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

Markass the Worst said:
A good article has come out documenting one of the insane admins editing RationalWiki that just also happens to be a Wikipedia editor, David Gerard.
Click to expand...
He's pretty much a paleolithic cow who even has a vintage ED article and was pretty active online well before ED even existed.

This is how he used to look
David_Gerard_is_dracula.png
Now he looks like a normie boomer despite being no normie.
 
The Grognard said:
For the first part of your question, it was one of the very first situations where the modern life ruination strategy that would then become known as "Cancel Culture" was refined to a point where anyone could have it be done to them with a dedicated enough group who sought to destroy someone with Fairgame-derived tactics. As for Atheism+, it effectively tried to hijack the larger Atheism/Freethinker movement of the day to become shocktroops for all the usual social justice shit. The rest of the movement was not that pleased about being forced to not question anything about it. In the end, neither group won but the tactics and tools developed during this became commonplace during the 2010's across the greater western world.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's a case of hijacking so much as useful idiots having served their purpose. Maybe atheists thought they were debating the existence of a deity in the abstract sense, but in practise it was always political, a tool to attack existing conservative/Christian norms. Once progressives won over enough institutions they didn't need atheism - in fact it was dangerous, since a sincere atheist might object to Islam, or the veneration of native American woo.

Atheism+ makes complete sense when you realise these people were always wokies who (correctly) understood atheism as a progressive vehicle, a means to an end. If anything it was a mistake to brand themselves "atheism+" and make their agenda explicit. Nowadays they take great pains to control the narrative to the point nobody can point out what's happening.
 
anon483637 said:
I'm not sure it's a case of hijacking so much as useful idiots having served their purpose. Maybe atheists thought they were debating the existence of a deity in the abstract sense, but in practise it was always political, a tool to attack existing conservative/Christian norms. Once progressives won over enough institutions they didn't need atheism - in fact it was dangerous, since a sincere atheist might object to Islam, or the veneration of native American woo.

Atheism+ makes complete sense when you realise these people were always wokies who (correctly) understood atheism as a progressive vehicle, a means to an end. If anything it was a mistake to brand themselves "atheism+" and make their agenda explicit. Nowadays they take great pains to control the narrative to the point nobody can point out what's happening.
Click to expand...
I would argue that the primary reason why these groups targeted the American Evangelical churches the hardest was more down to these churches trying to push a lot of stuff that was at best, silly ideas about how nobody should ever learn anything about evolution or sex and at worst, despicable cultish programs that operated private "educational" facilities straight out of the Synanon mould. Megachurches also had plenty of easy mockable things like gaudy architecture, pulpit rhetoric that mainly consisted of ensuring the show-runner got rich off idiot boomers and of course, always conveniently following whatever stupid trend that Washington wanted to push at the time.

The counter-reaction to these holy rollers was inevitable because they were very annoying back during their heyday. Shame they got replaced by people who are just as fanatical about censorship but far more effective about executing it.
 
anon483637 said:
I'm not sure it's a case of hijacking so much as useful idiots having served their purpose. Maybe atheists thought they were debating the existence of a deity in the abstract sense, but in practise it was always political, a tool to attack existing conservative/Christian norms. Once progressives won over enough institutions they didn't need atheism - in fact it was dangerous, since a sincere atheist might object to Islam, or the veneration of native American woo.

Atheism+ makes complete sense when you realise these people were always wokies who (correctly) understood atheism as a progressive vehicle, a means to an end. If anything it was a mistake to brand themselves "atheism+" and make their agenda explicit. Nowadays they take great pains to control the narrative to the point nobody can point out what's happening.
Click to expand...
Yup. The evangelicals were targeted because they were the lowest hanging fruit on the existing power structure. When people embody a belief system they don't autistically memorize every fact, figure, and study about it. They just live it. This makes them prime targets for the institutional systems to march on them. Normal individuals can't succeed at the forever debate bro olympics because they're too busy having jobs, making families, and building communities.

Objections against religion have existed for millenia. The only difference with Atheism+ is that instead of overtly proposing a replacement ideology, they just said "Carve out this gaping hole in society and your soul. We don't totally won't fill it with dumb libshit. Trust us bro." And lo did they fill it with libshit, and suprisepikachufaces flowed forever and ever. Amen. Atheism+ isn't a co-opting of New Atheism. It's the natural evolution. That's why all skeptic/rationalist/whatever communities always end up like rational wiki. They weren't designed to resist the software update.
 
Local FloRida-man said:
Objections against religion have existed for millenia. The only difference with Atheism+ is that instead of overtly proposing a replacement ideology, they just said "Carve out this gaping hole in society and your soul. We don't totally won't fill it with dumb libshit. Trust us bro." And lo did they fill it with libshit, and suprisepikachufaces flowed forever and ever. Amen.
Click to expand...
This observation is much like reformation vs. deconstruction in faith: reformation says "something is wrong with modern Christianity, I'ma fix it" while the deconstructionist is fond of observing perceived problems and then not actually addressing and healing them, instead living out a modified and damaged faith worldview which is pretty close to just being an atheist in denial.
 
Local FloRida-man said:
Atheism+
Click to expand...
There is no such thing. This was just the first successful invasion of an ideology by disgusting SJWs and troons.

All atheism is is a lack of a positive belief in a god. It is not even a positive belief that there actually is no god.

"Atheism+" is just fucking lunacy and a set of cult-like beliefs in and of itself. Anyone "atheism+" needs to be gassed.
 
Ewan McGregor said:
Is this still a thing?

