Essay talk:The MarcusCicero Essays; Introduction

Have you thought about the possibility that Rationalwiki is an extreme parody and all its members are deep cover conservatives? I'm eager to hear your speculations on such exciting topic. (Remark: I don't really think so by myself...) --Earthland 15:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

WIGO

I hardly read it since Listener started writing most of them. Professor Moriarty 15:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, sorry. Not Listener. They're still mostly terrible. Professor Moriarty 15:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't even read WiGO CP hardly at all these days. But it does amuse me that he couldn't be bothered taking "img" out of the quotes. --Kels 15:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow Kels! Such an interesting rebuttal! MarcusCicero 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you put something up worth rebutting? --Kels 17:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Straw man

Wow, MC, that's quite an interesting rant, productive of numerous insights into your mental process. Looks to me like you've slapped together a straw man version of RW here, but in my view it is not the kind of well-thought-out structure you'd want to put up on, oh, say a highly visible island in an international sea port. Not even close.

Maybe it will stand long enough for us to dance around the flames in a week or so? Sprocket J Cogswell 16:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You're even whackier than I first imagined. MarcusCicero 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(nother EC yet agn)Thank you! Sprocket J Cogswell 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Very straw-like in most places. Nice way to pick and choose the examples (although this is the point, of course). WIGO:CP dropped into extreme mockery the day it began and most of the other problems (this obsession with "memes" that MC has, I really do fail to see this) are confined almost entirely to the Saloon Bar page and the Funspace. Where, exactly, is the problem there? There are places to dick about with socially, does that invalidate some of the great work done in the mainspace? No, it doesn't. So there really isn't a point here until the mention that there's "two types" of RW user, and yes, I'd agree that there are two groups. However, there is only one group described here correctly; people who take the refuting and analysis seriously and do a hell of a lot of contributions to the site and it's content. But the second group is really just describing the people who piss off MC because they give out so much troll-feed. The second group, in reality, are the people who contribute to talk pages, the saloon bar, and read the WIGOs, and there's nothing wrong with this. It takes all kinds to make a community work and stand out. The "hard line bigotted atheist" thing really isn't a group at all (although I'm sure there are people who fall into that category) and doesn't represent the wiki as an entity. Regardless, MC is in no position to critise because fuck all of anything he has ever done is constructive in any way, shape or form. ^bomination 16:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Virtually everything human can be divided into two groups. Its a fucking meme for goat's sake! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The two groups thing is bollocks. I can think of a few editors who almost conform to the stereotypes presented by MC, but many many more who don't. Often the same editors who engage in fairly serious science & politics articles may make frivolous non-mission smalltalk at the Saloon bar as well. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

About memes

Marcus, when you're out with your friends do you ever make a reference to something funny that happened previously or bring up a recurring inside joke? That's all a meme really is, a recurring joke/idea that we find amusing. There is nothing inherently sinful about them - in fact, they help maintain the sense of community that makes RW so special. I have never been able to figure out why you are so against them, perhaps you could explain it to me? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think internet meme is a pretty cool guy. Eh pisses off MarcusCicero and doesn't afraid of anything! DickTurpis 17:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh heh. ^{See, MC? A perfectly harmless joke, nothing evil about it.} Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

MC, I don't think you understand what memes are. Jokes & in-jokes & catchphrases are only one very visible example of memes, but memes cover the whole of shared & learned behaviour & understanding: language, fashion, culture, thought, belief. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the trouble of pointing out the obvious, Weasel. Perhaps if he replaced the word "meme" with the phrase "in-joke" everywhere it would improve his essay by making him look less clueless (in this one regard). ħuman 21:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Marcus - friends? Nah, not a chance. Bob Soles (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Link wanted

Could someone provide a link to the webiste that MC is writing about as I don't think I've visited it. Thanks.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's here. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn you and your porn links! --Kels 17:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Refutation

I'm going to take this seriously and refute its points as if he wasn't trolling. I'm going to do this because it will be fun, though, so I may in the very act of refuting be proving him right! ALAS!

