Essay talk:RationalWiki and politics

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I've been thinking about the same thing[edit]

And one idea I've had floating around is namespacing articles more, like we did with Conservapedia: and Fun:. We could add Politics: (or some other name). This will at least make the distinction a lot clearer... Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That'd be nice. I've tried suggesting extra namespaces for years (eg reference:space and attic:space) but hardly anyone was interested. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The validity of the Distrust section[edit]

It all seems to be Gators just being mad our article debunks their stuff. I don't think these are users we in particular should care about. It's like trying to seek approval from Conservipedia. Or Scientology. If we try to make everyone happy, we have to avoid taking any stances whatsoever. That is anti-missional. It's the same rhetoric that brings forth the "But Creationism is just as valid as Evolution and should be taught in schools as a legit alternative" style arguments. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

True, 6 of the 7 comments are about Gamergate. It's easy enough to find other haters, though. LessWrong has called this a problem for about 3 years. And feel free to check the comments at Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki and RW:PISSED. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything legitimate to worry about in any of these complaints. They're just pissed that RW isn't representing them in "their way", as opposed to the way we currently do, which is missional. If we responded to their complaints in any length or measure, we would be going against the purpose of this site, in a lot of cases. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I came across that LessWrong page last week, and they're completely right about our charity page. It's terrible. I did some small fixes, but I've been procrastinating on a more significant rewrite :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe stopped clock is appropriate here. The majority of complaints against RW is that we're going to lengths to debunk crank and reactionary shit, which is the purpose of this site. If you do that, you are going to piss people off, and we have. It's an inevitability. Suck it up. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I don't mind pissing people off if I'm objectively and provably right. In the case of politics, this is very difficult if not impossible. That is sort of the point of this essay as I understand it. For example, in the case of our recent discussion on Sarah Nyberg it's really a judgement call. My judgement call here is obviously different from yours, but I can't really say yours is somehow "invalid" or "wrong", as such, which is different from homoeopathy, creationism, etc. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Politics are about as clear cut as religion is, Carpetsmoker. You will piss off the same amount of people. Right now it seems like you're arguing for a strict NPOV on cases that would be affected by this, such as feminism, or our article on the MRA movement. That is simply untenable. RW is a valuable resource in debunking crank reactionary movements, especially ones that are "political" in nature. I think the way we're tackling things now is okay, could do with some work, but dialing down our articles to "avoid offense" has never been in RW's best interest. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I never talked about "avoiding offence" or "NPOV", I am talking about being right. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
You heavily implied it with your opening sentiments here. It seems to me like you're after absolute certainty in the realm of the abstract, which even the best of us know isn't a thing. I think that's a flawed position to come from. We do our best, and constantly improve upon what came before. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
So the first straw man failed and now you've moved on to the second one? I give up. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Didn't I say, that she's a zealot just like Dragondlagon is?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
As known, I'm pro-GG, but let's be honest, I agree on some anti-GG arguments, such as GamerGaters being idiots if they try to exonerate themselves on any charge by pointing to their charitable works, on that I and Ryulong can agree. But in that, I just illustrated this is not black and white, since I'm clearly not 100% evil (or good, that would be incredibly arrogant to claim under any circumstance), and I agree with someone I otherwise disagree with on most other issues. But that is secondary. What is important is that the political topics really have divided RW into bitter camps dueling it out on talk pages and having massive edit wars. On things like science, RW can present falsifiable evidence and real world proof of the applications. On religion, it's truths can be determined by analyzing the beliefs according to the holy texts and seeing how they square up with historical record and real world application. On politics, however, we run into trouble. Politics can be discussed in general terms, outlining the overall beliefs, but when you stop looking at it from a detached perspective and start getting into "who is right" debates, it gets ugly fast. I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others. I don't believe I have to be 100% all or nothing on anything because neither side is a clearly defined moral struggle, just two different schools of thought on government, both with strengths and weaknesses and arguable merits and downsides. In short, politics is not as clear cut as science or religion when it comes to discussion of how rational it is, and I've always believed the greatest strengths of RationalWiki was when it focused on debunking conspiracies, exposing scams, discussing science, and general focusing on topics that can be objectively discussed and proven with clear, testable evidence and observation, which, unfortunately, politics is not. Arcane (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Everything is political. If you think Religion is easier for this site to tackle without controversy and in clarity than Politics... - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Please be serious. The Earth revolving around the Sun is up for debate? Arcane (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk about a non-sequitur. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Religion is a lot easier to tackle than most political topics, as religion is a lot more bullshit. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Religion is also incredibly political, and a lot of it was built to spread political beliefs. Religion and politics go hand in hand. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes political beliefs are contradicted by scientific evidence; eg. climate change. Such political articles are both within the remit of Rationalwiki and within our editors ability to rebut these arguments. These articles tend to be quite good. Political articles about systems of government are extremely marginal, although some ideologies certainly require ignoring large tracts of scientific evidence, these articles are of a passable quality (eg. our Libertarianism article). Our "social justice articles", mostly involve ethical arguments rather than a scientific arguments. Our editor base doesn't have the expertise to make or source powerful arguments in these areas. As a consequence these articles are poorly written, rambling, unsourced / poorly sourced, sometimes contradicted by the very sources they use, and without nuance. It certainly doesn't help that they also seem to attract a certain unique kind of incompetence. Tielec01 (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
If you know enough to say how flawed they apparently are (Though I personally find your claims dubious because they're statements without anything backing them up), go to their talk pages and start work on improving them, instead of using this "abandon ship" rhetoric that accomplishes nothing. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 10:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


A private message I got last week on reddit after pointing out that RW also hosts stuff on homeopathy and such:

Just wanted to say thanks for adding some context to WikiInAction. I had a poor view of RW from the silly GG article, but from looking over RW's dirty laundry and your comments I see that I've been judging your whole userbase based on the conduct of Ryulong and Astrophilia and that's silly.

