User talk:Chrimony

AgingHippie (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand that you're wasting everyone's time?
Not an insincere question, as sarcastic as it may sound. Do you get that you're just concern trolling, and not putting forth any honest arguments that challenge things on a rational basis? That it produces nothing, neither for whatever content aims you might have, nor any of the rest of us?

Believe me when I say, I understand arguing for argument's sake, but that doesn't really appear to be your goal. Ikanreed (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you understand I completely reject your assessment of my motives or arguments? Would it surprise you that I think the ones who are not putting forth honest arguments are people such as yourself? Also, your use of "concern troll" is misapplied. I have no "concern" for RationalWiki other than it's fundamental premise is a lie. I am not an ally, nor do I pretend to be one. It can't be fixed by changing it to be more rational, because it fundamentally is an ideologically and politically-driven site. It could, however, be more honest as to what it really is, but that would require a name change, so I don't see that happening. My intent is to point out the bullshit where I see it, that is all. Chrimony (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And if your claims of "just pointing out bullshit" were even remotely true, that's a relatively reasonable position to take. But they aren't and coupling that lie with accusations of lying doesn't do you any credit.  You freely spout hateful, flagrantly untrue and ill-informed bigoted bullshit quite regularly, and have no compunction about making those statements with a dishonest intent to effect change on the article for a slanted perspective.  You have no attachment to truth, or common sense, or skepticism, and pretending it doesn't get you anywhere.
 * How about you answer the question again, and this time, not lie to me. Ikanreed (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's start with the first link. What was "flagrantly untrue" in it? Chrimony (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The allegations against Wu are by definition, baseless slander. Regurgitated rumors that impugn reputation and are completely unsubstantiated.  That's a pretty hefty class of bullshit, pal.  Ikanreed (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh huh, "baseless slander" that links to a Tweet from Wu -- in other words, factual evidence, and also links to documented evidence taken from videos shortly after she was forced to "flee" her home. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Chrimony (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, what you posted were some MS paint circles around random blotches, in what can only be called "Complete 8chanesque conspiratorial nutter syndrome". Are you really that dumb?  Do you really think that constitutes fucking "evidence"?  Like, honestly, in a "calling bullshit where I see it", do you think mspaint scribbles around blotches on walls constitutes any class of evidence?  Or did you regurgitate unsubstantiated claims?  Ikanreed (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, you completely ignored the factual evidence of the Tweet from Brianna herself, so any claim of "completely unsubstantiated" is absurd on your part. Second, dismissing the evidence taken from the videos using Ryulong's childish description doesn't discount the evidence. Again, your "completely unsubstantiated" claim is absurd. So please stop lying when accusing me of lying. Or don't, I don't care, it just makes you look bad. Chrimony (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're msessed up in the head. You made an unfounded accusation of her lying, whatever else is true about what she says about her presence at a public event(different from a private residence) is completely aside from the point that you committed active slander.  Don't misdirect here.  You specifically said she lied, as part of baseless rumor.  That's hella not "calling bullshit where you see it".  You need to accept that you were totally in the wrong about that, and deflections to other considerations are irrelevant.  An honest person accepts when they make untruthful statements.  I don't care about ryulong.  I don't care about accusing you of lying(not the damned terminology I used).  You need to accept that you did this.  If you can't do that, any statements you make about "honesty" are themselves dishonest.


 * The prevailing trend here is that you accuse literally anyone who disagrees(Wu, rationalwiki, me, literally everyone) with you of lying(because you imagine it helps your case, it doesn't). And that makes you incapable of contributing honestly.  Ikanreed (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One of us is messed up in the head, that's for sure. You said, "completely unsubstantiated", yet my position is that somebody afraid for their life who was forced to "flee" their home wouldn't go out in public to a *pre-scheduled* event, and neither would they publicly tweet that information either. My position also is that somebody forced to "flee" their home wouldn't be found at said home giving several interviews shortly afterwards, and that the evidence clearly shows she was at the home -- to anybody not dismissing it thoughtlessly and childishly. My position is that a skeptical (take a drink) person would find this evidence at odds with the hyped description given in the media and by Brianna herself. But you want to sweep all this under the rug and accuse me of slander. Chrimony (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your position that somebody who is afraid for their life and who was forced flee from their home wouldn't go out in public to a pre-scheduled event and would not publicly tweet that information is frankly wrong. That is your opinion; it does not meet "reasonable person" doctrine. I would perfectly expect a public figure like Brianna Wu to state where would they would be at during a public event crawling with security. Doubt she has that security at home and police are often 10-15 minutes away; enough time for a Baphomet Rape-Murder Squad to do the dirty and get away clean. No, I find your position doesn't hold water; I would do the exact same thing Wu did if the circumstances would happen to me. Also, I'd be home giving interviews only after she had security around watching - just as she did.
