Essay talk:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

TIA[edit] 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well they're right, aren't they? Most articles are good, but the SJW is strong in some places. Hmmph (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This paeg is irational[edit]

I tought tis was RATIONAL wiki XDDDDDDD (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Drink! :) --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my latest prototypes 17:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

/pol/: What do you think of RationalWiki?[edit]


perhaps the most emotional website on the internet. whoever their authors are are more hysterical than the average teenage tumblr whale

Used to be good about 4 years ago, now it's just marxist social justice garbage.

"muh nazis"

spicy. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 21:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Godwin's Law[edit]

Which variant of the prime derivative of Godwin's Law (if you mention (snarl-word-name of choice) inappropriately in a discussion-argument you have automatically lost the argument) is 'I thought ...'? (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary's Bullshit[edit]

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, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The actual truth cannot be a bullshit, though— Unsigned, by: / 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, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What did I just read?[edit]

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.[edit]

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)