RationalWiki talk:Pissed at us/Archive1

Attributing the quotes
Please, do it. Most forum software allows linking to individual posts.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

One missing
Conservap&aelig;dia. Pippa (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mentions of RW on CP are now banned and Schlafly is over us for the most part, and I'm actually inclined to believe that. Essentially the only quotable source is Karajou's blog as he's the one that's really pissed. ADK ...I'll discalceate your gun! 20:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, mentioning Conservapedia on RationalWiki is now also a taboo... Actually, CP's so red with rage at us speaking our name is a bannable offense.  Not to mention we've quite a few juicy Conservaleaks hate rants that are just as old as some of the forum posts we cite here.--  21:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This quote was once made on CP by none other than Rob Smith:
 * RW is the home hideout for the putrid, stinking, miserable, vile, poorly educated, wife beating, psychopathic trolls who plague us.
 * I remember immortalising at LP here. Sadly the original is no longer available.  Perhaps we could get Rob to confirm he said it?--BobSpring is sprung! 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fall Down
If memory serves, Our favourite misogynist troll from backalong started out at a men's issues forum somewhere, didn't he? Or is that where he went to whine every time we deleted his crap? Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 21:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * According to RWW SOC.MEN. They even gave us a link here. 22:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Though apparently it's almost entirely Fall Down there. So I'd say it doesn't warrant a spot here.  ThunderkatzHo! 22:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Point. Let him wallow in obscurity. 22:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway
Does Tony Sidaway count? Although pissed at us may be an overstatement. steriletalk 22:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And Science And Math Defeated? steriletalk 22:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno about Sidaway (who is he?), but I'd say SaMD not only counts, but also requires us to drink for the rational comment as well. ThunderkatzHo! 00:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sidaway's post is critical of RW rather than being upset by what we have said about him which is surely the point of this article. 01:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Err, a lot of the forum ones are about people pissed off by stuff we wrote about their unifying topic, but not necessarily them. Actually, except for ASF and IA, most of them seem like that.  ThunderkatzHo! 01:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted scholar
I thought that blog was a parody. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jhingade
Did we ever establish that we were visited by the actual Jhingade? ThunderkatzHo! 05:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall Nx or Trent doing an IP check at some point, but I'll be damned if I can remember where I remember that from. 13:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember Trent saying that we got legal threats from him.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Underground
I did a quick search, the only thread about us I found there seems pretty mild. I'm inclined to take it off the list, myself, unless there's something I'm missing... Baljit (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless there's more, I agree. (On  an unrelated note, their inability to understand the usage of the term chickenhawk, even when one member posts the definition from WP, is slightly depressing.)  ThunderkatzHo! 23:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's one of the older ones I remember reading so included it on the list. I've only just noticed that it's a single post by Jinxy, so yeah, ignore it. ADK ...I'll advocate your diet pill! 23:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ATS
Interestingly, Above Top Secret seem to have taken our criticism to heart. Crundy Talk nerdy to me 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always enjoyed how people think that, just because we run MediaWiki software, we should be as neutral as Wikipedia or that we are like Wikipedia in anyway outside of the software. 13:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually changed the wording of that "External links" section after I found that thread. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, have in mind that large forums tend to be diverse, and it will be a gross generalization to attribute the attitude of a handful of posters to the whole forum.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Citenzidumdumum
Never know how to spell that. I'm sure more than a few of them had a fanny wobble over our article on them, and our coverage of the carter, as well as larron's activity charts. It's probably noted in WIGOCZ and TWIGOCZ, but I'm too lazy too look.  PsyGremlin  14:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yudkowsky
What's the story on him? I did a search but couldn't find any comments from him about us - right now he and Jhingade are the only sections hat haven't been filled in, so it'd probably be best to take their names off the article if no-one's going to write about them any time soon Baljit (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He's an arrogant asshat with a personality cult and he made some cracks about how we're amateurs or whatever-- 12:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's mixed. On the one hand we're a place where they can recruit hardcore rationalists, on the other hand we're "clueless" - same thread as the RationalWiki:Pissed_at_us section covers. Ask DG or Tetronian about it, I suppose. ADK ...I'll dry your mug! 12:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The other description sounds more like he was defending us against attacks from LessWrongians, so I've taken his entry out. If anyone's got a quote where he disses us, they can just re-add it. Röstigraben (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Knight
Is it worth mentioning this guy after this post? Having looked at his blog it's no surprise that liberals have never refuted anything he's said because it's a mass of badly-written text, but it still might be worth including here if more people agree. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Liberals? Is that his code word for skeptics and rationalists? Had a look at the first post in the blog but as it was an unreadable block of unparagraphed text my eyes just kept skating over it.
 * Like Schlafly - if he disagrees with it, it's liberal. I'm glad it's not just me who can't read his screeds; I wondered if my attention span was beginning to atrophy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that in his other posts he does manage some paragraphing, so maybe I was unjust to judge him on the wall of tl/dr text on the last one. Still, it does look like hard work. But yes, he does seem to be annoyed with us.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean
Ooh, I'm really "Pissed at us", the quote you picked demonstrates just how pissed I am:
 * Multiple examples of individual acts of irrationality on the part of RationalWiki editors can be given. However, it must be said, everyone is going to be irrational sometimes; and even the most rational community may still have some members that are decidely irrational. What we must look for, instead, is the patterns, which extend across multiple editors, and across time.

