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?/Archive23

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WWGO World[edit]

"Pew: The Future of World Religions, 2010-2050. One stat: Number of "unaffiliated" to increase from 1,131,150,000 to 1,230,340 persons but decrease from 16.4% to 13.2% of persons."

Reads more like a prediction of what will go on, not a statement of what is going on. PacWalker 04:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's also an article from early April, to boot. --OverworldTheme (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
To be fair I think this belongs in Blogs, not World but "one stat"? The entire report is right there. Key section
As of 2010, Christianity was by far the world’s largest religion, with an estimated 2.2 billion adherents, nearly a third (31%)

of all 6.9 billion people on Earth. Islam was second, with 1.6 billion adherents, or 23% of the global population.

If current demographic trends continue, however, Islam will nearly catch up by the middle of the 21st century. Between 2010 and 2050, the world’s total population is expected to rise to 9.3 billion, a 35% increase.

Over that same period, Muslims – a comparatively youthful population with high fertility rates – are projected to increase by 73%. The number of Christians also is projected to rise, but more slowly, at about the same rate (35%) as the global population overall.

As a result, according to the Pew Research projections, by 2050 there will be near parity between Muslims (2.8 billion, or 30% of the population) and Christians (2.9 billion, or 31%), possibly for the first time in history.
Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
How does the report belong in blogs? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 14:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, two options
  • This is a news item about Pew releasing an interesting report - WIGO World
  • This is an opinion piece released by Pew about their projections for religion distribution - WIGO Blogs
Personally I go for the latter and, now it has been commented out of WIGO World, that is where I would want it. Having said that, I didn't comment it out - I think it's more interesting than that. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand how Pew stats for 2010 are so far off of WIN-Gallup International GLOBAL INDEX OF RELIGIOSITY AND ATHEISM - 2012 where ~36% of the world's population is Not Religious/Atheist vs 16.4% (PEW) Unaffiliated(Atheist/not religious/Agnostic are lumped in this 16.4%). +/- 20% is a pretty big margin for either poll. Please correct me if I misread/misinterpreted/misrepresented these polls. Otherwise, I feel that PewPew COULD be dismissing the majority population.. ? Condescendingwhat (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a definitional thing. Gallup allows for atheist/non-religious to be religiously affiliated (social church goers?) while Pew includes only the non-affiliated. Apples to apples, the figures are more like 13% (Gallup) to 16%(Pew)MarmotHead (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Although I see your what you're trying to get at, the Gallup poll has 3 flavours - Religious (59%), Non-Religious (23%), Atheist (13%). Non-Religious ie: someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God is the definition of Agnostic regardless of attendance. Pew defines Unaffiliated as "atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion" I read these as the same apples. Even if they're different apples it seems like either or BOTH of the polls are wildly inaccurate. Arguing semantics I know but 39%(36%) vs 16% is a bushel of semantic apples. Condescendingwhat (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
It's all fruit. Some of them are apples. Some are apples in disguise! But, yeah, there's lots of room for error from raw sampling error, non-representative samples, incomplete sampling frame, weight-related variance inflation, dishonest answers, and just plain bad questions. I think 39(36) to 16 is the wrong comparison, but, even 13 to 16 is a higher than expected difference if the two surveys were really measuring the same thing with those sample sizes. MarmotHead (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
it's all fruit will have to sum it up then... damn my pedantic brain. thx. edit: I noted the 39% references in both of our last responses as 36% as I quoted it incorrectly in my 1st response

Poll counter[edit]

So it went past the 9999 and continued with 100000 (10^6)? --Sophophobe (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I say just roll with it. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 17:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm just a little disappointed that it ended up being for an article about something stupid that someone said (which is normally a blog/clog). Ah well.
I'd recommend holding off on adding any more WIGOWorlds until Dave or someone more acquainted with the coding takes a look, in case this fucks something up. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, an article about something someone wrote in a book thirty years ago isn't world news. Where are you seeing this poll counter issue? I see world10000 in the wiki code and the same in the javascript link when I hover over the voting arrows. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I see the same as the weasel. Noir? Soph? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 20:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Now I see 10^5, too. It was in the wiki source of World. Guess I should have taken a screenshot. Maybe I was wrong, but I think I looked very closely when I saw or thought I saw that it was 10^6. Whatever the case, now it is correct.
Edit: It actually was there, but the friendly ZooGuard fixed it in the mean time, search for the comment in the page history.
I don't quite know how the poll counter works internally and what exaclt they did to fix it; but maybe the errors might continue when new polls get added.
Oh, and of course, everytime I wrote something like 10^N, I meant 10^(N-1). --Sophophobe (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The counter does not appear to roll over at 16 bits, which is nice. The poll extension is Nx code that no human has looked at since, even though it's technically my problem. (He didn't open source it either, so I can't even put it on and inveigle others to help) - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it that "click here" instruction box you're talking about? I'd never noticed it and always entered the numbers manually. Most likely Psy did the same & just entered the number wrong. I just tried the "click here" bit and it came up with the right number. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was odd sarcasm[edit]

It appears not to have been well received, however. WalkerWalkerWalker 23:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Islamic ‘anti-hysteria kit’[edit]

How is this not super-woo? Why is this in World? Is it appropriate to move to clogs/blogs? It's non-critical reporting on a subject that has so much make believe involved. Condescendingwhat (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


When I think of religious changes immediately preceding the collapse of the Roman Empire, atheists don't top that list. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Christianity also didn't kill the Empire directly, as it lasted until the 15th century. Well, in the early 13th century the Crusades sacked Constantinople and it never recovered, so I guess technically Christianity did do it in... CorruptUser (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you can very well call an empire that didn't contain Rome "Roman", which is why the name was changed. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
They called themselves Rome right up until the end. Referring to it as the Byzantine Empire is a modern convention so that we can tell it apart from the Western Roman Empire, and also from the Holy Roman Empire (which itself didn't contain Rome for most of its existence). All that said, I'm pretty sure O'Reilly belongs in the clogs. --OverworldTheme (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The prosperous Rome that loved to party and didn't believe in the gods any more was not the Rome that fell. Because they didn't take the old religion all that seriously, it was ripe for replacement and got replaced. The Rome that fell, fell because people had no longer any confidence in Roman institutions and did not value their continuation enough to sustain them. The current USA does in fact resemble Rome in its actual decline and fall to the extent that fewer and fewer people place a high value on the institutions that define the American government. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
If the US lost the territory that made up the original 15 13 colonies, maybe a sneak attack by the Canadians, would the US cease to exist? Same with Rome; they lost Rome but they had moved the capitol to Byzantium years before, which is why later historians referred to them as the Byzantine Empire. CorruptUser (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Mounted polar warbear cavalry trampling over the corpses of our enemies will not be very sneaky. LONG LIVE CANUCKISTAN! Condescendingwhat (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The noble NRA has made sure that enough Americans are loaded for bear, so your bears we can handle. The problem is all those mastadons. There used to be hundreds of thousands of them, where did they all go? Canada's been hording them away, for who knows what? CorruptUser (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Like maple syrup, Canada's evil oozes over the United States. --OverworldTheme (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
erm.. what mastodons are you talking about? I suppose we'll have to politely apologise after we're done rampaging and looting etc.. Condescendingwhat (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I can not figure out the right thing here -- FHRITP video.[edit]

