Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive20

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 30 December 2014. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

The guy who tried to proselytize people on his job[edit]

The lawyers representing the firm isnt even trying. Shouldn't the reason for termination be "Causing distress to others" or something along that line? I seriously believe if people are to the point of complaining about the proselytism, that should be enough grounds of dismissal because the guy who complain has a right not to listen to this kind of things, regardless of what religion or lack thereof. Seriously, "religious liberty" should not include the right to annoy other people about your religion or the lack thereof. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ben Stein Sexting Scandal[edit]

Actually, there was one thing to ease someone into it, but I never put it in Clogs because I was unsure of when the darn thing was published. He wrote in the American Spectator about his tendency to talk to attractive women and get their contact information when he's away lecturing, with one wanting him to help her become a rich, successful writer. Heck, there's even this text from her to him after she broke up with her boyfriend who got her pregnant. “I know, but I’ll just be a single mom. Will you help me out?”User:PsychoGecko 19:09, 23 July 2014

The best thing about this is to imagine the texts being read aloud in the Ben Stein voice. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Halbig v. Burwell Rulings[edit]

So I'm sure most of you know (or at the very least should know if you follow America politics) about the two different rulings which ere divided along partisan lines in the US Court of Appeals in the DC Circuit and the US Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit. The partisan nature of this divide is obvious and only an idiot would deny that, the attempt to deprive millions of Americans of affordable healthcare because of what basically amounts to a typo is to be quite honest, disgusting. However I would like to know from any legal experts out there what exactly this ruling would do to the Afordable Care Act. This beltway conservative professor from George Mason University, Ilya Somin (his other work seems to suggest that he has a libertarian bent but seems to be more in line with Chicago school economics than Austrian school economics which means that he at least is not completely crazy) wrote in the Washington Post that this ruling if it were to stand would have little affect on the law as he argues that it would leave the law intact and give states the choice to set up an exchange [1]. I'm not interested in political rhetoric (hell I believed and still believed in a "public option" health care reform) I just want to whether or not this guy's arguments are BS or not. In any case please feel free to share your thoughts on how ridiculous (the "framers" of this bill were fairly clear about what they wanted it to accomplish) this ruling is as a whole. Alsto003 (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that 36 states still haven't set up an exchange — the law is designed to provide "backup" coverage if legislatures (GOP-dominated, and you can't deny that) indefinitely choose not to. Hell, even the conservative dissent in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius admitted to it. The challenge's survival literally rests on five members of the SCOTUS having to reverse their own positions 2+ years after the fact, which (even after some of the more dumbfounding rulings the Roberts court has made) seems too crazy to stomach. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Out of control sex geckos in space[edit]

I plead da fif. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5EofwRzit0 User:PsychoGecko 10:49, 25 July 2014

Orban[edit]

Jesus, this guy is terrifying. He makes you feel like the stormtroopers are coming to kick in your door if you even lay down on the job. Also, those comments are comedy gold.--Madman (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Spiders on drugs[edit]

Been around for a very long time. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I was sad we never saw the crack spider's bitch. --Revolverman (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
What about cats on drugs? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Mother Jones[edit]

People whose murder convictions get thrown out by the judicial system because of flawed police investigations are not guilty of murder. End of story. They didn't "get away with murder" because they took executive positions in a despised organization of political enemies. They are in no different position from anyone else's whose unjust or dubious conviction was overturned by the judicial system. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever he did, that was one of the most fucked up interrogations I've ever read ""You damned Polack, you step one foot out of that door and I'll kill you," Dowlut said the cop growled as he patted his gun.". What kinda of psychotic bullshit is that? --Revolverman (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
There is, of course, a difference between "not guilty" and "innocent." Thanos6 (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
if we going with the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' idea, then no, there is no difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent' AMassiveGay (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes there is. "Not guilty" means "it wasn't proven you did it, whether you did it or not." It's a verdict in the American system. "Innocent" means "you didn't do it at all." Not a verdict in the American system. I've long thought we've needed a "not proven" verdict. Thanos6 (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It's one of those cases where they got the right guy, but because they went all Jack Bauer to do it, the person got away. Because the guy showing the police where he hid the murder weapon was fruit of a poisoned investigation, they couldn't use it in a court of law, so they didn't retry him. But don't pretend he didn't do it just because the cops were incompetent in their investigation - User:PsychoGecko 00:01, 30 July 2014
I'm split on this. One hand, last thing we need is a killer walking on a techicality, however the police's behavior is beyond representable, and it appears all the evidence came from this, lets not mince words, torture session. I guess letting him walk is the only proper thing. --Revolverman (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course. There's no justification for the police acting like that, so it's good that the system corrected itself to throw out the evidence. I'd rather society let the occasional guilty man go free than convict the occasional innocent one. After all, the justice system's supposed to be about justice. Still means this guy got away with murder. --User:PsychoGecko 1:59, 30 July 2014
Given the treatment he was given, I'm not sure I'd place a great deal of stock in his confession. Many people have in fact been manipulated into confessing to crimes they did not commit. I do tend to think that given those transcripts, the legal system came to a reasonable conclusion here. He did time in prison for a murder he may not have committed; the courts cut him loose because he got an unfair trial, and fifty years have passed. I'm just uneasy with the idea of dragging all of this out fifty years later; it just seems morally disturbing to me, a low blow, unfair even to an executive in the hated NRA. I'm counting it as more evidence that political zeal numbs the conscience in certain ways. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You're forgetting the part where he led the cops to where the murder weapon was hidden, which happened to be a gun he owned, which he happened to have said he threw into a river but was found buried in a graveyard. --User:PsychoGecko 5:38, 30 July 2014

I have a degree in physics[edit]

Albeit from 30 years ago but I'm not sure that I entirely understand this discovery. I think I need to read a bit more but it does look quite fun. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A good chunk of my research was done in the realm of weak measurement, and some weird stuff can result from it. While neutron interferometry was the realm of some of the other postdocs in my research group (and not so much mine), I'll have to ask them what they think about this new development. - Grant (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Get them to put it in relatively simple terms for those of us who only have a first degree in physics and not a post grad one (see what I did there btw). Oldusgitus (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Heh, indeed. I'm going to go re-read some of the weak measurement papers I have lying around somewhere in the hopes of being able to parse this new paper. I feel like that's unlikely, since despite my foray into weak measurement I still don't understand it at all. Ah well. - Grant (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It's worth noting that (especially in particle physics, but elsewhere too) the state of the models and knowledge that gets taught at university for physics students gets outdated very rapidly (graduate half a decade apart and don't keep up with current discovery and you already won't completely agree on what the material is). So if you had a degree from 30 years ago... well... that may be a factor. Nullahnung (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yay and nay. Quantum physics was actually around when I did my degree and we did study it. I also worked for a short while on one of the experiments at DESY. Without question the fields have moved on but I have kept a watching eye on things and am generally knowledgeable in a non-specific sense on the topic. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you would probably be surprised. An understanding of physics generally requires learning older out-dated models first, and generally expands from there. By the end of my undergraduate career, the vast majority of my physics knowledge was dated to the early 1900s, with the exception of some tidbits from condensed matter and particle physics. The thing is that the basic theories underlying many of these fields have been around for some time, and it's been mostly details or supporting evidence that has changed. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but for most physics graduates I've spoken to (and I'm in this group as well), undergraduate physics tends to be a shotgun blast of very general material that is basically always outdated. I didn't get into developments that could be considered modern until I started into graduate school, where the subject of one's research is substantially more narrow. The majority of my knowledge about quantum mechanics that's newer than the 1940s came from graduate school. - Grant (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hobby Lobby firing pregnant woman[edit]

