A website devoted to debunking bullshit claims, whilst at the same time praising Anita Sarkeesian as a feminist hero.
Rational Wiki is a popular website which as its name would suggest attempts to offer up a more logical and practical approach to political and social issues as well as debunk what it sees as Pseudo scientific theories.
Sadly over the last few years it has developed a strong left wing bias to the point where I and many others feel it has actually become more of a propaganda piece for the regressive left than anything else.
In this article I am going to highlight what I feel are the main problems with rational wiki.
Its worth baring in mind that as it is a Wiki that anyone can edit, then its content may change over time. Who knows in 2 years time it could actually do what it says on the tin and offer up impartial, fair and even handed articles on subjects.
At the current time of writing however Rational Wiki is nothing more than an SJW propaganda piece. Again normally I wouldn’t mind if it was. After all everyone is entitled to their opinions. However its the fact that they present themselves as Rational Wiki that bugs me as that makes it look like it is an impartial and logical website when it is nothing more than an opinion piece.
Rational Wiki Has A Double Standard When It Comes To Islam
Rational Wiki in a nutshell.
Now to be fair to Rational Wiki it has provided some criticism of Islam and many notable Islamic preachers. However like many on the left I feel that it goes easier on Islam simply because its a religion practised by mostly dark skinned people.
Its a classic case of having a soft bigotry of low expectations. Basically its okay to attack people for their beliefs and ideologies as long as they are white.
An example of this can be found on their Webshites and Websites pages. The Webshites page as its name would suggest is a list of sites and bloggers that Rational Wiki considers to be biased, untrustworthy and even harmful. The description on the page warns that citing any of the people in this list will cause you to automatically lose the argument.
Now in their Webshites page they have a youtuber called Syeten. Syeten does cartoons parodying religion, but he places a greater emphasis on Islam than other faiths.
Rational Wiki says to avoid his channel because it isn’t even handed when attacking religions as it focuses too much on Islam.
At the same time however Rational Wiki has Non Stamp Collector on its Websites page which are sites that it not only recommends but uses as reliable sources for its articles.
Non Stamp Collector is a youtuber who does cartoons parodying the Judeo Christian faith and only the Judeo Christian faith (as that is the one he grew up with, and thus has the most experience of.)
Now personally I am a fan of both youtubers. I’m not always keen on Syeten’s videos mind you. I’ve never really been a fan of jokes about other people’s appearances which Syeten sometimes does like his Jaclyn Glen video. Still that’s just my personal taste, and overall I have immense respect for them both as their cartoons really bring to light just how twisted the Old Testament and the Quran are.
Here are some examples of both men’s work.
There is really no difference in either men’s work as you can see, but about Syeten Rational Wiki says “Prolonged exposure may result in the following side effects: nausea, depression, high blood pressure, loss of IQ, periodic outbursts of hysterical guffaws, and broken keyboards.”
About Non Stamp Collector however they say “Warning this video may cause excessive hilarity“.
The funny thing is, Syeten has actually done videos parodying Christianity too, whilst Non Stamp Collector has only ever stuck to one religion. Again I don’t think that makes Non Stamp Collector a bigot either, as he only goes after Christianity because he has extensive knowledge of it.
Still the great irony is that by Rational Wiki’s standards then Non Stamp Collector is the bigot not Syeten as his channel is devoted completely to one religion.
In this respect I find it hard to take Rational Wiki seriously as critics of Religious dogma when they clearly are more oversensitive to criticism of the fastest growing and currently the most dangerous religion on the planet.
Obviously as you can see from both men’s videos the Old Testament and the Quran are among the most disgusting books ever written. However Islam is currently more dangerous than Judaism or Christianity for the following reasons.
The Jewish religion has been reformed many times over the years, and is a more loose, tribal religion that’s laws and traditions are not as strict. Also the Jewish faith does not promise an afterlife. Thus radical Jews are not as likely to blow themselves up because they think they will get 72 virgins in the afterlife.
Christianity meanwhile is a more benign religion overall. There are some dodgy parts in the New Testament sure, but overall Jesus’ message is to love your enemies, grant unto others as you would unto yourself, and he is presented as someone who genuinely loves everyone around him and even begs god to forgive his murderers. Added to that Christianity has had a reformation too.
Islam meanwhile has had no such reformation. It is presented as the definitive word of god, thus there is no room for interpretation. It tells its followers to slay all nonbelievers, to kill all homosexuals, and that all black people and women are inferior to white men. It also promises its believers an afterlife if they wage war on non believers and martyr themselves in conflict with them!
Now this does not mean that all Muslims are violent bigots. Many Muslims in western society have never even read the Quran, just as many Jewish people have never read the Old Testament.
