Skip navigation

This has moved to my personal website.


  1. “Rape culture” does not refer to seeing rape on billboards or in public places; it refers to the way that people who are raped are treated after the fact, and a general denial or ignorance of what is going on (as borne out by the evidence). While I once interpreted this feminist buzz phrase in the manner that you do, I have changed my mind and I believe it is a fair characterization–indeed, considering that I myself was confused and appalled by the term, and said precisely what you’ve said here.

    • You will need to explain what you mean in more precise terms. The comment is vague enough to be interpreted many different ways. A common tactic used by the people who hammer the term “rape culture” is to avoid being logically pinned down to a single meaning for their words; in effect, they refuse to make an actual assertion because concrete statements can be debated and refuted.

      Convincing a person to think as you do will require taking a position and maintaining it.

  2. “Don’t get me wrong. I love a lot of the concise, reference-supported articles I find on RationalWiki, especially when it concerns pseudoscience such as the HHO/water-powered car. It’s a handy shortcut to refuting ridiculous things that aren’t scientifically accurate, and nothing makes me feel much more joy than when a bunch of Internet conspiracy theorists are told that they’re wrong and it really rustles their jimmies.”

    So basically, you enjoy it when it puts down things you don’t agree with and hate it when it puts down things you do. Then you accuse THEM of being butthurt.

    RationalWiki is trash for a lot of reasons. You just want to pick and choose which ones, based on your own beliefs. Kind of like…everyone else?

    • You cannot generate enough hydrogen and oxygen gas by electrolysis from the electrical lines of an internal combustion engine to be of any statistically significant value to that same engine. This is easily demonstrated with fundamental chemistry equations almost everyone learned in high school. Fields like sociology and philosophy are different; they are not “hard sciences.” If someone says that women in the United States and Britain are oppressed people whose voices are silenced, what fundamental scientific equation is telling them that? Here’s a gem from their “Feminism” article: “Many more MRAs, though, are a lot more interested in misogynistic ranting.” This is not an objective fact supported by evidence obtained through application of the scientific method. It is not simply an opinion; it is a phrase that is loaded up with an ideological label, hidden implications, and takes an accusatory stance towards “the men’s rights movement” with no science to support it. That is not “rational,” it is subjective at best and dogmatic at worst. The weasel word count in that single article is staggering.

      RationalWiki claims to spread rational thought and instead spreads scientifically unfounded propaganda in an opinions-as-facts manner. This is not “picking and choosing based on my personal beliefs.” This is an easily demonstrated fact. I enjoy only those parts of it that correct scientifically ignorant ideas by using science and hate it when it strays from scientifically sound facts into dogma.

  3. I’ve observed that a common tactic of the radical Left is to conflate their agenda with topics of scientific rationality in order to borrow their legitimacy. The idea is to convey the impression that their agenda is founded in scientific fact, which allows them to take the position that any opposing agenda must be founded in superstition and delusion. In reality, there is no scientific basis for any political agenda; science isn’t concerned with how people treat each other, it deals only with physical phenomena.

    The disingenuousness of these vicious ideologues in using these tactics has largely discredited them in my view; their misuse of science to push their agenda is no different to the Nazis misusing science to promote the putative superiority of the Aryan race. For this reason, I refer to RationalWiki these days as “LiberalWiki”, and as far as I am concerned, anyone resorting to it as a source to cite in an argument immediately loses the argument. My usual response to such is along the lines of “LiberalWiki? Really? Does that mean I can start citing Conservapedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica in response? Because that’s about what it’s worth.”

  4. Atheists, rationalists, freethinkers, etc, too many of them just mean that they’re skeptical about gods. When an atheist subscribes to feminism, experience has shown me that they quickly become just like the ‘thumpers’ they normally look down on. I am an atheist but a lot of us are about as skeptical as Christians who don’t believe in Zeus.

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] via RationalWiki universally pushes radical feminist dogma, which isn’t “rational” at …. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: