RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>

Should we make it "newest additions at the top", or list them in strict descending order of posting date? ħuman 16:27, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

"Pixar employees"?

The WIGO about asking pixar to make a movie with strong female leads says: "The responses from Pixar employees range from "a Chick Flick...?" to "P.C. B.S.""

Pixar employees? As far as I'm aware, the source is just a blog about animation in general, not from pixar itself. The "a chick flick?" comment is, I assume, from the title of the blog post, which isn't written by anyone associated with pixar (according to his bio), and the "P.C B.S" comment comes from a user named "Hulk" who has no link to a page or gives any information about himself (in fact Hulk himself says "I’m sure when an interesting story with a female protagonist develops organically at Pixar, they will make that movie." in a later post, implying he's not an employee of pixar himself).

The wording of this wigo seems at best disingenous and at worst deliberately misleading, unless I am missing a great deal of backstory about the blog in general (maybe they are all just pixar employees, I dunno).

Also please forgive any mistakes I've done. I have absolutely no idea how to use mediawiki software. I can read it, though. Which is why I'm here. I also don't have an account and don't know how to sign comments. I am extremely useless. ^{— Unsigned, by: 193.60.68.130 / talk / contribs}

What Converted Convinced You?

What converted other people to AGW? For me it was back in 1990 when Mrs Thatcher took it seriously in Rio. I'm not a fan of hers, but she was a scientist and knew enough to take action on the ozone hole. I thought if some one with her politics sees a problem, then there really is one. P.S. - Is LGF suddenly getting a lot more sensible? ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.150.14.153 / talk / contribs}

Ozone depletion =/= global warming. Two entirely separate issues. ħuman 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

They do seem to be taking a shift to the centre, although it could just be that the Republicans are moving to the right and they are standing still and are now distancing themselves. - π 11:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The writer has said that when he started LGF, he wasn't really that politically aware. It wasn't even a politics blog until 9/11. Over time, he's grown more mature, and moved to the center, as the rest of the Republicans have moved away. Researcher (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how I was comverted. No one alerted me. Real first name and last initial (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the actual question, back in my days as an "Objectivist" (meaning: Rand cultist), I was pretty sure that global warming was a great big mistake. (I didn't go so far as to say hoax; I just thought that well meaning people were drawing conclusions from too little data.) But, it quickly became apparent that the data was pretty damn certain. I think the final blow was astronomy, actually; Venus, despite being further from the Sun than Mercury, is significantly hotter, due to it's high concentration of greenhouse gases. Researcher (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What, belief that global warming is happening is a religion to be "converted" to now? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you just read way too much into it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that wording better? ^theist 17:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing political cartoons mocking George H. W. Bush for insisting on "Further Study" of global warming...that was, what, 18 years ago? I'm no climatologist, but the science seems pretty solid to me. But of course, the real convincer was looking at the dingbats and greedheads who seem to think a good enough PR campaign will beat the laws of physics. --Gulik (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Handwriting

Interesting blog post, and I totally agree with the point about "romanticising" the old and keeping it out of tradition alone, such people piss me off (I'm currently freezing my arse out at home because the building is grade A or B listed, so we're not allowed to replace the archaic windows with good double glazing, what the fuck is with that?!?!). But I disagree with the point of dropping handwriting, while I can type much faster than I write (and importantly, it's legible), typing requires something to type on and a large chunk of the argument in the second piece is lost because typing is also unnatural and needs to be taught. Voice recognition is nice, but you need to talk out loud, need to be in a quiet place and from what I've tried of it, it's actually slower than typing; not through any fault of the "recognition" part of the software, but because of the inability to correct and edit stuff easily, fluently and instinctively. Perhaps one day it'll all be done by thought recognition, but I personally think that's going to be truly impossible - and definitely not going to happen anytime soon. Anyway, I'd also say that the entire thing largely ignores the usefulness of being able to write with a pen. You can switch easily between annotations and diagrams, basically combing drawing with words. It would certainly take me longer if I had to use some other method for marking or correcting work; even if the result is less legible than pixel perfect printed fonts (I try a little harder when others need to read the scrawl). As an artist I use my digital stylus almost more than my mouse and keyboard - and learning to write with a pen/pencil is certainly a key step along the way to drawing. While I'm sorry to see the guy get flamed for it, it really is a rather stupid thing to suggest. ^theist 20:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was teed off by the proposition for a large number of reasons: (1) I write a great deal in cursive myself, and I find its slow pace and the permanence of the ink to be very good "psychological aids" to the writing; (2) I often like to go to places without a handy electrical socket to do my writing, and the pen is the only instrument then available; (3) I sometimes had to ask my instructors what in blazes their handwritten remarks on my papers actually said; (4) later, when I had to do paper-grading myself, the students wrote so poorly that it was left up to me to puzzle out what they had said. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just checking...

