[ SECRET POST #2691 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2691 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________
















11. [WARNING for sexual assault, rape, bullying]

[Akuma Kyoushi]


__________________________________________________



12. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



13. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



14. [WARNING for dub-con?]



__________________________________________________



15. [WARNING for rape, pedophilia, etc?]

[X-Men: Days of Future Past]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: RationalWiki

[feotakahari]

From what I've read of it, it doesn't seem like their goal is rationality so much as opposing the people they have designated to be irrational people. It actually kind of reminds me of Conservapedia.

(I'd say if you want a wiki devoted to rationality, just go for the classic--Wikipedia, where the stuff that's hopelessly biased at least gets a tag saying the neutrality is disputed.)

Re: RationalWiki

[(Anonymous)]

My issue with Wikipedia is the organization's stance on original research. I'm not necessarily fond of it, which is why on some level RationalWiki appeals to me.

Re: RationalWiki

[(Anonymous)]

Kinda curious, and don't mean to be confrontational, but why are you interested in the Rational Wiki; I get the not liking Wikipedia's policy, but to what end is this all for: General reading material, understanding groups better, research/gaining knowledge?

Re: RationalWiki

[(Anonymous)]

Primarily for getting a better understanding of people/groups, especially those who have dubious opinions or support questionable causes. I'd like to have a starting place to find out more about them from an independent party.

Re: RationalWiki

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I just checked out several random pages from the site. While I wouldn't call the site bad per se, I'd definitely say be cautious of what you read there, since I noticed some...biased language used against certain types of groups and people, you may want to fact check them on anything that seems biased, just to make sure you are getting unbiased facts.

Re: RationalWiki

[(Anonymous)]

OP

Your post reiterates the point I originally made. The slanted language used makes me skittish (and adds a few more hours of research, something I can only really take on when I'm unemployed).