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

The election booth is now open!

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive35

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 11 May 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Christchurch mosque massacre[edit]

Nerd perhaps you'd like to provide some actual justification for naff edits of this item?Aloysius the Gaul 09:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

reality Check[edit]

over 1 million marched in the Iraq war protest and look what good that did. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

What's the population of the UK? About 67 million. Granted, not all of them are adults, but one million is still an insignificant number compared to that. Nerd (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
i know but look at the stop the war protest. so many people and we still went to war. not only that, we re elected the pricks that took us there. they 'might' listen this time, or they can just ignore and plough ahead knoswing it will ultimately make no difference if they did. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I was one of that stop-the-war million and I'm sorry to say I agree with you. Nothing will change while we have a leader who refuses to listen. Avida Dollarsher again 22:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah 1 million is pretty big (assuming the even organisers weren't overstating the numbers). Very small when compared to the 17.4 million people who voted Leave though. --RWRW (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the day after the Iraq protests I said "a miilion people protested" and someone else just said "and fifty million didn't." Avida Dollarsher again 11:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
if its a protest you agree with, its the will of the people. if its one you dont, 'its more people didnt march'. and that is how it will be seen and is seen by our elected representatives. even though current polling is consistently for remain. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


can we not use sources that have a paywall. thanks. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not always possible to tell if there's a paywall for others. And I love linking scientific papers that have paywalls, and leave it as an exercise to the reader that sci hub exists and rules. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
if its a widely reported story, there should be no problem. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Corporate exploitation of Africa[edit]

Somebody should make a page offering well-sourced and comprehensive coverage of the ongoing rape of the African continent, as well as the money trails leading from African dictators and warlords to banks and corporate robber barons. Something like this...

But more in-depth, and with more sources and notes. Most citizens of the U.S. don't seem to know about this, and stereotypes about African poverty are frequently used by Alt Reich trolls to advance the claim that black people are "inferior" to insecure white idiots.Phantom666 (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Phantom666

Good idea, off you go. — Unsigned, by: / talk

A very important message we need to see right now.[edit] — Unsigned, by: / talk

Ralph Northam[edit]

Virginia Democratic Governor Ralph Northam admits to being in a racist yearbook photo depicting a person in blackface and a Klansman. — Unsigned, by: AmericanSocialDemocrat / talk / contribs

What's with nerd's allergy to fun?[edit]

"Removing commentary" isn't wrong per se, but it's not really justified either. Commentary can be fun and silly. And it makes the WIGO less boring. It's just pointless to constantly police anyone daring to have an opinion. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd, did the commentary on the coal entry detract from the WIGO? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed It is not wrong to have an opinion. But news reporting should be free from the opinions of the people reporting.
@RoninMacbeth Not entirely in this case, though it sounded a little "click-baity" to me. But we should avoid the habit of "spinning" news reports. I have seen it done here way more often than I like. I could not be bothered to rewrite everything, though. Nerd (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why we have to adhere to different "neutrality" standards in WIGO compared to the rest of RationalWiki. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 18:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, Nerd, if commentary seriously compromises the accuracy of the WIGO, feel free to remove it. Otherwise, I think we should leave it. LGM is right, we are free to use measured snark in articles, and should be free to do so in WIGOspace. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
And personally I think removing the harmless commentary actually makes it worse. Fun's good. That's all I'm saying. Removing it doesn't actually make it more "neutral" in a real sense. Lies and dishonest spin should always go, but come on. Have a heart. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Meh, the recent removal seemed good to me too. I get it that commentary is a jab at coal, but again, the entire WIGO is already a subtle jab at coal. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 18:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ Well, I don't think any new investor of sound judgment today would spend their money on the coal industry. Objectively speaking, even major developing countries like China and India are (trying to) moving away from coal as fuel. However, it would be a mistake to think the coal industry will go extinct in our own life times. We need steel, don't we? Nerd (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Nerd, it was a joke. I don't particularly care that you removed this one, but I do ask that you refrain from purging harmless snark. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Public transport systems' balance sheets[edit]

