RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive33

This is an archive page, last updated 15 April 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>

, (new)(back)

Radical change to a WIGO entry

How exactly does anybody justify changing:

UK adopts antisemitism definition to combat hate crime against Jews. —old entry

To:

The UK adopts an overly broad definition of antisemitism that includes criticism of Israel. —new entry

The former clearly has a totally different tone from the latter and the latter seems to be rehashing the old canard that a powerful (((Israel Lobby))) silences all "criticism of Zionism", which is not far away from other people's canard that "political correctness" silences all "criticism of Islam"... Worzelpete (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Is the second headline accurate? Does the new definition of anti-Semitism in UK law include attacks on Israel and/or its government that either don't mention Jews or explicitly avoid attacking Jews and Judaism as w whole? If the definition does in fact do this, then the second headline is perfectly accurate and should remain as it is. Arawn Emrys (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I changed my own link but trying to conflate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism is Worzel's pet issue so he doesn't show the changelogs. If you read the first entry, the Guardian's article, you will that they mention that the new definition includes criticism of Israel but wasn't critical on the ramifications. The second entry, the Independent's article, was actually critical of this new definition. I believe the second entry to be factual because the first entry appears to support the claim that the definition includes criticism of Israel.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

European Court of Justice

The link about the ECJ overruling the UK's surveillance powers quips that Brexit would nullify this decision. Is this true? I was under the impression that Brexit wouldn't affect the UK's relationship to the European courts.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

the ecj is the highest court in the Eu, to rule on eu law. As far as i can tell, it will cease to have any standing in uk after brexit. You may be thinking of the european court of human rights which is an instrument of the council of europe, a seperate entity from the eu, and includes russia. It is no secret that may wants to leave the echj, and brexit probs makes that easier, but its no sure thing. Whats interesting about snoopers charter and the ecj is that the case was brought to tbe ecj with no sense of irony by arch brexiter david davis. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. I was confused because I saw the court referred to as the European Court of Justice which I assume, do to the name, that it wasn't connected to the EU just like how the ECHR isn't. This explains why others called it the EUCJ instead. It is too bad that the ruling may become void after Article 50 is enacted, whenever that is.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Auschwitz Twitter story

I've moved this story to WIGO:blogosphere where it belongs. Please stop reverting this. We have separate WIGOs for separate things & it's tiresome to keep seeing blogosphere stuff posted here. Stories about who said what on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, blogs or other social media platforms belong in blogosphere/clogosphere as appropriate & this has always been the case, with the possible tenuous exception of stories about Donald Trump's tweets, given the bizarre situation of a US President Elect who uses Twitter as his primary means of communication. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I simply refer you to the introductory texts on the WIGO world and WIGO blogs pages:

Published news goes in WIGO:World. Commentaries and editorials go in WIGO:Blogs.

This is merely more than a "Twitter story". The link is not to Twitter. The link is to an event - or a series of events - which occurred on Twitter, as reported - not opined upon - by a major news outlet. Furthermore, as there is no expression of opinion in the article, there is no justification for its placement in WIGO blogs, which is why other contributors,including FCP, have removed it. Leave it alone. Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

If you deem seeing this link in WIGO news "tiresome", you could either, a) avert your eyes, or b) we could put it to a plebiscite.Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Blogosphere" is a catch-all term for blogs, forums & social media, including Twitter. Whether you link to the tweets themselves or what somebody else wrote about them is irrelevant & not an excuse to put them here. Check the WIGO archives: e.g. almost everything related to Gamergate went in blogosphere or clogosphere because it was coverage of online events (i.e. "what is going on in the blogosphere"). Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Check the WIGO archives: e.g. almost everything related to Gamergate went in blogosphere or clogosphere because it was coverage of online events (i.e. "what is going on in the blogosphere").

That is not a case for why this article belongs in the blogosphere. This is not an opinion piece and it is not from a blog. It is a report about an idiot saying something idiotic about Auschwitz and the Holocaust and the Auschwitz Memorial responding. Would it make any difference if the Memorial had responded via post or email? Would that make it worthy of WIGO: news? Furthermore, the article, as I keep pointing out, yet you keep ignoring, doesn’t contain the reporter's opinion. It is not to a blog post or an op-ed or an editorial. It's a news report, like a journalist saying, "so and so occurred today at 5:30 pm..." without editorialing and commenting on "so and so". So, your justification for removing the link from WIGO: news and moving it to WIGO:blogs is weak. Leave it alone. You can leave a copy on WIGO:blogs of you wish, though I agree with FCP and others that it doesn't belong there. By the way, have you read the article?If so, what justifies its presence in WIGO:blogs?Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It's somebody making a fool of himself on Twitter, i.e. the blogosphere, which as I've said is a catch-all phrase for online interactions including social media, not purely blogs & editorials. Again: check what kinds of items in which WIGOs & their archives. You're insisting on putting it here based on your anally retentive reading of some words at the top of the page rather than the way everybody else has been using these pages for years. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm the one being anally retentive? Lol. Project much? The link is to a news report. Leave it. Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A news report about somebody making a fool of himself on Twitter: literally what is going on in the blogosphere. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Why is the info-sorting such an important issue for you, Levi? CorruptUser (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are you singling me out for criticism? You're unfairly assuminy I'm the trangressor? Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Because Weaseloid has a point that stories on Twitter should be in WIGO Blogs. Why is that a Rubicon for you? CorruptUser (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

