RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3900Goal: $6000

Talk:Neoreactionary movement

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Work the article needs[edit]

This just got linked from New York Magazine as the explanation of "neoreactionary". I checked our article over and none of it's wrong, but it could do with a polish and brush-up.

Stuff that occurs to me (which I may or may not get around to):

  • digest that huge list of external links into actual references!
  • date of "The Dark Enlightenment" by Nick Land (late 2012? early 2013?)
  • split out an Alt-right article, which isn't quite the same thing as neoreaction
  • a section on the broader Dark Enlightenment (maybe a separate article, maybe not - the DE is broader than NRx, but e.g. Nick Land still treats them as synonymous)
  • rewrite the present-day Yarvin section a bit

- David Gerard (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

SoDa fountain[edit]

For one example of the two camps going at it, see this article from the Discovery News website where they criticize the alt-right for drinking from the SoDa fountain.

Can we find any better links than a Dembski haunt? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 07:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Who linked to Evolution News?[edit]

The site is a creationist site disguised as a trustworthy scientific source.

I removed this: "For one example of the two camps going at it, see this article from the Discovery News website where they criticize the alt-right for drinking from the SoDa fountain."

They did not link to Discovery news, they linked to a different source which has a similar name. It is not said in the sentence that the linked site is creationist propaganda. This is Discovery News's twitter and their website.ClickerClock (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made the link a bit clearer. (This is one of the things that would be hived off to an alt-right article.) - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Inherent contradiction[edit]

Surely you can be either 'neo' or 'reactionary' but not both? Anna Livia (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Name Not Awesome Enough[edit]

Nobody looked at the term "Dark Enlightenment" and put together "Endarkenment"? Seriously? Fits their goals better, I think. (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Far-rightists aren't exactly known for their cleverness. Sᴘʀɪɢɢɪɴᴀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) (ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙs) @ 05:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Their advantages over the Moldbuggian strain are shorter blog posts and an actual sense of humour (such as it is)."[edit]

Unqualified Reservations has a lot of humor. It probably accounts for a lot of its popularity. Pardon me sir (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)