Ask an Anti-Feminist!

[Dystopia]

1. If the wiki is going to be reliable, it needs to cite peer-reviewed, respected and academic research; because I've looked at Rational-Wiki and seen half-asset agenda-driven blogs cited as ''evidence'' and upon questioning the editors just say ''Oh, we don't investigate claims'' etc. It's a sham of a system

2. Dawkins is just a man; there's no organised ''Dawkins followers'' - most of them are just You-Tube commenters. Most Atheism Plus nutters were in a movement, had their own goals and attempted to ostracize people who didn't toe their line. Hell, there's a thread on this forum about it, but those people were insanely irrational

3. That's the problem, the Wiki decides whether it's ''reasonable'' - so if they have a Feminist page, and the admin is a Feminist....guess what? He'll cite sources which ideologically agree with him.

There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not going to use that as reliable

4. Any specific examples? Seems to me that the people he ridicules deserve ridicule, he doesn't debate scholars, he makes fun of the loonie side of Feminism

Rationalwiki is, like wikipedia, an internet website that attempts to provide easy to grab information. Like Wiki, it isn't perfect and has flaws, but there's also people working to write reasonable articles and despite your opinion in many articles you can find pieces of information from diverse sources like famous people, scholars, articles, universities, etc.

Are you kidding? Dawkins wrote a bestselling book, gives lectures to people who love him, created his foundation and set his ideological goal very clear. There's people on his twitter commenting that his book is a must read for every atheist. You may not have a church worshipping Dawkins officially, but there's people that clearly love him and use him as a role model for life and atheism. That's dogma. Dawkins doesn't need to incite anything, he already has a legion of followers on Twitter and people who buy his books (let alone illegal downloads and watching youtube lectures) so his goals have possibility of being achieved. It's extremely easy to predict what someone who has read the God Delusion is going to use as an argument, like a bunch of sheep lining up to be slaughtered. I don't like organized atheism, I think it behaves like a religion, and I don't care if this gets me hate from both sides, it's irrelevant.

3 - How do you define reasonable? Do you need to interview raped women so see how horrible it can be? Do you need all the women in the world to tell you catcalling sucks? Do you need 1000 witnesses to prove sexual harassment at work is terrible? Do you need 100% irrefutable proof for everything or are you willing to admit deductive evidence is sometimes the only thing we have? Also, do you realize that feminists (specially older ones) created a whole branch of social sciences and thus feminist theory and its arguments are basically a form of sociology, right?

4 - Let's see - There's a video where he criticizes the "yes means yes" about sexual consent by saying that sometimes yes means no, and no means yes, etc. He completely misses the point just to ridicule because the "yes means yes" isn't a literal verbal "yes" but it's a form of saying that you need clear consent before having sex. He then talks about body language without ever mentioning credible sources. I guess half-decent sources are better than nothing at all, right?