Forum:This site is cheapened considerably by its bias.

< Index | Site-related discussion

Hi, I have very little experience with Wiki site editing, or this site, so apologies if this post breaches site guidelines, etc.

Having used your site a few times in order to find descriptive explanations of various fallacies, I have only become increasingly frustrated by how it is worded, in every instance I have discovered, to specifically target certain groups.

When I look for a description of logic or reasoning, I am looking for something which is Not produced as if logic is a loaded gun designed to single out and shame particular groups.

In the main, arguments involving religious disputes tend to feature far more highly than is welcome in the example cases.

It makes it look as if reason was far from the intentions of the people producing the site and what was nearer to their intentions was using the site as a tool to intensify prejudice against religious groups.

In my opinion, we already have more than enough anti-religious rhetoric doing the rounds without adopting a policy which somewhat amounts to advocating anti-religion being taught, especially as if logic is, in its essence, specifically an anti-religious body of thought.

Why not begin to rewrite your pages to make the examples muti-purpose and draw attention to the fact that fallacies are fallacies irrespective of the core beliefs of the person presenting. Especially since, as it is, it becomes something which helps to perpetuate the myth that merely by being atheist you win a blanket insurance policy against stupidity.

In future abstracted examples, not loaded examples, would be most welcome.^{— Unsigned, by: ‎194.75.238.182 / talk / contribs}

Oh, no. We have a generally pro-atheism slant, but no illusions that there aren't plenty of problematic things prominent(and not so prominent) atheists say and believe. You won't be the first and you won't be the last to believe that we're a great wiki all except that, one, thing. The bias isn't going away, and none of us intend to contribute towards biases against religious people. We have articles about that sort of thing. We don't like religious beliefs, by and large(but we have a few active editor believers), but I think we try pretty hard to separate that from religious people. Ikanreed (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion we're more about comedy than providing information. We mock anything that deserves mocking although we try to mock beliefs rather than people (exceptions being the more vocal cranks, if you say something loud enough you can't complain if others complain about it.) In short go to Wikipedia for facts and come here for a laugh.Samstr (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, a little, but it's also the case that we intend to be a legitimate source for deconstruction of bad ideas. Wikipedia exists to tell you about ideas and facts, their history and criticism. We exist to show you why some ideas just don't work. The tonal result is often one of mockery, because a lot of ideas are just that bad. Ikanreed (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enoughSamstr (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that may well describe your position but in my view certainly does nothing to excuse it. As if you would want to, of course. I might come back later to discuss the pros and cons of the RWiki position which, on the face of it, seems weak, falling a long way short of the ideal, and leaving too much to be desired. For the time being though, your reasons are sufficiently unconvincing, and your decision to stick with it sufficiently insistent, for me to simply elect to search elsewhere for generalised examples of the type I can actually use.

Your zero edits and contributions will be missed. Have a nice trip. Ikanreed (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing about religion is it is not rational, being based on articles of faith and subjective personal revelation. It's fine to believe, but it's not fine to proclaim it makes sense to. King Skeleton (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well there's nothing like a spat of juvenile backbiting to reinforce my first impressions. Nor, for that matter, the idiotic misconception of the content of my complaint. So much for rationale.

Feel free to go to the logic sections of TVTropes instead, then, which are routinely cleansed of actual examples, with the highlight being a page on burden of proof which is actually a defence of the fallacy in question. King Skeleton (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Do they also have a page on false-dilemma?^{— Unsigned, by: 194.75.238.182 / talk / contribs}

Telling you to sod off isn't a false dilemma unless you can simultaneously sod off and still be here, genius. King Skeleton (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Going straight for the jugular there I see. Giving voice to the general communal concenus of willingness to cause avoidable offense. To give you your due, strictly speaking, you have a good defence on one part: It wasn't strictly a false-dilemma, however, I was riding on the implicit Implication that my alternative to RationalWiki is TVTropes. However, before you weigh in with embittered sarcasm next time, you might want to clarify, for yourself, the difference between the concepts of false dilemma and mutual exclusivity. Had the alternatives you offered intended to limit to me the choice between just two false alternatives, which do not express well my range of other options, for example "It's either here or TVTropes", then the fallacy Is a false-dilemma. You appear to be confused with Mutual Exclusivity. Here there is perfectly adequate explanation of false-dilemma on RationalWiki:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I didn't immediately find an description of Mutual Exclusivity on this website but there is a perfectly good description of why that is the example you give on Wikipedia. To save time, you need only to read the first sentence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_exclusive_events

I will resist the temptation to be drawn into a chimp fight on this occassion, but if you would rather than have a discussion just devolve into a chip-fight trade of "You're stoopid" insults then I should warn you that I am pretty good at being an asshole too.

194.75.238.182 (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC) ( Four tildes. Is this right? )

List some examples of bias or go away. King Skeleton (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@King Skelton: Here's that link on false dilemma again. Perhaps this time you should try to read it? It really is a perfectly adequate description for the purposes of this discussion: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

List some examples of bias or go away. King Skeleton (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@King Skelton: Here's that link on false dilemma again. Perhaps this time you should try to read it? It really is a perfectly adequate description for the purposes of this discussion: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

So, you're not going to present any proof that your assertion is true, good-o. Look up the concept of the burden of proof. King Skeleton (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Besides, from the text written by others it appears there are people enough already who know perfectly well what I mean, enough at least so as not to warrant having to simplify the description further so that you personally, @King Skelton, are able to understand what has been said. In any case, especially for you, here is yet another explanation, I do hope it is not just as wasted on you as the previous one:

My request is for the neutralisation of examples.

There, is this at last simple enough for you to understand? 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Which examples? What do you define as neutral? Why is "neutral" desirable, given that simply claiming the middle ground is better is an example of the appeal to moderation fallacy?...