 * If that's all you got, son, you ain't got nothin'. --Castaigne (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all in your biased opinion. In my biased opinion, she's not being "forced to flee" when she's leaving for a scheduled event anyways, and you act like the security around a comic con is an impenetrable wall. If some nutter wanted to kill her there, she would be dead. If I "fled my home" because some unknown nutter wanted to kill me, I sure as hell wouldn't be broadcasting my location. I would be in hiding. And that's only half the story, as she was giving interviews from her home shortly after the con -- one of which was on a webcam with no crew. Also, I've never heard of "security" being around when these interviews were done -- where's your source? So "forced to flee her home" or bullshit opportunist? Of course you and your ilk will bend over backwards to make excuses, but other people not blinded by ideology and even a little bit skeptical would find this suspicious (in my biased opinion, of course). Chrimony (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) All in my biased opinion? No, I'm using the "reasonable person" legal standard - go, look it up before you bother to reply - based on several cases involving stalking. I am unsurprised that you are unaware of this legal standard and its application in the USA.
 * 2) No, my experience with cons states she would not have been killed, due to not only security being present, but large crowds of people. Always safer in large crowds in public. And I know for a fact that I have better knowledge of security at that con than you do.
 * 3) What you say you should do, by the way? Is exactly what the authorities do not recommend. Check it out. The FBI will be happy to answer all questions you have on the subject.
 * 4) Sources? There are these things called "Google" and "news aggregators" and "Boolean search patterns" that can reveal so much.
 * 5) My "ilk"? That cracks me the fuck up, broheim. You have me confused for an SJW; allow me to correct that for you. I was gaming pen-and-paper before you were born, pally, and by the time you were in elementary school with your Pokemons I already had 20 years of gaming under my belt. All you are is a younger version of a cat-piss man and instead of throwing D20s for THAC0, you've got a game controller in your hand. From all I've seen of so-called "Gamer"gators, y'all ain't nothing different than the guys who wrote FATAL.
 * Here are some unpleasant truths for you. There's no issue about ethics in game journalism because there up never has been ethics in game journalism. It didn't even exist in the early 1980s in the Atari days, when you weren't even born. Game journalism has always been a shill of the game industry. Without being a shill, there would be no game journalism, only marketing departments. OH WAIT. There's no difference!. Also, there is no such thing as cultural Marxism. It's a conspiracy theory created by anti-Semites and white supremacists decades ago. Anything else you need to be clued up on? --Castaigne (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Further edit: you really are a fan of videos from the American Enterprise Institute? Well, no accounting for taste. And while I'm at it, when'd you fall for the evo psych woo? I'm referring to your statement on the Gamergate talk page, the one that says "On the other hand, a little common sense would tell you that men are biologically different than women, that testosterone plays a key role, and that men are more interested in violent games because that reflects real life, where men are more interested in guns, the military, and violence in general (and also are far more responsible for violent crime than women)." Was it Roosh? Paul Elam? Maybe even MGTOW? --Castaigne (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1,3,4: I'm not doing your research for you. Your claims, you back them up. 2: Wow, you know for a fact! That's amazing, because for all you know I provided security at the con. And I love the reference to large crowds -- yeah, much less likely if the killer wants to get away. Doesn't help you when the threat is from an unknown nutter that might not care about getting caught. 5: You're a White Knight. That you've done pen-and-paper gaming only strengthens the case for that.
 * Ethics in games journalism is like ethics in politics or any other corruptible field. There's a mix of ethics and corruption. If you want to ignore all corruption that's your prerogative, but I'm not going to follow your lead.
