RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive5

This is an archive page, last updated 1 February 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <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>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>

, (new)(back)

The Vatican and Tariq Aziz

Regarding the WIGO speculating that the opposition to Tariq Aziz's hanging has something to do with the fact Aziz was the only Christian in Hussein's Cabinet...

The Catholic Church is no fan of the death penalty in modern society, and Pope John Paul II said, essentially, "it should only be used when there's no other option to protect society, and modern society essentially always provides other options".

So, no, I don't think it has anything to do with Aziz's faith. MDB (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't I've heard much from the V about any other Iraqis who were hanged, including Saddam. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

They did. MDB (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, all righty then, I'll amend the comment :) --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You are to be commended. The Vatican is wrong on a lot of things, but they are pretty consistent in opposing the death penalty, and I admire them for that. MDB (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Snarkasm

The "Scientists locate your brain's sarcasm area" WIGO is over 5 years old so I've commented it out.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate Bert WIGO

Duplicate Bert is gay WIGO, so I've commented it out.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

evrything thats wrong with American Politics

I am very likely reading the article all wrong (VERY likely), but are republicans really threatening to vote down legislation that might help people who donated money to the Dems, rather than if they agree/disagree with it? And that they'd put through legislation that would help folk who donated to them? I am sure this is what lobbyists expect but don't politicians usually at least pretend to be voting with their conscience?--AMassiveGay (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The above with reference to Corporatist GOP WIGO--AMassiveGay (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that seems to be their plan. the way I read it. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 16:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's just the definition of politics. It's got fuck all to do with supporting or agreeing with something, it's all about spiting your opposition for the sake of it. ^moral 00:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Surfing

The dolphin story is cute, but pales against this tale. --PsyGremlinParlez! 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sagrada Familia

I dislike the pope, I dislike the church, but the Sagrada Familia is an an amazing building. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it is. And if I ever go to Barcelona I will very likely go and see it. But it has been under construction for 132 years now during which time the countless millions spent on it could have done some good in the world instead of creating a building in which a small minority of a small minority will be worshiping a (in my view) non-existant sky pilot. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's absolutely beautiful, and probably worth every penny. Dalek (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

“”For the first time since I had been in Barcelona I went to have a look at the cathedral [La Sagrada Familia] -- a modern cathedral, and one of the most hideous buildings in the world... Unlike most of the churches in Barcelona it was not damaged during the revolution -- it was spared because of its 'artistic value,' people said. I think the Anarchists showed bad taste in not blowing it up when they had the chance.

—George Orwell, on La Sagrada Familia, 1937 in Homage to Catalonia

15:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a subjective issue, but I have been there and thought it one of the most beautiful buildings I have ever seen. Evil stupid Phantom Hoover! 15:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is very subjective. But as much of a cynical atheist as I am, I was enthralled by this cathedral. Enthralled. We may dislike that people spend money building churches and cathedrals, and it's all very well to say it could be spent on better things. But as long as they're still building them, it's good that they're building stuff like this, and not shit like this. Dalek (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhh, you'll be in trouble with our resident scousers for that you know. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

EC) I have to agree (that it's bloody good). I have seen some amazing religious buildings around Europe and always find my appreciation tempered with "what they could have done with the money, time and labour." Guess I'm just an old cynic. 15:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool's cathedral is horrible, and my only two scouse friends sadly agree. Dalek (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Paddy's Wigwam is indeed horrible.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Depends which Cathedral you mean - there are two. Barcelona also has one Cathedral[1] already - I'm not sure that the Sagrada Familia will be one; in Britain at least a Cathedral has to be the seat of a Bishop. As to what else could be done with the money, in the middle ages large abbeys provided medical care and poor relief to great numbers of poor people, when they were "privatised" during the reformation a lot of people were left to starve (good information on this in "The Lancashire Witches" Ed Robert Poole (2003))[2]. Old Fashioned Architect 21:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

They both look ghastly to me, in pictures, at least. Might be awesome in person. My lame favorite "religious building view" is the (Old North?) Church in Boston that you see three sides of at once because of the Hancock Tower behind it. ħuman 22:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you like the design, I think you'd have to be a complete moron to not accept that it's totally fucking epic. ^moral 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I don't "like" it, I said it was hideous. Looks like a set for a bad sci-fi flick. Come to think of it, that's what it actually is, isn't it? ħuman 03:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it, most great historical buildings have been built for (at least partly) dubious reasons using slave labour or ill-gotten gains. Pyramids, temples, palaces, castles, stately homes, etc. and I think the world would be a poorer place without them.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, after religion in Europe complete collapses in 50 years time, at least it'll have a use! In fact, I'm thinking live-action Warhammer 40,000 would be an excellent use for it. ^moral 12:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

50 years? I'm just glad that they might get it finished in time for the Apocalypse.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

They can always convert it to a mosque... *ducks*--ZooGuard (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Balls up

I have just noticed that the numberings have gone tits up. 2240-2245 are just labeled with numbers not with "worldXXXX". "Man Dressed As Jesus Kicked Out Of Church" corrects it to "worldXXXX" and restarts the numbering from 2240. ^moral 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And another one. It's caught up to "world2244" and it appears to have been used already. As has "world2245". I'll try and advance it on to an unused ID. ^moral 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding new WIGOs

When adding new WIGOs can we have them written in an impartial neutral tone please? It appears that important stories can get bombed by a lot of negative votes because of the tone in which it was presented in, rather than the actual content of the story itself. Solarius (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean like "Even George W. Bush thinks Sarah Palin is unqualified for public office." -> "George W. Bush thinks Sarah Palin is unqualified for public office."? Or more? Or what? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, even for stories where some people may feel there is an obvious viewpoint to be taken. Not related to the topic but I did read that story, a bunch of BS IMO, he "allegedly" said those things, oh boy. Solarius (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