Incorrect. An appeal to moderation fallacy is the fallacy of declaring that when two people have opposing views the correct answer is the median. e.g: Alice thinks 2 + 2 = 3 and Robin says it's 7, therefore 2 + 2 = 5. This is Not what's being asked. I recommend a solition which need not reference Either Atheism Nor Christianity Nor in fact any nameable ideological outlook. However, it was said right at the beginning the administration on this site don't give a shit about that. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's the argument that in a debate with two extreme positions both extremes must be wrong and the answer must lie somewhere between them (A says 2+2=4, B says 2+2=6, therefore the correct solution is the compromise that 2+2=5), simply because it is between them. It doesn't necessarily require it to be the precise median, but that doesn't matter because "reference neither" is one of the median positions between "make fun of one" and "make fun of the other" anyway. King Skeleton (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

...Why should we care about being biased, when claiming bias means wrong is the classic balance fallacy...

Incorrect. A balance fallacy is when both sides of a debate are assumed to have equal merit, irrespective of wether they acually do. e.g. Alice believes 2+2=4, Robin believes 2+2=Mozart's Hairpiece. Both Alice and Robin have an equal right to their beliefs therefore, as per their maths examin, either response is just as correct as the other. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So that doesn't describe "you are biased, you must be fair to the other side regardless of its merits?" King Skeleton (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be, as is common to the point of tedium, making the incorrect assumption ( and therefore false conclusion, so much for rationality eh? ) that I give a fuck about the atheist/theist debate except for when it encroaches. As I said below I am Brandishmantalianist which is, by definition, not interested in either position, so I am Not positioning myself in between the two teams on that matter any more than my recommendation is based on my interest in whether eggs should be broken from the pointed or the blunt end. If your site was made of an exhausting list of explanations for why anybody who believes eggs should be cracked from the sharp end are illogical based on exemplifying false defences of sharp-endianism, I'd still think it was shit. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, you bear the burden of proof here, and for someone who wants to change the examples you seem awfully evasive about telling us which ones you find problematic. It's not our duty to guess what your point is supposed to be. How about one instance of a problematic example? King Skeleton (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As I have said, there are others who have experienced no difficulty at all working out the plentiful examples there are based on the decription given. I may come back and explain further, but don't bank on it. I may just get bored of the discussion and have your site banned instead. Not from the whole world of course, just from this installation. Still, why give a fuck what the Millenium Library thinks eh? 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So no, you can't produce a single example. Fantastic, concession accepted. And nice appeal to force there, too. How will Rationalwiki survive the devastating assault of not being accessible in some library in Norwich? King Skeleton (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Normal for Norfolk. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Abstract examples are a terrible substitute when perfectly relevant real-word examples are available. Admittedly, abstract examples have their uses, like when trying to sell something (or to build populist support) without offending anyone's delicate sensibilities. But that's not what this site is about. --Inquisitor (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

They are? Do you have any useful examples for which a real-world example cannot be at least equalled with a more generalised abstraction with improved generality of purpose and at least parity of explanatory power? I'd like to see at least one.^{— Unsigned, by: 194.75.238.182 / talk / contribs}

@Inquisitor: I'd like to submit the request a second time: Are you able to provide some at least one specific example for which there is no generalised abstraction with both improved generality of purpose and at least a parity of explanatory power? 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

He can't really do that unless you point to at least one example you think there is a problem with. King Skeleton (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

But I thought this was supposed to be DictionaryWiki. Fonzie (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, we already have more than enough anti-religious rhetoric doing the rounds without adopting a policy which somewhat amounts to advocating anti-religion being taught, especially as if logic is, in its essence, specifically an anti-religious body of thought.

1. Your opinion? What makes you think that your opinion should carry any particular weight on this wiki?

What makes you think I think you think my opinion should carry any particulare weight? If you believe other's opinion has no weight, then this is your problem, not mine. Meanwhile, the sentiment of apathy is very easily returned. It must be also one of the laziest routes to an arrogance unwarranted by ability. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

1. In my^[hee] opinion there can be no such thing as too much anti-religious rhetoric.

Touche. In my opinion there cannot be enough anti-Fonzie directed drive by shootings. We can go around this cycle of "One potato two potato" antipathy all day long. Do you see where it ends? 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

1. What's wrong with advocating the teaching of anti-religion?

What's wrong with teaching anti-athiesm? What's wrong with teaching racism? Sexism? What's wrong with being anti-you? I would have thought that question can be answered in part without much assistance from me. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Religion is illogical therefore logic is, in its essence, specifically an anti-religious body of thought.

