Forum:Site name should be changed to Feminist Wiki

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I looked up two articles and the bias was palpable. A site purporting to promote rational thought should present facts and not opinion.-— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Then maybe next time you could question our facts in our articles instead of our site name, yea? <-< Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with FCP. I mean I'm not going to contest that there's a feminist bias here, but I don't personally think it's bad enough to warrant the time and effort required to enact significant changes. We're not tumblr-level feminist, so we're ok. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato this user advises to post all citations and evidences of stated bias in the article talkpages for purposes of review.FAMAS (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
First language English not is FAMAS guess at a. Pippa (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotatothis user mistakenly pinged the user with the nick of FuzzyCatPotato in earlier reply.FAMAS (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC) @Pippaassertion made in error and it is contradictory under the rationalist framework to perform assumptions on users and pass them as assertion.FAMAS (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Beep. Boop. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with a significant chunk of what European feminism pushes. (In the U.S. it's still not mainstream, and hopefully won't be.) But that said, a rational site predicted on classically liberal values and empiricism is going to be supportive of women's equality and against misogyny. That's appropriate. ---Mona- (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Feminism oversimplifies the issues, though. The current discussion in the Red Pill Movement (as opposed to the Men's Rights Movement) is not so much about the status of men as compared to women, but rather about the sexual hierarchy of alphas, women, betas, gammas, omegas, etc. Alphas are in a position where they can mistreat women and get away with it, but women are also in a position where they can (and often do) mistreat betas and get away with it. Alphas would argue that women whose hearts get broken by the "bad boys" they select are getting their just deserts, since they could have had a nice beta man, but they opted to reject such men as too boring and weak. (Even the ancient ploy in which alphas seduce women through false promises of marriage wouldn't work if women insisted on saving their virginity till the actual wedding night; so there is ultimately a countermeasure for every PUA trick in the book.)
But actually, Red Pillers would say that the situation is not even benefiting alphas in the long run, because eventually these guys want to settle down but find it challenging to do so without exposing themselves to a high risk situation with few compensating rewards, given the dysfunctional nature of gender relations in western society. The standard advice, then, is to look overseas. Red Pillers don't actually hate all women, they just despise most American women, so I wonder if that even counts as misogyny. That would be like saying that a woman who despises a particular kind of man is a misandrist. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
With some of that I agree. Women have and hold sexual power over straight men. In sexual dynamics women are not quite the Constant Victim some feminists would have them be. Sometimes I wonder if these theorists have raised any straight sons. The fear of and puzzlement at the female gender can be strong.---Mona- (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the issue with this sexual hierarchy thing is the same as the issues with many radical feminist "theories": you can always start with a vague conclusion (e.g. "society is divided into alphas, women, betas, gammas, and omegas" or "female characters being plot motivators is misogyny") and stretch things to fit them. I'm not saying that these phenomena don't exist, but I would be careful of the way feminists (or red-pillers) tries to fit everything into their nice, neat little hierarchies and power-dynamics. They simultaneously oversimplify things and make them more complicated than they really are.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with feminism, and it belongs into the fold of progessivism and the left. The problem really is a pseudo-science problem as was uncovered in the so-called “science war” — namely postmodernism and in this context, feminist theory. The new thing is an update. I would not pin this down to waves or sides of feminists, either, since a postmodernist feminists can still maintain non-pomo-feminists aspects, more power to that. But currently postmodernist feminist theory is clearly a strong influence, whether it's Sarkeesian or the whole Critical Race Theory/Intersectionality nonsense. Actually it might be a “joining if forces” and it's that which pronounces postmodernism (CRT comes out of other stuff, but pomo is the common ground). Just ask yourself how workable a model is when the experts cannot even agree which of those supposed intersectional categories count, how many and in what way. Some propose dozens of categories, others favour the triple oppression idea, with just three (race/gender/class). SJWs typically diacount class more or less altogether, but take on things like body or handicaps as important. It's pseudoscience rubbish all the way down. It always sounds like they could measure “oppression” or something and how things add up. The RW speaks of “models of analysis” — links to a natural science oriented article. But at the end of the day it's either trivially true (yes, racism exists, yes poor women face additional hardships, yes stuff adds up) or false (e.g. the assumptions of gender/race essentialism etc baked into this). Naturally, SJW kick and scream when the scalpel is set to their tumor — they are determined to be accepted as hard science, try to pass as the “default” left, as postmodernists of old did already and resist documentation and debunking of their shenanigans with predominantly shady and dirty tactics. To sum up, the problem isn't feminism, but postmodernist authoritarians. ~ Aneris 06:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If SJWs are the problem, then execute them all and be done with it. At least then you will stop whinging about them. --Castaigne2 (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is it that every time someone criticizes "SJW"s, someone comes out of the woodwork and calls it "whining"? People like you will rant on and on about their pet subject and complain constantly about the people they don't like, but if they see someone criticizing something that doesn't particularly bother them, they call it "whining". This statement holds no weight, however, because it could just as easily be said that RationalWiki should stop "whining" about NaturalNews, Alex Jones, Conspiracy Theories, or pretty much every illogical thing documented here. Either you agree with these SJWs (in which case defend their arguments) or you don't (in which case, why are you criticizing people who also disagree with them??).TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the interpretation, according to my crank translator guide, is that:
  1. "whining" is discussion without converting.
  2. "Angry" means any sort of disagreement with the horrible thing called facts.
  3. "helping people see your point of view" is the execution of everyone who holds a contrary opinion, possibly with the assault of anyone who thinks this is extremely out of line and violates freedom of speech.
-EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Well then like I said, RationalWiki is "whining" about pretty much everything they put in the clogosphere, because they definitely aren't changing anyone's point of view by posting an article about a supposed conspiracy to kill all white people. I think what largely defines "whining" on this wiki at least is "complaining about things I don't complain about".TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

