Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by RationalWikiWiki editors.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.
In fact, i consider myself exsptionally more of a rational man than those of the likes of Rationalwikie and the Libral/Luvvie-Left Bum tart's.
Anglo-Saxon Foundation member "Teutoburg Weald"(link)
Real rational people don't need to label themselves as rational. So a so called rational wiki is necessarily full of bullshit.
—katabn, on a subreddit that promotes the book, "The Rational Male"(link)

"I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" cry the critics, whenever RW says something they don't like. How can a site that calls itself "rational" not see the obvious superiority of whites, feminazi persecution of males, efficacy of homeopathy, advantages of libertarianism, the ethical problems in video game journalism and/or truth of the Bible?

Needless to say, these critics sometimes get opposed with a range of opposing arguments, which of course they cannot answer, because everything RationalWiki says is true can answer, but often choose not to.

The "why call it RATIONALWiki?" line is perhaps the laziest criticism possible — at least, when it's not accompanied by an actual rebuttal.

Contents

[edit] Examples

Quotes:

  • Considering racism as irrational is itself irrational(link)
  • This section is so skewed with anti Fundamentalist rhetoric that is is obviously not scholarly. So much for Rational!(link)
  • I have to take issue with the biased tone in this article, as it clearly appears to be sympathetic towards feminism. As a rationalist, and a user of "rational wiki", I do not think this is acceptable, as feminism has worked hard to establish itself as a movement opposed to rational thinking, on par with creationism and climate change denial. [....] As an outside reader, this articles appears little more than a feminist circle-jerk. [....] On RATIONALWiki." [....] Feminism is rife with pseudoscientific beliefs, and I find it astounding that users of a “RationalWiki” website are not familiar with these.(link)
  • I know you people are fruitcakes but try to aim for some semblance of rationalism. [....] No wonder your icon looks like a brain starved of oxygen.(link)
  • I didn't know Skepticism consisted in unquestioning [sic] the views that are taken for granted by the majority. Try BandwagonWiki, it's available.(link)
  • If it's a group and women are present... don't bother with logic. It's irrelevant to the feels[.] Also usually true for groups that boast about being logical. (cough rationalwiki cough)(link)
  • The name RationalWiki is the most disgusting euphemism. It's like the Ministry of Peace in 1984. It's the headquarters [What a compliment!] of batshit crazy SJWism.(link)
  • What RationalWiki really is[:] A bunch of people irrationally thinking they know what anything really is.(link)
  • For 'Rational', read: utterly unsceptical of the propaganda one is raised with — or why else would mainstream news sources not be similarly ridiculed? — combined with a wholly misplaced arrogance that such a stance represents the 'truth' and everything else 'bullshit'.(link)
  • RATINALWIKI is PRO WARMIST LIE created by LIBERAL wanting to DEFAME people who tell the TRUTH they want to take over world and DO COMMUNIST(link)
  • YOU ARE (allegedly) PAID TROLLS AND YOU KNOW IT.(link)
  • "Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king." Tywin Lannister[.] Similarly[,] any site that must call itself rational isn't truly rational.(link)
  • "Why not call that wiki autismwiki instead of rationalwiki?".(link)
  • "Rationalwiki? - More like Irrationalwiki"(link)

[edit] Why?

[edit] I am right, you are wrong

See the main article on this topic: Fallacy of opposition

The trouble is, no one ever believes they are thinking irrationally. This is quite easily demonstrated, because whether we like it or not, in the mind of pretty much every single person in the world is a little script that reads like so:

I am right, everything I think is right. This much is obvious because I wouldn't think something if it was wrong, would I? If I could point to an opinion of mine and say "that's wrong, and very irrational" I would simply stop thinking it and discard it. As this is empirically true, we can safely define "right" as "whatever I think" — making whatever I think right. Therefore, if you don't think exactly like me, you are very much wrong by definition. QED bitches.

This leads to an impasse where two (or more) parties can believe, quite firmly, that they are being rational and the other is being irrational. Basically, when someone is accusing you of being irrational, they're merely accusing you of disagreeing with them, and of not following and adhering to their own standards of evidence and version of rationality.

"Rational" as a word doesn't just mean an appeal to logic and reason (though anyone putting too much trust in a dictionary would undoubtedly spit this definition back repeatedly), it also possesses extra connotations and implications. Specifically it suggests that a "rational" person, far from just "appealling to logic and reason" is very much intellectually superior and absolutely 100% correct and justified — almost invariably this is the more important thing to think of, because who needs logic and reason when you can be on a rationalist high-horse! This can be seen very clearly when a critic or BoN finds a sympathetic ear and praises the agreeing user for their "rationality."

[edit] Calm and rational

See the main article on this topic: Style over substance

There is also a small but significant confusion between appearing rational and appearing as a calm, Zen-like figure of reason, so those with a sharp tongue or a good eye for snark may well be accused of being "irrational" too regardless of their actual content. But again, this isn't the case and accusing someone of being "irrational" for using laconic or foul language is fallacious.

[edit] What constitutes a suitable, sensible and above all rational response?

Drink!

[edit] Whoops

In hindsight, "RationalWiki" was probably a bad choice of words, but "SkepticWiki" was already taken, "Skeptical Empiricist Wiki" isn't catchy, and "Liberapedia" is just embarrassing (by name and nature) — so what else could it have been?

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools