Rational Wiki

>>3142813
I usually agree with their articles but I dislike the snide tone they're written in.

>>3142813
((Rational Wiki))

>>3142813
>>3142836
(((Rational))) wiki

Pure garbage. Its the conservapedia of smug liberalism. I wouldn't even call them liberal, just feminist fascist. I'm a liberal myself and disagree with how they write their articles.

>>3142882
This. I'm centre left and I think Rationalwiki is absolutely terrible. It's also incredibly shoddily written.

Clintonian fascists felt they needed a Conservapedia of their own

>>3142907
It's way, way to the crazy left of "Clintonian".

File: 1498797007060.jpg (20KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x480px

>>3142813
anybody claiming to be a rational and sound person is probably a faggot. Nothing is neutral or unbiased. Everything always has the biases of it's creator, so anything that claims to be "unbiased and neutral" is probably written by an elitist faggot who's full of shit.

>>3142923
Hence Clintonian being the adjective there.

>>3142813
It's drivel.

>>3142930
That doesn't make any sense.

>>3142907
>Clintonian
>fascists

?

>>3142813
It's articles on creationism are great

rational wiki is great for debunking most conspiracy theories. pretty much terrible for everything else and a lot of articles are outdated (some even pre-2008 U.S. presidential election).

>>3142925
they actually do admit they are biased, but cap it off with "reality has a liberal bias"

>>3143121
>debunking most conspiracy theories
>Its not facist liberal ideology therefore conspiracy DEBUNKED. XD

>>3143138
did i pinch a nerve

>>3143138
tinfoil hat detected.

>>3142813

An early victim of the Culture Wars, it used to be a skeptic website debunking creationists and woowoo peddlers, now it's an SJW shitpit """debunking""" common sense and evildumb whites.

>>3143232
I remember believing in such a thing, but yea, SJW took over and now its a cultural war instead of an actual rationality.

Pretty pathetic.

They aren't that bad.

Given the way how some articles are written, I assume some editors are 4channers in disguise. Look at the page about 4chan itself:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/4chan
>/tg/ — Tabletop Games[edit]
>The fa/tg/uys. This board encompasses traditional pen and paper games like Dungeons & Dragons, collectible card games like Magic: The Gathering, war games like Warhammer 40k, good old board games and other related paraphernalia. Also elves being [scratch]raped[/scratch] gently cuddled. It's famous within the community for actually completing a lot of creative projects it comes up with. /tg/ gets shit done. [10]

Also, there are some talking on the talk page about sheding on 4chan some slightly more positive light as they have been working against some "bad" stuff like animal abuse. Compared to the 4chan page on the, literally, sjw wiki:

http://sjwiki.org/wiki/4chan

Yeah, rationalwiki seems... well, more rational on their views.

>>3143274
Between eating a shit or vanilla flavored shit, its all shit.

>>3142882
>conservapedia of smug liberalism
this basically

It has been a useful site for me personally, but they are clearly left-leaning.

>>3143121
>Reality has a liberal bias

I really wish that term never came about. Regardless of whether or not you think it's right, it's such a smug and arrogant thing to say. Not to mention the implications it comes with, how only liberals have the real answers to the questions in life.

>>3142813
honestly it's basically a less funny version of ED meant for releasing butthurt against conservatives

>>3142813

it's rational to think Japanese and Nigerians are equally intelligent

>>3143362
That's just because you're not on the right side of history.

>>3142882
>demonizing rational thought
kek at how deliberately stupid you people have gotten

>>3143902
(((rational)))

File: image.jpg (9KB, 150x206px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 150x206px

>>3142813
Complete idiots, I disagree with their articles on mostly everything. And what this with naming their liberal propagandist site "rational" wiki just name it liberalwiki or leftapedia.

>>3143362
you haven't been to burgerstan where being right wing just means being a shill for some company or cult

>>3143362
I am rather sure that's for people who claim climatologists and evolutionists are working in a big godless liberal conspiracy.

>>3144030
Which is obviously the case.....

I was think this was parody like conservapedia.

>>3144273
Conservapedia is 100% serious

>>3144339

I edit on Conservapedia and I'm 100% not serious. There are real fundies there, but a lot of us came over from the Landover Baptist Church after the Conservapedos raided us.

& humanities was a mistake

I liked when they just bashed Conservapedia. They're still good for debunking pseudoscience and conspiracy theories but are too dominated by Atheism Plus types.

>>3142836
>>3142882
>le (((meme)))
Epic XDD!!! So le (((funny))) and le (((original))) because it's (((le))) (((meme))) (((hahahahaha))) XDDDD(((!)))!!!!!

>>3145707
Triggered

Their article on the ontological argument for God is pleb tier.
>>3145707
You're angry

>>3143121
Tinfoil hats aside, why are conspiracies bad? I mean don't get me wrong, I hate conspiratards who talk about the illuminati, freemasons, light bulbs killing you or the frogs turning gay or shit about chemicals being put in the water, etc.

But why dismiss conspiracies in general? It's good to be skeptical on things and its good to debunk bullshit as well.

>>3142813
>What do you think about this
I usually don't

>>3146518
Most of the hate from conspiracy theorists comes from their fanaticism and inability to shut up. At least that's where mine comes from

>>3146999
*for conspiracy theorists

File: kekistani.jpg (91KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1080x720px

>>3142836
>>3142882
>((())) =DDD

>>3146518
They don't hate all conspiracy theories, they say that the really bad and outlandish conspiracy theories will put any legetimate in a bad light.

>>3146518
Conspiracy can be fun if kept with lid on. Once it escapes your mind, its shit talk.

>>3142813
Some of their articles are okay, but it's deliberately and obviously biased towards a progressive fedora-tipping STEMfag view.

>>3142813
They're decent enough, as long as you stay away from anything on modern politics/social issues.

>>3145719
>>3145731
le tips le meme XD

>>3143121
so they are pseudo-skeptics then

At first thought it was apart of the ebil sjw agenda in my gamergate years but have come to realize there probably right on a fair deal of stuff

>>3145707
>>3147004
>t. /leftypol/

>>3143362
>Regardless of whether or not you think it's right,

reality doesnt have biases

>>3147409
>ebil sjw agenda
>in my gamergate years

You went through it, and then you slid back. Interesting.

>>3143902
They're about as rational as Fox News is "Fair and Balanced".

>>3143031
This. This site destroys creationism and Islam, but it white nights for post mod feminist causes.

>>3146518
there was a study that came out recently that conclude that there has been a 50% decline in sperm concentration and a near 60% decline in total sperm count since 1970. I'm sure the trend continues well on into the 50s as well.
there are most probably completely logical reasons for this, i.e. obesity, xenoestrogens/pollutants, rather than deliberate hormonal sabotage, but it goes to show that these claims shouldn't be wholly dismissed

File: horseshoe-.png (177KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1000x1000px

>>3142813
They are /ourwiki/ for sure, they correctly point out the dangers and hypocrisies of both far-left and far-right extremists.

>>3151640
Oh I don't completely dismiss everything that Jonestown says and I don't dismiss everything conspiracy related. I'm sure there is a grain of truth with what is said about the decline in sperm count, I certainly won't dismiss that. Unfortunately, I'm not much of an expert of that trend.

>>3143138
>>3147375
You know they dissprove (most) liberal conspiracy ideas as well?

>>3142813
"Rational" lol what a joke. Skeptikook sophistry at is finest and most retarded. Good for a laugh and I see skeptikooks actually citing it as a scholarly source in their loony blogs and on social media etc.

>>3147375
Yes they are psuedo-skeptics. Or skeptards. Or skeptikooks if you like. Or just garden-variety loons pretending to be "down with science"

>>3153265
>>>/x/

>>3153243
They don't disprove shit bro, just spew retarded sophistry as if that is convincing to a normal person.

>>3146518
Atrazine makes frogs change gender dude. Its a pesticide, UCalifornia confirmed this in research. Not a "conspiracy theory" dummy.

>>3153277
They did a good job on the pearl harbour conspiracy theory

>>3153274
Oooh spooky

They followed the same route as Snopes

>>3146518
>I hate conspiratards who talk about the illuminati
You know this is a /his/tory channel right? So why the fuck would people here not discuss the fraternity known as the Bavarian Illuminati? Have you even heard of the French Revolution dude?

>>3142813
Total BS. Unscholarly and embarrassingly unfunny.

>>3142813
Rationalwiki: "All you have to do to be a super-smart critical thinker is repeat the same establishment approved pop-science psychobabble as us and you too can be a member of the skeptical elite! Go science!"

>>3142813
Is there anything more pleb, more pseud and pretentious than this?

>Rationalism: the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.
You tell me if they do this or not.

>>3153775
>Is there anything more pleb
Is there anything more pleb than you? RationalWiki is patrician.

>>3153316
He was talking about it in the modern chemtrail way
>forgetting &humanites

>>3153775
/his/

>>3142813
>when you try to discard religion but forget that your ape genes make it practically impossible

Welcome to the Church. Dissent and heresy will not be tolerated. Have you read your daily Dawkins devotional today?

>>3142813
reading the word "rational" on the internet is like the word "objective" or "edgy"

it's one of those words

>>3142813
As a general rule, any organization that has "rational," "truth," "neutral," or so forth in its title is the exact opposite in practice.

So what's people's beef with their articles on religious scepticism?

>>3143902
>It has the word rational in it so it must be!

>>3156051
this but unironically