as I seem to be the only one still doing it. Is self-promotion still acceptable/encouraged? Researcher (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not enough people are doing it. That was why we created this page, so people could share their ideas. - π 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

New Abortion Wigo

I'm really not understanding the anger that seems to be seeping from this WIGO. Is it a double standard? Of course it is, but you know what... I have no sympathy. There's a very simple way to avoid becomming an unwanted father: Don't have sex. As my grandfather used to say "don't plant the corn if you don't want the stalk." (Yes, he was southern.) SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That is also an excellent way to avoid becoming an unwilling mother. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Listener beat me too it. Actually following that logic, abortion should only be available to women if they are the victims of rape. - π 21:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not even then, really. If a fertilized egg is a human being as much as you or I (and that seems to be what a lot of people are saying) then aborting that is no different than murdering a kid because he was the result of an "unplanned sexual incident". DickTurpis (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how your arguments pertain to this situation. All I'm saying is that, in most cases, a child is obvious a much larger disruption to the mother's life than the fathers (particularly if the father isn't involved in the child's life) so why shouldn't she have the ability to make a unilateral decision? This whole situation sounds like somebody bitching cause they have to send a child support check. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should a woman be allowed to unilaterally make a decision that impacts the father financially? I can't see how anyone should have the right to make decisions over your personal finances. - π 21:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) What Π said. Also, although it is true that pregnancy carries a greater health risk than paying child support, the WIGO instead addresses the underlying question of exactly who should be made "responsible for the consequences" of their own rolls in the hay. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Pi, Because you made the choice to engage in unprotected sexual activity to begin with. If you don't want to have children, there are many steps you can take to prevent it (now of course there will still be accidents, but that can't be prevented). You can't engage in activities that have obvious consequences and then complain because you have to deal with them. And to LX, it's not just health risks, it's a complete disruption of life, which may involve losing a job, having to quit school, etc, compared to having to miss a few poker games due to child support. I think both people should have the right to make that decision, but in reality, it doesn't always happen, and if it doesn't, the father has a legal duty to provide for the child he helped create. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"If you don't want to have children, there are many steps you can take to prevent it" That goes straight back to my point that abortion should then be banned for women that are not rape victims. If a women chose to engage in unprotected sex then she be able to not ware the full consequences? - π 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What about women for whom carefully used birth control methods fail? ħuman 01:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am arguing against choice, I think women should have the choice to kill their unborn babies if they want, but isn't that a risk you take when you have protected sex? The reason the bank pays you interest when you leave your money in your account is their is a chance the bank will fold. Life is about risk. - π 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) "...it's a complete disruption of life..." And why must such burdens fall exclusively upon the mother? The hypothetical situation is that the mother does not want the baby, but the father does, and is willing to take care of it alone (possibly with the help of child-support payments from the mother). ListenerX^TalkerX 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pi, I understand what you're saying, but that's not part of this argument. I'm not arguing for or against abortion in general, I'm arguing about the specific instance cited by LX. As for your point, I disagree that abortion should banned, I simply think that is a decision that should be left to the female. And LX, the problem is that pregnancy inherently falls exclusively on the mother. Even if the father is willing to raise the child by themselves, the mother still has to go through the experience of carrying the child and the birth itself, while the father does..... well, he really doesn't have to do anything. You complain that nobody should be able to control your finances, but why should you be able to control another person's body? SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 22:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was addressing your claim that there were other issues beyond the pregnancy involved. But if the woman willingly got herself pregnant, she entered the pregnancy of her own accord. If it is argued that for some reason men are not allowed to "change their minds" later about wanting the child, and therefore must pay child support, by that argument a woman should not be allowed to "change her mind" either, and must carry the pregnancy to term. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)My apologies, but I don't understand what you're saying here..... If I'm getting your point (which is probably not likely) you're saying that if men can't change their mind and have to take care of the child, then women can't change their minds either? Is that correct? SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 22:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To me, the killer argument still seems to be that it is the woman's body that is used as an incubator. She has considerable hardships to bear, considerable health risks to face, and considerably more work with raising a child at least in the first time after pregnancy. It therefore seems pretty straightforward that she should have more say, and I'd think the final say, in what happens with the fetus. Many men have an easy time arguing about this from their armchairs, safe in the knowledge that they can never be forced to carry out a pregnancy. To paraphrase a saying from the feminist movement, abortion would pretty much be on demand if men were the ones to become pregnant... That is the true asymmetry here, and not the question whether somebody has to pay alimony because they did not use contraceptives - women would also have to do that if the baby were born, the father raised it and the mother had the better job. --Mintman (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If the choice is the woman's and the woman's alone, then she must carry the full consequence of the choice. If you proportion the responsibility, than all thing being equitable, you should proportion the choice. It is the welfare state mentality that gets me the most - you make a decision and someone else pays. - π 01:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If a man does not want to father a child with a woman, he should make damn well sure that conception is avoided. That can range from the obvious (condoms, vasectomy) to the more subtle (trusting her birth control method, or that she would abort in case of accident). He is very capable of avoiding fatherhood. ħuman 01:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Same argument applies in reverse for women, it takes two to horizontal tango. - π 01:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Both partners are capable of avoiding pregnancy if they don't want chilluns. PS, that article at the Nation is a year old, I thought it seemed familiar. ħuman 01:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

