Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

On rape and anti-rape efforts[edit]

No, really. I think the "Crusade against feminism" section got prematurely renamed.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Name it back and create sub headings? Nullahnung (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


from the article: "in short, he behaved like an asshole"

I can't help but think "rational" Wikis should be NPOV. This article is massively POV. If this is a deliberate POV Wiki (like Conservapedia) ignore my statement. (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is always going to be better at NPOV articles, though. You can always go there if you need NPOV. Nullahnung (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
RationalWiki has SPOV ("snarky point of view") and it's not going to change that just to accommodate some 'tuber and his fans.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

extreme bias[edit]

Not sure where I would raise this point, but the tone of this article is one of extreme bias. It should be the reader's decision as to whether Thunderf00t was in the wrong in the FTB, RationalWiki should only present the facts as accurately as possible. The same should be mentioned about the criticism of Anita Sarkeesian. It is not the writers' choice whether Thunderf00t was wrong in the matter; rather RationalWiki should outline Thunderf00t's criticism. Objections to the criticism could and should be mentioned with further reading linked to Anita Sarkeesian's page.

I'm posting this as a new member here and I wanted to know if this kind of bias and tone is par for the course, or is it alright to attempted at a disinterested position?— Unsigned, by: Destruct0r / talk / contribs 31 October 2013 (UTC)

RW:SPOV.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

great article[edit]

I never thought that rational wiki could be that funny. If you keep working hard this wiki could overtake uncyclopedia some time in the future as my favorite joke-wiki.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 10:48, 27 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Heavy Bias[edit]

This wiki article is ridiculous and heavily bias against Thunderf00t, this is not up to this wiki standards and should be removed. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Oh look, another whiny bitch with a Thunderfoot mancrush. PsyGremlinTal! 08:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Did you even bother looking just a post or two up the page before you wrote another comment of the same goddamn variety? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Turning your shitty arguments into a wiki do not make them more credible[edit]

Originally posted in the archive.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You guys ought to write a blog if you want to argue with people on the internet. Formatting your personal crusades into a wiki and pretending to have some kind of scholastic standards is pretty cringeworthy.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 14:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A wiki is a collaboratively edited website. I can't see how this implies any "scholastic standards". :) --ZooGuard (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there is a RationalWiki blog, here. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to melt the server, they're welcome to turn this (or anything else) into a blog post - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Not a very good idea. The writing is uneven and the coverage is incomplete. E.g. it's missing his comment on the Indian anti-rape campaign video and somegreybloke's multiple blog posts dissecting it.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Wait, who's the one that wants to argue with people on the internet? The guy that comes here to whine about our wiki? Next time, save us the :eyeroll: and keep it to your blog.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

anally literal[edit]

I like that adjective. On behalf of Thunderf00t, I want to apologize for him taking things literally.

It's too bad this wiki doesn't have vote buttons unlike youtube. You'd quickly discover how out of step you are with the atheist community.

Keep up the propaganda!— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Do you really think that vote counts are representative of the true opinions of the world? First of all, votes are limited to those who are aware of the button. If TF mentioned this page, it would be very easy for TF fanboys to downvote it to oblivion. This wouldn't be representative of online opinion, but just those who voted. Vote buttons also cause the groupthink that you so abhor, as when people see a vote bar on a video, comment, etc it actually influences their opinion towards the article or comment in question because of this unconscious belief that the vote numbers are representative when that couldn't be farther than the truth.
Also, if facts worked like that, then why would we be atheists? A worldwide poll of whether Christianity or Atheism were true would tell us that Christianity was true. (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That really depends on how you define "atheist community", doesn't it? However, although many if not most of the active editors here are atheist, and we have an Atheism FAQ, we're a skeptical resource, not an atheist one. Thunderf00t is indulging in unexamined prejudice. Tough shit for him, and you, if you don't like the fact that we're examining -- and condemning -- it. EVDebs (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
What the flying fudge does "atheist community" even mean? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 11:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Not so much... I'd say the sum total of atheists in communication with each other. Which, as we learned not all that long ago, is an ideological Cuisinart that includes a lot of people who basically enjoy stirring up shit because they like to feel superior. EVDebs (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Cellar-dwelling, neck-bearded YouTube vloggers with fingers covered in Cheeto dust residue, obviously. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You forgot the fedoras. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 01:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
A google image search on fedoras makes me wonder how they ever got introduced as a nerd-indicator here. Nullahnung (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding DawahFilms Controversy[edit]

It's been awhile since the issue was brought up, but it should be noted that there is absolutely zero evidence showing that DawahFilms actually "doc dropped". What IS known and admitted by Dawah himself was that he called Mason's employers. We shouldn't assume that just because he's a Muslim that this means he is everything that Mason claimed him to be. If anything, Mason simply rode the wave of anti-Muslim bigotry and used Dawah as a scapegoat for his own stupidity.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Any evidence of this Mr. Unsigned BoN? Zero (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The threat was there, as was the means if he called up Mason's employers - which almost renders whether he dropped that info publicly a moot point, because he was crossing a particular line in taking things further by acquiring such information and then using it. I don't quite agree with the sentiment that he was riding anti-Muslim bigotry in this specific case, there are certainly better examples of Thunderf00t doing that - e.g., his Park 51 video that was rightfully smacked down by most others as "stop being such a useless dick". Scarlet A.pngsshole 14:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
What evidence is necessary here? The burden of proof is on the one accusing. All we know is what thunderf00t claimed. That's it. He provided no evidence for the claim, so it's not a fact. As for the "threat", it's clear that whether Dawah believed he was being threatened first or not, that he was making a statement of self-defense. If someone says "Im going to kill you" and you say "I will kill you if you attempt that", the latter is not considered a threat, but a statement of self defense. Even legally, Dawah made no threat. I also find it odd that its somehow a bad thing to call a persons employer when that same person gloated about them already knowing about his videos and continues to call YT a "public forum". If it's so public and his employers already knew, then what is there to complain about?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Section How they hold up to scrutiny[edit]

Did anyone check those statements? If anything the gender role is less present in video games than regular media.Or I played the wrong games. The reference goes to a single youtube clip. I see more leading roles and villains in video games than regular media. Movies are completely laking of female antagonists (other posit of power and strength). Not games, — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 02:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thunderf00t was responding directly to Anita Sarkeesian about the damsel in distress in video games, not about anything else. So that's what that section was addressing. Nullahnung (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
And Sarkeesian was pretty damn thorough with listing examples of that trope. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 19:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Straw Man Much???[edit]

You generalize the hell out of his comments, yet provide paragraph long detailed arguments in defense!

That notwithstanding, how the Sam Slack does this work:

POINT: Sarkeesian has disabled comments on her videos. This is something done by people who "peddle bullshit that can't stand up to public scrutiny.

REBUTTAL: Sarkeesian was subjected to death threats, rape threats, and vicious misogynistic and anti-Semitic insults because of her video. This is not a legitimate form of "public scrutiny" or criticism that someone should be willing to take for expressing an opinion.

How in the wide wide world of sports are those two even remotely related? Let's say she could prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anything illegal in her comment section - let's say someone just called her a "f*&#i%$ b&@!&." Would that still constitute something someone shouldn't be willing to take? How about someone who just points out the 75 different fallacies and presuppositions in her videos - would that constitute something someone shouldn't be willing to take?

And BTW, you nailed it when you said "willing" to take - you should have added "fit" to take.

Are you seriously contending that her allowing comments on her videos would increase the possibility of being raped or killed? People in secular circles WHO PARADE THEIR OPINIONS ON THE INTERNET are subject to violent, vile, threatening insults all the time, including Thunderf00t. Every political position, every religious position, every time someone offers a different idea of what they think is a great casserole recipe, they will be met with contrasting, often unnecessarily knee-jerk opinions. But in the interest of public opinion IN AN OPINION PIECE intended to educate, people should be able to use her forum as a means to comment and debate.

Every community on this planet gets flooded with comments every day. And if she was seriously fearful for her life, Thunderf00t wasn't the cause.

And the bottom line - if she was so afraid of some hateful comments, WAS SHE REALLY AFRAID OF HATEFUL DISLIKES??? Clearly she wasn't fearful of threatening comments - she was afraid of her videos getting negative attention. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 2014-02-10T06:39:17

If we misrepresent Thunderf00t's positions, please replace our statements with actual positions and citations to the videos in which he expresses those opinions.
"How in the wide wide world of sports are those two even remotely related?" They are related because we are rebutting the claim that Sarkeesian disabled comments in response to intelligent criticisms. She disabled comments in response to death threats.
"How about someone who just points out the 75 different fallacies and presuppositions in her videos - would that constitute something someone shouldn't be willing to take?" Of course not, and they are still free to do so, in their own videos. However, it is reasonable to shut down direct comments when they get this obscene.
"Are you seriously contending that her allowing comments on her videos would increase the possibility of being raped or killed?" No, we are contending that allowing comments would perpetuate a negative atmosphere about her videos. There is a difference between criticism and threats of violence, a difference which escapes many of the people involved in this debate.
Honestly, I think she did her critics a favor by disabling comments. They made all critics of her videos look like deranged, misogynistic sociopaths. Obviously this is not the case, and if the only criticisms of her we see anymore are actual criticisms and not death threats, it'll be better for everyone involved.
"People in secular circles WHO PARADE THEIR OPINIONS ON THE INTERNET are subject to violent, vile, threatening insults all the time, including Thunderf00t. Every political position, every religious position, every time someone offers a different idea of what they think is a great casserole recipe, they will be met with contrasting, often unnecessarily knee-jerk opinions." This is true, although it should be noted that women do have it worse then men in this area; Thunderf00t probably receives plenty of death threats but I doubt he receives any rape threats, or quite the same level of emotionally charged vitriol. Which is not to say that he doesn't have any shit to put up with; just not as much.
And that's a bad thing. Putting your ideas in a public forum should mean that you have to prepare to receive criticism of your ideas. It should not mean that you have to prepare to receive death/rape threats. That goes for Sarkeesian, Thunderf00t, and pretty much everyone.
"And if she was seriously fearful for her life, Thunderf00t wasn't the cause." This is quite true. Did we say that he was the cause? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Weh already answered, but let me also state: What kinda BS is this? Yes, people these days get all too easily harassed over the internet. Women who dare to speak up doubled so. That doesn't mean it's any okay! That doesn't mean Sarkeesian has to offer her own damn youtube videos as channel for the threats and verbal abuse directed against her! You moral degenerate make it sound like the horde of basement dwelling nerds butthurt about a woman with an own opinion would have right to verbally abuse and threaten her! Fortunately, Sarkeesian wasn't afraid - but that doesn't mean she has to simply take the abuse. That's just plain bullshit. So the causality holds (and you misused "straw man", by the way): She disabled comments on her videos, because people had abused them. If you want to blame somebody for that, blame them. But no, instead, typical, vile Victim Blamimg. Octo8 (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
That's the polite way of putting it, yes. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 10:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Sarkeesian has allowed liking/disliking on the latest in her video series, but comments are still disallowed. If you want to express your disapproval, you now can, but still not with death/rape threats, obviously.
Oh, and just fyi, Sarkeesian would not be any kind of a big deal if it weren't for the staggeringly vile response she got for her videos. She would have just been another opinion piece on the internet, fading into the background of so many other opinions, if it weren't for all the death/rape threats. Really, the ones to blame for absolutely everything in this whole debacle are the vile commenters. Nullahnung (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
True. But of course, the reason her work, of all the many opinion pieces on the internet, got picked out was of course that she is in fact a woman speaking out about issues of gender fairness. I mean, I have watched some of her videos and I disagreed with a great many of her points, but the existence of those videos is a good and necessary thing - as ironically demonstrated by the bile spewed against them! Octo8 (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Seconded, I may disagree with Anita, but all the vile threats at the woman sickens me.--The Madman (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)The Madman

The good old "I'm validated because the internet is mean to me" argument. How old do you have to be to fall for that? -- (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really validate the points she's trying to make, true. That's not what I'm claiming either. Nullahnung (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It does validate her because it shows why feminism is still necessary. It doesn't validate the specific points about video games, no. But the vile hatred and abuse targeted at women who dare to point out what's wrong with certain things validates her feminist criticism in general. Because that's exactly what feminism is about, showing how women, or at least "uppity" women, are treated! See the logical connection, anon? As I've said - I disagree with many specific points in her videos. But the mere existence of those videos is a good thing, and the reaction to them a very good demonstration why feminist criticism of the nerd/gamer community is very, very much needed. Octo8 (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
See, that's utterly clueless :D didn't mom teach how the internet works? -- (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
What's that even supposed to mean? Do you think such a comment makes you appear clever? I'm sorry to tell you the opposite is the case. In any case, it seems to me you might want to look up the Naturalist fallacy. How "the internet works" doesn't set the moral standard for how it should work. But sure, go hide your contemptible wish to spew abuse and threats behind "that's how the internet works". Idiot. Octo8 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, this is too funny -- (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If every other comment on a video you made is "I'm gonna kill you" or "I'm going to rape you", eventually it does take a toll on the reader. Nobody has the kind of time to review and spank comments that are inappropriate, especially with her view counter. Just look at the White House youtube videos. Millions of views on top of views and comments coming out of every orifice. You think anybody wants to spend the time going through and pruning the hate and nonsense? People have lives (and I'm pretty sure she still has a full-time job aside from doing the Feminist Frequency thing) and we cannot spend our time serving those who are nothing but vitriol and hate. Zero (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, noone is claiming she needs to actively censor specific posts in her comments section. They want her to let all the comments sit there and be subject to the Youtube rating system. Nullahnung (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
That came out wrong. I meant there's only so much abuse somebody can take before they just get too fed up to want to spend time dealing with it. Zero (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck YouTube commenters. They come into her house, shit all over her carpet and demand she frame the turds? - David Gerard (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

But mah freedumbs!! Scarlet A.pngpathetic 16:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The Sarkeesian section has a straight up lie:

"Mason is also engaging in equivocation here, since in her video Sarkeesian doesn't question the existence of physical strength differences,"

From the Freminist Frequency blog, a transcript of the first video:

"The belief that women are somehow a “naturally weaker gender” is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false" — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

