rape? 72.205.215.192 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your semantics. Is there really a big distinction between "made herself available for rape" and "made choices which put herself in a situation to be raped"?

& WTF does "your own people" mean? I'm not responsible for what other people in this discussion have said, and I don't condone comments suggesting rape or violence are OK, inside or outside of prison. Neither did I suggest anything about an institutionalised acceptance of rape. The fact that rape is condemned by authorities does not mean that it is not tacitly accepted or encouraged at some level of society, and this is what is meant by rape culture. My point, which you really haven't addressed, is that by suggesting that the girl made herself vulnerable to rape (or however you want to phrase it), you are implying that there was already some underlying likelihood of rape occurring and that by weakening her defences through alcohol and having nobody to look out for her, she increased the likelihood of being raped. Where does that likelihood come from, if not from some shared understanding (at least among the various participants & complicit witnesses in this case) that rape is OK thing to do? Wëäŝëïöïď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a big difference. If you don't understand it, there isn't much point in trying to explain it, so I'll move on to your addressing your points again. "Your own people" refers to the number of editors here who have expressed glee in the potential rape of the defendants. You didn't think their words were harsh enough to bring a comment, but you had no issue attacking me for things I never even said. But no, can't step outside the groupthink, that'll get you on the blacklist.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the world is not a friendly place. There are some pretty awful people out there and you have to protect yourself. There is always a likelihood of rape occurring, just as there is always a likelihood of being mugged, shot, abducted or assaulted. Facts are facts, and if you let yourself get so intoxicated you lose awareness, you have made yourself vulnerable to any number of crimes. Do you deny this? Now, this does mean you deserved it or that you were complicit in the crime, but you still put yourself in a dangerous position.

Now, as to your claim: No. Rape is not encouraged at any level of society and that's a ridiculous claim. Your rape culture claims are nothing more than attacking fictionalized portrayals of sexual assault and jokes you find offensive. I'll throw a challenge to you... Who are these people that "accept and encourage" rape? 72.205.215.192 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"You didn't think their words were harsh enough to bring a comment". Thanks for trying to read my mind but you're really not doing a good very job of it. Comment had already been made by other users before I entered this thread. This "don't step outside the groupthink" thing you keep repeating just makes you look stupid. There were already people disagreeing with each other in this thread before you started in with focusing on the victim. The fact that nobody has sided with you on this issue does not indicate some sort of hive mentality; only that nobody agrees with the point you are making. If you think rape is not encouraged at any level of society, spend a while exploring 4chan/b and Encyclopaedia Drammatica (starting here). ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your evidence for the existence of rape culture is 4Chan and ED? By that logic, the entire country is run by white supremacists. See Stormfront for proof. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like logic. How does "existence of" equate to "entire country is run by"? Weaseloid

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Who's getting into semantics now? Do you really consider a few dozen jackoffs at an obscure website to be representative of the entire culture of the United States? 72.205.215.192 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Same question: how does "existence of" equate to "entire country"? I pointed to 4chan & ED as examples of rape culture & rape promotion, things you claimed did not exist at all. I don't know where you're pulling the stuff about the entire United States from; it doesn't reflect anything I have said. And I don't think ED & 4chan are irrelevant examples when we're talking about teenage boys who thought it was OK to film each other raping an unconscious girl & boast about it. Incidents like this can't be considered in isolation, when comments implicitly or explicitly approving of this sort of behaviour are fairly widespread on the more unpleasant parts of the internet. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have to type out every little caveat... Let me try this again: Although there are obviously small groups of people who will be idiots, their existence does not equate with a substantial "rape culture." Do you have any evidence that any of the players involved visited the sites you mentioned? 72.205.215.192 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Mate, you’re claiming “groupthink”, “ostracism” and misrepresentation. Look back at the thread. The first reply to you was, in full, “Yes. It is.” That’s it. Three words, expressing disagreement and no more. People disagree, and sometimes they will disagree with you. Suck it.

Is this “groupthink”? Look back at the thread. The fourth comment expressed glee at the potential rape of the rapists, the very next edit disagreed with it.

Misrepresentation: “I said nothing even resembling "(she made) herself available for rape."

That’s simply not true. You posted:

"had [x] she never could have been put in a vulnerable position to begin with."

