Infected RationalWiki - Whiny hugbox for spergs and a clusterfuck of neverending drama on a rapidly declining website.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
It is kind of ironic how this kind of 'purely rational' people dismiss essentially all non-atheists as naïve at best and stark raving mad at worst, yet their default response to them is being a narcissistic, condescending manchild. Most prominent is how they treat Christians and the Bible. IMHO they have spent more time bashing the latter two than with actual science.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Bayard Rustin, Francis E. Dec Esc., Super-Chevy454 and 4 others
Bec said:
Isn't it a "wiki stereotype" that people will create pages and then guard them like their baby?
Click to expand...
When you've had the experiences I and many kiwis have had, you'll come to realize that there's more than a grain of truth to most so-called sterotypes/strawmen. And in at least some cases, it's actually those who don't act like their group's "sterotype/strawman" that are the actual minority within said group.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Candlelight Desolation and ABE LINN COHN
Splinters RCVD said:
It is kind of ironic how this kind of 'purely rational' people dismiss essentially all non-atheists as naïve at best and stark raving mad at worst, yet their default response to them is being a narcissistic, condescending manchild. Most prominent is how they treat Christians and the Bible. IMHO they have spent more time bashing the latter two than with actual science.
Click to expand...
And I'm not surprised then they don't threat the Koran the same way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeChampion1992 and Splinters RCVD
Super-Chevy454 said:
And I'm not surprised then they don't threat the Koran the same way.
Click to expand...
They are not as butthurt with Islam as they are with Christianity, plus they and the muslims sort of belong to the same camp of political bloodhounds at the moment. This will take an interesting turn in places where Sharia will take over.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: LeChampion1992 and Super-Chevy454
Although it doesn't come as surprise, many articles may often be filled with inaccuracies and taking a side onto unclear certainties. Do to how biased RW is in presenting information we find often times critiques of certain awful figures, which always try to weasel in that the reason that they were like that is because they were conservatives. I first found this totally unrelated phenomenon when looking at RW articles for nations and Russia and Romania come to mind; specifically there is a contention with Stalin/Ceausescu both which banned homosexuality and abortion (even if bans on homosexuality aren't mentioned for the Romania article, oddly enough). RW writers don't want to be honest because that would mean mentioning how Christian morality obviously did NOT play a role in these ways of thinking that has lead for these policies being put in place
 
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: scathefire, ABE LINN COHN, Shaka Brah and 1 other person
I got interested and looked up their page on conspiracy theories, and it's the most cope filled page I've seen since MundaneMatt. Especially the 9/11 sub-article.
 
Vaush videos and Reddit posts are citations now i guess.

Clown World - RationalWiki

rationalwiki.org rationalwiki.org
archive.md

Clown World - RationalWiki

archived 3 Dec 2021 03:12:21 UTC
archive.md archive.md
1638501069069.png

1638501261432.png

When will this site run out of funding? i hope it does soon.
 
  • Lunacy
  • Informative
  • Optimistic
Reactions: A Bit Concerning, Oats12345, Candlelight Desolation and 7 others
It originally existed to debunk (and make fun of) Andrew Schlafly's Conservapedia, a terrible wiki written primarily by his homeschool coop students to regurgitate whatever ultra-fundamentalist beliefs he was feeding them. (Relativity is bad because it's the physical equivalent of moral relativism, the Earth is 6000 years old, lists of people Andy didn't like, etc.) But it wasn't enough to observe and report. Their agents became editors and even high-ranking mods, and booted off the outside editors who thought they actually were creating a conservative Wikipedia, leaving only the insane and those who needed Andy's approval for their diploma. Thus Conservapedia, which was handicapped from the beginning, was dealt a death blow. Then RW kind of disappeared up its own asshole.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: A Bit Concerning, Newman's Lovechild, Shaka Brah and 3 others
Bastard_Call said:
What do you think "rational" means?
Click to expand...
In this sense I have a distinct memory of rational wiki like say more than a decade ago being a repository of college-humour-esque takes on science and philosophy topics with some anti-conspiracy bend.

Then it devolved into what its now. But I could be wrong.
 
TheTrumanShow said:
In this sense I have a distinct memory of rational wiki like say more than a decade ago being a repository of college-humour-esque takes on science and philosophy topics with some anti-conspiracy bend.

Then it devolved into what its now. But I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
You just described exactly what it is now with more flattering words. It's not like RW changed in any significant way, more like its worst attributes were exaggerated as zeitgeists shifted and its focus moved on from fundamentalists.

The need to distinguish yourself as rational to begin with comes with the baggage of being an absolute pseud in every regard. These people will read the cliffnotes on the socratic method (while simultaneously disregarding it) and suddenly believe they're humanity's chosen few. If you ever felt this wasn't the case, it's because they were arguing against bigger retards than themselves.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: ABE LINN COHN and Shaka Brah
Bastard_Call said:
You just described exactly what it is now with more flattering words. It's not like RW changed in any significant way, more like its worst attributes were exaggerated as zeitgeists shifted and its focus moved on from fundamentalists.

The need to distinguish yourself as rational to begin with comes with the baggage of being an absolute pseud in every regard. These people will read the cliffnotes on the socratic method (while simultaneously disregarding it) and suddenly believe they're humanity's chosen few. If you ever felt this wasn't the case, it's because they were arguing against bigger retards than themselves.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree with that statement more. Despite being on the agnostic/atheist side of things I always despised the in-your-face type of atheism popularized by some youtubers that is proselytizing in a far more annoying way than say any religion I know of with the exception of maybe Jehovas. But those neckties are so damn polite you can't even be made at them. They fuck off if you ask them to. This aspect was, I think, relatively big back when the site was new.

I never liked rational wiki then, I just had a feeling it wasn't as focused on internet drama, the "alt-right", political and social fringe groups and so on when it started.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: Mooger Meng, Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL and ABE LINN COHN
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back