Talk:Other

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg

This Sociology related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

RationalWiki's solution to Conservapedia otherism? Create a mirror form of otherism. If Andy zigs, we zag. If the righties are fer it we're agin it, because righties are defined as irrational, so lefties are ispo facto rational. Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney claims the Department of Defense executed 5,000 prisoners with one bullet to the head and then dumped their bodies in a Louisiana swamp during Hurricane Katrina. It must be true, she's a lefty. How about none of the above? Francine 01:49, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Wow, you almost made sense there. Almost. But not quite. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:51, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, some of Francine's specific examples are maybe a bit silly, but her basic point is correct. This site is full of otherism with respect to CP — either you agree with all of their criticisms of CP, or you are one of them... also, many on this site take a for-us-or-against-us attitude towards any criticism of RW — if you criticise RW, in ways they disagree with, that makes you one of the enemy. (((Zack Martin))) 12:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Proponents[edit]

So, one example is Conservapedia, which I'm tempted to delete on sight, and the other is a straw man version of Dawkins' views - he is uncompromising that "religion is bad" but doesn't equate them all with creationists and evangelists. Simply put, either better examples need found or that section needs to go. ADK...I'll revolve your number! 12:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm vapeing the section. Tytalk 12:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Literature Section[edit]

Shouldn't "...in effect making a new book for each author" instead read "...in effect making a new book for each reader"? It seems like a mistake as it is, but I didn't know if it was intentional or not.Dowdicus (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it. Also, shouldn't we cite a specific work by Bakhtin? I imagine The Dialogic Imagination would be the proper fit (specifically, I guess, "Discourse in the Novel"), or are we thinking more "The Problem of Speech Genres"/"The Problem of Text in Linguistics..."?Dowdicus (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)