To whoever posted this, THANK YOU!! Wahahaha! Sophophobe (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine[edit]

With all sympathy for the Maidan Protesters, and all enmity towards Putin, I think that it is no cause for celebration if the newloy elected "Consensus" President pulls a Ghaddafi the very first day after the election by bombing his own country!

Teresa Forcades[edit]

Teresa Forcades is an anti-vaxxer, are you sure you want to promote her in a wiki like this? I don't really think we need more like her only because she leans a little more to the » that the tipical nun.

Regarding current happenings in Venezuela[edit]

I'm not really sure what's happening. The main sources of information *I've* come across for this have... let's say they've had issues... https://twitter.com/AmendozaPot/status/434328609096876032/photo/1/large or https://twitter.com/monterocnn/status/434495653209985024 . Pictures from CNN, ABC, and others have been reusing pictures from Egypt, Syria, and Singapore... I remember the times article as having had come under fire for doing the same, but I can't find much evidence or counter-evidence for the story. I'm not finding many places reporting regardless - googling and using duckduckgo to depth of five pages is mostly sending me to yahoo or to things that happened in the 80s. I originally found out about it via a post on imgur, which I took at face value, but came back to it later and noticed it had an iconic still from a video of people locked up in a stadium in Honduras singing Quilapayún's "El pueblo unido" to protest the dictator president our CIA installed... And then by the time I was going to go back to it the post was... removed...

I really don't want to go into conspiracy territory, I really don't want to have to apologize for Chavez's idiots. But I'm not able to find any information any which way regarding this, and it's bothering me. So what I'm asking for is - are there additional (true) sources we can back the incidents up with? Does anyone have more info on the picture misinformation (have more people been caught)? And if the latter wasn't your reason for downvoting the NYT, what was?

Apologies for lack of an account...

Ebola "Cure"[edit]

Experimental, nowhere near marketable treatment. Inject it as a desperate last ditch effort (literally the first of them was thought likely to die within hours) into two Americans who get better and you're "holding out on a cure". Inject it into two locals who promptly drop dead of Ebola anyway and you're "performing dangerous and unethical experiments on people too poor to say No". Right? Am I missing anything with this analysis?

And this is no high-tech miracle. It's a modern twist on a very simple idea. Take the juice of a survivor, filter out all the bits that will kill you, inject it and hope that whatever saved them also works on you. The manufacturers use mice rather than human survivors, and they've got 21st century biology to help them figure out what to filter out and what to leave in, but that's still all they're really doing which is why they weren't sure it would work.

By local standards Ebola, while horrific, is not the big picture disaster. For every Ebola victim getting TV coverage there are dozens, maybe hundreds of people dying from mundane, easily cured diseases in those countries because their health infrastructure is almost non-existent. Why don't people in that area get million dollar experimental drugs? How about we start by getting them all secure access to clean water. Tialaramex (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You said it all. People often overlook how much damage things like Diarrhea are doing among the local populace that is lacking in sanitation and water supply. Probably a bigger problem than Ebola over there. Nullahnung (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ebola post is horribly misinformed about how the treatment is produced,[edit]

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/08/04/there-is-a-cure-for-ebola-we-have-it-we-just-dont-let-anyone-use-it/

The post above is horribly misinformed, calling the treatment a "serum". It is simply not so. yes, it came from a serum, but is produced by several steps of genetic engineering, gene swapping, masking the proteins as human, then inserting genes for the proteins into tobacco plants and having them produce it in useful quantities. It is not as simple as he claims, and he makes several mistakes. He keeps calling it a "serum" and even states "The serum treatment is potentially very dangerous because it can include who knows what from the other person’s blood." I cannot describe the level of stupidity in this statement about this treatment.

I could go on and on, but I will just leave this here so you can read about how the treatment is produced and understand why exactly it is still VERY experimental.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/08/bio-high-tech-treatment-for-ebola-may-have-saved-two-us-citizens/ — Unsigned, by: 142.136.199.127 / talk / contribs

Prayer Discount[edit]

Are we sure this article is within this wiki's mission? 93.174.90.30 (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as it deals with discrimination against atheists and in favour of christians. 5.199.130.188 (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As an atheist, I'd do it. 15% off is not a bad deal. --Revolverman (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Do libations get free refills?--"Shut up, Brx." 04:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, good question! --Revolverman (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, mission isn't particularly important for the WIGOs--"Shut up, Brx." 04:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd pull out a 100% tip for any server who denies Jesus. Fair's fair, right? Ikanreed (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/26225207/prayer-discount-ends There was no need to get upset about it and sue, was there? How is this infringing upon anybody's freedom to not be religious when the restaurant owner claims it to be non-religious? I suppose it's more about outside perception than what the practice is originally for, and the outside will perceive it as religious, but still. Nullahnung (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course there was no need to sue. It was relatively tame, but it also was almost certainly a violation of the civil rights act. Ikanreed (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Just curious, if the discount wasn't for prayer, but was for a customer being friendly and saying "Thank you for the meal!", would it still be a violation of the civil rights act? Because that would still "deny people who don't show emotion of the full and equal enjoyment". Because if not, then everything hinges on whether or not the practice can be labeled "religious". Nullahnung (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thankfulness isn't one of the protected classes under the civil rights act, like religion is. I'm not advocating the lawsuit(or even saying it will win), just stating the law is there. Ikanreed (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about my ambiguous wording. There isn't actually a lawsuit as far as I know. They just threatened to sue and the restaurant gave up on the practice to avoid it. Anyways, since you confirmed for me that the mentioned different case would be irrelevant I can confirm that everything does hinge on whether or not the practice really discriminates between religious and non-religious. Nullahnung (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What is going on in What is going on in the World?[edit]

