User talk:Aneris/Archive1

Welcome
Feel free to pull up a goat and stay awhile! Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Basic standards of reporting"
Can't wait. 23:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really possible, I'm afraid. We have to accept that the RationalWiki is SJW infested. I accept it as it is. [Edit: SJW infestation] Will come back to haunt it at some point later. Promise (I may or may not help with that). Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "At some later point" seems to have come rather soon. SolPyre (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On a different note, please read the section on what is and isn't a minor edit here. Thank you. SolPyre (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you mean, SJ ideology is all the hay at the moment, even when the wind is slowly turning. There is not even a generally accepted name for the thing and these new postmodernist are like their predecessors Master Weasels who reach for every rhetorical trick in the book, now in an enhanced, weaponized form, that borrows from everything including trolling, doxing, intimidation, no-platforming and so forth. It will take some time until everyone has caught up. I hope it turns into a fad (/wishful thinking) rather soon, but there's no reason for optimism. Aneris ✻ (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, you were talking about SJWs coming back to haunt RW and not yourself coming back to haunt RW, that makes more sense. I thought you where doing a very strange version of LANCB that only lasted 17 minutes. Nvm, my mistake. SolPyre (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, my wording was terrible. I meant to say that I'll accept the heavy social justice warrior bias, including the weasel games of hiding the ideology so that people can continue to claim it's not even a thing. I also learned that "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" on the frontpage was meant differently than I though, more like "embracing". Nevermind. Aneris ✻ (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.petsmart.com/dog/accessories/top-paw-silent-dog-whistle-zid36-9177/cat-36-catid-100133 —Ryulong (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're incompetent, Ryulong. The explanation given there is standard SJWism, without any snark or POV on my part. Your idol Anita Sarkeesian subscribes to this view as well, in parallel to her sexism definition. So in your twisted postmodernist mind it's now a "dogwhistle" to point out how your own ideology works in disinterested language? This level of denial and bullying is amazing. It seems your brand of ideology can only do denial, obstruct, revert, undo, flak, accuse etc. When water is substance, you are pure oil. But keep going, it all leaves a papertrail which is useful for me. Aneris ✻ (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.petsncharms.es/en/catalogsearch/result/index/?cat=10&q=dog+whistle —Ryulong (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverted Doxxing
Because your additions were shit. You repeated the same link several times under different names, for starters. The small extra section might be worth rescuing if you can editorialise with it somewhat less. Queexchthonic murmurings 00:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why it should have been reverted. Aleksandra96 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I indeed used the same sources twice, once for individuals and once for sites (following the pattern that was established there), but the citations are an odd reason to revert. At least I have added sources. If it is possible to add the same footnote several times, I'll fix it (unless someone knows how to do it and do it faster). Aneris (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

For me that's interesting to see, how social justice warriors always fight the facts and try, under the flimsiest of excuses to hide evidence they don't like. That's how the propaganda sausage gets made. Aneris (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You're probably sane
So now you're a sysop. See: RationalWiki:Sysop_guide Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome among the gods.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome, that promotion, or curse, came rather unexpectedly fast. :D Aneris (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a demotion. Promotion is the removal of user rights. Walker Walker Walker 19:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Fallacies
Thanks for the additions. Feel free to add any others you stumble across. 04:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do. I have one or two in mind that might be missing. Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You've been cooped!
Don't take this seriously. At all. Walker Walker Walker 19:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Social Justice Warriors
You realize that this isn't a real thing and it's a bogeyman manufactured by reactionary assholes right?—Ryulong (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The no-platforming; indexing of "triggering" ideas (to eventually remove books and ideas in a second next step, book burning); (radical) social constructivism and postmodernism; SSSM; identity politics and "critical race theory"; standpoint theory with all the ways of knowing and "lived experience". Art as degenerate art (see A. Sarkeesian); anti-pluralism, intolerance etc. and all that is very real and not a bogeyman. I'm willing to predict that this phenomenon will enter the scholary literature at some point in the future, and I will bet on it now that it will be described as a form of authoritarianism (if you understand it, you also know why). See here for a start. Some scholars are already at it, for example Jon Haidt. Various terms are proposed, like the “Regressive Left”. However, it can be disputed whether “left” is even accurate, and there are theories in place for that too (one popular one is the horseshoe theory). And of course, Jacque Derrida was never a postmodernist or any such thing, according to Jacques Derrida. For a long time postmodernists tried to pass their nonsense as just academia or just humanities, unsuccesfully. Aneris ✻ (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You fundamentally don't know anything about what you're railing against do you?—Ryulong (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * it's also really lazy.--Petey Plane (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He's two steps away from saying "Cultural Authoritarians" though.—Ryulong (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Never heard of the term. Social Justice Warrior has become however a common term, also embraced by the people described as such. Maybe we have a term they agree to in a few years. Aneris ✻ (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No one sincerely calls themself a "Social Justice Warrior". It's an exonym (much like "Cultural Authoritarian" which is itself derived from Cultural Marxist) applied by people who don't like the fact they're on the wrong side of history.—Ryulong (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you're incredibly mistaken if you think Anita Sarkeesian wants to ban anything in video games.—Ryulong (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm? Critical articles on the phenomenon already appeared and by that I don't mean the execrable Breitbart. The safe spacer movement has made news already with their no-platforming (even of comedians). The wrong side of history is easy to assert. I doubt it. Those who burn books and no-platform speakers within the pluralistic spectrum, even comedians, never wind up looking good in retrospect. Like never. Acceptance of minorities and other social justice concerns are an ongoing project that concerns us all and I hope the US makes progress in that area (I'm from Northern Europe). The postmodernist metaconcepty academese of the "erasure of lived experience of the marginalized identities" style is rather amusing, for the excellent reason because it's postmodern gibberish. The redefinition of racism and sexism so that SJWs don't look like flaming bigots themselves also convinces nobody in the relevant fields. It's pseudo-science. Ask someone in the field and be prepared to be laughed out of the room. And I'm certainly not the only one who can't help but laugh when someone goes on about how costumes are "problematic" and that we should maintain racial purity. On a festival of celtic origin that was "culturally appropriated" and modified several times. Anita Sarkeesian supports gender/sex and racial segregation. How will that ever will look good? And the leaders of the SJ movement often turn out to be mentally impaired, ex-white supremacist or paedophiles. How many cases are there? Half a dozen? They aren't just some mooks, but "respected" members and opinion leaders. That will totally look good in the future. Dream on with your "wrong side of history". Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where to begin...
 * Jerry Seinfeld complaining about doing comedy on college campuses is because he can't update his comedy routine to match the times. Meanwhile, you have Sarah Silverman who sees Seinfeld's failure in being the old guy who can't make jokes without being a tool.
 * I can't even begin to process what you're going on about with this "lived experience of the marginalized identities" thing which means it's probably garbage and not representative of anything in actual social justice movements.
 * I'm seeing a complaint about "reverse racism" here.
 * Oh, you're complaining about the fact that Native Americans, Latinos, and African Americans don't like how there are Halloween costumes of stereotypes of their cultures while dismissing their complaints by saying no one outside of Pagan Celts should be celebrating anything resembling Samhain. That's a lovely fallacy of relative privation you've got there.
 * There you are taking shit Anita Sarkeesian said several years ago out of context again.
 * If they're ex-white supremacist that means they no longer believe the bullshit they used to. And this "paedophile" thing I'm guessing is a thinly veiled reference to Sarah Nyberg.
 * So from all of this I can surmise you post on KotakuInAction and are not socially liberal as you insist you are.—Ryulong (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you have a herd or something to join for tonights witch hunt? Alternatively, you can try to write something constructive and maybe we don't talk past each other all the time. You also really need to learn moving the goalpost. You claimed there was "nothing" and it was all a figment of my imagination. I brought you examples. Either we agree that these examples are real, or you deny that they exist. Are you are cognitive relativist? It could be. For me these issues serious and people who index art alongside a danger-quotient (aka trigger warnings) --to ban it later-- or people who want to "change" art from top down are suspicious. This is hardly unwarranted. Never in history were these the good guys. In fact, people who want to impose their politics on art from top down are consistently the bad guys, and that includes the 1950s Comics Code (another parallel where Sarkeesian looks right wing). Maybe that's not important to you. Maybe you have yet to reach your sixteenth birthday. Who knows. Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your examples are shit. That's not moving the goalposts. Providing a trigger warning for people with PTSD, phobias, or other anxiety disorders should have prior knowledge of something that could lead them to have a breakdown so they can properly prepare themselves. It's not censorship to go "this film features rape" or "this film has a realistic depiction of an earthquake". And for fuck's sake, Anita Sarkeesian does not want to fucking ban video games of any type. She's critical of video games that enforce negative stereotypes of women for no reason and she personally doesn't like violent video games. At most she's saying video games could be better. She's not going to protest and boycott Halo 5 because Cortana's naked or whatever. No one protested MGSV because of Quiet's design and the excuse for it. People can be critical of things they enjoy and that's not cognitive dissonance if they do.—Ryulong (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And to add on to Ryulong's post-- Trigger Warnings are a form of something that already exists in mass media. You... Do know what film ratings are for, right? Though personally I prefer the term "Content warning" over "trigger warning", since trigger warning's only crime is sounding kind of silly. The fact that internet reactionaries only complain about content warnings in one place in one way is incredibly telling of who and what their target and goal is.Kitsunelaine (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it inconceivable to you, that people might find "trigger warnings" (or your cute euphemism for the same) idiotic, no matter where (be it Tipper Stickers or trigger warnings)?
 * I literally needed 5 seconds to find this article of the noted far-right wing rag "the guardian" (that was sarcasm). The ideology is already in place that books that need trigger warnings are in some way dangerous. It's a tiniest step to go from "this is dangerous stuff" to "oh, let's not use this material, but this other because it's less dangerous". The triggers also got out of hand, because of the posturing and social-justicier-than-thou attitude of social justice warriors. This is also hardly unheard of, when you google a bit. You only need to add in the "safe space" concept that is decidedly about avoiding triggers and there you have it. Nobody of repute is against having empathy. Nobody wants to downright shock people with disturbing stuff. A teacher should know their material and should be able to point out what is coming and be emphatic about it. On the other side, we can expect some common sense from people too. Someone might die in crime fiction. And if it helps, I have "lived experience" with social justice warriors. They are always busy with disappearing material and people they disapprove of. The political ideology, i.e. bigotry 2.0 (race everywhere)in addtion with postmodernism doesn't make it any better. Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is all you have buzzwords? I'm looking for an actual argument here but all I can find are right-wing dogwhistles. Kitsunelaine (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Buzzwords like "Dogwhistles" you mean. I confessed already, see "far-right wing rag 'the guardian'". People who don't know the diference between trigger warnings (the ideology and assumptions behind them) and ratings for adult content are not really worth discussing with. But maybe that's the problem, you view people as children that need a proper authority. Hence, SJWism is a form of authoritarianism. There's your point. Thanks for making it! Aneris ✻ (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Come back to me when you have an ounce of an original argument. It's not worth my time to sit here and shoot down regurgitated and rearranged talking points from the far-right shitslingers of the internet. It's like trying to talk to a markov bot. Plus, an editorial in a liberal newspaper can still be written by a conservative. You're not fooling anyone, mate. Kitsunelaine (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So that means you don't really have much of an argument against his position? In fact it looks like the only point you've made on this page has been "stop this I don't like it." Hence why he said you proved his point. Hopefully you're able to wrap around the logic presented here; sadly I fear you won't listen and double down on that mental gymnastics of yours. 65.78.150.19 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh my god. Just... Try to insult me. Say I'm on a Jihad. Go on. Something. ANYTHING. This is so boring. I mean it's nice you tried to go through the whole passive aggressive route, but that's like playing on easy for the millionth time. It's just so route and tired. Kitsunelaine (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? That would be rather rude and inappropriate for this kind of discussion. I'm sorry you don't find debating with people intellectually simulating enough if you can't fight against clear insults and actually need to form a counter-argument, but your inability to hold any sort of water isn't anyone's problem but yours. Sorry. 65.78.150.19 (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh god. The posturing. I mean at least you're actually trying now, but man, please. Shitpost harder. You want to turn this into a show, so put forth the fucking effort. Kitsunelaine (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Shitpost?" Why on earth would you assume I'm trying to "turn this into a show?" I only came in to point out how Aneris's position hasn't been countered. If anyone's "shitposting" it would have to be yourself; considering you've done nothing but try to egg me on in order to glean some sort of sadistic entertainment when people have debates. 65.78.150.19 (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But you're not even debating. You're just declaring "I won". Man. Look. You're not even an entertaining troll, and that's the worst crime. Kitsunelaine (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A troll? Well, I don't quite understand how you came to that conclusion but if you're going to continue this rather silly conversation in this manner I'm afraid I will simply step out. You haven't made anything closely resembling a counter-argument and clearly my presence is unwanted. Shame your childish attitude is keeping you from making this an enlightening discussion. If you want some sort of insult or something in order to feel as if you've "won" then I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. Good day.
 * >mfw you accuse someoene else of not having a counter-argument and being childish
 * best joke I've heard all day
 * (Also your only contributions have been on this talk page so yeah, troll. Or Aneris in disguise. Spooky.) Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Kitsunelaine, I don't know what your issue is. I guess we agree that teachers should be empathic and not confront people with schocking material. I wrote that already, yet you are antagonistic. Why? Because you are intolerant of others. Isn't that right wingish? A bit of disagreement and immediately your interlocutor is the other. "Right wing" is merely your label for that, which carries no meaning other than to increase the perceived distance and because you identify, falsely, as "left wing". But you're a faker. No, you're the Right Winger here. It's just identity politics that adds a left veneer. There's little politically "left" about you. You want to impose rules and demands on art -- who does that usually? -- the right wingers. Mabye you're one of those who think sex/gender are "cultural constructions" -- welcome to the right wing, who want to "re-educate gays". Maybe you're one of those SJW busibodies who have detailed opinions about how people should go about their sex lives. Who does that, usually? Again, right wingers. Sarkeesian and Co are of course in the tradition of the "sex negative" faction of feminists. Look it up. There are several good articles also on the SEP. This tradition is associated with authoritarianism (deciding from on high what's good for the common folk who are thought vulnerable or too stupid to make their own decisions, hence it's also Anti-Enlightenment but that's another story).