This is an interesting declation. One for which you would need to provide a considerable about of evidence. It segues directly into the basic anti-theist pretence: Anything anti-religious automatically gets the anti-theist rubber stamp of appraoval, anything contary to it gets trashed. All you end up with an anti-theist mythology and series of unfounded statements and decarations about religion accepted Because they are anti-religious. It rapidly shifts into the same old prejuducial stereotyping found in racism and other basically prejuducial ideologies. For religion to be "Illogical", first you make a conjunction between an ideology and logic which suggests you don't know what logic is. Secondly you imply that something needs to be logic in order for it to be valid. Are fish logical? Is art logical? Are Lewis Carrol's nonesense rhymes invalid? Your own statement itself doesn't particularly qualify itself as logical or useful. Besides, for religion to be properly "illogical" the definition of religion itself would necessarily need to imply illogicity. And yet, you have no adequate defintion of "logic" which qualifies the classification as an accurate ideological validator. I would challenge you by saying you cannot provide a definition of "logic" which isn't better fulfilled by a different label. In fact, I dismiss the statement as just yet another term of abuse, carelessly tossed out and inadequately explored. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's you that is assuming that illogical must mean false. That's the fallacy fallacy. Religion isn't based on logic because it requires some element of faith to actually be a religion, and faith is "being sure of what we wish for and certain of that which we do not see," as the Bible puts it. Given Paul of Tarsus devotes entire books to arguing that one cannot and should not try to arrive at Christian faith via worldly reasoning, I think we can be pretty firm that Christianity claims no basis in logic. King Skeleton (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like it, tough! Scream!! (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again: Likewise. We can all play the "I don't give a shit" game. Not exactly a criterion of personal excellence is it? In fact, I'd say it is to the contrary of any reasonable quality control. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to argue that religion isn't inherently illogical, on the basis that logic just processes the relationships of assumptions to conclusions. It doesn't actually disallow making flagrantly false or unreasonable assumptions. Ikanreed (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this isn't far from the truth. Logic is OK for discourse analisys, and even then it is a specific breed of logic you use, but useless for a great many things. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Many versions of God seem to run into logical contradictions though if you consider all the ramifications of the "omni ..." characteristics.--Coffee (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, depending on ones defintion of what the terminology actually means, and what ome would expect from it in practice.

I dunno: a priori versus a postiori and all that. I feel the moment you start bringing observation into it the problems mount like a interstate pileup when in snows in Atlanta. But to strictly suppose a universe where an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient entity exists isn't unreasonable. You can compose that logically. It just isn't the same as the world we live in. The problem of evil depends on there being evil. Ikanreed (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that rationalism generally holds that we must have some reason to believe in the truth of something before we actually do; every functional human being in the world follows this rule in practice, because otherwise you would be standing rooted to the spot to not set off the invisible motion-sensitive mines you can't prove aren't all around you, while awaiting the certain-to-come assault of the invisible octopus-wasps from planet Zob which will eat you any minute now. So to start with you require some element of special pleading to explain why none of the other things that might exist are worthy of acknowledgement.

The statement usually applied there is "when you explain why you don't believe in any other god, I'll explain why I don't believe in yours." King Skeleton (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty with religion and logic isn’t about whether or not religion starts with assumptions (axioms) and logically develops conclusions, but whether or not the set of religious assumptions is consistent in the logical sense, i.e., doesn’t result in internal contradictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency). This can be determined in the negative (that is, not consistent) easily (think of the 0=1 argument game) but can be impossible to prove in the positive (that is, consistent). The vast majority of religious thought involves assumptions (axioms) that on simple logical reflection lead to contradictions (think distant starlight and YEC). This is a fundamental problem and is why many arguments sound anti-religious, but are in fact pointing out the contradictions. ^{— Unsigned, by: JoeEric / talk / contribs}

All religions are based on some guy just saying something and convincing other people that it is true. I see no reason to give it any greater weight than anyone else's opinion until it is backed up with demonstrable facts. Генгис^marauding 14:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly as the statement above. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This thread:

OP: "RationalWiki hurt my feelings therefore they are biased!"

Wrong.

RW: "Okay, how are we biased?"

OP: "Why you gotta be so mean to religion I just wanna be-LIEVE!"]

Bullshit. I have not said anything of the kind. You really need to hold up a mirror up to your own falsity.

RW: "Good for you - we're still going to critically evaluate the subject and mock its logical failures."

OP: "Why you gotta be so mean and immature?! I thought this was RationalWiki!

Did I miss anything? Space Turbo (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're missing out on the fact that when somebody points out you are nothing better than a cunt with pretentions, and they are right, then there is no falsehood in the argument at all. What you do about it is then your problem. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Were you summarizing this discussion in particular or literally every discussion an indignant new user brings to this site? "Why are you mocking libertarianism, it's a political belief!" or today "Why are you mocking anti-GMO nuttery, it's just nature!" Ikanreed (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. As appears to be the general ethos of the site thus far, clearly the majority view here is it's far better to try to make offensive remarks than just about anything else the site might stand for.

That isn't what's interesting though. Speaking as somebody who has used the internet and it's various chat rooms, forums and Usenet groups since www.symbolics.com was the best site on the web I have noticed the gradual erosion of the principle of connecting intelligent institutions as market forces push costs down and ease of use up it has become the very best ongoing example of the "chimps with typewriters" principle.

This means it serves many subsidiary purposes, including one as a worldwide crèche for anybody with antisocial personality disorder and a welfare cheque to while away their days trying to upset and offend.

You're certainly not the worst offenders the web has to offer, you will be totally apathetic to hear, but it does lead to the "Given a sufficient number of typewriters, a sufficient number of primates will eventually produce Rational Wiki".

Right, so with an apology to those above who wrote serious responses, that just leaves me to sit back and wait for another bout of waiting for you to throw your own faecal matter at the enclosure windows again then? How intelligent!

Oh, and if you're planning to try to sharpen your tongue again, try harder. The offence oriented among you are less effective at causing upset than those magnetic insects gift shops sell in a little perspex case. So, come on now, put the full weight of that considerable Rational Wiki intellect into really trying to hurt my feelings... Go on.. . I'll be checking back and you had better be really offensive or I will be very, very dissappointed.

Oh, sorry, I almost forgot the four tildes 2.96.101.230 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

oh, if you could only hear yourself. Deary, deary me. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"You're all biased against religious folks! Also I'm going to stereotype a bunch of (let's be honest, we actually do have a class problem here) mostly middle class atheists as welfare cheats, because I've only got so many things in this here bag of rightwing canned stereotypes." Ikanreed (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It needs more of "'big words' strung as if they're vomited from a dictionary that makes my argument sound sophisticated". LEFTYGREENMARIO 21:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"I have noticed the gradual erosion of the principle of connecting intelligent institutions as market forces push costs down and ease of use up it has become the very best ongoing example of the "chimps with typewriters" principle."

"This means it serves many subsidiary purposes, including one as a worldwide crèche for anybody with antisocial personality disorder and a welfare cheque to while away their days trying to upset and offend."

What?

You haven't contributed to this discussion whatsoever...

Excuse me for interrupting your flow, but exactly who has? I'd like to see you pointing out something you consider to be a "contribution"?

...aside from complaining in incomprehensible, pretentious language, poop references, and comparisons to brainless primates. I don't think anyone is going to respond to you seriously, even after they decipher your peculiar style of writing. RationalWiki makes fun of basically anything, but it especially mocks fundamentalism, which a part is stating that religious events actually did happen. Also, a lot of times, religion is linked with superstition and pseudoscience, which are subjects RationalWiki aims to cover. "Religious bashing", which is the subject of this topic apparently, is then going to be here. LEFTYGREENMARIO 21:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, besides that one thing mentioned above, I actually accept your statement as one of the few reasonable ones written thus far. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's Doxy's best? Sad. Quick. But sad, and boring. I am not offended at all. Ok, off you go... Doxy was first... Surely at least one of you can come up with better than that? 2.96.101.230 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

At what point was the "I shall go elsewhere" threat carried out?

If you're going to quit a community, do it. Ikanreed (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

He can't. His air of disdainful superiority requires an audience - even one as contemptuous as us. He needs someone to feel superior to and, for the moment, we're serving that role. Without Sir Toby Belch Malvolio is nothing. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that he may be waiting for his nanny to pick his toys up and put them back in his pram. Waaaahhhhh! ProblemChimp (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Damn near sounds like a borderline personality disorder at this point. Space Turbo (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Awwww, he really did leave :( Space Turbo (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have carried it out consistently both before and after writing my the comment from which you remove this statement. You may be able to read but your comprehension is poor. Of course, an alternative explanation is that your comprehension is good, but you don't care nearly as must about comprehension as you do about casting aspertion. The basic tool in any typical anti-anything/anyone discourse. Just slag it off, feel superior and leave it to fend for itself. We already know for a fact All Non-blue eyed American atheists are child molesters. See, easy isn't it? Decide against something and you can then just make up any old crap about it you like. Also you can make up any old crap about yourself in relation to it. Personally I'm a Brandishmantalianist which means, by defintion, I am superior in every way; more intelligent, more ethical and better looking than both atheists and theists. Bet you can't overturn it too. So do I win the just-making-shit-up about people competion? It turns out I do! Explained by the fact I am awarding or withdrawing credentials exactly as I see fit as well! So easy isn't it? Clearly anybody delcaring themselves to be either atheist or Christian, oir deemed so in my opinion, should be wiped out for their tacit inferiority of thought and action and also for the benefit of the greatest possible good; i.e. myself. Convert or die. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Boring troll, by the way. "How dare you have bias against me, by the way people different than me should be wiped out." Imma just keep oppressing you, if that's okay. Ikanreed (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The American absence of a sense of irony strikes! How sweet! Yes, I absolutely agree. The quote you are responding to is a pseud. Your response confirms it's reliability too in fact, since your exact same quotation, with just a small movement of the unquote: "How dare you have bias against me, by the way people different than me should be wiped out. Imma just keep oppressing you, if that's okay", pretty much sums up the general ethos of Rational Wiki, and generally of the "New atheism". Precisely the indended outcome of my own comment. It is so pleasant to have you absolutely confirm the precision of what I have written. Thank you Ikan! 194.75.238.182 (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind that you're trolling. Really, I don't. But could you please be less boring about it? Ikanreed (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't get why someone better than everyone at everything doesn't just go start their own website/wiki to display it to the world. You could make your own pulpit to scream at the world from without people saying anything you consider counterproductive. There is no one standing in your way. Go. Do it. Stop wasting your time typing here when you could be working on your masterpiece. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's likely that the first software I wrote was published some years before a number of you were even twinkle in your daddy's eye. Thanks for the advice though. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hell, it's even legal to fork rationalwiki, and change what you want under CC-A-SA, as long as you keep the edit records. You could write a bot to scrape the wikitext in an hour or two. Ikanreed (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

But none of that provides the same masturbatory self-congratulation as stoking one's own ego and persecution complex quite like proclaiming how much better you are than a given group while paradoxically claiming that said group is holding you down (despite any evidence to support it and with much evidence to the contrary as always)! Space Turbo (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"claiming that said group is holding you down"

I am not.

Meanwhile, it would be nice if you'd also answer the call to being forward evidence for your claims. We already have at least one countable offence of a claimn which is quite patently false, and little else besides the usual troll-like value judgements. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever happened to constructive dialogue?

Guys, listen to yourselves. This doesn't look anything like constructive dialogue, and nobody on this page is making themselves look big or clever. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hooray for the first intelligent comment not to be written by me. It may have become a productive dialogue but all the Evidence points to a group that don't want to be bothered with anything too constructive. You're the product of a system that allows absolutely anybody to publish absolutely anything they want to, thanks to absolutely no quality control whatsoever. Productive? No chance of that around here. Why don't you all go back to doing what you're good at and go bitch about Christianity? For all the negligible productive worth it has. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Holy shit, you're serious? All they've done here is go "it's unfair to the religious to deconstruct our arguments" with just a dash of "kill everyone who disagrees with me". Now, skeleton king shouldn't have banned them(seriously dude cool it with the talkspace bans), but there's not a lot you can do with someone who just goes "everything is terrible, and let me not explain in any meaningful way." Good faith debate requires a serious message to consider. Ikanreed (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