You’re saying that she put herself in a vulnerable position. You’re saying that she ended up being raped. “Vulnerable”. “Available”. “Available”. “Vulnerable”. Being in a position vulnerable to rape and in a position available to rape are not so utterly unrelated that there is no resemblance. Toffeeman (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Two good takes on the case.[edit]

This and especially this. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 20:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard Littlejohn is a scumbag shitstain[edit]

That's cathartic Scherben (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

NASA[edit]

They should cut the space program over education. It's not like the space program is good for much except bringing home space rocks and boring pictures of Mars (okay, I know I'm going to get some flak for this, but come on, I've seen the rover pictures. It's boring. It's like the Superstitions with less variety)--"Shut up, Brx." 15:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That there's no such thing as "the space program". There are various programs with various objectives, including earth observation and asteroid detection (badly underfunded), things with direct implications for human survival.

I also suggest looking at what percentage of the federal budget is taken by NASA and what by education...--ZooGuard (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Brx is a smart person, said no one ever. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Heaven forbid we should expand human knowledge by going into space. It might be rocks today, but tomorrow... Scherben (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah because as everyone knows, there have been zero technological benefits to society arising from the various space programs. Ya hear me? Zero! VOX^HUMANA 22:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Those sure didn't come from space travel--"Shut up, Brx." 22:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Brx - there is an analytic technique known as "reading". Try it. VOX^HUMANA 23:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to go into space to make enriched baby food. My point is, if we have to choose between sending people into space and fervently analyzing space rocks or education, education is more important. The practical outweighs blue skies research.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Manslaughter[edit]

The recent WIGO about the manslaughter - note, not murder - of gay teen Steven Simpson displays outrage at the length of the sentence. If you read the full article you get

“”But the CPS stopped short of saying they would appeal the sentence, adding: “It was within the range of what would be expected had it been considered a hate crime, and we will therefore not be appealing it as unduly lenient.”

Or, to paraphrase, although the judge refused to treat it as a hate crime, the sentence was what one would expect. A factor in RW's incredulity may be that sentences are significantly more lenient here in the UK than in the States. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a joke sentence. The little twat bullied and killed someone Scherben (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So, some guy on the internet is a better judge of what is appropriate than the person who has heard all the facts and has guidance for what the British judicial system deals out. Yep, that sounds about right. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you're fine with a human life being fucked off by some little shit? Meanwhile, someone who starts a riot facebook page gets four years when no-one turns up -not even them- and that's balance is it? As for all the facts: well, we all know that court cases are about those and not misleading statements, pleas and lies, don't we? Scherben (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the Sun link & false statement that the individual responsible got a 21 month sentence. The sentence is 3½ years; conditional release at the halfway point is routine for most kinds of sentences under current UK law, not something specific to this case. & Please, let's not endorse The Sun's "Say No To Soft Justice" campaign. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Re the 21 month release, it doesn't matter that it's routine, it matters that he can spend less than two years in prison after publicly humiliating and killing somebody. As to the first poster, you do realise nobody's upset it wasn't treated as a hate crime (which it should count as), people are upset that it's manslaughter after he fucking set somebody on fire. What the fuck did he think, that it would just fucking tickle or something? Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 20:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

He probably didn't realize how flammable that tanning oil was. I'm not defending his actions, which were horrible. He obviously intended harm to the victim, but he may not have intended to actually kill the guy. Hence, manslaughter. Mcnamara12 (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh good, is this the time wherein a few RW members completely lose their shit because another country's justice system doesn't sate their need for blood? 72.205.215.192 (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Bonus points for pointing out race"[edit]

Sounds like you missed the point. Isn't it obvious why I linked it to irony? People telling others that they can't get married outside of an oppressive set of norms, when they couldn't either some decades ago? Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 21:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious but that doesn't mean it's not stupid. The issue of same sex marriage is not the same as the issue of mixed race marriage. There are a different set of arguments for & against, and these arguments should be judged on their own merits & not the ethnicity of the people making the arguments, which is classic ad hominem analysis. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

When religious arguments are/were the crux of many peoples' belief on both issues that's not true. Ayzmo (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean for it to come across as it invalidating their arguments (their arguments are invalid on the grounds of being shitty arguments), just to point out how disgusting it is that they're using arguments that are kissing cousins to the ones that kept them down, and most of them probably aren't even aware of it, or take it for granted. I think it's fair to rephrase it, but I will not turn a blind eye to people using the same arguments as - and being all chummy with - the kind of people whose incarnation decades ago would have ran against them. In other words, it's not an argument - it's pointing out something that's absolutely rotten. Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 21:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue of same sex marriage is not the same as the issue of mixed race marriage. Maybe not in entirety, but there ARE strong parallels. In each case, someone is being denied marriage rights as a consequence of their birth nature. Hence I also see the strong irony of people who were once denied marriage rights due to their ethnicity now campaigning against the same rights for others based on their sexuality. VOX^HUMANA 21:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The argument seems to be: "Black people should know better, because they weren't allowed to marry people of the opposite race." This leaves out the fact that white people should know better, because they too were not allowed to marry people of the opposite race. Inspiration Move me brightly. 22:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Er, no. It's more like an oppressed minority having some empathy with the plight of other oppressed minorities.

Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?}

08:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

North Korea[edit]

Is it me, or are we seeing the same old formula? Blowhard dictator of a country not aligned with the dollar gives it large, media demonises dictator and his people, blowhard makes threats, media hypes up the threats courtesy of the usual sources, blowhard (understandably?) ramps up the rhetoric, media makes the threat seem imminent in the face of all evidence to the contrary, Uncle Sam bombs the crap out of people and infrastructure. Repear until the country's economy is aligned with the dollar so it can take out huge loans to repair the damage done by the bombing. London Grump (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is just you. North Korea have been acting like lunatics for a while now, releasing videos dropping an atomic bomb on the US, testing rockets, calling up the reservists ready for action, and now they say they are at war with the South. I'd say they are hyping up their threat all by themselves. Hopefully they get overrun by an alliance of the the US, South Korea and China and the quicker the better. --Damo ^Hi 08:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No-one wants to do this because they might win, and the trouble with beating North Korea is that your prize is North Korea - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a fair point. I was joking with my wife the other day (she hails from South Korea) about this very point. The difficulties the West Germans had in 1989 would be tiny in comparison. Still, it has to be done sooner or later. You can't just allow crazies who say they want to invade other countries to carry on with it, especially if they are the most repressive and tyrannical government in the world. There are no easy answers to this issue. --Damo ^Hi 09:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point with East Germany. What's really scary for the South Koreans is that A) There are STILL big economic issues with East Germany compared to West Germany, and B) East Germany was AHEAD of the curve for Communist Dictatorships. I doubt any side wants unification. At least not right now. --Revolverman (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's one of the reasons why China is backing off too - when the shit eventually hits the fan they'll dislike increased American military presence near the Yalu, but it's either that or footing the bill for replacing NK with another puppet/buffer state. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

China would have a lot to lose by getting involved, on either side. Щєазєюіδ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not just empty threats. North Korea makes petty attacks on its neighbors, often resulting in fatalities.[2] --"Shut up, Brx." 20:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a coincidence that this follows the same pattern as so many US interventions over the last 30 years. Pure coincidence. London Grump (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There's one thing that hasn't happened in your formula yet: the US attack. Today's situation would have looked vastly different if the 2012 election had an alternative outcome. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The main issue with your system London is it implies that north korea is a normal, functioning country with logical sane people at the helm and that this is all entirely the US wanting to go punch somebody.--^Mikal_lakiM 02:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly Mikal. For once the US are on the right side. Frankly I think there is a strong case for intervention, much stronger than in Iraq or Iran. Damo ^Hi 03:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind how much NK is actively antagonizing everyone, unlike Iraq and Iran, what on earth does NK have that ANYONE, person or company in the US wants? --Revolverman (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is going to happen beyond rhetoric[edit]

"But despite its rhetoric few think the North - which last week cut a military hotline which was the last official direct link with Seoul - would risk full-blown conflict. In Washington, President Barack Obama's spokesman that "despite the harsh rhetoric we are hearing from Pyongyang, we are not seeing changes to the North Korean military posture, such as large-scale mobilisations and positioning of forces"." Inspiration Move me brightly. 18:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Washing women's feet[edit]

