Template talk:Clear as mud
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Is there a tangible reason why the title of this template is misspelled? ħuman
21:54, 22 January 2009 (EST)
- It was a typo, but then I thought of someone I know called Terry, so I let it go.: )
(Toast) and marmalade 21:56, 22 January 2009 (EST)
- Can we swap it for something else. I think we're already using the wingnut in quite a few places, & mostly for specifically right-wing craziness. If we're using this template for alternate lifestyle sort of craziness, it doesn't quite seem to fit. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:03, 22 January 2009 (EST)
- Come to think of it, whatever happened to the whole liberal "inclusive tolerance of non-mainstream lifestyles and subcultures" thing? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 22:08, 22 January 2009 (EST)
- Stick "Rational" in there somewhere AK. (Toast) and marmalade 22:13, 22 January 2009 (EST)
- See, that's exactly the problem right there: We establish this standard called "Rationality", based essentially on a very limited set of Western, positivist, materialist values, and then we use that standard to pass value judgements on all sorts of subcultures and lifestyles which do not seem to conform to this standard. It seems like an attempt to establish a dominant discourse, and to marginalize those groups which do not fit in with it, and I find it very difficult to see how this is in any way liberal or progressive. In fact, it seems closer to a typically conservative point of view, if anything. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 22:51, 22 January 2009 (EST)
- It may be lib/prog to accept folks with offbeat perspectives... but it's not rational to buy into any strange explanation for the way they are that they come up with. I think the Weasel said it well on CUR's talk page [1] - we all find stuff on here we don't really like, since we are all, besides hopefully being relatively rational, also human beings with our own personal idiosyncrasies. The key is simply accepting that our "things" aren't rational and getting over it. Now, as far as this template and where it was used today, it doesn't make sense. It was made for articles that were "out there", mostly, as I recall, RobS' screeds, which long ago got moved to "essay". Whether we want a template to use on articles about fringe groups or the like is another issue. perhaps we should take this chat to the saloon? That way we can partake of refreshments, instead of hardware, while discussing it? ħuman 00:28, 23 January 2009 (EST)
- That is a strangely Ace McWicked looking Weasel, Human. - User 06:32, 23 January 2009 (EST)
- AK: <rant> I don't regard myself as particularly "liberal" or "progressive" and I don't think that that's what this wiki is about. It's about rationality which, like it or not, does IMHO require that "
limitedset of western, positive materialist values". You come at the argument from an academic point of view and apparently take it that anyone's beliefs should be considered in forming decisions, if those beliefs are outside the bounds of rational thought, I see no reason to give them table room. The "dominant discourse" is reason and the marginalisation is self inflicted. (Reminds me of Dawkins in discourse with a bishop or similar churchman [I paraphrase]: "Why should we listen to him, just because he's got an imaginary friend". That's what all these "marginalised" groups are like - trying to rationalise infantile ideas into a pseudo-coherent ideology) If it makes them feel better, fair enough, but they could kindly refrain from inflicting it on me. </rant> (Toast) and marmalade 06:29, 23 January 2009 (EST)
- It may be lib/prog to accept folks with offbeat perspectives... but it's not rational to buy into any strange explanation for the way they are that they come up with. I think the Weasel said it well on CUR's talk page [1] - we all find stuff on here we don't really like, since we are all, besides hopefully being relatively rational, also human beings with our own personal idiosyncrasies. The key is simply accepting that our "things" aren't rational and getting over it. Now, as far as this template and where it was used today, it doesn't make sense. It was made for articles that were "out there", mostly, as I recall, RobS' screeds, which long ago got moved to "essay". Whether we want a template to use on articles about fringe groups or the like is another issue. perhaps we should take this chat to the saloon? That way we can partake of refreshments, instead of hardware, while discussing it? ħuman
- See, that's exactly the problem right there: We establish this standard called "Rationality", based essentially on a very limited set of Western, positivist, materialist values, and then we use that standard to pass value judgements on all sorts of subcultures and lifestyles which do not seem to conform to this standard. It seems like an attempt to establish a dominant discourse, and to marginalize those groups which do not fit in with it, and I find it very difficult to see how this is in any way liberal or progressive. In fact, it seems closer to a typically conservative point of view, if anything. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 22:51, 22 January 2009 (EST)
- Stick "Rational" in there somewhere AK.
- Come to think of it, whatever happened to the whole liberal "inclusive tolerance of non-mainstream lifestyles and subcultures" thing? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 22:08, 22 January 2009 (EST)
- Can we swap it for something else. I think we're already using the wingnut in quite a few places, & mostly for specifically right-wing craziness. If we're using this template for alternate lifestyle sort of craziness, it doesn't quite seem to fit. Wéáśéĺóíď
(Continued at RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Copied_from_Template_talk:Wingnuttery) --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 11:32, 23 January 2009 (EST)