RationalWiki's Q4 2016 Fundraiser
We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
Goal: $5000 Donations so far: $3075

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
Help and donate today!

Talk:Main Page

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Information icon.svg Do you have a general question about the site?
If it is technical, go to Technical support. If it is about the community or the content of the wiki, go to the Saloon bar.
This talk page is for discussing the contents of the Main Page only.
Warning icon orange.svg Please do not edit the main page on a whim.
If you want to play with things, mock it up in the testing area.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list


[edit] What happened to this wiki?

I used to frequent this site years ago and it seems to have deteriorated. The articles on Christianity and Islam used to be full of snark and mockery which is now gone. What happened? Did some PC idiot whitewash the Islam article and then people felt the same had to be done to the Christianity one? I'm inclined to think so because a large part of the Richard Dawkins article is taken up condemning him for being mean to Muslims. I mean, what the fuck? This is coming from a site that was once a bastion of secularism and rationalism. This and other things I've seen make it seem like parts of rationalwiki have been overtaken by some particularly nutty leftists (of the kind often called social justice warriors, though that term doesn't seem to have much meaning) who think, among other things that reactionary theocratic muslims should be defended because they're an "oppressed group" (so oppressed that in many parts of the world questioning Islam is punishable by death). Cornucopia (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

RW was taken over by SJW beta mangina cucks. This happened in 2008 or so, so you must have been a very early reader. Since you have nearly a decade's experience then, I'm sure you can back up your concerns by presenting some examples of this past excellence from the article histories that particularly struck your fancy - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I can't really be bothered doing much of that, but just compare the introduction of Islam to how it was back in 2011. Much more mockery back then. I already mentioned the Richard Dawkins article: the "islamophobia" section there is cringe-inducing, and on a supposedly secularist wiki. Cornucopia (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
And any such critique is met by such an insinuation such as the one above by David, who apparently puts any critique of the RW in the reactionary ("SJW"), MRA ("beta", "mangina") or alt-right ("cuck") corner. Or they post this stupid template.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 12:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 12:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks like "is actually decently written" and doesn't violate "be funny and not just stupid". Sorry you can't play in poop any more - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Except you're not funny and the SJW articles are hateful and poorly written. Sneering at your ideological enemies isn't funny. In fact, I imagine it's pretty hard to say anything funny through clenched teeth. Na, you guys thrive on negative energy and groupthink, not humor or scholarship. Conscience (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

There's been a war over the regressive left article which the SJWs only pushed ahead in because one editor edit warred constantly against three others and ended up allowing themselves to be vandal binned for the cause. It's crazy out there. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Internal link in the mission statement

Could we make the word "refute" link to Debunk? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Debunk is itself a redirect to skepticism - not entirely sure if that is needed.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's needed! Debunking something is nothing but an act of skepticism; the verb form, in a way. So that redirect is absolutely fine in my view. Further, I will argue that in the context of the mission statement, "refute" is synonymous to "debunk". So, could we bluelink "refute" as "debunk"? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Debunk = get out of the upper half of a bunk bed. (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Postmodern Christianity.

You think of this?: http://www.salvomag.com/unpragmatic-thoughts/?page_id=2 Indeed, the link between contemporary religious conservatism and postmodernism is perverse. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

[edit] Funding

Why give the percentage to three decimal figures? (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Some argue that it's to make up for our general lack of accuracy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it's funny, but I'd also support a version of code that automatically rounds to the lowest digit (e.g. 12.9% becomes 12%). Changes are wished for! PBfreespace3 (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it works as an amusing piece of overspecified scientism - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Any chance we could get some more decimals in there? Increase the scienceism of the whole production? Just what we need! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
And perhaps also in hexadecimal (to upstage the duodecimalists). (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Where have all the decimals gone? (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools