|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User talk:TheRationalAtheist
Welcome[edit]
|
Welcome to RationalWiki, TheRationalAtheist!
Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing:
|
I see you're "sick and tired of this "neutral" handwaving", you'll be pleased to hear that we very explicitly try not to be neutral. Christopher (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think fact-based descriptions of events are, by definition, neutral, but as we know, conservatives don't believe in reality. TheRationalAtheist (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Being non-neutral doesn't mean we don't need sources for things though, have you got citations for this edit? Christopher (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Part of it is in the article itself. "Whites should stick together and keep to their own country." He also said something along the lines of "If you keep pushing white people, eventually they will fight back," but I don't remember if it was in his debate with Destiny or if it was in one of the streams he did with Sargon. If you want, I can remove the part about the race war until I (or somebody else) finds that statement. The part of him trying to indoctrinate his audience via Twitter should be obvious though, no? TheRationalAtheist (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Most of it's obvious but I meant his friendship with Sargon of Akkad. Christopher (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocxZmoHdSus TheRationalAtheist (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Do you know how to do references? If you put your edit back but use that video as a reference. If you don't, read this. Christopher (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocxZmoHdSus TheRationalAtheist (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Most of it's obvious but I meant his friendship with Sargon of Akkad. Christopher (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Please keep a cool head, knock off your condescendion, don't accuse writing as "libel" especially if you can't properly provide a source, certainly don't make up assumptions about users you disagree with like accusing FuzzyCatPotato (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) of being a supporter of Carl of Swindon. You certainly won't get anything done with that attitude. Thanks. --It's-a me, 
LeftyGreenMario! 21:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- There was only one source on those claims about Hillary Clinton and that source had nothing to do with most of what the paragraph was claiming. I apologize if I seem rash, but I have reasons to believe that bad actors are trying to give this Wiki a right-wing slant. This is the reason why racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination are still so rampant and why the number of hate crimes committed against women and minorities has been absolutely skyrocketing; It's apologists who would rather turn a blind eye than calling out toxic behavior and thoughts when they see them. TheRationalAtheist (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think criticism of Hillary Clinton or alleged dubious conflicts of interest amounts to right-wing apologia. Even if you're right, you can't just assume the person who inputted those statements are status quo warriors who are supportive of hate crimes against women and minorities. It's a non sequitur. Anyhow, as FuzzyCatPotato said, show, not tell. So you can add those sources into the article and make a quote of the entire thing, and you don't have to make a statement beyond that and let the words describe for themselves. As Carl of Swindon is documented a few times in anti-misogynist blog "We Hunted the Mammoth" and is associated with sexist figures like Karen Straughan. I don't disagree that he's a sexist person, though I think you're giving bold labels and it's not productive to do this. Again, as FuzzyCatPotato also said, it's better to suggest what their tendencies are rather than outright telling them since it gives leeway for interpretation without the power and inherent bias of labels. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 22:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think criticism of Hillary Clinton or alleged dubious conflicts of interest amounts to right-wing apologia. Even if you're right, you can't just assume the person who inputted those statements are status quo warriors who are supportive of hate crimes against women and minorities. It's a non sequitur. Anyhow, as FuzzyCatPotato said, show, not tell. So you can add those sources into the article and make a quote of the entire thing, and you don't have to make a statement beyond that and let the words describe for themselves. As Carl of Swindon is documented a few times in anti-misogynist blog "We Hunted the Mammoth" and is associated with sexist figures like Karen Straughan. I don't disagree that he's a sexist person, though I think you're giving bold labels and it's not productive to do this. Again, as FuzzyCatPotato also said, it's better to suggest what their tendencies are rather than outright telling them since it gives leeway for interpretation without the power and inherent bias of labels. --It's-a me,
Suggestion[edit]
You seem to take strong stances against anti-social-justice (aSJ) talkers. However, because [1] these articles are about living people AND [2] because aSJ people generally reject anything that seems like "editorializing" or "media bias" (read: anything that isn't a cited, verbatim quote), you should:
- Never overstate your evidence. Sargon of Akkad probably isn't a Nazi, even if he attracts them. If aSJ people see an unsupported claim like that, they often reject the article outright. (For proof, see the citation for "literally any news with adjectives", where Sargon decided to whine about a news article using adjectives as proof that media inserts bias.)
- Show not tell. Provide obvious examples of poor behavior or pseudoscientific thinking. Instead of "Sargon is a racist[1]", try "Sargon said this charmingly non-racist thing[1]: 'I hear they've synthesized watermelon now, so that's an exciting development for you.'" Think of yourself as a curator of bullshit and bigotry: display, don't describe.
Thanks. FuzzyCatPotato of the Conservapedian Factoids (talk/stalk) 21:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds like you are saying we should mince words because it would hurt their feelings. They already object to the claims in the articles, so what's the problem with calling a duck a duck? TheRationalAtheist (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's not as snarky. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds like you are saying we should mince words because it would hurt their feelings. They already object to the claims in the articles, so what's the problem with calling a duck a duck? TheRationalAtheist (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
NeoGaf, eh?[edit]
What do you normally do there? I go to GameFAQs and I don't participate too much, but it's a good place to apply things I learned from RationalWiki there. Some people there are walking illogical fallacies. I'd imagine NeoGAF to be pretty similar. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)