'RATIONALWIKI' , McCARTHYISM LIVES

I am wondering if RationalWiki is the "pulse of the nation".

If it is, we may be in big trouble! 

From my several hours perusing that 'website', here is what I have concluded:

IF you (or I) are any of the below, if we hold any of these views, we are not 'rational':

~ Conservative, at all

~ Anti-establishment, at all

~ Into alternative medicine

~ Accepting of 'alternative media' reports

~ Deeply and truly pro-Constitution, i.e. 'patriotic'

~ Have a religious affiliation of ANY type

~ Are anti-vaccine

~ Are anti-nuclear energy or anything else nuclear, apparently

~ Concerned about the environment and/or animals and plant life 

~ Don't support the gay rights movement

~ Don't support the Wall Street Boys

~ Don't believe in the old Keynesian economics

~ Don't adhere to Darwin's THEORY, as in, it IS a mere theory

~ Don't accept that 'intellectuals' should rule the planet and not "average people"

~ Don't accept every single "scientific THEORY" posited so far

~ Don't accept that some people are a lot more "equal" than others

~ Don't see social welfare as a terrible thing that should be deleted

~ Don't want to be 100% into total, mindless "civil obedience"

Well, there's a longer list, but let this suffice for now.

And let us have a show of hands... HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD "RATIONALWIKI" SEE AS IRRATIONAL, UNREASONABLE, AND/OR JUST PLAIN DUMB?

ME!
MEEEEE!

No, I haven't been singled out and judged, but I would be.

I'm still trying to determine who died and made the guys at RationalWiki "king".
How did it fall to that group to decide what's rational?
Has the 'wisdom of Solomon' possessed them all?
Are they seers?
Prophets?
Above error?

I can't see how.

Rational, defined: 

: based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings

: having the ability to reason or think about things clearly

Synonyms: 

intelligent, reasonable, reasoning, thinking


Is an I.Q. test required to be involved with 'Rational Wiki'? 

Obviously not.

What is 'reasonable'? 

1.
a :  being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory>

b :  not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests>

c :  moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price>

d :  inexpensive 

2
a. :  having the faculty of reason

b :  possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man>

There is a great deal of controversy regarding what 'reasonable' actually is.

I'll present just one example, for now, and come back to this in awhile.

Example:

Is it reasonable to assume that female children are taught how to prepare tarantulas for a meal? 

Absolutely!

In Cambodia, Thailand, Venezuela's Piaroa tribe, just to name a few, catching, preparing and eating the large spiders is normal, reasonable, and quite tasty!

In those places, it would be reasonable to expect to see people cook and eat tarantulas, and unreasonable of one to not see this as normal. 

With that in mind, is it 'reasonable' to assume one's own viewpoint that "Spiders are yucky, gross!" just might be seen as unreasonable or wrong? 

Well, yes, that's reasonable.

NOT ON 'RATIONAL WIKI'!

Is there NO show of emotions over on RationalWiki?
Au contraire! 
Emotionalism ABOUNDS! 
Against ALL in the list above!

Is there a display of "feelings"?

You betcha!

Against all in the list above!

McCarthyism definition:

Originally:

1. U.S. the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, especially of pro-Communist activity, often unsupported or based on doubtful evidence.

2. any attempt to restrict political criticism or individual dissent by claiming it to be unpatriotic or pro-Communist.

Expanded

1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.

2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition. 

BOTH definitions under "expanded" apply quite liberally over on "RW". 
(I must refer to that site as "RW" from here onward, as I see the utter lack of rational or reasonable thought there.)

I am only just now acquainted with the ...what shall we call it?...web page, at best, dubbed "RationalWiki". 

I have long said that Wikipedia is a poor source of anything, but 'Rational Wiki' takes that many steps further.

A quick look will show you what I mean.

From the website itself, in their own words:

"About RationalWiki  

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:  

*Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.  

*Documenting the full range of crank ideas.

*Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

*Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Now, allow me to show you a few of their "works"...but, without seeing anyone's CREDENTIALS from that site, we cannot know if any of these analyses and refutations come from INSIDE an asylum or not, but here goes...

Obviously, all of the below are "pseudosciences and quackery to the RW team...ALL of them. 

Alternative medicine portal • Alternative medicine • Acupuncture • Autism and pseudoscience • Bloodletting • CAM •Chelation therapy • Chiropractic • Crystal healing • Evidence for homeopathy • Faith healing • Folk remedy • Herbal supplement •Holistic medicine • Homeopathy • Massage •Raw foodism • Vaccine denialism

Oh, the audacity and stupidity of anyone to adhere to such nonsense!

Ohhhhh, the irrationality of, ummm, HERBAL SUPPLEMENTS????
Really?
And MASSAGE????
Okay...

Here's another "special page":

Creationism portal • Creationism • Answers in Genesis • Creation Museum • Creation science • Banana fallacy • Baraminology • C-decay • Complex specified information •Discovery Institute • Evidence against a recent creation • Falldidit • Horizon problem •Intelligent Design • Young earth creationism

RW must feel driven to subjugate or at least embarrass (?) all who DARE believe in 'Creationism', that is, all one billion or so evil Christians who make up, for now, the MAJOR religious group on Planet Earth.

Those silly morons, dumb Christians!

But, hold on!
That means ALL Indigenous Tribes are the same "DUMB", because all Tribes believe in some form of CREATION.
Shame on them, too!

By the way, Islam believes man and the earth were CREATED.
That makes the top TWO major religions and about TWO billion people that are just ludicrous and DENIERS of facts, over at RW.
Hmmmm...do they know they're OUTNUMBERED?

Probably don't care.

For the next part, I can't bring myself to lay in the actual posts from their "dedicated page" that lists what THEY think are <insert scary organ music> "THE CRAZIES", but I will drop the link, and if you have a strong stomach, go read a few of these 'gems' and then tell me the gang at RW is "emotionless and unfeeling" as is required of "rational folks".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_clogosphere%3F  

BE CAREFUL!
Don't get caught after dark on RW!
They may all turn into blood-drinking zombies or something!  

I did find a list of the 500 or so of the "Active Users":
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ActiveUsers&offset=&limit=500

BUT WAIT!

They have BLOCKED USERS and they want us to know who they are, too!
(May be a "shaming method" used by some cultures across the globe for discipline.)

Please pay attention to the last page of those outcast blocked, ex-users:
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockList&dir=prev

And WHO blocks many who are blocked?

Matty the Damned(Talk | contribs)

And what does Matty tell us about himself?

"Stuff I Have Done

I have writed a article. It is about the Spectacularly Reverend Fred Nile."

Are you beginning to see a problem on RW?
<ahem>

And then there's "Tweenk"... who blocked...himself???

05:39, 8 September 2012

Тweenk (Talk | contribs)

infinite

Tweenk(Talk | contribs)

account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page

(username spoof)

Is Tweenk "RATIONAL"?
You decide:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Tweenk

One more of the "great minds" who determine which of the rest of the world population needs to change...this one says he/she likes bacon.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:SamCoulter

This page is a "we blow our own horn" page, what they consider the BEST of RW:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Contents

Beauty really IS in the eye of the beholder.
Or, as an aunt used to say about the "unfortunate"..."Bless their poor hearts."

I wonder very much how many OTHER RW sites are out there on the internet.  

Is it a pandemic?
Are we doomed by RW websites to suffer just ONE group's worldview being the ONLY acceptable one?

Must we subjugate ourselves to the likes of Tweenk and Matty the Damned, accept THEIR "rationale", or else be labeled irrational?

What if we DON'T like bacon, like SamCoulter's profile says he does?
Will Matty the Damned damn us?   

Can he do that?

This was a look at the hazards of having ANY group sit in judgement of any other group.

I have MY worldview, MY ideals, MY belief system, MY outlook on life, and I expect NO ONE to agree with me, applaud me, or call me learned or right.  

But I'll be hanged if I want anyone, or will accept anyone telling me that what I've CHOSEN for myself is wrong, or dumb, or irrational or anything else.

I just don't see how we can ever assume we have "peers" to judge us.

No one else can see inside our minds, after all. 

No one else is "just like we are"!
We are ALL unique!

