Essay talk:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Urban Dictionary's Bullshit

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RationalWiki

Can anyone make The Urban Dictionary the definition of sites that are biased than RationalWiki MysteryMan9000 (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Urban Dictionary isn't exactly a good resource given the laughable lack of quality control (where anyone can probably make crap up). Those thumb ratio in response to the dumb "reviews" are pretty sad. But anyhow, just look up your own name, then look up other common first names, and you'll see what I mean. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The actual truth cannot be a bullshit, though^{— Unsigned, by: 178.62.6.233 / talk / contribs}

Of course it can ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Some people here sure are mad about what someone says about a website, lol.2601:245:4101:2C71:98AB:8D43:F328:CA67 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Would you trust a website that claims almost every combination of two words imaginable is slang for a sex act, usually in a manner that makes it look like the definition was written by a 12-year-old boy?--Logos (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, now I see the mad. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What does someone say about a website? I never actually clicked through. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I know, people seem pissed off enough to write a RationalWiki entry in some snickering teen hangout I mean a streets smart dictionary. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What did I just read?

There is so much nonsense that I think some of my brain cells rotted. I feel that people are a little too PC but seriously? The PC part (in a sense) has gotten sort of extreme. As for being too anti-racist, racism is loony in its own right; is the "too anti-racist" part or the actual racism part is worse? This essay reminds me of something that Doctor Kent Hovind would write. This is an emergency action notification sent out by --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

At least yours rotted...I think some of mine died. :-) The article read like satire but is such a mess I can't tell if that was intentional.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Rationalwiki is to be taken as seriously as Landover Baptist.

Anyone who doesn't get this doesn't understand the site. I know this because it's true.Userius (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Userius Which article made you feel bad? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And broest of bros, I sense that u mad. U mad, bro? Can I help you? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Correctly identifying which choice is the bad one

In hindsight, "RationalWiki" was probably a bad choice of words

No. Not inherently. A choice was made. The choice was, the pair of words "rational wiki". There's nothing innately wrong with that pair of words. Indeed, they indicate something that is quite valuable. It's a title that deserves to be honored, and respected. And that's a choice that's in the past, and done.

The choices, bad or good, to be made today, are the content to put on the site, and how it is edited. A person who posts a recipe for apple pie on a physics-titled discussion board is the person who made the bad choice resulting in the mismatch between the site's title and the content they added.^{— Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk}

So... You have nothing of value to add. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, no value you choose to see.^{— Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk}

Ooo I can quote wise old geezers from movies too. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it a quote from a movie? I didn't know that.^{— Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk}

"No. Not inherently. A choice was made. The choice was, the pair of words "rational wiki". There's nothing innately wrong with that pair of words. Indeed, they indicate something that is quite valuable. It's a title that deserves to be honored, and respected. And that's a choice that's in the past, and done. " "Choices occurred, which I will make no evaluation of." Meaningless waffle. "The choices, bad or good, to be made today, are the content to put on the site, and how it is edited." Meaningless waffle which adds no value. "A person who posts a recipe for apple pie on a physics-titled discussion board is the person who made the bad choice resulting in the mismatch between the site's title and the content they added." Useless metaphor that strays from any meaningful discussion of the original dispute, i.e., the tone. In summery, you made no point, and had you said nothing, you might have been thought wiser than how you appear at present. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Meaningless waffle which adds no value, if understanding the issue of "correctly identifying which choice is the bad one" (the title of this section, you see) adds no value. For me, and I will venture to say, many many people, it adds value. We like the ability to distinguish bad choices from good choices, it serves us well. I'm sorry you choose not to get use out of the metaphor, but there's not much I can do about that.^{— Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk}