Like, are people really still involved with it?
Click to expand...
A few, but the number has massively dropped over the years due to many of the RationalWiki admins and mods subverting Wikipedia to the point that it is now and many users outgrowing their New Atheism phase. Wesley James Bailey causing a splinter with the site with the short-lived SJWiki didn't help anything either. Today the only thing that keeps RationalWiki from collapsing is the fact that the site is usually recommended by the Google algorithm on many topics, including Kiwi Farms for that matter.
 
Rudolf's Friend said:
Today the only thing that keeps RationalWiki from collapsing is the fact that the site is usually recommended by the Google algorithm on many topics, including Kiwi Farms for that matter.
Click to expand...
That's funny and weird, isn't it?
 
the grey cat said:
dear god...
View attachment 6213818
wait until these morons find out what wisdom means.

also, I love how they try to prove a fallacy is wrong by using another fallacy :story:
Click to expand...
As I’ve pointed on this thread before, “rational”wiki is guilty of using this same “fallacy” to justify nonbinary/multiple genders nonsense;
Mr Metron666 said:
For those who are curious, here's the article itself
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender (Archive)
Funny thing is, they actually admit there isn't any scientific proof for non-binary genders
"Why do some people identify as non-binary?
Nobody knows yet. Non-binary transgender identity has yet to be evaluated scientifically, unlike binary transgender identity which has been studied extensively. As science recognizes that a binary-identified transsexual is neurologically the gender that they identify as (see Causes of transsexualism Wikipedia's W.svg's W.svg), and science recognizes that the physical body can naturally manifest physical ambiguity of sex (see Intersex), one can speculate that non-binary people might be neurologically intersex."

And instead mostly use what some ancient cultures believed centuries ago;
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender#Examples_of_traditional_cogender_identities
Which for those less enlightened, is using both the Appeal To Tradition & Appeal To Ancient Wisdom fallacies (which rationalwiki ironically has pages on:story::story::story:).
Also, here's the talk page for the article:
undefined
Click to expand...
Here’s something you can suck on RW. I would rather believe in the existence of ghosts, psychic powers, UFOs & alien abductions, Reptilians controlling governments, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster & Atlantis than that there are thousands of genders one can choose & even switch between on a whim. The former are way cooler anyway.
 
SuccubusFeeder said:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Child_predators_on_the_Internet
Has anyone seen this page? It's pure insanity. It's basically "There are no pedophiles on the internet. Ackshually the only people wo rape children are Catholic priests. Online pedophiles are a moral panic fueled by misinformation, chud". Wasn't one of the former admins a pedophile originally from wikipedia? I read something like that on ED.
Click to expand...
Not great that it starts off in the very first paragraph with an outright lie by omission, claiming that "[Online child predators] are usually not pedophiles" without adding any further information. A reasonable person would be led to believe it must be some completely unrelated group doing it.

Then you check what they're referencing to prove that claim, and it's the "ephebophiles aren't pedophiles" meme.
 
SuccubusFeeder said:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Child_predators_on_the_Internet
Has anyone seen this page? It's pure insanity. It's basically "There are no pedophiles on the internet. Ackshually the only people wo rape children are Catholic priests. Online pedophiles are a moral panic fueled by misinformation, chud". Wasn't one of the former admins a pedophile originally from wikipedia? I read something like that on ED.
Click to expand...
I found it while doing research for Ruben Sim Derangement Syndrome. No wonder RationalWiki hates Ruben Sim and has a hit piece article on him.
 
SuccubusFeeder said:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Child_predators_on_the_Internet
Has anyone seen this page? It's pure insanity. It's basically "There are no pedophiles on the internet. Ackshually the only people wo rape children are Catholic priests. Online pedophiles are a moral panic fueled by misinformation, chud". Wasn't one of the former admins a pedophile originally from wikipedia? I read something like that on ED.
Click to expand...
They also hate Perverted Justice. As we all know by now, literally anybody who hates PJ is a closet pedophile.
 
https://encyclopediadramatica.gay/RationalWiki
There was never a pedo admin, but there was a rapist admin apparently: a notorious troon lolcow named laurelai who also founded the SJWiki. There is already a thread on him longer than this one here.

In the shouniaiasha section of the article they talk about an user who was a proud pedophile who edited the "Online pedophile activism" page and named himself shouniaiasha, which literally means pedophile in Japanese. Some other admin alerted that faggot david gerard about this. And what do you think he did? That's right, absolutely fucking nothing. Really MATI right now.
 
Roger Dennis said:
They also hate Perverted Justice. As we all know by now, literally anybody who hates PJ is a closet pedophile.
Click to expand...
I don't hate them, but they were often less than useful, much like Chris Hansen (although I would say Hansen during his good period was more beneficial than not).
 
Why does this wiki even exist?
Wikipedia has a leftist bias why make a science-only version that's even shittier. Also they still use secondary sources over primary sources most of the time (like wikipedia) so you can't even say that they are more credible.
 
miyuki said:
Why does this wiki even exist?
Wikipedia has a leftist bias why make a science-only version that's even shittier. Also they still use secondary sources over primary sources most of the time (like wikipedia) so you can't even say that they are more credible.
Click to expand...
It was originally a response to and parody of conservalardpedia by Andrew Schlafly, and mostly focused on fundies and creationist type shit, with some general skeptic stuff as well. It was reasonably okay as a reference for that but now, much like ED, most of the early stuff it was known for is about people who are all but completely irrelevant now, and sunk into just being nonstop SJW bullshit and lies, like the goobergrape article that is even more lie-filled than the actual Wikipedo one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom