RationalWiki talk:Pissed at us/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 September 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Attributing the quotes

Please, do it. Most forum software allows linking to individual posts.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

One missing

Conservapædia. Pippa (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Mentions of RW on CP are now banned and Schlafly is over us for the most part, and I'm actually inclined to believe that. Essentially the only quotable source is Karajou's blog as he's the one that's really pissed. ADK^{...I'll discalceate your gun!} 20:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, mentioning Conservapedia on RationalWiki is now also a taboo... Actually, CP's so red with rage at us speaking our name is a bannable offense. Not to mention we've quite a few juicy Conservaleaks hate rants that are just as old as some of the forum posts we cite here.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This quote was once made on CP by none other than Rob Smith:

• RW is the home hideout for the putrid, stinking, miserable, vile, poorly educated, wife beating, psychopathic trolls who plague us.

I remember immortalising at LP here. Sadly the original is no longer available. Perhaps we could get Rob to confirm he said it?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fall Down

If memory serves, Our favourite misogynist troll from backalong started out at a men's issues forum somewhere, didn't he? Or is that where he went to whine every time we deleted his crap? Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 21:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

According to RWW SOC.MEN. They even gave us a link here. The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 22:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Though apparently it's almost entirely Fall Down there. So I'd say it doesn't warrant a spot here. Thunderkatz^Ho! 22:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Point. Let him wallow in obscurity. The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 22:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway

Does Tony Sidaway count? Although pissed at us may be an overstatement. sterile^talk 22:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And Science And Math Defeated? sterile^talk 22:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I dunno about Sidaway (who is he?), but I'd say SaMD not only counts, but also requires us to drink for the rational comment as well. Thunderkatz^Ho! 00:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sidaway's post is critical of RW rather than being upset by what we have said about him which is surely the point of this article. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 01:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Err, a lot of the forum ones are about people pissed off by stuff we wrote about their unifying topic, but not necessarily them. Actually, except for ASF and IA, most of them seem like that. Thunderkatz^Ho! 01:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted scholar

I thought that blog was a parody. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jhingade

Did we ever establish that we were visited by the actual Jhingade? Thunderkatz^Ho! 05:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall Nx or Trent doing an IP check at some point, but I'll be damned if I can remember where I remember that from. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 13:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I remember Trent saying that we got legal threats from him.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Underground

I did a quick search, the only thread about us I found there ([1]) seems pretty mild. I'm inclined to take it off the list, myself, unless there's something I'm missing... Baljit (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's more, I agree. (On an unrelated note, their inability to understand the usage of the term chickenhawk, even when one member posts the definition from WP, is slightly depressing.) Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's one of the older ones I remember reading so included it on the list. I've only just noticed that it's a single post by Jinxy, so yeah, ignore it. ADK^{...I'll advocate your diet pill!} 23:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ATS

Interestingly, Above Top Secret seem to have taken our criticism to heart[2]. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've always enjoyed how people think that, just because we run MediaWiki software, we should be as neutral as Wikipedia or that we are like Wikipedia in anyway outside of the software. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 13:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually changed the wording of that "External links" section after I found that thread. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, have in mind that large forums tend to be diverse, and it will be a gross generalization to attribute the attitude of a handful of posters to the whole forum.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Citenzidumdumum

Never know how to spell that. I'm sure more than a few of them had a fanny wobble over our article on them, and our coverage of the carter, as well as larron's activity charts. It's probably noted in WIGOCZ and TWIGOCZ, but I'm too lazy too look. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yudkowsky

What's the story on him? I did a search but couldn't find any comments from him about us - right now he and Jhingade are the only sections hat haven't been filled in, so it'd probably be best to take their names off the article if no-one's going to write about them any time soon Baljit (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

He's an arrogant asshat with a personality cult and he made some cracks about how we're amateurs or whatever--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's mixed. On the one hand we're a place where they can recruit hardcore rationalists, on the other hand we're "clueless" - same thread as the RationalWiki:Pissed_at_us#LessWrong section covers. Ask DG or Tetronian about it, I suppose. ADK^{...I'll dry your mug!} 12:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The other description sounds more like he was defending us against attacks from LessWrongians, so I've taken his entry out. If anyone's got a quote where he disses us, they can just re-add it. Röstigraben (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Knight

Is it worth mentioning this guy after this post? Having looked at his blog it's no surprise that liberals have never refuted anything he's said because it's a mass of badly-written text, but it still might be worth including here if more people agree. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Liberals? Is that his code word for skeptics and rationalists? Had a look at the first post in the blog but as it was an unreadable block of unparagraphed text my eyes just kept skating over it.