RW is not NPOV - it is SPOV. WIGOs (on any of our WIGO pages) are intended to be snarky & irreverent. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That is, of course, not to mention that this is a Wiki; if the tone of a WIGO item needs to be adjusted, it can be. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

true - somehow we've developed an unwritten rule/habit of not altering other people's WIGOs. Perhaps we should start doing so. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes edit other people's WIGOs, usually only if they're terrible or state something which is untrue. If you can correct or improve a WIGO entry, go for it. But don't edit them to make them impartial, because that isn't the point. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(Though I would state it thus: Expect to be reverted if you try to impartial-ize a WIGO.) ListenerX^TalkerX 18:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wooden Towers

Actually building in wood is a good way of locking up CO2 and stopping it returning to the atmosphere. The glulam beams used in this sort of a construction burn very poorly because a layer of charcoal builds uo on the surface and protects the core - they can be safer than steel buildings.Old Fashioned Architect ^{— Unsigned, by: OldFashionedArchitect / talk / contribs} 11:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal wedding

I have to say that describing Kate and William getting married as "Selecting rulers through heredity looks to continue for at least one more generation in Britain" is a pretty big misrepresentation. I wouldn't call them "rulers" - they haven't had total power in centuries and haven't had any power for a good few decades. The only thing that could possibly change after these two is the ruling about prioritising male heirs. IIRC, they may have already scrapped it but it wouldn't affect either Charles or William's succession anyway; but if they had a daughter as a first born we'd get a queen by default. ^moral 14:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough - but it's still about selecting the Head of State. Please feel free to change it should you so wish. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The royal family is much better compared to the US stars & stripes rather than anything else. (but not as respected.) 14:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

are you implying that the royals should be strung up? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ME? No, well not really, well perhaps, well YES! 15:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yiu sure AK? I always thought that if a daughter was born first and then a son, the son would still be first-choice to inherit the throne. But I could be wrong, it happens occasionally. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 14:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

According to wp the crown still goeth to males first: "In recent years there have been efforts to remove the religious restrictions and to give equal rights to males and females, but at present the provisions remain in effect." 15:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If Princess Anne had been born before Charlie, she would have been Heir Presumptive rather than Heir Apparent, and Charles would have become #1 when born. I'm not sure why it's such a big deal to change it - perhaps it's more that nobody can be bothered than anybody thinks it's a bad idea. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only that -- if Anne had been born first, then Chuck, Anne would have only been second in line until Wills was born. Wills would have become second in line at birth. MDB (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I occasionally, well ... sometimes, well ... hardly ever, wonder what Annie thinks of Charley. I know which I'd rather have as HOS & it wouldn't be Chazza. 15:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Fergie was always my fave. Btw, what's happened to Andrew & Edward, hear nothing about them these days. --Ψ GremlinTala! 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd change the WIGO to "Britain's national parasites continue to breed" but then I'm just an old grumpy who couldn't see what all the fuss was about over that Sloan bitch Diana. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm a Yank, so my tax dollars aren't going to support them, but I'll admit I find royalty in general fascinating, and the Brits have the most famous set of royals by far.

Me, I think as soon as Wills takes the throne, he should declare his intent to rule, not just reign, and being lopping off the 'eads of anyone who opposes his plan. MDB (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I know one thing: I'm gonna watch much less telly until the hooha has declined. The coverage is already ludicrous. Who cares really? 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

*headdesk* I find the House Rules in the British Royal Family veeeery confusing. Wish we had a Qatari/Gulf style system of appointing a Crown Prince, but the custom is established and I wouldn't want it changed just for the sake of it. Confusing it may be, but it works.-- 00:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not a bad plan. Going back to the good old pre Magna Carta days... Actually, I'd like to see it changed in that we fully support any member of the Royal Family until they're 21; given them the best education, experience and training not just to sit there and quaff Pimms but to rule, pass law, deal with diplomacy and charge stark naked at Jerry. So age 21 they get a choice; grow up, fuck off and get a job or "the state now owns you, bitch, now bend over" and they continue to be good old fashioned superhuman royalty. I think that would be fair all round. ^moral 18:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Now with less snark more humour

The "unemployed girl" WIGOW 2285. I couldn't resist...I didn't even have to come up with a witty line for it, so I stole it outright, President Bush would be so proud of me! C®ackeЯ 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's funny because it's true. Although WP tells me she was an "assistant accessories buyer" for a while. I do love the English upper-middle class, they seem to treat jobs as something you do to ease the boredom between lawn parties. ^moral 01:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nukes, generals and Palin

RE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/when-is-the-far-right-goi_b_784115.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111610&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief

I thought while reading this that some people may have thought "what? US military commanders preferring treaties rather than being gung-ho lunatics??" But this reminded me of an anecdote in The Black Swan where NNT was sort of pulled in as a member of a think tank or something. Apparently the top military brass in the US are really, really fucking hardcore rationalists and actually fairly peace loving (considering their job, at least). So compared to the morons you see in Hollywood blockbusters who want to napalm everything in sight without thinking, the real commanders are the exact opposite. Perhaps if the GOP stopped watching too many movies and entered the real world they'd notice this. ^moral 01:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's because the military actually knows and understands, often from first-hand experience, that War Is Hell. Politicians are usually considerably more... detached. Hence gung-ho. Dendlai (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've often thought that anyone who thinks war is good should be given a rifle and parachuted into the front line. Is it good now? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Officers who follow a professional ethos can't afford to be ideologues (that's, of course, true of other professions as well). If they sincerely care about their core mission and getting their job done, they'll be much more sober than people who simply follow ridiculous and simplistic notions about how the world works. The best exaple is probably Colin Powell, the lone voice of reason in the administration during the lead-up to the war in Iraq. He still failed because of his misplaced loyalties and he could've served his country better by stepping down and making his objections public before the war, but at least he tried to convince Bush that he was about to commit a huge mistake. Röstigraben (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Though I generally loathe US politics, culture and foreign policy, I have long respected many of their high level military officers (and elements of their intelligence community) as professional people with foresight, and less constrained by crazed ideology than most of their political masters. -- 17:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we'd have fewer conflicts if you had all declarations of war made by the generals alone rather than being influenced by politicians? I mean, consider that the clusterfuck in Afghanistan has been going on for the best part of a decade and then compare it to a political term of four years. There's just something about this situation that doesn't seem right. ^moral 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What isn't right is that no one in the US is talking about the Afghan and Iraq wars anymore. It's like they're no longer an issue. The wars didn't come up during the midterms, and they certainly aren't being talked about now. Hence, the generals are the only ones who know and care about how terrible the situation really is overseas. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, the right to decide when to go to war belongs to elected officials, like with all other policies, otherwise you'd have a technocracy instead of a democracy. Where the system fails is when experts are no longer able to influence such a decision in a purely advisory function because the decider guy and his merry band of ideologues have already set out on a course and don't want to listen to any arguments that contradict their line of reasoning. It becomes even more dangerous when said experts are also forbidden from going public, would have to fear retaliation for doing so and would have little chance of success in getting heard over all the propaganda noise anyway. The Iraq war was no isolated incident here and military professionals not the only ones whose voices were silenced, the same thing happened on Global Warming, energy policy, fiscal matters and so on. Bush and his team were incredibly effective at pushing their agenda by avoiding any serious debate over these issues, and that's what kills democratic decisionmaking. Röstigraben (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Murkowski Victory

