RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 17 April 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>

, (new)(back)

Barton's book being pulled for "inaccuracies"

Oh, please, please, please, please, PLEASE let this be a precedent that is quickly followed by other publishers. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You can say that again... Barton sickens me. TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please, please, please, please, PLEASE let this be a precedent that is quickly followed by other publishers. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Singularity

Please explain how the Doombas managed to duct tape weapons to themselves. --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 09:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Because some idiot let them out of the box. ^pathetic 10:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Letter from 2012

Regarding the Letter from 2012 article...

Someone at this very wiki, who shall remain nameless wrote pretty much the same thing a little while back.

Both articles even use the "terrible, horrible, no good, very bad" joke. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha! You should drop them a line - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Pew Polls, Evangelicals, and Evolution

Jerry Coyne's book was fantastic, but his summary of the Pew poll is misleading. He says that 3% of Evangelicals accept evolution. In point of fact, it's 3% of selected Evangelical leaders in South Africa, and 3% is the number of people who agreed that evolution is a purely naturalistic process with zero divine involvement. Those who accept evolution as directed by God was substantially higher. Given that Christians generally believe in divine involvement in everything, this should have been a no-brainer. (Of course, I'd like to see the numbers for acceptance of evolution go up generally; Evangelical ignorance is simply deplorable on this topic. But the answer to miseducation is not to misrepresent and exaggerate the problem.)

Archiving timestamp. statement^word 15:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia is touting the fact that Creation Ministries International just compared them to the Nazis

http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2011/08/godwin-moment.html

Archiving timestamp. statement^word 15:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

TJ

Here we go again. It's impossible to mention TheAmazingAtheist without a pejorative term following him. PZMeyers strawmaned him big time in his blog entry, but I guess the feminist is always right. Good fucking take on rationality. Even Pat fucking Robertson and Fred Phelps don't get that much shit on here. I don't understand you guys. I really don't. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 09:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So, TAA uses a teenage girl who killed herself due to bullying to make some kind of point, in a way that leaves what point exactly he's making very widely open for interpretation. Then, he and his fanboys are surprised that people have a negative reaction based on the way they interpret his behaviour. So, he is either foolish, or trolling.

And if you think that PZM strawmanned TAA, please elaborate on the details.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"And if you think that PZM strawmanned TAA, please elaborate on the details." God no, I've had my ration of stupid for the day and it's only 10:30am here - David Gerard (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Shall I call the whambulance? ^theist 09:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

He said TJ claimed "it wasn't a tragedy." Nowhere did TJ claim it wasn't a tragedy. He even specifically pointed out that he thinks it is a tragedy. He just doesn't think these teens should be glorified as they are. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 12:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Where did PZM say that? From his post:

She was a well-off Western girl with plenty of privileges, so how dare we consider her story particularly tragic? There are so many other people who are worse off than she was!

And a full quote from your link, because tumblr being what it is, posts tend to disappear:

I feel more important than her because I didn’t kill myself the second things didn’t go my way.

Also, you missed the point of my my post. The point is that the death of one person, while tragic, is not significant in the grand scheme of things. Hundreds of thousands of people die each day. Many of them die because of problems far worse than bullying—starvation, war, preventable disease. And unlike Amanda, who chose to end her life, these people died against their will. They fought with their last ounce of courage to survive, and they still died.

I find their deaths more worthy of tribute than some spoiled teenage girl that offed herself at the first sign of adversity.

I think it's an accurate summary. The rest of PZ's post attacks precisely this line of thought. (See also: Nirvana fallacy, Oppression Olympics, etc.)

Oh, and please don't ignore the factual inaccuracy (a.k.a. minimization): she didn't kill herself "the second things didn't go [her] way", and a multi-year campaign of harassment is not "things not going her way" or "the first sign of adversity". One can't help concluding that TAA is either stupid for not doing his homework, or malicious for minimizing the abuse the girl suffered.

And if you think that "some people have it worse" is a valid argument, why are you so incensed by the reaction to TAA's posts? After all, there are people dying in Africa right now, this must be more important than some callous asshole getting flak on some blogs for his ill-thought out arguments?--ZooGuard (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"I find their deaths more worthy of tribute than some spoiled teenage girl that offed herself at the first sign of adversity." Wow. really? he is truly a master at victim blaming! (or just fuckwattery trolling, whichever) GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 13:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If TAA, or DRP ever took a single class on the culture of power or even just adolescent development (because ewww feminism) they would realize that the window they see the world with has the shutters down and they don't even notice. Part of being an oppressed group is that you can have all of the opportunities in the world, you are still faced with more pressures and difficulties for simply being you. It's not 'the first sign of opposition,' it's a lifetime of being judged for the gender you never chose to be, and one can be the whitest girl in the world and still crack under the pressure of simply never being considered good enough in regards to the impossible ideal that is society's model for girls. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 14:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Kids are vulnerable. Period. White kids, black kids, gay kids, poor kids. Some have support systems, so when they say "i can't do this any more", somebody helps them. Sadly, in over populated schools, with parents who are both working (nothing against both working parents, just saying you're not there all the time), loss of social connections like church groups and girlscouts, navigating teen hood is dangerous - and too many slip through cracks. But that's fine, as long as TJ and others like him get to parade about how amazing they are that they didn't kill themselves! GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 14:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop jacking off to TAA. This has nothing to do with feminism. This has everything to do with him being a fucktard. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Everybody's a fucktard. He's one of the rare people who admits it - but lo, people can't appreciate that. PZ called TJ a sociopath. Noone calls that douche an asshole. So fuck you, I'll jack off to anyone I want. Leave my sexuality alone, you totalitarian. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 12:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Defending an unpleasant fuckwad by asserting that everybody is an unpleasant fuckwad and we should stop criticizing people because everyone is the same is about the least sensible thing I have ever heard. In that case, I guess this site shouldn't exist. But then again, The Amazing Atheist is ALLOWED to criticize anybody he wants, according to you, even THOUGH he is a fuckwad, but because WE are also fuckwads apparently, it's NOT alright for US to speak ill of HIM? Special pleading, much? Your fit is a fractal of bad logic and wrong, and if you want to assert that everyone's a dick, then fine. That means you're a dick, and of little value as well. If this site cared about your feelings (or the feelings of other total assholes we criticize) to the point of censoring our honest criticisms, then I guess we would be called Hold-Hands-And-Amount-To-Nothing-Wiki. I've seen better defenses from fangirls whining that people should stop leaving mean reviews on their lame fanfiction. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 13:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

She was a well-off Western girl with plenty of privileges, so how dare we consider her story particularly tragic?

The point is that the death of one person, while tragic, is not significant in the grand scheme of things. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, really, the "point" is that one dick of a man decided to once again whine about someone else getting attention he reserves for himself. This one girl's life is hugely significant in the grand scheme of things. Cause she's a human being who suffered at the hands of others.GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 14:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. No one will remember her in a month. I wish it wasn't like that, but let's be realistic. Many people are suffering, in hundreds of thousands, but you don't give a shit, and they are being treated much, much worse than Amanda Todd. And guess what? They aren't getting half the attention she got. What about kids that are bullied right now? No one gives a fuck until they off themselves. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

DRP, how about considering the fact that her death is a data point in a suicide rate among teenage girls that is on a dramatic rise in recent years? After falling briefly in 1990, the suicide rate for teenage girls has spiked about 76 percent? How about the fact that suicide is the 3rd most common cause of death among 15-25 year olds in the united states of america? How about considering that her death is in response to an overwhelmingly hostile culture that does more than drive kids, especially girls, to death: to eating disorders, to depression, and to other significant problems. How about considering that the united states of america is a first-world country and supposed to have support systems or serve as an example to other countries, yet we have bullshit like this happening every day? And how about the fact that for every completed teen suicide, there are about a hundred attempted suicides by teens? Claiming that others are starving in India doesn't change the fact that our homeless starve every day, nor does claiming that hundreds of people suffer every day change the fact that some suffer here. Who are you to judge is 'worthier,' especially if you're such an asshole like you claim? CITATIONS:1 ,2 ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 14:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Off course half of you didn't bother to read his blog. I didn't expect it anyway. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've never really read anything by this "AmazingAtheist" fellow, but judging from what I see here, he sure seems like a jerk. Why bother paying any attention to him? Aren't there any smart and good-spirited people for you to read? OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh wonderful, DRP! Thank you for enlightening me to the fact that TAA is fully aware of bullying, but has no idea that the suicide of this girl is related to it! I feel so much better knowing that not only is he a sociopath, but he's a sociopath that cannot fully understand the issue he's talking about! It is genius of him to insinuate that no one cares about bullying and it's a problem in the USA, yet then blame the victim for being 'weak' when bullying overcomes her. Gee! This changed my opinion on him completely! ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 14:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

TAA is the atheist equivalent of Todd Aiken, seriously. Over fond of the sound of his own voice and ignorant about that which he pontificates over. He's just as embarrassing. As the parent of an 'over privileged' child who narrowly missed committing suicide (I took the knife off him) I have a rather different viewpoint. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just read the story of Amanda Todd at Bullied Teen Leaves Behind Chilling YouTube Video. I'm shocked at TJ's lack of compassion. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Reading our article on the guy, and a few of his own things, I'm not shocked at all. Seems to be pretty much how he rolls. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

TJ, ctd.

"My position is simple: Amanda Todd shouldn’t be sainted and raised up as an example of something admirable. That’s it. Anything you have inferred beyond that is the product of your fevered imagination looking for something to be offended by."[1] -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Did he actually say that? Idiot. This young woman is neither being "sainted," nor is she being "raised up as an example of something admirable." She is being mourned. What happened to her is being held up as an example of something criminally tragic. Does he always straw-man like that? Why do you bother reading this clown? OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Calling your opponent an idiot doesn't help keep the discussion rational and NobodyKnowsYou'reAGod is intelligent enough to know that. God insults and humiliates his opponents, I feel he has too much in common with TJ. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

She is. She is getting so much attention that kids are getting the message "world cares about you for a couple of days if you off yourself". -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so by that logic, Malala has taught people that they should piss off the taliban in order to get noticed!--GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 19:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What? Really? All I see are dozens of articles pointing out this case is a prime example of how bullying/cyberbullying/sexual predation/rape culture(in its broader definition) works to ruin women and children's lives. Do you have any evidence that children are getting the message that you claim they are getting? OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there are dozens of articles about her. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 18:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So a situation that tragically brings together key issues like technology, social networking, aggression, sexuality, misogyny should be ignored?EDIT: Also, the fact that the articles exist is not evidence for the effect you ascribe to them, so really, you've said nothing in that post. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

