Essay:Feeding MarcusCicero little bits of chicken
Hello! It's me, SuperJosh! I haven't done anything for a while, so I thought I'd feed MarcusCicero, our resident underground guerilla revolutionary! We all know his history of trolling, the wackiness that can be gained from the gentleman, saying 'fuck you' to Susan, impersonating his own brother, pretending to mentally ill and the like. Besides all that, his latest antics include starting a reform society to improve the apparently toilet-bound direction of this site, and I thought I'd address the issues he claims are his objectives...
Hi MC. I hope you enjoy this and learn constructively from it. If not, it's entertained me for 20 minutes writing it.
The RationalWiki Reform Society
Basically it's "blah, blah, blah, RationalWiki's bad, I'm going to change it." For the full description, you can see the three paragraph explanation on MC's page which I'm sure about none of us have read.
“”The rejection of all fringe and crackpot theories - of either the left or right wing variety.
Ultimately, how politically swayed are theories? Fundamental, literal, by-the-Bible Christianity may be swayed in a modern day right-wing position, what with its "kill the gays" and "flood the world" stuff and all that, but as for things such as the theory of evolution, it's not really a politically opinionated theory, as with most scientific theories. If a researcher is going to try to develop a scientific theory, political bias is a very naughty thing to allow to cloud ones vision indeed. It seems largely that fundamental religious theories today (or "fact" as religious folk would have us believe) are, for the most part, affiliated with the right-wing. The only other example of some theoretical science I can think of is under Communist Russia, when Stalin in the late '30s pretended he'd invented some kind of socialist GM thing which increased crop yields by massive percentages - that'd be an example of "science" on the radical left, but doing a few minutes of research into this proves this example to be bollocks anyway.
“”The rejection of internet memes in either debate or inter-personal discussions.
They're half the fun of the place, you boring sod, even if they all are ridiculously immature.
“”The rejection of all fake internet authority - This means a determination to see through and accomplish the original meaning of the sysop corps (To in effect, be irrelevant)
If it's so irrelevant why did you come crying back "Any of you cunts want to make me a sysop?"
As for fake internet authority, that's how we roll, mu'afucka.
“”The rejection of irrelevant internet hierarchies, of either a formal or informal nature.
There isn't a hierarchy here, you simply establish yourself more over time. Is this even about RationalWiki anymore? It just says "internet" instead of "RationalWiki." Getting rather ambitious if you ask me...
“”The rejection of religious bigotry.
Now here do you mean bigotry BY the religious or TOWARDS the religious? I'm assuming you mean the latter even though the way it's worded indicates the former. I personally reject both, I think anyway someone chooses to lead their life is fine, but the moment that infringes on another, it's not. You might want to reword this one.
“”The rejection of personal insults based solely on political or religious beliefs. (Incidentally, personal insults are not only advisable, but compulsory when someone is being bigoted, behaving irrationally, or resorting to any signs of behaviour at odds with the objectives of the Rationalwiki Reform Society)
What a hypocritical point. Unless I'm very much mistaken you're saying personal insults aren't OK based on religious or political beliefs, but they ARE OK if they're against people who are against the RationalWiki Reform Society? What makes this piece of shit society with 0 members so fucking special? And don't say it's the logic of "two-wrongs-make-a-right, you-had-it-coming-because-you're-being-bigoted-to-religion/politics," because you could argue exactly the same from the opposing side who make personal attacks on us based on religion/politics.
Ya big, feckin' eejit.
“”The determination to hold investigations of current affairs, the humanities, the social sciences, philosophy, religion and science to the highest degree of candour and passion.
We tried, but FOX News is already busy doing that.
Something, I'm beginning to lose interest now to be honest. I didn't realise it'd take this long when I started...
“”The determination to assert the primacy of reason - not scurrilous deduction or ideologically motivated political stilting - in all Rationalwikian articles and discussion pages.
Anything that anyone ever does is going to have some degree of bias behind it. Given that this whole website was set up in direct response to Conservapedia, the uber-Christian Fundamentalist wiki-based encyclopaedia, almost all of its editors are understandably atheist or agnostic. At any rate, I see most users trying to handle things logically speaking most the time.
Upper-class twit discussions
“”The encouragement of meaningful intellectual discussions on Rationalwiki
Ah, sorry, I farted.
“”I undertake to adopt this code of conduct, and encourage others to do the same. The aim is to bring RW closer to its founding principles and away from the degeneracy and the fake authority and hierarchy which has accelerated over the last couple of months.
Ultimately, I think RationalWiki has stuck to its founding principles of logic and reason. If some silliness happens along the way, that indicates a healthy sense of humour and whatnot. If you can't see that, MC, then I'm afraid you're just a bit of a boring shit.
All the best!
Oh, he's a parodist! God, how unpredictable!