Forum:There seems to be a LOT of people who hate us.

< Index | Site-related discussion

Soo many people called us biased, and try to refute our pages outside this site. It's kinda pathetic, due to the fact they have to distort information.^{— Unsigned, by: TemplarJLS / talk / contribs} 04:56, 16 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Who on earth could ever read the unbiased articles on rationalwiki and claim that such unbiased writing is anything but unbiased!?!?!? --Shabidoo (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup, there are no RW pages with factual inaccuracies on them whatsoever. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this topic was even brought up. Smalltoejoe (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

a few statements

You have an interesting Wiki and I like your posts on the PsuedoScience Anti-GMO and Anti-Vaccination movements. Your articles on Conspiracy Theorists also expose bullshit, but your articles on Libertarianism and Ron Paul are hopelessly flawed, you just say: "its bullshit, Paulbots, Paulbots" but explain nothing. And while that works for David Icke, that does not work against backed up arguments. Your cranks list with the exception of the ecofascists is focused entirely on the right-wing. You are more left leaning than you claim, so all rationality is gone. Some users, such as Blue, even admit to being socialists, hows that for a fringe idea? Also it is quite pathetic to ban someone before you even let them join your group. I enjoy hearing your psuedo-arguments on how what I said is bullshit.^{— Unsigned, by: Ancapvolo / talk / contribs} 14:18, 21 July 2014‎ (UTC)

What do you mean by "our group" and who exactly has been "banned before letting them join" it? It's possible that you've been caught in a spammer's IP block or the Abuse Filter.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless you mean a certain Facebook group, which is an entirely different entity from the wiki. There is a small overlap of memebership, but each has its own quirks.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"Some users, such as Blue, even admit to being socialists, hows that for a fringe idea?" I'm glad you've managed to sniff out a card carrying Red in our midst, McCarthy. Socialism is very fringe, it's only the ideology of these fringe political parties: Labour (UK), SPD (Germany), PD (Italy), Socialist Party (France), Swedish Social Democratic Party. It's only represented on the national level in every European country, generally as the ruling or opposition ideology. What a moron. --Marlow (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, technically they are "merely" social democracy, which would be considered far left in the USA anyway. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{X-Men! Welcome... TO DIE!!!} 14:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Socialism is the primary component of the ideology of social democratic parties. The point is that it is not even remotely a fringe ideology, quite the opposite, it is a major issue for a huge number of political parties. Outside of Europe socialism is an important part of Indian politics and is part of the platform of both the INC and BJP. Oh and this little country called China, I seem to recall they have some passing interest in socialist ideas. So I think it's safe to say that the majority of the world lives under some form of socialism or another. --Marlow (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Social democracy != socialism, and followers of the former does not appreciate being lumped with the latter. Remember, Eduard Bernstein formed social democracy because he thought collective and/or state ownership of property was unworkable. Unless you use the definition of socialism as "Keynesian economics plus social justice" most "socialist" parties use today. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets} 16:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

We're getting into semantics here. Suffice it to say socialism, in one form or another, is an important part of contemporary political discourse. Except in the US where it is a snarl word used to frighten people away from policies that are in there own interest. --Marlow (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

your articles on Libertarianism and Ron Paul are hopelessly flawed, you just say: "its bullshit, Paulbots, Paulbots" but explain nothing.

The commentator nails it. And they are impossible to fix, unless you pile on an equal amount of factual (if biased) information to supplant the obvious erroneous bullshit. The real problem is allowing non-American partisans control of articles on domestic US politics. They really don't know shit, and only expose their ignorance with their axes to grind and stubbornness. nobs^{One who's been there.} 00:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Bravo, Rob. I do believe that you said that without any sense of irony, whatsoever. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

To claim that someone is irrational just because reality seems to support one side over the other appears to be a case of, at the very least, the balance fallacy. At most, it appears to be someone who is butthurt at the idea that single-payer healthcare systems and social safety nets are functional parts of politics backed up by data while a fanatical devotion to the gold standard and flat taxes are rightly derided by anyone who actually cares about empiricism in economics. And if there are a lot of people who hate me, so what? Last time I checked, you don't vote on what the cold, hard facts say. I'm used to so much hate, I might as well be a liberal atheist in the deep south off the Gulf of Mexico who doesn't like seafood. However, just because one side is wrong more often doesn't mean there's a lack of rationality. Sometimes the truth takes sides. User:PsychoGecko 02:44, 23 July 2014