I've seen more people with roughly similar replies (but few as clear as this)... Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiInAction is not a reliable source of criticism. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Please stop that kind of response. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought you of all people would have learned this by now, FuzzyCat. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with WikiInAction, it's just an anecdote on how RW's reputation suffers with at least some people and how this detracts from any other content that I and many other people spend a lot of time writing as an addition to FCP's numbers in his Essay. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
[EC] Some GGers/WIAers/KIAers are insane. Some GGers/WIAers/KIAers are sane. This comment appears to be the latter. Instead of sorting each instance into "sane" and "definitely not", you merely see the "GG/WIA/KIA". This is classic fallacious logic. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
They are not sane. They just didn't realize this site existed outside of their hardon for Ryulong, which that entire fucking sub was made to curate. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

More links.[edit]

Here's more links, linking Reddit to Rationalwiki (specifically /r/atheism).

Circlebroke was created in 2012 over the "faces of Athiesm" posts on /r/athiesm - coincedentally the time Rationalwiki started to drop. The athiest/antitheist community on reddit was growing more and more childish and rude, eventually summoning backlash and it's eventual removal from the front page.

You quoted some one line criticisms of this wiki, but here are a few more in depth replies going into details and personal accounts:

Every story says the same tale: RW's demographics changed as Athiesm and Antitheism began touching politics. Each court ruling about church and state, each new Texan schoolbook brought more people in, and eventually the demographics drifted because of what was happening elsewhere.Keter (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree[edit]

Just as with the physical universe, I believe there exists an objectively ideal model of politics/ethics. And while you're free to disagree with my metaethical proposition, good luck proving me wrong when any rejection is automatically just as subjective as the proposition. ;) (talk) 03:25, 18 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

While you can formulate an objective model of how politics and ethics work in the real world as a descriptive endeavor, political and ethical positions themselves rely on normative premises that cannot themselves be justified objectively. Consider a proposed policy change. One can objectively analyze it and determine the likely outcomes of implementing it. Whether the policy is good or bad depends on the values or goals regarded as desirable, and there is no objective way to determine that since all such values are inherently subjective. As such, your metaethical proposition can be rejected both as self-contradictory (ideals are inherently non-objective) and empirically unjustified (since no such thing has been found despite a great deal of searching) without recourse to subjectivity. You might consider what specifically you mean when you use words like "existence", "objective", "ideal", and "proof". 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious?[edit]

FuzzyCatPotato, did you specifically write this up because of the mess you caused by inviting Gamergaters to the website? Just because you nor CarpetSmoker can make heads or tails of Gamergate doesn't mean that there isn't an absolute truth and that's that Gamergate is made up of assholes. These assholes are of the "we hate women" kind. Just because there are a bunch of them who go "I'm totally not like that guys" doesn't mean that humoring them is going to be of any help.

That and all of your opposition to Gamergate is coming from people with agendas. You're quoting people from KotakuInAction, which formed because reactionary echo chamber TumblrInAction because they got tired of Gamergate clogging up the place, and WikiInAction, who formed because KotakuInAction couldn't focus on me on Wikipedia or RationalWiki enough for some people's liking.

These are the insane nutcases of the Internet. They see anything left of Ronald Reagan as far-left. You need to look at who's complaining rather than the complaints they're making. Yes, I went overboard with the My Little Pony stuff, which is the only vague complaint they can ake with regards to "it's no better than ED". Otherwise it's just Gamergaters angry that we're not pulling punches. They cry bias at anything that isn't 100% repeating Gamergate's talking points without calling them out on the fact that those talking points are wrong. They complain to media bureaus when a local news story doesn't cover them the way they want. This is no different. And this is god awful coming from someone like you.