• While some of the more dim-witted members here might really believe that, the fact remains that the core objectives of the Rationalwiki mission are as follows

Those are the core objectives, sure. And notice they don't say anything about not having fun and socializing while we do those things, and in fact don't even say anything about being serious at all. Your unspoken assumption is that we can't be goofy at times and still accomplish those objectives, but that is untrue. Witness some various examples I found by a few moments with Random Page: Doomsday clock, Sex, and Empiricism. Note that all three articles have serious and valuable content, with two of them also including some humor as well. Which brings me to another point...

• The humour is not good, to say the least.

You may be right. The above articles might not have funny jokes. The WIGOs you quote might not be funny. And to be frank, I usually only think about half of the jokes on WIGO and articles are funny. But that's purely a judgment call, and I think half is a pretty good margin for a collaborative wiki project. I compare with Uncyclopedia or the other community humor projects, for example, and I think they're almost never funny.

Another thing: have you considered that maybe you just have a different sense of humor? I mean, you thought it was funny to pretend to be mentally unbalanced and had a fake brother tell us about your pain. No one else here thought that was funny. Maybe you're just not suited for Rationalwiki.

• Memesmemesmemesmemes

Give me an example that's not in funspace, please? Looking at the random pages I hit above and a few more, I see almost no examples of any memes I am aware of. I guess you could consider capitalization a very prevalent and old meme... is that what you're talking about? should we stop capitalizing?

• The problem with Rationalwiki is that two very different camps of people exist side by side. One takes the founding mission of this website to heart. The other, an extremely nasty, militantly atheistic and bigoted group have no sense of their hypocrisy.

Make a list! Please make some lists! I so badly want to see some lists of who is acceptable to you and who is not!--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also quite like to see a list. Ace^{of Spades} 19:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please add a list to The MicroCephalic Essays. --Kels 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Say, thats great Marcus!

Well done! Ace^{of Spades} 19:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he's on to something

This site was founded by former CPians fed up with/banned over policies over there. Of the latest round of competent editors to leave CP (I'm thinking here of PatrickD, KSorenson, MarkGall, and a couple others) -- who I would expect to agree with the stated purpose of this site -- who's showed up here? I'm the only one who even registered, and only stuck around for a day. I might contribute to a site whose major purpose was refuting pseudoscience etc., but looking through "recent changes" it looks like that's rather secondary in practice. Now, I don't want to be up on a high horse too -- if having fun is your main goal here, then by all means go for it (preferably keeping the CP vandalism and mockery to a minimum). But obnoxious as he indubitably is, MarcusCicero is right to recognize that it is scaring off some would-be serious editors. --TheRealMarkGall 19:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point but the opposite also holds true. If it changed then we might get new editors but we would also lose some. It's not MC's place to tell us who we should or should not appeal to. RW was not planned as anything; it evolved organically. If new editors want to contribute serious articles then that is fine. If MC wants to change direction then he needs to contribute on-mission articles rather than just bitching about what we already have. One thing that I have noticed is that if you work on an article here then people chip in and help. Changes can be made to established articles but they should be done tactfully with discussion. I stopped editing at Wikipedia because it's now run by control-freaks who enforce content policy over their own domain. It's not enjoyable in the way that RationalWiki is. If I pick up a newspaper then I expect to find some lighter articles as well as heavyweight editorials and front-page news. Even dry and dusty broadsheets like the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal have lighter articles. If MC thinks that there should be a better site which meets his ideals then it is quite easy to set up a MediaWiki site of his own. RationalWiki is what it is and is more than a group of ex-CP editors.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What Lily said. I whole heartedly agree with tachycardia heart. Ace^{of Spades} 03:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ace's agreeing with Lilly. I get the impression that MC wants some kind of regimented userbase what will devote itself to some idealistic and pure goal. That's not going to happen. There's plenty of scope for getting on with whatever you want to do here, so long as you're not crazy or unreasonable. It's a diverse bunch here, and RW would lose a lot if it ditched the funny and more esoteric aspects of its character. I'd only begin to worry if mainspace became a mess. I could listen to concerns of people who are actively working to fix the many gaps we have, but not those who just run around yelling "it's all fucked, and you fuckers fucked it". Besides, MC, assuming he's serious, sets a pretty shitty example for no-one to follow. Plenty of people quietly get on with the part of RW that interests, and that's far more productive than ineffective and incessant whining. Besides, some people find it very hard to be taken seriously when their greatest contribution to those around them would be to take a long walk off a short pier. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I just went and read most of Concern troll and in that light it makes perfect sense for MC to encourage "some kind of regimented userbase what will devote itself to some idealistic and pure goal."