This is pretty much my stance on it. When I edited Wikipedia, and somewhat less so here, people would constantly complain about the men's rights movement and the feminist movement being treated differently on website, despite them being completely different movements, with different theories (one of which is considerably better researched), different methods, and, most importantly, different histories. The libertarian movement, that is, people who would earnestly put their personal liberty above the liberty of others, on a political level, must have a sincere lack of empathy or social awareness. The free market is dangerous, as is the complete, unfettered empowerment of the individual, even when it allows him to infringe on others rights. I'm all for government reform, especially in the corrupt US, but laissez-faire capitalism will just create more poverty, and most likely cause divide between the states --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I heard something funny on Crash Course World History when they got to talking about money and currency. As far as historians have found, there was no barter culture; just systems where people were in debt to each other. He also relates a historian who has a theory that currency really only came about as a way for early bureaucracies to transfer debts between themselves and then the system was used for paying early soldiers when professional armies came about. The soldiers needed immediate payment, not promises of a chicken from an old friend in a week. To afford to pay the soldiers, early kings would force those they conquered to toil in mines as slaves. I'd love to check out that historian's work and see how it measures up, because if he's right, then capitalism and currency based on precious metals were the inventions of bureaucracy and expanding governments that loved war. --User:PsychoGecko 04:16, 25 July 2014

Libertarians have been in the forefront of marijuana legalization for years; why then are they mocked and demonized by progressives? nobs^{One who's been there.} 03:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Stopped clock fallacy. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what your argument is. Cannabis Law Reform were a legitimate political party here in the United Kingdom but I wouldn't have ever voted for them. There is plenty that libertarians stand for that I do agree with, drug legislation in particular, but I'd leave the country if a libertarian party were ever elected here, the increase in poverty would be enormous --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that Penn Jillette once said that he holds no evidence that libertarian or laissez-faire policies would help the economy or increase the average quality of life. He simply believes the government shouldn't intervene in pretty much anything. Well, at least he's honest. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Burning this game would be an insult to fire.} 15:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"He simply believes the government shouldn't intervene in pretty much anything. Well, at least he's honest." Not quite. Capitalist markets require state or state-like entities to operate in the first place. Libertarians and other hyper-capitalists simply want the state to intervene on the side of capital. See P&T's Walmart episode, for example. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That state only exists for one reason alone: cause the greedy capitalist employers pay taxes to defend their interests. It sure as fuck isn't the poor and unemployed who pay the cost of government.nobs^{One who's been there.} 02:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Because the capitalist Übermenschen like totally create money out of thin air by their amazing hard work and unique talents and courage and blahblah, while poor and unemployed people are just lazy and inferior and worthless and have never lifted so much as a finger and totally deserve to be miserable. Right. *sigh*

Funny enough, I was surprised to learn not long ago that George Orwell, the anti-gummint anti-commie patron saint, was ... a socialist. Well, he favoured democratic socialism. But to consies and libtards, it's apparently all the same, democratic socialism and totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship and social democracy, why because every flavour of leftie politics always ends up in a hellhole. While a free market would lead to paradise. Social Darwinism ftw, after all it's a just world all the way.

(Also, seriously, boo-hoo, poor Americans, carrying the weight of the world ... even though nobody ever asked them to in the first place and most of the rest of the world wishes they'd rather mind their own business and finally let the UN do their job as world police, with or without US support, at least the UN are more neutral and thus better cut out for the task. All the whining about Americans being the Jesus Christ among nations, needing to suffer at the cross of dog-eat-dog capitalism for the sake of the salvation of the rest of the world, so that all those little European countries can have their peaceful socialist paradises ... give me a break. In the sixties and seventies, US politics were far more leftist, social-democracy style, and I see no evidence that it inhibited their ability to play world police in any shape or form. How about trying raining-down and trickle-up economy again ... because, erm, when it was tried before it actually worked?!)