However those who are raised on Islamic beliefs do at least hold prejudiced views against women, LGBT people and Jews, even in the most civil western societies. In the United Kingdom for instance over 50 percent of Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal.
Rational Wiki however apart from a few exceptions will shout down almost any reasonable critic of Islam like David Wood, Pat Condell, Tommy Robinson etc as racists and people you should ignore, but they’ll praise an equally harsh critic of the Judeo Christian faith.
Again the reason for this is because basically Muslims are mostly brown and in Rational Wiki’s condescending mindset, all brown people are oppressed and victims of evil white men.
Thus they will go after people who believe in heaven or spirits or the afterlife for comfort and ridicule them in order to look smart and superior, but they will slander people such as Tommy Robinson, Thunderf00t and Kraut and Tea who call out religiously motivated hatred of LGBT people, and misogyny as bigots and tell you not to listen to them
Videos that rational wiki, who care so much about tackling misogyny, homophobia and religious dogma absolutely do not want you to see according to their Webshites page.
Rational Wiki can only be viewed in my opinion as shameless hypocrites and cowards.
White Knighting For Antia Sarkeesian
Apparently the only reason anyone could hate this liar, charlatan, and fraud who went to the UN to try and shut down her critics is because they are sexist according to Rational Wiki.
Now I dislike Anita Sarkeesian in general. The woman has done more to harm genuine feminism than any actual misogynist. She is a cynical, lying opportunist who wants to bask in the feminist glory but doesn’t actually combat any genuine sexism.
Thus she picks perfectly benign targets like video games, sci fi, comic books and lego and calls them sexist for the most petty reasons in order to make herself look like a feminist champion.
Clearly she just hates Anita Sarkeesian because she hates women. Seriously. Rational Wiki has written under a picture of Anita “Oh My God A Woman On The Internet!” A very nuanced and rational rebuttal to her detractors of course.
However simply liking Anita Sarkeesian wouldn’t bother me to the point where I’d bother writing an article attacking someone for it. In Rational Wiki’s case however I dislike the way that they defend Anita for various reasons.
To start with ironically they turn her into a damsel in distress. Look at their article about her. Its mostly just about how she has suffered horrendous online abuse.
Now I don’t doubt that Anita Sarkeesian has had a lot of genuine online abuse, but still so what? Everybody gets abuse online. There are psychos and trolls on every side.
However Rational Wiki not only tries to make it look as though she gets it worse for being a woman, but they also at one point actively say that because of the harsh online treatment Anita Sarkeesian has received we can’t criticise her.
Take a look at this quote from Jim Sterling that they have on her Rational Wiki page
“There are some solid criticisms you can level at Sarkeesians work. I’m not 100 percent on her side, you know. She’s not perfect by a long shot and her video series is a little off base, with some of the examples she’s named as targets. But we can’t talk about that anymore, because the debates not about whether she’s right or wrong. The debate was invalidated as soon as people tried to ruin her life en masse. The chance to debate her on merit was lost once people started threatening to rape her”
What a ridiculous assertion, and whilst Rational Wiki may not have written it originally they still quoted it, showing that they agree with it.
Apparently because some of Sarkeesian’s critics are assholes, then that means no one is allowed to say anything bad about her?
By that logic then Rational Wiki can’t criticise half of the people they do.
Take a look at Thunderf00t who they despise. He too has received death threats, rape threats, has had people mock his father dying of cancer and has even had people try and get him fired from his job!
So then going by Sterling and Rational Wiki’s logic the chance to debate Thunderf00t was gone as soon as people started to try and ruin his life and told him he deserved to be raped for all eternity!
Lauren Southern is another notable youtuber who they attack, and again by their own logic they shouldn’t. Lauren has not only had death threats and rape threats but has been physically assaulted many times and even had urine thrown over her!
That’s worse than anything that’s happened to Anita Sarkeesian. Mean tweets can’t actually hurt you. Getting punched in the face, and having urine thrown over you however?
Rational Wiki likes to go on about Anita’s law or Anita’s irony which is where a woman who complains about sexism is then forced to endure sexist abuse by men telling her there is no sexism. (Of course in Rational Wiki’s mind, telling her she is wrong probably counts as “sexist abuse”. On top of that what about the women like Mercedes Carrera’s criticisms of Anita Sarkeesian too?)
Still I’ve decided to coin a new term here (assuming it hasn’t been coined already. If it has apologies) Lauren’s Law. When feminists and white knights complain about sexism but then don’t care when women who don’t share their opinions are treated in sexist ways up to and including physical assault. Example, Rational Wiki white knighting over poor little Anita’s mean tweets whilst ignoring the abuse the likes of Lauren Southern and other conservative women receive.