As for the number of articles, I was simply reflecting on the same fallacy you made. However, I think we both will agree that it is common sense that no one can ignore innumerable "bullycide" victims and how they're exposed in media. As for the former, he never claimed it should be ignored. He presented some quite good solutions for it, too. He just said it should not be treated as the world's dominating problem. In the end, it always comes to retardedness of the media. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 18:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

How so? Are there examples of the media treating it as "the world's dominating problem"? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop taking my Word so literally! -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What was your intended meaning? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There’s a great deal of discussion about Amanda Todd, we need discussion about what can be done to stop that type of thing. In the UK cyber bullying that drives a kid to suicide could lead to a prison sentence. See More British Free Speech Stuff. Are our free speech laws too severe? Are US laws too lax? Should we discuss that still more? Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Does it change your mind when you found it was a 30 year old male, who's been convicted of child molestation before, and has a track record of stalking women, was the prime reason she killed herself? it's not all about the bullying, you know, but about being STALKED. HUNTED. you truly make me sick, DRP.--GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 19:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there laws in the US to get stalkers like that to prison? Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Plenty, and that's even before the Pedophilia laws are factored in. --Revolverman (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Are there laws in the US to get stalkers like that to prison?" US law doesn't matter -- both he and his victim were in Canada. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

[2] -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 18:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Argument by stray link is lame. Tell us what YOU want to say. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I watched the video through, I've read how TJ bullied rape victims and his concern for bully victims looks hypocritical to me. Similarly if NobodyKnowsYou'reAGod wants to convince me he's against bullying he'd better stop calling people idiots. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

[3] -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 15:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The "idiot" in that link was directed at this "TJ" fellow, not at the RW user to whom I was replying. sorry if that was not clear. Mr. J said something idiotic, and I called him on it. I hardly think that rises to the level of "bullying" in any meaningful sense of the term. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are also more tactful ways of saying you disagree with someone than calling arguments lame. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If an argument is lame, I'll call it lame. Also, if you think about it, there was no argument. There was a link to a youtube video. How about this? "Leaving stray links to YouTube videos instead of taking the time to craft your own argument is totally unproductive, adds nothing of value to the conversation, and may be ignored without further consern." OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that's because I'm speaking for TJ and how you guys strawman his arguments. This isn't the debate club, this is the club for discussing the blogosphere WIGOs. WIGO I made was corrupted and I protest its subjectivity. I also protest RW's treatment of TheAmazingAtheist, as he seems to be unfairly treated on a Pat Robertson level. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 17:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Non sequitur much? — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 17:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What? -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 18:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You're too socially crippled to realise you're stupid. This isn't addressing your arguments, but by this point it really doesn't have to. HTH! - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, English is not his first language.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The stupidity extensively documented above is not of a species that originates in linguistic hiccups - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I admit, I became much more rude since I began debating on the internet. But I very rarely call people "stupid", "socially crippled" and other names, since I don't know them personally (I prefer using "that's stupid" and "that's socially crippled"). And yes, it is a linguistic problem. We can all see I have a problem with expressing my thoughts clearly in English. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 18:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

But you do also seem to adulate this TJ guy & his worldview to the point of sycophancy & rampant denialism. This doesn't seem like a linguistic problem. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to degrade this TJ guy & his worldview to an Andrew Schalfy level using rampant denialism. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 19:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Denial of what specifically? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Really, what it all boils down to

Someone dies, and their death opens up a conversation about political and/or social issues. There are only two things you can do. The first is to express some sort of sense of condolences or sadness at the tragedy that has occurred. It might also be appropriate to say something thoughtful about those issues, but you should be careful about how you do this--remember, it's probably not your personal tragedy, and you don't want to step on the toes of the people who are mourning this person in a more intimate way. The second is to shut the fuck up and mind your own business. For failing to do so, this Youtube guy has failed to live up to the standards of "decent human being." OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed--"Shut up, Brx." 18:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, he did not deny it was a tragedy and he did say something thoughtful about it. But since his name is TheAmazingAtheist, we'll just call him an asshole. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 19:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"She was a well-off Western girl with plenty of privileges, so how dare we consider her story particularly tragic? There are so many other people who are worse off than she was!" " The point is that the death of one person, while tragic, is not significant in the grand scheme of things. Hundreds of thousands of people die each day. Many of them die because of problems far worse than bullying—starvation, war, preventable disease. And unlike Amanda, who chose to end her life, these people died against their will. They fought with their last ounce of courage to survive, and they still died." "I find their deaths more worthy of tribute than some spoiled teenage girl that offed herself at the first sign of adversity." Real thoughtful. Those are the words of a prick, end of story. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

. . . since his name is TheAmazingAtheist, we'll just call him an asshole. How about we just call him an asshole because he is one? He uses the word "tragic" as an offhand tokenistic gesture, while simultaneously calling this bullying victim a spoilt brat & a coward. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think someone doesn't know the difference between actual people suffering and a cd on repeat blasting out Linkin' Park CRRAAWWLLINNG INN MY SKIIINNN THEESE WOOUNDS THEY WILL NOT HEEAAALLLL.

Either that, or someone was bullied and felt ignored, and now is indignant that someone DARE get more attention than their silent suffering by doing something society is scared of. I was bullied throughout my childhood, but the fact that no one noticed then makes me want to help people notice now, not bitch on the internet that people DARE to give attention to someone who probably wasn't thinking of attention when they made a tragic choice. Dear friends of mine (this is not a 'friend argument,' I am calling on a primary source) have been suicidal, and believe me, it's not a cry for attention. It's a whimper of defeat. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 22:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

GMO

Skimming through that blog... Does it anywhere address what is the actual aware concern of GMO opponents; the danger of GMO crops "escaping into the wild" and wrecking havoc with the local ecology? Or does it just address the strawman about how healthy/unhealthy it might be for humans? Dendlai (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really, although the author does mention it in the comments. The problem is that, as with religion, the loudest proponents of the anti-GMO rhetoric are generally the ones with the worst arguments. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 17:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The spread of GM traits could be prevented by using the "terminator technology" (making second-generation seed sterile), but the anti-GMO people are extremely opposed to this, mainly because they have no idea that hardly any farmers in the developed countries bother with saving seed (and seed from high-yield hybrid varieties of grain is unsuitable for replanting anyway).

If you mean that a plant could escape and establish a population in the wild, that's certainly possible. However, it's very unlikely that the GM traits, which are added with agriculture in mind, would give it any special advantage in the wild. The scenario where a GM plant outcompetes everything else in the ecosystem is not plausible. --Tweenk (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Elevatorgate

Fuck me, quite a few people should be ashamed of themselves (shouldn't they Mr Dawkins?). If men can't understand how a woman can feel threatened by being asked back to someone's room, then they really need to give their head a wobble. One of the most depressing blogs I've read. Scherben 14:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The real controversy is not that she got hit on, but how she reacted. Though, admittedly, Dawkins could have handled his reaction to her reaction a little better. -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Can women explain how such a proposition is threatening? Not Dawkins' in particular, but propositioning a woman to come back to your room. How does that go in your head? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I can explain. If a stranger invites you back to their room, and you are female and they are male, it is a secluded place that they could possibly overpower you in. It's similar to feelings of being followed down an empty street at night: no matter the man's unknown intentions, it is a danger situation. It seems unfair to assume the worst, but because women are not treated equally in society as men, we have to worry about more than men do in terms of safety and security. Not to mention that she already had gotten threats, violent and sexual ones. Anyone who gets such nasty and virulent threats is in the right to act cautiously, so it was not as if she was acting without evidence for her caution. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 16:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I reblogged this on my tumblr and instantly got a MRA jumping down my throat for suggesting that adding the topic of feminism into skeptic circles was 'feminist evangelism.' Wow, just wow.±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 16:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sexist assholes sicken me. I'd suggest a widescale Lysistrata strategy against all sexist men. Frullic (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably not the best tactic to achieve the end goal, given Lysistrata ends with reconciliation and merriment. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it's either a Lysistrata or bouncers. Maybe female hockey teams from Canada can handle bouncing at events to scare away/concuss MRAs and creepy pickup artists. Frullic (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

They'll expect to be payed in Rum and Cigars though. --Revolverman (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this was an insane overreaction on all sides. A guy politely asks if someone would like to go to their room for drinks (PS, ever been to a conference? I have and they're literally nothing but week long fuck sessions). The lady says no, and that's the end of it. No berating, no cojoling. She said no and he said ok. How threatening is that really? Under that logic, it's literally sexual harassment to ever ask a girl to come back to your place ever. Now, the idiots who started sending rape and death threats are beyond stupid and I obviously don't support them, but treating every inter-gender interaction as if it's just a rape waiting to happen to just as stupid. SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 22:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Insane" on all sides is an understatement. It's sparked the biggest load of retarded shit to not have come from the GOP in the last year. ^sshole 23:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because she'd spoken about her experiences and how she felt, yet he still sidled off to follow her when she left. Also, week long fuck sessions means all women are up for it, and should expect to be fucked? Ffs Scherben 23:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that "it's literally sexual harassment to ever ask a girl to come back to your place ever". That's a heck of a straw man. The situation from Rebecca Watson's account of what happened (which is all we really have to go on) was that this guy had been in the bar when she was chatting to other people but hadn't really talked to her, & then followed her out in order to proposition her out of nowhere. There's good reason for finding it a little creepy; & somewhat ironic in terms of the issues she'd been talking about. As for the guy, we don't really know whether he was a sleazy predatory pick-up artist type, or just somebody shy & clueless who didn't realise he was going about things all wrong. And it doesn't really matter, because all she really said in her vlog was "guys, don't do that" & point out that the guy clearly didn't quite "get" the points she had been making during the day. That's all; it wasn't some kind of men-hating invective, & it was been blown massively out of proportion by the blogosphere at large. The reaction from MRAs & misogynist trolls was as predictable as it was unpleasant. The reaction from big name atheists like Richard Dawkins & (IIRC) Penn Jillette was more eye-opening. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If it was "blown massively out of proportion by the blogosphere", why does she continue to ride that pony hard? --Revolverman (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

She can't really back down, can she? Elevatorgate has split the skeptic/atheist blogosphere into two - the feminist wing and the MRA wing. If either admits being at fault they'll shrivel into irrelevance.