I'm really confused. I look at the list of articles today and there are about 5 new ones (which is a lot for one day). One of them already has 75 votes (the prayer discount article), and another that had overall ten votes in favor last time I checked now has 50 votes against it (the Ebola cure). Meanwhile there has been almost no activity in the blog or clog. Is it just a weird coincidence or did something happen? TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A heavy news day, maybe? --Gulik (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
There were some trolls from this very conservative christian site who upvoted the prayer discount article as they think it is a good idea and downvoted the Ebola cure article because they oppose genetic engineering and such as "think you are better than god" or something. The website is the Christian LEGO Fans Wiki hosted on Wikia and usually shortened to CLFW. They have chat logs but they have not run the logging script in a while, so there is no copy of the discussion where they planned out this trolling. They appear to also frequently use another wiki hosted on Wikia called the LEGO Message Boards Wiki (LMBW). They share some of their chat moderators and administrators. LMBW is fairly active, but CLFW will appear inactive as they usually do not use the wiki, only the chat. They, however, will usually respond fairly quickly if you post on their talk page (message walls on wikia). You will need an account to use the chat though. 188.138.17.248 (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The ebola post was my doing, sorry. The original link that was posted was a partisan "blame obama for not working fast enough" "this simple cure should have been used sooner" type of post, it was horribly misinformative, misleading, and omitting facts to spew forth their own agenda, leaving out any mention of genetic engineering whatsoever, referring to it as a "serum", which it simply is not. Once people read the actual, factual, news about the ebola cure that I referenced the downvotes poured in for the original piece of shit article. It was no christian mob against genetic engineering, quite the opposite indeed. You can take a look at the piece I posted just above this one, I just registered though so it is signed by my IP and not my name, titled "Ebola post is horribly misinformed about how the treatment is produced,".NolanSyKinsley (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The WIGOs are some of the most popular pages on the wiki anyway, but the high votes are still interesting. Anything to recruit readers! - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed something (not sure if it was apparent). The Ebola and Prayer articles weren't the only ones that were massively voted upon; if you look at the vote counts for the two above it ("Glimpse of hope" and "Timely technical difficulties", they both have over 80 voters on each. I've a feeling that this was part of it. Noir LeSable (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not so sure about the ebola post. When I wrote the article above, it actually had 25 points, and only 1 or 2 negative, within 15 minutes of my posting about it being misleading that had already been reduced to 10, and by the next morning was in the deep negatives. It was originally a rather liked article, untill exposed for it's partisan cherry picking misleading bullshit. NolanSyKinsley (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Fyi Tialaramex posted about it a bit before you, which is why we suddenly had two sections devoted to saying that WIGO entry was bullshit... and then I merged the two sections. Nullahnung (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Iraq Update 8/8/2014[edit]

Today President Obama announced that the USA will launch air strikes on the ISIL militants in Northern Iraq. Spokespeople for the Pentagon also declared that they would drop humanitarian aid on Mount Sinjar where anywhere between ten to forty thousand refugees are trapped without food or water. The campaign was announced following gains made by the ISIL in the Iraqi Kurdistan. My opinion: I am not a neocon, the Iraq war was a mistake just like dubya's presidency was a mistake. But I have no objections to these airstikes, the ISIL is eager to perpetrate genocide on religious minorities and force their medieval worldview on the general population of Iraq. The Kurds are the people in the Middle East we should be helping and that is what these airstrikes will accomplish. Summary: we broke Iraq and now we must either fix it or use the pieces to create three smaller Iraqs. But we cannot just sit on our ***** and watch as tens of thousands of people get slaughtered because the ISIL doesn't like them. I am certain that other people here have different opinions, feel free to share them. Alsto003 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Alex

You wrote: "The Kurds are the people in the Middle East we should be helping". This sounds selective, like it were the *only* people that you think should be helped. Is that indeed your opinion? For what reason, then? I generally think that no unagressive group of people should be excluded from dedicated humanitarian help, and in this particular case, I will even appreciate (U.S./other) military help for the protection of every such group when they're endangered: Kurds just like any other.
However, I do think that a stable and strong (quasi-)state Kurdistan could have benefits even across ethnic lines: I.e., it might become a place of refuge or even for permanent stay (and that for non-Kurds, too); and Kurdish militia (Peshmerga) seem to have behaved very honorous whilst also being a strong force against IS and other lunatics, so that a strengthening via an own state could back their work as a sensible army in the region. Also, IMO, Kurds just deserve an own state.
Actually, until the recent IS outbreak started, Kurds were pretty successfull in creating a somewhat solid government in northern Syria. But since IS, this seems like water under the bridge. (I would give references, but the strong focus on IS now makes it impossible to research these older topics.)
Therefor, I would endorse military support for Kurds now and political support in the mid-term; and with the Peshmerga currently being the most notable resistance against IS, a focus of military support on the Kurds (over the other minorities in the conflict) seems to come somewehat natural. --Sophophobe (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I was not trying to be selective, rather it was more reflective of the fact that I tend to be of the opinion that partition is the best option for Iraq (and Syria, and including the Hatay province and Turkish and Iranian Kurdistan), that is not a popular opinion but I actually believe it would increase the region's stability or at the very least stop the never ending internal unrest in states in the Middle East. Alsto003 (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Alex

The "Raw Story" isn't; link the source[edit]

The "Raw Story" pretty much never is; it's a clickbait site, and almost everything on it is rewrites of someone else's story. I strongly suggest finding the original in the story and linking that - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The beast within[edit]

The folkways of some parts of the USA with regard to alcoholic beverages are passing strange. I once went to a wedding reception where liquor was served. The drinkers all congregated at one end of the hall, and the non-drinkers at the other; there was some kind of line that was universally acknowledged and that no one crossed.

I used to chalk up the Southern Baptist prohibitions on drinking, gambling, and dancing as class based: those were the expensive amusements of the folks in the manor house, and the people in the cabins in the hills at least had the consolation of moral superiority. On the other hand, the belief that a single sip of beer sets you on the road to Hell does not encourage responsible moderation among the damned, either. So when these folks drink, they mean to get shitfaced; that's the point. And if this is the attitude your society teaches, there may be a measure of practical wisdom in advocating teetotalism. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 02:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again.[edit]

Oh dear Oldusgitus (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Omaha story[edit]

Ok so I'm opposed to what the police have done in Ferguson as much as anyone else but being upset with the cops for the shooting in Omaha is just knee jerkish. The police knew there was an armed robbery going on, the guy brought something that looked like a gun and fired it at the police and now people are surprised the idiot burglar was shot. Well duh that should be expected the cops only have seconds to react in their eyes. The worst part of the story is the sound technician getting killed but that's still the robbers fault more than anyones. I'm just worried rationalwiki may be attrating some of the more rabidly anti-cop parts of the internet on that one. ClothCoat (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