 * What videos I've watched or haven't: You've crossed a line by referring to outside RationalWiki activities. Why can't you guys follow your own policies that you prosecute so stringently against people you don't like?
 * Men are biologically different than women: Live in denial if you want. Men are the warrior caste in every society on Earth. But I guess it's all culture and has nothing to do with biology. Chrimony (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. You're back.
 * 1, 3, 4) My claims are easily verifiable by Googling or contacting the appropriate institutions in question. And before you deride that as a cop-out to an argument, please be advised that if my boss at work asked me to do this, I would require a $50/hr with a 4 hour minimum payment, all paid in advance. So unless you're going to pony up $200 cash - and I'm dead serious - don't ask me to educate you. Really, you can verify all of this in 30 minutes and it's basic research techniques that every high school-educate person should know. Please do not cause me to have a lower opinion of you than I already do.
 * 2) Yes, I do know. No, you have likely not worked security at a con the size of DragonCon or ComicCon or you would know better. Yes, large crowds are recommended - first advice of the authorities if you are being stalked, get amongst well-populated public areas. Seriously, this is 101 police technique stuff. And last I checked, Gators aren't suicide jihadis willing to die for the cause. It's part of why I despise them; they lack the courage of their convictions.
 * 5a) Now, that's a laugh. Computer gaming - and yes, I've played computer/video games since the 1980s too - would not exist today without P&P gaming.
 * 5b) I'm far from being a White Knight. That's just hilarious; I'm more or less the antithesis of what white knight is. You don't know me at all, do you, son?
 * 6) Warrior caste? Oh, you've got to be shitting me. That is just plain fucking dumb, to bring that shit up. First, you've ignored all of the female warrior groups that have existed throughout history, especially in the Ancient era. Please read up on your Cambridge History of the Ancient World. Secondly, the warrior caste was made obsolete over two centuries ago with the introduction of professional soldiery and especially the growing importance of firearms in warfare. See Dunnigan's How to Make War, 4th Edition and Benton's Fourth Generation Warfare: The Need for a Comprehensive Approach. Christ, warrior caste. You sound like a mall ninja. Grow up, son. --Castaigne (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I'm not doing your research for you. Your claims, you back them up. It's a basic principle of debate. Even if you paid me I wouldn't do it. And you're right, there's no case of a gator suicide jihadist. But for that matter, there's never been any actual violence attributed to a gator either. All you've got to go on in the Wu case is an unknown nutter/troll making a death threat. How do you know they aren't the Elliot Rodger type? That's right, you fucking don't. The simple conclusion is that Wu was not concerned at all for her safety and was just being a professional victim. Chrimony (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Except I'm not debating you and this isn't Debate Club. I am telling you, broheim. Let me put it this way; if this conversation was being held in person, every time you started backtalking to me I would slap you and say "Obedience, get you some." I don't debate people. You want a debate? Go join Debate Club.
 * 2) Try to deny it as you will, Jace Connors self-identifies as a GamerGater and I consider his stalking trip to be an "act of violence". And no, don't try to deny him - GamerGate has no leaders, no structure, anyone who claims Gatorhood is part of it. Y'all left that membership WIDE open. Hell, I can be a GamerGater if I want! All I have to do is announce it!
 * 3) I don't really see what the perp maybe being an Elliot Rodgers type has to do with the price of tea in China. I guess it has some special significance in your head. Wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to me.
 * 4) I don't really care what "sense" it makes in your head. You are wrong. And I know it for a fact, so I don't really care what you think, since if you did the same research I did, you would know you are wrong too. That you refuse to do so just means you're willfully ignorant, like most teens. One does not cast pearls before swine. --Castaigne (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) We've been debating (point, counter-point), except you've been doing it... poorly. This is what happens when a White Knight at "Rational" (take a drink) Wiki fails to make a logical argument. They resort to denying the obvious and making specious claims.
 * 2) The only thing we know with any reasonable certainty is that a nutter/troll crashed his car in a snow storm. No violence was committed, and none has ever been attributed to Gamergate.