For me, using the term "SJW" other than ironically is a huge hurdle. I start tuning out the minute someone employs it. It is properly characterized as a snarl word. That the depraved, maybe even sociopathic GGers popularized it, makes the epithet unacceptable to me. The feminist women they hounded, threatened and harassed did not deserve any of that. Full stop. I probably disagree quite a bit with their views, but that doesn't make me partial to the GGers, and certainly I abhor that segment of their movement that is vicious.---Mona- (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It was in use quite well before GamerGate. The fact of the matter is that it's the most convenient way to describe a certain mindset. To avoid using it you'd have to bend over backwards linguistically ("People who take social justice too far", a.k.a. PWTSJTF) or be too general ("far-left"). It isn't hateful in and of itself, it's just been used by bad people. For example, white supremacists often use the term "degenerate", but would you really ignore the points someone is making if they happen to use the same word? The phrase "social justice warrior" is, in and of itself, no more insulting that "crank" or "right-wing nut job". If you think that the word is tainted by some bad people who used it, fair enough, but judging someone's argument by their word choice when describing a problem that you yourself think exists (which is different from hateful word choice used to describe a non-issue, like using racial slurs to convey the dangers of letting blacks vote) is a very superficial way to argue.
On another note, if you have another, convenient phrase to describe this mindset, I would honestly find it very useful.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha! No. Aleksandra96 (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


There is reference to 'alphas, women, betas, gammas, omegas etc' - so (a) what about the deltas to psis (and not forgetting the obsolete letters), (b) why assume 'all women are one group' and (c) perhaps what is being observed is merely a 'move to the centre/middle ground.' (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is pretty obvious women aren't all one group, which is part of why it is a silly theory, even if there are some elements of truth in it. Just as there is a social hierarchy among men, determined by a number of factors (age, body type, wealth, education, etc), there is similarly a social hierarchy among women, determined by similar factors (age, body type, wealth, education, etc.) A forty year old unemployed obese high school dropout single mother has a lot less social capital than a twenty-one year old college student part time model with rich parents, and so obviously the second woman has a lot broader dating options than the first woman does. The other point is that "social hierarchy" is a multidimensional thing. Consider two thirty year old men, A and B. A is overweight, introverted/non-aggressive and has very nerdish interests, has a PhD, works for Google, earns over $200K a year. B is muscly, he has an aggressive/macho personality, he dropped out of high school, he works as a labourer and earns less than $50K a year. Who outranks who in the social hierarchy? Who is the "alpha" and who is the "beta"? Who is the better "catch"? Well, it depends on what one is looking for. Some women would likely prefer A to B, and others B to A. (((Zack Martin))) 04:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
How many persons would say (for a variety of different reasons) - neither of the chaps - and there may be other factors which make the older woman more attractive than the younger.
And why is the definition of alpha 'someone who can mistreat women' - rather than 'someone who helps people according to their needs, and makes use of (and acknowledges) their skills and abilities', and who is responsible, competent, knowledgeable, 'useful' and appropriately entertaining: which is what many of us would consider plus factors. No doubt if the diverse range of people who are RW users were asked to list what defines 'an alpha' and 'an omega' there would be some common features (and certain categories - the academic/townie/practical/sporty/other groups would tend to emphasise different aspects, on grounds others would consider reasonable to some extent). (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts on the name of this site[edit]

