Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Inverse stopped clock

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)


Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge[edit]

This might not belong in this article. According to most sources, he questioned the truthfulness of some accounts of the Khmer Rouge in 1977, and as he always does, he pointed out discrepancies in the US media's coverage of the situation. He discussed the accounts of the Cambodian genocide with Jean Lacouture and Robert Silvers. Afterwards he rectified his claims. Since the late 1970s he's condemned the Khmer Rouge as perpetrators of genocide. — Unsigned, by: AIsimian / talk / contribs 01:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@AIsimian 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. CowHouse (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --AIsimian (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with AIsimian. I just made a Wiki account to say this, since I first believed this to be true but have since changed my mind. The video linked is an attempt at a "gotcha" for Chomsky but has no substance. Chomsky's corrections to Lacoteure's review were more than "pedantic"- Lacoteure was blatantly distorting the figures in Ponchaud's book, which were themselves troublesome. The CIA document that the video claims he's using to whitewash is nothing of the sort. The document claims that 50-100,000 people were directly executed, as Chomsky says, and nowhere does he ever say that the regime is not at all responsible for the deaths caused by the harsh conditions under the Khmer Rouge. Rather, he was pointing out that the figures at the time could only be made to achieve the 2 million figure through a lot of distortion. Even though the 2 million figure later turned out to be correct, it does not change the fact that Lacoteure's review was farcical.

In short, I think this section should be removed from the page, although it is also important to have a page subsection discussing the controversy around this. --Tetra (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Just want to make a point about the edit conflict[edit]

@Jaydogg1994 @Oxyaena In all honesty, this page's purpose is dubious. Note that when you get into supporting Trans-Pacific Partnership policy, which I don't think is super evil and wrong, it's somehow a "inverse stopped clock" because someone doesn't align perfectly with our set of opinions? See my comment above. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And then there's the bit about the drones. β€” Oxyaena Harass 01:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I mean that's bad of course but it just seems like a case of standard centrist Democrat shenanigans. It's not shocking. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 01:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a bullshit reversion, and kowing Jaydogg's politics I have more than enough reason to tilt my head at that. β€” Oxyaena Harass 01:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Jaydogg is anything but a moderate who hasn't exhausted benefit of doubt (after I read the user talk page). Try to cooperate with people that aren't exactly on the same wing as you. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 01:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Their edits are with an incredibly neoliberal slant, they unironically call people "Berniebros", and they have also started moaning about me on Twitter. Any political edits they make are suspect, but I guess I'll try to talk to them. β€” Oxyaena Harass 02:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyaena So you're saying because i'm an moderate and not an berniebro that you're going to mess with any edit i make because you think i might secretly be alt-right, Which is a ridiculous accusation to make since i voted for the democratic nominee last election and i will vote for whoever the democratic nominee is this year (even if it's Bernie) because i'm a adult who's not gonna hand the election over to Trump like you did in 2016 when you threw a fit over you're idol losing by 4 million votes, Also the edit doesn't list any realible sources and i will revert until you can find a legitimate source (that's not jacobin, sputnik, the intercept, breitbart, common dreams). Jaydogg1994 (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, because corporate owned NYT and the Post are "reliable" news sources, and you're just proving my point for me. Remember how Bernie won West Virginia but the Dems awarded it to war criminal Clinton anyways? β€” Oxyaena Harass 04:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Everything you said has debunked a dozen times, But you already lost the debate when you called me, A person with autism, An "idiot" on twitter, It shows you're lack of character and inability to debate you point of view properly without using foul language. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
You realize I`m autistic too, right? Either way you have failed to respond to any of my points, foul language or not. I pointed out that the reason there's such a strong backlash against M4A is due to bribes, I mean, uh, lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry, which you ignored. I point out how Bernie won West Virginia, and the DNC ignored the democratic process and awarded that state to HRC anyways, you ignore that too. I point out how the mainstream media is owned by corporations, and hence are hardly "reliable sources," you ignore that too. Don't lecture me about "not being able to debate" because I use "foul language," at least I can properly address the issues at hand. β€” Oxyaena Harass 06:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
General consensus on here does seem to lean towards opposition to free trade such as TPP and NAFTA. I'm also in agreement with Oxyaena in regards to the drone strikes. I might add that the NSA spying and subsequent backtracking on protecting whistleblowers could also use a mention. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
But honestly, I'm asking about the merits of this article as a whole? It's just a glorified trivia dump for humans acting like, well, humans and being not wholly consistent with our (or a drive-by) views. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 21:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you, The article has just become a purity test of "so and so is not progressive because of this or that". Jaydogg1994 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually Oxyaena i did respond, I said that everything you said has been debunked a dozen times, Also you sound like a scientologist when you talk about "lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry". Jaydogg1994 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
And it's not just a purity test (I wouldn't argue it's a purity test for progressives even, just more of a purity test depending who's editing). Like, John Oliver's entry, this could easily be just a misguided opinion, even if it wasn't trivial, which Oliver is fully capable of correcting. His heart is still in the right spot. Bernie Sanders supporting GMO labeling? That's a view we should criticize, but it's not like a terrible thing that contrasts with the rest of his ideas that mandates a mention here. Even if the concept is valid (which I doubt), it should be like Bernie Sanders praising a fascist for fascist ideas. Hell, you guys could list me on there because at one point, I was a chemophobe who didn't like unpronounceable chemical ingredients in food and bought organic stuff.
It's also really odd that Canada is on there for... seal hunting... the hell? It's such a huge country with a ton of people with a diverse range of opinions and actions? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 03:00, 6 December 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”˜ @Jaydogg1994 Is that all you're capable of? Ad hominems? Pathetic. β€” Oxyaena Harass 04:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Grow up, The idea that the DNC was rigging it for Hillary was bullshit cooked up by Russian Intelligence to weaken her in the general, And M4A is polling at 30% support. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jaydogg1994 [1] From Politico of all things. β€” Oxyaena Harass 07:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyaena You mean the Donna Brazile who's now working for Fox News, She also had a photo op with Sheriff David Clark, She'll say anything for a paycheck. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlequeers, I present to you the genetic fallacy in action! Encore, encore! β€” Oxyaena Harass 08:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Stay on topic. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 10:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Animal Rights[edit]

