RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive34

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 24 March 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

How does the -vote up- -vote neutral- -vote down- voting system work?[edit]

Am I supposed to vote up for articles I like and down for articles I don't like? -- (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

No one knows! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
That's an arbitrary method of voting. Some would call it, "irrational". -- (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hurray for them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
It used to mean that you liked the find, even if you disliked the news - "this is relevant to my interests" as they used to say. These days it seems to mean that you agree with the content. However in CLOGs, it still seems to mean "I join you in laughing at this." Perhaps there should be, as well as "how to write a good WIGO" a "what the voting means" guide. — Unsigned, by: Readymade / talk / contribs 20:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The telegraph, george soros, and antisemitism[edit]

i cannot read the telegraph article, its behind a pay wall. i have read some opinion pieces on the then article elsewhere. they were not very informative. the gist of them was essentially that the telegraph didnt say anything antisemitic, but criticism of george soros is antisemitic, therefore the telegraph article was antisemitic. i understand that soros fearures in many antisemitic conspiracy theories but this does not make him immune to criticism. this helps no one. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Avast warning[edit]

I was using Google to find a page on RationalWiki and every references to the site gets a yellow ! (This site has a bad reputation). Now that is supposed to be regarding security which is totally dependent on the user's password (wikipedia has the same problem but it is not getting the yellow !). I use the Mac version of the free Avast Security program just in case this is limited to the MacOS. This could be an error but given there is a drop down menu that says "how do you rate your experience" (positive or negative) I wouldn't put it past people for treating the security prompt as a like/dislike button.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@BruceGrubb, someone got hold of some passwords a while back, could be that. Christopher (talk)<

YouTube Hiring for Some Positions Excluded White and Asian Males, Lawsuit Says[edit]

Here is a WSJ news article on YouTube hiring discrimination. Could someone put it on the rational wiki world for me? -- (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Cheers -- (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Canadian peace keeping[edit]

aside from being clearly something for the blogs, its a youtube video AMassiveGay (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay It's from The National, part of the CBC, a mainstream Canadian news source. If you look at the lower right-hand corner, you will find the CBC logo. If you watch it till the very end, the journalist will identify himself as a CBC employee (in Ottawa). Nerd (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
i normally wouldnt have bothered mentioning it, but i initially misread it as being 3 years old. its still one for blogs and i will always downvote youtube. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay How you vote is up to you. But I will move it to WIGO blogs. Your suggestion makes sense. Nerd (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail[edit]

Are we really reduced to Daily Mail headlines? This source seems to be...sensationalist at best. Perhaps some corroborating articles on the same topic by another source would make for a better entry on the WIGO. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

knife and gun crime on the rise in london[edit]

westmonster? seriously? are you taking the piss? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Turkish Army of Islam?[edit]

For fuck's sake, can we have some quality control before we post shit like this? Using badly translated tertiary source is bad enough, but not knowing how conditional verbs work is a mistake worthy of a twelve year old.

Scraping away at the layers of crap around this story, it seems that a leader column in a Turkish newspaper suggested that an Army of Islam could crush Israel. Good luck with that. The closest we've come to a real pan-Arab leader was Nasser in the 50s. Saddam and Gaddafi tried and look how they ended up. In the Six Day War, the arab coalition was supplied and supported by the USSR. How did that end up? Who's going to sponsor the coalition now?

File under clogs because it sure as shit isn't news. London Grump (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

'including putin'[edit]

'There were also some chants of "Putin resign!' That is the extent of Putins mention in the article, along wth his statement about the fire. to suggest calls for his resignation is at all salient within the piece is just disingenuous. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That was my bad on my end: I had multiple sources in mind when I wrote that piece. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
You might want to dial back the enthusiasm just a little. There's some low-quality stuff getting posted. WilderBicycle 09:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is "How to write a good WIGO" even collapsed?[edit]

Shouldn't an important guideline like this be always visible to any user, no matter what? The small paragraph isn't even long enough to warrant a collapse like that. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 22:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I like it collapsed by default since I visit this page all the time. You make a good point, though. Maybe one of us with some spare time can move this over to a box above the media navigation template and display it uncollapsed there. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Please leave it collapsed. I don’t want to scroll past it every time I visit the page, and it is prominently labeled so those who feel like reading it can get to it in one click. Anonymous User (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a complete detriment to newer users who want to contribute, however, because it's very easily skippable, like how I did when I first saw the article. And the scrolling past it part is really a very minor inconvenience at worst. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 23:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
It is unnecessary clutter for the vast majority of readers. An officious banner at the top of the page is a chronic annoyance that gets in the way every time a reader visits the page, and really poor layout design. Do you understand why people hate pop-up ads? This is a similar thing. Anonymous User (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This isn't even the same thing as pop-up ads. It's about as intrusive, as, well the text that goes on the top of all of the "What is going on" pages or notice templates on the top of articles that need help. This is nothing compared to pop-up ads, which do far, far, far more to annoy you than a mere small paragraph either reminding users or instructing readers how to write good entries every time you see the page. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 00:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn’t say it was the same thing, only that it was similar (in that it shoves a piece of boilerplate above the content that readers actually want to see.) Maintenance tags come and go, and are not nearly as annoying as this would be. Think about how many people visit the page to read it, and how few, by comparison, add content to the page. Anonymous User (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I still don't see the huge fuss over a, very frankly, minor inconvenience that lays out writing guidelines for potential new users who want to post new entries on this section. Whenever you access the page, you have to scroll down banners and paragraphs of information anyway. The part of "how to write a good WIGO" shouldn't even be in this "boilerplate" table template format to begin with, it should be integrated with the section that discusses it. I don't advocate keeping information like this less accessible towards newer users for the sake of a 2 second pay-off that amounts to practically nothing at all. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 00:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we could post the text on a certain person's talk page, since he appears not to have read it. WilderBicycle 10:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
do you know, i have never read it. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Well that didn't help, we're still getting loads of stuff about everyday news Bomb goes off somewhere. Plane crashes. What next?

WIGO vote ID wrong?[edit]

I just added a WIGO:World item about a mosque in Stornoway, and suspect I've done something wrong, as the vote counter immediately showed +17. Assuming RW's vote counter hasn't come under the influence of Cambridge Analytica, might someone check it out and see what happened? MrChris (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@MrChris You padded the poll counter by numbering the entry out of sequence. I fixed it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


i hear hes at parties these days and is saying 'i'm not looking so bad now am i' AMassiveGay (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

is this newsworthy?[edit]

this right here. -- (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope --Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Rising anti-semitism in Germany[edit]

Can someone publish this news article about anti-Jew hatred in today's Germany? -- (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Jews in Europe[edit]

Anyone seen this? Looks bad guys. -- (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Main basque separatist group[edit]

No, @Bigs, ETA was never the main Basque separatist group. If you'd actually done some checking instead of wanking yourself into a frenzy about WIGOing every single fucking current affairs story you come across, you wouldn't keep making such obvious mistakes. WilderBicycle 17:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

ha, i saw that. i looked at the article to see if it were picked up in the text or headline - it was not. .the salient points where 'eta' and 'militants', two words conspicuously absent from the wigo. Just saying ETA in place of 'main basque separist group', a phrase almost deliberately opaque in this instance, would have done the job. this isnt just bigs with this problem (but for fucks sa\ke man, you are one of the main offenders). 9 times out of the 10, the headline of the article does a perfectly fine job of setting out the story - just copy and paste that. stop fucking editorialising in the wigo. stop adding your own spin. please have some faith that we are not imbeciles unable to follow a link and read an article without hand holding or just not able to grasp the crux of the story. this is all made worse when the added spin often does not even come close to being reflected in the linked article. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sex with 10 year old not rape, Finnish court rules in migrant’s case[edit]

News story straight out of Finland. -- (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)'

Find a better source and maybe we'll consider including it, capisce? Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 03:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: Councils in Victoria, Australia could ban books and toys from kindergartens, schools and libraries if they don’t meet strict gender guidelines.[edit]

Fake news. See: http://www.mav.asn.au/news/councils-not-banning-books-or-toys-21may18 And: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/22/thomas-is-just-fine-the-latest-gender-scare-is-mere-fabulism — Unsigned, by: / talk

I thank you BoN for bringing this to our attention. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Monsanto, Cancer, and Propaganda[edit]

@CorruptUser thanks for detailing exactly how i should feel about this story, i obviously cant read and draw my own conclusions or note the clearly stated interest of the writer. thanks for highlighting this as propaganda because it appeared me as a very neutral reporting of an impending court case. if you hadnt marked it as propaganda, i might have had an opinion of monsanto of something other than saintly. i was hoping you could enlighten me as what aspects of the story are propaganda though, as i am clearly not smart enough to spot anything in the actual article itself. I am confused as to why, considering how any criticism of st monsanto is obvious lies, you posted in wigo and not clogs? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Russia, China, and nuclear Armageddon.[edit]

So, at this point Trump has cocked up diplomacy with two dictatorships with nuclear capabilities. And our last real hope to avert nuclear Armageddon may lie in the hands of two more dictatorships (Russia and China). Does the Trump camp want to admit that their leader is a moron yet or are they going to wait until after the U.S. completely falls apart? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Pedro Sanchez[edit]

is the President of Spain. There is no Prime Minister in the Spanish Government. London Grump (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

i dont speak spanish, so i cant comment on what that site says, but the beeb has it as prime minister as does wikipedia. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Spain has a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. The king is the head of state. The official title of the prime minister is "Presidente del Gobierno", literally "President of the Government." But he is not the President of Spain. In commonly accepted English language terminology, he is the prime minister of Spain. In terms of Spanish political protocol, it's certainly correct to address him as "Presidente" rather than "Prime Minister", but it's also perfectly correct to refer to him and his position as "prime minister". Saying it's not is the equivalent of saying that Theresa May isn't the U.K.'s head of government, or that Donald Trump isn't the chief executive of the United States because those aren't technically their correct titles of address. (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, as it's a European story, could you not have found an article about it that Europeans could actually view? (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

News sources blocking EU readers[edit]

The LA Times has bllocked EU readers from reading its articles. No doubt other sites are doing this too, so I think we need to keep a list of them, otherwise the problem of having links to sources people can't read will continue. Boredatwork (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh my stars and garters. I've just realised this applies to the whole ****ing wiki. Boredatwork (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's been applied by US news websites since May 25th Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions is full of horseshit.[edit]

So, a recent article recorded Sessions saying "Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution. I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order." I actually went and looked that up, and it turns out that... No. It doesn't actually say that. It basically calls for nonviolent revolution against the government, which as you may have guessed from the book's title refers to the Roman Empire. So not only is Sessions wrong about the core message of this section, he also overlooked which government the whole book is referring to!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

He'd have been better citing Matthew 10:35. --Annanoon (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Indonesian artist attempts suicide[edit]

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/rizzydraws-suicide-attempt Jesus Christ. — Unsigned, by: / talk

Artificial Intelligence Shows Why Atheism Is Unpopular WIGO[edit]

"Artificial Intelligence Shows Why Atheism Is Unpopular"
"“I lose sleep at night on this.”


