Fun talk:RationalWiki Facebook

Deletion War
Mikal doesn't seem to like this page, but I see nothing especially wrong with it. Zero (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's terrible, but so are all pages [cn]. STAND BACK MILADY I WILL PORTECT YUO! - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be terrible but so is most of funspace. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 14:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's up now; I'm sure the guys on the Facebook Page can contribute and improve it. Right now it's just a start. And thanks for saving it.TokenSkepticMagicianTalk, comments, and 'UR a fag lol's 23:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The misandry levels here are low. We need to highten the man-hate.Femilisk (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now actually I see it described in black and white, I am appalled at what I am an accessory to. Генгис  silverbrain.png 22:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * An accessory to fun, Genghis.  22:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What? An informative funspace article? Can such things be? Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 10:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You say informative, but really nothing captures the primal beauty of being simulated by an artificial feminist from the future and tortured for not being pro-women in your past present life. Femilisk  is watching   16:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Except for maybe *Censored by feminism* or *Censored by decency* or even *Censored by just being crimes against humanity* Zero (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Trolling
"Why don't you ask her about the Singularity, or Tegmark? She loves that stuff." FFS! ...if I get a PM about this I might explode. Already dealing with embodiment BS is getting on my tits the morning. 09:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Think of it as a way of finding who is in loving need of torture in the post-Singularity future - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Corrective "love". Embodied "love". 12:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Haul from the latest hunt for incoming links
http://abelashes.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/the-intellectual-and-moral-cowardice-and-adolescence-of-rationalwiki-part-1/ --ZooGuard (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. The FB group is toxic. Who moderates it? Nutty Roux (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * List of RW Facebook admins.  14:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In short, Human, Gooniepunk, Kels, Totnesmartin, Bob M, Genghis Khant, Tmtoulouse, Psygremlin, Ace McWicked, David Gerard, plus a few others. These are all old hands.  The bulk of them predate even you.  If the Facebook group is toxic, that says more about how bad "old-school" RationalWikians are than any newcomers.   14:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not true. While a bunch of us were appointed moderators, there are few who are moderators who are actually involved in any form with it. I do agree with Nutty that the Facebook is not at all as good and 100 times more toxic than the Wiki. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Where "toxic" = "I was called out on my own bullshit" - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, where toxic means that it's just a step to the side of 4-chan. Look at all the meme garbage that gets posted instead of actual discussion. Did you catch the other day when a N00B was greeted with nothing but a bunch of stupid fucking memes? A while ago, I added a couple of friends who were new to the skepticism movement to the group because I thought it would be a great jumping off point for them. They loved what they experienced and learned.... Until about a month ago when both complained that it had become a dump of unproductivity and stupid memes and bullshit. This has fuck all to do with what you're referring to and goes back to how I felt before that. And, really, I am embarrassed that it uses bullshit nonsense and insider jokes and memes to drag RationalWiki's name through the mud. Terrible. Absolutely terrible. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Similar to what /r/atheism is/was? --ZooGuard (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It wishes it was that good at the moment. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is common internet knowledge that social media such as Facebook/Reddit/Twitter are more conducive to circlejerk than constructive dialogue, therefore inherently toxic when the group is about discussing negative things (or incredibly pleasant when the group is about discussing positive things). Nullahnung (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence the structure deeming MORE FASCISM as the answer to all woes. See currently-pinned discussion. The essential problem is PRATT exhaustion - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't think that's necessarily so, Stabby. It's a completely different community and, although I can only connect some real names to usernames, it seems like the membership is substantially different than RW's editorship. We've discussed this privately. As a consequence, it looks like there a completely different group of outspoken people. RW's laissez faire management style isn't going to result in the same kind of community where the dynamic is as sharply different as RW and FB, where there's substantially more accountability than RW. The actual result may undermine Clay Shirky's observation that real names lead to accountability and better behavior. Thus, I find it interesting to see a different kind of negativity and groupthink that on RW itself. People know I care and do what I can in the background, but I think I've burned my goodwill here. Interesting to see how that doesn't happen to outspoken members on FB when the negativity isn't directed to the group itself. Or not. Lots of weasel words and suppositions here, I know. I also don't care very much since I don't participate because of some of the nasty shits over there. Just commenting because I'm a nasty shit over here. Cuddles, Nutty Roux (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Shirky's asserted no such thing, to my knowledge. Got a cite? He advocated an identity one was invested in, but we have that with usernames.