PPS, hote to human, it's not 2009 anymore. The article is two years old. ħuman 01:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Probably, but it is an on going debate. If women should (and they should) have complete choice whether to have an abortion or not, then every pregnant women, directly or indirectly, makes that choice. If the choice is theirs and theirs alone, why should others pay? - π 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, in a perfect world, it wouldn't be there choice alone, but we all know it doesn't work like that sometimes. Let me rephrase the question. Do you think it's ok for a man to impregnant a large number of females ala Travis Henry (9 different children with 9 different mothers) and then say "I don't want them, the women should've had abortions" and completely excuse himself from the legal responsibility of assisting in the upbringing of his child? I understand what you're saying, but your argument doesn't hold up to the plain facts of life: women get to make the choice because of the larger risk and commitment they make to having a child, a man should at the least help provide for them. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 08:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Call me cynical, but I suspect some of those women got pregnant to him because they would get a lot of money. - π 08:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you're cynical, but that still doesn't answer my larger question. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 08:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The only other question I could find (excuse the PJR here) Do you think it's ok for a man to impregnant a large number of females ... and then say "I don't want them, the women should've had abortions" and completely excuse himself from the legal responsibility of assisting in the upbringing of his child?. That question implies that she was somehow impregnated by his choice. She had a range of options available at the start; the pill, requiring him to ware a condom, both, or not have sex with him at all. She choices to have unprotected sex knowing full well that unprotected sex leads to pregnancy, she choices not to have an abortion after she becomes pregnant, but if he does not want to raise the child as his own he has to pay? It does seem out of kilter when he made one choice that she agreed with right back at the start. - π 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC, UI)As the "father" of four abortions, can I chime in with real world experience? The first two were birth control failures (not very well used) with women who did not want chilluns. The latter two were birth control "failures" with wimminz who did not so much want my babies but wanted a new famly unit. To them I said "It is your body and your decision. I will honor my legal obligations whatever they may be. But I am not interested in playing 'Daddy'". Both of them also chose abortion, almost immediately. A few years later I got a vasectomy, because it makes life so much simpler. The wimmins who got themselves pregnant by me weren't chasing money, they were chasing love (not that I have so much to offer, but there I was). They were chasing love in a very wrong way. Anyway, I fixed myself 'cause I'm taking responsibibility for all time as to what "mistakes: I might make with my little thingie. Apologies to any and all that this post appalled or disgusted. ħuman 09:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not appalled or disgusted, you wanted to take responsibility, that is the responsible thing to do. - π 10:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If women should (and they should) have complete choice whether to have an abortion or not, then every pregnant women, directly or indirectly, makes that choice. If the choice is theirs and theirs alone, why should others pay? Why is that so difficult? Yes, the ultimate choice to bear the risks and disadvantages of being pregnant and giving birth should be hers in my eyes, but that does not mean that the man did not have any choice. His choice was having unprotected sex, and that is where responsibilities come from, easy as that. Yes, the same goes for the woman, and nobody is saying she does not have any responsibilities out of giving birth to a child. You are treating this as if a woman has absolutely no work and costs from raising a child, as if a woman can make a simple whim-of-the-moment decision to pop out a baby that costs her nothing at all and then the father is the only one who has trouble because he has to pay alimony or something while she sits there twiddling her thumbs. This is a very one-sided view.