But this isn't a story on Twitter. It's a story on Huffpo about events on Twitter. Why is THAT such a rubicon for you? Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Because this fight is over something so unimportant that it's irritating. CorruptUser (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand your irritation about creating such a fuss over something so trivial. What I don't understand is why your ire is directed solely at me. You make it seem as though I am the only one making an issue of this. I didn't even start this topic.Levi Ackerman (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You revert warred rather than let me move your post to a different WIGO & are trying to school editors who have been around a lot longer than you based on your own interpretation of WIGO rather than the longstanding ways the community at large are using these pages. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"School editors"? Excuse me, but this disagreement has been between you and me. No one else. If I was trying to school anyone, (which I wasn't), it was you and just you. There is no plurality. Also, why are you waving your editorship about as if it is some kind of badge of infallibility. Are you above misinterpretation? Just because something is the norm does not mean it is correct. Besides, I am only playing by the communities rules as dictated on the WIGO pages, as quoted above. I am neither trying to school anyone nor invent new rules. Levi Ackerman (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that an outdated piece of text on a page is more important than what the community does (i.e. the norm), you're completely at odds with the Community Standards & site culture. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've amended the page intros to clarify. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Per your amendments, this Guardian article reporting something Donald Trump said on Twitter, if it were to be posted on to RW today, would belong in WIGO:Blogs, because, per your wording, it is an article about "...social media posts". You can call it "tedious wikilawyering", (which is very mature, by the way), but I am just applying our rules as they are expressed. Maybe you ought to take some lessons in "wikilegislating"? 15:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Also,you know you're not supposed to apply new rules retroactively? That's just a universal norm. So, stop trying to move the article. Just move on, will you!Levi Ackerman (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "new rule". As I've said repeatedly, this is the way these pages have been used for years. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

1: I accidentally rollback'ed Weaseloid, then rollback'ed myself. 2: Everybody calm the fuck down. If there's fight about this, then maybe Twitter can go in both WIGOW and WIGOB, as the user who posted it decides? Yeah? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a link to Twitter. It's a link to an HuffPost article about something that happened on Twitter. Perhaps you already knew that. Perhaps you don't care. But when you say "maybe Twitter can go in both WIGOW and WIGOB", a casual observer might assume I linked to Twitter.Levi Ackerman (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

(EC) :"The user who posted it decides" just opens the door to everything being posted in World where it will get more views & votes, & there have been times it's been really cluttered with blogosphere stuff. So if I see something fairly newly posted that's in the wrong WIGO, I move it across. Plenty of editors do this. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of clogging up the WIGO, should stuff from TheIntercept go in WIGOW or WIGOB? It's basically a giant blog made up of a number of people, but at what point does a blog become a news source? CorruptUser (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A timely question and a good one. I would contend that it goes in WIGOW when it becomes factual - i.e. the writer isn't merely speculating and/or giving his or her opinion. The article re the Guardian's summary of the Assange article is a good example. I think it became a factual report once the Guardian, having seen Greenwald's article, made changes to the summary. That, combined with the interviewer's response to the summary and how the interview has been distorted and used for political gain, due to the Guardian's summary, makes it a report of factual events, as opposed to an editorial. However, the piece is obviously still coloured by Greenwald's own opinions. Levi Ackerman (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

So... let's talk about that ethics committee story

Is there any reason to do this other than to roll back ethics protections and organize witch hunts against the opposition? Any reason at all? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about the OCE's role & remit, but I think there are likely to be challenges of some sort over Trump's conflicts of interest once he comes into office, & maybe those of some of his appointees, so maybe it was a defensive move against that? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Something else I think we should also mention that Trump did not call actually them out. Hell, his a spokesperson Sean Spencer released a statement saying it was about that. Robert Costa of The Washington Post said that is was people calling there representatives that did it, https://twitter.com/costareportsRyantherebel (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This is interesting. After failing to close the ethics office, the GOP are now making its role in cabinet appointment background checks unmanageable & going ahead with appointments before these ethics checks are complete. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey editors, look out, a CNN article about something that happened on twitter! Do something!

Hey, thou most wise and most infallible editor, Weaseloid, shouldn't the CNN artcle, "House Republicans pull plan to gut independent ethics committee after Trump tweets", inserted in the WIGO: World page as "House Republicans back down", be in WIGO: Blogs, after all...

Commentaries and editorials go in WIGO:Blogs, as do blogs, YouTube videos, social media posts, and articles about any these.

The fact that that article, which is about a tweet, (it's in the headline), remains on WIGO: world is more reason for me to keep undoing attempts to move my Auschwitz article. Levi Ackerman (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Israel article

Why are you removing the Israel article?Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

What are

Daily Kos and Patheos links doing on this page? Don't they belong on WIGO:Blogs? ?? (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes - please move - David Gerard (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Der Orangenführer

As a native German speaker I don't get the name "Der Orangenführer" (= the leader of oranges (the fruit)). "Der orange Führer" (= the orange leader) would make more sense to me and is kind of amusing, but Der Orangenführer definitely not. Now I wonder if I'm dense, the reference to the fruit is intentional and I and simply don't get it. Maybe somebody can elaborate on this.108.171.129.188 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I just routinely vote down any entries containing the word. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Americans have little understanding of languages other than English. We know what "orange" is and what "führer" is. We just don't know how to put them together. Ayzmo^Cheers 14:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Der Orangenführer" is in the Germanic equivalent of Canis Latinicus: it uses aspects of the German language familiar to Americans (specifically, long compound nouns), while still being easily understood by English speakers who don't know German. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I just don't find it that funny. It's more tedious than "Drumpf", even. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Any remark mocking Trump's personal appearance should be done mainly for cheap laughs, if at all. Otherwise, I'd just avoid referrals to his physical appearance and other personal qualities like this and focus on what he says. He makes cheap shots all the time and we shouldn't stoop to those levels as well. It kind of defeats the point, don't you think? LEFTYGREENMARIO 23:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of his appearance, it's not like you could only say bad things, either (unless you were in it for the schadenfreude, which — frankly — seems a little pedantic). I'll take the challenge of naming one positive feature. For starters, the man brings the ass. I'm sorry if this means that I'm "sexually objectifying" him, but I'm sex-positive, I'm not a mean person, and atleast I'm trying to say something positive. Don't be haters for the sake of hating now. It's inarguable — the man stacks the bacon, and you know it. Though (per the image caption), whether or not the POTUS actually stands a fighting chance against h3 is another question entirely. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

let me try humour: "Der OrangenFührer? why? I tought the fruits vote Dem. Shoulnd't he be called the CabbageFührer? for the amount of Vegetables he and his his staff represents?" I should probably stop before i hate myself more...--Benaresh (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

About that 49% to 41%

It's not linked in the article, but if anybody finds the poll, read all the questions. I think the article is referring to the one that has priming questions. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 16:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The reuters link. Not push polling, just shitty republicans being nearly unanimous in their shitty views. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of Milo...

