User talk:Smontyed

Why is this page on rational wiki?
I'm not arguing for or against the concept of privilege. But how can someone put this page on a website about rationality? This entire privilege page is full of anecdotes, personal beliefs, and opinions. Blogs are opinion-based, not an academic source. This entire page relies on claims with poor/no sources of evidence. Data may or may not support this idea conceived by the social justice movement. But if it doesn't, this page simply shouldn't exist in its current form. Data wise, we may as well be giving the same amount of attention and blind adherence toward astrology or creationism.


 * Pro-tip: you are not as rational as you think you are. Perhaps you should check out the academic literature on the subject? In any case, the goal of RW is not to be encyclopaedic, but to summarise and, when dealing with idiocy, apply large quantities of snark. Also, be sure to sign your posts on talk pages. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Pro-tip: anecdotes are not data. Learn to tell the difference between opinion and fact. And what academic literature? That's my point. There isn't any provided. None. Web of Science, EBSCO, and Academic Search Premier yield no peer-reviewed information on privilege. Again, I'm not arguing that this concept doesn't exist, only that no evidence is provided. This page is woo unless otherwise sourced. It may as well link to my daily horoscope. Smontyed (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Two seconds with google: . Not everything there is relevant but, well, two seconds. Again, this is not an encyclopedia. Cites are nice to have, but not necessary. If it bugs you that much, find some to add yourself instead of blanking the page like the garden variety denialists that pass through here occasionally do. You seem to be hazy on what 'woo' means - stuff that's factually correct (modulo current science, etc.) but inadequately sourced is not 'woo'. Care to comment on why, out of all the articles on RW in a similarly tenuously sourced state (Boson, for example), this is the one you chose to fight over? Are you sure it;s not because you don't like the conclusions presented? Queexchthonic murmurings 16:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * RationalWiki has no explicit requirement for pages to be sourced, or for sources to be academic. If you have a problem with the page, discuss it on the talk page, but don't delete swaths of text just because they weren't sourced.  Frederick ♠♣♥♦ 04:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't claim something is factually correct when as of yet, no facts have been provided. I'm not a denialist. I'm merely trying to look at the claims from a rational standpoint. Claims require evidence. Your google search is full of opinions of people with a bias, not data. Your personal bias for the movement is clearly evident. You don't seem to be the right person to be monitoring/administering this page. Maybe we can make Ted Cruz the admin of the Creationism page. This was clearly the wrong site to look for a rational viewpoint. Thanks for your time. Smontyed (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That last statement was like a spew of "no you're dumb". Do you have any specific complaints, or are you just whiny? 16:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do they not know the difference between google scholar and regular google? And interesting how their biases came to light when challenged as to why that cite-light page, out of all of them here, got their dander up. No loss if they stick the flounce, then. Queexchthonic murmurings 00:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)