God forbid they should be treated as human. What sort of person worries over stuff like that? Twats Scherben (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you have against twats?--"Shut up, Brx." 05:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It's really not so much that a woman's feet are being washed, it's that a Muslim woman's feet are being washed that really sets people's hair on fire. There's also the fact that it's a man washing a woman's feet and many conservative Christians feel it's immodest for a person to wash the feet of the opposite gender. Make of it what you will. OverworldTheme (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in the Catholic Church, it's really that it's a woman's feet. Because all the apostles were male, and Jesus washed his apostles' feet, it is actually church law that priests and bishops are only permitted to wash men's feet for this ceremony. It's possible to get permission to wash women's feet, though. And, since he's the pope, he would only need to get permission from himself. The reason that traditionalist catholics are upset is because they feel that the pope is setting a bad example by disregarding church law and custom. It's nothing at all to do with modesty, and everything to do with the church patriarchy. Mcnamara12 (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The only church 'law and custom' that should matter is 'do to others as you would have them do to you'. This goes for all religious nut jobs everywhere: not all male/female interaction leads to steaming hot orgies within 30 fucking seconds Scherben (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your informed, subtle, nuanced and empathetic reading of a specific set of cultural practices with a millenia-long history. Inspiration Move me brightly. 20:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't saying I agree with them. I was just explaining the position. And, as I tried to make clear, it has nothing to do with sex. It's not because they are women that people are upset, but because they are NOT men. It's not because they are worried about the pope getting turned on by washing some girl's feet. They think that if he includes women in the ritual, then he might reconsider the women/priest issue, and somehow the church will implode or something. Honestly, I find the so-called "traditional" catholics basically thinking they are holier and more correct than the pope quite hypocritical on their part. If you look at some of their other complaints, they are also upset that he didn't wear a red cape or sit on a chair on a pedestal when he got poped. Mcnamara12 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Did I spot the appeal to tradition fallacy? Scherben (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No. You spotted someone who tries to take into account and respect the fact that "religion" is something deeply woven into the lives of actual human beings who deserve to have their beliefs addressed on their own terms, that history is complicated, and that trying to judge behaviors by not taking into account the subjectivity of the people involved is rarely productive. Inspiration Move me brightly. 22:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So the Taliban deserve to be judged by their terms? That'll be interesting for the women they oppress Scherben (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "judged." Inspiration Move me brightly. 22:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, shall we take into account and respect the taliban's oppression women and men without long enough beards on their terms? Scherben (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm endlessly amused at how much power individuals think they possess in the face of their "respect". you know, don't you, that it doesn't fucking matter one bit if you respect the Taliban's reading of Islam or not. They don't give a shit about your "respect", and infact the very fact that you don't "respect" it just reinforces in their minds, the idea that you in the west are infadels trying to fuck with their religion and country. Who cares if you think women's feet should or should not be washed. unless you are the pontif and his close associates, your opinion, or your "respect" do not matter. but hey, why should you respect anyone? you shouldn't, unless you actually DO. it's just that it's fully immaterial to anything real in the world of the Church.

Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 22:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Ok, shall we take into account and respect the taliban's oppression women and men without long enough beards on their terms?" No. But we will never understand why those ideas have the resonance they do unless we take into account how the people who propagate them understand them and situate them in their cultural and historical context -- this is especially so because, like most religious ideas, they are deeply woven into their sense of who they are and how the world works. Being dismissive of people's worldviews and not attempting to understand the roots of repressive ideologies typically leads to an unproductive dialogue of the deaf. Inspiration Move me brightly. 01:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dialogue? As Godot said, they don't give a fuck Scherben (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Getting away from the worst-case-Taliban-Godwinning of this thread and back to the original topic: bullshit. There are lots of Catholics who are interested in dialogue about the tenets of their faith. Starting, apparently, with the guy who washed the women's feet. Inspiration Move me brightly. 01:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Will brain-mapping bring out the cranks?[edit]

Why yes, it will. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 10:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that Obama is attempting to "undue" the "confusion of language". He evidently has some serious work to due. Prodigal (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be buggered if I can make sense of that headline.

Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.}

11:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

YouTube videos[edit]

Are not news stories. Please post them in Clogs/Blogs. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll fix it, but I don't know how to 'comment out' a WIGO so as to not screw up the poll numbers. Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 11:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Query for future reference: does this include actual news reports on YouTube? OverworldTheme (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Virginia[edit]

So I'm looking at the picture of that legislator, and, being the kind of guy who assumes good faith, I'm going to assume that he is not a hypocrite and that his acts are in harmony with his expressed ideas of what is right and wrong. I am looking at a picture of a man who's never had a blowjob or eaten a woman out. I can't imagine. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Free milk abolished in heaven[edit]

Now God, Jesus, Moses and Co will have to pay for their daily ration. --Mercian (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good fucking riddance. Pity she didn't freeze to death like the many pensioners under her watch Scherben (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if there is a heaven and hell and there's a just God or Gods (unlikely but go with it for the moment), she'll probably be in the other place. Just saying. :P Hogtree Octovish (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If there were a just God, he'd take Tony Blair as well. London Grump (talk)