Authoritarianism, again, correlates with right wing. Altemeyer's original "right" meant more something like "righteous", again something that unites SJWs with the political right. The opposite faction associated with anti-authoritarianism placed the focus on emancipation and empowerment of women. Is this what we are seeing? Of course not. SJWs promote "safe spaces". The obsession with safety and fear as a means to impose rules, again, right wing. Right wing, right wing, right wing. You can turn it around as you want. You're the right winger here as far as I'm concerned. Aneris ✻ (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh hey it's the "You and I are more alike than you want to realize" speech. No. I'm not intolerant of others. I'm just not dealing with someone indistinguishable from an internet reactionary Markov Bot. And if you don't know what that is, look it up. Also... Saying I'm the right-winger. There is only one appropriate response to that. Laughter. I mean, seriously. You're so far down the rabbit hole you forgot what left and right look like. This is, of course, because being right-wing is generally considered outdated and well, bad, and the only way internet right-wingers can convince themselves they're on the left is if they distort what that means. Like, say, libertarians. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool story. Laughter to show superiority in an argument? Was probably a cool idea someone had on the internet in 1997 before you were born. Don't take things too seriously, and if all fails, check your trusted resource here. Bye! You can come back when you have some substance to offer. Aneris ✻ (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, that's a lot of words to say something that boils down to "Go back to Tumblr lol". Got your thesaurus handy, eh? Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What can I say, you're making my points. Here's something more productive: Show me links to the top 3 most important articles or texts (blogs, news, wiki entries etc) I should read containing text material about YOUR views and which you find important for YOURSELF, and which you would like everybody would read. Just one or five is also okay, just no wall of spam. Can you do that? Aneris ✻ (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'm not speaking to someone who is indistinguishable from an internet reactionary markov bot" -- me several minutes ago
 * do you have short term memory loss or something
 * (Also it's hillarious you're trying to tell me not to wall of text.) Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You repeat yourself, like a bot. You come to my "talk" page but you don't want to talk to me. You changed from "laughter" to "hilarious", hm thesaurus? Didn you mention that too? Strange, are you maybe a bot suffering from psychological projection. That is by the way not an uncommon condition among SJWs with their racist, supremacist and paedophile past. Maybe not you. Hence I asked you to post a few articles you think are good and positive (i.e. pertaining to views you hold). Can you do that? Aneris ✻ (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is your entire conversation method just a pattern of "No, you"? That's not a debate. That's playground level arguing. Also, did you really just accuse all people you deem "Social justice warriors" of being pedophiles? Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I know your games. You are boring and there is nothing new here. Indeed, one could programm a standard SJW bot. It's always the same. Literally. Now go away, Right Winger or show some constructive effort. Aneris ✻ (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The only "constructive effort" I'm seeing from you is the fact that you're trying to play a complex mental gambit that boils down to a simple game of "I know you are but what am I?". Kitsunelaine (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I forgot to say this earlier, but you don't own your talk page. Sorry. Kitsunelaine (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bruh, you keep harping on and on about "you're the Nazis not I" because we're saying your insistence that "SJWs" want to censor anything is bullshit. No one believes you're fighting an authoritarian proto-regime and your focus on trigger warnings is only telling us that you care more about free speech absolutism than other people's feelings.—Ryulong (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not even going into the fact that trigger warnings are also free speech. Just speech he doesn't like. Trigger warnings only go so far as "Hey, this has [X] in it, if you don't want to see [X] then this post isn't for you". I guess this means he'd be perfectly fine going to a porn site and accidentally watching a scat video.Kitsunelaine (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we gish galloping again? What do you want to say? Guardian article: “They’re complaining about people doing the same thing they do” is of course not even wrong. There aren't two sides and the situation was always asymetrical. We know this, because in each community where SJWs emerge they'll wind up together in “safe spaces” or twitter colonies, other people are simply other people. Theses spaces, once used for discussion, are then transformed to make the postmodern identity politics, intersectionality mumbo jumbo unassailable. Almost all places bar a few were moderated in some form before, which is fine. And was fine. There goes “free speech absolutism”. Nobody in their right mind has a problem with it, or argues that you cannot make your little kiddie corner of rainbow ponies. That's a strawman. You can always make such a space. But that's the trick here. When somebody complains that effectively ideologies are shielded that way (!) – and that's the point – the SJW will sqawk “Freeze Peach”, whine about alleged “free speech absolutists” and there will be armies of nitwits who believe this then. That's how this pestilence spreads.
 * New Republic Article. I'm not sure what it wants to say. Evil people get together because guilty by association, studies show games make people sexist and words affect people, media influences us. Groundbreaking! Who would have thought that! I happen to know two or three things about this. Somewhere there lies actually my expertise. My favourite recent take was “Surfaces & Essences” (Hofstadter & Sander, 2013). Back to the article. The end line says it all: “If we recognize how much good media can do, then we also have to recognize the capacity it has to harm—and that’s a capability we need to take seriously. There’s nothing authoritarian about respect”.
 * Fine weaseling. Either he wants something or he doesn't. Beside, I don't lose any sleep even when we assume that all studies were totally true, and every expert agreed on the conclusion as reported in the article. The fun only starts there. SJWs commonly reject EvoPsych, but as authoritarians proper, of course everything that suits the agenda is welcome momentarily. I clicked randomly onto the Halo 3 study: it states: “From an evolutionary perspective, intrasexual competition is common and is one of the strongest forces shaping sex differences”. Throw these sex-differences at a bunch of SJWs and they begin to implode because their postmodern bullshit is totally inconcistent in this regard. Most bitter wars erupt over such things between SJWs (which is however forgotten when they can dogpile, smear or thoughtpolice some unsuspecting shmuck).
 * Anyway, cool story and all, nothing new, and nothing about your own views, just another smear piece. What's your point? Aneris ✻ (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * cool story bro Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for you to say "hugbox" really.—Ryulong (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's kind of cute that I acquired my own little Goldfish Poop Gang in you two. Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Another day, another entry of the "non-existent" SJW movement. This time from Yale. A Social Justice Warriors exclaims:
 * "Then step down! If that is what you think about being a [inaudible] master, then you should step down. It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It’s about creating a home here! You are not doing that. You’re going against that."

article in Reason.com, article in TheFire.org. Anti-intellectualism shows itself, once more. It's by no means an isolated case. Many people are just ignoring it and enable these nitwits. Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that shouter, as a Master's job specifically states that they're supposed to help curate an intellectual environment, and Yale definitely shouldn't have come down on the costumes with the apparent weight of a decree, but Christakis is also off the mark here--it seems to me obvious that a basic requirement for having any sort of meaningful free speech is to make sure that all people feel safe and welcome speaking in the first place. It's a tight balance, but it seems naive to complain about not being applauded for saying everything when we're still working so that many communities are invited to the discussion so that they can say anything.
 * The articles are also contradicting themselves, claiming in one place that the students are demanding Yale fire the administrators, while their actual quotes say that they're calling for the administrators to resign on their own drive. Small difference, but...kinda poisons the well if you're reporting something that inaccurately.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources of the case are fully available, so whether someone who writes an article draws wrong conclusion doesn't change anything in my view. And to speak of poisoning the well on detractors of SJWs must be fine irony. SJWs by definition (and you can see this all over the place) are systematic well-poisoners. Disagree with their postmodern bullshit ideology, and you are a gamergate, women harasser, doxer and whatnot, because that's how they construe reality (or are cynical and merely pretend to be). Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ...dude, you still haven't stopped claiming that I'm an SJW trying to protect my "Dear Leader". Get your own house in order before casting stones, and other mixed metaphors.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Here you have Jerry Coyne's take, he's of course critical of the whole thing as I am. Look how tame the letter was, and look the freakout reaction. If you really know nothing of SJWs, this might seem weird. But that's just consistent with everything else. No matter how mild, well reasoned, well-meant the criticsm, they have always a complete mental breakdown, a rage of histrionics and then smear and character assassinate the opponent. They crank it up to eleven, and want people, and ideas, removed. Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I keep seeing these articles claiming that students want a place where "anything that hurts their feelings is not allowed", and then you look at what they're complaining about and it's literally rich, white professors telling minority students that blackface is totally acceptable and anyone unhappy about it should stop complaining about it and shut up. It's what you'd expect to see as a caricature in a left-wing propaganda rag. While I disagree with the original letter and the specific argument that one shouter made, "mildness"/politeness is a bullshit point, and the situation is still fucked up. No matter how mild Christakis is, he's likely to emerge from this completely unscathed. No matter how "histrionic" the students are, they likely won't see any change, and it's really easy to see why minority students would be upset that the two people who are supposed to be responsible for making sure they are allowed to join in with the free speech and intellectual atmosphere are instead making sure to chide the university for making a similarly "mild, well-reasoned" statement of "hey, blackface and other encouragement of bigotry actually deteriorates free speech in the long run." Intersectionality/postmodernism/whatever is irrelevant, if you have a majority of people who aren't welcome at the table in the first place, it really doesn't matter much whether you're handing out demerits or not to the three people who got a seat. From the perspective of a free speech defender, it's vital to discourage that kind of intolerance, without ever even having to bring up "privilege" bullshit like "bigotry is totes cool as long as I'm poorer ("less privileged") than the guy I'm being racist towards." (It's not. It may be a less pressing societal problem, but it's still shit and they should stop doing it. Don't try to justify it.)
 * Until we see the "loud, savage" part of these controversies actually wielding the same amount of power in these fights as their "mild, cultured" opponents, I think the tone argument is completely irrelevant and a total derail. If they actually start doing stuff like enforcing anti-white bigotry, or whatever the cause de jure is, that's one thing, but if they're simply complaining that someone is doing a shit job? Yeah, if your job is to foster discussion with the community and you've managed to get the community to hate your guts, you're objectively doing a shit job. Boo hoo, woe is me.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is usually a fairly well balanced system in place that works quite well on free speech versus other rights. For example, long before there were "safe spaces" we had comment sections that were moderated. So when social justice warriors claim that critics of their safe spaces wanted untrammeled free speech, or as you do here wanted to do blackface, you are not just sounding like a Creationists ("you just want to sin") you are also making a total strawman.


