Essay talk:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki
Got tired of directing editors to a 504 error page, eh ListenerX?
Radioactive Misanthrope 05:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, with this trope coming up so much lately, and RationalWikiWiki down so much, I thought a local copy was in order.
ListenerXTalkerX 05:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed.
Radioactive Misanthrope 05:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I thought it was a 500 error? PeterQuasniki 2012! 06:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Mostly.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then we need a new essay: "I thought this was 500 Error Wiki!" PeterQuasniki 2012! 06:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- And this talk page doesn't have Maratrean's twatguments all over it. Rennie McGreet (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then we need a new essay: "I thought this was 500 Error Wiki!" PeterQuasniki 2012! 06:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Mostly.
- I thought it was a 500 error? PeterQuasniki 2012! 06:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed.
Contents |
[edit] Name
We say:
- "With respect to all this, "Rational" Wiki was probably a bad choice of words to use, but Skeptic Wiki was already taken."
The implication is that the name "Skeptic Wiki" was considered and discarded as it was already in use. I don't think this happened.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- True enough. Is there a way to imply it any other way?
gnostic 10:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- We're relatively rational... Compared to those we skewer, we look like Mr. Spock. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you had waited a month, it would be a full year...--ZooGuard (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fine, I'll start a new section with suggestions on how to improve the essay. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you had waited a month, it would be a full year...--ZooGuard (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- We're relatively rational... Compared to those we skewer, we look like Mr. Spock. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Drinking
As this is linked from Template:RATIONALWiki, I suggest either some brief explanation of the drinking game, or slightly changing the template.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just this so far IIRC so there's next to nothing further to say really. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 11:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Calling ourselves "rational"
So many people take issue with our use of the word "rational". Playing with dictionaries aside, we are relatively more rational than most of the entities we criticize. This should be more clearly addressed. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- The issue is though, most of the people who do criticize (not all, there are valid points against how we do things) our being "Rational"Wiki also tend to be on the side that would define open-minded as "my side is correct"--MikallakiM 16:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- And this essay is used to dismiss any and all complaints, regardless of validity. Can we make a different essay for sane people, or do we just point them to the Mission page? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt that Armondikov would aggree with "we are relatively more rational..." - the point of the essay as I read it is that RW is called that way because it defends a certain position ("skeptical/rational empiricism" or something), not a description of the qualities of its users, or its tone.
- "Sane" complaints are easily distinguished by their specificity - "this and this is factually inaccurate/misrepresents the target/poorly worded/etc." --ZooGuard (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- And this essay is used to dismiss any and all complaints, regardless of validity. Can we make a different essay for sane people, or do we just point them to the Mission page? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Blanket statements!!1!
"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: *script*"
I taek grate offans at dis staetment!!1!
As a serious practitioner of self-doubt I believe that I cannot help but think irrationally sometimes, though I may not immediately recognize it at the time (and thus should always look for that possibility). The above quote is claiming that I don't exist. That's preposterous! I demand a fair and thorough investigation into the reasonably important question of whether or not I exist. I am willing to compensate all efforts towards this project with a cookie.
Also, what is this script you are talking about that every single person has in the mind? Hmm, maybe I am not a person, then, since I do not have this script. Or maybe I am a person, but I don't have a mind! (<--irrational self-doubt at work, see!) I would also like a full-blown investigation that answers these equally important questions, since clearly I have nothing better to do right now. Nullahnung (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- At the risk of taking seriously something that was intended at least partially as a joke, I think the point there was that subconsciously we assume we're right, because if we didn't, we wouldn't be able to believe anything. Self-doubt only comes with conscious reflection. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have you ever been in love? :P Nullahnung (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Seventeen times. What's your point? ħuman
04:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, that post of mine was a long time ago...
- And my point was that sometimes you will genuinely feel uncertain about things you feel and think. Now, if that goes down to this subconscious level, as Wehpudicabok described, it would be a counter example. But yeah, I'm not sure if it is. Nullahnung (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seventeen times. What's your point? ħuman
- Have you ever been in love? :P Nullahnung (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Why not call it AssholeWiki?
