It’s called “sarcasm”
Wrote previously that RationalWiki is anything but and seems to be completely owned by baboons. Another minor teacup storm seems to have broken out. This time, steamrolling non-partisan information on Atheism+.
What is there to discuss here? Not a lot. RationalWiki has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that it is virulently ideological and that the only safe position to take is to treat any information it contains as suspect and that it cannot be taken at face value without verification from more credible external sources.
I just want to document choice excerpts from the Talk:Atheism_Plus page for posterity –
I have now attempted to add the AntiAtheismPlus-reddit as well as a comprehensive list of resources of dissenting views about Atheism Plus. Both were removed by User:EVDebs. In no way do I wish to edit war. I disagree with these removals.
The reason for the removal of the reddit link was listed as:
- Dissent is one thing, but Reddit has a nasty tendency to be nothing more than vomit on a web page. Come up with something that’s at least civilized.
however, despite my second conciliation, the removal of the second link was given as
- Not a fan of that either — outright lying about the aims of the movement plus links to hatemongers like Franc Hoggle
This is plainly based in personal bias. Resources of dissenting views and outside perceptions of Atheism Plus should most definitely be included, particularly when a bulk of the article in question includes many points of view which question Atheism Plus’ legitimacy and value. Removal of resources of dissenting views should not be based on being a “fan” (or not) of any particular site or author, nor should one’s opinion of Atheism Plus prevent a dissenting view be linked, especially when presented specifically as such.
Please come to consensus. Thank you for being rational and reasonable. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There’s no value in putting up “dissent” pages that clearly and willfully misrepresent the aims of A+ to begin with, and quite a few of those are in fact hate sites; those that aren’t are still claiming that the people demanding respect are being divisive, which is almost always a clear sign of a total lack of self-awareness regarding the issue at hand, i.e. a lack of skeptical thinking. (I mean, yes, it’s possible that the A+ side is the divisive one, but it seems really unlikely, given the fact that very little of the opposition seems to be willing to even take up the question in the first place.) Basically, A+ is meant to address a huge blind spot in the community, and it’s run up against the broader culture wars and the common but painfully naive perception that in order to make sure everyone gets a fair shake, you “don’t do that then”. (If this was all happening on Wikipedia, much of the opposition would be in violation of Assume Good Faith.) I mean, parts of the backlash are understandable, but the atheist/skeptical community really does claim to aspire to actually questioning things, and I have yet to see an opponent of A+, reasonable or not, appearing to question the underlying prejudices that brought A+ into existence in the first place. Instead, a lot of opponents have simply closed ranks and treated supporters as traitors to the cause. Whether the opponents are right or wrong, that behavior is thoroughly shameful, and utterly against what we skeptics all claim to stand for. We should not be promoting that behavior. EVDebs (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thunderf00t’s behavior was extreme and inexcusable. His firing had very little to do with his positions. If what you say above is what he was trying to say, he clearly failed totally to get that point across. EVDebs (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- You continue to debate the subject matter of Atheism Plus itself here. This is wholly inappropriate. Supporting Atheism Plus (or not), discussing its merits or drawbacks, the skills and powers (or lack thereof) of its leaders or detractors: that’s for the forums of the Atheism Plus and Anti-Athiesm Plus movement itself. This venue is to discuss how to sculpt a more balanced and evenly weighted article, which is inclusive of all views of the rationalist community as it perceives Atheism Plus. Please attempt to separate and differentiate this goal. If you are unable to do so, please politely remove yourself from the conversation and editing of this article. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Or else what? 😀 Are you going to block us, BoN? Also, I’d like to know what are you smoking and whether it is legal in your jurisdiction. :)–ZooGuard (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn’t threatening to do anything. I was politely asking. But thank you for…uh…”explaining”…how this wiki works.38.109.88.133 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Actually, no, “balance” and “evenly weighted” are anathema here. This is NOT Wikipedia, and no groups have a monopoly on discussion. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 16:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. How very in the spirit of Atheism Plus. Thank you for, uh, “explaining”. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
NOW I GET IT. Sorry for bothering y’all. Ladies. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Note the bolded red. Read that line back to yourself a few times. It so perfectly encapsulates the state of the RationalWiki nation that nothing more needs to be said.
grey lining 
December 15, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Crystallized irony. How does a mind read that, and not notice it? I’m always very hesitant to attribute malicious intent, but…damn. What’s the nice option between flagrant stupidity and malicious intent?
Is this that famous parallel logic I’ve heard so much about? The one that enables atheists to go from thousands of years denying logical entanglements with atheism, to “actually, atheism logically entails social justice and stuff”.