It would also be interesting to take a look at the presumable consequence of certain rule changes in the light of what we plainly know about human behavior in general. If the woman had to foot the bill alone for all babies that the father would have liked to abort, then some men who are now a bit more careful out of fear of the financial consequences would in fact run around and impregnate everybody they can. There are actually people who would get a kick out of that, and others who actually see many children as manly. This just as an aside. --Mintman (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not acting as though they have no cost involved, I am saying they should pay the cost of their choices. You twice refer to men having unprotected sex, but I assume that means the woman is having unprotected sex too. She in fact has too stages at which to make a choice, three if you count abstaining from having sex right back at the start. - π 10:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you cannot see the difference between paying alimony and being forced to nourish an internal parasite for nine months, putting your health and professional career in jeopardy, then forcing a melon through an opening the size of a pear, AND then afterwards also having the same responsibilities as the alimony-paying father on top, I cannot help you, sorry. You will have to figure that out on your own. --Mintman (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming

From the comments, I thought this just had to be brought up:

i am feeling very sad at the state of infomation thigs are now happing at great speed i beleive we are heading for a total change in global perspetive i believe within the next 2 yrs this planet will be shaken in a massive way some will survive meny will die lets not be nieve at what is comming at us soon this world needs to wake up dont blame people or what we are doing to the planet we cannot change the world not yet maybe them that survive will this 2012 thing i feel it to be very real lets be ready when i read about the glacias on everest melting not just the pola ice caps i fear for the people that live of india and the lower regions of the himalaias i see massive floods i am no educated genius as you can see but it dont take much to understand this world is on its last legs

all i can say is brace your selfs and be ready i am saying this not to frighten any one i just want to make a point i love this world but the only thig i see is alot of sadness but we cant give up thats nature i am just sad that people are not looking at the whole picture God bless every one and this is real

andrew logan, Newport South Wales

I thought that sort of post only really existed in people taking the piss... I guess I was wrong. ^theist 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Objects on the Internet are dumber than they appear. --Gulik (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

some of those posts are sadly very real. They come from younger people or those older but without the skills to research the topics and get a more balanced opinion. Just dealing with life, and a poor economy is hard enough. Hamster (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

That really is all. Glenn Beck is so crazy we could make a whole freaking wiki devoted to dealing with his crazy. Researcher (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Shelley The Republican

Has STR ever been firmly outed as parody?

The recent post of Homeopathy beign a cure for homosexuality is surely something of a giveaway? --Worm^{(t | c)} 13:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My favourite bit - "Elms are amongst natures most homosexual trees." WTF! Bob Soles (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Facebook "We can find 1,000,000..." WIGO

If you're especially bored, open the Evolution page in one tab and the anti-evo one in another and click refresh on each every 60 seconds or so to see the fan counters go up. (Or NOT go up, as is the case with the anti-evo page.) (25 JAN 10 10:35 EST DO: 55,387 - DO NOT: 13,191) The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever... The only reason people aren't flocking to the anti-evo page is because they don't want to get blackballed by academic elites hellbent on covering up the controversy. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What a pointless exercise - since when was truth a popularity contest. Bob Soles (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Since 33AD? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, not really that pointless. Creationists like to go on about how they have so much public support, that the majority are in their favour, this just proves the to be very, very wrong. Let's face it, reality is very much winning this one. ^theist 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As the one who posted that particular WIGO, I put in the same category as the Oregon Petition vs the Steve's Petition. --Ravenhull (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting 404s for both links. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nvm, my DNS server was playing up. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just had a chuckle... went to see what the counts were up to (70k vs 16k if you are interested), and glanced at the ads on the left. I wonder how many of the anti-crowd appreciated an ad for D&DOnline on their page. - Ravenhull (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That made me laugh. In two days time, the Evo page picked up an additional number of fans almost exceeding the Anti-Evo page's total fan count. <sarcasm>THIS is going to end well for the creationists.</sarcasm> The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who care, PZ Myers pharyngulated the DO believe (BTW, the page creator agrees that it was a lack of judgement using the phrase "believe", but that it needed to run contrary to the anti-evo statement, or something) page, bumping the current tally to: DO - 111,000 and some change to DO NOT - 25,000 or so. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The forums on the pro-evo group are interesting, like this thread, and "John" made a very nice argument:

“”Max, it is patently obvious that in a world without religion the concept of Creationism and Intelligent Design would be absent (redundant and absurd). On the other hand, in that same world the concept of evolution would remain, equally supported by the data and unaffected by the absence of religion. Darwin's words no more affected evolution than Galileo's words affected gravity. They both preceded their respective "authors" and they both continue after them. Unchanged, unmoved.

Nice. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just added a WIGO...

And it had four up and six down votes before it even loaded again on my screen. Did I screw something up? Researcher (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You had a space in the ID. Stupid wisest Phantom Hoover! 17:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, how embarrassing. Thank you for fixing it. Researcher (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Blacks didn't fight" WIGO

Nice line in the blog linked to:

"I submit that any people thus handicapped sow the seeds of their own decline; they respond to the world as they wish it were rather to the world as it is."

So it was, so it is and so it always shall be. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 08:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)