Guy does something loathsome in public. He is on his own time, not wearing any swag that ties him to his employer, does not identify himself as an employee of his employer. The loathsome act had nothing to do with his job, and it would, I imagine be very difficult if not impossible to convict him of a crime for what he did. Should he lose his job for what he did -- especially in a world where the inability to have employment means one is seriously deprived of the opportunity to provide the basic necessities of life and to participate in society in a meaningful way. I would be loath to hire the guy myself, as he has shown poor judgement, but I'm increasingly uneasy with the idea that "fire him" has become the go-to reaction for public displays of racism/misogyny/ etc. in cases when such displays are not related to the perpetrator's work life. Peace. EDIT One article. Another article AgingHippie (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Since he held a $100,000 salary job, I don't have a lot of sympathy. If he had a minimum wage menial job, sure, I don't think the employer would be justified in firing him, since the public would be unlikely to associate stuff he did outside of work with the employer & hence it wouldn't really be any of the employer's business. But when you're in a position of responsibility at a high level, you also have some responsibility for the organisation's reputation, so acting like a dick in public makes your employer look bad too. Politicians who publicly make a fool of themselves - whether work-related or not - are routinely shamed for it. It's not so different in the private sector. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Right, but then I'm stuck with the question of how his employment became part of the issue. Did someone see him do this stupid and hateful thing on TV and then ask themselves "I wonder where that guy works?" and start poking around in order to get him fired? If that's the case, then the assumption at play is that misogynists/racists/etc shouldn't be engineers at a utility company. I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to defend the guy, and on my current list of things that I will write angry letters about/march in the streets for/petition for/put up posters for/hand out flyers for, getting this guy his job back doesn't crack the top hundred -- if it is even a cause; like I said, I really don't know what is "right" here. That said, "do something stupid--lose your job--get transformed from some anonymous schmo to public figure--have it memorialized forever on the internet" doesn't seem like a way to bring about meaningful change in a structural way. That sid, more importantly, don't fucking engage in the perpetuation of rape culture on the evening news, dumbasses." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, if companies were actively looking into the histories of low-wage employees for misogynist or racist quips to use as an excuse to fire them, I'd be very worried. But in this case you've got a guy with a high-paying high-to-medium-visibility job that gets spotted making a nasty misogynist comment in public. As a company, disassociating yourself from that person is just basic business sense. You're right about the world we live in being rather unfair to those that lack employment, of course. Though if that should mean bad people shouldn't get their comeuppance, by the same reasoning, no criminal can be convicted to serve time in prison in the US, because, well, I'm sure I don't have to explain the problems associated with US prisons to you. (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Wait, wtf does his income have to do with the decision to fire him? Either what he did was a fireable offense or it wasn't; the law should never change based on your wealth. CorruptUser (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The distinction, as I stated above, is how a high level employee's reputation is more closely associated with his employer's than is the case for a lower rung worker. The first article Hippie linked to makes the same point: Employees who are in a position in which they are publicly connected to their employer to the degree that their behaviour is deemed detrimental to the company brand can face dismissal for such behaviour. "If you are an employee sitting in anonymity in a warehouse somewhere, it's less likely you would be publicly connected to that brand," Levitt said. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Low-wage implies that these people are nobodies to the company and to the public, while high-paying makes it more likely that they'll be seen as representative of the company that employs them. (Basically what Weaseloid said.) Also, having had a high wage would make unemployment less problematic, at least initially. (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
He makes $100k/yr, he's still lower rung. CorruptUser (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Lower, sure, but not low. If he'd been among the top of the company the response would've probably been less "fire him" and more "cover-up/downplay the incident". (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
And that's also a problem. Like I said, the response shouldn't change because he makes more or less money. CorruptUser (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree Hippie, although one could actually make a strong case of uttering threats with 100% undeniable proof. It's a public rape threat caught on camera. "I'm going to kill you" is a threat not a joke, "I'm going to rape you" is a threat not a joke. The way this played out is a public crucifixion which I don't agree with BUT I can't morally condemn Hydro One for saying - we stand for diversity and take an active socially responsible role in society. Hydro One may legally be liable, but I'm sure someone higher up in the corporate structure said seriously, Fuck Him Right In the Paycheck. For the rest of you people arguing over higher up the ladder vs lower etc.. you're arguing semantics that distract from the actual issue. Hydro One made a choice of will it cost more to fire him and possibly get sued, or show that we condemn his undeniable horrible behaviour. They're betting that society says "this is shitty behaviour". Condescendingwhat (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
"Morally not condemn"? Is possible breach of contract moral for you?--Arisboch (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, please learn how to argue and quote people properly. You're not adding anything to the discussion. Condescendingwhat (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That was a perfect Courtier's Reply--Arisboch (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want to argue about arguing without adding any counter argument to what I've said then I will dismiss you as per my last comment. You added nothing except basically saying that I'm arguing from authority - I have no authority. Canadian society which is a reflection of our morals and values set into a legal framework says: Uttering threats and sexual harassment is BAD FOR ALL OF SOCIETY. I do not agree with Hydro One yet I don't blame them for making the decision that they did. Legally this could play out against them which is fine. They made the choice they made and determined the public perception is worth this risk. It's not a black and white issue considering the systemic sexism in our culture. I will say again, if you have nothing to add other than trying to flag/dismiss someone's (debatable) thoughtful response with a one liner both times, you do not know how to argue. Condescendingwhat (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Not adhering to employer contracts is BAD FOR ALL OF SOCIETY, too (UPPERCASE MAKES RIGHT!!!!!11), since it could set a precedence, where employers can fire people for saying stuff outside of the workplace (and I'm not talking about such nasty shit this guy has said).--Arisboch (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I've always thought legal precedent was a pretty bullshit thing to base the interpretation of law on. So what if judge X decided to rule Y way Z decades before? Things should be judged on a case-by-case basis, in my opinion. (Isn't that the whole point of having trials?) (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Jurisprudence works on balancing two ideas -- attention to the particulars of a case and consistency. The system needs to ensure similar circumstances produce similar outcomes. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused. This doesn't happen now? Because that's been the reality for the 20+ years I've been in the workforce. You've always been able to be fired for what you say outside of work. At-will and all that. --Castaigne (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
This is true. And this is why libertarianism fails: when the economy assumes the role of the government, if you want to have something like a right to free speech, it needs to be enforceable against bosses as well as policemen. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's a story about my employer. There was this guy here once who's occasional habit was going to a strip club. One of our clients saw him there and mentioned it to another employee here. Strip club guy was fired. He was not wearing anything identifying him as an employee of my company. He did not see or recognize the client. Strip club guy was not on company time; this was the weekend and his own time.
So why was he fired? As an executive here pompously announced (unofficially), "You represent this company 24/7/365. Your identity as a human being is as an EMPLOYER employee. That is who you are. That is what you are." Being seen at strip clubs does not meet the "company image", so off that guy went. Never mind his productivity. Never mind his work record.
Do I think this was right? Absolutely not.
But is it corporate reality these days? Yes, as far as I know. If you work in the corporate world, this is just how it is. You want to work here, you deal with that.
The rules that everyone in the corporate arena are going to have to learn (and are learning):
  1. Nothing you do is private. Even if you think it's private, act as if it's completely public.
  2. Everything you do will be tied back to you.
  3. The consequences of everything you do will be the same as if you were caught on TV doing it. --Castaigne (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Holy crap, to what kind of 1984-esque place did the "corporate world" devolve into? Do they do that via sufficiently ambiguous clauses in the employer contract and how is that kinda stuff is even in the purview of conscionable contracts?!--Arisboch (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean I can fire people for being members of the CoS? I don't want them representing my company. CorruptUser (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Church of Satan? (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That, or Church of Scientology. Then again, belonging to a religion is one of the things you aren't allowed to fire people for in the United States. What this means in actual practice is that you have to pretend it was for another reason, and make some effort to document your pretended version of the facts. As to the dude who got fired, I don't have a problem with it, it does show poor judgment and inappropriate aggression, although what he was doing was a stupid meme and not a credible "rape threat". - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
"If we had known this about him before we hired him, would we have hired him?" Is what I have known to be used before firing someone. In the UK in the 1990s. Scream!! (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The real story should be about the professional aplomb of the newsreader victim. I suspect she was aware of this bullshit meme and was more or less ready for it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


The BoN who commented it out was me, so direct your high levels of mad this way if it bothers you. Mayo2017 (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Leave it out. We don't need to humour ConservapediaEditor's racist shitposting. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly[edit]

I have absolutely no time for the guy but.... domestic abuse claims are thrown around at custody (or place of residence, here in the UK) hearings as a matter of course. It's like getting charged with resisting arrest - it's part and parcel of the process. In fact the whole thing smacks of ad hominum. He's a nasty piece of work so his arguments are invalid. We ought to fight back on the facts, not scurrilous gossip - even if true. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And it's not just abuse claims that gets thrown around like that, but also often molestation (especially child molestation) claims. I have no love for Bill-o (even if I think he's far less stupid than the character he plays on TV), but I don't lend any credence to those rumors (as long as there are no facts to back them up, of course). --Kungo GumiQui ça ? 12:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm rather less comfortable in simply dismissing an accusation of domestic abuse as "a matter of course" at custody hearings, but I agree with the general point that this is simply a piece of nasty gossip. In this specific instance, a reporter at an agenda-driven outlet is reporting that an anonymous source told him that about testimony given by an unnamed expert in a custody hearing about what Bill O'Reilly's daughter told him about an event she witnessed. And we don't even have any indication about how the anonymous source got the information (Were they physically at the hearing? Did they read a transcript? Did they get their information from yet another third (fourth? fifth?) party?) This barely even rises to the level of gossip. (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Link between creationism and disregard for the environment[edit]

It's not that surprising, actually. Think about it. Creationists are often rapturites, and rapturites believe that Earth's problems don't matter because "we'll all be raptured by then so it's not our problem!"

I'm more surprised that JWs are the major outliers. —ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 03:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

IIrc, they do believe the earth still matters for new JW's.--Miekal 04:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Who're "JWs"?--Arisboch (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses. --OverworldTheme (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
They are the most obvious outliers on this chart, at the upper left. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your argument would make sense if creationists were saying that climate change is happening but doesn't matter because of the rapture, or that it's a sign of the apocalypse. We hear this occasionally, but what's much more common is that people who deny human evolution also deny anthropogenic climate change. The reasons, as outlined in the article, are complicated and have a lot to do with the entrenched connections between religious conservatism, social conservatism and economic conservatism. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

TPP headline[edit]

What does the US house have to do with treaties, which only need to be ratified with the advice and consent of the senate? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it's not technically a treaty. The TPP is being implemented as a congressional-executive agreement, so it requires majority House and Senate support. The TPP page on Wikipedia links to this report to explain the rational behind this. --OverworldTheme (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone explain the 'logic' of keeping an international trade treaty secret from the people it will be affecting? That more than anything convinces me that this is going to be a massive ripoff of us peasants. (And can anyone think of a way to convince the Teabaggers this is part of Agenda 21?)--Gulik (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The logic is that this is a complex multilateral agreement between a dozen countries involving complex issues in which multiple entrenched interests in each country have large stakes. Just sorting out the domestic politics on an agreement like this for one country is very difficult and complex. Just reaching a consensus among a dozen negotiating teams with one eye on the negotiation itself and the other eye on potential domestic reaction is very difficult and complex. Trying to do both simultaneously, with the goals and tactics of the negotiating teams constantly shifting in response to shifts in internal politics, would be effectively impossible. The only realistic way to negotiate an agreement like this is to at least partially shield the negotiators from public pressure, conduct the negotiations in some degree of secrecy, and then present a finished product to each country for approval. That's also the rationale for "fast-track authority". After a dozen national negotiating teams reach consensus on a complex set of trading rules, having 535 members of Congress trying to unpack it and renegotiate every controversial clause would make it effectively impossible to ever get an agreement. Of course, all of the above is only justified if you think trade agreements are (or at least can be) good things. (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
To be blunt, Congress (no matter who controls it) has a reputation of screwing with free trade agreements (at least when it decides not to nuke them, but administrations try to avoid that scenario all together) when the congresspeople are allowed to read said agreements, that is the whole reason why fast track was implemented in the first place. Alsto003 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Alex


