|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Template talk:Offensive
Honestly, if anyone is so "offended" by a Rationalwiki page that they decide to stick this template on anything, then this website just clearly isn't for them. 
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The template page itself says it all, it's self-offending, "An editor believes this template is offensive to some people." Perhaps the creator of this page, @RationalThinker, didn't think of irony of that. Bongolian (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Or maybe it's meant to be used on things that you personally aren't offended by, but which you strongly suspect will be considered offensive by someone. (Though that might describe over 90% of this website, so it should probably be reserved for the really egregious stuff, i.e. what 1d6chan would call "skub" — wait, no, that's about controversy and (low-grade) flame-war bait (they have a separate template for ultra-controversial stuff)… hm.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Again, anyone who is such a thin-skinned crybaby that they would need a red lined “offensive” template on articles doesn’t belong on this wiki. Having it on articles would just make us look like fools.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem with having a template that signals as a warning for potentially triggering content. Carthage (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- This template isn’t about trigger warnings. It’s literally “I think this is offensive”. It’s just whining, pure a simple. A Trump supporter could stick this on the Trump article since we insult him so much. It’s so fucking stupid. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, ok. I see the problem now. Carthage (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Like I said, over 90% of our articles are gonna be offensive to someone. Especially since a big part of our mission is highlighting the idiocy and fraudulence of cranks and woo-meisters. Of course we're gonna offend charlatans; it's our freaking job to ruin the lives of people whose only contribution to humanity is ruining the lives of others!!! --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, it’s not our job to ruin people’s lives. That’s an insane statement. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, what do you think happens to a charlatan whose credibility is completely ruined and can no longer sell bullshit? They either find an honest line of work (which is probably going to be really freaking difficult if nobody is willing to believe anything they say) or they go bankrupt and end up on the streets begging for change. (And nothing of value is lost.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Do we actually have that level of influence? Carthage (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- People have felt threatened enough to sue us… --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Do we actually have that level of influence? Carthage (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, what do you think happens to a charlatan whose credibility is completely ruined and can no longer sell bullshit? They either find an honest line of work (which is probably going to be really freaking difficult if nobody is willing to believe anything they say) or they go bankrupt and end up on the streets begging for change. (And nothing of value is lost.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, it’s not our job to ruin people’s lives. That’s an insane statement.
- Like I said, over 90% of our articles are gonna be offensive to someone. Especially since a big part of our mission is highlighting the idiocy and fraudulence of cranks and woo-meisters. Of course we're gonna offend charlatans; it's our freaking job to ruin the lives of people whose only contribution to humanity is ruining the lives of others!!! --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, ok. I see the problem now. Carthage (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- This template isn’t about trigger warnings. It’s literally “I think this is offensive”. It’s just whining, pure a simple. A Trump supporter could stick this on the Trump article since we insult him so much. It’s so fucking stupid.
- I don't see the problem with having a template that signals as a warning for potentially triggering content. Carthage (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Again, anyone who is such a thin-skinned crybaby that they would need a red lined “offensive” template on articles doesn’t belong on this wiki. Having it on articles would just make us look like fools.
- Or maybe it's meant to be used on things that you personally aren't offended by, but which you strongly suspect will be considered offensive by someone. (Though that might describe over 90% of this website, so it should probably be reserved for the really egregious stuff, i.e. what 1d6chan would call "skub" — wait, no, that's about controversy and (low-grade) flame-war bait (they have a separate template for ultra-controversial stuff)… hm.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Bo Winegard accused RationalWiki of having at least partial-responsibility for his firing, "Recently, somebody (or some people) created a RationalWiki page dedicated to me. It is full of half-truths, mendacities, and out-of-context quotes. At first, I just ignored it. However, it has intruded upon my professional life, so I feel it necessary to respond. I will address the mendacities and misleading statements below."[1] As DuceMoosolini said, the purpose of RationalWiki is absolutely not to ruin peoples lives. Speaking truth to bullshit is within the RW domain, and if that has collateral consequences, so be it. Bongolian (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)