Who the hell wrote that headline and subheadline for the Atlantic? The atheism part is only a component of the entire article, which is actually about a simulator that tries to predict the success or failure of policy decisions. The word "atheism" doesn't appear once in the entire article. The first mention of secularization is well into the ninth paragraph which begins as "another project". The next mention is again preceded by "the other models raise similar concerns". Secularization is not the focus of the article, much less atheism's unpopularity. Unlike what the headline implies. The part about a researcher "losing sleep at night on this" refers to the ramifications of developing the system such as oppressors exploiting it to block secularization and that "one of my models accidentally produced a criterion for killing religious leaders." I don't know why that subheader was chosen for the article when it relates nothing to atheism.

When atheism is mentioned, the article seems to show it as a good thing because of the requisites that allow for more "atheism" are generally agreed to be good components of society. Furthermore, they talk about the U.S. being "slower" to secularize, so again, the headline is misleading by trying to make a general statement when the article implies it's more limited to the U.S.'s scope (it's still a stretch, but it would be at least less of a stretch to mention the U.S. in the headline).

Shults’s team tackled these questions using data from the International Social Survey Program conducted between 1991 and 1998. They initialized the model in 1998 and then allowed it to run all the way through 2008. “We were able to predict from that 1998 data—in 22 different countries in Europe, and Japan—whether and how belief in heaven and hell, belief in God, and religious attendance would go up and down over a 10-year period. We were able to predict this in some cases up to three times more accurately than linear regression analysis,” Shults said, referring to a general-purpose method of prediction that prior to the team’s work was the best alternative.

Using a separate model, Future of Religion and Secular Transitions (FOREST), the team found that people tend to secularize when four factors are present: existential security (you have enough money and food), personal freedom (you’re free to choose whether to believe or not), pluralism (you have a welcoming attitude to diversity), and education (you’ve got some training in the sciences and humanities). If even one of these factors is absent, the whole secularization process slows down. This, they believe, is why the U.S. is secularizing at a slower rate than Western and Northern Europe.

“The U.S. has found ways to limit the effects of education by keeping it local, and in private schools, anything can happen,” said Shults’s collaborator, Wesley Wildman, a professor of philosophy and ethics at Boston University. “Lately, there’s been encouragement from the highest levels of government to take a less than welcoming cultural attitude to pluralism. These are forms of resistance to secularization.”

tl;dr: this headline is utter rubbish and irresponsible publishing on The Atlantic's part. I don't think this is Sigal Samuel's fault, it's whoever responsible for the headlines. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 00:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMarioThat would be the fault of @CheeseburgerFace. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
No, The Atlantic article actually has that headline. I don't mean anything bad for CheeseburgerFace except to exercise caution when using headlines for your WIGOs. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 00:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
look at the shit that gets posted when folk dont use the headlines is my response to that. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
my response would be just "read the goddamn article" and "lrn2summary". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 20:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

London Mayor Sadiq Khan insists that "middle-class parties" are the reason for the upturn in gang violence[edit]

he said no such thing. he suggested that that middle class drug use helps fuel drug violence - a pretty uncontroversial statement. he did not 'insist' this was the reason for an uptick in violence. a big difference. the wigo is bullshit. do people actually read what they are posting? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Can't you change it then? I'd say it's pretty fair to correct inaccurate WIGOs. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
id be doing but correct wigos if i did. they are all pretty shit these days. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Page is locked, can someone add this please?[edit]

The NRA is in deep financial trouble and is facing an existential crisis. Thanks. (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Did it. Sorry for the inconvenience. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 18:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec)I'd have been happy to, but I want to editorialize that this is the kind of thing scumfuckers lie about in court filings(not necessarily these scumfuckers in this court filing). NRA has over a million members who pay annual dues, and big corporate sponsors. I'd be mighty suspicious that this is a "oh we can't afford to pay any fines, look at this hollywood accounting that shows we're in massive debt". I guess I'm saying, don't get your hopes up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, well, then add the caveats there. I had my hopes up but I figured their pockets are deep-rooted inside their asses. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 18:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

If we have such a problem with shitty WIGOs, should we just permanently protect the page so only registered users can edit? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini I think we should permanently protect WIGO pages. The last time I suggested this there wasn't a consensus view one way or the other. CowHouse (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Considering it's only registered users who edit the WIGOs anyway, that won't solve anything.-- (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Links don't have to encompass the entire text[edit]

Little public service announcement: rather than unthinkingly copying and pasting the URL and headline, try putting a little effort into linking which part is actually important.

Taking the most recent example, this is bad:

California Republican Duncan Hunter has been indicted for using $250,000 in campaign funds for personal use.

This is nice:

California Republican Duncan Hunter has been indicted for using $250,000 in campaign funds for personal use.