It's a sad state of affairs when we can be happy that the Republican incumbant wins a seat in the Senate, keeping out the REAL right-wing nutjob. Sigh. ^EXTERMINATE 07:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Man shoots Palin" as edit summary.

Not cool, I got all excited. ^EXTERMINATE 07:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. :) Dendlai (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I demand that you shoot a Palin by the end of the day; not Michael Palin. ^EXTERMINATE 07:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I don't have a television. Compys are expensive, I don't want to shoot my compy. A TV on the other hand, isn't necessary for my job or classes. Bullets is cheap. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 18:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just why is the US military so hung up about the gays?

Can be the average marine cope with being sent to a godsaken part of the globe to kill folk while dodging bullets, RPGs and mines, but completely freak out if a comrade took a sly look at their arse?--AMassiveGay (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And surely, with DADT, you won't know who might be looking, causing uncertainty. At least if folk where openly gay, you could say to your gay comrade 'there are mines about, don't be pervin on my arse'--AMassiveGay (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's probably an extension of general homophobia that has since been rationalised with suggestions like "ooh, sexual tension in the field, that's not good" - which I agree is a bad thing, but a professional soldier, gay or straight or whatthefuckever, should be able to get over it and not let it be a problem. ^moral 10:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read, most of the frontline soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines really don't care about "the gays". They just want to serve with people who can do the job. It's the older high level officers and senior NCO's, plus some of the civilian leadership, who make a big deal out of it.

When DADT was first under discussion, Sam Nunn, who was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, opposed letting gays serve at all. He toured a US Navy ship, and talked to some of the sailors, and said he was quite surprised that their philosophy was, "I don't really care for gays, but we're the US Navy. We'll do our jobs with pride."

In other words, most of them take Barry Goldwater's philosophy: "I don't care if you are straight; I just want you to shoot straight." MDB (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the original policy came from the general view of homosexuality as intrinsically immoral behavior, and gays as perverted criminals that it was the responsibility of the law to fight. There was a huge fear of "recruitment" and sexual harassment/abuse, so being gay was illegal, and where the law wasn't enforced, gays were barred from government work. Moreover, the assumption was that anyone who couldn't keep their sex drive in line with social/religious norms probably didn't have enough respect for authority to be a good soldier. A guide from the 1950's (not specific to the military) said:

"Most of the authorities agree and our investigation has shown that the presence of a sex pervert in a Government agency tends to have a corrosive influence on his fellow employees. These perverts will frequently attempt to entice normal individuals to engage in perverted practices. This is particularly true in the case of young and impressionable people who might come under the influence of a pervert. Government officials have the responsibility of keeping this type of corrosive influence out of the agencies under their control. It is particularly important that the thousands of young men and women who are brought into Federal jobs not be subjected to that type of influence while in the service of the Government. One homosexual can pollute a Government office."

Of course, it's a fairly small proportion of the population that still thinks this poorly of gay people, but gays have a good deal of what I think of as "negative political power" in the US. That is, whenever they want something from the political process, certain people will automatically be against that, no matter what it is. And given that the armed forces are almost sacrosanct to many Americans, all kinds of rationales have been thought up to delay the transition. Much like with racial segregation in the military, the policy stayed around, not because policymakers would admit to being bigoted, but because they suggested that soldiers (on either side) were too immature to handle a policy change. And the main progressive segments of the gay rights movement here have been more focused on stuff like sodomy laws (only killed off in 2003), (civilian) non-discrimination laws, marriage...

Don't Ask Don't Tell was kind of a compromise; it basically just said "gays still can't technically serve, but we're not going to try to catch them being gay". Is there any real reason to believe that DADT helps the military? No. Is any branch of the armed forces practically free from gays? No. Does DADT waste money and resources? Quite a lot. Is there going to be a difficult transition? Not even as much as when racial segregation ended. Do we need more studies on this? There have been several over decades already.

There aren't any real facts to dispute, it's basically just been a matter of waiting for the policymakers who really don't like gays to be replaced and Congress to get around to passing a bill. Or for a court decision. --Quantheory (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a small fraction of the military that are on the A team, the jocks that actually have the job of bringing hurt. Cooks, clerks, mechanics, technicians, gas pump jockeys and so forth make up the bulk of the rest. Given that, the whole "sexual tension while watching each other's back" argument holds less water. For many, it is a job with an unusual dress code.

In a bygone decade with a largely conscript army, like 67% draftees, guys wore eyeshadow and earrings and dishy tops off duty and didn't give a shit; a discharge is a discharge, when a stupid unpopular war is on. I remember one of the eye-shadow types getting put in the Special Processing Detachment (SPD, call it a low-calorie brig/guardhouse) for being too fabulous, but being yanked right out again when they found how happy his fellow prisoners were to have him around. Silly brass, wait as long as you like, and they probably will not learn. There will always be professional dimwits who will not listen to the voice of practical reason, even coming from their fellow (non-dimwit) professionals. Substitute homophobe for dimwit there, and the story doesn't change a bit. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not the military that is hung up, it's American repressed hate society.

The US Military was the first part of the "economy" to desegregate (based on race, whatever that is), and did for good reason - why disallow any qualified cannon fodder potential General of the Army?

They would just as soon drop the silliness over bum-watching and get on with their mission, but civilian assholes want to interfere with their homoodiousity. See why we call it homophobia? The Latin for hate just doesn't work. Misohomo? See, Greek neither? ħuman 06:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Machohomo is Latin all the way down, but irrelevant has a big a floppy ears and a long a schnozz. As mentioned elsewhere, professional soldiers nowadays do not let "lifestyle choice" issues distract them from the mission, for the most part. Trouble is, it only takes one rat turd to ruin the whole pot of congee, by which I mean the busybody haters not currently under arms, and who should butt out. Useless to wait for the old ones to depart, since there will always be fresh faces coming along to spout the stupid. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

crap wigo

"As France bans covering up a small part of Italy contemplates a ban on revealing all."

This does not cover the latter part in any intelligent way. The headline is empty, the story not told. Please learn to take a few minutes before writing these things, to make them interesting, and clear. ħuman 08:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an insecurity problem? It seems like most of what you actually contribute to the wiki is just disparaging statements about how it doesn't meet your fan-fucking-tastic expectations and standards. It just seems to be that you have to be the Big Man around here by just by belittling the work of everyone else regardless of how small or petty it is. It's all "this WIGO is lousy" "this edit suck" "your grammar is crap". I'm struggling to think of your last contribution that didn't involve this sort of thing, and if we subtracted this from your edit count you'd definitely not be the most active editor by a long shot.

But on the original point, would you prefer we wrote out the entire story so we don't even need to bother with links? I mean, I'd be all for that since it means we could evolve into a news site rather than a link farm and it'd save you the hassle of one small click in order to read a little more. ^moral 08:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring all the pissing, yes. I'd like to see wigos that "tell the story" with links for the background. Wigos that are nothing more than two links say nothing. And I challenge you on your personal attacks, run the numbers, just on my edits today, say. Did you write this lame wigo, or are you just mad at me? After voting three down, one neutral, and one up, I get tired of having to read the entire content elsewhere just to see what the point is. ħuman 08:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as "I'm struggling to think of your last contribution that didn't involve this sort of thing...", there is a link you can use to see what my edits are, you know. You seem to have a weird issue here, just because, what, I have "standards" I try to uphold (although of course, fail to meet 20% of the time!) for the wiki? I spent hours today fixing grammar on random articles I ran across. ħuman 09:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with this WIGO. It's not a "Wow, brilliant!" one but I think it nicely contrasts two different clothing-related decisions taken by two different areas. And no, I didn't write it either. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I just wish it told more of the story, rather than presented a bit of a jigsaw puzzle for the reader to assemble. ħuman 09:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just want to apologise for snapping there. It was just going to happen sometime and somewhere, I guess it was here. What's worse, is that it didn't even make me feel any better. I might come back to this when I don't feel like jamming a stylus into someone's eye. ^moral 11:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken. I know I can be a snippy prick, but you seemed out of character momentarily. ħuman 11:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I support France's ban on covering up a small part of Italy. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon tried that and look what happened to him.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

When I come back and read me and Armond pissing all over each other, then getting over it, then reading the penultimate and ultimate lolz, I remember why I like this place. ħuman 06:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Birthornot.com

I can't WIGO this as the site concerned is down at the moment and I can't find another story about it, but it's just been on 5 news here. Basically, there's a couple expecting a baby. They aren't sure whether or not they want to keep it, so they have created a website with a poll asking for opinions - birthornot.com. Five News says it's 80% keep at the moment. Whatever you feel about abortion, I think this is a really sick idea. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Saw that, it is sickening. Imagine finding out that your parents did that, and you only are alive because of an internet poll. They should be ashamed. ^EXTERMINATE 19:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

They're not committed to the will of the people, they're just interested in the mob's opinion and arguments. Not disgusting, not shameful. Actually, quite informed and reasonable. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Informed and reasonable? I call bullshit on that. If there's one decision which should be a private one between a couple, that should certainly be it. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my invocation of the 'imagine' line. The average child, in finding out that their parents had posted this poll online, and let's say the 'birth' vote was only by a small margin... how would that child feel? We can pretend to be strong or detached, but that would tear most people into little pieces? What if you found out you only lived because of a 4chan campaign? We can bullshit all we want about 'informed and reasonable' or 'opinions or arguments.' but, it is a parent's duty to not put their child through something like that: To do something involving your child with no benefit to them and potential harm, that's evil. ^EXTERMINATE 20:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"We wanted to give people a chance to voice their opinions...We are using it to help determine our decision, but we will still make the final decision", yeah, that's fucking insane!!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh, you're overlooking the issues to make a point. Make your life decisions for the next week based on a WIGO-voting system, then tell me you think it's reasonable. If they asked for heartfelt opinions by email, THAT would make sense. ANONYMOUSLY, that would make sense. As it is, absolutely as cruel as I said before. ^EXTERMINATE 20:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not. That's bullshit. You're position is special pleading and it's bizarre. Doing something is cruel unless you do it anonymously? Does that apply anywhere else? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It applies in a lot of related cases. If I post on the internet, "i'm having some serious problems with my son, can somebody offer advice?" it isn't cruel. If I post, "My name is Alan Swan, and I have a problem, could you all vote on how to deal with it?" then it is. (To clarify, i didn't mean that doing a vote anonymously would make sense. i meant that an anonymous request for comments would make sense. ^EXTERMINATE 20:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It still sounds a lot like you're attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am exhausted, and going to go to bed. But tommorow, I am very much interested in a Debate: namespace article on this. Talk soon. ^EXTERMINATE 20:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Just a note so I don't forget: Would you actively avoid seeking advice from people who know you? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Would I release my discussions with them into the public domain? No. Night. ^EXTERMINATE 20:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're working under a specious notion of the public domain. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents: anyone who's ever read youtube comments will know that opening up a personal decision for discussion by the internet is a fantastically bad idea. DickTurpis (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Their two cents: for every 100 comments they get telling them about how they're awful people, they get one good one that helps them make an informed decision and makes it worthwhile. Advice they very well may not have gotten otherwise. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My suspicion

