From RationalWiki



Archives for this talk page: <1>

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

A call for sources [ edit ]

We seriously need to source this page a lot better. And that should probably occur before we reach that inevitable point where everything that lacks a source is cleared from the page. Could save a lot of time to just dig up sources for existing statements. Anyhow, I'm all for "trivia" sections such as these, but they need to depend on sources, since they're taken wildly from all manner of subjects and people covered by RW. And for the record, I've raised the same issue for the Stopped clock article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion [ edit ]

'Puddingstone theory' - where the author/creator takes some pieces of genuine research/factual material (the pebbles) and creates a farrago of what is often mostly plausible nonsense linking everything together (the matrix).

As with inverse stopped clockers the puddingstoners may discover links and interconnections which are true - or inspire others who are more rigorous researchers to investigate something (because it has been brought to their attention/just to disprove the proposal). 86.191.125.144 (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like a Gish Gallop expressing your run-of-the-mill crank magnetic views? I could be wrong though; please elaborate on the differences between these two and a so-called Puddingstone theory? :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Novelty value perhaps - and requires less explanations for non-RW-ians? 31.51.113.79 (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Betteridge's Law [ edit ]

I think that our entry for Lewis Carroll should be removed, because the evidence presented (the Smithsonian Magazine article) downplays this interpretation to an extent, our own article on Lewis Carroll refutes these notions, and the entry is phrased as a question, rather than a declaration. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

agreed, the actual text is classic "just asking questions" material and the source is not nearly certain enough to make that claim. I'm going to remove it and hopefully this discussion will prevent the knee-jerk revert. Vorarchivist (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarke's Second Law [ edit ]

Where is the boundary between an inverse stopped clock and Clarke's Second Law (or the 'pet theory' idea mentioned above)? Is one 'kite flying to see what happens' and the other 'support above and beyond the call of duty'? Anna Livia (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarke's Second Law can be interpreted as "keep an open mind and investigate beyond what we think are boundaries", the inverse stopped clock means the otherwise rational person didn't just keep an open mind, but accepted a position (without reasonable ground). As for pet theories, they don't necessarily involve keeping an open mind, they can be thought experiments as well, but yes, this one can be marginal. Still, a pet theory doesn't usually go full conspiracy theory, it just usually says something like "we don't know yet, but personally, this is an explanation that I find fascinating". Uh... right?

RSamys (bla) 14:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC) It is not always possible at least in the early stages to know whether 'a viewpoint' is ICS or is an outlier. (And 'pet theories can cover many areas - 'if Richard III had won Bosworth he would have been seen as a monarch of his time and rather better than Cesare Borgia and Vlad Tepes' or 'sports club x is brilliant - eventually it will win a game' etc). We can all think of examples of 'wonderful new technology which will solve all problems/theory which will explain everything', followed by various claims that are more or less bizarre, and eventually some aspects become mainstream - not always the 'most plausible ones.' At what point did the 'steady state universe' move from 'possibility/thought experiment' to ICS-topic? Anna Livia (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

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 ~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: 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)

What's Donald Knuth doing on this list? [ edit ]

Honestly, I don't get it. Could someone please clarify?

Alternatively, just remove the entry ... 146.0.189.197 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Bloated article here too, possibly pointless [ edit ]

As I said in Talk:Stopped_clock#Bloated_article (revision if section gets archived in the future), this article suffers the same problem of assuming that people that are right/seem reasonable in most subjects should be correct in all subjects lest they be subjected to "inverse stopped clock". I noticed in the archives too, that this problem keeps getting highlighted. Some examples also are being really unfair to product-of-their-time good-willed historical figures like Charles Darwin or Abraham Lincoln or Albert Einstein or some woo beliefs arguably derived from goodwill or the other way around. But IMO, unlike stopped clock, this one doesn't even have the benefit of illustrating a logical fallacy, and the coinage is complete nonsense. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:31, 20 June 2019 (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, LeftyGreenMario! 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And then there's the bit about the drones. Oxyaena Harass 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, Lefty Green Mario ! 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. Oxyaena Harass 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, Lefty Green Mario ! 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. Oxyaena Harass Oxyaena 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? Oxyaena Harass 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. Oxyaena Harass 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, Lefty Green Mario ! 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, Lefty Green Mario ! 03:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Jaydogg1994 Is that all you're capable of? Ad hominems? Pathetic. — Oxyaena Harass 04:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Oxyaena Jaydogg1994 (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Jaydogg1994 [1] From Politico of all things. Oxyaena Harass Oxyaena Jaydogg1994 (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Ladies and gentlequeers, I present to you the genetic fallacy in action! Encore, encore! Oxyaena Harass Stay on topic. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario ! 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 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 13:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)