That sounds like a really really angry man. He must be super pissed to be writing things like that. 11:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A few points. Firstly, "pissed" doesn't necessarily means frothing-at-the-mouth angry in this context. I know your familiarity with naughty words is lacking, but surely you can recognise that. Secondly, why is Maratrean even in this list at all? It's really against the spirit of the list which is supposed to really highlight people who take offence to the specific content purely because it disagrees with them, not critics or every single instance of the "why do you call it RATIONALwiki" card. ADK ...I'll delete your band! 12:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Seán Manchester
I actually love his quote. I'm going to put that on a t-shirt. VOX HUMANA  13:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If he doesn't recognise himself in the description of a Christian (that he says is from RationalWiki) I think that makes him an OK dude. Granted, he's a total loon who thinks he's a vampire slayer but it seems he's got nothing against booze, gays, Jews, rock music and playing cards. --Spud (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 *  a vampire slayer ... (with) ... nothing against booze, gays, Jews, rock music and playing cards. - I'm a pro musician and that describes most of the people I work with. VOX  HUMANA  14:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Unhinged rating
Unhinged Rating: 5 / 5 Batshit insane.

Unhinged Rating: 4 / 5 Frothing at the mouth.

Unhinged Rating: 3 / 5 Little ball of rage.

Unhinged Rating: 2 / 5 Still on the trolley, just.

Unhinged Rating: 1 / 5 Let's not get them excited...

I figure a 1-5 scale for how unhinged the criticism is. Less Wrong would be about a 1 (it's a fair one, let's be frank) whereas Brennan would be a good, solid 5.

gnostic 11:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's gold Jerry, that's gold! Can we get those templated? Say a type thing?  VOX  HUMANA  11:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't an "unhinged" rating show a broken/disassembled hinge?--ZooGuard (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all Wikimedia Commons has at the moment. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>pathetic 12:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But I am off set-building in about half an hour, if I come across any broken hinges I'll get a snap. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>gnostic 12:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this. Sadly I don't have any spare hinges lying around to snash. Тy talk 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hinge FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting one
Balaam (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neo-Pagan? Neo-Nazi?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He's one of this lot; we have a screencap of his past gibberings here. Pretty sure this is him too. Balaam (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why aint he got a life? Look at the poster, that's research there. That's why we don't have lives! Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>moral 16:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually came across this fellow's profile a while back, and at the time he had some interesting pro-Breivik comments on his wall. He's since removed them, so it's just as well I took a screengrab, oh ho ho. Balaam (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Dramatica
Gee, I wonder why ED doesn't give two fucks about RW. --Martin Joaquinez (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The MRAs?
Not quite a forum or organisation, but quite annoyed at us - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Too general category. It would be similar to including "the CTs".--ZooGuard (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire Gamergate movement
They've written unfavorably of us for a hot minute, thanks to our article blasting the entire movement. TokenSkepticMagician LITERALLY SATAN 19:57, 27 February 2015 (JST)

