What does /lit/ think of RationalWiki?

The funniest site ever.

autism

A new atheist remnant of a bygone age.

An online fedora store

File: Conservlogo4.png (22KB, 135x135px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 135x135px

Inverse of conservapedia.

We like it since it shares our political viewpoints.

>muh reason
>muh rationality
Is another religion of its own

>>9598576
About as rational as grindcore or datura.

If you ever get into a discussion with an atheist on anything it's worth looking it up there so you can predict exactly what they're going to say, sometimes verbatim regardless of how stupid the objections are because they have no idea what they're talking about.

>>9598576
ideologically charged drivel posing as "rational" as if the alternative is "irrational"

It claimed that John Oliver was funny and clever. No rational person would ever claim that.

>>9598576
thought it was a resource site for rhetoric or something but turns out it's just a passive-aggressive version of ED with different targets; this is fine by me but why name it "rational"?

>>9598576
The only thing worse than atheists: leftist atheists.

>>9598782
>this is fine by me but why name it "rational"?

Well by default it frames any opposition to them as irrational. If they're the rational ones you must be irrational to disagree with them. The left is really good at framing the opposition. If you oppose gay marriage you hate gays, if you oppose government redistribution of wealth you hate the poor, if you oppose letting women kill their babies that means you want to chain them in the kitchen, if you oppose any of their solutions to climate change then you're an anti-science climate denier. They don't win with arguments, they win with rhetoric and euphemisms.

I used to use their news thing to trigger /pol/. It's fun because they're just different sides of the same retard coin. That was over 4 years ago :(

>>9598809
Sneaky, trying to frame the leftists as the ones who frame.

>John Oliver shares RationalWiki's snarky point of view. Even when talking about a difficult subject, nukes for example, he can always balance out being serious and being funny
Lel

>>9598977
>carping this much
Make a point or get out.

>>9598982
Unrelated but I find his show very annoying to watch. Non-sequitur simile repeated every few seconds.

>>9598996
Judging from how ill-tempered you are I believe you understood my point.

>[[RationalWiki]]

If by rational they meant biased to death, yep it's rational.

>>9599048
>(((RationalWiki)))

>>9598663
Just as silly tho

>>9598576
Classic 2006-core, good as an archive.

I hate snark so much.

>>9599044
Well, now explain your point to a 3rd party, who's a simple stone-mason.

>>9598782
Believe it or not, around 2011 RationalWiki was actually a useful site with good articles on logical flaws, debunking obvious conspiracy theories and altmed crap, trolling conservapedia etc. Then the site became overrun by leftists and now is pure cancer because the people editing it try to write about subjects which are way out their expertise (check any article on economics or historical philosophy, for example) and fall into the same traps they mocked their ideological opponents.

t.

>>9598576
Judging by the replies in this thread, no one on /lit/ knows what they're on about and are saying random shit based on it's name. It supposedly exists to critique pseudoscience. Mostly it's just shortened copies of Wikipedia articles with a bias towards liberalism, framed as rational and scientific.

Just use Wikipedia.

>>9602845
No wonder americucks call it leftist, it's liberal (therefore not leftist). Still, the few times I stumbled upon one of their articles it felt more alt-right than anything else. Maybe I didn't pay enough attention or they just changed stuff.

>>9602845
*Britannica

>>9598576
>Rational
alt
>Wiki
right

niggardly