Forum:Mr 74 said something
OK, so there was some black kid who was shot in Madison, Wisconsin and all the #blacklivesmatter SJWs came out of the woodwork to claim that the guy was harmless, "wouldn't hurt a fly," hadn't committed any crime that would cause the police to suspect him. But all the information has been collected by someone and we know that Robinsons was skipping probation, was into drugs, probably affiliated with gangs, and was no angel. Before he was shot, he had broken into a store and tried to strangle one person, which was why he was chased by police officer. Source is here, we can use this when we make our article. Our goal of NPOV means we use only reliable sources and dispel all myths.74.14.49.196 (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- >proposes new article with incorrect title on incorrect page
- >wants to create horrible page justifying racist cops under the pretense of "dispelling myths"
- >refers to "SJWs" on goddamn RationalWiki
- >probably doesn't even appreciate the irony of a diehard social justice advocate using greentext
- In all seriousness, we probably should have a page on him. Or at least a section in a page cataloging racially motivated police brutality in the United States. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- "our goal of NPOV" This is RationalWiki, not Wikipedia. WE HAVE NO SUCH GOAL, as has been repeatedly said here and elsewhere. 18.189.127.193 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, I've seen that exact construction before, google isn't helping, but someone raised exactly that "point" word for word on something like gamergate before. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Get out. Now.--Madman (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
- So it's okay to shoot unarmed black kids dead without a trial because they committed minor criminal offences? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's what they're implying, yup. "Not being an angel" means it's totally fair if you get extrajudicially killed by the police, apparently. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
So... why copy this to forumspace and how sure are we 74 is a mister? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if it actually is a Gator reposting their schtick with a different subject, chances are very high statistically it's a dude. After all Gators are something like 87-93% male, last I checked. I'll have to double-check the stats again. --Castaigne (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's a neoreactionary, so ... yeah - David Gerard (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Assume good faith, please!
We here on RationalWiki have a goal, we are here to create an encyclopedia. The most important aspect of our project is that it is collaborative, and in the spirit of community we adhere to the rules of NPOV and assuming good faith.
The reason I bring this up is because I tried to add this link to a blogpost the message and spirit of which I agree with and want to share with the Rationalwiki community. But apparently someone didn't want to assume good faith and removed it outright. Perhaps we can discuss this matter here on the talkpage so that this doesn't have to be elevated and the situation taken to ArbCom. So, what is the issue with the post I want to put up? 74.14.23.136 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're wrong about everything. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is a non-sequitor. I am going to assume good faith and assume you're being sarcastic (as per RW: SARCASM)74.14.23.136 (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- He's talking about your incorrect assumptions that RW tries to be an encyclopedia, that we always need to assume good faith and that we should adhere to NPOV. None of that applies to RW. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wiki policy is binding on all users whether we like it or not. But this is irrelevant, so don't be a jerk and please stay on topic. Thank you.74.14.23.136 (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- RationalWiki is not Wikipedia, and doesn't always follow Wikipedia's policy. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Neo-reactionary wannabe #74 has been posting shit like this for months and still hasn't figured out he hasn't been posting on Wikipedia. Please do elevate this to RationalWiki ArbCom, you'll have to create an ArbCom first, but I'd like to see what a shit show it would be here. Marlow (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- RationalWiki is not Wikipedia, and doesn't always follow Wikipedia's policy. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wiki policy is binding on all users whether we like it or not. But this is irrelevant, so don't be a jerk and please stay on topic. Thank you.74.14.23.136 (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- He's talking about your incorrect assumptions that RW tries to be an encyclopedia, that we always need to assume good faith and that we should adhere to NPOV. None of that applies to RW. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is a non-sequitor. I am going to assume good faith and assume you're being sarcastic (as per RW: SARCASM)74.14.23.136 (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ikanreed probably did you a favor removing that from blogs; it was, technically, a blog post, and you posted it there because you liked it and wanted to bring it to our attention. But it had no future here other than as an embarrassment. The rules say that you can remove downvoted items. You have to tailor your message to your audience, and that was not it. As Ikanreed noted, it would fly better on the clogs page.