B0N's comments look like good faith to me & I don't see where you're pulling some of these assumptions about his/her beliefs & motivations from. As I see it, he/she has come here with some kind of understandable misconceptions about the scope of our articles (which could have been best addressed by referring to the info at RationalWiki, RationalWiki:Newcomers and What is a RationalWiki article? etc.) plus some criticisms about the site's/editors' POV, which - whether you or I agree with them or not - are a legitimate & valid perspective. Rather than dealing with it like adults, I see users piling in with all kinds of snide & smug comments, attacks, hostility, strawmanning, accusations of trolling & arbitrary pop-psych diagnoses. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh my gosh..... this reads like a break in the clouds. Thank you @Weaseloid! ^{— Unsigned, by: 194.75.238.182 / talk / contribs}

^ yeah this page is a bit depressing to read. Nullahnung (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the "debates" with LogicMaster777 have exhausted most people's reserves of politeness on RW.--TiaC (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I just see a guy who's saying there's a problem and then making a huge show of refusing to explain what he thinks it is. King Skeleton (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but it was a troll though. Fonzie (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How so? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the part where he comes in and says that this site is "cheapened by its bias," but then fails to account for what that bias actually is whinging about RW's critical examination of religion. And then there's the part where he goes full Sperglord and insists he's being persecuted...

...because we called him out for failing to demonstrate his claims meaningfully while hiding behind pompous walls of text while offering thinly-veiled threats. If the guy's serious, he's an idiot and if he isn't, it's the worst goddamn troll I've seen in a while. Either way, this sort of shit-posting deserves nothing more than derision! Space Turbo (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. You lot keep fantasisting that I feel like the commments I am referring are directed towards me or I'm somehow an offended Christian Fundamentalist. Usually I don't reveal under such misconceptions, that I am NOT religious, just to see the anti-religous bitch fight flow to the surface, but I'll spare you: I don't beleive in God either, that does not mean I have to either like or agree with that you are doing. I think it's fair to detect that you are persecuting Somebody by your self-confessed mockery, hence my reason for the original post: I cannot present the material here equally to people who either may or may not from a faith, within subjects which need not invoke the otherwise irrelvant debate on religion, without invoking the otherwise irrelevant debate on religion and making people I am Not interested in personally targetting feel like I am personally targetting them and seperating out an equally able group from the rest of the class. But, whatever you feel you are persecuting, I am certainly not it. I have seen trolls for years, so believe me when I tell you that somebody calling me an asshole for disagreeing with them is not a problem for me, especially since it makes Them look palpably stupid, not me. Meanwhile, you will have a hell of a job persecuting me from where you are... good luck trying if that's your intention! ^{— Unsigned, by: 194.75.238.182 / talk / contribs}

You are literally the only person to mention Christianity or fundamentalism in this entire discussion, so if you want to talk about people falsely framing others' arguments, you might just want to look a dash more inward. Ikanreed (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I really can't make out what comment you're referring to as a claim of being persecuted, but either way I don't see how that, or anything else you've just cited, would count as trolling. In fact, looking through our characteristics of trolls checklist, I see your comments on this page falling much more heavily within this pattern than BoN's. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, @Weaseloid, I would not want the trolls to turn on you or accuse you of palling up with me in any way, but, thanks again! ^{— Unsigned, by: 194.75.238.182 / talk / contribs}

Weaseloid is being reasonable, that's all. It's true that there are some unnecessarily aggressive comments. I've been a aggressive too, although I feel like I need to criticize the language used here. It may or may not have been the intent of the writer, though, to sound pretentious. The I.P. didn't really make a lot of aggressive comments nevertheless, but I can kind of understand that some people just lost patience arguing. LEFTYGREENMARIO 00:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If our editor can be accused of anything it's that his objections amount to a tone argument. In order to be taken seriously he really needs to present a number of specific cases rather than a general statement. --Weirdstuff (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Is that the best you've got? I don't care, I'm leaving. And another thing, son, I'm an old programmer so don't talk to me about wikis. --A troll

Fonzie (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the tone argument. The editor hasn't made attacks or anything, just questioned the bias of this wiki. Even though the criticism is a bit vague, I don't see personal attacks similar to the examples being made in the tone argument article. LEFTYGREENMARIO 00:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's exactly a tone argument. The example conversation at the start of the tone article argument is pretty bad but if you read the article I suggest that you will agree.

A tone argument is all about complaining about the style of a presentation without meaningfully addressing the content.--Weirdstuff (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Just an Anecdote

What "bias" I've experienced on this site is just taking sides... which is fine. in that sense everyone is biased. I've never seen any info withheld from this site.

I did get put in the vandal bin solely for posting "tedious crackpot spam" when there was no reason to do so (the person who did it didn't want to deal with my claims), but he was called out on it, and I was taken out. Ever since then, I had no problem.--ReptoidKiller (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Fuck You Goony Bastards

The guy is obviously a troll - stop trying to lend him any legitimacy as this thread has demonstrated repeatedly that he isn't actually concerned about any perceived "bias" but whether or not he can waste our collective time, effort and sanity for the lulz. FWIW, he should've been banned a while ago and I'm done giving him a platform. Space Turbo (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What has he/she said or done that's in any way bannable? Do you actually know what our blocking policy is? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

To be honest while I wouldn't consider it bannable, this person is certainly no wounded innocent: their debate technique is best summarised by the term "violent." Every single post is some form of attack: this person is older, more experienced, wiser, more capable, and more right than us, so clearly we must comply. His response to demands of evidence? Try to get me to retract the demand through peer pressure. I'm fairly sure despite his assertions to the contrary this is because he's a creationist and knows providing examples would show that in a heartbeat.

I've seen plenty of people like this modding over the years; they find something they know won't get changed, object to it in the vaguest terms possible, and then spend the rest of their time grandstanding about how they don't have to explain themselves further.

