Essay talk:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 November 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Tired

Got tired of directing editors to a 504 error page, eh ListenerX? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, with this trope coming up so much lately, and RationalWikiWiki down so much, I thought a local copy was in order. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a 500 error? Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 06:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mostly. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Then we need a new essay: "I thought this was 500 Error Wiki!" Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 06:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And this talk page doesn't have Maratrean's twatguments all over it. Rennie McGreet (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Name

We say:

• "With respect to all this, "Rational" Wiki was probably a bad choice of words to use, but Skeptic Wiki was already taken."

The implication is that the name "Skeptic Wiki" was considered and discarded as it was already in use. I don't think this happened.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

True enough. Is there a way to imply it any other way? ^gnostic 10:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We're relatively rational... Compared to those we skewer, we look like Mr. Spock. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you had waited a month, it would be a full year...--ZooGuard (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I'll start a new section with suggestions on how to improve the essay. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but as an early user here and zealous anti-theist I can honestly say coming back belatedly this place has a very histrionic political leaning to it now. There's no neutrality, which I think is what people consider rationality to require. There's significan POV and agenda pushing. Take for example the use of straw man arguments of certain demographics the main editor body disagrees with - there's multiple places within the site where the demographics they dislike are listed alongside neo-nazi's and terrorists (not Muslim terrorists, of course, because that would be 'racist') it appears as though the atheism plus gaggle have migrated here and shat all over the neutrality that once was. Disappointing. But such is life, there are many other wiki's to work on where political agendas, identity politics, and POV are rightly shunned for skewing data and reality to suit someone's narrative. And I think we ALL know what narrative we're talking about here, there's only one group of people in society who put narrative before reality. And sadly they don't realise that they ARE the privileged and oppressive establishment. 121.211.33.244 (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is biased in the same way that there is a bias to 2+2=4 instead of being neutral that it could possibly be 5, or zebra, or "toats me goats". Definitions are not about what people dislike, it's what people are...like a thief is someone who steals, a rapist is someone who raped another person, or a neo-Nazi is someone belonging to neo-Nazi groups that hate Jews. Words have meanings, reality is biased to facts instead of fantasy, and projection is pretty obvious when you go around accusing people of being biased to those things instead of your pet ideals. People get it and that's what the entire article is about. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Drinking

As this is linked from Template:RATIONALWiki, I suggest either some brief explanation of the drinking game, or slightly changing the template.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just this so far IIRC so there's next to nothing further to say really. Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 11:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Calling ourselves "rational"

So many people take issue with our use of the word "rational". Playing with dictionaries aside, we are relatively more rational than most of the entities we criticize. This should be more clearly addressed. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is though, most of the people who do criticize (not all, there are valid points against how we do things) our being "Rational"Wiki also tend to be on the side that would define open-minded as "my side is correct"--^Mikal_lakiM 16:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And this essay is used to dismiss any and all complaints, regardless of validity. Can we make a different essay for sane people, or do we just point them to the Mission page? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that Armondikov would aggree with "we are relatively more rational..." - the point of the essay as I read it is that RW is called that way because it defends a certain position ("skeptical/rational empiricism" or something), not a description of the qualities of its users, or its tone.

"Sane" complaints are easily distinguished by their specificity - "this and this is factually inaccurate/misrepresents the target/poorly worded/etc." --ZooGuard (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Would it be good to say something along the lines of this?

"The 'rational" comes from the philosophy of 'rationalism', which doesn't imply that one is always perfectly rational, but that one is striving to be." Hmmph (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Blanket statements!!1!

"The trouble is, no one ever believes they are thinking irrationally. This is quite easily demonstrated, because whether we like it or not, in the mind of pretty much every single person in the world is a little script that reads like so: *script*"

I taek grate offans at dis staetment!!1!

As a serious practitioner of self-doubt I believe that I cannot help but think irrationally sometimes, though I may not immediately recognize it at the time (and thus should always look for that possibility). The above quote is claiming that I don't exist. That's preposterous! I demand a fair and thorough investigation into the reasonably important question of whether or not I exist. I am willing to compensate all efforts towards this project with a cookie.

Also, what is this script you are talking about that every single person has in the mind? Hmm, maybe I am not a person, then, since I do not have this script. Or maybe I am a person, but I don't have a mind! (<--irrational self-doubt at work, see!) I would also like a full-blown investigation that answers these equally important questions, since clearly I have nothing better to do right now. Nullahnung (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of taking seriously something that was intended at least partially as a joke, I think the point there was that subconsciously we assume we're right, because if we didn't, we wouldn't be able to believe anything. Self-doubt only comes with conscious reflection. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever been in love? :P Nullahnung (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Seventeen times. What's your point? ħuman 04:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that post of mine was a long time ago...

And my point was that sometimes you will genuinely feel uncertain about things you feel and think. Now, if that goes down to this subconscious level, as Wehpudicabok described, it would be a counter example. But yeah, I'm not sure if it is. Nullahnung (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not call it AssholeWiki?

If being terse and insulting, and getting drunk is what you rationalists like to do, then being an asshole should be the epitome of being a rationalist.Talk to Civic Cat 23:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not Orwellian enough. Plus I hate to think what the logo would look like. Glideslope (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The word "if" is really important in that argument.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Mainspace RationalWiki-space

Any thoughts on moving the public essay to mainspace? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Nah, should stay an essay - David Gerard (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course it should. What makes you think community navel-gazing matters to anyone but editors, tuber? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Although it was mainspace on RationalWikiWiki, it wouldn't be a good idea here. "Community navel-gazing" is exactly what this is. Bicycle^wheel 17:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving it to project space, in the sense that it's relevant to the wiki's editorial policy and rules, might make sense, but it hardly seems like an important or necessary change--Tanis (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant RationalWiki-space. This essay might be navel-gazing, but very nearly site policy. Plus, if we're gonna navel-gaze, why not put it in RationalWiki-space and make it official navel-gazing? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Mainspace to RWspace after the argument? That's some neat Texas sharpshootin' thar, Fuzzy. Bicycle^wheel 11:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Maaaaan, I used the wrong word, no more. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait did this ever really get resolved? I want this to be RWspace. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the fact nobody has replied to it since march and it was never moved should tell you what the answer is.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Argument from silence much? Not that I anticipate many people actually coming out of the woodwork if somehow everyone suddenly became aware of this talkpage section. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:45, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Fuzzy asked a question - was this resolved? The answer is yes: The majority who bothered to show up said "no" and thus regardless of what fuzzy wants to move it to, the community disagreed. Pointing out that the discussion is long over is hardly a fallacy. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

So the fact that nobody moved it to mainspace, when I intended to move it to RWspace, is proof that it shouldn't be moved to RWspace. Right. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 07:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody agreed with either and so it never happened. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 14:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Explain yourself

Even if it kills the joke... Why is there a picture of some wazzock squatting on the pot? How is it relevant? Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a rationalist crying, just like RWians do when they see "I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki". Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What about the image (not the associated text) says "rationalist"? Alec Sanderson (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Good question. Scream!! (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a meme. A reference to X tears (usually male tears)--Tanis (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. I thought this was RationalWiki, not icanhas.cheezburger.com

Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a joke, is all.--Tanis (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Rationality does not disinclude humor. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not particularily funny. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

True. Go ahead and kill it, Alec. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping Gerard would notice this, and share his reasons for wanting to keep it. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove it. If he reverts, tell him to go to talk. If not, you're done. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dude. I didn't come here asking for advice about what to do with the image.

Look at the history. The picture has been removed and replaced twice. I want to know why the guy who added it, and who was the last one to restore it, thinks it is a good idea. Maybe it has some meaning that I missed.

Idle speculation upcoming: The guy is wearing a white shirt and tie, and sitting on a toilet with his pants down. Does he represent a shitlord? Is this about some SJW vs. shitlord dynamic? If so, I think the image macro does the page a disservice by implying a limited scope for the things people bitch about under the color of "you guys are supposed to be rational." The RW Mission_{Praise be upon it} covers a wider range, don't you see, and one guy taking a dump while facepalming or maybe weeping is not an icon for that Mission_PBUI. Also, not funny enough to keep. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

... Then go ask him? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

already done Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

... aand I see what you did there. Thanks. Many hands make light work, and all that. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Arguably you didn't stress the "Rational" part, but eh, any excuse for a drink's good f'r me. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was amusing enough to put in *sob* YOU DON'T APPRECIATE MY ART - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought this was RATIONALWIKI not ARTISTICWIKI! ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

To quote the judge, the day that he

Acquitted my Aunt Hortense:

To be smut, it must be ut-

terly without redeeming social importance.

--Tom Lehrer

There, there, David, what can't be helped must be endured, and I will hoist a glass of California tank-truck red (plonk) in your general direction this evening. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The question remains unanswered

Relevant members constantly resort to logical fallacies and emotional arguments because many of their dogmas are ridiculously untainable (see "junk is good for you"). So why is it called RationaWiki? The naming attempts to mislead readers into accepting the site's point of view ("Industrial interests equate Science") as "rational" and discredit critics of industrial products and practices as "anti-science". It would be interesting to see the names on the checks. 145.64.134.245 (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a wiki for skepticism, not logic, but "SkepticWiki.org" was taken. We are empiricists first and foremost, because the human mind didn't evolve for logic, it evolved to figure out how to get a dozen stone of pork substitute to do the horizontal monster mash as many times as possible. Logic is an unintended side-effect of runaway sexual selection. CorruptUser (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn' t know Skepticism consisted in unquestioning the views that are taken for granted by the majority. Try BandwagonWiki, it's available. 145.64.134.245 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The result of that would be as follows: "No conversations about the wagon from Max Max: Fury Road that had the band on it? But I thought this was supposed to be BANDWAGONwiki!" Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 02:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Question: Why did the Islamophobic site, stop-obama.org adopt the same logo as Rationalwiki? nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 23:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

AutismWiki

Why not call that wiki autismwiki instead of rationalwiki? Lovely. FuzzyCatPotato of the Dazzling Raccoons (talk/stalk) 23:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

How is "RationalWiki" a bad choice?

With respect to all this, "RationalWiki" was probably a bad choice of words to use in hindsight; but "SkepticWiki" was already taken, "Skeptical Empiricist Wiki" isn't catchy and "Liberapedia" is just embarrassing (by name and nature), so what else could it have been?

Is rationalism not actually the goal of the wiki? If it is, then why would it be a bad choice? That it lends itself to criticism doesn't make it a bad choice. Hmmph (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's because rationalism is only one of several valid tools in skepticism; a lot of what we do here actually falls under rhetoric, which, while not always logical, is more fun. Bicycle^wheel 23:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To pointlessly revive an old discussion, rationalism is never really anyone's goal. It can be a means to an end: "I want to understand the universe better, so if I try to limit the irrational ideas I embrace I'll do so." If you mark rationalism itself as a goal, I can't help but feel that it comes from that place of smug condescension that the internet atheist community is, perhaps unfairly, known for. A way to say "I'm better than you" that's not quite so 1 dimensional as things like IQ. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but then what would be the goal, if rationalism is only a means to that end? Is skepticism a goal? Is atheism a goal? Is astronomy a goal?

[Continued later:] We are humans, and humans are a type of animal, and animals are inherently irrational. Our brains evolved to survive in a natural environment, and so we make decisions using mediocre heuristics and suffer from cognitive biases. Some of us strive specifically to overcome our animal nature and be more rational/empirical in our thoughts, and this philosophy is called "rationalism".

It doesn't mean "I'm inherently so much smarter and better than all those dumb mouthbreathers on the other team". It means "I'm irrational, just like everyone else, but I've been using this scientific method thing and it usually comes up with better results." Hmmph (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

TIA

https://www.reddit.com/r/TiADiscussion/comments/41nh1k/rationalwiki_more_like_irrationalwiki/ FuzzyCatPotato of the Pugnacious Bell-ends (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

I tought tis was RATIONAL wiki XDDDDDDD 31.48.204.184 (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Drink! :) --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{Prototype lab} 17:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

/pol/: What do you think of RationalWiki?

Thread:

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. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Godwin's Law

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 ...'? 86.146.99.45 (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)