Talk:We Hunted the Mammoth

	This Internet related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Accuracy

I've tried to correct the most egregious error, but I'm afraid it broke the joke in the lead.

Also, something worth noting about the comment section: Manboobz is not a safe space (it's pointed out explicitly in a trigger warning box at the top of the right column). While the regulars will call out obnoxious behavior, trolls do show up often and get roasted.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

BoN Attempts

No, BoN. It is objectively hilarious; the actions of the MRAs depicted are ludicrous. And the criticism that shows up is invariably MRAs whining about how Futrelle is mangina. --Castaigne (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Mad Max

It has little bearing overall, but the reporting of MRA's being against Mad Max, as stated on WHTM, didn't appear to hold water, as the call for a boycott originated on a PUA blog (an entirely different type of nut-job). Things like this, and other unacknowledged errors, if found, can loosen a blogs credibility, regardless of their over all good purpose.

If I'm overstepping my bounds or posting incorrectly, please inform me BEFORE the ban. Plz. ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.238.64.182 / talk / contribs}

Some PUA aren't MRA; many are. Mind posting a link? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 23:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean this article? I'm not convinced you have read it as it mentions misogynists and the "manospehere" but not MRAs. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention this entry, which covers reactions from AVFM followers. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is drawing distinctions without differences - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple problems

There are multiple problems with this article. I would like to discuss this before editing:

1) The wording "other assorted anti-woman cranks" implies that all other groups mentioned in that sentence are anti-woman. That's an absolute assertion which requires extraordinary evidence but is not provided.

2)The following sentence should be removed entirely: "they're all duly linked, but after you've checked a few you'll be just fine with trusting the blog" Firstly, it's an opinion piece, it's vaguely worded (i.e. "just fine") and seems to predict with certainty that all readers will trust the accuracy of the blog. Secondly, the blog is known to present highly biased viewpoints and frequently misrepresents the viewpoints of others. Here's one example:http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2012/12/09/femra-typhonblue-maybe-the-men-who-seem-to-run-the-world-arent-really-men/ Among others the quote "some MRAs have even managed to convince themselves that the very basic historical and sociological fact that men in power, by and large, tend to represent men’s interests more than women’s interests is some sort of locical fallacy" - is misrepresenting the argument (whilst making an absolute assertion without evidence). The actual fallacy pointed out by MRAs is the assertion that just because a politician is male, he will represent men's interests more than women's - which is a simple non sequitur. The author is fighting an ideological battle and, at the very least, that should be mentioned here.

3) The assertion "The amazing thing about the site is that the comment threads can go over a thousand comments and still be intelligent, apposite and written by nice people" is another opinion that paints a one-sided viewpoint. Some of the comment threads demonstrated behavior that's highly bigoted and uneducated. Deed (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia. You should probably read RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? and Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki - David Gerard (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you implying concerning what I wrote? It's not very helpful to just tell me to read. Deed (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

See the table of contents of David's first link:

1 RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia

2 RationalWiki is not neutral point of view

3 RationalWiki is original research

4 RationalWiki does have a sense of humor

5 RationalWiki can be serious

...

Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My response is that you should probably read this. Deed (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Will the website come back?

Will the website come back? Koafox (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably. Give em time. Chillpilled (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)