He was encouraging harassment of specific individuals. With one student he was harassing, he made derogatory comments about her appearance, saying that she looked so mannish that even he'd want to "fuck" her. She was just some student he was trying to rile people up against, and he even told people to harass her. That's not okay. If a school wants to put its students at risk like that, a broken window and a few fires are nothing. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 04:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem is, most people don't know who he is. All they see is "Liberal college denies freedom of speech to those they disagree with". That's kind of his goal; be as obnoxious as possible without technically breaking the law, get people to respond, frame their response as "infringing on free speech", join in circle-jerk with other Alt-Righters... CorruptUser (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I wish there were some perfect solution. At least people will only respond to this by saying "oh, that's terrible" and going back to eating breakfast. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 04:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That, and, Bannon has financial ties, so they got a Trump tweet out of it. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 05:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The perfect solution is don't go to his speeches. It's exactly like dealing with Internet trolling, don't feed it. That these people on colleges are such utter morons that they keep holding these ridiculous protests is the only reason this is even an issue. No one is forcing anyone to go to these events, so don't go. Period. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no, that's not how the world works. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away. «-Bfa-» 04:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not feeding someone whose existence is predicated on attention is exactly how to make it go away. There are no actual material changes Milo would institute if people didn't feed him, ergo no reason to feed him. Sorry if you're (generic you) too thin skinned... actually I'm not at all, since I'm sufficiently mature to understand how to wish them well and be on my way (for the answer key see here, though it does take a bit more than regurgitating some ideological ranting to actually comprehend). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The people protesting against his shows are hardly likely to be the same ones flocking to attend them. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

^ What Weasel said. The naive idea that if everyone who disagreed with him just sat down and shut up then he'd give up is patently ridiculous. This is the same stupid argument that people use when they don't want to acknowledge racism or bullying or any other societal ill that'd pop their bubble of complacency. Things don't go away when people pretend they don't exist. Without a larger audience he'd still find attention telling his followers to target and harass individuals, and with no opposition he'd be free to escalate that to whatever level he wanted—all while a depressingly large number of people tell us we have to ignore the harm he's causing because acknowledging it means it's our fault. «-Bfa-» 18:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

To the extent he's causing harm, it's largely because people are seeking him out. It's not patently ridiculous not to show up at his speeches and not to listen to him, because no one makes you do either. And equating one nutcase with an entire societal ill is a bit extreme, to say the least, and indeed there is a certain amount of letting things go that you have to do to get by; yes it sucks, and it's irritating beyond all measure, but that's called being an adult. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not "equating one nutcase with an entire societal ill": racism, transphobia, bullying & harassment are things that Milo Yiannopoulos promotes & incites. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

In his case, the only way his message gets out is if you give him attention. Neo-Nazis like Tom Metzger (to use a random example of a name I recently encountered) don't get a broad audience because people don't go apeshit crazy wherever he shows up, so his influence is limited to the relatively few crazies who are inclined towards these things to start. It's kept him out of the limelight, where he belongs, and I'm not seeing why it wouldn't work for containing Milo. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Negative rating feedback loop

I notice one of the mods changed some asshole's entry about a machete attack in Paris (which was more about mocking people who don't blame Islam right away) to a neutral entry just saying what happened. Funny how people continued to vote it down anyway despite there being nothing controversial in the news or the way it was reported. Wake up Sheeple!

But yeah, is there a way to just reset certain entries, or should we just move the rewritten ones to a new WIGO code?.-- 194.81.33.234 (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am the newcomer who posted the link on China/AIDS/TCM. It seems to be getting a lot of downvotes so I am wondering if there is anything I should do about it. I tried to look at the newcomer guide and the community standards but I can't tell whether I missed something. Where can I get some help?

--Cmonk (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

From what I've experienced, users are liable to downvote based on how the entry portrays the writer rather than the credibility of the information just like a real democracy. Or they just don't like the information period. Based on the article's info itself, I've come up with two alternative entries. One is pure snark; the other more serious.

1. "In an effort to tackle 'AIDS-related homosexual behavior', China intends to increase production of the one thing all gay men fear: Herbs!"

2. "In an effort to tackle the spread of HIV and AIDS, the Chinese government is growing support for home remedies."

-- Forerunner (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! FWIW I don't defend TCM or the "reduce homosexual behavior" stuff, I just thought it was newsworthy to know that China had announced this health plan. I tried to get the source article (from AFP) but I couldn't find it (and for all I know, the source might have been a badly translated Chinese with an original meaning "reduce AIDS" which would make more sense). I will change my text to your option 2 if that's ok.

--Cmonk (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It feels like users vote more for how they feel about the subject of the article than for its relevance to the site. e.g. Most users disagree with the Chinese government backing alternative medicine, so they downvote the WIGO entry; most users agree with the Russian government denouncing homeopathy, so they upvote that WIGO entry. Also notice how votes get wonky when satire shows up. I say take the fact that your entry garnered a lot of votes as a measure of success. 71.188.73.196 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Duck off

Is the saloon bar getting edited? Boo Gaul Dernitt (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Flynn

So if nobody is prosecuted in the Obama administration's illegal wiretapping of private citizens and political opponents, specifically the violations of Michael Flynn's civil rights, it's safe to say Trump has failed to drain the swamp. 10:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)nobs

Nice redefinition of "drain the swamp" there. "Drain the swamp" refers to Trump's promise to remove lobbyists and campaign finance bribery from Washington, which is obviously now revealed to be a complete joke and a lie, now that he has literally hired Goldman Sachs and Exxon executives into his administration.--Greenrd (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

LGBTQIA

Quite apart from the issues I have with continually adding to LGBT, I take particular umbrage with the addition of Q to the alphabeti spaghetti. Quite apart from the fact that for many Queer is a term of abuse (it illicits panic attacks in my flat mate), even when 'reclaimed' i am yet to find definition of the word (there appears to be no concencus as to what the word represents, reason enough on its own to warrant its omission) that is not already covered by the already very broad LGBT or a is a divisive political statement. As i said LBGT is is already a broad church, continually adding to it with more and specific subsets narrows the scope and makes us focus on our differences rather than our shared experiences and struggles. Quite apart from it starting to look just rediculous and unwieldy. I can see merit to some additions, but Q for queer? No. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

personally, i'd prefer a return to idea of the word 'gay' encompassing all of the above. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I always thought "lesbian and gay" was a bit puzzling. I thought lesbians were gay. 90.205.111.198 (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I mean, apart from the fact that for many of us "queer" doesn't have a negative connotation, you simply don't speak for all of us. Queer can mean anyone who falls outside of sexual/gender/romantic norms. As simple as that. It can be an umbrella term or it can mean something specific to any given person. You're also ignoring that many people consider the Q to also stand for "questioning," a very important demographic that is often ignored, but which I frequently work with as part of my job. My bigger problem with your post though is that you seem to believe that some identities deserve to be recognized as belonging in the top ones. Why are "gay," "bisexual," "lesbian," and "transgender" any more important than "intersex" or "asexual." All your posts says to me is that you only view some groups worthy of recognition and others aren't as important and don't warrant recognition. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

the very fact that you cannot give me a single definition of what the Q stands for tells me that it is an unnecessary addition. Nothing you have said explains what it covers that isn't already covered by the very broad church. And Questioning? Thats like 100 percent of the human race. How are we served by making these arbitrary distinctions? It narrows the scope of the existing groups, makes them less inclusive. How is this helpful? As the A and the I, i made no mention of those. I did say i saw merit in some editions, but is the superfluous Q i was discussing. If you think i am saying some groups arent as important then you clearly havent read what i have properly. The point is everything you mentioned is ALREADY covered. I have never claimed to speak for all. Neither do you. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

though i dont speak for all as was needlessly made clear, i am sure some will have similar experiences to me. For most of my youth, i have always felt apart. Seperate to whatever group i was desperately trying to fit in with, to connect to. Never sure who i was. Searching to belong. Then i came out, and suddenly i knew who was. These where my people, people like me, this was my place. I belonged. There were so many different backgrounds, different cultures, races, political persusasions yet we were somehow the same in a way that in previous life were i shared the exact same background of my friends and those around me did not seem possible. I could start to live. On the thankfully infrequent occasions i recieved verbal or physical abuse, it didnt matter. I was not alone. Then as the years went on, i am told 'you are not one of us'. Too camp, not camp enough. You sleep with trans so not really gay, you a cliche, you are the reason why the straights hate us, too mainstream. Etc, etc, the list can be endless. Not all directed at me, not all malacious, but all the wrong kind of gay. I am not opposed to different groups. It is the diverse range of identity that i found welcoming, that helped me belong. We were all so different but intrinsically the same. These arbitrary inclusions feel me like it is officially seperating us, validating the petty distinctions that have marred my experience. I no longer feel the connection i once did. This is a step back. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't give you a single definition of "trans" either, or "gay." Both have at least two definitions, but are included. You see it as divisive. I see it as inclusive. I don't expect us to agree on this. And that's ok. I do know that providing visibility for groups who are often ignored does wonders for acceptance by themselves and others. I'm sorry for your experience. There are many petty differences at times, but that doesn't invalidate the larger need to work together or the need to recognize all those that we encompass. There is the problematic question of where to draw the line, and I don't have the answer to that question, but I know that there is less harm in including more. Ayzmo^Cheers 18:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Mosul airport

Iraqi forces retake Mosul airport with US "bombing the shit" out of ISIS for cover. What is the significance of this? (A) The grand coalition envisaged by Putin to defeat ISIS (LIH in Google translators of Russian) is under way. This deal likely was finalized on the Saturday morning, January 28 telephone conversation between Putin and Trump with Flynn present. (B) It further signifies elements of the deal remain operational (again, LIH = ISIS in translation). (C) This gives a clue how the Trump administration operates: significant shifts in policy can occur by phone agreement w/o principal characters, such as Tillerson or Mattis, ever having a first contact with their counterparts. Also individual appointees, such as Flynn, once their primary task is completed can be dispatched with a "You're fired". No room for bureaucratic careerists or careerism in the Trump-style management. (D) Controlling the Mosul airport is key to transporting in additional troops and material. (E) After "bombing the shit" out of 'em, he'll send in Exxon to rebuild. (F) The Mosul action could have been completed in mid-to-late 2014, if a commander-in-chief had the willpower to do so. Trump is not even serving his own agenda yet. (G) Remaining question: With the fall of ISIS, who will the US back in the vacuum for regional hegemony, Saudi Arabia or Iran? nobs 21:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nazi Punching; American Tradition

I'm... not sure how I should feel about that article. For a rather odd reason; my great-grandfather was involved with Lansky, and once sucker-punched the Nazi advocator Father Coughlin. CorruptUser (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

McDonalds on Trump

"You are actually a disgusting excuse for a President and we would love to have Barack Obama back, also you have tiny hands."