When Dawkins "agreed to provide childcare at future atheist meetings," it seemed to be both a signal to end the conflict and a faint admission of apology. Why it has not subsided (rather the opposite) I have no idea. And honestly, it's fucking annoying. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Asking a woman to come to your hotel room soon after meeting her is creepy and borders on harassment, especially if you do it in the confines of a closed space like an elevator. You want some face time with the girl? Ask her for coffee or a drink somewhere in public. #ToPsDatingTips. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 01:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Harassment? Stupid, yes. Sexist, yes. Harassment? If she said no once and he didn't give up. To this DAY we still really don't know what exactly happened. --Revolverman (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how a stranger making a proposition with sexual overtones late at night in a 4x4 space with a locked door isn't harassment. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 01:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe Harassment needs to be continual. I'm not saying it wasn't but its still not know how, if even he was aggressive in the proposition. --Revolverman (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to try to see it from the guy's point of view. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, as that's most fair, and how I roll in general. So a guy at this conference observes a good looking, smart woman, who he feels he could have a connection with. He decides he wants to meet her, and perhaps ask her on some sort of date-like thing. Yes, it's your typical high school crush. His opportunity to get to meet her comes at the very end of the night when she and a bunch of folks are hanging out at the hotel bar until the wee hours. He stays up way later than he normally would like to, waiting for a chance to exchange some words and maybe ask her for coffee or something where they can perhaps talk for a bit and see if there's a spark. 4 AM rolls around, and, for whatever reason, he's hardly been able to talk to her at all. Maybe he's shy, maybe he's being cockblocked by a bunch of alpha males. Whatever. She leaves, and he realizes it's now or never. He follows her, hoping to ask her for your stereotypical, innocent "cup of coffee". The elevator is his only opportunity to do this. Awkwardly he asks her if she'd like to get said cup of coffee in the only place that's an option at 4 AM: his room. Now, this is clearly a poorly executed attempt to ask for a date - nearly a perfect storm of screw ups. But the guy takes his shot, and fails. He's not propositioning her for sex. I mean, sure, it's on his mind that a best case scenario could result in some sexual activity, but that's a far, far cry from a "wanna go fuck" proposition. She turns him down, and that's the end of it. Now, if Watson's schtick is writing about dating tips, this is a great example of what not to do. As someone who writes about sexism and male chauvanism, this really isn't the best. Yeah, in hindsight, he shouldn't have asked in a vulnerable place like an elevator, but he didn't have much choice. And asking for a cup of coffee in his room at 4 AM was a bad call. Suggesting sometime the next day would have been less creepy, but he doesn't have time to consider the possibilities, and besides, putting it off until the next day when there's all sorts of things that can go wrong when so much is going on at the conference is risky as well. Anyway, so did this guy make the best calls? No. Is Waston a victim here? Not in this scenario (a rosy one, but not unrealistic). Now, I'm not at all the sort of guy who says a girl should be flattered when a guy says he'd love to tie her to a bed and fuck the bejeezus out of her. But, if a guy is smitten with a girl, based on his observation of her, and would genuinely like to get to know her, well, that can be somewhat flattering. From Watson's own synopsis of the situation I see no evidence this guy was one of the MRA types. His behavior in a slightly different setting would be perfectly acceptable, in my view, and he doesn't have control of the situation. I give him some props for not just letting the situation pass and saying to himself later "I should have asked her out". Anyway, since the guy hasn't given his take on the situation, as far as I know, consider this a substitution. Then again, I'm pretty drunk, so don't take this too seriously. DickTurpis (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

" Yeah, in hindsight, he shouldn't have asked in a vulnerable place like an elevator, but he didn't have much choice." He had lots of choice. Choice #1 was "this is a completely inappropriate time to ask the girl out. So i'm not going to ask her out." It's not like he was Spock going through the agony of needing to mate. She's some chick he barely knows. Just walk the fuck away -- It's really not about you and your feelings at 4AM in an elevator. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 02:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant if he was going to do it at all it was now or never. Yeah, a bad call, but hardly the equivalent of saying "hey, if I hot the emergency stop on this thing I bet we'd have enough time for you to give me a blow job." Yeah, it wasn't a great situation, but t's not necessarily harassment. A paragon of bad dating advice? Sure. A great example of sexual harassment? Doesn't seem to be. DickTurpis (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I want to be clear that I agree with you, for the most part, UP UNTIL THE ELEVATOR DOORS CLOSE. Once that happens, anything a strange man says to a woman, especially in the wee hours, beyond "nice, weather, eh?" is suspect. "Wanna come to my room," in that small space with limited escape possibilities and the possibility of an unwanted follower out of the elevator, is harassment, in my books. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 02:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree, though I'm giving the guy the benefit of the doubt that it really wasn't his intention. In a way an elevator is a great opportunity to strike up a conversation. The whole idea of the elevator pitch is based on this. Yeah, it being 4 AM and asking to go back to his room is a pretty bad judgement call, and it's entirely possible that the guy realized this right after he said it, but to me his behavior seem much more along the lines of "how not to ask for a date" rather than "sexual predators are rampant" . OK, that's an exaggeration, but I'm still not convinced the guy deserved to be held up as an example. Had he said anything sexual it would be different, but he really did't. DickTurpis (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The intentions of nearly EVERY male most women meet are in the forefront of our minds, DickTurpis. And even further... in the mind of a woman who had received death/rape threats before the event? Yeah, she's not going to trust the good intent behind any possible danger situation she might get into. It's a hard thing for many men to understand, the feeling of having to wonder if people are undressing you or wishing you ill even if they don't say a word to you. The feeling of being in danger once someone else has a position of possible sexual advantage, the need to be together and out of secluded spaces where danger can happen... these are not thoughts that men often think, because on whole, you aren't primed and conditioned to think that way, nor do you see so many confirmations of it that would possibly shape your worldview in that way. Out of samples of girls fifteen to eighteen years old, about a third of them have already been sexually harassed or been a victim of sexual violence. To feel that danger in everyday life, that's what makes situations like the elevator one not okay at all. But it's hard to connect to it if you don't live with it hanging over you. In other words, and you're really well intentioned in this, DickTurpis and in no way are you a bad person, the ability to not feel like she did in your everyday life is male privilege. In the same way that I will never know what it's like to be racially profiled, it probably would be seriously difficult for you to feel what she felt. This is not your fault, nor does it make you less of a person.±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 03:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely get that she has every right to feel uncomfortable in such a situation. Really, the biggest factor in my mind, and one which no one but the two people can really comment on, is the manner in which the guy presented himself. The exact same words can have widely different overtones based on how they're said. Like I said, I'm sort of taking the side of the guy in this situation, and presenting his potential (not far-fetched, I hope) take, because he hasn't presented it himself. Yes, Watson had every right to feel quite uncomfortable when a guy she didn't know asked her to come to his room in the wee hours. I get that completely. But, as the situation ended without any incident, at that stage I think she should not have made a major issue about it. I admit I concentrate more on intentions, and I have no real reason to think this guy's intentions were bad, and for that reason I'm hesitant to be terribly hard on him. Of course, what we all agree on is that the reaction of so many assholes to this hole thing is way beyond the pale. DickTurpis (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