Rationality doesn't inherently require either endorsement or rejection of feminism, and anyone who thinks it does displays a rather poor understanding of what rationality actually is. Rationality and feminism are essentially orthogonal and unrelated topics. So, I think objecting to the site's name on the basis of its endorsement of feminism is misguided. That said, in my experience, any person or group who chooses to label themselves as "rational" probably isn't very rational at all. It is a bit like all those dictatorships called "Democratic Republic of X" – from the very fact that it feels the need to call itself "Democratic" you know that it isn't. Of course, you've heard this from me before, I've been saying it for years. And may all you raging alcoholics go ahead and drink–I now raise a glass of sparkling mineral water to the health of your liver! (((Zack Martin))) 06:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Most sites with "truth" or "rational" in their name are full of lies, I believe RationalWiki is an exception personally. Christopher (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I endorse the rule but question the proposed exception. Much of this site is simply poorly thought-out rants, talking points, and dumb jokes. May I compare this site to LessWrong: LessWrong is better, in that it at least doesn't go so far as to put the word "rational" in its name, but it still falls guilty to this elitist mindset of "we are more rational than the great unwashed masses are". I think LessWrong holds to a very narrow conception of rationality, and they assume that conception is correct without sufficient questioning–I think they haven't thought deeply enough about the philosophical question of what "rationality" actually is, they've just jumped on the bandwagon of one particularly questionable understanding of what (epistemic) rationality is ("rationality=Bayesianism!"). That said, I think LessWrong does a better job at practising the art of rationality than this site does, because they at least try to address the topic in a serious and rigorous way, something at which this site is a woeful failure. The folks at LessWrong have thought about the question "what is rationality?", and they've arrived at what they think is the correct answer (Bayesianism); even though I question if that is really the right answer, I respect them for making a serious attempt – I don't think this site, collectively speaking, has made any serious attempt to try to address the question of what "rationality" actually is–you'd think if you were going to make that your label you could be bothered. (And I am surprised no one has yet joined my toast.) (((Zack Martin))) 08:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
"Dumb jokes" in our articles don't stop us from being rational. Christopher (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
An obsession with the questionable application of logical fallacies is a shibboleth of this site. I believe that encouraging stupid jokes and encouraging serious rational deliberation are incompatible cultural forces, and a culture which encourages one will inevitably tend to do poorly at the other. I may or may not be right in this belief (although I am certainly not the only person who holds it)–but that belief sure isn't a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are arguments, but "a culture which encourages dumb jokes will tend to do poorly at serious rational deliberation" is a proposition, a claim, not an argument, so it is a category mistake, and arguably rather fallacious, to accuse it of being a fallacy. And, if I use it as a premise in an inductive argument that this site fails to live up to its name, such an argument cannot be fairly accused of being a fallacy, since the premise (if true) actually does significantly increase the likelihood of the truth of the conclusion. Around here, "logical fallacies" are magic words, thought-terminating cliches, in which any argument is lazily responded to with "you are committing the X fallacy", without any justification as to why "the X fallacy" is actually a real thing (as opposed to just something someone made up)–or even if it is a real thing, without any detailed justification of the claim that the argument being responded to is actually an instance of it (many of these alleged fallacies are so imprecisely defined it would be quite difficult to provide such a detailed justification anyway). (((Zack Martin))) 08:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree that "dumb jokes" and rationality are mutually exclusive, do you have any reasoning for why you think this is the case? Christopher (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I should be more precise in my claims. Of course, the occasional dumb joke doesn't do any harm. And, the problem is more with jokes in general rather than dumb jokes specifically (the joke being dumb only serves to compound the crime). Humour tends to reinforce people's pre-existing beliefs. People find jokes funny when those jokes reinforce their pre-existing attitudes, and the experience of humour in turn reinforces those attitudes further. In other words, humour tends to promote lazy groupthink over critical thought. Most of the time, humour makes you feel good about what you already believe (and superior to those who believe differently) rather than challenging you to doubt and question your own beliefs. (And, that is especially true of humour on this site–not all humour is based on feelings of superiority of the ingroup over the outgroup, but I think that accurately describes an awful lot of the humour on this site–most of the humour here is about deprecating others as opposed to self-deprecation.) Humour which presumes different beliefs from your own–try showing some liberal political humour to conservatives, or conservative political humour to liberals–tends not to be experienced as funny, but either as stupid or even offensive. So, as an occasional thing, in small doses, humour does no great harm. But, when jokes become a major preoccupation for a community–especially jokes at the expense of those who disagree with the community's beliefs–it tends to be bad for its overall rationality. (((Zack Martin))) 10:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that too much snark is a bad thing. We do actually debunk claims as well as just mock them though (unlike satirical news which is what the article you linked to concerns). Christopher (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything in particular you think this site does a good job of "debunking"? (((Zack Martin))) 10:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

And sometimes jokes, whether or not 'dumb', silly or otherwise seemingly trivial do provoke people to think or diffuse tension/resolve disagreements etc. (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes maybe yes. But, looking at the particular sort of jokes on this site, how often do they actually do that? (((Zack Martin))) 11:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The wiki has been given this name, and has been around long enough to answer to it (as with Columbo's dog called 'Dog'). (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)