User talk:LogicalNerd

Coop Case
It's a fairly easy mistake to make, and GC probably didn't help by telling you to go to the coop.

The chicken coop is usually a conflict resolution forum of last resort, given the fact that they often spiral out of control rather than actually improve the situation. This typically happens when a user is being so obstinate, so defiant of other users' advice to calm down that there is no other recourse than to discipline them. GrammarCommie's conversation with you has not approached that threshold yet. To resolve conflicts before they start, get one of the actual mods (shown here) to intervene first.

I am not scientifically literate enough to read the research on the subject, but from a purely philosophical perspective I believe transwomen should be unequivocally considered women, so don't think I'm telling you this out of sympathy for your cause. Just follow procedures on the site, please. It makes everything easier on everyone. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm happy to follow your procedures, but I am unfamiliar with them and am new to editing Wikis in general. Can you help me a little bit? I apologize for any mistakes I may have made, but I did what seemed to make sense based on what GC told me and what appeared to be the proper next step on the Coop page. I'm still unsure where on that page I should have submitted my request (if it were indeed appropriate to submit a coop request at all) if not on the talk page. It's unclear from the main coop page how to actually submit a coop request. When you say I should get a mod to intervene, how exactly do I go about doing that? Again I apologize if this is a stupid question, I simply don't understand how things work around here and I am new.

I appreciate that you disagree with me philosophically, but I believe the scientific evidence clearly shows that transwomen are not by any means women from a purely scientific perspective. Am I mistaken that this Wiki is about rationality/science-based evidence over personal feelings/opinion?

--LogicalNerd (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What the wiki is based on is a little ambiguous, actually. In retrospect, we think that the choise of "RationalWiki" as our name might have been a mistake.
 * I am absolutely willing to help with procedure and other difficulties of that nature. You're a newbie, we all were newbies, it's understandable. What you probably should have done is found a mod (see that list I gave you) and tell them you are having a dispute with another user, providing a link to the relevant page(s) and explaining (preferably with edit history links) why you believe the other user was in error, or why you are right, or a combination thereof. After community consensus is achieved (generally these pages will attract a few other users when a mod gets involved), then the page is edited accordingly. If GrammarCommie had refused to abide by that consensus, then that's where the coop would come in. I don't expect you to have known this, this is more a guide for a future incident. Contact me if you have any other questions. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated, thank you. Is there a place somewhere on the site that explains the actual nature of the Wiki better, since you think "RationalWiki" may have been a mistake in advertising? If this place is just about feel-good, liberal virtue signalling over scientific evidence to the contrary, for example, I would probably not want to waste your (or my) time here :)
 * --LogicalNerd (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, when I say "rational" was a bad choice for a name, it is because even the blatantly irrational think they are rational; saying we are "Rational" is rather like saying "Not Evil," in that it does not mean that much in reality. See RationalWiki:Community standards. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Of course, everyone thinks they are rational...the beauty of scientific evidence is that it irrefutably refutes the views of the irrational with hard evidence that cannot be denied :) If you guys are about that, then, cool, this is the place for me. Unfortunately for the trans activists, though, there's little scientific evidence to support their theories, and lots to refute it, so...I guess we'll just go from there and see where we end up.
 * --LogicalNerd (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My recommendation is to go back to the talkpage, and try and engage with them. Throwing one's hands into the air and giving up contributes nothing. While I disagree with you, I personally think that engaging with you can further this wiki's mission. Besides, there are more issues we deal with here than just LGBTQ+ ones. What I recommend doing in the long-run is finding something you are really good at and is not too controversial and specializing in that. I like history, so I do stuff related to that. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Bye
In all seriousness, I appreciate you being something remotely resembling a voice of reason here and attempting to mediate. I think you are sincere in doing so. That being said, it's pretty clear that you're extremely biased to the left on this issue, and most likely just standing with other sysops/administrators/whatever you call yourselves as the tightly-knit group of far leftists that you are. I'm sorry that this taints your perception so much that you are unable to objectively examine evidence that might not support your myopic worldview. You've got the opportunity for a really nice place here, but instead you've turned it into an SJW echo chamber. It seems to me you don't have a single right-leaning or even moderate sysop/admin/etc. on the site, and that in general, that kind of person isn't welcome here, they are dogpiled on with ad hominem attacks from multiple users, which are ignored by admins/sysops until the individual who is being dogpiled on complains, and then they admonished for daring to defend themselves or return the favor in kind; their arguments are summarily dismissed out of hand without a true rebuttal or alternative evidence presented (look at the guy claiming Marx was a homophobe, for example, on GC's talk page, which is well-documented and agreed upon by virtually all reputable historians, and how that has been dealt with, or rather not dealt with at all), and what little evidence is presented is typically weak and subsequent determinations dismissing my evidence are extremely subjective. I say all this, yet again, as someone without a dog in this fight, who is only interested in the scientific perspective of this issue, and who believes the mainstream psychology is wrong and has been influenced by political pressure, against all scientific reason and evidence. And just FYI, as a very politically moderate Jew who had dozens of family members murdered by both the Nazis and the Soviets, the hammer and sickle is every bit as offensive to me as the swastika, and should be to all humans who value life. The fact that you don't see that belies your extreme far leftist sympathies. Word to the wise: extremist political ideologies, both right and left leaning, bring death and destruction to this world. Hopefully you figure that out sooner rather than later. I'll be leaving now since it's clear I'm not welcome and it's clear nobody's interested in rationality here - best to you, and I hope to one day come back if this place is ever actually interested in discussion and not just virtue signalling to your pals and shutting down opposing views while pretending that men in dresses who've convinced themselves they're women are actually women. &mdash; Unsigned, by: LogicalNerd / talk / contribs
 * I am not going to lie, I'm biased. But you asked for a fair appraisal of the situation, so I gave a fair and honest appraisal to the best of my ability. I didn't arrive at the conclusion you like, but that's how it is. 03:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, any more inflammatory remarks like that rant you posted in GC's talk page will net you another block for disruption. Debate with facts and logic, no "you're part of an agenda" or "you defend Communism adamantly" junk. 18:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed regarding the rant-stuff - I hope you appreciate that I was very much goaded into making these kinds of statements by people like Dendlai, who were not initially being reprimanded by mods/sysops despite doing things like calling me "it," presumably intended to dehumanize me. I reiterate that I'm sure I would have seen a block/ban if I'd done the same to Dendlai as they are a trans person. But regardless of what led me to break my normally-Vulcan-like rational demeanor, I am responsible and I apologize for it, sincerely.
 * As for the arbitration - as I said before, I definitely do appreciate you attempting to mediate. I also appreciate you admitting your bias. That being said, typically, recognized bias on behalf of an arbiter is cause for one to recuse themselves due to the lack of impartiality/objectivity. I do appreciate that you did this to the best of your ability given your bias, but wouldn't it be more fair to have someone with no personal opinion on the matter examine the evidence - and if such a person is not on your mod team, perhaps that is an area that could be improved upon, for the sake of the veracity of data on this Wiki? The simple fact is that what you view here as "weak evidence," I view as extremely strong evidence, and I don't know how we can bridge that gap if we're not truly hearing each other. --LogicalNerd (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)