And now you're taking Sarkeesian out of context. The full quote reads: "The reality is that this troupe is being used in a real-world context where backwards sexist attitudes are already rampant. It’s a sad fact that a large percentage of the world’s population still clings to the deeply sexist belief that women as a group need to be sheltered, protected and taken care of by men. The belief that women are somehow a “naturally weaker gender” is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures."
Emphasis added. The context makes it clear that she was referring to the myth that women are emotionally, mentally or personally weaker than men. A physically weak person might need protection but they wouldn't need someone else taking care of them, so it's clear that she means emotionally weak, and that both Thunderf00t and you have equivocated on this.
How long are you going to keep up this tirade? Even the other trolls have moved on by this point. My bad, thought you were the same IP as before. Though if you're the same person on a different IP, I take back the take-back. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The key element in common is that Thunderf00t fanboys evidently can't fucking read - David Gerard (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The tendency to see only those snippets of a text that seem easy to attack and/or confirm the seer's preconception of what the text says is a common failing of arguments on the Internet (and presumably, off the Internet, too). It gets even worse when it's video instead of text and the audience consists of 'Tubers.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hatred to the point of Lunacy[edit]

Regarding the recent revert of my revision, while I understand that RationalWiki is POV, I find it ridiculous that the POV of whoever got here last or the majority should be maintained. Some compramise needs to be gained on pages like this, rather than turning them into attack pages found on websites like conservapedia. PS Sorry, signed now. (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the nature of POV driven by a mobocracy seems directly opposed to compromise. And hey, I don't like the aggressive tone either, but apparently everybody else thinks it's more fun to read that way, so that's the way it is on most pages. Nullahnung (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand you point, but couldn't we at least try to organise a consensus? These pages can be funny without being down-right insulting. It's a disgrace to the name RationalWiki if you ask me. We could start by at least reducing the number of "snipe" comments. (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
We have this thing called "SPOV", the S meaning Snark or Science, depending on who's talking. In other words, we don't ever turn down the snark. Zero (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I wish that were true Zero, but it's not. The "Snark" seems to centre around a personal hatred by a given editor. Also, what exactly is SciencePOV about attacking someone? Is there justifiable empiricle evidence to back up the snarky comments made against them? If not then it fails SciencePOV. It's just an empty and self-serving character attack. I understand it in articles on creationism and Kent Hovind, but TF has contributed a lot to the rational community. What grounds are there for this level of distain? (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I haven't heard of SciencePOV, but snarky is right. Also, it's the nature of things that personal opinion will constitute most of the snark. Therefore many articles on RW tend to read like attack pieces on specific people and organizations to first-time readers. This leads to various claims of "how is this rational?" by said first time readers, which is then invariably pointed at this: Nullahnung (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nullahnung, although I was actually holding more closely to sections like the Rational Wiki Community Standards which say "Scientific point of view — Less talked about but arguably more important, the scientific point of view means that our articles take the side of the scientific consensus on an issue. RationalWiki should be and will be highly critical of any unscientific, irrational, or just plain stupid idea, movement, or ideology." Now I don't really know what part of that TF broke but people seem to attack him as if he's on par with Kent Hovind. There is also this "But the most helpful description is that, in the course of numerous talk page discussions and edits to articles, a rough consensus emerges. Hence the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." At no point was a concensus to simply attack TF reached. There is also the What is Rational Wiki page which goes into some detail about creating an original research area of interesting information, and says "Our objective here is not to collect hits or increase the article tally for their own sakes, but to disseminate accurate information whilst debunking pseudoscience and other forays into anti-intellectualism. Remember, the truth is not a popularity contest." Again, what part of the policy allows for this hatred to persist? Finally, I think the most telling area is the What is a Rational Wiki Article whih states "Try to be original and inventive when snarking up an article. Avoid overused jokes, obscure cultural references, or anything childish or overtly hateful.". I think we can all agree that the last part of that sentence "overtly hateful" applies directly to this article, along with "Most importantly, however, the snark should support our site missions (as outlined above), and not get in the way of them. A witty comment or two, added into a factual analysis, can help highlight the more ridiculous aspects of a crank belief or organization, while keeping the reader entertained." How does insulting a scientist and anti-creation proponent improve the site mission? (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You may notice that the scientific and anti-creation work TF has done is treated in a much more accepting tone on his article. It is unfortunate that RW displays its POV most strongly and nastily when it has something to criticise as opposed to just as oftenly displaying its POV supportively and praisingly when it agrees with something. Therefore on TF's page it superficially looks like he's only getting attacked, when really, he has done both right and wrong in the eyes of the mob.
As to your claim that he has valid criticisms of feminism, most here would say that he actually doesn't and opinion on that is a tricky thing. You are not likely to get past what the majority thinks unless you really do have very convincing arguments. Nullahnung (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You're making the assumption that PZ Myers and the FTB community were blameless. I'll get some more details in the next few days (got work and such) but as it stands TFB is raised as a Paragon, even though PZ has made at least a couple more attack articles against Thunderf00t entitled "More formulaic bullshit from Thunderf00t" and "TEACH THEM NOT TO MOCK THUNDERF00T!" using the tag "kooks" in the summary. One responded to TFs very relavent points about how the chances of getting raped can be reduced by the victim, in which TF did NOT victim blame and explained that there are certain measures a person can take to protect themselves. PZ almost completely passed this off as mad without addressing the points. In the other PZ just attacks TF. He doesn't address a single point made. The assumption that one side is a blameless victim and the other is to blame needs to at least be toned down as it's simply false. In my eyes the whole thing is a pissing contest and PZ is standing on a ledge on his home turf. They're both to blame, but it looks like PZ is winning because everyone on his own website agrees with him. (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yet again, TF fans show their primary characteristic is they're whiny fuckwits who won't read - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Said the whiny fuckwit who won't read. Instead of being a douche why not try and actually contribute to the discussion? Why not actually read what PZ or TF wrote? Why not watch TFs videos? Is that so much to ask? Do you actually need to be asked to review the data before commenting on it? (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Breaking off ‎Criticism of Anita Sarkeesian[edit]