Still pissed:
Rome Viharo: Rational Wiki deletes essay criticizing Rational Wiki for public shaming in Wikipedia outing/stalking. Scream!! (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also posted on Skeptiko forum.
 * I undid the deletion of his essay, again. Will he undo the whining on his website? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 12:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weird how on RW he campaigns as an "agnostic" but on Skeptiko he's throwing red meat to his base: "Words like 'pseudoscientist!' 'woo supporter'! get thrown around by these communities to individuals they believe are writing or researching in a number of alternative health or mind/body topics..." Leuders (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Found this On Reddit.
http://i.gyazo.com/44114570fdf125c3b5bb5f7718302df1.png

It's towards the bottom, lol.
 * [[image:shrug.gif]] I can barely understand any of that. 23:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess we're evidence of SJW bias? 00:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding the Norwegian Tabloid
https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Fmeninger%2Finternett%2Fnettets-moralpoliti%2Fa%2F23537579%2F&edit-text= Is it worth it? 05:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, Anders is clearly pissed at us! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

An arseload of quotes spam from a BoN
"I'll Powerlevel a bit here, but I had an account on this site.

I tried my hand modding for the site awhile ago on, among other things, their Ted Rall, USS Liberty, and you guessed it, the circumcision articles. Each time my edits were immediately undone no matter how many sources I gave. If you don't toll whatever the imaginary and ever changing SJW line is, you can't get fucking anywhere on that site.

It's a shame, because basing an online encyclopedia on actual rationalism is something that's desperately needed. Personally, I blame the Wiki model itself. It gives a nice headstart, but it breeds impenetrable beuracracy, constant infighting, rank-amateur research, and provides no incentive nor mechanism for ever improving things.


 * Rates self Powerlevel.*"

"I noticed that they call anything that isn't scientific "pseudoscience", even when it's not even trying to be science, such as with Tarot Cards."

"They seem to confuse skepticism with kneejerk disbelief layered in snark. I really do not think most of them are aware of what science and scientific method mean when they use these simple terms."

"I used to be a contributor back in the day, even got mod status for being there long enough and not causing shit. But there came a point when I sat back and wondered about the futility of it all. My biggest issue with Assfly was his status as a teacher, going by the materials he posted online (along with his students' work), and I knew it would be nigh impossible to help his students with rationalwiki. People have a hard time accepting facts that clash with their own views, especially if it comes from the perspective/tone we were pushing.

In the end I just left without a word. I still feel bad about those kids but the real world will help knock Andy's bullshit out of them, not a bunch of guys online."

"People on RW don't seem to grasp the concept of reliable sources as used on Wikipedia. As bad as Wikipedia culture is, stuff that is well sourced will usually survive an edit war, and the stuff that remains in a controversial Wikipedia article is usually very well sourced.

Even if you don't agree with the ultimate consensus, the surviving sources are generally top notch and you can evaluate them for yourself if you find the article(s) on a subject not to your liking. For example, anything related to Israel or Palestine. These articles have been the subject of scorched earth fighting by everyone on the planet with an interest in the subject, including the actual JIDF itself.

The articles themselves are actually pretty damn good considering this, and again, don't like them? Check the secondary sources, and the primary sources those sources cite.

To an extraordinary extent, by comparison, RationalWiki will basically nuke sources for no reason other than that they say things that don't fit into the ultra-SJW worldview that rules the whole site. This is exactly what the problem with Conservapedia is. They don't give a shit how solid the source is, but if the opinion is in line with theirs, personal blogs and all kinds of utter horseshit get cited in articles all the time.

Real rationalists who are interested in combating irrational nonsense online are way more likely to edit the actual Wikipedia itself than retreat to a goofy little hugbox where only their approved sources are allowed."

"I experienced exactly this every time I tried editing a page. It was fucking maddening.

Take the USS Liberty page. I actually created the original page myself after noticing it brought up in a different article. It looked like this. In less than a week, it looked like this even though all the real sources in the article came directly from me.

This was one of the reasons I left. It's hard enough getting anything substantial done by crowdsourcing, but when you can't make a difference even on the principles of meritocracy, you might as well attempt to win a race with a gasoline fire."

"I was never sure if Conservapedia had honest intentions, was always insane, or was a Poe all along, but trying to "debunk" it when there was always Wikipedia to cover bad science.

As for RW, I browsed there once or twice, and got the impression of a bunch of pompous :neckbeard:types, not necessarily an SJW hive."

"That's the contingent that got BTFO with the Atheism+ loonies and all that. It isn't really completely an SJW hive now, but it's a gross slurry of all kinds of similar shit plus euphoria.

The result is really a total mess and there's no seeming editorial style to the articles, which range from being poor man's ED-snarking to trying and failing to be a real reference, often in the very same article. It's really dignifying it to even compare it to ED, which even in its current state is better."

"It isn't really completely an SJW hive now, but it's a gross slurry of all kinds of similar shit plus euphoria."

" it's WrongPlanet for atheists"

"One of the admins, David Gerard, is...something else. His ED page explicitly notes it doesn't even need to lolsify with him."

"What's sad is that, at one point, RationalWiki was fairly respectable, back when they were more about not taking themselves so seriously, focusing on debunking legit issues like the anti-vax movement, exposing frauds, and trying to be informative on topics like science and politics. Sure, even then they had the athiest sperglords and shitty ED mimicking, but then weren't such a hive of pretentious assholes high on their own smug, at least not as much as they are now. I know, read their stuff for a few years, stopped after what little dignity they had went to hell.

The current problem is that they've completely bought into the idea they are smarter than the average plebe and have created a hugbox to circlejerk about their shared delusions of genius. Throw in some SJWism and a mobocracy atmosphere that encourages shitheads so long as they chant the group song, and you've got the fetid shithole you do now."

"I'm amazed it's taken this long for the site to get an article. I used to rather like it - the debunking of pseudoscience and the humorous tone used to appeal to me. But now it's just devolved into a Tumblr offshoot with all the warning signs of a SJW hive (partriarchy, denying misandry exists, gamergate hateboner, etc.). The lunatics have taken over the asylum."

"LOL.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Pissed_at_us#Kiwi_Farms

No, you fucking morons, we find you a bunch of jokes, not worthy of even mild annoyance. Also, the quote you cited was sarcasm.

I look forward to the Irrationals writing a Kiwi Farms article. If they want some tips, sprinkle on some SJW butthurt and some "we're totes not mad at being laughed at" crap, we could use the lulz.

P.S. - You want to know WHY we're laughing, thank Ryulong, your autistic devotion to that jackass propelled you guys to our radar."

"I feel like I really accomplished something with this thread. Bring it on, RationalWiki fags. I'm laughing so hard right now."

"If you're so rational, why bother caring about opinions from people you see as beneath you?

Checkmate assholes."

"Typical RationalWiki response. Raise legit points of criticism and don't even bother to offer a rebuttal beyond some buzzword or canned pop culture phraseology."

"In regards to the idea of debunking conspiracy theories, it isn't difficult if you strictly adhere to the easy-mode concept of "give me absolute proof right the fuck now or else you are wrong". It still does not often disprove a theory, it simply contests a theory.

My main point here is that it the easy route in a argument is to demand outright proof. Granted, you can fault the opposition for not stepping up with an A-game in the first place, but if you strictly adhere to the denial syndrome about any conspiracy theory, you really shelter yourself. I am not trying to be a smartass, but I am sure a lot of loyalists in the late 1700s thought all the American Colonists were conspiracy theorists and a lot of German loyalists in the 1930s thought people with anti-Hitler sentiments were simply whackjobs. Sometimes a gut instinct that something is wrong is very much true. When you adhere yourself to requiring proof laid on the table, you really do open the door to people with nefarious intent outright deceiving you.