There hasn't been one thing any of these guys you opened this website up to have done that has been in good faith or beneficial over all. They're just repeating the same old talking points as they have been for the past year. Arcane is even repeating claims we've already debunked over and over. Keter is trying to go "oh there's a gray area" with regards to me telling him "You can't support Gamergate and be against harassment and you can't be neutral on harassment". Supreme Logician keeps writing massive diatribes about how we're totally not treating the subject matter right despite the fact that everything he's said is already debunked. Seriously is defending the KKK while attacking someone who's been massively harassed by Gamergate. What good has any of this done? What good will this "we need to stop focusing on politics" balance fallacy thing accomplish?—Ryulong (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, repeating GamerGaters hate women as often as you like will not make it true. You've seen me go to bat for many women many times publicly, GamerGate has female members, and while you may not count them as legitimate, I consider such sentiment to be a slap to their faces, and further, hatred of them simply because they disagree with you and are part of "the enemy". Second, you have admitted by your own admission you see no neutral side to the issue of GG, so by default you fall under having an agenda too. Also, please do not lie. I even agree with you on some points, like the charity should not be used as an exoneration tactic, so I clearly cannot be a total zealot. And Ryulong, please, even I can tell Seriously is being facetious. Arcane (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what rock you've lived under but Gamergate is a harassment campaign focused on forcing several individual women off of the Internet, but I guess you wouldn't consider it that because you've bought into the conspiracy that Brianna Wu was born a man. I've seen your blog. But go ahead, use that #NotYourShield shield. And it doesn't matter if he's being facetious. He's being a pompous cock.—Ryulong (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I stand by my convictions on that topic based on the evidence (which shall not be cited here out of respect for the rules) and disagree with your assertions, and if you have any issue with my defense of the women of GamerGate, I do not apologize for that. I even, while having issues with some of their views, feel the same way about the women who oppose GamerGate, as I have also made clear numerous times, and if you refuse to believe me, then I regret that sincerely. Also, trying to be nice here, relax, you really need to get a sense of humor and quit taking everything so personally and seriously, you'll only overstress yourself if you don't calm down. Arcane (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The evidence is specious and it's not like her gender identity matters to what she does professionally. And the women of Gamergate are just as bad as everyone else in it. They participate and help justify a harassment campaign against women for no reason. Being a reactionary asshole isn't gender specific. And again, as I think I've said elsewhere, the only true neutrality with regards to Gamergate is complete ignorance. Claiming "neutrality" means that they've already made up their minds on it and they want to pretend to be above it all by picking a non-existant middle ground but yet their need to enter discussions on Gamergate as a "neutral" is more telling that they've chosen to support Gamergate. Because, again, Gamergate is not about ethics in video game journalism, it is a 4chan harassment raid that chose that as their defense. There is no neutral side to a harassment campaign. You either support the harassment or you're against it. The people who truly do care about ethics are misguided as to what the people around them care about. Opening up KIA right now shows me the following topics:
  • mocking a Salon article about domestic Christian fundamentalist terrorism
  • mocking safe spaces
  • mocking NeoGAF saying MGSV's Quiet is sexist and embarassing
  • complaining that Adam Baldwin got banned from Twitter
  • attacking a video game reviewer for pointing out someone in charge of video game score records posts on their forums
  • something about Hideo Kojima said being construed to be "those damn SJWs"
  • an article going "ignore the SJWs" written by one of them that repeats the "Anita Sarkeesian is a puppet" garbage
  • attacking a random person who is against Gamergate
  • "those Damn SJWs" again
  • people complaining about being banned from /r/GamerGhazi
  • attacking another random person on Twitter
  • drama mongering over CISA
  • complaining about censorship, more SJW nonsense
  • mocking Kotaku's review of that god awful anime Shimoneta
  • More fear about SJWs in government positions this time
  • Breitbart on Kotaku's coverage of Brad Wardell (a long repeated "gotcha")
  • more "those damn SJW" stuff
  • attacking that same video game reviewer from earlier
  • complaining about a post I made here comparing Afterlife Empire to Depression Quest
  • something about China's growing police state
  • an interminably long YouTube video about how Tim Schafer is trying to steal your money for Psychonauts
  • making fun of something on Boing Boing
  • mocking something on Not Your Mother's Gamer
  • and a link to an interview on a Gamergate website with Mark Kern
Maybe 3 of these concern video game journalism and maybe 1 of those is about ethics, but it's about something that was solved without Gamergate's involvement. And yet there are over a dozen posts on the front page about SJWs in some fashion and a half dozen mocking individual people. This is the face of Gamergate. And it's complete bullshit that you refuse to acknowledge that Gamergate isn't about ethics but about reactionary politics and attacking people on the Internet that don't share your opinions.—Ryulong (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
"Gamergate isn't about ethics but about reactionary politics and attacking people on the Internet that don't share your opinions." So are you a Gamergater then too? - (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It was meant for Christmas, but I think he needs these early.--Banned main (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
But the KKK are just being edgelords please stop harassing them. Seriously (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Look at what you've invited, FuzzyCatPotato and Carpetsmoker. This is what you're allowing to flourish by going "we don't want politics".—Ryulong (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
What mess? Since Fuzzy's action, I do not see any more mess than the Gamergate articles have normally generated here.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Because now there's a whole new throng of people here only to argue in bad faith to try to revise history in their preferred image. Before that it was just AgingHippie or Tielec01 vaguely complaining about article length. There was zero attention paid to any of these pages for weeks and then Carpetsmoker deciding to listen to the idiots at /r/WikiInAction who pathologize and demonize me for not falling in line with their garbage led to an explosion of new accounts, dozens of useless edits to talk pages, actual stalkers joining this site, and completely useless tools trying to find any ridiculous wiggle room to continue to allege that someone is a pedophile when they clearly aren't. And all for what? So a bunch of reactionary douchelords on Reddit don't hate this website anymore?—Ryulong (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
'Nobody had a problem before they actually paid attention to what was written' isn't the best argument, Ryulong. Tielec himself said something along the lines of 'This article [gamergate] is like an onion, every layer you peel back reveals more awfulness'. You've spent almost a year doing your utmost to ensure that the sources are cherrypicked, that rebuttals focus on strawman or weakman arguments and completely ignore anything that might be difficult to disprove, that every statement or assertion is loaded with rhetoric leading the reader by the nose, that quotes are taken out of context to support your views. You bar entire publications as sources because they 'contain dox', whether or not that 'dox' is on the page people are asking to use as a source. You simultaneously dox your opponents both in the article and in talk pages. You make bizarre claims like 'anti-gg doesn't exist' despite being living proof that it's an epithet absolutely representative of certain people. You disallow (and admit to refusing to even look at) reams of credible evidence on the grounds that 'the accused said lol j/k'. Up until recently you've been blocking and attacking anyone who disagreed with you, because, as you said, nobody else on RW was paying attention to what you did in your little sandbox here. You present uncited opinion as fact and disagreement as debunking. You and your friends are cultlike in your unwavering insistence that anybody who disagrees with you is an evil. Honestly, one could write an article on Adolf Hitler making him out to be a lovely guy who did nothing wrong if they went by your standards of citation, and I'm sorry if I've acted like a 'pompous cock' by referencing the KKK in pointing out how ridiculous your standards of evidence and argument are, but my point stands. Hell, my point is strengthened by you trying to paint me as an actual KKK sympathiser over what it obviously a facetious joke told by a pompous cock. You are ridiculous, sir, your arguments are ridiculous, and the only reason people haven't been calling you ridiculous from day 1 is because they weren't paying attention, or perhaps they just didn't want to fight an uphill battle with an unwavering fanatic who spends around 10 hours a day editing a garbage-tier smear piece about an overblown online slapfight, and is provably willing to insult, lie about, abuse his moderation tools against, and even dox his opponents.