Wait, Eurovision is "happy progressivist?" I thought it was just a World's Fair-like showcase of the latest pop sensations. Be this a disgruntled BoN taking a swipe at us? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A BoN has removed this piece. The same IP removed something in January. I'm okay with BoNs adding interesting stuff, but removing it, even without writing something on the Talk page? Yet the post was too polemic that I would put it back up myself. --Sophophobe (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Changed to autoconfirmed. CREATE AN ACCOUNT YOU LAZY BASTARD - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Duggar's Records being Expunged[edit]

I corrected this in the main WIGO: Huckabee said that the data was expunged in order to protect the identity of the victims because one of the victims actually did file for the records to be destroyed to protect her identity. It wasn't part of any reputation-covering conspiracy. For reference, here's an article about it and here's a PDF copy of the Washington County Circuit Court filing regarding the destruction of the records, which was pursuant to Ark. state law.

Let's keep our facts straight, folks. Always remember to double check. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I'm glad this is a place where conspiracy theories are put to bed. Thanks. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Downvoting the Christians in Ohio article[edit]

Why people not like? It shows a rising secular movement, especially in election-crucial states. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe people thought the article'd be about white extinction scenarios or "Christians are being persecuted!" freak-outs? (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Mostly because it involves race for no reason.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
it isn't exactly all that news either: more confirmation to the mountain of evidence that millenials are more secular than prior generations and that millineals are self centered and entitled. Woopty doo--Miekal 23:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

WIGO Numbering[edit]

I noticed that the WIGO poll numbers got jumbled again. Might want to be careful when adding new polls, or maybe just jump past the skipped numbers and not try to fill them in like I did. --OverworldTheme (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

sex pistol endorsements[edit]

this would only be news if john lydon didnt already sell butter AMassiveGay (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Pistols were basically a marketing tool at the time of their big debut, anyway. Second only to a few of the members. ~zing!~ Mayo2017 (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
their slogan was 'cash from chaos" and one of their record sleeves was done up as an American Express card. the only people making a fuss about this are the ones who don't know Punk history. They weren't there, man! neither was I, I was ten and stuck in a fishing town 200 miles from the action BicyclewheelModerator 10:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Rachel Dolezal[edit]

If she's made false claims to an African heritage, then the issue isn't as unproblematic as the description implies. On the other hand, I'm afraid some people will impulsively jump onto a simplistic OMG-white-woman-in-blackface narrative as opposed to looking at the far more nuanced reality. (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

She apparently grew up with an African-American adopted sibling and at some point started to identify as Black. I've a hard time thinking of reasons why she shouldn't. Identity politics is never uglier than when it's made to confront issues of authentication and authenticity. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 00:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but I'd think you'd need more than just an adoptive sibling to consider identifying as another ethnicity. If one were the adoptive child in a different ethnic/national familial environment, then sure. But simply having an adoptive sibling? I'm not at all convinced.
Then again, this could just be me, as someone ethnically Koreo-Japanese, being jaded over the how people who perhaps watch a bit too much anime sometimes go "I was born in the wrong country! Watashi wa Japanese on the inside! I'm ~transracial~!" I'm not offended by it, I'm pretty damn difficult to offend when it comes to race, but... Ugh. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I first learnt of this whole thing on Friday when my normally quiet and calm mixed-raced coworker shouted "What the FUCK!" and slammed his fist down on his desk. I've heard a pile of similar, so for now I'm assuming people can actually find this entire pile of poop seriously offensive in practice - David Gerard (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
It fascinates me mostly because of all the heretical ideas floating around here. We're told to say that race is a social and cultural construct that has nothing to do with heredity ... and suddenly, it becomes a big deal who her parents were. We're told that Wnite is the valuable identity and that White people get all the breaks. If this is true, then why does the Black identity need to be defended against trespassers? There's also apparently some kind of family litigation situation involved here that motivated the original revelation. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
This is you being deliberately stupid. Race being a social and cultural construct does not mean it's not a huge fucking deal, and you'd have to be deliberately dense to think so - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
"We're told to say that race is a social and cultural construct that has nothing to do with heredity." Are we? The more common understanding is that it is a social and cultural construct that has quite a lot to do with heredity. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I did say "What the fuck why is this chick so fucking crazy what is wrong with you you fucking twat" out loud when I first read the news. For fuck's sake. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png For no man is an island of tat 19:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The sooner the whole concept of race is put to bed the better. We should all identify as simply "people". Just my opinion.--Mercian (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Amen to that. Race is bullshit.--Arisboch (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
It does not, however, make Dolezal any less white. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png The atheistic elf of deteriorating! 19:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The problematic bit doesn't come in what you identify as. It comes in what other people identify you as.
(And this is still a concept with no difficulty whatsoever that I can see, and y'all who act like it has any are, as far as I can tell, just being determinedly dense.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
That's just it, though. Until this bit of family drama broke, no one saw her as anything other than Black. So what changed? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
God, who CARES? Its just so unbelievable to see the media and people from the left and right fawning and yelling about things that don't matter! First it was Bruce Caitlyn Jenner and now it's Rachel Dolezal. When will people start talking about the massive Kurdish advance against ISIS in Syria, and the fact that ISIS has just lost its main border crossing with Turkey? Oh, but hey, people care about a white woman who calls herself black. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Because it's interesting? Because finding one thing interesting doesn't require you to ignore all else? And because confronting the issues of authentication and authenticity really shows up the evil side of identity politics? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You know, I keep thinking...[edit]

Dolezal's story reminds me a lot of Alicia Head, the woman who pretended to be a 9/11 survivor. For Alicia Head, it wasn't enough to simply survive 9/11. She had her arm nearly torn off, she was rescued by one of the most famous victims of 9/11, she tragically lost her fiance in the other tower, she was one of only nineteen peopl e who escaped the South Tower above the point of impact... she wasn't just a 9/11 survivor, she was the ultimate 9/11 survivor. No one could possibly have experienced tragedy on her level. And then, of course, people found out that she was a Spanish citizen living in Barcelona on 9/11 and didn't even move to America until a year later.

Like Alica Head, Dolezal isn't just a black woman--she is the ultimate black woman. She hunted gazelle in the plains of Africa! She lived in a mud hut! She experienced a beating equivalent to the abuse of African slaves! I'm almost willing to bet that if we dug hard enough, or if she was allowed to go on long enough, there'd be some story about how she came to America in the hold of a wooden ship. And of course, she has experienced every possible form of racism. She won the Black Oppression Olympics. It's a long, elaborate lie/fantasy that became such a part of her identity to other people that she actually started to believe it herself on some level.

I honestly believe that by the time they were outted, both of these women were pathologically invested in their lies. They probably knew it wasn't true-true, but the lie was so important that they rationalized that because it was true to them, it was the same thing. People just wouldn't understand how it could still be true when it never happened, so they lied and covered up and backtracked and made excuses for themselves, and when all else failed, they took refuge in victimhood: how dare you question what happened to me?! Haven't I been through enough?

It's shamelessly exploitative of people's goodwill and solidarity, and it's utterly repulsive. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png THE TRASHY STROLLING IS AN EYESORE! 20:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Does she try to be the ultimate black woman? I'd like some citations before I believe these claims. (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
ULTIMATE Black Woman 3000 sounds like a fantastic video game. (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Ultimate Black Woman 3000? That is either a weird title for a Harry Potter fanfic or Marvel makin their Ultimate imprint even more brain-damaged.--Arisboch (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, all those claims were taken from the linked Grauniad article (with added hyperbole, of course).
Also, I confused a teepee and a mud hut. Woe be unto me. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png So we have to kill animals, or else they'll die. 04:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I think Point 1 of this article is a pretty good summary of people latching onto this as a case of someone being "transracial". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It does appear that she's been addicted to self-generated drama for a very long time. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

She is considered black...[edit], apparently. – AOAPJM (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Male Rage Bomb"?[edit]

Is this what we're calling people who go mad and try to murder their family now? LOL, someone deranged person got really angry at their family and tried to kill them, MALE RAGE BOMB (emphasis on male). And are what a few crazy MRAs say the most important thing about this issue?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed it. Sorry to whoever posted it originally, but I'm NOT AT ALL comfortable with calling someone whose family is saying had "heard voices" and was "mentally ill" but didn't get the psychiatric help he needed as just a "male rage bomb."
Really, I have no idea how I didn't notice it earlier when I was adding the Mexico post. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
"induced by" seems a bit presumptive. Hearing voices doesn't automatically make you go into violent rage mode. "enhanced by" maybe? (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I think "enhance" might have too positive a connotation. I switched it with "aggravated by". ℕoir LeSable (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Texas License Plates[edit]

