Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki
|
This essay is an original work by RationalWikiWiki editors. It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas. Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights. Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts. |
“”In fact, i consider myself exsptionally more of a rational man than those of the likes of Rationalwikie and the Libral/Luvvie-Left Bum tart's.[sic]
|
| —Anglo-Saxon Foundation user "Teutoburg Weald"(link) |
"I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" cry the critics.
Indeed. How can a site that calls itself "rational" not see the obvious superiority of whites, persecution of males, efficacy of homeopathy, truth of the Bible, existence of God, proven workings of trickle-down economics, and/or [belief XYZ]?
The obvious answer is that RationalWiki is truth incarnate made by humans, and humans aren't always right. Our articles may be flawed or incomplete or dead wrong.
The obvious followup is that this is also true of our readers (that's you!). You're human, and humans aren't always right. Your views may be flawed or incomplete or dead wrong.
In short: We don't call ourselves "RationalWiki" because we think that our every word is Gospel truth. (Or the atheist equivalent.) We call ourselves RationalWiki because we think we're mostly right. (Actually, that's a lie.) If you think you can disprove us or our articles, have at it. Whining that "we should call it IrrationalWiki!"(link) and/or unironically referring to our site with a space in between the words "Rational" and "Wiki" is the laziest, tritest criticism possible. Whining about its left-wing bias is almost equally lazy. Unsurprisingly, seemingly no one has been clever enough to think of “TrationalWiki”. We already know that we aren't perfect. Tell us why. Be constructive.
Why?[edit]
| —RomeoPath(link) |
Perfection incarnate[edit]
"Rational" as a word doesn't just mean an appeal to logic and reason (though anyone putting too much trust in a dictionary would undoubtedly spit this definition back). "Rational" also suggests that a "rational" person, far from just "appealing to logic and reason", is very much intellectually superior and absolutely 100% correct and justified.
Of course, this is ridiculous. Nobody has ever got everything correct, ever. Sources that screw up but still try to provide the truth are better than no sources at all. Just because science has been wrong before doesn't mean that science isn't worth a damn. (If you disagree, please consider that device you're reading this on exists only because of scientific findings.)
Obviously, RationalWiki is different. We're the cream of the crop. OK? We're 100% correct and never make mistakes. That's why we have this. And this. And this. And this and this and this. And, of the most relevance, this.
I am right, you are wrong[edit]
The trouble is, no one ever believes they are thinking irrationally. This is quite easily demonstrated, because whether we like it or not, in the mind of pretty much every single person in the world is a little script that reads like so:
“”I am right, everything I think is right. This much is obvious because I wouldn't think something if it was wrong, would I? If I could point to an opinion of mine and say "that's wrong, and very irrational", I would simply stop thinking it and discard it. As this is empirically true, we can safely define "right" as "whatever I think" — making whatever I think right. Therefore, if you don't think like me, you are very much wrong by definition. QED bitches.
|
This leads to an impasse where two (or more) parties can each believe, quite firmly, that they are being rational and the other is being irrational. Nine times out of ten, when someone is verbally accusing you of being irrational, they're actually just accusing you of disagreeing with them.
Calm and rational[edit]
“”Sorry for you chaps, a bit more humbleness would make you more trustworthy as people really dedicated to KNOWLEDGE.(link)
|
There is also a small but significant confusion between appearing rational and appearing as a calm, Zen-like figure of reason, so those with a sharp tongue or a good eye for snark may well be accused of being "irrational", regardless of their actual content. But again, this isn't the case, and accusing someone of being "irrational" for using laconic or foul language is fallacious, i.e. the tone argument.
Whoops[edit]
In hindsight, "RationalWiki" was probably a bad choice of words, but "SkepticWiki" was already taken, "Skeptical Empiricist Wiki" isn't catchy, and "Liberapedia", apart from already being taken, is just embarrassing (by both name and the nature of the existing site with that name). What else could it have been?
Examples[edit]
“”Real rational people don't need to label themselves as rational. So a so called rational wiki is necessarily full of bullshit.
|
| —/u/katabn, commenting in /r/TheRedPill, which has promoted The Rational Male (book) for 3 years(link) |
“”The RationalWiki™ (RW™) used to be a (sort of) funny troll parody of the Republicans who got banned from Wikipedia and created Conservapedia because they hate President Trump and now calls it "the IrationallWiki".
|
| —Encyclopedia Dramatica at its best(link) |
This is a very common criticism. (No, really.) Here are some quotes:
It's too atheist[edit]
- Ah, IrrationalWiki and TalkOrigins. Two biased Atheist-driven think tanks. Wikipedia is unreliable anyway. Look up Michael Behe.(link)
- This section is so skewed with anti Fundamentalist rhetoric that is is obviously not scholarly. So much for Rational!(link)
- "Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king." Tywin Lannister[.] Similarly[,] any site that must call itself rational isn't truly rational.(link)
It's too anti-racist[edit]
It's too anti-conspiracist[edit]
- Rationalwiki is a CIA-sponsored propaganda website posing as a rational critic.(link)
- For 'Rational', read: utterly unsceptical of the propaganda one is raised with — or why else would mainstream news sources not be similarly ridiculed? — combined with a wholly misplaced arrogance that such a stance represents the 'truth' and everything else 'bullshit'.(link)
- What RationalWiki really is[:] A bunch of people irrationally thinking they know what anything really is.(link)
- YOU ARE (allegedly) PAID TROLLS AND YOU KNOW IT.(link)
- RationalWiki (nicknamed IrrationalWiki) and Wikis on politics tend to have a certain viewpoint, such as Wikipedia is mainstream US liberalism. Conservapedia is mainstream US conservatism. For IrrationalWiki, it is pro-neo-Marxism, pro-Globalism, and the hypocritical position that conspiracy theories are hoaxes.(link)
- I didn't know Skepticism consisted in unquestioning[sic] the views that are taken for granted by the majority. Try BandwagonWiki, it's available.(link)
- You have your janky platform here riddled with the brainwashed, the immature, and operatives, and just like assholes, bellybuttons, and opinions... I guess you all ought to be proud for making anti-counter-propaganda since you clearly support the Big Brother "official" narrative.(link)
It's too liberal[edit]
- IrrationalWiki is a load of bullshit. Politically Correct culture at its worst. It literally bashes anything that isn't mainstream feminist-approved far-left bullshit.(link)
- The name RationalWiki is the most disgusting euphemism. It's like the Ministry of Peace in 1984. It's the headquarters [What a compliment!] of batshit crazy SJWism.(link)
- Go take a look at "RationalWiki" to see what happens when radical feminists and SJWs take control of your wiki.(link)
- YOU GUYS ARE FUCKING MORRONS?[sic] what the fuck is this site? Your[sic] no better than FOX news, your[sic] fucking wankers and weaklings. Get a fucking real job you bastards instead of sitting on a site spreading literal communist Ideas, fucking commie scum.(link)
- Online wiki devoted to propagating left-wing ideals without explicitly stating so. The title "Rational Wiki" is deliberately misleading, as it implies a logical, unbiased, emotionally detached approach when the site reads like a hotly opinionated liberal blog.(link) Note: the comment is considered a "top" pick and has 1000+ upvotes and just over 100 downvotes.
- Rationalwiki.org is a left wing propaganda machine. Just terrible. Petition against them.(link)
- RationalWiki is an irrational, far left troll site. Trust me, you don't want to be citing them. You need a better source.(link)
It's too liberal[edit]
- Comrades! The rationalwiki article on communism fucking sucks.(link)
- Rationalwiki has always been filled with smug liberals that claim to be neutral. I'm not drunk enough for their shit.(link)
- Rationalwiki's pages on communism, AKA, a hive of smug liberalism(link)
- [RationalWiki] spreads imperialist lies and about socialist states including the USSR and [North] Korea while uncritically promoting narratives from the CIA and U.S. State Department.(link)
It's too feminist[edit]
- I know you people are fruitcakes but try to aim for some semblance of rationalism. [....] No wonder your icon looks like a brain starved of oxygen.(link)
- If it's a group and women are present... don't bother with logic. It's irrelevant to the feels[.] Also usually true for groups that boast about being logical. (cough rationalwiki cough)(link)
- Why not call that wiki autismwiki instead of rationalwiki?.(link)
- Rationalwiki? - More like Irrationalwiki(link)
It's not feminist enough[edit]
- I thought rationalwiki was rational, I see them make all the same fallacies as libfems who've never read any radical literature.(link)
- Think of rationalwiki as wikipedia without reliable sources and edited almost entirely by MRAs and Trans Activists.(link) (Wha? Have they seen our harshing of MRAs?)
- So, my blog was recently linked to from the ‘Rational’ Wiki talk page on "TERFs". The person said that my blog is "useful for debunking practice". I've seen no comments forthcoming from him or any other anti-feminist trans activists (AFTAs) on my blog, so one wonders.(link)
- 'Rational' Wiki's irrational article on radical feminism(link)
- There was nothing rational about that. It was all bollocks as far as I could tell.(link)
What constitutes a suitable, sensible, and above all rational response?[edit]
Drink! Then, if it's on a talkpage, you may respond with the following templates, if you so choose: {{RATIONALwiki}}, and/or {{irrationalwikicollapse}} to hide the comment if the screed is very long or annoying.