Regarding the example of animal rights movement using the holocaust to score political points. This feels unfair considering there have actually been a number of holocaust survivors and Jewish activists who have made the comparison directly. — Unsigned, by: 213.86.14.100 / talk

Goody for them, It's still a stupid clickbait/tabloid level appeal to emotion. It's also tasteless as all fuck. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems more tasteless to be offended on behalf of the survivors and tell them what is or isn't correct discourse regarding their experience. Unless you are a survivor or Jewish yourself, surely it is better to take their cue on the matter? — Unsigned, by: 213.86.14.100 / talk
Plenty of Jews (even vegans/vegetarians/animal rights activists) believe it's not OK.[2][3][4] So pretending Jews don't have a problem with it is disingenuous to say the least. --Annanoon (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Gandhi’s support for Hitler?![edit]

The fuck?! Gandhi totally hated violence! It may be a documentable fact that Hitler supported Mahatma Gandhi, that does not imply vice-versa. https://time.com/5685122/gandhi-hitler-letter/ He has repeatedly written letters to him to stop violence. The article cited is trash too (see my revert note) So I am going to remove it. Feel free to revert back after discussing please. And no I am not going to threaten to LANCB I promise. Just notify me. The π—¦π—Ύπ—Ώπ˜-𝟭 talk stalk 13:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Certain clocks that may have stopped for good[edit]

By definition, a prerequisite for being an inverse stopped clock is being "usually logical, rational, or correct", and there are a few entries here that don't seem to satisfy that all too well. Some examples I found notable:

The whole list should go to be honest. It's main purpose is to humbly praise people you like. GeeJayK (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
At the very least it probably shouldn't have contemporary talking heads and politicians. But most sufferers of Nobel disease kinda belong here, and loads of historical figures did tremendous work in whatever their chosen field was while picking a hill to die on that was questionable in their time and outright atrocious in hindsight. In any case, I'm going to go ahead and axe these entries and a couple others. Theduckparticle (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
If we’re going to keep trimming it, I’d suggest Joe Biden goes. β€œOn the one hand, he was Obama’s Vice President, on the other he supported white supremacists and voted for the Iraq War” doesn’t scream inverse stopped clock (or regular stopped clock).
Does anyone think the list should stay? I also think it should go, and it seems that’s the consensus. Christopher (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The whole list is too subjective in my opinion. Kinda like the Breadtube one. And we all know what happened to that article.... GeeJayK (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Purge it, we don't need it. It's inherently subjective. β€” Oxyaena Harass 20:01, 22 March 2021 (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”˜That’s enough of a consensus for me, it’s gone. Christopher (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)