She didn't make a major issue about it. She mentioned the incident for about a minute or so in the middle an 8-minute vlog about the conference & various other things (here) & most likely would have left it for that, if not for the backlash she received. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess in the end, the Elevator part of Elevatorgate is... well quite unrelated to what has really become the issue. --Revolverman (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

An interesting point. How significant is the elevator? If the guy had caught up to her in a hallway and said the same thing, would she have made an issue of it? DickTurpis (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the setting matters; it wouldn't make it less creepy. In the same way that a possible assailant in a crowded mall is not any less scary than a possible assailant alone with you in the back of an alley; it's just that there are more avenues of escape in a hallway. This doesn't mean that you can never ask a woman out; it's just that doing so without considering the feelings of said woman (I'm a person she's never met before and she's gotten rape threats and I am asking her to go to a secluded place?) is the epitome of creepsterdom. If it wasn't his fault and he didn't know she had been threatened (unlikely; he said he attended her panel and she probably spoke about her issues) or was oblivious to how he came across, that's unfortunate. But intentions are not a magic band-aid for how people come across. It's sad and an unfortunate misunderstanding in that case, but it doesn't make the situation any less creepy for her in context; in the same way that he could have been oblivious to his threat level, she could not possibly know his intentions, either. One person should not be expected to read minds when the other cannot; exonerate the elevator dude for not knowing better, you have to also excuse Watson for not knowing his intentions.

And to debate if her feelings were 'right' after the fact is just ridiculous; if a woman says that she felt threatened, she felt threatened. It's her judgement to make, not anybody else's; especially not men who don't have her socialization or frame of perspective. Imagine if you were saying to a black person, 'you shouldn't have felt so bad when the police stopped you for no reason.'

If she says that she felt threatened by this conduct, that conduct would not be any less threatening unless she directly says so, not anywhere: not in a house, not with a mouse, not in a box, not with a fox, not in a car, not in a tree; Sam-I-Am must let her be. Threatening behavior is not Green Eggs and Ham, no matter the goodwill of Sam-I-Am. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 13:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In which a diversion into the place of the trans-gendered in debates about male privilege is taken

I'm sick of all this "male privilege" bullshit. No one ever asked me if I wanted to be born male. To me, it is no privilege, but an unwanted imposition. If I could somehow go back in time and change that misfortune - I would give anything. I think your talk of "male privilege" is just a product of your cisgender privilege. A lot of feminists go in for blatant transphobia, but even those who aren't blatantly transphobic are subtlety so. They don't think about how their discourse can harm transgender people. Because they aren't even thinking about transgender people when they open their mouths. We are the invisible other who don't exist, who don't count, who don't matter. 72.48.159.147 (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of feminists who recognize cisgender privilege who are highly visible, plenty of feminists who think of transgender people when they open their mouths. Just because some of us don't recognize the issue doesn't mean all of us don't. And how does that do with the fact that those that society has identified as male (not they themselves; society determines if they pass within the bounds of socially-defined 'maleness' or not) are afforded more privileges, opportunities, and other things than females? Hell; I think a huge part of transgender issues revolves around male privilege; Transmen are sometimes harassed as 'dykes invading the man club' because many men are afraid of them entering their once-exclusive spaces, and transwomen are sometimes harassed as 'sissies who want to chop off their dicks' for turning their backs on being male which gets them deemed social pariah. Your issues aren't invisible. They are what tests and even what demonstrates exactly how strongly society screams and tries to separate people into male and female categories. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, and I'm sorry many feminists don't take you into account. But there are also those that do. And there are also plenty of transgender feminists, and primary sources for your voices to be heard. And believe it or not, we are listening.±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 04:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I find the terminology of "male privilege" excludes me, because to me being male is far from a privilege, it is an unwanted imposition. Your attempts to draw some links between feminism and transgender issues don't really change that. Maybe if feminists realized that this choice of words - "male privilege" - excluded some people (e.g. some male-to-female transgender people, such as myself), they might drop that language? Anyway, you can talk about the support that some feminists give for transgender issues, and I don't deny that and it is appreciated; but at the same time, some of the most virulent, hateful, violent transphobic rhetoric comes from radical feminists - feminists like Cathy Brennan, Janice Raymond, and so on. To be honest, a lot of fundamentalist Christians seem more trans-positive than some feminists - sure, they think we are sinners under Satan's sway and all, but I don't sense the same bloodthirstiness in their words as I do from many radfems. 72.48.159.147 (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally the idea of male privilege has to do with the rejection of what is identified as female, and not noticing that fact. So I'm sorry you feel that way about the term, but in my eyes, your problem is visceral to why male privilege is bad. It is a privilage to those who identify as male to be male. It is not a privilege for those who don't identify as male to be identified against their will as male, whether in the context of a transwoman trying to escape a society who keeps telling her that she's really a man, or in the context of a woman who must enter traditionally male spaces to survive yet is stomped on for doing so. Male privilege hurts you because it's not your privilege; it's the privilege of men to sort you as male whether you like it or not. And the backlash of male privilege ('Men are allowed to be sexual' -> 'men are sexual creatures' -> 'men are a threat to women sexually') is what often causes female communities to reject transwomen as threats or dubious, especially pre-hormones/not yet 'passing.' Feminism and trans-rights DO overlap a lot. And it sucks that lots of radical feminists are against you. Most of us don't like them either. But at the end of the day, we can't no-true-scotsman them away...±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 05:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