 * 3) Then you're an idiot. Elliot Rodger broadcast his threats in advance on YouTube, went on his killing spree in public, and had no intention of surviving the encounter, completely shattering your notion that being in public is safe when it is unknown just what type of nutter is making the threat.
 * 4) See 1.
 * Chrimony (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy against referring to activities outside RW, they just don't factor into decisions in the coop etc. This conversation about killing people makes you both look like tryhard keyboard warriors and is also very close to being a bit too creepy. I'm Sure you won't but just in case let's not get too heated with this. Tielec01 (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Privacy : "tl;dr: don't google people's names and post stuff you find". Ryulong has been deleting (as in no longer accessible to the logs) links to a public Tweet he made and blocking users for it. MadmanJohnon was banned for posting a link that can be trivially found via a Google search.
 * As regards to the 'killing' stuff, I'm sorry, but this is one of the big stories of Gamergate. Chrimony (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Shut up, and quit trying to drag my issues with Ryulong's morals into b8tergate. You don't understand war the slightest bit, you don't understand me the slightest bit, and I'm not sure you see reality in the same way we see it.Madman (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
 * If anybody should shutup, it's you. You're the one who ruined the Coop case against Ryulong and got yourself temporarily banned. Chrimony (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, my fucking sides. That's a joke, isn't it? You ruined your case all on your lonesome, dipshit. I just put the final nail in the coffin and let him edit the pet article to his heart's content.--Madman (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was actually going fine, with several editors making points against Ryulong, until you came in like an idiot with guns blazing and giving AgingHippie an excuse to delete the entire thing prematurely, and then have his other defender, David Gerard, initiate a case against you instead. Chrimony (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You think it was going fine? Hoo boy, you got one hell of a Dunning-Kruger going on. --Castaigne (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Help Your Own Side
Food for thought, bro: Making it so that journalists can actually get Gamergate's "real" views might help your cause out. I know, I know - you don't want to bother to read it. But you should. Really, the first few paragraphs lay out your whole cell-based problem:

This is the whole problem with your "leaderless" approach. You're a Gator. So is Roosh. So is Paul Elam. So is Vox Day. So is Mike "I'll juice you to death." Cernovich. So is all of baphomet. So is all of 8Chan. So is Milo. No one can tell any of you apart because you have no leadership, no formalized goals, and thousands of different opinions. At least with a leadership or organization of some sort, you can point to something. Instead, and I'll quote again:

And now we get down to the real nitty-gritty, the Real Deal Holyfield of your problematic little movement.

Emphasis mine. This is the problem with leaderless movements, as I used to to point out to anarchists back in the day. No, sorry, you Food Not Bombs people can't disavow these anarchists over here who claim to be a part of you, because there's no leadership, no template for membership, anyone can join up and say what they want. Decentralized anonymous movements always have this problem; it's why you've got unsavory people attached to GamerGate, like Weev. Of course, I also doubt you can do anything to solve the problem either. But hey, guys like you say they want the truth... --Castaigne (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That article is from October of last year. I read it back then. Gamergate has rejected the idea of a "leader" because the position is a single point of failure, corruptible, and people are in Gamergate for different reasons. One person cannot speak for the whole movement. As for the problems of unsavory people, the same goes for labels like "feminism", doesn't it? I judge a movement by the actions of it's majority, not the acts of a few nutters rejected by the vast majority. Chrimony (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "One person cannot speak for the whole movement."
 * Then by default, everyone who claims to speak for the movement truly speaks for the movement. Just like anarchists.
 * "As for the problems of unsavory people, the same goes for labels like "feminism", doesn't it?"
 * Certainly, except that feminism actually polices their own. This is why TERFs are rapidly denounced, shunned, and barred by mainstream feminist organizations, and denied participation in the general arena of feminism. GamerGate does not do this; Roosh V, an admitted rapist who who wants to make rape legal on private property (No, it's not a Swiftian proposal; he's quite serious.), has declared himself a Gator and started the website Reaxxion for that purpose. Yet, you and other Gators have seen fit to welcome him with open arms and embrace his beliefs. You are the company that you keep. Sorry, broheim. Maybe if you threw people like him out, I'd give more of a shit.
 * "I judge a movement by the actions of it's majority, not the acts of a few nutters rejected by the vast majority."