Of course you could link a bit more, but try to keep it small. Huge hyperlinks are ugly. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 00:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hogwash, huge links are beautiful. We need a link-body positive movement! (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Brazil museum fire[edit]

Please explain how funding cuts have anything to do with any kind of 'anti science' movement. please stop making bullshit claims that are not in anyway supported by he linked to article. perhaps read the fucking article first? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I removed that opinion statement from the article link. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't do it north korea![edit]

That's how they got Iraq! ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Spain blasphemy case.[edit]

Could someone add this to the WIGO:World page? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/12/spanish-actor-detained-after-ridiculing-god-and-the-virgin-mary As I'm not a registered user and haven't any experience editing RationalWiki, I'm not going to try to insert it, even without the page protection. But this is something that is on the news in my country right now, and being about blasphemy laws in a first world democracy, I think it's relevant to the mission of this site. I personally don't generally have much sympathy for this Willy Toledo guy, but in this particular case I think he's defending his right of speech against obsolete laws that shouldn't be in the Spanish penal code. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I put it in. Good WIGO. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait wait wait wait wait[edit]

The Swiss are concerned about someone being involved in money laundering? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed What's next? The Cayman Islands suddenly wondering if all those people using their banks might, just maybe, have something to do with tax evasion? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

California become the first state to require women on the corporate boards of publicly traded companies[edit]

Anyone know how likely this law will survive a court decision on its constitutionality? I can see why some would think it's government overreach. Others may argue the law is discriminatory. Some may see it as a necessary corrective for prior discrimination. Anyone aware of precedent that may be used to support any of these or other objections to the new California law? Mikecol05

@Mikecol05 As a Brit I have limited knowledge on your constitution so I have no idea weather this will survive. However I have seen this 'positive discrimination' before. In the UK the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats use 'All-women shortlists', in which these parties only select female candidates for certain seats (normally safe seats). While I admit that women are underrepresented, I oppose these measure like I oppose all discrimination. People should be selected to roles purely on their merit, so 'positive discrimination' is just as bad as any other discrimination. --RWRW (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
People generally don't get on corporate boards by 'merit'. On the other hand, this is typical of the elitism inherent in identity politics, which seeks highly visible tokens in jobs that only the top 0.1% can ever hope to aspire to. Believers fancy themselves a moral vanguard, which means that they are primed to perceive this rule that impacts only a tiny percent of jobs in the state as a feminist triumph, rather than a rule that allows the class that sits in corporate boardrooms to polish their 'progressive' haloes in ways that pose no threat to the bottom line. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mikecol05 It appears to be an example of government overreach. In particular, it violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and requiring women to be on corporate boards of publicly traded companies is precisely that. It is anything but meritocratic. Nerd (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with @Smerdis of Tlön, this law doesn't actually accomplish anything of substance for the equal rights movement. And before anyone loses their shit and get pissed at me, ask yourself this question: How many CEOs do you know personally? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Good post! Nerd (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Lmao, not that I'm on the "MORE WOMEN CEOS SCREWING WORKERS" train, but nerd here with the consistently dumb takes. There's absolutely nothing meritocratic about how boards are selected now. Nothing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed I would appreciate it if you drop the ad hominem attacks. If it is not meritocratic now, how will adding a new discriminatory practice help? Not at all. Nerd (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Nerd, You literally don't know what "ad hominem" means. The thing you said was super dumb. I don't think it will help that problem. Affirmative action isn't intended to do so. You have a bad habit of strawmanning when contested, defend your own point, don't make up one for me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
It's unlikely to survive such a challenge, if only because half the supreme court(+1 if kav) are fairly straightforwardly misogynist, and have already demonstrated an open willingness to use legal concepts to protect their ideology that, under other circumstances, they would avoid using. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Or maybe positive discrimination is still discrimination and maybe expecting judges to respect the letter of the law is preferable to the alternative? *shrug* (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW I think a distinction can be made between traditional discrimination and so called positive discrimination. At least, in theory, that is. While in either case, there is a chance that the best candidate, from a meritocratic standpoint may not be selected, the reason why is different for each. In bad old discrimination, the best candidates are not considered because of some sort of bias: racist, sexist, or otherwise. When considering "positive discrimination", the motives are not some form of bigotry, but rather to correct prior injustices, injustices that are viewed as creating an institutional problem that raw meritocracy will not quickly correct. In other words, the institutionalized bigotry has created an environment wherein traits distinct to the preferred class or status are viewed by some as objectively better. Now whether it's true that our society has institutionalized bigotry to a degree where our perception of meritocracy will further the status quo is debatable. However, I shy from conflating the motives of plain old discrimination with this newer form. Mostly due to motives (which I'm sure many will cast doubt on their motives, too. And in some cases, so would I--no one and nothing is perfect). In short, I'm not sure the two are just as bad ethically simply because the output of both may be non-meritocratic. My interest is with the Constitutionality of the California law. I can agree with some above that it may be viewed as discriminatory and shot down by the courts. Or maybe the courts will agree that the history of sexism warrants unusual action. Isn't there some precedence in affirmative action in colleges and hiring practices? Is there some interpretation of reversing the institutional discrimination against blacks a possible precedent toward allowing California to force publicly traded companies to have women representation in leadership in an attempt to sway corporate culture, seen as very friendly to males, to set policy from the top that will help women (paid maternity leave, promotion considerations, the list could go on)? — Unsigned, by: Mikecol05 / talk / contribs