PsychoGecko: What you are talking about sounds like it might ultimately be based on the book Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graeber. --84.151.172.34 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I've looked up, that appears to be where Crash Course: World History got the idea from. The Crash Course series often gets on the bad side of the conservative/libertarian bunch. Back to economics, we've had periods in time when we were extremely close to the libertarian ideal. Except then we created the Constitution because libertarian government was so incompetent that they couldn't save the Articles of Confederation. Ever since then, as people's rights progressed and more people became better off, it's generally been at the cost of the libertarian ideal. Unlimited property rights were abolished thanks to the Civil War. Workers got rights in the late 1800s, early 1900s. Protections were put in place to help society as a whole after the Great Depression. Heck, libertarians were the ones on the segregation side of things, when the Federal government was the entity that had to come in and keep white Southerners from oppressing black people. --User:PsychoGecko 21:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Graeber, what a pile of horse manure. What did the delegates to the American Constitutional Convention sleep and eat on for the months they were drafting the Constitution? did they live in shanties at Hooverville and dine on their EBT cards til their food stamp allotment was used up? No. They slept and dined in hotels with the funds from accumulated capital while drafting the Constitution. Do you really think piss poor idiots have the slightest means, let alone brains, to draft something like the bill of rights, in between flying a sign and waiting in line at the day labor hall for enough scratch to buy tonights dinner? Get real. nobs^{"It all depends what Isil is"} 20:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering that they were sent their by their respective states, I don't find it ridiculous at all that those states would choose to pay them. Even if they didn't, we are talking about a who's who of Rich Revolutionaries here. But you may have noticed that those same states didn't feel much like sending sufficient arms, uniforms, or food to the army that was fighting for their independence. It was only their own lives on the line, and it turned out that a Federal government that could only request, not compel, led to fellows like George Washington and Henry Knox wanting a strong Federal government. Thomas Jefferson hated that in peace time they couldn't even fund an expedition to fight off the Barbary Pirates because the states didn't care enough to send sufficient funds. The Confederation didn't even have enough power to force British troops off the country's soil. They only wound up leaving when a new treaty was written after the Constitution was formed. Plus, because Congress couldn't get money from the states, it had to print its own. That's right, lack of a strong central government led to inflation, the boogeyman of libertarians. You even saw Shays' Rebellion happen during this time period. There was a lack of hard currency on the state level (something libertarians love, which always favors lenders over debtors). Making this worse, Revolutionary war veterans hadn't been paid their full wages and there wasn't much of a way for poor farmers to compel people to give them their pay (turns out lawsuits favor the rich too, since they can easily pay for them). This led to land seizures where rich lendors got to take land from poorer farmers. Lendors, as the ones with money, took control of the state government to force the poor to pay debts worsened by a lack of credit and hard currency (turns out regulation of credit and currency is pretty useful for a government). When riots broke out, the elites drew up the Riot Act, which suspended habeas corpus(and here Ron Paul thinks only Federal governments can be tyrannical). Eventually, after the fighting was over entirely by a privately funded militia troops (the government being too weak to fund troops to put down a civil war in 1/13th of the country), the government there had to suspend debts in order to improve the situation. Of course, the Confederate States later thought of reviving some of the libertarian ideals of the Articles of Confederation, so I hope you can see just how stable such a government makes a country. --User:PsychoGecko 00:59, 24 September, 2014

Interesting argument but several holes can be punched in it. Let's look at just one in particular an earlier poster also alluded to: because Congress couldn't get money from the states, it had to print its own (never mind the the "only gold and silver shall be legal tender" clause of the original Constitution); the earlier poster wrote capitalist Übermenschen like totally create money out of thin air. Now in both cases (Constitutional framers of the gold standard and capitalist Ubermensch), inflation is anathema and totally self-defeating.

All "money" is, is a representation of stored up labor, that is, labor that has already been performed and now enters the marketplace to exchange for equal quantities of other peoples labor. Nothing more, nothing less. It has no value in itself. The idea money = wealth is a false trail and dead end path only fools take. No wonder America and the world have such unsolvable problems when the country and planet are populated by such idiots. nobs^{"It all depends what Isil is"} 02:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You cannot create money – as in the value associated by society, not its physical or electronic representations, of course – out of thin air; it is indeed a representation of labour (but not only; that is only a consequence of it representing things that humans value). Labour that entrepreneurs direct and organise, but that they do not perform themselves. That was kinda what I was getting at. *facepalm*

Of course money does not have any inherent value, independent of humans, just like scratches in a stone don't have any inherent meaning. It's all social convention; a collective delusion, if you will. By definition, however, if you have a lot of money, even if not necessarily in a physical form, you are wealthy. (That does not mean that money is a necessary prerequisite to wealth, since you can possess other things, even something as abstract as rights, but it is a sufficient condition.) I don't see what that has to do with anything. --84.151.172.34 (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, if anything, money is the most salient representation of the vast, tangled web of obligations that human societies are held together by. Nothing better represents the all-encompassing interdependence characterising the human condition as a social animal. As clichéd as the saying is, but no man is an island. The lone wolf is romantic nonsense. Something that libertarians have never fully understood. --84.151.172.34 (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If a lone wolf breaks wind in the forest where there is no one to hear him, does it make a sound? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)