If being terse and insulting, and getting drunk is what you rationalists like to do, then being an asshole should be the epitome of being a rationalist.Talk to Civic Cat 23:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, not Orwellian enough. Plus I hate to think what the logo would look like. Glideslope (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- The word "if" is really important in that argument.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Mainspace RationalWiki-space
Any thoughts on moving the public essay to mainspace? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, should stay an essay - David Gerard (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it should. What makes you think community navel-gazing matters to anyone but editors, tuber? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Although it was mainspace on RationalWikiWiki, it wouldn't be a good idea here. "Community navel-gazing" is exactly what this is. Bicyclewheel
17:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Moving it to project space, in the sense that it's relevant to the wiki's editorial policy and rules, might make sense, but it hardly seems like an important or necessary change--Tanis (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I meant RationalWiki-space. This essay might be navel-gazing, but very nearly site policy. Plus, if we're gonna navel-gaze, why not put it in RationalWiki-space and make it official navel-gazing? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Mainspace to RWspace after the argument? That's some neat Texas sharpshootin' thar, Fuzzy. Bicyclewheel
11:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Maaaaan, I used the wrong word, no more. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Mainspace to RWspace after the argument? That's some neat Texas sharpshootin' thar, Fuzzy. Bicyclewheel
- Yeah, I meant RationalWiki-space. This essay might be navel-gazing, but very nearly site policy. Plus, if we're gonna navel-gaze, why not put it in RationalWiki-space and make it official navel-gazing? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Moving it to project space, in the sense that it's relevant to the wiki's editorial policy and rules, might make sense, but it hardly seems like an important or necessary change--Tanis (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Although it was mainspace on RationalWikiWiki, it wouldn't be a good idea here. "Community navel-gazing" is exactly what this is. Bicyclewheel
- Of course it should. What makes you think community navel-gazing matters to anyone but editors, tuber? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Explain yourself
Even if it kills the joke... Why is there a picture of some wazzock squatting on the pot? How is it relevant? Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's a rationalist crying, just like RWians do when they see "I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki". Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- What about the image (not the associated text) says "rationalist"? Alec Sanderson (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good question. Scream!! (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's a meme. A reference to X tears (usually male tears)--Tanis (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the question. I thought this was RationalWiki, not icanhas.cheezburger.com
- Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's a joke, is all.--Tanis (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Rationality does not disinclude humor. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's not particularily funny. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- True. Go ahead and kill it, Alec. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I was hoping Gerard would notice this, and share his reasons for wanting to keep it. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Remove it. If he reverts, tell him to go to talk. If not, you're done. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dude. I didn't come here asking for advice about what to do with the image.
- Remove it. If he reverts, tell him to go to talk. If not, you're done. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I was hoping Gerard would notice this, and share his reasons for wanting to keep it. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- True. Go ahead and kill it, Alec. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's not particularily funny. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Rationality does not disinclude humor. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's a joke, is all.--Tanis (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's a meme. A reference to X tears (usually male tears)--Tanis (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good question. Scream!! (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- What about the image (not the associated text) says "rationalist"? Alec Sanderson (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Look at the history. The picture has been removed and replaced twice. I want to know why the guy who added it, and who was the last one to restore it, thinks it is a good idea. Maybe it has some meaning that I missed.
- Idle speculation upcoming: The guy is wearing a white shirt and tie, and sitting on a toilet with his pants down. Does he represent a shitlord? Is this about some SJW vs. shitlord dynamic? If so, I think the image macro does the page a disservice by implying a limited scope for the things people bitch about under the color of "you guys are supposed to be rational." The RW MissionPraise be upon it covers a wider range, don't you see, and one guy taking a dump while facepalming or maybe weeping is not an icon for that MissionPBUI. Also, not funny enough to keep. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- ... Then go ask him? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- already done Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- ... aand I see what you did there. Thanks. Many hands make light work, and all that. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- ... Then go ask him? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Idle speculation upcoming: The guy is wearing a white shirt and tie, and sitting on a toilet with his pants down. Does he represent a shitlord? Is this about some SJW vs. shitlord dynamic? If so, I think the image macro does the page a disservice by implying a limited scope for the things people bitch about under the color of "you guys are supposed to be rational." The RW MissionPraise be upon it covers a wider range, don't you see, and one guy taking a dump while facepalming or maybe weeping is not an icon for that MissionPBUI. Also, not funny enough to keep. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it was amusing enough to put in *sob* YOU DON'T APPRECIATE MY ART - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I thought this was RATIONALWIKI not ARTISTICWIKI! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- To quote the judge, the day that he
- Acquitted my Aunt Hortense:
- To be smut, it must be ut-
- terly without redeeming social importance.
- --Tom Lehrer
- There, there, David, what can't be helped must be endured, and I will hoist a glass of California tank-truck red (plonk) in your general direction this evening. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I thought this was RATIONALWIKI not ARTISTICWIKI! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)