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

Wodanaz said:
happy to see a bunch of sanctimonious shitlibs realize they can't just defame people with no evidence
Click to expand...
If only it could happen to the Wikipedos next, but sadly they're able to cover their libel by citing journoscum hit pieces.
 
It’s July, where total Rationalwiki death!!!

You guys lied to me.

xXRonPaul_42020Xx said:
Also, if you want to troll Atheism+ SJW/Smughtiest hybrids, just point out that James Randi is a sexual predator who when not valiantly disproving the Loch Ness Monster and bigfoot spends his time defending child molesters as a member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.
Click to expand...

I did the trolling lol. For the first time it’s something that isn’t instantly deleted by the mods like my other attempts, just something that has been moved to the troll section called “Kiwifarms is a reliable source, trust me”. Big case of cope I’ve ever seen.
 
Super-Chevy454 said:
If that could cheer you up, let's said Rationalwiki is in comatose state.
Click to expand...
Oh good. I hate that website with a passion.

Since I seen other people talk about certain articles from that godawful site, I want to express my bitch moment. The article that I though most of is “Women in the military” where they attempt to justify why sending a group much weaker than men is a ok as long as they pass an arbitrary standard that almost all women can’t get in.

Women in the military - Rationalwiki

The introduction is basically gaslighting people that all progress is good. Then a history that is ripped straight out of Wikipedia. Then random arguments from various people were used to “debunk” anyone from being obtuse about female vs male strength, using the technology argument as a way for more people to die for Israel in the name of freedom and progress, and whining about tradition. Finally they quoted numerous random generals and why women dying in battle is so brave and inspiring.

One point of interest is the section ‘Statistical averages do not make a women’. I’ll show you the article in question:

The biggest argument against women in the military tends to be that *on average* women tend to have less physical strength or endurance then men, and there may be some truth to that fact. However, this completely ignores the fact that militaries across the world have hiring standards which include physical fitness. The only people allowed to enter the military are the ones who meet those fitness requirements, regardless of their sex or gender. It might be true that, on average, a randomly chosen women off the street would be less likely to meet those requirements then a man, but that doesn't really matter because our military is not made up of people randomly pulled off the street. All that matters is how fit a women actually serving in the military is, and if those women had to pass the same fitness requirements as men then they should be expected to be just as fit as the males they serve with.

By contrast there are, without a doubt, women who not only meet but surpass the fitness standards of most militaries. So why should such a women, who is physically more fit then men actively serving in the military right now, be told she is unfit just because there exist other women who are not as fit? Should we not judge the fitness of a soldier based off of their own, personal and demonstrable, physical fitness rather then based off of some statistical average that includes a bunch of folks who will never try, or succeed, to enter the military?
Click to expand...

First, this argument is only valid if we were to ignore the concept of sexual dimorphism. They only care if women pass a test or not and not about their actual potential. Secondly, they assumed that there are women that pass fitness test because, it just is okay! Finally, it all culminates into “How dare you not accept people based on their totally arbitrary difference I swear! That’s so unfair and mean and shit.”

The reason why it sticks to my mind is because it’s basically the main argument that 60s civil rights advocates use and the fact I couldn’t come up with a coherent response.

There’s more cancerous articles like this but this one specifically made me constantly sperg out about this garbage website even though I should have done something productive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why yes, Vaush DOES belong on the same list as Michel Foucault, but not this one!
1751585098102.webp
 
Another absolute gem from the wiki.

Hilary Clinton Page
Archive

IMG_8643.webp

IMG_8644.webp

Covering for a war criminal

Rationalwiki’s response to the thread

Link Here (Archive)
IMG_8645.webp
IMG_8646.webp

So apparently they don’t know what caring is. A Quick Look on something isn’t really caring. Also these faggot care way too much about optics.

