User talk:Curious

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Curious. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

— Dysk (contribs) 23:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia.

While Wikipedia isn't a good primary source it is an excellent litmus test for whether or not an opinion is so insanely stupid that even their NPOV won't support it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

By its own terms, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." Curious (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You can copypaste that all you want, doesn't mean anything. As stated in my original post, I'm not using Wikipedia as a primary source, I'm using it as a litmus test to see whether your whitewashing flies over there or not. Because they have to treat everyone's opinions equally. When even they aren't buying it, the opinion is usually stupid and probably wrong. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It means what it says. Relying on a source that says it is not reliable is not rational. RationalWiki promotes (or claims to promote) critical thinking, which the "For Britain" article needs more of. "For Britain" policies are mostly liberal, but Wikipedia calls them "right wing" for no reason other than that they criticize (or blaspheme contrary to) Islam. On your User page, you wrote that "all religions are a form of psychosocial control and are therefore inherently bad for you." Does calling Islam "inherently bad for you" make you right wing? Curious (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)