I do think the point by point in the middle of this article breaks the flow somewhat. May I suggest splitting it off (not deleting it) so it can be expanded? Zero (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also like to go a bit more in depth on this section, but as it stands it needs reformatting. (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
How do you suggest splitting it off? Nullahnung (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Leave the section existing, give a bit more background into the "feud" then include a see also which is the blow-by-blow. Zero (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Put it into an essay and link it, eh. That could work. I would include the 'see also' link immediately after or immediately at the start of the section. Nullahnung (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I have to disagree. I find that the problem is the lack of text surrounding the table. It fills the entire subsection of the article. It needs fleshing out if truth be told. It would also help if each criticism was a bit shorter to reduce the size of the table but that's less of an issue. Maybe even a was of reducing the size of the table? Anyway, just my thoughts. (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm having writer's block today apparently. I couldn't just get a better rewrite out of that, but I broke out the section anyway. Zero (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't get too lazy, will you[edit]

When you link a video to dismiss it you should at least try to deal with the subject matter in it maybe. This latest diff about the Ban Bossy uproar, I think it deserves more than just a characterisation of the style the video is made in and off-hand dismissal on those grounds alone. I'm not asking for any more point-by-points, but a good compromise between dealing with the actual material and outright dismissal would be nice. Nullahnung (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I watched the video days ago and what I said was what I took away from it (apart from the campaign of "Ban Bossy" is a bad idea, but that was no thanks to Thunderf00t's commentary). I try to let things brew in my head for a couple days before commenting to see what sticks. What I said is what stuck. Zero (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting approach. I'll let it brew a couple days too and then decide whether I want to expand this. Nullahnung (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I went ahead and expanded it right away. Nullahnung (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't own this article (as nobody should). I don't mean to come off as "here's my edit so don't you dare touch it." Sorry if it came out this way. Zero (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It didn't come out that way at all and I don't mean to blame you. It is a deeper trend that this article tends to have that troubles me. Nullahnung (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Feeling skimpy on relevant details you mean? Zero (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
That. It bugs me every time someone comes here and goes "how can you say that his arguments are not valid??" and then I look and all we have is "his arguments are not valid". Nullahnung (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In most of my "dry" additions it tends to be from me having a lack of authority or knowledge on the subject. I've known feminism was a thing and the basic jist of it, but until Anita came by I never really took it seriously and even now I can best describe my knowledge as marginal but more aware of it. When I tried to add more to her Tropes vs. Women page on Wikipedia it suddenly became clear I've got very little knowledge on the subject. (See this [1], [2] for a clue.) Zero (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

'Ongoing crusade against feminism'[edit]

Since you pricks seem intent on being as autistic as possible and not allowing valid changes because they weren't signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters, I've been forced to open this.

This section clearly needs addressing. It is the complete opposite of rationality. Not only is it filled with emotional responses, it's also peppered with irrational attacks and (in some cases) outright lies. You are supposed to be a 'rational' wiki and yet I've seen anything but so far.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Oh look... "I thought this was RATIONALwiki"... but clearly they aren't because they don't support my moronic point of view... drink. Go and ask TF for a sympathy cuddle.
Alternatively, you could act like an adult and discuss your problem with the article here on the talk page. Especially the "lies" - although provide citations to back up your claims.--PsyGremlinSprich! 09:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Nullahnung (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

How about you go fuck yourself with a cactus, Psy?

My 'moronic' view point is that a rational wiki should contain rational content. As in, content free of baseless opinion and attacks. It should clearly state the situation, rather than give emotional responses. You're free to disagree with that, but it does nothing other than highlight the lack of rational thought given.