Bonus:

Link Here (Archive)
IMG_8647.webp
Should someone remind them that it’s now 13/61. Also, distortions in 13/50 is a very bad claim considering the vast majority of Blacks did indeed commit the crimes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here are some gems from their "manosphere glossary"
divorce.webp

Losing your house, car, kids, and half your income forever is like "losing a bit of money" to these demons. Man up and slave away to support the strong independent woman, goes the progressive! They try to further deboonk it later...
divorce rape cope.webp

...but look at that, "citation needed". They can't support their misandrist downplay lmao.
safehorny.webp

Wait, they think anti-woke people had a melty over Stellar Blade? It was woketards who wouldn't shut the fuck up about how a conventionally attractive woman was female genocide. What is this gaslighting nonsense?
sigma.webp

In their attempt to deconstruct the alpha male mindset, they shout down any man who doesn't bow before the pressure to act like a playboy as some coping lonely insecure loser, therefore reinforcing the alpha attitude they hate. Also this Dora incident sounds crazy but it sourced a paywalled article, go figure.
literally me.webp

Looks like they took those memes a little seriously. Is this not what they call "media illiteracy"?
personality.webp

So now saying personality matters is bigoted. That was their favorite refutation since forever. But alright then.
 
Ravier Xavenblood said:
It's always "but her emails" and never "what was actually in her emails". Even without the pizzagate shit, they make Hillary look like a slimy crook of a politician. What's their copout for that?
Click to expand...
Orange man won the 2016 election and because they see the orange man as gigaturbohitler rex, anyone choosing him over her for any reason is incomprehensible to them.
 
The Grognard said:
Orange man won the 2016 election and because they see the orange man as gigaturbohitler rex, anyone choosing him over her for any reason is incomprehensible to them.
Click to expand...
I hate Trump for not immediately turning this country into the 4th reich. That would solve everything right now. The Jews gotta Jew though.

Muh heckin science says we are made of star stuff

Link (Archive)

IMG_8659.webp
Seriously mate. How the fuck are they this dense to justify the star stuff comment. That’s the one thing that made soyence worshippers look like faggots.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H3H3 Podcast Higlights said:
Muh heckin science says we are made of star stuff

Link (Archive)

View attachment 7613648
Seriously mate. How the fuck are they this dense to justify the star stuff comment. That’s the one thing that made soyence worshippers look like faggots.
Click to expand...
Carl Sagan is basically a God to all Reddit Fedora Tippers for his Cosmos show. He is a large reason for Science turning into Soyence.
 
H3H3 Podcast Higlights said:
How the fuck are they this dense to justify the star stuff comment. That’s the one thing that made soyence worshippers look like faggots.
Click to expand...
Because by specific theories that model this stuff and experiments with particle accelerators it does at least show how stellar cores and later supernovae can create the elements that shape life. On a limited scale we have performed things akin to transmutation, and stars do that on a larger scale, demonstrated by looking at them with spectrograms that show what lightwaves they emit and comparing them to the elements own signature.

However I absolutely hate the smug and fucktarded way they tried to brag about how "they're totally right btw". That shit is so stupid that they do more damage than the Christians they hate do by claiming he converted on his deathbed.
 
Adamska said:
Because by specific theories that model this stuff and experiments with particle accelerators it does at least show how stellar cores and later supernovae can create the elements that shape life. On a limited scale we have performed things akin to transmutation, and stars do that on a larger scale, demonstrated by looking at them with spectrograms that show what lightwaves they emit and comparing them to the elements own signature.
Click to expand...
That shit’s way too autistic. Also, this star stuff is used to downplay the significance of human beings by trying to dumb down the role of such. They’re libshits and they care more about asteroids than their own family because of how much self-hatred they have.

Rationalwiki hates people who don’t suck off the Marxists

IMG_8663.webp

Link (Archive)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Super-Chevy454 said:
Let's see how triggered Rationalwiki's staff will be if we troll them by saying then Marxism is white supremacy in disguise or Karl Marx is a fucking white male.
Click to expand...
Marx did express his belief that his political ideas would really only work well in an industrialized society, with the places he thought having the highest chances of occurring and working correctly being places like the UK, Germany, France, or the US. This was because of his beliefs that workers in these areas are not just exploited even worse by the capitalist system due to the fucking awful work standards in a lot of factories at the time, but due to having larger amounts of contact with others and rising literacy rates. He predicted that they'd be more aware of and likely to rail against their exploitation.

He actually predicted and stated that areas outside of these would not be capable of making it work like that, and even used Russia as an example. He instead stated and predicted they would come to a different methodology, likely using agrarianism or some other interest for the worker in less industrialized areas as the lever.

Also bro was antisemitic. Not rabidly so, but it was a side effect of thinking religion was used as a bandaid to ignore societal issues. He also just didn't like Jews that much due to the common stereotypes, which is funny since he's ethnically Ashkenazi though his family were apathetic Catholics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom