It is not obvious from the broadest definition...

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Identity_politics

Who wrote this fucking article

Other urls found in this thread:

lesswrong.com/lw/1to/what_is_bayesianism/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>currency

LIBERAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALS

rationalwiki is fucking horrible–taking the worst aspects of SJW liberalism and fedora atheism and defining "reasonable" as "anything that does not remotely challenge the prevailing ideology"–they're big on muh horseshoe

It's weird. Most of the articles are almost an Encyclopedia Dramatica tier of "I don't give a fuck" humor and then when you touch on any articles tangentially related to SocJus it turns into unfiltered tumblrina whining. It's like two halves of the wiki were written by completely different groups of people.

a lot of it is from Atheism +, who are an unholy combination of fedoras and SJWs

The bias in the religious articles is hilarious because it's so inconsistent. Half will call you a bigot for criticizing Islam, the others will say Muslims are all psychopaths.

The sad part is that it when it sticks to scientific crankery, it does great work, even when it involves religion or other identities. But the whiny liberal slant makes it useless as a reference.

The only Rationalwiki article I ever read that was worth anything was the one on Roko's Basilisk.

Same here, actually.


The problem with their scientific "crankery" articles is they always assume that the government and corporations can do no wrong and never lie. They're also happy to completely misrepresent the arguments of the "cranks" they are criticising, for instance claiming that all opposition to GＭOs is opposition to the science rather than the corporations involved.

Rationalwiki won't accept a new idea as plausible until literally every other person on Earth has already accepted it. If they had been around in the 50s they would have mercilessly mocked the smocking-causes-cancer "conspiracy theorists" right up until the day the tobacco companies themselves admitted it.

My favorite example on this is anything to do with contested historical events but particularly JFK conspiracy article. It concludes the CIA didn't do it because there's no evidence and the guy provided a shoddy motive himself and some guys casually suggested it should be done, but none of that means the CIA didn't pay him or give him a gun or do some bullet calculations or timing for him. The suicide part is super fishy.

Rationalwiki, lesswrong & other "free thinkin, fedora tippin" sites or known for very reactionary views.

Please, >muh positivism STEMlords on this site take note.

Can't you at least keep your bullshit contained in one thread?

Also I'll dispute that last bit. They have a clear SJW slant. If it comes from one of their figureheads they'll buy it completely.

And regarding the actual OP, I think the authors of the article are "textbook right" but they fail to elaborate that the reason people say they dislike idpol is that it often does not see the bigger picture, plays oppression olympics or even encourages infighting. All of which we're seeing right now with neo-neo-black nationalism (but without the nationalist part)

I just took a look at lesswrong.com/lw/1to/what_is_bayesianism/ and one of the first examples they give is:
They completely ignore the fact that the US government has previously authorised false-flag attacks against one of its own military ships docked in Cuba. It's ironic that they're completely taken in by government propaganda and think that the US military never does evil shit.

The reasons they give are pretty flimsy admittedly but 9/11 was not a fucking inside job. For one before Bush's reelection he fully admitted to it, and I'm not talking about that one video people say is fake.

said nobody ever on leftypol

We don't know one way or the other. There simply isn't enough evidence available. We do know that the US government are covering for someone though, given how reluctant they are to declassify large parts of the report

They're trying to downplay the Saudi involvement for that sweet oil, doesn't mean it was an inside job

We don't know one way or the other. There simply isn't enough evidence available.

The US government is at the least culpable to some degree because they knew this was coming since the beginning of the Clinton presidency.

Have you literally never read something freudfag has written?

good to know who triggers you

It's funny that people on this board seems to be at odds with literally everyone on the basis that their definitions are wrong and yours are right.

...