The image of this herd of cats marching in lockstep, banners aloft, towards the greater goal of rational refutation of all taht is stupid is not, ahh, consistent with RW's continuing utility as a gathering place for whatever twisted sort of individual self-selects membership here.

If that had too many big words and concatenated clauses, here it is again without jimmies sprinkled on: Smarten up, folks. This troll is too well-fed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not suer if this is the best section to add this to, but if Marcus wants/needs to add more "essays" I'm all for it, and if the vandal brake makes it hard - especially to add nice links between them all - I'll de-vandal him if he asks me in pmail or my talk page. I will then re-vandal him, for now, to avoid the sensation of pitchforks in my buttocks. ħuman 04:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Déja Vu

I just remembered where I heard of MC's attitude - over 40 years ago:

There I was, a-digging this hole

A hole in the ground, so big and sort of round it was

There was I, digging it deep

It was flat at the bottom and the sides were steep

When along, comes this bloke in a bowler which he lifted and scratched his head

Well he looked down the hole, poor demented soul and he said

Do you mind if I make a suggestion?

Don't dig there, dig it elsewhere

Your digging it round and it ought to be square

The shape of it's wrong, it's much much too long

And you can't put hole where a hole don't belong

I ask, what a liberty, eh?

Nearly bashed him right in the bowler

Well there was I, stood in me hole

Shovelling earth for all that I was worth, I was

There was him, standing up there

So grand and official with his nose in the air

So I gave him a look sort of sideways and I leaned on my shovel and sighed

Well I lit me a fag and having took a drag I replied

I just couldn't bear, to dig it elsewhere

I'm digging it round 'cos I don't want it square

And if you disagree it don't bother me

That's the place where the hole's gonna be

Well there we were, discussing this hole

A hole in the ground so big and sort of round

Well it's not there now, the ground's all flat

And beneath it is the bloke in the bowler hat

And that's that

As sung by Bernard Cribbins, sometime in the 60s. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are we even talking about this?

In MC's confession he states: "...rejecting the label of troll; even though I was the most transparent 'concern troll' in history."

A concern troll does not believe the things it posts - the only objective of its posts is to appear to share the goals of a group whilst posting material designed to undermine those goals. For emphasis - a concern troll does not believe what it is posting and the only objective of its posts is to undermine the site or cause friction. I am not "accusing" MC of doing this, I'm just taking him at his word.

Why, then, are we still responding to this stuff or looking for ways to help it round the vandal bin?--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

See here. Ace^{of Spades} 09:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing the point

For me and my socks RW is a fun place to hang out. It's got it's fair ration of idiots, for all I know I might well be one of them, but it passes the time when I'm bored. Furthermore I appear to share a sense of humour, or at least a sense of the absurd, with many of the people who also hang out here.

So, am I concerned that RW is not achieving it's stated objectives - no. Stated objectives are like the stars, they're nice to watch whilst you're lying in the gutter but you know you're never going to reach them. In the meanwhile they do give a sense of direction, as sense of which way is up, which way we ought to be pointing when we're not sending in pictures of our meals.

So, if Marcus wants to do his little dance, to play at 'fooled you all with my trolling' and 'I'm not really mentally disturbed' etc. - well there's room for him here as well. He's a bit unpleasant for newcomers but it's quite easy to develop a MC filter and just ignore him, unless, of course, like me, you find that he's part of the lulz.

In fact I'm rather disappointed by this essay - it looks to me like a cop out, as if, when it came down to it, MC couldn't raise the blistering attach he was planning and had to do a 'fooled you all' to save face. Whichever, it's nothing like as funny as I hoped. Oh well, back to writing stupid WIGOs.... Bob Soles (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)