Ask an Anti-Feminist!

[TheMessiah]

''Rational''-Wiki is a sham; the sources they cite for articles are not reliable but opinion pieces - it's not that ''Rational''-Wiki can't be reliable, it's just that it isn't. It's agenda driven; they've banned people for disagreeing --- it's a problem with wiki's, they cite sources which are more often than note, opinion pieces and unethically making assertions, which is terribly misleading once you cite it in a database. I'm fully aware there are ''sources at the bottom of the page'' --- but if you know that, then you should be skeptical of the sources they cite.

Moreover, any wiki which feels the need to put ''Rational'' in it's title, as if it is some arbiter of truth needs skepticism; it's attempting to assert some false credibility, so nothing I've really seen suggests the wiki is reliable, especially considering some of the articles are horribly biased.

Thunderf00t presents himself as a man with an opinion; ''Rational'' Wiki doesn't, it presents itself as a data, but is terribly misleading once you examine the sources they cite.

Because? Which sources are wrong? How many articles have you read? Are the sources really wrong or do you just label them as wrong because they don't corroborate your preconceived opinion about reality? Of course one should be skeptical, but for the most part I've read sources with opinions that also cite other studies and make compelling arguments - I'll admit that rationalwiki has a problem with ridiculing its opponents, but that's about it. Is there anything that isn't agenda driven? Is any position ideologically neutral by 100%? So what if they have banned people? If I formed a group with X goal I would happily ban people who directly oppose the group's core principles.
Anyone can be a man with an opinion, but many times opinions are biased and filled with prejudices. Tunderf00t rarely cites sources and just uses his definition on what he thinks feminism is and dismisses any women's issue as being imaginary. That's not a reasonable debate position, it's an ideologically biased one.

It's not that the sources aren't ''wrong'' - it's more so the fact that they can't be proven ''right'' - they link to biased opinion pieces which make assertions and put forward a specific political ideology, and then cite those sources as proof, despite the fact that they clearly can't be used as ''proof'' - they're just subjective opinion pieces, which lack academic rigor or a set of facts.

Creating a wiki called ''Rational'' (in a clear attempt to boost people's perception of the data-base they use) is pathetic - I also believe this is the same wiki which was heavily in favor of Atheism Plus, a movement which failed horribly and acted like a religious cult.

A database shouldn't pretend to be what it isn't, this is precisely what ''Rational'' Wiki does; they write articles about Feminism and then link pro-Feminist pieces to them. That's propaganda.

Same with Wikipedia's Conservative and Liberal pages; they have people trying to change them for propaganda; it's no wonder why even schools nationwide are acknowledging that Wiki is not reliable. It can be manipulated by a few agenda driven admins who want to assert their own ideology.

Thunderf00t is a commentator; all of his videos on Feminism are linked to modern, recent Feminist campaigns which have the backing of the media - he's not deceptive like ''Rational'' Wiki.