Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

driveby registers a complaint[edit]

This is a very silly page, especially for a wiki claiming to be a "rational" wiki.

Creative reality, as per usual. "Baboon" originated specifically with PZ Myers and Pharyngula - NOT "female skeptics". If you'd care to research, Myers is referred to as the "big baboon" and the "Baboon King". But hey, never miss an opportunity to smear and imply malice where none exists right? Business as usual. RationalWiki, aka Freethoughtblogs Ministry of Propaganda. --Webecca (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Pharyngula community called itself a "horde" (yes, seriously) and it was an obvious mock-reference to that. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 17:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

If anything it speaks far more to the non-rational political agenda of "rationalwiki" than it does to anyone else. The page should either be removed as out of scope, or argumentative, or fixed up to resemble something close to a rational discussion.

Hey BoN, it's my birthday! So how about this as my birthday present: fuck off! M'kay? M'kay.--Token Conservative (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
If we do, will you stop being a cunt? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 02:09 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, we already covered what you Slymepitters think of us. It would really be sort of redundant. EVDebs (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Could we maybe revise this to have a more encyclopedic tone than it does? I came here to find out what it was, not to see weird elevator in-fighting. If the place is genuinely that bad, surely it could have more developed and clear criticisms than this article does. If the place is genuinely that bad, let's not sink to its level. (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Rrriiiiggghttt. Because the Slymepit has nothing at all to do with hating Rebecca Watson or defending sexual harrassment. "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! EVDebs (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The BoN's comment seems reasnable enough to me - the article currently doesn't demostrate why the forum is so distasteful. Can't we sample a few discussions? Talk about the attitudes of the main posters?
I'd do it myself, but I'm a bit burnt out on delving around looney forums right now. Balaam (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure, if you can find someone who actually wants to do it. Not it. EVDebs (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I linked to the site, they can read it themselves. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Pot, Kettle, Black.

"They don't particularly like us"...[edit]

Don't like who? Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 20:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

RationalWiki. I'd wager that at least half of the invocations of "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! are in response to people who are either participants or Slymepitters in spirit. EVDebs (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Got it. I may reword it slightly so others don't get as confused as me. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 20:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Very subjective[edit]

This article reads more like a personal opinion than an objective description of a forum, and uses lots of generalizations like 'they', 'formerly respected', and so on. All I come away from after reading this article is that whoever wrote it really hates the Slymepit. (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't know anything about slymepit, but when it says they are pissed at "us" it then goes on to characterise us as feminist sceptics. Some of us are, but I would prefer to reserve the word "us" to refer to Rationalwiki in general. I think the article needs work from someone that knows the community. Tielec01 (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


very funny. keep up the great work. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

If this page suddenly seems much, much shorter it's because I deleted all the insults. Nothing else, just the insults.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 16:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you took out more than just the insults.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, no. I really didn't. The entire exercise seems to be one enormous justification for being allowed to hit on women on elevators in the wee hours of the morning. A bit of a productivity waste, eh? is an insulting, patronising, fact-free value judgement. Which point on the Slymepit Imperial Charter specifically references hitting on women in elevators? What's that? It doesn't have a charter? Well, that entire line is just a load of worthless snark then, isn't it. Glad you agree. It's gone. Also, while we're on the subject, consider the line Its existence is more sad and pathetic than anything else. Specifically, consider the fact that you reinserted it into the article under the pretense that it wasn't an insult. There are only two explanations for this. Either you're dishonest, or you're autistic. That line's gone too.
outside their unexamined prejudices - How do you know that their prejudices are unexamined? How do you know that they are the ones that are prejudiced? Of course, I know you think they're prejudiced, but then again they probably think the same thing about you. Either way, that line is about as far from objective as Pluto is from Mercury. It's gone.
Its entire reason for existing is to create a massive circlejerk around the meme that "feminism is poisoning atheism," - I'll leave this one in, but I'm going to head over to the page that RationalWiki holds for itself and insert the line Its entire reason for existing is to create a massive circlejerk around the meme that feminism and atheism are natural bedfellows. - Who cares if it's true, right?
Oh, and FYI (not that you'll believe me), I'm not a Slymepitter, nor am I involved in the endlessly tedious Atheism+ and Freethought Blogs concentric flamewar. I'm just a guy who thinks that a site called 'Rational Wiki' should at least pretend to be objective. A quick look back through the comments on this very page will confirm that I'm far from the only person who feels this way. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


Just removed "unhinged" used as an adjective describing some threads that are cited as the origination of "slymepit".

Such a clearly partisan and judgmental description doesn't really belong in a rational wiki. In fact it has a negative impact on the rational wiki.

If the threads were unhinged, as claimed, simple cite the specific threads, via a quote or a link and expose the content, specifically citing the unhinged bits.

This will not only expose those threads for what they are, it removes the clearly partisan, non-neutral taint from the wiki entry.

Please do not add the word back in. Use better judgement.

Grumfan (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to RationalWiki! You may enjoy RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Abbie "ERV" Smith[edit]

This article leads the reader confused about what role (if any) she played in the formation of this community. It says it started with discussion threads on her blog; what that doesn't make clear, is whether she actively supported those threads, or simply tolerated them out of a laissez-faire approach to comment moderation. This smells like a bit of guilt-by-association to me. Blacke (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern! - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
It was formed because Greg Laden and others of PZ Myers side harassed her, hence it was moved to a separate forum. She has an account in the Slymepit and continues to post in it, but not very frequently. While PZ Myers community was secular-movement-famous for its abhorrent nastiness "rudeness" and its rape-charged rotten porcupine and rusty knife memes (yep, rapey-popular. see Pharyngula Wiki), rape-insults, and who even scared away the one and only co-blogger; Abbie Smith's endless thread was merely lightly moderated. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 15:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

Does anyone know enough to sort this edit war? Who is right? Who is wrong? Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

There are [citation needed] for the use of the terms "white knights" or "beta cucks".--Kugelschreiber (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I've did a search of their forum, and they indeed use those terms. Typhoon (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this a bad joke? A Google search link as a reference?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, which thread should I link specifically? Coz it's all over their forum. And it's only Aneris that is denying this. Typhoon (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Where a (regular) member of the forum uses these terms unironically without facing significant backlash?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
There's lots of those, as can be seen from the search. Which one in particular you want to feature? Typhoon (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Pick some.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I've picked them all. Typhoon (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop this bullshit. A damn Google link is no source.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Even when the results of the google search are more complete? Oh well. You know, you could have picked one yourself instead of losing your temper in here. But whatever. Typhoon (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Dude, do not fucking prevaricate. Go to the Google search. Pick through the whole first page of links. Enjoy the unironic use of those terms. Because the next thing that will happen, just to put a bug up your ass, will be 50 links to 50 different forum posts, all nicely put in the Ref for your convenience. If you want to be an asshole and try to use wikilawyering and pedantry to stan for your Slymepit bros, go right ahead. But don't complain when the inevitable occurs. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't be paranoic. I have no Slymepit bros, I just don't like people being to lazy to edit an article properly. I'm very in favor of these 50 or over 9000 links, so go ahead.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
According to Google, the website "" mentions the term "stormfront" about 257 times, and "Nazi" about 1760 times. It's also homophobic as it mentions the term "faggot" 103 times. So who's updating the RationalWiki article? Nobody cares about Typhoons/Queex/Castaigne's cat piss men topics, and all this gender warrior nonsense. Here's a screenshot from the board what kind of terms are actually used. So you have to be an incredibly warped soul to delete my edit that is accurate, and insert their nonsense terms. It's not like the article turns super positive that way, since "SJW" is also frowned upon here. And it's still about as accurate as AnswersInGenesis, but you can overdo it. No, they want to shoehorn at all cost their icky manosphere thing, which is laughed out generally over there, see the comment in the screenshot. One out of three that mentions "beta cuck" says: "If I ever use the phrase 'beta cuck', someone please kill me" which gives you a general idea. How do 3 comments that mention the phrase compare to 20,000 times SJW in its various permutations (singular, plural, written out, abbreviated)? Generally, Typhoon and similar people should be auto-reverted. ~ Aneris 17:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Before you decide that you're sure what you're asking for, remember the parable of the Jackass Genie. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


Falls under fair use b/c [1] educational and [2] criticizing. No? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, technically. But since he's a fellow and asked to not use it here, I like to honour his request. ~ Aneris 04:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Seemed useful for demonstrating the "buttfuck"-ingly awful humor. But meh. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I liked it, but it's not like there's an editors meeting and revisions. ~ Aneris 04:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Complaint about Typhoon's edits[edit]

When did that happen? Love the irony. Grognard/nazi/military geek Typhoon removes ca. a third of souces from the FGM article, comes here and disingeniously lies about sources. That's rich. ~ Aneris 19:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop making stuff up, please. We're not much interested in your own personal reality. Queexchthonic murmurings 09:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)