Finally Blaire White is another person that Rational Wiki despises and she not only regularly receives death threats but was actually attacked and nearly stabbed by her crazed feminist roommate.
Slightly worse than being called a mean name on Twitter (which Blaire is anyway, every fucking day!)
The abuse the likes of Blaire, Lauren or Thunderf00t have received is either mentioned fleetingly or not all on their rational wiki pages.
To be fair they do call the person who threw urine over Lauren a douche on her page, but still that’s it. They don’t try and present Lauren as a victim that we should all feel sorry for, have entire sections devoted to the abuse she has gotten from people online, and have quotes about “As soon as people started hitting Lauren then the chance to debate her on merit was gone”.
Again however the reason for that is because ironically they want everyone to feel sorry for Anita because they know that her arguments don’t actually hold up under any fair, rational analysis.
Also finally I feel that they deliberately misrepresent her critics. For instance they claim that the majority of her critics think she wants to ban video games. Whilst I am sure that some of her online trolls have said this, its ridiculous to act as though that’s what the majority of her critics such as Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad have accused her of.
Also at the same time they don’t address other more frequently cited and valid criticisms of her such as the fact that she complains about sexualised female characters, whilst never commenting on sexualised images of male characters.
According to Anita and Rational Wiki only one of these images is sexist. Why do I think there is a double standard. I don’t think either image is sexist by the way. Let viewers both oggle Xena and drool over Spike. Its natural. Still to only focus on one as a bad thing creates a gross double standard against both genders as men are shamed for their natural sexual urges, whilst women are ironically shamed and even made to feel guilty for cashing in on their sex appeal as performers whilst men are not.
Then there is of course the fact that Anita complains about female characters being killed in video games such as Hitman, despite the fact that far more male characters are killed regularly in video games (and indeed all forms of media.)
And then there is her rampant hypocrisy for slating video games for being too violent overall and for featuring heroes who solve their problems through violence whilst constantly praising Buffy a show about a female character who regularly stakes, decapitates, and burns her enemies to death!
The great irony is that Buffy is actually among the very few heroes who always kills her enemies. Most heroes like Sherlock Holmes, Batman (in some versions), Superman and Spider-Man have a moral code where they will never kill. Others meanwhile like the Doctor, Xena, Captain Kirk, even Wolverine will only kill if they need too. Buffy however? Due to the nature of her enemies she always kills them. She is actually the most violent popular hero of all time. Yet Anita who can’t stand video games that teach kids that violence solves problems loves Buffy and holds it as the pinnacle of genre series.
Rather than address these types of criticisms on her page however (or bring up her endorsement of gender and racial segregation.) Rational Wiki instead will bring up things like Mundane Matt’s silly comment (that he later regretted) about her smiling like a white person or claim that a picture of her playing a Game when she was ten proves that she always liked video games (despite the fact that plenty of people play games as children and then grow out of them later.) Or they claim that people said she chased Joss Whedon off of twitter (which again people by and large didn’t say. They did however point out that Jonathan McIntosh her producer did join in the hate mob against Whedon which eventually drove him off Twitter.)
Their attempts to refute Thunderf00t’s criticisms of Anita are mostly hollow.
They claim for instance that there is a problem with representation of women in video games, that there aren’t enough female heroes, that women have a hard time from gamers etc, whilst offering up no sources to back these claims up, and never commenting on the various sources that contradict Anita’s statements such as.
On top of that they also say that Sarkeesian disables the comments on her videos because of the abuse she gets. They completely leave out the fact that again all youtubers get abuse in their comments sections, but also that in the various re-upload’s of and responses to her videos, comments about raping her and vicious abuse in general are in the extreme minority.
They also fail to mention in their “debunking” of Thunderf00t’s claims about Hitman that he criticises Anita first of all for her double standard in only complaining about female characters being killed, when far more male characters are gruesomely killed in video games, and also that the game does punish players for murdering female characters (and only female characters) and furthermore that it is ridiculous to say having strippers in a strip club is somehow sexist. Rational Wiki even says “why have the strippers there at all”. How about because its a strip club!
Also they claim that the damsel in distress trope should be phased out once games stories become more complex and involved, completely ignoring the fact that they have been phased out as video games have become more complex and developed more involved stories.
Basically Rational Wiki does its best to misrepresent Anita’s critics and ironically turn her into a damsel in distress to make casual readers feel immense sympathy with her. They jump through the most ridiculous hoops to defend this utter disgrace to feminism.
Bare Faced Lies And Slander
OMG a woman I’m scared (using Rational Wiki’s “logic” against them.)