How did we get here? 😦
December 15, 2012 at 2:11 pm
It’s been a creeping doom. Anyone that assumes this began with Watson and the elevator was not paying attention – and dismissing those raising concerns even 5 years ago as “alarmists”. It happened while most folks were asleep.
December 16, 2012 at 11:18 am
A little tribalism went a long way when PZ Myers was beating his chest and deriding Creationists and even thoughtful, gentle dissent by tolerant Christians. The vast majority of his followers failed Common Sense 101 (we’re not even talking skepticism, here). When a blogger launches a brutal fisking of an article without linking to the original, only indoctrinated hacks overlook the huge red flag. But his loyal followers accepted his lame justification that they didn’t “deserve” any traffic from his site. I’m sorry, but condoning anyone who throws integrity under the bus with such self righteousness demonstrates a leap of faith that most Christians can muster. No matter, that quote he mined and spoon-fed to his readers in his trademark Comic Sans font was more than adequate. Any independent “free” thinker who sought the truth and took exception in the comments was bullied, beaten, and hauled off to the dungeon.
For a lot of people, Elevatorgate was the cold slap in the face that pulled back the curtain. Another sizable chunk was disillusioned by A+. Now reading Rational Wiki, many scratch their heads and wonder, “what happened to our reason-based community?”
NO, PZ isn’t starting a slow decline into dementia. This is WHO he is. This is WHO the other popular FfTB’s are. And Franc knew it a long time before Elevatorgate. So did any theists who wandered onto Pharyngula.
January 7, 2013 at 11:25 am
Yes, I started dropping the FTB blogs even before FTB was put together a couple of years ago. It became clearer that most of those ‘luminaries’ were nothing more than HS bully wanna-bes who, in High School simply lacked the appropriate cachet to be bullies.
Now that they’re ‘center stage’ and have an audience their true character (tribal mini-totalitarians) comes through. Whether it’s Watson attacking some young girl with little (if any) voice in public or Myers sending his pack of flying monkies out to harass people, it’s all the same — bullying because they can.
Not because they should. But because they can.
December 15, 2012 at 10:01 pm
I became suspicious of RationalWiki after reading their entry on the ‘Mens Rights Movement’. I found it to be extremely slanted so I had a look up the contributors and editors assopciated with the entry and found many of them to be Feminist. That’s not right. It is similar to letting the Republican Party press secretary write the entry in Wiki for Barack Obama.
The example below was taken from the article on ‘The Mens’s Rights Movement’ from RationalWiki:
“Some advice for MRAs
The next time you meet a “radical feminist”, ask her if women should deserve more rights than men do. If you get a “no” answer, try rethinking your entire approach to the debate. It’ll help”.
Giving out advice to any MRA’s who might be reading the article? This is an outrage! (Said in a Tony Harrison voice – ‘The Mighty Boosch’, BBC TV )
December 15, 2012 at 11:56 pm
So they admit to being biased. Thanks Rationalwiki for destroying any scrap of credibility you once had.
December 16, 2012 at 8:45 am
Cargo-culting is the best word to describe rationalwiki. There are few editors with real credentials and something that heavyweight is not needed or wanted there anyway.
December 16, 2012 at 9:06 am
Never cared that much for RationalWiki, to be quite frank. It’s never been much more than a self-congratulatory circle-jerk. In the past, the editors have gone for such daring and intellectually stimulating endeavours as criticising VenomfangX (the unspeakabale audacity!) and backing Peezus against Thunderf00t (what a fine example of thinking outside the box!). It’s another pointless website. Nothing more. Another scribble on the secondary school toilet wall.
December 16, 2012 at 11:31 am
To be honest, I had never looked at it beyond rudimentary terminology definition – and those bits were for the most part pretty good. That lulled me into good faith to assume it was a fairly reliable resource. Glad I never cited for anything real now though. The comparison to it being a Conservapedia for the unenlightened, illiberal left is hardly an exaggeration.
December 17, 2012 at 1:08 pm
My thoughts exactly, re;Conservapedia. They should be embarrassed but you know their proud.
December 16, 2012 at 10:45 am
What a joke!
They make Conservapedia look “rational”!
Your article on the Baboon+ is the most comprehensive and rational critique on A+ anywhere!
Wikipedia they are not!
Ok, I copy pasted how to make a clickable link from Dummie’s Guide to Blogger. Lets see if this dummy got it to work!
December 16, 2012 at 11:25 am
Dummy did. But exceeded link limit and went to mod queue.
December 17, 2012 at 8:37 am
This is ironic that more than one link triggers moderation. I completely understand why that’s a reasonable thresh hold. But you are the king of links, Franc. It does demonstrate basic integrity and respect for the reader, something the Big Baboon seems to think is beneath him.
On another topic, why are you smeared as a misogynist when you spend what seems like a lot more time and effort going after PZ? When I look back over the whole Elevatorgate debacle, it was PZ’s post praising Rebecca for humiliating Step McGrath, the screeching Baboons, and the subsequent clamoring to ride the wave of internet drama by Laden, Bensen, Plait, etc. Rebecca’s little “Guys, don’t do that” remained in virtual obscurity for nearly a month.
3. topic, well off topic. Hearing that sexy Australian accent on the Angry Atheist podcast was a lovely treat a while back. The host wasn’t very polished, but I sure appreciate his efforts to get your voice of sanity out in the open. Since you’re such a gifted writer, have you ever considered podcasting? I guess that might be a more time-consuming hobby than blogging. Your point about Greta Christina was interesting. Since she does manage to lie lower than the other FfTBers, I never really paid much attention to her. She did throw YouTube Johnny under the bus when he asked for evidence supporting Ophelia’s supposed death threat from an obsessive, melodramatic fanboy.
December 17, 2012 at 11:14 am
The problem, as always, is spam. I get up to 100 a day, and I do try to scan those for false positives where possible (rare, ~1:5000, akismet is pretty good). I’ve upped allowable links to two. See how it goes.
Because it’s derailing language. “Do not read X because s/h/it is {insert identity politic card}”. It is censorship by false flag. You should know that by now. This is why they never, ever link my content. It never has any evidence to support the smear – it’s simply branded too evil for sensitive eyes.
NO. I hate speaking. I love talking. There is a big difference. Talking somewhere dark and smoky with red wine and tapas with a handful of people is nice because it’s personal and there is a feedback loop. Speaking to an unseen audience or a crowd is completely impersonal and is closer to preaching. I much prefer the written word. Leave the speaking to the blabbermouths who are good at it.
And don’t forget monopod/upskirt guy. Lynched with no evidence, entirely innocent (of everything other than being “annoying”) and now too terrified to attend events. Another aspect that has not received anywhere near the attention it deserves. It was entirely GC’s doing.
December 16, 2012 at 10:47 am
It worked!!!! YAY!
Thanks for letting me work on my non-existent HTML skills in the comment section, Franc
I know smilies irritate you but 😀
December 16, 2012 at 10:47 am
I did such a good job that my masterpiece went into the moderation bin!
December 17, 2012 at 12:38 am
“lying about the aims of the movement”
How the hell would they know the aims of the movement? Can they read minds?
Fundamentalist Islam claims to be “The religion of Peace”, so if we say that fundamentalist Islam isn’t about peace at all, are we then “lying about the aims of the movement”?
According to these people, yes we are.
December 17, 2012 at 1:49 am
“Lying”, “hate”, “misogyny” are all just derailing words for people that have neither the intellect nor the data to refute anything that points out they peddle bullshit. SOP.
December 17, 2012 at 8:38 am
You left out “pachiarcy”, “rape culture,” and “priviledge”. @@
December 17, 2012 at 8:38 am
patriarchy…damn spell check let me down.
December 17, 2012 at 9:19 am
Years ago I stopped expecting human beings to be decent.
“Freethought” blogs is a place where thought is not allowed.
“Rational wiki” is a place where rational thought is not allowed.
It is all so very predictable.
The Buddha once taught that “human birth” was exceedingly rare and precious. He wasn’t talking about physical birth, but a mental birth.
Most people are born in the “lower realms”, like the animal realms, as you say, “Baboons”.
December 24, 2012 at 7:52 am
“Demanding silence on topics you don’t like is a symptom of having an agenda.”
Indeed it is, PZ.
December 27, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Am I the only one who finds it a bit interesting that Greg Laden also appears as “Gregory T. Tappen” in background information?
Gregory T Tappen
Minneapolis, MN
54
Age
Aliases:
Gregory T Laden
Known Cities:
Minneapolis, MN
Saint Paul, MN
Cambridge, MA
Arlington, MA
Relatives:
Amanda M Paulson
Ardith Bennett Tappen
Helen Louise Tappen
Martha Joan Tappen
Neil C Tappen
I’m just a sayin’. After all that fuss about aliases, and pseudo’s and the legitimacy of anonymity…
Now if I could only figure out how to use the web well enough so that i could join the slymepit!
December 27, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Why doesn’t someone call Mr. Tappen and find out?
Minnesota, U.S.A.
763-[removed]
December 27, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Look, I’m really not interested in this shit. It has the same kind of “authenticity” as JFK conspiracy junk. If you want coincidence, and you look hard enough and are determined enough, you will find coincidence.