As for the lies, here they are:

- continued to make ill-informed comments on feminism (this is simply an opinion with no fact behind it) - to air his grudges (a claim that Thunderf00t has a grudge against feminists with no basis other than critical videos of specific feminist 'arguments') - a series of bitter (opinion) - increasingly unhinged videos (baseless opinion) - misinterpretations of their comments (no citation or example provided to back this up)

And that was in the first paragraph alone.

I find it funny for you to ask for citations to back up my claims when the only sources in that entire section are for outright statements such as 'he made a video', before spilling into personal attacks and opinion. How did they managed to have their opinions accepted without anything to back them up? One rule of feminazis, another rule for everyone else, eh?

In regards to the 'rational' wiki point, maybe it should tell you something when multiple people are calling you out for it? Maybe actually looking rationally at the situation, instead of responding in memes, can help shed some light on that. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Funny how you equate a difference of opinion with lies. And yet accuse us of not being rational. Oh and you mentioned feminazis. You just lost the argument forever. So kindly fuck off. PsyGremlinSprich! 11:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Funny how you think baseless claims are considered anything but lies when they aren't backed up. And yeah, I did mention feminazis. If that upset you, well grow a thicker skin, prick. (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
You know, I don't like that section either. I'm not really a fan of just making accusations and not providing examples and arguments to counter them (I do recognize that RW generally is ok with unsupported accusations as long as most of the editors involved agree with them, just saying I don't like it and would like to see more supporting text if possible; and I am again accusing the editors of this article of being lazy, although that goes for me too).
As for the whole "what is rational?" thing, everybody has a different view on that, so that's a dead end topic, really. Nullahnung (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's nice to see an actual comment made. Cheers for that. But on the topic of this section, why can it not be edited to remove the extreme opinions but preserve the information? I had made such an edit last night and it kept almost all of what was being discussed, just without the insults. None of the citations that were already present were deleted (at least that I'm aware of), only the bits after the citations or without citations that were written solely to attack. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. This isn't an anti-feminist wiki or a NPOV wiki. We don't need to whitewash Thunderf00t's bullshit opinions about feminism just to placate some random B0N. The videos being discussed are all cited, and the reader can watch them for themselves if they wish to. I don't think we need to run through a blow-by-blow refutation of the content: there's already been one of those removed already, as it just makes for a messy article. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for more point-by-points. I'm basically expressing the same concern again as I did in the previous section of this talk page that I made. I did think it a good idea by Zero to move the point-by-point I added to its own page. Nullahnung (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Weaseloid, so you're going for the approach of 'I agree with what is written and because you aren't a member I don't care'? Fair do's, just don't expect me to care about what you have to say, either. — Unsigned, by: 151 227 231 112 / talk / contribs
Fine by me. I think I can live with that. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

is Thunderf00t CoolHardLogic?←[edit] The voice is modulated, uses similar language and imagery only been around for a year, a bit suss Skinnytony1 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

RW is on his To Do list[edit]

Thunderf00t has a list of planned videos posted on his blog. Some highlights:


Debunk Laci green feminist bullshit on feminism


Anita sarkeesian master’s thesis and why having a ponytail is sexist
-Full reason why having gender bias in top field is probably nothing to do with sexism


1) energetic of car crashes and statistics
2) comparison of car crash stats and rules and regulations with guns

call rationalwiki out on its comical degree of social justice warrior BS.

I don't know whether RW should be relieved or insulted to be the last item on the list.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, someone still has a bug up his ass after the fallout from 2012 (and ironically, little of us here are frequent visitors to the Tumblr/SJ warrior networks anyway).
I'd say immediately take this to the Saloon Bar. He still garners an influence enough to disrupt the site for a few days. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
In certain circles, "SJW" is not limited to Tumblr or Reddit but a generic insult towards people who they perceive to be, err, too outspoken on such issues. And RW seems to be getting a reputation, not least thanks to the efforts of a few people who are unhappy with its coverage of the same issues.
As for the Saloon Bar, he hasn't done anything yet. Anyone who cares about him anyway will notice this. The article needs some work.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
"Anyone who cares about him anyway will notice this." Well, that's what I'm saying. If he's going to call us out I would expect a spike in vandalism (or even a server slowdown); this isn't PPSIMMONS we're talking about here. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh how the mighty have fallen... it's pretty much solid evidence that if you make your name disproving trivially stupid shit people should lower their expectations. But if he can do that like an adult, I invite him to. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 11:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
If atheist feminist pigs fly out of his butt, since a good Bayesian should consider the probability of much more likely events before much less likely ones - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki neutrality principles[edit]

I honestly find it amazing how this site dares to use both the words "rational" and "wiki" when it has articles like this one, which show an amazing amount of bias and lack of neutrality. Entire sections of the article are nothing more than unilateral biased cherry-picking personal attacks and vitriol. It reads like a rant at somebody's personal blog instead of a wiki article.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is about the subject of feminism or the person, that's not how you write a wiki article. That's most certainly not how you write an article on a wiki with the word "rational" in it. If you want even a shred of credibility, then you should rewrite the article and describe the controversy in an unbiased, neutral manner. As it is now, it's a travesty; there's absolutely nothing rational or encyclopedic about the article. It's just a personal attack.

(And then FTB feminists pretend like they have no idea why they get so much flack. This is exactly one of the reasons. And yeah, go ahead and rationalize how I'm wrong about this article.)— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 12:32, 1 June 2014‎ (UTC)

I know you think you're being original, and that you're saying something new, and absolutely devastating. I bet you think you're delivering this site and its users one great big grand zinger there. But guess what, the day you rode into RationalWiki to write that post was a great day for you, but for us it was just Tuesday. Well, Sunday for me. So go read up on the various descriptions of what RationalWiki is, and stop getting this place confused with Wikipedia. And then if that still bugs you, come back with something more specific rather than something that could have been written if we had ran a Markov chain over this talk page and its archives. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 12:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Should we put up a banner at the page top? Something like "No, this isn't Wikipedia. No, there's only three female editors here. No, we're not going to change it because you're crying; give an actual reason."-- (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that there are more than three female users among the regulars. Unless you meant among the authors of the article. And who are you anyway?--ZooGuard (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea how many there are these days. Given that you're then immediately branded a "female user" rather than a "user" is probably one disincentive to "coming out". So, more-than-zero, less-than-a-hundred is where my money lies. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 13:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I bet there's less than a hundred users of any gender here, tbh... (not counting inactive ones) Nullahnung (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
"I know you think you're being original, and that you're saying something new," If you keep hearing this over and over then maybe that should tell you something. (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
In addition to being unoriginal (that thing about the site name is heard a lot), you also seem to know very little about wikis. A wiki is a collaboratively-edited website, not necessarily a pseudo-encyclopedia. The "Neutral Point of View" thing is specific to Wikipedia. And no, RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia, neither strives to be one.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Drink! Zero (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
So let's see, the responses to the criticism I made are: "You are not being original", diverse mocking, and "this is not wikipedia". Not a single rational reason why the article must have such vitriolic biased, and rather infantile, personal attack against a person. And apparently you seem incapable of understanding why people don't like you. When the subject is feminism, all rationality is shoved aside, and the inner child comes out to replace it. Do you honestly think you should be taken seriously when your level of argumentation is like this?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 17:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
What would be helpful is if you were more detailed and specific with your criticisms. What parts of the article would you change and why? - Grant (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
His criticism might be that we're portraying Thunderf00t as some satanic figure and Feminists as a forever persecuted minority, when the "reality" is that the latter control much of the world by making rape claims. The usual stuff, really. Ironically, his response to us not giving a straight-forward answer is an ad hominem attack, calling us childish. -- (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I would rather hear that from him. At least that would make it clear whether he's worth responding to. - Grant (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Well imagine 150 different people per day came up and repeatedly asked you why you thought grass was green when it's so obviously red, and see how long patience lasts. All the answers you want are in the "about" and "help" pages documenting exactly what this site is, and it's not Wikipedia, it has no "neutrality principle". The reasons people think Thunderf00t is a douche are documented, anything else could probably be dug up in the archives if you want. And no, you had nothing specific to say about any section at all, just a general whine. Now please stop using "rational" to mean "agrees with me", and your prior biases are showing show hard that there clearly is no reasoning with you. Actually go away, read up on modern third-wave and sex-positive feminist principles, actually watch Tropes vs Women and not Thunderf00t quote-mining it, go read his blog where he opens up with a "get back in the kitchen" joke and then watch the video that chastises Rebecca Watson out of context for doing pretty much the same joke but at the expense of men - which is blatant hypocrisy. Have an original thought, and don't expect people here to hold your hand. It's nothing personal, you were just unfortunate enough to be the 1 millionth customer with this exact same whine. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 18:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Where are the answers, you say? "What is a RationalWiki Article?" "Snarky Point of View"? It's unfortunate that we get so many weirdos coming here to waste bytes on a nobody like Thunderf00t, but this guy is correct that the article reads like a personal attack. I don't know what specific things the guy has to point to for a reasonable person to draw the same conclusion. I guess Thunderf00t is a dick and he deserves it. I don't know. But it's not fair to treat the question of whether the article ought to read that way as frivolous. It's not. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
So what exactly do you suggest should be done? What is the "right" tone for this article?--ZooGuard (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Jesus. I just reread it and it seems mostly fine. Forget the above. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah the article is ok, if I had a criticism it would be that the recent nuttiness displayed by TF dominates the whole article, at the expense of a long history of comparatively normal behaviour. I don't think that's a huge problem, no one comes here to read about how reasonable TF's takedown of creationism was or his slightly misguided but essentially harmless foray into politics & economics. Shermer & Myers both get a similar treatment for their one or two misguided beliefs; TF is just a much bigger target since he galloped right off the reservation. Tielec01 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, in response to a specific thing that needs to be changed I would say the whole section needs a rewrite. For instance, saying things like "This is certainly evidence of the evil 'hive mind" is not what i would call unbiased. I agree with the original poster that the author shouldn't be putting his/her own opinion in the article. As much as the author may not want to admit, he is a fellow human being and his character should be represented by his words/actions not by the many uses of personal opinion as fact, such as this. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 04:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