Trust me, I worked in sales for a decent amount of time, when your goal is deception, a 'logical skeptic' is usually your best friend. People who wait until proof is in their face are people who are too late to do anything about it"

I can't believe we've made it this long without discussing their GamerGate series:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/GamerGate

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_Gamergate_claims

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

One bit I love is that they say Anita Sarkeesian is totally different from Jack Thompson because she doesn't advocate hard censorship. Completely ignoring that those were the exact arguments Thompson himself made when he tried to label things like GTA and 2 Live Crew pornography.

Labeling anything pornographic, even when you don't want it outlawed, still has pretty serious consequences, and not just to things like Aidra Fox movies.

For example: Blue is the Warmest Color was a "real movie." It won and was nominated for serious awards, it had a theatrical run, and was discussed in polite company by people who used their real names. But even with hot lesbian action from sexy femme actresses and "worked" rather than "shoot" sex, that NC-17 rating put a very low cap on how much money it could make.

If the Sarkeesian and Thompsons of the world succeed merely implementing soft censorship, for all intents and purposes, it'll be logistically impossible to make a GTA or a Red Dead or a DOA or nearly any other M Rated game released in the last 20 years. No one should tolerate this shit.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/07/23/anti-video-game-crusader-jack-thompson-talks-censorship-and-anita-sarkeesian/&ved=0ahUKEwiGtcjjtarJAhUGL4gKHdOPCAYQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNFk7GzOALrj8MQxOKMzkTaCYZ2sUg


 * 1:
 * 2: for all of these.  13:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I put this word salad in a collapse box. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We should try to communicate with the BoN in their own language. I'll give it a try: U mad bro? Dendlai (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Communicate in their own language? You mean, go their site and paste in a complete mishmash of some tall Saloon Bar thread in which we all agree with each other that they're knobs? I don't care much for that process myself... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The Right Stuff on your page
http://therightstuff.biz/2015/05/18/the-rational-view-on-race/ WeAreEqual (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, that guy only needs two paragraphs to go full batshit-stupid-racist mode... --Irian (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Race is a biological reality. It isn't based on "one gene that varies in it's distribution by a few percentage points." but defined by ancestry. Rationalwiki are politically correct clowns and the rightstuff refuted your racialism page filled with lies written by the anti-fascist Krom.Lord mcnally (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Refuted"... You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. --Irian (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It means demonstrating that you are wrong. So yes, refuted. 31.54.203.115 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are confusing "spouting the usual racist bullshit" with "demonstrating that you are wrong". --Irian (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Is RationalWiki a Left Wing Hate Website?
18:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently this book mentions us

 * This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki_talk:Mentions#Apparently_this_book_mentions_us.

But for the life of me I can't find it, nor am I sure I want to. The Self Perceiving Universe: A Quantum Intelligent Design Evolutionary Metaphysics 14:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you know it mentions us if you can't find it yourself? Christopher (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One is on page 227 - "According to an irrational website calling itself 'Rational Wiki' taking quantum mechanics as being significant should be considered to be a 'misunderstanding of how science works.'" Attributed to the Alex Tsakaris page, though I can't find the quote in the page (is it possible to search the fossil record for a particular string?).
 * Also, internal footnote 107 cites the fish_that_survive_on_land#creationist_responses section, but the page itself wasn't included in the sample. Daev (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to mention every time a crank notices us on this page, that's what PISSED is for. Christopher (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why; you're starting to sound a little RW:PISSED yourself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * References to us on pages 66 and 227, with mentions in the bibliography on pages 483, 484, and 490. Vive Liberté! 02:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Science and Math Defeated
Poe's law aside, I think the idea is that by having an article about that blog, searches for the blog will pull up RationalWiki as well, thus stealing hits. —Kazitor, pending 10:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)