US cops are inadequately trained, they're blazing away like they think they're in the movies. That is the exact same problem as Ferguson, police whose department training budget allows for viewing two cop movies and a few minutes at the range blasting pieces of paper. That's going to mean a high body count. If the count was disproportionately white and rich, rather than black and poor there would be outrage.
If the goal was not to kill innocent civilians (I know, this is a radical thought for the US) you'd want to train armed cops at least as well as you train your best soldiers, because after all the armed soldiers by policy are in combat zones not in the midst of your civilian population. That training includes an improved philosophy of policing that aims to avoid unnecessary escalation. The US is terrible at this because escalation looks great on TV and feels like you're in a movie (unless you get shot). But escalation is very dangerous, it exposes the officers, any criminals and innocent bystanders to excess risk. Here it got two people unnecessarily killed. And that sort of thing is not very rare, it just got highlighted this time because of the current focus on policing and because the bystander was part of the industry. Tialaramex (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
In the UK the armed cops are generally regarded as the elite. IIRC they undergo regular training/refresher courses and they have to undertake mandatory skills tests on a regular basis to retain their certificate. I am not sure I can recall the last time a bystander was shot rather than them hitting the intended target, albeit the intended may have been inocent on occasion. But they rarely if ever hit someone other than the intended. Even in SA bystanders are rarely shot and ffs some of their cops shouldn't be allowed to walk and talk at the same time - hi Psy :-). Oldusgitus (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
So it would only cause outrage if rich white people were killed by the police by accident? You can't really get away with "nobody cares about innocent black people" when a huge string of protests, riots, and nationwide news coverage is currently happening over a black kid who was shot. I think lots of people do care when minorities are abused (at least when it is brought to their attention).TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

father thanks jesus[edit]

Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but the inclusion of the father of the now freed men in north Carolina thanking jesus seems snarky and inappropriately mocking of a man expressing his relief at what must be a very emotional time. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

given proxima is the one who added it, an attempt to mock the religious should not surprise--Miekal 03:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Slenderman strikes again![edit]

http://www.wallstreetotc.com/slender-man-inspires-florida-teen-to-burn-home-to-kill-her-family/28647/ Bullied girl tries to burn down house after growing angry at being told to go to bed. Wait, never mind. She read an e-book with Slenderman in it and used the internet, so that explains everything. She even marked her diary with "keep out"! Is it satanic panik mk. II? (Agrajag (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC))

I am reminded of "The Girl Who Played With Fire", where newspapers write Lisbeth as being part of a "Satan-worshipping lesbian cult which hates society" because she is bisexual and for a short period of time was part of a punk-rock band. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Think tanks[edit]

So, foreigners are buying influence with think-tanks? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! That privilege is for AMERICAN corporations only! --Gulik (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Blaming the victim[edit]

The entry on the prisoner in North Korea seems to be on par with statements I've seen many people refer to as victim blaming. I'm curious of anyone can explain a real difference. DickTurpis (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Mostly it's matter of purpose, people who are blaming women for being raped cause they tempted dem menfolk and people calling you an idiot for visiting north korea with the single purpose of asking for asylum are doing two different things because the latter is an actual idiot while the former is just sexism. Unless the story is a lie, at which point then yah it's victim blaming. --Miekal 20:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, but if someone were to have posted the entry "Of all the places to store your nude photos, online is a pretty shitty choice," I imagine there would be a minor shitstorm. Is the difference that the North Korea example was several orders of magnitude more foolish than the other? DickTurpis (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
For me, it's the equivalent of going to a predominantly Black gang dominated neighborhood and yelling racial slurs everywhere, you got what you earned for your dumb effort. Storing photos onine isnt dumb, because you have a reasonable expectation of security, visitng north korea, tearing up your passport, and asking for asylum is not reasonable to expet anything than something insane.--Miekal 20:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Storing such photos online might not be dumb, exactly, but we've all read enough reports of hacks to know that relying on the security of the cloud for these sorts of things is perhaps unwise. It at least is well out of the "no one could have foreseen this" realm. So how stupid does one's action have to be in order to make it okay to blame them for their result? DickTurpis (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
When it's "ill go to north korea instead of staying in america"--Miekal 21:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Right up there with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the foot. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Did Miller actually tear up his visa, or is that just what NK said? If he did, is that a crime worthy of six years in a labor camp? Was he really a spy, or is NK just paranoid/looking to drum up some outrage among the people? So, do we know if it's Miller's fault? I'm far from an expert on the matter, but I don't think North Korea has the world's most transparent legal system. What he is accused of could be a load of bullshit.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's actually possible to know whether he actually did all of this stuff, at least at this point in time. And, regardless of whether tearing up a passport is llegal" grounds for 6 years hard labour in NK, I think that, realistically, anybody acting remotely strangely can be punished for something in that place. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER Raining blood, from a lacerated skyDolan.png 22:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The iCloud thing was discussed at length here. Not really a shitstorm, but there was a little friction between people blaming celebs for storing their photos online & people pointing out that this was blaming the victim. Re the guy in North Korea, six years hard labour in NK is going to be hell & deserving of some compassion, IMO. On the other hand, he did admit at trial that he intended to experience prison life in NK to get an insight into the country's human rights situation, so "be careful what you wish for" style comments aren't totally out of line. Things being as they are in North Korea, we don't know how accurate & complete what's being reported is nor what kind of persuasion was used to get this confession, but it seems like this guy has behaved very bizarrely & most likely has some issues, whether that be political or psychological. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

+1 MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM …But spirit is foulest, devoid, askewDolan.png 22:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting thing (to me) about the Scotland vote[edit]

Just something that stood out to me, but I don't know enough about Scottish politics to know if this is particularly surprising. Only one of the constituencies that previously voted for the Scottish National Party actually went ahead and voted Yes for independence. Just struck me as an oddity. Then again there are more than 2 options on elections so that's probably making the comparison odd. X Stickman (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That is the problem when you present voters with a yes or no option. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I’ve lived in Scotland for many years now and the politics is never quite as straightforward as might be assumed. Some Scottish National Party supporters see them as either good administrators or fighting the Scottish corner, or both, without actually wanting Scotland to leave the UK. From memory of a recent poll around a quarter of SNP voters said they intended to vote No, i.e. to remain part of the Union. Conversely, and as is always the way with these things, some who might be assumed to be natural unionists voted for independence. JumboWhales (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
My theory is that what took some of the Yes votes wind was that the vote turned from "Independence or status qou" to "Independence or more devolution". Had that not happended, i think more people would have voted yes or atleast less people would have voted for no.--Miekal 20:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Which is causing discontent in England, already those living in Wales, NI and Scotland have more constitutional rights than those living in England. I have no problem with full devolution at all but the West Lothian Question needs answering, and in favour of England.--Mercian (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
England as a whole, or England regional? And Cornwall? I, from what my English friends think, wouldn't be up for what amounts to the same thing now, just without the other countries mps--Miekal 21:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the reasons why "English votes for English laws" is still being punted has been the consequences of restricting the voting power of Scottish MPs, Labour or not. If you're going to go the Canadian federal route (please, take all of our ideas), a reminder that we didn't do this. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
There is not enough support to mandate regional assemblies in England, this was proposed by the Blair government and put to poll in the North East but was overwhelmingly rejected. Cornwall, being traditionally celtic have some who want devolution but it is a small minority and there is very little call for independence. I used to be an English Nationalist (please do not confuse that with British Nationalist) but have changed my position in the last few years but these issues do need resolving. A federation may be something worth exploring.--Mercian (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC) (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
English devolution isn't something I would welcome. It would just be opening the door to more UKIP/EDL parochial small-mindedness, something that we've got too much of already. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
PR might have a road to go down if we hadn't fucked it off via referendum. So that's English devolution and pr keyboshed before we even knew we might want them. Doesn't leave many options. You know what else we should do? Actually go out and vote at elections so we at least whatever arsehole in no. 10 is there because more people voted for em and not because we couldn't be added to get to the polls. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The one good thing about the Scottish referendum is that it seems to have engaged a large proportion of the population in political debate, even if some of it was more about emotions than issues. I would like to see a similar engagement south of the border because you can't really whine about the government if you sat on your lazy arse and didn't vote. I realise that not everyone can find the time on the actual day but as someone who is frequently out of the country for several weeks at a time, that is exactly why I signed up for postal voting. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 09:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
If more devolution occurs, you're essentially throwing England to the Tories. And if you devolve powers to England, then eventually the sane, non-Tory-stronghold places (the North, Cornwall to some extent) will want devolution so as not to be saddled with Thatcherite policies. There may be no actual campaigns to devolve power to the North, but it may well breed a hell of a lot of resentment. Eventually, it will just foster alienation, and that is something that Britain doesn't need more of. (Agrajag (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC))
Exactly. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