But what does "identify as male" mean? Does it mean appear publicly as male? Or consider one's "inner self" to be male? i.e. what about closeted transgender people? i.e. those who haven't transitioned, who haven't started transitioning, who maybe haven't confided in anyone about how they feel? And maybe with time they'll move along that pathway, and maybe they won't, and that's their prerogative. But you label them as male because they present as male, and then tell them they have "male privilege"? Can't you see how, from the perspective of a very closeted MTF, that is hurtful? For all we know, that guy in the elevator could have been an M2F transgender - since we know nothing about him, we can't say. That's why I think the terminology of "male privilege" is hurtful. 72.48.159.147 (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be hurtful. But 'identify as male' generally is a personal association with being male. To 'pass' as male is often what society considers to be accepted as male (and even the most 'blended in' person can still fail to 'pass' if they are outed in the wrong spaces). So male privilege benefits those who both identify and pass as male. It does not benefit those who identify but do not pass (pre-hormones transmen, for example,) or those who do not identify but do pass (closeted transwomen). This is because society considers ONLY those who both identify and pass as masculine to be male, and will either force those who don't do one of those things to conform (at which point the 'perks' that come with society's definition of male are not desirable at all), or will reject them and strip from them the exclusive 'boys-club' entitlements like pay equality and personal security that they enjoy... as well as mocking them for not meeting even negative expectations like suppression of emotions or sensitivity. So once again, I am sorry that you think it is hurtful, and I definitely agree that many feminists do need to examine what being what society considers male really is (thinking, acting, and looking the way it wants, not just using 'male' as a shortcut for all three of those things) before throwing the term around. It really is taken for granted. Thank you for this discussion, actually; I learned a lot. I wish we got more anonymous posters like you.±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 05:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What the hell do trans issues have with this, or have you just been trolled? ^pathetic 08:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, but troll or not, BoN made a good point: the privilege that males have is part of a social contract to be male, and not personally identifying or passing as male when society expects one to be male quickly turns all advantages gained on their head. Super off topic though; not much to do with elevatorgate at all.±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 12:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

David Frum on abortion

I'm kind of amazed at a conservative pundit talking sense about abortion on CNN. Frum has a track record of being an idiot, but he's also had surprising outbreaks of common sense. I'm hoping he sticks to the latter more often. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 19:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If more of the anti-abortionist activists were out there making this sort of argument instead of plastering my campus walls with fetus porn, they might actually succeed in changing some minds. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 19:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Conservatives/Teabaggers ousted him from various positions for not being conservative enough. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That's unsurprising. The entire piece actually considers women as human beings, you can't do that and still be a Republican these days. ^sshole 01:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a summary of the right's past four years, frankly, having legitimate ideas but being too much of a clusterfuck to really get anywhere. Tackle the real issues? No, let's just scream for the birth certificate and mock the DNC for not having enough Gawd in it. Presidential race? Okay, we got...Santorum, who's a legitimate douchebag, Bachmann who's a woman...sod it, let's just throw out the guy we turned down for Sarah Palin. Talk about abortion? Nah, let's all just be apologists for rape. Easy Rape, Enjoyable Rape, Legitimate Rape, Gift from God Rape...Polite Timesplitter ^{talk to me sugar, but best keep it on the}_down-low 08:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Biden

To be fair, I think he probably meant general LGBT rights, even though his comment was in response to someone's trans child. Blue (pester) 03:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Gay Guy With the Argentum Name

Nate Silver is an anagram of "is relevant." Whoover (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

McLuhen moment

From Eric Davidson:

“”I admire your willingness to take on creationists in public; I find their views so antediluvian that I can only ignore them.

His use of the word antediluvian cracked me up to no end. --Seth Peck (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You know you're a certain kind of person when you find that funny. ^{d hominem} 20:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And a different perspective...