I would like to put out that this SCOTUS decision changes a ton of precedent. AFAIK, this is the first court decision at any significant level (not just at this high a level) saying vanity plates are anything other than personal speech. This overturns dozens of court cases in quite a sweeping gesture. What is even more shocking is that Thomas joined the majority. AyzmoCheers 19:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The case does sort of confuse me. But I disagree with your assertion that this came out of the blue. There has been a case like this one in the past called Pleasant Grove City v. SummumWikipedia wherein the Court unanimously held (albeit for differing reasons) that the Cultists couldn't force the state government to put up there little monument if it didn't want to. Essentially the justices may be drawing a line that basically says that Government and its agencies can say what they want to when it is there right to do so (i.e. presumably with the exception that if a law comes out saying that they must allow the option to have a Battle Flag on the license plate than they would be compelled to do so) but that they can't force others to (should it infringe of free speech that doesn't force the Government to say anything it doesn't want to when it doesn't have to). Confused? You should be. I certainly am. But in any case that just bit of speculation, the case is bizarre and the legal precedent that the majority ruling is based off of is even more confused. I don't really know what to make of it. Alsto003 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Alex

Dylann Roof[edit]

Although there seems to be little doubt in his guilt was parading him in front of the victim's families who read statements and talked to him the right thing to do? I could understand and even support this action if he had been found guilty but at this point he has not even entered a plea. It seems wrong to me, almost a presumption of guilt.--Mercian (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Head of hate group donating to GOP[edit]

this story seems unnecessarily divisive and irrelevant. Republicans arent responsible for some of the nutjobs voting for them any more than the democrats are responsible for ted phelps's links to them. its just contributing to the them and us mentality that goes with the awful polarisation of political life that you yanks are vexed with. or so it seems from this side of the pond. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It does speak to the fact that white supremacy is closely tied to the status quo political culture here, and not some weird, fringe aberration. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
i make no claims of understanding the finer points of that so i bow to your superior knowledge. but while it seems bizarre to me that so many are downplaying this as a racist attack, but surely republicans are just as shocked and saddened by this attack as anyone else, even if they disputing the motivation. it saddens me that so many of your political leaders are so quick to use this as a stick to beat their foes AMassiveGay (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Sitting on AMG's "other side of the pond", I agree. It is relevant, though, if the recipients do more than just receive the donations. Trent Lott (a former Senate Republican leader), for example, both associated with these donators and spouted their rhetoric. The appropriate focus, though, is the dispute over motivation. It seems completely wrong to deny/ignore racism as a motivation. MarmotHead (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
(EC) As another outsider to US politics, it seems pretty clear that a substantial proportion of the GOP is openly courting the racist vote, despite any and all protestations they make to the contrary. Similarly, enough of the Republican base is racist - openly, tacitly or in a Tea-Party-totally-not-Republican-though,-really,-wink - that it works as an election strategy. The cacophony of dog-whistles is deafening. Besides, in this case, you've got a an airtight link from an open racist to presidential hopefuls. Can you imagine the apoplexy in the US right-wing media if a similar sort of link was tracked back to Hilary? Queexchthonic murmurings 16:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
While you cannot decide to sends you money, many GOP candidates are actively courting the votes of very active bigots. The most notable are the ones that spout the language from Stormfront and KKK groups, or speak at their rallies. Even those that completely deny anything to do with race for church shouter who stood up and stated he was there to shoot black people with a long history of very open bigotry. Pointing out "democrats get money too" is the balance fallacy and ignores all the other shit the GOP does in plain sight. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
" Similarly, enough of the Republican base is racist - openly, tacitly or in a Tea-Party-totally-not-Republican-though,-really,-wink - that it works as an election strategy." This is correct, but it is not the entire story. Racism is not a Republican problem, it is the ground ideology the entire republic was founded on, and works to maintain; the principal (principle? I never get that right...) of white supremacy. Replace every elected official with a party-line Democrat, and very little will change in terms of the mass incarceration of African-Americans, police violence towards same, or lower incomes and life expectancies for them. The informal segregation of cities ("white flight") won't undo itself because people vote Democratic....Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point. It just seems like focusing on the ones going with the flow, which is still wrong, while ignoring the ones waving the flag and welcoming bigots with open arms and punch. Both need to get their butts in gear to fix it. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TPP (1)[edit]

Why hate? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No idea. The link is accurate. It's bound to pass. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Because people don't want it to pass maybe? (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Because people hate this whole cloak-and-dagger-bullshit around it? --Arisboch (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I know that's why I don't like it. The fact that the Republicans are willing to work WITH the Kenyan Usurper to pass this thing makes me sure that some billionaire has an open checkbook and blue balls for this treaty, and we will not know WHY until it's too late. --Gulik (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a very educated guess. Democracy just doesn't work that way. Politicians have to be accountable to the public as far as possible.--Arisboch (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Why hate pass? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it's something that could affect me, so I would at least like to be able to read it before it goes into effect. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sikh "Boy"?[edit]

The guy is a doctor, calling him "a Sikh boy" in the WIGO is a bit disingenuous. X Stickman (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It was probably just meant to point out that it concerned a relatively young individual. (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I got confused by other pictures and corrected it when I got off the train last night.-- Forerunner (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Bristol Palin[edit]

Can we not turn into TMZ and gossip over how an adult woman's mommy will react to a pregnancy? ArcticVixen (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

^ This. (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
+1 - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
↑     Scream!! (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Concurred. --OverworldTheme (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Uh, the link is back. On the grounds that this site is not better than TMZ to boot. --Unregistered(talk) 10:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage[edit]

If this doesn't shoot to the top of Best-Of, I'll honestly be surprised. Or, for a more immediate reaction from me: [hyperventilation intensifies] ArcticVixen (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

OF HAPPENINGS!! ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
[High-pitched shrieking] Queexchthonic murmurings 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Ron Paul* It'shappening!!! Now we can get back to arguing about free trade and military intervention! I can't wait to hear the butthurt Republicans whining about this. I'll get my popcorn. Who's with me? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
We should have a contest on whose reaction is the most insane. I am waiting for John Hagee to weight in. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
First SCOTUScare, then SCOTUSmarriage equality! Whew! (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
As of now it has more than 100 Likes on the main page. Does it qualify now? Alsto003 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Alex
104 was the number to beat, and it's been like 12 hours, so I'm satisfied :D ArcticVixen (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I'm getting some people complaining that "yee but what about trans rights". Time to unfollow some people. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Oh hai Anonymous user 21:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
God forbid that you focus on another issue after one is basically solved. ArcticVixen (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Technically, the issue isn't really solved yet (inasmuch as electing Obama meant "Racism is solved~!"). But a massive checkpoint was reached. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The issue of "gays can't marry". ArcticVixen (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
In response to Noir, I think this might end up like the 1980s, where teen movies treated the Civil Rights movement as being so successful that racism no longer exists (Instead, I recall, you had to hate the bully because he's ginger and therefore inhuman). -- Forerunner (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


What the hell is the TPP and why are people so upset about it? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png So we have to kill animals, or else they'll die. 21:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a free(-er) trade agreement between the USA and most countries on the Pacific Rim (plus potentially others elsewhere). People don't like it mostly because of its (a) secretive nature, (b) potential granting to corporations the ability to sue governments, (c) potential override of domestic laws, and (d) being a free trade agreement in and of itself. (I believe.) FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
[1] [2] Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The TPP is fundamentally a good idea, even if flawed. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Why do you consider it fundamentally a good idea? I don't really see what's so good about it. (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
B/C it's supposed to make the world $2.20trn richer by 2025. Increasing world GDP by another Italy seems worthwhile. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 21:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
When you say 'the world', do you mean the poorer people in the world, or the richer people? The fact that some of the Republicans who are pushing this are willing to hold their nose and work with the COMMUNIST KENYAN USURPER on this means they REALLY want it, which means that some billionaires REALLY WANT IT, and basic pattern-recognition tells me that it is therefore likely to screw over poor people. And the sheer amount of secrecy involved in it is bizarre and does nothing to reassure me. (If it was any good, they'd be quoting it in ads.) Also, when I called my Congressman about this, his staffers gave me a runaround, claiming its text was publicly available and directing me to a different bill. --Gulik (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Who is "the world" and how exactly will he/she/they become richer? For one thing, more money doesn't necessarily mean more wealth. (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Dunno about the transpacific thing but there's a European/North American version (TTIP) that is mainly for the benefit of corporations and against countries and individuals. [see here] Is it the same? Scream!! (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Scream: In many ways, yes. In any case the lefty US criticism of the TPP and the lefty EU criticism of the TTIP follow the very same patterns. Interestingly, few Americans know about TTIP, even among those who oppose TPP, although these two have very similar dangers.
For the Canadians around here, their TTIP is called CETA. And while we're on it, there's also TiSA (Trade in Services Agreement, focusing on services), including many parts of the world, and which is said to be even more evil.
Scream, are you active against TTIP? --Sophophobe (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Only inasmuch as signing petitions goes.Scream!! (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
K. --Sophophobe (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

So, that dildo flag[edit]

It is the flag it was claimed to be. It's just... In a different "font." And CNN did note that. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 01:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That's right. I didn't view the video and didn't quite care, because the flag is just too great. --Sophophobe (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
CNN described the symbols as "gobbledegook" and treated it very seriously as either ISIS infiltration or ISIS supporters within the parade. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I must admit I'm one of those people who had to have it explained to them. I kept looking at that, knowing it wasn't real Arabic, and trying to make numbers or letters out of it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 13:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Oklahoma's Ten Commandments[edit]

It's rather sad that the monument will have to go. I would have preferred it to be allowed, which would have likely meant that the Satanic Temple's Baphomet statue had to be put up there, too. It would've been such a lovely seat for children. --Sophophobe (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Fundamentally, there are more religions that you could represent. If there's a long-standing clearly multicultural display, extending it to embrace all Americans makes more sense. I know it's boring, but the court found what's probably most fair and reasonable under the 1st amendment. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 12:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


This was with the "lightweight" F-35A, too. How will the carrier-capable C or the jump-jet B handle with all that extra weight? Unrelated: F-35A vs MiG-29 would be an interesting match. Not saying anything about superiority, just interesting. ArcticVixen (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Polygamy Legalization[edit]

So with that guy in Montana pushing for polygamy I was wondering if it could become legal in the US. I mean there doesn't seem to be any good moral arguments against it just legal ones. Americans are even slowly coming around to the idea. And honestly, as for openly advocating for it, what is there to fear now that same sex marriage is legal.--Owlman (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The sex ratio, that's what. If a woman marrying 3 guys at once was just as common as the other way around, it'd be fine. The problem is that polygyny causes a shortage of women, that historically has been "solved" with constant warfare, slavery, castrations, and so forth. CorruptUser (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah but don't polyamorous relationships cause this very problem. Since those have been happening in the US I would say there hasn't been more human rights abuses.--Owlman (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I would also add that those were Kings who would take hundreds of wives in order to have many heirs. Since feudalism has ended and feminism has changed the view of women and marriage, at least in western society, from being only for child bearing then I doubt legalization would cause more abuse.--Owlman (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Merchants and plantation owners and skilled craftsmen too. Anyone with enough wealth to feed extra wives, really. What was the statistic? Only 40% of men passed their genes on to the next generation with 80% of the women? It's not a matter of legal/illegal, as it's perfectly legal to have a wife and 2 "mistresses" that live in your home, it's a matter of cultural normalization in that we say it's acceptable rather than just turning a blind eye to it.
The vast majority of people in Gitmo were MRAs. No, seriously, you had these people ranging from poor fools from some backwater village to college educated engineers, but the common thread was that these were men who simply could not get laid/married. There weren't enough women to go around, the men were sexually frustrated, and they came from cultures where "Jihad" was a cover for "let someone else deal with all these angry horny young men" (yet another parallel with the Crusaders). CorruptUser (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand that a lot of men practiced polygamy, but the women were in arranged marriages which are rare in western society today. Like I said though I doubt that people will regress to this standard because feminism pushed the idea of marriage and parenthood to a more consensual agreement for both parties. I would also like some citations on those numbers and the MRA allegation. Also if they were so sexually frustrated then Mohamedou Ould Slahi sure didn't enjoy this.--Owlman (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Also I don't see how state recognition would 'normalize' polygamy any more than the religions and individual couples who allow it. And if we are to be a multicultural society shouldn't we tolerate it as long as it is consensual. Lastly, if an immigrant wants to come to a country that doesn't recognize their polygamous marriage do they have to leave behind their other spouses and any children they had in those marriages?--Owlman (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
1) Feminism and socialism were allowed to happen in part because of monogamy; getting help for the most downtrodden of society is much easier if the people in power aren't harmed (or if it helps them too), but if poor men can afford a wife or if women don't have to put up with abusive men, there's going to be more backlash from those in charge.
2) citation for makeup of Gitmo
3) That's the leaders, not the rank-and-file Jihadis
4) Sorry, I don't agree with multiculturalism. As an American, we have many, many different cultures here, and we always have room for more, but they have to be American cultures.
5) No, they can bring their spare wives and kids too; there is nothing illegal about having a live-in mistress that has your kids, just that legally speaking your first wife is the one that decides what happens if you are in a coma and the one that gets health insurance through your employer.
6) Really don't think polygyny is a problem? Read up on the FLDS fuckers some time. CorruptUser (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, some states' bigamy laws prohibit any marriage-like relationship.AyzmoCheers 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of multiculturalism if the person married two spouses at the same time how would that work. Also romance novels and nipples show that they are killing people out of sexual frustration from polygamy and not a patriarchal society that believes men shouldn't indulge in 'womanly' activities and women should cover themselves up entirely so men don't rape them since it those societies it wold always be the women's fault. Also FLDS, the Crusades, and Jihad are all religiously motivated by the assumptions they will have as many forced wives as they want. I highly doubt consenting people will do these acts; just as I doubt pederasty will come back because gays can openly marry now. Would also be able to intervene in such abuses like FLDS if the spouses didn't fear being persecuted for being polgamous in the first place. Lastly, I don't see how socialism and feminism. And to Ayzmo's point, Utah's bigamy law was struck for that very reason.--Owlman (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My biological grandfather was a bigamist. Sort of. Anyway, my grandmother found out it had been going on for a decade with a mistress, and she fainted. She begged him to stay, even keeping his mistress because in those days you did not want to be a divorced woman, but he divorced her and rather than marry his mistress he married a third woman and had 3 more kids. Awful, awful person; he had not one but two upper-middle professions but got caught stealing from an escrow account (to support a fourth woman). Buried in a ditch somewhere out west. CorruptUser (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If all parties are consenting adults, where's the problem??--Arisboch (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The same argument could be made for father-daughter incest. But the overwhelming trend has been that polygyny and incest occur not from a number of consenting adults with equal power but from a power imbalance. CorruptUser (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
With incestuous marriage there would be no new family structure only the destruction of one and it would be child abuse in a father-daughter relationship. So all polyamory couples are non-consensual then if a polyamory couple wanted to get married why would we deny them state benefits.--Owlman (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Not all polyamory arrangements are non-consensual. Not all ephebephilia cases are non-consensual too, but since the overwhelming majority are it's statutory rape. It's currently illegal; burden of proof is on you that polyamorous relationships are just as healthy as regular ones, and that it's not going to have significant problems for the rest of society. CorruptUser (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"Most polyamory arrangements are non-consensual"? What kind of nonsense is that??--Arisboch (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
You do realize ephebophilia is defined as sexual interest in teenagers (15-19) which is legal depending on the age of consent in a US state. For example in West Virginia it is 16 while in California it is 18. Romeo and Juliet laws also apply here. But in the matter of an adult in a position of trust, like a teacher, consent is not argued only the power structure that person has over the other.--Owlman (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The polyamory movement really stresses the importance of mutual agreement among all involved parties. Did you mean polygamy instead of polyamory? (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Polygyny, because polygamy almost never involves polyandry. But yes. CorruptUser (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The law would not care about the plumbing the partners have, after all, the law doesn't care about the plumbing of spouses anymore in the US.--Arisboch (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
But what I don't understand is why you are okay with polyamory relationships and agree that they are consensual, but can't agree that a marriage between these individuals would automatically make it non-consensual. If a polyamory relationship involves treating everyone equally how is marrying only one of the individuals in this relationship treating everyone equally since only one spouse would receive benefits and any offspring from the other spouses would be seen as illegitimate in the eyes of the state. I would say monogamy would ruin that structure by giving one spouse more authority and privilege over the others.--Owlman (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You misunderstand my argument. The overwhelming majority of times there's polygyny, there's a disturbing difference in the balance of power. It's not because they can't be loving relationships, it's because they usually aren't. CorruptUser (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Not if the law gives all partners of the polygamous marriage the exactly same right,no matter what plumbing. Just cause in the bad old times, women had less rights in marriage is no reason to can marriage altogether.--Arisboch (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Could you please provide evidence that legalizing polygamy is in the best interests of society? CorruptUser (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Could you please provide evidence that keeping polygamy illegal is in the best interests of society?--Arisboch (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Idk how I am misunderstanding your argument. If legalization of polygamy would cause more spousal abuse then most polyamory relationships would be prone to abuse which I need stats to believe. If someone wanted to marry multiple people and all parties agreed I can't see how they would abuse each other. Since everyone would want to respect each other they wouldn't marry an unfathomable amount of people.since they would want to love everyone in the relationship equally.--Owlman (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
YOU are asking society to change. Burden of proof is on YOU, not me. But since you want proof, here you go Your turn. CorruptUser (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, you gave us an article on sexual abuse which no one is for. If you want articles on POLYGAMY here you go. One on reasons polygamy occurs and one on polygamy in other cultures all from your very source.--Owlman (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither of those give me much faith in polygyny. The first is why polygyny occurs in primitive societies, the second is about an abusive asshole polygynist whose group (FLDS) I already mentioned. CorruptUser (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well the second one talks about Kenyan culture more than the FLDS, but regardless here is more research. If you want a bigger study on different relationships here you go. But seriously, why is legalization wrong in an already quite liberal, egalitarian society? All you seem to say is that it is a slippery slope to rampant sexual abuse and a lose to women's rights when plenty of monogamous relationships have these issues.

It's a problem for me because I have enough trouble finding a girlfriend in spite of having an upper middle class profession and being physically fit without having to deal with other guys grabbing seconds. Sorry, you are trying to screw me over.CorruptUser (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I see so this is your fear that women will choose to marry men who are well off en masse and then you will never find someone. I don't see how this fear is any different from someone saying he fears women becoming lesbians en masse if same sex marriage is allowed. I have to reiterate that I doubt that many people will marry plurally if polygamy is allowed. I mean you don't, I don't, and a lot of people I know don't so why would we all regress to want to subject hundreds of women to a marriage they don't want and why would women be okay with that. We have laws against arranged marriage.--Owlman (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The thing about same sex marriage is stupid; gay men will marry at the same rate as gay women, so there's no problem. CorruptUser (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Well what about homosexual polygamy then? But even so why would everyone become polygamist if polygamy was legalized?--Owlman (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't see how it's necessary; like I said, nothing stopping you from having live-in mistresses (misters?), but the point of keeping it illegal is that we as a society say it's wrong and don't normalize it. Still waiting for you to give any evidence that the whole thing isn't a negative for society. CorruptUser (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I did that already. There just isnt going to be any more abuse thn monogamous marriages. But why is same sex marriage good for society. I mean it wasn't illegal to have a homosexual relationship in private. You can argue that they should receive benefits, but then you have to give plural marriages benefits. If you don't, like I said early, you will cause these relationships to fall apart by forcing on only one spouse to get married, if they want to get married, and their children becoming legitimate in the eyes of the state. This would cause an unequal arrangement no matter what when it comes to benefits and privileges. This gives one spouse more and their offspring more authority and legitimacy over the others. The only way to prevent this is to just not get married at all which is unfair to polyamorous couples who want to get married.--Owlman (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but your inability to find a partner doesn't mean other people's committed partners shouldn't be afforded basic legal protections. Yes, men treated their wives like shit in the past; yes, an increase in polygamy would mean a decrease in the number of available partners for people without partners, but these are not proper arguments against extending spousal rights to people in polygamous relationships. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 04:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

About bitcoin[edit]

Here's the point where it shows off the big problem with (hypothetical) libertarian societies, completely inadvertently. Yeah, sure there's some technical flaws with the protocol that could be resolved on a hypothetical level, the real problem the currency had that led to the forking was free riders. Everyone took the cheapest and easiest route to validating transactions, because it's cheap and easy, and it's only a problem if everyone else does it. And since protection of the public good isn't part of bitcoins ideological backing, no one bothered with enforcement.

It'll sorta recover, because at the very least, it still has name recognition value, and some people will learn their lesson. But the failing that happened here was exactly the sort of thing that free market ideologues think "the market will sort out". ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The entire history of Bitcoin is libertarians iteratively learning why financial regulations exist.
One thing Bitcoin doesn't cover is the scams. Seriously, some days it's like every fucking person at every level is a scammer who can't be trusted an inch. I need to collect material for a section on this. They created a "trustless" currency, and they got their wish: no fucker involved can be trusted - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"The entire history of Bitcoin is libertarians iteratively learning why financial regulations exist."
That's a great summary. Well done, sir. Well done. rpeh •TCE 22:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Federal prosecutors seek 175 year term[edit]

Since most folk are doing well to get past 80, what's the fucking point? AMassiveGay (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably either to show the public, what a tough sunovabeach he is or to prevent, that he's paroled earlier, I guess.--Arisboch (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to American tough-on-crime legislation and courts. Make a big show of punishing those who commit crimes rather than making wide-ranging reforms to reduce crime(we have had a bit of reform). It's image over substance, through and through. Parole prevention is just another layer of the self-righteous pie. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 02:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Or maybe they think a life extension breakthrough is right around the corner? (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for reducing crime before it happens, but you need the stick and the carrot. I'm all for abolishing parole. Thanos6 (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Reminds me of one guy who got officially, 1100 years for a murder. -- (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

goddamn criminals cheating justice by dying in their 80s and not serving their full sentence. They are probably in heaven with ted Bundy laughing at us. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Colour blind[edit]

Due to my colour blindness, I find difficulty in distinguishing the green and orange. Could you change the orange into a more distinguishable colour such as blue. It would be of great help. Thanks. {{SUBST:User:Mkbw50/sig}} (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You mean in the voting extension? That's probably a good idea ...
We currently have green=up, orange=null, red=down - what's a good combination of three colours that isn't confusing? Also, which variety of colour blindness do you have?
Wikimedia did some research into this and changed page-diff colours to be more universally differentiable - from red/green to light orange on the left and medium-blue on the right - I'll have to see if I can track it down. Do you know of any guides to good colour selections we could crib from? - David Gerard (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd actually suggest a 1px black vertical line separating each bar. It's usually easier for non-colorblind devs to keep awareness through tweaking the details of the UI than trying to correctly understand what colors look like to colorblind people. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Ikanreed: I agree with that. It might be a tad more difficult to implement. But it also has the advantage that one does not accidentally affect people with another type of color blindless. --Sophophobe (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The voting extension was hacked together by Nx years ago ... I should put the source up somewhere in case someone wants to look into this - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind taking a look... Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
mbkw here has deuteranopia. Using majiks, I can see that the green and oranges are different enough to not be the same color but similar enough to be really terrible looking.
Personally, I recommend the vertical line between each bar. But that's because I can't find any two color combinations that are colorblind-friendly and aren't fugly. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I suppose there is no fantasy like power fantasy 00:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

On a related but admittedly less important note[edit]

I always thought it was yellow. :/ (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Something about textbooks[edit]

Since they were mentioned on the WIGO page, here's a fun fact: This textbook has two paragraphs and two small images dedicated to MLK. Malcom X? He takes up the rest of the section and gets half-page images. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 19:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Iran Nuclear Deal[edit]

That same CNN article is the subject of two separate WIGO votes. --OverworldTheme (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

UK has rejected water cannon use...[edit]

...except in northern Ireland where its used all the time.AMassiveGay (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The article even mentions that they don't use them in England or Wales where it was actually banned. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
They rejected it in favor of what?--Arisboch (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Kettling. What happened is that Boris went and bought a bunch of second hand water cannons to keep the proles in check but, amazingly, he's not been allowed to deploy them. The reasoning given is that London riots are fluid and fast moving unlike the Belfast riots that are more like a stand off. As to the truth, well, I didn't vote for them. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Did Boris ever let himself be fired at with one to prove how safe they are, like he promised? Vulpius (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure his hair would be up to it AMassiveGay (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure Boris's hair is the larval form of Trump's - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

God forbid forbid we should be unpleasant to criminals. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is fuckwitted - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

John Kasich[edit]

Last, but not least? Shouldn't that be "least, but not last"? You know a few more people are going to try and squeeze in the before all is said and done. --OverworldTheme (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Glasgow drag ban[edit]

This actually makes me really happy, because I feel like I've been in the minority in the trans community when I say that drag performers are basically just transgender-blackface. I think drag performers have done more damage to the trans community than many people like to think. ArcticVixen (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The Standard version was gutter press; the Pink News version is slightly closer to reality. The comments section is entirely predictable - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That's been my view of it as well. I see drag as more of a pantomime act than blackface, but the effect can still be damaging. My brother is a drag queen and unfortunately that has influenced my parents' view of transgender people (including my transition) somewhat negatively. Kempston Hardwick (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on where you are, then. In New England we have ready access to Greenwich Village and Provincetown, and the drag shows there seem to force people out of their shells more than anything else. I have no personal experience with it, but people I know who do have come away saying as much. And come on (preface this saying I'm a Ratt fan), who doesn't like Uncle Miltie? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
If drag acts influence how people view transsexuals, that's due to public confusion over what are (superficially, to the uneducated observer) somewhat similar phenomena. It's not due to drag being some kind of minstrel show about transgenderism, which it isn't. This public confusion is something which is slowly changing with greater exposure to and understanding of the trans community, but I don't think marginalising other parts of the LGBT community is the way forward, & I really don't go for the idea that all forms of gender-bending belong exclusively to people who identify as trans. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with cross dressing, mostly because it only seems like men are labeled 'transvestites', but I have heard that drag shows make fun of women by portraying them unrealistically and stereotyping them with certain personalities. I haven't ever seen a drag queen show, but the defense seems to be based on the idea that drag performers explore the idea of gender roles.--Owlman (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think marginalising other parts of the LGBT community is the way forward The entire objection is to T being marginalised by G, and this has long been the state of affairs, particularly in Britain (Stonewall UK having long been transphobic in word as well as deed). Your claim that T is unfairly marginalising G is as credible as, and closely analogous to, a Tea Partier claiming anti-white racism when his own bigotry is objected to - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
To what extent drag is a part of LGBT isn't all that clear-cut. It should be noted that Free Glasgow Pride merely decided not to have any drag acts perform at their event; participants can still dress whatever way they want. Though their stated reasoning that basically says "only trans drag acts are okay" makes me raise an eyebrow. Doesn't seem very crossdresser-friendly. (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Reminds me of the TERF-punks. Is there a abbreviation for Crossdresser-Exclusionary Transgenders, cause that's exactly what they are.--Arisboch (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump Third Party[edit]

Maybe he can run as a Whig? - Psycho Gecko 23:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

All I know is that Jon Stewart picked the worst possible time to leave Daily Show. Vulpius (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
He's made his feelings there so clear. ArcticVixen (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Good one! --Sophophobe (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm loving this. I've bought shares in popcorn. BicyclewheelModerator 10:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Imagine if he wins though: November 8 — the Day Americans Elected Donald Trump and the World Gave up on Democracy. >.> (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
But it would be the dawning of a new golden age of comedy. BicyclewheelModerator 09:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To all of y'all who say trump is too much of a joke to win. I agree, but I shudder at the thought that this is exactly what was said about Saint Ronnie when he first ran... (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

How about McKinley, Taft, both Roosevelts, and let's not forget how the Republicans wanted to elect a flying Jew-hating, maniacal wingnut for President of the United States of America? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Susan G. Komen[edit]

If Planned Parenthood survives the war on women in bad shape, that will be a stain on history. Susan G. Komen "For the Cure", not so much. Have they cleaned up their act in the 3+ years since that blog post? Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong I hate how commercialized Susan B. Komen is, but that aren't being cut from the bill for that. They are being cut because the Republicans want to kill Planned Parenthood by hurting their private donations so that when the Fed defunds them it will be a major loss just like with ACORN.--Owlman (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
OK. So the Susan B. Komen Foundation cut their contribution to Planned Parenthood, flipped, flopped, and is now best buds with them again? Friends like that, who needs enemies, and all... Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Like I said I would rather see their organization change or lose their nonprofit status (they are one of the richest nonprofits), but removing them on this principle is ridiculous and sets a precedent for those organizations who support cancer research to not invest in women's healthcare like contraceptives and abortion. These are services that Planned Parenthood offers and if they don't get that funding then they will have to close facilities.--Owlman (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Anti-discrimination bill[edit]

I was expecting the bill to be labeled as preventing discrimination against LGB"T" people, but not actually do anything for trans people like myself. I was pleasantly surprised to see that for once, we were included! (Of course, with GOP opposition the way it is, there's no way it'll pass and it's essentially just posturing from congressional Democrats, but at least it's inclusive posturing.) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Since discrimination of trans individuals is in relation to people's views on sex/gender, technically the T should already have said protections. Sadly the reality doesn't reflect this, though. (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The T is something that you'd hope never would get thrown under the bus for the LGB part, but we end up there every once in a while. At least we don't seem to be there this time around. ArcticVixen (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

A Clinton, first name Hillary[edit]

Am I missing something with the Clinton link? It seems weirdly hostile. I mean, everyone can see that 25% > 8%. It's like pointing out a candidate who says she wants to "put food on every table" that not all tables are meant for food. Clinton's position on green matters are certainly on the lacking and/or fuzzy side, especially compared to top-green-legislator-in-the-Senate Sanders and we-want-100%-renewable-in-35-years O'Malley, but I don't really see what the problem is here. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As much as I'm not really a fan of her, yeah, that comes across as very Nirvana fallacy-esque. ArcticVixen (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sanders' Immigration Position[edit]

Well I have been following a lot of Bernie Sanders' positions in the media and I stumbled on his most recent views on immigration. He is apparently against open border policies because he believes immigrants threaten American jobs. Now I disagree with him on his stance on GMOs and nuclear energy, but this seems to be a major issue that he, IMO, is on the wrong side.--Owlman (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well this article gives greater background on his opinion.--Owlman (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems like a nuanced position to support immigration but looking at the problem of giving work visas for cheaper alternatives to US workers and sometimes to break unions (like hotel workers). Especially programs that tie a worker to a job to the point of being unable to look elsewhere since it limits competitiveness. I don't see this as a bad's taking a nuanced position in a difficult and complex situation that cannot be boiled down to sound bytes. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Which of course means some of his statements will be taken out of context for a cheap attack ad or "news" piece on Faux noise (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, now that I have read more into his opinion and why he believes it, it seems overblown.--Owlman (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
News is always overblown. Who would take time to read an article "Politician has well reasoned position on immigration"? Which seems like an Onion parody of news medias hysteria now. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
As are attack ads. However, there should be some instance in media that actually digs deeper. There should be some place for a serious conversation. Not just people shouting and yelling at each other. What could this place be? - I honestly don't know... (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Treason charges against German journalists[edit]

There are allegations (Ger.) that the treason charges never even had the aim of an eventual indictment: In order for the police to be allowed to use heavier investigation methods, there need to be accusations of graver crimes — treason, for example. So the allegations go that the primary goal of the treason charges was to be allowed to use these methods in order to better surveil the journalists and thereby, for example, uncover their sources or, by the threat of it, deter them and others from such subversive reporting.--Sophophobe (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I object to the Guardian's calling the FDP only a pro-buiseness party, especially in this context. They have a large record of sincerely championing civil rights—even though I strongly disagree with their economic etc. policy. --Sophophobe (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


Quick, let's decide Americans are evil robot-killers based on a small, unrepresentative sample size. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... --Unregistered(talk) 11:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
#notallbrutalrobotmurderers - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Especially when it's really just Philadelphians who are evil robot-killers. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 17:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Same bastards who threw shit at Santa, don't you remember? WalkerWalkerWalker 07:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The same bastards who booed a little girl singing the National Anthem. If it was us Angelenos, that bot would have been kidnapped to try and solve the drought. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Bernie Sanders interruption[edit]

In my undo of a revision I referenced a statement of Black Lives Matter from their Facebook page, in which they say that Bernie Sanders had done to little in the past. Here it is. Sorry for having you search for it, Owlman. --Sophophobe (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond idiotic. And they are barely members of Black Lives Members they are part of some fringe anarchist group and just called themselves members of BLM, but the BLM on reddit nonetheless decided to block everyone off and leave a "fuck Bernie Sanders" message behind. It's sad this social movement is going to autocannablize itself and burn out without changing anything, this was all easily avoidable. They set a precendent at Netroots, now any nut can put on a BLM shirt, make them look bad, and everyone will believe it was the whole movements fault. ClothCoat (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem I didn't realize it was under their Seattle branch's page. Yeah I would say that the Netroots incident wasn't without reason since they wanted to get their message across. At the time, both Sanders and O'Malley hadn't made a platform against racial injustice even though they had spoken out against these issues in interviews. Sanders was especially odd because he fought against racial injustice in his youth and had a 100% rating from the NAACP. Afterward, O'Malley created a racial justice platform and Sanders included these issues in his speeches. He may have been slow in adapting to these issues, but if any good comes out of this it is that he has hired a civil rights activist.--Owlman (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a real shame this happened. Luckily the media is too busy talking about the latest thing Trump said that they didn't mention it on the antenna networks, which is good, because it makes Bernie Sanders look better. I just hope that he rocks this issue in the debates, bringing up the fact that he was part of the March on Washington, and even organized a sit-in! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem wasn't that they protested at Netroots but the way they did it. They drowned out the candidates when they tried to speak (even when they tried to talk about their issue) and angered everyone there without any apparent goals. They made themselves look unreasonable and now anyone can make them look bad with minimal effort. ClothCoat (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a major mistake. If you want someone to change their message or hear you out you should let them talk. To me Netroots wasn't that bad since there have been protest in the past and those candidates are going there to talk about issues they are using in their campaign, but Seattle was a campaign run he had organized. When you take over an entire event where a candidate has been invited to speak about an issue that the group cares about. When you do that, not only will that group be against you, the media will trivialize it as a bunch of crazy 'lefties' attacking this candidate with a strong civil rights record.--Owlman (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories are already starting to form around this. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Well the BLM protest hasn't hurt his momentum in Seattle or Portland for that matter. He has adapted his racial inequality message as well.--Owlman (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Sanders wasn't hurt with Democrats but it's hard to imagine the BLM movement wasn't damaged. Everywhere I look they are treated like crackpots. It's hardly a victory, it's not like they got some moderate to flip their views on the issue, Sanders was always in favor of these measures. In fact before Seattle he gave a speech that laid out the generals of what he wanted to do about the issue, this proposal is more specific but it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have done this regardless or supported such legislation if it came up and from what I know he was preparing to hire that civil rights activist before Seattle anyways. This is definetly not a "win" for anyone. ClothCoat (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
One aspect of the reaction shows why the hard left will always be faintly ridiculous to me. The ones who say there was nothing wrong with taking over the podium, we can't condemn them for it, because their pain/fear/deep conviction somehow entitled them to do it. To condemn them would be to diminish the worthiness of their worthy cause. There's even a hashtag for that. I don't really care whether those people were legitimate allies of BLM or plants from Clinton or the Republicans. If you accept the legitimacy of this line of reasoning, does it even make a difference? And do you realize how daffy this sounds to anyone who doesn't accept all of the premises of identity politics activism? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm still blown away by that incidence. Poster children for shooting yourself in the foot. I have nothing to back this up, but I'm speculating that it was a simple matter of Bernie being an old, white, male politician, and because of this, he can't possible be sincere about his platform (which, based on prior history of old, white, male politicians, seems somewhat of a reasonable assumption). InfinitelySingular (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Their problem is that they need to subtract the old, white, and male part (Kwame Kilpatrick and Hillary Clinton, anyone?), then they'll be completely spot on. This incident is just a reminder that no group, anywhere, is free of excessively dogmatic lunatics. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

El Niño[edit]

The El Niño headline is bothering me. The relationship of the short term cyclical climactic patterns like El Niño to longer-term climactic trends like global warming are poorly established at best. I've certainly never read anything tying them closely together in a way that validates the headline's sarcasm. What may happen is that we'll get a blow-out year that will finally leave 1998 in the dust for severity. Maybe. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it pretty remarkable how readily people will jump on the opportunity to shout "Climate change!" whenever some big weather event happens. Thematically related does not equal causally related. Instead of convincing the denialists that climate change is real, it just gives them more ammunition to paint the whole thing as a big media scare. (talk) 07:04, 18 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
And on the AGW denial side, we have things such as Inhofe's snowball. People just don't seem to realize that global warming doesn't mean it's going to get suddenly warmer overnight. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 20:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
So the problem is the unprecedented rate of change compared to geologic time scales. It's the hitchikers guide to the galaxy problem, where really big numbers just don't fit in people's heads. Warming 4 C in a century is monumentally fast, compared to similar shifts that would previously happen over hundreds of thousands of years. But compared to 10 years ago, the noise is almost impossible to distinguish from the signal without particularly good statistical methods. It can simultaneously be terrifyingly fast, and too slow to point out in a human way. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