Is that this is a publicity stunt of some sort. Either some misguided attempt to make a statement by a group on one side of the abortion debate, or perhaps a couple looking to get onto a "reality" TV show. MDB (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/user/birthornot registered in May. Suspicion confirmed. --85.77.235.103 (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

One less thing I'll burn in hell for

I feel a lot happy taking it in the arse now I know its just the sodomy I'll burn for and not the condom usage compounding my eternal damnationAMassiveGay (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth it? Hell yeah! C®ackeЯ

Well, Hell is all about the sodomy so really you were getting off lightly anyway. ^moral 09:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

An eternity living out my s&m fantasys - bring it onAMassiveGay (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Palin

Fair enough, anybody can have a slip of the tongue - and it's not as bad as 5Live's horror at 'North Yorkshire's underground nuclear test' - but if you look at her general answer to the question, you realise what a vacuous bimbo she actually is. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 11:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, North Korea, this is stemming from a greater problem, when we're all sitting around asking, 'Oh no, what are we going to do,' and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do. So this speaks to a bigger picture that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policy. But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies – we're bound to by treaty....

You fail global politics forever. - π 11:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know it was a slip, and if it had been anybody else I wouldn't have bothered WIGOing it, but given that she's likely to be a candidate for the most powerful office in the world and her previous track record on global politics it seemed worthy. When it comes to avoiding mixing two things up, North/South Korea is just above Iraq/Iran and below Sunni/Shiite in importance. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of Obama's wrong count on the number of states, what was it 52? 17:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Obama's slip came when he was almost unconscious through exhaustion and was trying to correct himself: he was going to say "50", realised it was only 48 and only said the "8" part. Palin slipped in an interview designed to help restore her image and for which she had presumably been extensively prepared. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Still, it could happen to anyone. Messing up North and South once, while before and after using it correctly is a stupid reason to criticise her on. The content of the reply on the other hand... — Pietrow ☏ 11:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think people hold it as a criticism because obviously some aren't letting Obama forget some of his gaffes, no matter how legitimate and innocent. So it's a case of "well how'd you like them apples, bitch". But you're right, the gaffe did bring our attention to her reply, which is ultimately content free. ^moral 11:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Epic. I hadn't heard of this before now. 100% pure Palin. -- 23:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What an utterly terrible answer. It's a very unconcise way of saying 'I don't even know where North Korea is'. Andy would disapprove. EddyP (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Favourite Leslie Nielson Appearance

And I will note that his mother was Welsh, no doubt where he got his sense of humour from. But best appearance has to be in Due South, mostly because it isn't an obvious choice, and his performances in it are up to his best.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 04:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it was his part in that noted Conservative movie, Forbidden Planet. --Kels (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with Police Squad, first time I came across the man. Also Airplane ("I am serious... and don't call me Shirley" still one of the greatest lines ever). If you can, get hold of his "autobiography" The Naked Truth very, very funny. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 08:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Airplane - largely for that particular line. The BBC use it in the title of their obituary, and it's in the video too. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Police squad/Naked Guns.

Frank Drebin: That's the red-light district. I wonder why Savage is hanging around down there.

Ed Hocken: Sex, Frank?

Frank Drebin: Uh, no, not right now, Ed.

Frank Drebin: It's like having sex. It's a painstaking and arduous task that seems to go on and on forever, and just when you think things are going your way, nothing happens.

Though Airplane is a close second. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 21:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Naked gun:

Bad guy "I got a message for you from Vincent Ludwig!" Shoots gun at Drebin

Drebin "I can't hear you! Don't fire the gun while you're talking"

Classic. Ace^{word up} 22:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You think that watching Airplane is like having sex. It's a painstaking and arduous task that seems to go on and on forever, and just when you think things are going your way, nothing happens. Oooohhh-kay. You either need to watch Airplane again, or you need to stop lining your condoms with sand ;-) -- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Also his appearance in Creepshow was pretty cool. Ace^{word up} 23:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Astrobiology

Were they talking about this? It doesn't seem to be connected with NASA but it's technically astrobiology. At least it alters the first variable in the Drake Equation, which is pretty big deal, to be fair (although as they're detecting different types of stars it could alter the second or third variable by a similar degree so that N remains roughly the same!). ^moral 10:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but until we have warp drive, teleporters and replicators, this all a big yawn to most folk who aren't scientistsAMassiveGay (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad you qualified that with "most" AMG. I'm not a scientist but find it fascinating. 16:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not. Although I'd wait for the NASA release rather than a leak. It's not April 1st, is it? ^moral 17:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I am waiting...but...this has the potential to be really interesting. Really interesting, particularly mixed in with results from Titan (I think). Waiting on announcement. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