Does he have to actually pat you on the head and say "good dog" before you realise how much he's talking down to you, Weaseloid? Those responses he made to you were essentially "look, see, this is a good person, why can't you all be like them?" King Skeleton (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously not a case for ban. Making vague tone complaints about the site and then not following up with examples is not an offence.

If you think he's a troll then ignore him. If you think you can get some sense out of him then ask him to start getting specific. The worst thing is to get with the insults and the blocks.--Weirdstuff (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Time for a summary/lessons learned/post mortem section?

Okay, I realise that I'm late to the party and I'll frankly admit to being too lazy to read every single paragraph of this rambling thread. Nevertheless, I doubt I'm the only one, so I'll just add up my impressions and we can take it from there:

I) Has the original poster, the library IP (LIP), actually provided any useful and concrete examples of how RW is being "cheapened considerably by its bias"? LIP's initial post (and several of the replies to) reads to me like a cross between a concern troll and the balance fallacy with a dash of tone argument added for good measure. A quick breeze through the thread didn't seem to yield any empirical data to support what essentially appears to be an argument by assertion.

II) Has LIP provided any useful criticism in lieu of concrete examples? Here I mean useful responses to some of the more eloquent replies (i.e. more than telling LIP to basically push off - however appropriate such a suggestion might be)? So far, it seems that LIP has only tried to quibble about whether (s)he was guilty of employing various fallacies, rather than substantive responses to the objections to LIP's initial claim.

III) If LIP hasn't provided anything worthwhile through I) or II), have anyone else taken up the slack and raised some salient points somewhat analogous to the sentiment originally expressed by LIP, e.g. by finding the examples that LIP apparently didn't or by providing the kind of useful responses that LIP seems to have failed to produce? As far as I can see that doesn't really seem to be the case either.

IV) If LIP has contributed neither through I) or II) and no one else has presented anything along "LIP'ish" as per III) is there any reason to continue this thread? One reason, while not directly pertinent to LIP's posts in an of themselves, would be the meta-issue of how to respond to (any) criticism - but that is a question that is at best tangential to LIP's OP.

If IV) is the only type of subject of merit found in this thread, I guess we can safely and easily wound it up - but if I'm wrong (likely due to laziness), then please enlighten me. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your assessment looks good to me. However I am not aware that there is any provision for "winding threads up" nor do I feel there should be. If people believe the poster is any species of troll then they should not interact with him. If people want to continue the exchange they are welcome to.--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the OP's original concern can be summed up as "Is this RationalWiki or is this AntiReligious(AndThereforeAssumedToBeRational)Wiki?" Admittedly, his point of contention isn't the lack of religiousness, but the lack of neutrality. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not trying to stop the debate, merely to "wind it up" in the sense that it really didn't seem to be going anywhere (in terms of providing new and interesting topics and discussions). Therefore, adding a section trying to sum up what this thread has taught us (if anything) seemed a good idea to me. Anyone who wish to should of course feel free to bang on to their hearts' content.

And yes, it does seem that LIP is searching for a sort of Wikipedia'esque NPOV, but the problem is that (s)he is not willing to actually provide some good POV examples from RW, not to mention that when pressed, LIP seems to have been solely interested in fisking and quibbling over the wording of the responses, not actually defining or discussing a better version or ratio of POV/NPOV. This makes what initially appeared like LIP could be raising an interesting inquiry about bias and its role on RW (e.g. what are taboos, sections being biased to the point of strawmanning etc.) into something that resembles nothing more than mere concern trolling and tone arguments. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

As I read it one of LIPs objections was using religious examples for examples of fallacies - as if we were trying to make the likes of Ken Ham look bad. LIP feels that this is bias. I feel that it's part of our debunking role. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

B0N was interested in our articles summarising logical fallacies & disliked that so many of them use anti-religious examples, preferring abstract examples instead. In fact, the primary reason for these articles on logical fallacies is because they crop up so often in pseudoscience, religious apologetics, etc, as per our RW:MISSIONs, so such examples are appropriate for us. But I can see how somebody entering the site via these article might not be aware of this & might find these kinds of anti-religious examples a distraction. If this was a wiki about formal logic rather than about pseudoscience, authoritarian & fundamentalism etc, then B0N would be right & we should adopt more neutral examples, but that isn't the case.

What disturbs me is the willingness of users throughout this page to assume bad faith for no clear reason & make all kinds of other unfounded assumptions about B0N's beliefs & motivations, plus the pack mentality of users like SpaceTurbo jumping into the thread just to hurl insults at the unwelcome interloper, with nothing constructive to add & a poor understanding of what had actually been said. "Giving voice to the general communal consensus of willingness to cause avoidable offence", as B0N said.

This is far from a lone incident. We have a mission statement that says we welcome constructive dialogue, yet people who come here with criticisms of the articles, site or PoV are regularly branded as trolls & told to fuck off. It's contributing to the site's reputation as an narrow-minded echo chamber & likely to discourage serious contributors. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to think I engaged them pretty fairly at the beginning and got exactly zero meaningful response from it. And I lost faith in any meaningful discussion at the "everyone different than me should be expunged" sentiment. I get why you're arguing for more tolerance and due self reflection. Those are admirable qualities, but sometimes a troll is a troll. Ikanreed (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum isn't automatically trolling. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but seriously, I'm going to repeat that I tried an honest engagement and got nothing to work with, that's an important factor in my assessment. Ikanreed (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

When is bias a problem for rationalwiki

With the nice closure above, let's move this into a more useful frame of discussion for our own learning: what kinds of bias in edits can seriously hurt rationalwiki's quality at being what it actually is.

1. It's hard to ignore all the cases that get reverted instantly: people financially close to particular brand names of woo editing articles to make them more respectable. Obviously, almost everyone here is already on board with opposing this sort of bias, and it doesn't need a lot of extra attention.
2. Pet theory bias: where an editor has an idea they personally are quite enamored with that relates to an article. Wikipedia has this problem and suppresses it with a no original research policy. Here, I've only seen one major instance of it at alternative cosmology. I might have this problem and not be aware of it. Please feel free to let me know, if you see that.
3. Status quo bias: this is a problem every wiki with an established article and user base faces. Articles, as they mature, tend to get viewed as the best they could be, when huge deficits exist, and editors, naturally pattern matching with vandals and trolls, start to view every change to such articles with a great deal of suspicion. I suffer from this bias, but I have no idea how to counter it in myself reasonably.

There are probably a lot more than these. What kinds of biases do you think are problematic here? Ikanreed (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me, but that may just be, if not my pet theory then my pet aversion, that criticism of what I personally consider overly PC and superficial "culture feminism" (e.g. criticism of Anita Sarkeesian) on RW is likely to get one put in the MRA category or (too easily) slapped with the misogynist label. Not that some (well, probably a lot) of those lashing out at Sarkeesian aren't clearly in the MRA/misogynist camp. But while some of the criticism of Sarkeesian is just trollish, dickish or ignorant, this doesn't automatically make it MRA'ish or misogynist. Not to mention that considering Sarkeesian's analyses to be superficial and her criteria silly doesn't make anyone either a misogynist or an MRA. This is one instance where I think the mobocracy of RW tends to be less than ideal. Another example is the patriachy article which quite tellingly lumps in criticism with denial and ties both to MRA/misogynism. Even though specific cases of male disadvantage is acknowledged and it's rightly pointed out that this is not an indication of "the evils of feminism", there's a glaring absence of the reverse corollary: "Oh, we're sorry, where's the first female POTUS?" is no more of an argument in favour of the "patriarchy" than legally mandated male child support is indicative of a "feminazi conspiracy" (or are we seriously arguing that it was the "patriarchy" which prevented Hillary from becoming POTUS in 2008?). Likewise, the wage gap is solid evidence of female disadvantages, but not automatically of a patriarchy, any more than systemic disadvantages of poor children are an automatic indication of a plutocracy. The gender wage gap is a necessary, but not sufficient indication of a patriarchy, unless patriarchy is defined so broadly as to mean "any advantage enjoyed by men and not by women/disadvantage suffered by women and not by men". Such an automatic equation of any type of female disadvantage/male privilege with "patriarchy" seems to me a rather simplistic analysis and one which I doubt would be made in most other areas, the "race" issue being an obvious exception. Again, this is not to say that such feminist criticism is completely off the mark, or even advocating that patriarchy doesn't exists, but automatically tying any type of disadvantage to patriarchy (or racism) is sloppy reasoning, not to mention that it risks ignoring other relevant socio-economic aspects. The problem is, of course, that MRA/misogynists/racists do raise similar points, but I think the goal ought to be pointing out where they're mistaken, not simply falling back on a kind of argument which seems to me to be close if not downright into correlation does not imply causation-territory.

However, compared to the truly frustrating NPOV/OR on Wikipedia, I think that I actually find this kind of RW bias less problematic, especially from a systemic viewpoint. After all, such a thing as liking or disliking Sarkeesian, her methods or her critics is at least an honest row we can have in the open (or not engage in if it comes to that). On Wikipedia you just get those endless "This violates WP:OR/NPOV" replies which are the equivalent of the U.S. government responding to complaints about cannabis legislation by focusing on whether the plaintiffs can be disregarded for not having (proper) plaintiff status and repeating that cannabis is a schedule I drug (avoiding the actual discussion of whether this status quo is reasonable and/or why it should/shouldn't be changed).

Likewise, I like that it's OK here on RW to spell out that a view that the moon is made of raccoon liver makes you a crank, without having to find "reliable sources" which have specifically pointed this out (a huge hole in WP is that "views too stupid to be taken seriously" or simply "too obscure to have been noticed" are thus unlikely to be easily countered, unless you can make a case for them being a fringe view, undue weight and all that jazz). The downside being that we have a lot of articles without any citations or refs at all (practically an invitation to the "nyahnyahnyah that's just your opinion"-crowd).

I also find the WP NPOV to be galling because it effectively shields such dishonest shitebags as William Lane Craig, who has been abusing academic courtesy for decades (and of course his fanboys will kick up a furore if any negative stuff should find its way onto his WP page). Where to draw the limits of goat/snark/bias is of course both a matter of debate and taste, but I think that the problem with this side of RW is that it's unfortunately (too) easy to dismiss articles with tone arguments, which means that RW risks simply preaching to the choir. There's not necessarily anything wrong with this, but it does risk creating a slightly "cultish" community, especially in conjunction with mobocracy. Still, as I said, I definitely prefer it to the (pretend) NPOV of WP.

I hadn't thought of the "Status quo bias", so thanks for highlighting it (I'll try to keep it in mind - particularly with regards to the WLC page here on RW). ScepticWombat (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Shit, this came of as more of a rant than a reply - sorry. Short version:

Treatment of feminism is a potential problem for RW.

Sourcing often weak on RW.