 * I judge a movement by whom they embrace in the pursuit of their cause. When Alabama Republicans side with the Klan because the Klan also opposes gay marriage, I don't particularly give a shit if the majority of the Alabama Republicans aren't nutters. They're allied with nutters.
 * Also, I think you have a different idea of "rejected" than I do. If Gators rejected Roosh, then I would expect to see his Reaxxion denounced and shunned by Gators, while every pro-GG statement he made was rejected by the majority of Gators. And that ain't happening. --Castaigne (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not making sense here. I say one person can't speak for the whole movement, and appeal to majority positions, and you say a single person "truly speaks for the movement" as a consequence. What the fuck?
 * As for Roosh, I don't know how serious he is. He starts the article out with, "I carefully examined the articles on Salon, Buzzfeed, and Huffington Post that were written by professional journalists who pursue truth and justice over mass hysteria and delirium". That's clearly sarcasm. His article is an extreme reaction to the current rape hysteria going around. How do you know he's serious and not just pointing to an odious "solution" to a problem that he clearly believes is being massively overblown by modern feminists?
 * But what of anti-Gamergate and its personas? No, you guys don't go by the anti-Gamergate label, but it fits. Have you rejected srhbutts for posting bestiality and child incest fanfic on the IRC board she owns? Do you disassociate from Chu because he did a standup routine making a joke about a chilling scene from a movie describing male rape? Why do you go out of your way to defend and make excuses for Terrible Three women at the center of Gamergate, who I'll call Branita Quinn in honor of the Law & Order: SVU episode?
 * Yet, when Gamergate rejected "Jace Connors" as a nutter or troll, he was still used by anti-Gamergate as somebody that represented the movement. When it turns out he was false-flagging as a comedian, do you give us credit for identifying him as a troll? Do you take responsibility for taking him seriously and using him to tar a movement of thousands of people? No. Chrimony (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll make it simple so you can understand, son.
 * You're part of a movement. If the movement has leaders, then the leaders say what the movement is about, who's in, and who's not.
 * If the movement is leaderless, then everyone who claims to be a part of the movement is part of the movement, no one gets to say what's out and what's in, and the movement is about whatever any self-proclaimed member of the movement says its about. That's how leaderless movements work. It's why gutterpunks fell to shit, it's why Al Qaeda has lost their funding, and it's why the Occupy movements failed. No leaders. No cohesion. No real goals, just vague statements.
 * That is how leaderless movements work. If you take a few political science and history classes (or read the requisite texts), you learn this shit. And it's why the American government has never supported leaderless movements, by the by. No control, no top men, no leaders, means anyone can co-opt.
 * As for Roosh being serious, he's deadly fucking serious. He's been persona non grata in the USA due to pending sexual assault charges, which is why he is living Poland right now.
 * Avowed GamerGater Vox Day is also deadly serious. As he says:
 * Do you agree with Vox Day? Do you hold with what he says? Is he speaking for GamerGate?
 * I imagine you'll probably deny he is, which leads me to this:
 * No, I don't say a single person truly speaks for the movement. I say anyone who claims to be a GamerGater speaks for the movement, because you have no way of declaring who is and is not a GamerGater. If I claim to be a GamerGater, then I can speak for the movement, because who has the authority to declare me not a part of Gamergate? Nobody, because you have no leaders!
 * So you speak for GamerGate. So does Total Biscuit. So does Roosh. So does Vox Day. So does Milo. So does the entirety of baphomet. Anyone who claims to be a GamerGater, speaks for GamerGate, because there are no leaders to say "No, you are an imposter."
 * Correct. This is because no one in GamerGate had leadership authority to reject Jace Conners as part of GamerGate. He said he was, therefore he was.
 * I can't speak for AntiGG, because I'm not a part of AntiGG, but I'll get to that in a minute. But me personally? No, I don't give you credit. No leader in GG denounced him...because GG has no leaders. Therefore he must be taken seriously, due to Poe's Law. Perhaps if y'all had nominated a leader, and say, Supreme Gator Total Biscuit denounced and excluded him, then yes, I'd give you shit-tons of credit.