 * Because any mild disagreement with their heavy push towards authoritarianism is perceived as the extreme counterpush, which is simply not true and just combat rhetorics as everything else (have I mentioned that SJWs have mental problems and suffer often from psychological projection -- half serious only). Now we are led to believe that this orignal letter was just a begnin reminder. But if so, the response would have to be mild as well.


 * So, someone midly disagreed and the students have a mental breakdown. This tells you that this wasn't a begnin reminder. It also tells you that had someone shown up with any cultural costume, no matter how respectful, some social justice warrior would melt in rage tears and make a loud histrionic scene. That's what they do. This is what creates the chilling effects they want. This is the method to defend their postmodern intersectionality racism.


 * They show you, right there, that they go straight up to eleven on the slightest "provocation". This is also knowable from virtually everywhere else where social justice warriors show up. Always the same. They come in, do this, and milk the reaction like trolls. This in turn causes that lots of people don't believe them anymore and then you have it that genuine people who have been wronged are not believed anymore either. That's truly bad. What makes this even more dastartdly, is that the postmodern SJW ideology isn't even coherent (it's also pseudo-science and racist). At the end of the day, you cannot use any costume that someone might see as "problematic" or you remain racial pure and only use those from your own culture. But then you will be accused of stereotyping. You can only let Jesus into your heart checked your privilege really and accept the postmodern intersectionality racism Aneris ✻ (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * cool story bro Kitsunelaine (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "''or as you do here wanted to do blackface, you are not just sounding like a Creationists ("you just want to sin") you are also making a total strawman."
 * oɹq ʎɹoʇs looɔ Kitsunelaine (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ...did you read the text of the original University's e-mail? Blackface/minstreling and its equivalents for other minorities was specifically its topic. Fuck, did you think it was all white keyboard warriors yelling at Christakis in that video?KrytenKoro (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Bible menitons sins. Rejecting the Bible does not mean that you want to sin. Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * クール ストーリー ブロ Kitsunelaine (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a transliteration into Japanese and not a translation (an analogous translation (hope it's the correct phrase or is it "rough translation"), not a literal one)? LAME!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the correct phonetic translation into Katakana, which is close enough for me. :3. However... すごい物語、兄さん Kitsunelaine (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Holey bollocks, this is a literal translation, even worse (reminds me, how they slaughter any language besides Japanese in anime).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "cool story bro" is a very english phrasing so i don't see the problem yo. アニキ、この物語はとても面白いです！Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

AQD's Objection on "Sarkeesian's sex/race segregated classes"
"Anita Sarkeesian supports gender/sex and racial segregation" -- taken from above.
 * "saw a study where segregated classes showed a positive effect on learning" &ne; "supports segregation" 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:48, 6 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * She tweets it's a good thing, which can be reasonably inferred from "positive effect" and tweeting it. You're nitpicking, don't you? Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >mfw you accuse someone else of nitpicking Kitsunelaine (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You seriously can't tell the difference between a moral claim and someone remembering studies where X was the case (instead of -X)? This might be worse than I thought. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:37, 7 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Kitsune, the preview button is your friend. Don't be afraid to use it. Tielec01 (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, still getting used to wiki-ing. Agh, damnit, now you've made me have to put an edit back in. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I should still say thanks, though. Cheers. Kitsunelaine (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A gracious response from a scholar and gentleman. Dank u wel meneer.
 * bro u 4got 2 tag what is dis nonsense Kitsunelaine (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You brute. Tielec01 (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why you love me. <3 Kitsunelaine (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Chomsky, the GamerGate critic
I am still amazed at the awful standards everywhere near topics where social justice warriors are deeply invested. I was just poking into a September version of "GamerGate" to understand how it changed, where Chomsky's name caught my eye. The article stated then (and who knows how long): "Anita Sarkeesian's producer and co-writer Jonathan McIntosh revealed that he was aware of Gamergate's hateful and conservative streak from its outset. He posted Tweets where he quoted or paraphrased Noam Chomsky and watched as Gamergaters criticized him for it" and that's the "source". Chomsky! The man who, as do I, hates postmodernist ideolgoues like Jonathan McIntosh and his social justice warrior gang. He "revealed", ahahahaha. And the source? A tweet where Jon simply asserts it. He tweeted it. We believe it. That settles it. Fantastic. It received 106 likes, apparently one of his most favourited tweets. What these statements are he "tested" remains a mystery. Of course Chomsky is the very opposite of Social Justice Warriors, even if the nitwits won't believe it, since everyone not like them is "right wing". Aneris ✻ (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe they just don't know of all the infights in the Left?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the truth! It's buuuuurns! Quick, flee! Flee to the comfort of Anita's Word! Anita must guide us to Nirvana through doublethink and lack of self-awareness!!! (inb4 DragonDragon comments two minutes after mine is posted showing off just how much of an obsessed stalker he is.) 65.78.150.19 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Relevant Chomsky Sarah (HH) 05:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A classic! ♥ Chomsky. Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Paris and SJWs
People often seem confused why I don't like SJWs. I'm in Northern Europe (not France). It's weekend 3am and the terror attacks keep me awake. I see how on Freethought Blogs, one gathering place of the SJWs in the atheist movement, they discuss the situation in the famous empathic fashion the SJWs claim for themselves.
 * Comment 1 is concerned with gun violence in the US: “only 100? What a low number! I’m pretty sure the U.S. has had more deaths from mass shootings alone this year.” (And I was apparently right; The Gun Violence Archive says 288 right now, with a month and a half to go.) ”
 * Comment 4 is concerned what the right wing will do with this: “And the non-stop right wing bullshit about this being ALL MOOSLEEMS and shit and I just can’t anymore.”
 * Comment 5, regular llewelly also concerned with the right wing (full quotation): “The Republicans, naturally, are leaping on this as a chance to sell more guns, and advocate more horrific policies for forcing Syrians to continue living in terror of ISIS. (Who may not be responsible … )”
 * Comment 6, Crip Dyke, occasional co-blogger feels conflicted about things “Terrorism shouldn’t have to be denounced”
 * Comment 10, Lynna OM brings up hatespeech against immigrants: “New immigrants, and second generation immigrants, still do not feel like they are part of France. Those populations have been subjected to hate crimes. The economy in Europe is not great. Young people have a hard time getting a job.”
 * Comment 12, Crip Dyke feels she must pre-emptively defend Lynna from looking horrible “I think what’s being articulated is that even if the murders are unjustifiable, the speech was hurtful, stupid, and unwise.”
 * Comment 16, regular Tony Queer Shoop is also concerned about muslim reputation, cites Comment 4. “Which really fucking sucks. Especially because the refugees are trying to escape death and destruction.”

Here are a a few tweets from SJWs. Yes, they are genuine, I've checked them.
 * Now people are desensitizing #BlackLivesMatter & #Mizzou for what's happening in Paris, have you no common decency?
 * Don't use tragedy in Paris to try and undermine the awful things that are happening in #Mizzou. Both of these events are terrible.
 * We can remember the tragedy in Paris and still remember #Mizzou. We are capable of multitasking. Both situations are equally messed up.

That's not even big time confirmation bias or nutpicking, as it's often claimed. I try falsification, and see how SJWs call each other out, which they always do with others, but never seen it. Even here, they make excuses when someone else writes horrible things. While the Mizzou tweets can probably be filed under nutcases, the majority of current pharyngula comments are simply as they are. And they don't surprise me, because even the death of cartoonists evoked a "horrible, but...". But as soon as someone criticizes their postmodern BS, they are up to eleven and attack.


 * "they discuss the situation in the famous empathic fashion the SJWs claim for themselves" And exploiting a tragedy for making snides at 'the SJWs' is better how? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:01, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * I'm not exploiting anything. I show how the situation is like. They're commenting on Paris, I'm commenting on the discourse. I know, second order is something SJWs are incapable of (also a recurring thing). And I do so because apologists, who are seriously as worse as YECs, have always excuses. So I'm not surprised to hear more excuses, and more SJW tactics (again, shifting the accusations around. Surefire SJW core tactic). Aneris ✻ (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no commentary here worthy of criticism, unless your criticism is an appeal to missing grief. Walker Walker Walker 03:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the last tweet is pretty blatantly wrong from an outcome-oriented perspective, I admit. 03:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure that first comment is partially sarcastic. 04:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And of course, the right wing is using this to agitate against refugees, too, who fled from the same people who caused this. Same all over again, everyone is using it for their agenda (but as we seen before, you can't make the point without being accused of doing the same). The reactions are as you'd expect. One side tries to use it for xenophobia and racism, the other tries to "counter" that with their own BS and loses perspective and proportion (racist fecal graffiti at a campus is not similar to 160+ dead, not even close). Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * https://xkcd.com/774/ Typhoon (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So are you pulling the fallacy of relative privation on the Mizzou students because an international tragedy unfolded at the same time and now they no longer should protest? A class act.—Ryulong (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✻ This is of course a well known phenomenon with SJWs, and can be somewhat annoying when they are in larger numbers (dogpiling) or have moderation powers. In essence, SJWs cannot receive information without corrupting it, so that once they make a reply, they create an alternative reality for themselves, which (in large numbers) lead to entire Bizarro Universe and large scale telephone games. The most famous one is the conviction in the US Secular Movement that "Elevatorgate" was due to "Dear Muslima", or people got angry because Ms Watson made an offhand remark that caused everyone losing their mind. A complete fabricated fantasy version. The so-called "skeptics" cannot even check the most basic information and correct it. That's what the SJW rot does to your brain. And it's one way how their comic book enemies are produced. Somewhat simple points made by an outgrouper transform into outrageous or evil commitments, which are then build upon over time.


