RationalWiki talk:Webshites
Have a look here at my version. . So, that's the tune they play on their fascist banjos 10:00, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
- Seems like a lot of extra work, + marks of 10 for categories like "misc" aren't really meaningful. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 10:18, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
- Not sure I see the point of the table? I presume you intended the "ratings" to be determined by voting? ħuman
15:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
- Not sure I see the point of the table? I presume you intended the "ratings" to be determined by voting? ħuman
[edit] Jesus freaks
I meant that header as a place-holder, I hope we can come up with something better when we figure out what those sites actually "are"? ħuman
15:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
[edit] blogs
What about ID blogs like uncommondescent and evolution news and views? Sterilewalkie-talkie 10:33, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
- Blogs are webshites, right? I see no reason not to add them. The "blogroll" is mostly for "our" blogs, although perhaps that should be merged into the websites article now. ħuman
17:29, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
[edit] Wiki 4 CAM
Has pretty much died. I just checked recent changes, over the last 30 days there were about 15 edits. ħuman
20:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
- Is completely dead, it now redirect to scam sites. - π 23:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh they have fixed that now, move along. - π 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Candidate for addition?
I was gonna add this: WORLDVIEW WEEKEND WITH BRANNON HOWSE but don't know? It was linked to by PJR here What think, Oh wise ones? yummy
& honey(or marmalade) 08:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Totally on-mission. We could probably have an article about the guy. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 10:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
[edit] WTF ...
... is this shite? Anti everything. What QEII has ever done to him gOD only knows:
“”We see the Dame of Malta, Elizabeth II the treasonous, false Monarch of England about to enter her Canada on the 28th of June 2010. The same whore who purposely pollutes the planet daily to suit her depopulation plans utilising the radioactive element called Uranium. Canada currently is the second biggest producer of this deadly poison and may again be number one in a short space of time. The idea of the use of uranium on the populace is to lower the population levels and at the same time in other Western regions to create incapacity.
|
| —[1] |
[edit] Mutter, grumble
Unfortunate. Seems like rational wiki has been hijacked by the same hateful, ideological purists that inhabit freethoughtblogs. I suppose the nature of a wiki makes it easy to turn it into a personal attack site.— Unsigned, by: some bunchanumbers I can't be arsed looking up / talk / contribs SophieWilder 21:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It traced back to Las Vegas, NV, if that's of any relevance to anyone, forensically speaking. (Probably not, because what could we do with it?) EVDebs (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Could be Elvis. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Could be Elvis. Wèàšèìòìď
[edit] Submitted for your approval
http://www.furaffinity.net/journals/cigarskunk/ --98.248.140.60 (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Just like to add my two (and a half!) cents:
http://theopenscroll.blogspot.com/
http://www.imissamericanpie.com/blog/
(Under Bible-thumping!)
http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/
(Under Racist!) --Chair tater (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Found another one, thanks to Fark. Well, in one of their comment threads anyways:
http://fuckyeahdeadcrackers.tumblr.com Chair tater (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
And this was found from a Return Of Kings comment thread, unsurprisingly: http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/ --Chair tater (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] why /r/MensRights?
do you really think, that /r/MensRights (http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights) is as bad as all the other sites listed here? for me this seems to be disproportional.— Unsigned, by: 86.56.141.225 / talk / contribs
- You did notice the section it was in, didn't you?
- Disproportional compared to what? "All" is a wide target, as the level of "badness" covered by the list is uneven, and it covers different kinds of "badness".--ZooGuard (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also it can sometimes be as bad as some of the worst on that list and regularly as bad as many of them --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Are we sure about Tucker Max?
Yeah, the guy's a douchebag, but he's at least self-aware enough to acknowledge it. I would love to see a link to said shitfit over his fanbase though. EVDebs (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
[edit] The Right Stuff (.biz)
No, not the film about the early U.S. space program. I'm not sure under what category this would fall, but after exploring this site one night, it became clear it would be right at home here. It was launched in October 2012 and appears to promote something roughly resembling radical traditionalism, minus the more technophobic bits and pagan motifs, though my observations could be off. The site contains articles promoting everything from homophobia to MRA talking points to racial realism, but often with a strange pseudo-liberal/pseudo-rationalist tinge (for example, this article: "The Liberal Case for Eliminating Homosexuality"). Some of the authors are ex-libertarians, and they generally promote an anti-liberal, openly authoritarian stance, including the assertion that freedom makes people miserable and that they are happier when under someone else's thumb. On their "about us" page, they describe themselves further as follows:
"What sets us apart from others within the 'alt-right' blogging community is our focus on modern narrative; in particular, it’s re-appropriation and redirection. The result goes by varying names within our circle: anti-prometheism, post-postmodern, right-wing progressivism, neo-situationism, Cultural Metternichs."
It's an odd mix of ideologies which would definitely fall under the crank ideas/authoritarianism portions of RW's mission. What's somewhat painful is that I have found some valid points made in the site's content critiquing certain postmodern ideas and extreme moonbattery/Jacobinism (such as the point that something being a "social construct" doesn't automatically make it bad), but unfortunately, they go way beyond legit criticisms and into blanket (conscious and willful) privilege blindness and reactionary bullshit, such as seeing "white guilt" virtually everywhere. With that, I thought I'd introduce this website to the RationalWiki community for further analysis and (hopefully) future inclusion on this list (perhaps even an article of its own if there's enough material, which there very well may be). Accountless Procrastinator 71.182.158.210 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Kinda sounds like alternativeright.com in a way. Only with a little less coked up, white boy roid rage. 74.141.89.204 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I came across the site you mention on a Google search trying to find out more about TRS's ideology, but didn't visit the site itself. It does not appear to have an article on this site, nor did a site search turn up any mention of it. Part of their tagline is "an online magazine of radical traditionalism," and by luck, I was able to find an article on radical traditionalism here. Unfortunately, however, the article is relatively brief, and while tangentially-related topics such as racial realism, VDARE, Third positionism, other wingnuttery-moonbattery combos such as Lyndon LaRouche, and the aforementioned radical traditionalism have articles here, RationalWiki seems to lack coverage of this particular (and apparently growing) pseudo-intellectual ideological element of the extreme right. I posted an article from The Right Stuff to WIGO:Clogs, and while I took a slight gamble with site etiquette by admitting it there, a large part of my motivation for doing so was to raise awareness of this ideology within the RW community (which I hope to join officially soon). Accountless Procrastinator 107.20.248.254 (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Feminist Critics, a webshite?
Why is Feminist Critics a webshite? They're not even MRAs; they're pro-feminists who will sometimes agree with feminism and other times criticize it. Faunas (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
[edit] thatincelblogger
I have no problem being here, in fact I deem it as an honor. We disagree ideologically and basically anything listed here is a blog I'll read.
However, regarding me... This text is silly. I can understand that somebody would describe me as a Nice Guy (though I am anything but) or say I believe TAC are atheists disagreeing with me (they're not, they don't even have to be atheists) but why write a completely incorrect thing, like that even Men's Rights or Red Pill consider me too extreme to post there? The things is, I never even tried to post there nor do I want to. If some dweeb (and I know at least one) uses c/p and puts mine and fschmidt's posts on such subs that's not us. Neither of us are MRAs or Red Pillers. In fact, we despise PUAs completely.
It's just that you people should have more facts in going along with your mission. I can write you a 2-3 sentence summary of myself that will be less positive than what is written now and completely true. — Unsigned, by: Thatincelblogger / talk / contribs 22:21, 6 September 2014
- Write it here on the talk page & we'll have a look at it. No promises. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 12:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Boycott American Women
Is that site really sexist, or is it merely opposed to American women, while thinking foreign women are awesome? See, e.g., statements such as this one: "We American men are starting to REJECT AMERICAN WOMEN and get married to foreign women, who don't have the same bullshit spoiled little bitch feminist attitudes that American women have." Landmartian (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sexist, the whole "Foreign women are better" is complete with a lot of bullshit like they're more "submissive" and these men like them because they feel that they basically display less agency. It goes into obvious racism as well when we're dealing with Asian women.BlackProg (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- If it were racist, wouldn't they be making a distinction between white and Asian women, rather than American and foreign women? Landmartian (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Foreign women" = non-"West"ern women = submissive, non-white women. See here. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- If it were racist, wouldn't they be making a distinction between white and Asian women, rather than American and foreign women? Landmartian (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] DoNotLink
At present, all the links on this page lead directly to the websites in question. In my opinion, though, it'd probably be better if they didn't. We shouldn't be affording these people pageviews or ad revenue. How do I utilize DoNotLink so that the links lead to mirrors of the websites rather than the websites themselves? I looked at DoNotLink's own website, and while I could find an explanation of how it works, I couldn't find explicit instructions regarding how to use it. Fastzander (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- RW has always linked directly to its sources, if it was possible. The only exception are sites that would notice the referrer and do something bad about it, such as sending a wave of their users this way (that's wy RW doesn't link to Neo-Nazis) or redirecting to a special "landing page" (NaturalNews, if my memory serves right).--ZooGuard (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just because RW has done something one way doesn't mean that it shouldn't change. Why not use DoNotLink? It doesn't hurt anything, and may help us not help those who we link to. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- If the thought that clicking on a link will "help" the owner of a site is intolerable to you, I suggest not clicking that link. RationalWiki should be above this kind of tribalistic pettiness. I've already confronted someone who used unnecessary archives for a site they deemed ideologically unfit, and I don't want a repeat of that. If you are concerned about promoting these kinds of sites, the very existence and contents of this page should be of greater concern to you, as it's starting to turn into a poor clone of DMOZ.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Um... The reason "DoNotLink" is used is so that Google (and other engines and trackers) don't count any instances of links going to a site, because more links to a site means that it is more trustworthy. I'm not unhappy with people clicking on links from here (in fact, links from here help readers understand our points), I'm worried that linking to, for example, a hate site will boost the ability of that site's owner to make money and propagate their views. (edit) Of course providing any link does help the owner of another website, via on-site ads and such; however, the information gained by providing that link is greater than any benefit to a hate group. Basically, links are necessary; however, we should reduce their ability to help those who we oppose as much as possible, and making sure that they don't get bumped up in the search ranks does that. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't we already do that through our use of Nofollow? Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I thought FCP was aware of that, that's why I didn't mention it. All external links on RW are wp:nofollow by default.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure if RW used nofollow. If so, then using DNL still has no harm. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it would be a pointless exercise that wastes people's time, and might look spammy, which could affect our search rankings. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll buy that putting people through a redirect wastes time. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it would be a pointless exercise that wastes people's time, and might look spammy, which could affect our search rankings. Wëäŝëïöïď
- I wasn't sure if RW used nofollow. If so, then using DNL still has no harm. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I thought FCP was aware of that, that's why I didn't mention it. All external links on RW are wp:nofollow by default.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't we already do that through our use of Nofollow? Wéáśéĺóíď
- Um... The reason "DoNotLink" is used is so that Google (and other engines and trackers) don't count any instances of links going to a site, because more links to a site means that it is more trustworthy. I'm not unhappy with people clicking on links from here (in fact, links from here help readers understand our points), I'm worried that linking to, for example, a hate site will boost the ability of that site's owner to make money and propagate their views. (edit) Of course providing any link does help the owner of another website, via on-site ads and such; however, the information gained by providing that link is greater than any benefit to a hate group. Basically, links are necessary; however, we should reduce their ability to help those who we oppose as much as possible, and making sure that they don't get bumped up in the search ranks does that. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- If the thought that clicking on a link will "help" the owner of a site is intolerable to you, I suggest not clicking that link. RationalWiki should be above this kind of tribalistic pettiness. I've already confronted someone who used unnecessary archives for a site they deemed ideologically unfit, and I don't want a repeat of that. If you are concerned about promoting these kinds of sites, the very existence and contents of this page should be of greater concern to you, as it's starting to turn into a poor clone of DMOZ.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just because RW has done something one way doesn't mean that it shouldn't change. Why not use DoNotLink? It doesn't hurt anything, and may help us not help those who we link to. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Why is this site "Crackpot"?
I'm posting this here because I can't think of a better place.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/reptiles/reptiles28.htm
Sure it promotes something you don't agree with, but maybe if you read it, and put it under scrutiny, then you could be surprised!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyT9g5-V9Vw
Its relative well known in the Conspiracy community as you can see (video of one of its more famour articles), and in two languages, and therefore has a larger audience.
A simple Google search shows how popular it is.
[edit] Fun thing to do
Use waybackmachine to look back at when Conspiracy sites first started:
Churns out the same shit over and over
For example, quote mines:
"National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order."
David Rockefeller, long accused of being a shill for the NWO, in his memior finally tired of the facade and admitted what he had been accused of for many decades, when he said this about his familys involvement in the NWO:
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
And in 2008, with the election of President Barack Hussein Obama, Henry Kissinger said that Obama would bring about the long desired New World Order:
"I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a 'New World Order' can be created. It's a great opportunity. It isn't such a crisis..."
No longer is the New World Order the realm of "conspiracy theorists" frantically writing stories of government takeovers from a basement somewhere. No, the NWO is now
shouted loudly from the rooftops by every leading government and political figure in newscasts 24 hours a day.
And then Henry Makow's site
And who could forget about Alex Jones, and everythign he's touched?
[edit] Hindutva websites
There are a lot of websites espousing wingnut views, but missed the attention of this site because awareness about Hindutva is low compared to awareness about Islamism and other extremist views. --ThisIsYeah (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Add 'em. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 03:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)