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. (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. (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. (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”. (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

NOW I GET IT. Sorry for bothering y’all. Ladies. (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And you’re welcome to go hoggle yourself, anywhere but here. EVDebs (talk) 01:45, 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.