ECHR[edit]

Particularly appalling given the ECHR was largely not merely a British invention, but a British Tory invention - Anthony Eden's government - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

... and it's from a year ago. Never mind me - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

RSS Icon[edit]

What happened to it? All I see is "15px". Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving Moderator 21:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Part of the recent commons image flakiness? Wikipedia keeps a local copy of it, because it is used there a lot. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Women are Against Islam Article[edit]

I don't know if it needs to be said, but the article is satire. On those grounds, should it be in WIGO? Shouldn't it go under blogs? AyzmoCheers 16:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sensationalized Jesus bit[edit]

The percentage of humanity with absolutely no reference made to them in historical texts is a percent sign followed by a fair number of nines. Going back as far as Roman times, that even includes local rulers, military leaders, and other people who you could call "rather important". That's not to say Jesus did exist in any form. The questionability of the idea is quite substantial, but the article we just linked is clickbait, taking an important analysis and delivering and extreme and obviously controversial position as the headline to drive traffic. Probably from skeptical sites like ours. Ikanreed (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

To say that our coverage on the historicity of Jesus and the Jesus myth theory has been poor is an understatement. We can go to great lengths on the exaggerations of Jesus' life, but we're in denial if we continue to peddle the idea that the guy was made up. Nothing has poked holes in the general consensus by historians yet. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's the thing: historical consensus is driven by the historical method. Unlike the scientific method that can always go back to the experimental well for another bucket of data, history's sources tend to be permanently limited, and even shrink as potential archeological finds are destroyed in various ways. This means in the historical method, things are driven by a preponderance of evidence. A single positive attribution of "X existed" is usually a good enough criteria for treating something as a historical figure. What this means to me, if not you, is that it's merely best practice for the collective body of history to treat Jesus as a real figure unless there's a reason not to. But if you're asking the question from the framing of genuine certainty, there's not a lot of solid reason to believe the proposition "Jesus was a real person from Judea."
Oh, and you've updated your text to make an even stronger claim about what RW is doing with respect to Historical Jesus denialism. "Peddle the idea that this guy was made up" is just... no. ugh Stop editting your post, Kendoll. Ikanreed (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
"'Peddle the idea that this guy was made up' is just... no." Read the opening paragraphs on both of those articles. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid. Come on. They're all pretty reasonable about the notion that they're contesting an idea, rather than stating a fact. Ikanreed (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael Dunn[edit]

Thank gawd. And it's refreshing to read that the jury convicting him was mostly white. There's hope for humanity after all. I just hope he doesn't get the death penalty. The last thing we need is more death coming out of this affair.

Just one question: isn't first degree murder premeditated? How much time did he have to premeditate, exactly? Or do I not understand first degree murder? I aint no lawyer. I used to want to be a lawyer, before I dropped out of high school. But ultimately I realized that I sucked at arguing and that I was not capable of buckling down and doing the necessary studying (although now that I've been diagnosed with ADHD and am treated for it, that's much less of an obstacle).

Funnily, I used to think I was good at arguing, but I eventually realized that I was really just stubborn and that what I thought was me convincing people was really them agreeing with me just so I would shut up. I learned this reminiscing about an instance where, I, as part of my school's Amnesty Club, was trying to get a friend to sign a petition to free Aung San Suu KyiWikipedia. I spent three days worth of lunch periods trying to convince him to sign the petition, telling him it was the moral thing to do. After those three days, he finally relented and signed it. I then held that up to myself as an example of my skills as a master debater. It was years later that I realized he was just tired of me hassling him and signed the petition so I would leave him alone... A humbling moment, but necessary.

Have I mentioned that my ADHD medication tends to make me talkative and long-winded?--"Shut up, Brx." 21:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oral sex with Jesus[edit]

The kid who simulated felatio with a Jesus statue should be tried today, see 'Christianity Under Attack!' Teen Faces Jail for Lewd Pose with Jesus Statue. How easy will it be to find out what happens? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably pretty easy because it's a court case that has gotten media attention?--Miekal 16:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Here ya go. 350 hours community service, 6 months probation, curfew, etc. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
How do laws against desecration being enforced even remotely count as "Christianity under attack"? UGH. "I'm sorry if I offended you by jailing someone unjustly" Ikanreed (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Uh, "Christianity under attack" was the D.A.'s comment on the crime, not the trial. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I know, but how can anyone seriously say that in a place where they arrested this kid? Ikanreed (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
1) Persecution complex 2) For something in power, being disrespectful to it's images is, to it, "being under attack" on a moral level; . I can't think of a better way to say this at the moment,m to early. --Miekal 14:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Arguably it is an attack on people's beliefs, in the same way as Everybody Draw Mohammed Day or Jesus with erection etc. These things tend to be protected under freedom of speech, and if the kid had just shared a cartoon of Jesus felating him instead of a photo there would be no story. What apparently makes this a crime (according to local laws) is desecrating a public religious monument, although I think the fact that he then shared the photo on social media, thus bringing it to a much wider audience than just whoever happened to witness it at the time, is what prompted legal repercussions. All rather paradoxical since similar imagery shared on social media wouldn't have been a crime if it didn't involve a real monument and since the media attention surrounding the trial has obviously brought this image to a much greater audience than the mere Facebook trending would have done. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"God rewards the faithful by collapsing a building on them"[edit]

Speaking of blaming the victim. . . .

Dozens of people were killed in this incident. Are we supposed to gloat about it because it was a religious building? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty nasty to gloat about it. It is yet one more case (on a really long list) of some sky god not protecting his own people when they come to grovel and sing his praises and beg him for favours. No where is safe from the indifference of god. But it's still rather douchey to laugh at some people dying in a collapsed building...even if they were wasting their Sunday afternoons. --91.176.221.125 (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Pluto[edit]

I just hope that if they un-demote Pluto they promote Eris, Haumea, Makemake, and the like to planethood too. But something tells me they wouldn't want to do that, which is one of the reasons they demoted Pluto in the first place.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Pluto is not going to be promoted. It was a vote by people who went to a discussion about what it means to be a planet. It has no actual bearing on Pluto's status. AyzmoCheers 21:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I say make 'em all planets and rename them after baleful gods of death and the underworld. That way we can complicate the lives of astrologers immensely, and astrology needs more malefic planets. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 02:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah the day when you can tell someone to go to Hel, and mean it. Ikanreed (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Curfews for men[edit]

It's going to be turned into a thing by MRAs and they're going to blame feminists, even though the feminists interviewed in the article are trying to argue about the nuance of how assaults happen, and that it won't solve the problem. Just pretend this went into rationalwiki:predictions, because there won't be much time to vote before they do so. Ikanreed (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Basically I found this article, thought the idea it talks about was so ridiculously stupid that it had to go somewhere in the WIGOs. I was going to put it in clogs, but the actual website the article was on seemed fairly neutral and I didn't want people to think I was attacking the site or whatever, so I just put it in the World. I originally put something like "Good God" in front of the link establishing that I was against it, but then I was afraid that complaining about a curfew for men in Columbia might come off like complaining about women-only transport in Iran. So in the end I overthought it and just made the title a generic statement. So that's the story behind it if any one's curious. I didn't have any agenda in mind, other than highlighting a really stupid idea.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I honestly don't see it as so stupid. There's no harm in giving it a shot. On the other hand, the comments on the article are all from furious MRAs who insist that it is evil, will destroy society, and that they, as "trans-crustaceans" should be allowed to wander the streets with their "lobster brothers". Honestly, I think it should be interesting to see how it turns out. In the meantime there's no point focusing on it. AyzmoCheers 00:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
What does 'in the meantime' mean? The curfew night was yesterday. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't really imagine anything more condescending. "You are male; therefore, you are a violent predator who has to be kept inside for the good of society. You cannot be in this public space after a certain time". If it were ever seriously implemented anywhere else(which it almost certainly won't be), it would be an infringement on basic personal liberty. Even "giving it a shot" is pretty harmful. But it doesn't look like it'll catch on, so I don't think we have to worry too much :D . The worst immediate effect is that it gives the damn MRAs more ammo. Also, what is a "trans-crustacean?". (Agrajag (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC))
It kind of bothered me that the feminists quoted in the article say that it enforces negative stereotypes about women (as if that's the worst part about it).TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
One of the things about stereotypes, is that when you're engaging in them, they're implicitly going both ways. Stereotypes about women being housewives, for example, make men who are homemakers into failures, weaklings, or some other nonsense. My belief is the more you make statistically gendered problems about gender, the worse you're going to make them. Ikanreed (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's really good for women either. But forcing people by law to stay in their homes is inevitably going to affect those people worse than it would those exempt.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

USU terror threat[edit]

“Feminists have ruined my life and I will have my revenge, for my sake and the sake of all the others they’ve wronged.” This has ostensibly nothing to do with video games, nor is there any indication that there is more than one troll/idiot making this threat. The item headline is dishonest conjecture. Whatever (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Except the threat mentioning Gamergate, of course - David Gerard (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There's already a discussion about this stuff in the Saloon Bar: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Video_games_and_violence. No need to continue this thread. Nullahnung (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Chemo and Cultural Respect[edit]

I'd been forwarded this article I posted on the WIGO by a friend of mine and thought it was an interesting moral question.

Personally, I think she should be required to take chemo. As well meaning as the parents are, this isn't worth a life. It's not an overstepping of bounds of "White Western culture" (science is science, regardless of your background), and the culture and traditions of the Iroquois Six Nations aren't going to suddenly crumble if children are required to have modern medical treatments. It's the same reasoning behind requiring Christian Scientist parents to seek medical treatment over faith healing. (Sorry if it's worded weird -- It's 3AM and I'm about to collapse) Noir LeSable (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Native Canadians go to the doctor and the hospital every day (especially when they have broken bones or other trauma). The idea that powdered herbs can cure cancer is not an integral part of the aboriginal world view. This is total full out child abuse. Sanctioned by a sympathetic judge. --91.176.225.45 (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
So science is relative too now. Fuck. (Agrajag (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC))
The judge says maybe the kid can choose not to consent. Sure, why not. The evidence suggests that typical adults aren't able to meaningfully consent to medical procedures, but the present law requires us to pretend they do anyway, so why not kids too? I'm sure an eleven year old can go through the motions, listen to what a doctor says (well, simulate listening, look at them, nod attentively, it's not important to understand what they're telling you because they have spent years studying this stuff and you're really not interested) and then say "No thanks". That's good enough for the law if an adult does it, why shouldn't an eleven year old get the same benefit of the doubt? Sure, she'll probably die. People demand the illusion of free will, and that illusion has a price in blood, so be it. Tialaramex (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The 5 year survival rate for Leukemia among children under 15 is 70%. I'm sure this varies depending on the kind of Lukemia and the treatments given and many other factors. The survival rate (more than five years) is not as high but it isn't even close to as dire as you claim. If the girl was told honestly that the herbs she will take likely will (likely) have zero effect and that chemo therapy might extend her life then she may make a different decision. In any case its absurd to claim that children are capable of making adult decisions. Her mother is incapable of making a rational choice and prefers her own total superstitious woo over the well being of her child. That's abuse. --Shabidoo (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The article seemed to suggest that there was some other sort of tribunal to which the hospital could have applied, which seemed odd, but may well be true. ("Even if the hospital had determined she was too young to decide, they should have gone to Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board to resolve the dispute, he said.") This is a routine lawyerly way to pass the buck.
The procedural context was odd: the hospital was asking, not that the girl be ordered to chemo, but that the local child and family services agency be forced to intervene. They elected not to. The judge chose not to order them to. It may well be that the judge's hands were tied; the hospital sought an order that the law did not allow for. The multicultural mummery may be an attempt to rationalize a decision in a difficult case in which the court found it had no power to intervene. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think that that was a damn dangerous rationalization? In this case it might not be so serious. Chemo is pretty ineffective, and maybe the kid would have a better death without it. But the precedent that it sets is terrifying - what if it's not chemo (delaying what is generally the inevitable) next time? What if it's a vaccination, it's a Lyme disease treatment, its a tuberculosis treatment? Something that can be treated effectively? Because some person has the triple misfortune of being a child, being born into a group that subscribes to some particularly moronic belief, and being infected with an easily curable disease, should that deny them their right to be treated? The notion that the rules magically change for you because of your birth is antithetical to everything that nations like the US and Canada are supposed to stand for. This precedent is truly harmful, no matter how petty the reasons for it. (Agrajag (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC))
Yes, it would have been better if the judge had omitted it entirely. Child protective services people are usually underfunded, and a certain amount of triage comes with the job. In order to actually do the work, they need a whole lot of discretion. The hospital sued to compel them to act in this case. The judge found that he had no authority to grant the hospital the judgment it requested. That could and should have been it. The report of the judgment also suggests that there was some other provincial authority with specific powers to order medical procedures for patients unable to consent, and for whatever reasons, the hospital did not apply there. That too might be fatal in ordinary litigation.
Realizing that such a decision may sound harsh, and the effect of his lack of authority may be that the child dies, the judge adds irrelevant collywobble about how much he respects Native traditions. Given the details provided by the story itself, all that apparently is dicta. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 02:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sally Morgan[edit]

