Refuting RationalWiki on Racialism

[AscendedMaster]

RationalWiki is a high profile website used to attack people with unorthodox views. Its article on Racialism is used to attack Racialists and is third in google search results: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism - they even have a very negative article on Stef himself: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux Another article is "white genocide": https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-racist_is_a_code_word_for_anti-white, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/White_genocide, which Stef might have addressed. Refuting their articles on both here might be useful.

[barn]

Welcome to the board @AscendedMaster

 

3 hours ago, AscendedMaster said:

RationalWiki is a high profile website used to attack people with unorthodox views. Its article on Racialism is used to attack Racialists and is third in google search results: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism - they even have a very negative article on Stef himself: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux Another article is "white genocide": https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-racist_is_a_code_word_for_anti-white, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/White_genocide, which Stef might have addressed. Refuting their articles on both here might be useful.

Or might be not.

As in: The probability of having a productive debate when the source is disingenuous + lopsided, is very low.

[RichardY]

I'd say don't bother. Anything you read on there is total cr*p.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I think Stefpai's YouTube series on genes, IQ, and all that really nails the importance of "racialism" (I quote it because obviously it's "racism" in the 19th century definition of the word: the study of races) though largely without using such language (because such language is typically used by the Far Left to both discredit other members of the Far Left as well as to be "edgy"). 

If you want to refute the articles yourself (I think you'd be preaching to the choir here though), by all means take the lead on it. 

[AscendedMaster]

We're not asking for a "debate" with RationalWiki. We're asking for a REFUTATION of it, to defend the people attacked on the site, and to convince outsiders who might be swayed by its high ranking in the search results. Here's another article to refute: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eurabia

[RichardY]

@AscendedMaster Well, pilgrim, only after you eat the peanuts out of my sh*t!

A debate with RationalWiki would be worse than useless A) because it is a collective entity B) Because they are "rational".
A refutation is not much better, as you are reacting to them, and not them to you.

[AscendedMaster]

The desire is to have a means of helping people attacked on the site (including Stef, who is also attacked by the SPLC). Also to convince ousiders. Not the people on the site itself.

[RichardY]

@AscendedMaster    "One repays a teacher poorly, if one remains but a pupil." - Nietzsche. Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

I think the sentiment is good, but the direction is not.

Animal Mother: "You Talk the Talk, but do you walk the walk."

[Carl Killough]

Maybe a small seed for those who stumble upon rationalwiki that just points to the videos Steph has already done?   eh...probably a waste of time...anyone that wants to hear 'both sides' will seek out and look at Steph's actual words and work rather than finding a convenient answer in a BS wiki that satisfies cognitive dissonance and lets them keep their world view.  After all, that's so much easier to do...if they stop there, they won't get it anyway even if they listen.  

World view changing logic takes time...at least it did on me.  And Steph doesn't exactly employ all the sophist techniques of ethos and pathos that he could if he wanted to go hunting down the opposition.  And nor should he want to.  

But the fact that Steph isn't going anywhere, and more and more people are listening, might force Logos  in their face in the future.