In short, RationalWiki shouldn't care that conservatives on reddit and 4chan don't like them. They should care that in this instance the conservatives on reddit and 4chan are largely correct. Fix your shit and the detractors will still dislike you, but their criticism will no longer be absolutely valid. There are articles on here that are outright embarrassing in their extreme levels of vitriolic bias, intellectual dishonesty and outright incompetence. They should either be improved on without the constant, unceasing, fanatical interference from their gatekeepers, or, like Sir Fuzzy Potato suggests, a firm distinction should be made between 'credible, well-sourced RationalWiki' and 'ED-tier, soapboxing RationalWiki'. Not having your article overflowing with garbage is it's own reward, not 'appeasing reactionaries' Seriously (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
"No one had a problem until the read the page" is not what I said at all. The only complaints that constantly came about were about length and density and not at all to do with the actual content. That doesn't mean it's wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean it's wrong coming from someone like you, some random Gamergater who's been conned into thinking the media has been taken over by SJWs and that everything that is biased against them is incorrect because why else would they be considered the villains it has to be wrong. The sourcing of Gamergate is as meticulous as possible because we know that any gap in sourcing is the most common "gotcha" for a Gamergater and as far as I'm aware no one's managed to find one yet. Now, the omission of websites like Breitbart and Ralph's website as sources isn't the result of cherry picking but because they're objectively shit tabloids that lie and dox for clicks. They should only ever be used as an example as to what ethical journalism isn't. Going to isn't dox, particularly when I still don't buy his garbage excuse. How convenient is it that a Gamergater trying to hide his identity happens to work for a webhosting service that has IPs that have been used in the past for web proxies? Makes you think. Vordrak's middle name is barely dox considering he was a much more public figure than Quinn or Sarkeesian ever was or ever will be, but it's taken off the site. Now, none of the evidence that Arcane or any other official Gamergate history revisionist has brought up to counter any of the claims that are on this site are credible or reliable and are steeped in the same debunked Gamergate conspiracy theories that are already covered on the very same page. And guess what braintrust, the state of the Gamergate page as one completely taking the piss out of Gamergate and not giving any of its completely bullshit conspiracies and beliefs serious treatment or acknowledgement is the reason I joined RationalWiki a year ago. This is what the page looked like before I ever touched it. That's without any of the so-called "bias" you and every other idiot claims I infected this website with. The only difference now is that it's longer and points out proto-Gamergate existed as the shit flung at Anita Sarkeesian since 2012. To pin all the blame of this on me is disingenuous bullshit because you and every other Gamergater out there know that I'm an easy target on this website, particularly after I pissed off an unusually large contingent of the user base with my edits to of all things the My Little Pony page.
And yes, RationalWiki should care about what people think about it. But it should care about people who are not history-revisionist cultists like Gamergaters. At least other people make better arguments than completely untenable complaints about "bias" because you want sourcing as strong as fucking possible on something as insignificant to the world at large as, as you said, an overblown online slapfight. The New York Times isn't going to publish an article on how 8chan is full of pedos. The BBC isn't going to have a segment on how Gamergate has been funding Eron Gjoni's legal battle against Zoe Quinn. Le Monde isn't going to investigate archives of /pol/ to uncover that all of Gamergate's lies and code words were formed there in the first night. But all this is right now is appeasing reactionaries who are upset that this website which they thought would be a bastion of "reals not feels" doesn't take kindly to the fact that they're described on it as they should be rather than some watered down "there has to be a middle ground" garbage.
Gamergate is a reactionary subculture that got named as a result of a 4chan raid at the behest of an abusive man going after the girl that broke his heart and it just so happened she was something reactionaries and channers hate most: an "SJW". So then they made up a completely bullshit justification for their actions because the guy leading the charge sprinkled in tidbits about her possible other exes and one of them wrote for a website that none of them liked in the first place because it was just even more "SJW" garbage. Then because trying to work with 4chan is trying to herd cats, they spread out their tentacles of cyber attacks to every other "SJW" they could, complained that no website would repeat their attacks verbatim. So then they came up with a conspiracy that "big vidya journalism" is trying to silence them. Then they find some manner of vindication when someone leaked a private mailing list they got kicked off of and they comb through those email chains and find meager crumbs that justify their world view even though everyone else saw that there was no concrete decisions made by anyone discussing the yet-to-be-named Gamergate but that doesn't matter because searching for "Zoe Quinn" in the GJP emails is all the proof Gamergate needed to say they were being oppressed. And along the way a bunch of opportunists conned them out of money because they pretended that "SJWs" were totally trying to shut them down. Their reactionary streak has been identified by everyone. You think Milo Yiannopoulos joined in with Gamergate because he's all for ethics? Do you think Christina Hoff Sommers knows the first thing about video games? No. They're in this the same reason /pol/ is in this and the same reason the only websites you ever get positive coverage from are the ones you made yourselves and the ones known everyone else the world over as reactionary rags. This isn't bias. These are facts. And I'm tired of being the one to break it to you idiots that the world is biased against Gamergate because Gamergate is an irredeemable mess of Internet trolls who are being sincere with their political and social beliefs to get a rise out of people and those beliefs are frankly terrifying to the rest of the world. So enough of this bullshit that "I'm totally not a misogynist my best friends are women" or "I'm not part of a misogynist hate mob I help out women in court". Gamergate's actions speak louder than your words and it's those actions RationalWiki is covering.
So enough of this armchair pathologizing and thinking I'm fucking insane because I don't believe any of the shit you lot peddle and I've put an unnecessarily large amount of time and energy into keeping these pages up to date to make sure that there's no "gotcha" mistake in them because people like you need to see the truth about what you stand for instead of the story you and everyone else made up in theirs head to help you go to sleep at night as the people they associate with plan on sending a knife in the mail to the latest SJW they doxxed for ethics.—Ryulong (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