 * But you don't have leaders, so that didn't happen, and he's going to be shitcanned to death by the upcoming charges pressed by Wu. I can't wait for that "comedian" to land in fuck-me-in-the-ass federal prison. I will chortle with fucking glee. Why? Because asshole tried to pull a Kaufman, except using death threats, and fucked the pooch, because he doesn't understand 1st Amendment law. You should be pleased too, when the righteous hammer of law broheims him into the Fed Pen.
 * Now, on to AntiGG...
 * You see, I don't have an answer for that, but it's because of an assumption you've made that's wholly incorrect. I don't know who those two people are. You know why? Lean close, I'll tell you a non-secret.
 * I'm not part of Anti-GG and I never have been. I'm part of a far, far older group. I've been doing my bit of a hobby on the internet and in real life for the past 20 years and it's fascinating to see this last little wave come up, because it was terribly predictable. Just as it was predictable that there would be a last gasp by fundies against gay marriage. I knew something like GG would happen back in 2010. So did everyone else. All it needed was a flashpoint. No matter; y'all are Alhireth-Hotep and you will meet Mung. Ten years from now, GG will be naught but history.
 * Unless y'all actually graduate to firearms and direct action. Unlikely, as NeoReactionaries and your 18-30 groups are mostly Pale Ineffectuals, while the Manosphere are too MANBRO to take seriously.
 * Because Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu have done nothing to deserve this treatment by 4chan. They haven't stopped anyone from publishing a fucking game. They're not going to dry up your supply of masturbatory porn. Sarkeesian is a fucking cultural critic; do you think she's going to have any real fucking effect on the next Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty or some shit? Quinn? Quinn is a fucking non-entity; she made a small game and her boyfriend got fucking pissed and tried to bring down the 4chan/Reddit army on her. Wu? Same deal. She says some shit, and hoo-boy, all of a sudden all y'all GGers are saying what Vox Day just said. "Open up your hate and let it pour over them. Don’t think for even one nanosecond that they don’t deserve it every bit of the criticism, of the contempt, of the disdainful dismissal that overwhelms them. Speak back until they fall silent." And y'all decided that your Terrible Three needed to be cockslapped into submission and kneel to the MANBROS.
 * When y'all decided that the ZoePost was the way to go, that sealed your fucking fate. As far as I (and other members of MY group) are concerned, you people are no better than Violentacrez. Or David_Deacon (now rotting in jail for pedorape). Or Lovecrafty. And boy howdy, have y'all cozied up to ever MRA, NR, and Stormfronter that wants to ally with you.
 * Well, people suffer for their own decisions. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Symbology, of course, is very important.
 * That answer your question? --Castaigne (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless y'all actually graduate to firearms and direct action. Unlikely, as NeoReactionaries and your 18-30 groups are mostly Pale Ineffectuals, while the Manosphere are too MANBRO to take seriously.
 * Because Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu have done nothing to deserve this treatment by 4chan. They haven't stopped anyone from publishing a fucking game. They're not going to dry up your supply of masturbatory porn. Sarkeesian is a fucking cultural critic; do you think she's going to have any real fucking effect on the next Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty or some shit? Quinn? Quinn is a fucking non-entity; she made a small game and her boyfriend got fucking pissed and tried to bring down the 4chan/Reddit army on her. Wu? Same deal. She says some shit, and hoo-boy, all of a sudden all y'all GGers are saying what Vox Day just said. "Open up your hate and let it pour over them. Don’t think for even one nanosecond that they don’t deserve it every bit of the criticism, of the contempt, of the disdainful dismissal that overwhelms them. Speak back until they fall silent." And y'all decided that your Terrible Three needed to be cockslapped into submission and kneel to the MANBROS.
 * When y'all decided that the ZoePost was the way to go, that sealed your fucking fate. As far as I (and other members of MY group) are concerned, you people are no better than Violentacrez. Or David_Deacon (now rotting in jail for pedorape). Or Lovecrafty. And boy howdy, have y'all cozied up to ever MRA, NR, and Stormfronter that wants to ally with you.
 * Well, people suffer for their own decisions. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Symbology, of course, is very important.
 * That answer your question? --Castaigne (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That answer your question? --Castaigne (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd "make it simple" so you could understand, but I already have. I can't cure pig-headed ignorance. I said, "I judge a movement by the actions of it's majority, not the acts of a few nutters rejected by the vast majority." You don't need a leader for that. So when "Jace Connors" is derided by the vast majority of Gamergaters as a nutter or troll, it's disingenuous to tar the whole movement because of him, especially when it turns out we were right all along and he was a troll, a false-flag one at that.
 * But why do you carry water for Branita Quinn? Lots of people have faced harassment and death threats, including Jack Thompson. Yet the games industry derided Jack Thompson, and the mainstream press was critical. Why the double standard? Because you're White Knighting, and it's pathetic. Chrimony (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Repeating "I judge the actions of the Third Reich by the honorable conduct of the Wehrmacht, not the acts of a few crazy SS rejected by the vast majority." doesn't make it so. Too bad if you don't like the analogy; you're apparently dense enough that I have to be heavy-handed in order to make it clear to you.
 * Also,your KiA peeps? A minority. Your majority is 8chan. Your majority is Reaxxion. Your majority is Milo. Your majority are the people who scream loudest. Welcome to the workings of a leaderless movement. I've seen a dozen of 'em.
 * Except I didn't see him derided as such by the "vast majority" of GamerGaters. I saw him being egged on and encouraged. I didn't see a vast majority deride him. And to prove that he was, you'd actually have to provide a membership count in GamerGate and then show specifics on how many of them derided and denounced him - impossible in a leaderless movement, since there is no bar to membership.
 * Except I didn't see him derided as such by the "vast majority" of GamerGaters. I saw him being egged on and encouraged. I didn't see a vast majority deride him. And to prove that he was, you'd actually have to provide a membership count in GamerGate and then show specifics on how many of them derided and denounced him - impossible in a leaderless movement, since there is no bar to membership.
 * Except I didn't see him derided as such by the "vast majority" of GamerGaters. I saw him being egged on and encouraged. I didn't see a vast majority deride him. And to prove that he was, you'd actually have to provide a membership count in GamerGate and then show specifics on how many of them derided and denounced him - impossible in a leaderless movement, since there is no bar to membership.

Perhaps you should look at what the entire internet thinks, rather than just your personal broheims in KiA. Limiting your field of vision does not produce good judgment.
 * And this just shows you don't know your fucking history. I was personally dealing with Jack Thompson back when he was trying to ban 2 Live Crew using obscenity laws in the early 1990s. Jack Thompson was a crazy nutter. Jack Thompson would regularly initiate legislation and frivolous litigation to ban both music and video games, and committed so many legal violations he was permanently disbarred.
 * There's no double standard because you can't compare apples and oranges. Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu - and yes, I use their real names, whereas you fear to have not tried to have video games banned. They have not initiated frivolous litigation against game companies. They're not violating the law right and left, like Thompson did. Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu are not crazy nutters. All they've done is criticize - and that's protected by the 1st Amendment, much as you hate it.
 * As for the question of why I prefer to support them instead of you, well, that was explained in some of the references of people who I've worked against before in concert with others. You'll obviously never understand why, if you won't bother to read through what's been provided. So I'll just say this to you and ever other Gator: I don't like the cut of your jib, sir.--Castaigne (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the question of why I prefer to support them instead of you, well, that was explained in some of the references of people who I've worked against before in concert with others. You'll obviously never understand why, if you won't bother to read through what's been provided. So I'll just say this to you and ever other Gator: I don't like the cut of your jib, sir.--Castaigne (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations
on being being labelled a misogynist. You must have demonstrated some independent thought and willingness to dissent from the party line. Landmartian (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In this case, merely being a "Gator" by default makes you a misogynist. Though apparently I only rise to the rank of "shitbird" and not "shitlord". Chrimony (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You realize you are being congratulated by a guy who not only has made pro-misogyny posts, but also pro-pedophilia "why rape is not so bad" posts? Choose your allies wisely. --Castaigne (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What, Chicken Out?
C'mon, brah. We haven't had enough of your KiA troll squad lately. Step it up! I want some entertainment! Bring that major GamerGate MANBRO 'tude to the fore! The problem with you concern trolls these days is just a lack of effort when engaging in warfare, I swear. --Castaigne (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)