Talk:RationalWiki

I think he is wearing one of them Watch/Calculator things.

Firstly its Ace McWicked not Ace Mc. Secondly I don't see how mentioning his watch is a deconstruction. Surely some witty editor can find a better comment. Ace McWicked 03:25, 11 December 2011 (CET)

I've been meaning to clean up this article. Of course, I've been meaning to do a lot of things for a while now. I believe User:JuniusThaddeus wrote most of it. ---brxbrx 05:11, 11 December 2011 (CET)

To Ace: It's obvious (and just plain weird) that the Rats take every one of Schlafly's comments, photographs, articles, etcetera, and examine them with a microscope. How did you spot the watch, then? Other Rats noticed something with the buttons on his shirt, and so on. That's the point here. (Though I admit that mocking Schafly can be very funny sometimes.)

To Brx: I really hope you don't screw things up. ;) Glenda Jackson 06:27, 11 December 2011 (CET)

How did I spot the watch? Ummm, because that's what it looks like, asshole. I have no idea if it is a watch/calculator combo or not. Ace McWicked 06:59, 11 December 2011 (CET)

You were having a conversation on his appearance, including a discussion of his clothes and apparel. ED is mocking your intense scrutiny of Andy Schlafly. Don't be dense.---brxbrx 07:23, 11 December 2011 (CET)

Single comment = discussion? Interesting. That is why I thought perhaps a different quote might be more appropriate if you were trying demonstrate my intense scrutiny of Schlafly. Ace McWicked 07:30, 11 December 2011 (CET)

Not so much yours as RationalWiki's in general.---brxbrx 07:42, 11 December 2011 (CET)

You haven't even got my name right you nitwit. Ace McWicked 08:11, 11 December 2011 (CET)

You are butthurt---brxbrx 08:31, 11 December 2011 (CET)

(butthurt)... is usually characterized by noisy whining and complaining after being pwnt or otherwise outdone in any minute and insignificant way. Indeed, you have quite severely outdone me. Idiot. Ace McWicked 09:45, 11 December 2011 (CET)

You are taking this little blurb too seriously. Kind of sad how you react to anything that might resemble criticism.---brxbrx 12:21, 11 December 2011 (CET)

Fuck man, you are stupid. I don't care about criticism Brx, I am here telling you this particular piece of criticism does not demonstrate the point you are trying to get across and that you could probably find a much better piece of criticism. Moron. Ace McWicked 20:36, 11 December 2011 (CET)

• It's almost like you're here being butthurt over some insignificant text, isn't it? ◔ᴗ◔ 20:43, 11 December 2011 (CET)

He's always like this.---brxbrx 20:53, 11 December 2011 (CET)

I was trying help. But alright. Ace McWicked 21:05, 11 December 2011 (CET)

I find it interesting that me trying to help you find a better criticism is considered butthurt. Ace McWicked 21:16, 11 December 2011 (CET)

You were getting too worked up about it. You know, you can dish it but you can't take it.---brxbrx 21:47, 11 December 2011 (CET)

Worked up? Calling you a nitwit is worked up? You are a nitwit. I can take it just fine thanks Brx but there is nothing you can do to "work me up". Ace McWicked 22:02, 11 December 2011 (CET)

Suure, Ace. You're still cool. Keep telling yourself that.---brxbrx 22:05, 11 December 2011 (CET)

Uh-huh, yup. I have a meeting now and then afterwards I am going to go cry in the toilet because a complete stranger on the internet who eats turnips from the sidewalk doesn't think another complete stranger is cool. Ace McWicked 22:08, 11 December 2011 (CET)

• You are visibly upset you retarded aspie. Always having to have the last word is pretty pathetic in and of itself. ◔ᴗ◔ 22:09, 11 December 2011 (CET)

Yes, I remember now why I never had an ED account. Ace McWicked 00:07, 12 December 2011 (CET)

Because you can't handle criticism?---brxbrx 00:44, 12 December 2011 (CET)

Quite right, my paper thin ego can't handle the criticism. Ace McWicked 01:23, 12 December 2011 (CET)

Ace, dear, don't take it too seriously. It's evident that RW's editors have mocked Andy in every possible way. This article says it all: RW contains dozens of essays, anagrams, games and poems about Schlafly; a comparative study of Schlafly and Black Jesus; daily wikistalking; a rock opera (written by RW's resident gays); and endless, massive ridiculing directed at the fuckwit.