This is also a nice recipe for divorcing yourself from reality and slowly going crazy.
So, enough voodoo whispering. Unless you have court-of-law acceptable style evidence, I don’t want to know about any of this crap – and I doubt my readers do either – and I’ll just start blackholing it as spam. If you insist on convincing me otherwise, use the contact form, not the comment threads. This is not negotiable. And if you post any more phone numbers or address details, I’ll be taking it up with your ISP. Yes, you’ve left your prints everywhere.
December 27, 2012 at 11:24 pm
ISP Prints??? OH Nooooooeeeessss!!!!
Don’t go bad on my buddy Ralph–he’s just a po’ IT guys and he don’t need no sup-peenises on his ISP–AGAIN!!!??
Those poor people in Newport, running around all day to track down inarguable, Constitutionally protected speech, over-reactive blog peoples paranoia, or chihuahua porn ( yes, ma’am, that WAS mine–I clicked it–I had never seen a dog micro-dick before)….WTF???
Gee whizz–you are becoming such a serious, dour feminist! So restrained these days. 15 minutes of fame, and you forget those who remembered to DOX you.
But if I recall correctly–he DOX’ed Bluharmony, stalked several, threatened others–and now yo want to afford him an extra cushion of what?
Odd trade-off that is. But hey–I don’t blog, so maybe cowering in fear of the Stasi kickin’ down your door was sufficient to increase your skepticism–or something.
Yes, it’s all MI6/FBI verifiable, and courthouse-sourced, as you see below, from the web-link, and the accompanying information. But don’t take my word for it–check the link.
Not that I don’t appreciate your skepticism ( is it possible to overuse that word on a skeptic blog?) , but really, comparisons to JFK? You’ve got to
be kidding, or you haven’t done your homework. Or–after all, being around baboons can rub off on the average researcher–or so I have heard from those note takers….
Or, fifteen minutes can turn almost anybody into an Ophelia; or an Octomom, sellin’ it for tenths of pennies per click…scandal engineers?
What would anyone in this discussion know about that??
December 28, 2012 at 12:22 am
If you paid attention to what I write, you would see a recurring theme of not using the filth techniques of those I criticise. At all. And your coincidental data remains coincidental until it’s corroborated by reliable supporting data. I am not interested in lowering my standards to those accepted at FfTB just because they did it first. That’s a downward spiral into the sewer.
You have not provided any kind of information to me that has any more credibility than overheard pub gossip. I am not interested in what might be true. Speculation about the possible poisons observation of the actual – leave that kind of crap to the baboons.
December 27, 2012 at 8:51 pm
And if you really want to chase shadows, there’s at least two “paul myers” in the FBI sex offender registry. Go to town. Just don’t do it here.
December 27, 2012 at 8:13 pm
And really–am I too old to see straight–or does Ms. twatson resemble Greg’s ex-wife, like, a fucking TON???
http://anthropology.umn.edu/people/facultyprofile.php?UID=tappe004
December 28, 2012 at 2:50 am
Whoever you are, please stop emailing me, unless it is under the name you claim I know you as. You claim that I know you, but you withheld your name. That’s not good enough to give you ‘friend cred’. Cough up the name I know you by or just don’t write to me.
The info you gave me on Laden may be true or false, but that’s not what my concern is. I have no idea who you are. For all I know, you could even be Laden trying to get people to dox you on purpose, so that later you can cry victim.
Also, it’s noted that none of your claims come with evidence. Even Tappen’s page doesn’t claim she’s Laden’s wife. She may be, but she may not be. Why should I care? It’s just stuff some stranger is telling me. However, if you are not bullshitting about knowing me, then fess up your name and prove to me that you are indeed that person (eg an email address that I know for sure is yours, etc).
With you being a stranger, I think it’ll be obvious why I don’t accept candy from you.
December 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm
The info is all of the tinfoil hat conspiracist standard of “proof”. Or more appropriately, the PZ Myers / FfTB standard. Which is no validity at all beyond apopheniac coincidence trails. Would not even be remotely surprising if it was baboons trying to prove how clever they are by feeding red herrings. I had similar non-information fed to me about Watson which fell apart after about 3 minutes on google. If only the baboons would practice such rudimentary fact checking with all of their doxxing misfires. Lemme know if you want to compare logs.
December 28, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Hi Franc, I sent you an email, but my usual me@ is being fussy and won’t do any ‘sends’. So, check your spam section in case my email went there due to an unrecognized name.
December 28, 2012 at 10:48 pm
And I just replied in great detail. Plot’s so thick you can stand a spoon in it.