 * ✻So here the argument was that you cannot equate being inconvenienced by a smearing on a toilet with a terroristic attack that killed 160. Simple. Intuitive. Everyone should be able to see it. Not so, SJWs. They transform this into something else: here, the bizarre demand that you have to drop other protests. The other option is their thought terminating clichés and borrowing from other contexts and believing that it just works, which we see with Typhoon's reply. Provided I agreed to the right wing propaganda, which I don't, then this would be used against me. In other words, you can only submit to their ideology, else they use their cheap slander and smear tactics and disingenious distortions against you. Sadly, that's known for years and SJWs are exactly like Creationists in their disingenious/imbecile style of argumentation. Thanks for the demonstration! Aneris ✻ (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the third tweet, maybe, if you're focusing on one incorrect wording in that tweet rather than what its responding to and the main ideas its communicating -- that the Mizzou situation is still important to fight for, even if other, worse tragedies are going on. That's the clear meaning of the first two tweets, and is the meaning of all of the third except where they mistakenly (very, very mistakenly, and they -should- be criticized on that!) claim that both situations are "equally" messed up.
 * So, are you criticizing the first two tweets? If so, yeah, you're engaging in the fallacy of relative privation. If not, then you should remove them as alleged examples of your "point".
 * "In other words, you can only submit to their ideology, else they use their cheap slander and smear tactics and disingenious distortions against you."
 * Come on, dude. Some self-awareness is in order. You're literally engaging in cheap slander and accusing the people commenting here of believing a strawman about Elevatorgate, etc. If you feel the need to call people out, please do it without checking all the boxes you're criticizing.
 * Also, no one's "confused about why [you] don't like SJWs". Most of them just think your reasons aren't, y'know, logically sound or rational.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Man! I hate when SJWs say stuff that I feel exploits the victims of a horrific terror attack to score political points against us! Now excuse me while I write a whole bunch of screeds where I exploit the victims of a horrific terror attack in order to score political points against SJWs!" Or in other words, hypocrite much Mr MRA? Jon91919 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✻ @KrytenKoro, I have mostly steered away from terrible films, but some people happen into that situation and sit through them. So you'll agree that this and Mizzou, "both of these events are terrible". As for the other tweet: "Now people are desensitizing "Elevatorgate" for what's happening to "Dear Muslima", have you no common decency?" Aneris ✻ (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure what argument you're trying to make, but...yeah, the existence of two bad things doesn't make the lesser bad thing a good or neutral thing. Both are problems to be solved, and it's irrational to say "we can't deal with X now, we have to deal with Y" unless dealing with X is actually preventing Y from being addressed.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✻ Jon91919, by your own logic you are exploiting "the victims of a horrific terror attack to score political points against me!". This is of course nonsense, and if you had read along, you knew that already. A discussion about a discussion about something else is 2nd order. Aneris ✻ (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Jon's argument is that it is self-devouring to criticize a position for pointing to a tragedy as an impetus for their platform. Pretty sure he doesn't think it's necessarily exploitation to say "how can we fix this", just that the apparent idea that doing so is necessarily exploitation is self-contradictory. It's a...third order discussion.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to get all technical, there is often only first and seconrd order, for at some point everyone comments about someone else's views on someone's elses views. In some fields you have tertiary literature, which are usualy overviews of the subject, and the many disputes that take place within it. Usually, you can comment on a situation, or on the discussion on the situation, which is then called "meta", as in "meta-discourse", or meta-analysis Aneris ✻ (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

How does it feel being on the inevitable wrong side of history?
For all your argumentative bollocks you've posited, it would really be better for all of us if you just admit that you and your cohorts are terrified because the years long campaign of your side to try and remove Anita Sarkeesian from the internet just keeps on fucking failing. She's partnered up with big businesses in Google and Intel, she's appeared in front of an audience of millions on The Colbert Report and been cheered loudly on that programme, and she's even gotten to testify in front of the United Nations, not to mention getting to do speeches all around the world to the many people who support what she has to say. Whereas what major organisations give a shit about you guys and any of the hate rhetoric you use? You're the most incompetent fucking set of so-called "critics" of her work that I've ever fucking seen. You can't get anything right, and all you've done is just make her more prominent in the world. Congratulations you fucking idiots. (slow clap) Jon91919 (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. GG has lifted a two-bit Youtuber up to an international Internet celebrity racking in the big bucks. How ironic. Streisand effect in action.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✻ I'm not sure what brings me the honour to have you on my page! Care to explain what you want? I find the discussion about sexism in video games actually good to have. But Sarkeesian's take is of course postmodernist rubbish with a ridiculous methodology supported by a proto-fascist movement. You can look up "history" above (CTRL+F). SJW, in their feverish minds detached from reality often believe they look good, but of course it becomes apparent with every drama what kind of racist, sexists bigots 2.0 they truly are, now even with a show trial. Oh, and wasn't Anita Sarkeesian & Zoe Quinns UN appearance ridiculed afterwards where she claimed it was violence when people disagree with her? Didn't the report contain numerous errors and was later regretted? I suggest a reality check. Aneris ✻ (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hilarious to hear from you about 'proto-fascists' while GG is in bed with Breitbart, attacking Yale students. Do you have a mirror at home? Because you're spewing more bullshit terminology (throwing around words like 'post-modernism' and going full 'NO, YOU ARE THE REAL RACIST/SEXITS') in your silly internet crusade than the SJWs you hate so much. Typhoon (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * CTRL+F Breitbart, mentioned above. And User:Aneris. Aneris ✻ (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahem, first of all: List_of_Gamergate_claims That covers your complaints about Anita's UN appearance I do believe. I'll only add that her role was simply to testify, but she did not have any role in actually writing the UN's report. Despite their "regret", this doesn't mean the UN's abandoning the plan to combat Cyber-Violence. Indeed, it appears that some updates are in the works: http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/publications/bb-wg-gender-report2015-highlights.pdf . And yeah, seconding Typhoon's accusing you of hypocrisy. You know Breitbart and Milo freely admit to using 8chan as a fucking source for their so-called "scoops"? You know, the one which has a board called Baphomet that just so happens to target for doxing and other harassment pretty much anyone who also happens to criticise GamerGate? The one that hypocritically goes after others for perceived sex abuse cases when it has ENTIRE FUCKING BOARDS dedicated to having pictures of children in explicitly sexual poses as well as anonymous people there salivating at how much they want to fuck kids? The side that actively relied on information from a confirmed terrorist when it came to smearing the @BlackLivesMatter activist Shaun King. Whereas what's Anita done exactly? Oh right, the oh-so-criminal offence of having her own YouTube video series where she analyses the art of video games from an academically recognised feminist perspective. The horror! The HORROR! Shit, her team has even explicitly said they do not want to ban video games, with Macintosh even saying on Twitter: "No-one wants to ban DOOM" not that makes a lick of difference to you conspiracy fuckwads. Just admit you're terrified because your campaign against her has backfired so spectacularly and your group amounts to little more than a fringe group in the low thousands and no credible media outlets give a fuck what you have to say. And yeah, you can be all "Oh! But I don't like Breitbart or 8chan either!" I don't give a fuck. If your side had any real integrity, you'd have formed an actual non-profit group with recognisable public figures and accountability so that you guys can stop the bullshit of "Oh, this act of hostility had nothing to GG it was totally 3rd party trolls!". Instead, you persist with your side's policy on remaining anonymous and showing next to zero signs of actual "ethics". Jon91919 (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * > Implying, that any kinda leaderless movement is unethical and that you can simply end the state of a leaderless movement being leaderless.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✻ Maybe you (Jon91919) believe using the LBJ Method makes you seem clever. It doesn't. I restate again, CTRL+F, I've nothing to do with Breitbart, or 8chan, either. I'm also against paleo-libertarianism (i.e. right wing Breitbart style). Since I'm perpetually on a show trial with you ideologues, I've explained this in length on my User:Aneris page. Maybe you think nobody notices your trickery (which is common among SJWs): so you use an elastic set called "GamerGate". Everyone critical of your Saint Sarkeesian and the other martyrs of Social Justice is, accordingly, a "GamerGater". Next, those "GamerGaters" are those people who are also doxers, or who also hang out on unmoderated forums, such as the chan boards. And guess who also uses unmoderated forums? Paedophiles. I'm in awe! This is Monty Python witch hunt logic, and I'm not being polemical. It is identical "logic". SJWs are that stupid. In a nutshell, SJWs are wanting individuals, often sexists, racists and paedophiles themselves (numerous examples are known) who found out that by dressing themselves in the cloak of "social justice" they are suddenly unassailable, seem morally superior and "on the right side of history". What's worse, where the SJWs need to construe a connection around five corners for their slanderous tactics, using Insane Troll Logic, to smear their opponents; their very own thought and opinion leaders are revealed to be paedophiles, white supremacists and their apologists. There were half a dozen other cases, recently also Sarkeesian Twitch TV mod, plus similar cases in the A/S movement (with the child rape cover up, support on FTB). Or recently there was also HannibalTheVictor13 sex offender chap, also notable SJW in the social justice warrior commuunity on YouTube. What a mile of a difference whether you make an arbitrary association chain with some label magic, or whether your own opinion leaders you support are revealed to be such dubious characters. Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna agree with Jon that you, specifically, are part of GG or associating with Nazis. But
 * The prominent talking heads for gamergate aren't just "on the same board" as Nazis. Many of them are literally espousing fascist talking points, or are full NeoNazis.
 * I'm not convinced you read that Medium piece, because while Sarah admits that she engaged in chan-style black humor as a kid, she absolutely did not admit to any kind of paedophilia, and what you are calling her "apologist" is someone saying that the alleged evidence for those claims is absent, not that it's "okay that Sarah did that". That's an extreme and rather unacceptable accusation to make without strong proof. And for fuck's sake, half of what you've posted to this site has been apologism for edgelord behavior, so don't start getting your handkerchief wrinkled over someone on the "other side" admitting they engaged in it too.
 * The accusations are not that Gamergate is guilty "because it associates with doxers and pedophiles". It's that Gamergate is guilty because you can go onto KiA and find thread after thread of them defending the doxing and pedophilia, cheering that it was performed, and attacking those who are trying to report it. Look at any of the conversations Gamergaters had about Foldablehuman, who was merely pointing at child porn, not accusing GG of being responsible for it.
 * You desperately need to examine what you are saying when you post about "SJWs" or "Gamergate", because while you may be on the money about some excesses of the progressive movement (Pharyngula, "doxing for justice", etc.), you frequently make poorly-evidenced accusations while displaying the exact same behavior you're deriding. You just spent a very long paragraph complaining about "guilt by association" by engaging in rampant guilt by association. Jon attacked quite a few strawmen by doing the association-guilt thing, no mistake, but Jesus tap-dancing Christ, you do yourself no favors by sinking past his level.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I probably went overboard with some of my criticisms, and if I did I'm sorry. However, don't pretend that you have not been engaging in dismissing arguments purely because they sound "SJW"-like as well as the fact that you cast "SJWs" as one big organised group. Spoiler warning: they're really not. Sure, there may be some groups that are formed out of so-called "SJWs", but they aren't part of some grand evil organization out to oppress you (which of course brings up the irony of you bringing up Monty Python), they are simply individuals who advocate for some stuff that you happen to disagree with and who stand opposed to a whole load of the fucking bullshit that your side seems to stand for, like for example the really toxic attitudes that some of Anita's so-called "critics" have against her, and their actual attempts to try and silence her, be it through conspiracy theories about her hoodwinking the IRS, doxing her, hacking her Kickstarter and YouTube accounts, sending bomb threats, and of course harassing her with many, many tweets calling her pretty much every female gender-specific name there is as well as sending her graphic porn and violence images. As for the stuff about FemFreq's Twitch.tv mod, there's several reasons why that campaign was utter bullshit:
 * The Ralph Retort piece on the matter cites that truly unbiased and not-at-all toilet of the internet source Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and the Retort piece engages in a fuckload of baseless "guilt by association" and "guilty until proven innocent" bullshit. If this was a court of law, it would be fucking laughed out of there.
 * The hypocrisy of Anita's critics criticizing ANYTHING to do with paedophilia when a huge bulk of them STILL refuse to disassociate with and/or condemn 8chan's practices in that area. Even without the pictures that Dan Olson highlighted back in December of last year, you've got all the comments by users explicitly saying how much they want to and like fucking kids. But no, no condemnation by her critics there!
 * The vagueness of the actual crime committed. Okay, so we know that the crime has something to do with "sexual solicitation" of some child who, judging by the description of the charge, was apparently 15 at the time. After doing some research, I found that the age of consent in Kansas (where Valis77 is based), is 16 years old. For all we know, the "victim" in this case could have lied about her age, which isn't exactly an uncommon trap that many men have ended up inadvertently falling into. In any case, while again Valis77 undisputably committed a criminal act, his type of "paedophilia" is quite considerably WAY further down that scale than the sorts of people who exploit children through stuff like trafficking or indeed through the kinds of stuff on 8chan's boards. It's like comparing self-defence killing to serial murder.
 * On that note, the crime was in 2001, when Valis77 would have been 23. We have been given no information about what the exact relationship between Valis77 and the victim was.
 * Obviously, with the crime having seen him convicted in 2001, it stands to reason that the guy has served time for his actions. Is it not the right of former prisoners to be allowed to try and live their lives in society after they've served their time? Plus, Anita's critics haven't given us any details about whether the guy is on or has ever been on something like a court-ordered rehabilitation program, which you might expect for a crime of that nature.
 * Your side has been able to show that Valis77 committed a crime in 2001 and got convicted for it. Fan-freaking-tastic, now what about SINCE? Has he criminally re-offended SINCE then? If your side can't show this, then your outrage doesn't mean diddly shit, since every former prisoner has the right to try and rehabilitate themselves into society, and they should not be slandered with any claims of crimes that they have not actually committed since leaving prison.
 * Finally, the whole outrage about him being a mod for a Twitch.tv chatlog. Pardon my potential ignorance here, but what the hell kind of "power" does that REALLY entail? You view a bunch of screen-names in a chatlog, and if any of them happen to start acting like total fuckwits and breaking the chatlog rules then you hit a ban button blocking them from the chat. Oh, the POWAH! The UNLIMITED POWAH! (/sarcasm). What next, can we expect Valis77's super-secret laser-death-ray on the moon to destroy the Earth?! Or maybe he'll relay secret orders to his army of Storm Troopers to execute Order 66 and kill all the Jedi?!
 * But yeah, your claims really do not stack up. Jon91919 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @KrytenKoro, No problem with bringing the evidence, let me know what you need to know, and maybe I can point you to a source. I won't however google for you. Since this is all uphill and against entrenched ideologues in the secular movement, there are hardly good blog posts and articles to point to (there are still sources and evidence of course) That's the effect when the SJWs were well-connected. But the wind is slowly changing directions, however. The main difference is that SJWs are exactly as seen here: their first response is slandering and trying to shut you down by poisoning the well. Then they'll try to use other meta-discourse tactics, like blocking or poison sources and names by declaring them toxic somehow. This follows from their postmodernist conviction that information is not indepdenent of speakers and which they use as a weapon all the time. That's already the beginning of a huge mountain of rubbish these people believe in. I'm labelling these people SJWs, because they walk like a duck, quack like a duck and look like a duck. None of them objected to the characterisation. However, it's not true that criticism of postmodernism is automatically right wing or gamergate (as they believe). They're doing the Hitler Ate Sugar fallacy ad nauseam. Example: there are different traditions on the Left in disagreement over many matters (and historically so), yet critique of a fellow on the left does not make someone right wing, just because right wingers also criticize left wingers. That's the said Insane Troll Logic again, which the SJWs likewise use very often. There's a reason why Shetterly's book on SJWs has the subtitle "Do not engage". Aneris ✻ (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You've gone from misrepresenting Anita's speech at the UN (which I corrected in detail in the relevant article I linked) to engaging in "guilt by association" and "guilty until proven innocent" tactics with whatever connection Anita and Valis77 have (where I also showed you were full of shit in the counter-points I raised). You've not answered either of these points, or for that matter the hypocrisy of criticizing Anita or any so-called "SJWs" for supposed traits that your side are actually exhibiting many times over. And for a large part, it relates back to what I said before: You're all just incredibly bitter and jealous because your campaign just keeps on failing and people in game development and the media actually care about what Anita has to say, whereas your side doesn't have any real credible support at all. I'll continue to let you weep those tears of inadequacy. Jon91919 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✻ You moved goalposts around, didn't you? What did I wrote about the UN report, you brought up, and what was false? Be specific. No goalpost moving. You expect me to address your SJW typical slander ("Hyperbolic comparisons ..."), which I won't do. Since your behavior is absolutely standard, including DARVO tactics, I already made a standard Othering section on my user page because this all well known. You champion a cause, I do not. You know: atheism isn't a religion and poking holes into Christianity isn't Satanism – except for the most pious believers. But SJWs see the world through their identity politics glasses and require that enemies are sorted into the categories, too. We know this, because it's always the same routine. Week after week, drama after drama, episode after episode. Even the "right side of history" claim (headline here) smells SJW. I watch this for two years now. This week? It's this autistic student journalist who was put onto a show trial at SkeptiCon, and accused of being "racist", despite that he was an ally of the cause. His fifteen twenty 75 minutes of fame were about being grilled by feverish witch hunters who even belittle his (obvious) autist social angst as "white tears" (video/reply/interview/Commentary). Typical. Down to the concepts and language. In other words, standard fare SJW racism. His crime was that he dared to mention freedom of speech – predictably an idea SJWs discard in favour of ideological “safe spaces”.  Whoever is (even mildly) critical of them is always the Other, and even when it's disagreement itself (violence! harassment!). Hence, the section on my page exist.