Like Schlafly - if he disagrees with it, it's liberal. I'm glad it's not just me who can't read his screeds; I wondered if my attention span was beginning to atrophy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that in his other posts he does manage some paragraphing, so maybe I was unjust to judge him on the wall of tl/dr text on the last one. Still, it does look like hard work. But yes, he does seem to be annoyed with us.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean

Ooh, I'm really "Pissed at us", the quote you picked demonstrates just how pissed I am:

Multiple examples of individual acts of irrationality on the part of RationalWiki editors can be given. However, it must be said, everyone is going to be irrational sometimes; and even the most rational community may still have some members that are decidely irrational. What we must look for, instead, is the patterns, which extend across multiple editors, and across time.

That sounds like a really really angry man. He must be super pissed to be writing things like that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A few points. Firstly, "pissed" doesn't necessarily means frothing-at-the-mouth angry in this context. I know your familiarity with naughty words is lacking, but surely you can recognise that. Secondly, why is Maratrean even in this list at all? It's really against the spirit of the list which is supposed to really highlight people who take offence to the specific content purely because it disagrees with them, not critics or every single instance of the "why do you call it RATIONALwiki" card. ADK^{...I'll delete your band!} 12:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Seán Manchester

I actually love his quote. I'm going to put that on a t-shirt. VOX^HUMANA 13:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If he doesn't recognise himself in the description of a Christian (that he says is from RationalWiki) I think that makes him an OK dude. Granted, he's a total loon who thinks he's a vampire slayer but it seems he's got nothing against booze, gays, Jews, rock music and playing cards. --Spud (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

a vampire slayer ... (with) ... nothing against booze, gays, Jews, rock music and playing cards. - I'm a pro musician and that describes most of the people I work with. VOX^HUMANA 14:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Unhinged rating

Unhinged Rating:
5 / 5
Batshit insane.

Unhinged Rating:
4 / 5
Frothing at the mouth.

Unhinged Rating:
3 / 5
Little ball of rage.

Unhinged Rating:
2 / 5
Still on the trolley, just.

Unhinged Rating:
1 / 5
Let's not get them excited...

I figure a 1-5 scale for how unhinged the criticism is. Less Wrong would be about a 1 (it's a fair one, let's be frank) whereas Brennan would be a good, solid 5.

^gnostic 11:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's gold Jerry, that's gold! Can we get those templated? Say a {{unhinged|grade=5}} type thing? VOX^HUMANA 11:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't an "unhinged" rating show a broken/disassembled hinge?--ZooGuard (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's all Wikimedia Commons has at the moment. ^pathetic 12:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But I am off set-building in about half an hour, if I come across any broken hinges I'll get a snap. ^gnostic 12:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I like this. Sadly I don't have any spare hinges lying around to snash. Тy^talk 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

{{Hinge}} FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting one

[3] Balaam (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Neo-Pagan? Neo-Nazi?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

He's one of this lot; we have a screencap of his past gibberings here. Pretty sure this is him too. Balaam (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Why aint he got a life? Look at the poster, that's research there. That's why we don't have lives! ^moral 16:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually came across this fellow's profile a while back, and at the time he had some interesting pro-Breivik comments on his wall. He's since removed them, so it's just as well I took a screengrab, oh ho ho. Balaam (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Dramatica

Gee, I wonder why ED doesn't give two fucks about RW. --Martin Joaquinez (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The MRAs?

Not quite a forum or organisation, but quite annoyed at us - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Too general category. It would be similar to including "the CTs".--ZooGuard (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire Gamergate movement

They've written unfavorably of us for a hot minute, thanks to our article blasting the entire movement. TokenSkepticMagician LITERALLY SATAN 19:57, 27 February 2015 (JST)

Still pissed:

Rome Viharo: Rational Wiki deletes essay criticizing Rational Wiki for public shaming in Wikipedia outing/stalking. Scream!! (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Also posted on Skeptiko forum.

I undid the deletion of his essay, again. Will he undo the whining on his website? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 12:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Weird how on RW he campaigns as an "agnostic" but on Skeptiko he's throwing red meat to his base: "Words like 'pseudoscientist!' 'woo supporter'! get thrown around by these communities to individuals they believe are writing or researching in a number of alternative health or mind/body topics..." Leuders (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Found this On Reddit.

http://i.gyazo.com/44114570fdf125c3b5bb5f7718302df1.png

It's towards the bottom, lol.

I can barely understand any of that. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess we're evidence of SJW bias? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding the Norwegian Tabloid

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Fmeninger%2Finternett%2Fnettets-moralpoliti%2Fa%2F23537579%2F&edit-text= Is it worth it? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 05:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Anders is clearly pissed at us! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

An arseload of quotes spam from a BoN

1: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

2: ^{[citation needed]} for all of these. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 13:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I put this word salad in a collapse box. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We should try to communicate with the BoN in their own language. I'll give it a try: U mad bro? Dendlai (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Communicate in their own language? You mean, go their site and paste in a complete mishmash of some tall Saloon Bar thread in which we all agree with each other that they're knobs? I don't care much for that process myself... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The Right Stuff on your page

Moved here from the Saloon bar.

http://therightstuff.biz/2015/05/18/the-rational-view-on-race/ WeAreEqual (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that guy only needs two paragraphs to go full batshit-stupid-racist mode... --Irian (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Race is a biological reality. It isn't based on "one gene that varies in it's distribution by a few percentage points." but defined by ancestry. Rationalwiki are politically correct clowns and the rightstuff refuted your racialism page filled with lies written by the anti-fascist Krom.Lord mcnally (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

"Refuted"... You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. --Irian (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It means demonstrating that you are wrong. So yes, refuted. 31.54.203.115 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you are confusing "spouting the usual racist bullshit" with "demonstrating that you are wrong". --Irian (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Is RationalWiki a Left Wing Hate Website?

Q: All of their articles are sophomoric screeds against Christians. The whole website looks like it was designed by some pasty nerd in the suburbs who still listens to Marilyn Manson LoL

A: No.

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently this book mentions us

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki_talk:Mentions#Apparently_this_book_mentions_us.

But for the life of me I can't find it, nor am I sure I want to. The Self Perceiving Universe: A Quantum Intelligent Design Evolutionary Metaphysics Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 14:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

How do you know it mentions us if you can't find it yourself? Christopher (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

One is on page 227 - "According to an irrational website calling itself 'Rational Wiki' taking quantum mechanics as being significant should be considered to be a 'misunderstanding of how science works.'" Attributed to the Alex Tsakaris page, though I can't find the quote in the page (is it possible to search the fossil record for a particular string?).

Also, internal footnote 107 cites the fish_that_survive_on_land#creationist_responses section, but the page itself wasn't included in the sample. Daev (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention every time a crank notices us on this page, that's what RW:PISSED is for. Christopher (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Why; you're starting to sound a little RW:PISSED yourself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

References to us on pages 66 and 227, with mentions in the bibliography on pages 483, 484, and 490. Vive Liberté! 02:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Science and Math Defeated

Poe's law aside, I think the idea is that by having an article about that blog, searches for the blog will pull up RationalWiki as well, thus stealing hits. —Kazitor, ^pending 10:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Tent quote

Who said the relevant quote, of whom, and can it be adapted for RW purposes? 86.191.20.148 (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

what tent quote? I can't find it. Nudescendant (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Websites Wiki

Seems like RationalWiki found there's a page about you guys in RRW wiki. Any reason to debunk it? Anyone? Mar9122 (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Full on debunking haters is an infinite well of wasted time, you end up debunking their response to your debunking of their response to your debunking. It's mostly best to stick to our mission and just list the people who don't like us and why, then ignore them. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I may need another Bingo card after looking at our entry. It's... cute. Lots of right-wing and far right buzzwords and dog whistles. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Another amusing feature is their need for "balanced articles" and disdain for the tone of our articles all the while emphasizing how serious they are in comparison to us. Overall their article made me laugh. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

As in like charity is a guilt reduction? Mar9122 (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

If nothing is done to address the cause that the charity brings attention to, then yes, it is mere motions. Let's take starving children, the example in the article. If, all I do is donate money to a charity, then, I am merely assuaging my own guilt, not helping end the problem. A better model, would be to actually address the root of the problem (poverty, overpopulation, sex education, raising the minim wage, etc), thus making the charity redundant. Then repeat as needed with each issue. The Charity article actually mentions this, but I suppose you either didn't read that far or are being redunctionist to the point of misrepresenting the article. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The Rotten Websites Wiki is no more than a hobby site and thus probably irrelevant. — Dysk (contribs) 12:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Dysklyver, who I spoke to him on Meta Miraheze, saved the day. My mission is complete. lol Mar9122 (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mar9122 I would probably have removed it, if you know, you'd actually asked me to. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

In a nutshell...

In a nutshell, with superior editing quality. The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 03:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)