Not even god wants that fucker.--

^{Jabba de Chops} 20:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Stay Classy RW, stay classy..... Are you gonna take down all those holier than thou posts against Schlafly for celebrating the death of his political opinions? 72.205.215.192 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep crying kid. --Revolverman (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm crying. I'm like Alice in Fucking Wonderland over here. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Schlafly's political opinions were stillborn; they never died, as such. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 04:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo. Should have read "political opponents." That's what I get for trying to edit from a phone. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

@anonymous IP not Revolverman (Must get glasses): that bitch deserves all the joy that's accompanied her death. She was an evil fucker. Scherben (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Really Andy? Do tell. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And this is the pinnacle of reasoned debate. Percival^{Aldridge Grainger} 17:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Biblical Climate Change[edit]

How do politics in the US work? Is there nobody in congress to stand up and exclaim "Dear Congress, this was one of the stupidest thing you've heard for a while. I hope you haven't lost too many brain cells in the meantime. Let's quickly forget this disgraceful moment and move on to the next issuel."? -Strangelove (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's how politics in the US works: that wasn't actually one of the stupidest things we've heard for a while. Sad but true. OverworldTheme (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere in the zone of half the US population actually believes there was a global flood. Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 08:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And now you know why the GOP has a hold of the South. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not even a new type of crazy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"ding dong the witch is dead"[edit]

<rant> Regardless of your beliefs on Margeret Thatcher, the juvenile attacks on her are simply innappropriate. It was completely logical for the BBC to respect the family of the recently deceased, and to refrain from playing that song. </rant>

Tl;dr The BBC was completely in the right by respecting the dead Baroness. Percival^{Aldridge Grainger} 17:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

She delighted in dividing the country. Whatever your beliefs on Margeret Thatcher the people have a right to express themselves. Jack Hughes (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

She was evil scum, and the party tomorrow is more than appropriate Scherben (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember if people were this over-the-top and personal when Reagan, or any other recently-deceased political figure died. I'm also wondering what role Thatcher's gender plays in shaping expressions of hatred towards her -- I see a lot of "cunt" and "bitch" and other gendered terms of derision gloating around my Facebook feed and elsewhere. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 19:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? --Revolverman (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I can honestly say I haven't seen either, and I've been following the glee avidly - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Poke around some of these links for a taste. Some are from more obscure places, but obviously the Times and the Guardian aren't about to run with the C-word. Or look here. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC) trying to remember if people were this over-the-top and personal when Reagan, or any other recently-deceased political figure died. How about Gaddafi? Or Bin Laden? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are very different cases. Bin Laden was not a political leader with an electoral constituency -- he was an outlaw, and the people celebrating his death were not his co-citizens in a democratic state, but his victims in a broad sense of the word. Gaddafi died at the end of a bloody struggle at the hands of an armed rebellion, not in his bed twenty years after leaving the public eye. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 21:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: here's an obscure website that seems to have likened Thatcher to a vagina. Nothing sexist about that. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 23:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a damn thing I'd say. --Revolverman (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

While yes, some of the anti-Thatcher comments are possibly sexist, you have to remember that: 1) The C-word is a more unisex insult over here (see also Jeremy Hunt and Piers Morgan) and 2) That she was the most divisive (for her political views) PM in modern history.
In my opinion, she proved that women can (and should) be strong political leaders. But she also proved that women are just as capable of being evil bastards as men. Hogtree Octovish (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I am inclined towards Powder's viewpoint. While her highly controversial political views are indeed something valid for attack, such over the top attacks, and frothing hatred seems out of place, especially considering that the only reason she could have implemented her views was because she was democratically elected into office by her fellow citizens. Whereas attacks on the person, when directed towards dictators and (dare I say it, Godwin's Law), are perfectly understandable (The victims seeing their oppressor removed), the same level of hatred for a democratically elected prime minister is just a little bit (or a lot) of overkill.Percival^{Aldridge Grainger} 05:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not surprising - Thatcher was profoundly, passionately hated by 48% of the country. Not to say Britain didn't have class warfare prior to Thatcher, but she handed out free grenade launchers. The reaction going on now is very muted to what it would have been if Thatcher had died in the 90s. VOX^HUMANA 07:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If Thatcher had died in the 90s it wouldn't have surprised me to see parts of the country going up in flames, especially if it had been '91 or '92.--

^{Jabba de Chops} 17:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)