See, until the "final curtain", until mankind is just a fading memory of the cosmos, NOBODY can say for 100% absolute certainty that ANYONE is wrong OR right, can they?
We just can't PROVE anything much beyond ALL doubt.  

EVEN EINSTEIN CALLED HIS IDEAS MERE THEORIES!

We can't show REASON, or RATIONALITY in a PURE form because we all have emotions!

We ALL have feelings!
And that gets in the way of 100% reason and proof.

A final question, if I may, and I may, because this is MY blog...

WHAT IS WRONG WITH SIMPLY RESPECTING OTHERS ENOUGH TO ALLOW ALL TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO CHOOSE TO BELIEVE OR HOLD AS TRUTH?

WHILE I OFTEN PRESENT MY OWN VIEWPOINTS, I'D BE AN IDIOT TO THINK THAT ANYTHING I WRITE WILL "MAKE" ONE PERSON CHANGE THEIR VIEWS! 

I WRITE HOPING TO ALLAY FEARS...FEAR IS A DESTROYER.
I WRITE HOPING TO INFORM, EMPOWER, ENCOURAGE. 

I FULLY EXPECT AND SINCERELY HOPE THAT ALL HAVE THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM.  

"MY WAY" IS JUST THAT...MINE...NOT YOURS. 

BUT UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR WAYS ARE YOURS, NOT MINE.

IF WE ALL JUST BACKED OFF, LEFT OTHERS IN PEACE TO HOLD WHATEVER BELIEFS THEY CHOOSE AS LONG AS THEY AREN'T KILLING PEOPLE OR OUT TO CONQUER ALL WHO DISAGREE WITH THEM, WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN? 

I CAN SEE THOSE WHO DO BELIEVE DARWIN'S THEORY AS SILLY ALL I CARE TO...WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

DARWINISTS SEE ME AS SILLY.

DO I GIVE A RAT'S ASS WHAT A DARWINIST OR ANYONE ELSE THINKS OF ME?

HONESTLY? 

NO.

 

SO, WE'RE EVEN, RIGHT? 

DON'T BE LIKE RW...JUST DO YOUR THING, LET OTHERS DO THEIRS.

TRY MAKING YOURSELF BETTER, EVEN MAKING YOURSELF PERFECT, BEFORE YOU EVEN ENTERTAIN A THOUGHT OF CHANGING ANOTHER'S MIND.

SURE, SURE, PRESENT YOUR FACTS, BUT NEVER, EVER BE SURPRISED WHEN OTHERS REJECT THOSE FACTS.   

ALL HAVE THEIR OWN FACTS...AND 'TRUTHS', RIGHT OR WRONG.   

TRY TO BEHAVE TOWARD OTHERS AS YOU WANT FOLKS TO BEHAVE TOWARD YOU.

TRY A LITTLE RESPECT, OR, AT LEAST GIVE OTHERS A DAMN GOOD "LETTING ALONE".

OR DON'T.

OF COURSE YOU, TOO, CAN BE LIKE RW...GO AHEAD.

DON'T CRY WHEN WE LAUGH AT YOU, OKAY?
DON'T WEEP WHEN WE JUST DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU WANT THE REST OF US TO DO OR BE. 

REMEMBER THIS...EACH ONE YOU SEE AS A "NUTCASE", AN "IMBECILE", A WRONG-THINKING JERK, SEES YOU THE SAME WAY!

THAT'S AS IT MUST BE!

THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE YOUR WAY, MY WAY...BUT SOMEWHERE OUT THERE IS THE RIGHT WAY.  

WE PROBABLY WON'T GET TO SEE THAT IN THE NEXT MANY YEARS. 

WE JUST WON'T KNOW WHO IS RIGHT. 

MAYBE WE'RE ALL WRONG, RECKON?  

COULD IT BE?

WE SUCK THAT UP AND GO RIGHT ON, TOO... ONWARD! 

TODAY JUST MAY BE THE LAST DAY BEFORE THE SUN EXPLODES, OR WE SPIN OUT OF ORBIT!

WHY WASTE IT ON THE ABSOLUTE FUTILITY OF DAMNING THOSE WHO DON'T THINK AS WE DO?

HAPPY TRAILS, ALL! 

SAFE JOURNEY!

/