Talk:Slymepit/Archive1

driveby registers a complaint
This is a very silly page, especially for a wiki claiming to be a "rational" wiki.

Creative reality, as per usual. "Baboon" originated specifically with PZ Myers and Pharyngula - NOT "female skeptics". If you'd care to research, Myers is referred to as the "big baboon" and the "Baboon King". But hey, never miss an opportunity to smear and imply malice where none exists right? Business as usual. RationalWiki, aka Freethoughtblogs Ministry of Propaganda. --Webecca (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the Pharyngula community called itself a "horde" (yes, seriously) and it was an obvious mock-reference to that. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 17:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

If anything it speaks far more to the non-rational political agenda of "rationalwiki" than it does to anyone else. The page should either be removed as out of scope, or argumentative, or fixed up to resemble something close to a rational discussion.
 * Hey BoN, it's my birthday! So how about this as my birthday present: fuck off! M'kay? M'kay.--Token Conservative (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If we do, will you stop being a cunt? 02:09 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we already covered what you Slymepitters think of us. It would really be sort of redundant. EVDebs (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Could we maybe revise this to have a more encyclopedic tone than it does? I came here to find out what it was, not to see weird elevator in-fighting. If the place is genuinely that bad, surely it could have more developed and clear criticisms than this article does. If the place is genuinely that bad, let's not sink to its level. 129.237.188.183 (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Rrriiiiggghttt. Because the Slymepit has nothing at all to do with hating Rebecca Watson or defending sexual harrassment. EVDebs (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The BoN's comment seems reasnable enough to me - the article currently doesn't demostrate why the forum is so distasteful. Can't we sample a few discussions? Talk about the attitudes of the main posters?
 * I'd do it myself, but I'm a bit burnt out on delving around looney forums right now. Balaam (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you can find someone who actually wants to do it. Not it. EVDebs (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I linked to the site, they can read it themselves. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Pot, Kettle, Black.

"They don't particularly like us"...
Don't like who? 20:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki. I'd wager that at least half of the invocations of are in response to people who are either participants or Slymepitters in spirit. EVDebs (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. I may reword it slightly so others don't get as confused as me.   20:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Very subjective
This article reads more like a personal opinion than an objective description of a forum, and uses lots of generalizations like 'they', 'formerly respected', and so on. All I come away from after reading this article is that whoever wrote it really hates the Slymepit. 122.146.2.130 (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't know anything about slymepit, but when it says they are pissed at "us" it then goes on to characterise us as feminist sceptics. Some of us are, but I would prefer to reserve the word "us" to refer to Rationalwiki in general. I think the article needs work from someone that knows the community. Tielec01 (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

lol
very funny. keep up the great work. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 86.56.167.81 / talk / contribs


 * If this page suddenly seems much, much shorter it's because I deleted all the insults. Nothing else, just the insults. 16:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, you took out more than just the insults.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. I really didn't.  The entire exercise seems to be one enormous justification for being allowed to hit on women on elevators in the wee hours of the morning. A bit of a productivity waste, eh? is an insulting, patronising, fact-free value judgement.  Which point on the Slymepit Imperial Charter specifically references hitting on women in elevators?  What's that?  It doesn't have a charter?  Well, that entire line is just a load of worthless snark then, isn't it.  Glad you agree.  It's gone.  Also, while we're on the subject, consider the line Its existence is more sad and pathetic than anything else.  Specifically, consider the fact that you reinserted it into the article under the pretense that it wasn't an insult.  There are only two explanations for this.  Either you're dishonest, or you're autistic. That line's gone too.
 * outside their unexamined prejudices - How do you know that their prejudices are unexamined? How do you know that they are the ones that are prejudiced? Of course, I know you think they're prejudiced, but then again they probably think the same thing about you.  Either way, that line is about as far from objective as Pluto is from Mercury.  It's gone.
 * Its entire reason for existing is to create a massive circlejerk around the meme that "feminism is poisoning atheism," -  I'll leave this one in, but I'm going to head over to the page that RationalWiki holds for itself and insert the line Its entire reason for existing is to create a massive circlejerk around the meme that feminism and atheism are natural bedfellows. - Who cares if it's true, right?
 * Oh, and FYI (not that you'll believe me), I'm not a Slymepitter, nor am I involved in the endlessly tedious Atheism+ and Freethought Blogs concentric flamewar. I'm just a guy who thinks that a site called 'Rational Wiki' should at least pretend to be objective.  A quick look back through the comments on this very page will confirm that I'm far from the only person who feels this way. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 31.52.249.24 / talk / contribs

I am glad to see the 'insults' stayed. They are all informative and accurate. The shoe fits, wear it. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 108.180.92.37 / talk