I'm not even sure I entirely disagree with the premise of the blog itself. The word 'nigger' holds no magic powers, true. The claim that its mere use by someone not entitled by custom to use it is unendurably traumatic is one I'd take with a twenty pound bag of rock salt. I wish it were more available for use, if only as a metaphor. No other word so perfectly captures the stereotype of boorishness, wilful ignorance, and self-indulgence, a stereotype that's now finding other targets. I avoid it mostly because I respect custom that far. I avoid it because I don't want to be That Guy. And I wouldn't have upvoted it myself, either; it seemed mostly wanting to be 'transgressive' and I've had enough of that. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 02:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)- The problem with this line of thinking is that there's basically no cause to use the word either. It's actual utility as a meaningful concept is either zero or almost zero. That's not to say you can't. Or that it's a magic word that makes you racist. Just that it has essentially zero value, and by that token is hard to justify the racial connotations. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it has a very significant use; making racists jealous of black people. They always complain about black people being allowed to say "nigga" without scrutiny. It's priceless. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that too. If I knew a better word that encapsulated that exact stereotype, I'd use it instead. But striking the word from working vocabulary means that I have to write out "boorish, ignorant, and self-indulgent" or some equivalent every time. It's especially interesting to me that the same basic stereotype is the judgment applied by the identity-politics etiquette police on their enemies. Those condemned by identity politics form a genuine underclass, and are stereotyped by true believers as boorish, ignorant, and comfortably lazy. Bigotries come and go, but the underlying judgments and dehumanizing rhetoric remain the same. "Bigotry" and "morality" both invoke the same physiological and psychological processes. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 16:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it has a very significant use; making racists jealous of black people. They always complain about black people being allowed to say "nigga" without scrutiny. It's priceless. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with this line of thinking is that there's basically no cause to use the word either. It's actual utility as a meaningful concept is either zero or almost zero. That's not to say you can't. Or that it's a magic word that makes you racist. Just that it has essentially zero value, and by that token is hard to justify the racial connotations. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- To quote, "We here on RationalWiki have a goal, we are here to create an encyclopedia."
- No, that is not the goal of RationalWiki. Wrong.
- To quote, "The most important aspect of our project is that it is collaborative, and in the spirit of community we adhere to the rules of NPOV and assuming good faith."
- Wrong and wrong. There is no NPOV here. There is SPOV. There is no assumption of good faith here.
- To quote, "Wiki policy is binding on all users whether we like it or not."
- Also wrong. No, it is not. --Castaigne (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly, this reads like classic 2000 era site-trolling. You go to a website, pretend they're a similar website, and watch as everyone gets angry about how you don't get their rules. In this case, they're just pretending that this is wikipedia. They're amused at the anger they cause. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
[edit] SomethingAwful thread about Ferguson situation
I noticed that our article is very barebones and not very NPOV, by chance I happened to come across this SA post that collated a lot of info and sources about Ferguson, perhaps we should take a look before the paywall goes up.74.14.20.118 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- NPOV doesn't exist. And that's not an SA link. And I don't think anyone cares about SA. Not willing to look at it. Trick (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Internet says that somethingsensitive is a meta-forum that complains about somethingawful. It's likely a post about a post(But I'll be damned if I'm clicking it). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- There are three things that don't exist here: a RationalWiki NPOV policy, a RationalWiki Ferguson article, and your collated "info and sources". Frederick♠♣♥♦ 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- You keep saying "our" and "we." It isn't convincing people that you share common interest with them. Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 06:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the sources provided? If we were to create a Ferguson article then we can use the sources in that SA thread . — Unsigned, by: 74.14.20.118 / talk 06:20, 19 March 2015
- It's not a SomethingAwful thread, and I didn't see any sources when I went there, just a bunch of racists. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 16:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- And quit saying "we!" Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 20:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ingroup policing bothers me, even if this person is spewing bullshit that reflects a poor understanding of our community. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the sources provided? If we were to create a Ferguson article then we can use the sources in that SA thread . — Unsigned, by: 74.14.20.118 / talk 06:20, 19 March 2015
[edit] normalizeing tv
there is an interesting link about how to "normalize tv" through allowing for accomodate aamany diffirent viewpoint and peoples
https://medium.com/thelist/you-are-not-alone-69c1a10515ab
have the read — Unsigned, by: 74.14.20.118 / talk / contribs 22:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
[edit] feminism
David Gerard used to post on laissezs faire so its not a wonder why it is so terrible this rationalwiki — Unsigned, by: 74.14.21.48 / talk / contribs
[edit] Anyone know anything about "The Federalist?"
I came across this link to some article on some website called The Federalist which looks like some popular wingnut publication. Does anyone have more information about this? Have other websites made the same sort of arguments? — Unsigned, by: 74.14.21.48 / talk / contribs
- To answer your questions in their respective order:
- Someone undoubtably does.
- Yes, other websites have undoubtably made the same sort of arguments.
- I'm happy to have been of service to you. Cheers. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)