Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Debate:Disagreeing with RW

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is the most effective and efficient way of conveying your annoyance and dislike of RW's failings? Is it to lambast offending posters profusely on their talk pages? Adopt a policy of ostracisation with the offending parties? Or create debate pages like this? MarcusCicero 17:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

hurrrr. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡䷶䷀䷵䷥
We endorse the MacArthur policy of dissent: If you don't like something, shut up and ignore it, and if you really don't like it, resign. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 00:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Firstly you get annoyed and tell everyone how much you dont like it - check one for you, Marcus. Secondly you abuse those you disagree with, check two. Thirdly you appeal to try and get everyone to change and start a "reform society" which no one joins - three checks! You're on a roll! Finally, when all else fails and you can't convince anyone and your disagreements and concerns go unheeded, you fuck off because it isn't worth your time..........hope this has been enlightening!...fucking troll. AceMcWicked 00:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Ostracism seems like the best option. You should do it to every editor on this site except yourself. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Send the bastards to Coventry! --Kels 02:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Bitch at RWW--Thanatos 02:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't work, PH and I won't take his shit. He'd be out on his ass before he knew it. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No, he can bitch all he wants, so long as he doesn't touch the articles. Mindless harmonic Hoover! 14:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk on talk pages, don't be a troll by doing wholesale reversions without talking it out. Don't edit war. Don't troll people, insult them and call them idiots. Be fun to be around. Lather, rinse, repeat. TheoryOfPractice 14:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As an addition to the above, I'd add "remember that rationality is unfortunately subjective". If I had a penny for every whining post I saw that declared "but this is supposed to be RATIONAL wiki!! Why don't you believe in ghosts/goblins/homoeopathy/communism/Ayn Rand/guns when that's totally rational?" I'd have... oooh, a lot of pennies. It's a shame that Logical Postivism Wiki just doesn't roll off the tongue as well. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 14:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I remember when I brought this up in the Saloon bar and everyone thought I was trying to change the sites name. - π 23:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
But, MC, you don't want it to change - if it did you couldn't maintain your superior attitude all the time. Without us peons being so worthless how are you going to get you kicks. It's a fair trade off, we amuse you, you amuse us. Bob Soles 15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Factions, reform and the future[edit]