But there's nothing wrong with that! Actually, some of the material is very funny indeed; it usually happens with fundies like Schlafly and his herd.

I sense you simply didn't like the "Watch" reference. You need to mature a bit. Glenda Jackson 02:57, 12 December 2011 (CET)

I was suggesting you could find a much better reference but if you are happy with this one then keep it. Ace McWicked 03:04, 12 December 2011 (CET)

God, you're fast. It's that same energy that impresses me the most on the Schlafly matter. You guys are something.

Anyway, I think the reference works within the context. Glenda Jackson 03:15, 12 December 2011 (CET)

Misnomer

For a website that puts "Rational" in its title... it sure doesn't act the part. ZetaSonic 02:59, 12 December 2013 (EST)

Laurelai

They have enlisted Laurelai [1] to create an article on transmisogyny. --Intiger 03:28, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

Armenian Genocide Denial and Lesser Drama

I've discovered some unbelievable shit on this site. The comedy potential is just waiting to be tapped.

As a general guideline, since the site's reflexively anti-western, anything counter to the west can be a potential source for drama. You can head to just about any topic related to those lines and find loads of potential drama. Two of my favorite examples are from the sites Bashar al-Assad and USS Liberty Incident articles.

You may notice the site's significantly less negative on Assad than, say, Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. Now, maybe I'm alone here, but surely no matter how much anyone could hate the ruler of a liberal democracy, it's objectively wrong and stupid to be more negative towards them than a tyrant who tortures, murders, and gasses hundreds of thousands of his own people rather than even an attempt to negotiate away a fraction of his power?

As for the bit on the USS Liberty, there's been talks of conspiracy for years, but even a half century after the incident, no document released by the US or Israel points to a cover up. There shouldn't be a question it was a friendly fire accident any more than other theories where the event was theorized before actual evidence was looked at. The only reason it's even brought up is due to being one of the few anti-Israeli and anti-Western conspiracy theories under the radar enough to not be tainted by noted association with famous crackpots. Said crackpots believe the theory anyway, but the rule still holds.

So far, my favorite discovery is RW's bit on the Armenian Genocide. It's hard to believe this shit, but in in the talk page and the article for Armenia, there's actual genocide denial on what's supposed to be the "Rational" wiki.

“   To my eyes, this RationalWiki article strikes a reasonable balance, not whitewashing the Turks' brutal actions, but also not tooting the horn of Armenian victimhood.   „     —Sprocket J Cogswell, RationalWiki User     “   The Armenian Genocide took place between 1915 and 1918, during which the Ottoman Empire committed systematic killings, deportations, and forced marches of the (predominantly Christian) Armenian population, resulting in the deaths of 1 to 1.5 million people. Most scholars from a Western background present this viewpoint. Meanwhile the factuality of the Armenian genocide is denied by the government of Turkey, who argue it was a religious and ethnic war, and that up to a million Islamic Turks and Kurds died during the period at the hands of Armenian militiamen, along with other Christian-Muslim violence throughout the Ottoman Empire at time. Unsurprisingly, most scholars from non-Christian backgrounds take this viewpoint. What actually happened is anyone's guess, but no-one comes out of it looking good.   „     —RationalWiki Armenia Article, this section was the toned down version. Previous Quote | Next Quote

No serious wiki of any sort should even come close to tooting the horn of "Armenian victimhood" or "it was a long time ago" when discussing this topic. Fucking Christ, what does that make slavery? "Oh, it happened like a million years ago, the niggers probably made it up."

Assuming it gets more traffic. This site might just be the next TV Tropes. --Troll 4 Life 04:21, 10 September 2014 (EDT)

I, for one, would sooner stand with genocidal tyrants than elected leaders... but I doubt RW's editors pride themselves on being fascists in quite the same way that I view myself. I don't see it getting more traffic. It's a niche wiki for far leftist ideologues. Recall that SJWiki was spawned from this horde.  VX  • 08:32, 10 September 2014 (EDT)

Tips for Trolling

The current recommendations for how to troll RW could stand to be more effective. The site can't really be trolled from the right without a lot of extra support since anything deemed too far to the right is deleted instantly, no matter how well sourced.

For that matter, sourcing's a joke in every circumstance. RW accepts sources from anybody; Cracked; TV Tropes; even crank sites RW has articles mocking like globalresearch.ca are used as sources. Not even just as extra reading, but sources. If RW's willing to accept crap like this as sources for what they like while ignoring real sources used in points to the contrary, any idea of objectivity or rationality is a farce.

Personally, I recommend trolling from the left, or trolling from the neutral. You can use anything as a citation, and are a lot less likely to get recognized as a troll. Don't even worry about getting stopped. The line between a libtard carefag and a really effective troll's non existent anyway. The site'd also need some sort of actual standards to stop this method, and they'll delete the whole thing before that happens.--Troll 4 Life 04:52, 10 September 2014 (EDT)

Somewhere on RW, they have a policy stating something to the effect of "In then end, what most of us like will stay, and what most of us dislike will go." It's very much a mobocracy, and they don't take pains to hide it.  VX  • 08:32, 10 September 2014 (EDT)

Isn't that faulty rationality as well? Well, it figures. If they were honest about how "rational" they were, then nobody would take them seriously. Save the whales! Adoph-in Hitler needs an army! 19:40, 10 September 2014 (EDT)

The whole idea that Conservapedia needs a "rational" counter anyway is absurd. Verifiability and an NPOV are already principles of vanilla Wikipedia, as well as the principles of any worthwhile academic material.

Some might say they're a comedy site since they can't compete with any actual encyclopedia for facts, but that makes even less sense. No relevant RW user has any sense of humor.

Even by Internet standards, RW has no reason to justify it's existence. It's to Wikipedia what FreeSpeechVids was to video sites.--Troll 4 Life 22:42, 10 September 2014 (EDT)

Christ, RW even describes itself as a mobocracy in their fucking page on mobocracy. It's amazing how such a small site can contain so much embarrassing content.--Troll 4 Life 22:42, 10 September 2014 (EDT)

They didn't accept TV tropes for saying rape is as much unremitting horror as they list slavery Hitler and the Klan. Also cracked is a better source for unbelievable drugs than Wikipedia, check this out [2]. I trolled them by adding sections to more than half their history and religion articles; when one of their mods Meikal even is a professional historian who didn't give a shit. They have no reason to exist other than for including information Wikipedia refuses to host; as Wikipedia now tries to deny it once housed anti god rant articles before including a single book of the bible [3]. Really, any information they have absent from Wikipedia should just be on Wikipedia; giving them no reason to waste money on maintaining servers.

Has anyone even actually spoken with Trent Tolhouse; Jimmy Wales at least showed up to tell me I'm bad news when I pestered him, but Dr. Toulouse never did and neither did Human. I would have thought Jimmy Wales would be more difficult to get a response from than Dr. Toulouse, though Wikipedia brings a net profit for all the electricity it eats, unlike Rational Wiki's digital donation box which must be supported by less than 100 people if that. How much of the money just comes from Dr. Toulouse; he must have put in more than Jimmy Wales ever did in Wikipedia's first years. CensoredScribe 00:20, 29 January 2015 (EST)

Bullshit

Their paradigm makes sense in a vacuum but in reality it is bullshit.

I've read a lot of their articles and have thus verified this quote to be true: "liberals build impenitrable fortresses of rationality and run around inside congratulating themselves on their brilliance. when you try to point out that their fortress is built on a slowly disintigrating cloud, it goes right over their head." —anon

Lesswrong had a good critique on these mental illnesses as did Fringe elements who pointed out that these sort of people are pretty much Secular Humanists so they deny race and preform mental gymnastics. —Lolyunohavgudsoftware 06:54, 4 April 2015 (EDT)