AAAS is clarifying it. It's still considerably profound, though. ^moral 17:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The first (and only, for the moment) comment to that video... *facepalm*--ZooGuard (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have seen some suggestions that the genome uses an arsenic skeletal structure for the genome, unrelated to the phosphate genome. That would of course be huge as it would suggest two independent points for life emerging on just one planet, not to mention the ability to test out preconception of genomic that are universal or merely quirks of a phosphate based system. However, that video seems to hint that it is merely an adaptation to the arsenic environment and likely still a "distant relative" of us. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BBC News - this explains it better. Still fucking amazing, though. ^moral 17:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was the 2008 story. However, what has happened here is that they've taken the same bacteria and done something impressive; they grow it on arsenic and it starts using it in place of phosphorus [3] ^moral 17:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The details are what we need, it looks this is not a "second genesis" but an extreme adaptation to the environment. What I want to know is the extent to which the arsenic was added the the phosphate backbone and what it was doing/what it changed to the genome structure. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Give it time, Science will have it online in an hour or two, I imagine. ^moral 17:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just read through the paper. Essentially certain As compounds are biochemically similar to P compounds, in fact part of As toxicity is caused by the cells using As instead of P and then down chain biochemical reactions can't utilize the created compounds. This bacteria has overcome the instability issues of As down chain, and when it substitutes As for P it can survive, though not was well. It is definitely interesting but not earth shattering, evidence seems very strong this is a distant evolutionary cousins so no second genesis here, the use of As in nucleic and protein synthesis isn't something unique to this bacteria as any life will do it, just it will usually kill off anything that does it. The unique factor here is that this bacteria can survive and use structures that incorporate As.

Because of the similarity between the As compound used and the normal P compounds I doubt there is a significant change in the way the genome functions or proteins fold. However, none of their analysis looked at those issues. Future work will hopefully explore how structure, metabolic processes, and genomic actions change (or if they do) when As is used. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is pretty significant. We assume that life can take a lot of different forms and could presumably "run on" different chemical compositions, but here it's an Earth-bound precedent of a pretty major change - some degree of "proof" as to what is possible. It's not exactly swapping silicon and carbon (I'd wager that's not truly possible at all) but it's a similar concept. I'd liken it to Lenski's citrate results but even more profound as not only is the bacteria processing on a new metabolite but as it's an atom rather than chemical compound. The bacteria is successfully incorporating this it into the structure of the molecules that forms its physical chemical make up. ^moral 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this is just evolution, isn't it... Lenski Mk II... Someone send a Red Telephone signal. ^moral 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, now that's jut your brainwashing it is really a falsification evolution. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hands up who didn't see that one coming... IDiot. ^moral 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Palin and Putin

Seriously that "article" belongs on the clogosphere, not world. It is not a news item, it is an opinion piece, and the idea you can't criticizes the elected president, especially coming from a borderline dictator thug like Putin, is laughable. The guy lost all credibility calling Pravda intentional media. - π 02:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The criticism is not coming from Putin, but from a Pravda hack, who is no doubt just doing his job, if indeed this is the same paper that was at one point a Red bullhorn. (I agree that it should be moved to WIGO:Clogs, though.) ListenerX^TalkerX 05:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There's sometimes a bit of ambiguity between what constitutes a blog and news piece in some things. Some BBC News stuff can be quite awkward to place. I suppose you could just resubmit the same thing to different WIGOs and see what gets better attention. ^moral 19:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Pravda online is a trashy tabloid a la National Enquirer. The newspaper though, is... yeah, roughly the same as the old one. But at least it doesn't have space aliens. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 19:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Divorce WIGO...

... makes me sad. :( ^EXTERMINATE 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Although look at the comments. Then look at the newspaper. Then double-check you've genuinely clicked "best rated" then double-check you're reading the newspaper right. Silver lining, perhaps? ^moral 17:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Revenge is Sweet, says Anonymous

Anonymous/4Chan declare war on PayPal[4][5]. Usual calls for a boycott of PayPal and affiliates services, through also promising a DDoS attack on PP itself. got to say, I think WikiLeaks does commendable things, and is VERY useful, as well as providing better soap-drama than TV any day, but don't see this method being terribly effective. What Assange really would benefit from would be some shit-hot lawyers who can make a case for the trial being hopelessly compromised, and for the "big media" who have benefited by being given early/direct access to the leaks to roll out the big guns in his favour. -- 19:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with the "big media" thing is that the media aren't generally impressed with the fact that the internet is doing a better job than them. It would be in their self-interest to destroy Assange too. Though we'll have to see who's side they eventually come down on. If The Guardian footed his legal bills I'd be very, very impressed. It would be one of those faith-restoring moments. ^moral 20:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That is something I'd really love to see, but agree not likely. I'm not sure all the "big" media is quite ready to actually help stick the knife in though. The outlets that receive feeds directly from WL actually have a vested interest in keeping Assange online, as they don't have the trust of potential sources, nor the technical know how to protect their identities. That said, they are unlikely to want to associate themselves too closely with an eb1l vandal site, and only a few media big guns have the priority/preferred access to the material. -- 20:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Swiss incest laws

The reason why they're obsolete is because they're only used to criminalize sex between consenting adults. We've got other laws that cover rape and child abuse, and they wouldn't be repealed. This situation isn't different from back when homosexuality was generally outlawed, and the argument in favor of repeal is the same - society has no business regulating sexuality in cases where there is no victim. But I'm skeptical about whether this will go anywhere, as the local right-wing party (the same one that managed to ban the construction of minarets a year ago) has already announced that it's going to fight this initiative. Even if they don't succeed in parliament, they could launch a referendum and mobilize the uninformed against it, as they've done in the past. Röstigraben (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The idea behind incest laws was (I understand) to prevent the potentially dangerous results of offspring produced by such close relatives mating. These days, when there are methods of contraception approaching 100% in effectiveness, such laws become pretty much pointless. Having said that, there's a good quote in the Preacher graphic novels: "You can't fuck your sister and expect anything good to come from it". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart

Well, it looks like Amerlia Earhart wasn't kidnapped by aliens, or shot by the Japanese for spying on them. Instead she crashed on a waterless atoll, survived for a bit and then died, providing a great meal for the local crabs. Yuck.Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Best headline ever: "Finger may point to solution in Amelia Earhart disappearance riddle". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And no volleyballs nicknamed Wilson to entertainment them either. FreeThought (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You never know. She crashed with her navigator, Fred Noonan. Perhaps she talked to his skull? I've looked up the island on Wikipedia. Pretty nasty place to get stranded on. Irony is that just a year later it was settled as a new part of the British Empire. Talk about bad timing on the part of Earhart. Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes bad timing and bad luck. They were also completing their final leg of their round the world mission too. Like Scott of the Antarctic - so close yet so damn far. Howland Island their last refuelling stop before Hawaii, is only a few minutes flying time north-west of Nikumaroro. FreeThought (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how Andy would write this up? Probably blame her for not being in her rightful place of the kitchen, cooking and knowing her correct place in the world instead of being a feminist celebrity. Ugh, I feel ill trying to imagine what Andy thinks. Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Too elaborate to WIGO

I can't make this short enough for a WIGO, so...