China infiltrates various us agencies and companies via hardware microchip[edit]

For some reason I can't add to the page itself (because I'm a BoN?) so I'm putting it in here so someone else can https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for sharing. Nerd (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a lot of speculation that this article may be wrong on a lot of its claims. Should we mention the controversy? Mikecol05 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

WIGO numbers[edit]

Can people please stop posting WIGOs that are in the 180000s? We just hit the 19000 mark like a month ago, we are not that high up. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 23:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Jesus, fucking trump.[edit]

Fucking trump. "Might change back again" for fucks' sake does this fucking fuck represent everything unthinking and uncaring in the goddamn world. Hothouse to ice age transitions take millions of years and hyper-destructive events. Goddamn what ever heartland institute fucker brewed up the freshly moved goalposts and handed them to that thing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not his views that anger me the most (though they anger me a lot), it's how he's detoothing environmental protections and he's going after our birds. It's even more infuriating that the Americans and a lot of politicians in other countries simply don't care and don't rate climate change as the highest when I argue it's even worse than our gun culture. Trump feeds from this, though, and people like him, all the climate change deniers, deserve a punch in the face and be stranded in an island that's getting more and more surrounded by water each day. They're on the same level as the smoking-lung cancer denial, and no one infuriates me more than climate change deniers. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 18:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Bomb sent to George Soros's house[edit]

what happens when the right demonises somebody Avida Dollarsher again 19:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

So "brazenly unconstitutional" executive declarations[edit]

That's one of those signposts on the road to fascism, right? I can't help but feel like there's a pretty obvious test of whether the US has any principles at all left to its governance coming up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"That's one of those signposts on the road to fascism, right?" Nope. --Lankaster (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
That sure is a bare assertion you've got there. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you talking of this ? --Lankaster (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean, yes, that's the thing that spurred it, but more broadly, brazenly declaring the power of the head executive to override the fundamental laws of the land, it's very much a March 1933 thing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
"it's very much a March 1933 thing." Nope. --Lankaster (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Boy do I love interacting with people who have no actual thoughts. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's just a publicity stunt to rile up his crowds of morons before the midterms. If Trump is somehow stupid enough to sign the XO, I'm sure it'll be struck down by the Courts. Plus even with Kavanaugh, I doubt Roberts or Alito would be down with nullifying part of the Fourteenth。 Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
People like to call Trump a fascist or a Nazi, but Trump subverting the law won't result in fascism, neither would most other politicians subverting the law result in fascism btw. Why? Because Trump's goal isn't fascism. Politicians have been subverting the law since forever basically and it usually doesn't result in fascism because they're not trying to produce fascism, they're just trying to fill their pockets. Trump is only sort of different in that he in addition to that also has some economic and immigration policies in mind.
Also, on the 14th Amendment, the original writers were pretty clear it wasn't supposed to apply to children of foreign nationals, but make of that what you will. (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
In particular crushing the well-established rights of an outgroup and declaring them null and void is though. (And your follow-up statement is flagrantly false) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
"And your follow-up statement is flagrantly false" To quote Lankaster: Nope.[1][2]
And why would it be controversial to suggest the amendment wasn't intended to grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? You're free to ignore the historical context and argue for broadening the scope of the amendment "Living Constitution"-style, but at least be honest about what you're doing. (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not as clear cut as your link implies. Your link relies on a particular interpretation of "not subject to any foreign power" when there's debate on what that means. According to Wikipedia (Citizenship ClauseWikipedia), "However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Trumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on them at birth,[15][16][17] and no senator offered a contrary opinion. Trumbull even went so far as to assert that this was already true prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, although Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, disagreed, arguing that this was only true for the children of European immigrants." The interpretation of it at the time seems to apply to children of foreign ambassadors or ministers. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 00:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed"Boy do I love interacting with people who have no actual thoughts" You made no argument, so I don't have to confute anything. When/if you'll make an argument supporting the assertion that Trump's claims on birthright citizenship are signposts on the road to fascism... then I'll write my response. --Lankaster (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Or... get this, you could read more than 2 words at a time. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed "Or... get this, you could read more than 2 words at a time." You could learn to write a rational argument supporting your claims. --Lankaster (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh for Christ's sake, I gave a very specific parallel to a specific time and place, and if you genuinely thought it had no merit you could have interrogated that, but instead you're a condescending moron with no insight, at all. Your presumption I wanted to make a strong argumentative case rather than have a broader discussion on what actually constitutes the progress of fascism is also fucking annoying. But also, I've seen enough of your bullshit to know that you go to bat for fascist ideals(not fascism per se) on intellectually dishonest grounds, it'd be way better for every single person if you didn't. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed "I gave a very specific parallel to a specific time and place" Yes, and no evidences supporting that. "and if you genuinely thought it had no merit you could have interrogated that" It's not on me making an argument about your claims, you asked a question and I answered. "Your presumption I wanted to make a strong argumentative case rather than have a broader discussion on what actually constitutes the progress of fascism is also fucking annoying." You made a strong assertion, so you are expected to make a strong argumentative case. Apparently you are unable to do so, hence now you want to move to a broader discussion... "I've seen enough of your bullshit to know that you go to bat for fascist ideals(not fascism per se) on intellectually dishonest grounds, it'd be way better for every single person if you didn't." Be sincere, you'd really like if I'd go to bat for fascist ideals. Sorry, I hate fascist ideals. --Lankaster (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, because it's a big charge, the ideals in question are those focused on bio-determinism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed "For clarity, because it's a big charge, the ideals in question are those focused on bio-determinism." If you want to make a charge against me then state it plain and clear, instead of making insinuations. Biological determinism per se means nothing, and it is not necessarily linked to fascist ideals. --Lankaster (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
So about that constitutional argument... --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 18:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, nominally in march 1933, that was the time when the Nazis asserted the power of the chancellor to arbitrarily replace government officials with puppets even though de jure he shouldn't have had that power. The enabling acts were more complex and came just a little later. After the election. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
How is that even remotely related to claiming that it is possible to stop birthright citizenship via an executive order remains a mystery. --Lankaster (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Lankaster, you are such a fucking rotten piece of shit. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't this conversation is gonna go anywhere. Would be best to stop. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 04:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
"Lankaster, you are such a fucking rotten piece of shit." Ladies and gentlemen: @James Earl Cash in all his glory. --Lankaster (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Stop pinging me all the time you goddamn creepy fascist. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