I don't get it, what's RWish about this news story? BicyclewheelModerator 16:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing, just like the rest of "What is going on in the world?" It's just what's going on in the world. News. Events. Things!TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
They are *supposed* to have some sort of relevant angle. Otherwise I could post stuff from my local paper. BicyclewheelModerator 20:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do! Sounds like fun. (talk) 20:19, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yeah, I tacitly agree, because I'm not enthralled with celebrity news, and a skeptical filter tosses out a lot of that particular class boring stuff. This counts as celebrity news. And I could do without it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Pedophilia is somewhat relevant to our mission though. (talk) 20:31, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
enjoy! BicyclewheelModerator 20:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Awesome. :) (talk) 20:29, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
added - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's not forget, Oranges are not the only fruit. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess he wanted to eat fresh! — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

suggestion: IA radio host claims slavery as solution for mexican immigration[edit] — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 16:11, 20 August 2015

Thanks for the suggestion! It looks more appropriate for the WIGO:Clogs than here, since it's something that someone said rather than something that occurred. (And someone already beat me to the punch on posting it there) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Privilege ?[edit]

I'm not against having the article on WIGOW, but I'm fairly certain we could do without that small snippet. It's both quite offensive towards the police officers (as it implies that they'd have harmed the two men had they been black) and fairly heartless towards the victim. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree. If it were part of the article (i.e. if it were an editorial or led into a study comparing responses to race in arrests) I could understand, but not in this case where black/white race relations aren't even brought up. To me, going "Oooh, this white guy wasn't beat up by the cops when he was arrested. I wonder why?" on this article kind of comes off as similar in tone to saying, "Oooh, these cancer patient kids had chemotherapy and died young anyway. I wonder why?" on an article about the Internet's response to the new Ghostbusters actresses visiting children at Tufts Medical. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that in this case the subjects are actually related, though. Both are about brutality directed at racial/ethnic minorities. (talk) 15:51, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'm that close to editing it to say "Two guys who beat up Latino man arrested" - anything beyond that makes us look like arseholes. I have a pretty complicated relationship with the police but even I freely admit that they're not all racists. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how mentioning Trump would be unjustified in this case. (talk) 16:12, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
@142.124.etc.etc: And both in the example I made are about how terminally ill kids should be treated. Your point? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd say "celebrities visit cancer patients" and "cancer treatment is bogus!" are two rather different subjects. (talk) 16:08, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

My tuppence: not being subject to unnecessary use of force should be an expectation, not a privilege. (and most of the time, that expectation holds up, though most is, of course, not enough) WalkerWalkerWalker 16:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, but look at how many blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans get brutalized. Just look at the police wrong and they will brutalize you. They are more likely to harass them because they have less power than their white counterparts. Just because not all cops are racists doesn't mean these white guys didn't benefitt from being white. For a comparison, look at how bias the death penalty is applied towards ethnic minorities; does that mean all jurists are racist, no, but it does mean that white people benefit from the jury's assumption that their crime isn't heinous enough for death.--Owlman (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is denying that a racial problem of this kind exists in America; however, it doesn't make it any less unfair and disingenuous to imply that things would have gone differently had the victim been white or the perpetrators colored. If you want to discuss this kind of thing in-depth, well, post an article that studies this particular matter. — Unsigned, by: NewFrenchHotness / talk / contribs 23:08, 21 August 2015
First please sign your name on talk pages. Secondly, fair enough. I haven't changed it back and I won't.--Owlman (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that non-white peoples suffer far more, but I still dispute the use of the term privilege for what should be a matter of right; it serves to belittle the disparities you discuss, and asserts that people can't rightly demand decent treatment, but that it is rather merely a privilege. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well sure I understand what you are saying, but these white guys weren't assumed to be a nuisance to society or so dangerous that they had to be brutalized. I will reiterate that a since they are white they have more power to take action against the police for violating their civil liberties.--Owlman (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Correct. We seem to agree on what happened, why it happened/didn't, etc.; the disagreement is really just me being semi-pedantic about semantics. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks more like you misunderstanding the concept of privilege. Look at the examples in our article on the subject: walking home alone without fear, displaying affection publicly, buying services without being ripped off, using a public toilet without being treated with suspicion, etc. These are all things which should be an expectation for all. In practice they an expectation for some & not for all. This is what makes them examples of privilege. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The term "privilege" isn't intended to portray certain treatment as a privilege to be earned, rather, it is intended to compare the treatment certain demographics receive to a privilege. In the context of what should happen, yes, freedom from police brutality should be a right, however, since non-white people are more often brutalized than white people, what actually happens is white people are receiving what amount to special privileges on account of their race, those privileges being that they are statistically less likely to be brutalized by the police. The endpoint of the privilege argument is that what should happen is the special treatment one group gets should apply to all people, not just that one group, and that in comparing the situation to a special privilege, it is hoped that the listener/reader realizes the inequity of the situation. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 04:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
^This is the best way of putting it.--Owlman (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What do the votes mean?[edit]

I mean like seriously, like oh my goat, like what do they even - you know - mean? You know? Are they like something totally aaaawwwwsum? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, they determine what goes on the "best of" page, for starters. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
And what does "best of" mean? I mean, it's the same with the like button on certain pages.... Should I "like" a story about horrible events? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Follow your heart. Nobody else can tell you what to like. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
But I thought RW (unlike WP) was about telling people what to think... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Then vote everything up. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
NEVERmore! I will vote everything down (insane laughter of the dammed) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


The recently added link with text about Greenland actually seems to be about air quality in Middle Eastern war zones. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems they copied the wrong link. Fixed now. (talk) 14:51, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ashley Madison post[edit]

Is it really necessary to bring it up now? I mean, revealing the fact that people's details weren't being removed was the whole point of the leaks.-- Forerunner (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought the point was "for da lulz" Just like 87.3% of all "hacking" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I re-read it. I didn't see the whole "ratio of men to women being 40,000:3" problem and just saw the "deleted accounts weren't really deleted" part.-- Forerunner (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Why is Newsweek a "cranky link"? BicyclewheelModerator 20:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Failed to load on multiple devices, so I changed it to another source just to be sure. ArcticVixen (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh OK. The link is cranky rather than the site. BicyclewheelModerator 10:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"Koch brothers shadily undermining something that will cut into their profits"[edit]

in other news, water is wet.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Please sign your contributions to talk pages, even if you are right. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok. did i do it right? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Nope. The easiest way is to add this symbol "~" (the "tilde") four times in a row. Like this ~~~~. The rest happens automatically Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
If you wanna indicate that you've signed your post, you probably shouldn't copy the "Unsigned, by:" part. >.> Also, what Avenger said. (talk) 20:10, 29 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Thanks for the help (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
de nada Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity[edit]

I'd say it might very well be a medical disorder; an anxiety disorder. (talk) 00:13, 31 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

That is hypochondriasis, right?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, wrongly being worried about having/getting a serious illness (which is what "hypochondriasis" refers to, to my knowledge) due to radiation, because you believe in certain radiation woo-ish things, could certainly be relevant. But I'm thinking more along the lines of an actual phobia (of technology/electricity/the concept of invisible electromagnetic radiation, take your pick). (talk) 00:27, 31 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
The consensus for hypersensitivity seems to be 'real symptoms, no external cause', so in principle I don't see a problem with someone receiving disability payments. After all, there are many kinds of mental health disorders that can render you unfit to work. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Wigo candidates[edit]

There are so many WIGeaux about presidential candidates I'm almost tempted to spin off a separate WIGO:ELECTION page. The main thing stopping me is that I have the coding skills of a glass of water. BicyclewheelModerator 18:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I might take a crack later if nobody beats me to it/objects loudly. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick, thanks! Bicyclewheel::Moderator 19:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Later was in this case a relative term. Now what would be really sweet would be if there was a good way to include x many lines of that page in this one. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the only reason i'm distrustful of this as a separate WIGO is that there are going to be long stretches of dead space when the only nations holding elections are minors like Togo or Cambodia, and so it won't really be able to be added to the WIGO list, but because it won't be consistently active enough to make the main list getting to it will be difficult during actual election seasons in countries we might talk about, while leaving our actual "world politics/events" page oddly empty of electoral political events. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any advantage in a WIGO page devoted to all elections everywhere anytime. Make one for the US 2016 Presidential Election while it's current & then we can always create a new one for future elections. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Do we really need that though? I think we need less inactive WIGO: 4reichs, not more--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Then it's better not to create a new one. It will be active for the 2016 Presidential Campaign, then peter out soon after. I don't see anything wrong with that if it's designated as a 2016 Presidential Campaign WIGO, to go with our pages on 2016 candidate nominations etc. Trying to put stuff in about other unconnected elections is going to look awkward and it will still peter out after the 2016 election and be left inactive or barely active for long periods. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's gather round the AfD and sing our AfD song, see what the rest of everyone wants to do with it? WalkerWalkerWalker 18:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we need more actual discussion, which AFD's never really foster because pople go right for the votes and then maybe say something. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
En, that's true. Throwing questions of practicality aside for a moment, what if this page had an expandable pen for electoral wtfery when such was in season? WalkerWalkerWalker 19:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
What about something simple, like a tag/easily-distinguishable label for election-related articles? (P.S. What does "AFD" stand for?) (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
AFD might explain itself. SmartFeller (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

So should I rename it to be presidential election-specific or let it be a catch-all bin, presuming people remember it? WalkerWalkerWalker 05:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason not to keep it as being about election stupidity in general - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)