|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Forum:Yahoo Answers guy
Yahoo Answers: Is RationalWiki a bigoted ideological cesspool?[edit]
From "The Kingdom of God is Within You":
That's one of the most bigoted ideological cesspools of Antitheistic disinformation. Its proponents even pass it off as atheistic, and that's disinformation. Atheists don't have beliefs about God, the Bible, and Christians to evangelize.
I was being overly polite to call RationalWiki's doctrinal fallacies and derogatory falsehoods, "disinformation". I should have called them, "bigoted slurs".
From "Brad":
So you think the information contained within rationalwiki is all bad, and your evidence for this is one out of the hundreds of thousands of entries it contains that you happen to disagree with. Is that what you're saying?
Unrelatedly, is there any consensus on whether YouTube comments or Yahoo Answers are worse? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 14:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Facebook comments under common news sources (MSNBC, New York Times, New Yorker) are worse. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you even care, Fuzzy? Creating a siege mentality? Or the usual "we piss people off, we must do something right" self-congratulation? Or do you actually care? You already inoculated yourself against any criticism. That's the purpose of RW:PISSED and SPOV (aka "yes, it's biased, hence we can claim anything!" argument). You have the social justice crowd left only, and drop-in visitors from Google. Anti-creationists, atheist, skeptics, people who fucking love science, rationalists, the edutainment-loving crowd — a hugely popular and growing sector — should flock to the project, but they don't. Of course. You provide little benefit. Many articles are riddled with nonsense. You support the Blackmailer's view on Freedom of Speech. No intelligent discourse can be found. Articles on e.g. Free Will, a hot topic right now, add nothing to the discourse and aren't even entertaining to read. They are just a waste of time that could go into reading Wikipedia, or better specialized sources. You have incorporated blatant pseudo-science into many an article, e.g. "levels of analysis" on "oppression and privilege" in the Social Justice article that are nothing but cringe-worthy. Where original research would be great to have, e.g. anatomy of the flame wars/contro-manufactuversies in the a/s movement, you offer extreme one sided propaganda that makes no attempt of understanding anything. Like before, one is better off reading the views of the protagonists themselves instead of wasting time with your PR rehash of their words. And don't say one could make improvements. No employed, mentally sane person can keep up with the level of burning zeal coming from certain quarters. ~ Aneris ✻ 16:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then why are you still hear posting walls of text no one will read? Petey Plane (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- 1) I hope it will improve. 2) I want to speak up 3) I deem it useful to, occasionally, undermine the conformity. 4) It's easy, too. 5) If not useful to improve anything, it tends to make the other side even more zealous, and this helps to make the project more transparent. Ideally, the RW would be more transparent and ditch the mission statement and adjust to what it really is about now, i.e. intersectional critical race theory and legacy work on creationism and woo. I also have no problem with another site that peddles this ideology. But I dislike it, that the RW disguises itself as an "enlightenment-based" project (however you want to call this, reasonable, rational, critical-thinking, etc.) when it has evidently abandoned that long ago. ~ Aneris ✻ 16:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The debunking of the religious worldview on this site remains excellent; your myopic focus on the SJW topics blinds you to the treasure of anti-ignorance material we have. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- 1) I hope it will improve. 2) I want to speak up 3) I deem it useful to, occasionally, undermine the conformity. 4) It's easy, too. 5) If not useful to improve anything, it tends to make the other side even more zealous, and this helps to make the project more transparent. Ideally, the RW would be more transparent and ditch the mission statement and adjust to what it really is about now, i.e. intersectional critical race theory and legacy work on creationism and woo. I also have no problem with another site that peddles this ideology. But I dislike it, that the RW disguises itself as an "enlightenment-based" project (however you want to call this, reasonable, rational, critical-thinking, etc.) when it has evidently abandoned that long ago. ~ Aneris ✻ 16:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why in the name of fuck is free will a "hot topic"? And where? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then why are you still hear posting walls of text no one will read? Petey Plane (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you even care, Fuzzy? Creating a siege mentality? Or the usual "we piss people off, we must do something right" self-congratulation? Or do you actually care? You already inoculated yourself against any criticism. That's the purpose of RW:PISSED and SPOV (aka "yes, it's biased, hence we can claim anything!" argument). You have the social justice crowd left only, and drop-in visitors from Google. Anti-creationists, atheist, skeptics, people who fucking love science, rationalists, the edutainment-loving crowd — a hugely popular and growing sector — should flock to the project, but they don't. Of course. You provide little benefit. Many articles are riddled with nonsense. You support the Blackmailer's view on Freedom of Speech. No intelligent discourse can be found. Articles on e.g. Free Will, a hot topic right now, add nothing to the discourse and aren't even entertaining to read. They are just a waste of time that could go into reading Wikipedia, or better specialized sources. You have incorporated blatant pseudo-science into many an article, e.g. "levels of analysis" on "oppression and privilege" in the Social Justice article that are nothing but cringe-worthy. Where original research would be great to have, e.g. anatomy of the flame wars/contro-manufactuversies in the a/s movement, you offer extreme one sided propaganda that makes no attempt of understanding anything. Like before, one is better off reading the views of the protagonists themselves instead of wasting time with your PR rehash of their words. And don't say one could make improvements. No employed, mentally sane person can keep up with the level of burning zeal coming from certain quarters. ~ Aneris ✻ 16:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do I post criticisms of RW? First because they're usually insanely dumb and funny and second because there's a possibility it might help RW improve itself. Or, as you say, because I'm clearly trying to construct a siege narrative. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Inevitably, when you have a source that takes any kind of editorial position, no matter how justified, people will see that as biased against them. And then the bias fallacy fills in the rest: they're wrong because they're biased, and they're bad because they're wrong. Wikipedia proves that people will still say this all the time even if you bend over backwards to create the best sense of neutrality possible. We are ideological, especially on the religious subjects the poster in the yahoo answers page suggests. The rational counter-charge is "So what? Are we wrong? How so?" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed! The vast majority of internet criticism falls under that category -- the remainder might be useful, tho. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Anonymous sysop here. I don't think RW is a 'bigoted cesspool', but I do think the stance we've taken on social justice and feminism (e.g. privilege, Anita, the like) is not good. I think we're too extreme when it comes to viewing issues about feminism, namely that we tend to oppose anyone who criticizes it. I think that's a little too clannish, and that we shouldn't be blindly loyal to the group perjoratively called the 'SJWs'. That's my main criticism of this site's actual content. Now the behind-the-scenes is another matter entirely... 173.88.182.123 (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- RW fell to the SJW menace in approximately ... 2008 - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Whose blog is that anyways? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Stabby the Misanthrope, one of our old-timers - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Whose blog is that anyways? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yahoo Answers guy is back[edit]
One has to give them points for trying. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- And for persistence. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- What is their obsession with our article on charity of all things? Like that's a particularly representative article or something? It's almost AfD-worthy considering its general encyclopedic nature (e.g. like the now-deleted article called Immigration). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- And again. FuzzyCatPotato of the Black Flagellas (talk/stalk) 22:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe s/he gets brownie points for each post? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- And again. FuzzyCatPotato of the Black Flagellas (talk/stalk) 22:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- What is their obsession with our article on charity of all things? Like that's a particularly representative article or something? It's almost AfD-worthy considering its general encyclopedic nature (e.g. like the now-deleted article called Immigration). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
He took a 3 day break[edit]
Each Yahoo Answer that attacks RW is another member of the army that rises against us. I tremble before their might -- their magnificence. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- "This question sounds like mental flatulence". Someone just nailed it! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)