 * ✻ I also volleyed back your slander, exposed it as what it was and returned that on the contrary, it's a big lie, since SJW opinion leaders were frequently exposed as paedos and supremacists for which I brought examples. It's up to you whether you follow or support them, or whether you do not. Generally speaking, the "safe space" mentality plays a role in these things hence there is rarely criticism of peers, and when disputes somehow arise, they tend to rip the community apart. This, too, can be explained in essay-length. So the situation is not even remotely symmetrical. Other places are the polar opposite, and hence they'll prevail in the long run and why SJW safe spaces often look like a cult.


 * ✻ I don't keep lists, but I know there were half a dozen or so people, probably more SJW leaders with a paedo or supremacist past. It's really a common feature, and well in line with their newfound belief system. I've seen a quiz where quotes from SJW are juxtaposes with stormfront, which I found quite entertaining. The only give-away was the ridiculous faux-academese and the word "problematic" the SJWs use, and which stormfront people apparently haven't adopted (they should, you'd make a great team, since they are naturally also identity politics fanatics who also talk skin colour and human races all the time). Again, all consistent. SJWs even have words like "whitesplaining" which stems from the ideological belief that humans have special ways of knowing, lived experiences, and which is related to the older postmodernist ideas of radical social constructivism and cognitive relativism. Somewhere above, you have Sarkeesian telling us that sex and race segregation is good (conanitve function makes this an appeal). Again, no surprise. It would be difficult to find anyone of import who says or tweets these things. But by sheer happenstance Anita Sarkeesian has somehow coincidentially the same views as all the other SJW under the sun. Case in point, that movement or zeitgeist exists with its own jargon and very specific, unorthodox (anti-science) views and behaviors. This is a side you can join. Critics are not a side, because your identity politics is bollocks. Aneris ✻ (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Blah blah blah TL:DR Sermon "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed by these SJWs who are totally like the Nazis!" Jon91919 (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus, you really cannot engage in accusing so-called "SJWs" of "Other"ing the people they disagree with, when that's precisely what you have been doing throughout your big screeds where pretty much anything you disagree with you slap on the negative label (and it IS a negative label, because that's exactly the connotation you give it) of such ideology being "SJW" like.
 * I very clearly linked you to the section in the article from this site I linked which took apart the bullshit you spouted about Anita's appearance in front of the UN. Here it is again, in that section that I contributed to, it points out that, while admittedly poorly phrased on Sarkeesian's part, when you look at the examples of ways that her so-called "critics" have used to accuse her "lying" as the ways they've utilized for their "she sucks" narrative, it absolutely fucking constitutes harassment. You bleat about how these so-called "proto-fascists" are wanting to curb your "free speech", and yet when you actually look at the kinds of "free speech" that Sarkeesian, Quinn, and other feminists want to root out, we see that what they want to actually root out is stuff that basically constitutes hate speech and most certainly constitutes terrorism, especially since we have examples of how "Cyber-Harassment/Violence/Bullying" does in fact impact on the real world, and it's morally and intellectually right that people who engage in such hate speech and terrorism should face accountability for their actions. Your side is the one that actually wants to protect this hateful, terroristic "free speech" on the other hand, which as noted in the article says a hell of a lot more about your side than it does about the people who want to root that kind of "freeze peach" out.
 * Oh yeah, and lest I forget? Your side is the one that comes up with completely fucking idiotic arguments about "Why are they focusing on sexism in video games when women are being oppressed in the Middle East?!" It's bullshit for a number of reasons:
 * As noted in the article, it's the fallacy of relative privation. As human beings, we are capable of focusing on more than one problem at once, and since stuff like Cyber-Harassment and horrific sexist abuse in the gaming industry are very real and harmful things, it's perfectly reasonable to devote time and resources trying to solve those issues.
 * Even if we grant that argument, it's still massively hypocritical since Anita's critics are getting all worked up about someone who's making a YouTube video series and talking to audiences of people who want to see her (the very definition of the notion of a "first world problem") while, for instance, there are women who are not even allowed to go to school in certain Middle East countries. But curiously enough, that kind of standard that Anita's critics hold to her is one that they do not apply to themselves. Which leads us to...
 * The fact that Anita's critics, which are prominently filled with GamerGaters and MRAs, quite evidently don't give a shit about the Middle East or other areas where women are suffering horrific sexist treatment, and are ironically and hypocritically using them as a shield
 * So please, don't pretend that this is some noble quest of yours. Every charge you may wish to lay onto "SJWs"? You're guilty of them yourself, especially when you libel Sarah Nyberg (even though the accusations against her baseless judging from the visits to the police and a lawyer she's gotten who say exactly as such, and there's no evidence she ever actually did anything to any children) and Anita Sarkeesian through your "guilt by association" and "guilty until proven innocent" tactics (ignoring the extensive rebuttal I posted on your page that showed that the campaign against her was utter bollocks), all the while essentially giving a free pass to 8chan. I've still yet to see any condemnation by you of the very real shit that was going down in that place. As we see with a so-called "critic" of Anita's like yourself, we see that cherry-picking, hypocrisy, and lying are the norm for those kinds of people. Quelle surprise! Jon91919 (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Commercial Break
✻ There's this bloke here who comes to my talk page, openes a section called “How does it feel being on the inevitable wrong side of history?”; demand that I “just admit that [I] and [my] cohorts are terrified”; and that I wanted to “remove Anita Sarkeesian from the internet” because – he's being serious – I dared to disagree with the claims made on her article on its talk page designed for that purpose. Stop the internet! We have a situation here! Did you know that the talk page of RationalWiki has historical significance? Apparently it has. He accused me that I wanted to remove someone “from the internet” because I argue on the talk page on the RationalWiki! Let that sink in for a moment.

✻ So we have this unhinged fellow with a bunch of supporters emerge here, and I tell them that I regard the “discussion about sexism in video games” as “actually good to have”  and that regards “wrong side of history” that I believe that the Social Justice Warrior behaviours look proto-fascistic (meaning: likely won't look good in history). I say this because I don't find it normal to accuse people for having argments on talk pages, but that this otherwise eccentric behaviour is very typical for Social Justice Warriors and in accordance with their mad belief system. This is consistent. After all, Anita Sarkeesian, also part of the “social justice” movement, believes that disagreement was violence. Perhaps this attitude makes it understandable after all that her followers think they are on a historical mission and disagreement was siding with “confirmed terrorist” as user Jon91919 points out.

✻ When that is pointed out, they do what they always do: turn whatever was written into the next weapon. So we have a kind of faux symmetry going on, where it seems both sides were equal. But I have never accused people of extreme things for argueing on talk pages, and I explained early on that I have nothing to do with some side which is the feverish worldview they keep pushing on everything. Once again, critics aren't a side, but apologists are for they defend a set of claims or tenets. It is thus entirely fair to make statements about apologists and about their methods and tactics. This is the same whether they are Creationists or Social Justice Warriors. It could be that disputing postmodernist intersectionality identity politics became itself typical of other groups. But that's only the case because SJWs keep imposing their identity politics world-views onto the landscape. It is of course the case that when you disagreed with McCarthy that you were by default a communist, whether that was actually true or not – even if naturally communists opposed McCarthy, too.