Later tweet was that their account was compromised and they deleted the tweet and secured the account. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Rep Joe Barton admits to trolling

https://twitter.com/AliceOllstein/status/845373755136380929

Reporters asked why, after Republicans held dozens of nearly unanimous votes to repeal Obamacare under President Obama, they were getting cold feet now that they control levels of power.

"Sometimes you're playing Fantasy Football and sometimes you're in the real game," he admitted. "We knew the president, if we could get a repeal bill to his desk, it would almost certainly be vetoed. This time we knew if it got to the president's desk it would be signed."

I like the comparison to Fantasy Football... when American lives and money are at stake with healthcare. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Bathroom Law Repeal

It is only a half-repeal. It still blocks any localities from protecting trans individuals with nondiscrimination ordinances through 2020. Only one provision was repealed. It is a joke. Ayzmo^Cheers 12:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It is largely a joke, but anything more would require a Democratic state legislature, which ain't gonna happen for some time still. In some ways you could say the original was always largely symbolic, most local law enforcement had no idea how to enforce it and it impacted people's lives little outside of a few high-profile cases. So a largely symbolic bigoted bill gets a largely symbolic progressive "repeal"... from a macro perspective it helps give Cooper some legitimacy as a "bipartisan" governor which helps the Dems in general in that state. Hentropy (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, but a bill blocking nondiscrimination ordinances is a big deal. Ayzmo^Cheers 20:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It sure is. But we have these things called elections, they're kind of important. I and many others could have told you that this was going to happen if the left didn't show up, but apparently they thought campaign fundraising and differences over foreign policy was worth a protest vote ensuring that trans got fucked, gays got fucked, women got fucked, poor got fucked, minorities got fucked, and on top of it all we get monumentally worse foreign policy and campaign finance policy out of it. At this point it's just watching the pieces fall into place. Now instead of the possibility of actually changing these problems, you can impotently complain on the internet about it. Hentropy (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

A new slogan for Brexit?

I am confused by the April 2017 entry about the "new" Brexit slogan. In the article, all the dates are 2016, the bus is mentioned in an ambiguous message involving photoshop, and there is no explicit discussion of Article 50 and the negotiations. Even the Twitter discussion is from last year. What is really new about this? Is there an actual bus like that now? (edit: the article about religious text analysis is also dated 2016, is the fabric of spacetime fracturing already?) --Cmonk (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops. My bad! I never do WIGO editing, so... And one learns by doing. Though, the text thing is still relevant (as texual research moves sloooowly). Brexit, on the other hand, moves fast. I'll remove that one. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know we are not stuck in a time loop, it would really suck to have to listen to the doomsday people repeating "I told you so!" again and again forever. --Cmonk (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

for future reference, rather than deleting a duff WIGO outright, the better way is to comment out the offending item. Changing the wigo numbers alters the voting patterns (each vote is linked to the wigo number, not the item it's about). 85.234.65.51 (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! This is how I learn Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The Violence of Sacred Literature

The violence isn't going to be found in the Quran, but the Hadiths. The Quran is unlike the Bible on account of the Quran just being a book of sayings, without a recollection or contextualization of events. ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.56.77.91 / talk / contribs}

Not to say the Qur'an is in any way blemish-free, however. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Communism vs the environment

Concerning the WIGO post about Communist coverups of nuclear pollution, it's worth noting how God-awful communist rule has always been for the environment. No, really. There's tons of sources on the fact that industrial Communism overtakes any capitalist alternative by far in terms off how few fucks have consistently been given for the environment. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a by-product of the condition that in capitalism if you pollute the environment, your personal/company reputation is stained and that is a very real financial and personal incentive against pollution, whereas in industrial/centralised/totalitarian communism the government is in on it, so reputation doesn't really matter as much, the spreading-of-responsiblity-over-a-large-body-of-people effect, so-to-speak. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The article gives 3 reasons: authoritarianism (people are afraid to complain), lack of individual responsibility (and the government doesn't care), and low wealth/technology. The technology point is debatable, but their management and priorities were definitely unsound. It is ironic how some people reject the idea of government intervention to help deal with environmental issues when the lack of such intervention actually caused irreparable environmental tragedies. As for the reputation, there are examples of corporations who either don't care or lie about it. In addition, the melting of the ice cap allows access to huge arctic oil fields, so at least we know we won't run out of oil. --Cmonk (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Study about depression

I don't have access to the papers themselves, only the abstracts. If there is something wrong with them, please explain and I will update the entry accordingly. --Cmonk (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong at all. Abstracts can be perfectly sufficient if it's credible research, etc. Atleast for a reputable user. As long as it's POSSIBLE to check up on the sources in full (e.g. with university access), abstracts are enough to prove that the study isn't just made up, etc. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Gay only concentration camp

Did Hitler open gay only concentration camps? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on a relatively brief search, it looks like they were placed wherever the Nazis needed heavy labour; in late-war terms that's pretty much anywhere including Auschwitz-Birkenau; Dachau and Buchenwald. It even overlaps into reparative therapy territory with Dr. Carl Vaernet's research into turning gays straight by repeatedly injecting testosterone into their junk to de-girlify them, with inmates only being allowed out if they convinced him they were ex-gay.-- Forerunner (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nazi camps were somewhat inclusive. There have been (too) many concentration and internment camps, before and after WW2 (list including some managed by the US). According to the Wikipedia list, the book A Contemporary Cuba Reader (I haven't read it) mentions concentration camps in the 1960s that were also used to "reeducate" homosexuals (source). --Cmonk (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

North Carolina wants to ban same-sex marriage WIGO

"North Carolina" wants to do no such thing. Four Republican legislators do, but the bill doesn't seem to have any traction even in their own caucus or support from the party leadership, and the (Democratic) governor has vowed to veto it if it does get passed. It's newsworthy that four elected officials in NC apparently don't understand how our Federal system works, but to say that "North Carolina" is ignoring the Constitution is counter-productive hyperbole.66.57.238.234 (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Assange

The Deep State's got Trump by the nuts now. He'll do anything to prove his bona fidas with them, dump Flynn, sweet talk NATO, bomb Syria, drone Assange. But they can't give him back his lost honeymoon. Time for Wikileaks to start dumping its Trump treasure trove, and we'll see if the Deep State rises to defend Trump. nobs 05:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that'll embarrass Trump would be Wikileaks proving that he's been broke for decades. Anything else he'll somehow twist to make himself sound good to his followers. Got three teenagers pregnant? He'll claim that it's because he's so manly! Murdered a man? He don't take shit from no one. Dug up George Washington's grave to use his femur as a sex toy? He's patriotic!

So no, I'm not wasting any breath on Wikileaks revelations. CorruptUser (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, ssshhhh, I let u in on what's behind the Russia probe...the unspoken allegations...Russia has earnings from crude and natural gas sales...but the targeted oligarchs who are big earners from it can't convert it to cash ("cash" meaning something other than the worthless Russian rubble) so they have to engage in elaborate money laundering schemes...one such scheme happened to involve Manhattan real estate that was purchased by a guy who knew a guy who happened to know a guy who happened to ride the elevator in Trump Towers. And the same guy 'cousin's best friend had an uncle who lived nextdoor to a guy who once met Vladimir Putin. U connect the dots. nobs 07:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and ah Preet Bharara, who was investigating all this, wound up on the Russian's shit list in retaliation for sanctions. Trump made it one of his first order of business to fire Bharara. nobs 07:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

So rather than make unfounded accusations on incomplete evidence, all critics can do is speak in innuendo (note: it wouldn't matter if a dummy corporation purchased a Trump property before, during or after Trump's candidacy or presidency. All that matters is intent to circumvent sanctions. Any billionaire would have this same problem. And there is an interesting legal issue that pertains to critics who maintain Trump should be forced to liquidate (what the IRS would call an 'involuntary conversion'. Laying aside a person's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, suppose the only interested buyer in a Trump property was a front for the Russian mafia?) I note we don't hear anymore about 'the Emoluments Clause', which was the Deep State's first attack back in December & January. That may suggest further investigation has exonerated Trump of knowledge or intent in any Russian money laundering scheme. nobs~

Pastor eaten by crocs

...not according to Snopes.CorruptUser (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Four arrested in anti-terror raid

This happens several times a year. What of it? Why WIGO it? I thought we'd stopped posting humdrum everyday news articles. Bicycle^wheel 13:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Whale numbers

Sorry, but there are way more than 411 humpbacks left. Read the article carefully - groups can be as small as 400. Come down to Kaikoura, New Zealand to see some! ^{— Unsigned, by: Huttoldboys / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence, there are currently at least 80,000 globally in case anyone was interested. Christopher (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I mighta borked it.

C®ackeЯ 02:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hawking and hyperbole

250 degrees? Really? While it is possible to trigger a feedback loop in the Earth, to do so would require somewhere around 10 times as much oil, coal and gas remaining in the Earth's crust. That's not going to happen. Worst case scenario is that we burn all the fossil fuels, which raises the Earth's temperature by 4 degrees celcius, which causes massive climate shifts and ends our current ice age, which basically causes mass starvation and instability throughout the world, but with nuclear weapons. 9/10 of humans die, civilization enters a dark age, and over the next millenia the Earth recovers enough for society to rebuild, just more slowly as the less renewable resources are more scarce than before. But enough of this fearmongering about 250 degrees. CorruptUser (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

rats and sinking ships

this a poor analogy of the mooch's departure. it usually refers to people leaving of their own accord not firings/forced resignations. it could not be applied to any of trumps team, except maybe spicer, unless you consider his sidelining as constructive dismissal. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Captain of Sinking Ship Files Patent for Rat Catapult. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

WIGO Trump

It's getting so it might be worth having a WIGO page just about Trump... Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 11:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, he is becoming a meme in his own right. Euromec (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

why bother? If its not interesting enough for this wigo then its just a tedious breakdown of each and every tweet. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We know he says stupid shit almost every day, it's the REALLY wingnut shit we should focus on. Asaac Isimov (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Virginia incident

@Dogeatsdog: @Blanquismo:

Re: this edit:

These two WIGO entries are the same:

White nationalist rally in Charlottesville, VA: Car plows into crowd of counter-protesters, killing one and injuring dozens.

Hundreds of white nationalists protest in the University of Virginia, against whatever oppression they are facing.

While the latter's headline doesn't include the car plowing, it does if you actually click the link:

A 32-year-old woman died when a car slammed into a crowd in Charlottesville, home to the University of Virginia, police said. Five people suffered critical injuries and four had serious injuries from the car strike, the University of Virginia Health System said.

As for the former’s headline, I think it's rather poor taste. It's the type of shocking headlines that generate millions in revenue off the expense of people's deaths. It's even poorer taste that they have videos of it and a picture.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 00:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I acquiesce to the sentiment that they are essentially the same, but I believe the final entry concerning the event should reflect the fact that the protest turned deadly, for the sake of journalism. If this were phrased in as little a "clickbait" way as possible as per your liking I would be be satisfied.☭ (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"White nationalist rally and its counter-protest in Charlottesville, VA turns deadly."—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 01:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Perfect☭ (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"Is it just me, or did you just make it INTO clickbait?)" --RBP heh, I guess I did! :P—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 02:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Mother of Charlottesville victim

How dare a grieving mother not be on message. what a bitch. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The sentence makes it seem she cares more about Trump than her daughter's recent death, which doesn't look the case. We should either rewrite the sentence or ditch it entirely - I don't see it going above -7. -- Forerunner (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"Trump's response to the Navy warship collision that left 10 soldiers missing: "that's too bad". Imagine the Republican shitstorm if Obama or Clinton said this."