 * There is no evidence that real names online lead to a better environment. If there is, I look forward to seeing it - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah. It's our fault we get trolled because we are bad people. 07:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As a relative newcomer to both the FB page and the wiki, I've lurked for quite a bit on both, any toxicity that Nutty sees is directed at PRATTers, blatent misogynists, and other malcontents. The speed at which a thread evolves, in comparison to the slow rate at which discussions occur here, may explain the hostility perceived by users from the Wiki. An idiot on the page is called out much sooner than one here, as he/she has more opportunity to reveal their imbecility. I welcome any Wiki users to come join the page and participate in discussions. If you bring up valid points and engage in civil discourse, you will be welcomed with open arms. If not, well, things will get rough a lot quicker out there than in here.Lager (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a bad thing for RW and the RW FB group to be at odds with each other. I'm actively trying to get them to work better together, to encourage FB readers to use the wiki itself (see above for participants doing just that). Get more good stuff to the wiki, make it a better resource. FB is basically a huge machine for people to waste their time talking rubbish, but we should be able to get something out of it.
 * Nutty - I really don't think RW FB is more toxic than the wiki can and has been. Not that that's an excuse, of course, and reducing toxicity on FB as here is important. But argumentative humans in one space are going to piss each other off, after all.
 * In conclusion, LET'S ALL LOVE EACH OTHER!! HUG!!! - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, let us hug racists and misogynists and anti-science woo-peddlers to death! ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 13:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wiki on one side, FB on other, some of us on both simultaneously, woo in the middle, me on the Twitter, a spare Chris on the blog. FREE HUGS - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I use the FB group as therapy™. 08:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ace
Stop fucking lying. You were proven wrong, the guy was an incoherent raging misogynist loon and you are still defending him when you said you were leaving the issue. It boggles the fucking mind. Are you asking for him to come back? What the fuck. You are literally being that guy who loses the debate, storms out in a huff and goes and blogs about those irrational people on RationalWiki and how you defeated them. Then you tried to inveigle Cassie into arguing on your behalf rather than actually speak for yourself. What the fuck - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A) What am I lying about? B) For what reason is there a comment about a particular person in the lexicon section? D) It is true that the admin use bait'n'ban tactics D) I don't have a blog. Acei9 22:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh and E) Three people now have left that group for the same reasons. Acei9 22:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * F) Cassie was not 'arguing on my behalf' I asked her to do no such thing. Acei9 22:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * David Gerard may have confused Ace to have made this edit: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Fun%3ARationalWiki_Facebook&diff=1332283&oldid=1330204, which he didn't. (I don't pretend to know what this is about, not my business and I don't care, but the edits make me think so) Nullahnung (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think I wrote that blog post, no. I'm (one of) the target(s) of that blog post and was just updating it on this article since the author has changed the title given the comments. 13:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't read this section

 * 'WAAAAAH!! The big bad admin hurt my man feelz!!!' Ace.....FFS. Dude, no one fucking cares. It's a fragrant load of shit; no one uses 'bait and switch' tactics. Stop fucking up my article with baseless butthurt whiny bullshit. User:TokenSkepticMagician Talk, comments, and 'UR a fag lol's 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no "my article" on RW unless you want to make it an essay. Acei9 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? The you CERTAINLY won't mind if i go over to your articles and plaster some blatantly false shit over them, right? No? Then stop posting bullshit on my article, and get the fuck over yourself. You got called out on FB for a reason.User:TokenSkepticMagician Talk, comments, and 'UR a fag lol's 14:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * please stop saying "my". Regardless of whether you or ace is right, it makes you look crazy.-- Mie kal  06:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm uninterested in the discussion at hand, I will chime in with Ace and Miekal in pointing out that laying claim to an article on an openly edited and collaborative wiki is a bit nonsensical. This isn't "your" article any more than it's mine or Ace's. - Grant (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "get the fuck over yourself" Hey buddy, I ain't the one talking about articles you helped edit as your own property which can't be edited. Acei9 09:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When I say 'my' I mean 'article I started'; I don't literally mean 'my'. I realize this is a public collaborative article, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Unless you're posting blatant bullshit; that I DO have issues with. ESPECIALLY if it's over some petty shit like being wrong. Ace, did the mean ol' admin hurt you? Show me on the doll where the big bad Femilisk touched you. User:TokenSkepticMagician Talk, comments, and 'UR a fag lol's 18:51 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, we'll replace 'my' with 'the article I started'..."Stop fucking up the article I started with baseless butthurt whiny bullshit."
 * "Then stop posting bullshit on the article I started"
 * "When I say the article I started I mean my"
 * Yeah, not seeing much of a difference there, bud. Acei9 10:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing quite says 'I have literally fuck-all to say about anything' like bitching about semantics..... User:TokenSkepticMagician Talk, comments, and 'UR a fag lol's 20:10 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. As a third party with no real stake in this matter, I was nonetheless alarmed by your use of the word "my." Between that and your tone, it made you seem possessive towards this article. Disagreeing with Ace and disputing his claims is a fine thing for you to do if you think he's wrong, but making it seem like you're going off on him because he's touching "your" article isn't really the best way to get that across to other folks on the wiki. - Grant (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have literally fuck-all to say about anything. Acei9 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what Grant above me said: nobody has ownership over an article on a Wiki; that's why it's a Wiki. Nobody in particular has total control over articles that aren't in their userspace. As the disclaimer says at the bottom, every time you edit a page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Blunt Knives
TOP FUCKING LEL, as they say - David Gerard (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like old times
Who are the twits currently running the RW facebook page? I just got booted in a manner reminscent of my days at Conservapedia. Good times. --Horace (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was taken over by fiat a while ago by a bunch of intolerant and intolerable groupthinkers who'd rather make up memes and call people sexist/racist/libertarian/etc. than actually debate and discuss. The palce has been a nothing but cesspit for a while. Sorry you got booted. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The FB group was doomed the minute they appointed one of Reddit's most notorious trolls an admin. The level of discussion there now is "Oh, you posted something I disagree with, here, let me block you and then me and my fellow groupthinkers will post inane memes - usually about jimmy rustling - until nobody cares about what you posted." It's sort of the anti-intellectual version of 4chan these days, and probably doing irreparable harm to the RationalWiki brand. Luckily they tend to leave the wiki alone, because their tactics don't work here.  PsyGremlin undefined 09:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. You must be an MRA. Deny this and lose all credibility. 2. Goonie, look for the word "debunk" on RWFB. It gets so grotesquely abused that I think it must stand for what you're describing. 3. Holy shit, Psy. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dude, I have the screenshot of Gabe seeking information to try to dox me. (No, Gabe, it turns out ED isn't a Wikipedia-quality reliable source.) Your moral ground's altitude could do with some work - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, I thought that the whole of RationalWiki was like the Facebook group. That's why I left this place for so long. Brenden (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that I don't dox people, I demand that screenshot David. And for your information, I never look at ED. It's blocked on my computer. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misremembered, it was Genghis. My mistake! Nice group you had there, by the way. Still not precisely on high ground - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The image isn't viewable for some reason, however, I wonder how you dox someone who edits under his real name, has been making personal relationships with people in the WMF community for years, and who puts his phone number on his user page? It's like doxing Trent. What's the point. Also, there's no point in escalating things by ascribing moral failings to either side. It's a lot more personal and inflammatory than making fact-based claims and offering perhaps milder and fair enough opinions like that people were petty, immature, authoritarian, etc. Those criticisms go both ways. People are saying much rougher stuff in private (or what they thought was private), which is what people do. But there's no point in drawing some of the vocal RWFB people out of the woodwork to help perpetuate all the nonsense and hurt feelings. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That rings as true as "I shall now prove it wasn't reeeeallly technically doxing, you probably did it to yourself" from a Gamergater. Surely there's problem that there was a call for it and that your group was thinking and working in those terms and didn't see any problem with it at all. A problem that you, as a participant, didn't bother noting, fwiw. (I'm sure you've changed your mind on whether it's even a good idea.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean, fundamentally, when you find yourself naming your group after a TK scheme, that's surely the moment you have to ask yourself where you went wrong - David Gerard (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes because the naming of the group was a total hit-tip to TK. And "blunt-knifes" was what RW named TK's scheme, not what TK named it....you numb-nuts. Gerard, you're a penis. Acei9 20:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody doxxed or wanted anybody doxxed. Quit spreading blatant lies. Not surprised you've resorted to such grasps for help through distortion, though. Typical of your group. Noisemobile (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not like we're strangers. I'll post a real response tomorrow afternoon. It's a drunk holiday here, you know. Meat, potatoes, lots of booze, and Oxford commas are the glue of society. Nutty Roux (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I must have missed the memo where this became about Gerard for some reason, instead of addessing the actual issue. Oh wait, that's exactly what he did last time too. Also, when you use you own name, or the same nick, across various sites, so it's Google-able, that's not doxxing. Then again, it's exactly the same bullshit claim that Lorelei made on joining here, to get sysop rights immediately, so at least you're in good company with your bullshit claims of being doxxed.  PsyGremlin undefined 15:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * [[File:RWFB_admin.png]]
 * This is the current list of FB admins. Talk about a close-nit cabal. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)