Information icon.svg RationalWiki has hit its two millionth edit! Time to go outside, guys.


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
<ray comfort voice>

Deep in the rainforests of the Amazon prowls one quite peculiar creature. The natives call it the "Fuzzy Cat Potato". We civilized folk name it Felistuberosum Labentes. An eloquent name for an eloquent creature.

An eloquent and mysterious creature. The men of science have their labs and their money. But they cannot explain away the beauty of the Felistuberosum. The so-called "science" of evilution has explained the rat, the monkey, and -- they say -- the man. [*audibly scoffs*] This is just scientific hubris. Even common sense will tell you, nothing like this could ever evolve.

Look at its head: a fat, oversized cat brain, on top of a weak little potatoid torso. Look at its belly: underneath that filthy fur, the Fuzzy Cat Potato is almost one hundred percent fat. Look at its chest: those tiny lungs can barely breathe, let alone hunt. And let's not even mention its abomination of a "digestion" system, which I can describe only as "crappy".

How could something so gosh darn terrible evolve by accident, from nothing? It can't. That's just the facts, folks. That's just common sense.

If a crap needs a crapper, then a living pile of crap needs a living pile of crapper. Who is that crapper? I believe in our creator: an omnipotent, omniinebriated God.

</ray comfort voice>


The punchline? If the FuzzyCatPotato existed, it would be more solid evidence for God than intelligent design, because, surprisingly, a species that's extremely evolutionarily disadvantageous wouldn't be predicted by evolution.

Boardmember of the RMF. Contact me at Special:EmailUser/FuzzyCatPotato.

Important pages[edit]

Forever vigilant!

Essays & userspace[edit]

Feel free to edit/move anything in my userspace.

To do[edit]

A bunch of quotes that I generally agree with[edit]

I prayed for freedom for twenty years, but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.
Frederick DouglassWikipedia's W.svg


Time and again history has taught us the heavy price we pay when the independence, aggressive vigilance, accuracy and credibility of the press fails.

Events in Iraq today are a stark reminder to us in the U.S. that we have yet to learn that lesson. Who can say how the decision by the American government–with the support of a majority of the American public–to invade Iraq may turn out–only time will tell. But one thing we do know for certain is that the public support for that decision was built by the government’s creation of a virtual world of an imminent threat that did not exist. And brick by brick the construction of that deceptive virtual world was aided by an American press that did not rigorously enforce an independent journalism of verification.

So let me end by reminding us all of the role of journalists, do in a free society.

The first publications we would recognize as modern newspapers developed in Western Europe in the early 17th century and made public opinion possible. Before those early publications there was no common base of information upon which a public opinion could form.

The voice of the people was a babble–unheard and unimportant in the councils of government. Without their steady, reliable flow of timely information the creation, maturation and continuation of a public opinion as a force in politics would not have occurred–self-government would not have occurred. Journalism and self-government were born together. Journalism and self-government will rise or fall together.
—Pew Research Center, A New Journalism for Democracy in a New Age, 2005


I think theoretically it fits the mission. I don't really remember the answer I gave to it. It's not too hard on paper to report the "facts", the issue with conflicts like these is that both sides have their version of facts which at times differ greatly. Both sides also have media outlets and PR machines whose entire job has been to spin the truth on the ground to the rest of the world, and they've both been at it for decades. There's no scientific consensus to point to or hard logic involved. We don't like to admit it, but "truth" is often written after the fact, in the midst of things, it is much more murky. There is a similar problem with politics "in the midst" of things, not only is it strongly influenced by the emotion of whatever time it is being reported, and trying to actively campaign for a certain candidate using the website as a platform will only lead to issues that really won't be of much consequence after the election is over.
Speaking as an editor for RationalWiki, it depends on the subject.

When they go into true, hard science with little to no social issues (other than conspiracy theorists) like medicine, they are a gold mine. The site has helped me complete projects and find scientific consensuses on issues. They call out pseudoscientific bunk when it occurs, like the aspartame controversy. I would highly recommend RationalWiki portals like "Alternative medicine".

When they delve into pop culture and more sensitive social issues, like politics, sex, etc., the quality may become questionable. Generally speaking, the articles tend to give off a good summary, but at times they can get ideological and accusatory. Sometimes, it can get unscientific, too. Unfortunately, RationalWiki has a policy of trying to make everything snarky, and at times the quality suffers because of it. That said, the articles often are good places to start as they talk in ways that are easily understandable to ignorant and overly emotional people, so they are good to get a general idea of the subject and information at hand but it is not to be taken as a bible.

One thing I really enjoy about RW is their description of fallacies. They list several of them so you can easily name fallacies the next time you are having a discussion with someone.
Q: Question, you have a RW account, right? Are you one of the super-ultra-left people, or one of the ones who actually fit the "rational" bill?

A: I’ve seen a few threads on Reddit whinging about RationalWiki leftists, so I can guess your angle on this.

Back in 2008, I called for affirmative action to get more women into the sysop ranks. (This was back when becoming a sysop actually meant something.) So not only am I a filthy leftist, I’m a leftist who’s been on the site longer than 97% of the current userbase. I remember talking regularly with the founding members of RW themselves, and in general they were pretty left-leaning.

Since its founding in May 2007, RationalWiki has never been against or even apathetic to social justice. It was founded to oppose the ultra-conservative Conservapedia, remember. The site’s community from the very start was generally in support of reproductive rights, gay rights, expanded welfare, etc. That list only grew with time, to include the B and T parts of LGBT and deconstructions of privilege.

Libertarians have always whined about RationalWiki’s politics. Radfems hated us for welcoming trans women. Rationalists hated us for criticizing cyronics and LessWrong. More recently, sad male nerds have starting whinging because we oppose GamerGate. If you ask me, that’s a pretty good collection of people worth opposing.
I cant think of any improvements. Its great at what it does. The sort of snarky / sassy comedy in the articles is perfect - it felt like I was laughing with rationalwiki not having it laugh at me.

The "fluoride" piece for instance - I never bought that this was some evil conspiracy but I didnt know enough basic chemistry or biology to say one way or the other.

Simple straight forward science from the getgo and we end with dr strangelove? Easy reading
People will tell you it's far left. These people don't actually know what "far" or "left" mean, and clearly haven't read the articles on communism.

RationalWiki is robust and critical. It does criticize the right more than the left, but this is partly because, at the present political moment, the right has a bit of a reality problem. (And insofar as the left mirrors this, it generally manifests as woo-woo moonbattery or fantasies about communism, both of which RationalWiki criticizes at length.)

And the article on the "Manosphere" is accurate. If you use the term "SJW" unironically, I'm not sure you're as rational or as neutral as you clearly think you are.

a fight over a piddling | /r/Christianity | oddly one of the least crazily-biased critiques of RW is on DrunkenPeasants Wikia

A nobs quote[edit]

And we'll it soon enough in this Springs budget debate when Trump comes out against his own party on stimulus, infrastrure, single payer, saving social security, and the minimum wage. It'll be hoot to see the Trump haters oppose those issues.