December 28, 2012 at 11:17 pm
“The shit’s so thick, you could stir it with a stick
The paper wouldn’t lie, wisdom got lost to mankind, we gloat and jeer with it
Broadcast me a joyful noise into the times, Lord,
Count your blessings, ignore the lowest fear, well you can’t send us, listen,”
Sorry, but I couldn’t resist.
December 31, 2012 at 6:08 am
You think this one’s bad, you should see their MRA page. They claim that therre are no MRA groups that don’t stand for misogyny and that any member that has legitimate concerns is an outlier. The bias is so thick that the process of fixing it would be difficult even if every mod on the site wasn’t constantly edit warring with logic.
January 3, 2013 at 12:14 am
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/01/the-company-you-keep/
Quite hilarious seeing PZ in the comments justifying not spending 10 minutes to watch the video but probably spending hours reading comments and cherry picking the bad ones, attacking where the video was posted, anything but the video itself. Even a few of his baboons are calling him on it.
There’s a reason he refuses to watch it, or debate either TF or JTO: they’d mop the floor with him using logic and examples of hypocrisy and shitty behavior.
I’m sure you’ve seen it but just in case:
January 4, 2013 at 1:31 am
RationalWiki seems to fall in line with Myers’ own attitude–vaguely positive on scientific topics, but utterly blind and narrow ideology when the topic changes to anything even slightly political.
June 5, 2013 at 11:54 pm
When some one searches for his essential thing, therefore he/she
wants to be available that in detail, thus that thing is maintained
over here.
July 30, 2013 at 3:45 am
Totally agree, I just read an article on there that was ridiculously biased and irrational, those kinds of wiki sites are a joke, double-think propaganda.
November 14, 2013 at 5:38 am
Long reply I know but I have to get this off my chest.
I’ve just now decided to no longer try to contribute to the site. I’ve attempted many times to make some of the articles more, dare I say, rational and less biased. Almost every attempt I’ve has been rejected despite sound sources to back up the facts.
It seems if I’m not critical, biased, judgmental or sarcastic enough in my additions to subjects they take issue with, they don’t care. Those kinds of contributions are almost always guaranteed to make the site.
I once tried making a point in an article in response to how gun rights advocates use Gandhi to justify their possession of firearms. As Gandhi was very skeptical of the use of firearms due to his pacifist nature, I tried pointing this out. The change was rejected due simply to me making an easily correctable mistake in the dating of the Indian Arms act of 1878.
The user, whose name is PowderSmokeAndLeather, denied the changes said he’d rather not go through the work of cleaning up a contribution that he said was “written by a 6th grader” in order to make it look better. He instead lazily rolled back the changes to its previous state and called me a pinhead to boot.
If that’s not enough, he blatantly showed he didn’t consult the citation I used saying Gandhi would have been like nine years old at the time and unable to address it.” I almost slapped my head and pointed out he addressed it as an adult in a famous WWI pamphlet he wrote. At that point I just gave up on trying to add it to the intended article.
That’s not just an isolated incident either: it’s commonplace. In addition to PowerSmokeandLeather, other users merely rollback changes I made to previous state without even taking the time to improve them and fix any errors. How is that rational? That’s laziness. They do it even when I’ve done my utmost to use solid evidence to back up contributions.
The site and the bulk of its users have become as much of a joke as tht of conservapedia. It’s not genuinely rational as its name claims, it’s just a showboating for their bias and to house what they often consider, not genuinely know for a fact, is rational.
October 29, 2014 at 7:39 am
I would like everyone who can see the blatant lies and bias that seem to smother RationalWiki to help me build up this article-on-article response on some of their content. I will be doing this on Metapedia, and already have added a section to the discussion page about RationalWiki here: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Talk:RationalWiki
Basically, the plan is to ‘de-bias’ their content and give all the facts, not stating any opinion as fact, but merely letting readers know the whole story that they should be shown and letting them draw their own conclusions. Oh, and also to show people how wrong RationalWiki is.
I would really appreciate it if users that felt their contribution was wrongly dismissed on RationalWiki to create articles on that specific topic(or any for that matter) at Metapedia.
December 31, 2014 at 6:22 pm
I stopped trusting RationalWiki after reading their dishonest claim that Wind Turbine Syndrome (aka noise pollution) has no evidence to support it. I doubt any of them have spent time in an affected home, or considered what wind turbines are doing to local wildlife (and not just birds & bats).
People are making mindless, feel-good excuses for the intrusion of inefficient, noisy, 400-foot skyscrapers on rural lands, merely because they don’t burn (much) oil during use. It’s a case of pseudo-green liberalism gone way too far.