For the zillionth time. We do not have to be unbiased on this wiki and calling someone or something evil is not necessarily a problem.Spud (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
That sentence is intended to ridicule the view that FtB are suffering from groupthink, which is popular among their haters, though the sentence's meaning is not very clear in its current context. It's possible that a preceding sentence was removed or modified, leaving this one dangling.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if this isn't supposed to be neutral, it doesn't really add anything to the conversation or lend any credibility to the article to use some quib to "ridicule the view that FtB are suffering from groupthink." Surely if this Wiki wants to be taken seriously it would have a page about the FtB controversy like "FtB groupthink or free thought?" and then present both sides of the arguement. I mean by all means take a side and conclude that it wins out, but at least then the wiki has more meaning that some random YouTube comment as it would actually be presenting evidence.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I tried to get far into reading your interpretations and then I got to Anita's section and said it needed to go by the wayside. The world has shown no evidence of her cutting and running with money and therefore your argument is flat. Zero (talk - contributions) 16:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Mate those aren't "my interpretations" they are simply the content of the videos (if you cared to watch them) Its not particularly rational to practice revisionism like you appear to be doing. Furthermore the argument of Anita 'cutting and running' isn't my argument but it is a common one and I outlined the evidence in the segment. It has to do with the production value and where the footage is sourced from, there is a bunch of other stuff to do with videos of her saying she isn't a gamer but that's not really Thunderf00t's territory. The over arching point is that both sides of the argument have to be presented for the reader to reach any rational conclusion, as it stands you discredit this whole wiki by making it sound like it has an agenda it blindly tries to abide by. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
In that section we mostly are interested in Thunderf00t's points about feminism as pertains to Sarkeesian, not in what she's done with the money and how cheap her product is in terms of video footage. We can talk about the feminist points and counter points. But really, if you're going into further detail about that, it should go in the next section of the article which is titled "Criticism of Anita Sarkeesian", as that's where it really belongs. Furthermore, all editors try to include their own bias in the articles they write, that's just how things go here. If your bias is not in line with other editors or you're too neutral, then you get reverted.
That aside, I do agree that we probably aren't addressing Thunderf00t's points in enough detail. Nullahnung (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said picking a side and going with it is A O.K. you're just doing yourself a disservice by generalising all of Sarkeesians points as feminist and all of Thunderf00t's as anti feminist when the conflict is actually far more nuanced. Thunderf00t in live shows actually identifies as a feminist (but also clarifies he doesn't really see the difference between feminism and humanism) his criticisms of feminism tend to be towards particular claims or ideas. i.e. Sarkeesians claim that male gamers are actively trying to preserve a boys club or the "Ban Bossy" campaigns idea that we should restrict free speech that diminishes the power of young women etc.
The article as its written comes off as very dismissive and over simplified (and at times a little hypocritical with particular regard to strawmen). There is definitely a conversation to be had about what degree sexual dimorphism plays in the difference between men and women but on the Thunderf00t page, I would expect more details on Thunderf00t's views and then a link to that discussion that properly analysis who is on the right side of the issue.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
"... Surely if this Wiki wants to be taken seriously it would have a ..." I don't think anyone takes rationalwiki particularly seriously. The content is generally poor and portrays a strong ideological bias (including the large amounts of straw men in this article). I made some changes, I doubt they'll stick, but I think rationalwiki is generally content with coming off as having an obvious ideological bias, rather than making cogent but honest arguments. They also think ridicule, no matter how intellectually light or patently false, actually serves a purpose other than making it eminently dismissible. I wouldn't worry too much about it though, rationalwiki is well known for it's overtly pro-feminism bias, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
For a counter example of where ridicule or any attempt at humour is surprisingly missing, just look at the feminism article. Every criticism is proceeded with a template of the feminist POV first or spun to be positive in some way except for neopaganism. Someone calling the Principia a "rape manual" is merely noted, no point about how bad shit insane one would have to be to think that is made. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I think a statement like that really stands on its own; anyone who needs to be told that's ridiculous is beyond perception. Surely you didn't really read that and think "gosh, we'd better label that silly in case someone thinks it isn't" - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)