"slow clap" Typhoon (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a gamergater, Ryulong. I'm fully in support of a RW article that shows gamergate in a negative light because it is shitty. It's a year-long tantrum from a pack of whining autistic manbabies who didn't like that some video game journalists called them names when a bunch of them harassed Zoe Quinn. You don't need to bury evidence and misrepresent sources and tell big old porky pies to show that. Gamergate is stupid, and I say that as somebody who's been following it enthusiastically and laughing at how stupid it is. It's an immensely stupid tantrum, thrown by spastic children. But it's not 'false balance' to say that there are equally stupid people who took up arms the other side of the shitshow. People who call for genocide of anyone who disagrees with them, and phone in bomb threats, and defend pedophiles, and, yes, even anonymously harass women over the internet. Seriously (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't buried evidence. I haven't misrepresented sources. I haven't lied. And you're calling for a false balance for what? No one opposed to Gamergate called for any genocide (don't give me a "kill white people" or "kill men" tweet to prove otherwise), called in any bomb threat (#GGinDC and Airplay originated on 8chan), defended pedophiles (you know because srhbutts isn't a pedophile), or anonymously harass women over the Internet.—Ryulong (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Calls for genocide here , I'll assume you missed it. It's quite amusing. Anonymous harassment of women
But it's your comments on the bomb threat and pedophile accusations that are most interesting, though. If I check the RW article itself on the #GGinDC bomb thread, you quite rightly assert that there's no proof an anti-gamergater did it, but then you claim it was done by baphomet channers... your evidence being 'Arthur Chu tweeted that he heard it was /baphomet/'. That's fucking insane. Arthur Chu is an avowed, some would say obsessive anti-gamergater, and for a time was strongly suspected of calling in the bomb threat himself due to an extremely unfortunately timed ominous tweet he made shortly beforehand, and your evidence for /baph/ doing it is simply Arthur Chu tweeting that it was? No, even worse, it was Arthur Chu tweeting that he heard that maybe it was. On the other hand, there is a significant, extremely convincing pile of evidence that strongly, overwhelmingly indicates that Sarah Butts is a pedophile, and your proof that she isn't is "I refuse to look at that evidence, and she said she was joking". This is insane, Ryulong. This is fanatical true-believer type of logic. This is why 'political' articles are under fire, because they attract this specific kind of insanity. You are demanding legal-conviction levels of evidence from your opponents, whilst considering tweets from your allies as unassailable evidence of a provable truth. Putting aside literally everything else wrong with the articles, how do you not see this as a problem? Seriously (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Sarah Nyberg isn't a god damn pedophile and Arthur Chu did not phone in a bomb threat. End of fucking discussion.—Ryulong (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
And we have to believe that, 'cause his Holeyness the Double Dragin sez so?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Source ; Sarah Nyberg and Arthur Chu. Seriously (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
But they're just being edgelords. - (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, stop being a contrarian asshole for once or shut up and stop wasting my time and everyone else's.
Seriously, your random Facebook post that's been archived doesn't prove shit behold is this guy? Am I supposed to know him? Is there some list of "who's who in anti Gamergate" that I'm unaware of? At least when we point out the ridiculous behavior by Gamergate supporters we point out the action of those with names that are actually recognizable. But I guess that's nut picking for you. Also, your link to some article by some nobody on the Inquisitr of all places that starts out by denying that Gamergate victims are actually victims and focuses on one case of someone in Gamergate who was harassed and what happened to her was terrible but why is it that when harassment happens to Gamergate supporters it's always from "anti Gamergate" but when anyone claims they've been harassed by Gamergate then that has to be the work of "third party trolls"? And Sarah is not a fucking pedophile. The evidence against her is ancient chat room logs where everyone there knew it was all a big fucking joke and the only people who are saying otherwise are Gamergate supporters who want to give credence and justify the fact that they were already calling her a pedophile for months and then they decided to hack her website, uncover the chat logs, make them public to the rest of the world as early as May (there's no proof they were ever public before then) and then dig through each and every one until they had the proof they wanted to slander a woman they already doxed to the point that they had the names of her dead mother and brother on top of the male name she was given at birth as well as several personal photos of her as a minor and nude, from which Milo picked one to put at the top of his attack article and thought that having a half naked teenager at the top of his article slandering the subject as a pedophile was a perfect idea, and that's the evidence hey want to show that she's a pedophile? Evidence that has already been dismissed by a lawyer and by police as being inaction able as not only could they not find any evidence of criminal activity but Gamergate shat the bed when they thought that hacked files that they began to share amongst themselves was a airtight piece of evidence to get her imprisoned is laughable. And the DC bomb threat source is as good as it can fucking get because no one bothered to print screen or archive the thread on 8chan where it was being discussed not that you have accepted the exact same source for the Miami threat. But this is all pointless exposition on things that should not even be a topic. The only reason you give a shit is because you're a Gamergater trying reweite history and gas light me into thinking I'm ill so you can force m off the site again. These pages are perfectly fine on this project. Maybe they need better writing and in some places the sourcing needs work but the essence here is that you're here to push an agenda while in here to document the god damn truth.—Ryulong (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
TIL being in your 20's makes you a teenager - (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I already told you I'm not a gamergater, I'm just being edgy. And no, the articles aren't perfectly fine. They are a joke. You have quite literally blamed a bomb threat on 8chan because Arthur Chu tweeted 'hey I heard maybe 8chan did it but idk'. That's pants-on-head retarded, Ryulong. How can you tell me "the articles are perfectly fine" when they have retarded bullshit like that in them? Seriously (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
btw, that 'nobody' was Geordie Tait, an ACTUAL GAMES JOURNALIST from StarDockGames, and his meltdown was plastered all over gamergate-related twitter, reddit and 8chan back when it happened. It made all the shitty gamergate tabloids like breitbart and ralphretort too. Arthur Chu tried to talk him into recanting his pro-genocidal stance but he refused, and later did a podcast with Sargon and (I think) King of Pol where he doubled down and insisted that all gamergaters need to be mass-executed. It's incredible to me that you, as somebody who has lived and breathed gamergate for over a year now, don't know who he is. But hey, your stance is "We don't post the bad behaviour of nobodies", doesn't that mean you should remove all the instances of harassment from pro-gamergate burner twitters and stop using anonymous 8chan posts as sources? Or does that rule only apply when it makes your side look bad? This is why your article is so bad, Ryulong. When a burner-account tells Zoe Quinn to die, it's worth including. When an anti-gamergate journalist tells all gamergaters to die, it's "a nobody, who cares". When an enormous dump of evidence showing an anti-gamergater self-identifying as a pedophile for a span of years and (I have to look into this more, but trust me I'll get back to you on it) apparently even sharing crotchshots of her underaged relatives, that's not evidence at all, not compared to somebody tweeting 'hey I heard 8chan did a thing maybe'. How can you say your article is fine? It's absolute garbage. Seriously (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Seriously here. Gamergate's own actions are more than enough to indict them without trying to sweep their oppponents' sins under the rug.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
"Carpetsmoker deciding to listen to the idiots at /r/WikiInAction who pathologize and demonize me for not falling in line with their garbage led to an explosion of new accounts" -> That's hardly a fair description of events. I joined there because I saw a very one-sided description of RW, and wanted to offer some more context as RW is about more than just GG, and when people say things like "RW is just a liberal version of Conservapedia" I'd like to know more and ask what exactly the mean with that. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
These people think anything left of Reagan is far-left.—Ryulong (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
When you say "these people", you mean Gamergate supporters? Because I've been a paid supporter of Media Matters for years, whom I don't consider to be far-left. Try to avoid generalizations like this. (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is fucking inane[edit]

Gamergaters are not a happy middle to please. Your examples would be evidence we're doing an awesome job.

Within the LessWrong subculture itself, or what's left of it on Tumblr (where the active contributors went when they left LW) the "politics is the mind killer" attitude is falling into disrepute as they themselves realise the Bay Area technolibertarians don't actually constitute a "grey tribe" neutral that's above the fray.

This essay has a surfeit of false balance - David Gerard (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Gerard and I don't agree on a lot, but everything he said applies double to me. You lost me right here, at the beginning: "RW is best on non-political topics: conspiracies,[note 1] pseudosciences,[note 2] religions,[note 3] and rhetoric.[note 4]." If you think religion, science/pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, etc are "non-political topics," than you either don't know what the word "political" means, or you have not done a very good job at understanding our articles. I happen to think that RW would be a much better resource with a narrower focus on what it looked like in 2007-2009 or so, but minus the CP space. Lots of takedowns of bad science, religion, etc and, yes, some social issues, but not much, much less intensely so than now. But all of that was done with an intense gaze at the political dimensions of whatever it was we were writing about.
Also, being the guy who went on some random forum to invite people with a giant axe to grind on a political issue and then a week later writing "gee, guys, maybe we shouldn't have so much politics on the wiki" is not a place I would like to be, myself. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with both AH and Gerard wholeheartedly on this issue. See my comments under my vote for more but the bottom line is that politics is intrinsically what drives rationalism and RationalWiki. Do you not think anti-vaxxers or creationism are political issues? Google them and see that they are political. What, if not this entire Wiki, is political? Our SPOV itself is political. Using "let's be less political" as an excuse to cover for gamergaters being invited here and then being present here is grasping at straws to justify making drastic changes to how we treat an issue and nothing more. Gooniepunk (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What all three of: Gerard, AH and Goonie say here. This entire wiki is thoroughly political. The question might be where to demarcate the types of political topics, but it is all political. Moreover, it was ill-advised to go to some forum and recruit people here. I am (justly) reputed to hold strong views on the I-P issue, but I haven't made announcements in comments at Israel-critical websites that we "want" more of them here. It's a pretty unseemly thing to do. Finally -- and I am certain Gerard wouldn't agree on this -- reining in Ryu goes a long way to ending the unreasonable attitude toward any disagreement on GG issues here. I favor our having an attitude that is basically not GG-friendly, but we shouldn't preclude engagement with, and influence from, those who reasonably disagree. ---Mona- (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Anti-vaccination and creationism are pseudoscience issues because science has demonstrated that they are wrong in a factual sense. Christianity and its associated ethical and political systems are rather different. One can disagree with anti-vaccination and creationism for reasons apart from politics. One cannot disagree with normative political or ethical statements without staking out a political or ethical position of your own. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
So can one disagree with Donald Trump for reasons apart from politics? How about Christianity? And Gamergate? You are trying to posit that things like Gamergate and Christianity are only opposed because of politics, but I disagree. Christianity is wrong because, among other things, it contradicts itself. Gamergaters are nowadays wrong because their entire movement has been hijacked by reactionaries and trolls, and any outrage they claim to have about ethics in gaming journalism has been superseded by those in their movement who are aligned with MRAs, who believe in doxxing and harassing and sending death threats to people who oppose them, and by grasping at straws to find other reasons to hate the game designers that they oppose. Gooniepunk (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I 100% agree, Gooniepunk, but I would like to correct you on something: The people concerned about ethics? they're the ones who tried to hijack Gamergate. But once they realised what Gamergate was really about, they abandoned ship. You're, in essence, correct, you just have the entomology wrong. The movement started with the doxxers and harassers and death threats and added the "ethical concerns" later in an attempt to justify them. What followed was a gaslighting campaign that somehow managed to con genuine believers into the crusade for ethics, but they dropped off once they realized what they'd joined. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 10:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Well then, I apologize for being wrong in that regard; I am very new to giving a shit about Gamergate (literally only started caring a couple of weeks ago after swearing up and down I never would care). Gooniepunk (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the garbage fire. We're all trash down here. Wanna toast marshmallows? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 10:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Time to break out the greentext. Though I'll note that you're the one who brought up Gamergate here.
192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Given the Reddit quotes were from Gamergate subs, no, he wasn't the one to bring up Gamergate - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Note the use of the word "here" in my statement. In his statement that I was replying to, Gooniepunk included the edit summary "Fuck you all, you're actually making me give an opinion on Gamergate." He replied to the content of my previous statement before addressing Gamergate as if it had been something I had talked about. Apart from your passing mention at the start of this section, the discussion here had been about whether or not there were non-political topics. The Reddit quotes you mention weren't under discussion. So no, Gooniepunk brought Gamergate into an unrelated discussion, and no one forced him to do so. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Why do you care? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the truth to falsehood. Why do you care? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
1: I'm happy GGers are mad. I'm not happy that GGers are mad, with some level of accurate criticism about bad sourcing in our articles.
2: LW matters... why?
3: Yea, you're just slinging the phrase "false balance" around. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato, please do not move my comment above. I put it there for a good reason. I wish to express concurrence with those three gentlemen only up to that point. Thank you.---Mona- (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not how talk pages work. Typhoon (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is. I'm not the first, and won't be the last, to have the talk page "work" that way.---Mona- (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"RW is best on non-political topics" - Good luck finding a non-political topic. Pro-tip: There aren't any. Politics is something that's done to a topic by human action. There's nothing in the world that's 'non-political'. Queexchthonic murmurings 00:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This is just a flimsy pretext for injecting party politics into every article.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 07:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Nah. Claims of 'non-political' are uniformly examples of people only thinking that other people's opinions are politics. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
uniformly- Queex [citation needed] --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Bloody hell, that's obtuse of you. GG is a prime example, writ large. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Parts of only some minor Internet shitfest? Lame.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Where are you getting 'Parts' from? This seems to have hit a sore spot for you. Everyone think their own opinion is 'right', by definition. Some of us are just honest about how that's a political statement. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
This seems to have hit a sore spot for you.- Queex Appeal to motive? Even lamer.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
'Appeal to the prickly use of quote templates in lieu of an argument and baffling, wilful misreading of replies' would be closer to the mark. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Really now? You did allege some kinda "sore spot" of mine (appeal ton motive) and used GG as "proof", that any opposition to your claim, that "everything is political" is driven by some sinister motives (appeal to motive again).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
If everything is political, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the politics of the relative evolutionary fitness of gamergate vs queen reproductive strategies as a function of colony size. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
As I said, things become political when people make them so; there is nothing inherently immune to that process. It would only take an MRA to start mis-applying entomology (as they mis-applied several other branches of zoology and anthropology) for us to find ourselves in the strange mirror world where pointing out the essential idiocy of that line of thought is evidence of 'partisan politics' and 'liberal hogwash'. If you think science can't end up being accused of being partisan, you've not been following climate science. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
That's something else. Yes, science can come under fire from politics, that is true (in Big Red, my home country, they did that most infamously, but the West, too, is not immune from it, as you know).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
So in other words, no, not everything is political, and when people try to shoehorn politics into empirical matters, they make fools of themselves. I note the conflation of two different notions of politics here. Above, you said "There's nothing in the world that's 'non-political'." by which you apparently you meant "There's nothing in the world which cannot be accused of being political." Well, that's trivially true, but the mere accusation doesn't make it so in the sense of politics meant by people saying that politics should stay out of articles, which is something more like "articles should not take a stance on political positions beyond fact-checking and analysis." 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

On extremism[edit]

I disagree with the 'extremists only' section. If you can cite any logical fallacies and bullshit in a mainstream politician's stances then why not? And what makes an 'extremist' anyway? Editor consensus? Mainstream consensus? A preponderance of credible sources labeling them thusly? As far the second two, I honestly don't understand how anyone could be against them. Insisting we don't need to source our statements and shouldn't even evaluate opposing viewpoints looks to me like nothing more than propagandists wanting freedom to write hack-journalist-quality smears on things they don't like. Seriously (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hack-journalist-quality smears? Honey, we're not Milo from Breitbart. The people smearing things they don't like (such as any game with "SJW" influences, or any viewpoint that is to the left of Mussolini) are GGers. Typhoon (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree ; but one doesn't preclude the other. The rift between gamergate and anti-gamergate is honestly, in my view, more cultural than political at this point. Both sides have retreated to their own little gated-off enclaves, and they disseminate information that supports their views. Gamergate pass around nothing but stories that outrage them, caps of their enemies doing dastardly things, most of which are filtered through gamergate goggles, portrayed in the world possible light, and quite often outright lies. When gamergaters do something bad, they pay very little attention to it, move on and forget it as quickly as possible. Anti-gamergate does the exact same thing in the enclaves of their own. One side buries uncomfortable facts in downvotes and one side with automated blockbots and heavy moderation. It's little wonder neither of them can agree on even the most basic facts. It's little wonder that gamergaters seem so honestly ignorant about some of the most embarrassing acts their side is accused of, and anti-gg seem equally ignorant about the accusations leveled at them. A policy of 'we don't have to cite any claims we make' and 'nothing the other side says is worth bringing up' is only going to add to these kind of problems, not just in gamergate but in literally every 'culture-war' type of dispute. Seriously (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
On extremism: You are correct, the distinction was somewhat unclear. I prefer this updated version.
On the other points: I think everyone probably agrees. The issue is that these standards are not followed in articles as it stands, and this harms RW's truthfulness and its image. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A "left wing" wiki' "an atheist" wiki[edit]

We occasionally see statements by our own editors that this is a left wing wiki. Departed and resurrected, or perhaps "zombie", editor Ryulong recently called us an atheist wiki.