While the Mirror's page is new, I'm convinced this is the same incident which took place one or two years ago. Both involve a woman misunderstanding the photograph event and Sally getting in contact with their 'spirit'.-- Forerunner (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Darnit! Got a cite to that? - David Gerard (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Mirror's page ≠ new - Dated @ top 26 May '14 Scream!! (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I knew it was familiar. I guess I was instead thinking of Merseyside Skeptics' critique of her, where most of her shows revolve around someone hanging themselves against a door; dead babies, and a deceased drug addict showing her his memory of being forced to flush all his narcotics down the toilet by his parents.-- Forerunner (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Putin vs. Wikipedia[edit]

Has he contacted Andy yet? --Gulik (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No but Andy has nothing but effusive praise for the action, from what I've heard. Ikanreed (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Russia (the local chapter) doesn't take this very seriously, and suggests it will join similar announcementware like the Kremlin's replacement for Google announced last year. You don't remember that one? Neither does the Kremlin, apparently - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Schlaffy's supporting Russia in this? What a dispicable traitor to his nation. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Julien Blanc[edit]

I'm incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of someone being barred from entering a country for the crime of being a douchebag. I don't feel this is something any government should have gotten involved with. A protest at the site itself, a campaign to the venues to cancel his gig etc... all those would have been acceptable to me, but not government intervention to the point of disallowing him entry. X Stickman (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

OTOH, it's quite an achievement to be too misogynistic for the Abbott government - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Luckily he's not barred for "being a douchebag", he's barred for openly advocating assault as a dating tactic, with video evidence. A history of violence is a not-at-all-uncommon reason for barring people from entering your nation. Ikanreed (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
That's the difference, these PUA often go far beyond simply being a "douchebag". I'm not particularly happy with rapists being allowed entry to our country, neither am I people who have encouraged sexual assault in others. This is something to celebrate --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Just judging by the article though I can see why someone would be alarmed. It mostly mentioned him as a sexist or racist rather than someone who assaults people (they downplayed that a bit more than they should have).TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I imagine many of these PUAs have assaulted women in the past, at least the more aggressive ones. I've seen quite a few posters in r/theredpill admit to rape before --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"Luckily he's not barred for "being a douchebag", he's barred for openly advocating assault as a dating tactic, with video evidence." - I'm not seeing the point at which he transitions from "douchebag" into "something more than douchebag" from what you're saying, unless you're flat-out claiming he's committed incitement, in which case people should be petitioning the authorities to investigate (and I assume some people are). Until the criminal justice system grinds into motion, I don't see what good it will do anyone to outright ban him from entering a country. Which is not to endorse or minimise the awful stuff he says, I just take a dim view of using censorship to tackle social ills. Grumblejaws (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
You're pontificating while clearly avoiding looking into WTF you're pontificating on. His videos advocate "picking up" women by assaulting them - David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
For the record the offical line is
following the London bombings in July 2005, the Home Secretary announced a list of particular activities that would normally lead to a person being excluded or deported from the United Kingdom (UK) on the grounds that their presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. The list of unacceptable behaviours covers any non-UK national whether in the UK or abroad who used any means or medium including:

Writing, producing, publishing or distributing material

Public speaking including preaching

Running a website

Using a position of responsibility such as a teacher, community or youth leader

to express views that:

foment or justify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs

seek to provoke others to terrorist acts

foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts

foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK

The list is indicative and not exhaustive.
Note that this is a reason to refuse entry or deport non UK citizens. Note also, for comparison, a Canadian (if I remember correctly) was refused entry to the US because his web site mentioned that he had used LSD in his youth. By comparison the UK restrictions are very mild. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and this list of people refused entry to the UK might be of interest. The one that raised an eybrow for me was Martha Stewart! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@David Gerard, no I'm completely aware of WTF I'm pontificating on, that's why I was explicit that I don't endorse or seek to minimise the things he says. My point was that Ikanreed's response to Stickman didn't explain why Blanc is in some meaningful way more than a douchebag, it just specified why he is a douchebag. I dunno, maybe that word is more mild than I realised, it's not one I use. At any rate, I've had a problem with my native UK's incitement laws and the Home Office's corollary exclusion list for some time and my take on this issue is coloured by that. Grumblejaws (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I concur on that - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I personally think that the chilling nature of your country's hate laws on speech was best shown when Fred Phelps was banned from entering the UK. As some smart person once said, the best way to determine a society's willingness to have free speech, is to see if they'll tolerate Phelp's bilge. Brenden (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We have nothing against homegrown nutters but I see no reason to allow foreigners to pollute the country. Do you imagine Phelps would have been admitted to the US if he'd been British? Scream!! (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand Ferguson is on fire.[edit]

There are live updates on Reddit. It seems that other marches/protests across the nation have largely been peaceful (save a few exceptions) or planned for other dates, but Ferguson has erupted into mild chaos, reporting several major fires, looting, and gunfire.