Let me be very blunt. Almost every statement you've made has been "I don't think this site is rational and I want to make it into what I think is rational", which is covered by this essay. When it is pointed out how shallow your statements are, you're response has been "I don't agree, I think I have made plenty of good points", even though all you've done is make more shallow statements. This means nothing, it conveys nothing, and vaguely gesturing to "other people" who aren't in this discussion and do not necessarily care makes you look like an oaf ham-fistedly attempting to use an escape hatch. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You confuse 'blunt' with 'missing the target'. These are the words I choose, please address them rather than words put into my mouth. A choice to pick a particular wiki title is not inherently a bad choice. A choice to write, or edit, an article, in a certain way, is not inherently a bad choice. A "bad choice" is mentioned in the sentence "In hindsight, "RationalWiki" was probably a bad choice of words". My interpretation of that sentence is, that the motivation and meaning behind it is a regret that there is a mismatch between the wiki title and some article contents. The mismatch occurs not at the choice of title before there are articles, because there is nothing to mismatch against, the mismatch occurs at the choice of articles put down after the title. Misrepresenting which choice is the bad one misdirects the responsibility due for the bad choices. That's not clever, or snarky, or humorous, or something that can be hidden by any other smokescreen either.^{— Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk}

Interpretations? Smokescreens? Are you a moron? I mean it, are you an actual moron? The site disagrees with you and your response devolves into semantics over the site's name. This is literally just Mistaking the map for the territory combined with Style over substance and Tone argument. You are literally committing fallacious reasoning while lecturing me about rationality! Are you really that fucking stupid? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I do love it when dumbass BoNs think we'll give a shit about their opinions. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the responses here are not giving a shit about my opinion, for as much as I have expressed it. Considerably more shit is given by people to their own inventions which they mistakenly attributed to me.^{— Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk}

Individuals have disagreed, certainly, and what they've disagreed with mostly is words they have put into my mouth. Just about every point you make above is an example. The semantics over the site's name is not the issue I'm focused on, the relationship between the site's title and the site's content is - and this issue does not originate from me, it comes from the original article, the sentence in question 'In hindsight, "RationalWiki" was probably a bad choice of words'. - I'll be honest, 'Mistaking the map for the territory' is a bit of a puzzle to me, I can't figure it out. The map comes after the territory, and the articles put into the wiki come after the title for the wiki was chosen, so your 'map' concept seems to correspond to the articles, and the 'territory' concept seems to correspond to the title. But, the map is a summary and overview of the territory, and the title of a wiki has that relationship to the articles, so your concepts seem reversed. Putting this muddled thinking aside, a blueprint comes before a building, so a better analogy is workers building in contradiction to the blueprint. I have mentioned neither the style nor the tone of the sentence 'In hindsight, "RationalWiki" was probably a bad choice of words', nor are they my concern, my concern is that in substance it is substantively counterfactual. And it does not fit behind any exemption listed to cover falsehoods; cleverness, 'humeur', or other.^{— Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk}

You didn't even read up on the fallacies you're using... Are you a troll? If you're a troll please confess so I can stop wasting my time. If you're an actual person, actually demonstrate a problem instead of vaguely gesturing at things you disagree with, seemingly for no reason. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid if you perceive vagueness in the simple declarative statement, 'A choice to pick a particular wiki title is not inherently a bad choice', the problem is yours. If you perceive vagueness in the simple declarative statement, 'A choice to write, or edit, an article, in a certain way, is not inherently a bad choice', the problem is yours. If you perceive vagueness in the simple declarative statement, 'A "bad choice" is mentioned in the sentence "In hindsight, "RationalWiki" was probably a bad choice of words"', the problem is yours. If you perceive vagueness in the description of the motivation 'a regret that there is a mismatch between the wiki title and some article contents', the problem is yours. If you perceive vagueness in the declarative statement 'The mismatch occurs not at the choice of title before there are articles, because there is nothing to mismatch against, the mismatch occurs at the choice of articles put down after the title', the problem is yours. If the given demonstration of the counterfactuality of a written statement, one not exempted, isn't a problem for you, then, well, that's one problem that you choose not to be yours.

But don't fool yourself that choosing not to acknowledge such a problem is in line with the essay. The essay has, near the top, in bold, the text "We already know that we aren't perfect. Tell us why. Be constructive.". To be honest, I haven't explicitly done that last part yet, because the line of action seems clear to me. I acknowledge that failing of mine, I apologize for it, and I correct it now. My constructive input is: remove that content which is destructive to the quality of the site. - Now that that's out of the way, let me establish that my motivation is to follow the given directive, a plea for improvement, presumably for the sake of the page, the site, and readers of the site. So now the bit about 'for no reason' doesn't hold up, either.^{— Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk}

So, you have still said nothing other than "I don't like this". Your apologies are meaningless if you just circle the same shallow point repeatedly, especially after it has been pointed out how shallow that point is. You have not demonstrated merit for your original edits, nor have you constructed any meaningful dialog. You have repeatedly said "I don't like this", and not elaborated on the why. You have said you wish to improve the site, but have done nothing more than quibble over semantics and minor points. So, you are either unable or unwilling to offer constructive dialog, and are quite willing to retreat to style over substance. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The repeated circling back to the point is only necessitated by the repeated misses of the point. Were my writing taken at face value, analyzed for what it is, and responded to on-topic, no circling back would be necessary.

For as much as there is an element of "I like" or "I don't like" regarding content, behaviour, dialog, and the like, it stems from the essay's "We already know that we aren't perfect. Tell us why.". (In case it needs spelling out, "We like for it to be told, what imperfections there are.") This is also the grantor of merit for my original edits above here, at the top of this section on this talk page. (... I do hope this conversation here is not driven off-topic by discussion of edits elsewhere.)

As to meaningful dialog, I'll go so far as to agree with you that where I have made those sequences of simple declarative statements, and inferences and conclusions, one could point out that such meaning as is there is only 'shallow'. You use that word 'shallow' a lot, rather to the detriment of the integrity of the essay; that it only takes a shallow analysis to expose the defect is more an indication of the egregiousness of the defect.

You make a false dichotomy that resolving what you choose to call "a quibble over semantics and minor points" would not result in an improvement to the site. You write that I am unwilling or unable to offer constructive dialog, both of which are demonstrably incorrect as of the time you wrote it, as I had in fact already offered my constructive bit - to reiterate, removing content which is destructive to the quality of the site, is effectively a constructive action. Though - on further rumination, perhaps deleting from the middle of an essay is not a good solution, for being disruptive. Leaving the statement in, but adding an footnote or some other indicator to it, might flow better. There, now, two constructive suggestions. Don't say I never give you constructive suggestions.

Are you back at 'style over substance'? Did you read the bit, 'substantively counterfactual'? Circling back, missing the point. Yes, it's a recurring theme here.^{— Hugh O'Byrne, by: 24.47.85.248 / talk}

Definition requested

What is 'cingest' meant to refer to- 'cringiest'? Anna Livia (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That feels likely. What's the context? I'm not seeing it in the Essay (or the word "cringiest" for that matter) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The picture at the top: the error seems to have been at the point of creation. Anna Livia (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, that explains why Ctrl+F didn't show anything. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a meme, it's supposed to be silly on purpose. If you were to correct "cingest" to "cringest", it would still remain a word salad. Now, the real question whether it should stay or not. I personally think it should stay as an added layer of humor since the article itself is pretty dry. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 19:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Add something to prevent future comments of a similar nature?

And what happens if 'cingest' is merged with 'trusworthy'? (Add the 'creative grammar and spelling' of the 'give us your money (we are the government/a real prince with a shed load of money/Microsoft, honest' emails as desired.) Anna Livia (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Should this be an essay or an article or something else?

It doesn't read like an essay as it's not first person (thought this is not an absolute criterion) and it has no nominated author (also not an absolute criterion). But it tends to be referenced and used a lot. Maybe it should be part of "help" or something like that?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Or have it be in the RationalWiki section. Carthage (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It's had plenty of contributors over the years, so probably mostly OK for moving by this point. I think the citations could be done better though, some of them may not work by this point. Bongolian (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)