✻ I already stated over and over again that I have nothing to do with Breitbart or chans (even though I sympathize for the most part with their Anons). That should be good enough. But you see: not for witchfinder SJWs as we know them. They must impose their categories because that's their arsenal of weapons they want to deploy. Once they capture someone with their elastic sets of labels, they can do some word magic and – presto – anyone is by Insane Troll Logic a supporter of terrorists, doxers or whatever is going on in some boards. And again, pointing out this observation is again turned into a weapon. This is a form of what's called “kafkatrapping”.

✻ Even when you ask them to “be specifc”, like what's wrong about my assertion that the UN report was seen with regret later, they can't process the information in an honest, straightforward way. This, too, is commonplace. Even when I was wrong about it – what exactly – causes this religious zeal? How is it important which exact phrase I use to describe this UN report? Again, it must be cranked up to eleven, sent over the cliff and made seem as if this was the Most Important Thing on the planet of historical significance. History has ended for a moment because the machines have stopped as SJWs explain to me where my wording was wrong.

✻ The best is actually the “guilty by association” part. Remember, that was their thing since day one. And here, and I described their behaviour as typical for SJWs. Which I believe is true. I wrote – repeatetly – that I have nothing to do with doxers and or chans and acutally argued in great length against doxing on the relevant article. Not that I have to prove anything.

✻ So did  Jon91919 really feel unfairly portrayed? That's the kicker. He doesn't. It's simply a game again. He actually DOES defend Sarah Nyberg, former fascist and paedophile. What I wrote about positive identification with their “team” again turned out to be true. If the situation WAS identical, he could simply say he disapproves and has nothing to do with these people. I actually gave him and everyone ample room to say they don't see themselves part of the “social justice” thing. But the situation is not symmetrical. Jon91919 can't help himself but must defend Sarah Nyberg, former fascist and paedophile, he wrote “You're guilty of them yourself, especially when you libel Sarah Nyberg”. Really? How so? Can anyone follow this reasoning? Some observers have noted the Orwellian nature of social justice: opposing paedophile and fascist individuals like Sarah Nyberg becomes supporting paedophile and fascist individuals.

✻ Besides, Sarah Nyberg has admitted to the charges as much as she couldn't deny. Of course, SJW bullies now made it so that we must take the accused by their word and whatever they say must be accepted uncritically, which is then even downplayed when it cannot be denied anymore. Authoritarians proper. The point is, such things aren't a matter of “sides”. Just because she also had to deal with trolls doesn't mean that her fascist and paedophile past is acceptabale, or that anyone who dares to criticize her is therefore one of those evil trolls. But that kind of thinking is just the logical conclusion of the Social Justice Warrior black & white ideology.

✻ My advice, have them demonstrate it themselves, and have people like Jon91919 defend paedophiles and former racists, point it out, as do I, and avoid their games where they turn everything into a weapon – even being against paedophile and facist apologists like Jon91919. Now you know what's coming next. And all because I dared to argue on a talk page about specific points. Get popcorn and brace yourself. Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's cut right to the chase, cause I'm getting a migraine from the weight of the stupid, already debunked bollocks in your above screed. Summarising your bullshit sermonizing about how evil "SJWs" are, and by extension how bad a person Anita Sarkeesian supposedly is. you seem to believe that she is out to censor games and to curb your freedom of speech. Now, please provide the exact quotes where Anita has advocated censoring games, and please explain what kind of "free speech" it is that you believe should be protected, and how that relates to Anita? Jon91919 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✻ I don't believe Anita Sarkeesian is attacking freedom of speech, but Social Justice Warriors do. I am also not concerned with her banning video games, and neither am I concerned about video games as a whole or what devs make of it. She and by extension her followers do however bring nerd culture back to the 1980, where these people were seen as greasy creeps. The mainstream assumes video game icons such as Mario, see Item and Loot shops and so forth. And the loser nerds are kicked back into the basement again. I'm past the age to worry about that, but I can sympathize that some people don't like this. To me, Sarkeesian's criticism is merely wrong and a postmodernist ideologue. As such she's a visible candidate that makes this ideology acceptable, which is terrible for it trivializes real grievances and has fascistic undercurrents (she has them too, see Entartete Kunst). I wrote enough about my views on the ideology, and it should be apparant that I find it unconscionable to let it go unchallenged. Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm concluding this on this talk page by pointing out that I've updated my main userpage with some detailed arguments about how what Anita has said gets misrepresented, as well as the chief problems I have with her critics. If you want to continue this, use my talk page. Jon91919 (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "No problem with bringing the evidence, let me know what you need to know, and maybe I can point you to a source. I won't however google for you."
 * Honestly? Since the defining traits of this whole cultural back-and-forth have been photoshops, conspiracy-style mining of past jokes or misphrasings as devious plans, or disingenuously selective nutpicking, I've no desire to humor what counts for "evidence" in this whole huge fight. Every time it gets examined, it turns out to be bullshit. The link you've put up several times as evidence for Sarah admitting to paedophilia says no such thing (she does talk about being part of a chatroom where they made up darkly, darkly black humor shock stories, "obvious farcical posturing", to "outdo each other", but, shit, I have (heavily conservative) friends who do the same damn thing in private for a laugh. It's vastly different from an admission that it was ever anything more than a bad joke.) If there's something like an actual police report, or you've got a perpetrator saying something terrible in what is obviously not a tongue-in-cheek manner (like wossname, Sam Biddle(?) talking about bringing bullies back), that would be worth checking into for such a serious accusation; for the accusation of people being apologists, I'd have to see long-time members of the community actually apologizing for that behavior, not saying the person didn't do it in the first place. I think it's silly to humor any kind of quote mining or slapdash doxing attempts, though.
 * Or, and this is my own personal desire, people stop focusing on slinging mud all the time, and focus on actually solving problems--ending harassment, ending the corporations' pimping of journalism, games or no, calling out doxing as harassment, etc. Focus less on celebrating each time something bad happens to your ideological opponents, and focus more on celebrating when good things happen for humanity (which can still be your opponents losing the political battle, but, like, commit to your principles is all I'm asking).KrytenKoro (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✻ I believe your points have been addressed in the comment under the “Commerical Break”. But let me help you with this. You are currently reading on my user talk page under a section called “How does it feel being on the inevitable wrong side of history?”, an accusation already, created by user Jon91919 who accuses me further – completely baseless – of trying to “remove Anita Sarkeesian from the internet” through harassment and more. His friends quickly joined in. What could possibly be the reason? Were it my articles on logical fallacies? Did my recent formulation of the “Chomsky Rule” upset them? Could it be that my proposal for “Evolution as Fact and Theory” somehow outraged them? Of course not. They are outraged because they are True Believers in the “social justice” ideology and aren't too fond that someone disagreed with them on Anita Sarkeesian's talk page.


 * ✻ I have not destroyed anyone's work, or unfairly injected anything into the article at all. What they do is of coure as expected. As Right Wing Authoritarians proper, they think and act in predictable ways. The most important thing is causing chilling effects through what Chomsky called “flak”. If they make it a pain in the ass to even argue on the talk page, they'll discourage from it, and thereby protect their ideological beliefs.


 * ✻ They are like Creationists, who always do the same things, and always try to pull the same stunts. It's a bit more sophisticated and leads you into postmodernist rhetorical games, but at the end of the day it's always the same schtick. It's mostly what is now sometimes called “Cry-Bully” behaviour, which you support. Since you attack me, too, and deny me the right to defend myself.


 * ✻ “Authoritarian” or “right wing authoritarian” is a technical term and not used nonchalantly by me. This is a set of personality traits (see right) that go together with certain beliefs and behaviours, which we commonly call authoritarian, like imposing rules or restricting freedoms for the “greater good” known to the wise authoritarian leaders. Authorities are also protected with fervour and can do no wrong (see also e.g. PZ Myers page). The ordinary Social Justice Warrior is thus part of a greater movement or “team” with individuals who act as authorities. Anita Sarkeesian is one of them, too.


 * ✻ This is also where Sarah “Butts” Nyberg comes in. She is also one with a name on “Team Social Justice”. When her paedophile and fascist past came out, it was of course denied. The other people were evil liars! When it could no longer be denied, Sarah Nyberg wrote this medium article where she admitted it was true, but of course reframed it as being an “edgelord” and carefully avoided to mention the more serious bits from the same package. You also see the DARVO tactics mentioned earlier. Everytime a SJW has to admit something you can bet on that they turn their statement into another weapon. This is even true for Anita Sarkeesian's stolen fanart episode.


 * ✻ But the problem for your Nyberg defense is two-fold: For one, you cannot accept selectively that something is true when it's part of a larger package, unless you claim the other things were somehow faked. Then you have to show that. All of it can be corroborated indepdently through archived pages. Another quick googling for you: example where one user in a forum is upset about Nyberg's views on paedophilia (seeing it as nothing wrong). Don't think I try to persuade you. I think you are a True Believer™ who is selectively denialist-level sceptical on one side, but accepts uncritically the other side. It's as extreme one sided just as your plea to me only to lay down the hatchet (comically so, asking me in a thread where I was accused).


 * ✻ Your second problem is that your conservative friends who make edgy humour probably don't make “references to Hitler, Nazism, fascism, or other taboo topics which are deliberately intended to shock or offend readers”, and again, we are already asked to believe Nyberg that such comments weren't meant seriously. Of course authoritarians lap up everything eagerly and uncritically to protect their leaders. One sidedness. I have no reason to do that. Further, Social Justice Warriors aren't your conservative friends. Social Justice Warriors are people who witch-hunt someone for wearing a false T-shirt; who character assassinate people for smallest slights when they believe they can score SJ points with it. They ruin careers for a wrong tweet. There's no way ever that anyone (else) would get away with “edgelord” style commentary. In fact, it's otherwise used to smear GamerGate through the tenuous connection that they have a board on a chan forum, i.e. having an “edgelord”  next door is already enough in these instance.