Yeah, bravo. I'm sure this is exactly what the parents of Michael would've wanted. And as someone who lives in the semi-south, I'm sure tomorrow I'll hear all the "I told you so"s and the usual subtly racist rhetoric from my coworkers from all this rioting, but with equal disregard for the line of reasoning of why the officer in question was not indicted. (One of the reasons why I'm not fond of Osaka Sun's "America" comic link -- there are some massive issues with police accountability, but it's a different situation for this particular case)

Bah. Fuck this noise. Noir LeSable (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And my usual question : Which happened first? The violence or the tear gar? Compro01 (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters. You don't go around burning people's stuff, even if there is tear gas involved. That said, the police response seems to have been moronic - from what I've heard, the protesters were just yelling at riot police (or police dressed in riot gear) and a police officer got up on an armored car and told them to disperse or face tear gas. It kind of sounded like the protesters were trapped between gas and police shields. There's been shooting with automatic weapons, but it's unclear whether it's coming from panicked property owners or anarchists (it's not the police). This is the new America.(Agrajag (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC))
From what I've heard, it was much more than "just yelling". And you talk as if riots and civil unrest in America haven't been a thing for the last century. Noir LeSable (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It does matter, the government's violence is a reaction to the and as a way of protecting the system that oppresses black Americans for being black. For all these cries of vandalism and flag burning, people seem to be okay with black bodies being vandalized and burned or make really shitty false equivalences for them. Maybe I'm being cynical idk. BlackProg (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Nah, the "violence is always justified for public order" justification is fundamentally hypocritical. You take out the "always" from the notion, and you might be able to construct a meaningful notion of governance. But it's always like "something bad happened, thus shooting at people is okay". And it's disproportionately used on black people. Ikanreed (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
So the American Bar Association is questioning the ruling. --TiaC (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
If they're thinking about bringing a new trial, good luck trying to find an impartial jury at this point. I'd welcome one -- as long as it remains impartial and not some sort of "justice by popularity" deal. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
No, the National Bar Association is questioning it. The American Bar Association is an entirely different organization, despite the similar names. Compro01 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's a thing from my perspective. Whether justified or not, the Ferguson incident has sparked off significant protests across multiple US cities. I can see two possible reasons for this
  • Across the US there are significant numbers of people who were looking for any excuse to go out and have a good riot.
  • Across the US there are significant numbers of people who are so pissed off by their perception of injustice in US policing that the wanted to express their anger in a way that would get noticed.
The very fact that so many rioted in so many locations has to be significant. Sending in troops to crush the rebellion doesn't resolve the issue, it just pushes it back under the carpet. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I think people are getting sick about hearing about severe police abuses across the country where the punishment for the cop is nearly zero. There are many good cops, but it seems like a run in with a bad one can easily send anyone to critical care. It's very obvious that the darker the skin the more likely the interaction will be fatal. It isn't a justification for violence. However, I think people are fed up going through what you are supposed to do that there seems little option left. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What a shame. Peaceful, persistent protests are vastly more effective for uniting people in favor of your cause, and equally effective in causing institutional change (e.g. if they want the police chief to lose his job). Rioting and hurting people who have nothing to do with the situation will only stoke the racial tension. Aside from the fact that there clearly wasn't sufficient evidence to convict Darren Wilson of anything (though, arguably, he should have been indicted), arson and looting only ever makes things worse.--Episteme (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Riots are very likely when you put a lot of excited young people in one place and they get angry for any reason. That's why both sports riots and prison riots are a thing. Crowds naturally form during certain events, particularly when the event has a geographic focus. Is anybody oppressing the fans of a winning sports team? No. But sometimes they riot anyway. The best countermeasure known for outdoor riots is rain. Pour a few centimetres of cold rain on that crowd of excited young people and most will leave for somewhere warmed and drier. And if they get angry about it the rain doesn't care, it is calmly relentless in a way no human police force could be, water will fall on you until you stop running around in the street and go indoors. All this and it rarely causes lethal injuries. Tialaramex (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Franz Fanon argued in his book The Wretched of the Earth that any oppressed, marginalized, alienated and colonized group inevitably will and must resort to violence against their oppressors. This is because the systems of oppression that ensnare them and deny them their humanity are inherently violent, and only through violence do they assert their humanity in the face of such flagrant abuses and create a new group identity and consciousness. Some have argued that African Americans essentially constitute an internally colonized group in the United States. I'd say that they more accurately resemble a perpetually unemployed group of redundant laborers, forced to choose between joining the military, getting a sports scholarship, or recapitalizing the ghettos they've been driven into through crime, but they certainly are faced with systems of oppression that are inherently violent in the form of our police and penal systems, both designed to control the dangerous classes. Responding to a system of violence they face every day with violence seems quite reasonable to me. They know that there isn't much hope for reforms and change within the system that is designed to oppress them, the verdict is proof enough of that. So because they are daily faced with violence and repression by the police and penal system, and see that all legal avenues for change are hopeless, they are left without any other choice but to riot and assert that, yes, they are indeed human beings and have limits to what they will put up with. They won't be told to be calm and wait for things to get better any longer. The collateral damage is regrettable, but I wouldn't dream of condemning anything done by people who live the lives that this structural lumpenproletariat are forced to live, and for all intents and purposes will continue to live if nothing actually comes of this. 72.133.43.175 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Of course you can cause institutional change through non-violent means (remember this thing called the "Civil Rights Movement?"...). Rioting is in no way necessary to achieve what's wanted in Ferguson (i.e. reform in the police department). Bare assertion to the contrary gets you nowhere. Secondly, you should temper your hyperbole when describing the state of the African American community in the US. Are they at a disadvantage? Yes. Is there subtle, yet widespread racism? Yes. Is there white privilege? Yes. But saying that they're "oppressed, alienated, colonized, marginalized" etc. is just absurd and inaccurate. Plenty of African Americans have made it out of the ghetto to be successful by means other than sports. Opportunity is available to essentially all African Americans (though the right social environment might not be present for them to take advantage of it). You're wrong, and your blatant advocating of violence is disgusting. Destroying random shops will not achieve anything. Does this woman look like a racist white oppressor to you?--Episteme (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is wrong-headed in the extreme. For one, you exaggerate the extent of racism in this country vastly. While it is a much greater problem than most of the populace believes and a large portion of the US population is disadvantaged in many ways, no minority in this nation constitutes a permanent underclass. Secondly, you do the protesters a great disservice by claiming that the violent individuals among them are expressing the feelings of any substantial proportion of their movement. As for the claim that there is no hope for reform - while change rarely comes quickly enough in anything, it happens and has been happening rapidly for the past half century. One bad verdict does not a reactionary nation make. Thirdly, your idiotic arguments in favor of violence reek in pretty much every possible way. "Collateral damage"? It's a nice way to breeze past other people's losses, isn't it? If it were your livelihood gone because of some drunken bastard's Molotov cocktail, I'll bet that you wouldn't be so dismissive. And this little gem "I wouldn't dream of condemning anything done by people who live the lives that this structural lumpenproletariat are forced to live": just because someone is at a disadvantage (the colonized, impoverished people of the Daesh, for instance) does not give them the right to make other people's lives miserable. But probably the most revolting part of your screed is your assertion that violence is a way to prove humanity. Violence is not humanizing or a way to prove personhood. Violence is inhuman. Rioting signals (truly or falsely) that you are a person who cannot be dealt with or reasoned with as a human being and confirms dehumanizing stereotypes. The violence of a few poisons the well of a whole legitimate protest movement.The fact that you make these assertions is disturbing, and I can only hope that your beliefs are not widely shared. (Agrajag (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC))

Here in oakland its incredibly peaceful. People are just marchin'. First times anything been peaceful 'round here