RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Quora

Quora | Result: Deleted

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Keep

 * 1) It contains the word "misogyny" so it is totally on mission. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This page is shit, and should be deleted, but Nutty's obsession with dismissing certain classes of bullshit as beneath our attention is obnoxious as fuck. Ikanreed (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you get along in life. Not all "classes of bullshit" are on-mission. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I get along in life by not putting up with non-answer deflections like that. Authoritarian, traditionalist bullshit is one of the primary targets of both rationalwiki and feminism.  You get stuck on it for some damn reason and rather than articulate a clear unambiguous argument as to why the whole "Authoritarian as hell" point is unreasonable, you just elected to follow a campaign of sarcasm, pettiness, and snide derisive backhanded insults at people who share a goal of making rationalwiki an informative, comprehensive source for people who want to approach the world skeptically.  I don't know if you're just one of those people who goes has unwarranted disdain for the social sciences, but the concerns here are articulated far more evidentially than you're passively giving credit for.  Ikanreed (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-answer deflections? Youcantreed. Don't you dare suggest that I have disdain for social sciences, by which I assume you mean the narrow set of interests you express. You don't know the first thing about me, what I believe, or what I've chosen to stand for. Not that you deserve a response in this regard, but I will say that aspects of my entire career have about activism on behalf of traditionally disenfranchised people. Your intimation is revolting. Your implication that the social issues you're concerned with have anything to do with skepticism, while certainly with merit in the broader skeptical movement, is the "non-answer deflection" to any discussion of what the mission actually is. It's not about a general approach to skepticism. Simply asserting that "Authoritarian, traditionalist bullshit is one of the primary targets of both rationalwiki and feminism" is simply that — a mere assertion. Addressing authoritarianism seems to be the main justification for ever deeper and deeper explorations of topics I don't think are of particular relevance to what authoritarianism actually is. It's not simple bigotry, hate, or disdain for the "other" and subaltern. This kind of response of yours is why I don't think you're a worthwhile discussant. You spew nonsense in the guise of some kind of intellectual authority you simply lack. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "I don't agree with you therefor your arguments lack intellectual merit" is pretty much the recurring shitty core of every single time this comes up for you. You know damn well it's not true, and that it's a lazy-as-fuck ad hominem to disguise the larger bare assertion that there isn't a dramatic pseudoscience element to a lot gender related beliefs and behaviors and a larger authoritarian structure to support it.  You can go through my edit history, and I've always approached feminism articles from an empirical and skeptical position, and never endorsed fluff articles that don't help like this one.
 * But you've got this incredibly wrong-headed idea that because fluff exists it can invalidate a topic. Which is dumb.  Really dumb.  You know why it's dumb.  If you put more effort into fixing the issues in gender related articles and actually nuking the genuinely off-mission ones, and less into mindless derision we'd all be better off.  Ikanreed (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it very interesting, Nutty, that all of the "classes of bullshit" that you find to be not on-mission all happen to be ones that you personally dislike. Specifically, anything involving misogyny is not "on-mission", which I don't find credible. --Castaigne (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) How is it different from Yahoo! Answers? Neither particular  strike me as critical or that useful, but do seem to meet at least point 1 of MISSION ("Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement."). Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For a start, the current text says nothing about pseudoscience or the anti-science movement, and implies that the only reason for including it are some gender-related issues in the community. I am not opposed to the existence of an article about Quora, I am opposed to this being the article for the foreseeable future.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, many arguments for misogyny are pseudo-scientific ... In any case, I've done some interwebz searching & thinking, and changed my vote. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So rewrite and improve, as just happened with Pantera. Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 19:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete

 * 1) I don't see any mission relevance in the current text. ZooGuard (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) How can this every be mission-centric? Sorry, I don't buy it. Yahoo! Answers should probably deleted too. Sterile (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) From what I can gather in a few minutes of internet searching, Quora isn't a "a cesspool of misogyny, racism and homophobia spun out of control" as the linked article claims. Of course it has some dubious content, but you have that on any large site (where people gather, the fuckwads also gather), and Quora seems to deal with this as best as they can (a problem almost all large sites struggle with), perhaps they should do more, but it's certainly no 4chan/8chan where "anything goes". Unless someone comes up with decent information/examples showing Quora really *is* misogynists, racists or homophobic (the linked article isn't enough, IMHO) I vote to merge te content in one of the other pages (manosphere?) & delete Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) I can't substantiate the claims made about Quora by research. Carpetsmoker appears to be correct. I say delete. --Castaigne (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat
Merge it into the manosphere compendium. 22:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing about that is it really isn't an overt part of the manosphere even. It's just a site with some sexism problems.  A lot of those exist, and it's not really uniquely notable in that regard.  Ikanreed (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, delete it. I don't know or care anything about it. 22:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)