RE: http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2012/12/16/you-are-not-his-mother/

The trouble with this "perspective" on a "horrible article" is that it doesn't actually address the article's content. It seems to take issue with a metaphorical usage of a phrase found only in the title of the piece. That response is just a lot of angry shouting that seems to fly over the original point of what it's criticising. ^{d hominem} 13:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's not written very well, but the point stands - the framing of that piece sucks. We don't know yet what exactly was Lanza's problem. Note that whoever added the WIGO not only reproduced the title, but added "with a similar son". If you object to the "update", feel free to remove it and change the WIGO to "it sucks to have a violent mentally ill child" or something like that.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The point stands, I'm sure, but it isn't massively applicable to the article it criticises. The content of the article is talking about having unpredictable children with a clear mental problem - when the conversation has gone to whether the shooter had a mental problem too. The article doesn't necessarily say "similar", but dealing with challenging children makes you wonder what they could do or where they could end up. Certainly it was an indictment of the help (or lack of) that you can get in those circumstances. ^narchist 13:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: blog2844 (Glenn Beck's planned community)

There has been some confusion about the right-wing planned communities in the wake of Obama's re-election. Glenn Beck and Liberty USA are in no way affiliated with The III Arms Company and The Citadel, though they share similar objectives -that is, avoiding political rivals. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Blogs run by RationalWikians

That list needs a cleanout - 3/4 of them are ghost blogs - David Gerard (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your PIDOOMA is a bit off. Peter ^mqzp 00:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My arse is quite generous, it's true - David Gerard (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

CIA director

Yes, he'll be a bellend, but this article should be shifted from Blogs, as the idea that Jeruslaem has been the capital of the Jewish people for 3000 years is total bullshit for various reasons. Also, Palestine existed as a province in the Roman, Ottoman and British Empires. Scherben (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

LMAO—remembering a scene in some doorstop-sized novel about Israeli independence, Michener, Uris, idk. Pilot gets an offer of a job airlifting some stuff to Israel, never heard of the place. They go knocking on the librarian's door in the wee hours, figuring she is the only clueful person in town. She opens an upstairs window, shouts, "It's Palestine! Now go away and let me sleep!"

Later in the novel, they're flying a load of passengers in from Yemen, Ethiopia, or some such place, all sitting on the floor of a C-47. Smoke in the cabin, yikes! It seems the folks had gotten thirsty, and were brewing tea over an open fire. Fun stuff it must have been. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a clogs article I should think. Shall I add it there as well? --Damo^Hi 02:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

More of a clog than a blog Scherben (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Caroline Glick Part II

I see she has an admirer, having her shite placed in the Blogs section twice. Fuck me backwards Scherben (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you could post any blog you found interesting and relevant to Rational Wiki's "mission" in this section, please correct me if i'm wrong. User:EGKunz 05:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If they're fuckwitted, they go in clogs - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I second David's comment. And her blogs seem to be exclusively fuckwitted. Scherben (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is the first time on RationalWiki that anything on the wiki has seemed....well....irrational to me, but i'll go with it. Henceforth, no more Glick, I guess I misjudged my audience. To be honest, the first time it was removed I figured it was due to the fact I put it in 'World' not 'Blog', didn't figure it was over someone having a differing opinion about the author's value as a blogger. User:EGKunz 19:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If she comes up with the goods that isn't emotive, inaccurate bullshit, then stick what she says in Blogs; else it's ignore or clogs, where the two efforts I've seen on here firmly belong. There's no attempt at censorship here, just calling a turd a turd. Scherben (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Gosh darn it, you put your reasoning forth in a logical and sensible manner. I see what you are saying, and furthermore appreciate not just being brushed off. The fact you stated your case makes me give another +1 to the sysops of this great website. User:EGKunz 01:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!

Local drinking games aside, if the complaint about "sysops" is not the usual misconception that wikis have "moderators" like forums, please note that here, MediaWiki sysop/administrative rights are given to everyone who has proven not to be a vandal, e.g. by sticking around for some time and doing some productive edits.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My last comment was thanking the sysop for handling the deletion of my post in a judicious and fair manner, at no time was I complaining about him being a sysop, nor was there any allegation of abuse. I thank you for clarifying the roles of sysops on this website for me, but i'm not sure I needed the clarification in the first place. EGKunz 04:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Cracked

Can we stop linking to every third Cracked article.... I'm pretty sure that any Rationalwikians who enjoy the site know how to get there. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As apposed to the other sites that get linked too hundreds of times? --Revolverman (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

yeah, but we all know that linkinig to XKCD is kinda uncool by now. Those that find XKCD funny read it, those that don't, don't. Similarly those that like the Cracked sense of humour will keep track of what is going on.

On the other hand, I only check out HuffPo when it turns up in WIGO. I'm grateful - well, sometimes - for those who share the links. Cracked, less so.

Just my 2d, I suppose. Innocent Bystander (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Revolver, what other sites are you talking about? Provide examples please. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 00:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Pathos and FTB comes up about as often as Cracked, its just not marked as, unlike the cracked links. --Revolverman (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Patheos and FTB are collections of blogs that (from our point of view) just happen to be on the same site—in the former case, many patheos blogs would actually go in clogs. Cracked would appear to be a bit different. Peter ^mqzp 05:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And there are many different writers on Cracked, so its not all the same thing on that level too.--Revolverman (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see Cracked linked more sparingly. They have entertaining lists and I appreciate being notified of them, but WIGOs like "Cracked does it again" don't add much to the page--"Shut up, Brx." 05:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And then, of course, today we get a piece of knock-it-out-of-the-park brilliance from the actual editor of Cracked - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sparing use of Cracked is fine by me. Some are really worthy of checking out and not everyone does keep up with every post it makes. ^moral 16:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)