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

Okay, I deleted the off topic slapfighting here. Please don't turn this into "we need to start the RationalWiki Race War!"

You realize I actually like @Jaimas right? I don't think he took offense and if so I was out of line but slapfighting was not the intent. If I went from a bit of gentle mockery to being an actual dick, whoops.

I really do want to see RW meet disaster, though that is going to happen with or without any direct interference from us, and that even Ghazi thinks they're out of line is an example of that.

PS: Feel free to delete this since it's basically just directed to you with an excuse to tag @Jaimas.
 
Last edited:
You realize I actually like @Jaimas right? I don't think he took offense and if so I was out of line but slapfighting was not the intent.

I really do want to see RW meet disaster, though that is going to happen with or without any direct interference from us, and that even Ghazi thinks they're out of line is an example of that.

Go eat some more hot pockets you fat faggot, and take @Jaimas and @Randall Fragg with you.

Fucking uppity janitorial staff thinking what they have to say matters again.
 
Too extreme for Gamerghazi and coming from nearly like minded people? Wow. That's a new one for me.

From following Ghazi drama, there are people there who aren't fundie lunatics. RW is objectively bad and I'm not surprised to see it's not been met with universal praise. The issue I've seen is in how the mods of Ghazi are very swift to delete content and block people. Some honest attempts at reaching out to Ghazi have been killed by over-zealous mods. Also their habit of auto-blocking people for participation on verboten subs doesn't help.

The feedback won't improve the factual content of the article. At best, Gerard is right now wondering how to rework the article so it preserves the content while appearing less crazy than the manifesto of a lunatic. See how he points to the links as some kind of evidence, as if citations matter when an article is so deliberately inaccurate and hostile in tone. You can actually identify everyone against Atheism+ or Gamergate by reading the first few lines of their bio articles, as the tone is immediately obvious: this is a bad person and you should not like them!

By comparison, their articles on paedophilia and honour killings are impartial in tone.

This feedback will not trigger changes to actual content or direction of the article. It'll be window dressing aimed at decreasing the obvious and immediate crazy vibe the article emits. In the Gerard mentality, it's like being vigorously rebuffed for asking for sex with someone's infant daughter, and his takeaway is that he should next time explain how he's willing to marry her if she gets pregnant. Rationalwiki has decided that social justice is the hill on which they want to die, and that wish is going to be respected.
 
From following Ghazi drama, there are people there who aren't fundie lunatics. RW is objectively bad and I'm not surprised to see it's not been met with universal praise. The issue I've seen is in how the mods of Ghazi are very swift to delete content and block people. Some honest attempts at reaching out to Ghazi have been killed by over-zealous mods. Also their habit of auto-blocking people for participation on verboten subs doesn't help.

Plebbit is shit. Nothing good will ever happen there.
 
I met a shitposter from an antique land
Who said: two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand on the wiki. Near them on the page,
A shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
and wrinkled lip and sneer of smug euphoria
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these useless things,
The hand that bann'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"I am David Gerard, mod of mods:
Look on my works, ye rational and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare.
The lone and level links stretch far away.
 
Back