 * ✻ What you ask me is completely ridiculous and too far detached from reality. Be nice, and I'm too. Don't accuse me of being in league with the worst by using Insane Troll Logic, or I'll show that you ARE in league with the worst, since SJWs are an ideological side (you're a True Believer of your team, but probably not a SJW, you still defend their actions and claims). Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "but of course reframed it as being an “edgelord” and carefully avoided to mention the more serious bits from the same package."
 * For fuck's sake, it's gotdamn chan culture. Not only is the entire point (and the reason that GG attacks her) that she --repudiated-- that life, and so it's nonsensical to imply that her Social Justice leanings, or any support for her as a person, are due to secretly embracing pedophilia, but you can literally go onto almost any thread on reddit or chan or whatever and see people satirically treating this stuff as ok. It's fucking -stupid- to satirically treat edgelording as ok, as Sarah once did, because due to Poe's Law you could be unintentionally normalizing the behavior in the minds of people who don't realize it's all satire, but that's what "go forth and sin no more" is all about. "Oh shit, that was really stupid wasn't it? Okay, I won't do it anymore and will in fact speak out against it when I see it."
 * "In fact, it's otherwise used to smear GamerGate through the tenuous connection that they have a board on a chan forum, i.e. having an “edgelord” next door is already enough in these instance."
 * ...for the exact same reasons that Sarah says she regrets having ever engaged in that behavior. The edgelord behavior is also wrong, that doesn't mean it's a permanent stain on your soul if you grow out of it. I, personally, would be a lot more forgiving of Gamergate if they, just once, stood up for their alleged principles when it wasn't them on the short end of the stick. In fact, I've even gone onto Gamerghazi to yell at people for engaging in the exact same "our side right or wrong"-ism that devoured GG from the beginning. But, no, I'm not in lock-step with your opinion, so (as we see elsewhere in your post), clearly I'm on Team Shirtgate.
 * "our second problem is that your conservative friends who make edgy humour probably don't make “references to Hitler, Nazism, fascism, or other taboo topics which are deliberately intended to shock or offend readers”"
 * I think you don't know my gotdamn friends, and if I tell you they do a thing, you probably aren't an expert on their alleged not-doing-that-thingness. I've had friends make the exact "what's the best thing about twenty one-year-olds" joke, among others. I'm able to recognize the jokes are meant as a farce, even if I'm not willing to make the jokes myself.
 * "Don't accuse me of being in league with the worst by using Insane Troll Logic,"
 * This one's a funny accusation, because I have in fact defended you against what I saw as Ryulong or other's ad hominems, and have taken cares not to accuse you of anything you weren't doing in the very posts I replied to. But no, I don't agree with you on everything, so clearly I'm on team SJW. Fuck you.
 * "Social Justice Warriors are people who witch-hunt someone for wearing a false T-shirt; who character assassinate people for smallest slights when they believe they can score SJ points with it."
 * See? You're literally making up stereotypes that have nothing to do with anything that anyone actually said in the thread, and applying them to the people you're arguing with without any evidence that these editors actually engaged in the damn thing.
 * "What you ask me is completely ridiculous and too far detached from reality."
 * I'm asking you to stop going on a crusade about how much you hate the other editors on the wiki, and instead focus on how to fix all the problems you accuse your enemies of ignoring. Simultaneously, I'm asking you to fucking stay on topic in article discussions, instead of derailing each and every single one into "you disagree with me? Well you must be a fascist/communist/atheist/zealous SJW, the most horrid creature that ever lived and the reason why babies get cancer! I've kept copious notes on all the crimes that you, as an SJW, must surely have committed, and I'll bloviate about them now as justification for why my version of a Chomsky article is the only logically sound one!" It's the most ridiculous and blatant kind of ad hominem and strawman.
 * "It's mostly what is now sometimes called “Cry-Bully” behaviour, which you support. "
 * Seriously, what the fuck. I'm honestly shocked, I thought I was going a bit overboard with the "I've kept copious notes" bit, but you literally went and said it. Fuck, man. You're a caricature.
 * "I think you are a True Believer™ who is selectively denialist-level sceptical on one side, but accepts uncritically the other side."
 * I think you get off on crying wolf about ad hominems and guilt by association while constantly spewing them out against even the people who agree with you on the issues, just not the implementation. But, y'know, fuck you.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I argued on talk pages to see where everyone's at. I once believed this was a fair way to go, instead of waltzing in as a total newbie and changing things around. Now I've actually seen how editing goes with two articles that are slightly more contentious: Result, deletes, and complete distortions, even hiding facts and cases reported in the media, just so that it looks as if the no platforming is used only against "bad people". That's called propaganda. That pluralism also includes people you disagree with? Don't dream on that outrageously radical view, which RW obviously doesn't endorse. This far removed from SPOV, or a scientifc, empirical based outlook. The people who once started with that obviously are no longer around anymore. I am fine with that, I made an honest attempt and learned what I wanted to know. Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you done nailing yourself to a cross? Typhoon (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fallacies
Thanks for adding more! Please add logfal at the bottom of fallacy pages, and adding the fallacy to one of the subcategories of Category:Fallacies. 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk:Kafkatrapping 02:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Memoryholed Content

 * PacWalker deleted my "no platforming" article, despite that the technique has a name, a history, is often referred to as such and was well sourced. His redirect points to "right to audience" that contains completely different situations and subjects, is fallacious and where actual no platforming is merely an afterthought (at best).
 * PacWalker also memoryholed [the standard social justice warrior definition of prejudice plus power, which is applied to all "all axis of oppression" in the intersectionality belief system, including "racism". Pointing that out plainly is also a thoughcrime, according to Ryulong (another SJW) even though his idol Anita Sarkeesian subscribes to this view as well, in parallel to her definition of sexism as [[prejudice plus power]]. Both cases of memoryholing are just typical instances of the ideology as described.
 * PacWalker also tried to memoryhole this section.
 * http://www.amazon.de/ACME-Hundepfeife-211-schwarz-Pfeifenband/dp/B006UROLDE —Ryulong (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you remove Ryulong's post once more, I will block you. Eris (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sister Eris spammed my page with animated gifs, added a threat. Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Eris also removed three bullet points, added back in below:
 * Ryulóng posted 3 times the same (solely) link he posted already on top (dogwhislte item in a shop). This is itself a dogwhistle. My description was factual, sourced, and plainly described his social justice warrior ideology (the more unpleasant aspects of it, like no-platforming or the eccentric definition of prejudice plus power to which his idol Anita Sarkeesian adheres to). I'll remove further spamming like this from my talk page. We see here the typical SJW bully tactics. Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Four times the same link spam by Ryulóng. Correction. PacWalker did an undo. Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ryulóng posted the same link yet another time I missed. It's also above. That makes it four times then. Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Be thankful it's not pics of prolapsed anus' (ani?). Or something else that's distasteful if you are into that kind of thing. Tielec01 (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to have the expertise there, not my kind of thing. Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I don't like to brag... Tielec01 (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would never post anything like perhaps File:Sodomie masculine à l'aide d'un concombre inséré dans le rectum.jpg. I'm appalled that you would think that of me, Tielec01.—Ryulong (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What an unfortunate accident that gentleman had; he must have tripped up and fallen right onto his groceries. Tielec01 (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate when that happens when putting the groceries away naked.—Ryulong (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also that is clearly a courgette, not a cucumber. Damn Commons admins.—Ryulong (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Years ago my roommate worked in an ER, and she'd come home with all sorts of tales of the things people had put "up there." Cucumbers were, indeed, popular. One fellow had his, er, manhood stuck in the vacuum cleaner. ---Mona- (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"The Faction"
Would you explain to me where did you discovered this hilariously dehumanizing term for people that disagree with you? Also, where do I sign up for it? Typhoon (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally dehumanizing! "social justice warriorism", regressive left, the faction. Simply look around a little. Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, Google shows “regressive left” being used a lot by Maajid Nawaz, which is pretty much all I need to knwo to also know it's bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And Jerry Coyne, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Peter Boghossian ... Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bill Maher and, to an extent, Richard Dawkins, are no more credible than Nawaz. In other words, the universe of approving users would strongly suggest the concept is bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm more interested in "The Faction". I still don't know how to sign up for them. Do they give out free jackboots? Typhoon (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I too would like to sign up for any faction that oppresses you by not having shitty views about things. Please provide pamphlets and membership applications.  Thanks in advance!  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This whole situation is looking like User:Parogar all over again... Queexchthonic murmurings 16:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Can you make a list of what kind group I allegedly belong so I can work through the list one by one. Maybe when I take one each day, I'm done by the end of 2017. The Othering is old as dirt, and yet SJWs can't help but use it all the time as if this was your Maru Syndrome (but cry bloody murder when used back). Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You have it backwards. We want to be part of the secretive group that's apparently oppressing you.  Sounds like they'd make good hummus.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok fine, I tell you. Which division you want to be? For the paedobear division, you have to ask Sarah "Butts" Nyberg who introduces you, if you are the right age, that is. If you like the other division, you can go here for more information. Test your knowledge in dogma with the humorous quiz guide called "Faction or Not?" so you know the subtle differences in terminology. You can also go peruse again the checklist in the collapsed box to brush up on the basics again. I hope that's useful! I am always trying to be helpful. Cheers. Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The police have already went through the logs and concluded that no crime was committed (no surprise, as this was blown out of proportion by GGers who got mad about 8chan being de-listed by Google for containing child porn), so I'd advise you to cease with the libel before you get banned. Also, that subreddit you linked mentions SJW's instead of 'the Faction'. Typhoon (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey no dogwhistle here, they are sleeping! And you talk nonsense again, this individual admitted to it. How often do I have to link to her own article? Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll have to link to it as often as possible until you yourself actually bother to read and understand it. Particularly this part you constantly and intentionally ignore:

It was clear to almost everyone that what was happening to me was the result of a malicious, hypocritical harassment engine. Obvious farcical posturing was spun as damning confessions of federal crimes. Things I pasted into a chat to mock were taken to be things I actually said. Outlandish lies I told nearly ten years ago to get a rise out of people (like the straight-faced statement that my computer was “seized by police”) were taken at face value despite being obviously and entirely unsupported by reality — it never happened, and it’s easily verifiable that it never did. Such facts would be easily discoverable by real journalists, but as it turns out, Breitbart is more interested in the politically motivated destruction of lives than it is in anything resembling journalism. If it puts anyone at ease, I retained a lawyer and proactively contacted the police. They saw right through the avalanche of bad faith reports, and under independent scrutiny, have stated they have no reason to believe any crime ever took place. All of this, no doubt, must come as dire news to the chorus of voices openly cheering for and pledging to organize my prison rape or murder. This was never about the law, and never about justice; if it was, I never would have had to worry. It has been, from the start, just another harassment campaign. Of course, you still engage in spinning this as an admission of crimes. Enough with the libel, Aneris. Typhoon (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no libel here, unless he comes right out and says "X is a pedophile." But, it is accurate to say that "at one time X claimed to be a pedophile." That's not actionable libel. We went all thru this last night re: the List of Gamergate claims article.---Mona- (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a stretch to call trolling to be 'claim'. She also 'claimed' that the police took her computer. Bottom line is that this is being blown out of proportion by Gamergators who are mad at 8chan being exposed as CP central. Typhoon (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✻ A paedophile isn't the same as a sex offender. I have not claimed she was a sex offender. The sex offender was in the YouTube Social Justice Warrior community. That's another person. Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * GGers claimed it, as can be seen from all the screencaps in her medium article. They launched a harassment campaign by blowing this out of proportion and you are also helping it by maliciously spreading lies about her by calling her a pedophile when everyone, even the police and her lawyer saw that this shit was a manufactured controversy created by digging over many years old log of edgy teenage behavior that almost everyone goes through. The difference is that Sarah has shed this, while GG continues to wallow in all the CP at 8chan. Typhoon (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing in favor of focusing a great deal on the woman's younger, heinous statements. Who would want all the shit they said when they were 20 being wrapped around their neck much later, when they are different people? Nevertheless, she did say the things in the old chat logs, and to accurately quote those is not libel. (I tend to think it should be included, possibly as a footnote, along with the context she has given about where she was then in her life.)---Mona- (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your (Typhoon, or someone else here, sorry if I mix up names) logic is like this: a teen is upset with the SJW in games and tweets to gamergate. Who also tweets to the hashtag? People who post on some chan. Who also posts on some chan? Doxers and paedos. Therefore, crude monty python witch-hunter logic: the teen must be a paedo and doxer! Aha! This is what you (or someone else here, can't rememer who said what) keep pushing. Everyone's equal as the most extreme case for as much as tweeting to a hashtag, or reading the one or two articles that have a different view on the matters. But now there is this Sarah Butts person, who admitted to "edgelord" posting, aka Nazi, fascist shock posts and admitted these FFShrine is her stuff (aka the paedo statements). But you find this totally unfair that she doesn't get away with this. How come? I try to wrap my mind around that. SJWs are absolutely the most merciless, most brutal bunch that brutally abuse and character assassinate everyone. But someone of your own team is found out to be a nazi poster (at the very very least), not the first one, I might add, and it's totes fine? That's just bizarre. I have no problem whatsoever to point out that Milo is a troll with a twisted political ideology (which is almost as inane as SJWism). I found him entertaining in the interview with Joe Rogan, but cannot take him seriously. My curse is, and I admit that, that I know too much SJW shenanigans. I've seen too many of them pants down, lying straight face through their teeth to a point where I don't believe anything and if they claim they had orange juice for breakfast. (btw Mona, good comment on the chomsky rule, I haven't written the commentary beneath, but took it over as part of the merge, I only wrote the rule part; also there is no Sarah Butts article, I don't intent to make one, she is just very important for Typhoon because of this heavily polarized situation here giving in to reason looks like defeat to trolls. My advice would be to take a step back altogether.) Aneris ✻ (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the logic. The logic is that FoldableHuman published an expose on the child porn at 8chan, and the gamergate community attacked him for it, while simultaneously defending 8chan across their bandwidth. KiA had many, many threads about how FoldableHuman was a monster while 8chan was justified. That's what the Gamergate article actually says. If you're reading it as a claim that Gamergate actually engages in child porn, you should probably raise that as a concern on the talk page and suggest a different way to phrase the sentence. But you are seriously engaging a strawman here.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong & PacWalker & Eris (aka Coop thing)