Don't the Republicans hate Trump just as much, for the most part? All they like about him is that he appoints pro-lifers to the federal bench. Ailurus (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

He's a blunt tool for them. Theyd support anyone as long as they can sign their name. Trump is stupid as shit but by god he has a signature! Asaac Isimov (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What's worse, triple talaq...

Or tunak tunak tun? Evil Zionist (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

About that smug alt-right thing

I'm not sure this is something to celebrate, to put it mildly. 107.77.76.63 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

the worst shooting by...

does this merit some kind of medal? are victims' families going to be pleased that their loved ones are now record breakers? or is it just headline grabbing pap, as if '50 dead' isnt is eye ctching enough? still only 3 place in the world though. what is that? bronze? must do better america. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of when Guinness had "beat this record" on their "most people killed in a terrorist attack" award. I'm not sure about the comparison, either, as if to say "yeah, all those teenagers getting shot is nothing" (and I thought the Nice truck attack killed more).

Here's my counter-proposal: "At least 50 people have been killed and countless more injured in a shooting at a country music festival in Las Vagas." Maybe include the gunman shooting himself and having an arms cache in his room as long as it doesn't overshadow the death.-- Forerunner (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

the NRA calls for more regulation

No.No it isnt. its throwing you scraps. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Why measure Hillary Clinton's rating?

Sorry, but I'm confused by a detail that seems really odd to me. Given that Hillary Clinton is retired from the active politics of state affairs, why are the media measuring her ratings?

I know she's well known, and that she was the last Democrats presidential candidate... But Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are also well known and these two are more relevant.

So, unless the media start measuring Trump to a lot of ex-candidates for the presidency, I don't see the logic here. 174.7.68.55 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I have two guesses. 1. They really don't want Hillary Clinton to try running again, which is probably for the best at this point given the things people make up and believe about her. If you ever need to guess who is behind any given conspiracy theory, the answer is either "Jews" or "The Clintons," even when it's a group of aliens. 2. They just want to try and give the Trump people something resembling good news as far as his approval ratings. Come 2020, if he's still in office, Trump will be running against the team of Clinton-Dukakis, no matter who the Democrats actually nominate.--PsychoGecko (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Tooltip

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

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

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

Latest entry

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

Texas church shooting

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

The shooter had posted pro atheist and anti theist stuff on his Facebook page, which is mentioned in numerous news articles on this topic. His atheism and anti theism are patent. --101.181.112.248 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Also an interesting episode of the Ben Shapiro show on this topic, though I am well aware that the Daily Wire is outside the rationalwiki echo chamber. --101.181.112.248 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the Video and we here at RW do not want an Echo chamber! So be welcome to discuss your views here. Now about that atheism of the shooter: It was inevetable to happen. There not a single :::movement or belief without their share of extremistst and nuts. --Benaresh (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Related to the Nuts i mentioned: Where the hell is Nobs? I miss RW's crazy old Grandpa. :( --Benaresh (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart?

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

It was added by @Mr1.136.108.2, reverted by @GrammarCommie, and then re-added by @FuzzyCatPotato.

See FuzzyCatPotato's justification here.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that it does not belong on the page and should be removed. CowHouse (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

My position on this matter is obvious of course. GrammarCommie (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, sorry for the language. I come once in a while to rational wiki to mostly look at the WIGO as there are good stories there. Some dumbass put it on that list here, so it probably needs to stay. Maybe it should stick up more so that it looks like the sore thumb that it is... But, I also think it should maybe be used as a pedagogic example (ain't that a bit the purpose of this site?) as Breitbard is just an horrible news source and nobody is protected from having that in a thread somewhere. Which was knowable from studies such as this: https://www.nber.org/papers/w23089

Also, if someone is really bored, maybe a debunking of that article? It might be more proper for a personal blog that...204.174.112.231 (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe someone should add this story to the list: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/opinion/trump-racism-white-supremacy.html

As it pretty much rebuf everything said in that breitbart story.204.174.112.231 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Isn't an unavoidable risk of these kinds of page? 204.209.150.91 (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

CDC "Word Ban"

Some conflicting follow-up reports:

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

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

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

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

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

Daily Caller predicts resignations in the next 72 hours

It's been 72 hours. Why was this shit on the WIGO world page in the first place? London Grump (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a BoN posted it so who knows. GrammarCommie (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

SWAT

Is that the first time someone actually died from a SWATTing incident? Fuck those two people by the way, fuck them so much, a life wasn't worth dying over a fucking Call of Duty video game. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 20:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've heard of a few other SWATing deaths, but yeah fuck those morons, fuck their $2 bet, and fuck CoD. Comrade GC (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump tweets

"Person says stupid thing" belongs in WIGO CLOGS, doesn't it? Readymade (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not of they're really important and them saying said stupid thing is going to affect the real world, which is certainly the case with Trump. Christopher (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

thats a caveat i havent heard before. All trumps tweets should be clogs imho. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Lawyers seek to halt Trump's book release because of its contents.

What else would lawyers try to halt a book for? unflattering cover art? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

when i first read it i thought it was a book written by trump that would be halted. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 20:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No, they're not

1. For fucks sake, give more of an indication of what the wigo is than 'no, they're not'
2. A tweet? just fuck off
3. if it contadicting the previous tweet, maybe add to that or the talk page.
4. dont fuck up the numbering

AMassiveGay (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Shithole countries

too be fair, many of these places are shitholes. often through from years of war and government corruption all exasperated by (often but not exclusively) american imperialism and cold war politics AMassiveGay (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Shithole countries" is an incredibly disrespectful way of saying that, especially from a world leader. Also, a big part of the problem with his comment is that he claimed to want immigrants from Norway (very white), not "shithole countries" (not white). Despite the fact that African immigrants (African countries are included in the comment) are better educated than Americans as a whole. Qscgy (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

They are focusing on the "shithole countries" and not the racism that follows. His entire persona is "I'm crass but I tell it like it is" and "the media is full of liars who are out to discredit me". When the media goes after his "shithole countries" comment, they are validating Trump. Of course the countries are shitholes, you don't produce refugees if things have been going well. It's almost as if the media WANTS Trump to be in power. CorruptUser (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

the burn from the norwegians is glorious at least. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 20:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Right-wing nutballs in London tried to arrest and hang Sadiq Khan

I wish I was making this up. The group of men, led by a man named Davey Russel, who is also evidently a leading member of the English Defense League, accused London mayor Saqid Khan of treachery, tyranny and disrespecting President Trump. Another person they wanted to 'arrest' was an MP by the name of Kate Green who was chairing the event that Khan was speaking at.

Obviously, they were escorted out by security but it is both disturbing and hilarious that they thought they would accomplish something.

Khan took it all in stride, of course, taking a shot at Trump by calling the men 'very stable geniuses' once they were escorted out of the room. ^{— Unsigned, by: Zaydin / talk / contribs}

and he didnt get a refund for his ticket. truly, the terrorists have won. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

its quite heartening that this is the quality of nazi we have in this country. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

last months sex and racism scandal

there was no 'sex scandal'. he parted ways with his missus and shacked up with a younger woman. its only scandalous to puritanical tabloids. considering the recent more real scandals of sexual harassment and abuse, sex scandal here is just dishonest. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Former Haringey council chief Claire Kober interview. "The only thing worse in Labour than sexism is the antisemitism".

Why is a Murdoch, right-wing paper's pay-walled article being posted here? This is all I get:

"This week, Ms Kober — the most senior Labour woman in local government — announced her intention to stand down at the local elections in May after a…

Want to read more?"

For a very long time I have wondered why the anti-Semitic card is played so much, when it is apparent that I do not want to be an anti-Semite and nor do any of the people that support equality but who get called it far too often.

A few months ago I saw a British MP talking with a member of the public about Israeli policy, and very quickly the MP started calling the other person an anti-Semite. The member of the public had not made any comments, had not fallen back on stereotypes, had not said anything with a subtext where the only thing could be anti-Semitism. The MP, IIRC an neo-Labour one, then revealed things indirectly: because (most? some?) Jews see the existence of Israel as a core part of their belief, then to criticise Israel, the country, you are actually criticising Judaism whether you know it or not.

That is why saying equality for Palestinians is viewed as anti-Semtic. Israel, the country, seems to have expansionist aims and that deserve criticism, but point that out and you are labelled as thinking like a Nazi.

A spanner in the works is this: Some Muslims say DAESH/Islamic State is a manifestation of their beliefs. Therefore opposition to DAESH is Islamophobia? By the criticism-of-Israel logic, it should be.

Just one more thing.... /Columbo . If criticism of countries was badly hidden religious hatred, then those that persecute Israel would surely have a go against other Judaism-heavy countries? An anti-Semite would attack the foreign and domestic policies of a place, and could pretend they are just making normal political commentary. If there is ever any criticism of, say, the 2nd most Jewish country in the world which parallels what Israel gets, then perhaps criticising a country (even a nominally secular democracy like Israel) could be some kind of religious bigotry. Gibraltar is the second most Jewish country in the world, and that place gets exactly zero criticism. Thus when people criticise Israel they are criticising Israel, not the religion of most of its inhabitants.

Heh, just also seen how this same councillor is reported in the Mail moaning about Sexism in Momentum. Yes, what she has to say could be spot-on, or it could be the for-profit press trying to use ideas of equality and fairness to undermine those that oppose their politics.

BrowserWarVet (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

it is disingenuous to suggest that allegations of sexism and anti-semitism within the labour party are a fabrication of the press (you single out the mail and Murdoch publications, so i assume the right wing press). they are widely reported in papers right or left leaning. it is more Labour infighting than some kind of press vendetta. As for the antisemitism in general, it is is on the rise in the UK. We are talking violent assaults not poltical disagreements. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I know, re-reading that I ended up letting myself get polarised, giving an implication that those problems are impossible within the left. The DAESH bit is so facile I wish I had made that point better too..... is the existence of the Vatican crucial to Roman Catholics?

I hadn't seen the article (as we know, the best place to base a reasoned criticism) when I commented here, I have since found that by faking my browser agent to be Google the site will provide the whole piece.

Infighting though, People's front of Judea vs. Judean people's front. The left are their own worst enemy sometimes^W since the time of Brian, but those that simply do not want democracy certainly stir things up. Here's a piece I've just read that illustrates good old divide and rule.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/henry-tam/conservatives-have-turned-universal-suffrage-into-contest-for-manipulation-here-s-what-

Like any group there will be a diversity of views on the left, and as the group is humans everyone started at zero knowledge and understanding. The easy concepts are picked up early and can really hang about. I do not think at all that Momentum or Labour are somehow immune to using prejudice, but their silence is deafening (not that I use anti-social networks (I adblock them off the web), so cannot actually see most of what Momentum might say or don't). I think the silence is amplified for political, profit, viewer-ship and click/tap aims by platform owners. Judging scale of the problem on range from a "storm in a teacup" to something significantly endemic is so difficult, but that seems to be the way of the world these days: FUD everywhere.

BrowserWarVet (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)