Snark risks compromising communication of content and promote insularity on RW. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(ECx2)'m ok with all sorts of bias as long as the reasoning behind it is explained explicitly in a form that is understandable and not condescending to someone who is new to the topic. Do the explanatory leg work and I'll tolerate even egregious name-calling. Bias towards people who are already familiar with the topic at hand is something I see as a problem because I feel it is of much less value than educating and introducing those who are new. Nullahnung (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"You sound very clueless about feminism (you called her a culture feminist without even googling it to see if that was actually a thing? wow such nuance, such discourse), since you keep talking about how 'this evidence doesn't mean it's automatically a patriarchy' as if dithering semantics has any relevance in whether something is a result of the structural "female disadvantage/male privilege"...WHICH PEOPLE HAVE LABELED 'PATRIARCHY' WOW WHAT A USEFUL CONCEPT THAT ONLY PEDANTS TAKE LITERALLY.
"...no more of an argument in favour of the "patriarchy" than legally mandated male child support is indicative of a "feminazi conspiracy" (or are we seriously arguing that it was the "patriarchy" which prevented Hillary from becoming POTUS in 2008?)" Are we really, taking these ludicrous feminist ideas seriously? I see no argument proving I should believe in it! DERP
"solid evidence of female disadvantages, but not automatically of a patriarchy" What the hell kind of straw man are you even arguing against? this is such a pointless rant, it doesn't really matter how you define sexism.
"Such an automatic equation of any type of female disadvantage/male privilege with "patriarchy" seems to me a rather simplistic analysis and one which I doubt would be made in most other areas, the "race" issue being an obvious exception." Why does it seem simplistic? Why is race an "obvious exception"? Because you don't know what you're talking about, and require special evidence to prove "patriarchy" to be a useful concept?
"automatically tying any type of disadvantage to patriarchy" fucking obviously ugh what a waste of time! Calamondin (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Feminism, then

So, we're problematic about feminism. The thing about it is, "modern" anti-feminism is a powerful crank magnet. Biotruths and pick up artistry and denial of sociological studies on rape and the natural authoritarianism of traditional gender roles. When we choose not to focus overmuch on how Sarkeesian's videos, e.g. have legitimate problems, it's because those problems aren't on mission in the same way as the hate fueled irrational response that she garners is. The bias is a mission oriented one, and thus impossible to divert from. Ikanreed (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I heartily agree that ""modern" anti-feminism is a powerful crank magnet" and that PUAs, MRAs and the biotruth camp are loathsome troglodytes who should shuffle back into their lairs where they can regale each other with their vile crankery. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean that to be an end-all be all summary of the discussion. I spun it off as a topic because there's probably some room to try to work within that framework to eliminate the problems we do get. I just meant that we can't have a summary decision on removing feminist bias on the wiki, due to on-missionness of some of it. There may still be a more nuanced approach here. Ikanreed (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A more nuanced approach would be to stop acting like this is all basic stuff that does not need citing or explaining and anyone who asks for such is automatically an MRA. It is not in fact stuff that only idiots wouldn't grasp, it takes a while to grasp if you happen to have to build your own opinion based on the rag tag plethora of differently biased info that is out there and your education has not included much relating to sociology. Nullahnung (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Personally, I take the need for factual and academic citations of categorical assertions as quite important. That's my favorite kind of contribution to make. But... let's be honest here, feminism articles aren't really any worse for that than most others. Ikanreed (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we had a good thing going at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Project_Social_Justice some months ago, but all those who participated seem to have since disappeared. :( Nullahnung (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I was just trying to make it clear that a decision to focus on the truly disturbing (and in my eyes societally and personally harmful) anti-feminists over the, by comparison, minor issues with "culture feminism" is one that I can understand, and agree with. The potential damage that a Sarkeesian can cause is after all negligible (I doubt many, if anyone, will get a worse opinion of gamers/game designers due to her writings and even if they do, that's hardly a problem). By contrast, PUAs not only denigrate women in the public sphere through their derogatory language, but PUA "techniques" seems to be pretty much amount to low intensity psychological bullying and harassment targeting their "marks'" self-esteem and thus constituting direct (attempts at) harmful behaviour towards specific persons. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Both feminism and anti-feminism are crank magnets, because pretty much any sort of utopian politics is a crank magnet, and attempting to remake the relationship between the sexes based on an ideological blueprint is utopian. (Is "biotruth" the latest cant for "evilutionism"?) Now a lot of the feminist woo is tied up in eccentric religious ideas and pseudo-history; and they've been around for a long time and are fairly familiar. More problematic is the ideology-driven belief in human malleability that leads to evolution denial: some feminist ideology seems to deny that male and female brains are wired differently, or that differences in body chemistry cause differences in behavior. It imagines that these things can be changed by campaigns for social reform.

Feminism only seems saner than anti-feminism because it's more common and more familiar. It's rather like how for the time being Mormons seem a bit saner than Scientologists. Both founding legends are equally unlikely. Both were founded by leaders who were real nutsacks. One is closer in time than the other and easier for us to see. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 20:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you aren't familiar, "Biotruths" is simplisitic bullshit projections of sexism onto the framework of evolutionary psychology to reach predetermined conclusions, often without any sort of serious scientific substantiation. Now if you want to construct a strawman human tabula rasa as the alternative to that, go ahead and take that shit apart, but that's not what's in our articles, and you know it. Meanwhile our articles include a lot of focus on biases, systemic social problems, and observational science. You got some points actually backed up by scientific literature, rather than regurgitating "common sense" as "good science". If you can find even one damn subsection from any of the host of feminism articles on rationalwiki that engages in the no biological differences bullshit you're railing against, I'll be surprised.

What I'm saying is fuck off with this dishonest shit. Ikanreed (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that it's a biased website and I disagree with many of the views here - though that's part of the site's intent - it doesn't even claim to be neutral, and it's not pretending to be a serious encyclopedia from the get go (like Conservapedia is). Bias on its own isn't necessary bad unless it's presented as absolute truth.--206.255.11.166 (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The only absolute, incontestable truth here is that there needs to be more goat. Ikanreed (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

DOUBLE GOAT!!! ShabiDOO 04:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)