Rational Wiki regularly slanders those whose opinions it disagrees with. For instance on its Webshites page it says that the Youtuber Some Black Guy thinks Donald Trump is a great guy. This is a total distortion of his opinion. Having now watched many of his videos all Some Black Guy has ever said is that he thinks Donald Trump was less dangerous than Hillary Clinton as Clinton was a war monger who openly antagonised Russia and China.
However he made it clear that he did not actually like Trump several times. Some Black Guy’s opinion of Trump was no different to John Pilgers who also said that he hoped Trump would win instead of Hillary Clinton due to Hillary’s track record in countries such as Iraq, Libya and Honduras.
By Rational Wiki’s logic then John Pilger of all people is a Trump fanboy as his opinions on him are pretty much exactly the same as Some Black Guy’s!
Furthermore they also claim that Blaire White advocates bullying fat people and that she may not have been joking about having refugees gassed. Whilst I don’t think it was one of Blaire’s best jokes, again it was clearly a joke. When you look at the context its obvious that Blaire is just trying to get a rise. Again you might think it was an inappropriate joke, but that’s Blaire’s style.
The fact that Rational Wiki would even try and suggest that it wasn’t a joke however shows how desperate they are to discredit her. Blaire also has explicitly said that she does not want to see people be bullied for their weight, but at the same time she doesn’t think being obese is a healthy lifestyle choice and therefore should not be promoted as such by things like “the body positivity movement. This is a perfectly fair view to hold. Most people don’t think smoking is a healthy lifestyle choice, but that doesn’t mean they want to publicly humiliate and shame smokers or even stop them from smoking. But at the same time they are going to call out someone who says that smoking is a healthy lifestyle.
Furthermore they claim that Blaire White has attacked Riley O’Dennis simply for claiming to be Trans and still having a penis. Again this is a gross misinterpretation of Blaire’s views. Blaire criticised Riley because she believed he had not undergone any form of transitioning (though she later apologised when she found out that he had.)
Still Blaire’s criticisms against Riley are more to do with his political leanings such as his ridiculous claims that straight men and gay women who don’t find him attractive are transphobic.
Rational Wiki again however doesn’t address these criticisms that Blaire has for Riley and simply lies that her issue with him is that he still has a penis. Blaire has said many times that most trans women keep their male genitals, so she certainly would not mock Riley Dennis for it.
Rational Wiki has also been very deceptive on the feud between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Linda Sarsour too.
Rational Wiki thinks very highly of Linda Sarsour. It includes her among the websites it recommends and uses as a valuable source. Ayaan Hirsi Ali meanwhile, though it acknowledges that some of her claims are valid, it generally tends to dismiss her as an Islamophobe.
Rational Wiki thus actually tries to make Hirsi Ali the bad guy as best it can.
All it mentions about her feud with Linda Sarsour is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali said Linda Sarsour could not be a feminist because she was a Muslim. Now personally I don’t see anything wrong with this statement anyway, as Islam says that women are inferior to men, so if you are actually a practising Muslim then you obviously can’t be a champion for women’s rights.
Still Rational Wiki completely leaves out the fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali says Linda Sarsour can’t be a feminist because she supports Sharia Law (a law that deprives women of basic human rights.) And also that Linda Sarsour said she wanted to beat the shit out of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and take away her vagina (Ali is a survivor of female genital mutilation.) This is actually what began their feud, but again you wouldn’t know it going by Rational Wiki.
Furthermore Rational Wiki is often quick to dismiss people like Chris Ray Gun, Mundane Matt and Some Black Guy as sexists and members of the alt right, simply because they are critics of feminism. All 3 of them are fairly left leaning, liberals (Ray Gun supported Bernie Sanders and refused to vote for either Trump or Clinton in the 2016 election.)
Finally they also failed to mention the abuse Laci Green has received from feminists (including being called a slut, getting death threats, and being doxxed) simply for dating Chris Ray Gun!
Once again we can see Lauren’s Law in full effect here. When Anita is subject to harassment, Rational Wiki devote practically an entire page to it. Whilst Laci Green, not only another woman, but a feminist is subject to doxxing, death threats and sexist abuse Rational Wiki doesn’t comment on it as it doesn’t fit their narrative now that she is simply associating with an anti Feminist Chris Ray Gun in her private life!
All they say is that her fans aren’t happy with her dating Chris to say the least, which doesn’t even begin to cover the abuse Laci has received.
As you can see Rational Wiki is really nothing more than a propaganda piece for SJWs which tries to present itself as an impartial and well rational source.
For this reason I think its very important to call them out on their bullshit and show that at the end of the day whilst they claim to be impartial and level headed, they regularly lie and misinterpret things to suit their own agenda.
Thanks for reading.