But we are neither of these things. We should not have a political or religious opinion. We should have an evidence based one.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The latter does not preclude the former. (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
We should not have a political or religious opinion. We should have an evidence based one <- But that's the problem, because reality has a well-known liberal bias. Typhoon (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and if having an evidence-based bias, as we should, results in being seen as liberal or left (these are not necessarily the same thing), fine. But BobM is correct: We should not overtly be the "atheist" or "liberal" wiki. Evidence- and realtiy-based should be the goals. They are certainly what I strive for in my edits.---Mona- (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact, it is not difficult to find ideas which are popular amongst some on the left which we would disavow as rationalists. For example anti-vaccination and anti-GMO beliefs. I am not saying that we should not have opinions about political issues - only that our political opinions should be reached as a consequence of our scepticism.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
What Fuzzy is advocating for works out precisely to false balance in the face of overwhelming evidence; note his presentation of the opinions of Gamergaters on Reddit that our evidence-based Gamergate articles are mean to them as a reason RW should change in some manner. What you're saying is true if you ignore literally all context from say the past week or two, of course - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not advocating for "balance", and I've pointed out as much. My point is that these broad groups of people -- of which Gamergaters are merely the latest -- find RationalWiki objectionable because of its politics. If we are going to have an article on Gamergate, we should not source Tumblr but the New York Times and scholarly journals. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Documenting a movement that happened/happens to a certain degree on Tumblr, or any other platform, requires citing that platform. that' what we in the biz call "research". If Joe blow says something on his blog that contributes to a debate we are analyzing, why wait for the Times or anyone else to write about it? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that blogs are not reliable sources. If the blog proves something, it will prove it by either [1] citing reliable sources or [2] by providing the evidence directly. If [1], we can cite the source. If [2], we can and should cite the evidence directly and provide our own analysis. We shouldn't rely on external analysis; if an issue is important enough to bring it up and get a cite for it, it's important enough to prove why we're right. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
A blog is a perfectly reliable source when writing about what somebody wrote on a blog, which,it seems to me, is exactly what is happening with a big chunk of the references to blogs. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Bingo. If you write about stuff that happens on blogs, quoting blogs is the natural thing to do. If you write about something that, for example, happens currently in Syria, a blog would (probably) not qualify as a good source. You quote a blog not as a source for another story, but because the blog is ppart of the story itself. --Irian (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
So you're wanting to move to Wikipedia-style sourcing. I see. -- (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems blown out of proportion[edit]

If there's not necessarily clear proof a political position doesn't work, but there are definite inconsistencies in the underlying logical base or a clear rejection of rational or empirical thought in their presumptions(such as with the Austrian School, for example), than why should Rationalwiki restrict from commentary? Quirk (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Surely stuff like the Austrian school would fall under pseudoscience, given that it explicitly rejects science but wears its trappings? FuzzyCatPotato of the Hideous Jellybeans (talk/stalk) 20:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Not every irrational political position is also pseudoscientific. But that's also not my main point, which is that not everything that can be demonstrated as irrational can also be shown to have empirical evidence against it, and we shouldn't avoid subjects that have clear failings in rationality but lack empirical disproving. Quirk (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Quirk. Could you give an example?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry! I guess you present the Austrian School as one.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Fuzzy's responses[edit]

"Balance fallacy"[edit]

What good will this "we need to stop focusing on politics" balance fallacy thing accomplish?

This essay has a surfeit of false balance

This just wreaks [sic] of the balance fallacy.

These responses misunderstand the balance fallacy:

The balance fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal or comparable value regardless of their respective merits, which (in turn) leads to the conclusion that the answer to a problem is always between two extremes.

I'm not saying we should give conservatism/antifeminism/anti-Gamergaters/etc. equal time or any time at all. I am saying we should move away from covering the issue altogether.

"All topics are political topics"[edit]

Do you not think anti-vaxxers or creationism are political issues?

If you think religion, science/pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, etc are "non-political topics," than you either don't know what the word "political" means, or you have not done a very good job at understanding our articles.

There's two problems here:

  1. These issues are pseduoscience first, politics second. Disproving anti-vaxxers or creationists does not require proving any political viewpoint true; disproving their evidence is sufficient. Consider that a conservative can argue just as effectively against both of these issues as a liberal.
  2. I argue that some partially political issues are worth covering: "If RW must venture into politics because some issue has a metric ton of bullshit surrounding it". The problem is how we cover them.
Sometimes political beliefs are contradicted by scientific evidence; eg. climate change. Such political articles are both within the remit of Rationalwiki and within our editors ability to rebut these arguments. These articles tend to be quite good.

Political articles about systems of government are extremely marginal, although some ideologies certainly require ignoring large tracts of scientific evidence, these articles are of a passable quality (eg. our Libertarianism article).

Our "social justice articles", mostly involve ethical arguments rather than a scientific arguments. Our editor base doesn't have the expertise to make or source powerful arguments in these areas. As a consequence these articles are poorly written, rambling, unsourced / poorly sourced, sometimes contradicted by the very sources they use, and without nuance. It certainly doesn't help that they also seem to attract a certain unique kind of incompetence.

[L]et's look at Donald Trump[.] [...] Is it really hard, as this essay claims, to dispute Trump when he's outright lying in many cases?

It's not. That's why I say that, on political issues, RW should focus on providing solid counter-sources. And I think it's fair to say that Trump is an "extremist". All that's needed to rebut Trump would honestly be a page full of recent quotes.

Religion is also incredibly political, and a lot of it was built to spread political beliefs. Religion and politics go hand in hand.

Sure. We should cover religion because it is a flawed basis for knowledge, which extends to medicine and epistemology and, yes, politics. It's possible to objectively disprove a religion; it's harder to objectively disprove a moral principle.

People here need to think about what the "Horseshoe Theory" article says[edit]

Because, from where I am, I see a lot (and I mean a LOT) of people on here who are so far left-wing they've wrapped around to the right-wing.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I seriously think this site has gone downhill since Sarko...and it's not entirely the Gamergaters' fault. As I said on the lady's talk page, I happen to have mild antipathy for her...because I believe strong, sexy women in video games (and other media) are good, and I think she's managed to resurrect a culture of sex-negative feminism with her, and Gamergate's (but mostly the extreme side of Gamergate), bullshit. Resident Ishtar worshiper (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I personnally think the Horseshoe Theory is mostly bullshit. In France this argument was used (without the name Horseshoe Theory, but still) but the centrists/moderates were actually closer to the far-right that the radical/far left. So it probably depends on the country, really. (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC) (Diacelium)

Traffic stats are different[edit]

Rationalwiki's global ranking is now: 15,945 on Alexa.

And google trends are going up.

I wonder how many active editors we have over the years. Has it gone down?

ClickerClock (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@ClickerClock See The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 14:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't get a notification. Strange. The edit rate has remained pretty constant. ClickerClock (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)