Why are we even thinking of profit and loss for public transport systems? They are a public good, a common asset that help everyone. The idea that running at a profit is a good thing is corrosive neoliberal bullshit. What next? Hospitals should make a profit? Police departments? The military? Meh. LondonGrump (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@LondonGrump Your thinking is too narrow. That article explains why Hong Kong manages to succeed when other cities fail. Not only does the MTR keep its fares low, they also sustains itself financially. The fact that it makes a profit contributes to the local government's revenue. The MTR CorporationWikipedia is also investing in and operating metro systems from around the world. As a different example of a "public good" contributing to government revenue, according to a 2015 op-ed for the Brookings Institute by one of the people who created it, Taiwan's National Health Insurance made a surplus that was expected to last till at least 2017. Most other universal healthcare systems are struggling to balance their sheets. I described Taiwan's system here.
These examples show us that not only is it possible to have nice things, governments may not even need to worry about keeping those nice things afloat financially. Nerd (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
My edit seems to have disappeared so forgive me if you've heard this before.
You can explain it in whatever patronising terms you like but you're missing the point. Public services and infrastructure are about value beyond cost. If we stop thinking that these are "nice things", if we remember that governments choose to piss money away instead of investing it in the public good, if we remember again that these things are often tied in with our civil rights and the way we get along with each other, and prioritise them accordingly, then the balance sheet becomes less than secondary.
Yes, cost effectiveness is a factor. Yes, the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund and the Toronto Teachers' Pension Fund are wonderous things to behold. But that's not the core issue.
Take the British NHS. It's core function is to provide quality healthcare, free at the point of use, for people in the world's sixth biggest economy. For the last thirty years or so, cost has become a critical issue. As a result, chunks of it have been privatised, the government throws billions at those service providers, front line services are cut to cover those billions, the relationship between the individual, his health, his community and the health service has been reduced to a series of interactions between a service provider and a client and the whole system is grinding. We can afford Β£3 billion a year on cat food, Β£2 billion a year on cycling accessories but no party wants to ask for a penny more income tax to fund or significantly reform the NHS.
It does not have to be like this. LondonGrump (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@LondonGrump Note I was criticizing your view, not you as a person.
You can talk about things you believe you are entitled to all you want, but at the end of the day, public services have to be paid for. I do not see why a financing scheme that not only provides high-quality service but also makes surpluses is a problem. Hong Kong's MTR is one of the best in the world. Taiwan spends significantly less than the OECD average on healthcare as a percentage of GDP while still achieving admirable outcomes. Doing more with less while getting something extra is like killing two (or three) birds with one stone. Pretty convenient. The government can now use the extra funds on other things, such as healthcare subsidies. Nerd (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
all public services are not created equal. im sure a good case can be made something like the tube, but londongrump's example, the nhs? a financing scheme that produces a surplus is fundamentally misunderstanding what the nhs is, how its chronic under funding is deliberate, or the structual differences that make it impossible to simply transplant 'a successful' model from one locality to another. the nhs is the 5th largest employer in the world, and no part of it is 'an island' as it were. it is too large to change its core components and attempts to privatise various aspects have been to the detriment to patient care. you cant point to taiwan and say this works, do that. why does it work there and how similar is to here that would suggest it would work here too? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The singapore one[edit]

This is a country with an established history of arresting journalists for covering public figures negatively. I can't help but think their version of "fighting fake news" is to arrest more newspaper editors whose papers cover the corruption of the upper echelons of the government. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah this whole "fighting fake news" thing that dictatorships are engaging in is nothing more than a paper-thin excuse to persecute political dissenters. Tuxer (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I was gonna say Singapore is a flawed democracy, not a dictatorship according to the world democracy index. Then I looked up their electoral history, and fucking hell they're a one party state. Literally at most 7 seats(out of about 80) given to a minority party at most in any parlimentary election since 1963. So I've learned that the world democracy index is basically just a flat-out lie. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The Eternal Paywall[edit]

I don't know about you guys, but it seems that a lot of the posts here on WIGO are linked to The Washington Post, and it's behind a paywal-- at least, I can't read anything there but a large banner demanding subscription. Which I at this moment in time can't reasonably afford. Might I request that posters see if they can't find a less "Gimme Munny To Read This" site, when practical? Kencolt (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Should there be a recommendation at the top of the page saying that you shouldn't post WIGOs from sites with paywalls? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Definitely. β€” Oxyaena Harass 23:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Does browsing incognito solve anything? Paywalls do suck... --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 02:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
It does for me. I always open incognito windows to get around those pesky paywalls. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
And somehow I keep forgetting to use them. β€” Oxyaena Harass 02:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Browsing incog... pardon my ignorance, I'm old. What is that and how does it work? Kencolt (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Incognito mode is privacy browsing that disables web cache and browsing history. It's also the easiest way to bypass paywalls. To enter, just right-click a link, then click on "Open link in incognito window." To leave incognito mode, you close all incognito tabs and windows. Also, you can do incognito and regular browsing at the same time without issue. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. This I did not know. (Apparently called Private in Firefox, btw.) Kencolt (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
be warned though, your employer will still know if you've been watching porn at the office. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Inasmuch as I am retired, live at home, and only surf on my personal machine, fuck my nonexistent employer. Kencolt (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC) is pretty useful for softpay walls like WaPo. Geoff The Goldfish (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"Antivaxxers sinking to new lows"[edit]

That's not news. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 03:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)