There's an upcoming movie based on Marvel Comics' Thor, which involves the Norse gods.

The Council of Conservative Citizens is calling for a boycott of the movie.

You might guess it's because they're portraying non-Christian gods as real. You would be wrong.

They're pissed off because they've cast a non-Aryanblack actor as one of the gods. MDB (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried. Lol, and the "Council of Conservative Citizens" are white supremacists? Sounds like another bunch of nutty conservatives I know... --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 18:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of comments are... fascinating. "Would you cast a white actor as Malcolm X?" Uuuhh... well, first, Malcolm X is a well-documented historical figure; Heimdall is a mythological being. Second, this doesn't even purport to be an accurate representation of Norse myths. It's an adaptation of a comic book based on Norse myths.

I will admit that, as a life-long comic book geek and a Thor fan, I am trying to remember if they ever included non-whites among the Asgardians in the comics. MDB (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Multi-cultural casting for a true Aryan epic? I am shocked. Shocked! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sepp Blatter

Sepp Blatter and FIFA have a long history of silently endorsing homophobia. This is just one more case. FIFA could have made non-discrimination a central qualifying condition of hosting the World Cup, they didn't. Sepp Blatter could have gone on the record and said that he was against Qatar hosting the World Cup because of the entrenched bigotry amongst the Qatari establishment. He didn't. As far as Blatter and FIFA are concerned the only thing that matters is money, and the more the better, basic human rights don't come into it. That's why Sepp Blatter rightfully gets called a tosser in the WIGO.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

IIRC when we were bidding for the cup, Libya fell foul of selection because they wouldn't back down on not admitting women or Jews, so it's not like there isn't a precedent. That said, Qatar just waved loads of dosh at FIFA and all was well, because FIFA is more about money than football. What will be interesting, given how the cup's sponsors are allowed to run amok, is what Budweiser will do, seeing as they're a major sponsor and Qatar is dry. All in all, especially given that the selection process went on while the bribery scandal was still brewing, choosing Qatar was a horrible mistake. I'm sure they have the money to put on a good cup, but as a venue they suck. Then again, they said that about us. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 18:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to resort to name calling, sign your name after it and take active credit for it. He's wrong, and probably bigoted, but name calling is childish - especially in the pseudoanonymity of an article or WIGO page. It's starting to get excessive where anyone who doesn't tow the political line that RW does is a "cunt" or "tosser" or "arsehole" and it's getting beyond a joke. We're the fucking good guys, we're better than that. ^moral 19:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Guess what mate? It's a WIGO. You don't fucking like it? Vote it down, don't start fucking censoring it unless it's fucking libellous.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to show yourself up as that immature, that's fine by me. I just thought presenting facts in a plain and fair manner was enough, but no, it seems have to pass judgement and tell people what to think about them too. ^moral 15:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see both sides on this one. A WIGO vote should be about what people think of the story, not a vote on whether or not people agree with sentiments expressed on the WIGO itself. On the other hand, Blatter's comments were pretty awful, and he's had to apologise for them since. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I won't deny that Blatter is a prick and his comments, and the overall decision by FIFA, are pretty poor taste. It's pretty clear. But reporting it straight (although by no means dryly) should be enough; just let those people show themselves up as bigoted morons. I've seen WIGOs get voted down for the sentiments and the way they were written - this is not a particularly good way to operate. The talk page is where we should be expressing what we think about a story or event or people involved. Shoving "I think this man is a cunt" into the WIGO page itself conflates fact and opinion. We jump on other for making that mistake, we should hold ourselves to a far higher standard. ^moral 17:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange

Why does the picture in this article make him look the god-damned pope? People will never cease to amaze me... Just because someone doesn't something stupid and illegal doesn't make them a fucking superhero. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 23:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely the woman on his right. He looks like she's just... well, you know. ^moral 15:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would almost say that it does make them a hero. anyone got the Deadpool de-motivational about common sense? But I also think that deifying Assange is a bad idea. Howdy.

Heimdall, Jesus, and blackface

I submit that anyone who has criticized the portrayal of Jesus as a white fellow in Renaissance iconography, or has criticized the portrayal of a black person by a white actor in blackface, has no grounds to dismiss the neo-Confederates' complaint concerning the actor playing Heimdall (if the people at the so-called "newspaper" would learn to spell for a change). One would do better to lambast their yowling about a comic that >ugh!< sympathizes with the opponents of apartheid, ListenerX^TalkerX 06:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're trying to be sarcastic or something, but if you are, it's not working. SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 06:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The only sarcastic part of that post is the last sentence. Of course, to be clear, the neo-Confederate lot are making the criticism for some particularly nasty reasons that show a double standard of their own, but that does not permit dismissal of the criticism itself. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would argue there's a huge difference between this situation and your two analogies. Jesus Christ was, in theory, a real person who lived in the middle east. Portraying him as a lily white Italian guy is at best historically inaccurate and at worst, blatant racism (usually when crazy right wing types throw a fit if you dare portray as anything else). White actors in black-face are specifically making a mockery of what a black person looks like (it's not intended to be insulting to black people and I'm not really bothered by it, although I understand why). This lot is complaining because a completely made up deity is portrayed as a race they don't like. It would be like the Congressional Black Caucus filing an official complaint because Hollywood decided to cast Dane Cook as the Afro Samurai. SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 08:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if the character is portrayed like he is in the comics, he'll always be in full armor and helmet. You'll barely be able to tell if his skin is green with purple polka-dots. He'll also be a pretty minor character. (Now, Anthony Hopkins as Odin... that's gonna (ragna)rock.) MDB (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether such complaints are founded or not, it's difficult to argue against a double standard existing. If you want to put importance on race (and for the purposes of this conversation, I assume we do), then you can't ignore that Norse mythology is established as pretty damn Aryian. No one would be happy about African mythological characters being portrayed as white, or mythical figures from Japan as being Indian - I imagine that sort of thing would piss people off quite thoroughly. You can't just selectively plead that one mythological religious figure is "in theory" a real person and so skin colour matters, while the others don't. ^moral 15:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but also remember, this is not supposed to be an accurate representation of the Norse myths -- this is an adaptation of comic books inspired by the Norse myths. And trust me, the comics are hardly accurate representation of Norse myths. For instance, try to find Fandral, Hogun and Volstagg in the originals. They're not there, because they're the Three Musketeers as Asgardians. And the original Norsemen would probably take issue with the fact that Odin exists alongside Zeus and other divine kings, and occasionally meets with them to discuss issues of cosmic level importance. And occasionally, the Norse gods acknowledge that there is a higher being beyond them, and it's generally assumed among fans that's the Judeo-Christian God. (Marvel Comics continuity has it that they're not "really" gods, just super-powerful beings ancient humans interacted with and worshiped.) MDB (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are people making a big deal about this case? When Mos Def portrayed Ford Prefect in HHGTTG I don't remember there being a huge outcry. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be under the "whether such complaints are founded or not" bit :P It is very silly to get uppity about comic adaptations. As for Mos Def, I don't recall Ford's race ever being mentioned. According to a production note mentioned on WP "Douglas himself is on record as saying that as far as he was concerned the only character who had to be British, indeed English, was Arthur Dent." So it was kind of free reign that didn't really matter at all. ^moral 17:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Though if we're on race, I was reading through a few more Chuck Lorre vanity cards and came across this one.

have long believed that part of our problem with resolving race issues in America is our inability to accurately name what we are. Aside from the occasional Johnny and Edgar Winter, there are no white people. Any child with a box of crayons can tell you that white people are, in fact, beige. The sickly ones are gray. Following this crayon logic, one can easily see that there are really no black people. They are brown. Or perhaps raw umber. Or maybe burnt sienna. Frankly, every time I hear someone comment on America's first black president, I can't help thinking, "No, he's not. He's more like caramel." Which is why I think we should all get in the habit of calling each other what we really are. How can you racially slur a man by calling him "beigey" or "umber?" The answer is you can't. Because that's exactly what he is. The melanin doesn't lie. Buy a box of Crayolas and see for yourself. We are all members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Can I hear a kumbaya?

^moral 01:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

About the last wigo

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=878721&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber

213. [...] Article 8 cannot be interpreted as meaning that pregnancy and its termination pertain uniquely to the woman’s private life as, whenever a woman is pregnant, her private life becomes closely connected with the developing foetus. The woman’s right to respect for her private life must be weighed against other competing rights and freedoms invoked including those of the unborn child [...]

214. [...] Article 8 cannot, accordingly, be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion [...]

227. The Court concludes that the impugned restriction therefore pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of morals of which the protection in Ireland of the right to life of the unborn was one aspect.

--Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And with a signature...

...Don't Ask Don't Tell is finally overturned.

Excuse me for a moment.

Hot damn!

Thank you. MDB (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Pls explain for the ignorant how DADT worked. If I understand it right, if you were gay in the military, they couldn't ask you to disclose that, but you could still be discharged if they found out you were gay? --Ψ GremlinFale! 14:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"how DADT worked"? Poorly.

Okay, that's the snarky answer. Your description summarizes how it was supposed to work. The key idea was that it would end the anti-gay witch hunts the military conducted prior to DADT. In theory, a gay service member could keep his private life completely separated from his job, and there would be no problems.

You can guess how well that worked. There were still witch hunts. Things that shouldn't have been considered "telling", like writing in a diary or speaking with someone in what is normally considered private (a chaplain or medical professional) were used as evidence. There was one poor sailor (who has the unfortunate name of Timothy McVeigh) who was discharged because his AOL screen name indicated he was gay.

Plus, if you were good at your job, and had a sympathetic command structure, you could be as out as the cast of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (though that was not a bright career move) and stay in the military.

There were also some amusing rules, like the 'Queen for a Day' rule, which said basically "one gay act is not cause for discharge." (To which my response was, "you get one free; make sure he's hot!") And the "Corporal Klinger" rule, which basically said "don't automatically discharge someone who comes in and says they're gay". MDB (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understood it, is was similar to the declaration that Iran didn't have any gays, wherein gays that were found out were removed from the picture. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. DADT fully acknowledged that there were gays in the military. It was, in theory, a shift from automatic discharge.

I should also have added above: one thing DADT did improve was that the chances of getting an honorable discharge if you were forced out for being gay. Considering a less-than-honorable discharge could limit your career prospects for the rest of your life, that was a big improvement.

I should also point out that I have never served in the military. However, I spent over twenty years of my life working for a major defense agency, and was one of the founders of it's gay employees group. We had numerous gay ex-military members, some who left the service voluntarily, and some who didn't. We also had a few active duty members. They were officially there because they were gay-sympathetic straights. Officially. MDB (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A car that runs on air

RE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/air-powered-car-airpod_n_799939.html

I remember seeing this years ago - possibly just a shed-built prototype rather than a marketed version, though. Thing is, how do they compress the air? By magic? No. You still burn fuel in compressing the air (using a conventional motor) and probably burn more fuel in the process because of transfer inefficiency. It's very misleading to say that such things would emit a fraction of the pollution and "runs" on air. It's not entirely a bad thing, as you can potentially move your energy generation to more efficient processes that aren't internal combustion and you shift exhaust fumes out of the streets and where they can be controlled. But "runs" on thin air; bollocks. ^moral 13:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)