That's enough. Rerail the discussion. Or, continue the baseless insults and I'll collapse it for you. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 19:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Protests in Pakistan over woman released after 8 years on death row for blasphemy[edit]


"Ms Bibi, a farm labourer and 47-year-old mother-of-four, angered fellow workers, who were Muslim, by taking a sip of water from a cup she had got for them. They refused to use a cup from which a Christian had drunk, and demanded she convert to Islam. When she refused, it prompted a mob to later allege that she had insulted the prophet Mohammed. She was subsequently convicted and sentenced to death in 2010."

-Lankaster (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Labour Party branch voted down motion condemning attack on Pittsburg Synagogue shooting[edit]

Very distressing. -- (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed distressing. Added. Thank you for your suggestion. --RWRW (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The trump DACA ruling[edit]

Yeah, the court is morally in the right 1000%, but in what world does it take more than an executive order to overturn an executive order? I know giving executive power to a petty and cruel person who would be pointlessly petty and cruel was a terrible idea, and it represents a direct attack on human rights for no reason, but... I guess that makes sense, nevermind. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Trump's violating the treaty(not that it matters)[edit]

The international convention on asylum and refugees lays out the types of legal infractions that allow for rejection of refugee asylum:

(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; (b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; (c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
—Article 1(F) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

"Illegally crossing the border" sure as hell don't count as "serious non-political crime".

Hell, Article 31 of the 1951 Convention, States parties provide in their domestic law that an applicant’s irregular entry (i.e., without an entry visa or other documentation) will not have a negative effect on the asylum seeker’s application. Fuck everyone who defends this on "legal" grounds. They're just racist scum. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"Fuck everyone who supports open borders. They're just anti-American scum." Isn't polarization lovely? ;) (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, yes, you ignore law, morality, human decency, context, but you have a stupid slogan you can mindlessly repeat. You're a vile, racist shit who contributes nothing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I just want to reinforce that if you think rejecting refugees because of improper crossing is "legal" you're just racist. That's all you are. There's nothing else to it. It's not polarization and politics, it's you being a bad human being. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Look, honestly, leaving refugees to die at the border is obviously inhumane, and you're right to condemn it as such. (Possibly not the most accurate description of what's happening right now or in the future, but views may differ.) But it's kind of odd how you automatically jump to the assumption of racism. Sort of like how a Trumpist might interpret you thinking "letting refugees in at the border isn't a threat to national security" as you automatically being an anti-American commie traitor. See how this way of painting others destroys all semblance of nuance, and all possibility of compromise? (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I was fairly explicit that anyone who defended it specifically on grounds of legality are the scum. You want to blame me for being polarized, but let's be fair, the right has beengleefully willing to ignore law, morality, and demonstrable fact in order to "win". Constantly. For years now. They're scum, and I'm "polarized" because I cannot live with those scum being scum anymore; something's gotta give. Also, it's not a matter of national security. They don't care about that either. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
National security might be an afterthought for most politicians, but it's a major motivating principle for Trump supporters (to paranoid heights I might add). "Protecting America" pretty much defines their whole morality when it comes to national and international politics. They're kinda like communists in that way (or any other group of collectivist extremists), in that protecting "the ideal of the perfect state" is more important than any casualties that happen along the way. That they're willing to bend/ignore laws that get in the way of their ideals shouldn't come as a surprise. (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

shouting "Trump!" in a crowded theatre[edit]

Hey there, previously contrived hypothetical limit to free speech the supreme court invented to justify jailing anti-war activists. How you doin today? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Weights and measures[edit]

Various of them are being redefined.

A mention here? Are there any W&M conspiracy theories? Anna Livia (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh no.[edit]

A child will be born without being passed one of the deadliest diseases of the late 20th century. This is an ethical nightmare. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Genetic bio-engineering can provide great boons (as this story reveals, it can help prevent the spread of HIV and might craft the path towards a cure for that blight) but a lot of people and scientists have reason to be wary. Considering the ascendancy of reactionaires across the world, GBE can be a tool to commit genocide against undesirables, such as the LGBT community. Tuxer (talk)
And hospitals having morphine on hand to treat critical pain could be used by an addict. Medicine used to prevent, treat, and cure illness is never unethical just because of other hypothetical applications people violating the Hippocratic oath could do. Fight me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nobody knows exactly how the children will turn out. There's a good chance that at least one will be deformed or screwed up in some other way. If the scientist in question pulled it off perfectly, this incident might be the dawn of a new era. If he didn't, real life for the unlucky child(ren) might well resemble a David Cronenberg film.Phantom666 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Phantom666

HHS official,[edit]

Daniel Best, an HHS official tasked with reducing drug prices, dies of "multiple blunt force injuries." Death has been ruled a suicide.

Right. Nothing to see here, folks.

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/11/death_of_hhs_official_daniel_b.html (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

So... just to be clear, this thing is not "bunk" per se, as the nature of the injuries have not been made public, but it is pointless conspiracy mongering, as per snopes. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The Italy one is terrifying[edit]

The idea of anti-vaxxers getting total political control over medical regulation of a EU free travel country frightens the hell out of me. Why is democracy failing so totally all over the fucking planet these last few years? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Democracy isn't failing. Democracy gives the same power to stupid and non-stupid people. Stupid people outnumber non-stupid people, so stupid decisions are made on behalf of the stupid majority. That's democracy working correctly. (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
No? Because stupid people can be stupid in a thousand contrary directions, and it's only when stupidity finds a unified cause(ask me about punching fascists) that your assertion approaches credibility, and you could definitely argue that to be democracy failing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I can't draw a strong conclusion about the resiliency of Democracy, but it's more case in point that anti-vaxxers are among the scum of humanity and poised to kill more than the most unhinged terrorist, and around on the same tier as the other overall awfulness, the climate change deniers.
But I say that we saw the rise of dictators after the Great Depression, so I would imagine we would see regression after the Great Recession. Though to be fair, antivaccination uses a particular brand of idiodicy, as the demographic of antivaxxers tend to be well off and fairly edcuated.
Also, it really ticks me off that the Guardian decided to characterize this sorry sack of half decomposed bile as a "vaccine skeptic". She is not a "skeptic", she is a fearmogering science denying antivaxxer. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 18:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The tendency of awful, science-denying people to appropriate skepticism is really fucking annoying. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that stupid people finding a unified cause, fighting for it and getting it done, is democracy working correctly. It doesn't mean it is good for the world, it is one of the shortcomings of democracy, and as bad as it is, it is still the best political system we could come up with. If you consider that democracy should always make the world better and protect it from stupid ideas, then by that definition democracy is failing. The way I see it is that it is working correctly, but showing its "design flaws". (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
tbh, I think what the anti-vax leader guy did should violate the Geneva Convention and should be classified as a crime against humanity. Any anti-vaxxers are. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that natural selection will eventually spell the end of the anti-vax movement. It's tragic, but the lives and deaths of stupid people frequently are.Phantom666 (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Phantom666

Yes, that highly genetic and not-at-all education and socialization driven trait "acceptance of vaccines safety" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Natural selection is an accurate description of the inevitable epidemics that will ravage them if they refuse vaccination. It's only a matter of time.Phantom666 (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Phantom666

Strasbourg terrorist attack[edit]

BBC.com "The Strasbourg gunman yelled "Allahu Akbar" ("God is greatest" in Arabic) as he opened fire on people enjoying an evening out at a Christmas market, the Paris public prosecutor told reporters. Rémy Heitz said two people had been killed and one left brain-dead after the attack in the eastern French city on Tuesday. Twelve were wounded, six seriously. The man, named by local media as Chérif Chekatt, was known to authorities as having been radicalised in prison."

How many such radicalized islamists are there in France? About 15.000

Thinker(unlicensed) 15:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Marriages consummated in Belgian churches[edit]

I should hope zero marriages are consummated in churches anywhere and I'm sure the Pope agrees with me. Thanks for the laugh on a cold, dark evening! LondonGrump (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Britain Faces Risk of Sperm Shortage in Event of No-Deal Brexit[edit]

An old story, but a funny histrionic one regardless, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-23/britain-faces-risk-of-sperm-shortage-in-event-of-no-deal-brexit -- (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


I don't like that article. The writing was in a weird tone trying to compare the meat industry to the tobbacco industry. It ended way too early when I was asking so many questions. It didn't convince me that nitrites are dangerous and it certainly won't change our stance on nitrites. It talked about evidence but it mentioned only that WHO IARC cancer classifications, which falls in the same trap as "glyphosate bad" trap. As for the John Hopkins study, I saw the rat studies but the human studies show a relationship between nitrites cured meat though I didn't see controls at a glance. The rat one does seem concerning as it had controls between nitrites free chow and nitrites chow, so it seemed convincing at a glance though it's only an animal study. I took it with a grain of celery salt. The authorities cited seem all right, but the statements, not so much? The article also seemed to be advertising nitrite free brand? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 03:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Missed this, but nitrites have indeed got credible evidence suggesting they cause colorectal cancers, but the absolute risk is miniscule compared to smoking. also nitrates in water. It's not good for you. It's not a major factor in all-cause mortality, but it's real and active, and demonstrated by multiple studies. The point where action will be warranted will be when blinded, interventionist trials are executed and demonstrate the value in active reduction. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

WIGO numbers[edit]

@Don Juan @Euromec We are not in the 190,000s, we're in the 19,000s, please stop posting polls that high up. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 22:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The fuck's a "military diplomat"?[edit]

He's a colonel, but what does he actually do as a military atache? What? Article sure don't say. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Presumably he does what other military attaches typically do. He provides advice to the ambassador and civilian diplomatic staff on military affairs, serves as the primary point of contact/liason between the ambassador and civilian diplomatic staff on the one hand and the military services on the other, engages in direct diplomatic contacts with the host country's military services, provides an informal back-channel for direct military to military contacts, and manages open source military intelligence operations in the host country (basically reading trade publications and talking to officers in the host country military).
A Venezuelan officer assigned as military attache in Washington has probably attended the School of the Americas and personally knows several U.S. military officers; even if not, an informal part of the job is to cultivate personal relationships with officers in the host country's military. This serves as a trust-building measure, forms a back-channel for less formal exchanges of information and favors, and is a means of intelligence gathering. This last is basically an open secret - everyone involved knows that everyone else involved is collecting intelligence, and everyone knows that everyone knows. (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Gender equality in UAE[edit]

and thus conclusive proof males are better than wimmin. high five. anyone? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No longer safe: Researcher harassed by China in her own country[edit]

Long time researcher on China living in New Zealand is subjected to harassment by Chinese agents in her own country.


— Unsigned, by: Mfg9999 / talk / contribs

Thank you, @Mfg9999. Please remember that new talk page sections start at the bottom. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Nerd (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

the Philippines and anti-communist death squads[edit]

https://m.dw.com/en/duterte-plans-anti-communist-death-squad-in-philippines/a-46484215 — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

That's odd, I thought Elliot Abrams was working on Venezuela human rights, not the Philippines. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
He probably is, considering the posted article on DW was published back in November. Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Crappy Branson/Venezuela article[edit]

The recently added CNBC article about Branson planning a concert in Venezuela[3] gets almost its entire content from AP. So why not reference the original AP article, here? Is someone getting sponsorship money from NBC? --Annanoon (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Why are we even WIGOing a benefit concert? Avida Dollarsher again 19:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Education session on Political Action Comittees[edit]

Because a user incorrectly identified AIPAC as a super-PAC, I thought I'd talk about the differences and history of the term for education's sake. I'm going on my own understanding which may have gaps and errors.

Many people know that there are individual donation limits for elections in the US. This is nominally an anti-corruption measure. You can't owe any one rich person your entire campaign warchest, and thus quid-pro-quo concerns might be ameloriated, if not eliminated. This limit is currently $2,800 per election, more than most people could spare, but far, far, far less than a single billionaire could manage if they wanted. Corporations and other shared-trust ventures could not donate anything. At all.

Political action committees were invented(not actually why they were invented, but popularized) as a way of organizing around that limit. Groups with shared interests, such as unions, or in AIPAC's case, mindless adherence to alliance with a single country, could put their whole donation limit to an organization, and work together with many other people with those shared interests. This could then be leveraged to create an amount of money that could, in net, shift elections, and create incentives to pitch to the "party line" of the special interest. Businesses with political interests often have Corporation-namePAC that they "encourage" employees to donate to to inflate their maximum spending.

The nature of this made PACs increasingly align with individual politicians and promote their campaigns. Most had highly partisan characteristics.

Then came Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission, who had a supreme court case centered around the fact that they were running political ads not supporting any particular candidate(just an issue that exactly one candidate supported) and were being punished for it just because it exceeded donation limits. They declared that a violation of their corporate free speech, and the supreme court agreed.

This created an opening for SuperPACs, whose prime characteristics were: no obligation to disclose funding sources, no contribution limits, no prevention of corporate spending, and an arms-length prevision, saying they could not explicitly endorse a candidate in an election, communicate with that candidate in an election, provide support for that election process, or otherwise be explicitly partisan in an election. The net result was billions of dollars of "Jeb Bush is a great guy about this issue we invented to be the Bush superPAC, hint hint wink wink". It's bullshit and I hate it, money isn't speech. But there's a legal distinction there.

AIPAC is a traditional PAC. They love their close ties to individual candidates. They give them speaking engagements, they publicly endorse them, send them on free "friendship" trips to Israel(is that really legal?). I wouldn't be surprised if they have a legally dubious superPAC run by the exact same people who run the PAC itself, but AIPAC is a PAC. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

does the US have limits on how much can be spent on a campaign? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
No. Campaigns can spend as much as they receive. I believe they're even allowed to take on certain kinds of debt, but better ask a lawyer about that one. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
the money involved in us politics is obscene AMassiveGay (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Going on a bit of a tangent, corruption is literally the only crime where I personally feel the death penalty is warranted. When you're a regular person you capitulate to the social contract on the basis that without it you have no protection. Executing someone for deviating from it essentially bounds the limit of brutality to equal to not having it. It doesn't speak to a society being a moral improvement over Hobbesian chaos, just an alternative with different death dealing characteristics. But corruption speaks to an extra demand of social trust, you assert that you're not only bound by the social contract, but have the responsibility to maintain it. To sell that out for personal benefit is more profoundly broken than merely committing a murder. Cops, politicians, judges, anyone who asks that we trust them to mete out justice should be further subordinated to it. In that sense, I guess I'm pretty pro guillotine for these fucks who take the giant pond of political money. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)