Bob raises an interesting point which unfortunately for him, is entirely wrong. My attitude is not superior at all, mine is the average attitude of conscientious thinking people who rightfully hold those who dare to name themselves grand things as beneath contempt. The problems with the RW virus are well documented and need no further consideration; I regard this website to be flawed in its very essence. Reform is possible but due to the nature of the endemic sycophancy and sheer idiocy of accepting the tranquility of thoughtless stability, this website is instead slowly dying from the inside out. What it needs is a vigorous reform and a public ostracisation of ne'er do wells.
In fact, it requires the recognition of two rival factions which are flourishing in the RW social experiment; the first, a liberal, rational faction and the second, a juvenile, idiotic faction. These factions are already in place but they are necessarily constrained by proper internet decorum, all RW needs is a spark to display the essential differences between the two.
It naturally follows that there is strong ideological differences between the two factions in terms of how they view Rationalwiki as a project. The second faction, who have two British high priests (Jeeves and Susan. There was also the curious case of RA, a truly egomaniacal internet phenonoman who combined a thirst for fake authority with practically no personal charisma) and numerous sycophants (Thedictator, Ace, TOP, Kels etc.) constantly see themselves as being 'morally superior' and capable of exercising judicial, moderative powers within the framework of a nominally 'mobocratic' internet society. The first faction consists of a much more acceptable crowd, who combine most of RWs virtues with the capacity for critical thought of group and self; These people, who are genuine liberals (Insofar as the term has any meaning in the 21st century) regard any precedent which establishes fake authority or executive power as anathema to the project as a whole. I would say that Bob, Genghis, Ardmonkiov and perhaps even Human meet this criteria. It is also fascinating to note that the nominal supreme leader (TmToulouse) is in every way a constitutional monarch who thankfully takes little interest in the day to day running of the website - this allows the RW social experiment to establish itself among the factional lines already clearly described.
You might wonder what I'm actually saying with this post, what I'm really getting at. Thats for you to decide. In my mind I'm merely describing the realities as they are and if people don't like to see that then perhaps it would be better for RW to cover up the cracks and permanantly ban me. MarcusCicero 19:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
That's some mighty nice speechifyin' there, boy. --Kels 19:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
What a boring post. You troll better when you swear. Swear more. AceMcWicked 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You are rationality
The power of thought
-- 19:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
"I regard this website to be flawed in its very essence." Then why do you bother? TheoryOfPractice 19:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
TOP: I wouldn't expect you to get it. You couldn't possibly understand that people do things with no genuine reason other than to satisfy their minds. I'm curious about how this place runs, thats all. MarcusCicero 20:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Telling other people how to run a wiki is easier than starting your own. --Kels 19:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It works out well for him. He gets to whine as much as he pleases and act immensely superior, without the challenge of actually contributing much worthwhile and demonstrating any real ability (as evidenced by his slender efforts). And when we react with annoyance that he doesn't help at all and just acts like a dick all the time, he gets to quietly laugh to himself about how we're all his puppets and and reacting just like he wanted us to. Oh ho look how clever he is as the puppetmaster! It's a pretty common Internet thing (dare I say "meme"?) for those who fail at life to claim that failure was always their purpose, and so it is with MC.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 19:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
TomMoore: An interesting and boring analysis. I don't even get your last line. (It has only a peripheral relationship with reasoned deduction) But either way, keep on digging that hole for yourself. MarcusCicero 20:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I figure your a "shoes first, then pants" kinda guy MC. AceMcWicked 20:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
"It has only a peripheral relationship with reasoned deduction," eh? Folks, this here is the guy who calls me pompous. Your retreat into intellectualism in the face of articulate opposition is matched only by your puerile snark when confronted with how disagreeable you seem to others.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 20:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Oooh. That one must have stuck. 'Articulate opposition'? You're making judgements of my private life, something you know absolutely nothing about. Hardly getting to grips with the issues. Cockface. MarcusCicero 20:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wounded to the quick and I'm lashing out in anger and bitterness. And what issues? You think this place is terrible and the people are terrible, you hate that some people find memes funny (and by the way, most are lame but you have awful people skills). We get it. You're edgy and awesome. I want to lick the side of your face.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 20:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You make a good point there Tom, when MC bitched about Memes no one listened. A few days late I floated the idea of removing internet memes from mainspace articles - and it were done. Perhaps if MC were not such an asshole people may pay heed. AceMcWicked 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You only strengthen my point Ace. I suggest something but it gets ridiculed. A RW drone suggests something and its taken seriously. The lesson here is that I should integrate myself better into the community if I want change to happen; the point is that I'm not all that bothered if the idiotic elite of this place don't want change to happen. I'm more than happy to point out the home truths none of you are willing to face up to alone. MarcusCicero 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
No MC, the point I illustrate is that your a cunt that no one listens to. AceMcWicked
Quo usque tandem abutere, Cicero, patientia nostra?--Tom Moorefiat justitia 21:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You cunts are the same kind of people Cicero had to deal with throughout his life. He held firm and defended the Republic with valour though. Heartless and relentless ambition coupled with authoritarian tendencies make for the subversion of all natural order. You cunts make me sick. MarcusCicero 21:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Haha yes you are so noble, fighting against our terrible tyranny! You are exactly like Marcus Tullius Cicero! And humble!--Tom Moorefiat justitia 21:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I was clearly enjoying a rhetorical splurge, but whatever. MarcusCicero 21:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the part I find funniest is that the "idiotic" meme-loving attitude MC so loudly bitches about is what was behind the founding of the wiki in the first place. What do you think the tone of RW 1.0 was like, anyhow? I wasn't there long, but I was there long enough to see it was like one big green room, with people hanging about and laughing a lot. --Kels 21:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just look at your charter on the main page. None of it is true in practise. MarcusCicero 21:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
That's true! We're Mark Anthony and we're saying one thing and doing another, as we impose our viciousness upon reason! We've crossed the Rubicon and turned a noble set of ideals of rationality into a farce! Soon the Visigoths will be at the doors! ONLY YOU CAN SAVE US, NOBLE PATRICIAN MASTER OF RHETORIC!--Tom Moorefiat justitia 21:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone mention me? Antony 23:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, MC, it is sadly true despite all the hard work you have done to save us. --Kels 21:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)