 * Several individuals hate it that I don't like social justice warriors, and that I have committed the capital crime of arguing on Sarkeesian's talk page. Talk page!
 * PacWalker, who has cooped me himself before, has deleted a section on the social justice warrior definition of racism, which is prejudice plus power which is applied to all "axis of oppresion" in the SJW typical intersectionality belief system, including racism, where it was missing. I had added this in neutral and descriptive language in the racism article. I believe it's completely accurate and could also bring further sources. But since a general article exists about this definition, I see no reason why it would be controversial to add the specific instance where it belongs.
 * PacWalker then also deleted a full new article I wrote on no platforming, which is a specific thing and has nothing to do with his redirect (which is about tv and radio show appearancs). Here, too my article was fully sourced with "good" sources like NYT, Grauniad, WEIT etc. Yet again, because it shines some light on the SJW bully tactics, I assume, he wanted it gone as well. Just like before (this is how RW can maintain SJW was merely a snarl word, when every documentation is instantly destroyed).
 * Ryulong, in response to my additions and articles, then spammed my user page with a link to some dog whistle shop item (that was his totally clever way of saying "dogwhistle"), without apparent irony, since spamming "dogwhistle" is itself a code. What Ryulong implies can only be understood by SJWs, it seems. Ryulong is heavily involved in the Sarkeesian article, so that's the reason there. Keep in mind that I only brought arguments (even if dumb ones) and transcripts on the talk page, which was heavily criticized ny him and others, and caused major flak on me.
 * Ryulong pasted his dogwhistle weblink several times into my talk page, like four or five times, I left one instance, but removed the other instances (with undo)
 * PacWalker then destroyed my section where I keep notes of their bully tactics. Later he reverted back more instances of Ryulong spam link. So I actually don't know often
 * Then, a new account, conspicously named "Eris" (which is as you'll the counterpart to my nickname) spammed gif images all over my page, and removed parts of my documentation.
 * I cleaned the mess up, and added this action of course to my notes as well.
 * Another user joined the shitposting.
 * Eris again vandalized my talk page with yet another round of gifs. I leave it as it is.
 * Ryulong reverted edits again, this time the eris spam.

I know that criticism of the postmodernist intersectionality identity politics belief system, called "social justice warriorism", regressive left, the faction etcetera seems to be a no-go on the Rational Wiki for some bizarre reason not rationally explainable. I actually have no problem with this. I have a problem with dishonesty and false claims. However at this point I simply don't know what's going on, whether only a small vocal bully gang is simply faking mobocracy by some easy coordination, or whether this is really the general direction of everything. Hence, I bring this to your attention, whoever else exists (I only seem to see the same gang all the time). Should this be the general direction, then simply say so, instead of pretending you were critical of authoritarians or that NPOV means a scientific outlook, when this is simply not true. I can live with that and would then simply leave all the ideology articles of the SJ alone altogether. However, I don't see why I have to put up with bullying and other users coming to my talk page and then berate me for defending myself. Aneris ✻ (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody has described your idiocy as deserving of capital punishment.
 * I have never cooped you. I undid your edit because it failed to consider vast chunks of the world: see edit summary.
 * Right to an audience, the exact bullshit your farticle claimed, was already covered better elsewhere, ergo redirection.
 * That was not spam; that was the natural response to your moronic rants.
 * Again, note edit summary: if Ryulong's (far better reasoned) response was spam, so too must have been your screed. (the point: neither was spam per se. Point missed, it seems)
 * Actually, all that was removed was that which you'd placed over Ryulong's post, so you're equally to blame, except for the gifs, which were at least halfway amusing.
 * Yes.
 * That happened when you joined RW.
 * Those weren't gifs, and that time was far less amusing.
 * Okay.
 * Further questions? 09:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Several individuals hate it that I don't like social justice warriors" It's more the case that the fact that you use that term unironically proves that you're something of a nutbar when it comes to that area. Nutbars tend to get short shrift here. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. Anytime a person unironically uses that incredibly lazy and reductionist term, everything that follows is more or less unworthy of consideration (regardless of what side they are on).Petey Plane (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not a big fan of "deleting" articles by replacing the content with a redirect, and should be an AfD IMHO. I don't see why we can't have a page on it btw (although I would say it should be named ) would be good, IMHO. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Queex, your denial is noted. What do you say to the sources I gave for the SJW phenomenon (which can be extensively described down to rejection of evo psych [with conflicts between Coyne/Pinker vs Myers/Watson]). Do you believe the whole safe spacer intersectionality thing is merely a figment of everybody's imagination? If not, what term do you use, and where's the article that describes this ideology in a good way? Aneris ✻ (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * SJW has become a general-purpose bogeyman for people unable to deal with social progress. What was once reserved for the keyboard warriors of tumblr is now applied to anyone who shows the resistance to discredited neoreactionary tropes or intimates that the status quo is not good enough. That there still are those keyboard warriors with impractical ideas of how to improve the world does not mean that SJW has any validity when it means, in essence, 'someone with opinions I don't like'. EvoPsych is not  a  field without problems, and I've never seen Myers criticise a part of it that wasn't transparently bunk. He even says himself that as a field it's not without validity, it's just badly performed regrettably often. You can't even avoid creating a strawman in your comment above, characterising 'rejection of evopsych' as an SJW trait when, really criticism of bad evopsych is the realm of science bloggers. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would never use the term "SJW" myself because it's a very "loaded" term, but some of these SJ people are to social justice what PETA is to animal welfare. And in general, there is plenty of tunnel vision and "us-vs-them" thinking on both sides. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "but some of these SJ people are to social justice what PETA is to animal welfare." Yes, and I don't have any problem with a section about these nuts and cultural Stalinists. But not their own article; just a single, confined section within the SJW article that otherwise explains it's overhlwemingly bullsit use as snarl world.---Mona- (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Who sysoped this shit? Hipocrite (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what? Fixed. I don't want any of us to have to do all the clean up if they have a meltdown any time soon. Queexchthonic murmurings
 * There have been discussions on several talk pages about including a section on what issues some reasonable people (gators usually do not meet that criterion) have with SJWs of the more extreme variety. Somewhere I'd said that would be fine with me. I don't know enough about Aneris to know whether s/he is fit to write section like that, but eventually there probably should be something like it. And as to his/her specific laments, I'm strongly disinclined to believe that PacWalker has taken unreasonable action and have certainly see nothing here that would persuade me otherwise.---Mona- (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there any "there" here? - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the lead is "Some people don't like my opinions, how unfair" is a good indicator that no, there isn't. The thesis of a coop case really needs to be "abuse of tools available to user"(be they editing powers, sysop powers, mod powers)  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, given that I was myself cooped for a simple discussion on a talk page, I had no other yardstick and found vandalizing my pages with images, and reverting my own additions worse. Secondly, I explained with the bulletpoints how it came to be. That is all. I also have no problem when nothing was done at all, since the situation ended after the people had their round of fun. But keep mudslinging, maybe something works at some point. The cozy dogpiling is however quite fun, and I see you enjoy your power-tripping. Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is was this a coop case?
This precisely the sort of thing that should be worked out on the SJW talk page, amirite?---Mona- (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask Aneris. He brought it here. Typhoon (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time a few people were spamming my talk page with images and added link spam (same/similar link posted several times across comments), also undid my page protection and added more shitposting. Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think they were members of 'The Faction'? Typhoon (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) I think the problem here is some of the blowback that Aneris has been receiving, which he deems unfair... I haven't really followed up on all of the discussions, but judging on the poohah over No platforming I think it's perhaps fair to say that at least not all of it is completely deserved... Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should be moved, but not sure to where. This isn't a coop case. Whoever spammed Aneris's page with gifs should be told to stop it, and if they do it again get a half hour block or something. But this just isn't a matter of de-mopping or banning anyone that I can see.---Mona- (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection. I didn't know if it would continue then. I was myself cooped for arguing on a talk page before, so didn't know how your standards were (you have none). Basically I only lost time, people could accuse me of all sorts of things, remove some rights (I don't care about), and then complain about me when I have the temerity to argue back. That sums it up. Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What other accounts are you using here? Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The rule against removing stuff from one's talk page is arguably a terrible one, and I've only ever, in the past five years, seen it used to harass the person whose talk page is getting spammed with shit. But this still isn't a coop case - David Gerard (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A sandbox suggestion
So I was doing some reading of the coop and came up with an idea that might interest you. You were talking about documenting/noting down various things you didn't like on your talk page but then other people would come and alter your talk page in ways you didn't want (pls note I make no claims about wether this was or wasn't happening, I have't looked at it to see). So because talk pages are sort of community property you were unable to undo the alterations without causing trouble. So this is my idea; you can put your notes into your personal sandbox (like this one that I have abandoned) I think sandboxes can be kept however you want so no one will mess with what ever you put there (I could be wrong about that). Just a thought. SolPyre (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestions. I could make a sandbox one, too. I have started something like that with an article collection (which was also immediately edited by a usual suspect). Let's see how it goes. :) Thanks! Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing
Log entry 20195415. Minutes later. User Mona objects to that I add collapses around the giant walls of texts and reverted it, calls it "ridiculous". I call it "kafkaesque". Have observed collapse boxes numerous times. I feel she should keep doing these bizarre things. Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an abuse of the collapse feature. What if everybody did that? If you feel your page is too long why not archive the top half?---Mona- (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Chill Mona. Collapsing things that you find tedious and won't respond to is sometimes okay.  We all know Aneris is a bit tendentious, and collapsing a couple sections won't deceive anyone.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But the page was littered with collapses. Way, way too many. The thing to do is archive, no?---Mona- (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. All must convert to the love of LiquidThreads. 104.5.9.13 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Enough
Stop inserting your stupid boogeyman you call "SJWs" into every article you touch. Typhoon (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? Where did I do this? Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just returned the Racism page to a previously more readable and concise state. Before that you scribbled all over it first by inserting your pet issue that is the "SJW" movement and then finished it by vomiting dictionary links all over it. Typhoon (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote nowhere about "SJWs", so you lied again. I expanded the definitions there, brought the standsard ones, and expanded this one listed there: "Racism requires prejudice plus power, and thus racial minorities cannot be racist". I even took the exact wording. You produce anti-knowledge. First, you obscure that there is a standard common definition of racism which every child knows. Then you downplay or hide the other different definitions, including this "prejudice plus power" one, while also muddling that it is systematically different from the ones listed afterwards the keyword is "Racism includes", i.e. additional parameters, instead of "Racism requires". Your "reason" is BS, and I could test it out by removing your "problem" and add the section in a plain way without bothering with the list format (which I found). You would edit that too, and I know this, because you did this several times now. So, why are you doing it? Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From your summary when you first edited the page: "added the social justice usage of racism, which is now quite common!". It's obvious which group you meant by that. Typhoon (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So you lied then. What is your problem then? Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At times like this I wish I believed in hell. The one I'd devise for you and Ryulong is that you be forced to spend eternity locked in a room together with no capacity to stop hearing and seeing each other, and with nothing to do but argue in an Internet forum used by only the two of you.---Mona- (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)