3 ms·
Citing RationalWiki as your source doesn’t lend a great amount of credence to your argument. That section on Quillette sounds like it was written by an angry te
by shijie 6y ago
Citing RationalWiki as your source doesn’t lend a great amount of credence to your argument. That section on Quillette sounds like it was written by an angry teenager. Maybe you could cite Wikipedia instead: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quillette https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quillette which disagrees with your argument rather completely.
- ryan_lane 6y agoWikipedia has very strict aims at neutrality. If you look at a wikipedia article for another, even more hateful, site like kiwi farms, it doesn't explicitly call it out as a hate site, just lists its controversies. RationalWiki doesn't have a neutrality stance, and explicitly calls Quillette an alt-right publication and points at why. You may feel that it reads like an angry teenager because it directly points at the hateful things on the site while ignoring the non-hateful things, but again, the point of an alt-right site is the mix of content, used to lure non-extremists in, to slowly recruit them to extremist views. It's a gateway site for hate.
- mistermann 6y ago> the point of an alt-right site is the mix of content, used to lure non-extremists in, to slowly recruit them to extremist views. It's a gateway site for hate. This is stated in the form of a fact. Can you tell us where you learned this fact, and how one can judge whether it is actually true?